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

Last A380 Leaves Assembly Hall

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

Last A380 Leaves Assembly Hall

Old 5th Oct 2020, 12:08
  #101 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: New jersey
Posts: 37
Airbus never built the freighter version. My Airline bought at least 10 of them as well as FedEx. Airbus never went through the development of the freighter version because once the floors were strengthened for cargo ops, the additional weight made it uneconomical to operate. If your numbers are correct, why didn’t Airbus build the freighter, and especially today, when cargo ops are booming?
Chiefttp is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2020, 12:49
  #102 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: attitude is nominal
Posts: 998
In fact they did design it. They even built the first set of wings for the freighter.
This wing was meant to be the wing for the A380-800R and stretched -900 as well. They halted the freighter when they had to redesign the harnesses overnight and some other stuff. At that time they must have realized that the hoped for market was way smaller than expected.
Less Hair is online now  
Old 5th Oct 2020, 17:57
  #103 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 2,944
Paper airplanes don't count - as others have pointed out, the A380F was never built.
To get your quoted 151 ton payload, Airbus was going in increase the MZFW by 41 tons, while decreasing the empty weight by a further 26 tons (I wonder if they could have achieved that empty weight number - once they add all the extra structure and main deck doors for a freighter it generally doesn't make all that much difference in the empty weight compared to the passenger version). The passenger A380 can only carry about 84 tons of payload - less than the 777 P2F.
As I previously posted, the 747 was designed from day one to make a good freighter - the A380 wasn't. If Airbus had gone for the higher MZFW for the passenger A380, a P2F mod might have worked, but they didn't and it's too late now. 20-20 hindsight and all that...
tdracer is online now  
Old 5th Oct 2020, 18:32
  #104 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: attitude is nominal
Posts: 998
The A380 freighter was no general cargo freighter but mainly intended for containerized express cargo on three decks. The high range was the selling point. Asia- inland USA nonstop and such. This is why FedEx and UPS had already signed firm orders. Looking at the planned A380-family of HGW versions and stretches it made sense.
Less Hair is online now  
Old 9th Oct 2020, 09:30
  #105 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls Žold EuropeŽ
Posts: 941
Originally Posted by ohnutsiforgot View Post
I wonder when engine technology would have delivered so that a twin 380 would have been feasible.
It is relatively simple maths, if you want to have the required thrust the engine will have such a large diameter, that the real challange will be designing the landing gear. It is a bit like the 737 Max issue... To accomodate an engine that large, you probably have to do a high wing design typically not popular with passenger aircraft customers.

Originally Posted by srjumbo747 View Post
They went ahead with this project knowing it would fail.
Originally Posted by Tartiflette Fan View Post
I would be interested if you could document this .
Just saw an older report from the A380 rollout on TV the other day...
Statement from Charles Champion : "Everybody told us we would fail, but we proved them wrong"

As a passenger I will really miss to bo on board of one, and will be more than happy to no longer cueue up with 500+ fellow passenge at check-in, security, boarding, immigration, or the baggage belt...
A lot of airports killed this projects as much as all the other negative aspects did. Some never managed to manage that large aircraft. All they did was installing additional jetways and putting up big "A380 ready" signs, but never touched the real bottlenecks.
Volume is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2020, 10:24
  #106 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,065
Bad, very bad airports! Just as bad as all those counties that did not adapte their roads to accomodate the fantastic Humvee .....
What a silly argument, not worth your usual expertise.
glofish is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2020, 15:02
  #107 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 43
Posts: 214
Originally Posted by Volume View Post
It is relatively simple maths, if you want to have the required thrust the engine will have such a large diameter, that the real challange will be designing the landing gear.
Actually, the main problem is the design of the low pressure turbine, as it needs to spin at the same rotational speed as the fan (which will be very low with such a large diameter). We have geared turbofans now, but not for those diameters and thrust levels (about 825 kN /185 klbf per engine, assuming a thrust to weight ratio of 0.3, which is higher than the current 0.25 with 4 engines due to the single engine inoperative climb requirements).
procede is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2020, 18:10
  #108 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Would like to mention that Emirates as the operator of around 125 380s knew a good aircraft when they saw one and are highly unlikely to agree it has been a failure......
portmanteau is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2020, 02:50
  #109 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uae
Posts: 2,543
Great airplane for the intended use. EK has a good plan at 55 380s , trunk routes / slot restricted. Then they got stupid big ego greedy . Prior to covid things were declining now the house of cards has fallen and no one has sympathy for their arrogance.
fatbus is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2020, 06:36
  #110 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: bush
Posts: 67
It was quite clear 380 was toast, when someone shared how much fuel an fully loaded 380 and full 77W had taken before leaving right after each others from a middle east desert airport to an european capital. The 77W was more fuel efficient per pax! Granted, the 77W was a more flying sardine can configuration, but hey, how would want to fly in a sardine can configured 380?
keitaidenwa is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2020, 06:58
  #111 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: ex EGNM, now NZRO
Posts: 482
The B777 didn't start off as a sardine can, with many airlines using 3-3-3 in economy with a 34 inch pitch, but then EK went for 3-4-3 and a 32 inch pitch. But Joe Public didn't care, they had good IFE and free beer
Anti Skid On is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2020, 07:47
  #112 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,258
When the first 380's came into service we had a 380 and a 777 on adjacent stands and we were shocked at how much extra fuel we had to load on the 380 to the same destination (LHR) - that coupled with the amount of freight that got left behind made the economics seem rather tight.

Of course when the price of oil fell to $50 a barrel the extra fuel burn was less important.
Jet II is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2020, 07:49
  #113 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,258
I think the 380 did very well for EK given that their whole business was built on the Hub/spoke model. I also wonder exactly how much EK actually paid for their airframes given that for most of its life EK was really the only major customer for the aircraft that Airbus had.
Jet II is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2020, 09:11
  #114 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: back out to Grasse
Posts: 287
Having had the good fortune to ride the A380 down to Miami and back, just before the lockdown, and fully understanding that any personal preferences that I may have in selecting my chariot, are restricted by economics. This is one aircraft that will be sorely missed by we, the Punters. I chose the A380 over the 777 on the same route simply on the recommendation of a good number of members of this forum, friends and other sources. Not only was I not disappointed, it made being crammed in a sardine can for 10 hours, infinitely more bearable.

If Airbus made a very large twin, with the same ride quality, internal space, and improved economy, I am sure it would be a winner. (The A350 is certainly moving in the right direction, but needs to grow a bit more.
also don't think Boeing have the mindset to compete with these concepts.

Just my quibbling, doubt the bean counters will ever see it my way.

Last edited by Imagegear; 27th Oct 2020 at 10:26.
Imagegear is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2020, 05:27
  #115 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 202
There seems to be an accepted wisdom that the A380 is "roomier", especially in long haul economy routes.

My butt tells me this is not so, as do the comprehensive seat pitch/width schedules found in Seat Guru. Sure, maybe an inch here or there on pitch/width between carriers/types but really nothing to warrant the gushing praise for the 380 sometimes seen in these posts.

I take the point that downward pricing has done this. Most non-aviation people I speak to do not know the aircraft type they are travelling in and care even less.
james ozzie is online now  

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.