End Of The A380 Bashing?

Joni · Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:17 pm

Quoting PVG (Reply 98):
Actually, I think that it could be obsolete sooner then we think.

The design can be updated, for example re-engining has been discussed. Boeing won't develop an all-new competitor for a while, they have their plate full with the B787. Besides, they'd have to recoup their investment, which would be very considerable and not easy to recoup takign into account that Airbus would already be established in the segment. And planning the A389.

N328KF · Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:21 pm

Quoting Joni (Reply 100):
. Boeing won't develop an all-new competitor for a while, they have their plate full with the B787.

The fact of the matter is that we don't know how full Boeing's plate is. Much of the 787 engineering is already completed. They also have a much larger engineering base to draw upon.

PVG · Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:32 pm

Quoting Joni (Reply 100):
The design can be updated, for example re-engining has been discussed. Boeing won't develop an all-new competitor for a while, they have their plate full with the B787. Besides, they'd have to recoup their investment, which would be very considerable and not easy to recoup takign into account that Airbus would already be established in the segment. And planning the A389.

OK. It's just a theory. Also, I guess with the new delays being annouced today, someone is going to finally cancel something. We'll see how established Airbus is in this market soon enough.

leelaw · Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:34 pm

One wonders whether Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf has relocated from the UAE to Finland and joined A.net? spin

billreid · Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:38 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 70):
Airbus was only just starting to manufacture parts at the time of 9/11.

This may be true but it takes a great deal of design cost to get to this point. The reality that there is literally billions drop into research and testing and preparation before the first part is ever manufactured. An A380 is not a basement type project.

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 57):
I just can't agree. Concorde involved a much steeper learning curve for the designers in every aspect of aerodynamics, materials, you name it. Also consider that it was designed on paper by guys with sliderules (slight exaggeration). A380 has many firsts, but none that make me say "wow!".

I think anything this big that flies is a comment on human capability. It is not as far outside the box as the concorde, but it is still a Human accomplishment of monumental proportions.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 56):
I don't believe this at all. It was only launched 9 months earlier, and could have been shelved or delayed.

See response at top of page. Do you really believe that a project of this nature is simply dropable? There are two sides
1. Economical
2. Political
Neither of these allowed the project to be dropped.

I can not fathom Airbus continuing building a HUB-HUB mamoth if the project could have been aborted that easy. They are not stupid people.

We all know Hub-Bypass is where business opportunity exists. Compare 787 orders to 380 orders and the fact that Airbus has announced the A350. What does this tell us. Simple: A380, right airplane, wrong time.

TeamAmerica · Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:39 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 72):
We Americans (except all of you who will chime in to say I don't speak for you--consider yourself exempted, and don't even bother!)

Sorry, WingedMigrator, but I will bother. Anytime a non-American says "you Americans" followed by a gross generalization, he is invariably wrong. When an American does the same with a "we Americans" he is just as wrong. We ought to leave nationalities out of these discussions.

Quoting Rampart (Reply 77):
OK, but not what I was thinking. When was the study you mention above?

So, you forced me to look it up, and I verified myself. Airways Feb 2005, the lead article in fact, "Douglas: The Airbus Connection". In the late 1980s, MdDD and Airbus had discussions on a followup to the MD-11 and A340 (p. 18-19). You don't think Airbus might have gleaned some ideas? (vice versa, too) Then, another article (Airways March 2005, "MDC The Asian Adventure"), with McDD pursuing the A3XX-looking aircraft in the latest version of the MD-12, see p. 18 mention of Stonecipher, then president of the DCA division, seeking collaboration with the A3XX program.

The VLCT study ran from 1993 to 1996 or thereabouts, and I a vaguely recall the MD-Airbus discussions as well, but neither of these really matter. I do not agree that anybody "gleaned some ideas" to the extent that it made A380 turn out the way it did. MD-12 and Boeing's NLA and A380 look similar because it is almost inevitable that they would, not because anybody is copying.

Quoting SparkingWave (Reply 78):
But it was actually Lockheed that came the closest to executing this design, by coming up with the L-500 proposal (pax version of the C-5A Galaxy).

I was just a kid when my dad brought home a Lockheed L-500 proposal package. It included a huge blueprint seating plan which I had on the wall of bedroom for years. I dearly wish I still had that. Happy memories. Smile

jacobin777 · Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:47 pm

Quoting Joni (Reply 88):
. It is, after all, the right plane for the world today as it moves people comfortably, cheaply, and with lower fuel burn than any other plane.

Actually, the A380's CASM advantage is going to be down the drain with the 787's and A350's.....

Quoting Joni (Reply 100):
The design can be updated, for example re-engining has been discussed. Boeing won't develop an all-new competitor for a while, they have their plate full with the B787. Besides, they'd have to recoup their investment, which would be very considerable and not easy to recoup takign into account that Airbus would already be established in the segment. And planning the A389.

Right now, the engine manufacturers aren't going to spend money to re-engining the plane when they probably haven't even come close to recouping their loss....I'm not even so sure if they know what the market for the A380 is, much less the A389.....

The 787 is on its way to recouping its investment even before EIS.. Wow!

......

Cheers...

hz747300 · Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:52 pm

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.

So what? The problem is Airbus's and the governments they burden with eating the costs and people who are made redundant can only point their finger at Airbus. No one else. They have no one else to blame, but Airbus. Airbus failed its employees, Airbus failed the citizens of Germany and France, Airbus failed its clients, and Airbus failed its shareholders. It is right now in a failing state of being.

And it is arguable that this is "greatest civilian airliner project ever". The only thing great so far, is the enormity of the failure.

Can it be reversed? Not likely, it will be the last plane designed and made with old 'heavy' technology.

airfrnt · Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:57 pm

Quoting Joni (Reply 88):

In reality, emotion is what drives A380 critics to interpret those statistics in ways that put the A380 in bad light.

I have yet to see anyone explain why the 25 year old trend that international traffic is moving away from the 747 (this even includes the period where the 744 was introduced) magically should not apply to Airbus.

I have yet to see anyone explain how Airbus can be making a profit from 150 frames at launch.

I have yet to be able to see anyone explain why the overwhelming trend away from four holers to twin engine doesn't apply to Airbus cheerleaders.

I have yet to see any statistical or order proof that Airbus really does live in a different reality then the rest of us.

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 105):
The VLCT study ran from 1993 to 1996 or thereabouts, and I a vaguely recall the MD-Airbus discussions as well, but neither of these really matter. I do not agree that anybody "gleaned some ideas" to the extent that it made A380 turn out the way it did. MD-12 and Boeing's NLA and A380 look similar because it is almost inevitable that they would, not because anybody is copying.

McDonnel did have open conversations with Airbus about jointly building the MD-12.

Ikarus2006 · Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:14 am

Hi everyone,

Just a simple and ,maybe for many of you, silly idea.

Since the A380 is not yet doing any revenue flight, wouldn't it be an interesting option to consider to wait until it hopefully makes it to SIN and begins to fly passengers instead of fighting in the arena without having yet solid data out of revenue flight to base our thoughts on?

Of course, many of you will say that delays say a lot - ok, but let's not get lost in speculations.

MAYBE an idea would be to start to discuss about more constructive subjects like:

- alternative fuels for aviation;
- safety onboard;
- lighter materials;
- environmental issues.

It is nice to use the forum just as a place to shout your ideas, but it could be even nicer to use it as a melting pot where positive thoughts are generated.

What do you people think?

goodvibes

n844aa · Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:17 am

Quoting Ikarus2006 (Reply 109):
Since the A380 is not yet doing any revenue flight, wouldn't it be an interesting option to consider to wait until it hopefully makes it to SIN and begins to fly passengers instead of fighting in the arena without having yet solid data out of revenue flight to base our thoughts on?

Right now there's plenty of fodder to discuss Airbus's management of the A380 project, which is a pretty interesting discussion. I actually haven't seen many posts lately talking about the prospective in-service performance of the aircraft. I can't even guess why that might be the case ...

ikramerica · Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:44 am

Quoting MIAMIx707 (Reply 90):
I think I have the magazine somewhere with the MD12 article. How many pax was it going to carry?

It was smaller than the A388, since it was a 6+9 design, while the A380 is an 8+10. IIRC, the MD12 was going to carry about the same number of pax as the 748i. Though a future stretch could have bumped that up to 520-550. All moot now.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 99):
Laydeez and gennelmun, I give you........MAX HEADROOM

FLik FlAk!!!

Quoting BillReid (Reply 104):
See response at top of page. Do you really believe that a project of this nature is simply dropable? There are two sides
1. Economical
2. Political
Neither of these allowed the project to be dropped.

Yes, I DO believe can be dropped. Why? Because in a well run company, 2 is not an issue. But 2 is one reason Airbus would never drop it.

As for 1, Economical (sic), projects are canceled all the time, companies take charges, and move on. Boeing alone charged against the Sonic Cruiser, will charge against Connexion, charged against the 747-X, unwound the 717.

Airbus could have said "that market conditions due to a changing world have altered the state of aviation for the foreseeable future, and we are a strong, agile corporation that can adjust. We will shelve the A380, and pick it up in the future, hoping to incorporate lighter, more fuel efficient technologies."

Instead they plowed through with a 20th century design in a 21st century market...

Ikarus2006 · Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:50 am

N844AA , I appreciate the humor biggrin

I understand and agree it is interesting to discuss about the A380 and Airbus project management skills. My simple point is that it would be useful to do it in the most constructive possible way (of course also a criticism is welcome and constructive if it offers a better alternative or at least a hint of it!).

Revelation · Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:57 am

Quoting Joni (Reply 97):
Separately, Airbus has demonstrated to Singapore Airlines’ satisfaction that the engineering design of the A380 is sound. It has performed well in flight and certification tests, and the delays in its delivery have been caused more by production, rather than technical, issues.

We all know now that the production issues are technical issues, in fact they are design process issues. I wonder if SQ will be revising their statement.

Quoting Joni (Reply 97):
Managerially the production process has obviously partially failed

Really, it's the design process. The changes coming from customers and from flight test cannot be incorporated into an updated, verifyable design in an acceptable amount of time. The management issue is that they approved using incompatible software versions, and tried to implement software to bridge the versions, which failed, and which management did not do anything about.

Quoting Joni (Reply 97):
but the business case for the plane remains good

Many of us feel the business case for the plane did not look good with the original cost and time estimates, and of course the delays and cost overruns are not making it look any better.

Quoting Joni (Reply 97):
and technically the plane is impressive.

On that, we can agree!

rampart · Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:38 am

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 105):
The VLCT study ran from 1993 to 1996 or thereabouts, and I a vaguely recall the MD-Airbus discussions as well, but neither of these really matter. I do not agree that anybody "gleaned some ideas" to the extent that it made A380 turn out the way it did. MD-12 and Boeing's NLA and A380 look similar because it is almost inevitable that they would, not because anybody is copying.

So the VLCT studies were after the MD-Airbus arrangements. I still agree with the inevitability of the design, though I think that "borrowing" of ideas is quite commonplace (Concorde-Tu144, DC10-L1011, Caravelle-DC9 are all documented), and the articles I cite above (#77) actually do discuss that. Not saying that the design of the A380 was significantly influenced, but to deny the possibility of cross-fertilization, above or below board, is myopic. Yes, it does matter, in my opinion. At least it's interesting.

Quoting MIAMIx707 (Reply 90):
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 28):
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

I think I have the magazine somewhere with the MD12 article. How many pax was it going to carry?

My reply #77 may reference that article you are thinking about.

-Rampart

TeamAmerica · Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:44 am

You can't call it bashing if this is true:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...601087&sid=a85GhNH1XM1M&refer=home

Quote:
"Airbus, controlled by European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co., now expects to deliver no serial-produced planes this year and only one in the second half of 2007 compared with the nine planned earlier. It will deliver 13 aircraft in 2008, EADS said in a statement sent to the German stock exchange. The whole program is running two years behind the original schedule and today was delayed an extra year on average"

The A380 project is a failure of epic proportions. It's not bashing if it's true.

JakTrax · Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:08 am

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 73):
I simply said the concept was originally American and it was.

Some guy in China was the first to put his hands into a river and drink water - he found it was refreshing. Are you saying the rest of the world wouldn't have followed of their own accord? Soon after, folks in Austrua would have tried it too and found it equally as good. The Americans were the first to suggest building it, but deep down the concept had been on everyone's minds, and Europe ended up building it.

Karl

Delta777Jet · Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:11 am

Joni: If the A380 is so "sound", why they not deliver one to SQ by the end of the year. They have some test frames which should work for SQ until they can replace by the latest version. At least SQ would keep the promise to be in a "near" future the first to fly.

JakTrax · Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:00 am

Quoting Glideslope (Reply 85):
OK, like the Concorde?

The A380 is a technological marvel but not on the same scale as Concorde; or the 747 for that matter. Folks should really leave Concorde out of this 'cause it's not a fair comparison. Mind you, it's another excuse to bash something that wasn't made by 'Uncle Sam'. Concorde was a super-advanced airliner, and one which the Americans could not viably replicate - and don't give me this "we didn't want to" nonsense because the US would have loved a home-grown rival, and even studied it at a similar time. Concorde had the potential to revolutionise air travel, but politics stopped that, not technology.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 86):
It's becoming clear that A380 will be regarded as of the largest technological, business and management failures ever.

It's becoming clear, is it? Not yet, it ain't even flying at the moment. Let's see the thing enter service before we make radical assumptions...

Quoting N328KF (Reply 89):
OK. Now think of the emotion that the heads of EK, SQ, QF, VS, etc. must be feeling about their interpretation of the ten-month new delay announcement?

These airlines need the plane, and will wait until such time as it can be ready. What else are they gonna do? Spend double the money and send two A330s everywhere to compensate?

Quoting MIAMIx707 (Reply 90):
Not because it's American, I'm sorry, but the MD-12 drawing looked sleeker and even graceful, especially in that MD paintscheme. When I saw the first A3XX I thought it looked more like a cow, that thing didn't look right. Ugly nose, tail too tall, plane too stubby, etc etc etc..

I'd say a good indication of which design was right is the one which is currently in production (i.e. A380). The MD-12 might have looked nicer but that probably explains why it never left the drawing board. Do you really think Airbus meant it to be that ugly without taking technicalities into account?

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 115):
It's not bashing if it's true.

So hang on, you're an expert, I assume.

Hey everyone, Airbus is a total failure, and so is the A380, despite the fact that it ain't entered service yet. The world's most profitable airlines continue to commit to the project and there will likely be a huge boom in air travel in the east, buy hey, what does that matter? Who are you, Nostradamus.....?

Karl

osiris30 · Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:07 am

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 118):
The A380 is a technological marvel but not on the same scale as Concorde; or the 747 for that matter. Folks should really leave Concorde out of this 'cause it's not a fair comparison. Mind you, it's another excuse to bash something that wasn't made by 'Uncle Sam'. Concorde was a super-advanced airliner, and one which the Americans could not viably replicate - and don't give me this "we didn't want to" nonsense because the US would have loved a home-grown rival, and even studied it at a similar time. Concorde had the potential to revolutionise air travel, but politics stopped that, not technology.

Concorde to me is the pinnacle of modern commercial aviation. And I'm from the 'wrong side of the pond'. And I don't recall seeing anyone here bashing Concorde. A statement that it was a commercial failure as a program(me) is not bashing, it's fact.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 118):
It's becoming clear, is it? Not yet, it ain't even flying at the moment. Let's see the thing enter service before we make radical assumptions...

Program(me) cost is up aproximately 50% from estimates. That pushes frame to be sold into the 450 range. Sitting at < 200 right now, it's pretty hard to see it being a commercial success (again not in terms of for airlines, but for Airbus).

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 118):
Hey everyone, Airbus is a total failure,

Man, why do you Airbus folks have to twist posts. You know full well that's not what he meant.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 118):
and so is the A380, despite the fact that it ain't entered service yet.

It was supposed to be by now. So it FAILED at making it original dates.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 118):
The world's most profitable airlines continue to commit

No.. they just have backed out of their commitments due to significant sunk costs elsewhere. I haven't seen ANY *NEW* orders this year.

BoomBoom · Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:13 am

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 118):
Concorde was a super-advanced airliner, and one which the Americans could not viably replicate

Who wants to replicate a failure?

I guess some people never learn from their mistakes and are doomed to repeat them (A380).

contrails · Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:27 am

"End of the A380 Bashing?" I have not yet begun to bash! My only hope for it is that it becomes the best thing that ever happened to Boeing.

commavia · Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:27 am

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 118):
Mind you, it's another excuse to bash something that wasn't made by 'Uncle Sam'. Concorde was a super-advanced airliner, and one which the Americans could not viably replicate - and don't give me this "we didn't want to" nonsense because the US would have loved a home-grown rival, and even studied it at a similar time.

Indeed, the U.S. didn't pursue actually wasting billions on a plane that would be a financial disaster, just as the Concorde ended up being for the Europeans. Instead, rather than the U.S. government sinking billions into "research and development" on a plane that could only realistically be used on a very tiny segment of the world's air routes, private manufacturers in the U.S. got to work on building planes airlines actually wanted to fly like the Douglas DC10 and Boeing 747.

Europe sunk billions into an economic disaster in order to prove a point about their "technical marvel," while private American companies sunk billions into building economically viable aircraft responsive to the open market, and thus created "financial marvel" after "financial marvel."

Sound familiar? I guess it's true what they say, history does repeat itself.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 118):
Concorde had the potential to revolutionise air travel, but politics stopped that, not technology.

Actually, I think it was the attrocious economics of a plane that it was virtually impossible to fly profitably.

Don't get me wrong -- Concorde was sleek, stylish, beautiful, and definitely qualifies as a "technical marvel." But it had impossible economics, which is why the Europeans got a grand total of 14 flying airplanes for their billions -- not exactly the wisest investment.

commavia · Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:27 am

Sorry for the double post.

[Edited 2006-10-03 22:28:00]

JakTrax · Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:07 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 122):
Actually, I think it was the attrocious economics of a plane that it was virtually impossible to fly profitably.

Nearly as atrocious as your spelling - no double-t in 'atrocious'.

Karl

zvezda · Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:08 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 87):
Airlines buy airliners as a solution. Airbus now has several customers whose basic problems cannot be solved by money or additional smaller airframes, alone. These are the ones with slot constraints and the like.

Even on the routes with the fattest demand curves and slot constraints, using a smaller airliner still means not selling fares as low. It is purely an economic loss for the airlines and can be compensated with cash.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 104):
It is not as far outside the box as the concorde, but it is still a Human accomplishment of monumental proportions.

Perhaps comparing the WhaleJet to the Concorde is not fair, as the Concorde was a much greater achievement. It's probably fair to compare the WhaleJet with the Spruce Goose.

commavia · Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:11 am

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 124):
Nearly as atrocious as your spelling - no double-t in 'atrocious'.

Please forgive me, I was typing quickly. Just out of curiosity, is it just my spelling you dispute, or my opinion as well?

JakTrax · Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:19 am

I was kinda kidding with the spelling. Everybody's entitled to their opinion, and believe me, if this thread were reversed in Boeing's favour I would be still be disputing some opinions. I do think, however, that no-one in this forum can justify (just yet anyway) saying the A380 will be a flop. We are not a forum of Nostradamuses but supposedly forward-thinking people, and we should really ensure our minds are left open to the possibility that this big Airbus may actually be a success.

If you're so sure it's going to be a failure, at least leave the "told you so" until it's proven. Then you will be factually stating.

Karl

AvObserver · Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:55 am

Quoting BillReid (Reply 55):
The problem is that it is less needed that the Concorde was

Well, this isn't true, even though Concorde once boasted an orderbook of around 200 airframes (nearly all cancelled prior to firming up, of course). Concorde was the greater technical challenge but was virtually the definitive "white elephant" of airliners that actually made it into service. Though the A380's business case may be on shaky ground, it seems soundly better than that of the SST, which was launched with little regard for changing airline economics. The A380 still has a shot at some success if it overcomes these program hurdles and proves itself in service. I do think, however, that Airbus likely overstated the projected size of the VLA market in getting it approved and won't achieve the "superior profitability" originally claimed be ex-CEO Forgeard at its 2000 launch. Ah well, the best laid plans of mice and men...

nonfirm · Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:13 am

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

Failure.

TeamAmerica · Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:26 am

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 118):
Hey everyone, Airbus is a total failure, and so is the A380, despite the fact that it ain't entered service yet. The world's most profitable airlines continue to commit to the project and there will likely be a huge boom in air travel in the east, buy hey, what does that matter? Who are you, Nostradamus.....?

Oh, dear. You seem to have missed my earlier comment:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 27):
Criticism of the project is separate from criticism of the airplane.

The A380 PROJECT is a failure, and we don't need Nostradamus to tell us that...or do we? Nostradamus, Century X, 16th quatrain:

Quote:
"Happy in the realm of France, happy in life,
Ignorant of blood, death, fury and plunder:
For a flattering name he will be envied,
A concealed King, too much faith in the kitchen. "

Wow. He mentions France, and the "too much faith in the kitchen" must actually mean too much faith in CATIA. See? Makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up, doesn't it? Wink

hz747300 · Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:28 am

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 127):
We are not a forum of Nostradamuses but supposedly forward-thinking people, and we should really ensure our minds are left open to the possibility that this big Airbus may actually be a success.

Yes, we are. Why bother having a chat room if not to speculate? Anyhoo, yes it is a failure. By the way, every delay which Airbus has only adds to the burden to reach break-even, let alone profitability.

I am still waiting for the documentary on the A380 to come out. The one which is honest about the program.

prebennorholm · Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:18 am

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 59):
Like it or not, the original concept is entirely American.

Nope, the concept is all Russian.

Mr. Igor Sikorsky cancelled his four engined double decker project in 1915 - three quarters of a century before MDC produced their last MD-12 painting.

That was many years before he immigrated to the USA and "teach" Boeing to build helicopters.

N328KF · Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:25 am

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 132):
That was many years before he immigrated to the USA and "teach" Boeing to build helicopters.

That was Piasecki, not Sikorsky that formed what became Boeing Vertol.

Revelation · Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:00 am

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 118):
Hey everyone, Airbus is a total failure, and so is the A380, despite the fact that it ain't entered service yet. The world's most profitable airlines continue to commit to the project and there will likely be a huge boom in air travel in the east, buy hey, what does that matter?

I guess we all have our criteria for success. A380 is very late and very much over budget and not likely to make a profit for its builders. Sure, if you define success as a few airlines found a good use for it, and it's got some cool technology, then yes it is a success, but that's not how I look at it. It's not a total failure (even a failed marraige probably had at least a few good moments, no?) but on balance the A380 is definitely a failure.

Pointing out that it hasn't entered service yet isn't helping your case: every prediction Airbus has made so far about when it will enter service has been wrong, and so we have no idea if the current dates will hold or not.

prebennorholm · Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:14 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 133):
That was Piasecki, not Sikorsky that formed what became Boeing Vertol.

Yup, and what was the name of the company which Mr. Piasecki copied? Wink

JakTrax · Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:30 am

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 132):
Nope, the concept is all Russian.

In fact, most technology we use today is derived either from Russian OR German technology.

Let's not forget, at the end of WWII the Americans very quickly, and secretly (at the time), shipped a load of Nazi scientists out to the US. The stuff they knew was incredible and at the time, the Germans were most definately the most advanced race on the planet. The Americans could not come close to Nazi technology, and much of the today's advanced US weaponry is often believed to be derived from post-war German specs. Let's just thank our lucky stars the Allies won, because it could have all too easily gone the other way.....

Just thought this might add interest to the thread.

Karl

osiris30 · Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:44 am

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 136):
Just thought this might add interest to the thread.

You mean incite more irrational patrioc bullsh*t from either side, thereby starting more flamewars... ya good call. That belongs in non-av as it has NOTHING to do with aviation.

Anyone who bites on this should be shot.

PVG · Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:50 am

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 118):
Concorde was a super-advanced airliner, and one which the Americans could not viably replicate - and don't give me this "we didn't want to" nonsense because the US would have loved a home-grown rival, and even studied it at a similar time.

Do you really believe that? The country that was first to moon, that has been flying advance space shuttles back and forth for over 20 years now, that has been building and flying the most advance SST military jets for 40 years: could not replicate the CONCORDE? A beautiful machine, but a failed commerical venture! Another example of European politics, pride and ego triumphing over business sense! You really must be kidding!

call911mfc · Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:15 pm

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 118):
Concorde was a super-advanced airliner, and one which the Americans could not viably replicate - and don't give me this "we didn't want to" nonsense because the US would have loved a home-grown rival, and even studied it at a similar time.

It was more than just studied and was pretty close to becoming a reality before the tree-huggers and NIMBY's started squawking.

This blurb from Wikipedia says it best:

"The Boeing 2707 was developed as the first American supersonic transport (SST). After winning a competition for a government-funded contract to build an American SST, Boeing began development at its facilities in Seattle, Washington. Rising costs, the lack of a clear market, and increasing outcry over the environmental effects of the aircraft—notably sonic boom—led to its cancellation in 1971 before two prototypes had been completed."

Rising costs, lack of a clear market.....sounds familiar to me......

If you pay attention, you'll notice that the same things that killed the B2707 also nearly killed the Concorde and severly limited its ability to fly in, through, and from the US. If it weren't mostly funded by their owners' governments, I doubt the Concorde would have flown either.

n844aa · Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:54 pm

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 127):
I do think, however, that no-one in this forum can justify (just yet anyway) saying the A380 will be a flop. We are not a forum of Nostradamuses but supposedly forward-thinking people, and we should really ensure our minds are left open to the possibility that this big Airbus may actually be a success.

See, this is the thing I can't figure out. If you look with skeptcism upon the economic case for the A380, or think that the program(me) management was irretrievably disastrous, or, hell, just don't like the way it looks, then you're a closed-minded, backward-looking fool. But if you think a $20 billion dollar plane built for what virtually everyone regards as a relatively niche market has a strong chance at becoming the greatest achievement since the DC-3, well, shit son, welcome to the club of the enlightened.

I hope this doesn't sound like I'm picking on you, Karl. I truly don't mean to do anything like that. But I see variants of this sentiment expressed every day on this forum, and I'm just not sure why the skeptics are supposed to be the stupid ones.

My view? I think at this point no one is justified in claiming that the A380 will be a commercial success. Might it be? Of course. Might it not? Of course. My guess is that this will generally be a good plane for its operators in a certain segment of the market, but not such a great investment for Airbus.

PlaneHunter · Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:03 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 125):
Perhaps comparing the WhaleJet to the Concorde is not fair, as the Concorde was a much greater achievement. It's probably fair to compare the WhaleJet with the Spruce Goose.

Neither comparison makes sense - the A380 isn't history yet.

PH

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net