There is more at stake with the A380 than just a couple of airlines cancelling their order, or talking about it cancelling it - we are talking about billions of euros, tens of thousands of jobs... The A380 is still, despite anything that has happened recently, inarguably the greatest civilian airliner project ever, and it looks like many of you have hard time appreciating the fact.

The whole discussion has been blown out of proportion: yes, mistakes have been made at EADS, they are working day and night to resolve the issues. As long as Airbus reimburses all its A380 customers accordingly for the delays, what is all the noise about? I seriously doubt any A380 customer is faced with any acute capacity problems due to these delays.

If there were a real problem with available seats, would everyone really be buying the small 787's like they were going out of style? Further, no one who took the risk in ordering the A380 in the first place could have been so naive as to expect that there would be no delays, as there are always delays with ANY new plane. (hence the contract between Airbus and the buyer that guarantees deliveries or price goes down).

One does not have to be an expert of any sort to see that the discussion around the A380 has gotten out of hands a long time ago. And it goes on...

[Edited 2006-10-02 13:27:09]

Quoting Findigenous (Thread starter): The A380 is still, despite anything that has happened recently, inarguably the greatest civilian airliner project ever, and it looks like many of you have hard time appreciating the fact.

Don't you think that boosting it is somehow the same thing that bashing it?  
A Vs B is never going to end, it's the endless talk about everything and nothing, sometimes it's silly, sometimes it's entertaining, you know... I don't see anything bad in just talking, sure won't influence the success or failure of a project.
Moreover, if there's so much A Vs B talking, this means the two major aircraft manufacturers are challenging themselves with new projects, and that's a wonderful thing for every aviation enthusiast, I couldn't be happier  

Quoting Findigenous (Thread starter): The A380 is still, despite anything that has happened recently, inarguably the greatest civilian airliner project ever,

That is certainly arguable.

Quoting Findigenous (Thread starter): I seriously doubt any A380 customer is faced with any acute capacity problems due to these delays.

SQ and QF are suffering acute capacity problems as a result of these unprecedented delays.

Quoting Findigenous (Thread starter): If there were a real problem with available seats, would everyone really be buying the small 787's like they were going out of style?

Yes, of course. Airlines are buying B787 in order to add capacity, not only to replace older models.

Quoting CURLYHEADBOY (Reply 1): Don't you think that boosting it is somehow the same thing that bashing it?

Of course. Much the bashing seems to be a reaction to the equally outrageous and often false boasting (such as above). Folks on both sides rationalize that they are restoring balance, but really are just fuelling the flames.

Telling people to stop bashing by bashing them is rather pointless and disengenious.

Fortunately, there are lots of A380 fans that don't follow your strange logic.

Quoting Findigenous (Thread starter): The A380 is still, despite anything that has happened recently, inarguably the greatest civilian airliner project ever, and it looks like many of you have hard time appreciating the fact.

Other than being bigger, what great technology leap do we see here? Sorry, but many will argue that it is not such a great project, but still impressive when it finallly goes into service.

Quoting Findigenous (Thread starter): End Of The A380 Bashing?

Quoting Findigenous (Thread starter): Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member! There is more at stake with the A380 than just a couple of airlines cancelling their order, or talking about it cancelling it - we are talking about billions of euros, tens of thousands of jobs... The A380 is still, despite anything that has happened recently, inarguably the greatest civilian airliner project ever, and it looks like many of you have hard time appreciating the fact.

You start out with the classic A380 argument. It's a cool plane, it's so much better then anything before. To be completely honest, yours is the first post I have seen to argue (inarguably even!) that the A380 is the greatest civilian airliner project ever. (Here is a hint, from my point of view, it's not even in the top five: The DC-3 (first mass produced and popular airliner), 707 (the airliner that changed everything), the 747 (unlike the 380 which is 30% larger then anything that came before it, the 747 was 300% larger, was the first jet widebody, first to use high-bipass engines), the 320 (the first successful frame from Airbus) and the Concorde.

You assume, as do most Airbus cheerleaders that our argument against the A380 is based on the same foundation as yours, emotion. In reality most arguments against the A380 are simply based on statistics, trends and market realities. The A380 will be a impressive achievement for Airbus, if Airbus ever finishes it. But it's not about to usher in a new "Space Age" and Chirac once claimed. At this point it's also not likely to make any of it's backers any money, and it has already cost it's champions their jobs.

Quoting Findigenous (Thread starter): If there were a real problem with available seats, would everyone really be buying the small 787's like they were going out of style?

I suspect you know this, but the 787 has a completely different market then the A380. Market segmentation is something that customers need to understand in order to actually sell products that their customers want and need. With 400 orders for the 787 and the crown of fastest selling widebody ever, Boeing got the market segmentation right. With 150 orders for the A380 and break even far away (and getting farther away every day) it's also pretty clear Airbus didn't.

Airbus and Boeing have two different views of the future of aviation. Money speaks. Boeing has dominated widebody (and high margin) sales because airlines think they have the right model.

Quoting Findigenous (Thread starter): Further, no one who took the risk in ordering the A380 in the first place could have been so naive as to expect that there would be no delays, as there are always delays with ANY new plane. (hence the contract between Airbus and the buyer that guarantees deliveries or price goes down).

In other words, it's the airlines own fault that they believed Airbus could deliver the frame on time? And let's also be clear, the A380 delays are well past any sort of normal delay for a airframe. Airbus has a completely ramped up production line sitting idle while they re-wire the harnesses.

Let's put this in context. During the 747s first year, Boeing had over 70 frames delivered and put into production with their customers.

In short, I have yet to see any real evidence that the A380 will be successful. So far the arguments you make here could apply just as easily to the Spruce Goose as to the A380.

Quoting Findigenous (Thread starter): inarguably the greatest civilian airliner project ever,

Really.. greater than the 707 (first truly successful commercial jet airliner), DC3 (no more needs to be said), Concorde (see the DC3), 747 (first multi-deck commercial aircraft), 737 (best selling most heavily used commercial plane of all time)

Inarguably huh??? It's big - big deal. It's also late and uses last generation materials for most of it's construction.

[Edited 2006-10-02 17:13:28]

Quoting Findigenous (Thread starter): inarguably the greatest civilian airliner project ever

That does nothing for its commercial prospects. One can argue the rightful contender is not the A380, but the Concorde, which had in the long run had only 13 flying airframes.

Quoting Findigenous (Thread starter): If there were a real problem with available seats, would everyone really be buying the small 787's like they were going out of style?

The idea that you have to buy the biggest to solve capacity/available seat problems is quite short-sighted. In most cases, you would reduce traffic much more significantly if you could cut narrowbody departures/arrivals by 25% (replace 2x 737/A320 with 1x 787-3) than if you cut widebody departures/arrivals by an equal or greater %.

Quoting Findigenous (Thread starter): Further, no one who took the risk in ordering the A380 in the first place could have been so naive as to expect that there would be no delays, as there are always delays with ANY new plane. (hence the contract between Airbus and the buyer that guarantees deliveries or price goes down).

You get charged interest or fined a fee if you miss a loan/mortgage payment, does that mean the bank expects you to miss a payment?   Just because the fee schedule is outlined in the contract doesn't mean the airlines expect there's going to be a delay. The fee schedule is in place to protect the airlines investment . . . the airlines still expect the airline to be delivered on time. Now with large or innovative projects like the A380, the airlines may initially be more lax (forgiving) for a small delay, and the fees won't ramp up so quickly Considering how late the A380 is, I would expect the fines to be increasing quite rapidly from this point on.

Quoting CURLYHEADBOY (Reply 1): A Vs B is never going to end, it's the endless talk about everything and nothing, sometimes it's silly, sometimes it's entertaining, you know...

Thankyou...

Its one of the great debates in technology.
Airbus vs Boeing, Intel vs AMD, Mac vs PC, Ford vs Chevy...

Its fun... it makes people think. Its good for everyone except those with bad debating skills and who are easily offended.  

Quoting Beech19 (Reply 9): Airbus vs Boeing, Intel vs AMD, Mac vs PC, Ford vs Chevy

Boeing, AMD, PC, Chevy next :P

Quoting Findigenous (Thread starter): There is more at stake with the A380 than just a couple of airlines cancelling their order, or talking about it cancelling it - we are talking about billions of euros, tens of thousands of jobs... The A380 is still, despite anything that has happened recently, inarguably the greatest civilian airliner project ever, and it looks like many of you have hard time appreciating the fact. The whole discussion has been blown out of proportion: yes, mistakes have been made at EADS, they are working day and night to resolve the issues. As long as Airbus reimburses all its A380 customers accordingly for the delays, what is all the noise about? I seriously doubt any A380 customer is faced with any acute capacity problems due to these delays. If there were a real problem with available seats, would everyone really be buying the small 787's like they were going out of style? Further, no one who took the risk in ordering the A380 in the first place could have been so naive as to expect that there would be no delays, as there are always delays with ANY new plane. (hence the contract between Airbus and the buyer that guarantees deliveries or price goes down). One does not have to be an expert of any sort to see that the discussion around the A380 has gotten out of hands a long time ago. And it goes on...

Congratulations. You have been hired as an Airbus Talking Head. Please report to Toulouse at your earliest convenience.


     

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 10): Boeing, AMD, PC, Chevy next :P

At least we agree on two of the four.

I'll let you decide but i've gotta grab my intel laptop, jump in my Mustang and drive down to KPAE to take some pictures.  

Quoting Beech19 (Reply 12): At least we agree on two of the four. I'll let you decide but i've gotta grab my intel laptop, jump in my Mustang and drive down to KPAE to take some pictures.

My AMD preference is because I helped work on x86-64 extensions (which were an AMD thing incorporated into Intel CPUs after the fact).. when you have engineering samples of everything out the yang one tends to develop a fondness. As for Chevy they got my support by default when GM killed the Oldsmobile line .

Take some good ones will ya  

I find it funny that I come across this thread titled, "End of the A380 Bashing?" and two threads later I come across this gem of a thread...

"A380 Debacle: It's The Software, Stupid!"

Perhaps if Airbus didn't make so many extravagant claims about the A380 before production started people would be so quick to jump all over Airbus's mistakes.

The A380 is a massive undertaking, the scale of which was perhaps overlooked by Airbus. Once they overcome the numerous issues with the A380 and actually start delivering aircrafts to their customers which meet Airbus's performance claims, the so called "bashing" will stop.

KrisYYZ

Quoting KrisYYZ (Reply 15): Once they overcome the numerous issues with the A380 and actually start delivering aircrafts to their customers which meet Airbus's performance claims, the so called "bashing" will stop.

That is IF it meets the performance claims. There is little to nothing known on how the aircraft will truely perform under "normal commercial activity."

That is not a slam against the aircraft which more than likely WILL perform fine. Just a statement.

Quoting KrisYYZ (Reply 15): Perhaps if Airbus didn't make so many extravagant claims about the A380 before production started people would be so quick to jump all over Airbus's mistakes.

Bingo. Airbus hyped the 380 and how they would dominate and crush Boeing, blah, blah, blah (bowling alleys, PLEASE!!! "Ladies and gentlemen this is your captain speaking, we're going to be banking in a moment so please, don't try to convert that spare just yet"). I find it ironic that this is forgotten by the A supporters given what's going on now. Personally I've been more of a fan of talk softly and carry a big stick  

If you promise the world you can expect to get raked over the coals when you fail to deliver.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 17): If you promise the world you can expect to get raked over the coals when you fail to deliver.

Under promise what you KNOW you can deliver on. Anything more than that is just icing on the cake.  

Sounds like a company i know...   

Quoting Beech19 (Reply 18): Under promise what you KNOW you can deliver on. Anything more than that is just icing on the cake.

Actually I used to do that, but after a while that gets old too. Now I try to promise what I feel is reasonable, with caveats when I feel the promise is a bit on the agressive side.

Seems to work quite well. Usually leaves myself and my staff in a position where we have to push a little harder sometimes (but always to a realistic goal), but not to the point where we all feel like we've been hit by a freight train. And management loves it, we're faster and more nimble than the same folks under their old boss, but we don't under-deliver and we aren't a bunch of cranky SOBs.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 2): SQ and QF are suffering acute capacity problems as a result of these unprecedented delays.

Or aren't they trying to get better deals by claiming so? They both have loads of 744s that are not so old and can keep flying a few more years until the whale shows up! And, worst case scenario, aren't there a few 744s available on the second-hand market?

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 5): You start out with the classic A380 argument. It's a cool plane, it's so much better then anything before. To be completely honest, yours is the first post I have seen to argue (inarguably even!) that the A380 is the greatest civilian airliner project ever. (Here is a hint, from my point of view, it's not even in the top five: The DC-3 (first mass produced and popular airliner), 707 (the airliner that changed everything), the 747 (unlike the 380 which is 30% larger then anything that came before it, the 747 was 300% larger, was the first jet widebody, first to use high-bipass engines), the 320 (the first successful frame from Airbus) and the Concorde.

I agree with your top 5! I would also rank the first widebody twin, the A300, well above the WhaleJet. Same for the B787.

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 20): Or aren't they trying to get better deals by claiming so? They both have loads of 744s that are not so old and can keep flying a few more years until the whale shows up! And, worst case scenario, aren't there a few 744s available on the second-hand market?

No and yes. SQ had already sold some airliners with lease back agreements. They have been forced into extending the leases (on suboptimal terms) by the WhaleJet delays. The B747-400s on the second-hand market are generally in need of heavy mainenance. Old airliners certainly don't fit into SQ's marketing strategy. The same is nearly as true for QF, who don't want to be seen as operating second-hand airliners.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 19): Actually I used to do that, but after a while that gets old too. Now I try to promise what I feel is reasonable, with caveats when I feel the promise is a bit on the agressive side.

To me a promise is something you can not fail to deliver on. Its a guarrantee. If there is even a chance you can't deliver you could end up looking really bad. Now you can add caveats saying "I beleive we can do this, or that, or ect" or "with a little work here can add this much to our projected goals."

THEN inside, away from the customer, you have your own overly amitious goals. "We promised the 787-9 will have a 8600nm range. But we want to deliver it with a 9000nm range. HOW do we do it?" and you try to make it happen. If you "fail" you are not lost of anything, but if you succeed, you look brilliant.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 21): I agree with your top 5!

  

Quoting Beech19 (Reply 22): To me a promise is something you can not fail to deliver on. Its a guarrantee. If there is even a chance you can't deliver you could end up looking really bad. Now you can add caveats saying "I beleive we can do this, or that, or ect" or "with a little work here can add this much to our projected goals."

Oh those are all internal promises I was talking about. Customers never get the 'real truth'. That gets padded so heavily it's not even funny LOL. But as I was bragging in another thread (sorry we officially closed the project development cycle today and it's on maintenance now and I'm enjoying it) we just finished a product 2 months early with an extra years worth of features in it (pulled in from future versions) and apparently there are contracts lined up for signatures as soon as the internal paperwork is handled  

When I deal with customers directly we agree on what I know can be done and then I tell them what I'll try and do ontop of that. With (again) the appropriate caveat's that "we aren't comitting to this formally, but for you Bob, I'll see what I can get done". Customer's are usually surprisingly understanding if you are HONEST with them.

Quoting Beech19 (Reply 22): THEN inside, away from the customer, you have your own overly amitious goals. "We promised the 787-9 will have a 8600nm range. But we want to deliver it with a 9000nm range. HOW do we do it?" and you try to make it happen. If you "fail" you are not lost of anything, but if you succeed, you look brilliant.

That's EXACTLY how I look at it. What's the minimum that absolutely must be done (to meet specs), formulate the time around that + minor padding (again internally.. advise marketting/sales appropriate fudge factors in addition), then cram as much into that initial time as possible.

It also helps if you communicate alot. Let everyone know if things are starting to look bad.. and do it early.. be specific and always have a plan when you mention problems. "X is FUBARed, BUT we have Y waiting in the wings so we should be alright".

Quoting KrisYYZ (Reply 15): Perhaps if Airbus didn't make so many extravagant claims about the A380 before production started people would be so quick to jump all over Airbus's mistakes. The A380 is a massive undertaking, the scale of which was perhaps overlooked by Airbus. Once they overcome the numerous issues with the A380 and actually start delivering aircrafts to their customers which meet Airbus's performance claims, the so called "bashing" will stop.

Both Airbus and Boeing make extravagant claims, my friend...

What about the 'Sonic Cruiser'? Where'd that go? Wasn't that an extravagant claim on Boeing's part to even suggest building such a waste of time? And to top it all off, it was forgotten about after a week! The 787 (when it was the 7E7) changed daily when it was on Boeing's drawing board - the A380 has hardly changed since its conception. Airbus claimed they'd build it and they did. It might not be perfect but I'd say their commirment to the project is admirable.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 17): Bingo. Airbus hyped the 380 and how they would dominate and crush Boeing, blah, blah, blah (bowling alleys, PLEASE!!! "Ladies and gentlemen this is your captain speaking, we're going to be banking in a moment so please, don't try to convert that spare just yet"). I find it ironic that this is forgotten by the A supporters given what's going on now. Personally I've been more of a fan of talk softly and carry a big stick

Airbus SUGGESTED that airlines could incorporate such facilities. Let's face it, you could actually get some of that crazy stuff into an A380 so they weren't making impossible claims there. I'd say the airlines themselves were more responsible for all that hype, Mr. Branson's Virgin especially. I don't know about anyone else but I knew from the word go that the airlines would sooner-or-later ditch the fancy stuff in favour of extra seats (which = extra revenue).

Karl

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 24): I don't know about anyone else but I knew from the word go that the airlines would sooner-or-later ditch the fancy stuff in favour of extra seats (which = extra revenue).

Oh I knew it would end up that way.. just made the whole thing worse for me LOL

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 24): It might not be perfect but I'd say their commirment to the project is admirable

Or foolish pigheadedness. Deciding you're going to kill yourself rather than face charges and following through on it doesn't make you brave. There's nothing admirable at all in what they've done from a project management perspective. Few changes means either they got it extremely right or didn't listen enough to customers. I think the complete lack of orders for the craft seems to hint at the latter.

"If you build it, they will come" rarely works outside of the movies.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 24): What about the 'Sonic Cruiser'? Where'd that go? Wasn't that an extravagant claim on Boeing's part to even suggest building such a waste of time? And to top it all off, it was forgotten about after a week! The 787 (when it was the 7E7) changed daily when it was on Boeing's drawing board

Lets look at the other side... if it was a huge success you would be saying (why is airbus so far behind... blah blah blah). It wasn't an extravagant claim and MOST of the R&D used in it was in fact going to be used in each of the new Yellowstone projects. The 787 is completley built from the information they learned from the Sonic Cruiser project. Hardly a waste of time.

If the 787 has changed its because Boeing has been listening to the customers. Sure most of us would have loved to see something less "tube and wings" design with the shark tail and all but it just didn't matter. The aircraft is more efficient now than it was then. If you are slamming Boeing for improving the aircraft you need to seriously reconsider your views.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 24): the A380 has hardly changed since its conception. Airbus claimed they'd build it and they did. It might not be perfect but I'd say their commirment to the project is admirable.

All i'll say is fixing something that isn't broken is a good idea. But NOT fixing or bettering something that could be fixed/bettered is just reckless from a business point of view. The A380 is hardly a perfect aircraft and don't think Airbus beleives it is either. I'm sure there is a million things they could improve on, just like any other aircraft out there or any product period! Its not admirable... its bad business.

Quoting Findigenous (Thread starter): One does not have to be an expert of any sort to see that the discussion around the A380 has gotten out of hands a long time ago.

Not at all. If you are fan of Airbus, you should be very concerned about the lasting damage the A380 project has done to the company. If you are a fan of the A380 specifically, you should be outraged at the incompetent management of the project.

Criticism of the project is separate from criticism of the airplane. The plane itself will be delivered, and it will meet the standards of quality and comfort we expect from Airbus. All enthusiasts can thrill to the sight and sound of the A380, but we can also use our heads and realize that it really never should have been built. It's a bittersweet reality, not "bashing".   

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 24): the A380 has hardly changed since its conception.

Sure it has.

When MD conceived it as the MD12, it was smaller, with 9 abreast on the main deck (like the MD11) and 6 abreast upstairs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MD12-poster.jpg

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/frtypen/FRfotair/A3XX.jpg

Then Airbus improved this design to be 2 aisles on both decks, putting their A300 series layout upstairs and a wider 747 spacing on the main deck. And they changed the nose to look more like the A320 series. But they removed the wingtip fences that MD had put on (which looked a lot like Airbus designs anyway), probably to make the bird look sleeker.

Since then, the front has gotten more plump, the wingbox has changed shape, the wings have gotten larger and lost some sweep and fluidity, as well as gaining a unique head on look where the wings jut upward at a 45 degree angle then bend out straight. The engines also got larger and the wingtip fences magically returned, now that people had forgotten all about the MD12's looks as MD got swallowed by Boeing.

So, as you can see, the A380 has changed a lot since first conception.

But thanks for playing "Expose... My.... BIAS!!!!"

Quoting Findigenous (Thread starter): I seriously doubt any A380 customer is faced with any acute capacity problems due to these delays. If there were a real problem with available seats, would everyone really be buying the small 787's like they were going out of style?

You said it! This is the reason A380 will flop, and 787 strategy is being validated more and more everyday.

Still wondering why they built it?! Bragging right perhaps.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 28): When MD conceived it as the MD12, it was smaller, with 9 abreast on the main deck (like the MD11) and 6 abreast upstairs.

   I can't believe you actually said that LOL   

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 28): Since then, the front has gotten more plump, the wingbox has changed shape, the wings have gotten larger and lost some sweep and fluidity, as well as gaining a unique head on look where the wings jut upward at a 45 degree angle then bend out straight. The engines also got larger and the wingtip fences magically returned, now that people had forgotten all about the MD12's looks as MD got swallowed by Boeing.

  

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 27): It's a bittersweet reality, not "bashing".

I guess we are reading some very different posts, in very different threads.

  

mariner

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 24): What about the 'Sonic Cruiser'? Where'd that go?

It became the 7E7. Boeing's decision to go with bleedless engines and all-CFRP + titanium began with the Sonic Cruiser. The production methods developed and the application of technology were simply redirected to a new project, and Boeing recouped most of their investment. I wonder if the B787 fuselage cross-section isn't exactly what was planned for Sonic Cruiser?

Quoting Findigenous (Thread starter): The A380 is still, despite anything that has happened recently, inarguably the greatest civilian airliner project ever, and it looks like many of you have hard time appreciating the fact.

How did you arrive at that when the jet is not even in commercial use?

Until Airbus stops with the load of BS on why the delays and comes out and says yeah we screwed up on the timeline of getting the jet to commercial use and pays some pretty heathy fine to carriers, (QF, SQ, EK)... Then I see the bashing continuing and better yet carriers threating with cancelations.

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 32): It became the 7E7

No, really, it was shelved. Boeing didn't just move forward out of pride despite limited demand and a changing market. They likely would have had 150-200 sales by EIS, but Boeing canceled it.

They APPLIED much of the research toward their YX concepts and the first out of the gate is the 7E7, but the 7E7 is not the Sonic Cruiser project...

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 27): Quoting Findigenous (Thread starter): One does not have to be an expert of any sort to see that the discussion around the A380 has gotten out of hands a long time ago. Not at all. If you are fan of Airbus, you should be very concerned about the lasting damage the A380 project has done to the company. If you are a fan of the A380 specifically, you should be outraged at the incompetent management of the project. Criticism of the project is separate from criticism of the airplane. The plane itself will be delivered, and it will meet the standards of quality and comfort we expect from Airbus. All enthusiasts can thrill to the sight and sound of the A380, but we can also use our heads and realize that it really never should have been built. It's a bittersweet reality, not "bashing".

Brother, this one's going to be taught in the business schools of the future as a cautionary tale of how you can dig a hole and pull the dirt in on top of yourself. A fair number of PhD dissertations will come out of it, with, no doubt enough MBA theses to cover the state of Texas a foot deep.

And then, of course, all the savants and professors and brains at the Harvard Business School and the U of Chicago will tell you "Oh yes. We could see it coming years off, because we're so smart, you see. That will be $20,000 for the consult."

And if the worst of the worst comes to pass, the Airbus folks will be remembered far in the future as people who dared greatly and were not afeard to think BIG.

Kind of like Isambard Kingdom Brunel big.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 24): What about the 'Sonic Cruiser'? Where'd that go? Wasn't that an extravagant claim on Boeing's part to even suggest building such a waste of time? And to top it all off, it was forgotten about after a week!

The Sonic Cruiser had attracted some very serious interest from blue chip airlines. Rumor has it that AA was in talks with Boeing to buy out the first three years of production. Of course, this was back when labor was the single highest component of an airline's costs. Then 9/11 happened. So, yeah, it was pretty much forgotten about after that particular week.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 34): No, really, it was shelved. Boeing didn't just move forward out of pride despite limited demand and a changing market. They likely would have had 150-200 sales by EIS, but Boeing canceled it.

  

Yup, undoubtedly Boeing could have built a 767-sized plane that flies 10-15% faster than a 767 with the fuel consumption of a 767. Instead they're building a 767-sized plane that flies the same speed as a 767 with 10-15% lower fuel consumption. Changing times, changing demands. Boeing was smart to take account of the new market dynamics.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 35): Brother, this one's going to be taught in the business schools of the future as a cautionary tale of how you can dig a hole and pull the dirt in on top of yourself. A fair number of PhD dissertations will come out of it, with, no doubt enough MBA theses to cover the state of Texas a foot deep.

Hell, yes. It's a fascinating story at the very least.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 34): They APPLIED much of the research toward their YX concepts and the first out of the gate is the 7E7, but the 7E7 is not the Sonic Cruiser project...

True, it is not the same project, but it is much the same technology. The genius of the B787 is the production method, and that stems largely from the selection of CFRP and electric auxiliaries rather than bleed air. If Boeing had not worked on the Sonic Cruiser, they would likely not have 787 as it is. One led to the other, more by happy accident than smart planning.

Quoting N844AA (Reply 36): Boeing was smart to take account of the new market dynamics.

And they were lucky that the market dynamics changed before they got too far down the road with Sonic Cruiser. That's the happy accident. Reality slapped them in the face at a fortuitous time.

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 5): In reality most arguments against the A380 are simply based on statistics, trends and market realities.

No, I think there is an awful lot of emotion in the nay-sayers too

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 27): If you are a fan of the A380 specifically, you should be outraged at the incompetent management of the project. Criticism of the project is separate from criticism of the airplane.

   EXACTLY! I can't wait to see the A380 up and flying in revenue service, but the management of the project has been abyssmal at best.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 24): Airbus claimed they'd build it and they did.

But they need to get it built RIGHT and delivered to their customers!

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 38): I think there is an awful lot of emotion in the nay-sayers too

I think there are a handful of A.Netter's who take some bizarre pleasure in needling one another. There's far more of that going on than there is actual anti-A380 emotion.

For myself, I hate to see waste and futility, but such emotion is not directed towards the airplane itself. You can't blame an airplane for human failures.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 28): But thanks for playing "Expose... My.... BIAS!!!!"

Hmmm...

Let's play, "I'm American and I can't take constructive criticism when it's aimed at Boeing (or anything American, for that matter!)".

You are pointing a finger at Airbus at the moment - I don't see anyone in this thread doing the same to Boeing. And let's face it, the A380 is flying, the 787 is not. How can you folks seriously praise the 787 so much when it's still on paper (effectively). Why tell us how brilliant it is when the only thing built is a piece of forward fuselage? I personally hope it's a success, because both Boeing and Airbus build very good aircraft.

I simply voiced a few of my opinions, as all this Airbus delay business seems to be pleasing many across the pond. It's as though many here WANT it to fail, because, deep down, they know it won't. There's certainly some sort of inferiority complex here because Boeing didn't build it. Sure, there are some serious issues here, which you guys are always so quick to jump on, but they WILL get sorted and no matter what anyone says, the A380 IS a technical masterpiece.

As for the MD-12 nonsense, what else is a four-engined double-decker supposed to look like? Are you saying Airbus copied it? Had the MD-12 been proposed or not, the A380 was ALWAYS going to look like it does - because that's more-or-less the only design for a four-engined super-jumbo. If you look at all life on Earth, every animal (with few exceptions) has legs, a mouth and breathes oxygen. That's 'cause that design is best suited to the conditions of our planet, so although animals behave differently, they all share common features which evolution dictated.

Karl

It may be an engineering marvel, but the Airbus A380 is, hands down, the *ugliest* jet airliner ever built. The extent of its ugliness didn't fully dawn on me until recently, seeing so many photos and videos of the thing finally aloft.

Sad, really, that it usurps the 747, which was not only a more impressive engineering feat (remember the era in which it was designed, its size compared to the next largest airliner, and the speed at which it was built), but a truly beautiful plane.

Some articles for reference....


The Airbus A380 takes to the air. Just how impressed should we be?
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/...05/06/askthepilot135/index_np.html

Will a reborn 747 again change the world -- or look good trying
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2005/12/02/askthepilot164/

Quoting Aviateur (Reply 42): It may be an engineering marvel, but the Airbus A380 is, hands down, the *ugliest* jet airliner ever built. The extent of its ugliness didn't fully dawn on me until recently, seeing so many photos and videos of the thing finally aloft.

Even uglier than the East German airliner?

Quoting N844AA (Reply 43): Even uglier than the East German airliner?

Yes. The DDR jet looks like what it likely was... a Tupolev bomber deriviative like the old Soviet jetliner designs. It wasn't attractive, but speaks to its time in a somewhat evocative, Cold War sort of way. It's kind of creepy looking. The Airbus is just plain graceless and *ugly.*

PS

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 41): I simply voiced a few of my opinions, as all this Airbus delay business seems to be pleasing many across the pond. It's as though many here WANT it to fail, because, deep down, they know it won't. There's certainly some sort of inferiority complex here because Boeing didn't build it. Sure, there are some serious issues here, which you guys are always so quick to jump on, but they WILL get sorted and no matter what anyone says, the A380 IS a technical masterpiece.

Well I'm from across the pond, and I don't WANT it to fail. I think it will be a break-even venture at best at the end of the day. The reason I don't LIKE the 380 is I don't think it's GOOD for Airbus. I don't buy the butterflies and puppies they are using to sell it.. not yet anyway.. in 20 years maybe, but by then the design will be worthless.

Boeing didn't build it because they didn't it would sell, certainly not because it was 'too hard'. Boeing has always done hard. Hell the Sonic Cruiser was 'harder' than the 787 but the market wanted the 787. Are you forgetting how long Boeing has been talking about a full second deck 747? The 707 wasn't easy.

Now please don't take offense to this, because it's not aimed at anyone in particular, but I have been giving it some thought and; What I see is a lot of Airbus supporters who think that because we don't like the economics of the 380 we have an inferiority complex. The reality I think, is that many Europeans are pissed off that your aviation industry is in shambles, given where it was (and quite friggin rightly so mind you) that you have this chip on your shoulders. I would wager you folks feel more strongly about Boeing on the whole than I care about Airbus.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 41): As for the MD-12 nonsense, what else is a four-engined double-decker supposed to look like? Are you saying Airbus copied it? Had the MD-12 been proposed or not, the A380 was ALWAYS going to look like it does - because that's more-or-less the only design for a four-engined super-jumbo. If you look at all life on Earth, every animal (with few exceptions) has legs, a mouth and breathes oxygen. That's 'cause that design is best suited to the conditions of our planet, so although animals behave differently, they all share common features which evolution dictated.

I think his point was more that a) the 380 wasn't the most ground breaking design in history and b) had infact evolved despite arguements to the contrary. Again I think you took it a little too seriously, thus the chip comment above.

Just as Zvezda said, the delays are causing the airlines to have capacity issues.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 2): SQ and QF are suffering acute capacity problems as a result of these unprecedented delays.

But the bottom line is that the A380 is so far turning out to be a failure with all of these glitches with wiring and such. This could have been avoided if the designers looked over the designs more carefully.

-DeltaJet757

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 41): because, deep down, they know it won't

Well at the moment all indications are that it will not as success will only be measured if the A380 makes money (to invest in future projects) and generate employement (to provide high tech jobs).

For the sake of a healthy European aviation industry, the A380 must succeed. It will also keep Boeing on its toes

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 24): Both Airbus and Boeing make extravagant claims, my friend... What about the 'Sonic Cruiser'? Where'd that go? Wasn't that an extravagant claim on Boeing's part to even suggest building such a waste of time? And to top it all off, it was forgotten about after a week! The 787 (when it was the 7E7) changed daily when it was on Boeing's drawing board - the A380 has hardly changed since its conception. Airbus claimed they'd build it and they did. It might not be perfect but I'd say their commirment to the project is admirable.

Let me begin by saying that I am a fan of aviation not just boeing or airbus. Having said that, while following through on a project may be admirable, it does not always pay the bills or turn a profit and after all that is what both aircraft manufacteres are in the business of trying to do.

The Sonic Cruiser was not a great idea and it was dropped-smart business decision.

Changing an aircrafts design on a "daily" basis is smart business. It means that you are listening to potential customers, paying attention to the market and giving people what they want. Something Airbus decided to do with the all new 787, opps I mean redesigned A350
 

Why has this suddenly turned into a debate about its ugliness? No-one said it was the most beautiful airliner (although I reckon it won't look bad once in full airline colours), but then again it was never meant to be. Manufacturers don't build airliners to be asthetically pleasing - they build them for practicality.

There is no need to go on the defensive all the time - we're all aware of opposition achievements and woes. Everyone's aware of the problems with the A380 and anyone who publicly wishes it to be a failure is NOT interested in aviation. Simple as that.

But the way some of you go on, it's like Airbus will go out of business tomorrow. Not happening. Both Boeing and Airbus have their downs, but I'm sure folks don't pick up on Boeing's half as quick as they do on Airbus's. When Boeing do well, Most of us (Europeans included) congratulate them, however when Airbus do well, nothing's said - until they drop a clanger, at which time it becomes world news (and ammunition for the uneasy out there) and everyone says, "Told you so!".

Where's the talk of the A320 family outselling the 737NG? Is that not happening at the moment or something? Is that swept under the carpet? Or shall we change the subject and go back to Airbus-bashing?

I shall say only this: Boeing and Airbus are fantastic rivals, and will keep each other on their toes for a very long while. Both will sell many planes, and both will always have a decent (and often equal) market share. One will always have a better product on offer than the other, whilst at the same time having an inferior one also.

Karl