PanAm_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 3987 posts, RR: 93 Posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4710 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW COMMUNITY MANAGER
Despite the move by FedEx and that both the ILFC and UPS A380F orders are "in the cancellation zone" Airbus has today stated that they intend to proceed with the model and it's a question of "when" rather than "if"
Limited fair use excerpt;
By Chan Sue Ling
Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Airbus SAS, the world's largest maker of commercial planes, said it will keep the freighter version of its A380 superjumbo even after FedEx Corp. last week scrapped an order for the aircraft.
''There are no plans to scrap the program,'' Christian Scherer, the head of future programs at Airbus said in an interview today in Osaka. ''The question is when, rather than if,'' the freighter will go into production.
WINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 70 Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4587 times:
Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Thread starter): Despite the move by FedEx and that both the ILFC and UPS A380F orders are "in the cancellation zone" Airbus has today stated that they intend to proceed with the model and it's a question of "when" rather than "if"
Limited fair use excerpt;
By Chan Sue Ling
Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Airbus SAS, the world's largest maker of commercial planes, said it will keep the freighter version of its A380 superjumbo even after FedEx Corp. last week scrapped an order for the aircraft.
''There are no plans to scrap the program,'' Christian Scherer, the head of future programs at Airbus said in an interview today in Osaka. ''The question is when, rather than if,'' the freighter will go into production.
Well this sure is an interesting update. I still reserve some doubts. I tend to believe that Airbus will give priority to the A380 and when all issues are resolved they will continue with the A380F.
I still see the UPS and ILFC Freighter order in doubt. Lets see what happens.
Dtw9 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1048 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4495 times:
Quoting WINGS (Reply 1): ''The question is when, rather than if,'' the freighter will go into production
I think that this is the key statement. If they had any orders left for the Freighter they would know "when". Kind of sounds like UPS and ILFC won't be taking theirs either.
PanAm_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 3987 posts, RR: 93 Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4467 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW COMMUNITY MANAGER
Quoting Leelaw (Reply 2): I'm not sure this is "good news," denials issuing from Airbus in recent months have meant the "bad news" is about to hit the fan.
How about we say the glass is half full
Quoting Dtw9 (Reply 3): Quoting WINGS (Reply 1):
''The question is when, rather than if,'' the freighter will go into production
IMO Wings makes a fair point with the following....
Quoting WINGS (Reply 1): I tend to believe that Airbus will give priority to the A380 and when all issues are resolved they will continue with the A380F
...Airbus officials blame aggressive Boeing pricing for the fact that the 747-8 has so outpaced the A380 Freighter. Buying the new 747 freighter is simply an easier choice because it fits airlines' current operating model, even though, in Airbus's view, the A380 offers higher performance. Over time, these officials insist, the A380 will establish itself as the industry benchmark. They are also adamant that the 747-8's weight problems are twice as bad as Boeing has suggested...
RJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4426 times:
Quoting Dtw9 (Reply 3): I think that this is the key statement. If they had any orders left for the Freighter they would know "when". Kind of sounds like UPS and ILFC won't be taking theirs either.
Well that's an extremely pessimistic conclusion. It could mean a whole host of things really.
Customer uncertainty dogs the A380. UPS has indicated it still doesn't know, for certain, when it will receive its first freighter. Its slot was for 2010. With FedEx dropping out, it could move up to 2009, although an Airbus official declined to comment on slot changes. Emirates has so much concern that it's sent its own auditors to Toulouse to get a firmer handle on what's going on.
Dougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4384 times:
Quoting Leelaw (Reply 2): Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Thread starter):
So some good news despite all the noise in relation to FX
I'm not sure this is "good news," denials issuing from Airbus in recent months have meant the "bad news" is about to hit the fan.
The most reliable source of what's to come has been reports in Les Echos and Le Monde and the rest of the French press followed shortly by vehement denials from Festung Airbus. Those boys have some good spies.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9086 posts, RR: 37 Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4341 times:
Given that almost anything to do with aeroplanes nowadays involves spending sums with nine noughts on the end, I don't see how it can make any sense at all to go forward with development of the freighter version at the present time, against only - what is it? - about 15 firm orders.
So I take from these reports the impression that development of the freighter version is likely to be 'postponed to a future date to be decided.' A de facto cancellation.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4338 times:
Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 8): The story is dated last week in response to FX, Airbus are responding, in fact, it's a link to a comment I used in the original post;
I posted the quote from the AWST article to illustrate why Airbus may claim the glass is half full. BTW, the article was published Sunday night.
Quoting RJ111 (Reply 7): Customer uncertainty dogs the A380. UPS has indicated it still doesn't know, for certain, when it will receive its first freighter. Its slot was for 2010. With FedEx dropping out, it could move up to 2009, although an Airbus official declined to comment on slot changes.
How would 5X slots move forward into 2009 if FX wasn't able to get delivery until 2010?
Ebbuk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4037 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 10): So I take from these reports the impression that development of the freighter version is likely to be 'postponed to a future date to be decided.' A de facto cancellation.
Oh like the "de facto cancellation" of the 777LR, if I recall this bird's launch was postponed.
Also looking at it from your angle is the 787-10 a "de facto cancellation"? I seem to recall Boeing using the very same terminology "a question of when not if"
I guess you are going to say that Boeing speak a different language to Airbus?
Flysherwood From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1115 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3982 times:
Quoting Ebbuk (Reply 13): I guess you are going to say that Boeing speak a different language to Airbus?
Actually, I would have to say yes for NAV20. Boeing does speak a different language than Airbus. Their PR department (Boeing) actually tries to get out ahead of a problem rather denying 3 or 4 times that problems exist only to confirm the problem eventually. What was Airbus saying last December about reports that the A380 was going to be delayed? I mean even the most ardent Airbus cheerleader has to see that the spin machine at Airbus is broken.
BoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3951 times:
Quoting Ebbuk (Reply 13): Also looking at it from your angle is the 787-10 a "de facto cancellation"? I seem to recall Boeing using the very same terminology "a question of when not if"
I guess by that logic the A350XWB has been cancelled too.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7462 posts, RR: 5 Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3895 times:
Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 15): I guess by that logic the A350XWB has been cancelled too.
Won't they have to officially launch the XWB before they can officially cancel it?
Shenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1701 posts, RR: 2 Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3887 times:
Good news for the program that at worst it could be pushed out to the right, rather then an out right cancellation.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 18, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3800 times:
Quoting WINGS (Reply 1): I tend to believe that Airbus will give priority to the A380 and when all issues are resolved they will continue with the A380F.
Quoting Ebbuk (Reply 13): Oh like the "de facto cancellation" of the 777LR, if I recall this bird's launch was postponed.
This is exactly what I think will happen with the A380F program - if it has not already happened, in private, leading to FX cancelling. They will postpone it for a year or two to continue work on the A388 and try and secure more orders for the A388F at a later delivery date. Once they have both, they will then resume work on the program.
Brendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4 Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3701 times:
Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 20): Speaking about project cancellations due to lack of orders, what's the deal with the 748I?
The A388F has been available for order since 2000, the 748i for only a year, there's a big difference between those two examples. There will be several orders for the 748i, just wait and see.
Poitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3669 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 16): Won't they have to officially launch the XWB before they can officially cancel it? Smile
Well, they basically did that for the A350 Mk 1, Mk2, Mk3, Mk 4 and Mk 5, and took orders (usually the same four or five airlines) so why shouldn't they do it again? Not one of the 350 variants has every been officially launched. Maybe, they will launch the plastic panelled 350 XWB. I hope they do, as it will be a successful aircraft -- not a great aircraft, but a successful one.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 18): This is exactly what I think will happen with the A380F program - if it has not already happened, in private, leading to FX cancelling. They will postpone it for a year or two to continue work on the A388 and try and secure more orders for the A388F at a later delivery date. Once they have both, they will then resume work on the program.
Right. They will one day produce a freighter design that somebody besides FX and the South American flower shippers will want, they will sell thousands, ah, hundreds, ah, dozens, ah, more than five.
Unfortunately, they have designed a freighter that is good at carrying small packages and flowers, and maybe high tech electronics from Asia and little else, plus it is limited to perhaps 10 airports that can handle it as a freighter.
The A380F in all variants is dead, including conversion of pax planes to freight because the loading gear for the second story will be too expensive. The B777 is a much better candidate for B747 freighter replacement because of that.
The rule of Zvezda Dictum applies to freighers as well as pax aircraft. A smaller aircraft with the same or even almost the same transport economics is more desirable because the additional flexability it offers enhances its yields. The B777F is selling in great numbers because airlines are realizing this. While the B748F will continue to sell in reasonable numbers, it is basically because of its front door. B744 will be converted to cargo over the next few years because they are available and will fit seamlessly into the operator's current operation, but expect even the 748 to have limited success, perhaps under a hundred, certainly under 200, because there are other smaller aircraft that can do the job efficiently. The 777 seems to be emerging as the new "large" aircraft size, suggesting that the sub 400 pax sized aircraft is now the optimal sized aircraft. Perhaps the 787 will reduce this even more, but I suspect not.
RJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3615 times:
Quoting Poitin (Reply 22): The rule of Zvezda Dictum applies to freighers as well as pax aircraft. A smaller aircraft with the same or even almost the same transport economics is more desirable because the additional flexability it offers enhances its yields.
To far a lesser extent because packages don't care about changing aircraft, nor do packages care about frequencies - the additional flexibility may often be redundant. For a package airline there's a much bigger argument for a hub & spoke system.
Granted in a case were two aircraft have the same transport cost you can't lose out with the smaller aircraft. But are the 777's transportation cost really that compelling for a package airline vs the A380? (non rhetorical)
Quoting Poitin (Reply 22): The A380F in all variants is dead, including conversion of pax planes to freight because the loading gear for the second story will be too expensive
I can't see your logic. For a long time airlines seemed intent on operating A380Fs when it appeared there would only be 25 in the world. When potentially 100+ become avaliable why is infrastructure suddenly a problem? Please tell me if i'm overlooking something.
Quoting Poitin (Reply 22): A smaller aircraft with the same or even almost the same transport economics is more desirable because the additional flexability it offers enhances its yields. The B777F is selling in great numbers because airlines are realizing this. While the B748F will continue to sell in reasonable numbers, it is basically because of its front door.
Early figures show though that the 748F's firm orders have almost double the 777F's despite being offered for a shorter amount of time. Also, 747F sales have little to do with the front door, moreso, it's simply an a excellent freighter.
PolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3 Reply 23, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3590 times:
Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 20): Do not forget that the A388F with its higher MTOW will probably form the basis for the A388R and maybe the A389, so cancelling won't benefit Airbus.
I bet airbus can still launch A388R and A389 without having a basis of A388F. If it can't sell then it can't sell. Why would you build something that doesn't sell. If by the time B748I has to start building, Boeing cannot secure any airline launch order, I expect them not to build one.
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4181 posts, RR: 30 Reply 24, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3515 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 10): I don't see how it can make any sense at all to go forward with development of the freighter version at the present time, against only - what is it? - about 15 firm orders.
It makes perfect sense...when your de facto sponsors are the state. If there ever was proof that government initiatives (make no mistake: Airbus is in its most basic form a government sponsored initiative) ultimately have a down side, this is it. State money has a way of bucking market trends.
Quoting Ebbuk (Reply 13): Also looking at it from your angle is the 787-10 a "de facto cancellation"? I seem to recall Boeing using the very same terminology "a question of when not if"
The difference here is the 388F has been launched and marketed and has received orders from customers that are awaiting delivery. The 787-10 has not been launched and does not have any orders.
Bend Over - Here Comes The Change.
25 Baron95: With fuel prices the way they are there will be a lot more "new" freigthers being ordered, instead of the over reliance on worn out conversions. Also,
26 NAV20: RedFlyer, I suspect that the US Government/Boeing have rather 'cut the governments off at the pass' by re-filing their complaint at the WTO. As I und
27 Stitch: Which may not be the problem many believe it to be since those operators will be using the A388F's range to bypass the connecting airports. FX would
28 PanHAM: ....which can use all the existing infrastructure available at many airports around the world. Contrary to that, the highloader for the 747F cannot w
29 Leelaw: Now that Mr. Leahy has at least tacitly admitted that the composite hull Rubicon has been crossed, it seems unlikely that any aircraft currently in p
30 PanHAM: ............except for the 380. The choice for Airbus is to continue with the usual improvements which might include some more parts made of composit
31 RJ111: Ok, but what's your point? I know the specs of the aircraft and i know the A380 is only possibly good for package airlines. FX said 'yes' to the deli
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 3987 posts, 
From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 989 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Greece, joined May 2005, 719 posts, 
From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
