gilesdavies
Posts: 2268
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 7:51 pm

Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:13 am

I hope I dont get in trouble as I am not a moderator, but have started a 2nd thread for this subject.

The old one had over 300 responses!!!

http://www.airliners.net/discussions...eneral_aviation/read.main/3051135/

I will post my comments once I have finished reading all 300+ in the other thread! Only 200 more to go!

[Edited 2006-10-22 23:19:23]
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Par

Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:42 am

THANK YOU  bouncy  fillllllller more filler and still more filler
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Par

Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:48 am

Carried over from the other thread and quoting Cfalk:

Quote:
Considering that the initial sale at heavy discounts has only been 159 units over the past 6 years (and virtually none in the past 2 or 3 years), I would be worried if Boeing were building it.

62 strikes me as a bit more then "virtually none".

Quote:
But since Airbus does not need to repay the EU loan if the A380 is not profitable by 2018, I fully expect Airbus to make sure that they are just not profitable enough, default on the loan, and find themselves with a nice windfall. The bill goes to the EU taxpayers.

While the EU may very well decide to postpone or forgive RLA repayments if the A380 program proves a bust, until they do so, Airbus is under obligation to repay that aid per the schedule.

[Edited 2006-10-22 23:56:49]
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:55 am

Quoting Gilesdavies (Thread starter):
I hope I dont get in trouble as I am not a moderator, but have started a 2nd thread for this subject.

The old one had over 300 responses!!!

I gave him his chance, Lad -- good show.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:07 am

Joni from your post on the first thread:

Quote:
Good point - let's limit "aerospace" to "aircraft".

Why... both are weight sensitive industries. Satellite launches even more so than commercial aircraft. If satellites are using composites for weight over welding Al-Li what makes you think Al-Li could possibly perform better from a weight perspective? Al-Li is better than Al sure, but not as lightweight as composites. If you have more specific information on what the make up of the composite Boeing is using I'll be happy to find out weights needed for various loadings.

Quote:
How many B787-10s are there on order? I had the impression the program wasn't yet launched, but I haven't been following the situation very closely so I may be wrong.

The 787-10 isn't even available to be ordered yet. So it's not surprising there are no orders for it. I can say the same thing about the 389 but that would be kind of stupid.

Quote:
pulling data from the Wikipaedia [sic] 787 page and Airbus

So you're comparing an unofficial and unaudited source to an official one?!? You know better than that  Wink Wiki is handy, but I would never rely on it to settle a debate  Wink

Dynkrisolo:

If you have some specific numbers so we can validate the %s it's great. But you have cited any sources for the veracity of those numbers is something that can't be determined or even inferred based upon their sources.

Stitch:

Quote:
While the EU may very well decide to postpone or forgive RLA repayments if the A380 program proves a bust, until they do so, they're under obligation to repay that aid per the schedule.

I don't think the EU can do that under their current laws. I think Airbus is pretty much SOL. Now that's not to say they can't be lent more money on a 17 year basis to payback the current loans LOL. But at some point it will have to stop. If the EU doesn't it will be very interesting to see what happens with the WTO etal.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:10 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Carried over from the other thread:

Everyone who suggests that the A380 will not make money and diverted resources from Airbus's main business areas is a witch and shall be burned at the stake forthwith.

Even though it is true...  Wink
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:43 am

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 4):
If satellites are using composites for weight over welding Al-Li what makes you think Al-Li could possibly perform better from a weight perspective? Al-Li is better than Al sure, but not as lightweight as composites. If you have more specific information on what the make up of the composite Boeing is using I'll be happy to find out weights needed for various loadings

Similar but different question: what are the thermal expansion properties of CFRP vs. Al-Li? Does CFRP hold its shape better, and if so does that make it possible to design to tighter tolerances? I need to do some reading...but if true I could see where the structure would be lighter simply because you lessen the allowances for thermal shrink/stretch.
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Par

Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:58 am

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 4):
Dynkrisolo:

If you have some specific numbers so we can validate the %s it's great. But you have cited any sources for the veracity of those numbers is something that can't be determined or even inferred based upon their sources.

I just find it amusing people believe there is an exact number. There isn't. Airbus, Boeing, GE, and Rolls all have their nominal marketing figures. But none of them use a consistent set of rules. Engine companies seldom publish SFC. You can find single operating point value, but it is rather meaningless. This is because an aircraft engine doesn't ever operate at a single point. In addition, Rolls usually quotes cruise SFC, but GE and P&W quote takeoff SFC. Also, just looking at SFC doesn't give you the whole picture. For example, the RB211-524H/T on the 744 is about a couple of percentage point worse in fuel burn than the PW4000 or CF6 powered 744s. The same engine on the 763er is about 5% worse than the PW4000 or CF6 powered 763er. Depending on the stage length, aircraft configuration, airline operating rules, this number can vary.

One important message I have for you all is SFC does not equal to fuel burn. A 1% improvement in SFC does not directly translate to 1% better fuel burn, but there is certainly a strong correlation between the two. You have to take into consideration of the aircraft/engine system.

Without detailed aircraft/engine performance analysis, we can only discuss ballpark figures. Until Boeing, Airbus, GE, and Rolls publish detailed aircraft and engine performance characteristics in the public, then I can discuss with you in details. Unfortunately, none of them do, then I can just discuss the subject at 10,000ft level. In day-to-day operations, airlines see how much fuel is used, not what the SFC an engine has.

Too bad that my simple explanation can't convince some of you. If you want to believe the T1000 is more than 12% better in SFC than T900, please be my guest. If you believe this number, then ask yourself how come the 787 is only burning ~20% less fuel than the 767? Does the engine industry have major technology breaktrhroughs in the past four years? If you can answer these questions to your own satisfaction, then maybe the 12% figure is correct.  Wink
 
n844aa
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 10:38 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:05 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5):
Everyone who suggests that the A380 will not make money and diverted resources from Airbus's main business areas is a witch and shall be burned at the stake forthwith.

Sigh. Sad, because it's true. It annoys me that you can't think the aircraft isn't the greatest thing since the Wright Flyer without being accused of bias and/or irrational hatred -- hmm, much like B6 on this board.  Wink
New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:32 am

Or DL, or the business case for EK's billion seat expansion, or the reality that LHR/FRA are congested due to too many small planes and not a lack of mammoth jets, etc...

Ooo, a new name! The MammothJet!
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:37 am

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 7):
Too bad that my simple explanation can't convince some of you. If you want to believe the T1000 is more than 12% better in SFC than T900, please be my guest. If you believe this number, then ask yourself how come the 787 is only burning ~20% less fuel than the 767? Does the engine industry have major technology breaktrhroughs in the past four years? If you can answer these questions to your own satisfaction, then maybe the 12% figure is correct.

It's not that your simple explanation doesn't convince me. I want hard numbers LOL, so I can make up my own mind, rather than you telling me what to think. That's why I asked for any sources. You cited x% lower burn than y where y is x'% less than z, but I have no idea where you got those numbers from to either side with or against your numbers.

I mean if we're all pulling number out of the air (or our a**es) I'll just go with 42  

[Edited 2006-10-23 02:37:59]
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Par

Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:06 am

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 10):
I mean if we're all pulling number out of the air (or our a**es) I'll just go with 42

If I could share the hard numbers with you, I would.

If you think I pull the number out of thin air, then be it.

If you have some basic engineering understanding, then my simple logic shouldn't be too hard to follow.

You should not be just looking for one number. Once again, if you have some basic engineering understanding, you should know this.

One last time, if you don't want to believe my explanation, you don't have to. I have said this too many times.

[Edited 2006-10-23 03:07:10]
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:12 am

Simple math really. But the A-380 cheerleaders will cheer on.
One Nation Under God
 
astuteman
Posts: 6340
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:26 pm

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 7):
Too bad that my simple explanation can't convince some of you

Referring to your quote from the previous thread, Dynkrisolo:-

"AFAIK, the 787 engines have no more than 3-4% better fuel burn than the 380 engines"

FWIW GE themselves have said that the SFC difference between the GEnx and GP7000 is 4%. So as far as GE is concerned, YOU are correct  Smile

Obviously this doesn't help an RR engine comparison, but I'd be amazed if it were substantially different.

Airbus have said that the engines for the A350XWB will be 2% better SFC than the GEnx, i.e. 6% better than GP7000.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 10):
I mean if we're all pulling number out of the air (or our a**es) I'll just go with 42

From my seat, that would currently appear to be an obligation on Airliners.net.

Hopefully, GE aren't pulling numbers out of their a**es.......

Regards
 
sparkingwave
Posts: 563
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:01 pm

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:54 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9):
Ooo, a new name! The MammothJet!

Be careful, the mammoth was a big animal that became extinct. Similarly, around here you could end up being flamed out of existence for using that metaphor!

SparkingWave ~~~
Flights to the moon and all major space stations. At Pan Am, the sky is no longer the limit!
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:50 pm

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 4):
Why... both are weight sensitive industries.

Because the requirements are different. Shipbuilding is also a weight-sensitive industry.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 4):
The 787-10 isn't even available to be ordered yet. So it's not surprising there are no orders for it. I can say the same thing about the 389 but that would be kind of stupid.

This was exactly my point.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 4):
So you're comparing an unofficial and unaudited source to an official one?!? You know better than that Wink Wiki is handy, but I would never rely on it to settle a debate Wink

If the figures I quotes from Wikipaedia are wrong, feel free to correct them.

WRT comparing the smallest variant B787, I also used the smallest variant A380 and as I noted in the post, the calculation is very rough in any case as the issue of carried pax depend so much on the seating arrangement (you can cram in 9-abreast on a B787, OTOH you can cram in 870 pax in an A380) and fuel costs are only 30% of CASM in any case, even with today's oil prices.

WRT re-engining the A380, the concept is not limited to using B787 engines, but on the contrary if the decision to re-engine is done in 2010, then engines from that time can be used.

(sorry I missed the quotes since the thread was migrated)
 
astuteman
Posts: 6340
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:11 pm

Quoting Joni (Reply 15):
Shipbuilding is also a weight-sensitive industry.

Although the armchair experts on a-net would have you believe differently of such a "low-tech" industry, Joni.  boggled 

Regards
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:49 am

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 7):
Too bad that my simple explanation can't convince some of you. If you want to believe the T1000 is more than 12% better in SFC than T900, please be my guest. If you believe this number, then ask yourself how come the 787 is only burning ~20% less fuel than the 767? Does the engine industry have major technology breaktrhroughs in the past four years? If you can answer these questions to your own satisfaction, then maybe the 12% figure is correct. Wink

Your "new math" leaves something to be desired. If I have 100 cars and sell 50% of them I have 50 left. If I then sell 50% of those, I have 25 cars left which is 25% of 100 while your new math says I have none because you can add percentages. You can't. They are ratios, and are only meaningful if you have the numbers. So show us the numbers.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:45 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 17):
Your "new math" leaves something to be desired. If I have 100 cars and sell 50% of them I have 50 left. If I then sell 50% of those, I have 25 cars left which is 25% of 100 while your new math says I have none because you can add percentages. You can't. They are ratios, and are only meaningful if you have the numbers. So show us the numbers.

Lovely. If you don't understand it, don't pretend to be. I didn't do any adding or subtracting of percentage. You can go back to my original thread a find one place that I added or subtracted percentages. I did later on explained for small percentage numbers, you can add or subtract percentages to get the first-order effect.

Let me use the 787 engine as the base (i.e., 1), then if Widebodyphotog's number is correct, the 380 engine would be 1.136: (1 - 1.136) / 1.136 = -12%. This is achieved with about 4 years of technology difference. If we take Boeing's statement that the 787 will burn 20-25% less fuel, and let's be generous and assume the engine improvement is 20%. Then the 767 engine would have a value of 1.25: (1 - 1.25) / 1.25 = -20%.

Then in about 20 years from the 767 to the 380, the engine only improved 9%: (1.136 - 1.25) / 1.25 = -9%.

AFAIK, the 767 to 787 engine SFC improvement is only slightly more than 15%. Then the 767 would have a value of 1.18: (1 - 1.18)/ 1.18 = -15%.

Then in about 20 years from the 767 to the 380, the engine only improved ~4%: (1.136 - 1.18) / 1.18 = -4%.


In the more optimistic case, it would be 20 years with 9% improvement v 4 years with 12% improvement; or more realistically, it would be 20 years with 4% improvement v 4 years with 12% improvement. There isn't any major engine technology breakthrough in the past 4 years that would allow this kind of dramatic improvement. Therefore, by simple deduction, you know the 12% number can't be correct.

BTW, who has verified that the numbers Widebodyphotog had was authoritative? Just because it sounds right to someone doesn't mean his numbers are correct.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:51 am

Dynkrisolo, you're argument is logical but it omits an important point. The B787 is expected to sell several thousand engines, so it is profitable for the manufacturers to invest a lot of money in development and squeeze out the best performance they can. The WhaleJet is expected to sell several hundred engines, so the manufacturers maximize profit by minimizing their development investment and going with a conservative design.
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Par

Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:19 am

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 18):
There isn't any major engine technology breakthrough in the past 4 years that would allow this kind of dramatic improvement. Therefore, by simple deduction, you know the 12% number can't be correct.



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 19):
Dynkrisolo, you're argument is logical but it omits an important point. The B787 is expected to sell several thousand engines, so it is profitable for the manufacturers to invest a lot of money in development and squeeze out the best performance they can. The WhaleJet is expected to sell several hundred engines, so the manufacturers maximize profit by minimizing their development investment and going with a conservative design.

I agree with Zvezda that your logic, now that I can follow it, basically is based on no technological breakthroughs, which runs counter to Rolls Royce talking about a three-shalf narrowbody engine as well as PW talking about their geared fan.

The other thing you missed is all those older engines were developed with oil at under $25 USD a barrel. The price has been as high as $75 USD this summer and while it is down to about $60, the OPEC is reducing production. That means fuel costs will be 30% to 40% of CASM, making more expensive but more fuel efficient engines very salable.

If you chose to believe that there is no technogical breakthrough possible then so be it. However, both Zvezda and I spent years in Silicon Valley and watched the "impossible" get done on a daily basis.

[Edited 2006-10-23 21:37:59]
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Par

Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:32 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 20):

If you chose to believe that there is no technogical breakthrough possible then so be it. However, both Zvezda and I spent years in Silicon Valley and watched the "impossible" get done on a daily basis.

 checkmark ....darn right..I live in Silicon Valley also..and I've seen majour changes even after the dot.com/telecom bust...the speed at which things change (and become obsolete) is just amazing...!

Cheers...
"Up the Irons!"
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:45 am

To be fair, software is not as bound to the laws of physics and jet turbines are.  Wink
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:11 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
To be fair, software is not as bound to the laws of physics and jet turbines are. Wink

Software? What are you talking about? We are talking chips, ASICs, computers, telecommunications, fiber optics, ADSL. All of those required physics that makes a jet engine look primative, which it is.

"You mean they use REACTIVE engines? Scotty?"
"Aye Captain, they cainy think about gravity engines, they're so backward."
"Then beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life forms down here."
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:19 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 19):
Dynkrisolo, you're argument is logical but it omits an important point. The B787 is expected to sell several thousand engines, so it is profitable for the manufacturers to invest a lot of money in development and squeeze out the best performance they can. The WhaleJet is expected to sell several hundred engines, so the manufacturers maximize profit by minimizing their development investment and going with a conservative design.

Oh please! But 1,000 A380s would be equivalent to 2,000 787s, in terms of engines sold. If we believe Airbus's forecast of 1,200 aircraft larger than the 747 to be sold in the next 20 years, then your argument isn't really valid.

On a very high level, the engine performance is gained through better cycle design which includes two very basic paramters, namely bypass ratio and overall pressure ratio. The higher the bypass ratio, the better the propulsive efficiency the engine will have. The higher the overall pressure ratio, the better the thermal efficiency the engine will have.

Since you are so fond of Rolls engines, I have collected the following data from RR's site as well as AW&ST 2006 Aerospace Source Book.

RB211-524G:
bypass ratio (BPR): ~5(can't find the number on RR's site, but the T700 is 5, http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil_aer.../downloads/airlines/trent_700.pdf)
overall pressure ratio (OPR): 32.9 (from AW&ST)
SFC: 0.58

Trent977:
BPR: 8.7-8.5 http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil_aer...e/downloads/airlines/trent_900.pdf
OPR: 41.1
SFC: 0.52

Trent 1000-D1:
BPR: 10-11 http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil_aer.../downloads/airlines/trent_1000.pdf
OPR: 50
SFC: 0.506

As you can see, the changes in BPR and OPR between the -524 and the T900 are more signficant than the corresponding changes between the T900 and T1000. This is the natural technology progression that I was talking about.

Further, to prove my point using the AW&ST data:

from the 767 to the 787: (0.506 - 0.58) / 0.58 = -13%
from the 380 to the 787: (0.506 - 0.52) / 0.52 = -3%

Anyway, I don't think AW&ST data is completely accurate, but at least it's more reasonable. So, happy now?
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Par

Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:27 am

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 24):
Oh please! But 1,000 A380s would be equivalent to 2,000 787s, in terms of engines sold. If we believe Airbus's forecast of 1,200 aircraft larger than the 747 to be sold in the next 20 years, then your argument isn't really valid.

1)Airbus won't sell 750 A380's...the 748+A380 probably won't sell 1000 frames
2)2000 787's + hundreds (if not over 1000) of A350's (when its launched)=more sales than 748+A380...
"Up the Irons!"
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:33 am

Quoting SparkingWave (Reply 14):
Be careful, the mammoth was a big animal that became extinct.

Yeah, but it's my favorite extinct animal from that era and all the kids love it!

Quoting Poitin (Reply 17):
They are ratios, and are only meaningful if you have the numbers.

That isn't true for small percentages. We are using approximations under 5% here, and you can add them without losing much accuracy.

Take your 100 cars.

Sell 10%. Then sell 10% of the remaining. You are left with 81, or 81%. You sold 19%.
Sell 20% off the bat. You are left with 80, or 80%.
81/80=1.0125. When we are talking rough numbers, it's not that much, but it still means enough.

Take 1000 cars (for simplicity).
Sell 5%. Then sell 4%. You are left with 912 cars.
Sell 9% off the bat. You are left with 910 cars.
When we are talking rough numbers, 912/910= 1.0022. Barely worth worrying about unless you make me sign a contract with cost penalties for being wrong.

Take SFC of 0.55.
Take off 5 then 4%, you get 0.5019
Take off 9% up front, you get 0.5005
Both those numbers are within tolerance for you level of precision (two decimal places). Both round to 0.50.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Par

Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:36 am

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 24):
Oh please! But 1,000 A380s would be equivalent to 2,000 787s, in terms of engines sold. If we believe Airbus's forecast of 1,200 aircraft larger than the 747 to be sold in the next 20 years, then your argument isn't really valid.

Current sales evidence that the VLA market is much smaller than 1200 frames. Airbus has no chance of winning all the sales in that segment. There is virtually no chance that the currently WhaleJet engines will still be in production 20 years from now -- even many WhaleJet cheerleaders are talking about a reengining and it isn't even in service yet!

The chances of combined A350/B787 sales being only 2000 is just about zero. Try nearer to 5000.

Trent 1000s could easily outsell Trent 900s by a factor of 10. Ditto for GEnx vs GP7200. It might be only a factor of 5 but, either way, a very different level of R&D went into the programs.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:38 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 25):
1)Airbus won't sell 750 A380's...the 748+A380 probably won't sell 1000 frames

I didn't say they will, but please check Airbus's GMF. They have forecasted over 1,200 aircraft larger than the 747, both pax and freighter a/c. That's why I said "if we believe Airbus's forecast".

Quote:

2)2000 787's + hundreds (if not over 1000) of A350's (when its launched)=more sales than 748+A380...

Engine is priced based on thrust, not pure number. Since the 380 needs more engine thrust than most of the 787 models, so the value of each 380 engine will be higher. Also, the 350XWB will not use the same engine the 787 will use.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:47 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 27):
Current sales evidence that the VLA market is much smaller than 1200 frames

The 380 was launched with the business case built in the late 90s, not what we can see now. I have never said it will sell 1,200 frames. I was merely quoting what Airbus has said.

I'm not sure why you are still arguing. I have shown you that there is no technology breakthrough in the lasst four years by comparing the BPR and OPR. I have also shown the relative improvements were indeed what I had said earlier.
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:50 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 26):
Take your 100 cars.

Sell 10%. Then sell 10% of the remaining. You are left with 81, or 81%. You sold 19%.
Sell 20% off the bat. You are left with 80, or 80%.
81/80=1.0125. When we are talking rough numbers, it's not that much, but it still means enough.

Let's put this in to prespective. I said,

    They are ratios, and are only meaningful if you have the numbers.


I have some cars. I sell 10% of them. Then of the remainder I sell 35% of those. Next day I sell 34.9% of the remainder, only to sell the day after 27.%

How many cars did I sell?

Without the number of cars somewhere along the way the whole statement is valueless. I could have had 1000 cars or 1 million cars. There is a lot of difference.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
RAPCON
Posts: 651
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:20 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:57 am

Quoting SparkingWave (Reply 14):
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9):
Ooo, a new name! The MammothJet!

Be careful, the mammoth was a big animal that became extinct. Similarly, around here you could end up being flamed out of existence for using that metaphor!

What about calling the A380: BRABAZON II
 Silly
MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:05 am

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 31):
What about calling the A380: BRABAZON II

The Brabazon was innovative. The only similarities I can see are the use of higher pressure hydraulics, the extreme size, and, of course, the disappointing sales.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5807
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:06 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 27):
Current sales evidence that the VLA market is much smaller than 1200 frames. Airbus has no chance of winning all the sales in that segment. There is virtually no chance that the currently WhaleJet engines will still be in production 20 years from now -- even many WhaleJet cheerleaders are talking about a reengining and it isn't even in service yet!

Indeed. And Airbus is caught in a Catch-22 (to avoid borrowing Halibut's phrase) here. Either Airbus sucks up most of a slim market, or the market in that space picks up to the point of being profitable and Boeing comes back with an entrant based upon newer technology.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Par

Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:15 am

didn't say they will, but please check Airbus's GMF. They have forecasted over 1,200 aircraft larger than the 747, both pax and freighter a/c. That's why I said "if we believe Airbus's forecast".

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 28):
That's why I said "if we believe Airbus's forecast".

If you didn't believe it, then why did you raise the point?

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 28):
Engine is priced based on thrust, not pure number. Since the 380 needs more engine thrust than most of the 787 models, so the value of each 380 engine will be higher. Also, the 350XWB will not use the same engine the 787 will use.

More of your new Math? If I have two engines, each rated at 50,000 pounds thrust they cost as much as one engine rated 100,000 pounds thrust?

Interesting  scratchchin  Sounds like a meat market -- "Can I have 75,000 pounds of thrust to go, please?"

Please explain your statement: "Since the 380 needs more engine thrust than most of the 787 models, so the value of each 380 engine will be higher." I am honestly confused.  boggled 
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Par

Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:19 am

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 28):

I didn't say they will, but please check Airbus's GMF. They have forecasted over 1,200 aircraft larger than the 747, both pax and freighter a/c. That's why I said "if we believe Airbus's forecast".

..and has been stated here ad nauseam those numbers won't be met (even remotely)....not to mention, both Boeing and Airbus have stated that the mid-market twin is where the crux of the value is.....its 2nd only to the single-isle B737/A32X

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 28):
Engine is priced based on thrust, not pure number. Since the 380 needs more engine thrust than most of the 787 models, so the value of each 380 engine will be higher. Also, the 350XWB will not use the same engine the 787 will use.

The larger variants of the A350's engines will have more thrust than that of the A380 engines...this is also not including the the 787-10, which will require more thrust than the A380....The "core" technology for the A350's will basically be the same for those as the B787's....

Cheers..
"Up the Irons!"
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:30 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 34):
If you didn't believe it, then why did you raise the point?

Do you have a crystal ball? I certainly don't. While I think Airbus's number might be high, it's only a gut feel.

Quoting Poitin (Reply 34):
More of your new Math? If I have two engines, each rated at 50,000 pounds thrust they cost as much as one engine rated 100,000 pounds thrust?

Gee! The base 388 uses 70k engine, the base 788 uses 64k engine. The higher gross weight 388f uses 77k engine, the 789 uses 74k engine. Need I say more? New Math? I don't think so.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 35):
..and has been stated here ad nauseam those numbers won't be met (even remotely)....

Okay, you must have a crystal ball. Would you mind telling me how long I will live?  Wink

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 35):
The larger variants of the A350's engines will have more thrust than that of the A380 engines

Don't forget, we could have the -900 or even -1000 for the 380, too.


Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 35):
The "core" technology for the A350's will basically be the same for those as the B787's....

The GP engine core was derived from the GE90, but it's still a major engine development program. So will the 350 engine program. If it's a straight forward, cheap derivative, why do you think GE isn't quick to commit to power the XWB?
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:31 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 30):
I have some cars. I sell 10% of them. Then of the remainder I sell 35% of those. Next day I sell 34.9% of the remainder, only to sell the day after 27.%

For one thing, I said with small percentages, 5% and under, you can add them when you are approximating. This is true.

Further, you apply them to a number. Why you've decided to claim D provided no baseline, I can't say. But he did.

He is not saying "I have some cars" or "I have some thrust."

The whole argument started when D said in comparison to the 767 and 777, the A380 and 787 are X,Y,Z.

Last time I checked, the SFC for the 767 and 777 were known, not arbitrary.

I can neither confirm nor refute D's numbers, but his baseline is a known entity, thus if he wants to add percentages of 3-4%, he can do so without being wrong.

But if he were to add 50% and 50%, he'd be wrong. And I think he knows that and you know that, so the argument is stupid anyway!  Wink
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:33 am

Quoting Poitin (Reply 20):
The other thing you missed is all those older engines were developed with oil at under $25 USD a barrel. The price has been as high as $75 USD this summer and while it is down to about $60, the OPEC is reducing production.

Forgot to address this one. The T1000 and GEnx were designed in 2004 before the oil price started their rapid escalation.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:48 am

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 38):
Quoting Poitin (Reply 20):
The other thing you missed is all those older engines were developed with oil at under $25 USD a barrel. The price has been as high as $75 USD this summer and while it is down to about $60, the OPEC is reducing production.

Forgot to address this one. The T1000 and GEnx were designed in 2004 before the oil price started their rapid escalation.

Even with the just announced production reductions the market sent oil prices lower today. Inventories are high and speculation is that several OPEC members won't abide by the new quotas. Threats of "additional" production cuts in Dec still didn't move the downward price slide today...

Oil prices have fallen below $59 a barrel over doubts whether members of the Opec producers cartel would follow Saudi Arabia's lead and curb output.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6077210.stm

Quite a few energy analyst are saying that oil could be less than $40/bbl within the year.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:50 am

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 24):
RB211-524G:
bypass ratio (BPR): ~5(can't find the number on RR's site, but the T700 is 5, http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil_aer.../downloads/airlines/trent_700.pdf)
overall pressure ratio (OPR): 32.9 (from AW&ST)
SFC: 0.58

Trent977:
BPR: 8.7-8.5 http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil_aer...e/downloads/airlines/trent_900.pdf
OPR: 41.1
SFC: 0.52

Trent 1000-D1:
BPR: 10-11 http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil_aer.../downloads/airlines/trent_1000.pdf
OPR: 50
SFC: 0.506

Thank you very much.. that's all I (at least personally) was asking for  Smile
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:15 am

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 39):
Quite a few energy analyst are saying that oil could be less than $40/bbl within the year.

This is because if oil remains at $60 a barrel for any length of time, it encourages new oil technologies and new exploration. And it also allows the oil companies to earn greater profits to fund it.

OPEC does not want this. The concept that oil can remain at $70 for decade is just not proven by history. If that were to happen, oil sand, oil shale, ethanol and all sorts of other technologies become more viable. Also, it encourages more exploration outside of OPEC nations, which hurts their position forever.

They are hoping beyond hope that this winter is cold in the USA, since we use so much oil in the winter. We had a far cooler than normal summer this year, and predictions are the same for the winter, though it is unclear the effects any el nino will have on this prediction.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:38 am

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 36):
Okay, you must have a crystal ball. Would you mind telling me how long I will live?  Wink

Can't divulge proprietary information... Wink

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 36):
Don't forget, we could have the -900 or even -1000 for the 380, too.

-1000...? Fuggetaboutit...! The -900? Maybe...even then, not too many frames (according to my Crystal Ball)...

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 36):
The GP engine core was derived from the GE90, but it's still a major engine development program. So will the 350 engine program. If it's a straight forward, cheap derivative, why do you think GE isn't quick to commit to power the XWB?

GE has committed to to the XWB series...certainly the -800XWB and possibly the -900XWB...the reason for not being committed to the -1000XWB is for concern that it might cannablise their -300ER/-200LR/-200F market...

Cheers...
"Up the Irons!"
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:59 am

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 24):
If we believe Airbus's forecast of 1,200 aircraft larger than the 747 to be sold in the next 20 years

From the people who were off by almost 100% in development costs...

...sales projections!

And let's face it...if you can't get the scientific part down, what are the odds you are right about the tough stuff?

History has shown that Airbus should seriously consider canning the program and eating a smaller loss now than allowing the 380 to run them into the ground.

Steve
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Tue Oct 24, 2006 11:16 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 33):
Either Airbus sucks up most of a slim market, or the market in that space picks up to the point of being profitable and Boeing comes back with an entrant based upon newer technology.

Those are two conceivable outcomes, but there's still a wide margin between those two events where the A380 could feasible do well. Boeing aren't just going to enter the market to spoil Airbus's fun, they'll want a solid case for ROI and profit too. If their market prediction is 1 frame below this threshold they won't enter, and Airbus can potentially absorb this demand in addition to the orders they'll have attained up until that decision date.

Rj111
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Tue Oct 24, 2006 11:55 am

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 44):
Boeing aren't just going to enter the market to spoil Airbus's fun, they'll want a solid case for ROI and profit too. If their market prediction is 1 frame below this threshold they won't enter, and Airbus can potentially absorb this demand in addition to the orders they'll have attained up until that decision date.

Why do you think Boeing has fielded the 748i... just to soak up that little bit of market... no other reason.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
astuteman
Posts: 6340
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:10 pm

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 43):
History has shown that Airbus should seriously consider canning the program and eating a smaller loss now than allowing the 380 to run them into the ground.

In your opinion, perhaps, but that's all it is.

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 43):
From the people who were off by almost 100% in development costs...

Most of the recently announced financial impacts are due to delay penalties and excess production costs.
IIRC the development cost hasn't actually changed all that much in the recent announcement.

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 24):
from the 380 to the 787: (0.506 - 0.52) / 0.52 = -3%

Thanks for the information Dynkrisolo. This is the maths that's actually relevant to the discussion.  Smile

Regards
 
n844aa
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 10:38 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:18 pm

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 44):
Boeing aren't just going to enter the market to spoil Airbus's fun, they'll want a solid case for ROI and profit too. If their market prediction is 1 frame below this threshold they won't enter, and Airbus can potentially absorb this demand in addition to the orders they'll have attained up until that decision date.

I don't run a business, and never have, so let me pose this question as see if one of the more experienced folks on this forum can answer this for me.

Let's say Boeing goes ahead with the decision to build the 748I of a given size, but projects that they'll ultimately lose $100 million on the project. But they also calculate that by proceeding, they'll impact Airbus's earnings by, say, $300 million. Assume that their projections are accurate. Would it be rational for them to launch the aircraft in that case, if it would cost them money, but cause their main/only competitor to lose more money?
New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1767
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:57 pm

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 24):
Trent977
SFC: 0.52

Whoa! And the much revered Widebodyphotog uses 0.561 in his analyses. What's going on?  scratchchin 

I agree with your analysis that it's more likely to be 0.52... if the spread between a GEnx and a GP7200 is 4 percent, I can't imagine the spread between a T900 and a GEnx being much different.  checkmark 
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!

Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:03 pm

Quoting N844AA (Reply 47):
Let's say Boeing goes ahead with the decision to build the 748I of a given size, but projects that they'll ultimately lose $100 million on the project. But they also calculate that by proceeding, they'll impact Airbus's earnings by, say, $300 million. Assume that their projections are accurate. Would it be rational for them to launch the aircraft in that case, if it would cost them money, but cause their main/only competitor to lose more money?

Boeing wont loose money on the 747-8 . It is a combined 4 billion or near abouts project and they allready have 47 orders to speak off in less then a year from launch . Considering that 15 billion dollars for development required airbus around 300 airframes to breakeven and even if boeing's profit margin is only 60% of what airbus makes on the A380 then on the 4 billion investment boeing perhaps only needs to sell around 100 or so airframes to break even and they look poised to sell perhaps twice that much over the next 25 years or so with the F version !!

Who is online