• 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
 
musman9853
Posts: 631
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:17 pm

deltadc9 wrote:
Babyshark wrote:
Without going back through all these pages I have to agree. The 380 is a success. I mean it killed the 748 orders and begot technology for the 350 and won plenty of orders even if it wasnt the 1000 promised.

Its ugly but you still like to watch it go.


Or did the 748 steal enough 380 orders to doom the 380? THINK about it.


doubtful. boeing sold 47 748I's. even we say those orders went to the a380, that's like 330ish orders for the a380. that's still an utter failure.
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1631
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:43 pm

Revelation wrote:
Funny thing is some who are slagging the 787 are the same ones desperately trying to give the A380 a pass by saying it provided tech for A350.

Guess where the 777x wing and upgraded system tech came from?

You got it, 787.

Guess where much of the NMA tech will be coming from?

You got it, 787.

Yet we don't see people making excuses for the 787.

Its execution was terrible both in terms of schedule and budget.

Yet we do see excuses being made for A380.

Maybe to try to hide the fact that its terrible execution resulted in a dead end aircraft?



You are talking about lessons learned due to the 787 on programs that are still preparing for first flight or that hasn't been launched yet. The A350 was a successful introduction into service due to the lessons learned on the A380. Maybe if the 777X is launched without significant delays and a smooth EIS like the A350 experienced, you can open a thread and I will go on there and sing the praises of Boeing on how they learned their lessons, sounds fair?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20284
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:10 pm

enzo011 wrote:
You are talking about lessons learned due to the 787 on programs that are still preparing for first flight or that hasn't been launched yet. The A350 was a successful introduction into service due to the lessons learned on the A380. Maybe if the 777X is launched without significant delays and a smooth EIS like the A350 experienced, you can open a thread and I will go on there and sing the praises of Boeing on how they learned their lessons, sounds fair?

I guess we'll never know, since it seems that GE is doing its best to mess up the 777X program.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1364
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:18 pm

Revelation wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
You are talking about lessons learned due to the 787 on programs that are still preparing for first flight or that hasn't been launched yet. The A350 was a successful introduction into service due to the lessons learned on the A380. Maybe if the 777X is launched without significant delays and a smooth EIS like the A350 experienced, you can open a thread and I will go on there and sing the praises of Boeing on how they learned their lessons, sounds fair?

I guess we'll never know, since it seems that GE is doing its best to mess up the 777X program.
If the A350 is what is considered without significant delays, it seems they can have up to a year delay and still be ok.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1631
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:52 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
I guess we'll never know, since it seems that GE is doing its best to mess up the 777X program.
If the A350 is what is considered without significant delays, it seems they can have up to a year delay and still be ok.[/quote]

This is one of those lessons learned by Airbus. Communications to your customers about the delays is important, also it is about when you announce them. We know the history of both the A380 and 787 delays, the A350 announced their delays early and kept to the schedule mostly. They announced in 2012 that the aircraft would be delayed to EIS of end of 2014. They kept to that, lessons learned.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3547
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:22 pm

Revelation wrote:
9Patch wrote:
I never said the 787 would be a huge money maker for Boeing, or a huge success financially.
I said it will be much much more of a financial success than the A380.
Avery low bar indeed.

Funny thing is some who are slagging the 787 are the same ones desperately trying to give the A380 a pass by saying it provided tech for A350.
Guess where the 777x wing and upgraded system tech came from? You got it, 787.
Guess where much of the NMA tech will be coming from? You got it, 787.
Yet we don't see people making excuses for the 787.
Its execution was terrible both in terms of schedule and budget.
Yet we do see excuses being made for A380.
Maybe to try to hide the fact that its terrible execution resulted in a dead end aircraft?


I think you missed out on the biggest 787 lessons learned: supplier integration into one's own business processes (and vice versa!) in terms of (risk sharing) design and industrialization.

The idea (A380) wasn't that bad, at the time. For several reasons I already mentioned. The execution was bad. And the bad execution didn't help a mediocre business case, to put it mildly.
I still believe that without the poor execution, Airbus (and the tax payers) would have recovered most, if not all of their investment (RLI for tax payers). But at the same time, Airbus would not be the integrated company it is today. While unintended, that has become the real legacy of the A380 program: shedding cross border interests to the prevail of commercial interests.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
9Patch
Topic Author
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:52 pm

aaexecplat wrote:
Proof provided for you in the WTO doc starting on page 95. Turns out that my "speculation" was somehow on the money.

This is what page 95 says:
6.231. The French A350XWB Protocole states that the expected amount of interest payable will be [***]. The interest of [***] is expected to be realised upon delivery of [***] aircraft, which is less than the overall expected number of deliveries.

Royalties are payable under the French LA/MSF contract. The obligation to pay a royalty is triggered if there is an aircraft delivery once the principal has been reimbursed, which the contract states is expected to be by delivery [***], which is less than the overall expected number of deliveries.402 The amount of the royalty is expressed as 1% of the [***]403 [***]. The obligation to pay royalties [***].

Every number is redacted. How can you claim that proves your speculation was right on the money?

Some of the information goes back only as far as 1992 leaving out the most of the money spent on the A300 launched in 1969, A320 launched in 1984, A330 and A340 launched in 1987.

The Washington Post opinion piece was notable for it's misleading weasel words:

Here is how it works: Since 1992 European governments have committed some $3.7 billion to Airbus for its new ventures; all this investment, including interest, must be repaid by the company, on the basis of a levy for each plane sold. Once that initial investment is repaid, the company pays royalties on additional sales.


This is false. All this investment doesn't have to be paid back, and again it doesn't address the money Airbus received prior to 1992.
 
aaexecplat
Posts: 491
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:49 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:58 pm

9Patch wrote:
Every number is redacted. How can you claim that proves your speculation was right on the money?


I knew this was going to be useless...Leave it to you to latch on to one thing, completely misapply it to what I said and then using that as an argument to refute me...where I was right on the money was ON THE SPECULATION THAT EVERY SINGLE RLI AGREEMENT FOR EVERY COUNTRY IS DIFFERENT. Is that clear enough for you? DO I need to sign an affidavit or are you going to misconstrue this somehow, as well?
 
aaexecplat
Posts: 491
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:49 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:10 am

9Patch wrote:
Some of the information goes back only as far as 1992 leaving out the most of the money spent on the A300 launched in 1969, A320 launched in 1984, A330 and A340 launched in 1987.

The Washington Post opinion piece was notable for it's misleading weasel words:

Here is how it works: Since 1992 European governments have committed some $3.7 billion to Airbus for its new ventures; all this investment, including interest, must be repaid by the company, on the basis of a levy for each plane sold. Once that initial investment is repaid, the company pays royalties on additional sales.


This is false. All this investment doesn't have to be paid back, and again it doesn't address the money Airbus received prior to 1992.


If you use other links than the WTO doc, there is information about the A320 program (1984 and after). Yes...I don't have anything for the A300 program in great detail...probably because it precedes the invention of the internet and all that. If you want to celebrate that as a win, go right ahead.

But let the record show that I have been a member of this board for over a decade and have provided ample documentation to support my post, whereas you joined 2 months ago and have provided zero documentation whatsoever and have done nothing but muckrack here right at the time that Boeing needs some love (and Airbus some hate) due to a design of theirs that has turned 2 planes into lawn darts. If you want to wow me, produce some good evidence to support your theories and accusations instead of phantom dismissing the best information presented so far.
 
9Patch
Topic Author
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:45 am

aaexecplat wrote:
9Patch wrote:
Every number is redacted. How can you claim that proves your speculation was right on the money?


I knew this was going to be useless...Leave it to you to latch on to one thing, completely misapply it to what I said and then using that as an argument to refute me...where I was right on the money was ON THE SPECULATION THAT EVERY SINGLE RLI AGREEMENT FOR EVERY COUNTRY IS DIFFERENT. Is that clear enough for you? DO I need to sign an affidavit or are you going to misconstrue this somehow, as well?


Actually, I latched on to three things.
 
9Patch
Topic Author
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:52 am

aaexecplat wrote:
But let the record show that I have been a member of this board for over a decade and have provided ample documentation to support my post, whereas you joined 2 months ago and have provided zero documentation whatsoever and have done nothing but muckrack here right at the time that Boeing needs some love (and Airbus some hate) due to a design of theirs that has turned 2 planes into lawn darts. If you want to wow me, produce some good evidence to support your theories and accusations instead of phantom dismissing the best information presented so far.

My, aren't you full of yourself?
The record clearly shows that!
And your MAX comments show you couldn't resist a little more whataboutism.
 
aaexecplat
Posts: 491
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:49 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:56 am

9Patch wrote:
aaexecplat wrote:
But let the record show that I have been a member of this board for over a decade and have provided ample documentation to support my post, whereas you joined 2 months ago and have provided zero documentation whatsoever and have done nothing but muckrack here right at the time that Boeing needs some love (and Airbus some hate) due to a design of theirs that has turned 2 planes into lawn darts. If you want to wow me, produce some good evidence to support your theories and accusations instead of phantom dismissing the best information presented so far.

My, aren't you full of yourself?
The record clearly shows that!
And your MAX comments show you couldn't resist a little more whataboutism.
Yes. I am tired of trying to have a reasonable discussion with someone acting in bad faith. Good bye.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3547
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:34 am

9Patch wrote:
aaexecplat wrote:
But let the record show that I have been a member of this board for over a decade and have provided ample documentation to support my post, whereas you joined 2 months ago and have provided zero documentation whatsoever and have done nothing but muckrack here right at the time that Boeing needs some love (and Airbus some hate) due to a design of theirs that has turned 2 planes into lawn darts. If you want to wow me, produce some good evidence to support your theories and accusations instead of phantom dismissing the best information presented so far.

My, aren't you full of yourself?.


We can all see one member providing reasonable argumentation, followed up by reasonable background resources. And one member rather full of himself.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2833
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:33 pm

enzo011 wrote:
You are talking about lessons learned due to the 787 on programs that are still preparing for first flight or that hasn't been launched yet.


There are lessons learned thru mistakes. No one here is talking about lessons learned of the success. The 787 composite wing development flowed directly into the 777-9 wing. The enormous amount of R&D put into that wing is now passed on to the 777. What technology that was developed for the A380 was successfully passed on to the A350. There are probably some, but GLARE is not one of them.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20284
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:13 pm

bikerthai wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
You are talking about lessons learned due to the 787 on programs that are still preparing for first flight or that hasn't been launched yet.


There are lessons learned thru mistakes. No one here is talking about lessons learned of the success. The 787 composite wing development flowed directly into the 777-9 wing. The enormous amount of R&D put into that wing is now passed on to the 777. What technology that was developed for the A380 was successfully passed on to the A350. There are probably some, but GLARE is not one of them.

bt

It's a weird game people are playing here.

Sure, technology gets passed on which is a benefit, but this technology came at a huge cost, which seems to keep getting erased.

As a thought experiment, let's say A380 was financially neutral (i.e. break even) so we could all agree it wasn't a fiscal disaster yet still had its current lack of market appeal so it dies on the same time line.

Suppose also that all A380 technological advances were passed on to A350 along with its actual $25B fiscal deficit, would we then say A350 was a failure since it would need to earn +$25B in profits plus more to pay its own development cost along with the costs due to the time value of money?

If you're not willing to shift the A380 fiscal deficit onto the A350 and instead shift forward the A380 tech to A350 for free, you really can't say A380 was a success because whatever technology it developed for future use was so absurdly expensive you need to strand that cost in the past while moving its benefit forward for free.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
9Patch
Topic Author
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:49 pm

PW100 wrote:
We can all see one member providing reasonable argumentation, followed up by reasonable background resources. And one member rather full of himself.

We see one member who thinks his 10 years on a.net confers some sort of special status and therefore he must not be challenged.

His reasonable argumentation excludes a lot of RLI prior to 1992, doesn't have the interest rate or royalty numbers or how they're calculated, but nonetheless he's able to conclude that "Airbus has repaid (even with the A380 and A345/346 duds) WAY MORE than they ever got."
 
marcelh
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:40 pm

9Patch wrote:
PW100 wrote:
We can all see one member providing reasonable argumentation, followed up by reasonable background resources. And one member rather full of himself.

We see one member who thinks his 10 years on a.net confers some sort of special status and therefore he must not be challenged.

His reasonable argumentation excludes a lot of RLI prior to 1992, doesn't have the interest rate or royalty numbers or how they're calculated, but nonetheless he's able to conclude that "Airbus has repaid (even with the A380 and A345/346 duds) WAY MORE than they ever got."

And what’s the problem if Airbus paid less than they got?
 
Olddog
Posts: 1014
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:46 pm

It was taken from 9patch pocket of course :)
 
9Patch
Topic Author
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:58 pm

marcelh wrote:
9Patch wrote:
PW100 wrote:
We can all see one member providing reasonable argumentation, followed up by reasonable background resources. And one member rather full of himself.

We see one member who thinks his 10 years on a.net confers some sort of special status and therefore he must not be challenged.

His reasonable argumentation excludes a lot of RLI prior to 1992, doesn't have the interest rate or royalty numbers or how they're calculated, but nonetheless he's able to conclude that "Airbus has repaid (even with the A380 and A345/346 duds) WAY MORE than they ever got."

And what’s the problem if Airbus paid less than they got?


Well that would be contrary to a.net lore that Airbus has repaid WAY MORE than they ever got, that's so often used to justify RLI.
 
marcelh
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:39 pm

9Patch wrote:
marcelh wrote:
9Patch wrote:
We see one member who thinks his 10 years on a.net confers some sort of special status and therefore he must not be challenged.

His reasonable argumentation excludes a lot of RLI prior to 1992, doesn't have the interest rate or royalty numbers or how they're calculated, but nonetheless he's able to conclude that "Airbus has repaid (even with the A380 and A345/346 duds) WAY MORE than they ever got."

And what’s the problem if Airbus paid less than they got?


Well that would be contrary to a.net lore that Airbus has repaid WAY MORE than they ever got, that's so often used to justify RLI.

The same A.net lore that Airbus is giving their planes for free. Come on, both OEM are getting tax payers money one way or another.
 
9Patch
Topic Author
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:53 pm

marcelh wrote:
9Patch wrote:
marcelh wrote:
The same A.net lore that Airbus is giving their planes for free. Come on, both OEM are getting tax payers money one way or another.

Boeing has also been accused of giving their planes away for free. Remember MOL's rape comment? The 73G sale to United? The 787 sale to Hawaiian?

But that's irrelevant to the discussion of whether Airbus has paid back more in interest and royalties than they've taken in launch aid over the years.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3666
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:02 pm

Bricktop wrote:
come on folks, what's he supposed to say? With the very narrow definition of "success" Faury uses, he makes his case. It's only slightly sillier than making the same claim about the B787 being a "success", as that program still has the possibility of making money. Both companies have indeed gained greatly from those expensive tuition payments, even though Airbus seems to want to default on its student loans now.



Faury is Airbus!! If he didn't say that? Then he should be Fired! The A380 was a " day late and a dollar short" !
Airbus got surprised when they asked the US3 to buy support gear for the Airplane and all the USA carriers said NO!
Airbus was arrogant in that they consulted NOBODY when they proposed and built the airplane and then came up with their OWN feed program to tell the USA carriers how they might operate the airplane. They knew the gate space limitations and Ignored them, No wonder nobody in the USA bought them, there are only a handful of Hangar Docks in the USA that are even Large enough to even Jack an A380 to swing the Gear with SFO having 4 of them and JFK Hangars 12 and 19 being the other 4.
Hell! The Blimp Hangars at Moffett Field Might hold 2 of them if you parked them Nose to tail so that would be 4 more Bays, The old TWA facility at MCI, Delta's hangar at ATL and American's Round House at DFW and maybe Alliant could hold it though I haven't seen Alliant in Years so I don't know for sure, so that's 6 more.
The rest? Are owned By Boeing, Lockheed and the USAF not counting NASA.
I might have missed a few and maybe you guys might come up with some more. but for sure? The Big 4 engine days are Over!
The 777, 787,A330 and A350's are what's happening going forward.. That's why GE, Pratt and Whitney, and Rolls Royce are working Flat out for the next generation of Engines. So Airlines like Emirates can never complain about not having Fuel efficient Engines ever again on their airplanes. And EK complained a LOT!!
So they saw the A380 for what it was...
 
marcelh
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:50 pm

9Patch wrote:
But that's irrelevant to the discussion of whether Airbus has paid back more in interest and royalties than they've taken in launch aid over the years.

And what do you want to prove?
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 296
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:28 am

strfyr51 wrote:
Bricktop wrote:
come on folks, what's he supposed to say? With the very narrow definition of "success" Faury uses, he makes his case. It's only slightly sillier than making the same claim about the B787 being a "success", as that program still has the possibility of making money. Both companies have indeed gained greatly from those expensive tuition payments, even though Airbus seems to want to default on its student loans now.



Faury is Airbus!! If he didn't say that? Then he should be Fired! The A380 was a " day late and a dollar short" !
Airbus got surprised when they asked the US3 to buy support gear for the Airplane and all the USA carriers said NO!
Airbus was arrogant in that they consulted NOBODY when they proposed and built the airplane and then came up with their OWN feed program to tell the USA carriers how they might operate the airplane. They knew the gate space limitations and Ignored them, No wonder nobody in the USA bought them, there are only a handful of Hangar Docks in the USA that are even Large enough to even Jack an A380 to swing the Gear with SFO having 4 of them and JFK Hangars 12 and 19 being the other 4.
Hell! The Blimp Hangars at Moffett Field Might hold 2 of them if you parked them Nose to tail so that would be 4 more Bays, The old TWA facility at MCI, Delta's hangar at ATL and American's Round House at DFW and maybe Alliant could hold it though I haven't seen Alliant in Years so I don't know for sure, so that's 6 more.
The rest? Are owned By Boeing, Lockheed and the USAF not counting NASA.
I might have missed a few and maybe you guys might come up with some more. but for sure? The Big 4 engine days are Over!
The 777, 787,A330 and A350's are what's happening going forward.. That's why GE, Pratt and Whitney, and Rolls Royce are working Flat out for the next generation of Engines. So Airlines like Emirates can never complain about not having Fuel efficient Engines ever again on their airplanes. And EK complained a LOT!!
So they saw the A380 for what it was...


I think that we have to take a step back and wonder if the US carriers would have been worse off or better off with a fleet of A380's.
If you look at their long haul fleets, I think that the US3 carriers together only operate a few dozen aircraft bigger than a B772.
In the meanwhile, European and Asian carriers are bombarding their hubs with VLA's over VLA's, and otherwise mutliple daily B77W's.

The lack of ambition and competence of the US carriers shows.
If you count DL as the exception, UA and AA are showing very poor numbers despite how narrow and consolidated the U.S. market is.
In terms of products, if the option is available, Americans would choose Asian or Middle Eastern carriers over their own domestic carriers without the shadow of a second thought.
That's why they don't need big planes in the first place!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20284
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:12 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
I think that we have to take a step back and wonder if the US carriers would have been worse off or better off with a fleet of A380's.
If you look at their long haul fleets, I think that the US3 carriers together only operate a few dozen aircraft bigger than a B772.
In the meanwhile, European and Asian carriers are bombarding their hubs with VLA's over VLA's, and otherwise mutliple daily B77W's.

The lack of ambition and competence of the US carriers shows.
If you count DL as the exception, UA and AA are showing very poor numbers despite how narrow and consolidated the U.S. market is.
In terms of products, if the option is available, Americans would choose Asian or Middle Eastern carriers over their own domestic carriers without the shadow of a second thought.
That's why they don't need big planes in the first place!

EU superiority: explain then why LH canceled A380s and is selling used A380s back to Airbus and AF also cancelled A380s and is retiring others early.

As for other examples of superior enterprises associated with the A380:
    o EK, largest A380 operator, "wholly owned by the government of Dubai's Investment Corporation of Dubai", cancelled 39 A380s
    o SQ, 2nd largest A380 operator, "majority-owned by the Singapore government investment and holding company Temasek Holdings"
    o BA, only willing to buy more A380s at rock bottom prices, yet is buying 777X at market rates
    o QF, cancelled 8 A380s
Ref: wikipedia.org

Not so hard to be ambitious when the people who own your airline literally print your money.

And of course, let us consider two other ambitious A380 operators:

Image

Image

Clearly their ambition did them no favors, since both are bankrupt.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
9Patch
Topic Author
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:46 am

marcelh wrote:
9Patch wrote:
But that's irrelevant to the discussion of whether Airbus has paid back more in interest and royalties than they've taken in launch aid over the years.

And what do you want to prove?

Whether or not Airbus paid back more in interest and royalties than they've taken in launch aid over the years.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3666
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Wed Jun 12, 2019 5:40 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
Bricktop wrote:
come on folks, what's he supposed to say? With the very narrow definition of "success" Faury uses, he makes his case. It's only slightly sillier than making the same claim about the B787 being a "success", as that program still has the possibility of making money. Both companies have indeed gained greatly from those expensive tuition payments, even though Airbus seems to want to default on its student loans now.



Faury is Airbus!! If he didn't say that? Then he should be Fired! The A380 was a " day late and a dollar short" !
Airbus got surprised when they asked the US3 to buy support gear for the Airplane and all the USA carriers said NO!
Airbus was arrogant in that they consulted NOBODY when they proposed and built the airplane and then came up with their OWN feed program to tell the USA carriers how they might operate the airplane. They knew the gate space limitations and Ignored them, No wonder nobody in the USA bought them, there are only a handful of Hangar Docks in the USA that are even Large enough to even Jack an A380 to swing the Gear with SFO having 4 of them and JFK Hangars 12 and 19 being the other 4.
Hell! The Blimp Hangars at Moffett Field Might hold 2 of them if you parked them Nose to tail so that would be 4 more Bays, The old TWA facility at MCI, Delta's hangar at ATL and American's Round House at DFW and maybe Alliant could hold it though I haven't seen Alliant in Years so I don't know for sure, so that's 6 more.
The rest? Are owned By Boeing, Lockheed and the USAF not counting NASA.
I might have missed a few and maybe you guys might come up with some more. but for sure? The Big 4 engine days are Over!
The 777, 787,A330 and A350's are what's happening going forward.. That's why GE, Pratt and Whitney, and Rolls Royce are working Flat out for the next generation of Engines. So Airlines like Emirates can never complain about not having Fuel efficient Engines ever again on their airplanes. And EK complained a LOT!!
So they saw the A380 for what it was...


I think that we have to take a step back and wonder if the US carriers would have been worse off or better off with a fleet of A380's.
If you look at their long haul fleets, I think that the US3 carriers together only operate a few dozen aircraft bigger than a B772.
In the meanwhile, European and Asian carriers are bombarding their hubs with VLA's over VLA's, and otherwise mutliple daily B77W's.

The lack of ambition and competence of the US carriers shows.
If you count DL as the exception, UA and AA are showing very poor numbers despite how narrow and consolidated the U.S. market is.
In terms of products, if the option is available, Americans would choose Asian or Middle Eastern carriers over their own domestic carriers without the shadow of a second How many havethou
That's why they don't need big planes in the first place!

No US carrier would have been Better with the A380, Especially if they didn't already buy the B747-8. At the Least? That fit into he Hangars we have and didn't need revamped taxiways to even get to a Gate. the A380 was Big for the sake of BIG! It isn't and wasn't more efficient as it was also a "Loss Leader " that airplane will NEVER recoup it's Losses unless by slight of Hand of Airbus. You know it and I know it!! That Airplane was a " My Johnson is bigger than your Johnson" airplane because the 747 had been such a commercial success. And?? it will Continue to be Long after the A380 is Beer Cans.. Give it a BREAK will you?
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 296
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:15 am

Revelation wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
I think that we have to take a step back and wonder if the US carriers would have been worse off or better off with a fleet of A380's.
If you look at their long haul fleets, I think that the US3 carriers together only operate a few dozen aircraft bigger than a B772.
In the meanwhile, European and Asian carriers are bombarding their hubs with VLA's over VLA's, and otherwise mutliple daily B77W's.

The lack of ambition and competence of the US carriers shows.
If you count DL as the exception, UA and AA are showing very poor numbers despite how narrow and consolidated the U.S. market is.
In terms of products, if the option is available, Americans would choose Asian or Middle Eastern carriers over their own domestic carriers without the shadow of a second thought.
That's why they don't need big planes in the first place!

EU superiority: explain then why LH canceled A380s and is selling used A380s back to Airbus and AF also cancelled A380s and is retiring others early.

As for other examples of superior enterprises associated with the A380:
    o EK, largest A380 operator, "wholly owned by the government of Dubai's Investment Corporation of Dubai", cancelled 39 A380s
    o SQ, 2nd largest A380 operator, "majority-owned by the Singapore government investment and holding company Temasek Holdings"
    o BA, only willing to buy more A380s at rock bottom prices, yet is buying 777X at market rates
    o QF, cancelled 8 A380s
Ref: wikipedia.org

Not so hard to be ambitious when the people who own your airline literally print your money.

And of course, let us consider two other ambitious A380 operators:

Image

Image

Clearly their ambition did them no favors, since both are bankrupt.


You want to talk about Skymark? Let's talk about Skymark.
Skymark was a political assassination of an airline.
They were doing just fine and had ambitions to become a major player in the leisure market. But, despite growing to one of the largest high risk aircraft leasing market to the point of having their own product acronym, all lenders in Japan refused to give them the capital to finance their A380's.
This must have more or less been orchestrated by the Japanese government, because who else has the power to cut off financing like that?
Then Airbus steps in and instead of helping them find financing, they sued them. EY and others get to walk away from their orders, but a mere half year after the JL A350 order, there is Airbus suing its only loyal Japanese customer. Coincidence?

Kingfisher was also more or less a political assassination of an airline, but there we can say that there was unsustainable growth as main factor.
 
marcelh
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Wed Jun 12, 2019 7:45 am

9Patch wrote:
marcelh wrote:
9Patch wrote:
But that's irrelevant to the discussion of whether Airbus has paid back more in interest and royalties than they've taken in launch aid over the years.

And what do you want to prove?

Whether or not Airbus paid back more in interest and royalties than they've taken in launch aid over the years.

So what? Both OEMs receive nice “tax based incentives” from the government.
 
9Patch
Topic Author
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:03 pm

marcelh wrote:
9Patch wrote:
marcelh wrote:
And what do you want to prove?

Whether or not Airbus paid back more in interest and royalties than they've taken in launch aid over the years.

So what? Both OEMs receive nice “tax based incentives” from the government.

Ah, the old everybody does it, so what argument.
Weak.
 
marcelh
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:26 pm

9Patch wrote:
marcelh wrote:
9Patch wrote:
Whether or not Airbus paid back more in interest and royalties than they've taken in launch aid over the years.

So what? Both OEMs receive nice “tax based incentives” from the government.

Ah, the old everybody does it, so what argument.
Weak.

No, not weak. I’m just realistic.
For the A320, Airbus paid more than they received (and IIRC are still paying for every A32x neo which is being delivered).
But obviously you want to emphasise what a failure the A380 was and how much Airbus still needs to pay back.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20284
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:33 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
.
Skymark was a political assassination of an airline.
They were doing just fine and had ambitions to become a major player in the leisure market. But, despite growing to one of the largest high risk aircraft leasing market to the point of having their own product acronym, all lenders in Japan refused to give them the capital to finance their A380's.
This must have more or less been orchestrated by the Japanese government, because who else has the power to cut off financing like that?

So you're saying Japanese banks couldn't look at the same set of books and the same loan application and all come to the same conclusion?

Especially for an airline that was going to put the world's largest airplane into a premium only config when airlines catering to premium markets have a terrible record?

Maybe I should keep putting in my application for a loan for a new Bugatti into different banks because eventually some bank will loan me the money?

Waterbomber2 wrote:
Then Airbus steps in and instead of helping them find financing, they sued them.

That's what happens when you stop making payments on a Bugatti too.

Waterbomber2 wrote:
EY and others get to walk away from their orders, but a mere half year after the JL A350 order, there is Airbus suing its only loyal Japanese customer. Coincidence?

The people that own EY literally print their own money. The others also have a lot of collateral and a lot of orders for other Airbus products. The world ain't fair.

Waterbomber2 wrote:
Kingfisher was also more or less a political assassination of an airline, but there we can say that there was unsustainable growth as main factor.

Seems you're not defending your point that ambition will carry the day...

9Patch wrote:
marcelh wrote:
9Patch wrote:
Whether or not Airbus paid back more in interest and royalties than they've taken in launch aid over the years.

So what? Both OEMs receive nice “tax based incentives” from the government.

Ah, the old everybody does it, so what argument.
Weak.

Mommy, Jimmy's doing it too!

marcelh wrote:
.
For the A320, Airbus paid more than they received (and IIRC are still paying for every A32x neo which is being delivered).

For the A320, Airbus is paying less than they agreed to pay because they made a back room deal that largely slipped under the radar.

marcelh wrote:
.
But obviously you want to emphasise what a failure the A380 was and how much Airbus still needs to pay back.

If you prefer, we could talk about the A300 and how Airbus would not exist if the governments didn't fund the entire enterprise...
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
musman9853
Posts: 631
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:55 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
Bricktop wrote:
come on folks, what's he supposed to say? With the very narrow definition of "success" Faury uses, he makes his case. It's only slightly sillier than making the same claim about the B787 being a "success", as that program still has the possibility of making money. Both companies have indeed gained greatly from those expensive tuition payments, even though Airbus seems to want to default on its student loans now.



Faury is Airbus!! If he didn't say that? Then he should be Fired! The A380 was a " day late and a dollar short" !
Airbus got surprised when they asked the US3 to buy support gear for the Airplane and all the USA carriers said NO!
Airbus was arrogant in that they consulted NOBODY when they proposed and built the airplane and then came up with their OWN feed program to tell the USA carriers how they might operate the airplane. They knew the gate space limitations and Ignored them, No wonder nobody in the USA bought them, there are only a handful of Hangar Docks in the USA that are even Large enough to even Jack an A380 to swing the Gear with SFO having 4 of them and JFK Hangars 12 and 19 being the other 4.
Hell! The Blimp Hangars at Moffett Field Might hold 2 of them if you parked them Nose to tail so that would be 4 more Bays, The old TWA facility at MCI, Delta's hangar at ATL and American's Round House at DFW and maybe Alliant could hold it though I haven't seen Alliant in Years so I don't know for sure, so that's 6 more.
The rest? Are owned By Boeing, Lockheed and the USAF not counting NASA.
I might have missed a few and maybe you guys might come up with some more. but for sure? The Big 4 engine days are Over!
The 777, 787,A330 and A350's are what's happening going forward.. That's why GE, Pratt and Whitney, and Rolls Royce are working Flat out for the next generation of Engines. So Airlines like Emirates can never complain about not having Fuel efficient Engines ever again on their airplanes. And EK complained a LOT!!
So they saw the A380 for what it was...


I think that we have to take a step back and wonder if the US carriers would have been worse off or better off with a fleet of A380's.
If you look at their long haul fleets, I think that the US3 carriers together only operate a few dozen aircraft bigger than a B772.
In the meanwhile, European and Asian carriers are bombarding their hubs with VLA's over VLA's, and otherwise mutliple daily B77W's.

The lack of ambition and competence of the US carriers shows.
If you count DL as the exception, UA and AA are showing very poor numbers despite how narrow and consolidated the U.S. market is.
In terms of products, if the option is available, Americans would choose Asian or Middle Eastern carriers over their own domestic carriers without the shadow of a second thought.
That's why they don't need big planes in the first place!


I can only speak for myself, but i would much rather fly AA over BA/AF/LH etc. AA's J is so much better than most of the european and middle eastern carriers it's not even funny
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
marcelh
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Wed Jun 12, 2019 7:58 pm

Revelation wrote:
9Patch wrote:
marcelh wrote:
So what? Both OEMs receive nice “tax based incentives” from the government.

Ah, the old everybody does it, so what argument.
Weak.

Mommy, Jimmy's doing it too!

Silly reaction. I believed you have stepped up....

marcelh wrote:
.
For the A320, Airbus paid more than they received (and IIRC are still paying for every A32x neo which is being delivered).

Revelation wrote:
[For the A320, Airbus is paying less than they agreed to pay because they made a back room deal that largely slipped under the radar.

Nice way to frame it. You only forget to mention that Airbus had already paid a lot more than they originally had lent and that all parties involved agreed to lower the fee.
What are you trying to suggest with "backroom deal?" and "slipped under the radar?" It has been published and it isn't obvious to make those negotiations live on TV at primetime...

marcelh wrote:
.
But obviously you want to emphasise what a failure the A380 was and how much Airbus still needs to pay back.

Revelation wrote:
[If you prefer, we could talk about the A300 and how Airbus would not exist if the governments didn't fund the entire enterprise...


We can, but why should we? Governments make strategic decisions and to create Airbus was one of those decisions. It could also have failed miserably.
OTOH those same governments are sponsoring the US by buing a lot of military stuff....
 
9Patch
Topic Author
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:49 pm

marcelh wrote:
You only forget to mention that Airbus had already paid a lot more than they originally had lent and that all parties involved agreed to lower the fee.

How do you know that Airbus had already paid a lot more than they originally had lent to them? (And it's not a loan if you don't have to pay it back).
Of course the governments agreed to lower the fee, they want to support Airbus just like they have since 1969.
People keep talking about a 1992 agreement but what about aid prior to 1992?
How much did they 'lend' for the A300 program? How much did they get back?
What about the A320, A330, and A340, prior to 1992?
So far your only response to these questions is "So what? Both OEMs receive nice “tax based incentives” from the government."
 
marcelh
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:58 am

9Patch wrote:
marcelh wrote:
You only forget to mention that Airbus had already paid a lot more than they originally had lent and that all parties involved agreed to lower the fee.

How do you know that Airbus had already paid a lot more than they originally had lent to them? (And it's not a loan if you don't have to pay it back).
Of course the governments agreed to lower the fee, they want to support Airbus just like they have since 1969.
People keep talking about a 1992 agreement but what about aid prior to 1992?
How much did they 'lend' for the A300 program? How much did they get back?
What about the A320, A330, and A340, prior to 1992?
So far your only response to these questions is "So what? Both OEMs receive nice “tax based incentives” from the government."


Because that is the truth. Not only those two OEM’s, but a lot of companies who are vital for a country.
And for all those other questions I don’t have the answers, maybe you should try DuckDuckGo. Good luck! :bigthumbsup:
 
9Patch
Topic Author
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:11 am

marcelh wrote:
9Patch wrote:
And for all those other questions I don’t have the answers, maybe you should try DuckDuckGo. Good luck! :bigthumbsup:

Sorry. It's not my job to do your research for you.
The burden of proof is on you.
Good luck! :wave:
 
David_itl
Posts: 6342
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:45 am

9Patch wrote:
marcelh wrote:
You only forget to mention that Airbus had already paid a lot more than they originally had lent and that all parties involved agreed to lower the fee.

How do you know that Airbus had already paid a lot more than they originally had lent to them? (And it's not a loan if you don't have to pay it back).
Of course the governments agreed to lower the fee, they want to support Airbus just like they have since 1969.
People keep talking about a 1992 agreement but what about aid prior to 1992?
How much did they 'lend' for the A300 program? How much did they get back?
What about the A320, A330, and A340, prior to 1992?
So far your only response to these questions is "So what? Both OEMs receive nice “tax based incentives” from the government."



For the UK, no RLI appears to have been given to the A300 but the other aircraft did per this 2004 UK parliament record (paragraph 66 onwards.. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmtrdind/151/15106.htmi. Note it doesn't break it down by aircraft and includes all aircraft: "The DTI has noted that all these programmes have either repaid at their expected rate of return or are on course to do so.[156] Government expenditure on RLI from 1982 to 2003/04 was just over £2,039 million, while repayments amounted to just over £1,639 million.[157] "


If you want A320 specific, we've got the House of Lords where it is recorded on 21st April 1988: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1988/apr/21/airbus-government-investment

"I start by asking my noble friend whether it is correct, as I am led to understand, that the £250 million subvention from the British taxpayer to enable British Aerospace to participate in the A.320, the shorter range version of the family, is in effect guaranteed for repayment on the basis of firm orders and options already obtained for the A.320.,,,, I think one has to note in parenthesis that even the firmest options have a way of sometimes melting away, as we discovered in the case of Concorde a few years back. Nevertheless, I am led to understand that if one takes the firm orders and options already achieved by the A.320, on that basis alone HMG are due to be repaid the £250 million in full in the early 1990s with some 30 per cent. interest. "

"It is my understanding—and again my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong—that the profile of repayment on the £250 million launch aid builds up steeply. As I understand it, there is no element of royalty due at all on the British Aerospace contribution to the first 75 A.320s delivered to customers around the world. Thereafter, however, the level of payment builds up very sharply until at some point—and perhaps my noble friend can shed some light on this—between the 76th aeroplane and the 600th, it is due to run at the rate of £1 million repayment to HMG for each plane delivered. After 600 have been delivered the rate, as I understand it, drops to £250,000 per plane. "

A320 deliveries: 1988 = 16, 1989 = 58, 1990 = 58, 1991 = 119. So excluding when any revised deal was done in 1992, Airbus had delivered 251 aircraft. Based on the above repayment schedule, some £176 million was paid back. If the 1992 changed none of the terms, limiting it to just the A320 and not A321/A319 and only going to 2017 when they sought to linit repayments, we find that. some 4494 A320s were delivered. Thus equates to repayments of 525 x £1m and 3,894 xt £0.25m = £1,489.5m or getting on for 6 times what was loaned to BAe, Throw is A319 and A321 then it we have 7378 deliveries in total and a further £740m received.
 
marcelh
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:56 am

9Patch wrote:
marcelh wrote:
9Patch wrote:
And for all those other questions I don’t have the answers, maybe you should try DuckDuckGo. Good luck! :bigthumbsup:

Sorry. It's not my job to do your research for you.
The burden of proof is on you.
Good luck! :wave:

Hahaha, you’re funny. YOU are eager to get the answers, not me. Actually, I don’t care how much money is involved and I was interested why you are.
Back on topic: I think the A380 has made Airbus realize that the market decide what they want instead of the other way around.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1613
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:04 pm

9Patch wrote:
marcelh wrote:
You only forget to mention that Airbus had already paid a lot more than they originally had lent and that all parties involved agreed to lower the fee.

How do you know that Airbus had already paid a lot more than they originally had lent to them? (And it's not a loan if you don't have to pay it back).


Because it *IS* a loan and it *DOES* have to be fully paid back (within 17 years in the case of the A320 and same for the A380 IIRC). And then royalties continue to be coined by the governments for any further aircraft sold.

The facts have been posted a hundred times by Astuteman, amongst others, but unfortunately the "it's a gift not a loan" lie gets repeated ten times more often.

And no, I'm not going to give you citations and references because like Astuteman I've found myself doing that several times over the last decade or so and it's futile. The response is usually silence until it pops up again six months later. I'm not wasting my time for other people who can't be bothered.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9187
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:09 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
9Patch wrote:
marcelh wrote:
You only forget to mention that Airbus had already paid a lot more than they originally had lent and that all parties involved agreed to lower the fee.

How do you know that Airbus had already paid a lot more than they originally had lent to them? (And it's not a loan if you don't have to pay it back).


Because it *IS* a loan and it *DOES* have to be fully paid back (within 17 years in the case of the A320 and same for the A380 IIRC). And then royalties continue to be coined by the governments for any further aircraft sold.

If only things were that cut and dry when the investment doesn’t work out ;)

https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a380-loan-dispute/
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1613
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:11 pm

But note that the article only ever talks about LOANS which SHOULD BE REPAID.

That is the fact which is constantly denied here and elsewehere.

Airbus seeking to cancel repayments is another matter.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9187
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:21 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
But note that the article only ever talks about LOANS which SHOULD BE REPAID.

That is the fact which is constantly denied here and elsewehere.

Airbus seeking to cancel repayments is another matter.

Yes, but if it does get cancelled is it a loan? Why does Airbus want to cancel repayment, why isn’t Airbus doing what it SHOULD do and just repay the loan. Would a commercial bank allow cancellation of the repayment?

If Airbus is successful then in fact they *DON’T* have to repay the government provided LOANS. They just have to do so as long as the program is successful. Which really isn’t a loan.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8421
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu Jun 13, 2019 2:29 pm

RLI is not a commitment that has to be honored like sovereign debt, as long as the agreement states that it must be repaid it is a loan, if the risk sharing partners who loaned the money then decide to share the risk if the program fails, then that is a failed investment which happens all the time, it is all semantics.
Now let's not derail this thread any further, I am still in shock that the dreaded Program Accounting and Deferred Billions have not reared its ugly head.
 
9Patch
Topic Author
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:49 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Because it *IS* a loan and it *DOES* have to be fully paid back (within 17 years in the case of the A320 and same for the A380 IIRC). And then royalties continue to be coined by the governments for any further aircraft sold.

You don't recall correctly:
Airbus has taken a €463m charge for shutdown costs, but it is expected that the repayment of government loans could be waived to help cushion the blow.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47231504


Based on precedent involving termination of the A340 program, in which the WTO ruled there was no further harm to Boeing once the last A340 was delivered, the remaining launch aid was rendered moot in the context of the WTO. The governments wound up eating the balance of the launch aid.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/02/14/a380- ... rmination/


SomebodyInTLS wrote:
The facts have been posted a hundred times by Astuteman, amongst others, but unfortunately the "it's a gift not a loan" lie gets repeated ten times more often.

Aren't those facts limited to UK launch aid and do not include launch aid from France, Germany and Spain?

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
And no, I'm not going to give you citations and references because like Astuteman I've found myself doing that several times over the last decade or so and it's futile. The response is usually silence until it pops up again six months later.

Just like "it *IS* a loan and it *DOES* have to be fully paid back..." pops up every six months?
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1613
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:49 am

9Patch wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Because it *IS* a loan and it *DOES* have to be fully paid back (within 17 years in the case of the A320 and same for the A380 IIRC). And then royalties continue to be coined by the governments for any further aircraft sold.

You don't recall correctly:
Airbus has taken a €463m charge for shutdown costs, but it is expected that the repayment of government loans could be waived to help cushion the blow.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47231504


Funny - seems to mention "government loans" and "*COULD* be waived"... so these were - and currently still are - loans. Nothing wrong with my recollection.

Based on precedent involving termination of the A340 program, in which the WTO ruled there was no further harm to Boeing once the last A340 was delivered, the remaining launch aid was rendered moot in the context of the WTO. The governments wound up eating the balance of the launch aid.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/02/14/a380- ... rmination/


Fair enough, *ONE CASE* where only part of the *loan* was written off - but still within WTO rules.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
The facts have been posted a hundred times by Astuteman, amongst others, but unfortunately the "it's a gift not a loan" lie gets repeated ten times more often.

Aren't those facts limited to UK launch aid and do not include launch aid from France, Germany and Spain?


I haven't seen any evidence demonstrating that the UK loans are fundamentally different from the other RLIs - which, lest we forget, are defined as *REPAYABLE* Launch Aid!

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
And no, I'm not going to give you citations and references because like Astuteman I've found myself doing that several times over the last decade or so and it's futile. The response is usually silence until it pops up again six months later.

Just like "it *IS* a loan and it *DOES* have to be fully paid back..." pops up every six months?


Which is still correct - despite one exceptional cancellation, ALL RLIs are set out as loans, not subsidies.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20284
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:09 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
I haven't seen any evidence demonstrating that the UK loans are fundamentally different from the other RLIs - which, lest we forget, are defined as *REPAYABLE* Launch Aid!

Repayable means 'able to be repaid' so might be repaid but might not be. Deliciously ambiguous. Well done to whatever bureaucrat who cooked that one up.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Which is still correct - despite one exceptional cancellation, ALL RLIs are set out as loans, not subsidies.

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
9Patch
Topic Author
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:02 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Funny - seems to mention "government loans" and "*COULD* be waived"... so these were - and currently still are - loans. Nothing wrong with my recollection.

Funny - it seems you forgot they could be waived based on the A340 precedent. Care to make a friendly wager that the A380 will also get some relief?

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Fair enough, *ONE CASE* where only part of the *loan* was written off - but still within WTO rules.

Oh please, all means ALL, no exceptions.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
I haven't seen any evidence demonstrating that the UK loans are fundamentally different from the other RLIs - which, lest we forget, are defined as *REPAYABLE* Launch Aid!

This WTO document references German, Spanish, UK and French Launch Aid/Member State Financing measures for the A380.
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/di ... abrw_e.pdf

Page 80
6.165. We recall that in the original proceeding the panel found that the United States had substantiated its Article 3.1(a) claims with respect to the German, Spanish and UK A380 LA/MSF measures, but not the French A380 LA/MSF measures.


SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Which is still correct - despite one exceptional cancellation, ALL RLIs are set out as loans, not subsidies.

Unless the program is a failure:
Page 94 begins a discussion LA/MSF measures for the A350:
6.229. The amounts of funding disbursed by the French Government are to be repaid with interest
through [***] levies charged on revenues generated from aircraft deliveries. The obligation to
repay the LA/MSF is therefore triggered only if there is an aircraft delivery
. Thus, both the
reimbursement of principal and the payment of interest are dependent upon the success of the
A350XWB programme.

The 'loan' doesn't have to be paid back unless the program is successful.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1613
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:56 pm

9Patch wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Fair enough, *ONE CASE* where only part of the *loan* was written off - but still within WTO rules.

Oh please, all means ALL, no exceptions.


Stop moving the goalposts. The *definition* of RLI is *by definition* a loan. That is the fact that I posited and which you continue to deny.

What you are saying is that because someone once defaulted on a mortgage then by definition every mortgage ever drawn up doesn't have to be repaid.

See how stupid that is?
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1613
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: A380 was success for Airbus, says new CEO

Fri Jun 14, 2019 5:05 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Which is still correct - despite one exceptional cancellation, ALL RLIs are set out as loans, not subsidies.

Unless the program is a failure:
Page 94 begins a discussion LA/MSF measures for the A350:
6.229. The amounts of funding disbursed by the French Government are to be repaid with interest
through [***] levies charged on revenues generated from aircraft deliveries. The obligation to
repay the LA/MSF is therefore triggered only if there is an aircraft delivery
. Thus, both the
reimbursement of principal and the payment of interest are dependent upon the success of the
A350XWB programme.

The 'loan' doesn't have to be paid back unless the program is successful.


"AN AIRCRAFT DELIVERY". The only time there will be NO repayment is if NO aircraft are delivered. It doesn't have to be a SUCCESSFUL programme - merely a LAUNCHED programme. In which case the terms are that full repayment is eventually due. Despite the one time part of this was written off for one programme, you have shown no proof that it is not in the contracts as I stated.

And the number of times that Airbus has taken RLI and subsequently failed to deliver a single aircraft is...?

Again exaggerating a minor term to distract from the core fact that RLI is a loan...

How many clauses are written into the average mortgage?
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos