Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380 Article From BusinessWeek  
User currently offlineFDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 35
Posted (10 years 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2945 times:

Interesting article, what do you think?

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_45/b3857024.htm






You're only as good as your last departure.
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMD80Nut From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 889 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2803 times:

A very interesting article. While the A380 isn't as a big leap over the 747-400 as the original 747s were over the 707s and stretch DC-8s of the 60s, it is a logical progression for commercial aviation. I don't believe it's a folly, the plane has yet to fly and there are already over 100 on order. Remember, Airbus spent years evaluating the market and technology needed to build such an aircraft. Once it enters service I think you'll see more airlines order it. I believe the fact Boeing has chosen not to build a competitor greatly improves Airbus' chances of reaching and surpassing that 250 unit break even point.

I think the A380 will become very attractive to airlines because it wont be profitable just on ultra long hauls. Heavily traveled long hauls like JFK-Heathrow would seem to be ideal for such a large aircraft, allowing airlines to increase capacity without having to add flights. This of course is nothing more than mere speculation, but I believe the A380 will be a big success for Airbus.

cheers, Ralph



Fly Douglas Jets DC-8 / DC-9 / DC-10 / MD80 / MD11 / MD90 / 717
User currently offlineL1011Fan From United States of America, joined May 2003, 271 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 years 5 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2672 times:

I'm not trying to start an A v. B war but even Airbus supporters have to admit that this article is very much one-sided towards Airbus. Yes they bring up a few counterpoints to the A380 but for the most part I interpreted it as another piece of Airbus propaganda. And before you all flame me, no I'm not anti-Airbus.

User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 7874 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (10 years 5 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2658 times:

Lets not underestimate the growth in air cargo traffic. The A380 will be able to carry more cargo at lower cost. By lowering cost, more cargo will be shipped, ensuring more plane will be needed. With it's expected delivery time for 2008, many cargo operators that have not yet ordered the A380 will be ready to dump their old planes.

User currently offlineSandiaman From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 months 2 days ago) and read 2482 times:

I don't think a 250 breakeven is a fixed target. Breakeven varies according to a number of factors such as:

1. Actual fixed costs which may be subject to overruns or underruns
2. Profit per aircraft based on recurring costs, which may be zero or less for the launch customers (note: whether the substantial, 43-plane Emirates order is a loss leader is anyone's guess). And it is also heavily influenced by the availability of competition. Perhaps customers have been willing to pay more based on the revenue generating ability of this plane. And of course this depends on the overall health of the market. Who knows?
3. Airline payment schedules (the later the payments, the more interest the manufacturer must pay on development costs)
4. Product development costs (e.g., developing a freighter version alonside
a passenger model increases the fixed costs that must be amortized over a larger number of units).

I'm sure there's even more factors than are listed here. But it's hard to imagine that anyone, even Airbus has each one of these factors pegged. They probably have a better idea than anyone else, but there's so many things here that are beyond anyone's control. That's where the risk comes in.

Cheers,
Mark


User currently offlineSsides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 21
Reply 5, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2345 times:

Just my two cents:

1) This plane would not be built except for Airbus's government subsidies
2) If anything keeps the A380 in the air, it will be cargo traffic



"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
User currently offlineMEA321 From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 389 posts, RR: 16
Reply 6, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2264 times:

As I read this article, a few things strike me...

First of all, isn't in interesting that America, the country which in essence over sizes everything (cars, houses, burgers...Etc) is looking away from a huge aircraft, while Europeans who drive small cars and like most things simple are building the behemoth of all aircrafts. That's more related to culture or whatever, but I still thinks that's interesting...

Secondly, I think the A380 is very exciting and that the era of the jumbo jet will not die anytime soon. People are traveling in mass quantities between large cities, and airlines need aircraft which are going to be able to provide sufficient seating so that these routes can be effectively served. The A380 is coming at a time when airlines are retiring older 747s and 767s. It also comes at a time when other airlines who are starting to make a dominance in their region (such at Emirates Airlines) need to start looking at fleet expansion in order to maintain their status.

The economy will not always be in a downturn...from where we are there is only one place to go...UP!! So as the economy gets better in a year or two the A380 should be hitting the airlines in stride, and i personally think it will be a success. Everything is very well timed.

MEA321



MEA321
User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 7, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2247 times:

Ssides, don't you know the saying "If you have nothing constructive to say, stay quiet"?

There are enough markets where a plane like the A380 will be required within the next 10 to 15 years, and considering that 121 planes have been ordered before the first one is even "on its feet", and that there are no delivery slots available until 2008, I think it is a relatively safe bet that Airbus made the right decision in launching the A380...

... just as, in all probability, Boeing will take the right decision in launching the 7e7.



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineAdria From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2207 times:

1) This plane would not be built except for airbus government subsidies
2) If anything keeps the A380 in the air, it will be cargo traffic

1) An airline doesn't care if the project was supported by government. The important thing is the performance

2)Hmmmmm........ then why are there more than 100 orders for the passenger version?



User currently offlineMark_D. From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 1447 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2189 times:

L1011fan-- I'm not trying to start an A v. B war but even Airbus supporters have to admit that this article is very much one-sided towards Airbus. Yes they bring up a few counterpoints to the A380 but for the most part I interpreted it as another piece of Airbus propaganda. And before you all flame me, no I'm not anti-Airbus.


LOL, I find it mildly Anti-Airbus, in tone! But ah well, they seem to be coming along nicely with the thing, it'll be great --and most interesting-- to see the last steps month-by-month as it heads towards first flight, first airshow, and so on. As well as first delivery, first year of operation and so on, after that.


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16228 posts, RR: 57
Reply 10, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2096 times:

The order book is notable for the airlines that have not ordered the aircraft, than those that have. Given that a signif # of the current orders were achieved with big discounts for launch customers, the commercial success of the A380 remains very much in doubt.


Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineRIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1785 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2037 times:

"this article is very much one-sided towards Airbus" - well, I'd say it is pretty neutral and unbiased. Which doesn't mean I agree with everything it says. The "250-to-break-even": 121 is already there, but did they take into consideration the discount price for launch orders? Hence, I believe, they are still far from "almost half of it"... And, of course, Boeing made no mistake not trying to design a direct competitor. If 550+ seater market is big enough then 400 to 500 should be even bigger. 747 has no competition there, a couple of airlines already talked about 450 seater "747NG"... To develop it based on 7E7 technology would be quite closer to a new design than to a derivative but still way cheaper than 380... As for "380 already killed 747" - come on, guys, so far these are 346 and 773 that replace 747... quite a question for even bigger one to come...

User currently offlineMIAMIx707 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2008 times:

I just wish they would have designed the A380 to be better looking, as much as it will be impressive to look at. Newer jets seem to be strictly 'form follows function'; Days when jets were made with some visual appeal in mind, IMHO are long gone

User currently offlinePetazulu From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 701 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1997 times:

How many orders were there for concorde? Wasn;t it about 100 as well?
How many were built?

I think the 380 is a niche market. The question is whether that niche market is big enough to allow Airbus to make a profit.


User currently offlineAdria From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 5 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1949 times:

If it is a niche market then why did Boeing propose the streched versionf of the 747. But they couldn't get any orders so it is better to say that there is no market for the super-jumbo

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Article On A380 Freighter From Air Cargo World posted Fri May 30 2003 19:29:25 by Teahan
A380 Article - Airliner That Fell To Earth posted Sat Oct 7 2006 03:21:47 by BCAInfoSys
Lufthansa First A380 Delayed From Jan-> Summer '08 posted Fri Sep 15 2006 12:54:21 by Singapore_Air
New A380 Article On Flight Revue posted Thu Jul 6 2006 09:34:56 by Ikarus2006
A380 Profitable From 2008 posted Fri Apr 7 2006 13:03:08 by RuudOnline
A380: Noise From Upper Deck! posted Fri Apr 7 2006 10:29:13 by Qslinger
ORD Making Room For A380 (article) posted Thu Dec 1 2005 14:20:22 by LON-CHI
A380 Videos From MEL posted Fri Nov 18 2005 04:34:22 by Chrisrad
Silly Article From Msnbc On Legacy Carriers posted Wed Nov 2 2005 17:42:59 by Greenguy01
German FAZ: Eye-Catching New A380 Article (quotes) posted Fri Aug 19 2005 23:20:34 by Udo