It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'New delay' to Airbus super-jumbo

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 05:35 AM
link   

European planemaker Airbus has been hit by further reports that it could announce another delay in the production of its A380 super-jumbo.


source

Hmmm is it just me or is this aircraft starting to look a little bit like a white elephant that threaten airbus's future? whats the betting that it's 2008 before any are delivered?

[edit on 20-9-2006 by solidshot]




posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   
"Delay", what actual "new delay"?
There isn't an annoucement of a "new delay".

You mean you'd like us to speculate on some media speculation you've posted up?

Like we (or the press for that matter) are expert in this?

Unless someone has some amazing inside information they'd like to share here (unlikey in the extreme)
why not just wait the 9 days or so until Airbus report the current situation themselves?

.......and as for ridiculous comments like "white elephant" you might just bear in mind that all cutting edge designs encounter problems
(for instance we'll see how Boeing get on with their weight problems and niggles when their 787 design becomes a real flying aircraft as opposed to unflown design still under construction).

Some reports of 787 problems -
report 1

report 2

The A380 is real, it flies and it already has notched up sales to approx 50% of what it need to break even and it hasn't even entered service yet.

Some people seem so desperate to highlight ever little negative little story they can find and proclaim the end of Airbus.




[edit on 20-9-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
All planes have problems, just like computer games. They never get out in time. It's possible that the manufacturers just want fame and be in the news all the time to give the plane a "known" mark.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 03:38 AM
link   
I'm just guessing about the potential 'delay' that the newspaper was referring to but it may have something to do with this;

The A380 that was to be tasked with route proving (MSN 007) has been held up in production by the previous manufacturing and wing strengthening problems and wont be ready for the scheduled date for the route proving to begin. However the press has rather shot the bolt with this story as Airbus has now assigned MSN002 to this task which will go ahead on schedule.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 03:42 AM
link   
According to this story on the bbc today it is yet more wireing problems that are causing the delay link



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Cheers for the link, it appears that it is not related to the route proving switch then


Given that a four week review is now underway its a bit early to be proclaiming the death of the programme however, especially with 16 airlines having bought it, it seems to be nothing more than a difficult birth, even the 747 had one of those.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Even Airbus aren't able to be more specific right now.


Bowing to pressure to either confirm or deny reports of another logjam in the twice-delayed airliner project, Airbus parent EADS (EAD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) said it was too early to say how long the latest delivery delay would last or how much it would cost.

link

- So, it remains to be seen just how this will effect things (and whether they will be able to catch up later, as sometimes happens).

......and quite right Waynos, anyone would think reading some of these threads that every airliner that had ever gone before had been a trouble-free under-taking.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Overwieght, overdate, overpriced, overhyped and overdue.

When pigs fly is no longer an idle expression.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by aaaaa
When pigs fly is no longer an idle expression.



True or not, that's going in my quotes book.

As far as it goes I like the Boeing idea. The 787 just seems to be better suited for current airports. The A380 is a lumbering beast. Sure, it's gonna ferry boatloads of people, but with how much comfort? The 787 is designed for comfort. Bigger windows, more leg room, etc. I'm not saying that the A380 isn't designed for comfort, I'm just looking at it this way. We have a beast that can ship truckloads of people to the large airports VS. a smaller aircraft that can ferry people efficiently to areas with less-massive airports. It just seems to me that instead of buying 1 aircraft that is a tad limited (The runway's gotta be fairly wide to avoid knocking over stuff on that taxiway
.) we can have a few of an aircraft that is based on a concept that already works (787 based on 737) quite well within the community. To demonstrate the success of the 737 look at Westjet- that's all they buy. Nothing but 737's. Now I'm not saying the A380 won't work, I'm saying that the 787 will work better.

IMHO.

[edit on 9/21/2006 by Darkpr0]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 04:21 AM
link   
If its quotes we like then a popular one round where I live is "you can't educate pork"


However, I would like to raise some counterpoints to your very interesting post;



As far as it goes I like the Boeing idea.


Me too, the 787 isn't just a brilliant concept and excellent design, its gorgeous too. Whatsmore, Airbus agrees as the A350XWB shows.



The A380 is a lumbering beast.


On what grounds do you describe it thus, have you flown it? Mike Gerzanics of Flight International has and he says ;

"Despite its size the A380 displays agility in the radar traffic pattern close to the airport - it is a big aircraft that flies small"


His full account will be published in next weeks edition but the words 'lumbering' and 'beast' are not expected to make an appearance, which sort of squashes that allegation




Sure, it's gonna ferry boatloads of people, but with how much comfort? The 787 is designed for comfort.


With both the 787 and the A380 the question of comfort is entirely in the hands of the airlines, given that the interior space in the A380 is vastly greater than it is in the 787 the potential advantage there lies squarely with the Airbus, as I say however, its the airlines, not the builders, that will choose to what extent that potential is exploited.



We have a beast that can ship truckloads of people to the large airports VS. a smaller aircraft that can ferry people efficiently to areas with less-massive airports.


Beg pardon? Are you talking about the 787 vs the 747-8 or the A380 vs A350? Oh, I see, you're actually comparing two products from rival manufacturers that are chasing different markets while ignoring the fact that both said manufacturers are also competing head on in both segments. Proving what?



(787 based on 737)


Can you run that by me again? How is a 250-300 seat twin aisle widebody of revolutionary design that is intended to replace the 1980's designed 767 based on a 1960's single aisle narrowbody that was itself based on the 707?




Now I'm not saying the A380 won't work, I'm saying that the 787 will work better.


Surely it depends what you are trying to do? If you have 250 people to carry then an A380 is a very expensive and inefficient way to do it compared to a full 787. However if you have sufficient traffic volumes to sell in excess of 500 seats do you seriously think that two 787's is cheaper and more efficient than a single A380?

Boeing knows perfectly well that this is not the case, hence the 747-8 project, which has itself already grown closer to the A380 in capacity over the last month. Likewise Airbus own A350 is a direct competitor to the 787. Where on earth do people get the impression that the 787 and A380 are rivals?


BTW, I do acknowledge the IMHO at the end of your post, but now you have mine too


[edit on 22-9-2006 by waynos]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Interesting article on the topic:

www.americanthinker.com...



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Here's another:

www.iht.com...



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Both interesting reads there aaaa. Funny though how the general tone of the article on 'The American Thinker' (a contradiction?
) came as no surprise whatsoever.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Yeah, well, always consider the source.
Here's another link:

www.aviationnow.com.../aw092506p3.xml

The opinion of a parts supplier involved with actuators here in the states that I know says that at 5 planes a year Airbus bleeds at an unsustainable rate.

Be ready for a A380 cancellation announcement by the end of 2007.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   


Be ready for a A380 cancellation announcement by the end of 2007.


While this would be an event that the 'American agenda' would positively yearn for, there is zero possibility of it coming to pass.

The worst case scenario now for the A380, long term, would be that no more orders would be taken and the line closed after the end of production of the 160 aircraft already sold. However even this is extremely unlikely. Most of the airlines who have already signed up are already too committed to the A380 in terms of network planning etc to even consider cancelling their orders. Tim Clark, president of Emirates Airlines, has already dismissed the possibility of them cancelling their orders when he was asked about it. So there is no commercial reason for a cancellation.

In terms of the flying of the plane and the handling of it on the ground, again there is no problem as many of the myths that got built up have been smashed through actual testing, for instance it flies like a much smaller plane and is not a 'lumbering behemoth' as some would like to cast it. Its 'pavement loading' is actually LESS than a 747-400 because of its weight distribution through its 22 wheels, and concerns over handling it on the ground have been dispelled since a 180 degeee turn was accomplished in just 60 metres, thanks to its steerable rear fuselage axle. This figure compares to 59 metres for the much smaller A340.

The only major issues relate to manufacturing process concerns, and these are what are causing the delays. Once sorted the obstacles will have been removed and there is no reason for it not to be a long term success, although there are undoubtedly some spiteful individiuals in America who cannnot bear to see someone else at the cutting edge, who have their fingers crossed that something dreadful happens to the programme along the way, that is their problem.

Finally the production figure you are quoting is what is projected for the start of production, with the delays factored in. It is not the long term plan, which would of course be unsustainable. All aircraft production runs start slow and then gather pace, even the 787 is planned to do that.

May I ask what your agenda is as you often post links to negative articles without expounding on your own views (which is supposed to be a pre-requisite of this board).

If you have valid concerns then by all means share them. Unfortunately just posting links only comes across as pointless mischief making. Surely you aren'tt just in the 'its not American therefore it must fail' camp, are you? There's far too much of that sort of blinkered thinking about. Personally, I prefer Fred T's style of actually having reasoned and objective concerns over such matters. However much I might disagree with him factually, I can't deny his concerns are genuine.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Waynos,

I'm a Boeing stockholder! Follow the money!

Other than that no real agenda except the "It'll never fly, Orville." mentality I'm cursed with; similar critiques of the F22 and -35 could be posted. The fewer the number of a type produced, the less business sense there is in making them.

Airbus is an entity with government protection from EU 'crats with the specific "agenda" of knocking off American dominance in commercial aircraft manufacturing (they did it to Lockheed) and yes, that's a blinkard nationalist perspective, but I wish my business had protection from failure from state funds.

O.K., Boeing enjoys some such protection, but is more market-based than national prestige-based.

The A380 specifically and Airbus in general do have problems, I do not believe that pointing them out amounts to "mischef making". On the basis of rate of return on investment the 380 will not provide a ideal venture for stockholders.

You are probably correct that the plug will not be pulled, in spite of whatever business sense it would make.

I hope my viewpoint is not taken for pure contentiousness or disrespect for others opinions.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by aaaaa
Airbus is an entity with government protection from EU 'crats with the specific "agenda" of knocking off American dominance in commercial aircraft manufacturing (they did it to Lockheed) and yes, that's a blinkard nationalist perspective, but I wish my business had protection from failure from state funds.


The A380 specifically and Airbus in general do have problems, I do not believe that pointing them out amounts to "mischef making". On the basis of rate of return on investment the 380 will not provide a ideal venture for stockholders.



Eh? Who did what to Lockheed? If your talking about Rolls-Royce, they actually did go bankrupt! It took a British Government bail-out to save the company.


The problems with the A380 are wiring and piping, from what I gather CATIA must have mis-behaved badly. I'm told more heads will roll shortly and sub-contractors will be dismissed. The wings are spot on, they are producing too many, the final assembly line cannot keep up, while the fuselage sections go together spot on, the wiring looms and pipes don't seem to want to - I'm not sure whether its access problems or actually badly sized components.

I'm also told the same mistakes are being made on MN016 as MN001 - not a good sign
They are too busy firefighting problems to stop and learn from them - and thats no way to run a railroad.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
"Delay", what actual "new delay"?
There isn't an annoucement of a "new delay".

There was. It has been announced by Airbus President Christian Streiff.



it hasn't even entered service yet.

Neither has the B787, except that there have been so many orders for this plane that the investment has been repaid. You can't say that about Airbust.



Some people seem so desperate to highlight ever little negative little story they can find and proclaim the end of Airbus.

Airbust's end is sure, they are not going to be trusted by customers if they delay the delivery of the A380 three times. Boeing has never done that.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
No Waynos CATIA didn't misbehave. Hamburg and Toulouse use different software that is not compatible with each other hence he problem. They are so nationalistic that they couldn't choose the same software package...

The A380 has always been a nationalistic project, never a commercial one.

Why not build the entire plane on the same site?

*BTW, There are rumours that the A380 will over to France and the A320 line to Hamburg...

www.bloomberg.com...



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Last weeks AWST had an article about the new AIRBUS CEO stating that there will be more delays. However, the reasons and the time frame were not specified so nobody really knows.

1) Its looking less and less likely that SIA will get its a/c at the end of this year
2) As noted, nobody has canceled its orders for the planes.
3) The bigger disaster would be to force out a/c THEN have more "issues" discovered.
4) Airbus is swollowing its pride and has already acknowledged "culture' (business not country specific) and is identifiing and rooting out those issues. Foregard was a disaster and im sorry but to say it but seems to have taken a "France cames first" attitude and that is the root cause fo the problem. The new CEO seems determined to whip things into shape.
5) EADS is now running the show. Now while I am always skeptical that the EU governments are not pulling the strings behind the scenes, it will be far less so than when France seemed to be in total control of the company despite claims to the contrary.

The A380 will not be canceled and as long as its business case makes sence, you will still see sales. It is intereesting to note that slaes have really tailed off alot and I have seen some projections that the exisiting orders would fulfill the traffic needs already for the huge slot limited hubs. With each delay the break even point get pushed back further and further bringing the development and launch aid back to the forefront of the debate again.

I think this will be won or lost in the cargo arena. Boeing won round one when Emirates bought the 747-8 cargo variant and converted its A380F to a passenger version. But the market may be diluted a bit if ailines begin converting thier A340's once the A350 comes online.

Ive said it once and I will say it again. Boeing had better avoid these "oooopsies" with the 787 or its going to get hit and hit hard.



[edit on 9/29/06 by FredT]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join