A) Reply 1, posted Wed Apr 25 2007 03:42:06 your local time (4 hours 11 minutes 53 secs ago) and read 4705 times:
Well, I think Branson is correct that the profitibility of the A380 is an unattainable dream unless maybe 500 more were ordered. But Branson is most likely speaking out of anger over the fact the A380 should've been well into it's second year of operating rather than still in the test and certification stage.
Even if BRANSON seems sometimes to speak irrationally, this is a pose. Do not forget that he mada billions out of little. And certainly he is not speaking out of anger, even if of course, as many other, he must be angry
B) WINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 1773 posts, RR: 40
Reply 2, posted Wed Apr 25 2007 03:44:05 your local time (4 hours 10 minutes 2 secs ago) and read 4724 times:
Quoting Stratofortress (Thread starter):
"Sir Richard, whose long-haul airline has placed a $2bn (�1bn) order for six A380s, said he feared the 555-seater aircraft would never sell in sufficient numbers to cover its development costs."
Even a buyer is doubting A380 viability. Are there any credible sources out there that expect A380 to be a financial success?
(Boeing and Airbus are not credible sources in this case because they will be selling their skewed view)
If Sir Richard Branson is so worried about Airbus, why doesn't he place additional A388 orders to help out.
One has to acknowledge that in doing so he will help provide work for the UK as they manufacture the Wing and Engines that will equip his 6 A388's on order.
Simply because he does not lead a charity institute. This kind of social thinking is killing AIRBUS. The first obligation of any enterprise is not to ,lose money, as finally, directly or induirectly, the people pays the bill !!
C) NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 4355 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted Tue Apr 24 2007 11:46:06 your local time (3 hours 35 minutes 5 secs ago) and read 3735 times:
Let it fly first. If it proves to be a fantastic product in service I expect many, many orders still to come. But I do not expect the A380 to become a cash-cow as the 747 has been.
Unfortunately this doesn’t work. The product can be very good, but the market is not there, as the basic assumption that future demand increase will be for trunk lines working on Hubs, connecting two Mega-airports, is now substituted by non stop flights between any pair of international airports, as A350, B747 and B747-8i are able to provide with
Highly economical but smaller aircrafts.
D) Toulouse From Ireland, joined Apr 2005, 1619 posts, RR: 23
Reply 5, posted Tue Apr 24 2007 11:48:58 your local time (3 hours 32 minutes 13 secs ago) and read 3698 times:
Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 1):
Well, I think Branson is correct that the profitibility of the A380 is an unattainable dream unless maybe 500 more were ordered. But Branson is most likely speaking out of anger over the fact the A380 should've been well into it's second year of operating rather than still in the test and certification stage-----
I presently tend to agree with you, but hopefully for the good of aviation, over the coming 20 to 30 years maybe we will see Airbus pull in sufficient orders for the A380. This aircraft needs to go into commercial service before I'd expect any/many other airlines to order it, so fingers crossed she'll turn out good in commercial service, and then I don't see why they won't gain the orders they need over it's life-span... that said, and as an Airbus fan, I do have my own doubt over the economic viability of this aircraft for Airbus, yet at least for us aviation fans it's a great a/c just for its huge size and the fact that it is the first ever "all" double-deck civil aircraft.
Unfortunately, economic reality supersedes the pleasure of nice technology. Many persons are fans of AIRBUS or BOEING by the latter reason. But you assess the situation
Clearly !! Of course, to spend billions now to see how it would work seems a little expensive,
On a lighter note: Do you know what in the German commercial world “NA?means ??
E) WINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 1773 posts, RR: 40
Reply 6, posted Tue Apr 24 2007 12:01:04 your local time (3 hours 20 minutes 7 secs ago) and read 3525 times:
It's worth noting that despite the profitability of the A380 program is still rather grey, it is good to note that nearly all A380 customers have systematically praised the A380's performance and targets and all this after the A380 suffered long delays.
Singapore Airlines - Ordered 9 more.
Qantas - Ordered 8 more.
Lufthansa - True 3L/100km plane (plans to order more)
Thai - Keeps A380 order.
EK - World Leader.
Qatar - Plans to order more. etc........................
It must be said that of course each major airline can put to good use a A380. The problem is the quantity, and if such is not big enough and the advantage in front of smaller aircrafts is not large enough, it does not justify the acquisition.
This is also valid for VIRGIN.
Note that SINGAPORE, THAI, EK
and QATAR are catering to the same concept as AIRBUS (see C above) i.e that the will be (factually today they are) large hubs. But in the future, as said the hub need will diminish and all the concept will not work.
QANTAS, due to their position “far from anywhere?has a real use for the A380
LUFTHANSA has ordered the 400 ?467 paxB747-8i and try to convince the EU that this is for a different market as the 555 pax A380. Of course this is only an excuse in front of the German Government, very much even if indirectly involved in EADS, this being also the reason they are not cancelling the A380 now, but waiting that other begin to do
F) CygnusChicago From United States, joined Mar 2007, 24 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted Tue Apr 24 2007 12:02:07 your local time (3 hours 19 minutes 4 secs ago) and read 3502 times:
Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 1):
Well, I think Branson is correct that the profitability of the A380 is an unattainable dream unless maybe 500 more were ordered. But Branson is most likely speaking out of anger over the fact the A380 should've been well into it's second year of operating rather than still in the test and certification stage.----------------
I agree with your view. Hindsight is 20/20. When Airbus was proposing the Superjumbo to airlines in the late 90s, and when Branson signed in the early 2000s, he never once questioned the viability. In fact he was incredibly excited about the opportunity to offer bedrooms and whatnot.
With this report he is simply taking a cheap shot at Airbus while they are down. Maybe didn't offer him A350XWB's at the old A350 price, and that has upset him. Be that what it may, it does seem as though we have entered an era of vocal customer CEO's in the industry. We've had Udver-Hazy, Clark, Choon Seng, and now Branson criticize manufacturers in public.
See A), C) and E). BRANSON in the 90?thought as many others that the big hub concept
was the right one. Now, he realize it is not so and be acting as you say, admits the mistake. A positive exception in the Diva-CEO club you rightly mention !! Of course, you will realize that no CEO from a longer established Airline is in this list!
G) MD80Nut From United States, joined Jul 2003, 740 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted Tue Apr 24 2007 12:05:15 your local time (3 hours 15 minutes 56 secs ago) and read 3444 times:
Quoting NA (Reply 4):
Let it fly first. If it proves to be a fantastic product in service I expect many, many orders still to come. But I do not expect the A380 to become a cash-cow as the 747 has been-----.
I agree. Once it enters service and proves itself in the daily grind of airline operations I believe we'll see more airlines order the A380. That's why I believe it's crucial there are no further delays in getting it into service. I hope everything goes smoothly when Singapore starts commercial service, I want to see the A380 succeed, like I want to see EVERY plane succeed.
I think reaching the 450-500 frame mark will be a challenge though. But I'd love to be wrong.
You are totally right. Any survival chance of the A380 will be gone if there are further delays. And of course, no delay means to deliver an aircraft in its definitive execution, not, as some forum member suspect in case of the No.1 SINGAPORE, a factual hand completed prototype with some provisional solutions, to be upgraded later!
H) AirFrnt From United States, joined Jul 2004, 1649 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted Tue Apr 24 2007 12:54:10 your local time (2 hours 27 minutes 1 sec ago) and read 3012 times:
Quoting WestJetYQQ (Reply 9):
However, Mr. Branson is only half correct on his Airbus financial theory. It is very much the truth that Airbus has FAR from enough orders to break even on the A380 project. But, as soon as the first few get to be delivered, and the aircraft gets more of a fair chance to prove itself as an economical, passenger friendly choice for commercial airlines, orders will surely pick-up, and Airbus may be able to dig itself out of this hole it has dug.---------
The business case for the A380 was unrealistic before the A380 took to their air. Now they have had an idle factory line, additional market fragmentation about to occur, a horrible currency imbalance, high fuel costs and two bickering governments on top of everything. Add in Boeing's ability to launch a majority composite frame Y3 with a similar or better CASM advantage over the A380 with a smaller seat count, and the A380 will be done.--------
The A380 is underwater. It may eventually break the surface, but it will never achieve the heights that it ought to have to justify the billions of dollars in investment Airbus spent in it. It already has cost Airbus it's lead in the Airline market. But hey, don't take my word for it, listen to Mr. Branson, or Mr. Udvar-Hazey, or Boyd, or Aboulafia.
As said, the hub concept looked OK
end 90’s. Nearly only BOEING opposed it, stating the non-stop-point-to-point-concept, also influenced by the desire to maintain the
Cash-cow B747-400 milking as long as possible and also because they thought that AIRBUS will not go through with the project, On the latter they were wrong, but reacted
In time by developing the B787 and B747-8i.
J Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 8561 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted Tue Apr 24 2007 13:15:37 your local time (2 hours 5 minutes 34 secs ago) and read 2733 times:
Quoting Glideslope (Reply 12):
LOL, who is not these days? Sir Richard is going to cancel and grab some 748's. Watch closely.-------------
Well, 6 A380s doesn't replace 13 744s.
Expect him to order 8 748is, and then see what happens, keeping his 2014 A380 deliveries on the table for a while. After all, SQ may want them...
I do not follow your figures, but I agree that this seems plausible, VIRGIN ordering some
B748 to be able to substitute some of the B747-400 and A340 and delay the decision for
the A380 to see what happens. But I am not so sure of the latter, because the B787 order shows that he has no satisfactory compensation offer from AIRBUS
k) CygnusChicago From United States, joined Mar 2007, 24 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted Tue Apr 24 2007 13:43:28 your local time (1 hour 37 minutes 43 secs ago) and read 2485 times:
Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 10):
The A380 is underwater... . It already has cost Airbus it's lead in the Airline market.
It's not the A380 that cost Airbus the lead in the Airline market. The lead was lost because they did not have a competitive response to the 787. That happened in turn, due to the fact that they'd finished the launch of the A340-500/600 and couldn't admit that it was possible to build a plane substantially more efficient than than the A330. Nothing to do with the A380 whatsoever.-----------
I agree partially. Indirectly, the A380 has a really bad influence on the A320, siphoning the funds needed for the timely development of the A320NG
As to the Superjumbo - yes, currently it does not look like it will break even. While many argue it was a mistake - and from a pure single project ROI point of view it was - it still is a measure of success. Those 142 orders (or whatever the current count is) would have meant at least 142 additional 747 or 777 orders for Boeing. In addition, it is forcing Boeing to divert resources to the 747-800, which like the A350, is a plane they don't really want to have to build.
I am not sure that taking away contracts from BOEING by loosing a lot of money can be
called a success. As for the B747-8i I am not sure that they did not want to built it. It was
clear that they did not want to build a new model for the 400-550 pax range, but the 8i
is only a NG
of the B747, even if with a more than normal upgrades. They could not expect to perform only with the B777 middle term and the B787 long term. I think the idea was to use the N747-400 for a while more
and than go to the 8i anyway. What the A380 did was accelerate this.
L) Flysherwood From United States, joined Jul 2006, 312 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted Tue Apr 24 2007 14:00:28 your local time (1 hour 20 minutes 43 secs ago) and read 2317 times:
Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 7):
Have you ever heard Mr. Leahy act humbly in public about the situation that he put his customers in? If you listen to what he says, he still acts like Airbus management is doing a hell of a good job! Maybe Mr. Branson doesn't like the arrogance of Airbus management. I do not see where it is a cheap shot. When management screws up like they did with Airbus, they need to hear this kinds of criticism in order to ensure the listing ship is righted. Otherwise...
I have said this before: Mr. Leahy applied used-car dealer tactics on customers which supposedly are very sophisticated. That he was successful for years can only be explained that some of these customers are
not so clever, but mainly, that he was helped by the lack of elasticity and imagination of BOEING
before the new regimen there came in.
M) Flysherwood From United States, joined Jul 2006, 312 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted Tue Apr 24 2007 14:23:32 your local time (57 minutes 39 secs ago) and read 1683 times:
Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 15):
Those 142 orders (or whatever the current count is) would have meant at least 142 additional 747 or 777 orders for Boeing.---
I am not sure spending $15billion to keep customers from ordering a competitors product can be measured a success in any way, shape or form.
Exactly. You said it much better I did in k) !!
Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 15):
In addition, it is forcing Boeing to divert resources to the 747-800, which like the A350, is a plane they don't really want to have to build.---
If by now, Airbus has not figured out that the A350XWB is the airplane that they absolutely have to build and to build right, then the game is OVER!!! Are you really proposing that the A350XWB is only being built because they have to? The future of Airbus is at stake with the A350XWB!!!
I do not know what on earth AIRBUS was thinking. It is very evident that aside the
disorder at EADS, their main problem is planning. Examples
- 4 motors A340
- not foreseeing, if not before launching the project but shortly after, the danger
...of the point-to-point aircrafts for the A380
- not recognizing the drawbacks for airport handling of the full 2 levels A380
- not implementing in time the A320NG
- after realizing finally the need of a A350, not being able for a long time to
...present a satisfactory solution to customers