A380 -- The Reveal

[Akira 0]

1) Boeing has been around since the 1916, so that is a bit of a ridiculous claim, and one only made because you know neither of us will be able to see if it comes true.

2) No one said Boeing was "belly up," but they have been in some straights for some time, only helped by their military contracts. And they are no longer "on top" where they are accustomed to being, and that seems to bother them more than not selling planes, or the needs of their customers.

3) So does Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier, Canadair and others. Your point?

4) As has Airbus. Again. Your point?

Well it can't be against the jumbos, because Boeing is on the verge of not having one, as I said. Boeing, in my view, is making a good decision to target the mid-size aircraft niche. With an entire family based on the 787 and its associated technologies, Boeing will make commonality in air fleets a true possibility. The cost savings in that is enormous.

But we have to see what Airbus does with the A350 and possible A320NG.

And by the way, the Sonic Cruiser was dropped long ago.

[FerretFangs 0]

I made that claim because it's true. Airbus first has to outlast Boeing, not the other way around. That was my initial point.

[Akira 0]

Neither has to "outlast" the other. They just have to outsell the other.

By that rationale, Shorts has been far more successful than Boeing since its been around longer.

[FerretFangs 0]

OK, I'll concede that one must outsell the other. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

[Akira 0]

OK, I'll concede that one must outsell the other. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

Well that is what I am saying. Airbus has been outselling Boeing for the last 5 years or so. Boeing has been kept afloat with the 737 family which is still extremely popular (and one of my favorites), and to a lesser extent the 777. This year is starting off very good for Boeing. Boeing should stick with the 787 family and possibly a 737 replacement derived from the 787, but drop the 747Adv. You can't claim that load factors and the aviation world demand something along the size of the 787, use that rationale to downplay the A380, and then turn around and say "Here's our Jumbo! Forget about what I said to sell you the 787!" The 747 design has had its day, and it will be a legend for a long time.

Airbus on the other hand did about the same thing with their "4 engines 4 longhaul" and then made a long range twin the A330 (and now possibly a derivitive the A350).

[FerretFangs 0]

There's no reason that BOeing could not sell both the 747Adv, and the 787. They are differnt types for different markets. Besides, it possible that the 747Adv is a better value for many buyers, than the A380. The infrastructure to support it already exists, Boeing already has history with these buyers, and it can be produced in significant volume, without requiring any dramatic changes to Boeing maufacturing lines.

The 787 is simply a ( drastically ) updated medium carrier, that can be mass produced and sold in the thousands.

If I was running Boeing, why would I want to give up one for the other?

[Akira 0]

Because there is no basis to assume that the 747Adv is going to sell. Unless you make drastic changes to the 747 (and get rid of the advantage of having the tooling already), its going to basically have the same airframe, capacity, and range as the 747-400ER. The only difference would be in efficiency, but then you would be directly competing against one of your own products, the 777-300/ER/LR. One order for a 747-400 was placed last year, while there were a number of 777 orders. So far this year no 747 orders and a good number of 777 orders (both pax and freight). The "747-niche" is covered pretty well. Concentrate on the middle market where you can make real advances, and replace 767/757 air frames (and possibly A330).

Why spend money to redesign a plane for market that may or may not exist anymore. If you increase capacity then you directly compete with the A380 (which has a two year headstart now). If you just update, people are going to wonder why they should spend money to replace a plane they bought in the late 80s and 90s.

The infrastructure to support any given plane already exists. Don't be taken in by the "airports can't handle the A380." It's mostly politcal BS dealing with the WTO trade stand off between the US and Europe. The taxiways and runways can handle the A380 presently, and the only real infrastructure adjustment needed is the ability to load on two decks.

[FerretFangs 0]

There is no basis to assume that it won't sell, given significant design improvements, and lower cost than the A380.

There isn't any reason why modifying the 747-400ER with components from existing production aircraft would be a huge cost. Even if it was, it would be a temporary cost. Pruduction and sales is whats important.

As far as infrastructure is concerned, absolutely no infrastructure change, real or imagined would be necessary for the 747Adv. There IS a real possibility that some US airports could not ( or would not ) support the A380.

Not a problem for Boeing.

[Balschoiw 0]

What is this going to be ?

Patriotic feelings mixed with "mine is longer than yours" ?

I think I´d really liked to be there when this monster lifts off. Has to be impressive.

[FerretFangs 0]

Actually, we were discussing business, and finance, but if you'd like to make it about something else go right ahead.

[Balschoiw 0]

No I´m just interested in the actual thread that is named

"A380 --The Reveal". The other things can go to PM if it comes to me....

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

There is no basis to assume that it won't sell, given significant design improvements, and lower cost than the A380.

There isn't any reason why modifying the 747-400ER with components from existing production aircraft would be a huge cost. Even if it was, it would be a temporary cost. Pruduction and sales is whats important.

As far as infrastructure is concerned, absolutely no infrastructure change, real or imagined would be necessary for the 747Adv. There IS a real possibility that some US airports could not ( or would not ) support the A380.

Not a problem for Boeing.

Errr, I suggest you re-sit your Aeronautical Engineering - 101 modules.

Changing an airplane is nowhere near as easy as changing a sports limo to a convertible or to a station waggon. Apart from the fact that every single bolt that is changed will require over 2000 logged flying hours to be approved by various air safety boards, you also have the problem that in order to make the 747 competitive again, you have to change so much that it would be cheaper to build a new aircraft.

It is a very old airframe now, and a very old design. Changing stuff is expensive and simply not viable. The kind of modifications that you suggest would take years to develop - it would be harder than building a new aircraft, because the modifications not only have to just work, they have to work within a complicated machine.

[FerretFangs 0]

Well, obviously I'm not an aeronautical engineer. That said, I'm not working for Boeing either. But it's not hard to see, or read, that Boeing IS planning to build the 747Adv. So it doesn't really matter what I know, but rather, what the reality of the situation is.

http://airtransportbiz.free.fr/Paris2003/747Adv.html

[denoir 0]

That Boeing is doing better right now is no big mystery. It's quite simple, they are significantly cheaper thanks to the weak dollar. Airbus has been complaing for quite a while now that the strong euro is hurting its exports.

Anyway, interesting from bbc:

Airbus v Boeing: The next battle [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

The Airbus A380, which is expected to cross the Atlantic during its maiden flight on Wednesday, is unlikely to bring back much goodwill. The Americans, or at least those in charge, are severely peeved at how a leg-up by European governments ensured the world's largest passenger plane was built in the first place.

Why so disgruntled? Mainly because of how it has affected the indigenous aerospace giant Boeing.

Two years ago, Airbus overtook Boeing to become the world's best-selling aircraft maker, and with the A380 it has stolen yet another march on its rival, pipping it to the top spot in the large aircraft long-haul market which was dominated by the Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet for four decades.

Trade war looming

The US, determined not to allow a repeat, last year unilaterally cancelled a 1992 agreement with the European Union that allowed governments to lend money to cover one-third of the development costs of a new aircraft.

Brussels, which has hit back with accusations that Boeing has long been receiving unfair assistance in the form of lucrative space and defence contracts, refuses to accept the US claim that the agreement is void. The issue is set to escalate into a full blown trade war. EU trade commissioner Peter Mandelson last week ended a ceasefire by insisting member states should be free to offer repayable launch aid to the next Airbus project; the A350 medium-sized aircraft.

The US, which according to acid tongues (including that of Mr Mandelson) is looking after the best interests of the A350 rival, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, has responded by threatening to take the matter to the World Trade Organisation. And so the tit-for-tat pantomime is getting louder, with Europe vowing to bring in the WTO to rule on the legality of US support for its aerospace industry.

Two opposing ideas

The trade spat has set the stage for a commercial brawl between Boeing and Airbus, with neither one accepting that they have accepted unfair subsidies, and both insisting that the other one receives market-distorting assistance.

Yet most observers agree that both have skeletons hidden in their cupboards. The launch aid Airbus hopes to get for its A350 would only repayable if the aircraft was to fail to achieve decent sales; not exactly a loan granted on commercial terms. The commercial logic behind the Dreamliner, meanwhile, is similarly skewed. Parts production for the aircraft has been backed with financial support from the states of Washington and Kansas.

And its Japanese suppliers are on the receiving end of soft government loans with similar terms to those offered Airbus - adding another major economy to the list of candidates the WTO might have to scrutinise. Diplomacy is not working well under these circumstances, and it is unlikely to do so for one good reason.

The US - or at least Boeing - stands to gain from any delays in finding a resolution, since this threatens to put off European governments' support for the Airbus A350 project.

Timing is crucial, at least if Boeing's prediction that the market will prefer direct long-haul flights, such as those offered by the 787 Dreamliner and the A350, to the hub-to-hub solution offered by the giant A380. If this proves to be the case, then the early arrival of the 787 Dreamliner - expected to be a full two years before the anticipated arrival of the A350 - would help Boeing win back market share, not least since Airbus is struggling to make sure the A350 is as good as its rival.

No obvious successors

In these contentious times, both companies are in desperate need of strong leadership.

And yet, after recent clashes between the industry titans Noel Forgeard of Airbus and Harry Stonecipher of Boeing, both groups are finding themselves searching for new chief executives. Boeing's Mr Stonecipher was ousted in March over a relationship with a female executive. Mr Forgeard, meanwhile, is leaving Airbus next month to become co-chief executive of EADS, the 80% owner of Airbus, where a struggling defence division will require much of his attention.

The Airbus succession strategy has been torn apart by a lengthy political tug-of-war between France and Germany, with Mr Forgeard's most obvious heir, Airbus chief operating officer Gerard Blanc, being vetoed by Germany.

In fact, recent EADS and Airbus leadership battles have caused bad blood between the two leading EADS backers, removing their focus from where, perhaps, it should be: firmly on the US. In fact, Mr Stonecipher's ousting was widely seen as serious for the company, since his arrival had marked the start of a clean-up operation following a scandal in 2003. At the time, chief financial officer Michael Sears was fired, then sentenced to four months in prison, after hiring a former Air Force weapons buyer. Boeing chairman and chief executive Phil Condit resigned soon afterwards.

Mr Stonecipher's temporary successor James Bell has been named interim chief executive, but the search for a permanent candidate is still on. It seems both Airbus and Boeing are lacking coherent succession strategies for their chiefs, and both are worse off as a consequence.

[Akira 0]

Well, obviously I'm not an aeronautical engineer. That said, I'm not working for Boeing either. But it's not hard to see, or read, that Boeing IS planning to build the 747Adv. So it doesn't really matter what I know, but rather, what the reality of the situation is.

http://airtransportbiz.free.fr/Paris2003/747Adv.html

You did notice that that article is from 2003? And you have noticed that no official launch of the 747Adv. has yet to come about right? It's 2005 and Boeing doesn't know what it's going to do about the 747Adv.

Your article is a little out of date, especially in concern with Singapore Airlines, which has ordered none of the fabled (or mythical) 747Adv but has ordered 10 A380s. Also I like how your article says Boeing might develop the 747Adv along with the 7E7 (something it hasn't been called for awhile). Well the 787's engineering lines have been frozen now, which brings it to its final design stage. Still no 747Adv.

So no. Boeing has not yet decided whether to build it or not yet. Perhaps with the 787 and the launch of the 777-200LR they have been busy. But the longer the wait, the bigger the lead Airbus has.

Quote[/b] ]That Boeing is doing better right now is no big mystery. It's quite simple, they are significantly cheaper thanks to the weak dollar. Airbus has been complaing for quite a while now that the strong euro is hurting its exports.

Thats a little over simplification I think, otherwise Asian carriers wouldn't have even bothered with Airbus. Alot of it will have to do with associated business deals and political BS.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ] Also I like how your article says Boeing might develop the 747Adv along with the 7E7 (something it hasn't been called for awhile). Well the 787's engineering lines have been frozen now, which brings it to its final design stage. Still no 747Adv.

I guess they are building it or not...

Quote[/b] ]Boeing Selects GE Engine For Planned 747 Advanced >BA GE  

Monday April 25, 10:48 AM EDT

ST. LOUIS (Dow Jones)--Boeing Co. (BA) plans to use fuel-efficient engines from General Electric Co. (GE) in its 747 Advanced, an aircraft that could generate revenue of more than $10 billion.

If it goes ahead with the aircraft program, Boeing expects to sell 250 to 300 of the new class, according to a press release Monday from the aerospace and defense company that had revenue of $52.46 billion in 2004.

Boeing believes the 747 Advanced will provide greater capacity, run more quietly, produce lower emissions, be more fuel efficient, and fly faster than any current jetliner, according to its Web site.

Also, the 747 Advanced, with capacity for about 450 passengers and a range of 8,000 nautical miles, will provide more payload and range than current 747s, according to the release.

On Boeing's Web site, the aerospace company noted that the GEnx is derived from the ultra-high-thrust GE90 engine.

On July 19, GE, a Dow 30 component with revenue of $152.36 billion, said the first full engine will test in 2006, followed by the first flight tests, with engine certification scheduled for 2007.

Separately Monday, Boeing received an order from ACE Aviation Holdings Inc., the parent company of Air Canada, for 18 Boeing 777s with rights for 18 more, as well as orders for 14 Boeing 787 Dreamliners, with options on 46 more jets. Also, Panamanian carrier Copa Airlines (COPA.YY) ordered up to 15 Next- Generational 737 airplanes.

New York Stock Exchange-listed shares of Boeing traded recently at $59.43, up $1.46, or 2.5%, less than an hour after the opening bell.

Company Web sites: http://www.boeing.com

http://www.geae.com

-Jacquie Jordan; Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-5400; AskNewswires@DowJones.com

Order free Annual Report for General Electric Co.

Visit http://djnewswires.ar.wilink.com/?link=GE or call 1-888-301-0513

Order free Annual Report for General Electric Co.

Visit http://djnewswires.ar.wilink.com/?link=GE or call 1-888-301-0513

Dow Jones Newswires

04-25-05 1048ET

[FerretFangs 0]

Hmmm, well, how 'bout that? Sure doesn't seem that out of date, does it?

[der bastler 0]

ES FLIECHT!

(ifml German: "It flyz!")

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4488361.stm

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Test flight in 2007 A380 will have been operating for a year already by that time.

[soul_assassin 1750]

They just showed the take off on Euronews and CNN, gawd damn that thing is huge an magnificent. I guess there'll be alot of cheering in my faculty today, since we tied to Airbus and the faculty designed a composite material called GLARE specifically for the A380.

[der bastler 0]

Some images, captured with TVTime, scaled with Gimp:

[Balschoiw 0]

Impressive !

Let´s hope it gets back in one piece

The climb rate at the start was pretty impressive.

Congratulations Airbus !

[Oeil2Lynx 0]

couldn't get to the airport ..... so many people   .... needed to make an halo jump to get close enought from the airport .Guys sleeping there since 2 days  

seeing it on TV, that crazy how it took off so quickly.It didn't use the whole runway...

Aniway that's a beautifull plane, wish him long life

EDIT: thx der blaster, forgot that word :s, need to practice more my english ^^*

[der bastler 0]

(do we say landing strip for take off? )

I'd call it runway...

[Colossus 2]

(do we say landing strip for take off? )

I'd call it runway...

"Flystripe" here

BTW: I guess the Airbus stocks flew to the sky now (if they have any)