Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Rob878
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:35 am

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:45 am

airbus still makes a300's???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:48 am

Quoting TIA (Reply 42):
and airlines are not getting rid of them for the cargo carriers to convert them to freighters.

"Meanwhile, FedEx has an eye on the ex-passenger A380 fleet for the longer term, having traditionally bolstered its fleet of new-build freighters with secondhand"

"A converted -800 would be a less capable aircraft than the new-build A380-800F as it has lower operating weights, but would be ideal for US domestic or regional missions, as well as some international flying""*

*source:flightinternational.com
"Up the Irons!"
 
a380heavy
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:01 am

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:52 am

Quoting SNATH (Reply 48):
Don't you think the above two quotes contradict each other?

No, I don't think they contradict each other. I just feel that Airbus will score further sales over the longer term and that although $175 million represents a large discount on the list price, it still represents a large outlay - particularly for freight aircraft, and in a global economy where airlines/freight operators are aprehensive when it comes to spending due to the uncertain world that we live in.

In the freight market their are many organisations that utilise older, cheaper pre-owned aircraft and not many that operate the very latest that an aircraft manufacturer has to offer.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 49):

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....

Isn't the $280 million price tag the list price for a fully equipped passenger variant of this aircraft?
Flown in:732,733,734,738,742,752,763,772,F27,DC9,MD-11,A300,A319,A320,A321,A321N,A332,ATR72,DHC-6,Bell206,C172,Auster,PA-28,DH-89A
 
Rob878
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:35 am

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:54 am

airbus still makes a300's ?????


Or are they converting them to frieghters for 75 million?


Someone please lemmmmmme know.



Rob
 
trevd
Posts: 338
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 1:51 pm

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:00 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 cou

Or the A300-600F was worse than they bargained for...and since airbus would not likely let them cancel in exchange for 747's they had to pick something else in the catalog.
 
dhefty
Posts: 587
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 8:04 am

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:06 am

Quoting Rob878 (Reply 53):
airbus still makes a300's ?????

Airbus has stated that the A300/310 line will close in July of 2007. There are 17 left to build, however of those the 5 for Iraq will probably never happen.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:13 am

Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 52):
Isn't the $280 million price tag the list price for a fully equipped passenger variant of this aircraft?

Yeah, you're right. I should have checked first before posting .  ashamed 
I googled the A380F list price and there is a range of USD$175 million to $220 million.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:52 am

Quoting TIA (Reply 42):
Exactly. So stop saying that the 747 is the better freighter.

I never explicity said the 747-8F is a better freighter...However for the larger market is is the better choice for those operators. For FedEx it may be the best fit for what they need, but for the general cargo carriers it is a non-starter...

Quoting TIA (Reply 42):
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.

UPS may be a unique situation as they are both an integrator and participate in the general cargo market, but by tonnage the 747's make a significant contribution to UPS operations. Embracing is a matter of degree in this specific case and UPS uses the 747F for what it does best, by the same token the A380 will be used for what it does well which is moving moderate/low density, large, containerized loads from hub to hub. This begs the question though, will the A380F be "embraced" by the general cargo market?

Airbus seems to think that the two freighters are comparable as they are marketing A380F's to the same potential customers that Boeing is pitching the 747-8F to. They are comparable, especially in terms of the general market where the difference in the two aircrafts maximum load is only 16t. A potential general market customer will say to Airbus "why should we buy this and not the 787-8F?". So in this vein there must be a comparison...

Which brings us full circle back to Baseler's latest posting and the specific advantages the 787-8F enjoys over the A380. If one does not agree that's fine but at least support your contravening point with some substance.



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
TIA
Posts: 465
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:42 am

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:56 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 45):
Well, frankly, you haven't been paying attention then.

I've been paying attention all right, but unless you give me a unbiased source that says that UPS wouldn't have ordered A380Fs had it not been for the previous A300 order, then all this is pure speculation.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 51):
Quoting TIA (Reply 42):
and airlines are not getting rid of them for the cargo carriers to convert them to freighters.

"Meanwhile, FedEx has an eye on the ex-passenger A380 fleet for the longer term, having traditionally bolstered its fleet of new-build freighters with secondhand"

"A converted -800 would be a less capable aircraft than the new-build A380-800F as it has lower operating weights, but would be ideal for US domestic or regional missions, as well as some international flying""*

I apologize if my wording was confusing, but what I was saying was that you can't expect FedEx or UPS to have a large fleet of A380F any time soon, since airlines are not retiring them yet for cargo conversion. That will change with time, but not anytime soon since the A380 hasn't even entered service yet.

Quoting TrevD (Reply 54):
Or the A300-600F was worse than they bargained for...and since airbus would not likely let them cancel in exchange for 747's they had to pick something else in the catalog.

I don't think they canceled the A306F order because the plane proved less capable, but rather because of changing market conditions and because they could probably get second hand A300 for much cheaper. But even if we assume that the A300 was a crappy freighter, that doesn't mean that UPS opted for another crappy freighter (A380F) instead. Stop with all this nonsense that UPS was forced into buying Airbus.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 9:47 am

Quoting TIA (Reply 58):

I apologize if my wording was confusing, but what I was saying was that you can't expect FedEx or UPS to have a large fleet of A380F any time soon, since airlines are not retiring them yet for cargo conversion. That will change with time, but not anytime soon since the A380 hasn't even entered service yet.

ok..but there should be enough of a time-lapse between carriers getting their A380's and FX, 5X fully implementing their options.....in about 10 years from now, we'll know who needed what aircraft......and from what I've read, FX is banking on some pax carriers not needing their A380's (for whatever reason)

Quoting TIA (Reply 58):
But even if we assume that the A300 was a crappy freighter, that doesn't mean that UPS opted for another crappy freighter (A380F) instead. Stop with all this nonsense that UPS was forced into buying Airbus.

we don't really know the terms of the contract....we can only speculate....however, it is a well known fact carriers who have put down deposits on certain planes wind up ordering other if they refuse/cancel to take planes stated in the original contract..it happens all the time.....we're seeing it with EK..
"Up the Irons!"
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15148
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 10:02 am

Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 47):
On what basis do you make this comment. Are you privy to top level discussions within UPS?

So, someone needs to be privy to high level documents to use the word "might"?

And the 300 to 380 order conversion is public.

Quoting Rob878 (Reply 50):
airbus still makes a300's??



Quoting Dhefty (Reply 55):
Airbus has stated that the A300/310 line will close in July of 2007.

Yes, and there is no way that the UPS order would have been filled before then, so without converting the order, UPS would have been taking A300Fs trickling in over time, and Airbus couldn't close the line.

I think it works out best for all parties.

Remember how Boeing closed the 757 and 717 lines, by offering customers good deals on 737s and even helping CO source used 757s. They convinced FL to convert some 717s to 737s so they could shut the line down this spring.

Quoting TIA (Reply 58):
I've been paying attention all right, but unless you give me a unbiased source that says that UPS wouldn't have ordered A380Fs had it not been for the previous A300 order, then all this is pure speculation.

So? Claiming that the A300s had nothing to do with it, or they would have ordered the 380F regardless is also pure speculation. Nobody is saying UPS would have done something, just that the fit for UPS of these 380s is not the same as it is for say, Fedex, who says they are looking forward to a 389F if one were to be offered. Even though they compete in a lot of markets, UPS and Fedex do not have the same business model, and the flexibility of a 747 may be more valuable to UPS.

The fact UPS flies 747s now, and ordered more 744Fs after the 380F order, points to the idea that if the 748F were offered at the time the 380F was offered, and there were no other commitments, then well, the 748F had a very good chance. Not that it was a lock, but it had a good chance. And it still may have a place in the UPS fleet in the future, if the new build 744Fs go well for them. UPS had not taken new build VLA freighters before the 380F and 744F orders.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
sllevin
Posts: 3314
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:26 pm

Something about the range figures to think about -- on some routes, where the tech stop can be made at, say, near half-range, the 748 may well be able to carry a higher tonnage than a 388F doing a non-stop.

Look at how ANC is leveraged to provide sub-3,500 mile legs from much of China/Korea/Japan to the US so that even the 747-200's can carry a large payload.

Again, there's a plane for ever fit. There are certainly some roles (especially lightweight cargo) where the 388 will kick posterior. But lifting 75 extra tonnes of airplane hurts in a lot of scenarios.

Steve
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8139
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:53 pm

I think the 747-8F will do better than the A380-800F for one reason: the 748F can carry outsized lengthwise cargo that the A388F can't carry. That means things like cranes, building structural components, etc.

I'm surprised that Western cargo airlines won't help fund the production of an An-124 advanced version with Western-style cockpits and the same engines used on the 747-400 (about 60,000 lb. thrust). Such an advanced An-124 could sell over 100 examples almost overnight given the huge demand for oversized air cargo services.
 
glacote
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 1:44 am

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:02 pm

Three obvious questions:
- why exclude the tare from the ratio computation? More precisely - why exclude the weight of all the pallets when you are comparing the difference in payload?
- what does a ratio of marginals mean? Why not just compare the CASM?
- what is the link between theses computations and the "20% lower cost per ton" claim?

I like it very much when people getting questioned on their math skills find it advantageous to stand firm on the math side - just with more dubious, nonsensical computations. PR people should be forbidden to play with maths. That's for grown up people...
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:16 pm

Quoting Glacote (Reply 63):
- why exclude the tare from the ratio computation? More precisely - why exclude the weight of all the pallets when you are comparing the difference in payload?

Because it's non-structural dead weight that would skew the amount of true payload an aircraft can carry.

Quoting Glacote (Reply 63):
- what does a ratio of marginals mean? Why not just compare the CASM?

CASM is a measure of cost per seats of an aircraft. A freighter doesn't have any seats...

I've never heard the term "ratio or marginals," but I would venture to guess it's the the cost of moving a volume or mass of payload.

Quoting Glacote (Reply 63):
PR people should be forbidden to play with maths.

Unfourtunatly, there are some numbers at work here just too big to skew. The A388 OEW being one of these...
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:31 pm

Quoting Glacote (Reply 63):
why exclude the tare from the ratio computation? More precisely - why exclude the weight of all the pallets when you are comparing the difference in payload?

That's actually very good PR technique, Glacote - 'Anticipate your opponent's response'.

Had Randy not mentioned it, his Airbus opposite numbers would have been able to say, "Boeing's figures are wrong, they're quoting gross weights, not taking the A380's proportionally lower tare into account"; and maybe fool a few journalists.

So he quoted the net payload figures - and also prevented Airbus from using that point in their defence, since the tare weights are only 7-9 tons anyway, not enough to make any material difference either way.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
SJCRRPAX
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:29 am

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:03 pm

Quoting Poitin (Reply 29):
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.

Why do we need overnight deliveries on TV's and Radios? A container ship (the kind that floats on water) can make the trip from China to the US in about 12 days.

Air freight is good for mail, flowers, bannanas, computer chips, and emergency repair parts --- but bulk cargo is going by boat.
 
columba
Posts: 5266
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:12 pm

Quoting SNATH (Reply 26):
'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...

Tony

What does he get from that, some airliner enthusiasts argue about if he is right or not and start another A vs B war ?
How many 747-8Fs can he sell due that "0".
This blog was fun in the beginning, now it is more and more getting repetitive:
We are better, our cabins are wider etc.......you hardly get something really interesting from it, except some empty PR phrases. Mr. Basler and his bloggers should slowly give it a rest.
Air Berlin - gone but not forgotten
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:30 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 64):
Quoting Glacote (Reply 63):
- what does a ratio of marginals mean? Why not just compare the CASM?

CASM is a measure of cost per seats of an aircraft. A freighter doesn't have any seats...

Yes indeed. But perhaps Glacote meant cost per available tonne-mile? Call it CATM. It walks and talks very much like CASM.

At short ranges where payload is maxed out and the fuel tanks are nowhere near filled, the 748F looks mighty impressive. But that's only one part of the payload-range curve, and the one that favors the 748F. Granted, it may be the part of the payload-range curve where most freight operators actually operate... but.

Here is a factoid Randy left out: when operating on the MTOW-limited part of the respective payload-range curves, the A388F carries 36% more payload than the 748F. That goes for any range between 5700 nm and 7500 nm (for example, sectors like MEM to China or MEM to India)

That 36% extra payload capacity, for a given range, is not terribly inconsistent with a 42% extra OEW for the A388F.

Extenuating circumstances (or apologies for Airbus ) include:
a) the 748F is the longest stretch of its family (most structurally efficient) while the A388F is the shortest (least structurally efficient) of its planned family.
b) the A380 series for some reason is stuck with yesterday's engines... with a worse SFC than a GE90-94B. I guess fuel prices weren't much of an issue when that decision was made.

If the market ever calls for it, with lower SFC engines, a fuselage stretch, structural improvements and higher MTOW (620-ish tonnes), the A388F can grow into something much better, much like its passenger counterpart.

Now if only Leahy could start a blog, we'd have a field day

(edit: fixed typo)

[Edited 2006-04-28 08:39:29]
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:32 pm

Quoting Columba (Reply 67):
What does he get from that..?

First of all, Columba, he makes it clear at the outset that he's responding to a sally from Airbus. Surely he's entitled to do that?

Secondly, it's obvious that Boeing as a company are following an 'open door' policy as far as they can. Anything you want to know about, you can usually find it immediately on the company's website. IMO Airbus would be well advised to follow suit; most of their current PR difficulties (and the abounding 'rumours') seem to flow from a 'too little, too late' approach to informing the public.

Thirdly, Randy's isn't the only blog on Boeing's site. I for one found this one fascinating, as well as informative and entertaining:-

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/200LR/flight_test/
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
dhefty
Posts: 587
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 8:04 am

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:53 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 68):
a) the 748F is the longest stretch of its family (most structurally efficient) while the A388F is the shortest (least structurally efficient) of its planned family.

I think we would all agree that the A380-900 would put this whole argument in a different light. However, there currently is no such product and therefore we must compare the B747-8F to the A380-800F. And in such a comparison, the above stated advantages of the Boeing product must stand.
 
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 6:27 pm

Quoting TrevD (Reply 7):
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

The 10 lbs/cu ft density is covered with the following A380 configuration: 17 pallets on the upper deck, 29 pallets on the main deck and 13 pallets on the lower deck. The A380 has 3 design densities.
The 747 and 777 are optimized solely for 10 lbs / cu ft, shown by the fact that there is only one standard configuration.
Two other debate starting points could be:
-in what direction are densities evolving?
-how widely used is the 747's 10 ft pallet?
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:29 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 68):
Here is a factoid Randy left out: when operating on the MTOW-limited part of the respective payload-range curves, the A388F carries 36% more payload than the 748F. That goes for any range between 5700 nm and 7500 nm (for example, sectors like MEM to China or MEM to India)

But that is not the way freighters oprate. They are seldom at MTOW and most often near maximum structural payload. There is not one operator that would use a heavy freighter to go 7,500nm let alone 5,700 in a single leg and limit their revenue load.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 68):
If the market ever calls for it, with lower SFC engines, a fuselage stretch, structural improvements and higher MTOW (620-ish tonnes), the A388F can grow into something much better, much like its passenger counterpart.

The growth of freighter MTOW must be commensurate with increases in structural payload otherwise it's simply increasing ton/mile cost for range that is not needed.

Quoting SJCRRPAX (Reply 66):
Why do we need overnight deliveries on TV's and Radios? A container ship (the kind that floats on water) can make the trip from China to the US in about 12 days.

Air freight is good for mail, flowers, bannanas, computer chips, and emergency repair parts --- but bulk cargo is going by boat.

"Bulk" cargo as you put it is finding itself on aircraft to a greater degree in terms of tonnage. As the speed of business increases air cargo becomes more important to industrial supply chains. That is the present and future trend...

Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 71):
The 10 lbs/cu ft density is covered with the following A380 configuration: 17 pallets on the upper deck, 29 pallets on the main deck and 13 pallets on the lower deck. The A380 has 3 design densities.
The 747 and 777 are optimized solely for 10 lbs / cu ft, shown by the fact that there is only one standard configuration.
Two other debate starting points could be:
-in what direction are densities evolving?
-how widely used is the 747's 10 ft pallet?

Example cargo ULD configurations are much like generic seating layouts for passenger airplanes given that the operator can choose the configuration that suits them best, although configurations are more rigidly defined on a freighter. The operating density of the A380 is low, as it must be, because payload/available volume is low. The higher the density the worse the position load factor becomes on all freighters, but at equal densities there will be many more empty positions on an A380 than 747. 747 and 777F have the capability to load M size pallets in a variety of heights and contours up to 118-120 inches high. The M base pallet/container (96 X 125 inches) is THE standard for air cargo. However there are also 16 and 20ft pallets that see wide use on 747's (16ft pallets can also be used on 767F) that the A380 simply can not utilize effectively. The A380F can not even carry it's own engines! That job will go to the good ol' 747F...

As for general market cargo density trends, simply put the trend is for higher density/lower yield cargo. As more industrial products are shipped by air, it makes sense for shippers to have the highest density of product to lower the unit cost of shipping.



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:33 pm

Quoting Columba (Reply 67):
This blog was fun in the beginning, now it is more and more getting repetitive:



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 69):
MO Airbus would be well advised to follow suit; most of their current PR difficulties (and the abounding 'rumours') seem to flow from a 'too little, too late' approach to informing the public.

Completely agree, NAV20. Said it before, but as long as Airbus leaves Randy out there unchallenged, they will always be on the defensive. The animal that is the press will respond to the hand that feeds it; journalists are people with deadlines and under enormous pressure to come up with new material. Randy (Boeing) makes it easy for them. And if they get to put the competitor on the defensive--all the better! I've jokingly remarked before that Airbus needs a blog to counter Randy. Maybe not a blog, but they need something.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
columba
Posts: 5266
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:35 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 69):
First of all, Columba, he makes it clear at the outset that he's responding to a sally from Airbus. Surely he's entitled to do that?
Secondly, it's obvious that Boeing as a company are following an 'open door' policy as far as they can.

I appreciate if a company keeps an open door policy and that you can learn more about their products, I like to see how company is dealing with certain issues. In aviation industry for exampel I am interested in how far the company- may it be the airline or the producer of the aircraft - puts an eye on
safety issues and passenger comfort.
In general I am also interested in how much does the company is taking care of envioremental concerns etc....Things I get from the webpages of Airbus and Boeing without reading Mr. Basler´s blog.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 69):

Anything you want to know about, you can usually find it immediately on the company's website. IMO Airbus would be well advised to follow suit; most of their current PR difficulties (and the abounding 'rumours') seem to flow from a 'too little, too late' approach to informing the public.

The problems of Airbus is not that their having a bad PR.
Airlines don´t buy planes because of PR or by looking at the webpages.
They take a look at the numbers and decide what aircraft fits their role best.
Obviously the 777 and 787 offer many advantages over the A340/A350.
Airbus needed a long time to keep up with Boeing and MDD.
They did that by always coming up with the more inovative aircraft than the one already being offered.
The A300 was the first widebody twin, the A320 was the first passenger aircraft offering fly by wire and they came up with a family concept that offers commonality with their longrange and short haul aircraft etc....Boeing has learned from the mistakes they did in the past. The last years they were catching up and like it looks now are overhauling Airbus using their very own means. This not because of their good "PR" but for many other reasons, like having a new and better sales team, offering a clean sheet and innovative aircraft with the 787, offering a fuel efficient and powerful aircraft with the 777 and commonality between the 747-8, 777 and 787.
Airbus should keep more work in offering a better product that convinces the customer not in a PR campagne which maybe convinces John Doe on the streets and even if John Doe is interested in aircrafts and chooses the airline that flies the best advertised airplane most people don´t care whether they are on a Airbus, Boeing or Embraer.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 69):

Thirdly, Randy's isn't the only blog on Boeing's site. I for one found this one fascinating, as well as informative and entertaining:-

That is what I meant in the first place:"What does Mr. Basler get from your entertainment ?" Nothing except you will buy some Boeing aircrafts.
The CEOs of Singapore, British Airways, Cathay, Lufthansa etc will not read any blog by an Airbus or Boeing employer even its Leahy�s, Basler or elses.
That is why I said the blog was fun in the beginning and is getting tiresome now. It brings nothing new anymore, it had its time but now it is getting boring.
Air Berlin - gone but not forgotten
 
trex8
Posts: 5680
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:49 pm

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 72):
The A380F can not even carry it's own engines! That job will go to the good ol' 747F...

but isn't that true for the 777 also, and probably every other widebody except the 747?
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 9:12 pm

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 75):
but isn't that true for the 777 also, and probably every other widebody except the 747?

Actually, 767F, A300/A310F, MD-11F, DC-10F and 747F can all carry their own engines fully assembled, sans cowl and plug, on the main deck. The 777F is a notable exception having the largest engines of any airliner, but the highly touted A380 with 150t payload can not carry the assembled Trent 900...I do think that is worthy of comment.

The Trent 900 loaded on 747F...

[img]

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 75):
but isn't that true for the 777 also, and probably every other widebody except the 747?

Actually, 767F, A300/A310F, MD-11F, DC-10F and 747F can all carry their own engines fully assembled, sans cowl and plug, on the main deck. The 777F is a notable exception having the largest engines of any airliner, but the highly touted A380 with 150t payload can not carry the assembled Trent 900...I do think that is worthy of comment.

The Trent 900 loaded on 747F...

http://theaviationspecialist.com/trent900_ldd.jpg



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26339
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 9:47 pm

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 38):
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.

I'm wondering if A380 in FedEx and UPS service will load the containers used by the feeder network, or if different containers will be used.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2811
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 9:56 pm

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.

Thinking that after 5 years the 747 stranglehold on air cargo will change is more than naive, but I'm not going to be rude like you. Boeing has 80% of the freighter market right now. Sorry if the facts don't jive with your version of reality.

Do you have any idea how many 747 freighters there are in service, and how many are going on line in the next 5 years? If you did you wouldn't be quick to pull out the pompoms.

300 747 frieghters in service with at least 50 more coming on line before the first 380F flies.

In 15-20 years maybe, but the tone of your reply was uncalled for, misguided and rude.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 10:20 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 77):
I'm wondering if A380 in FedEx and UPS service will load the containers used by the feeder network, or if different containers will be used.



Sure they will and that's the whole point of their A380 strategy, to consolidate large containers loads and move them from distribution center to distribution center. Save for AMA containers, which FedEx and UPS do not use anyway, they will be able to interline all standard containers with A380F ops. The narrow body containers are even lodable on the A380F upper deck.



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26339
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 10:28 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 51):
"Meanwhile, FedEx has an eye on the ex-passenger A380 fleet for the longer term, having traditionally bolstered its fleet of new-build freighters with secondhand"

"A converted -800 would be a less capable aircraft than the new-build A380-800F as it has lower operating weights, but would be ideal for US domestic or regional missions, as well as some international flying""*

*source:flightinternational.com

This presumes a plentiful market in used A380s and a plethora of US airports willing and able to receive A380s, both of which are many years away from occurring.

Quoting SJCRRPAX (Reply 66):
Air freight is good for mail, flowers, bannanas, computer chips, and emergency repair parts

And, according to "Top Gun", rubber dog sh*t!  Smile
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
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 10:33 pm

Quoting Columba (Reply 67):
What does he get from that, some airliner enthusiasts argue about if he is right or not and start another A vs B war ?
How many 747-8Fs can he sell due that "0".
This blog was fun in the beginning, now it is more and more getting repetitive:
We are better, our cabins are wider etc.......you hardly get something really interesting from it, except some empty PR phrases. Mr. Basler and his bloggers should slowly give it a rest.

I personally still find Randy's blog entries interesting.

However, I'll tell you this. In the threads where we do discuss his blog entries, there has been very interesting and informative debate on the issues he discussed. Yes, there are of course the "mine is bigger / better / harder / sexier than yours" posts. But the debate is still worth the read IMHO.

Regards,

Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:03 pm

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 75):
but isn't that true for the 777 also,



Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 76):
The 777F is a notable exception having the largest engines of any airliner,

The 777F can carry all the 777 engines. The GE90 fan does need to be separated from the core, but it was designed to make this separation easy to simplify transportation on all types of carriers.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2811
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:10 pm

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 82):
The 777F can carry all the 777 engines. The GE90 fan does need to be separated from the core, but it was designed to make this separation easy to simplify transportation on all types of carriers.

Strange, on one hand people point out that the GE90 is about the same diameter as a narrowbody jet, then on the otherhand question if it will fit inside a widebody.

I do seem to remember a program on one of those learning channels where they did imply that the GE90 would not fit in a 777. I thought that was wrong when they said it.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:15 pm

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 82):
The 777F can carry all the 777 engines. The GE90 fan does need to be separated from the core, but it was designed to make this separation easy to simplify transportation on all types of carriers.

Right, I was thinking of only the GE90-XXX though, but you are correct about the smaller PW and Trent Engines. I've seen many GE90 fan modules go into the SCD of various freighters, pretty neat...

-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2519
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:28 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 69):
Thirdly, Randy's isn't the only blog on Boeing's site. I for one found this one fascinating, as well as informative and entertaining:-

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777...test/

I found this one very interesting and I would suspect that the customers for the 772LR did read that. Without a flurry of press releases they were able to announce and advise what is going on in the testing program at an in depth level. It may have been that the 772LR certification was non-controversial but I think the A380 would have benefitted greatly from providing the public more information about the ongoing testing.

Yes, I'm sure the blogs were filtered to not discuss adverse information, but it gave a great site for photos, where the planes were, what tests were being done, a feel for the challenges faced.

What did Boeing get for its efforts: a) A place to inform the public about its new product in a professional manner but informal. This information is disseminated without the uncertain translation caused by a third party (media reporting). b) Advise customers what is going on with their very expensive purchase. c) Provide background information to the media so when such media writes about the product they will be better informed. d) Provide information to investors which usually has a positive influence to stock prices. e) Provide information and build excitement with the pool of prospective employees. In the competition for engineers, the company with more "what would you be doing" type information can improve the capture rate of the best candidates vs the competition.

I think Boeing should do a 787 blog.

Back to the topic - I think the A380F will do well with the volume limited shippers - DHL, FedX, UPS, etc. in particular ones with balanced volumes in both directions. However, the bigger market of general freight the 748F will get most of the orders. The lower OEW means less landing and takeoff fees, less fuel used per ton carried, etc already discussed. What hasn't been disucssed is the number of airports that will be equipped to handle the A380F, the special equipment to unload the upper deck at each site, but also MX issues. The availability of spare parts at a given location would naturally be higher for the model that is most frequent at the site vs. the occasional type. Just things like lamps, lenses, hoses, tires, seals, etc.

A lot of freight operations work out of the "other" airports in a market as these usually have lower landing fees - for example BFI has a lot of cargo flights instead of SEA. Will those airports be available for the A380?

Yes the A380F will sell, but I would predict that the 747F will sell at a 2:1 or better. I think that Airbus would have a hit though with a A330 freighter as well as A330 conversions to freighters.

Regards,
Jay
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16157
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:49 pm

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 76):
The 777F is a notable exception having the largest engines of any airliner, but the highly touted A380 with 150t payload can not carry the assembled Trent 900...I do think that is worthy of comment.

The Trent 900 loaded on 747F...

You have just made the point that engines are getting bigger with higher bypass ratios. The 747F cannot carry the GP7000 level, nor could it carry the Trent 8104.

AFAIK the 380F could carry every engine that is current in existence, fairly sure the 9c6025-p02 up-lift propulsor stand for the GE90-115B would fit. I am not sure if they can or cannot carry a Trent 900 in the A380F, I have not seen any roll-over shipping stand designs for the 380 like they have for the CF6 on the 767F. You are certainly correct that it would not have the deck clearance if loaded level.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 72):
But that is not the way freighters oprate. They are seldom at MTOW and most often near maximum structural payload. There is not one operator that would use a heavy freighter to go 7,500nm let alone 5,700 in a single leg and limit their revenue load.

SIN-JNB, SYD-HNL, HKG-SFO, HKG-MAN, LHR-SIN ? Over those sort of sectors not a lot of capacity difference exists between the 772F and the 748F.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
Aither
Posts: 1313
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

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

Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:11 am

Using Randy's own methodology, a lightweight turboprop with 3 passengers would be more efficient than any other Airbus or Boeing aircraft.
The bottom line is at the end of the month airlines are paying their employees with real money and not percentage of...
Never trust the obvious
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

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

Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:17 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 86):
Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 72):
But that is not the way freighters oprate. They are seldom at MTOW and most often near maximum structural payload. There is not one operator that would use a heavy freighter to go 7,500nm let alone 5,700 in a single leg and limit their revenue load.

SIN-JNB, SYD-HNL, HKG-SFO, HKG-MAN, LHR-SIN ? Over those sort of sectors not a lot of capacity difference exists between the 772F and the 748F.

I think you are confusing PAX operations with Cargo, Zeke. First of all but the HKG-SFO and SIN-LHR example are in the range of 5000 to 5500 STATUE miles, and in the case of HKG-SFO, they could and would stop at ANC. As for SIN-LHR take your pick of refueling spots DXB is my choice, but there are many. In fact only the SIN-JNB route has no really nice refueling point, but there is always Diego Garcia, if you can get the Brits and USAF let you use it. Big grin

Cargo really doesn't complain much about a refueling stop. That is why ANC is one of the largest freight handling centers in the world and getting bigger, and it is no accident that it can handle the A380F.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

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

Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:35 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 68):
At short ranges where payload is maxed out and the fuel tanks are nowhere near filled, the 748F looks mighty impressive. But that's only one part of the payload-range curve, and the one that favors the 748F. Granted, it may be the part of the payload-range curve where most freight operators actually operate... but.

then wouldn't most freight operaters take that option? What good would all the "extras" do for operators who don't need it?

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 68):
If the market ever calls for it, with lower SFC engines, a fuselage stretch, structural improvements and higher MTOW (620-ish tonnes), the A388F can grow into something much better, much like its passenger counterpart.

we don't know if that will happen yet..not to mention, engine companies have spent billions in R&D already...I"m sure they would like to at least get some kind of ROI..

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 68):

Now if only Leahy could start a blog, we'd have a field day



Quoting Dhefty (Reply 70):
I think we would all agree that the A380-900 would put this whole argument in a different light.

how do you come up with that conclusion?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 80):
This presumes a plentiful market in used A380s and a plethora of US airports willing and able to receive A380s, both of which are many years away from occurring.

FX and 5X would be using existing A380 infrastrucutre...and FX is assuming (along with ILFC Chairman Udvar-Hazy) that the A380 won't be as successuful as Airbus claims it will be....
"Up the Irons!"
 
astuteman
Posts: 7405
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

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

Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:44 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 89):
and FX is assuming (along with ILFC Chairman Udvar-Hazy) that the A380 won't be as successuful as Airbus claims it will be....

Not heard the FX part of that statement before. Where did they say that?
Regards
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16157
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

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

Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:48 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 88):
I think you are confusing PAX operations with Cargo, Zeke. First of all but the HKG-SFO and SIN-LHR example are in the range of 5000 to 5500 STATUE miles, and in the case of HKG-SFO, they could and would stop at ANC. As for SIN-LHR take your pick of refueling spots DXB is my choice, but there are many. In fact only the SIN-JNB route has no really nice refueling point, but there is always Diego Garcia, if you can get the Brits and USAF let you use it.

I was talking direct cargo ops which do happen over those routes with CX, SQ, KA
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

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

Sat Apr 29, 2006 1:00 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 90):

Not heard the FX part of that statement before. Where did they say that?
Regards

I only have part of the quotes from FX, but another quote stated (quite some time ago) they expected about 400 A380 frames to be sold (about the same is U-H mentioned)

"Meanwhile, FedEx has an eye on the ex-passenger A380 fleet for the longer term, having traditionally bolstered its fleet of new-build freighters with secondhand, cargo-converted aircraft.

A converted -800 would be a less capable aircraft than the new-build A380-800F as it has lower operating weights, but would be ideal for US domestic or regional missions, as well as some international flying, said Sutton. "


flightinternational.com
"Up the Irons!"
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

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

Sat Apr 29, 2006 1:13 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 86):
SIN-JNB, SYD-HNL, HKG-SFO, HKG-MAN, LHR-SIN ? Over those sort of sectors not a lot of capacity difference exists between the 772F and the 748F.

Those are quite long for freighter segments...With the exception of SIN-JNB and SYD-HNL, I don't believe anyone is operating those routes in one leg, not with a freighter...Scheduled freighter ops rarely extends one leg beyond the maximum payload range of the aircraft used. In that vein don't expect the A380F to open up longer freighter routes either. If it offered say 7500nm maximum payload range, and was more compatible with the general market then that would be a game changer. But it's primary use will be to increase throughput on existing package freighter lanes...



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
dhefty
Posts: 587
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 8:04 am

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

Sat Apr 29, 2006 1:50 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 89):
Quoting Dhefty (Reply 70):
I think we would all agree that the A380-900 would put this whole argument in a different light.

how do you come up with that conclusion?

With a small increase in weight along with a large increase in volume, the A380-900F would be in a class by itself. For those that have a need for such a behemoth, there would be no competition, whereas with the present B747-8F versus A380-800F comparison, I would have to agree with Randy.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7405
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

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

Sat Apr 29, 2006 2:38 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 92):
"Meanwhile, FedEx has an eye on the ex-passenger A380 fleet for the longer term, having traditionally bolstered its fleet of new-build freighters with secondhand, cargo-converted aircraft.

A converted -800 would be a less capable aircraft than the new-build A380-800F as it has lower operating weights, but would be ideal for US domestic or regional missions, as well as some international flying, said Sutton. "

I remember the FI article on Sutton, and these quotes. That particular article made no mention of FX's view on the overall A380 market.
Regards
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

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

Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:13 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 91):
I was talking direct cargo ops which do happen over those routes with CX, SQ, KA

Dedicated cargo ops? Or are the a bunch of pax on top? Why would an airline trade fuel for cargo weight unless they ran out of volume anyhow? An extra two hours for a fuel stop is not going to make any difference to the shipper, and to carry fuel instead of cargo is just plain bad business, unless of course you have pax who would get noisy and argumentative.

Even in the case of the A380F, which can have very long range with optional tanks, not one of them have been ordered with those tanks. Neither UPS or FedEx need the range, and EK has DXB and ANC to refuel. You will have to talk to Mr. U-H about his five.

Boeing also says very few of their 747Fs have long range tanks.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

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

Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:19 am

Quoting Dhefty (Reply 94):
With a small increase in weight along with a large increase in volume, the A380-900F would be in a class by itself. For those that have a need for such a behemoth, there would be no competition, whereas with the present B747-8F versus A380-800F comparison, I would have to agree with Randy.

You are right, both UPS and FedEX will love it. As will anybody carrying electronic from China to the rest of the world. Airbus might sell a few - maybe 50, but I doubt enough to make the development worth it.

However, cargo carriers like Cargolux will still by the 748F for the front door and higher cargo densities.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

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

Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:22 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 89):
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 68):

Now if only Leahy could start a blog, we'd have a field day

That would be GREAT. We could have a website called DuelingTalkingHeads.net featuring Leahy and Randy. Or maybe call it the LeahyandRandyShow.net.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

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

Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:30 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 95):
I remember the FI article on Sutton, and these quotes. That particular article made no mention of FX's view on the overall A380 market.
Regards

hence my comment below... Smile

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 92):
I only have part of the quotes from FX, but another quote stated (quite some time ago) they expected about 400 A380 frames to be sold (about the same is U-H mentioned)



Quoting Poitin (Reply 98):
That would be GREAT. We could have a website called DuelingTalkingHeads.net featuring Leahy and Randy. Or maybe call it the LeahyandRandyShow.net.

lol....there should be a monthly Baseler versus Leahy blog on some "neutral" website...would be fun to watch!


at the very least, Leahy should have his own blog on Airbus.com... Smile

Quoting Dhefty (Reply 94):

With a small increase in weight along with a large increase in volume, the A380-900F would be in a class by itself. For those that have a need for such a behemoth, there would be no competition, whereas with the present B747-8F versus A380-800F comparison, I would have to agree with Randy.

I wonder how large the market for that is....I would say its not too big..
"Up the Irons!"

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