B757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 24 Reply 1, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2200 times:
Well until the A380 actually flies, everything about its performance is nothing but guess work. Lets wait until the thing is in service for a while before everyone starts talking about how great it is.
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6125 posts, RR: 55 Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2174 times:
You know a total ton/km cost only when you have sold the plane, either to a second hand owner or a boneyard. And you have the second hand value on your bank account.
Mr. Dailey could be right. But nobody will know precisely until 30-40 years from now when the first A380F is worn out.
Until then such statements are a mixture of estimates and guesswork.
Some people call it guestimates, others call it propagada.
Any sales department vice president receives his salaries for producing propaganda, nothing wrong with that. It counts if you company name begins with A or B or anything up to Z. Sales dept. vice presidents should always be the last persons to trust. If they sell soap or airliners, that's all the same.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2155 times:
Whoa...I think he is talking about operating cost. That is the operating cost to fly one-ton, one kilometer. I think Preben is talking about a different concept that involves depreciation and thus capital costs.
What Dailey is saying might be true but that would not be indicative of overall economics. It is only one metric of many that are relevant. The 380F supposedly will have greater range and capacity than the 744F or ERF. Those are other things that will matter once the aircraft is in service.
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6125 posts, RR: 55 Reply 6, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2082 times:
When we are talking about capital- and depreciation costs in the order of maybe some $25M/yr per plane, then that figure is decisive for success or failure.
We know a lot about the 744F quality. But still not everything. But there is no way we can know today if the 380F begins cracking all over after 5-10 years of heavy service making operation very expensive, or it will fly without much problems for 50 years.
That's what makes it guesswork.
Operating a new $200M plane for, say, ten years, it is all important if the resale value is $50M or 150M. In extreme cases it could be both. Second hand operator confidence decides that. It will decide if your capital- and depreciation costs are $50k or $100k per day during your ten years. The difference $50k/day correspons roughly to the total fuel burn of a 744 for 24 hours flight. Certainly a very important figure.
Even if very solid service records can narrow the margin between those extreme resale figures by 90%, then it is still a decisive decision factor for a potential operator.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (10 years 10 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1979 times:
1. the 747-400 is about as much a 30-40 year old design as the 737NG is. It has about as much in common with the first 747's as todays Ford Mustang does with its 60's predecessor. Well, that is a bit of an exaggeration. But the bird has been updated many times.
2. The roots of the 747 are at the heart of its cargo economics. The 747 was designed from the start as a cargo plane. It was Boeing's competition for what became the C-5. When it was fully designed and built - it was expected that SST's would take over long range passenger traffic. The 747 was going to carry passengers only until the SST's took things over. That is why the 747 has its upper deck - it was made that way to make cargo loading easier.
3. For some reason, cargo companies will use older planes and even older designs than passenger carriers will. Look at how long DC-8's have survived even with cargo carriers like UPS. These guys could certainly afford to buy something newer if there was a good enough reason to do so.
Teva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1869 posts, RR: 16 Reply 8, posted (10 years 10 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1934 times:
For a lot of airlines, the dafault of the 747 is that they cannot use all the space on board. With the A380, they will have 2 real main deck for pallets and containers.
that's the reason why Fedex sold all it 747 a few yearws ago, and choose the A380.
The Tonne-kilometer cost is one element for the choice by an airline , but not the only one.
The distance you can fly non-stop at a given payload, the type of freight you have, etc have to be considered too.
Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
PW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2162 posts, RR: 12 Reply 9, posted (10 years 10 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1847 times:
Here's some interesting data for the A380F. Mind you, these are prelim figures, and apply only to the Trent 977 powered models [the GP7277 models have slightly better performance figures]. However they should give you a pretty good idea of what the actual data is going to be. This data was published by Airbus on http://www.airbus.com --> A380 Airplane Characteristics.
Usable Fuel: 310.000 l [82.000 US gal]
Usable Fuel: [d = 0.785]: 243.350 kg [536.495 lb]
Range @ 149.920 kg payload!: 10.500 km [5.675 nm]
Range @ 110.000 kg payload: 13.600 km [7.350 nm]
Range @ 90.000 kg payload: 15.300 km [8.270 nm] = max fuel, MTOW
Range, no payload [ferry range]: 18.500 km [10.000 nm].
Patroni From Luxembourg, joined Aug 1999, 1403 posts, RR: 14 Reply 10, posted (10 years 10 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1816 times:
>>For a lot of airlines, the dafault of the 747 is that they cannot use all the space on board. With the A380, they will have 2 real main deck for pallets and containers.<<
Sorry, but I beg to differ on this. The problem for a typical cargo carrier (not speaking of the integrators here) is normally that the 744F is filled volumewise before it reaches its payload. There are only a few routes with such a dense cargo which limits the volume.
If I am not mistaken the A380F's two decks only allow pallets up to 2.40m height, which is the same height as under the 744F's upper deck. However the 744F can take loads up to ca. 3m via the side door and carry it in the space behind the upper deck. I don't heave the specifications at home so that I can't check the exact measures at the moment though.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21346 posts, RR: 54 Reply 11, posted (10 years 10 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1783 times:
Patroni : If I am not mistaken the A380F's two decks only allow pallets up to 2.40m height, which is the same height as under the 744F's upper deck. However the 744F can take loads up to ca. 3m via the side door and carry it in the space behind the upper deck.
The problem seems to be that within a cargo network it is not economical to re-package cargo to and from the special 747 containers... So the extra volume would remain unused in these cases.
KAL_LM From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 497 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (10 years 10 months 4 days ago) and read 1717 times:
Klaus wrote: "The problem seems to be that within a cargo network it is not economical to re-package cargo to and from the special 747 containers... So the extra volume would remain unused in these cases."
We "repackage" all the time. Our hub at ICN does most of this. That is also why all of our stations are requested to keep a 85% thru connection rate, i.e. make it so 85% of your freight doesn't have to be re-built in transit. When we build our freight we keep an eye on the destination and connection aircraft to help this process along. And at least 85% of the time we can do that. So if something is connecting on a M1F, we build it for that connection, if possible, same for a pax flight. So within most networks (excepting the integrators) this happens already, to soem extent.
The ability to handle loads up to 120" high makes the 747F very valuable to cargo-only and combination carriers, as this cargo is usually high yield stuff. Also, the ability to load long loads through the nose, a feature the A380F won't have, is unique and rather lucrative. On the 744F you only have 7 positions that are height-restricted to 96", the rest can go 118" (120" if you grease the top...).
Of course all of this is speculation as the first A380F is years away. For now, what the Boeing guy said is mostly true, minus the development part as that hasn't been established only theorized. For those that are interested, the info on the 747-400F/ERF is available here.
As always, just my 2 bits worth...
is that a light at the end of the tunnel or just a train?
Twa@fra From China, joined Nov 2000, 140 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (10 years 10 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1630 times:
I think the point is that the B747 can load up to 3m high which makes it a valuable Plane for the most Airlines. Sure the most Shipments aren`t so special sized, but it`s easier to fill a 3m Plt. at it`s limit as a MD 11 Plt. or in future a A380 Plt. which should be similar. On the 3 m high you have more possibilities to combining the Freight as on 2 m or 2,40 m.
So let me show you how it looks for a big Airfreight Forwarding Agent, the customer of the Big Cargo Airlines who hand over "Ready Build Unit" to the Airline, instead of unpalletized Freight.
For example in Europe you have mostly Freight which have the base Dims of 1,20m x 0,80 m ( European standard Plt.) the high is mostly 0,8m / 1m or 1,20 m - it`s the standart the Shippers have, so you have to deal with.
On a PMC Airliner Plt./Unit (the Airliner standard) you got on a:
- B747 (Q7: 3 m high on one side, down to 2,40 on the other side) = 20 Euro Plt`s with a high of 1 m - The Pivot weight for a B747 MD Unit is 2860 kg, means if every Plt. only weights 143 kg you fill the Pivot weight.
- MD 11 (C2: 2,40 m high on one side, down to 1,54 m on the other side, but the full high of 2,40 is only on 1,70 deep) = 12 Euro Plt. with a high of 1 m - The Pivot Weight of a MD 11 MD Unit is 2500 kg means every Euro Plt. have to weight 208 kg to fill the Pivot weight
And Airfreight became more and more low dense Cargo.
Sure often you have some small Freight to fill up the Unit`s, but when you haven`t it you have to pay the KG Rate on the Unit Pivot.
The same for freight which isn`t on a Build up unit, which is hand over to the Airline as A single Shipment, because if 1 cbm don not weight at least 166 kg you have to pay the for the 166 kg and not the real weight of it.
So bigger Airfreight Forwarder who have their own Consolidations makes money because the they mix low dense cargo, where the Shipper pay for the Vol. with High dense Cargo from an other Shipper who pay for the real Weight, but they hand it over together as one big Shipment which then haven`t any Vol. to the Airline and only pay for the real weight. The difference from the one Vol. Shipment between it´s real weight and Vol. weight it`s part of our Profit and it`s the biggest part of our Profit.
This system we , the forwarder are using is not much different from the system the Airline use and that`s the Point why a big B747 Unit can be a money maker and a A380 or MD 11 will be hard to fill with money maker Unit`s.