General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Rich46yo on March 28, 2015, 03:35:59 PM
Title: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Rich46yo on March 28, 2015, 03:35:59 PM
Despite its rather brilliant design and purpose I suspect the A380 production line is going to fold up and new orders to stop being taken in the next few years. From the beginning the logic behind building it was flawed. As it is now there are about 150 delivered to only around a dozen airlines and they arent making much, if any, money for them. Airbus is just trying to find a face saving way out of this mess and go back to concentrating on its very profitable and excellent two engine designs.
There are several key conflicting issues with the 380 that were obvious from the start. Because of its size it can only operate at a limited amount of high volume INTL air ports. Also because of its size it takes a lot of time to taxi and move around which slows down the airport operations, most importantly landing and taking off. Even worse, because of its size, it creates a air vortex when landing/launching which creates both a time and distance penalty before the next plane in line can occupy the space. 3 mins and about 10 miles I believe.
So look at it this way. The operation of the airplane, the design of the airplane, creates a financial burden on the very airports it was designed to operate in. Airports make money by airplanes taking off, landing, and buying gate space. Anything that hinders that costs the airports money. Its amazing to watch in action, sorta like a technical ballet dance for cash. A "dance" that only makes money by the volume of airplanes its able to launch/receive.
Even worse, while the 380 is itself a brilliant technological achievement, and economical considering. the operating airline only makes money if it fills the dang things up. And filling up 550 seats aint very easy. Not on a regular basis. Even in the best of times the 380, due to its 4 engines, burns to much fuel per seat/passenger compared to the wide bodied 2 engined passenger jets. I forget the exact numbers but its at least a 20% difference. The truth is it only makes money in a very few small markets, and there are only so many rich Arabs available to pay for APT suites on a A380.
So its not a money maker for either the airlines or the airports which is why Airbus only has about 300 orders at a time they projected 1,200. And it only has those orders because its giving them away at a loss. Not a sound business plan. No doubt Airbus would rather focus on its potentially very profitable A350 just coming on line but they have a huge investment in the A380. To make all of this even worse the freight model isnt even going to happen cause it gives only a very small increase in freight capacity compared to the 747-8 and that project, A380 freight, is pretty much dead.
I have concern for our British cousins cause they have a very big investment in the construction infrastructure of the 380 and many thousands of high paying jobs at risk. Its just a bad situation for Airbus, most of all when considering everyone did everything right, and built a remarkable aircraft. The only ones who failed were the suits who bet the house on an airplane that never should have been built in the first place.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Bodhi on March 28, 2015, 06:47:08 PM
I believe Emirates has firm orders for 140 - 150 a/c. I also believe that their CEO said they would order a like number if Airbus would re-engine the aircraft. That's a large order and if it makes money, the A-380 will continue to be made. Which makes sense as the more they sell, the more they recover.
FWIW, I am no Airbus fan. The only reason they did it was to say they built an aircraft bigger than Boeing. It was an ego driven project. That said, it is was also a good design.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Zimme83 on March 28, 2015, 07:13:52 PM
Well, 150 is still a lot more than 37. 37 747:s are ordered today. Of course it a limited market but the 747 is a lot closer to die than the 380.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Serenity on March 28, 2015, 10:24:17 PM
Well, 150 is still a lot more than 37. 37 747:s are ordered today. Of course it a limited market but the 747 is a lot closer to die than the 380.
I'm not spun up on the civilian market, but the first thing that comes to mind here is that perhaps the lack of 747 orders isn't because the airframe isn't in demand, but perhaps those that want them already them and, and they're still in good working order? The older airframes are still good?
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: DaveBB on March 28, 2015, 10:26:01 PM
I was working at UPS when they cancelled the Airbus A380 orders. There were too many delays. UPS had quite a few ordered. Instead, it switched its orders to 747s.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 29, 2015, 12:23:23 AM
I'm not spun up on the civilian market, but the first thing that comes to mind here is that perhaps the lack of 747 orders isn't because the airframe isn't in demand, but perhaps those that want them already them and, and they're still in good working order? The older airframes are still good?
The lifelenght of an airframe ar primarily decided by how many cycles it has flown. Whats "kills" an airliners is structural fatigue because the pressurized cabin stretches the fuselage every time the plane is on cruise alt. So it doesnt really matter what model it is, they all have the same life length, short range planes with many cycles a day have a shorter life than intercontinental airliners. (and of cource u have the economic factors that decides if it profitable to use an old aircraft)
Thats why a DC-3 can live forever, it has no pressurized cabin. A lot of old airliners ends up as freighters and having their pressuried cabin removed.
Since 2007 Boening have got orders for 19 747:s including freighters. Since a 777-300 fly as long as a 747 and have almost the same capacity Boeing pretty much killed the 747 themselves, 2 engines are a lot cheaper than 4. The 380 atleast have its own niche, aldough its a small one.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: jeep00 on March 29, 2015, 05:57:09 AM
Filling 550 seats is very easy in the Asian market. They're flying A380s and 747s as regional commuter planes.
:aok
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: mbailey on March 29, 2015, 07:25:58 AM
Good thing about the 747 is its a design cost, production line that has paid for itself 10 times over and is profitable. I wonder where the 380 stands in comparison. Be curious to see
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Karnak on March 29, 2015, 10:20:35 AM
My wife and son will be flying on one from Houston to Mumbai by way of Dubai on one next month.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Rich46yo on March 29, 2015, 10:27:42 AM
Quote
I believe Emirates has firm orders for 140 - 150 a/c.
That one airline has saved an entire jumbo passenger plane from immediate death indicates itself a big problem. Besides any further orders, if these are even filled, will be made only if Airbus makes the plane even longer. Since they will be basically giving the 380 away at a loss to one airline why would they want to do that? To invest even more?
Quote
Well, 150 is still a lot more than 37. 37 747:s are ordered today. Of course it a limited market but the 747 is a lot closer to die than the 380.
More like 150 380s delivered compared to 1,503 747s delivered. Boeing at least saw the end of the super Jumbo era. The market just isnt there.
Quote
I'm not spun up on the civilian market, but the first thing that comes to mind here is that perhaps the lack of 747 orders isn't because the airframe isn't in demand, but perhaps those that want them already them and, and they're still in good working order? The older airframes are still good?
No, as good a design as it is the 747 has a life span of other jets. The simple brutal fact is that airlines make much more money jamming people in every seat of a 400 seat 2 engine airplane then it does putting 400 people in a 550 seat 4 engine airplane that costs far more to buy, upkeep, and operate for both the airlines and the airports. The real money makers for an airline are regional and continental operations.
Quote
I was working at UPS when they cancelled the Airbus A380 orders. There were too many delays. UPS had quite a few ordered. Instead, it switched its orders to 747s.
Due to the lack of orders for the passenger version, and the lack of a market for the cargo version, Airbus had put all its available resources into the passenger version while restructuring and laying off 10,000 people. A sad story really.
Quote
Seems to be doing ok.
Its not. Its a disaster. They are putting a brave face on it but when you are selling far less of a product, at far less then you expected to charge, to far fewer customers, its called a "disaster".
Quote
Filling 550 seats is very easy in the Asian market. They're flying A380s and 747s as regional commuter planes.
Airbus has delivered 61 380s to the "Asian Market". That also is a disaster. As is when you are forced to fly a long range super jumbo on regional routes just to make any money off of them.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Karnak on March 29, 2015, 10:45:05 AM
Airbus has delivered 61 380s to the "Asian Market". That also is a disaster. As is when you are forced to fly a long range super jumbo on regional routes just to make any money off of them.
This is your misunderstanding of the market. They need super jumbos for regional routes there. You could not serve those markets with 737s and A320s like you can in the US and Europe.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Rich46yo on March 29, 2015, 01:21:20 PM
This is your misunderstanding of the market. They need super jumbos for regional routes there. You could not serve those markets with 737s and A320s like you can in the US and Europe.
Perhaps, Im no expert in such things. But it must not be such a large market for so few 380's to have been ordered for such regional routes. But yes, I suppose a 380 could be an airborne version of a ferry or train they always have filled to the gills over there. We hear of them when they turn over. You can pack 600 people in one so it might be profitable outside of major Hubs.
But I think the key difference between the 747 age and the time of the 380 is that the 747 was Lobbied for by the airlines while the 380 was not. Instead it was an Airbus idea for what they thought was the future of air travel. The future of air travel instead ended up being the 777, 787, and A350. Now were talking 55,000 Euro jobs at risk at 16 dedicated sights in Europe alone.
I admire Airbus products in case anyone thinks Im a gloating Yank over a perceived failure. The A340 might be my favorite civvie people mover and I salivated over a new A321 the other day. They are world class products and even tho the 380 had the usual troubles of a new design, and the expected inter-national bickering of the EU, they did deliver what was promised. A remarkable aircraft. I hope to tour one some day.
But it was a dream without a need. In a really, really cut throat business.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 29, 2015, 02:10:08 PM
Yet you made a seemingly authoritative six paragraph first post and continue to argue on the economics and market for the A380. (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/dntknw.gif)
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Wolfala on March 29, 2015, 02:26:45 PM
I have flown on the 380 a few times. Most recently from Australia to Singapore to Frankfurt. The Australia to Singapore leg, let me tell you, it was empty. I had an entire row to myself for 8 hours. Not so much on the Frankfurt leg but still, like you said, you gotta pack these to stay above board.
That said, what we are missing is the Asian airlines in particular have an infatuation for 4 engines because of the long over water legs they do. Can't figure it out myself, but just look at their patterns of purchasing for aircraft for say, JAL the last 40 years.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: mbailey on March 29, 2015, 02:31:11 PM
I've answered my own question, little research showed that given the orders delivered and the 380s on order, the aircraft hasn't reached the "break even" point yet due to the delays in launching it. It's a young platform, the market will figure out what it wants. The interesting thing that I found is that Emirates has been 44% of total sales and orders for the 380. That said, Emirates is making a success of it for their business model. Maybe others will follow suit.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Zimme83 on March 29, 2015, 03:12:33 PM
It has reached break even, so as an industrial project it cannot be concidered a failure. As for the 747 the -100 and -8 has pretty much nothing in common, they are two completley different birds. First 747:s were used because of their range, not their capacity. First 747 had 266 pax in 3 class configuration and a range of 5.300 mi. Compare that to a Airbus 330-300 that takes 295 pax for 6100 mi. So the 747 wasnt even big by todays standard. Not even the -400 and the -8 has any advantage over the largets twins so there is simply no need for a 4 engine bird like the 747.
What finally killed the 4 engine birds like A340 and B747 was the fact that the twins were certified to fly over oceans and other places w/o an emergerncy airfield within close distance. Most new twins are certified for flying atleast 180 min from a divert airfield so they can fly almost any routes in the world.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: mbailey on March 29, 2015, 03:21:46 PM
Actually as of Dec 2014 it hasn't reached break even yet (figuring in delivered aircraft and pending orders) due to delays in launch.....give it a few years and even if demand continues in its current state it should hit break even. New orders from the Asian market is where the profit for this bird lies now. They have considered lengthening it and upgrading the engines for more fuel efficiency (even better than they are now) I have a feeling some time in the not so distant future they will make their money back, and turn a profit. That is if the market wants it. What may help is take Emirates example (who is turning a profit with them) and market something in a similar fashion over in the East.
All that said, it's just such a young platform at the moment I think some years will need to pass to tell.
Fingers crossed, as I'd like nothing more for it to Succeed, Airbus makes a hell of an airplane that I enjoy flying on immensely.
Just my .02 anyway, take it for what it is.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Rich46yo on March 29, 2015, 04:20:02 PM
It is not remotely close to breaking even. Nobody likes "numbers" more then corporations. They can dream them up and investors can believe or not believe them. In this case they dont cause Airbus has taken a big hit due to the A380. The finance director of the project "suggested" dropping the A380 offhand just to see how it would affect share prices and the airlines operating it. Emirates airline went ape, the only airline keeping it afloat, and the stock holders told their own story by the shares in the company dropping almost 11% in a single day in Dec.
Luckily Airbus's other products are so popular and has helped keep this boondoggle as minimized as possible. I dont think one can really believe "numbers" from either Boeing or Airbus due to various slick tricks by Govt.'s to keep lines open and jobs alive. Supposedly they are PVT companies but the truth is they are both heavily subsidized, most of all Airbus. That the 380 is in trouble despite the world demand for passenger aircraft is at a fevered pitch speaks volumes.
Is it worth keeping it alive when only one airline is screaming for it? Most of all when the 350 is poised to be such a huge seller?
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Bodhi on March 29, 2015, 05:39:50 PM
Rich, I am not aware that Airbus released a break even point. If they have and I missed it, please point it out. As for the continuation of production, it makes sense, especially if they can keep the numbers up. If they can't it obviously does not make sense. I always figured that the Freight market was going to be the end all be all for the A380. Other than clearance on the ground, ramp capacity, and a higher reaching loader, they don't need all the same airport things a PAX plane does.
Who knows. Again, I am not an Airbus fan, it just seems to me that EADS would do best to keep making the plane, especially if it brings them closer to the break even point or better yet, profit.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: mbailey on March 29, 2015, 06:18:08 PM
Rich, I am not aware that Airbus released a break even point.
Fabrice Bregier, president and chief executive,@ Airbus stated it this year at an annual media event.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Bodhi on March 29, 2015, 06:52:59 PM
So he did. The article indicates (very ambiguously) that he said it will break even in 2015...
So, cancelling the program, especially if they can re-engine and receive another 150 plus aircraft order, would be foolish, as it is pure profit.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: mbailey on March 29, 2015, 07:01:58 PM
Agreed......that's why I stated earlier that in the next few years I'm sure it would hit break even and then turn a profit. I think the issue lies in finding the additional orders, but again if some of these airlines can model its usage after Emirates business model, i think it's a success, if the dont, I think it's a white whale.
Fingers crossed for them, I fly for work quite often, and very much enjoy flying on their aircraft, that and the thousands of pay checks it offers for people is great.
Agreed......that's why I stated earlier that in the next few years I'm sure it would hit break even and then turn a profit. I think the issue lies in finding the additional orders, but again if some of these airlines can model its usage after Emirates business model, i think it's a success, if the dont, I think it's a white whale.
Fingers crossed for them, I fly for work quite often, and very much enjoy flying on their aircraft, that and the thousands of pay checks it offers for people is great.
Thank you :aok Though a small part, it is still a part. And the orders for what we do keep coming, so they seem in decent shape to me. Certainly have had some issues but no different than any big program really. Especially one like this.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Puma44 on March 29, 2015, 11:48:59 PM
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Rich46yo on March 30, 2015, 08:11:05 AM
They have released several. You know how to use a search engine as well as I do.
The problem with the freight model, besides the fact they havnt built it yet, is they have had to restructure the manufacturing line for the passenger line because they have had so few orders, and so many design issues. In other words they have had to fire people cause they arent selling the thing well and the Freight model not at all.
Now they are in cahoots with Emirates, both having a lot to lose. So Emirate airlines keeps ordering, at prices less then it takes to build them, and Airbus can keep the line open and cook numbers so their stock holders dont go Ape crap.
Now there are far more airports that can handle the plane then do. Ive already said why they dont do so, even some major Hubs like O'hare. These airports operate at such a frenzied pace none of them want a super jumbo clogging up operations or air space, or slowing them down. Heck they dont even want more 747s because they are so near max capacity. And the real kicker is the 380 was produced just for that reason, that because these major Hubs are at near 100% capacity it makes more sense making bigger airplanes to fit more on and thus use less space and time.
But as it turns out the airlines themselves have found a way to make more $$ using 2 engined jets, which are also cheaper to buy and operate. Take a 777, a 737, an A330, and just cram it full with as many seats and smelly Humans as they can. Then keep the dang thing in the air until the absolute end of its service life. More cash Baby, thats what civvie flying is about. More cash "this year" and keep the stock owners happy. Which keeps those big time management jobs safe. Thing is you can pack a 777 full of 460 people and have a cost per seat advantage of 40% compared to a 380 with the same load.
Sure you can pack 750+ on a 380 and make it up but there are only so many routes where they can find that many customers to cram into the thing like that. Like pilgrimages to Mecca with dirt poor pilgrims. And by packing the thing you lose the luxurious status behind the name brand and turn it into just a bigger sardine can. Most people just want to get somewheres cheaply even if it means smelling some 300lbers feet for a few hours.
A good article that explains some of what Im talking about. http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/03/01/why-boeing-747-and-airbus-a380-sales-are-few-and-f.aspx
Airbus will survive. They are doing slick things with the A330neo and the A350 will be a wonderful airplane. But I think the days of the 4 engined super Jumbos are numbered. Even if they give them away at a loss and are subsidized by Govt.'s to keep jobs alive I dont think either maker will design another.
Rich, I am not aware that Airbus released a break even point. If they have and I missed it, please point it out. As for the continuation of production, it makes sense, especially if they can keep the numbers up. If they can't it obviously does not make sense. I always figured that the Freight market was going to be the end all be all for the A380. Other than clearance on the ground, ramp capacity, and a higher reaching loader, they don't need all the same airport things a PAX plane does.
Who knows. Again, I am not an Airbus fan, it just seems to me that EADS would do best to keep making the plane, especially if it brings them closer to the break even point or better yet, profit.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: craz07 on March 30, 2015, 08:29:21 AM
I'll admit it I was in awe when the first a380 rolled out... now due to current affairs i'm just a bit skeeved by them..
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Rich46yo on March 30, 2015, 11:41:30 AM
I'll admit it I was in awe when the first a380 rolled out... now due to current affairs i'm just a bit skeeved by them..
Im still in awe of it. Im also in awe "arguably" the best passenger plane maker in the world made such a mistake. Airbus's are held in very high regard by Yank pilots and mechanics.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: earl1937 on March 30, 2015, 05:03:29 PM
Im still in awe of it. Im also in awe "arguably" the best passenger plane maker in the world made such a mistake. Airbus's are held in very high regard by Yank pilots and mechanics.
:airplane: I know that I am older than "dirt", and my views are biased towards the good ole days, but a good friend of mine once told me, and he was a economists for a major airline, that the most profitable aircraft the airlines ever owned were the DC-3, DC-6B and the 1049 super "G" Constellation. Problem came about when people wanted to get there faster and the desire to fly above weather instead of around it. Looking at the A-380 aircraft, I wonder when is bigger, big enough, there has to be a point where it is profitable to carry X number of passengers or cargo from point A to point B, based on 75% of load carrying capability. I would love to see 20 DC-3's carrying 520 passengers on a route, as one 380 with 240 people on same route, bet the 3's would make more money. they just wouldn't get there as fast. (Most 3's had a 26 seat confg)
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Karnak on March 30, 2015, 05:22:46 PM
:airplane: I know that I am older than "dirt", and my views are biased towards the good ole days, but a good friend of mine once told me, and he was a economists for a major airline, that the most profitable aircraft the airlines ever owned were the DC-3, DC-6B and the 1049 super "G" Constellation. Problem came about when people wanted to get there faster and the desire to fly above weather instead of around it. Looking at the A-380 aircraft, I wonder when is bigger, big enough, there has to be a point where it is profitable to carry X number of passengers or cargo from point A to point B, based on 75% of load carrying capability. I would love to see 20 DC-3's carrying 520 passengers on a route, as one 380 with 240 people on same route, bet the 3's would make more money. they just wouldn't get there as fast. (Most 3's had a 26 seat confg)
Flying from Austin, TX to San Francisco, CA on a DC-3 or Connie is one thing, I wouldn't be all that opposed to it, but Houston, TX to Mumbai, India is something else entirely and it is bad enough on a 600mph plane.
The other thing to remember about the "good old days" of commercial aviation is that the tickets were far more expensive so you limit the number of people who can access air travel, make the aircraft more comfortable to accommodate your richer, but fewer clients.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Zimme83 on March 30, 2015, 05:34:55 PM
And think about Forth Worth or LAX or any other major airport. Replace all the jets with Dc-3... I not possible to squeeze in >5 times as many planes as it is today. Tha market was completley different in the 40:s with a lot cheaper planes and more expensive tickets. The competition was also nowere near what it is today. The A380 is prob the biggest airliner we will see. Its too expensive to build the infrastructure needed for bigger plane than the 380.
I would btw love to see u move 520 people from Los Angeles to Frankfurt in DC-3:s and make it cheaper than one 380 does...
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Gman on March 30, 2015, 05:43:42 PM
This discussion can't continue without mentioned the Concorde IMO. Another great idea and aircraft, that went away for various reasons, many similar to what Rich mentioned in the OP of the thread.
One of those bucket list things in life that is now impossible to ever fulfill. I hope some day prior to that bucket, that some sort of Concorde analogue becomes available, I WILL be flying on that given any opportunity.
I've not been aboard the 380 either, I'd love to travel on one in one of their better class tickets/seats.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: SysError on March 30, 2015, 05:51:12 PM
The problem with the freight model, besides the fact they havnt built it yet, is they have had to restructure the manufacturing line for the passenger line because they have had so few orders, and so many design issues. In other words they have had to fire people cause they arent selling the thing well and the Freight model not at all.
I am no expert on this, I'm just throwing this out. It seems to me that the A380 may not be unique in the freight market space.
(http://i62.tinypic.com/50s7ki.png)
"Giant planes comparison" by Clem Tillier (clem AT tillier.net) - Original Work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.5 via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Giant_planes_comparison.svg#/media/File:Giant_planes_comparison.svg
Also saw this. This, if true, would make the A380 an interesting platform to look at when trying to figure out costs.
Two months later, Singapore Airlines CEO Chew Choong Seng stated the A380 was performing better than both the airline and Airbus had anticipated, burning 20% less fuel per passenger than the airline's 747-400 fleet.[82]
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Rich46yo on March 30, 2015, 10:52:13 PM
No the 380 only has very little extra cargo capacity because its floor loading specs are weaker then the 747s. The A380 freighter also has poor density capability as it is designed for lower density (7.9 lbs/cu. ft.) cargo versus the 747F average design density of 9.9 lbs/cu. ft. It will be able to carry less weight per square foot of cargo space and it will cost more money to do so then the 747-4. The doors on the 380 arent efficient for freight and the structure will only support 80% of its load carrying capacity.
The truth is as a freighter its not very well designed. The 747 if you remember was originally designed to be a freighter but lost out to Lockheeds C5 Galaxy, which I still remember walking around and protecting, so its no surprise the 380F version has bombed.
I am no expert on this, I'm just throwing this out. It seems to me that the A380 may not be unique in the freight market space.
(http://i62.tinypic.com/50s7ki.png)
"Giant planes comparison" by Clem Tillier (clem AT tillier.net) - Original Work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.5 via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Giant_planes_comparison.svg#/media/File:Giant_planes_comparison.svg
Also saw this. This, if true, would make the A380 an interesting platform to look at when trying to figure out costs.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Bodhi on April 01, 2015, 12:34:22 AM
Rich, I think you are falling victim to conspiracy theories... It is what it is, but if the CEO is "lying" about the break even point, it is going to be found out. It just does not behoove him to do so, especially considering the consequences.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Puma44 on April 01, 2015, 12:34:46 AM
Must not have needed it as he already had a 747-400 BBJ and he sold the plane before delivery and the new owner never took delivery. It was going to be furnished from one of the A380 test frames.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: flight17 on April 01, 2015, 01:59:31 AM
This thread is full of mis information, so I will try and fix that. It's a long post, but adresses everything I have seen so far.
Efficiency and profitability First let's talk efficiency in the terms of airlines and their aircraft. To measure aircraft on a level playing field against each other, you must look at their CASM (Cost [per] Available Seat Mile). The lower the CASM, the more efficient the plane is. CASM can be altered in two ways: adding more seats to a given aircraft (spreading the same costs over more tickets) or by reducing the overall cost of operating the flight.
However, the profitability of a route is based off of the RASM (Revenue [per] Available Seat Mile). The higher the RASM, the more money the airline is making. RASM can be increased by a two methods as well: The Airline can cut overall capacity on a route and charge more or they can offer a more premium product and charge a premium price.
Both of these metrics are fluid as the number of tickets sold and for what price on each individual flight will change each.
The 747 The 747 was initially very popular due to its range. At the time it came out, no other plane had the range it had. Many airlines also bought them just for the prestige of having the largest aircraft ever in their fleet. American Airlines was one such airline, but quickly sold them off as they did not make money with them. Many airlines that did not need the capacity of the initial 747's, but instead the range, eventually replaced them with the longer range DC-10's or the L-1011's or even the 747-SP (shorter fuselage/less capacity but the longest range of all three wide bodies).
However, as the 747 progressed through its various variants, so did air travel from the flying public. The travel demands where able to expand and then keep up with the capacities offered with the 747.
747 vs A380 In the 90's Boeing and Airbus both were involved in a joint project that would have created an all new plane larger than the 747. However, Boeing decided that it did not feel the market was big enough for this plane so they backed out of the partnership.
Airbus decided to continue on and eventually they came to the idea of the A380. Meanwhile, Boeing bet that the market was not big enough to justify a brand new VLA, so they decided to focus on developing an all new medium sized aircraft that would travel near the speed of sound (the Sonic Cruiser). However, the Sonic cruiser did not pan out as planned so they used that research to form the basis idea of the 787. Because they were focusing on a smaller plane, they decided to just upgrade and stretch the 747 in the form of 747-500/600. However, the airlines did not respond to the -500/600 well and eventually they started the 747-8 program as a low cost development that would share commonalities of the 787 to keep them in the VLA segment of aircraft as the A-380 had been officially launched by then.
The 747-8 initially was off to a good start. In fact, Emirates was one of the few airlines that had direct influence on the design of the 747-8 along with Lufthansa and two others. Lufthansa wanted a 747 that had a larger capacity but Emirates wanted a plane that had more range than the 747-400. Boeing decided to go with Lufthansa's request, but also added more range, however it was not enough for Emirates, so they chose the A380 which had a slightly longer range. British Airways was also set to place a large order for the 747-8 as well, but Airbus at the last minute offered a ridiculous lowball offer that swung the decision to Airbus.
Boeing has publicly stated that they have turned down requests for the 747-8 from airlines as they wanted them too cheaply. However, with the 777-9 on the horizon, the 747-8 is all but done.
A-380 For the time being, the A380 is in fact the worlds most efficient airliner, until the Boeing 777-9 enters service. But as pointed out, it is only efficient if it is flying full as the costs to operate a flight does not vary much.
Airlines are running their A380's seating anywhere from 407-538 passengers. The lower capacity layouts are very premium heavy, meaning they have more premium seats than standard economy seats. These seats will net more income however, so a plane carrying fewer passengers could actually make more money than the same plane flying with more seats.
The A380 is a profitable airplane for the airlines that actually need it. However, like the 747's of the past, certain Asian airlines have ordered it only for the prestige as their competitors had already ordered it.
There are no A380's being flown strictly on domestic routes like some 747's were. All of the 747's used as domestic planes have all been replaced by versions of the 787 or 777.
However, for Airbus, the A380 program is a loss making program. Some people here were talking/asking about it breaking even... Right now, every A380 that rolls off of the production line COSTS Airbus to produce and deliver. In late 2015, the production process will finally reach it's break even point before finally moving ahead into the profit range; meaning the price the airlines are paying for the frames will be more than the price Airbus is paying to make them. ONLY then will the entire program begin to head towards the total break even point of all the production and development costs, which initially was set for 200-250 airframes, then later to 400 and finally it was said they would not disclose the official number, but it was projected to be in the 600-700 airframe range.
The A380 will never break even. Remember how I said earlier about air travel catching up with and then keeping up with the 747 development? Well as of now, it has failed to do so for the A380.
The A380 is a great plane, but it came too soon. The 777-9 is poised to become the best 747-400 replacement on the market. It will offer the same passenger capacity, the largest cargo capacity of any passenger airliner all while burning less fuel and having only two engines to maintain.
The argument of 2 vs 4 engines doesn't always come down to fuel burn. The A340 family is almost as efficient as the 777 on a fuel burn basis and even beats it in some cases, at least so I'm told, but it is the maintenance costs associated with having two more engines that makes it so much more expensive to operate.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Puma44 on April 01, 2015, 02:57:10 AM
Must not have needed it as he already had a 747-400 BBJ and he sold the plane before delivery and the new owner never took delivery. It was going to be furnished from one of the A380 test frames.
Thanks! What a dilemma, which big airplane to keep. Also, great rundown on the big iron complete with facts. Very informative.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: mbailey on April 01, 2015, 05:08:45 AM
This thread is full of mis information, so I will try and fix that. It's a long post, but adresses everything I have seen so far.
Efficiency and profitability First let's talk efficiency in the terms of airlines and their aircraft. To measure aircraft on a level playing field against each other, you must look at their CASM (Cost [per] Available Seat Mile). The lower the CASM, the more efficient the plane is. CASM can be altered in two ways: adding more seats to a given aircraft (spreading the same costs over more tickets) or by reducing the overall cost of operating the flight.
However, the profitability of a route is based off of the RASM (Revenue [per] Available Seat Mile). The higher the RASM, the more money the airline is making. RASM can be increased by a two methods as well: The Airline can cut overall capacity on a route and charge more or they can offer a more premium product and charge a premium price.
Both of these metrics are fluid as the number of tickets sold and for what price on each individual flight will change each.
The 747 The 747 was initially very popular due to its range. At the time it came out, no other plane had the range it had. Many airlines also bought them just for the prestige of having the largest aircraft ever in their fleet. American Airlines was one such airline, but quickly sold them off as they did not make money with them. Many airlines that did not need the capacity of the initial 747's, but instead the range, eventually replaced them with the longer range DC-10's or the L-1011's or even the 747-SP (shorter fuselage/less capacity but the longest range of all three wide bodies).
However, as the 747 progressed through its various variants, so did air travel from the flying public. The travel demands where able to expand and then keep up with the capacities offered with the 747.
747 vs A380 In the 90's Boeing and Airbus both were involved in a joint project that would have created an all new plane larger than the 747. However, Boeing decided that it did not feel the market was big enough for this plane so they backed out of the partnership.
Airbus decided to continue on and eventually they came to the idea of the A380. Meanwhile, Boeing bet that the market was not big enough to justify a brand new VLA, so they decided to focus on developing an all new medium sized aircraft that would travel near the speed of sound (the Sonic Cruiser). However, the Sonic cruiser did not pan out as planned so they used that research to form the basis idea of the 787. Because they were focusing on a smaller plane, they decided to just upgrade and stretch the 747 in the form of 747-500/600. However, the airlines did not respond to the -500/600 well and eventually they started the 747-8 program as a low cost development that would share commonalities of the 787 to keep them in the VLA segment of aircraft as the A-380 had been officially launched by then.
The 747-8 initially was off to a good start. In fact, Emirates was one of the few airlines that had direct influence on the design of the 747-8 along with Lufthansa and two others. Lufthansa wanted a 747 that had a larger capacity but Emirates wanted a plane that had more range than the 747-400. Boeing decided to go with Lufthansa's request, but also added more range, however it was not enough for Emirates, so they chose the A380 which had a slightly longer range. British Airways was also set to place a large order for the 747-8 as well, but Airbus at the last minute offered a ridiculous lowball offer that swung the decision to Airbus.
Boeing has publicly stated that they have turned down requests for the 747-8 from airlines as they wanted them too cheaply. However, with the 777-9 on the horizon, the 747-8 is all but done.
A-380 For the time being, the A380 is in fact the worlds most efficient airliner, until the Boeing 777-9 enters service. But as pointed out, it is only efficient if it is flying full as the costs to operate a flight does not vary much.
Airlines are running their A380's seating anywhere from 407-538 passengers. The lower capacity layouts are very premium heavy, meaning they have more premium seats than standard economy seats. These seats will net more income however, so a plane carrying fewer passengers could actually make more money than the same plane flying with more seats.
The A380 is a profitable airplane for the airlines that actually need it. However, like the 747's of the past, certain Asian airlines have ordered it only for the prestige as their competitors had already ordered it.
There are no A380's being flown strictly on domestic routes like some 747's were. All of the 747's used as domestic planes have all been replaced by versions of the 787 or 777.
However, for Airbus, the A380 program is a loss making program. Some people here were talking/asking about it breaking even... Right now, every A380 that rolls off of the production line COSTS Airbus to produce and deliver. In late 2015, the production process will finally reach it's break even point before finally moving ahead into the profit range; meaning the price the airlines are paying for the frames will be more than the price Airbus is paying to make them. ONLY then will the entire program begin to head towards the total break even point of all the production and development costs, which initially was set for 200-250 airframes, then later to 400 and finally it was said they would not disclose the official number, but it was projected to be in the 600-700 airframe range.
The A380 will never break even. Remember how I said earlier about air travel catching up with and then keeping up with the 747 development? Well as of now, it has failed to do so for the A380.
The A380 is a great plane, but it came too soon. The 777-9 is poised to become the best 747-400 replacement on the market. It will offer the same passenger capacity, the largest cargo capacity of any passenger airliner all while burning less fuel and having only two engines to maintain.
The argument of 2 vs 4 engines doesn't always come down to fuel burn. The A340 family is almost as efficient as the 777 on a fuel burn basis and even beats it in some cases, at least so I'm told, but it is the maintenance costs associated with having two more engines that makes it so much more expensive to operate.
Good write up. I wouldnt say the thread was full of misinformation tho. I think you just expanded on what was being said....don't take this as a critisism, actually it's the opposite, you took the time to get into better detail, on a subject that needed it.
Seriously, good write up flight :aok
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Bodhi on April 01, 2015, 09:34:33 AM
Flight, Nice write up. However, I don't think that anyone is implying that the break even point means that the program has been paid for. It just means that going beyond that point means that money comes in as opposed to going out with the airframe. I amy be simple, but at that point, it is better to keep on producing to ensure that your money coming in can pay off those developmental costs.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: flight17 on April 01, 2015, 11:08:32 AM
Flight, Nice write up. However, I don't think that anyone is implying that the break even point means that the program has been paid for. It just means that going beyond that point means that money comes in as opposed to going out with the airframe. I amy be simple, but at that point, it is better to keep on producing to ensure that your money coming in can pay off those developmental costs.
Well just wanted to expand on that subject as there are two break even points with a given program, production and overall break even. Production break even was initially set for just some 200 units.
The 787 is in the same boat as well. This year it will finally reach production break even and it's program break even point is estimated to be around 1,000-1,100 units.
It should be noted that even though Airbus, Boeing or any other manufacturer may sell and individual plane at a loss, they will still make money off of it with the maintenance programs, parts etc over the life of the plane.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Rich46yo on April 01, 2015, 12:04:04 PM
Quote
Well just wanted to expand on that subject as there are two break even points with a given program, production and overall break even. Production break even was initially set for just some 200 units.
It was well said. No problems.
Quote
The 787 is in the same boat as well. This year it will finally reach production break even and it's program break even point is estimated to be around 1,000-1,100 units.
Far from the same boat I'd say cause there is an actual market for the 787. Its the farthest range passenger plane in History now and the airlines were closely involved in its design. Luckily for both makers the 737-8s and A320 advanced models are selling to fast for production. It gives both some breathing room. The 787 also enjoys a lead over a comparable AB 2 engine due to time wasted over the 380, tho ABs competition is going to be brutal for Boeing in the coming decade and both makers are going to be cutting profits to compete.
Quote
It should be noted that even though Airbus, Boeing or any other manufacturer may sell and individual plane at a loss, they will still make money off of it with the maintenance programs, parts etc over the life of the plane.
Yeah but thats peanuts in comparison and often bargained away in at the selling point. Its not like a car and its a really good time to get bargains on passenger planes right now cause both are dieing to sell and making such durable products.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Rich46yo on April 24, 2015, 09:50:40 AM
No new orders for passenger versions of either the 747 or A380 last year. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32384435 It seems the writing is on the wall.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Zimme83 on April 24, 2015, 10:14:06 AM
Airbus got orders for 13 A-380 last year.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Rich46yo on April 24, 2015, 01:24:04 PM
Airbus has won orders for 318 of the jumbos. That’s a fraction of the 1,200 it thought airlines needed in that size category when it started marketing in 2000. Emirates accounts for 40 percent of the order book, while airlines including Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd., Hong Kong Aviation and Air Austral are increasingly unlikely to ever take their planes.
Even if true the odds are low they are doing much more then giving the plane away at no profit. The other day I saw two A340's taxi'ing one after another. The odds are small even seeing one but seeing two, one after another, Ive never seen happen before. Anyway the A340 is my favorite AirBus. It was a great idea for its time before ANYONE ever saw 2 engines ever becoming so powerful or efficient. Today if you see a 4 engine aircraft it can be only one of three possibles. One of course is the 747. The other is the A380, which I assume you'll never mistake for another like the jumbo. But if you see a 4 engined Pass. airplane that isnt either then its this beauty. (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/WP_20150413_001_zpsqbvv5ybp.jpg) I saw it being followed right behind by this one. (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/WP_20150417_001_zpscmg0e2ws.jpg)
The 340 production line was shut down years ago and I see the end of the 747 and A380 coming. The new Queens of the air are the 777, 787, A350, and most of all the smaller regional and continental Jets. The 2 engined jets simply make much more money with fewer costs. And thats the bottom line.
Airbus will continue to be a major player. Every bit as good as Boeing if not better. But the A380 dream is dead, and its a damn pity cause they delivered everything they promised. It was the business that failed the airplane. Not the other way around.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 24, 2015, 03:30:34 PM
Seems like 2014 was a better year than 2002, 2004, 2005, 2008, 2009, and 2012.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Zimme83 on April 24, 2015, 03:41:04 PM
There are room for some confusion there. The order were announced in 2013 but were not made formally until 2014. What can save the 380 is that the only plane that can replace a 380 is another 380. Not too far into the future the olders 380 will need replacement and atleast some of them will be replaced by new 380:s The 747 on the other hand is too small to have any significant advantage over the largest twins like 777-300. The 380 have its size atleast to compete with.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 24, 2015, 03:59:37 PM
Rich quoted from the article he linked to:
"Airbus has won orders for 318 of the jumbos. That’s a fraction of the 1,200 it thought airlines needed in that size category when it started marketing in 2000."
Let's analyze that quote: In 2000 Airbus thought there was a market for 1200 aircraft in the A380's size category. However it seems the author thinks Airbus should have a 100% market share. They don't. 318 A380's have been ordered so far, that 26.5% of the total market as estimated by Airbus in 2000. I.e. in one decade the A380 has taken a quarter of the Super Jumbo market away from Boeing, if that market is indeed 1200 planes.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Zimme83 on April 24, 2015, 04:48:47 PM
317 A380:s have been order since 2001, in the same time 202 B-747 have been ordered. Since 2010 its 115-14 in favor for the 380 so it outsell the 747 by a large margin. But Airbus prob didnt counted with the financial crisis when they estimated the market for the 380.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 24, 2015, 04:56:07 PM
Yes, but more than 1500 747s have been built and most are still flying. That's the market.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Zimme83 on April 24, 2015, 05:09:08 PM
Its irrelevant.
Edit: What happen on the 70 and 80:s doesnt matter at all. A 747-100 has no similarities with a 380. A 747-100 is comparable to a A330 or B767 but with shorter range.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Zimme83 on April 24, 2015, 05:27:27 PM
Fact is that Boeing built a new version, the -8, and have orders for 51 +71 freighters, The 747-8 is a lot closer to be concidered a failure.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 24, 2015, 05:31:09 PM
There aren't many 747-100 still flying. The majority of operational 747s are of the -200 -300 and -400 models. With a maximum capacity of 660 passengers and almost 700 units delivered the 747-400 is very much a A380 competitor. The A380 is Airbus' bid to compete against the 747.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Zimme83 on April 24, 2015, 06:55:35 PM
And boeing built the 747-8 to meet the 380 and it failed to do so. The 747-400 is in class with 340-600 and 777-300 and are therefor doomed just like the 340 because noone will fly a 4 engine plane when they can fly a 2 engine plane. And since the 777-300 is only marginaly smaller than a 747-8 Boeing killed the 747 all by themselves. The 380 is big enough to stand out from the rest.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 24, 2015, 07:46:28 PM
You're missing the point. The A380 was designed to conquer the 747's market.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Rich46yo on April 24, 2015, 08:48:09 PM
There are room for some confusion there. The order were announced in 2013 but were not made formally until 2014. What can save the 380 is that the only plane that can replace a 380 is another 380. Not too far into the future the olders 380 will need replacement and atleast some of them will be replaced by new 380:s The 747 on the other hand is too small to have any significant advantage over the largest twins like 777-300. The 380 have its size atleast to compete with.
The will only be replaced by 380s with new engines. And that will most likely be only new engines to the fleet of already existing 380s. "Ordering" an airplane and "selling" it are two different things. The 380 didnt win 26% of the jumbo market. It won 26% of its own market. The 747-8 only sold in its freight configuration while the 380 freight, or 380F, never even made it to the assembly lines. Even some of the finished, or almost finished 380s, are in trouble of at best being sold for a big loss as airlines are restructuring their plans or even canceling any further involvement in the program. http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2015/01/21/program-analysis-airbus-a380-struggles-but-a-business-case-exists-for-neo/
Quote
And boeing built the 747-8 to meet the 380 and it failed to do so. The 747-400 is in class with 340-600 and 777-300 and are therefor doomed just like the 340 because noone will fly a 4 engine plane when they can fly a 2 engine plane. And since the 777-300 is only marginaly smaller than a 747-8 Boeing killed the 747 all by themselves. The 380 is big enough to stand out from the rest.
It doesnt matter how big the 380 is. In fact it turns out to be a hindrance. The only thing that matters is how much money can be made per seat on an airplane, and thats any airplane. The 380 is only profitable when its filled and it can only be filled in very few markets and Hubs. Also the size of the thing slows down airport operations which costs the airports and airlines even more money.
Quote
You're missing the point. The A380 was designed to conquer the 747's market.
As was the 777 and the A340. These are not small airplanes and both have more range then the 747, the 777 has a version that has the longest range in the industry. The bottom line is its not all that easy filling a 747 with 550 passengers, and the 380 only holds marginally more. So when your 550 seat airplane needs 400 passengers just to break even it makes an airline nervous ordering them. Most of all when your two engine wide body easily fills 350+ of its 400 seats and consistently makes you money and does it while costing you less entirely down the chain. From purchase, to gate fee's, to fuel costs, to maintenance.
The 380 was never really built to replace anything. No more then the 747 was. It was built to be an entirely new people mover that reflected the future of air travel which was thought to be moving more people from the same, or less, Hubs. The airplane has done everything it was designed to do unfortunately the market has let Air Bus down. They took a major gamble and lost, even if it the time it didnt really seem like a gamble and instead appeared to be sound planning.
Boeing hedged its bets on a slightly redesigned 747 which already had an assembly line open and had already made a ton of money. It didnt lose much on the 747-8 and was even able to sell some cargo versions. The 787 is already flying, its technical problems worked out, and is building and delivering 10 per month. Which is more then any twin aisle in History and by the end of the decade will be 14 per month. Over 1,000 have been firm ordered by over 60 different airlines. Im sure the A350 will be a success but its coming to the game late due to the A380.
And the only thing that "killed" the two Jumbo jets is the market itself.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: icepac on April 24, 2015, 10:48:50 PM
Big mistake deleting the flight engineer from the 747.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 24, 2015, 11:02:41 PM
The airplane has done everything it was designed to do unfortunately the market has let Air Bus down. They took a major gamble and lost, even if it the time it didnt really seem like a gamble and instead appeared to be sound planning.
Seems to me you think Airbus should have sold thousands of A380s by now. Boeing have sold 1,503 B747's of all models including freighters during the last half century since it was introduced. An average of about 30 per year.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Rich46yo on April 26, 2015, 09:58:41 AM
Seems to me you think Airbus should have sold thousands of A380s by now. Boeing have sold 1,503 B747's of all models including freighters during the last half century since it was introduced. An average of about 30 per year.
Nope. From the beginning I said the 380 wouldnt sell well. When I saw the profit margins of the 2 engined wide bodys, their range, their carrying capacity, and the incredible performance and specs of the GE90 family of turbo fans I thought years ago the age of the 4 engined Queens was over. Yesterday I toured a 787-8 that had every seat filled and was about to fly 1/2 across the world to Bejing, and do so very economically. Now if that same flight had a A380 assigned to it it would lose money. "Cost per seat" is the only thing that matters in civil aviation. Keep the airplanes in the air making money and keep the seats filled. This is much easier done with a 2 engined wide body, and done cheaper, then a Jumbo.
Remember back when the 747 was the Queen it was when 2 engined passenger planes didnt have the engine power or reliability to get ETOPS clearance on long hauls, most of all over water. If not for this the 3 engine TriStar and DC10s never would have been built. So for decades the 747 owned the long haul routes and made a ton of dough for the airlines. Now these wide body 2 engined aircraft easily get at least 3 hours ETOPS, which basically means they are allowed to fly 180 to 240 mins from the nearest airport cause their engines are so dependable and they can safely fly that far if only one of them works.
So why spend the money on four of them?
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 26, 2015, 12:44:25 PM
You're forgetting the essential point about the A380: It's a hub-to-hub plane. The big hubs around the world have limited slots available. You're not going to get two or three 787's into London or Tokyo on one day. An airline is lucky to get one single slot. The only way to increase capacity on your single or very limited number of slots at big international hubs is to increase the number of PAX per plane. That's why Emirates have invested so heavily into the A380, because they primarily do hub-to-hub international flights. They've even gone so far as to say that if Airbus makes an A380 Evo they'll replace their whole fleet of older A380's.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Rich46yo on April 26, 2015, 10:27:02 PM
Yes that WAS the essential point of the A380. The entire idea behind the design. Heres the problem however.
The entire dilema the A380 was supposed to ease it ended up making worse because of its size. 1, the thing is so big it taxi's like a beached whale and slows down ALL of the airports operations due to its stumbling around while taxi'ing. 2, Its so big it creates a very large air vortex that needs many minutes for the air in the runway path to calm down before the next airplane in the slot can take its place and land and/or take off. Maybe you havnt seen exactly what it takes to get a 747 in the air, or down to the gate, but I have. The A380 multiplys that by a factor of "X". All of which costs both the air ports and the air lines money because the extra seats it actually is able to fill isnt much more then the standard wide bodys.
Ive sat there watching the busiest airport in the world amazed such a complex technological dance can be controlled safely with so many machines in play. The 380 slows that dance to the point of distraction, and even worse, financial loss. Even in the huge Hubs the congestion it was designed to ease it actually ends up increasing. Life is cruel and in civil aviation the $$ is kind no matter what you call it. The 380 is actually only making money in high traffic regional routes where they can pack em in like sardines. In the Hub to hub routes, the ones it was designed for, its a failure. Even tho it has met or exceeded everything the design could be asked for.
The Emirates invested heavily in it cause they Loved the bling. And the are the first, the only, and the last, investing heavily in it cause they can only make money in it flying 800 Pilgrims to the Haj. They just ordered another 150 777's http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/09/us-boeing-orders-idUSKBN0FE0QS20140709 The largest wide body order ever I believe. As for the 380 they are the only ones left on the ship, everyone is is canceling.
You're forgetting the essential point about the A380: It's a hub-to-hub plane. The big hubs around the world have limited slots available. You're not going to get two or three 787's into London or Tokyo on one day. An airline is lucky to get one single slot. The only way to increase capacity on your single or very limited number of slots at big international hubs is to increase the number of PAX per plane. That's why Emirates have invested so heavily into the A380, because they primarily do hub-to-hub international flights. They've even gone so far as to say that if Airbus makes an A380 Evo they'll replace their whole fleet of older A380's.
Heres a big Hub. Ive seen planes lined up like on a highway. Both on the ground and in the air coming in, every minute or two. Every runway either launching or receiving. And they dont like 4 engined gas hogs creating air vortex's that takes 10 mins to clear no matter what the bling and certainly not for 50 extra passengers. (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/Ohare_zpsxjiz6k0i.jpg)
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: craz07 on April 27, 2015, 10:28:22 AM
no two ways around it, A380 = Fail
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Rich46yo on April 27, 2015, 02:35:38 PM
I dont like to call it a "fail". The design and designers, the factory, didnt "fail". AirBus exec's failed. Every new design is a roll of the dice but to make such a bad call on the industry's future is not only a "fail" but bad luck too. And to make it worse they are coming to the gate late with the 350 cause of this super Jumbo.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Zimme83 on April 27, 2015, 03:36:09 PM
Some say that it was launched a decade to early. Some of the major hubs, especially in Asia will prob need a plane like the 380 in the future to maximize the capacity. I can understand that US hubs with the bulk of the traffic consisting of regional jets in the 100-200 pax class have problem when a 380 shows up. But in Dubai for ex, with most traffic being wide bodies like the 777, a 380 is less of a problem.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Zimme83 on April 27, 2015, 06:52:57 PM
On the economic side this give some perspective on the 380: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-787-unit-loss-declines-but-deferred-costs-rise-411502/
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 28, 2015, 07:41:14 AM
Yes both the 787 and A380 are expected to reach unit break-even this year. Neither are even close to breaking even on the whole program though.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 28, 2015, 07:52:22 AM
I get tired of doing research for others. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/28/airbus-a380-future-in-doubt http://www.wsj.com/articles/skymark-in-talks-to-cancel-airbus-order-1406603497
Other airlines are deferring. Deferring orders means you dont take/pay for the finished air craft. Maybe they will take them at a big discount, maybe they wont even take them and let the courts fight it out. Either way 318 orders out of a needed 1,200 equals 882 orders short.
Quote
Airbus Group NV raised the prospect of discontinuing its A380 superjumbo as soon as 2018, the first admission that it may have misjudged the market for the double-decker after failing to find a single airline buyer this year.
While Airbus will break even on the plane in 2015, 2016 and 2017, that outlook doesn’t hold for 2018, forcing the company to either offer new engines to make the A380 more attractive or discontinue the program, Chief Financial Officer Harald Wilhelm told investors at a meeting in London today.
In its seventh year in operation, the aircraft that cost $25 billion to develop threatens to become a costly misstep. While popular with travelers, most carriers prefer smaller twin-jet models that are more fuel efficient and can access more airports. Emirates is the only stand-out sponsor, having ordered 140 units, while other airlines have either backed off or are struggling to fill the two decks of the jumbo.
Airbus Group NV raised the prospect of discontinuing its A380 superjumbo as soon as 2018, the first admission that it may have misjudged the market for the double-decker after failing to find a single airline buyer this year.
While Airbus will break even on the plane in 2015, 2016 and 2017, that outlook doesn’t hold for 2018, forcing the company to either offer new engines to make the A380 more attractive or discontinue the program, Chief Financial Officer Harald Wilhelm told investors at a meeting in London today.
In its seventh year in operation, the aircraft that cost $25 billion to develop threatens to become a costly misstep. While popular with travelers, most carriers prefer smaller twin-jet models that are more fuel efficient and can access more airports. Emirates is the only stand-out sponsor, having ordered 140 units, while other airlines have either backed off or are struggling to fill the two decks of the jumbo.[/quote] http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2014/12/11/airbus-a380-production-end-emirates-pissed/
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 28, 2015, 09:20:24 AM
Skymark is not even on the list I posted. And you keep posting suspect articles from last year that say nothing conclusive, only rumors and negative spin. I'm left wondering why you believe it and why you care enough to post about it.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Karnak on April 28, 2015, 09:50:50 AM
Well, some direct feedback. My wife is on Emirates flight 212 as I write this. It took off from Houston at 21:09 on 4/27 and should be arriving in Dubai in the next couple of hours, whereupon she will take Emirates flight 500, also an A380, on a ~3 hour flight from Dubai to Mumbai. I spoke with her after she boarded and she said that it was huge, had much more leg room and that it was almost empty. She estimated 150 passengers on board. I can't imagine that 150 passengers will be enough for a 15.5 hour A380 flight to break even.
That said, we don't know how many passengers were on board on its Dubai to Houston leg of the journey. A full plane on that leg could have made it overall worth it with the passenger load on the return trip that has to be flown anyways just adding more on top of it.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 28, 2015, 10:08:26 AM
Emirates is the world's largest international airline. They didn't do that by losing money.
“The A380 is a passenger magnet. We operate five a day from Dubai to London’s Heathrow and they are 95 per cent full,”
OK so we have confirmation 5 out of 140 are 95% full. They have a 800 seat version that fly's into Saudi for the Pilgrimage that is often 100% full. Big deal!
Quote
Airbus has struggled to sell the planes. Orders have been slow, and not a single buyer has been found in the United States, South America, Africa or India. Only one airline in China has ordered it, and its only customer in Japan has canceled. Even existing customers are paring down orders.
The A380 has a list price of $400 million, but the pressure has forced Airbus to cut prices as much as 50 percent, according to industry analysts. So far, Airbus has received 318 orders and delivered 138 planes to just 11 airlines — a disappointing tally given forecasts that the plane would be a flagship aircraft for carriers worldwide.
Quote
But critics like Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst at the Teal Group, an aviation consulting firm in Fairfax, Va., say the main problem is more fundamental: Airbus made the wrong prediction about travel preferences. People would rather take direct flights on smaller airplanes, he said, than get on big airplanes — no matter their feats of engineering — that make connections through huge hubs.
“It’s a commercial disaster,” Mr. Aboulafia says. “Every conceivably bad idea that anyone’s ever had about the aviation industry is embodied in this airplane.”
I can only cut and paste from so many sources. I can only post so many facts. If you dont comprehend what happened to this airplane by now you never will.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Zimme83 on April 28, 2015, 08:15:16 PM
One can still say that most critics are from the US and looking at the 380 soley from a "US" view. It might be true that the US travelers prefer city jumping with CRJ:s rather than hub-to-hub with a 380 but the market is not the same everywere. China and India markets have huge potential, thats over 2 billion people alone. The 380 market is not huge but it still have some potential to grow in primarly Asia.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 28, 2015, 08:43:12 PM
I can only cut and paste from so many sources. I can only post so many facts. If you dont comprehend what happened to this airplane by now you never will.
I'd be careful of calling any of these articles "facts". You're a cop and I'm sure you're a good one. Perhaps even great. However, when it comes to the airline business I'll take Tim Clark's word over yours. No offense.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Karnak on April 28, 2015, 09:09:55 PM
I'd be careful of calling any of these articles "facts". You're a cop and I'm sure you're a good one. Perhaps even great. However, when it comes to the airline business I'll take Tim Clark's word over yours. No offense.
You dont need to be a "cop" to realize very few, if any, are ordering 747s or 380s. Thats just fact. The Emirates is the only reason this production line is even still open and ONE airline saving a 25 B investment does not portend good things. The information Ive posted has come from airline industry sources not Police ones.
The Industry has turned sour on Jumbo's, both Boeing and AB's. The 747 changed aviation forever and made a ton of money but that doesnt translate into the 380 doing the same 40+ years later. The 2 engined wide bodys are just to good, to efficient, have to much range, dont interrupt airport operations, and most of all, make to much money.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: CavPuke on April 29, 2015, 12:41:39 AM
Yes that WAS the essential point of the A380. The entire idea behind the design. Heres the problem however.
The entire dilema the A380 was supposed to ease it ended up making worse because of its size. 1, the thing is so big it taxi's like a beached whale and slows down ALL of the airports operations due to its stumbling around while taxi'ing. 2, Its so big it creates a very large air vortex that needs many minutes for the air in the runway path to calm down before the next airplane in the slot can take its place and land and/or take off. Maybe you havnt seen exactly what it takes to get a 747 in the air, or down to the gate, but I have. The A380 multiplys that by a factor of "X". All of which costs both the air ports and the air lines money because the extra seats it actually is able to fill isnt much more then the standard wide bodys.
Heres a big Hub. Ive seen planes lined up like on a highway. Both on the ground and in the air coming in, every minute or two. Every runway either launching or receiving. And they dont like 4 engined gas hogs creating air vortex's that takes 10 mins to clear no matter what the bling and certainly not for 50 extra passengers.
I don't know where you're getting your info about wake turbulence separation behind an A380 or B748 (so called Super Heavies) but correct if I'm wrong this is the FAA current standards for radar separation for arrivals are:
I can't imagine a Super operating in a non radar environment but I could be wrong. Here are the non radar standards:
Quote
Arriving Aircraft
The following non-radar separation minima should be applied to aircraft landing behind an A380-800 aircraft:
MEDIUM aircraft behind an A380-800 aircraft — 3 minutes; LIGHT aircraft behind an A380-800 aircraft — 4 minutes.
Departing Aircraft
A minimum separation of 3 minutes should be applied for a LIGHT or MEDIUM aircraft and 2 minutes for a non-A380-800 HEAVY aircraft taking off behind an A380-800 aircraft when the aircraft are using:
the same runway; parallel runways separated by less than 760 m (2 500 ft); crossing runways if the projected flight path of the second aircraft will cross the projected flight path of the first aircraft at the same altitude or less than 300 m (1000 ft) below; parallel runways separated by 760 m (2 500 ft) or more, if the projected flight path of the second aircraft will cross the projected flight path of the first aircraft at the same altitude or less than 300 m (1 000 ft) below.
A separation minimum of 4 minutes should be applied for a LIGHT or MEDIUM aircraft when taking off behind an A380-800 aircraft from:
an intermediate part of the same runway; or an intermediate part of a parallel runway separated by less than 760 m (2 500 ft).
For more details on displaced landing threshold and opposite direction take-offs consult the complete Guidance on A380-800 Wake Vortex Aspects (30 June 2008)
The maximum time is 4 minutes not 10 as you posted. As to taxi ops you may very well be right.
I think the day of commercial 4 engine a/c are limited just due to higher maintenance costs vs twins.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Rich46yo on April 29, 2015, 09:29:26 AM
You are looking at "recommended minimums". The actual separation times are far different and based upon other factors as well. Like traffic density and weather. The "where Im getting the info from" is from the mouths of the guys in the tower charged with maintaining separation. They say 8 to 10 mins is the actual norm and they also say they dont even want the A380 here. Now Im placing a picture of a Major INTL airport with the red spots marking the ends of a major runway where we recover and launch many INTL and large air plane flights. I want you to imagine in your mind how that wake vortex disrupts the flight paths of all the other runway operations in use, both landing and taking off.
You see when they say wake turbulence they just dont mean for the aircraft in back of the Jumbo. Even tho its there where it will probably be worse. But it even affects parallel or crossing runways or flight paths. So Im sure you can picture how one A380 can affect over all air port operations even if it only operates on one runway.
I think the day of commercial 4 engine a/c are limited just due to higher maintenance costs vs twins.
The problem with that is that you'd need two twins to carry the same number of PAX, so your maintenance costs will likely be higher. You'd also need two runway slots and two gates and two boarding/disembarking operations. The A380 does not make sense unless you can fill it close to capacity. Just like most other airliners.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Rich46yo on April 29, 2015, 10:51:44 AM
The problem with that is that you'd need two twins to carry the same number of PAX, so your maintenance costs will likely be higher. You'd also need two runway slots and two gates and two boarding/disembarking operations. The A380 does not make sense unless you can fill it close to capacity. Just like most other airliners.
Yeah but which one is easier to fill? The 300 seat one or the 600 seat one? The 380 is currently flying out of 20 Hub airports. Heres a list of "Hubs" in the world if you'd like to take an hour and count them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hub_airports The "Hubs" dont want the damn thing.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 29, 2015, 11:07:57 AM
Again you sound like it's something personal. Wherever the A380 flies it has been welcomed with great fanfare.
And many, many more.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 29, 2015, 11:51:03 AM
There are many hubs, but that doesn't mean you'd want to fly an A380 into Addis Ababa Bole International Airport, Ethiopia. The big hubs is where the A380 makes sense. In the last 20 years the world economy has tripled. Tim Clark reckons demand for air passage will double over the next 7-10 years. The big hubs are already operating at capacity. A lot of smaller hubs will have to take the shortfall in capacity and grow.
The only way many of them can do that is by increasing the size of aircraft. Flights to London or Tokyo or the other big city hubs will be almost a premium business-class only deal. The people who has more money than time. The rest of us flying on proles/scum-class will have to be content with landing in smaller, outlying hubs and taking the train or other alternative transport into the Big cities. On most of Emirates' A380 fleet the entire upper deck, effectively half the plane is business and premium class only. Those are the seats (and suites and showers and beds) that make a lot of money for Emirates. The low cost carriers like Ryanair have already been squeezed out of the big hubs. They simply can't afford to fly there with their business model. Those airlines will want the 787 and A350, and those will carry more PAX in total, but mostly at low budget scum-class.
In the last 20 years the world economy has tripled, most of that growth is in Asia and South America. A lot more people are going to want to travel in the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Rich46yo on April 29, 2015, 12:20:05 PM
Again you sound like it's something personal. Wherever the A380 flies it has been welcomed with great fanfare.
PR we break out the fire Hoses every time troops come back from a combat zone. A photo Op doesnt reflect the general attitudes of major airports towards the 380, the gist of which is they dont want the thing.
Its no more personal to me then it is to them. They dont want it cause it slows down their operations and costs them money. I am merely repeating what they say. Frankly the only thing starting to irritate me is that you are ignoring every fact Im presenting to you and trying to spin it. My participation in this thread is about over. I can only say the same things so many times.
And many, many more.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 29, 2015, 12:23:39 PM
Can you quote an airport business executive (not one of the proles who actually have to do the work, but the guy he works for) saying he doesn't want the A380 bringing business to his airport?
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: CavPuke on April 29, 2015, 07:02:43 PM
You are looking at "recommended minimums". The actual separation times are far different and based upon other factors as well. Like traffic density and weather. The "where Im getting the info from" is from the mouths of the guys in the tower charged with maintaining separation. They say 8 to 10 mins is the actual norm and they also say they dont even want the A380 here. Now Im placing a picture of a Major INTL airport with the red spots marking the ends of a major runway where we recover and launch many INTL and large air plane flights. I want you to imagine in your mind how that wake vortex disrupts the flight paths of all the other runway operations in use, both landing and taking off.
You see when they say wake turbulence they just dont mean for the aircraft in back of the Jumbo. Even tho its there where it will probably be worse. But it even affects parallel or crossing runways or flight paths. So Im sure you can picture how one A380 can affect over all air port operations even if it only operates on one runway.
Rich who ever you're talking to I think you are misunderstanding. I've worked the traffic in a Level 12 facility TRACON since 1984. While it is common practice to add a mile or 2 separation (1 for the wife, 2 for the kids) if I ever ran 10 minutes in trail on my own accord, which equates to 30 miles at 170 knots (the slowest speed you can assign a jet), I'd be sitting in the chief's office trying to explain it to management and to the airlines as to why I was delaying traffic by using minutes in trail as opposed to radar separation and costing the user big $$$. As far as the example you give the parallel runway (which appears to be under construction) would also be used as an arrival runway. Even if you were conducting arrival/departures from the same runway only a departing A380 would be a concern due to wake turbulence because you had already made sure that the appropriate separation existed on the arrivals and there again you're talking an increase of 1 minute departure delay. More than likely the NW - SE parallel rwys would be used as dedicated departure or arrival rwys and the lower W - E rwy complex would be the opposite. Again I can't speak to the problems GC may have with Supers.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Rich46yo on April 29, 2015, 10:21:20 PM
Coming? Going? It doesnt matter. Were not talking safety here were talking about the slow down of airport operations. And you well know airports hate that cause it cuts their revenue. Some things they have no control of, like weather and such. Other things they do have control over, like not servicing super Jumbos which cut into revenue more they they generate. There is only one super Jumbo and its in a world of trouble.
A great achievement? Yes. But there are reasons why not just airlines dont want it. Airports dont either.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: JimmyC on April 29, 2015, 10:56:29 PM
I happened to be on the inaugural flight singapore to London It was quite a surprise. My wife and kids and I flew from New Zealand and changed planes in Singapore and when we got to our gate we where given champagne..a band was playing..t v crews and reporters..a breakfast buffet..loads of gifts etc..was a right laugh..we had no idea. My mrs was interviewed in flight by the BBC and all our friends and family knew we where home because we where on the news.. Was a great flight..I tucked in to as much complimentary booze as possible to make the second leg of our 24th journey more bearable.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: CavPuke on April 29, 2015, 11:49:41 PM
Coming? Going? It doesnt matter. Were not talking safety here were talking about the slow down of airport operations. And you well know airports hate that cause it cuts their revenue. Some things they have no control of, like weather and such. Other things they do have control over, like not servicing super Jumbos which cut into revenue more they they generate. There is only one super Jumbo and its in a world of trouble.
A great achievement? Yes. But there are reasons why not just airlines dont want it. Airports dont either.
I beg to differ, IAD, MIA, BOS, DFW, IAH, LAX, SFO, ATL, and JFK have all made the necessary infrastructure upgrades to accommodate the A380 and I would bet DEN, EWR, and ORD aren't far behind. These are pretty much the major airports of the U.S. I think your argument that the airports don't want this a/c isn't valid, otherwise why would any airport authority undertake the financial burden to upgrade the infrastructure to handle the A380 unless they felt it was worth the expense.
Also the AN-225 is classified as a Super Heavy.
I'm not disputing your basic premise that the A380 is failure, but your assertion that it has had a detrimental effect on airport operations just isn't the case.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: flight17 on April 30, 2015, 10:36:55 PM
I beg to differ, IAD, MIA, BOS, DFW, IAH, LAX, SFO, ATL, and JFK have all made the necessary infrastructure upgrades to accommodate the A380 and I would bet DEN, EWR, and ORD aren't far behind. These are pretty much the major airports of the U.S. I think your argument that the airports don't want this a/c isn't valid, otherwise why would any airport authority undertake the financial burden to upgrade the infrastructure to handle the A380 unless they felt it was worth the expense.
Also the AN-225 is classified as a Super Heavy.
I'm not disputing your basic premise that the A380 is failure, but your assertion that it has had a detrimental effect on airport operations just isn't the case.
First, the call sign is "super" not "super heavy". Secondly, the only aircraft that is a "super" is the A380 as the term was made specifically for it by the ICAO. The AN-225 is only a heavy and was flying nearly 20 years before the A380. Remember, these terms are for wake turbulence avoidance reasons, not necessarily because of weight. Above 300,000lbs MTOW, everything is a heavy except for the A380. There is only one exception to this rule and that is the 757, even after they bumped the weight threshold from 255k to 300K for heavies, they still treat all 757's as if they are a heavy due to the severe wakes these planes make.
As for operations, even the A380 ready airports still face operational issues the A380 Imposes that others don't. Any plane taking off behind an A380 has an even longer wait time then a heavy and it can not be waved. Some airports have to close taxiways to other traffic while the A380 is taxiing on a parallel taxiway due to reduced clearances between them.
Also, just a few days ago was the 10th Anniversary of the first A380 revenue flight!
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Rich46yo on April 30, 2015, 10:41:41 PM
Read it all. In a nut shell http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/business/oversize-expectations-for-the-airbus-a380.html
Dude how many of those airports have spent money in order to support the A380 specifically? Like None? If a major hub can support a 747 and can run two air bridges together, and all can, then it can support an A380. Ohare, the busiest in the world, doesnt want them and CAN support them. I can tell you that much. Its not like they spent 25 b on developing an airplane with the hope major Hubs will then build the "supporting infrastructure" to support them. :O Thats insane.
Can you imagine that? Spending 25 b developing a passenger plane with the hope that Hubs around the world will get giddy from watching promotional videos and will then widen runways and put in air bridges, watching the sky like goose hunters on a blue bird day. That entire notion is insane. The plane was built because the Hubs already existed!
I beg to differ, IAD, MIA, BOS, DFW, IAH, LAX, SFO, ATL, and JFK have all made the necessary infrastructure upgrades to accommodate the A380 and I would bet DEN, EWR, and ORD aren't far behind. These are pretty much the major airports of the U.S. I think your argument that the airports don't want this a/c isn't valid, otherwise why would any airport authority undertake the financial burden to upgrade the infrastructure to handle the A380 unless they felt it was worth the expense.
Also the AN-225 is classified as a Super Heavy.
I'm not disputing your basic premise that the A380 is failure, but your assertion that it has had a detrimental effect on airport operations just isn't the case.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: flight17 on April 30, 2015, 10:50:46 PM
Of the 19 customers who have ordered the plane, 1 has had their order canceled by Airbus (Skymark) and 4 others will never take delivery: Amedeo (leasing company who has already been switching delivery positions with Emirates as they can not find anyone to lease them), Air Austral, Virgin Atlantic (will be standardizing on 787 nor can they afford them anymore), the unidentified is Hong Kong Airlines who canceled their order and Transaero is still out to be decided.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 01, 2015, 10:45:26 AM
In any case A380 production is sold out until 2017, so Airbus and the airline industry have two years to figure things out. Time will tell.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Rich46yo on May 01, 2015, 10:44:49 PM
In any case A380 production is sold out until 2017, so Airbus and the airline industry have two years to figure things out. Time will tell.
Only one airline is backing the airplane. Even the maker is suggesting the line will be stopped in a few years, "no doubt testing the impact on share prices". Its no secret AB basically gave away A380s at no profit to make it to 2017, giving the A350 to acquire a share of the market. Since AB is a very good airplane maker I have no doubt the A350 will be a success, or at least profitable. After guessing wrong they took 4 years to guess right and make a competitor to the 787 and 777.
Do you think its just chance that the President of AB suggested stopping A380 production in 2018, the very same year it will take to vamp A350 production to full levels? Hell of a coincidence aint it? In a nutshell this explains it was the philosophy behind the A380 that failed and not the airplane itself. http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcbabej/2014/12/11/airbus-a380-vs-boeing-787-revisited/
Quote
Boeing doesn’t take the current hub-and-spoke model as a given. Marty Bentrott, vice president of sales, marketing and in-service support for the 787, says that since 1990, the number of city pairs more than 3,000 nautical miles apart served by the world’s airlines have doubled, the number of frequencies offered by the airlines have doubled, and the number of available seat-kilometers (seating capacity times miles flown) have doubled. None of these trends show any signs of abating; meanwhile, the average airplane size has actually declined slightly. Clearly, customers prefer more point-to-point flights, flown more frequently, on smaller airplanes.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 01, 2015, 11:04:22 PM
The president of Airbus did no such thing. It was their chief financial officer at a shareholder's meeting. And he said that they would have to offer new engines to make the A380 more attractive or discontinue the program. The president responded to the reactions by stating they had no intention to stop making the A380, saying the super jumbo had a "bright future" despite a lack of orders this year.
Again, I find your "facts" lacking. Your opinions are clear however.
Time will tell.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 01, 2015, 11:31:33 PM
And just for your information regardless of what the Boeing marketing department wants you to believe, the B787 was not a new concept by Boeing. It's an answer to the A330. It's a ping-pong match between manufacturers. Interestingly enough the A330 is still selling well despite being almost two decades older than the competition.
And just for your information regardless of what the Boeing marketing department wants you to believe, the B787 was not a new concept by Boeing. It's an answer to the A330. It's a ping-pong match between manufacturers. Interestingly enough the A330 is still selling well despite being almost two decades older than the competition.
You use a picture to support an opinion? :O I mean a drawing. Well I guess a simple argument is the best kind.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 02, 2015, 01:01:14 AM
No, it's an illustration of an A330NEO. Delta Airlines became the first buyer of this updated A330 in November last year.
I don't get what I need to support? The specifications of the two aircraft are nearly identical. Range, empty weight, loaded weight, number of PAX. The 787 is a little bit better at everything than the old A330-200 from the mid-1990s thanks to new materials and engines. They designed it to beat the A330. The A350 is the A330's replacement with newer materials and construction techniques. If you don't take my word for it check out the specs yourself. The internet is at your fingertips.
Yet you made a seemingly authoritative six paragraph first post and continue to argue on the economics and market for the A380. (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/dntknw.gif)
:airplane: I made a post some time back about when is big, big enough! Can't find it now, but doesn't matter, as the one thing we don't have access to is the long range forecast by the airlines on what they are needing, 10 to 15 years from now. Someone made a good point of how much the 380 affected local airport traffic and parking spaces. I remember when the "stretch' DC-8 and the Boeing 747 hit the Atlanta "Hartsfield" airport, what a mess for a while, until they figured out how to handle a bus mixing with VW's. It was interesting to say the least for a few weeks. Oh, for the days of "Southern" DC-3's, Martin 404's, and the love of my life, the DC-6B!
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 05, 2015, 08:42:37 AM
Qatar Airways unveils its Airbus A380 luxury first class cabin
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Ripsnort on May 05, 2015, 11:31:19 AM
There is so much I want to say in this thread since I am directly connected to the 787 program managing office but I cannot until I retire...otherwise I could end up in deep do do regarding proprietary and limited only information I would have to disclose to give facts, data and MY opinion.
Now..regarding airburst...how many A380s have sold to commercial airlines (not rent-a-plane companies) since Jan 2014? Assignment die in two hours. :)
Boeing had a better vision of the Airlines future model regarding pax and long haul
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 05, 2015, 11:48:43 AM
Boeing's grand vision of making a better A330-200?
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Ripsnort on May 05, 2015, 12:43:41 PM
Boeing's grand vision of making a better A330-200?
The 787 filled a Pax seat gap between that of an A330-200 and a 747-400 with longer legs (less fuel, go farther)
Airbus took a different approach with the A380.
The two did not compete directly with each other but the visions of what airlines really wanted did compete and Boeing had a better vision of future needs.
The 787 used completely new materials in areas that were not used in past airframes in order to reduce fuel consumption at a time when fuel costs were approaching their highest costs for airliners at the time.
Is the 787 a successful program? There are many articles that will show both pro and cons. Currently it is an internal failure to Boeing from a manufacturing costs point of view but from a aerospace technical point of view it is one of the greatest aerospace achievements of it's kind.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 05, 2015, 01:24:37 PM
Currently it is an internal failure to Boeing from a manufacturing costs point of view but from a aerospace technical point of view it is one of the greatest aerospace achievements of it's kind.
So, kinda like A380?
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: DaveBB on May 05, 2015, 04:49:54 PM
Quote
Currently it is an internal failure to Boeing from a manufacturing costs point of view but from a aerospace technical point of view it is one of the greatest aerospace achievements of it's kind.
Please give us a few examples. I know very little about the 787. What does it do so well?
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Zimme83 on May 05, 2015, 07:17:03 PM
787 cut fuel cost significantly, up to 20%, so its a very successful design. Problems lies in the fact that Boeing outsourced the quality- and assembly control. the problem with the dreamliner is not the in the design itself but in the assembly process.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Rich46yo on May 05, 2015, 10:25:14 PM
No, it's an illustration of an A330NEO. Delta Airlines became the first buyer of this updated A330 in November last year.
Yeah I know what it is. The 787 is no ones answer to the A330 but a completely new design with revolutionary features that was meant to replace other Boeing airplanes. Not a A330Neo that wasnt even a pipe dream when Boeing sat down and designed the DreamLiner. The reason for that is its the 330 Neo thats the "stop gap" to keep Ab in the game until they can get their own new design, the A350, off the ground.
Even then AB had proposed the 330Neo as the alternative to the 787 but the airlines would have none of it.
Quote
The Boeing 787 when it was announced was purported to be a direct threat to the Airbus A330, with lower operating costs through new innovative technology. Airbus initially rejected these claims by Boeing, stating that the Boeing 787 was itself a reaction to the popular A330, no further reaction was necessary. Boeings aim was to achieve a 20 per cent fuel saving against its aging Boeing 767 offering. A new age in aviation was dawning and potential Airbus customers applied pressure for airbus to come up with a new design to counter the 787 threat.
Bending to pressure Airbus proposed a modified version of the A330, the A330 Lite. The modifications consisted of upgraded aerodynamics, and engines similar to those used on the Boeing 787. They intended to announce this new offering at the Farnborough Airshow in 2004, but never did.
16 September 2004: Noel Forgeard, Airbus President and CEO, intimated that a new project was under consideration but failed to give a name to it. No clarity was given to whether this was to be a derivative design or a clean slate new concept design. Airbus customers were clearly not satisfied, so Airbus committed EUR4 Billion to the new A350 project. Still resembling the A330, particularly the fuselage, the new design incorporated a new wings and horizontal stabilisers, as well as new composite materials and manufacturing methodology. Essentially it was new aircraft design now.
This is my last post in this thread. Its tiring enough to discuss something with someone who is so consistently wrong but when they are both to pig headed to admit it, and are also one of those "have to have the last word" types? They become insufferable.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Patches1 on May 06, 2015, 01:42:16 AM
Quote
the problem with the dreamliner is not the in the design itself but in the assembly process.
No, sir, the problem with the 787 program is that from it's inception, 787 Management did not want to hear the word, "no", from any of it's engineers, or mechanics. As a result of this philosophy, the 787 program has been a huge loss to the Boeing Company financially. During this time, The Boeing Company also adopted a theory that a manager, at any level, does not have to know how to perform the jobs of the people he/she manages, just that he/she can convince a higher level manager that he/she knows how to manage people. The result of this management philosophy has produced a problem plagued 787 that was 5 years behind in delivery dates, and influenced other programs, as well, and they, also, fell well behind their delivery dates.
The 787 Program is not an example of how to build a modern aircraft, but rather, it is the epitome of how NOT to build a modern aircraft, especially at the management level.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Ripsnort on May 06, 2015, 07:52:30 AM
787 cut fuel cost significantly, up to 20%, so its a very successful design. Problems lies in the fact that Boeing outsourced the quality- and assembly control. the problem with the dreamliner is not the in the design itself but in the assembly process.
Very spot on. And it was NOT our vendor's fault, it was our fault for not having a mitigation plan should the vendor not make good on delivery promises!
And yes, senior management poor decisions to offload 95% of the work impacted the cost of the R&D and manufacturing.
Another huge cost was not using current manufacturing and engineering processes successful on the 777 from the assembly line all the way up to IT tools (where I am)
Naturally, all those seniors that made poor decisions "met" or "Exceeded" their performance management goals before the costs mounted and the bills came due (both late deliveries and cost of the new program) and then retired leaving us with a mess to clean up. :bhead
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 06, 2015, 08:15:40 AM
Yeah I know what it is. The 787 is no ones answer to the A330 but a completely new design with revolutionary features that was meant to replace other Boeing airplanes. Not a A330Neo that wasnt even a pipe dream when Boeing sat down and designed the DreamLiner.
What older Boeing aircraft do you think the 787 is designed to replace? The 777 is still in production and is considerably larger. The 767 and 757 are both considerably smaller with shorter range. You'll note that I said the A330-200 from the mid-1990s. The NEO is the upgrade to meet the competition from the B787. Let's take a look at the specifications of the 20 year old A330-200 and the B787-8 and -9
Specs from wikipedia A330-200 / B787-8 / B787-9 (stretched)
Seating 253-406 / 242-381 / 280-420
Length 193 ft / 186 ft / 206 ft
Wingspan 197 ft 10 in / 197 ft 3 in / 197 ft 3 in
Fuselage width 18 ft 6 in / 18 ft 11 in / 18 ft 11 in
Maximum fuel capacity 36,740 US gal / 33,340 US gal / 36,641 US gal
For a 20 year old plane the A330-200 is remarkably similar to the "completely new design with revolutionary features" B787. No wonder the A330 is still selling. The B787 is lighter and uses less fuel, but that's to be expected from a plane two decades younger with newer engines and construction. The A330neo will narrow the gap considerably with its newer engines and up to 440 seats giving it more range and better fuel economy, even if that is no longer as critical since the oil price is but a fraction of what it was only a couple of years ago.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Toad on May 06, 2015, 09:59:49 AM
In the end, any Airbus is still an Airbus.
Their computerized flight management system programming laws suck. Their side sticks with no feedback to the other stick suck. Their power levers that don't move when the computer is adding or subtracting power suck.
Friends don't let friends fly Airbus.
It's not that the plane isn't any good. It's that the French idea of how that plane should operate in relation to its pilots sucks. Falcon has some of the same problems because…..it's French.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 06, 2015, 10:52:58 AM
Pilots who have flown both tend to disagree with you on that Toad. Like these gentlemen over at airliners.net:
Quote
As a pilot, who has flown A320's I can add this. I transitioned from Boeings, albeit not fly by wire. Getting used to the Airbus sidestick took me 15 mins in the simulator. After that, everything was intuitive. The Airbus is really easy to fly. That is the Airbus philosophy. Everything that TangoWhiskey says about both manufacturers philosophy is completely true. Given that, I think the Airbus way is safer and better.
Quote
I transitioned from flying Boeings for several years (757/767 then 737) onto the Airbus and like Aviator27 was comfortable with flying using the sidestick in 10-15 minutes during the first simulator session.
The Airbus has many advantages from a pilot perspective. I am now flying the Boeing again (744) but do miss the Airbus - by far it was the best aircraft I ever flew and I look forward to hopefully flying it again one day.
YMMV of course and I'm sure there are pilots who prefer the Boeings.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Karnak on May 06, 2015, 11:12:40 AM
Very spot on. And it was NOT our vendor's fault, it was our fault for not having a mitigation plan should the vendor not make good on delivery promises!
And yes, senior management poor decisions to offload 95% of the work impacted the cost of the R&D and manufacturing.
Another huge cost was not using current manufacturing and engineering processes successful on the 777 from the assembly line all the way up to IT tools (where I am)
Naturally, all those seniors that made poor decisions "met" or "Exceeded" their performance management goals before the costs mounted and the bills came due (both late deliveries and cost of the new program) and then retired leaving us with a mess to clean up. :bhead
Welcome to the MBAification of American industry. Putting people in charge of companies who have no knowledge of said company's products, be they aircraft, banking services or pickles, but just generic business knowledge. After all, making an airplane is the same as making a washing machine, right? What could go wrong....
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 06, 2015, 01:09:34 PM
They sound absolutely distraught that this bumbling monster is coming to ruin their airport.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Toad on May 06, 2015, 09:02:23 PM
Well, they may like that independent side stick but it was clearly a factor in AF 447 going into the drink.
It's simply bad engineering. An OK idea that was stupidly implemented.
Note that the new Gulfstream 500s and 600s do have side sticks BUT…they feedback to the other.
Proper implementation; that's the difference between Boeing and Airbus. (Gulfstream pretty much mimics Boeing engineering.)
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 06, 2015, 11:17:40 PM
Both pilots should never have their hands on the stick at the same time. One pilot has command, or the other, not both. That crew made so many insane mistakes it boggles the mind.
Btw. That was an A330-200 flying non-stop from Rio to Paris with 228 pax on board. A trip worthy of Boeing's all new revolutionary design...
It was also the A330's second accident, and the first fatal accident with pax aboard after 15 years of service (the first was a test flight). In 2010 there was another fatal accident, the third and so far the last for the A330, after 20 years of service and 1,174 aircraft produced. You'd be hard pressed to find any airliner with a similar service length that has a better safety record.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: zack1234 on May 07, 2015, 01:51:15 AM
Very spot on. And it was NOT our vendor's fault, it was our fault for not having a mitigation plan should the vendor not make good on delivery promises!
And yes, senior management poor decisions to offload 95% of the work impacted the cost of the R&D and manufacturing.
Another huge cost was not using current manufacturing and engineering processes successful on the 777 from the assembly line all the way up to IT tools (where I am)
Naturally, all those seniors that made poor decisions "met" or "Exceeded" their performance management goals before the costs mounted and the bills came due (both late deliveries and cost of the new program) and then retired leaving us with a mess to clean up. :bhead
You work for Boeing?
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 07, 2015, 02:21:41 AM
There is so much I want to say in this thread since I am directly connected to the 787 program managing office but I cannot until I retire...otherwise I could end up in deep do do regarding proprietary and limited only information I would have to disclose to give facts, data and MY opinion.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Ripsnort on May 07, 2015, 02:07:45 PM
Both pilots should never have their hands on the stick at the same time. One pilot has command, or the other, not both. That crew made so many insane mistakes it boggles the mind.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Ripsnort on May 07, 2015, 07:17:33 PM
"Both pilots had their hands the on stick....."
I got it! NO I GOT IT... NO! I got it! Let go you, I blow my nose at you, you silly king! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries! No you let go! If you do not agree to my commands than I shall....
Both pilots should never have their hands on the stick at the same time.
Quote
This is not the time for a dissertation on the Airbus flight-control system, which is criticized by Boeing, but to the extent that it embodies a mistake in design, it is that the pilot’s and co-pilot’s side-sticks are not linked and do not move in unison. This means that when the Pilot Flying deflects his stick, the other stick remains stationary, in the neutral position. If both pilots deflect their sticks at the same time, a DUAL INPUT warning sounds, and the airplane responds by splitting the difference. To keep this from causing a problem in the case of a side-stick jam, each stick has a priority button that cuts out the other one and allows for full control. The arrangement relies on clear communication and good teamwork to function as intended. Indeed, it represents an extreme case of empowering the co-pilot and accepting C.R.M. into a design. More immediately, the lack of linkage did not allow Robert to feel Bonin’s flailing. [/b] http://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/10/air-france-flight-447-crash
Of course if the controls had been engineered to actually HAVE FEEDBACK they would have KNOWN they were both on the stick. As it was….
Like I said…Gulfstream went with sidesticks in the new G500/600. Of course, since they're not French, they were smart enough to incorporate stick feedback.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 07, 2015, 08:38:51 PM
Robert should have responded to the dual input warning telling him both pilots were on the stick, and should have pressed his priority control button giving him sole control of the aircraft.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 07, 2015, 08:46:55 PM
Here, at time index 4:47 there's a dual input warning. You'd have to be retarded to not understand it.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 07, 2015, 09:02:11 PM
From AF447 CVR transcript:
Pilot: Hey you. ... You're in... Get the wings horizontal. Robert: Get the wings horizontal. Bonin: That's what I'm trying to do. Pilot: Get the wings horizontal. Bonin: I'm at the limit ... with the roll. Synthetic voice Dual input. Pilot: The rudder bar. ... Wings horizontal... go... gently, gently. ... Hey er... Robert: We lost it all at [expletive] left. ... I've got nothing there. Pilot:(Eh). ... What do you have there? ... No wait. Bonin: We're there, we're there, we're passing level one hundred. Robert: Wait, me, I have, I have the controls eh? Bonin: What is... how come we're continuing to go right down now? Robert: Try to find what you can do with your controls up there.. .. The primaries and so on. Pilot:([Expletive] do anything.) It (won't do) anything. Bonin: [Expletive] at level one hundred. ... Nine thousand feet. Pilot: Careful with the rudder bar there. Robert: Climb climb climb climb. Bonin: But I've been at maxi nose-up for a while. Synthetic voice Dual input. Pilot: No no no don't climb. Robert: So go down. Synthetic voice Dual input. Robert: So give me the controls, the controls to me, controls to me. Bonin: Go ahead you have the controls, we are still in TOGA eh? Pilot: (So wait) AP OFF. Synthetic voice Stall. Stall. Stall. Stall. Bonin: (Gentlemen.) Synthetic voice Dual input. Pilot: Watch out you're pitching up there. Robert: I'm pitching up. Pilot: You're pitching up. Robert: I'm pitching up. Bonin: Well we need to we are at four thousand feet. Pilot: You're pitching up.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Toad on May 07, 2015, 09:04:50 PM
Should/Woulda/Coulda….228 dead.
You're such a 'Bus fanboy that you can't countenance that there are some stupid design aspects to the 'Bus.
Yeah…the pilots screwed the pooch, big time.
Here's the part your ego just can't accept: Airbus engineering was also significant causal factor in the accident chain.
Want to talk Thales pitot tubes? The ones that Airbus KNEW were causing problems more than a year before AF447?
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Toad on May 07, 2015, 09:08:45 PM
Quote
For AF447 the loss of air data, poor salience of the auto-thrust disconnect and elevator trim, lack of differentiation between stall approach versus stalled state in aural warnings, stall warnings indication loss and elevator trimming nose up (2) could all be seen as design faults that undercut crew actions and added uncertainty to their decision making.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 07, 2015, 09:11:14 PM
Don't talk to me about fanboyism Mr. "Friends don't let friends fly Airbus." I have no stake in either company. They're both megacorps with a history of shady lobbying and their greedy hands in the taxpayers pockets. I've been a reluctant advocate for Airbus in this thread because you're simply wrong and I prefer the truth.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 07, 2015, 09:13:46 PM
criticaluncertainties.com ?? Any other dodgy websites you want to quote? :rofl
To counter: How about Boeing's, um, "open door policy"? A problem they had known for years.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Toad on May 07, 2015, 09:44:28 PM
You wouldn't know the truth if your side stick controller slapped you upside the head.
Airbus has some clear design flaws. If you really research AF447, you'd recognize 6-7.
Those pilots screwed up. Period. But that isn't the whole story and it isn't the whole accident chain.
Break one link…just one…and that accident never happens. Thales pitots. Sidesticks with no feedback. Throttles that don't move when the computer controls them (auto thrust), stall warning that stops at low airspeed and then begins again when airspeed increases, no AOA display in the cockpit….
Now…stick your fingers back in your ears and commence the la-la-la-la-la
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Ripsnort on May 07, 2015, 10:12:45 PM
Lol toad (lalala)
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Ripsnort on May 07, 2015, 10:17:13 PM
Don't talk to me about fanboyism Mr. "Friends don't let friends fly Airbus." I have no stake in either company. They're both megacorps with a history of shady lobbying and their greedy hands in the taxpayers pockets. I've been a reluctant advocate for Airbus in this thread because you're simply wrong and I prefer the truth.
toad has prvoided facts and data...you've provided your ego that can't admit that your wrong. I'll take a real pilots opinion that flew neither of those planes but flew commercially over your opinion any day
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 07, 2015, 11:02:37 PM
Toad, this is the difference between your uninformed opinions and the truth:
Airbus did not choose the Thales pitot tubes on AF 447. They were part of a later government airworthiness directive. In 2007, two years before the accident Airbus recommended that the Thales pitots be replaced. Airbus does not decide when or where Air France repairs its aircraft. The A330 flying AF447 was scheduled to have its pitots replaced when it returned to Paris. It only got half way there.
"When it was introduced in 1994, the Airbus A330 was equipped with pitot tubes, part number 0851GR, manufactured by Goodrich Sensors and Integrated Systems. A 2001 Airworthiness Directive required these to be replaced with either a later Goodrich design, part number 0851HL, or with pitot tubes made by Thales, part number C16195AA. Air France chose to equip its fleet with the Thales pitot tubes. In September 2007, Airbus recommended that Thales C16195AA pitot tubes should be replaced by Thales model C16195BA to address the problem of water ingress that had been observed. Since it was not an Airworthiness Directive, the guidelines allow the operator to apply the recommendations at its discretion. Air France implemented the change on its A320 fleet where the incidents of water ingress were observed and decided to do so in its A330/340 fleet only when failures started to occur in May 2008.
After discussing these issues with the manufacturer, Air France sought a means of reducing these incidents, and Airbus indicated that the new pitot probe designed for the A320 was not designed to prevent cruise level ice-over. In 2009, tests suggested that the new probe could improve its reliability, prompting Air France to accelerate the replacement program, which started on 29 May. F-GZCP was scheduled to have its pitot tubes replaced as soon as it returned to Paris. By 17 June 2009, Air France had replaced all pitot probes on its A330 type aircraft."
Airbus sidesticks have no feedback because they normally do not control the control surfaces, just command the flight computer. Airbus opted for an aural warning system to prevent dual input.
Throttles that don't move when the computer controls them (auto thrust)
Same as with the stick. The throttles do not normally control the engines. They command a setting to the computer, a climb setting for example. The computer controls the engines to best achieve that. Only when the computer reverts to alternate law or direct law does the throttle actually command the engines directly. On AF447 the computer had no control of the engines. They were in the direct control of the pilots.
stall warning that stops at low airspeed and then begins again when airspeed increases
The pilots had pushed the aircraft so far out of its envelope that the AOA sensors were reporting values beyond what was accepted as valid. The computer (correctly) considered the data unreliable and shut the stall warning off. Later when the pitots had cleared of ice and the AOA reported valid data the computer (correctly) determined that the aircraft was indeed in a stall after all and sounded the warning. The flight computer (correctly) shuts down alarms if it deems the data it receives is unreliable to avoid confusing the pilots with conflicting alarms like on Aeroperu Flight 603 (B757 with its static ports blocked).
I know of only two airlines who fly Boeings with AOA displays in the cockpit and they're customer custom fittings. It is not a normal option from Boeing (or anyone). Perhaps this has changed in recent years.
toad has prvoided facts and data...you've provided your ego that can't admit that your wrong. I'll take a real pilots opinion that flew neither of those planes but flew commercially over your opinion any day
So here we have a Boeing fanboy and a Boeing employee... In other words objectivity and impartiality manifest! :rofl
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 08, 2015, 12:10:01 AM
And in other news today:
Quote
US LEGACY CARRIERS RATTLED AS EMIRATES POSTS 27TH CONSECUTIVE YEAR PROFITS
The 1.5 billion US Dollars profit posted by the Emirates Group, incidentally the second highest in the company’s history, has reaffirmed the airlines’ strategy of being a global connector of people, operating an exclusively wide body aircraft fleet and being the largest operator of the world’s biggest passenger aircraft, the Airbus A380.
Irrelevant. The system should be designed so that the left seater overrides the right. That's how it is done by everyone else in many areas, from steering to coms.
Airbus control law is garbage. Always has been.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Vraciu on May 08, 2015, 06:56:05 AM
You're such a 'Bus fanboy that you can't countenance that there are some stupid design aspects to the 'Bus.
Yeah…the pilots screwed the pooch, big time.
Here's the part your ego just can't accept: Airbus engineering was also significant causal factor in the accident chain.
Want to talk Thales pitot tubes? The ones that Airbus KNEW were causing problems more than a year before AF447?
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Vraciu on May 08, 2015, 08:23:20 AM
Also Toad is right. I can't think of a single glass cockpit airplane that doesn't have an AOA indicator or PLI. That is standard, basic stuff. Hell even the CE-650 with pure analog instruments had the former.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Ripsnort on May 08, 2015, 09:05:33 AM
US LEGACY CARRIERS RATTLED AS EMIRATES POSTS 27TH CONSECUTIVE YEAR PROFITS
The 1.5 billion US Dollars profit posted by the Emirates Group, incidentally the second highest in the company’s history, has reaffirmed the airlines’ strategy of being a global connector of people, operating an exclusively wide body aircraft fleet and being the largest operator of the world’s biggest passenger aircraft, the Airbus A380.
"The largest order in 2014 for the 777 came from Emirates, with 150 of the 777X."
:aok
Boeing stock investment has allowed me to pull the retirement trigger anytime after I turn 55 in June this year. :) But I'll probably stay to 59 1/2 or until they force me out (I'm a pensioned-employee, a dying breed this day and age as new hires get no pensions)
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Rich46yo on May 08, 2015, 12:05:16 PM
The funny thing is I never meant this thread to turn into a AB vs Boeing thing, tho I knew some fool would probably do so anyway. My thesis was the age of 4 engined passenger planes is over, and that includes the 747. But AB invested heavily in the A380 and doing so was a massive fail no matter how many giddy promo vid's you post.
The 787 was never meant to replace anything. Its a completely new design that brings passenger comfort, range, profitability, more environmentally friendly, all together in a 2 engine package. The 777, A340, and A330, were all the "replacement planes". All designed to take seats away from the 747. The 777 and 330's are the big planes I see most often on the runways. With the 330 neo and 350 coming off-line AB will have solid footing the the 2 engine wide body market. Maybe even more so then Boeing. The neo is positioned to take a lot of market share in the high traffic continental routes of 4,000 nm or so because it will be much cheaper to buy then the 350 or 787 and no airline is going to pay that kind of money for a 3,000 nm flight.
Like I said "$$ per seat per mile". Its all that matters. The 2 engined wide bodys will only get better and better, more efficient and profitable with each new design. The A380 is a doomed design, tho I myself think its a remarkable air craft.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 08, 2015, 01:52:29 PM
Irrelevant. The system should be designed so that the left seater overrides the right. That's how it is done by everyone else in many areas, from steering to coms.
Airbus control law is garbage. Always has been.
So if the captain's stick malfunctions and constantly inputs full nose down... That's exactly why there's a priority button on the stick.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 08, 2015, 01:53:50 PM
"The largest order in 2014 for the 777 came from Emirates, with 150 of the 777X."
:aok
Boeing stock investment has allowed me to pull the retirement trigger anytime after I turn 55 in June this year. :) But I'll probably stay to 59 1/2 or until they force me out (I'm a pensioned-employee, a dying breed this day and age as new hires get no pensions)
That's a very nice investment. :)
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 08, 2015, 02:13:16 PM
The neo is positioned to take a lot of market share in the high traffic continental routes of 4,000 nm or so because it will be much cheaper to buy then the 350 or 787 and no airline is going to pay that kind of money for a 3,000 nm flight.
The old A330-200 has a 7,200 nm range. The neo will have close to or more than 8,000 nm range. It will compete with the 787 on a lot more routes. The A350 is the replacement for the A330 (and A340). Airbus' initial A350 proposal was just what is now the A330neo, but later decided new materials were necessary as well.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 08, 2015, 02:19:10 PM
Also Toad is right. I can't think of a single glass cockpit airplane that doesn't have an AOA indicator or PLI. That is standard, basic stuff. Hell even the CE-650 with pure analog instruments had the former.
Airbus used to offer an analogue AoA display as an option, but has in recent years (perhaps after AF447) incorporated it into the standard flight instrumentation.
"Airbus takes the AoA information along with the rest of the air data, sends it to the Flight Augmentation Computers which then compute and display relevant information on the PFD speed tape:
Green Dot (max l/d), Vls (lowest selectable speed w/ autopilot), Alpha Prot (below which sidestick requests an AoA, bank limited to 45, speed brakes retract, a/p disconnects, pitch up trim inhibited), Alpha Max (cannot be exceeded in normal law)
Additionally the Alpha Floor function utilizes AoA and other parameters to determine when to apply TOGA power to extract the aircraft from a dire low energy situation.
Airbus has recently developed the Back Up Speed Scale, which in the event of a triple air data failure replaces the airspeed tape on the PFD with an AoA scale of a conventional design. Keep it in the green range, respect the chevrons."
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Vraciu on May 08, 2015, 03:09:46 PM
So if the captain's stick malfunctions and constantly inputs full nose down... That's exactly why there's a priority button on the stick.
(Insert eyeroll here.)
Flawed. Flawed. Flawed. A dozen ways.
But I am a dinosaur. I prefer manual reversion. Pure FBW is a death sentence in many instances where an ejection seat is not standard equipment.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 08, 2015, 03:45:27 PM
Yet the FBW Airbus airliners have a safety record second to none...
Tell me, how many times have a crew crashed the plane because they didn't trust the computer/instrumentation? How many times has the computer/instrumentation crashed the plane because the crew trusted it?
I think you'll find that the overwhelming majority of accidents is caused by pilot error, often in direct conflict with what the computer/instrumentation tells them to do.
No FBW Airbus has ever crashed because the pilots could not control the aircraft.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Vraciu on May 08, 2015, 03:49:14 PM
Yet the FBW Airbus airliners have a safety record second to none...
Tell me, how many times have a crew crashed the plane because they didn't trust the computer/instrumentation? How many times has the computer/instrumentation crashed the plane because the crew trusted it?
I think you'll find that the overwhelming majority of accidents is caused by pilot error, often in direct conflict with what the computer/instrumentation tells them to do.
No FBW Airbus has ever crashed because the pilots could not control the aircraft.
Second to none, huh? :rofl I love hyperbole.
Embraer 145 series: 15 million fleet hours and counting. ZERO fatalities. No FBW.
Airbus: Carnage and death since day one. FBW or not.
End of lesson.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 08, 2015, 04:04:13 PM
Embraer 145 series: 15 million fleet hours and counting. ZERO fatalities. No FBW.
Airbus: Carnage and death since day one. FBW or not.
End of lesson.
The closest thing Airbus makes is the A318. It still dwarfs the ERJ 145, but it's the smallest airliner Airbus makes.
Airbus A318, 13 years of service, ZERO fatalities.
Airbus A319, 20 years of service, ZERO fatalities.
Airbus A340, 22 years of service, ZERO fatalities.
Airbus A380, ZERO fatalities.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 08, 2015, 04:13:36 PM
The Embraer E-190 which is a better comparison to the A318 even if it is still somewhat smaller has had two fatal accidents during its 11 year service life. But hey, don't let facts get in the way...
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Vraciu on May 08, 2015, 04:18:43 PM
The closest thing Airbus makes is the A318. It still dwarfs the ERJ 145, but it's the smallest airliner Airbus makes.
Airbus A318, 13 years of service, ZERO fatalities.
Airbus A319, 20 years of service, ZERO fatalities.
Airbus A340, 22 years of service, ZERO fatalities.
Airbus A380, ZERO fatalities.
Nice try. 318 and 319 are 320 family. Just like the 135, 140, 145, Legacy 600, and Legacy 650 are all 145 family.
320 has killed hundreds of people and had so many crashes and upsets to make me never get on one (including the infamous go around into the trees by the chief demo pilot).
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Vraciu on May 08, 2015, 04:19:47 PM
The Embraer E-190 which is a better comparison to the A318 even if it is still somewhat smaller has had two fatal accidents during its 11 year service life. But hey, don't let facts get in the way...
You said second to none. I proved to you that the EMB-145 family is superior to all Airbus aircraft in terms of safety. It isn't even a contest.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Vraciu on May 08, 2015, 04:22:52 PM
So you're saying Embraer in total has a better safety record than airbus in total for all types?
It might. The point is that the 145 series is the safest airplane ever made. I am betting all Embraer jets beat all Airbus jets in terms of safety when aggregated.
The 145 family is the safest airplane ever made. So far.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 08, 2015, 04:50:52 PM
According to airsafe.com the A320 family has a fatal accident rate of 0.10 per one million flights, so one fatal accident per ten million flights (whole flights, not hours). The B737 family has a rate of 0.28 (to be fair I guess newer models have a better rating than the older).
The Embraer Bandeirante looks to be a death trap at 3.07, and the Embraer Brasilia is at 0.71.
The ERJ 145 has a perfect safety rating, but with such a low production run and number of flights it will only take one stupid pilot error for it to have a horrible rating like its two stablemates above. You say it has 15 million flight hours, but has it even reached ten million flights? If not then its record is no better than the A320 and potentially worse. For the Concorde it only took one accident to take it from perfect safety to worst in business.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 08, 2015, 04:57:35 PM
Another thing you need to consider is that the closer you get to the third world, Africa in particular, accident rates tend to increase. I don't know where the ERJ 145 mostly fly, but the A320 has had no fatal accidents in North America.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Vraciu on May 08, 2015, 05:13:32 PM
Another thing you need to consider is that the closer you get to the third world, Africa in particular, accident rates tend to increase. I don't know where the ERJ 145 mostly fly, but the A320 has had no fatal accidents in North America.
I fly a Legacy in Nigeria. We are crawling with EMBs here. In Africa. We still have a perfect record.
What you fail to notice is that the 145 compiled this safety record being flown primarily in Regional Airline use. That means often the right seater was in his first jet, having flown a Seminole or a Seneca for 100-200 hours prior to landing a jet job.
Embraer does it right. Airbus is a pretender.
(Airbus doesn't crash in North America because they don't make it across the pond. They crash mid-Atlantic. Unless we ignore the Long Island, NY USA Airbus 300 tail shedding accident, that is. Facts are so fickle.)
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 08, 2015, 05:19:17 PM
American Airlines is the largest operator of Airbus A320 family aircraft in the world. United Airlines is not far behind.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Vraciu on May 08, 2015, 05:21:30 PM
Yes because American (Boeing, MD) merged with Airways (Bus). And Continental (Boeing) merged with United (Boeing, Bus).
It was NOT an indigenous choice.
737 > A320
Irrelevant. There are more than a thousand A320 family aircraft operating in North America and no fatal accidents. American Airlines Flight 587 that you mentioned is in fact the only fatal accident of any Airbus type ever in North America. And it was an old non-FBW A300.
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: Vraciu on May 08, 2015, 05:32:41 PM
Irrelevant. There are more than a thousand A320 family aircraft operating in North America and no fatal accidents. American Airlines Flight 587 that you mentioned is in fact the only fatal accident of any Airbus type ever in North America. And it was an old non-FBW A300.
Duh.
I guess you missed my mention of it as a 300.
Look Bubba, I have five jet types and over 10,000 hours in turbojets. I didn't fall off a stump yesterday.
Again. Airbus sucks. Thankfully you guys kill people outside the U.S. I won't fly a Bus.
They crash plenty. Where they crash is irrelevant.
But again. I shot you down with facts and you do this. :bolt:
Title: Re: The remarkable airplane that failed.
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 08, 2015, 05:35:15 PM
You seem to be a bit confused as to what constitutes a "fact". But that's ok. :)