Airbus claims the A380 to be a success

Who in their right mind would place orders for Super-Jumbos during a recession, when consolidation and financial security are the highest priorities of all but the wackiest of airlines.

Well, proponents of the A380 always refer to it’s low seat costs, and capacity constrained airports in 6-10 major capitals. If those arguments are true, aren’t they true even during recession?

Just what did you smoke to come to that conclusion?

He is correct that the usage of B777-300ER constitutes an alternative strategy for an airline. If someone disbelieves in the necessity of the A380, the direct consequence would be to order more B777-300ER.

We see that only some A380 operators do operate the B777-300ER (notably Air France, Emirates, SAL), and that some have a large gap between the A380 and the next larger aircraft.

Just what did you smoke to come to that conclusion?

Easy. These are the two biggest (high capacity, long range) planes in production.

747-400 is out of production. 747-800 is not yet is service (unlike 380). Everything else is smaller.

For an airline that wants to serve longhaul, high capacity routes – whether they are expanding or trying to replace 747-400 – the options are 777-300ER or A380-800. Therefore, it is very important precisely how much A380 is better than B777-300ER.

When I said “the wackiest of airlines”, I was thinking of Ryanair. I know they did very well out of the recession in 2002 by squeezing out a huge cheap order for 738s, which are still being delivered today. But this is unlikely to happen with a super jumbo, as it’s target market is legacy carriers, not Ryanair.

Well Ryanair placed a massive order with Boeing in the last downturn, and got a fantastic price, so for anyone with a few pennies still in the bank it could be a good time to buy!

New orders would show it is a success, at the moment those are not coming in numbers os it is a failure.

So, in your opinion Airbus and Boeing are failing everywhere? As so far this year they have both received more cancellations than orders. :confused:

Who in their right mind would place orders for Super-Jumbos during a recession, when consolidation and financial security are the highest priorities of all but the wackiest of airlines.

The real competitor of A380-800 is B777-300ER.

How do the costs per seat compare?

Just what did you smoke to come to that conclusion?

I think currently the B787 suffers more net order cancellations than the A380. not that the B787 is a bad aircraft, but we will see no significant orders in 2009 for long rangers at all.

Seeing as those aircraft will/do serve two completely different markets/missions and the numbers required for either model are vastly different, I cannot see how you can justify that comparison?!

I could say the 737 has had more orders than the A330. While true, it is not a fair comparison, is it?

I think currently the B787 suffers more net order cancellations than the A380. not that the B787 is a bad aircraft, but we will see no significant orders in 2009 for long rangers at all.

A380 had a firm order of 2 frames in February, from Korean Air. Since then, the orderbook has been 200.

B747 orderbook is unchanged at the 20 frames of Lufthansa.

In the first 5 months of 2009, how many if any new orders and how many cancellations has B777-300ER had? And what has the result been for all types of B787?

New orders would show it is a success, at the moment those are not coming in numbers os it is a failure.

I think currently the B787 suffers more net order cancellations than the A380. not that the B787 is a bad aircraft, but we will see no significant orders in 2009 for long rangers at all.

The real competitor of A380-800 is B777-300ER.

How do the costs per seat compare?

A380-800 is 11% more efficient than B777-300ER (per seat).

Do you know what were the projections/promises and what the reality is today??

Current guess (from published performance figures and other sources) is 10-15klbs overweight in OEW compared to 2004 figures.
That compares to roughly 6% overweight (compare: A380 had 2, now ~1.3ish).
That will decay, maybe down to 4ish. Still quite a remarkable for an aircraft that put an emphasis on structural efficiency.

New orders would show it is a success, at the moment those are not coming in numbers os it is a failure.

[QUOTE=Schorsch;1413937]
Very interesting points. The failure to have significant weight savings, especially on the B787, let one assume there are some failed plans. However, not sure if it really is due to structural issues.
QUOTE]

Do you know what were the projections/promises and what the reality is today??

Is the greater efficiency promised by Boeing does not come from lighter weight, where does it come from then?

The real competitor of A380-800 is B777-300ER.

How do the costs per seat compare?

Boeing hardly left Airbus to it, they strongly marketed the 747-8, aiming it as a spoiler for the A380, having just said there was no market for large aircraft before developing a large aircraft.

The 747-8 has been a failure as a passenger aircraft, with Lufthansa still the only confirmed order, although Boeing succesfully got the scalp of Arik air (although not confirmed).
this significantly?

The B747-8I has a fuel burn penalty per seat, at least when both aircraft are operated with similar load factor (the B747-8I burns less fuel, of course, as it is a smaller aircraft).
I don’t know what the exact reasons were to reject the B747-8I in several competitions. I think airline adhere to herd instincts to some extent.

Will it ever make a true profit, who knows? Sales are steady but slow. When one comes down and kills 800 then that will be the end of it. Who knows.

First, you have to squeeze 800 into it, highest load out so far is 550 as far as I know. The crashes of 1977 (Tenerife) and 1985 (JAL123) didn’t end the B747 program, either.

The new era in Aviation is the plastics. CFRP on main class 1 structural components on “Big” aircraft. I’m sure all the manufacturers that have started this route are sorry. Airbus A350, 787, C series. The weight savings proclaimed are just lies. Maybe 5% on the whole A/c, not the 20% expected.
Costs are 10-fold, both in manufacturing hours and the raw materials, and the fasteners.
The customers (Airlines and users) are not going to pay more for a 5% saving of weight.
CFRP, it’s perfect for panels and nacelles and such like, but when you start making the Spars (Which end up 25% heavier than a metal one), the covers, the floor beams etc. out of plastic, then a whole new untried area is being broached.
OK, class 1 items are plastic in military fighters and small bombers. The wings of such are short stubby and stiff. The pilot can hit the “MUMMY” handle and get out. And don’t forget, it is pathetic in a fire. The Fibers will not melt, but the resin has gone liquid at 200 deg C. It goes jelly at some point earlier than that.

Very interesting points. The failure to have significant weight savings, especially on the B787, let one assume there are some failed plans. However, not sure if it really is due to structural issues.

What becomes apparent is that current airframe technology cannot beat the existing ones by a large margin. The A380 is 20% better than a B747-400. I would credit that half engine and half aerodynamics (the B747-400 has to modern standards terrible aerodynamics).

In this case however, I’ve seen articles claiming it will take 400 units to break even.
This has been my argument since the design of the A380 was set in stone and people started calling it a new era in Aviation.

The 400 seems about right if you include the recovery of the Capex etc.
Whilst it probably is a new era in Aviation, it’s only due to being big (And ugly as hell but that’s my opinion). It’s not faster or necessarily safer. Obviously, each generation of design is safer than the previous.
It’s still a novelty.
Airlines love it because it can now use 1 flight a day instead of two on the very long haul routes.
It offers pax. a lot of things to do……all novelty in my opinion. When I’m on long haul, I want to eat, see a movie and/or listen to my Mp3 and of course sleep. All I actually want is for the pilot to maintain landings = take-offs.
I don’t want to pay extra for stuff I don’t need.
I’m sure I’m not alone.

The new era in Aviation is the plastics. CFRP on main class 1 structural components on “Big” aircraft. I’m sure all the manufacturers that have started this route are sorry. Airbus A350, 787, C series. The weight savings proclaimed are just lies. Maybe 5% on the whole A/c, not the 20% expected.
Costs are 10-fold, both in manufacturing hours and the raw materials, and the fasteners.
The customers (Airlines and users) are not going to pay more for a 5% saving of weight.
CFRP, it’s perfect for panels and nacelles and such like, but when you start making the Spars (Which end up 25% heavier than a metal one), the covers, the floor beams etc. out of plastic, then a whole new untried area is being broached.
OK, class 1 items are plastic in military fighters and small bombers. The wings of such are short stubby and stiff. The pilot can hit the “MUMMY” handle and get out. And don’t forget, it is pathetic in a fire. The Fibers will not melt, but the resin has gone liquid at 200 deg C. It goes jelly at some point earlier than that.

“Break Even” is nice, but the development is paid for mostly. Each A380 leaving the hangar is now making actual positive cash.

Sorry, that’s plain wrong.
Positive cash means money (As defined by M-zero) coming in whilst no money is going out. In other words, the development costs have stopped, the Designers have dwindled, the factories are built and there is no more capex. So, income is possibly overtaking outflow in terms of RAW cash only. It’s accountancy spin.
Add the manhours taken to build (They are only at set 40 ish on the long lead-time items so right at the start of the learning curve (1)) and the other costs which are not deemed cash, then the A380 is a country mile away. As would be any aircraft at Set 40.
Development costs are amortised into the equation and can never be forgotten.
We can of course never know how much subsidy it actually received, from the EEC and French Government. Declared does not mean truth.
Will it ever make a true profit, who knows? Sales are steady but slow. When one comes down and kills 800 then that will be the end of it. Who knows.

(1) And I don’t speak of learning curves as glibly as a politician, I live and breathe learning curves daily.

Boeing hardly left Airbus to it, they strongly marketed the 747-8, aiming it as a spoiler for the A380, having just said there was no market for large aircraft before developing a large aircraft.

The 747-8 has been a failure as a passenger aircraft, with Lufthansa still the only confirmed order, although Boeing succesfully got the scalp of Arik air (although not confirmed).
this significantly?

I have flown the A380 twice now, and would still pick the 744 over it.

The main problem i found being sat next to the exit was the draft was cold beyond belief. I have had exits on the 744 and never really noticed it, but flying into SIN I noticed it, and was glad to get into the humid singapore heat for once.

Yes the A380 is super quiet, the 744 doesnt make too much noise (as long as you are not sat behind the engines)

Remember: there won’t be any new comparable aircraft in the next 15 years at least.

That’s because everyone is going for smaller jets.
The demand for 747/A380 sized aircraft has been in a flat spin for years.
Hence why Boeing has left Airbus to themselves and instead are offering an alternative to those Airlines operating 747s that need to replacement but cannot justify the A380.