boeingbus
Posts: 1509
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 12:37 am

Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Wed May 10, 2006 9:54 pm

http://www.boeing.com/randy/archives/2006/05/weight_another.html

A.Net is mentioned once more...

Cheers,

Ric

[Edited 2006-05-10 14:54:56]
Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
 
leelaw
Posts: 4520
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs

Wed May 10, 2006 10:01 pm

Yet another hommage to A.net:

"...Regardless, this was yet another lively topic on aviation forums such as Airliners.net..."
Lex Ancilla Justitiae
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Wed May 10, 2006 10:22 pm

I first thought you were reciting Randy's first freighter blog.

With rising fuel costs, the key item in air freight is costs per ton actually carried so revenue tons in both direction has to be considered. The extra dead weight of the A380F is not important in itself, but generally the heavier plane will cost more to fly. I think a huge item is the added landing fees due to the higher MTOW (or zero fuel weight depending on the airport).

Has anyone else noted that EK has quietly shifted its two A380F's to passenger A388's with Airbus.
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Wed May 10, 2006 10:27 pm

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 2):
The extra dead weight of the A380F is not important in itself,

I disagree. It's got to be hauled around every day and doesn't pay its way with revenue. If it isn't payload it costs you money you have to get by raising prices somewhere or taking less profit. So yes, it's of critical importance.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
User avatar
sebolino
Posts: 3495
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Wed May 10, 2006 11:12 pm

Hi Randy, obviously you are a regular A.net reader. Could you please cite me in your next blog ?  Smile  Smile

Anyway, things are getting weird. I hope we won't see the usual A vs B battles ending in a raging Randy's blog against Airbus. I'm not expecting him to say positive things about Airbus, but the competition should stay ... competition and not turn into a kind of words war.
It would be normal to say "Our product is better", but saying "The A380 still makes a very inefficient freighter." sounds strange to me (true or not).
I doubt my company (Alcatel) would say "The Cisco system xxx is pure shit".

I remember Leahy being invited by Boeing to visit the 777 interior to show him that it is larger than the A340. It was perhaps not extremely nice, but it was funny and he looked amused.

I wonder if 2 companies have ever been in such a big competition before.
 
gkirk
Posts: 23347
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Wed May 10, 2006 11:15 pm

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 4):

I remember Leahy being invited by Boeing to visit the 777 interior to show him that it is larger than the A340. It was perhaps not extremely nice, but it was funny and he looked amused.

Don't know if that was the reason for it, but I remember Airbus officials also showing Boeing officials around the WhaleJet  duck  at the Paris Air Show last year
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13470
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Wed May 10, 2006 11:26 pm

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 5):
Don't know if that was the reason for it, but I remember Airbus officials also showing Boeing officials around the WhaleJet

Yes it was a case of "show me yours and I'll show you mine!"
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
Ken777
Posts: 9061
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Wed May 10, 2006 11:28 pm

Backhaul is a concept that I really didn't consider when thinking about the 748 and 380 as freighters - but then I'm not in the freight business. While it might not be a significant factor for some companies I can see it being a huge factor for others. I think I'll have to pay Randy on that one.
 
TPEcanuck
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:24 pm

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Wed May 10, 2006 11:37 pm

The propaganda element of Randy is sublime!

By stroking our backs and letting us know he reads the forums, he drives even more traffic of aviation curious/knowledgable people to his blog, and his articulate point of view!


Hi Sebolino!
"The A380 still makes a very inefficient freighter." sounds strange to me (true or not).
I doubt my company (Alcatel) would say "The Cisco system xxx is pure shit".

I whole-heartedly agree with you that Alcatel wouldn't say that! And I think a "very inefficient freighter" is way way way different from "pure shit"!! Don't you think? That's not AvB...it's an contentious observation, supported by his writing, that articulates a key difference in one aspect of the comparative benefits of the 747-8 programme versus the 380.

Impressive, and great reading! Thanks for sharing!

[Edited 2006-05-10 16:41:41]
 
richm
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:21 pm

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Wed May 10, 2006 11:45 pm

You gotta credit Randy for doing that. I'm sure Airbus wouldn't have even given a response unless you had several million pounds in your back pocket.  Smile
 
Aither
Posts: 995
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Wed May 10, 2006 11:55 pm

It’s all about the payload density. And the trend is to lower payload density. Even with higher payload density the A380 can adapt the layout so it remains competitive.

In addition he has a lousy comment about hubs: Airbus always proposed products to fly longer and avoid for instance hubs like Anchorage (a still large freight hub). Airbus however does not believe on hundreds of long haul new door-to-door routes.
Never trust the obvious
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Wed May 10, 2006 11:59 pm

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 5):
Don't know if that was the reason for it, but I remember Airbus officials also showing Boeing officials around the WhaleJet at the Paris Air Show last year

Whale? Dude, that name has always been associated with the 747 since it's inception back in the early 70's - find a new moniker for the A380: Madam Obesity sounds fitting to me.
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 12:06 am

Quoting Aither (Reply 11):
It's all about the payload density. And the trend is to lower payload density. Even with higher payload density the A380 can adapt the layout so it remains competitive.

HUH!  Wow!

It's all about payload and how much it costs for you to move it. You get paid for the weight you move from point A to B. No one cares if you stop off in ANC for a tank of gas and a cup of coffee. The freight in the back doesn't care, the shippers don't care. The only place the A380F has an real advantage over the 748F is in volume, which is meaningful to only FED EX and UPS and a few others who have exceptionally low payload density like Christmas Gifts and Aunt Mary's box of cookies.

On the other hand the 748F can take higher density loads, larger sized loads and has a lot less dead weight to carry around.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
gkirk
Posts: 23347
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 12:11 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
Whale? Dude, that name has always been associated with the 747 since it's inception back in the early 70's - find a new moniker for the A380: Madam Obesity sounds fitting to me.

B747 = Jumbo Jet
A380 = WhaleJet
 Wink
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9926
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 12:34 am

[Sarcasm]

Hey Randy,

Did you know that the A380F will carry more payload mass than any commercial freight aircraft that is being produced by Boeing, over any sector length.

Did you know that the A380F will carry more payload volume than any commercial freight aircraft that is being produced by Boeing, over any sector length.

The definition of an inefficient freighter is when your new twin engined freighter you offer carries more than your quad freighter over longer sector lengths.

The definition of an even more inefficient freighter is when your older 747-200F costs TWICE as much per kg to move freight than the A380F.

Oh dear Randy, what are you going to do, your OLD 747-400F production line is coming to an END, why Randy ? is that one also inefficient ?

Nice to see your worried about the A380 Randy. A man like yourself must get paid a fair chunk of change per hour, and to spend so much of your valuable time conjuring up carefully crafted statements which as you know are not 100% correct must really eat you.

Nice one Randy, guess you have just pointed people to check out the A380F capabilities, you can check them out also, see http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam...ies/a380/a380f/specifications.html .

Thank you

 Smile

P.S. Did you know the one Airbus has is bigger than yours, no peeking now in the bathroom, that's just not polite.

[/Sarcasm]
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
slz396
Posts: 1883
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 7:01 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 12:35 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 13):
The only place the A380F has an real advantage over the 748F is in volume, which is meaningful to only FED EX and UPS and a few others who have exceptionally low payload density like Christmas Gifts and Aunt Mary's box of cookies.

I was under the impression this has aways been the main group of customers for which this plane was conceived in the first place, so attacking it on elements irrelevant for its intended market segment sound intellectually unfair to me?
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 12:35 am

Like it or not, amusing or otherwise, Randy is addressing the public's (A.Net included) perception of the 747 vs. the A380.

I just wish Airbus had a similar blog so that we don't have to listen to...

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 10):
the "Fuhrerbunker" crowd from "Planet Airbus."

And if Airbus ever did come out with a blog, they will hopefully put someone other than Mouth Leahy in the writer's seat.
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
User avatar
sebolino
Posts: 3495
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 12:38 am

Quoting TPEcanuck (Reply 8):
That's not AvB...it's an contentious observation, supported by his writing, that articulates a key difference in one aspect of the comparative benefits of the 747-8 programme versus the 380.

Actually, I don't really agree.
He doesn't say the A380F is not as good as the 748 (which doesn't exist yet), he says it is a very inefficient freighter. The difference is huge.
If it's inefficient, I wonder why it has been even considered by UPS for example, instead of the 747-400F. Perhaps this one is even worse, and a terribly poor freighter ?
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2468
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 12:43 am

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 2):
Has anyone else noted that EK has quietly shifted its two A380F's to passenger A388's with Airbus.

Indeed, I just noticed that this morning, actually.

It's certainly interesting, as I was told about a week ago that a different 380F customer is going to "jump ship" fairly soon.

Quoting Aither (Reply 11):
And the trend is to lower payload density.

Source?


Regards,

Hamlet69
Honor the warriors, not the war.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9926
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 12:43 am

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 14):
B747 = Jumbo Jet
A380 = WhaleJet

You need to get out more man, the 747 first was known as the dumbojet, then whale (as it was a white elephant when Pan Am had to ground them due to technical reasons), then jumbo...and other names The Valiant, Upstairs and Downstairs, Lump....source http://www.b737.org.uk/aircraftnicknames.htm

Can you have a little respect for other users here, and call each product by their correct manufacturer assigned names.

Feel free to privately call them whatever you want, however on here it would be great to respect other readers.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
JRadier
Posts: 3943
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:36 pm

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 12:47 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 13):
The only place the A380F has an real advantage over the 748F is in volume, which is meaningful to only FED EX and UPS and a few others who have exceptionally low payload density like Christmas Gifts and Aunt Mary's box of cookies.

May I add in with flowers? They are pretty bulky, but not that heavy.
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 1:02 am

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 18):
He doesn't say the A380F is not as good as the 748 (which doesn't exist yet)

Last time I checked, there are no 380Fs flying the skies and the 748F EIS will likely be around the same time at this point.

With numerous 744Fs flying around, the 748F is closer to existing in the real world, and there is less mystery about what the 748F will or won't achieve and how customers will use it, with 30 years of family history as a guide.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13998
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs

Thu May 11, 2006 1:22 am

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 1):
Yet another hommage to A.net:

Not just a hommage, but also a link to:
Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F (by SNATH Apr 27 2006 in Civil Aviation)

as well!

I enjoy Randy's blog, and would also enjoy a simlar blog from an Airbus employee as well.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
Oykie
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 1:36 am

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 4):
Hi Randy, obviously you are a regular A.net reader. Could you please cite me in your next blog ?

You sound like the kids at the school I work for  Wink Yesterday I put a kid on top of a closet for fun, and of course when I brought the kid back down everybody asked if they could be next. I think I needed to put 10 kids on top of that closet before everyone was satisfied.  Smile

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 4):
Anyway, things are getting weird. I hope we won't see the usual A vs B battles ending in a raging Randy's blog against Airbus. I'm not expecting him to say positive things about Airbus, but the competition should stay ... competition and not turn into a kind of words war.

I don't have any problem with Randy quoting Airliners.net and since you mention competition, I would love to see some executives from Airbus discussing topics on Airliners.net in an official matter. Johan must be proud.

Quoting Aither (Reply 11):
It's all about the payload density. And the trend is to lower payload density. Even with higher payload density the A380 can adapt the layout so it remains competitive.

In addition he has a lousy comment about hubs: Airbus always proposed products to fly longer and avoid for instance hubs like Anchorage (a still large freight hub). Airbus however does not believe on hundreds of long haul new door-to-door routes.



Quoting Poitin (Reply 13):
HUH!

It's all about payload and how much it costs for you to move it. You get paid for the weight you move from point A to B. No one cares if you stop off in ANC for a tank of gas and a cup of coffee. The freight in the back doesn't care, the shippers don't care. The only place the A380F has an real advantage over the 748F is in volume, which is meaningful to only FED EX and UPS and a few others who have exceptionally low payload density like Christmas Gifts and Aunt Mary's box of cookies.

On the other hand the 748F can take higher density loads, larger sized loads and has a lot less dead weight to carry around.

Companies like DHL, FedEx, UPS and TNT have a large share of the air freight market. I do not know how much of the airfreight market is volume restricted, or how much is weight restricted. But I know allot of the Air Express shipments are electronics, medicine. These kind of shipments do not weigh that much, but you need allot of very light material in great quantities (Yes, I do not have the English term for what is is called) to protect the shipment

When I worked for DHL we used a formula to check if we should charge for volume in stead of weight. So if anyone of you could provide me with the volume of the A380F inside and the 747-8 inside we can probably find out exactly what kind of missions where the A380 can beat the 747-8.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs

Thu May 11, 2006 2:12 am

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 24):
Companies like DHL, FedEx, UPS and TNT have a large share of the air freight market. I do not know how much of the airfreight market is volume restricted, or how much is weight restricted. But I know allot of the Air Express shipments are electronics, medicine. These kind of shipments do not weigh that much, but you need allot of very light material in great quantities (Yes, I do not have the English term for what is is called) to protect the shipment

What you call air freight (DHL, FED EX, UPS, and TNT) is air packages. Not what people like Cargolux do. I think you will find that there is a very large segment of air freight that the package people don't handle. Such things as live stock, automobiles, machine tools, and such are what I would consider air freight, and the bulk of that is on various 747 models and conversion pax planes like the MD-11, which can handle bulky shipments.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 24):
When I worked for DHL we used a formula to check if we should charge for volume in stead of weight. So if anyone of you could provide me with the volume of the A380F inside and the 747-8 inside we can probably find out exactly what kind of missions where the A380 can beat the 747-8.

The A380 is an excellent choice for UPS, Fed Ex and DHL as it has a larger volume and is ideal for high value, low density (the term you were looking for) shipments. That is why UPS and Fed Ex each bought 10 of them.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
sparkingwave
Posts: 563
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:01 pm

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 2:14 am

Cargo carriers seem to behave differently than passenger airlines when it comes to buying airplanes. First of all, they don't seem to mind buying older, used aircraft. They also seem to like to convert passenger aircraft to freighters more than buying new cargo planes outright.

There are several cargo lines that still use 747-200s for freight, even though these planes probably guzzle kerosene and have high maintenance costs. There seems to be no hurry to phase these planes out.

The A380 has its merits, but you've got to hand it to Randy who can skillfully argue a case for the 747 as a tenacious competitor to the 'Bus, even though the jumbo has been in the air for over 35 years. Boeing doesn't have to invest in a new clean-sheet design to give the A380 a run for its money. With 35 years experience and over a thousand planes sold, that also speaks volumes about the 747, an aircraft with a solid track record.

The A380F at this point is unproven and will have a long uphill battle to be a sales success, because it will be fighting the 747-8F on the front end as well as all the used converted (and cheaper) 747-400s on the back end.

SparkingWave ~~~
Flights to the moon and all major space stations. At Pan Am, the sky is no longer the limit!
 
boeingbus
Posts: 1509
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 12:37 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 2:21 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 25):
The A380 is an excellent choice for UPS

Do you think it was really an excellent choice or do you think they really didn't want any more A300 and this is the next best thing?

A380 is going to be a much better passenger plan than a freighter.... EK figured this out and backed out.... You don't build a freighter for just UPS, FED EX and DHL...

Boeing will continue to rule the freighter market and there are no IFs, BUTs, or ANDs about that...
Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
 
boeingbus
Posts: 1509
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 12:37 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 2:29 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 25):
The A380 is an excellent choice for UPS

Do you think it was really an excellent choice or do you think they really didn't want any more A300 and this is the next best thing?

A380 is going to be a much better passenger plan than a freighter.... EK figured this out and backed out.... You don't build a freighter for just UPS, FED EX and DHL...

Boeing will continue to rule the freighter market and there are no IFs, BUTs, or ANDs about that...
Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
 
kaneporta1
Posts: 710
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:22 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 2:33 am

Quoting SparkingWave (Reply 26):
The A380F at this point is unproven and will have a long uphill battle to be a sales success, because it will be fighting the 747-8F on the front end as well as all the used converted (and cheaper) 747-400s on the back end.

The 747-8 is 'point proven'??? Don't think so.

Our beloved Randy also forgets that this is the initial A388F version, the plane is designed with MTOW provisions above 600t. On the other hand, the 748 is probably the last 747 version we'll see.
I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 2:34 am

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 18):
If it's inefficient, I wonder why it has been even considered by UPS for example

It is well suited to the small package frieght that UPS ships, but not the oversized stuff, as it lacks a nose that opens. The A-380 could not, in it's current configuration, haul a helicopter around or other oversized cargo at ANY length.
One Nation Under God
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs

Thu May 11, 2006 3:12 am

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 27):
Quoting Poitin (Reply 25):
The A380 is an excellent choice for UPS

Do you think it was really an excellent choice or do you think they really didn't want any more A300 and this is the next best thing?

A380 is going to be a much better passenger plan than a freighter.... EK figured this out and backed out.... You don't build a freighter for just UPS, FED EX and DHL...

Please be careful of confusing Air Express with Air Freight. UPS, FED EX, DHL and others are in the Air Express package business. These are small relatively low density packages, with a high value someone wants to get somewhere fast and is willing to pay. The A380 offers three decks of pallet space, which will allow FED EX and UPS to turn the airplane around quickly because they can unload from all three decks at the same time. The A380F is an ideal UPS / FED EX delivery wagon. The only thing better for FED EX and UPS than the A380-800F would be the larger volume A380-900F or A380-1000F, should they be built.

As for "You don't build a freighter for just UPS, FED EX and DHL", you would think so. But that appears what Airbus has done. Maybe ILCO has someone like DHL lined up for their five, but I don't see too many more A380F being sold except in the air express business or maybe very high value electronics shipment business. That means that the A380F's competition is NOT the 748F, but the MD-11 pax conversions as well as 742, 743 and 744 pax conversions which are much cheaper to obtain than the A380F. The B748F will sell in small but reasonable numbers to people like Cargolux who need that front door.

Then there are the A380-800 pax conversions. That should start in ten years, and I suspect both Fed Ex and UPS will buy them up for that.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
mham001
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 3:28 am

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 18):
If it's inefficient, I wonder why it has been even considered by UPS for example, instead of the 747-400F. Perhaps this one is even worse, and a terribly poor freighter ?

There are rumours from the brown company that they are about to cancel their orders. Just a rumour from an employee- but they say the 380F program is in disarray and UPS is fed-up.
 
ScottB
Posts: 5454
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 3:45 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 15):

Hey Zeke,

Did you know that the A380F will carry more structural weight than any commercial freight aircraft that is being produced by Boeing, over any sector length.

Did you know that the A380F will use more fuel than any commercial freight aircraft that is being produced by Boeing, over any sector length.

Did you know that the A380F will pay higher landing fees than any commercial freight aircraft that is being produced by Boeing, over any sector length.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 15):
The definition of an inefficient freighter is when your new twin engined freighter you offer carries more than your quad freighter over longer sector lengths.

Really? I guess only on Planet Airbus is 133.9t < 103t. Or is it that 114t < 103t?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 15):
Oh dear Randy, what are you going to do, your OLD 747-400F production line is coming to an END, why Randy ? is that one also inefficient ?

Ummmm build 747-8's on it instead? How's the demand for the A340 been looking the past couple of years? Perhaps you'll have more room to trash the 747 when the total number of A380 orders eclipses the 247 747 Freighters ordered?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 15):
Nice to see your worried about the A380 Randy.

Nice to see your lack of understanding of the difference between you're and your. And would you care to comment on the fact that in the span of five years, Airbus has managed to sign a whopping seven more orders for the A380-800F than Boeing has for the 747-8F in the space of six months?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 15):
P.S. Did you know the one Airbus has is bigger than yours, no peeking now in the bathroom, that's just not polite.

Did you know that Star Jones is bigger than Angelina Jolie? I guess we know you prefer bigger! Or is it just on men that you prefer bigger?
 
hb88
Posts: 760
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:25 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs

Thu May 11, 2006 4:10 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 23):
I enjoy Randy's blog, and would also enjoy a simlar blog from an Airbus employee as well.

It would be interesting indeed. One issue might be in what language would it be given that the majority of Airbus employees don't have english as their mother tongue.

I think these discussions about Randys blog goes raised the issue of what industry blogs like his actually mean.

If they're written by direct employees, as Randys is, they run a very fine line between being interesting reading and simply being another marketing channel - a corporate bullhorn masquerading as some type of editorial opinion.

This issue has been around for quite a while in IT:
See
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/07/1535257 on stealth marketing via industry 'blogs' and

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/01/2159256 on more interesting unmoderated employee blogs.

Alas Randys blog (to me anyway) clearly falls into the first camp given his position in Boeing. Not that its not interesting reading, but it *is* marketing, pure and simple. It's a very effective, fast and reactive way for Boeing to comment 'informally' on industry issues.
 
JRadier
Posts: 3943
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:36 pm

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 4:18 am

Quoting ScottB (Reply 32):
Did you know that the A380F will carry more structural weight than any commercial freight aircraft that is being produced by Boeing, over any sector length.

Did you know that the A380F will use more fuel than any commercial freight aircraft that is being produced by Boeing, over any sector length.

Did you know that the A380F will pay higher landing fees than any commercial freight aircraft that is being produced by Boeing, over any sector length.

Talking about taking sides. Ever thought of the fact that the A380F can carry more freight then any commercial frieght aircraft that is produced by Boeing, over any sector length? Did you know cargo pays? Did you know that etc etc etc.

Allthough your points are all valid, they lack any serious basis in the right (economic) context.
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
 
ScottB
Posts: 5454
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 4:52 am

Quoting JRadier (Reply 34):
Talking about taking sides. Ever thought of the fact that the A380F can carry more freight then any commercial frieght aircraft that is produced by Boeing, over any sector length? Did you know cargo pays?

Of course, but it's still carrying a lot more non-revenue structural weight per kilogram, pound, ounce, or gram of cargo that's on-board over comparable stage lengths. Cargo pays, but structural weight costs you money. And it's a counterpoint to Zeke's irrelevant assertions.
 
Oykie
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 5:06 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 24):
What you call air freight (DHL, FED EX, UPS, and TNT) is air packages. Not what people like Cargolux do. I think you will find that there is a very large segment of air freight that the package people don't handle. Such things as live stock, automobiles, machine tools, and such are what I would consider air freight, and the bulk of that is on various 747 models and conversion pax planes like the MD-11, which can handle bulky shipments.

Sorry Poitin, I should have been more clear in my definition. But it does not change my point being, that I believe there market for Air Express shipments is greater than for oversized cargo like automobiles and live stock. From my understanding no automobile makers have flown automobiles on a regular basis since Cadillac did this about 20 years ago. Allot of shipments with the Air Express carriers are machine tools, electronic equipment, spare parts to almost everything and medecine. And you seem to forget that allot of Air Express carriers like DHL rent space from Air China, Korean Air, Northwest Cargo, Lufthansa Cargo and so on. It is better for DHL to rent space from another operator than to operate the flight them selves. To operate the flight them selves takes focus away from what DHL does best. Deliver packages as fast as possible. So do not underestimate the market for Air Express packages. I believe it might be greater than for regular air freight. There is a reason that Lufthansa and it's Star Alliance members uses time guaranteed deliveries in order to satisfy Air Express carriers.

Quoting Poitin (Reply 24):
The A380 is an excellent choice for UPS, Fed Ex and DHL as it has a larger volume and is ideal for high value, low density (the term you were looking for) shipments. That is why UPS and Fed Ex each bought 10 of them.

Exactly my point.  Smile

Quoting SparkingWave (Reply 25):
Cargo carriers seem to behave differently than passenger airlines when it comes to buying airplanes. First of all, they don't seem to mind buying older, used aircraft. They also seem to like to convert passenger aircraft to freighters more than buying new cargo planes outright.

This is due to how they operate the planes. The plane lands at the destination airport in the morning. The packages are distributed thru out the region and delivedered to the customer. In the afternoon the packeges are picked up and by night the plane flies back into the HUB. The planes are unloaded and reloaded. This means that they do not use their planes as much, and so the cost of owning the plane is more important than the cost of operating them.

Quoting SparkingWave (Reply 25):
There are several cargo lines that still use 747-200s for freight, even though these planes probably guzzle kerosene and have high maintenance costs. There seems to be no hurry to phase these planes out.

Se my reply above. But I have heard that UPS utilizes their planes to a greater extention than DHL.

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 26):
A380 is going to be a much better passenger plan than a freighter.... EK figured this out and backed out.... You don't build a freighter for just UPS, FED EX and DHL...

Maybe not, but perhaps for some of the airlines that operates on behalf of the Air Express operator.

Quoting Poitin (Reply 30):
As for "You don't build a freighter for just UPS, FED EX and DHL", you would think so. But that appears what Airbus has done. Maybe ILCO has someone like DHL lined up for their five, but I don't see too many more A380F being sold except in the air express business or maybe very high value electronics shipment business. That means that the A380F's competition is NOT the 748F, but the MD-11 pax conversions as well as 742, 743 and 744 pax conversions which are much cheaper to obtain than the A380F. The B748F will sell in small but reasonable numbers to people like Cargolux who need that front door.

Then there are the A380-800 pax conversions. That should start in ten years, and I suspect both Fed Ex and UPS will buy them up for that.

 checkmark  Nicely said. I think that there is a bigger market for conversions than for newly built. But still Air Express companies like UPS buys new planes now and then, and so does FedEx and even TNT has bought russian planes. DHL on the other hand prefers older models to a greater extent than their competitors.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
DLKAPA
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:37 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 5:24 am

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 23):
When I worked for DHL we used a formula to check if we should charge for volume in stead of weight. So if anyone of you could provide me with the volume of the A380F inside and the 747-8 inside we can probably find out exactly what kind of missions where the A380 can beat the 747-8.

A massive toilet paper shipment from London to New York.
And all at once the crowd begins to sing: Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same
 
JRadier
Posts: 3943
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:36 pm

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 5:49 am

Quoting ScottB (Reply 35):
Of course, but it's still carrying a lot more non-revenue structural weight per kilogram, pound, ounce, or gram of cargo that's on-board over comparable stage lengths. Cargo pays, but structural weight costs you money. And it's a counterpoint to Zeke's irrelevant assertions.

I agree with that, but my main point was to show you that allthough the claims are factually correct, they itself hold little value when the context is included.
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
 
Aither
Posts: 995
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 6:01 am

Anyway, seeing Randy insisting so much on the freighter version tells one thing : they have little to offer to compete effectively against the pax version of the A380.
Never trust the obvious
 
Oykie
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 6:11 am

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 37):
Quoting OyKIE (Reply 23):
When I worked for DHL we used a formula to check if we should charge for volume in stead of weight. So if anyone of you could provide me with the volume of the A380F inside and the 747-8 inside we can probably find out exactly what kind of missions where the A380 can beat the 747-8.

A massive toilet paper shipment from London to New York.

 rotfl 

Quoting Aither (Reply 39):
Anyway, seeing Randy insisting so much on the freighter version tells one thing : they have little to offer to compete effectively against the pax version of the A380.

Good observation, but according to Boeing they expects the Freighter to get the most orders for the Freighter from the start and then later on they will almost split 50/50.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 6:30 am

I respect Randy for walking the edge with his blog, not to mention the interesting inside facts / graphics he produces.

However marketing guys know that what you leave out of a story is often most telling. You don´t have to deny or lie for that.

This might be the case for the 748 / 388 payload range blog.

I plotted 5600nm (A380F) and 4500nm (748) ranges from Shanghai, in the middle of the Chinese "Gold Coast"



Looking at the picture it becomes clear those extra 1100nm are crusial ones. They basicly help airlines avoid a stop with all the landing costs / time/ fuel /utlization /maintenance cyclus/extra crew / slot issues that come with it.

IMO for connecting Western Europe, Northern US and China with full cargo ships the 1100nm range difference between the A388 & 748 range is a crusial one.

Trade-off´s in payload / range for individual flights don´t change this.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 6:44 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 41):
Looking at the picture it becomes clear those extra 1100nm are crusial ones.

Doesn't look like your plotting takes into consideration prevailing winds, which would distort the nice even range curves your picture shows. Also, are your imaginary flight paths in a straight line or curved to take advantage of the curvature of the Earth's surface?

In any event, no one is disputing the superior range of the 380. Even the blog from Randy doesn't dispute it. What's at issue is the "efficiency" of the two freighters; specifically, the disproportionate excess weight that the 380 carries for the moderate increase in cargo it provides.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 41):
They basicly help airlines avoid a stop with all the landing costs / time/ fuel /utlization /maintenance cyclus/extra crew / slot issues that come with it.

Interesting how you never made that argument on the threads that pitted Airbus' hub-to-hub predictions against Boeings point-to-point predictions on the passenger side of the equation. Indeed, I recall one thread in particular last year where you made the argument that a stop is in fact desirable.  Wink
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
Picard
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 6:17 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs

Thu May 11, 2006 6:56 am

"Weight another minute 2"

After reading Randy's amusing but ultimately inaccurate blog the other day, "Weight another minute," about the 747-8F and the A380F, he came up with figures on how much more efficient the 747-8F was over the A380F.

First of all a few quotes from his blog

"The A380 still makes a very inefficient freighter."

"First, let's acknowledge that the 747-8F can fly 5,600 nm too, but would then be limited to about 114 tonnes."

"Compared at that range, the A380F could potentially have 27 more tonnes of revenue payload than the 747-8."

Hmmm ok. Let me pull some strings and do some maths (switches on trusty windows calculator).

First the payload at 5600nm for the A380 is 149ton - 157ton. So:

A380F Max Payload @ 5600nm = 149ton
747-8F Max Payload @ 5600nm = 114ton

149ton - 114ton = 35ton difference or 31% difference.

"Scratches Head" how did randy get a 27 ton difference?

Second:

A380F OEW = 252ton (From Airbus Website)
747-8F OEW = 204ton (From http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...7-8+vs+A380+A+titanic+tussle.html)
- Couldn't find the 747-8F OEW on the Boeing Website but took this quote from Flight International "The 747-8’s OEW [operating empty weight] per seat is 453kg", therefore 453kg * 450 seats ~= 203.85ton or 204ton

252ton - 204ton = 48ton or 24% difference

Looking at the figures above how can Randy calculate the A380F is 74ton structurally heavier than the 747-8F? I only see 48ton?

Anyway lets summarise this. Both the A380F and 747F can fly 5600nm but the A380F can carry 31% (or 37% if I use the upper payload figure) more payload and doing this with only 24% more structural weight .

[Edited 2006-05-10 23:58:21]

[Edited 2006-05-10 23:59:08]
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11864
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 6:58 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 41):
I plotted 5600nm (A380F) and 4500nm (748) ranges from Shanghai, in the middle of the Chinese "Gold Coast"

Nice plot. I do agree the ranges need to be discounted/enhanced for prevailing winds. (e.g., China to US west coast goes with the wind. The unladden return fights the wind.) But there is a strong possibility that quite a few markets will see one fewer stop. So for UPS and Fedex where time is money... that is very important.  spin 

But with prevailing winds, neither will make it China "gold coast" to Paris without a fuel stop. The other way? Sure.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 42):
Also, are your imaginary flight paths in a straight line or curved to take advantage of the curvature of the Earth's surface?

Keesje used the great circle mapper. It plots all routes via the shortest route "great circle".

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
Glom
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 7:05 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 41):
Looking at the picture it becomes clear those extra 1100nm are crusial ones.

You must have not read the blog entry. In this case, Randy was comparing structural efficiencies when both aircraft are loaded for that range. In that case, the 748F still comes out as more structurally efficient than the A380F. It is a sound argument. Of course, the next retort is to start chasing points along the payload range chart. What is that quoted A380F range? Is that the max payload range?
 
brendows
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:55 pm

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs

Thu May 11, 2006 7:06 am

Quoting Picard (Reply 43):
747-8F OEW = 204ton
- Couldn't find the 747-8F OEW on the Boeing Website but took this quote from Flight International "The 747-8�s OEW [operating empty weight] per seat is 453kg", therefore 453kg * 450 seats ~= 203.85ton or 204ton

The OEW of the 748F is about 184,5 tonnes.
 
musapapaya
Posts: 990
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:02 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 7:14 am

Quoting TPEcanuck (Reply 8):
"The A380 still makes a very inefficient freighter." sounds strange to me (true or not).
I doubt my company (Alcatel) would say "The Cisco system xxx is pure shit".

Hello all

I love Alcatel, I hatre Cisco. I just love this one.
But whatever, I hope the A380 will be a successful story.

Best regards
Musapapya
Lufthansa Group of Airlines
 
Picard
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 6:17 am

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 7:17 am

Hi Brendows,

Where did that figure come from? Anyway so this means the A380F has 31%-37% increase in payload with 24%-37% increase in weight (depending on where you get your figures), not exactly "The A380 still makes a very inefficient freighter."
 
brendows
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:55 pm

RE: Randy's Response To A380F Having More Range Vs 748

Thu May 11, 2006 7:41 am

Quoting Picard (Reply 48):
Where did that figure come from?

Page 12 in this document:
7478brochure.pdf

And you can also find some numbers here, which also shows that the A380F will burn about 3000kg more fuel per hour than the 748F.