Gallois said in an interview that he expects United Parcel Service Inc., its only customer for the A380 freighter, to ''postpone'' its order for 10 planes by a decade.
A380 Freighter
Airbus ''in coming days'' will make a decision on whether to push back plans to produce a freighter version of the plane, Gallois said. UPS said last week it has yet to decide whether to retain the $2.8 billion order.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 15405 posts, RR: 48 Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 18009 times:
I'm getting tired of these face saving moves by Airbus. Just cancel the damn project, admit it wasn't best suited for the purpose, and move on. (A380F, I'm talking about, not A380 pax). Focus on the A350X, A330F, A389, and A320NG.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
A 10 year postponment in this industry is as good as a cancellation. Example, Phillippine Air's 744 order. It's been on the books for god knows how long but were postponed. Eventually they were converted to the 77W order. Can the same thing happen between Airbus and UPS? Sure but for now it looks like UPS won't be taking any A380F and Airbus won't be building any mega freighters.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 12411 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 17893 times:
Well it's obvious Airbus is going to stop development on the A380-800F.
What will be interesting to see if 5X is on the hook for A306Fs or A332Fs or if they get their deposits back to allow Airbus to stop that development.
So FX and 5X now have the luxury of waiting to see how the A380-800 program shakes out and whether or not passenger models become available for conversion.
It's good news for Boeing since in the interim, they will be buying Boeing dedicated cargo lift (767F, 777F, 747F).
SEPilot From United States, joined Dec 2006, 2928 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 17898 times:
Translation: UPS doesn't want it; we don't want to build it for only 10 planes, but we don't want to give UPS their money back so we'll kick the can WAY down the road.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...
AirFrnt From United States, joined Jul 2004, 2137 posts, RR: 19 Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 17817 times:
In ten years Airbus will have a good handle on the A380 program, and if it is worth pushing the capital in to the project to make it happen. Airbus might land a large order to start the process before then. UPS probably gets to freeze their prices, and probably gets a huge chunk of their pre-delivery payments back.
When is a cancellation not a cancellation? When it's the best thing for all parties.
Katekebo From United States, joined Apr 2001, 655 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 17815 times:
10 years postponement is a virtual cancellation, without calling it that way. With no orders with deliveires over the next 10 years it's obvious that the A380F will be shelved until enough demand exists to make it finacially justifiable. With the two potential largest customers (UPS and FedEx) saying that they don't want the aiplane (at least not during the coming 10 years), I doubt that Airbus can find enough potential buyers to justify the development of a freighter version. And if development of a new, more efficient VLA begins withing these 10 years (or at least Boeing start seriously talking about one), the A380F may never materialize.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 15405 posts, RR: 48 Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 17714 times:
Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 9): UPS probably gets to freeze their prices, and probably gets a huge chunk of their pre-delivery payments back.
A would be better giving the deposits back than to freeze 2 year old prices for ten more years!
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
EvilForce From , joined today!, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 17630 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12): A would be better giving the deposits back than to freeze 2 year old prices for ten more years!
Usually capital equipment like this have "accelerator" factors built in. Meaning that the price is what it is + applicable rate of inflation based on an agreed upon measurement of inflation...ie US producer price index until actual delivery.
NoWorries From United States, joined Oct 2006, 206 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 17486 times:
Maybe UPS concluded that they don't need the A380F in it's current form so Airbus said: wait -- check back in 10 years and if the A380 gains some momentum, there might be a re-engined A388F or even an A389F with better ecconomics. Otherwise, all of this maneuvering seems like overkill if it's just face-saving to avoid using the "c" word in public.
TeamAmerica From United States, joined Sep 2006, 1538 posts, RR: 12 Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 17288 times:
Quoting EvilForce (Reply 13): Usually capital equipment like this have "accelerator" factors built in. Meaning that the price is what it is + applicable rate of inflation based on an agreed upon measurement of inflation...ie US producer price index until actual delivery.
That is true if the buyer defers the purchase. It's not at all clear whether or not Airbus is actually the party requesting this deferral. If Airbus is behind this, UPS may see an advantage to holding the option to buy A380F's relatively cheaply at a later date. I'd love to be a fly on the wall for this one...
Ken777 From United States, joined Mar 2004, 1919 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 17230 times:
This looks like a good deal for both Airbus & UPS. I would guess that Airbus will avoid paying any compensation and UPS will get their deposits back until a new agreement is reached on deliveries.
Ten years from now the 380 will be a far better plane, especially with new engines, and UPS can make a decision based on their current needs. Airbus will, hopefully, have the 389 worked out and be able to design a 380F for less effort than it would take today.
Nitrohelper From United States, joined Mar 2005, 419 posts, RR: 2 Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 17171 times:
How many 747-400s will become available for freighter conversions during the next ten years? Why not just keep converting -400s? Is there a delivery problem ? (What is the cost?)
Last question, would a converted 380F be heavier than a purposed built freighter?
SEPilot From United States, joined Dec 2006, 2928 posts, RR: 8 Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 17091 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 16): This looks like a good deal for both Airbus & UPS. I would guess that Airbus will avoid paying any compensation and UPS will get their deposits back until a new agreement is reached on deliveries.
It looks like a good deal for Airbus. They get to keep UPS's deposits for 10 years and don't have to do anything for it.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 16): Ten years from now the 380 will be a far better plane, especially with new engines, and UPS can make a decision based on their current needs. Airbus will, hopefully, have the 389 worked out and be able to design a 380F for less effort than it would take today.
This may be the case; it also may be the case that the A380 has sold maybe 300 total by that time, and Airbus finally admits that it was a foolish plane to build and decides not to throw good money after bad and makes no further versions including the freighter. My bet is the A380F never sees the light of day.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...
Dougbr2006 From Brazil, joined Oct 2006, 271 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 17066 times:
I think this could really benefit Airbus, I mean if they can transfer the development resources to the A350XWB they may well achieve the proposed EIS and cut Boeing edge with the B787 replacing older 777s.
This may also be an Airbus strategy. It would now mean that airbus have loosened up 20 slots for the PAX version if you add this to the FEDEX cancellation. it should help the PAX version get back on line as far as deliveries.
Of course this all depends if they have a solid contract that helps them retain or transfer the deposits for other aircraft then they should not be too unhappy. UPS have not really been voicing too badly about the A380 always edging their bets so maybe this was discussed over the last months after FEDEX cancelled.
As for what UPS will do to fill the GAP well I think that depends on the deposit situation, if its locked into Airbus then the A330F looks like a good proposal. If not locked will they follow FEDEX with the 777F, only time will tell !!!!!!!!!
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Jun 2004, 4145 posts, 
From , joined today!, posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 10890 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Oct 2006, 271 posts,