Ship 741Airbus 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!
Ship 741In 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.
Ship 741And it’s a real company, with real stockholders and everything!
Ship 741I guess the reason I figured tanking requirements would have decreased is that so many airplanes have been parked, literally hundreds of B-52’s, F-4’s, F-16’s, not to mention SR-71’s.
You make a good point in that there are widely varied requirements all over the world. For this reason, I believe that the Boeing entry was more suitable for the needs of the USAF than the Airbus entry. If you need more tails, it makes sense (to me at least) to buy larger numbers of a smaller airframes, rather than a larger number of smaller frames. Also, I believe someone posted some statistic showing that a huge number of tanking missions are needed for training and very little fuel is transferred, thus the smaller airplane is more appropriate yet again.
I’m more familiar with civil airliners, and both hours and cycles are tracked, and WRT to U.S. carriers, the FAA published an advisory circular a few years ago defining a “life” based on cycles. I’m not sure how much weight it carries or if the numbers can be extended by additional inspections. Traditionally, Boeing has said their airplanes have no “life” and can be flown indefinitely if maintained properly. Airbus placed hard limits on some of their designs (A320 was ridiculously low initially) but through their Extended Service Goal (ESG 1, 2, etc.) are now extending those. I heard “through the grapevine” that Airbus was initally so conservative because the memory of Comet was still fresh in the minds of the Engineers in 1972 when the consortium was formed. Thats all just mho and off the top of my head.
Ship 741JBritch….I can’t comment exactly on the flight hours but I have unofficial numbers. A friend of mine served in a tanker unit in the 80s and at that time his airplane was 25ish years old and had 13,000 flight hours on it.
The report found here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2006_hr/060228-bartlett.pdf
states that the -R’s were flying 710 hours a year average in 2006. This was considered scandalous. I would guess that tanking requirements have decreased since then.
Its just a WAG, but I’ll wager the “average” for the fleet is about 25,000 flight hours. By comparison, an international airline flies their planes between 4 and 5,000 hours a year, and domestic U.S. carrier flies their airplanes 2,500-3,000 a year. Many commercial airliners approach 100,000 FH prior to retirement, some DC-9’s had 100,000 LANDINGS. The USAF KC135’s must be the most under-utilized, over-maintained airplanes in history, with the possible exception of the B-52’s.
Ship 741Not only does North America not need the A380, the paltry order book seems to indicate the world doesn’t need the A380 very much.
Ship 741Putting words in someones mouth doesn’t constitute brilliance in my view. For example, I never said that Airbus wouldn’t sell more A350’s….and thats just the start.
Yes, he is correct in the GE approach to changing the GeNX for the 748 mirroring. I never said that it wasn’t. But note that they had an all-new engine on which to do that, he hasn’t refuted that RR hasn’t developed an all-new engine in 30 years. Having new engines across a wide spectrum allows GE to dominate the market…..:)
Rarely needed because they run so long on the wing…..once again, I never said they NEVER needed any maintenance. Gosh, a guy can’t even joke around here!
The size of the GE90 clearly indicates (to me at least) that it was made to be “upscaled” from the start. Once again, their all-new engine was able to be modified (ala RR) to cover the entire spectrum, something that RR could not do as easily because their RB211 rehash was pretty much maxed out at 95-98K.
Thankfully he lectures on the duty of the GE director, I had no idea until what that guy did until he spoke up (sic). I’m wondering why he keeps fishing for a statement of what I do and my qualifications within the industry? As if that would validate or invalidate any statement I made. Whatever happened to considering a statement on it’s merits? Also, he hasn’t stated his qualfications, he asks continually for mine yet he provides none. I haven’t asked for his and really don’t care. Its enough for me to note that he hasn’t refuted my original main point, that only GE has successfully created all-new engines in the last 30 years, and that they have done so 3 times (counting CFM), while PW has floundered and RR has contented themselves with rehashes that have secured their place as number 2. My point seems a simple statement of fact, I’m wondering why it made him so angry?
Ship 741The same rationale is probably the reason why 747-8 passenger sales are slow.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.
The worldwide air transport market has been fragmenting for 20 years now. For example, between the U.S. and Europe, the traditional trans-Atlantic gateways of JFK and LHR are now routinely over-flown. There is much more point to point service. This is also happening in the Pacific, and will happen at a faster rate as China continues to grow and the 787 comes into service. Japan will be overflown. Japan will still have O&D, and it will still have a vibrant economy, it just won’t as important a hub as it was in the past.
International route fragmentation was facilitated by the 767 and ETOPS. Boeing led the way. Airbus came along only reluctantly, and late at that. Witness the A340. Airbus followed the failure of the A340 by allowing their pride to govern their actions and developed the failed A380. If it was 1970, the A380 might work, but the rate at which markets are fragmenting virtually guarantees limited A380 sales. They might sell 1,000. Might. In the meantime thousands of 787’s and A350’s will be built. To say nothing of A330’s and 777’s. Boeing only built the 748 because it was easy. It was easy to develop from the 744, it was easy to ensure a few hundred sales, it was easy to steal a few hundred sales from the A380. Developed at a fraction of the cost of the A380 and practically ensuring market failure (never reaching breakeven) of the A380 was an easy decision for Boeing.
I don’t love Boeing. I have no association with them. I think they do a lot of stupid things. But they took a huge gamble on ETOPS when they modified the 767s and when they built the 777 specifially for ETOPS, and they were right, and they followed it up with the 787, which was the right airplane, but they failed to deliver in a timely manner. ALPA was wrong about ETOPS. Airbus was wrong about ETOPS. Lufthansa was wrong about ETOPS. Boeing was right, the market changed forever, and it ain’t changing back. Being right should still count for something.
While LHR bumbles about with NIMBY problems and fails to build another runway, and has raised taxes to an exorbitant level to pay for T5 (and further drive away connecting traffic), the Chinese have just announced plans to build an all-new airport for Beijing, with 8 (count ’em, 8) runways, to open by 2017. Thats right 2017, and they haven’t even started yet, but it will probably be done.
Ship 741I am sure if Emirates had a fleet of B748s, that they were upgrading to from the B773 it would still be the same problem. That is, Emirates wanting more Germany market share than Germany is willing to give. At best, your point is moot.
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?
Ship 741I didn’t comment on the 787 orders because your statement was ridiculous. Thats generally what I do when someone says something gigantically stupid….ignore them. But since you seem to be begging for an answer……. There are many more 787 orders coming and GE know it. Plus, they also use the GeNX as exclusive engine supplier on the 748. The 748 and 787 orders combined, plus spares (admittedly rarely needed for GE engines) comfortably exceed 1,000 engines.
The 777 was always programmed to have follow on models…..the GE90 was built specifically to accomodate them……as anyone who has been around the industry for awhile knows.
GE is ignoring the A350 because of lack of engineering resources? ?? I’ll just stop replying to you now…..we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I guess you know more about GE’s capabilities than that lying old GE aviation CEO. You’ve convinced me with your flawless logic. You’ve been in this industry forever in unbelievably responsible positions and I bow to your superior knowledge and intellect…..gosh I wish I knew as much as you…..you’re like the cool big brother everyone wishes they had.
Ship 741not really a mish mash. only 2: its very late and long overdue for a commercial program, and there are political “problems” besides.
I never asserted that the Germany thing was technical……I agree its political. But it certainly is an ironic twist in the saga of the A380, at least to me.
Ship 741On the 747 program, it took Boeing roughly 5 years from program launch to deliver 96 airplanes, they delivered 92 in the second year of deliveries. In the first 11 years of the program, Boeing delivered about 300 airplanes.
By comparison, the A380 is 11 years into the program and almost 3 into deliveries and Airbus has delivered 52 airplanes.
Airbus have about 70 less ORDERS 11 years after program launch than Boeing had DELIVERIES in the roughly same time period.
And, contrary to hopeful speculation, no major additional orders for the A380 appear to be on the horizon.
Finally, in an odd twist of events, at least one Airbus Industrial partner, Germany, is limiting A380 access to their market from the major A380 customer in the Middle East. Thus, Europe is denying access to the A380 to the largest A380 purchaser.
Things hardly seem rosy.
Ship 741Amiga is so knowledgeable that he knows more than the head of GE aviation?
Perhaps they (GE) knew they were gonna get sole source on the 200LR and 300ER way back in ’95? Perhaps they know a lot of things that we don’t.
I’m wondering Amiga, since you are so knowledgeable, if you would care to inform those of us among the great unwashed as to why GE is not interested in the A350? The head of GE aviation is leaving that airplane totally to RR, which one would think would please you.
Ship 741If they cannot recoup costs on 250+ airliners (500 engines) assuming 50% market….
I’m sitting here reading a copy of Aviation Week’s Shownews for the Paris Air Show for June 20, and on Page 84 it has a quote from David Joyce of GE Aviation that, “there is no business case for the a GE engine on an A350-900.”
Apparently, he doesn’t want to poach orders from the 777-300ER, on which the GE90 has sole supplier status. He said that, generally speaking, an engine manufacturer needs at least 500 orders or 1,000 engines to make a business case to invest in a new widebody engine. There are not yet enough A350 orders for GE and RR to split the orders and each make a profit.
I wonder if he is “serious?” Or is he is spouting “rubbish?” Over to you, Amiga
Ship 741There is primary structure and then there is primary structure. To me, using composites in the wings and fuselage as primary structure (spars, ribs, formers, stringers, skin, etc.) is revolutionary. It doesn’t get any more primary that wing spars does it?
Also, the new systems on the airplane (bleedless engines, electric brakes, etc) I consider revolutionary.
Having said that, I do agree with the post that said it the 787 will only be revolutionary if what follows it adopts the same features. Personally, I believe that Airbus is being very wise in utilising composites as primary structure but retaining traditional systems (like the airconditioning packs for example). 10 years from now, if the new systems have been proven to be more reliable, then perhaps Airbus and I will have egg on our face, but I doubt the improvement will be that significant.
Finally, from an aesthetic point of view, I absolutely hate the nose on the 787. Viewed from the side it looks like a slab…..its very blunt, somewhat like a semi-truck from the 1970’s. I don’t think you can beat the nose of the 757, other than perhaps the L1011, which had the most attractive visage of any commercial airliner ever built. All mho.
Sign In
