trex8
Posts: 4576
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

A380 Combi

Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:00 am

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]
 
BigSky123
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 2:33 am

RE: A380 Combi

Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:34 am

This is way out there but I believe it was once written somewhere that the FAA will no longer certify new combis.
 
trex8
Posts: 4576
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: A380 Combi

Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:51 am

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.
 
breiz
Posts: 1414
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:12 pm

RE: A380 Combi

Sun Jan 15, 2006 1:26 am

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.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: A380 Combi

Sun Jan 15, 2006 3:21 am

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.
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: A380 Combi

Sun Jan 15, 2006 3:29 am

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]
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: A380 Combi

Sun Jan 15, 2006 3:39 am

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!"
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: A380 Combi

Sun Jan 15, 2006 3:55 am

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 avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 3688
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: A380 Combi

Sun Jan 15, 2006 4:14 am

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.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: A380 Combi

Sun Jan 15, 2006 4:27 am

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

 
patroni
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 1999 7:49 am

RE: A380 Combi

Sun Jan 15, 2006 5:25 am

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.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: A380 Combi

Sun Jan 15, 2006 7:21 am


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.
 
trex8
Posts: 4576
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: A380 Combi

Sun Jan 15, 2006 7:27 am

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!
 
trex8
Posts: 4576
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: A380 Combi

Sun Jan 15, 2006 7:30 am

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.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: A380 Combi

Sun Jan 15, 2006 7:32 am

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.
 
trex8
Posts: 4576
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: A380 Combi

Sun Jan 15, 2006 7:41 am

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.
 
keesje
Posts: 8589
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A380 Combi

Sun Jan 15, 2006 7:59 am

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
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: A380 Combi

Sun Jan 15, 2006 8:07 am

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.
 
keesje
Posts: 8589
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A380 Combi

Sun Jan 15, 2006 8:13 am

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

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: A380 Combi

Sun Jan 15, 2006 8:13 am

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.
 
sparkingwave
Posts: 563
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:01 pm

RE: A380 Combi

Mon Jan 16, 2006 12:33 am

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!
 
trex8
Posts: 4576
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: A380 Combi

Mon Jan 16, 2006 2:23 am

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.
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: A380 Combi

Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:39 am

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], BlueSky1976, David L, deconz, ek17, glen, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Joelatbsl, Mani87, mrwhistler, northwest_guy, rj777, rutankrd, sassiciai, smokeybandit, Yahoo [Bot] and 203 guests