Airbus admits further delay on A380

[Algy]

SQ will get theirs on time - but then they're talking six month delay. (http://shortlinks.co.uk/d7)

[Taildragger67]

In today's Sydney Morning Herald:

Super jumbo roll out stretched
June 14, 2006 - 12:35PM

European aircraft maker Airbus has delayed its A380 super jumbo program another seven months, throwing the fleet plans of Qantas and 12 other airlines in disarray.

The French-based Airbus blamed the delay on the "definition, manufacturing and installation of electrical systems and resulting harnesses".

While Airbus said the A380's flight test program was still on schedule, it said the production glitches would result in only nine of the jets being delivered in 2007. This is despite 15 of the aircraft already assembled on the Airbus factory floor in Toulouse.

The delays will also result in a "shortfall" of up to nine A380s in 2009 and five in 2009.

Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon told a transport forum in Canberra he was only informed of the delay last night.

Mr Dixon declined to say how the latest A380 delay would impact the national carrier, which has ordered 12 of the aircraft.

But when Airbus announced a year ago the delivery of Qantas's first A380 would be pushed back six months to April 2007, Mr Dixon warned another delay could cause serious problems.

Qantas has already been forced to delay the planned retirement of some of its ageing 747s due to the previous A380 delay. The latest could cause serious headaches at the national carrier.

In a media statement, Airbus said it "is fully aware of the burden this industrial issue represents for the airlines who are anxious to begin operating the A380".

The delay is also expected to result in Airbus paying hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties to its customers. The company said the latest delay would result in a €500 million ($850 million) hit on its earnings over four years.

Singapore Airlines said it still expected to be the first airline to recieve an A380 in November. But it has warned there could be delays in the delivery of its nine other A380s.

"All we can say is that we're not happy about the delay," said Singapore Air spokesman Stephen Forshaw. "We are being told by them [Airbus] that we will have the [first] aircraft by the end of the year."

Singapore Air hopes to first fly the aircraft between Sydney to London via Singapore.

Emirates is expected to suffer the most, given it is the largest customer of the A380, having order 45 of the aircraft. Other A380 customer hoping to fly the 555-seat aircraft to Sydney include Thai Airways, Malaysia Airlines, Qatar Airways and Virgin Atlantic. Qantas plans to first use the aircraft from Melbourne and Sydney to Los Angeles. Airbus has 159 "firm" orders for the aircraft.

[angels]

I've cut and pasted this direct from my Reuters screen, so no url available. This looks really grim for EADS.

09:03 14Jun2006 RTRS-UPDATE 1-EADS shares nosedive as A380 delay spooks investors

(Adds details, analyst comments)
PARIS, June 14 (Reuters) - Shares in EADS <EAD.PA> plunged 20 percent to a near 2-year low on Wednesday as news of fresh delays in the delivery of the Airbus A380 superjumbo fueled a flood of sell orders and brokers slashed their ratings of Europe's aerospace giant.
A fresh six-month delay in delivery of the Airbus A380 superjumbo revealed on Tuesday will cost EADS 2 billion euros ($2.5 billion) starting in 2007 just as it looks to fund an all-new, mid-sized model and buys out stakeholder BAE Systems Plc <BA.L>.
Exane BNP Paribas analysts said in a research note that the delay, the second to be announced for the A380, raised questions about credibility.
"While the likelihood of a further delay was not really a surprise, the magnitude of the delay and the EBIT shortfall is much more significant than we had anticipated and seems to relate mostly to exceptional costs," they said, cutting their 2007 earnings per share forecast by 16 percent and their target price to 26 euros.
With this second six-month delay for the world's biggest airliner, Airbus could now risk airlines dropping out of the programme, which has not yet won enough orders to cover its development costs of 12 billion euros.
EADS said this year's earnings would not be affected, but the delay would hit earnings before interest and tax to the tune of 500 million euros a year between 2007 and 2010.
EADS, a Franco-German-Spanish company, hinted at the possibility of cancellations, which would be a marketing disaster for Airbus given the focus on its boldest project.
"Possible contract terminations under the new timetable have not been taken into account in this estimate," EADS said in a statement issued late on Tuesday.
The setback comes as 20-percent stakeholder BAE of Britain prepares to bail out of Airbus, leaving EADS as sole owner.
By 0800 GMT, EADS shares were down 20.8 percent at 20.13 euros, their lowest level since August 2004.
BAE Systems shares were down 2.44 percent in London at 340-1/4 pence.
Deutsche Bank cut its recommendation on EADS to "hold" from "buy", and HVB lowered EADS to "outperform" from "buy" while several analysts trimmed their price targets.
((Writing by Dominique Vidalon; Editing by Margaret Orgill; Reuters Messaging: rm://[email protected]; email: [email protected]; Telephone: +33 1 49495432))

[Taildragger67]

So this is how they'll shift some A340s!!

DJ UPDATE: Qantas, SIA Seek A380 Compensation From Airbus
By Barbara Adam Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES


CANBERRA (Dow Jones)--Australias Qantas Airways Ltd. (QAN.AX) and Singapore Airlines Ltd. (S55.SI) said Wednesday they will seek compensation from Airbus (ABI.YY) over more delays to deliveries of the super-jumbo A380.

Qantas Chief Executive Geoff Dixon will also request short-term replacement aircraft from Airbus, which announced Tuesday another six to seven month delay in deliveries of its 555-seat new model that costs almost US$300 million.

Singapore Airlines said the new delays wont affect its status as "first to fly" the worlds largest passenger jet with the first super-jumbo still due to be delivered by the end of this year.

The first A380 was originally scheduled for delivery around April this year and flights were supposed to commence mid-2006 with Singapore Airlines, which has ordered 10 of the aircraft.

Qantas first A380 was to be delivered in April 2007 with the first four super-jumbos to be put into service on the airlines most profitable route between Australia and the U.S. It was to be the first airline to fly the A380 into Los Angeles International Airport.

Dixon said he hoped to minimize capacity and timetable issues caused by the A380 delay by deferring the retirement of other aircraft in Qantas 213-strong fleet.

The aircraft delays shouldnt cause a long-term disadvantage for Qantas, as long as Airbus sticks to its original delivery sequence, said Center for Asia Pacific Aviation Chief Executive Andrew Miller.

"The only issue is the extra capacity they would have had with the A380, they may be a little short of capacity for while," he said.

France-based Airbus blamed the latest delivery delays on engineering bottlenecks. Airbus is majority owned by European Aeronautic Defense & Space Co. (EAD.P). BAE Systems PLC (BA..L) has a minority interest.

The setback for Singapore Airlines comes as Australia rebuffed a renewed push for the airline to access the lucrative Australia-U.S. route.

Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, on the first day of a five-day visit to Australia, said he wanted the Australian government to reconsider its February decision to block Singapore Airlines from the route.

"We believe open skies is in both countries interests," Lee said in a joint media briefing with Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

Current air right agreements allow Australian, U.S., German, Italian and Indian airlines to fly the transpacific route, although Qantas 75% market share on the Sydney-Los Angeles route is challenged only by United Airlines (UALAQ.BB).

Richard Bransons discount Australian carrier, Virgin Blue Holdings Ltd. (VBA.AX) and Qantas cut-price carrier, Jetstar, have expressed interest in flying the U.S. route but their U.S. expansion plans are being hampered by a lack of available landing slots in the U.S.

Australian Transport Minister Warren Truss, who met with Lee early Wednesday, said the government wouldnt allow Singapore Airlines access to the transpacific route anytime soon.

Truss said open skies agreements remained an "aspirational goal" but the Australian government wasnt going to trade away its main bargaining chip, the Australia-U.S. route, without getting something substantial in return.

"Essentially, Australia has not closed off for all times the prospect of Singapore Airlines being able to operate on that route but it is not likely to happen in the near future," he said.

Australia is seeking increased access to airports in Europe and Japan and more through-rights from Hong Kong and China.

Several carriers, including Air Canada (ACNA.YY), Emirates (EA.YY) and Qatar Airways are seeking increased capacity to Australia.

Vietnam Airlines (VAI.YY) walked away from negotiations with Australian officials for more flights to Australia after disagreeing on a timetable to double its capacity, according to a spokeswoman for Truss.

An Australian academic, meanwhile, proposed Australia, New Zealand and ASEAN nations should consider pooling ownership of the regions airlines, or at least negotiate their own aviation networks.

"If those things roll together, when we go talk to the European Union, arent we a different animal now?" said Professor Christopher Findlay, head of the University of Adelaides school of economics.

-By Barbara Adam, Dow Jones Newswires; 61-2-6208-0901; [email protected]
-Edited by Graham Morgan


(END) Dow Jones Newswires

14-06-06 0945GMT

Copyright (c) 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

[SaturnV]

Not sure that the delivery delays were a significant factor, but:
(AP) Singapore Airlines said Wednesday it will buy 20 Boeing 787-9 aircraft for $4.52 billion, hours after it expressed unhappiness about delays in Airbus' delivery of its A380 superjumbo.
In a statement, the carrier said it has purchase rights for another 20 aircraft from Chicago-based Boeing.
......

"The decision to purchase the 787-9 is the culmination of an extensive evaluation of the performance characteristics and operating economics promised for the different versions of Boeing's new 787 aircraft," the statement said.
.....

It also added that deliveries will be scheduled between early 2011 and mid-2013, and will be for "fleet renewal as well as to cater for growth."

Singapore Airlines plans to deploy the 787-9 aircraft on routes to North Asia, the Indian subcontinent and the Middle East.

[Whale Rider]

Hehehe....................................!:}

[akerosid]

SQ's order was expected for quite a while; indeed, it had been expected that it would include orders for 777-200LRs and possibly 747-8Fs, which would have been a triple blow to SQ - the 772LRs (which will probably be ordered soon anyway) would replace the A340-500s and the 747-8Fs, if ordered, would be instead of the A380-800F.

However, EK is expected to place a significant order for 787-10s, the new version of the twinjet. The airline had long been seen as a potential A350 customer.

This is turning into a terrible year for Airbus.

[Mac the Knife]

"Some people say that Concorde will never fly. They said the same thing about the Titanic"

[Check 6]

BOEING :ok:

SCAREBUS :yuk:

Did the Titantic fly? :confused:

[SaturnV]

Dark Wednesday at the Euronext.
(AFP) Paris. EADS plunged into a stock market vortex, losing about 5.5 billion euros or more than one-quarter of its value on further production delays to the super-jumbo A380 airliner developed by its main arm Airbus.

The stock in the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company ended the day at 18.73 euros, down 26.32 percent from the close on Tuesday, causing co-chief executive Noel Forgeard to apologise profusely to shareholders.

At one point, EADS shares had shed 34.10 percent to 16.75 euros, marking a decline of 52.7 percent from a peak this year of 35.42 euros on March 27.

The storm continued late on Wednesday when Credit rating agencies downgraded EADS.

[Stubenfliege 2]

Now things are going to be real nasty for Airbus. And expensive.

[punkalouver]

"Some people say that Concorde will never fly. They said the same thing about the Titanic"


So....is the A380 program going to sink? What's the big deal. The French can now say they have the biggest airliner in the world. Does anything else , you know, like profits matter?

[747FOCAL]

I think that EADSF stock is looking rather tasty......:}

[ORAC]

Hmmm. What does this do to the price that EADS has to pay BAe for their shares? They´re in arbitration. This could save EADS a packet.

And if the the delays later turn out to be not so bad and the shares rebound......... :suspect:

[eal401]

You got it ORAC.

BAE are certainly suspicious of EADS motives in this "announcement."

[SLFguy]

You got it ORAC.
BAE are certainly suspicious of EADS motives in this "announcement."


Hehe.....do you really think that BAE have not got 'positions' in the market to cover themselves?
:rolleyes:

[angels]

I've just typed a fairly long account of how BAE would have shorted EADS in the options market the moment they decided to get rid of their stake. This would have been a cheap way to cover for eventualities such as the massive fall yesterday.

I've just lost how exactly it would have been done :{

Suffice to saySLFguy is spot on.

If BAE didn't take any hedging action, then I hereby apply to become their Finance Director.

[taffman]

The question has to be asked as well, why did all the big cheeses and their families sell thier shares etc a few months back. A lot of money changed hands when that happened.

[taffman]

No, questions are being asked about the non UK big cheeses as to why they sold their shares etc not very long ago. On the French radio etc this morning.

[BenThere]

I've been skeptical of the A380 all along. It appears that Boeing, too, has been making some promises regarding the B787 it might not be able to keep on time.

It's very adept of companies who obtained penalties for late/non-delivery. Not so adept of airport authorities to invest infrastructure funds before the airplane has a certificate.

Airbus has advanced the art in many ways, and I hope it will recover, having learned a costly, but valueable lesson.

[Airbubba]

From Deutsche Presse-Agentur:

... perhaps Airbus is only discovering that airplanes were never meant to be too big.

Two infamous A380 predecessors, the Bristol Type 167 Brabazon and Howard Hughes's H-4 Hercules, or 'Spruce Goose,' were also trumpeted at the time of their creation as air travel's future, but they live on in history as embarrassing flops.

You can read about them by punching in the phrase 'white elephant' on the Google website.
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/business/article_1172933.php/Airbus_A380_Is_the_golden_goose_only_a_white_elephant


And, from today's Wall Street Journal:

PAGE ONE

Rapid Descent

Bet on Huge Plane Trips Up Airbus

After Surpassing Boeing,
European Competitor
Could Fall Back for Years

Midsize Jetliner Also Stumbles

By J. LYNN LUNSFORD and DANIEL MICHAELS
June 15, 2006; Page A1

Airbus's high-stakes bet on a giant plane is running into serious trouble, creating a major crunch for one of Europe's industrial titans as it battles Boeing Co. for dominance of the passenger-jet market.

Airbus announced Tuesday that deliveries of its double-decker A380, designed to be the world's largest passenger jet, would face a further six months of delays because of the unexpected complexity of wiring the aircraft. Shares in European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co., which owns 80% of Airbus, fell 26% yesterday as investors panicked about the A380 and other bad news. EADS said the delay would shave $2.5 billion in operating profit between 2007 and 2010.

Before yesterday, the A380 had already been at least six months behind. EADS's stock is now down by a third for the year...

...The sudden predicament at Airbus offers a study in bad luck, lost focus and corporate hubris. In many ways it echoes the problems Boeing faced a decade ago, when hungry upstart Airbus began seriously eating into Boeing's market share with new models that managed to be just a step ahead of Boeing's more established product line...

[Joetom]

Airbus will be having a few hard years now.
.
List is.
.
1/ Sort out the 340-500/600.
2/ Drop the 350 and make a plane that is like the 787.
3/ Sort out the 380.
.
Sell lots more of the above, the longer the 350 remains unchanged, the more customers will start buying the 787 and make catch up ever harder.???

[On_The_Top_Bunk]

Don't forget the possible delays for A400 that will no doubt be announced.

[BEagle]

Unlike the lies and spin which are still delaying the ground-gripping KC-767?

I hear that Boeing's much vaunted plastic plane is having a deal of difficulty with the composite fuselage structure. Much as Airbus predicted it would....

But I agree that the A350 seems a daft idea. Not that much different to the A330 - which is already available whereas the 787 is years away from flight, despite early orders. No doubt the Boeing's shareholders will also be somewhat concerned if the flashy 'Dreamline' sales pitch of their snake-oil salesmen ultimately turns to $hite....

[Joetom]

I would expect the 787 as a product to even beat the 777 story.
.
I think Airbus need to go back and understand how/why the 320 went so well(apart from the early pilot interface problems) and do new types in the same way.

[Whale Rider]

Unlike the lies and spin which are still delaying the ground-gripping KC-767?

I hear that Boeing's much vaunted plastic plane is having a deal of difficulty with the composite fuselage structure. Much as Airbus predicted it would....

But I agree that the A350 seems a daft idea. Not that much different to the A330 - which is already available whereas the 787 is years away from flight, despite early orders. No doubt the Boeing's shareholders will also be somewhat concerned if the flashy 'Dreamline' sales pitch of their snake-oil salesmen ultimately turns to $hite....

Yes, I can tell by the number of 787 orders that airlines are going to run out and grab A330's, just to have a plane thats available now. The 787 is not years away from flight...its going to fly next year.:rolleyes:

[Sunfish]

Airbus changes its "parentage" to suit its markets. In Africa its British roots are emphasised, in America its German - built like a mercedes, in the middle east its French.

I wonder if the company and the airlines that buy the A380 could survive a worldwide recession coupled with a major flu pandemic? Frankly I think the aircraft will probably be a technical success, but the financial risk looks a little high. What if airline traffic growth stops growing?

[Colonel Klink]

According to Flight, the 787 problems were not with the composite but the development of the manufacturing process. I seriously doubt, considering the calibre of the customers to date, that if the composites themselves were to be a problem the airlines involved would have had serious reservations about buying into this technology. But, Qantas, SQ, Continental and others have big orders pending.
Boeing have sold nearly 500 of them with at least a year before it flies, and if Emirates and now Qatar buy them in big numbers, it will be a huge blow for Airbus.
Anyone remember the last time they sold an A380, must be going on for two years or more!!!!

[Whale Rider]

I don't know why analysts think composites are something new to Boeing. Boeing has been building composites in military aircraft for years! If anyone is proficient in aircraft composites its Boeing.:ok:

[Ignition Override]

MD:
Those Boeing military aircraft (F-15 Eagle, F-18 Hornet) were created, designed and built by McDonald Douglas, on the northwest corner of St. Louis Airport (STL). Some of our gentlemen riding in first class were a bit annoyed when I made a PA just before takeoff about the superb MD fighter jets. My comments were quite accurate, and had I known before they left, that they had been onboard, no corrections would have been made (the follies of corporate ego$, especially after a merger suddenly re-writes history). Boeing never designed these (original) fighter jets.

Outsourcing airline overhauls:
Knowing how much outsourcing is now the mantra with US airline executives and being aware of the complexity of all new large transport aircraft, especially the A-380, what sort of maintenance will be performed by hurried technicians whose companies receive the contracts in order to reduce overhaul inspection costs?

Maybe the complex wiring will be no factor when the A-380 is delivered to airlines. Lower cost is the only mantra with the "bean-counters" who have burning incentives (oops, bad pun..) to inflate the stock prices in the short term:8 .

[Wino]

The 380 was a white elephant from the day it was conceived. While everyone ooohs and aahhhs the size of the 747, the true revolution of the 747 was the RANGE, the size was an unfortuate byproduct of the range. Two thirds to three quarters of all 747s sold were purchased for range, not payload. for 30 years the 747s ruled the skys as the world's longest ranged airliners. If you take out aircraft that were bought for range, the program is a tremendous flop.

Infact the airplane that killed the 747 on the Atlantic was the b767/a300/a310/a330 and now even the 757s. While 3 or 4 A380s might find work between LHR and JFK, the reality is that no one wants to go there if they are going somewhere else. So if you want to go to dublin, just jump in a 757 and go direct from Newark or Boston. When the 777 came along, it killed the 747 on the Pacific as well. None of this is a sign of airlines clamoring for larger aircraft.

In reality, the manufacturer that makes the smallest aircraft that can fly half the circumfrence of the earth and make money will win. the 787 is going to wind up attacking the 777 not from the larger side, but the smaller side over equally long distances connecting more city pairs. Every city pair connected reduces the market for a 380 and any other aircraft larger than a 787. Yes there will be a FEW city pairs that can support a 380 on their own, but not enough to make it profitable.

Its no different than the atlantic, just the a little more water.

Cheers
Wino

[Taildragger67]

The 380 was a white elephant from the day it was conceived. While everyone ooohs and aahhhs the size of the 747, the true revolution of the 747 was the RANGE, the size was an unfortuate byproduct of the range. Two thirds to three quarters of all 747s sold were purchased for range, not payload. for 30 years the 747s ruled the skys as the world's longest ranged airliners. If you take out aircraft that were bought for range, the program is a tremendous flop.
Infact the airplane that killed the 747 on the Atlantic was the b767/a300/a310/a330 and now even the 757s. While 3 or 4 A380s might find work between LHR and JFK, the reality is that no one wants to go there if they are going somewhere else. So if you want to go to dublin, just jump in a 757 and go direct from Newark or Boston. When the 777 came along, it killed the 747 on the Pacific as well. None of this is a sign of airlines clamoring for larger aircraft.
In reality, the manufacturer that makes the smallest aircraft that can fly half the circumfrence of the earth and make money will win. the 787 is going to wind up attacking the 777 not from the larger side, but the smaller side over equally long distances connecting more city pairs. Every city pair connected reduces the market for a 380 and any other aircraft larger than a 787. Yes there will be a FEW city pairs that can support a 380 on their own, but not enough to make it profitable.
Its no different than the atlantic, just the a little more water.
Cheers
Wino

Mate I generally agree, but I think there's a limit to the non-stop caper; Qantas' recent rejection of the strong possibility of being able to do YSSY-EGLL non-stop throws some doubt on part of your analysis. And A345s & the LR 777s aren't exactly running out the door.

[Torquelink]

BBC also reporting this morning that EADS Grand Fromages including Foregeard sold significant quantity of shares in April before - of course - they (i.e. the people running the programme) knew about delays announced yesterday which sent share price down 25%.

:rolleyes:

Growth of O and D traffic between major slot constrained hubs will ensure more sales for the A380, just as growth in demand for point to point will generate sales for long thin aircraft (size and range - not shape). It's not going to be one or the other (provided Airbus solve the A380 wake issue). The B787 is already a runaway success but the A380 will do ok - min 350 sales by 12/2010?

:ok:

[CDG1]

Grand Fromage Noel Forgeard denied knowing that further delays would be announced concerning A-380 deliveries before selling his stocks.:=
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060616/ap_on_bi_ge/france_airbus;_ylt=AlQJfvGRPX5.Vj1X6VOZHAyyBhIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA 2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
EADS co-CEO defends his sale of stock
By ANGELA CHARLTON, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
PARIS - The embattled French co-CEO of Airbus parent EADS on Friday defended his sale of shares in the company before delays in the superjumbo A380 sent stock tumbling, calling it an "unfortunate coincidence."
:suspect: :suspect: :suspect:
BBC also reporting this morning that EADS Grand Fromages including Foregeard sold significant quantity of shares in April before - of course - they (i.e. the people running the programme) knew about delays announced yesterday which sent share price down 25%.
:rolleyes:

[Globaliser]

Infact the airplane that killed the 747 on the Atlantic was the b767/a300/a310/a330 and now even the 757s. While 3 or 4 A380s might find work between LHR and JFK, the reality is that no one wants to go there if they are going somewhere else. So if you want to go to dublin, just jump in a 757 and go direct from Newark or Boston. When the 777 came along, it killed the 747 on the Pacific as well. None of this is a sign of airlines clamoring for larger aircraft.I'm sure you have a point about many trans-Atlantic routes, but what's the ratio of 747s to others on trans-Pacific routes? There must still be a lot of 747s over there.

But, anyway, trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific are not the only long-haul routes in the world. From LHR, I'm still on 747s more than all other aircraft types put together. And they're usually full, on routes that are more than single daily for the airline.

The real question is whether the market is going to keep growing fast enough to fill the A380s as they are delivered or soon enough afterwards. But these routes aren't going to change their spots any time soon. So the aircraft may succeed or it may not; but the mere fact that there are doubts about the speed of market growth doesn't make the aircraft a white elephant.

[MarkD]

Globaliser

wasn't that what ETOPS 207 was for (filling in an inconvenient North Pac gap)?

[Globaliser]

Globaliser
wasn't that what ETOPS 207 was for (filling in an inconvenient North Pac gap)?Probably - but what is the actual ratio of 747s to others? I'm not sufficiently on top of trans-Pacifics to know what's actually going on.

And we shouldn't forget, either, that the 777 is not that much smaller than a 747. Some airlines regard their 777s as 747 replacements. So operating a 777 instead of a 747 may be more a question of getting newer more efficient (= cheaper) aircraft onto a route than of downsizing the aircraft because of market fragmentation.

[Wino]

Globalizer,

While you are right about the percentage of 747 at LHR, what you and I don't know the answer to is the percentage of traffic there that is O and D (originating and departing) vs what is connecting. Everything that is connecting is at risk to an aircraft that can fly non stop between the two end points for the traveler. I bet ORAC can find the O and D question for us.

The 777 LR has been slowly picking up. Boeing was afraid to launch it initially because they knew it would kill the 747-400. So they didn't push it at all. The A340-500 is dead because it can't do the job. Its simply too heavy. Again, that goes back to the point that I was making about the LIGHTEST SMALLEST aircraft that connect two points half way around the world PROFITABLY. The 340 in general is a bummer. Its seat mile costs were never as low as the 747-400. However its long range and reduced seats made it a worthy replacement for te 747 on routes that the 747 was too large for (most of them) The problem is filling the 747-400. The 747-400 still has the lowest seatmile costs of any aircraft in the world. (Though I think the 777-300 has about equalled it) the problem is tha the shear size of it makes the aircraft compete with itself for pax, thereby killing the yield.

There are SOME routes that can be flown profitably, many fewer that can be flown profitably all year long. The problem becomes you have a great month or two during the peak travel season lose the rest of the year.


Cheers
Wino

PS. The 777 is a lot smaller than you think. Typical 3 class seating on the 747 is 416 pax. 777-200 is 300pax. The 300 around 350 in 3 class seating. (these facts are from the boeing web site). Again the reason that airlines are using it as a replacement is that it is SMALLER yet can connect the two points.

[ARINC]

The A380 will be sorted, the problems are all production related, and I can state without fear of contradidction it's the electrical side thats causing the biggest headaches. We're short of engineers and planners, and a big recuritment drive is planned, get your CV's in gents.

Oh and even if you wanted a 787 you couldn't have it until 2011...plenty of time to sort out the A350. The Final assembly facility at Hamburg is coming along nicely too.

[Whale Rider]

The A380 will be sorted, the problems are all production related, and I can state without fear of contradidction it's the electrical side thats causing the biggest headaches. We're short of engineers and planners, and a big recuritment drive is planned, get your CV's in gents.

Oh and even if you wanted a 787 you couldn't have it until 2011...plenty of time to sort out the A350. The Final assembly facility at Hamburg is coming along nicely too.

You mean plenty of time for Boeing to take the whole market. If Airbus thinks they have nothing but time to catch up with Boeing, they may wait themselves right out of the buisiness. :D

[Joetom]

Airbus keeps talking/not talking about the 350.
.
Boeing looking at ramping up production of 787, think the numbers mentioned were upto 14/16 aircraft per month or poss more, am sure Boeing are planning production numbers to make the 350 have a hard time.
.
Airbus should focus on the 380, 320 and 320NG, make some more 330/340 and 350 if they can sell em cheap enough.

[Knold]

I'm willing to wager that the long debated 50/50 market split will be at least 60/40 in favour of Boeing before long.

"What happends when the public thinks a bank is going bankrupt...?"

Airbus would do good in folding the 340 line double plus quick. Who in a right state of mind would order a 340 today? :ugh:

[vapilot2004]

Despite delays and weight issues, I am entirely impressed with the A380. Once airlines get hold of them and start building some CASM numbers and the like and depending on how those figures add up, more carriers may order additional copies of these super jumbos.

That said..................:

I find it incredibly hard to believe the following is true:

1. Cabin Electrical wiring could delay aircraft production for nearly 1 year.
2. The parent, EADS (and M. Noel), was completely out of the loop on these difficulties.
3. Customers are to blame for the wiring issues and production delays.

Had this been a North American endeavor using taxpayer dollars, the media would be in full feeding frenzy mode regarding the above and would not let go until the truth - all of it - was told.

Hats off to Airbus for their thus far masterful handling of the world press. :ok:

Can they keep this up ?

[reverserunlocked]

The 747 also had a difficult birth remember, those big new engines being a real headache in reliability terms. I'm sure once the teething troubles are out of the way then the A380 will be just fine, although I still think it looks like an aerial version of Jonny Vegas.

That said, the 747 revolutionised air travel. The A380 just means you share fart laden air with 500+ bodies as opposed to 450. Does that really appeal???

[Slavedriver]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5092594.stm


hmmm!

[FlapsOne]

The lateness of the A380 is neither here nor there. All new aircraft are late in one way or another.

Insider dealing is another matter altogether. When tarnished with that particular brush company execs often have diffiiclty recovering credibility.

[Globaliser]

While you are right about the percentage of 747 at LHR, what you and I don't know the answer to is the percentage of traffic there that is O and D (originating and departing) vs what is connecting. Everything that is connecting is at risk to an aircraft that can fly non stop between the two end points for the traveler. I bet ORAC can find the O and D question for us.
...
PS. The 777 is a lot smaller than you think. Typical 3 class seating on the 747 is 416 pax. 777-200 is 300pax. The 300 around 350 in 3 class seating. (these facts are from the boeing web site). Again the reason that airlines are using it as a replacement is that it is SMALLER yet can connect the two points.Yes, I agree that we'd need hard data to lift this out of speculation. But we'd also need to know the LHR O&D proportion on those 747-rich routes, not just the overall LHR O&D number which is publcily bandied about from time to time. And in addition, we'd need to analyse the actual O&D of the connecting traffic to see whether any of the actual O&D pairs could ever be a realistic candidate for non-stop service.

As for the 777, it's obviously smaller than the 744. But as I understand it, some airlines are taking the 777 as a replacement for the earlier-model 747s that have had to be retired. I don't think the payload (headcount) difference is quite as big? But I may be mistaken.

[SaturnV]

From the Monday June 19th, TheTimes:
How the superjet designed to unite Europe is now tearing it apart
From Adam Sage in Paris
....
But today the A380 has become a symbol of all that is wrong with Europe — incompetence, misplaced ambition, greed and bickering.
Far from uniting Europe, it is driving a wedge between France and Germany, with Berlin complaining of the French penchant for state intervention and cronyism, and Paris debnouncing Germans’ stiffling desire for concensus.
....
But as stock market watchdogs in France and Germany announced inquiries and Eads started an internal investigation, the line of defence adopted by M Forgeard has provoked a deep rift with Germany.
He is blaming German factories for the delays, German middle-management for the confusion and the German head of Airbus, Gustav Humbert, for failing to alert investors earlier.
The French are also briefing journalists that bumbling German Airbus engineers still use pen and paper because they are uncomfortable with computers.

[HectorusRex]

Germany asks Forgeard to quit as EADS co-CEO: report

FRANKFURT (AFP) - German shareholders of EADS asked Noel Forgeard to quit as co-chief executive of the European aerospace group at a meeting in Munich, but the Frenchman refused, the business daily Handelsblatt reported.

DaimlerChrysler, which holds a stake in the European Aeronautics Defence and Space Company, declined to comment on the report.

But EADS denied it.

"We firmly deny the report," said EADS spokesman Michael Hauger.

Forgeard is under fire as a result of the revelation of delays in delivery of the giant A380 aircraft, made by EADS' Airbus unit, and the controversy over large-scale selling of EADS shares by the Frenchman and other top group officials.

Sources familiar with the matter said that the co-heads of the supervisory baord, Arnaud Lagardere and Manfred Bischoff, and the two co-CEOs, Noel Forgeard and Thomas Enders, attended the meeting in Munich on Monday.

Officially, the group said that no decision was reached at the meeting.

"It was a working meeting to discuss the situation and to find ways of avoiding such delays again in the future," the EADS spokesman said.

Similar meetings would be held in the coming weeks, he added.

It was not a matter of "pointing fingers", the spokesman insisted.

[panda-k-bear]

Wino, you're damn right that pac want to fly point-to-point. The way I see it though, there are 2 flaws in your plan:

1) Slot constrained airports (LHR, CDG, FRA, HKG, SIN etc.). The only way is with a bigger aircraft.

2) Let's say I want to go from, oh Humberside to Phoenix, say. How many other people want to do the same? So how much traffic, and at what yield, would there be? If we come down to it, then the ideal machine is a 737 or an A319 with the range to operate such routes. Then how many other aiports start to become slot constrained?

It's all very well saying that people want to fly point to point. It's true. I'd love not to have to make 2 stops from HUY to Sky Harbor. But there are finite airports with finite slots and finite ATC and airway capacity.

And we haven't even touched on the green-ness of a 757 vs an A380...

[chuks]

One thing I find very interesting in all this is the way the non-technical press present things. When you read an article you can often see the reporter trying to put some technical issue (wiring in the A380, the flaws in the production method for the 787 fuselage) into a much larger context, where it might not fit at all.

When they do that, as seems now to be happening with Airbus, then it can create a real problem, something like a 'run on the bank.' All the other reporters don't want to be seen missing out on whatever is happening so that they start spinning away like a Chinese circus act, when chaos ensues.

For M. Forgeard to have cashed in some of his shares, well, what was he thinking there? 'Show me the money!' of course, but what lousy timing!

Either he now looks like an opportunist or perhaps a crook or else although he's the head of the company he had no idea at all about these serious production issues. In fact, he was just quoted saying something along those lines, that he would rather look incompetent than dishonest. You would have thought he'd know enough to either take the financial hit or else cash in his chips and leave the table, resign.

Perhaps they do things differently in France, since it is another country, but the States just got through dealing with a lot of 'grands fromages' who were caught taking advantage. There was Martha Stewart, a nobody in financial terms but a household icon, caught doing insider dealing and sent away to make license plates. Then we had Skilling and Lay of Enron fame, just convicted and awaiting sentencing. This is not the time to give even the slightest hint of opportunism, is it?

[Taildragger67]

One thing I find very interesting in all this is the way the non-technical press present things. When you read an article you can often see the reporter trying to put some technical issue (wiring in the A380, the flaws in the production method for the 787 fuselage) into a much larger context, where it might not fit at all.
When they do that, as seems now to be happening with Airbus, then it can create a real problem, something like a 'run on the bank.' All the other reporters don't want to be seen missing out on whatever is happening so that they start spinning away like a Chinese circus act, when chaos ensues.
For M. Forgeard to have cashed in some of his shares, well, what was he thinking there? 'Show me the money!' of course, but what lousy timing!
Either he now looks like an opportunist or perhaps a crook or else although he's the head of the company he had no idea at all about these serious production issues. In fact, he was just quoted saying something along those lines, that he would rather look incompetent than dishonest. You would have thought he'd know enough to either take the financial hit or else cash in his chips and leave the table, resign.

Rock vs. a hard place - the argument runs that either he knew, and is guilty; or didn't know (but should've) and is therefore incompetent.

Perhaps they do things differently in France, since it is another country, but the States just got through dealing with a lot of 'grands fromages' who were caught taking advantage. There was Martha Stewart, a nobody in financial terms but a household icon, caught doing insider dealing and sent away to make license plates. Then we had Skilling and Lay of Enron fame, just convicted and awaiting sentencing. This is not the time to give even the slightest hint of opportunism, is it?

I think the difference with Martha is that she wasn't even dealing in shares in her own company.

[DingerX]

. There was Martha Stewart, a nobody in financial terms but a household icon, caught doing insider dealing and sent away to make license plates.

Point of information: Martha Stewart's net worth was recently estimated at $500 million, down from $1 bill the year before.

Yes, limited slot-to-slot traffic on some routes translates into "fill the buses as big as they can get", but on the scale of things, how many routes like that are there in the world? Is it big enough to make money on?

There's other concerns with the A380 Skytanic. Dunno if any of you have noticed, but fuel prices have been going up. Some time in the next 15 years, we'll be hitting peak oil production, and with it, high fuel prices. Airbus' economic model for the A380 is based on the assumption that Air Transport is going to increase across the life (hence the need to get those slots in Asia). As energy prices soar, air traffic will decrease. And with energy prices go the prices of landing rights. Moreover, any sensible corporate plan for an aviation company must assess the threat of limitations on carbon emissions (greenhouse gases). These factors may limit the attractiveness of the "Hub-and-Spoke" system that is the backbone of many airlines today.
After all, what is a hub to a passenger? It is a place he didn't want to go to and can't wait to leave, but will put up with for a much cheaper ticket.

The A380 is an aircraft that's built around the "Hub-and-Spoke" model (Hub-to-Hub, to be exact). I'm not saying Hubs will go away, or lose their importance, but the folks who buy the planes need to consider things like cost and market before committing to something as big and expensive as the A380.

But the news is extremely damaging. It comes out, and there are intimations that upper levels of the corporation are squabbling while the managers are a bunch of hand-picked Yes-men who ignore the physically possible in favor of what will get them their promotion. Can things really be that bad?
Then the reaction of Forgeard and crew confirms our suspicion: they start finger-pointing at each other, alleging that fault lies in the other side's ignorance of what was actually going on in the company.

So we're left wondering: how many other surprises does Airbus have? Or should we just put on our Ville Rose-Coloured glasses and say the delays don't amount to much?

[vapilot2004]

The French Parliment erupted in near chaos today, with accusations being lobbed regarding the Airbus snafu - where the PM called Mr. Hollande's request to oust Forgeard 'Cowardice'. The French government will look at more direct control of EADS now, which won't sit very well with the German government.

Channel 4 Link (http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=2602)

In related news, ILFC chairman Stephen Udvar-Hazy announced that his company may cancel orders for 10 A380s and would also cancel the A350 orders if Airbus does not offer something more concrete by Farnborough. Responding to ILFC's comments, an Airbus spokeswoman told Reuters she had "no information" about any plans by ILFC to change its orders.

Malaysia Airlines is also planning to cancel A380 orders. (or were they just commits for 6 ?)

(EDIT: This already mentioned above by HectorusRex) - - And finally, according to German media, M. Forgeard was asked to step down from EADS by major shareholders due to the program delays and his questionable (but highly profitable) stock sale back in late March. Recently, I read (here) that the head of Daimler/Chrysler called M. Foregeard a pathological liar.

Perhaps a change at the top would be a good confidence building move by EADS ?

Anyone recall Lockheed's difficult launch of the Tri-Star ?

[cornwallis]

Going back to the late nineties,Airbus were going to offer a baby 330.It was originally going to be called a 330-100 and was to be about A300 size, but this was changed because Hazy didn't like it.He believed that any -100 model has never done as well as the rest of the family.The aircraft was eventually shelved.It would compete quite well with a dreamliner though!!:}

[faheel]

Dinger,
I think your economic reasoning is flawed.

As you say fuel prices are going up and if (and its a big if) fuel production peaks in the next 15 years then this is a plus for the A380, not a minus.

It becomes less economical to operate point to point services with smaller airplanes with higher seat/km costs then the A380.

You are right about the decrease in traffic due to higher energy costs, this shows that the large a/c with the lower seat/lm costs will win out,less frequency, full a/c means lower costs and the hub and spoke system is here to stay.

[DingerX]

true -- the bigger the plane, the bigger the theoretical fuel economy.
In general.
But given two jets the same size, the one with four engines is going to be less efficient than the twin.
And when you have a big plane, you only realize those economies when you fill it up.
Smaller aircraft give you discrete numbers to play with. If 3 787s can carry the same load as 1 A380, and the seat mile cost is similar - the choice is easy. You can always cancel two of the three flights in a day.

But we'll see. I'm perfectly willing to have my dubious economic theories disproven.
But if I could condense the blather into a basic point, it would this:

The A380's success hinges upon a series of predictions about the future of air travel coming true. There are factors out there that suggest such predictions may not come true. As evidence comes out that the future will be different from Airbus' vision, the appeal of the A380 drops off. Add in the current setbacks and even greater perceived risk about the A380, and the chances of EADS losing its corporate shirt on this one are pretty good.


By the way, the L1011 is still the best widebody ever built.

[AIMS by IBM]

There is a valid argument for Airbus to say that the expansion in the Middle East is too fast and that they are not ready for a plane like the A380.

Clear cut to the bone Safety oversight may well prove this and give the EU a clear backup argument to sort out the Airbus late deliveries to EK and their brothers.

If needed they may even pay for some compensation.

It could be a step forward if this kind of reasoning within the EU would actualy materialise.

If the Arabs manipulate their reports why should the EU not do the same?

I am sure the FAA would break their neck over proving a valid argument against it.

[Al E. Vator]

No. Forget the A380 and stick with the 747. No forget the 747, it's rubbish. The 707 was better. No it was crap, the Constellation was way better. No, really only the DC3 was any good.

The A380 will (as ILFC says) be a world beater. It will revolutionise the way we travel forever. Teething troubles are standard and there will be more. None of this will change reality.

Boeing better get their act together with a 747 replacement if they don't want to go the way of Lockheed and Douglas. The 787 is better than the current A350 but that wont be enough to save Boeing in the long term. Just my thoughts.

[Wino]

The A380 will (as ILFC says) be a world beater. It will revolutionise the way we travel forever..


REALLY?

Today ILFC was talking about canceling their order...

Don't forget Concorde had over 120 firm orders...

Cheers
Wino

[SaturnV]

REALLY?
Today ILFC was talking about canceling their order...
Don't forget Concorde had over 120 firm orders...
Cheers
Wino
From Reuters last year:
Airbus, a European aircraft maker, needs to sell about 300 of its new A380 aircraft to break even.
According to a spokesman for EADS, which owns 80% of Airbus, the aircraft maker needs to sell about 300 aircraft even if the euro-US dollar exchange rate remains at 1.30 for years, Reuters reported. The statement by the official reportedly confirmed comments made by Philippe Camus, EADS co-director.
So if it was about 300 before delivery delays and penalties, how much will these latest tribulations add to the break-even point? I think the Airbus folks once predicted that they would sell 700 A380's over a 20 year period.

[UL730]

Concomitant with known electrical problems – mainly “traceable to bottlenecks formed in the definition, manufacturing and installation of systems and resulting harnesses” - an informed source at Derby who are actively engaged in making the Trent 900 - related to me that a little matter of the A380 being currently 20% over design weight - is causing Gustav Humbert a few sleepless nights.
So far it would appear that 15 airframes are assembled and they are now cutting metal on A/F 36. Bit of spannering yet to come on these and some changes down the line for others?

[taffman]

Well with only 150 some thing A380’s on order and the A350 what ever it will be called not due until around 2012, the rate they will build and deliver the 380 will allow the nice big shed that houses it all to be recycled into the 350 whatever line. Environmentalists will be happy with this one.

If they had listened to the people working on the production line on the 340 600 farce back in 2003 when they adopted the, ‘if it takes one man ten hours to do a job, it will take ten men one hour to the same job’ approach and sorted out their stupid designed support teams, this comedy of errors would never had happened.

[Huck]

[T]he follies of corporate ego$, especially after a merger suddenly re-writes history[....]


I went to Long Beach in 2001 for MD-11 training (the first time).

Had a day off and ventured to the corporate gift store in the old MacDac plant.

EVERY reminder of McD was gone. Not a single sticker, patch or model available. Instead - all Boeing, all the time.

They even had "Boeing DC-8" patches. Oh, the humanity....

[dabrat]

Airbus have let themselves be wangled into a corner by the "merchants from the other side". They foolishly withdrew the
A350 design at the first whim and caprice of people like SIA who would never have ordered it or any new "improved" plane they developed, these guys are firmly "pro-boeing/USA" .....and now they have allowed themselves to be pushed into a corner with the A380, thereby handing Boeing an undererved "win"..the Europeans have to decide where they are..on this side of the Atlantic or drowning somewhere in between!! :{

[DryV1]

Wino,
Just to keep the record straight, Concorde never had 120 firm orders,only options. The only orders were the BA/Air France ones.

[taffman]

Is it all coming apart, a bit historical really:rolleyes:
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/06/22/Navigation/177/207356/Future+of+Franco-German+pact+at+heart+of+EADS+put+under+question+by+top+Frenc h.html

[DozyWannabe]

Interesting that those who are critical of the media and journalism when applied to flight operations are prepared to take journalists at their word in this instance...

[Thunderball 2]

The problem with Prune is that either

- no one reads the posts (true much of the time), or
- no one knows anything about commercial aviation.

Okay, slightly sweeping statements(!). But this thread is a classic example. UL730 says that he's heard that the A380 is "20% over design weight" and no one bats an eyelid. 20%? 20%? That's an absurd, outrageous number that no one who's ever worked seriously with heavy jet transport aircraft would ever give currency to.

Are there any aviation professionals out there, or is this really just one enormous Spotter's Balcony?

[broadreach]

Thunderball, I certainly batted an eyelid, as I'm sure did anyone else reading that post. But that's about all; one wades through the trash and carries on reading.

Much more significant is the Flight article (and, Dozy, putting all journos in the same category is a bit like putting all, to take something current, football players or even, heretically perhaps, pilots).

That article points up (one of) the dangerous differences between companies that have to survive on their wits (and all that goes with same, including political connections) and those where politics is at very top of the agenda. Not visible when things are going ok, paramount when they're not.

Airbus's difficulties with the 380 and Boeing's with the 787 are essentially similar, those encountered when you venture into hitherto unexplored areas. Same with software, cars, what have you, higher stakes perhaps. They will all surely be resolved. Somehow.

What's really interesting now is the way the respective companies deal with their problems, and the impact "friendly fire" will have on the collective effort to solve them. My guess is that Airbus will suffer more from friendly fire than from anything else.

[vapilot2004]

What's really interesting now is the way the respective companies deal with their problems, and the impact "friendly fire" will have on the collective effort to solve them. My guess is that Airbus will suffer more from friendly fire than from anything else.

Let us hope this will not be the end result. A weakened Airbus is not good for the airlines, Boeing or EADS.

The French government should implement some rational ideas - ideas that include change where it is truly needed - not some symbolic sacrifice in an overt attempt to burnish the corporate image. They should avoid emotional overreaction and cronyism. (good luck here)

I do agree with the Germans that a certain someone should take a hike - without taking the company (along) for a (an expensive) ride.

Infighting never looks good and will scare away the clientele. I am reminded of my mother and father - never arguing about serious matters in public - always showing solidarity where it counts - this is how a good company should also behave.

I went to Long Beach in 2001 for MD-11 training (the first time).

Had a day off and ventured to the corporate gift store in the old MacDac plant.

EVERY reminder of McD was gone. Not a single sticker, patch or model available. Instead - all Boeing, all the time.

They even had "Boeing DC-8" patches. Oh, the humanity....

I have been to Long Beach and you know, Huck, that has always made me ill when I think about it. So serious is the idiocy involved that this should be discussed in it's own thread here. When a younger person points out a Boeing 717 - I will always see it as the MD-95. And lord help them if they point out a 'Boeing' DC-10 to me.

[Joetom]

Thunderball2.
.
You mention that UL370 says 380 may be 20% to heavy, UL370 may well be correct, the information I hear is Airbus would like at least 20% weight reduction or make it 20% bigger with same weight.
.
You must admit, she looks very heavy in all the pictures posted.
.
I think the 380 is just a little ahead of its time, the Concorde was way ahead of its time, the 380 will be interesting over the next few years.
.
Looks like the 787 will get his timing just about right.

[BahrainLad]

she looks very heavy in all the pictures posted.

She looks very heavy???? :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[typhoonpilot]

I went to Long Beach in 2001 for MD-11 training (the first time).
Had a day off and ventured to the corporate gift store in the old MacDac plant.
EVERY reminder of McD was gone. Not a single sticker, patch or model available. Instead - all Boeing, all the time.
They even had "Boeing DC-8" patches. Oh, the humanity....


In the mid to late 90s I used to do recurrent on the -80 in Long Beach. Every trip I'd go over to the airline delivery office and ask for a few stickers. They would give me a couple each trip. After Boeing bought McD I went in and asked for some stickers expecting to get a few more. They were in the process of shutting that office down. The lady pointed to a back room and said, "the cabinet is back there, help yourself". I now have a nice collection of McDonnell Douglas stickers :ok:


TP

[singleseater]

Airbus's difficulties with the 380 and Boeing's with the 787 are essentially similar, those encountered when you venture into hitherto unexplored areas.

On the contrary, the problems faced by the two are decades apart.
The 380 introduces very little new tech. it just increases the size of the existing. AB problems come from a dual management structure between two partners who barley talk on a day to day basis. The solution lies not with the engineers or the aircraft but in the board room. The prob will be fixed by throwing money at the buyers. How can management let the worlds premium airliner go down the tubes, or at best get stuck for a while, because some electrical connections are not right, or not available.
B problems come from the fact that they are producing an aircraft that is at the cutting edge. The composite fuse has never been tried before. The problems rest with the engineers and development people. The problem will be fixed by throwing money at the problem. They at least have the support of a unified management and a company all trying to go in the same direction.
If AB do not sort the underlying prob. then the future looks bleak.

[Colonel Klink]

According to the BBC, Airbus have just announced a price rise of the A380. This smacks of desperation and further incompetence. After all, they can't build them, they can't sell them, airlines are struggling with high fuel prices - still, and they have not sold one in how long? It already costs $285 million and launch customers ILFC are even considering cancelling their orders!!! When was the last order announced, going on for two years and still 100 aircraft short of a break even point?

From the Beeb: According to the Financial Times Deutschland, the list price of the A380 - which will become world's largest airliner - rose by 4.7% to between 235.4m euros ($295.6m; £161.9m) and 251.6m euros ($316m; £173.1m) earlier this month.

Airbus have had a bad week and I'll bet Foregard is made to resign; after all, how could he not know their were going to be significant delays because it must have become apparent in the building of the first few machines? This was well before he sold his shares which makes him guilty of insider trading.
I know there are many detractors on this site, but are we looking at the biggest white elephant in aviation history??

[Globaliser]

She looks very heavy???? :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:As broadreach suggests, just filter out the anoraks. :)

[Globaliser]

So the list price rises by something in the broad region of the rate of inflation. So what?

Who pays the list price, anyway?

[taffman]

It’s a multi coloured elephant really, have you seen the colour schemes.:rolleyes:

[taffman]

The filter does not appear to be in the drop down list for thread tools:hmm:

[Heffer]

So is there any solid evidence in the rumours of VS, EK and now ILFC cancelling and what has suddenly happened to make them walk away??

[Rainboe]

It's just the standard problems and delays there are on any large aircraft program, but magnified according to the scale of the problem. All the same shrill voices were heard when the 747 nearly brought Boeing down, and helped Seattle into recession. But it recovered and became a money spinner. The 380 is the plane for the future- the 747 design has been stretched out as far as it will go, eventually customer acceptance of a 40 year old design will peter out. If Airbus comes through the forthcoming financial crisis, it will have a winner on its hands. Just think back to the days of the pre-war biplane passenger aircraft to the 747 entry into service. We've covered that same period since 747 entry into service! Has the human race stopped progressing?

But Foergard was, I think, a bit naughty. His deputy did not try the same thing out of respect for his company and integrity. His head will roll, as it should.

[MEON VALLEY FLYER]

Airbus will never fold. The cheese eating surrender monkies will nationalise it before that ever happens.

[Grunf]

Hello all.

For those of you mentioning 20% weight increase, just think how much "weight penalty" will this generate with the future operators.

20% is excessive, from my experience. This would be a huge mishap allowed only to programs that have full government support (like JSF, for example).
Even in that case someone has to be responsible and heads would already roll, I am quite sure about that.

Just a reminder for all of you: MD11 sunken McD because of an error in performance (lower range then expected).

What do you think would happen with A380 that has 20% of increased weight (vs. design weight)?

My guess is that they did not go more then single digits above max design weight. Since for A380 they did their structure with mostly "zero margin" (proved by the wing test mishap) I do not see such increase of weight possible.

Otherwise they would have to account for up to 20% of margin while designing which is excessive (and expensive, as well!).

So it is really hard to believe that 20% increase in weight is one of A380 problems.

For those of you complaining about how Long Beach facility doesn't show any McD memorabilia how about a feeling from people who used to fly Douglas airplanes when mc came in and bought them? I am sure that it was more or less the same.

Mc attributed nothing to the commercial side of the factory, they have just helped to bring down the whole thing. Too bad.

Cheers,

[broadreach]

Vapilot,

You said "Let us hope this will not be the end result. A weakened Airbus is not good for the airlines, Boeing or EADS".

Fully agree. Or for the downstream partners, employees, public at large etc et al.

Point is, politics consisting of the achievement of consensus, it's not really the best way of appointing managers. There's probably a law (a la Murphy or Sod) whereby the more politics you have at the top of the system, the less effective management's going to be. For some reason I'm led to believe that EADS has a fair amount of political input at the top. And as most of us know, when the sh!t hits the fan in a politically topheavy company, things slow down.

That is not to belittle the technical excellence of the engineers and managers who actually make it all work at Airbus. It's just that, usually, a less politically dominated company will probably be more expeditious in facing and solving the problems, techy or commercial, without having to worry about parliamentary or congressional hearings.

So, as to "what the French Government has to do", good luck! I just wish it was the actual shareholders deciding.

I agree with Rainboe as well re standard problems on new aircraft. Not so much with Singleseater; throwing money at a problem is a solution, yes, and that may eventually (probably will) be the solution found by EADS. But it's an emotional response and one could expect to see a lot more money thrown than is really necessary.

[singleseater]

Broadreach,
You have me wrong, I do believe AB will throw money around. However it will be at the airlines in the form of payments for late deliveries and below quote performance. I do not however believe it will be a long term solution. AB problems will only be fixed by a serious restructure in the board room.

[Globaliser]

The filter does not appear to be in the drop down list for thread tools:hmm:Oh dear, the entire thread now seems to be in Spotters Corner. Time to bow out of this one, then! ;)

[Thunderball 2]

This thread should be closed and sent to the Pprune Hall of Fame. It's a classic of its kind, a double helix of two intertwined threads, one a fairly serious discussion about power politics in the EADS and Airbus Boardrooms, the other a farcical dialogue between a number of parties who appear to be seriously debating the possibility that the A380 is about 20% above its OEW target.

In this business you live or die in the last 3-4%, whatever the measure - load factor, burn, range, OEW, you name it.

The only exception in aviation in my experience are the members of the Spotting Community, and yes, on average, they are indeed about 20% overweight.

[MarkD]

thunderball2 - :D

[broadreach]

Singleseater, my apologies. I think we're in concert re the basics.

Thunderball, yes, not too surprising the thread's been moved!

[dfish]

Turbulent times troubling Airbus
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5105312.stm
'Very concerned'
Firstly, Airbus announced last week that production problems meant customers would have to wait longer than expected for their new aircraft.
This was because the company had been trying too hard to meet wide-ranging demands from its customers, according to analyst Kieran Daly of Air Transport Intelligence.
"Airbus and indeed Boeing have been very concerned about this issue for a long time now," Mr Daly says.
"They've been warning the airlines, but the airlines tend to take the view that if they're going to buy the aircraft then it needs to be exactly what they think they can achieve for their passengers.
"In the end Airbus wants to please the airlines as best it can and maybe they were too indulgent early on. Now they're really wrestling with it."
Dave F.

[HI'er]

Is this another nail in the Airbus A380 coffin?
With airlines acutely aware of every dollar they spend, this is probably one more factor that is going to make the A380 undesirable.

[Lucifer]

Why exactly?
It is just increased cover due to the number of passengers carried

[CanAV8R]

More trouble for Airbus.........
http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/27/news/international/Airbus.reut/index.htm
Forget the fact the QR are announcing an order for 20 777's. If the boss there loses his cool with Airbus it could all be over............

[pzu]

More trouble for Airbus.........
http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/27/news/international/Airbus.reut/index.htm
Forget the fact the QR are announcing an order for 20 777's. If the boss there loses his cool with Airbus it could all be over............
According to most 'rumours' on this network, He lost his cool :ugh: years ago
PZU - Out of Africa

[HI'er]

It is just increased cover due to the number of passengers carried
And exactly whom do you think will end up paying for that increased cover?
The airlines themselves?
Or their "customers"? :confused:

[slender]

WHO do you think will end up.... etc
Not whom.:)

[Lou Scannon]

I can only assume that many of these posts knocking the A380 and other new aircraft are from people who have only been around aviation for five minutes.

You should hear what the said about the 707 what with engines falling off when you applied full power and the need to stop in Gander for fuel when westbound etc etc. And as for some of the other aircraft now succesfully in service....!

Given time, any problem can be sorted.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Airlines want to reduce seat mile costs, and airports have limited slots available. Best way to address both of those is with big aeroplanes.

That's why the A380 (especially when stretched - looks very short and stumpy in its present guise) has a great future. NIH from the US won't matter. This century belongs to the far east - 20th century was the US's, 19th was the UK's.

SSD

[ATC Watcher]

This century belongs to the far east - 20th century was the US's, 19th was the UK's.
SSD

Could not agree more with you, but do not forget the middle East joker in that game if the Emirates and Etihad concept of worldwide travel via the gulf goes on as planned.

I personally foresee a long and fruitful career for the A380 and its many derivatives, once the oil price goes over 100 US a barril.

[tilewood]

once the oil price goes over 100 US a barril.

No you're wrong. It's once it goes over 100 US a beryl :p !!

[CanAV8R]

Airbus as a whole is in serious trouble. A380/A350 problems are bigger than they are letting on. Investors including one of their biggest (BAE) and their CEO are dumping stock. Airlines are getting cold feet and any more delays could mean curtains for the whole project.
Many talk about the 380 but the failure of the 350 as of yet is the real problem. Boeings 'Sonic Cruiser' was the best head fake in aviation history. The 787 has been on the drawing boards for a while and was announced after Airbus commited to its mega project. Airbus has spread itself thin and they know it.
As a North American working in Europe I have heard my fair share of negative Boeing propoganda. The editor of Flight recently called Airbus the 'Worlds leading commercial aircraft manufacturer'. Says who? Last time I checked Boeing had sold more 737's than Airbus has aircraft.
We have a down turn in the industry ahead and Boeing have a clear lead in the race ahead. Boeing stock is way up and EADS is sliding. Where would you put your money? :oh:

[taffman]

Pride before a fall as they say and it applies to both sides.

[787FOCAL]

Mapping failure in our industry is easy (http://www.richardaboulafia.com/shownote.asp?id=221)

:uhoh:

[JamesT73J]

Richard Aboulafia might be a bit more credible if he stopped stating speculation as fact. The A380 wiring issue is credible (yet Aboulafia and other analysts on the Boeing ticket insist it is a smoking gun), and the A380 is selling.

And what's that about Boeing's risk being minimised by higher outsourcing compared to Airbus? What a crock of :mad: . If there are serious enough problems with any production issues on what Boeing have admitted is a very tough schedule for the 787, their stock will drop, just like EADS did. It doesn't matter if the bits are made in Shanghai or Seattle.

[787FOCAL]

JamesT73J - Who is the A380 selling to? I don't think they have had any new significant sales in two years. :\

If the 787 were to fail the majority of the design costs would be absorbed by outside 3rd parties. Boeing would only be out a few billion.

The only way Boeing stock is going down is if the 737NG and 777 get permanent Airworthiness Directive groundings. I seriously doubt that is going to happen.

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[hollywood285]

A380 cant even fit on most UK taxiways, Its going to be a market failure.