I keep reading that the reason CX shied away from buying the A380 and instead increased frequencies on routes like HKG-JFK/LAX is so they carry more cargo with the A35K/A359/B77W. I've read that the B77W is a cargo carrying monster with a very large payload, even higher than the A350 though the A350 burns less fuel. This is why CX likes the B777X. Just how much is the A380 cargo carrying capacity limited? This is why EK on one of its DXB-JNB flights is the B77W so they can carry cargo (a big business of EK).

Which model of A350? A350-900 or 1000?

LDRA wrote:

Which model of A350? A350-900 or 1000?

RT#Q, it says “A380”

A A380 can hold 38 LD3s. A 77W 44. Remember too most A380s often hold more passengers than a 77W, which will require more LD3s for bags.

zeke wrote:

LDRA wrote:

Which model of A350? A350-900 or 1000?

RT#Q, it says “A380”

Sorry I was referring to this sentence

I've read that the B77W is a cargo carrying monster with a very large payload, even higher than the A350 though the A350 burns less fuel.

It's to some degree a question of geometry. The 388 and 77W are nearly the same length, but the 388 seats many more passengers. For instance, in the EK two-class configuration, the 388 seats 615 and the 77W seats 427. Much more of the usable volume will be taken up with passenger bags on the 388. While I don't know for sure, I'd guess that the 388 will generally bulk out in the hold long before weight becomes an issue.

Cubsrule wrote:

It's to some degree a question of geometry. The 388 and 77W are nearly the same length, but the 388 seats many more passengers. For instance, in the EK two-class configuration, the 388 seats 615 and the 77W seats 427. Much more of the usable volume will be taken up with passenger bags on the 388. While I don't know for sure, I'd guess that the 388 will generally bulk out in the hold long before weight becomes an issue.

Not just that, but the A380’s large wing and extra MLG eat up room.

Polot wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

It's to some degree a question of geometry. The 388 and 77W are nearly the same length, but the 388 seats many more passengers. For instance, in the EK two-class configuration, the 388 seats 615 and the 77W seats 427. Much more of the usable volume will be taken up with passenger bags on the 388. While I don't know for sure, I'd guess that the 388 will generally bulk out in the hold long before weight becomes an issue.

Not just that, but the A380’s large wing and extra MLG eat up room.

This result of diminishing returns brings to mind what might be a similar fuel issue with some ULR planes. They have to carry extra fuel to carry the fuel that won't be needed until 17 hours later. As flights become longer, it could require so much fuel that it's not practical. Likewise if a plane carries so many passengers that luggage can't be accommodated, it's not practical. Bigger / farther has its limits.

The smaller 747-8 carries more cargo than the A380, let alone what the 77W and its monstrous cargo hold can do.

Cubsrule wrote:

It's to some degree a question of geometry. The 388 and 77W are nearly the same length, but the 388 seats many more passengers. For instance, in the EK two-class configuration, the 388 seats 615 and the 77W seats 427. Much more of the usable volume will be taken up with passenger bags on the 388. While I don't know for sure, I'd guess that the 388 will generally bulk out in the hold long before weight becomes an issue.

Geometry is key. The A380 is optimised for high passenger capacity. Cargo capacity suffers. Max floor loading is also relatively low, so a freighter variant would typically mass out before bulking out. Hence why the only airlines interested in the A380F were package carriers like FedEx and UPS.

Comparing the cross-sections, it is apparent just how much more relative capacity the A380 dedicates to passengers. The 747 was developed with freight in mind from the start, since it was expected that SSTs would come to dominate.

A380 cross-section.


747 and 777 cross-sections.

N1120A wrote:

The smaller 747-8 carries more cargo than the A380, let alone what the 77W and its monstrous cargo hold can do.

Is the fact that the 77W can carry more cargo than the A380 in question?

crimsonchin wrote:

N1120A wrote:

The smaller 747-8 carries more cargo than the A380, let alone what the 77W and its monstrous cargo hold can do.

Is the fact that the 77W can carry more cargo than the A380 in question?

No, and neither is the fact that the 747-8, A350 and even 787 can.

In a nutshell:
1. Both planes are about the same length.
2. The A380 is taller/wider and thus has more taper front and rear that eats into cargo.
3. The A380 is heavier and thus has a larger wing. This wing needs to fit in an 80m box, so to get enough area, the chord is much longer, which means the CWB and WBF take up more fuselage space.
4. The A380 gear takes up more fuselage space, again to support the weight.
5. The A380 consequently has a shorter hold.
6. The A380 typically carries more pax, so more bins for pax bags.
7. The remaining hold space is thus much higher in the 777-300ER.

If only someone can figure out a conversion to convert the lower passager deck to hold cargo

Would having freight on the lower deck only generate enough revenue to make it profitable?

Don’t forget that crew rest also eats up a fairly large area in the cargo hold.

TUGMASTER wrote:

Don’t forget that crew rest also eats up a fairly large area in the cargo hold.

Only on some types, e.g. the A340 underfloor crew rest in a container. On the 777 and A350, the crew rests are in the ceiling and don't eat into cargo space.

Starlionblue wrote:

TUGMASTER wrote:

Don’t forget that crew rest also eats up a fairly large area in the cargo hold.

Only on some types, e.g. the A340 underfloor crew rest in a container. On the 777 and A350, the crew rests are in the ceiling and don't eat into cargo space.

But we’re talking about the lack
Of cargo space on the 380….?

Starlionblue wrote:

TUGMASTER wrote:

Don’t forget that crew rest also eats up a fairly large area in the cargo hold.

Only on some types, e.g. the A340 underfloor crew rest in a container. On the 777 and A350, the crew rests are in the ceiling and don't eat into cargo space.

I think this is an option as some airlines, EG Emirates, have put the crew rest on the main deck. (for the A380)

TUGMASTER wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

TUGMASTER wrote:

Don’t forget that crew rest also eats up a fairly large area in the cargo hold.

Only on some types, e.g. the A340 underfloor crew rest in a container. On the 777 and A350, the crew rests are in the ceiling and don't eat into cargo space.

But we’re talking about the lack
Of cargo space on the 380….?

Well yeah. But this is more of a general observation.

I'd add that for a dedicated cargo aircraft you don't need a cabin crew rest, which is the big one anyway.