Could Airbus be in trouble?

dogmatix

Seems that while Boeing is racking up the orders for the 787, the A380 is just not burning up the order books as much as Airbus had hoped. Apparently it needs over 400 concrete orders to just break even.

In this day and age, modern airliners can take years to develop and cost the equivelent of a small countrys annual GDP. So each new design must sell or it could break the company. So both Boeing and Airbus are only ever one failed new design away from bankruptcy. Which might explain why there are only really two companies in the world offering airliners covering a wide range of requirements. Look at the history - (Mc)Douglas are long gone, Lockheed saw the writing on the wall and pulled out of the civilian market decades ago, "Bristol" and "Vickers" are just footnotes in a history book and the Russian companies never had a chance once communism collapsed.

So we could have a situation in say 10 years where the only company designing, building and offering for sale a whole range of jet airliners is Boeing. They could become the aviation equivilent of MicroSoft. Thoughts on this? Are even two companies bad for competition and choice? I prefer the A320/321 over the 737 for short hops but thats all you ever see at airports these days - kinda boring.

cazzy

Airbus still have a big order list - maybe not for the A380 but for the smaller planes. (Its on their website)
The dreamliner probably wins in the latest big plane battle but who knows what will happen in a few years. Didn't Boeing take over McDouglas so they didnt disappear per say? There is one or two other suppliers ? Are Arann just got a consignment of new turbo props and they werent from Airbus or Boeing. A few of the airlines are using these now for short haul - (BMI, Czech Airlines etc have turbo props as well as the larger planes).
I doubt the EU would want to loose Airbus in a hurry - it will have some nice packages to make sure Boeing doesnt win the war. Oh and what about China - wait till you see what will come out of there in a few years . Asia will be the largest growing market for planes into the future and China is trying to start up its own little Boeing of the future.

Captain Chaos

The A380 is a bit of a white elephant right now and may not take off (excuse the pun). But its the A350 thats going up against the 787, not the A380.

The 380 seemed like a good idea in the mid 90s but not with how the world is today. I think Airbus will have to take the A380 knock on the chin and move on.

Oilrig

Factor in the Dollar issue, as reported in the news today and you have a very uncertain future...

I think Airbus will survive, its product is good, but not in its current structure. Too unwieldy and political.

dogmatix

Aye - I heard the news about the weakness of the dollar causing serious concerns for Airbus. I'd hate to see them go.

dogmatix

Aye Cazzy - there are lots of avaiation suppliers around but most of these companies offer only a handful of products, usually small airliners and that mainly aimed at the short-hop or low capacity market. I'm thinking the likes of Saab (are they still in the passenger airliner market?), Embraer and the like. But in terms of a company offering many different large models across a whole range of niches, there is really only Airbus and Boeing these days. Boeing did take over McDouglas but the only passenger model they kept going (I think) was what used to be called in the very old days, the DC-9. Rebadged as the 717 - and I think they have discontinued that.

Hope Airbus survives - imagine a world filled with bland boring boeings, Airbus always won out in the "good looker" stakes.

Turbulent Bill

Over time I think the A380 programme will break even, but probably not much better than that. Manufacturers need to periodically try something new: the A320/330/340 are all a bit long in the tooth, and even if the A380 isn't a big success, its technologies will certainly be useful in the future.

I remember reading somewhere that Boeing bet the house on the 707: the prototype was essentially worth more than the company! Over time they used the design for the KC-135, 727, 737 etc., so it's still making money for them, even 50 years on.

RoundyMooney

I've heard the same about the 747.

I suppose any investment of the order of magnitude of developing an all new aircraft and seeing it through its (hopefully financially viable, and safe) working life would cripple most companies on the planet, be they Airbus Industrie or Boeing.

Fabio

dogmatix wrote: »

Seems that while Boeing is racking up the orders for the 787, the A380 is just not burning up the order books as much as Airbus had hoped. Apparently it needs over 400 concrete orders to just break even.

In this day and age, modern airliners can take years to develop and cost the equivelent of a small countrys annual GDP. So each new design must sell or it could break the company. So both Boeing and Airbus are only ever one failed new design away from bankruptcy. Which might explain why there are only really two companies in the world offering airliners covering a wide range of requirements. Look at the history - (Mc)Douglas are long gone, Lockheed saw the writing on the wall and pulled out of the civilian market decades ago, "Bristol" and "Vickers" are just footnotes in a history book and the Russian companies never had a chance once communism collapsed.

So we could have a situation in say 10 years where the only company designing, building and offering for sale a whole range of jet airliners is Boeing. They could become the aviation equivilent of MicroSoft. Thoughts on this? Are even two companies bad for competition and choice? I prefer the A320/321 over the 737 for short hops but thats all you ever see at airports these days - kinda boring.

Would have to agree that going to airports these days isn't that exciting...well the selection of planes isn't anyway.

However I disagree about Boeing becoming a Microsoft as I think Russian manufacturers are on the rise. Sukhoi have a next-generation short to medium range plane coming soon with a lot of orders behind it cos it's a lot cheaper than a 737 or Airbus equivalent.

Capt'n Midnight

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

I remember reading somewhere that Boeing bet the house on the 707: the prototype was essentially worth more than the company! Over time they used the design for the KC-135, 727, 737 etc., so it's still making money for them, even 50 years on.

well at the time they were making a lot of B52's and then the flying tankers ( like kc-135 ) which was the basis of the 707 even if they did have to widen the fuselage but it got used on the 727 / 737 / 757


747 was a big gamble - they were so worried about supersonic transports they put the pilots over the main cabin so they could be converted to freighters

BTW
convair gambled the company on the 880 and lost

Oilrig

See Airbus just signed a deal for 160 aircraft with China... that should ease the stress.

Anyone got the A vs B orders stats for this year?

Muggy Dev

This might appear naive but I´ve always thought that once the A380 went into sevice.....everyone would want one.In these times when oil is touching 100 dollors a barrel and global warming hysteria...the A380 must look like mana from heaven.EADS shares are trading at 21.94 at present...well worth a punt in the medium to long term.

Oilrig

Muggy,

Like any airplane, its suitability for a carrier is a balance of several factors, in this case a few new ones are added - such as the physical infrastructure needed to handle it - think wide runways, taxiways, terminal capacity for large passenger loads, tech assistance etc etc. As it stands the routes available for an A380 are limited by the above.

Then look at the EI DUB-LHR service for example, one of the busiest city pairs in the world, busy because of frequency, If you laid on three A380 flights a day instead of say 15 A320 flights - I'd expect a lot of pax to switch to a competitor.

Its essentially a long haul aircraft so the economics of operating it would be based on being able to fill it. Many long haul operators are not filling their current aircraft so the A380 wouldn't make sense for them.

Many other factors but you get the drift.

Turbulent Bill

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

well at the time they were making a lot of B52's and then the flying tankers ( like kc-135 ) which was the basis of the 707 even if they did have to widen the fuselage but it got used on the 727 / 737 / 757


747 was a big gamble - they were so worried about supersonic transports they put the pilots over the main cabin so they could be converted to freighters

BTW
convair gambled the company on the 880 and lost

I think there's a big difference between military and civilian markets. At that time in the Cold War, the US was buying up anything that could support its new aircraft. The old KC-97 was basically obsolete, so developing the KC-135 was a safe bet for a reliable customer. IIRC the 707 had no orders before it flew, and represented a bigger gamble. The 747 was much more expensive to develop, but at least airlines had pre-ordered it.

Always thought it was a shame that the 880 failed, nice looking plane.

Davidth88

I was under the impression that the B747 was developed to compete with the C5 , when Lockheed won then they stuck some windows in there , maybe I am mistaken

I think there should be room for 2 manufactures of airliners , Airbus's aeroplanes from a passanger point of view seem more comfortable ( if any Y class cabin is comfortable nowadays ! )

I think the AB380 is a great gamble , I don't know if I would want to be checking in with 500 other passengers ( ever seen the queues for the check ins in T3 at LHR ? )

The CV880 was a truly wonderful aircraft, it flew at near supersonic speeds. I remember clearly watching the Spantax CV's at LGW, they smoked like a chimney and my god the noise !

Capt'n Midnight

Davidth88 wrote: »

I was under the impression that the B747 was developed to compete with the C5 , when Lockheed won then they stuck some windows in there , maybe I am mistaken

747 would have been totally impractical as a military cargo plane. Can't land on grass, can't load cargo without specalised equipment etc.

The CV880 was a truly wonderful aircraft, it flew at near supersonic speeds. I remember clearly watching the Spantax CV's at LGW, they smoked like a chimney and my god the noise !

Most airliners with swept wings fly at near supersonic speed 0.8-0.95. IIRC a 747 can get up to 0.95 if you put the boot down. BTW a DC 8 went supersonic in a shallow dive.
Smoke and noise is mostly a function of engines with the nacelles having some effect. If you want smoke have a look at methanol/water injection for take off on B52's

dogmatix

The CV 880 was the best looking of the trio of four engined jets that appeared around that time. Then they spoiled the looks with the CV 990 by putting those hideous shock boom thingys on the wings.

But it just goes to show how one failed design can affect a company...

Davidth88

Can a C5 land on grass ? I would be really surprised. I used to watch these beasts at the ' hall ( Mildenhall ) and they used most of that runway. Could even the ' lifters ( C141 ) land on grass ?

The true cargo version of the B747 ( not the combi ) has a swing nose. As for specialised kit , I have no idea.

jmayo

Davidth88 wrote: »

Can a C5 land on grass ? I would be really surprised. I used to watch these beasts at the ' hall ( Mildenhall ) and they used most of that runway. Could even the ' lifters ( C141 ) land on grass ?

The true cargo version of the B747 ( not the combi ) has a swing nose. As for specialised kit , I have no idea.

The C5 was designed to operate off semi prepared runways and the weight is distributed over the 24 main wheels and the 4 wheels of the nosegear.
Not sure if grass would stand upto weight of any major lift aircraft. It would not support the weight and cut up pretty badly. I suppose it would dpend on soil depth and water.

They are operated sometimes by USAF from Christchurch, NZ to Williams Field on McMurdo Sound, Antartica. The Williams Field runway is a blue ice runway meaning it can take wheeled aircraft.
The C130 hercules is used by RNZAF for Antartic flights and the C-17 Globemaster is used by USAF.

Captain Chaos

I remember in the mid '90s when it was either an An-124 or the massive An-225 actually taxied along the grass at an airshow in the UK.

Just checked, it was the An-225, people were amazed that it could do it. The 225 have more wheels to spread the weight than a C-5, but I think an empty C-5 would be able to do it aswell.

Oilrig

All the Ruski stuff is designed for low PCN's (soft runways)

NATO types may not have similar capability but have nice "extras" like the C17A being able to reverse on thrusters.

Have sat in an IL76 in a que (behind a AN12 being slowly off loaded) for hours, just because we couldn't reverse. C17 behind us reversed up the taxiway and was away, pics are interesting... ramp folks not used to reversing a/c in that location...;)