» Spin On This

Spin On This

January 18th, 2010

During the Dubai Air Show late last year, John Leahy repeatedly emphasised various points about the Airbus A380 to his audience.

To his credit, a video showing an A380 at Heathrow Airport claimed that it could be turned around faster than a 747 was impressive to say the least. Of course the recent spate of highly embarrassing glitches on the A380 overshadows much of its achievements in bringing a few more inches of legroom to passengers in all cabin classes, as well as on-board showers if that sort of thing appeals to you.

Leahy went on to discuss how the A380 “increases revenue” without verifying this from any of the (then) three operators at the time - again, marketing comments aside, it was flattering to hear. Let us not forget that this is the same fellow who also claimed that the A380 would break even at “65% load factor” - of what composition that is in terms of passenger yields is anyone’s guess but despite the hype behind the worlds biggest flying passenger machine, often dubbed the “Whalejet”, the ominous silence about profitability comes to the fore.

Image copyright/owned by FleetBuzz Editorial.com

Singapore Airlines has during the last six months at least, struggled to fill the top end seats of the A380 services deployed to Heathrow. Emirates too, forced recently by the German Government to bump up its business fares to stop Lufthansa losing customers, has found that filling the first and business class on its A380’s a more difficult task than they imagined. Qantas too, only weeks after taking delivery of their third A380 last year announced they’d be changing their configuration to account for the weaker traffic in the high yield seating block, or even curtail services on various other routes on its operations - a costly exercise if ever there was one for something so new.

As we know, the model of high-fare reliance for legacy, full service airlines is dead.

Pretty much just like how the $25bn+ business case for the A380 has been dead since its birth (see Shoot The Dog - Part 3).

So the question is simple - which of the A380 operators can claim they’re making money with them?

Its all well and good writing puff-pieces packed full of PR spin about how customers are happy with performance, low cabin noise and the like, but that no operator thus far, in over two years of operation, talks about profit potential of the airplane further underscores the difficulties the A380 is having in actually being a money-spinner.

Volume through low yield fares doesn’t make for profitability. Ask Emirates.

So while the A380 program reels from financial, production and in-service challenges, the customer base, albeit small, faces the bigger challenge of actually making money.

Perhaps they will one day - as of now, consumer trends point to the back of the cabin, not the front. That’s why long range twin-jets like the A330, A350, 777 and 787 will always secure more orders than Toulouse’s not-quite-so-finest quadjet.

Tags: Airbus, Boeing

178 Comments Add your own

1. Tweets that mention &hellip | January 18th, 2010 at 17:03

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by FleetBuzz Editorial, Lee S. Lee S said: Is The Airbus A380 Making Any Money For Operators? http://is.gd/6wGpl /via @FleetBuzz [...]
2. CE7 | January 18th, 2010 at 17:14

It’s one thing to voice an opinion but altogether something else when that said opinion disregards facts completely. Here’s the In-service report for the Superjumbo courtesy of Flightglobal with few excerpts:

http://www..flightglobal.com/page/A380-In-Service-Report/

“Despite a teeth-pulling two years through all the delays etc, this aeroplane is a peach,” says Emirates Airline president Tim Clark. “Once you’ve flown on it you will not want to go [any other way] if you have a choice - which will make them feel very ill in Seattle.”

“All the operators echo Clark’s view that the A380 has proved massively popular with passengers, evidenced by the fact that their fleets consistently fly at high load factors”

Clark sums up the A380’s appeal in raw statistics. “We’re busting the seams on the aircraft. We’re consistently getting 90-100% load factors - its popularity hasn’t dissipated in a year. And if Dubai International airport grows to where we want it, we’ll ultimately have more than 58 in our fleet.”
3. Name Withheld | January 18th, 2010 at 17:30

CE7, this piece questions profits, not statements about preference of the A380 as categorised by airlines’ statements from our man Tim Clark.

Your link does not cover operational revenue and is not relevant.

As for the Emirates 90-100% load factors, that is only true of the economy cabin and not the rest of the A380 - I should know, I work on the revenue management team at Emirates and we are not getting anywhere close to even 60% loads for our First and Business Class customers although steerage customers make up our volumes to a certain degree.

If we as a cough-state-subsidised-cough airline are struggling, SIA and QF will be hurting even more!

On the in-service report, there are teething troubles, but these are expected on new airliners - its just that the media likes to highlight it a little bit more when it concerns the A380.
4. Sal | January 18th, 2010 at 17:35

Was it those great load facts that had anything to do with Emirates decision to replace its once daily A380 flight to JFK with two 777 flights?
5. Boeing Investor | January 18th, 2010 at 18:01

It is quite clear and well recognized that the A380 is not the revenue producing success that was expected. The number of postponements and cancellations as well as the decrease in production levels all reflect this issue.

The larger question is what the Carriers will do to ameliorate these losses and whether or not they will choose to cancel further orders.

The much larger question is what Airbus will do with this financial albatross. Discussion of this is already in the press and has been covered in this blog as well as on others.

This A380 problem is a very interesting one because there are relationships, suppliers and penalties that weigh in on the decision. There are also thousands of jobs and that weighs the heaviest.
6. don shuper | January 18th, 2010 at 18:13

With very thin margins on A3Piggy flights, it only mtake4s one or two major delays or overnight delays to take a bite out of the next 1/2 dozen flight margins.

And now with the increased security games in force, the problems of handling a major quantity of passengers on any ONE flight further add to the delays and passenger unrest as they now have to spend even more time in a specific line.

Add to that the increased use of the internet worldwide for meetings, etc involved in MOST business use, and the decrease in business use should not be a surprise.

then there is the ‘ recession” worldwide requiring most business to cut costs- travel is a first choice.

Given the above , plus many more like items, it will be a long time- if ever- before the a3piggy really turns a profit for anyone !

Just my humble opinion !
7. Skeptic | January 18th, 2010 at 18:31

There are one or two authors at Flight Global who must be an extension of the Airbus spin machine, judging by the prolific output of airbus puff pieces. Of course, this does have the effect of increasing EADS advertising on the site, but it is in stark contrast with serious aviation coverage at Aviation Week and Air Transport World.

The Fleetbuzz editorial again raises serious and hard hitting questions about the “benefits” of the whalejet. I’m betting this editorial will spur the airbus spin machine into a knee jerk response, probably a piece in Flight Global, about how SQ or QF are enjoying “record yields” on the whalejets without any real data. After all, your questioning of the KC-30 tanker forced them to publicly respond on the fuel transfer. BTW, is the A330MRTT for the RAAF any closer to entering service?
8. Leelaw | January 18th, 2010 at 18:32

Thus far, the only actual cancellations came from FedEx and UPS for the A380F, though some of the very long delivery deferrals (e.g. ILFC, Virgin Atlantic - six years+) could be considered “de facto” cancellations. Most of the customers have entered into financial settlements (2006-07) regarding the A380, which despite ongoing delivery delays, probably preclude unilateral cancellation by a customer, as has been the case with the 787.
9. Dougloid | January 18th, 2010 at 18:38

It’s an interesting angle that Saj makes.

Load factors and profitability are what pays the bills. Against that you have to balance the cost of servicing the debt, various fees for operating in and out of major airports, turnaround service and so on.

It’ll be interesting to see how this discussion shapes up, but (I’m theorizing now) it would seem to me that as your aircraft gets bigger, you have to assemble larger crowds and/or containers of cargo in one place, going to another place, to get it loaded to a level where you make money.

Again, it all comes back to whether a decentralized or centralized model gets the job done. I suspect that there are some routes where the capacity of the BUFF has its advantages.

How about airborne Carnival Cruises? Load up a bunch of people and go out and stooge around off the coast for a few hours and serve gourmet food?
What’s the general rule for break even load factors?
10. Aurora | January 18th, 2010 at 18:44

Leelaw: “Most of the customers have entered into financial settlements (2006-07) regarding the A380, which despite ongoing delivery delays, probably preclude unilateral cancellation”

Financial settlements on the whalejet delays, but also cut rate pricing, and rock bottom leasing rates for A330s. Thai found out the hard way that they boxed themselves in.
11. Skeptic | January 18th, 2010 at 19:04

Dougloid, QF did a “Carnival cruise” mission with the whalejet to Antarctica recently if I’m not mistaken. I suspect it was a publicity stunt more than anything. Also, any discussion of cargo is best left out of a a good discussion on this commercial flying flop. To say its “not optimized” for cargo is an understatement.
12. Doug McVitie | January 18th, 2010 at 19:14

In the eyes of many, not just the media, the A380 is most closely identified with Airbus, not with its (few) airline operators. How apt.

A wholly inappropriate aircraft, the A380 is no more than a ’super-sized’ financial disaster for we European taxpayers stuck with paying for the damned thing, which is no more than France’s latest aerospace ego trip (Leahy is such an irrelevant twit he makes Branson look like an intellectual).

The A380 program is a farce. It is therefore entirely possible the identification with Airbus is indeed a suitable one: a farce of an aircraft from a farcical outfit (nightmares at Flightglobal again tonight, boys…).
13. ikkeman | January 18th, 2010 at 20:08

“So the question is simple - which of the A380 operators can claim they’re making money with them?”

my question would be:
which of the A380 operators claim they’re NOT making money with them?
14. Mike M | January 18th, 2010 at 20:28

Ikkeman has a point.

AF probably has lost a lot of money with their sole machine making more tech stops than actually making revenue stops!

Anyway, SQ has more A380s than 744s in operation - surely in a downturn this would be a great time to say and show how the A380 is contributing to the bottom line, is it not?

That they arent says a lot about Leahys hollow promises - wasnt the A380 going to solve world hunger, save mankind and planet Earth and bring peace between Israel and Palestine??

Or is it because these silly overpriced first class tickets for 12-16 dipshits with more money than sense means that they’re harder to fill?
15. Aotearoa | January 18th, 2010 at 20:32

13. ikkeman | January 18th, 2010 at 20:08

“which of the A380 operators claim they’re NOT making money with them?”

My pick could be Qantas who without Jetstar would have lost money this past financial year. Of course, it’s not proof that the 3fatty was the reason but that’s what has been used on the formerly rip-off Aus-US routes that now finally have competition from Delta-V (sic).

Sorry, Qantas, wrong plane at the wrong time and you’re kidding yourself if you think punters will continue to pay more (even in Economy) for the priviledge of standing in longer queues.

Sorry
16. Skeptic | January 18th, 2010 at 20:36

Related issue: EASA has issued an AD on the Trent900s. Greater than expected wear.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/mro/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=388668c6-b459-4ea7-941e-a0a2206d415f&plckPostId=Blog:388668c6-b459-4ea7-941e-a0a2206d415fPost:25957402-157d-4f78-ba76-0550d53898e7&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
Spin that!
17. Vero Venia | January 18th, 2010 at 20:43

Several days ago I posted an entry titled “Twin Engined” on my blog. There are two interesting charts in there showing how the 747’s role fades away slowly and as the 777 taking over the role.

I think quads will still have a role in the air transport industry, but that role is diminishing everyday. Only very few of specific routes need big and very big aircraft. Thus in my humble opinion this is a small niche market.

This is the entry “Twin Engined”: http://wp.me/piMZI-yI
18. Dougloid | January 18th, 2010 at 21:11

Skeptic sez “I’m betting this editorial will spur the airbus spin machine into a knee jerk response, probably a piece in Flight Global, about how SQ or QF are enjoying “record yields” on the whalejets without any real data. ”

You bet right. They’re gonna spaz out. It’ll be a reprise of Captain Queeg in “The Caine Mutiny” to wit:

“I remember back in ‘37 when I was an ensign on a cruiser and somebody stole the strawberries.”

I dunno, I was just trying to think of ways to use the A380. How about turning them into prisons?
19. Vero Venia | January 18th, 2010 at 21:38

I think the aircraft is just fine. Maybe airlines can make money out of it. Those aspects are interesting, but the most interesting part is about the market size for 400+ seat aircraft. How many 747-8i and A380-800 will sell in the next twenty years? That’s the question.
20. Erik Bloodaxe | January 18th, 2010 at 22:53

“How many 747-8i and A380-800 will sell in the next twenty years? That’s the question.”

Certainly not the 1500 that Airbus claims. I tend to think the Boeing’s estimate of ~500 is probably closer to the truth.

The thing to keep in mind with the A380 is that even though Leahy claims it makes money at 65% load factor… that 65% is still more people than a 747-400 or 777. Additionally, its not just load factor that matters, it’s YIELDS on that load factor. You could have 100% load factor, but if you sold all those seats at extremely low yields, you still don’t make money.
21. Aotearoa | January 19th, 2010 at 01:42

18. Dougloid | January 18th, 2010 at 21:11

“I dunno, I was just trying to think of ways to use the A380. How about turning them into prisons?”

How about sinking them out from the coast and making artificial reefs for divers to explore? They’re so big, it would take ages for them to swim around in it. Endless fun!
22. Roger | January 19th, 2010 at 04:54

All these exact comments were said when the 747 was introduced. It too was unprofitable for carriers for a few years. Then the carriers learned to stuff lots of seats in there.

The world population keeps growing and more and more people have the ability to pay for travel. The growth rate of existing airports and of new ones is extremely limited in most democracies. The market is there for the A380 to gain.
23. 123xyz | January 19th, 2010 at 06:20

@Vero Venia

Yes, that’s the question, how many? Time will tell.

Boeing bet big on long haul narrower routes via the 787 and small with the long and wide with the -8, then, Airbus bet big on long wide routes with the A380, and if it were not for Steven Udvar-Házy and others insistence, they would have bet small on the long narrow with an upgraded A330. Customers insisted on the XWB; it wasn’t an Airbus desire, it wasn’t in the plan.

So, the question is, in the next 20 years will airlines make more money with the Boeing strategy or Airbus’? Specifically, are those wide routes wide enough for added A380 sales? Are there enough to allow Airbus to at least break even?

Then, and more interesting, will 787’s & XWB’s size flexibility allowing multiple daily ops on long and wide routes with lower fuel burn supplant A380’s?

Time will tell.
24. Vero Venia | January 19th, 2010 at 07:39

20. Erik Bloodaxe | January 18th, 2010 at 22:53 says, “Certainly not the 1500 that Airbus claims. I tend to think the Boeing’s estimate of ~500 is probably closer to the truth. ”

It may be the case. But there have been many surprises in the past, there will be surprises in the future. Who knows? Unless someone discovers the time machine to peek into the future, we will have to wait three or four years more to know how the VLA market evolve.

Why do we have to wait three or four years? Because in three years the A380 will have been in production since five years. In five years the 747-8i will be at nine years from its launch. Thus in 2014 we will be able to understand the market’s behavior relative to the VLA.
25. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | January 19th, 2010 at 07:44

lol prisons & artificial reefs

I’m interested in that statement about the Deutsch Regierung. Was Emirates forced to up business class fares because the A380-800 was more efficient than the 747-400/A340-600, and thus allowed than to act uncompetitively?

At this stage, all we know with certainty is the A380 is burning a small hole in Airbus’ pockets. We don’t know what’s cooking at the airlines, and won’t till they say something. Or till competition paints a picture for us.

——————————————————————————

In the meantime, I only care to know when, when the 747-8F will make its maiden flight.

And from Boeing marketing @ newairplane.com have a gawk at this lovely machine: http://bit.ly/7l7iVe

Also make sure to make this http://bit.ly/6iPjNp @Flightglobal part of your preflight checklist for that maiden flight.

I’m going to read all my dedicated 747 stories - which, incidentally, are the same story about: ‘Hell, if you build it, I’ll buy it!’ And: ‘If you buy it, I’ll build it!’
26. Vero Venia | January 19th, 2010 at 07:56

22. Roger | January 19th, 2010 at 04:54 says “All these exact comments were said when the 747 was introduced. It too was unprofitable for carriers for a few years. Then the carriers learned to stuff lots of seats in there.”

Yes, but there were not any smaller sized aircraft that could fly as far as the 747. There were not as many “international” airports as there are today. Today, you have very capable twins and many-many more airports are open for international flights.

As I mentioned in my post titled “20/20″ (here: http://wp.me/siMZI-2020 ) many things have changed since the 747 era. Many domestic and regional airport now can accommodate long-range destinations. The new and smaller twins are so capable that they can connect distant airports which can not accommodate the 747.

These changes have been accelerated by the fall of the Berlin wall about twenty years ago. The US and Japan have just signed the Openskies agreement in December 2009. It takes time before all the fundamental changes take effect on airlines’ fleet.

There have been so many changes that past such that current assumptions and knowledge may not apply as well as they did. A deep structural change is on going. Some people call it a Paradigm Shift.
As a very simple example, if you look at the two charts in my post “Twin Engined” (here: http://wp.me/piMZI-yI ) you know that something happened between the early nineties and now.

Some strategic planners at airlines and aircraft manufacturers have to change their mindset.
27. Vero Venia | January 19th, 2010 at 08:14

23. 123xyz | January 19th, 2010 at 06:20

Your comment is quite interesting. But I suggest you to have a look at my blog entry “Twin Engined” mentioned in my previous comment.

One of the charts in the post shows that the role of the 747 is dwindling down day by day. You have to analyze the trend and ask the question why the 747’s role has been going down. It is certainly not because of the size. If airlines needed bigger aircraft, they would have continued to operate and to buy the 747 frantically. Is it because of the efficiency and capability of recent twins? Maybe.

You should count the number of 747-400 annual deliveries from 1990 until 2005 when the last passenger 747-400 was delivered. Make your own conclusion. In order to make your task easier, I give you the table of 747-400 deliveries here: http://tinyurl.com/747-400-deliveries
28. Vero Venia | January 19th, 2010 at 08:40

22. Roger | January 19th, 2010 at 04:54 says “All these exact comments were said when the 747 was introduced. It too was unprofitable for carriers for a few years. Then the carriers learned to stuff lots of seats in there.”

I forgot to mention that at the early times of the 747, almost all airlines were state-owned. They just didn’t care about profitability. I mentioned this in my post “20/20″. The other point is that the 747 was the first to have high-bypass engines on it.

If you want to compare the early 747 to the A380 or the 747-8i, please also compare the context. It does not make much sense to compare two aircraft in two periods 40 years away one from the other.

It makes much more sense to compare the air transport context in 1970 and 2010 than to compare two aircraft in the two periods.
29. ikkeman | January 19th, 2010 at 09:25

7. Skeptic | January 18th, 2010 at 18:31
bwuhahaha - you’re putting this blog above flight int’l?
talk about spin…

12. Doug McVitie | January 18th, 2010 at 19:14
you mean the Airbus A380 is ascociated with Airbus in stead of Quantas like the Boeing 747 is ascociated with Boeing rather than say Brithish Airways?
Shocking and apt.

14. Mike M | January 18th, 2010 at 20:28
Actually, my point was aimed at how the airlines are not complaining about hte profitability of hte A380 (AFAIK).

20. Erik Bloodaxe | January 18th, 2010 at 22:53
The claim is it would make money at 65% - I assume that includes yield
No- I don’t think the claim is still (was?) true.

21. Aotearoa | January 19th, 2010 at 01:42
Actually - they’re not that big. A decent sized shipwreck is easily bigger than 80m
Also, where will you find a flat piece of underwater realestate shallow enough to actually be able to swim around the whole.

22. Roger | January 19th, 2010 at 04:54
But when the 747 was introduced, not only was it a lot bigger, it had lot longer legs.
The world has changed. 777 and 330 can carry pax all across the world and it’s hard to find a route that will let you actually use the enormous capacity of the 380.
I don’t think the 380 will sell more than 747 (1400 in 40y).

24. Vero Venia | January 19th, 2010 at 07:39
I don’t remember the eloi using aircraft…

25. Vero Venia | January 19th, 2010 at 07:56
On your graphs - do keep in mind the decline of hte more than twin engined a/c also have something to do with the EOL of the smaller options. Since A340 was marginalized by ETOPS, there’s only the 747 and now, perhaps the 380. This means the market share serviced by quad/tri declined which would explain some of hte downward trend in your first graph. Even so - looking at the very gradual decline over the last 20 years suggests to me a fleet of between 600 and 800 tri/quad a/c in 20 years. By that time, some of the newest 744’s may still be flying, but the bulk of that fleet will be new build.
30. Aurora | January 19th, 2010 at 10:37

The aviation landscape is much changed since the advent of the whale. LCC’s are proliferating worldwide; in Asia they now account for 1 in 6 seats! Worldwide, customers have already voted with their money that they’d rather have cheap seats and frequency than facials and showers in premium class on the “daily” flight to wherever. This doesn’t auger well for the VLA segment. It still has a niche, but nowhere near airbus’ lofty projections.
31. Vero Venia | January 19th, 2010 at 11:10

28. ikkeman | January 19th, 2010 at 09:25

The graph says clearly that twins changed the world. The reality is that you don’t need quads anymore to do long routes. The surviving quads are the A380 and the 747-8i, simply because they need the thrust of four engines.

And the remaining and unique reason for big and very big aircraft is the capacity. This reason is always valid for very dense and long routes where there is a very small possibility to increase the frequency. That’s a very specific and rare situation.

Most of dense routes are less than 4,000 nautical miles. You just don’t need big and very big aircraft for those dense-medium-distance routes.

Frankly, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand that.

How the 747-8i and the A380 will sell in the future is the big question. Let’s wait until 2014. By then we will know what the evolution is. I bet VLA market is not growing.
32. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | January 19th, 2010 at 11:31

lol prisons & artificial reefs

I’m interested in that statement about the Deutsch Regierung. Was Emirates forced to up business class fares because the A380-800 was more efficient than the 747-400/A340-600, and thus allowed than to act ‘uncompetitively’? Or the product (cabin) more modern?

At this stage, all we know with certainty is the A380 is burning a small hole in Airbus’ pockets. We don’t quite know what’s cooking at the airlines, and won’t till they say something. Or till competition paints a picture for us.

——————————————————————————

In the meantime, I only care to know when, when the 747-8F will make its maiden flight.

And from Boeing marketing @ newairplane.com, have a gawk at this lovely machine: http://bit.ly/7l7iVe

Also make sure to make this http://bit.ly/6iPjNp @Flightglobal part of your preflight checklist for that maiden flight.

I’m going to read all my dedicated 747 stories - which, incidentally, are the same story about: ‘Hell, if you build it, I’ll buy it!’ And: ‘If you buy it, I’ll build it!’
33. Pete | January 19th, 2010 at 13:54

Tim Clark always seems ready to defend the A380 - but if you were the CEO who made the call to buy 58 of them….would say it was a bad call?

Didn’t think so.
34. ikkeman | January 19th, 2010 at 14:14

Hey, what about this one:
http://www..flightglobal.com/articles/2010/01/19/337301/airbus-to-test-fly-a350s-trent-on-a380-next-year.html

Does this increase the likelyhood of an A380 update with the new engines in 5 to 10 years?

30. Vero Venia | January 19th, 2010 at 11:10
Th egraph doesn’t speak, it requires interpretation. I see the tri/quads keep a rather stable volume while the twins created the bulk of the growth of the global fleet.
That fact can be explained by several causes - just ’cause you read something into the data doesn’t mean it’s the only truth.

As I mentioned, I don’t see the tri/quad volume growing either.
35. Vero Venia | January 19th, 2010 at 15:06

32. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | January 19th, 2010 at 11:31

If you look carefully at the payload range presented in the link you gave us, the fuel burn at 8,000 nm at 467 passengers is around just below 3 liter per passenger per 100 km. I guess the fuel burn at 6,000 nm at 467 passengers will be about 2.7 liter per passenger per 100 km. Will it become reality? I don’t know.
36. Aurora | January 19th, 2010 at 15:10

ikkeman: “Does this increase the likelyhood of an A380 update with the new engines in 5 to 10 years? ”

IMVHO, no. Why pour more money down the toilet? The revenue models of the full service carriers, overly reliant on the premium pax segment, are broke. Consumers are adapting; the “good old days” are not coming back. If there isn’t much of a business case for today’s whalejet, why would there be one for a “new and improved” whale?

Are the LCC’s going to forsake frequency and buy it?
37. Vero Venia | January 19th, 2010 at 15:13

34. ikkeman | January 19th, 2010 at 14:14 “That fact can be explained by several causes - just ’cause you read something into the data doesn’t mean it’s the only truth.”

It’s really up to you to believe whatever you want to believe. The reality is that there are chances that Airbus will stop the A340 production. The remaining quads in production will be the A380 and the 747-8i. Guess what? There won’t be many of them. How many A380 and 747-8 have been ordered since they’re around on offer? Reminder: A380 launched in 2000 and 747-8 in 2005.

I admit it is sometime difficult to be objective.
38. Leelaw | January 19th, 2010 at 15:20

“Does this increase the likelyhood of an A380 update with the new engines in 5 to 10 years?”

MSN001 is available for this testing and is apparently a better flying testbed than the A346, there may be no further implications beyond that. Time will tell. If past is prologue, there should already be improvements to the A380 in the pipeline in order to drive sales momentum.
39. majano | January 19th, 2010 at 15:43

What is disappointing is that some commenters cannot seem to tire of repeating themselves over and over again on the viability or lack thereof of the A380 programme. This just proves the fact that articles such as “spin on this” are a fabrication of lies. The American mentality and approach is that if you repeat a lie consistently and vocally, and the noise is coming form a variety of quarters, the lie will eventually be accepted as the truth. Noble men and aviation enthusiasts the world over will hope sincerely that you will fail in your evil quest.
40. Erik Bloodaxe | January 19th, 2010 at 16:04

The decision to use the A380 as the test bed probably has more to do with the size of the engine than anything else. The T500 on the A346 is a 56K thrust engine, the A350 engines are in the range of 75K. Where as the T900 is 81.5K and the EA engine is 84K. Basically, the strut and wing on the A346 are too puny to support the engine, whereas the A380 isn’t. It was the ONLY option, except maybe using a 747, and you know that was NOT going to happen.
41. Buster | January 19th, 2010 at 16:06

12. Doug McVitie | January 18th, 2010 at 19:14

In the eyes of many, not just the media, the A380 is most closely identified with Airbus, not with its (few) airline operators.

Which Boeing types are associated more with an airline than Boeing? Just curious.

The A380 program is a farce. It is therefore entirely possible the identification with Airbus is indeed a suitable one: a farce of an aircraft from a farcical outfit

Ah Dougie, you never fail to amuse. Do you want some twisted to go with that bitter?
42. Mike M | January 19th, 2010 at 16:22

>>>This just proves the fact that articles such as “spin on this” are a fabrication of lies.

What lies?

Do you have proof that A380 operators are turning a profit?

Bring something to substantiate that this article is a lie - I’m sure there’d be plenty who want to see you back up the BS you just posted, Airbus boy!
43. Mike M | January 19th, 2010 at 16:24

>>>Actually, my point was aimed at how the airlines are not complaining about hte profitability of hte A380 (AFAIK).

None are talking about profits from the A380 in public or private - what are we to deduce from that?

Poster Aotearoa already explained that with Jetstar, Qantas would have been up shitstreet with losses.

The A380 clearly hasnt aided them in anyway - not with that puke color interior!
44. Dougloid | January 19th, 2010 at 16:59

Majano sez: “The American mentality and approach is that if you repeat a lie consistently and vocally, and the noise is coming form a variety of quarters, the lie will eventually be accepted as the truth.”

You missed the boat by a few years, my brother. Better than half the regulars on Fleetbuzz’s attempt to assassinate the A380 are not Americans, unless Britain was annexed and became a county in Texas.

Cut to Texas Ranger: “Welcome to Britain County, Texas, ma’am. The weather is a little windy. Now buckle up and drive safe, y’heah?”

As a matter of fact, the approach you ascribe to us unlettered frontiersmen was popularized in Europe by a fellow named Joe Goebbels.

Come to think of it, you should read all those old issues of Signal if you like the idea of One Big Europe, led, of course, by the Usual Suspects.
45. Vero Venia | January 19th, 2010 at 17:53

39. majano | January 19th, 2010 at 15:43 “What is disappointing is that some commenters cannot seem to tire of repeating themselves over and over again on the viability or lack thereof of the A380 programme.”

Yes, I agree with that. I am probably one of those who repeat again and again and again about the size of the VLA market (for both the 747-8i and the A380).

What is funny is that there are other people out there who repeat endlessly that this market is very big for the A380 and very little for the 747-8i. I just can’t understand the logic.

But hey, everyone can express his opinion.
46. Paulo M | January 19th, 2010 at 18:22

Firstly, I’d like to apologize for posting the same comment twice - I think my browser is going.

35. Vero Venia | January 19th, 2010 at 15:06
I believe so. I believe we’re looking at another 777-300ER-type technical success. I realise that to be a vain comment in itself. Also, I agree that the 747-8I is unlikely ever to have the sales success of the 777-300ER - or indeed the 747-400. But I think it will definitely be something to watch.

BTW, what is the fuel burn for the A380-800 - 3.7~3.5 litres per passenger per 100 km @ 555 pax and 8,000 nm?

40. Erik Bloodaxe | January 19th, 2010 at 16:04

I don’t know about that. GE flew the GE90-115B on a 747-121. My Airliner World Boeing 747 Special Edition (2005) says that the Pratt & Whitney JT9D’s that powered the 747-100’s ranged in power from 42,000lbs to 50,000lbs. The GE90-115B is of course 115,000+lbs - powerful enough to lift that 747 alone. You could say that the pylon at least on the 747 is too puny to support the T7 engine. And, indeed, it was extensively modified.

I’d say testing the Trent 1000 on the A380 is a very smart money - very shrewd move, because as we know, the A340-600 is dead. Now, developing a new a new pylon to support the Trent 1000 on the A380 wing - that’s brinkmanship. Now, if they can convince Rolls-Royce to do their part… I know, long shot, but..

39. majano | January 19th, 2010 at 15:43

Careful there. That rhetoric sounds almost as good as Robert Gabriel Mugabe when he has a go at the “Evil British Empire” and its tentacles. Something along these lines: “Blair keep your England, and I’ll keep my Zimbabwe.” Who exactly is the audience?

Nobody wants to kill the A380. On the other hand, there are a lot of people - good and bad alike - wondering if it will kill itself.
47. CE7 | January 19th, 2010 at 20:31

An Emirates employee name withheld, that piece shows that the Superjumbo is flying nearly full so why do you think they would not make money? Laughable. One has to wonder how much Emirates and others will lose then with much less popular types like 777.
48. Vero Venia | January 19th, 2010 at 20:39

46. Paulo M | January 19th, 2010 at 18:22 BTW, what is the fuel burn for the A380-800 - 3.7~3.5 litres per passenger per 100 km @ 555 pax and 8,000 nm?

I don’t know. But I think the A380 is close to the 747-8. It may be only one or two percent away. Don’t know who has the advantage.
49. Mike M | January 19th, 2010 at 20:51

>>>the Superjumbo is flying nearly full so why do you think they would not make money?

Except Tim Clark doesnt say whether thats the WHOLE airplane or just a particular class of cabin.

That of course would be the telling point as to whether Emirates is making money.

Less popular 777?

Hm, let me see. 1000+ 777s Vs. 200~ A380s?

Nothing like a fool eh, CE7.

Wouldnt surprise me if you were Keesje in disguise with a spell-checker!
50. USAF Fan | January 19th, 2010 at 20:54

EriK B is accurate when he (and the article) refers to yields.

Aside from the rich and retired, who would seriously pay some of the high prices just to get a 5 minute shower on an A380?

Why not pay a traditional premium fare and shower before you fly (at home or airport) and after landing too?

Well, we know Qantas and Air France arent making any money from the A380 - that leaves SIA and Emirates.

Not a compelling case to say that just 50% of operators “may” be making money with them!

Ouch!
51. Aotearoa | January 19th, 2010 at 21:01

46. Paulo M | January 19th, 2010 at 18:22

Nice analogy there Paulo “Careful there. That rhetoric sounds almost as good as Robert Gabriel Mugabe when he has a go at the “Evil British Empire” and its tentacles.”

Even more prudent for myself as I’m married to a Zimbabwean.

As an Australasian, I read majano’s comments with some amazement and thought, surely there is some p!ss taking going on here and certainly not serious. But sadly, after re reading, I think he (or she) actually believes the guff about “American mentality and approach”. Is there some degree of insecurity involved, me wonders?
52. Vero Venia | January 19th, 2010 at 21:22

50. USAF Fan | January 19th, 2010 at 20:54

Frankly, who’s making money during this crisis?
53. Homer Simpson | January 20th, 2010 at 00:51

43. Mike M | January 19th, 2010 at 16:24

“Poster Aotearoa already explained that with Jetstar, Qantas would have been up shitstreet with losses.”

Which proves what exactly?

How do you explain the massive losses of all the airlines that don’t fly the A380?
54. 123xyz | January 20th, 2010 at 02:13

27. Vero Venia | January 19th, 2010 at 08:14

The questions were rhetorical as it mirrors your question, “How many 747-8i and A380-800 will sell in the next twenty years?”

Would extrapolating Boeing’s 747 deliveries from the past 15 years verses twins predict the answer?

When higher CFRP content aircraft begin ops, will the A380 or -8 be competitive?

Again, a few rhetorical questions.
55. JMBEE | January 20th, 2010 at 02:21

39. majano | January 19th, 2010 at 15:43

“The American mentality and approach is that if you repeat a lie consistently and vocally, and the noise is coming form a variety of quarters, the lie will eventually be accepted as the truth.”

The full quototion from Herr Goebbels is as follows:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Obviously, Herr Dr. Goebells was speaking only about official propaganda being issued by a State or possibly a large Corporation and certainly never meant for it to be applied to a bunch a cynical American bloggers. Somehow, I don’t think the lack of sales for the A380 can be laid at the feet of Mike M.

Ultimately, the A380 will succeed or fail in the long run based on how well Airbus gaged the market demand for their aircraft and how well they implemented the program. Programatic mistakes aside the A380 still has a chance at success providedl; 1) it offers lower CASM than it’s smaller and more flexible competitors and; 2) the growth of large hubs and hub to hub traffic will necessitate the use of Aircraft as large as the A380 to deal with slot restricted traffic.

I am sure that an A380-900 with Trent 1000 engines would easily beat the CASM for any version of 747-8i and the new composite twins. The second part of the question on wheather or not there is an actual need for such an aircraft is the real question in the A380 puzzle. If Airbus believes that Hub to Hub traffic is indeed the future and larger aircraft are needed to deal with slot restrictions than they should by all means swallow their current losses and proceed with the program. However, if they guessed wrong there really is no future for the A380, regardless of how much they might do to improve the CASM.

Either way negative statements from a couple bloggers isn’t going to do anything to harm the future success of the A380 or promote it’s demise.
56. Mike M | January 20th, 2010 at 05:58

>>>How do you explain the massive losses of all the airlines that don’t fly the A380?

I do not recall saying that I knew?

Perhaps you’d shed some light as to why the A380 hasnt saved mankind from disasters like the Haitian earthquake or turned a profit for the current operators?

I dont expect a reply, but if you do - thank you.

CE7 - I note you havent yet verified the claims of “full” from Tim Clark - are you being bent over by the staff at Flight global in their quest to be Airbus’ media machine with all their pro-Airbus droolings?
57. majano | January 20th, 2010 at 06:07

What I am getting at with my comment is that the number of articles, blogs and analysis questioning the viability of the A380 programme is astonishing, it is emanating from a common source, and is repeatitive.

JMBEE: I appreciate your history lesson, but I have to admint that in recent history, American politicians and business leaders have used your “Herr Goebbels” approach very well. What I am not suggesting though, is that the programme will succeed or fail because of these bloggers and commenters.
58. Mike M | January 20th, 2010 at 06:52

>>>the number of articles, blogs and analysis questioning the viability of the A380 programme is astonishing, it is emanating from a common source, and is repeatitive.

Perhaps it is, however, the truth is in the marketplace.

The 747-400 (passenger) in the last decade didnt secure much in the way of orders - driven largely by the 77W offering better economics.

The VLA market as Vero consistently notes, is small. Airbus and Boeing both know its less than 10% of the marketplace. Thats why the focus is on the 787 and A350.

The A380 has costs billions, is still a drain as Enders said just last week and orders are few/far between.

Whether you like it or not, there is tangible merit to the questions of viability of the A380, just like there was over Concorde, the 2707SST and many other jets.
59. Ryan | January 20th, 2010 at 07:28

I stand corrected if what I note here is wrong.

From launch in April 1966 until a decade later (March 1975), the 747 notched up 287 orders and 251 were delivered in the same time period.

From launch in December 2000 until a decade later (November 2009) the A380 had 202 orders with 23 deliveries.

Just thought it’d be interesting to share this to give some contrast to the two big jets.

I agree with the earlier poster that perhaps yes, the A380 does need a bit of time to settle into the market, but on reflection and in comparison to the 747, it doesnt look rosy.
60. majano | January 20th, 2010 at 07:28

“The 747-400 (passenger) in the last decade didnt secure much in the way of orders - driven largely by the 77W offering better economics.”

I may not be an expert, but it appears to me that the A380 offers superior economics over the 77W due to consolidation. The 747-400 could not. That is what Singapore and Emirates are doing at the moment, consolidatign two 77W flights into one A380 trip, but articles such as “Spin on this” cannot seem to acknowledge that possibility. Please, I am not suggesting that all airlines are going to do that, nor am I suggesting that a majority of them is, but some are, and will continue to do so.
61. Vero Venia | January 20th, 2010 at 08:05

54. 123xyz | January 20th, 2010 at 02:13 “Would extrapolating Boeing’s 747 deliveries from the past 15 years verses twins predict the answer?”

All investment literature warns that past performance is no guarantee of future results. I agree that it’s true but there are not many ways for predicting the future.

As everybody knows, the evolution in aviation industry is very slow. However, the environment around the aviation industry have changed seriously (geopolitics, economic, social etc). I tried to underline this in my blog entry titled “20/20″, in which I enumerated some important aspects that have been changing since the fall of the Berlin Wall twenty years ago.
Just think that the “Euro” has only been introduced to the European population only in 2000? Here is the entry “20/20″: http://wp.me/siMZI-2020

The huge changes affecting air transport industry fundamentals have been operating since the fall of the Berlin wall, but as you can observe the changes in the actual air transport industry have not been as spectacular. Maybe the LCC model is one of those visible changes.

In other words, there is a lag between the changes in the fundamentals and the air transport reality. So in my humble opinion, today trend will be followed at least during the next fifteen years.

Let me summarize again some huges changes around the industry, with examples:
- airlines business model: privatization of legacy carriers, LCC phenomena
- airport privatization
- opening of borders: no more Warsaw pact, East European LCC like Wizzair, China is now open
- Hong Kong and Macau now belong to China
- Very weak ex-Warsaw pact aircraft industry: no more or very few Tupolev’s deliveries
- consolidation and/or bankruptcy: JAL
There are others, but the above is enough.

I would also suggest you to read my entries:
- Opening Skies : http://wp.me/piMZI-vy
- Valley of Pyramids: http://wp.me/piMZI-tB
- Pyramid of Japan: http://wp.me/piMZI-uD
Believe me or not, I was surprised myself by the content of my own blog. Something big is happening today. There is not any doubt about that. Don’t expect those changes to happen fortnight. The change is on the move.

I can build a very long list of those changes. If we easily admit those huge changes in the environment in which airlines operates, it is much more difficult to see the actual changes in airlines’ operations. That is why, I repeat, today trend is likely to continue, including the use of big and very big quads.

If you put the launch of the A380 on top of the historcal time line, you can see that it falls right in the middle of an important world geo-politic-economical mutation. How the actual market for the 747-8i and A380 will be is a real question. That’s not a rethoric question.

Is it a sin to adopt a more flexible fleet of very capable twins today when things are not clear? I bet it’s a good move.
62. Vero Venia | January 20th, 2010 at 08:18

55. JMBEE | January 20th, 2010 at 02:21

I am not as sure as you are when you say that the CASM of the A380 will be better than that of the 787 or the A350. My feeling is that the 787 or the A350 will be as efficient as or better than the A380 when this efficiency is expressed as cost per passenger-kilometer. Unfortunately, I don’t have the required materials to demonstrate my feeling.

The available-seat-mile-cost of the first A380 is certainly not as good as advertised. Why? It’s simple. When first class or business class seats weighs hundreds of kilograms each, you can’t expect the aircraft to be very fuel efficient. If you add the fact that those seats are not generating the expecting income as it is the case today, then you know that your available-seat-mile-cost is very high with no premium revenue to compensate.

When the A380 will transport 600, 700 or 800 seats then maybe its CASM will be attractive.
63. Vero Venia | January 20th, 2010 at 08:28

55. JMBEE | January 20th, 2010 at 02:21 says “Either way negative statements from a couple bloggers isn’t going to do anything to harm the future success of the A380 or promote it’s demise.”

Absolutely true!
This is a very good thought.

I can also add that the very positive statement of airline executives won’t change the future of the A380. Passengers can love the A380, some airlines can love operating the A380. That won’t change the market size of this aircraft much. The real question is not about the aircraft nor about passengers’ preference nor about airline executives’ satisfaction.

It’s all about the size of the market.
64. Vero Venia | January 20th, 2010 at 08:52

I wanted to add to my previous comment: 63. Vero Venia | January 20th, 2010 at 08:28

First, several years ago several analysts said that the 400+ seat market is not big enough for two manufacturers.

Three, Airbus launched the 550 seater A380 in 2000.

Last but not least, Boeing launched the 450 seater 747-8 intercontinental in 2005.

Is Boeing suicidal or should we make another interpretation in there?
65. Paula K | January 20th, 2010 at 09:08

“60. majano | January 20th, 2010 at 07:28

I may not be an expert, but it appears to me that the A380 offers superior economics over the 77W due to consolidation. The 747-400 could not. That is what Singapore and Emirates are doing at the moment, consolidatign two 77W flights into one A380 trip”

The A380 may indeed offer better CASM, but for RASM, the 777-300ER is king. As Erik Bloodaxe has indicated, the A380 requires higher yields AND volume to make money and is largely restricted in carrying cargo too.

None of that applies to the 777 and hence frequencies are a big driver at airlines like Emirates. Thats why they dropped the A380 from NYC and replaced with the 777.

Ask any airline, they’ll take RASM over CASM always.

“64. Vero Venia | January 20th, 2010 at 08:52 -
Is Boeing suicidal or should we make another interpretation in there?”

No they arent being suicidal. The 747-8i is the offshoot from the 747-8 freighter which has a monopoly on large freighter sales/market.

What would have been suicidal is to launch the 747-8F without a corresponding passenger jet. Its a cheaper alternative to the A380. Sales for the -8i and A380 have been so low, creating the -8i as a standalone project would have hurt Boeing a lot more than they are now - perhaps the losses would be five or six times what it is now.
66. Vero Venia | January 20th, 2010 at 09:20

65. Paula K | January 20th, 2010 at 09:08

Thanks for that comment. Effectively, you must not forget the important role of the 747-8F in the 747-8 program as a whole (not a financial hole).
67. Paulo M | January 20th, 2010 at 09:33

51. Aotearoa | January 19th, 2010 at 21:01

I hope not to be making light of a very serious situation.

55. JMBEE | January 20th, 2010 at 02:21

After reading that, I hang my head in shame.

60. majano | January 20th, 2010 at 07:28

The overall trend has been defragmentation. There’s always some consolidation, for example, the SIA deployment of the A380 on the Singapore-Zurich route. SIA will operate 7 weekly A380 flights, down from 12 777-300ER. There’s a small cut in seats there. Airlines will deploy the aircraft they believe best meets there expectations of a particular market under current market conditions.

In the case of Emirates, they replaced the Dubai-New York A380 flight with a 777-300ER.

Look at this:
http://www.airlines.org/products/AirlineHandbookCh2.htm

One of the key differences between the 1970’s and now is there where now aircraft with nearly as much range as the 747. Even in the 1990’s, Lufthansa’s 747-400’s was capable of 13,400 km, while their A340-300’s and 747-200’s where capable of ~12,800 km.

The 777-200ER slightly outreached the A340-300 - and carried more payload - both as extra passengers and cargo.

Today, the 777-300ER, while only ~10% smaller than the 747-400 in terms of passenger capacity, has greater under floor cargo capacity than the 747-400 - and even the A380-800, as does the A340-600. The 777-300ER has around 65% the seats of A380-800, and over 70% the thrust - it is a very capable airliner - at the same time very efficient and reliable. So you see, when you replace two 777-300ER flights with a single A380-800 flight not only do you take a passenger revenue knock, you also take a big knock on cargo revenue - not that it matters much in current market conditions where the cargo market has tanked.

If you got the passengers but not the cargo, go with the A380-800 - if you own it.
68. majano | January 20th, 2010 at 10:03

Paula K says: “In the case of Emirates, they replaced the Dubai-New York A380 flight with a 777-300ER.”

I may be wrong again, but I believe that Emirates will resume its JFK A380 operations in the near future. What should people make of that? I believe not much, just as we should not read too much into the temporary suspension of the past few months.

Thank you gentlemen,
69. Vero Venia | January 20th, 2010 at 10:14

60. majano | January 20th, 2010 at 07:28 “I may not be an expert, but it appears to me that the A380 offers superior economics over the 77W due to consolidation. ”

If you are still asking questions whether the A380 offers superior economics than the 777W, then with the A350-1000XWB you have a clear answer. The A350-1000XWB will have much superior economics than the A380. There is not any doubt about it.
70. Vero Venia | January 20th, 2010 at 10:41

25. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | January 19th, 2010 at 07:44

According to the payload range in the 747-8i Interactive link you gave us and using other charts in 747-8 airport planning document I made the following estimates:

747-8 Intercontinental
MTOW = 442.3 t
MLW = 343.4 t
MZFW = 289.7 t
MFC = 193.9 t (242.7 liters)

OEW = 215.5 t

Results at max pax (467 pax):
Distance = 8080 nm
TOW = 442.3 t
LW = 279.9 t
Fuel burn = 162.4 t

Paulo, can you please check my estimation please? I can be wrong.

This is the fuel mileage.
162400 kg /(0.8 kg/liter) / (8080 nm * 1.852 km/nm) / 467 pax = 2.9 liter per pax per 100 km.
71. ikkeman | January 20th, 2010 at 10:42

31. Vero Venia | January 19th, 2010 at 11:10
another reality is that all tri/quads except the 380 are basically 30+ year old designs. Another reality is that the decline of the big quads is not directly related tothe increase of twins. Another reality is that the average price and capacity of twins is much lower than the average capacity and cost of tri/quads.
It’s too easy to cherrypick your conclusions from an graph without discussing all other options.

I do agree that twins changed the world - but the fortunes of more engined a/c is not directly related to the rise of the twins.

37. Vero Venia | January 19th, 2010 at 15:13
I think 600 is quite a big number for $250million+? a/c. that’s $150 billion in 20 years?
you’re right - “It’s really up to you to believe whatever you want to believe”
I’d rather look at objective data and not try to find a single cause for each effect. Especially when it turns out to be a cause that’s along the lines that I’ve been preaching. Always mistrust your brain.

39. majano | January 19th, 2010 at 15:43
scientific theory becomes fact when all those that oppose it have died.

42. Mike M | January 19th, 2010 at 16:22
do you have proof of operators that turn a loss because of the A380 (not just pax numbers going down the drain)
Boeing Boi

43
“The A380 clearly hasnt aided them in anyway”
Do you have any proof that the 380 has worked against it’s operators? - and no, the absense of evidence to the contrary is not proof of your pet theory.

45. Vero Venia | January 19th, 2010 at 17:53
maybe it’s just semantics - what’s small for you could be big for others.
maybe it’s you, what has logic ever had to do with aviation?

48. Vero Venia | January 19th, 2010 at 20:39
maybe that’s our difference. I don’t see why the 748i would be more fuel efficient (in burning less per pax/distance).
The 748i still suffers from the bulge at the front, hybrid engines, ancient basic design philosophies.
Ofcourse the airframe should be much cheaper, making the cost per pax-mile a much more even contest.

49. Mike M | January 19th, 2010 at 20:51
popular with passengers.
Do you have any information to suggest the 777 (or any other a/c) does not suffer equally from empty first class cabins just like the 380?

50. USAF Fan | January 19th, 2010 at 20:54
what do you know about quantas and air france? the airlines aren’t making money (?) - then why would you put this down to a very small percentage of their total pax/mile on offer.
Why would you pay those high fares to get into an 330/777 without showers if you can get a shower for the same price. It’s not likely those ultra high-fare pax are bothered by lower frequency.

57. majano | January 20th, 2010 at 06:07
And so has every politician and business mogul since the dawn of time.

58. Mike M | January 20th, 2010 at 06:52
there is no truth in the marketplace just as there is no truth in american idol.
is the 787 the best thing since sliced bread just because it sold almost 1000 before first flight? Will it achieve it’s performance just because it sold well?
10% of ~150 billion a year… there are some years I don’t make that sort of cash.

61. Vero Venia | January 20th, 2010 at 08:05
Something big is always happening. What will not change is the fact that smaller, more flexible can shift quicker and take advantage of temporary or new opertunities where bigger will always win over the longer run.

As soon as the smaller 330/787 establish sufficient frequency they’re replaced by bigger 350/777. And when those establish sufficient frequency…

At this time only a small percentage of the global population has economic access to air travel. This will change.
Not only the number of city pairs will inflate, so will their frequency. There’s room in this world for both business models.

62. Vero Venia | January 20th, 2010 at 08:18
The interior the airlines adopt have nothing to do with the A380.
Yes, a VIP A380 will have higher CASM than just about anything else. Compare apples to apples. similar seats and similar floor space per pax.
The 380 has the ability to beat anything in CASM.

63. Vero Venia | January 20th, 2010 at 08:28
how does pax preference not impact the size of the market for the 380?
When PAx have a preference for 380, executives will buy more, when executives love operating the 380, pax will fly in more.
The market is a result of demand - pax and executives determine demand.
72. Leelaw | January 20th, 2010 at 10:43

@ #59. Ryan

I’ll quibble with you a bit, there were 23 deliveries cumulative deliveries of the A380 through December 2009.

No matter how many times these comparative statistics are cited (I have done it many times myself), the A380 aficionados continually offer the silly, not to mention historically inaccurate, rationalization that the 747 program “started out slowly too.” If you take into account that the industry in 1966-1975 was only fraction of its size in 2000-2009, the 747 started out like gangbusters. In reality, there are few, if any, meaningful comparisons/parallels between the early histories of the 747 and A380 programs which cast the “WhaleBus[t]” in a favorable light.
73. ikkeman | January 20th, 2010 at 15:46

69. Vero Venia | January 20th, 2010 at 10:14
I’ll doubt that - I’m sure I will be able to quote several economic performance metrics where 380 will trump 350 when they finally both fly.

70. Vero Venia | January 20th, 2010 at 10:41
from the november 2008 A380 airport planning document and September 2008 748 airport planning document.

A380 B748
MTOW 560000 443614 kg
OEW 270630 191053 kg
Seat cap 555 467 #
95 kg/pax 52725 44365 kg
Fuel 236645 208196 kg
0.8 kg/lit 295806 260245 lit
Range 8000 8000 nm
1.852 nm/km 14816 14816 km

result 3.60 3.76
74. Vero Venia | January 20th, 2010 at 16:13

73. ikkeman | January 20th, 2010 at 15:46

Your figures are far from right.
75. Vero Venia | January 20th, 2010 at 16:39

This is an interesting quote from IATA:
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/environment/fuel_efficiency.htm
“Modern aircraft achieve fuel efficiencies of 3.5 litres per 100 passenger km.
The A380 and B787 are aiming for 3 litres per 100 passenger km – better than a compact car!
” (emphasis added.
76. Vero Venia | January 20th, 2010 at 16:58

73. ikkeman | January 20th, 2010 at 15:46

How can you be so far off? 20% off is huge!

see page 8/27 of this document:
http://www.volvoaero.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/VAC/new%20site/documents/John%20Blanchfield%20Airbus.pdf
77. JMBEE | January 20th, 2010 at 17:29

@ Vero

“I am not as sure as you are when you say that the CASM of the A380 will be better than that of the 787 or the A350. My feeling is that the 787 or the A350 will be as efficient as or better than the A380 when this efficiency is expressed as cost per passenger-kilometer. Unfortunately, I don’t have the required materials to demonstrate my feeling.”

I unfortunately don’t have the materials, either. Just based on what I have read from more knowledgeable sources myself, I believe than an A380 optimally sized (e.g. an A380-900 vs. the rather overweight and chucky A380-800), with 4 nex-gen engines would have lower CASM than anything else planned. However, the 747 succeded because it has CASM numbers around 30 percent better than it’s competitors when it was introduced. It also had more range and a number of other attributes over the DC-8 competition it faced.

I think a moderined A380-900 would have better CASM (maybe a little over 5% (just a guess)) but not significant enough to justify it’s size and lack of flexability. Hence the second qualifier that there needs to be a demand for a lot of big aircraft to deal with point to point slot constraints. Right now A380s seem to be ordered more for this reason, but with only 200 orders so far the need doesn’t appear to be very compelling so far. A380 boosters will often argue that in 1 or 2 decades there will be a large need for this type of aircraft but so far it hasn’t materialized.

Right now I’m sure Enders is pondering this question a great deal to determine whether or not to spend the money to upgrade the A380 for this anticipated but not real market, or to just squeeze as much as he can out of the existing design and right off the losses.
78. Vero Venia | January 20th, 2010 at 17:59

77. JMBEE | January 20th, 2010 at 17:29 says, “I think a moderined A380-900 would have better CASM (maybe a little over 5% (just a guess)) but not significant enough to justify it’s size and lack of flexability.”

I agree on the CASM improvement part. It could be done now with GEnx or Trent1000 engines. They’re lighter and more efficient than A380’s current engines.

There is nothing to do concerning its size. It’s big and it will remain big forever. So the question is again about the size of the market for an aircraft of that size.
79. ikkeman | January 20th, 2010 at 18:15

Boeing Data
http://boeing.com/commercial/airports/plan_manuals.html

Airbus Data
http://www.airbus.com/en/services/customer-services/maintenance-engineering/tech-data/aircraft-characteristics/
80. ikkeman | January 20th, 2010 at 18:32

keep in mind this is based on max pax and associated maximum range. more optimized routes may well result in better numbers

75. Vero Venia | January 20th, 2010 at 16:39
Many modern cars (in europe) burn less than 8lit/100km, and seat four or more for an average of 2it/100km
81. 123xyz | January 20th, 2010 at 20:25

61. Vero Venia | January 20th, 2010 at 08:05

What is your conclusion to, “You should count the number of 747-400 annual deliveries from 1990 until 2005 when the last passenger 747-400 was delivered. Make your own conclusion. In order to make your task easier, I give you the table of 747-400 deliveries here: http://tinyurl.com/747-400-deliveries” ?
82. Vero Venia | January 21st, 2010 at 06:57

81. 123xyz | January 20th, 2010 at 20:25 “What is your conclusion”

My conclusion is that the world needs only about 20 VLA (or below) per year and that the 777 is taking the role of the 747-400 as I already mentioned in my post here: http://wp.me/piMZI-yI

If the apparent aircraft size in the long range segment it’s not because there is more and more big and very big aircraft. Remember, the last passenger 747 has been delivered in 2005. Between 2005 and 2010 only 25 A380 have been delivered. It means during the last five years on average there have been 5 big and very big passenger aircraft delivered.
That’s the situation today.

More and more airlines are removing the first class from their offer. It means economy class can grow, for example on certain routes, the 777-300ER accommodates more than 400 passengers (Air France, Emirates etc). Is there a market for a “true” 400+ seat aircraft like the A380 or the 747-8i? I think there is one, but that market is small.
83. Daniel Tsang | January 21st, 2010 at 11:45

The 787-8 aims for a fuel burn of 2.6 L per passenger per 100 km, whereas the 787-9 will be at 2.4 L.

The 747-8I Intercontinental aims at a fuel burning of 2.6 L per passenger per 100 km.

All figures assume their respective standard configurations.

Moreover, despite the first 19 787-8s being less than 5 tonnes overweight, it is still able to achieve its original SFC target.

Furthermore, the 747-8 has already beaten its original SFC target “by a few %”.
84. Leelaw | January 21st, 2010 at 12:52

4. Sal | January 18th, 2010 at 17:35

“Was it those great load facts that had anything to do with Emirates decision to replace its once daily A380 flight to JFK with two 777 flights?”

Looks like Emirates is coming back to JFK with the “WhaleBus[t]:”

DUBAI (Zawya Dow Jones)–Emirates Airline, the biggest customer for Airbus’ A380 aircraft, Thursday said it plans to redeploy the superjumbo on its New York service during the second-half of the year after pulling it off the route last June.

“It remains our intention to reinstate the A380 on the DXB-JFK route in the second half of the year,” a spokesperson told Zawya Dow Jones.

Emirates, which took delivery of its eighth A380 earlier this month, started flying the double-decker aircraft to New York late 2008, but pulled the superjumbo from the route months later due to falling passenger demand…

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100121-701989.html

One wonders if the result will be any different this time around? Of course, there probably aren’t a lot of other viable options for deployment considering
there are 8 A380s scheduled to arrive by November, making for a total of 15 in service by year-end.
85. Dougloid | January 21st, 2010 at 15:21

Skeptic sez “Also, any discussion of cargo is best left out of a a good discussion on this commercial flying flop. To say its “not optimized” for cargo is an understatement.”

Well, I know that, but I was harking back to BC (that’s Before Cancellation) of the A380F. The rationale for building the A380F that was being advanced at the time was “Well, of course you fellows with your front loading 747s with the hefty floors will be carrying scrap iron and waste oil to Asia, while we, of course, will be carrying high priced low weight electronics from the orient-flat screen teevees, designer audio gear, fresh flowers that never ever smell bad, broccoli and the like.”

What was left unsaid, of course, what what you mentioned-the -F variant was an afterthought. Nobody at Hairbus had ever thought about what it takes to make money in the freight hauling business.
86. ikkeman | January 21st, 2010 at 15:23

83. Daniel Tsang | January 21st, 2010 at 11:45
You have any backup data not provided by tha Boeing Marketing department?
How can the 747-8 beat it’s SFC target without taking to the air… Oh wait - if you don’t turn them on they don’t consume, do they?
87. 123xyz | January 21st, 2010 at 19:38

83. Daniel Tsang | January 21st, 2010 at 11:45

Obviously, actual fuel use will vary with load. Kinda hard to get low numbers with ultra-first-class bed suites and water for showers for a “super” jumbo, or even ordinary three class configs for that matter. Maybe carriers can experience the full target numbers on routes to Mecca or Reunion with full steerage class.
88. 123xyz | January 21st, 2010 at 19:39

82. Vero Venia | January 21st, 2010 at 06:57

I concur.
89. Vero Venia | January 21st, 2010 at 20:08

83. Daniel Tsang | January 21st, 2010 at 11:45

I think 2.6 l/pax/100km is a little bit optimistic for the 747-8. I would be willing to accept 2.8 l/pax/100km. Anyway, even 2.8 l/pax/100 km or 2.9 is a very good achievement for a “40 year old technology” as some call it in the blogosphere.

Let’s just wait. By the end of the year Boeing will be able to say if the target is achieved or not.
90. Paulo M | January 21st, 2010 at 20:28

lol Hairbus Here’s another: Head-butt

81. 123xyz | January 20th, 2010 at 20:25

This Boeing document shows that 442 {=SUM(G3:G439)} passenger jet deliveries where made of the 747-400 between late January 1989 and late April 2005 - exactly 16 years and 3 months. Roughly, that’s 27.6 per year.

Between late January 1989 and January 1996 (7 years), Boeing delivered 273 {{=SUM(G3:G272)} — or roughly 39 per year. Can you see the trend? (It’s the first time I actually looked at 747-400 deliveries that way.)

I think you can see Boeing’s argument clearly now concerning a significant number of 747-400 sales being made for that aircraft’s then immense range.

The first 777-200 was delivered to UAL in April 1995, the first 777-200ER was delivered to BA in February 1997. 1997 was around the time that the Asian financial crsis hit the Asian tiger economies.

In total 694 747-400’s where built - that’s including 252 freighters (~36% of the total). So in total, for the 747-400, that’s 34.7 per year over a 20 year run, and 36.3 over 39 years for the entire 747 family.

=================================

70. Vero Venia | January 20th, 2010 at 10:41

MLW = 343.4 t - Should this be 309.4 t?

I’ve been pulling my hair out over this for the past hour, do you assume range at 8,080 nm (14,964 km) and fuel burn at 162.4 t, which means that landing weight would be 279.9 t. The remainder of the weight would be made up of reserve fuel and cargo. Fuel burn looks fine.

Reserve fuel would be for 45 minutes of flight at Mach 0.86, which above 11 km is 0.86 x 1061.81 km/h = 913.1 km/h. 14,964 km journey done in 16h23. Therefore, 45 min reserve is 7.4 t. Cargo is 12.6 t.

================================

73. ikkeman | January 20th, 2010 at 15:46

0.8 kg/lit 295806 260245 lit — Should that be roughly 243,000 L?

================================

From newairplane.com on the 747-8 Design Highlights page, there’s a page “Intercontinental Performance Summary.” The following is over there:

Fuel Burn/Seat 3,000 nm = 259.9 lb = 38.79 USGal = 146.8 L for 5556 km — per pax per 100 km = 2.64 L

Fuel Burn/Seat 6,000 nm = 553.1 lb = 82.55 USGal = 312.5 L for 11112 km — per pax per 100 km = 2.81 L

I’m assuming that’s at Max Structural Payload, which means that the aircraft for those flights, the 747-8 would take-off at weights well below its maximum.

=================================

Can somebody tell me when would the 747-8 take-off with maximum fuel capacity?
91. Aotearoa | January 22nd, 2010 at 01:38

67. Paulo M | January 20th, 2010 at 09:33

“I hope not to be making light of a very serious situation.”

No Mate. Definitely not. I was trying (unsuccessfully as it seems) to empathise with you. I totally understand the gravity if the situation.
92. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | January 22nd, 2010 at 07:20

91. Aotearoa | January 22nd, at 2010 at 09:33

Yes, of course. I suppose only if you know someone from there - they can relate how the situation quickly decended into a farce. It appears that there’s a ideological subcontext to the whole thing, which is probably why nothing has been done about it.
93. ikkeman | January 22nd, 2010 at 09:40

89. Vero Venia | January 21st, 2010 at 20:08
A bit too optimistic I’m afraid. Or do you have any SFC figures for any a/c out there.
As indicated, the per paxmile fuelconsumption is much more dependant on airline options than the base airframe. Boeing (or Airbus) saying they achieved any target does not mean anything in the real world.
These fiigures can be manipulated until they support any result you desire.

90. Paulo M | January 21st, 2010 at 20:28
looking at long term orders (say from the first 747 delivery) the trend is still climbing (dispite the little lull in production the last few years) - the trend in production is actually declining (+0.35 ac/year order vs -0.65 ac/year production) Resulting in an average of +1 ac to the order backlogs a year. Aren’t numbers wonderfull…

I’d say assume the loadout as indicated at the top, 3class pax layout and som pallet/containers. And yes, those takeoffs would be well below MTOW (the 3000nm trip more so than the 6000nm)

The 747 would takeoff with maximum fuel capacity whenever the desired trip distance and payload demands it.
94. Vero Venia | January 22nd, 2010 at 10:16

Worth the read:

http://boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2007/05/the_replacements.html
95. Vero Venia | January 22nd, 2010 at 10:22

90. Paulo M | January 21st, 2010 at 20:28

It looks like the MLW never limits the mission. So you can forget it in the analysis.

Usually, for long-haul aircraft the evaluation rule is 5% contingency fuel, 200 nm diversion and 30 minute hold.

QUOTE:
Fuel Burn/Seat 3,000 nm = 259.9 lb = 38.79 USGal = 146.8 L for 5556 km — per pax per 100 km = 2.64 L

Fuel Burn/Seat 6,000 nm = 553.1 lb = 82.55 USGal = 312.5 L for 11112 km — per pax per 100 km = 2.81 L

It’s reasonable. And according to my estimates at 8,000 nm it would be around 2.9 liter/pas per 100 km.

Will they achieve their objective? That’s the question.
96. Dave_BC | January 22nd, 2010 at 10:31

From Post 77 (JMBEE)
“I think a moderined A380-900 would have better CASM (maybe a little over 5% (just a guess)”

Actually it could be much more than that:-

Picture this: XWB engines alone will reduce fuelburn by around six percent over Trent 900.
Then add in another 126 pax by just stretching the double-decker aircraft by six metres from 74m to 80m (i.e. fitting in standard ICAO regulation of 80×80m ‘box’).

Calculation:
(a) 32in economy seat pitch equals 0.0813m;
(b) Adding a straight 6m fuselage section to A380 will fit another 7 seat ‘rows’;
(c) Multiply 18 seats per ‘row’ (10 maindeck plus eight upper deck = 18 seats per ‘row’) seats by 7 rows and you get an additional 126 economy (19in wide) seats @ 32in seat pitch.

Indeed, I think it’s no coincidence Airbus is preparing the RR-powered testbed A380 for Trent XWB trials next year. (i.e. the A350 XWB is surely not the only future application they are testing the new Trent + wing pylon for).
Then also factor in:
(a) further A380 aerodynamic drag reductions / wing optimizations’;
(b) ongoing airframe weight savings;
(c) inherently lower airframe weight per pax (notwithstanding aforementioned airframe weight savings);
(d) and also not forgetting that the A380 Family concept designed-in from the beginning . . .

Already today the A380-800 burns 20% less fuel per pax than 747-400 and will burn around 8% less fuel per pax than 747-8 (which has used up all the 747’s design margin).

And the A380 will keep getting even better.
97. Vero Venia | January 22nd, 2010 at 11:35

I put the chart mentioned by 90. Paulo M | January 21st, 2010 at 20:28

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/8302/7478ifuelburn.jpg
98. Leelaw | January 22nd, 2010 at 11:54

“the A380 will keep getting even better.”

If past is prologue, there should already be improvements in the pipeline to spur sales momentum. If the A380 continues to be “a financial liability for years to come,” the program will be allowed to wither on the vine, no later than 2020.
99. Dave_BC | January 22nd, 2010 at 12:34

“If past is prologue, there should already be improvements in the pipeline to spur sales momentum. If the A380 continues to be “a financial liability for years to come,” the program will be allowed to wither on the vine, no later than 2020.”

It’s so easy for sideline observers to kick the A380 during a reccession like this. At least it’s not getting cancellations. In sharp contrast to the NightmareLiner — a finanacial AND technical ‘liability’, if ever there was one.
100. Leelaw | January 22nd, 2010 at 13:25

“t’s so easy for sideline observers to kick the A380 during a recession like this. At least it’s not getting cancellations. In sharp contrast to the NightmareLiner — a financial AND technical ‘liability’, if ever there was one.”

LOL, the nascent “roaring turnaround” of the increasingly moribund WhaleBus[t] program is always around some new illusory corner: certification, entry in service, the next air show, the “next order intake jamboree,” the end of the recession…yada, yada, yada…The doctrinaire “Airbusiers” hold firmly to their fervent belief in the fading promise and questionable inevitability of Mr. Forgeard’s putative “cash cows” (A380, A400M, A330 MRTT).

At the rate Boeing’s been going with the “Nightmareliner” they may well surpass Airbus in creating a financial albatross, however, unlike the “WhaleBus[t],” the cake isn’t fully baked yet.
101. Paula K | January 22nd, 2010 at 13:35

“99. Dave_BC | January 22nd, 2010 at 12:34
It’s so easy for sideline observers to kick the A380 during a reccession like this. At least it’s not getting cancellations. In sharp contrast to the NightmareLiner — a finanacial AND technical ‘liability’, if ever there was one.”

Unless I stand corrected, there hasn’t been a single 787 order cancelled due to the delays.

Its been down to the customers having their own financial problems.

The A380 has had cancellations - the entire A380F offshoot was cancelled after UPS and FedEx walked.
102. Paula K | January 22nd, 2010 at 13:39

I would also add that long term deferrals of the A380 by seven or eight customers is worse than a contract cancelled.

At least with a contract thats scrapped, you know where you stand production-wise.

If you defer deliveries, you dont always get someone else to fill that void.

ILFC and Virgin Atlantic are the two biggest customers that the A380 may never fly for.
103. JMBEE | January 22nd, 2010 at 13:52

Dave_BC

“It’s so easy for sideline observers to kick the A380 during a reccession like this. At least it’s not getting cancellations. In sharp contrast to the NightmareLiner — a finanacial AND technical ‘liability’, if ever there was one.”

But you have to remenber Leelaw isn’t measuring A380 sales performance over the last 2 years since the recession started. He is measuring over the last 10 years since the A380 was offered for sale. During the last 10 years more airliners have been sold than during any other period in history. During this period we hit the first 1,000 plus sales for either company with Boeing breaking the 1,000 sales limit three times and Airbus broke it twice during this period. In summary the last decade was a great time if you were a manufacture of large airliners.

I don’t tend to be quite the VLA pessimist many are on this site, but during the last decade Airbus sold over 4,000 aircraft of which only 202 or under 5% were A380s. The sales so far have not been very encouraging and based on sales to date and the cost of the program pessimissim about the future of the A380 is justified.

However, as long as the A380 remains in production there is the chance the market for VLAs could turn around, who knows maybe future regulatory requirements might bring to an end open skies that has been so successful at opening up secondary airports and fragmenting the market. The Boeing 767 has survived on even fewer orders over the last decade than the A380, but not many (about 20 frames). Boeing has kept the 767 alive in hopes of securing the future USAF tanker market and their bet may pay off.

Airbus will likely adopt the 767 strategy with the A380, bide your time as long as you think you can and hope that the market will change at a future date. They pretty much seem to be already doing this and the claim usually is that in 10 years or so Asia will need a lot of A380s to deal with traffic growth and a lack of airports. But if it does become clear to Airbus that the VLA market will not turn around there will likely be no A380-900 or major upgrades to the airframe. Airbus has too many other important projects such as the A350- 8/9, the heavier A350-9F/9R/10, the nex gen narrobody or A320 engine upgrade, what to do about the big space inbetween the A320 and A350-800 (upgraded a330-200?) and so on. If they are looking at possibly not funding an aircraft with a potential for a thousand or more frames vs. funding an upgraded VLA with a potential for 100 to 200 frames its not hard to guess which way they will go.
104. Leelaw | January 22nd, 2010 at 14:04

[i]Unless I stand corrected, there hasn’t been a single 787 order cancelled due to the delays[/i]

Although cancellations may not be primarily motivated by the 787 delivery delays, nevertheless, these delays have allowed the customers to cancel contracts unilaterally and without penalty. In the case of the A380, most of the customer base has made complex financial settlements with Airbus (circa 2006-2007), which preclude unilateral cancellation without penalty, despite continuing delays, thus the ongoing deferral merry-go-round.
105. Vero Venia | January 22nd, 2010 at 14:59

In any case, deferrals and cancellations are very healthy reaction during this severe downturn.
I am still expecting more deferrals and cancellations concerning all kind of aircraft this year. Airlines need less capacity today. So what?
106. Dougloid | January 22nd, 2010 at 15:18

“It’s so easy for sideline observers to kick the A380 during a reccession like this. At least it’s not getting cancellations. In sharp contrast to the NightmareLiner — a finanacial AND technical ‘liability’, if ever there was one.”

Dave, forget about the “I been ‘bused and I been scorned” blues and look strictly at the time the A380 has been around, the amount it has cost and is costing for development and rework, the number delivered so far and the number that have been ordered so far. While you’re at it, start thinking about how and where you can utilize that capacity at a profit good enough to service the debt and pay everyone.

I’m with Vero Venia here-the market is small and the price of admission is high for the VLA segment-all of which vindicates Boeing’s projections of the future markets for air travel and how that shapes demand for aircraft.

The shape of the future for VLAs has 777 written all over it.
107. Leelaw | January 22nd, 2010 at 16:04

“Airbus will likely adopt the 767 strategy with the A380, bide your time as long as you think you can and hope that the market will change at a future date.”

I don’t find this to be a compelling analogy. In the case of the 767, with the possible exception of the 767-400, the development /industrialization costs were fully recouped 15-20 years ago. It’s one thing to carry on with a program if you only have to maintain the existing production/logistical infrastructure going forward. It’s quite another animal if you have to finance the production/logistical infrastructure (particularly at law rates of production) and significant ongoing development costs, while still in the early stages of recouping the enormous initial development/industrialization costs, as is the case with the A380.
108. Paulo M | January 22nd, 2010 at 16:44

93. ikkeman | January 22nd, 2010 at 09:40

That’s positive spin! Are you an attorney?

Dave_BC | January 22nd, 2010 at 10:31

When I saw that Trent 1000/A380 combo test I also great. As in: 46. Paulo M | January 19th, 2010 at 18:2246. Paulo M | January 19th, 2010 at 18:22

For the moment, I think it will be more useful for the A380-800 size frame than the A380-900. We’ll have to wait and see what happens with China’s expected 100 million travellers in a few years.

101. Paula K | January 22nd, 2010 at 13:35

&

102. Paula K | January 22nd, 2010 at 13:39

Just a slight alteration/spin on those two express haulers: When I see them together, and in the same sentence as A380F, I see FedUP.. I’m sorry, this isn’t a real post, and today is friday.
109. Vero Venia | January 22nd, 2010 at 16:47

106. Dougloid | January 22nd, 2010 at 15:18

The question is not the aircraft or its efficiency.
The A380 or the 747-8i can be very efficient, quite, superb, comfortable, popular among travelers or else, you name it. Those are big and very big aircraft and the market for those big quads is small.

It is as simple as that.
110. Dave_BC | January 22nd, 2010 at 17:07

107:-
“It’s quite another animal if you have to finance the production/logistical infrastructure (particularly at law rates of production) and significant ongoing development costs, while still in the early stages of recouping the enormous initial development/industrialization costs, as is the case with the A380.”

The fact that the money has already been spent on the A380’s engineering, and production infrastructure, means that recouping the outlay by ensuring ramp-up of ongoing deliveries is the ONLY way forward. Airbus priority now is to fully sort out the production in 2010, and thus ensure deliveries at a higher rate going forward. Moreover, with A380 delivery slots already full for the next few years, more orders are not the absolute priority **right now**. Having said that, I think 2010 will be a better year for A380 orders than the one the industry has just been dragged though.
In the meantime, the airlines that already have the A380 are taking business from their competitors who [presently] don’t.

106:-
“The shape of the future for VLAs has 777 written all over it.”
Indeed. You’re not by chance referring to SIA’s reducing 777-300ER equipment on routes where it now flies the A380 – i.e. SIN-LHR?
Not to mention the same carrier’s recent announcement of using A380s daily to Zurich, currently operating with 777-300ERs 12-times weekly?
111. Mike M | January 22nd, 2010 at 18:13

>>> Moreover, with A380 delivery slots already full for the next few years, more orders are not the absolute priority

You must be joking!

The A380, aside from the disastrous production rates, has slots vacant all over the place!

Or did you forget that in 2009 saw the most deferrals for the A380 in one go - what was it, 7 or 8 customers pushing BACK deliveries.

Hm, that vacates slots…full slots my ass.

Thats made my weekend - thanks for that joke ignoramus!!
112. Dave_BC | January 22nd, 2010 at 18:46

“The A380, aside from the disastrous production rates, has slots vacant all over the place”

No it doesn’t have slots “vacant all over the place”. A “vacant” slot implies that another customer could move into that slot. But there probably won’t be any “vacant” slots available for a few years from now.

As I said, Airbus’ priority is to deliver the ones they already have and get production sorted in 2010. Anything you say isn’t going to change that course.

As for deferrals — if you were intelligent enough, you would have known that some airlines don’t have the cash reserves that they would normally have (to take delivery) in these exceptional economic conditions.
113. JMBEE | January 22nd, 2010 at 19:34

“I don’t find this to be a compelling analogy. In the case of the 767, with the possible exception of the 767-400, the development /industrialization costs were fully recouped 15-20 years ago. It’s one thing to carry on with a program if you only have to maintain the existing production/logistical infrastructure going forward. It’s quite another animal if you have to finance the production/logistical infrastructure (particularly at law rates of production) and significant ongoing development costs, while still in the early stages of recouping the enormous initial development/industrialization costs, as is the case with the A380.”

Well I would certainly agree that it isn’t a compelling strategy but what choices does Airbus really have here. They can:

1) Admit the A380 is a mistake, end production around 2020 and write off their losses;

2) Go full bore on the project and spend several billions to do an upgrade on the aircraft with a CASM level big enough to possibly justify the purchase of an A380 over a 787 or A350. or;

3) They can try to save face, and nurse the A380 on as long as they can hoping for a change in market conditions that would justify spending lots of money on an upgrade.

I don’t think they’ll go for option 1, unless they are forced to, and I don’t think optioin 2 is viable given that the A350, A320 and the market in between them will be a much higher priority. I am just voting for option 3 because it seems the most likely choice given the list of bad choice Airbus has in front of it.

In a more normal market where you have more competitors the obvious choice is to cut your losses on your least promising products and focus on what makes you the greatest return on investment. Toyota or any other auto maker would have no problem axing the A380, or foregoing an investment in a product such as the 747-8. In a duopoly the thinking is a little different. The 747-8 really never made that much business sense, but heck if Boeing can break even on it and cause their only real competitor a lot of financial pain all of the sudden it seems worthwhile. In a similar fashion I don’t expect Airbus to just fold up shop in the VLA end of the market based on just looking at RLI.

Anyway, that was just my thinking on the likely course of action. What about you, Leelaw? You seem pretty firm that Airbus will cut their losses and phase out the A380 at the end of decade. Do you see any alternative or do you think this is this pretty firm looking at the evidence to date?
114. Mike M | January 22nd, 2010 at 20:38

>>>No it doesn’t have slots “vacant all over the place”.

True - it doesnt have customers stupid enough to bring forward their deferred orders.

>>>Airbus’ priority is to deliver the ones they already have and get production sorted in 2010.

Not a likely story in any event…

>>>if you were intelligent enough, you would have known that some airlines don’t have the cash reserves that they would normally have (to take delivery) in these exceptional economic conditions.

Oh, wouldnt that be THE SAME DAMN REASONS why the 787 suffered cancellations last year?

But no, why apply common principles to competing jets huh?

Ignoramus.
115. Dave_BC | January 22nd, 2010 at 21:31

“Oh, wouldnt that be THE SAME DAMN REASONS why the 787 suffered cancellations last year?”

No.

The 787 program suffered cancellations because those airlines didn’t like what the physical aircraft itself was turning out [not] to be.
116. Mike M | January 22nd, 2010 at 22:14

>>>The 787 program suffered cancellations because those airlines didn’t like what the physical aircraft itself was turning out [not] to be.

Is that so?

Let see what a little Googling delivers:

Xiamen Air:

“However, a source close to the US manufacturer tells Flight the 787 cancellation is the result of a strategic revision by one operator, which includes a shift from the three 787s on order to six 737-800s.”

S7:

“A spokesman for Boeing in Russia and the CIS states says the airframer “regrets” the cancellation, attributing it to the “poor economic situation”.

But he adds that the manufacturer is “delighted” that S7 is still interested in acquiring the jets, and says it will continue to consult with the carrier.”

LCAL:

“While LCAL could not immediately be reached for comment, sources familiar with the situation say that the economic situation has “forced it to reduce” its commitment.”

Qantas:

“Qantas Airways has cancelled orders for 15 Boeing 787-9s and deferred the delivery of 15 787-8s to reduce capital expenditure amid a challenging operating environment….”The latest delay is disappointing, but we do not expect it to impact the Qantas Group given these changes to our delivery program. We remain committed to the aircraft as the right choice - for Jetstar’s future international expansion, Qantas’ growth and as a replacement for Qantas’ 767-300 fleet,” says Joyce.”

TUI

“Tui Travel on Tuesday said it’s reducing an order for Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner, though the U.K. tour operator stressed that it’s still interested in the airplane…It still stressed that it wants the plane, calling it an “ideal aircraft” that’s able to fly greater distances than equivalent aircraft with greater fuel efficiency and additional customers. ”

All rather at odds with your statement.
117. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | January 22nd, 2010 at 22:19

childish. Time-out
118. Leelaw | January 23rd, 2010 at 15:35

“You seem pretty firm that Airbus will cut their losses and phase out the A380 at the end of decade. Do you see any alternative or do you think this is this pretty firm looking at the evidence to date?”

The “WhaleBus[t] represents a classic “Sunk Cost Dilemma (likewise the 748, but on a much smaller scale):

“…A sunk cost dilemma is a dilemma of having to choose between continuing a project of uncertain prospects already involving considerable sunk costs, or discontinuing the project. Given this choice between the certain loss of the sunk costs when stopping the project versus possible – even if unlikely – long-term profitability when going on, policy makers tend to favour uncertain success over certain loss.

As long as the project is neither completed nor stopped, the dilemma will keep presenting itself…”[Wikipedia]

In my view, “slow-walking” production ramp-ups just delays the inevitable and such dithering ultimately increases the negative financial consequences. However, this is clearly how the OEMs have decided to “manage” the VLA financial black hole they’ve created to date. Nevertheless, if Airbus remains a major component part of a publicly traded entity, the A380 program will surely have to be “humanely euthanized,” no doubt at considerable cost to EADS shareholders and the sponsoring governments, by 2020.
119. Mike M | January 23rd, 2010 at 18:14

I thought we were discussing the A380 airlines “making money” off of this fat beast?
120. Dave_BC | January 23rd, 2010 at 18:37

From 118:
“In my view, “slow-walking” production ramp-ups just delays the inevitable and such dithering ultimately increases the negative financial consequences.”

A nonsensical view if I may say so.
By 2020 Airbus will already have ramped-up A380 final assembly to full output.
Moreover, each and every A380 sold contributes positive cashflow to the program, and as long as that continues, so does production.

Of course, by then, the production of the original A380-800s may indeed be giving way to the -XWB powered versions which could be: -800LR,
Freighter, and -900 stretch models.
121. Dougloid | January 23rd, 2010 at 18:47

Dave sez: The fact that the money has already been spent on the A380’s engineering, and production infrastructure, means that recouping the outlay by ensuring ramp-up of ongoing deliveries is the ONLY way forward.

You’re right that selling airplanes is now the only way forward, but to make that work you have to sell them at a good markup-which has been the subject of some dispute.

The break even point is also one of those things that a lot of people argue over, while having little enough insight into the financial end of it to make an intelligent analysis-myself included.

It was generally known around McD-D when I was there that the development cost of the MD11 was about $7 billion USD at the time and that around 450 completed aircraft would have to be delivered before real money was being made on the product. So there’s a real world analogy that suggests that 200 or 250 frames is not going to get Airbus to the promised land on the A380.

I’m with V-V on this-the market for the A380 and the 747-8 is very limited and not likely to undergo a huge expansion in the future.

The engineering budget is not already spent and in a can though-the development budget may have been shot in the ass but there will be significant expense going forward.

The real key to unsorting the A380 puzzle is to get a peek at long lead items and what is being ordered now for delivery in three to four years’ time. That should tell you more than any one other factor what Airbus’ confidence level in the future of the A380 is, I think.

When I worked for McD-D, the lead time for MD11 pylons was about 36 months so that’s not stretching the notion much at all.

Airbus has one of two choices, I think. They can either go like the hammers of hell and deliver as much as they can as soon as they can and then end the project, or they can build the A380 on an ‘as ordered ‘ basis like the folks who build oil tankers and cruise ships do.
122. Dave_BC | January 23rd, 2010 at 19:18

This quote is probably more ‘on topic’ to the original article (from the chief of Malaysian Airlines):

“As for London, we’re unlikely to increase frequency to London due to the difficulty to get a slot, but we will increase capacity by using a bigger aircraft, the A380,” he says when asked on its plan in Europe.

“The way we can grow this route is to get a bigger aircraft and that’s why we’re getting the A380. The cost per seat is much cheaper as well,”.
123. Dave_BC | January 23rd, 2010 at 19:34

Link to above:
http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/1/23/business/5522774&sec=business
124. Aurora | January 23rd, 2010 at 19:46

Dougloid, I don’t think the “made to order” scenario will work for the A380. The suppliers would likely throw up their hands and walk after a certain point. EADS likely would have to perform much of this “upstream” work themselves, or load up on inventory (incurring HUGE costs). Since many of those suppliers are profit oriented, and don’t care about the prestige of participating in the construction of the the world’s largest passenger jet, nor about jobs in the vaterland, they just might tell EADS to kiss off.

And then, there’s the engine suppliers….
125. Dave_BC | January 23rd, 2010 at 20:29

Doug, I think a more pressing (and more realistic) scenario is what Boeing should do when the 747-8 program gets down to the last onesy-twosy aircraft, in the very near future.
126. Aotearoa | January 23rd, 2010 at 20:34

In reality I think Dave is right in one sense (only one I might add) and that fulfilling existing orders (with a positive GP- thanks Dougloid) will contribute to Airbus coffers even if it won’t cover development costs.

As for investing even more Taxpayers Euros into new engines or more models, that’s an extremely fanciful notion.

I believe Airbus should as Dougloid says, “go like the hammers of hell and deliver as much as they can as soon as they can and then end the project” cut their losses and then put their egos and insecurities in their pockets and apologise to their tax paying sugar daddies saying “we done wrong”!
127. Aurora | January 23rd, 2010 at 21:20

“. . . will contribute to Airbus coffers even if it won’t cover development costs. ”
So what kind of company are we dealing with? Doesn’t ROI matter?
128. Dave_BC | January 23rd, 2010 at 21:26

And what exactly will happen then?
(a) Will the forecasted exponential growth in air traffic magically go into reverse?
(b) if not (a), will the world’s taxpayers fund twice as many runways/airports at all the world’s major cities?

This is fascinating indeed. Pray tell me what do you see in your crystal ball?
129. Leelaw | January 23rd, 2010 at 22:21

“I think a more pressing (and more realistic) scenario is what Boeing should do when the 747-8 program gets down to the last onesy-twosy aircraft, in the very near future.”

IIRC, in 2009 Mr. McNerney clearly said he would not rule out terminating the program if forward loss projections continued to grow.

““go like the hammers of hell and deliver as much as they can as soon as they can and then end the project” cut their losses and then put their egos and insecurities in their pockets and apologise to their tax paying sugar daddies saying “we done wrong”!

There are clearly elements of this philosophy in EADS/Airbus “recovery plan” for the A380 articulated in 2006 (see: http://www.eads.com/xml/content/OF00000000400004/0/74/41485740.pdf). The fly in the ointment is that customers won’t be in position to finance deliveries at a rate which makes such a scenario plausible in the foreseeable future. Look for A380 deliveries to peak at 24-28 units in 2012, and decline thereafter.
130. Aotearoa | January 24th, 2010 at 00:55

#125. Dave_BC | January 23rd, 2010 at 20:29

Doug, I think a more pressing (and more realistic) scenario is what Boeing should do when the 747-8 program gets down to the last onesy-twosy aircraft, in the very near future.

Dave, diverting attention back the 748 won’t solve the 380’s problems.

# 127. Aurora | January 23rd, 2010 at 21:20

“. . . will contribute to Airbus coffers even if it won’t cover development costs. ”
So what kind of company are we dealing with? Doesn’t ROI matter?

Normally yes, but really, do you think Airbus is ever going to get a return on this bird? Unless, like Dave, you whimsically think investing even more money in the project is going to magically turn things around.

#128. Dave_BC | January 23rd, 2010 at 21:26

And what exactly will happen then?
(a) Will the forecasted exponential growth in air traffic magically go into reverse?

Dave, in case you hadn’t noticed, the exponential growth trends are point to point, not hub and spoke. Face it Bro, your beloved European tax funded “mine is bigger than yours” organisation (does that word send a message of organised?) read it way wrong. Face it Son, they must cut and run!
131. MPTA-098 | January 24th, 2010 at 01:02

“It was generally known around McD-D when I was there that the development cost of the MD11 was about $7 billion USD at the time and that around 450 completed aircraft would have to be delivered before real money was being made on the product.”

$7 billion USD, eh?

Sorry, I don’t by that. Actually, that $7 billion USD figure was incidentally the same as the initially projected cost of Boeing’s all new 777 programme, or twice the programme cost of the initial A330/A340 programme.

The biggest change on the MD-11 was the fuselage stretch; 5 frames forward of the wing, 6 frames aft. 8ft, 4in and 10ft, 2in to be precise. 18ft 6in total *cabin* stretch. While the MD-11’s wing was basically the same as the one on the DC-10-30’s; just slightly tweaked aerodynamically, it had the same fairing at the base of the v.stab, it had the same large fairing at the leading edge of the wing root, it has the same center 2-wheel single bogey main gear, the same aft bulk cargo door, the same extended aft wing/body fairing etc.

Apparently, macdac’s bean-counting management was responsible for that incompetent decision to go for an all new horizontal stabilizer 69 percent as large as the on the DC-10. That, plus the shifting of its center of gravity further aft due to the stretch, all to reduce drag and thus fuel burn, caused the aircraft to be unusually “light” on the control (i.e. unstable pitch mode).

So, $7 billion US gave you (macdac) an aircraft with an unstable pitch mode constituting defective design, and likely responsible for all the deaths and injuries that have occurred during high altitude upsets and the resulting violent pitch oscillations on the MD-11, as well as those notorious landing “incidents” at Anchorage, Newark and Hong Kong where the aircraft flipped upside down in the latter two accidents.

At least, $7 billion USD should have payed for a proper sized horizontal stabilizer, wouldn’t you agree?
132. Jacobin777 | January 24th, 2010 at 03:14

People mention about “sunk cost” for the A380 program. While that argument is partially true, there are other inherent problems.

1)Keeping a line open in itself isn’t cheap-especially if there are no real orders. As mentioned above, the B767 has the “luxury” in that the program has returned a decent ROI. The line can stay open for quite some time.
2)Airbus still has to return the RLI in 17 years, even if the program doesn’t turn a profit.
3)Keeping the A380 line open, takes away from engineers, staff, resource, etc.
4)Will be a consistent and continual drag on earnings, which hurts EADS stock and/or bond ratings.
133. Dougloid | January 24th, 2010 at 06:19

It seems to me that there are two themes here, which are interrelated as Malaysian Airlines says.

First,by using the A380 you have the ability to increase your passenger to landing slot ratio in places where landing slots are limited. Thus they can increase their seats by about 25 per cent. So the aircraft has a role in that scenario. Thus, on some heavily traveled routes the extra capacity is good for the airlines, assuming that they’ve gotten it for a good price, it’s reliable, and efficiently covers the route.

That is separate and distinct from the pickle that Airbus is in and has been with the finances, delays, production hassles and lack of an order book that will pay for the development of the aircraft. Until they’ve got 450 firm orders that’s an open question that I do not see resolution to.

The “exponential growth forecast in worldwide aircraft passengers” is whistling past the graveyard methinks-that went down the tubes with income stated mortgages and credit default swaps, not to mention $3 a gallon jet fuel. Don’t rest your hopes on the Shanghai stock market to carry the day either-between that and the China real estate bubble there’s more economic misery to come.

It promises to be an interesting year.
134. Dave_BC | January 24th, 2010 at 16:49

Aotearoa, “point to point” does includes travel between two ‘hub’s — where populations are most concentrated.

Doug, “it promises to be an interesting year.” Indeed. So you don’t even know how one year will pan out, let alone the next 10.

By the way, back in the 1990s certainly no one would have predicted that the A330 would go on to sell into five figures.
Or that the A320 — a plane that Boeing branded as “stupid” — would have even been capable of reaching 1,000 sales. Let alone over 6,000.
135. ikkeman | January 24th, 2010 at 16:49

do all of you pontificating the shutting down of the A380 line ASAP think the costs of research and development magically go away when a line is shut down?
Whether the A380 will have a positive ROI (unlikely) or no, the likely fact remains that Airbus will, from this point forward, spend less on each A380 than they receive - thus the line will continue. Not to mention the huge costs they would incur if they now decide to end the 380.
If you say they should continue to build the orders they now have - that’s easily a decades worth of work. Racing to finish them would require additional investments and hiring extra people at all levels of the product chain - who thinks that’s likely to happen - only to fire everyone only a few years after training them.

Not continuing the line will not relieve the massive development debt, will not make their customers happy and will leave them with massive production hardware that’s useless for anything besides a double decker behemoth.

Besides, the A380 is a technical masterpiece. It is one of the boldest moves in aviation since the 747-100. It shook Boeing back into new product development instead of turning out slightly different versions of the exact same plane. Since the 737 they’ve been turning out the same metal frame stiffened tubes, low winged, twin engined, standard tail configuration at successfully larger dimensions.
the 787 finally breaks that trend. To bad it’s a black metal design and therefore not “future proof”, but it does show, if not the shape than at least the direction of the future.
136. Skeptic | January 24th, 2010 at 17:26

ikkeman: “Whether the A380 will have a positive ROI (unlikely) or no, the likely fact remains that Airbus will, from this point forward, spend less on each A380 than they receive….”
Perhaps they will, but if the accounts of the discounts they give to move these things are true (60% to BA & EK) then I doubt they’ll make a whole lot of gross margin.

The whalejet is more of a conversation piece than a decent business case.
137. Leelaw | January 24th, 2010 at 17:35

“Besides, the A380 is a technical masterpiece.”

Agreed.

“It is one of the boldest moves in aviation since the 747-100.”

Disagree. I think it’s a conceptually sexy project still in search of a viable business case for its manufacturer.

“It shook Boeing back into new product development instead of turning out slightly different versions of the exact same plane.”

Certainly not the WhaleBus[t], I think the success of the A330 is what focused their attention.
138. Paulo M | January 24th, 2010 at 19:22

122. Dave_BC | January 23rd, 2010 at 19:18

London - slot-constrained, bless their hearts - will account for a very large number of A380 flights. This is entirely unsurprising given that it is the world’s busiest airport for international traffic. I’m interested to know how much of that international traffic is from Europe though. The point is that traffic between say London and Tokyo, Hong Kong and Singapore is pretty heavy.

=================================

131. MPTA-098 | January 24th, 2010 at 01:02

Everybody knows this. That’s partly why the MD-11 only got to 200 - and didn’t make money for scrooge MACDAC. (The other reason, is when Boeing bought MACDAC and subsidized the MD-11’s existence against their home-grown 777, they did what families do.)

The point is in the similarities. Biggest aircraft - and considered most important - at the respective manufacturers. Large potential market projected. (The difference here, is like Boeing, MACDAC was right.) Monumental development costs. (The difference here, is unlike the Boeing 777 and Airbus A380, the MD-11 did not meet performance guarentees.)

=================================

134. Dave_BC | January 24th, 2010 at 16:49

You’re right. “By the way, back in the 1990s certainly no one would have predicted that the A330 would go on to sell into five figures.”

The A330 is now selling in four figures.

“Doug, “it promises to be an interesting year.” Indeed. So you don’t even know how one year will pan out, let alone the next 10.”

This is a perfectly normal reaction to noting tightening monetary policy in China, and generally, continued weakness in the United States. The expression “it promises to be an interesting year” is not a forecast. It tends to be a note to oneself that either shit will hit the fan, or, shit won’t hit the fan. Like you say, the person is unsure of the way forward given the uncertainty in the market place. Thank you.

135. ikkeman | January 24th, 2010 at 16:49

I’m sorry. That’s unacceptable. The 737 came before the 747. I’m still at odds on early similarities, or any commom tools, etc. Similarly, the 767. Oh, also the 777. The 777 shares Section 41 of the 767 - but that’s it.

Now, the 707, 737, 727 and 757 all have the same cross section - but that’s it. The 737 NG family is almost completely different to the original Boeing private investment that is the 367-DASH-80. (And, hasn’t that initial investment paid off royally.) BTW, with regards the 747-8, the 737 NG is something, init? Boeing has still sold more 737’s since the A320 - as it did sell more 747-8’s than the A380 since the launch of the 747-8 (of overall yet, of course.).

This is the same as saying the A300, A310, A330, A340, and the first five iterations of the A350 are all the same. But for your argument’s sake - THEY ARE!!

Airbus has only built 3 (TRÊS, DREI, TROIS, THREE) aircraft families since Germany, France, Spain and the UK set it up: the A300 family (noted above), the A320 family (their best, in everyway), and the A380 (their best technically, their worst financially - if you ignore the Concorde, which their predecessors built - also very much alike the A380).

=================================

If I placed an order for 10 A380’s 10 years ago, and the order backlog is only 200 aircraft - I want them - or some - as soon as the economy picks up - which might be another two years. I will NOT wait another 10 years, 15 years or however long the manufacturer thinks is a comfortable production run.
139. Paulo M | January 24th, 2010 at 19:47

BTW, with regards 747 Jumbo Jet orders, if you make yourself a User Defined Report at Boeing.com for 747 orders for the dates January 2000 and December 2009 - inclusive, you’ll note a total of 223 orders. Obviously some of those have been cancelled - but you still have around 200 of them. Which is about the same Airbus has for its A380 - and probably more money..

More money…
140. Dave_BC | January 24th, 2010 at 22:12

From 138:

“The expression “it promises to be an interesting year” is not a forecast. It tends to be a note to oneself that either shit will hit the fan, or, shit won’t hit the fan. Like you say, the person is unsure of the way forward given the uncertainty in the market place. Thank you.”

Paulo, I see that you have now appointed yourself as Mr McVitie’s official spokesperson.
Henceforth should I route all comments for him via you in future?
141. 123xyz | January 25th, 2010 at 02:44

139. Paulo M | January 24th, 2010 at 19:47

Is there a report showing aircraft date ordered, then date delivered?
142. 123xyz | January 25th, 2010 at 05:19

135. ikkeman | January 24th, 2010 at 16:49

“Besides, the A380 is a technical masterpiece. It is one of the boldest moves in aviation since the 747-100. It shook Boeing back into new product development instead of turning out slightly different versions of the exact same plane.”

NLA’s have been studied by all the major airline manufacturers back then (late 80’s, early 90’s). Financial risk and even lackluster customer interest prevented fruition, but against this judgment Airbus forged ahead (did subsidies make them risk averse?). It was more a “bold” project to trump the B747, more for glory, more to display technical prowess, than for profitability; it could be a display of stubbornness against all odds. But, I disagree, “it is a technical masterpiece,” as these European engineer’s Concorde was much more a masterpiece than their quite conventional, albeit larger, airliner.

The A380’s development might have “shook Boeing back into new product development,” but doesn’t strong competition usually involve continual “shaking” among competitors? Conversely, one can argue the B747’s long hold over the jumbo market “shook” Europeans for decades.
143. Mike M | January 25th, 2010 at 05:44

>>>By 2020 Airbus will already have ramped-up A380 final assembly to full output.

Not likely with the deferrals - they’ll produce as little as possible to “help” customers and prolong the production life. Airbus has no interest in increasing production to evaporate its backlog without new orders.

>>>no one would have predicted that the A330 would go on to sell into five figures.

I take it you mean FOUR figures?

>>>Besides, the A380 is a technical masterpiece.

Utter BS. It has had more technical glitches in the last 8 weeks than any ONE type in the last YEAR. It is a conventional airplane like those that have been built in the 60 years before it.

>>>It is one of the boldest moves in aviation since the 747-100.

Bold my ass - Eurofools paid for it.

>>>Since the 737 they’ve been turning out the same metal frame stiffened tubes, low winged, twin engined, standard tail configuration at successfully larger dimensions.

Perhaps the 757, 767, 777 and 787 all missed you huh?

Let me guess, you must be German because Lufthansa has never placed orders for ANY of those and thats why you say Boeing hasnt produced anything “since the 737″ - is that a fair remark?

If not, then neither is yours.
144. edo | January 25th, 2010 at 07:28

Boeing will now be forced to come up with a new term for their older aircraft. The term “Classic” has been taken to new heights.

In post #55 we can read:

“Somehow, I don’t think the lack of sales for the A380 can be laid at the feet of Mike M.”

This is the new definition of “classic”
145. Dave_BC | January 25th, 2010 at 07:56

From 143:

“>>>no one would have predicted that the A330 would go on to sell into five figures.

I take it you mean FOUR figures?”

Yes Mike. That was a typo.

The point being that in the 1990s the doom-mongerers were saying that the A330 was a flop.
(Even though its business case was for far fewer orders than 1,000 units. Now look at it — still selling well even afer the 787 and XWB are launched).
146. Aotearoa | January 25th, 2010 at 09:56

Dave, the 330 has done well for sure but has ever an airliner been in the right place at the right time? How many would have been sold without delays to the 380 or 787? Less than five figures for sure
147. ikkeman | January 25th, 2010 at 10:42

136. Skeptic | January 24th, 2010 at 17:26
each dollar/euro is one more than they would have made not building the A380.
I agree nobody would have invested in this program beforehand with the 20/20 vision we have now.

137. Leelaw | January 24th, 2010 at 17:35
The 330 sucess/ 767 decline showed Boeing the size of the future, the A380 showed the shape. Boldy step away from convention and dream.

142. 123xyz | January 25th, 2010 at 05:19
Concorde flew 6 years after the 747 - I’d say they are of roughly equal age.
All truely great marvels of engineering are achieved despite their business case.

143. Mike M | January 25th, 2010 at 05:44
dumbass
757,767,777 are all variations on the theme set by the 737. “just” evoltionary improvements aimed at different market segments. they maybe great aircraft, but they aren’t great innovations.
The 787 is a revolutionary step from the 767.

How does who paid for something change it’s technical characteristics?
It may not be bold from a business case standpoint- but that’s not what I was talking about, a fact many others did understand.

Technical glitches do not reduce it’s innovative character. new tech is always more prone to problems than mature tech.
It is the first plane with a largly composite fuselage, carbon wing center box. It is the first full double decker.

And no, I’m not German - Guess again.
Is that what you base your opinion of aircraft on. Who bought what? Are you truly incapable of forming your own opinion and just run after the market like chasing an ambulance?

Wait, no - don’t guess. I’m tired of your uninformed opinion.
148. Vero Venia | January 25th, 2010 at 12:23

For those who want to play a little bit with the 747-8i’s fuel consumption, I’ve written a small estimator.
The performance model comprises only 3 numbers, but it’s quite interesting to see that the results are not bad.
http://wp.me/piMZI-BO

Enjoy!
149. Leelaw | January 25th, 2010 at 15:43

“the A380 showed the shape. Boldy step away from convention and dream”

Sorry, I don’t see much bold or unconventional about the A380 program, if anything, it’s very much the victim of strict adherence to very conventional wisdom about how best to exploit traffic growth projections.
150. ikkeman | January 25th, 2010 at 16:04

149. Leelaw | January 25th, 2010 at 15:43
step away from the money and business case. I’m talking technical, engineering.
151. Dougloid | January 25th, 2010 at 16:06

Dave sez Doug, “it promises to be an interesting year.” Indeed. So you don’t even know how one year will pan out, let alone the next 10.

Dave, I guess you’re speaking to me? And you know what the year will bring because you are ___________ (fill in the blank-I like Doctor Science myself).

MR PTA sez “Sorry, I don’t by that. Actually, that $7 billion USD figure was incidentally the same as the initially projected cost of Boeing’s all new 777 programme, or twice the programme cost of the initial A330/A340 programme.”

Choke on it then, because that is the number and the point was not whether the MD11 was a good aircraft or not, but (I’m going to depart from a long held principle here and add emphasis because you haven’t been listening) IT WAS THE COST OF THE DEVELOPMENT, NOT WHETHER IT WAS A GOOD THING OR NOT.

I was there. You can read as many articles in Flight International and AW&ST as you like.

Instead, you tell me how Airbus can reconcile the development cost over the number of aircraft in the order book. The stated breakeven figure accordin’ to Airbus was 420 frames as of 2007, but that went up again to some unspecified figure.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/114957.asp
152. USAF Fan | January 25th, 2010 at 16:38

“I’m talking technical, engineering.”

Can you provide a specific example because the A380 doesn’t exactly have anything out of the ordinary in terms of engineering.
153. Dougloid | January 25th, 2010 at 19:00

I’m with Leelaw and USAF Fan here.

She’s got huge tracts of land but the A380 is of conventional construction. The engineering that emerges from its construction will be useful but it breaks no new ground.

There’s just more of it-lots more, and the real question is whether a business case will emerge that supports it, or whether the A380 represents an evolutionary dead end.
154. MPTA-098 | January 25th, 2010 at 19:08

“Choke on it then, because that is the number and the point was not whether the MD11 was a good aircraft or not, but (I’m going to depart from a long held principle here and add emphasis because you haven’t been listening) IT WAS THE COST OF THE DEVELOPMENT, NOT WHETHER IT WAS A GOOD THING OR NOT.”

USD 7 billion for MD-11 R&D ?

LOL!

Again, there’s just no way that the risk-adverse bean-counting macdac management would have sanctioned USD 7 billion on a DERIVATIVE model of the DC-10, or even half that figure (+ 100 percent cost over-run). Airbus spent about half that amount on the original A330/A340 series which featured an entirely NEW wing etc (i.e. wing R&D accounts for up to around 40 percent of a new LCA development). Saying you were “there” means nothing if you were not at, or near the top, of the management ladder. Hearing “something” through the grapevine on the shop floor, and believing it for a fact then and now, indicates that your analytical skills are less than satisfactory; and certainly not at a level one would expect from a “Doctor of Science” candidate.

So you see, I was “listening”, but what I was actually doing was rather questioning your judgment on the validity of that USD 7 billion figure, while my “evil twin” couldn’t stop himself in going on a diatribe against the worst designed wide body aircraft ever made (i.e. second worst being the DC-10), and where the lack of research dollars on the MD-11 was the most likely reason why macdac managed to design and produce a woefully inadequate horizontal stabilizer.

As for your last point, it’s generally accepted that the larger/bigger the “product”; the higher the profit margins (per copy); and consequently, the lower the number of units required to reach breakeven.
155. Dave_BC | January 25th, 2010 at 19:50

USAF, re innovations:

5,000 psi hydraulics (and on such a huge scale);
Electro-hydraulic actuation;
A wing and front fuselage with exceptional low-drag aerodynamics (allowing mach 0.89 shock-free cruise capability, and also providing excellent low speed handling and low approach speed)
Very low external and internal noise
Composite rear fuselage/empennage;
Glass-fiber/aluminium sandwich upper fuselage construction
Aluminium lithium alloy where appropriate
Brake-to-vacate

If I was to single out one aspect it would probably be that amazing wing.
156. Paulo M | January 26th, 2010 at 00:22

140. Dave_BC | January 24th, 2010 at 22:12
You can refer all questions to Doug’s office. I’m just moderating.

===================================================

141. 123xyz | January 25th, 2010 at 02:44

Reports that link deliveries to respective orders from Boeing’s public site? - nope. You’ll have to reconcile that on your own with Boeing’s user reports. Or you could have at look at ATI.

===================================================

147. ikkeman | January 25th, 2010 at 10:42

Then the A380 is equally evolutionary - the basic idea of the Airbus A380 goes back to the Boeing 367-80, which gave birth to the 707 - as with every jetliner ever built, apart from the Concorde and Tupolev Tu-144 perhaps. Perhaps, further back, all airliners are descendants of the Boeing Model 247.

===================================================

155. Dave_BC | January 25th, 2010 at 19:50

Those are not revolutionary so much as evolutionary innovations.

5,000 psi hydraulics where first used commercially on the Concorde - but you’re right, scaled up for use on a much larger aircraft that the A380 is.

It’s a beautiful wing.

Noise levels in the cabin and outside are evolutionary on Airbus expertise in this department. Reference the A340 vs. the 777.

The Raytheon Premier 1 and Cirrus SR-20/22 are all-composite aircraft. Sure, much, much smaller application of composites than the A380. But as far as a scaled-up comparison goes, the aircraft that best compares here is the Boeing 787. The A380 still utilizes a significant percentage of regular/evolutionary materials; compares to the A340-600 and Boeing 777-300ER.

Brake-to-vacate - very smart. But also evolutionary inline with computer/software advances in airliner cockpits in the 21st century. Boeing’s tailstrike system, which is available on a number of airliners, including the 777-300ER and 737-900ER, is piece of software built into the aircraft’s flight laws that allows operators to increase take-off payload performance.

It’s a great aircraft, the A380. But in terms of technologies, I just can’t help seeing it as making use of available ideas and applying them to the A380 case. Not that this makes the A380 in less than you think it is. But I think asking for the aircraft to be revolutionary as opposed evolutionary technically would be ignorant of the fact that such an aircraft would be too expensive for the niche market it faces.
157. Dougloid | January 26th, 2010 at 05:12

Mr. PTA

You still don’t seem to understand what I’m saying.

It was common knowledge because one thing that McD-D did-at least when Worsham was running the shop-was get all of the QA people in one room to talk about what was going on and where the company was headed. That dollar figure was the figure that was given out by Jim Worsham in one of those meetings.At that time management didn’t think it had anything to hide.

Remember-I was there, and I heard it from the man himself, in public. But when the CEO of a company gets up in public and says “Here’s what we’re spending.” I tend to give that a certain amount of credence.

Now. Maybe you disagree. Fine. Go find Jim Worsham and call him a liar. Spin your conspiracy theories.

As far as what happened after Worsham was forced out, I couldn’t say because the communication between the shop and the Puzzle Palace was pretty much severed at the time Robert Hood came on board.

“As for your last point, it’s generally accepted that the larger/bigger the “product”; the higher the profit margins (per copy); and consequently, the lower the number of units required to reach breakeven.”

It is not “generally accepted” and that theory is preposterous-does a Westclox Big Ben wind up alarm clock yield more profit than a Rolex watch? Does a Ford van yield more profit than a Porsche Carrera? Maybe generally accepted in Too Loose and other emerald cities?
158. ikkeman | January 26th, 2010 at 08:09

151. Dougloid | January 25th, 2010 at 16:06
Doctor Who?

152. USAF Fan | January 25th, 2010 at 16:38
read the bottom half of 147. ikkeman | January 25th, 2010 at 10:42

155. Dave_BC | January 25th, 2010 at 19:50
Glare actually makes up quite a bit of the fuselage panels. The upper 3/4 of the bit from behind the cockpit up to the wingroot and from the wing trailing edge to the empennage.

156. Paulo M | January 26th, 2010 at 00:22
And all aircraft descent from da Vinci… I see the A380 as a step away from the baseline like the 747.

If your argument holds, there are no revolutionary aircraft, and in the strictest sence this is true. All development is just that - a development based on what came before. However, I’d call the bigger evolutionary steps revolutions just to differentiate them from the smaller steps.
And many claim it is to expensive for the niche market is serves.
159. Dave_BC | January 26th, 2010 at 14:26

Dougloid wrote:
“Does a Ford van yield more profit than a Porsche Carrera?”

Actually, for Porsche, it’s the much **larger** Cayenne which has been generating the profits. Not the 911.
160. MPTA-098 | January 26th, 2010 at 16:55

Dougloid (-/Mcdonnell), it’s certainly touching and much like a fairy tale if a former macdac employee chooses to worship Mr. Worsham in such a way as to believe that the rushed DC-10 derivative (the MD-11), (supposedly) according to Mr. Worsham, really cost in the order of USD 7 billion to develop, making it by far the most expensive derivative aircraft ever made, or in other words, the closest to a fools errand ever attempted in the LCA business. Again (for the last time), there’s just no way that the risk-adverse bean-counting macdac management would have sanctioned USD 7 billion on a DERIVATIVE model of the DC-10, or even half that figure (+ 100 percent cost over-run).

Now, if the former macdac CEO said that the MD-11 really cost that much to develop, then the most logical explanation for such a claim would have been to fool as many of the company’s lower ranked employees as possible, in order to trick them into believing that even after such a massive cash infusion, their “heroic non subsidized” employer,
nevertheless could not compete with those f*##ing “euros” with their damned “subsidized” aircraft, and it was therefore not the macdac management’s fault that countless new employees had to be sacked.

As for my last point in my previous comment, I though it was self evident that I meant the LCA business, and not, for example, IT-related technical topics which is dealt with in techblogs etc.
161. Erik Bloodaxe | January 26th, 2010 at 17:07

LOL at all the mental masturbators talking about the Trent XWB going on the A380. That is NEVER going to happen. There is ZERO incentive for Rolls to do something that stupid. Rolls supplies both engines. They will do nicely with the XWB since GE isn’t jumping on board, so they have that locked up. The A380 is ALWAYS going to be a niche player, and they still have yet to recoup the losses from the Trent 900, so thinking of dumping that line is nuts, unless of course the Queen kicks in a couple 20 billion more pounds.

Additionally, this “simple” re-engine isn’t as simple as all that. They need to design a strut, a REAL strut, not some one off test article BS. That’s spendy money there by itself. Then there are the wing changes to accomodate a larger and HEAVIER engine, remember the A380 wing has ZERO margin (according to Bregier himself). That means wing changes too. Now we are talking Big bucks… er euros. Neither Airbus nor Rolls is going to spend that kind of money on a niche market plane like the A380. The sooner you fanboi’s realize it’s not about whose pecker is bigger than the other guys, it’s about MONEY, the better off you’ll be.
162. CE7 | January 26th, 2010 at 17:41

Mike M:

>>>The 787 program suffered cancellations because those airlines didn’t like what the physical aircraft itself was turning out [not] to be.
Is that so?

-overweight by several tons
-engines missing their SFC
-the wing issue
-missing range promise
-delayed by three years
-production probably never going to catch up promise (14 planes a month)

So what else do you want? LOL.
163. MPTA-098 | January 26th, 2010 at 19:03

“Additionally, this “simple” re-engine isn’t as simple as all that. They need to design a strut, a REAL strut, not some one off test article BS. That’s spendy money there by itself. Then there are the wing changes to accomodate a larger and HEAVIER engine, remember the A380 wing has ZERO margin (according to Bregier himself). That means wing changes too.”

You don’t know what you’re talking about, do you?

The fan diameter of the XWB is 118 inches, only two more than the Trent-900, while the “heavier” core is actually smaller on the XWB.

Also, it’s worth remembering that the GE90-115B with an extra 5 inches growth in the fan diameter over that of the GE90-94B, managed to fit inside a slightly revised nacelle of the original engine (overall diameter only increased by one inch). Since the XWB will be lighter than the Trent-900, it can easily use the same wing pylons as the latter engine.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/03/06/323432/r-r-details-trent-xwb-development-strategy.html

Quote: “We’ve ended up with a core a bit smaller than the Trent 900, even though the thrust is a bit higher,” says Young. The 9.3:1 bypass ratio XWB is also the first Trent to feature a two-stage intermediate-pressure turbine, which Young says “puts growth capability into the engine”, and is the first to incorporate blisks, which have seen several years of successful service in the Boeing 717’s BR715 turbofan.
164. Dave_BC | January 26th, 2010 at 21:52

MPTA-098, he’s also wrong when he refers to ‘margin’ of the A380 wing.
The one presently flying on the -800 is internally optimised for that aircraft.
Of course any wing for the family growth versions would be structurally tailored for the heavier aircraft weights.
Then there is the issue of business case for Rolls: Erik the axeman overlooks the fact that Rolls competes with Alliance on the A380.
Now if RR can suddenly pull an ace out of its sleeve and offer 6 percent better fuel efficiency than its competitor, then it will, at a stroke, have an incredible market advantage. But right at the moment Alliance has the leading mkt position. Having the XWB on the A380 would change the game for Rolls completely in their favour.
165. Erik Bloodaxe | January 26th, 2010 at 22:29

Both of you twits neglect that Rolls has already dumped a couple billion pounds into the development and fielding of the T900 that would now be booked as a loss… of course to you continentals, losses don’t mean much, but to people who live in the “Anglo-American” business model they mean a lot. Rolls is not going to just dump the T900 and chalk up the loss for the same reason that GE isn’t going to jump into the XWB… because it doesn’t make BUSINESS SENSE.

The margin in the wing is not there, the man himself said so. This means that any stretch or weight increases require wing work… and wing recertification.

It’s really funny, in a sad way, when two fanboi’s just can’t admit their “great and glorious” Airbus screwed the pooch. There will be no A380-900 there will be no reengining. Not at least, unless the Euro governments are willing to throw more billions of euros down the A380 crapper. Since they are having a hard time convincing them to pony up on the A400M which is already “bought” (ha ha), don’t see that as likely that they’d just push more wheelbarrows of cash at Airbus for yet another boondoggle.
166. MPTA-098 | January 26th, 2010 at 22:56

Dave_BC, I didn’t correct him on his somewhat distorted perceptions on the A380 wing as I expected you would nail him on that one.

Interestingly, the A380’s wing is sized for a MTOW over 650 tonnes in order to accommodate future growth models, albeit with some internal strengthening required. Even 750 tonnes is feasible with the current wing planform.

Finally, the Trent-900 is nearing the 400 mark on firm orders. In comparison, total sales for the Trent-800 on the triple seven stands at just under 450 units. Unless the axeblood truly believes that the Trent-800 is a dismal financial failure, he can’t be taken seriously when he’s dissing the Trent-900.
167. ikkeman | January 27th, 2010 at 07:26

161. Erik Bloodaxe | January 26th, 2010 at 17:07
stop watching hustler channel for a second and think. Aviation is just about the most heavily subsidized industry in the world.
Do you really think the cost to design a simple engine strut is so prohibitive, like a significant percentage of the airframe.
Did RR suffer from cost overruns? if not, what was their ROI target. And who knows, they might be happy to be able to close down a line after it becomes cost neutral so they can focus on a single model and further streamline their process

never say never in aviation.

164. Dave_BC | January 26th, 2010 at 21:52
perhaps that a real reason for airbus not to offer the new RR on the 380 - do you really want to piss off one of your mayor suppliers like that.

165. Erik Bloodaxe | January 26th, 2010 at 22:29
so you’ll take this carier arbusier at his word when it suits you eh?
Did you notice how the wing failed the ultimate load test, yet it was certified after structural improvement without the need for further testing.
The wing test is only a requirement to validate the analysis. The analysis showed the wing would break below ultimate, and the wing did break below ultimate. It broke very close to the predicted load and the failure type prediction was correct. That validates the analysis and thereby validates changes based on that same analysis.

BTW, is Boeing planning to do a static test on a 747 wing or is that completely new lofted, composite design still getting certified as a derivative.
168. Dave_BC | January 27th, 2010 at 07:31

Erik, don’t preach to Europe about ‘losses’. You forget that is was American excess and greed that caused this whole reccession. People writing cheques their bodies can’t cash.
169. 123xyz | January 27th, 2010 at 09:09

156. Paulo M | January 26th, 2010 at 00:22

“the Airbus A380 goes back to the Boeing 367-80, which gave birth to the 707 - as with every jetliner ever built, apart from the Concorde and Tupolev Tu-144 perhaps. Perhaps, further back, all airliners are descendants of the Boeing Model 247.”

Although the 247 flew earlier, it didn’t have the extraordinary impact on aviation as the DC-3 did.

And, if we talking the evolution of big planes we should include Bristol Brabazon.
170. Leelaw | January 27th, 2010 at 10:46

[i]Did RR suffer from cost overruns? if not, what was their ROI target. And who knows, they might be happy to be able to close down a line after it becomes cost neutral so they can focus on a single model and further streamline their process[/i]

Considering the financial bath they’ve already taken as a result of the poor industrial performance of the OEMs’ marquee development programs, it may be a way to squeeze a fairly small glass of lemonade out of some very large lemons. Of course this speculation presupposes that the WhaleBus[t] program evolves into a robust industrial enterprise with relevance in terms of capital budgeting priorities beyond 2015, which is probably far less than a 50-50 proposition these days.
171. MPTA-098 | January 27th, 2010 at 12:23

“Both of you twits neglect that Rolls has already dumped a couple billion pounds into the development and fielding of the T900 that would now be booked as a loss… of course to you continentals, losses don’t mean much, but to people who live in the “Anglo-American” business model they mean a lot.”

Actually, the defenders of the “Anglo-American” business model, which today is mostly an “American” business model, like to believe that “their model” is based, or structured, on Adam Smith’s epic work, The Wealth of Nations from 1776. Smith, of course, presented a radical condemnation of business monopolies sustained and protected by the state. However, his ideal was a market comprised solely of small buyers and sellers. He showed how the workings of such a market would tend toward a price that provides a fair return to land, labor, and capital, produce a satisfactory outcome for both buyers and sellers, and result in an optimal outcome for society in terms of the allocation of its resources. It is a market that bears little in common with a globalized economy dominated by massive corporations without local or national allegiance managed by professionals who are removed from real owners by layers of investment institutions and holding companies.

When the necessary conditions are met the market is a powerful and efficient mechanisms for allocating resources. What you now have in the US, after four decades of ever more deregulation, is not a “free” market economy. It is increasingly a command economy centrally planned and managed by your largest corporations to maximize financial returns to top managers and the wealthiest shareholders at the expense of the rest of your society. Your “free market” proponents don’t seem to care much about the public interest. What they do seem to care about though, is to defend the right of the economically powerful to do what best serves their immediate interests without public accountability for the consequences.
172. MPTA-098 | January 27th, 2010 at 13:04

“Considering the financial bath they’ve already taken as a result of the poor industrial performance of the OEMs’ marquee development programs, it may be a way to squeeze a fairly small glass of lemonade out of some very large lemons.”

Actually, if anybody has taken a “financial bath” it’s likely to have been GE, and not so much RR. First, the latter does not have an engoine on the 748, and second, the Trent three spool design makes it possible for RR to develop a family of advanced scaled engine cores allowing the engine thrust and performance to be optimised for each aircraft application (and with new technologies introduced for each new generation), all the while being significantly cheaper to develop than what is the case for a new engine derived from a two spool design. The Trent-XWB is now in a sole pole position on the A350 partly thanks to the fact that for GE, it would’ve cost more than what is the case for RR, to produce a “new” engine for the A350-family of LCA.
173. Leelaw | January 27th, 2010 at 13:54

“Actually, if anybody has taken a “financial bath” it’s likely to have been GE, and not so much RR. First, the latter does not have an engoine on the 748″

I doubt the financial impact has been significantly less at Rolls since they had to absorb 100% of the cost of mothballing A380 production, while GE only had 50% exposure for its participation in the program. The jury is out on the profitability potential of the Trent-XWB, everything really depends on whether or not the “Panel-liner” winds up being considered a technological dead-end in comparison to the “Nightmareliner.”
174. MPTA-098 | January 27th, 2010 at 15:09

Even if GE’s and Rolls’ respective R&D outlays on the relevant programs are evened out, please do note that Rolls could quite easily shift technicians and engineers, without additional and costly on-the-job training, between the similar Trent-700/-800/-500/-900/-1000 production lines, while GE just couldn’t do that with their people on the substantially different CF6-80E1/GE90/GP7200/GEnx production lines.

The jury is always out on any product before it has matured in the market place. However, I don’t think anybody at Boeing are kidding themselves that the A350/Trent-XWB combo will not live up to promise.

As for “technological dead-end”; on this blog, I’ve repeatedly stressed that, in fact, it’s the 787 which is in risk of being a technological dead-end due to the fact that it’s largely an impossible task to co-cure/integrate fuselage frames, window frames, and passenger/cargo door frames when using a convexly shaped (”outside”) mandrel for use on a second or third generation CFRP fuselage. A next generation “panel-liner” may use large composite panels where no mechanical fasteners are used to fasten the fuselage frames, window frames, and passenger/cargo door frames to the fuselage panel. The only fasteners required will be to fasten the large panels into a fuselage barrel. This, in fact, is the holy grail of composite fuselage construction.
175. Mike M | January 27th, 2010 at 20:11

>>>162. CE7 | January 26th, 2010 at 17:41
-overweight by several tons
-engines missing their SFC
-the wing issue
-missing range promise
-delayed by three years
-production probably never going to catch up promise (14 planes a month)

All wrong jackass.

Prove the overweight figure. Boeing’s earnings today said that it would meet mission goals.

Wing issue, what wing issue? Like the A380 which failed below 150% you mean and was fixed with Band Aid?

As for production, Boeing has nearly twice the orders for the 787 as the A350 and five times more than the A380 - they can produce how many they want when they want - airlines are happy to wait for it.

Do you get paid to be an Airbusier?
176. Paulo M | January 28th, 2010 at 00:07

158. iikeman | January 26th, 2010 at 08:09

Da Vinci? No! Icarus!!

161. Erik Bloodaxe | January 26th, 2010 at 17:07

Mental masturbation! Lol I only care too know when the Boeing 747-8F will fly, but I do think the Trent 1000 test on the A380 is a very intriguing development.

169. 123xyz | January 27th, 2010 at 09:09

Of course. Or the Spruce Goose.

171. MPTA-098 | January 27th, 2010 at 12:23

I’m agreeing with this. There has been much talk about the need to undo companies that are to big to fail - especially financial companies. Interestingly enough, the combined top 10 companies on the Fortune 500 have greater economic power than some of the world’s top 10 leading national economies.

But if you look at Global 500 - you’ll see that the nation with the largest share is the US - and this share is (was the last time I checked) larger than the EU. The argument there goes that only the freedoms of the United States could have allowed the messure of entrepreneurial successes against all of it’s competitors. While before I used to think that was a messure of American economic strength - it has revealed itself to be a major flaw. Too much centralised power under management of so few.

However, this is the United States we talk of, and no country matches its propensity for correcting its ways or indeed its entrepreneurial spirit to chart a new course. A course that the rest will follow.

174. MPTA-098 | January 27th, 2010 at 15:09

What of the RB211 - also three spool, but still significantly different to the Trent line. Plenty of those all over the place.

With GE, the trend is for the GE90 for the foreseeable future and the GEnx which replaces the CF-6. Airlines today will be ordering GE90’s and GEnx’s for their latest Boeing aircraft - not the CF-6. Of course, airlines will still be ordering CF-6’s for the installed fleet for years to come.

And what of the low-risk GP7200 which utilizes GE90 and P&W PW4000 technologies? Well, sales of the A380 more than validates GE’s - and P&W’s - choice of teaming up with another manufacturer than to go it alone.
177. ikkeman | January 28th, 2010 at 08:24

175. Mike M | January 27th, 2010 at 20:11
You’re right - it’s not overweight, they only increased it’s OEW in the latest iteration of the airport planning doc.
Just because the 380 meets it’s guaranteed payload/range would you agree it’s not overweight?

wing issue - no not the wing issue that the 380 suffers, but the wing issue the 787 suffers where repairs were required because the wing started failing (delaminating) at around limit load.
Or the center wing box that required rework even before they started testing because the material properties didn’t come out at spec.
178. justanobserver | February 9th, 2010 at 05:17

Laughing at the fighting going on here…especially towards the end of the comments. But also very intrigued by the level of knowledge and the way it is presented ( I can actually sort of understand what u’r saying.)

But as a an semi-illiterate poster (my wife is an aerospace engineer, but gave it up for something different…she did design work for some sort of strut assembly for some sort of plane in the 90’s…she’s in bed asleep otherwise I would ask her for details.)

But even as a “non-techie” I am LMAO off at 174. MPTA-098 | January 27th, 2010 at 15:09:

“I’ve repeatedly stressed that, in fact, it’s the 787 which is in risk of being a technological dead-end due to the fact that it’s largely an impossible task to co-cure/integrate fuselage frames”…blah blah blah. Then maybe u should have made major Euros/$s from Boeing explaining exactly why their design was so woefully deficient. You could gather all the engineers in a single, small, claustrophobic room and explain to them that they were about to be out of a job because:
A. They were so stupid and
B. They were al fired because you had just been hired as CEO/HTIKIA “Head Think I Know It All.)

Again, no animosity meant here. But you sound like someone whose never experienced zero gravity, but explaining how all astronauts are shitting incorrectly.

And please…feel free to regale me with your aeronautical engineering skills. As I said I’m not an aerospace engineer. But I smell BS when I step into/read it.

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

Spin On This

178 Comments Add your own

Leave a Comment

Email Subscription

Calendar

Archives

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Blogroll

Tag Cloud

FleetBuzz Editorial.com RSS Feed

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Dec				Feb »
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31