A380 to be a Future Headache

[joy ride]

Interesting to hear the various opinions. It does seem that 4 engine airliners are loosing out to ETOPS twins, but might this change if a 2 holer ever had to ditch mid-ocean due to engine problems?

[pax britanica]

I know that customer satisfaction doesn't count for much in airline thinking but when it comes to comfort the triple is a complete dog compared to the 380. The 380 is much quieter, doesnt have the irritating 'hunting' sensation on the triple with the sense that the fans are always trying to shift up or down a few revs, is much more spacious especially in Y , has much much better cabin conditioning and does away with 'post long haul headache' and is much more stable in terms of ride, 777s seem to me to wallow along yawing gently .

I will be honest and say I have never been a fan of the 777 and always preferred the 74, it is a great piece of engineering in terms of reliability and economy but pax comfort was a retrograde step in my view. No doubt a 77X will have improved cabin conditioning but I wouldn't fancy being down the back of one when it gets a bit bumpy.

[Wally Mk2]

Airbus took a huge gamble to design & build the 380 pretty much like Bill Allen of Boeing did, he went way out on a limb to build the 707 (without a launch customer I believe at first ) then the 747, both would have broke Boeing at the time if not successful & remember at that time the aviation industry was expanding rapidly as against now where it's struggling in some ways. So I imagine that Airbus will perhaps have to wait a bit longer for a decent return on their design but in their favor in the meantime the worlds major dromes are overcrowded now so carrying more people on the one airframe is the way of the future I'd say.
To have 'vision' these days like Allen did all those years ago takes some pretty big gonads!:-)



Wmk2

[swh]

Originally Posted by haughtney1

You can believe what you like regarding where EADS feel the program should be, the facts speak for themselves, the 380 airframe has cost them a boatload (Leahy and Champion are on record saying just as much), it will never recoup its development costs and it will most likely go the way of the L1011, Caravelle, Concorde et al.

EADS no longer exists, it was changed at the start of the year.

The internal Airbus development costs for the A380 have already been recovered and paid for. The internal A380 development costs were not deferred, they were accounted for at that time they were incurred. A further royalty is paid upon the delivery of each airframe to various governments as repayment of their launch investment. This is different to the way Boeing operates with their Commercial Aircraft activities, they deffer the development and tooling costs (program accounting), for example the current deferred costs for the 787 listed in their last results were around $27.5 billion. Boeing does not repay government investment.

Airbus is on record saying the A380 production will be cash positive next year.

Originally Posted by haughtney1

Very popular with the passengers, but not it would seem with the vast majority of potential operators around the world.
If I'm wrong I'll happily admit it and everyone will order and operate them, so far it has proven to be a commercial flop for EADS and is in no small part responsible for the renewed effort that has gone into the A350 airframe.

The A380 never was developed with a business case of thousands of aircraft, nor was it ever envisaged to have hundreds of operators. It was given board approval with a business case of around 200 aircraft. Neither Boeing or Airbus ever showed in their forward projections thousands of aircraft in that market segment, both showed a total market demand for around 1000 airframes over a 20 year period.

People like yourself that say it is failure because it is not selling like a 767, 787, or 777 are distorting the true historical context to fit your agenda. That market segments has a demand, Airbus and Boeing are at odds at how big it will be. Boeing's forecast is for another 620 aircraft worth over 240 billion dollars, Airbus is more optimistic than that.

90% of a pessimistic 200+ billion dollar market forecast is not "90% of f*£k all".

[Wannabe Flyer]

SLF here: spend many miles a month in the air and a lot on Long haul. 777 has become my second home. Flew for the first time last month on a 380 which is almost 5 years post launch. As a Y customer only, i found it a soft and gentle giant, but with so many pax squeezed in for a 12 hour flight it got to me a bit. I think as an SLF once you are inside the aircraft it is comfort for your journey that matters and not the aircraft and this is operator dependent not equipment for the most part. Second is the pricing and if a particular aircraft makes it viable it will survive otherwise not. IMHO opinion from a customer and economic stand point for business people point to point not too crowded and reasonably comfortable interiors matter the most. The 787 seems to be my choice for these routes which are 12 hours or under. Will not fly short haul routes on the 380 as they will be slowly pushed to be the 800 pax shuttle services between the sub continent and the eastern and western hubs being created around them. This unfortunately is the way it seems a lot of the 380 will go as Sub continent demand grows for lower cost travel. European carriers out of the sub continent seemed to have lost the drift but if you are willing to overlook some aspects of service they are a less crowded and better journey westwards now......most use the 787, 777 and 330 on this route with a less dense configuration.

[parabellum]

swh

The A380 already has achieved its projected sales, Airbus launched it with a business case of only 200 aircraft.

Think you will find that the original figure was 269 aircraft but, due to late delivery penalties and re engineering, the figure is now around 500 before they will break even.

[onetrack]

Interesting article in the Sydney Morning Herald that was originally in the NY Times. The article points out the total resistance to the A380 in the U.S.
I would suspect this may be tacit U.S. corporate support of Boeing, though, more than any other factor.
An interesting point is how Emirates claim the 1st class and business classes are the ones making the A380 viable. I guess if any other aircraft could haul half their pax as 1st and business, they'd be pretty viable, too.

Bigger isn't better: Why the Airbus A380 superjumbo is struggling to take off

Someone is most certainly going to take a serious kick to the cojones when it comes to used A380 resale. They will be worth virtually nothing used, because buyers who can utilise them will be as scarce as hens teeth. The simple fact remains they are a niche aircraft, and their sheer size creates immediate problems and major restrictions on anyone who would even consider taking any on, used - even if it was at a bargain price.

[Luke SkyToddler]

The A380 was never intended to compete with the 777, it was designed to kill the 747.

A mission that it has pretty much comprehensively succeeded in.

The A350, on the other hand, IS designed to kill the 777.

Obviously the 777 is a great plane and it's had a fantastic run but at the very least, the A350 looks like it's going to get close to half the market share in big twins from now on.

Considering the 787 debacle, and the A320's dominance in narrowbodies, I'd say the pressure is all on Boeing at the moment, they really need to play an absolute blinder with the B777X or whatever they're calling the refreshed product.

[500N]

Question for you knowledgeable people.


If Qantas wasn't using the A380 for Aus to the US, what other options would it have apart from staying with the 747's they were using.

IMHO, the A380 trips I have done to the US were superb compared to the 747's I was on before.

[Metro man]

If the A380 is successful and makes enough money for an airline during its lifetime, they could possibly afford to simply scrap it instead of selling it.

The A380 is highly successful in its own area, as the B777 has been in its market. The problem is the size of the A380 market is not that great, an airline which can operate a sufficient number of them on the right routes will do well, however the type is not for every airline. Even third world airlines operate the B777 and they are also used by FEDEX as freighters.

For the A380 to make sense an airline needs to be large enough to operate enough of them to have the economies of scale, and fly appropriate routes for the type. There aren't that many airlines like that around.

[OK4Wire]

For the A380 to make sense an airline needs to be large enough to operate enough of them to have the economies of scale, and fly appropriate routes for the type. There aren't that many airlines like that around.

Hard to disagree with that, and there are definite flexability advantages to having smaller aircraft, but let me pose this to you: which is going to be cheaper to run (on a daily basis), 5 777s (10 engines, 15 cockpit crew, 5 nav charges) into LHR or 3 380s (12 engines, 9 cockpit crew and 3 nav charges)?

And yes, I know that there is a lot more to it than that.

[parabellum]

The Americans didn't buy the Concord, in deference to Boeings own SST project.


The Americans didn't buy the A380 in deference to Boeing. Boeing had offered Airbus a joint venture deal on the Future Very Large Aircraft but Airbus turned it down and Boeing then cancelled their plans to build one.


The A380 was intended to replace, (not kill!) the B747, but the B747 had already been replaced by the B777, A330 etc.


When an aircraft is purchased, either by an airline or a leasing company they have the opportunity to buy what is known as 'Residual Value' insurance.
This is intended to cover the difference between the estimated re-sale, (residual), value of an aircraft after a given period, (usually in years), and the actual value at time of sale, if there is any difference. Normally bought in layers, the layer nearest to the original estimated sale value, say, just for example, 1million to 5million below, will be the most expensive. Be interesting to see if companies like ILF took out this kind of cover.


For those interested, some information here; http://www.avitas.com/publications/a...es%2024-30.pdf

[Hempy]

Which all goes to say that the only people the A380 are going to be a 'future headache' for are those people trying to sell a used aeroplane to a niche market.

To the people who chose unwisely, it's surely a headache already.

The A380 IS like Concorde, sensational at performing a specific role well, useless for anything else. It's not flexible.

[donpizmeov]

I don't know Hempy, EK operate theirs on 1hr sectors to KWI, and 15hr 30min sectors to LAX. They operate them daily to small airfields like Mauritius, Brisbane and Manchester. And 5 timed daily to LHR. What else do you want it to do?

The don

[PPRuNeUser0161]

The A380 has nothing in common with Concord, for a start it hasn't been legislated out of nearly every country in the western world. I think you dooms-dayers are getting ahead of yourself. Most airlines are struggling at the moment and spending up big on a new type is not wise in times like these. But things will change and and when they do Airbus will be sitting pretty for the next 30 years or so having killed off the 747.

Remember the 747 nearly broke Boeing as well.

SN

[Squawk7700]

The new 747 will use less fuel per passenger and be cheaper to operate than the A380 (allegedly), so you never know what might happen... Too little too late for Boeing perhaps?

[parabellum]

having killed off the 747

Think you'll find your time scale is a bit out there Soup Nazi, B747-400 were already being sold, in favour of the B777etc., before the first A380 did a commercial flight.

[kirungi1]

It appears some operators have a better KnowHow of this equipment, so if it doesn't work for you never know it might for, eerrrmm, others ;
Emirates Agrees Loan For 50th A380