Airbus Curtails Production Of A380 Freight Superjumbo

Manufacturing.net ^ | 1 March 2007 | David Rising

[magellan]

Financially troubled European airplane manufacturer Airbus has stopped work on the freight version of its new A380 superjumbo so it can focus more on the troubled passenger version of the aircraft, a spokesman for its parent company said Thursday.

"The work on the freight version of the A380 has just been temporarily cut off ... so that all capacities can be directed at the A380 passenger version," said Michael Hauger, spokesman for the European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co., in a telephone call from Munich.

Last week, United Parcel Service Inc. (UPS) postponed taking delivery on the A380 freight version.

It was the last remaining customer for the freightliner, and UPS said it would decide later this year whether to move ahead with a plan to purchase 10 of the jets or cancel the order completely.

UPS originally ordered the 10 jets in January 2005, with options to buy 10 more in a deal valued at roughly $2.8 billion at list prices.

Airbus spokeswoman Ann de Crozals said the decision to postpone work on the A380F came after the UPS decision.

"Following the rescheduling with UPS, development work on the A380F has been interrupted but the program is still ongoing," de Crozals said. "It's not a decision to stop the program."

There is a new development schedule for the freight version A380F, Hauger said, adding that the company believes there is a sales potential for 400 models of the A380 freight aircraft in the next 20 years.

Toulouse, France-based Airbus is struggling to survive the crippling fallout from a two-year delay to the A380 and the weaker U.S. dollar – in which the planes are priced.

Airbus said Wednesday it would shed 4,300 jobs in France, 3,700 in Germany, 1,600 in Britain and 400 in Spain over four years.

De Crozals said no date had been set for work to resume on the freight version of the aircraft.

FedEx Corp. canceled its order for 10 A380s in November, saying Airbus's production problems were threatening its international expansion plans. Instead, it ordered 15 Boeing 777 freighters and options for 15 more in a deal valued at about $3.5 billion at list prices.

[patton]

LOLOL. DC-3's need an airfield?

[Redleg Duke]

True, but we are talking about European egos here.

[Proud_USA_Republican]

just wait until the A350XWB gets close to launch...

They will have over 7 years to reverse engineer the entire 787. If they can't produce something better given that advantage, they are toast.

[gridlock]

Then they are toast. I don't think they can do it.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

The problem with a conventional fuselage airplane like the A-380 and the 747 is developing jet engines that size and fitting it under the wings... and the trust that is needed.
I am not saying it's impossible, just very difficult to do.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

Opps... I meant,,, developing a twin engine plane like the size of the A-380 , 747

[Paleo Conservative]

The problem with a conventional fuselage airplane like the A-380 and the 747 is developing jet engines that size and fitting it under the wings... and the trust that is needed.
I am not saying it's impossible, just very difficult to do.

But that will probably happen within the next 15 years. the GE90-115 has been tested at 130,000 pounds of thrust. It will probably take an engine with at least 150,000 pounds of thrust for a twin engined CFRP 747 replacement. It will come out a long time before the A380 gets the desired rate of return for Airbus. Also, if Boeing were to develop a 747 sized blended wing body composite aircraft, its possible they might be able to be able to mount three engines in the rear. This would eliminate the necessity of developing a very large engine that would have a demand for a very low number of units.

[Riptides]

Thank you, UPS for sticking it into them and breaking it off!
Go Boeing!!!!!!
USA! USA! USA! USA!

[cookcounty]

It never made sense for FedEx or UPS in the first place. I have no idea what they were thinking buying an airplane that takes until after 1030 am just to unlosd, maybe currying favor with Airbus at the time in regard to other issues (FedEx flies a lot of A310's)?

[Mr. Silverback]

The part about Boeing being petrified is pretty funny. Hey, guess what, Air bus, Boeing can deliver their jets on time!

[Mr. Silverback]

If they can't produce something better given that advantage, they are toast.

The reason Boeing wandered in the wilderness all the way up to the 707 is the airlines had a perception of them as the one manufacturer that didn't shoot straight with them. They figured Boeing would pretend to listen to their concerns and then foist a half-hearted re-engineering of their military aircraft on them. Airbus is going to have a very serious credibility problem if they don't get this plane "off the ground," and not being Boeing is not going to be enough to sell their airplanes. This will be especially true in categories where there are several players, because an airline can write off Airbus and still have two or three options to choose from.

Trust issues are a big, big problem, much bigger than engineering, and Airbus bought themselves a big one by trying to screw UPS.

[MHalblaub]

I think Randy compares apple with bananas.

The 787-8F can carry 140 t payload at a range of about 8.000 km. The A380F carry 150 t more than 10.000 km. Up to this range the 787-8F can only carry 110 t.

But what does FedEx, UPS or DHL needed most - mass or volume? The Airbus can handle 1.7 times more volume.


And no doubt for Randy on an Airbus containers are more than one and half times heavier than on a Boeing.

[skeptoid]

I think Randy compares apple with bananas.

Look at the numbers he uses (he says 380 #'s are Airbus' claim).
With the figures in the graphic, the max dry weight (minus tare) of the -8F is 312; 393 for the 380F.
That translates to a Revenue Payload fraction for the -8 of 43%; 36% for the 380F. This is NOT MTOW; this is max DRY WEIGHT (minus tare) from the numbers in the graphic.

And no doubt for Randy on an Airbus containers are more than one and half times heavier than on a Boeing.

There is NO doubt that the A 380 F has three cargo decks vs two on the 747-8F, and the -8F has big doors and 'full frontal' loading. The 380F will certainly need more containers for 3 decks vs 2, and perhaps one and half times more 'tare' per trip! It will also take longer to load; perhaps much longer.

So then it would seem that the 747-8F will burn a lot less fuel per tonne/mile than the 380F, and the longer the route, the greater the trip cost difference.

These are raw, rough numbers, but they are certainly valid in this comparison, no?

[skeptoid]

BTW, the graphic is from a Boeing guy and it's been up since April '06. I hope they still believe it.

[MHalblaub]

"These are raw, rough numbers, but they are certainly valid in this comparison, no?"

No.

"There is NO doubt that the A 380 F has three cargo decks vs two on the 747-8F, and the -8F has big doors and 'full frontal' loading. The 380F will certainly need more containers for 3 decks vs 2, and perhaps one and half times more 'tare' per trip! It will also take longer to load; perhaps much longer."

This is just guessing. With the same cargo you got the same containers whether you got 2 or 3 decks.

There are two doors on booth planes for the lower cargo compartments and two doors on the other decks. With the same number of containers or pallets it would be the same time but with more you will probably need more time.

I don't know in which business you are but most parcels we get are very lightly. I won't think weight is the problem with the standard cargo for parcel services. Volume is it.


Ups, no A380F at all?

[skeptoid]

No.

The comparison is NOT valid??
Again, the graphic has been posted by a Boeing executive for over ten months, and it compares a 747 (in production for 37 years), against the A380 (flying for almost two years).
What's not to trust?

.

With the same cargo you got the same containers whether you got 2 or 3 decks.

Maybe it would be possible to load the same payload using the same number of containers on both 747 and 380, but in the real world, you move what the customer wants to move. Boeing claims it can move it like this if you like.
And these are supposedly each company's own figures. The Weight a minute comparison uses Boeing's numbers for the 747 and Airbus' numbers for the 380.
I'm assuming Airbus knows why the 380F carries 50% more tare to deliver 5% more payload.

.

....most parcels we get are very lightly. .... Volume is it.

Agreed that more loads are cube limited rather than max weight, and I would like to see Airbus publish a comparison showing it's advantage over the 747-8F for volume optimized loads.

[VOA]

bump