Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is The A380 The Concorde Of The 21 Century?  
User currently offlineEugdog From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 518 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 12171 times:

Concorde was a brilliant engineering success but a commercial flop not selling a single aircraft (300 sales were forecasted!)

The A380 is also a brilliant engineering success but is not selling very well.

The A380 like Concorde was conceived by politicians who saw it as a demonstration of European superiority over the US. Did not Chirac, Blair and Schroeder attend the first flight ceremonies? Large or supersonic planes may be politically sexy but are not always the right thing to do.

The main selling difficulty with the A380 is that it needs improved airport facilities - only a few airports are willing make the necessary improvement.

Another problem with high capacity aircraft is that whilst they have great economics if they are full - in the low season they fly half full hence negating the economic benefits. By using smaller aircraft you can reduce capacity in the low season by reducing the number of flights.

Some people have argued that nearly 800 747 will need to be replaced over the decade. But I think these will be replaced by 777 and A340 (if they improve it!) because of the ability to offer more flexible capacity.

The A380 has been a very bad mistake for Airbus - it put all it political and financial capital into the aircraft at the expense of the more lucrative 787/350 market. Even worse is that Airbus can no longer expect European politicians to give large subsidies to new models becuase of the fallout over the A350 fiasco.

Airbus demanded large subsidies for the A350 which was only conceived to compete against the 787. The US went ballistic over this. The result is the abrogation of the Airbus/Boeing subsidy agreement between the US and Europe by the US. Airbus is unlikely to get any thing like the same subsidies as it did before. Even Mandelsohn the Europe trade commisioner has proposed major reductions in the development subsidies (which have been rejected by the US).

Airbus have had to fund the A350 without government subsidy. It cannot afford to develop a brand new plane like the 787. It will also have to do something about the A340 (replace it or greatly improve it as it is outclassed by the 777) and think about a A320 replacement. And it will have to do it with far less government subsidy!

A

137 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKYAir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 362 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 12152 times:

I'm not sure how the 380 will eventually play out for Airbus, but it's certainly no Concorde!! The Concorde was limited to essentially one route - New York-Western Europe - due to range and noise problems. While the 380 needs airport improvements/expansions, these have been or are being done.

There's a market for this aircraft, as well as for the 747-8I. Time will tell who had the best idea.

Let the a vs. b crap begin.



Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened - Dr. Seuss
User currently offlinePlaneDane From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 12126 times:

Oh, Eugdog. It helps that you're European and that you do have some positive things to say about the A380, so I hope you don't get pummeled for starting this thread.

Take care...


User currently offlineMham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3525 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 12060 times:

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
Airbus have had to fund the A350 without government subsidy. It cannot afford to develop a brand new plane like the 787.

The question is why they can't do it without subsidy. They claim they can. They already recieve many of the same benefits they claim Boeing gets. I think the biggest issue for them is that the project will have to be built more on solid business principles and less on euro pride. They have yet to have to make a bet-the-company decision.


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4104 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 11995 times:

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
Concorde was a brilliant engineering success but a commercial flop not selling a single aircraft (300 sales were forecasted!)

Just thought I'd mention it before someone else, there were a handful Concordes sold and delivered, many more sold but most orders were cancelled.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13149 posts, RR: 78
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 11984 times:

Only someone with a very limited knowledge of both aircraft, their history, the circumstances of the time, would think this.

As for the other subject, go speak to the Japanese government, you know, those paying for 787 wing construction.

Until the, I think the early 1970's, certainly through the 50's and 60's, the US had a 30% import tax on aircraft.

History and rhetoric not marrying up I'm afraid, enjoy your flamefest, don't let facts spoil it now.

P.S I know a good few industry insiders, who lurk here now and then, but have no intention of ever contributing, because of threads like this.

[Edited 2005-12-20 22:03:49]

User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2823 posts, RR: 42
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 11967 times:

I agree with many of the points brought up here, but I think the analogy between the A380 and concorde (outside of the nationalistic reasons) isn't particularlly valid.

I think a better analogy may be the L-1011. Lockheed simply got the market wrong for the plane, and some of the engineering challanges around the plane took a while to get ironed out. If you read the excellent book "Hard Landing" the carriers who adopted the L-1011 early were almost put out of business because of technical issues with the planes.

Another way to put is that smaller planes allow fragmentation to occur. When the A310, 757 and 767 were introduced they caused massive fragementation to occur that killed all of the 3-holers and put a sizable dent even in the formidable 747.

Airbus has set themselves up for a similar problem. The 777, 350 and 787 will allow for the same type of fragmentation across the pacific.

Simply put, I still do not think there is a sizable enough market for this plane to justify the investment that Airbus has made in it. I think you can see the fruits of this decision in the recent domination of the A340 by the 777 and the A330 and A350 by the 787.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8162 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 11944 times:

The 380 will do fine as long as the aviation market continues to grow. Its main risk is external, as we saw with the dot com bust, 9/11 and SARS.

I consider the 380 to be a work horse, moving a lot of people at a time. This is going to be interesting as the airlines are going to need to fill a lot of cheap seats as well as First and Business. That, however, is the airlines' job - not Airbus'.

Low season may well be a challenge and we might see airlines within an alliance working together to shift 380s and 747s around to take advantage of the changing seasons. (Remembering that winter down under is summer up north.)

The decision to go with the 380 was a bold one - just as the decision to go with the original 747 was. It's going to take time for the wisdom of that decision to be determined, but I think the long term outlook is a minimum of break even. In terms of profitability I think that the 747-8 will be ahead, simply because it has a significantly lower development cost. It's going to be interesting to see how both work out over time.

The 350 is going to need to stand on its own as Airbus is going to be faced with a need to deliver a 32E before it can deliver a 360 to replace the 350.


User currently offlineC680 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 588 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 11934 times:

Whilst I agree with most of your post, if you are trying to draw a connection between Concorde and A380, I'm not sure I concur.

Concorde's issues were environmental (pollution, both noise and emissions) as well as poor economics (high fuel consumption per seat mile during a global petroleum market shortage)

A380's issues are access (modification of airport infrastructure to accommodate A380)

A380's problems can be overcome if there is both political will and funds available to do so.

Concorde could not change its pollution, noise, or high fuel burn.



My happy place is FL470 - what's yours?
User currently offlineBWIA 772 From Barbados, joined May 2002, 2200 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 11913 times:

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
The A380 has been a very bad mistake for Airbus - it put all it political and financial capital into the aircraft at the expense of the more lucrative 787/350 market. Even worse is that Airbus can no longer expect European politicians to give large subsidies to new models becuase of the fallout over the A350 fiasco.

I think that it is to early to come to that conclusion. The A380 is yet to enter service as well as the 787. Yes the Boeing 787 has pushed Airbus' hand with the A350 however that doesnt mean that the 350 is doomed. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/programfacts.html

Also remeber that the 787/350 battler is the preshow interesting and fun to watch but none the less before IMHO the war of the 737/A320 replacement.

Regard
BWIA 772



Eagles Soar!
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 11896 times:

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
Is The A380 The Concorde Of The 21 Century?

That has yet to be determine, afterall the century began 5 years ago.

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
Concorde was a brilliant engineering success but a commercial flop not selling a single aircraft (300 sales were forecasted!)

16 commercial versions fly for revenue service. But the Concorde was a political toy, end of story. I do not consider that plane even worth the economic argument. It was built to triumph against the Americans for stealing their Jetage from the imfamous Comet, I suspect. The shear lack of sonic boom studies showed they didn't think it would be the downfall. Had the US not aided Isreal in the war with Egypt, the OPEC would not have placed an embargo on the west making fuel prices go to hell. It's all politics. IMO, Concorde, though a technological marvel, was built to support this nature. It really annoys me when people claim Concorde this or that from an economic or business perspective. I am certain others will claim the makers tried to make their case, what's the point?

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
The A380 is also a brilliant engineering success but is not selling very well.

Now, yes. Are you impatient with the rate of orders and options? Big grin

While I can interpret the lack of orders/options since the first 150 may show that nobody wants one, keep in mind the thing is still in testing, it hasn't even flown for revenue yet. I see a market for 800 (despite Airbus' claims for 1300) over the nest 30 years. Which comes out to an average of 26 per year. Since 150 orders/options have been made, it may be another 2 years before we see another order. It is by itself in the market place, don't expect it to sell like hotcakes.

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
The A380 like Concorde was conceived by politicians who saw it as a demonstration of European superiority over the US.

If that is your belief then say so, though I think your reasoning is way off. I honestly do not see this plane as a technological achievement, it is no different than any other aircraft, following all the same rules. There are bigger planes, there are bigger structures that have 'taken to the air'. Only those ignorant to what humans have been able to do are claiming otherwise. As for the business case, that is between the customers and the company. Weither we believe there is a market or not is irrelevant. All companies do trend work analysis, Airbus simply offered a product that few carriers now believe they need down the road. This is like basic Business and Economics, how is this hard to understand? Unless you do not want to believe, then I'll let it go.

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
Did not Chirac, Blair and Schroeder attend the first flight ceremonies?

They were invited, so what? What does that have to do with a company's actions or intentions?

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
The main selling difficulty with the A380 is that it needs improved airport facilities - only a few airports are willing make the necessary improvement.

Again, now yes. What makes you believe this will not change over the next 20+ years?

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
Another problem with high capacity aircraft is that whilst they have great economics if they are full - in the low season they fly half full hence negating the economic benefits. By using smaller aircraft you can reduce capacity in the low season by reducing the number of flights.

Hence the point of QF's ordering both 787 and A380.

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
Some people have argued that nearly 800 747 will need to be replaced over the decade. But I think these will be replaced by 777 and A340 (if they improve it!) because of the ability to offer more flexible capacity.

Pardon me, but, doesn't the capacity of the 747 make them unique? Why crowd an airport with planes that do not have as much capacity just to be "flexible"?

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
The A380 has been a very bad mistake for Airbus

You are assuming that because no one has ordered it in the past year or more. Dude this program has beena round for 5 years and it may not be retired or replaced for another 30 YEARS. Do you honestly believe nothing will happen in that time? Politics, Environmentalism, and fuel prices killed Concorde. Where is this claim of similarity with Concorde. And please state your beliefs.

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
it put all it political and financial capital into the aircraft at the expense of the more lucrative 787/350 market.

Lucrative? Oh yeah, A350 is selling well against 787...  irked  (I was using your logic while being sarcastic, btw)


I am not going to go into the government subsidy issues as I do not know enough to argue either way.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineKYAir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 362 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 11873 times:

Quoting BWIA 772 (Reply 9):
the war of the 737/A320 replacement.

True, very true. THAT one will be like tanks at 20 paces, can't wait to see it develop over the next few years! "Airbus and Boeing, please report to the playing field in full pads, turf shoes and protective cup!"



Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened - Dr. Seuss
User currently offlinePM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6849 posts, RR: 63
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 11837 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 6):
When the A310, 757 and 767 were introduced they caused massive fragementation to occur that killed all of the 3-holers and put a sizable dent even in the formidable 747.

"A sizable dent"? Well, maybe, but the 747 is still the best-selling widebody ever by quite a margin. Seems that Boeing got it right when they gambled forty years ago. Who's to say that Airbus won't win too?


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13005 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 11805 times:

Concorde failed for many reasons. Those include: enviromental (limiting it's potential routes), lack of range (also limiting it's routes to the North America-Europe, instead of North America-Asia or Europe-Asia), high fuel usage (with those costs), operational costs, that it was a tempermental and high maintenance aircraft and along with so few made, it could never be parctical. Then it became a point of political posturing/pride by the UK and France in the 1970's until it's ultimite WFU after 9/11.
I would not say that the A380 will be comparable to the Concorde as a commercial failure. Weather it will make break even for it's investment by Airbus is the real issue. Several key airports already are and in the near future more will be ready to service the A380. You also have routes/airports that are almost always at very high load levels and have to turn away customers. With the A380, you will have more room on those flights. That will be especially true for flights between North America and LHR, other cities in Europe, and Asia as well as between Europe and Asia where their is limited slots at key airports and the only way to grow capacity is to use A380's.


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2815 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 11756 times:

The A380 doesn't cruise at mach 2, nor FL600. I don't see the connection.

User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 11703 times:

Eugdog,

That your thread has survived this long is simply amazing...and can be attributed solely to your European identity. You may have had a shot as a Canadian but even that is questionable.

Frankly, I do agree with you to an extent but not completely. At its core, I think the A380 is a vanity project for Airbus and the EU eager to show up the United States at a game which the U.S. has dominanted for so long. The risk/return on the project is questionable and I have serious doubts about whether Airbus would have pursued the project but for the benefit of launch aid. In contrast, programs like the A320-series are inherently sound enough that they make sense with or without launch aid.

But I think the A380 is a far more practical and soberly conceived project than the Concorde. It is a bit more than a technological showpiece. There is a market for aircraft of such size that will continue to grow...(Just not entirely clear it is worth $12-$15 billion to get a piece of that market)


User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2823 posts, RR: 42
Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 11639 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 12):

"A sizable dent"? Well, maybe, but the 747 is still the best-selling widebody ever by quite a margin. Seems that Boeing got it right when they gambled forty years ago. Who's to say that Airbus won't win too?

The conditions are completly different. When the 747 became popular it was partially because it was the only plane that _could_ fly the distance. If you look at the historical record, typically once a smaller plane can fly a longer route with a similar casm, that route almost always fragments.


User currently offlineLapa_saab340 From Spain, joined Aug 2001, 390 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 11605 times:

It was built to triumph against the Americans for stealing their Jetage from the imfamous Comet, I suspect

Do you seriously believe that believe that the money and time spent on development of Concorde (more than a decade!) was done to "get back at the Americans"? That both the French and British would spend such resources on development for a stupid political gesture?

Concorde is many times compared to Project Apollo (generally by Americans, in my own experience), in that they were both done for prestige purposes. I never agreed with this point of view. Apollo and the Moon landing were driven by purely political reasons...the advantages in technology that came with it were secondary benefits that were never the driving factor.

Concorde was developed with the aim of producing a viable SST, national prestige was a side benefit of that - and also the reason, in my view, for much of the criticism towards the airplane from this side of the ocean. That the plane didn't turn out an economic success can be attributed to many reasons, some which simply couldn't be forecasted back then (Arab oil embargo and subsequent rise in fuel prices being one). The fact that the plane was banned from flying the transatlantic routes it was designed for certainly did its share of damage to the program. I'm convinced that should the American SST had gone ahead, the "difficulties" experienced by Concorde to finally operate out of the USA (particularly New York) would not have been there.

Claims of national prestige as the reason for development of Concorde stem from national jealousy in my view (the fact that at the time of cancellation, Boeing had spent more on the 2707 project and had nothing to show but a mockup, while pre-production Concordes were already flying certainly doesn't make the American SST effort look good!). In hindsight, some people remark how wise the US Congress was to cancel funding for the SST...And of course, the Soviets must have remarked how wise it was to abandon their plans for such a wasteful mission as a Moon landing  Wink


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 11591 times:

More then $230 billion will be spend in the next 20 years on aircraft sized 747 and larger. A period in which air traffic will triple, congesting reach unprecedented levels and 800 747s will be de-activated.

According to Boeing that is, the Airbus forecast is more optimistic. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cmo/pdf/cmo2005_OutlookReport.pdf

The A380 is experiencing "overwhelming" interest and has already secured more then 220 "commitments"  Wink


User currently offlineMirrodie From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 7438 posts, RR: 62
Reply 19, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11535 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

for the original poster, please, bite your tongue.

Its a shame, but GDB has it right. WE'd probably have more valuable input from posters here if such threads didnt exist.



Forum moderator 2001-2010; He's a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless st
User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11514 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 14):
The A380 doesn't cruise at mach 2, nor FL600. I don't see the connection.

He was talking about the economics and timing of both aircraft......  Smile



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2823 posts, RR: 42
Reply 21, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11479 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 18):
The A380 is experiencing "overwhelming" interest and has already secured more then 220 "commitments"


Gas Fire... Boom.

The A380 is not the Concorde, The 787 is not the Comet, and so far the A380 is not a success.

[Edited 2005-12-21 00:51:50]

User currently offlineAJRfromSYR From United States of America, joined May 2005, 454 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11470 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 18):
The A380 is experiencing "overwhelming" interest and has already secured more then 220 "commitments"

Commitments don't count, the Concorde had 300.


Not to say the A380 won't be a very good profitable plane for Airbus because it probably will. But let's not build it up beyond what it is currently.



-AJR-
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2483 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 11431 times:

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
Is The A380 The Concorde Of The 21 Century?

In a word: No

No comparison between the two aircraft and their missions. One main difference is that the A380 was built for the masses, and if anything, will bring the cost of flying down. Concorde, OTOH, was for the ultra-wealthy from the beginning and never had a chance to be commercially sucessful. This of course is on top of all the other limitations cited above by others.


User currently offlineCairo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 11417 times:

A lot of determination about whether the A380 will go the way of the Concorde will depend on what plays out in terms of airport use in a few key markets.

A key theory behind the A380 is that airports are or will be too full to handle more movements, therefore the growth in passengers that will without a doubt arrive, will in theory only be handled via larger aircraft.

LHR is critical - in fact, if LHR were a completely un slot controlled airport with unlimited space, a tremendous amount of impetus for the A380 disappears. NRT is also very important for similar reasons.

If the other 3 or 4 airports in the London area start handling long range international traffic, its hard to believe that the A380 will be required to deal with the increase in passengers. The same is true elsewhere - the A380 has no market in the US because there is no slot controlled international airport now, nor is there likely to be anytime soon.

The A380 works if LHR continues to control long range international traffic and if likewise airports across the world don't expand or offer suitable alternative airports. If more airports appear or traffic can be handled by the current airport infrastructure, the A380 is limited in success at best.

I feel it will be a limited success - barely breaking even compared to its investment.

Cairo


25 474218 : Please explain? Which airlines paid for the Concord then cancelled? Please explain? What technical problems the L-1011 had and which airlines almost
26 Magyar : Wait till the patient dies before starting the funeral. I understand that some here wants to see this plane belly up and cannot wait to start the cele
27 Sllevin : I prefer to think of the A380 more as the modern 747SP. It will be dearly loved by the airlines who ordered it, and will make them a lot of money. On
28 NoUFO : I'm usually not one of those who are always quick saying that this or that has been discussed to dead, but sometimes we all would be better off if cer
29 Alessandro : I don´t think so, A380 is more aiming at at cargo market as well as passenger, the Concorde only aimed at passenger market.
30 Pavlin : In my opinion A380 is going to be a great plane and a real sucesss. After all boeing did decide to launch 747-8, maybe someday iBoeing will launch eve
31 Post contains images UALMMFlyer : IMHO, it is too earlier to tell the success and failure of A380. Let's give it a chance before any conclusion is made. There have been several wide-bo
32 Post contains images Glareskin : Allthough it is fair to say that it is enjoying more success than Concorde allready. The 300 commitments for Concorde where not as secure as the curr
33 Post contains images Zvezda : At that rate, if the WhaleJet manages to convert commitments to deliveries at the same rate as the last pride-driven european airliner, then we can s
34 YYZ4RADD : Is it my imagination or so many people are crying foul over the A380....many are hoping it will fail and everytime someone makes a purchase for the a3
35 Eugdog : I made the comparision between Concorde in the area of of Political, European and technical success vs comerical failure. It would be foolish to say t
36 Post contains links RichardPrice : Thats actually untrue. BA and AF paid for most of their airframes, and were given some others free or at a nominal charge. The Consortium didnt recov
37 Frequentflyer : Am not the biggest Airbus fan, however the futile nature of this initial post makes me wonder whether some people should at all be participating in he
38 Col : Orders for the 380 are at about 159. At service entry the following are approx where some Boeing widebodies were: 747: 178 767: 112 777: 137 Airbus I
39 NA : Sorry, but I think this topic is ridiculous. Before entry into service there have been more A380s ordered than the 773ER for example covered in 6 year
40 Geo772 : The A380 is certainly an engineering marvel. A demostration of what can be acheived. I also think that it very much has its place within many airlines
41 Kangar : For someone with 375 posts, I can't imagine how you've lasted this long. Your reasoning is completely spurious, and in short, the answer to the topic
42 PlaneDane : Yes, you could make this comparison and say that the A380 is in a good position. But then you would need to ignore what we have with the A380 and the
43 BoomBoom : Didn't Concorde also serve Washington IAD?
44 NumberTwelve : No doubt, the aviation market will grow - in a couple of years people will laugh about the idea that the 380 is too big. I can remember the days when
45 ClassicLover : You lost me with your first line. Not selling a single aircraft? My eyes must have been playing tricks on me when I saw British Airways and Air Franc
46 MD80Nut : I think it's way, way too early to be reaching any conclusions about the A380. The thing is still in flight testing and about a year or so from enteri
47 PlaneDane : Perhaps, MD80Nut. But it seems to me that the airlines didn't show such hesitation to order when other aircraft models from both Airbus and Boeing we
48 Post contains images UAMAYBACH1239 : Who cares! This is a much better example. I think one major region (Asia) should have been bagged by A before the launch of this plane. Unfortunately
49 FCKC : Eugdog This thread is a stupid joke !!!
50 Morvious : The A380 isn't build to replace the B747 on a 1 to 1 basis. Its more build for the market above the B747, that was empty. It is going to replace some
51 Post contains images Col : Wow, didn't realize that comparing orders between widebodies at the same time in their development was so complicated. I must look into things in muc
52 Post contains images BoomBoom : It was not banned. The greenies and the NIMBYs tried to ban it for noise and other enviro reasons and failed. They would have tried to ban an America
53 RichardPrice : It was actually initially banned from US airports by Congress in January 1976 due to fears about supersonic travel and noise. THis ban was quickly li
54 BoomBoom : Thanks.
55 Areopagus : That opinion has been expressed around here often enough that it seems to have become conventional wisdom, but on what evidence is it based? Do you r
56 Glideslope : Yes. But for very different reasons.
57 Jacobin777 : that's not what Leahy said during the Discovery Channel interview....
58 Post contains images RIX : Whoever blames the thread starter - come on, it's an Internet forum, not a scientific conference. As majority of us are "amateurs", this is the place
59 AvObserver : Jacobin777 is right; I also remember Leahy gloating over the impending demise of the 747. Seems his assessment was premature, at best-it seems the 747
60 Post contains links BoomBoom : The joint VLA thing was just a ploy by Boeing to stall the A380 as long as possible. Most thought the talks on collaboration would go on for a long,
61 RIX : Thanks for the link. Still, "The Germans and the British were interested, ...", meaning, after "by the middle of 1995 the joint project was quietly sc
62 Planemaker : Considering the long life span of the A380's programme... and even Boeing's market predictions for the VLA segment, there can be little doubt that the
63 Zvezda : It seems likely that the WhaleJet will surpass the commercial success of the Concorde, but it is not yet a given. The Concorde had 300 commitments fr
64 EGTESkyGod : Barbados? Bahrain? Dakar? Rio? Washington? Miami? These were all scheduled routes, were they not? It's not true to say she was limited to one route.
65 Post contains links Leelaw : According to this website it was far less than 300: http://www.concordesst.com/history/orders.html
66 Zvezda : Leelaw, I don't think that list includes LoIs or MoUs.
67 Leelaw : Zvezda, I think you're mistaken this time. According to Gunter Endres in his book "Concorde" the total number of "SST Commitments" (exclusive of the
68 Post contains images Astuteman : That's a bad thing? So this is an A350 issue, not an A380 issue. We won't have to wait long will we? There'll be a LOT of disappointed people, one wa
69 Zvezda : Could be. Still, that's in the same ballpark as WhaleJet commitments. I expect there will be more WhaleJets delivered than Concordes, but I object to
70 PlaneDane : True, the A380 isn't being touted as the B747 replacement as much anymore, Morvious. But, that was the a major justification for the A380 program yea
71 GDB : Zvezda, have you any idea how many A380's are on FIRM order? Do you know the difference between a firm order and an option? Because from this thread,
72 Post contains images Zvezda : I think it might be somewhere between 3 and 3000. Am I close? A firm order is a signed contract to buy/sell a clearly specified product at a clearly
73 Pavlin : Yes A380 is Concorde of 21th century, It is no doubt
74 Zvezda : Good grief! It's very much in doubt. The analogy is an interesting one that may or may not withstand the test of history. It will be possible to draw
75 GDB : See, you've got it wrong. Concorde only had FIRM orders from BOAC and AF in 1972. This is fact. All the rest were options, some looser than others. Fo
76 Planemaker : What staggers me even more is that there is enough information (and links supplied) in this thread to enable anyone reading this thread (with even ju
77 Post contains links AvObserver : For the VERY few of you who don't already know this, there's a superb new book in the A380 by commercial aviation gurus Guy Norris and Mark Wagner: "A
78 KYAir : Can't believe this thread is still going... You are correct, I should have said limited by range. It seems N. America - Western Europe flights were th
79 Post contains images Astuteman : My comment was specifically aimed at A-netters, a large proportion of whom will be ABSOLUTELY GUTTED if all the A380 orders aren't cancelled, if thei
80 Post contains links GDB : AVObserver, since I've got Norris and Wagner's excellent works on the 747 and 777, I'll bear this new book in mind. KYair, sadly a development of Conc
81 Glacote : Concorde was killed IMHO by two factors: 1) By farthe largest: at the time the program was launched nobody would ever have imagined that fuel burn cou
82 Post contains links AvObserver : Per Astuteman: "Many thanks for the excellent post, AvObserver, and the link. A" Actually, Astuteman, had I been as astute as you, I would've also pos
83 EGTESkyGod : When BA did their Concorde Round The World trip, they went from Vancouver to Hawaii, then on to Fiji then Sydney. So yes, it would be possible to fly
84 GDB : For reference on the Concorde RTW charters, the 1999 one EGTES mentioned, (got that great DVD have you EGTES?), it had 90 pax (with mucho baggage and
85 BoomBoom : What was this "main market" you say was killed by the FAA?
86 CO7e7 : I'm kinda getting that same feeling !!
87 Post contains links Zvezda : Boeing - SQ Must Buy Boeing To Compete With QF? (by Halibut Dec 26 2005 in Civil Aviation)
88 EGTESkyGod : Oooooooh, yes! I think I must have every DVD there is about Concorde! Well, I wish I did, anyway. Obviously for me, the highlight was the piece about
89 Post contains links RichardPrice : Interesting that he can make such broad sweeping statements and not be called to back them up. By all indications, fuel burn is better than expected,
90 Zvezda : " target=_blank>http://www.atwonline.com/news/story....=1136 You quote a 7 month old report that quotes unnamed "Airbus sources" which an Airbus spoke
91 Gemuser : This reply is a bit late BUT I can not let it pass! Sellevin, I am sorry but this argument shows a complete misunderstanding of QF operations. QF has
92 Lurch : The A380 is a direct Descendent of Concorde. But it is not and never will be as Special as Concorde as when the Public talk about the A380 they say oh
93 MerlinIIIB : Well, I think they read the Tecnical/Operations sections instead of this one. And I do think the undustry insiders like to read comments from the gen
94 BoomBoom : What is interesting is that so many people have latched on to this vague statement and Airbus has never backed it up. The article you cite says: This
95 Revelation : But that's not what he said, he said it was essentially limited to one route. And I imagine this is a statement about economics and not about technol
96 EGTESkyGod : You're right, there would be a high percentage considering only AF and BA flew Concorde. But......... (and it is a but) had SQ, JAL, China, SAA, EK,
97 Glacote : I don't think so. That"s why I am personally not too worried by the many trolls we see here: airline exec's don't care what the average A.netter thin
98 BoomBoom : Do you have any links to these press reports? Not that I doubt you, I just want to read them to get the context in which these statements were made,
99 Revelation : Could have worked in the technical sense, but obviously not in the economic sense, otherwise they would have happened. I don't see too much upset in
100 GDB : Lots of questions, but I'm game! The 002 tour in 1972 did go to Japan, it covered what was then called the Far East in some depth. Not sure of the rou
101 Zvezda : I have not asserted that the WhaleJet will have worse economics than the B747-400. I just pointed out that RichardPrice in Reply 89 did not effective
102 BoomBoom : But the A380 is a niche aircraft. Was it a smart business decision to devote $15 billion to this plane and only offer a derivative to compete with th
103 Zippyjet : If this whale of a bird fails, I'd be suprised! If not for passenger use, then this hippo would be a natural for air freight or flying hospitals. I wo
104 Revelation : Reply 18 speaks of Boeing's forecast of a $280B market for 747 and larger aircraft, so that's quite a niche to be aiming for. Time will tell. At the
105 ElGreco : BoomBoom, You will never change, your comments are always so positive or so negative, everybody recognized and are happy that Boeing recover their "p
106 GDB : Boeing might think that sector is niche, does not mean Airbus does. As stated, Airbus fully expected a much quicker response from Boeing, (or did the
107 Cloudy : If the A380 is a failure, and I would lean in that direction, the MD11 would be a better comparison than the Concord. Lets look ahead 10 years. Do eve
108 ElGreco : Why again so negative/definitive position???? Have you ever worked with A and B???? Tell me which aluminum alloy are know and used only by Airbus or
109 BoomBoom : Yah, That was from Keesje who can always be counted on to post disinformation. Did you actually follow the link he provided and try to confirm this?
110 Post contains images WingedMigrator : LOL!! Isn't the latest plane ALWAYS the last plane built with yesterday's technology? More seriously, such sweeping generalizations make it sound lik
111 Post contains images ElGreco : These companies have made some analysis too as my company made before we invest in A380, and your analysis is not to be consider as better just becau
112 BoomBoom : Not all 747 will be replaced by A380s. They will be replaced by 777, 787, and 748s too. What make you think the A380 will get the entire replacement
113 Gemuser : Of course they will be, but so what? Their numbers are so small in comparision to SYD/MELs numbers that they do not have a great effect on the total
114 GDB : I can think of plenty of slot constrained airports, but as it 's your opinion BoomBoom, what do YOU think, you see the A380 as a bad idea, over the la
115 BoomBoom : Can you name plenty? Can you name plenty? Haste makes waste. I guess Boeing was smart to wait three years and launch the 777 in 1990.
116 Gemuser : Trident, VC10, CV880, CV990, Mercure Lot of money down the drain there! Gemuser
117 Post contains links and images BoomBoom : Gee, you really had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to come up with these. As far as I can see, one of them merits listing on http://www.airliners
118 SunriseValley : SQ operations planning people are working on the information that the opposite is in fact where the A380 is at right now. Go back and read the postin
119 Iwok : Dude, I'd like to know what you're smoking. 1) First of all, by Airbus's own lopsided account, the break-even is 250 frames. Others have it around 35
120 Post contains images Zvezda : ElGreco didn't say or imply that _all_ JumboJets will be replaced by WhaleJets, just some of them. The right B787 for PER-LAX would a B787-8 with a h
121 Post contains images ElGreco : Not all, of course, some of them (e.i.: 40 to 60% of still flying ones in next 10 years). Thanks Zvezda, you right my sentence was not clear. Of cour
122 BoomBoom : But with something even better--direct government taxpayer subsidies.
123 GDB : BoomBoom, please explain that over £1 billion in paid back loans, with interest, the UK Treasury received by 1999. Might have something to do with th
124 Post contains images ElGreco : Not exactly, credit which have to be reimburse, as Magaret Tacher said "I want my money back", same principle for Airbus, Europe help them with credi
125 BoomBoom : It's not 1983 anymore! What was successful then is not necessarily successful now. Remember history repeats itself, first as tragedy then as farce. S
126 BoomBoom : Although Airbus says it is making good on these loans, it is difficult -- if not impossible -- to confirm because of the many parties and accounting
127 PlaneDane : No argument there. I see the Russians coming. There's too much talent and expertise there for them not to participate in the global marketplace. Whic
128 Post contains images Gemuser : OK from the top: If there is enough traffic to justify ADL-LAX, there is certainly enough to justify PER-LAX (technical issues aside). I will bet tha
129 ElGreco : We are working with Russian for 20 years, and in fact they are excelent but especially for prototypes today, their problems are organisation of produ
130 GDB : EIGreco, I think you are mistaken about Concorde, true some work on delta wings from the Fairey Delta (one of which later had a Concorde style wing pl
131 Post contains images Iwok : Sorry ElGreco, looks like I chomped on the bit way too soon... Just because you get large orders from the US Military, does not mean that your compan
132 Post contains images ElGreco : No problem at all Iwok Agree with you, it always bad for long terms, even if it's sometime necessary/interesting for short one. Completly agree with
133 Zvezda : Chief among which was far greater range than any other airliner at the time. Most early B747s were not bought for their size. They were bought for th
134 GDB : Though I'm aware of the range the 747 offered in 1970. You cannot say that is the only reason. It revolutionized airtravel, plenty of airliners brough
135 Zvezda : I didn't write that range was the only reason airlines bought JumboJets in the 1970s. I wrote that most were bought for range rather than for capacit
136 Glacote : There is no such thing as a wake turbulence issue with the A388. Take this as an advice: don't spread this FUD. This will solely alter your credibili
137 Post contains images Jacobin777 : the respectable websites such as atwonline.com and flightinternational.com have stated otherwise, and have provided sources to it... right, I'll beli
Top Of Page
Forum Index

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

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The New Concorde - Is There A Future? posted Wed Aug 24 2005 03:20:09 by Blasphemystic
When Is The Last BA Concorde Flight? posted Wed Jul 16 2003 14:03:01 by Paulianer
What Is The Latest On Concorde? posted Wed Mar 14 2001 20:13:39 by Sbbre44
What Is The Status Of The A380 Wiring Rework? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 14:48:08 by Nitrohelper
Is It Possible To Know The Reg. Of A Future Flight posted Tue Nov 7 2006 22:01:13 by Tony Lu
Looks Like The A380 Is Now In BMI Colors posted Thu Nov 2 2006 15:59:17 by APFPilot1985
Is Cheap Air Travel Destroying The Enviroment? posted Wed Oct 18 2006 09:48:33 by Cumulus
How Early Is Early To Get To The Airport? posted Tue Oct 10 2006 16:47:52 by B777A340Fan
Is The A300 Fleet Of SV Or AA Older? posted Fri Oct 6 2006 14:44:43 by ConcordeLoss
The A380 Is Not Dead. posted Mon Sep 25 2006 11:37:36 by CHRISBA777ER