DWC wrote:

So the parallel is there : Boeing offers a linear point to point strategy whereas Airbus went holistic factoring in congestion, pax comfort, economic efficiency (well, in 2000 it looked way better ), deck commonality & so forth. Expanding airports indefinitely is not the solution, even Heathrow will have to cut NB service to increase pax numbers. Tons of VLAs are just barely better, I was recently in Dubai & it drowns in pollution, not to mention that QR, EY, Air Arabia, FlyDubai & a few others all happily contribute to make the Gulf a new green paradise on Earth. cough cough.

Help me out with this part of your post, I am going on the assumption that it is not a shot.
Dubai is drowning in pollution and they are the largest user of the A380, obviously that a/c is not helping. The EU is leading the world charge on climate change with all their carbon credits and other environment restricting measures, indeed they also seem to want to restrict a/c movement even more, so how will this affect the A380 going forward, it can't be good for the a/c going forward in Europe, unless the thought is that an even larger A380 will be required.

osiris30 wrote:

For 12 years here on a.net my issue with the 380 was always the economics of its size (and the chaos that was the engineering on the program). I was ridiculed, moderated to hell and back, etc

My sympathy...
I can't imagine how frustrating A380 discussions here were before we had actual market failure instead of "just" well-reasoned predictions of such failure. And [sarcasm] I'm sure all your interlocutors from those years have honorably conceded they were wrong and you right since then [/sarcasm].

osiris30 wrote:

Everyone here arguing the technical inefficiencies of the 380 is forgetting the fact that it just does not fit the market. Not for any physical design reason. Lowering the CASM 10% wouldn't help it

I somewhat disagree with this though.
I agree that there was probably no feasible design for a 550-seater that would have made business sense to launch in 2000.
I disagree, however, that the A380's economics wouldn't hurt/help it apart from its size. A simple thought experiment for this is to imagine a CASM improvement such that A380's trip cost is only 10% higher than 77W's (instead of ~50% higher). That means ~60% more seats and/or more space/pax for 10% more cost.
In that world, my intuition is it's obvious that the A380 outsells the 77W.
Clearly that world isn't feasible but what about 20%? 30%?

Had Airbus optimized for ~10% less capacity than A388, with no built-in A389 capability, they could have produced a plane with ~15% lower fuel/pax, ~25% lower trip fuel, and lower maintenance, en route fees, and production cost.

It's still a hard business case to close but we'd have seen at least a profit-producing production run and decent sales numbers.

Matt6461 wrote:

osiris30 wrote:

For 12 years here on a.net my issue with the 380 was always the economics of its size (and the chaos that was the engineering on the program). I was ridiculed, moderated to hell and back, etc

My sympathy...
I can't imagine how frustrating A380 discussions here were before we had actual market failure instead of "just" well-reasoned predictions of such failure. And [sarcasm] I'm sure all your interlocutors from those years have honorably conceded they were wrong and you right since then [/sarcasm].

osiris30 wrote:

Everyone here arguing the technical inefficiencies of the 380 is forgetting the fact that it just does not fit the market. Not for any physical design reason. Lowering the CASM 10% wouldn't help it

I somewhat disagree with this though.
I agree that there was probably no feasible design for a 550-seater that would have made business sense to launch in 2000.
I disagree, however, that the A380's economics wouldn't hurt/help it apart from its size. A simple thought experiment for this is to imagine a CASM improvement such that A380's trip cost is only 10% higher than 77W's (instead of ~50% higher). That means ~60% more seats and/or more space/pax for 10% more cost.
In that world, my intuition is it's obvious that the A380 outsells the 77W.
Clearly that world isn't feasible but what about 20%? 30%?

Had Airbus optimized for ~10% less capacity than A388, with no built-in A389 capability, they could have produced a plane with ~15% lower fuel/pax, ~25% lower trip fuel, and lower maintenance, en route fees, and production cost.

It's still a hard business case to close but we'd have seen at least a profit-producing production run and decent sales numbers.

Could have, would have, should have. Blah, blah, blah.

osiris30 wrote:
Everyone here arguing the technical inefficiencies of the 380 is forgetting the fact that it just does not fit the market. Not for any physical design reason. Lowering the CASM 10% wouldn't help it

Fit what market? There are markets where the A380 is doing a fine job. So I think you need to be a little more specific.....

So, what's the conclusion?

Strato2 wrote:

Not this age old "one airline" bs once more. The A380 hating club never gets it that money is money is money.It means zilch if it comes from multiple sources or not.

And yet Airbus itself was going around saying it would not do winglets on A380 for just one customer, EK, whilst EK was still dangling a ~36 frame order out in front of them and looking for exactly that kind of improvement. End result: no extra customers so no winglets.

A diverse customer base matters because it lowers risk. EK succeeded beyond almost everyone's wildest imaginations. The problem for Airbus is in the process EK has undermined other airlines that otherwise would be operating more A380s in more diverse scenarios that would have led to more sales. WN and FR's disruptive LCC business model led to other competitors that Airbus was able to sell into. EK's disruptiveness and dominance in international travel hasn't led to viable competitors taking up A380s to follow their business model. In fact it's led to reductions on traditional international routes at other traditional Airbus customers, and it's led to the world's largest 777 fleet and zero A350 sales at EK too. It's clear that EK's dominance has not been a good thing for Airbus.

VV wrote:

So, what's the conclusion?

Look at the orders and you have your answer.

I conclude this thread will continue to go in circles for the next five years

moa999 wrote:

I conclude this thread will continue to go in circles for the next five years

Why five years?
Could it be 7.23 years?

NZ321 wrote:

osiris30 wrote:
Everyone here arguing the technical inefficiencies of the 380 is forgetting the fact that it just does not fit the market. Not for any physical design reason. Lowering the CASM 10% wouldn't help it

Fit what market? There are markets where the A380 is doing a fine job. So I think you need to be a little more specific.....

Those markets are but a handful, thus in general it does not fit what the market wants. You only need to look at what the market chose instead, 777, 350, 787 and 330. Sure, EK makes it work but they use 380's like other carriers use 777's.

Revelation wrote:

And yet Airbus itself was going around saying it would not do winglets on A380 for just one customer, EK, whilst EK was still dangling a ~36 frame order out in front of them and looking for exactly that kind of improvement. End result: no extra customers so no winglets.

That's not quite played out yet, as EK plays the engine card for the 787, latest A380 order and 777X. There is a reason all three remain qualified (subject to engine-related agreements, and more for the 777X), and it's not just about cradle to grave pricing.

If GE win, supported by Boeing, the A380 order may be gone, and more 777X's ordered.

If RR win, supported by Airbus, the 777X, and maybe even the 787 may be gone, replaced by A350 and more A380.

If EK don't prevail, and GE and RR hang tough, could we see a situation where neither pitch for the A380?

NZ321 wrote:

osiris30 wrote:
Everyone here arguing the technical inefficiencies of the 380 is forgetting the fact that it just does not fit the market. Not for any physical design reason. Lowering the CASM 10% wouldn't help it

Fit what market? There are markets where the A380 is doing a fine job. So I think you need to be a little more specific.....

Ok: Nearly every market it was projected to sell 100s or 1000s into. How is that? In fact the market it was designed for failed to materialize in any major way. The plane was outclassed in efficiency by LESS RISKY aircraft of a smaller size. It is doing well in one market (comparatively speaking). In the others it is largely an also ran.

Antarius wrote:

osiris30 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Indeed. They should have done what Boeing did with 757: issue a last call for orders then shut down the line. Instead they're doing what Boeing is doing with 748, and both are making a mistake. They're both wasting manpower and real estate that could be doing something that makes a good profit. Instead they're accepting a marginal profit under the delusion that some future wave of orders will make them profitable again.

I think neither will still be in production in five years time.


Yes, the "good old days", sigh.

Indeed to good old days. Seems some are still living the past. As for the 748 I can at least partially understand the logic in keeping the line if there is a belief internally freighters will be ordered. However, I think Boeing is likely telling potential customers that the window is small and once the 777x is on line in freighter mode I expect they will so that last call for orders.

The a380 is also loses money per built aircraft at this point per Tom Enders. This excludes the massive development cost writedown etc.

I do not believe that this is true for the 748. Boeing isnt making money hand over fist but they arent paying out of pocket to keep the line going, especially since the UPS order and now the latest few. So there is no incentive to shut the line down and keep it available for potential orders. I expect if there are 0 748F orders forward the end of the line will be determined.

Revelation's point (quite rightly) is the opportunity cost of that man power and space. It is better used on higher margin products or to open delivery slots for competitive advantages during sales campaigns. I can't on one hand bash the 380 on said same opportunity cost and ignore it is equally relevant in the near future for the 748 as much as I love 747s.

Antarius wrote:

I do not believe that this is true for the 748. Boeing isnt making money hand over fist but they arent paying out of pocket to keep the line going, especially since the UPS order and now the latest few. So there is no incentive to shut the line down and keep it available for potential orders. I expect if there are 0 748F orders forward the end of the line will be determined.

Boeing took a Forward Loss on the program in June of 2016 so the three dozen or so frames they have sold since are not covering any deferred production costs. All that is left is unamortized tooling costs which amount to less than $150 million and almost all of that is expected to be recovered from the remaining program accounting quantity.

Matt6461 wrote:

DWC wrote:

Airbus or Boeing are no idiots.

Nonetheless they've made terrible decisions occasionally (A380, A340NG, 767-4, 747-8)

Of these bad decisions, only the A380 is clean sheet program.

If one were to count immediate predecessors/components: Concorde and the MD11 can be added as well.

One a clean-sheet and perhaps the ultimate commercial airliner flop, the other a poorly-executed derivative.

Revelation wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

Not this age old "one airline" bs once more. The A380 hating club never gets it that money is money is money.It means zilch if it comes from multiple sources or not.

And yet Airbus itself was going around saying it would not do winglets on A380 for just one customer, EK, whilst EK was still dangling a ~36 frame order out in front of them and looking for exactly that kind of improvement. End result: no extra customers so no winglets.

A diverse customer base matters because it lowers risk. EK succeeded beyond almost everyone's wildest imaginations. The problem for Airbus is in the process EK has undermined other airlines that otherwise would be operating more A380s in more diverse scenarios that would have led to more sales. WN and FR's disruptive LCC business model led to other competitors that Airbus was able to sell into. EK's disruptiveness and dominance in international travel hasn't led to viable competitors taking up A380s to follow their business model. In fact it's led to reductions on traditional international routes at other traditional Airbus customers, and it's led to the world's largest 777 fleet and zero A350 sales at EK too. It's clear that EK's dominance has not been a good thing for Airbus.

Or could it be that the 380 only really worked for EK. I myself used to be in the EK was too successful camp but now I’m not so sure.

DWC wrote:

By not serving food in domestic flights, charging for bags, adding more seats in rows, cutting all perks & whatever makes a flight pleasurable, the US3 have lowered themselves beyond belief & lowered their standards to near LCCs while charging more (like Finnair) & people opinion is reflected in Skytrax, which are the new joke around now as they seem to be corruptable given the hilarious 5* to Lufty on the basis of a new biz class not on airplanes before 2020 & in a handful long haul frames at that, hell, even Aeroflot & TK have a much better intraEuropean biz class than LH.

Linear thinking is pathetic, Asian laugh at it & look down at the West & rightfully so. It is useful if all holistic criteria are taken into account. You can bet KE, EK, QR, TG, CX, SQ, HA, NH, JA & others will never lower themselves to treating Pax the way the US3 do - I have tried them all & never again thank you. Jet Blue & formerly Virgin offer a better service.

.

SQ's Scoot division is growing much faster than SQ, so you have lost that bet. Also NH & JL on their domestic flights (which is about 80% of their passengers) are much more like LCC than FSC - they don't serve food on domestic flights. They famously had 550 seats on 777-300 to compete with Shinkansen. In Indonesia Lion & Citilink, in India Indigo, in SE Asia Air Asia have all been vety successful

So you don't even understand the Asian aviation market.