More bad A380 news

Just want to make sure I understand, you believe the composite 787 with all new GeNX engines won’t be able to compete with the 1993 technology A330, and that the 360-540,000 lb MTOW 787 is gonna kill off the 545-766,000 lb MTOW 777 series? In the wake of the fuel spike of the last few years, the 787 seems like the right airplane at the right time to me. I guess everyone has an opinion, but I can’t say I agree with yours. Seems like the airlines don’t either, with 700ish 787 firm orders still on the books and a healthy backlog still existing on the 777.

I also find it rather interesting that you feel a 3-5% weight savings on an airplane with a 610,000 lb OEW is economically unjustifiable. Especially at a time when the entire A380 program appears to be economically unjustifiable on the basis of sales performance to date. Even Airbus stopped publicly quoting a breakeven airframe figure in 2006, at what was it, some 430 frames?

I’ll buy you a beer when MSN700 rolls off the line, providing I am still alive in 2040. Perhaps the Chinese will have replace Boeing by then and Airbus will have long term competition.

A business case to design an aircraft that only gains by reducing the OEW about 3-5% is indeed not working. There is not potential in terms of engines (and you can basically retrofit every new engine technology to the A380). The whole thing is very unattractive for a profit-oriented company, especially as sales seem not to be so wonderful.

The B787 replaces B767-300 in the first place, competes versus the A330-200 and may replace some B777-200ER. Strange that no B777-200 was sold since, but quite a lot A330s.

And don’t fixate on the fact that A330 was first rolled out 1993: even the aircraft designed in the 60ies or 70ies are remarkably efficient, see B747 (which even in its newest version bears very strong resemblance to the 1968 design).

Very competitive, as the “composite illusion” will really be understood in a few years. The B787 has issues to be competitive versus the A330 and Boeing rushed the whole industry into a rather stupid rush of replacing very useful aircraft (B777, A330) before their time was due.
By the way: the A380 uses in many areas the same level of composites as the B787, they just didn’t have management telling them to use it all over, but they used where it made sense.
I wouldn’t expect more than a 3-5% weight saving, which doesn’t justify the business case. The A380 may be running bad lately, but that ensures that Boeing will never build a competing design.
SIA will replace MSN007 by MSN700.

Just want to make sure I understand, you believe the composite 787 with all new GeNX engines won’t be able to compete with the 1993 technology A330, and that the 360-540,000 lb MTOW 787 is gonna kill off the 545-766,000 lb MTOW 777 series? In the wake of the fuel spike of the last few years, the 787 seems like the right airplane at the right time to me. I guess everyone has an opinion, but I can’t say I agree with yours. Seems like the airlines don’t either, with 700ish 787 firm orders still on the books and a healthy backlog still existing on the 777.

I also find it rather interesting that you feel a 3-5% weight savings on an airplane with a 610,000 lb OEW is economically unjustifiable. Especially at a time when the entire A380 program appears to be economically unjustifiable on the basis of sales performance to date. Even Airbus stopped publicly quoting a breakeven airframe figure in 2006, at what was it, some 430 frames?

I’ll buy you a beer when MSN700 rolls off the line, providing I am still alive in 2040. Perhaps the Chinese will have replace Boeing by then and Airbus will have long term competition.

You really think Boeing are going to try an enter the VLA-market in 5-10 years time? I say that is a lot of nonsense, they are going to be busy enough with both the 737/757 replacement and the possible 777NG. I cannot see Boeing going any larger than the 747-8. The A380 will be refined over its lifecycle, just like any other aircraft. It will just have the upper-end of the spectrum to itself.

Actually, if the A380 doesn’t sell, the B747-8 will sell even worse. I still bet a beer that Boeing scraps the whole -8I program in the coming 12-15 month.

I’m wondering how competitive the A380 will be when Boeing applies all the composite airframe knowledge they are gaining now on the 787 program to their future VLA 5-10 years down the road? If Airbus gains the same knowledge on the A350, its gonna cost an awful lot to rebuild the A380 as a composite airplane….

Very competitive, as the “composite illusion” will really be understood in a few years. The B787 has issues to be competitive versus the A330 and Boeing rushed the whole industry into a rather stupid rush of replacing very useful aircraft (B777, A330) before their time was due.
By the way: the A380 uses in many areas the same level of composites as the B787, they just didn’t have management telling them to use it all over, but they used where it made sense.
I wouldn’t expect more than a 3-5% weight saving, which doesn’t justify the business case. The A380 may be running bad lately, but that ensures that Boeing will never build a competing design.
SIA will replace MSN007 by MSN700.

You really think Boeing are going to try an enter the VLA-market in 5-10 years time? I say that is a lot of nonsense, they are going to be busy enough with both the 737/757 replacement and the possible 777NG. I cannot see Boeing going any larger than the 747-8. The A380 will be refined over its lifecycle, just like any other aircraft. It will just have the upper-end of the spectrum to itself.

IIRC that was the plan at the time the A380 was launched. I’m not sure if it is now, with the world economy being very soft.

When the original VLA argument came up Boeing agreed that there was a market, they just asserted that it was 15-20 years down the road. Almost ten years have now passed since A380 program launch…..it kinda looks like their assertion is coming true. Somehow, admitting that they were correct apparently makes one a “fanboy” on this message board. Somehow, recognizing that Airbus tried to kill the 777ER/LR with their anti-ETOPS arguments also makes one a “fanboy.”

You can say that all you like! And I’ll agree with you! The A340 is a joke compared to the 777ER/LR.

The A380s market is definately there, it’s just unfortunate timing for Airbus, as a jumbo happens to be completely useless in a recession when passenger numbers are plumeting. When pax numbers return to their pre-reccession levels (and higher), the A380 should come into it’s own.

When the original VLA argument came up Boeing agreed that there was a market, they just asserted that it was 15-20 years down the road. Almost ten years have now passed since A380 program launch…..it kinda looks like their assertion is coming true. Somehow, admitting that they were correct apparently makes one a “fanboy” on this message board. Somehow, recognizing that Airbus tried to kill the 777ER/LR with their anti-ETOPS arguments also makes one a “fanboy.”

I’m wondering how competitive the A380 will be when Boeing applies all the composite airframe knowledge they are gaining now on the 787 program to their future VLA 5-10 years down the road? If Airbus gains the same knowledge on the A350, its gonna cost an awful lot to rebuild the A380 as a composite airplane….

Apologies but I still think the whole basis of the A380 was looking at transatlantic schedule data and seeing vast numbers of flights coming across the pond without realising that these were all the spoke flight numbers going into the hub airport for the one actual flight across from the US.

That caught quite a lot of people out in my IATA time…

I would seriously hope that people at IATA are not making basic and silly mistakes such as that! If you or anyone at IATA is using OAG, the most widely used and recognised source of airline schedule information, then they need to take a quick course in how to use it because there is a simple filter called “operating flights only” which will remove all codeshare services and only show ACTUAL flights and capacities. Given that OAG was and continues to be the way in which airlines feeding into the IATA ticketing system report, then this would be worrying if true!

I also think the airlines know what they’re operating and selling before they order such aircraft. They know their markets and also know the strategies for serving them, and have just been bitten by a bad downturn in demand, just as airlines were in the early 70’s just as fuel prices started to rise.

Many of the routes which the airlines intend to operate with the A380s are not transatlantic anyway.

So if you did work with the duplicated flight numbers providing x number of seats on a network, say transatlantic, surely you corroborated that against given passengers carried by the airlines? Agreed, it can’t be exact by city point but you would get a representative load factor for an airline or group of airlines which would show the numbers as tosh!

Need to do top down as well as bottom up to check the numbers.
And before that you’d surely spot the multiple arrivals and departures for a city pair at exactly the same times!

As I pointed out above, the airline’s who make the decisions to order these aircraft will know their market’s anyway, so I don’t think it matters if someone at IATA is a bit incompetent :diablo:

The A380s market is definately there, it’s just unfortunate timing for Airbus, as a jumbo happens to be completely useless in a recession when passenger numbers are plumeting. When pax numbers return to their pre-reccession levels (and higher), the A380 should come into it’s own.
Why havent the 737s or A320s suffered so much? Simple really. Those orderbooks are full of low cost airlines who don’t feel the pinch so bad as the Flag carriers do.

OK, forget that one. I’ve just gone back to the source and in my usual not paying attention manner (it’s not work) jumped from the initial sentence which mentioned this without reading the rest of the article which indicated that this was speculation based on the SQ delivery deferrals.

OK, no worries. 🙂

So if you did work with the duplicated flight numbers providing x number of seats on a network, say transatlantic, surely you corroborated that against given passengers carried by the airlines? Agreed, it can’t be exact by city point but you would get a representative load factor for an airline or group of airlines which would show the numbers as tosh!

Need to do top down as well as bottom up to check the numbers.
And before that you’d surely spot the multiple arrivals and departures for a city pair at exactly the same times!

It’s the first I’ve heard of this. Tell us more.

OK, forget that one. I’ve just gone back to the source and in my usual not paying attention manner (it’s not work) jumped from the initial sentence which mentioned this without reading the rest of the article which indicated that this was speculation based on the SQ delivery deferrals.

Apologies but I still think the whole basis of the A380 was looking at transatlantic schedule data and seeing vast numbers of flights coming across the pond without realising that these were all the spoke flight numbers going into the hub airport for the one actual flight across from the US.

That caught quite a lot of people out in my IATA time…

His style is most definitely “rentaquote”, rather than serious analysis. Look at what he says about Udvar-Hazy, for example, someone vastly more successful than himself, & whose opinions are far more valuable –

However, this outwardly dumb idea has some merit despite its “Loony Tunes” provenance (Udvar-Hazy).

http://www.glgroup.com/News/-Sauve-Qui-Peut–Udvar-Hazys-on-a-Mission-42999.html

His prolific use of italics & bold, his very American English (despite being Scottish), his style, his poor syntax & numerous spelling errors . . . . It’s hastily dashed off stuff, clearly aimed at providing “independent” opinions for the use of Boeing fanboys to impress other Boeing fanboys. There’s a class of “analysts” which exists to provide support for the opinions of those who’ve already made up their minds. Some are less overtly “Yee-haw, Airbus (or whoever – there are also Boeing-bashers) products are faeces” in their style. McVitie looks like a bottom feeder.

File in the round metal short-term storage device on the floor.

… Heck, 787 defferals are already being pencilled-in and that aircraft is unlikely to enter service before the expected return to growth in the industry….

Some outright cancellations, IIRC. Times are hard. Money is short.

I do think it’s an horrific piece of journalism, which is exaggerating the issue and misleading those readers who don’t possess suitable knowledge to spot this.

The issue of aircraft defferals is affecting all manufacturers, and yes it is a problem for those operators of the A380 because of the amount of capacity they have added at a bad time in the industry, but overall the real world may not be as gloomy as he’s trying to make out! Heck, 787 defferals are already being pencilled-in and that aircraft is unlikely to enter service before the expected return to growth in the industry.

He may have 29 years of knowledge, but I know a few others like that too, and I’ve picked up work from some of them once clients have realised what rubbish they spought!

M. McVitie sole reason of existence is to provide negative quotes to some publications when they need to bash Airbus (mainly WSJ and some editorials like fleetbuzz.com).

He has never, ever said anything positive on Airbus and is probably the worst source of info regarding the company or its product line.

It has to be said that it is not a good time to bringing the A380 into full service with airlines losing almost $1Bn per month according to IATA. If it was that successful would Singapore be parking them at Victorville?

It’s the first I’ve heard of this. Tell us more.

It has to be said that it is not a good time to bringing the A380 into full service with airlines losing almost $1Bn per month according to IATA. If it was that successful would Singapore be parking them at Victorville?

I have long clung to the belief that the old story about the A380’s genesis (a misreading of transatlantic flight schedule data by not removing the ghost (multiple) flight numbers) bears some semblance of truth.

But then Mr McVitie might know something about that…

Does he know what he’s talking about? Thunderbird 3 was the best looking of the fleet but its design is for space travel not transporting pods containing rescue equipment or fast personal transport to the scene of an earthbound disaster!
Likewise the A380 is a beautiful beast designed for a particular role. The economics of air travel is going through a tough time at present but there will be an upswing and when it happens the A380 will be in demand.

Sounds to me as though he has a chip on his shoulder!