[glideslope]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Airbus has since revised that figure to 420+ over the first 20 years, even after reducing the IRR from 18% to 13%.

450 is more like it. We will know in 6m. I'm looking forward to the Fuel Burn numbers.

[mduell]

EADS is going to release a new break-even figure in 6 months? Even if it changes, I doubt it.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

Wow,

I suggest anger management therapy ASAP. You my friend need help.

Hehe you think I am angry? With you?

You are, were and always will be the person laughed at on forums all round the interweb. You don't know the difference between winglets and wingtip-fences. You're a clown in aviation.

Your predictions have the anti-midas effect. Everything you touch turns to ****.

V

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika 

*sigh*

Apparently, no amount of brain-time is going to help this "logical thinkering" thing.

And why anyone bothers to discuss anything with you because you can't act like an adult while doing so...

A "financial failure" is something that ends up having cost the company more money than it made (loss), or that misses stated financial goals by a wide margin.

Did you not read what I posted?

Airbus stated they would need orders for 300 or more planes to break even on start up costs, never mind making a profit.

Now you want to argue the semantics of what a financial failure is. I would call that above, a financial failure. That certainly is no winner. (And now I hear they are saying 420 planes.. and the number keeps going up.. things keep getting worse... the trend is not good at all.

It is rather disingenuous to call something a "financial failure" that hasn't even gone on sale YET, and even more stupid to legitimize this claim by calling on an example of something that NEVER WENT ON SALE AT ALL.

The going on sale part, which I pointed out in my last thread is irrelevant to my point. Actually it FURTHERS my point. It hasn't even went on SALE yet, and they are ALREADY looking at a loss.

The only reason this plane wasn't scrapped was because of PRIDEFUL reasons. The same reasons that those argue that such plane isn't a financial failure. (Go do a search on Google, MOST EVERYONE is calling this plane a failure financially except the die hard airbus zealots.... and they are skirting the issue..

I'm sorry about the condescension, but I'm simply at a loss as to how else to deal with this kind of "argumentation".

You aren't sorry for it. Or you'd not constantly use it to belittle whoever you are arguing with in an attempt to make yourself look right. If your argument is so just, you don't HAVE to revert to such shenanigans.

There is not a single product in the history of manufactured goods that hasn't cost money before going on sale.

That isn't something I was arguing. Nor is it relevant to the discussion. It's not just costing money before going on sale. It's costing MUCH MORE money than they expected before going on sale. So MUCH money they have to sell over 420 vehicles to even BREAK EVEN.

Yes, the Airbus A380 development cost a lot more than was planned, and yes, it's later than it was planned, but whether or not it's a commercial failure for Airbus is probably not going to be judgeable until the end of its production run.

They are saying RIGHT NOW. They have to sell at least 420+ planes for them to BREAK EVEN. It doesn't matter if the production run is over. It didn't matter than Copland never shipped. It was STILL a financial FAILURE.

Copland was costing them MORE MONEY than they were going to make off it. So they canned it. Why? It was a financial failure. And it didn't even go to print or go on the market. So no, you don't have to wait till the product is off the market after decades to call it such. Copland is an example of such a thing. As they canned it BECAUSE it would have been a financial failure. Airbus should have done so with this plane as well. But there was too much EU pride in it from the beginning that would have been lost had they done it. So they just keep throwing money at it. It's the Vista actually of the OS market. Not Copland. A tleast Apple was smart enough to realize it had a financial loser. It too had to swallow some pride and ask the very man they fired not 10 years from then to come back and save their sorry asses. Too bad Airbus doesn't have a Jobs. They could really use his RTF right now.

Originally Posted by mduell 

Airbus has since revised that figure to 420+ over the first 20 years, even after reducing the IRR from 18% to 13%.

Oh so it's now 420 planes instead of 300.

I'd say it's pretty safe to call this one a financial failure. Others already have. This is still being latched onto because of pride.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

It was equivalent of a self declared Mac-expert calling the Apple-menu the "Start-menu".

Similar, yes. Same thing, not by a long shot.

So in other words, something that only matters to geeks with habits of correcting people about inane details.

[Doofy]

Newsflash: The Airbus 380 is still a fat ugly thing with no gracefulness whatsoever.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Newsflash: The Airbus 380 is still a fat ugly thing with no gracefulness whatsoever.

On the ground, no. In the air.. it is amazingly graceful. Overpowered, overdesigned and incredibly... graceful. See it fly.

It still is fat and ugly

V

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

On the ground, no. In the air.. it is amazingly graceful. Overpowered, overdesigned and incredibly... graceful. See it fly.

Wait... ...they've actually managed to get one of these things off the ground?

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Wait... ...they've actually managed to get one of these things off the ground?

Yes, thanks to something my British colleagues call wings and engines!

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Wait... ...they've actually managed to get one of these things off the ground?

With enough horsepower anything can fly™

(this was commented on the F4 fighter back in the day)

V

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

With enough horsepower anything can fly™

No.



(BTW, don't Google "fat woman" with the safe search off. Trust me on that.)

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Hehe you think I am angry? With you?

You are, were and always will be the person laughed at on forums all round the interweb. You don't know the difference between winglets and wingtip-fences. You're a clown in aviation.

Your predictions have the anti-midas effect. Everything you touch turns to ****.

V

Please note the last sentence. At least he thinks they were lost. Keep up the good work.

Airliners.net Photos: Airbus Industrie Airbus A380-841

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

Please note the last sentence. At least he thinks they were lost. Keep up the good work.

Airliners.net Photos: Airbus Industrie Airbus A380-841

K.H.Yim pretends to be an aviation know-it-all on the forums? If you set yourself up as some expert and then know nothing you're a fool.

You are that fool, because you know nothing. Arrogance and wild claims are fun, even funny at times, but arrogant and wild claims backed up with ignorance and wishful thinking make you a laughing stock.

V

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

So in other words, something that only matters to geeks with habits of correcting people about inane details.

It's not worth it Kevin. It's a cultural thing. Subjective interpretation of language. He is simply trying to be someone he never will be.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

It's not worth it Kevin. It's a cultural thing. Subjective interpretation of language. He is simply trying to be someone he never will be.

That has to be the strangest and surreal projection I have ever seen. Still, in character, as it is based on ignorance and wishful thinking.

V

[Kevin]

Gotta love ad-hominem arguments.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Gotta love the smell of ad-hominem arguments in the morning.

Fixed.

[Kevin]

Edit: another update

"Airbus CEO Louis Gallois said that break-even had risen further, but declined to give the new figure"

So even more than 420 planes to even BREAK EVEN. I would say that number was probably well over 500 now.

He has told the world he expects to sell a little over 700 of these planes. If it's going to take over 500 to even break even... I think we can safely call the plane a financial failure.

Most any other SMART companies would have dumped it long ago, and used technology they learned in the experience for a nicer/cost effective plane.

But egos get in the way of rational thinking.

[badidea]

Reading certain posts in this thread I am not really sure if Airbus is the one with the severe ego problem!

(and your record has got a scratch, Kevin)

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

He has told the world he expects to sell a little over 700 of these planes. If it's going to take over 500 to even break even... I think we can safely call the plane a financial failure.

Huh? It means that they will be making a profit, how is that a financial failure?

[badidea]

That's a lack of ego AND math skills (but Kevin will probably once again say that he wasn't saying so and actually meant that 500 to break even and a "total" number of 160 sold "ever"...blablabla...)!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by badidea 

Reading certain posts in this thread I am not really sure if Airbus is the one with the severe ego problem!

I surely hope you aren't talking about me. As I could not care less about the industry. Nor riding in planes. Nor do I have any emotional attachement to any company that makes them. For example, you'll never see me with a signature of ANY aircraft maker. I just don't care about aircraft all that much. One doesn't have to know about aircraft to see a failure brewing. Every few months it keeps costing more, and the number goes up.

and your record has got a scratch, Kevin

Actually, my last post was an update. Just further showing that the 380 is an economic failure.

They are heading for a big disappointment.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Huh? It means that they will be making a profit, how is that a financial failure?

How many have they sold so far? 173? And that number was higher.

The only reason this plane is even seeing a production line is because of prideful reasons.

You throw enough money at ANYTHING and you are going to get it out the door. Decade late or not. For example, Vista.

Right now the company is in the hole with this plane. Right now with the orders they have they need to sell over 500 more orders just to break even on what they have spent SO FAR. This number seems to keep going up ever so many months. When is it going to level off?

500 isn't too far from 700. They went from 300 to 500 needed to break even in a small amount of time. When is that 500 number going to be 700? If it isn't already.

Companies always use their own RDF to keep shareholders and partners happy.

It looks as if this airplane is barely, if at all going to break even at the end. Barely making any money off of something is still seen as a failure. Esp if your goals were much higher than what the outcome really is. And that is the case with the A380. The outcome simply didn't meet the original goals. Therefore, a failure.

Originally Posted by badidea 

That's a lack of ego AND math skills (but Kevin will probably once again say that he wasn't saying so and actually meant that 500 to break even and a "total" number of 160 sold "ever"...blablabla...)!

Well I guess you were wrong.

The old "Make the person out to be a zealot for another company so what he said doesn't have merit" character assassination act simply wont work on me.

There is no reason for me to have an ego about this. I have no allegiance to any plane company.

You on the other hand... have a Airbus 380 signature.. and have had so for a long time....
You and other people in this thread seem to have a emotional attachment to said plane, or company that makes said plane. I don't know if it's a "national pride" type of thing. Or just fanboyisms is general. That being said, there are Boeing fanboys in here as well. But rest assured, I am not one of them.

I think we can safely call this one a projection of your thoughts, feelings, or actions onto someone else.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

How many have they sold so far?

They have 173 firm orders and options for 43 more.

Boeing predicts that a market 960 A380-class aircraft while Airbus predicts 1665. The truth is probably somewhere in between those two projections. In any case, 747-type aircraft have been around for four decades now? In those fourty years, Boeing has delivered almost 1400 747s, and it's unlikely this market of at least 1000 planes is going to vanish into thin air over the next few years.
(It's interesting to note that before the announcement of the 748, Boeing estimated that the size of the market segment for A380-sized aircraft to be no more than 300.)

[Kevin]

Oreo are they making the money they originally planned on making off it?

No

Are they even going to be close?

No

Will they make ANY money off it at all? That has yet to be seen. They could make a BIT. But it wont be MUCH.

A project that doesn't meet is goal in the business world, is a project known to have failed.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Will they make ANY money off it at all? That has yet to be seen.

According to even Boeing's projections, they will make money off it.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

They could make a BIT. But it wont be MUCH.

It won't be much? I guess that depends on how much `much' is for you. It's apparently `much enough' for Boeing to offer their stop-gap solution, the B748. From the sources I posted above: Boeing predicts the A380-size aircraft market to have a volume of $270 billion, Airbus says it'll be $503 billion (up until 2026 and 2025, respectively). I would say this is a lot of money, even if your guesses are true and Airbus makes a profit only on the last 250 frames.

[Mastrap]

Pssst, Oreo. You're arguing with Kevin. Shouldn't you know better?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

According to even Boeing's projections, they will make money off it.

And as I pointed out, just because one makes money off something, doesn't suddenly make it not a failure. Esp if you were making a product to make a lot more money than you actually did. Which is the case in this instance. That is what makes it a failure financially.

It won't be much? I guess that depends on how much `much' is for you. It's apparently `much enough' for Boeing to offer their stop-gap solution, the B748. From the sources I posted above: Boeing predicts the A380-size aircraft market to have a volume of $270 billion, Airbus says it'll be $503 billion (up until 2026 and 2025, respectively). I would say this is a lot of money, even if your guesses are true and Airbus makes a profit only on the last 250 frames.

I could give a crap what boeing says. I am not a boeing fanboy.

That is what it looks like right now. The number keeps going up every few months.

a year from now they may need to sell 1000 just to break even.

What are you going to say then?

Again, this plane is not going meet it's projected monitory goal as it is RIGHT NOW. And things are only getting worse as far as cost

Not even close to being a financial winner that it was planned to be.

And since it's not a winner... I guess we could give it a honorable mention.

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

Pssst, Oreo. You're arguing with Kevin. Shouldn't you know better?

Pssst... I'm not the one making character assassinations in this thread.... I am not attacking the person.

You should know better.

[badidea]

Kevin, I am working for Airbus...on the A380...hence the sig!
Since you already posted 63 times (#6 - the first non-fanboy) in this thread (with a subject you are not interested in???) I thought you already know that.
If I would be working for Boeing, I would probably use a simlar sig with a Boeing airplane - I like both companies!
But I am proud that I am part of the team building the worlds largest passenger aircraft, that's true!

And what everyone seems to forget - even if Airbus wouldn't make any profit by selling this airplane, it at least gives employment to a few thousand people for decades...
Think about it!

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Pssst... I'm not the one making character assignations in this thread....

You may colour me confused:



You're in love with Oreo?

But seriously, I was only pointing out to Oreo that you don't often change your mind on things, once it is made up.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by badidea 

Kevin, I am working for Airbus...on the A380...hence the sig!

Oh, I apologize then. That makes your opinion even more impartial and not biased.....

Since you already posted 63 times

I've told you a million times to not exaggerate. (Not that this thread is about me... )

(#6 - the first non-fanboy) in this thread (with a subject you are not interested in???) I thought you already know that.

I didn't know that. I am so not such a fanboy that I did not know it.

If I would be working for Boeing, I would probably use a simlar sig with a Boeing airplane - I like both companies!

But I would say you working for Airbus though would make your opinion a biased one however.. Not that there is anything wrong with taking up for your place of work. I believe that to be commendable. I am not bashing Airbus as a whole. And not really belittling Airbus at all. Some of it's fanboys however have been hanging around the RDF water fountain. Even Airbus knows that they aren't going to make the dough out of this machine they thought they were. They promised too much too soon. What is that saying.. biting off more than you can chew?

But I am proud that I am part of the team building the worlds largest passenger aircraft, that's true!

And like I said, I have no problem with that. And you should be proud.

And what everyone seems to forget - even if Airbus wouldn't make any profit by selling this airplane, it at least gives employment to a few thousand people for decades...
Think about it!

Indeed. I would never want the production of the aircraft to halt. Nor anyone lose jobs.

Maybe just some of the more over-zealous people about the plane to plant their feet back down on the ground more often. Thats all.

I hope your stay with Airbus is one that is long and beneficial to you and your family.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

You may colour me confused:

Pwnt.. I am using an old iMac keyboard today because an ad rep spilled their coffee on my keyboard this morning. Yay. Not that that explains the typo... (Must have misspelled it via keyboard and went to fix it via spellcheck and it fixed it wrongly. )

But seriously, I was only pointing out to Oreo that you don't often change your mind on things, once it is made up.

I've had a habit of actually doing so throughout my life. Especially about some mighty important things.

I've on many occasion apologized for arguing with someone when I was shown to be wrong as well.

What you might say is, I don't often argue about something, unless I am pretty darn sure I am right.

And since every news source, or media I read about Airbus and the 380 is mostly negative, about losing more money on it, and about how it didn't meet their goal etc I don't think my beliefs here are that off.

But hey, what do I know about myself.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I've told you a million times to not exaggerate. (Not that this thread is about me... )

He's not exaggerating there.

[Kevin]

*sigh* it was a joke Dakar...

And I certainly wasn't denying I've posted those posts in this large thread.

Though that is highly irrelevant to the discussion I was having. Hence the character assassination comments.

<subliminal message start> This thread isn't about Kevin. <subliminal message end>

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I could give a crap what boeing says. I am not a boeing fanboy.

So you don't care about numbers anymore … unless they conveniently `prove' what you're trying to say? And being not a `Boeing fanboy' makes their estimates irrelevant? Is that your last line of defence, feign ignorance? I'm a scientist who loves technology, I very much like the 787 and the A380 as they are both the cutting edge of technology. I rely on numbers to make decisions. I don't pull figures out of thin air and claim `they [= Airbus] won't make ANY money off it at all? [Which] has yet to be seen. They could make a BIT. But it wont be MUCH.' Claims like these could bite you in the back when you haven't done research on how many planes the two major contenders in the business intend to sell (I don't think they base their projections on voodoo and wishful thinking).

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

So you don't care about numbers anymore … unless they conveniently `prove' what you're trying to say?

No not at all. You posted it as if what Beoing said made any difference to me. Like I was on Beoing's "side" or as if you were arguing with someone that was. I simply pointed out I could care less about what Beoing said as far as numbers goes. It was a guess. And those numbers seem to be going down, while the price it's taking to make it seems to be going up. Both of their numbers are guestimations as to what was going on at the time they made those guestimations.

I'm a scientist who loves technology, I very much like the 787 and the A380 as they are both the cutting edge of technology. I rely on numbers to make decisions. I don't pull figures out of thin air and claim `they [= Airbus] won't make ANY money off it at all?

I said it could be a possibility. I never said it was going to happen, and I certainly wasn't picking figures out of the air in any different way the numbers Beoing and Airbus was giving. The number needed to break even was at 420-450. The number was raised. And they refused to say what that number is now. Now why would they do that? What would tey have to hide?

[Which] has yet to be seen. They could make a BIT. But it wont be MUCH.' Claims like these could bite you in the back when you haven't done research on how many planes the two major contenders in the business intend to sell (I don't think they base their projections on voodoo and wishful thinking).

For one:

I am basing my opinion on things I have read from people that are watching what it is going on. Most every single article I read it talks about how Airbus is losing more and more money making this plane than expected. To me that screams failure somewhere in the process of making the plane. Wether it was horrible planning, or it was biting off more than they could chew, SOMETHING went wrong with the planning of this aircraft. In the process they lost a lot of money they were expecting to make off it. In the business world, people have been fired for causing such problems. For losing the company money it planned on gaining. This is also known as a financial failure.

That doesn't mean that Airbus wont make money off the plane, or that it wont be in production. I never made such claim as something that was a definite happenstance.

But the facts point to it making less and less money off it as the months go by. That "break even" number keeps growing. Things aren't looking BETTER. They are now even denying to let the public know what that break even number is now for some reason...

I am just being REALISTIC.

For Two:

I have nothing to lose or gain from them having a financial breakthrough, or a failure. It wont effect me really either way. So there would be non need to use "voodoo" or "wishful thinking" to believe in what I do about this situation. I am just telling it like it is. I think your attachment to the plane and company goes in a bit deeper than you are admitting,Esp with your views I've read in the PL, but I will leave it at that.

Wishful thinking is ignoring the fact that the whole process was a mess and that the company's goals weren't met for this particular aircraft. And it's not even on the "market" yet.

There are people in here that simply act like there is no problem at all. THAT is wishful thinking.

Looking through this thread, about every valid complaint someone has made about the way something was done, or how it was run, was met by a small group of fanboys that would make apologetic excuses for the company and try to make said mistakes out to be less than they actually was. Some even, get this, start character assassinations on people that belittle the plane instead of arguing with what they have said.

That certainly isn't being realistic. That is wearing ones rose colored glasses.

[OreoCookie]

I was giving both estimates to give an idea of what experts in the industry expect, not because I was trying to `impress you' by Boeing's numbers. However, I'm certain that if I had posted Airbus' estimates only, you would have taken out that `rose colored glasses' analogy a bit earlier in your post. And in that case, you would have had a point, for the sake of completeness, I post both estimates.

You're certainly not being realistic by ignoring facts and figures you don't like.
For instance you just wrote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

It was a guess. And those numbers seem to be going down, while the price it's taking to make it seems to be going up.

Had you read my earlier post more carefully, then you knew that Boeing had corrected its figures up and not down as you've just claimed (from 300 to almost 1000). You make many of those faulty claims (e. g. `not on the market') which can be made true if you were to put a little more effort into research and writing things up properly. E. g. `not on the market' (false) ---> `doesn't fly commercially yet' (true). Or: `probably won't make any money off the A380' (false) ---> `won't make as much money on it' (true).

It's also different when you are `picking figures out of the air' compared to when industry specialists working at Boeing and Airbus investigate the size of potential markets. By dismissing those figures and substituting them with your own, you're not being realistic, you're being ignorant.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I was giving both estimates to give an idea of what experts in the industry expect, not because I was trying to `impress you' by Boeing's numbers. However, I'm certain that if I had posted Airbus' estimates only, you would have taken out that `rose colored glasses' analogy a bit earlier in your post. And in that case, you would have had a point, for the sake of completeness, I post both estimates.

And my point was, they too made guesses. Guesses that by now aren't probably very accurate. As it seems numbers keep rising (as to how many needed to break even)

You're certainly not being realistic by ignoring facts and figures you don't like.

What facts and figures are out there that I don't like? And why would I not like them? Again you seem to think I have a personal interest or vendetta about Airbus or this plane. I do not. So there would be no facts or figures that "I don't like" This isn't personal to me. However you seem to be taking up for them for about everything anyone has complained about in this thread...

Had you read my earlier post more carefully, then you knew that Boeing had corrected its figures up and not down as you've just claimed (from 300 to almost 1000).

I was calling Boeing's estimation a guess. Lets take that sentence into context

"I could care less about what Beoing said as far as numbers goes. It was a guess. And those numbers seem to be going down, while the price it's taking to make it seems to be going up. Both of their numbers are guestimations as to what was going on at the time they made those guestimations."

Now I wasn't commenting on Boeing correcting any figures. When I was referring to the numbers itself, I was referring to them as a whole. Not just what Boeing was figuring. So what you said about Boeing has little relevance to the point I was making. As far as the 300 to 1000 claim.. the only claim I made was that at one time they said they needed over 300 to break even. That number has went to 420, then to 450, and now the latest rise they wont even COMMENT on. So I am GUESSING it's over 500. Then I said they in the article I read were planning on selling at least 700-800 planes. They may have raised the estimate later on. Probably so it looks as if they will make a bigger profit than they actually are. Companies do this all the time. Esp with ESTIMATED goals. Which is what got them in trouble in the first place.

You make many of those faulty claims (e. g. `not on the market') which can be made true if you were to put a little more effort into research and writing things up properly. E. g. `not on the market' (false) ---> `doesn't fly commercially yet' (true). Or: `probably won't make any money off the A380' (false) ---> `won't make as much money on it' (true).

That is why I was "quoting" those words. As to imply. Why else would I put quotes around them? And has it come down to this Oreo, complaining about the way I write up things? Or the semantics? I mean if thats all the argument you have about what I said then you go bad boy.

You took a few sentences out of a LARGE post and attacked their context.

It's also different when you are `picking figures out of the air' compared to when industry specialists working at Boeing and Airbus investigate the size of potential markets. By dismissing those figures and substituting them with your own, you're not being realistic, you're being ignorant.

Good thing I wasn't doing that. Let me repost what I told you in my last response

I am basing my opinion on things I have read from people that are watching what it is going on. Most every single article I read it talks about how Airbus is losing more and more money making this plane than expected.

Nothing is being pulled from the air. And I never dismissed their figures. I told you what my comment about Boeing and not caring was about. So why you keep acting as if I didn't is beyond me.

Now, things I've talked about that COULD happen, I've labeled them as such. Possibilities. Maybes. Could happens. I am not treating them as cold hard facts.

This post of yours really didn't add anything to your original argument.
I did however notice you skipping over tons of other things I said that were very legitimate and true that you didn't respond to.

I guess cherry picking what you want to respond to and what you don't is part of that being realistic and not wearing rose colored glasses.

By doing so, you missed my point all-together. I said that regardless of those numbers, that doesn't suddenly make the plane a success. Just because A profit is made, doesn't make that product and it's ongoing problems as success.

As a matter of fact, I doubt you see anyone giving the 380 development procedure as a blueprint for a way to "Do things right"

Quite the opposite.

So will they make money off it? Sure. Are they going to make anywhere near close to what they originally thought? More than likely a definite no. Not even close. Therefore their original idea, and projections of the plane don't match the outcome, and therefore it becomes a failure FINANCIALLY in that way.

No amount of guestimated figures will change that. No matter who they are from.

The cost of making that plane keeps going up, while people cancel/threaten to cancel their orders isn't helping things either.

So while I may use guestimations like everyone else, I would say my outlook on it has less bias than yours. And is grounded more in reality because of that. Bias always effects judgement. And for some reason you have a zealous attachment to this company and or plane.

It sorta reminds me back in 95/97 when Apple was in a real slump. And the zealots were in a complete denial about it. If it wasn't for Steve...

[badidea]

Do you realize that you are acting like Rob in a SUV thread?

Please explain one more thing!
Why do you constantly post the same stuff again and again even though this thread has long evolved and about everybody here already knows that the A380 has financial problems (which no one ever denied either btw)?
This thread is idle for a few weeks, someone posts a new picture, you come in here (even though you're not interested in the subject) and tell everyone that the plane is a financial failure...
I may be exaggerating now but I believe that about 50 of your 60+ posts give the same old info!

What's your intention???

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

You may colour me confused:



You're in love with Oreo?

But seriously, I was only pointing out to Oreo that you don't often change your mind on things, once it is made up.

What's up with your Dictionary font?

[mduell]

Two things to note:

The A380 breakeven figure isn't just a number, it's a number over a certain time period (the interest keeps compounding). Before the recent, unspecified increase, that was 420 over 20 years; I believe the clock on that 20 years started in 2001 when they received their first financing. That's 18/year from now until 2021, and I don't know how much that includes for the development of new models (A38F, A389, A38R).

Boeing's figure of 960 'Large Airplanes' over the next 20 years includes 747s and really anything larger than a 77W (like Y3, even if it only has 2 aisles).

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Actually, my last post was an update. Just further showing that the 380 is an economic failure.

They are heading for a big disappointment.

I spent some effort trying to explain why exactly the words "economic failure" only make sense when a product is being discontinued, and one can actually see whether money has been made or lost on it.

"It ended up costing a lot more" does NOT equal failure unless that money is never recouped. And even then, as badidea mentioned, it's only a "failure" if profit is all the motivation...

[TETENAL]

I'm not a business economist, but I think you can have an "economic failure" even though you still make money. It depends on the revenue the investors expect. If Airbus is underperforming and EADS' shareholders (mainly France and Daimler) could have invested their money better elsewhere they might consider it a failure.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

I'm not a business economist, but I think you can have an "economic failure" even though you still make money. It depends on the revenue the investors expect. If Airbus is underperforming and EADS' shareholders (mainly France and Daimler) could have invested their money better elsewhere they might consider it a failure.

If I was generous, I'd call it an economic disappointment. However, the 380 investment has brought unmatched experience and know-how to Airbus.

The experience and technological expertise gained with the 380 project is a very valuable asset to Airbus, which can't be included in the 380 bottom line.

It has brought jobs to France, Germany and Spain -- and the USA.

If the 380 helps sell more 320s and 330s as part of a package it also pays indirectly.

The 380 will give Airbus a modest profit in the years to come. If we single it out, then it is an economical disappointment, but the project itself is a major achievement and investment for Airbus.

This isn't just a positive spin. There simply is a silver lining to the whole project and it will not lose money. Those are facts.

A cash-cow, it will not be. Was it ever supposed to be? That's debatable. The 350 and 320 are going to be Airbus cash-cows along with the 330. The 380 will be there to complete the family and break even, at worst. Result in a modest profit, realistically.

V

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by badidea 

Do you realize that you are acting like Rob in a SUV thread?

Please explain one more thing!
Why do you constantly post the same stuff again and again even though this thread has long evolved and about everybody here already knows that the A380 has financial problems (which no one ever denied either btw)?
This thread is idle for a few weeks, someone posts a new picture, you come in here (even though you're not interested in the subject) and tell everyone that the plane is a financial failure...
I may be exaggerating now but I believe that about 50 of your 60+ posts give the same old info!

What's your intention???

I'll answer that as soon as you answer why you keep making personal attacks on me in a thread that has nothing to do with me.

You are taking this personal.

*I* am not the one acting like Rob in here. Rob makes character assignations instead of debating the topic at hand...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika 

I spent some effort trying to explain why exactly the words "economic failure" only make sense when a product is being discontinued, and one can actually see whether money has been made or lost on it.

And you were wrong. You don't have to wait till the product has been discontinued to call such products economic failures. By doing simple math, one can predict the outcome of most products. And since this particular product keeps getting negative reviews as far as how much it's costing to make, and for how long, etc.

"It ended up costing a lot more" does NOT equal failure

Yes, yes it does. If you planned on making so much money on a plane and you end up not even being CLOSE, then you failed to reach said goal. When something or someone fails, it is known as ... a failure.

And even then, as badidea mentioned, it's only a "failure" if profit is all the motivation...

No, you are speaking about an over-all failure. I am not speaking about that. I would never say the 380 will fail completely. That would be a silly thing to say. But it IS an economic failure.

They failed to meet the goal that was expected. And yes, I realize profit isn't the only motivation. I've been saying this throughout most of my post. Pride has a lot to do with it. Otherwise the plane would have been scrapped after they figured out how much money they were actually losing on it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

I'm not a business economist, but I think you can have an "economic failure" even though you still make money. It depends on the revenue the investors expect.

Exactly. And if they don't meet the original intended goal, it becomes a failure in that way.

People have lost JOBS over such happenstance.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I'll answer that as soon as you answer why you keep making personal attacks on me in a thread that has nothing to do with me.

You are taking this personal.

*I* am not the one acting like Rob in here. Rob makes character assignations instead of debating the topic at hand...

Lame as always!

But to answer your question...I "attack" you because you (but not ONLY you of course) - just like Rob - turn quite a lot of threads from a debate into a fight! You always blame others for doing so but most threads without your participation (there are not many, I know) are mostly enjoyable...and I like to ENJOY a debate...that's why I joined a few forums!
This thread for example has around 1500 posts on 30 pages already. Those who like the A380 are usually the ones who are keeping it alive...and all of them already know about the financial situation of the A380 for a very long time...but that doesn't stop you from entering, when it hits page 1 in the lounge again and posts the same negative stuff again and again which you already did for the last 20+ pages (probably, I didn't check...just my impression)!
WHY???????
Threads evolve, you know!?

[analogika]

Threads evolve - Kevin don't.

It's in the Bible.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Pwnt.. I am using an old iMac keyboard today because an ad rep spilled their coffee on my keyboard this morning. Yay. Not that that explains the typo... (Must have misspelled it via keyboard and went to fix it via spellcheck and it fixed it wrongly.

Seriously though, do you really think we would believe that story ?
How about just say "Uhm, yeah, typo" and cut out the dumb story. What a joke.

-t