If Air France No Longer Wants The Airbus A380, Will Anyone?

Forbes ^ | November 27, 2018 | Michael Goldstein

[EveningStar]

“I can’t get no respect,” moaned the late and overweight comedian Rodney Dangerfield. The Airbus A380, largest and heaviest airliner in operation today, could say that too after Air France reportedly will dump half of its A380 fleet—aircraft built and tested at the “hometown” Airbus factory in Toulouse.

Like the quashing of a recent rumor that Lufthansa was on the verge of ordering another 15 A380s, this is another black eye for the world’s largest passenger plane. After all, if France and Germany, the countries that build the A380, don’t want it, who will?

[jaydubya2]

Sully partially blamed the Airbus side stick design as a reason AF447 went down. In the Airbus, the side sticks are not mechanically connected so one pilot cannot feel the other pilots movements of the stick. The yoke design on the Boeings are connected mechanically and you can feel and see when the 2nd pilot is moving it.

[BwanaNdege]

“No stick or yoke, that’s just weird.”

Side stick controllers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_R45td63qg AIRBUS SIDE STICK - Explained by CAPTAIN Joe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4uHmvFbe7A AIRBUS SIDE-STICK OPERATION (landing in turbulence)

[gogeo]

Just eat the capital costs of ripping out the kitchens and luggage compartments to greatly increase the seating.

With two classes...livestock/no livestock...

[Paleo Conservative]

Massive air freighters, or monster fire retardant bombers. Think of how much one of these babies could drop on a wildfire!

Not as much as you would think. As a freighter it would be weight limited. It runs out of weight long before it runs out of volume. It has about 300,000 extra pounds of zero fuel weight compared to the 747-8F. The 747-8F can carry 140 metric tons or 154 US tons while the A380F was projected to carry 150 metric tons or 165 US tons. Sure the A380F would have more range, and carry a lttle bit more cargo, but it would have had to haul around an extra 150 tons of structure. The A380F would have required special equipment at each airport to load and unload second main deck cargo containers. It would also have a problem with weaker floors on the upper deck than is normal in cargo aircraft making it difficult to fill the space even with low density cargo. Most cargo is not so time sensitive that it needs to fly nonstop on long distance routes. UPS has a hub at Anchorage, Alaska (ANC) that is ideally located as a fuel stop between Asia and its hubs at SDF and ONT. Cargo doesn't care if it has to wait around. Also, they have a sorting facility at ANC that allows transfering cargo between aircraft.

A 747-400F or converted freighter would make a better fire fighing tanker. They can land at more airports, there are lots more airframes and parts available at good prices. Depending on modifications to the structure, it might be possible to put even more tank capacity by weight if the tanks didn't have to be completely supported by the cargo floor. Considering tankers would substitute payload for range, they could decrease the fuel onboard to increase cargo while staying under the Maximum Takeoff Weight.

[rlmorel]

I am sure I would prefer the Boeing approach. Interesting post.

[RayChuang88]

Airlines are more interested in the A350XWB-1000 and 777-8/9 as 747 replacements. Mostly because it doesn’t require expensive dual-level jet bridges.

[Paleo Conservative]

Airbus should have developed a wider fuselage for instead of the stretched A309/A310/A330/A340 cross section used for the A340-500 and A340-600. A wider fuselage would have allowed the same capacity as the 747 without the weight penalties incurred with strengthening the overstretched A340 fuselage cross section. A cross section capable of 10 abreast 18” seats could have given Airbus a platform capable of taking on the 747-400 with a single passenger deck without being vulnerable to a stretched 777.

[Paleo Conservative]

“Seems to me that the only thing keeping the A380 alive...barely alive...is Emirates”

I recall reading that Emirates placed an order for 40 787s instead of more A380s, adding to the woes of the A380 program.

No, the 787-10 is the longest 787 with the shortest range. It's purpose for Emirates is to be a medium haul wide body for routes under 8 hours. By being under 8 hours, the planes will not require more than a crew of two in the cockpit. There will also be no need for crew rests, so Emirates will save the cost and weight by eliminating crew rests. It will be a very efficient plane for its market segment and allow Emirates to carry lots of freight in the belly too.

[ccmay]

The old saying is that the only reason that light twins have two engines is so that if one dies, there's still one operating to make sure you get to the scene of the crash.

The extra engine helps you crash a little closer to the airport, my old instructor always said.