FedEx cancels A380 order

[Torpedo Fodder]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=awr5cklv0g7U&refer=home

FedEx Scraps Airbus A380 Order, to Buy 15 Boeing 777s (Update2)

By Mary Schlangenstein

Nov. 7 (Bloomberg) -- FedEx Corp., the world's largest cargo airline, scrapped its order for the troubled Airbus A380 jumbo jet and said it would purchase 15 Boeing Co. 777 jets instead. It was the first cancellation of an A380 order.

...

Yet another reversal for Airbus; Perhaps they should christen the A380 the "Albatross", as that's what it's proving to be around Airbus's neck. Add to the fact that the A380's "break even" point was recently revised to 420 aircraft, and I'm having a hard time seeing how this prigram is going to turn a profit. And while they're busy getting the A380 airborne, their other widebodies are suffering: The A340 is being decimated by the 777 (so far this year, ten times as many 777s as A340s have been sold, and five times as many have been delivered), and all orders for the A330 have dried up past 2008, the year the Boeing 787 enters service. Meanwhile the 787's competitor, the A350 now likely won't be ready until 2013 due to gross miscalculation and incompetence (the current A350XWB was what the aircraft should have been from the start). About the only bright spot is that the A320-series is still selling quite well. While I seriously doubt Airbus will go out of business, they're definatly in for some lean times in the next few years.

[Bort]

I make no attempt to cover up my dislike of Airbus and their aircraft, but objectively, the A380 is and always has been a huge mistake. Airbus got too cocky and thought they could crush Boeing with this enormous airplane, by exploiting an entirely new market which plainly does not exist. This cancellation has to hurt, and I have a feeling it will get really painful when the big passenger airlines start to cancel their orders once they realize that a) their planes will be delayed for an unacceptably long period of time b) that the cost and difficulty of operating an aircraft of a size uncompatable with all but a few airports is prohibitive and c) that Boeing offers better airplanes of innovative design (ie 787, 777, 747-X) and can deliver them on time for a lower price. I think that it will end up being one of the worst aviation flops of all time, and Airbus will suffer accordingly.:know:

[Yahoshua]

Sounds like how Winchester nearly went under back in the late 1800's. They thought smokeless powder would be a fad and retooled entirely toward blackpowder.......their only saving grace were their lever-action rifles, but the finishing touch that put them under was bad customer service and a decline in quality products (Winchester folded up and was bought out overseas around August of '06).

[XabbaRus]

Hmmm I dunno. The 747 didn't get of to a great start initially and Boeing had to sack 60,000 workers to cover the cost.

I don't deny that Airbus management screwed up but what do you expect when there are two CEOs or whatever and the operation is a politcal gesture aswell as an economic one. We'll see what happens though.

[Konovalov]

Hmmm I dunno. The 747 didn't get of to a great start initially and Boeing had to sack 60,000 workers to cover the cost.

I don't deny that Airbus management screwed up but what do you expect when there are two CEOs or whatever and the operation is a politcal gesture aswell as an economic one. We'll see what happens though.

Exactly XabbaRus. I think we will all be able to better judge if this aircraft was a success or failure with time.

[SUBMAN1]

Hmmm I dunno. The 747 didn't get of to a great start initially and Boeing had to sack 60,000 workers to cover the cost.

I don't deny that Airbus management screwed up but what do you expect when there are two CEOs or whatever and the operation is a politcal gesture aswell as an economic one. We'll see what happens though.
Exactly XabbaRus. I think we will all be able to better judge if this aircraft was a success or failure with time.

That is true. I think it will be a failure personally, especially for US sales since there is no airport in the US that can accomidate it, so orders from here will be 0. The 747 didn't have that problem. To accomidate the A380, you need to widen the taxiways and change the terminals - I don't think anyone in this country wants to do that. In Seattle, they complain about the billion $'s that it will take to add a third runway and that still hasn't passed after many years. The thought of actually moving the existing runways let alone building a third to make way for a wider taxiway is unfathomable and will never happen. I don't know where they expect to sell that thing then.

-S

[Gizzmoe]

To accomidate the A380, you need to widen the taxiways and change the terminals - I don't think anyone in this country wants to do that.

18 US airports are already doing that:
San Francisco
Denver
Chicago
Indianapolis
Louisville
New York
Philadelphia
Washington
Orlando
Miami
Tampa
Atlanta
Memphis
Dallas
Anchorage
Fort Worth
Los Angeles
Ontario

More information here:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06571.pdf

[SUBMAN1]

To accomidate the A380, you need to widen the taxiways and change the terminals - I don't think anyone in this country wants to do that.
18 US airports are already doing that:
San Francisco
Denver
Chicago
Indianapolis
Louisville
New York
Philadelphia
Washington
Orlando
Miami
Tampa
Atlanta
Memphis
Dallas
Anchorage
Fort Worth
Los Angeles
Ontario

More information here:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06571.pdf

Amazing. I guess 18 airports is better than nothing.

-S

[Gizzmoe]

Amazing. I guess 18 airports is better than nothing.
You don´t sound too impressed! ;) 18 doesn´t sound much, but these few airports handle more than 300 million passengers per year.

[SUBMAN1]

Amazing. I guess 18 airports is better than nothing.
You don´t sound too impressed! ;) 18 doesn´t sound much, but these few airports handle more than 300 million passengers per year.

And that is what percentage of all US passengers?

-S

[Linton]

This is what the professionals are saying about it:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=251397
Subman have you heard of NIH syndrome?

[Gizzmoe]

And that is what percentage of all US passengers?
About 40-50%, can´t find exact numbers. I found a quote that said "In 1999, just five major hubs — Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Los Angeles, and San Francisco — enplaned 25% of all airline passengers in the United States".

[bookworm_020]

Remember that the 747 didn't have an easy time when production started as well. I remeber the when the test piolt took the 747 on it's first flight (this was an untested aircraft!), after he did the normal checks of the aircraft, he then barrel rolled the aircraft infront of the entire workforce who had gathered to watch this aircraft that had taken the company to near bankrupcy!!

I think Airbus pushed the A380 out too soon. It was hoping to remove the treat of the new 747 series that was comeing out. They have droped the ball on a couple of projects now (the A350 as noted) and haven't listened to customers as well as they should have.
I believe they will survive, but there will be a lot of pain and blood spilled (both in the company and politicaly) before they rival Boeing

[Takeda Shingen]

To accomidate the A380, you need to widen the taxiways and change the terminals - I don't think anyone in this country wants to do that.

18 US airports are already doing that:
San Francisco
Denver
Chicago
Indianapolis
Louisville
New York
Philadelphia
Washington
Orlando
Miami
Tampa
Atlanta
Memphis
Dallas
Anchorage
Fort Worth
Los Angeles
Ontario

More information here:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06571.pdf

KPHL (Philadelphia International Airport) is having some very sticky problems with this new runway project. It may not come through.

[Linton]

The airbus website for the 380

http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a380/a380/specifications.html
Look at wheel base and wheel track.A standard taxiway is 30m and a standard runway 45m.A former colleague of mine is one of their test pilots.

[ASWnut101]

In my opinion, that thing is an ugly, flying whale. Too big, Too expensive, too complex. I can understand a place like India and the Indochina countries buying them, but otherwise there is no need for it. I think Airbus put themselves in a 'hole' so-to-speak. Also, these delays for delivery will hurt Airbus's reputation, possibly...... Stick to what they have for now.:yep:

[Lurchi]

I am sure the A380 will be a success. Connecting the largest Airports (so-called Hubs) with a very large plane seems quite economic in terms of fuel consumption and is also a good step to protect the environment. To me this plane is a logical step: All things got bigger with time, just look at container ships, tankers and even cars.

This plane is very complicated - a former engineer who worked on the Concorde said that the A380 features more innovations than the Mach 2 jetliner at it's time. It is a very ambitious project and i think that it's success can only be judged in 30 years or so. Everything else is just cheap Boeing propaganda. They enjoyed being a monopolist for quite a long time.Too big & too complicated? The same was said about the 747.

Competition is a good thing to me or do you all believe that a nice plane like the Dreamliner or so would exist without a potent comeptitor like Airbus?

[goldorak]

I am sure the A380 will be a success. Connecting the largest Airports (so-called Hubs) with a very large plane seems quite economic in terms of fuel consumption and is also a good step to protect the environment. To me this plane is a logical step: All things got bigger with time, just look at container ships, tankers and even cars.

This plane is very complicated - a former engineer who worked on the Concorde said that the A380 features more innovations than the Mach 2 jetliner at it's time. It is a very ambitious project and i think that it's success can only be judged in 30 years or so. Everything else is just cheap Boeing propaganda. They enjoyed being a monopolist for quite a long time.Too big & too complicated? The same was said about the 747.

Competition is a good thing to me or do you all believe that a nice plane like the Dreamliner or so would exist without a potent comeptitor like Airbus?

What kind of market can the A380 have in the usa or in europe. ?
None, zero.
Its only chance of success is in the far east, china maybe india and that's it, and even then it will have to compete with the new generation 747 from boeing.
Honestly, this airplane was developped more from a political perspective than an economic one.
Its the concorde all over again and we know just how successful that bird was. :roll:

[SUBMAN1]

And that is what percentage of all US passengers?
About 40-50%, can´t find exact numbers. I found a quote that said "In 1999, just five major hubs — Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Los Angeles, and San Francisco — enplaned 25% of all airline passengers in the United States".

Yeah, those are hubs, so I expect 25% out of them. I wouldn't put it as high as 40 to 50% since you have major airports in each state, with some states having several, so 18 is an awfley small number.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

This is what the professionals are saying about it:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=251397
Subman have you heard of NIH syndrome?

Yes, but that is not the case here. I am just skepticle since 747 sales were declining drastically and then Airbus says we will build something even bigger! I don't quite get the logic is what is going on here.

-S

[Gizzmoe]

About 40-50%, can´t find exact numbers. I found a quote that said "In 1999, just five major hubs — Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Los Angeles, and San Francisco — enplaned 25% of all airline passengers in the United States".
Yeah, those are hubs, so I expect 25% out of them. I wouldn't put it as high as 40 to 50% since you have major airports in each state, with some states having several, so 18 is an awfley small number.

If it´s right that those five hubs handle 25% of all airline passengers then 40-50% as a total for those 18 airports is correct.

Also look at the importance of those airports in international air travel. The A380 will be able to fly from the most important international hubs (London, Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Sydney, Hongkong, Tokyo, Singapore, Bangkok, ...) to most of the largest US hubs. The A380 will be a very profitable aircraft for the airlines.

[SUBMAN1]

About 40-50%, can´t find exact numbers. I found a quote that said "In 1999, just five major hubs — Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Los Angeles, and San Francisco — enplaned 25% of all airline passengers in the United States".
Yeah, those are hubs, so I expect 25% out of them. I wouldn't put it as high as 40 to 50% since you have major airports in each state, with some states having several, so 18 is an awfley small number.
If it´s right that those five hubs handle 25% of all airline passengers then 40-50% as a total for those 18 airports is correct.

Also look at the importance of those airports in international air travel. The A380 will be able to fly from the most important international hubs (London, Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Sydney, Hongkong, Tokyo, Singapore, Bangkok, ...) to most of the largest US hubs. The A380 will be a very profitable aircraft for the airlines.
No it isn't. You are talking about 'major' hubs. These other airports are not even a 'fraction' as big. You even have like Continental airlines major hub. American Airlines hub too. So yes, I'd say you have less than 1/3rd of all traffice in the US with what you list there. You only list 10% of the commercial airports in the US in that list.

-S

[Linton]

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b140/quartermilefinal/A380www.jpg
Note X through each airline that has cancelled!!

[Gizzmoe]

So yes, I'd say you have less than 1/3rd of all traffice in the US with what you list there.
I´d checked the 2001 passenger numbers of these airports. Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Los Angeles, and San Francisco handle 25% of all passengers (that´s what an article said). The rest of the airports in that list combined handle 5% less passengers than the five mentioned hubs combined. So 40-50% should be correct.

But it doesn´t even matter if I´m right, fact is that most of the largest hubs are/will be able to facilitate the A380. And this is only the beginning, more airports will most likely follow.

[waste gate]

The market for the A380 is in the Pacific Rim. Where the distances are vast and the passenger demand is high. If you look at Linton's photo the majority of customers come from and serve the Pacific Rim.

[SUBMAN1]

So yes, I'd say you have less than 1/3rd of all traffice in the US with what you list there.
I´d checked the 2001 passenger numbers of these airports. Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Los Angeles, and San Francisco handle 25% of all passengers (that´s what an article said). The rest of the airports in that list combined handle 5% less passengers than the five mentioned hubs combined. So 40-50% should be correct.

But it doesn´t even matter if I´m right, fact is that most of the largest hubs are/will be able to facilitate the A380. And this is only the beginning, more airports will most likely follow.
I just looked it up - the FAA says there are 546 commercial airports in the US, so I'd have to guess your data is incorrect. I would beleive it is these airports you list handle 40 to 50 % of the international traffic.

-S

[goldorak]

The market for the A380 is in the Pacific Rim. Where the distances are vast and the passenger demand is high. If you look at Linton's photo the majority of customers come from and serve the Pacific Rim.


The point is will the pacific rim market be sufficient to sustain the A380 ?
I don't think so, and we will end having financed one of the mostly costly failures in the history of aviation.
Boeing has understood that the market doesn't need super heavy jumbo jets, the future is small to medium long range intercontinental aircrafts.
The A380 can't even be used as a short or medium carrier in europe or america.

[Gizzmoe]

The point is will the pacific rim market be sufficient to sustain the A380 ? I don't think so, and we will end having financed one of the mostly costly failures in the history of aviation.
Only about half of all current orders are for the pacific rim market.

The A380 can't even be used as a short or medium carrier in europe or america.
It isn´t meant to be a short-range carrier. Some of the A380 Emirates has ordered will be medium-range configurations.

[Linton]

This is what airbus says about the 380:

Taking a clean-sheet design for airlines’ operational needs of tomorrow, Airbus developed the A380 as the most spacious and efficient airliner ever conceived. This 555-seat aircraft will deliver an unparalleled level of comfort while retaining all the benefits of commonality with Airbus’ other fly-by-wire aircraft Families.

Thirty years after launching the world’s first twin-aisle, twin-engine jetliner, Airbus is preparing to introduce its A380 as the first true double-deck passenger airliner for the long-range market. The A380 offers unprecedented levels of productivity, efficiency and economics in passenger service, while the A380-800F cargo version is to be the first commercial freighter with three full cargo decks.

[waste gate]

The market for the A380 is in the Pacific Rim. Where the distances are vast and the passenger demand is high. If you look at Linton's photo the majority of customers come from and serve the Pacific Rim.


The point is will the pacific rim market be sufficient to sustain the A380 ?
I don't think so, and we will end having financed one of the mostly costly failures in the history of aviation.
Boeing has understood that the market doesn't need super heavy jumbo jets, the future is small to medium long range intercontinental aircrafts.
The A380 can't even be used as a short or medium carrier in europe or america.

No, I don't think the Rim will be enough to sustain the A380. As you stated most air travel is in the medium range, for which the A380 is not designed.

Europe, ME, US, domestic Asian, Australian, South American air traffic is all more suited to the Boeing 777 (intercontinnetal), and the future 787 (intercontinnetal).

But Europeans can take pride in the fact that their hard earned money helped create the largest commercial airliner that has ever flown.

[Gizzmoe]

I just looked it up - the FAA says there are 546 commercial airports in the US, so I'd have to guess your data is incorrect. I would beleive it is these airports you list handle 40 to 50 % of the international traffic.
Like I said, it doesn´t even matter. With such important airports on the list like SFO, LAX, ATL, JFK, ORD, MIA and DFW the A380 could fly enough national high-volume long-range routes to be very profitable for some US airlines.

[waste gate]

I just looked it up - the FAA says there are 546 commercial airports in the US, so I'd have to guess your data is incorrect. I would beleive it is these airports you list handle 40 to 50 % of the international traffic.
Like I said, it doesn´t even matter. With such important airports on the list like SFO, LAX, ATL, JFK, ORD, MIA and DFW the A380 could fly enough national high-volume long-range routes to be very profitable for some US airlines.

I guess that is why we see so many US airlines jumping at the A380.

[Linton]

Look at a few of the middle eastern customers.The whole gulf area relies on cheap asian workers and they all like to go home every so often.Piling the maximum amount of bodies into one airframe and flying them around asia often over large distances is what this aeroplane has been designed for,Not the North American domestic market.You will probably never see it in some of the Us airports you mentioned.You will see a lot in Asia.

[Gizzmoe]

I guess that is why we see so many US airlines jumping at the A380.
Well, not yet. The A380 will be here for the next 30+ years, we will see what the future brings.

[SUBMAN1]

I just looked it up - the FAA says there are 546 commercial airports in the US, so I'd have to guess your data is incorrect. I would beleive it is these airports you list handle 40 to 50 % of the international traffic.
Like I said, it doesn´t even matter. With such important airports on the list like SFO, LAX, ATL, JFK, ORD, MIA and DFW the A380 could fly enough national high-volume long-range routes to be very profitable for some US airlines.
You mean international. Domestic flights would never justify an A380, just like the don't justify a 747 or even a 777. The only times I have even been on a 777 for a US destination coming from a US destination) was when the plane was continuing on to Hawaii from Chicago, and even that flight is not even full. I just don't see a market outside of Asia is all. I expect Asia to buy quite a few, but not enough to sustain it. Boeing can't sell enough 747's anymore and haven't been able to since before the A380 was annouced, so that should tell you something already.

By the way, 420 aircraft is way above the original 150 they claimed originally as needed to turn a profit. I hope it doesn't dig Airbus a grave since they are needed as competition to Boeing, but I don't think it will do good things for them either!

-S

PS. This plane will make a good cargo plane though. This FedEx cancellation has got to hurt because I bet that is what Airbus is relying on.

[Linton]

Boeing have had two recent commercial failures:B757-300 and the B767-400 If you spent a day at the right airport you would probably see all of them!

[waste gate]

I guess that is why we see so many US airlines jumping at the A380.
Well, not yet. The A380 will be here for the next 30+ years, we will see what the future brings.

You should hope its longer than 30+ years. The B727 first flew in 1963, and as I'm sure you know continues to fly today.

[SUBMAN1]

Boeing have had two recent commercial failures:B757-300 and the B767-400 If you spent a day at the right airport you would probably see all of them!

I've flown on both of those, even recently. I think the 787 is probably why they have been a failure. Anyway, this is comparing apples to oranges - The money involved is a tiny little fraction of what Airbus is involved with. The 757 and 767 were already designed and this is just a design mod.

-S

[Gizzmoe]

You mean international.
No, I meant national.

Domestic flights would never justify an A380, just like the don't justify a 747 or even a 777.
Who knows. Maybe someday there´ll use the 640+ seats version of the A380 to fly JFK-LAX or something.

By the way, 420 aircraft is way above the original 150 they claimed originally as needed to turn a profit. I hope it doesn't dig Airbus a grave since they are needed as competition to Boeing, but I don't think it will do good things for them either!
No, that´s certainly not good, but the A380 is a long-term project, just like the 747.

[waste gate]

Five times a week we'd fly the 777 from KORD to KDEN.

[Linton]

Many Japanese airlines have used SR(short range) versions of the B747 for many years!
http://toshihiroe231w223faito.blog.ocn.ne.jp/html01homemain/images/20040808_img_0947_2_thumb.JPG

[Gizzmoe]

Five times a week we'd fly the 777 from KORD to KDEN.

Which model, how many seats?

[SUBMAN1]

Many Japnese airlines have used SR(short range) versions of the B747 for many years!

Exactly why I said Asia. I don't know how much you guys know about the US, but people in the US are not as concentrated as you would find in Europe or Asia. We are all spread out. The last people that came over from the UK that I met couldn't beleive that there is all this open land that 'no one' really owns. In Europe - that simply doesn't exist for the most part. Miles and miles of absolutely nothing. That is what a lot of the US is which is why you not only have so many airports, but is why large aircraft do not typically operate in the US. The largest domestic aircraft that I have seen used on a regular basis for domestic travel is the 767. You get the occasional 777, but it is very rare.

-S

[waste gate]

Five times a week we'd fly the 777 from KORD to KDEN.

Which model, how many seats?

B777-200, 370 seats. The equipment had come in from EDDF three hours earlier.
From KDEN we went to KSFO. Then back to KORD.