maps4ltd
Posts: 268
Joined: Tue May 08, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:38 am

There are a lot of people who think demand for the A380 will come roaring back in the 2030s with demand peaking. But I'm not so sure.
Delta Gold Medallion and Southwest A-List
 
questions
Posts: 1915
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:51 am

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:53 am

QF should have ordered the 748!

:duck:
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1391
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:06 am

IslandRob wrote:
flee wrote:
In any case, I do think that it is Airbus combing their A380 order book and they are trying to determine which orders are really firm and going to get delivered. They may have offered an easy way out of the contracts and Qantas took advantage of it.


I think you're right. And, likely RR is doing likewise. -ir


Don’t agree, both companies are well aware which orders are real. The more logical explanation is that both AB and RR are trying to limit losses.

New management is making tough decisions. This is the silver lining in all the grim news.

Could this be a blood on the street type investing moment?

Just today AB announced that they will adopt Dassault systems digital design platform. This is the future but it does not come cheap so why not free up cash from a program that is draining cash?
 
777PHX
Posts: 962
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 4:36 am

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:19 am

American 767 wrote:
Polot wrote:
Lewton wrote:
At the end of 2018 Airbus had a backlog of 87 A380.
Anybody knows who the remaining 79 (87 minus 8) are for?

53 EK
3 ANA
20 Amedeo
3 Air Accord

Amedeo and Air Accord (a company set up where Transaero’s order was shifted to) are also considered dead orders.


And the 53 for EK include the 36 likely to be canceled in favor of A350s. If EK takes the decision not to take them, the total number of units on the backlog will go down to 43. I'm sorry, A380 lovers, but this is unfortunately the beginning of the end of the A380. I have nothing against the A380, but at this point it looks like this is what will happen, to be honest.


It's already been several years in the making with the lack of any non-EK orders.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:30 am

Why would demand come back for the A380 in the 2030's? Even if there were demand for a plane larger than a 777-10X, why would any airline want a warmed over 30 tear old design. By now everyone knows a VLA must offer much better CASM than a smaller aircraft in order to compensate for lack of flexibility. There are going to be more efficient engines. A new 11 abreast twin engined plane with CFRP fuselage and wings could dethrone the 777X at the top of the market.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:08 am

Besides, what would Airbus do with the A380 hall while it waits for the Resurrection Tour to begin in a decade. Make a Museum out of it?
 
tvarad
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:37 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:19 am

Barring the " 'tis only a flesh-wound" defense of the mortally wounded A380 program in the following John Leahy interview, did the engine makers deliberately keep next-gen tech from Airbus when the A380 was on the drawing board as he claims? Did they have some kind of NDA with Boeing which was fleshing out the 787 at the time that prevented them from offering it for the A380? How would the A380 program have panned out if it incorporated the step-change engine tech on aircraft from the 787 onwards into the A380.

https://leehamnews.com/2018/02/16/leahy-remains-steadfast-a380-future/
 
douwd20
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 3:45 am

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:43 am

wingman wrote:
...... but Boeing did guess the market right in the end.


That is the bottom line. Regardless how great the aircraft was Boeing knew the market was not headed in that direction. I still remember the tumultuous day in the industry when Boeing announced they were cancelling their super-jumbo effort and "handing the European Airbus A380 victory in the market". They knew there was no real market.
 
douwd20
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 3:45 am

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:45 am

wingman wrote:
...... but Boeing did guess the market right in the end.


That is the bottom line. Regardless how great the aircraft was Boeing knew the market was not headed in that direction. I still remember the tumultuous day in the industry when Boeing announced they were cancelling their super-jumbo effort and "handing the European Airbus A380 victory in the market". They knew there was no real market.

a.netters also despised Richard Aboulafia because of his spot on observation a decade ago that it was a "dismal failure". He as well turned out to be quite correct.
Last edited by douwd20 on Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8374
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:48 am

Even a NEO can not save the overweight design with a way too large and fat wing. You would need to do a complete MkII version with a lighter fuselage, smaller and foldable wing and new engines, but I can not see airlines wanting so many of it that Airbus will see a realistic market case.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2902
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:01 am

tvarad wrote:
Barring the " 'tis only a flesh-wound" defense of the mortally wounded A380 program in the following John Leahy interview, did the engine makers deliberately keep next-gen tech from Airbus when the A380 was on the drawing board as he claims? Did they have some kind of NDA with Boeing which was fleshing out the 787 at the time that prevented them from offering it for the A380? How would the A380 program have panned out if it incorporated the step-change engine tech on aircraft from the 787 onwards into the A380.

https://leehamnews.com/2018/02/16/leahy-remains-steadfast-a380-future/


Pure BS, as with everything Leahy said about the A380. The 787's engines are not 10% more efficient than A380's; the difference is ~4%. That's entirely in line with the long-term trend of ~1% improvement per year.

CFRP primary structures would definitely have helped the A380 but the business was definitely moving in that direction given CFRP rising usage, including on the A380.

For Leahy to imply subterfuge re the 787's CFRP fuselage is like Blackberry implying Apple should have warned them about the iPhone.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2902
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:05 am

seahawk wrote:
Even a NEO can not save the overweight design with a way too large and fat wing. You would need to do a complete MkII version with a lighter fuselage, smaller and foldable wing and new engines, but I can not see airlines wanting so many of it that Airbus will see a realistic market case.


The thing is that Airbus never even tried to market a serious revision of the A380.
To do so would have required highlighting the disastrous errors it made on Mk1, in order to convince airlines how different a Mk2 would be.
The management unwilling to admit that - few would be.
Instead they spent years pretending everything was fine, just about to be great, and/or could be fixed with a cheap tweak.
A total trainwreck that mismanaged a once-in-a-generation chance to transform air travel.
 
aviationaware
Posts: 2812
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:12 am

Matt6461 wrote:
The thing is that Airbus never even tried to market a serious revision of the A380.


What do you mean "market". Airbus, like Boeing, is in constant contact with major airlines. Some airlines have embedded sales teams. They are constantly marketing improvements and revisions and testing the waters.
The reason nothing came from it is that the airlines were apprehensive and wouldn't go for it. As indicated earlier, CASK was/is NOT the main downfall of the A380. The downfall is the difficulty filling it at attractive (to the airlines) average fares.

A redesign of the A380 would just have been throwing good money after bad.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3775
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:23 am

seabosdca wrote:
Looks like another domino falling in the A380 cancellation story.

It's not really surprising. The time for Mega carriers is over. The A380 premise is over. Time for an A360 with all new technology even in advance of the A350
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3775
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:24 am

strfyr51 wrote:
seabosdca wrote:
Looks like another domino falling in the A380 cancellation story.

It's not really surprising. The time for Mega carriers is over. The A380 premise is over. Time for an A360 with all new technology even in advance of the A350

Like the B787 is to the B767
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2902
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:48 am

aviationaware wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
The thing is that Airbus never even tried to market a serious revision of the A380.


What do you mean "market".


I mean devote serious resources to seriously presenting customers with an option for a substantially revised A380 and, as part of that effort, explaining to customers why the new A380 would be fundamentally different from the old - i.e. explaining why we so badly F'd up the last version and why we know what we're doing now.

None of that happened or something would have leaked.

aviationaware wrote:
As indicated earlier, CASK was/is NOT the main downfall of the A380. The downfall is the difficulty filling it at attractive (to the airlines) average fares.

A redesign of the A380 would just have been throwing good money after bad.


Forgive me but I hear this all the time and the obtuseness of this thought is just galling.
To say on the one hand that price "attractive to airlines" for full fares is the only thing, while somehow failing to consider what's on the other side of price (hint - it starts with a "c"), from someone calling themselves "aviationaware" is just...
Last edited by Matt6461 on Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
aviationaware
Posts: 2812
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:56 am

That's because it has become indefensible.

Matt6461 wrote:
Forgive me but I hear this all the time and the obtuseness of this thought is just galling.
To say on the one hand that price "attractive to airlines" for full fares is the only thing, while somehow failing to consider what's on the other side of price (hint - it starts with a "c"), from someone calling themselves "aviationaware" is just...


No need to get personal mate.

It's just a plain fact that the A380, even after a redesign that would have cost billions, would not have reduced CASK at a level that would have remedied the RASK disadvantage it has over smaller aircraft. I have seen actual numbers of airlines who have replaced A380s with 787s, you wouldn't believe how profitability explodes when you do that.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2902
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:38 am

aviationaware wrote:
It's just a plain fact that the A380, even after a redesign that would have cost billions, would not have reduced CASK at a level that would have remedied the RASK disadvantage it has over smaller aircraft. I have seen actual numbers of airlines who have replaced A380s with 787s, you wouldn't believe how profitability explodes when you do that.


Your plain fact needs some bolstering to be a plane fact.
The 787 undoubtedly has a RASK disadvantage compared to a G650 but don't see that reflected in airline sales because the CASK of a G650 is terrible.
The 77L and A345 were smaller and had lower trip cost than 77W but the CASK difference was too great for the 77W's lower RASK (bigger always means lower RASK) to matter.
A sufficiently good CASK can compensate for a worse RASK; a sufficiently bad CASK can always negate higher RASK.

Once again, you're ignoring cost and talking only about price, leaving the profit question ambiguous absent some actual argument about the magnitude of CASK vs. RASK delta for a hypothetical A380 rework.
It's almost as if we need to consider more than simple CASK vs. RASK - maybe look at the marginal figures for a proposed capacity escalation?

This is like arguing against 2+2=4 because you stopped reading at the first "2". Or arguing that because 2+2=4 then 1+3=4 is false.
4 here is profit whether you get there via 2+2, 8-4, or 20% lower RASK plus 20% lower CASK.

aviationaware wrote:
No need to get personal mate.


I said nothing about you personally; I said the idea you expressed was obtuse.
I've expressed a few obtuse ideas in the past, even here on occasion. I have no opinion (so far) on whether that one thought is a representative sample. [That's not to say I don't get personal here - we only have so much time and attention and at a certain point some posters need to be dismissed]

I agree with you re A380 and 787 btw. In fact I'm usually arguing on the 787's side here.
But that actual plane fact is the result of the A380 being a terrible airline product, easily the worst design of the last 40 years.
Make it a better product and the profitability calculus changes.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2139
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:05 am

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
And as far as I know, the reason GLARE was ditched was because it was too expensive. (even more expensive than CFRP!)


GLARE has always been fighting internal political battles due to not-invented-here syndrome for certain key people.


That is not unique to Airbus.

RR Derby has its fair share of d**kheads with that attitude.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2139
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:23 am

douwd20 wrote:
wingman wrote:
...... but Boeing did guess the market right in the end.


That is the bottom line. Regardless how great the aircraft was Boeing knew the market was not headed in that direction. I still remember the tumultuous day in the industry when Boeing announced they were cancelling their super-jumbo effort and "handing the European Airbus A380 victory in the market". They knew there was no real market.


To a degree that is right, and to a degree the A380-800 is just a bad aeroplane.

Poorly matched wing and fuselage means quite under-optimised performance, which of course means much lower than possible CASM and trip cost.

Couple that with the difficulty in generating sufficient yield off selling that many seats in the first place, and its too much risk of marginal profits, if not losses, on too many flights for airlines to stomach.


If Airbus had built the -900 first, or had sized the wing for the -800, then they would have likely had a 20+% CASM advantage over the 77W. Which would have meant many more sales as the potential savings would have been compelling to the airlines.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5415
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:03 pm

It seems to me that this had to be a mutual decision between QF and Airbus. The fact that it was not tied to any order for other Airbus products says to me that either the deposits for these aircraft were returned or they had been dealt with earlier. I doubt very much that QF walked away from them. And if that is the case, then this is a strong indication that Airbus is trying to clear the way to end the program. I do not see how this plus the EK talks and the 10 cancellations discussed on another thread can have any other interpretation.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20623
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:31 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
Besides, what would Airbus do with the A380 hall while it waits for the Resurrection Tour to begin in a decade. Make a Museum out of it?

Well, China will buy them, because, uhm, they're big!

"We need to convince the airlines that they can increase their market share and increase tremendously their image by buying the A380 and operating them from big Chinese hubs," says Airbus commercial aircraft president Fabrice Bregier at a press conference on 15 January.

"The Chinese market will be the biggest in the world and I believe the biggest market deserves the biggest aircraft."

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... al-444906/

Yep, those Chinese are image conscious so their airlines will have to buy A380s en mass, according to Airbus.

Instead it turns out the Chinese market is developing the same way the rest of the world's market is developing and they're smart enough to realize anyone selling them something to improve their image probably is selling them a product that needs to project an image to make sales rather than selling on its merits.

In retrospect the A380 had a "drug like rush" just as bad as the 787's, and for many if not most A380 addicts their A380 buzz is finally wearing off.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1341
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:04 pm

I think we just have to accept that the environment has changed so much since the A380 was designed that it is no longer viable as a profitable frame for its producers.

While there were trade-offs at the design stage that could have been resolved differently, and legacy national political issues around proportional national workshares that did not help, it is wrong to categorise the programme as a whole as a catastrophic mistake, given the circumstances of the time. Three engine manufactures thought it represented a commercial opportunity, RR and EA (GE and PW), it was not only Airbus that ended up wrong-footed by changed circumstances.

EK's paradigm-busting business model proved both a blessing and a curse - a blessing in that they ordered by the dozen, but a curse in that they froze out the potential for orders from other carriers beyond initial smallish numbers. Even EK did not know this would happen at the beginning - their first order was for 5, and I think 3 of those were freighters!
 
ScottB
Posts: 6564
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:52 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
But that actual plane fact is the result of the A380 being a terrible airline product, easily the worst design of the last 40 years.


I think the MD-11, A340-200, A340-500, A340-600, A330-800, 747-8i, 767-400, 757-300, MD-90, MD-95/717, ARJ, 328JET, C919, A318, 737-600, and CRJ-1000 are all yelling "Hold my beer!"

To be honest, I think the A380 was a victim of being a vanity project -- not in the sense that they built it to be too big out of vanity, but rather that Airbus management (and its state owners) felt the need to have something bigger than the 747 to prove that a unifying Europe could beat the Americans in one of the most visible high-tech/manufacturing arenas, and thus the market forecasts were manipulated to justify the A380 program launch. But a market forecast engineered to support the launch of a 500-to-600-seat aircraft would also necessarily show a somewhat smaller, though viable-for-a-derivative market immediately above that segment, and it would also imply growth of that segment over time assuming growth in the global market for passenger air travel.

So the manipulated market forecast necessarily led to the conclusion that the A380 would need "room to grow" and thus it would be necessary to make provisions for a future stretch.

I really can't come to any other conclusion as to why the folks in Airbus sales/marketing/planning would have botched their Global Market Forecast so thoroughly. They're not any dumber than the ones at Boeing.

Matt6461 wrote:
The 787 undoubtedly has a RASK disadvantage compared to a G650 but don't see that reflected in airline sales because the CASK of a G650 is terrible.
The 77L and A345 were smaller and had lower trip cost than 77W but the CASK difference was too great for the 77W's lower RASK (bigger always means lower RASK) to matter.
A sufficiently good CASK can compensate for a worse RASK; a sufficiently bad CASK can always negate higher RASK.


I agree to a point, but I don't think a better-optimized design and the more modern engines introduced with the 787 and A350 would have led to the sales Airbus anticipated, simply because the unit costs still wouldn't have been low enough to countervail the capacity risk. It's one thing to compare products in adjacent or overlapping market segments (i.e. A345/77L vs. 77W) and quite another when those segments are very different. AF operates its A380s with 516 seats and its 77Ws (in a comparable but less business-heavy configuration) with 322 seats. That's a 60% difference in capacity!

The carriers flying across the North Atlantic had mostly learned their lesson (in part thanks to PA and TW, in part from experience) that 747s between the U.S. and Europe flew lots of empty seats for six months of the year, even if they slashed prices in the low season. The A380 would have made that worse had they been ordered en masse by the U.S. or Euro legacy carriers.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1391
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:19 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
I think we just have to accept that the environment has changed so much since the A380 was designed that it is no longer viable as a profitable frame for its producers.

While there were trade-offs at the design stage that could have been resolved differently, and legacy national political issues around proportional national workshares that did not help, it is wrong to categorise the programme as a whole as a catastrophic mistake, given the circumstances of the time. Three engine manufactures thought it represented a commercial opportunity, RR and EA (GE and PW), it was not only Airbus that ended up wrong-footed by changed circumstances.

EK's paradigm-busting business model proved both a blessing and a curse - a blessing in that they ordered by the dozen, but a curse in that they froze out the potential for orders from other carriers beyond initial smallish numbers. Even EK did not know this would happen at the beginning - their first order was for 5, and I think 3 of those were freighters!



“Things” haven’t changed; AB misjudged the market and designed the 380 w the idea that hub to hub would me a much larger % of traffic than long term trends. The project was doomed at the product definition stage.

I have no evidence of this but I think AB management fell under the spell of JL. It wouldn’t be the first time a salesman overestimated the size of a market.

Boeing understood that airlines make more profits on point to point because this meets the needs of of business travelers.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26240
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:30 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
But that actual plane fact is the result of the A380 being a terrible airline product, easily the worst design of the last 40 years.

ScottB wrote:
I think the MD-11, A340-200, A340-500, A340-600, A330-800, 747-8i, 767-400, 757-300, MD-90, MD-95/717, ARJ, 328JET, C919, A318, 737-600, and CRJ-1000 are all yelling "Hold my beer!"


To be fair, most of those models were part of larger families that had successful models (maybe the A340 as a whole, but it leveraged the successful A330 family).



ScottB wrote:
To be honest, I think the A380 was a victim of being a vanity project -- not in the sense that they built it to be too big out of vanity, but rather that Airbus management (and its state owners) felt the need to have something bigger than the 747 to prove that a unifying Europe could beat the Americans in one of the most visible high-tech/manufacturing arenas, and thus the market forecasts were manipulated to justify the A380 program launch. But a market forecast engineered to support the launch of a 500-to-600-seat aircraft would also necessarily show a somewhat smaller, though viable-for-a-derivative market immediately above that segment, and it would also imply growth of that segment over time assuming growth in the global market for passenger air travel.

So the manipulated market forecast necessarily led to the conclusion that the A380 would need "room to grow" and thus it would be necessary to make provisions for a future stretch.


I've read and watched a fair number of documentaries on the A380 and this conclusion is one they all drew, as well.


ScottB wrote:
I really can't come to any other conclusion as to why the folks in Airbus sales/marketing/planning would have botched their Global Market Forecast so thoroughly. They're not any dumber than the ones at Boeing.


To be fair, Boeing's GMFs were generally rosy as well in the mid-to-late 1990s, though this could also have been "confirmation bias" to support the various larger 747 programs Boeing was developing and marketing during this time. That being said, I think the failure of those various proposals to find any traction led Boeing by around 2000 to decide that the market was not there which is why they never really pushed hard to match the A380 once Airbus formally launched it and Boeing's GMFs consistently started to down-play the market above the 777-300ER (though again, this could have easily been as much to support the 77W as it was Boeing being more "far-sighted" than Airbus on the true size of the VLA market).
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26240
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:41 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
“Things” haven’t changed; AB misjudged the market and designed the 380 w the idea that hub to hub would me a much larger % of traffic than long term trends. The project was doomed at the product definition stage.


One thing that, IMO, undercut the A380's business case was that many "slot-constrained airports" either expanded or had additional airports built to reduce that congestion and allow additional airframe movements, which meant smaller planes could meet the growth and the need for a VLA diminished.


Planeflyer wrote:
Boeing understood that airlines make more profits on point to point because this meets the needs of of business travelers.


This was true in a sense as high-value O&D business traffic drove the Sonic Cruiser philosophy, however most of those origin and destination airports were airline hubs. And when that traffic started to evaporate after 9/11 and SARS, Boeing had to pivot and went with efficiency (7E7 / 787). They still talked "point to point" because that was the marketing mantra for Sonic Cruiser, but they knew those "points" would be just as much (if not more) starting or ending at a hub and this has proven to be the case with both the 787 and A350.
 
FlyHappy
Posts: 1032
Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 1:06 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:49 pm

ScottB wrote:

To be honest, I think the A380 was a victim of being a vanity project -- not in the sense that they built it to be too big out of vanity, but rather that Airbus management (and its state owners) felt the need to have something bigger than the 747 to prove that a unifying Europe could beat the Americans in one of the most visible high-tech/manufacturing arenas, and thus the market forecasts were manipulated to justify the A380 program launch. But a market forecast engineered to support the launch of a 500-to-600-seat aircraft would also necessarily show a somewhat smaller, though viable-for-a-derivative market immediately above that segment, and it would also imply growth of that segment over time assuming growth in the global market for passenger air travel.

So the manipulated market forecast necessarily led to the conclusion that the A380 would need "room to grow" and thus it would be necessary to make provisions for a future stretch.


This.
Same for Concorde. Since the inception of the EU, there's been a "market questionable" drive to out-do the Americans in large scale, advanced technology. The resulting technology isn't in question (its been admirable), but the economics haven't been favorable. All fine when state sponsored investment was a given, less so if you are held to a serious profit motive, unencumbered by political drive.


ScottB wrote:
I really can't come to any other conclusion as to why the folks in Airbus sales/marketing/planning would have botched their Global Market Forecast so thoroughly. They're not any dumber than the ones at Boeing.


They're not, but neither the Europeans nor Americans really fully anticipated the meteoric economic rise of China, and certainly didn't anticipate the enormous impact of computer technology/Internet and India becoming both a global center and a large scale exporter of human capital - contributing heavily to the rise of ME3 (ironically the only high demand users of VLA, though waning).


ScottB wrote:
The carriers flying across the North Atlantic had mostly learned their lesson (in part thanks to PA and TW, in part from experience) that 747s between the U.S. and Europe flew lots of empty seats for six months of the year, even if they slashed prices in the low season. The A380 would have made that worse had they been ordered en masse by the U.S. or Euro legacy carriers.


and This.
But.... the Europeans didn't have the benefit of seeing/being burned simultaneously on TPAC routes, which is where the US carriers clearly saw how smaller, not larger frames were the future, to connect their (many more) hubs.
 
Vladex
Posts: 290
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:44 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:05 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
I think we just have to accept that the environment has changed so much since the A380 was designed that it is no longer viable as a profitable frame for its producers.

While there were trade-offs at the design stage that could have been resolved differently, and legacy national political issues around proportional national workshares that did not help, it is wrong to categorise the programme as a whole as a catastrophic mistake, given the circumstances of the time. Three engine manufactures thought it represented a commercial opportunity, RR and EA (GE and PW), it was not only Airbus that ended up wrong-footed by changed circumstances.

EK's paradigm-busting business model proved both a blessing and a curse - a blessing in that they ordered by the dozen, but a curse in that they froze out the potential for orders from other carriers beyond initial smallish numbers. Even EK did not know this would happen at the beginning - their first order was for 5, and I think 3 of those were freighters!


Boeing fanboys have been predicting A380 demise long before I came here so they haven't changed and long before any business changes people just pick up facts as they see it fit. For what it's worth every Airbus head has said that A380 will continue on so all of the efforts to proclaim early A380 demise are futile
 
Dupli
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2018 4:29 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:38 pm

FlyHappy wrote:

This.
Same for Concorde. Since the inception of the EU, there's been a "market questionable" drive to out-do the Americans in large scale, advanced technology.


The EU did not exist when Concorde was designed. Nor was the UK part of its predecessor at the time.
The a380 is not an EU program. Neither is airbus.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:52 pm

Stitch wrote:
This was true in a sense as high-value O&D business traffic drove the Sonic Cruiser philosophy, however most of those origin and destination airports were airline hubs. And when that traffic started to evaporate after 9/11 and SARS, Boeing had to pivot and went with efficiency (7E7 / 787). They still talked "point to point" because that was the marketing mantra for Sonic Cruiser, but they knew those "points" would be just as much (if not more) starting or ending at a hub and this has proven to be the case with both the 787 and A350.


https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... 016-268001

Also there was the surprisingly good rise of the 777-300ER, in 2005 it looked good but no one saw it as becoming so dominant. It changed the 777 from being an OK seller to a real cash cow. Suddenly, as the 380 production was beginning, there was a competitor with comparable per seat economics in a smaller plane. It killed both the 748 and the A380. The 748 was launched around this time, had it been 2 years later for the 748, it would not have been launched. By the time the A380 was flying, most of the orders expected for it had switched to the 77W.
Last edited by JayinKitsap on Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9284
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:55 pm

Dupli wrote:
FlyHappy wrote:

This.
Same for Concorde. Since the inception of the EU, there's been a "market questionable" drive to out-do the Americans in large scale, advanced technology.


The EU did not exist when Concorde was designed. Nor was the UK part of its predecessor at the time.
The a380 is not an EU program. Neither is airbus.

The A380 was certainly seen as a symbol of the industrial/technical strength of a united Europe however. There is a reason the heads of government for the U.K., France, Spain, and Germany were all at the A380 rollout (all completely absent at the A360 rollout).
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1015
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:04 pm

Polot wrote:
Dupli wrote:
FlyHappy wrote:

This.
Same for Concorde. Since the inception of the EU, there's been a "market questionable" drive to out-do the Americans in large scale, advanced technology.


The EU did not exist when Concorde was designed. Nor was the UK part of its predecessor at the time.
The a380 is not an EU program. Neither is airbus.

The A380 was certainly seen as a symbol of the industrial/technical strength of a united Europe however. There is a reason the heads of government for the U.K., France, Spain, and Germany were all at the A380 rollout (all completely absent at the A360 rollout).

There is a difference between the A380 being a symbol of a united Europe and the A380 being an EU program (meaning, paid for by the European Union).
You think the US (up to the President) is not proud of the 787???

And, what's the A360?
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9284
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:12 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
Polot wrote:
Dupli wrote:

The EU did not exist when Concorde was designed. Nor was the UK part of its predecessor at the time.
The a380 is not an EU program. Neither is airbus.

The A380 was certainly seen as a symbol of the industrial/technical strength of a united Europe however. There is a reason the heads of government for the U.K., France, Spain, and Germany were all at the A380 rollout (all completely absent at the A360 rollout).

There is a difference between the A380 being a symbol of a united Europe and the A380 being an EU program (meaning, paid for by the European Union).
You think the US (up to the President) is not proud of the 787???

And, what's the A360?

A360 is obviously a typo, I mean A350. I don’t think anyone here has suggested that the A380 is an “EU program” paid by the EU, but it certainly may have been driven in part by European pride which may have caused Airbus to be a bit too optimist about its prospects and build a business case to justify the aircraft rather than build a business case for the aircraft. Subtle but important difference.

Keep in mind that Airbus is not a private company, even more so back then. It does/did things to make its overlords (notably the French and German Government) happy. Politics were a factor in the A380 since the beginning.
 
FlyHappy
Posts: 1032
Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 1:06 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:22 pm

Dupli wrote:
FlyHappy wrote:

This.
Same for Concorde. Since the inception of the EU, there's been a "market questionable" drive to out-do the Americans in large scale, advanced technology.


The EU did not exist when Concorde was designed. Nor was the UK part of its predecessor at the time.
The a380 is not an EU program. Neither is airbus.


you are quite wrong, my friend.
The legacy of the EU is born directly from the ashes of WWII. here's a light summary: https://europa.eu/european-union/about- ... 45-1959_en

Today's Airbus is directly the industrial analog of the political/economic melding. Wikipedia has a nice overview, excerpted below, and note the last sentences.

'The European industry began to accept, along with their governments, that collaboration was required to develop such an aircraft and to compete with the more powerful US manufacturers. Negotiations began over a European collaborative approach and at the 1965 Paris Air Show the major European airlines informally discussed their requirements for a new "Airbus" capable of transporting 100 or more passengers over short to medium distances at a low cost.[8] The same year Hawker Siddeley (at the urging of the UK government) teamed with Breguet and Nord to study Airbus designs. The Hawker Siddeley/Breguet/Nord group's HBN 100 became the basis for the continuation of the project. By 1966 the partners were Sud Aviation, later Aérospatiale (France), Arbeitsgemeinschaft Airbus, later Deutsche Airbus (West Germany) and Hawker Siddeley (UK).[8] A request for funding was made to the three governments in October 1966.[8] On 25 July 1967, the three governments agreed to proceed with the proposal."
 
aviationaware
Posts: 2812
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:29 pm

Matt6461 wrote:

Your plain fact needs some bolstering to be a plane fact.
The 787 undoubtedly has a RASK disadvantage compared to a G650 but don't see that reflected in airline sales because the CASK of a G650 is terrible.
The 77L and A345 were smaller and had lower trip cost than 77W but the CASK difference was too great for the 77W's lower RASK (bigger always means lower RASK) to matter.
A sufficiently good CASK can compensate for a worse RASK; a sufficiently bad CASK can always negate higher RASK.

Once again, you're ignoring cost and talking only about price, leaving the profit question ambiguous absent some actual argument about the magnitude of CASK vs. RASK delta for a hypothetical A380 rework.
It's almost as if we need to consider more than simple CASK vs. RASK - maybe look at the marginal figures for a proposed capacity escalation?

This is like arguing against 2+2=4 because you stopped reading at the first "2". Or arguing that because 2+2=4 then 1+3=4 is false.
4 here is profit whether you get there via 2+2, 8-4, or 20% lower RASK plus 20% lower CASK.


In the real world examples I have seen RASK increased by about 25%. Are you in all honesty trying to tell me there was ever a hope of getting that much of a CASK improvement out of the A380? Because that would be really laughable. Sorry, but you are on the losing side in this.
 
ScottB
Posts: 6564
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:36 pm

Stitch wrote:
This was true in a sense as high-value O&D business traffic drove the Sonic Cruiser philosophy, however most of those origin and destination airports were airline hubs. And when that traffic started to evaporate after 9/11 and SARS, Boeing had to pivot and went with efficiency (7E7 / 787). They still talked "point to point" because that was the marketing mantra for Sonic Cruiser, but they knew those "points" would be just as much (if not more) starting or ending at a hub and this has proven to be the case with both the 787 and A350.


So I actually think the Sonic Cruiser philosophy wasn't so much driven by catering to high-value O&D business traffic so much as it was by cutting airline labor costs in a period when those made up a far larger percentage of airline operating costs than fuel. In 2000, for example, Delta's labor cost amounted to 39.5% of operating expenses, while fuel was 13.0% -- and pilots and flight attendants tend to be among the most highly-compensated labor groups at the airlines. If they could reduce flight crew costs by 10% by operating faster planes, that would probably pay for the 20% increase in fuel consumption and the attractive bonus of shorter flights came along for free. Once fuel prices began to climb in ~2003, that trade-off no longer made sense; i.e. by 2004, DL's fuel expense had climbed to 16.0% of overall expenses while labor was down to 34.6%. By 2006, Delta was spending more on fuel than labor.

And global economic shocks have often been given as a reason why the A380 failed, but the airline industry had an extensive history of shocks even before A380 program launch: the 1970s Arab oil embargoes, U.S. airline deregulation, the 1990 Gulf Crisis, the late 1990s Asian economic flu, etc. One of the few things one can predict for the airline industry is carnage caused by future economic shocks.

Stitch wrote:
To be fair, Boeing's GMFs were generally rosy as well in the mid-to-late 1990s, though this could also have been "confirmation bias" to support the various larger 747 programs Boeing was developing and marketing during this time. That being said, I think the failure of those various proposals to find any traction led Boeing by around 2000 to decide that the market was not there which is why they never really pushed hard to match the A380 once Airbus formally launched it


I think you're probably right about their Commercial Market Outlooks in that period given the slowing sales of the 747-400 and the desire to find a new cash cow with the -500/600. But then one could equally argue that the slowing sales of the 747-400 after 1995 or so informed revisions to the CMO. It's pretty obvious to me why, even with their own CMO which overestimated the VLA market size, though not as badly as Airbus, Boeing never went forward with a competitor: Even if they had succeeded in evenly splitting the VLA market with Airbus, the market wasn't large enough to support two profitable programs in the market segment.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1015
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:08 pm

Polot wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Polot wrote:
The A380 was certainly seen as a symbol of the industrial/technical strength of a united Europe however. There is a reason the heads of government for the U.K., France, Spain, and Germany were all at the A380 rollout (all completely absent at the A360 rollout).

There is a difference between the A380 being a symbol of a united Europe and the A380 being an EU program (meaning, paid for by the European Union).
You think the US (up to the President) is not proud of the 787???

And, what's the A360?

A360 is obviously a typo, I mean A350. I don’t think anyone here has suggested that the A380 is an “EU program” paid by the EU, but it certainly may have been driven in part by European pride which may have caused Airbus to be a bit too optimist about its prospects and build a business case to justify the aircraft rather than build a business case for the aircraft. Subtle but important difference.

I did misread the qualification. My mistake.
And yes, no doubt the numbers were too optimistic. Was it done intentionally or by misjudgment? Most likely both.

Polot wrote:
Keep in mind that Airbus is not a private company, even more so back then. It does/did things to make its overlords (notably the French and German Government) happy. Politics were a factor in the A380 since the beginning.

Airbus would not be a private company as it is listed on the stock market. It is a publicly traded company, with over 70% of the shares being on the open market (as of 2017, France holds 11.08%, Germany 11.07% and Spain 4.17% - numbers for 2018 are yet to be released). And, actually, between 2001 & 2005, the part of the European governments (France and Spain, Germany was not in yet) was around 20%, the rest was open market, Daimler and Lagardere (the latter two being publicly traded companies).
The term "overlords" is not appropriate, but to each their own.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9284
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:16 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
Polot wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
There is a difference between the A380 being a symbol of a united Europe and the A380 being an EU program (meaning, paid for by the European Union).
You think the US (up to the President) is not proud of the 787???

And, what's the A360?

A360 is obviously a typo, I mean A350. I don’t think anyone here has suggested that the A380 is an “EU program” paid by the EU, but it certainly may have been driven in part by European pride which may have caused Airbus to be a bit too optimist about its prospects and build a business case to justify the aircraft rather than build a business case for the aircraft. Subtle but important difference.

I did misread the qualification. My mistake.
And yes, no doubt the numbers were too optimistic. Was it done intentionally or by misjudgment? Most likely both.

Polot wrote:
Keep in mind that Airbus is not a private company, even more so back then. It does/did things to make its overlords (notably the French and German Government) happy. Politics were a factor in the A380 since the beginning.

Airbus would not be a private company as it is listed on the stock market. It is a publicly traded company, with over 70% of the shares being on the open market (as of 2017, France holds 11.08%, Germany 11.07% and Spain 4.17% - numbers for 2018 are yet to be released). And, actually, between 2001 & 2005, the part of the European governments (France and Spain, Germany was not in yet) was around 20%, the rest was open market, Daimler and Lagardere (the latter two being publicly traded companies).
The term "overlords" is not appropriate, but to each their own.

I meant private in this context as not government owned/no government ownership. Not private as in publicly listed or not.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3069
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:36 pm

SEPilot wrote:
It seems to me that this had to be a mutual decision between QF and Airbus. The fact that it was not tied to any order for other Airbus products says to me that either the deposits for these aircraft were returned or they had been dealt with earlier. I doubt very much that QF walked away from them. And if that is the case, then this is a strong indication that Airbus is trying to clear the way to end the program. I do not see how this plus the EK talks and the 10 cancellations discussed on another thread can have any other interpretation.


IMO, this post explains the situation.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26240
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:53 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
Airbus would not be a private company as it is listed on the stock market. It is a publicly traded company, with over 70% of the shares being on the open market (as of 2017, France holds 11.08%, Germany 11.07% and Spain 4.17% - numbers for 2018 are yet to be released). And, actually, between 2001 & 2005, the part of the European governments (France and Spain, Germany was not in yet) was around 20%, the rest was open market, Daimler and Lagardere (the latter two being publicly traded companies).
The term "overlords" is not appropriate, but to each their own.


Prior to the EADS reorganization in late 2012 / early 2013, Daimler and Lagardere served as proxies for the German and French governments, respectively. This created a shareholder pact that gave the French and German governments de facto control over EADS through several veto rights so while I would not call them "overlords", EADS' decisions were strongly influenced by how the French and German governments felt (and this led to tensions between both over decisions).
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17518
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:41 pm

Stitch wrote:
One thing that, IMO, undercut the A380's business case was that many "slot-constrained airports" either expanded or had additional airports built to reduce that congestion and allow additional airframe movements, which meant smaller planes could meet the growth and the need for a VLA diminished.

The issue is there is an acceleration of airport building where the growth is:
India is a fast growing market and I cannot keep track of how many airports/runways are being built.

China is building as some needed (For example: PVG expansion) and quite a few make work projects.

Turkey is certainly building capacity.

Indonesia is also building many small airports. They will soon have Jakarta with an A380 ready runway. Finally! Although more needed for high MTOW A350 and 777.

The US is building in high growth areas (US South, e.g. Florida). The main culprit of US congestion is RJs and local anti-growth (e.g. LAX). ORD, ATL, MCO, TPA, and CLT all have good growth plans.

New growth is to cities that just won't support an A380. e.g., secondary cities of Florida to Europe.

The A380 had a business case, it was just late, over-weight, and was marketed against a 9-across 777. A little frame tweak to 11-across main deck would have been great. A stretch, even better. Losing the large block of A388F orders, a bummer.

China outgrew everyone's expectations. That fragmented global growth.

But customers' expectations of hubbing also grew. Gone is the era of flying into NRT and transferring over to HND. Most passengers do not have the time to do a land transfer. ICN, PEK, PVG, CAN, and HKG eliminated the need. The ME3 elevated expectations for that region.


There is a need for better connectivity. While there is a market for a VLA, it must have far better per seat costs than the A388 vs. 77W vs. A333. Each found a niche.

The trouble with the A388 is only EK found a way to fill it enough on non-trunk routes profitably. I honestly thought more airlines would do so. I guess EK just took their massive hub waves to the next level.


Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2902
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:58 pm

ScottB wrote:
I think the MD-11, A340-200, A340-500, A340-600, A330-800, 747-8i, 767-400, 757-300, MD-90, MD-95/717, ARJ, 328JET, C919, A318, 737-600, and CRJ-1000 are all yelling "Hold my beer!"


As already said, these are all derivatives of successful designs (except C919).
A340NG is the only one in that list of A380-like scale.
I consider the A380 to be an overstuffed A340NG; A388 is the A345. It's a "look what we can do" project with no strategic sense.
Or, as you say rightly, a vanity project.

ScottB wrote:
I really can't come to any other conclusion as to why the folks in Airbus sales/marketing/planning would have botched their Global Market Forecast so thoroughly. They're not any dumber than the ones at Boeing.


Agreed. Bad strategic concept gives bad results, regardless of competence in execution.

ScottB wrote:
I don't think a better-optimized design and the more modern engines introduced with the 787 and A350 would have led to the sales Airbus anticipated


Of course not - that's why Leahy is spouting BS re A380 and the engine manufacturers.
To make the A380 successful, you need more than just new engines.

aviationaware wrote:
Sorry, but you are on the losing side in this.


Congrats on your victory, mate.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1450
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:09 pm

Vladex wrote:
For what it's worth every Airbus head has said that A380 will continue on so all of the efforts to proclaim early A380 demise are futile

So that is your argument?

The head of Airbus will say the A380 will continue right up to the day production ends..

The hope of any new potential orders disappears once they announce production is ending. Any business will remain positive right until the end.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1391
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:19 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
Boeing understood that airlines make more profits on point to point because this meets the needs of of business travelers.


This was true in a sense as high-value O&D business traffic drove the Sonic Cruiser philosophy, however most of those origin and destination airports were airline hubs. And when that traffic started to evaporate after 9/11 and SARS, Boeing had to pivot and went with efficiency (7E7 / 787). They still talked "point to point" because that was the marketing mantra for Sonic Cruiser, but they knew those "points" would be just as much (if not more) starting or ending at a hub and this has proven to be the case with both the 787 and A350.[/quote]

Stitch,do you know this for sure or is this your take on the decision making process?

To me the 787 was a continuation of the 767 and 777 both of which fragmented travel flows.

As a business traveler I love the 380 but would never choose it if I has the option to fly a smaller ac direct. I don’t think I’m at all unique preferring non stops and for the life of me can’t understand how AB missed this.

About the only thing that makes sense is JL’s love for the big win mindset and his ability to sell To the C suite.

Think to his relationships w the ME3 and how this must have influenced his thinking on the market size for the 380.

I think JL loved the idea of the 380 and this combined w his natural abilities and rain maker status led to the launch.

I’d love to know if any of this is close to reality.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5415
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:29 pm

I see the A380 as having had the stars lined up against it. First, and most important, Airbus really, really, REALLY wanted to build it so they could snatch some sort of title from Boeing. And that mindset led to several strategic errors in addition to a lack of realism about what the demand for it really would be. The first one was a lack of appreciation for what was coming, I. e the 77W and the 787. That is understandable since nobody really knew. But not knowing led them to be sloppy in optimizing the design for the plane they were building, figuring its size would be enough to make it efficient enough to be attractive. They certainly did not expect that before it was flying that Boeing would have a twin engined plane (the 77W) that would nearly match both its range and economics, or that they would come out with one (the 787) that would actually beat its per seat economics in a much smaller plane. They obviously had watched Boeing for years sell 747s at enormous profits because it had no competition, and were itching not only to give it competition but grab that gravy train for themselves. But by the time they had their plane the gravy train had ended, because it was not the size of the 747 that put it in its own class but its range. And the handwriting was on the wall even before the A380 was launched, that smaller planes were coming that could match or exceed the range of the 747. And so by the time it was flying it’s only real advantage was to airlines flying to slot-constrained airports, and the only airline that really took advantage of that was EK, whose hub was very limited for the number of passengers that they were trying to put through it. Had EK had more hubs they probably would not have bought anywhere nearly as many.

So if the A380 been more optimally designed, with a smaller, lighter wing instead of one optimized around future, and not present, needs, and perhaps a lighter fuselage, would it have been more successful? Probably slightly, but I think it still would be going down in flames now. The 77W, 787, A350 and A330NEO are just simply less risky for most airlines as they are so much easier to fill year round, and their economics are competitive with or even beat the A380s. And when demand is high, you can increase frequency, and reduce it when it slows down. That beats flying the A380 half empty.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17518
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:25 pm

SEPilot wrote:
So if the A380 been more optimally designed, with a smaller, lighter wing instead of one optimized around future, and not present, needs, and perhaps a lighter fuselage, would it have been more successful? Probably slightly, but I think it still would be going down in flames now. The 77W, 787, A350 and A330NEO are just simply less risky for most airlines as they are so much easier to fill year round, and their economics are competitive with or even beat the A380s. And when demand is high, you can increase frequency, and reduce it when it slows down. That beats flying the A380 half empty.

First well written post. I agree with everything except smaller and lighter. IMHO Airbus should have built the A389 from day 1. A double deck losses so much space from two staircases and a people and food elevator (space=weight as we know) that they should have built larger to bring down unit costs

Airbus knew about the 77W vs. A346. I was working A346/twin when the launch decision was made. They needed a much more efficient engine than the T500 to sell. They were working it. Pratt knew the A346 even with a lower fuel burn engine wouldn't be a big enough seller, so a very 787 like twin (but Aluminum) was to use the same engine for long thin. So Airbus knew pre A380 launch the 77W was a jaugernaught that would be tough to stop.

What they didn't know is the market accepting 19-across on the 777. They should have made the main deck 11 across.

But that is just my opinion.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
Vladex
Posts: 290
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:44 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:28 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Vladex wrote:
For what it's worth every Airbus head has said that A380 will continue on so all of the efforts to proclaim early A380 demise are futile

So that is your argument?

The head of Airbus will say the A380 will continue right up to the day production ends..

The hope of any new potential orders disappears once they announce production is ending. Any business will remain positive right until the end.


Not only that, They said that they will stretch it .
https://leehamnews.com/2014/12/11/airbu ... o-stretch/
We will one day launch an A380neo and one day launch a stretched A380

It's a statement of reality, not even an argument unless you live in a fantasy world where A380 is not flying, not being produced and has been announced as terminated.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26240
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:46 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
Stitch, do you know this for sure or is this your take on the decision making process?


I cannot speak with direct authority, but at the time Boeing floated Sonic Cruiser, there was an economic bubble in the US and EU driven by venture capital and investment banking IPOs of Internet companies as well as a commodities super cycle. Premium cabins were filled with people traveling between the US, EU and Asia signing eight and nine-figure business deals. Concorde facilitated this by allowing people to literally daily commute between NYC and London to do these deals and Boeing presented Sonic Cruiser as a way to cut hours off these trips.


Planeflyer wrote:
To me the 787 was a continuation of the 767 and 777 both of which fragmented travel flows.


Indeed it was, but a fair bit of that fragmentation still starts or ends at an airline hub. Now it is spoke-hub | hub-spoke instead of spoke-hub-hub | hub-hub-spoke.



Planeflyer wrote:
As a business traveler I love the 380 but would never choose it if I has the option to fly a smaller ac direct. I don’t think I’m at all unique preferring non stops and for the life of me can’t understand how AB missed this.


I don't believe they "missed" it. After all, they had the A330 and A340 which could fragment a travel flow as effectively as a 767 or 777 did. The A380 was meant to service the "mega-hubs" where Airbus believed traffic growth would be artificially constrained due to lack of slots. I mean a lot of people still wanted to fly between New York and London or Los Angeles and Tokyo and those airports were full of 747s because of a lack of slots. What they didn't foresee was those airports expanding and improvements in air traffic control allowing more frequencies which meant that those 747s could be replaced with more smaller frames, not few larger ones.


Planeflyer wrote:
About the only thing that makes sense is JL’s love for the big win mindset and his ability to sell To the C suite.


It was actually Jean Roeder who pushed for making the A380 as large as it was. He was head of a group studying VLAs at Airbus and he believed that Boeing's "747 monopoly" had helped them sell the 737, 757, 767 and 777 and that having a VLA would equally help Airbus move A320s, A330s and A340s. He was the one who convinced Airbus President Jean Pierson and COO Herbert Flossdorf that Airbus needed to be in this market - either as a partner with Boeing or on their own. That being said, I expect he didn't have to hard-sell John Leahy on the idea, either. :lol:


Planeflyer wrote:
Think to his relationships w the ME3 and how this must have influenced his thinking on the market size for the 380.


The funny thing is that when working on the A3XX, the Middle Eastern carriers were not seen as a serious customer because they had so little traffic. Asia is what really drove the A3XX design (as it did the 747X) as the "Tiger Economies" of Southeast Asia were seeing double-digit annual growth in air traffic and their old airports were literally choking on it and Airbus expected airlines like SQ, MH and TG to be the major A3XX customers with the legacy US and EU carriers picking it up to replace their 747s as they came due for replacement.

Tim Clark saw the true potential of the plane and how Emirates could leverage their position in DXB to connect the US and EU with Africa, India and Asia and he is why Emirates went from being one of the smallest initial customers for the type to accounting for some half of all sales.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20623
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: QF officially cancels final 8 A380s.

Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:55 pm

Vladex wrote:
Not only that, They said that they will stretch it .
https://leehamnews.com/2014/12/11/airbu ... o-stretch/
We will one day launch an A380neo and one day launch a stretched A380

It's been four years since that statement was made. Bregier no longer works for Airbus. There's no evidence of any such plan taking shape. In fact, we see the opposite. QF has just joined stalwarts such as AF and LH on the list of airlines that have dropped A380 orders. Airbus itself announced that it is discussing A380 contracts with EK. Press reports suggest Enders is trying to wind down the program before he leaves in April. At this point in time, the idea of an A380neo emerging seems fantastical.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos