Airbus to scrap production of A380 superjumbo

[Nilgiri]

What are you talking about? Airbus just signed this, hours ago..

Emirates signs deal for 40 A330-900s, 30 A350-900s

COMAC? Come on now..

LOL why do you even bother replying? Let his commentary stand with no challenge lol. He lives in his own little world (of nukes and railguns being the solution to all of life's problems) in this forum....goaded on by some fellow groupthinkers.

 

[GeraltofRivia]

I didn't say it was a mistake. I'd have tried too in the same position with the same data available that @Dante80 talking about.

Just didn't pan out. Sometimes you got to take a good gamble on these things and accept in the end it didn't pan out.

Airbus overall still has lot of good stuff going, they have hedged well....this is not a game-ender by any stretch.

Agree. When an aircraft maker are at the frontier of the technology, you need to be able to be a bit of ambitious and push the envelope. they should be duly credited for it. Part of the reason that they need to cut it back is because their middle tier 2 engine offering is so good that they cannibalize the market share and the market growth does not pan out exactly the way as they planned.

I suspect that some of the Airbus leaders would rather keep it running a bit longer as you never know how the market will turn in 3 years time but in the end the short term financial pressures is winning in the current environment. As you said, it is not the end of the world by any mean.

 

[UKBengali]

Agree. When an aircraft maker are at the frontier of the technology, you need to be able to be a bit of ambitious and push the envelope. they should be duly credited for it. Part of the reason that they need to cut it back is because their middle tier 2 engine offering is so good that they cannibalize the market share and the market growth does not pan out exactly the way as they planned.

I suspect that some of the Airbus leaders would rather keep it running a bit longer as you never know how the market will turn in 3 years time but in the end the short term financial pressures is winning in the current environment. As you said, it is not the end of the world by any mean.

Emirates wanted an A-380 "Neo" with new engines and winglets but Airbus did not want to go through the expense of this. They offered an A-380 "Plus" instead which had just the winglets added and that was not enough for Emirates.
In my opinion Airbus should have spent the money for this new version as it would have only been a few billions of US dollars, which would have kept the production line running till the late 2020s and by then more orders for the plane may have come in.

 

[Dante80]

Emirates wanted an A-380 "Neo" with new engines and winglets but Airbus did not want to go through the expense of this. They offered an A-380 "Plus" instead which had just the winglets added and that was not enough for Emirates.
In my opinion Airbus should have spent the money for this new version as it would have only been a few billions of US dollars, which would have kept the production line running till the late 2020s and by then more orders for the plane may have come in.

It wasn't that straightforward. You are correct Emirates was unhappy with the Alliance engines. I still remember the LNA analysis from back then. It was always the engines.

Updating the A380: the prospect of a neo version and what’s involved

It was impossible to close the case though back then. Weirdly enough, this engine debacle is probably going to bite the other side too.

Pontifications: 787-10 engines too small for Emirates

 

[Cookie Monster]

I saw this coming about 5 years back. The order ramp needed just was not happening. Essentially the A320 family ended up subsidising this prestige project/gamble.

Hey I suppose it was better than not trying at all though.



The key line is here. @Dante80 @GeraltofRivia

Ever since the laws/regulations(like in US) were changed allowing twin engine aircrafts to travel intercontinentally, there has been a major shift towards twin engined aircrafts...simply bcuz they burn less fuel, proven to be reliable, and easier to maintain.

The twin engine aircrafts were only allowed for non intercontinental(shorter/domestic routes) flights before and ever since that regulation changed now they can be used for short and long routes, which leads to high aircraft utilization. Another problem with jumbo jets is that they are hard to fill completely, whereas the twin engine smaller(relative to the jumbo jet) are easier to fill with passengers. This is why I'm excited for the Comac C919...once it proves it's reliability...I think it will be sold in huge numbers(at least domestically) and give stiff competition to Airbus/Boeing duopoly. This possible mass production and competition of Comac C919 will bring prices of air travel down.

 

[Nilgiri]

This is why I'm excited for the Comac C919...once it proves it's reliability...I think it will be sold in huge numbers(at least domestically) and give stiff competition to Airbus/Boein duopoly. This possible mass production and competition of Comac C919 will bring prices of air travel down.

It has lot of hoops to pass still first. Type certificate issuance by FAA etc (after its final testing is done inside China)...and then building up rapport + MRO base/logistics assurance with airlines (outside of China). Its not easy thing (I mean look at the current order book of C919, its like 99% Chinese airlines).

This is kind of thing that ultimately doomed lot of what Bombardier tried to do....and what steered it to one of the sugar daddies (Airbus) in the end for the C series.

Hence why I'm not all that excited...I will wait and watch.

 

[Cookie Monster]

It has lot of hoops to pass still first. Type certificate issuance by FAA etc (after its final testing is done inside China)...and then building up rapport + MRO base/logistics assurance with airlines (outside of China). Its not easy thing (I mean look at the current order book of C919, its like 99% Chinese airlines).

This is kind of thing that ultimately doomed lot of what Bombardier tried to do....and what steered it to one of the sugar daddies (Airbus) in the end for the C series.

Hence why I'm not all that excited...I will wait and watch.

I know it's a long journey to jump through these hoops and prove reliability...but China will back it...until it succeeds. This is why C919 will succeed where Bombardier failed bcuz it has a powerful economy backing it.

 

[Nilgiri]

but China will back it...until it succeeds. This is why C919 will succeed where Bombardier failed bcuz it has a powerful economy backing it

History says otherwise. The USSR was an extremely powerful economy back in its day. But again it didn't make much relative impact on global aviation because it simply could not project the MRO/logistics confidence and type certificates needed (and it preferred to focus internally and with client states instead) + dedicated (foreign) airline orders.

Talking about more "western" economies....somewhat of the same goes for Japan but mostly because of the logistics side for them. Germany more or less threw in its lot with Airbus (i.e France). UK's also a mixed bag....but didn't really go anywhere big in the end. They all are powerful economies on their own...often even with far more soft power than China.

Just being a powerful economy (of bulk) is not enough....you need significant investment (and natural organic development) into soft power to convince and prove you can deploy logistics and work side by side on the ground with other players (this all takes time well past the C919 project hardware). You only need to look up how the 747 project even started (when there were far more players in the US than just boeing and its military industrial complex was on significant rise)...it took a big leap by Pan-Am to get it going and sustained.....Pan-Am (if you know their networking with say Europe) basically outsourced and put its own soft power on the line.

With Airbus their breakthrough was through the A300 and significant soft power that developed with European economic integration....which needed huge multi-spectrum political backing (as opposed to China which has only one party running its govt similar to the USSR).

The Chinese export model has so far been largely limited to getting factories located there and offering loans to others from the forex generated. It will need to prove far more than that to get MRO logistics done (which is people - people based along with perks and favours and recommendations and all of that)...proving reliability (for TC) is really not that big of an issue compared to that. Aviation is a big insider's club at many levels with constant feedback and complaints from the operators (airlines) that all vie for attention. Simply offering an aircraft at some pricepoint (to what it can deliver) is just getting one foot into the door....joining the party (of people that have vastly different stories to you) is something you need massive social skills for. There are questions being raised already as to where the C919 actually stacks performance wise to the boeing and airbus models out there right now (getting orders).

That is why I wait and see rather than get excited. This road is not a new thing at all. It is pretty well trodded.

 

[UKBengali]

History says otherwise. The USSR was an extremely powerful economy back in its day. But again it didn't make much relative impact on global aviation because it simply could not project the MRO/logistics confidence and type certificates needed (and it preferred to focus internally and with client states instead) + dedicated (foreign) airline orders.

Talking about more "western" economies....somewhat of the same goes for Japan but mostly because of the logistics side for them. Germany more or less threw in its lot with Airbus (i.e France). UK's also a mixed bag....but didn't really go anywhere big in the end. They all are powerful economies on their own...often even with far more soft power than China.

Just being a powerful economy (of bulk) is not enough....you need significant investment (and natural organic development) into soft power to convince and prove you can deploy logistics and work side by side on the ground with other players (this all takes time well past the C919 project hardware). You only need to look up how the 747 project even started (when there were far more players in the US than just boeing and its military industrial complex was on significant rise)...it took a big leap by Pan-Am to get it going and sustained.....Pan-Am (if you know their networking with say Europe) basically outsourced and put its own soft power on the line.

With Airbus their breakthrough was through the A300 and significant soft power that developed with European economic integration....which needed huge multi-spectrum political backing (as opposed to China which has only one party running its govt similar to the USSR).

The Chinese export model has so far been largely limited to getting factories located there and offering loans to others from the forex generated. It will need to prove far more than that to get MRO logistics done (which is people - people based along with perks and favours and recommendations and all of that)...proving reliability (for TC) is really not that big of an issue compared to that. Aviation is a big insider's club at many levels with constant feedback and complaints from the operators (airlines) that all vie for attention. Simply offering an aircraft at some pricepoint (to what it can deliver) is just getting one foot into the door....joining the party (of people that have vastly different stories to you) is something you need massive social skills for. There are questions being raised already as to where the C919 actually stacks performance wise to the boeing and airbus models out there right now (getting orders).

That is why I wait and see rather than get excited. This road is not a new thing at all. It is pretty well trodded.

USSR was not a powerful economy at all - at it's peak it reached around 1/3rd of US size. China in real terms is already larger than US and growing far quicker still.
It may take till the 2040s but COMAC will one day match Airbus and Boeing.

 

[Nilgiri]

USSR was not a powerful economy at all - at it's peak it reached around 1/3rd of US size.

Well it didn't trade a whole lot with the West....so its nominal USD GDP was deflated as a result. There was no PPP methodology in usage....doubt the Soviets would have allowed the price sampling needed for it anyway if it existed.

But USSR was definitely a large powerful economy. One only really needs to look at their energy consumption per capita for example.

China in real terms is already larger than US and growing far quicker still.

The reverse of USSR effect. China trades immensely and gets a mercantile bump in its nominal USD GDP. But lot of the soft power issues the USSR faced are quite the same.

It may take till the 2040s but COMAC will one day match Airbus and Boeing.

Hence why I said lets wait and see....and not get too excited. It will be a long process....I agree 2040s is more of the timeframe where we will see the real results bear fruit.....rather than in 2020s where Comac is ambitiously targetting somewhere like 20 - 25% of the world market which I do not think will pan out (but its good to aim high regardless).

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

I saw this coming about 5 years back. The order ramp needed just was not happening. Essentially the A320 family ended up subsidising this prestige project/gamble.

The A380 was just .... I get the point of big d!ck energy. But when the biggest airline industry of the world America's business model has never been or ever will be reflective of the niche this plane was supposed to fit in....

It's hard to feel sorry.

The design is a marvel NO DOUBT. The plane is HUGE. YUGE. YUGE. The faces of kids who have dreams of flying airplanes or going into space is priceless when they see it for the 1st time.

Airbus knew what they were getting into. China's airliners wrote off the plane on the design board. The biggest country in the world, in terms of population, with the worst airline delays in the world (albeit 80% of the airspace is military).

Perhaps Airbus can wing something for High-Speed Trains? Countries love those.

 

[Nilgiri]

The A380 was just .... I get the point of big d!ck energy. But when the biggest airline industry of the world America's business model has never been or ever will be reflective of the niche this plane was supposed to fit in....

It's hard to feel sorry.

The design is a marvel NO DOUBT. The plane is HUGE. YUGE. YUGE. The faces of kids who have dreams of flying airplanes or going into space is priceless when they see it for the 1st time.

Airbus knew what they were getting into. China's airliners wrote off the plane on the design board. The biggest country in the world, in terms of population, with the worst airline delays in the world (albeit 80% of the airspace is military).

Perhaps Airbus can wing something for High-Speed Trains? Countries love those.

Yes its a big (inflexible) asset...and there just aint enough space for too many of them at top of pyramid. As Daffy said to Marvin the martian " Look buster I've already claimed planet X, and as you can see there just isn't enough room for the two of us!"

When you have smaller aircraft, they are much more forgiving on how you deploy them to respond to a demand curve...basically they are smaller step sizes to get better curve fit....not to mention they are the bread and butter of aircraft demand in the first place.

Large + long range aircraft means every little thing that saves on cost counts (i.e the pyramid apex competition area)....and having just 2 engines like the 777 is a big cost saver. The 747 and trijets were made in the era where the FAA and IATA had the regulations for cross-oceanic routes needing 4 engines to fly far from backup airports....so A380 continuing with that (after the regulation changed to include 2 engines too which prompted the 777 design by Boeing) really meant they needed to pull some bunny out of the hat in other ways (past just beefing up the size/capacity)...which just did not end up happening.

 

[UKBengali]

Well it didn't trade a whole lot with the West....so its nominal USD GDP was deflated as a result. There was no PPP methodology in usage....doubt the Soviets would have allowed the price sampling needed for it anyway if it existed.

But USSR was definitely a large powerful economy. One only really needs to look at their energy consumption per capita for example.

We know that the USSR economy was far far smaller than US one as they spent 12-14% of GDP on defence and were comprehensively less powerful overall than US military - US Airforce and US Navy were far more powerful than Soviet one. Soviets only had advantage in Army.
This spending on the military by USSR completely decimated the living standards of the average citizen, which was a fraction of the US citizens.

Hence why I said lets wait and see....and not get too excited. It will be a long process....I agree 2040s is more of the timeframe where we will see the real results bear fruit.....rather than in 2020s where Comac is ambitiously targetting somewhere like 20 - 25% of the world market which I do not think will pan out (but its good to aim high regardless).

This is a strategic industry for China - civilian aerospace and the massive 1.4 billion US dollar Chinese market is there to provide the home market to allow the growth of COMAC. China in the 2040s would be pretty much a developed country and this domestic economy can support massive numbers of both short and medium range planes. Also China will have by far the world's largest number of tourists by then and Chinese home airlines will need long range airliners to ferry these tourists all over the world.

Yes nothing is guaranteed but if I was to put money into it, I would say that Boeing, Airbus and COMAC would have roughly equal market share sometime in the 2040s.