DWC wrote:

You obviously are not a macroeconomist.
Get hold of Harvard Boeing/Airbus Business case & read the proper literature & economic research, not the newspaper pop-science.
Check Prices in Duopoly 101

Let's try to keep this intellectual instead of personal. We're having an amiable thread, let's not start telling people what's what based on who's who.

The 30 something positive aspects I elicited earlier about the A380 tell that the programme is globally positive for Airbus. I don't have the figures nor Airbus econometric model to quantify it for you, so I am sharing what my experience tells me.

One of the reasons I like economics is its emphasis on empiricism. Trust in God, all others need data...
In arguing about whether the other factors make the A380 globally positive for Airbus, you'd have to quantify those other factors and balance them against ~$30bn losses in development and production. So far you have only your opinion and experience. I respect both, but disagree in general. You'll need data to convince me and any astute reader otherwise.

As I said earlier, if the A380 was the only way EVER to get the modern unified Airbus, then it's probably a positive.
I doubt that. The A380 greased the wheels, but a later A350 project could have produced the same result.
We'd have to weigh the cost/benefit of later Airbus consolidation + no A380 + $30bn against what we have now.
And of course my borderline obsession: without the A380 program fiasco, what might Airbus have built in the VLA space later? Imagine an Airbus VLA for EIS a decade or so later than A380... Tantalizing possibility that the whalejet killed.

And of course, even if Airbus had to do the A380, they didn't have make a bad A380 that almost nobody wants.

emiratesdriver wrote:

Order still in the pipeline, straight out of the horses mouth at a very recent standards meeting

Thanks for the update. In the past, Airbus used new orders to “clean up” the list of remaining A380-orders. I wonder - provided they will make that deal in the not too distant future- if Airbus will use the opportunity and make such corrections again..

Slug71 wrote:

par13del wrote:

So if the products did not do as expected, was it really a chance in the market or someone's dream?

Two companies did not bet BILLIONS, and one of them base their whole business model, around "someone's dream" or ego. The whole world went into an economic depression and resulted in record high fuel prices. Of course it did not do as expected. Should be no surprise. Most of us were going through a hard time then, airlines were hit hard. Which is arguably, why many say the A380 is now ahead of it's time. Fuel prices are now expected to remain down longterm, and the air travel industry expected to double by the mid 2030s. Theres good reason for EK and Airbus to reach an agreement. And theres good reason for Airbus to keep it going. Even if the -800 were the base model, I don't think it would have impacted sales much. Timing, Was the A380's biggest flaw. Theres no way Airbus could have predicted the depression in time.

Why promoting this nonsense. Airbus did not place its whole business model on the A380. At that time it had and still has its record selling mid sized wide body twin called A330. It furthermore had and has the best selling narrow body family, the A320. At that time Boeing had the VLA market sewn up and was busily promoting a big 747, ending up spending quite a few billions into the not so big 747-8. Boeing did not bring the 787 as a new business model, but to fight the A330.
We all know that the A380 was and is not a success, but it is also only one of four aircraft families Airbus is producing as it is.

Airbus needed something in the top size to compete with Boeing in offering a full spectrum. This was a major reason they invented the A380. I can't see it not needed with all the growing traffic. Just wait until chinese airlines grow into widebody operator sizes. International travel FROM china is already kicking off.

The A380's problem are it's slightly older engines that compete with all those latest twins right now. Give the A380 the same engines and it is back and competitive through it's size in a minute.

Noshow wrote:

The A380's problem are it's slightly older engines that compete with all those latest twins right now. Give the A380 the same engines and it is back and competitive through it's size in a minute.

The low susceptibility of sales versus changes to the A380 (properties/price) imho would indicate that there is some other effective holdback around.
Just like with the Dreamliner meme insertion ( that drug like rush that allowed to technical answer ) was very successful.
It must have cost Boeing billions!

mjoelnir wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

par13del wrote:

So if the products did not do as expected, was it really a chance in the market or someone's dream?

Two companies did not bet BILLIONS, and one of them base their whole business model, around "someone's dream" or ego. The whole world went into an economic depression and resulted in record high fuel prices. Of course it did not do as expected. Should be no surprise. Most of us were going through a hard time then, airlines were hit hard. Which is arguably, why many say the A380 is now ahead of it's time. Fuel prices are now expected to remain down longterm, and the air travel industry expected to double by the mid 2030s. Theres good reason for EK and Airbus to reach an agreement. And theres good reason for Airbus to keep it going. Even if the -800 were the base model, I don't think it would have impacted sales much. Timing, Was the A380's biggest flaw. Theres no way Airbus could have predicted the depression in time.

Why promoting this nonsense. Airbus did not place its whole business model on the A380. At that time it had and still has its record selling mid sized wide body twin called A330. It furthermore had and has the best selling narrow body family, the A320. At that time Boeing had the VLA market sewn up and was busily promoting a big 747, ending up spending quite a few billions into the not so big 747-8. Boeing did not bring the 787 as a new business model, but to fight the A330.
We all know that the A380 was and is not a success, but it is also only one of four aircraft families Airbus is producing as it is.

EK's business model.

Noshow wrote:

Airbus needed something in the top size to compete with Boeing in offering a full spectrum. This was a major reason they invented the A380.

Yes, but they shot too high.

Noshow wrote:

I can't see it not needed with all the growing traffic. Just wait until chinese airlines grow into widebody operator sizes. International travel FROM china is already kicking off.

Chinese airlines have grown into widebody operator sizes. The thing is that their purchasing pattern follows all the airlines in the world not named Emirates. They have bought and continue to buy A330s in embarrassingly large numbers. Same can be said for narrowbodies. Things taper down a bit by the time you get to A350/777 size and of course VLAs are relatively small in number.

There's no evidence that they will fill their future needs with A380s. I think they'll continue to follow the pattern of all airlines not named EK. They will not be a savior for the A380 program, IMHO.

Noshow wrote:

The A380's problem are it's slightly older engines that compete with all those latest twins right now. Give the A380 the same engines and it is back and competitive through it's size in a minute.

A380 could be rocking state of the art engines (i.e. T7000 generation) in a year or so from now, but two years ago both Airbus and RR decided to not go down that path for very good reason: they couldn't see how to make money doing so.

Revelation wrote:

Noshow wrote:

The A380's problem are it's slightly older engines that compete with all those latest twins right now. Give the A380 the same engines and it is back and competitive through it's size in a minute.

A380 could be rocking state of the art engines (i.e. T7000 generation) in a year or so from now, but two years ago both Airbus and RR decided to not go down that path for very good reason: they couldn't see how to make money doing so.

Hopefully they've changed their mind now.

kitplane01 wrote:

Question: Do you really believe that Airbus needed to make the A380 to sell it's other airliners? Are there airlines out there that would not have bought A320s and A330s, but now will because Airbus also able to make a very large aircraft?

No it didn't need the A380 to sell other airliners, but in order to compete on the VLA market. Before the A380 the 747 had no competitor, and Boeing could sell it for good money. So in my opinion, it was a reasonable decision by Airbus at this time. Nowadays, I am sure, they would decide different, especially with the aviation crisis in the years after the A380 introduction.

Revelation wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Airbus needed something in the top size to compete with Boeing in offering a full spectrum. This was a major reason they invented the A380.

Yes, but they shot too high.

Noshow wrote:

I can't see it not needed with all the growing traffic. Just wait until chinese airlines grow into widebody operator sizes. International travel FROM china is already kicking off.

Chinese airlines have grown into widebody operator sizes. The thing is that their purchasing pattern follows all the airlines in the world not named Emirates. They have bought and continue to buy A330s in embarrassingly large numbers. Same can be said for narrowbodies. Things taper down a bit by the time you get to A350/777 size and of course VLAs are relatively small in number.

There's no evidence that they will fill their future needs with A380s. I think they'll continue to follow the pattern of all airlines not named EK. They will not be a savior for the A380 program, IMHO.

Noshow wrote:

The A380's problem are it's slightly older engines that compete with all those latest twins right now. Give the A380 the same engines and it is back and competitive through it's size in a minute.

A380 could be rocking state of the art engines (i.e. T7000 generation) in a year or so from now, but two years ago both Airbus and RR decided to not go down that path for very good reason: they couldn't see how to make money doing so.

There are plenty of growth left in the Chinese market. While a380 hasn't been a hit thus far, that does not preclude a vla from making meaningful impact in the future. They could be used in different ways. For example during the Chinese New Year and other golden weeks, special operator flown high density a380 could move a lot of people from Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou to western cities like chengdu or chongqing. Right now these people take 2 or 3 days to go home, flying could cut that to 1 day.

Air space in china is getting tighter. A lot of trends in the country favor increased vla flying in the country a few years down the road.

Thee 777s did the hard work destroying the market for 747s. 2006 was the last year with big orders -72, likely the 748 one and only bump. That was the biggest order since 1990 at 122. Intervening years about 20 per. The 380 finished her off, and the 777/787/350 belly capacity has done big damage to freight orders.

eisenbach wrote:

No it didn't need the A380 to sell other airliners, but in order to compete on the VLA market. Before the A380 the 747 had no competitor, and Boeing could sell it for good money. So in my opinion, it was a reasonable decision by Airbus at this time.

We could also read in the decision to launch the A380 the little faith or insight that Airbus had in very large twins and their capability to challenge the 747. When Airbus launched the A330/A340 program, they were obviously convinced that that 4 engines were necessary for long haul. When they have launched the A346, which was obviously heavy for what it could do, they were still convinced that they needed 4 engines. In the mean time, Boeing launched the 777 followed by the 77W. Somewhere I believe that Boeing had a better idea than Airbus of the potential of the large engines (400+ kN). After all, Boeing is in the same country than the NASA and GE, which had both been studying large engines since the early 80s. This may have resulted in Boeing having more confidence that a twin-engine wide body aircraft could fairly soon become a competitive alternative to the 747. Boeing focused on this product line since then. On the other hand, Airbus only decided to go for a very large twin with long haul capability when they've launched the A350XWB, after exhausting all the possible variations of 4-engine long haul aicraft.

tphuang wrote:

There are plenty of growth left in the Chinese market. While a380 hasn't been a hit thus far, that does not preclude a vla from making meaningful impact in the future. They could be used in different ways. For example during the Chinese New Year and other golden weeks, special operator flown high density a380 could move a lot of people from Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou to western cities like chengdu or chongqing. Right now these people take 2 or 3 days to go home, flying could cut that to 1 day.

Air space in china is getting tighter. A lot of trends in the country favor increased vla flying in the country a few years down the road.

I didn't say that there was a lack of growth left in the Chinese market, I said that there's no evidence that it will happen in way much differently than the rest of the world's airlines not named Emirates. Scads of narrowbodies, lots of big twins, not so many VLAs is the pattern.

When you write "special operator" I think of used A380s operated by the likes of HiFly. That's not going to help Airbus get the orders needed to help them make the kind of production lifetime guarantees that Emirates is insisting on.

tomcat wrote:

eisenbach wrote:

No it didn't need the A380 to sell other airliners, but in order to compete on the VLA market. Before the A380 the 747 had no competitor, and Boeing could sell it for good money. So in my opinion, it was a reasonable decision by Airbus at this time.

We could also read in the decision to launch the A380 the little faith or insight that Airbus had in very large twins and their capability to challenge the 747. When Airbus launched the A330/A340 program, they were obviously convinced that that 4 engines were necessary for long haul. When they have launched the A346, which was obviously heavy for what it could do, they were still convinced that they needed 4 engines. In the mean time, Boeing launched the 777 followed by the 77W. Somewhere I believe that Boeing had a better idea than Airbus of the potential of the large engines (400+ kN). After all, Boeing is in the same country than the NASA and GE, which had both been studying large engines since the early 80s. This may have resulted in Boeing having more confidence that a twin-engine wide body aircraft could fairly soon become a competitive alternative to the 747. Boeing focused on this product line since then. On the other hand, Airbus only decided to go for a very large twin with long haul capability when they've launched the A350XWB, after exhausting all the possible variations of 4-engine long haul aicraft.

In that case Boeing got it just as wrong, since they fired back with the 747-8. Which they will never make their costs back on either.
The world wide depression forced airlines to more efficient aircraft given the record fuel prices. High fuel prices drive everything else up too.

tomcat wrote:

eisenbach wrote:

No it didn't need the A380 to sell other airliners, but in order to compete on the VLA market. Before the A380 the 747 had no competitor, and Boeing could sell it for good money. So in my opinion, it was a reasonable decision by Airbus at this time.

We could also read in the decision to launch the A380 the little faith or insight that Airbus had in very large twins and their capability to challenge the 747. When Airbus launched the A330/A340 program, they were obviously convinced that that 4 engines were necessary for long haul. When they have launched the A346, which was obviously heavy for what it could do, they were still convinced that they needed 4 engines. In the mean time, Boeing launched the 777 followed by the 77W. Somewhere I believe that Boeing had a better idea than Airbus of the potential of the large engines (400+ kN). After all, Boeing is in the same country than the NASA and GE, which had both been studying large engines since the early 80s. This may have resulted in Boeing having more confidence that a twin-engine wide body aircraft could fairly soon become a competitive alternative to the 747. Boeing focused on this product line since then. On the other hand, Airbus only decided to go for a very large twin with long haul capability when they've launched the A350XWB, after exhausting all the possible variations of 4-engine long haul aicraft.

There is the endless possibility to look at history from to today's view points and forget certain restraints at that time.
When the A330/340 was designed, the A330 used the than biggest available engines, specially enlarged for the A330. The A340-200/300 used four engines to lift a higher MTOW. ETOPS was not as well established as today and twins were still ruled out from certain long over water flight in certain areas.

The first flight of the A340-300 is 1991. The first flight of the 777 is 1994. Boeing has been offering and building a big quad all the time since 1969 up to now

Combined the A33/340-200/300 was and is still a roaring success with 1728 sold frames, adding the A340-500/600 and 330neo brings it to 2071 up to now. The fame of the 777 success is build on the 777-300ER, the A330-200 and A330-300 did not do to bad compared.

Revelation wrote:

tphuang wrote:

There are plenty of growth left in the Chinese market. While a380 hasn't been a hit thus far, that does not preclude a vla from making meaningful impact in the future. They could be used in different ways. For example during the Chinese New Year and other golden weeks, special operator flown high density a380 could move a lot of people from Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou to western cities like chengdu or chongqing. Right now these people take 2 or 3 days to go home, flying could cut that to 1 day.

Air space in china is getting tighter. A lot of trends in the country favor increased vla flying in the country a few years down the road.

I didn't say that there was a lack of growth left in the Chinese market, I said that there's no evidence that it will happen in way much differently than the rest of the world's airlines not named Emirates. Scads of narrowbodies, lots of big twins, not so many VLAs is the pattern.

When you write "special operator" I think of used A380s operated by the likes of HiFly. That's not going to help Airbus get the orders needed to help them make the kind of production lifetime guarantees that Emirates is insisting on.

Just looking on Beijing to Shanghai. China Eastern and air China already operates shuttles with mostly 330s 787 and 777s. The only way to upgauge from that would be to vla. If passenger count double in 15 years between the two cities, what else can they operate?

Same with Beijing to Guangzhou, it is all wide-bodies. Where are these narrow body aircraft?

On top of that, There are huge demand in China for these special operations which could result in a380 demands specifically by operators looking to do it in China.

tphuang wrote:

There are plenty of growth left in the Chinese market. While a380 hasn't been a hit thus far, that does not preclude a vla from making meaningful impact in the future. They could be used in different ways. For example during the Chinese New Year and other golden weeks, special operator flown high density a380 could move a lot of people from Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou to western cities like chengdu or chongqing. Right now these people take 2 or 3 days to go home, flying could cut that to 1 day.

Air space in china is getting tighter. A lot of trends in the country favor increased vla flying in the country a few years down the road.

The Chinese already have the largest HSR network in the world, and continue to expand it. The HSR network already has had an enormous impact on air travel in the Chinese market, and that impact will continue to grow.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way ... speed-rail

So we're on page 18 of a thread supposedly about Airbus working with EK on another A380 order.
On this page 18, "EK" and "Emirates" get a combined 9 mentions (thread titles and user names excluded), of which four are only in quotes. "China" gets 11 mentions and indeed we get another re-hash of the usual legends about why Airbus launched the A380 to begin with, some more a.net lore on why it's no surprise it's not selling, why it will not be selling, or why it will be selling in the future.
Not to spoil the fun, but maybe it's time to lock this one and have somebody open a new thread once there is anything substantial on the status of that new EK A380 deal that many assumed was a done deal? As things stand, there's been absolutely nothing on that front since November 13th, i.e. almost 18 days ago.

anfromme wrote:

So we're on page 18 of a thread supposedly about Airbus working with EK on another A380 order.
On this page 18, "EK" and "Emirates" get a combined 9 mentions (thread titles and user names excluded), of which four are only in quotes. "China" gets 11 mentions and indeed we get another re-hash of the usual legends about why Airbus launched the A380 to begin with, some more a.net lore on why it's no surprise it's not selling, why it will not be selling, or why it will be selling in the future.
Not to spoil the fun, but maybe it's time to lock this one and have somebody open a new thread once there is anything substantial on the status of that new EK A380 deal that many assumed was a done deal? As things stand, there's been absolutely nothing on that front since November 13th, i.e. almost 18 days ago.

My thoughts are that EK has made this deal be all about the future of the A380 so speculation about that future is on topic.

Just my $0.02.

AIRBUS PRESS CONFERENCE is in 40 days or so.
I think this thread should be kept open until then in case the EK order materializes for Leahy's farewell & last "5ft Quarter".
STC & JL are both gentlemen, I have seen deals announced specially on such special occasions - a very oriental thing one has to admit.

kitplane01 wrote:

Question: Do you really believe that Airbus needed to make the A380 to sell it's other airliners? Are there airlines out there that would not have bought A320s and A330s, but now will because Airbus also able to make a very large aircraft?

1. It's essentially about large deals, a well documented stratety used by Boeing with its 747 : monopoly prices & margins to sell frames from other families at a lower price.
2. At to that the credibility : for a long time, some airlines would not buy Airbus, but US aircrafts. Displacing the Queen of the Skies certainly did away with what resistances are left.

Matt6461 wrote:

Let's try to keep this intellectual instead of personal. We're having an amiable thread

Of course ! Sorry if it sounded otherwise. I said this because professional experience does teach a few things one sees ASAP.
I have also explained to you 2 or 3 times already why I can't possibly quantify it to you :
1. I don't have Airbus econometric model,
2. there are millions of variable many of which are classified.

That said, in retrospect, if not the A380, Airbus would have had to launch a super A350 like the 779. But with the exclusivity of GE to the 777, I doubt Airbus could have got hold of those. The most difficult question though is that we cannot rewrite history. Most analysts agree that the A380 was an appropriate answer to Airbus' future. And we already discussed this : the 25 or 30 billions have in part benefitted the A350, to the tune of perhaps 5-10 billions, ask the specialists.
The 30 something indirect & financial benefits I listed for you should also help you lower further that incompressible 30 billion figure you keep wielding.
These benefits are knows as "positive externalities" in Economics.
One is the cementing of the Airbus brand. How much is it worth in the acounting books ?
Probably not as much as Coca Cola or the iPhone, but it is in the billions.

DWC wrote:

These benefits are knows as "positive externalities" in Economics.

That's not the way we use that word on this side of the Atlantic. An externality is something that a firm doesn't capture at all - whether direct/indirect, on/off the books. Prestige accruing to Airbus is not an externality precisely because it accrues to them. An externality of the the A380 program would be the stimulation of A.net A380 threads (whether positive or negative externality...). I think you mean something like "non-quantified benefits."

DWC wrote:

I have also explained to you 2 or 3 times already why I can't possibly quantify it to you :
1. I don't have Airbus econometric model,
2. there are millions of variable many of which are classified.

1. implicitly asks us to have faith that Airbus got its own modelling correct, i.e. that they didn't make a mistake. Given the fundamental mistakes made in this program, I don't have that faith.

2. The number of variables is sort of irrelevant. I could list an infinite number of A380 benefits if we go to fine enough detail. (Hans the Hamburger's employment, his barber's extra income, the barber's wife's utility about having a happier husband, etc.) It's not the number of variables; it's a judgment about the magnitude of these variables. We disagree here, but it's not a disagreement on which economics has something deep to say absent data or blind faith in Airbus' strategic aptitude.

Slug71 wrote:

In that case Boeing got it just as wrong, since they fired back with the 747-8.

Boeing has been very busy inserting direction giving meme in the markets.
Boosting the 777 beyond all capabilities and assigning "principal failure" to quads
while the hard proof in the pudding never really existed in the narrated dimensions.
( So many posters here in referencing 777 directly cite PR quips.)

So the initial 748 was planned as cheap bag of sand to put into the A380 gears.
This didn't turn out as expected. Boeing let the changes run wild, was boondoggled by missing
/ incomplete documentation, culture mismatch with their new Moscow office
and competition on "available manpower/resources" with the 787.

Still there are strong forces at work creating "invisble" bulwarks against a tide of A380 sales.
( imu no sales into the US market ( but strong traffic to the US ) is an indicator.)

WIederling wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

In that case Boeing got it just as wrong, since they fired back with the 747-8.

Boeing has been very busy inserting direction giving meme in the markets.
Boosting the 777 beyond all capabilities and assigning "principal failure" to quads
while the hard proof in the pudding never really existed in the narrated dimensions.
( So many posters here in referencing 777 directly cite PR quips.)

So the initial 748 was planned as cheap bag of sand to put into the A380 gears.
This didn't turn out as expected. Boeing let the changes run wild, was boondoggled by missing
/ incomplete documentation, culture mismatch with their new Moscow office
and competition on "available manpower/resources" with the 787.

Still there are strong forces at work creating "invisble" bulwarks against a tide of A380 sales.
( imu no sales into the US market ( but strong traffic to the US ) is an indicator.)

Don't forget the illuminati.

Matt6461 wrote:

Don't forget the illuminati.

long dead.

But "competing" in insiduous ways is alive and well.

diverdave wrote:

The Chinese already have the largest HSR network in the world, and continue to expand it. The HSR network already has had an enormous impact on air travel in the Chinese market, and that impact will continue to grow.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way ... speed-rail

Yes, and the trains between Beijing and Shanghai are allowed (again) to go 350km/h, which means travel time of 4,5 hours. And that's from city center to city center. I doubt flying would be any quicker or more convenient.

A380Neo is the answer

tphuang wrote:

Revelation wrote:

tphuang wrote:

There are plenty of growth left in the Chinese market. While a380 hasn't been a hit thus far, that does not preclude a vla from making meaningful impact in the future. They could be used in different ways. For example during the Chinese New Year and other golden weeks, special operator flown high density a380 could move a lot of people from Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou to western cities like chengdu or chongqing. Right now these people take 2 or 3 days to go home, flying could cut that to 1 day.

Air space in china is getting tighter. A lot of trends in the country favor increased vla flying in the country a few years down the road.

I didn't say that there was a lack of growth left in the Chinese market, I said that there's no evidence that it will happen in way much differently than the rest of the world's airlines not named Emirates. Scads of narrowbodies, lots of big twins, not so many VLAs is the pattern.

When you write "special operator" I think of used A380s operated by the likes of HiFly. That's not going to help Airbus get the orders needed to help them make the kind of production lifetime guarantees that Emirates is insisting on.

Just looking on Beijing to Shanghai. China Eastern and air China already operates shuttles with mostly 330s 787 and 777s. The only way to upgauge from that would be to vla. If passenger count double in 15 years between the two cities, what else can they operate?

Same with Beijing to Guangzhou, it is all wide-bodies. Where are these narrow body aircraft?

China Eastern Fleet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Eas ... ines#Fleet): 485 aircraft, only 71 are widebody, zero big quads.

Air China Fleet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_China#Fleet): 392 aircraft, only 77 are widebody, 70 are big twins, 7 are 747-8i.

Pretty representative of the rest of the world's major airlines (not named EK).

No evidence of China coming along to save the A380 program any time soon.

On top of that, There are huge demand in China for these special operations which could result in a380 demands specifically by operators looking to do it in China

Huge demand, China flush with money, yet Dr. Peters has no offers on its ex-SQ A380, Airbus has many empty production slots to fill...

Revelation wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I didn't say that there was a lack of growth left in the Chinese market, I said that there's no evidence that it will happen in way much differently than the rest of the world's airlines not named Emirates. Scads of narrowbodies, lots of big twins, not so many VLAs is the pattern.

When you write "special operator" I think of used A380s operated by the likes of HiFly. That's not going to help Airbus get the orders needed to help them make the kind of production lifetime guarantees that Emirates is insisting on.

Just looking on Beijing to Shanghai. China Eastern and air China already operates shuttles with mostly 330s 787 and 777s. The only way to upgauge from that would be to vla. If passenger count double in 15 years between the two cities, what else can they operate?

Same with Beijing to Guangzhou, it is all wide-bodies. Where are these narrow body aircraft?

China Eastern Fleet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Eas ... ines#Fleet): 485 aircraft, only 71 are widebody, zero big quads.

Air China Fleet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_China#Fleet): 392 aircraft, only 77 are widebody, 70 are big twins, 7 are 747-8i.

Pretty representative of the rest of the world's major airlines (not named EK).

No evidence of China coming along to save the A380 program any time soon.

On top of that, There are huge demand in China for these special operations which could result in a380 demands specifically by operators looking to do it in China

Huge demand, China flush with money, yet Dr. Peters has no offers on its ex-SQ A380, Airbus has many empty production slots to fill...

Those are flights to secondary cities that utilize narrow bodies. On the major trunk routes like Beijing to Shanghai, there will come a time when 330 and 777 don't provide enough capacity. That might be another 10 to 15 years. There are only so many slots at hongqiao airport. There are only so much air space given to civilian usage.

We will see now that special operators have started looking into a380 if there will be demand for it in china.

tphuang wrote:

Those are flights to secondary cities that utilize narrow bodies. On the major trunk routes like Beijing to Shanghai, there will come a time when 330 and 777 don't provide enough capacity. That might be another 10 to 15 years. There are only so many slots at hongqiao airport. There are only so much air space given to civilian usage.

We will see now that special operators have started looking into a380 if there will be demand for it in china.

The reality is that Airbus needs much more than this much sooner for the A380 program to survive. What EK is willing to commit to merely keeps the line open, it doesn't pay for an A380NG that can keep far enough ahead of the big twins to justify the investment.

tphuang wrote:

Revelation wrote:

tphuang wrote:

There are plenty of growth left in the Chinese market. While a380 hasn't been a hit thus far, that does not preclude a vla from making meaningful impact in the future. They could be used in different ways. For example during the Chinese New Year and other golden weeks, special operator flown high density a380 could move a lot of people from Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou to western cities like chengdu or chongqing. Right now these people take 2 or 3 days to go home, flying could cut that to 1 day.

Air space in china is getting tighter. A lot of trends in the country favor increased vla flying in the country a few years down the road.

I didn't say that there was a lack of growth left in the Chinese market, I said that there's no evidence that it will happen in way much differently than the rest of the world's airlines not named Emirates. Scads of narrowbodies, lots of big twins, not so many VLAs is the pattern.

When you write "special operator" I think of used A380s operated by the likes of HiFly. That's not going to help Airbus get the orders needed to help them make the kind of production lifetime guarantees that Emirates is insisting on.

Just looking on Beijing to Shanghai. China Eastern and air China already operates shuttles with mostly 330s 787 and 777s. The only way to upgauge from that would be to vla. If passenger count double in 15 years between the two cities, what else can they operate?

Same with Beijing to Guangzhou, it is all wide-bodies. Where are these narrow body aircraft?

On top of that, There are huge demand in China for these special operations which could result in a380 demands specifically by operators looking to do it in China.

I don't know exactly which variants both airlines use on that route, but in gerneral there are plenty of options to upgauge beyond going to A380s.
A330-200 to -300
787-9 to -10
A330-300 to 77W
77W to 777-9

Or even run nothing but 777s. The idea that upgauging has to be to the largest plane out there is a myth that airliners.net has repeated far too many times.

LTCM wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I didn't say that there was a lack of growth left in the Chinese market, I said that there's no evidence that it will happen in way much differently than the rest of the world's airlines not named Emirates. Scads of narrowbodies, lots of big twins, not so many VLAs is the pattern.

When you write "special operator" I think of used A380s operated by the likes of HiFly. That's not going to help Airbus get the orders needed to help them make the kind of production lifetime guarantees that Emirates is insisting on.

Just looking on Beijing to Shanghai. China Eastern and air China already operates shuttles with mostly 330s 787 and 777s. The only way to upgauge from that would be to vla. If passenger count double in 15 years between the two cities, what else can they operate?

Same with Beijing to Guangzhou, it is all wide-bodies. Where are these narrow body aircraft?

On top of that, There are huge demand in China for these special operations which could result in a380 demands specifically by operators looking to do it in China.

I don't know exactly which variants both airlines use on that route, but in gerneral there are plenty of options to upgauge beyond going to A380s.
A330-200 to -300
787-9 to -10
A330-300 to 77W
77W to 777-9

Or even run nothing but 777s. The idea that upgauging has to be to the largest plane out there is a myth that airliners.net has repeated far too many times.

If passengers count double in 15 years and number of flights stay constant, going from 330 to 777 isn't going to solve the problem.

Of course, there are many other factors in play. My point is to not dismiss china from a380 equation just because they have not jumped on this train yet.

Most of the doubling will be from 320/737 size. This may be behind Boeing's MOM, and I expect Airbus to offer something too (but won't speculate).

anfromme wrote:

So we're on page 18 of a thread supposedly about Airbus working with EK on another A380 order.
On this page 18, "EK" and "Emirates" get a combined 9 mentions (thread titles and user names excluded), of which four are only in quotes. "China" gets 11 mentions and indeed we get another re-hash of the usual legends about why Airbus launched the A380 to begin with, some more a.net lore on why it's no surprise it's not selling, why it will not be selling, or why it will be selling in the future.
Not to spoil the fun, but maybe it's time to lock this one and have somebody open a new thread once there is anything substantial on the status of that new EK A380 deal that many assumed was a done deal? As things stand, there's been absolutely nothing on that front since November 13th, i.e. almost 18 days ago.

Amen. The thing is though that the usual suspects that are posting in this thread need their daily anti-A380 fix. So when there are no fresh A380 news to poop on this thread is the best chance to post ever more vitriol about the A380 even when it's blatantly off-topic.

Strato2 wrote:

anfromme wrote:

So we're on page 18 of a thread supposedly about Airbus working with EK on another A380 order.
On this page 18, "EK" and "Emirates" get a combined 9 mentions (thread titles and user names excluded), of which four are only in quotes. "China" gets 11 mentions and indeed we get another re-hash of the usual legends about why Airbus launched the A380 to begin with, some more a.net lore on why it's no surprise it's not selling, why it will not be selling, or why it will be selling in the future.
Not to spoil the fun, but maybe it's time to lock this one and have somebody open a new thread once there is anything substantial on the status of that new EK A380 deal that many assumed was a done deal? As things stand, there's been absolutely nothing on that front since November 13th, i.e. almost 18 days ago.

Amen. The thing is though that the usual suspects that are posting in this thread need their daily anti-A380 fix. So when there are no fresh A380 news to poop on this thread is the best chance to post ever more vitriol about the A380 even when it's blatantly off-topic.

Not just that... but Pro A380 people who need their daily fix get to post the old and extremely well used (and in my opinion well disproved to date) theories on how growth in total passenger counts will REQUIRE an A380. The newer members of this forum may not know that these very same arguments were in full force a decade ago... and in an era that say the largest orders of passenger aircraft ever (narrow-body and wide body) and huge world wide passenger growth that the A380 essentially missed out. No recession, and lots of passenger growth in that period. Hmmmm....

Have a great day,

DWC wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Question: Do you really believe that Airbus needed to make the A380 to sell it's other airliners? Are there airlines out there that would not have bought A320s and A330s, but now will because Airbus also able to make a very large aircraft?

1. It's essentially about large deals, a well documented stratety used by Boeing with its 747 : monopoly prices & margins to sell frames from other families at a lower price.
2. At to that the credibility : for a long time, some airlines would not buy Airbus, but US aircrafts. Displacing the Queen of the Skies certainly did away with what resistances are left.

I see where are disagreement is. I would think that airbus could have sold just as many planes without the A380; that any airline that wants a320s or a330s would have bought them without the ability to also buy an a380.

To use specific example, I think both Air France and Thai Airways would have bought A330s without the A380 even existing.

DWC wrote:

Most analysts agree that the A380 was an appropriate answer to Airbus' future. ...One is the cementing of the Airbus brand. How much is it worth in the acounting books ?
Probably not as much as Coca Cola or the iPhone, but it is in the billions.

I think most people disagree that the A380 was an appropriate answer. There are some people who (given what was known then) might have been in favor of the A380, but (given what we know now) it's obviously a bad idea.

This is one of the cases in which it's clear that Boeing was right and Airbus was wrong. Boeing's prediction of the future market for VLA aircraft was much closer to correct, and Airbus's prediction was disastrously wrong. (No, I'm not a Boeing fanboi, but the historic archives of predictions is available).

The brand value of the A380 is real, but it's not worth ten billion.

2175301 wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

anfromme wrote:

So we're on page 18 of a thread supposedly about Airbus working with EK on another A380 order.
On this page 18, "EK" and "Emirates" get a combined 9 mentions (thread titles and user names excluded), of which four are only in quotes. "China" gets 11 mentions and indeed we get another re-hash of the usual legends about why Airbus launched the A380 to begin with, some more a.net lore on why it's no surprise it's not selling, why it will not be selling, or why it will be selling in the future.
Not to spoil the fun, but maybe it's time to lock this one and have somebody open a new thread once there is anything substantial on the status of that new EK A380 deal that many assumed was a done deal? As things stand, there's been absolutely nothing on that front since November 13th, i.e. almost 18 days ago.

Amen. The thing is though that the usual suspects that are posting in this thread need their daily anti-A380 fix. So when there are no fresh A380 news to poop on this thread is the best chance to post ever more vitriol about the A380 even when it's blatantly off-topic.

Not just that... but Pro A380 people who need their daily fix get to post the old and extremely well used (and in my opinion well disproved to date) theories on how growth in total passenger counts will REQUIRE an A380. The newer members of this forum may not know that these very same arguments were in full force a decade ago... and in an era that say the largest orders of passenger aircraft ever (narrow-body and wide body) and huge world wide passenger growth that the A380 essentially missed out. No recession, and lots of passenger growth in that period. Hmmmm....

Have a great day,

A decade ago, we were in a depression...
Passenger numbers are expected to double by mid 2030s and airports and gates are already getting constrained. Why wouldn't an A380 help?

kitplane01 wrote:

This is one of the cases in which it's clear that Boeing was right and Airbus was wrong. Boeing's prediction of the future market for VLA aircraft was much closer to correct, and Airbus's prediction was disastrously wrong. (No, I'm not a Boeing fanboi, but the historic archives of predictions is available).

The brand value of the A380 is real, but it's not worth ten billion.

What was Boeing right about? maybe numbers, but again, they fired back with the 747-8. And the 747-8 will never return it's development costs.

Slug71 wrote:

What was Boeing right about? maybe numbers, but again, they fired back with the 747-8. And the 747-8 will never return it's development costs.

I honestly believe a key reason Boeing OK'd the 747-8 was to keep price pressure on the A380. They couldn't know for certain that the 777 and its development and other new twins would do that and the aged 747 was their only option. In a sales fight the one option Airbus had to fight was the price of the 747-8 vs the A380. Boeing refused to concede larger profits to Airbus and decided to risk and spend its money to do so. (I also think they thought it would do much better than it did, at least well enough to beat development expenses which it has not)

Tugg

Slug71 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

This is one of the cases in which it's clear that Boeing was right and Airbus was wrong. Boeing's prediction of the future market for VLA aircraft was much closer to correct, and Airbus's prediction was disastrously wrong. (No, I'm not a Boeing fanboi, but the historic archives of predictions is available).

The brand value of the A380 is real, but it's not worth ten billion.

What was Boeing right about? maybe numbers, but again, they fired back with the 747-8. And the 747-8 will never return it's development costs.

He told you in his post what Boeing was right about : "Boeing's prediction of the future market for VLA aircraft was much closer to correct, and Airbus's prediction was
disastrously wrong." Didn't you read it?

Slug71 wrote:

A decade ago, we were in a depression...
Passenger numbers are expected to double by mid 2030s and airports and gates are already getting constrained. Why wouldn't an A380 help?

A380 was based on a lot of "fair weather sailing" presumptions.

How do you know that we won't be in a depression between now and the mid 2030s?

Our economist friends can tell you how often we encounter recessions and depressions.

I'm pretty sure it won't be all fair weather sailing between now and 2030, unfortunately.

Slug71 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

This is one of the cases in which it's clear that Boeing was right and Airbus was wrong. Boeing's prediction of the future market for VLA aircraft was much closer to correct, and Airbus's prediction was disastrously wrong. (No, I'm not a Boeing fanboi, but the historic archives of predictions is available).

The brand value of the A380 is real, but it's not worth ten billion.

What was Boeing right about? maybe numbers, but again, they fired back with the 747-8. And the 747-8 will never return it's development costs.

Boeing made a big mistake with the 747-8. Airbus made a huge mistake with A380. Neither will return their development costs. They were 2x-3x bigger for A380.

Matt6461 wrote:

1. implicitly asks us to have faith that Airbus got its own modelling correct, i.e. that they didn't make a mistake. Given the fundamental mistakes made in this program, I don't have that faith.
2. The number of variables is sort of irrelevant.

1. not at all. Just asking you to consider them. To "fathom" them quatitatively requires sectorial experience, which is what macroeconomists have. Until then,
2. unless you have identified all the zillion variables &had them quantified ( not few as solutions to differential functions ), there is no way to get tto he real result.
3. As to positive externalities, they are just one part of the benefits I listed previously & indeed may not be accounted for in the books. For example, just one out of many, Tom Enders has asked for more political support from the EU to match that of Boeing with the US Gov ; whatever the truth in this, that is not easily accountable in figures, even explicit deals involve other factors. But split orders are often a consequence of this, in part due to availability in case of big orders, but not always nor solely.

Tugger wrote:

I honestly believe a key reason Boeing OK'd the 747-8 was to keep price pressure on the A380. They couldn't know for certain that the 777 and its development and other new twins would do that and the aged 747 was their only option. In a sales fight the one option Airbus had to fight was the price of the 747-8 vs the A380. Boeing refused to concede larger profits to Airbus and decided to risk and spend its money to do so. (I also think they thought it would do much better than it did, at least well enough to beat development expenses which it has not)

One of my major points all along.

kitplane01 wrote:

I see where are disagreement is. I would think that airbus could have sold just as many planes without the A380; that any airline that wants a320s or a330s would have bought them without the ability to also buy an a380.
To use specific example, I think both Air France and Thai Airways would have bought A330s without the A380 even existing.

I think most people disagree that the A380 was an appropriate answer. There are some people who (given what was known then) might have been in favor of the A380, but (given what we know now) it's obviously a bad idea.
This is one of the cases in which it's clear that Boeing was right and Airbus was wrong. Boeing's prediction of the future market for VLA aircraft was much closer to correct, and Airbus's prediction was disastrously wrong.
The brand value of the A380 is real, but it's not worth ten billion.

1. Sorry to tell you this, but what you think or I think is irrelevant. I am only sharing what is published in economic research papers, for which you need a steep subscription. I have nevertheless pointed out everal times to one Harvard Business School "747 Business Case" as a reference, published in the 1990s just to say the arguments are not new & exerciced since the 1970s, they have only expanded. You may want to take your arguments with them, I am past that & am only summarizing newer imputs & very crudely at that.
2. Orders are not as simple & involve aircraft families, numbers for each frame & version, delivery schedules & financing, all of which are influenced by better offers the OEMs can make thanks to margins elsewhere - VLA is principle, that was the bet Airbus wanted to play. Personally, I think you may be right about AF as their backbone is indeed the 777, but then they fly a lot of A330s & A320s. TG & SQ have mixed fleets but are also big A330 & now A350 operators, one would have to have inside information to confirm or rule out any A380 influence. But EY & QRs orders are linked, look at their order historic.
3. Boeing's case : not that clear al all. Discussions on a-net have amply demonstrated that if the 787 has indeed sold well, it has fostered comparatively little new point-to-point routes ( Boeings's initial argument ) & actually replaced on trunk routes ( Airbus' argument ) ageing 747s ( the ones that never flew full, see UA ), ageing 772s or even upgraded 767s routes. Conversely, QF new service to LHR from Perth fits Boeing's prediction.
4.Fact that most blue-chip Legacies ordered the A380, even if unsufficiently, points that the A380 has a case ( barring MH ), even if half or less than prospected. And in general terms, there are many more people that deem the A380s globally successful for Airbus, even if not in production costs, there is much more at take with the A380 programme than the sole frame, see earlier pages in this thread. To say nothing of what the A380 taught Airbus & meant in savings : compare the seamless launch of the A350 to that of the 787 and that's 10 billions saved easily.
5. Branding : I meant Airbus', not the A380.
That said, EK owe at least half of their expansion & brand awareness to the A380 alone, millions of people go their way to fly it instead of the competitor. The A380 has thus generated for EK hundreds of billions in revenue tickets, therefore at least a few billions in profits in the past ten years they have been flying the whale. so from an accounting point of view, the "A380 brand" is at least a billion worth. Add to that all the free publicity made by mags, newspapers, TV, youtube, bloggers, report trips, etc., that's a few additional billions in free publicity. And for Airbus, least twice the amount for EK, so if I were to guess, 10 billion is not far-fetched.
https://www.emirates.com/media-centre/ek-newsroom-emirates-group-announces-2016-17-results

I'd like to add that my argument that all I say is not out of fan-boyism. I really enjoy the A380 as I did the 747 I flew as a kid until recently. You can expect me to be as interested in the 777X as new "Flagship" in the skies should the A380 be terminated, but I don't expect that to happen before 2025 at the very least as economic evidence point to an EK order once both parties agree.

Revelation wrote:

The reality is that Airbus needs much more than this much sooner for the A380 program to survive. What EK is willing to commit to merely keeps the line open, it doesn't pay for an A380NG that can keep far enough ahead of the big twins to justify the investment.

Which is why Airbus has not gone for a Neo.
I don't see a Neo anywhere on the horizon if something big does not change.
Brégier repeatedly has said the whale came a decade too early & is betting on China. For now China is not responding.

I have always liked how A380 fans think that adding more seats and stretching the A380 will sell more planes.

What Airbus REALLY needs to do ..... is make it more fuel efficient. Help the giant flying elephant lose some weight, upgrade the engines, and so on. The less fuel a giant plane needs to get from point A to point B means that the airline can profit more.

But the issue with that is .... the 747-8i is fuel efficient for its size and its still not selling. So maybe putting in the R&D into an A380 NEO is not worth the money.

Slug71 wrote:

2175301 wrote:

Strato2 wrote:

Amen. The thing is though that the usual suspects that are posting in this thread need their daily anti-A380 fix. So when there are no fresh A380 news to poop on this thread is the best chance to post ever more vitriol about the A380 even when it's blatantly off-topic.

Not just that... but Pro A380 people who need their daily fix get to post the old and extremely well used (and in my opinion well disproved to date) theories on how growth in total passenger counts will REQUIRE an A380. The newer members of this forum may not know that these very same arguments were in full force a decade ago... and in an era that say the largest orders of passenger aircraft ever (narrow-body and wide body) and huge world wide passenger growth that the A380 essentially missed out. No recession, and lots of passenger growth in that period. Hmmmm....

Have a great day,

A decade ago, we were in a depression...
Passenger numbers are expected to double by mid 2030s and airports and gates are already getting constrained. Why wouldn't an A380 help?

Technically you are correct: 2007 was a depression and 2007- 2008 were years with reduced aircraft orders. Aircraft orders came out of their "depression" in 2009 - and soared to numbers per year that had no historical basis (roughly 2X normal sales levels if I recall correctly - and stayed there). Both Airbus and Boeing were selling vast numbers of both narrow and wide body aircraft... The biggest and longest aircraft sales boom of history...yet the A380 largely missed out of now 9 years to totally record sales according to historical analysis.

Someone once posted a very nice graphic of that on this site... But, you can do internet searches and easily find at least the most recent decade of data.

Have a great day.

Sounds like to problem is solved:}

http://www.avgeekery.com/amedeos-a380-a ... pipe-dream

BravoOne wrote:

Sounds like to problem is solved:}

http://www.avgeekery.com/amedeos-a380-a ... pipe-dream

Can you trust a journalism website which calls a no-order an "order cancellation" *and* screws up the link?

A chapter on GAME THEORY & VLA.
Boeing vs. Airbus, starts on p.28, with developments of the Prisonner's dilemma on the Iberia order 777 vs A340. Its on Google Books, so you only get to see some preview pages, but gives you the gist ( very simplified here ) of how strategic calculations are made by both OEMs. Without these, one cannot understand how they make long term decisions, why Airbus keep the A380. Any pop-science discussion on the bottom-line only misses the mark, because investements also target other strategic positionnings, making things difficult for the competitor & raking umpteen other benefits not directly counted in the programme but elsewhere in the books & usually years later.
https://books.google.cl/books?id=bIOTCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA28

moo wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

Sounds like to problem is solved:}

http://www.avgeekery.com/amedeos-a380-a ... pipe-dream

Can you trust a journalism website which calls a no-order an "order cancellation" *and* screws up the link?

Yes, it's a crappy article about an equally crappy idea. In any case, already discussed at length here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1379295

-ir

DWC wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I see where are disagreement is. I would think that airbus could have sold just as many planes without the A380; that any airline that wants a320s or a330s would have bought them without the ability to also buy an a380.
To use specific example, I think both Air France and Thai Airways would have bought A330s without the A380 even existing.

I think most people disagree that the A380 was an appropriate answer. There are some people who (given what was known then) might have been in favor of the A380, but (given what we know now) it's obviously a bad idea.
This is one of the cases in which it's clear that Boeing was right and Airbus was wrong. Boeing's prediction of the future market for VLA aircraft was much closer to correct, and Airbus's prediction was disastrously wrong.
The brand value of the A380 is real, but it's not worth ten billion.

1. Sorry to tell you this, but what you think or I think is irrelevant. I am only sharing what is published in economic research papers, for which you need a steep subscription. I have nevertheless pointed out everal times to one Harvard Business School "747 Business Case" as a reference, published in the 1990s just to say the arguments are not new & exerciced since the 1970s, they have only expanded. You may want to take your arguments with them, I am past that & am only summarizing newer imputs & very crudely at that.

That is sooo not convincing. Some experts (that you cannot read) have said a thing is not a reasonable claim.

DWC wrote:

2. Orders are not as simple & involve aircraft families, numbers for each frame & version, delivery schedules & financing, all of which are influenced by better offers the OEMs can make thanks to margins elsewhere - VLA is principle, that was the bet Airbus wanted to play. Personally, I think you may be right about AF as their backbone is indeed the 777, but then they fly a lot of A330s & A320s. TG & SQ have mixed fleets but are also big A330 & now A350 operators, one would have to have inside information to confirm or rule out any A380 influence. But EY & QRs orders are linked, look at their order historic.

To be clear, you think that if QR was unable to buy the A380, they would not have bought the A330?

DWC wrote:

3. Boeing's case : not that clear al all. Discussions on a-net have amply demonstrated that if the 787 has indeed sold well, it has fostered comparatively little new point-to-point routes ( Boeings's initial argument ) & actually replaced on trunk routes ( Airbus' argument ) ageing 747s ( the ones that never flew full, see UA ), ageing 772s or even upgraded 767s routes. Conversely, QF new service to LHR from Perth fits Boeing's prediction.

I'm not talking about the 787. That's not what we're discussing.

DWC wrote:

4.Fact that most blue-chip Legacies ordered the A380, even if unsufficiently, points that the A380 has a case ( barring MH ), even if half or less than prospected. And in general terms, there are many more people that deem the A380s globally successful for Airbus, even if not in production costs, there is much more at take with the A380 programme than the sole frame, see earlier pages in this thread. To say nothing of what the A380 taught Airbus & meant in savings : compare the seamless launch of the A350 to that of the 787 and that's 10 billions saved easily.

I think you're just wrong.

It's not obvious what the "blue chip legacies" are, but among the top 11 airlines by revenue, 4 have bought the A380. That's not "most".
The 737 is flown by 8 of the 11.

To me (and lots of other people) this is simple. Airbus could have spent that money to develop a different plane that sold a thousand copies, and was profitable. Instead they made the A380. Bad choice.

DWC wrote:

A chapter on GAME THEORY & VLA.
Boeing vs. Airbus, starts on p.28, with developments of the Prisonner's dilemma on the Iberia order 777 vs A340. Its on Google Books, so you only get to see some preview pages, but gives you the gist ( very simplified here ) of how strategic calculations are made by both OEMs. Without these, one cannot understand how they make long term decisions, why Airbus keep the A380. Any pop-science discussion on the bottom-line only misses the mark, because investements also target other strategic positionnings, making things difficult for the competitor & raking umpteen other benefits not directly counted in the programme but elsewhere in the books & usually years later.
https://books.google.cl/books?id=bIOTCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA28

You're missing the point. Nobody disputes that game theory is a good way to mathematically solve what to do when we know the outcomes for all players and options. The book you cite assumes that Boeing saw a profit from VLA's if it could have preempted Airbus, and assumes Airbus makes a profit if it preempts Boeing. It models the game theory dynamics based on those assumptions. Obviously neither assumption is correct.

You are telling us about a method of solving games in answer to arguments about the substantive "game values."

I think your very long posts would benefit - as would we readers - from a little more analytical clarity. Please no more posts about method in response to points about substance. That said I appreciate your joining the discussion.

kitplane01 wrote:

To me (and lots of other people) this is simple. Airbus could have spent that money to develop a different plane that sold a thousand copies, and was profitable. Instead they made the A380. Bad choice.

Not really, They have sold more than what they stated was the business case number (250). What they said is the market number in the VLA category is not and never has been the number they alone would have sold. They didn't anticipate that 1 airline would end up dominating the type.

Without the production problems that were discovered that put the programme back costing billions and so raising the break-even number, more aircraft would have entered into airline fleets sooner and Airbus could potentially ease the base price a it would already be profitable with us talking about the introduction of the A389 now,. But with having to recoup costs as best they can, pricing isn't being overly discounted which is disincentivising airlines.

Since the 1st A380 delivery, Airbus have delivered 961 A330/340 (backlog of 326) and 122 A350s (backlog 730). Where exactly is the "missing" aircraft for them.. perhaps in the VLA category?