Scrapping of A380
 

Scrapping of two A380s lined at Tarbes L airport..

Actually these aircraft are removed from operations due to lack of business isn't it?
Not because of end of engine or structural hours isn't it?

If above is true, can't they use it for cargo only rather than scrapping,,

Depends upon the economics. Conversion costs, fuel burn vs likely returns. Likely to be nil resale value.

Might make a really nice three up and four down. Well insulated and at less than the cost of a typical Notting Hill Semi.

IG

It's an environmental solution to the housing crisis. Mounted vertically, the holds can be the lift shaft & service tunnel etc. The wings can be fitted with solar panels and the top flat would be a penthouse for high net worth individuals.

Looks better than some of Foster's creations as well..

I think that it was originally stated that Hi Fly were taking 2 A380s, although this does not appear to have happened. Does anyone have any updated info. on Hi Fly's plans for the 380 ?

1X A380 is flying for HiFly Malta.

It flew for Air Austral end of april.
The two scrapped A380s are very early ones that are non standard. Parting them out is more profitable than converting their cabins and reuse them as airliners.

Rather amazing for an aircraft with development costs over $9.5 billion that the service life of the aircraft is far less than two decades. With a list price of USD$445 million that is a big bet gone wrong.
Given the hand and glove approach of the manufacturer with potential customer airlines, it shows that at times even the industry gets it wrong.

The A380 concept matured over tens of years. While the airline industry moved from carrying more and more passengers through hubs to point to point with smaller aircraft and a focus on business travellers. This is why there are 787 and A350 now.

Agreed.

The pressure to be fuel efficient will only increase as the drums of climate change continue to beat.
A whole different discussion. However what is pertinent is that the industry perceives a 'business as usual' approach with incremental technology changes will be sufficient. The jury is out on that one..

Though they did both fly for SIA for nearly ten years.

And then SIA ordered five new built ones to phase out their five oldest. SIA was the first airline to operate A380s. Airbus optimized many details over the years, materials, wing twist, more common cabin systems and such.
The earliest aircraft were to much custom tailored and had needed wiring and rib repairs.

The lease didn't work out as planned. They had hoped for at least a full second term. The first term mainly covers the aircraft and the leasing company's cost, the second term usually is the profitable one for the investors. SIA took them only for one term (as planned) and no second term customer could be found.

Concur with why these two aircraft are being parted out. It is also my understanding that the A380 will not make an easy cargo conversion because of the work required to beef up the cabin floor. Maybe someone else who has a better background can comment?

Bad investment
 

The A380 simply does not pencil out well as a freighter. Max Zero Fuel Weight is too low - it has great range but can't carry a heavy load - and the cargo market is based around 3,000 to 4,000 mile legs so range above that doen't have much value (747 Freighters seldom even use the center wing fuel tank for that reason - better to carry more payload and make a stop for gas). The main deck would need massive strengthening to carry a reasonable cargo load, and the upper deck is all but unusable for freight - even if it was strengthened, you'd need new, specialized (i.e. expensive) GSE to get the stuff up there. Plus all that extra structure would increase the empty weight without raising the MZFW so now you can carry even less cargo. Of course, there is the option of increasing the MZFW, but that's a huge, very expensive effort (both non-recurring development and recurring to upgrade the individual airframes). The flight deck location effectively rules out an opening nose door for oversized stuff.
Or you can go pick up a 747F and be good to go.

BTW
Although better fuel efficiency was an early claim for the A380, the bottom line is that the A350, 787, and soon 777X have significantly better fuel burn per seat mile than the A380 (even the A330 NEO is probably better). And the big twins will take you where you want to go, not to some hub where you have to get on another flight to get to your destination.

B777 will be difficult too. Very limited number of operators outside the first tier and they typically operate just a couple of aircraft. Remarketing of 777s is difficult already today and we are not into the massive wave of re-deliveries from original operators yet. There is no room for 1300x 772&773 on second hand market except freighter conversions.

But I think you'll find the 777 makes a pretty good freighter (160 already in-service, with over 50 more on-order). Plus, even though it's been in-service for 24 years, you're not seeing many ending up in the desert. The operators just keep flying them.

The more modern and more standard Emirates A380 would be way better for another second hand airline use or for industrial conversion to package freighters. Think Amazon or similar. They are not good for heavier general cargo but lightweight packages would be some perfect cargo.

The condition of the aircraft is not the point when looking for a buyer, the problem is mainly the costs for refurbishing, which is the reason, why IAG have dropped their plans to buy second hand A 380 aircraft. It would probably be cheaper to buy new aircraft.

add in the cost of infrastructure required to service these as freighters, one might discover why FedEx early on had expressed interest in the 380, then abandoned the idea..

Ups also looked at the 380 but ultimately we got 747-400f and then 747-8, as my name implies, I road the classic to the end!

So far 777 freighters are exclusively factory built freighters and while conversion program have been under consideration for years, it is not officially launched yet. And very likely it would concentrate on -300ER due to its much better volume. There are over 100x B777 in storage at the moment, mostly -200/200ERs - these aircraft are doomed. Since Jet Airways went tits up recently we will see how quickly the market can absorb a dozen of -300ERs unless Vistara will go ahead with their suicide plan to take them all at once...

Former Airbus employees know that for its day the 777 is as good as it gets

Not sure how right Boeing was. They developed the 747-8 believing in the big quad's future themselves.

Concerning the A380 as a freighter: FedEx and UPS had ordered (firm) factory build A380 freighters back then until Airbus cancelled that version during their electrical wiring "harness mess".

True, according to the news, in combination with the lease and parting out the aircraft (leasing the engines) the good Dr made 148% and 155% rate of return on the ac.

I seem to remember FEDEX ordering 380-800F..whatever happened to those?


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....95c5c0bd9c.jpg

Orders possibly converted to other Airbus freighters?

Boeing built the 747-8 to take market share from the A380, and to maintain the dominance of the 747 Freighter (remember, the 747-8F was the launch aircraft and entered service first - the passenger version was almost an afterthought). It appears to have worked - the 747-8F is still in production and the A380 is officially dead. Boeing isn't making much money on the 747-8F at the current production rate, but they're not loosing money either.
Yes, there were a small number of A380F ordered early, then cancelled when Airbus ran into trouble with the A380. But even before the orders were cancelled, industry analysts were puzzling over the A380F - for the very reasons I posted earlier. It seems to be rather telling that, after Airbus got a handle on the A380, they never bothered to re-offer the A380F.
The 747 was designed from day one to make a good freighter. The A380 wasn't.

The A380F was cancelled by the manufacturer not by it's customers.

Your point being? Seems to me that would confirm the contention that the A380 wouldn't make a good freighter, at least not without a massive investment that Airbus didn't see paying off.

Customer demand was there.

777 Freighter conversion not launched yet , carbon fibre floor beams have to be replaced which makes it a big expensive job so market has to right to make it viable.

Seriously? There was sufficient customer demand to make money if they developed an A380 Freighter, but Airbus decided not to bother? They threw away a lucrative market?
Or was it the same 'customer demand' that lead Airbus to forecast selling 1500 A380s when they launched the program?