This article has been already linked in the thread about HiFly's A380s:
http://www.manager-magazin.de/finanzen/ ... 71465.html

What I found interesting is the following sentence:

Gehling berichtete von "Gesprächen mit einem amerikanischen Unternehmen, das in Erwägung zieht, den Umbau des Flugzeuges in eine Frachtversion mit anschließendem Leasingvertrag mit großen Frachtunternehmen wie FEDEX und UPS vorzunehmen".

Rough translation: Dr. Peter's manager reports about discussions with an (US-) American company, which is considering to convert the aircraft into a freighter and to lease it to large freight companies such as FEDEX and UPS.

Any idea which US-American company might be interested in converting A380s into freighters?

Other interesting details can be found in the article. If they don't find any other operator they will store MSN003 in Tarbes.
In case of parting-out they expect (hope for) revenues as follows:
60 mio. EUR for the engines
15 mio. EUR for the landing gear
5 mio. EUR for the APU
5 to 10 mio. EUR for the rest incl. fuselage

N14AZ wrote:

Any idea which US-American company might be interested in converting A380s into freighters?

Just a wild idea, but how about Atlas?

Another wild idea, why would Airbus allow or assist in this, did they not have a plan to produce their own A380 freighter which they delayed to resolve the pax variant thus forcing Fedex and UPS to cancel their order?

SpaceshipDC10 wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

Any idea which US-American company might be interested in converting A380s into freighters?

Just a wild idea, but how about Atlas?

I don't think Atlas does anything close to cargo conversions. As primarily a ACMI carrier I doubt they would be interested in A380Fs.

par13del wrote:

Another wild idea, why would Airbus allow or assist in this, did they not have a plan to produce their own A380 freighter which they delayed to resolve the pax variant thus forcing Fedex and UPS to cancel their order?

Airbus doesn't have to give assistance, but there is little the can do to actually stop someone else from doing it. In any event the A380F is dead and will not be coming back anytime soon so competition is not a concern. Airbus will lend assistance to boost the A380's resale value.

par13del wrote:

Another wild idea, why would Airbus allow or assist in this, did they not have a plan to produce their own A380 freighter which they delayed to resolve the pax variant thus forcing Fedex and UPS to cancel their order?

Airbus' interest has to be that the A380s have a decent second-hand-value. Otherwise, it will be even harder to sell new airframes.

If someone offers a conversion kit, I think Airbus will be very happy.

Its certainly not Atlas. Its CEO was specifically asked about new fleet types at last weeks CargoFacts convention and only brought up A330 having appeal since 767 feedstock was getting tight.
In related comments, he stated that 777/748 combo were perfect for the top end of market.

Several 747s which could be converted, plus 747-8F still being offered by Boeing... why anyone would want an A380 converted to cargo? Sounds pretty nonsense to me...

par13del wrote:

Another wild idea, why would Airbus allow or assist in this, did they not have a plan to produce their own A380 freighter which they delayed to resolve the pax variant thus forcing Fedex and UPS to cancel their order?

In addition to the resale value, Airbus will be happy to sell spare parts and support to more operators as well.

leleko747 wrote:

Several 747s which could be converted, plus 747-8F still being offered by Boeing... why anyone would want an A380 converted to cargo? Sounds pretty nonsense to me...

I agree. We will never see an A380 P2F conversion, and there are several reasons for that:

1) New floors will be needed. Since the two floors are integrated parts of the triple bubble pressurized hull structure, then it will be a very major undertaking which only can be done by Airbus. Its design and certification alone will be cost prohibitive.

2) The A380 has a 204,000 lbs difference between OEW and MZFW, and it will be even less after a P2F conversion. That means that such a plane will be able to haul almost as much cargo as a MD-11F, much less than a 744F, and little more than half of a 748F. It can haul it much further, but economic cargo flight depends on modest range and fuel stops, not on hauling a hundred tonnes of fuel non-stop on long distance.

3) An A380F will for efficient use require new loading/unloading infrastructure at airports. It will be costly and can only be economic when a substantial utilization can be guarantied. That will require a substantial number of A380F in service, a number which hardly anybody can imagine today.

4) The competition (744F, 748F, An-124) has a range of advantages which the A380 can never offer, such as: Higher cargo room for bulky cargo, due to single deck. Optional front cargo door.

Fifteen years ago Airbus offered an A380F, and later canceled 27 orders. But it would have been a rather different plane. Main differences would have been rather much changed wing structure and landing gears to accommodate a roughly 75 tonnes heavier MZFW and MLW, (and range reduced to some 5,500 nmi). That's not something which can be "built into" an old A380 at a P2F conversion. All over an A380F would have been a substantially different plane, even if the look would have been identical to an ordinary passenger A380.

PW100 wrote:

prebennorholm wrote:

. . .

Most of the A380F orders were by box carriers (Fedex and UPS). What weights would you expect for their typical mission, given that for them volume is more important than sheer weight or outsized metrics? Could they perhaps be interested in a P2F?

The cargo market at this moment, has largely decided that the 767 is the most suitable plane for most of their needs, and that the 777F is the upper bound of what is considered a plane that is considered viable for their operations.

prebennorholm wrote:

leleko747 wrote:

Several 747s which could be converted, plus 747-8F still being offered by Boeing... why anyone would want an A380 converted to cargo? Sounds pretty nonsense to me...

I agree. We will never see an A380 P2F conversion, and there are several reasons for that:

1) New floors will be needed. Since the two floors are integrated parts of the triple bubble pressurized hull structure, then it will be a very major undertaking which only can be done by Airbus. Its design and certification alone will be cost prohibitive.

2) The A380 has a 204,000 lbs difference between OEW and MZFW, and it will be even less after a P2F conversion. That means that such a plane will be able to haul almost as much cargo as a MD-11F, much less than a 744F, and little more than half of a 748F. It can haul it much further, but economic cargo flight depends on modest range and fuel stops, not on hauling a hundred tonnes of fuel non-stop on long distance.

3) An A380F will for efficient use require new loading/unloading infrastructure at airports. It will be costly and can only be economic when a substantial utilization can be guarantied. That will require a substantial number of A380F in service, a number which hardly anybody can imagine today.

4) The competition (744F, 748F, An-124) has a range of advantages which the A380 can never offer, such as: Higher cargo room for bulky cargo, due to single deck. Optional front cargo door.

Fifteen years ago Airbus offered an A380F, and later canceled 27 orders. But it would have been a rather different plane. Main differences would have been rather much changed wing structure and landing gears to accommodate a roughly 75 tonnes heavier MZFW and MLW, (and range reduced to some 5,500 nmi). That's not something which can be "built into" an old A380 at a P2F conversion. All over an A380F would have been a substantially different plane, even if the look would have been identical to an ordinary passenger A380.

1. New floors are needed in most freighter conversions. At least strengthening of existing floors.

2. Aren't most box freighters restricted by volume, and not weight?

3. There's been designs for internal cargo lift systems inside the A380, specialized equipment for loading/unloading shouldn't be necessary.

4. Airbus has everything to gain from a P2F program being successful.

I would expect that the Peters group is aiming for contract operators with this concept, rather than FedEx or UPS themselves.

JetBuddy wrote:

prebennorholm wrote:

leleko747 wrote:

Several 747s which could be converted, plus 747-8F still being offered by Boeing... why anyone would want an A380 converted to cargo? Sounds pretty nonsense to me...

I agree. We will never see an A380 P2F conversion, and there are several reasons for that:

1) New floors will be needed. Since the two floors are integrated parts of the triple bubble pressurized hull structure, then it will be a very major undertaking which only can be done by Airbus. Its design and certification alone will be cost prohibitive.

2) The A380 has a 204,000 lbs difference between OEW and MZFW, and it will be even less after a P2F conversion. That means that such a plane will be able to haul almost as much cargo as a MD-11F, much less than a 744F, and little more than half of a 748F. It can haul it much further, but economic cargo flight depends on modest range and fuel stops, not on hauling a hundred tonnes of fuel non-stop on long distance.

3) An A380F will for efficient use require new loading/unloading infrastructure at airports. It will be costly and can only be economic when a substantial utilization can be guarantied. That will require a substantial number of A380F in service, a number which hardly anybody can imagine today.

4) The competition (744F, 748F, An-124) has a range of advantages which the A380 can never offer, such as: Higher cargo room for bulky cargo, due to single deck. Optional front cargo door.

Fifteen years ago Airbus offered an A380F, and later canceled 27 orders. But it would have been a rather different plane. Main differences would have been rather much changed wing structure and landing gears to accommodate a roughly 75 tonnes heavier MZFW and MLW, (and range reduced to some 5,500 nmi). That's not something which can be "built into" an old A380 at a P2F conversion. All over an A380F would have been a substantially different plane, even if the look would have been identical to an ordinary passenger A380.

1. New floors are needed in most freighter conversions. At least strengthening of existing floors.

2. Aren't most box freighters restricted by volume, and not weight?

3. There's been designs for internal cargo lift systems inside the A380, specialized equipment for loading/unloading shouldn't be necessary.

4. Airbus has everything to gain from a P2F program being successful.

2. That's been the case every single time I ever operated a cargo flight on the ATR on behalf of FedEx, UPS and DHL, and thats what I've heard from my colleagues in the bigger jets too.

3. Airports will invest in the equipment. In the larger scheme of things, this is minor stuff. Such equipment will still be able to handle 777s and 747s, so even if the A380P2F fails, it will still find use.

VSMUT wrote:

I would expect that the Peters group is aiming for contract operators with this concept, rather than FedEx or UPS themselves.

I suspect the A380F is too big and ill suited for most contract carriers.

VSMUT wrote:

3. Airports will invest in the equipment. In the larger scheme of things, this is minor stuff. Such equipment will still be able to handle 777s and 747s, so even if the A380P2F fails, it will still find use.

Airports are not really going to be the ones investing in the equipment, the cargo operators will. That means it is really only suitable for regularly scheduled runs (hence why I mentioned earlier than ACMI carriers will probably not be interested in the A380F) so that the operator can always be confident that they have a way to load/unload the upper deck. Buying equipment designed to load/unload the A380F upper deck will be more expensive than equipment only able to handle 77F/747Fs...no one is going to invest in that unless they are sure it would actually get used for A380Fs.

Of course you can also put in an internal elevator, but that is going to add a lot of weight to the plane.

All of that is why package freighters are being targeted though. They could use the volume and generally run regularly scheduled routes.

Prebennortholm has given the best Explanation why a P2F conversion of the A380 is not feasible and will never happen. Loading of the upper deck was another reason why a 380 freighter was ruled out in first place.. This has all been discussed before. Even if, the design and certification costs would have to be spread ovefr 20, maybe 40 aircraft which initially kills such a Project.. Next, weiht or volume, why shuld Integrators like UPS or FX buy aircraft which are weight restricted. There is an average weight/volume Ratio which is applied in load planning. But aircraft used by Integrators to connect the Long distance hubs Need to be prepared to handle freight all kinds and that includes everything from high density freight to volumetric cargo.

Without naming an actual customer for these conversions it just sounds like the result of yet another brainstorming session on what to do next with these frames.

I believe that this A380 may find life somewhere else, maybe as a freighter, but it is unlikely, even though it does have a good amount of life left in it. Could end up in a scrap yard and be cannibalized for parts. If I remember correctly the reason the A380F variant was canceled was that even when it was packed with cargo, the engine thrust wasn't enough, and over the MTOW. It was just too big. The 747-8 handles much better with cargo, not to mention the nose door.

As mentioned previously in the forum, the A380F was canceled in development, I'm not sure if an A380CF would fly, no pun intended.

By the way, any pics of 9v-ska in storage? I would be interested to see them

par13del wrote:

Another wild idea, why would Airbus allow or assist in this, did they not have a plan to produce their own A380 freighter which they delayed to resolve the pax variant thus forcing Fedex and UPS to cancel their order?

Because their data is used to do any design work or STC. Someone needs to pay for the continuing airworthiness. Both Boeing and Airbus put their corporate feet down a few year ago says they required organisations that do conversions to their products need to licence the OEMs intellectual property.

prebennorholm wrote:

leleko747 wrote:

Several 747s which could be converted, plus 747-8F still being offered by Boeing... why anyone would want an A380 converted to cargo? Sounds pretty nonsense to me...

I agree. We will never see an A380 P2F conversion, and there are several reasons for that:

1) New floors will be needed. Since the two floors are integrated parts of the triple bubble pressurized hull structure, then it will be a very major undertaking which only can be done by Airbus. Its design and certification alone will be cost prohibitive.

2) The A380 has a 204,000 lbs difference between OEW and MZFW, and it will be even less after a P2F conversion. That means that such a plane will be able to haul almost as much cargo as a MD-11F, much less than a 744F, and little more than half of a 748F. It can haul it much further, but economic cargo flight depends on modest range and fuel stops, not on hauling a hundred tonnes of fuel non-stop on long distance.

3) An A380F will for efficient use require new loading/unloading infrastructure at airports. It will be costly and can only be economic when a substantial utilization can be guarantied. That will require a substantial number of A380F in service, a number which hardly anybody can imagine today.

4) The competition (744F, 748F, An-124) has a range of advantages which the A380 can never offer, such as: Higher cargo room for bulky cargo, due to single deck. Optional front cargo door.

Fifteen years ago Airbus offered an A380F, and later canceled 27 orders. But it would have been a rather different plane. Main differences would have been rather much changed wing structure and landing gears to accommodate a roughly 75 tonnes heavier MZFW and MLW, (and range reduced to some 5,500 nmi). That's not something which can be "built into" an old A380 at a P2F conversion. All over an A380F would have been a substantially different plane, even if the look would have been identical to an ordinary passenger A380.

1) New floors already go into the the A300, A330, A320 conversions, nothing new.
2) The weights changes withe the conversion, empty weight will be around 250 tonnes, MZFW 402 tonnes.
3) The only difference needed for the A380 is a loader capable of reaching the upper deck, main deck and lower deck use existing equipment.
4) The A380 main deck cargo can accommodate the 96” that you have on the 747 nose loading. The A380 main deck door is about 1m wider than the 747 door, the A380 main deck will take a 96” high x 16’ car or horse pallet across the main deck. The. A380 would have the volume of around 2x777Fs

A lot of cargo these days is not high density, it has lots of packaging. Think of how many iPhones you could load into an A380.

UAL747422 wrote:

The 747-8 handles much better with cargo, not to mention the nose door.

The A380 has a 281" fuselage width and a 257" (21'5") main deck cabin width. Theoretically the plane is large enough to hold standard twenty-foot containers (8' wide, 8'6" high, 20' long) turned sideways, although the floor heights might have to be adjusted. As mentioned it would cost too much to make those changes to an A380, but I am curious about the market appeal of a plane that could side-load twenty or so of those intermodal containers.

par13del wrote:

Another wild idea, why would Airbus allow or assist in this, did they not have a plan to produce their own A380 freighter which they delayed to resolve the pax variant thus forcing Fedex and UPS to cancel their order?

Fedex and UPS were all to happy to cancel their orders as by then the cargo market was down the crapper. If these orders were more solid, Airbus would have built the A380F.

An ocean going 20' box is to heavy by tare weight to make sense for air/sea intermodal use. Other proböems are the high loaders for the upper deck which would extremely liit the Routing flexibiity of an A380F, not speaking about the stability. While FX and UPS could use that freighter as a shuttle between 6 to 10 Airports only, a FAK Airline must have more flexibility. The thumb went down for the A380F when Cargolux Chose the B747-8F over the 380

Rating agency Scope made an analysis of the investment companies, whose A380-leasing-contracts expire after 10 years. According to their calculations the A380s have to be sold for at least 60 million US Dollar.

For investors, who received their dividend payments in EUR, the situation is a little bit better: 48 million US Dollar to reach break-even, at 60 million US Dollar they will have had a yield of 2%.

Source, unfortunately in German: http://www.asscompact.de/nachrichten/tr ... r-ungewiss

PanHAM wrote:

An ocean going 20' box is to heavy by tare weight to make sense for air/sea intermodal use. Other proböems are the high loaders for the upper deck which would extremely liit the Routing flexibiity of an A380F, not speaking about the stability. While FX and UPS could use that freighter as a shuttle between 6 to 10 Airports only, a FAK Airline must have more flexibility. The thumb went down for the A380F when Cargolux Chose the B747-8F over the 380

Thanks for the explanation!