• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10
 
9Patch
Topic Author
Posts: 341
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 2:34 am

WayexTDI wrote:
Airbus was much smaller than Boeing and McDonnell Douglas (separate or combined) until 2001; the A380 was launched in 2000... They were on their way up, and the A380 sealed the deal I believe.

Perhaps it was smaller than McDonnell Douglas if you count military sales. In 2000 Airbus had the A300, A320, A330 and A340 in their commercial airliner portfolio.
What did McDonnell Douglas have?

And you want an example of a huge commercial failure that was, in the end, a huge success (technical, PR and company-wise)? Concorde.

Company wise? What 'company' made Concorde?
It was more akin to a NASA type government program and it's PR success is dubious.
 
Antarius
Posts: 1723
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 2:41 am

jteruel06 wrote:
As much as it is an engineering marvel, the Airbus A380 never dethroned the Queen of the Skies - the Boeing 747 - which it was built to replace. If it was a success, the production wouldn't have been ended in the first place.

That said I don't dislike it or Airbus. It's one of my aviation bucket list items to be able to ride on one.


The queen of the skies was already subject to regicide by the time the a380 entered service. While the a380 may have been aiming to take the crown from the 747, the 77W snuffed them both out.
2019: SIN HKG NRT DFW IAH HOU CLT LGA JFK SFO SJC EWR SNA EYW MIA BOG LAX ORD DTW OAK PVG BOS DCA IAD ATL LAS BIS CUN PHX OAK SYD CVG PHL MAD ORY CDG SLC SJU BQN MHT YYZ STS BIS DOH BLR KTM MFM MEX MSY BWI DEN
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1117
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 2:49 am

I was really hoping we could have another thread to relitigate this topic. :roll:

Pretty much everything worth saying on this topic has been said and no one here is changing their mind at this point. It was a big airplane, some airlines liked, some didn’t like it as much, it never reached the level of sales expected and it certainly didn’t slow Airbus down in the long run.
Last edited by SFOtoORD on Thu May 23, 2019 2:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
QueenoftheSkies
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 4:48 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 2:50 am

If a little airline named Emirates didn’t exist and grow the way they did, how many A380s would have sold?

A380 was as much as a success as Concorde. Enough said.
 
WBM
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 3:03 am

If the A380 counts as a success, I really hope there are no failures in Airbus's future. I would put it this way. Suppose you were a business leader deciding on the production of a new product. You send a team to research the prospects of the new product. You have full confidence that the team will come back with an accurate forecast. The team come back with the report that the new product will have the same level of success as the A380. If I were that leader, I would cancel immediately.

Nobody likes to fail, but I believe there is no shame in failure. Some of the most important lessons I have learned in my life were in the wake of failure. The important thing is what you do with failure. I think the best course of action is to first admit the failure. Next it is important to examine the failure to see what lessons can be learned from the failure. Lastly those lessons must be applied to future plans. Although I think Faury is going a little far in calling it a success, there is good argument that Airbus took the lessons from the failure of the A380 and leveraged them to improve the company.
 
User avatar
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1229
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 3:07 am

For its time the DC-3 was much more successful than what the A380 could ever be......... The DC-3 has flown and done more than the A380 can ever accomplish with much less and some of the DC-3s will be flying when the A380 is just a memory. :old:
Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1350
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 3:18 am

SFOtoORD wrote:
I was really hoping we could have another thread to relitigate this topic. :roll:

Pretty much everything worth saying on this topic has been said and no one here is changing their mind at this point. It was a big airplane, some airlines liked, some didn’t like it as much, it never reached the level of sales expected and it certainly didn’t slow Airbus down in the long run.


Imagine if Airbus had used 30B to develop a different plane ( a successful one). Airbus WAS slowed down .. they would have a better product line if they had not spent the money on the A380.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1350
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 3:20 am

Bricktop wrote:
Come on folks, what's he supposed to say? With the very narrow definition of "success" Faury uses, he makes his case. It's only slightly sillier than making the same claim about the B787 being a "success", as that program still has the possibility of making money. Both companies have indeed gained greatly from those expensive tuition payments, even though Airbus seems to want to default on its student loans now.


Things you could say (and not tell lies)

We learned a lot making the A380.
The A380 was a huge technical development .. and we got it done
I want to thank everyone for their hard work on the A380 program
...

There's lots of positive things to say about the A380 ... why tell obvious lies?
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12506
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 3:22 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
An A340-based freighter would have sold much more than the A330 freighter did based on a 275t MTOW.

Based on what, other than complete supposition?
I mean, you don't think Airbus investigated that option? lol

What they likely found was that despite the A332 having a lower MTOW, its OEW would be lower in both aggregate and proportion to any A340F equivalent (especially after requisite strengthening), granted it superior comparative freight density hauling capability. Having fewer engines probably didn't hurt.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1350
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 3:23 am

tropical wrote:

So yes, the bean counters will (rightly) say the A380 program in itself was not a success, but Airbus as a company would have been the poorer if the A380 had not gone ahead. Absolutely no doubt about that. The indirect benefits, now and in the future, cannot be quantified but are numerous, and immense.


Actually, there are two things to consider.

1) Airbus does not spend the $XX Billion. They have more money and are not "poorer".
2) Airbus spends that money to develop an airplane that several airlines actually want. They sell more planes and make a profit. They are not "poorer".

It turns out having the largest loss making airplane in world history DOES make you poorer. And that's quite obvious.

And what you wrote was silly.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1117
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 3:24 am

kitplane01 wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
I was really hoping we could have another thread to relitigate this topic. :roll:

Pretty much everything worth saying on this topic has been said and no one here is changing their mind at this point. It was a big airplane, some airlines liked, some didn’t like it as much, it never reached the level of sales expected and it certainly didn’t slow Airbus down in the long run.


Imagine if Airbus had used 30B to develop a different plane ( a successful one). Airbus WAS slowed down .. they would have a better product line if they had not spent the money on the A380.


But they didn’t and they are quite successful right now. Even with hindsight I’m not sure you can easily say they’d been in a far better position than they are today. They took a risk that wasn’t necessary, but it’s clearly changed them as a company.
 
Antarius
Posts: 1723
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 3:32 am

SFOtoORD wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
I was really hoping we could have another thread to relitigate this topic. :roll:

Pretty much everything worth saying on this topic has been said and no one here is changing their mind at this point. It was a big airplane, some airlines liked, some didn’t like it as much, it never reached the level of sales expected and it certainly didn’t slow Airbus down in the long run.


Imagine if Airbus had used 30B to develop a different plane ( a successful one). Airbus WAS slowed down .. they would have a better product line if they had not spent the money on the A380.


But they didn’t and they are quite successful right now. Even with hindsight I’m not sure you can easily say they’d been in a far better position than they are today. They took a risk that wasn’t necessary, but it’s clearly changed them as a company.


That is conflating correlation with causation. For example, it would be akin to arguing that HP was successful after buying Autonomy. Which is absolutely not the case. HP has improved itself despite Autonomy due to several other changes, reorgs, corporate splits and new products.
2019: SIN HKG NRT DFW IAH HOU CLT LGA JFK SFO SJC EWR SNA EYW MIA BOG LAX ORD DTW OAK PVG BOS DCA IAD ATL LAS BIS CUN PHX OAK SYD CVG PHL MAD ORY CDG SLC SJU BQN MHT YYZ STS BIS DOH BLR KTM MFM MEX MSY BWI DEN
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1117
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 3:58 am

Antarius wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

Imagine if Airbus had used 30B to develop a different plane ( a successful one). Airbus WAS slowed down .. they would have a better product line if they had not spent the money on the A380.


But they didn’t and they are quite successful right now. Even with hindsight I’m not sure you can easily say they’d been in a far better position than they are today. They took a risk that wasn’t necessary, but it’s clearly changed them as a company.


That is conflating correlation with causation. For example, it would be akin to arguing that HP was successful after buying Autonomy. Which is absolutely not the case. HP has improved itself despite Autonomy due to several other changes, reorgs, corporate splits and new products.


It is not conflation. The essential point is that so much time has passed and so much has changed at Airbus that you can’t authoritatively say the company would be in a far better position had they not built that plane. We just don’t know. It’s silly for the CEO to say the plane was a success, but what else would you expect him to say.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1226
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 4:02 am

9Patch wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Airbus was much smaller than Boeing and McDonnell Douglas (separate or combined) until 2001; the A380 was launched in 2000... They were on their way up, and the A380 sealed the deal I believe.

Perhaps it was smaller than McDonnell Douglas if you count military sales. In 2000 Airbus had the A300, A320, A330 and A340 in their commercial airliner portfolio.
What did McDonnell Douglas have?

In 2000, McDonnell Douglas no longer existed; you were aware of that fact, weren't you???
In any case, in 2000, Airbus delivered 311 vs 491 for the "new" Boeing (Boeing + the former McDonnell Douglas); do you really think that's comparable??? Airbus delivered 39% of Airbus + Boeing; that's not being comparable.
And you want to talk about the portfolio? Airbus had the A300, A320 Family, A330 & A340; 4 aircraft families. On the other hand, Boeing had the 737, 747, 757, 767, 777 & 717/MD-95 (the MD-11 was no longer available for sale); 6 aircraft families. Again, comparable???

9Patch wrote:
And you want an example of a huge commercial failure that was, in the end, a huge success (technical, PR and company-wise)? Concorde.

Company wise? What 'company' made Concorde?
It was more akin to a NASA type government program and it's PR success is dubious.

Concorde, while not made by a single company, was designed and manufactured by British Aircraft Corporation (later British Aerospace - BAe) on the UK side and Sud Aviation (later Aerospatiale) on the French side; one (Aerospatiale) was merged into Airbus, the other (BAe) held a significant share (20%) of Airbus.
Without Concorde, there would most likely not be Airbus, or CFM International for that matter.

Let's not even talk about the fact that Concorde pioneered many technologies that are now standard in airliners; I'm sure it doesn't fit in your Airbus-bashing discussion...
 
Antarius
Posts: 1723
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 4:37 am

SFOtoORD wrote:
Antarius wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:

But they didn’t and they are quite successful right now. Even with hindsight I’m not sure you can easily say they’d been in a far better position than they are today. They took a risk that wasn’t necessary, but it’s clearly changed them as a company.


That is conflating correlation with causation. For example, it would be akin to arguing that HP was successful after buying Autonomy. Which is absolutely not the case. HP has improved itself despite Autonomy due to several other changes, reorgs, corporate splits and new products.


It is not conflation. The essential point is that so much time has passed and so much has changed at Airbus that you can’t authoritatively say the company would be in a far better position had they not built that plane. We just don’t know. It’s silly for the CEO to say the plane was a success, but what else would you expect him to say.


Fair enough.

As for the CEO comments, I wouldn't expect anything less. I'm more confused by the people here that believe it to be true though.
2019: SIN HKG NRT DFW IAH HOU CLT LGA JFK SFO SJC EWR SNA EYW MIA BOG LAX ORD DTW OAK PVG BOS DCA IAD ATL LAS BIS CUN PHX OAK SYD CVG PHL MAD ORY CDG SLC SJU BQN MHT YYZ STS BIS DOH BLR KTM MFM MEX MSY BWI DEN
 
Antarius
Posts: 1723
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 4:38 am

WayexTDI wrote:
I'm sure it doesn't fit in your Airbus-bashing discussion...


You're the only one here banging that drum.
2019: SIN HKG NRT DFW IAH HOU CLT LGA JFK SFO SJC EWR SNA EYW MIA BOG LAX ORD DTW OAK PVG BOS DCA IAD ATL LAS BIS CUN PHX OAK SYD CVG PHL MAD ORY CDG SLC SJU BQN MHT YYZ STS BIS DOH BLR KTM MFM MEX MSY BWI DEN
 
speedbird52
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 5:30 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 5:40 am

QueenoftheSkies wrote:
If a little airline named Emirates didn’t exist and grow the way they did, how many A380s would have sold?

A380 was as much as a success as Concorde. Enough said.

You think 167 orders as much a success as 14? Being generous, Airbus spent around 27 billion dollars on the A380 program. Concorde cost 9 billion adjusted for inflation. Something tells me Concorde got a lot less than a third of the A380s orders, and I don't think the Concorde's that were sold commended that high a price. Even if they sold at list price, they wouldn't have turned a profit.
 
ferren
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:38 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 6:58 am

it is funny that people that claim to be aviation enthusiasts are discussing this forever like bean counters.
was 380 success? from our perspective? definitely. maybe not for some investors, but i dont really care. they wont die from it.
was Concorde a success? definitely.
was Apollo success? definitely.
Is it really a primary indication of the success? Is this a finantial magazine?
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1350
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 8:01 am

SFOtoORD wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
I was really hoping we could have another thread to relitigate this topic. :roll:

Pretty much everything worth saying on this topic has been said and no one here is changing their mind at this point. It was a big airplane, some airlines liked, some didn’t like it as much, it never reached the level of sales expected and it certainly didn’t slow Airbus down in the long run.


Imagine if Airbus had used 30B to develop a different plane ( a successful one). Airbus WAS slowed down .. they would have a better product line if they had not spent the money on the A380.


But they didn’t and they are quite successful right now. Even with hindsight I’m not sure you can easily say they’d been in a far better position than they are today. They took a risk that wasn’t necessary, but it’s clearly changed them as a company.


How much do you think the A380 cost airbus? Maybe $15 billion. They would be better had they not lost the money.

You can argue they learned lessons, and that the A380 was good publicity. That’s true. But $15 billion is SO HUGE.

They could have paid down debt. They could have done a clean sheet A320. They could have an NMA/767-replacement in production (and watch Boeing cry about that). They spent a HUGE investment to take a HUGE loss. Imagine how much better Airbus could be had they invested in something better.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1350
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 8:03 am

ferren wrote:
it is funny that people that claim to be aviation enthusiasts are discussing this forever like bean counters.
was 380 success? from our perspective? definitely. maybe not for some investors, but i dont really care. they wont die from it.
was Concorde a success? definitely.
was Apollo success? definitely.
Is it really a primary indication of the success? Is this a finantial magazine?


I think there is truth in this. Not economic truth. But if you love airplanes ...

(I’m aware this is in strong contrast to my previous post. Both are true, just using different metrics.)
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 9:23 am

kitplane01 wrote:
You can argue they learned lessons, and that the A380 was good publicity. That’s true. But $15 billion is SO HUGE.

They could have paid down debt. They could have done a clean sheet A320. They could have an NMA/767-replacement in production (and watch Boeing cry about that). They spent a HUGE investment to take a HUGE loss. Imagine how much better Airbus could be had they invested in something better.

$15 billion is the cost of approximately 2 new large airports. Or 25 % of Airbus' annual revenue. On a grand scale, it seems pretty manageable.

Also, the A380 was, and is, a pretty emotional project. Both for supporters and opponents. I think this really helped Airbus weather the issues they encountered along the way. A smaller jet wouldn't have had that support, and something like the wiring / CATIA issues may have led to a lot more blaming and less problem solving. The feeling of "We want this, and we can only achieve it together" turned Airbus from a compound of national companies into a unified structure. It also allowed Airbus to gain distance from national politicians, who only care about "their" branch thriving. The A330/340 program didn't achieve that.
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1623
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 9:32 am

The A380 programme wasn't a disaster, and may have had benefits for Airbus industrially, but no way can it be considered a success as it effectively became a dead end, with no derivatives (freight, stretched etc)

The original A300 was originally a very slow seller, but sales picked up and then it was developed into the very successful A330. A330NEOs on sale today can be traced back to decisions made 50 years on what fuselage size to go for.

Sometimes you hit the jackpot, sometimes you fail. I doubt Airbus realised just how successful the A321 would become when they proposed a simple stretch of the A320 30 years ago for example
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
tropical
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:04 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 11:01 am

ferren wrote:
it is funny that people that claim to be aviation enthusiasts are discussing this forever like bean counters.
was 380 success? from our perspective? definitely. maybe not for some investors, but i dont really care. they wont die from it.
was Concorde a success? definitely.
was Apollo success? definitely.
Is it really a primary indication of the success? Is this a finantial magazine?


Spot on. 30-odd years into the future, when most of today's flying models have been retired, the queues at every aviation museum that has them will be to see and get inside Concorde and the A380, not the 737 or the A320.
 
BrianDromey
Posts: 2451
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:23 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 11:24 am

There is a lot of revisionist versions of history here. When the concept of the A3XX/A380 was conceived the 747-400 was still the long haul aircraft of the day. Boeing offered the 767 and the 777 was limited to -200. The 200LR/ER were in development. Aviation markets were predicted to grow. The 77W was much, much better than planned and the aviation slump of the early 2000s killed the 747s, bypassing hubs.

The business case for the A380 was reasonable, but global economic events, competition from EK and low-cost airlines made airlines more conservative and more capable rival airframes sealed the case. had the 77W 'only' been as good as planned or airframes like the A330/350/787 not been developed the A380 would have had a different outcome. But to suggest that the concept of the A380 was always doomed is unfair. The -800 itself was too heavy, had too much unusable floorspace and not enough cargo volume to be attractive. The way BA use them is interesting, often to cities also served by the 77W.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1226
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 12:38 pm

speedbird52 wrote:
QueenoftheSkies wrote:
If a little airline named Emirates didn’t exist and grow the way they did, how many A380s would have sold?

A380 was as much as a success as Concorde. Enough said.

You think 167 orders as much a success as 14? Being generous, Airbus spent around 27 billion dollars on the A380 program. Concorde cost 9 billion adjusted for inflation. Something tells me Concorde got a lot less than a third of the A380s orders, and I don't think the Concorde's that were sold commended that high a price. Even if they sold at list price, they wouldn't have turned a profit.

From memory, the Concorde were handed over to Air France for 1 FF and to British Airways for £1 each; at least the last ones, but I believe more or less all were.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21451
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 12:50 pm

BrianDromey wrote:
There is a lot of revisionist versions of history here. When the concept of the A3XX/A380 was conceived the 747-400 was still the long haul aircraft of the day. Boeing offered the 767 and the 777 was limited to -200. The 200LR/ER were in development. Aviation markets were predicted to grow. The 77W was much, much better than planned and the aviation slump of the early 2000s killed the 747s, bypassing hubs.

The business case for the A380 was reasonable, but global economic events, competition from EK and low-cost airlines made airlines more conservative and more capable rival airframes sealed the case. had the 77W 'only' been as good as planned or airframes like the A330/350/787 not been developed the A380 would have had a different outcome. But to suggest that the concept of the A380 was always doomed is unfair. The -800 itself was too heavy, had too much unusable floorspace and not enough cargo volume to be attractive. The way BA use them is interesting, often to cities also served by the 77W.

Thing is, as hockey great Wayne Gretzky has said, you don't aim for where the puck is, you aim for where it's going to be.

I think this especially applies when investing a generational sum of money.

John Leahy himself said in his post retirement interviews that Airbus decision makers listened to the more conservative airlines (presumably LH) too much and stayed with four engined aircraft too long.

He said he was astonished when his superiors refused GE's offer to pay the cost of putting the GE90 on an A330 class aircraft.

Given the A330's known growth potential from A340 and GE's now proven efficiency gains, Airbus could have blunted the 777's success.
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
 
airbazar
Posts: 9701
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 1:10 pm

IWMBH wrote:
The A380 was an engineering success but definitely not a commercial success. I doubt if they even played even on the model. The Boeing wide body strategy is beating that of Airbus and their is no way around that.

Not a commercial success, according to whom? Does EK think the A380 was a commercial failure?
And as for the Boeing strategy, it is exactly the same as Airbus or they wouldn't have launched the 748 and the 779. Boeing has the financial advantage because those are derivatives rather than clean sheet projects but the commercial strategy is exactly the same: to cover all market segments with a competitive product.

American 767 wrote:
It is true that the A380 is a commercial failure, I don't even know if it made it to Break Even point. But to say that it's the biggest commercial failure ever, I don't agree.

I think you're mixing up commercial and financial. The biggest problem affecting A380 sales was the initial delays that led to huge cost over-runs combined with a global aviation recession at the time of its launch. Most A380 operators seemed to be very happy with it until something better came along.

9Patch wrote:
Airbus was a serious contender before the A380 was launched.

Not in the widebody segment they were not. Boeing had something like 70% of the market share.
The A310/A300 although technologically revolutionary, were relative niche aircraft.
The A340 had been made obsolete by the 777 only 5 years after EIS.
The A332 was doing good but the A333 was doing very poorly.

BrianDromey wrote:
The business case for the A380 was reasonable, but global economic events, competition from EK and low-cost airlines made airlines more conservative and more capable rival airframes sealed the case.

I think Airbus overestimated demand from Asia and underestimated the ability of Asian countries to build infrastructure.
The "line" at the time was that demand for air travel in Asia was about to explode (which it did), but unlike in Europe and the U.S. airport construction kept pace with the growth. As a result those markets which Airbus envisioned needing the A380 were being served by smaller aircraft and mainly by LCC's.
The LCC revolution more than anything killed the A380, IMO. At the time (pre-2000), airlines like Singapore Airlines and others were operating 400+ seat 744's on short 1-2-hour hops. If you visited Narita or Kai Tak in those days, most gates were occupied with 747's. That was the the world we lived in, pre 2000.

As far as the R&D and development costs for the A380, the silver lining is that at least Airbus got something out of it and will continue to use it in the future. I can only imagine how much money has been thrown into R&D by both manufacturers for products that have never seen the light of day and that we probably never even heard of. All of the people bashing the A380 spending are probably the same ones defending Boeing's money spent on the Sonic Cruiser for 15 years and justifying it because some of that technology was later applied to the 787. Isn't that exactly what Airbus did with the A380 -> A350?
 
9Patch
Topic Author
Posts: 341
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 1:24 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Also, the A380 was, and is, a pretty emotional project. Both for supporters and opponents. I think this really helped Airbus weather the issues they encountered along the way. A smaller jet wouldn't have had that support, and something like the wiring / CATIA issues may have led to a lot more blaming and less problem solving. The feeling of "We want this, and we can only achieve it together" turned Airbus from a compound of national companies into a unified structure. It also allowed Airbus to gain distance from national politicians, who only care about "their" branch thriving. The A330/340 program didn't achieve that.


So you think if Airbus had done the A350 XWB before the A380, and had run into problems, there would not have been the support to weather the issues? If they had encountered the wiring / CATIA issues, they wouldn't have worked together to solve it? What would they do? Just give up?

They could only become a unified structure and gained distance from national politicians by building the A380? Not another plane?

What utter nonsense.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1065
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 1:27 pm

Revelation wrote:
BrianDromey wrote:
There is a lot of revisionist versions of history here. When the concept of the A3XX/A380 was conceived the 747-400 was still the long haul aircraft of the day. Boeing offered the 767 and the 777 was limited to -200. The 200LR/ER were in development. Aviation markets were predicted to grow. The 77W was much, much better than planned and the aviation slump of the early 2000s killed the 747s, bypassing hubs.

The business case for the A380 was reasonable, but global economic events, competition from EK and low-cost airlines made airlines more conservative and more capable rival airframes sealed the case. had the 77W 'only' been as good as planned or airframes like the A330/350/787 not been developed the A380 would have had a different outcome. But to suggest that the concept of the A380 was always doomed is unfair. The -800 itself was too heavy, had too much unusable floorspace and not enough cargo volume to be attractive. The way BA use them is interesting, often to cities also served by the 77W.

Thing is, as hockey great Wayne Gretzky has said, you don't aim for where the puck is, you aim for where it's going to be.

I think this especially applies when investing a generational sum of money.

John Leahy himself said in his post retirement interviews that Airbus decision makers listened to the more conservative airlines (presumably LH) too much and stayed with four engined aircraft too long.

He said he was astonished when his superiors refused GE's offer to pay the cost of putting the GE90 on an A330 class aircraft.


Given the A330's known growth potential from A340 and GE's now proven efficiency gains, Airbus could have blunted the 777's success.


Talk about revisionist history. He is the guy who really drove the decision to do the 380, and was it's primary public proponent during its sales lifespan. He was also instrumental in the 4 engines 4 long haul debacle (including A345 and 6).
 
9Patch
Topic Author
Posts: 341
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 1:36 pm

airbazar wrote:
All of the people bashing the A380 spending are probably the same ones defending Boeing's money spent on the Sonic Cruiser for 15 years and justifying it because some of that technology was later applied to the 787. Isn't that exactly what Airbus did with the A380 -> A350?

Not exactly. The Sonic Cruiser program was a paper airplane. The program never launched. It did not incur the same expenses the A380 did. I'm curious to know what you think Boeing spent from their R&D budget an the Sonic Cruiser, but I'm sure it was nothing close to what Airbus spent on the A380.
 
trent900
Posts: 519
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 6:06 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 1:45 pm

9Patch wrote:
tropical wrote:
If Airbus management knew in 2000 what they know now would they have gone forward with the program? If given a chance for a do over would they make the same decision? I doubt it.


If Airbus did announce an A380 program now the world airlines would probably still say they want 1000 of the craft. It comes down to whether they would actually order the thing!

D.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2430
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 2:11 pm

9Patch wrote:
airbazar wrote:
All of the people bashing the A380 spending are probably the same ones defending Boeing's money spent on the Sonic Cruiser for 15 years and justifying it because some of that technology was later applied to the 787. Isn't that exactly what Airbus did with the A380 -> A350?

Not exactly. The Sonic Cruiser program was a paper airplane. The program never launched. It did not incur the same expenses the A380 did. I'm curious to know what you think Boeing spent from their R&D budget an the Sonic Cruiser, but I'm sure it was nothing close to what Airbus spent on the A380.


I think the Sonic Cruiser was a diversion. It was an excuse for investigating new technologies to improve the efficiency of aircraft without tipping their hats. I think Boeing used it as a way of getting engine manufacturers to propose products with their most advanced technologies. The Sonic Cruiser idea was proposed after the A380 program was announced. This meant whatever came out of the Sonic Cruiser, program whether a .98 Mach aircraft or a hyper efficient .85 Mach aircraft, would have engines a generation later than the A380. Two 787-9 aircraft can fly the same route as am A380 with more passengers and more freight at lower operating cost and more frequency.
 
musman9853
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 2:24 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
speedbird52 wrote:
QueenoftheSkies wrote:
If a little airline named Emirates didn’t exist and grow the way they did, how many A380s would have sold?

A380 was as much as a success as Concorde. Enough said.

You think 167 orders as much a success as 14? Being generous, Airbus spent around 27 billion dollars on the A380 program. Concorde cost 9 billion adjusted for inflation. Something tells me Concorde got a lot less than a third of the A380s orders, and I don't think the Concorde's that were sold commended that high a price. Even if they sold at list price, they wouldn't have turned a profit.

From memory, the Concorde were handed over to Air France for 1 FF and to British Airways for £1 each; at least the last ones, but I believe more or less all were.


The first 4 were sold for full price, the last 10 were sold for the 1 pound mark.
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2430
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 2:25 pm

BrianDromey wrote:
There is a lot of revisionist versions of history here. When the concept of the A3XX/A380 was conceived the 747-400 was still the long haul aircraft of the day. Boeing offered the 767 and the 777 was limited to -200. The 200LR/ER were in development. Aviation markets were predicted to grow. The 77W was much, much better than planned and the aviation slump of the early 2000s killed the 747s, bypassing hubs.

The business case for the A380 was reasonable, but global economic events, competition from EK and low-cost airlines made airlines more conservative and more capable rival airframes sealed the case. had the 77W 'only' been as good as planned or airframes like the A330/350/787 not been developed the A380 would have had a different outcome. But to suggest that the concept of the A380 was always doomed is unfair. The -800 itself was too heavy, had too much unusable floorspace and not enough cargo volume to be attractive. The way BA use them is interesting, often to cities also served by the 77W.


By the time the A380 program was launched, new 747-400 passenger orders had dried up several years before. Many airlines were converting 747 orders to 777 orders. The 777-300 was already flying for airlines, and the 777-300ER was under development. The writing was on the wall. Airbus ignored it.
 
airbazar
Posts: 9701
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 2:48 pm

9Patch wrote:
airbazar wrote:
All of the people bashing the A380 spending are probably the same ones defending Boeing's money spent on the Sonic Cruiser for 15 years and justifying it because some of that technology was later applied to the 787. Isn't that exactly what Airbus did with the A380 -> A350?

Not exactly. The Sonic Cruiser program was a paper airplane. The program never launched. It did not incur the same expenses the A380 did. I'm curious to know what you think Boeing spent from their R&D budget an the Sonic Cruiser, but I'm sure it was nothing close to what Airbus spent on the A380.

They spent 5 years working on it, that we know of for sure. Could have been longer. And yes, exactly, it was just a paper airplane but how much did Boeing throw at it before canceling it? We'll never know what it cost because the costs were buried in the general R&D budget. But 5 years of R&D that amounted to nothing more than a paper airplane didn't come cheap, that's for sure and that's my point exactly. How much money do both manufacturers throw at projects that never see the light of day? And here we are bashing one that actually went all the way.
 
Antarius
Posts: 1723
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 2:53 pm

airbazar wrote:
9Patch wrote:
airbazar wrote:
All of the people bashing the A380 spending are probably the same ones defending Boeing's money spent on the Sonic Cruiser for 15 years and justifying it because some of that technology was later applied to the 787. Isn't that exactly what Airbus did with the A380 -> A350?

Not exactly. The Sonic Cruiser program was a paper airplane. The program never launched. It did not incur the same expenses the A380 did. I'm curious to know what you think Boeing spent from their R&D budget an the Sonic Cruiser, but I'm sure it was nothing close to what Airbus spent on the A380.

They spent 5 years working on it, that we know of for sure. Could have been longer. And yes, exactly, it was just a paper airplane but how much did Boeing throw at it before canceling it? We'll never know what it cost because the costs were buried in the general R&D budget. But 5 years of R&D that amounted to nothing more than a paper airplane didn't come cheap, that's for sure and that's my point exactly. How much money do both manufacturers throw at projects that never see the light of day? And here we are bashing one that actually went all the way.


1. Other potentially bad decisions do not justify this one
2. Sunk cost fallacy
2019: SIN HKG NRT DFW IAH HOU CLT LGA JFK SFO SJC EWR SNA EYW MIA BOG LAX ORD DTW OAK PVG BOS DCA IAD ATL LAS BIS CUN PHX OAK SYD CVG PHL MAD ORY CDG SLC SJU BQN MHT YYZ STS BIS DOH BLR KTM MFM MEX MSY BWI DEN
 
planecane
Posts: 1164
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 3:04 pm

TUSDawg23 wrote:
In a recent Airways Magazine article, it said Airbus saw a market for 1000 Airbus A380s. In the end, only about 250 of them will actually be delivered and flown by customers. I'd say that's falling short of the target goal.

Especially since, thanks to the -8F, the warmed over 747-8 series will end up with over 150 in service (maybe 200) so the market for total VLA turned out less than half of their prediction for just the A380.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2724
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 3:20 pm

For people wondering about the economics, you only need to know that Airbus itself has claimed that the A380 broke even on a per frame basis, for one or maybe two years.

They have never claimed a profitable year. So for the vast majority of the planes delivered, it cost Airbus more to make than they sold them for.

I'll blame the building of a whole new huge factory and an idiotic supply chain as part of the issue. Planning on a 42/yr rate was also a nail in the coffin as early frames were sold too cheap and later frames would never see the lower costs of that production rate.
 
drmlnr1
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 7:16 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 3:48 pm

Just spat out my drink. Really? As of the end of last month 235 being delivered. One of the problems was more carriers were switching to twin jets but some were still subscribing to the “4 engines 4 transatlantic/transpacific” theory.
Flying is relaxing!
 
User avatar
precure787
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 3:52 pm

I wouldn't exactly call an A380 a success, because of fewer orders/customers. Emirates is the only airline that took large quantity of the A380, but after exchanging for smaller Airbus orders, the A380 program will call it quits in 2021. The 747-8, on the other hand, may continue their production until 2022, mostly freighters, unless newer cargo carriers would order some 747-8F's.

However, in terms of competing with the 747-8i, it can be arguably more successful, given that only Lufthansa, Air China, and Korean Air ordered the 747-8i. Not counting the A380 operators that concurrently fly the 747-8i, British Airways, Air France, Etihad Airways, Emirates, Qantas, All Nippon Airways, Singapore Airlines, Malaysia Airlines, China Southern Airlines, Asiana Airlines, Qatar Airways, and Hi Fly Malta fly the A380s, although some have flew less A380s than the peak number of their 747s.
Edward Zen/Precure 787
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21451
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 4:11 pm

texl1649 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
John Leahy himself said in his post retirement interviews that Airbus decision makers listened to the more conservative airlines (presumably LH) too much and stayed with four engined aircraft too long.

He said he was astonished when his superiors refused GE's offer to pay the cost of putting the GE90 on an A330 class aircraft.


Talk about revisionist history. He is the guy who really drove the decision to do the 380, and was it's primary public proponent during its sales lifespan. He was also instrumental in the 4 engines 4 long haul debacle (including A345 and 6).

Do tell. My reading of Guy Norris's book ( https://www.amazon.com/Airbus-A380-Supe ... B003UHUM9O ) did not leave me with the impression that JL "really drove the decision to do the 380". The impression I left with was the project was initially driven by engineering (the book has the frank admission that the engineers were worried that they would be out of work if they didn't come up with something else to do) and was carried by them to the executive suite. I would agree that once the decisions were made he did become the public face, but that's what his job was. He was head salesman, and he sells what the factory produces. He didn't become CCO till 2005.
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
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 4:21 pm

9Patch wrote:
What utter nonsense.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. Did you do anything but repeat what I wrote?
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2430
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 5:07 pm

Revelation wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
John Leahy himself said in his post retirement interviews that Airbus decision makers listened to the more conservative airlines (presumably LH) too much and stayed with four engined aircraft too long.

He said he was astonished when his superiors refused GE's offer to pay the cost of putting the GE90 on an A330 class aircraft.


Talk about revisionist history. He is the guy who really drove the decision to do the 380, and was it's primary public proponent during its sales lifespan. He was also instrumental in the 4 engines 4 long haul debacle (including A345 and 6).

Do tell. My reading of Guy Norris's book ( https://www.amazon.com/Airbus-A380-Supe ... B003UHUM9O ) did not leave me with the impression that JL "really drove the decision to do the 380". The impression I left with was the project was initially driven by engineering (the book has the frank admission that the engineers were worried that they would be out of work if they didn't come up with something else to do) and was carried by them to the executive suite. I would agree that once the decisions were made he did become the public face, but that's what his job was. He was head salesman, and he sells what the factory produces. He didn't become CCO till 2005.


Airbus should have done the A350 instead of the A380 vanity priogram. Without an A380 to protect, the A350 could have been a 10-abreast composite wide body able to kill off the 747, prevent the 777X, and replace the A340 at the top end of Airbus' product line. The future in 2000 was twin engines everywhere. The 777-300ER entered into commercial service about a year before the A380 prototype had its first flight. The tremendous economic performance of the 777-300ER killed off the A340-600 and 500. By this time Airbus was so heavily invested in the A380 that they tried to compete against the 787 with a reengined A330. Without the burden of defending the A380's niche, Airbus could have developed a better positioned products to compete against the 777 and 787.
 
9Patch
Topic Author
Posts: 341
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 5:25 pm

airbazar wrote:
[How much money do both manufacturers throw at projects that never see the light of day? And here we are bashing one that actually went all the way.

Companies aren't supposed to embark on $25 billion programs that end up selling only 251 copies and then get shut down.

Boeing thought the market demand for the 787 was greater than the Sonic Cruiser. That's why they went with it. Good call on their part.
Last edited by 9Patch on Thu May 23, 2019 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
9Patch
Topic Author
Posts: 341
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 5:36 pm

planecane wrote:
Especially since, thanks to the -8F, the warmed over 747-8 series will end up with over 150 in service (maybe 200) so the market for total VLA turned out less than half of their prediction for just the A380.

Yes, but the 747 program as a whole has 1,572 orders, with possibly more to come.

I'm sure if the A380-900 had ever been built and the A380F, you would include those in determining whether the program was a success or not.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2430
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 6:49 pm

9Patch wrote:
planecane wrote:
Especially since, thanks to the -8F, the warmed over 747-8 series will end up with over 150 in service (maybe 200) so the market for total VLA turned out less than half of their prediction for just the A380.

Yes, but the 747 program as a whole has 1,572 orders, with possibly more to come.

I'm sure if the A380-900 had ever been built and the A380F, you would include those in determining whether the program was a success or not.



Boeing was able to kill the A380F by offering both the 777F, 747-8F, and end of line 747-400F's. Some of the freighter customers were expecting to have their A380F's in the early 2010's. When Airbus cancelled the A380F due to the CATIA catastrophe, Boeing was able to offer planes. Even if Airbus had been in a position to offer the A380F again after 2015, the potential customers already had bought planes and didn't need it. The lost freighter orders hurt the case for developing the landing gear for the A380-900. The lost freighter orders could have helped keep the A380 line busy till the A380-900 or A380 NEO was ready.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1350
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 7:18 pm

mxaxai wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
You can argue they learned lessons, and that the A380 was good publicity. That’s true. But $15 billion is SO HUGE.

They could have paid down debt. They could have done a clean sheet A320. They could have an NMA/767-replacement in production (and watch Boeing cry about that). They spent a HUGE investment to take a HUGE loss. Imagine how much better Airbus could be had they invested in something better.

$15 billion is the cost of approximately 2 new large airports. Or 25 % of Airbus' annual revenue. On a grand scale, it seems pretty manageable.

Also, the A380 was, and is, a pretty emotional project. Both for supporters and opponents. I think this really helped Airbus weather the issues they encountered along the way. A smaller jet wouldn't have had that support, and something like the wiring / CATIA issues may have led to a lot more blaming and less problem solving. The feeling of "We want this, and we can only achieve it together" turned Airbus from a compound of national companies into a unified structure. It also allowed Airbus to gain distance from national politicians, who only care about "their" branch thriving. The A330/340 program didn't achieve that.


Yes, they managed it. One can also manage divorce, broken bones, and tornadoes. And I don't know if you think Airbus loss $15B or $25B, but emotional support and wiring issues ...

Think what Airbus could have done instead. Answer this question directly: Which would be better, the A380 program they had or the proposal below

flyingclrs727 wrote:
Airbus should have done the A350 instead of the A380 vanity priogram. Without an A380 to protect, the A350 could have been a 10-abreast composite wide body able to kill off the 747, prevent the 777X, and replace the A340 at the top end of Airbus' product line. ... By this time Airbus was so heavily invested in the A380 that they tried to compete against the 787 with a reengined A330. Without the burden of defending the A380's niche, Airbus could have developed a better positioned products to compete against the 777 and 787.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1350
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 7:23 pm

airbazar wrote:
I think you're mixing up commercial and financial. The biggest problem affecting A380 sales was the initial delays that led to huge cost over-runs combined with a global aviation recession at the time of its launch. Most A380 operators seemed to be very happy with it until something better came along.


I cannot imagine what you mean by the difference between commercial and financial. But what I mean is that it loss many billion $$$. Says Airbus.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21451
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 7:35 pm

"My baby ain't ugly", says mama.
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
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu May 23, 2019 8:14 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
Yes, they managed it. One can also manage divorce, broken bones, and tornadoes. And I don't know if you think Airbus loss $15B or $25B, but emotional support and wiring issues ...

Think what Airbus could have done instead. Answer this question directly: Which would be better, the A380 program they had or the proposal below

flyingclrs727 wrote:
Airbus should have done the A350 instead of the A380 vanity priogram. Without an A380 to protect, the A350 could have been a 10-abreast composite wide body able to kill off the 747, prevent the 777X, and replace the A340 at the top end of Airbus' product line. ... By this time Airbus was so heavily invested in the A380 that they tried to compete against the 787 with a reengined A330. Without the burden of defending the A380's niche, Airbus could have developed a better positioned products to compete against the 777 and 787.

Airbus was driven by numbers and national pride before the A380. If a numbers-run Airbus program had encountered problems like the A380 or 787 eventually did, it probably would've been caused the "divorce" of the partners once they saw that it would never be able to return a profit. The emotional investment of all parties has kept the program alive for 15 years.
Also, Airbus has long been at the avantgarde of new concepts - first twin engine widebody, first FBW, first medium-sized long haul. At the same time, airlines and Airbus were still cautious of very large twins. A carbon copy of the 777 probably didn't fit the spirit of Airbus' leadership at the time, nor would it have gained political support or airlines' interest. Look how little interest there was in the 77W before its first deliveries.
Finally, I think that the proposal above would likely encounter similar engineering issues to the A380. And then you'd have a duck right in the center of your product line. It would still be half a generation behind the 787. Current A380 operators would have bought the 747-8 for trunk routes instead. I think that the A380's size was overly optimistic but a 10-abreast jet would have been a comparable failure, if not more.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10

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