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

241–250 of 355 posts

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

#241

Post by hinkley »

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 new twins collect telemetry data from the entire flight. Maintenance is scheduled based on cumulative stresses on the engine and not on miles flown.

They end up going longer between service windows (reduced labor) but it also means they’re more of a known quantity and shouldn’t fall off over the Atlantic. And as we’ve discussed many times in SpaceX threads, having more moving parts may increase the likelihood of a failure instead of reducing it.

So you have bigger engines, more efficient airframes, fewer moving parts, and better maintenance records, why not fly them over the ocean with only two engines?

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

#242

Post by hinkley »

Xixi wrote: post #237
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…

"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 also easier to make this bet when the passenger version of the 767 is struggling for new orders because of the A330. Boeing had the 747 against nothing, the 777 winning and killing the A340, and the 767 losing to the A330. So Boeing made a better A330. That's why I don't s…

Remember that Boeing killed off a trans-sonic plane and decided to build the 787 instead. They weren’t always sure this was the only way to go. I think the economy tanking and fuel costs rising made the decision for them.

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

#243

Post by notahacker »

SteveCoast wrote: post #109
monocasa wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 787 is a little more than half the capacity of a 747.

At a lower $/passenger/mile. Why fly one 747 from NY to London and make people connect to it, when you can fly one 787 from Denver and one 787 from Chicago?

It might be an atypical route, but LHR slot costs and unavailability can certainly wipe out putative passenger mile cost advantages...

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

#244

Post by markonen »

nimish wrote: post #232
markonen wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The first three are from countries where Eads doing well is a political thing: Britain Germany and France own chunks of airbus and have a lot invested in it doing well. The former flag carriers are only nominally independent from the state.

Tell me more about this nominal independence. The biggest state owner of IAG (BA’s corporate parent) is Qatar. Lufthansa is fully privatized. France owns ~15% of Air France-KLM.

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

#245

Post by jpatokal »

martinald wrote: post #227
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…

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).

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

#246

Post by valuearb »

mc32 wrote: post #238
valuearb wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That article is misleading, the Dreamliner is at least a decade away from true profitability, if it ever gets there. When Boeing announces it "turned" profitable, they are saying it now costs less to make each Dreamliner than they are selling for. But that is ignoring over $30B in development costs (plus interest) that it needs to earn back before it can ever generate a true economic profit. "In the second quarter of…

Thanks for the insight and clarification. This has to be one of the most difficult businesses to be in, given a poor choice can risk bankruptcy for the developer/manufacturer. If relative success means turning a profit 20 years hence, that's one hell of an industry to be in.

Very true, but fortunately the people in charge of making these momentous decisions are well compensated, win or lose;)

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

#247

Post by smachiz »

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.

> The A340 was not competitive. The cost of a 4 engine plane with the seating of a large twin.

Well, they built the A340-600 hoping it would. But it couldn't - and the length caused CG issues which reduced cargo capacity.

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

#248

Post by valuearb »

mpweiher wrote: post #234
valuearb wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 747 sales were falling A380 was officially started in 1993. 747 orders per year, starting 1993 2, 16, 32, 56, 36, 15, 35, 26, 16, 17, 4, 10, 43, 72 I don't see "falling". At best, I see cycles.

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.

Ironically in 1993, the year A380 design work began, the 747 had it's worst sales year ever (till then), with only 2 orders.

The A380 was approved for production in 2000. In 2005, Boeing announced the 747-8 to better compete with the A380.

From 2000-2009, the 747 had 214 total orders, almost all after 747-8 was announced. The A380 had 212. Combined that's 43 orders a year. The market did not grow, despite substantially better, more capable, and more efficient, products.

From 2010-2017, the 747 and A380 have booked 18 orders per year combined. It is by far the smallest jumbo market since it was created. And what point to point advocates predicted.

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

#249

Post by jpatokal »

funnelsgun wrote: post #64
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 could have chosen to compete with the A380 and built their own Superjumbo, but they chose not to, instead working on the Dreamliner. The 744, which was the last update to the 747 to see large market penetration, wasn't all that cost effective either: > with 70 percent of its seats occupied, used more than 95 percent of the fuel needed by a fully occupied 747 Yes, the A380 is more fuel efficient, and cost per s…

Qantas will be retiring all its 747s in the next few years as their replacements, a mix of A380s and 787s, come in.

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

#250

Post by Analemma_ »

alexland wrote: post #233
junkscience2017 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet Bombardier itself is subsidized to the point where many have suggested it would be easier to just nationalize it...yet no one is critiquing that arrangement

That arrangement is heavily critiqued, particularly that Bombardier is still controlled by private shareholders (and is receiving significant public funding). It's pretty clear that airplanes are expensive to build, and every large plane manufacturer has government subsidies, but Boeing is being particularly anti-competitive in this instance and is getting away with it.

What does "particularly" anti-competitive mean? Boeing, Airbus, and Bombardier all get government subsidies. Are there are reliable numbers about how large these subsidies are showing that Boeing's are significantly bigger?
Post reply on HN