Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Maybe A Larger B747-8i To Compete With A380?  
User currently offlinemitris From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 24 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 18610 times:

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but why Boeing is not designing an additional larger version of the B747-8i to compete with the A380?

98 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineyendig From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 18584 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

AFAIK Boeing saw only limited future orders from the VLA category so, rather than designing a new 'superjumbo' to match the A380, updated their older 747 design & built the new 787 instead. As a business, they figured the 787 would offer them a better Return On Investment.

User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 969 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 18481 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mitris (Thread starter):
Sorry if this has been discussed before, but why Boeing is not designing an additional larger version of the B747-8i to compete with the A380?

Why in the world would Boeing desing a "larger version of the 747-800 to compete with the A380"?? they're trying to sell aircraft not figure out who can build the largest airplane.

Boeing has been bashing Airbus because "the A380 is just too large for many markets" and now they're going to build something as big? not happening

[Edited 2012-11-20 17:00:54]

User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1386 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 18442 times:

Because they won't make money.

The 747-8i was a relatively low investment option - and yet not a big success.

They have in the past offered bigger versions and yet no orders - see 747-600X and 747-700X.

To take sales from the competitor, you want to be 15% cheaper. The A380 is not super efficient, but the A380-900 NEO would be the target that Boeing would need to beat. That means an all new plane. All new programs have not been great for Boeing - 787 is a train wreck, 777 cost more than planned.

Apparently Boeing doesn't think the money to invest in a A380-900 NEO killer would pay back in a timely matter. Not big enough market or not enough margin, or just too much risk.


User currently offlinemitris From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 24 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 18415 times:

That makes sense, yendig. However, I believe Airbus has proven Boeing to be wrong with firm orders of the A380 to be reaching 262 as of today (according to Wikipedia).

On the other hand, Boeing has received 844 orders for the B787. Thus, this aircraft is indeed profitable. But Airbus designed the A350 as a competitor.

So, how come Boeing is not creating a stretched version of the B747-8i in the near future, so it can compete with the A380, and receive more orders?


User currently offlinemitris From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 24 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 18386 times:

Quoting ADent (Reply 3):

Apparently Boeing doesn't think the money to invest in a A380-900 NEO killer would pay back in a timely matter. Not big enough market or not enough margin, or just too much risk.

Gotcya


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 18389 times:

The 748-i has a capacity niche below A380. Why stretch it so that it has to compete more directly with A380 (and possibly fail to win any orders)?

User currently offlinemitris From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 24 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 18326 times:

Quoting art (Reply 6):

The 748-i has a capacity niche below A380. Why stretch it so that it has to compete more directly with A380 (and possibly fail to win any orders)?

Well, they are not doing well with their B747-8i orders. That's why I was suggesting to have two versions of the B747-8. I guess time will tell if the B747-8I will be successful.


User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2798 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 18289 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting mitris (Reply 4):
That makes sense, yendig. However, I believe Airbus has proven Boeing to be wrong with firm orders of the A380 to be reaching 262 as of today (according to Wikipedia).

On the other hand, Boeing has received 844 orders for the B787. Thus, this aircraft is indeed profitable. But Airbus designed the A350 as a competitor.

They may have 262 orders but last I heard they are still a good ways away from being profitable on the program. They invested a ton in the airplane. Same with the 787. Another article stated they may have to pump out 1000 before they start getting good returns. Which at the number they are currently at, may be very achievable. Just like load factors a full order book doesn't always equate to a profitable program.

There just isn't a huge market for aircraft as big as the A380. Maybe someday there will be a large demand, but as of now not really. The 747-8 seems to be hurt by the 777. It is an aircraft with great range and capacity and when compared the -8 provides similar things. Nothing really stands out about the 747. I personally think the 777 is worse for the 747 than the A380 program.
Blue



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4229 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 18252 times:

I don't think that Boeing wants to compete for the 262 frames. Not a whole lot of demand for such a large aircraft so why would Boeing want to build such an aircraft?


Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1567 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 18244 times:

I would like to see how a smaller 748-SP, same size as 744, but 748 MTOW, would go. Would be a limited market I realise.
I wonder what the range of such an aircraft would be?

ruscoe


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8375 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 18229 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting art (Reply 6):
The 748-i has a capacity niche below A380. Why stretch it so that it has to compete more directly with A380 (and possibly fail to win any orders)?

There are many planes today capable of 7000 miles carrying 300 passengers. The 748's best competition is the 777-300ER, offering an A380 size plane is a lemon. Offering 77W and 787-9 creates two winning programs. The "iconic" 747 is a great plane for its past, its future is as a niche machine.


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1600 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 18124 times:

Quoting mitris (Reply 4):
I believe Airbus has proven Boeing to be wrong with firm orders of the A380 to be reaching 262 as of today (according to Wikipedia).

Yes, but didn't Boeing forecast a VLA market for only about 400 planes? I think Airbus' forecast three times that many planes. Perhaps the market will take off, but right now, it doesn't seem that demand can support two VLA programs. VLAs are also frightfully expensive and I know we've discussed on A.net a few airlines struggling to fit the A380 into their schedules due to its capacity. (I think this has been less a problem for the 748 because so few have ordered it!) If the airline can't fill the seats, it's got an expensive problem on its hands. I think it's just one reason - of many I'm sure - that makes an airline think long and hard before buying a VLA.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 18090 times:

Quoting mitris (Thread starter):

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but why Boeing is not designing an additional larger version of the B747-8i to compete with the A380?

Because they'd lose money (or more money than the current 747-8i, take your pick).

Quoting mitris (Reply 4):
However, I believe Airbus has proven Boeing to be wrong with firm orders of the A380 to be reaching 262 as of today (according to Wikipedia).

262 isn't even enough to pay for the A380. If you split that market between the A380 and the 747-8i all you do is guarantee that *both* aircraft will never make money.

Quoting mitris (Reply 4):
So, how come Boeing is not creating a stretched version of the B747-8i in the near future, so it can compete with the A380, and receive more orders?

Because that's mutual suicide. If they keep the airplanes sufficiently different in size there's some hope that there's enough demand for A380-sized aircraft to keep the A380 profitable and enough demand for 747-8i-sized aircraft to keep the 747-8i profitable. If they go head-to-head, they're both guaranteed to lose.

Tom.


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1074 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 18091 times:

Quoting art (Reply 6):
The 748-i has a capacity niche below A380. Why stretch it so that it has to compete more directly with A380 (and possibly fail to win any orders)?

Well, that is of course one way to look at it??... The reality is that Airbus shot for the Niche ABOVE the 747. I don't know how that will work out? But, please keep things in perspective.  



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 17874 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mitris (Thread starter):
Sorry if this has been discussed before, but why Boeing is not designing an additional larger version of the B747-8i to compete with the A380?

Realistically, Boeing could stretch the 747-8 another 3m (to 79.5m). Using Boeing's OEM seating configuration, this would increase capacity from 467 to 492.

In LH's configuration, assuming they gave it all to Economy Class, that would raise capacity from 362 to 392. That is still 75% of the capacity of the A380-800 and 128 less Economy seats.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 17758 times:

I never understood why the 748i was ever built. Boeing spent years/decades shopping around further derivatives of the 747 and a number of studies and found there wasn't enough market for them. Why didn't they continue to back their own judgement and leave the market for the A380?

User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 17734 times:

Boeing can already make the 747-8i "bigger" without stretching it. Clever use of the crown space from door 3 to 5 can do magic. Currently the space is already used by 5 747-8i VIPs.

http://www.greenpnt.com/wp-content/u...ivers-First-BBJ-747-8-Aeroloft.pdf

Easiest way to add seats is to move some galley and toilet up to that space to free up more main cabin area.

More adventurous design is to put more seats up in that space.

After the 2013 pips, may be Boeing can try to find some launch customers for such upgrade.


User currently offlinemitris From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 24 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 17676 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 17):

Boeing can already make the 747-8i "bigger" without stretching it. Clever use of the crown space from door 3 to 5 can do magic. Currently the space is already used by 5 747-8i VIPs.

http://www.greenpnt.com/wp-content/u...ivers-First-BBJ-747-8-Aeroloft.pdf

Easiest way to add seats is to move some galley and toilet up to that space to free up more main cabin area.

More adventurous design is to put more seats up in that space.

After the 2013 pips, may be Boeing can try to find some launch customers for such upgrade.

I LOVE your statement, cosmofly! I hope something like that happens. The B747 is such a beautiful aircraft. It's sad to see it disappearing. But yes, I know... Not so profitable these days.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 17533 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting thegeek (Reply 16):
I never understood why the 748i was ever built.

They wanted to counter the A380-800F and they greatly overestimated the market for the passenger model.


User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1567 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 17515 times:

At a certain price the 748 will be more attractive than the 380.

It's doubtful Boeing would ever go that low, but it does keep a lid on the amount Airbus can charge, and that may be seen as beeficial to Boeing.

Ruscoe


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 17513 times:

On the former point it can even be called a success. Perhaps a Pyrrhic victory though.

User currently offlineMcoov From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 128 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 17418 times:

Let's face it. With the 77W and the 787 and A350 (soon to be) around, nobody wants a 4-holer for the kinds of loads a 747 used to do, and nobody needs a massive 350+ capacity airplane for the ranges the 747 used to do. Exceptions exist, such as on US --> Europe routes, Australia --> North America routes, and the Kangaroo route, but considering what the 747's role used to be, this really does limit the need for such a large airplane. The same could be said for the A380: that its role is really limited to these kinds of routes. Anything else can be handled by a 77W.

User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4525 posts, RR: 18
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 17406 times:

I love the B747, she is the Queen of the skies and always will be.


Having said that, the 748 will be the end of the line.


I'm not a great fan of the A380, that's partly my bias against Airbus and partly it's frumpy looks but I think it has a bright future.


As the sole real new generation VLA I can see an increasing demand for it, especially higher performing and stretched versions which will really be game changers.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinetravelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 938 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 17364 times:

You would think if Boeing were to spend more money on the 747 they would be better off improving the existing 748i than going for another derivative.

User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 25, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 16626 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 23):
I'm not a great fan of the A380, that's partly my bias against Airbus and partly it's frumpy looks but I think it has a bright future.


As the sole real new generation VLA I can see an increasing demand for it, especially higher performing and stretched versions which will really be game changers.

I don't see the future of the A380 that positive. If we think about the average production time of an airplane program, most aircraft are obsolete after 20 years, with a newer, better airplane emerging 10-15 years afterwards from another (or sometimes even the same) manufacturer.

A380 EIS was in 2007, as there perhaps won't be such a large VLA for the next 30 years, that is an advantage for Airbus. But the technology of the A380 still gets older year by year. To be on a level playing field with new generation aircraft, Airbus would need a engine upgrade and a modified wing in the 2022-2027 time-span. Perhaps a little bit later. Do we really expect that to happen? The VLA market would really need to gain speed to spend to much money on another VLA. And if that happens, Boeing would come up with their own VLA design, because airlines would be asking them for an A380NEO competitor.

Instead, I expect the era of the 4-engined aircraft is going to end, the 747-8i will be out of production by then already, perhaps the 747-8F lives on for some more decades as THE freighter on bulk freight market, the A380 won't see a NEO version and might secure some orders from existing customers, but will be phased out after 20 years of flying, too, just to be replaced by smaller, more efficient aircraft. Two 781LRs or A359X will be flying around the same number of pax and will be more efficient and bump up frequency, too.


I could be totally wrong, the A389 is launched in 2 years, airports get so congested that frequency is reduced and smaller planes get replaced by VLAs, the A380NEO if offered in 10 years and Boeing announces to replace the 777-9 and the 747-8i with a new VLA, too. Who knows? To many variables. But I think my former look into the future is the more realistic one, not for us aviation enthusiasts, but economical...


User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 15720 times:

The VLAs are largely targeting the big cities of Asia. Just look at where the A380 is used.
Most commentators here are from America or Europe. The speed of the shift of the global economy to the east is far superior to what every expert was expecting. Now China and other countries in the region are developing fast a big middle class to be less dependent of exports. And these people they all want to visit only a few destinations in the world (Rome, London...). They also, like us, prefer night flight. On top of that high fuel price is pushing airlines toward concentration. etc.

Maybe the A380 came too soon, but its market keeps better and fast.

[Edited 2012-11-21 01:59:22]


Never trust the obvious
User currently offlinedennys From France, joined May 2001, 889 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 14613 times:

Well i doubt about the A380-900 to BE built . And 4 holers are out of fashion on our days ....

User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7228 posts, RR: 8
Reply 28, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 14497 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 16):
I never understood why the 748i was ever built. Boeing spent years/decades shopping around further derivatives of the 747 and a number of studies and found there wasn't enough market for them. Why didn't they continue to back their own judgement and leave the market for the A380?

The impetus for the 748i was the 748F, the pax version is an off shoot of the freighter model and Boeings views of the cargo market demands / desires.
Airbus A380 is the reverse, the pax version is based on their views of the pax market and its demands, the freighter version is an off shot of the pax model.


User currently offline2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 14234 times:

Quoting mitris (Reply 4):
That makes sense, yendig. However, I believe Airbus has proven Boeing to be wrong with firm orders of the A380 to be reaching 262 as of today (according to Wikipedia).

I believe if Airbus had it all over to do again - they never would have built the A380 at all. It has proven to be a massive financial disaster - and Airbus could have better invested the money elsewhere.

Airbus does not talk about the A380 financials (and stopped doing so several years ago); but, at this point Airbus has not yet figured out how to even build one for the same amount of money they have sold them for - and are loosing money on every A380 they deliver. (the time from start of assembly to final delivery is atrocious - with many thousands of extra manhours they did not plan on) This is in addition to the many $billions they spent developing the plane in the first place.

While it is not uncommon for the initial production of aircraft to exceed their selling price - that usually reverses itself after a couple of years as the production lines come up to speed and develop a rhythm. Then, the remaining production produces a net profit per plane that usually pays off the development cost. That has not yet happened for the A380. As such their are currently no known public projections of the A380 program every being profitable.

I note that due to poor market for the 748 that Boeing has stated that with current orders that the 748 program also in a current loss position (development cost + production cost > expected profit from existing sales); However, Boeing has also said that with additional orders that the 748 program could be profitable; and Boeing has specifically turned down orders for the 748 that would not produce a net profit for the production of the plane.

Their just isn't much of a market for very large aircraft. Certainly not worth spending more $Billions developing another variant.

Have a great day,


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1885 posts, RR: 4
Reply 30, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 14138 times:

Larger 747-8i to compete with A380? Lemme guess....

No way.

I'd rather have two 777-9Xs instead.



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlinedennys From France, joined May 2001, 889 posts, RR: 1
Reply 31, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13931 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 10):

USER PROFILE
SEND INSTANT MSG
ADD TO RESP MEMBERS
SUGGEST DELETION
SELECTED TEXT QUOTED
_
Ruscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1385 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted Wed Nov 21 2012 02:22:09 your local time (11 hours 43 minutes 57 secs ago) and read 4953 times:

I would like to see how a smaller 748-SP, same size as 744, but 748 MTOW, would go. Would be a limited market I realise.
I wonder what the range of such an aircraft would be?

ruscoe

well only if a Carrier should ask Boeing make such an aircraft ( i e QF ) i bet Boeing shall built it .


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 39
Reply 32, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13833 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CARST (Reply 25):
A380 EIS was in 2007, as there perhaps won't be such a large VLA for the next 30 years, that is an advantage for Airbus. But the technology of the A380 still gets older year by year. To be on a level playing field with new generation aircraft, Airbus would need a engine upgrade and a modified wing in the 2022-2027 time-span. Perhaps a little bit later. Do we really expect that to happen?

Like you said there are many variables which will determine in what direction future developments will take the airliners which we know of today. I am pretty optimistic about the A380 further developments. Much newer engine technology, aerodynamic upgrades, further weight reduction developments, and a simple stretch can keep the A380 very attractive for decades to come. Especially if more and more airports become slot-restricted.

And aging technology can be circumvented. We see this on the B748 and on the proposed B77X-programs. Both airliners have a baseline technology which is way older then that of the A380, so that is not really a problem. That being said the B748 does not have the same development potential that the A380 has. An even longer B748 would not be able to compete with the A380, and especially further developments on the A380 (maybe the A380-900 + NEO) would be totally out of reach for any B748 development.


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13830 times:

Quoting mitris (Reply 4):
On the other hand, Boeing has received 844 orders for the B787. Thus, this aircraft is indeed profitable

No it’s not – Far from it in fact. As has been discussed in many threads already the 787 is going to need upwards of 1600 orders to come anywhere close to being profitable, and 1600 is actually a very conservative estimate – Some commentators estimate the figure to be higher still.

Quoting yendig (Reply 1):
AFAIK Boeing saw only limited future orders from the VLA category so, rather than designing a new 'superjumbo' to match the A380, updated their older 747 design & built the new 787 instead.

If Boeing saw no future in a VLA then why did they build the 748 in the first place?

Quoting ADent (Reply 3):
The A380 is not super efficient, but the A380-900 NEO would be the target that Boeing would need to beat.

The A380 is the most efficient passenger transport available right now…

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 8):
Another article stated they may have to pump out 1000 before they start getting good returns.

Nope – See above.


User currently offlineHOMsAR From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1183 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13830 times:

All the arguments against Boeing designing a larger 747 are valid. Another one, not yet mentioned, is that Boeing is currently working on finishing up a larger 787 (the -9), possibly another stretch of that (the -10), plus three new 737 models (MAX -7, 8, and 9), plus they're starting work on a revised 777. All that takes not only money, but engineering resources that are stretched thin.

Even if there was a slim chance that a stretched 747 could be profitable, Boeing has too much on their plate to go after that market and risk diverting essential resources from these other projects.



I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlineairfrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2826 posts, RR: 42
Reply 35, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13591 times:

Quoting mitris (Thread starter):

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but why Boeing is not designing an additional larger version of the B747-8i to compete with the A380?

Given the lack of real commercial success shown by the A380, to say nothing of the 747-8i, why on earth would anyone get into this space?

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 33):
No it’s not – Far from it in fact. As has been discussed in many threads already the 787 is going to need upwards of 1600 orders to come anywhere close to being profitable, and 1600 is actually a very conservative estimate – Some commentators estimate the figure to be higher still.

For the A380, factory break-even (where they are making more money selling a A380 then the cost of building it) is 2015. Operational break-even (where the program has made more money then it spent) is around 420 units (again, per Airbus). Suffice it to say that the program does not have enough order to make it to either of those benchmarks right now.


While Boeing has not provided a factory break-even point, the operational break-even is going to be at 1100 units,The number above just wishful thinking.

Hereis a great article on it:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/5920...oeing-vs-airbus-orders-and-profits



User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10038 posts, RR: 96
Reply 36, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13419 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CARST (Reply 25):
Airbus would need a engine upgrade and a modified wing in the 2022-2027 time-span. Perhaps a little bit later. Do we really expect that to happen?

Yep. By 2025-2027 I expect the A380 to have both upgraded engines (Trent XWB or GTF's) and some form of wingtip treatment (not a new wing, but something similar to the wingtip improvements the A320NEO and 737MAX are receiving, both many decades after their entry into service)
There's got to be upwards of 10% reduction in fuel burn from those 2 combined.
Which would make a stretch VERY interesting

Quoting dennys (Reply 27):
And 4 holers are out of fashion on our days ....

Twins got bigger is what happened.
I don't see the largest size of aircraft that is feasible getting smaller. I think the reverse is the case.
Does that mean twins will become a bigger percentage of the total? Yes, I'd say.
But there will be a new-build quad for a long time

Quoting par13del (Reply 28):
The impetus for the 748i was the 748F, the pax version is an off shoot of the freighter model and Boeings views of the cargo market demands / desires

That is categorically incorrect, is repeated ad-nauseam on here, and corrected ad-nauseam.
At launch, boeing projected 2/3 of 748 sales to be intercontinentals.

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 29):
I believe if Airbus had it all over to do again - they never would have built the A380 at all

They would. They'd just execute it properly.
Much as Boeing would with the 787, at a guess  
Quoting 2175301 (Reply 29):
at this point Airbus has not yet figured out how to even build one for the same amount of money they have sold them for - and are loosing money on every A380 they deliver

I suspect they have.
But it will take until 2015 for frames to
a) be flowing freely through the system without re-work or delay, and
b) for deliveries not to have incurred delay penalties. The sales price itself hasn't been the sole issue. It has also been what has been left of that after penalties have been incurred.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 33):
If Boeing saw no future in a VLA then why did they build the 748 in the first place?

Good question

Quoting airfrnt (Reply 35):
factory break-even (where they are making more money selling a A380 then the cost of building it) is 2015.

Correct.
Bear in mind though that pre-2015 frames selling price has been hit by penalties, just as the cost has been hit by the protracted duration in build as rework has been executed.

Quoting airfrnt (Reply 35):
Operational break-even (where the program has made more money then it spent) is around 420 units (again, per Airbus).

For what its worth I reckon the real number is between 500 and 600.

Quoting airfrnt (Reply 35):
Hereis a great article on it:

It's actually a crap article, riddled with inaccuracies and omitting vital contextualisation witohut which the numbers are meaningless.
It was debated ad-nauseam on an earlier thread

rgds


User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1548 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13223 times:

The A380 has more than enough work competing with itself; no need -or space- for another competitor.


Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 38, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13225 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 20):
At a certain price the 748 will be more attractive than the 380.

It's doubtful Boeing would ever go that low, but it does keep a lid on the amount Airbus can charge, and that may be seen as beeficial to Boeing.

Boeing has already stated they have refused a number of 747-8 sales because the price offered by the customer was too low.

Quite simply, Boeing cannot deeply discount the 747-8 without impacting the Average Sales Price of the 777-300ER.


User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 710 posts, RR: 1
Reply 39, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 12795 times:

In general, the two manufacturers do not attempt to make their products compete head-on. They rather place their products in slightly different categories. Then you see marketing arguing that a particular aircraft size is better than some other aircraft size. But you'll also see different airlines pick the size that fits them best, leaving both manufacturers a core set of customers. The head-on competition runs perhaps a biggerrisk of one of the competitors being left out.

I think this is the case with the 748 and 380 as well. 748... the more moderate size option, for markets not reaching the highest size. 380... the big size option, with a goal to get a very low CASM.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8379 posts, RR: 10
Reply 40, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 12778 times:

Quoting CARST (Reply 25):
I don't see the future of the A380 that positive. If we think about the average production time of an airplane program, most aircraft are obsolete after 20 years, with a newer, better airplane emerging 10-15 years afterwards from another (or sometimes even the same) manufacturer.

In order for it to be obsolete, there has to be something to replace it with. There's no way that we'll have another VLA airplane in 20 years. The long term business case for VLA aircraft is still very much valid. With worldwide double digit growth in passenger travel it's difficult to not imagine a scenario where A380's will be flying medium-haul and even short haul routes 20 years from now. It's all in the math. The technology itself will improve just like it did for the 737->737MAX, the A300->A330, A320->A320NEO, 747->748i, etc, but the A380 will be around for a very long time just like the 747 has been around for a very long time.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 41, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 12676 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Many customers purchased the 747-400 not for it's capacity, but for it's range. Once smaller planes with similar range became available, customers started booking away from the 747-400 in favor of those smaller planes.

While the A380-800 has incredible range, customers are purchasing it primarily for it's capacity. Therefore, even though smaller planes with equal or better range (747-400ER | 777-200LR | A340-500)) are available, customers are not considering them.

As such, I am in agreement with airbazar (and other a.net members who have expressed a similar opinion) that the A380-800 will effectively not become obsolete.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 42, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 12359 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 16):

I never understood why the 748i was ever built.

There is some demand in that space and the 747-400 was too old and inefficient.

Quoting CARST (Reply 25):
If we think about the average production time of an airplane program, most aircraft are obsolete after 20 years

The *vast* majority of aircraft in production today come from programs more than 20 years old. Individual aircraft are obsolete after 20 years; successful programs tend to last much longer.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 33):
Quoting yendig (Reply 1):
AFAIK Boeing saw only limited future orders from the VLA category so, rather than designing a new 'superjumbo' to match the A380, updated their older 747 design & built the new 787 instead.

If Boeing saw no future in a VLA then why did they build the 748 in the first place?

yendig didn't say Boeing saw no future in a VLA. yendig said they saw *limited* future orders. Which, as the market is showing, seemed to be pretty accurate. Boeing didn't see enough future to pay for *two* new types, certainly.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 33):
Quoting ADent (Reply 3):
The A380 is not super efficient, but the A380-900 NEO would be the target that Boeing would need to beat.

The A380 is the most efficient passenger transport available right now…

If you fill it. Efficiency is only profitable if you can load up the airplane. That's not to say the A380 can't be economically competitive (it certainly can be) but it's a mistake to think that efficiency wins the day. Profit wins the day.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 36):
Quoting par13del (Reply 28):
The impetus for the 748i was the 748F, the pax version is an off shoot of the freighter model and Boeings views of the cargo market demands / desires

That is categorically incorrect, is repeated ad-nauseam on here, and corrected ad-nauseam.
At launch, boeing projected 2/3 of 748 sales to be intercontinentals.

There's a difference between the impetus for the program and the expected sales. If Boeing had done the 747-8 program primarily for the -8i, they would have built and tested the -8i first. The fact that they didn't tells you which order the demand and development progressed. Very similar pattern to the original 747, actually...the impetus then was the passenger version but they expected the vast majority of sales to be freighters.

Tom.


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 43, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11923 times:

Quoting airfrnt (Reply 35):
While Boeing has not provided a factory break-even point, the operational break-even is going to be at 1100 units,The number above just wishful thinking.

Hereis a great article on it:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/5920...oeing-vs-airbus-orders-and-profits

Unless I’m missing it I can’t find anywhere in that article which states the 787 will break even at 1100 frames, there are some comments which make that claim – but they provide no figures or method as to how they have reached that figure.

I’m going to avoid going into detail and dragging this thread off topic as there are already many threads discussing this.


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 756 posts, RR: 5
Reply 44, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11757 times:

Quoting travelhound (Reply 24):
You would think if Boeing were to spend more money on the 747 they would be better off improving the existing 748i than going for another derivative.

There will be no more money spent on any 747 derivative - its a large black hole.


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 45, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11608 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 40):
There's no way that we'll have another VLA airplane in 20 years. The long term business case for VLA aircraft is still very much valid.

For the past 15 years, Boeing has believed that the VLA market is not strong enough to justify a new model like the A380 or a major investment like the 747-500X/600X. The 747-8 is a fairly conservative program compared to Boeing's previous 747 stretch studies, although I'm sure it ended up costing a lot more than they anticipated given the 2-year delay and engineering challenges. So far, with less than 300 orders for passenger VLAs over the 12 years that the A380 has been on offer, Boeing's VLA market outlook has been more accurate than Airbus'.

However, if the VLA niche does start to grow rapidly, there is no reason why Boeing (or someone else) could not enter the market with a clean-sheet airplane. The 747-8I appears to be a lost cause already and will be clobbered by the 777-9X on one end and the A380 on the other. The -8F will probably soldier on as a low-volume program similar to the 767, but the market seems to have spoken and the 747 is no longer a major player.

On the other hand, the A380's Achilles' heel is that the airframe is fairly heavy for what it does, and while this can be addressed at the margin by weight reduction and stretches, it will be increasingly vulnerable to a CFRP competitor as time goes on. There is some debate today about how much weight a CFRP fuselage saves versus advanced aluminum alloys, but in another 10 years, I'd be shocked if CFRP is not the decisive winner - there's just much more scope for progress, and if no-autoclave curing is perfected, the cost will fall dramatically. Both manufacturers have stated that CFRP benefits increase disproportionately with aircraft size, so while it may not make sense for the A320NSR and 737RS, it should be a slam dunk at the top of the market.

Financially speaking, it's virtually impossible to argue that the A380 has been anything but a disaster for Airbus. They probably have only half the orders they need to reach breakeven, as the last figures we heard were in the 400s and that was many years ago, and mere breakeven is not exactly what one hopes to achieve on such a high-risk program. Meanwhile, the production ramp continues to be below projections and the wing issues are adding hundreds of millions of euros to program cost. Further, unless the A380 gets some significant orders soon, higher rate production may reduce unit costs but will run though the backlog awfully quickly. Unlike the equally catastrophic 787, which potentially can recover its overruns on volume, it's hard to see a surge in A380 orders that doesn't also attract competition from Airbus' rivals.

-B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3264 posts, RR: 2
Reply 46, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11562 times:

A380 or B747 shape or size is not key for an airline in the future, but the development of engine technology is.
When you can build an engine that returns twice the power at half the burn rate you will control the sky.

Oh, and if it could run on salt water, yes please. 



you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 47, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11566 times:

Quoting mitris (Thread starter):
Sorry if this has been discussed before, but why Boeing is not designing an additional larger version of the B747-8i to compete with the A380?

There is barely a market for the A380 much less two of them. It would end up like the L1011 v DC10 debacle, which neither won.


User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1323 posts, RR: 52
Reply 48, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11541 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting CARST (Reply 25):
And if that happens, Boeing would come up with their own VLA design, because airlines would be asking them for an A380NEO competitor.

To date - Boeing's estimates for VLA market appear more realistic that Airbus's. I'm not seeing anything that will change that. I know there are lots of people who believe that we will be 'forced' to go to a travel model where you must travel in a few big buses with limited destinations rather than the model of more efficient smaller buses serving with flexibility. I would disagree with that based on the history of technology and advancement. Technology has continually moved to a world were people have more flexibility and freedom to act. The fact that I'm sitting here at my breakfast bar in my home in the mountains having this conversation with the world is an example.
I'm not going to pretend to understand how this will happen, but it is what I believe.

There will be a market for VLA - but it will be limited and focused on those routes where it is natural for people to travel that way.

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 29):
Their just isn't much of a market for very large aircraft. Certainly not worth spending more $Billions developing another variant

   By the time there is - something will have come along to change it.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 33):
If Boeing saw no future in a VLA then why did they build the 748 in the first place?

It was relative cheap and easy - and they thought they needed something else than 'just' the 787. Companies do not progress by sitting around. Now - will it be financially successful. I think so - but based on the F model, not the i.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 33):
The A380 is the most efficient passenger transport available right now…

Only if configured correctly, carrying the right load on the right route. That, BTW, can be said for virtually any aircraft.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 40):
In order for it to be obsolete, there has to be something to replace it with.

Or the demand needs to be removed (which I guess is the same thing - but with a different bent). The "something" may not be an airplane. It may be a new energy source that makes small, frequent, flights more efficient. It could be a mass transmitter (hah!).



rcair1
User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 11117 times:

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 48):
I know there are lots of people who believe that we will be 'forced' to go to a travel model where you must travel in a few big buses with limited destinations rather than the model of more efficient smaller buses serving with flexibility. I would disagree with that based on the history of technology and advancement. Technology has continually moved to a world were people have more flexibility and freedom to act.

The dynamics are different when soon there will be 6 times more people flying long haul than 10 years ago. Not all the Chinese will have the freedom to have a swimming pool in their garden even if they can.



Never trust the obvious
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 50, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 10095 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 42):
If you fill it. Efficiency is only profitable if you can load up the airplane. That's not to say the A380 can't be economically competitive (it certainly can be) but it's a mistake to think that efficiency wins the day. Profit wins the day.

I’m not entirely sure what your point is here, as I’m not aware of any aircraft which is able to operate profitably when empty. The A380 will of course require more passengers in order to fill it, however I don’t believe it requires a larger load in terms of a percentage of filled seats than any other type to be profitable

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 45):
Financially speaking, it's virtually impossible to argue that the A380 has been anything but a disaster for Airbus.

What a ridiculous point. How you can write off an aircraft that has only been in service for a little over 5 years is beyond me - incidentally the 747 at exactly the same stage in its life had just under 300 orders and Boeing had already had to go to the expense of developing the 200 variant to increase range and payload. Undoubtedly you would have written it off as being an indefensible financial disaster too.

Finally, during A380's development the break-even figure was 250 frames; a figure the vast majority of Anet members (well most American Anet members) stated it had no chance of reaching… Well it did, and in a relatively short time period. Do you honestly think that in they won’t be able to reach 500 orders in the next 20-30 years?


User currently offlinesbworcs From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 844 posts, RR: 5
Reply 51, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9735 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 33):

Would not let me quote actual text. With regard to break even for B787 being upwards of 1600 units. Ar these actual projections or guesses? Has Boeing released any figures about this.



The best way forwards is upwards!
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8379 posts, RR: 10
Reply 52, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9460 times:

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 45):
For the past 15 years, Boeing has believed that the VLA market is not strong enough to justify a new model like the A380 or a major investment like the 747-500X/600X. The 747-8 is a fairly conservative program compared to Boeing's previous 747 stretch studies, although I'm sure it ended up costing a lot more than they anticipated given the 2-year delay and engineering challenges. So far, with less than 300 orders for passenger VLAs over the 12 years that the A380 has been on offer, Boeing's VLA market outlook has been more accurate than Airbus'.

Boeing's and Airbus' market estimate is exactly the same and it has always been exactly the same. Airbus took the plunge on the A380 because they knew that there was no room for the two manufacturers in this niche market and for whatever reason felt that the risk outweighed the lack of a VLA in their portfolio. Boeing was more conservative in their approach when they decided to launch the 748i. At the end of the day, the fact that SQ has already ordered new A380's to replace existing A380's speaks volumes for the longevity of the A380 program. If every current A380 operator will follow in SQ's footsteps and replace their existing A380's with newer A380's, the program will be very succesfull and profitable with the current customers alone.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 53, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9485 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sbworcs (Reply 51):
With regard to break even for B787 being upwards of 1600 units. Ar these actual projections or guesses?

Boeing's initial accounting block for the 787 is 1100 deliveries. However, the accounting block is not how many airframes Boeing believes they need to deliver to be profitable - it is a measure of how many airframes they believe they can deliver over the life of the program. To use Boeing's definition, the accounting block "is our estimate of the quantity of airplanes that will be produced for delivery under existing and anticipated contracts. It is bounded by our ability to make reasonably dependable estimates of both revenue and cost." So over time, the accounting block rises to reflect additional sales.

Like Airbus and the A380, Boeing's guidance on "break even" has been in relation to a delivery price equal to or greater than the production cost. At the moment, Boeing's guidance on "production break-even" is before the end of the decade (Airbus had projected A380 production break-even in 2015, but with the wing issue that may have been pushed back).

Boeing never publicly releases when a program breaks--even so there will likely never be an official statement on when 787 program total revenues equal (much less exceed) 787 program total costs. Analysts will take a stab at it, as they have with every previous Boeing Commercial Airplanes program, but it will at best be an educated guess.


User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4329 posts, RR: 28
Reply 54, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9150 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 33):
If Boeing saw no future in a VLA then why did they build the 748 in the first place?

I think it was a low-cost option to hedge their bets against the A380 in case the VLA market did take off. However, in hindsight, that "low cost" turned into a far higher cost and a drain on resources. Had Boeing the vision to see that and how small the VLA market really was going to pan out to be, they would have let the 747 line die with the 400 series.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 40):
The long term business case for VLA aircraft is still very much valid.

That is, at best, speculative. The VLA market hasn't panned out yet in numbers that would indicate it's a good investment for an aircraft manufacture - witness both Boeing and Airbus losing money on their VLA offerings. And given what is looming on the horizon in the form of new programs that address smaller capacity markets and will eat into the VLA segment, it would appear that any "business case" for VLA aircraft is still yet to be identified.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 36):
Quoting par13del (Reply 28):
The impetus for the 748i was the 748F, the pax version is an off shoot of the freighter model and Boeings views of the cargo market demands / desires

That is categorically incorrect, is repeated ad-nauseam on here, and corrected ad-nauseam.
At launch, boeing projected 2/3 of 748 sales to be intercontinentals.

I believe that ratio pertained to the life of the program, not at the beginning of the program life, which is where we're at currently. And that may yet prove a correct claim. Assuming Boeing doesn't pull the plug on the program anytime soon and walk away from this weak market segment.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlinesbworcs From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 844 posts, RR: 5
Reply 55, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 9075 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 53):

Many thanks. So is the 1600 mentioned likely to be the accounting block of likely total sales or the analysts guesstimate of break even?



The best way forwards is upwards!
User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 56, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 9094 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 50):
What a ridiculous point. How you can write off an aircraft that has only been in service for a little over 5 years is beyond me - incidentally the 747 at exactly the same stage in its life had just under 300 orders and Boeing had already had to go to the expense of developing the 200 variant to increase range and payload. Undoubtedly you would have written it off as being an indefensible financial disaster too.

The 747 at this point in its development life (12 years after launch, or 1978) had sold 433 airframes, and the commercial aircraft market then was much smaller than today. Boeing also ran into significant problems during 747 development, but it was extraordinarily fortunate in that McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed knocked each other out with the DC-10 and L-1011 and Airbus was in its infancy. Thus, the 747 would have no major competition in the large aircraft market for another 25 years. As has been mentioned earlier, the 747 also sold not just for its capacity but also for its range, which was not approached until the advent of the MD-11, A340, and 777. The A380 faces much greater competitive pressure than the 747 did in its heyday: the 747-8I, however anemic its order book may be, does put a limit on Airbus' pricing power, and the 777-300ER, 777-9X, and A350-1000 are also indirect competitors with similar range. None of these bode well for the A380.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 50):
Finally, during A380's development the break-even figure was 250 frames

As mentioned, Airbus finds itself in a rather different position today than it expected at launch. See slide 17 on this EADS presentation, which as of 2006, increased the breakeven point from 270 aircraft to 420 aircraft and reduced the program's internal rate of return from 19% to 13%. This analysis is now six years old and Airbus has still not achieved its target production rate, so unit costs are almost certainly running above projections even today. They have also just taken a €250 million charge on the wing cracking issue. Both of these will push the breakeven figure higher. 500-600 frames is probably a a reasonable guess at this stage.

And again, projects of this scale and risk are not taken on simply to achieve breakeven. It's now been 12 years since the A380's launch, seven years since first flight, and five years since first delivery. To claim that it's still too early to draw any conclusions about the program's financial performance is simply wishful thinking. This is the stage in a commercial aircraft's life cycle when unit costs should be falling sharply, production rates are stable or rising, and significant cash flow is being generated to offset development expenses and fund the next generation of programs (e.g. the A330 and 777 over the last decade). The A380, on the other hand, continues to be an albatross.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 50):
Do you honestly think that in they won’t be able to reach 500 orders in the next 20-30 years?

As I said before, if the VLA market is as lucrative as Airbus (still) expects, I think it's naive to think the A380 will have it all to itself for another 20 or 30 years. The A380 is likely to be the last aluminum widebody, and adding winglets or new engines will not be nearly enough to restore competitiveness against a second- or third-generation CFRP aircraft in the same market segment. For example, Boeing will have to re-wing, re-engine, and substantially stretch the 777-300ER to even approach the A350-1000's operating economics. The 747's 30 years of dominance at the top of the market was a historical anomaly largely due to Boeing's lack of a serious competitor over most of that time frame. There is no reason to expect the same thing for the A380.

-B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 57, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 8942 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sbworcs (Reply 55):
So is the 1600 mentioned likely to be the accounting block of likely total sales or the analysts guesstimate of break even?

I am of the opinion this is a "program break even" figure as I believe the 787 family will exceed that number in sales.


User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2526 posts, RR: 7
Reply 58, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 8845 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 36):
Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 33):
If Boeing saw no future in a VLA then why did they build the 748 in the first place?

Good question

It would be a good question if Boeing had seen no market for a VLA, but as has been stated many, many times, they never said that.


User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1593 posts, RR: 8
Reply 59, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 8727 times:

The A380 was built for prestige and to provide jobs; with government funding behind them very little thought was given to profit--the 748 was built to prevent the A380 from making a profit and maybe making some cash on the side. If the VLA market is more than a niche 15 years from now technology (BWB, ???) will have bypassed the A380 no matter how much it improves.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 60, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 8052 times:

The firm order of 262 airplanes for the A-380 averages just 21.8 airplanes per year for the 12 year old program (from launch in 2000). The B-747-8 was launched 5 years later, in 2005 and has 111 total firm orders for the 7 year old program, an average of just 15.8 airplanes per year.

So the B-747-8 is not that far behind the A-380, sales wise.

We have to remember that 90 of the ordered A-380s are just for one airline, EK. Take that order out and Airbus averages only 12.6 airplanes per year (152 airplanes).

Neither of the offered VLAs are burning up the sales book records.

Combined the B-747-8 and A-380 account for just 373 airplane sales over the last 12 years, or 31 airplanes average per year. Generally the B-737NG/MAX and A-32XCLASSIC/NEO each have many more orders than that in a month. Even the B-767, which many like to point out as being at the end of its producable sales has outsold the combined A-380/B-747-8 in the past 12 years (with the KC-46A sales included) with 410 airplanes ordered (34.1 per year).


User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2798 posts, RR: 4
Reply 61, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7866 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 59):
The A380 was built for prestige and to provide jobs; with government funding behind them very little thought was given to profit--the 748 was built to prevent the A380 from making a profit and maybe making some cash on the side. If the VLA market is more than a niche 15 years from now technology (BWB, ???) will have bypassed the A380 no matter how much it improves.

Although the governments have an interest in Airbus they are a for profit business. We all have our favorite manufacturers and want them to do well but please let the facts speak not emotion.
Blue



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 39
Reply 62, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7103 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 59):
The A380 was built for prestige and to provide jobs; with government funding behind them very little thought was given to profit

Oh no. Not this again. That is absolutely total rubbish which has been discussed at least a 1,000 times here.  .

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 61):
We all have our favorite manufacturers and want them to do well but please let the facts speak not emotion.

Very true. I could not agree more.  


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 63, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7063 times:

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 56):
.....

I don’t refute the fact that the A380 hasn’t exactly gone to plan and it certainly has cost significantly more than Airbus ever intended, my objection is to the firm belief by many on here that the A380 is doomed to failure but the 787 which is in just as big a hole, if not deeper, will somehow be okay.

Further to that point, if we were to try and estimate the future sales of the 787 from its recent performance then the outlook would be very grim indeed. However anyone with a little common sense would know that the recent cancelations are a direct result of the delays during development and not a true representation of it’s potential. Why isn’t the same privilege afforded to the A380? As you have pointed out, the A380 has yet to reach it’s full production rate, hence there is still a long lead time which is going to have a negative effect on orders.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 60):
The firm order of 262 airplanes for the A-380 averages just 21.8 airplanes per year for the 12 year old program (from launch in 2000). The B-747-8 was launched 5 years later, in 2005 and has 111 total firm orders for the 7 year old program, an average of just 15.8 airplanes per year.

Although I understand why you are referring to the A380 as “12 years old” (it certainly makes things look worse doesn’t it?) it’s not really a fair representation. The vast majority of orders for a type have come after its EIS – This for the A380 is 5 or so years ago.

I also find your negative outlook for the A380 somewhat comforting. If I remember correctly you were one of the more persistent posters predicting doom and market share loss when Airbus launched the NEO… Let’s hope your predictions are just as accurate this time around.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25346 posts, RR: 22
Reply 64, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6854 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 47):
There is barely a market for the A380 much less two of them. It would end up like the L1011 v DC10 debacle, which neither won.

I think it's clear the DC-10 won with 446 sold compared to only 250 L-1011s which almost bankrupted Lockheed and did bankrupt Rolls-Royce and resulted in the company being nationalized by the British government (and if not mistaken a U.S. government bailout of Lockheed to avoid jeapordizing their defence programs).

And the MD-11 was so closely related to the DC-10 that it could have been called the DC-10-50, in which case the comparison is 646 vs. 250.


User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 65, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6119 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 63):
Further to that point, if we were to try and estimate the future sales of the 787 from its recent performance then the outlook would be very grim indeed. However anyone with a little common sense would know that the recent cancelations are a direct result of the delays during development and not a true representation of it’s potential. Why isn’t the same privilege afforded to the A380? As you have pointed out, the A380 has yet to reach it’s full production rate, hence there is still a long lead time which is going to have a negative effect on orders.

The 787 business case benefits tremendously from the fact that it has a very clear market opportunity. There are thousands of 767s, 777-200s, MD-11s, A300s, A330s, A340-300s, and even 757s that will need replacing over the next 10-15 years, and the 787 should capture a large proportion of those orders. The A350 is already geared to the upper end of this segment, and with the A350-800 looking like the weakest member of the family, the 787 will have a huge swath of the widebody market to itself. Boeing clearly bungled 787 production about as badly as is imaginable, but it has moved heaven and earth to get the supply chain back on track and is now on pace to build 10 787s per month within a year. I don't think even Airbus would question the long-term viability of the 787.

By contrast, the A380's market opportunity is essentially unproven and remains so 12 years after its launch. 747-400 passenger orders were already slowing down by the time the A380 launched, due in part to an aging design but also to the fact that the 777 was eating into its market. Today, the major carriers are retiring their 747-400s in droves: think of SQ, QF, JL, NH, CX, AI, AF, BA, SA, AC, UA, etc. I don't have exact figures, but I'd guess that hundreds of 744s have left the first-tier airlines over the past 5 years or so. The replacement for the vast majority of these frames was the 777-300ER. The A380 is simply not converting enough of the retiring 747 fleet to fulfill its sales goals. Looking forward, the A350-1000 and 777-9X will be even more attractive replacements than the 777-300ER given their lower CASM.

One could blame slow A380 sales on lack of availability, but if VLA demand were actually that strong, then one would expect at least some orders to defect to the 747-8I, just as most 787 and A350 customers have continued to order A330s (or even 767s for NH and LA) to bridge the gap. We aren't seeing any evidence of this. And if pent-up demand exists but a lack of slots were really the cause of slow sales, one would think that Airbus would devote the resources needed to get production on track, just as Boeing has. Yet the A380 line is still at less than 3 per month after six years of serial production. Blaming cabin wiring only works for so long when 777-300ERs for the same airlines with the same premium cabins are rolling out of Everett at >8 per month.

The A380 is a magnificent engineering achievement, but its business case grows less, not more, certain with every passing year. The 747-8 is in the same predicament, especially since the vast majority of 747-8F orders would have gone to the 777F or 747-400F, meaning Boeing has spent billions of dollars to land probably a dozen or two additional orders at the margin.

As an enthusiast, I'm glad these planes were built and would love to fly on them both someday, but it takes a wilful suspension of disbelief to argue that they are selling in the numbers the OEMs intended. The VLA market simply has not panned out, and with ever more efficient alternatives (A35J, 78J, 779X) eating away at the A380's CASM advantage and an ongoing step change in the way aircraft are built (aluminum -> CFRP), it will not have decades and decades to recoup its costs.

-B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 829 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6068 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 60):
Neither of the offered VLAs are burning up the sales book records.

Compare the resale/lease prices for an A380 to 748, the A380 is holding it's value very well. That indicates the level of latent interest in the planes.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 67, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6016 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 66):
Compare the resale/lease prices for an A380 to 748, the A380 is holding it's value very well. That indicates the level of latent interest in the planes.

That being said, the long-term value prognosis for the 747-8 is still about as strong as the A380-800 - likely due to the expectation of a future Boeing Converted Freighter option.

[Edited 2012-11-21 17:42:02]

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 68, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5982 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 50):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 42):
If you fill it. Efficiency is only profitable if you can load up the airplane. That's not to say the A380 can't be economically competitive (it certainly can be) but it's a mistake to think that efficiency wins the day. Profit wins the day.

I%u2019m not entirely sure what your point is here, as I%u2019m not aware of any aircraft which is able to operate profitably when empty.

Yes, this applies to any aircraft. The point is that, since the A380 is so big, you have to be a lot more careful with it (in terms of route structure & frequency) to fill it than something smaller. The A380 is wonderful provided it's well matched to its route, just like any aircraft, only the number of good route matches is much smaller. The A380 will end up being a huge success, I'm sure, but just blindly running it based on great CASM will destroy its business case.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 59):
The A380 was built for prestige and to provide jobs; with government funding behind them very little thought was given to profit

Although it's an open argument whether it will in fact turn a profit, there's really no evidence that it wasn't *supposed* to turn a profit.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 59):
the 748 was built to prevent the A380 from making a profit and maybe making some cash on the side.

The 748 was built to keep the freighter market firmly Boeing, and that worked.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 63):
my objection is to the firm belief by many on here that the A380 is doomed to failure but the 787 which is in just as big a hole, if not deeper, will somehow be okay.

The 787 has more paths out of their hole. I don't think either is doomed to failure but it's a lot more obvious that the 787's market is robust and the 787's financial problems are a result of program execution. That's less apparent for the A380, though it may be true.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 63):
As you have pointed out, the A380 has yet to reach it’s full production rate, hence there is still a long lead time which is going to have a negative effect on orders.

That's disturbing unto itself...there is no earthly reason for the A380 not to be at full production rate by now.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 64):
And the MD-11 was so closely related to the DC-10 that it could have been called the DC-10-50, in which case the comparison is 646 vs. 250.

I don't think one wants to invoke the MD-11 on the side of any argument about "winning."

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 66):
Compare the resale/lease prices for an A380 to 748

How? No leassor bought 747-8i and nobody is reselling them right now. The 747-8F has no A380 to compete with.

Tom.


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1074 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5951 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 66):
Compare the resale/lease prices for an A380 to 748, the A380 is holding it's value very well. That indicates the level of latent interest in the planes.

That is a bit disengenuousness, since there is No resale value to compare with?

And, I wonder why/how that argument would be any different from the A320/737 or present WB lease rates across all models?

Just saying...



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 829 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days ago) and read 5687 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 68):
How? No leassor bought 747-8i and nobody is reselling them right now. The 747-8F has no A380 to compete with.

Kind of my point. The A380 has a value, and it is high compared to new, because it is a viable commodity. The 748i on the other hand doesn't. When I looked in topic about leasing values, the A380 was in there, the 748 wasn't.

[Edited 2012-11-21 22:15:17]

User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (1 year 10 months 4 days ago) and read 5642 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 28):
The impetus for the 748i was the 748F, the pax version is an off shoot of the freighter model and Boeings views of the cargo market demands / desires.

Yet the forecasts were for 2:1 sales ratio 748i:748F

Hmm... Perhaps they figured the margins on the freighter model would be higher or something.

Quoting redflyer (Reply 54):
I think it was a low-cost option to hedge their bets against the A380 in case the VLA market did take off.

The only really plausible argument for actually building the 748 IMO. As a hedge, rather than something worth betting billions on, in and of itself.


User currently offlinesolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 72, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5542 times:

Quoting mitris (Thread starter):
Maybe A Larger B747-8i To Compete With A380

Take notice Boeing.
If they´re to make a bigger 748i then Airbus have the A389 in service before
we can say "superheavies"  



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently onlineUnflug From Germany, joined Jan 2012, 478 posts, RR: 2
Reply 73, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5477 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 60):

We have to remember that 90 of the ordered A-380s are just for one airline, EK. Take that order out and Airbus averages only 12.6 airplanes per year (152 airplanes).

It's always a good approach in statistics to carefully select your numbers before doing the math, isn't it?

 


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 74, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5394 times:

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 65):
One could blame slow A380 sales on lack of availability, but if VLA demand were actually that strong, then one would expect at least some orders to defect to the 747-8I, just as most 787 and A350 customers have continued to order A330s (or even 767s for NH and LA) to bridge the gap. We aren't seeing any evidence of this.

This might speak more about the 748 than the VLA market.

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 65):
The replacement for the vast majority of these frames was the 777-300ER.

Not the vast majority. And as the 77W really is more a VLA than a mid-twin (check how payload relates vs. 744), we can state that one of the largest markets in the last 10 years has been exactly the VLA market. In hardly any other market so much capacity (total number of seats) has been sold.

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 65):
The A380 is simply not converting enough of the retiring 747 fleet to fulfill its sales goals.

It does not need to. A significant number of the today ordered A380's do not replace older VLA's at all. They conquered markets where neither the 747 or any other VLA have been operated before. After some time A389NEO's will replace A388's so the conversion rate you mention in fact is pointless.

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 65):
Looking forward, the A350-1000 and 777-9X will be even more attractive replacements than the 777-300ER given their lower CASM.

Lower CASM than the 77W. But not lower than the A380's.

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 65):
The VLA market simply has not panned out, and with ever more efficient alternatives (A35J, 78J, 779X)

The 779X would belong to the VLA market as well.


User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2715 posts, RR: 25
Reply 75, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5386 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 60):
So the B-747-8 is not that far behind the A-380, sales wise.

The thread opener was refering to the B 748i, not the freighter.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 60):
We have to remember that 90 of the ordered A-380s are just for one airline, EK. Take that order out and Airbus averages only 12.6 airplanes per year (152 airplanes).

What kind of relevance has such an analysis for the on-going discussion? It's like analysing the sales numbers of the 747 without counting the airframes delivered to BA or LH (or PA, which might be a better example). If there would be no Emirates, airlines such as AF, LH or QR an EY would adsorb EK's market share and would operate a higher number of A 380s.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 60):
Even the B-767, which many like to point out as being at the end of its producable sales has outsold the combined A-380/B-747-8 in the past 12 years (with the KC-46A sales included) with 410 airplanes ordered (34.1 per year).

Before you mixed freighters and pax versions, now you even mix freighters, pax versions and military planes.


Anyway, and here I fully agree because I made the same calculations: right now Boeing's forecast for VLAs is closer to the reality than Airbus' forecast.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 59):
The A380 was built for prestige and to provide jobs; with government funding behind them very little thought was given to profit

Yes, of course...   


User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1574 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5319 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 59):
The A380 was built for prestige and to provide jobs; with government funding behind them very little thought was given to profit

Are you new here? do some reading>learn some facts>come back and discuss facts.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 60):
We have to remember that 90 of the ordered A-380s are just for one airline, EK. Take that order out and Airbus averages only 12.6 airplanes per year (152 airplanes).

OK then topboom we'll do your version of statistics, if you take away the LH order from the 748i then you are left with only three orders per year. That means that you think the A380 is 4.2 times as good as the 748i, wow, I had no idea you were such a Airbus fanboy.

Fred


User currently offlinetravelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 938 posts, RR: 12
Reply 77, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5257 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 74):
It does not need to. A significant number of the today ordered A380's do not replace older VLA's at all. They conquered markets where neither the 747 or any other VLA have been operated before. After some time A389NEO's will replace A388's so the conversion rate you mention in fact is pointless.

I question this one.

With the exception of EK all of the major players have been previous 747 operators.

QANTAS use to have a fleet of 36 747's. In a few years time they will have a combined fleet of twenty one A380's and 747's.

MH also had a large 747 fleet. By the end of the year they will have retired all 747's and only have a total A380 fleet of six aircraft.

Singapore Airlines have a fleet of 19 A380's with 6 newly on order. They were also a large 747 operator and I would hazard a guess and suggest they have reduced the number of VLA's as a percentage of their total fleet.

Air France moved away from the 747 years ago and their order for only 12 A380's again I would suggest is a move away from a VLA fleet type.

Korean has sixteen 747's in their fleet with five new 748i's on order. Their order for five A380's would suggest a reduction in their VLA fleet.

Asiana Airlines bucks the trend, with six A380's on order to replace (I'd suggest) their previously small 747 fleet.

Thai, again a previously large operator of the 747 has only ordered six A380's.

BA has twelve A380's on order and have made comments about follow on orders, but at this stage it is unclear if A380's will replace their entire 747 fleet.

Of the remaining airlines some have a question mark over their A380 orders (VS, Kingfisher, Austral, Hong Kong Airlines, Skymark) whilst others haven't received even their first A380 for any of us to come to a conclusion.

In the end this brings as back to the largest A380 operator of all, Emirates. Probably a bit (a bit of an understatement) of a blip in the statistics, but they are really the only ones who have truly bucked the VLA fleet type curve.

On the flip side, with all the talk of airlines joining forces it just might be the case the VLA market could represent a larger percentage of the aircraft sales pie.

I think there is more at play than just the aircraft itself!


User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5155 times:

Thanks for the analysis Travelhound. On top of other things previously said the distribution of the international traffic has dramatically changed the past 10 years. As you suggest the billion dollar question for the next 10 years is what will be the outcome of all these airlines joining forces.


Never trust the obvious
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 79, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5106 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 63):
The vast majority of orders for a type have come after its EIS – This for the A380 is 5 or so years ago.

No sir, the A-380 has sold 106 airplanes since 2007, about the same number as the B-748 has sold. The A-388 sold 156 airplanes between 2000 and 2006.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 66):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 60):Neither of the offered VLAs are burning up the sales book records.
Compare the resale/lease prices for an A380 to 748, the A380 is holding it's value very well. That indicates the level of latent interest in the planes.

We have no idea what the resale value of a good condition but used A-388 or B-748 will be. Remember the first several examples of each type were heavier than spec'ed for, thus will have a 'lower value' than more mature examples. Also the resale value will depend heavierly on what they will be used for (pax, P2F conversion, etc.) and are just on major world fuel price spike from becoming almost worthless (as would any 4 engined airplane). Fuel prices are what depressed the A-340 resale values.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 80, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5083 times:

Quoting travelhound (Reply 77):
I question this one.

With the exception of EK all of the major players have been previous 747 operators.

So what? I said "A significant number of the today ordered A380's do not replace older VLA's at all.".

You wrote a long post that proves that I would hypothetically be wrong if EK would not be there. While we are living in a world where EK does exist. How weird is that?

EK is the perfect example why looking at the replacement of 744's only prevents you from understanding the full potential of the A380 (as demonstrated by the post I answered). The A380 has opened up new market models and is heavily used by airlines, which never used 747's before.

And I also believe that there are other orders than those from EK, that fall into that category. So your long list somehow is not exhaustive.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 81, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4998 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 80):
The A380 has opened up new market models and is heavily used by airlines, which never used 747's before.

Well EK didn't even exist until 1985 and spent it's first decade as mostly a regional carrier.

I'd argue that was because EK didn't start their major expansion phase until the early 2000's and when they did, there were better options than the 747-400 - the 777-300ER, A340-600 and the A380-800 - and those were the planes EK purchased.

If EK has started their massive growth phase in the early 1990s, I'm confident they'd have flown the 747-400.



Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 80):
And I also believe that there are other orders than those from EK, that fall into that category.

And almost all of them are, like EK, "young" airlines that came into their prime in the 2000's (heck, EY and IT both didn't even exist until 2003). So like EK, they were too small to operate a VLA when the 747 was the only option.


User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 82, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4969 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 64):
I think it's clear the DC-10 won with 446 sold compared to only 250 L-1011s which almost bankrupted Lockheed and did bankrupt Rolls-Royce and resulted in the company being nationalized by the British government (and if not mistaken a U.S. government bailout of Lockheed to avoid jeapordizing their defence programs).

And the MD-11 was so closely related to the DC-10 that it could have been called the DC-10-50, in which case the comparison is 646 vs. 250.

After the DC-10, MDD never again developed an entirely new aircraft. All subsequent models were simply derivitives of existing frames.


User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10038 posts, RR: 96
Reply 83, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4973 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 81):
And almost all of them are, like EK, "young" airlines that came into their prime in the 2000's (heck, EY and IT both didn't even exist until 2003). So like EK, they were too small to operate a VLA when the 747 was the only option.

Sort of proves the point, really, though that. Doesn't it?

The percentage of A380's that have NOT gone into a direct role as a 747 replacement is very high, no matter what arguments are put forward.   

Who knows, in 20 years time, someone like Indigo or Air Asia between them might be operating as many A380's as EK do today...
Unlikely I admit.
But then lots of unlikely things tend to happen in the future
That's what makes it fun  

Rgds

[Edited 2012-11-22 07:37:33]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 84, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4915 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 83):
Sort of proves the point, really, though that. Doesn't it?

It depends on the point you are trying to make.

If the point is that EK would never have expanded like they have if they only had the 747, I'd disagree.

During the 1990s, the 747-400 was the best long-haul, high-capacity platform available. Airlines that operated high-capacity long-haul services employed the 747-400 for this reason. In the 2000's, the A340-600 and 777-300ER supplanted the 747-400 as the best long-haul, high-capacity platform available so it should be no surprise that customers who were just starting long-haul, high-capacity routes like EK, EY and QR didn't pick the 747-400, but instead picked the A340-600 and 777-300ER. But if the A340-600 and 777-300ER had never come to market, the 747-400 would have remained the best long-haul, high-capacity platform available and I posit that EK, EY and QR would have bought them to support their expansion policy.


If the point is that EK has expanded like they have because the A380 is a better expansion platform than the 747, I would agree.

For now in the 2010's, the A380-800 is the best long-haul, high-capacity platform available and that is the one more and more airlines are choosing.


User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10038 posts, RR: 96
Reply 85, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4788 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 84):
It depends on the point you are trying to make.

The point was very simple.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 74):
Quoting B2707SST (Reply 65):
The A380 is simply not converting enough of the retiring 747 fleet to fulfill its sales goals.

It does not need to.

These A380's are frequently not "1 for 1" replacing 747's, but going into fleets that have never used 747's, indeed for the reasons you state.   
Which means the existence of 747's isn't the only indicator of the health or otherwise of the A380's market, or its success.

The reasons for that are interesting, but inconsequential to the point

Rgds


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 86, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4778 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 84):
It depends on the point you are trying to make.

If the point is that EK would never have expanded like they have if they only had the 747, I'd disagree.

No, the point that was made, was that the 744-to-A380 conversion rate would representative for the future success of the A380. I only tried to explain, that this is wrong...


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 87, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4782 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 79):
No sir, the A-380 has sold 106 airplanes since 2007, about the same number as the B-748 has sold. The A-388 sold 156 airplanes between 2000 and 2006.

With the A380 you are of course correct as it's EIS was only 5 years ago - Which was my point in the first place!!


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 88, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4765 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 87):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 79):
No sir, the A-380 has sold 106 airplanes since 2007, about the same number as the B-748 has sold. The A-388 sold 156 airplanes between 2000 and 2006.

With the A380 you are of course correct as it's EIS was only 5 years ago - Which was my point in the first place!!

Well, A380 has sold about 260 in about 12 years - about 21 per annum
A380 has sold about 100 in the last 6 years - about 16 a year

The trend is obviously downwards...  

A380 has sold 30+ in the last 18 months, I think.

The trend is obviously upwards, I think...  


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 89, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4723 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 85):
Which means the existence of 747's isn't the only indicator of the health or otherwise of the A380's market, or its success.
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 86):
No, the point that was made, was that the 744-to-A380 conversion rate would representative for the future success of the A380.

Okay. I understand now.

And yes, as 747-400 operators were already replacing those planes with A340-600s in the 1990s and 777-300ERs in the 2000s, replacing 747-400s would not be the only reason an airline would order the A380-800, but just one reason.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6910 posts, RR: 46
Reply 90, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4574 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 42):
Very similar pattern to the original 747, actually...the impetus then was the passenger version but they expected the vast majority of sales to be freighters.

The original conception of the 747 was that it would have a short life as a passenger carrier and then the airlines would all buy SST's, and the 747's would be relegated to freight. It didn't turn out that way, but because that was the perception the 747 was designed very much with the secondary role of a freighter in mind. And because of that it has become clearly the best freighter out there, both as a new build and as a conversion vehicle. And I expect the 748F to continue to soldier on and keep the line going for many years to come.

As to the 748i, I do not see a very bright future for it. As others have noted, it is being squeezed by the A380 from above, and the 77W from below, and is soon going to have to face the A35J and 777-9X as well. Oh, well, it will still be in demand for heads of state, including the next AF1. Regrettable, as the 747 is still my favorite airliner.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinetravelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 938 posts, RR: 12
Reply 91, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4512 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 74):
It does not need to. A significant number of the today ordered A380's do not replace older VLA's at all. They conquered markets where neither the 747 or any other VLA have been operated before. After some time A389NEO's will replace A388's so the conversion rate you mention in fact is pointless.
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 80):
The A380 has opened up new market models and is heavily used by airlines, which never used 747's before.

I would argue the success or failure of the EK model (and airlines of similar like) is not dependent upon the A380 (especially when you consider the like airlines have yet to receive A380's) . The A380, like the 77W simply suits the model being pursued by EK and as such I can't follow the A380 "conquered" and "opened up" markets (past tense and plural) argument.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 86):
No, the point that was made, was that the 744-to-A380 conversion rate would representative for the future success of the A380. I only tried to explain, that this is wrong...

... but you can't argue part of the success of the A380 was dependent upon the conversion rate of 744-to-A380. If we go back to the 2001 - 2005 period, when most of the major airlines still had a significant number of 747's in their fleet, the replacement of the large majority of those aircraft didn't go the A380's way.

During that period I was working on an airport based around the A380 conquering the market. I remember quite clearly how the A380 went from transforming the market to being a risk to airlines. As such (and there were many factors) the appeal of the A380 diminished quite quickly (along with the plans for the airport). Strange as it may seem, my interest in airlines developed from the hype surrounding the A380.

From my limited knowledge of airline economics I'd suggest the future success of the A380 isn't going to be solely dependent upon the A380 itself, but other factors with the main one being consolidation of the market. If this does happen we just might see airlines veering away from 77W and A350-1000 type aircraft back to traditional VLA aircraft where the A380 holds centre stage.

Now if EK is leading the change in the market back to traditional VLA's, because it is conquering, that is a different argument.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 829 posts, RR: 0
Reply 92, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4470 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 79):
We have no idea what the resale value of a good condition but used A-388 or B-748 will be. Remember the first several examples of each type were heavier than spec'ed for, thus will have a 'lower value' than more mature examples. Also the resale value will depend heavierly on what they will be used for (pax, P2F conversion, etc.) and are just on major world fuel price spike from becoming almost worthless (as would any 4 engined airplane). Fuel prices are what depressed the A-340 resale values.

We do know how the resale price of an A380 is going, it was in the currently leasing values topic. The 777 and A380 are both holding their value very well.


User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 93, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4435 times:

Quoting solnabo (Reply 72):
Take notice Boeing.
If they´re to make a bigger 748i then Airbus have the A389 in service before
we can say "superheavies"  

Take LH 747-8i configuration. Boeing can use the Aeroloft space from door 3-5 and add 50 seats with biz jet like atmosphere. Even at 32" pitch, such seats can easily be marketed as economy+ or even economy++.

IMHO, such 747-8i can create headache for many A388 markets and indeed force the entrance of the A389, which probably addresses a smaller market than even the A388.

The beauty, and unlike A389, is that Boeing does not need to extend the airframe. Only internal cabin structures, and the most difficult - an escape system, need to be designed.

The extra weight of the cabin structures may reduce the range somewhat, but most airlines would probably love the CASM with the lower trip cost and still be able to make a lot of money on their high density routes.


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 94, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4384 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 93):
Take LH 747-8i configuration. Boeing can use the Aeroloft space from door 3-5 and add 50 seats with biz jet like atmosphere. Even at 32" pitch, such seats can easily be marketed as economy+ or even economy++.

IMHO, such 747-8i can create headache for many A388 markets and indeed force the entrance of the A389, which probably addresses a smaller market than even the A388.

If that would not cost much to do why does Boeing not offer it to make the aircraft more attractive to potential customers? There are reports that Boeing has opted not to sell to some interested airlines because the price they were prepared to pay was too low. I get the impression that Boeing feel they have a product that will depress margins on A380 sales and if anyone wants to order it at a price that makes a decent profit, so much the better. If not, so what - the line can be used to build freighters instead of pax 748's.


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 95, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4289 times:

Quoting art (Reply 94):
If that would not cost much to do why does Boeing not offer it to make the aircraft more attractive to potential customers?

Because although it might be relatively simple to install the seats and load the passengers into the OSU, getting them out in a hurry during an emergency situation isn't so simple.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 96, posted (1 year 10 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4141 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 93):
The extra weight of the cabin structures may reduce the range somewhat, but most airlines would probably love the CASM with the lower trip cost and still be able to make a lot of money on their high density routes.

There is nothing really preventing the MTOW being raised. So the range could be held constant.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 97, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3928 times:

Quoting travelhound (Reply 91):
but you can't argue part of the success of the A380 was dependent upon the conversion rate of 744-to-A380.

Of course I don't.
I only countered a claim that the 744-to-A380 conversion rate would give the full picture.


User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1364 posts, RR: 3
Reply 98, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3881 times:

Quoting art (Reply 94):
There are reports that Boeing has opted not to sell to some interested airlines because the price they were prepared to pay was too low. I get the impression that Boeing feel they have a product that will depress margins on A380 sales and if anyone wants to order it at a price that makes a decent profit, so much the better. If not, so what - the line can be used to build freighters instead of pax 748's.

Right. The thing is that Boeing really have no interest in the A380's profit margins. If they sell a 748i, it's to help their bottom line, not to hurt Airbus'.

As it stands, there's almost no interest in the 748i at the price Boeing feels is reasonable. Discounting for the sake of moving them out the door makes no sense, as there's no standing inventory they need to dump, and there's no reason to have 748i's clogging up the 748f line at a discount.

If it were something like the 737, or even the 787, the premium may not matter as much, given that an airline would be likely to order much greater numbers of either, and for several more years as well. Given the potential for spares & tech support, there it makes sense to work with a customer on price (as long as it's not Michael O'Leary,   ). But for a few one-offs for a type in her twilight years, not so much.

Oddly, it also doesn't make any sense to discount the 748f either, given the complete lack of competition there. I would not be surprised if BCA is not quite as flexible on those frames as they would be on the aforementioned 737s & 787s.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
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...
AF To Revamp 777s To Compete With Gulf Carriers posted Tue Sep 18 2012 09:17:27 by g500
EK To AMS With A380 . . .? posted Fri Oct 21 2011 06:10:35 by PW100
Emirates To Paris With A380 29 December posted Mon Dec 28 2009 10:44:15 by Haan
SQ Flies To SYD With A380 - Which Flight Number? posted Sun May 27 2007 05:27:00 by Industrybuff
Virgin America To Compete With JetBlue posted Wed Mar 21 2007 19:21:29 by FA4B6
Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783? posted Wed Feb 22 2006 09:20:55 by PADSpot
Boeing - SQ Must Buy Boeing To Compete With QF? posted Mon Dec 26 2005 21:06:14 by Halibut
748 A Twin? Can It Compete With A380? posted Wed Nov 30 2005 21:31:43 by 777236ER
A Way For Airbus To Compete With 773ER posted Wed Nov 23 2005 01:56:30 by BG777300ER
NW To Compete With Frontier On IND-CUN posted Mon Nov 21 2005 04:47:53 by Indy