Author Topic: A380 dropped for 777 (Read 996 times)

Ripsnort · « **Reply #15 on:** November 08, 2006, 07:43:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
Are you by any chanse employed by Boeing Mr. Ripsnort?

Since 1979..

Viking · « **Reply #16 on:** November 08, 2006, 08:14:44 AM »

The A380 is a prestige product for Airbus, not its bread and butter plane. Currently Airbus has orders for 2061 planes, 1575 of which are A320 series.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #17 on:** November 08, 2006, 08:49:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
The A380 is a prestige product for Airbus, not its bread and butter plane. Currently Airbus has orders for 2061 planes, 1575 of which are A320 series.

Boeings cash cow was the 747 for many, many years. Airbus intended for the A380 to play that role for its company.

Nilsen · « **Reply #18 on:** November 08, 2006, 08:55:45 AM »

I think its too soon to give the 380 the thumbs down. The highly successful 747 has had years to build its market and dominate it. Lets see in 5-10 years time how many airbus sell, and if they manage to make any real money on it.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #19 on:** November 08, 2006, 09:10:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
I think its too soon to give the 380 the thumbs down. The highly successful 747 has had years to build its market and dominate it. Lets see in 5-10 years time how many airbus sell, and if they manage to make any real money on it.

I agree, however I was correcting Vikings analyst saying the A380 was about prestige...you don't spend that kind of R&D money for "prestige"...you spend it to increase your revenue and make it your cash cow. Boeing sells more 737 aircraft (A320 equivelent) than any other of its fleet, but the money maker is the 747.

Viking · « **Reply #20 on:** November 08, 2006, 09:13:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Boeings cash cow was the 747 for many, many years. Airbus intended for the A380 to play that role for its company.

I'm sure that's correct, but it is not what made Airbus the market leader of commercial aircraft. The A380 may very well become a cash cow for Airbus, but the company's future does not depend on it, unlike the 747 which was a big gamble for Boeing … and an equally big success. The A380 will never match the 747's success; it can only hope to replace it.

IMHO.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #21 on:** November 08, 2006, 09:17:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
I'm sure that's correct, but it is not what made Airbus the market leader of commercial aircraft. The A380 may very well become a cash cow for Airbus, but the company's future does not depend on it, unlike the 747 which was a big gamble for Boeing … and an equally big success. The A380 will never match the 747's success; it can only hope to replace it.

IMHO.

Only because Boeing was not subsidized by government(s). It took a gamble, and had it not paid off, there would be no Boeing today. OTOH, Airbus could roll that dice knowing the taxpayers of the EU would bankroll any failure. Its nice to have an uncle with money!

Nilsen · « **Reply #22 on:** November 08, 2006, 09:26:58 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Only because Boeing was not subsidized by government(s). It took a gamble, and had it not paid off, there would be no Boeing today. OTOH, Airbus could roll that dice knowing the taxpayers of the EU would bankroll any failure. Its nice to have an uncle with money!

Indierctly Boeing is subsidized by the government.

Denholm · « **Reply #23 on:** November 08, 2006, 09:27:32 AM »

Well, probably why not that many people are buying A-380's is because airports are now required to extend the runways if they are allowing A-380's to land / takeoff there. Kennedy International itself had to extend its runways by (I think) 4,500 feet to accommodate the A-380.

Also, I see this plane almost the same as the Concorde. A few nations will buy it, yet in the end it will be so hazardous they have to ditch the fleet.

Viking · « **Reply #24 on:** November 08, 2006, 09:30:22 AM »

The A380's main marked is in Asia, not in Europe or the US.

Saintaw · « **Reply #25 on:** November 08, 2006, 09:31:09 AM »

Viking · « **Reply #26 on:** November 08, 2006, 09:31:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Denholm
Also, I see this plane almost the same as the Concorde. A few nations will buy it, yet in the end it will be so hazardous they have to ditch the fleet.

What is hazardous about the A380?

Ripsnort · « **Reply #27 on:** November 08, 2006, 09:31:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
Indierctly Boeing is subsidized by the government.

Boeing receives no money for commerical aircraft R&D, and it bids on potential military projects just like other competitors. It is not directly subsidized by its government like Airbus, thus Boeings gamble on the 747 was a true gamble, where Airbus's gamble on the A380 is no gamble at all considering that 4 countries are there to bail them out with taxpayers money.

Nilsen · « **Reply #28 on:** November 08, 2006, 09:33:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Boeing receives no money for commerical aircraft R&D, and it bids on potential military projects just like other competitors. It is not directly subsidized by its government like Airbus, thus Boeings gamble on the 747 was a true gamble, where Airbus's gamble on the A380 is no gamble at all considering that 4 countries are there to bail them out with taxpayers money.

This is an intersting read: http://www.cei.org/gencon/004,04679.cfm

Denholm · « **Reply #29 on:** November 08, 2006, 09:39:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
The A380's main marked is in Asia, not in Europe or the US.

Well then excuse me, I read the news and that's what they said. They were using an example of how much runway would be required....