[badidea]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Who is SIA?

Singapore Airlines

Do you have to pay for an option and what's the benefit of doing so?

No, you don't pay for it. It's nothing really spectacular - more like just a promise to order more.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Who is SIA? Do you have to pay for an option and what's the benefit of doing so? I can't imagine that Airbus is not selling planes to customers who didn't have an option before.

SIA = Singapore Airlines

Yes, one has to pay for options, for they are essentially production slots in the future reserved for you.

When airlines convert an option to an order and confirm that order they pay additional money and then a plane will be made for them.

It is paid in full upon delivery.

QF (Qantas) also decided on eight more 380s.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=ac8vdvA9BZps

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by badidea 

No, you don't pay for it. It's nothing really spectacular - more like just a promise to order more.

Option is more than a LOI, which is just a promise. Airlines order X planes and Y options. They can sell options, so they must be worh something. They are a reserved timeslot for a frame for a particular airline, after all.

LOI is just an official statement from an airline saying, "yeah we're interested in buying this type", and is usually meaningless unless wer're talking about a plane not yet in production.. such as the 350.

V

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Emirates and ILFC both converted their F orders into pax; FedEx cancelled their Fs outright. Either way, that's 75% of the F customers cancelling their F order.

That's pretty F'd up.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Yes, one has to pay for options, for they are essentially production slots in the future reserved for you.

When airlines convert an option to an order and confirm that order they pay additional money and then a plane will be made for them.

It is paid in full upon delivery.

Thanks for clarifying that - I knew why I felt a bit insecure answering this question!
Which proves that I don't work in the sales departement (and non of my colleagues either)!

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by badidea 

Thanks for clarifying that - I knew why I felt a bit insecure answering this question!
Which proves that I don't work in the sales departement (and non of my colleagues either)!

I am ashamed to know this, really.. I'm a biologist and well.. it really isn't my business to know. The aviation industry and airplanes however fascinate me to no end and I spend hours and hours every week familiarizing with the different aspects. I'm an aviation geek.. even so I am known to make mistakes from time to time..

The sales department and especially John Leahy are living legends in the industry. It was Leahy who managed to convince so many airlines to buy Airbus over the competition. He's like a foul mouthed Steve Jobs.

Anyways, when it comes to engineering I know nothing. You are our resident expert in that area bar none!



V

[badidea]

...and another 8 orders from Qantas!

(seems like some still like this airplane very much)

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by badidea 

...and another 8 orders from Quantas!

(seems like some still like this airplane very much)

Great news.

The 380 is going to be beautiful in Qantas colors.


Did you know that the airline's name was originally an acronym for Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Service, hence QANTAS. Later just named Qantas.

[/useless airline trivia]

V

[Andy8]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Did you know that the airline's name was originally an acronym for Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Service, hence QANTAS. Later just named Qantas.

This is drilled into you while at primary school in Australia.

[voodoo]

Beautiful!

V

[UnixMac]

My company (I fly MD-11 for Gemini Air Cargo) has expressed interest in A330F's, saying that that the price may be good on these since Boeing as a good lock on the freighter market, and Airbus may be trying to earn a foothold. I think the A380 will be the King of freighters for the long haul, but the $290,000,000 price is going to be the biggest problem in the short run for many operators.

Good pictures in this thread of the new king of the sky however..

[glideslope]

The 380F would be a good replacement for the MD-11F, as it is really just a larger MD-11F.

The 380F will never be anything more than a parcel/low density goods carrier with it's 330,000 MTOW.

The Heavy Lift needs will continue to go to the 748F with a 476,000 MTOW, and the AN-124 with it's 425,000 MTOW. I did not list the An-225 as there is only one in service.

It's going to be a while before you see any 380F. It's on the shelf for now. Airbus needs to focus on obtaining the production certificate for the 380. So far the big hoopla last week was only the Type cert.

They have to demonstrate in around 6 months that they actually can build them in different configurations without a crisis.

[mduell]

glideslope: A380F MTOW is at least 569T, and possibly 600T. I think you're confusing it with A330F.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

The 380F will never be anything more than a parcel/low density goods carrier with it's 330,000 MTOW.

The MTOW is actually 590t, considerably more than the 440t the 748F can handle. The maximum payload of the A380 is higher as well. I wonder where you get your information from.

[glideslope]

I think you're a little off on your thesis. The empty weight for a 748F will be in the vicinity of 170 tons, and you get a 140 ton payload. The 380F will weigh 252 tonnes for a 150 ton payload. So for a 10 tonne payload increase you have a minimum of 82 ton increase in ZFW. Not very efficient if you ask me. But, the market/operational costs will be the deciding voice in this debate. In fact, IMO, are already at work.

The NEW figures released for the 388 indicate a 569T MTOW. So, one could assume the F will be similiar. Not 590T. Trying to make up for that 82 ton issue? Another 9T in payload is still an issue when you look at the weight of the 380F.

The new AN-124-100M will also be similiar to the 748F in operational costs. Not to mention both have the ability to front load. A feature used mostly in the Middle East these days, but is growing in Asia.

The 380F will be limited to 2.4M containers on the second level. The 748 will handle 3.0m containers. So, it will be a parcel carrier.

I apologize for the misquote on my previous post. It was late and I was using 330F numbers.

I really was only trying to point out why the 380 would be a good airframe for operators such as Gemini, of course it would be tough for them to even lease one, if they are ever built.

[glideslope]

This link may be helpful. Click on the PDF document.



TCDS A58NM Rev 0 Airbus

[OreoCookie]

@glidescope
Have you even bothered to take a look at the links? Wikipedia quote a MTOW of 590t for the freighter, 560t for the passenger version. These figures are confirmed by the official Airbus webpage.

So before you start ahead with your arguments, you should double-check your numbers.

[glideslope]

Ok, I was trying to be nice. But, since you have publicly posted a link confirming the 380F could weigh as much 590 Tonnes and still only lift 150 Tonne payload. Your not making your case.

The 748F MTOW is 440 Tonnes with a 140 Tonne payload.

[OreoCookie]

… at a much smaller range.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

… at a much smaller range.

Which will not be a problem for Asia.

[analogika]

Of course, at shorter ranges, the A380 is not going to be flying at MTOW, since it's not going to be loading 400 tons of fuel for short hauls.

[Sky Captain]

Good lord, you plan for fuel to burn and take on what you need plus for a diverson.
You don't fill the tanks every trip.
And takeoff weight(as long as the plane is withing CG and below MTOW) is not as critical as landing weight. Yes, it can be too heavy to land.

[Mastrap]

Captain, can a, say, 747 that's fully loaded for a transatlantic flight or similar actually land immediately after take-off or would they need to dump some serious weight first?

[Sky Captain]

Dump serious fuel.
My father in law has had to do this before after losing an engine in Alaska.(fan fragmented and shredded the engine)
There are tubes out the tips of the wing to dump the fuel.
But if the emergency requires an immidately landing, they'll just land the plane. Passangers safety first over an aircraft.
But if the passangers are in no immidate danger, they'll dump fuel.
And it depends on the carriers proceedures. But FAA proceedures come first over carrier's .

[exca1ibur]

747-8 MTOW - 440K Kg
747-8 LW - 306K Kg

Gotta do a lot of dumping, like the Capt. says there.

We had a 757-2 take off and come back a little over and he got lucky and just blew a tire. Bad thing is it was a passenger flight, so he is no longer with the company.

[the_glassman]

UPS�may cancel�remaining Airbus A380 order - Jan. 19, 2007

[mduell]

I think that may be a blessing for Airbus, especially if they convert to A332F.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

747-8 MTOW - 440K Kg
747-8 LW - 306K Kg

Gotta do a lot of dumping, like the Capt. says there.

We had a 757-2 take off and come back a little over and he got lucky and just blew a tire. Bad thing is it was a passenger flight, so he is no longer with the company.

136k kilos of fuel difference between max takeoff and max landing weight? How long a cruise would it take to burn that much fuel? I'm amazed!

[mduell]

The back of my napkin says about 11 hours (assume 15:1 L/D and 0.5 TSFC).

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

136k kilos of fuel difference between max takeoff and max landing weight? How long a cruise would it take to burn that much fuel? I'm amazed!

14800 km (8000 nautical miles). About 16 hours on cruise at ca 900 km/h.

V

[Buckaroo]

So what happens if they have an emergency and need to land after taking off full of fuel and they have to land within 30 minutes? Is that 136k kilos afect a safe landing?

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

So what happens if they have an emergency and need to land after taking off full of fuel and they have to land within 30 minutes? Is that 136k kilos afect a safe landing?

It's not safe at all. The impact above max landing weight risks structure failure on landing. Thats why you have the ability to dump fuel to get under the max landing weight.

For our flight we had this happen so he had to fly around the pacific for about 15 min to burn off and dump fuel, before he could land. With a max load of pax and bags, you can't take that risk.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

14800 km (8000 nautical miles). About 16 hours on cruise at ca 900 km/h.

No, that's max range (and endurance for max range) at typical payload.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

So what happens if they have an emergency and need to land after taking off full of fuel and they have to land within 30 minutes? Is that 136k kilos afect a safe landing?

Either dump fuel (preferably over the ocean) or land heavy and take the damage (survivable provided enough runway).

[analogika]

BBC NEWS | Business | Airbus solves A380 wiring glitch

[veryniceguy2002]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

So what happens if they have an emergency and need to land after taking off full of fuel and they have to land within 30 minutes? Is that 136k kilos afect a safe landing?

If I re-word your question a bit to Is that 136k kilos affect a safer landing? then it's easier to explain.

In reality there is no such thing is safe landing. When planes fly there's always a risk of danger... things can go wrong. What normal people call "safe landing" is a landing with a probability of failure is low enough that is deems acceptable is normal operating condition.

Now if you have an emergency, then you have to weighted up the options to see which option gets you a higher chance of survivability. If two engines out of four are on fire and losing power then it might be safer to land heavy because the plane might drop out of sky if you spend another 15 minutes on air dumping fuel. On the other hand if cabin depressurised and you have to land on an runway on a coast then you want dump fuel because you don't want to run over the runway (because you can't slow the plane with heavy load) and end up in the sea...

So it all depends the circumstances and take the safest option available. This is why commercial aeroplanes still fly by pilots and not automatic-control!

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by veryniceguy2002 

So it all depends the circumstances and take the safest option available. This is why commercial aeroplanes still fly by pilots and not automatic-control!

Surely a computer could do a few simple risk calculations better than two dudes. What's the real reason we still have pilots in planes, and will we always? Is it just because people have seen their home computers crash so often that they'd FREAK if they knew a computer was doing the flying? I wouldn't even trust my computer to drive me home drunk after a party and I have a Mac!

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by mduell 

No, that's max range (and endurance for max range) at typical payload.

That is a fully fueled 380 with typical payload. It cruises more with less payload and less with more payload. That wasn't the question, just how long it would cruise. Typically exactly as long as I posted before. Duh.

V

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

What's the real reason we still have pilots in planes, and will we always?

Yes, I believe we will always have pilots on board. Even if they can develop a system that would land automatically, they will need pilots trained to land when the computer fails. We have autopilot, but I don't think we'll ever have auto landing. Maybe auto takeoff, but not auto landing.

[voodoo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6x6mKBajQI

A380 video from China Southern test flight in Shanghai.

V

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Yes, I believe we will always have pilots on board. Even if they can develop a system that would land automatically, they will need pilots trained to land when the computer fails. We have autopilot, but I don't think we'll ever have auto landing. Maybe auto takeoff, but not auto landing.

Many modern aircraft have an Auto-Land feature. This is known as having a Cat III certification. The 380 is currently in the final stages of software development for it's Cat III cert.

Although humane data entry is required at this point in history, IMO, some day it will not be required.

Many operators have policy and procedure requiring Auto-Land EX: "can only be used in these conditions", or "cannot be used at all."

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Yes, I believe we will always have pilots on board. Even if they can develop a system that would land automatically, they will need pilots trained to land when the computer fails. We have autopilot, but I don't think we'll ever have auto landing. Maybe auto takeoff, but not auto landing.

A 777 can for sure, and I believe the 747 can auto-land, as well. The auto-pilot is tied to the ILS can bring it all the way down, no problem.

[veryniceguy2002]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

Many modern aircraft have an Auto-Land feature. This is known as having a Cat III certification. The 380 is currently in the final stages of software development for it's Cat III cert.

Yeap. Auto-land feature is available on most modern commercial aircraft. Often they use the auto-land feature in bad weather, low visibility, and they do manual landing when the weather is good Why? Because the pilots still needs to practice manual landing to refresh themselves, in case one day if they have to do manual landing when instruments failed!

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

We have autopilot, but I don't think we'll ever have auto landing. Maybe auto takeoff, but not auto landing.

Originally Posted by veryniceguy2002 

Yeap. Auto-land feature is available on most modern commercial aircraft. Often they use the auto-land feature in bad weather, low visibility, and they do manual landing when the weather is good

You never know what to believe on the internet... I still go to wikipedia to clear stuff up... sure hope it's never lets me down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland

[veryniceguy2002]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

You never know what to believe on the internet... I still go to wikipedia to clear stuff up... sure hope it's never lets me down. Autoland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Huh? How does Wikipedia different from what I said? You use auto-landing during bad weather!

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by veryniceguy2002 

Huh? How does Wikipedia different from what I said? You use auto-landing during bad weather!

Geez dude.... two people on the forum said opposite things... Wikipedia said you were right! That's what I meant.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by badidea 

edit: changed my mind - I'm better not giving this information!

I still won't post any insider information here but parts of this article (even though about a different airplane ) are very similar (if not exact the same)!
The Seattle Times: Business & Technology: Analyst warns that 787 program could face delays
(I was expecting that - it was only a matter of time)

[analogika]

the first center wing box — the key structural element of the center fuselage which holds the wings — delivered last week from Fuji in Japan to Global Aeronautica in Charleston, SC, was sent without the wiring, hydraulics and many of the fasteners that were supposed to be pre-installed.
[...]
San Pietro said Boeing's other 787 partners also have fallen behind schedule, especially Mitsubishi, which is making the wings in Japan, and Alenia, making the rear fuselage in Italy.
[...]
San Pietro said he was told that "the suppliers are unhappy with the costs of maintaining schedule" and are demanding more money from Boeing. He said that, having outsourced the fabrication of most of the 787's airframe, "Boeing has no internal capability to manufacture the major components," so it lacks leverage to oppose such supplier demands.

So the 787 is even less of an American plane than the A380 is a European one?

<glideslope>
"I ain't setting foot in one of those outsourced deathtraps!"
</gideslope>

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by badidea 

I still won't post any insider information here but parts of this article (even though about a different airplane ) are very similar (if not exact the same)!
The Seattle Times: Business & Technology: Analyst warns that 787 program could face delays
(I was expecting that - it was only a matter of time)

sounds like the auto-industry too

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

Surely a computer could do a few simple risk calculations better than two dudes. What's the real reason we still have pilots in planes, and will we always? Is it just because people have seen their home computers crash so often that they'd FREAK if they knew a computer was doing the flying? I wouldn't even trust my computer to drive me home drunk after a party and I have a Mac!

Thank you for flying with Windows Vista: Ulitimate Flight Signature Edition.

[glideslope]

I'd sure be looking forward to being on the 1st 25 airframes. Wonder why the first 787 fuse section and wing box were delivered without the wiring installed as planned? It's called being proactive, vs reactive. And of course knowing how to use your software.

http://www.amtonline.com/article/art...tion=1&id=3230