Was A380 Part Of A Boeing Conspiracy?

Please note: this is not intended to be a flame fest. An editorial at the end of this weeks AWST, the author mentions this (You need a subscription to read it all sorry).

The slightly more conspiracy-minded believe Boeing's studies of a Very Large Aircraft a decade ago and various 747 stretch proposals were a feint to trick Airbus into building an airplane that would be a flop.
AWST

The overall content of the editorial deals with the looming battle between hub service versus point to point. And since this is a conspiracy board when in Rome (or Toulsane for that matter)

Does anybody have anything that can prove or disprove this statement. Standard searches have turned up little, but I am curious. False flag operations are a standard play in business, but this seems to be way to far fetched (yet it is so far fetched that could it be possible?)

It's an interesting theory and it will be even more interesting it it backfires and Airbus ends up making money off of the A380.

Fred,
well that is an interesting idea. But, as I am sure you know, Air bus was part of the consortium that build the SST, and they have been building the air buss series of air craft for quite some time. They do now how to build and air craft.

I am sure the A380, will fly and will work in what ever configuration the operator decides to run it in. But I do have my doubts as to weather or not it will make money in the passanger transport market.

Air Bus has survived this long including the disaster at an air show. They will certinaly benifit from the sucess of the A380 and will survive even if it flops.

Some markes have wanted a plane that could hold 1000 people for some time. I really kina doubt that Boeing took part in delibrate mis leading information.

I got my paper subscription at work today; the cover showed the A380 in flight and the headlines said something like "Airbus380 Takes Off ... And so do Boeing Orders".

I remember seeing the thing about the conspiracy people believing my company spending the millions in R&D money to trick Noel Forgeard and his elves into building the A380 (since they're all too stupid, of course, to build a business case, right?) and remember saying to myself, "Even the people at ATS would have more sense than to fall for that"!

Ahh, well....

(or Toulsane for that matter)

Toulouse.

[edit on 4-5-2005 by Off_The_Street]

Reading things like that... well, it's typical. You suppose that a company would start building a plane just because the rival tells that is doing something?? Well, if we were talking about something cheap... maybe, but... a plane??? o Jesus!!!
Reading this makes me think what do people think... well, ok, people believe in Aurora, that explains everything hahaha!
Truly, I can't believe even for a second that a company makes a plane without making several studies that shows that it will make money (ok, sometimes they are mistaken...) and of course, no company will make a plane only because Boeing says is gonna make something... something they didn't build because NOBODY ordered... and A380 has A LOT of orders...
And well, if you suppose that Boeing is so much "powerful" and has so much "influence"... why are they selling less planes than Airbus?? Hasn't anybody thought for a second that MAYBE Airbus has a better commercial strategy?? If people say that Boeing planes are better (my technical knowledges are few, and so I won't say what plane is better, I'm not an Aeronautical engineer) and Airbus sells more... it may show that Airbus knows how to make people buy... so, if they build the A380, they will know how to sell it, whatever Boeing says...

Chemapeich

...and A380 has A LOT of orders...

Where? Links?
How about these?
Air India to buy 50 Boeing planes
Boeing, Airbus in tussle for Air India deal
Airbus cries foul over Air India deal
Korean Air opts for 10 new Boeing 787s
Air Canada opts for Boeing 787
Ethiopian Airlines agree deal on Boeing 'dreamliner'
Chinese Airlines Agree to 7E7 Dreamliner Purchase
Boeing: A Comeback in the Air

These might prove useful next time?
Commercial Aviation News
Boeing News Release


AceOfBase, the issue here is not making money of the A380. The bottom line is profits at the end of the year on these huge arse flying giants. The real issue here is commercial airliner dominance.




seekerof

Here you go seekerof


I have no link for what I'm about to say but I've heard that Airbus only needs to sell something like 300 of these beasts in order to break even. Not sure if that is correct though. I like both the 7E7 and the A380, they will both have thier segments that they will serve.

[edit on 4-5-2005 by sardion2000]

Originally posted by sardion2000

I have no link for what I'm about to say but I've heard that Airbus only needs to sell something like 300 of these beasts in order to break even.

Wikipedia says they need to sell between 250-300 to break even and the estimate so far is that they'll eventually sell between 600-750 so that leaves a lot of room for profit.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 4-5-2005 by AceOfBase]

Nice graph, sardion2000.
Sorry I can't provide one for Boeing, but I think that both will and are doing comparatively well, wouldn't you say?

As for what you have mentioned on "breaking even," my understanding is that they will need to sell 250-300, roughly what you have mentioned, but check this:

Airbus prefers to call it refundable launch aid but that is an oxymoron because the money gets repaid in full only if the aircraft is a success. To break-even on its own investment, Airbus needs to sell 250 of the A380. To repay the four governments it needs to shift 700. To count as a real commercial success, Airbus needs to sell twice that number.

More here:
The Irish Trojan's Blog




seekerof

[edit on 4-5-2005 by Seekerof]

Here's what Wiki has on the Boeing 787 orders:

en.wikipedia.org...
Customer announced orders and commitments for the 787 reached 237 airplanes during the first year of sales, which is where the total currently stands, and 70 are under firm contract. This makes the 787 the fastest-ever selling Boeing airliner upon launch; by comparison, the 747 sold 92 units during the same time period. Negotiations remain underway with a number of key airlines worldwide. They expect to have 500 orders by entry into service (EIS).

Boeing's news release from April says they had 217 orders and commitments:
Through yesterday, 787 customers had announced orders and commitments for 217 airplanes.
Boeing 787 Dreamliner Program Celebrates Launch Anniversary

It seems like the majority of the Boeing orders are not firm but it doesn't enter service until 2008.

[edit on 4-5-2005 by AceOfBase]

Yeah, pretty much, AceOfBase.
Found this saying:

He claimed that 19 companies have placed orders of 237 aircraft so far in last four years, whereas Arbus has been able to sell just about 180 aircraft to their clients.

Article




seekerof

A380 orders over past 5 years = 154

787 orders over the past year = 217


Lets say 217 every year for 5 years, well that would be 1085.


[edit on 5-5-2005 by NWguy83]

And it happens yet again.

Ok guys, I shall repeat it again - the 787 and the A380 DO NOT COMPETE. The A380 is designed to fill a gap at the very top end of the market, and Boeing has repeatedly said that theres only room for a single aircraft in that market, and since Airbus got there first then its Airbus' market. The 787 will be replacing the 767, 757 and other aircraft types as a more economical point to point aircraft and wont be seen on the same routes as the A380 for many years. The A380 is designed to be shortened and become a two engine point to point aircraft in the future if required (no link for this, it was on the local news when they were showing the A380 in the reveal ceremony back in January, said by a Airbus rep no less!).

Originally posted by RichardPrice The A380 is designed to be shortened and become a two engine point to point aircraft in the future if required (no link for this, it was on the local news when they were showing the A380 in the reveal ceremony back in January, said by a Airbus rep no less!).

Thanks for that bit of information.
I hadn't heard that before.

Will that allow it to run on non-A380 ready runways?

Originally posted by AceOfBase
Thanks for that bit of information.
I hadn't heard that before.

Will that allow it to run on non-A380 ready runways?

The wing size would be reduced too, so its quite possible since the only issue is the width of the aircraft.

Boeing may still have something here. Just because Airbus sells enough 380's to make some money, its still quite possible they have read the business wrong. That may be Boeings hope (If this theory is in fact true)

I remember all the "stretch" talk from Boeing too. Then they dropped it all of a sudden. I did see a few with extended second levels. Part of thier plan?

In the end the 380 looks like a great plane with plenty of orders. The only question ramaining is, is will it fit the markets needs.

Originally posted by skippytjc
I remember all the "stretch" talk from Boeing too. Then they dropped it all of a sudden. I did see a few with extended second levels. Part of thier plan?

Boeing had a few plans for an uprated 747, but they were all dropped after the airline industry all said they didnt want anything based on the 747. The A380 is a lot wider than the 747 as well as having a ful lsecond deck, it means theres more options for the interior than you would have on a 747 design, so instead of taking the immense task of widening the 747 as well as stretching it (which would have essentially made the neew 747 into a whole different class from the old 747), they decided it was too much cost to develop a new aircraft or change the design of a current one and dropped it.

In the end the 380 looks like a great plane with plenty of orders. The only question ramaining is, is will it fit the markets needs.

The industry so far seems to think so Personally, I think its going to become another 747 type legend - big aircraft, great to see it at airshows etc, comfortable to fly in. If it captures the publics imagination in the same way as the 747 then it will live on forever.

Try this for a task - grab someone off the street and ask them to name some aircraft from images, Im betting the average Joe will only be able to put a name to the 747 'Jumbo Jet'. Thats brand recognition.

The only problem I see is that 90% of US runways major ones can't handle it.

Originally posted by shadarlocoth
The only problem I see is that 90% of US runways major ones can't handle it.

Wrong. If a runway can handle a 747 it can handle a A380, its the taxiways and stands that are potential issues. If you have an emergancy, you can divert to any airport that takes 747s.

Originally posted by shadarlocoth
The only problem I see is that 90% of US runways major ones can't handle it.

The A380 was never designed as a fit for most airports. I doubt you would see one landing at say Jackson Hole. Its economic advantage rests in moving large amounts of people in an efficient manner. Hub to hub as opposed to point to point.

In regards to the profitability of the A380 AWST in the same article said that the figure had been revised upward to the high end of the scale or 300 planes. But as the most heavily subsidized plane ever to fly the "loans" don't have to be re-payed until profitability with it.

The other note is that both planes are overweight. they have changed the area around the A380's windows to carbon fiber and no mention of the 787's problems as of yet, but this is not an uncommon issue for either companies planes in development.