Newsstand - FedEx Express to Acquire Boeing 777 Freighters and Cancels A380F

MEMPHIS, Tenn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--FedEx Express, a unit of FedEx Corp. (NYSE: FDX - News), announced today an agreement with The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA - News) to acquire 15 new Boeing 777 Freighter aircraft with options to purchase an additional 15 aircraft. The decision to purchase the 777F was made after Airbus announced significant delays in delivery of the A380. FedEx Express notified Airbus that it has cancelled its order for 10 A380-800Fs.

Link to article:

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/061107/20061107005865.html?.v=1

And it starts. Airbus in deeper doo-doo now.

And it starts.

no, it's always open season for Airbus bashing. The A380 was already at the outer edge of FedEx's window - delays pushed it further out.

If you haven't been paying Attention both Singapore Airlines and Qantas have ordered more A380s.

<ring ring>
"Bonjour? Allo?"
"Yeah, hi ya'll, Billy Bob from Memphis callin. 'Member that order we placed with y'all for 10 A380s? Uh huh, yeah, that one. Listen, ummm....y'all can just go 'head an keep them. Yup. Thanks anyway."
<click>

Airbus' break even production number doubled with this 2-year delay.

Even including the Qantas order, FedEx just took out 5 percent of the book. Ouch.

Virgin has put its order on hold. The largest customer, Emirates, is sending a team to figure out what has happened and whether even the 2-year delay will be enough. The number of employees at EADS--both direct and contracted suppliers--is being utterly gutted (and this will significantly hurt the political backing behind the project).

And the 777F/787 book fills up quickly....

I always figured the A380 mess would get turned around...now I am not so sure. Emirates, for instance could KILL it by withdrawing its order...there's no way it survives losing 1/3 of its book.

Although the cancellation by FedEx is not unexpected (at least by me), what does surprise me is that FedEx didn't order the 747-8F instead. Perhaps a face-saving way of admitting that the A380 (and its thirsty four engines) made a lot less sense now that fuel is closer to $2/gal rather than the $0.75 when the A380 was ordered?

The 747-8 probably suffers to some extent from the same fuel-hogging characteristics as the A380, making the 777 a more efficient choice.

When fuel was really cheap in the late 1990s, the A380 made a lot more sense. Now that fuel is really expensive (by comparison), the A380 makes a lot less sense. Sure, if you pack 600 bodies on board, the fuel burned per body is small; but what happens to fare yield in the process of filling every seat? ;)

Perhaps a face-saving way of admitting that the A380 (and its thirsty four engines) made a lot less sense now that fuel is closer to $2/gal rather than the $0.75 when the A380 was ordered?

The 747-8 probably suffers to some extent from the same fuel-hogging characteristics as the A380, making the 777 a more efficient choice.
;)

I read that more important was that 15 to 30 777's offer far more flexibility to support point to point delivery than a handful of big planes that would require other smaller plans in turn to fly out of the hub, with all the work/support involved. They're claiming better customer service as a result, since it will result in faster delivery times.

re: Qantas/Virgin and the rest. I gotta believe there are tremendous incentives being offered to the customers that are staying with the A380. If the rats start leaving the ship, the whole program could be in jeopardy.

Not Airbus bashing, just observing that they need to keep their customers for such a huge project to pay it off. I think, barring unforeseen cancellations, that the A380 is a gorgeous plane that will have a place in the market, and would be very unhappy to see it go the way of the Concorde ( in market acceptance ).

If you haven't been paying Attention both Singapore Airlines and Qantas have ordered more A380s.

It's quite possible that those additional airframes were comped (as in free or nearly free) by Airbus as an incentive to not cancel the existing orders.

Although the cancellation by FedEx is not unexpected (at least by me), what does surprise me is that FedEx didn't order the 747-8F instead. Perhaps a face-saving way of admitting that the A380 (and its thirsty four engines) made a lot less sense now that fuel is closer to $2/gal rather than the $0.75 when the A380 was ordered?

The 747-8 probably suffers to some extent from the same fuel-hogging characteristics as the A380, making the 777 a more efficient choice.

When fuel was really cheap in the late 1990s, the A380 made a lot more sense. Now that fuel is really expensive (by comparison), the A380 makes a lot less sense. Sure, if you pack 600 bodies on board, the fuel burned per body is small; but what happens to fare yield in the process of filling every seat? ;)

I thought about 748F when I first read the report, then I realized 748F rollout plan does not meet the Fedex expansion schedule. 748F is projected to go into service in 2010, and the initial 20+ delivery slots have already been spoken for.

I do think Fedex may not need such a big aircraft as the 748F. Fedex has never operated anything bigger than MD-11, and 777 seems to fit nicely with its existing MD-11 operation.

It's quite possible that those additional airframes were comped (as in free or nearly free) by Airbus as an incentive to not cancel the existing orders.

I thought about that too but then you have Airbus not breaking even on the A380 for a very long time, if ever. Maybe Boeing files a complaint with FTC and WTO that Airbus is giving away it's planes.

re: Qantas/Virgin and the rest. I gotta believe there are tremendous incentives being offered to the customers that are staying with the A380. If the rats start leaving the ship, the whole program could be in jeopardy.

I'm sure there are substantial incentives being offered to keep customers. The flip side is the customers need those airframes! Emirates has built plans, and had much of an airport built, around a massive fleet of A380s. Singapore has built their new cabin product around the A380. Singapore has also had auditors on the ground at Airbus - before their recent order.

Singapore has built their new cabin product around the A380. Singapore has also had auditors on the ground at Airbus - before their recent order.

I think SQ had posted some of its technical staff inside Airbus to monitor the situation since they ordered the first batch. (I think that's what I remember from CNBC Asia).

Also, don't forget that the recently-announced new interiors are not for the A380s. Supposedly, the A380s will be a bigger revolution (as if the 1-2-1 seating on a 77W isn't amazing enough).

Back OT. That's mighty unfortunate of Airbus to lose one customer. Now I wonder if UPS and ILFC will follow suit. That would kill the A380F program.

<ring ring>
"Bonjour? Allo?"
"Yeah, hi ya'll, Billy Bob from Memphis callin. 'Member that order we placed with y'all for 10 A380s? Uh huh, yeah, that one. Listen, ummm....y'all can just go 'head an keep them. Yup. Thanks anyway."
<click>
HEY! I find that offensive! :mad: :mad:

It's Freddy Boy, not Billy Bob

no, it's always open season for Airbus bashing. The A380 was already at the outer edge of FedEx's window - delays pushed it further out.

If you haven't been paying Attention both Singapore Airlines and Qantas have ordered more A380s.
While UPS, Emirates, and Virgin reconsider their orders... :rolleyes:

I read that more important was that 15 to 30 777's offer far more flexibility to support point to point delivery than a handful of big planes that would require other smaller plans in turn to fly out of the hub, with all the work/support involved. They're claiming better customer service as a result, since it will result in faster delivery times.
Although the cancellation by FedEx is not unexpected (at least by me), what does surprise me is that FedEx didn't order the 747-8F instead. Perhaps a face-saving way of admitting that the A380 (and its thirsty four engines) made a lot less sense now that fuel is closer to $2/gal rather than the $0.75 when the A380 was ordered?
How could you expect and overnight delivery company to cancel the order? I least expected it! Airbus has REALLY screwed up to have their 380 order cancelled by a cargo carrier. The 380 is built for Hub-to-Hub and to cut the frequency of flights due to it's massive payload. This is exactly what cargo carriers need, fewer flights between hubs and more payload. The 380 is ridiculous for pax because it just promotes hub+spoke instead of point-to-point. But cargo needs hub+spoke, not point-to-point. This is a huge blow and insult to Airbus.

SQ and QF are reputable carriers with proven management records. If they are satisfied with A388 to follow up with more orders, then that is a good enough endorsement for me.

At the end of day, airlines are not just going to buy more planes because of the extra incentives. There are a lot of other investments involved in brininging in a new model. Yes, the additional discount or incentives do help to making decision easier, but airlines are not going to commit to additional A388 without being satisfied first with the performance of A388.

Fedex (and perhaps UPS), on the other hand, cannot wait for that long. I think it is premature to put a verdict on the A388. I'd rather trust the management decision of SQ or QF than any other speculations at this point.

This is a huge blow and insult to Airbus. It's Airbus that can't run its program right. The blows and insults are to A380 customers that built ten-year fleet plans around the A380 delivery schedule.

I think there's now no question of the A380 ever becoming profitable. But the program will have to be kept up, no matter how small and inconsequential the production run eventually is, for pride/prestige reasons and because its failure would destroy Boeing's last competitor.

I'm Airbus bashing? No, just stating a fact. Yeah Qantas and SQ "upped" their orders slightly, coincidentally the value is almost to the CENT of what they have been offered in compensation(s) on three different occasions now. As stated above VS has frozen its order and UPS is the next to jump ship. I also understand that the leasing companies are also going to freeze their orders. This is very bad for Airbus.

Although the cancellation by FedEx is not unexpected (at least by me)...

Have to say it surprised me. I was expecting 5X (UPS) to cancel, but not FX.


What does surprise me is that FedEx didn't order the 747-8F instead.

Could be one of two things:

15 777Fs will carry the same load as 10 A388Fs or around 11 748Fs equal or greater distance, offering better flexibility.
FX's current lift-limit tops out at around 100 tons with the DC-10F/MD-11F. The 777 matches this with better range and significantly better fuel economy. Perhaps that is enough for FX.

It's quite possible that those additional airframes (ordered by QF and SQ) were comped (as in free or nearly free) by Airbus as an incentive to not cancel the existing orders.

They no doubt received very good pricing on them, perhaps upwards of the 40% they received on their original launch order. At that rate, Boeing would be loathe to match, much less beat, that price because it would set the ceiling for future 748I deals with other carriers.

Boeing most probably feels better to let SQ, QF, and even LH and EK to get more A388s at a, say, 35% discount off A388 list and sell BA, CX, and others 748Is at, say, 20% off A388 list (as the 748I lists within 3% of the A388's list).

In looking at the picture of the 777F on boeing's site -- http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_freighterback.html -- I was struck that there were no winglets.

Anyone know why they don't add value to the 777?

In looking at the picture of the 777F on boeing's site -- http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_freighterback.html -- I was struck that there were no winglets.

Anyone know why they don't add value to the 777?

Boeing went with raked wingtips (first used on the 767-400) for the 777F/200LR/300ER. Does the same job as winglets.

Boeing went with raked wingtips (first used on the 767-400) for the 777F/200LR/300ER. Does the same job as winglets.

...and it's really great-looking from up-close: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0381610/L/

...Fedex has never operated anything bigger than MD-11...

Fedex did use the 747F previously. They had bought Flying Tiger and acquired there 747s. They may have gotten rid of them, but they did operate them for a while.

Edited to add: Seems they also had theri own prior to Flying Tiger acquisition. I seemed to remember that. Here is a pic of one: FED EX 747 (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1040351&WxsIERv=Obrvat%20747-249S%2FFPQ&Wm=0&WdsYXMg=Srqreny%20Rkcerff&QtODMg=Ubat%20Xbat%20-%20Xnv%20Gnx%20Vagreangvbany%20%28UXT%20%2F%20IUUU %29%20%28pybfrq%29&ERDLTkt=Puvan%20-%20Ubat%20Xbat&ktODMp=Zvq%201990%27f&BP=0&WNEb25u=Naqerj%20Uhag%20-%20NveGrnzVzntrf&xsIERvdWdsY=A631SR&MgTUQtODMgKE=Ynaqvat%20ba%20gur%20VTF.%20Nyjnlf%20 gubhtug%20gung%20guvf%20pbybhe%20fpurzr%20ybbxrq%2 0terng%20ba%20n%20O747%21%20%5BShwv%20Iryivn%20Fyv qr%5D&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=4795&NEb25uZWxs=2006-05-04%2015%3A00%3A13&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=21827%2F406&static=yes&width=1000&height=679&sok=JURER%20%20%28nvepensg_trarevp%20YVXR%20%27Obr vat%20747%25%27%29%20NAQ%20%28nveyvar%20YVXR%20%27 Srqreny%20Rkcerff%25%27%20BE%20nveyvar%20YVXR%20%2 7SrqRk%25%27%20BE%20nveyvar%20YVXR%20%27Fjvffnve%2 0%28SrqRk%20-%20Srqreny%20Rkcerff%29%25%27%29%20%20BEQRE%20OL%2 0cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=3&prev_id=1056668&next_id=0990661)

In looking at the picture of the 777F on boeing's site -- http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_freighterback.html -- I was struck that there were no winglets.

Anyone know why they don't add value to the 777?
because they designed the wing to be aerodynamic from the start?

and winglets are f'n ugly?

because they designed the wing to be aerodynamic from the start?


Not really. Since the early version 777s (-200/200ER/300) didn't have them.

Not really. Since the early version 777s (-200/200ER/300) didn't have them.
But wasn't the 777 deployed during the pre-'hey oil is a sacred resource!'-days? I'm talking about aircraft being engineered and built now. Are they not designed to be aerodynamic, and allowing aftermarket fitting? :confused:

But wasn't the 777 deployed during the pre-'hey oil is a sacred resource!'-days? I'm talking about aircraft being engineered and built now. Are they not designed to be aerodynamic, and allowing aftermarket fitting? :confused:

This ebbs and flows and is all relative. The winglets on the 737 were designed years ago well before oil's surge in price last year but many airlines chose not to use them. As a sidenote, the 757 and 767 were designed in the late '70s when oil prices were relatively high. They were designed to be economical but who knows if fuel-efficient (cost-benefit as well as design/approval costs) winglet design is some relatively-new discovery in aeronautical engineering?

Yes, winglets can be retrofitted but the question is whether it's cost effective. You see some airlines deciding to refit their 737NG fleets with winglets while others don't. A handful of US airlines (CO, AA and NW) are also retrofitting their relatively-old 757-200s with winglets for use on trans-Atlantic/intercontinental service.

Perhaps the 777 raked wingtips are efficient but not worth the cosf of retrofitting as the wing is already fairly efficient (and yes, the 777 was designed when oil prices were in the low teens but it's still an efficient design even with high fuel prices). Airbus was trying out 2 winglet designs for the A320 family. Seems there was no net benefit which is probably much to B6's chagrin (range shortfall on westbound transcontinentals).

This ebbs and flows and is all relative. The winglets on the 737 were designed years ago well before oil's surge in price last year but many airlines chose not to use them. As a sidenote, the 757 and 767 were designed in the late '70s when oil prices were relatively high. They were designed to be economical but who knows if fuel-efficient (cost-benefit as well as design/approval costs) winglet design is some relatively-new discovery in aeronautical engineering?

Yes, winglets can be retrofitted but the question is whether it's cost effective. You see some airlines deciding to refit their 737NG fleets with winglets while others don't. A handful of US airlines (CO, AA and NW) are also retrofitting their relatively-old 757-200s with winglets for use on trans-Atlantic/intercontinental service.

Perhaps the 777 raked wingtips are efficient but not worth the cosf of retrofitting as the wing is already fairly efficient (and yes, the 777 was designed when oil prices were in the low teens but it's still an efficient design even with high fuel prices). Airbus was trying out 2 winglet designs for the A320 family. Seems there was no net benefit which is probably much to B6's chagrin (range shortfall on westbound transcontinentals).

my head is sore :D

just build them in, the cost would be so minimal and the ROI would be high IMO

just build them in, the cost would be so minimal and the ROI would be high IMO

It'd be a good idea other than for the fact wing clearance factors come into play at some airports (evidently not at any gates/airports WN, WS and QF use). The raked wingtips are better in that regard which is why the newer 777s have them.

my head is sore :D

just build them in, the cost would be so minimal and the ROI would be high IMO

Actually it's quite difficult to do. Since you're adding in 6 to 12 vertical feet of metal and that's some serious weight. Also add in the shear forces imparted on the wing and some major reinforcements are necessary. Also you'd be putting that plane out of commission for about two weeks since it has to be recertified.

They were designed to be economical but who knows if fuel-efficient (cost-benefit as well as design/approval costs) winglet design is some relatively-new discovery in aeronautical engineering?

Indeed it is a fairly recent discovery. Late 80's in fact. A winglet is a device used to improve the efficiency of aircraft by lowering the lift-induced drag caused by wingtip vortices. Because aircrafts were getting larger, they needed bigger wings to support the plane in flight. But bigger wings meant more weight and size issues with airports, so putting in vortex generators and winglets to help lower the drag due to the lift. I'll spare you the gory details since it gets complicated really fast.

But designs such as the 777 omit them because the gain available is very small (since they have a large number of vortex generators - the little metal blades on the wings) and would make the aircraft just too large for a standard airport gate.

Actually it's quite difficult to do. Since you're adding in 6 to 12 vertical feet of metal

That's apparently an issue at some airports. You can't put something like a 777 next to a 737 with winglets at DFW: the wingtips would touch. One reason why AA is only retrofitting part of its 737 fleet.

and that's some serious weight.

Doesn't seem to be too much of an issue for the 737 (many benefits) and apparently pays for itself for flights shorter than 1,000 miles.


Also add in the shear forces imparted on the wing and some major reinforcements are necessary. Also you'd be putting that plane out of commission for about two weeks since it has to be recertified.

It's not too bad for 737s. IIRC<, downtime is "only" 3 days. Not sure what it's like for MD-80s, 757s and 767s.

All the propaganda is at:

http://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com/

That's apparently an issue at some airports. You can't put something like a 777 next to a 737 with winglets at DFW: the wingtips would touch. One reason why AA is only retrofitting part of its 737 fleet.

Couple of corrections: Early this year, with $2.25/gal fuel prices, AA decided to fit its entire 738 fleet with winglets (in addition to the entire 757 fleet).

http://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com/news/03-29-06aa%20order.pdf


It's not too bad for 737s. IIRC<, downtime is "only" 3 days. Not sure what it's like for MD-80s, 757s and 767s.

For some of AA's 738 fleet, the winglets are "plug and play," requiring perhaps 3 days to install. For most of the AA 738s, however, and all the AA 757s, major wing mods must be performed in order to strengthen the wing prior to installation. Apparently, when ordering its 738s, AA decided against the "plug and play" wingtip option that would have made the installation a breeze now. Only on the last couple dozen or so did AA order the plug and play wingtip option. The installation costs on the non-plug and play models runs about a half million or more each.

Actually it's quite difficult to do. Since you're adding in 6 to 12 vertical feet of metal and that's some serious weight. Also add in the shear forces imparted on the wing and some major reinforcements are necessary. Also you'd be putting that plane out of commission for about two weeks since it has to be recertified.
Ok ok I just made things even more confusing.

I thought winglets are aftermarket parts for the 737s but the wings being engineered on to the CURRENT 777 that are being rolled out this year were designed to be more aerodynamic without those ugly freakin' winglets? Or is the ugly winglet the MOST aerodynamic? Never seen them on widebodies...

Never seen them on widebodies...

Never seen them on a 747-400? Or an A330? or ...

Ok ok I just made things even more confusing.

I thought winglets are aftermarket parts for the 737s but the wings being engineered on to the CURRENT 777 that are being rolled out this year were designed to be more aerodynamic without those ugly freakin' winglets? Or is the ugly winglet the MOST aerodynamic? Never seen them on widebodies...

Okay. You may be confusing the idea behind it all since you keep mentioning "aerodynamic" without any context. Like what I said before, the idea for a winglet/raked wingtip is to lower the lift-induced drag caused by wingtip vortices (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Airplane_vortex_edit.jpg/737px-Airplane_vortex_edit.jpg).

You are actually partially right though. Winglets are more efficient for short-haul flights, while raked wingtips are better for longer flights. To explain it would involve a good amount of tensor mathematics, which I'm too lazy to do here. :p

But I'll say this: they are most definitely on widebodies, and almost all Airbus aircrafts have them. Boeing's keeping the winglets for the shorter range planes (737 and 787-3) while moving towards the raked wingtips for their longer haul planes (such as the 777-300ER, 747-8, and 787-8/9)

787-3 (with winglets) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/Boeing_787-3.jpg)
787-9 (with raked wingtips) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/89/AirNZ_789.jpg)

Although the cancellation by FedEx is not unexpected (at least by me), what does surprise me is that FedEx didn't order the 747-8F instead. Perhaps a face-saving way of admitting that the A380 (and its thirsty four engines) made a lot less sense now that fuel is closer to $2/gal rather than the $0.75 when the A380 was ordered?


I'm not sure if it's the number of engines or the relative high structural weight of the A380F relative to its maximum takeoff weight (MTOW), i.e. payload as a % of empty weight is low. I think I read on airliners.net that while an empty A380F may have lots of volume, it's heavy without any freight or fuel. The 747 freighters and the 777F have (considerably?) lower structural weight %ages.


The 747-8 probably suffers to some extent from the same fuel-hogging characteristics as the A380, making the 777 a more efficient choice.


Apparently there's still a lot of interest in the 748F and earlier models for cargo airlines that can use the payload lift. 26 748Fs were ordered by 3 customers this past September alone. There are a total of 44 booked orders from 5 customers currently. One was EK which converted its order for (2?) A380F to the pax version and just took 10 748Fs instead. The 747F is very much still alive. 8 747-400ERFs and 4 -400Fs were ordered this year (-400s are no loner being offered), 17 and 13 respectively in 2005 (8 of which are for UPS which holds orders for 10 A380Fs for now).

Just looked at the Boeing and Airbus sites:

The 747-400F/ERF can hold 779 m^3 with a payload of 124-136t and with 437t and 455t respectively so payload is 31.1% and 29.9% of MTOW at best. The 777F can hold 653 m^3, has a payload of 114t, and weighs 383t so max. payload is 29.8% of MTOW. The A380F has a payload of 164-173t with a MTOW of 650t (so payload is 26.6% of MTOW at most). Looks like the 3%+ difference (or 10+% depending on how you look at it) makes a world of difference.

The 777F is also available relatively soon. The 748F doesn't look like it's available before the A380F were due for delivery.

The 748F has very close to the same payload lift, 7 tonnes less, as that of the A380 freighter (as opposed to the very different pax capacities on the passenger versions) - it was a relatively straightforward redesign for Boeing due to the origins of the 747 design as a freighter (it was not originally intended for pax use). And the A380 supposedly takes off 74 tonnes heavier at max payload - this means that it loses the operating cost/tonne mile advantage that it still may have held over other freighters. Take a look at the June issue of planenation.com; I think the Economist had something on this as well.

This is a big problem for Airbus because their projections for total sales included quite a few freighters at full price. And since the added development cost for the 748F was low and Boeing already has a manufacturing plant, Boeing is going to have a long term cost advantage.

The 748F has very close to the same payload lift, 7 tonnes less, as that of the A380 freighter (as opposed to the very different pax capacities on the passenger versions) - it was a relatively straightforward redesign for Boeing due to the origins of the 747 design as a freighter (it was not originally intended for pax use). And the A380 supposedly takes off 74 tonnes heavier at max payload

More than 74 tonnes. The A380F's MTOW is 1,300,000 lbs. The 748F is 970,000 lbs. 165 t more to carry just 7 extra tonnes? If the 748F can carry 156-165t of payload, it means its payload:MTOW is 32.2-34%. That makes the 748F much more efficient than the 777F or an 744F by that measure

Fedex did use the 747F previously. They had bought Flying Tiger and acquired there 747s. They may have gotten rid of them, but they did operate them for a while.

Edited to add: Seems they also had theri own prior to Flying Tiger acquisition. I seemed to remember that. Here is a pic of one: FED EX 747 (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1040351&WxsIERv=Obrvat%20747-249S%2FFPQ&Wm=0&WdsYXMg=Srqreny%20Rkcerff&QtODMg=Ubat%20Xbat%20-%20Xnv%20Gnx%20Vagreangvbany%20%28UXT%20%2F%20IUUU %29%20%28pybfrq%29&ERDLTkt=Puvan%20-%20Ubat%20Xbat&ktODMp=Zvq%201990%27f&BP=0&WNEb25u=Naqerj%20Uhag%20-%20NveGrnzVzntrf&xsIERvdWdsY=A631SR&MgTUQtODMgKE=Ynaqvat%20ba%20gur%20VTF.%20Nyjnlf%20 gubhtug%20gung%20guvf%20pbybhe%20fpurzr%20ybbxrq%2 0terng%20ba%20n%20O747%21%20%5BShwv%20Iryivn%20Fyv qr%5D&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=4795&NEb25uZWxs=2006-05-04%2015%3A00%3A13&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=21827%2F406&static=yes&width=1000&height=679&sok=JURER%20%20%28nvepensg_trarevp%20YVXR%20%27Obr vat%20747%25%27%29%20NAQ%20%28nveyvar%20YVXR%20%27 Srqreny%20Rkcerff%25%27%20BE%20nveyvar%20YVXR%20%2 7SrqRk%25%27%20BE%20nveyvar%20YVXR%20%27Fjvffnve%2 0%28SrqRk%20-%20Srqreny%20Rkcerff%29%25%27%29%20%20BEQRE%20OL%2 0cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=3&prev_id=1056668&next_id=0990661)
The one in FedEx paint was a ex-Flying Tiger bird. FedEx got rid of the 747 for two reasons:
1) They were in bad shape... evidently Flying Tiger maintenance wasn't up to FedEx standards.
2) At that time, FedEx wasn't flying enough freight internationally to justify the size of the 747.

I was also surprised to see the A380 order cancelled. Internally, FedEx had been really playing this aircraft up.

More than 74 tonnes. The A380F's MTOW is 1,300,000 lbs. The 748F is 970,000 lbs. 165 t more to carry just 7 extra tonnes? If the 748F can carry 156-165t of payload, it means its payload:MTOW is 32.2-34%. That makes the 748F much more efficient than the 777F or an 744F by that measure
From the Airbus site (linky (http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a380/freight.html)):
...offering the unprecedented capability to carry a 150 tonne payload over distances of 5,600 nm...

From Boeing (linky (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/747-8_background.html)):
... a maximum structural payload capacity of 140 tonnes (154 tons) the 747-8 Freighter ...

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.

I'm sure these aren't direct apples/apples comparisions (I couldn't find any "with this range, cargo = this much" that matched). The 748F does have a shorter max range (4,475 nm vs 5,600 NM for A380).

Also, I find it pretty amusing the first A380F on the Airbus page has some no longer appropriate colors :)

I'm sure these aren't direct apples/apples comparisions (I couldn't find any "with this range, cargo = this much" that matched). The 748F does have a shorter max range (4,475 nm vs 5,600 NM for A380).


I suspect cargo doesn't care about how many stops it makes and an extra stop for a cargo airline is cheaper than flying non-stop (flying fuel around is expensive). I'd imagine the 748F is made to fly cargo as cheaply as it can. it speaks volumes that while KE ordered pax A380s, it flat ruled out A380Fs. AF and LH are other A380 customers (also big 747F operators) who didn't order A380Fs. LH actually wanted to buy more MD11Fs while AF ordered 777Fs.



Also, I find it pretty amusing the first A380F on the Airbus page has some no longer appropriate colors :)

This link's (http://www.fedex.com/us/about/today/companies/express/a380facts.html) even better

The suprise to me (hardly my original thought and expressed extensively by far more knowlegeable persons when Fed Ex placed the A380 order) is why a cargo carrier wants a converted passenger airframe of large capacity anyway. It seems like a civilian version of a military airlift aircraft, with its enhanced loading access, makes more sense. Is the C-17 that backed up? It can't be a technology transfer thing in this day and age.

The suprise to me (hardly my original thought and expressed extensively by far more knowlegeable persons when Fed Ex placed the A380 order) is why a cargo carrier wants a converted passenger airframe of large capacity anyway.

I think FedEx and UPS were under the impression that the A380F could carry their low-density packages economically between hubs. I don't know if the economics/transportation model has changed or if lift availability was really the primary factor.

I don't think there've ever been too many larger aircraft designed for commercial freight only. It's simply not financially feasible. The 747 was actually designed for freight (U.S.A.F. heavy lift competition won by the Lockheed C-5) when we were supposed to be flying around in SSTs.

It seems like a civilian version of a military airlift aircraft, with its enhanced loading access, makes more sense. Is the C-17 that backed up? It can't be a technology transfer thing in this day and age.

It isn't as McD-D and Boeing have offered the C-17 in a civilian model but no one's ever bitten. Boeing's even threatening the USAF/DoD toorder more C-17s or it'll shut down the line. Several reasons: 1) costs way too much (2-3x a large 747/A380 freighter?), 2) optimised for carrying very dense cargo (e.g, tanks) and flying into unpaved airfields w/o ground handling equipment (i.e., not designed for economic operations). 3) No one needs the RO-RO capability. The only kind of industries I can see using it are mining and oil exploration, but that kind of transportation costs will kill the project. The other is outsized freight such as 777 engines. That kind of lift requirement is met by the ex-U.S.S.R. Antonov transports.

It seems like a civilian version of a military airlift aircraft, with its enhanced loading access, makes more sense. Is the C-17 that backed up? It can't be a technology transfer thing in this day and age.
2 big factors (even discounting "defense" blockages.

1) Standardization. Air Freight is designed to use easily loaded and handled cargo containers. You need to get as many in as possible as fast as possible. C-17/C-5/etc are not designed to optimize the number of containers.

2) Maintenance. There are dozens (hundreds maybe) of locations in the world that can do your maintenance for the 747F. There are 2 in the world that can do maintenance on a C-5 (and neither will be that friendly towards a commercial plane). I'm sure the C-17 has more maintenance facilities, but probably not more than 5.

The A388F has the range to fly from China to MEM or IND non-stop with a full volumetric payload (since FX would never reach 150t). However, so does the 777F. And the 777F has far more flexibility in terms of airports it can serve as well as not needed the dedicated support infrastructure at each end the A388F does.

Never seen them on a 747-400? Or an A330? or ...
Not as huge (like 2 meters) as the 737 ones. That's what I meant, to add to the stupid confusion.

Okay. You may be confusing the idea behind it all since you keep mentioning "aerodynamic" without any context. Like what I said before, the idea for a winglet/raked wingtip is to lower the lift-induced drag caused by wingtip vortices (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Airplane_vortex_edit.jpg/737px-Airplane_vortex_edit.jpg).

You are actually partially right though. Winglets are more efficient for short-haul flights, while raked wingtips are better for longer flights. To explain it would involve a good amount of tensor mathematics, which I'm too lazy to do here. :p

But I'll say this: they are most definitely on widebodies, and almost all Airbus aircrafts have them. Boeing's keeping the winglets for the shorter range planes (737 and 787-3) while moving towards the raked wingtips for their longer haul planes (such as the 777-300ER, 747-8, and 787-8/9)

787-3 (with winglets) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/Boeing_787-3.jpg)
787-9 (with raked wingtips) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/89/AirNZ_789.jpg)
ok, still not what i meant: but i'm done. thanks :D