Shoot The Dog (Part Three)
January 6th, 2010
Now that 2009 is over, the A380 production (or delivery) target for this year comes into focus.
Quite frankly its irrelevant how many units are handed over - the airplane has suffered a string of high profile in-service setbacks (Google!) and the fragility of this behemoths viability in a large airplane marketplace that is disappearing each and every day shows that the decision to adjust production last year serves only to prolong the agonizing (and dwindling) backlog until new orders emerge - if at all.
(Shoot The Dog Part One, Shoot The Dog Part Two)
The latest A380 operator, Air France, is just another airline that joins the long list of embarrassing incidents that have plagued the big Airbus jet.
Image owned/copyright of FleetBuzz Editorial.com
“The trouble is that you can’t replace the aircraft with another one.
That’s the privilege of being big. Nobody can replace you.
Disembarking 400 or more passengers and luggage, arranging transportation to hotels, re-transporting them back to the airport, re-checking them in and then re-embarking the day after - that’s a nightmare,” says one European aerospace analyst.
To be fair, there is nothing out of the ordinary that is grounding A380 flights.
Indeed, the 787, when that enters service (perhaps by the end of this year), will suffer most peoples ridicule the moment the first example goes tech.
Around half of the A380’s customer base has deferred deliveries. With the premium traffic market floating rapidly down the river Styx, John Leahy’s oft-touted “break-even at 65%” load factors are almost cringe-worthy rhetoric completely at odds with the anaemic loads and weak yields the likes of Singapore Airlines and Emirates have - especially on the hub-to-hub routes such as London Heathrow, for which the big bird from Toulouse was designed.
“Even before the current economic crisis, the A380 was clearly over-sized and over-sold. Today, customers are practically falling over themselves to defer their orders,” says Arran Aerospace’s Founder and Chief Consultant , Doug McVitie.
Whatever the goal is for handing over A380’s this year, the reality is that it’ll change anyway (after all, what’s in a number?)
Part of this is down to continued design changes that Airbus is enacting to reduce the operating empty weight. These design alterations, coming in at a significant cost to a supply chain still reeling from huge start up costs and almost no positive cash flow through deliveries means that Airbus is unlikely, if ever, to reach beyond two dozen A380’s being delivered in any one year.
No new orders are on the horizon, costs associated with the late design changes, ongoing customer penalty payments, the diversion of resources away from the A350XWB alongside a review of the entire A380 program underscores what many people have said all along - that the project is on borrowed time.
Far be it for Airbus to cull its fat lady until she has sung her last, the program will continue in “limp mode”.
The 747-8 is probably the last widebody airplane family that will ever benefit from a new engine. The A380 probably won’t get a second lease of life, particularly as ILFC is all but poised to abandon its decade old order for the quad - because the demand for it just doesn’t exist in the numbers Airbus’ marketing department would have us believe. Its post-passenger life value as a converted freighter is non-existent, and no engine maker will sign up to re-engine a relic whose world fleet is akin to that of the MD11 in numbers.
The systemic move to composite airframes, as well as composites and new materials for engine technology will mean that each new generation of airplane will benefit from new engines on a new airframe, not older airframes. Economies of scale will bring technology costs down.
Without a freighter application, the prospects of A380 longevity seem even worse - although you could argue that the cargo market weakness seen today is probably a good enough reason not to produce a freighter with limited airport compatibility.
Most of the costs on the program have already been sunk, killing the unloved, obese and inflexible A380 isn’t an option Airbus will pursue. Like most dogs, it’s been born, have a good innings during passenger operations and when orders are complete, the line will die with a forward loss that makes the A400M shudder too.
Of course, if smart guys like Richard Aboulafia, Doug McVitie and Professor Liebstrom “get it”, it was all but inevitable that the most ardent of A380 factions would eventually concur in its monumental financial failure that EADS delivered in committing to the cash-sapping A380. Second only to calamity in the $40bn (and growing) pain experienced by the A400M.
Entry Filed under: Airbus, Airbus A330, Airbus A330-200, Airbus A330-300, Airbus A350, Airbus A350-1000, Airbus A350-800, Airbus A350-900, Airbus A350XWB, Airbus A380-800, Airbus Global Market Forecast, Arran Aerospace, Boeing, Boeing 747, Boeing 747-8 Intercontinental, Boeing 747-8F, Boeing 747-8I, Boeing 777, Boeing 777-200LR, Boeing 777-300ER, Boeing 777F, Boeing 787, Boeing 787 Dreamliner, Boeing 787-3, Boeing 787-8, Boeing 787-9, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Doug McVitie, Richard Aboulafia
62 Comments Add your own
1. Dougloid | January 6th, 2010 at 05:25
“Indeed, the 787, when that enters service (perhaps by the end of this year), will suffer most peoples ridicule the moment the first example goes tech.”
Schopenhauer observed that truth goes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Next, it is violently opposed. Lastly, it is accepted as self evident.
That pretty much describes the technology and where it’s going.
2. Tweets that mention &hellip | January 6th, 2010 at 05:48
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by FleetBuzz Editorial, FleetBuzz Editorial. FleetBuzz Editorial said: Airbus A380 Under Scrutiny http://is.gd/5NBc7 [...]
3. Vero Venia | January 6th, 2010 at 09:07
Aircraft go tech, there’s nothing so special about that.
A canceled flight generates a certain number of issues and is indeed a nightmare regardless of the aircraft type.
The trouble is when a big or very big aircraft like the 747-8i or the A380 goes tech, the size of each of the issues to solve is roughly proportional to the number of passengers to accommodate. Accommodating 300 passengers in hotels is difficult, accommodating 450 passengers in hotels is much more difficult.
One interesting point with the 747-8i and the A380 is about the trip length. Indeed, the 747-8i and the A380 are both intended to serve long and dense routes. Those are 12 hour flight or more routes. The issue is that there are other aspects to take into account like the crew duty time. The longer the route is, the narrower is the time margins in order to keep the crew inside the duty time window. There is not much room for mishaps. This is true for any long routes on any type of aircraft (I insist).
So yes, aircraft go tech. But the A380 like the 747-8i are destined to fly long routes and they’re big. Any time an A380 or a 747-8i goes tech, flight cancellation is very likely. Each flight cancellation of a 400+ seat aircraft results in a chaos. It’s as simple as that.
4. ikkeman | January 6th, 2010 at 09:12
“Most of the costs on the program have already been sunk, killing the unloved, obese and inflexible A380 isn’t an option Airbus will pursue”
It’s not unloved - it’s not obese (just big boned?)
“The 747-8 is probably the last widebody airplane family that will ever benefit from a new engine”
Come on - 777, 330, 350, 787 - non of them will be re-engined anywhere in their future lifecycle?
If you had said “quads” in stead of “widebody”, I’m sure we could all agree.
5. Vero Venia | January 6th, 2010 at 09:33
The A380 has not been very lucky, we have to admit that.
1. two years delay during air transport boom
For some reasons, A380’s entry into service has been delayed by almost two years. Let me point that those lost two years are two years of air transport boom. If the A380’s entry into service had not been delayed, there would have been enough A380 in the air such that technical issues would have been ironed out.
It seems that the above mentioned delay has been accentuated by some industrialization and ramp up issues.
2. entry into service in a severe downturn
The second point is that at the time the A380 started it in-service operations, the air transport go through a severe downturn.
Merger and restructuring
When I read again the genesis of EADS and Airbus SAS, I suddenly realized that the A380 was launched in the middle of an immense reorganization. Without being an expert, you can understand why the program went awry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS
Operators seeking concessions
In my past experience, I noticed that in-service aircraft have less issues when the transport is booming. When there is a slowdown, suddenly operators complain about their aircraft.
That must be a very good tactics in order to obtain more commercial concessions when taking delivery of new aircraft or in order to obtain some indulgence for deferrals or order cancellations.
6. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | January 6th, 2010 at 10:17
Wow - quite a harsh post. Nobody worth their salt said anything as catastrophic would occur - so this comes across as a major news-worthy shock.
But wow huh, $40 billion for the A400M. $~25 billion for the A380. Which has more potential to make money.
In current news, what’s up with RC501?
7. Aurora | January 6th, 2010 at 10:33
If ILFC defers again, and does not cancel, I hope the details of what would be a very creative, face-saving maneuver by airbus are disclosed. Frankly, how can there be a leasing market for a niche aircraft that has been heavily discounted by the OEM? Is there an after market for this thing?
When will VS take their A380 order? China Eastern (or is it China Southern)? Between ILFC and these two carriers, that’s 10% of the order book that’s gone “cold, dark, and quiet”.
Of course, the airlines of the UAE simply “own” the production process here. Emirates and Etihad can make or break this program. They don’t have to cancel, just keep on deferring. EADS simply can’t threat them the same way they did Thai.
Is John Leahy still saving the world, one A380 at a time?
8. Leelaw | January 6th, 2010 at 14:32
Things could actually be a lot worse, if Airbus had fulfilled its original commitments to the A380 customers with the production ramp-up proceeding as planned, there would have been about 110 WhaleBus[t]s manufactured by now. Given the economic conditions which have developed, we would be discussing new planes parked in deserts and Whitetails on the ramps in TLS & XFW.
9. Boeing Worker (Everett) | January 6th, 2010 at 15:12
The A380 was always going to be a financial pain - the customer deferments show that the Airbus claims on its money making abilities came unstuck with the global finance crises!
10. Skeptic | January 6th, 2010 at 15:23
What is particularly lamentable about this flying folly is that the engine manufacturers stand to lose big time here; all reports are that both RR and EA produced very fine engines for this thing. It certainly sheds light on GE’s reluctance to go with the A350XWB-1000.
11. Mike M | January 6th, 2010 at 15:30
I bet Keesje and Scotty H feel like jackasses - well, I suppose Scotty seems to have finally woke up and realized the A380 is an utter POS if ever there was one!
Not that it says much about the credibility of either clown, especially some of the comments about his “prowess” on the Seattle PI aero-dump-blog!
http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/189954.asp
Keesjes silence must be hurting him more than ever now!
12. Vero Venia | January 6th, 2010 at 15:49
I feel sorry for the A380. But is this another A380 goes tech?
http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/qantas-passengers-stuck-after-another-a380-glitch/story-e6frfq80-1225816445863
13. James | January 6th, 2010 at 16:28
Vero Venia,
Thats an interesting link - Qantas has suffered badly with the A380s.
I may be wrong, but I dont think any of their A380s has had a smooth service entry - all of them at some point have been AOG.
14. Skeptic | January 6th, 2010 at 16:37
Don’t expect candor from the airlines that ordered this colossal commercial calamity. Their own jobs could be at stake if questions start being asked about why they bought this thing. It works on a few hub-to-hub routes, and only if it can be filled with lots of premium pax. None of the A380 customers will release data concerning their yields for this flying folly. At least Mr. Dixon from Qantas is retired. The rest of them can console themselves by the great discounts they received from airbus.
15. JMBEE | January 6th, 2010 at 17:28
I personally have two issues with both Boeing and Airbus concerning the A380 and 787. For Airbus it comes down to how can a company that was so spot on in the marketing department before 2000 have gotten everything so disastrously wrong since then. The A300 was the first true widebody twin and positively brilliant when compared to it’s contemporaries, the DC-10 and L-1011. They foresaw which way the market was going and even if the technology was not there yet for a true long range twin they created the market.
They also saw the need for a modern narrowbody twin in the 1980s when Boeing dropped its 7J7 and MD dropped the MD-XX (probably sealing it’s fate as a commercial aircraft manufacture), and it took Boeing nearly 15 years to really respond to the A330 with the 787. Since these brilliant aircraft Airbus marketing and product development has gotten just about everything wrong. There was no market for a modern quad 747-400 replacement in the form of the A340-600. They should have created a long range twin. They also envisioned a huge market for a new class of mega-liner well beyond the size of the 747 that simply wasn’t there, and sold wild expectations of an export market for hundreds of A400M frames that wasn’t there. Like there was ever a market for 400 A400M’s in North America as their marketing department kept saying until recently. Not to mention the whole A350 Mk1 through MkVI debacle. Airbus’ crystal ball is seriously deficient and they really need to rethink their whole strategy. I don’t know if Airbus needs to shoot the A380 so much as shoot their whole product planning and marketing staff.
For Boeing the issue comes down to how could a company that was never late with promised commercial products and almost always on target with performance specs have been so wrong with the 787? Until the 787 the worst delay Boeing had with a commercial program was being 3 months late with the 747 due to problems with the engines, not the airframe. Boeing became the dominant manufacture of commercial aircraft largely because they met their promised deadlines and schedules where their US based competitors didn’t. The fact that nearly 800 KC-135s were built comes down to the fact that Boeing delivered on an initial contract for 29 jets and Lockheed couldn’t deliver on a much larger contract. Boeing’s weren’t always the most sexy planes but damn they did what the manufacture promised and they did it when the manufacture promised. Boeing’s whole post 777 idea’s on aircraft development haven’t worked out at all and hopefully they are doing a lot of rethinking when it comes to the next generation of planes.
16. Dave_BC | January 6th, 2010 at 17:34
“The 747-8 is probably the last widebody airplane family that will ever benefit from a new engine”
Actually, the 747-8 does not have a “new engine”. Rather, it’s forced to make do with a fan-diameter-crippled version of the troublesome engine for the 787 (an engine which is not meeting performance spec). Moreover, this compromised and less fuel efficient engine on the 747-8 has different stages internally to the GEnx of the 787. Making it lacking commonality.
As for the A380, it won’t need a new engine to be designed to deliver a 7% fuel efficiency upgrade. Rather, Airbus could simply fit the Trent XWB engine – which will be a perfect fit, and that will also give it 100% commonality with the advanced A350 powerplant.
“Whatever the goal is for handing over A380’s this year, the reality is that it’ll change anyway . . . Part of this is down to continued design changes that Airbus is enacting to reduce the operating empty weight.”
Nonsense.
Firstly, any weight delta for the A380 is minuscule (both absolute and as a percentage of OEW) compared with the 10tonne obese 787.
Secondly, any shift in (some) A380 deliveries has absolutely nothing to do with “operating empty weight”.
Actually, delays currently being experienced are almost entirely to do with airline-customized cabin outfitting (which, incidentally, is exactly the same problem that afflicted Boeing when they first introduced the 747-400).
17. Paula K | January 6th, 2010 at 17:54
JMBEE — super post!
18. USAF Fan | January 6th, 2010 at 17:58
“Actually, the 747-8 does not have a “new engine””
Ah the joy of idiocy - for the 747-8, it IS a new engine.
19. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | January 6th, 2010 at 18:55
15. JMBEE | January 6th, 2010 at 17:28
YES!! Both ways. Up until the end of 1990’s, Airbus couldn’t do anything wrong. Man, the arrongance from that part of the world stunk. But then they did the A340-600… Should have been a twin. It’s crazy, this desire to KILL THE JUMBO JET. Airbus has inappropriately bet its brand trying to undo a single Boeing brand - blindly ignoring at every opportunity Boeing moves. Now the A380. Macbeth perhaps.
Boeing needs to go back to its Toyota notes - or perhaps look at airliner development in the late 1960’s. They’ve always been pretty spot on with the markets and the designs themselves. Perhaps Lean+ has gone too far.
20. Airbus Supplier | January 6th, 2010 at 19:18
“…the troublesome engine for the 787″
Actually, GE has turned that around and now is doing rather well in contrast to the Trent 1000.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=comm&id=news/W787engines.xml
“General Electric has taken delivery from Avio of Italy of the first improved low pressure turbine (LPT) for the upgraded GEnx-1B. The revised turbine is expected to bring the GEnx-1B ‘in line’ with Boeing’s initial specific fuel consumption goals for the 787-8 and will be introduced shortly after the first GE-powered models enter service with the initial unmodified Block 4 configuration.”
“Actually, delays currently being experienced are almost entirely to do with airline-customized cabin outfitting”
If you believe that, I have an excellent piece of beachfront property on the Moon to sell you!
Every airline cabin is customized, the A380 is no different and this is not an excuse or justified reason behind the production problems in Toulouse. The weight of the A380 is being cut and suppliers are changing components - I know, I work for one of them!
In the last year, we’ve recieved no less than twenty requests to redesign parts, to cut their weight and cost for the A380 programme.
“Airbus could simply fit the Trent XWB engine – which will be a perfect fit”
Wasn’t the same said about the A330 engines during the A3XX discussions? Hm…Rolls Royce has learned a valuable lesson with the Trent 500/A340 experience and will be less than excited as you are in getting a Trent XWB engine to work with the A380!
Ten tonnes overweight on the 787?
Do you have a source for that? Be interested to read it.
The Seattle times piece does not give a precise number, nor does it say “10t” as the figure you claim but it does have some points that dispel your number:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2010564599_boeing22.html
“In an interview, 787 chief project engineer Mike Delaney insisted the weight has been stable for the past two years.
And he said the Dreamliner will meet its targets for range and payload and still deliver on the original promise of being 20 percent more fuel efficient.
The 787 “is still meeting that commitment,” Delaney said.”
More:
“Nelson Klug, an engineer who worked for both Boeing and Douglas Aircraft and who now is senior director of consulting at aviation firm Avitas, said the various weights listed in the document — takeoff weight, landing weight, zero-fuel weight and others — suggest to experts the size of the weight growth in the basic empty airplane.
“It’s not unreasonable to assume that the operating empty weight is about 10,000 pounds (5 tons) heavier than what was originally on the drawing board,” Klug said.”
21. Aurora | January 6th, 2010 at 20:12
For those interested in the facts, here’s a link to an AW&ST article that provides updates to the Trent 1000 and GENx.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=comm&id=news/W787engines.xml
22. Mike M | January 6th, 2010 at 20:35
Keesje?
23. Vero Venia | January 6th, 2010 at 20:42
20. Airbus Supplier | January 6th, 2010 at 19:18
My guesstimates also give about 4.5 to 5 tonnes of overweight for the first several 787.
My very initial overweight estimates were about 2.5 tonnes as I mentioned in this blog entry: http://wp.me/piMZI-1C
If the GEnx engines are in line with the spec, then effectively the 787 could be well inside the contractual commitments even with the overweight.
Please note that I do not say that the contractual commitments are the announced target level. But that’s another story.
24. JMBEE | January 6th, 2010 at 20:54
@ Paulo M
“Boeing needs to go back to its Toyota notes - or perhaps look at airliner development in the late 1960’s. They’ve always been pretty spot on with the markets and the designs themselves. Perhaps Lean+ has gone too far.”
I would agree here, I always thought Boeing’s biggest problem was not with the aircraft decisions they made, but rather the aircraft development and production decisions they failed to implement. Boeing’s decision to adopt more of a shareholder value approach in running the company in the 1990’s greatly contributed to their lackluster performance later in the decade.
Airbus had one very good point in their criticism of Boeing when they said and this is a paraphrase, “If Boeing would spend less money buying back their stock they could easily afford new aircraft development”. The fact that between 2000 and 2008 Boeing spent around $17 billion buying back it’s own stock rather than investing that money in new aircraft development says volumes about the dearth of aircraft development work between the 767/757 and 787 for Boeing. With $17 billion Boeing could have easily funded the 787 and a refresh of the 777 instead they spent the money making speculators happy and buying back shares off of the market to make up for all of the options they were floating to their executives. Hopefully, Boeing will head Jack Welch, former CEO of GE and king of shareholder value when he said about a year ago, “that running a company based on the value of the shareholder value “i.e. company stock price” is simply no way to run a company.” (paraphrase again)
If Boeing can get back to the basics they should do very well in the next decade.
25. Vero Venia | January 6th, 2010 at 20:59
Sorry guys, but it is only in French. The document is about the 777 and Air France.
If you can, please read it.
http://corporate.airfrance.com/uploads/media/54emeBoeing777_01.pdf
26. Vero Venia | January 6th, 2010 at 21:00
I’ve just tried to translate it using Google.
Here it is!
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fcorporate.airfrance.com%2Fuploads%2Fmedia%2F54emeBoeing777_01.pdf&sl=fr&tl=en
27. WTF! | January 6th, 2010 at 21:15
Where did McVitie come from!
28. Vero Venia | January 6th, 2010 at 21:29
FleetBuzz says, “Its post-passenger life value as a converted freighter is non-existent, and no engine maker will sign up to re-engine a relic whose world fleet is akin to that of the MD11 in numbers.”
In reality, there are engines that can go on the A380 today almost without change. They’re the GEnx and Trent1000 engines. Both of them have roughly the right take-off thrust. The fan diameter is very close to the current A380 engines. The benefit is that those new engines have better sfc (specific fuel consumption) and lighter.
Maybe there are more than mere technical difficulties if Airbus wants to put GEnx and Trent1000 on the A380. Contractual commitments with EA or RR concerning the current engines pop up in my mind.
29. B380 | January 6th, 2010 at 23:23
20. Airbus Supplier | January 6th, 2010 at 19:18
“Rolls Royce has learned a valuable lesson with the Trent 500/A340 experience and will be less than excited as you are in getting a Trent XWB engine to work with the A380!”
Airbus is already modelling the XWB engine on the airframe.
“The 787 “is still meeting that commitment,” Delaney said.””
The A380 met its contractual guarantees, while being 6 tonnes overweight. There is a reason why the launch customers are getting a damn good discount, they are sharing the risk.
“The Seattle times piece does not give a precise number, nor does it say “10t” as the figure you claim but it does have some points that dispel your number”
Nobody is going to go on record with the weight numbers. Whatever you are reading in the press may not have anything to do with reality. I have come across a figure of how overweight the 748I is… I doubt you will see that figure in the Seattle press.
30. Daniel Tsang | January 6th, 2010 at 23:50
Re Dave_BC,
The first 19 Boeing 787 Dreamliners are less than 4 tonnes overweight, not your non-sense claim of “10 tonnes of obese”.
In contrast, the A350 XWB is already significant overweight even in computer.
Verify your non-sense claim first, Dave in BC!
31. MAGILA | January 7th, 2010 at 00:53
I really liked that Air France analysis. The Google translation sounded a little funny, but I could understand it perfectly well. Thanks .
32. Airbus Supplier | January 7th, 2010 at 02:51
B380, I understand no one will give accurate weight numbers, Emirates had stated the A380 was 5 or 6t over - thats why I found the 10t claim by Dave a bit odd when he didnt explain the figure
33. Mike M | January 7th, 2010 at 05:27
>>>Airbus is already modelling the XWB engine on the airframe
XWB engine for A380? Source please!
>>>There is a reason why the launch customers are getting a damn good discount, they are sharing the risk.
Except that every A380 customer has had “launch” pricing, no wonder the program is in such a biblical loss!
>>>I have come across a figure of how overweight the 748I is… I doubt you will see that figure in the Seattle press.
>>>BS. Those numbers wont mean anything if what the 747 boss is true and there’s plenty of time for his assertion to be more correct than the “numbers” you claim to have “come across”.
http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2009/10/12/yahyavi-747/
“Our goal and objective is to get all these weight savings incorporated by the time we have the first 747-8 Intercontinental delivery or even before that…On the 747-8 Intercontinental (specifically), we’re meeting our (obligated, contractual) guarantees – there are no issues with weight on our current status – but we’re not gonna stop there. We’re gonna continue reducing the weight to give better performing airplane to our customer. Our goal is to go beyond our guarantees.“
34. Vero Venia | January 7th, 2010 at 08:00
Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation (CAPA) published an interesting article aboutA380 on its website.
http://www.centreforaviation.com/news/2010/01/07/the-a380-three-years-in-where-next-for-airbus-giant/page1
35. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | January 7th, 2010 at 09:11
25. Vero Venia | January 6th, 2010 at 20:59
Merci pour le lien en Français. One of my goals this year involves French and Spanish in addition to my Portuguese.
In summary, the article says: ‘Plus de la moité de a flotte long-courrier de la Compagnie est constituée de Boeing 777.’ (The Boeing 777 constitutes majority (mainstay) of the long-range fleet of the company.) And they’re very happy with its perfomance - economical and environmental - comparing the 777-300ER and 777 Freighter directly to the 747-400.
Interesting looking at airplane characteristics side-by-side. Especially of the 777-300ER and the 777-200ER.
Interestingly, they operate a number of 472 seat 777-300ER’s to island destinations in the Caribbean and Indian Ocean. Perhaps they’ll be able to place high-density A380’s on these missions. Didn’t Air Austral place orders for 2 A380’s.
36. Leelaw | January 7th, 2010 at 09:18
One of the more thoughtful A.netters has summed up the status of the WhaleBus[t] program realistically and succinctly:
“It’s really not very plausible that current production problems are so severe as to limit deliveries in 2009 to below the level of 2008. Also, we know that virtually every customer has deferred some or all frames on order. It appears that production is keeping up with demand.”
37. Vero Venia | January 7th, 2010 at 10:27
To all readers. You should read again the discussion subsequent to Saj’s post here:
http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2009/12/04/747-8koreanair/
Some comments are very relevant with the discussion here.
38. Skeptic | January 7th, 2010 at 10:50
MikeM, “Except that every A380 customer has had “launch” pricing, no wonder the program is in such a biblical loss!”
Ten years from now, everyone that orders will still get “launch” customer pricing.
LeeLaw, “It appears that production is keeping up with demand.””
Yes, this is very curious. Throttling back to keep from manufacturing white tails? The suppliers would revolt (and walk) if the pipeline were to dry up.
39. Skeptic | January 7th, 2010 at 10:58
Further on the pricing aspect, this is to be expected when the risk premium is drastically reduced on new ventures subsidized in large part via massive government aid. As Richard Aboulafia succinctly puts it, this resulted in building an aircraft that the market hasn’t fully accepted (nor likely will in numbers consistent with EADS VLA projections).
EADS has no choice in my opinion but to continue to produce this thing regardless of the numbers. If nothing else, the relationship with their suppliers is at stake. Also, premature shut down would wreck havoc with the value of the frames already produced and on order. They would likely lose EK, SQ, QF, et al, as customers for a generation or more.
No, the A380 is the gift that keeps on giving–for Boeing!
40. tmcman | January 7th, 2010 at 17:23
Dave_BC, you can stop by the office in Toulouse.
Your check is ready.
Let’s face it, the distraction and resource sucking that the A400 and A380 are doing will hurt Airbus for years to come.
41. Boeing Investor | January 7th, 2010 at 22:35
The choice to produce the A380’s and the A400 is not based on ordinary business logic. There are committments , suppliers and penalties among the complications.
There is a major Company and political decision that may take time to resolve.
In any event, these two lines have created an enormous drain of resources and capital and will ultimately have to be reckoned with.
It is not an enviable situation to be in.
42. Jacobin777 | January 7th, 2010 at 22:58
As Aurora stated:”Frankly, how can there be a leasing market for a niche aircraft that has been heavily discounted by the OEM? Is there an after market for this thing?”
Given that A380’s can be purchased for about $205 million U.S. dollars (which is remarkable given how much the U.S. Dollar has lost value against the Euro and British Pound), I wouldn’t be surprised if ILFC either defers or cancels their order. Either way, a deferment would speak volumes as well. I’m surprised however ILFC couldn’t even get EK to lease some A380’s given than EK does indeed lease a number of aircraft.
Interesting times for the A380 program.
43. B380 | January 7th, 2010 at 23:52
33. Mike M | January 7th, 2010 at 05:27
“… Source please!”
Me. But I did say modeling, not ‘offered’ or ‘launched’. It will form part of the second wave of improvement package.
“Except that every A380 customer has had “launch” pricing, no wonder the program is in such a biblical loss!”
Ooops, I forgot to pray before entering the temple of Fleetbuzzeditorial. Here goes…
*hands together* Dear Lord, please give us strength and Boeing more money. Give Airbus only orders with zero margins, actually come to think of it, negative margins. Please make every effort to ensure that only Boeing produces monumentally superior planes with the technology even aliens never heard of and margins of at least 20% + 1% for the CEO’s bonus. Please protect Boeing from the evil race called ‘Europeans’ and Bless Fleetbuzzeditorial.
Amen.
“if what the 747 boss is true and there’s plenty of time for his assertion to be more correct than the “numbers” you claim to have “come across”.”
It is interesting that some members like to put forward quotes by Boeing programme managers as gospel, while trashing anything Airbus says.
Oh yes… Mo Yahyavi. The guy who went on record to say not only the 748 will be flying but 3 will be in flight test before the end of 2009. You are free to take anything he says at face value of course. The reality is the 748 is horrendously overweight for what essentially is a derivative aircraft.
“Our goal and objective is to get all these weight savings incorporated by the time we have the first 747-8 Intercontinental delivery or even before that”
That is a goal of any programme and usually the one which has problems, just like the A380, just like the 787.
44. Mike M | January 8th, 2010 at 01:49
>>>some members like to put forward quotes by Boeing programme managers as gospel, while trashing anything Airbus says.
And why not? Didnt Airbus, or Leahy specifically say that they’d “do nothing” in response to the 787 and yet yet launched and redesigned the A350 a number of times?
>>>Oh yes… Mo Yahyavi or better known as Comical Ali.
I’m sorry, you can jest with me or the topic all day long, but to resort to racism is not my thing.
I hope your ignorant comment is removed. Thats just crass and wrong and I feel sorry for you that this is what you resort to.
>>>The reality is the 748 is horrendously overweight for what essentially is a derivative aircraft.
Yes its a derivative, yes its overweight - but you have provided no evidence apart from your racist-filled views that its horrendous.
The only thing horrendous is your racist comment. I will no longer acknowledge your rubbish until you apologize.
Shame on you.
45. USAF Fan | January 8th, 2010 at 02:51
It seems some do not know the difference between an Iranian and an Iraqi!
Like B380
46. Paula K | January 8th, 2010 at 05:28
@B380, why the need to refer to Mo Yahyavi as comical Ali?
I think you need to put a latch on your tongue if you’re entertaining racist overtures on a public forum. You’re accountable for it and I hope someone formally complains about you - its inevitable senior Boeing staff read this website and I hope they come looking for you.
Shocking.
47. FleetBuzz Editorial.com | January 8th, 2010 at 05:56
The offending remark has been removed.
Just a polite reminder, racism will not be tolerated. Be mindful of what you type.
48. B380 | January 8th, 2010 at 07:13
44. Mike M | January 8th, 2010 at 01:49
“resort to racism”
Nothing can be further from the truth, a bit like the majority of your comments regarding the A380.
The reference to the Iraqi Information Minister was provided in attempt to highlight that while Yahyavi says one thing the reality seems to be the opposite, just like Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf. There were no racist undertones and if you are trying to suggest that, it probably means that you have run out of things to say on the topic.
46. Paula K | January 8th, 2010 at 05:28
See above
49. ikkeman | January 8th, 2010 at 07:20
what about being called “Airbus Flak”, “Boeing Fanboi”, “Mr Leaky”, “Great satan Aboulafia”
I agree all these are distastefull and serve only to proof the intellectual bankruptcy of the commentor - but why is this one instance so different?
why should “Whalebust” or “Potemkinliner” be much better - though the subject is not a being of flesh and blood, and therefore cannot presumably be injured, I’m sure the thousands of people that put their best effort into these programs feel different.
anyway - who really cares.
Am I wrong or does Boeing say it lost two 747-8 orders?
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awx/2010/01/07/awx_01_07_2010_p0-195230.xml&headline=Weak%20Orders%20Hobble%20Boeing%20In%202009&channel=comm
third paragraph.
50. Leelaw | January 8th, 2010 at 09:09
ILFC originally deferred its WhaleBus[t] deliveries back in the fall of 2006 when the AIG bean counters first informed Mr. Udvar-Hazy he would have to curb his appetite for portfolio expansion. The A380 program’s initial “industrialization meltdown” of 2005-06 provided a convenient fig leaf to begin the process of walking away from the order, while avoiding embarrassing explanations of why after six years of intense marketing effort ILFC had failed to place a single aircraft with a lessee. Since then Udvar-Hazy has essentially dismissed the A388 as a viable lease finance vehicle, and suggested the A389, should it go forward, might prove to be more fertile ground for his type of action. Of course at this stage, the WhaleBus[t]Plus is nothing more than a “whore’s dream,” meaning that perhaps this elaborate charade will finally end this month.
51. Dave_BC | January 8th, 2010 at 11:20
Mike M, to see you in your ‘holier than thou’ mode and castigate B380 with his supposed “racist” comment, is a bit rich coming from somebody who never ceases to delight in attempting to ridicule posters here, with terms like “Euroboy”, and not to mention your liberal use of four letter words on this forum.
B380’s light hearted and humourous reference was certainly not racist. The only reason you focused on that, is to divert attention away from his reasonal points including those about the troubled 747-8 programme.
52. Vero Venia | January 8th, 2010 at 14:19
Saj, Please allow me to pirate your blog to make some publicity on my latest blog entry which is OFF TOPIC. It’s about the 787.
Here it is: http://wp.me/piMZI-xz
53. Mike M | January 8th, 2010 at 14:48
>>>it probably means that you have run out of things to say on the topic.
Not quite. You’re the one make claims about the 747-8 being horrendously overweight with no factual backup. I’m only quiet because I wanted/wait to see your evidence and not just because you “say” so.
>>>Dave_BC
Please explain how you deduce that calling four-letter words or Euroboy is equal to racism? Free speech has its limits and I havent ever crossed the race barrier, so get off your soapbox when this issue doesnt even concern you.
Same goes for you ikkeman - calling Aboulafia “Great Satan”, which Leelaw does so often, is NOT racism - its humor - humor that you’re clearly incapable of understanding.
Back on topic, if thats ok?
Predictions for A380 total deliveries this year? No more than a dozen…
54. keesje | January 8th, 2010 at 15:06
Hi folks not been around for a few days, but nothing unpredictable sofar.
Mike M still is biting the carpet and a A380 is still a disaster that will never be sold, never fly, be cancelled, terminated. Fleetbuzz still being a critical observer to Airbus and a loyal PR reproducer towards Boeing.
I think the A380 will dominate long haul travel for the next decades. BA, LH, AF, SQ, QF, VS, EK, QR and other think so to.
Eat you heart out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfAxkZQXWh8
55. USAF Fan | January 8th, 2010 at 15:50
Keesje, the list of airlines there have all deferred A380’s!!
When the 787 and A350 exceed A380 deliveries and enter service, the A380 will be an old technology airplane.
It will not be in service in its fifth decade like the 747!
56. Dave_BC | January 8th, 2010 at 17:03
Much better to have just some deferrals, rather than all those outright cancellations which the 787 is getting.
:o)
57. Vero Venia | January 8th, 2010 at 17:19
56. Dave_BC | January 8th, 2010 at 17:03
Not sure.
In many cases, “deferrals” only means “deferred cancellations”.
58. Paula K | January 8th, 2010 at 18:09
Dave BC, I may be wrong, but most if not all of the 787 cancellations are to do with the customers’ financial position, not the 787 delays or the aircraft itself.
The 787 market is still young and very strong. The same cannot be said of the A380’s situational position.
59. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | January 8th, 2010 at 18:49
Airbus had a number of ‘deferred’ A300/A310 deliveries when it finally closed the book - true story - have a look. I believe there five. But for what it’s worth, it doesn’t matter because the A300/A310 was a relatively successful programme - almost as good as the 767.
Taking of notes the irony in the relationship between this blog entry title and this incident involving chemical characters. ‘Sir, do you understand the volatility of the international situation?’ Unfortunately, this serves to underscore why tragically deficient understanding of the Middle East in this case has led to horrendous conflict with dire consequences for both parties. Not that I would have known what to do, because the aftermath proved that Iran was in fact a bigger concern than Iraq. Or is it. (I think it is.)
Anyway, Mo Yahyavi is managing what is amounts to one of the most prestigious aircraft programmes world wide - despite the fact that it and similar aircraft are niche players. And I’m looking forward to its maiden flight soon.
60. Dougloid | January 8th, 2010 at 21:37
Taking of notes the irony in the relationship between this blog entry title and this incident involving chemical characters. ‘Sir, do you understand the volatility of the international situation?’ Unfortunately, this serves to underscore why tragically deficient understanding of the Middle East in this case has led to horrendous conflict with dire consequences for both parties. Not that I would have known what to do, because the aftermath proved that Iran was in fact a bigger concern than Iraq. Or is it. (I think it is.)
??? relevance please?
Thank you.
Mike, I think I am going to take credit for the first use of the phrase “Potemkinliner” over on a.net before I got booted off forever for saying to a member that the nazis made people into lampshades so it’s not such a great idea to be talking up their military prowess-at least what passed for it before 1943.
61. B380 | January 8th, 2010 at 22:00
53. Mike M | January 8th, 2010 at 14:48
“You’re the one make claims about the 747-8 being horrendously overweight with no factual backup.”
The 748I, and it was the ‘I’ version I was talking about, IS overweight by quite a significant amount. Now you can take that or not, I don’t care, but I will not be providing references to the documents I have or trying to convice you or indeed take lessons from you in the etiquette of comment writing.
46. Paula K | January 8th, 2010 at 05:28
“Boeing staff read this website and I hope they come looking for you.”
Great, I will make sure I have some tea and biscuits ready.
“Shocking.”
It certainly is…. I have run out of tea.
59. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | January 8th, 2010 at 18:49
“Airbus had a number of ‘deferred’ A300/A310 deliveries when it finally closed the book”
They have cancelled the 5 A310s they had on order from Iraq Airways.
“this incident involving chemical characters”
Which chemical characters are you referring to on this blog? The reference was to COMICAL, completely different thing.
54. keesje | January 8th, 2010 at 15:06
I love the take off… what a beauty.
3 should be delivered in January: 1 today, 1 next Friday, 1 towards the end of the month.
62. Dougloid | January 9th, 2010 at 05:18
“this incident involving chemical characters”
Which chemical characters are you referring to on this blog? The reference was to COMICAL, completely different thing.
You’re the one who got his mouth washed out with soap, right?
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed