Airbus ready to axe A380 if fails to win Emirates deal • Hacker News Board

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

#301

Post by xvf22 » Thu, Dec 28, 2017, 12:40 AM UTC

yardie wrote: post #272

tolien wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 787 first flew 4 years earlier too, cost 3x as much to develop and aren’t selling for three times the price. To the end of last month there were 858 orders (133 delivered) for the A350 versus 1287 (625 delivered) for the Dreamliner. Considering the 787 had a head start (787 introduced in 2011, A350 XWB in 2015), the pressure’s on Airbus to keep ramping up deliveries (the last few years it looks like Boeing’s stab…

The A350XWB was their second attempt. The original A350 and 787 were introduced around the same time. But the all aluminum A350 was DOA compared to the flashy new carbon fiber 787. It showed in the order books as well, no one wanted their warmed over A350. TL;DR the 787 didn't have a 4 year head start. The A350 arrived 4 years late after a complete redesign.

And yet they managed to save the program and avoid the lithium battery issues of the 787 all while not being anywhere near as overweight as the 787 was upon introduction.

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

#302

Post by martinald » Thu, Dec 28, 2017, 12:52 AM UTC

jpatokal wrote: post #245

martinald wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I can't understand though is how it even makes sense at LHR. A380 requires 'super heavy' spacing between planes AFIAK, as opposed to 'heavy' for 747 and below. Surely all the gain you get from more passengers is lost as you need significantly more spacing between the plane and the next one? So you might as well just run two 787s instead and extract more point to point incremental revenue? Please do reply, I've w…

The difference between heavy and super heavy spacing is only 30-60 seconds (depending on airport), which is a lot less than an additional arrival/departure slot (which come in pairs for obvious reasons).

But LHR does 30-50 flights per hour. 60 seconds is a lot of time...

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

#303

Post by lathiat » Thu, Dec 28, 2017, 1:03 AM UTC

csours wrote: post #115

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…

I'm sure you realize this, but some might not: a 747-8 in 2017 is very different from a 747-100 in the 1960s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#Specifications

Same goes for the modern 737

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

#304

Post by SteveCoast » Thu, Dec 28, 2017, 1:04 AM UTC

selectodude wrote: post #203

_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess as stated elsewhere A380 usage will increase.

I was just being snarky about the implication that Chicago is a new opportunity opened up by the 787 when it’s actually one of the largest cities in the world that already gets multiple flights daily from most major world cities.

Yeah, sure. Let's say Phoenix and Denver. Or, Colorado Springs and Oakland. Or, Gatwick and Midway.

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

#305

Post by tankenmate » Thu, Dec 28, 2017, 1:04 AM UTC

notahacker wrote: post #236

valuearb wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Speculatively, by (i) having a more negative effect on the profitability of their major competitor in a duopoly and (ii) by having indirect positive effects on their sales of other aircraft. As unsuccessful airliner programs go, the A380 wasn't that bad, with over 200 actually delivered. Though it would have looked a lot worse if it wasn't for Emirates There are also likely technologies developed for the A380 which w…

Not just technologies but also operational gains. The problems with the development of the A380 forced Airbus to synchronise their CAD/CAM software and development practices between their previously semi-autonomous offices in Germany and France. It also led to further organisational rationalisation and the removal of French and German government influence on commercial decisions. It led to the removal of a lot of identical functions on both sides of the border and removal of the rules stating that work had to be split rather than concentrating similar functions in certain countries. That in itself was a big gain for Airbus, probably worth a quarter of the money spent on the development of the A380 if amortised over the length of the project. Once the costs started building up it was easier to convince the various governments to back off a bit.

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

#306

Post by lathiat » Thu, Dec 28, 2017, 1:06 AM UTC

sologoub wrote: post #287

From consumer standpoint, A380 is by far my favorite for cross-Atlantic flights. A340 would be a distant second. 777s layout fits more people then A340 (superior for airline), but 3/4/3 seating just plain sucks for passengers compared to 2/4/2 for A340. More leg room too. A340 having toilets below deck is also great - fewer smells in the cabin. Sadly, getting a A340 is like lottery and A380 is only operated in a few…

Emirates A380 is very comfortable, flying ex-Australia to Europe or USA it's common to get an A380 from either Emirates or Qantas. For Asia, you can get an A350 from Cathay Pacific at very competetive prices.

Seat Width is a big factor, 18" on Emirates and very comfortable seats. I haven't yet tried the 787 though, looking forward to trying the Qantas offering.

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

#307

Post by lathiat » Thu, Dec 28, 2017, 1:07 AM UTC

TremendousJudge wrote: post #27

Xixi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The success of the 747 was wrongly analyzed by Airbus: it was not successful because it was big, it was successful because it could fly further than anything else. It is however because it was big that it could fly far: if I remember correctly the fuel needed to fly grows with the surface of the plane (in 2 dimensions), while the fuel that can be hauled grows with its volume (in 3 dimensions). The 777 had already mad…

Also, up until relatively recently regulators wouldn't let twin engines fly transoceanic flights because they deemed it too risky. They added ETOPS[1] regulation in order to allow this [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS

This is important, ETOPS regulation changes are a big reason twin jets are resurging

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

#308

Post by lathiat » Thu, Dec 28, 2017, 1:10 AM UTC

org3432 wrote: post #141

gsnedders wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dubai is slot contained, and they fly to plenty of other slot contained airports. As far as I'm aware, London to Dubai alone has seven daily A380 flights. More generally, Emirates have gone for a single daily A380 flight instead of more frequent flights to many destinations.

Interesting, it just seems hard to believe the UAE with a population of little more than Austria would have that many travelers.

They're well positioned as a hub between Europe/USA and Asia+Australia. Emirates as the stopover is literally in the middle (also counts for their ME airline cousins, as they are all next to each other).

Plus with current flight lengths, you need a stopover somewhere. That is changing, though.. with Perth-London direct opening soon. That's a long time to be on 1 plane though. And it's only a little shorter (1-2h) than going via DXB.

(I'm in Perth)

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

#309

Post by Gibbon1 » Thu, Dec 28, 2017, 1:36 AM UTC

valuearb wrote: post #292

notahacker wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is saying Airbus has made a profit on the A380, but absorbing development costs over 250 aircraft delivered leads to much lower losses than absorbing them over 14 aircraft delivered like a certain innovative indirect ancestor of Airbus... And much as program costs are accounting fiction, Boeing's written down far more than a 10th of the A380 program costs as 747-8 development programme specific losses, never m…

Airbus isn't absorbing development costs over 250 aircraft at all, those aircraft are barely going to be profitable on their own construction costs, let alone chip away at the $30B+ developmental costs. The 747-8 cost only $2.5B to develop. The accounting fiction is Airbus's attempt to minimize how much it actually spent on A380 development. The sole ramification of being the undisputed leader in large wide bodies is…

What boggles me a bit about the A380 vs the 747 is the 747 development was a bit of an accident based on 1960's era irrational exuberance. At the same time they were working on that they were trying to develop an SST. The SST was supposed to be the future of passenger aircraft. It failed and the 747's succeeded. And managed to side line some smaller competitors like the DC10.

But since it went into service no one built a comparable or larger aircraft for 30 years. And if there was a huge untapped market for super large passenger jets, why weren't more 747's in service?

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

#310

Post by merb » Thu, Dec 28, 2017, 2:11 AM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #288

valuearb wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> New slots can be easily created by adding runways or building new airports. I wouldn't call that "easy". How many new runways are going to be built next year? How many new airports? I'll make a guess that the answers are "none" and "very few or none".

> How many new airports?

maybe berlin, if they decide to rebuilt the failed project.