Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Is 747-8F More Popular Than The A380F?  
User currently offlineWeirdLinguist From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 44 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5918 times:

747-8F will be replacing 747-200/300F without increasing capacity like A380F would but at the same time:
1) 747-400 pax versions are gonna be retired by many airlines next 2-3 years, some of those would be converted to F (rest grounded and/or sold to second/third tier airlines)
2) No one knows for sure whether this project will even materialize but the A380 is already flying

13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4981 posts, RR: 44
Reply 1, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5892 times:



Quoting WeirdLinguist (Thread starter):
2) No one knows for sure whether this project will even materialize but the A380 is already flying

I think that at this time the chances of the 747-8F actually flying and being delivered are quite a bit bigger than the chances of the A380F ever flying...


User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5840 times:



Quoting WeirdLinguist (Thread starter):
47-8F will be replacing 747-200/300F without increasing capacity

Where did you get that idea from?

"The stretch provides customers with 16 percent more revenue cargo volume compared to its predecessor. That translates to four additional main-deck pallets and three additional lower-hold pallets." http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=755


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 3, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5825 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 747-8F is already in production, so your second comment is just being snarky or a sign of ignorance.

The 747-8F leverages the existing infrastructure at any cargo facility in the world designed to handle earlier model 747s whereas the A380-800F requires additional infrastructure to support operations on the upper deck. The A380-800F also has different load limits on each of it's cargo decks which means pallets destined for the upper deck need to be lighter so when they're interlined with single-deck freighters either upstream or downstream, they either go out at the same light weight or they need to be re-configured, both of which lowers efficiency and economics.

For these reasons, and likely others, the "heavy cargo" market did not show sufficient interest in the A380-800F to order it.


User currently offlineSpeedBirdA380 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2008, 539 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5757 times:

Well the original A380F was cancelled and as far as I know there are no plans currently in the works to restart the A380 Freighter project.

And the 747-8F production is well under way so its no surprise the 747-8F is more popular compared to the A380 which is not even being developed......


User currently offlineUlfinator From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 314 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5701 times:

Also don't forget that the positioning of the 748 having thecockpit over the cargo area, allowing for a nose door, compared to the cockpit being in between/slightly overlapping both decks on the A380F is a bonus for carriers of over-sized cargo.

User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5693 times:

Airbus decided to set priority on the passenger aircraft delaying the F for many yrs. Customer Fedex & UPS could not except.

Since then airlines bought the 8F only because it was so good. No alternative helps too.

In the next years scores of 747-400 will be replaced and become available for conversion into pretty good cargo arcraft. Price including D check << $100mln.



If those will become popular? If current 747 cargo fleets are an indication..


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 7, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5533 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Keesje (Reply 6):
In the next years scores of 747-400 will be replaced and become available for conversion into pretty good cargo arcraft. Price including D check << $100mln.

Considering the number of 747-400 converted freighters being sent to VCV and other storage depots compared to the dedicated freighters, it appears the pax-to-freight conversions have inferior operating economics.

Either that, or everything being shipped is of a length that requires the nose-door.  angel 

Therefore, this might put a slight damper on cargo company's enthusiasm for the type since they only seem to really work when cargo demand is very strong and they can charge higher rates.


User currently offline757GB From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 676 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5500 times:

I would have to look for the information. There was a very good report on freighters not long ago which described that the pure freighter does indeed have better economics than a converted freighter. The disadvantage of course is the high initial investment on the pure freighter. I'll try to find that report because it makes very good reading...


God is The Alpha and The Omega. We come from God. We go towards God. What an Amazing Journey...
User currently offlineWeirdLinguist From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 44 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5389 times:



Quoting Khobar (Reply 2):
Where did you get that idea from?

"The stretch provides customers with 16 percent more revenue cargo volume compared to its predecessor. That translates to four additional main-deck pallets and three additional lower-hold pallets." http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.ph...m=755

Might not have been clear enough, this thread is about 380f vs 747-8f so in comparison the -8F is a smaller increase

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
The 747-8F is already in production, so your second comment is just being snarky or a sign of ignorance.

Came across this article Boeing hints at possible reassessment of 747-8 programme http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ssessment-of-747-8-programme.html, skimmed through it. It didn't specifically say the -8I so I took it to mean that the entire project could be axed.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9838 posts, RR: 96
Reply 10, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5310 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting WeirdLinguist (Thread starter):
No one knows for sure whether this project will even materialize but the A380 is already flying

This seems to be a strange comment in light of the information and pictures contained within this (current) thread...

Boeing Reveals Full Length 747-8 (by Aviationbuff Jul 21 2009 in Civil Aviation)

A 748F has already materialised. It just needs completeing, testing, and delivering....

Rgds


User currently offlineThegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5204 times:

So, would an A388 combi have worked, pax on the upper deck and cargo on the main deck? I guess I know the answer, but why not?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 12, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5128 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 11):
So, would an A388 combi have worked, pax on the upper deck and cargo on the main deck? I guess I know the answer, but why not?

I expect additional structure would have been needed to ensure that a fire on the cargo deck could not migrate into the passenger deck or prevent the heat from the fire from damaging the passenger cabin floor. You'd likely also need to isolate the passenger and cargo deck environments so smoke and toxic gases from a cargo deck fire would not infiltrate the passenger deck.


User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2312 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5105 times:



Quoting WeirdLinguist (Reply 9):
Came across this article Boeing hints at possible reassessment of 747-8 programme http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ssessment-of-747-8-programme.html, skimmed through it. It didn't specifically say the -8I so I took it to mean that the entire project could be axed.



Quoting WeirdLinguist (Thread starter):
No one knows for sure whether this project will even materialize but the A380 is already flying

Pretty lame & uninformed comments considering the plane is currently being assembled.




The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
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...
Why Is One Way More Expensive Than Round Trip? posted Tue Nov 22 2005 14:29:38 by RootsAir
Why Is One-Way More Expensive Than Return? posted Sun Nov 7 2004 22:52:23 by SQNo1
Why Is STN More Popular Than LTN? posted Sat Jun 10 2006 19:25:42 by CRJ900
Why Is The Dash8 More Popular In The Caribbean posted Wed Aug 17 2005 20:41:36 by 8B775ZQ
Environment Where The A300 Is More Efficient Than The A330? posted Mon Nov 28 2005 20:52:51 by MaverickM11
Why Is SK Not More Succesful? posted Wed May 17 2006 15:54:05 by Skyhigh
Why Didn't DL Order More T7's In The Good Old Days posted Tue Mar 28 2006 10:27:20 by Gokmengs
Why Is This Pic So Popular? posted Wed Apr 6 2005 05:42:32 by QANTASforever
Why Is It Cheaper NYC-LON Than LON-NYC? posted Fri Mar 18 2005 21:40:17 by Vs25
The 772LR 3% More Efficient Than The 772ER For LH posted Fri Aug 6 2004 21:37:44 by YUL332LX