Air France, China Southern Airlines, Kingfisher, Lufthansa, Qantas, Thai Airways, Virgin Atlantic – with the prospect that both bellwethers Singapore Airlines and Emirates could also join in the “fun” – of A380 deferrals. Thus far in 2009, we have yet to see any A380 deliveries while Airbus still sticks to its planned number of 18 for the year.
The question is how long will we have to wait before Airbus announces another adjustment to its planned production rate of its flagship A380?
My view is that it doesn’t really matter since Airbus is only putting off the inevitable and will have to shoot the dog before long. (For those who don’t “get” Brit humour, that does NOT mean scrapping the program).
“Even before the current economic crisis, the A380 was clearly over-sized and over-sold. Today, exactly 18 months since the first aircraft was handed over late to Singapore Airlines and with customers practically falling over themselves to defer, Airbus has still only built and delivered a total of 13 A380s, none of them in 2009. In the first 18 months of the Boeing 747 programme, Boeing delivered 135 of the type — 40 years ago,” says Arran Aerospace’s MD, Doug McVitie.
Image copyright/owned by FleetBuzz Editorial.com
As the pressure on yields continues to erode profit margins, any cut in A380 production is unlikely to be met with other customers stepping in to take possible vacant slots, as would be the case with the 787 given its inherent broader market appeal. For instance, on its daily schedules, Singapore Airlines’ A380 fleet is averaging* a 66% load factor – while numbers for yields is as rare as hens teeth at the Asian carrier, one senior source at the airline confirms that the figures “aren’t much different from what British Airways recently reported.”
British Airways reported a slump in premium traffic of 13% for March 2009 – since September 2008, BA has seen premium traffic decline by an average of some 12.5% – it recorded the biggest fall in premium traffic in over six months in February 2009 when traffic declined by 20.2%. If BA’s figures are representative of any broader market for premium travel, then the omens for Singapore Airlines cannot be any better, no matter which way you slice it.
Singapore Airlines itself announced woeful figures for March 2009.
However, as my colleague Howard Wheeldon and I conferred, he explains that Airbus may just force carriers to take unwanted/unneeded deliveries and could potentially stave off further deferrals and possibly even cancellations.
“As far as I am aware the intention remains to produce eighteen aircraft this year (this was adjusted downwards from twenty one aircraft that had been planned until last May.) Since then the company have said nothing on the subject. My own view is that they will not let production slip below the planned 18 aircraft this year for the simple reason that most are either built or well into the final construction phase and that they need the loot! I am of course making the assumption that they are actually able to manage that level of production given the problems with the already delivered Emirates aircraft. However, given the weakened state of the airline industry customer, I find it inconceivable that they could be planning to increase the level much beyond twenty five aircraft in 2010. What is pretty certain is that achieving the previously planned progressive rate of 40 aircraft a year would be financial suicide even if it could be managed!
As far as I am aware the order book for A380 still stands at (circa) 200 aircraft and break-even (my view) may be close to 600 aircraft. Production delays will adversely affect the potential for break even as will the ongoing problems that Emirates has suffered. That Air France and Lufthansa have pushed back deliveries is hardly surprising given market conditions and outlook. How many others will do the same is anyone’s guess. Having sold these aircraft at discounts possibly as much as 50% to list, one assumes that Airbus will demand its pound of flesh on any request for delayed deliveries. Thus I suspect that there may not be that many more cancellations this year,” says Wheeldon.
While the air travel market faces the real prospect of the death of the premium passenger market, the reality is that some airlines may yet take the unprecedented step of actually doing away with First Class altogether. Where premium economy has become the new business class and low cost carriers capture the low yield market away from full service airlines, the business case for filling the A380 becomes more and more dismal – particularly at a time when the largest customer for the A380, Emirates is itself poised to announce a major deferral of its widebody airplanes it currently has on order.
Michael Di Marco
The primary reason is that longitudinal fasteners break the Hoop stress surface.
I didn’t ask you to name the stress force. I asked you to explain why it prevents Airbus from having the same inside pressure as the 787. I’m sure your son can explain that it is very common to have joints under various forms of stress and there are multiple ways to handle them.
I have not seen anything about the 8,000 ft level during cruise anywhere else but I trust you got it right. What it tells me is that Airbus decided that cruising at this level is the better compromise over the total cost for maintaining a lower level. That is compromise based on the total solution and not limited to just having longitudinal joints.
My point is that you’re guilty of what was brought up in a later blog on this site; misleading by limiting context. This is my real objection to your statements about this and most other things where I comment on your statements.
True, however, since this hasn’t happen infers a negative benefit.
Negative benefit??? There is no such thing as a negative benefit but I understand what you’re trying to say.
Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. It all comes down to how important people find the difference between 8,000 ft and 6,000 ft and the costs of creating and maintaining that pressure difference. It also very much depends on who you are, e.g. a passenger probably rate it different from the airlines accountants.
The attached table will demonstrated that the Aspect Ratio is the true indicator of the wing performance.
Sorry but there is way more to it than just aspect ratio.
Falcon,
Michael Di Marco
The primary reason is that longitudinal fasteners break the Hoop stress surface.
I didn’t ask you to name the stress force. I asked you to explain why it prevents Airbus from having the same inside pressure as the 787. I’m sure your son can explain that it is very common to have joints under various forms of stress and there are multiple ways to handle them.
I have not seen anything about the 8,000 ft level during cruise anywhere else but I trust you got it right. What it tells me is that Airbus decided that cruising at this level is the better compromise over the total cost for maintaining a lower level. That is compromise based on the total solution and not limited to just having longitudinal joints.
From Boeing 787 PR dated July 19, 2004,
“Because their structures are primarily metal, today’s commercial airplanes are certified to a maximum altitude equivalent of 8,000 feet to minimize structural fatigue during normal operation. The 7E7 will be pressurized to a maximum altitude equivalent of 6,000 feet during normal operation, a decision enabled by the stronger, more-durable composite materials from which the airplane will be constructed. Composites are not subject to the same fatigue conditions that limit the amount of pressure cycles that can be applied to an aluminum airplane.”
Since both are using composites, the method; monolithic barrel vs. frame/plate should have no impact here. But, it does.
My point is that you’re guilty of what was brought up in a later blog on this site; misleading by limiting context. This is my real objection to your statements about this and most other things where I comment on your statements.
Limiting or pertinent context?
Using your statement as an example,
“Probably you get on your OEW horn again but I’d suggest you wait for them to announce it before you put too much in to it. After all lower weight is a secondary whereas fuel consumption and load are primary. If you need an example look at how longer wings usually means better performance despite added weight.”
I addressed your implied conclusion that a longer wing usually implies better performance (aerodynamically) despite added weight. I explained that the aspect ratio is the first order measurement of the wing’s aerodynamic efficiency, the higher it is the greater its efficiency. The accompanying table should have demonstrated that. You ignored my response right or wrong by, “Sorry but there is way more to it than just aspect ratio.”
Of course, that statement is true in itself. However, it has no bearing on the validity of your implied conclusion. If I am wrong, please by all means point this out to me for my and for all the members benefit. We are having a dialogue not a monologue.
True, however, since this hasn’t happen infers a negative benefit.
Negative benefit??? There is no such thing as a negative benefit but I understand what you’re trying to say.
Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. It all comes down to how important people find the difference between 8,000 ft and 6,000 ft
From the same PR
“A comprehensive study of more than 500 people found that Boeing [NYSE: BA] 7E7 Dreamliner passengers will feel more relaxed and less fatigued thanks to cabin-pressurization improvements on the all-new airplane.
Oklahoma State University and Boeing conducted the study, which was based on U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine methodology characterizing 68 possible altitude symptoms. The goal was to determine participants’ comfort levels at various pressurization levels.
“Improving the passenger experience with flying is important to us,” said John Feren, vice president of Sales and Marketing for the 7E7 program. “We want to make sure that the changes we introduce represent a real improvement, and clearly our studies show that a lower cabin altitude will have a positive effect on passengers.””
and the costs of creating and maintaining that pressure difference. It also very much depends on who you are, e.g. a passenger probably rate it different from the airlines accountants.
True, however, in the final analysis, it’s the passenger that pays the bills.
The attached table will demonstrated that the Aspect Ratio is the true indicator of the wing performance. Sorry but there is way more to it than just aspect ratio.
I like the A380 because it should, and I repeat should, insulate passengers from turbulence a bit better than smaller planes.
Beyond that, for all the technical and financial analysis offered you forget one thing:
Airline travel sucks!
We do not like to be crammed into tiny seats and spaces. We do not like to wait in long lines and be subjected to a full body search at any given moment. Next thing you know they will have proctologists in the airport screening process.
It is a necessary evil. Nothing in the 380 or the next round of planes will change that. Better than before? Perhaps. Anywhere near where it should be? Not even by a mile.
Dougloid, thanks for the kind words…:-)