Airbus A380 Freighter's future hinges on UPS decision

keen_watcher · Post by **keen_watcher** » 18 Dec 2006, 21:07

It seems A380F is on a real thin line..

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/20 ... ision.html

Post by **ElcoB** » 18 Dec 2006, 21:34

Airbus A380 Freighter's future hinges on UPS decision

Well, no decision yet......

TexasGuy · Post by **TexasGuy** » 18 Dec 2006, 21:58

This doesnt sound too good for the A380F

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 19 Dec 2006, 14:01

When one removes the obvious loss of face and bases their decision on pure business logic, it makes perfect sense to cancel the freighter project now and concentrate all of one's resources in completion of the PAX version.

UPS will have to be compensated of course, but the loss incurred will be considerably less than the expenditure of money and personel required to build just ten models.

Despite the brave face put forward by John Leahy, I'm sure Airbus would be tickled if UPS said no thanks.

IMHO

KT

CX · Post by CX » 19 Dec 2006, 15:30

If delaying (or temporarily cancelling) the freighter project can speed up or make sure the pax version can be delivered on time, they should do it.. Wait 7-8 years down the road and they can build the next phase A380, which then turn into the A380-900, bigger..

David747 · Post by **David747** » 19 Dec 2006, 20:19

People should remember that FedEx has not ruled out re-ordering the A380 in the future.

DFW · Post by **DFW** » 19 Dec 2006, 20:52

What are the odds of the A380F having to compete with the Antonov-124? That might be interesting.

chornedsnorkack · Post by **chornedsnorkack** » 20 Dec 2006, 09:25

DFW wrote:What are the odds of the A380F having to compete with the Antonov-124? That might be interesting.

Well, they are somewhat complementary:

A380F has a lot of floor area (3 decks), maximum 240 cm ceiling. Good for large amounts of low-density packages.

An-124 has a single cargo deck, with over 400 cm ceiling height. Good for large items.

TexasGuy · Post by **TexasGuy** » 20 Dec 2006, 18:57

DFW wrote:What are the odds of the A380F having to compete with the Antonov-124? That might be interesting.

I think the amount of fuel burn will determine if these two will compete against each other or not.

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 20 Dec 2006, 23:16

An interesting comparison with a Boeing C-17 compared to the Anatonov:

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-antonov-1.htm

Post by **ElcoB** » 20 Dec 2006, 23:35

bits44 wrote:An interesting comparison with a Boeing C-17 compared to the Anatonov:
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-antonov-1.htm

Waw.... Thanks for this link.......amazing figures.....is this confirmed elswhere?

The difference between two equipment options – An-124-100 or C-17 – amounts to Cdn $5.23B for only 7 years operation. Employing An-124-100s would result in Cdn $2.64B in direct cost savings plus $2.59B in additional economic benefits.

compared with the C-17, an An-124-100 has:

• 55 % greater maximum load than the C-17
• 115 % more of a maximum cargo-cabin volume
• 33 % greater range (when carrying 77t – the C-17’s maximum load)

Berova · Post by **Berova** » 21 Dec 2006, 01:32

Anyone have any figures on reliability and rates of availability especially in regards to the respective powerplants?

DFW · Post by **DFW** » 21 Dec 2006, 01:45

Well, the C-17 would never compete against the An-124 or A380F. It was designed to specific military requirements, namely short takeoff and landing. Notice the tail section starting midway down the fuselage and the booming tail, both to allow a high takeoff angle. And it can land on makeshift runways. And it can dump cargo out the back door as it does a touch-and-go landing/takeoff.

chornedsnorkack · Post by **chornedsnorkack** » 21 Dec 2006, 09:23

DFW wrote:Well, the C-17 would never compete against the An-124 or A380F. It was designed to specific military requirements, namely short takeoff and landing. Notice the tail section starting midway down the fuselage and the booming tail, both to allow a high takeoff angle. And it can land on makeshift runways.

An-124 was also designed to military requirements.

If you compare
C-5
An-124
Il-76
C-17
how do they behave on short runways? And what about makeshift runways?

maaspotter · Post by **maaspotter** » 21 Dec 2006, 09:33

The An124 and Il76 (also the An225) are designed to land on dirt runways. That's why there are so many wheels, to devide the weight over a larger surface... I've seen pictures of C17's taking of of a dirt runway, don't know about the C5..

I've seen an (empty) C17 takeof after 400 meters of concreet runway.. A full one after some 1500 meters... When you load up an Il76 and An124, you have to watch you head, those takeofs can be amazingly low...

chornedsnorkack · Post by **chornedsnorkack** » 21 Dec 2006, 11:10

maaspotter wrote:The An124 and Il76 (also the An225) are designed to land on dirt runways. That's why there are so many wheels, to devide the weight over a larger surface...

I think An-225 was not meant for dirt runways - it keeps the main gear design for commonality with An-124, but deletes rear ramp.

Post by **Bruspotter** » 21 Dec 2006, 14:23

Hi

If the AN-225 could land on dirt runways I would say why not the C-5B?
After all he also has quite some gear

. But my second tought is definatively NO! It think it does can take off on hard sand runways but I don't think when there is grass over or a wet dirt runway. What they definitively can do is use runways with poor quality of the concrete

seen some pictures from C-5 planes on airstrips (hell where I don't know) in desert and in mountain aera's (don't even think it was Afghanistan or Irak but even places where it is worse

) but the runway was far from comparable with a 'normal runway' , if you would drive over it with a car I think you would come out of the car like milkshake.

Best regards: Yannick

RC20 · Post by **RC20** » 28 Dec 2006, 05:10

David747 wrote:People should remember that FedEx has not ruled out re-ordering the A380 in the future.

Lets see, FedEx cancelled both the firm orders and the options.

They committed to 15 777s, and picked up options for 15 more.

They cancelled the order to two A380 simulators.

I suppose you could make this statement as well.

"FedEx has not ruled out taking packages to the moon". or

"FedEx has not ruled out buying Delta Air" .

On the other hand you can make some informed judgments, that FedEx is NEVER going to fly the A380.

And I can say from some perspective that having watched Fred Smith, when he says something is final, he means it.

What FedEx might buy (and I only say might, as they have no fondness for the 747s) is that they might, buy the 748-8F. It would give them a bigger capacity (the 777 is a direct replacement for MD11s capacity wise, though obviously a whole lot more economical). They also do some charter/lease of 747s when they need extra lift.

The can structure doesn't fit well, but if they can make it work for the charters, they may be able to live with it full time. Again I say may, simply based on the these figures.

An A380 carries twice what a 777 can. There were a total of 20 possible A380s ordered. That equals to forty 777s. They have a total of 30 possible ordered. That leaves them 10 short.

If slots get constrained, then a 747-8F is the only candidate, and it looks like they are ok for a time, so it would be a long term decision. Likely after they got the 777s all on line, and then maybe.

Ruscoe · Post by **Ruscoe** » 28 Dec 2006, 10:35

As I understand it, the problem with the 124 is a very low structural life.

Ruscoe

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 28 Dec 2006, 15:02

The C-5 (A&B) was designed to land on improvised, rough, dirt runways. Pictures taken over 30 years ago show the plane landing and taking off from such runways. However, in one test, the plane sank into soft dirt up to the wheel axles on landing and had to be stripped of all unnecessary items to get the weight low enough for take-off. Regardless of how many wheels might be installed on a plane, very high weight will cause it to sink into soft dirt or sand!