5 ms·

Isn't A350 the competitor to Dreamliner? I think A380 was aimed at replacing B747, which it did. Also I feel (no data) that hub and spoke is alive and well. It'

Isn't A350 the competitor to Dreamliner? I think A380 was aimed at replacing B747, which it did. Also I feel (no data) that hub and spoke is alive and well. It's just that it is using more efficient, lower capacity flights (B787, A350) which are easier to fill up and maintain.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago
The 787 replaced the 767 in Boeing's lineup, which in turn was competitor of the 350. The 747 is still incredibly successful for cargo, so the 380 didn't replace it; it is absolutely nuts that AirBus didn't come up with a cargo version of the 380 yet. Next up is the 777, which has higher capacity than the 787/350. However, it is modern enough that it can probably just be upgraded, no new plane is needed.
- rwmj 9y ago
  You can't just take the seats out and fill it with boxes? What else is needed for a cargo plane?
  - Alupis 9y ago
    Usually you need special flooring with tie-downs and rollers to facilitate moving the load around, which helps maintain an appropriate CG (Center of Gravity). Purpose-built freighter models also remove things that aren't necessary and just add weight - such as windows (packages don't need a view). This allows the carrier to transport more cargo in the same flight.
  - txcwpalpha 9y ago
    You need a good way to get the boxes on and off the plane, such as the 747 freighter's nose door [1]. The A380 can't be fitted with one of these due to its cockpit placement. The 2nd floor of the A380 also can't be removed because it's required structurally, and that really limits the size of the cargo you could potentially put in it. 1: http://www.aerospace-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2017/10/Boeing747Freighter_4.jpg http://www.aerospace-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites...
  - tuna-piano 9y ago
    Supposedly the A380 also has a max weight that would not use all the available volume for cargo. "The A380-F would be able to carry 60% more volume than the 747, but only 28% more weight." https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalent/ https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalen...
    - dx034 9y ago
      Is that a restriction? Are cargo planes typically flying at weight capacity? I thought with ecommerce, more lower-weight items are now flown.
      - ubernostrum 9y ago
        The A380's maximum takeoff weight is 575,000kg, compared to 447,700kg for a 747-8 freighter. However, the A380 -- sitting empty on the ground -- weighs 80,000kg more to begin with, and also requires more fuel (because of its greater mass). The result is that the useful payload of an A380 is lower than a 747-8F (about 84,000kg versus 132,000kg). And that's without getting into the other issues, like the A380's structural middle-deck (which can't be removed to turn the interior into a giant cargo hold) or inability to have its nose turned into a large cargo door like a 747 (the A380's flight deck is too low to the ground, in order to maintain training compatibility with the A330 and A340).
- filereaper 9y ago
  777 has incredible range, the current 777-LR (worldliner) still flies further than the 787. I think Boeing will upgrade the 777 with better composites and engines, but I doubt 777 will be die anytime soon.
  - timb07 9y ago
    The 777X program is already well advanced, with first flight expected sometime next year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777X
- altstar 9y ago
  There was a 380 cargo version. It was not economical for operators to fly and all the initial orders were cancelled. It was called the 380F.
- exidy 9y ago
  The Airbus competitor to the 767 is the not the A350, it is the A330, which is ubiquitous outside of NA in the medium haul market. It has been an extremely successful plane for Airbus and will likely continue to be so with the A330neo. While each company's offerings overlap somewhat, the A350 is a substantially larger plane and competes with the 777. Widebody twin 2-class capacity (variants): 767 | 216 / 261 / 296 A330 | 246 / 300 787 | 242 / 290 / 330 A350 | 325 / 366 777 | 313 / / 396 777X | 365 / 414
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    I stand corrected, thanks! The 767 is replaced by the 787 still (well, the 767 is still in production for non passenger uses), which exists in the space as a smaller wide body.
- erispoe 9y ago
  The A380 doesn't make sense for cargo. Too much volume for the weight it can lift. At the average plane cargo density, an A380 cargo would be at weight capacity way before it gets to volume capacity.[1] The A380 cannot lift much more than a B747. But it has more volume, which comes in handy for passengers, not for cargo. [1]: https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalent/ https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalen... edit: 747 n° mistake
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    The A380's useful payload is actually less then a 747 freighter. The added weight of the aircraft itself, plus the extra fuel necessary to get and keep it airborne, eats up all the extra takeoff weight capacity and then some.
mulmen 9y ago
The 380 and the 747 really aren't comparable and the 380 didn't replace the 747. 747 is widely used for cargo routes for example. The 380 was Airbus saying they think there is a market for a jet significantly larger than the 747. Boeing didn't think there was enough market for two superjumbos so they just added a bit to the 747 instead of designing a whole new 380 competitor.
InTheArena 9y ago
The A350 is more of a competitor to the 777 (it's base configuration is larger then the base configuration then the 787). It basically is in the space between the 777 and the 787. However, it does compete with the a380. Every time you see a seat on a flight between Denver and Narita, realize that it's a seat that isn't on a A380 flying between San Fransisco or LAX and Japan.
ubernostrum 9y ago
Isn't A350 the competitor to Dreamliner? No. The A350 and 787 both use composite materials, and that's the end of the similarities; they're planes of different size classes, designed for different market niches. The A350 is a competitor for the 777; both planes are designed for high-demand long-haul routes. Airbus currently does not have a competitor for the 787, which is designed for medium-demand long- to ultra-long-haul routes. Or in other words: an A350 or 777 is what you fly between two major top-tier cities with lots of passenger demand. Think of routes like Hong Kong to San Francisco (which is routinely flown by... A350s and 777s). A 787 is what you fly between places that are far apart, but don't have quite so much demand. This is important because the 787 has opened up the possibility of flying routes airlines wouldn't have considered before, while the A350 just plops into existing routes easily. The 787 was basically single-handedly responsible for the return of trans-Pacific flights to San Jose, for example, and Qantas is about to launch nonstop(!) service from Perth to London on a 787.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago

The 787 replaced the 767 in Boeing's lineup, which in turn was competitor of the 350. The 747 is still incredibly successful for cargo, so the 380 didn't replace it; it is absolutely nuts that AirBus didn't come up with a cargo version of the 380 yet. Next up is the 777, which has higher capacity than the 787/350. However, it is modern enough that it can probably just be upgraded, no new plane is needed.

rwmj 9y ago
You can't just take the seats out and fill it with boxes? What else is needed for a cargo plane?
- Alupis 9y ago
  Usually you need special flooring with tie-downs and rollers to facilitate moving the load around, which helps maintain an appropriate CG (Center of Gravity). Purpose-built freighter models also remove things that aren't necessary and just add weight - such as windows (packages don't need a view). This allows the carrier to transport more cargo in the same flight.
- txcwpalpha 9y ago
  You need a good way to get the boxes on and off the plane, such as the 747 freighter's nose door [1]. The A380 can't be fitted with one of these due to its cockpit placement. The 2nd floor of the A380 also can't be removed because it's required structurally, and that really limits the size of the cargo you could potentially put in it. 1: http://www.aerospace-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2017/10/Boeing747Freighter_4.jpg http://www.aerospace-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites...
- tuna-piano 9y ago
  Supposedly the A380 also has a max weight that would not use all the available volume for cargo. "The A380-F would be able to carry 60% more volume than the 747, but only 28% more weight." https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalent/ https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalen...
  - dx034 9y ago
    Is that a restriction? Are cargo planes typically flying at weight capacity? I thought with ecommerce, more lower-weight items are now flown.
    - ubernostrum 9y ago
      The A380's maximum takeoff weight is 575,000kg, compared to 447,700kg for a 747-8 freighter. However, the A380 -- sitting empty on the ground -- weighs 80,000kg more to begin with, and also requires more fuel (because of its greater mass). The result is that the useful payload of an A380 is lower than a 747-8F (about 84,000kg versus 132,000kg). And that's without getting into the other issues, like the A380's structural middle-deck (which can't be removed to turn the interior into a giant cargo hold) or inability to have its nose turned into a large cargo door like a 747 (the A380's flight deck is too low to the ground, in order to maintain training compatibility with the A330 and A340).
filereaper 9y ago
777 has incredible range, the current 777-LR (worldliner) still flies further than the 787. I think Boeing will upgrade the 777 with better composites and engines, but I doubt 777 will be die anytime soon.
- timb07 9y ago
  The 777X program is already well advanced, with first flight expected sometime next year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777X
altstar 9y ago
There was a 380 cargo version. It was not economical for operators to fly and all the initial orders were cancelled. It was called the 380F.
exidy 9y ago
The Airbus competitor to the 767 is the not the A350, it is the A330, which is ubiquitous outside of NA in the medium haul market. It has been an extremely successful plane for Airbus and will likely continue to be so with the A330neo. While each company's offerings overlap somewhat, the A350 is a substantially larger plane and competes with the 777. Widebody twin 2-class capacity (variants): 767 | 216 / 261 / 296 A330 | 246 / 300 787 | 242 / 290 / 330 A350 | 325 / 366 777 | 313 / / 396 777X | 365 / 414
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  I stand corrected, thanks! The 767 is replaced by the 787 still (well, the 767 is still in production for non passenger uses), which exists in the space as a smaller wide body.
erispoe 9y ago
The A380 doesn't make sense for cargo. Too much volume for the weight it can lift. At the average plane cargo density, an A380 cargo would be at weight capacity way before it gets to volume capacity.[1] The A380 cannot lift much more than a B747. But it has more volume, which comes in handy for passengers, not for cargo. [1]: https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalent/ https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalen... edit: 747 n° mistake
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  The A380's useful payload is actually less then a 747 freighter. The added weight of the aircraft itself, plus the extra fuel necessary to get and keep it airborne, eats up all the extra takeoff weight capacity and then some.

mulmen 9y ago

The 380 and the 747 really aren't comparable and the 380 didn't replace the 747. 747 is widely used for cargo routes for example. The 380 was Airbus saying they think there is a market for a jet significantly larger than the 747. Boeing didn't think there was enough market for two superjumbos so they just added a bit to the 747 instead of designing a whole new 380 competitor.

InTheArena 9y ago

The A350 is more of a competitor to the 777 (it's base configuration is larger then the base configuration then the 787). It basically is in the space between the 777 and the 787. However, it does compete with the a380. Every time you see a seat on a flight between Denver and Narita, realize that it's a seat that isn't on a A380 flying between San Fransisco or LAX and Japan.

ubernostrum 9y ago

Isn't A350 the competitor to Dreamliner? No. The A350 and 787 both use composite materials, and that's the end of the similarities; they're planes of different size classes, designed for different market niches. The A350 is a competitor for the 777; both planes are designed for high-demand long-haul routes. Airbus currently does not have a competitor for the 787, which is designed for medium-demand long- to ultra-long-haul routes. Or in other words: an A350 or 777 is what you fly between two major top-tier cities with lots of passenger demand. Think of routes like Hong Kong to San Francisco (which is routinely flown by... A350s and 777s). A 787 is what you fly between places that are far apart, but don't have quite so much demand. This is important because the 787 has opened up the possibility of flying routes airlines wouldn't have considered before, while the A350 just plops into existing routes easily. The 787 was basically single-handedly responsible for the return of trans-Pacific flights to San Jose, for example, and Qantas is about to launch nonstop(!) service from Perth to London on a 787.