Airbus' bet for the A380 seems to collapse

Skybird · 12-11-14, 10:40 AM

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30427116

Airbus put its money on grpoiwjhg demand in mega-airliners with up to 800+ seats - and seems to become a victim of a hopelessly misled gamble it took. The developüments of passenger demands and travelling patterns show that the market segment for planes with up to 300 has grown much more thna that for the super airplane. Additonally, demands fpor new engines by already existing customers would need developement and redesign of the whole airwing sections that would cost only slightly less than could be gained in porfits by delivering these new engines. Against those marginal profit outlooks stands this number: 20 billion. That is the amount of money that the development of the A380 costed, and which so far is not compensated by returns.

Airbus took a big gamble with the A380. And while being called, has lost all what it has put at stake. A very heavy blow for the French company that had the announced intention to take the market's leading role over from Boeing. The disaster with the A380 could make the whole company trembling in its fundaments.

I must not like this. However, I like the blow being delivered to the bigmouthed and superwide egos of the leaders.

Its not the only construction site of the company, mind you.

Oberon · 12-11-14, 10:50 AM

I think both Boeing and Airbus have had problems with their latest offerings. The key will be how they respond to this. I think Boeing is trying to go the right way with economy over capacity, building more eco-friendly aircraft that can use less fuel (which is the big killer for airline companies), but unfortunately they've staked a lot on technology which is still...unpredictable at times.
Airbus went for a similar goal but through a different route, put more people on which increases the revenue vs fuel per trip, however if you can't get the people onto the plane in the first place it's a moot point.
The 787 also has the advantage in that it doesn't require costly retraining of pilots to fly it, since it shares a fair bit of its design with the 777, and you don't need specialist infrastructure to deal with the 787, whereas you need tractors that are strong enough to pull the A380, and lifts that can reach the upper deck.
Then again, this could just be a temporary hiccup, it took the 747 a while to get going and then it became quite the juggernaut of aviation, give it another seven years and see how things pan out.

EDIT: Interesting article here - http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcbabe...787-revisited/

Schroeder · 12-11-14, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

A very heavy blow for the French company

Last time I checked it was a French / German company.
We will see how this will pan out but I doubt the 380 will be dropped completely. Too big to fail.

Skybird · 12-11-14, 05:56 PM

Airbus was a French foundation, and the French in recent years made sure that key technology and knowledge pools remain under French administration at Airbus. The restructuring of the production locations and where what gets build, also speaks volumes. Many of the most future-potent items get produced in French factories, not German ones.

The Germans were wanted for putting money into it. Different to the French, the Germans were so kind to not understand that certain hightrech branches like nuclear energy and aviation technology are to be prioritized as technological key components in the industrial lineup of a nation that wants to be seen as a major player in global technology. The Germans are quite kind in these regards in principal. Many patents they refused to turn into money, and handed them away for free. And big companies form other countries then made the big money with it. Clever. The most famous, but not the only example, is the MP3 standard, an invention of the German Fraunhofer Institute.

Regarding Airbus, the Germans do not want to see it, but in French eyes they only are the money-waving junior partner. They never took the Germans as equals, and they never forgot that Airbus originally is a French foundation.

I fear sopmethign similiar in role playing if the palnned fusuon of the German and French tank makers becomes reality. The German company is superior in knowhow and experience, and its main product, the Leopard, also is superior to the Leclerk. If the fusion takes place, the French side will absorb the German knowhow, and the German side will get - nothing in return, just this promsie that German politicians made: that the french partners would open new markets for the propducts of the new tank maker. How could that be compensation...? Look at the customer list of the Leclerk, and then see how many Leopards get sold to how many countries, and then tell me that the Germans would benefit from almost non-existing markets for French tanks! Its the Leopard that rules the international market for Western tanks, not the Leclerk.

vanjast · 12-11-14, 07:15 PM

Could be a cover up for fracture in the design. Considering the earlier wing stress fractures a year or few ago... an aircraft of this size is likely to have a multitude of stress related problems.. considering the quality control aspect across many manufacturing plants. One LARGE garlic-n-chili overdosed pizza... they don't want to admit they messed it up.. Better to pull out now than face humiliation against Boeing

Skybird · 12-11-14, 08:46 PM

Then it would be a co-conspiracy of Airbus and several of its customers. The problem is that one third of orders for the A380 were cancelled, even by their biggest customers in the Gulf, and also they lag behind their profitability timetable whioch would have demanded them to already have I think 200 orders right now in order to have a chance to ever make their immense investments profitable, at least get a return that is equal.

They simply do not sell as many of these big birds as they expected, and the trend is worstening. At the same time, so I read in a German article, the demand for planes with less 300 passnegers, has gone upwards, also there is a trend by passengers to avoid the huge megahubs and find cheaper alternatives in the smaller regional airports.

And these are no-go-land for the A380.

The future-projecting scenario on which the philosophy behind the A380 was founded, collapses currently. And that kills the plane. I think I snapped it up somewhere some months ago that the new, longer 747 also has problems to get sold, and is about to be given up, or not? Too big. But the new 747 was not as expensive, since it was not a completely new design. It will not pose a real threat to Boeing not to sell this thing. The loss of the A380 can pose such a threat to Airbus.

Guess who will pay for that. Right: taxpayers (protection money) and workers (jobs). From France, and from Germany. And in the very end, more money form Germany than from France, if you look at the paper money armaggeddon.

ikalugin · 12-12-14, 03:39 AM

Leclerc is actually better technology wise than the Leopard-2 (in comparable variants).

Skybird · 12-12-14, 06:43 AM

Some people I know who would slightly disagree with you. Its armour is lighter, the firepower seems to be weaker (the French ammo seems to not hold up with the standards set by the German conventional and US uran-ammunition), it consumes almost twice as much fuel as the Leopard (A Norwegian or Swedish field evaluation against the Leopard showed that), is slightly slower in terrain, has lesser acceleration, and there are quite some design decisions on how systems are arranged and where, that are not generally liked - lets put it this way. It'S lighter than the Leopard, and France managed to sell it to just one other country (UAE). It has an auto-loader and so a crew of just 3. Also, it is a design that is completely unproven under combat conditions. Several Western nations tested it, the Swedes for example, and dismissed it in favour of the Leopard 2. The tactical multiple targets-firefight control system is stgate of the art - on paper. In practice it is said to be extremely complex and prone to provoking human error.

But sure, KWM needs Nexter to win UAE as a customer.

If German laws would even allow to deliver into that region any shooting stuff.

Leopard 2s are operated in 19 countries. Abrams has 6 user countries, Challenger 2 is used only by Britain and Oman.

Oberon · 12-12-14, 07:15 AM

Challenger 2 has tea making facilities, your argument is invalid.

Jimbuna · 12-12-14, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

Challenger 2 has tea making facilities, your argument is invalid.

A saying often used by a friend of mine who was a tank commander in a Challie 2

Matador.es · 12-12-14, 09:39 AM

well, i flew in it about 2 months ago and i must say, i never flew like it

We even got a shower about 1,5 hour before we landed. It was the smaller version, with 550 ppl more or less. Next time i head to asia i definitely try to pick a flight with an A380.....

ikalugin · 12-12-14, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Some people I know who would slightly disagree with you. Its armour is lighter, the firepower seems to be weaker (the French ammo seems to not hold up with the standards set by the German conventional and US uran-ammunition), it consumes almost twice as much fuel as the Leopard (A Norwegian or Swedish field evaluation against the Leopard showed that), is slightly slower in terrain, has lesser acceleration, and there are quite some design decisions on how systems are arranged and where, that are not generally liked - lets put it this way. It'S lighter than the Leopard, and France managed to sell it to just one other country (UAE). It has an auto-loader and so a crew of just 3. Also, it is a design that is completely unproven under combat conditions. Several Western nations tested it, the Swedes for example, and dismissed it in favour of the Leopard 2. The tactical multiple targets-firefight control system is stgate of the art - on paper. In practice it is said to be extremely complex and prone to provoking human error.

But sure, KWM needs Nexter to win UAE as a customer.

If German laws would even allow to deliver into that region any shooting stuff.

Leopard 2s are operated in 19 countries. Abrams has 6 user countries, Challenger 2 is used only by Britain and Oman.

Armor protection is around the same for the smaller mass (due to the smaller armoured volume, which is the result of the autolader usage). Leclerc has superior survivability (neither tank was actually combat proven and no, what they do in Afghanistan does not count as real combat) due to the ammo placement.

The only reason why anyone would buy Leopard II is the price - if I remember it right most of the Leopards IIs exported were the used ones. That said most of the arms sales are politicised anyway, so if the item has superior quality/price doesn't really matter, as far as if that country is who you want to be friend - especially true when talking about US weapons sales.

Skybird · 12-12-14, 06:52 PM

You seem to be determined to rewrite a bit what is known about modern Western tanks. Well, I stick to what I said. I could refer you to the forums of eSim and have your theories discussed with the guys there. The audience is brimming with former or still active tankers and military members, and several tankers are engaged in the creation of their sim (which is bought by over a dozen Western nations).

I trust their discussions over the past years slightly more than you, sorry.

No personal offence meant. I am juzst not that active over there anymore. Time changed over the years, so did the man.

ikalugin · 12-13-14, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

You seem to be determined to rewrite a bit what is known about modern Western tanks. Well, I stick to what I said. I could refer you to the forums of eSim and have your theories discussed with the guys there. The audience is brimming with former or still active tankers and military members, and several tankers are engaged in the creation of their sim (which is bought by over a dozen Western nations).

I trust their discussions over the past years slightly more than you, sorry.

No personal offence meant. I am juzst not that active over there anymore. Time changed over the years, so did the man.

Why not Tank Net?

In the end discussions between tankers (even the active service or ex service tankers) boil down to the manhood measuring contest between the groups present. In the western forums it tends to be between M1 and Leo2 series fans/users in tanks, in the eastern ones between T72/64/80 series fans/users.

However my point stands - French have a valid tank designing engineering school (as they have a valid aircraft designing school), thus saying that they couldn't contribute to a joint project is just plainly wrong. What happens is that often in the end they protect their own industries, thus joint projects collapse due to the insufficient total work loads.

Skybird · 12-13-14, 06:37 AM

I did not say Nextor has no competence to design tanks. I said it has no knowledge to offer that justifies to give them access to KMW's knowledge pool - only to give the German access to the French customer list, which is extremely short.

The technical summary on the Leclerk that I gave, stands as it is.

The guys from eSim you you extremely underrate. Telling that with 15 years of experience in following their discussions. You have the players behaving like you said, too, yes. But the core group and the group of those creating and contributing to the sim, is a different calliber, and much more objective. That may have somethign to do with that many of them have experiences with multiple platforms, and that the company is kind of an American-German joint team venture, plus supporting contributors from other countries. If they were as partisan as you imply for tank forums' audience, they would not be in business and over a dozen nation'S defence m inistries would wonder why they should buy tens and hundreds of thousands of bucks for their licences.

Obviously there is enough competence that make it appear as a good deal to these ministries.

12-11-14, 10:40 AM	#1
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Airbus' bet for the A380 seems to collapse http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30427116 Airbus put its money on grpoiwjhg demand in mega-airliners with up to 800+ seats - and seems to become a victim of a hopelessly misled gamble it took. The developüments of passenger demands and travelling patterns show that the market segment for planes with up to 300 has grown much more thna that for the super airplane. Additonally, demands fpor new engines by already existing customers would need developement and redesign of the whole airwing sections that would cost only slightly less than could be gained in porfits by delivering these new engines. Against those marginal profit outlooks stands this number: 20 billion. That is the amount of money that the development of the A380 costed, and which so far is not compensated by returns. Airbus took a big gamble with the A380. And while being called, has lost all what it has put at stake. A very heavy blow for the French company that had the announced intention to take the market's leading role over from Boeing. The disaster with the A380 could make the whole company trembling in its fundaments. I must not like this. However, I like the blow being delivered to the bigmouthed and superwide egos of the leaders. Its not the only construction site of the company, mind you. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

12-11-14, 05:56 PM	#4
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Airbus was a French foundation, and the French in recent years made sure that key technology and knowledge pools remain under French administration at Airbus. The restructuring of the production locations and where what gets build, also speaks volumes. Many of the most future-potent items get produced in French factories, not German ones. The Germans were wanted for putting money into it. Different to the French, the Germans were so kind to not understand that certain hightrech branches like nuclear energy and aviation technology are to be prioritized as technological key components in the industrial lineup of a nation that wants to be seen as a major player in global technology. The Germans are quite kind in these regards in principal. Many patents they refused to turn into money, and handed them away for free. And big companies form other countries then made the big money with it. Clever. The most famous, but not the only example, is the MP3 standard, an invention of the German Fraunhofer Institute. Regarding Airbus, the Germans do not want to see it, but in French eyes they only are the money-waving junior partner. They never took the Germans as equals, and they never forgot that Airbus originally is a French foundation. I fear sopmethign similiar in role playing if the palnned fusuon of the German and French tank makers becomes reality. The German company is superior in knowhow and experience, and its main product, the Leopard, also is superior to the Leclerk. If the fusion takes place, the French side will absorb the German knowhow, and the German side will get - nothing in return, just this promsie that German politicians made: that the french partners would open new markets for the propducts of the new tank maker. How could that be compensation...? Look at the customer list of the Leclerk, and then see how many Leopards get sold to how many countries, and then tell me that the Germans would benefit from almost non-existing markets for French tanks! Its the Leopard that rules the international market for Western tanks, not the Leclerk. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

12-11-14, 08:46 PM	#6
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Then it would be a co-conspiracy of Airbus and several of its customers. The problem is that one third of orders for the A380 were cancelled, even by their biggest customers in the Gulf, and also they lag behind their profitability timetable whioch would have demanded them to already have I think 200 orders right now in order to have a chance to ever make their immense investments profitable, at least get a return that is equal. They simply do not sell as many of these big birds as they expected, and the trend is worstening. At the same time, so I read in a German article, the demand for planes with less 300 passnegers, has gone upwards, also there is a trend by passengers to avoid the huge megahubs and find cheaper alternatives in the smaller regional airports. And these are no-go-land for the A380. The future-projecting scenario on which the philosophy behind the A380 was founded, collapses currently. And that kills the plane. I think I snapped it up somewhere some months ago that the new, longer 747 also has problems to get sold, and is about to be given up, or not? Too big. But the new 747 was not as expensive, since it was not a completely new design. It will not pose a real threat to Boeing not to sell this thing. The loss of the A380 can pose such a threat to Airbus. Guess who will pay for that. Right: taxpayers (protection money) and workers (jobs). From France, and from Germany. And in the very end, more money form Germany than from France, if you look at the paper money armaggeddon. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

12-12-14, 06:43 AM	#8
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Some people I know who would slightly disagree with you. Its armour is lighter, the firepower seems to be weaker (the French ammo seems to not hold up with the standards set by the German conventional and US uran-ammunition), it consumes almost twice as much fuel as the Leopard (A Norwegian or Swedish field evaluation against the Leopard showed that), is slightly slower in terrain, has lesser acceleration, and there are quite some design decisions on how systems are arranged and where, that are not generally liked - lets put it this way. It'S lighter than the Leopard, and France managed to sell it to just one other country (UAE). It has an auto-loader and so a crew of just 3. Also, it is a design that is completely unproven under combat conditions. Several Western nations tested it, the Swedes for example, and dismissed it in favour of the Leopard 2. The tactical multiple targets-firefight control system is stgate of the art - on paper. In practice it is said to be extremely complex and prone to provoking human error. But sure, KWM needs Nexter to win UAE as a customer. If German laws would even allow to deliver into that region any shooting stuff. Leopard 2s are operated in 19 countries. Abrams has 6 user countries, Challenger 2 is used only by Britain and Oman. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 12-12-14 at 06:54 AM.

12-12-14, 06:52 PM	#13
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	You seem to be determined to rewrite a bit what is known about modern Western tanks. Well, I stick to what I said. I could refer you to the forums of eSim and have your theories discussed with the guys there. The audience is brimming with former or still active tankers and military members, and several tankers are engaged in the creation of their sim (which is bought by over a dozen Western nations). I trust their discussions over the past years slightly more than you, sorry. No personal offence meant. I am juzst not that active over there anymore. Time changed over the years, so did the man. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

12-11-14, 10:50 AM	#2
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	I think both Boeing and Airbus have had problems with their latest offerings. The key will be how they respond to this. I think Boeing is trying to go the right way with economy over capacity, building more eco-friendly aircraft that can use less fuel (which is the big killer for airline companies), but unfortunately they've staked a lot on technology which is still...unpredictable at times. Airbus went for a similar goal but through a different route, put more people on which increases the revenue vs fuel per trip, however if you can't get the people onto the plane in the first place it's a moot point. The 787 also has the advantage in that it doesn't require costly retraining of pilots to fly it, since it shares a fair bit of its design with the 777, and you don't need specialist infrastructure to deal with the 787, whereas you need tractors that are strong enough to pull the A380, and lifts that can reach the upper deck. Then again, this could just be a temporary hiccup, it took the 747 a while to get going and then it became quite the juggernaut of aviation, give it another seven years and see how things pan out. EDIT: Interesting article here - http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcbabe...787-revisited/

12-11-14, 07:15 PM	#5
vanjast Sea Lord Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Somewhere else now Posts: 1,733 Downloads: 825 Uploads: 4	Could be a cover up for fracture in the design. Considering the earlier wing stress fractures a year or few ago... an aircraft of this size is likely to have a multitude of stress related problems.. considering the quality control aspect across many manufacturing plants. One LARGE garlic-n-chili overdosed pizza... they don't want to admit they messed it up.. Better to pull out now than face humiliation against Boeing

12-12-14, 03:39 AM	#7
ikalugin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 3,212 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	Leclerc is actually better technology wise than the Leopard-2 (in comparable variants).

12-12-14, 07:15 AM	#9
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Challenger 2 has tea making facilities, your argument is invalid.

12-12-14, 09:39 AM	#11
Matador.es Chief Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 327 Downloads: 30 Uploads: 0	well, i flew in it about 2 months ago and i must say, i never flew like it We even got a shower about 1,5 hour before we landed. It was the smaller version, with 550 ppl more or less. Next time i head to asia i definitely try to pick a flight with an A380.....

12-13-14, 06:37 AM	#15
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	I did not say Nextor has no competence to design tanks. I said it has no knowledge to offer that justifies to give them access to KMW's knowledge pool - only to give the German access to the French customer list, which is extremely short. The technical summary on the Leclerk that I gave, stands as it is. The guys from eSim you you extremely underrate. Telling that with 15 years of experience in following their discussions. You have the players behaving like you said, too, yes. But the core group and the group of those creating and contributing to the sim, is a different calliber, and much more objective. That may have somethign to do with that many of them have experiences with multiple platforms, and that the company is kind of an American-German joint team venture, plus supporting contributors from other countries. If they were as partisan as you imply for tank forums' audience, they would not be in business and over a dozen nation'S defence m inistries would wonder why they should buy tens and hundreds of thousands of bucks for their licences. Obviously there is enough competence that make it appear as a good deal to these ministries. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.