Comments on: Worth Its Weight - Boeing 747-8 Freighter

By: Chris Cook

Chris Cook — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:36:20 +0000

Keeje:
Thanks for your comment. I would have agreed with you about a year ago regarding the ‘advantage’ in price the 747-400BCFs would bring, but as you read in my article, referring to Atlas Air’s William Flynn, he’s right on the money when he says corporations are wanting to fly their freight in the ‘greenest’ possible airplanes, hence he favoured 747-8Fs rather than passenger to freighter converted 747-400s. With fuel prices being pathetically high, I actually foresee a greater demand for 777F and 747-8F rather than -400BCF type airplanes, despite the price increase. Remember, no corportation will justify to their customers that it’s better flying freight in a -400F than a -8F because of price…fuel burn will be the deciding factor.
About the A380F…that link is a bit out dated now my friend.

By: keesje

keesje — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 10:38:35 +0000

The 747-F will guarantee I can see 747s flying around for the next 40 yrs which is a good thing.

Probably the biggest competitor for the 747-8F will be 747-400F converted in China and selling for $75 million a ship. Most 747 freighters are converted passenger aircraft (without the nose door).

Second biggest competitor short likely being the 777LRF, carrying a bit less more efficient.

Some industry insiders think the A380F will be based on reengined A380-900.
Airbus will eventually develop a freighter version of the A380, but it will be based on a stretched version of the plane known as the A380-900.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/305776_airbus02.html

By: Dougloid

Dougloid — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:49:50 +0000

Nice summary, Chris. I really don’t know why people are still talking about the A380 as if it exists.
First problem with it is that if you have to take cargo and turn it at right angles it’s costing you money-lots of money.
Second is the persistent notion that potential A380F operators are going to be able to skim the cream of high dollar light weight cargoes and let the B747s haul the low dollar scrap metal and waste paper. No such guarantee exists, and it’s a peculiarly elitist construct. If you operate an air freight company, all you need to have happen is for your agent to refuse a cargo of anvils because it’s not pretty enough. Your trade can and will go where they’re not insulted.
You simply do not get to tell the trade what they choose to present at the loading dock, and if you do, they can and will go elsewhere, because nobody cares what kind of aircraft a cargo of anvils or stereos arrives on-all that is important is timely delivery in good shape.

By: Chris Wallace

Chris Wallace — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:44:41 +0000

On the 747-8ERF, do most 777-400ERF operators use the extra 1000km of range, or the extra 13t of payload it can carry (with a range hit) over the 747-400F? If the latter, there may be no real need to offer an ER variant of the 747-8F.

As to the A380-800F, it certainly has a payload and a range advantage over the 747 family, but right now the world’s heavy cargo infrastructure is designed around both the 747-400F’s range and functionality. So an A380-800F is “overbuilt” when flown 8000km and all the cargo facilities need to be modified to handle the loading/unloading of two decks.

Where the A380-800F has the greatest appeal is with package carriers like 5X and FX, which is why they were the only carriers to place orders to date. With the low density of their cargo, they can fill it up without getting anywhere near MZFW, allowing them to tank up to the point they can fly direct from PVG to their home base (SDF/MEM/IND).

By: Boeing Investor

Boeing Investor — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:01:30 +0000

Interesting summation Chris.

Only last week I was involved with Nippon Cargo about the 747-8 and their operations.

Will they order more? With certainty, yes.

The economics of the A380F make it harder now for Airbus to get that airplane off the ground, now or ever.