just wondering, don't know how much an A380F can actually carry if they decided to build it. In case of a typical 747-8, pax version have a max structural payload about 76T, and a -8F can carry around 132T. while A380 pax can do around 84T; and of course, these weights are variables subject to airline options.
I imagine that could be like the 747 combi from KLM Would be better have the passenger at the top since the operation of load and unload the cargo from the top deck would be a nightmare
While a cool concept, I don't think a combination freighter-passenger airliner flying both at the same time would be viable. You'd need to ensure a passenger load AND a cargo load at the same time, which may be difficult to do. Similarly, many airlines specialize in passengers or cargo, but usually not both, with the exceptions flying separate fleets for cargo and passenger service. Finally, current passenger terminals don't have cargo handling facilities aside from baggage, and cargo terminals don't have passenger facilities. You would need new terminals which could do both at the same time, which would be problematic.
The floor structure of the upper deck is also an essential part of the structural integrity of the airframe. I doubt you could remove that to provide a full, empty freight deck that spans the entire fuselage. Just one point to consider as well.
Another reason is that cargo carriers mostly use older airplanes and operate them differently to where less efficency isn't as alarming as it is with PAX versions. Take for example how some cargo airlines still use the 727 - they're dirt cheap to acquire, and they operate them way less than a traditional passenger plane would operate. UPS/Fedex/any other cargo airline would look at the new A380F, see the ridiculous price, and probably scoff at it before buying a used 767/DC-10/747-400 for astronomically less money.
Sadly, that’s not true anymore. Freighter airlines only used the older planes in the first place because spare parts were readily available. As more airlines retired their examples, more parts were available. The major aircraft manufacturers realized their profit loss as a result of this and now try to offer cargo variants to any new pax designs they introduce.
Mark Evans most flight engineers have a background in aviation maintenance. It wouldn't be difficult to find qualified candidates and train them for the role. However, older aircraft have much higher maintenance costs and require longer down times to carry out scheduled heavy inspections. Maintenance budgets are typically the highest cost portfolio for any operator: larger than flight crew and fuel costs. Aircrafts don't get old, they just get expensive to maintain.
While it is true that spare parts are relatively cheap and easy to come by, that's only true for roadable assemblies. Keep in mind that these assemblies still require bench testing and overhaul just the same as those from newer aircraft types. Furthermore, consumable parts such as bushings, bearings, seals/gaskets and non standard hardware will require replacement due to wear and fatigue (items that are less commonly replaced on newer aircraft), and will have to be purchased new. Then there are assemblies that are time limited and are scrapped once they've reached their lifespan: landing gear, engine modules. Like I said, aircraft don't get old, they just get expensive to maintain.
MK airlines ceased operations due to fuel inefficiency of their 747-200's and went bankrupt i believe. Some of their 747-200's stayed for some years at EBOS before being scrapped. They also used some very loud dc-8 but that was also not economic anymore.
Another infrastructure related issue is having pallet/cargo loaders that can reach the upper deck . The lower deck is already at 17 feet, upper deck loading is going to require a 26 foot reach. That's going to be a big loader to get it that high using a scissor lift style loader. I can also see potential wind restrictions on loading because of having heavy pallets/containers way up that high that close to the fuselage. I would think you would have to design a specialty loader just for the A380 upper deck.
The fact the 747-8F could use the same cargo handling facilities used by the older 747-200F and 747-400F models explains why Boeing is still doing steady business selling the 747-8F.
Congratulations DJ. It may be a sad week because of a crash but your 60k subs have brought a bit of happy times in aviation. Wish that the upper deck had people and the lower deck had cargo as i said long before
A380 never had a secondary market, so it could never be sold as a freighter, unlike the 747 it was developed as a freighter then a passenger aircraft hence its on its 3rd generation and still selling despite the slow down. While I'm completely in awe that the A380 can even fly with its mass, it was in my opinion sadly developed just to one-up Boeing, but they did it with worst possible timing.
Joey Vargas That's exactly right. The A380 was the result of Airbus becoming obsessed with the 747, and failing to see what was in front of their eyes. I remember very well reading the pundit's second guessing of Boeing as they worked on the 787 while Airbus toiled away on the A380. The Europeans were SO sure Boeing was making a huge mistake, that huge airliners flying a relative few established trunk routes to mega-airports were the future, while Boeing replied that their exhaustive polling of customers clearly showed that future growth in air travel would lie more in larger numbers of smaller planes flying increasing numbers of air routes to smaller destinations.
Ung Grabb it’s the reason behind the second deck. To make it more efficient to be a freighter and pax aircraft without major design changes. It was designed to be both but primarily pax
Check orginal designs because they had a double deck, single deck and what stayed for the purposes what PANAMs needs they wanted a freighter but originally it was only paxs version
they designed the 747 as a passenger plane. However, they thought supersonic travel would be the future. that is why they also designed it as a freighter, to give it a secondary purpose
I got done flying a double A380 return from Australia to UK. I only got 1 on the way over, I do love the A380. It's simply amazing to board and see it go so far back.
One way to combat the max payload vs volume on an A380F is by giving the A380F more powerful engines than the passenger A380 therefore adding to the max takeoff weight
You made an interesting comment on the A380F vs 747-8F. The A380 would bring a large increase in volume to the market, but not a corresponding payload weight increase per unit of volume. It by default seemed to insure that the 747 remained more efficient per the unit of freight carried. People discuss the freight volume an A380 would have over a 747. We tend to think of high priority packages and freight as light in weight. But overall, they are not as lightweight as many people assume they are. While it’s significant, the 747 is not a little box. When I was younger and worked for a freight forwarder, one of the carriers we used operated 747 freighters on a daily service. In order to support a rapid turn around for the plane, they prepackaged the load before the plane arrived so all they had to do was shove it into the plane. Between the belly cargo holds and main deck hold, the shear volume size was incredible to see! I got to see it before they put it on the plane and saw the huge empty space after it was loaded. The other thing they mentioned was they were maximizing the gross weight as well. The plane was filled up every day. While the A380 presented more challenges for ground handling of the freight, that could be dealt with over time as process improvements were devised to deal with multi deck vs single deck freight handling. I think UPS and FedEx both believed they could make that happen efficiently for their operations. Right now I think the 747-8F continues to survive because it can still compete competively with the big twins in enough market slots to keep it viable. A big twin will probably replace the A380 and 747 at some point, but we are not quite there yet. The operating efficiency of fewer engines is to much for operators to ignore.
Granted... The 747-8f has the same issue you will hit a range vs weight issues rather quickly...(pain in the ass with atlas.) The 380f would work fine for hub to hub flights where you have lots of Amazon packages which are often rather light. In these you could fill the cubic area and not have weight issues. The 777f even has the weight issues hence(correct me if I'm wrong) FedEx load their hot volume. one/two day volume on them and fly straight to Memphis rather than stopping in Anchorage also allowing one hour later pick ups and use the MD11 as the heavy lifter for the rest of the volume.
In the end, the A380F would have required new cargo handling facilities. That's something the 747-8F doesn't need, since it could use the same cargo handling systems used on older 747 freighter models (747-200F and 747-400F). Indeed, UPS Airlines intends to field 28 747-8F freighters by 2022. Also, the 777F (based on the 777-200LR airframe) has taken away a lot of potential demand for the A380F.
The main reason is that the A380 is too inefficient, even for a quad-jet.. and Airbus is stubbornly forcing airlines to swallow their inefficient design, rather than updating their designs with the latest engines and materials to further improve efficiencies... Looking at FedEx and UPS’ fleets, they appear to be using near end-of-life pre-owned jets (MD11, A300) or Boeing converted freighters.. Makes sense for them as these jets have mostly been depreciated and could be operated with lower depreciation as freighters... Perhaps if Airbus could have a program like Boeing where they convert older A380s into freighters, effectively giving them a “second life”...
Another reason why Boeing was smart by designing the 747’s cockpit on the upper deck to make space for the nose which would make it easier as a nose door to store cargo, they knew that’s how the rest of its life would end up as a freighter plane.
I think even Airbus figured out that they will not able to copy the successful Boeng freighter conversion program because none of the A380s are much more than 10-year old, yet. That is just not nearly "old" enough to have been depreciated.
Smart, Eugene! I agree with you. Screw those upper management from Airbus thinking that their double decker plane is not suitable for freighter. I think realistically that 380F is suitable for carrying bulkier loads! Don't mention their Beluga. That one is totally different class of cargo plane.
I think there are 2 more very straight forward problems with the A380F. First, due to the positioning of the cockpit windshield, it cannot have a nose door like the 747 does, maiking it far less efficient than the 747. In addition, I feel that a true double decker cabin design (which many have hoped of) can’t sustain in the long run as the upper decker probably would not support all the weight. As a result, a single decker design would still make more sense but it would leave out SO MUCH surplus room above the pallets... That said, an actual A380F would be amazing since it would make the 380 look even bigger :) Great video!
I should note the cockpit location prevents the installation of a 747F-style nose that flips up. Also, deleting the structure of the decking for the top level would increase the size of the biggest box that would fit.
@RAN 777 A combi version would most likely have Cargo on the main deck and passengers on the upper deck. This could also be a version where the main deck could be fully or partially converted, like KLM does on its 747's for a few decades now.
When Airbus made the "authority to offer" for the A380, the F version was in there. And FedEx placed an order for them. But with the delays, and lack of any other freight orders, it was agreed to stop offering the F version and FedEx's order was quietly cancelled or converted. For normal cargo airlines, it wasn't the volume vs weight that was a problem, but rather low ceiling height on all 3 decks, preventing carriage of bulky items, as is possible on the 747 freighter which has very high ceiling on main deck, and lifting nose to get bulky stuff in. With the Antonov 124 having gone "commerciak", it displaced the market for bulky items. For instance, during height of CRJ-200 production, Bombardier had an AN-124 fly regularly betwhween Shorts Bro in N Ireland and Dorval (YUL) and it carried fuselages for the CRJ. Ships were primary transprot for them but during height, couldn't do this quickly enough. The AN-124 has bulky cargo advantages nobody else has. Kneeling landing gear to make unloading via platform in the front and back possible. Ability to land on remote runways, and string floor that can carry locomotives etc. However FedEx needs can fit the A380 becauyse they transport lost of bulky boxes that don't weight much. And between hubs (think Asia to USA to Europe), it has a lot of traffic. So the low ceilings didn't prevent FedEx from using a 380. The one challenge was finding the way to quickly load and unload the 380 on 3 separate decks, Unless FedEx, DHL, UPS went back to Airbus recently and asked about the freighter, it is unlikely that Airbus woudl see a market large enough to justify its launch.
Okay. Great video! Everything you said is correct. Although FedEx actually ordered several A380 Freighter aircraft but actually cancelled their order due to the delay of the Aircraft. If you look it up you can actually find that FedEx even built Hangars to support the aircraft. Instead they opted for the 777F. FedEx was the main Freighter customer but since they dropped out it is believed that is another reason why development for that aircraft stopped.
Great summary! At least at one point, we were advised here at KSDF that UPS had the A380F on order and specific taxiways were to be expanded to accommodate the aircraft. Seems Airbus kept delaying specifics, timeframes and UPS cancelled the order. Taxiways were modified to accommodate the 747-8F, we now see her quite regularly.
Alex Reece the answer to that is no. The profit margins are too slim for Boeing and Airbus. The only reason Airbus made the A400 is because it’s a military platform, which can draw in much more money for the company than any regional airline ever could. Moreover, regional airlines aren’t designed to operate at a profit. They’re there to get people to the bread and butter routes for the main carriers. If they do get a profit, it’s just a sweet bonus to them.
Not for Airbus, they effectively bought former Bombardier Jets and branded A-220. This is modern, jet equivalent of Embraer family and expands Airbus portfolio. Turboprop have some advantages, but primary one - economy - is negated by advances in jet engines and maintainability.
An interesting idea is for a combi A380 with the top deck for passengers and the main deck and lower hold decks for cargo. That would be fantastic to see.
Like the trucking industry, it markets the less than a load LTL concept in flexible container sizes, However, it is difficult to find the correct LTL configuration for the A-380.
I think aircraft design also plays a role specifically on nose section. Both B747F and An-225 have the nose section as extra large cargo doors that make any cargo loading/unloading easier and more practical (when oversize item are considered) than side cargo doors. Just my opinion...
Hello Dj's Aviation, I think this video is so good and very informational answering why there is no A380f. Great video, liked and subscribed. Keep it up
The 747-8I and 747-8F are the king of the skies. More fuel efficient and a testament of time. The A380 is also a beautiful plane, but I think it was just a phase to have the biggest state of the art aircraft that had been in the media for some years before its release. Now it’s just plaguing the industry. Emirates Airlines are rich, they can flaunt this jet liner for years to come. Not sure about the others. Don’t know what will become of the first A380(9V-SKA) which was delivered to Singapore Airlines with the second production number (9V-SKB) in line for storage or the old fleet of Emirates ? As a aviation enthusiast and my love for these big bodied aircrafts, it will break my heart seeing them scrapped.
As a matter of fact FEDEX was the launch customer for the A380F but cancelled in favor of 777F. I think that was during the A380 production problems early on.
Again an excellent video. Some quick points: In Europe, cargo generally flies at night. Thus slot space at LHR for example wouldn't be so much of a problem. The growth of the cargo industry is largely being fuelled by companies such as Amazon. Consequently, the demand is for package freighters for which the 777 is probably best. The A380F would score on high-cube, low weight cargoes such clothing. Or expensive cargoes such as top-end cars. But the demand for these would be low. It is just not a package freighter aircraft.
All valid points on the idea of an A380F. Based on my 40+ years in the airline business, most of it in cargo, the A380F idea had a lot of things going against it. As u noted, the aircraft would have never lived up to it's billing as world's largest cargo hauler because you would reach MTOW long before you reached a profitable payload. Another issue was loading the aircraft. First, there are no loaders that could reach the upper deck currently being produced ( but we'll assume given a demand, equipment vendors would respond). Second, there would be a weight restriction on the cargo containers placed on the upper deck. As the freighter design was never part of the A380 plan, I'm fairly sure the upper floor was never intended for the loading that would happen as a course of normal business in the air freight industry. The floor could be reinforced to handle the load, but that adds weight to the aircraft and reduces payload ($$$). So unless you were shipping a billion ping pong balls, the aircraft would never be profitable. I remember the joint venture we had at PA back in the 80's using a Russian II-76 from New York to Moscow. The damn thing was built like a tank and weighted too much to fly at profit non-stop. The only way we mad it work was 3 fuel stops along the way. it flew JFK-Gander-SNN-AMS-SVO. The A380F would have the same problem. You could load it up, but stop fuel every 2000 miles for more fuel. Possible, but not profitable. The A380combi has the best chance of very happening. Passengers on upper deck, cargo on main deck. There are many markets that could work. IMO
To be fair the cargo side is starting to out grow the passengers. And the good thing is cargo is way less demanding then humans. Air Lux is a very big airline company 100% for cargo.
FedEx fly over where I live mostly on Sunday nights There usually at least 3 flights Passing over coming from London and Europe And other freighter flights Interesting post Peace ✌️
I have an idea for a new video series ....you could show all the personals involved and the work they do to get the plan from point a to point b and also the prep required
Great video dj I had actually forgot about the a380f and fought your video did a great job explaining the aircraft and its isuues the only thing I would of added is if cargo carriers like cargolux or atlas air would have shown interest in the aircraft or would stick with the 747 platform.
This will probably be an odd suggestion, but why not make a video explaining what would have happened to the Boeing 747 if the supersonic Boeing 2707 program worked?
It would work... right up till something on the fright deck caught fire. There is a reason why they no longer mix heavy fright(cars, battries & battery powered electronics, etc...) and passengers. You would never be able load enough light fright to justify the lower deck of an A380. Because the 777 is longer and carries less pax/fuel, it has a much larger useful cargo cap than the A380.
Great video DJ. Reading through the comments I notice a few people point out that the cockpit placement doesn't allow for a nose door. These planes are fly by wire, so there is no physical connection between cockpit and control services, could the cockpit not just be lifted up as part of the door? Move the front wheel back a couple feet and the front of the plane could lift. Perhaps that would be too heavy?
FedEx and UPS had been original signers for the f version. They both backed out after years and years of delays. FedEx opted for the 777f and twice as many of them. I don't remember UPS reason, but they obviously went back to the 747. Also FedEx has gotten rid of most of the md-10's. Replacing those with 767's.
You said A330-600RF, not A300-600RF! Lol, honest mistake! :D Anyways, nice video as always, very informative! I also wish there was an A380F but, oh well! Liked!
The ultimate problem with the A380F stems more from the cockpit placement and the subsequent restrictions placed on the ways it can be loaded/unloaded more than cargo capacity. Installing some sort of hoist and conveyors system for the upper cargo deck would've been a practical way to reduce the A380's gap between volume and weight capacity while alleviating the need to have specialized unloaders. The issue is that you have to unload the A380 from the side because it's cockpit sits too low for unloading through the nose like the 747. Moving the cockpit to the upper deck would be a substantial engineering effort and effectively destroy type commonality with the standard A380, but it's also essentially the only way the A380F will be able to match the loading efficiency of the 747-8 - and therefore carve a niche for itself in the shrinking large freighter market. Alternatively Airbus could make the tail section hinge outwards as on the 747 Dreamlifter, however that doesn't solve the whole issue of needing specialized equipment to unload the top deck. Operation experience with both the Super Guppy and even the Dreamlifter itself has also proven how much of a pain in the ass that kind of loading arrangement is because of all the connections that need to be undone and redone.
The upper deck would be a nightmare to load. With the 747f the nose lifts for loading and the upper deck, which is smaller than the passenger version, isn't used for cargo. How would access the upper deck on the A380, since the cockpit is located between both levels? Great video. How about an A340 freighter?
I think the main reason freight airlines hesitate, is a shift in logistics. The same we saw in passenger over the last years. While a hub system is great to offer good service for everyone, hubs have grown to a size where there is no longer an economy of scale. Instead it is worth offering direct services for major traffic flows.
Good explanation Dj. First time I've seen it laid out properly. One other point: I don't think the A380 would ever load and unload nearly as efficiently as the 747 since the Airbus has the low flight deck ( apparently to make piloting similar to other Airbus types) : The Iconic high cockpit/hump of the 747 makes the flip-up nose a relative cinch to engineer. The 747 doesn't suffer the A380's other drawbacks you mention since it was originally intended to be a military freighter - lost out to the C5 Galaxy. Another factor to consider re an A380F is that air freight companies really need CHEAP aircraft first and foremost, since most of the fleet is left sitting for long periods. That is why freight companies buy-up $10 million used airliners so readily and convert them to freighters. You just can't make money with a fleet expensive aircraft unless you keep them flying, and air-freight companies don't really have that option most of the time. Pricey aircraft like 747-8F's are really a niche item - reserved mainly for long-hauls where large capacity is also needed. The reason for this is that to execute efficient rapid delivery, a highly synchronized the "hub and spoke" system of routes and schedules is used as much as possible. Typically, once a day, early, a large number of planes leave a central hub, fly the "spokes ", delivering cargo to distributed destinations and loading up with more from them, all planes then returning late in the day to the central hub, and over night, are unloaded, the freight is sorted, and reloaded for the next day. To work, the rigid schedule has to be applied to all the aircraft, and they have to meet in the same place at the same time, so most of the fleet is pretty much limited to 2 flights per day. So even a born freighter like the 747-8F is never going to be any more than one cog in the machine, less so an A380, too big, too voluminous (hence costlier to use), too inefficient to load and unload, and too costly and complex to easily maintain , even if it could purchased cheaply ......
Congratulations for 60k!! Also the A380 doesn’t have the flexibility the 747F has with the opening nose for any cargo that is somewhat oversized due to the tween deck located cockpit.
National Air Cargo and CargoLogicAir, to name two, operate 747F out of London, Saint Petersburg, Luxembourg and other passenger and cargo hubs. The empty legs would likely make a 380F too expensive even for a US Army contractor. What would be an optimal sector length for it, I wonder? Thanks for the morning show!
The A380F would be wonderful to see. I appreciate the big aircraft especially flying in them. They are the Cadillacs/Rolls of the skys. Not just by size but buy ride. Big difference in turbulence compared with smaller aircraft. I never thought the A380 could be a freighter. The upper deck floor was never designed for that type of loading. It also need a special way to load cargo on the upper deck.
I had to replay it to make sure I didn't misunderstand; but just know that Memphis is a city in the state of Tennessee which is the Fedex hub. UPS is in Louisville, Kentucky.
+Mr. Artist I do not understand your comment. The Beluga XL is based on the A330. At first I thought that the A380F would have been perfect for the Airbus factory fleet as modifications needed would probably less than the one to the A330. However, giving it a second thought those flights are very short and the wings to transport are not really using up the payload. That makes the four-engine A380 less efficient compared to the twin-engined A330. BTW: living close to the Airbus Hamburg factory I can't wait to see the XL in service in summer 2019 :)
Do you think there's a possibility of the project being resurrected a decade or 2 down the line when more powerful engines are available? Perhaps something like the Rolls-Royce Ultrafan?
Can you make a video on the naming of the aircrafts, i.e. Why boeing starts with b7xx and airbus starts with a3xx. I've always wondered this and i am sure i am not the only one.
Launch Vehicle 71 - Thanks DJ for your great blogs. I enjoy them from the US. I recall back when AB was working on the A380F and had FedX and UPS orders, they discovered they had to lower the upper deck for it to accommodate standard shipping containers; and that doing this would be a huge extra expense AB was not willing to pay. Presumably, this problem will prevent doing any 380Fs in the future. The A380 has proven to be a terrible mistake for AB because it meant they did not have the money to do a new family of 300-400 pax twin-engined wide bodies and instead stuck with the four engined A345 and A346 when it was obvious from 777 and A330-300 sales that twin engines was the long haul way to go, and so handed Boeing its decade-long 777-300ER monopoly. On top of that, AB then launched the A350 as a family which really hasn't turned out to be a family because the 358 has been cancelled so AB has no competitor against the 789 in the 300 pax mkt to replace the A330; and AB has been forced to spend millions on the -1000 which is essentially and entirely new plane.
This brings me to my initial reaction/question upon my first seeing of the A380 when it came out back in the 2000s. Why is it so stocky? I mean of course there's a certain amount of engines you can put on an airplane to make it most cost effective, and Airbus would no doubt have put the design through countless wind tunnel testings. But why not a thinner but longer body?
I believe QF should hold onto one or two of its 747-400ERs and convert them into 747Fs. Good way of keeping the 747 in its proud fleet albeit in a freighter capacity!
I think you forgot to mention that the A380’s nose does not tilt open like those B747-8F’s,As some large or long one piece cargos will not fit thru the side door.
I always felt that delaying and then cancelling the A380F due to the passenger version problems was a major error. A380Fs could (should) have been in-service 2+ years before that first A380 passenger revenue flight. WRT the 747F, most 747 freighters are BCF-type without the nose door. You can't retrofit a nose door to them and the door is only an advantage for a few specific types of outsize cargo. Addiitionally, without the ability to "kneel" the 747F nose door isn't as useful as you might think. Mass vs volume is always an interesting tradeoff. Most airfreight is fairly light and when it's not the Antonovs are frequently a better choice despite their inefficiency and limited range. The issue with cargo on the passenger A380 is that volume is limited to less than 1/3 of what's available under the floor of a 777 due to passenger baggage, but _mass_ capability is more than twice what the 777 can carry and it can go a few thousand miles more at MTOW which cuts down on logitistics costs of intermediate stops. Airlines are more relaxed about baggage limits on A380 flights than on B777 ones because of the large mass margins. This mass vs volume tradeoff is one of the reasons why you don't see 800-pax A380s. Reducing the number of pax above decks allows for more cargo space below. As long as the cargo holds are fillled the aircraft is still profitable to fly despite the passnger reduction (there's more money made in transporting boxes than people) and the extra room above decks is used as a selling point, with halo accomodation being almost pure profit when actually sold instead of being an upgrade. Of course apart from the 4vs2 conundrum the primary drawback of the A380 as it stands is that enormous wing. It's designed for the never-built stretch version and cuts into overall efficiency/range as a result. The A380 is simply the right choice at the wrong time. Fuel prices are at historic low levels in real terms and have been for various reasons for quite a while despite having passed "peak oil" at least a decade ago. At some point they're going to snap back to a higher level and that will put a lot of point to point routes into economic jeopardy. In many parts of the world the competitors to short/medium airlines will be (and already are in some) high speed rail whilst longhaul will start concentrating on seat-mile costs in a way we haven't seen much so far, whilst also having to cope with passenger pushback regarding cramped spaces. Flying a sardine can express may make money per flight but not if pax start avoiding the airline unless the fares are scraping the bottom of the barrel (and of course the more seats above decks, the less revenue cargo space available below). DJ: You really should do a few issues dealing with the relative incomes from pax and revenue cargo for "passenger" airlines. Outside the domestic USA market with its extremely heavily subsidised passenger operations, this is a matter of high importance for airline execs and getting the pax/freight balance right is what can make or break a company.
The majority of FedEx and UPS aircraft are old second hand passenger planes converted for freighter use. These second hand aircraft cost a whole lot less to acquire than a brand new plane, especially something the size of the a380.
FedEx was the original launch customer for the A380F they even reinforced the Rwy at MEM and made the parking stands bigger to accommodate the aircraft. One thing we wondered at the time was how would they load the upper deck? Would we need to get new main deck loaders to reach the upper deck or would the 380 have an internal lift which would then add weight to the operating load of the aircraft. FedEx ended up dropping out of the 380F and the deposit paid to Airbus was to be held for other possible options like the A330 F. Most airlines are going away from 3/4 engine aircraft in favour of the big twins, Take the likes of the 777F or MD11F there is not much difference between them and the 747F regarding pallet spaces. The 747F will still have a place for the likes of oversize cargo that cannot fit through the main deck door of other freighters.
Jay Bee = Yup, sure do. Because the outer engines are so far from the A/C centreline, they are well off the most regularly used tracks of the runway, sometimes even over the grass. So it was considered too risky for stirring up sundry detritus and sucking it through the engines.
First, you forgot the B1900. I flew that for a contract carrier which worked for FedEx and UPS. I loved that plane. That was an aircraft with the opposite problem where you would easily max out value before weight. However, there were many problems with the A380, including they couldn't outfit them where they outfit the passenger planes due to local complaints. I also think that, a pure A380 cargo plane would never be cost effective with their weight maxes out so fast, and I can see why Ethiad even replaced the PAX version on that route. If you see the door on the plane and look at the shape of the cargo area, you can tell it can't carry that much. Airbus doesn't build cargo planes. But a Combi might work. You keep the passengers on the forward part of the bottom deck plus the entire top deck, and the cargo on the main deck. But there are two problems with that. First is not to many airlines operate combi's anymore. Second, it becomes a CG issue, so that would have to be solved.
Good insight on this video. As fuel prices climb, even the freight carriers are going to be looking at more efficient aircraft to stay competitive. While the A380 is an engineering marvel, adapting it to freight only would be a compromise at best. I would expect as time goes by, more 3 and 4 engined freighters will be replaced by large twins. Good news for the A330 and 777.
Just so you know, Memphis (FedEx HQ) is a city in Tennessee, and Louisville (UPS HQ) is in Kentucky. Also FedEx is phasing out all airbus aircraft and going to a full Boeing fleet. All MD-10 aircraft are leaving as well.
I worked for a major supplier on the A380. Early on in the program, during a program review, Airbus informed us that it would not be possible to convert A380's to freighters because of design issues. After this became widespread information everyone knew the aircraft would never be built in high enough volume to ever make it profitable. At that point, contracts between cargo operators and airlines were canceled. It was doomed from the very beginning!
747 was designed with the ability to become a freighter when its service as passenger carrying plane is over. Hence the high cockpit design to allow for a nose door. And that design incorporation was what make 747 a suitable freighter, whereas A380 was not designed as such, and the freighter version seem more like an afterthought which didn't take off.
The qantas freighter livery looks very nice on the A380
Imagine if a380s, to fill demand, held Cargo on the bottom floors then passengers at the top
just wondering, don't know how much an A380F can actually carry if they decided to build it. In case of a typical 747-8, pax version have a max structural payload about 76T, and a -8F can carry around 132T. while A380 pax can do around 84T; and of course, these weights are variables subject to airline options.
I imagine that could be like the 747 combi from KLM
Would be better have the passenger at the top since the operation of load and unload the cargo from the top deck would be a nightmare
Wouldn't the bottom part just be mostly empty
While a cool concept, I don't think a combination freighter-passenger airliner flying both at the same time would be viable. You'd need to ensure a passenger load AND a cargo load at the same time, which may be difficult to do. Similarly, many airlines specialize in passengers or cargo, but usually not both, with the exceptions flying separate fleets for cargo and passenger service. Finally, current passenger terminals don't have cargo handling facilities aside from baggage, and cargo terminals don't have passenger facilities. You would need new terminals which could do both at the same time, which would be problematic.
DJ Taylor 1
The floor structure of the upper deck is also an essential part of the structural integrity of the airframe. I doubt you could remove that to provide a full, empty freight deck that spans the entire fuselage. Just one point to consider as well.
that was my 1st guess!
Boeing 777 300er 23 tonnes cargo.
Airbus A380 8 tonnes cargo.
The figures speak for themselves.
Another great informative video thanks.😀
Boeing wins this one!
Wow what a big difference!
Another reason is that cargo carriers mostly use older airplanes and operate them differently to where less efficency isn't as alarming as it is with PAX versions. Take for example how some cargo airlines still use the 727 - they're dirt cheap to acquire, and they operate them way less than a traditional passenger plane would operate. UPS/Fedex/any other cargo airline would look at the new A380F, see the ridiculous price, and probably scoff at it before buying a used 767/DC-10/747-400 for astronomically less money.
It's a little surprising that the B727 would be considered cheap to operate. Is it that easy to find flight engineers to crew them?
Sadly, that’s not true anymore. Freighter airlines only used the older planes in the first place because spare parts were readily available. As more airlines retired their examples, more parts were available. The major aircraft manufacturers realized their profit loss as a result of this and now try to offer cargo variants to any new pax designs they introduce.
Mark Evans most flight engineers have a background in aviation maintenance. It wouldn't be difficult to find qualified candidates and train them for the role. However, older aircraft have much higher maintenance costs and require longer down times to carry out scheduled heavy inspections. Maintenance budgets are typically the highest cost portfolio for any operator: larger than flight crew and fuel costs. Aircrafts don't get old, they just get expensive to maintain.
While it is true that spare parts are relatively cheap and easy to come by, that's only true for roadable assemblies. Keep in mind that these assemblies still require bench testing and overhaul just the same as those from newer aircraft types. Furthermore, consumable parts such as bushings, bearings, seals/gaskets and non standard hardware will require replacement due to wear and fatigue (items that are less commonly replaced on newer aircraft), and will have to be purchased new. Then there are assemblies that are time limited and are scrapped once they've reached their lifespan: landing gear, engine modules. Like I said, aircraft don't get old, they just get expensive to maintain.
MK airlines ceased operations due to fuel inefficiency of their 747-200's and went bankrupt i believe. Some of their 747-200's stayed for some years at EBOS before being scrapped. They also used some very loud dc-8 but that was also not economic anymore.
Another infrastructure related issue is having pallet/cargo loaders that can reach the upper deck . The lower deck is already at 17 feet, upper deck loading is going to require a 26 foot reach. That's going to be a big loader to get it that high using a scissor lift style loader. I can also see potential wind restrictions on loading because of having heavy pallets/containers way up that high that close to the fuselage. I would think you would have to design a specialty loader just for the A380 upper deck.
The fact the 747-8F could use the same cargo handling facilities used by the older 747-200F and 747-400F models explains why Boeing is still doing steady business selling the 747-8F.
Congratulations DJ. It may be a sad week because of a crash but your 60k subs have brought a bit of happy times in aviation. Wish that the upper deck had people and the lower deck had cargo as i said long before
Thank you my friend :) Much appreciated!
A380 never had a secondary market, so it could never be sold as a freighter, unlike the 747 it was developed as a freighter then a passenger aircraft hence its on its 3rd generation and still selling despite the slow down. While I'm completely in awe that the A380 can even fly with its mass, it was in my opinion sadly developed just to one-up Boeing, but they did it with worst possible timing.
In terms of the B748 all of the first deliveries were of the freighter rather than pax variant.
Joey Vargas
That's exactly right. The A380 was the result of Airbus becoming obsessed with the 747, and failing to see what was in front of their eyes.
I remember very well reading the pundit's second guessing of Boeing as they worked on the 787 while Airbus toiled away on the A380.
The Europeans were SO sure Boeing was making a huge mistake, that huge airliners flying a relative few established trunk routes to mega-airports were the future, while Boeing replied that their exhaustive polling of customers clearly showed that future growth in air travel would lie more in larger numbers of smaller planes flying increasing numbers of air routes to smaller destinations.
Ung Grabb it’s the reason behind the second deck. To make it more efficient to be a freighter and pax aircraft without major design changes. It was designed to be both but primarily pax
Check orginal designs because they had a double deck, single deck and what stayed for the purposes what PANAMs needs they wanted a freighter but originally it was only paxs version
they designed the 747 as a passenger plane. However, they thought supersonic travel would be the future. that is why they also designed it as a freighter, to give it a secondary purpose
Simple answer the A380 needs the middle floor, otherwise the structure would not be stable or very very heavy.
Ohh as if upper deck passengers hang in air 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I got done flying a double A380 return from Australia to UK. I only got 1 on the way over, I do love the A380. It's simply amazing to board and see it go so far back.
One way to combat the max payload vs volume on an A380F is by giving the A380F more powerful engines than the passenger A380 therefore adding to the max takeoff weight
Triple 851 turn right heading 180
You made an interesting comment on the A380F vs 747-8F. The A380 would bring a large increase in volume to the market, but not a corresponding payload weight increase per unit of volume. It by default seemed to insure that the 747 remained more efficient per the unit of freight carried. People discuss the freight volume an A380 would have over a 747. We tend to think of high priority packages and freight as light in weight. But overall, they are not as lightweight as many people assume they are. While it’s significant, the 747 is not a little box. When I was younger and worked for a freight forwarder, one of the carriers we used operated 747 freighters on a daily service. In order to support a rapid turn around for the plane, they prepackaged the load before the plane arrived so all they had to do was shove it into the plane. Between the belly cargo holds and main deck hold, the shear volume size was incredible to see! I got to see it before they put it on the plane and saw the huge empty space after it was loaded. The other thing they mentioned was they were maximizing the gross weight as well. The plane was filled up every day. While the A380 presented more challenges for ground handling of the freight, that could be dealt with over time as process improvements were devised to deal with multi deck vs single deck freight handling. I think UPS and FedEx both believed they could make that happen efficiently for their operations. Right now I think the 747-8F continues to survive because it can still compete competively with the big twins in enough market slots to keep it viable. A big twin will probably replace the A380 and 747 at some point, but we are not quite there yet. The operating efficiency of fewer engines is to much for operators to ignore.
Granted... The 747-8f has the same issue you will hit a range vs weight issues rather quickly...(pain in the ass with atlas.) The 380f would work fine for hub to hub flights where you have lots of Amazon packages which are often rather light. In these you could fill the cubic area and not have weight issues. The 777f even has the weight issues hence(correct me if I'm wrong) FedEx load their hot volume. one/two day volume on them and fly straight to Memphis rather than stopping in Anchorage also allowing one hour later pick ups and use the MD11 as the heavy lifter for the rest of the volume.
Do you fly for Atlas?
I'm a loading supervisor at JFK so when you said, "...they usually don't get enough credit", I really felt that.
In the end, the A380F would have required new cargo handling facilities. That's something the 747-8F doesn't need, since it could use the same cargo handling systems used on older 747 freighter models (747-200F and 747-400F). Indeed, UPS Airlines intends to field 28 747-8F freighters by 2022. Also, the 777F (based on the 777-200LR airframe) has taken away a lot of potential demand for the A380F.
The main reason is that the A380 is too inefficient, even for a quad-jet.. and Airbus is stubbornly forcing airlines to swallow their inefficient design, rather than updating their designs with the latest engines and materials to further improve efficiencies...
Looking at FedEx and UPS’ fleets, they appear to be using near end-of-life pre-owned jets (MD11, A300) or Boeing converted freighters.. Makes sense for them as these jets have mostly been depreciated and could be operated with lower depreciation as freighters...
Perhaps if Airbus could have a program like Boeing where they convert older A380s into freighters, effectively giving them a “second life”...
Another reason why Boeing was smart by designing the 747’s cockpit on the upper deck to make space for the nose which would make it easier as a nose door to store cargo, they knew that’s how the rest of its life would end up as a freighter plane.
I think even Airbus figured out that they will not able to copy the successful Boeng freighter conversion program because none of the A380s are much more than 10-year old, yet. That is just not nearly "old" enough to have been depreciated.
Smart, Eugene! I agree with you. Screw those upper management from Airbus thinking that their double decker plane is not suitable for freighter. I think realistically that 380F is suitable for carrying bulkier loads! Don't mention their Beluga. That one is totally different class of cargo plane.
@@Xyb3rTeCh The international potato chip air freight market isn't as large as you think.
@@xevnoc f*ck you
Memphis is IN Tennessee ;)
Maybe there is a UPS hub in Memphis, Egypt.
Memphis is in Egypt and Tennessee AT THE SAME TIME
He may have meant to say Nashville, it's a freight hub.
I think there are 2 more very straight forward problems with the A380F. First, due to the positioning of the cockpit windshield, it cannot have a nose door like the 747 does, maiking it far less efficient than the 747. In addition, I feel that a true double decker cabin design (which many have hoped of) can’t sustain in the long run as the upper decker probably would not support all the weight. As a result, a single decker design would still make more sense but it would leave out SO MUCH surplus room above the pallets... That said, an actual A380F would be amazing since it would make the 380 look even bigger :) Great video!
I should note the cockpit location prevents the installation of a 747F-style nose that flips up. Also, deleting the structure of the decking for the top level would increase the size of the biggest box that would fit.
I was scratching my head cause Airbus always fought with Boeing n didn't have a competitive freighter but now I know why...gr8 video mate,!!
Cheers Yannis!
@RAN 777 A combi version would most likely have Cargo on the main deck and passengers on the upper deck. This could also be a version where the main deck could be fully or partially converted, like KLM does on its 747's for a few decades now.
When Airbus made the "authority to offer" for the A380, the F version was in there. And FedEx placed an order for them. But with the delays, and lack of any other freight orders, it was agreed to stop offering the F version and FedEx's order was quietly cancelled or converted.
For normal cargo airlines, it wasn't the volume vs weight that was a problem, but rather low ceiling height on all 3 decks, preventing carriage of bulky items, as is possible on the 747 freighter which has very high ceiling on main deck, and lifting nose to get bulky stuff in.
With the Antonov 124 having gone "commerciak", it displaced the market for bulky items. For instance, during height of CRJ-200 production, Bombardier had an AN-124 fly regularly
betwhween Shorts Bro in N Ireland and Dorval (YUL) and it carried fuselages for the CRJ.
Ships were primary transprot for them but during height, couldn't do this quickly enough.
The AN-124 has bulky cargo advantages nobody else has. Kneeling landing gear to make unloading via platform in the front and back possible. Ability to land on remote runways, and string floor that can carry locomotives etc.
However FedEx needs can fit the A380 becauyse they transport lost of bulky boxes that don't weight much. And between hubs (think Asia to USA to Europe), it has a lot of traffic. So the low ceilings didn't prevent FedEx from using a 380. The one challenge was finding the way to quickly load and unload the 380 on 3 separate decks,
Unless FedEx, DHL, UPS went back to Airbus recently and asked about the freighter, it is unlikely that Airbus woudl see a market large enough to justify its launch.
Okay. Great video! Everything you said is correct. Although FedEx actually ordered several A380 Freighter aircraft but actually cancelled their order due to the delay of the Aircraft. If you look it up you can actually find that FedEx even built Hangars to support the aircraft. Instead they opted for the 777F. FedEx was the main Freighter customer but since they dropped out it is believed that is another reason why development for that aircraft stopped.
Great summary! At least at one point, we were advised here at KSDF that UPS had the A380F on order and specific taxiways were to be expanded to accommodate the aircraft. Seems Airbus kept delaying specifics, timeframes and UPS cancelled the order. Taxiways were modified to accommodate the 747-8F, we now see her quite regularly.
Here's a question: would it make sense for Airbus or Boeing to make a prop(turboprop) plane for regional carriers?
Alex Reece Interesting idea, especially since Airbus already has experience with building turboprop planes with their military A400M.
Alex Reece the answer to that is no. The profit margins are too slim for Boeing and Airbus. The only reason Airbus made the A400 is because it’s a military platform, which can draw in much more money for the company than any regional airline ever could. Moreover, regional airlines aren’t designed to operate at a profit. They’re there to get people to the bread and butter routes for the main carriers. If they do get a profit, it’s just a sweet bonus to them.
Not for Airbus, they effectively bought former Bombardier Jets and branded A-220. This is modern, jet equivalent of Embraer family and expands Airbus portfolio.
Turboprop have some advantages, but primary one - economy - is negated by advances in jet engines and maintainability.
No. Most likely not enough profit and weak demand.
An interesting idea is for a combi A380 with the top deck for passengers and the main deck and lower hold decks for cargo. That would be fantastic to see.
love your channel dj keep it up!
Cheers mate!
wow you answered so quickly
:)
Your videos are very helpful
Like the trucking industry, it markets the less than a load LTL concept in flexible container sizes, However, it is difficult to find the correct LTL configuration for the A-380.
I think aircraft design also plays a role specifically on nose section. Both B747F and An-225 have the nose section as extra large cargo doors that make any cargo loading/unloading easier and more practical (when oversize item are considered) than side cargo doors. Just my opinion...
Hello Dj's Aviation,
I think this video is so good and very informational answering why there is no A380f. Great video, liked and subscribed. Keep it up
The 747-8I and 747-8F are the king of the skies. More fuel efficient and a testament of time. The A380 is also a beautiful plane, but I think it was just a phase to have the biggest state of the art aircraft that had been in the media for some years before its release.
Now it’s just plaguing the industry. Emirates Airlines are rich, they can flaunt this jet liner for years to come. Not sure about the others. Don’t know what will become of the first A380(9V-SKA) which was delivered to Singapore Airlines with the second production number (9V-SKB) in line for storage or the old fleet of Emirates ?
As a aviation enthusiast and my love for these big bodied aircrafts, it will break my heart seeing them scrapped.
Love your channel, keep it up fella!
Lovely video mate 👍
Thanks legend!
As a matter of fact FEDEX was the launch customer for the A380F but cancelled in favor of 777F. I think that was during the A380 production problems early on.
CONGRATS 60K!!
Great video mate! I was always wondering why there wasn't a freighter version of the A380. Very Informative
Again an excellent video. Some quick points:
In Europe, cargo generally flies at night. Thus slot space at LHR for example wouldn't be so much of a problem.
The growth of the cargo industry is largely being fuelled by companies such as Amazon. Consequently, the demand is for package freighters for which the 777 is probably best.
The A380F would score on high-cube, low weight cargoes such clothing. Or expensive cargoes such as top-end cars. But the demand for these would be low. It is just not a package freighter aircraft.
All valid points on the idea of an A380F. Based on my 40+ years in the airline business, most of it in cargo, the A380F idea had a lot of things going against it. As u noted, the aircraft would have never lived up to it's billing as world's largest cargo hauler because you would reach MTOW long before you reached a profitable payload. Another issue was loading the aircraft. First, there are no loaders that could reach the upper deck currently being produced ( but we'll assume given a demand, equipment vendors would respond). Second, there would be a weight restriction on the cargo containers placed on the upper deck. As the freighter design was never part of the A380 plan, I'm fairly sure the upper floor was never intended for the loading that would happen as a course of normal business in the air freight industry. The floor could be reinforced to handle the load, but that adds weight to the aircraft and reduces payload ($$$). So unless you were shipping a billion ping pong balls, the aircraft would never be profitable. I remember the joint venture we had at PA back in the 80's using a Russian II-76 from New York to Moscow. The damn thing was built like a tank and weighted too much to fly at profit non-stop. The only way we mad it work was 3 fuel stops along the way. it flew JFK-Gander-SNN-AMS-SVO. The A380F would have the same problem. You could load it up, but stop fuel every 2000 miles for more fuel. Possible, but not profitable. The A380combi has the best chance of very happening. Passengers on upper deck, cargo on main deck. There are many markets that could work. IMO
Just use medium planes to transfer cargo, after all theres more passangers compared to cargo when talking about planes.
Indeed
To be fair the cargo side is starting to out grow the passengers. And the good thing is cargo is way less demanding then humans. Air Lux is a very big airline company 100% for cargo.
Now I know!i've been wondering why there isn't a A380F thank you so much!i love your vids so much so helpful!👍
Cheers mate!
FedEx fly over where I live mostly on Sunday nights
There usually at least 3 flights
Passing over coming from London and Europe
And other freighter flights
Interesting post
Peace ✌️
I would enjoy seeing a380f because, like you, I love watching 4 engine planes.
I have an idea for a new video series ....you could show all the personals involved and the work they do to get the plan from point a to point b and also the prep required
I noticed that you improved your diction. Great work, keep going!
Great video dj I had actually forgot about the a380f and fought your video did a great job explaining the aircraft and its isuues the only thing I would of added is if cargo carriers like cargolux or atlas air would have shown interest in the aircraft or would stick with the 747 platform.
thanks dj keep up the good work
Thanks bro!
This will probably be an odd suggestion, but why not make a video explaining what would have happened to the Boeing 747 if the supersonic Boeing 2707 program worked?
Robert McGhin Would've been marketed as mainly a freighter
Supersonic flights fly high enough to cause serious damage to the Ozone layer.
The Concorde had a few flights if you want to go Big on SS planes.
Ahhh. A nice, long, very interesting video. Nice One DJ!
Great quality as per usual. Would consider doing a series on “How to start your own Cargo Airline”. I know you’re doing one for pax airlines.
Wonder if a freight-passenger hybrid could work, have the upper deck for lighter passengers and the bottom deck for Cargo.
It would work... right up till something on the fright deck caught fire. There is a reason why they no longer mix heavy fright(cars, battries & battery powered electronics, etc...) and passengers. You would never be able load enough light fright to justify the lower deck of an A380. Because the 777 is longer and carries less pax/fuel, it has a much larger useful cargo cap than the A380.
Great video DJ ! Keep em coming........
At 9:03: #4 Reverser didn't deploy. Is this normal or do you think it was on MEL?
Great video DJ. Reading through the comments I notice a few people point out that the cockpit placement doesn't allow for a nose door. These planes are fly by wire, so there is no physical connection between cockpit and control services, could the cockpit not just be lifted up as part of the door? Move the front wheel back a couple feet and the front of the plane could lift. Perhaps that would be too heavy?
I have question that is also about cargo aircraft. Why do airbus only have 1 cargo aircraft variant?
Really good reasons! Love your videos
Thank you so much!
Thank You for creating this amazing content
It's my pleasure, thank you for watching!
FedEx and UPS had been original signers for the f version. They both backed out after years and years of delays. FedEx opted for the 777f and twice as many of them. I don't remember UPS reason, but they obviously went back to the 747. Also FedEx has gotten rid of most of the md-10's. Replacing those with 767's.
You said A330-600RF, not A300-600RF! Lol, honest mistake! :D Anyways, nice video as always, very informative! I also wish there was an A380F but, oh well! Liked!
Great points and very enjoyable video, thanks mate!!!
Thanks Jecky :)
The ultimate problem with the A380F stems more from the cockpit placement and the subsequent restrictions placed on the ways it can be loaded/unloaded more than cargo capacity. Installing some sort of hoist and conveyors system for the upper cargo deck would've been a practical way to reduce the A380's gap between volume and weight capacity while alleviating the need to have specialized unloaders. The issue is that you have to unload the A380 from the side because it's cockpit sits too low for unloading through the nose like the 747. Moving the cockpit to the upper deck would be a substantial engineering effort and effectively destroy type commonality with the standard A380, but it's also essentially the only way the A380F will be able to match the loading efficiency of the 747-8 - and therefore carve a niche for itself in the shrinking large freighter market.
Alternatively Airbus could make the tail section hinge outwards as on the 747 Dreamlifter, however that doesn't solve the whole issue of needing specialized equipment to unload the top deck. Operation experience with both the Super Guppy and even the Dreamlifter itself has also proven how much of a pain in the ass that kind of loading arrangement is because of all the connections that need to be undone and redone.
The upper deck would be a nightmare to load. With the 747f the nose lifts for loading and the upper deck, which is smaller than the passenger version, isn't used for cargo. How would access the upper deck on the A380, since the cockpit is located between both levels? Great video. How about an A340 freighter?
Hey you reached 60k subs well done !
I think the main reason freight airlines hesitate, is a shift in logistics. The same we saw in passenger over the last years. While a hub system is great to offer good service for everyone, hubs have grown to a size where there is no longer an economy of scale. Instead it is worth offering direct services for major traffic flows.
Good explanation Dj.
First time I've seen it laid out properly.
One other point: I don't think the A380 would ever load and unload nearly as efficiently as the 747 since the Airbus has the low flight deck ( apparently to make piloting similar to other Airbus types) : The Iconic high cockpit/hump of the 747 makes the flip-up nose a relative cinch to engineer. The 747 doesn't suffer the A380's other drawbacks you mention since it was originally intended to be a military freighter - lost out to the C5 Galaxy.
Another factor to consider re an A380F is that air freight companies really need CHEAP aircraft first and foremost, since most of the fleet is left sitting for long periods. That is why freight companies buy-up $10 million used airliners so readily and convert them to freighters. You just can't make money with a fleet expensive aircraft unless you keep them flying, and air-freight companies don't really have that option most of the time. Pricey aircraft like 747-8F's are really a niche item - reserved mainly for long-hauls where large capacity is also needed.
The reason for this is that to execute efficient rapid delivery, a highly synchronized the "hub and spoke" system of routes and schedules is used as much as possible. Typically, once a day, early, a large number of planes leave a central hub, fly the "spokes ", delivering cargo to distributed destinations and loading up with more from them, all planes then returning late in the day to the central hub, and over night, are unloaded, the freight is sorted, and reloaded for the next day. To work, the rigid schedule has to be applied to all the aircraft, and they have to meet in the same place at the same time, so most of the fleet is pretty much limited to 2 flights per day.
So even a born freighter like the 747-8F is never going to be any more than one cog in the machine, less so an A380, too big, too voluminous (hence costlier to use), too inefficient to load and unload, and too costly and complex to easily maintain , even if it could purchased cheaply ......
Congratulations for 60k!! Also the A380 doesn’t have the flexibility the 747F has with the opening nose for any cargo that is somewhat oversized due to the tween deck located cockpit.
"Kentucky, Memphis and Tennessee" 😂😂😂
National Air Cargo and CargoLogicAir, to name two, operate 747F out of London, Saint Petersburg, Luxembourg and other passenger and cargo hubs. The empty legs would likely make a 380F too expensive even for a US Army contractor.
What would be an optimal sector length for it, I wonder?
Thanks for the morning show!
Awesome vid! Keep it up.
That is great. Please could you cover airBaltic's past present and future? Great video by the way, I've been wondering about why there isn't an a380f
The A380F would be wonderful to see. I appreciate the big aircraft especially flying in them. They are the Cadillacs/Rolls of the skys. Not just by size but buy ride. Big difference in turbulence compared with smaller aircraft.
I never thought the A380 could be a freighter. The upper deck floor was never designed for that type of loading. It also need a special way to load cargo on the upper deck.
I live near a UPS hub in onterio CA we often get a UPS 747;
You mentioned that Airbus are considering an A330neo freighter.
Wondering how well, or not, the A350 or B787 might work as freight or combi aircraft.
I had to replay it to make sure I didn't misunderstand; but just know that Memphis is a city in the state of Tennessee which is the Fedex hub. UPS is in Louisville, Kentucky.
Awesome video!
Airbus Beluga XL. Nuff said
+Mr. Artist
I do not understand your comment. The Beluga XL is based on the A330. At first I thought that the A380F would have been perfect for the Airbus factory fleet as modifications needed would probably less than the one to the A330. However, giving it a second thought those flights are very short and the wings to transport are not really using up the payload. That makes the four-engine A380 less efficient compared to the twin-engined A330.
BTW: living close to the Airbus Hamburg factory I can't wait to see the XL in service in summer 2019 :)
John Catty true. I was just saying we wouldn’t really need one if we have the beluga XL, sorry. Hope you get to see it!
Beluga is made for transporting only others Airbuses planes in construction, not for any cargo
Hey since you just uploaded this, I wanted to say, you make great videos!! Keep up the great work!
Thank you so much coolkids!
Do you think there's a possibility of the project being resurrected a decade or 2 down the line when more powerful engines are available? Perhaps something like the Rolls-Royce Ultrafan?
Can you make a video on the naming of the aircrafts, i.e. Why boeing starts with b7xx and airbus starts with a3xx. I've always wondered this and i am sure i am not the only one.
Launch Vehicle 71 - Thanks DJ for your great blogs. I enjoy them from the US. I recall back when AB was working on the A380F and had FedX and UPS orders, they discovered they had to lower the upper deck for it to accommodate standard shipping containers; and that doing this would be a huge extra expense AB was not willing to pay. Presumably, this problem will prevent doing any 380Fs in the future. The A380 has proven to be a terrible mistake for AB because it meant they did not have the money to do a new family of 300-400 pax twin-engined wide bodies and instead stuck with the four engined A345 and A346 when it was obvious from 777 and A330-300 sales that twin engines was the long haul way to go, and so handed Boeing its decade-long 777-300ER monopoly. On top of that, AB then launched the A350 as a family which really hasn't turned out to be a family because the 358 has been cancelled so AB has no competitor against the 789 in the 300 pax mkt to replace the A330; and AB has been forced to spend millions on the -1000 which is essentially and entirely new plane.
I got a Qantas A380 advertisement before the video 👌
This brings me to my initial reaction/question upon my first seeing of the A380 when it came out back in the 2000s. Why is it so stocky? I mean of course there's a certain amount of engines you can put on an airplane to make it most cost effective, and Airbus would no doubt have put the design through countless wind tunnel testings. But why not a thinner but longer body?
Great video. You do upload them at a ferocious pace ;).
I believe QF should hold onto one or two of its 747-400ERs and convert them into 747Fs. Good way of keeping the 747 in its proud fleet albeit in a freighter capacity!
DJ what about an A380pf version where passengers go up top and freight down below.
I think you forgot to mention that the A380’s nose does not tilt open like those B747-8F’s,As some large or long one piece cargos will not fit thru the side door.
I always felt that delaying and then cancelling the A380F due to the passenger version problems was a major error. A380Fs could (should) have been in-service 2+ years before that first A380 passenger revenue flight.
WRT the 747F, most 747 freighters are BCF-type without the nose door. You can't retrofit a nose door to them and the door is only an advantage for a few specific types of outsize cargo. Addiitionally, without the ability to "kneel" the 747F nose door isn't as useful as you might think.
Mass vs volume is always an interesting tradeoff. Most airfreight is fairly light and when it's not the Antonovs are frequently a better choice despite their inefficiency and limited range.
The issue with cargo on the passenger A380 is that volume is limited to less than 1/3 of what's available under the floor of a 777 due to passenger baggage, but _mass_ capability is more than twice what the 777 can carry and it can go a few thousand miles more at MTOW which cuts down on logitistics costs of intermediate stops. Airlines are more relaxed about baggage limits on A380 flights than on B777 ones because of the large mass margins.
This mass vs volume tradeoff is one of the reasons why you don't see 800-pax A380s. Reducing the number of pax above decks allows for more cargo space below. As long as the cargo holds are fillled the aircraft is still profitable to fly despite the passnger reduction (there's more money made in transporting boxes than people) and the extra room above decks is used as a selling point, with halo accomodation being almost pure profit when actually sold instead of being an upgrade.
Of course apart from the 4vs2 conundrum the primary drawback of the A380 as it stands is that enormous wing. It's designed for the never-built stretch version and cuts into overall efficiency/range as a result.
The A380 is simply the right choice at the wrong time. Fuel prices are at historic low levels in real terms and have been for various reasons for quite a while despite having passed "peak oil" at least a decade ago. At some point they're going to snap back to a higher level and that will put a lot of point to point routes into economic jeopardy. In many parts of the world the competitors to short/medium airlines will be (and already are in some) high speed rail whilst longhaul will start concentrating on seat-mile costs in a way we haven't seen much so far, whilst also having to cope with passenger pushback regarding cramped spaces. Flying a sardine can express may make money per flight but not if pax start avoiding the airline unless the fares are scraping the bottom of the barrel (and of course the more seats above decks, the less revenue cargo space available below).
DJ: You really should do a few issues dealing with the relative incomes from pax and revenue cargo for "passenger" airlines. Outside the domestic USA market with its extremely heavily subsidised passenger operations, this is a matter of high importance for airline execs and getting the pax/freight balance right is what can make or break a company.
The majority of FedEx and UPS aircraft are old second hand passenger planes converted for freighter use.
These second hand aircraft cost a whole lot less to acquire than a brand new plane, especially something the size of the a380.
FedEx was the original launch customer for the A380F they even reinforced the Rwy at MEM and made the parking stands bigger to accommodate the aircraft.
One thing we wondered at the time was how would they load the upper deck? Would we need to get new main deck loaders to reach the upper deck or would the 380 have an internal lift which would then add weight to the operating load of the aircraft.
FedEx ended up dropping out of the 380F and the deposit paid to Airbus was to be held for other possible options like the A330 F.
Most airlines are going away from 3/4 engine aircraft in favour of the big twins, Take the likes of the 777F or MD11F there is not much difference between them and the 747F regarding pallet spaces.
The 747F will still have a place for the likes of oversize cargo that cannot fit through the main deck door of other freighters.
DJ, am I correct that an old plane survives longer as a freighter because it’s not getting pressurized anymore?
I’ve noticed the A380 doesn’t seem to have thrust reversers on the outboard engines. Does anyone have any idea why?
Jay Bee = Yup, sure do. Because the outer engines are so far from the A/C centreline, they are well off the most regularly used tracks of the runway, sometimes even over the grass. So it was considered too risky for stirring up sundry detritus and sucking it through the engines.
First, you forgot the B1900. I flew that for a contract carrier which worked for FedEx and UPS. I loved that plane. That was an aircraft with the opposite problem where you would easily max out value before weight. However, there were many problems with the A380, including they couldn't outfit them where they outfit the passenger planes due to local complaints. I also think that, a pure A380 cargo plane would never be cost effective with their weight maxes out so fast, and I can see why Ethiad even replaced the PAX version on that route. If you see the door on the plane and look at the shape of the cargo area, you can tell it can't carry that much. Airbus doesn't build cargo planes. But a Combi might work. You keep the passengers on the forward part of the bottom deck plus the entire top deck, and the cargo on the main deck. But there are two problems with that. First is not to many airlines operate combi's anymore. Second, it becomes a CG issue, so that would have to be solved.
You should do a video about what it would be like if AeroMexico operated the A380
Good insight on this video. As fuel prices climb, even the freight carriers are going to be looking at more efficient aircraft to stay competitive. While the A380 is an engineering marvel, adapting it to freight only would be a compromise at best. I would expect as time goes by, more 3 and 4 engined freighters will be replaced by large twins. Good news for the A330 and 777.
TBH, i really also do not see anyone ordering this. The difference from the B747-8F and the A380F is not much but the list prices are way different
Mate! You're awesome!
Just so you know, Memphis (FedEx HQ) is a city in Tennessee, and Louisville (UPS HQ) is in Kentucky. Also FedEx is phasing out all airbus aircraft and going to a full Boeing fleet. All MD-10 aircraft are leaving as well.
I worked for a major supplier on the A380. Early on in the program, during a program review, Airbus informed us that it would not be possible to convert A380's to freighters because of design issues. After this became widespread information everyone knew the aircraft would never be built in high enough volume to ever make it profitable. At that point, contracts between cargo operators and airlines were canceled. It was doomed from the very beginning!
747 was designed with the ability to become a freighter when its service as passenger carrying plane is over. Hence the high cockpit design to allow for a nose door. And that design incorporation was what make 747 a suitable freighter, whereas A380 was not designed as such, and the freighter version seem more like an afterthought which didn't take off.
Use the top deck for passengers, and the bottom for cargo.