← Back to Squawk list

12

If Airbus had built and commercialized the A-380 Freighter, would it be a success or failure?

5년 전 제출됨

Well let’s start with the first two. Lots of lift and the ability to carry a lot of weight mean that freight companies can load it with stacks of cargo and it can still fly safely. The third point mentions weight reduction. What I mean is that unlike the A380, the 747 only has a partial upper deck. Obviously, half a deck weighs less than a whole deck. The 747’s upper deck has been extending since the 1980s/1990s, so Boeing introduced their newest freighters with a short upper deck. (flip.it) 기타...

Tad Dubious

18 멤버 코멘트

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Torsten Hoff 5년 전 2

The reason they didn't build it is that there was no interest in a A380 freighter. That should answer the question of whether it would have made a difference in making the A380 a commercial success.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

bentwing60 5년 전 2

There was more to the lack of orders than meets the eye, Torsten. As several commenters on the original thread didn't really point out, but referenced, the a380 upper deck runs the length of the fuselage and is entirely structural. Thus,it could not be readily modified without great expense. The net, net was heavy large bulk freight wouldn't fit in the lower deck and the upper deck wouldn't support heavy smaller bulk freight. Then there is the issue of adequate facilities where it can operate. The AN225 has the same issue with span and thus is also limited as to where it can operate. IMHO the 74 really did set the size standard for the modern era.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

matt jensen 5년 전 2

But the AN225 is just as large and more expensive to fly....http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/5083/why-china-wants-to-put-the-gargantuan-antonov-an-225-mriya-back-into-production

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

Cansojr 5년 전 1

Hi Matt, correct me if I am wrong. There are only 4 functional AN225' in existence.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

Cansojr 5년 전 1

Thanks Matt, I saw a special on Discovery Network show on Amazing Aircraft. Yes they have one operational. There are three more that they are refurbishing it for oversized cargo. I guess the demand for that fleet is realistic where a huge 380 fleet would fail.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

bentwing60 5년 전 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225_Mriya

Only one, Cansoir.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

matt jensen 5년 전 1

True, but China wants to build them. The AN, not a 380

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

Cansojr 5년 전 1

OK:)

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

[This poster has been suspended.]

Brad Littlejohn 5년 전 1

Umm.. I don't know where you're getting your information from, but you may want to tell them they're wrong. UPS did have interest in the A380F, to the point where they ORDERED THEM.

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2005/01/ups-selects-a380.html

FDX ordered them as well.

https://about.van.fedex.com/newsroom/fedex-express-first-to-take-delivery-of-airbus-a380-freighter/

It was the delays in their delivery schedule that caused them to cancel their orders, which resulted in Airbus dropping the A380F program.

But to say that they had no interest in them is outright wrong.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

Brad Littlejohn 5년 전 1

Again, wrong. FDX and UPS ordered A380Fs.

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2005/01/ups-selects-a380.html
https://about.van.fedex.com/newsroom/fedex-express-first-to-take-delivery-of-airbus-a380-freighter/

Revised and pushed back delivery schedules caused them to cancel their respective orders.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

bentwing60 5년 전 1

Thanks for the show of disrespect. Didn't say there were no orders for the 380F and your lack of distinction between cargo and package freight haulers is obvious. Atlas, Kalitta, et. al., the real "you call, we haul" guys didn't order it for several reasons, including the no opening nose option, and won't use them when they can get them for nothing! FEDEX and UPSCO might, but I doubt it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Airlines_Flight_102

Just a note on what cargo, not box haulers do, and when it doesn't go well.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

bentwing60 5년 전 1

Just coincidentally, when I flew supplemental for FEDEX and UPSCO in the 80's and early 90's that's what we called them, not ticker symbols. Cheers.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

Brad Littlejohn 5년 전 1

Umm... FDX and UPS are their ICAO designations, not their ticker symbols. Being someone who flew for them and should have been privy to their flight plans since you accepted them at clearance delivery, you should know that.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

bentwing60 5년 전 1

NYSE stock exchange symbols,

http://eoddata.com/stocklist/NYSE/U.htm

look em up, FDX, UPS.

I flew supplemental. I did not work directly for either. All I saw on the freight ramps was Lear jets, Falcon 20's and the odd wanna be's and the fuelers and box vans. We filed our own flight plans Bozo and I guess I'll just go erase all those SDF, MEM entries from my log books since your insinuation that I didn't do that must be relevant.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

Brad Littlejohn 5년 전 1

ICAO code for UPS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airline_codes_(U)

Look 'em up.

ICAO code for Federal Express: FDX

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airline_codes_(F)

Look 'em up.

I guess I may also just throw away the FAA JO7110.65 while I'm at it too, because I obviously must not know what the hell I'm talking about.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

Brad Littlejohn 5년 전 1

Further codified in the FAA JO7340.2G.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/7340.2G_Bsc_dtd_1-5-17.pdf

Yeah.. I really must not know what the hell I'm talking about.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•모•Report

patrick baker 5년 전 1

there was no interest in a cargo version of the A380 because there was not much thought given to make a cargo version design. The big cargo carriers would have given consideration to the cargo version except there was not ever one version to consider. In retrospect, if there had been a second design A380 that could be a legitimate cargo bird, how many might have been sold, built and flown?

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

patrick baker 5년 전 1

sorry that airbus had to admit what many of us suspected for years- the 380 was built out of arrogance and was purposely not designed for a dual use cargo capacity, mostly out of obstinance and gallic (French) hubris. The laws of the design universe say that better ideas trump (I apologize) nearly better fantasies....

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

로그인

FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?

FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..

종료