Airbus A 380 is rolling

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 07:12:44 GMT, "Hilton"
wrote:

OK, here's my question. Aircraft manufacturers will do just about anything
to get 1% fuel savings. Boeing says the 787 will be 20% more efficient -
HOW? And why is everyone OK with it? I'm just curious, I'm not doubting
their claims, but sometimes if things sound too good to be true...

One assumes they're saying 20 percent more efficient than the 777, and
that it's accomplished by cutting weight, streamlining design, and
buying better engines.

The engines of course are fungible. Airbus proposes to use them on its
787 killer (which will probably never get off the ground).


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

Cub Driver wrote:
Airbus would be smart to quietly drop its 787 killer, just as Boeing
quietly dropped its 380 killer.

Are you referring to the 747X that no-one bought or the almost-supersonic
plane that Boeing engineering couldn't live up to Boeing marketing promises?

Hilton

Bull****, Boeing doesn't receive government subsidies... tax breaks don't
count and they are tiny compared to what Airbus gets...

wrote in message
oups.com...
No 7x7 either.
-Kees

Analyse the industry and you will see at once the folly of the 380.
1. Many airlines are moving towards smaller jets.
2. Airlines that are operating on the older HUB model have been losing money
for many years, while smaller regeonals using the direct flight model are
making money. The direct flight model requires smaller planes.
3. Pilot pay is going down, so it is no longer a big money savings reducing
the number of pilots by flying larger planes.
4. Gas costs are going up, and will continue to rise for the next several
years. Fuel efficiency is key.

With these factors in mind, it is at the least very risky to be putting all
of your eggs in one basket with the A380. If it does not sell like hot
cakes, Airbus is going to take a bath, and the Euro taxpayers are going to
be footing the bill.

"G Farris" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

Boeing may well be the market leader this year, on the
strength of the 787.



I find this very tenuous.
If Boeing does manage to slow the hemmorrage of market share this year, it
will be thanks to a traditional agreement with the Japanese, and not to
any
purported strengths of a plane that does not exist, and that no one knows
much
about, except that it has wavy lines on the floor instead of straight
ones.
(Are these supposed to help drunken passengers navigate, or are they a
metaphor for Boeing's own management strategy?).

They year is young yet. Airbus is about to proceed with the most
spectacular
rollout since the 747 - and I have not seen any billboards saying, "Would
the
last one to leave Toulouse please turn out the lights . . ." The prestige
and
media coverage of the event can only enhance their posture (unless of
course
the rollout ends the way the initial A320 demonstration did)!

And Boeing, in their wavering wisdom, have chosen this moment to announce
the
end of the 747 program. What stupidity! Not to end it, I mean - but to
announce it now - to say to all the asian carriers who use almost
exclusively
jumbos "YES, we have NO ANSWER to Airbus's A380!" They have thus spent
time
and money gold-plating the silver platter on which they deliver this
lucrative
market to their competitor.

I'm American, and I would love to see Boeing at least maintain parity with
Airbus in deliveries, as well as maintaining their stature as a
technological
flagship of American industry. Byt then, I went to University of
Minnesota,
and I quickly learned the futility of rooting for any of their teams!

G Faris

"faky" wrote

Analyse the industry and you will see at once the folly of the 380.
1. Many airlines are moving towards smaller jets.
2. Airlines that are operating on the older HUB model have been losing
money
for many years, while smaller regeonals using the direct flight model are
making money. The direct flight model requires smaller planes.


First of all, I want to state that I am not an airbus fan.

The whole state purpose of the 380, is to get more passenger capacity at
airports that have no more available landing slots, due to the airport being
at maximum movement capacity. Heathrow is one example. The 380 would have
to be put on a route that had enough demand to another city, to keep it
full. Demand has to be at levels higher than what the current slots will
carry, with the present planes. That is the only big advantage, and will be
the only routes the 380 is slated to run on.
--
Jim in NC

faky wrote:

Analyse the industry and you will see at once the folly of the 380.
1. Many airlines are moving towards smaller jets.
2. Airlines that are operating on the older HUB model have been losing money
for many years, while smaller regeonals using the direct flight model are
making money. The direct flight model requires smaller planes.
3. Pilot pay is going down, so it is no longer a big money savings reducing
the number of pilots by flying larger planes.
4. Gas costs are going up, and will continue to rise for the next several
years. Fuel efficiency is key.

With these factors in mind, it is at the least very risky to be putting all
of your eggs in one basket with the A380. If it does not sell like hot
cakes, Airbus is going to take a bath, and the Euro taxpayers are going to
be footing the bill.

I don't think the 380 was designed for domestic routes where the hub and
spoke system dominates. It was designed for international routes which
have pretty much a hub to hub design inherently. I suspect it will do
well in that application.


Matt

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

faky wrote:
Analyse the industry and you will see at once the folly of the 380.
1. Many airlines are moving towards smaller jets.
2. Airlines that are operating on the older HUB model have been losing money
for many years, while smaller regeonals using the direct flight model are
making money. The direct flight model requires smaller planes.
3. Pilot pay is going down, so it is no longer a big money savings reducing
the number of pilots by flying larger planes.
4. Gas costs are going up, and will continue to rise for the next several
years. Fuel efficiency is key.

From a US perspective, you're quite correct. But the A380 isn't
geared really towards the US market.

With these factors in mind, it is at the least very risky to be putting all
of your eggs in one basket with the A380. If it does not sell like hot
cakes, Airbus is going to take a bath, and the Euro taxpayers are going to
be footing the bill.

I don't htink Airbus is doing this. They still have their fuel
efficient winners in the A318/319/320. That is what has been their big
winners and encroachment into Boeing's turf in N. America. The A380 is
going to be for those bigger, more heavily populated tourist cities
that people will fly to/from en masse. At the most, the US will
probably only see the A380 at 5 airports, and possibly another 3 - 4 in
Canada; those being New York (JFK), LAS, LAX, SFO, and ORD. With
Canada, YVR for sure, but possibly YYZ and YUL. Other than that, it's
going to be used in the Europe/Asia/Oceania/Middle East market, and
used in full.

You need to think more on the global perspective with the A380,
not just regional.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCaAxjyBkZmuMZ8L8RAr0OAKClul3QcHjM88Xf++16vP cnUuKuSwCgjjVl
0xizzc3cZJDpDt7cpisfeCI=
=lye9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In article , says...

Analyse the industry and you will see at once the folly of the 380.
1. Many airlines are moving towards smaller jets.
2. Airlines that are operating on the older HUB model have been losing money
for many years, while smaller regeonals using the direct flight model are
making money. The direct flight model requires smaller planes.
3. Pilot pay is going down, so it is no longer a big money savings reducing
the number of pilots by flying larger planes.
4. Gas costs are going up, and will continue to rise for the next several
years. Fuel efficiency is key.

With these factors in mind, it is at the least very risky to be putting all
of your eggs in one basket with the A380. If it does not sell like hot
cakes, Airbus is going to take a bath, and the Euro taxpayers are going to
be footing the bill.



If you consider the above to be a full analysis of the industry - you could be
a top exec at Boeing!! (That's a joke - I don't mean to criticize your
comment). Seriously, what is missing from your thumbnail analysis is the
persepctive of the major Asian carriers - companies like Cathay Pacific and
Singapore Airlines will not convert massively to 7E7's just because Boeing
says they should. Such planes do not fit their mission profile, or their
corporate image. They will buy (and already have bought) A380's. I do not
doubt Boeing is right to move away from the 747 program, and time may prove
them right on their long term strategy - but to make public announcements
now that they are stopping the 747 seems foolhardy to me. By simply saying the
747-400 will continue production, they would be offering a "conservative"
option to those carriers who already rely heavily on this aircraft. And
wherever you find people making hundred-million dollar purchases, you're
going to find some conservative people. Would you sneeze at picking up an
extra $10 billion in cash, while waiting for your market projections to
materialize? Apparently Boeing does!

Of course the A-380 is a huge gamble, and I agree it is the Europeans' savings
they are gambling with. It is a very serious effort, and they will put every
resource possible into assuring it will obtain its market objectives, however
with such diametrically opposed strategies, one is tempted to believe that
both Boeing AND Airbus cannot be right. Since I do not have a crystal ball to
see who is going to be vindicated, I look to other indicators of management
success, and I'm afraid I do not discern a bright, shining beacon at Boeing.

G Faris

Of course the A-380 is a huge gamble, and I agree it is the Europeans' savings
they are gambling with.

Taxes, actually. Taxes come before savings and private consumption, or
instead of them.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

"G Farris" wrote:

...I look to other indicators of management success,
and I'm afraid I do not discern a bright, shining beacon at Boeing.

Tee-hee!

Beauty.