Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
420 A380 Units To Break Even  
User currently offlineBadge From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 79 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9762 times:

Was sitting on the pot reading my new issue of Airliner World flipping through it madly to get the latest on the A380 program. I come across a little blurb that says that Airbus now says it must sell 420 to break even not the 270 originally forecasted. With only 159 firm orders they have a looooooooooong way to go. This is in no way bashing Airbus as I am a fan of the A380 program.

89 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9752 times:

Ouch...

Question is, will they even make that many orders...


User currently offlineClassicLover From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 4643 posts, RR: 23
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9620 times:

I'm sure they'll make that many orders...

So many people on here seem only to be able to see the short term... the A380 is a 20 year programme. Plenty of time to get those orders.



I do quite enjoy a spot of flying - more so when it's not in Economy!
User currently offlineBaron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9581 times:

Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 1):
I'm sure they'll make that many orders...

Leaving room for some likely/possible cancelations, going from 159 to 420, requires selling about 300 additional A380s.

From 2000 to 2006 about 150 were sold, during a period where there was no 748I, no 787, no A350XWB, somewhat lower fuel prices (at least in the early years when most of the orders were booked), no reputation problem (again in the early years when most orders were booked).

So what you are saying is that over the coming years, A380s with all the extra competition and other issues, will sell twice as many as were sold previously?

I don't think it is impossible, but I wonder how you can be "sure" it will happen.



Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9519 times:

This news was even more interesting when it was regarding the BREAK EVEN number and reported last summer. There have been many interesting discussions and lots of analysis of the numbers involved. It's a good read, really. Go do a search, you're bound to find 10-20 threads on this...  Wink


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 984 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9516 times:

The real issue is now return on investment. Breaking-even at 420 units should be plausable given the market forecast for both Airbus and Boeing. But that's just to break even. When you tie-up $15 billion dollars for 10-20 years, you want to make a profit.

User currently offlineKatekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 704 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9475 times:

Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 2):
I'm sure they'll make that many orders...

So many people on here seem only to be able to see the short term... the A380 is a 20 year programme. Plenty of time to get those orders

The problem is that time plays againts Airbus. The breakeven point is not a fixed number, but also function of time. It should have been stated as "420 units by x date". My guess is that "x" is somewhere 4-5 years from now. If it will take 20 years to reach the breakeven, then the number is much higher than 420 units. Basic consequence of time-value-of-money.


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9354 times:

There are two archived threads discussing this topic when EADS/Airbus revised their break-even outlook regarding the A380 program in October of last year:

Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420 Aircraft (by Leelaw Oct 19 2006 in Civil Aviation)

Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2! (by Gilesdavies Oct 22 2006 in Civil Aviation)

The EADS/Airbus "A380 Financial Update" which revised break-even outlook is available at:

http://www.eads.com/xml/content/OF00000000400004/0/74/41485740.pdf


User currently offlineWarreng24 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 708 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 9000 times:

Quoting Badge (Thread starter):
must sell 420 to break even

Let us not forget the technological advances that cannot be quantified. I am sure that technology developed for the A380 program will benefit future Airbus programs in a very positive fashion.


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6485 posts, RR: 54
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8907 times:

Quoting Katekebo (Reply 7):
The breakeven point is not a fixed number, but also function of time. It should have been stated as "420 units by x date".

That's very right, Katekebo.

But there is one more very important variable: The future market situation.

Nobody can predict today what price can be asked for a 380 in, say, 2010. Nobody knows. That counts whether you produce airliners or hot chocolate.

The cost side is equally unsecure. Contracts with subcontractors are typically renegotiated every other year. Nobody knows the price Airbus will have to pay subcontractors for 380 components in, say, five years time.

That's have business is. Every sort of business. Every investment is a gamble. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and sometimes you shoot a jackpot.

On a slot machine you see your return on investment in a second. In an industial program predicted to last 30-40-50 years it is a different thing.

Whether the 380 program will pay back development costs in 2014, 2018 or whenever, that is rather interesting for shareholders who will see that right on their return on investment. And that's about it.

But there should be no reason why the A380 shouldn't sell also in 2040, of course in updated versions, with "NG engines" and many other changes like any other airliner which are sold over several decades.

All that hype about whether the 380 becomes a success or failure, that we can just as well put to rest for 10 - 15 years. Until then it all comes to guessing, predicting, believing or disbelieving.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8870 times:

Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 2):
the A380 is a 20 year programme. Plenty of time to get those orders.

Within five or so years, both Airbus and Boeing will have a very difficult time selling aluminium airliners. It's a 20th century manufacturing technique, like wood and canvas airliners. The A350 saga has illustrated how aluminium airliners can't compete with CFRP airliners.


User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2301 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8851 times:

Quoting Katekebo (Reply 7):
The problem is that time plays againts Airbus. The breakeven point is not a fixed number, but also function of time. It should have been stated as "420 units by x date". My guess is that "x" is somewhere 4-5 years from now.

You're correct concerning the principle, but your timing is wrong. According to the revised schedule provided by Airbus in October last year, they will deliver only 39 A380s from now until the end of 2009. Starting in 2010 they will deliver 45 A380s per year. Which means that Airbus will reach 420 units by mid-2018. So that timing is of course a part of the calculations that Airbus made when they said that they will need to deliver 420 A380s to break even.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2301 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8791 times:

Quoting Flysherwood (Reply 6):
All these Airbus enthusiasts forget the fact that Airbus is going to be bleeding $ hard!

And you forget the fact that Airbus has already spent 80 percent of all R&D costs for the A380. So your statement that Airbus "is going to" bleed money hard in the future, is factually wrong. They have already paid most of those costs.

Starting in 2010, the A380 program will generate a significant amount of positive cash for Airbus.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8706 times:

Quoting RedChili (Reply 12):
You're correct concerning the principle, but your timing is wrong. According to the revised schedule provided by Airbus in October last year, they will deliver only 39 A380s from now until the end of 2009. Starting in 2010 they will deliver 45 A380s per year. Which means that Airbus will reach 420 units by mid-2018. So that timing is of course a part of the calculations that Airbus made when they said that they will need to deliver 420 A380s to break even.

To build and deliver 45 A380's a year, Airbus will also have to sell 45 A380's a year. With only 166 orders currently on the books they will only be able to build 45 per year for about three and a half years.

.


User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8704 times:

Quoting Badge (Thread starter):
Was sitting on the pot reading my new issue of Airliner World flipping through it madly to get the latest on the A380 program. I come across a little blurb that says that Airbus now says it must sell 420 to break even not the 270 originally forecasted. With only 159 firm orders they have a looooooooooong way to go. This is in no way bashing Airbus as I am a fan of the A380 program.

No offense man, but where have you been the last six months?


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8687 times:

In this context, 2018 could be an important year for Airbus.

Under the 1992 Agreement on launch aid, Airbus is bound to repay the amount of launch aid advanced, plus accumulated interest, in one of two ways; either as royalties on sales, or as a lump sum 17 years after the date of the advance.

Assuming that the A380 launch aid was of the order of $US4B., and was advanced in 2001, that means that Airbus could be facing a multi-billion-dollar bill in 2018. Unless they get a lot more orders very soon, it seems highly unlikely that they will have repaid much more than a third of the launch aid in the form of royalties by that time.

And any outstanding amount will have been accumulating compound interest since 2001; which means that it will have more than doubled over 17 years......



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2219 posts, RR: 56
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8641 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 11):
Within five or so years, both Airbus and Boeing will have a very difficult time selling aluminium airliners. It's a 20th century manufacturing technique, like wood and canvas airliners. The A350 saga has illustrated how aluminium airliners can't compete with CFRP airliners.

Thank goodness over 20% of the A380 is CFRP then... Big grin


User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2301 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8605 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 14):
To build and deliver 45 A380's a year, Airbus will also have to sell 45 A380's a year. With only 166 orders currently on the books they will only be able to build 45 per year for about three and a half years.

This is correct, of course, but this is a different question. Several people in this thread have pointed out that Airbus has "only" sold around 160 airplanes and that they need to sell another 260 to break even. Airbus themselves believe that they will be able to sell around 750.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineBaron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8559 times:

Quoting RedChili (Reply 18):
Airbus themselves believe that they will be able to sell around 750.

Where they previously believed they'd sell 1000.

The point, and this is a very important point IMHO, is that Airbus has a financial interest in inflating the forecast of the number of units they expect to sell for every program that receives launch aid. The reason is that number in the number used to calculate the royalty payment - in simple terms, (launch aid + accumulated interest)/forecast number of jets sold in 17 year = per unit royalty payment. Yes, after 17 years they'd have a baloon payment if they overinflated the forecast, but that is better than having royalty payments up front when every aircraft is being delivered at a loss.

Boeing on the other hand, some people think, has an interest in setting lower expectations on the forecast, so they can beat it and have an upside surprise for the financial community.

Take that as you want, but don't go on assuming that Airbust will sell 750 A380s, just because they forecast that.



Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 8383 times:

Quoting RedChili (Reply 18):
Airbus themselves believe that they will be able to sell around 750.

Airbus claim to believe they can sell 750 WhaleJets. Whether or not they actually believe that is unknown. 9% of American adults claim to believe in Santa Claus. I suspect the number who actually believe in Santa Claus may be lower. Of course, while both seem very unlikely, the evidence in favor of the existance of Santa Claus is more compelling than the evidence in favor of the notion that Airbus can sell 750 WhaleJets.  Wink


User currently offlineHBJZA From Switzerland, joined Jan 2006, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 8344 times:

I wish I could visit from time to time the parrallel world where the whalejet was actually developed by boeing ! It would be such a success and all the airports in the states would already be 380 friendly and all major carriers in the US would have ordered the beast. The breakeven would already have been achieved and the whole world would start to burry the queen of the sky in favor to the whalejet.
Sorry, I'm a bit nuts sometimes


User currently offlineGrantcv From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 430 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8301 times:

Quoting Katekebo (Reply 7):
The problem is that time plays againts Airbus. The breakeven point is not a fixed number, but also function of time. It should have been stated as "420 units by x date". My guess is that "x" is somewhere 4-5 years from now. If it will take 20 years to reach the breakeven, then the number is much higher than 420 units. Basic consequence of time-value-of-money.

The other problem with time in the equation is that the on-going investments needed to keep the A380 program effective only delay the break-even further. If Airbus needs to develop the -900 version (which seems unlikely at this point), then that pushes the break-even out quite a bit further. If break-even takes more than 20 years, then the cost of a major upgrade will have to be factored in.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8260 times:

Quoting HBJZA (Reply 21):
I wish I could visit from time to time the parrallel world where the whalejet was actually developed by boeing ! It would be such a success and all the airports in the states would already be 380 friendly and all major carriers in the US would have ordered the beast. The breakeven would already have been achieved and the whole world would start to burry the queen of the sky in favor to the whalejet.

Who built the WhaleJet is irrelevant. Airbus have no difficulty selling good airliners like the A300, A320, and A330. The WhaleJet wouldn't sell any better if it had been built by the gods themselves. It is a structurally inefficient airliner built with previous generation technologies chasing a very tiny niche.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 8118 times:

In any case, the 64-dollar (or $64-billion-dollar) question is what sale prices were used in calculating the breakeven point. Possibly - even probably - the analysts assumed that, once the existing orders (which have been secured at relatively low prices) are filled, the A380 will thenceforward sell at something much closer to list.

That would be a very optimistic assumption - the 748 has not cost Boeing much to develop, the obvious counter on Boeing's part would be to offer the 748 at prices just low enough to force Airbus to keep theiir A380 prices down so as to compete.

In which case there would be NO practical chance of the A380 breaking even, however many Airbus sold?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1710 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 8081 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 24):
In any case, the 64-dollar (or $64-billion-dollar) question is what sale prices were used in calculating the breakeven point. Possibly - even probably - the analysts assumed that, once the existing orders (which have been secured at relatively low prices) are filled, the A380 will thenceforward sell at something much closer to list.

At the end of the day does it really matter? Me thinks that both Boeing and EADS/Airbus will be around long after both you and I are gone from this Earth.

Cheers


25 RedChili : Do you have a link for that? Actually, starting in 2010 Airbus believes that every aircraft will be delivered with a significant profit. This is an i
26 NAV20 : It matters insofar as investors tend to take the 'long view' where shares in aircraft manufacturers are concerned, Shenzhen - because the 'lead-time'
27 MEA-707 : If Airbus knew everything, they probably wouldn't have started to built the A-380 to start with. But the aircraft is here to stay now, it's more or le
28 Zvezda : There is no chance of Airbus not being able to raise E4B. The question is what will they have to pay for it.
29 Leelaw : How can aircraft deliveries be "profitable" before break-even is achieved? In fact, Airbus doesn't expect to be "even" on production costs until "not
30 Uzzzer : Well, 420 to break even may be a figure for today. But tomorrow fuel prices, security issues and other trends, that we might not be able to see now, m
31 RedChili : They probably mean that by 2010, that all R&D costs have already been paid, that all or most of the delay compensation has been paid, and that the in
32 NAV20 : All they mean is that, until some time in 2010, each A380 will cost more to produce than the customer is paying for it. Leaving design/development co
33 Post contains images Leelaw : No, IMO what Airbus "probably means" once you run it through the compiler is that circa 2010 they hope to have stopped adding to the mountain of sunk
34 Kangar : The biggest thorn in the A380's side presently is the weakness of the dollar against the Euro. If the dollar recovers against the Euro, you will see t
35 OA260 : Id say eventually Airbus will sell the amount required to break even and if they are lucky they will make a small profit. It all depends on world even
36 Sacamojus : Sorry if this has already been posted, but I only browsed through your responses. Is the 420 a net present value breakeven point. If it is not, then A
37 Post contains images Zvezda : It means the third of those three. No more and no less. Exactly.
38 Joni : Including the late-delivery charges to production costs, I also understand this as you do.
39 MIAMIx707 : The 744 used to be in demand by much more operators than the A380 is today. Yet it has not even sold 750 units yet of both pax. and cargo versions si
40 AVinutso : Could not have said it better. 20 years to break even is like doing college on the 10 year plan. Sure you get the degree, but 10 years of financing i
41 AA1818 : the A380 is a 20 year programme?????...I think it's more of a 40 year programme (delays being included)....sorry i'm frustrated with my project due f
42 474218 : That profit they make on each aircraft has to go to paying off the R&D cost and the delivery compensation cost and the loan interest and the manufact
43 Zvezda : All that will probably not happen by 2100.
44 DfwRevolution : Not even close, I'm afraid. The biggest thorn in the A380's side are 18-24 months of production delays that have deferred billions of dollars in earn
45 Zvezda : No, we would be in the 12th month of customer deliveries. The first WhaleJet was contracted for delivery to SQ in February 2006. The first delay slip
46 BoomBoom : Some analysts think the dollar needs to fall another 20-30% to bring the US trade deficit into balance.
47 N328KF : I think "who built it" is relevant in a sense. If it were a Boeing product, you would not have had the infighting between two key facilities, and you
48 Zvezda : I'll concede that, but it would still be chasing a tiny niche market.
49 Post contains links BoomBoom : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1169...RDS=dollar&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month
50 Molykote : Oh, yeah...... "that"! (This isn't an attack on NAV20) In fairness, Airbus has to pick some point as a baseline goal. Many of the factors affecting t
51 RichardPrice : In no sense take this as an attack against Boeing but... ...cock ups can happen to everyone, theres no reason why this or something similiar couldnt
52 N328KF : I didn't say Boeing wouldn't have problems. I said Boeing wouldn't have this problem, and I gave specific reasons.
53 Pygmalion : True but Boeing is one company that doesn't have to cater to government shareholders when it decides to realign its business processes. The structural
54 Post contains images SEPilot : This is key; if the 787 performs as expected and Boeing builds Y3, the market for the A380 will be approximately what the market for DC-7's was in 19
55 Post contains images Astuteman : . Absolutely correct, Dfw. It would almost undoubtedly be within striking distance of its 250-270 frame break-even as well..... Regards
56 Atmx2000 : I thought the with stronger Euro, the breakeven was above 300 prior to the delays, or am I mistaken.
57 Leelaw : IIRC, Break-even was revised to 270 units (from 250 units at launch in 2001) in Spring 2005, shortly before the first major program delay was announc
58 Post contains links BoomBoom : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2007/01/17/AR2007011701708.html
59 Dallasnewark : Whoever wrote the article totally forgot in the time value of money. With every passing day, Break-Even point is slowly increasing. Selling 420 frames
60 JayinKitsap : I think the current order book gets them into 2012, if long lead parts need 2 years lead themselves, the order rate needs to be up to 45 per year by
61 RedChili : I'm sorry, but it also means the first of those. 80 percent of all R&D costs were paid before 31 December 2006. 100 percent of all R&D costs will be
62 Zvezda : Your statement suggested (since that was the context) that revenue from WhaleJet sales would have covered the development costs by 2010, which is cle
63 474218 : All that R&D and compensation money has been borrowed and must be repaid. You seem to think that once Airbus spends it they never have to pay it back
64 Leelaw : Why shouldn't he when Airbus actively promotes the absurd notion that "profitability" commences from the moment they stop adding (circa 2010) to the
65 Dougloid : I knew it! The Americans are to blame! It's FATWA time!
66 Jimbobjoe : Euro strength/weakness is certainly an issue, but I'm not sure why you'd think of the strength against the dollar as being key. Quite a lot of analys
67 Post contains images Astuteman : These R+D costs were spent in that period, but in terms of (and only in terms of) an ROI calculation, they remain as a liability to be recovered from
68 Zvezda : That's exactly correct -- except that there has been WhaleJet revenue, however, it is probably booked as deferred revenue until the associated aircra
69 Post contains images Leelaw : AFAIK, Messrs Ring and Sperl of EADS/Airbus never make that important distinction in their public comments...they're not fooling you or the financial
70 Post contains images Astuteman : Lesson learned, guys When one has spent a goodly few years familiar with company accounting, it's easy to forget that not all A-netters have the same
71 Post contains images Iwok : Yes, the costs were paid, but not from 380 sales. To get an ROI the sales of the product must cover the R&D costs. Don't forget that in addition to t
72 Zvezda : Right. Look at it this way. The development expenses (still ongoing) are equivalent to digging a hole. Airbus are now in that hole. Each airframe pro
73 Post contains images Lightsaber : This was the most interesting point in the thread. Carbon fiber will displace planes made from beer can in long haul due to the huge cost benefits of
74 Zvezda : I'd say that's a best case scenario. In my opinion, the sales life of the WhaleJet will probably end somewhere from 2012 to 2015 depending on: - how
75 Post contains links and images Lightsaber : You're right, I forgot to put best case scenario and the assumption of an A389. I do think the A389 will be much more attractive. Personally, due to
76 Post contains images Astuteman : Apparrently there isn't a best case scenario for the A389 acceptable to A-net, Lightsaber. I had a post deleted on another thread for questioning why
77 Metroliner : fair do's, but using comments like 'Expect Another Delay Soon' and using the term 'WhaleJet' (long after it's gone out of fashion, might i add) delib
78 Zvezda : First, you're making stuff up. The other thread didn't suggest ">500" but about 500. Anyway, the answer is very simple. The 747-8 doesn't canibalize
79 Post contains links SLCPilot : Here's a free $100 ! ! ! (read below for details) Here's a shameless plug for a poll over in another forum. Be the first to to say you called it way b
80 474218 : How can Airbus expect a 13 to 20% ROI when the parient company EADS (Airbus sales/earning are not reported seperatly) profit is only 5%. 2005 sales $
81 RedChili : To both of you, and all the others who replied to my statement about profitability: You're getting the context wrong, and you're trying to put words
82 Leelaw : Haven't you calculated return on sales/turnover rather than return on investment for EADS?
83 474218 : Your right.
84 Post contains images Lightsaber : My take is that the introduction of the A389 would push the total A380 (A388 +A389) breakeven to 500 airframes. 420+"a couple dozen" is ~500. So the
85 Astuteman : If you want to argue the combined break-even is 500, I don't have a problem with that. But it's not actually relevant. The only relevance with specif
86 Zvezda : I agree. Yes, it would be unrealistic to assume that all hypothetical A380-900 sales would otherwise have been A380-800 sales. It is also unrealistic
87 Astuteman : It may be true for airlines like EK, but if you characterise "most" as 89% to 90% of ALL likely sales, then, no, we won't be agreeing anytime soon. Y
88 Zvezda : How? By opening new routes that would otherwise not be served? Or by increasing frequency on existing routes? How else could an order be placed for a
89 SEPilot : This point has been discussed (and largely agreed with) by many on this forum: I for one agree with the sentiment. The fact remains, though, that for
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...
A380 Entry To Service Date posted Tue Jan 2 2007 05:15:35 by MikeSA
Korean Air Announces 2 Year A380 Delay To 2010 posted Wed Nov 15 2006 07:01:32 by Singapore_Air
A380 Here To Stay-Great Bargain For Airlines! posted Fri Nov 10 2006 02:02:49 by OU812
Airline With A380 Service To The Moon? posted Thu Nov 2 2006 15:59:44 by HangarRat
Virgin Atlantic Delays A380 EIS To 2013 posted Thu Oct 26 2006 18:41:04 by N328KF
Is The A380 Available To Early For Its Market? posted Tue Oct 17 2006 11:06:45 by Grantcv
A380 Coming To HKG posted Sun Oct 8 2006 15:46:18 by Elite
Clark: Skeptical Of A380 Deliveries To EK In 2007 posted Mon Sep 25 2006 10:28:42 by Leelaw
A380 Comes To Melbourne Australia posted Sat Sep 23 2006 07:31:48 by AeroplaneFreak
Is The A380 Coming To South Africa This Week? posted Sun Sep 17 2006 15:14:18 by Andz