Parting out A380's

I'm surprised that a cargo airline didn't take them. That might be the aircraft's eventual niche in the long run, though the lack of a lift-nose like the 747 (poor design choice by Airbus) will always hamper it.

 

So, as a total newbie, why is it a failure? Too expensive to run? Gaz guzzler? Too big?

 

All of the above.

 

And it ain't a Boeing!!

 

I just wonder where Airbus got the idea for the A380???
Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Seems that it doesn't pencil out... large changes to the structure. AB had talked about doing an F version and decided not to.
Would have had slightly better cap'y than the 747-8 F but at a higher cost per mile... not a viable product, I read.

 

Absolutely! The airplane is not a viable freighter. As Gatorrari said, the lack of a nose loading door was a big mistake but besides, as I have said before, it may have been a fair combi with pax above and cargo below but still too much fuel burn. The big engined single deck twins rule now. The great white elephant will soon be turned out to pasture in the bone yard....except for the Emirates. It isn't like an ocean liner that can sit in dock until it's full. Too many times they leave on schedule with a very light load now as many pax are flying the "smaller jets" straight to their chosen destination. Yeah, I know that I'm blowing smoke but I'm an old Boeing who don't know nuthin.

 

There might have been a market in Japan for a version optimized for high passenger counts and short ranges like the 747SR, but today such a version of the 777 would probably make more sense.

You're right that within 5 years, Emirates might be the only user of the airplane. The new 777 version may replace a lot of the existing A380s.

Of course, some filthy rich head-of-state might get one converted into the ultimate "flying palace"!

 

The maximum volume of a 747 freighter is achieved by using 10ft high containers/pallets. But guess what, you can't load 10ft high containers through the nose door, thus why the 747 freighter also has an aft MDCD (main deck cargo door). The nose door does serve a purpose, but one that is not required for modern e-commerce type cargo. So in reality the 747 w/nose door is the one that is serving a niche market.

 

In addition, if you want a freighter, there are TONS of 747 freighters (or potential freighters just coming out of service) out there cheaper to buy, lease and maintain not to mention spare parts and pilots already trained to fly them. Lastly, a 747 is cheaper to park and can go into some airports the A380 can't.

Why convert an A380 when the 747 already is doing a great job?

I think Airbus did a study on the A380 and figured it would never amount to much in the freighter category. 747's will still fly for another 30-50 years.

You don't take one of these for an emotional or PR point. You get one because in the long run, it will do it at the least cost to compete against other transportation carriers.

 

Airbus could have built a cargo A380 with a cargo floor on the lower level and left the upper level for lighter e-commerce type cargo. Even then the added weight of main cargo floor would have brought down range if combined with an extra second floor. They would be hard pressed to come close to a 747 8F in performance.

I think Airbus may have made another mistake on the A350 with the oval fuselage instead of a round fuselage. Although it brought down weight and thus allowed more fuel for better range it also cut down cargo capacity. They can keep stretching it like they did with the A340. Lucky for them they will always sell airplanes to almost everyone in the European Union no matter what they do

 

Curry makes good points on the side loading capacity but I think that the main feature of the nose loading is the speed at which the load can be put on and removed. I watched the Starlifter being unloaded and I was really surprised at how fast they got the cargo out, a wing.

 

The world has moved to twin engine from 4 engines as the thrust ratings have increased. Fuel and maintenance of 2 is less than dealing with 4. An original argument against 2 had been the requirement for an alternative airport within XX minutes in case of engine failure (ETOPS). ETOPS has now been extended to enough minutes that is no longer a reason to have 4.

The A380 solves a problem that mostly revolves only a few limited places. Heathrow and Narita are two such airports with capacity issues to take more flights as well as so many of the long haul flights end up with limited windows for viable flight schedules with reasonable departure and landing times. Excepting Emirates the other current operators are being quoted as saying that they have no intention to expand their A380 fleet although they likely will replace old ones with new ones as they age out.

An A380 is likely profitable to operate if it is full but the breakeven is still going to require a huge amount of passengers. So, for the airline more flights at different times with a smaller aircraft is going to be a profitable answer. Emirates appears to make it profitable but my expectation is that they have a skewed regional client base that pays full price for a lot of business and first class seats. For Emirates it might be that they have a robust cargo business that can fill the belly with whatever the passengers don't. I do not know if this exists for Emirates but this can be an important revenue source for airlines that can offset the passengers revenue shortfall.

As for the idea of an A380 going to VIP. None have been done. Everyone has done a 747-8i. The one announced VIP A380 sale was for Walid bin Talal and it never happened.

 

Somebody may be making a profit on the A380, but it surely is not Airbus. Boeing did fine on the 747 and even the -8 had a recent resurgence after a few sat for a while.

 

Ultimately the 747-8 will be more profitable than the A380 because of its proficiency as a cargo aircraft, since it (like the A380) has largely been a flop as a passenger carrier. The only major airline to fly -8s in passenger service is Lufthansa, and you wonder how long they'll keep them in service.

 

Another A380 situation - too heavy to land!

 

Must have been fun for the passengers in Phillie. No way to deplane so stuck for another 3 hours plus flight time to JFK.

 

In 2006 FedEx had an order for 10 Airbus A380-800Fs; Airbus was two years behind schedule. FedEx cancelled the order and went with 15 B-777F's. First aircraft arrived in 2009. We now have around 27 with 2 more coming this year. We were going to buy a few of Emirates 777's, deal fell through, time passed, and now it seems we picked up their options for next year...could be as many as 9 'triples' for 2019. I'm excited, pick up a few more cities, probably from our MD-11 line....Sydney, JoBurg, and Lisbon is the rumor. I've been on the aircraft since 2012 and am very happy with it and glad we didn't get the A3Ugly. ;-)

 

In the past 12 months I've flown business class in both the Airbus A380 (Air France to Paris) and the Boeing 787 (KLM to Amsterdam). As nice as the A380 business class is, I was more impressed with the 787 business class.

Also, the loading and unloading of passengers is simpler on the 787 compared to the two-level A380.

.

 

Boeing had a plan for an 380 beater and did a study that the A380 is not the way to go. What people want is more non stops and fewer hub and spoke flights. This means smaller and more efficient jets going to more places more often and faster to the consumer. And if they have to transfer, they want more choices of arrival and departures.

The airlines wanted less cost and planes carrying fewer empty seats while improving the flying public's comfort.

The Dreamliner was their answer -- and they were proven right. While the A380 is struggling, Boeing cannot build enough Dreamliners. Look now at what the Dreamliner can do -- LA to Melbornne non-stop. LA to Auckland non-stop. SFO to Mumbai non-stop. All possible because the plane can fly this long but also because consumers want direct flights.