Discussion:
Boeing to delay first delivery of 787
(too old to reply)
spanka
2007-10-10 19:33:01 UTC
Permalink
http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/10102007/325/boeing-delay-first-delivery-787.html

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Boeing <BA.N> on Wednesday pushed back first
deliveries of its 787 Dreamliner by at least six months as it
struggles to assemble the new lightweight, carbon-composite plane.

The delay is an embarrassing setback for Boeing (NYSE: BA - news) ,
which has for months insisted it would meet its delivery timetable,
and mirrors delays suffered by rival Airbus (Paris: NL0000235190 -
news) <EAD.PA> on its A380 superjumbo.

Boeing, which has orders for more than 700 of the 787 planes from 48
airlines and leasing companies, said the delay would not affect
earnings and it kept its financial forecast for this year and next
unchanged.

Boeing shares fell $3.10, or 3.1 percent, to $98.35 on the New York
Stock Exchange. Shares of key suppliers like Spirit Aerosystems
Holdings <SPR.N> and Rockwell Collins (NYSE: COL - news) <COL.N> also
fell.

The Chicago-based company said 787 deliveries are slated to begin in
late November or December 2008, versus an original target of May 2008.

The delay is a blow to Japan's All Nippon Airways (Frankfurt: 861920 -
news) <9202.T>, the first 787 customer, which was hoping to ferry
passengers to next summer's Beijing Olympic Games in the initial
planes of its planned 50-strong 787 fleet.

FIRST FLIGHT

ALSO PUT BACK

Boeing blamed the delivery delay on continuing problems with flight
control software, being produced by Honeywell International <HON.N>,
and integrating other systems on the plane, which it did not detail.

It said it now expects the first test flight of the 787 to take place
"around the end of the first quarter" next year, suggesting it could
be as late as March or even April 2008.

That is a drastic extension to its original plan to start airborne
tests in August 2007. In early September, Boeing scheduled the first
test flight for mid-November to mid-December as it wrestled with
software problems and a shortage of bolts.

Boeing said the new schedule restores some margin to deal with
unexpected problems that might appear during flight testing. If Boeing
sticks to its new schedule, it could have eight months to complete
flight testing, as opposed to six months on its previous estimate.
Flight testing on Boeing's last new airliner, the 777, took 11 months.

"We deeply regret the impact these delays will have on our customers,
and we are committed to working with them to minimize any disruption
to their plans," said Scott Carson, chief executive of Boeing's
commercial airplanes unit, in a statement.

Boeing did not say whether it would have to pay any penalties or other
compensation to customers, which is standard in the industry when a
plane's delivery is delayed.
zonedout
2007-10-10 23:41:38 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:33:01 -0700 'spanka'
Post by spanka
http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/10102007/325/boeing-delay-first-delivery-787.html
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Boeing <BA.N> on Wednesday pushed back first
deliveries of its 787 Dreamliner by at least six months as it
struggles to assemble the new lightweight, carbon-composite plane.
Meanwhile the first commercial flight of the A380 happens in less
than 2 weeks. Singapore to Sydney.
John Kulp
2007-10-11 00:45:27 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:41:38 +0100, zonedout
Post by zonedout
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:33:01 -0700 'spanka'
Post by spanka
http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/10102007/325/boeing-delay-first-delivery-787.html
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Boeing <BA.N> on Wednesday pushed back first
deliveries of its 787 Dreamliner by at least six months as it
struggles to assemble the new lightweight, carbon-composite plane.
Meanwhile the first commercial flight of the A380 happens in less
than 2 weeks. Singapore to Sydney.
Yeah, only 2 years and several billions dollars late. And, of course,
it doesn't compete with the 787. The 787 competes with the new A350
whose first expected delivery is sometime in 2013.
A Guy Called Tyketto
2007-10-11 06:05:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Kulp
Yeah, only 2 years and several billions dollars late. And, of course,
it doesn't compete with the 787. The 787 competes with the new A350
whose first expected delivery is sometime in 2013.
That isn't the point. The point is that Boeing insisted that
the delays that plagued the A380 wouldn't happen with the B787.. Yet,
here they are, with delays on the B787. For Boeing, it's "Hello Face,
I'm Egg."

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email: ***@sbcglobal.net
Unix Systems Administrator, | ***@ozemail.com.au
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
John Kulp
2007-10-11 13:05:15 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 06:05:35 GMT, A Guy Called Tyketto
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Post by John Kulp
Yeah, only 2 years and several billions dollars late. And, of course,
it doesn't compete with the 787. The 787 competes with the new A350
whose first expected delivery is sometime in 2013.
That isn't the point. The point is that Boeing insisted that
the delays that plagued the A380 wouldn't happen with the B787.. Yet,
here they are, with delays on the B787. For Boeing, it's "Hello Face,
I'm Egg."
So did Airbus. So what's the big deal? The 787 is infinitely more
successful than the A380 which may well never be profitable and then
tried to flog a basic A350 as an alternative to the 787 which
absolutely no one wanted. New aircraft delays are nothing new anyway.
Big deal.
me
2007-10-11 14:11:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Kulp
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 06:05:35 GMT, A Guy Called Tyketto
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Post by John Kulp
Yeah, only 2 years and several billions dollars late. And, of course,
it doesn't compete with the 787. The 787 competes with the new A350
whose first expected delivery is sometime in 2013.
That isn't the point. The point is that Boeing insisted that
the delays that plagued the A380 wouldn't happen with the B787.. Yet,
here they are, with delays on the B787. For Boeing, it's "Hello Face,
I'm Egg."
So did Airbus. So what's the big deal? The 787 is infinitely more
successful than the A380 which may well never be profitable and then
tried to flog a basic A350 as an alternative to the 787 which
absolutely no one wanted. New aircraft delays are nothing new anyway.
Big deal.
I'm sorta in between these two points of view. There was alot of
"I told ya so's" running around when Airbus got into their troubles.
It kinda slammed their stock too when the announcements were
made. I would expect some investor concern for Boeing as well.

The flip side of that is that predominately Boeing's problems
are supplier part availability issues, not fundamental design or
weight problems that the A380 ran into. Boeing's schedule
was always agressive bordering on insane and they've basically
finally fessed up. Although I also suspect there are more delays
to come. They've got major tests to pass and much of it will be
on new composite material designs, not just some variation of
aluminum alloys.

But in the end they have orders for something like 750 of
the 787 and if they are anywhere close to successful, they'll
probably sell alot more than that. On the other hand,
the A380 has always been a question mark on just how
many they'll ultimately sell. So although investors might
get a bit jittery in the short term, I suspect no one is worried
that the 787 is gonna be some profit busting white elephant
in the long run. The A380 on the other hand.......
zonedout
2007-10-13 17:49:13 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 07:11:23 -0700 'me'
Post by me
I'm sorta in between these two points of view. There was alot of
"I told ya so's" running around when Airbus got into their troubles.
It kinda slammed their stock too when the announcements were
made. I would expect some investor concern for Boeing as well.
The flip side of that is that predominately Boeing's problems
are supplier part availability issues,
According to Boeing...
Post by me
not fundamental design or
weight problems that the A380 ran into.
I am not aware of either of these issues.
Wiring harness install was the main delaying issue I'm aware of.
Post by me
Boeing's schedule
was always agressive bordering on insane and they've basically
finally fessed up. Although I also suspect there are more delays
to come. They've got major tests to pass and much of it will be
on new composite material designs, not just some variation of
aluminum alloys.
Maybe the tests should include a very heavy landing to see if the
787 stays in one piece and doesn't breakup into splinters ;-)
Post by me
But in the end they have orders for something like 750 of
the 787 and if they are anywhere close to successful, they'll
probably sell alot more than that. On the other hand,
the A380 has always been a question mark on just how
many they'll ultimately sell. So although investors might
get a bit jittery in the short term, I suspect no one is worried
that the 787 is gonna be some profit busting white elephant
in the long run. The A380 on the other hand.......
me
2007-10-15 11:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by zonedout
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 07:11:23 -0700 'me'
Post by me
I'm sorta in between these two points of view. There was alot of
"I told ya so's" running around when Airbus got into their troubles.
It kinda slammed their stock too when the announcements were
made. I would expect some investor concern for Boeing as well.
The flip side of that is that predominately Boeing's problems
are supplier part availability issues,
According to Boeing...
Well, yeah, but they can't fudge this too much because it
affects stock price and that'll get them in trouble with the SEC.
Post by zonedout
Post by me
not fundamental design or
weight problems that the A380 ran into.
I am not aware of either of these issues.
Wiring harness install was the main delaying issue I'm aware of.
There was a weight issue that was one of the early explanations
for delays. The harness was a bigger one.
Post by zonedout
Post by me
Boeing's schedule
was always agressive bordering on insane and they've basically
finally fessed up. Although I also suspect there are more delays
to come. They've got major tests to pass and much of it will be
on new composite material designs, not just some variation of
aluminum alloys.
Maybe the tests should include a very heavy landing to see if the
787 stays in one piece and doesn't breakup into splinters ;-)
In essence it will. They'll almost assuredly have to do a
structural
test of the wing/spar system to failure. Additionally, they'll have
to do some "heavy" landings as well as some short ones and some
"hard" ones.
William Black
2007-10-11 14:31:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Kulp
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 06:05:35 GMT, A Guy Called Tyketto
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Post by John Kulp
Yeah, only 2 years and several billions dollars late. And, of course,
it doesn't compete with the 787. The 787 competes with the new A350
whose first expected delivery is sometime in 2013.
That isn't the point. The point is that Boeing insisted that
the delays that plagued the A380 wouldn't happen with the B787.. Yet,
here they are, with delays on the B787. For Boeing, it's "Hello Face,
I'm Egg."
So did Airbus. So what's the big deal? The 787 is infinitely more
successful than the A380 which may well never be profitable
It doesn't matter.

This is the airline industry.

All that matters is profits.

The next major market to open up will be the long haul routes between India
and China to Europe and the USA.

The capacity needed will be vast as both the tourist and business markets
expand exponentially over the next few years.

The A380 addresses this market, which is already dominated by Airbus
products. The 787 is just another 300 seater wide-bodied jet.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
John Kulp
2007-10-11 15:33:24 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:31:48 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
Post by John Kulp
So did Airbus. So what's the big deal? The 787 is infinitely more
successful than the A380 which may well never be profitable
It doesn't matter.
This is the airline industry.
All that matters is profits.
Like every other company and industry on earth.
Post by William Black
The next major market to open up will be the long haul routes between India
and China to Europe and the USA.
Gee, another great surprise. What do you think they're developing
these new aircraft for?
Post by William Black
The capacity needed will be vast as both the tourist and business markets
expand exponentially over the next few years.
Baloney. They will increase incrementally, which has long since been
planned for.
Post by William Black
The A380 addresses this market, which is already dominated by Airbus
products. The 787 is just another 300 seater wide-bodied jet.
Baloney again. Airbus is having huge problems selling the A380
because airports have to be rebuilt among other things and most of the
demand can be met with other aircraft that don't have this
requirement. Like the 787 and newer versions of the 747.
me
2007-10-11 16:05:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Kulp
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:31:48 +0100, "William Black"
[snip]
Post by John Kulp
Post by William Black
The A380 addresses this market, which is already dominated by Airbus
products. The 787 is just another 300 seater wide-bodied jet.
Baloney again. Airbus is having huge problems selling the A380
because airports have to be rebuilt among other things and most of the
demand can be met with other aircraft that don't have this
requirement. Like the 787 and newer versions of the 747.
Well, you're basically rearguing the Boeing and Airbus positions.
Boeing has tried to sell stretch 747's to compete with the A380
but couldn't sell any. Flip side is that Boeing is selling 787's
hand over fist and Airbus has currently peaked with the A380.
The question still remains, once the uncertainties around
the A380 are worked out, will the markets support/demand
the aircraft in sufficient numbers? We know the market is
there for the 787. Boeing was betting that there wouldn't
be one for an A380 size (in sufficient numbers to try to
bother making one). Airbus was accused of going into the
market because they had nothing in the 747 size and
they hoped to take over the market. Time will tell whether
either was correct.

Boeing believes that when the Asian markets take off,
their will be sufficient demand to support alot of 787's
flying direct to major desitinations, as oppose to
huge A380's flying to a few major hubs. I suspect there
may be enough market for both of them. But there may
never be a market big enough for two A380 size aircraft.
John Kulp
2007-10-11 17:22:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by me
Post by John Kulp
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:31:48 +0100, "William Black"
[snip]
Post by John Kulp
Post by William Black
The A380 addresses this market, which is already dominated by Airbus
products. The 787 is just another 300 seater wide-bodied jet.
Baloney again. Airbus is having huge problems selling the A380
because airports have to be rebuilt among other things and most of the
demand can be met with other aircraft that don't have this
requirement. Like the 787 and newer versions of the 747.
Well, you're basically rearguing the Boeing and Airbus positions.
Boeing has tried to sell stretch 747's to compete with the A380
but couldn't sell any. Flip side is that Boeing is selling 787's
hand over fist and Airbus has currently peaked with the A380.
The question still remains, once the uncertainties around
the A380 are worked out, will the markets support/demand
the aircraft in sufficient numbers? We know the market is
there for the 787. Boeing was betting that there wouldn't
be one for an A380 size (in sufficient numbers to try to
bother making one). Airbus was accused of going into the
market because they had nothing in the 747 size and
they hoped to take over the market. Time will tell whether
either was correct.
First, not true because they have sold several freighter versions of
the 747 already. The rest is absolutely correct.
Post by me
Boeing believes that when the Asian markets take off,
their will be sufficient demand to support alot of 787's
flying direct to major desitinations, as oppose to
huge A380's flying to a few major hubs. I suspect there
may be enough market for both of them. But there may
never be a market big enough for two A380 size aircraft.
Again true, but it is looking increasingly likely that Boeing was dead
right about the A380 and it is looking increasingly unlikely that
enough will be sold to make a profit, especially with all the
penalties Aitbus has to pay.
me
2007-10-11 19:24:30 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by John Kulp
Post by me
Post by John Kulp
Baloney again. Airbus is having huge problems selling the A380
because airports have to be rebuilt among other things and most of the
demand can be met with other aircraft that don't have this
requirement. Like the 787 and newer versions of the 747.
Well, you're basically rearguing the Boeing and Airbus positions.
Boeing has tried to sell stretch 747's to compete with the A380
but couldn't sell any. Flip side is that Boeing is selling 787's
hand over fist and Airbus has currently peaked with the A380.
The question still remains, once the uncertainties around
the A380 are worked out, will the markets support/demand
the aircraft in sufficient numbers? We know the market is
there for the 787. Boeing was betting that there wouldn't
be one for an A380 size (in sufficient numbers to try to
bother making one). Airbus was accused of going into the
market because they had nothing in the 747 size and
they hoped to take over the market. Time will tell whether
either was correct.
First, not true because they have sold several freighter versions of
the 747 already.
Not sure what you mean here. The 747 started out life as a
freighter.
I assume you're refering to the 747-8. This isn't quite the plane
Boeing originally try to sell to compete with the A380. They had
something a bit closer to 500 seats. They gave up on that one.
The -8 is just another in a long line of stretches and engine
mods.
Post by John Kulp
The rest is absolutely correct.
Post by me
Boeing believes that when the Asian markets take off,
their will be sufficient demand to support alot of 787's
flying direct to major desitinations, as oppose to
huge A380's flying to a few major hubs. I suspect there
may be enough market for both of them. But there may
never be a market big enough for two A380 size aircraft.
Again true, but it is looking increasingly likely that Boeing was dead
right about the A380 and it is looking increasingly unlikely that
enough will be sold to make a profit, especially with all the
penalties Aitbus has to pay
I was one who basically figured Boeing knew what they
were talking about, so it's a little self serving for me to be
predicting the A380 demise. They figure these things it
terms of decades and alot can change in that time. Airbus'
troubles are relatively short term there. Their problem
will be if they don't ever achieve their efficiency/capacity
problems. But if they do, and markets change
in their favor, they have to sell something like 500 of them
to be safely into profits. On a world wide scale, with
roughly no direct competition, that's not alot of aircraft.
Boeing thinks the overall market has room for about 900
of this "class".
John Kulp
2007-10-12 03:22:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by me
Post by John Kulp
First, not true because they have sold several freighter versions of
the 747 already.
Not sure what you mean here. The 747 started out life as a
freighter.
I assume you're refering to the 747-8. This isn't quite the plane
Boeing originally try to sell to compete with the A380. They had
something a bit closer to 500 seats. They gave up on that one.
The -8 is just another in a long line of stretches and engine
mods.
That's the plane alright. And they are selling as freighters.
Post by me
Post by John Kulp
Again true, but it is looking increasingly likely that Boeing was dead
right about the A380 and it is looking increasingly unlikely that
enough will be sold to make a profit, especially with all the
penalties Aitbus has to pay
I was one who basically figured Boeing knew what they
were talking about, so it's a little self serving for me to be
predicting the A380 demise. They figure these things it
terms of decades and alot can change in that time. Airbus'
troubles are relatively short term there. Their problem
will be if they don't ever achieve their efficiency/capacity
problems. But if they do, and markets change
in their favor, they have to sell something like 500 of them
to be safely into profits. On a world wide scale, with
roughly no direct competition, that's not alot of aircraft.
Boeing thinks the overall market has room for about 900
of this "class".
Well, I don't know where these supposed market changes are supposed to
come from. The A380 may make sense for cases where true airport
capacity has been reached (like Heathrow) and a few routes already
defined, but the 787 makes a lot more sense on most other routes where
more frequent smaller capacity is what is desired by customers.
me
2007-10-12 13:01:08 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by John Kulp
Post by me
Post by John Kulp
Again true, but it is looking increasingly likely that Boeing was dead
right about the A380 and it is looking increasingly unlikely that
enough will be sold to make a profit, especially with all the
penalties Aitbus has to pay
I was one who basically figured Boeing knew what they
were talking about, so it's a little self serving for me to be
predicting the A380 demise. They figure these things it
terms of decades and alot can change in that time. Airbus'
troubles are relatively short term there. Their problem
will be if they don't ever achieve their efficiency/capacity
problems. But if they do, and markets change
in their favor, they have to sell something like 500 of them
to be safely into profits. On a world wide scale, with
roughly no direct competition, that's not alot of aircraft.
Boeing thinks the overall market has room for about 900
of this "class".
Well, I don't know where these supposed market changes are supposed to
come from.
They are already here to some extent. The entire Asian continent
and
surrounding areas are expanding fast commercially. It's part
of what is driving up the price of oil. The prediction is that as
these
economic expansions filter down and create "middle class" like
income brackets, you'll see greater mobility of those classes,
and they'll demand transportation.
Post by John Kulp
The A380 may make sense for cases where true airport
capacity has been reached (like Heathrow) and a few routes already
defined, but the 787 makes a lot more sense on most other routes where
more frequent smaller capacity is what is desired by customers
One of the possible scenarios is that BOTH planes will do
very well. The 787 will provide alot of point to point capacity,
and the A380 will provide the kind of mass movement between
major destinations that are becoming relatively capacity limited.
I just have trouble with that model. The tendency up to now has
to been to use more, smaller, flights and pursue point to point
flights. When airport capacity is reached, you start using other
airports. There will be a handful of places that don't have
airports available within a couple hours, but can one build an
aircraft design for basically just because of those airports?
John Kulp
2007-10-12 17:48:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by me
Post by John Kulp
Well, I don't know where these supposed market changes are supposed to
come from.
They are already here to some extent. The entire Asian continent
and
surrounding areas are expanding fast commercially. It's part
of what is driving up the price of oil. The prediction is that as
these
economic expansions filter down and create "middle class" like
income brackets, you'll see greater mobility of those classes,
and they'll demand transportation.
That's obvious, but what has this to do with choosing the A380 per se
over the 787?
Post by me
Post by John Kulp
The A380 may make sense for cases where true airport
capacity has been reached (like Heathrow) and a few routes already
defined, but the 787 makes a lot more sense on most other routes where
more frequent smaller capacity is what is desired by customers
One of the possible scenarios is that BOTH planes will do
very well. The 787 will provide alot of point to point capacity,
and the A380 will provide the kind of mass movement between
major destinations that are becoming relatively capacity limited.
I just have trouble with that model. The tendency up to now has
to been to use more, smaller, flights and pursue point to point
flights. When airport capacity is reached, you start using other
airports. There will be a handful of places that don't have
airports available within a couple hours, but can one build an
aircraft design for basically just because of those airports?
You can come up with a theory for anything. Fact is, at the moment
the 787 is beating the pants off the A380.
me
2007-10-12 18:28:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Kulp
Post by me
Post by John Kulp
Well, I don't know where these supposed market changes are supposed to
come from.
They are already here to some extent. The entire Asian continent
and
surrounding areas are expanding fast commercially. It's part
of what is driving up the price of oil. The prediction is that as these
economic expansions filter down and create "middle class" like
income brackets, you'll see greater mobility of those classes,
and they'll demand transportation.
That's obvious, but what has this to do with choosing the A380 per se
over the 787?
Well, your question was where the "market" was coming from.
Now you say that is obvious. The question then becomes which
aircraft will this emerging market serve. In some scenarios,
an A380 can benefit from new, very large, departure and
arrival points in these emerging markets (especially ones
that can be built from the ground up with them in mind).
Even more so by allowing the expansion of existing large
hubs which are near capacity with the aircraft in current use.
In other scenarios, the markets are arranged such that point to
point replaces large hubs for these markets. Boeing pays
alot of money to people to predict these things.
Post by John Kulp
Post by me
Post by John Kulp
The A380 may make sense for cases where true airport
capacity has been reached (like Heathrow) and a few routes already
defined, but the 787 makes a lot more sense on most other routes where
more frequent smaller capacity is what is desired by customers
One of the possible scenarios is that BOTH planes will do
very well. The 787 will provide alot of point to point capacity,
and the A380 will provide the kind of mass movement between
major destinations that are becoming relatively capacity limited.
I just have trouble with that model. The tendency up to now has
to been to use more, smaller, flights and pursue point to point
flights. When airport capacity is reached, you start using other
airports. There will be a handful of places that don't have
airports available within a couple hours, but can one build an
aircraft design for basically just because of those airports?
You can come up with a theory for anything. Fact is, at the moment
the 787 is beating the pants off the A380
Well, they're incomparable aircraft. The DC-3 has "beat the pants"
off of anything ever built. The c-182 could probably make the same
claim. I suspect that almost anyone would paint the market for this
class of aircraft somewhere between 200 and 1200. Depending upon
which number you pick, the A380 could have already "captured"
the bulk of the market.
John Kulp
2007-10-12 19:54:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by me
Post by John Kulp
That's obvious, but what has this to do with choosing the A380 per se
over the 787?
Well, your question was where the "market" was coming from.
Yes, and it still is.
Post by me
Now you say that is obvious.
No, I was saying that growth in these markets are obvious, not that
they were markets for the A380.

The question then becomes which
Post by me
aircraft will this emerging market serve.
Yes, indeed.

In some scenarios,
Post by me
an A380 can benefit from new, very large, departure and
arrival points in these emerging markets (especially ones
that can be built from the ground up with them in mind).
I have never heard of any airport being specifically built for a
particular aircraft. They are built for accomodating aircraft of
basically any size. The A380 will probably change this, since it not
only needs a different gate structure to accomodate its doubledeck
design, but also a heavily reinforced runway which is not required by
any other aircraft. That adds a lot of expense to it that I would
doubt a new airport would build in just for it unless they are
absolutely sure that it will fly from there.
Post by me
Even more so by allowing the expansion of existing large
hubs which are near capacity with the aircraft in current use.
In other scenarios, the markets are arranged such that point to
point replaces large hubs for these markets. Boeing pays
alot of money to people to predict these things.
Hub airports don't seem to be going anywhere. And no one is going to
fly an A380 from Green Bay to Indianapolis. The vast majority of
these are being served by considerably smaller aircraft.
Post by me
Post by John Kulp
Post by me
Post by John Kulp
The A380 may make sense for cases where true airport
capacity has been reached (like Heathrow) and a few routes already
defined, but the 787 makes a lot more sense on most other routes where
more frequent smaller capacity is what is desired by customers
One of the possible scenarios is that BOTH planes will do
very well.
While anything is possible, I don't know of anyone currently arguing
this. The A380 is not selling well in spite of all the hype and, to
my knowledge, no American airline has bought any. I remember that
supersonic aircraft were going to take over the world. They simply
ignored all its downsides, which is exactly what is happening to the
A380. Market realities demonstrate otherwise.

The 787 will provide alot of point to point capacity,
Post by me
Post by John Kulp
Post by me
and the A380 will provide the kind of mass movement between
major destinations that are becoming relatively capacity limited.
I just have trouble with that model. The tendency up to now has
to been to use more, smaller, flights and pursue point to point
flights. When airport capacity is reached, you start using other
airports. There will be a handful of places that don't have
airports available within a couple hours, but can one build an
aircraft design for basically just because of those airports?
You can come up with a theory for anything. Fact is, at the moment
the 787 is beating the pants off the A380
Well, they're incomparable aircraft. The DC-3 has "beat the pants"
off of anything ever built.
Sorry, completely wrong on any measure I know of. If you are talking
about the number of aircraft produced, it isn't anywhere close to the
Piper Cub. About 13,000 DC3s were built versus over 19,000 of the
Piper Cub.

The c-182 could probably make the same
Post by me
claim. I suspect that almost anyone would paint the market for this
class of aircraft somewhere between 200 and 1200. Depending upon
which number you pick, the A380 could have already "captured"
the bulk of the market.
It doesn't depend on anything if you are going by aircraft class. It
is the only one in the 500+ passenger market, so, by definition, it
has 100% of that market. That is an idiotic statistic, however,
because airlines look to how they will transport their entire
passenger base and the A380 is infitesimal on that measurement.
William Black
2007-10-12 20:04:38 UTC
Permalink
"John Kulp" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@news20.forteinc.com...

The A380 is not selling well in spite of all the hype and, to
Post by John Kulp
my knowledge, no American airline has bought any.
That's because they don't serve the market it's designed for.

The USA is covered with nice modern airports at reasonable distances apart.

The Boeing market is pretty obvious there, but it's not exactly an
expanding market, indeed with a Democratic win in 2008 it could well be a
contracting market as they introduce the slew of taxes on air travel they're
busy imposing in Europe.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
John Kulp
2007-10-13 03:42:17 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:04:38 +0100, "William Black"
Post by John Kulp
The A380 is not selling well in spite of all the hype and, to
Post by John Kulp
my knowledge, no American airline has bought any.
That's because they don't serve the market it's designed for.
That's because it's an idiotic aircraft designed for a market that
doesn't exist. Airlines are not as stupid as you.
Post by John Kulp
The USA is covered with nice modern airports at reasonable distances apart.
Complete nonsense made up by an idtiot that doesn't have one clue what
he's talking about. American airlines serve Asia, India, etc.
Exactly where the A380 ois supposedly targeted tp/
Post by John Kulp
The Boeing market is pretty obvious there, but it's not exactly an
expanding market, indeed with a Democratic win in 2008 it could well be a
contracting market as they introduce the slew of taxes on air travel they're
busy imposing in Europe.
Right genius. Continental Airlines has specifically targeted foreign
markets including China, India and Asia over the last few years since
9/11 which is now being copied by NW, Delta and United among others
while downplaying the domestic US market specifically because they
were more profitable and expanding, being a whole lot smarter than
you. You, as usual, have no clue whatsoever what you're talking
about.
A Guy Called Tyketto
2007-10-13 07:59:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Kulp
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:04:38 +0100, "William Black"
Post by John Kulp
The A380 is not selling well in spite of all the hype and, to
Post by John Kulp
my knowledge, no American airline has bought any.
The US doesn't equal the world. Pull your head out of your ass,
and you'll realize there's more to the world than the US.
Post by John Kulp
That's because it's an idiotic aircraft designed for a market that
doesn't exist. Airlines are not as stupid as you.
Asia and the Middle East would disagree with you. And seeing
that they've put their money where their mouths are, they would have a
bigger clout and outlook on the market than you.

The airlines aren't as stupid as you (thankfully).
Post by John Kulp
Post by John Kulp
The USA is covered with nice modern airports at reasonable distances apart.
Complete nonsense made up by an idtiot that doesn't have one clue what
he's talking about. American airlines serve Asia, India, etc.
Exactly where the A380 ois supposedly targeted tp/
Apparently you've forgotten the fact that the smaller the land
mass, the denser the population is or can become. Case in point: Japan.
If you've noticed, the B747SP worked well for there, taking more people
at one time from one place to another, which is the opposite of the US,
where the land mass is so big that people are spread out. So smaller
planes more frequently profit more, instead of big planes with less
flights.

Same will go for the A380. If you weren't so US-centric, you'd
figure that out.
Post by John Kulp
Right genius. Continental Airlines has specifically targeted foreign
markets including China, India and Asia over the last few years since
9/11 which is now being copied by NW, Delta and United among others
while downplaying the domestic US market specifically because they
were more profitable and expanding, being a whole lot smarter than
you. You, as usual, have no clue whatsoever what you're talking
about.
Like you said before, big smegging deal. Emirates, Qantas, and
Singapore were well ahead of them on this, because most US legacy
carriers were too busy saving their asses from Ch. 11 bankruptcies
because they spent too damn much expanding. Until you start looking at
this from a more worldly perspective, you live what you preach; have no
clue whatsoever about what you're talking about.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email: ***@sbcglobal.net
Unix Systems Administrator, | ***@ozemail.com.au
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
John Kulp
2007-10-13 17:10:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:59:11 GMT, A Guy Called Tyketto
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Post by John Kulp
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:04:38 +0100, "William Black"
Post by John Kulp
The A380 is not selling well in spite of all the hype and, to
Post by John Kulp
my knowledge, no American airline has bought any.
The US doesn't equal the world. Pull your head out of your ass,
and you'll realize there's more to the world than the US.
Who said it did cretin? It does make up a significant amount,
however, which is why I was pointing it out.
Post by John Kulp
That's because it's an idiotic aircraft designed for a market that
doesn't exist. Airlines are not as stupid as you.
Asia and the Middle East would disagree with you. And seeing
that they've put their money where their mouths are, they would have a
bigger clout and outlook on the market than you.
They have put up very little money to date, ace, and have received a
lot back from Airbus in penalties--all while the breakeven point for
this aircraft to be profitable keeps rising as a result. To a good
degree, they are bribing these airlines to take the A380 by endless
concessions.
The airlines aren't as stupid as you (thankfully).
Post by John Kulp
Post by John Kulp
The USA is covered with nice modern airports at reasonable distances apart.
Complete nonsense made up by an idtiot that doesn't have one clue what
he's talking about. American airlines serve Asia, India, etc.
Exactly where the A380 ois supposedly targeted tp/
Apparently you've forgotten the fact that the smaller the land
mass, the denser the population is or can become. Case in point: Japan.
If you've noticed, the B747SP worked well for there, taking more people
at one time from one place to another, which is the opposite of the US,
where the land mass is so big that people are spread out. So smaller
planes more frequently profit more, instead of big planes with less
flights.
Same will go for the A380. If you weren't so US-centric, you'd
figure that out.
Then, genius, why is this plane having so much trouble selling while
the 787 is setting records? ANA being the first launch customer for
the 787 which is hardly a US airline is it?
Post by John Kulp
Right genius. Continental Airlines has specifically targeted foreign
markets including China, India and Asia over the last few years since
9/11 which is now being copied by NW, Delta and United among others
while downplaying the domestic US market specifically because they
were more profitable and expanding, being a whole lot smarter than
you. You, as usual, have no clue whatsoever what you're talking
about.
Like you said before, big smegging deal. Emirates, Qantas, and
Singapore were well ahead of them on this, because most US legacy
carriers were too busy saving their asses from Ch. 11 bankruptcies
because they spent too damn much expanding. Until you start looking at
this from a more worldly perspective, you live what you preach; have no
clue whatsoever about what you're talking about.
As I said, airhead, the 787 is selling far more aircraft then this
dog, will be vastly profitable as a result while the A380 could drag
EADS right down (go check their stock performance genius) and EADS is
desperately trying to catch the 787 with the A350 (having completely
missed the real market) and may finally be able to get one out the
doors by 2013, by which time Boeing will have sold in the thousands.
Gee, I guess the world's airlines are US centric huh?
A Guy Called Tyketto
2007-10-16 04:07:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Kulp
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:59:11 GMT, A Guy Called Tyketto
Post by A Guy Called Tyketto
The US doesn't equal the world. Pull your head out of your ass,
and you'll realize there's more to the world than the US.
Asia and the Middle East would disagree with you. And seeing
that they've put their money where their mouths are, they would have a
bigger clout and outlook on the market than you.
They have put up very little money to date, ace, and have received a
lot back from Airbus in penalties--all while the breakeven point for
this aircraft to be profitable keeps rising as a result. To a good
degree, they are bribing these airlines to take the A380 by endless
concessions.
Then we'd love a good reason for why BAW, AFR, QTR, UAE, SIA,
DLH, and others are paying fairly well for their A380s.

Go on, we're all waiting your your lovely explanation.
Post by John Kulp
Post by A Guy Called Tyketto
Same will go for the A380. If you weren't so US-centric, you'd
figure that out.
Then, genius, why is this plane having so much trouble selling while
the 787 is setting records? ANA being the first launch customer for
the 787 which is hardly a US airline is it?
Let's see.. 15 or 20something order from Emirates, Few from
SIA, 12 to Qatar, another 5 to AFR, 12 to BAW.. They're selling rather
well.

And also, it's funny that you mention ANA, which happens to be
an entire Boeing fleet, and some of which who owned a B747SP. Now.. how
coincidental is that, hmmm??
Post by John Kulp
As I said, airhead, the 787 is selling far more aircraft then this
dog, will be vastly profitable as a result while the A380 could drag
EADS right down (go check their stock performance genius) and EADS is
desperately trying to catch the 787 with the A350 (having completely
missed the real market) and may finally be able to get one out the
doors by 2013, by which time Boeing will have sold in the thousands.
Gee, I guess the world's airlines are US centric huh?
Actually, they are not. The world's airlines are loyal to
whichever product can get them the best profit. Whether that is Boeing,
Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier, BAe, or what have you, they will go with
whatever makes them profit.

But I digress. you seem to know everything, so we'll believe
you when you say the sky is falling and stick your head in the sand,
while we light a match on the oil well your head is on top of.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email: ***@sbcglobal.net
Unix Systems Administrator, | ***@ozemail.com.au
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
John Kulp
2007-10-16 12:32:44 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 04:07:54 GMT, A Guy Called Tyketto
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Post by John Kulp
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:59:11 GMT, A Guy Called Tyketto
Post by A Guy Called Tyketto
The US doesn't equal the world. Pull your head out of your ass,
and you'll realize there's more to the world than the US.
Asia and the Middle East would disagree with you. And seeing
that they've put their money where their mouths are, they would have a
bigger clout and outlook on the market than you.
They have put up very little money to date, ace, and have received a
lot back from Airbus in penalties--all while the breakeven point for
this aircraft to be profitable keeps rising as a result. To a good
degree, they are bribing these airlines to take the A380 by endless
concessions.
Then we'd love a good reason for why BAW, AFR, QTR, UAE, SIA,
DLH, and others are paying fairly well for their A380s.
You have no idea what they're paying cretin.
Go on, we're all waiting your your lovely explanation.
See above.
Post by John Kulp
Post by A Guy Called Tyketto
Same will go for the A380. If you weren't so US-centric, you'd
figure that out.
Then, genius, why is this plane having so much trouble selling while
the 787 is setting records? ANA being the first launch customer for
the 787 which is hardly a US airline is it?
Let's see.. 15 or 20something order from Emirates, Few from
SIA, 12 to Qatar, another 5 to AFR, 12 to BAW.. They're selling rather
well.
Yeah, that's real close to their ever increasing breakeven isn't it?
And also, it's funny that you mention ANA, which happens to be
an entire Boeing fleet, and some of which who owned a B747SP. Now.. how
coincidental is that, hmmm??
Post by John Kulp
As I said, airhead, the 787 is selling far more aircraft then this
dog, will be vastly profitable as a result while the A380 could drag
EADS right down (go check their stock performance genius) and EADS is
desperately trying to catch the 787 with the A350 (having completely
missed the real market) and may finally be able to get one out the
doors by 2013, by which time Boeing will have sold in the thousands.
Gee, I guess the world's airlines are US centric huh?
Actually, they are not. The world's airlines are loyal to
whichever product can get them the best profit. Whether that is Boeing,
Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier, BAe, or what have you, they will go with
whatever makes them profit.
What crap. Boeing has over 700 firm orders for the 787 and another
100 or so pending. Airbus has how many again for the A380 dog? What
was the breakeven for it again?
But I digress. you seem to know everything, so we'll believe
you when you say the sky is falling and stick your head in the sand,
while we light a match on the oil well your head is on top of.
Yes you do, posting complete fairy tales.
Josef Kleber
2007-10-13 13:40:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Kulp
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:04:38 +0100, "William Black"
Post by John Kulp
The A380 is not selling well in spite of all the hype and, to
Post by John Kulp
my knowledge, no American airline has bought any.
That's because they don't serve the market it's designed for.
That's because it's an idiotic aircraft designed for a market that
doesn't exist. Airlines are not as stupid as you.
The A380 is much more cost effictive (-20% AFAIK) than the 747 on
passenger mile base. Therefore A380 are bought as 747 replacements
(Lufthansa, Air France) or by expanding airlines like Emirates. Over the
next years (lifespan of 747, much likely faster) all 747s will be
replaced by A380s. It`s not a fact of marketing blabla of Airbus nor
Boeing. It's the market! A airline have to be plain stupid to buy a 747
now! How many of them were sold in the last years?
The 787 is competing with the A330/340 and is more cost effective as
them. Therefore Airbus was forced to react with the A350. And it's again
new technology no marketing blabla. It's carbon vs. metal.
It's a game where airlines try to make money and no war of marketing blabla.
The problem of Airbus is not a missing market but the fact that they are
forced to sell their aircrafts in weak and weaker US Peso! Therefore
they have to cut costs by billions.
Post by John Kulp
Post by John Kulp
The Boeing market is pretty obvious there, but it's not exactly an
expanding market, indeed with a Democratic win in 2008 it could well be a
contracting market as they introduce the slew of taxes on air travel they're
busy imposing in Europe.
Right genius. Continental Airlines has specifically targeted foreign
markets including China, India and Asia over the last few years since
9/11 which is now being copied by NW, Delta and United among others
while downplaying the domestic US market specifically because they
were more profitable and expanding, being a whole lot smarter than
you. You, as usual, have no clue whatsoever what you're talking
about.
Oh, yes. Smart US companies. In that case i'm always thinking of great
smart WalMart here in germany. They didn't manage to make just a single
penny in years. Smart US companies don't have to adjust to local
markets. Veni, vidi, vici! US companies can easliy ignore market rules.
At least until they go home again with big losses. Everybody is stupid
in comparison with great US thinkers like GWB! You seem to live on a
really nice planet!

Josef
William Black
2007-10-12 19:57:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by me
Post by John Kulp
Post by me
Post by John Kulp
Well, I don't know where these supposed market changes are supposed to
come from.
They are already here to some extent. The entire Asian continent
and
surrounding areas are expanding fast commercially. It's part
of what is driving up the price of oil. The prediction is that as these
economic expansions filter down and create "middle class" like
income brackets, you'll see greater mobility of those classes,
and they'll demand transportation.
That's obvious, but what has this to do with choosing the A380 per se
over the 787?
Well, your question was where the "market" was coming from.
Now you say that is obvious. The question then becomes which
aircraft will this emerging market serve. In some scenarios,
an A380 can benefit from new, very large, departure and
arrival points in these emerging markets (especially ones
that can be built from the ground up with them in mind).
Even more so by allowing the expansion of existing large
hubs which are near capacity with the aircraft in current use.
In other scenarios, the markets are arranged such that point to
point replaces large hubs for these markets. Boeing pays
alot of money to people to predict these things.
Boeing's major problem with the emergent Far Eastern market is that their
traditional customers don't currently have access to most of it.

The major players, with India certainly, are the big British managed,
Arab financed, Gulf based airlines such as Qata and Emirates and Gulf who
use the huge 'vanity' airports built in the Gulf by the local despot and
operate almost nothing but Airbus aircraft.

The other major players are BA, Virgin and Air India, with minor Indian
players such as Jet desperately trying to 'get on the bus' for European
flights before all the slots at the hugely overcrowded Indian airports
close.

Kingfisher didn't order five A380s for running tourists down to Goa...

The other major international 'flag carriers' run a flight or two a day into
India, usually one into Bombay and one into Delhi, but nobody notices.

Now the various operators tried running more direct flights to the USA last
year (Delta and Air India I think) , but elderly people kept dying on the
long flight, and it kept making the front page of the Times of India, and
I believe that seat sales are still disappointing.

So, the Indian airports are already nearly at capacity, caused by the huge
expansion of the domestic market, and expansion of the Indian airports is a
political nightmare, so India needs the A380 a lot more than the
Dreamliner.

In China you have a particularly nasty form of despotism, and one that
loves monumental projects. So the dreamliner is a far better bet for them
because they don't need to ask anyone whose house gets bulldozed before they
start building airports every few hundred miles.

But China doesn't 'export' people in large numbers, it exports 'things', so
Boeing might flog some of those stretched 747 freighters...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Geoff Miller
2007-10-12 16:26:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Kulp
Post by me
I assume you're refering to the 747-8. This isn't quite the plane
Boeing originally try to sell to compete with the A380. They had
something a bit closer to 500 seats. They gave up on that one.
The -8 is just another in a long line of stretches and engine
mods.
That's the plane alright. And they are selling as freighters.
Why is it called the 747-8 and not the 747-500? What's the
significance of the number "8?" If Boeing were going to go
to single-digit version numbers, one would've thought that
they'd call the new one the 747-5.



Geoff

--
"Since the whole affair had become one of religion, the
vanquished were of course exterminated. -- Voltaire
me
2007-10-12 17:41:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoff Miller
Post by John Kulp
Post by me
I assume you're refering to the 747-8. This isn't quite the plane
Boeing originally try to sell to compete with the A380. They had
something a bit closer to 500 seats. They gave up on that one.
The -8 is just another in a long line of stretches and engine
mods.
That's the plane alright. And they are selling as freighters.
Why is it called the 747-8 and not the 747-500? What's the
significance of the number "8?" If Boeing were going to go
to single-digit version numbers, one would've thought that
they'd call the new one the 747-5.
FWIW wikipikiea says:

"Boeing named the new airliner "747-8" because of the technology it
will share with that [787] aircraft."
John Kulp
2007-10-12 17:53:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoff Miller
Post by John Kulp
Post by me
I assume you're refering to the 747-8. This isn't quite the plane
Boeing originally try to sell to compete with the A380. They had
something a bit closer to 500 seats. They gave up on that one.
The -8 is just another in a long line of stretches and engine
mods.
That's the plane alright. And they are selling as freighters.
Why is it called the 747-8 and not the 747-500? What's the
significance of the number "8?" If Boeing were going to go
to single-digit version numbers, one would've thought that
they'd call the new one the 747-5.
Good question. From what I can tell Boeing never said why.
zonedout
2007-10-13 18:04:30 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 03:22:30 GMT 'John Kulp'
Post by John Kulp
Well, I don't know where these supposed market changes are supposed to
come from. The A380 may make sense for cases where true airport
capacity has been reached (like Heathrow) and a few routes already
defined, but the 787 makes a lot more sense on most other routes where
more frequent smaller capacity is what is desired by customers.
Your scenario doesn't take into account the rising cost of fuel and
extra green taxes being levied. Both of these will mitigate against
putting on more flights to suit passengers' whims and will drive
airlines to fly bigger planes carrying more passengers but less
often to reduce the pollution and taxes per flight. Then of course
you've got Asian air travel growth...where large planes will be
necessary.
zonedout
2007-10-13 17:59:30 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:24:30 -0700 'me'
Post by me
But if they do, and markets change
in their favor, they have to sell something like 500 of them
to be safely into profits.
I thought it was a lot less than 500 to break even. 150 comes
to mind.
Rick Blaine
2007-10-13 18:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by zonedout
I thought it was a lot less than 500 to break even. 150 comes
to mind.
Hardly. The very first numbers from Airbus were over 200. Most people knew that
was fantasy and put the number well over 300. That was before the delays,
additional engineering costs, substitute aircraft deals and penalties. The real
number now is basically infinity. When you look at the imputed interest costs on
their investment they are in a hole they can never get out of.

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars
Rick Blaine
2007-10-15 02:46:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Blaine
Post by zonedout
I thought it was a lot less than 500 to break even. 150 comes
to mind.
Hardly. The very first numbers from Airbus were over 200. Most people knew that
was fantasy and put the number well over 300. That was before the delays,
additional engineering costs, substitute aircraft deals and penalties. The real
number now is basically infinity. When you look at the imputed interest costs on
their investment they are in a hole they can never get out of.
And from Bloomberg today:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agP6afkFFFV4&refer=home

The A380 has 181 orders. It was originally forecast to break even after 270
deliveries. Airbus said in October 2006 it would break even with the 420th
plane. Since then, executives won't provide forecasts.

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars
WorstGreatWestern
2007-10-11 19:28:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Kulp
Post by me
Post by John Kulp
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:31:48 +0100, "William Black"
[snip]
Post by John Kulp
Post by William Black
The A380 addresses this market, which is already dominated by Airbus
products. The 787 is just another 300 seater wide-bodied jet.
Baloney again. Airbus is having huge problems selling the A380
because airports have to be rebuilt among other things and most of the
demand can be met with other aircraft that don't have this
requirement. Like the 787 and newer versions of the 747.
Well, you're basically rearguing the Boeing and Airbus positions.
Boeing has tried to sell stretch 747's to compete with the A380
but couldn't sell any. Flip side is that Boeing is selling 787's
hand over fist and Airbus has currently peaked with the A380.
The question still remains, once the uncertainties around
the A380 are worked out, will the markets support/demand
the aircraft in sufficient numbers? We know the market is
there for the 787. Boeing was betting that there wouldn't
be one for an A380 size (in sufficient numbers to try to
bother making one). Airbus was accused of going into the
market because they had nothing in the 747 size and
they hoped to take over the market. Time will tell whether
either was correct.
First, not true because they have sold several freighter versions of
the 747 already. The rest is absolutely correct.
Post by me
Boeing believes that when the Asian markets take off,
their will be sufficient demand to support alot of 787's
flying direct to major desitinations, as oppose to
huge A380's flying to a few major hubs. I suspect there
may be enough market for both of them. But there may
never be a market big enough for two A380 size aircraft.
Again true, but it is looking increasingly likely that Boeing was dead
right about the A380 and it is looking increasingly unlikely that
enough will be sold to make a profit, especially with all the
penalties Aitbus has to pay.
displaying your lack of knowledge again John ;-)

you're a GENUIS..........
John Kulp
2007-10-12 03:23:24 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:28:07 -0700, WorstGreatWestern
Post by WorstGreatWestern
Post by John Kulp
Again true, but it is looking increasingly likely that Boeing was dead
right about the A380 and it is looking increasingly unlikely that
enough will be sold to make a profit, especially with all the
penalties Aitbus has to pay.
displaying your lack of knowledge again John ;-)
you're a GENUIS..........
Typical moron's response saying nothing at all
zonedout
2007-10-13 17:57:17 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:22:00 GMT 'John Kulp'
Post by John Kulp
Again true, but it is looking increasingly likely that Boeing was dead
right about the A380 and it is looking increasingly unlikely that
enough will be sold to make a profit, especially with all the
penalties Aitbus has to pay.
Not true. The aircraft hasn't yet made its first passenger flight
and the lifetime of the A380 will be the deciding factor as to
whether it is successful. You're trying to compare the demand for
787 and A380 but they're different planes for different markets.
I'm quite sure that Airbus saw the market potential of the A380
as long term in Asia etc and it will clean up because Boeing have
nothing to offer in that segment except the old outdated 747.
Rick Blaine
2007-10-13 18:21:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by zonedout
Post by John Kulp
Again true, but it is looking increasingly likely that Boeing was dead
right about the A380 and it is looking increasingly unlikely that
enough will be sold to make a profit, especially with all the
penalties Aitbus has to pay.
Not true. The aircraft hasn't yet made its first passenger flight
and the lifetime of the A380 will be the deciding factor as to
whether it is successful.
Depends on how you define sucessful, doesn't it?

The lifetime of the 380 has very little bearing on whether it will pay back the
initial engineering investment. You are ignoring the time value of money and the
fact that an aircraft designed say 10 years ago (like the 747-400) is
significantly different than the current model (the 747-8). The same logic
applies to the 380.

To keep the 380 viable 10 years from now will require an ongoing investment. No
one in the industry believes that Airbus will ever break even on the 380
investment. The initial break even numbers were over 400 aircraft on the
original design. And that was before the costs and schedule delays they are
working through now. There's no evidence they will come close to those sales
numbers. The best they will do is cover production costs and possibly some
margin to cover sustaining engineering.

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars
mrtravel
2007-10-12 02:07:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by me
Post by John Kulp
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:31:48 +0100, "William Black"
[snip]
Post by John Kulp
Post by William Black
The A380 addresses this market, which is already dominated by Airbus
products. The 787 is just another 300 seater wide-bodied jet.
Baloney again. Airbus is having huge problems selling the A380
because airports have to be rebuilt among other things and most of the
demand can be met with other aircraft that don't have this
requirement. Like the 787 and newer versions of the 747.
Well, you're basically rearguing the Boeing and Airbus positions.
Boeing has tried to sell stretch 747's to compete with the A380
but couldn't sell any.
Really? No stretch 747's have been sold?
Alfred Molon
2007-10-13 08:07:21 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, me
says...
Post by me
Boeing believes that when the Asian markets take off,
their will be sufficient demand to support alot of 787's
flying direct to major desitinations, as oppose to
huge A380's flying to a few major hubs. I suspect there
may be enough market for both of them. But there may
never be a market big enough for two A380 size aircraft.
Will planes such as the A380 make it cheaper for tourists to fly from
Europe to Asian destinations?
--
Alfred Molon
http://www.molon.de - Photos of Asia, Africa and Europe
William Black
2007-10-13 10:42:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alfred Molon
says...
Post by me
Boeing believes that when the Asian markets take off,
their will be sufficient demand to support alot of 787's
flying direct to major desitinations, as oppose to
huge A380's flying to a few major hubs. I suspect there
may be enough market for both of them. But there may
never be a market big enough for two A380 size aircraft.
Will planes such as the A380 make it cheaper for tourists to fly from
Europe to Asian destinations?
Almost certainly.

Kingfisher have five A380s on order and hope to fly between the UK and India
with them.

Kingfisher are an Indian low cost airline.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
grusl
2007-10-13 10:59:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Kingfisher are an Indian low cost airline.
It's a world-class domestic airline, but there's nothing low budget,
low fare or low cost about it.

Cheers,
George W Russell
Bangalore
William Black
2007-10-13 11:31:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by grusl
Post by William Black
Kingfisher are an Indian low cost airline.
It's a world-class domestic airline, but there's nothing low budget,
low fare or low cost about it.
When I flew with them they were dead cheap.

Mind you, that could be Indian domestic air ticket prices. They're in the
Ryanair class.

As I've said before, in India I prefer the train for long distances.

I shall be interested to see if their projected London service ever happens.

I hope it does.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
grusl
2007-10-13 11:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by grusl
Post by William Black
Kingfisher are an Indian low cost airline.
It's a world-class domestic airline, but there's nothing low budget,
low fare or low cost about it.
When I flew with them they were dead cheap.
Mind you, that could be Indian domestic air ticket prices. They're in
the Ryanair class.
As I've said before, in India I prefer the train for long distances.
I shall be interested to see if their projected London service ever happens.
You can get cheap fares offpeak, if you fly at 5am or so, but generally it's
a competitive full price airline like Jet. I expect their London service
will happen but Indian law forces them to operate domestically for, I think,
five years, before they can ask to fly internationally. I haven't tried Jet
internationally yet as I don't like flying via another Indian domestic
airport - one of those is enough. It's usually TG, UL or EK from Bangalore
for me.

Cheers,
George W Russell
Bangalore
William Black
2007-10-13 12:26:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by grusl
You can get cheap fares offpeak, if you fly at 5am or so, but generally
it's a competitive full price airline like Jet. I expect their London
service will happen but Indian law forces them to operate domestically
for, I think, five years, before they can ask to fly internationally. I
haven't tried Jet internationally yet as I don't like flying via another
Indian domestic airport - one of those is enough. It's usually TG, UL or
EK from Bangalore for me.
I flew Jet 'UK to India' last year.

Slow check-in, very relaxed attitude to baggage allowances, aircraft was
a 'cookie cutter' Airbus, noisy because it was full of pissed Punjabis and
the aisles were busy all night with people going back to buy duty free.

On the other hand the food was good, the staff were efficient and it was on
time, which, for a flight where the letters BOM appear on the boarding
cards, was exceptional...

My wife said the whole thing was far more like an Indian internal flight
than a long-haul.

Flying Emirates this year, never flown with them but I'm told the major
draw is the Dubai airport duty free area.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
grusl
2007-10-13 12:39:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
I flew Jet 'UK to India' last year.
Slow check-in, very relaxed attitude to baggage allowances, aircraft
was a 'cookie cutter' Airbus, noisy because it was full of pissed
Punjabis and the aisles were busy all night with people going back to buy
duty free.
On the other hand the food was good, the staff were efficient and it was
on time, which, for a flight where the letters BOM appear on the boarding
cards, was exceptional...
My wife said the whole thing was far more like an Indian internal flight
than a long-haul.
Flying Emirates this year, never flown with them but I'm told the major
draw is the Dubai airport duty free area.
I'll be in Dubai on Wednesday, doing the 4-hour BLR-DXB nonstop for the
first time - a scheduled 4.15am departure! The DXB duty free area is indeed
a giant shopping mall - if you like that sort of thing. I'm not a shopper so
it doesn't mean much to me. Last time (July 2007) I bought a couple of flash
drives and SIN would have been slightly cheaper anyway.

Cheers,
George W Russell
Bangalore
grusl
2007-10-13 11:03:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Kingfisher are an Indian low cost airline.
It's a world-class domestic airline, but there's nothing low budget,
low fare or low cost about it.

Cheers,
George W Russell
Bangalore
zonedout
2007-10-13 18:07:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 10:07:21 +0200 'Alfred Molon'
Post by Alfred Molon
says...
Post by me
Boeing believes that when the Asian markets take off,
their will be sufficient demand to support alot of 787's
flying direct to major desitinations, as oppose to
huge A380's flying to a few major hubs. I suspect there
may be enough market for both of them. But there may
never be a market big enough for two A380 size aircraft.
Will planes such as the A380 make it cheaper for tourists to fly from
Europe to Asian destinations?
Absolutely. And also within Asia, China etc.
w***@yahoo.co.uk
2007-10-14 15:17:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alfred Molon
says...
Post by me
Boeing believes that when the Asian markets take off,
their will be sufficient demand to support alot of 787's
flying direct to major desitinations, as oppose to
huge A380's flying to a few major hubs. I suspect there
may be enough market for both of them. But there may
never be a market big enough for two A380 size aircraft.
Will planes such as the A380 make it cheaper for tourists to fly from
Europe to Asian destinations?
Maybe. But the experience will be a lot more miserable.
Post by Alfred Molon
--
Alfred Molonhttp://www.molon.de- Photos of Asia, Africa and Europe
William Black
2007-10-14 15:27:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Alfred Molon
says...
Post by me
Boeing believes that when the Asian markets take off,
their will be sufficient demand to support alot of 787's
flying direct to major desitinations, as oppose to
huge A380's flying to a few major hubs. I suspect there
may be enough market for both of them. But there may
never be a market big enough for two A380 size aircraft.
Will planes such as the A380 make it cheaper for tourists to fly from
Europe to Asian destinations?
Maybe. But the experience will be a lot more miserable.
Why?

The experience is already pretty miserable.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
zonedout
2007-10-13 17:53:25 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:05:34 -0700 'me'
Post by me
Boeing believes that when the Asian markets take off,
their will be sufficient demand to support alot of 787's
flying direct to major desitinations, as oppose to
huge A380's flying to a few major hubs. I suspect there
may be enough market for both of them. But there may
never be a market big enough for two A380 size aircraft.
Yes I'd agree with that. There is a market for both.
William Black
2007-10-11 16:32:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Kulp
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:31:48 +0100, "William Black"
Baloney again. Airbus is having huge problems selling the A380
because airports have to be rebuilt among other things and most of the
demand can be met with other aircraft that don't have this
requirement. Like the 787 and newer versions of the 747.
The two major airports involved in the India/Europe trade (Heathrow and
Bombay) are already committed to a 'double decker' type bridge suitable for
the A380.

The major problem at Bombay is the level of flights with international
flights already being challenged for slots.

There are no more slots there, the only solution is bigger aircraft.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
me
2007-10-11 18:02:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by John Kulp
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:31:48 +0100, "William Black"
Baloney again. Airbus is having huge problems selling the A380
because airports have to be rebuilt among other things and most of the
demand can be met with other aircraft that don't have this
requirement. Like the 787 and newer versions of the 747.
The two major airports involved in the India/Europe trade (Heathrow and
Bombay) are already committed to a 'double decker' type bridge suitable for
the A380.
The major problem at Bombay is the level of flights with international
flights already being challenged for slots.
There are no more slots there, the only solution is bigger aircraft.
Or more airports. Most major cities now sport multiple airports.
The tendency of many "low budget" airlines is to seek out under
use airports. In the US, point to point is becoming more and more
common. No guarantee that these same trends will play out in
new emerging markets, but it's the way Boeing is betting.
William Black
2007-10-11 18:27:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by me
Post by William Black
Post by John Kulp
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:31:48 +0100, "William Black"
Baloney again. Airbus is having huge problems selling the A380
because airports have to be rebuilt among other things and most of the
demand can be met with other aircraft that don't have this
requirement. Like the 787 and newer versions of the 747.
The two major airports involved in the India/Europe trade (Heathrow and
Bombay) are already committed to a 'double decker' type bridge suitable for
the A380.
The major problem at Bombay is the level of flights with international
flights already being challenged for slots.
There are no more slots there, the only solution is bigger aircraft.
Or more airports. Most major cities now sport multiple airports.
The tendency of many "low budget" airlines is to seek out under
use airports. In the US, point to point is becoming more and more
common. No guarantee that these same trends will play out in
new emerging markets, but it's the way Boeing is betting.
I love to know where to put the next Bombay airport, so would the city of
Bombay...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
mrtravel
2007-10-12 02:08:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
I love to know where to put the next Bombay airport, so would the city of
Bombay...
Isn't it called Mumbai now?
irwell
2007-10-12 02:32:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by mrtravel
Post by William Black
I love to know where to put the next Bombay airport, so would the city of
Bombay...
Isn't it called Mumbai now?
By some, but not by us remnants of the Raj.
Santa Cruz would be good.
Alan S
2007-10-12 03:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by irwell
Post by mrtravel
Post by William Black
I love to know where to put the next Bombay airport, so would the city of
Bombay...
Isn't it called Mumbai now?
By some, but not by us remnants of the Raj.
Santa Cruz would be good.
Still BOM on the airport lists.

Cheers, Alan, Australia
--
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Slovenia
http://loraltraveloz.blogspot.com/
latest: Mossman Gorge in the Daintree Rainforest
William Black
2007-10-12 10:18:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by irwell
Post by mrtravel
Post by William Black
I love to know where to put the next Bombay airport, so would the city of
Bombay...
Isn't it called Mumbai now?
By some, but not by us remnants of the Raj.
The 'remnants of the Raj' in this case being everyone I've ever met in
Bombay who speaks English...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
A Guy Called Tyketto
2007-10-12 03:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by mrtravel
Post by William Black
I love to know where to put the next Bombay airport, so would the city of
Bombay...
Isn't it called Mumbai now?
Yep. It is. BOM = VABB = Mumbai.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email: ***@sbcglobal.net
Unix Systems Administrator, | ***@ozemail.com.au
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
grusl
2007-10-12 08:25:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by mrtravel
Post by William Black
I love to know where to put the next Bombay airport, so would the city
of Bombay...
Isn't it called Mumbai now?
Sometimes, by some people.

Cheers,
George W Russell
Bangalore
William Black
2007-10-12 10:14:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by mrtravel
Post by William Black
I love to know where to put the next Bombay airport, so would the city
of Bombay...
Isn't it called Mumbai now?
Depends on who you talk to.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Frank F. Matthews
2007-10-12 15:27:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by mrtravel
Post by William Black
I love to know where to put the next Bombay airport, so would the
city of Bombay...
Isn't it called Mumbai now?
By some. I haven't noticed what the BBC uses. It was interesting to
hear their constant use of burma during their discussions of the recent
events there.
Geoff Miller
2007-10-12 17:09:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank F. Matthews
Post by mrtravel
Isn't it called Mumbai now?
By some. I haven't noticed what the BBC uses. It was interesting to
hear their constant use of burma during their discussions of the recent
events there.
The Economist, being left of center, uses "Mumbai" and "Myanmar."



Geoff

--
"Since the whole affair had become one of religion, the
vanquished were of course exterminated. -- Voltaire
William Black
2007-10-12 17:30:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoff Miller
Post by Frank F. Matthews
Post by mrtravel
Isn't it called Mumbai now?
By some. I haven't noticed what the BBC uses. It was interesting to
hear their constant use of burma during their discussions of the recent
events there.
The Economist, being left of center, uses "Mumbai" and "Myanmar."
Which is interesting because 'Mumbai' was introduced by extreme right
wingers.

Mind you, I assume you mean the US Economist.

I which case we can assume the usual incredible level of ignorance about
anything outside the Continental United States that hasn't been bombed by
the USAF in the past couple of years...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
John Kulp
2007-10-12 17:50:42 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:30:41 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
Mind you, I assume you mean the US Economist.
Which doesnt' exist.
Post by William Black
I which case we can assume the usual incredible level of ignorance about
anything outside the Continental United States that hasn't been bombed by
the USAF in the past couple of years...
You continue to show what a completely uninformed biased moron you
are. On every subject imaginable.
Jim Ley
2007-10-12 20:18:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Kulp
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:30:41 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
Mind you, I assume you mean the US Economist.
Which doesnt' exist.
Sure it does, they change the order of Britain/Europe/Americas in the
paper depending on where they're selling it... the US Economist is the
one where the Americas come first! :)

Jim.
John Kulp
2007-10-13 03:43:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Ley
Post by John Kulp
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:30:41 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
Mind you, I assume you mean the US Economist.
Which doesnt' exist.
Sure it does, they change the order of Britain/Europe/Americas in the
paper depending on where they're selling it... the US Economist is the
one where the Americas come first! :)
Aw baloney. I read both editions of The Economist all the time and
they are a refreshing addition to the US blather saying the same thing
over and over. You get a quite refreshing view of what is happening
from The Economist that you will never see in the US press.
zonedout
2007-10-13 18:19:15 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 03:43:53 GMT 'John Kulp'
Post by John Kulp
Aw baloney. I read both editions of The Economist all the time and
they are a refreshing addition to the US blather saying the same thing
over and over. You get a quite refreshing view of what is happening
from The Economist that you will never see in the US press.
That's true, American media is only fit to wrap fish n chips in.

But even the Economist (UK original edition) has shifted further
right in the last few years and slightly away from Euro economics.
YMMV.
WorstGreatWestern
2007-10-12 21:47:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Kulp
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:30:41 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
Mind you, I assume you mean the US Economist.
Which doesnt' exist.
Post by William Black
I which case we can assume the usual incredible level of ignorance about
anything outside the Continental United States that hasn't been bombed by
the USAF in the past couple of years...
You continue to show what a completely uninformed biased moron you
are. On every subject imaginable.
GENUIS !
John Kulp
2007-10-13 03:44:24 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:47:04 -0700, WorstGreatWestern
Post by WorstGreatWestern
Post by John Kulp
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:30:41 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
Mind you, I assume you mean the US Economist.
Which doesnt' exist.
Post by William Black
I which case we can assume the usual incredible level of ignorance about
anything outside the Continental United States that hasn't been bombed by
the USAF in the past couple of years...
You continue to show what a completely uninformed biased moron you
are. On every subject imaginable.
GENUIS !
Compared to your mindless blather, for once you are correct.
Doesn't Frequently Mop
2007-10-13 11:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Make credence recognised that on Sat, 13 Oct 2007 03:44:24 GMT,
Post by John Kulp
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:47:04 -0700, WorstGreatWestern
Post by WorstGreatWestern
Post by John Kulp
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:30:41 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
Mind you, I assume you mean the US Economist.
Which doesnt' exist.
Post by William Black
I which case we can assume the usual incredible level of ignorance about
anything outside the Continental United States that hasn't been bombed by
the USAF in the past couple of years...
You continue to show what a completely uninformed biased moron you
are. On every subject imaginable.
GENUIS !
Compared to your mindless blather, for once you are correct.
You are such a wanker.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
mrtravel
2007-10-13 00:34:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank F. Matthews
Post by mrtravel
Post by William Black
I love to know where to put the next Bombay airport, so would the
city of Bombay...
Isn't it called Mumbai now?
By some. I haven't noticed what the BBC uses. It was interesting to
hear their constant use of burma during their discussions of the recent
events there.
Yep, made me want to go out an by some shaving cream.
zonedout
2007-10-13 18:15:31 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:02:07 -0700 'me'
Post by me
Or more airports. Most major cities now sport multiple airports.
The tendency of many "low budget" airlines is to seek out under
use airports. In the US, point to point is becoming more and more
common. No guarantee that these same trends will play out in
new emerging markets, but it's the way Boeing is betting.
That's where I think Boeing tried to influence the market but got
it wrong. The short-term solution for the huge growth in Asian
travel is bigger airplanes like the A380. IMV, more airports and
more point-to-point flights is a luxury the US/Europe can afford but
not Asia atm. Also the A380 will mean cheaper tickets for the masses
in China/India.
David Gee
2007-10-13 03:38:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Kulp
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:31:48 +0100, "William Black"
<snip>
Post by John Kulp
The next major market to open up will be the long haul routes between India
Post by William Black
and China to Europe and the USA.
You must be referring to the decades of experience gained by pioneering
Canadian airlines (Canadian Pacific, Air Canada, Harmony) that opened up
trans-Pacific and Asian routes.

And to airlines such as Cathay Pacific, which has its North American hub
in Vancouver to serve customers from Canada, California and New York.
William Black
2007-10-13 10:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Gee
Post by John Kulp
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:31:48 +0100, "William Black"
<snip>
Post by John Kulp
The next major market to open up will be the long haul routes between India
Post by William Black
and China to Europe and the USA.
You must be referring to the decades of experience gained by pioneering
Canadian airlines (Canadian Pacific, Air Canada, Harmony) that opened up
trans-Pacific and Asian routes.
And to airlines such as Cathay Pacific, which has its North American hub
in Vancouver to serve customers from Canada, California and New York.
Actually, that's an interesting one.

None of the big US airlines seem to fly to China or India via California,
nor the big Asian ones back that way.

Any idea why?

Is it some sort of technical reason or is it just that there isn't the
business.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
David Gee
2007-10-13 13:16:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Gee
Post by John Kulp
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:31:48 +0100, "William Black"
<snip>
The next major market to open up will be the long haul >>routes
between India and China to Europe and the USA.
You must be referring to the decades of experience gained >by
pioneering Canadian airlines (Canadian Pacific, Air >Canada, Harmony)
that opened up trans-Pacific and Asian >routes.
And to airlines such as Cathay Pacific, which has its North >American
hub in Vancouver to serve customers from Canada, >California and New
York.
Post by David Gee
Actually, that's an interesting one.
None of the big US airlines seem to fly to China or India via
Post by John Kulp
California, nor the big Asian ones back that way. Any idea >>why? Is
it some sort of technical reason or is it just that >>there isn't the
business.
It's mostly due to the shorter distance. And therefore flying time and
fuel consumption. Quoting from the publication "Canada Asia Agenda
2006", by the Asia Pacific Foundation (Vancouver, BC):

THE AIRPORT GATEWAY
The same geographic advantage that Canada’s West Coast ports offer to
Asian shipping applies to air travel and air cargo, too. Flying time
from cities in Northeast Asia, such as Shanghai, Tokyo or Seoul, are 55
minutes to 85 minutes less to Vancouver International Airport (YVR) than
they are to Los Angeles. The margin in favour of Vancouver is even
greater when flying from east to west.

Notes:
1) Some US airlines go via Anchorage, Alaska for the same reason;
2) Vancouver has large Asian populations, which provide multilingual
labour pools and supplier resources;
3) Several airlines have daily flights in both directions, so their
Vancouver stations operate at high operational (and financial)
efficiency;
Louis Krupp
2007-10-14 05:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by David Gee
Post by John Kulp
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:31:48 +0100, "William Black"
<snip>
Post by John Kulp
The next major market to open up will be the long haul routes between India
Post by William Black
and China to Europe and the USA.
You must be referring to the decades of experience gained by pioneering
Canadian airlines (Canadian Pacific, Air Canada, Harmony) that opened up
trans-Pacific and Asian routes.
And to airlines such as Cathay Pacific, which has its North American hub
in Vancouver to serve customers from Canada, California and New York.
Actually, that's an interesting one.
None of the big US airlines seem to fly to China or India via California,
nor the big Asian ones back that way.
Any idea why?
Is it some sort of technical reason or is it just that there isn't the
business.
Are you sure about that? itasoftware.com shows nonstops on United and
Air China from both San Francisco and Los Angeles to Beijing. It also
shows an American Airlines nonstop from Los Angeles to Shanghai.

Louis
William Black
2007-10-14 10:12:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by David Gee
Post by John Kulp
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:31:48 +0100, "William Black"
<snip>
Post by John Kulp
The next major market to open up will be the long haul routes between India
Post by William Black
and China to Europe and the USA.
You must be referring to the decades of experience gained by pioneering
Canadian airlines (Canadian Pacific, Air Canada, Harmony) that opened up
trans-Pacific and Asian routes.
And to airlines such as Cathay Pacific, which has its North American hub
in Vancouver to serve customers from Canada, California and New York.
Actually, that's an interesting one.
None of the big US airlines seem to fly to China or India via California,
nor the big Asian ones back that way.
Any idea why?
Is it some sort of technical reason or is it just that there isn't the
business.
Are you sure about that? itasoftware.com shows nonstops on United and Air
China from both San Francisco and Los Angeles to Beijing. It also shows
an American Airlines nonstop from Los Angeles to Shanghai.
How many flight a day go from the West Coast to Asia?

Compared to those going the other way?

It's not many.

There are plenty of Chinese and Indians living in the US West Coast area so
there must be the passengers.

On the other hand the two Indians I know who live in California like to
stop-over in London or Paris on the way to India.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
d.g.s.
2007-10-14 17:10:14 UTC
Permalink
On 10/14/2007 3:12 AM William Black ignored two million years of human
Post by William Black
Are you sure about that? itasoftware.com shows nonstops on United and Air
China from both San Francisco and Los Angeles to Beijing. It also shows
an American Airlines nonstop from Los Angeles to Shanghai.
How many flight a day go from the West Coast to Asia?
Compared to those going the other way?
They're about equal. Funny thing about those airlines: they fly one
of their very expensive winged assets from, say, SFO to HKG, and
that same asset is highly likely to also fly HKG-SFO! Who knew?
Post by William Black
It's not many.
You know this because you checked, right? You checked LAX, SFO,
SEA, and YVR against destinations like HKG, NRT, SHA, BJS, and
SEL? Suuuuure you did.

I did, and I strongly recommend that you lay off the crack pipe
in future.
Post by William Black
There are plenty of Chinese and Indians living in the US West Coast area so
there must be the passengers.
*sigh* There's a lot more to it than that. How about the sheer volume
of trade between the two countries, and the resulting business travel?
Post by William Black
On the other hand the two Indians I know who live in California like to
stop-over in London or Paris on the way to India.
And this little piece of anecdotal tripe proves just what, exactly?
William Black
2007-10-14 20:50:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by d.g.s.
On 10/14/2007 3:12 AM William Black ignored two million years of human
Post by William Black
Post by Louis Krupp
Are you sure about that? itasoftware.com shows nonstops on United and
Air China from both San Francisco and Los Angeles to Beijing. It also
shows an American Airlines nonstop from Los Angeles to Shanghai.
How many flight a day go from the West Coast to Asia?
Compared to those going the other way?
They're about equal. Funny thing about those airlines: they fly one
of their very expensive winged assets from, say, SFO to HKG, and
that same asset is highly likely to also fly HKG-SFO! Who knew?
Oh great, a comedian.

I meant those flying via Europe rather than those aircraft going back and
forth.
Post by d.g.s.
Post by William Black
There are plenty of Chinese and Indians living in the US West Coast area
so there must be the passengers.
*sigh* There's a lot more to it than that. How about the sheer volume
of trade between the two countries, and the resulting business travel?
The USA is India's largest trading partner.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
zonedout
2007-10-13 17:51:54 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:33:24 GMT 'John Kulp'
Post by John Kulp
Baloney again. Airbus is having huge problems selling the A380
because airports have to be rebuilt among other things and most of the
demand can be met with other aircraft that don't have this
requirement. Like the 787 and newer versions of the 747.
Nah. Only the A380 can support the huge growth in air travel
expected from China, India and the M/E Europe. Because the demand
for A380s is very limited within the US doesn't mean the same thing
in Asia.
William Black
2007-10-13 20:01:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by zonedout
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:33:24 GMT 'John Kulp'
Post by John Kulp
Baloney again. Airbus is having huge problems selling the A380
because airports have to be rebuilt among other things and most of the
demand can be met with other aircraft that don't have this
requirement. Like the 787 and newer versions of the 747.
Nah. Only the A380 can support the huge growth in air travel
expected from China, India and the M/E Europe. Because the demand
for A380s is very limited within the US doesn't mean the same thing
in Asia.
Nope.

'Shit for brains' Kulp doesn't acknowledge any air travel industry outside
the Continental United States as relavent in any meaningful way.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Doug McDonald
2007-10-13 22:04:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
The capacity needed will be vast as both the tourist and business markets
expand exponentially over the next few years.
The A380 addresses this market, which is already dominated by Airbus
products. The 787 is just another 300 seater wide-bodied jet.
I didn't realize that sardines and anchovies constituted a big
market. The A380 is a stupid idea: it will take far too long
to board.

Doug McDonald
William Black
2007-10-13 22:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by William Black
The capacity needed will be vast as both the tourist and business markets
expand exponentially over the next few years.
The A380 addresses this market, which is already dominated by Airbus
products. The 787 is just another 300 seater wide-bodied jet.
I didn't realize that sardines and anchovies constituted a big
market. The A380 is a stupid idea: it will take far too long
to board.
Double decker aerobridge, it'll board in about the same time.

As for 'anchovies and sardines', I imagine Asian passengers may well have
lower expectations in some areas than US ones.

Although probably higher culinary ones.

US regulations on hand luggage is the major problem with aircraft selling
into the US market.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
grusl
2007-10-14 05:32:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Doug McDonald
I didn't realize that sardines and anchovies constituted a big
market. The A380 is a stupid idea: it will take far too long
to board.
Double decker aerobridge, it'll board in about the same time.
Some flights to and from India - TG and UL, for example - allow an hour for
boarding (providing the plane has arrived) to allow for, um, cultural
differences in boarding procedures.

Cheers,
George W Russell
Bangalore
William Black
2007-10-14 10:13:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by grusl
Post by William Black
Post by Doug McDonald
I didn't realize that sardines and anchovies constituted a big
market. The A380 is a stupid idea: it will take far too long
to board.
Double decker aerobridge, it'll board in about the same time.
Some flights to and from India - TG and UL, for example - allow an hour
for boarding (providing the plane has arrived) to allow for, um, cultural
differences in boarding procedures.
I noticed...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Alfred Molon
2007-10-13 22:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug McDonald
I didn't realize that sardines and anchovies constituted a big
market. The A380 is a stupid idea: it will take far too long
to board.
Irrelevant since this is primarily a long-distance plane, where 10
minutes more or less for boarding don't make much of a difference.
--
Alfred Molon
http://www.molon.de - Photos of Asia, Africa and Europe
A Guy Called Tyketto
2007-10-12 03:38:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Kulp
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 06:05:35 GMT, A Guy Called Tyketto
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Post by John Kulp
Yeah, only 2 years and several billions dollars late. And, of course,
it doesn't compete with the 787. The 787 competes with the new A350
whose first expected delivery is sometime in 2013.
That isn't the point. The point is that Boeing insisted that
the delays that plagued the A380 wouldn't happen with the B787.. Yet,
here they are, with delays on the B787. For Boeing, it's "Hello Face,
I'm Egg."
So did Airbus. So what's the big deal? The 787 is infinitely more
successful than the A380 which may well never be profitable and then
tried to flog a basic A350 as an alternative to the 787 which
absolutely no one wanted. New aircraft delays are nothing new anyway.
Big deal.
You missed the point. Airbus was the first with delays, yes.
Boeing (here we go again) *publicly stated* that they would not
encounter any delays in the production of the B787.

Now they've come full circle and say they have delays. That
totally tarnishes all that they've said in the buildup to the B787.
They really can't talk now. They have delays too. It's like when David
Lee Roth left Van Halen. He released an album called "Eat 'em and
Smile" while VH with Sammy Hagar releaed "5150". 5150 didn't sell as
well as Eat 'em and Smile. Then Roth released Hot in the Shade, which
bombed. Egg on his face. VH released "OU812" which skyrocketed. Both
album titles were messages to the other party who were enemies.

Replace David Lee Roth and VH with Boeing and Airbus. 'nuff said.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email: ***@sbcglobal.net
Unix Systems Administrator, | ***@ozemail.com.au
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
John Kulp
2007-10-12 17:45:31 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 03:38:16 GMT, A Guy Called Tyketto
Post by A Guy Called Tyketto
Post by John Kulp
So did Airbus. So what's the big deal? The 787 is infinitely more
successful than the A380 which may well never be profitable and then
tried to flog a basic A350 as an alternative to the 787 which
absolutely no one wanted. New aircraft delays are nothing new anyway.
Big deal.
You missed the point. Airbus was the first with delays, yes.
Boeing (here we go again) *publicly stated* that they would not
encounter any delays in the production of the B787.
Big deal.
Post by A Guy Called Tyketto
Now they've come full circle and say they have delays. That
totally tarnishes all that they've said in the buildup to the B787.
They really can't talk now. They have delays too. It's like when David
Lee Roth left Van Halen. He released an album called "Eat 'em and
Smile" while VH with Sammy Hagar releaed "5150". 5150 didn't sell as
well as Eat 'em and Smile. Then Roth released Hot in the Shade, which
bombed. Egg on his face. VH released "OU812" which skyrocketed. Both
album titles were messages to the other party who were enemies.
Big deal. They only have the most successful airplane ever in the
787.
me
2007-10-12 17:48:54 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 12, 1:45 pm, ***@hotmail.com (John Kulp) wrote:
[snip]
Big deal. They only have the most successful airplane ever in the 787.
Not sure how you're measuring that, but they might have a tough time
ever surpassing the DC-3. The 727 was pretty good too, depending upon
ones basis of measure. And the truth is the 747 is still going so to
speak.
Can't exactly close the book on it.
John Kulp
2007-10-12 19:32:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by me
[snip]
Big deal. They only have the most successful airplane ever in the 787.
Not sure how you're measuring that, but they might have a tough time
ever surpassing the DC-3. The 727 was pretty good too, depending upon
ones basis of measure. And the truth is the 747 is still going so to
speak.
Can't exactly close the book on it.
I should have said most successful new airplane launch.
A Guy Called Tyketto
2007-10-16 03:56:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Kulp
Big deal.
It's a big deal indeed. Too bad you're not mentally inclined to
see that.
Post by John Kulp
Big deal. They only have the most successful airplane ever in the
787.
Wrong again. The most successful airplane ever is the B737, not
the B787.

You really have your head stuck up your ass.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email: ***@sbcglobal.net
Unix Systems Administrator, | ***@ozemail.com.au
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
John Kulp
2007-10-16 12:24:15 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 03:56:15 GMT, A Guy Called Tyketto
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Post by John Kulp
Big deal.
It's a big deal indeed. Too bad you're not mentally inclined to
see that.
Blah, blah, blah moron. It's nothing at all at this stage.
Post by John Kulp
Big deal. They only have the most successful airplane ever in the
787.
Wrong again. The most successful airplane ever is the B737, not
the B787.
I corrected that long ago and said it was the most successful launch
ever. Which it is. And the most successful aircraft was the Piper
Cub moron.
You really have your head stuck up your ass.
Talking about yourself again cretin?
A Guy Called Tyketto
2007-10-16 15:25:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Kulp
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 03:56:15 GMT, A Guy Called Tyketto
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Post by John Kulp
Big deal.
It's a big deal indeed. Too bad you're not mentally inclined to
see that.
Blah, blah, blah moron. It's nothing at all at this stage.
Actually, it says quite a bit about you. see below.
Post by John Kulp
Post by John Kulp
Big deal. They only have the most successful airplane ever in the
787.
Wrong again. The most successful airplane ever is the B737, not
the B787.
I corrected that long ago and said it was the most successful launch
ever. Which it is. And the most successful aircraft was the Piper
Cub moron.
Nothing in this thread about it. And seeing that you only
posted this a couple of days ago, you seem to be less than accurate on
facts, among many other things... And it really shows.

Besides, I'll call bullshit. Show me the list of actively
waiting customers for a Piper Cub, compared to the actively waiting
list for a B737. Seeing that the B737 is in the thousands now... and
where is the Cub?
Post by John Kulp
You really have your head stuck up your ass.
Talking about yourself again cretin?
I just realized something, and I am definitely paying the price
for it. I should have realized that the Dilbert Rule applies to you,
and I shouldn't have even continued this. But oh well.. it was for my
amusement. You're still pathetically wrong, but as for you, The Dilbert
Rule:

Never argue with an idiot. They'll drop you down to their
level, then beat you with experience.

Have fun down at where you are. Someday (probably never) you'll
realize how far down you are. But again, I digress. You'll never make
your way back up.

*PLONK*

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email: ***@sbcglobal.net
Unix Systems Administrator, | ***@ozemail.com.au
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
me
2007-10-16 15:50:23 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 16, 11:25 am, A Guy Called Tyketto
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
[snip]
Post by John Kulp
Post by A Guy Called Tyketto
Post by John Kulp
Big deal. They only have the most successful airplane ever in the
787.
Wrong again. The most successful airplane ever is the B737, not
the B787.
I corrected that long ago and said it was the most successful launch
ever. Which it is. And the most successful aircraft was the Piper
Cub moron.
Nothing in this thread about it. And seeing that you only
posted this a couple of days ago, you seem to be less than accurate on
facts, among many other things... And it really shows.
Actually, I think you'll find this comes out of a point that I tried
to make a bit back somewhere. Expressions like "most successful"
need some definition. The 787 has had an extremely "successful"
launch. But the 787 isn't even flying yet and in raw numbers
planes like the DC-3 and the C-180 may never be surpassed.
Besides, I'll call bullshit. Show me the list of actively
waiting customers for a Piper Cub, compared to the actively waiting
list for a B737. Seeing that the B737 is in the thousands now... and
where is the Cub?
Well, it gets back to the definition of most successful. The Cub
was a wildly popular aircraft for it's day (today it nearly qualifies
as an ultralight). If you want to talk actively waiting orders, you
might have to look at either the C-172 (they may have changed
the designation) or one of the regional jets.

The truth is that comparing the A380 and the 787 is relatively
pointless. They are different aircraft for different markets. Airbus
would be the first to tell you that more 787's will be sold. The
reason they get compared is because they are two different
conclusions about the future of the airline industry. Although
I suspect Boeing was "more right" than Airbus, it is completely
possible that they can both be "correct". I think almost
anyone would admit that Airbus is running the bigger risk,
you always are with a product line like this.

The discussion I would have like to heard was the one
at Airbus. I'm sure there was some consideration that
they had nothing in this class at all. Boeing had the full
"line" of aircraft and they didn't. But I wonder if anyone
noted that Boeing came out in the '60s with the 747 and
never really surpassed it again. Stretched it yeah, but
ultimately their next offerings were smaller craft. If they
are successful with this offering, do they expect to be
positioned to replace it in 30 years with something
bigger? Or is the reasonable conclusion that they'll
follow the same path as Boeing and just continue to
stretch and re-engine the A380. Future development
will be in the mid to large size but not the super jumbo.
If that's the case, aren't they currently involved in a huge
effort to "catch up" in a category in which on one is really
"racing" anymore?
William Black
2007-10-16 17:30:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by me
The truth is that comparing the A380 and the 787 is relatively
pointless. They are different aircraft for different markets. Airbus
would be the first to tell you that more 787's will be sold. The
reason they get compared is because they are two different
conclusions about the future of the airline industry. Although
I suspect Boeing was "more right" than Airbus, it is completely
possible that they can both be "correct". I think almost
anyone would admit that Airbus is running the bigger risk,
you always are with a product line like this.
The competition between Boeing and Airbus isn't about the aircraft but about
the shape of the air transport industry

We've been here before with the 707 and the Bristol Brabazon.

The reality is that the expected vast expansion of public air travel in
India and China are the crucial factors here.

The Boeing aircraft requires the current model to keep expanding, and India
and China to build far more airports in the medium term. But they don't
really care because the market in the USA and Europe will keep them afloat.

The Airbus model says that China and India won't build the airports and so
will need bigger aircraft to fill the current limited number of slots at
their international airports.

In the past the USA wasn't above building airports as aid to make sure that
US aircraft got bought because they fit the runway/airport profile better.

That's not going to work this time. China isn't going to allow the USA to
build airports as aid, and the US Congress wouldn't pay for them anyway.

India is another matter. The market is huge and expanding and fervently
loyal to Indian carriers.

To my mind India, with its mixed economy and huge middle class population
is the really big market, and India isn't good at major capital projects
like building airports, it won't matter how much money you give them it'll
be 'late, over-budget and not quite what you wanted anyway', but they're
very good at pushing large numbers of people through public transport
'gateways'.

The A380 fits the Indian model far better than anything else except the
stretched 747, which didn't happen.

The Chinese middle class population probably won't get exit visas before the
dust has settled and everyone has decided what they're doing.

So to my mind the A380 has a very serious future...
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
me
2007-10-16 19:02:15 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by William Black
To my mind India, with its mixed economy and huge middle class population
is the really big market, and India isn't good at major capital projects
like building airports, it won't matter how much money you give them it'll
be 'late, over-budget and not quite what you wanted anyway', but they're
very good at pushing large numbers of people through public transport
'gateways'.
The A380 fits the Indian model far better than anything else except the
stretched 747, which didn't happen.
Well, but they came along with their -8 which is sorta "one foot
in both yards". Big, but not the biggest, yet still compatible with
the existing infrastructure.
Post by William Black
The Chinese middle class population probably won't get exit visas before the
dust has settled and everyone has decided what they're doing.
So to my mind the A380 has a very serious future...
How many you think the India market will "buy" (regardless of the
name on the side)? "Break even" is going to be roughly 500
of these aircraft.
William Black
2007-10-16 20:13:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by me
[snip]
Post by William Black
To my mind India, with its mixed economy and huge middle class population
is the really big market, and India isn't good at major capital projects
like building airports, it won't matter how much money you give them it'll
be 'late, over-budget and not quite what you wanted anyway', but they're
very good at pushing large numbers of people through public transport
'gateways'.
The A380 fits the Indian model far better than anything else except the
stretched 747, which didn't happen.
Well, but they came along with their -8 which is sorta "one foot
in both yards". Big, but not the biggest, yet still compatible with
the existing infrastructure.
Post by William Black
The Chinese middle class population probably won't get exit visas before the
dust has settled and everyone has decided what they're doing.
So to my mind the A380 has a very serious future...
How many you think the India market will "buy" (regardless of the
name on the side)? "Break even" is going to be roughly 500
of these aircraft.
No idea.

At the moment Bombay, the biggest airport in India, indeed in South Asia,
is at capacity for international flights.

There is a huge market that at the moment is served by Middle Eastern
airlines who shuttle people in and out of their essentially free hubs.

What I'm saying is that the model for international travel is changing shape
rather than just getting bigger.
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
me
2007-10-16 21:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by me
[snip]
Post by William Black
To my mind India, with its mixed economy and huge middle class population
is the really big market, and India isn't good at major capital projects
like building airports, it won't matter how much money you give them it'll
be 'late, over-budget and not quite what you wanted anyway', but they're
very good at pushing large numbers of people through public transport
'gateways'.
The A380 fits the Indian model far better than anything else except the
stretched 747, which didn't happen.
Well, but they came along with their -8 which is sorta "one foot
in both yards". Big, but not the biggest, yet still compatible with
the existing infrastructure.
Post by William Black
The Chinese middle class population probably won't get exit visas before the
dust has settled and everyone has decided what they're doing.
So to my mind the A380 has a very serious future...
How many you think the India market will "buy" (regardless of the
name on the side)? "Break even" is going to be roughly 500
of these aircraft.
No idea.
Okay, but are you willing to "ballpark" 200? 300? What
total percentage of the A380 market will be consumed by
India? I understand it's a big market, and that the other large
markets can use some A380's. The argument has always been
if that market is large enough to support the A380. Reasonable
estimates are that at the very least, 400 of these need to be
bought. And that is hardly the basis for a "success" but merely
to avoid a major loss. 800 is probably the beginning of a
successful market. If they get past 1000 Airbus will probably
be called geniuses.
Post by William Black
At the moment Bombay, the biggest airport in India, indeed in South Asia,
is at capacity for international flights.
There is a huge market that at the moment is served by Middle Eastern
airlines who shuttle people in and out of their essentially free hubs.
What I'm saying is that the model for international travel is changing shape
rather than just getting bigger.
But it gets back to the original question. Okay, suppose the A380
makes enough to cover costs and reasonable profits. How does it
position Airbus for the future? Is this the "last big plane" or do
these
markets grow so big that they will need the A400 with 1200
passengers per plane? 40 years ago Boeing made their (apparently)
"last big plane". Since then they've turned to large planes flying
alot of routes. Is Airbus going to become the maker of choice
for the air Cruise Ship? Or will all these emerging markets be
forced by market realities towards the same decisions all the other
markets of the world have had to move? Will they ultimately move
towards alot more flight from more places?

zonedout
2007-10-13 17:45:11 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:05:15 GMT 'John Kulp'
Post by John Kulp
So did Airbus. So what's the big deal? The 787 is infinitely more
successful than the A380 which may well never be profitable and then
tried to flog a basic A350 as an alternative to the 787 which
absolutely no one wanted. New aircraft delays are nothing new anyway.
Big deal.
The larger the plane, the lower the demand. I have every expectation
that the A380 will be profitable and successful in its life. The
growth of air travel to/from/around Asia will see to that. Wait till
the Chinese/Indians start flying in really big numbers...why do you
think Emirates wants so many A380s?
zonedout
2007-10-13 17:41:49 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:45:27 GMT 'John Kulp'
Post by John Kulp
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:41:38 +0100, zonedout
Post by zonedout
Meanwhile the first commercial flight of the A380 happens in less
than 2 weeks. Singapore to Sydney.
Yeah, only 2 years and several billions dollars late. And, of course,
it doesn't compete with the 787. The 787 competes with the new A350
whose first expected delivery is sometime in 2013.
Indeed there's not much comparison between the two planes except
each represented the manufacturers vision of future travel - either
by super jumbo A380 or by point-to-point 787. Truth is that's
there's room for both in the world. Not sure if the A350 is planned
as late as you say.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...