Don thinks the A380 makes money. Timmy thinks the A380 makes money. That makes two people according to my calculator.

Every other airline executive on the planet appears to be of the opinion that it is a risible concept, grotesquely executed, and an eye-popping waste of fuel.

Yet we have the two of you crying out the A380 gospel in the wilderness and nobody will listen. It must be tremendously frustrating.

Unless, of course, it is another one of your tremendously sophisticated wind-up attempts with a soupçon of "I-know-who-you-are" barbs.

Tiresome.

Article on Flight Global.
​Etihad to ground A380s ‘indefinitely’

Intro:-

A380 first class is unmatched in the airline world, though.

Who would have thought, more than 6 months after the last A380 was rolled out and the start of this thread, that we'd still be finding so many interesting things to say about the aircraft.

Checkboard

So was Concorde's speed, but you don't see of similar aircraft flying around.

WillowRun 6-3

Thanks for the info - basically the BA CEO seems to be saying that he foresees putting the 380s back onto the routes that they were using them on prior to Covid...

goldfish?? Just noticed the damn autocorrect...

glofish...

It amuses me too; and warms the cockles of my heart:ok:

What does the cargo market tell us about efficiency?

Big aircraft work.
Hub systems work.
Older aircraft work.
ULR does not work.

So why throw away all those big passenger aircraft now? It was like a fashion to have them and now it is like a fashion to not have them. Far from rationale.

Really? I’m flying around the world and don’t see many 380’s.
There are, however, many 350’s and 787’s carrying cargo in the hold and 747 freighters.
Not many old aircraft either.

Cargo.
There are many cargo 747 flying. There are many converted freighters flying and older passenger aircraft converted as we speak. Like 737-800.

I rather suspect the likes of tdracer or others will be along later, with the numbers/maths to explain, yet again, why a 380 converted to the freight role makes for a poor freighter vs. other airframes currently available.

This is not what I am talking about or claimed to make sense. I don't want to get into any A380 fanboy fights.
It is just remarkable to see how the cargo folks succeed with a different menu. It's by far not only latest neos and dreamliners and twin ULR flights.

ULR freighter only?
 

If you carry freight without passengers over 6000 NM the two leg one stop in between will always win over the non stop transport in fuel burn. So why use an ULR freighter with its excess structure material which does not pay. With passenger transport you have a mixed calculation and some freight can pay non stop. But for a freighter I don't see the point. I would assume, that a 380 as 4 holer will become expensive to maintain quick, compared to other 2 donkey options.

Less Hair

Fair enough..I do think some of the fanboys and fangirls need to be mindful of the Richard Feynman's quote:

""For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."

Less Hair

As I've said before, the problem with the A380 as a freighter is it can't carry the mass. Yes, huge volume, but due to the (relatively) low MZFW it's payload is limited to somewhere around 85-90 tons. That's less than a 777F, and way less than a 747F (the 747-8F is around 150 tons payload) - with much lower operating costs.
Yes, the A380 can carry that payload a long way, but the air cargo system isn't set up that way - the max leg lengths being around 4,000 miles. In short, although a 747F could go much further without refueling, it couldn't carry as much cargo - they'd rather carry more cargo and stop for gas midway than to make a 7,000 mile sector non-stop.

I always thought that cargo aircraft cube out well before they max out on gross weight. Is that no longer usually the case?

etudiant

"I always thought that cargo aircraft cube out well before they max out on gross weight. Is that no longer usually the case?"

A PF might well do, but you can't assume that's universally true for freighters in general.

Wiggy and Less Hair, thank you for sensible and informative posts.
There are lots of ‘informed’ people who know nothing but you obviously know what’s what.
I will enjoy relating your knowledge to my colleagues who will love me even more for enlightening them!

etudiant

For express stuff, yes, but a heavy long-haul aircraft freighter will have to be able to carry all sorts of loads, not just thousands of parcels and envelopes.

Big difference is also that B777 can get fly to pretty much any airport, and B747 to most of them. Good luck trying to operate a potential A380F for couple of charters into a small-ish airport that isn't certified for it.

A380 is a great airplane that came at a wrong time, and since it makes for a poor freighter, the end is very near. Time to face the reality.

I think that is an important and overlooked point. Our A380s are not being used commercially, but are being kept flight-ready to be used when demand returns. The 777s and 787s are doing a *lot* of freighting, some hulls even with seats swapped for nets. Being able to operate in/out of most places that have a moderately long runway of adequate strength is a big plus with ad-hoc operations.

Overall, I really like the passenger experience on the 380, but the economics just don’t match those of the LH twins unless you can guarantee consistently high load factors, and even then it may not work. I can understand running 380s on certain busy routes between slot-constrained airports but in reality it’s better business to run smaller aircraft more frequently if you can, like LHR <-> JFK.