Posted on 02/17/2007 2:45:11 PM PST by lowbuck
After spending over $16 billion. I think Airbus' estimates for the life of the whole A380 program are overly optimistic. The 747 should not be the example. The 747 broke new ground when it was developed. It was the first aircraft to use high bypass engines and was more than double the size of the previously largest commercial aircraft. It has lasted on the market almost 40 years, because Boeing has been able to update it with new technology to keep it up to date.
The A380 doesn't really break new ground technically, its just about 33% bigger not 200%+. In fact it's probably the last new aluminum passenger plane to be designed and built. When Boeing decides to build a new ultra large jet based on 787 technology, it will be all over for the A380. When that happens the A380 won't be the cash cow that the 747 has been for Boeing.
The initial 800 version is not the optimal model; that is the 900 model which is supposed to be twice the capacity of a 747-400. As a result the 800 is heavier than it should be. Boeing has been able to develop a more efficient version of the 747, the 747-8 that will have lower seat mile costs than the A380-800. I'm sure Airbus was rather disappointed that Lufthansa has ordered 20 of the 747-8I instead of increasing its A380 orders. Airbus chose to optimize its plane for the handful of markets that currently have one airline flying two 747-400's that take off within minutes of each other due to time zone differences and optimal departure windows between airports.
Most city pairs aren't like Hong Kong and London. In most cases, airlines want to be able to provide service more than once per day, because the buisiness passengers who pay rather high prices for their seats want flexibility in their schedules. They also want to travel to their destination as directly possible rather than flying multiple legs between megahubs. Instead of one A380 flight per day, airlines would prefer to fly two or more 777's between city pairs. They can fill the economy section with connecting passenger who really don't care which airport they fly from on the international leg of their journey, just that they get a good seat at a good price and with as little annoyance dealing with airports as possible. Does a passenger originating from San Antonio really care whether he connects through Houston, Dallas, Chicago, New York, or Washington DC on a trip to Europe? No, he just cares about how long the trip will be, how much it will cost, how long it takes to connect between flights, and how long it will take to clear customs.
The A380 could only be supported by a few megahubs on each continent. This would entail lots of passengers flying in lots of smaller planes to those few hubs and then connecting to another flight. The bigger these hubs get, the more they are subject to congestion and delays. Imagine the delays just in getting your bags from an A380 flight. You'll have to look at every bag from 500 to 800 passengers going down the conveyor belt to determine which ones are your's. This process slows down on a per bag basis as you add more passengers and baggage. And if you're going to some megahub that has a large bank of incoming flights at rush hour, you'll have to get in line to go through customs with maybe 10,000 to 20,000 passengers who arrived within the hour of your flight.
As smaller planes like the 767, and 777 have become available, airlines have been bypassing megahubs and flying more directly between the originating city and the destination. This saves time, and cuts down on aggrevating delays caused by congestion. To parody John F'n Kerry, "it's the wrong plane, at the wrong time, at the wrong place."
I believe that Bombardier would be a better bet.
Why? Their regional jets aren't as comfortable and aren't selling as well as Embraer's. Embraer also has labor cost advantage over Bombardier.
Air West express, or whatever it's operating as today, flys mostly the Canadian regional jets and when you are looking for the fastest and most convenient short hop ease and price trump comfort by miles.
Ex: Long Beach to Phoenix amounted to about 90 minutes total - hand your luggage to the ground crew and pick it up as you deplane. LAX to Phoenix on a larger AC takes half that time to park and get to the ticket line, allowing only an hour to get from there to the gate is risky - and you still have departure, an hour flight, and arrivals to deal with.
Quite a succinct analysis!
Perhaps it will end up on a bulletin board at Boeing HQ.
(And maybe even in a board room somewhere in France, n'est ce pas?)
The 380 is essentially a shrine to national (Euro) egos rather than benefits or advantage for airlines or their customers.
It's supposed to be 'biggest and best' but requires huge investments (and losses) by the state sponsors, huge investments (and slow recovery) by any airport accomodating it, certain gridlock for passengers, and the thinly hidden fear of even one disaster involving many hundreds of people on any given (single) flight. We know that one or two have been flown but no PAX miles have taken place yet and quality (safety) concerns that have delayed progress will not simply go away because they hand built a couple of wire looms.
This thing requires that potential users literally construct a market for it and any level of success will demand that enough travellers can be found to use it. I'm expecting to see a great big, fat, slow, SST but with far higher losses than the former generated.
accommodating,
travelers.
(sorry)
While at the same time Dornier and Fokker went out of business. It isn't just that they misuse resources to build monuments to national egos, they also take away the oxygen from businesses that don't fit the bureaucrats' plans.
And American liberal elites want us to become like Europe. Tell me again: who are the idiots?
Thanks for taking the time to write that. What you say makes a great deal of sense. Airbust may wind up losing on the 380 but they are still selling lot's of airframes, and they are government supported, so I don't think it is all doom and gloom for Airbus. Boeing, if it can build and deliever the 787, will have the advantage for quite some time. Hoping all goes well with 787, Boeing being private corp, unlike Airbus, bet the farm on the 787, 787 problems could really hurt Boeing. 380 problems just mean more gov money poured into Airbus.
Lockheed jumped into the widebody business with the L1011. They could jump back into the civilian airliner business if there were incentive enough.
Airbust going belly up might be just such incentive. Now way that's going to happen, however. Airbus is about jobs and EU pride, it is not a business.
An L1011 once ate my carry on.
Wow. I thought vultures ate carrion.
Heh. Carrion... "carry-on"...
It was a play on words, see, and uh... yeah. Heh.
This is what happens when run your business as a socialist job creation program, rather than a business based on capitalism.
Japan and China are both foaming at the mouth to get into the large commercial aircraft industry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.