Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
boeing767-300
Topic Author
Posts: 626
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 11:23 pm

A380 Cargo Capacity

Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:40 pm

Look carefully at the photos below. As much as I love the 747 it suffered from a disproportionate loss of cargo space compared to 773/A346 due to large wings and taper at the rear of fuselage.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © French Frogs AirSlides
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mark Tang - HKAEC




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Royal S King
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © M Radzi Desa




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mark Tang - HKAEC



My question is how does A380 compare cargo wise to 77W/A346/787. It has been quoted in other threads that 787-10 carrys 80% more freight than A380. I suspect that is proportionately but given the little available cargo space(a380-900 will fare better) between wings and undercarriage structures and forward and rear of plane it certainly looks as A380 is disadvantaged especially given that there are two decks of passenger luggage to be carried underfloor as well.

Given the proportional lack of cargo capacity and the enormus tare weight of A380 I believe A380 will be at a distinct disadvantage when compared to 77W/787-10 and A359.

This is not an A versus B as I believe the 747 suffers in the same way when compared to the newer twinjets with similar length fuselage(77W) but a lot more useable cargo space and less people with baggage.

It may well be that the 787-10 will offer lower CASM especially when the additional cargo capacity is factored in. The A389 will be better but the A388 looks too short!!!!
 
jaysit
Posts: 10185
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:33 pm

Check out the cut out on pages 34-38 of this Airbus document for a view of the cargo compartment:

http://www.content.airbusworld.com/S...a/docs/AC/DATA_CONSULT/AC_A380.pdf

It's evident that the cargo compartment extends into the zone you'd normally associated solely with the wing box.

To summarize, the A380 has a total cargo usable space of 6226 cubic feet (176 cubic m). In comparison, the 747-800 has 5290 cubic feet, the 777-300ER has 7000 cubic feet, the A340-600 HGW has 7320 cubic feet.

From what I've heard, international airlines will enforce stricter baggage weight requirements of 50 lbs per checked-in bag in comparison to the 70 lbs currently allowed on most major routes to co-incide with the introduction of the A380.
 
XXXX10
Posts: 707
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2000 7:10 am

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Tue Apr 18, 2006 11:38 pm

I believe that there is a problem, with 'Belly' cargo space for the A380.

If the above figures are for the total hold space , the A380 will have much more space taken uo by lugage.

Of course the A380 f will offer more space than any a/c (except the big Antonovs)
 
Glom
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Tue Apr 18, 2006 11:52 pm

A380 Cargo Capacity?

Isn't that an oxymoron?
 
FlyDeltaJets
Posts: 1658
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:24 pm

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Tue Apr 18, 2006 11:57 pm

I know that the 346 holds more cargo that the 747 (talking actual containers/pallets not weight) will the 380 max that because if it doesnt alot of container space will be used up by baggage.
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:56 am

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Thread starter):
My question is how does A380 compare cargo wise to 77W/A346/787. It has been quoted in other threads that 787-10 carrys 80% more freight than A380. I suspect that is proportionately but given the little available cargo space(a380-900 will fare better) between wings and undercarriage structures and forward and rear of plane it certainly looks as A380 is disadvantaged especially given that there are two decks of passenger luggage to be carried underfloor as well.

In terms of lower hold space available after passenger bags the A380 has a substantial edge over 747-400. However, when compared to current and future high aspect ratio fuselage, single deck aircraft it has decidedly less space relative to passenger number. Available payload to effectively utilize that space is another animal altogether...

One thing about the A380 though is that the aft cargo door is only 110 inches wide...This means to load those three pallet positions in "Compartment 3" each pallet needs to be spun around while inside the hold as those positions only accommodate M size pallets lengthwise. (the 125 inch side in the longitudinal direction)...Have fun A380 loaders...


300-550 Seat Lower holds



-widebodyphotog
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16357
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Wed Apr 19, 2006 2:24 am

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Thread starter):
My question is how does A380 compare cargo wise to 77W/A346/787. It has been quoted in other threads that 787-10 carrys 80% more freight than A380.

Airlines are purchasing them for passengers, not freight. I dont know about the 80% freight idea, the 380 can uplift 90t of revenue payload above and below the floor, I dont think the 787-10 is doing 80% above 90t.

I.e. the self loading freight that walks onto the passenger decks the airlines are getting US$15-100 /kg, whilst the below floor, can be less than a US$1/kg.

Having additional cargo space is great if your on a thin route and can bolster your yield with a constant cago stream, if your running at high load factors, you will make a lot more money from passengers alone.

With the same MTOW as the 787-9, the -10 considering the streach in the fuselage would have a lower maximum payload than that of the 787-9.
 
ScottB
Posts: 7544
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Wed Apr 19, 2006 2:52 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 6):
I.e. the self loading freight that walks onto the passenger decks the airlines are getting US$15-100 /kg, whilst the below floor, can be less than a US$1/kg.

Actually, that "self-loading freight" can be under $1/kg as well, depending on the weight of the passenger + baggage and the length of the flight. And AA Cargo's domestic U.S. rates are all at least $3/kg; one would imagine that flights of longer distances would get far higher yields. That self-loading freight also requires more pampering and it gets annoyed when its flights are cancelled or delayed.
 
Glom
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:06 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 6):
Airlines are purchasing them for passengers, not freight.

That's why the A330 failed to affect the success of the 767. The lower costs of the 767 were the clear winning factor compared to the A330's unimportant better cargo capability.
 
PlaneHunter
Posts: 6538
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:17 am

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:22 am

Quoting Glom (Reply 8):
That's why the A330 failed to affect the success of the 767. The lower costs of the 767 were the clear winning factor compared to the A330's unimportant better cargo capability.

Can you actually prove all that? And which exact versions are you talking about?


PH
 
Glom
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:24 am

Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 9):
Can you actually prove all that? And which exact versions are you talking about?

I was being ironic.

[Edited 2006-04-18 20:51:03]
 
swissy
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:12 pm

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:21 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 5):
One thing about the A380 though is that the aft cargo door is only 110 inches wide...This means to load those three pallet positions in "Compartment 3" each pallet needs to be spun around while inside the hold as those positions only accommodate M size pallets lengthwise. (the 125 inch side in the longitudinal direction)...Have fun A380 loaders...

If you know what you are doing, no problem.......

Cheers, Big grin
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2233
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:07 pm

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 1):
To summarize, the A380 has a total cargo usable space of 6226 cubic feet (176 cubic m). In comparison, the 747-800 has 5290 cubic feet, the 777-300ER has 7000 cubic feet, the A340-600 HGW has 7320 cubic feet.

Well, theoretically, the A380 will have ALOT more luggage than any of those because it carries more passengers. So, ultimately, the A380 ends up have less "cargo" space than the 747-8, 777-300ER, or the A340-600.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 1):
From what I've heard, international airlines will enforce stricter baggage weight requirements of 50 lbs per checked-in bag in comparison to the 70 lbs currently allowed on most major routes to co-incide with the introduction of the A380.

Well, how exactly does this enhance the flying experience as Airbus claims it would?
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9719
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:46 pm

What nobody has mentioned so far is the fact that the cargo hold volume is unimportant as long as airlines do not strictly enforce volumetric weight charges. Only if the 1:6 rule is strictly enforced, the carrier can make use of the additional hold space an aircraft such as the 773 offers. Even better would be 1:5, which was planned but never got over that stage, at least not until now.

Whoever will operate an A380F will not be able to run the services profitably without selling the volume as well. Only if the theoretically loadable volumetric weight of ca. 180 tons is sold, the A380 has an advantage over the 747-8F.

This does not apply to integrators, who have a batter average yield per kilo than the standard cargo carriers, some of them enforce voilume charges for additional profits.
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:24 pm

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 13):
What nobody has mentioned so far is the fact that the cargo hold volume is unimportant as long as airlines do not strictly enforce volumetric weight charges. Only if the 1:6 rule is strictly enforced, the carrier can make use of the additional hold space an aircraft such as the 773 offers. Even better would be 1:5, which was planned but never got over that stage, at least not until now.

I think 777-300ER operators such as AF and NH would differ greatly with that statement as they have been able to effectively double freight volumes, and payloads by replacing 777-200ER and 747-400 flights with 777-300ER. With the former cargo loads ranged from 10-18t and five to seven pallets while 773ER is moving nine to 12 pallets and 25-35t loads, maintaining established market densities. The key to the utilization of 777-300ER is the fact that is has a near perfect balance of high payload capability and passenger capacity allowing efficient use of space above and below the floor line...

I would have to say that cargo probably will not be a driving factor on A380 operations, especially on the longest routes it will fly. Proportionately pasenger revenue generation dwarfs the cargo generation capability on A380. The impact of increased cargo volumes from an A380 arriving at your airport pales in comparison to the increase in passenger volumes...



-widebodyphotog
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15181
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:34 pm

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Thread starter):
My question is how does A380 compare cargo wise to 77W/A346/787. It has been quoted in other threads that 787-10 carrys 80% more freight than A380.

it isn't proportional. It is absolute. Basically, it has a larger cargo hold than an A380 when talking about containers/pallets, and carries 60% of the pax, so 60% of the bags. This works out to be an 80% greater revenue cargo volume in real terms, not relative terms.

Even in the longer 389, the cargo hold is not going to grow enough to surpass the 787-10.

Thus for two 78-10s, you could hold more cargo, take more pax, with a lower CASM, for roughly the same total airframe cost, since 1 787-10 would list for about 1/2 of one 389.
 
3MilesToWRO
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:08 am

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:11 pm

As I read this thread I'm getting a feeling that some people would like a bus to have enough space to carry also a piano, drums and five cellos when symphonic orchestra travels to a concert.
 
boeing767-300
Topic Author
Posts: 626
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 11:23 pm

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:44 pm

Quoting 3MilesToWRO (Reply 16):
As I read this thread I'm getting a feeling that some people would like a bus to have enough space to carry also a piano, drums and five cellos when symphonic orchestra travels to a concert.

I think you are missing the point here which is that the A380 has comparatively the smallest cargo capacity when compared to rivals.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 14):
I think 777-300ER operators such as AF and NH would differ greatly with that statement as they have been able to effectively double freight volumes, and payloads by replacing 777-200ER and 747-400 flights with 777-300ER. With the former cargo loads ranged from 10-18t and five to seven pallets while 773ER is moving nine to 12 pallets and 25-35t loads, maintaining established market densities. The key to the utilization of 777-300ER is the fact that is has a near perfect balance of high payload capability and passenger capacity allowing efficient use of space above and below the floor line...

There is no doubt that given the right conditions the A380 will have low CASM. But given limited cargo, declining yields and difficulty or likelihood of less than desirable load factors starts to weigh against A380. 77W/LR/A350/787 will be more economic to operate across a more broad spectrum of missions.

Everyone will be watching the real performace and operating costs of A380 and I would expect almost all to downsize as they are at present excepting several large hub to hub routes that NEED A380. I expect AF for example to aquire more 777-300ER as the most efficient replacement for 744 which suffers from the same problems as A380 (Size and cargo capability) rather than order additional A380

Time will tell....
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9719
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:48 pm

Quoting 3MilesToWRO (Reply 16):
As I read this thread I'm getting a feeling that some people would like a bus to have enough space to carry also a piano, drums and five cellos when symphonic orchestra travels to a concert.

Easy to do that with a bus, just add a trailer. A modern aircraft has belly space available which is not taken up by passenger cargo. Wise people found out about 50 or 60 years ago that this space might be taken up for cargo.
There was even an attachment available for the Super Constellation which offered additonal space, similar to the trailer on the bus.
 
manni
Posts: 4049
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:51 pm

Quoting ScottB (Reply 7):
And AA Cargo's domestic U.S. rates are all at least $3/kg;

I know atleast one customer that ships freight on AA everyday between a certain European city and 2 US cities for less than a US$1/kg, IIRC about US$0,80/kg. Even tough the official rate is about US$ 2,5/kg (for regular freight, dangerous goods etc. excluded), and rarely charged. Furthermore the price charged not only depends on the weight but the volume of the shipped goods aswell. As with passenger tickets, on top of these fares, one has to pay a fuelcharge and in some cases a security tax aswell.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:53 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 15):
Thus for two 78-10s, you could hold more cargo, take more pax, with a lower CASM, for roughly the same total airframe cost, since 1 787-10 would list for about 1/2 of one 389.

Hold on a sec... where did you get that the 787-10 would have lower CASM than the 389? I've read rumors here that it might be better than the 388, but a 389 with new generation engines would probably be in a league of its own.

Anyway, the C part of CASM won't be known with much accuracy for a while, at least until either model has flown a few years.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15181
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:38 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 20):
where did you get that the 787-10 would have lower CASM than the 389?

CASM is cost per available seat mile. That takes into account cost to acquire (depreciation), fuel, staffing, etc.

Sorry but I don't see how it would be possible for the 380 to have lower CASM.

List price: 389 will be more than twice the price of a 787-10
OEW: 389 will be more than twice as heavy
FUEL: 389 will use more than twice the fuel to go the same distance
PAYLOAD: 389 will have less than twice the payload of the 787-10
ENGINES: 389 will have twice as many engines of the same generation and thrust rating, so there is no performance or weight advantage

I really don't know what formula you could create that would show me that 2 x 787-10 won't have lower CASM than 1 389.

And RASM would be even more interesting, considering the 160% advantage that 2 x 787-10 would have in cargo volume.

2 x 789 beat 1 388 in a similar way.
 
PlaneHunter
Posts: 6538
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:17 am

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:40 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 21):
2 x 789 beat 1 388 in a similar way.

Now all the airlines need is some more slots...


PH
 
3MilesToWRO
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:08 am

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:01 pm

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 18):
Easy to do that with a bus, just add a trailer.

So just go to EADS and suggest them to build a trailer for A380. It's easy, cargo gliders have been already used a long time ago.
But this will still be a trailer, and main purpose of every airliner is to carry people. Cargo capacity is basically only a bonus consisting of space that would be waste otherwise - this space would not be suitable for passenger use. If it wasn't a bonus but a main feature, airliners would be cargo planes with small passenger area stuffed somewhere in stinking ends not suitable for valuable cargo  Wink

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 17):
I think you are missing the point here which is that the A380 has comparatively the smallest cargo capacity when compared to rivals.

I'm not missing this point. It does have. So what? Its purpose is to carry people.
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9719
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:15 pm

Quoting 3MilesToWRO (Reply 23):

So just go to EADS and suggest them to build a trailer for A380. It's easy, cargo gliders have been already used a long time ago.
But this will still be a trailer, and main purpose of every airliner is to carry people. Cargo capacity is basically only a bonus consisting of space that would be waste otherwise - this space would not be suitable for passenger use. If it wasn't a bonus but a main feature, airliners would be cargo planes with small passenger area stuffed somewhere in stinking ends not suitable for valuable cargo

You did not understand my posting, mate. I refered to the bus the other guy mentioned, not to an aircraft. You did not udnerstand the next sentence either, it is exactly what I am saying, that there is room left in a passenger aircraft which quote wise people found out some 50 or 60 years ago can be used for cargo unquote.

And - surprise to you, there are some cargo planes around, build specially for the purpose, called An124 or Il76 and the An124 even has a small compartment - and you are right this time, at the stinking end which is used as a crew compartment for the 20 odd crew guys on these trampers.

Passenger and cargo aircraft are a symbiose, using the same designs to keep overall costs down and there even have been and still are combis which carry freight and passengers on the same deck, but the cargo ususally is at the - what you call - stinking end. Must be another surprise to you.
 
3MilesToWRO
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:08 am

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:32 pm

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 24):

Now I don't get you. Of course, there are cargo compartments in passenger planes. Of course there are pure cargo planes. Of course there are cargo/passenger planes. But A380 is a passenger plane, a very passenger plane I would say, so simply its small cargo capacity is a derivative of its purpose. Its fuselage space is used for people, not for cargo. And for me it seems some people are surprised by this. Why aren't they surprised passenger area in Ruslan or Galaxy is so small?
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9719
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Thu Apr 20, 2006 7:54 pm

Quoting 3MilesToWRO (Reply 25):

Now I don't get you. Of course, there are cargo compartments in passenger planes. Of course there are pure cargo planes. Of course there are cargo/passenger planes. But A380 is a passenger plane, a very passenger plane I would say, so simply its small cargo capacity is a derivative of its purpose. Its fuselage space is used for people, not for cargo. And for me it seems some people are surprised by this. Why aren't they surprised passenger area in Ruslan or Galaxy is so small?

who says that the passenger version of the A380 cannot carry freight? Of course it can, with a full passenger load and baggage it still can take eight cargo pallets which will yield approximately 15 tons and at an average rate of € 1,20 will add e 12- 18K to the bottom line of each sector operated. Hardly to be ignored with possibly 400 sectors flown per aircraft per year over 20 years we are talking about at least € 100 Million in revenue.

This cargo capacity is about the same a full 747-400 or A330 can take, but it is considerably less than the T7 versions which have been discussed here can load. Fact is that the T7 versions (and the 787) are designed as passenger planes as well, the additonal cargo capacity however is greater.

Your comparison with the C5 or the An124 is completely off since both were never intended as passenger planes (besides troup transport) and the C5 never has been used commercially.

Every commercial passenger plane flying can carry freight, some very little and the amount is always depending on some conditons like passenger load, route distance and wheather, to name 3.
 
swissy
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:12 pm

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:10 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 21):
And RASM would be even more interesting, considering the 160% advantage that 2 x 787-10 would have in cargo volume.

2 x 789 beat 1 388 in a similar way.

Yes you also need two crews I/O, more ground equipment (if they are to close with the arrival time), landing fees, gate fees..............

In other words you can not compare it that way........

Cheers,  Wink
 
3MilesToWRO
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:08 am

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:08 pm

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 26):
who says that the passenger version of the A380 cannot carry freight?

Nobody, I think.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 26):
Fact is that the T7 versions (and the 787) are designed as passenger planes as well, the additonal cargo capacity however is greater.

Right, but so what? No surprise that when you have (approximately) the same belly space of a plane, the one that carries twice as much passengers on main deck will have less of this belly space available to cargo, since baggage space alone will be twice as big.
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9719
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:16 pm

Quoting 3MilesToWRO (Reply 28):

Right, but so what? No surprise that when you have (approximately) the same belly space of a plane, the one that carries twice as much passengers on main deck will have less of this belly space available to cargo, since baggage space alone will be twice as big.

My figures are based on 520 passengers in an A380. EK for instance operates the T7 with as many as 429passengers. The -300ER version holds 364 pax. which means that the A380 holds approximately 50 % more and not twice as many.
 
3MilesToWRO
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:08 am

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Thu Apr 20, 2006 11:24 pm

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 29):
which means that the A380 holds approximately 50 % more and not twice as many.

Herrgott, I was only giving a rough example.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:07 am

Please see as a reference: http://www.content.airbusworld.com/S...a/docs/AC/DATA_CONSULT/AC_A380.pdf

With the Airbus stated empty weight of 270.3 tonnes (most airlines will be higher) and full fuel, there is only 44.5 tonnes available as payload.

Do the math from there and you'll see the problmes with operating at max range on this aircraft. Cargo capacity is a "non-issue".
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9719
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:47 am

Quoting 3MilesToWRO (Reply 30):

Herrgott, I was only giving a rough example.

Don't call me that.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 31):


With the Airbus stated empty weight of 270.3 tonnes (most airlines will be higher) and full fuel, there is only 44.5 tonnes available as payload.

Do the math from there and you'll see the problmes with operating at max range on this aircraft. Cargo capacity is a "non-issue".

Do the math and find out that with 44,5 tons and 520 to 555 pax you would not carry that number plus baggage. May be when the plane is full of fashion models but not the average passenger.

It depends on the flight distance, DXB-Europe or SIN will see a fair amount of cargo carried, longer distance routes will have less cargo capacity available.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:32 am

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 32):
Do the math and find out that with 44,5 tons and 520 to 555 pax you would not carry that number plus baggage. May be when the plane is full of fashion models but not the average passenger.

Well, I just did the math again and at 88kgs/avg weight 555 pax = 48840 KGS, so there is a net short fall of 4000kgs.

My point is these numbers are supplied by Airbus and accepted by airlines who will fly these aircraft on long routes, full. For example SYD-LAX, LHR-NYC, SIN-LHR. From my little view of the "big picture" the numbers don't make sense unless you make a seating capacity reduction down to the 470 range. That reduces your pax payload down to 41360 so you have just under 4000kgs of room.

Please note all this is based on a, I think very optimistic light empty weight, should the airlines wand true F/J cabins that will increase the ZFW further reducing the payload on fuel critical flights.

Kind of like going out to dinner where there three colums to order from, however you only get two choices. In this case there are people (pax), fuel or Cargo. What do you do?

[Edited 2006-04-20 22:34:32]
 
jaysit
Posts: 10185
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:04 am

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 29):
My figures are based on 520 passengers in an A380. EK for instance operates the T7 with as many as 429passengers. The -300ER version holds 364 pax. which means that the A380 holds approximately 50 % more and not twice as many.

You're also comparing apples and oranges. EK's 434 seat 777s are operated in a very dense configuration, as is their -ER version packing in 364 passengers. Extrapolating the same densities to an A388, you should get over 600 passengers, and EK is planning a 650 pax A388 on high density routes.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:23 am

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 34):
You're also comparing apples and oranges. EK's 434 seat 777s are operated in a very dense configuration, as is their -ER version packing in 364 passengers. Extrapolating the same densities to an A388, you should get over 600 passengers, and EK is planning a 650 pax A388 on high density routes.

How do you figure I'm comparing apples to oranges? I am simply illustrating the problem of operating th 380 at the max end of it's range. That was when you had full tanks, what would you do with payload. Certainly if your range is going less than you can trade off fuel for payload. But then you have a ZFW problem, perhaps. On shorter flights you just might be able to get close to MZFW of 361 tonnes, but don't forget your max landing weight is 386 tonnes. So just a quick math and you see you only have about 24 tonnes of fuel to land with.

Just a word of caution, be wary about extrapolating between two or three aircraft types. Tha't definitely comparing apples to oranges. In addition, the 380 is significantly heavier on a passenger basis.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7165
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Fri Apr 21, 2006 7:58 am

Quoting Manni (Reply 19):
I know atleast one customer that ships freight on AA everyday between a certain European city and 2 US cities for less than a US$1/kg, IIRC about US$0,80/kg.

Two years ago I had an old 16Gb computer tape shipped on an MD-80 from CPH to ARN - 350 miles. Weight and size was identical to a modern cell phone - weight 4 oz.

I payed somewhat over US$400. Plus taxi in both ends = some US$150.

I still remember the last line on the invoice from the airline: Fuel surcharge DKK 1.10 - or 16 cent.

In my 2nd life I will start a new airline and put in an A380F on that route.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15181
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:27 am

Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 22):
Now all the airlines need is some more slots...

Very true. Which is why there will always be a market for 380s and 747s. That doesn't mean they will have better CASM. It's just another factor in planning.

Quoting Swissy (Reply 27):
Yes you also need two crews I/O, more ground equipment (if they are to close with the arrival time), landing fees, gate fees..............

In other words you can not compare it that way........

Yes you can. You just have to factor that in. I asked for you to provide a formula that shows the superior CASM of the 389. You only provided me with a mitigating factor.

Ground equipment: twice as much IF they are not staggered departures.
Catering: equal
Pilots: twice as many, no doubt.
F/As: on a per pax basis, not very different, though you may need more "executive" level crew
Gate staff: likely the same, as it will take more staff to board a 600+ seat plane.
Check-in staff: same number if non-staggered, fewer if staggered departure. Similar man hours, but you can save big on fringe benefit expense.
Maintenance: likely savings on the 380
Down Time: when a plane goes Tech or is scheduled to be out of service, it's twice as many people.

As I said, there may be a formula that shows the 389 having superior CASM, but that will have to do with the particular operation of the airline itself, not necessarily specific to the jet.

But the 787-10 and 350-1000 could put a serious dent into the case for a 389.
 
JJMNGR
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 9:06 pm

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:42 am

Quoting Glom (Reply 8):
That's why the A330 failed to affect the success of the 767. The lower costs of the 767 were the clear winning factor compared to the A330's unimportant better cargo capability.

Sorry but this is based on what? I'm in the airline industry for 21 years and 20 of them in cargo so this is my place, ok?

B767 is not a "real" widebody and its cargo capacity sucks...cargo payload suffers a lot compared with the payload of A330...you got wrong information about cargo capacity.

The B767 sold a lot because it is like a Volkswagen...you put a lot of people on board like sardines and on this condiction is easy to make money....but please don't tell B767 carries more cargo than he A330 because it is not like this.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:57 am

Philsquares,

Thanks for the link on the airport planning guide... amazing that a document with all those Airbus proprietary markings would be left in the open! It was full of excellent info.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 31):
With the Airbus stated empty weight of 270.3 tonnes (most airlines will be higher) and full fuel, there is only 44.5 tonnes available as payload.

Interestingly, the OEW spec on the Airbus website is 276.8 tonnes, not 270.3 tonnes.

[Edited 2006-04-21 05:02:39]
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:09 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 39):
Interestingly, the OEW spec on the Airbus website is 276.8 tonnes, not 270.3 tonnes.

Page 20/253 still says 270015 for RR and 270281 for GP. However, either figure is unrealistically low when you look at most airline configurations.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Fri Apr 21, 2006 2:04 pm

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 40):
Page 20/253 still says 270015 for RR and 270281 for GP. However, either figure is unrealistically low when you look at most airline configurations.

Check out the payload / range chart on page 64/253.

According to that, the A380-841 doesn't need to take a full fuel load to fly 52 tonnes of payload for 8000 nm. The tanks top out at 8800 nm, when MTOW constraint pulls payload down to 35 tonnes (at the knee in the curve)

So that is really saying that MTOW + max fuel will only allow 35 tonnes of payload, which is different than 44.5 as you said earlier.

If I read the chart correctly, losing 17 tonnes of fuel will give you an extra 17 tonnes of payload (to 52 tonnes) and cut range by 10%. The range reduction of 10% corresponds to a fuel load reduction of 7%... does that sound fishy?

I know it says "for information only", but it's interesting nonetheless...
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:02 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 15):
[The B787-10] has a larger cargo hold than an A380 when talking about containers/pallets, and carries 60% of the pax, so 60% of the bags. This works out to be an 80% greater revenue cargo volume in real terms, not relative terms.

Even in the longer 389, the cargo hold is not going to grow enough to surpass the 787-10.

Thus for two 78-10s, you could hold more cargo, take more pax, with a lower CASM, for roughly the same total airframe cost, since 1 787-10 would list for about 1/2 of one 389.

The B787-10 will have an amazing CASM, but not that amazing. It will beat the WhaleJet but not by that much. The floor area of the B787 is 53% that of the WhaleJet. Admittedly, all of the Dreamliner's floor area is useable, whereas the area nearest the WhaleJet's upstairs windows is not. Even compensating for that, 60% is optimistic. I think 57-58% is probably fairer.

As for a hypothetical stretched WhaleJet, it's far from clear that one will ever be built. The way the current WhaleJet is (not) selling, a stretch seems unlikely.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 21):
2 x 789 beat 1 388 in a similar way.

No, the B787-9 will not beat the WhaleJet in CASM. It'll be close, but the WhaleJet should have the edge. Of course, RASM will be higher and risk much lower with the B787-9.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 31):
With the Airbus stated empty weight of 270.3 tonnes (most airlines will be higher)

It's rather safe to say that WhaleJets operated by all airlines will have a higher OEW than 270.3 tonnes. Airbus have outdone themselves this time with an optimistically low OEW spec.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:49 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 41):
According to that, the A380-841 doesn't need to take a full fuel load to fly 52 tonnes of payload for 8000 nm. The tanks top out at 8800 nm, when MTOW constraint pulls payload down to 35 tonnes (at the knee in the curve)

But you fail to mention that's no wind. Heading westbound from the states, the effective range is going to be greatly reduced. You will need full tanks then.
 
manni
Posts: 4049
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:08 pm

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 36):
Two years ago I had an old 16Gb computer tape shipped on an MD-80 from CPH to ARN - 350 miles. Weight and size was identical to a modern cell phone - weight 4 oz.

I payed somewhat over US$400. Plus taxi in both ends = some US$150.

I still remember the last line on the invoice from the airline: Fuel surcharge DKK 1.10 - or 16 cent.

That's very extreme. Did you charter that aircraft to get your tape in Stockholm?  Wink You might be surprised to see what is being shipped at times. I've seen pallets of tomatoes and other fruit and vegetables being loaded on aircraft bound for the US, sometimes those fruits/vegetables had to be transfered on another flight, once in the US, all the way to NRT! (this, just like your US$400 tape, are obviously exceptions) At a shipping rate of US$3/kg, the price of these tomatoes would be outrageous.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Sat Apr 22, 2006 12:56 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 42):
As for a hypothetical stretched WhaleJet, it's far from clear that one will ever be built. The way the current WhaleJet is (not) selling, a stretch seems unlikely.

That would be unfortunate, since it there are so many design hooks in there for the stretch (wing size, landing gear & brakes sized for 650t MTOW, room for extra fuel tanks, door layout, etc). It would be ironic if the inefficiencies that arise from this in the A388 were to kill off the prospects of the A389, when a design optimized for the size of the 388 might have performed (and sold) better.

Of course it's far from clear that the A389 won't be built... A lot of the structural changes will come for 'free' from the A388F.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 40):
Page 20/253 still says 270015 for RR and 270281 for GP. However, either figure is unrealistically low when you look at most airline configurations.

I believe the 270 tonne OEW figure is an error. If you look at the payload-range charts in the compatibility guide, payload at max fuel load is 35 tonnes. If you subtract that payload and max fuel load from MTOW, you get OEW if I'm not mistaken, i.e. 560 - 35 - 248 = 277 tonnes. This is consistent with the OEW figure of 276.8 tonnes listed on the Airbus website. Never mind that the document contradicts itself.

But 277 tonnes is still kind of on the light side, from what I've read. Didn't you quote something like 290 tonnes at one point?

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 43):
But you fail to mention that's no wind. Heading westbound from the states, the effective range is going to be greatly reduced. You will need full tanks then.

Well, the chart did say no wind... How far north of 8000 nm is the three-sigma worst case "effective" distance between SFO and SIN?
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Sat Apr 22, 2006 1:12 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 45):
That would be unfortunate, since it there are so many design hooks in there for the stretch (wing size, landing gear & brakes sized for 650t MTOW, room for extra fuel tanks, door layout, etc). It would be ironic if the inefficiencies that arise from this in the A388 were to kill off the prospects of the A389, when a design optimized for the size of the 388 might have performed (and sold) better.

Wrong greek theatrical concept. That would be tragic, not ironic. Irony is saying the opposite of what is meant, based on feigned ignorance.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 45):
277 tonnes is still kind of on the light side, from what I've read. Didn't you quote something like 290 tonnes at one point?

OEW depends on an airline's configuration choices. For example, a 3 cabin aircraft generally will have a higher OEW than the same aircraft configured all Y. Some airlines may operate the WhaleJet with an OEW below 290 tonnes.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Sat Apr 22, 2006 1:27 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 45):
I believe the 270 tonne OEW figure is an error. If you look at the payload-range charts in the compatibility guide, payload at max fuel load is 35 tonnes. If you subtract that payload and max fuel load from MTOW, you get OEW if I'm not mistaken, i.e. 560 - 35 - 248 = 277 tonnes. This is consistent with the OEW figure of 276.8 tonnes listed on the Airbus website. Never mind that the document contradicts itself.

But 277 tonnes is still kind of on the light side, from what I've read. Didn't you quote something like 290 tonnes at one point?


Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 43):
But you fail to mention that's no wind. Heading westbound from the states, the effective range is going to be greatly reduced. You will need full tanks then.

Well, the chart did say no wind... How far north of 8000 nm is the three-sigma worst case "effective" distance between SFO and SIN?

I think you'll find most operators will have an empty weight well above 277 tonnes, which is going to present a range problem. A payload of 35 tonnes is well below what the 744 will do.

An average headwind of 100 knots isn't uncommon during the winter on the SFO-HKG leg.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Sat Apr 22, 2006 1:47 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 46):
Wrong greek theatrical concept. That would be tragic, not ironic. Irony is saying the opposite of what is meant, based on feigned ignorance.

The concept of irony has many dimensions beyond the one you describe. I was technically referring to irony of fate. See Wikipedia  cool 

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 47):
An average headwind of 100 knots isn't uncommon during the winter on the SFO-HKG leg.

Let's see... great circle distance is 6020 nm. With 500 knots airspeed, 100 knots headwind gives roughly 15 hours of cruise. That means an extra 'distance' of 1500 nm, for an equivalent still air range of 7500 nm. At 7500 nm, according to that payload-range chart, the payload is 62 tonnes @ 277 tonne OEW, or 49 tonnes @ 290 tonne OEW. What seems to be the problem officer?

That hot tub in First maybe?  Big grin
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: A380 Cargo Capacity

Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:02 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 48):
What seems to be the problem

On second thought, I know what my problem is... I don't have access to that nifty mission modeling software that Widebodyphotog uses  Sad

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