mxaxai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I was hoping you'd answer the question directly. To be clear, you think losing all that many billion $$$ into the A380 was a more wise move than the better/earlier A350 proposal above?

Yes. An A350 Mk. 0 in place of the A380 would have been even more outmatched by the 787-9 & 77W than the A380 was. The A350 Mk. 1 didn't turn out the way it did because Airbus lacked resources, but because their technology didn't permit something like today's A350 at the time. And Airbus would not have had the guts to replace a failed program this soon with a new one for a similar market. The A380 can be dropped without a huge impact on Airbus' portfolio.

The A380 pioneered lots of CFRP manufacturing technologies, yet only uses them for ~20 % of its mass. GLARE, which is used extensively on the A380 and was proposed for the A350 Mk. 1, is expensive. There is no way Airbus could have brought a 10 abreast jet to the market between 2005 and 2009 that contained >50 % CFRP without prohibitively high manufacturing costs. (First flights of A380 and 787, respectively)

Counter question: Do you think Airbus would be better off today if they had skipped the A380 entirely, and delivered today's A350 perhaps a year or two earlier?

You have the premise that Airbus could not have made a CFRP widebody at the right time frame. But I don't think that's true. I think if Airbus had invested an amount similar to the Boeing 787 investment, that could have made an A350 with CFPR. I don't think Boeing waited for the technology to arrive, I think they invented the technology, and Airbus could have done that.

If your premise is correct, then the winning Airbus move is to NOT build the A380, wait for the technology, and then build the A350. It would have arrived at about the same time as the 787, and sold more while taking more 787 sales.

But I'm not sure your premise is right.

Another author posted on this subject. i don't know if he's right, but if so imagine Airbus had these patents instead of Boeing.

bikerthai wrote:

The question was raised if Airbus did not fabricated the A380, and fabricated the A350 instead, then what would they have achieved?

An A350 with GLARE and not CFRP.

Note that the current 787 and A350 are only possible with the development of fiber placement machines. At the time, these machines were only in the development stages as the industry start gearing up for the Sonic Cruiser or 7J7 which latter became the 787. Much of the fiber placement development technology was being developed by Boeing and machines were few. I believe that the A350 was created in section instead of a barrel not only because they did not have the infrastructure (big enough autoclave - which can be solved) but because Boeing own many of the patents (which can not be resolved).

kitplane01 wrote:

Another author posted on this subject. i don't know if he's right, but if so imagine Airbus had these patents instead of Boeing.

I do not know if I'm right either. All I know was around 1992-1993 our R&D group was figuring ways to incorporate fiber placement in the company. There were only one or two fiber placement machines. The one that built our test part was one of the early one built by Cincinnati Milicron. There was much development ahead with first parts to be flown by Sealaunch and the V-22. What technology was Airbus concentrating on at this time?

bt

Stickpusher wrote:

VV wrote:

Whether it was successful as an aircraft program is something that is debatable.

Obviously, today we are sure the past VLA forecast issued by Airbus was not right. Unless you include 777-9 in the VLA league. Even then, 1200 777-9 deliveries in the next 20 years sounds way too optimistic.

....

What's certain is that the upward arc of numbers travelling was severely hit closely after the A380 program launch, and also closely after EIS. Airbus would have had a hard time predicting 9/11 and the subsequent slowdown that killed carriers (and also killed the return of Concorde after a year or two). The A380 launched at the end of 2000 IIRC. EIS with Singapore was in 2007, and a year later along came the GFC. A lot of the growth momentum in travel was lost, the upward arc Airbus predicted in the 90s flattened out somewhat - generally upward but with all the predictions now well out of whack. While we can only guess at how much was actually lost, any increase at all would bring it closer to their predictions. Historical events dealt the entire aviation market a bad hand in the noughties, all programs suffered and niche ones fared the worst.

It's too easy to dismiss Airbus' predictions as delusional, but any history graduate should tell you that to accurately understand decisions made in the past you have to undo all the history that came after (which you have but they didn't at the time) and often their decisions make a whole lot more sense.
....

I am not sure your statement is right.

If you look carefully into air traffic growth, it shows that air travel is growing at a relatively high pace. The 9/11 event happened in 2001 or years before A380 entered into service in 2007. There was an economic downturn in 2008-2009 due to the collapse of the housing bubble in the US and elsewhere. But the "dent" on traffic growth lasted only two years.
You can read this web page if you do not believe me. https://www.statista.com/statistics/193 ... er-demand/

If Airbus VLA predictions were not delusional then they were plainly wrong. In addition, nobody said their forecasts were delusional, most people said it was simply wrong or overly too optimistic. It would be delusional to say otherwise.

I recently wrote a piece titled "Soft Signals" in which I stated that there are more than just GDP growth, population growth, wealth distribution, air travel affordability, elasticity and so on. There are also soft signals that those forecasters failed to take into account. If you want to read the article it is in my blog.

VV wrote:

I am not sure your statement is right.

If you look carefully into air traffic growth, it shows that air travel is growing at a relatively high pace.

It may be that they were not looking closely enough? In terms of growth for example, international travel to the Caribbean may be on the uptick, but is it via A32X size a/c from North America or wide body a/c from Europe? I suspect this is where the A380 studies fell, the consolidation of multiple flights on one a/c did not come to fruition, slots, failure of the carbon trading schemes, fuel prices, all played a hand.

kitplane01 wrote:

RawSushi wrote:

The A380 in and of itself was not a commercial success, but so what?

Hindsight is 20/20. With an unpredictable future, it's normal for companies to make multiple bets. Some work out better than expected, others fail. The A380 was part of Airbus's strategy to cover the full range of the market. Some bets paid off better than expected (e.g. the A320), the A380 didn't, but still it was part of an overall successful strategy that brought it from being a new upstart to being an anchor member of a duopoly. If market conditions had turned out differently from what it is today, it could have still become a commercial success. It's a great plane. Passengers love it. No it wasn't profitable, but there's no need to bash it.

Faury explained it well here:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/faury-defends-airbus-forecasting-after-a380-disappoi-458423/

Boeing was looking at the same data, and screaming the Airbus's view was crazy. And they were right. It's not like a "who knew, there was no way to tell". It's more like "Your major competitor got it right, and you didn't".

Are you saying that Boeing has been betting right?

par13del wrote:

VV wrote:

I am not sure your statement is right.

If you look carefully into air traffic growth, it shows that air travel is growing at a relatively high pace.

It may be that they were not looking closely enough? In terms of growth for example, international travel to the Caribbean may be on the uptick, but is it via A32X size a/c from North America or wide body a/c from Europe? I suspect this is where the A380 studies fell, the consolidation of multiple flights on one a/c did not come to fruition, slots, failure of the carbon trading schemes, fuel prices, all played a hand.

What do you think about all those A330, 787, A350, 777-300ER delivered during those years?
Medium-long-haul traffic has grown a lot too, but bizarrely the demand for VLA has not picked up.

What's the reality?

VV wrote:

The A380 program helped me to bring my children up and to buy my house.

Sounds like you and their mother were using the same version of CATIA!

I think that Airbus' current projections are too conservative.
1600 new VLA's in the coming 20 years including anything larger than an A350-1000 as a VLA. i.e., 80 VLA's a year?

I think that technological advances within the next 5 years (for EIS within 10 years) are going to make aircraft so economical to fly that airlines will start to feel silly flying around small aircraft.

The A380 in its current form may not have the right economics, but the platform is perfect to incorporate new technologies.

The people who made the A380 projections will then be considered the visionaries and Thomas Enders will be seen as the guy who couldn't think further than his pointy nose.

In 5 years, everyone on airliners.net will be pointing to that short-sightedness.

kitplane01 wrote:

RawSushi wrote:

The A380 in and of itself was not a commercial success, but so what?

Hindsight is 20/20. With an unpredictable future, it's normal for companies to make multiple bets. Some work out better than expected, others fail. The A380 was part of Airbus's strategy to cover the full range of the market. Some bets paid off better than expected (e.g. the A320), the A380 didn't, but still it was part of an overall successful strategy that brought it from being a new upstart to being an anchor member of a duopoly. If market conditions had turned out differently from what it is today, it could have still become a commercial success. It's a great plane. Passengers love it. No it wasn't profitable, but there's no need to bash it.

Faury explained it well here:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/faury-defends-airbus-forecasting-after-a380-disappoi-458423/

Boeing was looking at the same data, and screaming the Airbus's view was crazy. And they were right. It's not like a "who knew, there was no way to tell". It's more like "Your major competitor got it right, and you didn't".

And, had it been the other way around, people would still have cheered Boeing's decision...

Waterbomber2 wrote:

I think that Airbus' current projections are too conservative.
1600 new VLA's in the coming 20 years including anything larger than an A350-1000 as a VLA. i.e., 80 VLA's a year?

I think that technological advances within the next 5 years (for EIS within 10 years) are going to make aircraft so economical to fly that airlines will start to feel silly flying around small aircraft.

The A380 in its current form may not have the right economics, but the platform is perfect to incorporate new technologies.

The people who made the A380 projections will then be considered the visionaries and Thomas Enders will be seen as the guy who couldn't think further than his pointy nose.

In 5 years, everyone on airliners.net will be pointing to that short-sightedness.

larger planes don't inherently have better economics though. you have to pay for more fa's, more fuel, more landing and takeoff fees, larger gates means larger gate fees, etc.

musman9853 wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

I think that Airbus' current projections are too conservative.
1600 new VLA's in the coming 20 years including anything larger than an A350-1000 as a VLA. i.e., 80 VLA's a year?

I think that technological advances within the next 5 years (for EIS within 10 years) are going to make aircraft so economical to fly that airlines will start to feel silly flying around small aircraft.

The A380 in its current form may not have the right economics, but the platform is perfect to incorporate new technologies.

The people who made the A380 projections will then be considered the visionaries and Thomas Enders will be seen as the guy who couldn't think further than his pointy nose.

In 5 years, everyone on airliners.net will be pointing to that short-sightedness.

larger planes don't inherently have better economics though. you have to pay for more fa's, more fuel, more landing and takeoff fees, larger gates means larger gate fees, etc.

That's when you don't consider the impact that technologies will have on the market.

Let's imagine for a minute that a 2030 A380neo would have a 50% fuel burn advantage, burning about the same as an A359 today, ie 6 tons per hour.
A fare that used to be 500$ becomes 350$, the market expands because more people can afford to fly.

The premise may seem exagerated, but an A350/B777 burns 80% less per pax than a B707 flying the same mission 40 years ago.

We're at the dawn of another step change in economics, mark my words.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

The A380 in its current form may not have the right economics, but the platform is perfect to incorporate new technologies

I will disagree. Large platforms are not ideal to incorporate new technology. It is too unweildy to change and addapt. Similar to large airlines that will order these large aircrafts.

Don't blame just the 777X or the 787 or the A350. Blame also the smaller Airlines who can compete with smaller aircrafts and can addapt to changing market conditions faster.

bt

It is incredible how people are still trying to justify the failure of VLA.

There is not more 747-8 Intercontinental in production and A380 production will stop in 2021 with about 251 deliveries.

Whatever you say, however you spin it, it's gone. It's finished. Those dinosaures won't come back in the next ten or even twenty years.

Why are people so attached to those big quads? Why why why?

It's over.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

I think that Airbus' current projections are too conservative.
1600 new VLA's in the coming 20 years including anything larger than an A350-1000 as a VLA. i.e., 80 VLA's a year?

I think that technological advances within the next 5 years (for EIS within 10 years) are going to make aircraft so economical to fly that airlines will start to feel silly flying around small aircraft.

The A380 in its current form may not have the right economics, but the platform is perfect to incorporate new technologies.

The people who made the A380 projections will then be considered the visionaries and Thomas Enders will be seen as the guy who couldn't think further than his pointy nose.

In 5 years, everyone on airliners.net will be pointing to that short-sightedness.

I wish I could share your optimism about the trajectory of the economics of flying. It is true that modern airliners are much more efficient than their predecessors. Improvements are still being made, but those improvements are expensive and very difficult to achieve. My prediction is in the future manufactures will have to invest more money for smaller efficiency gains, and the pace of improvement will slow. For the record I really hope that you are right, and I am wrong.

WayexTDI wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

RawSushi wrote:

The A380 in and of itself was not a commercial success, but so what?

Hindsight is 20/20. With an unpredictable future, it's normal for companies to make multiple bets. Some work out better than expected, others fail. The A380 was part of Airbus's strategy to cover the full range of the market. Some bets paid off better than expected (e.g. the A320), the A380 didn't, but still it was part of an overall successful strategy that brought it from being a new upstart to being an anchor member of a duopoly. If market conditions had turned out differently from what it is today, it could have still become a commercial success. It's a great plane. Passengers love it. No it wasn't profitable, but there's no need to bash it.

Faury explained it well here:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/faury-defends-airbus-forecasting-after-a380-disappoi-458423/

Boeing was looking at the same data, and screaming the Airbus's view was crazy. And they were right. It's not like a "who knew, there was no way to tell". It's more like "Your major competitor got it right, and you didn't".

And, had it been the other way around, people would still have cheered Boeing's decision...

As some posters are still trying to cheer Airbus's choice. Weakly, but audibly. And had it been the other way around, those same Airbus defenders would have been Boeing antagonists, purely based on the nameplate. In the end, what's your point? That fanboys are fanboys? Stop the presses!

I am glad Airbus built the A380. With the B748, It's probably the last 4 holer we will see, and its demise is sad. Neither did as well as hoped financially. (Please Boeing partisans, I know the freighter line is still open.) The A380 is not the most attractive frame, but the ANA examples are frigging awesome. And it is still amazing to see up close at the gate. Even my 180 degree from avgeek wife was impressed.

WBM wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

I think that Airbus' current projections are too conservative.
1600 new VLA's in the coming 20 years including anything larger than an A350-1000 as a VLA. i.e., 80 VLA's a year?

I think that technological advances within the next 5 years (for EIS within 10 years) are going to make aircraft so economical to fly that airlines will start to feel silly flying around small aircraft.

The A380 in its current form may not have the right economics, but the platform is perfect to incorporate new technologies.

The people who made the A380 projections will then be considered the visionaries and Thomas Enders will be seen as the guy who couldn't think further than his pointy nose.

In 5 years, everyone on airliners.net will be pointing to that short-sightedness.

I wish I could share your optimism about the trajectory of the economics of flying. It is true that modern airliners are much more efficient than their predecessors. Improvements are still being made, but those improvements are expensive and very difficult to achieve. My prediction is in the future manufactures will have to invest more money for smaller efficiency gains, and the pace of improvement will slow. For the record I really hope that you are right, and I am wrong.

It is correct to say that improvements in efficiency cost a lot of money, but it would be unfair to say that gains made in the past were relatively cheap or easy to achieve.

Also, it is easy to assume that as technologies mature, we are getting closer and closer to the optimum of a design so that improvements become difficult to achieve. Unfortunately, this is a moving assumption that every generation of engineers carry with them.

However, I don't think so.
The NEO and MAX engines are delivering serious fuel burn reductions over designs that were already quute fuek efficient, then there are raked wing tips and winglets, laminar flow airfoils, etc...

We have dumped aluminum for CFRP just recently.

Innovation is accelerating, not slowing down.
I think that the reason for this is that aviation is finally becoming a mass industry, where previous gains were made on the back of subsidised and or military programs.
Big money is flowing in, so that innovation is becoming possible.

acjbbj wrote:

The A380 is the biggest and worst failure in all of commercial aviation.

I readily admit that the A380 hasn't sold anything as much as Airbus had envisaged, but does the 235 sold so far with another 50 or so ordered merit such a damning description? There have been in my lifetime several airliner models that have not done that well, such as the Lockheed Starliner (55 manufactured), the Boeing Stratocruiser (56), the Vickers VC-10 (54), the Vickers Vanguard (44), and the Convair CV-990 (37), not to mention the one and only Bristol Brabazon. Even when taking into consideration the much larger number of air passengers today compared to when these planes were introduced, one may fairly say that the sales performance of the Whale is a big disappointment but hardly 'the biggest and worst failure in all of commercial aviation'.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

musman9853 wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

I think that Airbus' current projections are too conservative.
1600 new VLA's in the coming 20 years including anything larger than an A350-1000 as a VLA. i.e., 80 VLA's a year?

I think that technological advances within the next 5 years (for EIS within 10 years) are going to make aircraft so economical to fly that airlines will start to feel silly flying around small aircraft.

The A380 in its current form may not have the right economics, but the platform is perfect to incorporate new technologies.

The people who made the A380 projections will then be considered the visionaries and Thomas Enders will be seen as the guy who couldn't think further than his pointy nose.

In 5 years, everyone on airliners.net will be pointing to that short-sightedness.

larger planes don't inherently have better economics though. you have to pay for more fa's, more fuel, more landing and takeoff fees, larger gates means larger gate fees, etc.

.

larger planes do have less pilots though relatively speaking and pilots are the most expensive.

Vladex wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

musman9853 wrote:

larger planes don't inherently have better economics though. you have to pay for more fa's, more fuel, more landing and takeoff fees, larger gates means larger gate fees, etc.

.

larger planes do have less pilots though relatively speaking and pilots are the most expensive.

sure but that doesn't necessarily make it a better choice economically though.

What was this CEO under the influence of to make such a laughable comment?

WayexTDI wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

RawSushi wrote:

The A380 in and of itself was not a commercial success, but so what?

Hindsight is 20/20. With an unpredictable future, it's normal for companies to make multiple bets. Some work out better than expected, others fail. The A380 was part of Airbus's strategy to cover the full range of the market. Some bets paid off better than expected (e.g. the A320), the A380 didn't, but still it was part of an overall successful strategy that brought it from being a new upstart to being an anchor member of a duopoly. If market conditions had turned out differently from what it is today, it could have still become a commercial success. It's a great plane. Passengers love it. No it wasn't profitable, but there's no need to bash it.

Faury explained it well here:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/faury-defends-airbus-forecasting-after-a380-disappoi-458423/

Boeing was looking at the same data, and screaming the Airbus's view was crazy. And they were right. It's not like a "who knew, there was no way to tell". It's more like "Your major competitor got it right, and you didn't".

And, had it been the other way around, people would still have cheered Boeing's decision...

Of course there are Boeing and Airbus fanboys, but this is not about that. For this particular multi-billion decision, Boeing was clearly right and Airbus wrong. And it cost Airbus A LOT.

DrPaul wrote:

acjbbj wrote:

The A380 is the biggest and worst failure in all of commercial aviation.

I readily admit that the A380 hasn't sold anything as much as Airbus had envisaged, but does the 235 sold so far with another 50 or so ordered merit such a damning description? There have been in my lifetime several airliner models that have not done that well, such as the Lockheed Starliner (55 manufactured), the Boeing Stratocruiser (56), the Vickers VC-10 (54), the Vickers Vanguard (44), and the Convair CV-990 (37), not to mention the one and only Bristol Brabazon. Even when taking into consideration the much larger number of air passengers today compared to when these planes were introduced, one may fairly say that the sales performance of the Whale is a big disappointment but hardly 'the biggest and worst failure in all of commercial aviation'.

If you're measuring in dollars lost, it's the worst. No program in aviation has had a larger economic loss.

bikerthai wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

The A380 in its current form may not have the right economics, but the platform is perfect to incorporate new technologies

I will disagree. Large platforms are not ideal to incorporate new technology. It is too unweildy to change and addapt. Similar to large airlines that will order these large aircrafts.

Don't blame just the 777X or the 787 or the A350. Blame also the smaller Airlines who can compete with smaller aircrafts and can addapt to changing market conditions faster.

bt

Can you give examples for that argument?

I can give you an example for my argument.
Lockheed Martin is working on a micro fusion reactor, but even that is the size of a full size container.
That is something that the A380 could swallow, but not something that you can put on a B787.

New technology needs to mature too and a large aircraft provides more space for beta testing and fine tuning.

The benefits of a new technology, even at its rough state, are also more perceptible on a big aircraft.
If for instance a single technology saves 500kg of fuel per hour on an A380, its benefits are more endorseable than if it only saves 200kg of fuel per hour on a B787 even though the % efficiency gain is the same.

New technology has a cost factor, the bigger size of a new system won't impact the cost as much but the benefits will be bigger.

Based on the unreal a.net post count on whatever A380-related topic, I think one can say that the program has been a huge success.

AirwayBill wrote:

Based on the unreal a.net post count on whatever A380-related topic, I think one can say that the program has been a huge success.

The A380 has always triggered a very emotional response. It is an extremely interesting phenomenon that could potentially be the subject of a psychological research.

I would not compare the aircraft to any religion, but the symptoms triggered by a discussion on the A380 ressemble to that in a religious debate.

It is all about love and belief, when the reality is that 747-8 Intercontinental is not built anymore and A380 production will end in 2021.

What the fracas?

Why do we always have to think people lie? I mean he could have said nothing, and it is not PR that counts in this case as investors sure do not buy PR, if he says it was successful for them, it was, we might not like it, it might have been a commercial failure, but it could mean a good roi in the longterm for other reason.

I tend to agree with him, the 380 could have been better in a commercial way, but I am sure it was a great tool for the company, worth the price? I don't know I do not have the tools and data to say that, but apparently it was.

Could they have had the same ROI with smaller investment? Who knows, they could have succeeded or even fallen harder.

Sometimes it seems like poeple disagree just to disagree.....

He didn't lie. He only repeated what he was told to say.

Or he sincerely believes what he said, in which case maybe we can think his belief is wrong.

Would he cancel the decision to stop A380 production in 2021? The answer is probably no.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

I can give you an example for my argument.
Lockheed Martin is working on a micro fusion reactor, but even that is the size of a full size container.
That is something that the A380 could swallow, but not something that you can put on a B787.

Your argument may be valid. But your example is not a good example. Say, if the microfusion can only be held in an A380, then it would fill too much of floor space to make thus losing more money. By the time they work out the infrastructure to support microfusion tech and get the cost down enough to use it on any potential very large airplane, the tech would advance enough to miniaturize it to fit smaller planes. Even before that, you have the 777 which have better cargo hold ratio to handle the full size pallet. And if you are talking about such cheap unlimited power, then might as well by-pass the A380 go directly to a supersonic or space plane or a bwb. Either way, the paradigm would have shifted.

I can give you a real live expample to counter your argument. Consider the double decker or articulated busses. They are useful in large metro area where congestion is high. But they are out numbered by regular busses. And they are out numbered by car and van pools. Now introduce the next
paradigm of electric vehicles and car sharing. How does the double decker fare? Probably OK, but guess what segment or group would addapt or adop the electric vehicles faster? ( you can say the bus was the first to adopt electricficaton, as they had then in Seattle for decades . . .but as you can see, it is still a niche).



bt

Waterbomber2 wrote:

I think that Airbus' current projections are too conservative.
1600 new VLA's in the coming 20 years including anything larger than an A350-1000 as a VLA. i.e., 80 VLA's a year?

Hmm, what are the present sales figures for VLA's? I assume you refer to the B748i-A380-B77-9x-combo when you say "anything larger than an A350-1000".
I don't know the value including the B777-9x, maybe someone else has it. Without the B777-9x, i.e. for the B748i / A380 pair, the present sales figures might be even negative (due to the A380 cancellations). So it's hard to believe they would reach 80 VLA's a year.

kitplane01 wrote:

Boeing was looking at the same data, and screaming the Airbus's view was crazy. And they were right. It's not like a "who knew, there was no way to tell". It's more like "Your major competitor got it right, and you didn't".

can i see where boeing looking for the same idea (A380/MD-12, with actually both very different)
as far as i know boeing looked for much more insane projects (VLA)
https://yuripasholok.livejournal.com/10760709.html

Waterbomber2 wrote:

I think that Airbus' current projections are too conservative.
1600 new VLA's in the coming 20 years including anything larger than an A350-1000 as a VLA. i.e., 80 VLA's a year?

I think that technological advances within the next 5 years (for EIS within 10 years) are going to make aircraft so economical to fly that airlines will start to feel silly flying around small aircraft.

The A380 in its current form may not have the right economics, but the platform is perfect to incorporate new technologies.

The people who made the A380 projections will then be considered the visionaries and Thomas Enders will be seen as the guy who couldn't think further than his pointy nose.

In 5 years, everyone on airliners.net will be pointing to that short-sightedness.

You and your ilk have been saying this since EIS.

Let's wager it. Talk is cheap.

N14AZ wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

I think that Airbus' current projections are too conservative.
1600 new VLA's in the coming 20 years including anything larger than an A350-1000 as a VLA. i.e., 80 VLA's a year?

Hmm, what are the present sales figures for VLA's? I assume you refer to the B748i-A380-B77-9x-combo when you say "anything larger than an A350-1000".
I don't know the value including the B777-9x, maybe someone else has it. Without the B777-9x, i.e. for the B748i / A380 pair, the present sales figures might be even negative (due to the A380 cancellations). So it's hard to believe they would reach 80 VLA's a year.

I love how the a35J is excluded. This is called mental gymnastics in statistics.

Well at the time the A380 was designed we should look at the 4 holers available and possibly the 777W if they decided it was large enough.
777X and A350J are revisionist items and should not be included in a review of the A380 decision.

A programme that cost a sh*tload of money ; 25-30 bn

only 250 units sold at a "digestible" loss (as Tom Enders described it)
out of 1300 estimated

the whole mega project depending on one custumers (EK) which bought the half of the global fleet

very big aircraft that only few airports with special infrastructures and modified ones (wider taxiways ,bigger hangars ,reinforced tarmac ...)
can handle it

a quad turbofan with very heavy body which makes it a fuel guzzler ,expensive to maintain ,and very expensive to reconfigure
,despite being so called "efficient and a technological marvel"

it needs to be filled to the brim to make profit ,which makes it a pain in the ass in the low season ,
even the smaller the cheaper and the older b77w has way better economics and more flexibility
no wonder , beside EK no other airline has made a second order

it has no second market ,only a single frame bought by hifly it's rate of use is very low ,and no P2F converstion potential as well

very short lifespan ,somes are already scraped at age of 12 ,which turns it to a nightmare for the owners and airlines

a lot of airlines are already starting getting rid of it or planning for replacement ,
LH will send it back 6 a380 to airbus and keep the b748s ! AF gonna keep only 5 ...

given all the features listed above ,we can say with all confidence that the almighty A380 was an overwhelming success

case closed

Armadillo1 wrote:

as far as i know boeing looked for much more insane projects (VLA)
https://yuripasholok.livejournal.com/10760709.html

But they didn't build them.

kitplane01 wrote:

RawSushi wrote:

The A380 in and of itself was not a commercial success, but so what?

Hindsight is 20/20. With an unpredictable future, it's normal for companies to make multiple bets. Some work out better than expected, others fail. The A380 was part of Airbus's strategy to cover the full range of the market. Some bets paid off better than expected (e.g. the A320), the A380 didn't, but still it was part of an overall successful strategy that brought it from being a new upstart to being an anchor member of a duopoly. If market conditions had turned out differently from what it is today, it could have still become a commercial success. It's a great plane. Passengers love it. No it wasn't profitable, but there's no need to bash it.

Faury explained it well here:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/faury-defends-airbus-forecasting-after-a380-disappoi-458423/

Boeing was looking at the same data, and screaming the Airbus's view was crazy. And they were right. It's not like a "who knew, there was no way to tell". It's more like "Your major competitor got it right, and you didn't".

Bojoing built the 747-8 so they thought Airbus is right.

VV wrote:

The A380 has always triggered a very emotional response. It is an extremely interesting phenomenon that could potentially be the subject of a psychological research.

You are writing a blog that is obviously very emotionally driven so I'm not surprised you say this however wrong you are.

Strato2 wrote:

VV wrote:

The A380 has always triggered a very emotional response. It is an extremely interesting phenomenon that could potentially be the subject of a psychological research.

You are writing a blog that is obviously very emotionally driven so I'm not surprised you say this however wrong you are.

Well, that blog has always been right all along concerning several subjects, including on the A380's market.

And yes, that blog received a lot of hostile comments and even threats every time it published an entry on the A380, but today many, not all, recon that the A380's production will end in 2021 with 251 deliveries. It only validates the blog's position since years, doesn't it?

Strato2 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

RawSushi wrote:

The A380 in and of itself was not a commercial success, but so what?

Hindsight is 20/20. With an unpredictable future, it's normal for companies to make multiple bets. Some work out better than expected, others fail. The A380 was part of Airbus's strategy to cover the full range of the market. Some bets paid off better than expected (e.g. the A320), the A380 didn't, but still it was part of an overall successful strategy that brought it from being a new upstart to being an anchor member of a duopoly. If market conditions had turned out differently from what it is today, it could have still become a commercial success. It's a great plane. Passengers love it. No it wasn't profitable, but there's no need to bash it.

Faury explained it well here:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/faury-defends-airbus-forecasting-after-a380-disappoi-458423/

Boeing was looking at the same data, and screaming the Airbus's view was crazy. And they were right. It's not like a "who knew, there was no way to tell". It's more like "Your major competitor got it right, and you didn't".

Bojoing built the 747-8 so they thought Airbus is right.

Sort of. Boeing hedged in the event that they got it wrong with a modified design.

And yes, they got it wrong too.

Strato2 wrote:

Bojoing built the 747-8 so they thought Airbus is right.

Boeing said a new clean sheet VLA was too costly, so they went with a derivative that cost one-fifth of what the A380 did.
I haven't heard any Boeing executives calling it a success.
If they had to do it over again I'm sure they wouldn't have built the 748, just as I'm certain Airbus wouldn't do the A380 with the benefit of hindsight.

Revelation wrote:

VV wrote:

The A380 program helped me to bring my children up and to buy my house.

Sounds like you and their mother were using the same version of CATIA!

Exactly.

yabeweb wrote:

Why do we always have to think people lie? I mean he could have said nothing, and it is not PR that counts in this case as investors sure do not buy PR, if he says it was successful for them, it was, we might not like it, it might have been a commercial failure, but it could mean a good roi in the longterm for other reason.
...

Sometimes it seems like poeple disagree just to disagree.....

VV wrote:

He didn't lie. He only repeated what he was told to say.

Or he sincerely believes what he said, in which case maybe we can think his belief is wrong.

When he says the A380 is a success, he's saying something that's false and that he knows to be false. We call that a lie.

He could have said lots of true and useful things: "We learned a lot building the A380" or "The A380 was a huge technical achievement" or ...
but instead he chose to lie.

kitplane01 wrote:

When he says the A380 is a success, he's saying something that's false and that he knows to be false. We call that a lie.

....

Again, I do not want to compare the A380 to any religion, but your statement sounds very familiar in that context.

He may have said it very sincerely and didn't mean to lie. It is just like the story with religions.
All of them think they are right, without proof, but who knows what the reality is. God?

Armadillo1 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Boeing was looking at the same data, and screaming the Airbus's view was crazy. And they were right. It's not like a "who knew, there was no way to tell". It's more like "Your major competitor got it right, and you didn't".

can i see where boeing looking for the same idea (A380/MD-12, with actually both very different)
as far as i know boeing looked for much more insane projects (VLA)
https://yuripasholok.livejournal.com/10760709.html

Boeing published their market forecast, and has for decades. Google "Boeing Market Forecast 1994" or pick your own year.
They publicly said the VLA market share was way below what Airbus thought, and they were right and for the VLA market Airbus was disastrously wrong.

Boeing explores a zillion ideas (and they should) but when it came time to spend money, they went mid-market (787) and got that decision exactly right.

bikerthai wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

I can give you an example for my argument.
Lockheed Martin is working on a micro fusion reactor, but even that is the size of a full size container.
That is something that the A380 could swallow, but not something that you can put on a B787.

Your argument may be valid. But your example is not a good example. Say, if the microfusion can only be held in an A380, then it would fill too much of floor space to make thus losing more money. By the time they work out the infrastructure to support microfusion tech and get the cost down enough to use it on any potential very large airplane, the tech would advance enough to miniaturize it to fit smaller planes. Even before that, you have the 777 which have better cargo hold ratio to handle the full size pallet. And if you are talking about such cheap unlimited power, then might as well by-pass the A380 go directly to a supersonic or space plane or a bwb. Either way, the paradigm would have shifted.

I can give you a real live expample to counter your argument. Consider the double decker or articulated busses. They are useful in large metro area where congestion is high. But they are out numbered by regular busses. And they are out numbered by car and van pools. Now introduce the next
paradigm of electric vehicles and car sharing. How does the double decker fare? Probably OK, but guess what segment or group would addapt or adop the electric vehicles faster? ( you can say the bus was the first to adopt electricficaton, as they had then in Seattle for decades . . .but as you can see, it is still a niche).



bt

I should have been more precise, I'm asking for an aviation example.
Your bus argument is irrelevant as articulated busses and double deckers present unique challenges in their own way, such as boarding/de-boarding times for something that has to make a stop every so many minutes and drive in narrow streets of a city. That's why cities have busses, metro's, trams, monorails or trains. Busses are just one of many transport solutions in an urban transportation setting, while intercontinental travel doesn't offer that large a variety of solutions.


Does it matter that an A380 loses 200 pax or even a full deck worth of seating capacity to launch a new technology that doesn't burn any fuel?
For instance, the B777 will quickly run into weight and balance issues if you try to build anything significant in the cargo holds.
In terms of aerodynamics, the bulky A380 offers a lot more opportunities for "streamlining" than a B777, which is what makes the B777 so competitive in the first place.

Your argument for miniaturisation is not very relevant, because everything progresses by baby steps.
There is always a first step and when then that works out, we go to the next step.
The A380 is a platform that offers a lot of margin to take the first steps. In a later stage it can then be taken down to smaller aircraft.
The B777X is a perfect example of that. Boeing is putting a new CFRP wing on it instead of just MAXing it.
The MRJ program gave up the CFRP wing for this very reason. Not enough weight savings on such a small platform to justify the added complexity and cost of manufacturing it.

The A380 is also a quad design, so it would be the perfect platform to test a new generation of high thrust high efficiency engines and try to make it a twin engine design.
That optimisation is not possible on existing twin engine designs.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

I can give you an example for my argument.
Lockheed Martin is working on a micro fusion reactor, but even that is the size of a full size container.
That is something that the A380 could swallow, but not something that you can put on a B787.

Your argument may be valid. But your example is not a good example. Say, if the microfusion can only be held in an A380, then it would fill too much of floor space to make thus losing more money. By the time they work out the infrastructure to support microfusion tech and get the cost down enough to use it on any potential very large airplane, the tech would advance enough to miniaturize it to fit smaller planes. Even before that, you have the 777 which have better cargo hold ratio to handle the full size pallet. And if you are talking about such cheap unlimited power, then might as well by-pass the A380 go directly to a supersonic or space plane or a bwb. Either way, the paradigm would have shifted.

I can give you a real live expample to counter your argument. Consider the double decker or articulated busses. They are useful in large metro area where congestion is high. But they are out numbered by regular busses. And they are out numbered by car and van pools. Now introduce the next
paradigm of electric vehicles and car sharing. How does the double decker fare? Probably OK, but guess what segment or group would addapt or adop the electric vehicles faster? ( you can say the bus was the first to adopt electricficaton, as they had then in Seattle for decades . . .but as you can see, it is still a niche).



bt

I should have been more precise, I'm asking for an aviation example.
Your bus argument is irrelevant as articulated busses and double deckers present unique challenges in their own way, such as boarding/de-boarding times for something that has to make a stop every so many minutes and drive in narrow streets of a city. That's why cities have busses, metro's, trams, monorails or trains. Busses are just one of many transport solutions in an urban transportation setting, while intercontinental travel doesn't offer that large a variety of solutions.


Does it matter that an A380 loses 200 pax or even a full deck worth of seating capacity to launch a new technology that doesn't burn any fuel?
For instance, the B777 will quickly run into weight and balance issues if you try to build anything significant in the cargo holds.
In terms of aerodynamics, the bulky A380 offers a lot more opportunities for "streamlining" than a B777, which is what makes the B777 so competitive in the first place.

Your argument for miniaturisation is not very relevant, because everything progresses by baby steps.
There is always a first step and when then that works out, we go to the next step.
The A380 is a platform that offers a lot of margin to take the first steps. In a later stage it can then be taken down to smaller aircraft.
The B777X is a perfect example of that. Boeing is putting a new CFRP wing on it instead of just MAXing it.
The MRJ program gave up the CFRP wing for this very reason. Not enough weight savings on such a small platform to justify the added complexity and cost of manufacturing it.

The A380 is also a quad design, so it would be the perfect platform to test a new generation of high thrust high efficiency engines and try to make it a twin engine design.
That optimisation is not possible on existing twin engine designs.

Is the A380 legacy over, even when production ends in 3 years?

Airbus has buyback overhang (presumably shared with RR and EA).

Plus, every new WB purchase by an A380 operator, will include an A380 trade (for A & B). Might even come into play as soon as the current QF purchase.

And impacts engine OEM's too. In contrast to RR, which offers 15 year fixed price all inclusive ownership and maintenance deal, EA didn't and still won't. Neither it appears will GE do so for the 777X. Could this be part of the EK 787 order stumble? Could this see the 777X / A350 balance shift at EK?

If the A380 legacy becomes too expensive, especially for EK and LH operated aircraft, could a re-engine and aero tweaks become less costly for the OEM's and ultimate owners? Could even GE/EA be involved? Could this be the first modern day airliner with two different engine models inboard and outboard?

kitplane01 wrote:

yabeweb wrote:

Why do we always have to think people lie? I mean he could have said nothing, and it is not PR that counts in this case as investors sure do not buy PR, if he says it was successful for them, it was, we might not like it, it might have been a commercial failure, but it could mean a good roi in the longterm for other reason.
...

Sometimes it seems like poeple disagree just to disagree.....

VV wrote:

He didn't lie. He only repeated what he was told to say.

Or he sincerely believes what he said, in which case maybe we can think his belief is wrong.

When he says the A380 is a success, he's saying something that's false and that he knows to be false. We call that a lie.

He could have said lots of true and useful things: "We learned a lot building the A380" or "The A380 was a huge technical achievement" or ...
but instead he chose to lie.

That is your take on it, i respect it but disagree.
Neither you or I have the data to say if he is right or wrong, the difference is you try to make it sounds like you have the real answer, while all I am saying is, we really do not know, and let's not argue for tha sake of it.

yabeweb wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

yabeweb wrote:

Why do we always have to think people lie? I mean he could have said nothing, and it is not PR that counts in this case as investors sure do not buy PR, if he says it was successful for them, it was, we might not like it, it might have been a commercial failure, but it could mean a good roi in the longterm for other reason.
...

Sometimes it seems like poeple disagree just to disagree.....

VV wrote:

He didn't lie. He only repeated what he was told to say.

Or he sincerely believes what he said, in which case maybe we can think his belief is wrong.

When he says the A380 is a success, he's saying something that's false and that he knows to be false. We call that a lie.

He could have said lots of true and useful things: "We learned a lot building the A380" or "The A380 was a huge technical achievement" or ...
but instead he chose to lie.

That is your take on it, i respect it but disagree.
Neither you or I have the data to say if he is right or wrong, the difference is you try to make it sounds like you have the real answer, while all I am saying is, we really do not know, and let's not argue for tha sake of it.

In reality I agree with you.

There is no doubt Airbus spent too much time and money on the A380. It is very difficult to say that the aircraft has been a success. If there is any success, it is about building Europe's stronger economic activity.

Toulouse and surroundings have grown explosively in the 1990s and 2000s. The region went pass through the critical size to be a little bit less dependent on aeronautics. Hamburg has also grown significantly thanks to the A380 program (and A400M).

The programs (A380 and A400M) have allowed to keep skilled workers in Europe and to continue some research and development there. It reminds me the European hypersonic project "Hermes" in the 1980s and 1990s. Europe spent billions of dollars for a vehicle that never flew.

In a sense, the A380 (and A400M) has been a very successful economic project, but the aircraft itself is not a success.

If you wish, the two programs (A380 & A400M) is similar to the huge infrastructure program like the one in discussion in the US. It is just about spending money for the greater good.

I agree with you, yabeweb, that the A380 was not a successful aircraft.
However, it is a successful economic project.
It is a kind of science project at school. You build a "volcano" for the sake of building it to educate children.

okay, "what if" A380 would be smaller with circular fuselage 6+(8-9) with something like 748 OEW (210-215 instead of 277) and so smaller, more efficient wing with good aspect ratio?

Armadillo1 wrote:

okay, "what if" A380 would be smaller with circular fuselage 6+(8-9) with something like 748 OEW (210-215 instead of 277) and so smaller, more efficient wing with good aspect ratio?

Ugh?

A380 production stops in 2021.