Hydrogen Alpha . . .
 

Yes, captain Hydrogen Alpha . . .thank you for explaining to us that Boeing had made the B748F by mistake. :{

Quite amused to see this in the Spectators Balcony forum........... did any of the mods actually consider the fact that some of us have actually signed contracts for this aircraft with Boeing, and therefore find this news extremely interesting?

Comment isnt to concern of the aircraft. Apperantly a CV employee is posting internal info regarding staff. This was not stated in the news report.
Carry on.
:D

These are anonymous forums, how do you know it is a CV employee?

It isn't any great secret about the boardroom struggles since Qatar came on board.

Glueball wrote:

My sticky and spherical friend,

Until you have learned to comprehend the developments that have occured within the B777F and B747-8F programs over the last five years, you will be unable to understand why your (doubtless) sarcastic comment has become only too true. The B777F has got better and better - aircraft delivered today have a structural payload of 106.6 tonnes - while the B747-8F has headed resolutely in the opposite direction. It has wrestled with OEW and SFC problems, some of which that have proved almost intractable to date.

smack1, I don't really understand what you are talking about. :confused:

Where has any "internal info regarding staff" been posted in this thread? :confused:

Cargolux rejection of B747-8F: Sleepless in Seattle
 

Cargolux could seek capacity elsewhere after 747-8F rejection

I'm fairly new to Pprune, and maybe I'm breaking a rule here, because I am fully aware that another thread on this subject started life in "Rumours & News" on Friday, only to be moved to Spectators Balcony. This struck me and many people (see the thread) as a bit odd, in view of the fact that R&N is stated to be a forum for "Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots."

I am a career aviation professional, not a spotter, and I would regard this CV rejection as a (potentially) major development, not least for the aircrew currently flying for all the -8F customers; Cargolux, Nippon Cargo Airlines, Volga-Dnepr, Korean and Cathay, plus those signed up as lessees with Atlas and GECAS. This is why:

- Cargolux has "bet the company" on the B747-8F, while its competitors have generally opted for the B777F, which is proving to be a stellar performer.
- Boeing clearly has significant issues with weight, SFC and therefore payload/range, on the -8F.
- Even if Qatar have recently joined the CV Board, they are still a minority shareholder. Their presence could not have forced the Board of CV into this high-profile confrontation with Boeing against their will.
- The likelyhood is, therefore, that the fixes that Boeing and GE have offered so far for the -8F are simply inadequate to restore the operating economics that are essential to CV's prosperity in the highly competitive, low-margin airfreight sector of air transport.
- After yesterday, nothing will be the same for the -8F. Every -8F customer will be speaking to Seattle as I write, seeking assurances that they will receive whatever concessions are offered to CV.
- And lurking in the background is the possibility, however remote, that the fixes CV need are not easily achievable......

Okay, the chances are that on Monday a press statement is issued from Seattle saying that the ceremony is back on, and that CV are back in the fold. If so, that's great. But that won't negate the fact that this is a very, very unusual step for a company like Cargolux to take, and that the concessions that Boeing will have to have agreed to may - yet again - change the delivery schedule for the aircraft. This must, surely, be a matter of genuine interest to many hundreds of operating aircrew around the world?

H.A....Glad you have it all figured out...Happy You...

Qatar Airways' recent 35 percent acquisition stake in Cargolux
puts ceo Akbar Al Baker on the cv board, himself no stranger
to mixing it with the manufacturers, puts Boeing between a rock
and hard place.. mess with cv and you mess with my airline.

Most likely CV is trying to wring a few extra million dollars out of Boeing at the last minute, and is also negotiating for some kind of preferential treatment (e.g., temporary replacement airplanes) when the fixes come in next year.

I suspect Mr Smack is concerned about the OP stating that the FD of said airline might be seeking pastures new before we all sing 'Auld lang syne' again...

It's hardly top secret internal stuff as CV themselves put it out in a press statement.

Just because the press haven't picked up on it (the rejection of the -8F makes far better headlines) does not make it secret.

But look at the timings, on the 16th you have the first board meeting with the new directors nominated by Q. You have a new Chairman, you have the CFO resigning and you have a decision to reject the aircraft.

Downin3Green

I often benefit in some of the consulting work I do from the information and ideas thrown up in threads on Pprune. It's not a game to me. So of course I don't "have it all figured out" - the post was my way of putting structured ideas into the debate. :bored:

Well, if he's talking about the CFO then I have news for him: already reported in the Luxembourg press here, here and here.

Look at the date and times the first two articles were posted, then compare these times to the time the employees received this news from the CEO by email and then compare it to the time this thread was created. Two newspapers had their stories ready and posted on the internet before the employees found out about it. So who was leaking internal information? Certainly not a pilot, and certainly not in this thread! ;)

By the way, hmmm let's see; creating a new username, being located in Luxembourg, being totally uninformed, LPE 3,5 and immediately start threatening in his first post. Typical... :hmm:

Back to plane spotting...

What I got from the Flight Global article is that there seems to be quite few issues with the aircraft today;

Too heavy (MTOW bump already announced, which may restore payload to the advertised maximum, but at the expense of fuel burn and range)
Engines burning too much fuel (PIP1 implemented, PIP2 in pipeline)
Lack of VNAV capabilities
More noisy on take-off than projected
RNP issues

Interesting points Hydrogen Alpha!

I tend to agree a bit more with Daysleeper's view of the Qatari angle, but keep 'em coming! :ok:

p.s. perhaps the mods would be kind enough to merge this thread with a parallel thread in "spotters corner" and, in their infinite wisdom, keep it in "freight dogs?" Thx! ;)

It seems performance issues (weight, fuel burn, range) have been known about for some time. However, we now hear that the first aircraft may have older software standards and possibly reduced operational (landing?) capability. This would be a contractual issue also, and maybe, for instance, tests in the last few days showed that the problem would take longer than expected to be cured....

Tank2Engine wrote:

I appreciate your comment, T2E. :ok:

No one minds constructive debate - that's what we're here for - but after a couple of the responses I've prompted recently I was seriously beginning to wonder why anyone would bother posting on Pprune.....

The new minority shareholders would also be less than impressed with boeing,s other delay product the 787, as for the dash late, its a costly item and its no good being nice by accepting something that does not do what is says on the packet.

Did not like the paint scheme anyway..