Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
ebj1248650
Topic Author
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:15 am

From the Boeing web page: Compared one-on-one, the 747-8 Freighter has no competitors. The 747-8 Freighter's empty weight is 82 tonnes (90 tons) lighter than the A380 freighter. This results in a 24 percent lower fuel burn per ton, which translates into 20 percent lower trip costs and 23 percent lower ton-mile costs than the A380F.

Is this per ton of freight or per ton airplane weight? I guess if you understand sales talk it's clear, but the above statement seems vague to me.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
EI321
Posts: 5072
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:52 am

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Thread starter):
From the Boeing web page

The moment I notice these 'comparisons' are coming straight from manufacturers website I take a treat with caution pill. They tend to only forcus on hypothetical situations that favour the aircraft they are promoting.
 
ebj1248650
Topic Author
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:57 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 1):
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Thread starter):
From the Boeing web page

The moment I notice these 'comparisons' are coming straight from manufacturers website I take a treat with caution pill. They tend to only forcus on hypothetical situations that favour the aircraft they are promoting.

Probably very true but it's still not clear whether they're talking aircraft weight or cargo weight. If aircraft weight, what impact does the additional cargo weight have on the overall comparison picture?
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
FriendlySkies
Posts: 3540
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:57 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:08 pm

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 2):

Probably very true but it's still not clear whether they're talking aircraft weight or cargo weight. If aircraft weight, what impact does the additional cargo weight have on the overall comparison picture?



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Thread starter):
The 747-8 Freighter's empty weight is 82 tonnes (90 tons) lighter than the A380 freighter.

I think it's very clear that they are referring to the OEW of both aircraft.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:39 pm

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Thread starter):
This results in a 24 percent lower fuel burn per ton, which translates into 20 percent lower trip costs and 23 percent lower ton-mile costs than the A380F.

Is this per ton of freight or per ton airplane weight? I guess if you understand sales talk it's clear, but the above statement seems vague to me.

All the per ton figures are based on cargo weight. Aircraft weight doesn't generate revenue, but cargo does. Therefore, you measure your cost based on the cargo weight that generates revenue. When your revenue exceeds cost, then you will make money.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:53 pm

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Thread starter):
Is this per ton of freight or per ton airplane weight?

The B747-8F has an OEW of 399,100lbs. The A380-800F can be configured with two OEWs: 552,385lbs or 556,005lbs. So the 747-8 is around 71 tons lighter in OEW and therefore I am guessing the figure is cargo weight as Dynkrisolo notes above.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:45 pm

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Thread starter):
23 percent lower ton-mile costs than the A380F

The comparison was performed by Boeing on a 4400 nm sector, in a regime where the 748F is MTOW limited and the A380F is payload limited. This unsurprisingly makes the A380 look like a dog.

Anyone with a calculator and a clue can figure out that it isn't 23 percent better per tonne-mile at ranges > 5000 nm. This is true only under one particular scenario, which marketing acumen dictates that Boeing would select. And there's nothing wrong with that.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:50 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 6):
The comparison was performed by Boeing on a 4400 nm sector, in a regime where the 748F is MTOW limited and the A380F is payload limited. This unsurprisingly makes the A380 look like a dog.

Yet for most heavy cargo operators, these are the ranges they would fly because it fits their current distribution system. I think this is one of the reasons the A388F is not gaining any traction in the heavy cargo market, because the 747F just has better economics within that system. The fact that an A388F will carry the same amount of payload as a 747F farther is superfluous, as it's not far enough to offer non-stop service between origin and terminal destination, so they still need to visit an intermediate hub to at least refuel, if not off-load some cargo and take on more.

FX and 5X liked the A380F because their light cargo payloads didn't come near an A388F's NZFW so they could bypass their ANC distribution/fueling hub and fly direct from PVG to IND/MEM/SDF. Their light payload doesn't come close to a 777F's NZFW, either, so it can do the same, which is why FX decided to go with the 777F when they could not get A388F's on the schedule they required.
 
EI321
Posts: 5072
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:51 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
Yet for most heavy cargo operators, these are the ranges they would fly because it fits their current distribution system.

Which is a bit irrelevant if we consider how unsuited the A380 is to heavy cargo operators. Its really only worth its salt in the package world.
 
kappel
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:48 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:55 pm

Quoting EI321 (Reply 8):
Which is a bit irrelevant if we consider how unsuited the A380 is to heavy cargo operators. Its really only worth its salt in the package world.

 checkmark 
As proven by the sales record of both aircraft.
L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
 
EI321
Posts: 5072
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:57 pm

Quoting Kappel (Reply 9):
Quoting EI321 (Reply 8):
Which is a bit irrelevant if we consider how unsuited the A380 is to heavy cargo operators. Its really only worth its salt in the package world.


As proven by the sales record of both aircraft.

And to add to that, the 748F has a great advantage in being better suited as a direct 744F replacement.

[Edited 2007-02-12 14:57:39]
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:15 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 8):
Its really only worth its salt in the package world.

And in the package world, a converted pax airframe may be more economic than a new-build freighter. If I'm FedEx, I'm thinking I can afford to wait a few years and obtain such aircraft relatively cheaply.
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:02 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 8):
Which is a bit irrelevant if we consider how unsuited the A380 is to heavy cargo operators. Its really only worth its salt in the package world.

It's actually not unsuited to them in terms of capability. It carries a heavier load the same distance a 747F will or the same load of a 747F farther.

The problem is one of infrastructure. Cargo distribution hubs are designed around the distances a 747F can haul a "normal" load. And that distance does not favor the A388F. And those hubs are optimized to handle single-deck cargo carriers so they need to be upgraded to service twin-deck carriers like the A388.

What hurts the A388F is her significant OEW penalty over the 747F. She weighs 70 tons more empty then a 748F, but offers only 7% more payload (150t vs. 140t) or 10% more volume (938 cubic meters vs. 854 cubic meters). And while Boeing's claimed 20% advantage may be using the most favorable numbers, when comparing "like to like" in terms of missions and payloads, the 748F will have a trip cost around 12% lower and 12% is not insignificant to cargo operators.

As such, Airbus might have been better off going with a lighter plane designed to haul more payload then a 744F the same distance, and not adding in more structure to support more fuel to offer more range at similar (or lower) payloads.

Of course, when Airbus developed the A388F, they may have assumed that Boeing would not offer a plane with better performance then the 744F. The A388F as it is now is a much better plane then the 744F in terms of payload and range and if Boeing had not been able to improve the line as they did with the 748F, the A388F's future prospects with heavy cargo operators probably would have been brighter.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:02 am

As the list debates this thread it would be worth studying Widebodyphotog's table at
http://theaviationspecialist.com/450-800seat_data_table.gif
 
kappel
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:48 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:07 am

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 11):
wait a few years and obtain such aircraft relatively cheaply

A few will most likely be 20 years or more before a second hand a380 comes in the market. That's quite a long time to wait.
L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:17 am

Quoting Kappel (Reply 14):
(It) will most likely be 20 years or more before a second hand a380 comes in the market. That's quite a long time (for FX) to wait (to get one cheap for conversion).

Agreed. Assuming 5X doesn't cancel and scuttle the program, I expect FX will start adding A388Fs into their fleet around 2013-2015 unless the 747-8F proves to be more efficient or the 777F proves itself sufficient for the job.
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:04 am

Quoting Kappel (Reply 14):
A few will most likely be 20 years or more before a second hand a380 comes in the market. That's quite a long time to wait.

I don't think it will be that long. It will be fun watching to see who's right, as time will tell. smile 
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9719
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:53 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 10):

And to add to that, the 748F has a great advantage in being better suited as a direct 744F replacement.

certainly, the 747-8F uses exactly the same infrastructuire the 747-400F or older models are using today laready. That infrastructure is available all over the world. Highloaders to service the 380 upper deck are not existant, stillnot debveloped and costly to buy for very few operations per week.



Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 11):

And in the package world, a converted pax airframe may be more economic than a new-build freighter. If I'm FedEx, I'm thinking I can afford to wait a few years and obtain such aircraft relatively cheaply



It may not be that easy to convert a 380 pax to cargo.You have 2 floors to strenghten instead of one. That alone may turn the whole economics of such a conversion thumbs down.


It is highly likely that Airbus simply did not expect Boeing to go ahead with the 747-8 and even if they did they never expected that derivate to be successful.

The 747-8 plus conversions of older passenger models will be around for a long time and cream off the cargo market in that segment. It is a desaster for Airbus that they will not get the freigjhter sales which must have been calculated as a safe bank for the program.
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6024
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:57 am

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 17):

It may not be that easy to convert a 380 pax to cargo.You have 2 floors to strenghten instead of one. That alone may turn the whole economics of such a conversion thumbs down.

Not to mention that the A380 decks aren't as tall as those on the 747F and 777F; plus the top deck floor is apparently stress-bearing along the width axis.
“In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.”
-Donny Miller
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:04 am

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 17):
It may not be that easy to convert a 380 pax to cargo.You have 2 floors to strenghten instead of one. That alone may turn the whole economics of such a conversion thumbs down.

We can think of converting an A380 as being equivalent to converting a pair of A340's, so on the basis of capability it ought to be viable. I do wonder how much strengthening would be required for a dedicated package freighter (i.e. low-density payload) and whether there are any complications with the upper floor - is it sufficient to strengthen the floor beams alone, or would some work be required on the fuselage structure itself? If the latter is true, then you may well be right - the conversion might not be economic in that case.
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:09 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
FX and 5X liked the A380F because their light cargo payloads didn't come near an A388F's NZFW so they could bypass their ANC distribution/fueling hub and fly direct from PVG to IND/MEM/SDF.

This is false. Both FedEx and UPS planned to use the A380 in ANC and the airport upgraded their runways and taxiways to accomodate it.

Quote:
These types of improvements are being replicated in more than a dozen airports across the country. According to the Government Accountability Office, New York's JFK will spend $150 million, and Anchorage, Alaska has set aside $120 million.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5530464

Quote:
In August 2008, FedEx is to become the first cargo carrier to take possession of the giant Airbus. It will be the first to deploy the plane for cargo customer use and will likely be the first to land the plane in Anchorage on official business.[/quote
http://www.allbusiness.com/management/969319-1.html

[quote] ...UPS has a hub in Anchorage, ditto FedEx, and why both plan to expand in the next 12 months - in part to cater to growing traffic from Asia, and in part to accommodate the new Airbus A380. (A 747 usually has one full cargo deck and several smaller holds. The A380, the first aircraft of its kind, has three full decks.)

http://www.anchoragepress.com/archives-2006/coverstoryvol15ed27.shtml
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:19 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 20):
This is false. Both FedEx and UPS planned to use the A380 in ANC and the airport upgraded their runways and taxiways to accomodate it.

Yes, it stands to reason FX and 5X woulf fly A388s to ANC since they have major ops there, but A388s would also be used in a non-stop role, bypassing ANC.

Quote:
"The A380 will be capable of flying directly between Asia, Europe and our hubs in the U.S. with nearly twice the payload of the MD-11," said Smith. "Rather than operating daily multiple MD-11 aircraft from these markets, we will be able to operate with a single aircraft, the A380, with unit costs expected to be substantially lower than with the MD-11. This is absolutely the right strategic decision for our customers, shareholders and our nearly 200,000 employees around the world."

(emphasis mine)

http://www.fedex.com/cgi-bin/content.../pressreleases/apac/pr011601&cc=mo

Since they said "North American hubs", and not "hub", that means non-stop services would also be possible to MEM and IND.

Also, FX noted that they would fly the 777s direct between PVG and MEM/IND so I can't see FX buying 15 777s with the same capacity as 10 A388Fs to perform a "new" mission profile that the A388F couldn't.

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=7007
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9719
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:53 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 20):
This is false. Both FedEx and UPS planned to use the A380 in ANC and the airport upgraded their runways and taxiways to accomodate it.

which makes only sense when FX feeds into ANC from MEM IND AFW ORD OAK EWR they simply need the ANC hub and make use of the excellent stratetic location. Which does not prevent them from operating direct flights like MEM-NRT when capacity warrants that.

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 19):
We can think of converting an A380 as being equivalent to converting a pair of A340's, so on the basis of capability it ought to be viable. I do wonder how much strengthening would be required for a dedicated package freighter (i.e. low-density payload)

don't forget that the "package" carriers carry a lot of envelopes with documents which may have a weight volume ratio rather at 1:3 than the air cargo average of 1:5 . I am not an engineer and I have no way of knowing what it takes to strenghten the fllors of an A380.

The questions are - would it be economically viable to carry out such work on a 380 when there are ample numbers of 747s and smaller aircraft available, especially when such a conversion does not give any additional benefit such as outsize cargo capability.

OK, that would be at least 20 years down the road, but from today's situation the A380F is not having a business case, not as conversions and not as "new" since the 747-8F received the go ahead,
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16078
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:13 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
The B747-8F has an OEW of 399,100lbs.

Boeing is now saying 747-8 Freighter GEnx-2B67 970,000 lb MTOW, 413,600 lb OEW, 4,475 nm from http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/7478brochure.pdf page 13

That is a 14500 lb increase in OEW.

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 13):
As the list debates this thread it would be worth studying Widebodyphotog's table at
http://theaviationspecialist.com/450...e.gif

The table now seems a little out of date, page 4 of the document above has the updated information. The engine has changed as well, I understand it has increased in diameter and SFC. Fuel capacity has increased for basically the same range (4475 nm), was 215,257 liters, now is 229,135 liters.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 10):
And to add to that, the 748F has a great advantage in being better suited as a direct 744F replacement.

With the qualification that the 748 is ICAO Cat F airport capability, not Cat E like the present 744F.
“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
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:17 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 23):
Boeing is now saying 747-8 Freighter GEnx-2B67 970,000 lb MTOW, 413,600 lb OEW

Yup. I was mistakenly looking at the 747-400 passenger specs on Page 10. Thanks for the catch,
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:00 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
The A380 will be capable of flying directly between Asia, Europe and our hubs in the U.S.

Just because it's capable of doing it, doesn't mean it will do it.

If you carry less fuel, you can carry more cargo.

Some 777F flights may bypass ANC, but I doubt all of them will. Time will tell.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:03 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 25):
Just because it's capable of doing it, doesn't mean it will do it...some 777F flights may bypass ANC, but I doubt all of them will. Time will tell.

Sure. And some A388F flights might bypass ANC, while some/many/most will not.

FX's statements in their Press Releases for both the A388F and 777F noted that the planes would be used for direct flights between their Asian hubs (PVG / ?) and their US hubs (MEM and IND). So that means at least some of them will most likely do just that.  Smile
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:24 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
FX's statements in their Press Releases for both the A388F and 777F noted that the planes would be used for direct flights between their Asian hubs (PVG / ?) and their US hubs (MEM and IND).

Your reading an awful lot into a 2001 press release from a company that cancelled their A380 order. The press release you linked to never specified MEM and IND, although that's a logical conclusion.

I don't know how it works in cargo ops but on pax flights a direct flight is not the same as a non-stop flight. A direct flight can indeed make a stop, it just means you don't have to switch planes.

All of this is likely moot, since FedEx cancelled their order and its probable UPS will too.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16078
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:31 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
Sure. And some A388F flights might bypass ANC, while some/many/most will not.

FYI, ANC is pricing itself out of the market, many freight companies are pulling out even with 747s, it is getting too expensive, YVR will be the next big hub.

At maximum structural payload, the 380F could do HKG-YVR which is offering an alternative to the two stop, flights to the USA via Japan and Anchorage. Also can do direct LHR/MAN from China at max payload.

Each stop on the 747 cost in the order of 15t-20t of fuel in the additional climb, descent, and taxi, and additional cycles.
“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
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:49 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 28):
FYI, ANC is pricing itself out of the market, many freight companies are pulling out even with 747s, it is getting too expensive, YVR will be the next big hub.

At maximum structural payload, the 380F could do HKG-YVR which is offering an alternative to the two stop, flights to the USA via Japan and Anchorage. Also can do direct LHR/MAN from China at max payload.

Each stop on the 747 cost in the order of 15t-20t of fuel in the additional climb, descent, and taxi, and additional cycles.

What you say is quite true, but you need to put it into context. The shippers don't care! Airlines and package movers have been very agressive as far as passing through the costs to the shippers. There is a tradeoff that shippers don't seem to mind having a tech stop in lieu of quicker delivery. With a freighter operating HKG-ANC-JFK, that freighter can take a full load, do a tech stop in ANC and only add 45-60 minutes to the entire route.

If the demand were there for non-stop shipments, the market would bear the rates. I can only really remember a few instances where I went from the US to Asia non-stop. It was for pricey things such as cherries or other commodities like that.

The market has proven the 380 isn't suited to freight. It's too heavy, increased fuel burn, it doesn't have the floor loading to support heavy cargo. In short, it's just not suited to the market.
Fly fast, live slow
 
patroni
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 1999 7:49 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:50 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 28):
Each stop on the 747 cost in the order of 15t-20t of fuel in the additional climb, descent, and taxi, and additional cycles.

Maybe. However in an unbalanced market like China-Europe or China-USA, the A380F leads to significantly higher overflying and landing costs on the light sectors to Asia as those charges are usually calculated based on MTOW. The 380 calculation can work when it is full in both directions and operates a longer sector than the 748F at max payload.
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:58 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 28):
FYI, ANC is pricing itself out of the market, many freight companies are pulling out even with 747s, it is getting too expensive, YVR will be the next big hub.

Could you please list some of the "many" freight companies that are pulling out?
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9719
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:06 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 27):

I don't know how it works in cargo ops but on pax flights a direct flight is not the sam

works the same. A direct flight can make one or more stops en route.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 28):
FYI, ANC is pricing itself out of the market, many freight companies are pulling out even with 747s, it is getting too expensive, YVR will be the next big hu

ANC is just ideal as a stop over point. Check out the number of daily 741/742s stopping there. Besides, what FX/UPS/NWA are doing there cannot simply be transferred to YVR. You get a third country customs agenvy involved.

YVR would work only if Canada Customs would declare the hub facilities including tarmac a foreign trade zone.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 28):
Also can do direct LHR/MAN from China at max payload

you'r egetting something wrong here. These flights go via Asia. LH switched from FAI to Astana, some use Tashkent or Baku. but we are getting off topic here.

The question was 747 vs 380 operating costs. Assuming the 380s would fly US hub to ANC - switch containers there and continue to the final Asian destination, the planes could be loaded up to max capacity on each segment. But that would be true for the 747-8F or the 777F as well. ANC is simply an ideal place for such operations because of the equidistance to the main origin / destination cities. Even European hubs like CDG or STN can be included .
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14423
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:20 am

Would ANC have become a cargo hub if feighters could have easily reached the far east / china from US cargo centers?

Bypassing hubs could safe time & money.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:42 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
FX and 5X liked the A380F because their light cargo payloads didn't come near an A388F's NZFW so they could bypass their ANC distribution/fueling hub and fly direct from PVG to IND/MEM/SDF. Their light payload doesn't come close to a 777F's NZFW, either, so it can do the same, which is why FX decided to go with the 777F when they could not get A388F's on the schedule they required.

I'll add to this and say ton for ton against 777F the A380 is a loser on basically any segment as its ton/mile cost are significantly greater at typical freighter segment lengths with general cargo loads. In the FedEx equation which is biased greatly towards volume, it'sroughly a wash between the operating cost per unit volume/nm. In the FedEx configuration the available space on A380 would be approx 1040 cubic meters including 53 AYY, 33 AMJ, and 44 LD-3 containers. For the 777-200F the space would be 27 AMJ and 23 LD-3 containers for approximately 590 cubic meters. The average cargo density FedEx realizes is absurdly light by general market standards, but for the sake of argument let's call it 100KG/cu m which gives respective payloads of 100 and 59t. For PVG-MEM operating cost break almost dead even with about a 1-3% cost advantage going towards the 777. This can be easily mitigated against with cut-rate pricing, financing and so forth for the Airbus, but late delivery is extremely hard to mitigate against...

And with that said now that the A380F orders are cancelled I think they will stay cancelled. Why turn around three or four years from now and make the transition from very economical, flexible freighter fleet to gigantic, less flexible more costly aircraft?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 23):
The engine has changed as well, I understand it has increased in diameter and SFC. Fuel capacity has increased for basically the same range (4475 nm), was 215,257 liters, now is 229,135 liters.

Engine size and basic spec have not changed. However according to GE engine efficiency has increased since the publishing of the initial information release all the way back in November 2005...According to Boeing fuel burn only increased by about 1% November 2005 to October 2006 information releases. Meaning about 2-3,000lbs more fuel is needed to fly the same distance with the heavier aircraft. Fuel capacity is irrelavent and a by product of common structures of the passenger and freighter aircraft. The freighter needs nowhere near maximum fuel capacity with normal payloads.



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:44 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 33):
Bypassing hubs could safe time & money.



Quote:
Simply stated, payload versus range economics proves it is
better to carry cargo than tanker gas. For example, a direct flight
from Oakland to Shanghai is 6,013 miles. Comparatively, to go
from Oakland to Anchorage to Shanghai, it is a traveling distance
of 6,157 miles. While that is a mere 144-mile difference, the
difference in payload is significant. To fly direct without stopping,
an aircraft can carry 65,000 kilos, but with a scheduled stop at
Anchorage, an additional 45,000 kilos are allowed to bring the
allocated weight up to a total of 110,000 kilos.
At a nominal $2 rate per kilo, those 45,000 kilos return the
airport an additional $90,000, and if an airline flies four or five
routes a day, such as UPS, FedEx, Northwest, and JAL among
others, that would equate to a mean $400,000 in additional
revenue per airline per day.

http://www.aci-na.org/docs/Centerlines_2006_Summer.pdf
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:55 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 33):
Bypassing hubs could safe time & money.

Hence Boeing's strategy in the passenger segment.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
patroni
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 1999 7:49 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:09 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 35):
Quote:
For example, a direct flight
from Oakland to Shanghai is 6,013 miles. Comparatively, to go
from Oakland to Anchorage to Shanghai, it is a traveling distance
of 6,157 miles. (...) with a scheduled stop at
Anchorage, an additional 45,000 kilos are allowed (...)
At a nominal $2 rate per kilo, (...)

Even though I agree with the principle of additional stops to increase payload, I am wondering if the example OAK-PVG is not poorly selected by the magazine. If not I want to see which agent is willing to pay 2USD/kg and has a full load from teh USA to China 4 times a day...
 
coleplane
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:54 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:36 am

Quoting Kappel (Reply 14):
will most likely be 20 years or more before a second hand a380 comes in the market



Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 16):
I don't think it will be that long.

Agreed. I'm thinking 10-15. Case in point - SIA who pride themselves on having a young fleet. Do you think they would transfer them to their cargo division and/or does the A380F even suit their particular cargo needs?
"About a nine on the tension scale there Rupe."
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:00 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 33):
Would ANC have become a cargo hub if feighters could have easily reached the far east / china from US cargo centers?

Bypassing hubs could safe time & money.

Even if they could flying with increased mass fractions of fuel at longer ranges increases ton/mile costs...

Quoting Zeke (Reply 28):
Each stop on the 747 cost in the order of 15t-20t of fuel in the additional climb, descent, and taxi, and additional cycles.

Fuel costs USD .57/KG Freight yields USD 2-4/KG from Japan/Asia. 1st rule of freighter ops never sacrifice revenue payload for fuel...

For an example run for a 747-8 from NRT-ORD non-stop we'd be limited to a max payload of 114t and a fuel burn of 123t. Doing the run via ANC the payload is increased to the structural maximum of 134t and burns for the NRT-ANC and ANC-ORD segments are 66t and 54t respectively for a total of 120t! How dumb would we be to trade 3t in additional fuel for 20t in cargo just to make the non-stop?!. In case anyone wonders why the total fuel burn is less for the stop? Its because the required takeoff weights are 89,000 and 118,000lbs less than what is required for the non-stop flight! Freighter economics is cool ain't it!



-widebodyphotog

[Edited 2007-02-13 02:29:00]
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:21 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 28):
YVR will be the next big hub.

Doubtful.

A NRT-ORD flight stopping in YVR instead of ANC would add 159 miles to the trip.
A NRT-JFK flight stopping in YVR instead of ANC would add 303 miles to the trip


ANC stop = 6279 mi
YVR stop = 6438 mi


ANC stop = 6819 mi
YVR stop = 7122 mi


NRT-LAX via YVR has a 24 mile advantage over ANC

http://gc.kls2.com/

[Edited 2007-02-13 02:26:17]
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6024
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:41 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 28):
YVR will be the next big hub.



Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 40):
Doubtful.

Yes, ANC is uniquely positioned for this. It's essentially astride several major routes, hence its importance in a military capacity as well.
“In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.”
-Donny Miller
 
jbernie
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:09 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:55 am

To ask a question i am pretty sure i know the answer too, but hey..shoot me down  Smile

Can the A380F model be setup in more of a combi application?
- hold = fuel and passenger cargo
- lower level = all cargo
- upper level = all passengers

The config would not require additional upgrades to make the upper floor cargo ready. Keeping the cargo on the main level keeps it at a normal height for existing equipment. We would assume the passenger leg would be from one A380 ready airport to another and the passenger bridges would be available for upper deck.

Issues... this would really only work on routes where you can legitimately combine the two, and i would expect this can only be done by Airlines not freight companies.. or have the A380 on fly to the cargo destination and back before the return passenger leg. Still potential issues for a tech stop on route for fuel. Would passengers take a fligh with a guranteed tech stop?

To counter this, if a non combi flight required you to travel to a transfer point anyways, opening up a route with a tech stop may not be a bad deal time wise, stopping for an hour doesnt sound too bad in comparison to stop overs that could be 2 or more hours, even more so if your initial flight goes in a direction other than you destination. i.e. flying south to go east , as opposed to always flying east, just with a short delay. Airlines would also not need to have such a high volume of passengers as it is only a 50% passenger flight.

I could see say somone like Qantas who (from reading here) seems to be unable to justify a full freighter for itself, could make these kind of trips between SYD-LAX (maybe). Or use the flights to pick up some extra cargo business which it would otherwise not be able to justify. Before shooting my down, yes QF only has passenger jets for now, but theoretically they might be benifit from a setup.

Another alternate would be (example) the flight operating as a QF flight and they sub lease the cargo portion to a cargo company to give them more capacity, assuming one flight each direction each day could a FedEx or UPS type company send their Urgent packages this route and leave their not so urgent stuff for their own jets? Or Maybe free up a jet for a different route?

Just trying to think of alternates to the all cargo setup that would allow Airbus to make things happen... even if i am a 747 fan.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:40 pm

Quoting Jbernie (Reply 42):
Can the A380F model be setup in more of a combi application?
- hold = fuel and passenger cargo
- lower level = all cargo
- upper level = all passengers

It may be possible. New build single-deck combis have new fireproofing rules between the cargo and passenger areas. These may apply to a dual-deck combi, as well.
 
jbernie
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:09 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:48 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 43):
It may be possible. New build single-deck combis have new fireproofing rules between the cargo and passenger areas. These may apply to a dual-deck combi, as well.

Should have thought of that, my dad is involved in lots of non aviation fire safety work. D'oh!  Smile

I guess though the fireproofing between the levels would not be as heavy as making the floor of the 2nd level weight bearing for cargo, though it could definately impact the performance of the air craft.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:00 pm

Here are a few numbers I crunched. Unlike Widebodyphotog I don't have fancy mission analysis tools or access to detailed OEM data, so I used the documents available on Airbus and Boeing's websites and plugged stuff into Excel. Results should be good to roughly 10 percent.

I tabulated the performance numbers of the A388F, B744F, and B748F... looking at:
how much payload, vs. range
how much fuel load, vs. range
how many tonne-miles hauled, vs. range
how much fuel is used per tonne-mile, vs. range

The last item is plotted in the figure below (which you need to click on to see full size).

Big version: Width: 897 Height: 835 File size: 49kb


The picture speaks for itself: while the A388F had better economics than the 744F, especially at longer range, the 748F basically caught up to it (and even beats it at ranges < 4500 nm). Throw in advantages like smaller size, stronger floors, a nose door for long cargo, a large side door for tall cargo, and better compatibility with existing cargo infrastructure, and you can see why the 748F is running away with the large freighter market.

...at least until an A388F with stronger floors can be built using A350 engines, which probably can't happen until 2015.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 34):
I'll add to this and say ton for ton against 777F the A380 is a loser on basically any segment as its ton/mile cost are significantly greater at typical freighter segment lengths with general cargo loads.

Can you provide data on the 777F payload range performance? The ACAP doc doesn't include them yet. I'd be curious to throw it into the mix and see how it stacks up against the others. Also, are you doing a more complex accounting of ton/mile costs than just fuel?

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 39):
Freighter economics is cool ain't it!

 checkmark  even with a pencil and a napkin.
 
iwok
Posts: 979
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:35 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:38 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 28):
Each stop on the 747 cost in the order of 15t-20t of fuel in the additional climb, descent, and taxi, and additional cycles.



Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 39):
In case anyone wonders why the total fuel burn is less for the stop? Its because the required takeoff weights are 89,000 and 118,000lbs less than what is required for the non-stop flight! Freighter economics is cool ain't it!

Well that is certainly an interesting clarification... Its amazing how different it is to pax economics where you have to take into account peoples desire to have the shortest possible travel time..

Quoting Jbernie (Reply 42):
Can the A380F model be setup in more of a combi application?
- hold = fuel and passenger cargo
- lower level = all cargo
- upper level = all passengers

Now that's an interesting idea. I could see SAA using something like that.

iwok
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9719
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:39 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 33):
Would ANC have become a cargo hub if feighters could have easily reached the far east / china from US cargo centers?

For the US integrators yes. The location is right on the great circile route, the freight from the East Coast, the Midwest and South and the West Coast goes up to ANC and the paletts for the variuous destinations in the Far East are simply shuffled around

Quoting Patroni (Reply 37):
OAK-PVG is not poorly selected by the magazine. If not I want to see which agent is willing to pay 2USD/kg and has a full load from teh USA to China 4 times a day..

No freight forwarder has a full load from a single place in the US to a single place in China 4 times a day. You pay a net rate to a carrier to get your custoemr's frfeight from A to B. What you worry about is how to make a profit on that businesss. You could not give a damn how many stops the plane makes en route.
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2744
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:22 pm

WingedMigrator,

might want to triplecheck your figures, there is a strange "dent" in the 748 curve. I think your figures around the 7K nm need to be reviewed....
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:57 pm

Hi Widebodyphotog, good to see your byline again.

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