Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

A380 combi conversion underway

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

A380 combi conversion underway

Old 7th May 2020, 00:36
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Transgression Zone
Posts: 2,209
Originally Posted by chuboy View Post
https://aeronewsglobal.com/lufthansa...go-conversion/

A potentially very interesting use for the A380 given the likely future flying environment, which will surely be focused on consolidating the few travelling pax to hub to hub routes. Keep upper deck for pax, main deck and lower decks for cargo. The whale may live to turn over a buck or two for its operators yet.
Sorry to say but the A380 may be on its way to meet Jesus. As TdRacer has said a few times why. That huge jet as cargo plane is untenable. Shame we seem to be losing all of the passenger four holers.
Pugilistic Animus is online now  
Old 7th May 2020, 01:17
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,743
Originally Posted by JanetFlight View Post
Talking about the 380...is this really the end..???
Originally Posted by Pugilistic Animus View Post
Sorry to say but the A380 may be on its way to meet Jesus. As TdRacer has said a few times why. That huge jet as cargo plane is untenable. Shame we seem to be losing all of the passenger four holers.
'We know the A380 is over, the 747 is over but the A350 and the 787 will always have a place.' - Emirates President Tim Clark
'The A380 is Over' - EK President Tim Clark

Sir Tim probably now says the fool that ordered all those EK A380s should be shot!

Emirates Airline President Tim Clark: The A380 “defies gravity” in its success story
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/news...ess-story.html
Airbubba is online now  
Old 7th May 2020, 01:28
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,043
My best educated guess they are doing the same “conversion” which is already done for A320 and A330 family - removal of seats and using the floor space for cargo to be secured by cargo nets attached to the seat rails. There are many limitations coming with it like accessibility in flight for inspection and firefighting. Also the floor load limits remain the same as pax which is a far cry from real freighter. It can only work for medical masks transportation which are in a high demand right now ex China. Typical ratio we see is 10 cubic meters to 1 ton, no idea how much they will get cubic wise but MZFW hardly would be a problem. It is a reasonably cheap temporary solution which is only feasible during the current rush, however the STC is reasonably cheap and the only mod cost is seats removal. I must admit the upper deck loading of A380 might be a problem - it is all about manual labor and access.
CargoOne is offline  
Old 7th May 2020, 01:44
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 226
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
Probably a niche freighter aircraft at best.
Also think so !

Bear in mind that Cargo has two important details. One is weight. The other is volume.

The year was 2010, there was a oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and here I go to Houston on completly packed 767 with floating barriers. You would not be able to fit anything else inside. The payload was some 30 tons. A light payload for a 76.
zerograv is offline  
Old 7th May 2020, 03:12
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,743
Originally Posted by longisland View Post
UAL had either 20 or 25 of the 727-100QC (Quick Change) model. Pax seats on pallets or air freight tied down to pallets. The pallets with the passenger seats were stored in a big van like mobile unit.

One of them crashed on takeoff from KORD (1968?) and was demolished. The 3 pilot crew was injured but all survived. Inadvertent selection of 2deg flaps vice 5deg for takeoff.
The ORD 727QC crash was United 9963 on March 21, 1968. It was the classic 'ignore the takeoff warning horn' mishap which sadly would be repeated several times in the years to follow.

See: https://www.tailstrike.com/210368.htm
Attached Files
File Type: pdf
UAL 9963 ORD Crash NTSB Report.pdf (1,013.2 KB, 31 views)
Airbubba is online now  
Old 7th May 2020, 07:00
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 5,035
Already been done by Malaysian - suspect all this talk about A380 freighters is only relevant to the current need for PPE.

MASKargo A380 in cargo-only flight ‘first’
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 7th May 2020, 07:32
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,424
Originally Posted by lomapaseo View Post
Hmmm, why did the shipping industry over the sea go to giant container ships? Could it be because it was cheaper to load/unload one ship instead of several at a time?
A vessel with twice the capacity doesn't need twice the crew, or twice the fuel.
cats_five is offline  
Old 7th May 2020, 13:35
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sandy Surroundings!
Posts: 184
Pity that the operating cost on the A380 is 3 X that of the B777. USD 27 500 vs USD 9000.
TwinJock is offline  
Old 7th May 2020, 15:21
  #29 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 70
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by TwinJock View Post
Pity that the operating cost on the A380 is 3 X that of the B777. USD 27 500 vs USD 9000.
Really ? I have difficulty believe in 3 times . You have a source ?
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 7th May 2020, 16:42
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Great White North of the 49th
Posts: 41
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher View Post
Really ? I have difficulty believe in 3 times . You have a source ?
It’s not 3 times, at least if you believe this apparently detailed analysis. Just giving it a quick gander shows maybe 30% but this is all based on cost per pax/mile. Not sure how to extrapolate that to cargo, conversion costs, etc.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...00936119301244
Drc40 is offline  
Old 8th May 2020, 08:08
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 9
Originally Posted by Drc40 View Post
It’s not 3 times, at least if you believe this apparently detailed analysis. Just giving it a quick gander shows maybe 30% but this is all based on cost per pax/mile. Not sure how to extrapolate that to cargo, conversion costs, etc.
<snip>
What i read from this document is that using two smaller planes compared to one bigger one, the cost is about 40-50% higher.

For instance: Long haul, standard seat arrangement, 450 pax,
A380: roughly 13,5ct/n mile-pax
B767-300 (@225 pax): roughly 12ct/n mile-pax
So it's 13,5c compared to 24ct. <------ Edit: wrong!!!

Please correct me if i am wrong...

Edit: yes, i was wrong. shouldn't multiply by two as cost is 'per pax'.

Last edited by ThorMos; 8th May 2020 at 12:05.
ThorMos is offline  
Old 8th May 2020, 09:32
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 42
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by ThorMos View Post
Please correct me if i am wrong...
It is per pax, so you should not multiply it by 2. So per pax km the 767-300 is cheaper. So two 767's would be ~10% more cost efficient.
What isn't in this equation is the availability of slots. So can you operate two flights?
Also and for freight, the A380 can probably offer a lot more volume. So for low density freight, per m3 km, the A380 might still be more efficient.
procede is online now  
Old 8th May 2020, 10:09
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: ex EGNM, now NZRO
Posts: 442
Originally Posted by procede View Post
It is per pax, so you should not multiply it by 2. So per pax km the 767-300 is cheaper. So two 767's would be ~10% more cost efficient.
What isn't in this equation is the availability of slots. So can you operate two flights?
Also and for freight, the A380 can probably offer a lot more volume. So for low density freight, per m3 km, the A380 might still be more efficient.
Is the 12c per km inclusive of nav charges, landing fees, parking, etc?
Anti Skid On is offline  
Old 8th May 2020, 10:17
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 42
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by Anti Skid On View Post
Is the 12c per km inclusive of nav charges, landing fees, parking, etc?
All of those are related to maximum take off weight (MTOW), so they generally scale with size. Landing fees often have a minimum MTOW threshold at large airports. Nav charges in Europe use the square root of the MTOW.

So basically, the A380 will generally only have a very small advantage in these costs.
procede is online now  
Old 8th May 2020, 12:03
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 9
Originally Posted by procede View Post
It is per pax, so you should not multiply it by 2. So per pax km the 767-300 is cheaper. So two 767's would be ~10% more cost efficient.
What isn't in this equation is the availability of slots. So can you operate two flights?
Also and for freight, the A380 can probably offer a lot more volume. So for low density freight, per m3 km, the A380 might still be more efficient.
Yes, of course, thank you. Sorry for this.
ThorMos is offline  
Old 8th May 2020, 12:17
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 51
Posts: 2,649
Originally Posted by procede
So basically, the A380 will generally only have a very small advantage in these costs.
Which is why many of the EK 380s have an MTOW of 510 tonnes and not the higher 569 or 575 tonne limit...
White Knight is offline  
Old 9th May 2020, 18:45
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 478
Any one with pictures of the conversions?

Following is a goto to an article on possible freighter:

A380 Freighter Might Be More Trouble Than It’s Worth For COVID-19 Air Cargo

https://www.forbes.com/sites/willhor.../#4bc3722f75df
Longtimer is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.