Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FedEX: Will Look At A380F Again  
User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4160 posts, RR: 36
Posted (7 years 2 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10378 times:

Quote:
FedEx has not ruled out completely its interest in an A380 freighter even though it canceled its $2.3 billion order for 10 last November. "Of course we will look at it again," Chairman, President and CEO Fred Smith said yesterday in Memphis. "It's a great airplane--a marvelous piece of engineering." But he said the delays besetting the program have rendered a freighter version an option for the more distant future. "Airbus had limited resources and it would have difficulty meeting customer needs and developing a freighter," he said.

Taken from ATWonline. Not so much new in it but FedEx apparently expects Airbus to revive the A380F at a later date. And it somewhat confirms the version that Airbus was more or less pushing FedEx and UPS to cancel the A380F to be able to focus on the A380 Pax.


Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAdriaticus From Mexico, joined May 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9917 times:

Well, what else is there to be said? Fred put it very clear...

FX is always open to analyzing godd business ideas. If the A380F ever gets to be attractive again, I'm sure FX will look into it again. Regardless of the A380 order cancellation, FX continues to be Airbus' single most important widebody customer.

__Ad.



A300/18/19/20/21 B721/2 B732/3/G/8 B741/2/4 B752 B762/3/4 B772/3 DC8/9/10 MD11 TU134/154 IL62/86 An24 SA340/2000 E45/90
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9889 times:

The A380/380F will likely have a 20+ year production cycle, so of course Fedex will look at it again. As will many carriers not even remotely on the 380 radar screen right now in 2007 as possible customers.


Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineFCKC From France, joined Nov 2004, 2348 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9618 times:

Perhaps it will be good for Airbus , to take time to restart a new A380F version , this time with a nose being capable to be open.
We all now this is not important for parcels carriers such as Fedex and UPS , but will be likely for other carriers , so that not let's alone the 747-8F on this segment of the market.


User currently offlineReins485 From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 1 day ago) and read 9289 times:

Quoting FCKC (Reply 3):
Perhaps it will be good for Airbus , to take time to restart a new A380F version , this time with a nose being capable to be open.

I thought part of the reason that Airbus did not put the nose door on the airplane was because the upper deck can not be removed from the plane because it is being used to strengthen the fuselage and would weaken the airframe to much.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 23 hours ago) and read 8356 times:

Quoting FCKC (Reply 3):
We all now this is not important for parcels carriers such as Fedex and UPS

...only thing is, with the A380F's payload density profile, carrying parcel was just about the only thing it was competitively suited for.

Would take a considerable amount of redesign, encompassing far more than installing a oversize-access opening, to rectify that.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6817 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 22 hours ago) and read 7802 times:

Since the only carriers who can use the A380F effectively are the package freight companies, I doubt that it will ever see the light of day. Airbus would be crazy to build it just for two customers and 20-40 frames at most. Unless more customers emerge willing to buy it should be forgotten.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineSoundtrack From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 284 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 22 hours ago) and read 7447 times:

Can anyone define 'politically correct' statement?

cheers!


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6817 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 6242 times:

Quoting Soundtrack (Reply 7):
Can anyone define 'politically correct' statement?

You have every right to your own opinion just as long as it agrees with mine.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineRIXrat From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 786 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 6171 times:

I imagine the A380 will go to the freighters for refurbishing once the current pax model becomes old and tired. I just don't see it as a medium lift model in today's time frame, unless it was stacked full of FedEx-UPS mail and small package delivery.

User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8397 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 6102 times:

Quoting Adriaticus (Reply 1):
Regardless of the A380 order cancellation, FX continues to be Airbus' single most important widebody customer.

You probably meant "most important _freight_ widebody customer."


User currently offlineBasefly From Denmark, joined Apr 2007, 198 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 19 hours ago) and read 5947 times:

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 5):
...only thing is, with the A380F's payload density profile, carrying parcel was just about the only thing it was competitively suited for.

Would take a considerable amount of redesign, encompassing far more than installing a oversize-access opening, to rectify that.

I agree with you that the A380F is ideally suited for UPS and FDX, and i am sure it will come....

Airbus have bought some time to rethink the freighter whale, and naturally both UPS and FDX will look at it again, they simply have to if you look at their business plans.



757/777-A340/A380, Love them.
User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 19 hours ago) and read 5927 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 8):
You have every right to your own opinion just as long as it agrees with mine.

That is the best one I have ever read!



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 19 hours ago) and read 5736 times:

Most here convinced themselves the 748F is a superior freighter and that was what basicly killed the A380F.

The truth is Airbus had to concentrate at the passenger variant and explained this to it´s -F customers that were / are understandebly not happy with it.

An A380F can do a transpacific return flight with 140 tons within 24 hrs at unbeatable trips costs. The 748F doesn´t come close. Fedex knows it, UPS knows it everybody knows it.



Airbus made a tough decision delaying the -F project. UPS & FEDEX rightfully are angry about it. However live goes on. Smith confirms it.


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 19 hours ago) and read 5710 times:

Coming in 2026, the A380-BCF

User currently onlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 19 hours ago) and read 5662 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 13):
Most here convinced themselves the 748F is a superior freighter and that was what basicly killed the A380F.

The truth is Airbus had to concentrate at the passenger variant and explained this to it´s -F customers that were / are understandebly not happy with it.

An A380F can do a transpacific return flight with 140 tons within 24 hrs at unbeatable trips costs. The 748F doesn´t come close. Fedex knows it, UPS knows it everybody knows it.

...really? was that the reason why only two carriers had ordered the A380F (and one canceling their order)?

...I'm sure all those cargo haulers know something more than you do... Wink



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineNWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 18 hours ago) and read 5438 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 13):
Most here convinced themselves the 748F is a superior freighter and that was what basicly killed the A380F.

Most here were convinced of the truth - the A380F as we currently know it quickly became DBA - dead before arrival - killed by none other than Airbus and their mistakes.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 13):
The truth is Airbus had to concentrate at the passenger variant

And why is that, Keesje? You know the answer, you just don't like it.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 13):
An A380F can do a transpacific return flight with 140 tons within 24 hrs at unbeatable trips costs. The 748F doesn´t come close. Fedex knows it, UPS knows it everybody knows it.

No, the A380F cannot do a transpacific return flight with 140 tons within 24 hrs at unbeatable trips costs. It doesn't exist, and unfortunately for Airbus, their early and developmental performance estimates tend to be very liberal and open for major change. Boeings tend to be more conservative and the real thing usually exceeds estimations.

Fedex and UPS knew something alright - they knew that Airbus wouldn't be able to support their demand, they knew Airbus was pulling effort away from the A380F, they knew that the A380F as it stands now is a dead end, and they made the right choice and cancelled.

Of course they'll look at it again, but don't be holding your breath for an order anytime soon. Airbus has a lot to do before reigniting the A380F.



-NWA742


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 18 hours ago) and read 5398 times:

Quote:
Of course we will look at it again,"

...in about 20 years.  Silly

Seriously, I think this is very revealing. I think it implies that it was Airbus who pushed the 380F back.  Wink



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6817 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 months 18 hours ago) and read 5347 times:

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 17):

Seriously, I think this is very revealing. I think it implies that it was Airbus who pushed the 380F back.

They would have to have been seriously demented not to; if in fact they had 1500 engineers working on it for 24 frames at its peak. Those engineers are needed far more for straightening out the A380 passenger and developing the A350.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 months 18 hours ago) and read 5232 times:

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 17):
Seriously, I think this is very revealing. I think it implies that it was Airbus who pushed the 380F back.

For those that feel more comfortable with the "A380F just ain´t good enough" story: skip this..

But the freighter version has been "delayed" until at least 2014, with 1,500 engineers shifted from freighter production to the passenger version. "Because most of the demand was on the passenger side, we wanted to focus our engineering resources on the passenger version, much to the chagrin of FedEx and UPS," Leahy said, noting that the US cargo carriers cancelled orders when informed they would not receive A380Fs until at least 2012 (ATWOnline, March 5). "We made a decision to sacrifice our freighter customers for the passenger version." http://atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=8718


User currently offline2wingtips From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 months 16 hours ago) and read 4528 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 19):
For those that feel more comfortable with the "A380F just ain´t good enough" story: skip this..

How many firm orders are there for the A380F?

When will the 380F EIS?

I guess the market for shipping flowers ain't so big!


User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2735 posts, RR: 58
Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 months 15 hours ago) and read 4226 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 19):
"Because most of the demand was on the passenger side, we wanted to focus our engineering resources on the passenger version, much to the chagrin of FedEx and UPS," Leahy said

 checkmark  You are absolutely right! Anything that begins or ends with "Leahy said" and/or "Carson said" CAN be skipped over. . .  Yeah sure


Regards,

Hamlet69  profile 



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 56
Reply 22, posted (7 years 2 months 14 hours ago) and read 3776 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 13):
Most here convinced themselves the 748F is a superior freighter and that was what basicly killed the A380F.

That does seem to be the conclusion of critical thinkers. (Nose Door Zealots need not apply.) As you probably know, I have great admiration for the A380, but the cold hard numbers, derived from the respective published specs, do suggest that the 748F is superior, at least on the basis of fuel efficiency.

Big version: Width: 899 Height: 837 File size: 33kb


Don't let this evidence get in the way of your opinion  Smile


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 months 14 hours ago) and read 3721 times:

Considering the Nose Access on the Maindeck of the A380 being restricted unlike the B747-8.Wouldn't the latter be a better choice.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineNWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 2 months 13 hours ago) and read 3616 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 19):
For those that feel more comfortable with the "A380F just ain´t good enough" story: skip this..

I'll gladly skip the crap that spews out of Leahy's mouth. Your own problem if you don't.



-NWA742


25 Burkhard : Earlier. If the current increase of parcel cargo of near to ten % per year continues, and if globalisation continues to the extreme that you order a
26 Dacman : If the A380F ever flies, Anchorage will be loaded with them making fuel stops..........................AWESOME!!!! Michael (Dacman) LAX / LGB Local
27 UPS Pilot : The Fed Ex statement is old news. Fred said that shortly after the cancelation. It isn't going to be next week when Fed Ex looks at the A380 again. I
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...
Will You See A300 Beluga At LGA Again? posted Wed Feb 19 2003 18:43:54 by H. Simpson
FedEX look at this msg. posted Tue Dec 1 1998 06:50:07 by United777
Air Asia Confirms It Will Buy At Least 15 A330-300 posted Sun May 13 2007 12:24:00 by Thorben
An Inside Look At CO's Operations Center (Video) posted Fri Apr 13 2007 22:39:44 by HighFlyer9790
AirFrance-KLM Takes A Closer Look At Martinair posted Sun Apr 1 2007 18:29:52 by 76er
An-22 At EMA - Again! posted Wed Feb 21 2007 14:27:26 by JakTrax
DL 406, LAX-BDL, Look At 1/22 posted Tue Jan 23 2007 11:10:25 by Flyboy7974
B6 Wants Right To Look At Confidential VA Info posted Mon Jan 15 2007 17:40:36 by FA4B6
Who Will Be At DTW 1-11 For BA 777? posted Wed Jan 10 2007 13:36:39 by Airlinelover
Take A Look At The New And Improved! posted Fri Dec 29 2006 06:33:58 by Zippyjet