Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 71 Posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 13691 times:
I'm not even going to say anything about this.....
" Airbus says it cannot meet demand for A380 superjumbo
[16 Oct 2005]
FRANKFURT (AFP)
The European aircraft manufacturer Airbus cannot produce enough of its A380 superjumbos to satisfy heavy demand, its commercial director said.
"I could sell another 30 A380s between now and 2010 if we had the production capacity," John Leahy told German Sunday newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, Airbus said on Saturday."
Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 13652 times:
Now, I'm very neutral in the Airbus v Boeing thing.... but, what is the deal with this? Didn't they just say the same thing about the A350?
Also, saying you can't meet demand may look good for the demand side, but there are two parts to this equation. You're also saying that the supply side is bad. And in this equation, Airbus is the supply side.
Further, "I could sell another A380s between now and 2010".... is he saying that if they could produce them, there would be a market for only 30 more sales in the next 5 years?
AirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2745 posts, RR: 45 Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 13610 times:
He is blaming production problems for the A380 not selling? Ask Boeing how well that goes over. On top of that he thinks he can sell only thirty planes when they are a good 200 planes *by their own estimate* and 350 planes (by the economist) away from profitability?
These guys are getting to Clinton and Blair levels of spin.
MNeo From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2004, 776 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 13549 times:
Well what else is he going to say? You will never hear a CEO tell something bad about his company. Also if some airlines could have the planes by 2008 im sure they would buy a good amount.
Squirrel83 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 13534 times:
Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 1): "I could sell another A380s between now and 2010".... is he saying that if they could produce them, there would be a market for only 30 more sales in the next 5 years?
Could it be that they have a buyer that would like delivered by 2010 and is unable to secure that delivery date due to previous orders. . or delays so the buyers pulled out? In result whomever supplied the information to the press added a twist . . ?
EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9134 posts, RR: 15 Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 13493 times:
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 3): Then why did you start the thread......to inflame and merely sit back and watch?
I think he means, "Demand, what demand....?" What is the count now....?? 140 something over how many years the books have been open....?? I read off the Airbus web site they have only sold 10 in FY 2005 and of that only 5 went to an established airline. That is not a demand driven product.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 45 Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 13485 times:
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 3):
Then why did you start the thread......to inflame and merely sit back and watch?
Because he thinks the quote speaks for itself
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
RedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2053 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 13452 times:
Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 2): He is blaming production problems for the A380 not selling?
The A380 has sold around 150 before entry into service. So it's clearly selling.
Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 2): On top of that he thinks he can sell only thirty planes when they are a good 200 planes *by their own estimate* and 350 planes (by the economist) away from profitability?
Read the article again. He didn't say that they can only sell 30 planes. He said another 30 airplanes between now and 2010.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 74 Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 13414 times:
Quoting RedChili (Reply 9): Read the article again. He didn't say that they can only sell 30 planes. He said another 30 airplanes between now and 2010.
Wow! 5 to 6 planes per year! I'll bet that other manufacturer wishes they had such heavy demand for their aircraft! Not.
AirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2745 posts, RR: 45 Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13353 times:
Quoting RedChili (Reply 9): The A380 has sold around 150 before entry into service. So it's clearly selling.
150 planes at this point is hardly a succesful launch. In my mind thats closer to a 717 or a L-1011 launch.
Quoting RedChili (Reply 9):
Read the article again. He didn't say that they can only sell 30 planes. He said another 30 airplanes between now and 2010.
It's Leahy trying to blame something that clearly is not a problem (huge demand) for something that is (not selling a lot of planes).
Sabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2622 posts, RR: 51 Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13353 times:
Come on guys, what he clearly means is another 30 planes for delivery between now and 2010, something which is indeed NOT possible since the production line is already pretty fully booked till the end of the decade.
Selling another 30 A380s for later production dates (which would be the case if he was talking about the orders only coming in before end 2010 like the article is suggesting) is not a problem at all from a logistic point of view.
I suggest we wait a few hours to read the original German article in the newspaper, rather than assume the wildest of things based on a very brief and poorly translated English resume....
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 22934 posts, RR: 78 Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13250 times:
Well you could have existing carriers who want more (SQ would love to use them SYD-LAX, I imagine, if the Aussies would have allowed it) or new customers worrying on certain routes (like LHR-NA or LHR-somewhere-SYD) that A380-equipped competitors will be able to flood the market with seats.
QF, for example, is launching SYD-SFO service. While demand is probably not all that great, an A380 on the route would hurt UA by offering better service (which QF already does on their 744s) and lower fares due to lower costs and more seats.
Either that or EK just plans to put the hurt every where they have Open Skies/Fifth Freedom rights by flying A380s exclusively.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 20319 posts, RR: 62 Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13213 times:
This was not an unexpected problem with the rapid growth of Airbus orders. Companies who grow part of their business faster than they are ready for can run into supply and delivery problems that ultimately hurt them in the long run. Both the A350 and A380 seem to be constrained by a limited infrastructure without much room for expansion. The A320 does not seem to have such an issue.
It might be a mistake of Airbus to keep the A300/310 lines open as well as trying to deliver A380s and A350s. Contrast that to Boeing closing both the 757 and 717 lines to reallocate costs/expenditures/resources despite both lines still receiving small orders over time in similar numbers to the A300/310.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Qantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1222 posts, RR: 5 Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13211 times:
Well too bad for Airbus......
Cheers Leo
If you want to be a Millionaire, start with a billion dollars and launch a new airline.
OldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3091 posts, RR: 66 Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13192 times:
Whatr is the projected A380 production rate? At 2.5 per month (30 per year) they should be able to produces all the current order base by the end of 2010.
I thought some of the current orders were post 2010.
This doesn't make sense.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 61 Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13126 times:
What is up with Airbus and this type of press release? Even if demand for the A380 was so strong (which it is not - lets face it, the orders are not pouring in from airlines and without EK, Airbus would have a potential problem on its hands), you can be very very sure that if a major airline or leasing company told Airbus that they needed 30 A380s by 2010, Airbus would be very creative and find alternatives to deliver the aircraft by the required date. When was the last time A or B turned down an order for aircraft - never mind for a deal that would be in the billions for 30 ultra widebody aircraft?
It sounds as if Airbus is trying to encourage airlines to order - quick, buy now or you may have to wait years and years for delivery.....but there are some really smart and talented people over at Airbus and they surely realize that this is not the way to sell airliners. You can be sure that airlines actively looking to acquire aircraft know exactly what is available and when delivery can be expected before sitting down to negotiations.
Gotta run, I must go order my A380 right now before Airbus runs out.....
Ruscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1317 posts, RR: 2 Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13111 times:
Is there a link between the inability to meet demand for both the 350 & the 380?.
Airbus may be surprised by 350 demand (do they have a single firm order or are they all still LOI), but 380 demand is less than they expected I would think.
Ruscoe
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13078 times:
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 18): Whatr is the projected A380 production rate? At 2.5 per month (30 per year) they should be able to produces all the current order base by the end of 2010.
Here's a projected delivery summary that was published earlier this year in Airways Magazine; before the announcement of the overall program delay and doesn't include the Chinese and Kingfisher orders (10 aircraft):
Sabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2622 posts, RR: 51 Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13070 times:
Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 19): Airbus would be very creative and find alternatives to deliver the aircraft by the required date.
For one or two planes thy would certainly do so, but not for 30+ planes.
If the production line is full, it is full and unless Airbus opens up a second parallel line they can't make that much more A380s at once and they sure will not invest in a new line if it is not going to be used continuously...
The problem with the A380 is that peak production can not be shifted from one Airbus line to the other, like on the A330/A340 line, so they have to plan very carefully. In this perspective, Leahy's remark about him being unable to sell (and produce; something which in my view he clearly meant) 30 more A380s before 2010 could very well be true...
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 20319 posts, RR: 62 Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13001 times:
No doubt. The issue with the A380 is it's not as simple as adding another set of factories etc., as the infrastructure costs would not be returned when in a few years, they didn't need that capacity anymore.
But that schedule shows gaps where they could make 30+ planes before the end of 2010 without a problem. Unless there IS a problem. Or there is another order that isn't announced that has eaten up the remaining capacity.
On a side note, didn't FEDEX say they wanted the A359, and would sell the A358s they are getting as the A359s came into their fleet? They said it is likely those planes would be then converted to PAX use. So, who would be doing that conversion? Would airbus do the Pax/Freighter conversions, or would they outsource like B does? Do they convert A300s and A310s to freighters currently, or do others do that?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Byrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1691 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 12989 times:
Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 19): You can be sure that airlines actively looking to acquire aircraft know exactly what is available and when delivery can be expected before sitting down to negotiations.
You sure about that? Did SQ forsee the delayed A380 delivery date?
The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
Manni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 26 Reply 24, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 12983 times:
Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 13): Come on guys, what he clearly means is another 30 planes for delivery between now and 2010, something which is indeed NOT possible since the production line is already pretty fully booked till the end of the decade.
Absolutely right, but it wouldn't be as spectacular to reply too for some of us on here, I suppose. Leahy has probaply been approached by several airlines that wanted the A380 in their fleet before 2010. With 159 orders so far, it would take them about 5 years to produce them all.
Quoting EMBQA (Reply 7): I think he means, "Demand, what demand....?" What is the count now....?? 140 something over how many years the books have been open....?? I read off the Airbus web site they have only sold 10 in FY 2005 and of that only 5 went to an established airline. That is not a demand driven product.
149 firm and an extra 10 for UPS are pending. Airbus estimated before that they wold sign up one customer a year, untill it's in commercial service, this year it signed up 3 for a total of 20 airframes. At a list price of mre than 300 million $ each, makes it 6 billion $. To give you an idea how significant these orders are... Boeings turnaround for their commercial airplane division last year was 21 billion $, if Airbus could produce 30 frames a year, it would be good for 9 billion $ at list price.
MidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 33 Reply 25, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 12931 times:
That was a very stupid press released for Airbus to issue in the first place, & then to top it off, the title of the press release was very misleading.
As for the additional aircraft, if they can not be delivered by 2010, then the order goes away. There is a finite amount of aircraft that can be produced/delivered for any aircraft, so why bother to issue a press release such as this one.
As for the additional "30" aircraft, do these airlines have a name?
Sabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2622 posts, RR: 51 Reply 26, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 12896 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 23): the schedule shows gaps where they could make 30+ planes before the end of 2010 without a problem. Unless there IS a problem. Or there is another order that isn't announced that has eaten up the remaining capacity.
Don't forget there are already 10 additional A380s scheduled in there somewhere and they also have to take into account at least a percentage of the planes on option too (what else do you need to take an option for?).
Also, don't forget A. are having considerable problems recruiting sufficient qualified staff in their plants all over Europe to keep their lines going at full speed now that they have several new construction projects (A380, A400) whereas the production of A320s is at its highest level ever...
Sabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2622 posts, RR: 51 Reply 27, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 12877 times:
Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 26): That was a very stupid press release for Airbus to issue in the first place
What press release?
It is a quote by John Leahy from an interview he gave to a German Sunday newspaper and which has been singled from it out because of its relative importance...
MD90fan From Bahamas, joined Jul 2005, 2931 posts, RR: 10 Reply 28, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 12868 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 23): On a side note, didn't FEDEX say they wanted the A359, and would sell the A358s they are getting as the A359s came into their fleet? They said it is likely those planes would be then converted to PAX use. So, who would be doing that conversion? Would airbus do the Pax/Freighter conversions, or would they outsource like B does? Do they convert A300s and A310s to freighters currently, or do others do that?
Well I know their MD-11's and DC/MD-10 are converted by Aeronavali and the A3XX are converted at DRE ( Dresden), while some of the 722 came delivered as freighters from Boeing.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 71 Reply 29, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 12675 times:
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 3): Then why did you start the thread......to inflame and merely sit back and watch?
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 8): Because he thinks the quote speaks for itself
thanks for knowing what I was thinking..
Quoting RedChili (Reply 9): Read the article again. He didn't say that they can only sell 30 planes. He said another 30 airplanes between now and 2010.
what's there to misunderstand? he states he can sell 30 between now and 2010.....which is an additional 6 frames/year..
because the demand is "too high"... ...give me a break..
Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 12): It's Leahy trying to blame something that clearly is not a problem (huge demand) for something that is (not selling a lot of planes).
Production Capacity 48-50 per year (by early-2008)
those were somewhat the numbers I thought also....regardless, I found it to be an amusing statement to say the least, especially in lieu of the A350 comments...
Airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 5959 posts, RR: 9 Reply 31, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 12590 times:
Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 12): 150 planes at this point is hardly a succesful launch. In my mind thats closer to a 717 or a L-1011 launch.
For a 555 seater? I think someone needs a reality check
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 20319 posts, RR: 62 Reply 32, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 12574 times:
Quoting Airbazar (Reply 32): For a 555 seater? I think someone needs a reality check
Is his name Leahy?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
DAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 4 Reply 33, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 12518 times:
Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 19): What is up with Airbus and this type of press release? Even if demand for the A380 was so strong (which it is not - lets face it, the orders are not pouring in from airlines and without EK, Airbus would have a potential problem on its hands), you can be very very sure that if a major airline or leasing company told Airbus that they needed 30 A380s by 2010, Airbus would be very creative and find alternatives to deliver the aircraft by the required date. When was the last time A or B turned down an order for aircraft - never mind for a deal that would be in the billions for 30 ultra widebody aircraft?
If the airlines wanted them that badly, Airbus would find a way to produce them, pure and simple.
OldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3091 posts, RR: 66 Reply 34, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 12503 times:
Quoting Leelaw (Reply 21): Production Capacity 48-50 per year (by early-2008)
If true, then there certainly seems to be the capability of producing an additional 30 airplanes before 2010.
A very curious situation.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
Not really. Most, if not all of the 11 aircraft that were scheduled for delivery in 2006 will have to be rescheduled to 2007, on top of that 5 aircraft for China Southern (who apparently would like to have them by the 2008 Olympics) and 5 for Kingfisher have been placed in the schedule aswell. Add to that a possible customer that hasn't been announced yet, perhaps due to the upcoming Dubai airshow and you'll find indeed very little room to schedule any new deliveries before 2010 for new orders.
Glideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1459 posts, RR: 0 Reply 36, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 12297 times:
Quoting Manni (Reply 36): Not really. Most, if not all of the 11 aircraft that were scheduled for delivery in 2006 will have to be rescheduled to 2007, on top of that 5 aircraft for China Southern (who apparently would like to have them by the 2008 Olympics) and 5 for Kingfisher have been placed in the schedule aswell. Add to that a possible customer that hasn't been announced yet, perhaps due to the upcoming Dubai airshow and you'll find indeed very little room to schedule any new deliveries before 2010 for new orders.
If they make 2007 delivery.
"All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.
SparkingWave From South Korea, joined Jun 2005, 667 posts, RR: 0 Reply 38, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 11815 times:
If the statement is true, then it is good news for Airbus.
Despite the naysayers, I do really sincerely hope that Airbus makes a profit off the A380 and that it becomes a successful plane in the holy grail of hot-selling airliners.
SparkingWave
Flights to the moon and all major space stations. At Pan Am, the sky is no longer the limit!
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 8379 posts, RR: 42 Reply 39, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 11754 times:
Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 13): I suggest we wait a few hours to read the original German article in the newspaper, rather than assume the wildest of things based on a very brief and poorly translated English resume....
Interesting how this, 'The press are making things up.....' defence always comes up. Sabenapilot, if you read the two links quoted carefully, you will find that, in both cases, the story is attributed to AFP (Agence France Presse). And before you start claiming mis-translation from the French, read this bit:-
"I could sell another 30 A380s between now and 2010 if we had the production capacity," John Leahy told German Sunday newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, Airbus said on Saturday."
In other words, this was not an FAZ story - it was an Airbus 'source' - probably Leahy himself - telling AFP what Leahy had said to FAZ.
WHY he said it (and the earlier similar quote about the A350) is open to question. Airbus will be reporting its 2005 third-quarter results in early November, and my guess is that neither the profit expectations nor the future outlook will look as rosy as they did at the half-year point. Especially the order position, in comparison with Boeing, who are already reporting 647 firm orders this year, including over 200 widebodies.
So it looks as if Leahy is just getting his alibis ready......
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 71 Reply 40, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 11402 times:
Quoting Mariner (Reply 31): It was a response to reply #10, not to reply #9.
Quite apart from the quote, the use of the word "Wow!" should be a clue, as in reply #10: "Wow!..."
cheers
mariner
eeek...I should have figured not to go head-to-head against a person of your backround.....but it does liven things up a bit...as long as their is no ill-will..
CaptOveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 42, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 11319 times:
Lets see how demand goes when these things actually enter service. I think they may be oversold as is.
I am not denying the thing has some use, on super high demand routes where someone could offer a million seats a day for sale and sell every one (like ORD-LHR,CDG,FRA,Etc and JFK-LAX,LHR,CDG,FRA,Etc)
Look for a lot of them becoming availible second hand in a few years if they actually deliver all that have been ordered. When Airlines get into fleet weenie measuring contests with their competion the outcome is usually not good, look at Pan Am and the 747 if you doubt that.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 22934 posts, RR: 78 Reply 43, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 11081 times:
The only airline that has real "over exposure" on the A380 seems to be EK. They must really expect the world to beat a path to their Door 2L...
Most of the other airline customers seem to have chosen more...rational...purchases for specific routes.
So EK might very well end up deferring some of her slots, which would allow Airbus to fill requests.
AirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2745 posts, RR: 45 Reply 44, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 11024 times:
Quoting Airbazar (Reply 32): Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 12):
150 planes at this point is hardly a succesful launch. In my mind thats closer to a 717 or a L-1011 launch.
For a 555 seater? I think someone needs a reality check fever
For a 15 BILLION DOLLAR plane? Absolutly 150 should be considered a worrysome number.
Incitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3494 posts, RR: 17 Reply 46, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10928 times:
This is one of those statements that should have not been made.
It follows that.
1. Production capacity was poorly planned.
2. The slots for 2005-2010 were sold a price that was too low.
3. Airbus is going to lose +6 billion USD in sales.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 5895 posts, RR: 4 Reply 47, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10897 times:
EK might well defer some deliveries if the incentive is high enough. Airbus might just make that incentive high enough if the customer's option is the 747ADV.
Like Boeing, Airbus needs to find out from suppliers what the chances are of increasing deliveries and then work out how than can handle that increased flow of components within the facilities they have, or expand at a viable cost.
Leahy can talk all he wants about more sales, but it is the engineers and workers that have to make it work.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 15323 posts, RR: 91 Reply 48, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10812 times:
Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 12): 150 planes at this point is hardly a succesful launch. In my mind thats closer to a 717 or a L-1011 launch.
Your mind is wrong. 150 airliners by launch is one of the most successful programs in history.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 23): Do they convert A300s and A310s to freighters currently, or do others do that?
The royal "they" does it. EADS EFW produces the freighter kits, and converts pax to freight.
Presently, there is a production constraint because EADS EFW produces the kits for both new builds and conversions, and cannot produce any more without a new set of jigs.
Iwok From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 49, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10684 times:
Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 22): The problem with the A380 is that peak production can not be shifted from one Airbus line to the other, like on the A330/A340 line, so they have to plan very carefully. In this perspective, Leahy's remark about him being unable to sell (and produce; something which in my view he clearly meant) 30 more A380s before 2010 could very well be true...
Lets take Leahy his word. Airbus is loosing sales because of manufacturing capacity issues. In hindsight, the Germans were correct, the 380 assembly line should have been in Hamburg where there are adequate rail and port facilities. The idea of driving the huge 380 fuselages on a sunday cruise through tiny French towns is ridiculous. I bet logistics is a huge part of the capacity limitation. If the logistics were more flexible, it would probably be easier to add assembly space.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 40): So it looks as if Leahy is just getting his alibis ready......
Maybe what he is really saying is thus: "Engineering has no clue what the damn plane final configuration will be, the schedule has slipped almost a year, and all potential customers are waiting to see how badly the 380 under performs to its over-promises and looking closely at the 747-adv, and you want me to sell the bloody thing?
Mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 20062 posts, RR: 91 Reply 50, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10516 times:
Quoting Iwok (Reply 50): Maybe what he is really saying is thus:
"Engineering has no clue what the damn plane final configuration will be, the schedule has slipped almost a year, and all potential customers are waiting to see how badly the 380 under performs to its over-promises and looking closely at the 747-adv, and you want me to sell the bloody thing?
I guess.
Then again, maybe what he is saying is this:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Thread starter): I could sell another 30 A380s between now and 2010 if we had the production capacity," John Leahy told German Sunday newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, Airbus said on Saturday."
I mean no disrespect when I say that his version of what he means may be closer to what he means than your version of what he means.
Vincewy From Taiwan, joined Oct 2005, 701 posts, RR: 1 Reply 51, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10521 times:
Many airlines are simply holding out and see how this aircraft performs, in Taiwan, for example, CI has expressed need/interest in getting A380, this article came out last year and I was surprised no one mentioned it here
A brief translations says, "for CI, A380 has potential of carrying 550 passengers or 150 tons of cargos between TPE-LAX and TPE-HKG, although CI's cargo only accounts for 40% of revenues, the profit margins are much higher, a A380F can carry 25% more cargo than 744F, taken costs of labor in consideration, A380 will work out very favorably for CI given their current fleet of 747Fs, priority will be placed on A380F first, its local rival, BR, however, has more passive approach and will wait and see how it'll perform among other airlines, with BR's 50% of revenues coming from freighters, BR will be much more likely to order A380F than A388 (passenger version)" .................... the rest of article have been discussed here before.
It looks like CI will probably be the first to order A380, and they'll probably have to, given the current traffic volumes between TPE and LAX,SFO, maybe even JFK, NRT-HNL. The newer 744s can serve IAH, FCO, FRA to meet growing demand. Given the recent poor reception of downgrading to A340 on the JFK route, it seems like CI can't use anything smaller than 744 on major US routes. A few years ago they refused to switch to 777, maintaining that passengers still prefer 747 across pacific.
So I won't be surprised if CI places a mid size A380 order with large portion of A380F.
MarshalN From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2005, 1521 posts, RR: 0 Reply 52, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10495 times:
Quoting Vincewy (Reply 52): It looks like CI will probably be the first to order A380, and they'll probably have to, given the current traffic volumes between TPE and LAX,SFO, maybe even JFK, NRT-HNL. The newer 744s can serve IAH, FCO, FRA to meet growing demand. Given the recent poor reception of downgrading to A340 on the JFK route, it seems like CI can't use anything smaller than 744 on major US routes. A few years ago they refused to switch to 777, maintaining that passengers still prefer 747 across pacific.
I suspect this is also a reason why CX doesn't use twins on its long haul flights. They definitely can, but they don't. I think this article once again confirms that the A380 has a lot of potential in the cargo area... this might be where it will really shine.
Wdleiser From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 938 posts, RR: 5 Reply 53, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10429 times:
Ok, This is something that is angering me:
Everybody talking about how little sales the A380 has. It hasnt flown in commercial service yet.
How many orders did the DC-10 have on its first flight? How many did the 747 have? and the 737? and how many did the 767 originally have?
Give me those numbers.
Then lets talk again.
Were any of those commercial failures?
I think not....... so if anyone of those had less than 150 orders before first delivery, i think it is best for everyone who keeps bashing the A380 to go stick their head up someone else rump roast.
Iwok From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 54, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10386 times:
Quoting Mariner (Reply 51): I mean no disrespect when I say that his version of what he means may be closer to what he means than your version of what he means
Mariner, well said. Reminds me of the quote from the movie Dodge Ball "I know you, you know you, and I know that you know that I know you"
Manni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 26 Reply 56, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 10218 times:
Quoting Iwok (Reply 50): "Engineering has no clue what the damn plane final configuration will be, the schedule has slipped almost a year, and all potential customers are waiting to see how badly the 380 under performs to its over-promises and looking closely at the 747-adv, and you want me to sell the bloody thing? Wink
So you're saying that the Airbus engineers have no clue how the A380s final configuration will be, while it's already done more than a 100 test flights. But potential A380 customers and/or Leahy are able to look closely to the 747ADV, while the thing hasn't even been launched yet? What a load of rubbish.
QFA001 From Australia, joined May 2000, 673 posts, RR: 55 Reply 57, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 9927 times:
Wdleiser, I thought you raised an interesting point, so I decided to add some numerals the debate...
A380 industrial launch was given 20-Dec-00. First flight occured 52 months later on 27-Apr-05. The A380 had 139 firm orders (+15 LoIs) at the time.
Quoting Wdleiser (Reply 54): How many orders did the DC-10 have on its first flight?
First DC-10 order (AA) was signed 1-Feb-68. First flight occured 31 months later on 29-Aug-70. On 18-Jul-70, New York Times reported that the DC-10 had compiled 204 orders. However, I suspect that about a quarter of those were options (there were at least 142 firm orders).
First B737 order (LH) was signed 15-Feb-65. First flight occured 26 months later on 9-Apr-67. According to 6-Apr-67 The Times, the B737 had 141 orders at the time.
Quoting Wdleiser (Reply 54): and how many did the 767 originally have?
First B767 order (UA) 14-Jul-78. First flight occured 38 months later on 26-Sep-81. The B767 had 173 orders at the time.
Quoting Wdleiser (Reply 54): Were any of those commercial failures?
The DC-10 is widely considered to be a commercial failure. It was certainly not a profitable program for MDC.
Adria From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 58, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9895 times:
Quoting EMBQA (Reply 7): think he means, "Demand, what demand....?" What is the count now....?? 140 something over how many years the books have been open....?? I read off the Airbus web site they have only sold 10 in FY 2005 and of that only 5 went to an established airline. That is not a demand driven product.
Well the 777 orders were about the same at that point so if that's bad for a 555 seater that you haven't been in the aviation world for long.....
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10): Wow! 5 to 6 planes per year! I'll bet that other manufacturer wishes they had such heavy demand for their aircraft! Not.
another 5 to 6 planes added to those already ordered.......just to help you understand
Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 12): 150 planes at this point is hardly a succesful launch. In my mind thats closer to a 717 or a L-1011 launch.
and also a 777 launch so may your mind think again?
N754PR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 59, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9843 times:
As this forum already know's Airbus are crap, they suck, planes are too slow, the A380 is too big and the A350 is nothing on the 787. So why more of the same old posts from the Boeing camp??
We all know Boeing are the only maker of good planes
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 78 Reply 60, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9682 times:
Quoting N754PR (Reply 60): As this forum already know's Airbus are crap, they suck, planes are too slow, the A380 is too big and the A350 is nothing on the 787. So why more of the same old posts from the Boeing camp??
You forgot to mention that Airbus only survives because we, communists-at-heart-Europeans constantly force other countries by the power of our almighty political force (can't use our military force, because we're also wasting our money on unnecessary public spending while not investing in our armed forces) to buy Airbus planes at prices that are too low for Boeing to match and for Airbus to make a profit from... which, of course, doesn't matter, because Airbus will just force the European governments to give them more money...
ANZ772 From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 26 posts, RR: 0 Reply 61, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9502 times:
Why can't Airbus increase plant capacity to meet demand for the aircraft?. Maybe some Airlines would be persuaded to order the 747 Advanced if there is a longer than acceptable wait for the aircraft.
Sabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2622 posts, RR: 51 Reply 62, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9454 times:
Strange how several here look at the production scheme and point out there is still room for 30 or so more (thus concluding Leahy is talking out of his neck), but constantly neglect Airbus has to reserve some production capacity for planes on option too (what else do you need to take an option for?)....
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 40): Interesting how this, 'The press are making things up.....' defense always comes up. Sabenapilot, if you read the two links quoted carefully, you will find that, in both cases, the story is attributed to AFP (Agence France Presse). And before you start claiming mis-translation from the French, read this bit:
If you'd have read them carefully, you'd have noticed there is only ONE article, copy pasted, not 2 like you spin it here...
Secondly, talking about a possible mis-translation: what we have here is an ENGLISH translation of a FRENCH AFP report based on a GERMAN newspaper article, written after an interview Leahy gave in ENGLISH......
How could I even think there might have been a small misunderstanding slipped in it, namely that he is talking about a lack of production capacity for planes up for DELIVERY before 2010?
Anyway, did you find time to put the original German article through that fantastic translating software of yours.... Make sure he gets the time line correct this time, remember how silly you looked with that literate translation of: "You see, another delay for the A380, 'end of year delivery' means 'only a few days before December 31st', I've told you"
eh, I forgot, it was your teacher, wasn't it!
Anyhow, to conclude this discussion, I think even the most unfamiliar reader feels Leahy is really talking about "planes sold for production before 2010", not "planes sold before 2010 (and delivered some years later)" because if he wouldn't THAT would be a very stupid remark indeed and the last thing you can say about him, is that he's stupid.
GARPD From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 1924 posts, RR: 4 Reply 63, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9198 times:
Quoting Manni (Reply 36): Not really. Most, if not all of the 11 aircraft that were scheduled for delivery in 2006 will have to be rescheduled to 2007, on top of that 5 aircraft for China Southern (who apparently would like to have them by the 2008 Olympics) and 5 for Kingfisher have been placed in the schedule aswell. Add to that a possible customer that hasn't been announced yet, perhaps due to the upcoming Dubai airshow and you'll find indeed very little room to schedule any new deliveries before 2010 for new orders.
I think you're on to something there.
Airbus are in trouble over the delays. Unable to deliver when they promised and signed for. As a result they're in for a large case of payouts or substantial discounts far far greater than usual to compensate clients.
Leahy now dreams up this "can keep up with deman" line as a smoke screen!
LifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1803 posts, RR: 10 Reply 64, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 9087 times:
Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 34): If the airlines wanted them that badly, Airbus would find a way to produce them, pure and simple.
Now that's quite an assumption. I think Airbus will be able to put the planes together, but you aren't talking about Airbus only. All the parts of this massive plane are being build all over the world and need to be transported to the final assembly in Toulouse. All the companies working on the A380 would be going nuts because they can't produce fast enough, especially when Airbus is using the same suppliers for their other running programs as the A32X and A350. Also a lot of those suppliers are producing parts for other aircraft manufacturers like Embraer and Boeing.
Enlarging the strain of suppliers will be very difficult, because there aren't that many high end companies around. Or if there are, Airbus must start with them now. However, Airbus probably can't guarantee the workload, because they don't know exactly how the orders will grow. Therefore, there might be potential suppliers around who don't want to jeopardize the existence of their company.
Leahy is maybe talking BS, but maybe he has clear signs that there are some airlines who see the A380 is doing good in flight tests and know they have a demand for it.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 46): Besides - it's surely worth remembering that 20-odd of those orders are for the freight version, which hasn't even been designed yet?
The A380F is designed, the A380 testbed will commence flying the A380F payload later in the flight program.
QantasHeavy From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 379 posts, RR: 2 Reply 65, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 9036 times:
Aren't 1/3 of the A380 orders from Emirates??? (45?). Still think the whole UAE "buy one... or lots... of everything" approach is interesting.
Of course, by the time the 380 is in commercial service EK may be the only carrier in the world able to afford jet fuel.
If the A380 gives good performance, then I am sure more orders will come in as the cost per seat mile will be attractive. Boeing's whole "more flights more often" market approach -- which was an AA party line as well was certainly not a good idea. As costs rise, passengers will reduce flexibilty to reduce costs, and bigger birds will have their place in the market. The 380 concept is a winner -- Airbus just has a problem delivering on what it promises.
Boeing exceeds customer expectations... Airbus has a poor track record on meeting performance metrics for its products. If the A380 has more problems (delivery delays are problems for customers), then the A350 will suffer from customer confidence.
Boeing's 777-300ER surpassed the market's expectations, and the LR seems well on its way to doing so too. I like riding on both companies' products, but if I were a buyer I would be wary of what Airbus promises and what I could expect to get for my money.
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 78 Reply 66, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 9003 times:
Quoting QantasHeavy (Reply 66): Of course, by the time the 380 is in commercial service EK may be the only carrier in the world able to afford jet fuel.
And you've reached that conclusion exactly by what means? EK Certainly isn't the only profitable airline on this planet... or is it a fallback into the times when people still believed that EK pays close to nothing for fuel?
If it's the latter - better read up... that rumor has been dead for quite a while now: jet fuel has been more expensive at DXB than in Europe for several months this year, so EK is in no way better off than, say, LH or AF.
Boeing767-300 From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 655 posts, RR: 0 Reply 67, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8978 times:
Quoting GARPD (Reply 64): think you're on to something there.
Airbus are in trouble over the delays. Unable to deliver when they promised and signed for. As a result they're in for a large case of payouts or substantial discounts far far greater than usual to compensate clients.
Leahy now dreams up this "can keep up with deman" line as a smoke screen!
I believe you are right with what you say. This is just more creative B/S from Leahy to smokescreen not production ability but serious delays and performance objectives There is nothing like A380 is meeting targets easily or exceeding weight and performance issues and there creating a greater demand therefore place additional pressure on the supply issue.
As I have stated before the lsilence and lack of information is in itself a telling indicator. Be assured if the Whale Jet was exceeding targets you would certainly hear about it frequently... especially from the salesman himself (Leahy) Instead we hear not much other than delays. This is interesting and time will eventually show us what the hell is going on.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 8379 posts, RR: 42 Reply 68, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8898 times:
Quoting QantasHeavy (Reply 66): Aren't 1/3 of the A380 orders from Emirates??? (45?).
And very possibly a large proportion of the 'orders' for the A350 as well.
The developing Airbus/Emirates relationship increasingly reminds me of the old tag - "If you owe the bank ten thousand bucks and you can't pay, you're in trouble. If you owe the bank ten MILLION bucks and you can't pay, the BANK'S in trouble......"
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 46): Besides - it's surely worth remembering that 20-odd of those orders are for the freight version, which hasn't even been designed yet?
Not designed yet? Where did you get that from?
Quoting Iwok (Reply 50): "Engineering has no clue what the damn plane final configuration will be, the schedule has slipped almost a year, and all potential customers are waiting to see how badly the 380 under performs to its over-promises and looking closely at the 747-adv, and you want me to sell the bloody thing?
Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 68): Be assured if the Whale Jet was exceeding targets you would certainly hear about it frequently...
If you had followed the news as intensively as you speculate then you'd probably know that MSN 004 is the aircraft which will provide specific and representative performance figures. And that frame hasn't had its first flight yet.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 69): The developing Airbus/Emirates relationship increasingly reminds me of the old tag - "If you owe the bank ten thousand bucks and you can't pay, you're in trouble. If you owe the bank ten MILLION bucks and you can't pay, the BANK'S in trouble......"
Art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2621 posts, RR: 0 Reply 71, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8710 times:
Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 68): Be assured if the Whale Jet was exceeding targets you would certainly hear about it frequently... especially from the salesman himself (Leahy)
I don't know my history well but if the Airbus PR machine has trumpeted such successes in the past, why indeed would they stop doing this where the A380 is concerned?
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 71 Reply 72, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8484 times:
Quoting Mariner (Reply 42):
It is an Internet message board. Why would there be ill-will?
of all people, I think you should know how people respond on this board.....
Quoting Mariner (Reply 51):
I mean no disrespect when I say that his version of what he means may be closer to what he means than your version of what he means.
I disagree, he may mean what he means, but I've seen and read enough rubbish from him......credibility is something certainly which he lacks..too much spin from him.. (not saying others don't either)
Quoting EK156 (Reply 56): Isn't the A 380 the most expensive plane on the market? So 150 orders as a start is quite good for that high price plane I would believe
5 years into sales....supposed to be the "game changer plane"....more 747 sales than The WhaleJet in 2005 (pax or freighter-regardless).......I'm not too sure about it...
Quoting N754PR (Reply 60): As this forum already know's Airbus are crap, they suck, planes are too slow, the A380 is too big and the A350 is nothing on the 787. So why more of the same old posts from the Boeing camp??
We all know Boeing are the only maker of good planes
that's not the point in question...
Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 63): secondly, talking about a possible mis-translation: what we have here is an ENGLISH translation of a FRENCH AFP report based on a GERMAN newspaper article, written after an interview Leahy gave in ENGLISH......
How could I even think there might have been a small misunderstanding slipped in it, namely that he is talking about a lack of production capacity for planes up for DELIVERY before 2010?
well..considering its even in the Financial news on a Sunday (Marketwatch.com), it sure is interesting to see it being "lost" in translation
Quoting QantasHeavy (Reply 66): If the A380 gives good performance, then I am sure more orders will come in as the cost per seat mile will be attractive. Boeing's whole "more flights more often" market approach -- which was an AA party line as well was certainly not a good idea. As costs rise, passengers will reduce flexibilty to reduce costs, and bigger birds will have their place in the market. The 380 concept is a winner -- Airbus just has a problem delivering on what it promises.
and do you have any proof it is/was not a good idea? Even if the plane lives upto its performance specs (which is an assumtion), the ONLY way this plane will be successful is if the plane is going to be full of pax paying a decent fare...I say this because I've been on 747's with only 40-50 pax......and I see why carriers would rather go for smaller planes with more flexibility and frequency....
Is there a need for The WhaleJet.....there certainly is...but not as much as Airbus claims.....which by the way they claim as a 1:1 replacement of every single 747 pax/cargo plane........and thats straight out of Leahy's mouth..!!
GBan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 73, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8469 times:
Quoting ANZ772 (Reply 62): Why can't Airbus increase plant capacity to meet demand for the aircraft?. Maybe some Airlines would be persuaded to order the 747 Advanced if there is a longer than acceptable wait for the aircraft.
They are probably able to increase plant capacity incrementally. But to increase transport capacity to Toulouse is a serious problem; they need to block roads and there is a limit on the number of days you can do this. Probably Airbus would need enough orders to allow for a second assembly plant to be able to significantly increase production capacity.
Glareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1266 posts, RR: 2 Reply 74, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8338 times:
Quoting GARPD (Reply 64): Leahy now dreams up this "can keep up with deman" line as a smoke screen!
At least he is talking about real, flying aircraft, not 'dreamliners'...
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 73): I've been on 747's with only 40-50 pax......
Oops.. This is probably a carrier in trouble. Was it one of the A380 customers?
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 73): and I see why carriers would rather go for smaller planes with more flexibility and frequency
Hmm, I think the ones who have ordered the A380 are not the worst in the business... IMO this peer-to-peer thing isn't generally accepted by all the airlines.
There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
JetMaster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 75, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8292 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 73): .I say this because I've been on 747's with only 40-50 pax......and I see why carriers would rather go for smaller planes with more flexibility and frequency....
Well, it's probably indeed a good decision for some airlines to go for smaller planes if they can only attract 50 pax on a B747 flight...
Boeing767-300 From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 655 posts, RR: 0 Reply 76, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8292 times:
Quoting JetMaster (Reply 71): Btw, there have indeed been reports on the test program. Example
Thanks for the link......
Quoting JetMaster (Reply 71): If you had followed the news as intensively as you speculate then you'd probably know that MSN 004 is the aircraft which will provide specific and representative performance figures. And that frame hasn't had its first flight yet.
Exactly... over 6 months later the second (and primary test aircraft) has not flown which brings us back to the initial speculation of problems. Surely if there were none then 004 would have been flying months ago and Airbus would not be pissing customers off with the delays.
I look forward to EIS to see exactly how far A380 will fly on how much fuel and for Airbus's sake I hope A380 does not disappoint like A346.
On this forum people like to speculate either way on these issues and as I have said before time will tell.
JetMaster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 77, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8222 times:
Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 77): Exactly... over 6 months later the second (and primary test aircraft) has not flown which brings us back to the initial speculation of problems.
The problems were announced some time ago, and it has been clear for some time as well that MSN 004 would take off in October.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 71 Reply 78, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8175 times:
Quoting Glareskin (Reply 75): Oops.. This is probably a carrier in trouble. Was it one of the A380 customers?
Quoting JetMaster (Reply 76):
Well, it's probably indeed a good decision for some airlines to go for smaller planes if they can only attract 50 pax on a B747 flight...
It was on a KL 747 flight...while KL isn't an A380 customer, I don't think they are in too much in Financial trouble...
I've also been fortunate to fly on their 747Combi...I very much enjoyed that!
I recently flew on an EK flight about 2 months ago (ok..it was a short DXB-KHI flight) with approximately 40-45 pax........but it was "only" on an A330-200 (so I wasn't complaining)....had it not been for the additional cargo revenue, I'm not too sure about the profitability of that flight...
Flew on a BA 777 (ORD-LHR) flight with approximately 100 pax....I'm sure that wasn't too much of a profit maker (probably a loss there for BA)..
I've even flown LHR-JFK on VS 747 which was at minimum, 1/3 empty..and this was during summer peak travel season!!
Glideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1459 posts, RR: 0 Reply 79, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8108 times:
Quoting JetMaster (Reply 78): The problems were announced some time ago, and it has been clear for some time as well that MSN 004 would take off in October.
Dec at the earliest. 06-1 would not surprise me.
"All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3647 posts, RR: 15 Reply 80, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8052 times:
Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 34): If the airlines wanted them that badly, Airbus would find a way to produce them, pure and simple. box
at a price which may not be worth the order, ask Boeing about its experience in the 90s when they lost billions ramping up production to meet airline demand. It may keep some workers busy but if at the end of the day you lose money it may be like shooting yourself in the foot to stop the competition from getting some of those orders!
Scorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4934 posts, RR: 51 Reply 81, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8028 times:
This is the sorriest excuse for a circle jerk I have seen on these forums since... oh wait, the last 'A380 sucks' thread. They're getting old, and getting old fast.
It is clear to anyone with half a brain that Leahy was talking about selling 30 more A380s for delivery between now and 2010. Let's top ejaculating over the apparent 'fact' that A380 sucks so bad, and engage our brains here for a moment, shall we?
-If Leahy was talking about selling only 30 A380s between now and 2010, what on EARTH would all the capacity talk be about? Answer: there wouldn't be any reason for it. Period.
-If the 'interpretation' of Leahy's words by our local A380 bashers were correct, then you do realise that Leahy apparently was BOASTING about NOT being able to sell 30 A380s is in the next five years, don't you? I mean, seriously, you don't actually BELIEVE that yourselves, do you?
It's pretty sad to see so-called 'aviation enthusiasts' neglecting every bit of rational thought if it means they can bash A380.
You're a very sorry bunch, and I feel sorry for you.
JetMaster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 82, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7983 times:
Quoting Glideslope (Reply 80): Dec at the earliest. 06-1 would not surprise me.
Oh, so MSN 004 won't take off in October but December? Wow, that's headline news, another two months delay! However, what we need first in order to believe it is a source...
MrComet From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 492 posts, RR: 10 Reply 83, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7887 times:
I think QFA001 makes a good point. The initial orders don't necessarily mean anything. 150 orders is probably less than Airbus wants but it doesn't mean this will be a non-profitable airplane. It's a huge money loser now (overhead is about $100 million per plan!!) but it's going to be future sales and that is just speculation. To it's advantage:
- The A380 has no competitor and Boeing will likely never create a direct competitor for years if ever.
- Airports are getting crowded.
- Big means lower fuel costs per passenger
- It's the ultimate Hub airplane
- For Airbus, it's a signature airplane wth high prestige
To its disadvantage:
- No one is sure how big the niche it has created really is.
- Many passengers will always prefer non-stops avoiding hubs
- It's value as a cargo plane is limited to parcel carriers
- It can't fly everywhere
This last point is probably the most important. Unless a large number of airports can handle this thing, people simply won't buy it and when there isn't the demand, airports won't bother making changes.
With that and the overruns to $15 billion, I think there is a very strong probability (80% plus) that the A380 will be a money loser and I think the odds are rising that it will be a very significant money loser.
So Leahy is right to be concerned if he is losing a sale. The thing is hot now and it's the time to push these birds. However, I don't think Airbus has enough confidence based of 150+ sales to invest anything in building up capacity.
Jet-lagged From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 778 posts, RR: 0 Reply 84, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7465 times:
Seems odd to me. Airbus is a good company with more experience making large commercial airplanes than almost anyone else. How could they not figure out how to make and deliver more airplanes in the coming 62 months, if their customers were willing to give them money to do so?
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 20319 posts, RR: 62 Reply 85, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7430 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 49): Your mind is wrong. 150 airliners by launch is one of the most successful programs in history.
I was compiling the numbers to show you that you are not well informed, but QFA001 did it for me.
The A380 is NOT one of the most successful programs in history. It ties or lags behind the launch of most other aircraft families, large and small. Which means it's just like everyone else.
Except for the fact that many of those programs were launched long ago, when the airliner market was smaller. Considering the nature of the 747 concept at launch, it's numbers are astonishing.
I think the A380 is right on 'schedule' for orders, but I find it funny when people try to paint the picture all rosy like it's reinventing the wheel in terms of launch success. it isn't. it's delayed longer than most projects and it is selling fewer frames, though not significantly.
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 49): The royal "they" does it. EADS EFW produces the freighter kits, and converts pax to freight.
What royal they? I asked if Airbus does the conversions or a third party, then referred to them as they? You would have been better off saying that Airbus doesn't do them as an entity, but the parent company EADS does, if that's what you mean, but I actually can't quite tell what you mean, since if EADS EFW produces the new freighter kits, is it Airbus or EADS producing the freighters? Does Airbus provide the airframes and then hand it off to parent EADS to finish them up?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9134 posts, RR: 15 Reply 86, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7383 times:
Quoting Adria (Reply 59): Well the 777 orders were about the same at that point so if that's bad for a 555 seater that you haven't been in the aviation world for long.....
A few corrections here.... 1) I've been in commercial aviation almost as long as you have been alive. 2) Matching First Flight standing orders orders, the Boeing 777 has the Airbus A380 beat by nearly 40% more. Looking on the Historical Records page on Boeings web site they had 224 orders outstaning in 1995 with 101 orders for that year alone. Airbus had 145 orders for the A380 in 2005, and only 10 orders placed in that year. Going back further... the Boeing 747 was a little closer, it first flew with 198 orders, but nearly 3 times as many customers..... The numbers don't lie. (By the way, I'm not pro anything, I just like to see all the facts, not those slighted by emotion)
[Edited 2005-10-16 16:06:04]
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
KLMcedric From Belgium, joined Dec 2003, 776 posts, RR: 29 Reply 88, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7205 times:
Isn't it remarkable how the A-380 naysayers in here act as if the A-380 is
already a thing from the past.I think they are merely displaying their wildest
dreams on this forum.
I really believe the future looks bright for the A-380, Why???:
IMHO we are now in a "in between period", meaning that Airbus had some
good initial orders mainly made by reputable carriers in excellent financial
health who where willing to take a risk with this new behemoth eyecatcher.
I see a lot of other airlines as potential A-380 customers, but I believe they
just want to wait and see how it operates. Bare in mind that this is a huge
expensive aircraft that could put a lot of airlines in trouble if it would not
meet it's projected targets.
I mean just look at VS,SQ,EK, they are renowed for being very innovative and
always on the top of the market, those are the kind of customers airbus needed to launch this risky venture.
If,and only if (and this IMHO may be part of the reason for the delays) this
bird will do as well or even better as Airbus announced, which will rapidly become clear once the launch customers operate it for a while(NOT BEFORE!!!)
I can see a truckload of orders for the A-380 in the not too distant future.
Lot's of airlines are just playing the wait and see game right now, and I think that a very smart approach!!!
Cheers
Manni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 26 Reply 89, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7040 times:
Quoting EMBQA (Reply 87): Airbus had 145 orders for the A380 in 2005, and only 10 orders placed in that year.
1) 2005 is not over yet, the second most important aviation event of the year still has to take place and we might see additional orders there and if not there's still about another 12 months to gain additional orders before its first commercial flight.
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 90, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6920 times:
Quoting Manni (Reply 90): Airbus sold 20 A380s so far this year, not 10.
Oddly (IMO), UPS's conversion of 37 A306s to 10 A388s remains unconfirmed 10 months after it was announced. Consequently, Airbus's website still shows total A380 orders at 149 with 2005 sales remaining at 10 aircraft.
Dougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 91, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6752 times:
Quoting MrComet (Reply 84): Big means lower fuel costs per passenger
I'm not entirely sure I concur with this analysis...there are other factors involved. Big airplanes weigh a lot. They have a lot of structure to support them and big thirsty engines to more them around. Thus, it appears to me that this notion probably works better when load factors are really high.
Somebody posted something about this very subject a while ago-might be worth opening it up for discussion.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 71 Reply 92, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6722 times:
Quoting Scorpio (Reply 82): This is the sorriest excuse for a circle jerk I have seen on these forums since... oh wait, the last 'A380 sucks' thread. They're getting old, and getting old fast.
It is clear to anyone with half a brain that Leahy was talking about selling 30 more A380s for delivery between now and 2010. Let's top ejaculating over the apparent 'fact' that A380 sucks so bad, and engage our brains here for a moment, shall we?
-If Leahy was talking about selling only 30 A380s between now and 2010, what on EARTH would all the capacity talk be about? Answer: there wouldn't be any reason for it. Period.
Quoting Scorpio (Reply 82): You're a very sorry bunch, and I feel sorry for you.
1) there have been some good debates here..which is ..with more information
2) why on EARTH are you participating on this thread then?????
Quoting EMBQA (Reply 87): A few corrections here.... 1) I've been in commercial aviation almost as long as you have been alive. 2) Matching First Flight standing orders orders, the Boeing 777 has the Airbus A380 beat by nearly 40% more. Looking on the Historical Records page on Boeings web site they had 224 orders outstaning in 1995 with 101 orders for that year alone. Airbus had 145 orders for the A380 in 2005, and only 10 orders placed in that year. Going back further... the Boeing 747 was a little closer, it first flew with 198 orders, but nearly 3 times as many customers..... The numbers don't lie. (By the way, I'm not pro anything, I just like to see all the facts, not those slighted by emotion)
if true, it is an interesting fact....
Quoting Glareskin (Reply 88): Considering their lousy service they should be!
Jacobin, you are a lucky man! The flights I'm in are always packed..
hey..actually, thats a good thing for the carrier..at least they have the potential of making revenue...
Quoting KLMcedric (Reply 89): I mean just look at VS,SQ,EK, they are renowed for being very innovative and
always on the top of the market, those are the kind of customers airbus needed to launch this risky venture.
and risky it is...to the tune of $16+
Quoting KLMcedric (Reply 89): Lot's of airlines are just playing the wait and see game right now, and I think that a very smart approach!!!
doesn't build too much confidence in a plane now does it..?
Quoting KLMcedric (Reply 89): I can see a truckload of orders for the A-380 in the not too distant future.
KLMCedric From Belgium, joined Dec 2003, 776 posts, RR: 29 Reply 93, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6594 times:
Jacobin,
And I think you need to mark my words, just wait 4-5years and you will have
to take back all your laim replies when airbus will be able to present a backlog
for at least 500 frames!!!
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 8379 posts, RR: 42 Reply 94, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6542 times:
Forbes just covered this story as well. Leahy is again quoted - 'I could sell another 30 A380s between now and 2010 if we had the production capacity,' Leahy said.
The article says one new thing - 'In June, Airbus raised the aircraft's catalogue price by 10 mln usd to an average of 292 mln usd.'
Anyone happen to know what price the A380 is actually being offered at in the market at the moment? I'd be very surprised if recent sales were at a level of $US300M. or so?
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 71 Reply 95, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6473 times:
And I think you need to mark my words, just wait 4-5years and you will have
to take back all your laim replies when airbus will be able to present a backlog
for at least 500 frames!!!
its "lame".....but I'll be happy to "eat my words" if Airbus has backlog of "at least 500 frames".....
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 20319 posts, RR: 62 Reply 96, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6458 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 93): doesn't build too much confidence in a plane now does it..?
that's not really a fair statement.
fact: A380 is "basically" sold out for 4 years
fact: it will EIS in about a year
fact: placing an order now would not really get you the planes much faster, but would increase your risk as you not only can't see it EIS, but you won't be able to compare the engine choices as easily.
it is not a lack of confidence that makes some airlines wait on an aircraft until after it is flying commercially. it's just prudence. they want to make the right choice with such an expensive plane, both in order size and engine choice, and airlines that are waiting may have enough lift as it is not to NEED the A380 before 2011.
Waiting until 2007 or 2008 to order is the best move for some airlines, and has little to do with the long term prospects of the A380.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
In June, Airbus raised the aircrafts catalogue price by 10 million dollars to an average of 292 million dollars (242 million euros).
Forbes, yet another news source which limits itself to some hasty copy-paste work....
I really start to worry about you...
You are aware that when looking at continuous loop news programs, their 'news' is repeated every hour, it is not a 'new' earthquake hitting Pakistan each time?
Scorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4934 posts, RR: 51 Reply 98, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6349 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 93): 1) there have been some good debates here..which is ..with more information
More than anything, there has been a lot of MISinformation, and for the rest I haven't seen much new info at all, not to mention that this same debate has been done about fifty times before.
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 93): 2) why on EARTH are you participating on this thread then?????
Because I'm SICK and TIRED of the same people repeating the same crap over and over and over again, and using every single excuse to start these circle jerks. Do the test yourself: loop up all the threads from the past few months about the A380. Pretty much all of them are always hijacked by the same few people, who keep on turning them into these ridiculous bashfests each and every time. Let's look at the facts:
-If there's bad news about A380, you'll plaster it all over the board, and bash A380. Fair enough on that one;
-If there's GOOD news, the Usual Suspects will SPIN the news in such a way that it becomes bad news, often in simply ridiculous ways (remember the thread about the A380 NOT being further delayed and how that one was spun?)
-If there is NO news, the Usual Suspects will take that to mean that things must obviously be going bad;
-If the news is neither good nor bad, just, you know, news, you'll yet again spin it, misquote, misinterpret, misread, etc... and start another A380 bashfest. (this thread being a beautiful example of that)
I for one am sick of not being able to have a single discussion on A380 in here without this same bunch of members hijacking the thread.
Manni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 26 Reply 99, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6277 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 93): Quoting EMBQA (Reply 87):
A few corrections here.... 1) I've been in commercial aviation almost as long as you have been alive. 2) Matching First Flight standing orders orders, the Boeing 777 has the Airbus A380 beat by nearly 40% more. Looking on the Historical Records page on Boeings web site they had 224 orders outstaning in 1995 with 101 orders for that year alone. Airbus had 145 orders for the A380 in 2005, and only 10 orders placed in that year. Going back further... the Boeing 747 was a little closer, it first flew with 198 orders, but nearly 3 times as many customers..... The numbers don't lie. (By the way, I'm not pro anything, I just like to see all the facts, not those slighted by emotion)
if true, it is an interesting fact....
But it's not true, the Boeing 747 entered service with Pan Am in januari 1970, with 178 orders in the book for 26 airlines. 26 that's not even twice as many customers as the A380, let alone 3 times as much...
But even so this proves absolutely nothing. Did you know that the 757 only had 107 orders when it made its first commercial flight in januari 1983? 60 of those were for Delta, and the remaining frames were spread over another 4 customers. Looks bad for a single aisle aircraft, not? Wouldn't say the 757-200 was a failure. Right?
As for the 777, first commercial flight was in may 1995.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 71 Reply 100, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6250 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 97): it is not a lack of confidence that makes some airlines wait on an aircraft until after it is flying commercially. it's just prudence. they want to make the right choice with such an expensive plane, both in order size and engine choice, and airlines that are waiting may have enough lift as it is not to NEED the A380 before 2011.
I guess we view it a bit differently, but I certainly can't say your line of reasoning is "wrong" or "off"...........there are still other "top-of-the-line" carriers who haven't ordered it.....yes they are watching...but if they plane was as "amazing" (not in a technical sense-because it is, but as a business prospect), and many of the carriers would have been able to get a refund on their deposit, then why haven't they ordered any?
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 1806 posts, RR: 8 Reply 101, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6168 times:
Scorpio:
Give it a rest. When Boeing came up with the Sonic Cruiser, many Boeing cynics repeated same old stuff again and again. I didn't see you acting like an Internet Police. When Boeing launched the 7e7, Leahy belittled the 7e7 program. Many Boeing cynics here repeated what Leahy said over and over again. I didn't see you acting like an Internet Police. This is a free forum. Yes, much of the stuff said in this forum is old and tiring, but that's the nature of this kind of forum. You don't have to read the thread if you don't want to. You know the only reason that you are acting so self-righteous is because you can't stand people criticizing Airbus. Your rantings won't silence the Airbus cynics. And I also understand what I say here won't stop your rantings, either. So, I will only say this once in this thread.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 8379 posts, RR: 42 Reply 102, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6093 times:
You're quite right, Sabenapilot, missed it first time around. Just as well I'm not doing my PhD.
But that's a helluva price - higher than I thought they were asking. You could damn near get three 787s for that; maybe one-and-a-half 747ADVs. If they're really hoping to get that kind of money for the A380, it had better turn out to be a damned good performer when it's finished.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 20319 posts, RR: 62 Reply 104, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6044 times:
well, if the refunded deposits are still an option, you are right. but why would Airbus be offering those anymore?
And as a business model, just because it will make sense of them in 2012 when their newest 744s are 14 years old and the oldest ones are 20+ doesn't mean it makes the same sense for 2008. If some airlines have a depreciation and useful life for their 744s, the A380 doesn't just accelerate them out of use.
Quoting Manni (Reply 100): But even so this proves absolutely nothing. Did you know that the 757 only had 107 orders when it made its first commercial flight in januari 1983? 60 of those were for Delta, and the remaining frames were spread over another 4 customers. Looks bad for a single aisle aircraft, not? Wouldn't say the 757-200 was a failure. Right?
Let me get this straight: because the 757 didn't sell that well at first due to the fact that the 727 was still being offered by Boeing and had the same abilities (other than the yet to be proven efficiency and reliability of the 757), and because ETOPS and the larger twin concept was still new and scary to some carriers, that means that the A380 is a de facto 1050 airframe success?
And don't even get into the discussion that the 757 and 767 was marketed as a FAMILY of planes with one type rating and that even if not everyone bought into this (though most did), there were nearly 300 combined 757/767 orders before they EISed. And that doesn't count freighters.
All the numbers being posted were meant to show was that the A380 is not doing gangbusters as some like to believe, but also it's not doing badly. It's just doing what most planes do near EIS, just with slightly fewer numbers. There are going to be examples of planes that do worse than the A380 and examples that do better! That's the point, right?
All the ones that were asked for just happened to do the same or better. And the claim was that the A380 was doing better historically. The facts say it is not doing better. It's just doing average.
Please explain how pointing out that the A380 is doing average is a bash at the plane? For a high risk project like the A380, doing average before it enters service is pretty darn good!
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9134 posts, RR: 15 Reply 105, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6023 times:
Quoting Manni (Reply 90): 2) Airbus has 159 orders not 145.
3) Airbus sold 20 A380s so far this year, not 10.
Well, Airbus disagrees with your numbers as well. They show currently 149 orders for the A380 on their home page. Also, they show only 10 orders placed for the A380 in FY2005. 5 with Kingfisher, 5 with another (sorry, I can't access the name right now) That's it...!! And those orders were place after the first flight, so in reality it drops the total number of orders at FF to 139.
....but as said above, we can beat this topic to death and it's a bright sunny Sunday. What am I doing inside.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
It sure is and it is one of the main reasons why I have been saying there is no use in comparing sales from A and B... B may very well sell more planes this year, but gets much less revenue from it than A, so who's the biggest then, B or A?
See what I mean?
Last year for instance, A only outsold B by a few planes, yet made almost 3 times as much profit.... the sales numbers don't give a good idea of who's doing well and who isn't really...
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 8379 posts, RR: 42 Reply 108, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5862 times:
Matt24wigan, answering the second part of your question, Singapore have only 10 on firm order. They will almost certainly be fully employed on their routes to Australia out of Heathrow. On the face of it there would appear to be no reason for Singapore to drop any current services out of Manchester.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Manni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 26 Reply 109, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5857 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 105): Let me get this straight: because the 757 didn't sell that well at first due to the fact that the 727 was still being offered by Boeing and had the same abilities (other than the yet to be proven efficiency and reliability of the 757), and because ETOPS and the larger twin concept was still new and scary to some carriers, that means that the A380 is a de facto 1050 airframe success?
Now dont twist my words, that is not what I said. I just showed you that it can not be proven wether the A380 will be succesful or not based on past launches of different aircraft types and their pre first commercial flight orders.
A bit of topic, but remarkable enough to mention IMO.
I had a closer look into the 777 numbers, in the period from may 1994 untill may 1995 (12 months before the first commercial flight, that's were the A380 is supposed to be now more or less), Boeing sold 2 777 aircraft.
PlaneDane From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 110, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5755 times:
Quoting KLMcedric (Reply 89): I really believe the future looks bright for the A-380, Why???:
IMHO we are now in a "in between period", meaning that Airbus had some
good initial orders mainly made by reputable carriers in excellent financial
health who where willing to take a risk with this new behemoth eyecatcher.
I see a lot of other airlines as potential A-380 customers, but I believe they
just want to wait and see how it operates. Bare in mind that this is a huge
expensive aircraft that could put a lot of airlines in trouble if it would not
meet it's projected targets.
KLMcedric, If what you're saying is true, then it proves that airlines don't believe performance promises made by Airbus. They're going to wait to see whether the A380 meets its targets, which does not bode well for the aircraft.
Otherwise, there is no reason those other airlines you claim are in an "in between period" could not simply order the A380 now to secure their delivery positions after 2010.
It all depends on what prices they are actually achieving, Sabenapilot. A current list price of $US292M. suggests a build cost of around 85% of that, say $US250M.
Now we all know that Leahy sold the first lot (maybe as many as 80) at around US$150M. So, at a production rate of say 30 a year, they look like facing annual costs of around $US 7.5 Billion against revenues of about $US4.5 Billion, for at least the first couple of years.
Doesn't look overly profitable to me?
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Manni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 26 Reply 112, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5739 times:
Quoting EMBQA (Reply 106): Well, Airbus disagrees with your numbers as well. They show currently 149 orders for the A380 on their home page. Also, they show only 10 orders placed for the A380 in FY2005. 5 with Kingfisher, 5 with another (sorry, I can't access the name right now) That's it...!! And those orders were place after the first flight, so in reality it drops the total number of orders at FF to 139.
The 10 orders for UPS are indeed not on the Airbus order sheet yet. The 5 others are for China Eastern.
20 of the 178 orders for the 747 were placed after the first flight (02/1969) but before the first commercial flight. So that makes 158 orders at FF.
7E72004 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3574 posts, RR: 2 Reply 115, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5609 times:
How many of the A380s is airbus able to work on at a time?
The next generation of aircraft is just around the corner!
Kaneporta1 From Greece, joined May 2005, 689 posts, RR: 12 Reply 116, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5452 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 112): It all depends on what prices they are actually achieving, Sabenapilot. A current list price of $US292M. suggests a build cost of around 85% of that, say $US250M.
Now we all know that Leahy sold the first lot (maybe as many as 80) at around US$150M. So, at a production rate of say 30 a year, they look like facing annual costs of around $US 7.5 Billion against revenues of about $US4.5 Billion, for at least the first couple of years.
Anything to back this statement up?
I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 1806 posts, RR: 8 Reply 117, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5408 times:
Quoting 7E72004 (Reply 116): How many of the A380s is airbus able to work on at a time?
Their target is 4 per month by 2008. AFAIK, of the 144 firm orders and 15 to-be-signed firm orders, 110 or so are to be delivered by 2010. Let's say for 06 and 07, Airbus can deliver 30 380s. If they get to 4 per month in 08, then they can deliver 144 380s between 08-10, or 174 380s between 06-10. So, Airbus should have more than enough capacity to accommodate Leahy's alleged additional 30 orders that he claimed couldn't be met with the current production volume. If what the report said is true, then it probably means Airbus won't be able to reach their 4 per month rate by 2008.
Singaporegirl From Singapore, joined Oct 2000, 300 posts, RR: 12 Reply 118, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5126 times:
scorpio, i agree that sometimes a simple discussion on a.net can turn into a total bitchfest. but i think both sides can be equally guilty, depending on the topic that they're discussing. for me personally, i take it as a form of entertainment ... i simply love how these a.net queens can be soo emotional and catty towards each other. i think it's one of the best entertainment on the internet indeed!
Ladies & Gentlemen, we will now demonstrate the use of the safety equipment on this aircraft...
Art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2621 posts, RR: 0 Reply 119, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4961 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 112): It all depends on what prices they are actually achieving, Sabenapilot. A current list price of $US292M. suggests a build cost of around 85% of that, say $US250M.
NAV20, I thought we had been through this almost ad infinitum and that the most pessimistic build cost suggested was $US199m (in the Gellman report?) In any event, I don't see that raising the list price at this point makes any difference to the build cost.
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 26 Reply 121, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4757 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Thread starter): "I could sell another 30 A380s between now and 2010 if we had the production capacity," John Leahy told German Sunday newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, Airbus said on Saturday."
This is know in PR circles as BRAGGING. I think he should shut the hell up if he wants continued business with anyone whom have made purchases of Airbus aircraft. Imagine someone you bought something from began to laugh and claim they can't keep up... "Well I paid a lot of money for some I will need, will I get it when I need it??"
Honestly, was this a joke or was he just thinking outloud? Build another damn prodution line, it isn't cool to be behind in any regard!
Everyone is watching now, their in Boeing's shoes for the time being, they cannot be douche about what they do and what they say.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
Qfa001 From Australia, joined May 2000, 673 posts, RR: 55 Reply 122, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4709 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 85): I was compiling the numbers to show you that you are not well informed, but QFA001 did it for me.
The statistics are intriguing. 150-ish orders is a great start to any program. However, it took Airbus 40-60% more time to reach that value than other airplane programs. Also, the orders are spread over a long period of time. So, what inordinately looks like a great program start is actually quite average. Infact, IMO, Airbus had a better start with both the A320 and A330/340 than the A380.
However, the A380 was also born into the burst dotcom world and less than a year prior to 9/11. So, I don't think that we should be too quick to judge its start. Rather, we should wait-and-see if Airbus can sell a lot of A380s in the next few years as orders go back to the top of their cycle. Only if Airbus can't gather the orders to meet their intended 4-per-month delivery stream during that period do I think anyone has the right to say that the A380 is on shaky ground. The B777 is a great example. Boeing didn't sell a single one in 1994; but that airplane has gone on to be a success.
The one thing that I do fear for the A380, though, is that the vast majority of airlines seem more willing to buy A350s or B787s for 2010+ deliveries than they are to buy A380s for <2010 deliveries. It really is a critical time for the A380.
Quoting EK156 (Reply 55): Isn't the A 380 the most expensive plane on the market? So 150 orders as a start is quite good for that high price plane I would believe
You're quite right. However, the A380 is also the most expensive development of all-time. So, a way to 'normalise' the relative initial success of each model is to use units sold. It's not the most perfect way of doing things (eg. margins are usually higher on widebodies than narrowbodies), but it is a good trend marker.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 85): I think the A380 is right on 'schedule' for orders, but I find it funny when people try to paint the picture all rosy like it's reinventing the wheel in terms of launch success. it isn't. it's delayed longer than most projects and it is selling fewer frames, though not significantly.
I respectfully disagree that the A380 is on schedule for orders. To date, Airbus has sold about 30 per annum. To meet their target of 4-per-month deliveries in 2008, Airbus needs to sell 40-50 per annum.
Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 117): Their target is 4 per month by 2008. AFAIK, of the 144 firm orders and 15 to-be-signed firm orders, 110 or so are to be delivered by 2010. Let's say for 06 and 07, Airbus can deliver 30 380s. If they get to 4 per month in 08, then they can deliver 144 380s between 08-10, or 174 380s between 06-10. So, Airbus should have more than enough capacity to accommodate Leahy's alleged additional 30 orders that he claimed couldn't be met with the current production volume. If what the report said is true, then it probably means Airbus won't be able to reach their 4 per month rate by 2008.
That is a brilliant point. According to the rates that Airbus has released, they do have the capability to do what Leahy says. So, what's the real story?
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 20319 posts, RR: 62 Reply 123, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4677 times:
Quoting Manni (Reply 109): Now dont twist my words, that is not what I said. I just showed you that it can not be proven wether the A380 will be succesful or not based on past launches of different aircraft types and their pre first commercial flight orders.
that isn't what people were saying, was it? nobody was trying to PROVE anything, just provide information rather than speculation.
the claim made by some is that the A380 is doing GREAT or better than other launches, and then it was asked, in a negative rhetorical way, if the other models were so great, what kind of sales did they have?
So the numbers were put out there to show that for the types requested, they actually slightly outsold the A380, but not by much. but in historical terms, the 747 orders are outstanding in comparison to the A380.
The 757 is a different case for many reasons. As I stated, the twin issue is one (we are talking 1978-1982 here), the "family" of 757/767 and how to account for it is another, and the 727 still being actively sold from 1978-1982 is a big one.
The 757 was offered in 1978. In 1978, the 727 reached 1500 orders.
By the time of 757 EIS in Dec 1982, the 727 had passed 1800 pax orders, so during the offer period of the 757 before EIS, the 727 had "stolen" 300 potential 757 orders (though since the plane was not in service, the airlines didn't want to wait, so that's arguable). Obviously, some would have gone to the MD80, but still, the 757 faced proven competition from it's own company. 727 pax deliveries ended in 1983, 1.5 years after 757 orders began.
The offering of the 727F also delayed the 757F offering due to this. Had Boeing offered the 757F in lieu of the 727F, you may have seen the Fedex go there. Again, internal model competition.
The 757 offered greater range and efficiency, but again, neither of those had really been proven, let alone dispatch reliability of a twin, etc.
So you really can't look at the 757 in a true comparison.
The A380 is a different market, with different problems, and no direct competition internally or externally. Airbus isn't delivering 500+ seat aircraft to it's customers now as an alternative to the A380. The closest they have is the A346, and the last I checked the A346 was not outselling the A380 during this time period 3:1, though maybe if someone did the math it would show that from launch to EIS, the 346+744+773 will outsell the A380 3:1.
Any takers want to do the research? I need to go to breakfast.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Aerofan From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1515 posts, RR: 3 Reply 124, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4508 times:
sounds like a good pr sphiel to me. sound bite to give the impression that the product is selling like hot cakes.
there will be an a380 on every block!
look out world!
Wah64d From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 964 posts, RR: 16 Reply 125, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4493 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 30): because the demand is "too high"... ...give me a break..
Demand is clearly higher than the capacity to supply. The A380 lines will be full for a minimum of 4 years. The A380 has the most sophisticated supply chain of any aircraft the company has built.
As much as you hate to admit it, surely you of all people will recognise that the A380 is going to be a success. There are plenty of airlines who will place orders after the aircraft enters service.
QFA001 From Australia, joined May 2000, 673 posts, RR: 55 Reply 126, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4434 times:
Quoting Wah64d (Reply 125): Demand is clearly higher than the capacity to supply. The A380 lines will be full for a minimum of 4 years. The A380 has the most sophisticated supply chain of any aircraft the company has built.
You should re-read replies 21 and 117. The A380 production lines aren't full. The 150-or-so orders are spread out over 7 production years, not 4.
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3647 posts, RR: 15 Reply 127, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4376 times:
Quoting Vincewy (Reply 51): Many airlines are simply holding out and see how this aircraft performs, in Taiwan, for example, CI has expressed need/interest in getting A380, this article came out last year and I was surprised no one mentioned it here
WAH64D From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 964 posts, RR: 16 Reply 128, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4361 times:
Quoting QFA001 (Reply 126): You should re-read replies 21 and 117. The A380 production lines aren't full. The 150-or-so orders are spread out over 7 production years, not 4.
I stand by my statement. They can't open another A380 line due to the limitations of the supply chain, therefore the production line is running at its full design capacity.
Scorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4934 posts, RR: 51 Reply 129, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4359 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 111): A current list price of $US292M. suggests a build cost of around 85% of that, say $US250M.
Now let me see if I get this straight. You're claiming that Airbus builds its planes at a cost of 85% of the list price? Then you need to explain something to me first: why is it that Airbus has a profit margin of about 10%, while the average discount given on an airplane is about 20%? Going by your logic, Airbus should be losing money hand over fist, as, if your 85% figure is correct, they'd be selling pretty much all their planes below cost.
As mentioned before, even the most pessimistic reports say it costs about $200 million to build (and even that was beautifully disputed by Astuteman in a separate thread which you also read, NAV20), but now, completely out of the blue, and based on absolutely nothing, you, NAV20, have decided that it costs Airbus $250 million to build one? I'm DYING to see your reasoning behind this one...
Does everyone else now see what I meant earlier with this whole 'spinning' thing? Thank you for the beautiful demonstration, NAV20.
Mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 20062 posts, RR: 91 Reply 130, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4259 times:
Quoting QFA001 (Reply 126): You should re-read replies 21 and 117. The A380 production lines aren't full.
Hmm? I think I have a reasonable grasp of the English language - I make my living from it - and reply #21 gives me the impression that, at least for the first couple of years, they are full, or very close to it.
Which is what I would expect. Most airlines - not necessarily all - would want their aircraft sooner rather than later.
if that is not the case, why is everyone bitchin' about the delay?
And who knows what slots are being kept open for what options, or what the state of play on those options is?
Mr. Leahy might know. I seriously doubt that anyone here does.
MidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 33 Reply 131, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4218 times:
Quoting Wah64d (Reply 125): As much as you hate to admit it, surely you of all people will recognise that the A380 is going to be a success. There are plenty of airlines who will place orders after the aircraft enters service.
There are those of us that feel that the A380 will not be a success, however, that is my opinion, however, I will not push my opinion, so please do not push your opinion.
The A350 will be a much more popular program than the A380.....
Sonic67 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 132, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4180 times:
This sounds lke a spin if I ever heard one.
Saying that you can't meet demand when you have production problems.
Don't get me wrong, but with all the resources that Airbus has why couldn't they use them if they needed more prodution capcity? How about assembling more of the airframe outside of France.
WhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 133, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4118 times:
Quoting Sonic67 (Reply 132): Don't get me wrong, but with all the resources that Airbus has why couldn't they use them if they needed more prodution capcity? How about assembling more of the airframe outside of France.
can we use your bedroom then?
In case you hadn't noticed, big planes need big expensive lines. Just like that one in Seattle that knocks out 747s. It's assembly capacity which governs availability and Leahy is saying nothing more than that if there was capacity available for shorter delivery leads he could place orders. But as with everything on this forum, the cheerleaders grab it and try to spin it into something else entirely.
The Boeing fanboy screeching and spinning is becoming nauseating. Wonder if they will be as vocal should the 787 encounter difficulties or the 747X get canned? Or the 772LR not perform as expected?
MidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 33 Reply 134, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4104 times:
Quoting MrComet (Reply 83): I think QFA001 makes a good point. The initial orders don't necessarily mean anything. 150 orders is probably less than Airbus wants but it doesn't mean this will be a non-profitable airplane. It's a huge money loser now (overhead is about $100 million per plan!!) but it's going to be future sales and that is just speculation. To it's advantage:
- The A380 has no competitor and Boeing will likely never create a direct competitor for years if ever.
- Airports are getting crowded.
- Big means lower fuel costs per passenger
- It's the ultimate Hub airplane
- For Airbus, it's a signature airplane wth high prestige
Item # 3, Big mean, lower fuel cost per passenger, is also a negative, lower fuel per passenger only works if the airplane is full, flying the A380 with a low load factor will kill an airline.....
WAH64D From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 964 posts, RR: 16 Reply 135, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4030 times:
Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 131): There are those of us that feel that the A380 will not be a success, however, that is my opinion, however, I will not push my opinion, so please do not push your opinion.
The A350 will be a much more popular program than the A380.....
I'm not pushing my opinion. You can take it or leave it. I'm not forcing anybody to accept it. By your post you are stating your opinion, why is that any different?
Its a strange coincidence that 99% of the people who don't think the aircraft will be a success are from your side of the pond. Wishing that the aircraft is going to be a failure IS NOT going to make it happen. Disguising wishes as opinions is like hiding a pumpkin behind a sheet of clear glass.
We know you don't like the fact that we're building the biggest and best passenger transport aircraft in the world. You'll just have to live with it. Expect to feel even more p*ssed off with the raft of new orders that will follow its entry into service with SIA.
Quoting Sonic67 (Reply 132): This sounds lke a spin if I ever heard one.
Saying that you can't meet demand when you have production problems.
Don't get me wrong, but with all the resources that Airbus has why couldn't they use them if they needed more prodution capcity? How about assembling more of the airframe outside of France.
The whole problem is getting the airframe into France in the first place. The fuselage sections are delivered from Germany by boat and the transported by road to Toulouse. The same story with the wings from the UK.
Thorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 136, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3965 times:
Has anybody read the article in the FAS that this quote is from? I have, it is just a sidenote in an article about the new Airbus CEO, Gustav Humbert. It's mostly about him, his life in France, and the relationship he has with his predecessor. Interesting facts are that Humbert does not want to increase production capacity, because he expects the current boom to end in around 2010. Humbert also says he's happy with 45-55% market share and doesn't want to have 70%. Another fact stated is that Airbus currently has a vertical range of manufacture of 40%, this number might go down to 33%. Humbert also says that Airbus wants to be the number one. (With 45% market share?)
The infamous Leahy quote is (my translation): "I could immediately sell another 30 frames, if we weren't completely busy (or fully booked) until the year 2010."
I have no doubt about the no-capacity issue. They have 159 orders (with ten for UPS), deliveries will start at the end of 2006, and the production rate will not be at 48 per year before 2008.
Besides, this is another Airbus bashing thread, I believe. Seems like there is at least one per day. Tomorrow it'll be "Who will take the dumped A380s, when Boeing launches an 900 seat twin-jet??" Take it easy, B-fans, I know it's hard you're no longer producing the biggest airliner, but bashing the A380 with strange arguments like "They'll loose 100 million dollars per frame", "It's so ugly!", or even "It's obsolete!"(hahahahaha), will not turn anything to the better.
BR076 From Netherlands, joined May 2005, 1075 posts, RR: 0 Reply 139, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3862 times:
Quoting Thorben (Reply 136): Besides, this is another Airbus bashing thread, I believe. Seems like there is at least one per day. Tomorrow it'll be "Who will take the dumped A380s, when Boeing launches an 900 seat twin-jet??" Take it easy, B-fans, I know it's hard you're no longer producing the biggest airliner, but bashing the A380 with strange arguments like "They'll loose 100 million dollars per frame", "It's so ugly!", or even "It's obsolete!"(hahahahaha), will not turn anything to the better.
Let them, in the beginning it was annoying, but now it's quite funny and they are more of an entertainment team , it are the same 5 posters that pop up in every A380 thread (you know who you are) , they will spin even the most positive A380 news in something negative. It's all just sour grapes that Boeing isn't no.1 anymore and that Europe has build the new king of the sky
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 140, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3826 times:
Quoting Mariner (Reply 130): Most airlines - not necessarily all - would want their aircraft sooner rather than later.
Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 133): It's assembly capacity which governs availability and Leahy is saying nothing more than that if there was capacity available for shorter delivery leads he could place orders
The impatient customers can't wait until 2010 when there seem to be at least 36 delivery slots available (21 in 2011, 46 in 2012)? Given the unique nature of the A380, what are these impatient customers buying instead of the A380 to meet their needs?
MidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 33 Reply 141, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3811 times:
Quoting WAH64D (Reply 135): We know you don't like the fact that we're building the biggest and best passenger transport aircraft in the world. You'll just have to live with it. Expect to feel even more p*ssed off with the raft of new orders that will follow its entry into service with SIA.
Biggest, yes, you bet the A380 is! Most of "us" people will be gawking at the A380 when it lands at any airport. Best transport aircraft? Time will tell. Pissed, negative on that sir. I saw the A380 at the Paris Air Show, my main reason for going was to see the A380.
Pissed at new aircraft order, no, not even close. Every aircraft order, whether it goes to Boeing or Airbus is a success to those of us that like the avitation industry and airplanes.
Stop lumping people in together, just because they feel the A380 will not be a commercial success for Airplane orders, it has nothing to do whether we like/hate Airbus.
I was very critical of Boeing during the Sonic Cruiser days and the stagnation period before the introduction of the 787.
Mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 20062 posts, RR: 91 Reply 142, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3746 times:
Quoting Leelaw (Reply 140): The impatient customers can't wait until 2010 when there seem to be at least 36 delivery slots available (21 in 2011, 46 in 2012)?
Apparently not. I also assume - but it is only an assumption - that at least a few slots are being kept open for orders being negotiated, as well as options.
Quoting Leelaw (Reply 140): Given the unique nature of the A380, what are these impatient customers buying instead of the A380 to meet their needs?
I have no idea. Unlike some here, I don't claim to know what airlines or aircraft manufacturers are doing until they announce it.
Wah64d From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 964 posts, RR: 16 Reply 143, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3595 times:
Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 141): Biggest, yes, you bet the A380 is! Most of "us" people will be gawking at the A380 when it lands at any airport. Best transport aircraft? Time will tell. Pissed, negative on that sir. I saw the A380 at the Paris Air Show, my main reason for going was to see the A380.
Pissed at new aircraft order, no, not even close. Every aircraft order, whether it goes to Boeing or Airbus is a success to those of us that like the avitation industry and airplanes.
In that case, my apologies go to you sir. I and many others here are just sick of the constant foundationless negative comments from many of the Americans on this forum in relation to Airbus.
Scorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4934 posts, RR: 51 Reply 144, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3563 times:
Quoting Thorben (Reply 136): The infamous Leahy quote is (my translation): "I could immediately sell another 30 frames, if we weren't completely busy (or fully booked) until the year 2010."
Thank you for confirming what I and several others have been saying all along. Too bad the Usual Suspects will most likely just ignore it, kind of like the way they've been ignoring what was said by a few users already, i.e. that many of the 'open spaces' in the production lines between now and 2010 are very likely being kept open for options that have been taken by several airlines. You see, even though this explanation seems completely logical, it doesn't correspond with the Party Line that the reason for the spaces is because Airbus can't sell the things, so it is just ignored.
PlaneDane From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 145, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3506 times:
Quoting WAH64D (Reply 135): Quoting Sonic67 (Reply 132):
This sounds lke a spin if I ever heard one.
Saying that you can't meet demand when you have production problems.
Don't get me wrong, but with all the resources that Airbus has why couldn't they use them if they needed more prodution capcity? How about assembling more of the airframe outside of France.
The whole problem is getting the airframe into France in the first place. The fuselage sections are delivered from Germany by boat and the transported by road to Toulouse. The same story with the wings from the UK.
And this is a most ridiculous aspect of the A380 program. There was no logical, compelling reason to set up final assembly in Toulouse. As a result, what Airbus has now is terribly inefficient, cumbersome, expensive and risky. Worse yet, setting this all up was detrimental to the environment and put wonderful historical European landmarks at risk.
This could only have been done for purely political reasons.
RedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2053 posts, RR: 2 Reply 146, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3473 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 102): You could damn near get three 787s for that; maybe one-and-a-half 747ADVs.
The 747-400 has an average list price of 221 million. The 747Adv will for sure be more expensive than that. Even the 773ER has a list price of 240 million! Surely, you agree with me that the 747Adv will be more expensive than a 773ER?
The 787-3 and -8 have an average price of 130 million.
It would be more correct to say that you can get one and a half 772ER or two 764ERs for one A388.
Quoting EMBQA (Reply 105): and it's a bright sunny Sunday.
Some lucky people are living in the right part of the world!
Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 117): If they get to 4 per month in 08, then they can deliver 144 380s between 08-10, or 174 380s between 06-10. So, Airbus should have more than enough capacity to accommodate Leahy's alleged additional 30 orders that he claimed couldn't be met with the current production volume. If what the report said is true, then it probably means Airbus won't be able to reach their 4 per month rate by 2008.
What several people here have pointed out, and what you forget in your calculations, is options plus unannounced orders. Airbus might very well have some unannounced orders coming up at the Dubai air show, and they also have a lot of options from current customers.
If they want to be friendly with their current customers, they have to make sure to keep slots open for their options! If Airbus, on top of their delivery delay, would fill up their order book so much so that SQ and QF cannot convert their options into orders, then Airbus would be in trouble.
Quoting AC777300 (Reply 120): I am quite sure if a customer orders them they Airbus will find a way to accommodate....
Totally unrealistic to expect that. The A380 production is a huge undertaking spread out to several countries. And it's taken them many years to build that production line.
Quoting Qfa001 (Reply 122): Infact, IMO, Airbus had a better start with both the A320 and A330/340 than the A380.
Of course! What many people fail to understand is that neither Airbus nor the A380-lovers ever expected the A380 to sell as many planes as the A320 or 737.
All in all, Airbus expects to sell between 700-750 of the A380. That means that at first flight, with 139 sold, that Airbus had already sold 19.2 percent of the total expected output (139 out of 725 planes)! How many other airplanes can you show me which had sold around 20 percent of its expected total sales at first flight?
Quoting QFA001 (Reply 126): You should re-read replies 21 and 117. The A380 production lines aren't full. The 150-or-so orders are spread out over 7 production years, not 4.
See my answer to reply 117 above.
Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 131): The A350 will be a much more popular program than the A380.....
Of course! And everybody knows that! The 787 will also be much more popular than the 747Adv.
Quoting Sonic67 (Reply 132): How about assembling more of the airframe outside of France.
It's not only assembly we're talking about. You would also have to build factories to build all those huge fuselage sections, plus another factory to make the world's largest wings, plus plus plus.
Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 134): Big mean, lower fuel cost per passenger, is also a negative, lower fuel per passenger only works if the airplane is full, flying the A380 with a low load factor will kill an airline.....
As with all planes, this will depend upon the average number of pax on the airline's flights. I mean, a few years ago I was flying a CX A340 with maybe 30 pax, but CX still makes money. Why? Because on most other flights, they are full. Earlier this year, I was flying in an almost empty LH 744, but normally they are very full.
MidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 33 Reply 147, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3467 times:
Quoting Wah64d (Reply 143): In that case, my apologies go to you sir. I and many others here are just sick of the constant foundationless negative comments from many of the Americans on this forum in relation to Airbus.
Welcome to the club & get used to it, there are people at are for/against Airbus & for/against Boeing. I try my best to be objective as possible for both companies & pay only attention to people that do the same.
Right now, it may seem that people are picking on Airbus, well, that is because they are the company that has the A380 flying about, coupled with the problems associated with new aircraft programs.
When the 787 program swings into high gear you will see the anti-Boeing crowd raise their heads, when Boeing has any problems. Same will hold true when the A350 swings into high gear.
WAH64D From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 964 posts, RR: 16 Reply 148, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3465 times:
Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 145): As a result, what Airbus has now is terribly inefficient, cumbersome, expensive and risky. Worse yet, setting this all up was detrimental to the environment and put wonderful historical European landmarks at risk.
I wouldn't go quite that far. The logistics system for the main part is tried and tested (A320 series, A330/340). Its only the fuselage sections that are a bit of a pain to move around. Cumbersome but not a problem.
Elvis777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 360 posts, RR: 4 Reply 149, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3346 times:
hello Thorben and WAH64D,
A couple of points. I believe that you have misconstrued some of the comments posted by others here and are now guilty of promulgating the myth that any discussion on the business viability of the whale jet is an attack on the aircraft or aircraft manufacturer. I do believe that the aircraft was sold at a loss, but only to the first customers, as is normally the case. No big deal. So airbus is losing money on these 150 (100? 50?) airframes on the belief that they will fully recoup their designs costs and make them a profit in the future (maybe this is an incorrect statement - which I will touch upon in a bit). It seems to me that the thin skins are on your side of the Atlantic.
Although I have serious doubts as to the business case of this plane don’t get too stressed out about it. I don’t particularly like the way it looks - so what. It seems to me that you are being overly sensitive about this. Its not like any one is disrespecting a family member! Tell you what. Why don’t you have a coke, relax a bit and bask in the knowledge that your favorite aircraft manufacturer will sell 1000 frames (or whatever you guys are predicting) in the next 20 years and let us poor, uncultured masses just bang our heads together hoping against hope that this thing will not succeed.
But I ask you to stop whining about how poor little old airbus is disrespected at every opportunity. It is plain untrue. We, as members of this forum have the right to discuss any aviation topic and to bring forth to this discussion any experience that we have. And to some of us our experience is telling us that this aircraft will have trouble meeting its goals (aerodynamic and production). Besides, you must admit that whenever the airbus PR machine spouts something it should at least be questioned for its veracity. Think of it as a system of checks and balances. Otherwise where would we be?
I would also like to address a couple of your comments:
"Take it easy, B-fans, I know it's hard you're no longer producing the biggest airliner....."
"We know you don't like the fact that we're building the biggest and best passenger transport aircraft in the world. You'll just have to live with it."
It seems to me that you are running away from the main points - and are showing your insecurity. It really does not matter that airbus is producing the largest jetliner. Need I remind you that for the longest of times a european consortium was building the fastest passenger jetliner and no one was really too bothered about it. Actually, this is the key point. This whale jet program has a lot of parallels with the concorde. I believe that economic analysis did not pan out so the europeans were the only ones to build such a jet. Same thing here. I believe that Boeing believes that the market would not profitably recompense a brand new design for a very large airliner so they did not. It is possible that an upgraded airliner, one that does not incur a huge development costs, can succeed so perhaps they will come up with an advanced 747- maybe not. It is not a matter of national pride if America no longer produces the largest airliner. It is not like we lack the technological wherewithal. We have it in spades. It is a matter of careful analysis and fiscal prudence.
I mentioned the word insecurity because it does appear as if this airliner is distinctly tied to a national ethos (Yes, I saw how the French came out in droves to cheer and weep when the whale jet made its maiden flight on French soil with French pilots- Kind of touching but not really our thing on this side of the pond actually -well maybe when we get back to the moon). Anyways, your comments do have a bit of a nationalistic (pan-european) flavor to them. As if selling 500 airframe (or whatever the number is that you guys are predicting) will somehow catapult you into a technological lead.
You know what I find really interesting? The chinese attempt at becoming a space power. No matter the costs, large number of their population is at the poverty line, the world will no longer disrespect them if they put men in space. Interesting idea. So if that is the measuring stick then perhaps they should proceed. Because if that metric is used then they have just catapulted themselves over certain other nations (unions). But just like other projects it is fair to question the business case for this venture. In my opinion, it has some similarities, actually, to the whale jet.
Peace
Elvis777
Leper,Unevolved, Misplaced and Unrepentant SportsFanatic and a ZOMBIE as well
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 1806 posts, RR: 8 Reply 150, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3276 times:
Quoting RedChili (Reply 146): What several people here have pointed out, and what you forget in your calculations, is options plus unannounced orders. Airbus might very well have some unannounced orders coming up at the Dubai air show, and they also have a lot of options from current customers.
The key word here is "might". You're speculating. Then I will speculate, too. AFAIK, airlines that have meaningful 08-10 options are QF and SQ. They combined have 27 options, and not all of their options are for 08-10. Most other carriers have options beyond 2010. Even five of LH's firm orders are scheduled beyond 2012. As I illustrated in Reply 117, if Airbus can get to 4 per month by 2008, they have about 60 more slots available. Do you really believe Leahy has 60 more orders in his sleeves? I am not as optimistic as you are.
Sabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2622 posts, RR: 51 Reply 151, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3272 times:
Congratulations!!!
It took exactly 136 posts before anybody got the clever idea to actually check the source of all this fighting, i.e. the German newspaper article, rather than rely on a brief English resume article on the net.
It seems John Leahy has said exactly what any sensible person already assumed he had said judging from the translation and the known facts: Airbus has a pretty fully booked assembly line for the A380 at least till 2010 and can not accommodate 30+ orders.
Seems Airbus is UNDERdelivering again then, right?
Quoting Qfa001 (Reply 122): That is a brilliant point. According to the production rates that Airbus has released, they do have the capability to do what Leahy says. So, what's the real story?
That brilliant point as you call it was brought up at least 2 times before now and it can easily be undermined by use of 1 word: OPTIONS. Has the idea ever crossed your mind Airbus has to hold back some production capacity because current launch customers have reserved space in the future production planning should they decide to actually buy more A380s later?
Or is that idea really such a big nightmare to you?
Also, like some have already said, the 'Ville de Bordeaux' the sole ship in the world (specially built) capable of transporting the fuselage sections from the plants all over Europe to Bordeaux from where they are transported by road to Toulouse and it can only handle a certain number of trips a year (full is full). Even if Airbus would want to build the extra A380s in the bedrooms of some of our armchair CEOs here, they'd also need to order a second transport ship then! Any volunteer around here whom's canoe they'd might use?
Sonic67 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 152, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3255 times:
It is booked and no their are [b] no problem meeting the demand!!!![b/]
I did see the documentary making of the 380 and the problems they had transporting the fuselage I don't think that is the problem. I can't find it unfortunately but their was a A-Net topic last December that Airbus was considering opening an additional line for the A380.
"Being an armchair CEO" it seems to me that this is an excuse for being behind schedule.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 71 Reply 153, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3237 times:
Quoting Scorpio (Reply 98): More than anything, there has been a lot of MISinformation, and for the rest I haven't seen much new info at all, not to mention that this same debate has been done about fifty times before.
there is a lot of "Misinformation" here, but there are some posters who really know what they are talking about....the reader knows who is who..(well..hopefuly at least)
Quoting Scorpio (Reply 98): Because I'm SICK and TIRED of the same people repeating the same crap over and over and over again, and using every single excuse to start these circle jerks. Do the test yourself: loop up all the threads from the past few months about the A380. Pretty much all of them are always hijacked by the same few people, who keep on turning them into these ridiculous bashfests each and every time. Let's look at the facts:
I already know how much "bashing" of The WhaleJet is present.....however, its the biggest plane in the world and its also the most expensive plane to be built...so its scrutiny his going to be exponential.....even the "regular" media metions The WhaleJet quite a bit..so what to expect from here?
Quoting Scorpio (Reply 98): -If there is NO news, the Usual Suspects will take that to mean that things must obviously be going bad;
well...considering that Airbus claims their new superVLA is the "greatest thing since slice bread"...of course there is going to be a lot of talk about it..
besides..what is one going to discuss.."how the weather is"??
Quoting Scorpio (Reply 98): I for one am sick of not being able to have a single discussion on A380 in here without this same bunch of members hijacking the thread.
not only has there been a lot of meaningful discussions about The WhaleJet, how about bringing up a "meaningful" topic which we can discuss...
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 104): well, if the refunded deposits are still an option, you are right. but why would Airbus be offering those anymore?
well..maybe Airbus is banking on the fact their plane will do well and sell well...
I finally was able to read Airbus airplane forcast, and they (along with Boeing) give zero statistical errors....I guess the .pdf file was for a layperson..but they have been touting their numbers of VLA's needed for a quite a while, but if there is even a few % points off their calculations, then the amount of VLA frames needed/sold will be a heck of a lot less!
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 104): All the numbers being posted were meant to show was that the A380 is not doing gangbusters as some like to believe, but also it's not doing badly. It's just doing what most planes do near EIS, just with slightly fewer numbers. There are going to be examples of planes that do worse than the A380 and examples that do better! That's the point, right?
I agree..but as I said, history is showing that Airbus' VLA calculations are off..(i.e less and less VLA's being sold over the past decade)
Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 110): KLMcedric, If what you're saying is true, then it proves that airlines don't believe performance promises made by Airbus. They're going to wait to see whether the A380 meets its targets, which does not bode well for the aircraft.
thats the point I was trying to make earlier...
Quoting Qfa001 (Reply 122): The one thing that I do fear for the A380, though, is that the vast majority of airlines seem more willing to buy A350s or B787s for 2010+ deliveries than they are to buy A380s for <2010 deliveries. It really is a critical time for the A380.
I think the next 2-3 years will be important because if the plane doesn't get orders into its eight year of offering, and along with a year or two of service, then the jury will be out.....I don't think the jury is out yet.....
so far, EADS stock is doing fine, but if there is a dropoff in the stock, then it might be that the street is thinking that The WhaleJet isn't going to live upto its expectations (of course, the converse is true)
Quoting Wah64d (Reply 125): As much as you hate to admit it, surely you of all people will recognise that the A380 is going to be a success. There are plenty of airlines who will place orders after the aircraft enters service.
yah right...
Quoting Scorpio (Reply 129): Airbus should be losing money hand over fist, as, if your 85% figure is correct, they'd be selling pretty much all their planes below cost.
there have been more than enough links/articles showing how The WhaleJet was sold below cost.....i'm not going to find them, and you are more than free to not believe me..
Quoting Thorben (Reply 136): "They'll loose 100 million dollars per frame",
if the articles were correct, then they were losing that much per frame!
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 20319 posts, RR: 62 Reply 154, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3210 times:
Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 133): Wonder if they will be as vocal should the 787 encounter difficulties or the 747X get canned? Or the 772LR not perform as expected?
Always the same thing. Deflect to Boeing. At least you didn't say "when the 787 is delayed/has problems" like some people do. It may happen, it may not. But with the A380, it did happen. You can't equate a dream to a reality and expect to be taken seriously.
The 747Adv may never launch. That would stink. I'd like to see it, and there is a market for a plane between the 420 and 550 seat range. But who knows?
As for the 772LR not performing as expected? You are right. So far, it's doing better. So much so that they are looking to improve it even more to a level they didn't think attainable!
And after all that, I still don't think it's going to sell in huge numbers. But as the basis for the 777F and for being the 5th and 6th derivatives of a big success, the market for that plane need not be huge.
Quoting Thorben (Reply 136): Interesting facts are that Humbert does not want to increase production capacity, because he expects the current boom to end in around 2010.
That's how I feel. It isn't a bad thing that A has limited production on the plane, as it's about long term sustainability. But in every business, it does hurt to aggressively oversell your product and not deliver in a timely way just to try to "win" in a pissing contest. Long term, customers don't like that too much, as they feel used, not valued. I think that's the only thing Airbus is guilty of, or more that Leahy is guilty of.
Quoting Wah64d (Reply 143): In that case, my apologies go to you sir. I and many others here are just sick of the constant foundationless negative comments from many of the Americans on this forum in relation to Airbus.
While there are such comments around this forum, this thread we are on now is NOT full of "foundationless negative comments" and if you think it is, then it seems that you have your head in the sand. There may be a couple of people being dumb, but this has been a pretty balanced topic EXCEPT for the whiny people who are complaining that ANY analysis of the A380 business model is a slam on the A380 as an aircraft.
But I notice that some people like to claim that any thread negative to Airbus is about bashing just so others can agree with them and they can feel all good and superior and "above the fray" which is just silly. It's the same kind of attitude Boeing had toward Airbus in the past, sort of laughing them off, and well, we know what happened there. It's never wise to laugh off valid complaints, problems, or challenges as nonsense.
I'm not sold on the business model for the A380 as conceived and built and entering into service in 2007. I think Airbus jumped the gun by 3 to 5 years and it will cost them in extra R&D not too many years down the road to make the A380 what it should have been. This pride/urge to be first may ultimately cost them for 20 years to come, as the money spent to keep the A380 competitive will continually push the break even point back, and even once it passes that point (and it will), the overall profits will be middling because of it. My view on the business model and timing does not mean that I don't like the plane (well it looks kind of homely, but it's unique enough). I'll also be in line to book VS A380 upperclass LAX-LHR as soon as I can, and QF to MEL as well!
But if you bother to look at it HONESLTY, this thread has been about figuring out the delivery problems at Airbus (and questioning another odd comment by Leahy). It would seem, from their figures, that they could deliver another 30 planes in the timeframe quoted, but Leahy says they can't, and the CEO says they don't want to.
Either that means that there are hidden orders filling those slots (as has been postulated by many of us), or that the production rate won't reach 4 a month for longer than they expected (also likely), or both (most likely).
There are comments not that Airbus is bad, but that it wasn't the best idea, no matter how much PR there was to the contrary, to lug the worlds biggest airplane parts all over europe just to build it in France, when it would seem that had the plane been assembled in Hamburg, some of these limitations would be removed.
That people take offense to the concept that Airbus made the production line choices based more on politics than on logistics is not my problem or the problem for anyone with a rational mind. And I sure don't think that A380 customers will say: "Sure, I want the plane, and I would like it in 2010, but hey, since European politics dictate how this plane needs to be assembled, I guess I'll have to wait." More likely, customers are saying: "What a stupid way to build a plane, and it's certainly no reason I should be forced to put my business on hold to get it. How much is a 747Adv again?"
For those who, when things hit close to home in the "A380 isn't perfect" department like to immediately attack the 787, I would postulate, that because of the reliance on the few new 747 large freighters they are building to transport large sections, and the round the world just in time production scheme, they will also be supply limited artificially at times, but could compensate by shipping SOME fuselage sections via ship should they need an increase in production. In other words, their logistics don't prevent adding capacity "the old fashioned way" should need arise.
And B has already stated, IIRC, that they are can't deliver many more 787s in a hurry. So right now, it doesn't look like B is about to bump up production any more than Airbus is with the A380 or A350 (which A says faces the same problem).
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 155, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3184 times:
Regarding options: in my experience, many contracts provide that an option to purchase will not hold a specified delivery slot in the face of a competing firm order for the same slot; the option holder must exercise the option and firm its order or accept a later delivery slot.
RedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2053 posts, RR: 2 Reply 156, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3163 times:
Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 150): The key word here is "might". You're speculating.
Well, it was not my intention to speculate. My intention was actually the opposite: to say that we a.netters don't have all information about how many A380 orders are being negotiated at the moment, and we don't have inside information about how many options will be converted to firm orders, so when some people here try to calculate that Airbus has X free slots until 2010, then those people are getting into groundless speculations.
I was not speculating. I was only saying that we don't have all information, but Leahy surely has. If I should choose between trusting his word, or trusting some a.netter who calculates the number of available slots based upon pure speculation, then I would rather trust Leahy.
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 153): besides..what is one going to discuss.."how the weather is"??
EMBQA started to do it in reply 105, and I answered in reply 146. So how's the weather at your end?
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 153): I think the next 2-3 years will be important because if the plane doesn't get orders into its eight year of offering, and along with a year or two of service, then the jury will be out.....I don't think the jury is out yet.....
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 7286 posts, RR: 13 Reply 157, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3160 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 43): So EK might very well end up deferring some of her slots, which would allow Airbus to fill requests.
I've read elsewhere where EK thinks it can accept all its scheduled deliveries, and sell them off relatively quickly, at a profit.
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 158, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3121 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 157): Quoting Stitch (Reply 43):
So EK might very well end up deferring some of her slots, which would allow Airbus to fill requests.
I've read elsewhere where EK thinks it can accept all its scheduled deliveries, and sell them off relatively quickly, at a profit.
Actually, EK's scheduled deliveries are somewhat "backloaded:" three of the A380s EK has on firm order are scheduled to be delivered in 2010, the final sixteen (more than 1/3 of its order) will be delivered in 2011. IMO, EK has plenty of time to make adjustments if necesary.
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 1806 posts, RR: 8 Reply 159, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3098 times:
Quoting RedChili (Reply 156): Well, it was not my intention to speculate. My intention was actually the opposite: to say that we a.netters don't have all information about how many A380 orders are being negotiated at the moment, and we don't have inside information about how many options will be converted to firm orders, so when some people here try to calculate that Airbus has X free slots until 2010, then those people are getting into groundless speculations.
At least I used was data already available to make a point. You're making your point based on what you assume there might be. And that's not speculation? Gimme a break. So, it's okay for you to speculate, but not okay for me to speculate?
Quote:
I was not speculating.
Yes you were, 'cos you just said:
Quote:
I was only saying that we don't have all information,
If you don't know that you're speculating.
Quote:
but Leahy surely has.
He's a salesman. His job is to hype the market. If you want to believe every word he says, then you're sucked into his marketing hype. I won't believe every word a salesman says, regardless if he's a Boeing or Airbus salesman. Take it with a big pinch of salt.
Quote:
If I should choose between trusting his word, or trusting some a.netter who calculates the number of available slots based upon pure speculation, then I would rather trust Leahy
Then did you believe what he said two years ago that all Airbus needed to do to compete with the 7e7 was simply to slap the 7e7 engine on the 330? Now, they are doing a 90% new 350. See what I just said? Take it with a grain of salt.
FYI, neither Airbus or Boeing will hold option slots forever no matter how important the customers might be. If a customer doesn't excercise their options within a certain time period, then Airbus or Boeing will be free to market the delivery slots. The 08-10 options won't likely to expire anytime soon. But 08-10 options are likely limited to early customers. That pretty much limits to QF and SQ as the only two customers with meaningful 08-10 options. EK already has plenty of deliveries from 07 to 10. They are unlikely to increase their 07-10 deliveries. QF has 12 options and SQ has 15 options. Some of them are for 2010 and beyond.
You choose to believe that the 380 production is fully booked through 2010 without a specific production rate. I choose to believe that they can't reach to 4 per month by 2008 as they once said that they would, that's why Leahy can't sell more. In the report, Leahy didn't mention a word about production rate. As Thorben pointed out:
Quoting Thorben (Reply 136): and the production rate will not be at 48 per year before 2008.
So, I have said nothing contradict with all the facts.
RedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2053 posts, RR: 2 Reply 162, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3028 times:
Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 159): You're making your point based on what you assume there might be. And that's not speculation? Gimme a break. So, it's okay for you to speculate, but not okay for me to speculate?
For the second time, I'm not trying to speculate at all! I'm saying just the opposite: that we a.netters don't have enough info to speculate about the number of slots availabe in the delivery schedule! I'm trying to tell you: be careful with your speculations, since you don't know anything about those things I wrote about earlier.
Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 159): He's a salesman. His job is to hype the market. If you want to believe every word he says, then you're sucked into his marketing hype.
Whether I'm "sucked into his marketing hype" is totally irrelevant, since I'm not in a financial position to buy any A380 right now. And I surely don't believe every word he says, but I really do believe that he knows a lot more about Airbus sales than you do! So when your speculations contradict his predictions, I would rather believe him than you. I acknowledge that I might be wrong about this, but as of today, this is my view.
Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 159): FYI, neither Airbus or Boeing will hold option slots forever no matter how important the customers might be. If a customer doesn't excercise their options within a certain time period,
Of course they won't hold them forever. But they will hold them according to what's stated in the contract. And there is no reason to speculate about what that date is.
Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 159): You choose to believe that the 380 production is fully booked through 2010 without a specific production rate.
I've never said so. What I said is that the known facts I'm sitting with are too inadequate to challenge Leahy's statements.
Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 159): So, I have said nothing contradict with all the facts.
I never claimed that you said anything which contradicts with the known facts. But there might be facts out there which are unknown to us.
RedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2053 posts, RR: 2 Reply 163, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2994 times:
Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 159): Then did you believe what he said two years ago that all Airbus needed to do to compete with the 7e7 was simply to slap the 7e7 engine on the 330? Now, they are doing a 90% new 350. See what I just said? Take it with a grain of salt.
There are a couple of huge difference between those two things. You're comparing apples with water melons here.
When Airbus said a few years ago that they could just slap some new engines on the A330 to compete with the 7E7, they were making predictions concerning an airplane that was not launched yet, and they had no idea how the airlines would receive the 7E7 at that time, and they also could not know for sure how many airlines were talking to Boeing about it.
But now, Leahy is talking about simple mathematics within his own company, and not about a prediction whether his competitor will be able to sell X or Y airframes in the future. There's a huge difference between those two predictions.
Mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 20062 posts, RR: 91 Reply 164, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2962 times:
Quoting Leelaw (Reply 155): Regarding options: in my experience, many contracts provide that an option to purchase will not hold a specified delivery slot in the face of a competing firm order for the same slot;
Yes. And - ?
Although I am Australian, I don't participate in any of the Qantas threads on this forum - they're usually a little too pro B/anti A for my taste - but there are several posters on those threads who think that Qantas may exercise some of their A380 options in the not too distant future.
I have no idea if Qantas will or will not, but I would assume - again, only an assumption - that it is a possibility, just a possibility, that some - only some - of those options might - stress "might" - be for delivery before 2011.
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 1806 posts, RR: 8 Reply 166, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2918 times:
Quoting RedChili (Reply 162): For the second time, I'm not trying to speculate at all!
But you previously said:
Quoting RedChili (Reply 146): What several people here have pointed out, and what you forget in your calculations, is options plus unannounced orders. Airbus might very well have some unannounced orders coming up at the Dubai air show, and they also have a lot of options from current customers.
If this is not speculation, what is?
Quoting RedChili (Reply 162): but I really do believe that he knows a lot more about Airbus sales than you do!
I didn't say I knew more than he did. In addition, you agreed with my assertion that:
Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 159): So, I have said nothing contradict with all the facts.
And you said:
Quoting RedChili (Reply 162): I never claimed that you said anything which contradicts with the known facts.
In fact, I have said nothing contradicted with what Leahy said. All my explanation is consistent with what Leahy said. Leahy never said the production is fully booked at 4 per month production rate.
Face the fact, everyone speculates. If we are not allowed to speculate, this world will be quite boring. There are questionable speculations, and there are reasonable speculations. I don't mind people challenging my speculations with sound arguments. When you rely on the argument that "Leahy knows more than you do", then you're not trying to engage in a meaningful discussion.
Manni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 26 Reply 167, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2901 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 123):
So the numbers were put out there to show that for the types requested, they actually slightly outsold the A380, but not by much. but in historical terms, the 747 orders are outstanding in comparison to the A380.
And those numbers were wrong. See reply 99.
Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 117): Their target is 4 per month by 2008. AFAIK, of the 144 firm orders and 15 to-be-signed firm orders, 110 or so are to be delivered by 2010. Let's say for 06 and 07, Airbus can deliver 30 380s. If they get to 4 per month in 08, then they can deliver 144 380s between 08-10, or 174 380s between 06-10. So, Airbus should have more than enough capacity to accommodate Leahy's alleged additional 30 orders that he claimed couldn't be met with the current production volume. If what the report said is true, then it probably means Airbus won't be able to reach their 4 per month rate by 2008.
Quoting Thorben (Reply 136): "I could immediately sell another 30 frames, if we weren't completely busy (or fully booked) until the year 2010."
Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 117): Their target is 4 per month by 2008. AFAIK, of the 144 firm orders and 15 to-be-signed firm orders, 110 or so are to be delivered by 2010. Let's say for 06 and 07, Airbus can deliver 30 380s. If they get to 4 per month in 08, then they can deliver 144 380s between 08-10, or 174 380s between 06-10. So, Airbus should have more than enough capacity to accommodate Leahy's alleged additional 30 orders that he claimed couldn't be met with the current production volume. If what the report said is true, then it probably means Airbus won't be able to reach their 4 per month rate by 2008.
Airbus will probaply deliver no more than a few jets in 2006. Until 2010 might wel be the beginning of 2010, in that case Airbus can only deliver 96 aircraft between 2008 and 2010.
Wdleiser From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 938 posts, RR: 5 Reply 169, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2790 times:
Quoting Scorpio (Reply 81): This is the sorriest excuse for a circle jerk I have seen on these forums since... oh wait, the last 'A380 sucks' thread. They're getting old, and getting old fast.
It is clear to anyone with half a brain that Leahy was talking about selling 30 more A380s for delivery between now and 2010. Let's top ejaculating over the apparent 'fact' that A380 sucks so bad, and engage our brains here for a moment, shall we?
-If Leahy was talking about selling only 30 A380s between now and 2010, what on EARTH would all the capacity talk be about? Answer: there wouldn't be any reason for it. Period.
-If the 'interpretation' of Leahy's words by our local A380 bashers were correct, then you do realise that Leahy apparently was BOASTING about NOT being able to sell 30 A380s is in the next five years, don't you? I mean, seriously, you don't actually BELIEVE that yourselves, do you?
It's pretty sad to see so-called 'aviation enthusiasts' neglecting every bit of rational thought if it means they can bash A380.
You're a very sorry bunch, and I feel sorry for you.
quite possibly the funniest post I have read in A.net history. Thank you for not being a hard ass AIrbus basher and actually having half a brain.
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 170, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2756 times:
Quoting Mariner (Reply 164): Quoting Leelaw (Reply 155):
Regarding options: in my experience, many contracts provide that an option to purchase will not hold a specified delivery slot in the face of a competing firm order for the same slot;
Yes. And - ?
Although I am Australian, I don't participate in any of the Qantas threads on this forum - they're usually a little too pro B/anti A for my taste - but there are several posters on those threads who think that Qantas may exercise some of their A380 options in the not too distant future.
I have no idea if Qantas will or will not, but I would assume - again, only an assumption - that it is a possibility, just a possibility, that some - only some - of those options might - stress "might" - be for delivery before 2011.
My point is that under the terms of some option contracts, a specific production/delivery slot will not be held open for an option holder if another customer wants to place a firm order to fill the slot prior to the expiration date of the option. The option holder either has to exercise its option and firm its order to secure the slot, or give up the slot to the other party and accept a later slot to cover its option.
Mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 20062 posts, RR: 91 Reply 171, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2738 times:
Quoting Leelaw (Reply 170): My point is that under the terms of some option contracts,
I understands exactly what your point is.
My point is that we are not privy to - or, I am not privy to - the state of negotiations between Airbus and potential customers and Airbus and contracted customers and their options.
If - stress "if" - the rumors of Qantas exercising some options are true, it may - stress "may" - be that they have indicated this to Airbus and that Airbus may - stress "may" - feel they would rather keep the slots open for a potential option conversion by an excellent customer than give them away to a new one.
Or not.
It may - stress "may" - be that part of the settlement with Qantas for the delay is a variance on the option clauses in the contract.
Or not.
Maybe it is all just bulldust. I don't deny that possibility.
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 172, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2713 times:
Quoting Mariner (Reply 171): Airbus may - stress "may" - feel they would rather keep the slots open for a potential option conversion by an excellent customer than give them away to a new one.
In my experience, manufacturers of transportation equipment will always take the bird in the hand and go with the firm order because the risk of a valuable delivery slot not being taken-up is too great to be adequately mitigated by potential customer goodwill generated by forbearance.
PlaneDane From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 173, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2698 times:
Quoting RedChili (Reply 146): What several people here have pointed out, and what you forget in your calculations, is options plus unannounced orders. Airbus might very well have some unannounced orders coming up at the Dubai air show, and they also have a lot of options from current customers.
If they want to be friendly with their current customers, they have to make sure to keep slots open for their options! If Airbus, on top of their delivery delay, would fill up their order book so much so that SQ and QF cannot convert their options into orders, then Airbus would be in trouble.
What might an unannounced order might be? Anything resembling a bonafide order gets booked, plain and simple. Otherwise, it's just not a real order.
As for options, I just don't see that they work the way you suggest. Only when an option expires on a particular delivery position can Airbus remarket it to other airline customers.
So, airlines like SQ and QF have nothing to worry about in the scenario you describe.
Mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 20062 posts, RR: 91 Reply 174, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2682 times:
Quoting Leelaw (Reply 172): In my experience, manufacturers of transportation equipment will always take the bird in the hand and go with the firm order because the risk of a valuable delivery slot not being taken-up is too great to be adequately mitigated by potential customer goodwill generated by forbearance.
If that is your experience, how can I possibly disagree?
PlaneDane From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 176, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2649 times:
Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 116): Quoting NAV20 (Reply 112):
It all depends on what prices they are actually achieving, Sabenapilot. A current list price of $US292M. suggests a build cost of around 85% of that, say $US250M.
Now we all know that Leahy sold the first lot (maybe as many as 80) at around US$150M. So, at a production rate of say 30 a year, they look like facing annual costs of around $US 7.5 Billion against revenues of about $US4.5 Billion, for at least the first couple of years.
Anything to back this statement up?
Can you offer other figures then and the sources for them? What should it be instead of US$150M?
Maybe, with your information this issue could be settled once and for all. Thanks.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 8379 posts, RR: 42 Reply 177, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2639 times:
Quoting Art (Reply 168): The most pessimistic build cost I have seen is $199m per frame. I have not seen any claim that the A380 has been sold for $99m to anyone.
Art, the 'up to $US100M. loss' point originated with one of my posts, where I said that, IMO, the present-day build cost would be c.$US250M. and early sales would be at the agreed 'launch prices' of c.$150M.; making a loss of up to $100M. per airframe.
People on here know that I argue hard But I hope that they also realise that I don't pluck estimated figures out of thin air - I base them on the available evidence, and wherever possible on two or more pieces of evidence. Apologies in advance if it bores people, but on this occasion I will explain in detail how I arrived at my estimate. In this case there were two sources:-
1. The current asking price of $US292M.. It would be crazy for Airbus needlessly to over-price the A380 at this stage; and in any case aircraft manufacture is a field in which supra-normal profits are hardly ever earned (except maybe in wartime ). So it seemed fair to assume that the 'asking price' was set on the basis of a 15% profit. Which produced a build cost figure of about $250M..
2. The earlier build cost estimate (which you mention) of $US199M., adjusted for inflation and currency fluctuations. This estimate comes from the Gellman Report, the relevant paragraph being:-
"The Shadow CPA estimates the demand for the A380, both passenger and freight versions, over the first 20 years of deliveries. In January, 2001, Airbus could reasonably have projected 496 A380 deliveries over the first 20 years. (The study team itself holds the view that a more realistic expectation is about 350 A380 deliveries.) To the present, A380s have been sold at unit prices in the $130,000,000 to $145,000,000 range. This compares with the estimate (for the 100th production aircraft) that, as of June 2004, the passenger A380 will cost $199,700,000 (in 2001 dollars) and the freighter version $208,000,000 to produce. These costs do not reflect Airbus’ obligation to repay direct development state aid of at least $2,200,000 over the aircraft delivered through 2017. Meeting this obligation only makes the A380 program an even greater burden for Airbus and EADS."
Please note that the $US199.7M. estimate was as at June 2004. The $US went on depreciating rapidly against the Euro through 2004 and the early part of 2005; if you allow for that, and also make allowance for inflation and for the cost of redesign and re-tooling to sort out teething troubles, an estimate of $US250M. as the likely 2006 build cost appears entirely reasonable.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
QFA001 From Australia, joined May 2000, 673 posts, RR: 55 Reply 178, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2569 times:
Quoting WAH64D (Reply 128): I stand by my statement. They can't open another A380 line due to the limitations of the supply chain, therefore the production line is running at its full design capacity.
In a Jan-05 interview with AFX, then Airbus COO Gustav Humbert said that Airbus is planning a maximum production rate for now of 4 aircraft per month which should mean in reality 'around 44-45 per year'.
That is the reason why I mentioned reply 21 (and to a lesser extent, 117). Airbus has committed 35-36 positions 2008-09, but their production capability is 44-45 per annum. Humbert said in the same interview that he expect(s) demand will increase beyond this and we have to consider, and we would be able, to increase this rate beyond 2009-10.
It is 2005. OEMs can traditionally make a judgment to increase output and have it effective about 12 months later. Currently, Airbus has positions filled for 35-36 A380s in 2008-09, which is below maximum output. If the demand for the airplane is there for <2010 deliveries, then why isn't Airbus increasing their output to match that demand if their system can handle 44-45 deliveries per annum? The bulk of the options on the A380 are active >2010. So, it doesn't appear that reserved options are a full explanation. Leahy should be able to fill at least some of the 30-or-so orders he says he can get, right?
Quoting RedChili (Reply 146): Of course! What many people fail to understand is that neither Airbus nor the A380-lovers ever expected the A380 to sell as many planes as the A320 or 737.
FWIW, I wasn't offering an opinion based on unit sales. My opinion was based on sales as a function of development costs. On that front, I believe that Airbus had a better start with the A320 and A330/340 than A380. But I would like to qualify that by no means do I think it's a bad start. It's a good start; it's just not setting the world on fire. Yet.
Quoting RedChili (Reply 146): How many other airplanes can you show me which had sold around 20 percent of its expected total sales at first flight?
Good point. However, I can think of the A330/340, B727 and B767 as examples in the same ball-park as the percentage you mentioned. With further research, I might even be able to find more.
Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 151): That brilliant point as you call it was brought up at least 2 times before now and it can easily be undermined by use of 1 word: OPTIONS.
I'm afraid that options and purchase rights alone don't answer the question in enough detail. As I said above, Airbus has room to generate additional slots based on their planned maximum output. Most of the options are active until >2010.
Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 151): Has the idea ever crossed your mind Airbus has to hold back some production capacity because current launch customers have reserved space in the future production planning should they decide to actually buy more A380s later?
Or is that idea really such a big nightmare to you?
I really don't understand your aggression. Why would it be a nightmare to me?
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 153): I think the next 2-3 years will be important because if the plane doesn't get orders into its eight year of offering, and along with a year or two of service, then the jury will be out.....I don't think the jury is out yet.....
I think you described what I meant much better than I did.
Shenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1661 posts, RR: 2 Reply 179, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2530 times:
As many other posters have said, Leahy obviously knows a tad bit more then most Anetters. With this being said, maybe Leahy thinks/knows that the 747ADV will soon be launched with approx 30 frames on the books.
Most people in Leahy's position don't just spout things to the media, without some type of discussion beforehand, so couldn't this be a marketing initiative to basically state "we could have locked those 747ADV orders up ourselves, if our lines weren't sold out?"
Just adding to the speculation of the big "PR" game being played out these last few months.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 8379 posts, RR: 42 Reply 180, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2485 times:
Thanks to whoever mentioned the 'Ville De Bordeaux'. It looks as if the most likely 'production choke points' are actually that ship and the barge traffic that feeds it.
"Airbus operates 16 manufacturing sites across Europe, most of which produce parts for the new A380 airliner.
"First, the front and rear sections of the fuselage are loaded on an Airbus RORO ship, Ville de Bordeaux, in Hamburg, northern Germany, whence they are shipped to the United Kingdom. There the huge wings, which are manufactured at Filton in Bristol and Broughton in north Wales, are transported by barge to Mostyn docks, where the ship adds them to its cargo. In Saint-Nazaire, western France, the ship trades the fuselage sections from Hamburg for larger, assembled sections, some of which include the nose. The ship unloads in Bordeaux. Afterwards, the ship picks up the belly and tail sections in Cadiz, southern Spain, and delivers them to Bordeaux.
"From there, the A380 parts are transported by barge to Langon, and by road to an assembly hall in Toulouse. New wider roads, extra canal systems and barges were developed to deliver the massive A380 parts. After assembly, the aircraft are flown to Hamburg to be furnished and painted. Final assembly began in 2004, with first aircraft (MSN001) displayed in January 2005."
Just the one ship. Ploughing through the North Sea, the Channel, the Irish Sea, the Channel again, the Bay of Biscay, and the Atlantic; and then back to Hamburg and start again. Looks like the Airbus production people will spend a lot of their time listening to the BBC Shipping Forecast. One winter gale and everything presumably stops for a week.....
[Edited 2005-10-17 08:03:50]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
If it is speculation to you, then okay. To me, it is not speculation.
Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 166): Face the fact, everyone speculates. If we are not allowed to speculate, this world will be quite boring. There are questionable speculations, and there are reasonable speculations.
You are allowed to do it, of course. This is a democratic forum.
Also, I think you're correct in distinguishing between questionable and reasonable speculations. What I consider to be a questionable speculation is when somebody says that Leahy is talking nonsense because his comment doesn't fit with my numbers.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 177): It would be crazy for Airbus needlessly to over-price the A380 at this stage;
Actually, both Boeing and Airbus over-price all of their airplanes, not only the A380! And then they give the customers great discounts.
And I would not say that the A380 is "needlessly" overpriced. The A380 can hold 52 percent more seats than the 773ER, but the list price is only 22 percent higher.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 177): Please note that the $US199.7M. estimate was as at June 2004. The $US went on depreciating rapidly against the Euro through 2004 and the early part of 2005;
But the dollar has appreciated a lot during the last half year. So according to oanda.com, the exchange rate at 1 June 2004 was 1.2188 dollars per euro, and today it is 1.2082. So the rate has actually gone in Airbus's favor during the stated period. If you adjust the figure of USD 199.7 to today's rate, you will end up with USD 197.96.
Quoting QFA001 (Reply 178): Leahy should be able to fill at least some of the 30-or-so orders he says he can get, right?
Once more, he didn't say that he can get 30 orders. He said that he could have gotten 30 orders more than the production rate will allow.
Just to make this more tangible, let's look at the following example, which is only an example and not any guess work from my side. Maybe Airbus has 20 available slots during that time period. What Leahy says is that he can get 50 orders for that period, but they have slots available for only 20 planes, so there are 30 orders he cannot accommodate.
Another example: Maybe Airbus has 60 available slots for that period. In that case, Leahy said that he could have gotten 90 orders, but they can only produce 60. 90 - 60 = 30. X - Y = Z.
Leahy didn't say a word about how many total orders (X) he could get, or how many orders (Y) they will be able to fill. He just pointed out how many orders (Z) they will not be able to fill.
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 8504 posts, RR: 95 Reply 182, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2352 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 15): This was not an unexpected problem with the rapid growth of Airbus orders.
First sensible response, Ikramerica. Thanks.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 39): Airbus will be reporting its 2005 third-quarter results in early November, and my guess is that neither the profit expectations nor the future outlook will look as rosy as they did at the half-year point
Would you know their expectations?
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 39): Especially the order position, in comparison with Boeing, who are already reporting 647 firm orders this year, including over 200 widebodies.
You don't think Airbus will have 600 orders inc 200 widebodies by year end, plus a considerably larger starting backlog?
Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 76): I look forward to EIS to see exactly how far A380 will fly on how much fuel and for Airbus's sake I hope A380 does not disappoint like A346.
Another urban myth. The A346's underperformances were in the field of reliability, not fuel burn. All of todays carriers say it meets their fuel burn expectations.
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 80): at a price which may not be worth the order, ask Boeing about its experience in the 90s when they lost billions ramping up production to meet airline demand
ABSOLUTELY SPOT ON! Both manufacturers need to be SOOOOO careful as they ramp up production
I'd risk that amount. The correct numbers are $12.5Bn of which airbus's risk is $9.5Bn
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 94): I'd be very surprised if recent sales were at a level of $US300M. or so?
You're right, for once. Airbus will NEVER sell an A380 at $300m at 2005 dollars, but then they never expected to, nor did the business case expect them to. Average sale price for BOTH manufacturers is 20% below list.
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 95): but I'll be happy to "eat my words" if Airbus has backlog of "at least 500 frames"....
I don't believe you for one second
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 111): A current list price of $US292M. suggests a build cost of around 85% of that, say $US250M.
Incorrect - it suggests a build cost of $185m in 2005 dollars - using the same paradigm as every other Airbus (and Boeing) aircraft.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 111): Now we all know that Leahy sold the first lot (maybe as many as 80) at around US$150M. So, at a production rate of say 30 a year, they look like facing annual costs of around $US 7.5 Billion against revenues of about $US4.5 Billion, for at least the first couple of years.
US$150m back then is, surprise surprise, about $185m today, after price variation clauses have been activated (and yes, they ARE there.)
Quoting Art (Reply 119): I thought we had been through this almost ad infinitum and that the most pessimistic build cost suggested was $US199m (in the Gellman report?)
Art, Gellman didn't have a clue about the cost of the A380, much less what are the key drivers that dictate that cost - ignore him.
Quoting Scorpio (Reply 129): Then you need to explain something to me first: why is it that Airbus has a profit margin of about 10%, while the average discount given on an airplane is about 20%?
SPOT ON! As I said above, although Airbus margin this year is nearer 13% and continuing to rise.
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 153): there have been more than enough links/articles showing how The WhaleJet was sold below cost.....i'm not going to find them, and you are more than free to not believe me..
Every one a SPECULATION - not one based in factual data. I'll certainly feel free not to believe you.
Quoting Dougloid (Reply 160): Quoting BR076 (Reply 139):
It's all just sour grapes that Boeing isn't no.1 anymore and that Europe has build the new king of the sky
I could care less about Boeing-they put me out of a job.
Isn't it a shame that the "Yank sour grapes" rhetoric persists in deflectiing us from the proper discussions.
Scorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4934 posts, RR: 51 Reply 183, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2353 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 177): People on here know that I argue hard
and without ever using facts, just pure speculation.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 177): So it seemed fair to assume that the 'asking price' was set on the basis of a 15% profit.
So then, once again, please explain the 10% margin of Airbus, and how that was achieved with average discounts of about 20%? And why on earth would Airbus price its A380 with a lower profit margin than the average discounts given, and a lower one than the rest of their planes (it would have to be lower than the rest, given the profit of Airbus and the average list price) when this plane has no direct competitior while the rest of the family does? There's just no logic to it. None.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 177): This estimate comes from the Gellman Report
A report which has been heavily and beautifully disputed by Astuteman, who knows more about making this kind of price assessment than any of us. So I wouldn't put my money on this estimate being correct.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 177): Please note that the $US199.7M. estimate was as at June 2004. The $US went on depreciating rapidly against the Euro through 2004 and the early part of 2005; if you allow for that, and also make allowance for inflation and for the cost of redesign and re-tooling to sort out teething troubles, an estimate of $US250M. as the likely 2006 build cost appears entirely reasonable.
Several points to counter that:
-Astuteman already pointed out the currency hedging that protects Airbus from these fluctuations, and how much of this Airbus has done;
-A very large chunk of the A380 parts is paid for in US Dollars, again minimising the risk for Airbus.
It took exactly 136 posts before anybody got the clever idea to actually check the source of all this fighting, i.e. the German newspaper article, rather than rely on a brief English resume article on the net.
I wanted to post it earlier, but the computer was occupied.
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 153): Quoting Thorben (Reply 136):
"They'll loose 100 million dollars per frame",
if the articles were correct, then they were losing that much per frame!
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 177): (The study team itself holds the view that a more realistic expectation is about 350 A380 deliveries.) To the present, A380s have been sold at unit prices in the $130,000,000 to $145,000,000 range.
All 159 sold for 130-145 million bucks? Who on earth is supposed to believe that? Look at Boeings price list:
A 773ER starts at 226 million, a 744 at 205 million. 130 million is something you'd pay for a 787. Where is the source (apart from Gellman) that Airbus ever sold an A380 for less than 200 million? Besides, why would they, that plane has no competition.
Anyway, interesting that Boeing sells the 787 for less than the 767, which it is supposed to replace.
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 2888 posts, RR: 69 Reply 185, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2263 times:
Astuteman, Leelaw, Mariner, Scorpio,
Doing a paper on VLA, I stumbled into two documents which explain a lot of the topic you discuss here :
The first one is titled :"Airbus vs Boeing Superjumbos : A case of failed preemption " and can be found here : http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=302452
Scroll down the page and choose the downloading site you wish.
The second article covers the 787 production costs and the subsidy case.
WAH64D From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 964 posts, RR: 16 Reply 186, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2238 times:
Quoting Elvis777 (Reply 149): It seems to me that you are running away from the main points - and are showing your insecurity. It really does not matter that airbus is producing the largest jetliner. Need I remind you that for the longest of times a european consortium was building the fastest passenger jetliner and no one was really too bothered about it. Actually, this is the key point. This whale jet program has a lot of parallels with the concorde. I believe that economic analysis did not pan out so the europeans were the only ones to build such a jet. Same thing here. I believe that Boeing believes that the market would not profitably recompense a brand new design for a very large airliner so they did not. It is possible that an upgraded airliner, one that does not incur a huge development costs, can succeed so perhaps they will come up with an advanced 747- maybe not. It is not a matter of national pride if America no longer produces the largest airliner. It is not like we lack the technological wherewithal. We have it in spades. It is a matter of careful analysis and fiscal prudence.
I mentioned the word insecurity because it does appear as if this airliner is distinctly tied to a national ethos (Yes, I saw how the French came out in droves to cheer and weep when the whale jet made its maiden flight on French soil with French pilots- Kind of touching but not really our thing on this side of the pond actually -well maybe when we get back to the moon). Anyways, your comments do have a bit of a nationalistic (pan-european) flavor to them. As if selling 500 airframe (or whatever the number is that you guys are predicting) will somehow catapult you into a technological lead.
You should have your own standup comedy show my friend!!!
We catapulted ourselves in to a technological lead about 50 years ago. If you want to believe political propaganda about being the most technologically advanced nation on earth, go ahead. Then visit Europe or the far east for an eye opener.
So its not a matter of national pride that America doesn't produce the worlds largest passenger aircraft? You could have fooled me when the 747 was launched. You people were trumpeting about that ad nauseum for about 30 years.
My final point relates to my forum name. Thats right, the good old Apache Longbow, the one we refused to buy as the avionics weren't advanced enough. Westland re-done the avionics package and now we have the most advanced attack helicopter in the world, meanwhile the "technologically advanced USA" is still pootling around in AH-64As.
Joni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 187, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2193 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 111): It all depends on what prices they are actually achieving, Sabenapilot. A current list price of $US292M. suggests a build cost of around 85% of that, say $US250M.
Whereas it may "suggest" that to you, it doesn't yet follow that this is the case. Typical discounts in the industry are about 20%, so according to your logic A&B would typically sell their planes around 5% below cost.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 111):
Now we all know that Leahy sold the first lot (maybe as many as 80) at around US$150M.
Is it just me, or have we had this discussion earlier?
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 177):
1. The current asking price of $US292M.. It would be crazy for Airbus needlessly to over-price the A380 at this stage; and in any case aircraft manufacture is a field in which supra-normal profits are hardly ever earned (except maybe in wartime Smile). So it seemed fair to assume that the 'asking price' was set on the basis of a 15% profit. Which produced a build cost figure of about $250M..
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 8504 posts, RR: 95 Reply 188, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2170 times:
Quoting Scorpio (Reply 183): A report which has been heavily and beautifully disputed by Astuteman, who knows more about making this kind of price assessment than any of us
Modesty dictates that I suggest more that a continuous interraction with Production Engineers at a fairly senior level whose job is to make BAE's aircraft and Airbus's aircraft as cheap to build as possible (plus a whole bevy of DFM consultants), verifys my own views based on experience in a slightly different field.
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 1806 posts, RR: 8 Reply 189, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks ago) and read 1935 times:
Quoting RedChili (Reply 181): If it is speculation to you, then okay. To me, it is not speculation.
It's not up to you to redefine speculate. You don't know for sure that there will be upcoming option conversions and unannounced orders, but you speculated that they will be. That's speculation no matter how you look at it.
Quoting RedChili (Reply 181): What I consider to be a questionable speculation is when somebody says that Leahy is talking nonsense because his comment doesn't fit with my numbers.
Then you are barking on the wrong tree. I have said nothing to contradict what Leahy said. He didn't mention the production rate. So, I fill in the production rate. Then his statement makes lot more sense.
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 182): Another urban myth. The A346's underperformances were in the field of reliability, not fuel burn. All of todays carriers say it meets their fuel burn expectations.
Firstly, if it meets fuel burn expectations, why did the 345/6 not meet its range expectation that Airbus had to increase the MTOW from 365t to 368/372t? Secondly, one reason that the 345/6 is losing to 772lr/3er is because the 345/6 burns double-digit percentage more trip fuel. Whether the 345/6 meets fuel burn expectations is completely irrelevant. The 345/6 is not competing against its own design specs. The 345/6 is competing against the 772lr/3er.
Quoting Pihero (Reply 185): Doing a paper on VLA, I stumbled into two documents which explain a lot of the topic you discuss here :
The first one is titled :"Airbus vs Boeing Superjumbos : A case of failed preemption " and can be found here : http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=302452
...
The second article covers the 787 production costs and the subsidy case.
These articles are written by economists from the US of A and the sources seem to me impeccable.
Correction. The second article is not written by economists. The authors are pseudo-economist geographers. They are neither experts in economics nor in aviation. FWIW, the professor originally came from the UK by way of Canada. So, I don't consider the sources to be impeccable. Just a simple illustration of possible biases by the authors: they included fundings by the Japanese government on the 787 but they failed to include funding by governments to foreign risk sharing partners of the 380. There are plenty other examples like that.
I took a quick glance of the first article. It seems the authors have done a pretty thorough research. Assumptions were clearly stated. Sensitivity analyses were performed when reliable data weren't available. I won't jump to more conclusion until I have fully digested the article.
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 2888 posts, RR: 69 Reply 190, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1790 times:
Drinksolo,
I am sorry you couldn't read the Defense-Aerospace paper. There is just a passing reference to Airbus in it as the authors' subject is ALL about Boeing, the production of the 7e7 (as it was then known) and its implication on US employment and R&D, along with the subsidy question.
Strange that people ,even lecturers at the NY state U could become quickly under your pen as just a duo of "peudo-economist geographers" one of them came to the US "by way of Canada", where he probably caught a shameful disease, I presume.
For once, I for one appreciate a well argumented (no, well researched )article, away from the usual willy waving that's chronic in this forum.
Ciao !
At least, I now understand why the development of an airplane half the size of the 380 could be as expensive.
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 1806 posts, RR: 8 Reply 191, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1752 times:
Quoting Pihero (Reply 190): I am sorry you couldn't read the Defense-Aerospace paper.
Where did I say I couldn't read the paper. I have read the paper alright.
Quote:
Strange that people ,even lecturers at the NY state U could become quickly under your pen as just a duo of "peudo-economist geographers"
That's a fact. They are from the Geography Department. They are Political Geographer. Check the fact.
Quote:
one of them came to the US "by way of Canada", where he probably caught a shameful disease, I presume.
Once again, it's a fact that the professor of British origin. People from different sides of the Pond do tend to look at social issues differently. I certainly doesn't imply it's a "shameful disease". So, don't put words in my mouth.
Quote:
For once, I for one appreciate a well argumented (no, well researched )article, away from the usual willy waving that's chronic in this forum
When they don't have complete data and misinterpret the 1992 GATT Agreement, sorry man, it was not a well researched paper. I have no problem with the Harvard paper. They did say the 380 program could be profitable. You don't see me shooting their research down, do you?
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 8504 posts, RR: 95 Reply 192, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1700 times:
Doing a paper on VLA, I stumbled into two documents which explain a lot of the topic you discuss here :
The first one is titled :"Airbus vs Boeing Superjumbos : A case of failed preemption " and can be found here : http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...02452
Pihero, I've had a quick look at the first paper. It's very academic, but I support Dynkrisolo's overall view.
If you want a more detailed breakdown of my comments, can I suggest starting a separate thread, and I'd be delighted to contribute.
A
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6561 posts, RR: 72 Reply 194, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1449 times:
From flight international
Quote: Airbus currently holds firm orders for 27 A380Fs from four customers – Emirates (two), FedEx (10), UPS (10) and lessor International Lease Finance (five). Sutton says he expects that there will be “a fleet of 200 A380 freighters in the marketplace over the next 20 years”.
David Sutton, managing director of aircraft development acquisitions and sales in FedEx’s A380 programme office
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2004, 776 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2053 posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 20062 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2622 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, 
From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1317 posts, 
From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Jul 2005, 2931 posts, 
...give me a break.. 
From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3494 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1102 posts, 
From Taiwan, joined Oct 2005, 701 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2005, 1521 posts, 
From United Arab Emirates, joined May 2005, 761 posts, 
QFA001
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 1924 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2621 posts, 
(not saying others don't either)
From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 492 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
... 
, 1806 posts, 
From Greece, joined May 2005, 689 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Oct 2000, 300 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 26 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
