Despite the new delays Etihad Airways remains optimistic about the A380. To adapt to the delay, the airline may firm up options on other 12 Airbus aircraft.

"We'd be able to cope with (the delay)," said Boven, who is still a backer of the project. "We're very much looking forward to incorporating the A380. It's a tremendous aircraft."

To adapt to the delay in the delivery of the double-decker planes, Etihad may firm up options it has on 12 other Airbus aircraft. The carrier will likely make a decision on this in the first half of 2007, Boven said.

Full story:
http://in.today.reuters.com/news/new..._India-270981-1.xml&archived=False


PH

All the airlines have generally agreed on this point, which is why none of them have cancelled any orders.

So 48I is a stillborn in Etihad´s future fleet, or am I wrong?

Micke//  

Quoting PlaneHunter (Thread starter): Despite the new delays Etihad Airways remains optimistic about the A380. To adapt to the delay, the airline may firm up options on other 12 Airbus aircraft.

Don't you just love the word tremendous?

Looks like EK will have to keep a good eye out because Ethiad is hungry to capture market share.

Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 1): All the airlines have generally agreed on this point, which is why none of them have cancelled any orders.

It seems that all the A380 customers have realised the the A380 delays are mainly due to production issues, and not aircraft capabilities.

From what we have heard up until now the A380 has meet and even exceeded many of the expectations.

Regards,
Wings

Good to see people with some more insight in the matter than the average A.netter keep on confirming the plane is indeed performing as promised (at least).

Anybody knows what EY has on option from Airbus?

An unexpected additional order for wide bodies could make the bitter pill taste somewhat sweeter for Airbus, a bit like the additional order for A330s from QF.

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 2): So 48I is a stillborn in Etihad´s future fleet, or am I wrong?

I would imagine that future add on orders for the A345/6 are to be expected from Ethiad.

I would not also rule out additional orders for more A330 to serve as a stop gap measure until B787/A350 arrive.

I also believe that Ethiad have also shown interest in the A332F.

Regards,
Wings

Quoting PlaneHunter (Thread starter): Etihad CEO: A380 A "Tremendous Aircraft"

What mother will say that she has an ugly baby?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6): What mother will say that she has an ugly baby?

I think tremendous is in reference to the performance of the plane, not the looks...

We know the A380 is not the most sexy of planes, but is seems it is the most efficient of all planes afterall...

In this dismal time for Airbus there is a VERY fine line between the reality of the comments made by Ethiad and the timing and reasoning for making them.

Ethiad may be extracting a killer deal for more A380 and Airbus gets much needed good publicity.

The Airlines seem to be agreeing that the performance is not a problem but whilst I don't doubt A380 will perform well I have three serious reservations:

1. The operating empty weight of this Aircraft is huge (around 270 ton) The reality is that unless this baby is full up the CASM will be not good and Airlines run the risk of over capacity anf therefore turn A380 into yield killer and then intensify that problem.

2. Call it the "Zvezda" factor if you like but smaller 787/777/A350 have the range and CASM to compete with A380 whilst giving better frequency and destination options. We have seen the market fragment and go from 747 to 767 across the Atlantic andf further fragmentation is 747s to 777s across the pacific. There is a market for VLA between Hubs but I don't think its that huge.

3. Airbus's record in delivering on promises. We don't really know how far and how full A380 can fly but I guess Qantas (when they eventually get some aircraft) will find out when flying the MEL-LAX route. As far as my memory serves me the OEW kept increasing whilst the intended 3 class layouts for some airlines has continually been revised downwards from 555 to under 500 for SQ and QF. I seem to remember 77W was continually revised upwards and that wasn't from increasing MTOWs!!!!

Time will tell but I believe A380 was built by Airbus for all the wrong reasons and the Market is a lot smaller than anticipated.

The large twin is the way of the future make no mistake about that...  

Looks are subjective..
Some people like blonds , some brunets
 

Quoting PlaneHunter (Thread starter): "We'd be able to cope with (the delay)," said Boven, who is still a backer of the project. "We're very much looking forward to incorporating the A380. It's a tremendous aircraft."

The preceding political announcement was made thanks to a grant from Airbus...

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6): What mother will say that she has an ugly baby?

There have also been numerous "mothers" in the aviation biz who said good bye to their "babies"...

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 8): Call it the "Zvezda" factor if you like but smaller 787/777/A350 have the range and CASM to compete with A380 whilst giving better frequency and destination options.

This factor or that factor - there are certain important airports throughout the world where slots for a growth of frequencies are rare.

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 8): s far as my memory serves me the OEW kept increasing whilst the intended 3 class layouts for some airlines has continually been revised downwards from 555 to under 500 for SQ and QF.

Can you provide a reliable source for the claim that QF and SQ had ever planned to install 555 seats? That's the standard layout suggested by Airbus - which premium carrier has ever adopted the manufacturer's standard?


PH

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 10): The preceding political announcement was made thanks to a grant from Airbus...

Did Mr. Boven tell you that?  


PH

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 7): I think tremendous is in reference to the performance of the plane, not the looks...

Read it as you may. All I'm saying is Ethiad says good things about it because it's getting some of the earliest planes. Same for SQ. Those a bit later in the queue, like EK and QF are a lot more ambivalent, and presumably they get the same data from Airbus as the rest. Those later in the queue are almost all silent.

Quoting A3 (Reply 9): Some people like blonds , some brunets

Yes, but we are talking about the overweight red-haired stepchild of the aviation world!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 13): Yes, but we are talking about the overweight red-haired stepchild of the aviation world!

Amazing that people still discuss the looks of an aircraft here - there's a dedicated forum for these "taste contests":

https://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_polls/


PH

Quoting Revelation (Reply 13): Yes, but we are talking about the overweight red-haired stepchild of the aviation world!

Last time I checked it was the B787 that was suffering form some extra Kilos. While the A380 has already been through a diet.

Regards,
Wings

Reverse A vs. B.

I just love how the A380 gets delayed and delayed, and the airline customers just accept it. Yes, we KNOW it's a tremendous aircraft, but it's very, very late to the party.

If the Airbus A380 fiasco happened to Boeing in 2006, do you think airline customers would be patient? Hell no. They'd be chewing Boeing through the roof and there would be a million threads on a.net lamenting how Boeing is losing its former glory, how Airbus is the new king of the skies, blah blah blah.

But since Airbus is the underdog here, everyone is waxing sympathetic. IMHO, Airbus is lucky to be number 2 since it doesn't have as far to fall from grace as Boeing would in a situation like this.

Get those A380s up and running Airbus - the sooner the better.

SparkingWave ~~~

Quoting Revelation (Reply 13): Yes, but we are talking about the overweight red-haired stepchild of the aviation world!

Have you even see the A380 in person yet? I hope you have because before I visited the USA I thought all Americans would be fat moronic idiots but after I visited I realised that whilst a lot of you are indeed fat and moronic, there is a certain something about them that keep people coming back.

I think people are over-reacting to the "ugly" word. I think the A380 isn't pretty sitting on the ground, but when she's in flight, she looks marvelous. And I have a lot of admiration for the many technological advances she brings. What's ugly about her is the circumstances of her birth, thus my reference to her being a stepchild.

Everyone knows its a great aircraft, the problem is... the "problems"!!

Quoting WINGS (Reply 15): Last time I checked it was the B787 that was suffering form some extra Kilos. While the A380 has already been through a diet.

And the A380 may still be overweight, Airbus can be hiding that fact, they've created the smokescreen of sofware incompatability and are trying to hide everything behind it and they are doing a good job doing it, even convincing some A.netters such as our JP Morgan "engineer" who still believes sofwtare issues take that long

Quoting Dallasnewark (Reply 20): And the A380 may still be overweight, Airbus can be hiding that fact, they've created the smokescreen of sofware incompatability and are trying to hide everything behind it and they are doing a good job doing it, even convincing some A.netters such as our JP Morgan "engineer" who still believes sofwtare issues take that long

Though, you can't present the ultimate truth either. Speculations don't help.


PH

Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 21): Though, you can't present the ultimate truth either. Speculations don't help.

That would be logical since I don't work for Airbus, only they know something that they are hiding, but like I pointed out there are many issues behind the software smokescreen, and nobody on A.Net knows the truth, everyone is speculating

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 8): Call it the "Zvezda" factor if you like but smaller 787/777/A350 have the range and CASM to compete with A380 whilst giving better frequency and destination options.

In the real world, most intercontinental routes are still protected by bilateral agreements, limiting the number of flights a certain flag carrier may undertake...

Simply adding MORE frequency with smaller planes may NOT be an option, even though their CASM might be (slightly) better than on the A388, so the only option to increase the market share on those flights is by using bigger planes.

One fine example of this is the Europe to Australia route: ever noticed how the A380 is popular with airlines flying on the kangaroo route? VS, EK, EY, SQ, MH, QF.... Those who'll not be ready, will simply be blown off the route completely: BA being the most obvious victim.

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 8): As far as my memory serves me the OEW kept increasing whilst the intended 3 class layouts for some airlines has continually been revised downwards from 555 to under 500 for SQ and QF.

555 is the standard 3 class number still quoted by Airbus, Boeing has similar numbers for they quote for the 744 ... 416 seats, no 5 star airline would be caught dead with that configuration, SQ have around 370-375 seats in their 744s. QFs newest 744ERs to do LAX-MEL only have 343 seats (14F/64J/265Y).

SQ have opted for more space again for passengers, now in their 773ERs they will have about the same number of passengers as their 772ERs.

My understanding is that the 748i has had an OEW increase of 21t and range reduction of between 500-1000 nm since launched (due to the fuselage stretch). SQ did look at this aircraft, they got no additional capacity in the 748i over the 744 with the new seating arrangements, i.e. the 748i is still about 100 seats behind the A380, with less range and payload.

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 23): One fine example of this is the Europe to Australia route: ever noticed how the A380 is popular with airlines flying on the kangaroo route? VS, EK, EY, SQ, MH, QF.... Those who'll not be ready, will simply be blown off the route completely: BA being the most obvious victim.

Or if everyone is flying A380s then there will be overcapacity which will destroy yields. In that case BA will be ok because they won't have to compete as much to fill their a/c. Of course your scenario is perfectly plausible too.


I think this confirms one of three things, the first being most likely

1. The A380 is meeting expectations and airlines are willing to wait for it

2. The airlines are getting so much money from Airbus for the delays that even if the plane under performs slightly the low purchase price they got it for makes up for the under performance

3. The airlines have spent way too much money preparing for the A380 and cancelling now would cost them more than keeping it, even if it does miss performance targets by a percentage or two.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6): What mother will say that she has an ugly baby?

Including your own. This guy's from an airline not Airbus. What a strange thing to say.

MH

Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 21): Speculations don't help.

Well if we can't speculate here, then what is the purpose if this forum, I mean this an aviation forum, and we all here love aviation (planes, airlines, engines, etc.) but 99,9% off us doesn't know the truth about what is going on inside A or B.

If Dallasnewark wants to speculate that there is something more than software and wiring issues oh the A380 and you prefer to speculate that the situation is not that bad, is great, that's one of the the reasons to subscribe here and write about aviation, dont you think??

just my 2 cents

Quoting Norcal (Reply 25): 1. The A380 is meeting expectations and airlines are willing to wait for it 2. The airlines are getting so much money from Airbus for the delays that even if the plane under performs slightly the low purchase price they got it for makes up for the under performance 3. The airlines have spent way too much money preparing for the A380 and cancelling now would cost them more than keeping it, even if it does miss performance targets by a percentage or two.

But the key question is if other airlines will order and if the original airlines will re-order.

As discussed in other threads, Airbus needs 40-50 orders per year to hit the break even point. This is what will be interesting to watch over the next 5 years. It doesn't appear to be happening at present.

Quoting Gabo787 (Reply 27): If Dallasnewark wants to speculate that there is something more than software and wiring issues oh the A380 and you prefer to speculate that the situation is not that bad, is great, that's one of the the reasons to subscribe here and write about aviation, dont you think??

Probably my point wasn't clear enough. It's important to distinguish between "there could be XXX" and "there is XXX" when offering a speculative thought.


PH

Hi Everyone.

I believe the thread-starter, in my opinion, wished to give us an example and expound upon some of the already-known and well-documented facts about the A380, and, who may be continuing to see this vision.

As with any negative publicity, it often tends to overshadow the more positive news of the day. And certainly the A380 has been buffeted by an array of differing external issues that would bring even a seasoned company to its knees.

Yes, there can be no denying that the production challenges Airbus is facing with the A380 are frustrating and daunting. However, the fact remains that the product itself is a viable large transport whether it does or does not capture a large market share over time.

I am new to A.net and perhaps not as learned as some of my colleagues. I believe that the A380 is an admirable achievement in aircraft design, and, many of us in the United States remain disappointed to this day that Boeing did not commit to a true VLA project when Airbus went forward with the A380. It is an enviable position to be in as the builder of the world's largest commercial airplane. And I congratulate Airbus for its accomplishment.

I have read much discussion as to "why" Airbus launched the A380, with arguments ranging from large sales forecasts to pride and ego. I am not wise enough to look inside the hearts of those who made the "go" decision to see what was behind it. And it is not my position to judge. I only know that an exciting and new aircraft is coming to market and it is in a class by itself.

Whether any one of us thinks the A380 is a "head-turner" or not, it is indeed a "game-changer." History will eventually determine on what scale the A380's impact will be felt. Even Boeing enthusiasts should be thankful that Airbus went ahead with the project, however, because without it there might never have been even the modestly-stretched B747-8 Intercontinental to celebrate.

I realize as a newcomer to this board that there is a significant amount of enthusiasm and pride that comes wrapped in our passions and beliefs. This makes A.net a vibrant community. The A380 has certainly created a major splash and given us much to discuss and debate.

The airlines that are being patient with Airbus must do so because there are no alternatives. So when you have no viable options in your business plan strong optimism always rallys to the forefront.

How this story will end is unknown at this time. But regardless of the A380's eventual sales totals, one thing is clear: this aircraft has been newsworthy and noteworthy in aviation history already, without even a single revenue flight to its credit. Yet!

Blessings, N31029

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 8): 2. Call it the "Zvezda" factor if you like but smaller 787/777/A350 have the range and CASM to compete with A380 whilst giving better frequency and destination options. We have seen the market fragment and go from 747 to 767 across the Atlantic andf further fragmentation is 747s to 777s across the pacific. There is a market for VLA between Hubs but I don't think its that huge.

The 777 doesn't have lower CASM than the A380, and the B787 _may_ have slightly lower CASM at EIS due to newer engines, but if/when the A380 is offered with updated engines the CASM should, again, be better than in the B787.

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 8): 3. Airbus's record in delivering on promises. We don't really know how far and how full A380 can fly but I guess Qantas (when they eventually get some aircraft) will find out when flying the MEL-LAX route. As far as my memory serves me the OEW kept increasing whilst the intended 3 class layouts for some airlines has continually been revised downwards from 555 to under 500 for SQ and QF. I seem to remember 77W was continually revised upwards and that wasn't from increasing MTOWs!!!!

There is already a good amount of data from the test flights and AFAIK they've confirmed that the plane will meet, or slightly exceed, the targets.

Quoting SparkingWave (Reply 16): I just love how the A380 gets delayed and delayed, and the airline customers just accept it.

They don't have much choice, do they.

Quoting SparkingWave (Reply 16): If the Airbus A380 fiasco happened to Boeing in 2006, do you think airline customers would be patient? Hell no.

So your theory is that the airlines act differently based on how they perceive the industrial situation between A&B? That's a bit far-fetched, IMO. Those guys look after their own, narrow interests.

Quoting SparkingWave (Reply 16): If the Airbus A380 fiasco happened to Boeing in 2006, do you think airline customers would be patient? Hell no. They'd be chewing Boeing through the roof and there would be a million threads on a.net lamenting how Boeing is losing its former glory, how Airbus is the new king of the skies, blah blah blah. But since Airbus is the underdog here, everyone is waxing sympathetic.

Ummm - have you been reading any threads on this forum in the past couple weeks?  

Nice post N31029 - well said   

Quoting Joni (Reply 31): The 777 doesn't have lower CASM than the A380, and the B787 _may_ have slightly lower CASM at EIS due to newer engines, but if/when the A380 is offered with updated engines the CASM should, again, be better than in the B787.

Correct, and the 748i will have the lowest CASM of any aircraft Boeing has produced, including the 787.

Quad does not mean expensive, nor does twin mean cheap.

Quoting Joni (Reply 31): The 777 doesn't have lower CASM than the A380, and the B787 _may_ have slightly lower CASM at EIS due to newer engines, but if/when the A380 is offered with updated engines the CASM should, again, be better than in the B787.

That only matters if you can fill it.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 33): Correct, and the 748i will have the lowest CASM of any aircraft Boeing has produced, including the 787. Quad does not mean expensive, nor does twin mean cheap

Point taken Zeke but is CASM not worked out on number of seats and therefore the chance of not filling an A380 could be very expensive and CASM goes through the roof. Also the drive to fill may reduce yield which is also a factor in CASM.

Imagine 300 people on A380 compared to 280 odd on 777 or 787-9. Not only is the OEW about half but cargo capacity similar. You work out the costs but I suspect this is why so many airlines have downsized from 744 to 777. Its pure economics.

The A380 has its place from certain hub to hubs but I suspect strongly that many Airlines earmarked for A380 will get out of it ASAP not because A380 for some will be too much Aircraft. Many Airlines suffered the same fate with 741 and got out for much the same reasons.

With range and CASMs not the sole domain of the largest aircraft anymore it further limits A380s market.

This is only my opinion but the real economics of operating A380 are going to be fascinating. I suspect the launch prices given to the launch customers will offset this but I see it difficult for Airbus to sell hundreds more without the continued launch type discounts or in the case of SQ the excercising of options at xxx priced.

The current debacle will only make it harder for the sales team and with no positive cash flow on A380 till 2010 it most likely will never make a profit.

Time will tell  

Quoting WINGS (Reply 3): From what we have heard up until now the A380 has meet and even exceeded many of the expectations.

Well, there was the expectation it would be delivered somewhat close to its original delivery date.......

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 8): The reality is that unless this baby is full up the CASM will be not good

CASM is the same whether the seats are occupied or not. You must be talking about revenue, not cost.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 28): As discussed in other threads, Airbus needs 40-50 orders per year to hit the break even point.

You shouldn't forget to mention that those other threads assumed that ~$20B needed to be amortized over 20 years, and that pre-tax earnings shortfalls were gleefully mixed together with development costs. So according to generally accepted a.net accounting practice, 40-50 sounds about right... Hell, it's a little low  

May I point out, it is really easy to say this on the heels of the news that EY will be receiving the A380 before EK? I think EY may be welcoming this delay as it will probably allow them to pick up a few extra widebodies at very low rates, and they get the new toy before Emirates. Seems to be working out perfectly for them.

Mr. Boven will move over in the coming days for James Hogan.
Ex CEO GF will take over the reigns at EY.

Trust me I know freom 1st hand experience that he is not a big fan of the big bird, so let's how long this statement holds.

I expect Boven not to stay long as Hogan will bring in his own Senior Mgt team which he dragged around from BMI to Ansett to GF and now to EY

Quoting Joni (Reply 31): The 777 doesn't have lower CASM than the A380, and the B787 _may_ have slightly lower CASM at EIS due to newer engines, but if/when the A380 is offered with updated engines the CASM should, again, be better than in the B787.

Smaller planes don't need to have lower CASM to have a place in the marketplace because of their overall lower risk. OTOH, larger planes will need to have lower CASM to have a chance in the marketplace.

The 744 has significantly lower unit operating cost than the 763er. Yet, the 763er is the dominant aircraft across the Atlantic.

It's a game of cost, yield, revenue, frequency, convenience, etc. Cost is just one of the factors.

Having a CASM parity with the 789 will not make the 388 a success in the marketplace.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 33): Correct, and the 748i will have the lowest CASM of any aircraft Boeing has produced, including the 787.

A larger aircraft will inherently have an advantage in seat cost due to larger number of seats.

Quote: Quad does not mean expensive, nor does twin mean cheap.

At equal seat and equal technology, twins win hands down. Your conclusion is based on a comparsion of apples and oranges.

Quoting Myt332 (Reply 17): ...before I visited the USA I thought all Americans would be fat moronic idiots but after I visited I realised that whilst a lot of you are indeed fat and moronic, there is a certain something about them that keep people coming back.

OK, I've had it. Why would you attack a "people" on this board? You blokes in the UK would be speaking German right now (that is if your grandparents had been allowed to live after a Nazi invasion) if it weren't for these "fat moronic" Americans jumping into the war to help save Europe.

Please try to refrain from insulting us with your generalizations. If you think Americans are "fat and moronic" you should keep that to yourself, and try to stick to the topic at hand -- not turn it into something personal.

Quoting N31029 (Reply 30): I believe that the A380 is an admirable achievement in aircraft design, and, many of us in the United States remain disappointed to this day that Boeing did not commit to a true VLA project when Airbus went forward with the A380.

I agree and disagree here. I agree with the fact that the A380 is an admirable achievement in design. It's a leviathan aircraft that will definitely make it to market come hell or high water. It's got some early teething pains, but those will be worked out within the next couple of years. I can't wait to see one at my local airport (SFO). I am, afterall, a fan of civil aviation. The Etihad quote is right on the money. The A380 is a tremendous aircraft and I'm sure it'll serve it's mission extremely well once it enters service.

However, I am not one of those who wishes Boeing had followed Airbus down the path of creating a WhaleJet. As initial orders have proven, there is an extremely limited market for the craft. Boeing entering this space would have been disastrous. Instead, Boeing chose to follow the path they predicted would be most lucrative -- the path the market suggested would sustain significant growth -- and it's paying off in spades: pushing the technological envelope and rolling the experience back into other product lines (composites, manufacturing processes, global alliances, etc.); racking up record orders; building a very healthy backlog -- across all product lines. Boeing is in great shape for having NOT pursued Airbus in the VLA space.

Quoting Thebry (Reply 41): OK, I've had it. Why would you attack a "people" on this board? You blokes in the UK would be speaking German right now (that is if your grandparents had been allowed to live after a Nazi invasion) if it weren't for these "fat moronic" Americans jumping into the war to help save Europe.

Yes and you wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the Europeans in the first place, ironic eh or are you one of those who don't get irony?

Also in 1776 you nearly voted to speak German so think about that.

Just to clarify, I do like American's but I was trying to get my point across in a colourful way. There are plenty of fat Brits too.

Quoting Myt332 (Reply 42): There are plenty of fat Brits too.

Yeah, with crooked teeth  

Quoting SparkingWave (Reply 16): I just love how the A380 gets delayed and delayed, and the airline customers just accept it. Yes, we KNOW it's a tremendous aircraft, but it's very, very late to the party. If the Airbus A380 fiasco happened to Boeing in 2006, do you think airline customers would be patient? Hell no. They'd be chewing Boeing through the roof and there would be a million threads on a.net lamenting how Boeing is losing its former glory, how Airbus is the new king of the skies, blah blah blah.

I have to disagree. I think what was said here:

Quoting ER757 (Reply 32): Ummm - have you been reading any threads on this forum in the past couple weeks?

is pretty accurate. There are a million threads (or at least a dozen or so) that go on and on about the A380 and how it is affecting the present and future of Airbus. Sometimes it has been somewhat excessive, though I think the entire situation is one that this board was made to discuss.

The customers have ripped them a new one several times, but in the end, what can anyone do? Airbus can't say "Voila!" and present a shiny new A380, and the airlines can't walk up the street to Boeing and take delivery of a competitor. If you as an airline go too far, you might cause Airbus to say "Well, it's gonna be 2011 for you. Sorry." or perhaps "Sorry, that's as low as we can go." If you cancel your order, you're looking at 2011 for a replacement anyways, and you've just given a competitor earlier slots to hit you over the head with.

Many times the A and B sides get out of control. I just don't think it's much different this time than any other.

Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 29): Probably my point wasn't clear enough. It's important to distinguish between "there could be XXX" and "there is XXX" when offering a speculative thought.

Exactly. Conspiracy theories don't come across as very believable when they have no underlying detail. With Eads and Boeing being accountable to shareholders, I'd imagine there is a fair amount of liability that would come from saying "we are meeting or exceeding expectations" only to find out later that this wasn't true.

Quoting Myt332 (Reply 42): Just to clarify, I do like American's but I was trying to get my point across in a colourful way. There are plenty of fat Brits too.

Oh. Well then that make it all okay then.  

-Dave

Quoting Eatmybologna (Reply 43): Quoting Myt332 (Reply 42): There are plenty of fat Brits too. Yeah, with crooked teeth

LOL!! stop bitching everyone, play nice
 

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 8): Call it the "Zvezda" factor if you like but smaller 787/777/A350 have the range and CASM to compete with A380 whilst giving better frequency and destination options. We have seen the market fragment and go from 747 to 767 across the Atlantic andf further fragmentation is 747s to 777s across the pacific. There is a market for VLA between Hubs but I don't think its that huge.

There is also a "naive" factor which makes a.netters like you believe everything that's pro Boeing and even if it comes from a source that does not come from the professional aviation industry.

Quoting Dallasnewark (Reply 20): And the A380 may still be overweight, Airbus can be hiding that fact, they've created the smokescreen of sofware incompatability and are trying to hide everything behind it and they are doing a good job doing it, even convincing some A.netters such as our JP Morgan "engineer" who still believes sofwtare issues take that long

You're right and I also think that the A380 doesn't even exist and they just put a ballon around the A340s fuselage to show that the EU has a bigger pax jet than the USA.

Hello everyone,

A "tremendous aircraft'? Ok., I agree. I think that etihad should firm up their 12 and maybe even ask for 20 more. Yeah. I like that. And I think that they should also order some 34x as stop gap.

Do you want to know why?








B/c I think this is good for Boeing! It will keep the 380 fans in hope (Hope is after all eternal) and it will hopefully keep eads a little longer in the quagmire it finds itself in. And with a bit of luck it will give Boeing a couple of more years of a head start on the twin asile market and of course the single aisle one as well.

So yeah, I agree it is a tremendous aircraft! I keep looking at it and that surely is one of the adjectives that comes to mind.


A fat, moronic idiot, I mean Homer simpson, I mean

Elvis777, "A Shining Example of the American Educational System"

The A380 appears to be meeting expectations, since the airlines keep saying it does, Airbus keeps saying it does, and nobody is leaking that it isn't, even though they're leaking everything else.

Airbus has caps on the compensation payments. What little evidence we have seems to be around $4-10 million per frame, depending on how many you ordered and when you ordered them. Even with discounts exceeding $100 million for the initial customers, that should still keep the frames in the black when you do not factor in all the non-sales contract costs (which is what is putting them into the red). Despite some folk's claims (or wishes), Airbus is not having to discount $10 million every month these planes are late.

So when you factor in that the plane seems to be performing, and the customers have reached their compensation targets and won't be getting any more blood out of that stone (or if they are, not scores of millions per frame worth) and that many of these customers appear to be able to cancel at will, that they have not means that they feel the plane is worth the nearside of two hundred million (or more) they are paying for each frame.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 28): As discussed in other threads, Airbus needs 40-50 orders per year to hit the break even point. This is what will be interesting to watch over the next 5 years. It doesn't appear to be happening at present.

But that is Airbus' problem, not the customer's. Yes, I expect most, if not all, of these customers expect they may need to buy more A388s and her sister models down the road, but if demand for the plane takes so long to build that Airbus feels the time has come to pull the plug, then so be it. Airlines survived the cancellation of the 717 and the 727 and the 757. They'll survive the cancellation of the A380 (should it come to pass).

Quoting SparkingWave (Reply 16): I just love how the A380 gets delayed and delayed, and the airline customers just accept it. Yes, we KNOW it's a tremendous aircraft, but it's very, very late to the party.

Because they bought into the long-term vision (20 years), not the short-term (2 years). Are they annoyed? Yes. Could they use the plane now? Certainly. But a two-year delay is not going to scuttle the twenty-year vision, I imagine...

Quote: If the Airbus A380 fiasco happened to Boeing in 2006, do you think airline customers would be patient? Hell no.

Agreed. And if the 787 is delayed, I don't expect wholesale cancellations, either, because those customers equally bought into the long-range vision.

Quote: But since Airbus is the underdog here, everyone is waxing sympathetic. IMHO, Airbus is lucky to be number 2 since it doesn't have as far to fall from grace as Boeing would in a situation like this.

I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic here.  

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 23): One fine example of this is the Europe to Australia route: ever noticed how the A380 is popular with airlines flying on the kangaroo route? VS, EK, EY, SQ, MH, QF.... Those who'll not be ready, will simply be blown off the route completely: BA being the most obvious victim.

You say that but BA have already been pruning on the kangaroo route, I believe they've stopped MEL and scaled down SYD to the tiny T7. BA are victims anyway of their own legacy and it will ultimately bring them to their knees. That pension deficit is just the tip of iceberg. The vultures are circling......

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 35): Imagine 300 people on A380 compared to 280 odd on 777 or 787-9. Not only is the OEW about half but cargo capacity similar. You work out the costs but I suspect this is why so many airlines have downsized from 744 to 777. Its pure economics.

But if there was a modern jumbo to replace the 744, airlines would go for it too wouldn't they? After all it's not like they can't fly planes that size profitably. Isn't that purer economics than downsizing?

Quoting Myt332 (Reply 42): Just to clarify, I do like American's but I was trying to get my point across in a colourful way. There are plenty of fat Brits too.

For the record, there are no fat Brits on Marylebone High Street.