Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What If The A-380 Fails?  
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Posted (9 years 6 months 22 hours ago) and read 13680 times:

No, this is not an A vs. B thread.

The A-380 is going to enter flight testing soon. But, the airplane is still a long way from the break even point, in sales.

There are rumors of a 40 airplane order.

There are still rumors the airplane is hopelessly over weight.

There are airport issues.

But, if the A-380 never reaches the projected breakeven point in sales, what will be the economic loss to Airbus if say, it sales are still 100 airplanes short of break even?

What will happen if the airplane doesn't meet it's performance specs and airlines begine to cancel orders and options?

Do the EU governments absorb the loss?

I know the losses will be spread around to all of EADs partners in the A-380 project. But, won't this still be a huge loss (economically) for Europe, as a whole?

The UK and France lost hundreds of millions of pounds sterling (because of development costs) because of no Concord sales beyond AF and BA (both state owned airlines at the time) in the 1970s.

123 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2956 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 22 hours ago) and read 13651 times:

If (I mean to emphasize IF) this happens similar along the Concorde project, there will be hell to pay.
This is something along the lines of a wet dream for a Boeing fan or anti-Airbus people.


User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 22 hours ago) and read 13644 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Do the EU governments absorb the loss?

No, the respective taxpayers do. The US will feel this too, since the project contains many US made parts; hence a loss of jobs here as well.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
But, if the A-380 never reaches the projected breakeven point in sales, what will be the economic loss to Airbus if say, it sales are still 100 airplanes short of break even?

I think it will EVENTUALLY reach it's goal. The 747-100 had teething problems of it's own and nearly bankrupted Boeing. Now look where it is today.

Of course the EU would never allow Airbus to go bankrupt; too much French and German national pride at stake.  twocents 



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 22 hours ago) and read 13628 times:

Airbus won't go out of business, the EU won't let them. They would write of the debt for the A380. It would be far cheaper to do this than to have all of the airbus employees become unemployed all of the sudden. We would give Boeing chapter 11 bankruptcy protection if Boeing were to be at financial risk.
I'm sure Airlines wouldn't be too happy if either Airbus or Boeing went out of business. The surviving company would have a monopoly over the market and that wouldn't be good. A lot of the breakthrough technology that we are getting with a/c is because A and B are competing with each other. Remove the competition and you remove the incentive to put money into R & D. You would see much more traditional and conservative airplanes in the future and that would be boring.

Finally, 99% of the discussions on a.net would no longer be necessary since they all become A vs B threads anyways. Can you imagine A.net without the A vs B wars!?!?!  Wow!

Long live Boeing and Airbus.


User currently offlineStevenUhl777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 21 hours ago) and read 13604 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Concord

Errr....that's Concorde with the 'e' on the end.

Thanks... Wink


User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 21 hours ago) and read 13587 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
There are still rumors the airplane is hopelessly over weight.

A little ambiguous to me. Do you mean

(a) it is overweight and there is no hope of getting it down to the design weight

(b) it is severely overweight and there is no hope of this being rectified

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
What will happen if the airplane doesn't meet it's performance specs and airlines begine to cancel orders and options?

Do the EU governments absorb the loss?

I believe they funded a third of the development cost. If there were 0 deliveries, they would lose it all.


User currently offlineAntares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, RR: 39
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 21 hours ago) and read 13519 times:

I'm saving posts like these so these sometimes idiotic threads get reviewed in the future.

But let's look at the major cause of a failure, which will be a severe downturn in world economic activity.

If that downturn obliterates demand to the extend that a machine (any machine) with a lower operating cost cannot reach break even point then something more than just the A380 is going to be in deep do-do.

As to weight, we ought to ask the question I've seen posed by a Boeing engineer in at least one recent article. What is the A380 actually built for? If its built to be stretched a lot of things about the current design make sense.

His answer was alng the lines that Airbus had occupied the heavy lift territory well in advance of demand, and this could be an issue for his company, and this was well before recent announcements of a review of the 747 program and whether or not to go ahead with an advanced version.

Can our imagination cope with a 1000 passenger jet. Well, who knows. If traffic grows dramatically we need to accommodate it, and sure smaller point to point jets have their pluses and minuses, but especially minuses if you look at how much business activity is generated in major hub cities like London, Tokyo and Los Angeles, and how little by comparison in Birmingham, Hiroshima and Palm Springs.

For a range of reasons Boeing has withdrawn from the very large jet end of the spectrum. Whether it was right or wrong to do so will be played out by the changes we see occurring all around us in the global economy.

Whomever replaces Stonecipher at Boeing sure has a lot to think about. A dead domestic market, rising fuel prices, and the negatives as well as positive of a weak USD, the major negative being the higher cost of imported inputs.

Remember a weak USD gives Airbus cheaper access to US made engines and components. Nothing is ever a simple as this forum tends to depict things.


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 13358 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
What will happen if the airplane doesn't meet it's performance specs

You may need to be specific regarding performance. From what I hear, it is about 12 tons over weight, but according to the stats found here on A.net, engines with higher thrusts have been choosen, I suppose to compensate and maintain field performance. The result will be a higher fuel burn (probably not by much), high noise rating (probably not by much) and a range drop (probably not by much). 12 out of 600 tons is 5% of the total mass, what does that translate to, 50 Nmi and 3 decibles and 400 feet of altitude loss? BTW, I was being simplistic.

Quote:
...and airlines begine to cancel orders and options?

This isn't Concorde no matter how you figure and it still follows the "do what works" theory that has been done in the industry for 40 years. People differ from what I believe about Concorde, to me that plane was more political than economic, the only purpose it had was national pride, it wasn't supposed to change the world. It was Europe's moonshot, it was never meant to be economically viable, end of story.

Quoting Antares (Reply 6):
I'm saving posts like these so these sometimes idiotic threads get reviewed in the future.

The thread starter is actually doing something right, they are asking questions and not making ignorant assumptions. If anything, that is exactly what you did by claiming the thread is idiotic. I do not know the answers to most of these and would like to.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4106 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 13347 times:

If the A380 fails...Airbus will die.

Seriously, it's not going to fail, get over it, I don't really like it either but just accept it. It's just another big hunk of metal flying around, it's not going to come after you while you sleep or hunt you down at work. Just remember, the 747 is still the Queen of the Skies, the A380 is just her fat, ugly brother-in-law.  Wink


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 13317 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 9):
the A380 is just her fat, ugly brother-in-law. Wink

that rocked!  Big grin



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25292 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 13272 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting StevenUhl777 (Reply 4):
Errr....that's Concorde with the 'e' on the end.

Sorry, Steven, it is only Concorde to the French. Or rather, it was.

Originally, the plane was called Concord on one side of the English Channel and Concorde on the other.

Reason - there is no word "Concorde" in English, it is "concord.". "Concorde" is a French word. But the Brits were not about to let the French have it all their own way.

However, over the years, the French have won and it has become Concorde.

But not to all of us.  Smile

cheers

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 18 hours ago) and read 13230 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
There are still rumors the airplane is hopelessly over weight.

Where? Can you tell me one reliable source for that? One respected newspaper article which is not based on pure speculation?
If one wise guy at a.net says anything negative about an aircraft, people turn it into an official rumour the next day...  covereyes 

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
The UK and France lost hundreds of millions of pounds sterling (because of development costs) because of no Concord sales beyond AF and BA (both state owned airlines at the time) in the 1970s.

No risk, no success.

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 2):
Of course the EU would never allow Airbus to go bankrupt; too much French and German national pride at stake.

It's not mainly about pride, but about countless jobs throughout Europe. It's not just Airbus and EADS but also thousands of companies acting as suppliers.

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 9):
Just remember, the 747 is still the Queen of the Skies, the A380 is just her fat, ugly brother-in-law.

...and cheergirls have never prevented a loser team to return on the winner's side, no matter how loudly they shouted.  Wink Who really cares about nicknames and looks? Well, some a.net fanatics...  sarcastic 


Regards
Udo


User currently offlineLHB727230Adv From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 255 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 17 hours ago) and read 13121 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
The A-380 is going to enter flight testing soon. But, the airplane is still a long way from the break even point, in sales.

A new airplane (especially the size of the A380) isn't necessarily expected to reach breakeven before it has even left the ground. Once it flies my guess would be it'll start picking up more orders.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
There are still rumors the airplane is hopelessly over weight.

From what I've heard the plane is actually lighter that target weight.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
What will happen if the airplane doesn't meet it's performance specs and airlines begin to cancel orders and options?

Unlikely, most new planes achieve very close performance to original design specs. The computer projected specs are very accurate these days. Sometimes, the plane exceeds design specs like the 777-300ER.

Hope this helps.  bigthumbsup 


User currently offlineWukka From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1017 posts, RR: 16
Reply 13, posted (9 years 6 months 16 hours ago) and read 13041 times:

What if the 380 succeeds?

Meh. If this craft hits 64% EGR on takeoff and explodes (throwing the test crew to safety), then some people on this site win. On the flipside, if this craft exceeds performance expectations, some people on this site win.

Regardless, we all get to see fantastic engineering that's pushing anything that we've seen before. Way to go Airbus! You deserve all the kudos that you receive.

All this coming from a B fan.

The "I told ya' so!"s are going to come from either side, regardless of what happens on the day of truth. Could someone explain the point? Please?



We can agree to disagree.
User currently offlinePlaneSmart From New Zealand, joined Dec 2004, 940 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (9 years 6 months 16 hours ago) and read 13023 times:

It better not fail.

My employer will experience a significant loss of interest and fee income if it does, and consequently i too would experience a serious loss of income.

a.net members know more specifics about a weight problem than customers, so i presume most of you work for Airbus in the A38 development or testing teams. To be on the safe side, I have enrolled the A38 with Weight Watchers and Jenny Craig.

It won't fail.


User currently offlineWukka From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1017 posts, RR: 16
Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 12961 times:

Well done, Plane Smart.

These arguments seem to be building strawmen, and I wonder why? No matter what happens, someone's going to be on the sidelines with an, "I told you so!"

Oh, and the 380, if necessary, may be able to do something with Weight Watchers, but Jenny Craig seems to be the statistical way to go, LOL!  Wink



We can agree to disagree.
User currently offlineAndreas From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 6104 posts, RR: 31
Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 12912 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
No, this is not an A vs. B thread. [...] But, the airplane is still [...].

There are at least 200 threads here that started with these words and they turned out to be the same: Some Boeing lover (btw: What the hell does that mean anyway) begging for arguments just why Airbus could fail, even if it is just the remotest reason....kids: wake up or grow up!

This gets out of hand, and it gets boring, too:

1. The fact that Airbus caught up with Boeing and will in the long term reach a 50:50 deuce is due to the fact that customers just hate to have a monopolist on the other saide who has the power to dictate what aircraft they have to buy!

2. 2 competitors are good..for just about everybody except of course the 2 manufacturers, who would love to be monopolists. Right!

And it really bugs me big time to see all this whingeing coming from American so-called B-lovers (well mostly), who are usually the first ones to scream competition is good....ah yes, and in civil aviation this is different exactly...why?

3. I'm still waiting for a list of names of "so-called" Airbus lovers, who post blue-eyed nonsense such as "if it's a Boeing, I'm not going" or any such crap... so it's actually more a B vs. the rest of the world war that gets started by threads such as this one, not really A vs. B.

4. and most important: If you have to start a thread like this one, bring on facts!!!!! All other threads should be classified as what they are....and getdeleted as soon as they are posted!!!



I know it's only VfB but I like it!
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 14 hours ago) and read 12872 times:

So who finance the A380? Answer Airbus and it´s subcontractors, if A380 is a failure like the Tristar, then many people will lose their jobs in North America,
Europe and elsewhere, also stock holders are in risk of losing their investment...


User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 12 hours ago) and read 12311 times:

Wave youre stars n stripes if 380 fails, whatever makes you happy....

I was thinking the same about 787, who´s gonna wave the €U flag?

Jeeeeehhhh....

Micke//SE  Yeah sure



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 12 hours ago) and read 12148 times:

BTW, all inhere behaves like 13-14 y/o, so I guess I´m no exeption.

Micke//SE  Yeah sure



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24936 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (9 years 6 months 11 hours ago) and read 12046 times:

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 18):
I was thinking the same about 787, who´s gonna wave the €U flag?

The EU doesnt have a flag seein as it's not a country. It has a logo however  Wink

Oh, and it's Concorde, not Concord



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineB752fanatic From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 918 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (9 years 6 months 11 hours ago) and read 11798 times:

I dont think that the A380 will fail, but I really think that the first version of the A380 will not be as Airbus planned, it will happen the same thing as when Boeing released their 747, and Airbus their A340.

Probably the second version of the A380 will have a better chance, after they have discovered all the flaws and made the a/c more efficient.

My guess is not that the first A380 will fail in its tests (wing fell off, etc) but the performance and the calculations Airbus had planned will not come out 100% the way they expected.

And to my opinion thats when the orders will begin to cancel, lets see what happens.



"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (9 years 6 months 11 hours ago) and read 11697 times:

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 20):
The EU doesnt have a flag seein as it's not a country. It has a logo however

There is actually an EU flag - it's probably only seen in EU countries. It's dark blue with a circle of stars (one for each member). They have to keep adding more as the number of members increases, a little reminiscent of the evolution of the US flag.


User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 36
Reply 23, posted (9 years 6 months 10 hours ago) and read 11607 times:

As somebody already mentioned: from where do you have this story with the "over weight"? I have never seen a serious source about this. Why do all people speak about break even. At this stage you can not judge it at all. We'll see perhaps in 10 years, if the 250 or 300 are or will be sold. How long did the 747 have for break even, I think at least 15 years or even more.

User currently offlineYVRtoYYZ From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 660 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (9 years 6 months 10 hours ago) and read 11561 times:

Quoting Alessandro (Reply 17):
if A380 is a failure like the Tristar, then many people will lose their jobs in North America,

I hardly think that one could classify the Tristar as a failure. It was one of the most technologically advanced civil aircraft of its time and many continue to fly presently.

Relating to the topic, the thread-starter has hardly put any effort into thinking this topic through. For one, with the accuracy of computer modelling and engineering the way it currently is, there leaves very little room for negative surprises.

Sales are irrelevent at this point as the aircraft has yet to be flown; once airborne tests are completed and the aircraft is in service for a few years and yet no further sales are made, then one could speculate that the program won't break even; but until that is proven, I think that your "rumour" is pure speculation.

"Hopelessly overweight" gives the impression that the A380 cannot power itself off the ground. Is that so? Why is this point continuing to be debated? Which engine manufacturer or program engineer at Airbus did you get this information from? The only ones who know are those working directly on the project. The media is useless for getting accurate facts from, as we all know.

Airport compatability and rights are a non-issue to the success of this project. There are enough airports A380 compatable or in the process of becoming compatable that this will not hinder the success of the program in any way, shape or form.

There are many other points I could make in relation to the thread-starters post, but all the questions have self-explanatory answers.

-YVRtoYYZ


25 KC135TopBoom : First, about the Concord, I am American. This is the way the word "Concord" is spelled here. As in the name of the town Concord, Massachusetts (rememb
26 Post contains images WunalaYann : Yeah, we are used to fighting (and most of the time losing) meaningless battles. The Concord/Concorde thing being a case in point. And I wish I were
27 Incitatus : Right now the chances the A380 will fail in the marketplace are small. We used to have a single large aircraft available, the 747. It has survived for
28 ExFATboy : On the spelling issue: the generally accepted spelling for the plane is "Concorde", even in the US. British Airways spelled it "Concorde", and I have
29 Post contains images BlueSky1976 : Umm... actually, they're both ugly. I think 747 is uglier than A380 by a wide margin. If you're going to call anything the Queen of the Skies, call i
30 RJ111 : I'm sure they said the A380 they rolled at the official launch was actually lighter than they had anticipated.
31 Daedaeg : Andreas your nationalist arguments are tired and old. I suggest you attempt to answer the questions honestly or don't answer them at all. Anyway, KC13
32 Iowa744fan : Why don't we put a post on here that states, "In the long run, what if the A-380 becomes a success for Airbus?" It is a long way from break-even sales
33 Post contains images UAMAYBACH1239 : Antares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 4 I'm saving posts like these so these sometimes idiotic threads get reviewed in the future. 63 posts, RR: 2
34 GDB : As someone who was actually involved, and had to go through a lot of the airline and manufacturer/vendor documents, manuals etc at BA when it finished
35 Daedaeg : That's a good question. However I believe that posters are much like the media in that they like to discuss the worst possibilities than the best. Fa
36 Columbia107 : Actually Art as a European you should know that the EU flag will not increase its number of stars as the EU grows. It is and will in future remain wit
37 Pihero : Two points of history: Gkirk : The European flag is no more a logo than the ethiopian flag. Contrarily to what a few have said, it is now frozen with
38 Leskova : Ok - now that caught my attention: since I have absolutely no idea about it, could you perhaps give a short explanation of why that frequency is prob
39 Art : About the spelling of the Anglo-French (Franco-Anglais, the French say, but NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES Anglo-Francais) SST: "Concord" is an English
40 ContnlEliteCMH : Ummm, 12 out of 600 is 1/50, or 2% of the total mass...
41 NWADC9 : They make grapes?
42 Art : Pihero and Columbia107 - you're right about the EU flag. I was wrong. Just looked at one. It's got 12 stars. Did it start with 6 originally to represe
43 Post contains images Morvious : Just look at how many times the subject of this topic changed First the Concorde spelling, then the European flag, then the stars of the European flag
44 Post contains links and images BMIFlyer : Airbus will look very stupid Lee
45 Pihero : Leskova (reply 38) : "could you perhaps give a short explanation of why that frequency is problematic?" Sorry,I'd thought you knew :That resonance fre
46 Ken777 : Since I fly on both A & B planes I have a strong desire that they are excellent aircraft - especially when I am on one. Since my first flight on a jet
47 Post contains images BoeingFever777 : I just want to see her fly! Hope she is a success for Airbus and the carriers that ordered her. In today's world of technology there are too many comp
48 Post contains images Leskova : Ah... ok - that makes sense: thanks for the explanation: indeed, I didn't know that this was the frequency that causes these problems... and, yes, I
49 Hoya : Here's an interesting article I found regarding the A380 and the problems it faces. I deleted some irrelevant paragraphs. ----- A380 Concerns Emerge A
50 ExFATboy : That's all well and fine, but in the end all people remember is that Airbus "promised" (that is, "offered for sale") the A340 to its customers with c
51 Pihero : ExFATboy : The fact that the initial promises may have been from the engine consortium rather than Airbus itself is one of those details that gets los
52 Post contains images Jacobin777 : That just goes to show how amazing the 747 truly is, granted the 747 is in its 3rd generation, but its amazing to see an original 40 year designed pl
53 Leskova : People - make up your minds!!! Either it won't sell enough, because demand isn't there - or airlines will start packing more and more people onto the
54 ODwyerPW : Thank you ContnlEliteCMH for correcting the Math. Lehpron's math that cited it overweight by as much as 5% was a grave mistake (obviously unintentiona
55 Theredbaron : As my first post in this forum (and I been reading it for a moth now) this forum should be renamed the A vs B forum...but Well here I go. All airplane
56 Mark777300 : I'm pretty sure that we live in a time where the possibilities for failure are very little for any new aircraft to fail economically. If we look back
57 BCAL : From the history of the Concorde: In Toulouse, with over 1,100 guests present, the first prototype Concorde (French spelling) was ceremonially rolled
58 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : How do you figure? ...the design has not changed in the more than 5yrs since it was first lauched. ...check the date on that and then read my questio
59 Post contains images Udo : What an argument... Some presidents look like like apes and they get voted. Appearance is something totally irrelevant sometimes. I doubt BAE have re
60 ContnlEliteCMH : 2% is a huge number for an airplane, even if it's not for human beings. The amount an aiplane is overweight is all payload weight until something els
61 KC135TopBoom : From ConcordeBoy: Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25): So, to me it is "Concord". Translation: I hereby consciously choose to remain holistically ignorant
62 Leskova : I just noticed that you contradicted yourself yet once more in that post... why, if the airlines won't even be filling the plane with the 500 to 550
63 Pihero : ContntleliteCMH (reply 61) "Then the extra weight is truly a simple subtraction from payload. This is the worst possible scenario, of course, since pa
64 Theredbaron : I am amazed that with almost 13K posts you make this stupid remarks, if you think the 777 has not had any upgrades in its service life and software u
65 Glideslope : Yes. I'd say it is enough to keep many airlines from crossing the road.
66 Post contains links and images Jacobin777 : obviously I used "ugly/fugly" in a subjective manner, which would mean by definition I'm giving my opinion....i can't recall saying that everyone els
67 FriendlySkies : Oh for god's sake...even when I'm defending the A380, you have to find something in my post to rip apart. Dude, find something else to do other than
68 Post contains images Theredbaron : 1)the design of the 777 has changed if the 300/300er/200er/200lr do not count to you sooorrrryyy. 2)Planes change and are made better in the safety a
69 OzGlobal : i) National pride. I think you'll find your nation has just about cornered the market on that commodity. ii) Not letting them go bankrupt: you mean l
70 FriendlySkies : The US government hasn't given anything to either of these carriers. The ATSB thing with US Airways was a loan GUARANTEE, no actual money was involve
71 Post contains images Co7772wuh : But he helped CO get those China routes !
72 OzGlobal : i) Why would we remember details of your internal national history? ii) "The shot heard around the 'world'"? This must be the same 'world' which hold
73 OzGlobal : No, you just missed my point: The US carriers are not being allowed to go bankrupt. The instrument is a different question and in this case it is the
74 Post contains images NorCal : Since extreme technicality seems to be a theme here, there is one Canadian team in MLB. They are called the Toronto Blue Jays, there used to be two,
75 FriendlySkies : And I'll repeat: US and UA are operating fully within the law. It is up to the judge overseeing their case as to the result of their bankruptcy (emer
76 OzGlobal : I'm really not sure what we're arguing about. You've just detailed my point clearly, which is that it is novel for so many US posters to be making sa
77 Co7772wuh : The US congress just changed some of the laws for Chapter 11 and 7 . Making it more difficult for companys to go bankrupt . If it will change anythin
78 Airways6max : Since Airbus's other aircraft types are selling so well, I don't think that if the A380 were to be a failure, that it would spell the end of Airbus.
79 Post contains links Art : That's your view, sources being: (1) Boeing Just looked at the Boeing 2004 market forecast on their site. They forecast there will be ca 35000 aircra
80 Avek00 : Since when was the 777 launched 5 years ago....that alone should be your first clue that he's referring to a specific model (772LR), and he's also co
81 Aither : Financing : the A380 current spendings are financed with the cash generated by current sales. This is an Airbus statement. So they will never find the
82 MidnightMike : Bankruptcy court protection is a practice that is extended to all US companies, and it not restricted to airlines or the aviation industry. Now to an
83 Revelation : Careful now, you've just slighted the sovereign nation of Canada. You don't want to get them angry. Look what happened when the Spaniards tried to po
84 Leskova : You're correct in one point - just because flights on one type are full the airlines won't necessarily go out and buy more of that type... but the MD
85 Post contains images Udo : Man, you can have which opinion you ever want! I just find it somehow funny that people mix up opinions and arguments and always first refer to appea
86 Art : Apologies, on the basis of 270 sales in a decade to break even, my figures were out. Nevertheless, I just don't see additional orders averaging
87 Leelaw : Breakeven (Cost-Volume-Profit) Analysis is a useful tool for determining the price of a product, this metric provides little utility for evaluating th
88 Dsuairptman : If the fat ass plane gets off the ground it will be a winner for FEDEX and UPS, but outside the Asian Pacific rim, I don't foresee a lot of demand for
89 FriendlySkies : Yes, D-E-F-E-N-D-I-N-G. In other words, supporting the A380 and denying claims that it will fail. I present a quote from my original post: Ok, so I c
90 OzGlobal : Oops! Better not tell EK or AF about that....
91 Zvezda : While the WhaleJet did turn out to be a lot heavier than originally planned, it will surely get off the ground. It will most likely get at least some
92 Post contains images NIKV69 : Udo relax! I don't like it when you are mad! I am still a bit skeptical about the 380 being as fuel efficient as Airbus says it is. At this point thou
93 OzGlobal : Grown men will weep, women sigh, inconsolably; Civilization as we know it in Europe will fold; there will be terrible omens and portents in the skies
94 PlaneSmart : Hoya 'And that is not the only issue. For instance, Singapore Airlines is waiting for a firm date for delivery of its first aircraft. Nominally, the f
95 PlaneSmart : ExFATboy 'That's all well and fine, but in the end all people remember is that Airbus "promised" (that is, "offered for sale") the A340 to its custome
96 Post contains images Lehpron : I swear I posted once more, cannot find it. I wanted to include the fact that A388's wing and undercarriage system, among other things, were designed
97 Post contains images Udo : Hi Nicholas, don't worry, I'm relaxed! I fear that won't work. August will be a busy month for me. But I try to go next time! Regards Udo
98 Astuteman : Congratulations to KC135TopBoom for starting this thread. You should be an anthropologist, Man. I assume that you posted this to study the base humani
99 Jacobin777 : You must be taking the piss!? At this point... All is conjecture, and only time will play itself out....nothing more, nothing less...thats one of the
100 HAWK21M : I'm keen on seeing the A380 Land. regds MEL
101 Lehpron : You made a very obvious contradiction, do you realize this? Heck, why me, does anyone else see what I see as a gross contradiction?
102 Leskova : Depends on what specifically you're seeing - I, amonst others, see a couple of contradictions in his post(s) - see above for reference to that... Or
103 Lehpron : Ah, gotcha, 10Q frank
104 Post contains images Theredbaron : Just for kicks, after a lot of complaints of how ugly the 380 is (and some saying that the strech would look better) here is my 2 cents - astreched A3
105 Iwok : KC, I congratulate you on getting a lively debate going. A lot of the posts had heated commentary on your "baseless" accusations. But looking at your
106 Post contains links and images NAV20 : Read through this thread and felt impelled to contribute. My background includes a lifelong interest in (private) flying, early experience in journali
107 Theredbaron : Just one question: Care to explain how did you get the calculus for 18 000 galons for the trip?
108 NAV20 : Cost my pal a trans-Pacific phone call to P & W, who will of course be bidding for the engines, TheRedBaron. Don't forget, only two of them for the 'D
109 Post contains images NIKV69 : Darn! I was hoping we could share some cocktails at TWFirst's place or something. He sounded like he was into a little GT with some wine and cheese a
110 Iwok : NAV, real interesting numbers that you have come up with... Can you share the computations that you used to come up with this. Looks like the 380 wil
111 NAV20 : Mixture of press reports, contacts, and experience, Iwok, as explained above. Apart from published figures, the cruising 'rule-of-thumb' for years has
112 Iwok : NAV, thank you for sharing this interesting piece of info. How much does this rule of thumb number change when comparing 4-engined and 2-engined airp
113 Post contains images NAV20 : Probably as many variations on the theme as there are aeroplane types multiplied by numbers of trips, Iwok It's like cars - sometimes, at a given spee
114 Post contains links BoeingFever777 : I read the A380 is still 4metric TONS over weight, is this still true? Six months before flight tests and less than a year before its first scheduled
115 NAV20 : Still a problem as far as I can see - trying to save weight, they've apparently slimmed down the undercarriage, giving them structural problems in tha
116 Osteogenesis : Then SQ, LH and AF are really a bunch of idiots.
117 Theredbaron : Different engines consume fuel at different ratios: Example the 737-200 is much more consuming than lets say the same thrust engine in a 737-700....fu
118 Art : And Airbus, too. Seems logical to me that if the 787 were more fuel efficient per head than the A380 in transporting passengers, Boeing would be tell
119 Pihero : Theredbaron, Iwok, I was despairing (Was anybody going to challenge Nav20's load of utter rubbish ?).And then you came.Thanks . Rules of thumb are dan
120 Post contains links and images NAV20 : The redbaron - "Seems logical to me that if the 787 were more fuel efficient per head than the A380 in transporting passengers, Boeing would be tellin
121 Art : I don't take issue with the 787 using 20% less than any other airplane of its size. Or that it will bring the economics of large jet transports to th
122 NAV20 : Agreed, we're not comparing like with like, Art. But Airbus' "15-20%" must clearly refer to the 747. Beyond that, a mid-size will use less fuel than a
123 Iwok : Isn't this at full throttle during takeoff, and in the case of the 777 takeoff with one engine out? What thrust level do both of these operate at dur
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...
What If The 787 Fails? posted Wed Mar 30 2005 09:43:12 by Aerohottie
What If The 380 Can't Fly? posted Fri Nov 5 2004 06:53:20 by Thaigold
What If The Price Of Oil Continues To Rise? posted Mon Jul 17 2006 20:29:22 by FLY2LIM
What If The Boeing 2707 Was Built? posted Wed May 31 2006 19:29:35 by 747400sp
What If The A380 Had NOT Been Built posted Sat Nov 19 2005 22:59:17 by BoomBoom
What If The "Big 6" Failed? posted Wed Aug 10 2005 17:25:39 by 7E72004
What If... The Boeing 2707 Became A Reality? posted Wed Dec 22 2004 07:44:11 by Zippyjet
What If The Pan Am TWA Merger Happened. posted Mon Aug 18 2003 20:18:15 by 747400sp
What If The 717 Had An MD88/2 Flight Deck Instead? posted Wed Dec 26 2001 01:38:52 by JetBlue320
What If The B747 Had Never Been Built? Imagine! posted Mon Oct 29 2001 04:45:07 by Lax