Will the world need the A380 in 2006 ?
 

Will the world need the A380 in 2006 ? :confused:

Why on earth not ??

As long as the world is sending more than two or so 747 equivalents along the same routes daily in 2006, with load factors in the 90s, I'd imagine it would.

Oui, bien sur!

Unless there is some stunning apocalyptic revelation that you are withholding from us.

Personally, I can only see growth in our industry, once the repercushions of 9/11 have further subsided, and (God willing there are no repeats) and the US market recovery gathers momentum, as it appears to be doing, I think the future bodes well.

And isn't she just going to be a thing of beauty!.

Regards

:O
All of you sent very positive response, but Boeing denies that the world would need many 500+ passenger airplanes.
I hope Boeing is wrong.

car_owner said......
"All of you sent very positive response, but Boeing denies that the world would need many 500+ passenger airplanes.
I hope Boeing is wrong."

Aviate 1138 says....
Boeing, who thought they were invincible, have made the usual smug Corporate mistake and misjudged the market. Bad luck Boeing. Good judgement Airbus.
Hoping that Airbus will not seriously suggest the A380 will contain bowling alleys, gymnasiums, jacuzzi's, wine bars and massage parlours. Just more legroom and wider seats in Economy! And more loos.

Aviate 1138

Unfortunately... Two or so 747 equivalents vs. one A-380: Two times more Cockpit-Jobs!

Can't see why people start drooling about A-380. I would have prefered rather two or three Sonic-Cruisers than one A-380. :yuk:

The world wants to save money, so that it can make more money. Therefore the A380 will be in demand! The 747 showed how it could be made to work, the 76 and 77 followed in it's footsteps. It could be said that all the Airbus widebodies are a result of the 747.

Cathay Pacific currently have three rotations a day from LHR to HKG. That's every day at 18:25 and 22:35 (local) and one that varies from 13:05 to 21:30 across the week.

The two 'main' rotations are scheduled as 744s, this new (third) rotation varies depending on load, such as A340. However, on the days that it departs within one hour of another, it doesn't take much calculating to see where the savings are going to come from. I don't follow aircraft orders or production, but if CX have not ordered the A380 - I would be surprised!

The 380 will also be ideal for short high density routes. JAL had the 747-400D built for them. A 744 with no galleys and high density economy only - seating some 650 people. They spend their life flogging between Tokyo and Osaka. The way the Asian market is developing, there must be another market for this sort of operation, between say Beijing and Shanghai.

9/11 was in US only
 

Look Damn-air 9/11 was in US and afected US market only.
In case you not familiar the economy that most grow on last 15 years is china and they only cannot keep up growing more than 10% an year just because they lacking on infrastructure (pretty much lack of energy source) as power plants take a while to build.
Another thing is boeing made the same move as douglas in the past and believed US military could keep paying their bills.
Big mistake because strong economy keep the military but not vice-versa.
People in US voted for military and no economy and before the end of Bush second turn we'll see who is the most powerfull nation on earth.
I am not chinese but admire people who work hard to get what they deserve something americans did in the past but don't do it anymore.

A380
 

The world is more than ready for the A380 despite it's looks, and China is already stronger than the US in most measures.

Boeing really let this one get away.

I would have to back Burger Thing on this one! The more plane the more flying jobs.

Also the argument that the companies will save money by operating less flights due to the larger equipment will work in theory. But the business traveler still wants frequency!

Cheers!

R8TED THRUST: Careful neighbor-your "subversive" ideas suggest breaking somebody's 'rice bowl', or might hurt someone's pride, i.e. 'fabrique du jour/Volksflugzeug'.

If the A-380 program is about 2 billion (US) dollars over budget (they can simply increase income taxes...ganz einfach...), as reported in a major publication, does that influence the A-350 program, or whatever is planned to compete with the Boeing 7E7?

Sorry, cannot agree that Boeing got this one wrong, your memories are failing you if you say that, cast your minds back.

Boeing and AirBus both produced plans for a VLA, Boeing stated publicly that, in their view, having spoken to airlines and made an assessement of potential orders, there may be insufficient market to break even, even less chance of a substantial profit. Boeing offered AirBus the opportunity to form a VLA consortium, share the development costs and see where to go from there. AirBus refused, Boeing watched as AirBus went ahead with the A380 and then said they could not see the VLA as a commerical venture and cancelled their plans.
AirBus continued. The A380 is currently over weight, over budget and under ordered - Yes I know, plenty of orders for an aircraft that has yet to fly but airlines now have a far better idea of what to expect and have previous experience of the 747 quantum leap so, those that want it have ordered it, hardly enough to break even is it?
This is a specialist aircraft for certain routes only and most airlines will only need a few. Don't be misled by the EK order.

In this instance I believe Boeing got it very right indeed.

Car_owner. Boeing are just running scared now as the A380 is a more tecnologically advanced aircraft than the 747, and they are seriously worried about their flagging sales. in asia eg china / japan, there are 747 fitted out for 555 pax, due to the high poulation of travellers out there. The A380 can take upto 800 pax. Exactly what the asian airlines want.

There'll be a fair number of sleepless folk in Seattle when the A380 enters service! 7E7 or A350? That'll be an interesting issue.

Meanwhile Beoing still tries to struggle on with its largely unwanted 767 tanker programme.

And how many orders for the 767-400ER have their been since 1997? Just 1. Doesn't compare very well with 517 A330 sales, does it.

Vive le 'bus! 139 A380s on order for 13 customers.

Always liked the Airbus i wont deny that, but when it comes to long haul flying i much prefer to get to my destination as quick as possible, hence why i was looking forward to the Sonic Cruiser, i guess now that project is gathering dust somewhere in Seattle. Shame really :sad:

Who says it's an ugly sucker? Wait until it is painted up in airline colours and proudly flying the routes. It's abetter looking aeroplane than a 747. The photos we have seen have been taken to accentuate certain features. In 10-15 years time when the 747 is as ancient as the 707 is now, this will be the only serious large longhaul jet, making a fortune for Airbus, and flying people at minimal cost. It will be the only large player in town. It's looks will be admired- the 747 will be history and heading for the exit door.
As Boeing called the market right 35 years ago, they've called it wrong now. I say this as a 747 pilot who loves it....but it's getting old.

My twopence worth:

I have no preference between Boeing and Airbus products, nor for that matter the other smaller manufactures out there. They all seem to produce reasonable products that do their jobs reasonably well. some are more suited to certain routes, and certain airlines, and some pilots seem to prefer the differing driving techniques, but at the end of the day, looking from a business perspective, I have doubts as to whether the A380 product will be a success in the same way that other Airbus products have been -> A318-321 for example. Certainly don't see it being as successful as the B747 has been for Boeing.

The A380 does have a market, as has been pointed out above by others. But I question how big it is. Passengers have historically demonstrated two main preferences for travel choice - namely price and frequency. Boeing 767/777 & 7E7 and the A330/340/350 will continue to offer the benefits of frequency on the majority of medium, long and ultra long haul, and it is only where slot contraints and time difference take their toll that the A380 will reign supreme - the LHR/HKG pair being the prime example, although not alone.

A380's biggest hope will be if it can do what Southwest and Ezy/Ryanair have done for short haul in terms of reducing cost of travel - and then pax will have to put up with squeezing 750-900 on one aircraft at a time - not with Casino's and gymns...

The question isn't so much will the world be ready for the Blunderbus in 2006. But rather will the demand be there over the 30-40+ year life of the programme. It's also a long term programme after all.

Boeing bet the company on the 747 and I understand the programme didn't recoup the investment until the 744 came along. The world certainly wasn't ready for the 747 in 1969. Intially the aircraft was a bit of a millstone (and a bit of a dog apparently early 100s were slower in the climb than 340-300s).

Argueably, over ordering 747s was the beginning of Pan Am's long slow decline (hands up who remembers riding in mostly empty 747s in the early 70s?). By the late mid 80s the market was more than ready indeed demanded bigger, longer range ones. Boeing responded and the sales figures went through the roof (I think I right in saying the Boeing have flogged more -400s than 1,2 and 300s put together).

Point two:If you draw a line from Wilbur and Orville and extend it to today the compound growth in the number of people travelling by air is about 5% it is reasonable to assume that this will continue - which means a doubling of pax numbers in 15 years and triple today's figures 5 years after that. Put it another way, a route that will support 3 x 744s by carrier A per day in 2006 is in all likelyhood going to support 3 x 380s daily in the 2012 to 2015 timeframe and considerably more than that by the mid life part of the programme say by 2021-2026.

Ref the sonic cruiser. I could never figure that one out everything I've read has said that drag increases dramatically in the transonic region say .92 to 1.2 (which is why Concordes used afterburners in the acceleration phase only out to about M1.5 they didn't need em after that).
So I always thought that something that was meant to cruise at .97-.98 would pick up a heavy drag penalty not to mention the fuel burn needed to get above the slower traffic early in the cruise (no point being abole to go that quick if you are stuck behind an A340 eh?)
I could be wrong (no change there then) but maybe that's why no body actually wanted it... and nobody actually wanting it maybe why Boeing binned it