Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal

Post by poooogles » Wed, Dec 27, 2017, 11:54 PM UTC

caoilte wrote: post #154

andy_ppp wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes as I was checking the spelling of Tegel I came across the Brandenburg airport information and linked to it above. It makes Terminal 5 look fast and flawless by comparison!

Terminal 5 was fast and flawless (until the day it opened and the airline computer systems fell over). Then again, it is a giant metal shed. Now Crossrail, THAT'S something.

Post by paulmd » Thu, Dec 28, 2017, 12:00 AM UTC

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…

Post by tomohawk » Thu, Dec 28, 2017, 12:05 AM UTC

mdasen wrote: post #129

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…

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…

Post by i386 » Thu, Dec 28, 2017, 12:19 AM UTC

markonen wrote: post #182

junkscience2017 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

fuel costs killed the 747, not the A380 we know this is true because no one is replacing retired 747s with A380s, they are replacing them with smaller, more fuel efficient planes

Plenty of airlines have replaced 747s with A380s. British Airways, Lufthansa, Air France and Qantas immediately come to mind.

Post by lars_francke » Thu, Dec 28, 2017, 12:23 AM UTC

mdasen wrote: post #240

mpweiher wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Non-availability is what makes them expensive. It's kind of two sides of the same coin. If the slots were widely available, they wouldn't be a valuable asset. They are a valuable asset only because they aren't available. The point of looking at the monetary value is that it's a way to quantify how unavailable they are. Land costs money. Where land is scarce, it becomes expensive. Where land is abundant, it's cheap. I…