Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748  
User currently offlineBoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1596 posts, RR: 17
Posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 10758 times:

http://www.boeing.com/randy/archives/2006/05/weight_another.html

A.Net is mentioned once more...

Cheers,

Ric

[Edited 2006-05-10 14:54:56]


Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
96 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 10731 times:

Yet another hommage to A.net:

"...Regardless, this was yet another lively topic on aviation forums such as Airliners.net..."


User currently offlineJayinKitsap From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 769 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10664 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.


User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10638 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.


User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 10505 times:

Hi Randy, obviously you are a regular A.net reader. Could you please cite me in your next blog ?  Smile  Smile

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.


User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24936 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 10485 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  duck  at the Paris Air Show last year



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 10418 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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

Yes it was a case of "show me yours and I'll show you mine!"



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 10400 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.

User currently offlineTPEcanuck From Taiwan, joined Oct 2005, 89 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 10343 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!

[Edited 2006-05-10 16:41:41]

User currently offlineRichM From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 798 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 10288 times:

You gotta credit Randy for doing that. I'm sure Airbus wouldn't have even given a response unless you had several million pounds in your back pocket.  Smile

User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 10225 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.



Never trust the obvious
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 10206 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.


User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 10154 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!  Wow!

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.


User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24936 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 10138 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
 Wink



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9101 posts, RR: 75
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 10032 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.

Nice one Randy, guess you have just pointed people to check out the A380F capabilities, you can check them out also, see http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam...ies/a380/a380f/specifications.html .

Thank you

 Smile

P.S. Did you know the one Airbus has is bigger than yours, no peeking now in the bathroom, that's just not polite.

[/Sarcasm]



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 10032 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?


User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4327 posts, RR: 28
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 10032 times:

Like it or not, amusing or otherwise, Randy is addressing the public's (A.Net included) perception of the 747 vs. the A380.

I just wish Airbus had a similar blog so that we don't have to listen to...

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 10):
the "Fuhrerbunker" crowd from "Planet Airbus."

And if Airbus ever did come out with a blog, they will hopefully put someone other than Mouth Leahy in the writer's seat.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 10011 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 ?


User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2744 posts, RR: 58
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9973 times:

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 2):
Has anyone else noted that EK has quietly shifted its two A380F's to passenger A388's with Airbus.

Indeed, I just noticed that this morning, actually.

It's certainly interesting, as I was told about a week ago that a different 380F customer is going to "jump ship" fairly soon.

Quoting Aither (Reply 11):
And the trend is to lower payload density.

Source?


Regards,

Hamlet69



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9101 posts, RR: 75
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9973 times:

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 14):
B747 = Jumbo Jet
A380 = WhaleJet

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
User currently onlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4695 posts, RR: 50
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9954 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
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9886 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.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12556 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 9809 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 1):
Yet another hommage to A.net:

Not just a hommage, but also a link to:

Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F (by SNATH Apr 27 2006 in Civil Aviation)

as well!

I enjoy Randy's blog, and would also enjoy a simlar blog from an Airbus employee as well.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2751 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 9741 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  Wink 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.  Smile

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.



Quoting Poitin (Reply 13):
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.

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
User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 9653 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 Post contains links 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains links and images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains links 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 Post contains links and images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains links 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 Post contains images 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
66 Joni : Isn't "Randy" actually called Randolph?
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 Post contains images 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 Post contains links 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 Post contains images 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
80 Trex8 : 777s???? when???
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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains links 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 Post contains images 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
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...
748 Poses Threat To A380F And A387 posted Tue Nov 29 2005 00:24:33 by BoomBoom
Airlines Claims To Want More Range. posted Wed Jun 23 2004 05:27:07 by Lehpron
Delta's Response To UA's Econ Plus / AA More Room posted Sat Jan 27 2001 17:53:48 by Nickofatlanta
Delta's Response To USAir posted Sat Nov 18 2006 16:19:39 by AtlBill
Caribbean Star To CUR! No More Caribbean Airlines? posted Wed Oct 25 2006 02:07:20 by A388
Qatar To Buy 20 *more* 777s? posted Sun Sep 24 2006 06:27:10 by Tak
UA Denver Promotion- Response To DL SLC Buildup? posted Sat Aug 19 2006 20:13:04 by SlcDeltaRUmd11
Air ASIA, Likely To BUY 30 More A320'S posted Sun Aug 6 2006 05:25:43 by Manni
AirAsia To Take Even More A320s posted Fri Jul 21 2006 07:58:25 by Flying-Tiger
Randy Responds To The A350XWB... posted Wed Jul 19 2006 05:23:12 by Cruiser