AirFrnt From United States, joined Jul 2004, 2192 posts, RR: 31 Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 11920 times:
Freight isn't the A380s primary mission. It was originally the 747's primary mission. Hence the 747 is (still) optimized for freight, including cockpit location, bulk loading doors up front and lower structural weight.
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 5651 posts, RR: 82 Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 11844 times:
I'm guessing Randy's figures don't necessarily mean a lot, as the A380F carries its maximum load 25% further than the 747-8F carries its maximum load.
IIRC at 5000Nm, the 747-8F max. load is down to 113t gross - a bit more representative comparison to the 150t gross carried by the A380F at that range.
Effectively, these planes don't even compete in the same market.
A
N328KF From United States, joined May 2004, 5491 posts, RR: 6 Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 11759 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 3): I'm guessing Randy's figures don't necessarily mean a lot, as the A380F carries its maximum load 25% further than the 747-8F carries its maximum load.
IIRC at 5000Nm, the 747-8F max. load is down to 113t gross - a bit more representative comparison to the 150t gross carried by the A380F at that range.
That's fine and dandy, but the 777 Freighter carries a whole lotta load (similar density to 747-8F) about as far as the A380F.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
TrevD From United States, joined Jun 2004, 311 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 11726 times:
Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 2): Randy Baseler very conveniently leaves out the 1,400nm A380F range advantage versus the 747-8F.
Randy's comments seem to address structural efficiency, not payload range. And you also conveniently leave out the fact that the 1,400nm so-called range advantage is solely in design range, where any benefit to the A380F is limited to 8 lbs/cu ft. Not the 10 lbs/cu ft that every other main-deck freighter seems able to carry.
Already the 747-8F has out-sold the A380F to network freight carriers. The only useful role the A380F seems to have is as a low-density package carrier for the express carriers like FedEx and UPS who can benefit from the sole advantage it does seem to have - volume.
No other heavy freight carrier seems to find any advantage to the A380F - including it's 1,400nm range advantage. The only other A80F's ordered have been the 5 to ILFC who have the option to have them built as pax aircraft and Emirates who have 2 and have the same option which they have reportedly already exercised.
Do the math - if the ILFC and Emirates a/c become pax, total number of A380F's sold/ordered by heavy freight network carriers = 0.
787engineer From United States, joined Dec 2005, 572 posts, RR: 13 Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 11625 times:
Randy's statements are factually correct but he spins it Boeing's way by failing to mention the range, Airbus and their reps will spin it their way too. Live I've said before take each with a grain of salt and let the orders speak for which is generally the better airplane.
TIA From Albania, joined Mar 2006, 358 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 11573 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 6): That's fine and dandy, but the 777 Freighter carries a whole lotta load (similar density to 747-8F) about as far as the A380F.
Who was talking about the 777?
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 3): Effectively, these planes don't even compete in the same market.
Quoting TrevD (Reply 7): Already the 747-8F has out-sold the A380F to network freight carriers. The only useful role the A380F seems to have is as a low-density package carrier for the express carriers like FedEx and UPS who can benefit from the sole advantage it does seem to have - volume.
Ok, so let me get this straight. The two largest freight carriers in the world, UPS and FedEx, both have ordered the A380F. But according to you that's not good enough because niche carriers have not followed suit.
According to your flawed reasoning, the A380F only has volume as an advantage. Well by that same reasoning, we can also conclude that while the 747F might be lift higher payloads/body mass, the A380 has a range advantage. So the score is still 2-1 in Airbus' favor, not that I believe that any airline follows the same reasoning.
Quoting TrevD (Reply 7): Do the math - if the ILFC and Emirates a/c become pax, total number of A380F's sold/ordered by heavy freight network carriers = 0.
If airlines who have orders for the 747F canceled their orders, the new 747 would have zero orders, both pax and cargo. It works both ways, you know.
Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 8): Assuming that range is needed in the first place.
Assuming that you want weight over volume. As I said, this type of reasoning works both ways.
How hard is it to understand that the A380F and 747F have different missions, and airlines will pick them based on their specific needs.
N328KF From United States, joined May 2004, 5491 posts, RR: 6 Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 11541 times:
Quoting TIA (Reply 10): Ok, so let me get this straight. The two largest freight carriers in the world, UPS and FedEx, both have ordered the A380F. But according to you that's not good enough because niche carriers have not followed suit.
Quoting TIA (Reply 10): Assuming that you want weight over volume. As I said, this type of reasoning works both ways.
You have pegged the wrong carriers as "niche carriers." FedEx and UPS are the niche, not vice-versa.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
Dhefty From United States, joined May 2005, 599 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 11541 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 3): I'm guessing Randy's figures don't necessarily mean a lot
I'm guessing math wasn't your favorite subject. Would you care to offer some specific examples? For instance, what percentage of aircargo flights require the range of the A380? Range seems to be the only strong point of the A380 versus the B747-8F.
Would you care to comment on the relative sales prices of the two? As I understand it, the A380F is considerably more expensive. Does the added range justify the price differential?
Since a significant number of B747F's results from passenger conversions, what can be said about the ability to convert an A380 to an A380F?
Poitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 11500 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 3): 'm guessing Randy's figures don't necessarily mean a lot, as the A380F carries its maximum load 25% further than the 747-8F carries its maximum load.
IIRC at 5000Nm, the 747-8F max. load is down to 113t gross - a bit more representative comparison to the 150t gross carried by the A380F at that range.
Effectively, these planes don't even compete in the same market.
A
Yes, indeed, they do have different markets. The A380F is a great package airplane, which is why UPS and FED EX each bought 10. Cargolux, on the other hand is going for the 788F. They carry cargo like oil rig pipes and machinery. The front door is all important to them.
I don't see the 788F being a serious competitor for th A380F or visa versa. The A380F's competition is the conversions of old pax airliners like the MD-11 and soon the 777's and A330.
However, the range numbers being thrown around are misleading. Cargo doesn't care about a two hour stop at ANC, while pax does, so I doubt any of the A380Fs will have the optional fuel tanks installed and the space will be used for Aunt Tilly's cookie packages.
Korg747 From United States, joined Mar 2003, 549 posts, RR: 9 Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 11500 times:
Forgive me for my limited knowledge but isn't that 74 extra tons of the A380s a bit expensive to the cargo companys? I was under the impression that the airline or cargo carriers have to pay according to the weight of the aircraft when landing at any airport. or something like that? isn't that 74 tons costly? or it doesn't matter? because if it doesn't matter if the A380 is heaver and at the same time it has more range and a 5% of cargo then why is it not better than the A380?
My whole question is, is that added 74 tons of weight to the A380F a costly thing to the airlines?
Trex8 From United States, joined Nov 2002, 2816 posts, RR: 16 Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 11440 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 6): That's fine and dandy, but the 777 Freighter carries a whole lotta load (similar density to 747-8F) about as far as the A380F
per Boeing website 103 metric tones over 4965nm
from Airbus, 149-159 metric tons over 5600nm
even if you take the A380F range with a pinch of salt, they are hardly in the same category when one can carry 50% more payload.
Quoting TrevD (Reply 7): Not the 10 lbs/cu ft that every other main-deck freighter seems able to carry.
thats not true for many Asian carriers though which is why some airlines like CI are very interested in the A380 even though they will have the largest 744F fleet .LCD displays and semiconductor wafers are not very dense and thats most of the load they carry out of Taiwan. even finished laptops/desktops/monitors are not that heavy given the packaging needed to protect them.
the A380F will be a niche player just like the A380 itself but there will be some carriers who will find it very competitive vs the 747-8F.
N328KF From United States, joined May 2004, 5491 posts, RR: 6 Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11395 times:
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 15): even if you take the A380F range with a pinch of salt, they are hardly in the same category when one can carry 50% more payload.
Yes, I know that, if the 777 Freighter can loft a given weight more cheaply than the A380-800F and fly it just as far, isn't it ahead of the game? OK, the A388F hauls 50% more weight. So is it cheaper to fly and operate three 777Fs than two A388Fs?
[Edited 2006-04-27 19:18:55]
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
Trex8 From United States, joined Nov 2002, 2816 posts, RR: 16 Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11328 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 16): Yes, I know that, if the 777 Freighter can loft a given weight more cheaply than the A380-800F and fly it just as far, isn't it ahead of the game? OK, the A388F hauls 50% more weight. So is it cheaper to fly and operate three 777Fs than two A388Fs?
thats the 6 million dollar question many airlines are still pondering before ordering any new planes! 47890 gallons x3 and 3 flight crews/landing fees etc vs 81890 x2(probably less as at comparable 777F range the A380 will need less than full tanks) and 2 flight crews/landing fees(albeit higher) etc.
will be interesting to see how it pans out over time.
TIA From Albania, joined Mar 2006, 358 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11293 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 11): You have pegged the wrong carriers as "niche carriers." FedEx and UPS are the niche, not vice-versa.
Please tell me you're joking.
Quoting N328KF (Reply 16): So is it cheaper to fly and operate three 777Fs than two A388Fs?
There is no single answer to that. Depends on the carrier and type of cargo, because it's not as simple as just 3 777Fs vs. 2 A380Fs. The 777F and A380F belong to different markets.
WestWing From United States, joined Feb 2005, 1198 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11236 times:
So, let's pick a specific city pair such as MEM / STN. Presumably it is possible to estimate the total annual cost of ownership & operation for a 380F operating a roundtrip say six times a week between MEM and STN with the max cargo payload for that range. And presumably it is possible to do the same for a 747-8F for the same route and it's max payload for the route.
So, if Boeing could do that comparison and be able to say that owning & operating the 380F will cost $26 million per year, but the 747-8F will cost only $24.5 million per year (both those numbers are made up, I don't have a clue what they really should be), then there would be some basis for comparison.
[Edit: Typo]
[Edited 2006-04-27 20:00:23]
The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
SparkingWave From Korea, joined Jun 2005, 636 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11223 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 3): I'm guessing Randy's figures don't necessarily mean a lot, as the A380F carries its maximum load 25% further than the 747-8F carries its maximum load.
Quoting Tifoso (Reply 4): Lots of information about how much the 748F can carry, nothing about the distances that it can carry this payload.
That's a double-edged sword. Neither of you address the fact that 25% further means that the A380 has to carry more fuel to support the weight of the extra fuel required for providing the extra range. That bird is going to be heavy enough with all that extra structural weight. Perhaps a better formula would have been to build the A380-900 freighter first (more freight and less range).
And with all the current passenger 747-400s about to flood the market after being converted to cargo freighters, it becomes harder to see a case for the A380F making a significant dent in the air cargo market for the sake of extended range.
SparkingWave ~~~
[Edited 2006-04-27 20:12:44]
Flights to the moon and all major space stations. At Pan Am, the sky is no longer the limit!
Widebodyphotog From United States, joined Jun 1999, 915 posts, RR: 64 Reply 21, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11172 times:
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 15): the A380F will be a niche player just like the A380 itself but there will be some carriers who will find it very competitive vs the 747-8F.
Bottom line is that the A380F is simply not versitile enough to be attractive to general market freighter carriers. It has basically no outsize cargo capability, length or height, and Baseler has hit the nail on the head, it's just too damn heavy. For package carriers it's no big deal because their yields are so high and density is so low that the cost of operating the airplane is really moot, just get the highest capacity you can and fill it up. For the general market it's the total opposite. Density is typically high and yields, especially in one direction, tend to be lower. What that means is that the airplane with the highest density per position or volume wins on the general market and that is where the majority of large freighter orders will be generated in the coming years...
The 747-8F has an incredible advantage on the area that matters most for general cargo carriers and that is a significant cost/ton/mile advantage. It's about 20% lower than the A380F and significantly lower than the current 747-400ERF. That advantage in terms of cost per trip will only widen as the price of fuel increases.
Range? Range does not really factor in to the freighter equation as it does in the passenger business. The availability of freight hubs, the flexibility to offload/onload cargo, and the ability to use lighter takeoff weights with maximum payloads, trumps absolute range in the freighter business.
Quoting Korg747 (Reply 14): Forgive me for my limited knowledge but isn't that 74 extra tons of the A380s a bit expensive to the cargo companys? I was under the impression that the airline or cargo carriers have to pay according to the weight of the aircraft when landing at any airport. or something like that? isn't that 74 tons costly? or it doesn't matter? because if it doesn't matter if the A380 is heaver and at the same time it has more range and a 5% of cargo then why is it not better than the A380?
My whole question is, is that added 74 tons of weight to the A380F a costly thing to the airlines?
Actually it's much worse than the difference in OEW for this comparison. Most airports charge landing fees based on the certificated MLW of an individual aircraft type. So in these terms we are talking 427t vs 336.6t, but wait it gets worse...Airports like JFK charge landing fees based on the certificated MTOW of an aircraft type, that means 590t vs 435.5t! A lot of extra charges if you are a general market operator, this dead weight does make a difference in the bottom line...
Madairdrie From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Jan 2006, 106 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11172 times:
Quoting 787engineer (Reply 9): Randy's statements are factually correct but he spins it Boeing's way by failing to mention the range, Airbus and their reps will spin it their way too. Live I've said before take each with a grain of salt and let the orders speak for which is generally the better airplane.
TIA From Albania, joined Mar 2006, 358 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11155 times:
Quoting WestWing (Reply 19): So, lets pick a specific city pair such as MEM / STN.
But that's the problem. You can't pick a city pair, and estimate costs. A certain city pair, together with other factors, might be more beneficial to the A380F, and the other might be more beneficial to the 747F. One size fits all doesn't apply here.
BoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 11055 times:
Quoting Poitin (Reply 13): However, the range numbers being thrown around are misleading. Cargo doesn't care about a two hour stop at ANC, while pax does,
Correct. FedEx and UPS both plan on stopping in ANC with their A380Fs.
MrComet From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 486 posts, RR: 7 Reply 25, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 11040 times:
Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't the 748F have a much lower fuel burn than the A380 with its NexGen engines. Does Randy's 74 tons include fuel? Wouldn't the A380 have to burn more fuel to go the same distance? Wouldn't that mean that the A380 actually carries around 74+ tons extra?
The dude abides
26 SNATH: I'll give this to Randy: he definitely knows how to pull our strings! I'm sure he's reading all this with a big wide smile on his face... Tony
27 TIA: Yes! Since package carriers bought the A380F, that means that they don't care about costs. In fact, any airline that flies Airbus must not care about
28 787engineer: The 74 ton difference is based on OEW (operating empty weight) which does not include payload or fuel.
29 Poitin: The A380F is the best new airplane for the likes of UPS and FED EX as well as shippers of small high value, low density items like electronics. I ful
30 Ikramerica: Well, UPS also bought new build 744F freighters AFTER the 380 orders. So they think both are useful, for different things. UPS does more heavy lift t
31 TIA: I agree with what you say, but the new freighter price tag applies to the 748F just as well as it applies to the A380F. EDIT: this was meant as a resp
35 WestWing: Of course, and no cargo operator will base their procurement decisions on what is said in Randy's blog. But Randy's blog helps serve up Boeing's PR c
36 Areopagus: An AW&ST article on the A380F stated: The structural and other changes are largely intended to boost maximum take-off weight to 592 metric tons from 5
37 DeltaDC9: Dont forget, even with all the other options available, the 747, in all its frieghter forms, accounts for roughly 50% of the freighter markets total t
38 Widebodyphotog: Well since you've made a "straw man" argument I'll knock it down for you...of course package carriers care about cost, but in their analysis the sign
39 Ikramerica: Never said you did. I was just using your example to show others that these planes can coexist.
40 Rob878: The A380 is good for carriers that need the full range and payload capcity of the a380. But most carriers will never be taking advantage of the extra
41 Sllevin: UPS traded a slew of A300 commitments it decided it didn't want for the A388F. On a clean slate they might well have ordered Boeing. Steve
42 TIA: Exactly. So stop saying that the 747 is the better freighter. I never said UPS didn't operate any freighters. If you re-read my post, you will see th
43 Coa747: Most cargo schedules and routings have been fixed to the 747 freighters range so the 1,400 mile range advantage really means nothing. Being able to fl
44 Dhefty: Good point. UPS changed an order for 37 A300's worth around $28 Billion for 10 A380F's for around $17 Billion. Who got the better of that deal? This
45 Ikramerica: Well, frankly, you haven't been paying attention then. While the 380F does work for UPS, you can't ignore that taking these planes allowed them to er
46 SNATH: Actually, the B772LRF is the perfect replacement for the MD-11F. The payload capability of these two planes is very similar (229,000lb and 202,100lb
47 A380Heavy: If my uncle had tits he'd be my aunty!! Absolutely! Maybe not in the next 5 years or so, but over the longer term I would say that this comment is so
48 SNATH: A380Heavy, Don't you think the above two quotes contradict each other? Tony
49 Lumberton: I'm not sure what you mean here. Isn't the "list price" $280 million? At a discount of $105 million, i.e., >30%, maybe they should be rushing out of
50 Rob878: airbus still makes a300's???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
51 Jacobin777: "Meanwhile, FedEx has an eye on the ex-passenger A380 fleet for the longer term, having traditionally bolstered its fleet of new-build freighters wit
52 A380Heavy: No, I don't think they contradict each other. I just feel that Airbus will score further sales over the longer term and that although $175 million re
53 Rob878: airbus still makes a300's ????? Or are they converting them to frieghters for 75 million? Someone please lemmmmmme know. Rob
54 TrevD: Or the A300-600F was worse than they bargained for...and since airbus would not likely let them cancel in exchange for 747's they had to pick somethi
55 Dhefty: Airbus has stated that the A300/310 line will close in July of 2007. There are 17 left to build, however of those the 5 for Iraq will probably never
56 Lumberton: Yeah, you're right. I should have checked first before posting . I googled the A380F list price and there is a range of USD$175 million to $220 milli
57 Widebodyphotog: I never explicity said the 747-8F is a better freighter...However for the larger market is is the better choice for those operators. For FedEx it may
58 TIA: I've been paying attention all right, but unless you give me a unbiased source that says that UPS wouldn't have ordered A380Fs had it not been for th
59 Jacobin777: ok..but there should be enough of a time-lapse between carriers getting their A380's and FX, 5X fully implementing their options.....in about 10 year
60 Ikramerica: So, someone needs to be privy to high level documents to use the word "might"? And the 300 to 380 order conversion is public. Yes, and there is no wa
61 Sllevin: Something about the range figures to think about -- on some routes, where the tech stop can be made at, say, near half-range, the 748 may well be able
62 RayChuang: I think the 747-8F will do better than the A380-800F for one reason: the 748F can carry outsized lengthwise cargo that the A388F can't carry. That mea
63 Glacote: Three obvious questions: - why exclude the tare from the ratio computation? More precisely - why exclude the weight of all the pallets when you are co
64 DfwRevolution: Because it's non-structural dead weight that would skew the amount of true payload an aircraft can carry. CASM is a measure of cost per seats of an a
65 NAV20: That's actually very good PR technique, Glacote - 'Anticipate your opponent's response'. Had Randy not mentioned it, his Airbus opposite numbers woul
66 SJCRRPAX: Why do we need overnight deliveries on TV's and Radios? A container ship (the kind that floats on water) can make the trip from China to the US in ab
67 Columba: What does he get from that, some airliner enthusiasts argue about if he is right or not and start another A vs B war ? How many 747-8Fs can he sell d
68 WingedMigrator: Yes indeed. But perhaps Glacote meant cost per available tonne-mile? Call it CATM. It walks and talks very much like CASM. At short ranges where payl
69 NAV20: First of all, Columba, he makes it clear at the outset that he's responding to a sally from Airbus. Surely he's entitled to do that? Secondly, it's o
70 Dhefty: I think we would all agree that the A380-900 would put this whole argument in a different light. However, there currently is no such product and ther
71 Jonathan-l: The 10 lbs/cu ft density is covered with the following A380 configuration: 17 pallets on the upper deck, 29 pallets on the main deck and 13 pallets o
72 Widebodyphotog: But that is not the way freighters oprate. They are seldom at MTOW and most often near maximum structural payload. There is not one operator that wou
73 Lumberton: Completely agree, NAV20. Said it before, but as long as Airbus leaves Randy out there unchallenged, they will always be on the defensive. The animal
74 Columba: I appreciate if a company keeps an open door policy and that you can learn more about their products, I like to see how company is dealing with certa
75 Trex8: but isn't that true for the 777 also, and probably every other widebody except the 747?
76 Widebodyphotog: Actually, 767F, A300/A310F, MD-11F, DC-10F and 747F can all carry their own engines fully assembled, sans cowl and plug, on the main deck. The 777F i
77 Revelation: I'm wondering if A380 in FedEx and UPS service will load the containers used by the feeder network, or if different containers will be used.
78 DeltaDC9: Thinking that after 5 years the 747 stranglehold on air cargo will change is more than naive, but I'm not going to be rude like you. Boeing has 80% o
79 Widebodyphotog: Sure they will and that's the whole point of their A380 strategy, to consolidate large containers loads and move them from distribution center to dis
80 Revelation: This presumes a plentiful market in used A380s and a plethora of US airports willing and able to receive A380s, both of which are many years away fro
81 SNATH: I personally still find Randy's blog entries interesting. However, I'll tell you this. In the threads where we do discuss his blog entries, there has
82 OldAeroGuy: The 777F can carry all the 777 engines. The GE90 fan does need to be separated from the core, but it was designed to make this separation easy to sim
83 DeltaDC9: Strange, on one hand people point out that the GE90 is about the same diameter as a narrowbody jet, then on the otherhand question if it will fit ins
84 Widebodyphotog: Right, I was thinking of only the GE90-XXX though, but you are correct about the smaller PW and Trent Engines. I've seen many GE90 fan modules go int
85 JayinKitsap: " target=_blank>http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777...test/ I found this one very interesting and I would suspect that the customers for the 772LR di
86 Zeke: You have just made the point that engines are getting bigger with higher bypass ratios. The 747F cannot carry the GP7000 level, nor could it carry th
87 Aither: Using Randy's own methodology, a lightweight turboprop with 3 passengers would be more efficient than any other Airbus or Boeing aircraft. The bottom
88 Poitin: I think you are confusing PAX operations with Cargo, Zeke. First of all but the HKG-SFO and SIN-LHR example are in the range of 5000 to 5500 STATUE m
89 Jacobin777: then wouldn't most freight operaters take that option? What good would all the "extras" do for operators who don't need it? we don't know if that wil
90 Astuteman: Not heard the FX part of that statement before. Where did they say that? Regards
91 Zeke: I was talking direct cargo ops which do happen over those routes with CX, SQ, KA
92 Jacobin777: I only have part of the quotes from FX, but another quote stated (quite some time ago) they expected about 400 A380 frames to be sold (about the same
93 Widebodyphotog: Those are quite long for freighter segments...With the exception of SIN-JNB and SYD-HNL, I don't believe anyone is operating those routes in one leg,
94 Dhefty: With a small increase in weight along with a large increase in volume, the A380-900F would be in a class by itself. For those that have a need for su
95 Astuteman: I remember the FI article on Sutton, and these quotes. That particular article made no mention of FX's view on the overall A380 market. Regards
96 Poitin: Dedicated cargo ops? Or are the a bunch of pax on top? Why would an airline trade fuel for cargo weight unless they ran out of volume anyhow? An extr
97 Poitin: You are right, both UPS and FedEX will love it. As will anybody carrying electronic from China to the rest of the world. Airbus might sell a few - ma
98 Poitin: That would be GREAT. We could have a website called DuelingTalkingHeads.net featuring Leahy and Randy. Or maybe call it the LeahyandRandyShow.net.
99 Jacobin777: hence my comment below... lol....there should be a monthly Baseler versus Leahy blog on some "neutral" website...would be fun to watch! at the very l
100 Lumberton: I've previously proposed he title it "Coffee with John".... Or Forgeard could do "Notes From Noel". Something catchy. They need to do more than "John
101 Poitin: We could call it "Coffee in the John" That would be catchy. (see there's your smilie) Seriously, John does need to blog.
102 WingedMigrator: Interesting-- so why on earth would Airbus offer an extra center fuel tank as an option on the A388F? That would only improve payload at incredibly l
103 Glacote: Indeed - it even fooled DfwRevolution. I stand firm on my claim: this arithmetic is dubious. It just makes the marginal ratio conveniently higher - b
104 Widebodyphotog: I don't believe Airbus is offering an extra center tank on A380F...Freighter operators will not trade cargo space for fuel, no matter what the range
105 N328KF: By that token, the Air Force should be operating scads of H-4 Hercules instead of C-17s.
106 WingedMigrator: Airbus's own A380 airport compatibility guide states on page 21/253 that the A388F usable fuel capacity can go up to 355850 l (94000 gal) with the ce
107 Jacobin777: plane manufacturers make options like these should a carrier want it....just like Boeing has given carriers the ability to add 3 extra tanks on the 7
108 Poitin: There are those like SQ and QF who are looking for a Very Long Range pax airliner with less than half the population of the country on board. A 550 p
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Mar 2004, 2641 posts, 
From France, joined Mar 2002, 439 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 5651 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Dec 2003, 721 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Albania, joined Mar 2006, 358 posts, 
From Korea, joined Jun 2005, 636 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Jan 2006, 106 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 486 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
