Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
SNATH
Topic Author
Posts: 3049
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:23 am

Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:43 am

 
airfrnt
Posts: 2181
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:05 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:54 am

Freight isn't the A380s primary mission. It was originally the 747's primary mission. Hence the 747 is (still) optimized for freight, including cockpit location, bulk loading doors up front and lower structural weight.

Not too suprising.
 
jonathan-l
Posts: 394
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 4:20 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:08 am

Randy Baseler very conveniently leaves out the 1,400nm A380F range advantage versus the 747-8F.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7439
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:11 am

I'm guessing Randy's figures don't necessarily mean a lot, as the A380F carries its maximum load 25% further than the 747-8F carries its maximum load.
IIRC at 5000Nm, the 747-8F max. load is down to 113t gross - a bit more representative comparison to the 150t gross carried by the A380F at that range.

Effectively, these planes don't even compete in the same market.
A

[Edited 2006-04-27 18:13:31]
 
Tifoso
Posts: 432
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:15 pm

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:15 am

Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 2):
Randy Baseler very conveniently leaves out the 1,400nm A380F range advantage versus the 747-8F.



It was just so obvious from reading Randy's entry.

Lots of information about how much the 748F can carry, nothing about the distances that it can carry this payload.

Regards

[Edited 2006-04-27 18:17:16]
 
klmcedric
Posts: 696
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 11:19 pm

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:18 am

Oh boy, this is gonna be a good one again. At least it has all the potential for
it!!!
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6027
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:19 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 3):
I'm guessing Randy's figures don't necessarily mean a lot, as the A380F carries its maximum load 25% further than the 747-8F carries its maximum load.
IIRC at 5000Nm, the 747-8F max. load is down to 113t gross - a bit more representative comparison to the 150t gross carried by the A380F at that range.

That's fine and dandy, but the 777 Freighter carries a whole lotta load (similar density to 747-8F) about as far as the A380F.
 
trevd
Posts: 338
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 1:51 pm

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:24 am

Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 2):
Randy Baseler very conveniently leaves out the 1,400nm A380F range advantage versus the 747-8F.

Randy's comments seem to address structural efficiency, not payload range. And you also conveniently leave out the fact that the 1,400nm so-called range advantage is solely in design range, where any benefit to the A380F is limited to 8 lbs/cu ft. Not the 10 lbs/cu ft that every other main-deck freighter seems able to carry.

Already the 747-8F has out-sold the A380F to network freight carriers. The only useful role the A380F seems to have is as a low-density package carrier for the express carriers like FedEx and UPS who can benefit from the sole advantage it does seem to have - volume.

No other heavy freight carrier seems to find any advantage to the A380F - including it's 1,400nm range advantage. The only other A80F's ordered have been the 5 to ILFC who have the option to have them built as pax aircraft and Emirates who have 2 and have the same option which they have reportedly already exercised.

Do the math - if the ILFC and Emirates a/c become pax, total number of A380F's sold/ordered by heavy freight network carriers = 0.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:30 am

Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 2):
Randy Baseler very conveniently leaves out the 1,400nm A380F range advantage versus the 747-8F.

Assuming that range is needed in the first place.
 
787engineer
Posts: 545
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:08 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:39 am

Randy's statements are factually correct but he spins it Boeing's way by failing to mention the range, Airbus and their reps will spin it their way too. Live I've said before take each with a grain of salt and let the orders speak for which is generally the better airplane.
 
TIA
Posts: 467
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:42 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:52 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 6):
That's fine and dandy, but the 777 Freighter carries a whole lotta load (similar density to 747-8F) about as far as the A380F.

Who was talking about the 777?

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 3):
Effectively, these planes don't even compete in the same market.

 checkmark 

Quoting TrevD (Reply 7):
Already the 747-8F has out-sold the A380F to network freight carriers. The only useful role the A380F seems to have is as a low-density package carrier for the express carriers like FedEx and UPS who can benefit from the sole advantage it does seem to have - volume.

Ok, so let me get this straight. The two largest freight carriers in the world, UPS and FedEx, both have ordered the A380F. But according to you that's not good enough because niche carriers have not followed suit.

According to your flawed reasoning, the A380F only has volume as an advantage. Well by that same reasoning, we can also conclude that while the 747F might be lift higher payloads/body mass, the A380 has a range advantage. So the score is still 2-1 in Airbus' favor, not that I believe that any airline follows the same reasoning.

Quoting TrevD (Reply 7):
Do the math - if the ILFC and Emirates a/c become pax, total number of A380F's sold/ordered by heavy freight network carriers = 0.

If airlines who have orders for the 747F canceled their orders, the new 747 would have zero orders, both pax and cargo. It works both ways, you know.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 8):
Assuming that range is needed in the first place.

Assuming that you want weight over volume. As I said, this type of reasoning works both ways.


How hard is it to understand that the A380F and 747F have different missions, and airlines will pick them based on their specific needs.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6027
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:57 am

Quoting TIA (Reply 10):
Ok, so let me get this straight. The two largest freight carriers in the world, UPS and FedEx, both have ordered the A380F. But according to you that's not good enough because niche carriers have not followed suit.



Quoting TIA (Reply 10):
Assuming that you want weight over volume. As I said, this type of reasoning works both ways.

You have pegged the wrong carriers as "niche carriers." FedEx and UPS are the niche, not vice-versa.
 
dhefty
Posts: 587
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 8:04 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:58 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 3):
I'm guessing Randy's figures don't necessarily mean a lot

I'm guessing math wasn't your favorite subject. Would you care to offer some specific examples? For instance, what percentage of aircargo flights require the range of the A380? Range seems to be the only strong point of the A380 versus the B747-8F.

Would you care to comment on the relative sales prices of the two? As I understand it, the A380F is considerably more expensive. Does the added range justify the price differential?

Since a significant number of B747F's results from passenger conversions, what can be said about the ability to convert an A380 to an A380F?
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:03 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 3):
'm guessing Randy's figures don't necessarily mean a lot, as the A380F carries its maximum load 25% further than the 747-8F carries its maximum load.
IIRC at 5000Nm, the 747-8F max. load is down to 113t gross - a bit more representative comparison to the 150t gross carried by the A380F at that range.

Effectively, these planes don't even compete in the same market.
A

Yes, indeed, they do have different markets. The A380F is a great package airplane, which is why UPS and FED EX each bought 10. Cargolux, on the other hand is going for the 788F. They carry cargo like oil rig pipes and machinery. The front door is all important to them.

I don't see the 788F being a serious competitor for th A380F or visa versa. The A380F's competition is the conversions of old pax airliners like the MD-11 and soon the 777's and A330.

However, the range numbers being thrown around are misleading. Cargo doesn't care about a two hour stop at ANC, while pax does, so I doubt any of the A380Fs will have the optional fuel tanks installed and the space will be used for Aunt Tilly's cookie packages.
 
Korg747
Posts: 502
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 5:18 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:04 am

Forgive me for my limited knowledge but isn't that 74 extra tons of the A380s a bit expensive to the cargo companys? I was under the impression that the airline or cargo carriers have to pay according to the weight of the aircraft when landing at any airport. or something like that? isn't that 74 tons costly? or it doesn't matter? because if it doesn't matter if the A380 is heaver and at the same time it has more range and a 5% of cargo then why is it not better than the A380?

My whole question is, is that added 74 tons of weight to the A380F a costly thing to the airlines?

[Edited 2006-04-27 19:08:24]
 
trex8
Posts: 5700
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:09 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 6):
That's fine and dandy, but the 777 Freighter carries a whole lotta load (similar density to 747-8F) about as far as the A380F

per Boeing website 103 metric tones over 4965nm

from Airbus, 149-159 metric tons over 5600nm

even if you take the A380F range with a pinch of salt, they are hardly in the same category when one can carry 50% more payload.

Quoting TrevD (Reply 7):
Not the 10 lbs/cu ft that every other main-deck freighter seems able to carry.

thats not true for many Asian carriers though which is why some airlines like CI are very interested in the A380 even though they will have the largest 744F fleet .LCD displays and semiconductor wafers are not very dense and thats most of the load they carry out of Taiwan. even finished laptops/desktops/monitors are not that heavy given the packaging needed to protect them.

the A380F will be a niche player just like the A380 itself but there will be some carriers who will find it very competitive vs the 747-8F.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6027
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:17 am

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 15):
even if you take the A380F range with a pinch of salt, they are hardly in the same category when one can carry 50% more payload.

Yes, I know that, if the 777 Freighter can loft a given weight more cheaply than the A380-800F and fly it just as far, isn't it ahead of the game? OK, the A388F hauls 50% more weight. So is it cheaper to fly and operate three 777Fs than two A388Fs?

[Edited 2006-04-27 19:18:55]
 
trex8
Posts: 5700
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:27 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 16):
Yes, I know that, if the 777 Freighter can loft a given weight more cheaply than the A380-800F and fly it just as far, isn't it ahead of the game? OK, the A388F hauls 50% more weight. So is it cheaper to fly and operate three 777Fs than two A388Fs?

thats the 6 million dollar question many airlines are still pondering before ordering any new planes! 47890 gallons x3 and 3 flight crews/landing fees etc vs 81890 x2(probably less as at comparable 777F range the A380 will need less than full tanks) and 2 flight crews/landing fees(albeit higher) etc.
will be interesting to see how it pans out over time.
 
TIA
Posts: 467
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:42 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:34 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 11):
You have pegged the wrong carriers as "niche carriers." FedEx and UPS are the niche, not vice-versa.

Please tell me you're joking.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 16):
So is it cheaper to fly and operate three 777Fs than two A388Fs?

There is no single answer to that. Depends on the carrier and type of cargo, because it's not as simple as just 3 777Fs vs. 2 A380Fs. The 777F and A380F belong to different markets.
 
WestWing
Posts: 1145
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:01 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:49 am

So, let's pick a specific city pair such as MEM / STN. Presumably it is possible to estimate the total annual cost of ownership & operation for a 380F operating a roundtrip say six times a week between MEM and STN with the max cargo payload for that range. And presumably it is possible to do the same for a 747-8F for the same route and it's max payload for the route.

So, if Boeing could do that comparison and be able to say that owning & operating the 380F will cost $26 million per year, but the 747-8F will cost only $24.5 million per year (both those numbers are made up, I don't have a clue what they really should be), then there would be some basis for comparison.

[Edit: Typo]

[Edited 2006-04-27 20:00:23]
 
sparkingwave
Posts: 568
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:01 pm

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:52 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 3):
I'm guessing Randy's figures don't necessarily mean a lot, as the A380F carries its maximum load 25% further than the 747-8F carries its maximum load.



Quoting Tifoso (Reply 4):
Lots of information about how much the 748F can carry, nothing about the distances that it can carry this payload.

That's a double-edged sword. Neither of you address the fact that 25% further means that the A380 has to carry more fuel to support the weight of the extra fuel required for providing the extra range. That bird is going to be heavy enough with all that extra structural weight. Perhaps a better formula would have been to build the A380-900 freighter first (more freight and less range).

And with all the current passenger 747-400s about to flood the market after being converted to cargo freighters, it becomes harder to see a case for the A380F making a significant dent in the air cargo market for the sake of extended range.

SparkingWave ~~~

[Edited 2006-04-27 20:12:44]
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:59 am

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 15):
the A380F will be a niche player just like the A380 itself but there will be some carriers who will find it very competitive vs the 747-8F.

Bottom line is that the A380F is simply not versitile enough to be attractive to general market freighter carriers. It has basically no outsize cargo capability, length or height, and Baseler has hit the nail on the head, it's just too damn heavy. For package carriers it's no big deal because their yields are so high and density is so low that the cost of operating the airplane is really moot, just get the highest capacity you can and fill it up. For the general market it's the total opposite. Density is typically high and yields, especially in one direction, tend to be lower. What that means is that the airplane with the highest density per position or volume wins on the general market and that is where the majority of large freighter orders will be generated in the coming years...

The 747-8F has an incredible advantage on the area that matters most for general cargo carriers and that is a significant cost/ton/mile advantage. It's about 20% lower than the A380F and significantly lower than the current 747-400ERF. That advantage in terms of cost per trip will only widen as the price of fuel increases.

Range? Range does not really factor in to the freighter equation as it does in the passenger business. The availability of freight hubs, the flexibility to offload/onload cargo, and the ability to use lighter takeoff weights with maximum payloads, trumps absolute range in the freighter business.

Quoting Korg747 (Reply 14):
Forgive me for my limited knowledge but isn't that 74 extra tons of the A380s a bit expensive to the cargo companys? I was under the impression that the airline or cargo carriers have to pay according to the weight of the aircraft when landing at any airport. or something like that? isn't that 74 tons costly? or it doesn't matter? because if it doesn't matter if the A380 is heaver and at the same time it has more range and a 5% of cargo then why is it not better than the A380?

My whole question is, is that added 74 tons of weight to the A380F a costly thing to the airlines?

Actually it's much worse than the difference in OEW for this comparison. Most airports charge landing fees based on the certificated MLW of an individual aircraft type. So in these terms we are talking 427t vs 336.6t, but wait it gets worse...Airports like JFK charge landing fees based on the certificated MTOW of an aircraft type, that means 590t vs 435.5t! A lot of extra charges if you are a general market operator, this dead weight does make a difference in the bottom line...



widebodyphotog

[Edited 2006-04-27 20:08:06]
 
madairdrie
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:40 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:59 am

Quoting 787engineer (Reply 9):
Randy's statements are factually correct but he spins it Boeing's way by failing to mention the range, Airbus and their reps will spin it their way too. Live I've said before take each with a grain of salt and let the orders speak for which is generally the better airplane.

As always 787 engineer well summed up.
Kenneth
 
TIA
Posts: 467
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:42 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:01 am

Quoting WestWing (Reply 19):
So, lets pick a specific city pair such as MEM / STN.

But that's the problem. You can't pick a city pair, and estimate costs. A certain city pair, together with other factors, might be more beneficial to the A380F, and the other might be more beneficial to the 747F. One size fits all doesn't apply here.
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:28 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 13):
However, the range numbers being thrown around are misleading. Cargo doesn't care about a two hour stop at ANC, while pax does,

Correct. FedEx and UPS both plan on stopping in ANC with their A380Fs.
 
mrcomet
Posts: 584
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:53 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:31 am

Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't the 748F have a much lower fuel burn than the A380 with its NexGen engines. Does Randy's 74 tons include fuel? Wouldn't the A380 have to burn more fuel to go the same distance? Wouldn't that mean that the A380 actually carries around 74+ tons extra?
 
SNATH
Topic Author
Posts: 3049
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:23 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:34 am

I'll give this to Randy: he definitely knows how to pull our strings! I'm sure he's reading all this with a big wide smile on his face...  Smile

Tony
 
TIA
Posts: 467
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:42 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:35 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 21):
For package carriers it's no big deal because their yields are so high and density is so low that the cost of operating the airplane is really moot, just get the highest capacity you can and fill it up.

Yes! Since package carriers bought the A380F, that means that they don't care about costs. In fact, any airline that flies Airbus must not care about costs. And if package carriers only cared about capacity (I assume you mean volume wise) and nothing else, then please tell me why haven't they really embraced the 747, which until now has the highest volume capacity.
 
787engineer
Posts: 545
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:08 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:44 am

Quoting MrComet (Reply 25):
Does Randy's 74 tons include fuel?

The 74 ton difference is based on OEW (operating empty weight) which does not include payload or fuel.
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:51 am

Quoting TIA (Reply 27):
Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 21):
For package carriers it's no big deal because their yields are so high and density is so low that the cost of operating the airplane is really moot, just get the highest capacity you can and fill it up.

Yes! Since package carriers bought the A380F, that means that they don't care about costs. In fact, any airline that flies Airbus must not care about costs. And if package carriers only cared about capacity (I assume you mean volume wise) and nothing else, then please tell me why haven't they really embraced the 747, which until now has the highest volume capacity.

The A380F is the best new airplane for the likes of UPS and FED EX as well as shippers of small high value, low density items like electronics. I fully expect to see some aircargo shippers who fly Chinese made radios, TVs, and computer parts to Europe and USA to buy a few. Perhaps this is what ILCO bought their five for.

Why? Because it is weight limited and not volume limited. True it can carry not much more weight than the 748F, but it has a much larger volume on three decks. Perfect for packages.

All this said, the ecomonics are with buying a ten or 15 year old MD-11 or 747 pax and converting it.

The 748F will either replace current 74xF's or be used where the front door is needed.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15181
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:57 am

Quoting TIA (Reply 10):
Ok, so let me get this straight. The two largest freight carriers in the world, UPS and FedEx, both have ordered the A380F.

Well, UPS also bought new build 744F freighters AFTER the 380 orders. So they think both are useful, for different things. UPS does more heavy lift than FedEx, though both do package traffic. UPS needs heavy lift freighters. 388F is not a heavy lift freighter, it's a volume freighter.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 24):
Correct. FedEx and UPS both plan on stopping in ANC with their A380Fs.

See, that's part of the issue. While flying further is fine and dandy, most freight carriers already have an established network designed for the ranges the 747 and MD11 are doing, and to rework the network to take advantage of the 380 range is not necessarily worthwhile.

But the 388F would allow certain routes to bypass the hubs, if both cities involved could justify a full 380. 777F also offers that option, but with 2/3 the capacity, lowering the required amount of cargo "point to point" to make the hub bypass model work.
 
TIA
Posts: 467
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:42 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:58 am

I agree with what you say, but the new freighter price tag applies to the 748F just as well as it applies to the A380F.

EDIT: this was meant as a response to Poitin.

[Edited 2006-04-27 21:04:22]
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:01 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 30):
Well, UPS also bought new build 744F freighters AFTER the 380 orders. So they think both are useful, for different things. UPS does more heavy lift than FedEx, though both do package traffic. UPS needs heavy lift freighters. 388F is not a heavy lift freighter, it's a volume freighter.

Nicely stated.  bigthumbsup 
 
TIA
Posts: 467
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:42 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:06 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 30):
So they think both are useful, for different things.

And that has been my stance all along. Each freighter has a different mission. I never said the A380F was better than the 747F.
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:15 am

Quoting TIA (Reply 10):
The two largest freight carriers in the world, UPS and FedEx,

What do they haul over 100lbs?
 
WestWing
Posts: 1145
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:01 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:19 am

Quoting TIA (Reply 23):
A certain city pair, together with other factors, might be more beneficial to the A380F, and the other might be more beneficial to the 747F. One size fits all doesn't apply here.

Of course, and no cargo operator will base their procurement decisions on what is said in Randy's blog. But Randy's blog helps serve up Boeing's PR campaign. From that perspective, stating tangible savings numbers, would make a more forceful point even if it is for specific city-pair -- for PR purposes.

Does the 747-8F really have a 23% cost/tonne-mile advantage on 90% of cargo routes that are shorter than 4000 nm ? Yes ? No ? Maybe, but only if oil prices are between $70 and $90 /bbl ? I do not know.

I suspect that Boeing would like to claim the answer is a resounding "YES". So what does this 23% savings translate to in numbers easily understood by the lay person (dollars saved per year, for example). If Boeing come up with an impressive number, that would be good PR. If the 380F is indeed more economical for any specific routes (shorter than 4000 nm), Mr. Leahy will no doubt gleefully state those counter-examples in Airbus's rebuttal.
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1338
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:23 am

An AW&ST article on the A380F stated:
The structural and other changes are largely intended to boost maximum take-off weight to 592 metric tons from 562 for the passenger model. While the aircraft is designed to carry a 150-metric-ton gross payload up to 5,600 naut. mi., customers have expressed interest in a shorter-range, 3,000-naut.-mi. configuration with 158-metric-ton gross payload capacity. Airbus is talking up an 8,000-naut.-mi.-range configuration that would still carry 100 metric tons, but this was met with scant interest.


If we used the customers' 158 tonne payload figure for a shorter-range A380F, and applied the extra 8 tonnes to the non-tare payload, that updates Randy's figures to 149 tonnes revenue payload / 252 tonnes OEW for the A380F (vs. 134/178 for the 747-8F).
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2811
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:56 am

Dont forget, even with all the other options available, the 747, in all its frieghter forms, accounts for roughly 50% of the freighter markets total tonnage transported. I dont think the 380 will dent that number.
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 5:03 am

Quoting TIA (Reply 27):
Yes! Since package carriers bought the A380F, that means that they don't care about costs. In fact, any airline that flies Airbus must not care about costs. And if package carriers only cared about capacity (I assume you mean volume wise) and nothing else, then please tell me why haven't they really embraced the 747, which until now has the highest volume capacity.

Well since you've made a "straw man" argument I'll knock it down for you...of course package carriers care about cost, but in their analysis the significant volume advantage the A380 has over 747 is more profitable. Buying a larger fleet of 747-8 does not offset the effective utilization of a smaller fleet of A380 that can move bigger volumes...This is what matter to PF operators.

FYI, UPS still does operate seven 747-100F, three 747-200F, and outstandind orders for eight 747-400F to my recollection. Despite their ton/mile disparity relative to newer freighters and conversions, they still see fit to operate them even at a limited level. And that in itself is a remarkable point. There is no big rush in the package freighter world to move older aircraft out of established fleets, cough, 727... By contrast general market carriers are unloading old freighters right and left for newer more efficient models despite the acquisition costs of high demand aircraft.

PF carriers, or integrators, have not "embraced" the 747F for the simple reason that they have not needed the outsized freight capability it offers and the aircraft does not fit with their ULD interlining operations. To fully utilize the 747F's full capacity, in terms of volume, LD-1 and AMD containers should be used. These containers are exclusive to 747F and they can not be loaded on to the smaller widebody freighters that make up the feeder network of the PF operators. The vast majority of 747F operation has been in the general market where it's superior loading density and outsize capability is needed and can be effectively utilized.



-widebodyphotog

[Edited 2006-04-27 22:06:24]
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15181
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 5:52 am

Quoting TIA (Reply 33):
And that has been my stance all along. Each freighter has a different mission. I never said the A380F was better than the 747F.

Never said you did. I was just using your example to show others that these planes can coexist.
 
Rob878
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:35 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 6:02 am

The A380 is good for carriers that need the full range and payload capcity of the a380. But most carriers will never be taking advantage of the extra range enough to make it make sense, economically fuel wise. Dont get me wrong, the A380 seems like a great airplane if you plan on taking advantage of the 1400nm range extra on a regualar basis, but unless you are going the extra 1400nm on a regular basis the economical choice seems to be the 747-800.


Rob
 
sllevin
Posts: 3314
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 6:04 am

Quoting TIA (Reply 10):
Ok, so let me get this straight. The two largest freight carriers in the world, UPS and FedEx, both have ordered the A380F

UPS traded a slew of A300 commitments it decided it didn't want for the A388F. On a clean slate they might well have ordered Boeing.

Steve
 
TIA
Posts: 467
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:42 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 6:36 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 38):
of course package carriers care about cost, but in their analysis the significant volume advantage the A380 has over 747 is more profitable.

Exactly. So stop saying that the 747 is the better freighter.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 38):
FYI, UPS still does operate seven 747-100F, three 747-200F, and outstandind orders for eight 747-400F to my recollection.

I never said UPS didn't operate any freighters. If you re-read my post, you will see that I said "why haven't they really embraced the 747." I knew perfectly well that UPS operated 747s, but they are a miniscule part of their fleet. And don't compare it to the A380, since the latter is not available yet, and airlines are not getting rid of them for the cargo carriers to convert them to freighters.

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 34):

What do they haul over 100lbs?

So now we are rating cargo carriers by the size of their largest package. By that reasoning, CX is smaller than Great Lakes, since the average size Chinese is smaller than the average size American.

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 41):
UPS traded a slew of A300 commitments it decided it didn't want for the A388F. On a clean slate they might well have ordered Boeing.

I haven't heard anything from UPS hinting at the fact, but of course there must have been some underlying reason for UPS to order the A380F. The fact that it was the better plane for their mission doesn't count.
 
coa747
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:11 pm

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 6:36 am

Most cargo schedules and routings have been fixed to the 747 freighters range so the 1,400 mile range advantage really means nothing. Being able to fly long distances is not that important in the freight world so extra range buys you no real advantage.

I for one would like to see Boeing offer a freighter variant of the 777-300ER seems like that would be a good MD-11F replacement.
 
dhefty
Posts: 587
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 8:04 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 6:46 am

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 41):
UPS traded a slew of A300 commitments it decided it didn't want for the A388F. On a clean slate they might well have ordered Boeing.

Good point. UPS changed an order for 37 A300's worth around $28 Billion for 10 A380F's for around $17 Billion. Who got the better of that deal?

This is based on the rumored cost of $75 million for the A300 and $175 million for the A380. Buying the A380 was probably the only way for UPS to get out of the contract. I notice that Airbus removed 37 UPS A300's from their orders book late last year.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15181
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 6:53 am

Quoting TIA (Reply 42):
I haven't heard anything from UPS hinting at the fact, but of course there must have been some underlying reason for UPS to order the A380F. The fact that it was the better plane for their mission doesn't count.

Well, frankly, you haven't been paying attention then.

While the 380F does work for UPS, you can't ignore that taking these planes allowed them to erase a substantial order for A300Fs from the books and transfer those deposits over to the A380 order. And the move was beneficial for Airbus because it allows them to shut the A300/310 line down.

And this decision was made BEFORE the 748F was available. Long before. So you combine those two things, and there is quite a bit of evidence to support the idea that the A300F conversions and lack of competition at the time are a major factor in this decision, and that if the decision were made today, with the 748F offered and no A300 backlog to worry about, UPS may or may not have taken the A380F.

Still doesn't change the fact that both can coexist in a fleet and UPS will utilize the 380F quite effectively.
 
SNATH
Topic Author
Posts: 3049
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:23 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:02 am

Quoting Coa747 (Reply 43):
I for one would like to see Boeing offer a freighter variant of the 777-300ER seems like that would be a good MD-11F replacement.

Actually, the B772LRF is the perfect replacement for the MD-11F. The payload capability of these two planes is very similar (229,000lb and 202,100lb respectively, so the B772LRF is already more capable than the MD-11F in the respect; I couldn't find comparative volume data so, if you have them, please share!).

Other threads have indicated that, for a lot of missions, a potential B773ERF will hit its weight limit first, when loaded, instead of its volume limit. So, the operator will not be able to take full advantage of its the extra available volume (a bit like the A380F I suppose...). This is why Boeing based the B772F on the B772LR.

Tony

PS Data taken from Boeing's WWW site.

[Edited 2006-04-28 00:06:04]
 
a380heavy
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:01 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:36 am

Quoting TrevD (Reply 7):
Do the math - if the ILFC and Emirates a/c become pax, total number of A380F's sold/ordered by heavy freight network carriers = 0.

If my uncle had tits he'd be my aunty!!

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 30):

Well, UPS also bought new build 744F freighters AFTER the 380 orders. So they think both are useful, for different things. UPS does more heavy lift than FedEx, though both do package traffic. UPS needs heavy lift freighters. 388F is not a heavy lift freighter, it's a volume freighter.

Absolutely!

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 37):
Dont forget, even with all the other options available, the 747, in all its frieghter forms, accounts for roughly 50% of the freighter markets total tonnage transported. I dont think the 380 will dent that number.

Maybe not in the next 5 years or so, but over the longer term I would say that this comment is somewhat naive to say the least.

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 41):
UPS traded a slew of A300 commitments it decided it didn't want for the A388F. On a clean slate they might well have ordered Boeing.

On what basis do you make this comment. Are you privy to top level discussions within UPS?

Quoting Dhefty (Reply 44):

Good point. UPS changed an order for 37 A300's worth around $28 Billion for 10 A380F's for around $17 Billion. Who got the better of that deal?

This is based on the rumored cost of $75 million for the A300 and $175 million for the A380. Buying the A380 was probably the only way for UPS to get out of the contract. I notice that Airbus removed 37 UPS A300's from their orders book late last year.

So Airbus offered an attractive package on their new product to generate further interest - ever heard of loss leaders? (I do agree with Ikramerica here that it did allow UPS to back out of purchasing an old design aeroplane though).

Further sales may be slow in coming for Airbus, but as you say at a rumoured $175 million each they are hardly going to rush out of the hangar doors are they?

Sometimes business decisions are made that do not have an instantaneous payback. I used to work for Rolls-Royce Aero Engines in Derby, England and they sold numerous engines at a loss knowing they would pick up the lucrative spares contracts, for example RB211-535E4 engines to Iberia.

Airbus are clearly looking at the bigger picture here - a gamble yes - but you have to speculate to accumulate. They are clearly not short-sighted with their vision of the air freight future, they are in this for the longer term. There are countless 747's in freighter service including ancient 100's which are well over 20 years old, so what's the rush?

As has been pointed out on this thread there is room for both aircraft and very little is to do with their external dimensions. The difference is that in terms of payload weight and range the A380 seems to have it, however, if you wish to transport larger objects you'd probably choose a 747 or Antonov 124/225.
 
SNATH
Topic Author
Posts: 3049
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:23 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:39 am

A380Heavy,

Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 47):
Maybe not in the next 5 years or so, but over the longer term I would say that this comment is somewhat naive to say the least.



Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 47):
Further sales may be slow in coming for Airbus, but as you say at a rumoured $175 million each they are hardly going to rush out of the hangar doors are they?

Don't you think the above two quotes contradict each other?

Tony
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:40 am

Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 47):
Further sales may be slow in coming for Airbus, but as you say at a rumoured $175 million each they are hardly going to rush out of the hangar doors are they?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Isn't the "list price" $280 million? At a discount of $105 million, i.e., >30%, maybe they should be rushing out of the hangar doors....

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos