A380, one more cancellation!

[billy34-kit]

The leasing society ILFC cancelled their order for the 380....how many more to come?

This white elephant will hurt badly SAS Airbus!

[mrmrsmith]

I beg to differ, this beast is he to stay, better fuel ecomomy makes a big difference in the world of today. are you a Boeing lover or something

[daikilo]

Are yoo sure of this statement? Who previously cancelled?

[barrymung]

It'll probably hurt Airbus in the short term. As the recession bites airlines will cancel or delay new aircraft.

However, long term Airbus will undoubtably win. As the recession lifts more and more people will want to fly and airlines will want to fly them by the cheapest method possible. As fleets get older then airlines will have to replace them with something or other.

In many situations this'll be the A380.

10 years from now we'll all be hailing the A380 as one of the major financial successes of the airline industry!

[billy34-kit]

Nope!! make no difference for me, flew 737, 757,767, than now 330,...at the end no matter which one your flying, at the end of the day you end up at the same hotel, dead, jet lag, away of home...worrying about the economy!

[billy34-kit]

Read that this morning,




ILFC may drop A380
10-Jun-2009

June 8: Agence France-Presse reports that the US aircraft leasing company International Lease Finance Corporation (ILFC) cancel its order for ten Airbus A380s due to a downturn in interest from lessees in the current economic climate.

ILFC had already deferred delivery from the original 2007 date back to 2013, but cancellation would be a major blow to Airbus – ILFC's order is estimated to be worth nearly €3 billion.

[mrmrsmith]

I agree Barrymung, general question, did Beoing have 200+ orders for the 747 just out the box all those years ago, yes all those years ago and now there try and update it, I don't think that will work via the A380 Mr Boeing.

[billy34-kit]

Found this to,

Thai Airways Could Cancel Airbus A380 Jet Order

Manufacturing.Net - June 09, 2009






BANGKOK (AP) -- Thai Airways International Ltd. is reviewing its order for six Airbus A380s as the slump in global travel undermines the profitability of flying the superjumbo.

The airline, which lost 21.4 billion baht ($625 million) in 2008, has the aircraft slated for delivery in 2010 and the following year. It would use them for direct flights from Bangkok to London, Sydney and Tokyo, and possibly Frankfurt and Paris.

"We are taking a hard look at our options -- whether we want to have the A380s, whether they are affordable in the current economic downturn," head of investor relations Raj Tanta-Nanta said Tuesday.

[Imperator1300]

Recently flew as pax on A380 and it beats the B747 on all counts. It will become the public's preferred choice :)

Imperator1300

[Dysag]

In the airline business there are the leaders, and the rest.

Don't worry about Thai, they are making decisions in a corrupt country. ILFC was influential until its owner AIG nearly went bust.

Look at Qantas, Emirates and Singapore. Sure they may adjust a delivery here or there, but their commitment to the A380 is unwavering.

[mrmrsmith]

dear billy34_kit, why don't you just say you don't like the A380/Airbus, it would be easier in the long term. The A380 is the best long haul aircraft to be built in a very long time, and with its better than forecast fuel economy will soon have airlines shouting out for them when they realise that this is just a shorterm downturn in passenger travel cos'd by media hype about the world going bust, the world is still the same as it was yesterday and just the same as it was this time last year apart from the media tell us we're all bust. I've still got the same job with the same money as last year I'm just being careful with it at present as I think the rest of the world is, in a years time things will have changed very much back to what it was.

[groundhogbhx]

Were you reading the same story? The title says MAY, and is the same as in this weeks Flight International. Mr Hazy has had an awful lot to say about most aircraft models he has on order lately, strikes me that he is trying to put the wind up the manufacturers to try and get himself a better deal. I'm certain the parent company are putting pressure on him to cut costs and this is his response. At the moment he has plenty of aircraft on order for delivery when the big boys want to replace their fleets, how better to boost profits than scare the manufacturers into dropping prices then clean up with higher lease costs for the airlines. Wonder if he is related to MOL.

[parabellum]

The A380 is ideal for a static niche market but that market is nowhere near large enough for the A380 to ever break even, (around 500 sales required now, I believe). Whether the pax like it or not won't be sufficient reason to convince the bean counters that airlines should buy it as a new type.

It may be technically the best but commercially it is a disaster for AirBus.

[tjc]

It may be technically the best but commercially it is a disaster for AirBus

At this stage.....!

But things do change.

[scudpilot]

Bill 34, I am guessing you are in America... you have the same tone as many other american people, they choose the hate the A380, basicly because a "non" american company has dared to produce something to replace the "beloved" but now ancient 747... why do people react with such glee to possible loss of many millions of dollars and jobs just because a European aircraft has had an order cancelled?
As many people on here have said, Boeing had similar problems with launch of the 747... The A380 is a vastly superior aircraft in many ways, I have not had the pleasure to fly on it, but a good friend with many passenger hours has!

Anyway bottom line...leave the A380 alone please....:\

[BrissySparkyCoit]

scudpilot, I was thinking the same things.

[parabellum]

Some of you are forgetting that, appreciating the limited market, development and production costs, Boeing offered Airbus a consortium on a Very Large Aircraft but Airbus refused, "Oh no we can do this on our own", so Boeing said, "OK, go it alone" and dropped out of any competition.

Airbus thought they were producing a B744 replacement, but that had already been done by the big twins, B777, and to some extent the A330 and so on. The major airlines have a place for the A380 but in penny numbers, nothing like the numbers that the B747 was ordered in, doubtful that any one airline will ever own more than fifteen to twenty A380 and none of the major American airlines are currently interested.

You can dream all you want to but in aviation history the A380 will fall into the same category as the Concord.

[Groundloop]

You can dream all you want to but in aviation history the A380 will fall into the same category as the Concord.

Hmm, let me see! Total Concorde production (including prototypes) - 20
Current A380 orders - 200.

Not quite the same category!

Like it or not, the A380 has a place in the market. Eventually environmental pressures, slot restrictions, etc will put severe limitations on the current smaller aircraft/more flights model that many airlines use and then the A380 (particularly when the -900 becomes available) will become very relevant. Why fly two 777s when you could use one A380?

[betpump5]

Groundloop I think you are being too optimistic and not looking at the bigger picture.

During the heights of a peak season, you may think to yourself that having 2 772 flights is a waste and an A380- would have been better. Lets take 4 777 flights that Emirates fly daily from Dubai-London. You could do this with a A380-900 and a 777-300 and save quite a significant figure.

But very few airlines have this type of scenario and if they did, would it really be economically viable. They would have worked out the cost of having a mixed fleet. Costs in line training from lets say a Boeing to an Airbus. Mixed maintenance facilities. Also there could be a reason why you would want 4 777 flights as opposed to one A380 flight - lets say business travellers for example who prefer the flexibility.

I honestly believe that the A380 will not be as successful as the 747. I think that it is just a little too big.

If you are an airline that does not forecast a constant high passenger load 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, then you have ample aircraft to chose from. 772ER/773ER A330, A345/6.

[parabellum]

Like it or not, the A380 has a place in the market.


That has never been in doubt.

Unfortunately the market is unable to support and maintain that place. It is a niche, a very small niche. SIA, QF and others know it and as it suits them they will exploit it, but that will not help generate a major market for the type. Long, thin, high density routes is what it is best at and they are limited.

The A380 is, like it or not, a dead duck.

[Groundloop]

betpump5, I think you've missed the point of my post.

You are describing the ideal situation at the moment. However as fuel prices increase and runway slots become scarcer and environmental pressures become higher......!!! then fewer flights with larger aircraft is one way round these problems. Once airlines see the operating economics of the A380-900 it will sell. All it needs is for Airbus to make it available.

The current market module is not sustainable in the long term

[Skipness One Echo]

none of the major American airlines are currently interested.

Considering that only two even fly the B747 in ever decreasing numbers, that's not saying much. The B747 lost money for years and years, no one KNOWS what will happen with the A380 program, but it has had issues and come to market late, at a time of international economic crisis. Much like the B747 and the oil crisis, remember the B747 nearly died in the late 1970s and buying 25 of them killed Pan Am as they never filled them and were overtaken by the series 200s.

Only time will tell, I look forward to seeing what BA do with them.

[DingerX]

Folks, the Skytanic has a role, and I'm sure it's a totally sweet ride. But it has two basic selling points:
A. fuel economy
B. pax/landing slot.
As far as I can see, the unique size and requirements of the A380 make reduced crew and maintenance costs an open question -- we'll find out more as it progresses.

Meanwhile, the on-paper claims of A380 fuel economy are on a par with those of Boeing's twins (A380 claims 2.9 l per pax per 100 km, assuming 555 pax and no luggage; 777-300ER also claims 2.9l per pax per 100km, fully loaded).
Pax/landing slot matters for a small number of airports, and these are usually the ones passengers (and crews) don't want to go to (LHR-JFK, anyone?).
But since most of the weight on a long-haul jet is equipment and fuel, the efficiency only comes into play at high load factors. So if you can stick a fully loaded 777 on a route instead of a half-loaded A380, you just made a ton of savings: in other words, that's fuel economy.

It's not a pro-American thing. Quite the contrary. There's always a strong desire to have the biggest, most powerful toy out there (well, at least for males). But is there a business case to match up to that? So far, the dozen-odd A380s flying around haven't demonstrated it.

[groundhogbhx]

The biggest problem I see for the A380 is the lack of hold space. Fill it with pax and bags and there isn't much left for cargo. With the current world situation there is a big reduction in the amount of pure cargo flights and more travelling in the bellies of passenger flights, not enough to operate a freighter but still enough to fill the space on a 773. On the right routes 4 773's a day could be moving full pax loads and plenty of cargo giving plenty of extra revenue at little extra cost, change to 2 A380's and you lose more revenue than you gain in operating costs.

[fdcg27]

I don't think we need worry too much about the current A380 order book.
There was a piece in today's Wall Street Journal in which I read that A has had 11 net new orders so far this year, while B has had 7.
Clearly not a banner year for airliner sales and one in which both manufacuterers are more concerned about preserving existing orders than in gaining new ones.
The A380 had a seamless EIS, with great dispatch reliability, better than book fuel burn, and no real problems I have read of, so the aiplane apparently meets the goals set for it.
The current order book doesn't really matter. There are many city pairs which could support an aircraft with the capacity of the A380. The real question is, when will Boeing counter this aircraft? The 748 is not a direct competitor, and has taken only a handfull of pax orders. Boeing may at some point come up with a more advanced composite competitor, but Boeing for the moment has its hands full with the 787, and must then turn to the 737 repalcement, to keep Southwest happy.
My point is that the A380 is very good at what it does and unless Boeing comes up with something much better in the next ten years, the A380 will probably end up a sucessful program.