Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 355 posts

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#211

Post by valuearb »

ghaff wrote: post #197
rsync wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It may be true in general if there's undeveloped space within an hour or so drive of a major city center but major airport construction, at least in Western countries, usually hasn't gone smoothly." I remember DIA (Denver) being built relatively quickly and without trouble - is my memory faulty ? (genuinely curious)

As others have noted, it was hardly flawless though arguably just par for the course troubled except for the baggage system. And that was for an airport basically built in the middle of nowhere.

One can argue that Denvers airport was one of the most successful government infrastructure projects in the US over the last 30 years.

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#212

Post by geezerjay »

andy_ppp wrote: post #108
ghaff wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And as far as airport congestion goes, building new airports is far easier than new rail lines. Might tell Berlin that :-) It may be true in general if there's undeveloped space within an hour or so drive of a major city center but major airport construction, at least in Western countries, usually hasn't gone smoothly.

Wow, there is so much space around Berlin I don’t even know where to start with this, there’s even an airstrip in town still. I know it’s a park now but seriously of all the major cities I’ve lived in building a new airport should be relatively easy... unless it’s a conscious decision to prefer the train? Tegel is horrible but it’s also really quick - you can and I have arrived 30mins before a flight and make it just…

> Wow, there is so much space around Berlin

And how do you expect to move people from that empty space into Berlin? People aren't happy to be flown 50 miles outside the city. When that happens, all those flights coming and going into that enpty space end up addin an extra couple of hours to the travel time.

To make matters worse, that empty space tends to be connected with city centers by.... Train.

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#213

Post by tomalpha »

avar wrote: post #178
tomalpha wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a source for that? I’m particularly interested because I’m due to fly on a British Airways 747 in a couple of weeks to the US. As an aside, BA appears to have the largest remaining passenger 747 fleet[0] and doesn’t plan to fully retire them until 2024. [0] https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/last-ba-747-400-t...

Start with this thread[1] from HN a couple of months ago (search for "inert"). This has been a long time coming[2] and is in response to TWA 800 which was a 747 that exploded in 1996 due to lack of fuel tank inerting[3]. The FAA issued a directive in 2008 saying that by December 26, 2017 (not 2018, sorry) [4] passenger planes flying within or into the US had to have fuel tank inerting. Many operators such as Delta an…

Thanks. I’ll get reading.

Edit: completely agree with calling out corporate doublespeak

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#214

Post by valuearb »

mpweiher wrote: post #149
mdasen wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boeing made a bet on the 787. However, as you note, that's an easier bet to make when you already have the 747. Boeing already had a jumbo. It's easy to make a bet on twin-engines getting certified for longer ocean crossings when you already have the 747. There's a lot of things that Boeing bet on with the 787 and you're totally right that it's way easier to make those bets when you already have the 747. However, the…

Excellent points, and I agree that the switch in the market certainly was a large component, and probably the larger component. I still think that Airbus simply could not not do the A380, just as a defensive move and hedge, and that it may have served a commercial purpose even if it didn't manage to be profitable on its own. > constrained slots [..] certainly money [..] Are slots primarily a money problem? My underst…

How can investing 20-30 billion euros into a massively unprofitable project serve a commercial purpose? How did it here?

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#215

Post by valuearb »

mpweiher wrote: post #208
coredog64 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2 points: Airbus had a competitor to the 747. The A340 was close to the 747 with all the benefits of a single airframe supplier. Second point: Airbus was in a tough spot with the A380. They had to make it huge because Boeing was always threatening a cheaper 747 stretch. I almost feel like Boeing only ever spent money on the post -400 stretch as a "special teams" move to force Airbus into the A380.

> competitor to the 747. The A340 The A340 was not competitive. The cost of a 4 engine plane with the seating of a large twin. Beautiful plane, though, very quiet near the front. > Airbus was in a tough spot with the A380 Absolutely. To me it was damned if you do, damned if you don't. A lot of industrial jiu-jitsu going on at that level.

Making a money losing investment isn't a "tough spot". You are only damned if you choose to do it. Not only did they know that 747 sales were falling, they knew point to point was becoming more popular.

It was a really easy decision and they blew it. Engineering the world's greatest aircraft is an addictive endeavor, but the numbers have to work and they never did.

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#216

Post by foxylad »

valuearb wrote: post #201
mpweiher wrote: post #33

I think coverage of the A380 often misses the point that at the time, Boeing's 747 simply had no competition, whereas all of Airbus's planes did. So Airbus pretty much had to create the A380 in order to protect its other lines from cross-subsidy by this unopposed cash-cow. And, also missing from almost all the coverage is the fact that this worked: if the A380 is struggling, the 747 is moribund or dead. Official back…

The 747 was already in decline before the A380 came along. It was getting long in the tooth (fuel burn too high) and Boeing needed to invest billions to update it to keep it viable. In the 1970s the 747 averaged 32 orders per year. In the 1980s it averaged 43 orders per year. It peaked in 1990, taking in 122 orders that year alone, but from 1992-2000 orders dropped to average 27 per year. In 2000, Airbus approved spe…

One small nitpick - because of the rise in real estate costs and nimbyism, new airports are not as easy a solution as they once were. But I take your point that the 3A80 doesn't really give much better slot efficiency.

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#217

Post by valuearb »

mc32 wrote: post #206
mdasen wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boeing made a bet on the 787. However, as you note, that's an easier bet to make when you already have the 747. Boeing already had a jumbo. It's easy to make a bet on twin-engines getting certified for longer ocean crossings when you already have the 747. There's a lot of things that Boeing bet on with the 787 and you're totally right that it's way easier to make those bets when you already have the 747. However, the…

Wasn't another thing that Boeing believed that fuel economy would become more important in the future and thus developed airframes with fuel efficiency in mind? At the time the Dreamliner was being announced people were initially underwhelmed by the proposal but Boeing persisted and tried to impress upon the aviation industry that they had made the right choice. I don't think at the time everyone thought the Dreamlin…

Turned out it wasn't. The 777 is the real profit engine at Boeing, the Dreamliner may never earn back it's cost thought it will never be as bad an investment as the A380.

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#218

Post by Animats »

The disappointing thing is that Boeing discontinued the B-757 while continuing to make B-737 variants. The 737 first flew in 1967. Fifty years later, variants are still in production. It's longer now, has better avionics, and better engines, but it's still the same diameter and still has poor climb performance.

What the airline industry wants to buy is flying buses.

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#219

Post by valuearb »

mpweiher wrote: post #71
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if the A380 is struggling, the 747 is moribund or dead Boeing has built and sold over 1,500 747s [1]. It first flew in 1969 and is now being end of lifed. It has been obscenely profitable over its lifetime. The A380 first flew in 2005 [2]. It has been a commercial disaster. The 747 was a great plane for 1969. Airbus built the finest horse-drawn carriage just as the Model T came out. > constrained slots at major air…

> It has been obscenely profitable over its lifetime Exactly. And these obscene profits in a line where it had no competition were a problem for Airbus. A problem that has now disappeared. > The A380 first flew in 2005 [2]. It has been a commercial disaster. (a) It helped kill the "obscenely profitable" 747. (b) It was a hedge in case airlines were going to stick with the hub-and-spoke model (c) Slot constraints may…

The 747 was a problem that was disappearing on it's own. When the A380 was approved, the 747 was no longer obscenely profitable, it was already facing lower demand and the requirements for an expensive update.

Airbus crippled itself trying to eliminate it with the A380, they blew a huge amount of capital they'll never get back.

The hub and spoke model is dead and won't be coming back. New slots can be easily created by adding runways or building new airports. Flying point to point isn't just more convenient and faster, it is cheaper and more fuel efficient.

Re: Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

#220

Post by mc32 »

valuearb wrote: post #217
mc32 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't another thing that Boeing believed that fuel economy would become more important in the future and thus developed airframes with fuel efficiency in mind? At the time the Dreamliner was being announced people were initially underwhelmed by the proposal but Boeing persisted and tried to impress upon the aviation industry that they had made the right choice. I don't think at the time everyone thought the Dreamlin…

Turned out it wasn't. The 777 is the real profit engine at Boeing, the Dreamliner may never earn back it's cost thought it will never be as bad an investment as the A380.

Apparently the Dreamliner is doing better than anticipated, for it has begun turning a profit[1]. With the A380 being developed, Boeing couldn't just stand arms crossed. They had to develop a response --and in this case develop new materials to achieve better fuel efficiency --the discoveries thereof can be reused in future frames.

[1]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/01/25/boeing-soars-...

Post reply on HN