Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
WAH64D
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:14 am

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 6:59 am

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 5):
My point is first, Airbus doesn't have a lot of credibility with SQ right now and secondly, what would you expect them to say?

With the amount of money SQ are spending on this aircraft, you can be damn sure anything Airbus says has a whole load of credibility.

Quoting Glideslope (Reply 25):
Desperate times lead to inflated statements.

Exactly right sir. B747Adv is the first thing to spring to mind.

Boeing exec meeting:

Exec 1, "What the h*ll are we going to do about A380". Exec 2, "Touch our toes and kiss our own ass..... errrr.....high density long haul customer base goodbye?" Chairman, "Nah, spruce up the good ole seven four." Meeting over.........  wink 

Yes, desperate times do lead to inflated statements and inflated expectations of what more can really be done with an old airframe.

Waiting to be told that 747Adv is not an A380 competitor. Just who are they trying to kid. The simple fact is that they would love to have a competitor to this aircraft. The sad part is that an updated/stretched 40 year old design simply won't cut it against a brand new aircraft no matter what engines you put on it.
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:09 am

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 50):
The sad part is that an updated/stretched 40 year old design simply won't cut it against a brand new aircraft no matter what engines you put on it.

Hasn't the 747-400 outsold the A380 this year? And that's before the 747 Advanced improvements...
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:20 am

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 50):
With the amount of money SQ are spending on this aircraft, you can be damn sure anything Airbus says has a whole load of credibility.

You missed the point. Airbus hid the delay from SQ for months after they realized it and that apparently screwed up some long-term planning. Perhaps more importantly, Airbus or Boeing's words do not get more or less credible depending on the catalog price of a product.

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 50):
Waiting to be told that 747Adv is not an A380 competitor. Just who are they trying to kid. The simple fact is that they would love to have a competitor to this aircraft. The sad part is that an updated/stretched 40 year old design simply won't cut it against a brand new aircraft no matter what engines you put on it.

Boeing has never once claimed that it would be direct competitor. Keeping the 747 around has been part of their plans for years even after the A380 was launched. Take care not to mischaracterize, distort, or attribute remarks that have not been made. Do you really honestly believe that they just itching to go up against the A380 in a head-to-head battle but cannot?

Give us a break. Boeing has the know-how but they do not see an economic result that would justify such an aircraft at this time.
 
leelaw
Posts: 4517
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:23 am

Quoting MarshalN (Reply 49):
the A380 isn't available for a few more years if CX were to place an order now

At least six years for new customers if you want to purchase one from Airbus according to Mr. Champion's utterances this week.
 
WAH64D
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:14 am

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:30 am

Quoting N79969 (Reply 52):
Do you really honestly believe that they just itching to go up against the A380 in a head-to-head battle but cannot?

Not exactly. I believe they have mis-judged the market and they've left it too late to launch a competitor. We all know they have the capability to design and build world beating aircraft 747/777/787. I truly believe that 10 years down the line Boeing will be kicking themselves for not building a competitive aircraft in this sector of the market.

Quoting N79969 (Reply 52):
Give us a break. Boeing has the know-how but they do not see an economic result that would justify such an aircraft at this time.

As I said above. Boeing definitely do have the know how and the capability to build this type of aircraft. They didn't see the economic justification for this program when it was announced. I think that view has changed in the interim. Airbus are not going to wager the company on a design that won't be successful, thats all I'm saying.

There are many out there that want to believe the A380 will be a flop. It won't be. Market analysts at Airbus are in the job because they know what they're doing. Airbus have said that the aircraft's performance is exceeding design expectations, they are a hardball player and are not known for making statements that are blatantly untrue.

[Edited 2005-11-12 23:32:05]
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20131
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:31 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 51):
Hasn't the 747-400 outsold the A380 this year?

Freighters maybe. When was Boeing's last -400 pax sale?
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:43 am

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 55):
Freighters maybe. When was Boeing's last -400 pax sale?

So what are you saying--cargo sales don't count?
 
art
Posts: 4191
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:46 am

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 54):
Quoting N79969 (Reply 52):
Do you really honestly believe that they just itching to go up against the A380 in a head-to-head battle but cannot?

Not exactly. I believe they have mis-judged the market and they've left it too late to launch a competitor.

Why would Boeing risk putting an entrant in the 550 seat sector when there is a gap in the market for aircraft between 400 and 550 seats?
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:49 am

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 55):
Freighters maybe. When was Boeing's last -400 pax sale?

Freighters aren't as glamorous as passenger planes, but they cost just as much if not more than there passenger counterparts. This means that Boeing still gets the same profit weather they sell a freighter or a passenger jet. In my mind then we should count freighters and passenger planes in the final count.
 
BR076
Posts: 1032
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 4:10 am

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:57 am

Great news, If Airbus claims A380 will be better than promised , it would be stupid if they lied about that, so it must be true  Smile
Good luck King of the sky  airplane 
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:02 am

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 54):
I think that view has changed in the interim. Airbus are not going to wager the company on a design that won't be successful, thats all I'm saying.

WAH64D,

I disagree. There is nothing at all to indicate that Boeing missed the boat on the VLA market or that their view has changed. Zero. The 747Adv means they are updating the 747 just as they originally intended for years. It's not like the A350 which went from a no-necessity project to an A330 with new engines to an all-new airplane in a matter of months.

Airbus did not bet the company with the A380. About 25% of the risk was borne by the EU. With such large number of French workers, I think it is clear that the EU will not allow Airbus to take risks that could result in business failure.

As far as Airbus market analysts knowing their stuff....Airbus never performed a Shadow Critical Analysis for the A380 as they usually do in order to get state aid.

[Edited 2005-11-13 00:05:16]
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:20 am

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 4):
I realy dont see them ordering the 787-8. It is simply too small.



Quoting Abba (Reply 6):
The 787-8 I agree is out of the question and I even believe that SQ has stated that officially.



Quoting United Airline (Reply 13):
The B 787-3 is out of the question. But I do see them getting the B 787-8/B787-9 to start less busy routes such as SIN-MAD (or via another city), SIN-ORD, SIN-HKG-LAS, SIN-HKG-TPE or routes to South America etc. Both the B 787-8 and the B 787-9 are included in the RFP.

SQ very much need aircraft the size of the B787-8 to serve smaller cities in Europe. Cities that now have 3x/4x weekly service could be increased to daily service which brings up the yields and cities like MAD that have lost connecting service altogether could be restarted with nonstop service.
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2233
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:37 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 61):
SQ very much need aircraft the size of the B787-8 to serve smaller cities in Europe. Cities that now have 3x/4x weekly service could be increased to daily service which brings up the yields and cities like MAD that have lost connecting service altogether could be restarted with nonstop service.

I agree. But I think SQ could be better suited to have a 250 seater than a 218 seater. Or mabe you are right and they will order both. You never know. The industry is always changing. Although, I would not out rule the 787-3. They can use those for low yield intra asia routes. CCU, Amritsar, HYD, Bali, ect.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15181
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:41 am

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 15):
or is the MTOW increase necessary to meet the original range/payload targets set for the WhaleJet

wasn't it because, even after trimming some of the fat, the engines came in over weight, but the increased efficiency of the engines made up for it?

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 16):
Higher empty weight means higher fuel burn.

Not if the higher empty weight is a result of larger, more efficient engines.

Quoting Manni (Reply 19):
I also recall someone at SIA saying that they'd rather "abuse" the A380 then ordering the 747Adv.

I think that was they would rather "abuse" the 788 than buy a 783, wasn't it? Or do they use that phrase a lot?

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 32):
I think the most important thing right now is that Airbus can demonstrate they can fly the A380-800 at the stated range of 8,000 nautical miles at standard MTOW of 560 metric tons

Not sure that's what the claim is, but they do promise a real payload at 8000nm, and that's the key, and sounds like they are doing just fine with that.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 40):
In other words, he tried to redefine Newton's Laws.

So did Einstein. Which is not to say NAV20 is dealing with non-linear equations or curvature of space time or anything.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 40):
I don't think it's a secret that the A380 has gained weight to keep on the payload/range schedule.

Isn't that just a theory? There are many reasons to gain weight.

Quoting PM (Reply 48):
So that's 67 orders over five years for 18 customers. That's a little over one plane a month. And, for what it's worth...

And of course there were 773ER orders over that time as well, so the line has been quite busy.

That said, Boeing needs to do the 78-10 anyway, though the EIS would be 2011 at the earliest, so why offer it now unless a big customer wants to place the order today?

And the 757 did not kill of the 727 order book when it was offered. 727s continued to sell up until 757 EIS, in large numbers, and as freighters for 1 more year.

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 50):
Exec 1, "What the h*ll are we going to do about A380". Exec 2, "Touch our toes and kiss our own ass..... errrr.....high density long haul customer base goodbye?" Chairman, "Nah, spruce up the good ole seven four." Meeting over.........

whatever. A380 orders haven't been record setting, and it looks as if the demand really won't pick up until 2015, and A can't deliver thousands before B offers a new 480-500 seat plane anyway.

Quoting N79969 (Reply 52):
Give us a break. Boeing has the know-how but they do not see an economic result that would justify such an aircraft at this time.

Justify TWO aircraft in this sector. There has always been a justification for one, just not at the numbers some have projected.

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 54):
Not exactly. I believe they have mis-judged the market

Where's your data to support that? Boeings projections made in 2000 for demand seem to be pretty spot on...

Quoting N79969 (Reply 60):
The 747Adv means they are updating the 747 just as they originally intended.

Yep, and have been trying to sell for many years now. Finally, they have the engines, they think, to make it make sense at a slightly reduced scale and with less money spent on a new wing. And the tail strike protection system engineered on the 773ER/772LR will also help the newer 747 achieve better performance without a new wing.

The 747A will be a strong cargo performer for a long while, and a solid pax model for those with 747 fleets who want to stay in the family until a new Y3 pax model comes on line in 10 years.

The 747AdvCargo will be around for a LONG time, with it's heavy lift and front load abilities. Since Airbus decided not to offer this kind of performance on the A380, even when B introduces the Y3, they need not worry about it as a cargo plane until a later date.

They can sell 747Adv cargo and Y3 pax planes side by side for YEARS.
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3707
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:46 am

Quoting N79969 (Reply 60):
There is nothing at all to indicate that Boeing's [...] view has changed. Zero. The 747Adv means they are updating the 747 just as they originally intended for years. It's not like the A350 which went from a no-necessity project to an A330 with new engines to an all-new airplane in a matter of months.

Rather than continuously criticize Airbus in every possible topic even only remotely dealing with this issue for what you want to make look as a lack of consistancy and repeat that very same initial and unofficial nonsense response to the then only proposed 7E7 'ad nausum', as an aviation enthusiast you'd better praise them for having changed their mind as soon as the 787 was officially launched and to come up with a plane that has the potential to become the fastest selling long haul plane ever (200 commitments in less than half a year)! All that in a time span of roughly 10 months...

It generally takes Boeing about 10 YEARS to come to the same conclusion when they are under attack!

Can we stick to the topic, i.e the A380 and its fantastic performance???

[Edited 2005-11-13 00:50:07]
 
BR076
Posts: 1032
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 4:10 am

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:55 am

Quoting N79969 (Reply 60):
I disagree. There is nothing at all to indicate that Boeing missed the boat on the VLA market or that their view has changed. Zero. The 747Adv means they are updating the 747 just as they originally intended for years. It's not like the A350 which went from a no-necessity project to an A330 with new engines to an all-new airplane in a matter of months.

Boeing must be desperate
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15181
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 9:12 am

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 64):
Rather than continuously criticize Airbus in every possible topic

Which means you can then turn around and make these false statements...

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 64):
All that in a time span of roughly 10 months...

Bull. They have been working on that plane for YEARS, in response to the 787, and kept changing it and changing it as customers told them "we'll buy it if you make it better than just an A330 with updated engines" and when the finally did, the customers came on board. The plane didn't materialize and make 200 "orders" come true in 10 months (or 6 months, as you also say). That's garbage. It's a long awaited derivative or NG, if you will, of an established and quality product.

Not the same thing as the 787 at all in terms of bringing a "new" untested product to market.

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 64):
It generally takes Boeing about 10 YEARS to come to the same conclusion when they are under attack!

Whatever.

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 64):
Can we stick to the topic, i.e the A380 and its fantastic performance???

Why don't you stick to the topic then?
 
WAH64D
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:14 am

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:36 am

Quoting N79969 (Reply 60):
As far as Airbus market analysts knowing their stuff....Airbus never performed a Shadow Critical Analysis for the A380 as they usually do in order to get state aid.

You're obviously more clued up on the development process than I am. Do you have a source for the ommission of the "Shadow Critical Analysis". Was it state aid or a development loan?
 
art
Posts: 4191
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:55 am

Quoting Abba (Thread starter):
South China Morning Post today reports from Singapore that Airbus has told SIA:

"[-] that early indications were the A380 was exceeding its performance guarantees".

One might of cause say that the wording is rather "safe". However, if Airbus is now telling its customers that the bird will do better than expected they must be pretty sure that this will also be the case.

They are not actually saying that the bird will do better than expected. They are saying that given early indications - I assume this is data collected through the test programme - it looks like it will.

I don't see anything strange or suspicious in telling SIA about this, particularly if it is normal to keep customers updated on progress.
 
abba
Topic Author
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 11:09 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 61):
SQ very much need aircraft the size of the B787-8 to serve smaller cities in Europe. Cities that now have 3x/4x weekly service could be increased to daily service which brings up the yields and cities like MAD that have lost connecting service altogether could be restarted with nonstop service.

I doubt that. 787 operations might be far too expensive on such long routes (e.g. could be Singapore Copenhagen) as the "small" secondary intercontinental airports in Europe are getting more and more competition as the airports that used to be their domestic airports are fast becoming regional serving the big hubs as well. This allows a growing part of secondary airports' market to use the continents prime hubs for intercontinental travel. This puts the 787 is direct competition with the 747/380.

True a daily 787 flight Copenhagen - Singapore (or Singapore Rome, Birmingham, Madrid etc) might be good for the population of these cities. But differently from before the rest of the population in Denmark, Italy and Spain (etc) might as well have a daily connection via London, Frankfurt or Paris and might as well choose to do so for only a relative little saving (they would have to take a domestic leg or a long train/car/bus ride anyway). And this is new!

As what used to be domestic airports turn regional expect to see secondary airports being reduced to regional ones as significant parts of their markets are being eroded these years.

For SQ the 787 might be used to destinations in Africa, South America and certain parts of North America. On Asia-Europe routes I can see only very limited opportunities. In particular if an 747adv or 380 (in particular when a 900 version appears) will allow for providing significantly cheaper travel for all those who under no circumstances would be able to have direct flights anyway.

Abba
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2233
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 11:34 am

Quoting Abba (Reply 69):
I doubt that. 787 operations might be far too expensive on such long routes (e.g. could be Singapore Copenhagen) as the "small" secondary intercontinental airports in Europe are getting more and more competition as the airports that used to be their domestic airports are fast becoming regional serving the big hubs as well. This allows a growing part of secondary airports' market to use the continents prime hubs for intercontinental travel. This puts the 787 is direct competition with the 747/380.

From the very beginning, Boeing's intentions are for the 787 to be a very economical aircraft and do point to point non-stop service. I don't understand where you find this to be "far too expensive."
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 11:52 am

Quoting Abba (Thread starter):
"[-] that early indications were the A380 was exceeding its performance guarantees".

Which begs the question, what were the performance guarantees? And early indications, what about current indications?

When Airbus parses out 'information' like this, it makes you wonder, is it just spin?
 
QFA001
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 6:47 am

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 12:31 pm

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 54):
Not exactly. I believe they have mis-judged the market and they've left it too late to launch a competitor. We all know they have the capability to design and build world beating aircraft 747/777/787. I truly believe that 10 years down the line Boeing will be kicking themselves for not building a competitive aircraft in this sector of the market.

One's beliefs are one's beliefs, but I don't think you have arrived at a logical conclusion. There is not yet any writing on the wall that Boeing misjudged the VLA market. Infact, weighed evidence is to the contrary.

However, if there is a sea-change in evidence and the market takes off, Boeing can still build a VLA. Infact, if you read between the lines of their CMO, they are heading for exactly that in the second half of next decade. Ofcourse, a lot more water is to flow under the bridge... The B787 has to be deliverable. If it's not, Boeing could choke on it.

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 54):
There are many out there that want to believe the A380 will be a flop. It won't be. Market analysts at Airbus are in the job because they know what they're doing. Airbus have said that the aircraft's performance is exceeding design expectations, they are a hardball player and are not known for making statements that are blatantly untrue.

I hate to say it, but Airbus' market analysts aren't well respected at all. For example, not a single industry analytical firm out there agrees with Airbus' forecast of the VLA market. If noone agrees with you, then how do you expect people to believe that Airbus knows what they're doing?

Quoting N79969 (Reply 60):
Airbus did not bet the company with the A380. About 25% of the risk was borne by the EU. With such large number of French workers, I think it is clear that the EU will not allow Airbus to take risks that could result in business failure.

I don't follow. The A380 can still fail, and it can still cost Airbus and the risk sharing partners (including governments) an incredible amount of money. It might not be a US-style "bet the company" outcome, but it is still betting the company. There is resources and credibility at stake, here.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 63):
So did Einstein. Which is not to say NAV20 is dealing with non-linear equations or curvature of space time or anything.

Are you suggesting that Einstein was a little in advance of us lowly airline analysts?  Wink

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 63):
Isn't that just a theory? There are many reasons to gain weight.

It is just a theory, but it's a good one. Airbus has payload/range guarantees. For every kg that the A380 is overweight without a corresponding performance improvement, MTOW needs to be raised. That's exactly what's happened.

 airplane QFA001
 
boeing767-300
Posts: 626
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 11:23 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 1:17 pm

Quoting Abba (Reply 22):
What have you been smoking? I'd never said that the 350 is bigger than the 777-200!

Abba quite clearly you stated the possibility of SQ getting the 'bigger' A350s to replace 777-300ERs as quoted below.

Quoting Abba (Reply 6):
The 787-8 I agree is out of the question and I even believe that SQ has stated that officially. However, I might not exclude the possibility of SQ getting the bigger 350s to replace 777-300ERs.

Abba since this thread is about A380 and larger Aircraft why would SQ replace a larger aircraft that has only range limitations if any with a smaller twin jet.

I disagree with you regarding the 787-8 and suggest to you that given the SQ dissatisfaction with the A343 and then performance shortfalls with A346 and now delays and performance and weight issues with A380 (We don't have a weight issue.. we increased MTOW 9 tons to meet existing performance guarantees Yeah sure ) then you can be sure SQ and other Airlines will be watching very carefully to actually see how well A380 performs. Given the 'careful' wording of Airbus press releases I am a little skeptical myself but look forward to the 'actual' figures when they become available.

With regards to all of the above I believe SQ will only order in the future A380 777 and 787. This could change depending on how A pays its compensation to SQ.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15181
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 1:25 pm

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 73):
Abba quite clearly you stated the possibility of SQ getting the 'bigger' A350s to replace 777-300ERs as quoted below.

But later he said it was a typo, and I believe him, as in theory a 359 can replace a 772ER, though it depends on some factors.

He just didn't have a chance to correct his typo before everyone jumped on him, but corrected it later.

Amazing what missing a key by one keystroke can do to an argument.

Which is why they have that whole page where you confirm your message. You are supposed to check it, so that things like this don't happen.

But I'll take him at his word that it was a typo.
 
monteycarlos
Posts: 2018
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:16 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 1:50 pm

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 11):
FWIW, if BA buys A380s, I think they'd go close to having the lowest seat count. Their class mix is just so heavily tilted in favour of premium classes.

But what are the chances of that?
 
PlaneDane
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:08 am

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 1:51 pm

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 50):
Quoting Glideslope (Reply 25):
Desperate times lead to inflated statements.

Exactly right sir. B747Adv is the first thing to spring to mind.

Boeing exec meeting:

Exec 1, "What the h*ll are we going to do about A380". Exec 2, "Touch our toes and kiss our own ass..... errrr.....high density long haul customer base goodbye?" Chairman, "Nah, spruce up the good ole seven four." Meeting over.........

Yes, desperate times do lead to inflated statements and inflated expectations of what more can really be done with an old airframe.

Must you always be so unkind?

At first, your relentless Boeing bashing was amusing, now it just comes off as pathetic and very sad.
 
monteycarlos
Posts: 2018
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:16 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 2:06 pm

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 42):
Are EU and US accounting standards the same? Is this an apples to apples comparison?

Well yes they are, but more to the point. Those figures are to be expected right now as Airbus had the better business of the last two years. Expect those margins to be much different when the significant 787 and 777 orders start turning into deliveries and the cash starts flowing.

I tend to agree with Manni though, both seem healthy enough despite people on here stabbing each of their respective voodoo dolls all the time.
 
United Airline
Posts: 8971
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 2:14 pm

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 44):
Orders for the 777-200ER have been practically nonexistent for years.

NZ has just taken delivery of its first B 777-200ER. And many other airlines have ordered the B 777-200ER over the past few years. Many of them are still on order.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 44):
LAX-HKG is not very far...

Not very far indeed

Quoting MarshalN (Reply 49):
14 hours in the air... is not very close.

I think he means not as far as super long range routes like SIN-EWR, HKG-JFK, SIN-LAX etc
 
monteycarlos
Posts: 2018
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:16 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 2:20 pm

Quoting United Airline (Reply 78):
I think he means not as far as super long range routes like SIN-EWR, HKG-JFK, SIN-LAX etc

Ok, just so we can all have a perspective... this is off the Great Circle Mapper.

HKG (22°18'32"N 113°54'53"E) LAX (33°56'33"N 118°24'29"W) 6309 nm
SYD (33°56'46"S 151°10'38"E) LAX (33°56'33"N 118°24'29"W) 6507 nm
MEL (37°40'24"S 144°50'36"E) LAX (33°56'33"N 118°24'29"W) 6883 nm
SIN (01°21'01"N 103°59'40"E) LAX (33°56'33"N 118°24'29"W) 7621 nm
KUL (02°44'44"N 101°42'36"E) LAX (33°56'33"N 118°24'29"W) 7654 nm
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16358
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 2:21 pm

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 1):
Big rumor now is a 15 747A order in Dec......

No big surprise there, average age of their 744 fleet is around 9 years, with the youngest a little over 4 years. Normally like to keep them younger than that.

Would not be surprised to see some of the older 777s to be replaced either.

The Asian Wall Street Journal reported recently that SQ may buy up to "60 long-range jetliners" soon.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 16):
Higher empty weight means higher fuel burn. Increasing the MTOW was a very inexpensive way to meet "paper" performance.

Seems your saying the range equation for a jet has changed since I learnt it, the one I learnt range for a jet (assuming LRC constant altitude and angle of attack varying cruise speed), range is only a function of thrust specific fuel consumption (TSFC), the fuel mass and aerodynamics (CL, CD).

Think of the 744 over the 744D, and 738 with and without blended winglets, The wing extension and winglets on the 744 has a higher empty weight than the 744D (internal configuration aside), and the 738 with winglets has a higher weight than that of a standard 738, both have better range than the lighter version.

The 744AVD should have an increased range as the GEnx will give the airframe a lower TSFC, the range should increase by 2/(TSFC change) if the aerodynamics and fuel payload remains the same.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 72):
I hate to say it, but Airbus' market analysts aren't well respected at all. For example, not a single industry analytical firm out there agrees with Airbus' forecast of the VLA market. If no one agrees with you, then how do you expect people to believe that Airbus knows what they're doing?

Yep Airbus didn’t predict that Fedex now wants over 200 A380s, shame on Airbus.

[Edited 2005-11-13 06:41:36]
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:19 pm

I see most, if - surprisingly - not all, of the usual participants have already had their say here... and I'm not at all surprised to see the same comments by the same people again and again.

Doubtlessly, Airbus' relationship with SQ was hurt by the non-communication of the A380 delays. That, I'd say, is quite obvious.

I also think that Airbus made a number of errors of judgement as soon as they started admitting the delays - rather than come clean it seems to me (not that I have any sources to back that up, it's just my impression) that they used a piece-by-piece tactic to admit the delays. They'll have had their reasons for it, I just don't think it was a good idea if, indeed, this is what they did.

If they now, as visible in this article, make claims such as the indications pointing to the A380 being better than promised/guaranteed, then they are walking a very thin line: at least with SQ they certainly have reached a point where even announcing something like that could have a detrimental effect on the future business relationship, and I, for one, tend to think that Airbus has leant from it's past errors.

If they didn't have numbers to back this claim up for SQ, they wouldn't have made the claim - but, then again, that's just my opinion.

And, by the way, ...

Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 76):
At first, your relentless Boeing bashing was amusing, now it just comes off as pathetic and very sad.

... you know, PlaneDane, I've wanted to post something like that comment so many times, occasionally with precisely the wording you've used, as well (more or less equally) frequently with the word "Boeing" replaced by "Airbus".

Unfortunately, there are a lot of members here on a.net that seem to be able of leading a happy life only if they can, often enough baselessly, bash one of the two manufacturers.

At some point, you just come to ignore the fact - believe me... been there, done that...

Regards,
Frank
 
astuteman
Posts: 7439
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:34 pm

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 72):
but Airbus' market analysts aren't well respected at all

Of course, Boeing's prediction of 400 VLA's of which 50 will be freighters is spot on  Wink

Quoting Zeke (Reply 80):
Yep Airbus didn’t predict that Fedex now wants over 200 A380s, shame on Airbus.



Quoting N79969 (Reply 60):
I disagree. There is nothing at all to indicate that Boeing missed the boat on the VLA market or that their view has changed.

Totally agree. Pihero put up a link to pretty good a Harvard Business School report on this subject a few weeks ago. Their findings (which I almost completely agree with) were:-

The VLA marketplace is just not big enough to accomodate two competitors, most especially because the massive reduction in margins due to competition would render such an investment unprofitable.

Boeing will NEVER now introduce a direct competitor to the A380 (their conclusion) because of this.

Airbus had an advantage in terms justifying the investment because of the repayable government aid. This advantage is not conferred through "extra profit" or a cash give-away, as the un-educated on here prefer to believe, but, as you absolutely correctly pointed out, because the terms of the loan (no sale, no repayment) considerably reduces the risk to Airbus, and effectively makes the governments risk sharing partners.
(For the technically minded, it reduces the "hurdle rate" in ROI necessary for a "go" decision, and made the A380 a "go" for Airbus).
It was much easier for Boeing to justify a "hurdle rate clearing" investment with the 787, and so that is what they did.

Of course HBS make the ridiculous assumption that both A+B are bona fide profit-seeking businesses run on sound financial principles. We of course on A-net know full well that both are kamikaze death-seeking psychotics intent on Mutually Assured Destruction  Smile

Quoting N79969 (Reply 60):
Airbus did not bet the company with the A380

Once again, spot on, as always N79969. Airbus as an entity stands no risk of failure from Boeings VLA forecast being right and theirs being wrong.
The vast majority of the A380 investment has now been made. Only 1/3 of it has converted into debt ($4Bn - which is already covered off by EADS cash + cash equivalents on hand - $10Bn) .
They're now selling the most expensive frame on the market unopposed. Even if they only sell 300-400 frames, a lot of profit will come rolling back in year-on-year (even if it doesn't fully cover off the total investment, it'll still be a lot of money). The investment is in the past. Only the future profits remain.

We can idly speculate that there were more profitable ways for Airbus to spend that money (and there probably were..), but it sort of doesn't matter now, really......

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 72):
how do you expect people to believe that Airbus knows what they're doing?

Probably because of things like this:-

Quoting Manni (Reply 28):
record profit margins, roughly 11,5%
-10 more aircraft deliveries this year than planned
-an order backlog of roughly 1680 aircraft
-roughly 450 firm orders so far this year

I love the persistent A (or B, even) don't know what they're doing stuff on A-net. Great comic book stuff.

Boeing Commercial Aircraft, and Airbus, are demonstrably two of the finest, and well run manufacturing organisations that this world has ever seen. You can't POSSIBLY have the track record, and current performance that these two great firms have with a management that resemble A-net's view of them  banghead .

Sure, they may make one or two less than perfect decisions (who doesn't?) but both of these firms managed to stay profitable (in A's case increase profits AND pay for the A380 as well!!!!) right through the most vicious downturn in commercial aviation history.

I'll tell you now - people that believe Airbus don't know what they're doing, don't know what they're talking about, and I'm delighted to say EXACTLY the same about Boeing CA
 
leelaw
Posts: 4517
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:32 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 80):
Yep Airbus didn’t predict that Fedex now wants over 200 A380s, shame on Airbus.

IMO, it's slightly more complicated than FX purchasing 200 new build A380s outright. FX predicted a fleet of 200 A380s in 20 years. A mix of A388s and A389s, new builds as well as conversions. Historically, at least, FX has largely fulfilled its needs via conversions. Perhaps FedEx is anticipating the A380 will play-out in the marketplace much like the MD-11, DC-10, A306, and A310: modest success to failure as pax transports, which will be available on the after-market in the mid-term/long-term in adequate numbers and at reasonable prices for conversion to freighters.

[Edited 2005-11-13 11:36:47]

[Edited 2005-11-13 11:37:50]
 
leelaw
Posts: 4517
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:55 pm

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 82):
Quoting QFA001 (Reply 72):
but Airbus' market analysts aren't well respected at all

Of course, Boeing's prediction of 400 VLA's of which 50 will be freighters is spot on

Who said Boeing's market analysts are any better than Airbus's.  Wink
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:59 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 80):
Seems your saying the range equation for a jet has changed since I learnt it, the one I learnt range for a jet (assuming LRC constant altitude and angle of attack varying cruise speed), range is only a function of thrust specific fuel consumption (TSFC), the fuel mass and aerodynamics (CL, CD).

Constant M cruise aircraft weighs 400 tonnes vs. 410 tonnes, which will burn more fuel?

The heavier aircraft. That was my point.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7439
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:27 pm

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 84):
Who said Boeing's market analysts are any better than Airbus's

Just about everyone, according to QFA001's quote...

or are you suggesting that Boeing's market analysts aren't "well respected at all" ? I certainly wouldn't suggest that.

However, I am curious as to why you picked out the only lighthearted comment in my whole post have a go at, instead of picking out some of the far more significant issues addressed in the post.

FWIW I don't expect QFA001 to take that part of my response seriously, nor was he intended to.
A
 
art
Posts: 4191
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:48 pm

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 82):
The vast majority of the A380 investment has now been made. Only 1/3 of it has converted into debt ($4Bn - which is already covered off by EADS cash + cash equivalents on hand - $10Bn) .

Yes, if Airbus stopped the A380 programme right now, it wouldn't break the bank.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 82):
They're now selling the most expensive frame on the market unopposed. Even if they only sell 300-400 frames, a lot of profit will come rolling back in year-on-year (even if it doesn't fully cover off the total investment, it'll still be a lot of money). The investment is in the past. Only the future profits remain.

Profit: yes and no. Only Airbus can know what it costs to build. If build cost is nearer $150 million than $200 million, this should not represent a problem to Airbus - they may lose $20 million or so for each initial frame built. That may be the price they had to pay to get the project off the ground.

If after EIS it meets performance guarantees, IMO one can expect options to be exercised (at what price, though?); one can expect airlines reluctant to be launch customers to start ordering; one can expect the "wait and see if meets performance guarantees first" contingent to start ordering.

Further down the line there will be the need to massively increase low cost transport capacity to service Asia/East Asia. With no competition, the A388/9 could make a monumental bundle of money for Airbus. Then there is the freighter market...

Sales of 300-400 over 20 years with 150+ notched up already? Does not sound realistic to me.
 
leelaw
Posts: 4517
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 9:02 pm

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 86):
However, I am curious as to why you picked out the only lighthearted comment in my whole post have a go at, instead of picking out some of the far more significant issues addressed in the post.

Because I didn't find your comments/speculations on substantive matters to be "wild," outrageous, unreasonable, or otherwise objectionable. You're entitled to your viewpoint. However, I will note that if you use IRR or another method of analyzing/evaluating the financial success of long-term projects which utilizes time value of money concepts, the ultimate results of the A380 venture may not be as rosy as you predict.

[Edited 2005-11-13 13:28:24]
 
abba
Topic Author
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Sun Nov 13, 2005 9:12 pm

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 82):

Of course, Boeing's prediction of 400 VLA's of which 50 will be freighters is spot on

I think that Boeing at the time could not afford to say anything but that. Boeing did the wise thing in their situation. Go for the 787 to replace their 767 that was as good as dead. The 787 has - fortunately - made everything look much better for Boeing. Very well done!!

We'll only have to hope that they will be able to fulfill their promises and get the aircraft lighter as they did not get the expected saving from their change from bleed air to electric systems.

Abba
 
astuteman
Posts: 7439
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Mon Nov 14, 2005 2:16 am

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 88):
However, I will note that if you use IRR or another method of analyzing/evaluating the financial success of long-term projects which utilizes time value of money concepts, the ultimate results of the A380 venture may not be as rosy as you predict.

Funnily enough, I won't disagree with that at all (+ didn't in my post).

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 82):
a lot of profit will come rolling back in year-on-year (even if it doesn't fully cover off the total investment,

As I said, the point is, the investment money is GONE, spent, vanished, used up. Airbus's REAL achievement was staying so profitable whilst swallowing that huge investment.
Margin from revenue going forward will appear as PROFIT in the P+L accounts, even if it ultimately doesn't equate to the original investment (although I think it will better that.....)

Quoting Art (Reply 87):
Sales of 300-400 over 20 years with 150+ notched up already? Does not sound realistic to me.

I agree with that too, Art. I was trying to appear conservative.
Personally, I believe 600 -700 in 20 years would be more likely, but of course no one knows for sure today.
A
 
leelaw
Posts: 4517
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:27 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 90):
As I said, the point is, the investment money is GONE, spent, vanished, used up. Airbus's REAL achievement was staying so profitable whilst swallowing that huge investment.
Margin from revenue going forward will appear as PROFIT in the P+L accounts, even if it ultimately doesn't equate to the original investment

Wouldn't that be a disaster for shareholders if the project results in an overall negative or breakeven cash flow? Couldn't shareholders have just as well taken the original investment and put it in their pockets as dividends?
 
MarshalN
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:39 am

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:44 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 71):
Which begs the question, what were the performance guarantees? And early indications, what about current indications?

When Airbus parses out 'information' like this, it makes you wonder, is it just spin?

I believe it was SQ that was passing out this info coming from Airbus, instead of Airbus passing out the info directly. Unfortuantely, SCMP is subscription only, so we don't get to see the article in question.

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 91):
Wouldn't that be a disaster for shareholders if the project results in an overall negative or breakeven cash flow? Couldn't shareholders have just as well taken the original investment and put it in their pockets as dividends?

This is called risk -- businesses take risks. Not every project will pan out, but the fact is, even if A380 is not ultimately a runaway success, it hasn't broken the bank and they're still doing well as a firm.

And since not all of the original investment was in company cash, no, they can't just pocket it as dividends. There were also a number of risk sharing partners, so Airbus' risk share isn't the entire investment of the A380 project.
 
United Airline
Posts: 8971
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:45 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 80):
Would not be surprised to see some of the older 777s to be replaced either.

The B 777s will stay for a long time to come I think. They are still very new

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 82):
Boeing will NEVER now introduce a direct competitor to the A380 (their conclusion) because of this.

Airbus had an advantage in terms justifying the investment because of the repayable government aid.

Boeing will probably build something as big if not bigger than the A 380, let's say 20-30 years later. Boeing never said that there isn't a need for a VLA forever but in the near the future.

Boeing is a bigger company than Airbus and they make a lot of money through military. So it won't make a big difference
 
leelaw
Posts: 4517
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Mon Nov 14, 2005 7:01 am

Quoting MarshalN (Reply 92):
This is called risk -- businesses take risks. Not every project will pan out, but the fact is, even if A380 is not ultimately a runaway success, it hasn't broken the bank and they're still doing well as a firm.

The hypo I posed was specifically negative or breakeven cash flow. There are always consequences for taking risks which fail (no free lunch). IMO, if your marquee project, requiring a 15B euro investment which also represents a large portion of prior profits is a financial bust, you may have problems attracting shareholders and risk sharing partners, as well as difficulty maintaining shareholder value (i.e. stock price) in the future.

Quoting MarshalN (Reply 92):
And since not all of the original investment was in company cash, no, they can't just pocket it as dividends. There were also a number of risk sharing partners, so Airbus' risk share isn't the entire investment of the A380 project.

The shareholders investment available for distributioon would be net of the risk sharing partners' investment/contribtion by definition.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7439
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Mon Nov 14, 2005 7:48 am

Quoting United Airline (Reply 93):
Boeing will probably build something as big if not bigger than the A 380, let's say 20-30 years later. Boeing never said that there isn't a need for a VLA forever but in the near the future.

HBS's point was that with an incumbent in place (A380), it would be nigh on impossible for BCA to produce a justification that cleared the hurdle rate (BCA use a hurdle rate about 10% for their benchmark), because the margins would be so low. They didn't question the need.

Quoting United Airline (Reply 93):
Boeing is a bigger company than Airbus and they make a lot of money through military. So it won't make a big difference

Boeing's size is not relevant to the argument.
Contrary to popular belief, BCA (and Airbus) are set up to make a profit. BCA would still have to present a case that cleared the hurdle rates, or Lenders, Risk sharing partners, shareholders, and indeed Boeing Corporation will question whether the investment can be better used. If they can't plausibly clear the hurdle rate - it won't get built.

I know its romantic for us on A-net to think that A+B develop all these new planes just for us, but sadly, the financiers in reality are the key gatekeepers to what gets built and what doesn't, and that won't change in the next 20 - 30 years.

BTW, I'm not personally saying it will never happen - never is a long time. But the requirement above WILL have to be satisfied.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16358
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Mon Nov 14, 2005 8:57 am

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 85):
Constant M cruise aircraft weighs 400 tonnes vs. 410 tonnes, which will burn more fuel?

The heavier aircraft. That was my point.

Not really Phil, it more a function of aerodynamics and the engines, a 744D will have a higher fuel burn over a 744, even with the 744 being heavier due to the aerodynamics it gets better range. If that extra 10 t is fuel, the heavier aircraft will also have more range.

Thrust=Drag not weight.

Quoting United Airline (Reply 93):
The B 777s will stay for a long time to come I think. They are still very new

Some of them were introduced in 1997 & 1998, see them going at some stage to keep the fleet average age down.
 
QFA001
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 6:47 am

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Mon Nov 14, 2005 1:29 pm

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 75):
But what are the chances of that?

Of BA ordering A380s? I think there's a reasonable chance. However, I don't think that BA themselves will know until they understand the impact that LHR T5 will have on their operations. That, in itself, depends a lot on EU-US Open Skies and the prospects of their money-losing but improving short-haul markets.

For example, if BA can't find profitability in Europe, then they are hardly likely to buy A380s because the feed is unprofitable. However, if BA can leverage their new distribution point at T5 in LHR, then they might be able to achieve a reasonable result in Europe. So, feeding A380 becomes more viable.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 82):
Quoting QFA001 (Reply 72):
how do you expect people to believe that Airbus knows what they're doing?

Probably because of things like this:-

Hang on. I didn't attack Airbus' engineering or sales. I was talking specifically about whether or not their market forecasters were respected.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 86):
Just about everyone, according to QFA001's quote...

At first I thought that you were joking when you said...

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 82):
Of course, Boeing's prediction of 400 VLA's of which 50 will be freighters is spot on

However, you're reply 86 comment confused me. FWIW, I didn't bring Boeing into the equation, but I am more than happy to if you'd like to discuss it.

Yet, on the Airbus side, things aren't so rosy in forecasting.

Ofcourse, noone can know the future. Predictions are more or less pointless and a sad indictment of human business life. In a sense, trends are just trends. Having said that, companies can also 'steer' or 'distort' or 'guide' trends by having compelling arguments for the future. For Airbus and Boeing, that future is contained within their market forecasts.

For the best part of a decade, Airbus' Mr Brown has been trying to convince the world that there's a huge market for VLAs. If he could succeed, then Airbus would have 'future leadership' value and the industry would follow that lead, at least to an extent. However, that has not occured. The industry has never bitten the idea that there is a huge market for VLAs. As I said, no analysts are out there supporting Airbus' view of the world.

What does that mean? In some contexts, it means a whole lot; in others, not much. IMHO, generally speaking, if Mr Brown had been successful, then Airbus would have more A380 sales or certainly more prospects. As it stands, the mid-market is on fire and the VLA market is nowhere near delivering the sort of numbers that Mr Brown has been predicting for a decade. So, the industry hasn't given Airbus 'future leadership' value (and, I'd like to stress that I'm talking in the context of forecasting only).

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 86):
FWIW I don't expect QFA001 to take that part of my response seriously, nor was he intended to.

That is what I thought, but like I said, I am a little confused, now. I hope that I don't seem too dense!

 airplane QFA001
 
MarshalN
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:39 am

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Mon Nov 14, 2005 1:50 pm

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 94):
The hypo I posed was specifically negative or breakeven cash flow. There are always consequences for taking risks which fail (no free lunch). IMO, if your marquee project, requiring a 15B euro investment which also represents a large portion of prior profits is a financial bust, you may have problems attracting shareholders and risk sharing partners, as well as difficulty maintaining shareholder value (i.e. stock price) in the future.

Leelaw, Airbus doesn't have share prices. Shareholders are EADS and BAe. It's not a publicly traded company. Technically, the board is only answerable to those two companies, with EADS being the majority shareholder. They don't need to attract anybody in that regard.

And I don't know what you mean by "prior profits", since Airbus was able to turn a handsome profit even given their large investments in A380. What they earn from now on is a recoverying of that money that's already spent (and presumably booked).
 
abba
Topic Author
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: SQ Told: A380 Better Than Promised

Mon Nov 14, 2005 2:32 pm

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 97):
What does that mean? In some contexts, it means a whole lot; in others, not much. IMHO, generally speaking, if Mr Brown had been successful, then Airbus would have more A380 sales or certainly more prospects. As it stands, the mid-market is on fire and the VLA market is nowhere near delivering the sort of numbers that Mr Brown has been predicting for a decade. So, the industry hasn't given Airbus 'future leadership' value (and, I'd like to stress that I'm talking in the context of forecasting only).

It is indeed difficult to predict - in particular the future.

However, I do find that it is very premature to draw any conclusions as to the market for the A380. To commit to the A380 is a huge thing to do for an airline and it is only natural that many would like to take a wait and see position. First they want to see whether the craft can fulfill its promises and whether those who operates it can do so profitably. If the beast can fly economically and it is a commercial success (I believe it has the potential as it might be able to provide a premium travel that in an extreme situation might make all the 747s, 777s, 340s etc now flying Europe-Asia to monkey class only) then you might well see the orders coming rolling in.

Abba

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