Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Early A380s Not Built  
User currently offline96adrian From Norway, joined May 2011, 25 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 14710 times:

When I looked at an A380 production list, I noticed that there are several airframes with an early MSN which are not built.

http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Airbus/A380/index.php

I see that there are some freighters to FedEx and Emirates with MSN 37, 53 and 60, but there are also some for Malaysia with MSN 18, 24 and 32.

My question is: will we see these MSNs in the air?

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinerj777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1774 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 14639 times:

The freighters will not see the light of day (for now). The program was cancelled after FedEx & UPS cancelled their orders.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30437 posts, RR: 84
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 14544 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 96adrian (Thread starter):
My question is: will we see these MSNs in the air?

I do not believe so.

Airbus delayed MH's deliveries due to production delays, which likely explains why MSN 16, 24 and 32 were never built / Not Taken Up.

While I personally believe the A380-800F won't happen, even if at some future date should Airbus choose to offer the plane again, the positions assigned to FX (MSN 37, 53) and EK (MSN 60) will remain Not Taken Up.


User currently offlineAustrianZRH From Austria, joined Aug 2007, 1358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 14428 times:

Quoting rj777 (Reply 1):
The program was cancelled after FedEx & UPS cancelled their orders.

Now I wrote a lengthy post about how the program was not cancelled according to the Airbus website, which still counted the A38F as active type two or three months ago. Now it's gone! Does anyone know if and when such a formal cancellation of the freighter program happened?



WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30437 posts, RR: 84
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 14089 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 3):
Now it's gone! Does anyone know if and when such a formal cancellation of the freighter program happened?

As I have not seen a Press Release stating the model has been cancelled (i.e. - Airbus formally stating they will never build one), I expect it's no longer formally on offer and that is why Airbus has removed it from their website.

[Edited 2012-12-25 08:07:58]

User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 13998 times:

Quoting 96adrian (Thread starter):
My question is: will we see these MSNs in the air?

No you will not. Manufactures do not go back and use old serial numbers. They will just go down as Not Built.



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineTangomaniac From Germany, joined Feb 2012, 9 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6754 times:

The A380F is still on offer on Airbus' website. You only have to look at the freighter-pages, not on the passenger-plane pages. That has changed with the last restructuring of Airbus' website.

User currently offlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4295 posts, RR: 36
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6644 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 5):
No you will not. Manufactures do not go back and use old serial numbers. They will just go down as Not Built.

exactly. Also the 320, 300/310 and 330/340 production lists have spots open due to cancelled or delayed orders and such.

It would all be confusing to finally use these low numbers now. Technically it's possible as the 380 MSN's are not exactly built in that number following order. Say Malaysian tops up it's order, everyone would rather want them to have c/n's like 170, 185 and 202 for example, as finally filling up the low numbers 18, 24 and 32 would suggest it are already older and less able frames and people including mortgagers and brokers of aircraft would later wonder why these numbers are so low while already more then 100 are built etc.



nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6799 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6492 times:

Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 7):
It would all be confusing to finally use these low numbers now.

If line numbers are correlated to serial numbers it would cause unbelievable confusion to use those numbers. You will find AD's and service bulletins applying to serial number ranges, and to insert older serial numbers into later production would throw all of that into a cocked hat. Things move on, and if a number does not get built, so be it. Numbers are cheap; there is an endless supply of them.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineTC957 From UK - England, joined May 2012, 790 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6124 times:

What happened to MSN97 ?

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10367 posts, RR: 30
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6098 times:

Nobody knows but it probably was a freighter.


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4656 times:

Quoting rj777 (Reply 1):
The freighters will not see the light of day (for now). The program was cancelled after FedEx & UPS cancelled their orders.
Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 3):
Now I wrote a lengthy post about how the program was not cancelled according to the Airbus website, which still counted the A38F as active type two or three months ago. Now it's gone! Does anyone know if and when such a formal cancellation of the freighter program happened?
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
As I have not seen a Press Release stating the model has been cancelled (i.e. - Airbus formally stating they will never build one), I expect it's no longer formally on offer and that is why Airbus has removed it from their website.

UPS waited until after Airbus "delayed" the A-380F program to cancel their order, which was originally a conversion from their A-300-600F order. So, UPS got their deposits back. They then ordered 8 new build B-747-400Fs from Boeing.

FedEx did cancel their A-380-800F order, as did EK, before the program was officially delayed to try to catch up on the pax model.

But, I believe that within the last few months Airbus quitly changed the staus of the A-380F model from "delayed" to "canceled".


User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2676 posts, RR: 25
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3877 times:

Someone from XFW explained me that they had already started to work on the detailled design for outfitting , e.g. for MSN 018. So there are already specific design features for a wave 1-MH-380 "in the system". If they now would use MSN 018 again all these specific design features would popp up again, which is of course not helpful and that's why they Don't use these old numbers.

User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8254 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3223 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What about the Virgin Atlantic birds, they ordered 6 A380 way back in 2000. They should have been flying by now. Seems unlikely VA will ever fly them, seems that A350 are more likely at VA.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30437 posts, RR: 84
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3173 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 13):
What about the Virgin Atlantic birds, they ordered 6 A380 way back in 2000. They should have been flying by now.

VS continues to defer their delivery.


User currently offlineFI642 From Monaco, joined Mar 2005, 1079 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2691 times:

Once an MSN is skipped, it normally remains that way. I cannot imagine Airbus going back to skipped numbers and using them. Several reasons for this, One the number was assigned to a specific customer, and two, it makes the frame look older. Remember NW wanting the DC-10-20 changed to the DC-10-40 because it made it look like the latest greatest thing? Same here.


737MAX, Cool Planes for the Worlds Coolest Airline.
User currently onlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 56
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2521 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
But, I believe that within the last few months Airbus quitly changed the staus of the A-380F model from "delayed" to "canceled".

If that were indeed the case, why would they not remove it from their newly redesigned website?


User currently offlinebreiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1914 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2245 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Airbus delayed MH's deliveries due to production delays, which likely explains why MSN 16, 24 and 32 were never built / Not Taken Up.


MSN 16 was allocated to Emirates from scratch and delivered in May 2008. You are referring to MSN 18.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 12):
If they now would use MSN 018 again all these specific design features would popp up again, which is of course not helpful and that's why they Don't use these old numbers.


The parts planned for MSN 18 are said to have been re-used for MSN 45, delivered to Emirates in September 2009.


User currently offlineUnflug From Germany, joined Jan 2012, 430 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1789 times:

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 12):
Someone from XFW explained me that they had already started to work on the detailled design for outfitting , e.g. for MSN 018. So there are already specific design features for a wave 1-MH-380 "in the system". If they now would use MSN 018 again all these specific design features would popp up again, which is of course not helpful and that's why they Don't use these old numbers.

That makes sense.

They'll only use the missed low numbers after they have run out of larger numbers, which won't happen that soon  


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...
767 LN 718 - Why Not Built? posted Fri Feb 19 2010 01:35:44 by FlyCaledonian
Early Replacement And Not Retirement Of Fleet Type posted Tue Nov 18 2008 08:36:57 by Olympic472
What If The A380 Had NOT Been Built posted Sat Nov 19 2005 22:59:17 by BoomBoom
Not Offical: 7E7 Will Be Built In Seattle posted Fri Dec 12 2003 11:28:19 by United777
UAL Not To Emerge From Chapt 11 Early posted Fri Aug 29 2003 20:53:34 by Artsyman
TP NOT To Be Sold To Gérman Efromovich posted Thu Dec 20 2012 06:54:21 by PhotoLPPT
Any Information About Skybus? (Early 90's) posted Wed Dec 19 2012 00:58:36 by B737-112
How Long Before TG & MH Send Their A380s To LAX? posted Sun Dec 16 2012 04:56:46 by g500
How Come BA Or QF Are Not Using The B777-200LR? posted Sat Dec 15 2012 04:56:44 by mitris
Air Canada At CDG - Why Not T1? posted Fri Dec 14 2012 10:24:46 by CO764