6 ms·

I remember watching a video from Wendover Production talking about the decline of 747 and A380s mainly due to a lack of guaranteed passengers to fill the plane

by kd913 6y ago

I remember watching a video from Wendover Production talking about the decline of 747 and A380s mainly due to a lack of guaranteed passengers to fill the plane routes in both directions. Exceptions being some airlines which are able to operate hub and spoke models and where fuel is cheap like the middle east airlines. Wouldn't these types of planes be more suitable for a role in logistics which can benefit the greater density of packing? I am guessing this is something to do with fuel savings, and new composite materials meaning that smaller planes are still more efficient. However, would that necessarily apply to recent 747s/a380s which I think have composite materials and can be retrofitted to efficient engines? I figure these specific planes must be on sale as they are withdrawn from service so I am curious about the use of 767s here.

Theodores 6y ago
The 767s are twin engine and more efficient than the 747. The A380 never was a cargo plane, big that it is. It also has the four engines with the added maintenance.
xvf22 6y ago
Cargo companies seem to have older fleets and the 767s are being displaced from passenger service and have a cargo conversation option. The a380 doesn't have a cargo conversation option as far as I've seen. Plenty of old 747s are in service for cargo flights. Kalitta air has a bunch of older 747s and Atlas has a sizable fleet including some 8Fs.
- formercoder 6y ago
  Pretty sure I’ve read there will never be a cargo a380 because its max takeoff weight is low compared to its volume.
  - csours 6y ago
    I think cause and effect may be chasing each other here. You're not wrong, but also the A380 was not designed to have a high takeoff weight because they never intended it to carry cargo, so it will never carry cargo because it has a low takeoff weight compared to its volume. It was a design decision to be a people mover. [0] 0: https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalent/ https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalen...
    - tormeh 6y ago
      Many low-density things need to be shipped fast, though. But I guess that niche is not big enough.
- excitom 6y ago
  Interesting point: The original reason for the double deck design on the 747 was to allow the entire nose to be a cargo door. Having an upstairs lounge or first class cabin was side benefit.
  - nickff 6y ago
    Boeing looked at many possible configurations for the 747, a full-length double-deck among them (photos exist of such a wind tunnel model). The short top deck exists for a variety of reasons, one of the more interesting ones is that the 747 was designed to be faster than later airliners, so the Whitcomb area rule is a factor in its design, especially noticeable in the -400 model, where the top deck ends above the wing root leading edge.
    - dingaling 6y ago
      Note that the 400 and 800 freighters kept the short bump because the longer upper deck reduced main deck height and impaired cargo handling. That's also the main reason that passenger 400s are seldom converted to freighters.
      - nickff 6y ago
        Thanks for the info (I did not know that)!
- oblio 6y ago
  > cargo conversation I guess you mean "cargo conversion"?
nickff 6y ago
The A340, A380, 727, 747, and L-1011 existed because of the hub-and-spoke model, and the requirement for a minimum of three engines for transoceanic flights. The 777 was the harbinger of their doom, as it brought ETOPS with it. Somewhat tangentially, there is a (strong) argument that twin-engine aircraft are actually safer than three or four engine aircraft. First, they are at lower risk of having an engine problem (as they have fewer engines). Second, the requirements all focus on having sufficient performance with a single engine out, which means that a twin engine aircraft normally has at least 200% of the power required to keep it aloft, whereas the four-engine aircraft only has 133% of what it needs. Given that many problems can be solved with a sufficient application of power, the twin-engine airplane is actually at an advantage! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
- jrockway 6y ago
  What is interesting to me is that having 200% power onboard is more cost efficient than only having 133% power onboard.
  - nickff 6y ago
    Lots of reasons for this, here are a couple: Having extra power helps you climb to cruising altitude quickly. This is a significant consideration, as a great deal of fuel expenditure takes place during the climb through dense, drag-inducing atmosphere. Engines and aircraft structure are non linear in both up-front cost, maintenance, and economy. Two larger engines have about half as many parts as four smaller ones, impacting production costs and service requirements. Larger fans are also more efficient than smaller ones for a variety of reasons. Fuel systems and aircraft structures are also simpler, lighter, and less expensive with fewer engines.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  Where do you get that 133% figure from? you appear to be suggesting that a four-engined aircraft could only tolerate the loss of a single engine, but if that were the case, four-engined aircraft would always have been more vulnerable to loss on account of an engine failure over the ocean than twin-engined ones. The introduction of additional requirements (in terms of stringent maintenance, ancilliary equipment redundancy and proximity of alternative destinations) before ETOPS was permitted strongly suggests that was not the case.
GordonS 6y ago
I wonder, is there such a thing as a plane that carries both cargo (in a significant way) and passengers? Not sure if it would make any economic sense, but maybe it could if the layout could be changed rapidly, with a passenger cabin "slotted in" when needed.
- shiftpgdn 6y ago
  That's already the case. USPS relied heavily on being able to move cargo in the belly of passenger planes which lead to disruptions this year. You can also fairly quickly take all the seats out of most passenger planes since they're just stuck in there with L track.
- leesalminen 6y ago
  I saw a TV show called Ice Pilots years ago which focused on an airline in the northern parts of Canada. If memory serves, they flied planes that had a configurable cabin where they could add rows of seats as needed and a divider leaving the rest for cargo.
- verhey 6y ago
  You are thinking of "combi" aircraft. In North America, you see a lot of them operating in Northern Canada and Alaska. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combi_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combi_aircraft
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
dehrmann 6y ago
> where fuel is cheap like the middle east airlines. They're also in a strategically good location for connecting Europe to Australia and North America to Africa and India.
pwarner 6y ago
The A380 is harder to load cargo into so they never even built a cargo version. The 747 freighter is still being produced and delivered today! Look up and see a contrail lately and it might be a 747 freighter, they are all flying! https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-747-resurgence-in-cargo-as-passenger-airlines-retire-2020-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-747-resurgence-in-car... https://simpleflying.com/ups-boeing-747-deliveries/ https://simpleflying.com/ups-boeing-747-deliveries/
notatoad 6y ago
There's enough existing 747 cargo fleets to soak up any excess supply of decommissioned passenger 747s. The A380 wasn't designed for cargo so the economics don't work out for many cargo loads. It's also limited in what airports it can operated out of. I'm sure there is some route out there where it will end up as an ideal freighter when they start retiring from passenger service, but it is not very flexible. Definitely not where you'd want to start building out your cargo fleet.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > The A380 wasn't designed for cargo so the economics don't work out for many cargo loads. True, but it's much worse than that. The A380 is heavier than it should be, at least 11,000 pounds. And the operating cost per hour is 3x anything else. The plan was to design a separate cargo version, but the orders and internal desire weren't there. Airbus ate at least $50 billion in losses on the A380, and counting. That was on top of many other problems affecting other models, which is why Boeing and Airbus still make roughly the same number of planes annually, despite both having huge problems.

by kd913 6y ago

Theodores 6y ago

The 767s are twin engine and more efficient than the 747. The A380 never was a cargo plane, big that it is. It also has the four engines with the added maintenance.

xvf22 6y ago

Cargo companies seem to have older fleets and the 767s are being displaced from passenger service and have a cargo conversation option. The a380 doesn't have a cargo conversation option as far as I've seen. Plenty of old 747s are in service for cargo flights. Kalitta air has a bunch of older 747s and Atlas has a sizable fleet including some 8Fs.

formercoder 6y ago
Pretty sure I’ve read there will never be a cargo a380 because its max takeoff weight is low compared to its volume.
- csours 6y ago
  I think cause and effect may be chasing each other here. You're not wrong, but also the A380 was not designed to have a high takeoff weight because they never intended it to carry cargo, so it will never carry cargo because it has a low takeoff weight compared to its volume. It was a design decision to be a people mover. [0] 0: https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalent/ https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalen...
  - tormeh 6y ago
    Many low-density things need to be shipped fast, though. But I guess that niche is not big enough.
excitom 6y ago
Interesting point: The original reason for the double deck design on the 747 was to allow the entire nose to be a cargo door. Having an upstairs lounge or first class cabin was side benefit.
- nickff 6y ago
  Boeing looked at many possible configurations for the 747, a full-length double-deck among them (photos exist of such a wind tunnel model). The short top deck exists for a variety of reasons, one of the more interesting ones is that the 747 was designed to be faster than later airliners, so the Whitcomb area rule is a factor in its design, especially noticeable in the -400 model, where the top deck ends above the wing root leading edge.
  - dingaling 6y ago
    Note that the 400 and 800 freighters kept the short bump because the longer upper deck reduced main deck height and impaired cargo handling. That's also the main reason that passenger 400s are seldom converted to freighters.
    - nickff 6y ago
      Thanks for the info (I did not know that)!
oblio 6y ago
> cargo conversation I guess you mean "cargo conversion"?

nickff 6y ago

The A340, A380, 727, 747, and L-1011 existed because of the hub-and-spoke model, and the requirement for a minimum of three engines for transoceanic flights. The 777 was the harbinger of their doom, as it brought ETOPS with it. Somewhat tangentially, there is a (strong) argument that twin-engine aircraft are actually safer than three or four engine aircraft. First, they are at lower risk of having an engine problem (as they have fewer engines). Second, the requirements all focus on having sufficient performance with a single engine out, which means that a twin engine aircraft normally has at least 200% of the power required to keep it aloft, whereas the four-engine aircraft only has 133% of what it needs. Given that many problems can be solved with a sufficient application of power, the twin-engine airplane is actually at an advantage! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS

jrockway 6y ago
What is interesting to me is that having 200% power onboard is more cost efficient than only having 133% power onboard.
- nickff 6y ago
  Lots of reasons for this, here are a couple: Having extra power helps you climb to cruising altitude quickly. This is a significant consideration, as a great deal of fuel expenditure takes place during the climb through dense, drag-inducing atmosphere. Engines and aircraft structure are non linear in both up-front cost, maintenance, and economy. Two larger engines have about half as many parts as four smaller ones, impacting production costs and service requirements. Larger fans are also more efficient than smaller ones for a variety of reasons. Fuel systems and aircraft structures are also simpler, lighter, and less expensive with fewer engines.
mannykannot 6y ago
Where do you get that 133% figure from? you appear to be suggesting that a four-engined aircraft could only tolerate the loss of a single engine, but if that were the case, four-engined aircraft would always have been more vulnerable to loss on account of an engine failure over the ocean than twin-engined ones. The introduction of additional requirements (in terms of stringent maintenance, ancilliary equipment redundancy and proximity of alternative destinations) before ETOPS was permitted strongly suggests that was not the case.

GordonS 6y ago

I wonder, is there such a thing as a plane that carries both cargo (in a significant way) and passengers? Not sure if it would make any economic sense, but maybe it could if the layout could be changed rapidly, with a passenger cabin "slotted in" when needed.

shiftpgdn 6y ago
That's already the case. USPS relied heavily on being able to move cargo in the belly of passenger planes which lead to disruptions this year. You can also fairly quickly take all the seats out of most passenger planes since they're just stuck in there with L track.
leesalminen 6y ago
I saw a TV show called Ice Pilots years ago which focused on an airline in the northern parts of Canada. If memory serves, they flied planes that had a configurable cabin where they could add rows of seats as needed and a divider leaving the rest for cargo.
verhey 6y ago
You are thinking of "combi" aircraft. In North America, you see a lot of them operating in Northern Canada and Alaska. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combi_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combi_aircraft
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

dehrmann 6y ago

> where fuel is cheap like the middle east airlines. They're also in a strategically good location for connecting Europe to Australia and North America to Africa and India.

pwarner 6y ago

The A380 is harder to load cargo into so they never even built a cargo version. The 747 freighter is still being produced and delivered today! Look up and see a contrail lately and it might be a 747 freighter, they are all flying! https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-747-resurgence-in-cargo-as-passenger-airlines-retire-2020-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-747-resurgence-in-car... https://simpleflying.com/ups-boeing-747-deliveries/ https://simpleflying.com/ups-boeing-747-deliveries/

notatoad 6y ago

There's enough existing 747 cargo fleets to soak up any excess supply of decommissioned passenger 747s. The A380 wasn't designed for cargo so the economics don't work out for many cargo loads. It's also limited in what airports it can operated out of. I'm sure there is some route out there where it will end up as an ideal freighter when they start retiring from passenger service, but it is not very flexible. Definitely not where you'd want to start building out your cargo fleet.

redis_mlc 6y ago
> The A380 wasn't designed for cargo so the economics don't work out for many cargo loads. True, but it's much worse than that. The A380 is heavier than it should be, at least 11,000 pounds. And the operating cost per hour is 3x anything else. The plan was to design a separate cargo version, but the orders and internal desire weren't there. Airbus ate at least $50 billion in losses on the A380, and counting. That was on top of many other problems affecting other models, which is why Boeing and Airbus still make roughly the same number of planes annually, despite both having huge problems.