More trouble for A380 Program ?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@notapilot15:
Because people living in a more remote region would also like to be able to go anywhere and will thus like have to transfer through a hub, as for most destinations there is simply not enough traffic for a direct flight with sufficient frequency.
For hubs the simple fact is that twice the hourly capacity means four times the number of possible connections you can offer. Using one large aircraft on a route instead of two smaller ones, means that the saved slot can be used for a flight somewhere else.
Because people living in a more remote region would also like to be able to go anywhere and will thus like have to transfer through a hub, as for most destinations there is simply not enough traffic for a direct flight with sufficient frequency.
For hubs the simple fact is that twice the hourly capacity means four times the number of possible connections you can offer. Using one large aircraft on a route instead of two smaller ones, means that the saved slot can be used for a flight somewhere else.
Maybe in the freight role it would open up the world to different types of freight... Such as delivering complete motor cars. If they could be stacked side by side on top and bottom floors, maybe 20-30 at a time?
Also wouldn't their cruising speed be lower, for maximum economy?
btw. We see the Balugas going into Broughton every day, so 'radical' conversions are possible.
.
Also wouldn't their cruising speed be lower, for maximum economy?
btw. We see the Balugas going into Broughton every day, so 'radical' conversions are possible.
.
Last I heard the idea of new build 380F's being built at Blagnac had been shelved.
Whether conversions would be possible, and whether there's a market for the same - who knows?
Whether conversions would be possible, and whether there's a market for the same - who knows?
From my perspective as someone that has invested in A380 leases it is indeed an interesting time. In my case I invested in Air France frames, believing AF were more likely to support the A380 long term for political reasons and were unlikely to default.
Most leases are initially 10 years after which you have got nearly three quarters of your initial investment back, not of course accounting for time value of money. If the lease is extended you start to make money helped also by the way it all works tax wise. So if the aircraft never flies again and incurs expenses sitting in the desert it will have been a poor investment, although not as disastrous as some shipping investments recently.
The real question is at what level the leasing companies are able to agree new leases. As no one has yet published anything it seems that the poker game is ongoing. My gut feel is that there will be some pretty deep discounts, reducing the overall returns to people like me but kickstarting the second hand market. Fortunately mine have a while to go by which time hopefully BA or the Chinese will have shown their cards and got the market moving.
Long term I am still pretty bullish that the existing aircraft have a 20 year life particularly if oil stays cheap, although I am not persuaded that Airbus will sell a lot more new frames given the lack of enthusiasm so far.
Most leases are initially 10 years after which you have got nearly three quarters of your initial investment back, not of course accounting for time value of money. If the lease is extended you start to make money helped also by the way it all works tax wise. So if the aircraft never flies again and incurs expenses sitting in the desert it will have been a poor investment, although not as disastrous as some shipping investments recently.
The real question is at what level the leasing companies are able to agree new leases. As no one has yet published anything it seems that the poker game is ongoing. My gut feel is that there will be some pretty deep discounts, reducing the overall returns to people like me but kickstarting the second hand market. Fortunately mine have a while to go by which time hopefully BA or the Chinese will have shown their cards and got the market moving.
Long term I am still pretty bullish that the existing aircraft have a 20 year life particularly if oil stays cheap, although I am not persuaded that Airbus will sell a lot more new frames given the lack of enthusiasm so far.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@procede
I think you misread my comment about super hubs. Hubs are necessary super hubs are not.
Read your own statement, you have to allow bunch of RJs/NBs from several places to fill a WB/super jumbo at a hub/super hub.
So there is no scenario where a super hub can operate only VLAs.
LHR A380 movements are somewhere between 1%-3% of total traffic. I haven't seen DXB VLA movement numbers, but sure it will be in single digits. ORD haven't even started A380 service and AFAIK ATL has no active A380 service.
I think you misread my comment about super hubs. Hubs are necessary super hubs are not.
Read your own statement, you have to allow bunch of RJs/NBs from several places to fill a WB/super jumbo at a hub/super hub.
So there is no scenario where a super hub can operate only VLAs.
LHR A380 movements are somewhere between 1%-3% of total traffic. I haven't seen DXB VLA movement numbers, but sure it will be in single digits. ORD haven't even started A380 service and AFAIK ATL has no active A380 service.
Take Heathrow, for example. As is commonly known, the number of movements has barely changed over the last 10 years because it's up against the ATM limit.
But last year LHR handled 5 million more passengers than 2011, with nearly 7,000 fewer movements, representing an increase of almost 10% in the average number of passengers per flight.
Part of that increase is due to a modest rise in load factors, but it's mostly a result of a gradual increase in average capacity per movement (i.e. aircraft size), to which 30 additional A380 movements per day contribute significantly.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe in the freight role it would open up the world to different types of freight... Such as delivering complete motor cars. If they could be stacked side by side on top and bottom floors, maybe 20-30 at a time?
1. Do you have any idea what it would take to convert a passenger airliner floor to handle roll-on/roll-off of motor cars? A LOT. To put this in perspective no airliner derivative freighter can currently do that. Just reinforcing the floor to accept pallets/containers is a huge deal.
2. Do you have an idea what it would take to install a cargo door in both the lower and upper decks of an A380? It's a HUGE deal on single deck airplane. It would be a nightmarish undertaking on a double decker.
3. Have you considered how you would lift the cars (or pallets or containers) to the upper deck of an A380? There are currently no cargo lifters that can reach that high. So A380 freight service would not only entail limiting such service to the few airports that can handle an A380, but to airports that can handle an A380 AND have special cargo handling equipment.
Airbus is not stupid. There's a good reason there is no A380F.
Also wouldn't their cruising speed be lower, for maximum economy?
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not hard to find evidence if you look.
Take Heathrow, for example. As is commonly known, the number of movements has barely changed over the last 10 years because it's up against the ATM limit.
But last year LHR handled 5 million more passengers than 2011, with nearly 7,000 fewer movements, representing an increase of almost 10% in the average number of passengers per flight.
Part of that increase is due to a modest rise in load factors, but it's mostly a result of a gradual increase in average capacity per movement (i.e. aircraft size), to which 30 additional A380 movements per day contribute significantly.
Take Heathrow, for example. As is commonly known, the number of movements has barely changed over the last 10 years because it's up against the ATM limit.
But last year LHR handled 5 million more passengers than 2011, with nearly 7,000 fewer movements, representing an increase of almost 10% in the average number of passengers per flight.
Part of that increase is due to a modest rise in load factors, but it's mostly a result of a gradual increase in average capacity per movement (i.e. aircraft size), to which 30 additional A380 movements per day contribute significantly.
Is Heathrow Airports better of financially with 7000 less movements?
Every movement brings additional revenue. It can turn around 3xNBs (or) 2xWBs and make more money for itself and all airport vendors than one A380.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't read too much into this - Singapore is known to keep a young fleet, dumping airframes when they're due for heavy maintenance and getting new ones.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken V has covered the possibility of an A380F comprehensively! Remember the B747 was originally designed as a freighter. Many of the major modifications an A380F would require, especially floor loading, were originally designed into the B747.
Regarding the Boeing v. Airbus VLA it should not be forgotten that Boeing offered Airbus a consortium to build a joint aircraft, which Airbus refused, so Boeing immediately pulled out of the VLA market, saying they doubted there was sufficient support for it. Airbus are claiming they are now breaking even on the A380, possibly some creative accounting there? I believe 269 delivered was the original BE figure but that stretched out to nearer 500 after all the penalties that were incurred due to late delivery plus the heavy discounting applied to early customers. Probably depends on how cheap loans and various 'subsidies' are included in the costings.
Airbus thought they would be replacing the 450 or so B747-400 delivered, they didn't take into account that the B747 replacement was already flying in the shape of the B777 and the A330, with future, even more efficient twins like the B787 and the A350 already in the design stage.
Regarding the Boeing v. Airbus VLA it should not be forgotten that Boeing offered Airbus a consortium to build a joint aircraft, which Airbus refused, so Boeing immediately pulled out of the VLA market, saying they doubted there was sufficient support for it. Airbus are claiming they are now breaking even on the A380, possibly some creative accounting there? I believe 269 delivered was the original BE figure but that stretched out to nearer 500 after all the penalties that were incurred due to late delivery plus the heavy discounting applied to early customers. Probably depends on how cheap loans and various 'subsidies' are included in the costings.
Airbus thought they would be replacing the 450 or so B747-400 delivered, they didn't take into account that the B747 replacement was already flying in the shape of the B777 and the A330, with future, even more efficient twins like the B787 and the A350 already in the design stage.
Last edited by parabellum; 17th Sep 2016 at 10:12. Reason: Wrong number posted.
Airbus are claiming they are now breaking even on the A380, possibly some creative accounting there?
Boeing claims they can be cash flow positive on the 747-8 at 1/month, but the current planned 0.5/month will also be cash flow negative.
In short, both aircraft are in trouble, Boeing's only redemption is they didn't spend anywhere near the money on the 747-8 that Airbus dumped into the A380.
The future success of the 747 depends on the recovery of the air-freight market, the future success of the A380 depends on a fundamental change to the SLF airline business.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Korea
Age: 62
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be an oversight in Airbus's rationale for developing the 380. One of the main arguments was to reduce congestion at slot constrained airports. However a new plane and infrastructure is not required for this. On high volume routes with slot constraints operators can move from the 320/737 to A330/787 or from A330/787 to A350/777.
Another possibility is that airlines will simply bypass the hub to hub model by operating more flights to regional airports.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: England
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Three questions:
1. Do you have any idea what it would take to convert a passenger airliner floor to handle roll-on/roll-off of motor cars? A LOT. To put this in perspective no airliner derivative freighter can currently do that. Just reinforcing the floor to accept pallets/containers is a huge deal.
2. Do you have an idea what it would take to install a cargo door in both the lower and upper decks of an A380? It's a HUGE deal on single deck airplane. It would be a nightmarish undertaking on a double decker.
3. Have you considered how you would lift the cars (or pallets or containers) to the upper deck of an A380? There are currently no cargo lifters that can reach that high. So A380 freight service would not only entail limiting such service to the few airports that can handle an A380, but to airports that can handle an A380 AND have special cargo handling equipment..
1. Do you have any idea what it would take to convert a passenger airliner floor to handle roll-on/roll-off of motor cars? A LOT. To put this in perspective no airliner derivative freighter can currently do that. Just reinforcing the floor to accept pallets/containers is a huge deal.
2. Do you have an idea what it would take to install a cargo door in both the lower and upper decks of an A380? It's a HUGE deal on single deck airplane. It would be a nightmarish undertaking on a double decker.
3. Have you considered how you would lift the cars (or pallets or containers) to the upper deck of an A380? There are currently no cargo lifters that can reach that high. So A380 freight service would not only entail limiting such service to the few airports that can handle an A380, but to airports that can handle an A380 AND have special cargo handling equipment..
Most air-freight is pallet/container based, talk of roll-on/off is meaningless, cars are put on pallets and shipped like everything else.
Other point with the A380 is that it's internal volume is massive Vs. it's max load weight compared to other freighters (747 etc), and most current fighters are load limited by weight not volume. What I am getting at here is why bother using the upper deck for freight? as you have said, loading it would be a PITA and with only the main and lower decks, you're likely to hit the weight limit anyway, leaving the upper deck also give the option of carrying 100-150 passengers etc.
leaving the upper deck also give the option of carrying 100-150 passengers etc.
Last edited by wiggy; 17th Sep 2016 at 09:27.
Don't disagree with any of this although I really think it's kind of missing the point.
Most air-freight is pallet/container based, talk of roll-on/off is meaningless, cars are put on pallets and shipped like everything else.
Other point with the A380 is that it's internal volume is massive Vs. it's max load weight compared to other freighters (747 etc), and most current fighters are load limited by weight not volume. What I am getting at here is why bother using the upper deck for freight? as you have said, loading it would be a PITA and with only the main and lower decks, you're likely to hit the weight limit anyway, leaving the upper deck also give the option of carrying 100-150 passengers etc.
Most air-freight is pallet/container based, talk of roll-on/off is meaningless, cars are put on pallets and shipped like everything else.
Other point with the A380 is that it's internal volume is massive Vs. it's max load weight compared to other freighters (747 etc), and most current fighters are load limited by weight not volume. What I am getting at here is why bother using the upper deck for freight? as you have said, loading it would be a PITA and with only the main and lower decks, you're likely to hit the weight limit anyway, leaving the upper deck also give the option of carrying 100-150 passengers etc.
There seems to be an oversight in Airbus's rationale for developing the 380. One of the main arguments was to reduce congestion at slot constrained airports. However a new plane and infrastructure is not required for this. On high volume routes with slot constraints operators can move from the 320/737 to A330/787 or from A330/787 to A350/777.
The arguments for moving up a gauge (so you can carry more passengers without requiring an increase in the number of flights) apply at every point along the size scale. There is no fundamental difference between replacing, say, a 777-300 with an A380 and the upsizing examples that you quoted, so I don't see how developing the A380 represents an "oversight" on the part of Airbus.
Yes, they were wildly optimistic about the size of the market, but that's another story ...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NSW
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Problem with the A380 its burning between 13-13.5 kgs/hr flys at 0.84 the only appeal is noise for pax..it carries next to no freight and on ultra long haul has between 100-150 seats lockout for weight saving to allow additional fuel. The A380 is 10 years too late, the B747-400 and B747-800 coupled with the B777 new gen will see the death of the A380..Singapore Airlines is returning the first 4 A380, Emirates also is returning the early aircraft, Malaysia Airlines has the 6 aircraft up for sale. The B747-800 is limited to freight operation with so many B747-400 freighters coming up to the end of their useful life..the reality is that the A380 isnt a hub buster but an Operational and Engineering Nightmare, inefficient and a black hole in costs....keeping up with the "Jones" has burnt many airlines...The smart Airlines have avoided the A380...once you have A380 your stuck with it...
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Sydney
Age: 45
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a cargo ops dude I can't see that the A380 is heading for freighter operations any time in the next 25 years, either new-build or conversion. Where to begin...
1. There's a chronic excess of air freight capacity globally the last five years and no-one in the industry can see it getting any better for the next 5-10 years at least. In the 90's general air freight demand was higher than spare pax under-body space could supply and so dedicated freighters were being bought everywhere. However, the massive growth since 2000 in wide-body pax aircraft in global service has meant a huge increase in the total amount of spare underbody space available for cargo and the space available has totally overtaken cargo demand. As a result dedicated cargo airlines the world over are doing it tough and cargo divisions of the major airlines (Lufthansa, Qantas, etc) are shedding freighters and losing cash hand-over-fist. The chance of any airline ADDING the massive cargo capacity of freighter A380's to their cargo fleet any time soon is somewhere between zero and none.
2. The global sea-freight industry has been getting its act together the last ten years as well, and have been starting to steal some traditional cargo types from air freight. With atmosphere-controlled containers and improved handling times they've been picking away at fruit & veg shipments and, recently, starting to take some of the high-value temperature-controlled pharmaceutical cargoes as well. A lot of the delays for sea cargo were traditionally in getting goods in and out of the ports (often where they would also suffer temperature damage through laziness in maintaining the cold chain) but with electronic paperwork and modern expedited port handling processes, combined with the new improved high-tech container types that manage the atmosphere gases over the produce as well as the temperature, short-to-medium-haul sea freight is now highly competitive with air freight for a lot of stuff that used to core air-freight business.
Both 1 and 2 mean the general air freight business is not looking good right now, nor is likely to for many years to come. Rates are in the toilet and likely to stay there.
3. Some-one would have to bite the bullet on the not-inconsiderable one-off costs of either developing the dedicated freighter version or designing and getting approved a used-aircraft conversion. Big, big $$$ and typically this only happens when a major cargo airline underwrites the cost with a big airframe order. See points 1 and 2 for why this isn't going to happen.
4.There are plenty of wide-body airframes on the market for those (few) who do want dedicated freighters at the moment. You can get new-build freighter 767/777/747s from Boeing and A330s from Airbus. If you want a conversion you can take your pick of used 767s or A330s. Yet more reason that point 3 won't happen.
5. The global ground infrastructure is not equipped to load/unload cargo from the upper decks of an A380. The tallest hi-loaders (pallet loaders, FMCs, whatever you want to call them) are designed for the B747 main deck - a whole new generation of super-tall, super-strong, super-big, super-expensive hi-loaders would have to be developed, manufactured, purchased and put into service across the world's airports just to cope with a relatively small numbers of A380 freighters. The ground-handling industry is notoriously cut-throat and runs on wafer-thin margins. They will be positively thrilled at the prospect of having to buy a whole new class of super-expensive pallet-loaders just to service one very small fleet of A380 freighters.
6. The combi freighter is dead for a reason. First is the logistics - most airports like a quick turn on their pax bays these days and they are also often a long way away from the cargo sheds, which would mean dragging dozens and dozens of pallets miles across the airport, instead of loading from a cargo bay right in front of the freight shed. Second is that the DG regs today mean there would be so many cargos that you couldn't load on a pax aircraft, it wouldn't be funny. I regularly accept DGs and transport live horses with grooms, and even scheduling the Cargo Aircraft Only (CAO) DGs around horse movements (grooms are 'passengers') in a pita. If we had a freighter with 200 pax onboard every flight we would have to refuse so many freight shipments that the forwarders would get 'annoyed' and go somewhere else.
7. The only area of air cargo that is doing well is the e-retail driven express freight market, and that's controlled by huge vertically-integrated multi-nationals like DHL, Fed-Ex and UPS (and possibly now Amazon themselves). These guys don't want A380s - they don't want one or two huge shipments into a port each week, they want a smaller shipment every single night - guaranteed overnight delivery is their whole business model. That's why they use smaller freighters - DHL uses 737s, 757s and 767s, Fed-Ex and UPS from the 737 up to the MD-11 and Amazon just ordered 100 x 767s for the same reason. They want frequency across a wide range of ports, not massive volume between limited international hubs.
I may see an A380 freighter before I retire (I'm 38 now) but I wouldn't put money on it. I actually feel a bit sorry for Airbus - I can see their reasoning for why the A380 will become necessary, but I feel like they were 20 years too early.
1. There's a chronic excess of air freight capacity globally the last five years and no-one in the industry can see it getting any better for the next 5-10 years at least. In the 90's general air freight demand was higher than spare pax under-body space could supply and so dedicated freighters were being bought everywhere. However, the massive growth since 2000 in wide-body pax aircraft in global service has meant a huge increase in the total amount of spare underbody space available for cargo and the space available has totally overtaken cargo demand. As a result dedicated cargo airlines the world over are doing it tough and cargo divisions of the major airlines (Lufthansa, Qantas, etc) are shedding freighters and losing cash hand-over-fist. The chance of any airline ADDING the massive cargo capacity of freighter A380's to their cargo fleet any time soon is somewhere between zero and none.
2. The global sea-freight industry has been getting its act together the last ten years as well, and have been starting to steal some traditional cargo types from air freight. With atmosphere-controlled containers and improved handling times they've been picking away at fruit & veg shipments and, recently, starting to take some of the high-value temperature-controlled pharmaceutical cargoes as well. A lot of the delays for sea cargo were traditionally in getting goods in and out of the ports (often where they would also suffer temperature damage through laziness in maintaining the cold chain) but with electronic paperwork and modern expedited port handling processes, combined with the new improved high-tech container types that manage the atmosphere gases over the produce as well as the temperature, short-to-medium-haul sea freight is now highly competitive with air freight for a lot of stuff that used to core air-freight business.
Both 1 and 2 mean the general air freight business is not looking good right now, nor is likely to for many years to come. Rates are in the toilet and likely to stay there.
3. Some-one would have to bite the bullet on the not-inconsiderable one-off costs of either developing the dedicated freighter version or designing and getting approved a used-aircraft conversion. Big, big $$$ and typically this only happens when a major cargo airline underwrites the cost with a big airframe order. See points 1 and 2 for why this isn't going to happen.
4.There are plenty of wide-body airframes on the market for those (few) who do want dedicated freighters at the moment. You can get new-build freighter 767/777/747s from Boeing and A330s from Airbus. If you want a conversion you can take your pick of used 767s or A330s. Yet more reason that point 3 won't happen.
5. The global ground infrastructure is not equipped to load/unload cargo from the upper decks of an A380. The tallest hi-loaders (pallet loaders, FMCs, whatever you want to call them) are designed for the B747 main deck - a whole new generation of super-tall, super-strong, super-big, super-expensive hi-loaders would have to be developed, manufactured, purchased and put into service across the world's airports just to cope with a relatively small numbers of A380 freighters. The ground-handling industry is notoriously cut-throat and runs on wafer-thin margins. They will be positively thrilled at the prospect of having to buy a whole new class of super-expensive pallet-loaders just to service one very small fleet of A380 freighters.
6. The combi freighter is dead for a reason. First is the logistics - most airports like a quick turn on their pax bays these days and they are also often a long way away from the cargo sheds, which would mean dragging dozens and dozens of pallets miles across the airport, instead of loading from a cargo bay right in front of the freight shed. Second is that the DG regs today mean there would be so many cargos that you couldn't load on a pax aircraft, it wouldn't be funny. I regularly accept DGs and transport live horses with grooms, and even scheduling the Cargo Aircraft Only (CAO) DGs around horse movements (grooms are 'passengers') in a pita. If we had a freighter with 200 pax onboard every flight we would have to refuse so many freight shipments that the forwarders would get 'annoyed' and go somewhere else.
7. The only area of air cargo that is doing well is the e-retail driven express freight market, and that's controlled by huge vertically-integrated multi-nationals like DHL, Fed-Ex and UPS (and possibly now Amazon themselves). These guys don't want A380s - they don't want one or two huge shipments into a port each week, they want a smaller shipment every single night - guaranteed overnight delivery is their whole business model. That's why they use smaller freighters - DHL uses 737s, 757s and 767s, Fed-Ex and UPS from the 737 up to the MD-11 and Amazon just ordered 100 x 767s for the same reason. They want frequency across a wide range of ports, not massive volume between limited international hubs.
I may see an A380 freighter before I retire (I'm 38 now) but I wouldn't put money on it. I actually feel a bit sorry for Airbus - I can see their reasoning for why the A380 will become necessary, but I feel like they were 20 years too early.
The newer EK 380s are burning 12.6T/hr and are carrying max zero fuel weight out to 16hrs (so no blocked seats). The earlier models (first 15?) burn 13 to 13.5t/hr. I can see why SQ would want to swap them out.