Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:The biggest problem to deal with that I see, and that they kinda touch on in the press release, is the specialist ground equipment needed to load and unload it.
If they can develop a deployable rail system that is carried internally then I can see this working. Otherwise you'd need to pre-position the loading equipment at each destination. Which is hardly a small or cheap task.
To maximise the BelugaST’s turnaround capability for its targeted international customer base, new loading techniques and equipment are being developed for the operation. These solutions include an automated On-Board Cargo Loader (OBCL) for missions where a loading/unloading platform is not available at the origin or destination airport.
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:The biggest problem to deal with that I see, and that they kinda touch on in the press release, is the specialist ground equipment needed to load and unload it.
If they can develop a deployable rail system that is carried internally then I can see this working. Otherwise you'd need to pre-position the loading equipment at each destination. Which is hardly a small or cheap task.
USAirKid wrote:What I’m fascinated by is that this will be an Airbus owned airline.
I know it’s old precedent, but Boeing was prohibited from owning an airline and was forced to spin off United many years ago. Boeing seemed to have continued this, as they have Atlas operate the 747LCF for them.
I wonder if Airbus will be forced to sell their new airline?
LDRA wrote:Are these blimpy airplanes even EASA certified? How does Airbus operate them commercially?
USAirKid wrote:What I’m fascinated by is that this will be an Airbus owned airline.
I know it’s old precedent, but Boeing was prohibited from owning an airline and was forced to spin off United many years ago. Boeing seemed to have continued this, as they have Atlas operate the 747LCF for them.
I wonder if Airbus will be forced to sell their new airline?
In the near future, once Airbus has commissioned all six new BelugaXLs, the fully-released BelugaST fleet will be handed over to a newly-created, subsidiary airline with its own Air Operator Certificate (AOC) and staff. Philippe Sabo added: “The new airline will be flexible and agile to address the needs of external worldwide markets.”
USAirKid wrote:ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:The biggest problem to deal with that I see, and that they kinda touch on in the press release, is the specialist ground equipment needed to load and unload it.
If they can develop a deployable rail system that is carried internally then I can see this working. Otherwise you'd need to pre-position the loading equipment at each destination. Which is hardly a small or cheap task.
Looks like they have that in the pipeline:To maximise the BelugaST’s turnaround capability for its targeted international customer base, new loading techniques and equipment are being developed for the operation. These solutions include an automated On-Board Cargo Loader (OBCL) for missions where a loading/unloading platform is not available at the origin or destination airport.
zkojq wrote:This further reduces the demand for 747s for outsize cargo work that requires the Nose Cargo Door.
I was wondering what potential there was to sub A330BelugaXL with A300STs and vice versa, but if they're on different AOCs that gets tricky.
WayexTDI wrote:LDRA wrote:Are these blimpy airplanes even EASA certified? How does Airbus operate them commercially?
Yup, EASA TCDS EASA.A.014 (https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... 052010.pdf)
USAirKid wrote:What I’m fascinated by is that this will be an Airbus owned airline.
I know it’s old precedent, but Boeing was prohibited from owning an airline and was forced to spin off United many years ago. Boeing seemed to have continued this, as they have Atlas operate the 747LCF for them.
I wonder if Airbus will be forced to sell their new airline?
hongkongflyer wrote:Isn't the certificate of Beluga restricted it to be used by Airbus only and not for commercial purposes?
Duke91 wrote:I also wonder what kind of freight would choose to be transported with the Beluga?
Noshow wrote:How about Boeing? With Dreamliner production limited to Charleston only, they should have unused Dreamlifter capacity planned for the Everett assembly site sitting idle now?
Duke91 wrote:
I also wonder what kind of freight would choose to be transported with the Beluga?
Noshow wrote:How about Boeing? With Dreamliner production limited to Charleston only, they should have unused Dreamlifter capacity planned for the Everett assembly site sitting idle now?
mjoelnir wrote:AFAIK Airbus is working on a full certification for the Beluga XL.
marcelh wrote:Duke91 wrote:
I also wonder what kind of freight would choose to be transported with the Beluga?
What about WB aircraft engines?
mjoelnir wrote:Dreamlifter has a more limited certification than the Beluga.
zeke wrote:It’s restricted to Boeing related activities
bikerthai wrote:
Not sure if it's a limited approval or that the dreamlifter can transport every day cargo in the lower lobe.
bt
FSflyer899 wrote:They have an ad out about it. And it seems they have the cargo loader with it, so don't need any special/additional loading equipment at the destination?
https://youtu.be/vES4M8lzTCE
mjoelnir wrote:marcelh wrote:Duke91 wrote:
I also wonder what kind of freight would choose to be transported with the Beluga?
What about WB aircraft engines?
The biggest available engines fully assembled.
Revelation wrote:Can anyone explain why they need to seperate the GE90 fan and power unit when using the Antonov, but won't need to do so for the Beluga? We have pictures in our DB showing it fits front/back no problem.
USAirKid wrote:What I’m fascinated by is that this will be an Airbus owned airline.
I know it’s old precedent, but Boeing was prohibited from owning an airline and was forced to spin off United many years ago. Boeing seemed to have continued this, as they have Atlas operate the 747LCF for them.
I wonder if Airbus will be forced to sell their new airline?
Revelation wrote:Can anyone explain why they need to seperate the GE90 fan and power unit when using the Antonov, but won't need to do so for the Beluga? We have pictures in our DB showing it fits front/back no problem.
zeke wrote:hongkongflyer wrote:Isn't the certificate of Beluga restricted it to be used by Airbus only and not for commercial purposes?
No, they have done commercial charters before. I remember them using them to move artwork around, also numerous space vehicles.
mjoelnir wrote:Noshow wrote:How about Boeing? With Dreamliner production limited to Charleston only, they should have unused Dreamlifter capacity planned for the Everett assembly site sitting idle now?
The Dreamlifter has a more limited certification than the Beluga.
AFAIK Airbus is working on a full certification for the Beluga XL.
hongkongflyer wrote:May be the front cargo door clearance (due to the slope) is not as large as Beluga's.
NameOmitted wrote:Boeing can do more of its work by rail.
zkojq wrote:This further reduces the demand for 747s for outsize cargo work that requires the Nose Cargo Door.
I was wondering what potential there was to sub A330BelugaXL with A300STs and vice versa, but if they're on different AOCs that gets tricky.
Revelation wrote:Can anyone explain why they need to seperate the GE90 fan and power unit when using the Antonov, but won't need to do so for the Beluga? We have pictures in our DB showing it fits front/back no problem.
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:My understanding is that GE90s are generally moved via standard air freight. Not the specialised outsize operations like Antonov. For airframes like the B777F you need to split the fan and power units.
YYZYYT wrote:zkojq wrote:This further reduces the demand for 747s for outsize cargo work that requires the Nose Cargo Door.
I was wondering what potential there was to sub A330BelugaXL with A300STs and vice versa, but if they're on different AOCs that gets tricky.
I'm guessing that Airbus-owned aircraft couldn't be subbed for a commercial operator, but there is no reason Airbus couldn't charter the 300's when needed. It's an elegant solution - the old aircraft are available as extra lift if ever needed, but they are self-funding and maybe can even turn a profit to send back to Airbus.
“we agreed with ATI to have access to one BelugaXL for extra-long flights from next year.”