Airbus to end A380 production
#11
About guaranteed that AB will not develop/certify cargo mods, so some aftermarket shop would have to do it. Too small of a fleet also.
Also AB probably wants all of these things in the recycling shredder as quickly as it can be arranged. They've already lost $25B+, and everything they do related to the 380 loses more money. The fleet only reached a small fraction of their hoped-for market segment, and the support overhead will be bleeding red ink until they park the last one (ala Beech Starship).
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 5,909
Don't know if it's readily convertible to cargo. The problem would be the two decks... both would likely need to be reinforced, and both would need cargo access doors. No way it would be economical to fly that form drag around with the top deck empty.
About guaranteed that AB will not develop/certify cargo mods, so some aftermarket shop would have to do it. Too small of a fleet also.
Also AB probably wants all of these things in the recycling shredder as quickly as it can be arranged. They've already lost $25B+, and everything they do related to the 380 loses more money. The fleet only reached a small fraction of their hoped-for market segment, and the support overhead will be bleeding red ink until they park the last one (ala Beech Starship).
About guaranteed that AB will not develop/certify cargo mods, so some aftermarket shop would have to do it. Too small of a fleet also.
Also AB probably wants all of these things in the recycling shredder as quickly as it can be arranged. They've already lost $25B+, and everything they do related to the 380 loses more money. The fleet only reached a small fraction of their hoped-for market segment, and the support overhead will be bleeding red ink until they park the last one (ala Beech Starship).
#13
A380 fuselage is largely carbon fiber... I don't think that's as easy to modify as a conventional aluminum structure. Their "beluga" parts carriers are based on older types, probably for that reason.
#14
Lots of possibilities for a beached leviathan:
https://www.cheapflightsfinder.com/b...tired-airplane
https://www.cheapflightsfinder.com/b...tired-airplane
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: 787 FO
Posts: 101
Don't know if it's readily convertible to cargo. The problem would be the two decks... both would likely need to be reinforced, and both would need cargo access doors. No way it would be economical to fly that form drag around with the top deck empty.
About guaranteed that AB will not develop/certify cargo mods, so some aftermarket shop would have to do it. Too small of a fleet also.
Also AB probably wants all of these things in the recycling shredder as quickly as it can be arranged. They've already lost $25B+, and everything they do related to the 380 loses more money. The fleet only reached a small fraction of their hoped-for market segment, and the support overhead will be bleeding red ink until they park the last one (ala Beech Starship).
About guaranteed that AB will not develop/certify cargo mods, so some aftermarket shop would have to do it. Too small of a fleet also.
Also AB probably wants all of these things in the recycling shredder as quickly as it can be arranged. They've already lost $25B+, and everything they do related to the 380 loses more money. The fleet only reached a small fraction of their hoped-for market segment, and the support overhead will be bleeding red ink until they park the last one (ala Beech Starship).
#16
Sad to see it go, from a passenger standpoint, IMO it is by far and away the most comfortable and quiet aircraft I've ever had the pleasure to fly on. The sheer engineering advances pioneered by the A380 will undoubtedly make their way on future products, as has already been seen on the A350 et al.
#17
You're on the money, both FedEx and UPS had orders. The A380 was never a true contender for heavy cargo applications like the 747 & 777 were and still are. As I understand it they were passable for package(volume limited) applications due to low floor loading specifications and to strengthen the floors further would add weight to an already weight challenged airframe. (One of the reasons the A380 has only inboard T/Rs and brakes on only 2 of the 3 axles for the inboard main body gear.)
#18
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,473
You're on the money, both FedEx and UPS had orders. The A380 was never a true contender for heavy cargo applications like the 747 & 777 were and still are. As I understand it they were passable for package(volume limited) applications due to low floor loading specifications and to strengthen the floors further would add weight to an already weight challenged airframe. (One of the reasons the A380 has only inboard T/Rs and brakes on only 2 of the 3 axles for the inboard main body gear.)
#20
FedEx did have the A380 on order. But, with endless delays on delivery dates and charted available versus required lift expected to cross, the order was canceled and the company went with the 777.
IIRC the main differences between the cargo and pax versions were a slightly lowered upper deck, where the carbon fiber was replaced with aluminum, and a steerable aft main body gear.
The hangar is a fact.
IIRC the main differences between the cargo and pax versions were a slightly lowered upper deck, where the carbon fiber was replaced with aluminum, and a steerable aft main body gear.
The hangar is a fact.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
antiguogrumete
Your Photos and Videos
0
12-19-2018 11:49 PM