Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380 Combi  
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4871 posts, RR: 14
Posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5465 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

So why hasn't any airline or Airbus talked about a A380 combi?? It would seem to make eminent sense. You could have A332 passenger capacity on the upper deck and still have the equivalent of an MD11F freighter if not more on the lower deck. Airbus' website shows the main deck capable of 29 presumably M1 pallets, even taking into account the retention of the forward main stairs and say a crew rest area, you could still probably get 27 pallets easily.An MD11F can have 26 pallets. Concerns about fire etc should be much more easily dealt with with the passengers on a seperate deck.

250 passengers in 2 class, say 30 tonnes payload with 14 crew, with say 27 M1 pallets at 9lb/cu ft would give you 73tonnes, say a few more tonnes in underbelly with another 16 LD3s to bring it to 100 tonnes cargo(leaving 20 LD3s for lugagge which should be more than adequate) .Total payload 130t. With a OEW of say 270tonnes (A280 278, A380F 253), you still can carry with a MTOW of 590, 250000l fuel vs a capacity 310000l which could probably still give you a hefty range in excess of 5000nm(A380F is supposed to do 150 tonnes /5600nm). A A332 would need less than 100,000l for a 5000nm trip (90K for an A333 according to SAS emissions site). An MD11 would probably need close to max fuel, , 150,000l. Your fuel burn is pretty close and you have lower staffing and probably landing charges.

So wadya think??

[Edited 2006-01-14 16:14:40]

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBigSky123 From Slovenia, joined Dec 2005, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5388 times:

This is way out there but I believe it was once written somewhere that the FAA will no longer certify new combis.

User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5339 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BigSky123 (Reply 1):
This is way out there but I believe it was once written somewhere that the FAA will no longer certify new combis.

not strictly true, they just imposed such stringent conditions that having passengers and cargo on the same deck could have been prohibitively expensive for airlines in terms of smoke/fire compartments. the days of a flimsy partition seperating the two were over. here though its a seperate deck and it would be less of a hassle to have a very strong/fire resistant bukhead seperating the cargo area from whatever areas the passengers and crew may have access to in the front. with lower deck crew areas and galleys and toilets on some newer planes, it shouldn't be that much more difficult to "segregate" these two on a full main deck.

having a mix of passengers and cargo on the same deck would be probably a bigger headache from certification viewpoint.

the only other economic issue I see is that would you build th plane with the cargo deck always to be a cargo deck and never for passengers or would you accept some weight penalties to allow true conversion from all freight to passenger and vice versa.


User currently offlineBreiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1920 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5283 times:

Quoting Trex8 (Thread starter):
So why hasn't any airline or Airbus talked about a A380 combi??

I assume that at this stage of the program (brand new ac everybody is eager to fly), airlines consider that a kg or m3 of passenger generates much more revenue than the same kg or m3 of cargo.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5171 times:

I've always felt this would make an interesting COMBI, but the problem is probably aircraft utilization. To unload that much cargo would take time, time at dedicated cargo facility.

At that price, at that fuel burn (no savings), etc., it would be easier, more flexible, and likely more profitable to own a 787+777F or 332+330F and use them how you see fit.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5156 times:

Ideally the pax:frieght ratio you'd want would be with the top floor freight and the bottom Pax.

I dunno how feasible that would be but it seem illogical.

The underfloor freight capacity is a bit crap on the A380, so it may be interesting.

[Edited 2006-01-14 19:30:17]

User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5133 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 5):
Ideally the pax:frieght ratio you'd want would be with the top floor freight and the bottom Pax.

I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't be too keen on a few tons of cargo over my head while sitting on a metal tube at mach 0.83 at 37,000 ft. for 10-14 hours  no 



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5092 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 7):
Yes, but you're a wimp.

And is it any different to sitting above a couple of tons of flammible Kerosine?

"pawk, pawk" says the chicken.....and yes, it is perceptively different than sitting above a couple of tons of flammable kerosene



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineFrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3845 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5048 times:

I think the problem of having the cargo above the pax would come from the high surface loading capacity of the upper floor. It would have to be reinforced to a level were it would be proved that it could safely wisthand crash forces (many many vertical G's) without breaking.

I don't know what certification requires, but I doubt the FAA or even the JAA would be too thrilled about the idea though.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5025 times:

Like i say, i've no idea how feasible it is, i'd suspect it isn't.

If an aircraft can withstand this however....


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tommy T
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tommy T



User currently offlinePatroni From Luxembourg, joined Aug 1999, 1403 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4956 times:

The problem for any combi aircraft is that there are not many routes where cargo demand exists in both directions. Take for example EUR/USA-Asia and look at the trade imbalances to/from Asia. This means that the cargo section of the aircraft would be full out of Asia while it would be rather empty into Asia. With a freighter aircraft you can adapt your routings to fill up the space on the weak sector (e.g. FRA-BEY-KHI-HKG/HKG-FRA where FRA-BEY/KHI exports support the weak eastbound flight). With passengers on board you will have to fly back and forth the same way. Even if you take Europe-New York vv., where there is demand in both directions, the yields ex NYC are much lower than for westbound cargo.

Therefore I don't believe that we will see many widebody combis in the future.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4700 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4834 times:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tommy T



Wow, this pic is awesome ! If you had your seatbelt on and if you would duck, you could survive ! Can somebody please give more info about this accident (fatalities/survivors etc.) ?



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4813 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 5):
Ideally the pax:frieght ratio you'd want would be with the top floor freight and the bottom Pax.

the problem with the top deck is that I don't think you can put 8ft tall pallets up there

Quoting A342 (Reply 11):
Can somebody please give more info about this accident (fatalities/survivors etc.) ?

CI MD11 (its in AE colors) crash at HKG in ? 98. Amazing only a handful of people died!


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4803 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Patroni (Reply 10):
The problem for any combi aircraft is that there are not many routes where cargo demand exists in both directions.

actually that may be perfect for east asian carriers, eastbound they can take cargo and with tailwinds make the US west coast nonstop, westbound, having less cargo, they may be able to make it all the way back to east asia without having to stop or take a hit on payload.


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4795 times:

I think such an airplane would be a logistic and economic nightmare. You would have to the exact right demand ratios between cargo/pax to make it work. It would also create some tricky issues about how to load/unload an aircraft at a pax terminal.

User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4779 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting N79969 (Reply 14):
It would also create some tricky issues about how to load/unload an aircraft at a pax terminal.

hardly insurmountable, upper deck cargo would be more problematic requiring a higher loader than usual but form the main deck I don't see why thats a problem and KL, BR and others still operate 74Ms.

there are some airports where planes have to change terminals after international arrivals eg ORD, so one stop off at the cargo terminal is not a big deal prior to going to the departure terminal
some airlines have such a long layover, even overnighters, eg many flights to LHR from Asia, Africa, that again a detour to the cargo terminal for 2 hours is hardly a big nuisance.

It won't be a big market but combis have never been a big market except maybe for the 707-320C and I think people only did that for the higher TO weight and operated it as all passenger.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4740 times:

The two sub types specified during the design phase are the A380-800C7 with space for 7 cargo pallets and the A380-800C11 with space for 11 cargo pallets.

However Airbus indicated that in gradually expanding the A380 family after the 800F, the 800R (2011) and -900 (2014) seem to be the runner ups ATM.

http://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/2364378


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4700 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4719 times:

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 15):
there are some airports where planes have to change terminals after international arrivals eg ORD, so one stop off at the cargo terminal is not a big deal prior to going to the departure terminal
some airlines have such a long layover, even overnighters, eg many flights to LHR from Asia, Africa, that again a detour to the cargo terminal for 2 hours is hardly a big nuisance.

This is true, but why even go to the cargo terminial ? Belly cargo in passenger aircraft is taken to the freight terminal by trucks, and I don´t think it´s different with combis.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4705 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 17):
I don´t think it´s different with combis.

It isn´t


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rob van Ringelesteijn



User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4705 times:

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 15):
there are some airports where planes have to change terminals after international arrivals eg ORD, so one stop off at the cargo terminal is not a big deal prior to going to the departure terminal
some airlines have such a long layover, even overnighters, eg many flights to LHR from Asia, Africa, that again a detour to the cargo terminal for 2 hours is hardly a big nuisance.

I think sheer quantity and volume of stuff that would need to be moved across the tarmac would be the problem. As you said, if the main deck of the A380 is the size of the MD-11 and then you add in belly cargo, that is quite a bit of freight. If the airplane itself is towed back and forth, that would slow turnaround times.


User currently offlineSparkingwave From South Korea, joined Jun 2005, 674 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1733 times:

An A380 combi would be a logistical nightmare because you'd have to make sure all the cargo was bomb-free, requiring very detailed and time consuming inspections.

This is not even done now with cargo going into cargo aircraft, but there's less motivation for a terrorist attack because there are very few people in a cargo aircraft. But with a passenger/cargo combi? It's just become an attractive target.

Can you imagine the TSA screening cargo as well as bags? We might as well all start using ships again from shore to shore...

SparkingWave



Flights to the moon and all major space stations. At Pan Am, the sky is no longer the limit!
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1671 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

but BR, KL, OZ use 747 combis now. Alaska has 737 combis. The whole issue of security for cargo is another topic in itself but someone who wants to send a bomb in the cargo could do that as easily with a non combi variant now.

User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1605 times:

Quoting Sparkingwave (Reply 20):
This is not even done now with cargo going into cargo aircraft, but there's less motivation for a terrorist attack because there are very few people in a cargo aircraft. But with a passenger/cargo combi? It's just become an attractive target.

Why would they choose to destoy an A380 combi, when they could put a bomb in the belly cargo of a regular A380 and kill a whole extra layer of people.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A380 Combi The Killer App Airbus Needs? posted Tue Jun 20 2006 20:55:10 by Rabbit
A380 Combi posted Sat Jan 14 2006 16:00:02 by Trex8
A380 Combi? posted Tue May 24 2005 19:33:06 by AirWales
Why No A380 Combi? posted Wed Mar 9 2005 16:56:58 by Lrgt
A380 Combi? posted Thu Jan 20 2005 18:20:29 by Cyclonic
A380 Combi posted Wed Nov 3 2004 10:38:30 by Thaigold
Why No A380 Combi? posted Mon Sep 27 2004 13:24:55 by Leelaw
Airbus A380 Combi posted Thu May 27 2004 09:51:47 by Fiedman
A380 - PAX Upstairs/packets Down Combi? posted Sat Apr 23 2005 01:09:04 by Art
A380 Causes Delays At SYD posted Fri Dec 1 2006 09:31:16 by Lumus