[glideslope]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

One question remains however: why isn't there an analogous thread about Boeing's Dreamliner? Lack of interest? </devil's advocate>

Easy. Boeing is up front and honest in every aspect of the best managed airframe design in the history of aviation. Boeing is what Airbus could be. IMO, Power 8 will go a long way to bring Airbus back past the point of selling 330's at 10% over cost to fund the 380 fiasco.

The problem for Airbus and EADS is not Boeing. It's determing which production goes where under Power 8, and the unrest that follows.

Airbus needs (simplified point) to realize it can no longer have 5 of the 6 pieces of the pie. 2-3- are going to leave the EU under Power 8.

Let's just hope they use CATIA V.5 R15 on the entire 350. That would be a big confidence booster for me.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Lack of insecurity among Airbus proponents?

Why are Boeing "fans" so much more insistent on putting down Airbus than the other way round? Why are Americans so annoyingly fixated on thinking they're NUMBER ONE?

Maybe you misconstrew "us" (Americans) as insisting on being #1 when we tear apart your arguments and leave you with no leg to stand on.*

You are so inclined to hate everything America the only alternative for you is us claiming to be #1 in everything, which is clearly NOT the argument at hand.

For someone so deeply tied into the global warming doomsday fear-mongering you defend this European gas guzzler (might I add inefficient as well) with impressive veracity, even resorting to accusing Americans of "insisting on being #1" using valid arguments....


*I do not claim to have any part in such debate, I'm only calling out hateful bullshit directed at a group of people of which I'm a part of.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

*I do not claim to have any part in such debate, I'm only calling out hateful bullshit directed at a group of people of which I'm a part of.

I've learned to ignore analog's xenophobia.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Maybe you misconstrew "us" (Americans) as insisting on being #1 when we tear apart your arguments and leave you with no leg to stand on.*

You are so inclined to hate everything America the only alternative for you is us claiming to be #1 in everything, which is clearly NOT the argument at hand.

I dunno.

The only "hate" I see here is from glideslope and Buckaroo.

AFAICS, the A380 a) flies and b) has been certified and c) has passed the evac test.

That's THREE legs the nay-sayers no longer have to stand on.

Now, unless they're on all fours to start with, that means they're eating dirt.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by analogika 

AFAICS, the A380 a) flies and b) has been certified and c) has passed the evac test.

Were any of those three ever in serious doubt?

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Were any of those three ever in serious doubt?

But has not been given permssion to start production. Just a little side note.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by analogika 

I dunno.

The only "hate" I see here is from glideslope and Buckaroo.

AFAICS, the A380 a) flies and b) has been certified and c) has passed the evac test.

That's THREE legs the nay-sayers no longer have to stand on.

Now, unless they're on all fours to start with, that means they're eating dirt.

There is a 4th component. It's called a Production Cert. Now, if you were aware of this you would not stoop to 4 legged foreplay. Obviously you don't, due to the fact that the 380 has no production certificate. One would think that 2 years would be enough to start the line running. It's that German/French thing again. It's still a problem.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by analogika 

I dunno.

The only "hate" I see here is from glideslope and Buckaroo.

AFAICS, the A380 a) flies and b) has been certified and c) has passed the evac test.

That's THREE legs the nay-sayers no longer have to stand on.

Now, unless they're on all fours to start with, that means they're eating dirt.

You conveniently fail to mention the whole cost effeciency point which you were thoroughly discredited on. Now, using a tactic I've seen before on the boards, are claiming that you've won an argument that no one argued against you about.

A, B, and C were never in doubt...but as for points d) the production cert, and e) the cost/efficiency of the beast, well you just took a hard fall to the pavement, twice as hard since in my opinion since you so vigorously attack Americans for our "holier than thou" attitude which you reek of in every one of your posts, and also since you so vigorously tell the world we're going to die from CO2 emissions in other threads. Conveniently this isn't an issue when we are talking about a very large petrol-burning industry.

[Kevin]

analog only cares about Co2 emissions when he is bashing America.

I think they should change their name to "Airbust"

That would make a killer sig.

How can anyone call something a company lost tons of money on as "successful"

it's a bust.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

For someone so deeply tied into the global warming doomsday fear-mongering you defend this European gas guzzler

Gas guzzler?

Without taking anything away from analogika, it's 15-20% more efficient than the 747! I wish we didn't need to burn fuel to fly around the world but since we don't have any alternatives right now, I'd be happier if we flew the most efficient planes being built. Of course, if they start using these as corporate jets, then yes, I will be upset.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Of course, if they start using these as corporate jets, then yes, I will be upset.

Don't think you'll have to worry about that.

[Sherman Homan]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Don't think you'll have to worry about that.

Two may buy private A380 superjumbos

[Snow-i]

think of the parties you could have on that thing.

you could party on the way to the party!

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Gas guzzler?

Without taking anything away from analogika, it's 15-20% more efficient than the 747! I wish we didn't need to burn fuel to fly around the world but since we don't have any alternatives right now, I'd be happier if we flew the most efficient planes being built. Of course, if they start using these as corporate jets, then yes, I will be upset.

No-one is going to know how efficient the 380 will be until at least 1 year of revenue service. Made up of several carriers using production line airframes. Not the custom hand built frames flying around now. SQ's first bird has been a test mule for the majority of it's life to date.

Don't compare 744 numbers with the 748. The 748 is going to surprise a few when LH starts revenue flights. She will climb to FL30 without stepping just like the big whale. IMO, the 748 was actually meant to kill the A380F, as most of the growth over the next 20 years is in freight. When UPS cancels next week, and converts to a few token 332F's the 380F will be dead. 5 years from now Boeing will dominate the freight market. Just as their market forecasts , forecast.

[analogika]

And you *still* won't get laid.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

When UPS cancels next week, and converts to a few token 332F's the 380F will be dead. 5 years from now Boeing will dominate the freight market. Just as their market forecasts , forecast.

Considering every single one of your predictions so far has been wrong, I don't give much credence to these two. But let's see in one week from now.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

When UPS cancels next week, and converts to a few token 332F's the 380F will be dead.

5X might well announce somthing as early as today. The 380F has already been designed, so the money has already been spent.

If Airbus loses the current orders, then the plans can be shelved until someone orders it. The F uses the same line as the pax, so whatever 5X decides, you are wrong.

The 380F lives.

V

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

5X might well announce somthing as early as today. The 380F has already been designed, so the money has already been spent.

If Airbus loses the current orders, then the plans can be shelved until someone orders it. The F uses the same line as the pax, so whatever 5X decides, you are wrong.

The 380F lives.

V

With that rational we could say the 757 lives!!!!! I agree the 380F is shelved. My error was pointing out what the expected shelf life would be.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Considering every single one of your predictions so far has been wrong, I don't give much credence to these two. But let's see in one week from now.

Not everyone. You give me too much credit. I'm blushing.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by analogika 

And you *still* won't get laid.

I'll admit there would be better opportunities for this on the 380. Although I had ben looking forward to the nose crew rest cabin under the flight deck on the 350. Unfortunately it looks as if Airbus has decided to use the 787 location on the 350.

I guess it's best to just admit it, when you can't do it yourself.

[Kevin]

Airbus A380 Failure

Airbus stated they would need orders for 300 or more planes to break even on start up costs, never mind making a profit. Airbus made many many promises for this aircraft and have failed to deliver on any of them, in fact the plane has not even been certified yet? Orders have stopped, barely over half of the 300 required to break even.

Its biggest failing was trying to bamboozle its customers and failing to communicate the real problems it was enduring. It even accused its customers of making unreasonable demands for interiors, after having sold the plane with bars, duty free shops, swimming pools, exercise rooms, well maybe not pools. The end result is they really PO'd their customers, and as a result they may have lost future orders.

The second big problem Airbus is facing is the A350, designed to catch up with the Boeing 787, another astounding success for Boeing. Airbus initially poo poo'd the 787 as a poor competitor for the Airbus A330, called it a plastic plane that will never sell.

The sales figures speak for themselves, Airbus can't even finalize the design and won't fly until at least 2012, they have lost that battle as well. Basically Airbus has been slam dunked, they are so far behind now they may never catch up, financial losses for the A380 and the A350 are going to be astronomical, somebody has to pay, whether its taxpayers in the sponsoring countries or shareholders of EADS, and that will all depend on the outcome of the WTO hearings into illegal subsidies.

All in all a very dismal year for Airbus and the future appears to just as gloom

Yup, sounds like a winner to me.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

With that rational we could say the 757 lives!!!!! I agree the 380F is shelved. My error was pointing out what the expected shelf life would be.

While I insist the 757 lives (because it is my absolute favorite plane!!), Boeing has closed that line and it won't be revived. It isn't shelved (unfortunately). The 380F can always be inserted into the active 380 line.

IMO Boeing should have closed the 767 line and kept the 757 line open, but noooo. They're seeing some phantom $$s in a potential KC sale to the US military, so they keep that line open.

Ironic because 757s are in great demand these days because there is no other plane with the ca 180 pax capacity and that range (not to mention the hot and high capabilities)

I think Boeing bet on the wrong horse here. The tankers will either be T7s or 330. Not 767s and the 787 is a 767 replacement, but not a 757 replacement. There just isn't any 757 replacement from any party.

Neither the 739ER nor the 321 can replace it. They just don't have the range and only barely the 752 capacity.

V

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Airbus stated they would need orders for 300 or more planes to break even on start up costs, never mind making a profit. Airbus made many many promises for this aircraft and have failed to deliver on any of them, in fact the plane has not even been certified yet? Orders have stopped, barely over half of the 300 required to break even.

In 2005 Airbus/EADS said they needed ~270 (I don't recall the specific figure) aircraft sold (I'm not sure if it's ordered or delivered) by ~2020 to break even with 19% IRR. In 2006 they upped the quantity to 420 aircraft and decreased the IRR to 13% for break even in the same time period.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by mduell 

In 2005 Airbus/EADS said they needed ~270 (I don't recall the specific figure) aircraft sold (I'm not sure if it's ordered or delivered) by ~2020 to break even with 19% IRR. In 2006 they upped the quantity to 420 aircraft and decreased the IRR to 13% for break even in the same time period.

I see there is some confusion over what the phrase 'break even' means.

V

[mduell]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I see there is some confusion over what the phrase 'break even' means.

Where's the confusion? Any figure for the number of airframes comes attached to a specific IRR in a specific time period. There's a big difference in break even number if you're expecting a 5% IRR or a 20% IRR, or expecting to break even in 5 years or 20 years.

[glideslope]

I bid ye farewell. Please, no BS that it's only about 350 production. As I have always stated,

nothing but the most mismanaged production arrangement in the history of mankind.


BBC NEWS | Business | Wrangling hits Airbus restructure

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

I bid ye farewell. Please, no BS that it's only about 350 production. As I have always stated,

nothing but the most mismanaged production arrangement in the history of mankind.

What is that stupid snoring face you put after your posts? Does it represent how tiresome you are to everyone around you? I hope you really are bidding this thread farewell. I hope I never see your posts here again!

[badidea]

Upper Deck


Main Deck




A colleague of mine was on that flight and said it was the smoothest and most quiet flight he ever experienced!

[veryniceguy2002]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

While I insist the 757 lives (because it is my absolute favorite plane!!), Boeing has closed that line and it won't be revived. It isn't shelved (unfortunately). The 380F can always be inserted into the active 380 line.

IMO Boeing should have closed the 767 line and kept the 757 line open, but noooo. They're seeing some phantom $$s in a potential KC sale to the US military, so they keep that line open.

Ironic because 757s are in great demand these days because there is no other plane with the ca 180 pax capacity and that range (not to mention the hot and high capabilities)

I think Boeing bet on the wrong horse here. The tankers will either be T7s or 330. Not 767s and the 787 is a 767 replacement, but not a 757 replacement. There just isn't any 757 replacement from any party.

Neither the 739ER nor the 321 can replace it. They just don't have the range and only barely the 752 capacity.

V

I don't know what you are talking about?!?! 737-800 can carry 180 passengers, and fly across a continent... pretty much what a 757 can do! I think the 737-900ER can do what 737-800 can do now, except it carries about 20 more passengers. If an airline already have 737-600 or 737-700 in their fleet, then you can use the same pilot certificatino and same maintenance facilities, crews and even parts... commonality is an important thing in commercial aviation nowadays... having an extra aircraft type can make or break a company!

[mduell]

Originally Posted by veryniceguy2002 

I don't know what you are talking about?!?! 737-800 can carry 180 passengers, and fly across a continent... pretty much what a 757 can do! I think the 737-900ER can do what 737-800 can do now, except it carries about 20 more passengers. If an airline already have 737-600 or 737-700 in their fleet, then you can use the same pilot certificatino and same maintenance facilities, crews and even parts... commonality is an important thing in commercial aviation nowadays... having an extra aircraft type can make or break a company!

The B738 carries 180 in a (cramped) all economy configuration; the B752 carries 180 with a decent premium mix.
737NG range is fine for US transcons, but the 757 range allows you to go transatlantic.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

What is that stupid snoring face you put after your posts? Does it represent how tiresome you are to everyone around you? I hope you really are bidding this thread farewell. I hope I never see your posts here again!

Seems he is one of the few that is basing his opinion on reality however.

[veryniceguy2002]

Originally Posted by mduell 

The B738 carries 180 in a (cramped) all economy configuration; the B752 carries 180 with a decent premium mix.
737NG range is fine for US transcons, but the 757 range allows you to go transatlantic.

180 on 737-800 carries at least 2 rows of business class (i.e. 12 seats)! And 737-800 can do transatlantic for fare paying passenger flights... although with landing slots and cramped airspace in the flight path, airlines prefer to use a wide-body already to carry a few more passengers.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by veryniceguy2002 

180 on 737-800 carries at least 2 rows of business class (i.e. 12 seats)! And 737-800 can do transatlantic for fare paying passenger flights... although with landing slots and cramped airspace in the flight path, airlines prefer to use a wide-body already to carry a few more passengers.

Here are 3 airlines that come to mind that operate both aircraft in 2 class configurations
AAL
B738 16F 132Y
B752 22F 166Y
COA
B738 14F 141Y
B752 16F 159Y
DAL
B738 16F 134Y
B752 26F 158Y

AAL and COA both offer similar cabin mixes in their B738 and B752 aircraft, but the B752 carries 20 (COA) to 40 (AAL) more seats. Delta has a greater percentage of premium seats in the B752 than the B738, yet still carries 34 more seats in the B752.
None of the two-class B738 carry more than 155. To match your 12 biz/180 total figure, the two extra bizfirst seats in COA's layout would have to take up the same amount of space as 27 economy seats.

The B738 only has transatlantic range if you stuff the belly with fuel tanks and give up all that cargo revenue. The B752 can make it across the pond without putting fuel in the cargo bays.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by mduell 

The B738 carries 180 in a (cramped) all economy configuration; the B752 carries 180 with a decent premium mix.
737NG range is fine for US transcons, but the 757 range allows you to go transatlantic.

Indeed. There is no comparison between the B737NG and B757. It is a completely different market, different capabilities and capacities.

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by veryniceguy2002 

180 on 737-800 carries at least 2 rows of business class (i.e. 12 seats)! And 737-800 can do transatlantic for fare paying passenger flights... although with landing slots and cramped airspace in the flight path, airlines prefer to use a wide-body already to carry a few more passengers.

I don't feel like repeating what mduell has said in reply to your rather uninformed comments on the 75' but you also conveniently forget the B757-300 and the hot and high capabilities of the 75'.

V

[veryniceguy2002]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Indeed. There is no comparison between the B737NG and B757. It is a completely different market, different capabilities and capacities.

V

The good way to do comparison is to look at the specs from Boeing web pages:

737-900ER
757-200

The 757 can do ~10% more passenger and ~17% longer range with ~5% more cargo space... but 47% more fuel tank space to archive it! (i.e. 737 is more fuel efficient) Well 20 years ago probably it's not a big problem. But nowadays with high oil prices it become very expensive to operate 757.

You might still think there's a ned to have that 10% extra capacity... but a lot of US airline think along the same line and gone bankrupt... if people thinks both planes are for different market, then I would say 757 is for bankrupt airlines.

[OreoCookie]

Boeing has to use all its marketing force to convince customers why it made sense for them to can the 757.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Boeing has to use all its marketing force to convince customers why it made sense for them to can the 757.

They can try, but the market has an incredible 757 demand now. They should have deep-sixed the 767 - as the 787 is replacing it anyway, and kept the 757.

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by veryniceguy2002 

The good way to do comparison is to look at the specs from Boeing web pages:

737-900ER
757-200

The 757 can do ~10% more passenger and ~17% longer range with ~5% more cargo space... but 47% more fuel tank space to archive it! (i.e. 737 is more fuel efficient) Well 20 years ago probably it's not a big problem. But nowadays with high oil prices it become very expensive to operate 757.

You might still think there's a ned to have that 10% extra capacity... but a lot of US airline think along the same line and gone bankrupt... if people thinks both planes are for different market, then I would say 757 is for bankrupt airlines.

Sheesh, the 757-200 can go farther, with more cargo, more pax, more fuel, more floor space and more power.

Then there is the 757-300. Both beat the CASM of the 739ER, meaning in all cases the 739 can be used, the 752 can make more money and is more economical.

That's why it is in high demand and the 739 is getting a big "meh" from airlines. Count on it: the 752 and the 739 are not in the same league.



V

[climber]

I know next to nothing about jets, but It seems to me this "debate" boils down to this. You can evaluate each company, Boeing and Airbus based either on their performance as a company, or the performance of the product they make. I think if you were a stockholder over the last year or so you would rather own Boeing.

If you are more interested in the quality of the airplanes, it seems to me like they both get the job done. But it is also a bit of a Nikon vs Canon, Mac vs PC type argument.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by veryniceguy2002 

The 757 can do ~10% more passenger and ~17% longer range with ~5% more cargo space... but 47% more fuel tank space to archive it! (i.e. 737 is more fuel efficient)

Fallacious argument. You can't just compare fuel tank size to determine fuel burn for a given mission.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

When UPS cancels next week ...

Another week gone by and another glideslope prediction proves to be false.

[Kevin]

Troll that doesn't make the aribus suddenly NOT a failure. Or it suddenly make the company money.

[mrtew]

Kevin, of course not, and everyone from the A380 lovers here to the top managment at Airbus AGREES that there have been a lot of problems with the program. What most of us are sick of, besides the delays etc, is people like him and you and a few other constantly "predicting" nothing but doom and gloom for the future. We LOVE that plane and wish it and Airbus the best and to have someone constantly repeatedly posting and posting the most negative stuff over and over is a real downer in a thread for fans of the plane. We know there are problems but we don't need someone like that reminding us in 5 posts per page for 27 pages. If you think the plane is a failure, you've said it, now shut up and go away. This thread is for people that love the plane to post beautiful pictures of it. Read the title. Go start a thread for Airbus haters.... nobody will read it though. Normal people read threads about stuff they like, except for a few people like you that hate everything and feel obliged to post in every thread saying so.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Another week gone by and another glideslope prediction proves to be false.

Please, your making me blush. Anyone read Putin's statement in the UK Times yesterday? I'm still over .500.

Quote:
Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, again demonstrated his tendency towards “muscular diplomacy” yesterday as he took advantage of chaos at Airbus, the European aircraft maker, to demand help developing the Russian aerospace industry.
At a meeting with French defence and finance ministers, Mr Putin warned that the Russians would continue to buy shares in EADS, Airbus’s parent, unless the company agreed to greater cooperation with Russia. The Russians already have a 6 per cent holding.
. . . Analysts believe that Mr Putin took the opportunity yesterday to push Russia’s case forcefully as Airbus is in chaos following a decision by German shareholders to block a restructuring plan, called Power 8.
Mr Putin warned that Russian institutions would buy EADS shares on the Paris stock market to force the group’s hand in greater cooperation. Vneshtorgbank (VTB), which is planning to list shares in London in the spring, bought a 6 per cent stake last year.
EADS, one of the world’s largest defence companies, wants to get rid of the Russian State as a shareholder amid concerns that it could make winning defence orders in the United States more difficult. EADS has repeatedly said that it will not allow the Russians to gain a seat on the board.
Mr Putin appears to be using the threat of a greater shareholding to force more cooperation with Russia. His timing is typical of the “muscular diplomacy” the Kremlin has used to influence Western companies in the last couple of years.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

They can try, but the market has an incredible 757 demand now. They should have deep-sixed the 767 - as the 787 is replacing it anyway, and kept the 757.

V

They thought they had the KC-767 in their pocket. The problem is everyone had each others hands in their pockets. IMO, without the KC-767 the 757 line would have stayed open.

[simonjames]

Not sure if this is the right place but a Boeing 737 cracked it's back on landing in Indonesia

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

They thought they had the KC-767 in their pocket. The problem is everyone had each others hands in their pockets. IMO, without the KC-767 the 757 line would have stayed open.

Exactly

V

[Troll]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

Please, your making me blush.

If I did have a "making you blush" (or even knew what one was), I doubt I'd give it to you ... despite your having said "please".

What are we to think of the fact that you're proud to constantly post predictions that prove to be false? Maybe that you aren't really interested in a discussion but simply here to troll?

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by Troll 

If I did have a "making you blush" (or even knew what one was), I doubt I'd give it to you ... despite your having said "please".

What are we to think of the fact that you're proud to constantly post predictions that prove to be false? Maybe that you aren't really interested in a discussion but simply here to troll?

Now your giving me a "Wink and a Nod." Try to be consistent. I really was not incorrect about UPS. Airbus offered them to wait a while before canceling. In return All of UPS' cancelation penalties will be waved if they cancel later this year. A win, win for UPS. So, yes I missed the fact that Airbus would give up the bank to delay a cancelation announcement. I bow in your presence.

However, given the growing problem with Russia I can understand and support UPS' cooperation. I'm even in favor of direct support from the US to fend off Putin.

You won't see a 380F fly for 10 years. If ever. It was poorly conceived, and very inefficient compared to the 748F. The380F is only required by UPS and FED X. It's heavy lift restraints due to it's weight, and inability to front load really made it DOA.