Nobody Wants the A380 and That’s Breeding Creativity

A380, Emirates, Malaysia Airlines

There isn’t anything quite like the A380. The airplane is enormous, and frankly, it is a true delight to fly (as a passenger, at least). The cabin design feels spacious, you can barely hear any engine noise, and it handles turbulence well. From an airline perspective, however, it’s the economics that matter most. And in most cases, the A380 just doesn’t work. With airlines struggling to offload these airplanes, some are going to have to get creative. One already has.

The idea behind the A380 was flawed from the start. Boeing bet that airlines would prefer smaller airplanes that could go longer distances. The 787 was built on that premise and has been a star. The A350 has done quite well in its own right. But the A380? It was built to carry a whole lot of people (or freight, until that model was dropped early on) on big routes. Very few airlines had that same vision, and it was reflected in the order book.

Unloved A380

The A380 has received only 319 orders. So far, only 198 have been delivered to a mere 13 operators, and it’s unlikely all 319 will ever be built. (You think Virgin Atlantic will ever take those 6 airplanes? Nope. And neither will the lessors who have committed, I’d bet.) Of those orders, Emirates is responsible for 142 of them with 85 in the air at the end of October.

For Emirates, the A380 is the backbone of its fleet, but it might regret that as travel begins to slow. Profits in the most recent report were off 75 percent on slowing demand. It’s hard enough to fill 85 A380s when times are good. How about filling 142 when times aren’t? Emirates remains bullish, saying it would order a whole bunch more if Airbus created a “neo” version with a new, more efficient engine. But that’s not likely to happen since nobody else is all that interested.

Even the airlines that have committed to the airplane don’t seem all that… committed. Some seemed to take the airplane as a point of national pride (Air France, Lufthansa). While others seemed to be playing the “me too” game (if Korean has the A380, Asiana will too). But the cold, hard reality of operating this beast has started to take its toll, and airlines are reacting. Some have it relatively easy.

Singapore was the first to fly the A380, and has the second largest fleet with 19 flying and 5 more on order. But Singapore’s first batch of A380s came on a 10-year lease, so the first one is up next year. Singapore isn’t planning on renewing that lease, and that’ll likely be the case for at least the first five of its airplanes. We don’t know what Singapore’s long term plan is for the aircraft, but clearly it’s more interested in smaller widebodies to support its growth plans.

Then there’s Air France. The airline probably felt national pressure to order the A380, and it originally said it would take 12. But after having 10 on the property, it told Airbus it wouldn’t take the last 2. It swapped those for 3 A350s instead. While the A380 often has a flagship onboard product with many airlines, at Air France it has a tired, older interior. It’s generally an airplane to avoid. Air France never quite seemed to figure out how to use the A380.

While simply getting rid of the aircraft is ideal for many airlines, it’s not always possible. There had been talk about a secondary market being out there to scoop up these airplanes. Turkish, for instance, had been expected to pick some up before the situation in Turkey deteriorated so much that traffic dropped off dramatically. That’s not likely to happen now. And Hawaiian has said it might be able to support a couple of them, likely to compete with ANA’s decision to take 3 A380s to fly to Hawai’i because it had no other choice if it wanted to snatch Skymark from Delta’s claws. But come on, that’s probably not happening either. So with airplanes coming off lease and nobody really interested, it makes it hard for those airlines that realized they’ve mistakenly ordered the wrong airplane. What can they do?

Those airlines who want to get rid of the A380 but can’t are probably watching Malaysia very closely. See, Malaysia stupidly ordered 6 A380s when it had no real use for them. The airline was on the ropes when a turnaround began, and neither previous CEO Christoph Mueller or current CEO Peter Bellew saw any place for the A380 going forward. But without being able to unload the airplanes, it was stuck.

A lesser airline might just sit there and keep flying the things, losing money as they go. But Malaysia has instead come up with a crazy scheme to farm out the A380s to a new division that specializes in Islamic pilgrimages. This airline will operate the A380 in a super high-density 700-seat configuration, at least when it can transport Hajj pilgrims.

But wait, isn’t Hajj only once a year? There’s no question that a bunch of airlines could use the A380 during that time, but what about the rest of the year? Well, for those not in the know, Hajj isn’t the only pilgrimage to Mecca. There’s also Umrah, which happens year-round. And this is no small thing. For the first half of 2016, Saudi Arabia issued over 6 million visas for Umrah pilgrims coming from outside the country. For that, Malaysia would shift to a less-dense 600 seat configuration. These aircraft can be wet-leased out to anyone who needs some heavy lift.

Is this crazy? It would be if Malaysia felt it could find a way to actually get rid of the airplanes. But since that’s not an option, this is more of a desperate move than anything. It needs to find a way to fly those A380s and lose less money than it does today. Talk about a sad state of affairs for the A380.

If this works, then maybe the market for used A380s will pick up. It seems unlikely, however. Instead, the A380 will remain a white elephant everywhere outside of Dubai. Even in Dubai, you have to wonder if anxiety levels are rising.

Get Cranky in Your Inbox!

The airline industry moves fast. Sign up and get every Cranky post in your inbox for free.

77 comments on “Nobody Wants the A380 and That’s Breeding Creativity

  1. European longhaul low cost carriers to regain traffic lost to the Middle East carriers along with Turkey’s problems only aggravate the difficulty in the model the Middle East carriers built that was dependent on flooding Europe with huge amounts of capacity.

    All the unsuccessful efforts by AA, DL and UA to limit the Middle East carriers might instead be replaced by basic airline economics.

  2. I’d like to know what Airbus’s mistake was in estimating demand for this aircraft in the first place. Did they just fail to foresee improving efficiency in long-range twins?

    1. They expected airports to get increasingly congested, and especially that passenger growth would exceed growth in aircraft slots. They didn’t expect this to apply at every airport, but rather several of the major ones (eg London Heathrow). That has been true to some extent, but not that relevant to financials since airlines are also flying to more airports too.

      It is worth noting that average plane sizes have been increasing. For example the A321 is preferred over the A320 these days. Or the 787-9 over the -8. However these are still nowhere close to A380 capacity.

      I suspect that if world economies had been stronger and wealth a little more evenly distributed, then the A380 would be more successful due to increased passenger demand. But they couldn’t possibly have predicted that.

    2. grichard – As Roger says, it was just a different vision. Boeing envisioned more point to point flying with smaller aircraft that had greater range. Airbus envisioned more funneling of traffic into hubs and then flying big trunk routes with A380s to handle demand. It just hasn’t panned out.

  3. I recall seeing that BA wanted a few used A380’s, they couldn’t justify exercising their order options, but for the right price, they thought it would work for a few more markets from London. But yeah, not much of a market for it.

    While it is fun to laugh at Airbus now, almost a decade after first commercial flight, there were a lot of 747-400’s flying around when the A380 was launched and the idea of that a twin engine jet would replace most of them was unclear at the time. The 777-200ER was only just coming online in large numbers and the 777-300ER had only launched the same year and would enter service until 2004. It is hard to predict such a seismic shift, especially if you are biased towards four engines in the first place.

    1. Lets not fool ourselves, that behemoth was developed to OneUp Boeing at their 30+ year reign as leader of the very large aircraft market. Unfortunately their timing was off. No doubt had it hit the market 10-15 years earlier the 747-400 may have been the white elephant. What seems odd is when the program got the green light in the mid-1990’s after the 777 had hit the market and Boeing had already dropped their plans for a very large aircraft placed above the 747. Additionally MD had already dropped their similar MD-12 concept in the early 90’s. That’s not all a coincidence. The tea leaves were showing this to be a boondoggle from the start yet the consortium that is Airbus threw good money after bad to continue development. Bad for the taxpayers in the countries that support Airbus and should be a lesson in business schools the world over. Not that Boeing always does the smartest thing but being more beholden to shareholders does in my opinion keep them more true to market forces than national pride.

      1. Boeing gets plenty of support from US taxpayers, don’t forget the Import/Export Bank ( also known as Boeing’s Bank).

        1. That’s just to keep them on an even keel with the state financing that Airbus gets. That’s the whole reason for the import/export bank-to level the playing field.

      2. Doesn’t Singapore always keep their fleet young? Does it not have 5 new A380s on order to replace the first five? Had you have reported this accurately might it have killed your doom and gloom article?

        1. other than the slam at a great article….

          5 planes replacing others (thus not even growing Singapore’s fleet) doesn’t change the picture at all. The plane simply is too niche to live up to expectations of large orders

  4. Would be fun to brainstorm on here creative A380 strategies, especially if they get pretty cheap on the used market. If reasonably full, is the cost per seat mile substantially below the smaller twin engine planes? Could someone like Spirit do a super low-cost NYC-LA shuttle in a high-density seat configuration? Or Allegiant to Hawaii once a week from key big cities? Just shots in the dark here, but fun to think about…

    1. I’m just waiting for the planes to get cheap enough for Delta to decide to pick up a bunch of them (and I say that only half sarcastically).

      Alternatively, it would be fun to see what Norwegian or other low cost long haul carriers might be able to do with cheap A380s.

      Really, though, a plane with that many pax at a time doesn’t leave many options, even for leisure pax in high density. Maybe do some Hawaii runs, Vegas runs from Asks or Europe, perhaps a few Orlando runs from the UK or Europe. Otherwise, what, maybe a few flights from former Spanish/Portuguese colonies in Latin America to Spain and Portugal.

  5. I seem to recall that Airbus’ vision was that airport runway capacity would not be able to keep up with increasing flight demand, so larger aircraft would be necessary. What they failed to see is that one direct flight can fulfill the same demand as two hub and spoke flights.

  6. What is LH exposure? Last time I transitted Frankfurt, it seemed all I saw were LH A380’s parked at the gates.

    1. MB – Lufthansa does have 14 of them with no more planned, but I really can’t figure out Lufthansa’s strategy. It also has 19 747-8 aircraft and the group is taking on A350s and 777-300s (not sure how many will be flown by Lufthansa itself). So apparently the Lufthansa strategy is to just fly everything.

  7. Damn, I still haven’t flown on one…(or the 787 or the A350). I need to do some flying!

    I’m thinking that a used A380 would be the perfect plane for Avatar/Family Airlines! Pack 700 people in there, (Including a troupe of mimes), sell them a cheap snack pack and fly them from LAX-LAS. It can’t fail!

  8. I’ve never cared for the looks of the A380, it’s lacks the grace of a 747.

    The only place it fits is travel between two large cities with a lot of traffic, but travelers would rather have a choice of say 6 767s at different times during the day then 1 or 2 A380s.

    It appears unless something changes, that it should have never been built in the first place.

    1. Well, looks don’t really matter, sure. But man, it *is* one ugly airplane, with its big bulbous forehead. I don’t need to be reminded about my receding hairline every time I look at it.

    2. From the moment I first saw an A380, I thought it was big and ugly. It probably doesn’t matter much from the inside, but they do look really ugly. OTOH, the 747 has always been a beautiful plane. It’s still the queen of the sky ti me.

    3. It may be ugly but the A380 sure is nice plane to fly on. I’ve flown the lower deck front and back and the upper deck front all of different carriers. It’s quiet and smooth. I just don’t like the boarding and deplaning process … 500-600 passengers causes issues with baggage, customs etc. etc.

  9. The problem isn’t the cost to acquire the A380’s now. Even if an airline got it for $1. It’s still just too many seats, too much fuel, and too many crew.

    Even only one airline runs only 1 A380 on a given route, it’s practically saturated the market and torpedoed yields.

    Unless you can fill 500+ seats every day on a route every day and not have to sell $200 TPAC fares it’s going to lose money.

  10. Malaysia’s pilgrimage idea, while it has more than a whiff of desperation, isn’t half bad, as the country has a large Muslim population and a good part of that is going to be price-sensitive. But there’s a finite number of these opportunities around the world, and while Malaysia might be able to keep six A380s busy, they’re not going to look for more, even if they can charge enough to break even on these six.

    Seems to me the only solution is a freighter conversion programme, but would the cost per pound of freight be enough to make the plane viable?

    1. CraigTPA – I’m guessing not. I believe the A380 was designed to be stretched, so it’s carrying a lot of extra weight (someone correct me if I’m wrong). The dedicated freighter from the factory idea fell flat on its face. I doubt a conversion would work.

      1. A conversion might work if the airframe price is low enough. Isn’t this the whole reason the DC10 conversion is a success? Nobody wants them for passengers, hence they’re cheap and therefore make great freighters.

      2. The new build freighter got cancelled because of the program delays and rising costs and a slow build rate, meaning total delivery timeline stretched to around 10 years past the original plan… so they lost.

        Technically, the plane should have had good economics, but the new build freighter market seems centered around non-jumbo widebodies predominantly.

        Conversion would surely work, but without significant wing strengthening and landing gear improvements that a new build would have had, would never have the performance originally promised.

  11. One of the byproducts of the A380 is the requirement of airport operators such as LAWA & PANYNJ to rebuild & reconfigure terminal/ gate areas at great expense. I believe JFK has at least two gates that are set up for the A380 – terminals 1 &4 have room & possibly terminal 8 does as well.

    1. That’s why we don’t see A380s at ORD. Chicago has not made the investment in A380 infrastructure. And why should we? So Air France, Lufthansa and British Air can fly one flight a day from Europe to ORD with an A380.

      The city is crazy enough to be bribed into building an A380 dock, but it make no sense for the few flights a month we would see using that aircraft.

  12. Do you think if India and the UAE sort out the number of seats that Emirates can ply between the two countries would help Emirates fill up a380 seats? And possibly return back to 100% profitability?

    Because the a380 only operates between Dubai and Mumbai and it could possibly fly to Delhi , Hyderabad, Bangalore and other a380 compatible airports. Emirates is the biggest foreign airline in India and will definitely profit from this.

  13. Rumors abound that Hertz/Avis are seeking office space located at abandoned airfields. Solution: A380-MO [mobile office]! Their huge fleets of unneeded late-model SUVs would make great public housing. [semi-LOL]

    Dr Norman L Wherrett Jr Neuroproctologist – Retired

  14. Hi there, Cranky: What is your opinion about the present and the future of Etihad’s A380 with its Residences and Apartments?
    Do you believe the UAE airline wi expand the routes it has at the moment with their A380?
    I appreciate your comments and congratulations for the great news you put together: I am a fan.

    1. vipservices – I love the Residence since it uses dead space. But the Etihad A380 has a lot of real estate dedicated to that front cabin. I’m guessing it doesn’t want any more than it has, if it even wants those.

      1. Thank you for your inside on this curiosity of mine.They have announced recently that the airline intends to stop the São Paulo route next March – a clear signal of the crisis you mentioned on your article. That is why I wondered if they would expand The Residence product to more A380s, but I also guess not.Bests from Brazil,  EduardoEduardo Alves Editor in Chief & VIP Travel Concierge

      1. While we are on that topic, any chance a plane is ever developed that could do LHR-SYD or LHR- New Zealand nonstop in a commercially viable way?

        I get that trying to do the Kangaroo route nonstop would really burn a lot of extra fuel, just wondering if the appeal of a nonstop (even of that length) would generate enough demand to offset much of the extra fuel burn.

        1. If they did develop such a plane, I’d expect a Middle East Sovereign Wealth Fund to buy it and kill it, as it’d destroy their aviation and tourism sector in one go!

        2. Kilroy – I mean, it’s always possible. But that’s pretty much the last route that would make commercial sense that can’t be flown nonstop today.
          Pretty thin needs for an airplane to have that kind of range. May have to wait until totally new technology comes out.

          1. In all honesty, what about ultra high altitude, sub orbital planes? Super sonic speeds without the booms?

            1. Nathaniel – That’s kind of what I was thinking when I so vaguely said “totally new technology.” It would have to be something awesome and different like that.

            2. In the late 1960’s I interviewed Barnes Wallis. He showed me his geodetic based design for a sub-orbital plane. He reckoned it wouldn’t need too much expensive Titanium so it would have been relatively inexpensive to build. It would fly from the UK to Australia in 5 hours. A hybrid RAM/Turbo jet was being designed at Rolls-Royce to power it. The dynamic brave British government of the day did what they did with his swing-wing Swallow – They cancelled it! So we don’t need any new technology – Let’s just dust off his design and get on with it :-)

            1. Even if in-flight refueling were commercially viable (and I am sure it is not), it would never pass muster with the aviation authorities because of safety. Putting two big planes that close to each other isn’t going to be acceptable when you have 200+ lives at risk, vs less than a dozen when the military does it.

          2. Agreed. Based on distance (ignoring winds) it looks like LHR-SYD is one higher range model away from being possible with a 777 or A350. A hypothetical 777-300LR or an A350-ULR+ might be able to do the route, especially with a lower density first + business only layout.

            Whether saving a connection and a few hours on what would already be a roughly 24 hour trip would really be worth it to pax, though, is something I doubt.

  15. 29 NOV 2016

    Just rode a Lufthansa 380 from SFO to FRA. First time. Wonderful.
    It didn’t hurt that Lufthansa really treats passengers well. I was in economy and had dinner and breakfast that rivals Biz Class fare elsewhere.

  16. I was a little surprised to see so many comments in such a short time. Truly, the A380 is the Tim Tebow of planes — everyone has an opinion on it and no one knows what to do with it.

    To add on Cranky’s point earlier regarding current A380 operators, even my skeptical self was a bit surprised to see Qantas drop their remaining orders. If there’s one air market that it could feasibly work well in, I figured it would be Australia.

  17. QF seems to be one airline where it appears to work. They fly trans-Pacific and the Kangaroo route and from my limited onboard experience, the passenger loads seem healthy (although who knows about yield/margin). Of course given Australia is a long distance from many destinations, it makes more sense. They don’t bother with their Singapore (A330) or HK (747) routes. Plus they’re about to take delivery of their first 787s soon (Jetstar got the first ones), and they’re musing publicly about skipping the Middle East stopover with a PER-LHR direct flight. So this may change soon.

    It’s a shame as the onboard experience is great – very quiet, lots of space to move around, as Cranky mentioned.

  18. Ahh, finally someone mentioned QF. :) I’ve flown QF A380’s on the SIN/SYD and SYD/LAX routes a few times in Coach. Great crew and a quiet/smooth ride in the belly. Same as AJ mentions, I have no clue on the economics, but the flights were nearly full. I’m also a happy flier of the 787 from AUS to LHR on occasion and am greatly pleased to have direct access to that hub from “little” Austin, TX. Boeing built a nice Bowie knife whereas Airbus gambled on the machete.

  19. The airplane never should have been built. Most of the sales have been to sovereign airlines (Ethiad, Emeriates) and to captive audiences. From the beginning, Airbus’ strategy was rooted in a 1970s version of the airline business. They spent way too much time at CDG!

    I wonder whether the capital demands for the A380 were so great that it allowed Boeing to get a gargantuan lead on Airbus with the 787. The capital expenditure to develop and build the A380 would have been much better deployed on the A350 and the A330 Neo. A disciplined company would have seen this mistake and moved past it. It’s ironic that as the A380 comes online, many of the world’s mainline airlines are saying goodbye to the 747.

    1. The A380 was the worst airliner decision since Convair elected to build the 880 and 990 back in the 1960s. Or Lockheed the Electra and the L1011. All were losers. The A380 will eclipse them all!

    2. “The airplane never should have been built”


      If the airplane had never been built, the A350 launch wouldn’t have gone so smoothly. Even if the A380 is unprofitable, it was essentially a “test run” of some A350 technologies.

  20. Didn’t Airbus make fun of Boeing for not trying to compete with the A380 but instead of coming up with the

    1. Boeing came up with the market desirable answer to long haul new generation aircraft but let’s not forget that Boeing has an enormous development bill for the 787 as well.

    2. And then Boeing in their infinient wish for one-up-manship went and made the 747-8.

      How is that doing? Does not seem a roading success.

      1. The development costs of the 747-8 were a joke compared to the A380 program. The -8 was an upgrade of existing technology while the A380 was a completely new aircraft. Plus the -8 was thought to have freighter potential so in all it wasn’t a costly choice to make the plane.

      2. William D – The 747-8 was definitely not a one-up effort. It was more of a “well, if Airbus is really gonna do this, we should have something competitive out there.” So they spent little to create another 747 derivative. I’m sure they hoped it would do better than it has, but it was more of a competitive afterthought than anything else anyway.

    3. And don’t forget Boeing almost built a Sonic Cruiser before they switched to the 787. Imagine the idea of flying to a place 15-20% faster! Would have been an A340 sized flop though.

  21. I get the economics argument. But I totally agree with Cranky – it’s a beautiful aeroplane on which to be a passenger, particularly on Singapore – far nicer than the 747. Would be a shame if the programme goes tits up.

    And for full disclosure, I love the 777 and the 787, too.

    1. I second that. Last year my wife and I paid more so that we could fly on the 380 to the USA from Heathrow. What an experience – Even in cattle class+ it was better than the Business Class and Upper Class I used to fly in the early 2000’s. It was very nearly as good as the High Speed Train journey from Ashford UK to Avignon France.

  22. The A380 has a very specific role. The bind is that almost all of the carriers that need that particular role have now ordered the aircraft. The A380 is very attractive if you have a large passenger demand to serve airports with serious slot constraints. Otherwise it is likely that the 777-300ER has lower ASM costs, and the 787 and A380 clearly have lower ASM costs. I would add that SQ rarely keeps aircraft especially long. I believe the A340-500’s are already either gone or going. In addition, the early A380’s are significantly overweight, which further degrades the economics which is an added incentive not to extend the leases.

    I know of several sub contractors who decided it was less expensive to pay the penalties then to bring their products down to the contractual weight requirements. My guess is the early A380 are on the order of 5 tonnes over spec. That is one of the reasons you see A380’s on some ultra long haul routes, but they don’t carry many more passengers than the 747-400’s they replaced!

  23. I’m surprised no one brought up the real reason why the A380 has been an economic failure. The A380 needs premium passengers to make money. The A380 has only 34 LD3 positions in the lower deck. With 500 passengers, there is limited space remaining, and with Airbus weight and balance issues, most airlines elect not to even schedule cargo on the A380.

    On the other hand, the 777-300 has 44 LD3 positions in the lower deck. Even with a full load of passengers, the 777-300 is able to carry up to 8 pallets (24 LD3 positions). With the 773 now the airplane of choice on trans-Pacific routes, the amount of lower deck capacity by combination airlines has had a huge impact on freighters as well. In the LAXNRT market, all the airlines operate 773s except for United, which operates a 7879, with 36 LD3 positions, and AA (772 – 32 LD3 positions). Bottom line, the 5 daily LAXNRT flights by combination carriers equal the capacity of a 747-400F.

    The A380 is a great airplane, it’s truly an engineering marvel. The economic success of the giant depends on the ‘paying’ premium passenger. My proposal is to create an “A380 Combi” with a second deck (main pax deck) as freight – there would be a lower and main deck of freight, and upper deck of passengers. In fact, the upper deck has a similar capacity of a 767-200 and could be offered in various configurations from 3 class to one class. It would essentially be a 747-400Freighter with a capacity of about 150-200 passengers. Something to think about for those ‘second hand’ A380s that will be coming on the market.

    1. Now that you mention it, I could see that being an interesting model for a ULCC to try. Buy A380s on the cheap, hub both freight and pax through, say, Anchorage or Iceland, and pack the pax in tightly. Hell, if you really wanted to appeal to the pax, you could try doing Hawaii as a trans-pac freight hub. The shorter flight lengths would increase the weight available to use for cargo instead of fuel, and make (say) 27″ seat pitches more tolerable.

      I doubt the above model would work, but it would be a fun one to model or to talk through as a thought exercise.

  24. The problem is the A380 is a lousy freighter. That’s the reason the A380-800F died without a single example ever being built. The number you look at in a freighter is how much dead weight do you need to carry for each pound of Cargo. There is a straight line relationship between weight and fuel burn, so every extra pound of dead weight you have to carry costs fuel burn. On the A380, there is a lot if dead weight to carry per pound of cargo. There just isn’t a lot of cargo lift capacity on the A380. That’s one of the reason Ultra long haul operators of the A380 such as QANTAS have surprisingly few seats on the aircraft. The A380-800F cargo lift capacity was only marginally higher than the 747-8F, which because of its much lower OEW has much better cargo carriage economics, especially when combined with the later generation of engines on the 747-8.

    The 747-8F is the most attractive large freighter out there as a result. The A380 ends up with about 1200 pounds of dead weight to carry each pound of cargo. That’s twice as much as a 757PF. While many wide body aircraft have a 2nd life as freighters, the A380 is unlikely too because the economics just aren’t there.

    1. Great explanation, Matt.

      I presume that in order to be a viable freighter, the A380 would have to carry cargo on what is both passenger decks plus in the cargo compartments which isn’t possible?

      Plus, the challenge for larger freighter aircraft appears to be that freighter market is oversaturated and having a plane that can carry that much cargo is not needed in many markets since most combination carriers are operating aircraft that can carry fairly significant amounts of cargo at very little incremental cost.

    2. > The A380 ends up with about 1200 pounds of dead weight to carry each pound of cargo.

      Did you miss a decimal point somewhere? Not trying to nitpick, just a bit confused…

  25. Yes, there is an error. It is about 1200 pounds of dead weight per unit of self load cargo (passenger).
    My error in the number, the relationship between the numbers however is correct. IIRC the Max cargo load on a 747-8f is about 290,000 pounds, with an OEW of 435,000 pounds, so you have about 1.5 pounds of dead weight per pound of cargo. Airbus is a lot less public about weight information, however the A380 OEW is officially about 610,000 pounds, The general consensus is the aircraft is significantly over that weight. The spread between offiicial OEW and Maximum Zero Fuel Weight is about 285,000 pounds, so each pound of cargo needs 2.14 pounds of dead weight. In other words the fuel cost to carry cargo on an A380 is substantially higher than 747-8F ! Even when the A380-800F still had orders, only the packaged freight operators (Fedex and UPS) figured they could make money with it. Fedex and UPS per pound yields are a significant multiple of the typical bulk cargo yields. Both UPS and Fedex eventually concluded that they couldn’t make money with the A380-800F, and that was the end of the A380-800F. While the A380-800F originally offered extreme range (albeit with extremely restricted cargo lift), because of the delays in the A380 program, at the extreme ranges where the A380F might have been unique, the 777-200LRF appeared with vastly lower operating costs. That was the final nail in the A380-800F coffin.

  26. The Airbus is not only the world’s biggest airliner so far but also a successful european joint venture achievement. I have experienced a Singapore airlines flight with that beast . Great comfort and spaciousness, modern and ergonomic facilities, smooth takeoff and landing. Love it or dislike it , I am on the love side , it’s an amazing aircraft to my view.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Cranky Flier