Airbus admits further delay on A380
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From Deutsche Presse-Agentur:
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/b...white_elephant
And, from today's Wall Street Journal:
... 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.
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.
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...
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...
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.???
.
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.???
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....
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....
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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....
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....
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: North of London
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!!!
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!!!!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
.
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
.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by 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
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
Last edited by Taildragger67; 16th Jun 2006 at 10:10.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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%.
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?
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?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Monaco
Age: 72
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/...kxBHNlYwN0bQ--
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."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060616/...kxBHNlYwN0bQ--
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."
Originally Posted by 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%.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Originally Posted by Wino
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.
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.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Originally Posted by MarkD
Globaliser
wasn't that what ETOPS 207 was for (filling in an inconvenient North Pac gap)?
wasn't that what ETOPS 207 was for (filling in an inconvenient North Pac gap)?
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.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Wino; 17th Jun 2006 at 15:22.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Not Ardua enough
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
