Comments by "Doncarlo" (@doujinflip) on "Could Airbus Offer A Cargo Version Of The A380 After All?" video.

  1. The 747 was built fundamentally as a cargo plane because Boeing had the foresight that passengers alone might not keep the model aloft. Turns out it's much easier to make storage space habitable than it is to turn a human-centered design into storage -- it's like asking a cruise liner to take on shipping containers.
    2
  2. The 747 IS a cargo plane, airlines just bolted down some seats for us
    2
  3. It's too expensive to operate and its maximum takeoff weight is too low for the space it offers. It might do as a combi (passengers on top and cargo on the two decks below), but only if they cut open a door for full-size pallets without harming the integrity of the plane (the top deck forms an integral part of the structural stability) and beefed up the in-cabin fire extinguishing capabilities.
    2
  4. It's still prohibitively expensive though, considering the costs of maintaining and operating the base airframe, and the demand for it would collapse in within two years. Plus its maximum take-off weight is too low for the space it would offer. The design is fundamentally flawed for the demand going forward, not only for cargo -- it's akin to asking a cruise liner to take on shipping containers -- but even for passengers who've made clear they prefer simpler point-to-point itineraries even if it means smaller, less comfortable planes.
    1
  5. The A380 is fundamentally a passenger plane and has some major flaws for handling cargo: 1) the MTOW is too low for the space it offers; 2) the flight deck is on the main deck so a door can't just be cut out of the nose like on a 747; 3) the top deck forms an integral part of the fuselage structure so the internal space is further split; and 4) specialized pallet loaders would have to be developed to get cargo up to the top deck
    1
  6. Lightweight bulky cargo flights are in demand now, but that won't be the case within three years. Those air waybills won't be enough to justify the costs of conversion and maintenance
    1
  7. The biggest issue would be holding them down, since there's not that much footprint to install brakes or locks for how high the load could be on a person-sized pallet. This would make any of the fastening devices prohibitively beefy -- it's already hard enough keeping a food cart from rolling down the aisle.
    1
  8. The middle deck is more suited for cargo loads. Pallet loaders that can reach the top decks would have to still be invented, plus I don't think passengers would be all that comfortable sitting underneath all that weight
    1
  9. Problem is the MTOW is too low for the space it offers, and I'm not sure strapping on some beefier engines alone would be enough
    1