Airlines Reconsidering A380 orders: EADS Stock tanks

Originally posted by shots
Yes that is news to me. I did however note that the first delivery when the plane entered service was only off by approximately one month. It had been scheduled to enter service in December of 69 but entered in Jan of 70.

Other airlines followed just a few months later so even though there were problems the plane was still in service and obviously considered airworthy.

If the aircraft were sitting on tarmac awaiting re-fits then I can assure you, the airlines would be even less happy.


Better to continue service with an older plane waiting for the one to arrive 6 months late than to have no plane (the new one being rushed out early and lying up with mechanics around it).

Originally posted by shots
I did however note that the first delivery when the plane entered service was only off by approximately one month. It had been scheduled to enter service in December of 69 but entered in Jan of 70.

Other airlines followed just a few months later so even though there were problems the plane was still in service and obviously considered airworthy.

- You're just swerving the point there.

The link clearly shows -

At one point early in 1970, Boeing had some 30 planes parked at its plant that could not be delivered until Pratt & Whitney had corrected the deficiencies of its JT-9D engine.

It took a year before the engine problems were solved. In the meantime, too little money was coming in, the country was experiencing an economic recession, and new orders were drying up. The company almost went broke.

- They had severe problems to begin with, there's no denying it, it's a matter of record.

I know personally because a close relative left the UK to go and work at Boeing Seattle (when they were 'hoovering' up and 'throwing' as many skilled senior designers and aeronautical engineers as they could at it to try and beat the problems they were encountering).

That's what happens when you break new ground, same for everyone and trying to turn this matter of fact into a chauvinistic game is just rather silly.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- You're just swerving the point there.


How can I be swerving the point when it is a fact that the plane did enter serice within one month of it';s scheduled date?

It took a year before the engine problems were solved.

I am not denying that. My point is the aircraft still entered service and was used during that period by several airlines. That is also fact.

Originally posted by shots
How can I be swerving the point when it is a fact that the plane did enter serice within one month of it';s scheduled date?

- Because despite entering service in a small number of instances the link clearly shows that (right at the start of ot's production too) up to 30 were parked up and awaiting fixes.

My point is the aircraft still entered service and was used during that period by several airlines. That is also fact.

- Yeah that may be so but it is really using the thin reality of a handful of examples to cover the glaring problems which were much more widespread.

Like I said, you can try and turn this stuff into a football game if you like but the facts won't support that.

True leading edge stuff is hard and fraught with problems no matter who is doing it.
Happened before and will continue to happen.
Yesterday it was the 747, today it's the A380 and tomorrow it'll be the 787 (as reports, previously posted here on this site are now starting to show).

Shots, so if Airbus delivers a couple of A380's sans engines to SIA and Emirates but gets them flying regularly a year later you will not be preaching about it? The first A380's are still to be delivered in 2006, as almost every link shows.

Originally posted by waynos
Shots, so if Airbus delivers a couple of A380's sans engines to SIA and Emirates but gets them flying regularly a year later you will not be preaching about it?

The first A380's are still to be delivered in 2006, as almost every link shows.

So just because they say they will be delivered n time, you are taking their word on it?

Not me, I want to see it happen on time first.

Keep in mind that if it rains a lot the assembly plant will be doomed and no deliveries can be made for days, weeks or even months, no one really knows. The same goes if they have traffic accidents or fires in the towns. Very poor planing on the part of airbus if you ask me, especially when you consider the aircraft is being built for a niche market.

What happens heaven forbide that one of the first aircraft off the line crashes? Use the Concorde and de haviland (sp) as examples. What happens if cities cut funding for airport upgrades? Not that far out of the realm when you consider the cost to upgrade terminals and runways which run near a billion dollars is it? As I understand it lax, SF have already stated it will be 5 to ten years before they even consider it. MPLS stated at one time they did not think they would even consider it at all. Those are prime examples and they are just in the US. Not a very rosy picture from that stand point is it?

Then as if it were not bad enough to design one new aircraft they decided to build another and before that hardly got started it too ran into problems, had to be redesigned because of projected fuel efficiency, again very poor planing and or design on their part.:shk:

Your just full of optimism aren't you

What happens Boeing finds out that making complete fuselages without bubbles in is impossible to achieve and the whole 787 plan is scrapped, what happens if there is a shipwreck or a plane crash that takes the 787 wingasets to the bottom of the ocean? What if the first 787 to fly has a brainstorm in its FBW system and goes into the ground like a dart?

What If?



On the other hand what do you *think* will happen?

I think that the 787 problems will be ironed out and it will become one of the best selling Boeings of all time, along the way helping to launch the 73X.

I think the A380 will eventually enter service with all the operators who currently have it on order, despite noises to the contrary, and it will sell slowly but steadily, losing out to the 747-8F in the freight market but outselling the passenger version.

I think Airbus' biggest headache surrounds the 'A370' but that they will take the hit, heads will roll and sales will be lost to the 787 in the early days but there will be recovery and when the two are genuinely competing head to head things will even out, Airbus might even announce that it 'will never make the same mistake again'.

I also think we will next see a headlong race to develop the 73X and A32X and both companies will throw every bit of advanced tech they can muster at it. I'm not sure who will hold the upper hand here because Boeing is in from with the 787 over the A370 but the A380 is in front of the 747-8 and of the four programmes mentioned, the A380 design staff will be free to move onto something else first. This race is still up in the air I think.

Do you have any rational thoughts on this beyond hellfire and damnation and natural disasters all happening to the one company?

[edit on 16-6-2006 by waynos]

The basic make-up of each company must be taken into consideration. Airbus is more of a political entity than Boeing is. I'm not attacking Airbus here I'm just stating fact. Airbus descisions have to take in political considerations when made. Boeing on the other hand has more freedom and control over it's descisions. Some of these considerations have lead to the problems that Airbus has with it's selection of where to build what.

As far as Boeing facing a supply problem, this needs to be taken into consideration. Boeing has a history of never relying on one supplier. If there was a problem with getting components from Japan, what ever the reason, there is a back-up supplier here in the US. I know I used to work for one of them.

There is some truth in that Jim but it is also the case that Airbus is much less politically vulnerable now than it used to be since it was incorporated as a single stand alone company. Airbus *dare not* make decisions on politcal grounds if it is seriouslt trying to compete in a commercial market, for example Rolls Royce powered Airbus' contain roughly 50% UK content by value, this is certainly not a political decision as the French and Germans don't like it at all but it is a commercial choice, a similar example is that the Spanish content of the A400 is double their actual stake in Airbus, simply because in those areas they have been found to be the best for the job. Germany has long been trying to get some of the wing work for itself but the Airbus UK design centre is a 'centre of excellence' in the field and it is not practical to take this elsewhere just because one of the majot partners wants it. This is quite different from when the Govts of each country insisted their national percentage be maintained regardless in the 70's and 80's and it will be interesting to see how the A32X work is divvied up.

[edit on 16-6-2006 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
There is some truth in that Jim but it is also the case that Airbus is much less politically vulnerable now than it used to be since it was incorporated as a single stand alone company.

I agree with you waynos, but Airbus is having to live now with problems that were created by descisions made then.

That is so, but nothing that really puts them at a comMercial disadvantage, that has come from screwing around with the A350.




[edit on 16-6-2006 by waynos]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
I think this claim that Airbus shares have 'tanked' is a tad much, given the facts.

Dude, thier stock was off over 25% in one days trading (as much as 32% down till a bit of a rebound. Given that Airbus makes up what 20% of EADS that this news cause almost 5 billion in value to evaporate yes that is tanking.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by shots
I did however note that the first delivery when the plane entered service was only off by approximately one month. It had been scheduled to enter service in December of 69 but entered in Jan of 70.

Other airlines followed just a few months later so even though there were problems the plane was still in service and obviously considered airworthy.

- You're just swerving the point there.

The link clearly shows -

At one point early in 1970, Boeing had some 30 planes parked at its plant that could not be delivered until Pratt & Whitney had corrected the deficiencies of its JT-9D engine.

It took a year before the engine problems were solved. In the meantime, too little money was coming in, the country was experiencing an economic recession, and new orders were drying up. The company almost went broke.

- They had severe problems to begin with, there's no denying it, it's a matter of record.

I know personally because a close relative left the UK to go and work at Boeing Seattle (when they were 'hoovering' up and 'throwing' as many skilled senior designers and aeronautical engineers as they could at it to try and beat the problems they were encountering).

That's what happens when you break new ground, same for everyone and trying to turn this matter of fact into a chauvinistic game is just rather silly.

But the A380 breaks hardly any ground. Is a bigger Jumbo, nothing more. there is nothing extraordinary about the plane except for its size. Airbus screw up because they rested on their laurels and thought that they have beaten Boeing... after all sometimes it seems that the whole aim behind the company was to beat the Americans in their speciality...

Well I guess they underestimated them again... they somehow forgot what they are capable of, specially in the aeronautic field...

In my opinion, Airbus needs to become humble and creative and stop running the company on pride. They currently have three challenges in the short term and one in the medium term.
They are (short term)
1. Fix the A380
2. Decide on a strategy for the A350. The latest I heard was that they were going to leave as it is and instead began working on another plane to compete with the 777.
3. Replace the A340 with a plane capable of competing with the T7 and the Y3 (the 777 and 747 replacement).
Medium term challenge.
4. Create a replacement for the A320 their cash-cow.

I think they first need a basic plan, starting on whether to continue to use metal fuselages of switch to plastic composites. Second have a design by looking forward avoiding getting stuck with old technology such as the 4 engines on the A340.
Once they have the basics covered. Start designing the planes with realistic goals and dates, not letting the company be run by salesman and by Presidents eager to leave a personal legacy.

But the A380 breaks hardly any ground. Is a bigger Jumbo, nothing more.

I can't believe you said that So, building the biggest plane in the world for mass production is NOT a challenge? making it use the standard apron
and keeping wake turbulence down to a minimum, producing the largest componenets of their kind ever seen is 'nothing'? Obviously I have to disagree.

Breaking new ground and taking big risks doesn't HAVE to be about introducing completely new technologies like FBW and carbonfibre composites (BOTH of which were Airbus firsts by the way) saying "there is nothing extraordinary about the plane except for its size" is like saying there is nothing remarkable about the 787 except for its economy.

Airbus screw up because they rested on their laurels

Now this I agree with, they made a very poor call when they thought the airlines would be satisfied with a reworked A330, just because it is currently the best in its class they allowed themselves to be complacent and underestimated where Boeing was going with its 7E7 proposal, somebody screwed up big time with that decision.

after all sometimes it seems that the whole aim behind the company was to beat the Americans in their speciality...

......But then I get riled again . The aim of Airbus was to create a competitive mass market airliner, nobody has a divine right to this market. Since when has it been an 'American' speciality? MD and Lockheed are both American aren't they? Airbus saw them off pretty conclusively from the commercial market. Do all Americans produce outstanding airliners then? I thought it was just Boeing.

1. Fix the A380

I'm sure they know this, although there is nothing major wrong with it, getting a new type into service is always a worry for manufacturers.

2. Decide on a strategy for the A350. The latest I heard was that they were going to leave as it is and instead began working on another plane to compete with the 777.

Agreed, but I understand that the A350-800, -900 and -1000 will be the standard models (the all new version recently revealed) the 787-10 is the target of the -1000 as it will replace the 777, the 787-8 and -9 being the target of the other models.

3. Replace the A340 with a plane capable of competing with the T7 and the Y3 (the 777 and 747 replacement).

This is the A350-1000 already mentioned, the 747-8 is Boeings answer to the A380, a different market.

4. Create a replacement for the A320 their cash-cow.

I would say for certain that this will be the next major race between the two companies, as I mentioned in an earlier post.

Well I didn't say that Airbus was created with the sole purpose of defeating the US, I that said lately it seemed that way. I believe the A300/310, the A320 and later the A330 and A340 were created with the objective of creating good planes and selling them.

However I do think the A380 was a, 'My plane is bigger than yours' project driven by politics, without deep technical or economical considerations. And I believe that is the reason they are having so much problems. If I recall correctly the project began when Europe decided that they wanted to become become the world's first economic power and displace the US from it's spot as the most influential country in the world. In a way it was almost a declaration of war (led by France, what a surprise ), political and economical of course, and the A380 was meant to become a symbol of Europe's 'supremacy'.

Well the a350 including the 1000 will compete with the 787 -8 -9 and -10. The -10 will replace the 777-200. Although it doesn't seems as a great loss since the majority of order are for the 777-300ER. The only -200 models left will be the 200LR pax and cargo, but that is a different animal.
The Y3 is Boeing's designation for the project that will replace the 777 and the 747. So if Airbus wants to compete with the 777. By the time they finish the new plane, Y3 will be very advanced. So my suggestion is that they make a plane to compete with that plane.

[edit on 18-6-2006 by carcharodon]

However I do think the A380 was a, 'My plane is bigger than yours' project driven by politics, without deep technical or economical considerations. And I believe that is the reason they are having so much problems. If I recall correctly the project began when Europe decided that they wanted to become become the world's first economic power and displace the US from it's spot as the most influential country in the world. In a way it was almost a declaration of war (led by France, what a surprise ), political and economical of course, and the A380 was meant to become a symbol of Europe's 'supremacy'.

Unfortunately this outlook is fairly typical of 'paranoid America' as the rest of the world is currently seeing it

The aspirations of another nation, or in this case group of nations, to achieve success in a field that America regards as its own is taken as an attack on America, another example of 'divine right' syndrome where the US is top dog and anybody who won't accept that their own industry must sit back in 2nd place is anti American. The fact that Airbus identified commercial reasons for building the A380 is simply ignored. Is this due to a belief that 'because it disagrees with Boeings outlook therefore it must be false'? I don't know.

The Y3 is Boeing's designation for the project that will replace the 777 and the 747. So if Airbus wants to compete with the 777. By the time they finish the new plane, Y3 will be very advanced. So my suggestion is that they make a plane to compete with that plane.

That would be the A380-700 then, a shortened fuselage version that is on offer to airlines with either two or four engines dependant on their requirement. The A380-700 remains unsold at the present time so is there a market yet top replace the 777-300 aqnd 747-400? Who knows but Airbus is further along that road than Boeing anyway. Incorporating any new 'A370' technologies into the A380 would be a matter of course anyway but is not an urgent consideration at this stage.

The -10 will replace the 777-200. Although it doesn't seems as a great loss

Boeing would appear to disagree with you given the amount of pressure it took from the airlines to force them to launch the 787-10.

[edit on 18-6-2006 by waynos]

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by waynos
SIA has *announced it would buy 20 787's* This is my point of query, orders are usually announced when they have been signed, not that they are going to be. This is the thing that made me wonder if this is a tactical announcement by SIA.

Actually Waynos, I have to agree the wording is a bit off on it. And Boeings website has a press release that is not thier usual when a company comits to firm orders either.

In answer to the question I raised here I can now report that a deal HAS actually been signed between Boeing and SIA. The letter of intent covers 20 787-9's and 'purchase rights (options?) for another 20 to be delivered between 2011 and 2013.

Something I didn't expect though was that SIA has revealed that it has spoken to Airbus again about the A350/A370 since the 787 order was announced and says that it has not closed the door on operating the Airbus type in a mixed fleet, likewise SIA is giving consideration to buying either extra A380''s or passenger carrying 747-8's to operate alongside its already ordered A380''s.

** In a related item I have read today that Boeing is considering a lengthened, extra capacity version of the 747-8 to compete directly with the A380-800. It has been prompted into this by requests from Asian airlines who are considering buying A380's and would like to see some competition in the sector. Who said nobody wanted big airliners?



***note to carcharodon relating to post above this one****

I don't know if Airbus has stopped offering the A380-700 I mentioned above (the following suggests it has) but I read in 'Flight' today a direct comment stating that the "larger A350-1000 is aimed at replacing the similarly sized A340-600 and 777-300ER" so it does indeed appear ready to take on the bigger Boeings.



edit: I noticed I spelt Boeing as 'Booeing'. A genuine typo, I don't go in for all this 'Airbust' nonsense. Maybe it was a Freudian slip?

[edit on 19-6-2006 by waynos]

International Lease Financing announced they are considering cancelling their 10 plane A380 order worth approximately $3 billion dollars.

ILFC is THE lessor for aircraft to the airlines. They own 824 aircraft and lease to several hundred airlines around the world.

International Lease Finance Corp. signaled yesterday that it may cancel its order for 10 A380s and could do so without penalty because of the program's delays.Chairman and CEO Steven Udvar-Hazy told Bloomberg News that ILFC "could cancel and are considering canceling" an order valued at $3 billion. "We are not happy and on safe ground to cancel the order," he said.

Airbus announced further delays in the A380 program last week, saying backups in aircraft wiring installations would push deliveries back 6-7 months (ATWOnline, June 14). That marked the second delay in the program, and Udvar-Hazy said ILFC's 10 aircraft now will be delayed by 12-14 months. He claimed the order contract allows the leasing company to cancel without penalty if A380s are delivered more than six months late.

www.atwonline.com...

Here is the client list for ILFC:
www.ilfc.com...

There's a good comparison of the A380 and 747-8 on the Flight website today. I didn't realise the 747-8i is over 2m longer than the A380. Maybe it wont fit US airports (s'n-word').

Still its a very good piece giving the forecasts and projections of both sides, not to mention a few good quotes from senior execs of both companies sniping like little kids at each other "my market shares bigger than your market share, so ner"

For all those Being fans who keep banging on that there is no market for the big Airbus, I found this quote from Randy Baseler, Boeing Commercial Airplanes VP;
he says.

“But if you really need a 550-seater, then you’ll need the A380 as the revenue from the additional passengers outweighs the seat-mile cost advantage of the 747-8.

. A rare admission from either side.

All good stuff

A380 Vs 747-8



PS, this image is a fake

[edit on 22-6-2006 by waynos]

Of course it will fit in US airports! It's a US plane!

I'm still laughing at the little kids that are in charge of both companies.