some anti A380 comments from the USA

Hi all.

I found this posted in an old copy ( november 06) of the new york times.

Looks like the U.S thinks the A380 will be a flop. Its old news now and I think most of the folks who posted their comments hopefully now have egg on their faces.

Time to Kill the A-380?

question for the day:
Would Airbus be better off if it just dropped the A-380 program, or if it kept trying to build what is likely to be an overpriced white elephant?
The best bet may be to keep stalling and finding new problems to delay the program, while doing everything possible to get moving on the A-350 that will compete with Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner. That way, Airbus can hope more airlines will follow FedEx in canceling orders, a decision that would minimize damages Airbus will owe airlines that have orders in.
Instead, I assume that Airbus will eventually get the plane built, and with all the wiring crammed in. (An inability to get the wiring right has been the excuse so far.) Then the market reaction will arrive.
Let us briefly examine the virtues (or lack of same) of this plane, as seen by various constituencies.
Airports: Hate having to expand and reinforce runways and build new facilities for a plane that plans to load and unload from two levels. Would like being able to move more people with fewer flights.
Airlines: Some airlines, notably in the Mideast, see a chance to become worldwide hub-and-spoke operations, flying A-380’s between continents and thus serving the whole world even though there is not that much business to their country. Others see an opportunity to cram in unprecendented numbers of passengers while not having to use up precious landing slots at busy airports. For cargo carriers like FedEx, the plane could be useful on high volume routes.
Passengers: I think many will hate it. How would you like to line up at customs having just gotten off the back of the second or third A-380 to arrive? Would passport control take longer than the flight?
But the real killer will be that Boeing’s 777 can fly almost anywhere in the world non-stop. An airline offering service direct on that plane will have a huge advantage over one offering connecting service on the A-380. My bet is that airlines will find the hub-and-spoke plan does not work well, and Airbus will find it very hard to sell more planes, while early customers, having found their business strategies did not work, are trying to unload used planes.
In the long run, passengers will get what they want.
Tags: Airbus

Link E-mail This
24 comments so far…
1.November 7th,
2006
9:23 pm totally agreed with writer. A380 is indeed a shows project for the EU. What is the breakpoint to sell the plane? Bet no other customers than those whom have booked the initial launch.
Bet the final price will not even pay off the R+D to this project. Project was a saga in this modern era. Now they’re trying recoop on the A350WBX another plane in the ‘air’ as this one sits on the ground with ‘wiring’ hiccups. what hiccups …is on the books for customers to know till they operates.
Better to fly with those planes that works then works on the planes that sits.

— Posted by desmond chiang
2.November 8th,
2006
1:22 am With the cost of travel so high wonder where they’ll find enough customers? The ripoff attitude of today’s travel industry has made the experience tense and unpleasant.

It’s the penny anteness of it all which so irritating. For example, the few bucks for the room safe you don’t use. Unpleasant just having to ask get it removed because of the risk they won’t leaving the customer embarrassed and irritated.

— Posted by MARK KLEIN, M.D.
3.November 8th,
2006
3:01 pm Yes, I think A380 is not going to make it. It seems to be poorly designed and meant for non-existent market.

It takes a lot of money and long time to develop flying machines. We know that oil is becoming more and more expensive. So, we should start designing more economical flying machines.

I claim that Airbus should kill A380 and use the money instead on developing modern Zeppelins. The future is going to have fewer jets and huge number of Zeppelins.

— Posted by Matti Kinnunen
4.November 8th,
2006
3:09 pm While I am an enormous supporter of Boeing and their market research, which said anything larger than the 747 was just not needed in our world at this time, it would be insane for Airbus to try and end their A380 program now that they have invested billions. It would be economic suicide. I think it is also wise to keep in mind that the first generation 747-100 was also two years late, and was the standard for international travel for more than 2 decades. Innovation has a price, and I support airlines flying where they want and how they want. Customers always get what they want – welcome to capitalism.

The A350 XWB – I don’t think Airbus has a choice. They have to go forward with it, but they are so far behind that it will be a long road to capture whatever part of the market is available. Airlines WILL buy it though because they value competition.

— Posted by Andrew
5.November 9th,
2006
3:20 am Why don’t we let the market decide what airplanes the airlines will buy.
Don’t forget the A380 is equivalent to B747 when it first fly in 1969, Airbus has a learning curve in terms of producing the airplanes.
My dad is a pilot he flew both Airbus planes and Boeing planes before, in terms of flying the airplanes Airbus makes it easy for pilot to fly their planes compare to Boeing, they are way ahead in terms of automating the pilot work load.

— Posted by Donny Agustiady
6.November 9th,
2006
10:03 am In a way, Airbus has a lot in common with AirBush administration!

— Posted by Dennis Ferguson
7.November 9th,
2006
1:42 pm Maybe the A380 will be for Airbus what the L-1011 was for Lockheed: their last commercial airliner. The L-1011 was late in delivery due to engine availability problems and Lockheed never sold enough to make back development costs. Besides, I have never flown in anything that rattled as much as an L-1011 on takeoff.

— Posted by Bill Bagnell
8.November 9th,
2006
2:04 pm The A380 is product in search of a market. It will need to sell 300-400 planes in order to cover development costs, before any profit could be realized. Orders have fizzeled after an inital introductory surge which was heavily discounted. Orders peaked at 160 and remained stagnant for almost a year, but now have actually shrunk with the FedEx withdraw. One third of orders has been from United Arab Emirates, a small nation that hopes to expand financed by recent petrodollar surge. This blip has skewed more realistic projections for this aircraft. Most of the largest carriers and none of the American ones have not seen the value in purchasing this airplane. Few non-national for-profit airlines have committed to this project. It is tough to justify a product without a market.
The European Airplane Consortium has had previous technological triumph in a plane that failed economically. The Concorde SST had a run of 20 planes, but it was realized…just not profitable. This was aviation and technological milestone of the 1970’s and a true source of national pride. However the opportunity cost of this boondogle was probably 2-3 more simple plane designs that may have become real movers of people and material.
Sometimes the best product is simpler and smaller but dependable and affordable. I would suggest the lowly Boeing 737. It connects the vital intracontinental air routes such as the continental North American or European Corridors. It has a fast turnaround and can deliver to small, up-and-coming cities that otherwise would be ignored, like Ft. Lauderdale or Liverpool. It has moved more passengers by air in the past 30 years than ships haved moved in the past century.
If the Airbus consortium is a non-profit government supported entity, it can defy the market forces for a time. It just will have a small but spectacular run before ending up as museum showpieces. With new technology and more powerful engines you may be able to defy the laws of aerodynamics, but the forces of the marketplace are as persistent as gravity and eventually prevail.

— Posted by Dr. Jake Tom
9.November 9th,
2006
2:18 pm The A-3-Ugly will be built regardless of whether or not it makes a profit. Airbus has never had to worry about making money, they always get bailed out by the European taxpayer. Although Airbus likes to claim US aircraft manufacturers benefit from indirect subsidies, these don’t come close to the overt and subtle government support for Airbus.

— Posted by Bill Hough