A380 combi conversion underway
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
'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
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
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 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.
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.
See: https://www.tailstrike.com/210368.htm
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’
MASKargo A380 in cargo-only flight ‘first’
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Great White North of the 49th
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...00936119301244
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: ex EGNM, now NZRO
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So basically, the A380 will generally only have a very small advantage in these costs.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by procede
So basically, the A380 will generally only have a very small advantage in these costs.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any one with pictures of the conversions?
Following is a goto to an article on possible freighter:
Following is a goto to an article on possible freighter:
