AIRBUS A380 RULES!
Guest
Posts: n/a
AIRBUS A380 RULES!
This morning Boeing officially announced the shelfing of its plans to create it's version of the superjumbo - the 747-X.
While some Boeing fans might be upset, it means that there is no competition for Airbus and the A380's may quite literally, rule the skies of the future as far as large capacity, long range, cost efficient airliners go! That means more money into Europe and a success for Airbus Industrie. I believe that the A380 is going to be a hit with the airlines because low cost air fares and large capacity for the airlines is the market desparately required for the future. What are your views everyone?
Tri
While some Boeing fans might be upset, it means that there is no competition for Airbus and the A380's may quite literally, rule the skies of the future as far as large capacity, long range, cost efficient airliners go! That means more money into Europe and a success for Airbus Industrie. I believe that the A380 is going to be a hit with the airlines because low cost air fares and large capacity for the airlines is the market desparately required for the future. What are your views everyone?
Tri
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm sure that the flying will be just like evry other widebody airbus, but I'm just talking abouth the concept of the idea. Europe revolutionised air travel by introducing the Concorde 30 years ago, now they will do it again with the launch of A380.
Tri
Tri
Guest
Posts: n/a
Who knows? I am personnally more pro airbus, but having said that I think that a good product needs good competition to retain its quality. I think Boeing is just waiting it out to see if the A380 is going to be a succes. They might be planning to come up with something way more modern in the future. If they start develloping that now they might bring it on the market 5-8 years later than airbus, but then they'll also have a way more modern product... Just a hunch!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Trislander,
Glad you are happy about this event, However, before you start popping champagne corks, you may want to ask why did Boeing not pursue this 747X? Airbus should be given credit for taking a risk, and it may pay off handsomely, or bankrupt them! the hard economics of the situation is that they have to sell close to 500 at list prices just to recoup the developement monies, that is assuming no cost overruns or other problems, so far they have sold 60..so they have a long way to go. I just can't see Boeing sitting on their hands and not developing something better!! If they don't then Airbus will dominate the market, and deservedly so. Be proud, but don't start the celebration yet, and by the way, the Concorde was a great aircraft, still is, but revolutionary?? your grasp of the industry is a little simplistic. Enjoy the party.
Glad you are happy about this event, However, before you start popping champagne corks, you may want to ask why did Boeing not pursue this 747X? Airbus should be given credit for taking a risk, and it may pay off handsomely, or bankrupt them! the hard economics of the situation is that they have to sell close to 500 at list prices just to recoup the developement monies, that is assuming no cost overruns or other problems, so far they have sold 60..so they have a long way to go. I just can't see Boeing sitting on their hands and not developing something better!! If they don't then Airbus will dominate the market, and deservedly so. Be proud, but don't start the celebration yet, and by the way, the Concorde was a great aircraft, still is, but revolutionary?? your grasp of the industry is a little simplistic. Enjoy the party.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dont get me wrong... im also pro Airbus
It will be good to see Airbus really dominate the very large aircraft market.
But what about the new Boeing aircraft... the "Sonic Cruiser" or whatever they call it... Now thats a revolutionary aircraft.
The A380 isn't revolutionary, its just bigger
O/Z
It will be good to see Airbus really dominate the very large aircraft market.
But what about the new Boeing aircraft... the "Sonic Cruiser" or whatever they call it... Now thats a revolutionary aircraft.
The A380 isn't revolutionary, its just bigger
O/Z
Guest
Posts: n/a
From a commercial point of view Boeing have really lost the plot. I don't envy the shareholders.
The 767 and 757 derivatives (specifically 76 400 and 75 300) are proving hard to sell. The 737 is old hat. The 717 was another silly idea with little customer interest. Now they pull out of the large aircraft race completely!
Add to that, some crazy scheme to launch a 250 seat M0.95 thing. Just what the operators are looking for ! NOT.
The 767 and 757 derivatives (specifically 76 400 and 75 300) are proving hard to sell. The 737 is old hat. The 717 was another silly idea with little customer interest. Now they pull out of the large aircraft race completely!
Add to that, some crazy scheme to launch a 250 seat M0.95 thing. Just what the operators are looking for ! NOT.
Guest
Posts: n/a
These are interesting times and interesting decisions on the part of Airbus and Boeing.
How it plays out depends on who is assessing the market correctly. Either the market will develop more towards long range point-to-point service as Boeing thinks, or it will develop more towards long range large capacity hub-to-hub service as Airbus thinks. BTW, I would watch regulatory developments closely for the next several years, to see if lawmakers try to force this issue one way of the other.
If Boeing is right then the "sonic cruiser" will be a commercial success in the burgeoning long range point-to-point market. If Airbus is right then the A380 will be a commercial success in the burgeoning hub-to-hub market.
Each company has now staked the lion's share of its R&D dollars (for most of this decade anyway) towards their respective views of the future airliner market.
I stress however the "commercial success" of these positions. The Concorde serves as an illustration of how this competition could develop. While the Concorde is clearly a technology success (and a very fine airplane) it's also clearly a commercial failure. While both BA and AF can turn an operational profit with the aircraft, the aircraft manufactures never recovered the R&D costs that were spent, because they didn't sell anywhere near enough airframes to recoup those costs. Boeing decided back then not to build an SST because they perceived that the market wasn't there, and they were right. Regarding the current order backlog for the A380, does anyone remember how many Concordes were on order, and how many airline customers there were who placed orders, when the Concorde was being developed?
To get an idea of which company might be right, just look at where R&D dollars have been spent during the last decade or two, and look at what aircraft models are actually being purchased by the airlines in large numbers, and what newer models have been selling well in the last decade or so. It seems clear to me where the market is going.
Boeing is restricted to turning a profit in the airframe manufacturing business, while Airbus has other options. Boeing cannot afford to always be the "technology" leader if that technology does not turn a profit. Again European Airbus has other options.
------------------
Safe flying to you...
How it plays out depends on who is assessing the market correctly. Either the market will develop more towards long range point-to-point service as Boeing thinks, or it will develop more towards long range large capacity hub-to-hub service as Airbus thinks. BTW, I would watch regulatory developments closely for the next several years, to see if lawmakers try to force this issue one way of the other.
If Boeing is right then the "sonic cruiser" will be a commercial success in the burgeoning long range point-to-point market. If Airbus is right then the A380 will be a commercial success in the burgeoning hub-to-hub market.
Each company has now staked the lion's share of its R&D dollars (for most of this decade anyway) towards their respective views of the future airliner market.
I stress however the "commercial success" of these positions. The Concorde serves as an illustration of how this competition could develop. While the Concorde is clearly a technology success (and a very fine airplane) it's also clearly a commercial failure. While both BA and AF can turn an operational profit with the aircraft, the aircraft manufactures never recovered the R&D costs that were spent, because they didn't sell anywhere near enough airframes to recoup those costs. Boeing decided back then not to build an SST because they perceived that the market wasn't there, and they were right. Regarding the current order backlog for the A380, does anyone remember how many Concordes were on order, and how many airline customers there were who placed orders, when the Concorde was being developed?
To get an idea of which company might be right, just look at where R&D dollars have been spent during the last decade or two, and look at what aircraft models are actually being purchased by the airlines in large numbers, and what newer models have been selling well in the last decade or so. It seems clear to me where the market is going.
Boeing is restricted to turning a profit in the airframe manufacturing business, while Airbus has other options. Boeing cannot afford to always be the "technology" leader if that technology does not turn a profit. Again European Airbus has other options.
------------------
Safe flying to you...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Seems like Boeing is the one innovating more than Airbus on this occasion.
The proposed .95 Mach Boeing Yellowstone plane is far more revolutionary that a VLA (either A380 or 747X), those are more or less just bigger versions of todays tried and true designs, with a few tweaks.
The proposed .95 Mach Boeing Yellowstone plane is far more revolutionary that a VLA (either A380 or 747X), those are more or less just bigger versions of todays tried and true designs, with a few tweaks.
Guest
Posts: n/a
A colleague who listened to a Boeing guy said that Boeing would allow Airbus to win a certain amount of orders for the 380 so as to commit them to production which would prove a financial liability to support.
I still think the B747X will be made but not yet.
I still think the B747X will be made but not yet.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sad to hear about the B747X. This would have been a lot better freighter, you could say the ultimate freighter. And lots cheaper that the scarebus.
You could use existing loading equipment and have a maindeck soooooo long that you could fit prettymuch anything in it.
JJ
You could use existing loading equipment and have a maindeck soooooo long that you could fit prettymuch anything in it.
JJ
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hung Start,
I mean no disrepect to the Concorde, I'd love to fly one, but it really didn't revolutionize anything. However, maybe 50 years in the future when SST's rule the sky, it may well be regarded as revolutionary. With this new announcement of the Boeing Cruiser, and the A-380 we will all be treated to some interesting times in the near future, I saw a picture of the new Boeing concept, and its pretty cool.
I mean no disrepect to the Concorde, I'd love to fly one, but it really didn't revolutionize anything. However, maybe 50 years in the future when SST's rule the sky, it may well be regarded as revolutionary. With this new announcement of the Boeing Cruiser, and the A-380 we will all be treated to some interesting times in the near future, I saw a picture of the new Boeing concept, and its pretty cool.
Guest
Posts: n/a
There are a couple of points here:
1. What is being said here about the A380 was said about the 747 33 years ago.
2. It is a little strange to say that Concorde was not revolutionary. It came about around the same time as the 747 and nothing has beaten it yet. Do you think that going at M0.95 (about 50 knots faster than the 747) is going to make a lot of difference? Hardly a quantum leap after 35 years is it?
[This message has been edited by Flap 5 (edited 31 March 2001).]
1. What is being said here about the A380 was said about the 747 33 years ago.
2. It is a little strange to say that Concorde was not revolutionary. It came about around the same time as the 747 and nothing has beaten it yet. Do you think that going at M0.95 (about 50 knots faster than the 747) is going to make a lot of difference? Hardly a quantum leap after 35 years is it?
[This message has been edited by Flap 5 (edited 31 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Some inside info from European manufacturers market research depts.
-All the Airbus partners have produced their own forecasts each created indepenently of AI in Toulouse (can't rely on one source when you are taking such a risk)Even the worst forecast showed a marketplace which would support the 500 break even level.Boeings forecasts are not as optimistic but still support one aircraft type breaking even.
-Frederic the delay of 5 to 8 years would miss the peak requirement period of the most important market for this size a/c (Pacific).Even the delay so far has lost AI some of this market(it was intended to launch in 1999)."Way more modern"-AI are way ahead of Boeing on the civil technology front.The two main developments which would be mature enough to gain certifiction in 5 to 8 years have been fully evaluated by AI and its partners they are not cost effective (fly by light and lightweight composite wings)
ROC again.Of course Concorde was revolutionary ,look at the other aircraft being produced in 1969.
-Hung start "Russians ahead" their aircraft was built from pre production drawings supplied by the French (watertight as ever).A good advert for never trying to build before testing is complete.
_The A380 is not revolutionary in the way Concorde was (more akin to the 747).Boeings MD at the time said it was betting the company on the 747 and some will remember it came very close to losing its bet.AI is doing the same.
-Regulation killed the mass of American orders for Concorde.AI is designing the A380 to avoid these problems (hence it is so much smaller than their mid 90s proposals.
-Whoever said the new Boeing would be cheaper than AI think again.Book price for a 747 $175M,way over what it costs to build.Boeing subsidizes its smaller aircraft with this cash (worst recorded example 737 being offered for $21M to Swissair ten years ago).
This is why Airbus has to bet its company on the A380,it cannot afford Boeing to build another 1200 747 s with competition only at the very bottom of its range (the A340-600 provides long thin route overlap )
-Concorde was a commercial disaster for BAC and Aerospatial...the A380 will make Airbus the worlds No.1 Airframe manufacturer.
BTW I would still prefer to fly a Boeing from a pure pilot integration standpoint.
-All the Airbus partners have produced their own forecasts each created indepenently of AI in Toulouse (can't rely on one source when you are taking such a risk)Even the worst forecast showed a marketplace which would support the 500 break even level.Boeings forecasts are not as optimistic but still support one aircraft type breaking even.
-Frederic the delay of 5 to 8 years would miss the peak requirement period of the most important market for this size a/c (Pacific).Even the delay so far has lost AI some of this market(it was intended to launch in 1999)."Way more modern"-AI are way ahead of Boeing on the civil technology front.The two main developments which would be mature enough to gain certifiction in 5 to 8 years have been fully evaluated by AI and its partners they are not cost effective (fly by light and lightweight composite wings)
ROC again.Of course Concorde was revolutionary ,look at the other aircraft being produced in 1969.
-Hung start "Russians ahead" their aircraft was built from pre production drawings supplied by the French (watertight as ever).A good advert for never trying to build before testing is complete.
_The A380 is not revolutionary in the way Concorde was (more akin to the 747).Boeings MD at the time said it was betting the company on the 747 and some will remember it came very close to losing its bet.AI is doing the same.
-Regulation killed the mass of American orders for Concorde.AI is designing the A380 to avoid these problems (hence it is so much smaller than their mid 90s proposals.
-Whoever said the new Boeing would be cheaper than AI think again.Book price for a 747 $175M,way over what it costs to build.Boeing subsidizes its smaller aircraft with this cash (worst recorded example 737 being offered for $21M to Swissair ten years ago).
This is why Airbus has to bet its company on the A380,it cannot afford Boeing to build another 1200 747 s with competition only at the very bottom of its range (the A340-600 provides long thin route overlap )
-Concorde was a commercial disaster for BAC and Aerospatial...the A380 will make Airbus the worlds No.1 Airframe manufacturer.
BTW I would still prefer to fly a Boeing from a pure pilot integration standpoint.