JayinKitsap From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 765 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9491 times:
I first thought you were reciting Randy's first freighter blog.
With rising fuel costs, the key item in air freight is costs per ton actually carried so revenue tons in both direction has to be considered. The extra dead weight of the A380F is not important in itself, but generally the heavier plane will cost more to fly. I think a huge item is the added landing fees due to the higher MTOW (or zero fuel weight depending on the airport).
Has anyone else noted that EK has quietly shifted its two A380F's to passenger A388's with Airbus.
Dougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9465 times:
Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 2): The extra dead weight of the A380F is not important in itself,
I disagree. It's got to be hauled around every day and doesn't pay its way with revenue. If it isn't payload it costs you money you have to get by raising prices somewhere or taking less profit. So yes, it's of critical importance.
Sebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3667 posts, RR: 5 Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 9332 times:
Hi Randy, obviously you are a regular A.net reader. Could you please cite me in your next blog ?
Anyway, things are getting weird. I hope we won't see the usual A vs B battles ending in a raging Randy's blog against Airbus. I'm not expecting him to say positive things about Airbus, but the competition should stay ... competition and not turn into a kind of words war.
It would be normal to say "Our product is better", but saying "The A380 still makes a very inefficient freighter." sounds strange to me (true or not).
I doubt my company (Alcatel) would say "The Cisco system xxx is pure shit".
I remember Leahy being invited by Boeing to visit the 777 interior to show him that it is larger than the A340. It was perhaps not extremely nice, but it was funny and he looked amused.
I wonder if 2 companies have ever been in such a big competition before.
Gkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24621 posts, RR: 58 Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 9312 times:
Quoting Sebolino (Reply 4):
I remember Leahy being invited by Boeing to visit the 777 interior to show him that it is larger than the A340. It was perhaps not extremely nice, but it was funny and he looked amused.
Don't know if that was the reason for it, but I remember Airbus officials also showing Boeing officials around the WhaleJet at the Paris Air Show last year
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7453 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 9227 times:
Backhaul is a concept that I really didn't consider when thinking about the 748 and 380 as freighters - but then I'm not in the freight business. While it might not be a significant factor for some companies I can see it being a huge factor for others. I think I'll have to pay Randy on that one.
TPEcanuck From Taiwan, joined Oct 2005, 89 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 9170 times:
The propaganda element of Randy is sublime!
By stroking our backs and letting us know he reads the forums, he drives even more traffic of aviation curious/knowledgable people to his blog, and his articulate point of view!
Hi Sebolino!
"The A380 still makes a very inefficient freighter." sounds strange to me (true or not).
I doubt my company (Alcatel) would say "The Cisco system xxx is pure shit".
I whole-heartedly agree with you that Alcatel wouldn't say that! And I think a "very inefficient freighter" is way way way different from "pure shit"!! Don't you think? That's not AvB...it's an contentious observation, supported by his writing, that articulates a key difference in one aspect of the comparative benefits of the 747-8 programme versus the 380.
Impressive, and great reading! Thanks for sharing!
Aither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 789 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 9052 times:
It’s all about the payload density. And the trend is to lower payload density. Even with higher payload density the A380 can adapt the layout so it remains competitive.
In addition he has a lousy comment about hubs: Airbus always proposed products to fly longer and avoid for instance hubs like Anchorage (a still large freight hub). Airbus however does not believe on hundreds of long haul new door-to-door routes.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2529 posts, RR: 6 Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 9033 times:
Quoting Gkirk (Reply 5): Don't know if that was the reason for it, but I remember Airbus officials also showing Boeing officials around the WhaleJet at the Paris Air Show last year
Whale? Dude, that name has always been associated with the 747 since it's inception back in the early 70's - find a new moniker for the A380: Madam Obesity sounds fitting to me.
Poitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 8981 times:
Quoting Aither (Reply 11): It's all about the payload density. And the trend is to lower payload density. Even with higher payload density the A380 can adapt the layout so it remains competitive.
HUH!
It's all about payload and how much it costs for you to move it. You get paid for the weight you move from point A to B. No one cares if you stop off in ANC for a tank of gas and a cup of coffee. The freight in the back doesn't care, the shippers don't care. The only place the A380F has an real advantage over the 748F is in volume, which is meaningful to only FED EX and UPS and a few others who have exceptionally low payload density like Christmas Gifts and Aunt Mary's box of cookies.
On the other hand the 748F can take higher density loads, larger sized loads and has a lot less dead weight to carry around.
Gkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24621 posts, RR: 58 Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 8965 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12): Whale? Dude, that name has always been associated with the 747 since it's inception back in the early 70's - find a new moniker for the A380: Madam Obesity sounds fitting to me.
B747 = Jumbo Jet
A380 = WhaleJet
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, RR: 73 Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 8859 times:
[Sarcasm]
Hey Randy,
Did you know that the A380F will carry more payload mass than any commercial freight aircraft that is being produced by Boeing, over any sector length.
Did you know that the A380F will carry more payload volume than any commercial freight aircraft that is being produced by Boeing, over any sector length.
The definition of an inefficient freighter is when your new twin engined freighter you offer carries more than your quad freighter over longer sector lengths.
The definition of an even more inefficient freighter is when your older 747-200F costs TWICE as much per kg to move freight than the A380F.
Oh dear Randy, what are you going to do, your OLD 747-400F production line is coming to an END, why Randy ? is that one also inefficient ?
Nice to see your worried about the A380 Randy. A man like yourself must get paid a fair chunk of change per hour, and to spend so much of your valuable time conjuring up carefully crafted statements which as you know are not 100% correct must really eat you.
Slz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 8859 times:
Quoting Poitin (Reply 13): The only place the A380F has an real advantage over the 748F is in volume, which is meaningful to only FED EX and UPS and a few others who have exceptionally low payload density like Christmas Gifts and Aunt Mary's box of cookies.
I was under the impression this has aways been the main group of customers for which this plane was conceived in the first place, so attacking it on elements irrelevant for its intended market segment sound intellectually unfair to me?
Sebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3667 posts, RR: 5 Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 8838 times:
Quoting TPEcanuck (Reply 8): That's not AvB...it's an contentious observation, supported by his writing, that articulates a key difference in one aspect of the comparative benefits of the 747-8 programme versus the 380.
Actually, I don't really agree.
He doesn't say the A380F is not as good as the 748 (which doesn't exist yet), he says it is a very inefficient freighter. The difference is huge.
If it's inefficient, I wonder why it has been even considered by UPS for example, instead of the 747-400F. Perhaps this one is even worse, and a terribly poor freighter ?
You need to get out more man, the 747 first was known as the dumbojet, then whale (as it was a white elephant when Pan Am had to ground them due to technical reasons), then jumbo...and other names The Valiant, Upstairs and Downstairs, Lump....source http://www.b737.org.uk/aircraftnicknames.htm
Can you have a little respect for other users here, and call each product by their correct manufacturer assigned names.
Feel free to privately call them whatever you want, however on here it would be great to respect other readers.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
JRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4598 posts, RR: 51 Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 8781 times:
Quoting Poitin (Reply 13): The only place the A380F has an real advantage over the 748F is in volume, which is meaningful to only FED EX and UPS and a few others who have exceptionally low payload density like Christmas Gifts and Aunt Mary's box of cookies.
May I add in with flowers? They are pretty bulky, but not that heavy.
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 8713 times:
Quoting Sebolino (Reply 18): He doesn't say the A380F is not as good as the 748 (which doesn't exist yet)
Last time I checked, there are no 380Fs flying the skies and the 748F EIS will likely be around the same time at this point.
With numerous 744Fs flying around, the 748F is closer to existing in the real world, and there is less mystery about what the 748F will or won't achieve and how customers will use it, with 30 years of family history as a guide.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10456 posts, RR: 20 Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 8636 times:
Quoting Leelaw (Reply 1): Yet another hommage to A.net:
OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2575 posts, RR: 4 Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 8568 times:
Quoting Sebolino (Reply 4): Hi Randy, obviously you are a regular A.net reader. Could you please cite me in your next blog ?
You sound like the kids at the school I work for Yesterday I put a kid on top of a closet for fun, and of course when I brought the kid back down everybody asked if they could be next. I think I needed to put 10 kids on top of that closet before everyone was satisfied.
Quoting Sebolino (Reply 4): Anyway, things are getting weird. I hope we won't see the usual A vs B battles ending in a raging Randy's blog against Airbus. I'm not expecting him to say positive things about Airbus, but the competition should stay ... competition and not turn into a kind of words war.
I don't have any problem with Randy quoting Airliners.net and since you mention competition, I would love to see some executives from Airbus discussing topics on Airliners.net in an official matter. Johan must be proud.
Quoting Aither (Reply 11): It's all about the payload density. And the trend is to lower payload density. Even with higher payload density the A380 can adapt the layout so it remains competitive.
In addition he has a lousy comment about hubs: Airbus always proposed products to fly longer and avoid for instance hubs like Anchorage (a still large freight hub). Airbus however does not believe on hundreds of long haul new door-to-door routes.
It's all about payload and how much it costs for you to move it. You get paid for the weight you move from point A to B. No one cares if you stop off in ANC for a tank of gas and a cup of coffee. The freight in the back doesn't care, the shippers don't care. The only place the A380F has an real advantage over the 748F is in volume, which is meaningful to only FED EX and UPS and a few others who have exceptionally low payload density like Christmas Gifts and Aunt Mary's box of cookies.
On the other hand the 748F can take higher density loads, larger sized loads and has a lot less dead weight to carry around.
Companies like DHL, FedEx, UPS and TNT have a large share of the air freight market. I do not know how much of the airfreight market is volume restricted, or how much is weight restricted. But I know allot of the Air Express shipments are electronics, medicine. These kind of shipments do not weigh that much, but you need allot of very light material in great quantities (Yes, I do not have the English term for what is is called) to protect the shipment
When I worked for DHL we used a formula to check if we should charge for volume in stead of weight. So if anyone of you could provide me with the volume of the A380F inside and the 747-8 inside we can probably find out exactly what kind of missions where the A380 can beat the 747-8.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
Poitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8480 times:
Quoting OyKIE (Reply 24): Companies like DHL, FedEx, UPS and TNT have a large share of the air freight market. I do not know how much of the airfreight market is volume restricted, or how much is weight restricted. But I know allot of the Air Express shipments are electronics, medicine. These kind of shipments do not weigh that much, but you need allot of very light material in great quantities (Yes, I do not have the English term for what is is called) to protect the shipment
What you call air freight (DHL, FED EX, UPS, and TNT) is air packages. Not what people like Cargolux do. I think you will find that there is a very large segment of air freight that the package people don't handle. Such things as live stock, automobiles, machine tools, and such are what I would consider air freight, and the bulk of that is on various 747 models and conversion pax planes like the MD-11, which can handle bulky shipments.
Quoting OyKIE (Reply 24): When I worked for DHL we used a formula to check if we should charge for volume in stead of weight. So if anyone of you could provide me with the volume of the A380F inside and the 747-8 inside we can probably find out exactly what kind of missions where the A380 can beat the 747-8.
The A380 is an excellent choice for UPS, Fed Ex and DHL as it has a larger volume and is ideal for high value, low density (the term you were looking for) shipments. That is why UPS and Fed Ex each bought 10 of them.
25 SparkingWave: Cargo carriers seem to behave differently than passenger airlines when it comes to buying airplanes. First of all, they don't seem to mind buying olde
26 BoeingBus: Do you think it was really an excellent choice or do you think they really didn't want any more A300 and this is the next best thing? A380 is going t
27 BoeingBus: Do you think it was really an excellent choice or do you think they really didn't want any more A300 and this is the next best thing? A380 is going t
28 Kaneporta1: The 747-8 is 'point proven'??? Don't think so. Our beloved Randy also forgets that this is the initial A388F version, the plane is designed with MTOW
29 DAYflyer: It is well suited to the small package frieght that UPS ships, but not the oversized stuff, as it lacks a nose that opens. The A-380 could not, in it
30 Poitin: Please be careful of confusing Air Express with Air Freight. UPS, FED EX, DHL and others are in the Air Express package business. These are small rel
31 Mham001: There are rumours from the brown company that they are about to cancel their orders. Just a rumour from an employee- but they say the 380F program is
32 ScottB: Hey Zeke, Did you know that the A380F will carry more structural weight than any commercial freight aircraft that is being produced by Boeing, over a
33 Hb88: It would be interesting indeed. One issue might be in what language would it be given that the majority of Airbus employees don't have english as the
34 JRadier: Talking about taking sides. Ever thought of the fact that the A380F can carry more freight then any commercial frieght aircraft that is produced by B
35 ScottB: Of course, but it's still carrying a lot more non-revenue structural weight per kilogram, pound, ounce, or gram of cargo that's on-board over compara
36 OyKIE: Sorry Poitin, I should have been more clear in my definition. But it does not change my point being, that I believe there market for Air Express ship
37 DLKAPA: A massive toilet paper shipment from London to New York.
38 JRadier: I agree with that, but my main point was to show you that allthough the claims are factually correct, they itself hold little value when the context
39 Aither: Anyway, seeing Randy insisting so much on the freighter version tells one thing : they have little to offer to compete effectively against the pax ver
40 OyKIE: Good observation, but according to Boeing they expects the Freighter to get the most orders for the Freighter from the start and then later on they w
41 Keesje: I respect Randy for walking the edge with his blog, not to mention the interesting inside facts / graphics he produces. However marketing guys know th
42 RedFlyer: Doesn't look like your plotting takes into consideration prevailing winds, which would distort the nice even range curves your picture shows. Also, a
43 Picard: "Weight another minute 2" After reading Randy's amusing but ultimately inaccurate blog the other day, "Weight another minute," about the 747-8F and th
44 Lightsaber: Nice plot. I do agree the ranges need to be discounted/enhanced for prevailing winds. (e.g., China to US west coast goes with the wind. The unladden
45 Glom: You must have not read the blog entry. In this case, Randy was comparing structural efficiencies when both aircraft are loaded for that range. In tha
46 Brendows: The OEW of the 748F is about 184,5 tonnes.
47 Musapapaya: Hello all I love Alcatel, I hatre Cisco. I just love this one. But whatever, I hope the A380 will be a successful story. Best regards Musapapya
48 Picard: Hi Brendows, Where did that figure come from? Anyway so this means the A380F has 31%-37% increase in payload with 24%-37% increase in weight (dependin
49 Brendows: Page 12 in this document: 7478brochure.pdf And you can also find some numbers here, which also shows that the A380F will burn about 3000kg more fuel
50 Keesje: The Boeing official webside learns us: The 747-8F's empty weight is 86 tonnes (95 tons) lighter than the A380F http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747fam
51 Widebodyphotog: You have it exactly backwards...the trend in the general market is progressively increasing density. An air shipper would be very foolish to keep inc
52 Picard: Very interesting. Hmm yes it does burn more fuel but then again the A380F is 35% heavier at MTOW so it is just natural that it burns more fuel per hou
53 VV701: I've been looking carefully at the 748: and I reckon the A380F has the greater range!! More seriously is this the first time we have had this possible
54 ScottB: Duh. One naturally counters irrelevant assertions with equally irrelevant assertions.
55 SunriseValley: Take a look at one of Widebodyphotogs tables at http://theaviationspecialist.com/748_vs_a388.gif
56 Widebodyphotog: " target=_blank>www.boeing.com This is a pretty weak approach to attempt to discredit Baseler... The information on the 787-8 facts page is simply old
57 Brendows: Of course, that would be something Burning more fuel wouldn't be a problem if one could compensate for the higher fuel burn with an equally higher pa
58 RedFlyer: I think the cargo carriers are already aware of this; hence, the mediocre sales of the A380F compared to the 744F and 748F. After all, one would thin
59 Zeke: Thanks Randy, Nice to see you noticed sarcasm mode on. Please excuse my previous grammar errors, after a long haul flight I tend to switch off when I
60 ER757: UPS has a bunch of new-build 744-F's on order (8 of them I believe). I think you are confusing DHL Express with our heavy freight division, DHL GLoba
61 Zeke: To quote the Boeing web site To quote the Boeing web site
62 Brendows: What does that prove? Some cargo-operators need the 744F before the 748F is available. Also, these 744F's are probably offered at a low price, as a m
63 MD-90: Aren't most of NW's freighters 742Fs? I would hope that the A380F could show significant improvement. That's crazier than Emirates.
64 Widebodyphotog: This is impossible, at best. The A380F can not offer half the ton/mile cost of 747-400. In fact on that specific basis the A380 has 8 and 6% higher t
65 Widebodyphotog: Actually he's pretty much spot on in this regard. At least here In the US there are basically three ways airports charge landing fees. They are based
67 NAV20: One point that doesn't seem to have been mentioned. So far as I know, only about 20 airports worldwide are currently carrying out the building work ne
68 RedFlyer: I think regardless of whose flag we wear on our sleeves, we are pretty much all in agreement that the market usually dictates the better product. (At
69 JayinKitsap: These airports are generally the largest passenger hubs, but are they also the largest freight hubs. I don't know if they are but I would suspect tha
70 Jonathan-l: The freight market is growing faster than the passenger market (globally) and freight carriers are some of the most profitable airlines in the indust
71 Stitch: And I wonder if two of those companies might just be UPS and FedEx. While I know they carry a ton of stuff from PVG, how much stuff do they send back
72 Poitin: You still have to carry the fuel all the way from China, which is a waste, given you can stop off at ANC, fill up, take a little walk and have a cup
73 Widebodyphotog: But this is a non sequitur if there ever was one...Of course the 747 will need more ramp area than A380F because of nose loading. However putting tha
74 Kaneporta1: Fortunatelly, the A388F has enough range to overfly JFK and go straight to any part of the US (coming from Europe). So the higher landing fees is act
75 ScottB: I'm not Randy. Should I start calling you Noel? That doesn't give me any confidence in your ability in the last hour or so of your long haul flight.
76 PolymerPlane: I thought he was giving the example just for an example that most of the time landing costs is calculated based on the aircraft weight, i.e MTOW or M
77 JRadier: But airplanes don't make money sitting on the ground, because freight/passengers pay for transport, not for sitting idle. So during those 2 hours, yo
78 Hamlet69: Zeke, I apologize if you found my first post offensive. However, I take equal offense when someone as intellegent as you appear to be promotes one man
79 PolymerPlane: Care to explain why do KLM Cargo and NCA has not ordered A380F to utilize the 5,600 nm range so that they can bypass more hub? I am sure that for mis
81 Widebodyphotog: Good grief, re-read the post... The airport fees vary with weight regardless of the airport, and operating a longer leg actually increases the amount
82 Picard: Yes I must admit the Max Payload/OEW of the A380F isn't as good as the 747-8F but Randy isn't simply telling everyone this, he is also skewing the fi
83 PolymerPlane: Surprise surprise, He is Boeing's VP of Marketing what do you expect? He did admit that A380 has a longer range, etc. But if in his analysis he prais
84 Widebodyphotog: They are going direct with a 74 combi and a 777, but not a freighter The freighter stops at least once in HKG though. KZ001 stops in ANC when they ha
85 JRadier: a) the A380F is not available yet (as is the 748F), the 744(ER)F is. B) want to bypass AMS or TYO? You'll end up in an ocean, they don't need the ran
86 PolymerPlane: Like I said agree that fuel stop costs money, and if you can do it directly why not. In A380 case, if you start to put much higher OEW for distance,
87 Glom: Everyone has missed the point of Randy's blog entry. He altered the calculations to reflect a sector over the same range. For the 747-8F, that meant r
88 AirFrnt: It's funny you should say that. I had a meeting with Alcatel a few years ago in New York for a deferense related project, and they spent the entire t
89 Dougloid: I always thought Alcatel was a phone company for alcoholics and now this???
90 Sllevin: Freight runs are typical daily. All the stop means is that you have 4 less hours to complete a turn. Tankering fuel is costly. I remember a specific
91 Sebolino: Considering they are merging, it's even funnier. Anyway, it was not public statments.
92 Zeke: I don’t believe they are being offered at a low price, Boeing has everyone over a barrel at the moment, they have just increased prices. There is n
93 RedFlyer: Zeke: I think you break the record for longest post on A.Net Anyway, in response to this... I don't mean to be rude or insulting, but that has to be t
94 Glom: They are over the same range. Randy compared the A380F structural efficiency when carrying max payload over the quoted range to the 748F structural e
95 OyKIE: " target=_blank>http://theaviationspecialist.com/748...8.gif Thank you SunriseValley. According to this diagram the volume-weight for the A380 is 234,
96 Musapapaya: This is obvious OyKIE! I second you. In Asia, they partner with CX and Air Hong Kong to do their shipments. I am sure DHL can never handle all their
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1588 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24621 posts, 
at the Paris Air Show last year
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11360 posts, 
From Taiwan, joined Oct 2005, 89 posts, 
From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 789 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4598 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2575 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
