FedEx cancels A380 order

[Torpedo Fodder]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...g7U&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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

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]

Originally Posted by 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

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Gizzmoe

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Gizzmoe

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]

Originally Posted by 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".

[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]

Originally Posted by Gizzmoe

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/aircraftfam...fications.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.