a380 news

In the long term $100 million ISN'T much to sneeze at, but in the short term it IS a pretty big hit. As far as orders with just one plane flying, the 787 is in a similar boat orderwise, without even having flown yet. I don't have the exact figures on orders, but there have been a lot of them placed. It's hard to go by order numbers early in the program though, because airlines may cancel or delay orders as time and financial situations change. In the last few years, several airlines here in the US have either transfered planes to other airlines, or delayed delivery of planes due to financial problems. That will probably continue for the next several years with fuel costs being what they are. Like I said the project will probably be a huge success for Airbus, but SHORT TERM it's probably going to take a pretty big hit due to delays. You're right, I didn't speak clearly about that.

Airbus will postpone deliveries until the second half of 2006, an Airbus spokeswoman said.

It may be that they will work something out to alleviate any fines/lawsuits, but RIGHT NOW it looks like they will take some kind of hit, and again SHORT TERM it will hurt. Airlines don't pay all the cost of a plane order at one time. They pay as the planes are delivered, so if Qantas orders 10 planes, for $7B they aren't paying that all at once. They're financing that over time. If they pay off $3B of that, then suddenly go out of business for some reason, then Airbus loses out on the extra $4B. (Those numbers and airline name were pulled out of thin air btw.)

Again, I understand that any aircraft project will take delays, no matter who is building it. It will also cost them money due to delays. Long term it's no big deal but SHORT term it does hurt. I should have made that more clear, but I wasn't really thinking clearly when I posted before on here. Lots of bad things going on around me right now, keeping me busy and stressed out.

I made an article about A3XX A380 development with all predcessors.

www.hitechweb.szm.sk...

Maybe nobody from you do now it, but Airbus started development of A380 succesor called A20.30. If the development continues, it will fly beyond 2020. I have not published an article about it on web, so here is the picture:

THis highlights the inherent unfairness of the subsidies/ultra forgivable loans with which Airbus get a free ride off the back of the EU taxpayers. Because they do not have to repay thier development loans untill they reach a profit, delays such as this do not impact them as much as if they had too.

Originally posted by FredT
.......which Airbus get a free ride off the back of the EU taxpayers. .....

This is quite emotive language Fred, it also ignores the fact that since the launch of the original A300 'EU Taxpayers' are quids in because of the huge profits their individual Govt's investments in the Airbus programme have made. The European Govts have not just gifted Airbus huge wads of our cash but actually made wise investments in the programmes and eased our tax burden in the process. Suits me. knickers to congress.

Originally posted by waynos
[This is quite emotive language Fred, it also ignores the fact that since the launch of the original

I prefer the term "baiting" myself

But government plays a huge role in European companies and it does change the compedative environment alot

CLUSTERED AT the bottom of the large aerospace company rankings are European aerospace contractors--BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce plc, Finmeccanica and EADS. These companies, with the exception of Thales, tend to be government-oriented monopolies where jobs--the key to winning political support and funding for their programs--are more important than profit margins.
European Aerospace

However, that quote is clearly a lie given that BAE systems and Rolls Royce are privatised industries, not government owned at all. The clue is in the appendage 'PLC'. Indeed BAE cried very publically that it SHOULD be given such preferential treatment after the UK aircraft carrier contract went to Thales instead.

The US Govt has very successfully diverted attention away from its failings with a lot of Americans by promoting European Industry as a bogeyman eating up all the jobs that Americans should have, don't believe the hype.

I am also european taxpayer and I like to spend my taxes on Airbus programs much likely, than to give 40 percent of budget to agriculture.

Originally posted by waynos
However, that quote is clearly a lie given that BAE systems and Rolls Royce are privatised industries, not government owned at all.

The quote is from AWST fyi. To say that the government takes a hands off approach to the companies in Europe is hardly hype.

It doesn't matter where the quote comes from, that Rolls and BAE are privately owned is a fact.

Elsewhere in Europe, oh all right France then, you have a case, but the UK steadfastly insists that industry stands on its own feet. That is why our industry has shrunk so much in recent years. Indeed, Blair trying to persuade the rest of Europe to reform and follow the UK model is what all therecent fuss was about so AWST or anybody else labelling BAE and Rolls as operating as govt backed job schemes is waaay off the mark. How else do you explain the BAE site closures that have caused such rumpus lately. As further, if not entirely related, proof that British Industry does not operate that way look at the much publicised death of MG Rover, the Midlands biggest employer.

[edit on 27-6-2005 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
It doesn't matter where the quote comes from, that Rolls and BAE are privately owned is a fact.

Elsewhere in Europe, oh all right France then, you have a case, but the UK steadfastly insists that industry stands on its own feet. That is why our industry has shrunk so much in recent years. Indeed, Blair trying to persuade the rest of Europe to reform and follow the UK model is what all therecent fuss was about so AWST or anybody else labelling BAE and Rolls as operating as govt backed job schemes is waaay off the mark. How else do you explain the BAE site closures that have caused such rumpus lately. As further, if not entirely related, proof that British Industry does not operate that way look at the much publicised death of MG Rover, the Midlands biggest employer.






The brits always did it better themselves.
The Buccaneer,Harrier and TSR to name some.

[edit on 27-6-2005 by Jezza]

Interesting little article I got in email today.....

Scant orders for Airbus A380 raise doubts about jetliner
Airbus announced just one order for its A380 superjumbo jet at the Paris Air Show, the Chicago Tribune reported. Airbus has sold 145 of the jetliners since it started marketing it four years ago. The company recently said it would deliver the first A380s six months behind schedule. Airbus Executive John Leahy said the industry needs the plane. "It's going to be difficult for them to make money without it," he said. Chicago Tribune (free registration) (6/26

They're alread almost halfway to the breakeven point and the first plane isn't out the door yet. I'm not sure if they'll make big profits on the A380 but I think they'll at least break even.

chicagotribune
Airbus at one point indicated it could sell as many as 2,000 of the superjumbo jets over 20 years. Lately, the figure has dropped to around 1,200. Airbus once had pegged breaking even on the plane at 250 copies, but that since has been increased to around 300 copies.

Boeing's market researchers see a much different future for the A380: roughly 300 of the planes in service in its first two decades.

Leahy doesn't see it that way.

"We've got four new orders the year before delivery, when you expect to have just about nothing," Leahy said.

Originally posted by FredT
THis highlights the inherent unfairness of the subsidies/ultra forgivable loans with which Airbus get a free ride off the back of the EU taxpayers. Because they do not have to repay thier development loans untill they reach a profit, delays such as this do not impact them as much as if they had too.

Actually, Airbus have to repay the loans straight from the first delivery, not when they become profitable on the line.

— Restriction of launch aid to 33 percent of total development cost, with 25 percent to be repaid at the cost of government borrowing and the remaining eight percent to be repaid at the cost of government borrowing plus one percent;

— A maximum reimbursement period of 17 years, and 20 percent of the repayments to be made over the first 40 percent of aircraft deliveries (and 70 percent over the first 85 percent);

— An overall limit per annum on indirect support equivalent to three percent of the civil aircraft industry's annual commercial turnover in the country concerned and four percent of the annual commercial turnover of any one firm; and

Also the loans are royalty based - Airbus must pay a royalty to each Government for each aircraft delivery, for the entire life of the production line. This allows Governments to make a profit off the loans given to Airbus (in 2001, the UK government announced it had doubled thereturn on the investment given to Airbus for the A320 program - the loans had been repaid fully in the 1990s and royalty payments per delivery had commenced).

Scant orders for Airbus A380 raise doubts about jetliner

If Airbus is in trouble because it got one order for 5 A380 aircraft at the Paris Airshow, then Boeing must be sinking fast as it got NO orders for the 787.

But in reality, neither means much. Overall orders for Airbus topped 279, and Boeing just 148 at the airshow.

Um, they NEVER said Airbus was in trouble because they only got one order at the Paris Airshow. They said the fact that they only ordered one order for the AIRPLANE is a POSSIBLE sign that orders are tapering off and interest isn't as high as everyone thought it would be.

[edit on 29-6-2005 by Zaphod58]

Just a little tidbit, in this weeks AWST, it was reported that Airbus has raised its list prices across the board by 3%.

The A350 now has a list of 158.6 million
The A380 is now at 302 million

But very few airlines pay list prices.....

No commentary just a info post

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Um, they NEVER said Airbus was in trouble because they only got one order at the Paris Airshow.

Too lazy to find the link, but I did post up a thread about the war of words between the two companies. On analyst has expressed concern that orders for the A380 have tapered off a bit. However, they should pick up a bit once in service.

Originally posted by FredT
Just a little tidbit, in this weeks AWST, it was reported that Airbus has raised its list prices across the board by 3%.

The A350 now has a list of 158.6 million
The A380 is now at 302 million

But very few airlines pay list prices.....

Now they can entice companies with a 15% discount instead of 10% and still get the same amount of money.
It's all marketing.

Originally posted by AceOfBase
Now they can entice companies with a 15% discount instead of 10% and still get the same amount of money.

It's all marketing.

Or they can do the old bait and switch. 'We know you had your heart set on an A340-500, but were sold out, but we do have a .......

I really don't think they're going to see the huge success they think they will. I'm sure it'll be a profitable airplane, but I don't think it's going to be the huge success that everyone was predicting. I personally have no desire to fly on one, but that's just my personal opinion.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I really don't think they're going to see the huge success they think they will. I'm sure it'll be a profitable airplane, but I don't think it's going to be the huge success that everyone was predicting. I personally have no desire to fly on one, but that's just my personal opinion.

A few airlines are going to buy it now since they don't know if it'll really suit their needs. The A380 is probably going to sell as much as the 747.