The trend away from jumbo passenger jets was already evident when the A380 made its maiden flight. I wonder if the A380 might have had more success if Airbus had concentrated on the proposed cargo version instead of the passenger one. None of the A380F cargo planes were ever built, and the project was scrapped 3 or 4 years ago.
That is one big-ass airplane: Airbus A380 - Wikipedia
As I remember, at the same time Airbus was planning the A380, Boeing was planning the 787 Dreamliner. Airbus bet big on larger planes to fly from hub to hub while Boeing bet big on a smaller plane that could fly to and from smaller airports but was more fuel efficient and used composite materials. Looks like Boeing was right.
You might see a number of the current passenger aircraft converted to freighters as they get (prematurely) retired, just like a number of passenger 747’s that have become economically obsolete for the airlines but are still a good deal for the cargo carriers.
The market for it was really created by just one guy, the CEO at Emirates, which accounts for most of the A380’s sales. But the 777 and A350 are better planes for them, and their orders are shifting that way.
The first four A380s have already been retired and two are waiting to be scrapped, so it doesn’t seem like there is much of a market for converted A380s.
From what I understand, Boeing engineers had freight haulage in the backs of their minds when designing the 747. As I was told, they looked at the Concorde and assumed that supersonic jets were the future of long-distance passenger aviation. So they gave the 747 its iconic hump, to make it easy to convert to a cargo carrier that could be loaded through the flipped-up nose.
I think that’s correct. The hump on the 747 puts the cockpit above the cargo space, so if the cargo shifts, it won’t crash into the cockpit.
If the cargo shifts that much, being out of its way isn’t going to help you.
I think it was more an issue of having the flight deck out of the way so that loading cargo would be faster and easier.
You may be right. I just remembered that the location of the cockpit had something to do with the cargo configuration.
The A380 was designed to compete with the 747 but the 747 has been on the decline and has only lasted this long because of the freighter version.
The big flaw in the A380 from the start was a lack of a freighter version.
Well, that, and all the airport reconstruction (strengthened ramps and wider-clearance taxiways, etc.) needed to accommodate it. That essentially restricted it to only those few trunk airports that could justify the expense and provide the passenger totals needed to justify it. But the aviation world moved away from hub-and-spoke systems while Airbus was still committed to it.
The story about the 747 hump is true, btw.
The latest edition of the 747 has additional airport requirements that previous models don’t due to increased size.
Is that why Airbus never made a freighter version of the A380? I would assume, for example, that any plane meant for cargo haulage would have to be able to fly into Memphis, Atlanta, and whichever airport DHL flies out of (Berlin? Frankfurt?).
Airbus tried to sell one for a while but nobody wanted it.