Can't tell you for sure but look for news headlines regarding the A380 F for UPS tomorrow possibly.

They are doubling the order? LOL

BTW the 767 order firmed up today.

Well, most people have predicted that UPS will end up canceling their A380F order... It is very possible that it will indeed happen and that the A380F program will be without any orders, and probably will stay that way for a long time (if Airbus decides to keep the program as they have stated)...that said, if UPS keeps the order, it will only keep the program alive, but it won't be giving it any boost at all... so either way, the A380F program is in a very bad situation..... personally I wish that UPS would keep their order, but that may not be what UPS needs as it would be the one and only operator of the type.... Anyways, I hope tomorrow we have a suprise (that UPS keeps and expands their order), if not, it will be the news most people have being waiting for...

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 1): They are doubling the order? LOL

Doubtful IMO. As I see it, it could be a reduction of their firm orders and an order for a few 747-8Fs, or a total cancellation of the A380F order and an order for a few A330Fs and perhaps a handful of 747-8Fs.

BTW: When is 5X's first 747-400F due for delivery?

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 3): When is 5X's first 747-400F due for delivery?

Per the Boeing Release today on the 767, the first 747-400F is due for delivery mid 07

It is interesting that possible news is coming right on the heels of firming the 767 order. Coincidence? Safe to cancel (or convert some to 330) now that alternate lift is assured?

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 3): Doubtful IMO. As I see it, it could be a reduction of their firm orders and an order for a few 747-8Fs, or a total cancellation of the A380F order and an order for a few A330Fs and perhaps a handful of 747-8Fs. BTW: When is 5X's first 747-400F due for delivery?

The first aircraft, tail number N570UP, is due to be delivered this June, one of eight orders for new 747s

Could it be as simple as a 380F "deferral"? No outright cancellation, keeps the order on the books and allows UPS to look other Airbus alternatives, such as the 350F. I don't think they will order the 330F.

OR

How about, where satisfied with how things are going, and we will maintain the order.

Drew

Can't it be a full cancellation without a replacement order (300/330or 350), they seem to have valid reasons for just letting it go without having to pay any penalties or having to compensate for the cancellation?

It would be sad if they canceled the entire order, I still would like to see what type of airplane the A380F would turn out to be.

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 7): Could it be as simple as a 380F "deferral"? No outright cancellation, keeps the order on the books and allows UPS to look other Airbus alternatives, such as the 350F. I don't think they will order the 330F.

Quoting KL808 (Reply 8): How about, where satisfied with how things are going, and we will maintain the order.

Seems reasonable either way. FedEx has said they'd like to come back for the 380 when time and money permits. They wanted to stick with the A380 but apparently had no choice but to cancel when they did.

I'm guessing Airbus has struck a deal of some sort with UPS and both will come out of this just fine.

[Edited 2007-02-15 23:43:15]

Believe it or not, I think the 748F will kill the A380F. That lift-up nose and front loading is just a HUGE advantage in the 747F's favor. When A380 orders were placed, it didn't look as if Boeing was going to respond witha new freighter of their own, then along came the 748F and changed everything. That nose is more important than it gets credit for.

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 12): Believe it or not, I think the 748F will kill the A380F. That lift-up nose and front loading is just a HUGE advantage in the 747F's favor. When A380 orders were placed, it didn't look as if Boeing was going to respond witha new freighter of their own, then along came the 748F and changed everything. That nose is more important than it gets credit for.

Except that, according to the development history of the 380, when customers were asked what was important to them in terms of a freighter - the forward-loading configuration scored well down the list. So the initial 380 architecture development did not consider an airframe what could accomodate forward loading in the 3XXF configuration.

I have no idea why this was the case, but there it is. I've read articles which have also said that side-loading is no big deal. Any freight people care to shed some light on this?

@hb88:

Problem with surveys is it all depends on who you ask and who responds. It's possible to be both important and unimportant depending on the customer in question I suppose.

I would imagine its a bigger deal for traditional cargo than packages for example.

It may also be that front loading on a double deck doesn't matter, as the double deck poses unique challenges either way?

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 12): Believe it or not, I think the 748F will kill the A380F

I could be wrong, but it sure seems as though thats already happened

Quoting HB88 (Reply 13): Except that, according to the development history of the 380, when customers were asked what was important to them in terms of a freighter - the forward-loading configuration scored well down the list.

Maybe they asked cargo operators that don't already operate such a system or who have no plans to? Like Osiris said, it all comes down to WHO you ask, HOW you ask, and how you PRESENT the data. I can't imagine large 747F operators saying that a nose door isn't that important. But thats just my guess/opinion.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 14): Problem with surveys is it all depends on who you ask and who responds.

much more important is who buys!!!

I'm sure that it wasn't very important to alot of the people asked about the nose loading door.... simply because they already have 747F factory builds in the fleet to handle the cargo that only fits through a nose door. That doesn't remove the fact that the A380F is more than a bit silly since you have very minimal access to put things into it for transport.

Many people correctly point out the low % use of the 747 nose door in overall fleet usage. They fail to realise that every time that opens for a cargo, the operator just made a pile of money because it won't fit in any normal freighter.

The 748F "wins" against the A380F, not because it has a nose door. Rather its the opposite, the A380F LOSES because it does not have one. The A330F/777F both win against the A380F with flexibility, and certainly in the 777F's case no loss in cost a ton mile. Certainly the lower initial price for the 767F and its low trip costs are a nice selling point for it. Smaller frieghters will increasingly dominate the package industry with thier flexiblity. Its alot easier to park a 767 in the desert over trying to park 1/2 a A380F in your next downturn. Its easy to send off 2 767 from one airport to two locations or from two locations to one airport. The A380F can't do that. The A330F is exactly the same knife in the A380F's back as the 767. Vastly more flexible in fleet usage, and still cheap enough to buy and run to make the A380F a suckers bet .

Logic suggests that this deal is the opposite of the normal situation. Not how much compensation Airbus pays UPS to keep the order - but how much they pay UPS to CANCEL it!

Presumably, from Airbus' point of view, they are contractually bound to complete design work and testing on the A380F. Like everything else in aircraft manufacture, this will cost yet more billions - which they cannot possibly recoup just from the small number that UPS would be taking. And, given the way the 748F has already swept the market, there is precious little chance of anyone else ordering A380Fs in the near future.

UPS, on the other hand, have a binding contractual agreement which entitles them to the supply of the aeroplanes. Depending on the terms of the agreement, If Airbus fails to meet that obligation UPS could theoretically sue not for compensation but for 'specific performance' - i.e. ask the court to FORCE Airbus to develop and supply the specified aeroplane.

So it's very likely that the negotiations are not about how much compensation UPS will receive to leave the contract in place and accept late delivery - but about how much Airbus has to pay UPS (in cash or in discounted aircraft) to persuade UPS to cancel its order.

If so, it's an odd situation to say the least.....  

Didn't 5x get used frames from EVA Air? If so, what are the tail numbers slated to be?

MCOflyer

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 18): So it's very likely that the negotiations are not about how much compensation UPS will receive to leave the contract in place and accept late delivery - but about how much Airbus has to pay UPS (in cash or in discounted aircraft) to persuade UPS to cancel its order.

Just curious ,,, when two parties (such as Airbus and UPS in this case) are negotiating, and one has a clear advatnage over the other ... is it more typical that the one with an upper hand milks it for everything it's worth even to the point of severe pain for the other party ... or do they back off a bit. It's always possible that at some point in the future, the same two parties can find themselves in a reversed situation. Are there any "notorius" cases in the industry where one party really stuck it to the other (just because they could)?

Same as any other negotiation, I expect, NoWorries - one party starts at X and the other starts at something like 3X, and they eventually agree on a figure somewhere in the middle.

The possible 'wild card' in this instance is that the contract will definitely have terms spelt out governing what happens in the event of cancellation by the airline - but it could well be 'silent' on what happens in the event of outright cancellation (as opposed to mere delay) by the MANUFACTURER.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 18): Logic suggests that this deal is the opposite of the normal situation. Not how much compensation Airbus pays UPS to keep the order - but how much they pay UPS to CANCEL it! Presumably, from Airbus' point of view, they are contractually bound to complete design work and testing on the A380F. Like everything else in aircraft manufacture, this will cost yet more billions - which they cannot possibly recoup just from the small number that UPS would be taking.

Yes, IMO best situation would be if Airbus (a) still had a lot of development costs as yet unspent (b) could freeze development now by virtue of having 0 unfulfilled orders.

Freezing A380F development would presumably release some engineering resources, too. And Airbus can always revisit the A380F in the future if demand warrants the investment.

NoWorries, further to 21:-

UPS' starting-point would be to add up the expected loss of profits due to not having the aircraft available at the specified time - plus the cost of providing the extra capacity by the purchase of alternative aircraft, with due allownce for the delay involved. Then they would deduct the purchase prices they were due to pay Airbus to reach their 'asking' figure.

Airbus would have to respond by calculating the savings that they would 'enjoy' through NOT having to develop the A380F at this stage, in return only for the sales revenue from the UPS order.

It is very possible that the two figures will roughly coincide. Any difference would be the subject of some horse-trading.

Whatever happens, it seems virtually certain that BOTH figures will have at least nine noughts on the end.....  

There is a one week old article at FlightGlobal related to the A380F w.r.t. UPS uncertainty.

Quoting the above news story: (Airbus marketing vice president Colin Stuart) says the configuration of the A380F is not a problem. While the aircraft does not have the ability to handle the non-standard outsize freight which can be loaded through the nose-door of the Boeing 747 freighter, Stuart says that this makes the 747F an “orphan” – and points out that the A380F is able to deal with all the standard pallet sizes handled by other freighter aircraft.

Can anyone explain what he means by: "this makes the 747F an orphan" ?

Quoting WestWing (Reply 24): Can anyone explain what he means by: "this makes the 747F an orphan" ?

We can't do it so we'll sour grapes about the whole thing and down play it and poo-poo it like everything else Boeing does (but secretly we're going to copy the idea shortly).

Quoting WestWing (Reply 24): Can anyone explain what he means by: "this makes the 747F an orphan"?

Mr. Stuart is implying that the 747F's will only sell to customers who need to load odd-sized cargo that requires the nose door because the A380F can handle every "standard" pallet size the 747F can so customers who ship "standard" pallets can do so with the A380F.

Of course, Mr. Stuart fails to note that a 747F handles all those "standard" pallets more efficiently and effectively then an A380F for almost all cargo operators at this time.

So in fact, the A380F is more the "orphan" at this moment in time in that it's only real advantage over the 748I is in raw volume for low-density packages. Alas, that appeals mostly only to FX and 5X in this moment in time...

What would the possibility be for development of a nose door configured like the Super Transporter? Of course the flight deck would not be lowered like on the "ST" and the lower deck may still accept pallets through a side door perhaps located further down the fuselage.
I realize this would be quite a bit of work to come up with,but what is the feasibility of this idea?

If someone with some expertise could respond,it would help to serve my curiosity .


Thanks, A&P

Quoting WestWing (Reply 24): Can anyone explain what he means by: "this makes the 747F an orphan" ?

What he might mean is that the 747 is geared to handle outsize freight; making it something of an exception to the rule of loading common freight through side doors. However, that's not to say that because the 747 has this particular ability it's an "orphan"; an airplane that only particular freight haulers might need. The bird handles common freight just as well, so there's no room for disparaging remarks. Realistically, the 747 has additional capabilites by way of having the hinged upward rising nose. Hardly a fault!

Dear Mr. Stuart,

At present we are out of Orphans, too many families wanting them. I do believe you have quite a few, can we help you move them?

Annie Boeing (formerly Warbucks)

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26): Mr. Stuart is implying that the 747F's will only sell to customers who need to load odd-sized cargo

Thank you.

His logic seems seriously warped even for "spin" the way it is written. It goes something like this..

The 747F can do something unique that no other freighter can. Therefore the 747F is an orphan.
An orphan? Whiskey and two dances come to mind.

Quoting UPS Pilot (Thread starter): Can't tell you for sure but look for news headlines regarding the A380 F for UPS tomorrow possibly.

Why do people post stuff like this? Why not wait until you actually have news that you can share? I bet there's no news at all.

Quoting D L X (Reply 31): Why do people post stuff like this? Why not wait until you actually have news that you can share? I bet there's no news at all.

Good question. A french newspaper reported a few weeks ago that UPS would announce the next week the cancellation of their order. The world press copied it, topics with hundreds of replies were posted and a google search gave you hundreds of results with the same article. The next week came and went. No order cancellation at all. The world press didn't take note and a justification of the erroneous report by 'Les Echos' was not published... The world press too, who copied the article without question being asked, kept quiet in all languages.

Quoting D L X (Reply 31): Why do people post stuff like this? Why not wait until you actually have news that you can share? I bet there's no news at all.

Well given the name of the poster, I'm sure they know more than they can say at the moment.. I don't see the harm really. Gives folks something to do   Afterall, contrary to what some people may think a.net is not the be all and end all of the aviation world. All of the conjecture, guestimating and rumors posted here ammount to basically nil outside the site either way.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 33): Well given the name of the poster, I'm sure they know more than they can say at the moment..

Two things about that statement:

1) If he really is a UPS pilot, he really shouldn't be sharing company secrets on the internet.
2) How do you know he's telling the truth? I doubt he's a UPS pilot.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26): Of course, Mr. Stuart fails to note that a 747F handles all those "standard" pallets more efficiently and effectively then an A380F for almost all cargo operators at this time.

Not so for a package operator, with low-density cargo. In order to fill the 747F to max volume, 10-foot tall pallets are required. 10-foot tall pallets can only be loaded through the side door, because the nose door has limited height clearance. The nose is nice for long, squat and oddly shaped stuff, but near useless for a tall pallet of express packages.

I think that the nose door is generally overblown as a purchasing factor. Look at 744BCF sales. The key is cost per tonne-mile, where the A380F and 748F are essentially a wash-- with the 748F doing slightly better at short ranges flown by general cargo operators. The nose door is only a potential deal swinger insofar as the operating costs are similar to begin with.

It pains me as an A380 junkie, but I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see UPS order the 748F, which is a very fine airplane.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 18): UPS, on the other hand, have a binding contractual agreement which entitles them to the supply of the aeroplanes. Depending on the terms of the agreement, If Airbus fails to meet that obligation UPS could theoretically sue not for compensation but for 'specific performance' - i.e. ask the court to FORCE Airbus to develop and supply the specified aeroplane.

You know, NAV, you've got some pretty persuasive analysis in your posts. They always make great reading, especially since they point out issues that most people do not see.

I do have one question regarding the above paragraph from your post: how would the issue of "specific performance" be addressed in a situation that is dealing with advanced technology. For example, you and I could execute a contract whereby I promise to build you a spacecraft that will take you to Alpha Centauri and back in 8 years' time for $200 Million. Ok, so after consummating the contract, I say, "Hey, Nav, I can't deliver." Obviously, you can't sue me for specific performance because, obviously again, it would be impossible to perform such a feat. So would the issue of specific performance really apply in this situation? (I don't know the answer -- I'm just asking. I wonder if someone like LeeLaw could provide some legal insight.)

Quoting Manni (Reply 32): A french newspaper reported a few weeks ago that UPS would announce the next week the cancellation of their order. The world press copied it, topics with hundreds of replies were posted and a google search gave you hundreds of results with the same article. The next week came and went. No order cancellation at all. The world press didn't take note and a justification of the erroneous report by 'Les Echos' was not published... The world press too, who copied the article without question being asked, kept quiet in all languages.

Life is so unfair, isn't it, Manni?  

[Edited 2007-02-16 06:18:47]

Maybe you all can clarify something for me. Did I hear that the A380F had problems with it's ability to put cargo on the upper deck. I had heard that Airbus was going to try to put a lift in the airplane to get pallets to the upper deck, but that it became difficult due to weight concerns. And as of yet the are no K-Loaders that can reach that high up. I am not trying to spread any rumors, but if that were an issue, maybe that is one of the reasons for companies are afraid to buy it. If it were true, the cost per mile would go way up and no way to get income from the empty upper deck. I'd love to find out that this is untrue.

Thanks!

Quoting D L X (Reply 34): Two things about that statement: 1) If he really is a UPS pilot, he really shouldn't be sharing company secrets on the internet. 2) How do you know he's telling the truth? I doubt he's a UPS pilot.

1) You're right, but he hardly shared a secret.. more like a hint at a secret.. and it's vague enough it could be anything (thus the fun)
2) He's been registered here for .. well forever.. I see no reason to doubt anything he says, yet. Time will tell.

Interestingly enough we had a poster not long ago post regarding LH ordering the 748 and he was flamed to hell and back, but sure enough they ordered shortly afterwards (it was a very similar sort of post, vague, and easily doubtable). Let's not be too quick to pass judgement one way or the other. Until something is announced this is a harmless little thread, and no one is being hurt, so I really don't see the harm.

Quoting 757Driver (Reply 37): And as of yet the are no K-Loaders that can reach that high up. I am not trying to spread any rumors, but if that were an issue, maybe that is one of the reasons for companies are afraid to buy it.

Whether or not there are any issues with it from an equipment or aircraft perspective, it certainly is not something that has [edit]not[/edit] been done before [edit](at least in day to day commercial cargo ops)[/edit]. That fact alone is likely to make companies a little gun shy. I also wouldn't be surprised if there is some weight limit on the upper deck, although whether it's material or not I can't say.

[Edited 2007-02-16 06:32:05]

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 36): So would the issue of specific performance really apply in this situation? (I don't know the answer -- I'm just asking. I wonder if someone like LeeLaw could provide some legal insight.)

Briefly, in Anglo-American law a court sitting in "equity" would only order "specific performance'" in a contract for "chattel property" where the goods in question are "unique" in nature, such as a work of art or an heirloom, etc. In this case, Airbus' breach of contract by failing to manufacture an A380F could be adequately compensated by an award of money damages to the aggrieved party.

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 39): Briefly, in Anglo-American law a court sitting in "equity" would only order "specific performance'" in a contract for "chattel property" where the goods in question are "unique" in nature, such as a work of art or an heirloom, etc. In this case, Airbus' breach of contract by failing to manufacture an A380F could be adequately compensated by an award of money damages to the aggrieved party.

Spoken like a true lawyer. I knew you'd have an answer.  

Quoting HB88 (Reply 13): Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 12): Believe it or not, I think the 748F will kill the A380F. That lift-up nose and front loading is just a HUGE advantage in the 747F's favor. When A380 orders were placed, it didn't look as if Boeing was going to respond witha new freighter of their own, then along came the 748F and changed everything. That nose is more important than it gets credit for. Except that, according to the development history of the 380, when customers were asked what was important to them in terms of a freighter - the forward-loading configuration scored well down the list. So the initial 380 architecture development did not consider an airframe what could accomodate forward loading in the 3XXF configuration.

UPS cargo is generally high volume, low density, they'll tend to max out on volume a long time before they'll max out on weight.
The problem with the nose loading 747 is that beneath the upper deck the lower deck has a lower ceiling, so any pallet built would need to pass beneath the flight deck. If youload from aft, as with all UPS jumbos up to now, you are only restricted in height for the few pallets which go under the upper deck, while the other pallets can be as high as the door permits.

Jan

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 18): If Airbus fails to meet that obligation UPS could theoretically sue not for compensation but for 'specific performance' - i.e. ask the court to FORCE Airbus to develop and supply the specified aeroplane.

Leelaw basically said it already, but I think one would have a tough time in an American court forcing the manufacturer to build the airplane. Indeed, the contract may have a specific provision that precludes a demand for specific performance; I can't believe that the high-priced transactional lawyers that put those kind of contracts together wouldn't include such a clause. Apparently, the contracts do not include a liquidated-damages clause, or there wouldn't be any speculation as to what the compensation is for the delays on the pax versions. (A liquidated-damages clause says, basically, that the vendor and the customer agree that customer's entire set of damages from a delay will be $X for each period of Y months that the thing is delayed. The damages are "liquidated" in terms of money, meaning in plain English that we have already calculated what they will be, or at least exactly how they will be determined.)

Specific performance of a contract means that one side succeeds in forcing the other side to do the specific thing that was contracted for. In a typical vendor/purchaser contract, the vendor agrees to sell something for a particular price, and the purchaser agrees to take X number of them at that price. Normally, if a contracting party, here the vendor, decides that he doesn't want to perform, he is absolutely free to breach the contract (in other words, not perform his side, not deliver the goods) and then pay money damages to the purchaser for whatever harm the purchaser suffers from the breach. There is a whole body of law on how you calculate those damages and what is included in the calculations. There is no such thing as "tortious breach of contract" in any jurisdiction that I am familiar with, so the vendor will pay for the harm he causes, but can't be smacked with punitive damages above and beyond the actual harm caused to the purchaser.

That's the usual case in the U.S.: where damages can be calculated (in dollars or other unit of currency) with a reasonable degree of certainty, the vendor has to pay damages. However, where there is no way to calculate the amount of damages, usually because the product or service is unique, then a party may ask the court to order the vendor to perform his part of the bargain anyway. That is called "specific performance". There are a number of other factors that the Court must usually consider besides the inability to calculate damages, but the availability of damages is usually the hurdle that most people can't get across. Here, someone could have a lot of fun whacking Airbus with all the marketing material that it doubtless generated touting the "unique" features of the aircraft and forcing them to defend themselves by minimizing the uniqueness. However, at the end of the day, the ability to replace the service that this aircraft provides with two smaller aircraft probably means that one could find a methodology to calculate the additional cost of doing so, both capital cost and operating cost in anticipated service. That would be my guess as to how it would come out in the end.

For what it's worth, in any U.S. jurisdiction that I'm familiar with, personal service contracts are not subject to specific performance. In other words, if you hire Britney Spears to sing at your wedding and she decides not to because she was out drinking with Paris Hilton last night, a court can't make her do the performance. In other words, you can always quit your job. You may have to pay damages if you have a contract, but, as I understand it, you can always quit.

[Edited 2007-02-16 08:17:04]

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 12): Believe it or not, I think the 748F will kill the A380F. That lift-up nose and front loading is just a HUGE advantage in the 747F's favor. When A380 orders were placed, it didn't look as if Boeing was going to respond witha new freighter of their own, then along came the 748F and changed everything. That nose is more important than it gets credit for.

I think that is false, our airline operates a number of 744BCFs and other converted freighters, they dont see them as a major disadvantage. At HKG it is the exception, not the norm to see nose loading.

Side loading does not seem to be a disadvantage for A300/767/MD11 freighters either.

Just to act dim for a moment, haven't A started building the first F?

http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre...eleases_items/12_Apr_05_A380F.html

and doesn't this mean that much of the development spend has already been made?

A 380F going cheap, bargin, one of a kind!

Edited to add rest of post that I forgot!

[Edited 2007-02-16 09:47:45]

Quoting HB88 (Reply 13): Except that, according to the development history of the 380, when customers were asked what was important to them in terms of a freighter - the forward-loading configuration scored well down the list.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 41): UPS cargo is generally high volume, low density, they'll tend to max out on volume a long time before they'll max out on weight.

Actually, UPS does a significant amount of heavy lift, particularly since the Menlo take over. Further, they already do a lot of nose loading.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 18): Logic suggests that this deal is the opposite of the normal situation. Not how much compensation Airbus pays UPS to keep the order - but how much they pay UPS to CANCEL it! Presumably, from Airbus' point of view, they are contractually bound to complete design work and testing on the A380F. Like everything else in aircraft manufacture, this will cost yet more billions - which they cannot possibly recoup just from the small number that UPS would be taking. And, given the way the 748F has already swept the market, there is precious little chance of anyone else ordering A380Fs in the near future. UPS, on the other hand, have a binding contractual agreement which entitles them to the supply of the aeroplanes. Depending on the terms of the agreement, If Airbus fails to meet that obligation UPS could theoretically sue not for compensation but for 'specific performance' - i.e. ask the court to FORCE Airbus to develop and supply the specified aeroplane. So it's very likely that the negotiations are not about how much compensation UPS will receive to leave the contract in place and accept late delivery - but about how much Airbus has to pay UPS (in cash or in discounted aircraft) to persuade UPS to cancel its order. If so, it's an odd situation to say the least.....

Nav20-

I know this site is predominantly US oriented (through it's use of the English language), and we have been given some interesting lecture in Anglo-American law, yet Airbus contracts are singed under French law which is quite different.

I suggest you to look up the Napoleontic definition of 'force majeure' and its liberating consequences for contracting parties.... I'd say that at this stage a cancellation/deferral of the A380F by Airbus because of the technical problems on the A380PAX final assembly would definitely qualify for this and UPS wouldn't get a cent.

A long thread about a vague rumour, in the best A.net tradition. If this is a genuine leak and it's authorized by UPS, then it's likely to be an incease of their order (perhaps taking the Fedex delivery slots). If it's a genuine leak not authorized by UPS, then it may also be a cancellation. If it's not a genuine leak, there is no news.

Quoting Joni (Reply 47): A long thread about a vague rumour, in the best A.net tradition. If this is a genuine leak and it's authorized by UPS, then it's likely to be an incease of their order (perhaps taking the Fedex delivery slots). If it's a genuine leak not authorized by UPS, then it may also be a cancellation. If it's not a genuine leak, there is no news.

Hadn't actually thought of the possibility of some more orders, that would be a possibility - remember that the A380F is still the plane that UPS ordered (in 2005) so it's only late for them - they knew that fuel costs had risen before they ordered - they didn't buy it in 2002 or anything like that!

Zeke, how many A380 converted freighters do you have in your fleet? 0

So I guess then the comparison is for a 744CF (boeing or otherwise for conversion), a new build 748F or a new build A380F. Given that 744's in good shape are not exactly common or cheap right this second and there are no conversion slots open, I guess thats not an option. (next downturn for the passenger market will be a golden age for the 744CF market though). Thus one shopping for a large freighter must compare the A380F and the 748F. Assuming you use the optimistic outlook for the A380F having merely the SAME cost a ton mile as the 748F, you need something to pick between the two. We will then assume that boeing and airbus fight it out and arrive at the same price a frame. Then there are THREE THINGS that make the A380F look worthless to a general cargo company in comparison to a 748F.

1. 748F will have no trouble using 99% of the existing 744 facilities and equipment, not true for the A380F
2. Nose loading creates extra opportunities in use for cargo operators. Don't have to use it, but it certainly is worth alot of money when you have to use it given the rates you can charge for oversize cargo needing a charter flight.
3. Trip costs. lower trip cost is lower risk lower trip costs is making money when others are losing money when its not all going according to plan.

Really you can sum these three things up into one word. FLEXIBILITY. The 748F is a far more flexible freighter than the A380F. Thus as shown by the market, it will be the primary choice. One might note that the 744F outsold the A380F during the time that the A380F has been available, despite admitted higher ton mile costs under typical use, and the fixed cutoff date for production preventing people from ordering more.

I'm sorry Zeke, Airbus just doesn't understand the cargo market, and seemingly has never wanted too given how late the A330F is to the party when everyone already knew it would make a great freighter.