Airbus A380 At 50

[Grey Area]

Ha! HaHa! Socialism....ain't it great?

If you honestly think that Germany is a socialist country, then it's going to be really hard to take anything else you say seriously.

Flag-waving, chest-beating and other utter irrelevancies aside; what these assorted numbers and statistics (97.4% of all statistics being made up on the spot, of course) tell us is that the market for large 4-engined airlines is nowhere near as large in the first quarter of this century as it was in the final quarter of the previous century.

All else is just posturing and wishful thinking.

[pierrepjc]

Well, what happened guys? Just got in from work checked the thread and all hell's broken out.
If we could fast forward 10 years we'd know what will/would happen.
All I know is that Boeing and Airbus will continue to deliver whatever they are making. Lets face it they both have good programs to go at. (Based on good sales).

Getting back on thread, A380 is moving forward, take a look here:

http://plane.spottingworld.com/A380_production_list

Not bad hey.

Paul
(Stands back and waits for in coming shells)

[mrtotty]

No brickbats or incoming shells from me...
I was sitting through an particularly tedious outdoor assembly yesterday and was somewhat relieved when an A380 directly overflew on approach to Heathrow, showing off its incredible wingspan.
I think we'll see many hundreds of these beautiful aircraft eventually. Think of all the B747-400s nearing retirement which will need replacing. Mind you, a lot depends on how well Boeing does with the B747-8 (which I would also love to see flying over).
As good as the B777 is, it cannot entirely replace the big four-engined aircraft, I don't think.

[Bmused55]

Not all 747-400's will be replaced with A380s.
Airlines, where possible, have been downsizing for many years now, replacing 744s with 773s and eventualy A350-1000s and doing quite well. Less seats to fill, more range.

[Grey Area]

Edited: CoC Rule 15

Quite so.

The long-haul business - including the cargo sector, let us not forget - has evolved considerably over the few decades.

Where they would once have been the norm, the 4-engined heavies are increasingly aiming at a niche market so far as intercontinental long haul is concerned.

[ThreeSpool]

Pray tell, what be that reason?

The A380, 777, A350, A320, 737NG, A330/A340 A350 and all future aircraft to come were or will be designed using CAD software.

The level of integration in modern aircraft is phenomenal, is the reason enough. Anyone involved with modern Airbus, or the B777; every system talks to each other. The amount of software that has to be written, tested, verified and certified eats hugely into time, money and manpower. It is going to get worse with the integration of IFE and cabin systems, it already caused severe headaches for Airbus on the A380.

[ThreeSpool]

What routes would they use them for?

Sorry, you misunderstood. The A380 needs a North American order, it may well be that North America doesn't need the A380.

[Ship 741]

Not only does North America not need the A380, the paltry order book seems to indicate the world doesn't need the A380 very much.

[ThreeSpool]

Edited: CoC Rule 15

At one time in history, even the 747 only had 200 orders.

[Bmused55]

But quickly surpassed that number. Quicker than the A380 has.

However, we should remember that the aviation world was much different when the 747 was introduced.
The 747 was primarily bought for 3 reasons: The prestige and it's range.
Before ETOPS, the 747 was the best way to go long distance.
Nothing in the commercial sector came close to the range of the 747.
It was not until the Oil crisis in the 70s that the 747 started getting filled to capacity.

Todays world is far, far different. Bottom line operating costs have laid waste to any prestige. Cold hard numbers are the order of the day. The A380 may fill the requirements for some airlines, but it is not on its own for range and economy.
Airlines who cannot fill a 747 do not need the A380 for it's range alone. They'll order a 777 or A350.

Therefore, I do not expect the A380 to "sell like the 747 did" as so many seem to do.

[ThreeSpool]

Therefore, I do not expect the A380 to "sell like the 747 did" as so many seem to do.

Sandy, I agree with most of what you say. I would like to put it to you that the 'A' model of any aircraft never seems to sell that well.

In the future the price of oil will rise, airports will become congested with light twins (:diablo, and employee costs will still form a large portion of operating expenses.

I don't think the A380 will sell as many as the B747, but I do think it will make Airbus money, in the end.

[Grey Area]

Therefore, I do not expect the A380 to "sell like the 747 did" as so many seem to do.

In fairness, the B747-800 is just as unlikely to "sell like the 747 did" and for exactly the same reasons.

[Bmused55]

Indeed, indeed.

[nJayM]

Matt
I am going to add a little humour to this thread which you titled "Airbus A380 At 50". When I first saw it some days ago my thoughts were as expressed now.

It will be a very appropriate title in 9 years to say "Boeing 747 at 50" - obviously not referring to the number built or delivered but its vintage (like good wine and mature aircraft enthusiasts like me)

[ThreeSpool]

It would be great to see the B747 still being produced after 50 years. In 2017 it'll be 50 years after the B737s first flight.

[nJayM]

Matt, I have a gut feeling it will be as it is a good design. Just think of the celebration at Seattle and the customers that buy in that year. In fact I think I shall buy 50 candles and stick it on a M&S or Waitrose Coffee icing sponge cake and dish it out with oodles of Haagen Daaz. Anyone in the vicinity is welcome.

[mrtotty]

In fairness, the B747-800 is just as unlikely to "sell like the 747 did" and for exactly the same reasons.

I can't help thinking that, if the four-engined market was to be as dismal as some seem to think here, Boeing would never have bothered with the B747-8 and instead, would have allowed the type a graceful retirement.
Over the medium to longer term, we are told that passenger numbers will increase significantly but space for airport expansion and air lanes will not be able to keep pace, so surely a 550-seat aircraft would be just what is needed.

[sekant]

Hey, that MAY be true if the planes were reversed, but it is not the case.

I just find it hugely ironic (and hilarious) that the A380's largest customer is being severely slot restricted by one of the Airbus partial owners (the German Government). Just imagine the sales flyer for future programs: "Buy our airplanes! Just don't fly them to our country! Or only fly them when, where, and how often WE decide." Ha! HaHa! Socialism....ain't it great?

In what world does the German government own a part of Airbus. Maybe in (your) fantasyland but not in the real one.

[Amiga500]

Airbus have delivered 52 of 236 firm orders.

That leaves 184 on the backlog.

The production rate last year was 18, this year will be about 25.


184/25 is over 7 years. Airlines typically don't like waiting that long.

[steve rowell]

Emirates Airline already have 90 orders, it boggles the mind what they are going to use them for, never mind adding more.

I genuinely think the A380 needs a North American order; either United Air Lines or Delta Air Lines. Both are very unlikely.

I doubt whether Airbus will even break even

[Amiga500]

So do I.

Current chat is break even on every frame sold post 2015 or so.


Don't believe it for a second.

[pierrepjc]

That's right 53rd delivery today, the 2nd for Korean Air.

Paul

[Oliver Gigacz]

I thought it would be a good idea to start a thread devoted to A380 production updates. (ie: first flights, ferry flights, delivery flights, etc, etc).

I will start it off...

Late last week, Emirates’ twenty first A380 (MSN098) completed final assembly

http://a380production.com/2011/07/98ro/

[nJayM]

Would you please consider asking the mods to merge this into thread "Airbus A380 at 50" ?

[Ship 741]

In what world does the German government own a part of Airbus. Maybe in (your) fantasyland but not in the real one.

I guess I was wrong, only the French and Spanish governments are involved. It's a totally apolitical organization, in the heart of nationalist Europe no less (sarcasm intended). From wiki:

"As of 3 July 2007 41.63% of EADS stock is publicly traded on six European stock exchanges, while the remaining 58.37% is owned by a "Contractural Partnership".[32] The latter is owned by SOGEADE (27.38%), Daimler AG (22.41%), SEPI (5.46%) and Dubai Holding (3.12%).[33] SOGEADE is owned by the French State and Lagardère, while SEPI is a Spanish state holding company. France also owns 0.06% of publicly traded stock.[32]

In October 2005 the British Ministry of Defence warned European politicians to stop, as it sees it, interfering in the corporate governance of EADS. The UK Defence Procurement Minister Lord Drayson has hinted that the UK government, a major customer for EADS, may withhold future contracts. "As a key customer, we see it as important for EADS to move in a direction that is free from political interference." [34]"

I'm sure the German government exerts no "indirect influence." (sarcasm intended part zwei)

Boeing hires people to build airplanes, Airbus builds airplanes so they can hire people.

[ThreeSpool]

Boeing hires people to build airplanes, Airbus builds airplanes so they can hire people.

That one line has removed all doubt that you are just a troll on this subject!

[Ship 741]

Airbus is a political animal, a jobs program.

Nowadays, its fashionable to try to hide that, but, for example, if one reads the book "the sporty game," one will find numerous direct quotes from European political and business leaders about how and why the consortium was formed.

More recently, the comments by the French politicians quoted by Pierre Sparaco in Aviation Week also show the overt political nature of the consortium.

Having said all that, it is a pretty well run social program. At least Europeans get something for their dollars, Americans just give money to the "poor" and let them sit around and do nothing!

[Grey Area]

Boeing hires people to build airplanes, Airbus builds airplanes so they can hire people.

At least Europeans get something for their dollars, Americans just give money to the "poor" and let them sit around and do nothing!

Isn't it awfully damp under that bridge?

[Ship 741]

Ha! Good one, it IS a little damp but the computer monitor keeps me warm.

As for you, I imagine its pretty windy and cold up there atop Mount Olympus...

[sekant]

Airbus is a political animal, a jobs program.

Nowadays, its fashionable to try to hide that, but, for example, if one reads the book "the sporty game," one will find numerous direct quotes from European political and business leaders about how and why the consortium was formed.

More recently, the comments by the French politicians quoted by Pierre Sparaco in Aviation Week also show the overt political nature of the consortium.

Having said all that, it is a pretty well run social program. At least Europeans get something for their dollars, Americans just give money to the "poor" and let them sit around and do nothing!

Again, trolling and ridiculous.

The aviation industry on both sides of the atlantic is seen as a strategic industry, and governments on both sides of the atlantic prop up their national champion and meddle in its business. To believe that this happens only on one side of the pond is to have one's head way up in one's own ***. And the issue of job creation are taken seriously also on both sides.

I mean, the US prez acts as a vrp for Boeing's plane, you have a governmental import/export bank to finance exports that is nearly solely dedicated to propping up Boeing's foreign sales, you have a high level of consanguinity between the Pentagon and Boeing, Boeing cannot fall under foreign ownership....

But Boeing is not a political animal, like Airbus? Right.