Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
747F V 380F  
User currently offlineRUSCOE From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1567 posts, RR: 2
Posted (11 years 8 months 1 hour ago) and read 2437 times:

"Our 747-400 Freighter has the lowest tonne kilometer cost of any freighter that is now in service or in development," said Marlin Dailey, vice president of European Sales, Boeing

I am surprised Boeing can claim a 40 year old design will have better economics than something still on the drawing boards.

Ruscoe

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 1, posted (11 years 8 months ago) and read 2389 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.


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6461 posts, RR: 54
Reply 2, posted (11 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2363 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
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2344 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.


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6461 posts, RR: 54
Reply 4, posted (11 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2319 times:

"Our 747-400 Freighter has the lowest tonne kilometer cost of any freighter that is now in service or in development," said Marlin Dailey

Read it again N79969. "Tonne kilometer cost" is the cost to move one ton one km. Mr. Dailey made a very clear and relevant statement.

It is not some partial cost. Fuel cost, maintenance cost, crew cost, insurance cost, or some strange artificially defined combination.

It is the amount which you subtract from your reveneu in order to calculate your profit. No more, no less.

Revenue is what customers are willing to pay you. Profit is your reason to run an airline or any other business. All businesses are as simple as that.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2313 times:

Read my post again and think through it again. I stated the definition correctly.

Think through it again....even if you factor in capital costs....you don't have to wait until the plane is sold to figure it out if the statement is true.

All the costs you listed are operating costs.


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6461 posts, RR: 54
Reply 6, posted (11 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2271 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
User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2168 times:

Three points

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.


User currently offlineTeva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1872 posts, RR: 16
Reply 8, posted (11 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2123 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.
Teva



Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2485 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (11 years 7 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2036 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.



A380-843F

Length:72.73m [239 ft]
Span: 79.75m [262 ft]
Height: 24.10 [79 ft] . . . [cg maximum forward]

MTOW: 590.000 kg [1.300.727 lb]
MLW: 427.000 kg [941.374 lb]
OEW: 252.080 kg [555.741 lb]

Payload: 149.920 kg [330.517 lb]
Payload Volume: 1.467 m3 [51.802 ft3]

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].

Take-off runway length required @ MTOW:
@ ISA: 2.750m [9.020ft]
@ ISA + 2.000ft: 3.400m [11.150ft]
@ ISA + 4.000ft: 3.900m [12.800ft]

@ ISA + 15 deg C: 3.050m [10.000 ft]
@ ISA + 15 deg C + 2.000ft: 3.400m [11.150 ft]
@ ISA + 15 deg C + 4.000ft: 4.200m [13.780 ft]

ISA = standard atmosphere: Alt. 0 m [0 ft], Temp 15 deg C [59 F], QNH 1013.25 mb [29.921 in Hg]
MTOW = Maximum Take-Off Weight
MLW = Maximum Landing Weight
OEW = Operating Empty Weight

So much for the 20.000ft take-off length rumours . . . just B/S!
Would enjoy if someone could post similar data for the 744F and/or 744ERF.

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlinePatroni From Luxembourg, joined Aug 1999, 1403 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (11 years 7 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2005 times:

@Teva :
>>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.

Cheers,

Tom


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21480 posts, RR: 54
Reply 11, posted (11 years 7 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1972 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.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 12, posted (11 years 7 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1927 times:

Well, a lot of the problem is with networks of 757 and 767Fs along with the 747.

The most economical way to package a 767 is not with LD3s, its with some other container that can fit side by side.

The 757 can carry the same ones, but in a single row.

The 747 doesn't accept those containers well.

But the 747F fits in nice with the A310 and A300, I believe.

I may have this all wrong.

N


User currently offlineKAL_LM From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 497 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (11 years 7 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1906 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...
Tom



is that a light at the end of the tunnel or just a train?
User currently offlineAapilot2b From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 572 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (11 years 7 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1899 times:

By the way Ruscoe, the 747-400 is not a "40 year old design." That would be the same as an automobile enthusiasts stating that the Ford Thunderbird of today is an antiquated product of the 1950's.

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (11 years 7 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1891 times:

Not so true, not so much.

The 747 fuselage really hasn't changed too horribly much. And how different is the wing? Not so much.

The future 747 derivatives were going to have a supercritical airfoil like the 777. The current ones do not.

N


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21480 posts, RR: 54
Reply 16, posted (11 years 7 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1857 times:

KAL_LM :

Interesting background info; Still, the question is if special-sized cargo is frequent enough overall...


User currently offlineTwa@fra From China, joined Nov 2000, 152 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (11 years 7 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1819 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.

So B747 F for ever !


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
FedEx Cancels 380F, Who Will Be Next? posted Tue Nov 7 2006 22:36:20 by DeltaDAWG
Iran Air Cargo 747F? posted Mon Oct 30 2006 18:17:46 by 777way
Emirates Secures Rights For 10 More 747F's posted Sun Oct 8 2006 16:11:01 by Navion
Near UA737-Atlas 747F Collision At ORD 7/23 posted Mon Jul 24 2006 22:50:13 by 777fan
Cathay Pacific Orders 6 747F posted Thu Jun 22 2006 12:45:15 by N1786b
The A380F Just Ain't A 747F posted Fri Dec 16 2005 06:24:51 by Aerlinguscargo
744F Or 747F Nose Door posted Wed Nov 23 2005 11:44:19 by Babaero
NCA 747F @ AMS posted Sat Oct 1 2005 03:29:43 by Lijnden
KL's 4th 747F , When? posted Fri Aug 19 2005 16:16:05 by MauriceB
Cause For The 747F T/o Accident At Sharjah? posted Mon May 23 2005 16:21:22 by NA