Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
bakestar
Topic Author
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 11:35 pm

Why was the A380F a failure?

Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:43 pm

Hi all,
Given the recent saving of the A380 production line by EK and the supposed interest of BA now, it got me thinking back to the I’ll fated-F version, and Combi.
I fail to understand that ‘production delays’ would be a reason for UPS and FEDEX to cancel such (I believe) a promising cargo aircraft.
What it more a financial issue? Could it return as a NEO?
Cheers.
fly'nhi
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24589
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:45 pm

It was already later than planned, and Airbus was about to announce another slip, so the customers bailed out because they needed the lift.

FX ordered 777F and 5X ordered 744F.

Now we see most players taking 748F and 777F so there's really no market to justify any kind of A380F.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
JannEejit
Posts: 1662
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 4:04 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:47 pm

It didn't so much fail as got kicked into the long grass so that Airbus could concentrate all effort into getting the problems with the PAX version ironed out. I don't know if Airbus have said it'll never happen or not, but the chances seem slim at best.
 
777PHX
Posts: 962
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 4:36 am

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:49 pm

IIRC, the upper deck is limited in terms of the weight it can support, which makes it undesirable for heavy cargo ops, and the problem for package carriers was that with less dense cargo like packages, it "bulked out" in space before it came anywhere near MTOW.

Again, IIRC, Airbus had also put development of it on the back burner and delayed it several years to focus on the pax model, which with the deficiencies noted above, caused FX and 5X to flee.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10705
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:50 pm

Revelation wrote:
It was already later than planned, and Airbus was about to announce another slip, so the customers bailed out because they needed the lift.

FX ordered 777F and 5X ordered 744F.

Now we see most players taking 748F and 777F so there's really no market to justify any kind of A380F.

5X ordered the 744Fs well before the cancellation (not too long after placing the A380 order in fact). They did order a bunch of 767Fs shortly before canceling the A380F order though. There were a lot of rumors at the time that the UPS A380F order was driven more by trying to get out of most of their A300F commitments than an actual huge desire for the aircraft. FedEx was always the big one pushing for the A380F asap.
 
Antarius
Posts: 2495
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:52 pm

One issue was the delays. FedEx and UPS bailed as they needed to wait too long.

Also, the A380 is very large, but relative to it's size, has a smaller proportional MTOW than the 747. So, while the A380F theoretically could carry more space, its MTOW is only ~20% more than a 747F. Which means it is way too much plane for such a small gain economically.

As a result, you run out of weight availability long before you run out of physical space. So you are flying a large partially empty aircraft due to the MTOW being proportionally less than cabin space.
2020: SFO DFW IAH HOU CLT MEX BIS MIA GUA ORD DTW LGA BOS LHR DUB BFS BHD STN OAK PHL ISP JFK SJC DEN SJU LAS TXL GDL
 
Antarius
Posts: 2495
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:54 pm

Also jesus, this is ugly

Image

Image

The world is a better place without these flying around.
2020: SFO DFW IAH HOU CLT MEX BIS MIA GUA ORD DTW LGA BOS LHR DUB BFS BHD STN OAK PHL ISP JFK SJC DEN SJU LAS TXL GDL
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 3830
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:10 am

777PHX wrote:
IIRC, the upper deck is limited in terms of the weight it can support, which makes it undesirable for heavy cargo ops, and the problem for package carriers was that with less dense cargo like packages, it "bulked out" in space before it came anywhere near MTOW.

Again, IIRC, Airbus had also put development of it on the back burner and delayed it several years to focus on the pax model, which with the deficiencies noted above, caused FX and 5X to flee.

Not only would the upper deck be weight limited, it would be a chore to load. Equipment would have had to be invented from scratch as current cargo loading apparatus wouldn't reach high enough to accommodate the top floor.
 
User avatar
JannEejit
Posts: 1662
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 4:04 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:13 am

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 ?
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3926
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:15 am

777PHX wrote:
IIRC, the upper deck is limited in terms of the weight it can support, which makes it undesirable for heavy cargo ops, and the problem for package carriers was that with less dense cargo like packages, it "bulked out" in space before it came anywhere near MTOW.


Actually, the volume capability was what made it attractive to FX and 5X. It's common for them to "bulk out" on all their Freighters. The A380F would have given them a lot more volume, if they could fill it.
Last edited by OldAeroGuy on Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
bakestar
Topic Author
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 11:35 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:20 am

Possibly an A380-1000NEO-LR version? Or dare I say Beluga version?
fly'nhi
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3926
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:21 am

ER757 wrote:
777PHX wrote:
IIRC, the upper deck is limited in terms of the weight it can support, which makes it undesirable for heavy cargo ops, and the problem for package carriers was that with less dense cargo like packages, it "bulked out" in space before it came anywhere near MTOW.

Again, IIRC, Airbus had also put development of it on the back burner and delayed it several years to focus on the pax model, which with the deficiencies noted above, caused FX and 5X to flee.

Not only would the upper deck be weight limited, it would be a chore to load. Equipment would have had to be invented from scratch as current cargo loading apparatus wouldn't reach high enough to accommodate the top floor.


And the special upper deck loading equipment would have to be available at every location served by the A380F. This reduced its flexibility to the dedicated airfreight operators.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15145
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:38 am

OldAeroGuy wrote:

And the special upper deck loading equipment would have to be available at every location served by the A380F. This reduced its flexibility to the dedicated airfreight operators.


Which actually is a red herring, airports around the world now have equipment that service A380 upper decks, it has been a red herring 10-15 years ago and continues again today. Years ago we had threads after threads on how the A380 cannot land at airports x/y/z, when in reality A380s today are flying into more airports than 747-8s.

If UPS/Fedex/DHL/Amazon were to get a large freighter like this, they would use it like the 747, i.e. only go to a handful of airport like the round the world flights. If anyone would order an A380F, the ground support equipment would be in place well before the aircraft is delivered.

The attractive part of a freighter like the A380 is it has the volume of two 77Fs.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
chunhimlai
Posts: 609
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:03 am

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:47 am

A380F does not fail since it never exists
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 3:52 am

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.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:38 am

zeke wrote:
when in reality A380s today are flying into more airports than 747-8s.

Which isn't exactly hard to do... hell, Concordes flew to more airports than 748s.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
astuteman
Posts: 7151
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:41 am

JannEejit wrote:
It didn't so much fail as got kicked into the long grass so that Airbus could concentrate all effort into getting the problems with the PAX version ironed out. I don't know if Airbus have said it'll never happen or not, but the chances seem slim at best.


This is the correct answer. Airbus focussed all the effort on the pax variant.
Airbus wouldn't cancel the programme themselves but instead chose to refuse to give either EK, UPS or FX a forecast as to when they might get their planes, forcing them to cancel the contracts.

Rgds
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2978
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:59 am

A380F was, and would have been, attractive only to parcel carriers like FedEx: Most maindeck freighters reach max payload before they bulk out. It had marginal weight capability over (the easily foreseeable) 748F but much greater trip costs.

Given the marginal appeal of the A380F, it was almost certainly a mistake for Airbus to include it in the family definition. Most likely this contributed to the excessive empennage and wing sizing for the -800.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:17 am

Antarius wrote:
One issue was the delays. FedEx and UPS bailed as they needed to wait too long.

Also, the A380 is very large, but relative to it's size, has a smaller proportional MTOW than the 747. So, while the A380F theoretically could carry more space, its MTOW is only ~20% more than a 747F. Which means it is way too much plane for such a small gain economically.
As a result, you run out of weight availability long before you run out of physical space. So you are flying a large partially empty aircraft due to the MTOW being proportionally less than cabin space.


Just to have some numbers at hand for your postulations:
- - - A380F 748F
MTOW 590t 448t
PayLd 152t 133t
Volume 1,134m³ 858 m³
@range 10.4e3 km 7.6e3 km
OEW 252t 197t

A380 has volume2mass match at 134kg/m³
748F has volume2mass match at 153kg/m³

relative numbers
MTOW: 1.25:1
OEW: 1.27:1
i.e. the structure fraction is about the same.
PayLd 1.15:1
PL*Range 1.57 : 1
748 swaps range for payload, tanker for the same range and you have much less payload.
just looked: 105t @ 10.4e3 km

A380 takes quite a bit less fuel than linear extrapolation would indicate.
( A380F data are from WP(history:2008):EN:A380)
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15145
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:53 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Which isn't exactly hard to do... hell, Concordes flew to more airports than 748s.


No, and the list of airports that see regular A380 services is still expanding. Years ago people would lift all sorts of reasons why A380s could not operate at airports x/y/z.

Concorde did not see that many airports at all, including the charters.

747-8 like the A380 is concentrated at where you see them.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13230
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 3:04 pm

WIederling : with less fuel, could the A380F take more cargo, or is it limited by the floors' strength ?
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
WIederling
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 3:42 pm

Aesma wrote:
WIederling : with less fuel, could the A380F take more cargo, or is it limited by the floors' strength ?


MZFW limit. no idea how hard that would have been. looking at other Airbus data : hard :-)
not much need to boost payload. 748f would use about 118kg/t * 1000km while the A380f 104kg fuel / t * 1000km
or ~12% less fuel per ton and distance. Independent of "747 bla bla, best ever" the
A380 would have been an efficient freighter for the package carriers.
Keeping in mind engine improvements, good aero and expecting follow up improvements
the delta should be even bigger. ( assuming the A380F would exist today. Boeing is lucky.).
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 3830
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 3:55 pm

zeke wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:

And the special upper deck loading equipment would have to be available at every location served by the A380F. This reduced its flexibility to the dedicated airfreight operators.


Which actually is a red herring, airports around the world now have equipment that service A380 upper decks, it has been a red herring 10-15 years ago and continues again today. Years ago we had threads after threads on how the A380 cannot land at airports x/y/z, when in reality A380s today are flying into more airports than 747-8s.

If UPS/Fedex/DHL/Amazon were to get a large freighter like this, they would use it like the 747, i.e. only go to a handful of airport like the round the world flights. If anyone would order an A380F, the ground support equipment would be in place well before the aircraft is delivered.

The attractive part of a freighter like the A380 is it has the volume of two 77Fs.

Yes and no on the "red herring" comment
On the issue of what airports it can serve, I agree with you. On the loading issue, I disagree. There is a big difference between taking a catering cart up to the 2nd deck compared to using a scissor lift taking an M-1 container up there. Ones with that reach don't exist as of now and would be tricky at best if they ever were created.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 3:56 pm

Timing wasn't great either. The global financial crisis of 2008 made the A380F business case even harder.

Matt6461 wrote:
Given the marginal appeal of the A380F, it was almost certainly a mistake for Airbus to include it in the family definition. Most likely this contributed to the excessive empennage and wing sizing for the -800.


Entirely true. The freighter would have had a MTOW of > 600t, and the wing and landing gear was designed accordingly.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:08 pm

ER757 wrote:
On the issue of what airports it can serve, I agree with you. On the loading issue, I disagree. There is a big difference between taking a catering cart up to the 2nd deck compared to using a scissor lift taking an M-1 container up there. Ones with that reach don't exist as of now and would be tricky at best if they ever were created.


I think zeke's point is that many airports invested a lot of money to handle the A380 passenger model with additional jet bridges and other equipment. As such, why wouldn't those airports or customers invest into A380F equipment?
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3926
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:32 pm

zeke wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:

And the special upper deck loading equipment would have to be available at every location served by the A380F. This reduced its flexibility to the dedicated airfreight operators.


Which actually is a red herring, airports around the world now have equipment that service A380 upper decks, it has been a red herring 10-15 years ago and continues again today. Years ago we had threads after threads on how the A380 cannot land at airports x/y/z, when in reality A380s today are flying into more airports than 747-8s.

If UPS/Fedex/DHL/Amazon were to get a large freighter like this, they would use it like the 747, i.e. only go to a handful of airport like the round the world flights. If anyone would order an A380F, the ground support equipment would be in place well before the aircraft is delivered.

The attractive part of a freighter like the A380 is it has the volume of two 77Fs.


Not a red herring but a very real concern for a dedicated, non-package carrier like Atlas. If they had to deliver cargo to an airport that is not one their regular destinations, the A380 upper deck may not be able to carry cargo as a loader may not be available. Atlas owns 11 777F's and no A380F's.

And while the A380F might have the volume of two 777F's in theory, in actuality history shows the 777F has infinitely more cargo volume given that the sales figures are:

777F: 168
A380F: 0

168/0 = Infinity
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24589
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:35 pm

astuteman wrote:
Airbus focussed all the effort on the pax variant.

Reports at the time ( http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/busin ... 76607.html ) suggest A380F was sacrificed in favor of both A380-not-F and A350.

astuteman wrote:
Airbus wouldn't cancel the programme themselves but instead chose to refuse to give either EK, UPS or FX a forecast as to when they might get their planes, forcing them to cancel the contracts.

Which is merely spin control, because it'd be obvious that the customers had contractual escape clauses and needed lift and would not sit around an undetermined amount of time waiting for Airbus to get its act together because they lost confidence in Airbus.

Source 1: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/busin ... 76607.html

UPS, the largest package delivery company in the world, had originally expected its order — valued at $2.8 billion at list prices — to be delivered beginning in 2010. The company disclosed Friday that the latest agreement with Airbus had pushed those deliveries back by two years, to 2012.

"UPS had intended to complete an internal study of whether it could wait until 2012 for the aircraft, but now understands that Airbus is diverting employees from the A380 freighter program to work on the passenger version of the plane," the company said.

"Based on our previous discussions, we had felt that 2012 was a reasonable estimate of when Airbus could supply this plane," said David Abney, UPS's chief operating officer and president of UPS Airline. "We no longer are confident that Airbus can adhere to that schedule."

Source 2: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... on-210518/

FedEx was to be launch customer for the A380 Freighter, holding firm orders for 10 Engine Alliance GP7200-powered aircraft and options for at least a further 10. The freighters were due to arrive from August 2008 but, under last year's rescheduling, first deliveries had slipped to early 2009.

After the most recent production delays, deliveries had slipped by "at least" another year and FedEx was forced to make the "very difficult decision" to cancel, says its managing director aircraft development, acquisitions and sales, David Sutton.

"We had six A380s due in 2009 - almost a million pounds of lift - and the uncertainty of the schedule caused by the delay affected our ability to fulfil our lift requirements," he says. "We lost confidence in Airbus's ability to deliver when it said it would, and there was the prospect of further delays."

And now we read from a Forbes 'contributor': UPS Order For 14 Boeing 747 Freighters Might Once Have Been For Airbus A380

KarelXWB wrote:
Timing wasn't great either. The global financial crisis of 2008 made the A380F business case even harder.

Indeed: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... 9620070302 said:

The highly unusual public spat ended a dire week for Airbus, which warned on Wednesday its survival was at stake as it cut jobs and put plants up for sale, triggering union walkouts.

It will sell parts or all of six of its 16 sites in France, Germany, Britain and Spain after sacrificing 5 billion euros in future profits due to delays to the A380 superjumbo.

It has also been hit by a weak dollar and the erratic development of its next model, the mid-sized A350 which it needs to compete with Boeing’s (BA.N) fast-selling 787 Dreamliner.

It definitely was a low ebb for Airbus's fortunes, but now those fortunes have turned around and they are benefiting greatly from development of the A350 and A321neo.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:41 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
Not a red herring but a very real concern for a dedicated, non-package carrier like Atlas. If they had to deliver cargo to an airport that is not one their regular destinations, the A380 upper deck may not be able to carry cargo as a loader may not be available. Atlas owns 11 777F's and no A380F's.


Atlas never ordered the A380 though. As people above pointed out, the A380F concept was mainly attractive to parcel carriers. And those carriers would have flown it on regular destinations with proper airport equipment.

Which brings us back to the following question:

KarelXWB wrote:
ER757 wrote:
On the issue of what airports it can serve, I agree with you. On the loading issue, I disagree. There is a big difference between taking a catering cart up to the 2nd deck compared to using a scissor lift taking an M-1 container up there. Ones with that reach don't exist as of now and would be tricky at best if they ever were created.


I think zeke's point is that many airports invested a lot of money to handle the A380 passenger model with additional jet bridges and other equipment. As such, why wouldn't those airports or customers invest into A380F equipment?
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:57 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
zeke wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:

And the special upper deck loading equipment would have to be available at every location served by the A380F. This reduced its flexibility to the dedicated airfreight operators.


Which actually is a red herring, airports around the world now have equipment that service A380 upper decks, it has been a red herring 10-15 years ago and continues again today. Years ago we had threads after threads on how the A380 cannot land at airports x/y/z, when in reality A380s today are flying into more airports than 747-8s.

If UPS/Fedex/DHL/Amazon were to get a large freighter like this, they would use it like the 747, i.e. only go to a handful of airport like the round the world flights. If anyone would order an A380F, the ground support equipment would be in place well before the aircraft is delivered.

The attractive part of a freighter like the A380 is it has the volume of two 77Fs.


Not a red herring but a very real concern for a dedicated, non-package carrier like Atlas. If they had to deliver cargo to an airport that is not one their regular destinations, the A380 upper deck may not be able to carry cargo as a loader may not be available. Atlas owns 11 777F's and no A380F's.

And while the A380F might have the volume of two 777F's in theory, in actuality history shows the 777F has infinitely more cargo volume given that the sales figures are:

777F: 168
A380F: 0

168/0 = Infinity


On the Atlas Air 777s, Atlas Air doesn't have any 777s that it both owns AND operates.

Six 777s are owned by Atlas Air but leased to other airlines---3 to FedEx, 2 to AeroLogic, and I can't find who is the lessee of the sixth.
Five 777s are leased by Atlas Air (which acquired the leases when it bought Southern Air)...one is leased from LATAM Airlines Group and the other four are leased from Oak Hill Capital Partners...all are on the Southern Air AOC.

That said, the 777 freighter is far more capable than the A380 freighter could ever be, as airports have to be modified to handle the A380, while none is required for the 747 or 777 freighter, and each provides more flexibility than the A380 freighter does. That's why a 777 freighter is much better than an A380 would have been as one...and because the 777 freighter is based off the B77L, it has more range (it can do 4880 nautical miles on a full payload with general dimensions). Airbus' main way of competing would have been to offer the A340-500 as a freighter.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:09 pm

Antarius wrote:
Also jesus, this is ugly

Image


FYI, loading would have looked as follows:

Image
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3926
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:27 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
Not a red herring but a very real concern for a dedicated, non-package carrier like Atlas. If they had to deliver cargo to an airport that is not one their regular destinations, the A380 upper deck may not be able to carry cargo as a loader may not be available. Atlas owns 11 777F's and no A380F's.


Atlas never ordered the A380 though. As people above pointed out, the A380F concept was mainly attractive to parcel carriers. And those carriers would have flown it on regular destinations with proper airport equipment.

Which brings us back to the following question:

KarelXWB wrote:
ER757 wrote:
On the issue of what airports it can serve, I agree with you. On the loading issue, I disagree. There is a big difference between taking a catering cart up to the 2nd deck compared to using a scissor lift taking an M-1 container up there. Ones with that reach don't exist as of now and would be tricky at best if they ever were created.


I think zeke's point is that many airports invested a lot of money to handle the A380 passenger model with additional jet bridges and other equipment. As such, why wouldn't those airports or customers invest into A380F equipment?


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.

If the A380F is indeed attractive to package and general cargo operators, perhaps Airbus should restart the A380F as a way of improving the A380 sales prospects.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3926
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:29 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
zeke wrote:

Which actually is a red herring, airports around the world now have equipment that service A380 upper decks, it has been a red herring 10-15 years ago and continues again today. Years ago we had threads after threads on how the A380 cannot land at airports x/y/z, when in reality A380s today are flying into more airports than 747-8s.

If UPS/Fedex/DHL/Amazon were to get a large freighter like this, they would use it like the 747, i.e. only go to a handful of airport like the round the world flights. If anyone would order an A380F, the ground support equipment would be in place well before the aircraft is delivered.

The attractive part of a freighter like the A380 is it has the volume of two 77Fs.


Not a red herring but a very real concern for a dedicated, non-package carrier like Atlas. If they had to deliver cargo to an airport that is not one their regular destinations, the A380 upper deck may not be able to carry cargo as a loader may not be available. Atlas owns 11 777F's and no A380F's.

And while the A380F might have the volume of two 777F's in theory, in actuality history shows the 777F has infinitely more cargo volume given that the sales figures are:

777F: 168
A380F: 0

168/0 = Infinity


On the Atlas Air 777s, Atlas Air doesn't have any 777s that it both owns AND operates.

Six 777s are owned by Atlas Air but leased to other airlines---3 to FedEx, 2 to AeroLogic, and I can't find who is the lessee of the sixth.
Five 777s are leased by Atlas Air (which acquired the leases when it bought Southern Air)...one is leased from LATAM Airlines Group and the other four are leased from Oak Hill Capital Partners...all are on the Southern Air AOC.

That said, the 777 freighter is far more capable than the A380 freighter could ever be, as airports have to be modified to handle the A380, while none is required for the 747 or 777 freighter, and each provides more flexibility than the A380 freighter does. That's why a 777 freighter is much better than an A380 would have been as one...and because the 777 freighter is based off the B77L, it has more range (it can do 4880 nautical miles on a full payload with general dimensions). Airbus' main way of competing would have been to offer the A340-500 as a freighter.


Insightful post.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
Andre3K
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 10:11 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:51 pm

There is a better chance of the 747-8I selling more passenger versions than this pipe dream of A380F's. If it does happen it's not going to be because of any US based parcel firm. They have chosen their champions and they are both Boeing's finest.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11886
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:53 pm

Andre3K wrote:
There is a better chance of the 747-8I selling more passenger versions than this pipe dream of A380F's. If it does happen it's not going to be because of any US based parcel firm. They have chosen their champions and they are both Boeing's finest.


Perhaps they will be doing a passenger-freighter conversation, some will be hitting the second-hand market. I agree with you that there probably will never be new build A380F.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13230
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:42 pm

UPS and Fedex ordered the plane when all the "negatives" mentioned in this thread were known. It wasn't a problem for them.

At the end of the day if only these two companies would order it, then it wasn't/isn't a product Airbus should spend money on.

As for the looks, to each their own, I don't like the humpback 747 personally.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24589
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:02 pm

Aesma wrote:
UPS and Fedex ordered the plane when all the "negatives" mentioned in this thread were known. It wasn't a problem for them.

Very true.

And we should also consider that if Airbus thought it needed more MTOW and a bigger wing to be a successful freighter, chances are a P-to-F without these things and no existing market to sell into will not be a successful freighter.

At the end of the day if only these two companies would order it, then it wasn't/isn't a product Airbus should spend money on.

Actually EK was taking 2 (via ILFC?), FX ordered 10 + 10 options, 5X also had 10 + 10. 22 orders is around 10% of current deliveries.

If (if... if... if...) they did not have the earlier screw ups they definitely should have been able to capture those orders and a large part of the options.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Wildlander
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 4:08 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:21 pm

Worth a mention that the higher design weights for the A380F would have facilitated the development of a stretched passenger version, a plane that would have "grown" into its big flying surfaces. Given the slowness of the passenger market to mature, this was perhaps a blessing. The flip side was that by discontinuing (or shelving it if you prefer marketing-speak) the A380F Airbus alienated both FedEx and UPS and has not sold a single plane to them since while their 767F, 777F and (now) 748F fleets have grown and grown, in no small part allowing Boeing dominate the new freighter business.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27225
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:26 pm

FedEx, at least, was interested in launching non-stop services between China and their US hubs as it would allow them to offer later pickups to their customers while still meeting delivery schedule to the US. At the time, their only options were the 747-400ERF or the A380-800F and the A380 had a fair bit better economics.

In the interim, Boeing launched the 777 Freighter which could also do non-stop between China and the US and when delays on the A380 Freighter grew, FedEx cancelled and jumped to the 777.


Wildlander wrote:
The flip side was that by discontinuing (or shelving it if you prefer marketing-speak) the A380F Airbus alienated both FedEx and UPS and has not sold a single plane to them since while their 767F, 777F and (now) 748F fleets have grown and grown, in no small part allowing Boeing dominate the new freighter business.


I expect it is more that Airbus does not have an offering that appeals to them. The A330-200F works better as an MD-10F replacement than the 767F, but it's too large as an A300F/A310F replacement compared to the 767F and too small as an MD-11F replacement compared to the 777F. So for FX, with the 767F and 777F combo can replace the A300F, the A310F, the MD-10F and the MD-11F. And for UPS, which just has the A300-600F and MD-11F, the 767F will handle the former and the 777F or 747-8F will handle the latter. So no real place for the A330-200F in either fleet.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:01 pm

Regarding FX, 77F added the range that FX wanted to use the A380 for, but also covered the MD11 size replace. Less expensive to fly around, thus easy to flow across the network. Would have been a large size increase for FX that doesn't operate 747s.

What would an upper deck passenger, lower deck cargo A380 look like? Would be cool to see KLM/LH with some Combis. I know it not likely to happen, but would be cool to see.
 
itisi
Posts: 309
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:37 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 10:12 pm

Something that never happened can hardly be a failure .... Airbus cancelled the plane right, not FX and 5X cancelled their orders.
737-300/400/500 ... are NOT classics :)
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27225
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:30 pm

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


The program is officially on indefinite hiatus, but it is doubtful it will ever be restarted.
 
SC430
Posts: 190
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:45 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sun Feb 11, 2018 1:18 am

chunhimlai wrote:
A380F does not fail since it never exists



Hmmm.... So Airbus took deposits on a program that did not exist? Nice try, but not supported out by the facts.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2978
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sun Feb 11, 2018 1:29 am

Wiederling wrote:
PayLd 152t 133t
Volume 1,134m³ 858 m³
@range 10.4e3 km 7.6e3 km
OEW 252t 197t


This neatly sums up why the A380F appealed only to parcel carriers.
You're lifting 55t more OEW for 19t more payload. Unless you'd bulk out before MZFW that's just not a good trade (payload/OEW ratio for 748F is ~1.5). With A380's slightly better L/D but worse SFC, the ton-mile per gallon math doesn't go in its favor.

The A380's greater range isn't all that important (and your range-based fuel efficiency math is likely apples-oranges given different range calcs for A/B): Most cargo doesn't care if it stops for a few hours to refuel. Again, only parcel carriers seeking overnight deliveries urgently need more than ~8hr range.
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2605
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sun Feb 11, 2018 1:44 am

Antarius wrote:
Also jesus, this is ugly

The world is a better place without these flying around.

To each their own but I disagree. I think it would have been a superior package freighter IF they could fill it. But yes, for low density cargo only.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2978
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:00 am

Revelation wrote:
And we should also consider that if Airbus thought it needed more MTOW and a bigger wing to be a successful freighter, chances are a P-to-F without these things and no existing market to sell into will not be a successful freighter.


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.

Stitch wrote:
FedEx, at least, was interested in launching non-stop services between China and their US hubs as it would allow them to offer later pickups to their customers while still meeting delivery schedule to the US. At the time, their only options were the 747-400ERF or the A380-800F and the A380 had a fair bit better economics.

In the interim, Boeing launched the 777 Freighter which could also do non-stop between China and the US


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

The eventual 778F, with its flatter payload-range curve, could maybe do MEM-NRT or similar routes with decent payload...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27225
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:54 am

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
 
DWC
Posts: 607
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:49 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:05 am

Questions :
1. I read long ago that in the preliminary studies for the A380, Airbus had imposed the cockpit be where it is now, midway between both cabins instead of at upper cabin level, thereby eschewing any possibility for the A380F to have a front loading like the 747F or AN-124. If so, what was the rationale ?
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 ?
 
Airventure737
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 10:55 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:10 am

On MEM's website, they state the heaviest airplane the airport's capable of serving is the 747-400 at 875,000lbs. However MEM has hosted the AN-225 that weighed >1 million pounds. So my question is, did the airport ever become fully ready to handle the A380s?
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2978
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:50 am

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.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27225
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Why was the A380F a failure?

Sun Feb 11, 2018 4:04 am

DWC wrote:
1. I read long ago that in the preliminary studies for the A380, Airbus had imposed the cockpit be where it is now, midway between both cabins instead of at upper cabin level, thereby eschewing any possibility for the A380F to have a front loading like the 747F or AN-124. If so, what was the rationale?


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.



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.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos