Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus, Boeing Clash Over Jumbo Freighters  
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5791 posts, RR: 47
Posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6292 times:

A new battle is brewing:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060721/...transport_airbus_boeing_freight_dc

Fair Use Excerpt"

"The 747 is very emotional for Boeing. We are threatening their old monopoly and the idea of us potentially overtaking them on freight goes straight to the heart and guts of Boeing people," A380 marketing head Richard Carcaillet told Reuters.

At the Boeing chalet overlooking the display runway at this year's largest air show, Boeing's upbeat marketing supremo Randy Baseler believes he is already giving Airbus the benefit of the doubt in the way he runs the data -- and still beats the A380.

"Their plane weighs 74 tonnes more on their own figures. Our figures suggest 82 tonnes. We have a new wing design, but let's give them a slight advantage on the A380's wider wing. Our engine is four percent more efficient," Baseler told Reuters.

"A plane that weighs less, is about as aerodynamic and has a better engine is more efficient. They might choke saying it but they will probably admit we are more efficient."

Sitting inside the Airbus stand, Carcaillet is more fuming than choking but believes the unspoken rules of combat between the world's only large commercial airframers have been broken.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6230 times:

Both aircraft have their advantages.

Is the 747-8F efficient enough to put two planes on a route to carry the physical size of cargo the A380 can?

Is the A380 capable of carrying extra heavy loads?

Theres a difference between the aircraft, ones a semiartic hauling bulk goods, the others a lowloader hauling heavy goods.


User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6122 times:

More press who-ha. Two different aircraft for two different missions. The 747 will continue to be the king of the big frieght, and the A-380 will emerge as the winner in the Fedex/UPS small package freight business.


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6005 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 1):
Is the 747-8F efficient enough to put two planes on a route to carry the physical size of cargo the A380 can?

Does the A380F carry twice the "physical size" of cargo as the 748F?


User currently offlinePlaneHunter From Germany, joined Mar 2006, 6855 posts, RR: 77
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5975 times:

Quote:
"The 747 is very emotional for Boeing. We are threatening their old monopoly and the idea of us potentially overtaking them on freight goes straight to the heart and guts of Boeing people," A380 marketing head Richard Carcaillet told Reuters.

It's his own statement which sounds emotional...


PH



Nothing's worse than flying the same reg twice!
User currently offlineTeixeim From United States of America, joined May 2005, 131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5908 times:

Gotta love the 'headline'/subject of this thread - what'd anyone expect the two giants to do - embrace the same solution? They're competitors for goodness sake!

User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5865 times:

Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 4):

It's his own statement which sounds emotional...

 checkmark ....I guess even the "non A.net" crew can get into this kind of "A" versus "B" vitriol.....which I find to be a bit.... dopey 

I say...."If ya' got a good plane mate, it will sell on its own...ya' don't need to be putting your competition down to make yourself feel better".... cool 



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5853 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 3):
Does the A380F carry twice the "physical size" of cargo as the 748F?

Did I say it did? Can you replace one A380F with one 747-8I?


User currently offlineBoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1597 posts, RR: 17
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5799 times:

Look at Rnady's latest blog:

http://www.boeing.com/randy/archives/2006/07/weight_watchers.html

ends it nicely:

"So we're sorry if people get upset about our numbers. Our objective is to provide our customers the right data so they can evaluate our airplanes. And the outcome is that in the last 12 months we've sold 50 freighters. In the last 12 months the other guys have sold 10 freighters.

Since they launched their A380 freighter, we've had about 80% market share. And that's the bottom line. "



Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5769 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 1):
Is the 747-8F efficient enough to put two planes on a route to carry the physical size of cargo the A380 can?

Is the A380 capable of carrying extra heavy loads?

Here's the thing. The A380 is not 2X the size of a 747-8. Functionally 50% more hold volume, roughly, sure. But it only carries about 7.5% more weight. Moreover, the A380F is structurally 80 tons heavier empty to carry roughly 9 more tons of cargo. A380 is not a good deal for weight, not a bad deal for volume.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 3):
Does the A380F carry twice the "physical size" of cargo as the 748F?



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 859 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5692 times:

http://www.boeing.com/randy/archives/2006/07/weight_watchers.html

Quote:
One funny moment broke up our extended technical discussion when one of the reporters pointed out that the A380 is perceived to be opening up a whole new kind of freight market - big quantities of cargo flown nonstop across wide distances. To which (I couldn't help myself) I replied, "You mean point to point?" That brought more than a few chuckles all around.

Maybe he should help himself a little bit. Every non stop route is "point to point". He reminds me Al Gore saying he had invented Internet...



Never trust the obvious
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5591 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 9):
Here's the thing. The A380 is not 2X the size of a 747-8. Functionally 50% more hold volume, roughly, sure. But it only carries about 7.5% more weight. Moreover, the A380F is structurally 80 tons heavier empty to carry roughly 9 more tons of cargo. A380 is not a good deal for weight, not a bad deal for volume.

That was precisely my point, each aircraft has its advantages and place in the market. To match the A380 for volume you would have to fly two 747-8s and the A380 cant match the 747-8 for high weight items.


User currently offlineEatmybologna From France, joined Apr 2005, 412 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5516 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 11):
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 9):
Here's the thing. The A380 is not 2X the size of a 747-8. Functionally 50% more hold volume, roughly, sure. But it only carries about 7.5% more weight. Moreover, the A380F is structurally 80 tons heavier empty to carry roughly 9 more tons of cargo. A380 is not a good deal for weight, not a bad deal for volume.

That was precisely my point, each aircraft has its advantages and place in the market. To match the A380 for volume you would have to fly two 747-8s and the A380 cant match the 747-8 for high weight items.

Because the A380F has a 50% greater volume capacity over the B747F, wouldn't the correct ratio be two A380F's to three B748F's? (2*1.50=3*1.00)

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Regards,

E-M-B



Isn't knowledge more than just the acquisition of information? Shouldn't the acquired information be correct?
User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3015 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5377 times:

Quoting Aither (Reply 10):
Maybe he should help himself a little bit. Every non stop route is "point to point". He reminds me Al Gore saying he had invented Internet...

Randy's humor is lost on you. Perhaps jokes are funnier when they have to be explained, but I don't think so.



Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5364 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 1):
Is the 747-8F efficient enough to put two planes on a route to carry the physical size of cargo the A380 can?

No matter how you slice it, no.

Quoting Aither (Reply 10):
Every non stop route is "point to point".

Yeah, you did sorta miss the joke.

N


User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3015 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5343 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 11):
That was precisely my point, each aircraft has its advantages and place in the market. To match the A380 for volume you would have to fly two 747-8s and the A380 cant match the 747-8 for high weight items.

In my estimation, the problem for many cargo operators is that the A380F will hit MTOW before the plane is full. Average payload density is increasing, not decreasing.

However, the A380F should be an excellent package hauler for FedEx and UPS.



Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9544 posts, RR: 31
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5286 times:

Quoting Eatmybologna (Reply 12):
Because the A380F has a 50% greater volume capacity over the B747F, wouldn't the correct ratio be two A380F's to three B748F's? (2*1.50=3*1.00)

Only if you collect for the volumetric weight charge and really fill the theoretically 180 to 200 voltons of an A380F. That ideal situation will happen once in a while but it will not be the regular day to day load.

The 747-8F has the advantage over the 380F that it can be dlown to more airports because it can use the infrastructure of the 744F. The 380 can't, hence it is less flexible to operate. That is why CV bought the 757-8F and LH does not even consider the 380F.

Filling up 150 metric tons is a bigger problem than filling up 135 metric tons. Average yields are low enough and these extra 15 tons may be simply not worth to touch. For the regular FAK cargo carrier, the 747-8F is the better option.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently onlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2225 posts, RR: 56
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 5092 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 1):
Is the A380 capable of carrying extra heavy loads?

Of course. The A388F is quite economical for carrying anvils, provided that you fly them for 5600 nm...

If you must abuse the A388F by flying 4400 nm segments or less, only low density freight will make it profitable. Otherwise it makes much more sense to fly a B748F, since its shorter range is better suited to the mission. This is of course what Baseler likes to dwell upon, while conveniently ignoring the range factor.


User currently offlineJohnny From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4994 times:

Two airplanes for different missions:

A380 : high volume on very long routes - disadvantage only side loading
B748F : less volume, same payload on shorter routes - advantage is the nose door

By the way, has somebody the figures for the maximum range for both airplanes with max payload?

 Smile


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4917 times:

Woot. Nothing like two big companies getting all emotional about their respective products.

User currently offlineJohnny From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4623 times:

Nobody here who can tell the range for both airplanes with same payload ?!?

I cannot believe it...

Johnny  Smile


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9544 posts, RR: 31
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4437 times:

Looks like the figures are not publsihed yet. The A380F flies farther with a full payload than the B747-8F, it should go even further with a reduced payloasd matching that of the Boeing aircraft.

But that is purely academic, in most cases it does not make sense to trading 15 or so tons revenue cargo for a greater range oif youi can sell the space fully.
The A380F's full range at max payload is not required by most operators anyway.
Not by FX or UPS who might be able to operate N/S USA-China and vv, but need the ANC hub to exchange pallets.

Range is not that important for a freighter, commonality in infrastructure is, and that is not given with the A380F.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineRedcordes From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4350 times:

I would think that weight and not volume is much more often the limiting factor for these aircraft--even Fedex and UPS. Does anyone have those numbers?


"The only source of knowledge is experience." A. Einstein "Science w/o religion is lame. Religion w/o science is blind."
User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4313 times:

Quoting Johnny (Reply 20):
Nobody here who can tell the range for both airplanes with same payload ?!?

With the numbers published in December 2005, the 748F will fly about 4500nm miles with a full payload of 295.200lb (@ 10lb/cu ft.) The A380F (with Trent 977 engines) will fly about 6250nm with the same payload.


User currently offlineSonic67 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3160 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 9):
Functionally 50% more hold volume, roughly, sure. But it only carries about 7.5% more weight. Moreover, the A380F is structurally 80 tons heavier empty to carry roughly 9 more tons of cargo. A380 is not a good deal for weight, not a bad deal for volume.

So what you are saying is the 380 would be great for caring Styrofoam peanuts? Big grin

I think the 380-8 being able to carry 50% more volume is compared to a 747-400 so compared to the 747-8f must be less of a %. I can't find any hard facts but I remember Airbus saying this before Boeing announced the 747-8. Can any one confirm with hard facts?

Thanks GS


25 JayinKitsap : The Boeing Airport Compatibility Brocure from their site lists the 747-8F having 290,000 lb payload to 4,475 nm, declining linerly on payload to 175,
26 Post contains images Johnny : Thanks for your answers!
27 WingedMigrator : I think this is due mostly to the previous unavailability of freighters with a maximum payload range of 5600 nm. Today, flying that range requires tr
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...
Boeing Rolling Over Airbus In Orders posted Thu Apr 27 2006 20:58:37 by MrComet
Boeing-Airbus Dogfight Looms Over Air Show posted Sat Jun 11 2005 19:56:45 by KarlB737
Boeing Challenge Airbus With An Advanced Jumbo! posted Tue Jul 27 2004 19:48:54 by VSFullThrottle
Airbus Lengthens Lead Over Boeing At Farnborugh Ai posted Thu Jul 22 2004 01:02:36 by B727fan
Airbus And Boeing Argue Over Production Rates posted Mon Jul 22 2002 16:27:00 by Singapore_Air
Airbus Vs. Boeing: Rumble Over Tokyo posted Fri Mar 23 2001 22:44:43 by Cruising
Boeing Wins Over Airbus In 2000 posted Mon Jan 29 2001 17:25:11 by Singapore_Air
Airbus/Boeing Freighters posted Wed Jan 10 2001 15:47:02 by Rw
BBC World Service Airbus/Boeing Interviews posted Sun Jul 9 2006 08:45:59 by NAV20
Boeing's Victory Over MDD, Lockheed - Inevitable? posted Sun Jun 18 2006 06:55:57 by AerospaceFan