The Ships Airbus Uses To Move Aircraft Parts
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 сен 2024
- When you think of Airbus, the natural tendency is to picture aircraft - it’s in their name after all! Aside from commercial and military planes and helicopters, the European firm also has a Space division.
However, when it comes to the logistics of assembling its aircraft, there’s a robust maritime component to the operation.
Indeed, Airbus and its production facilities around the world utilize several vessels to move components between sites at Broughton, Hamburg, Mobile, Tianjin, and Toulouse. Some are external charters while others are exclusively part of the Airbus family.
Article: simpleflying.c...
Our Social Media:
/ simpleflyingnews
/ simple_flying
/ simpleflyingnews
Our Website
simpleflying.com/
For copyright matters please contact us at: legal@valnetinc.com
Interesting. I was aware of their Beluga fleet but I hadn't heard of their fleet of transport ships before.
for those unfamiliar with shipping:
The sails thing is part of a global initiative in the maritime sector to reduce emissions, similar to that of the aviation sector, though their challenges are very different- ships are massive, and typically use bunker fuel or marine diesel, fuels which contain far more pollutants but are essentially waste products from the oil refinement process. Aside from the sails, other solutions being looked at include hydrogen and LNG power. Electric is typically not an option due to the massive amounts of energy needed and the poor energy density of batteries; solar is not an option due to the square-cube law. Sails are also somewhat questionable of an option to choose (imo) due to the square-cube law. However, even without these improvements in efficiency, shipping remains, by a massive margin, the most efficient method to convey bulk goods.
I believe all the initiatives make no sense since the obvious correct option is nuclear power, given their high power density, zero emissions, and existing experience in maritime nuclear engineering. This is option is presently not seriously pursued due to regulatory concerns.
Ro-Ro (Roll on, roll off) refers to any ship which is loaded with wheeled vehicles. Today, Ro-Ro ships are commonly used to deliver cars and trucks, though in the past they would also carry trains too, a practice becoming less common due to the complexity involved and improvement of tunneling technology. In Airbus's case, presumably using Ro-Ro significantly simplifies loading operations, given the obvious impossibility of containerizing their cargoes (putting the things in shipping containers), and their bulk making conventional loading using cranes complex and likely to damage the parts. They likely also ease weight and balance calculations, which are of equal concern to ships as aircraft. An improperly loaded ship can easily capsize ("flip upside down") which is known to be bad for the commercial value of the cargo.
BBC Chartering is named for its two founders, Roelf Briese and Bruno Bischoff. It is of no relation to the British Broadcasting Corporation. Whether their seamen have above-average sized appendages is not known.
COSCO is the name of the China Overseas Shipping COrporation. It is of no relation to American retail giant Costco.
The vertical rotor sails are far superior as it is simple (cheap) & reliable. Nuclear which is extremely costly (as it needs to be),it also needs highly trained technicians, and requires fueling (and spent fuel disposal). There's a reason why even in the US Navy that nuclear power is limited.
@@soccerguy2433 true, but if the shipping industry truly wants to de-carbonise, sails are not a viable option. the amount of force they can generate is not enough to move modern container ships, only provide some efficiency gains. Not to say that it doesn't work, but from a long term, ehhhh.
nuclear power is a presently available, well-developed way for true emission-free propulsion, and with the economies of scale that the shipping industry has, the relative cost of using existing nuclear options with training just a few thousand (admittedly skilled and expensive) technicians is very favorable compared to developing new LNG or hydrogen systems that need to safely store a massive amount of volatile fuel aboard ships and also develop reliable, safe powerplants. The amount of technical cost and developmental timeline for these things is enormous. This is in addition to the fact that after these new technologies are developed, there needs to be a re-training programme for sailors to use these technologies anyways, since there wouldn't be a base of knowledge of these things operating aboard ships if there even is an equivalent system on land.
I would also like to re-emphasize the amount of technical risk involved here too. both LNG and H2 are cryogenics, and a leak, for instance, is absolutely no joke, not to mention all the other things that can go wrong. Marine diesels are massive things and there is little doubt that even if these new technologies can be smaller, they will not be significantly so, so things going wrong will look less like a car fire and more of a building fire. anything going that badly wrong will undoubtedly result in loss of vessel and crew. Operation of marine nuclear reactors is a field that not only exists already but also has had substantial development time put into their safety and has people with experience operating in the field right now.
so in conclusion, yes, cost, but de-carbonisation is expensive either way. the cost advantage, if it exists at all, is far less than people typically portray it as. The nuclear option can benefit from existing methods and has significantly lower risks associated, and has the further advantage that it is truly emission free, compared to H2 which releases water (which is still a greenhouse gas, just less bad), and LNG (which also does CO2).
i’m glad no one’s put you in charge 😆 ‘’it’s just money!’’ 😂🤣
Airbus for air, seabus for sea, spacebus for space, and busbus for road.
Water bus
Seabus
Oceanbus
Nah, SHIPBus
Aquabus
Hydrobus
Cathay have ordered 30 Airbus a330-900 aircraft
That's great🎉
I'm happy to see that the A330 NEO is gaining traction
We dont care
@@Nicolas-ol7jl who's we? You cared enough to comment
I was aware they used all kinds of transportation throughout europe, including sea-going ships aswell as river barges.
Never knew about the trans-atlantic shipping and towards China.
I would have thought pre-assembly components would be build near the assembly location aswell.
And that flying a finished product to the customer would be cheaper then sailing vulnerable components through harsh maritime conditions.
But i guess US customers will have demanded some US labour to be used in the build of the aircraft.
And Chinese government same deal.
Looking at the numbers in back log i have seen on other channels, i guess capacity in Europe to finish all pre-assembly components into complete aircraft is not available.
So "giving in" to demanding overseas customers, also solved a big problem in manpower probably first and buildable space 2nd.
Amazing ❤❤❤❤❤❤
Cool, I didn't know there were that many of them. I'm from Hamburg, there's often a ship of Airbus in port, usually across from the beaches and tourist hotspots of Hamburg's port which puts them in a rather prominent spot.
'Tis interesting!
This is very nice topic! I really didn’t know that
Toulouse for the win
This is just a flex on his pronunciation skills.
😂👍🏿
Except that ‘Ville’ is pronounced ‘veel’, with the ‘l’ pronounced with the tip of the tongue touching the upper teeth.
These ships leave a lot Toulouse
Which ones do you mean? River barges on the Garonne river? Because Toulouse is an inland city, so no ocean-going vessels could reach it as far as i know.
@@bertbergers9171 🤓
I have not come across a video touching on Insurance in the aviation sector, if this topic had been covered earlier please supply a link to the same
Interesting video. I wasn't aware of the maritime fleet.
With chatter about SpaceX possibly launching or landing Starships in Australia I'm wondering if SpaceX might eventually look at leasing Ville de Bordeaux or something similar to move the SuperHeavy Booster for Starship from Texas to Australia. SuperHeavy is 9 meters in diameter and about 75 meters long.
Airbus diversified production and assembly was a political move in an effort to consolidate the EU European Union,. This would have added a huge additional coat to the cost of building these aircraft. Compared with loading a PCC Pure Are Carrier with 7,000 Toyota's in Japan and shipping them to the west coast...of America.
Why not use the beluga tho
It would be very expensive. And there probably aren't enough of them to support so many trips.
Way to expensive, plus the beluga doesn’t have the range to cross the Atlantic
originally this ship was built for the A380. And the A380 parts were too big for the Beluga
Waterbus👾😎
So you could say that the Airbus A380 is also a Ship-Bus A380....
Yes I did know.
VAB
WK
Hopefully we’ll see finally assembly line for A320’s in India soon.
Well he manage to pronounce City of Hamburg correctly. Pity about some of the others.
First