RichardPrice Airbus is 100% pure politics

It was never about the money, it was always about having an alternative option if the political climate ever worsened, and as I said, that is still a valid reason today.

A loss making enterprise is a better alternative than being totally reliant on another country that may use the hefty leverage you just handed them. The fact that Airbus was making money up until 6 months ago was always purely a bonus.

Much as people like to say otherwise, Airbus is 100% pure politics, and its always going to remain that way while theres a need for Airbus to exist.
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3265603/

1st rule of freighter ops

Quoting Zeke (Reply 28): Each stop on the 747 cost in the order of 15t-20t of fuel in the additional climb, descent, and taxi, and additional cycles.

Fuel costs USD .57/KG Freight yields USD 2-4/KG from Japan/Asia. 1st rule of freighter ops never sacrifice revenue payload for fuel...

For an example run for a 747-8 from NRT-ORD non-stop we'd be limited to a max payload of 114t and a fuel burn of 123t. Doing the run via ANC the payload is increased to the structural maximum of 134t and burns for the NRT-ANC and ANC-ORD segments are 66t and 54t respectively for a total of 120t! How dumb would we be to trade 3t in additional fuel for 20t in cargo just to make the non-stop?!. In case anyone wonders why the total fuel burn is less for the stop? Its because the required takeoff weights are 89,000 and 118,000lbs less than what is required for the non-stop flight! Freighter economics is cool ain't it!
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3252752/#39