Why aren't A380s considered for freighter conversion?
Posted by Parasocialchut@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 69 comments
Most 747s got second life as freighters after retirement from passenger duty. But A380s only ever seem to be heading to the scrapyard if it's the end of passenger service
Nimhface@reddit
I'm not certain but I heard that the floor separating the 2 decks was structurally essential to the A380 making conversion to a cargo craft impractical. Perhaps someone who knows more could elaborate.
UsuallySparky@reddit
The problem would be if the deck couldn't handle the weight, not the fact that it exists.
Fuzzy-Moose7996@reddit
It would be a problem as without removing it you don't have the large space for oversized cargo which would be the only reason to want that conversion.
A 777 or A350 freighter would be far more practical AND cheaper to operate!
davidb4968@reddit
Not an expert and I have no facts, but.... The 380 fuselage is oval, not round, so I suspect the cabin pressure would want to deform it toward round, so the two deck floors may help to keep it in shape. Edit: yes, Google AI says the floors act as tie rods.
Tony_Three_Pies@reddit
The floor staying there wouldn’t be so much a problem unless you’re trying to do large/unusual cargo missions like the 747F, Antonovs, Dreamlifters or Belugas.
RandomNick42@reddit
As I understand it would make floor loading difficult on top deck, not to mention getting the crates on there loading. Also limited pallet height compared to other widebody freighters. The cabin gets quite tall once you get rid of the bins and other passenger crap.
alb92@reddit
Not a problem for normal cargo, but the one advantage the A380 could have had, very large cargo, becomes a non starter.
Another negative is that it would again require very specialized equipment to reach a cargo door on the upper deck.
WoundedAce@reddit
👋🏼
JPAV8R@reddit
I think it’s the deck handling the weight and I think the way the cabin is divided plus running out of weight before space. You’d need brand new ULDs that would a380 specific jot a terrible hurdle but when you’ve already got better options it becomes useless to convert them.
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
The A380 would be nowhere close or space-limited before it became weight limited, so the size advantage disappears. Passengers are relatively light compared to cargo.
Fuzzy-Moose7996@reddit
I also wouldn't be at all surprised if the A380 would lose structural integrity if the floor of the upper deck was removed, making it effectively pointless as a transport for large cargo items that won't fit in a 777 or A350 freighter, both of which would be a lot cheaper to operate.
e_pilot@reddit
Passengers are actually quite dense compared to cargo on account of just being meat bags with the rough equivalent density of water.
They generally don’t like being packed in as close as cargo containers however, a pax flight is mostly empty space.
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
There are a lot denser things than liquid that get shipped.
e_pilot@reddit
Yes I know, I am literally a freight dog captain
sluice-orange-writer@reddit
Aww who is a good boy? How long were you a freight dog lieutenant before you got promoted?
West_Good_5961@reddit
Yep. I worked with maintenance engineers with A380 licenses. They had to routinely lock out a huge amount of economy seats on long haul flights because it couldn’t take full fuel, cargo and pax.
HappyGnumff@reddit
You don’t lock out seats. You just leave them open if you payload limited
rudedogg1304@reddit
Why are people who say something followed by (for example) ‘source - I’m an Italian’ usually such idiots ?
West_Good_5961@reddit
Did you think we put locks on the seats or something? They're empty.
RetardedChimpanzee@reddit
Lockout-tag out! Only captain gets the keys to ensure passengers can’t have a seat.
toybuilder@reddit
SWA taking notes...
3PartsRum_1PartAir@reddit
That’s literally what they said they’re talking about software locking out the seats on seat maps…
Meth_Useler@reddit
FYI that’s a troll account
Dexcerides@reddit
Does this worry anyone else that this guy flies these thing but can’t understand nuance?
West_Good_5961@reddit
Standard pilot behaviour. I had a captain try give me electrical advice the other day. Ok mate, go sit in your cockpit and polish your hat or whatever.
SpaceMonkey_321@reddit
I know 2 dozen peers, relatives, ex schoolmates who are captains/fo on a major carrier. Some of them should not be allowed to drive a cab let alone fly.
TortillaChip@reddit
Troll account
OneConsideration7586@reddit
You don't lock out seats. You "block' seats and what has maintenance to do with weight and balance? They don't have access to pax, payload and cargo figures. The airline would "block" seats for certain routings directly in sales/booking systems, to avoid from start huge overbookings.
schwanerhill@reddit
I used to love the QF flight from SYD to DFW on an A380. At certain times of the year they were weight-limited to have to fly with more than 100 empty seats. Of course they left those unsold seats in economy, so it meant a guaranteed empty seat next to me when flying alone, and it wasn't uncommon to get a row of three to myself. Poor man's business class.
Chockfullofnutmeg@reddit
To further add having a bunch of extra volume means the adds drag and increased costs
Such-Significance653@reddit
Even on passenger routes 777s carrier much more cargo than the a380 which can be half or more of the airliners profit on a route.
allaboutthosevibes@reddit
Well. Passengers are not super light themselves, per se. We humans have a density similar to water or rubber. Pack us in like cargo and we’d be, well, heavy like cargo.
Comfy passengers, on the other hand, require lots of empty space.
West_Good_5961@reddit
That’s not what matters. Air freight on that route (USA-Australia) pays better than economy pax.
allaboutthosevibes@reddit
r/whoosh
hatlad43@reddit
There should be a bot to answer this weekly question.
Tony_Three_Pies@reddit
It’ll hit max weight before you fill the volume which means you’re hauling around a lot of structure for no gain.
Airbus also broke the cardinal rule of 2 deck aircraft. The cockpit goes on top. This is known. Everyone knows this.
armored-dinnerjacket@reddit
why is the cardinal rule of double deckers to have the pilots up top?
d0pe-asaurus@reddit
Nose cargo door flips up. It's harder to do that when the cockpit is part of the thing you're trying to tilt upwards
Tony_Three_Pies@reddit
Because it's just...right. The A380 has a stupid squinty face and enormous forehead.
But mostly it allows for a nose cargo door and easier access to the entirety of the main deck which in turn allows the loading of oversized or unusually shaped cargo. It's why so many cargo planes are set up the way they are, and why the 747 has been so successful as a freighter.
mrhoofy@reddit
Wasn't the C-82 or C-119 the originator of the upper deck rule?
Killentyme55@reddit
The 747 freighters have a pretty cool parlor trick, they can flip up their nose!
Very useful for loading/unloading, but not very doable on the A380.
schwanerhill@reddit
Isn't that why the cockpit was put on the upper level in the first place? IIRC it wasn't actually for a passenger second deck at all.
mightymike24@reddit
Only the new build freighters, the converted ones lack the nose door.
RandomNick42@reddit
And it's not that much of a deal in the grand scheme of things.
BenjaminKohl@reddit
There is some king cargo that really likes the forward loading, once these 747 freighters are retired (still may be thirty years from now for the -8s), only aircraft originally designed for the military are likely to work
PM_Good_Recipes@reddit
Whenever I see that picture I always imagine that plane just heard their pal tell a really funny joke
planefan001@reddit
The floor for the 2nd deck is part of the structure.
RustyPlastics@reddit
It was considered but:
1) Many airports can’t handle A380s wingspan / weight 2) Upper Deck is structurally very limited which means ULDs can’t be as heavy 3) Loading / offloading will be a PITA because you will need an internal elevator to move cargo from the upper deck down to main deck so that standard loading equipment can be used.
This results in lost space inside, additional weight and a configuration where you won’t be able to serve multiple destinations as you will need empty space to move pallets around.
You get around this by designing new loading equipment which then every airport would have to buy to service this aircraft… Which also means if it ever flies to a non standard route they can’t offload it
I_like_cake_7@reddit
So basically, what you’re saying is that if my mom got on the upper deck of the A380, there would be a serious problem.
MaleficentCoconut594@reddit
People weigh less than cargo. It wouldn’t be able to carry nearly as much weight as its size allows. Add to that the fact that there are only a handful of airports in the world that can handle it, it’s just not economical or feasible to do so
A_storia@reddit
Underfloor cargo storage is poor, relative to size (777-300 can take more pallets, for example). High operating costs and limited airport handling at cargo hubs. The future is in large twins like the 777 & A350 which are much more efficient compared to 4 engined aircraft. As the market would be relatively small, no one want to do the engineering work to design a large cargo door and reinforcing structure in the fuselage at great cost
CardinalOfNYC@reddit
The fact a 777 can take more pallets with 2 fewer engines really says the whole story.
RandomNick42@reddit
Well, I mean... pax are sitting on two decks over each other, but there's still just one baggage deck.
GeneralCross2@reddit
The main reason is runway length. It’s why most cargo companies use 767s and here soon the 777s that my company is doing a freighter conversion. But it basically means you can land more places with the other planes
halfty1@reddit
Runway length typically isn’t a problem for the A380, the huge wing gives it excellent take off performance, comparable or better than the 747s. The biggest challenge is the wingspan and how that affects how it can taxi around the airport and much space it takes on the ramp.
Wingspan is also why the 767F is so popular, for a widebody it is very compact.
DouchecraftCarrier@reddit
This is also why cargo airlines are having trouble replacing the md-11 because for its size it had a very small footprint being longer than it was wide.
Mike__O@reddit
That's why the last flight of an A380 will be as a pallet of scrap aluminum loaded into a 747.
JPAV8R@reddit
This has been successfully answered.
3PartsRum_1PartAir@reddit
A380 was the biggest flop of a dick measuring contest in aviation history. Sponsored by Airbus
Outrageous-Many-2928@reddit
Limited airport can handle the A380. It’s a “one-off” airplane. Requires special everything (runways, taxiways, ground equipment)
BillWilberforce@reddit
The 747 is the "son" of Boeing's entry for what became the C-5. So freight/cargo was in its DNA. In addition when it was being designed. Boeing believed that within 10 years of its introduction subsonic jets would be obsolete on passenger routes. Having been replaced by Super Sonic Transports (SSTs). So was designed for easy conversion to freight. Including a nose that lifts right up, to allow easy cargo access to the main "passenger" deck. Similar to the one on the C-5 but doesn't have the built in ramps or rear cargo door. Instead it requires a scissor lift or external ramp to get the cargo in and out but can carry larger, longer cargo than can fit through a normal cargo door.
The decks on the A380, particularly the top deck aren't strong enough to carry sufficient cargo to make them worthwhile. Airbus did look at a cargo variant or conversion but didn't go with it and in particular doesn't have the lift up nose.
27803@reddit
The center deck is not strong enough to carry freight and is integral to the airframe and can't be removed
Apuonbus@reddit
Not to mention that it's 4 engines. Fuel costs especially now would be much higher
Great_Specialist_267@reddit
The 747 was designed from the ground up to be a freighter. That’s why the cockpit was on the upper deck. The 2707 was supposed to supersede it as a passenger aircraft. Too few A380’s were ever built to be competitive in that market so, the A380s are being broken up to supply parts for the flying ones.
m71nu@reddit
Doors & Floors. It is hard to load, cargo version first has to be designed and implemented with a efficient way to load it. Then the floors are not cargo strength.
Still, I also wonder, because a cargo version was offered in the beginning. There must have been a cargo version on the drawing board. Anyone has more info on that?
mightymike24@reddit
The new build freighter was designed to be significantly more economical than any potential converted A380 pax aircraft
mightymike24@reddit
In addition to all the other good answers, you would need to develop and certify a conversion. EASA and FAA have become much stricter for these since a lot of the popular (mostly boeing) conversions were developed, making new conversation developments much more expensive. With such a small fleet and limited application, this would likely never become economically viable for A380.
John3Fingers@reddit
The 747 traces its genesis to the Air Force's strategic transport program in the 60s, the CX-HLS (they went with Lockheed's C-5 Galaxy). When Pan Am approached Boeing (in 1965, the same year Boeing lost out to Lockheed), Boeing took a lot of design concepts from their proposed strategic transport and applied it to the 747, which was originally going to be a double-decker. This was scrapped due to concerns about evacuation routes and limiting its freight-hauling capability. During this era there was serious talk of the future of commercial aviation going mostly supersonic, so Boeing essentially hedged the design just in case there wasn't passenger demand for the 747. They built it to open from the nose.
The A380 can't haul freight as cost-effectively as the 747 due to size and weight constraints from having a second deck, and it can't load from the nose. It also requires significantly beefed up infrastructure.
Tony_Three_Pies@reddit
This is a common misconception. The 74 does not come from the C-5 program.
Joe Sutter’s book about the program is worth reading for anyone interested. According to him, the only thing to come from the C-5 was engine tech.