Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16473 posts, RR: 55
Reply 2, posted (13 years 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2913 times:
This is a tricky question with many possible answers! Generally, all else being equal, larger cargo aircraft have lower per-pound operating costs.
However, the capital cost of a new A380 (as opposed to a new/used 744F/MD11F) combined with GSE, traning etc can tip the balance in favour of the smaller aircraft when you apply a reasonable ownership/depreciation or lease cost to the equation.
Fedex' rationale for the A380 (vs the 744F or addl MD-11F) was based on 3 broad premises:
1. The A380F capacity can replace 2 MD-11F while the 744F cannot. Hence their "true" operating cost comparison is 1 A380 (1 crew, 4 engines) vs 2 MD-11s (2 crew, 6 engines). While this may favour the A380 over the MD-11, it does not readily answer why the 10 ordered A380F's are a better deal than say 15 744F.
2. Extreme congestion and very limited addl slots at CDG, HKG, NRT mean that only the largest aircraft is feasible for long term growth. This argument is not strong (IMO) as Fedex tends to operate into most airports off-peak. HKG/CDG have runway capacity and NRT just opened a 2nd runway. MEM has no slot restrictions.
3. Exceptional discounts as the launch customer for the A380F.
Since the A380F will be much larger than the 744F, overall operating costs will be higher. At high load factors, the per-pound operating cost of the A380F may be higher or lower than the 744F....most likely lower when the loads are above the 744F limit (when operating the 744F would mean another flight).
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
BlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1982 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (13 years 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2876 times:
I thought FedEx was maxing the MD-11s in volume, but not in weight. The 10 foot ceiling in the 747 is nice, but only for large freight, not lots of little packages. In this case, the A380 will twice the volumetric load of an Md-11, all in one trip, and with less weight total. (two MD frames for the same load = more weight overall)
this is what I've heard at least. been wrong before
SAS23 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2824 times:
Without a nose door, the A380 is useless as an outsize freighter carrying the sort of long loads that the B747F can - and which get premium rates. Airports are going to have to invest millions in new freight handling infrastructure, and those costs are going to be passed on to A380 operators.
The A380F will carry 150 tonnes of cargo 5,260nm in range mode; and in cargo mode it can carry up to 158 tonnes just over 3,000nm. Airbus plans to offer airlines an optional 42,000 litre fuel tank that will increase range from 8,650nm to 9,650nm with a 66 tonne payload. Total volume is 1,134m3 (40,048ft3) - nearly 54% more than the B744F.
This aircraft has been designed for long range hub-to-hub traffic, and Airbus says that by 2019 50% of all cargo will be carried on such routes.
According to Airbus, the A380F costs more per trip but divided by the payload, costs 20% less on a tonne-kilometre basis.
From a personal viewpoint, having been in the cargo business for nearly 20 years, I am not convinced that cargo airlines need ultra-long range aircraft. Technical stops are not a problem for cargo, and there are very few (if any) ultra urgent shipments that would merit such treatment that are sent as cargo rather than being hand couriered.
Rather, I see an increasing trend towards frequency of service, which calls for smaller rather than larger aircraft. This is all the more evident since 9/11, when much of the world's B747 ACMI capacity has been parked.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (13 years 14 hours ago) and read 2479 times:
I read somewhere (I cannot recall where) that the efficiency of the 380 is directly proportional to the length of the route. The article cited FedEx which believes that the 380 will be able to replace 2 MD-11 from say MEM-LAX or 4 MD-11 from MEM to Philippines. This efficiency could be achieved by saving on tech stops and ...I will just look for the article.