Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 149): In general, no disagreement here. However, when ego prevents the best use of society's technologies and capabilities for the enhancement of human welfare - as it may have done with A380 - that's unfortunate.

"May" have done? I can't argue with "may" but I don't care. I don't run an airline, I'm not a an aircraft manufacturer and "the enhancement of human values" is entirely subjective.

I - atheist - may be surprised that it has taken more than 130 years to build the Gaudi cathedral in Barcelona, and it still isn't complete, but I - atheist - am thrilled by what they have achieved.

There is nothing we can do except try.

mariner

Quoting mariner (Reply 150): I don't care. I don't run an airline

Cool. I do care. You do you, I'll do me.

Quoting mariner (Reply 150): "the enhancement of human values" is entirely subjective.

Welfare, not values. And be careful with how you use subjective. It can have an ontological or epistemic meaning. An ontologically subjective thing can have objective truth. For example, people's preference to pay less for flights is ontologically subjective - the existence of this fact derives from the subjective preferences of conscious agents - but it is also objectively true. It is epistemically subjective whether a preference to pay for cheap flights is more important than a preference to fly direct.

I'm a church-loving atheist and general aesthete too, but I also appreciate that aesthetic pleasure should probably give way to more foundational aspects of human welfare. The ability to travel - to see family, to migrate globally for a better life - for example should probably be prioritized over the pleasure we might take in contemplating the A380's existence. Purely aesthetically, I would love for the A380 to be twice as big. More importantly, however, I would love the A380 to have been more efficient and therefore more capable of enabling more people to fly.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 147):

Clarified cabin areas in other thread so the diff drops as stated here. Fuel costs are important but when I was doing my degree we were always told not to pay them too much attention, what really matters is the total. The Airbus guys helping paraphrased dragons den "fuel burn is vanity, costs are sanity".

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 149): In general, no disagreement here. However, when ego prevents the best use of society's technologies and capabilities for the enhancement of human welfare - as it may have done with A380 - that's unfortunate.

10 abreast in an a380 vs 10 abreast in a 77W, Airbus has human welfare right there. Lol.

Fred

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 151): Cool. I do care. You do you, I'll do me.

That's all I've ever wanted, but I don't understand why you keep responding to me, because we're coming at this with entirely different attitudes.

I don't contemplate the A380. It exists, it is, I fly it whenever I can. If it ceases to exist, I'll fly something else.

Concorde gave me the most thrilling flight - and landing - I have ever had in my life. I saw the curve of the earth. The landing made me understand why Americans say "Yee-haw!". I don't care that it didn't sell - I got to experience it.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 151): And be careful with how you use subjective.

Oh, gosh, professor, sure.   

mariner

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 152): Fuel costs are important but when I was doing my degree we were always told not to pay them too much attention, what really matters is the total.

Absolutely - all that matters is the bottom line. Fuel's a big part of it though. If you believe a necessary condition of VLA success to be dramatic efficiency, then merely achieving fuel parity with a much smaller plane makes offering a broadly-attractive value proposition unlikely.

Quoting mariner (Reply 153): hat's all I've ever wanted, but I don't understand why you keep responding to me

I don't understand why you interject in a conversation that plainly matters to others to tell us it doesn't matter to you. I don't comment in threads whose issues I don't care about it.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 154): I don't understand why you interject in a conversation that plainly matters to others to tell us it doesn't matter to you. I don't comment in threads whose issues I don't care about it.

From time to time, someone says something with which I agree and/or which I choose to clarify and/or reinforce.

mariner

[Edited 2016-02-24 18:34:25]

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 143): But at the same time, it seems odd that market ability to support bigger passenger numbers stops magically after the 779;

We read here the relative paucity of 779 sales means it doesn't even extend to the 779.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 143): Just to illustrate, from my perspective, the 748 wasn't the best decision ever, but hey, they tried with imperfect ability to predict the future. Cargo and economy downturns and relative A380 success doomed that project.

That's a far from complete rendering. 748 was late due to its own shortcomings (late close of design, flutter issues) as well as 787 stealing resources away from it. All of that meant it released into the teeth of the 2008 recession.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 145): The facts, of course, don't match that abstraction because there are "kinks" in the efficiency curve at certain size points. It's really hard to build a longhaul plane of A332/788 size with great efficiency, for example, compared to a slightly larger plane. Another "kink" in the curve occurs, imo, at the size of the smallest feasible double-decker.

Another big kink is that the 6-across single aisle narrowbody is much more efficient than the 7-across dual aisle widebody. There's probably another kink due to the fact that so many continents are 3000 miles or so wide and after that you have to cross a large ocean with few places to land so you end up carrying non-linear amounts of fuel to cross linear amounts of distance. Then add to that the fact you burn fuel to carry more fuel and there has to be a noticeable kink due to geography.

Quoting mariner (Reply 148): It would be a dreary ol' world without ego projects.

Pride goeth before a fall. It seems you care little for the falls. Personally I have a lot of respect for what great enterprise it takes to create the grand creations that you care so much for and hate to see when everyone involved take it on the chin or worse should the grand enterprises fail.

Interesting to see that in the German forum the thread died quickly, after exposing the emperor has no clothes .... here we are still arguing if the color of the clothes make sense...

In the end Airbus still has a few A380 to make and probably more orders will come and eventually they will get it to NEO version with a minimal stretch, and here in Anet we will still be having arguments of how bad this A38X NEO is....


BEst Regards
TRB

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 154): Fuel's a big part of it though.

Should this not read, Fuel price is a big part of it? As the price of oil stays low the costs all change when comparing different aircraft. All discussions about CASM and cost per seat that we have had the past 2 years need to be re-done on the new price for fuel. The new engines that burn less fuel but costs more will not have the same advantage at this stage as it had before. That is probably why talk of a A380neo has died down. EK is achieving their savings they wanted right now without the need for a new engine or extra cost spent for the new frame.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 145): Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 143): it seems odd that market ability to support bigger passenger numbers stops magically after the 779 It doesn't though. Or are you stating an a.net myth derisively?

I was being critical of the a.net discussion styles, where an A380 clearly cannot be fulfilled (which is false in some cases and true in some others), yet it is rare to see questions asked about the 777. Since aircraft tend to be deployed to match the size of a market on a city pair, the issues of up gauging from a 330 to 777 are similar to those as up gauging from 777 to 380.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 156): We read here the relative paucity of 779 sales means it doesn't even extend to the 779.

That's probably true. The number potential A380 routes is something; the number of potential 779 routes is bigger but also limited.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 156): That's a far from complete rendering. 748 was late due to its own shortcomings (late close of design, flutter issues) as well as 787 stealing resources away from it. All of that meant it released into the teeth of the 2008 recession.

Agreed; didn't mean to claim that I had presented a full set of reasons.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 159): I was being critical of the a.net discussion styles, where an A380 clearly cannot be fulfilled (which is false in some cases and true in some others

Ok.

I don't think this issue is discussed with much intelligence on A.net usually.
It's actually true as a matter of statistics that the in-operation A380 fleet shows both high yield and load factor. amedeo.aero/A380
BUT that surely represents the fact that, until recently, we had no 2-class A380's, 3-class A380's are very spaciously laid-out, and A380's tend to operate on the most premium-heavy routes when deployed.
A more intelligent data point would be average A380 revenue per cabin area, normalized for routes of deployment.

Anyone want to take a shot at figuring that?

IMO an A380 can pretty much always be filled - assuming it's operating from a decent hub on a decently large route.
The only question is at yield/RASM? And that question only makes sense if normalized for floor area used by each seat relative to the baseline comparison.

And then to judge whether the A380 is more profitable, you'd have to figure the area-normalized unit revenue versus area-normalized unit cost.
...a data set none of has time to accumulate.
But hey there's actually a huge group of people who do have time to accumulate this data set, and the general import of their results is publicly available in the form of A380 orders.

[quote=racercoup,reply=53]In the year 2000 Boeing predicted 400 sales for superjumbos over the next 20 years while Airbus predicted 1,700 for the same time period[/quote

Being as I live in Boston, the home of deflategate (I am actually seated 1 mile from Gilette Stadium right now). The NFL paid 2.5 million dollars for the "Independent" (sic) Wells report. The Wells report has been shown to be an exercise in shaping a study to reach a desired conclusion .

Is that what happened with the Airbus study? How could a legitimate study get things so wrong? Using 1,700 frames over 20 years you justify the program, at even twice the Boeing estimate you don't.

Quoting racercoup (Reply 161): Is that what happened with the Airbus study?

Seems like a reasonable conclusion.

Quoting racercoup (Reply 161): Is that what happened with the Airbus study? How could a legitimate study get things so wrong?

Good question, kind of what we're trying to discuss here. Ego is certainly a candidate. Plainly Airbus had the wrong paradigm - was that just an analytical error, or was it an analytical error that was allowed to occur because Airbus was strongly motivated to believe there was a pressing need for a VLA and eager to fill the need?

...I still believe, btw, that the degree of Airbus' forecasting error is exaggerated by their poor execution of the program - more from design and than production. Had the -800 been, say, 15% more fuel-efficient it would have sold much better. It could have, should have, seen such fuel efficiency if Airbus had been targeting a realistic VLA of 500 seats or fewer instead of the 650-seat monster for which they planned.

The good news is at least a couple years of no more bad news:

Quote: Feb 24 Airbus Group plans to remain at breakeven on the A380 superjumbo despite the prospect of lower deliveries of the slow-selling jet next year, but is not making forecasts beyond 2017, senior executives said on Wednesday. Production of the world's largest passenger jet has started to slow to match lower deliveries as Airbus struggles to find buyers amid a shift in demand towards smaller long-haul jets. "In 2015 we had breakeven at 27 (deliveries). In 2016, we will have about the same deliveries as in 2015. That allows us to retain breakeven in 2016," Finance Director Harald Wilhelm told Reuters on the sidelines of a results presentation. "In 2017, the current (order) backlog suggests slightly lower deliveries than 2016, but at the same time we are working on additional measures to bring the breakeven point down further, with a target to retain breakeven of the programme in 2017," he said, adding: "And then in 2018 we will see where we go". (Reporting by Tim Hepher Editing by Sarah Young)

http://www.reuters.com/article/airbus-group-a-idUSP6N12L01H

It would be interesting to calculate how many hours are wasted on the 380 topics. Get away from your computers, go outside and breath the air. These repetitive 380 topics and replies are a total waste of time and life. It is here, in production and by far the most superior product for long haul in the market. I wish there were more, but there isn't. Will there be more purchased, I hope so, but nobody knows. All the rest of the posts you could just do a ctrl c and ctrl v from previous topics and go out enjoy your lives while you can.

Quoting col (Reply 164): These repetitive 380 topics and replies are a total waste of time and life.

Especially reply 164. Seriously, if the thread bothers you and you are such a fan of fresh air why not just follow your own advice and shut down the computer and get yourself some fresh air instead of spending your time casting the illusion of your own superiority upon the rest of us.

[Edited 2016-02-25 18:05:08]

Quoting col (Reply 164): It would be interesting to calculate how many hours are wasted on the 380 topics. Get away from your computers, go outside and breath the air. These repetitive 380 topics and replies are a total waste of time and life. It is here, in production and by far the most superior product for long haul in the market. I wish there were more, but there isn't. Will there be more purchased, I hope so, but nobody knows. All the rest of the posts you could just do a ctrl c and ctrl v from previous topics and go out enjoy your lives while you can.

Amen to this.... I had the weird instance of getting on the tarmac of an AS 738 on a remote stand at LAX and walk not more than 40 meters away from KE A380...its incredible, I used to hang around DC-10 and Jubos back in the day and thought they were fantastic, but the A380 is a sight to behold... I don't care if its the biggest mistake in the history of mankind, I am glad they built it... and yes these anti a380 diatribes have been gong on for a decade, and probably by 2025 they will be still arguing the same old same old...

Quoting Revelation (Reply 165): time casting the illusion of your own superiority upon the rest of us.

Don't project insecurities, one thing is discussing the same theme add infinitum, and another to think that beating a dead horse will bring it back to life...

In the end, no amount of arguing will shut down the line or bring more orders...

TRB

Quoting racercoup (Reply 161): How could a legitimate study get things so wrong?

This is in deed a good question and exactly the same question I asked my self several times. But I would extend the question to Boeing's VLA-forecast since their forecast, although not as wrong as Airbus' forecast, was in the same magnitude, IIRC (and no, this is not a cheap trick to say "Boeing was wrong as well").

So, wouldn't it be worth do discuss the historic VLA-forecasts (both B and A) and what would be a reasonable VLA-forecast with todays knowledge, maybe in a separate thread.

It's not so easy to compare Boeing's and Airbus' VLA-forecasts since - IIRC - Boeing's forecast includes freighters whereas Airbus VLA forecast does not.

Quoting racercoup (Reply 161): Is that what happened with the Airbus study? How could a legitimate study get things so wrong? Using 1,700 frames over 20 years you justify the program, at even twice the Boeing estimate you don't.

Is it that wrong? They define the segment VLA as aircraft > 400 seats. The A380 and 748 are not the only types in that segment, and they never predicted a 100% market share for the A380.

There is a huge difference between a global market forecast and sales expectations for a specific type.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 165): Especially reply 164. Seriously, if the thread bothers you and you are such a fan of fresh air why not just follow your own advice and shut down the computer and get yourself some fresh air instead of spending your time casting the illusion of your own superiority upon the rest of us.

Sorry to offend you, just stating the obvious, not meant to be superior in anyway.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 167): and no, this is not a cheap trick to say "Boeing was wrong as well

In 2000 Boeing forecasted approx 400 VLA sales, to date there have been about 500. Given that one Airline accounted for (EK) 30% of the orders, I'd say Boeing was pretty much on target.

Quoting Unflug (Reply 168): Is it that wrong? They define the segment VLA as aircraft > 400 seats. The A380 and 748 are not the only types in that segment, and they never predicted a 100% market share for the A380. There is a huge difference between a global market forecast and sales expectations for a specific type.

Wrong, wrong and wrong - In the year 2000 VLA were the 747 and the about to be announced A380. No one has said Airbus expected to garner 100% of VLA orders, but they did justify the huge expense of the program on a forecasted demand of 1,700 units of which they expected to get the majority of the orders.

Quoting theredbaron (Reply 166): In the end, no amount of arguing will shut down the line or bring more orders...

Some of us find the subject of how multi-billion dollar aviation firms get multi-billion decisions partially or completely wrong fascinating and worthy of much discussion. In my view it's one of the most interesting things to discuss here on a.net.

As sick as you seem to be of such discussions, I find the "my, ain't that plane pretty" threads to only have limited appeal, but I don't post there telling people to turn off their computers. Usually!  

Quoting col (Reply 169): Sorry to offend you, just stating the obvious, not meant to be superior in anyway.

And I'm sorry for being so grumpy about it.

Quoting racercoup (Reply 170): Wrong, wrong and wrong - In the year 2000 VLA were the 747 and the about to be announced A380. No one has said Airbus expected to garner 100% of VLA orders, but they did justify the huge expense of the program on a forecasted demand of 1,700 units of which they expected to get the majority of the orders.

And also again, the business plan was not based on selling 100% aka 1,700 frames, nor on selling 50% aka 850 frames, nor on selling 24% aka 400 frames, but on selling 250 frames to reach program break even.
So selling 400 frames would have been a success and 300 frames OK. The business plan numbers did not build on exaggerated numbers, but were pretty conservative.
But making a mess out of development and first production, therefor I assume doubling the development and start up cost including the cost for delays and wing repairs, threw the business plan of the rails and moved program break even to the far side of 500 frames.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 172): but on selling 250 frames to reach program break even.

Even without production hiccups, development cost would have been >$10bn. Even without interest and/or NPV discounting, that means $40mn profit per plane for break even at 250. That's a crazy number. At mature production, the A380 breaks even. So if assuming Airbus had immediately reached production maturity upon EIS (bad assumption), you then need another $40mn added to actual purchase price. $40mn would add 20% to the A380's purchase price at historical program levels. Airbus would have had trouble selling 100 frames at that price, let alone 250.

I hear this "250 break even" line often here. As with your post, the person putting it forward rarely considers whether, after Airbus had developed the prediction, the market could have supported the projected sales at the necessary price. In other words, you ignore price.

I sense that you don't want to defend the 1,700 forecast (with good reason), but the 250 break even forecast is at least as crazy.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 174): Even without production hiccups, development cost would have been >$10bn.

And??????? Let us say 15 billion USD. That is 60 million USD per frame on an expensive frame with the block of 250. If we go to an discounted sales price of 240 million, that would be 25% on each sold frame for the business plan to sell 250 frames minimum.

People here are expecting Boeing to make money on the 787 with a sales price per frame of perhaps 135 million USD and an accumulated baggage of about 45 million USD per frame if we take the 1,300 frames block as a mark.

You are all the time undervaluing what a horror the execution of the A380 program was. Airbus had build the A300, the A320 and the A330/340 and the A380 fuck up was a new experience.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 171): Some of us find the subject of how multi-billion dollar aviation firms get multi-billion decisions partially or completely wrong fascinating and worthy of much discussion. In my view it's one of the most interesting things to discuss here on a.net.

I read this forum because I am fascinated with the business of aviation. It is, to me, much more exciting that any sport. High tech, high finance, huge manufacturing facilities (almost in my home town), intricate connections with so many governments, and producing a product that is essential to the world economy. And not morbid to find the failures more interesting than the many successes.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 175): People here are expecting Boeing

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 175): Airbus had build the A300, the A320 and the A330/340 and the A380 fuck up was a new experience.

I just can't get with the fanboy comparisons. This is the first internet forum I've actively participated in after university and a professional career grounded in reasonable dialogue. The tolerance for irrelevant and slack-minded tit-for-tat comparisons just unnerves me - it's unfamiliar and new. It's a secret that I hope my courtroom opponents don't learn: don't try to outsmart me, just be really aggressively stupid and eventually I'll give up in frustration.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 175): that would be 25% on each sold frame for the business plan to sell 250 frames minimum.

So basically Airbus, instead of selling at the highest price attainable for the number sold, left 25% of program revenue on the table? Airbus must be terrible negotiators. But I guess you could have negotiated 25% better deals? There's a guy named Trump running for U.S. president who makes these kinds of claims. So I guess you could be president, you have that going for you.

Quoting racercoup (Reply 170): Quoting Unflug (Reply 168): Is it that wrong? They define the segment VLA as aircraft > 400 seats. The A380 and 748 are not the only types in that segment, and they never predicted a 100% market share for the A380. There is a huge difference between a global market forecast and sales expectations for a specific type. Wrong, wrong and wrong - In the year 2000 VLA were the 747 and the about to be announced A380. No one has said Airbus expected to garner 100% of VLA orders, but they did justify the huge expense of the program on a forecasted demand of 1,700 units of which they expected to get the majority of the orders.

http://airinsight.com/2013/09/23/the...ribund-very-large-aircraft-market/

The link above dosn't paint a very positive picture of the 380 & 748 prospects but it does say that a VLA is an aircraft with over 400 seats. It also states that some LH 748's only have 372 seats, so technically it isn't a VLA. If an aircraft with over 400 seats is indeed to be considered a VLA, there are alot of 777 that are over 400 seats. Add those to the 380's and 747's and I wonder what the number would be?

At 30 380's per year, the best case for the 380's is 600, along with 748's and 777X's, the Airbus forecast of 1710 VLA's could very well be on the money.

Quoting racercoup (Reply 170): Wrong, wrong and wrong - In the year 2000 VLA were the 747 and the about to be announced A380. No one has said Airbus expected to garner 100% of VLA orders, but they did justify the huge expense of the program on a forecasted demand of 1,700 units of which they expected to get the majority of the orders.

You can write wrong 20 times, still doesn't change the fact that you are talking about sales predictions, while Airbus was giving a global market forecast. Why on earth would that forecast only cover sales for types known at time of the forecast?

In other A380 news:

Quote: Farhad Parvaresh, the managing director of Iran Air, has been quoted by the media as saying that Iran may even go for other Airbus models if any problem occurs over the delivery of A380s.

http://www.payvand.com/news/16/feb/1116.html

Hard to tell from this story (Any Farsi sources out there?), but this seems mostly an issue of financing? Weird that financing would affect IR's A380 orders, but that it would go for A350's instead. One would think any potential financing issue to be Airbus/Europe-sponsored, such that the defection threat is to Boeing and not to another Airbus model. Perhaps this suggests that a special financing incentive was arranged to get the A380 purchases.

The article also mentions 16 A380 orders, not 12. It specifies deliveries "from 2021." Further details on anticipated usage:

Quote: Meanwhile, Iran's media reported in mid-February that Iran wants the long-range Airbus A380 planes for long-distance flights to destinations like New York and Toronto, and Rio de Janeiro in the Americas, Tokyo and Beijing in East Asia, Moscow in Europe, Sydney in Australia, and Casablanca and Johannesburg in Africa.

...but so much of the story cites other (presumably Farsi) sources. Not sure how much credence to give the whole report.

[Edited 2016-02-26 08:59:03]

Quoting Ncfc99 (Reply 178): there are alot of 777 that are over 400 seats

A lot of A330's too. And SQ's 4-class A380's now have fewer than 400 seats.
So using a nominal seat-count definition of VLA's, some A330's are VLA's and some A380's are not.
That simple fact should show that using nominal seat counts is a stupid way to figure out, "What's a VLA?" Cabin area is a much better metric.

[Edited 2016-02-26 09:04:32]

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 181): A lot of A330's too. And SQ's 4-class A380's now have fewer than 400 seats. So using a nominal seat-count definition of VLA's, some A330's are VLA's and some A380's are not. That simple fact should show that using nominal seat counts is a stupid way to figure out, "What's a VLA?" Cabin area is a much better metric.

That may be, but a definition is a definition, and the 1.700 Airbus forecast were defined as airplanes with more that 400 seats. If you present the 1,700 frames number you have to accept the definition.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 182): a definition is a definition

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 182): If you present the 1,700 frames number you have to accept the definition.

Are you trying to give me a stroke today with these comments?
So then some A330's are VLA's, and some A380's are not?
Do we subtract SQ's 4-class A380's from the VLA fleet, and add Cebu Pacific's A330's?

Who's presenting and who's accepting which definition? Are you saying that Airbus can claim its VLA projection was correct if enough airlines put 400 seats in A330's (or 787's)?

Do you have even a little sense that you're leading yourself to a facially ridiculous conclusion?

Look for the rest of you the deeper problem is the intellectually lazy definition of "VLA" and its attendant projections in the first place. Even if we adopt the proper cabin area metric, there's a 75% capacity spread between a 744 and the A380-900 that Airbus believed would be the best-seller.

That's bigger than the spread between the 777-9 and the 788. Say Boeing projects 1,000 sales of 779's but actually sells only two 779's and 1,000 787's. By the standard we're allowing Airbus with its massively broad "VLA" definition, Boeing could say, "we meant to project 1,000 widebody sales, not 779's specifically." Again, a 788 is closer to a 779 than is a 744 to an A380.

To allow Boeing to get away with such a projection would be to confess an IQ somewhere in the low 80's. No, when Airbus predicted 1,700 VLA sales, any reasonable interpretation of this prediction includes - as Airbus said - at least half A380's. You can let them off the hook by being abhorrently lazy and conceptually muddled, but I'd be embarrassed to type something like that.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 171): Some of us find the subject of how multi-billion dollar aviation firms get multi-billion decisions partially or completely wrong fascinating and worthy of much discussion. In my view it's one of the most interesting things to discuss here on a.net.

Not if it devolves into talking to some a.net derivative of "Jehovah's Witnesses"
with associated systemic and obvious frontal lobe defects.

Some "correspondents" here are on a single purpose mission.
They won't stop arguing until proof of dismal failure has been produced
via some sophist interpretation of "facts".

Rational arguments that go beyond black/white are invariable dissed and the
discussions will "stay on" forever.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 173): BS. Are you telling me that if I google your posts in the past here, you won't be arguing that the A380 will sell well and be a commercial success? You'll just be saying, "it sure will be purty!"?

Even if he did, I would posit that he is allowed to change his mind. I think a lot of people thought it would be a success who have subsequently come to the conclusion that it won't be. I'm not sure what value pointing that out to them brings.

The A380 fanboydom that is annoying you so much just doesn't seem apparent to me. There's Airbus fandom- people defending the decision to make it, which we can fairly argue about- but where are all these people who still think it's going to be a financial success for Airbus? I haven't seen any in ages.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 181): That simple fact should show that using nominal seat counts is a stupid way to figure out, "What's a VLA?" Cabin area is a much better metric.

It maybe a stupid method, but is it the method Airbus used in their predictions? I have seen that >400 seat count definition attributed to Airbus a lot before, and I'm pretty sure I've seen it in a few Airbus slides. Would be interesting if somebody had the original source for these market predictions.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 172): And also again, the business plan was not based on selling 100% aka 1,700 frames, nor on selling 50% aka 850 frames, nor on selling 24% aka 400 frames, but on selling 250 frames to reach program break even.

I'm not sure this is correct. Just because the breakeven point is 250 frames, doesn't mean you can actually break even by selling 250 frames only. It just means if you have a production run of, say, 400, you can break even after 250 of them are made. If you only sell 250 your costs are going to be higher per frame, so you won't break even at that number.

My completely stab in the dark view is that Airbus expected to sell around 4-500 of them.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 147): I have no idea where you're getting that "15%" claim. If you look only at fuel, which is what we're discussing, the article shows the 779 having a 16% edge over the A380 and an edge over the A380neo as well.

This statement seems intellectually dishonest, it does not pass the smell test.

Tim Clarke has previously said the A380 had on per seat basis had between 15-22% lower fuel burn than the 777, obviously the variation comes from the different configurations on both types they operate. They have a very large fleet of both types, so I would suggest they would have a broad database to make the comparison from.

Fast forward to the 777X, they claim to have a 10% lower fuel burn with the engine, that is around 25 years after the GE90-115 first ran. First runs on the A380 engines was around half that time, call it 12 years. So around 5% improvement per decade. So today you would expect them to produce an engine for the A380 5% better than the original, and by the time the 777X enters service around 10%.

From where do they get the so called edge, they expand the seating capacity from 365 to 409. Now Boeing when asked is the 777X a VLA as it is over 400 seats, they say no we done ever expect and airline to have that configuration.

How anyone can conceivably say with a straight face that a re-engined 777 will have significant advantage re-engined A380 is beyond me.

Fact is that neither the 777X nor the A380 is selling in any great numbers.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 183): Are you trying to give me a stroke today with these comments? So then some A330's are VLA's, and some A380's are not? Do we subtract SQ's 4-class A380's from the VLA fleet, and add Cebu Pacific's A330's?

It does not matter. The 1.700 airplanes were defined as frames for over 400 pax. Full stop. If you do not accept that fact all your arguments are beside the point. It does not really matter in the least what you think what an VLA is.
Either you accept the Airbus definition or you can forget arguing about the 1,700 frames prognosis, very simple.

You are in the worst way trying to change facts until they fit your argument.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 183): Do you have even a little sense that you're leading yourself to a facially ridiculous conclusion?

Do you?

The fact that you personally do not like the definition of "large aircraft" that Airbus used for their forecast, does not make the Airbus forecast wrong.

Let's have a look at exactly what they did say:
http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pr...ow-with-modern-efficient-aircraft/
Sorry - not allowed to link directly to the pdf but it can be found here:

www . airbusgroup.com/dam/assets/airbusgroup/int/en/investor-relations/documents/2009/analyst_meeting_2009_airbus_global_forecast . pdf

or via the airbus website by selecting the 2009 archive on this page:
http://www.airbusgroup.com/int/en/in...lders/Publications.html#chapter-03

What Airbus actually predicted is a demand for 1729 large aircraft (including freighters) and they were clear that by "large aircraft", what they meant was aircraft with over 400 seats. The fact that airlines are now able to get away with sardining 400+ seats into smaller aircraft doesn't alter the fact that, when it comes to passenger aircraft, the market Airbus was providing numbers for was based on seats not floorspace. For a supposedly clever person, why is this so hard to understand?

Number of seats is, IMO, a far better metric to use to segregate the market for forecasts of this nature than floorspace ever will be. After all, airlines purchase aircraft to carry numbers of passengers, not because they have a certain amount of carpet to use up.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 183): as Airbus said - at least half A380's.

Please do show us where Airbus said that. It's not in their 2009 20 year forecast, nor the related press release.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 183): I'd be embarrassed to type something like that.

Someone ought to be embarrassed but I don't think it is mjoelnir.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 185): Even if he did, I would posit that he is allowed to change his mind.

Ok, fair. Chill out Matt.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 185): where are all these people who still think it's going to be a financial success for Airbus? I haven't seen any in ages.

I haven't seen any concessions from anyone either. Look this is probably another - chill out Matt. It's just that I like to be clear about what we're discussing, what has or hasn't been conceded. It makes discussions much more clean. I get that most people don't talk this way; it's why nobody likes lawyers. Still would be helpful. I'll just assume that nobody thinks that A380 will be profitable unless someone says otherwise specifically.

Quoting zeke (Reply 186): This statement seems intellectually dishonest, it does not pass the smell test.

Is the dishonesty by me or by Vinay Biskhara and Bjorn Fehrm at Airwaysnews and Leeham, respectively?
http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2015/01/...ut-a-business-case-exists-for-neo/
http://leehamnews.com/2014/02/03/upd...-a-neo-version-and-whats-involved/
http://leehamnews.com/2014/12/17/a38...ep-analysis-of-its-competitivness/

Quoting zeke (Reply 186): Tim Clarke has previously said the A380 had on per seat basis had between 15-22% lower fuel burn than the 777

Please show me the quote. I recall TC saying A380 and 777 [(total) unit costs are about equal. Because the A380 is indisputably better, per unit, on capital, mx, crew etc., this tells me the fuel picture can't also be better for the A380 in EK configurations.

Quoting zeke (Reply 186): How anyone can conceivably say with a straight face that a re-engined 777 will have significant advantage re-engined A380 is beyond me.

Please read the articles. I believe Bjorn and Vinay are quite straight-faced. Note that each of the authors is advocating ****FOR*** the A380neo - let's have no bias talk here.

To me, a bit of very basic and rough arithmetic explains it quite well:
-A380's span-loading of ~4,840lbs/ft is ~47% higher than 777-9's at 3,300lbs/ft.
-Induced drag is proportional to the square of span loading (holding equal cruise altitude, span efficiency, speed, etc.)
-Thus A380 would have ~2.15x as much induced drag as the 779. Ferpe's spreadsheets is in line with this calculation.
-A380's wetted area is ~3,600m2, 777-9's is ~2,700m2. A380 has shorter fuse so say parasitic drag would be ~35% greater than 777-9's.

[this assumes equal FL's, which is nearly true for the two planes - slightly higher cruise for A380]

Assuming 777-9 drag is ~40% induced and ~60% parasitic, A380's drag delta would be ~67% higher than 777-9.
But A380 has only ~52% more floor area than 779, so it shows more drag per floor area.
...and that's assuming they have equally efficient engines.
Thus the NEO would be worse on fuel than 777-9.

Now of course that's a really rough calculation that favors 777-9 because the weight deltas between the two would be less at average cruise weight than at takeoff. But you get the picture, I don't want to do more work than necessary.

But don't take it from me, read Bjorn and Vinay.

[Edited 2016-02-26 11:14:06]

Quoting speedbored (Reply 188): The fact that you personally do not like the definition of "large aircraft" that Airbus used for their forecast, does not make the Airbus forecast wrong.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 187): You are in the worst way trying to change facts until they fit your argument.

Ok guys. We have different opinions then.

You believe Cebu Pacific's A330's are VLA's and that SQ's 4-class A380's are not.

I believe the A330 is not a VLA and that the A380 is - even if only some Saudi royal is flying in it.

I'm entirely comfortable with that level of differentiation between us. Actually, I think it sums up our relative merits quite nicely.

[Edited 2016-02-26 11:01:59]

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 187): It does not matter. The 1.700 airplanes were defined as frames for over 400 pax. Full stop. If you do not accept that fact all your arguments are beside the point. It does not really matter in the least what you think what an VLA is.Either you accept the Airbus definition or you can forget arguing about the 1,700 frames prognosis, very simple

The Airbus Global Market Forecast 2000-2019 is avaiable here:
http://www.as777.com/data/manufacturer/forecast/airbus_2000.pdf

The breakdown by aircraft category is on page 74.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 185): Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 172): And also again, the business plan was not based on selling 100% aka 1,700 frames, nor on selling 50% aka 850 frames, nor on selling 24% aka 400 frames, but on selling 250 frames to reach program break even. I'm not sure this is correct. Just because the breakeven point is 250 frames, doesn't mean you can actually break even by selling 250 frames only. It just means if you have a production run of, say, 400, you can break even after 250 of them are made. If you only sell 250 your costs are going to be higher per frame, so you won't break even at that number. My completely stab in the dark view is that Airbus expected to sell around 4-500 of them.

Of course Airbus hoped and I am sure expected to sell more than 250 A380. But when you put up such an plan, one of the corner stones/points is, "what do I need to sell to get my outlay back". You can call it the low point or worst reasonable result. One usually has a good look at that point.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 190): Ok guys. We have different opinions then. You believe Cebu Pacific's A330's are VLA's and that SQ's 4-class A380's are not. I believe the A330 is not a VLA and that the A380 is - even if only some Saudi royal is flying in it. I'm entirely comfortable with that level of differentiation between us. Actually, I think it sums up our relative merits quite nicely.

I just want to drive this point home visually. Per the MJoelnir and Speedbored school of thought, the following is a picture of a VLA:



The following, however, are NOT VLA's:






And this is a pipe:


[Edited 2016-02-26 11:28:50]

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 192): Of course Airbus hoped and I am sure expected to sell more than 250 A380. But when you put up such an plan, one of the corner stones/points is, "what do I need to sell to get my outlay back". You can call it the low point or worst reasonable result. One usually has a good look at that point.

Agreed, but that level wasn't likely to be 250 frames as you suggested earlier. 250 frames is the point at which breakeven was estimated based on sales of considerably more than 250 frames.

In other words, Airbus did not ever believe that if they sold and produced 250 frames and 250 frames only that the program would have been cash neutral. Even right at the beginning, before anything started to go pear-shaped.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 189):

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 190):

It is not about personal opinion. Facts are not about a personal opinion. Airbus did a definition when the said according to this definition this number.
You try to take those numbers without accepting the definition. You are not trying to make the decision clean, you are lawyering.

All your long winded arguments are beside the point. Yes you can have your own definition of a VLA and that is your opinion. But you can not take other peoples numbers and change their definition, that is just distorting.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 194): In other words, Airbus did not ever believe that if they sold and produced 250 frames and 250 frames only that the program would have been cash neutral.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that Airbus represented this as truthful to their BoD and to the public generally. It's not THAT much more unreasonable than the 2000 CMO's projection for deliveries of:

-575 500-seaters
-404 600-seaters
-223 800-seaters
-33 1,000-seaters (!!!!)

...all by 2019.

I mean if you're going to fudge the numbers demanded so badly, might as well fudge the price at which those numbers are demanded as well. As MJoel points out, if Airbus were selling the A380 for 25% more than currently, it might have broken even on some extremely aggressive assumptions about a basically instantaneous rise to production maturity.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 195): Airbus did a definition when the said according to this definition this number.

So there are two options here, neither of which puts you and Airbus in a good light:

(1) A VLA matches the common sense definition of a VLA as much as does a pipe. It's a big plane into which you might put hundreds of poor souls or one super-rich despot.

(2) Airbus specifically envisioned that the seats demanded in its forecast matched *nominal* seats only, such that it was ambivalent about whether SQ, for example, wanted 420 16.5in Y seats in an A330-300 or 384 mostly luxurious premium seats in an A380.

If you honestly believe that Airbus didn't - maybe couldn't - differentiate between customer preference for the sardine can A330 and the opulent A380, then you're imputing to Airbus a level of rank stupidity that even its wildly wrong VLA forecast doesn't attain.

So I have been assuming that Airbus did not predict in this manner, and that neither you nor Speedbored nor anyone else would believe so. But now I'm having my doubts about you and Speedbored.

Do you really believe that Airbus would have launched the A380 if it thought that a 9-abreast, all-Y A330 would fill the same market?

Or, on reflection, would you rather acknowledge that these are two completely different products despite the simple seat counts, and that Airbus had in mind something like the SQ A380 when it projected forward, rather than the Cebu A330?

[Edited 2016-02-26 12:08:15]

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 190): You believe the A330 is a VLA and that SQ's 4-class A380's are not.

You are completely missing the point that the Airbus can legitimately choose the definition of VLA to portray the story they want to, "lies damn lies & statistics", If they model using complex models of actual airline operations (and they do) they can then define a VLA as a 400+ seater and legitimately arrive at the 1700 prediction, and by putting a picture of a A380 next to the VLA bucket create the impression that all 1700 are what you (and I) would call a VLA, but in fact a significant % of the 1700 are in actuality modelled to be filled by high density B777 and A350s.

I think mistake describes the A380 quite well. There were mistakes in assessing the market, mistakes in the design (80m box wing) and plenty of mistakes in the early production. All this has made certain that the plane is not as competitive as it could be and should be. It would be great to hear this from Airbus as this would finally free them from this burden when they announce the end of the A380.

Quoting jambrain (Reply 198): You are completely missing the point that the Airbus can legitimately choose the definition of VLA to portray the story they want to

See my above response. If "VLA sales" included "sardine-can A330's for LCC's", and if those A330 sales are used to justify the VLA forecast, then Airbus was cosmically, comically stupid to launch the A380. You're already covering the VLA market with your sardine can, which is fully paid-for. Why spend $15bn developing a new plane?

Quoting jambrain (Reply 198): portray the story they want to, "lies damn lies & statistics", If they model using complex models

I think we agree then that this doesn't get Airbus off the hook. But to believe, (as you suggest?) that Airbus' defense of the CMO would be "yeah we meant the sardine can A330. We didn't expect to sell many A380's, just built it for fun." - to believe that would be far worse than Airbus merely being wrong about the A380 market specifically, wouldn't it? I mean that would be diabolical.

I think Airbus just happened to be a little off on (1) the size of the (true) VLA market and (2) the optimum size of the specific VLA to be built. I feel like I'm actually defending Airbus from something much more sinister and/or stupid than what I think actually happened.

[Edited 2016-02-26 12:15:11]