Matt6461 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

Interesting. Which TPAC cargo routes are flown direct? Either by FedEx or others.

Per FedEx's site those would be:

Shanghai-Memphis-Narita-Shanghai
Hong Kong-Memphis-Incheon-Hong Kong
Singapore-Osaka-Memphis-Osaka-Singapore
Shenzhen-Memphis-Anchorage-Narita-Incheon-Shenzhen

Thanks. So MEM-PVG/KIX/INC. Wonder why there's a stop en route to NRT.

Carrying heavy loads west bound against the winds?

A drop off - pick up operation with the Shenzhen - Memphis carrying cargo from Narita, Incheon, & Shenzhen?

Or maybe picking up fresh fish in Anchorage?

JannEejit wrote:

Why also weren't any of the military big lifters taken up by commercial carriers ? Especially those that were actively promoted as civilian options by their respective manufacturers ?

The An124 is used routinely as a commercial freighter.

OldAeroGuy wrote:

Carrying heavy loads west bound against the winds?

but PVG is farther from MEM than NRT... Maybe there's time for a stop en route to NRT for next-delivery, but not to PVG? That would enable using full payload and greater efficiency. Not really on topic I know but FedEx's operations are an interesting subject.

When Fed EX and UPS ordered the A380F they both seemed perfectly happy with the proposed aircraft, it was bigger, flew further carried more than anything else on the horizon. Airbus had problems to solve with the pax version of the aircraft and chose to allocate its resources to the pax version and hand the freight business to Boeing. As far as facilities to handle the aircraft there seemed to be no issue at all just like the Pax version gates and taxiways had to be modified and so would freight terminals. They certainly didn't cancel the program because it couldn't be accommodated. As for being a failure, I sit with the folks who say a failure needs to be built and not function as intended. Who knows we may yet see after market conversions as older pax versions come off lease, just like many other cargo conversions. As for being ugly? Well any true enthusiast would never call an aircraft ugly, perhaps unique or just different but never ugly.

Why would an A380 Combi not be beneficial? Use the lower deck for cargo (no special equipment needed and no concern about weak floor) and use the upper deck for pax. Sure, it wouldn't be useful for all routes and would likely be a small subfleet...but on your maxed out cargo routes, I would imagine it could work. You could even adjust your pax config based on whether you needed more volume or weight capabilities.

Stitch wrote:

Airbus had spent the money to design and engineer the A380F and the wings for FedEx's first bird (MSN037) were in production so I don't really see Airbus saving development money on stopping the program at that point. By removing the freighters from the production list, they opened up delivery positions they could pull forward passenger frames for to help with the production delays incurred due to having to re-wire the first two dozen frames.

Makes sense, thanks.
I often wondered how much the delays & 20 net cancellations ( 9% of the 222 frames now flying )
1. harmed the A380 impetus with airlines globally
2. locked & bolstered Boeing's dominance of the freighter market.
Modelling either requires differential equations as variables depend on the results.
It may have been a safer & a lesser harm financially in the short/medium terms, but I am not sure in hindsight it was the right decision. Boeing have proven to themselves how sticking to both pax & freighter versions pays off in the end.

tcfc424 wrote:

Why would an A380 Combi not be beneficial? Use the lower deck for cargo (no special equipment needed and no concern about weak floor) and use the upper deck for pax. Sure, it wouldn't be useful for all routes and would likely be a small subfleet...but on your maxed out cargo routes, I would imagine it could work. You could even adjust your pax config based on whether you needed more volume or weight capabilities.

After the SAA 295 disaster in 1987, new models are not to be certified ( though Boeing continued to sell 744 combis until 2002 ).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Afr ... Flight_295

rigo wrote:

JannEejit wrote:

Why also weren't any of the military big lifters taken up by commercial carriers ? Especially those that were actively promoted as civilian options by their respective manufacturers ?

The An124 is used routinely as a commercial freighter.

True and of course the An225, both of which seem to operate in a niche market but were those ever actively marketed by Antonov to the commercial cargo sector ? It's interesting that only the Soviet types appear to have successfully entered the civilian arena, maybe they've cornered the market ?

I was thinking more of western types like the C-5 Galaxy (L-100) and (B)C-17, to name but two that have been presented to airlines and cargo operators. Is 'big lift' demand so weak that the likes of Fed Ex, UPS et al never looked at these as options or as suggested is it just too 'niche' a market ? The C-130 has of course made a (limited) crossover into commercial cargo ops from a primarily military career.

Matt6461 wrote:

Again, only parcel carriers seeking overnight deliveries urgently need more than ~8hr range.

You explicitly mention the objective. Fedex and UPS are not dumb and both can hold pencil to do computations.
EU freight center ( like FRA) to some central US freight center fits the range offered.

JannEejit wrote:

rigo wrote:

The An124 is used routinely as a commercial freighter.

True and of course the An225, both of which seem to operate in a niche market....

Both are used for outsize, outweight or otherwise difficult cargo into into often "unusual" places.
They are sturdy enough to do the job. But they are not cheap.

Galaxy would probably go to pieces after the first dozen flights.
https://travelforaircraft.files.wordpre ... 9c-018.jpg
It doesn't have the self loading capabilities anyway.

Matt6461 wrote:

P2F has absolutely no chance. To use the UD, you'd have to reinforce the floor beams massively. Not even sure that's possible, am sure it would be $$$$$$$$.

Floor beam reinforcement is an expensive issue. Boeing once considered a 777 BCF, but all the composite floor beams needed to be replaced by aluminum floor beams, making the program too expensive. Try to picture that on the A380 and the cost would balloon beyond imagination.

KarelXWB wrote:

Floor beam reinforcement is an expensive issue. Boeing once considered a 777 BCF, but all the composite floor beams needed to be replaced by aluminum floor beams, making the program too expensive. Try to picture that on the A380 and the cost would balloon beyond imagination.

With the A300/330/320 conversions they replace the floors, the A380 already has AL floors, they would change the alloy used.

There is also another proposal out there with a main deck loader inside the aircraft to load the upper deck similar to the A343 conversion that did not entail a main deck door.

zeke wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Floor beam reinforcement is an expensive issue. Boeing once considered a 777 BCF, but all the composite floor beams needed to be replaced by aluminum floor beams, making the program too expensive. Try to picture that on the A380 and the cost would balloon beyond imagination.

With the A300/330/320 conversions they replace the floors, the A380 already has AL floors, they would change the alloy used.

There is also another proposal out there with a main deck loader inside the aircraft to load the upper deck similar to the A343 conversion that did not entail a main deck door.

You mean the A330/A343/777 conversions from LCF that have yet to receive a single order after years offered and yet to be performed on a single aircraft?

Internal deck loaders sound cool in theory, but bring about a lot of weight and reliability concerns.

I think a few factors decided this issue. First of all, the PAX version got delayed, and as already mentioned by several members here, they needed to smooth out those things first.

Also, was it too big? Cargo is usually a one-way operation. You can have freighters take off from Europe to Asia with 20% capacity and return with almost 100% so would it be too expensive to operate?

Then, the "four-engine killer" the Boeing 777F (love that bird) and to some extent A330F came on the market in the meantime with better and better ETOPS performance.

Lastly, Fedex and UPS were really only the two carriers that showed any interest in the aircraft.

zeke wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Floor beam reinforcement is an expensive issue. Boeing once considered a 777 BCF, but all the composite floor beams needed to be replaced by aluminum floor beams, making the program too expensive. Try to picture that on the A380 and the cost would balloon beyond imagination.

With the A300/330/320 conversions they replace the floors, the A380 already has AL floors, they would change the alloy used.

There is also another proposal out there with a main deck loader inside the aircraft to load the upper deck similar to the A343 conversion that did not entail a main deck door.

The A380's UD beams are CFRP. Only MD is Al.

KarelXWB - good comparison to 777BCF. A further complication is that A380's beams are part of the pressure structure, not so for 777.

itisi wrote:

Something that never happened can hardly be a failure .... Airbus cancelled the plane right, not FX and 5X cancelled their orders.

Going back through some things, there were at one time 27 orders (5X: 10 FX: 10 ILFC:5 and EK:2) and all were cancelled by the customers. I read somewhere that Airbus finally made the A380F un-orderable only in 2015. I also read they had already built the beefed-up wing parts and were waiting for beefed up gear when the orders were cancelled. Apparently they hoped to restart the program later, but by then the market was gone.

Matt6461 wrote:

P2F has absolutely no chance. To use the UD, you'd have to reinforce the floor beams massively. Not even sure that's possible, am sure it would be $$$$$$$$.
The freighter would have had massive structural reinforcement of the wings for greater bending moment of 155t payload. Absent that revision, you'd be lucky to ship 120t after removing cabin BFE and adding floor beam material (payload of A388 is ~95t). So you'd have ~748F weight capacity at A380 trip cost. Maybe useful for the novelty animal-shaped-balloon shipping industry.

Thanks for doing the math. In turn I was responding to #34.

Stitch wrote:

Perhaps visibility issues from the cockpit being on the upper deck compared to it's mid-deck location?

Also, front-loading is less-common now on 747s since the vertical clearance is lower so you cannot maximize pallet height as well as you can using the aft side door.

In addition, I recall reading an article with an A380 stating the structural and aerodynamic penalties were high enough to not want to burden the pax model with them. In short, it didn't pencil out.

Stitch wrote:

DWC wrote:

2. The economic downturn coupled with the repeated delays & execution problems of the A380 programmes have always been put forward as reasons to the A380F "cancellation", but since Astuteman points out that Airbus smartly played parcel carriers to exerce their escape clauses, do we know for sure if Airbus was deadset on developping the A380F at programme launch ? Or did Airbus consider from the onset to play these clauses in case of insufficient orders or priorities needed elsewhere ?

Airbus had spent the money to design and engineer the A380F and the wings for FedEx's first bird (MSN037) were in production so I don't really see Airbus saving development money on stopping the program at that point. By removing the freighters from the production list, they opened up delivery positions they could pull forward passenger frames for to help with the production delays incurred due to having to re-wire the first two dozen frames.

Very good point. Also A380 had slipped out so far it was now interfering with A350 development. Something had to go, and it was the A380F that went.

OSL777FLYER wrote:

I think a few factors decided this issue. First of all, the PAX version got delayed, and as already mentioned by several members here, they needed to smooth out those things first.

Also, was it too big? Cargo is usually a one-way operation. You can have freighters take off from Europe to Asia with 20% capacity and return with almost 100% so would it be too expensive to operate?

Then, the "four-engine killer" the Boeing 777F (love that bird) and to some extent A330F came on the market in the meantime with better and better ETOPS performance.

Lastly, Fedex and UPS were really only the two carriers that showed any interest in the aircraft.

Your post makes me wonder: Given how much A380s cost to purchase and operate, and given the other ancillary issues, wouldn't any potential A380F customer be better off just buying two cheaper end-of-line (or cast-off) A330Fs instead? A330F with new MTOW limit must be pretty attractive if you want to carry light stuff a long way. A330F-NEO would be even more attractive once offered

tcfc424 wrote:

Why would an A380 Combi not be beneficial? Use the lower deck for cargo (no special equipment needed and no concern about weak floor) and use the upper deck for pax.

Such a plane would only work on routes where you consistently had demand for 28 pallets because otherwise you're ferrying empty space that is not generating revenue. You're also going to have a significantly lower seat count which will mean high CASM and therefore high fares. And considering what air cargo average rates are, even if you do have 28 pallets worth of cargo every flight every day, you'd likely make a fair bit more money using the main deck to haul passengers rather than pallets.

Antarius wrote:

Also jesus, this is ugly

The world is a better place without these flying around.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I actually think it looks good. Almost better than the pax version, without the windows.

Sandyb123

sandyb123 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Also jesus, this is ugly

The world is a better place without these flying around.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I actually think it looks good. Almost better than the pax version, without the windows.

Sandyb123

I'll "split the baby" and say that it is ugly, but the world is a better place with these flying around.

I also think the F versions of the twins (777F, A320F, 767F) look better/cleaner than the pax versions.

Don't feel the same way about 747F/A380F.

OldAeroGuy wrote:

Southern Air is a wholly owned subsidiary of Atlas Air and operates 5 of the 777F's owned by Atlas Air. Southern is an "on demand" carrier, meaning they operate services to suitable airports as required for their customers. Restricting operations to airports that had A380 upper deck cargo loaders would have made the A380F an inflexible airplane for their business model. Hence my comment that the A380F was unsuitable for general cargo operators that drew Zeke's red herring comment.

It remains a red herring.

Airports are not required to have any loaders available at all, be it main deck loaders or under floor loaders. Some airports just don’t have any at all.

I know of a airports where there have been aircraft divert into after an IFSD and there was no loaders available at all, the only way engines get in are on aircraft that can offload directly to ground level. Any widebody main deck freighter would be more than capable of carrying the engine, they just couldn’t get the engine off the main deck freighter. That is a simple on demand, high yield charter that southern air is not capable of doing because the airport could not support it, does it mean the end of those aircraft ?

Fact is a lot of work Atlas does is not on demand work, it is fixed schedules on fixed networks wet leased for other carriers. And on those networks the A380 could be viable for example for USPS mail.

This is a B/ S argument that has been going on for years, people have been making excuses for ages why an A380 cannot serve airport x/y/z. Then there is a desire for an operator to operate the aircraft there and then all of a sudden like magic all of these “issues” just disappear. There are some relatively small airports that see regular A380 flights these days.

Could an A380F do every cargo job out there, no of course not, nor can any other aircraft. Every aircraft has its weaknesses, that does not detract from them also having strengths. The strengths of the A380F which are unmatched are volume and range at the lowest unit cost. That is the real reason why Fedex and UPS ordered them, they knew they could run them on their backbone routes to reduce transit times and improve yields.

Guess we won't get a final answer on this until there is an A380F. If a general freight cargo operator orders the airplane, then I'll concede the point.

Until then it will remain a "might have been" for the package carriers (FEDEX, UPS & Amazon?) who would operate it from established pickup - drop-off points well supplied with upper deck cargo handling equipment.

OldAeroGuy wrote:

Until then it will remain a "might have been" for the package carriers (FEDEX, UPS & Amazon?)

A very painful "might have been" for Airbus, if I may add. Imagine how an order for a dozen of A380F would have helped Airbus to keep higher production rates (> 6/a)...

Several years we had a very similar thread. Can't find it but someone had asked if Airbus still offers the A380F.
At that time Airbus still had the A380F on their webpage:


Now you won't find anything on their webpage (which has been updated since then).

N14AZ wrote:

Now you won't find anything on their webpage (which has been updated since then).

That’s is it, it is not on a webpage it does not exist

zeke wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

Now you won't find anything on their webpage (which has been updated since then).

That’s is it, it is not on a webpage it does not exist

I am not sure what you mean.

All I tried to say is that just some years ago (maybe three years or something like this), Airbus sill "promoted" (<= maybe that's a better term) the A380F, even though it was as dead at that time as it is now.

It was no failure by market demand or technical feasability it was just cancelled for other reasons:
The freigther was a link for the growth of the A380-800 to become heavier weight and stretched. (Modified wing and high lift) As that was not needed as early as intended the freighter was no more "low hanging fruit" along the way to some A380-900 or A380-800HGW etc.At the same time Airbus urgently needed their engineers to sort out the early cable chaos. So they bumped their A380F-orders and focussed on the pax A380-800 only.

N14AZ wrote:

zeke wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

Now you won't find anything on their webpage (which has been updated since then).

That’s is it, it is not on a webpage it does not exist

I am not sure what you mean.

All I tried to say is that just some years ago (maybe three years or something like this), Airbus sill "promoted" (<= maybe that's a better term) the A380F, even though it was as dead at that time as it is now.

Yes, I read that A380F was still order-able up till end 2015 and then was withdrawn. Can't find the reference now, though it is consistent with the notion that Airbus didn't cancel the A380 earlier, the customers cancelled their orders.

The upper deck loading required specialized/new loading equipment. This is an additional cost for an item that could be used for a variety of aircraft but is required for the 380 and would not be an item that would be purchased and deployed widely. This would have made the aircraft limited in its route flexibility. Upper deck weight limitations and basic flying costs also limited flexibility while probably making the ability to break even more difficult. The 777F program addressed long range flights that initially made the 380 attractive at a competitive or lower cost with much more flexibility. The 747-8F is more competitive that the 380F because it remain more flexible in routing with no need for specialized ground handling equipment. Also the 308F or any (pax/freighter frame) is not comparable to the LM or ANs because those need no ground loading equipment and generally are more costly to fly but they are useful for their unique ability to carry cargoes that cannot be containerized.

It was just a rare bird that made less and less sense for operators to use. Not a bad AC proposal but one that was doomed by economics.

atypical wrote:

The upper deck loading required specialized/new loading equipment. This is an additional cost for an item that could be used for a variety of aircraft but is required for the 380 and would not be an item that would be purchased and deployed widely. This would have made the aircraft limited in its route flexibility.

As a heavy-lifter, the A380-800F likely would have been utilized on select routes that benefitted from it's capacity and capability so having equipment at those locations would not have been a major issue. And honestly, "lack of flexibility due to infrastructure" applies just as much to any large freighter as it does the A380-800F. You're not going to operate a 747F (or 777F or A330F) into a facility designed to handle a 727F or 757F, for example, because the infrastructure is not there to support a widebody freighter.



For a variety of reasons, the A380-800F did not appeal to general cargo operators who instead stayed with the 747-400. FedEx, at least, wanted it for the capacity for their express cargo divisions and for the range that would have allowed them to open up non-stops from mainland China to the mainland US which would have given them a competitive advantage in time-sensitive freight where being able to eliminate the tech stop in ANC and necessary customs clearance and re-sort allowed them to accept later deliveries in China while still getting product to US destinations next day. The delays Airbus incurred in getting the frame into general production allowed Boeing to get the 777F into service in a similar timeframe and for FX, at least, the 777F leveraged their existing MD-11F infrastructure so it arguably was an easier fit for them.

As for UPS, they seem to have wanted it more for capacity than range and as 5X was already operating 747-400Fs so integrating the A380-800F would not have been that much of a hardship. But again, the delays meant the 747-8F became an option and as an existing 747 operator, integrating the 747-8F also arguably became an easier fit for them.

So with the only two serious customers of the type finding other options, I think Airbus realized the platform was a non-starter and removed it from offer earlier this decade.

Stitch wrote:

As a heavy-lifter, the A380-800F likely would have been utilized on select routes that benefitted from it's capacity and capability so having equipment at those locations would not have been a major issue. And honestly, "lack of flexibility due to infrastructure" applies just as much to any large freighter as it does the A380-800F. You're not going to operate a 747F (or 777F or A330F) into a facility designed to handle a 727F or 757F, for example, because the infrastructure is not there to support a widebody freighter.

I agree with your comments except this one. The same ground equipment can be used for 747/777/767/A300/A310/MD10/DC10/MD11 (and smaller aircraft), the A380 would require specialized equipment. If an A310F (15 foot deck) is required one day and a 747F (16.5 foot deck) is needed for one day the cargo lifting equipment already in place is sufficient. That is not the case for the A380 unless only the main deck is used. Of course this limits the airports the A380 can service compared to the other fleet types. If one widebody is serviceable by the cargo handling equipment all the others are too, except the A380 (unless second deck is not used). That is a huge limitation and directly impacts flexibility.

atypical wrote:

I agree with your comments except this one. The same ground equipment can be used for 747/777/767/A300/A310/MD10/DC10/MD11 (and smaller aircraft), the A380 would require specialized equipment. If an A310F (15 foot deck) is required one day and a 747F (16.5 foot deck) is needed for one day the cargo lifting equipment already in place is sufficient. That is not the case for the A380 unless only the main deck is used. Of course this limits the airports the A380 can service compared to the other fleet types. If one widebody is serviceable by the cargo handling equipment all the others are too, except the A380 (unless second deck is not used). That is a huge limitation and directly impacts flexibility.

I'm going to hazard a guess that cargo infrastructure like loaders and such are owned and operated by the carrier and not the airport / facility. So any airport that would see scheduled A380-800F service by a carrier would have the necessary A380-800F specific infrastructure already in place by that carrier. So there would be no limits to flexibility.

And even if in some (or all) cases where the airport itself owns the equipment and rents it out to the operators, again, if a field is going to see scheduled A380-800F service, they would invest in that equipment. Airports did it for passenger A380-800s after all (dual-level gates, upper level catering and service trucks). So again, no limits to flexibility.

The only real "hard" limits on infrastructure is runway length, taxiway location and tarmac spacing. And two of those (runway length and taxiway location) apply to the 747-8F in much the same way as they do the A380-800F and even tarmac spacing can be an issue as the 747-8 is longer and wider than the 747-400, if not as much as an A380-800F is.

Loaders are typically own and operated by ground handing agents, it maybe an airline at a remote station or an agent like swissport. The upper deck loader for an A380 can be used on any aircraft, so when not being used for an A380 it is still be used on others. I get the impression people think it just sits around doing nothing between A380 rotations.

Same with the A380 Pax aircraft it needs a taller catering servicing truck for the upper level, these did not prevent the A380 from starting new routes. Those trucks can service other aircraft when not needed for an A380.

The overall reality is that the reason the A380F failed was that Airbus pushed it to the back of the line so that they could focus on the A380P; well beyond what was acceptable to the customers that ordered it; allowing a no cost cancellation of the orders by those customers.

Then, once Airbus decided that they had the time and resources to "finish" the A380F there were no clients; as those clients had found other solutions.

Had they actually delivered on time (or close to that) per their original contracts the fact is that there could easily be twice the number of A380F's in service beyond what was originally ordered.

It is true that the A380F would have required specialized handling gear for the upper deck. But, FedEx and UPS had committed to buying that gear (or otherwise contracting for it) for the limited number of locations that they were going to use the A380F.

Have a great day,

tcfc424 wrote:

Why would an A380 Combi not be beneficial? Use the lower deck for cargo (no special equipment needed and no concern about weak floor) and use the upper deck for pax. Sure, it wouldn't be useful for all routes and would likely be a small subfleet...but on your maxed out cargo routes, I would imagine it could work. You could even adjust your pax config based on whether you needed more volume or weight capabilities.

Good luck finding routes that have passenger capacity and freight capacity demands to consistently utilize an A380combi. I find freight and passenger volumes matching demand like that uncommon. A 777F and another all pax plane provides far more flexibility.

2175301 wrote:

It is true that the A380F would have required specialized handling gear for the upper deck. But, FedEx and UPS had committed to buying that gear (or otherwise contracting for it) for the limited number of locations that they were going to use the A380F.

I'd agree that handling equipment likely wasn't the issue. Anyone making the case otherwise has to prove a significant **ECONOMIC** impact from the equipment. Other considerations like complexity don't matter except insofar as they impact economics.

Try making that argument:
Say acquisition cost overall is 25% of Direct Operating Cost.
Say an A380F costs $250mn in 2018 dollars.
Say the marginal price of an A380 UD Loader versus a standard heavy freight loader is $3mn/unit.
Say you have to purchase one UDL per A380F.

...that works out to 0.3% economic impact for the A380F. And that's assuming a UDL costs $3mn more than a standard loader - something I very much doubt.

Even if 0.3% is the right figure somehow, I doubt that small delta would be sufficient to kill the A380F value proposition. Were the A380F just 5% better on cost per ton-NM, 0.3% barely impinges on the efficiency delta.

The same nonsense is often said about A388 re gate infrastucture improvement. It makes no more sense there either: even $20mn for a new gate is a small fraction of A388 acquisition cost, that gate has other uses and/or will service multiple A380's.

As with the passenger version, so with the freighter: the core operating efficiencies just aren't there. For the A380F, you just don't fly 55t more OEW than 748F to lift only 19t more payload - unless you're a volume-limited parcel carrier.

So I don't dispute the FedEx/UPS could have taken ~30 A380F's and operated them profitably.
The more interesting question: would that have been good for Airbus?
Building A380's was loss-making except for 2015/16 at best; it's doubtful that 5 more frames/year in 2010-14 would have moved the program into profit. 5 more per year now wouldn't get to profitability either; the picture might actually be worse given the need for 2nd shift to go from 8 up to 16. You wouldn't get to 16 but would exceed 8, so your 2nd shift would be poorly-used.
Plus 20 A380F orders were early orders with bedrock pricing.

All in all Airbus is probably lucky there is no A380F.

The reason the A380F didn’t move forward wasn’t simply that airbus decided not to pursue it. It was the combination of the global economy, program delays, lack of flexibility, and the 748F and 777F. It was the perfect storm of factors that made the A380F not worth the development costs for Airbus and the purchase price for operators.

Matt6461 wrote:

I'd agree that handling equipment likely wasn't the issue. Anyone making the case otherwise has to prove a significant **ECONOMIC** impact from the equipment. Other considerations like complexity don't matter except insofar as they impact economics.

I would suggest that the handling equipment would have not been an issue right up till there was a decade delay in the A380F at the minimum. Who's going to be happy that they spent money on work that results in 0 sales of their equipment. All the talks between the various people required to approve of said equipment.

That's a whole lot of bad taste to overcome if you want to order a A380F again. Bad taste anchored with money and time lost.

Want to order a 777F or A330F? Don't have to worry, there is stuff in the catolog that works. That's been used at other airports without issue. Maybe used at your airport without issue. Maybe currently owned by you and doesn't need to be bought.

So why try to argue with Airbus about restarting the A380F program when a pair of A330F is easy and cheap.

Antarius wrote:

Also jesus, this is ugly





The world is a better place without these flying around.

No, those birds are pretty. They are kinda stubby and puffy, like the Pillsbury Doughboy.

Stitch wrote:

I'm going to hazard a guess that cargo infrastructure like loaders and such are owned and operated by the carrier and not the airport / facility. So any airport that would see scheduled A380-800F service by a carrier would have the necessary A380-800F specific infrastructure already in place by that carrier. So there would be no limits to flexibility.

Yes, the carrier would provide the cargo handling equipment. That would be an inherent limit to flexibility. The handling equipment specialized to service the 380F. Placement of that equipment will limit the airports that can serve the aircraft. It would be unreasonable for the carrier to stage that equipment at every airport that currently services widebody aircraft since many of those airports would only see few or no 380F flights. That would be a double edge sword because without the equipment that airport cannot handle the 380F. For example occasional 747F service is possible into GSP because the current equipment available can handle the 747F. This would not be possible with the 380F. The infrequency of flights could very well make such equipment an unfeasible capital expense. This is a example where the 747F has flexibility the 380F doesn't. If the 747F was unable to use the current GSP facilities it would be unlikely that the carriers would dedicate these kind of specific resources to enable service to the airport at the current frequency.

It is a silly argument being presented here, no airline would schedule an A380 to a small airport that only sees a few adhoc 747, the demand just is not there. You would only look at 20-30 high demand airports where the aircraft would be deployed. The efficiency advantage of it would make any investment into a cargo loader insignificant.

There are many international airports that do nit have main deck loaders, if you need to get something there you use an aircraft that can unload directly to ground level.

Matt6461 wrote:

Try making that argument:
Say acquisition cost overall is 25% of Direct Operating Cost.
Say an A380F costs $250mn in 2018 dollars.
Say the marginal price of an A380 UD Loader versus a standard heavy freight loader is $3mn/unit.
Say you have to purchase one UDL per A380F.

This is a valid argument for one loader. However to make the 380F as flexible as the other widebodies in (for example) in the FedEx fleet this might require 100 additional loaders for airports that could have 380F (or 747F) accounting for less than 1% of the lift. It would be difficult to justify the capital expense of equipment with such low utilization for the 380F while there would be no such additional capital costs with the 747F. To give the 380F the same flexibility as the rest of the widebody fleet may require the expenditure of capital equal to 1 380F. That expense may or may not be made but either way it will affect the margins the AC operates under.

Look how the loader can affect ops if the loaders are only purchased for stations with regular 380F service. A weather diversion could be much more costly to a 380F compared to the other AC in the widebody fleet. The 380F may require an airport a thousand miles further than other widebody AC to unload the upper deck. If the AC is diverted to a standard widebody but non380F station it must then go to a 380F station before the AC is able to return to service.

So if the loaders are purchased for 100 airports an additional $300 million is required. The fewer stations with loaders limit the AC flexibility for normal service and will increase diversion costs. In either case these costs are not insignificant.

FX does not operate their large widebodies to all ports, so I don’t know what point you are trying to make. On the trunk routes they could operate an A380 very efficiently and provide lower transit times with more volume going direct via trunk routes. At their ports away from the US they would not be purchasing any loaders, their ground handlers would. The cost of turning a single A380 around would be less than two 77F or one 74F and a 77F and the number of people and amount of equipment is less.

atypical wrote:

However to make the 380F as flexible as the other widebodies in (for example) in the FedEx fleet this might require 100 additional loaders for airports that could have 380F (or 747F) accounting for less than 1% of the lift.

Except it doesn't require that because FedEx would not have operated the A380 to 100 airports. It would have operated them to more like 10.

FedEx uses the 777F on six "direct lanes" centered on 13 airports designed to leverage the range of the 777F to eliminate a tech stop and reduce package transit times by up to 24 hours compared to sending them on MD-11F and 767F. The A380F would have been used in a similar fashion, so that means 13 airports at most (Shanghai | Memphis | Narita | Hong Kong | Incheon | Singapore | Osaka | Paris | Shenzhen | Anchorage | Dubai | Delhi) would have needed A380 support and at least 7 of them already see A380 passenger service.

atypical wrote:

It would be difficult to justify the capital expense of equipment with such low utilization for the 380F while there would be no such additional capital costs with the 747F. To give the 380F the same flexibility as the rest of the widebody fleet may require the expenditure of capital equal to 1 380F. That expense may or may not be made but either way it will affect the margins the AC operates under.

True, and one of the reasons why the A380F was rejected by general cargo operators with large 747 fleets, who instead went with the 747-8F. But this discussion is now focused on FedEx and UPS. And for them, the capital expenditure would have been significantly less as the equipment would only be needed at a dozen (or less) airports.

atypical wrote:

Look how the loader can affect ops if the loaders are only purchased for stations with regular 380F service. A weather diversion could be much more costly to a 380F compared to the other AC in the widebody fleet. The 380F may require an airport a thousand miles further than other widebody AC to unload the upper deck. If the AC is diverted to a standard widebody but non380F station it must then go to a 380F station before the AC is able to return to service.

I'm not familiar with cargo operational flight planning - do they define their alternates only as company hubs? So if MEM is weather-locked, an FX plane would only fly to the other hub in IND? Or do they plan like passenger flights where they choose an airport much closer to the destination?

If the former, then it doesn't matter since the A380F would divert to another A380F hub. If the latter, what happens when the plane lands? Do they unload it and call in trucks to move the cargo onward? What happens if they don't have enough trucks on site? Do they call more in from the surrounding area? And how long does it take to truck the stuff to the original hub? And then it has to be re-sorted and loaded on planes sending it on to the original destination. Seems to me to be easier to just wait for the original destination to re-open and fly on. But if they do go through all that extra effort, you could still unload the main deck at least and then wait till you can get the A380F on to the original hub to do the upper deck. Yes, some of your cargo might end up late, on the other hand it might actually beat the trucks to the original destination airport.

NameOmitted wrote:

JannEejit wrote:

Why also weren't any of the military big lifters taken up by commercial carriers ? Especially those that were actively promoted as civilian options by their respective manufacturers ?

Maintenance costs. The military has extremely capable aircraft, but that capability is expensive to maintain.

The 747 grew out of Boeing's proposal for a military cargo plane that ultimately led to the C-5. And there are plenty of civilian versions of the C-130.

cschleic wrote:

The 747 grew out of Boeing's proposal for a military cargo plane that ultimately led to the C-5. And there are plenty of civilian versions of the C-130.

The 747 and Boeing's Model 750 CX-HLS proposal mostly shared the fact that they had four engines and a high-mounted cockpit. Everything else...not so much.

Boeing did study a commercial version of their Model 750 CX-HLS called the Model 757 with two decks of 2+4+2 and then a small 3+3 section on the third deck aft of the cockpit.

How about an A380 that carried passengers on the top deck and cargo on the lower deck.

klm617 wrote:

How about an A380 that carried passengers on the top deck and cargo on the lower deck.

You'd need routes that consistently could fill the lower deck with pallets and the upper deck with passengers seven days a week and do so at a price that made the operation economical compared to using a smaller passenger frame or dedicated freighter. I expect they exist, but not in the quantity necessary to justify development of such a frame.

Stitch wrote:

I'm not familiar with cargo operational flight planning - do they define their alternates only as company hubs? So if MEM is weather-locked, an FX plane would only fly to the other hub in IND? Or do they plan like passenger flights where they choose an airport much closer to the destination?

If the former, then it doesn't matter since the A380F would divert to another A380F hub. If the latter, what happens when the plane lands? Do they unload it and call in trucks to move the cargo onward? What happens if they don't have enough trucks on site? Do they call more in from the surrounding area? And how long does it take to truck the stuff to the original hub? And then it has to be re-sorted and loaded on planes sending it on to the original destination. Seems to me to be easier to just wait for the original destination to re-open and fly on. But if they do go through all that extra effort, you could still unload the main deck at least and then wait till you can get the A380F on to the original hub to do the upper deck. Yes, some of your cargo might end up late, on the other hand it might actually beat the trucks to the original destination airport.

MEM and IND do have contingency plans for inbounds, yes. If MEM has bad enough weather, they will be diverted to IND, EWR, and any other closer sort/hub facilities. Same the other way. Since i work at IND, they've done it before, where an inbound plane for MEM has landed with us. They'll load them up on trucks, or leave them overnight and try it on a later flight to MEM. It'll take about a day to get it to MEM from IND on a truck. If they decide, we can sort most of it to help MEM; and since IND and MEM share some routes, we can load the extra freight up on outbound planes if needed. Any destinations that IND doesnt service, we'll send to MEM. I'd imagine all hubs that the a380 would have been able to divert to would have at least two Specialized loaders for the top deck, but the regular K loaders can service the middle deck and lower decks. But it would only divert to the hubs listed, so if the closet hub is 1,000 away, either that is where it's going, or its going to sit on the ground until the next sort.

As for outbounds, If they have severe enough weather, we just don't launch them. They sit, or we use the plane for another destination and leave the freight at the hub until the next sort/launch window.

I was hoping for working on one of these, as they would be an interesting experience, but no go.