Airbus A380: So big; it's useless.

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: brtspears2
I am worried that this plane will severely limit the flight time choices for people. Instead of running 2-3x 777/787, they place a A380 in, you would be limited to one time slot. Miss your flight? Tough luck. Equipment problems? Wait it out, or hope they can find another A380 to get you there.

I say frequency beats capacity.

You guys think way too American. Unlike in America the space in most places of the world is limited. Many Airports are already operating at max capacity - how should they cope with more traffic? You cant just build new runways - besides the spce requirements, the attempt usually results in 10-20 year legal battles

If airport space is limited, then there's no room to expand runways to fit an A380 in.

 

[z0mb13]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: z0mb13
IIRC even boeing admits that there is a significant market for this extra large jumbo jet (forgot how many units they predicted). They say the market is large enough for both players (Boeing and airbus)

no they didn't, boeing has made statements the international market for this size is maybe 400 planes, and that airbus is "welcome to have it".

As mentioned earlier, the breakeven point for the project is exactly how big the market is, and the more airbus encounters engineering delays and cost overruns, the less likely the project will ever make a single dime, let alone dig airbus deeper into the hole.

Of course, when you suck on government teat for your commercial product development, it doesn't really matter.

go pick up the latest version of popular mechanics. Boeing said the market for this super jumbo jet is more than 1000 planes.

 

[rhelaine]

boing is great for saying that the competitor is very wrong but try to do the same thing saying it is their idea...check the concord,Boing was the first one to say runways will not accomodate it and that the supersonic bang would kill people and that it is not safe bla bla bla .... but they still came up with a supersonic plane ...the only thing that prevented them from losing a LOT more than what they did is that the production and most of the design was canceled at an early stage because of the 73 oil crises.

so now they say they don;t want to go into that market but lat i heard they wanted to do a bigger version of the 747.

don't listen to the official comment of that kind of company and ...euh...how do i say that.... unverified fact that some of the most american of the posters here....and remember....when the 707 and the comet came out every one said that jet airplane would be too large for the airports and that they were useless.

As far as turning a profit maybe it will maybe it won't.
The market is very different fromthe 707 time or even the 747.
there is still a LOT of 747 around that company will only want to replace in 5 10 15 years ...ultimatly the year delay won;t have that much of an impact.What really sadden me tho is that Airbus should do 2 things....

1 : forbid the president and the board to talk...
they did more to damage airbus that anyone else...they are F... stupid ...the way they announced delays (or anything else)has to be taught in any communication school as an exemple of stuff NOT TO DO EVER.

2 : hire a bodyguard with licence to kill to ensure point 1

3: hire a damn good spin doctor



as killercharlie pointed out the number of intelligent post is low.....

bigger more death??

the same was said of the 707 then of the 747.....yes more people will die when one crash.....WHEN one crash....how many people die on 747 compare to smaller craft? i am pretty sure the ratio is WAY in favor of the 747..and the 747 is "OLD" some of the flying one are 20-25 years.The most modern planes are even better as far as security is concern.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Number1
Thanks for the pic. It's my new walpaper now.
This plane is a marvel of technology. I hope they make money with it.
I also hope I can get a ride in one one day...

Very nice.

:thumbsup:

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: brtspears2
I am worried that this plane will severely limit the flight time choices for people. Instead of running 2-3x 777/787, they place a A380 in, you would be limited to one time slot. Miss your flight? Tough luck. Equipment problems? Wait it out, or hope they can find another A380 to get you there.

I say frequency beats capacity.

You guys think way too American. Unlike in America the space in most places of the world is limited. Many Airports are already operating at max capacity - how should they cope with more traffic? You cant just build new runways - besides the spce requirements, the attempt usually results in 10-20 year legal battles

If airport space is limited, then there's no room to expand runways to fit an A380 in.

Expanding a runway is way different from building new ones. Besides how big does it have to be? Runway in Frankfurt is 4000x60m

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: brtspears2
I am worried that this plane will severely limit the flight time choices for people. Instead of running 2-3x 777/787, they place a A380 in, you would be limited to one time slot. Miss your flight? Tough luck. Equipment problems? Wait it out, or hope they can find another A380 to get you there.

I say frequency beats capacity.

You guys think way too American. Unlike in America the space in most places of the world is limited. Many Airports are already operating at max capacity - how should they cope with more traffic? You cant just build new runways - besides the spce requirements, the attempt usually results in 10-20 year legal battles

If airport space is limited, then there's no room to expand runways to fit an A380 in.

Expanding a runway is way different from building new ones. Besides how big does it have to be? Runway in Frankfurt is 4000x60m

It's not the leignth of the runway that's the issue. It is the fact that onece it lands on the runway it is too big to find it's way off. The taxi ways just cannot handle an A380. All passanger boarding and unloading would have to take place where the planes take off. And that is never going to be allowed in the next million years.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: brtspears2
I am worried that this plane will severely limit the flight time choices for people. Instead of running 2-3x 777/787, they place a A380 in, you would be limited to one time slot. Miss your flight? Tough luck. Equipment problems? Wait it out, or hope they can find another A380 to get you there.

I say frequency beats capacity.

You guys think way too American. Unlike in America the space in most places of the world is limited. Many Airports are already operating at max capacity - how should they cope with more traffic? You cant just build new runways - besides the spce requirements, the attempt usually results in 10-20 year legal battles

If airport space is limited, then there's no room to expand runways to fit an A380 in.

Expanding a runway is way different from building new ones. Besides how big does it have to be? Runway in Frankfurt is 4000x60m

Pretty damn big... According to a link
from an earlier post here are the European airports that can handle it
FRA Frankfort
CDG Charles DeGaulle
MUC Munich
LHR London Heathrow
AMS Amsterdam
TLS Toulouse

Which might be good enough (?), I don't know.

While in the continental U.S.
SFO San Francisco
JFK Kennedy
DFW Dallas
LAX LA
MEM Memphis (Fed Ex)
SDF Louisville (UPS)

Not a bad list if you had to pick 6, I guess, but O'Hare and ATL (big hubs) aren't there, not to mention Miami, Vegas, Hawaii (popular destinations) and maybe a few more.

But I don't know how reliable the info from the thread is.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: brtspears2
I am worried that this plane will severely limit the flight time choices for people. Instead of running 2-3x 777/787, they place a A380 in, you would be limited to one time slot. Miss your flight? Tough luck. Equipment problems? Wait it out, or hope they can find another A380 to get you there.

I say frequency beats capacity.

You guys think way too American. Unlike in America the space in most places of the world is limited. Many Airports are already operating at max capacity - how should they cope with more traffic? You cant just build new runways - besides the spce requirements, the attempt usually results in 10-20 year legal battles

If airport space is limited, then there's no room to expand runways to fit an A380 in.

Expanding a runway is way different from building new ones. Besides how big does it have to be? Runway in Frankfurt is 4000x60m

Pretty damn big... According to a link
from an earlier post here are the European airports that can handle it
FRA Frankfort
CDG Charles DeGaulle
MUC Munich
LHR London Heathrow
AMS Amsterdam
TLS Toulouse

Which might be good enough (?), I don't know.

While in the continental U.S.
SFO San Francisco
JFK Kennedy
DFW Dallas
LAX LA
MEM Memphis (Fed Ex)
SDF Louisville (UPS)

Not a bad list if you had to pick 6, I guess, but O'Hare and ATL (big hubs) aren't there, not to mention Miami, Vegas, Hawaii (popular destinations) and maybe a few more.

But I don't know how reliable the info from the thread is.

That list represents less than (estamated) 1% of the worlds runways. To buy a jet that can oly fly to or from six destinations is not a smart or profitable buisness decision. An only Four of those are commercial passanger flights.

Oh and Hawaii is begging for more space but It will never get it. They probably cannot afford the room to revamp, rebuild, or relocate an airport.

 

[gsethi]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: brtspears2
I am worried that this plane will severely limit the flight time choices for people. Instead of running 2-3x 777/787, they place a A380 in, you would be limited to one time slot. Miss your flight? Tough luck. Equipment problems? Wait it out, or hope they can find another A380 to get you there.

I say frequency beats capacity.

You guys think way too American. Unlike in America the space in most places of the world is limited. Many Airports are already operating at max capacity - how should they cope with more traffic? You cant just build new runways - besides the spce requirements, the attempt usually results in 10-20 year legal battles

If airport space is limited, then there's no room to expand runways to fit an A380 in.

Expanding a runway is way different from building new ones. Besides how big does it have to be? Runway in Frankfurt is 4000x60m

Pretty damn big... According to a link
from an earlier post here are the European airports that can handle it
FRA Frankfort
CDG Charles DeGaulle
MUC Munich
LHR London Heathrow
AMS Amsterdam
TLS Toulouse

Which might be good enough (?), I don't know.

While in the continental U.S.
SFO San Francisco
JFK Kennedy
DFW Dallas
LAX LA
MEM Memphis (Fed Ex)
SDF Louisville (UPS)

Not a bad list if you had to pick 6, I guess, but O'Hare and ATL (big hubs) aren't there, not to mention Miami, Vegas, Hawaii (popular destinations) and maybe a few more.

But I don't know how reliable the info from the thread is.

That list represents less than (estamated) 1% of the worlds runways. To buy a jet that can oly fly to or from six destinations is not a smart or profitable buisness decision. An only Four of those are commercial passanger flights.

Oh and Hawaii is begging for more space but It will never get it. They probably cannot afford the room to revamp, rebuild, or relocate an airport.

But I am sure that that list handles way more than 1% of the world's air traffic in terms of passengers.

There has to be some Asian airports on that list though inorder for the A380 to be successfull. (Hong Kong, Seoul, Japan, Bangkok, China have to be on that list)

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: George P Burdell
Isn't this why they have buses on the tarmac and travelators in terminals for? You obviously need to travel some more.

Travelators.


Nice.:thumbsup:

 

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by: goku
Say what you want, I hated the plane as soon as I was on it, it looked different and felt different but I didn't think much about it until I felt very ill and had a horrible headache, when I found out that is was an airbus, it basically explained it all. I'd hardly call it a placebo effect.

Are you retarded? I am not saying you are, just wondering if you are.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: z0mb13
IIRC even boeing admits that there is a significant market for this extra large jumbo jet (forgot how many units they predicted). They say the market is large enough for both players (Boeing and airbus)

no they didn't, boeing has made statements the international market for this size is maybe 400 planes, and that airbus is "welcome to have it".

As mentioned earlier, the breakeven point for the project is exactly how big the market is, and the more airbus encounters engineering delays and cost overruns, the less likely the project will ever make a single dime, let alone dig airbus deeper into the hole.

Of course, when you suck on government teat for your commercial product development, it doesn't really matter.

go pick up the latest version of popular mechanics. Boeing said the market for this super jumbo jet is more than 1000 planes.

"But Boeing officials insisted the market for the double-decker A380 is relatively small, and said it had no immediate plans to build planes of the same size.

Boeing's vice president of marketing, Randy Baseler, said the company's market analysis shows only about 300 passenger planes the size of the A380 were needed globally.

"We are not at this point in time addressing that 300 airplanes of above 500 seats, because we don't believe that that is an area worth spending a lot of money on because it's a relatively small market," Baseler told reporters. "Airbus, if they want to make a stretch and dilute their share ... it's OK with us.""

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=19606


"Jim Proulx, a spokesman for Boeing, said that "the A380 is chasing a market of about 300 airplanes for airplanes of 500 seats and above, and they're welcome to it.""

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/13/business/airbus.php

 

[George P Burdell]

Originally posted by: gsethi

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: brtspears2
I am worried that this plane will severely limit the flight time choices for people. Instead of running 2-3x 777/787, they place a A380 in, you would be limited to one time slot. Miss your flight? Tough luck. Equipment problems? Wait it out, or hope they can find another A380 to get you there.

I say frequency beats capacity.

You guys think way too American. Unlike in America the space in most places of the world is limited. Many Airports are already operating at max capacity - how should they cope with more traffic? You cant just build new runways - besides the spce requirements, the attempt usually results in 10-20 year legal battles

If airport space is limited, then there's no room to expand runways to fit an A380 in.

Expanding a runway is way different from building new ones. Besides how big does it have to be? Runway in Frankfurt is 4000x60m

Pretty damn big... According to a link
from an earlier post here are the European airports that can handle it
FRA Frankfort
CDG Charles DeGaulle
MUC Munich
LHR London Heathrow
AMS Amsterdam
TLS Toulouse

Which might be good enough (?), I don't know.

While in the continental U.S.
SFO San Francisco
JFK Kennedy
DFW Dallas
LAX LA
MEM Memphis (Fed Ex)
SDF Louisville (UPS)

Not a bad list if you had to pick 6, I guess, but O'Hare and ATL (big hubs) aren't there, not to mention Miami, Vegas, Hawaii (popular destinations) and maybe a few more.

But I don't know how reliable the info from the thread is.

That list represents less than (estamated) 1% of the worlds runways. To buy a jet that can oly fly to or from six destinations is not a smart or profitable buisness decision. An only Four of those are commercial passanger flights.

Oh and Hawaii is begging for more space but It will never get it. They probably cannot afford the room to revamp, rebuild, or relocate an airport.

But I am sure that that list handles way more than 1% of the world's air traffic in terms of passengers.

There has to be some Asian airports on that list though inorder for the A380 to be successfull. (Hong Kong, Seoul, Japan, Bangkok, China have to be on that list)

There's also Dubai with their new airport. India is currently working Delhi and Bombay so they should be ready in a few years. I'm sure many airports are currently being worked on, though I don't know about them.

ATL has had construction for the last few years, and they have construction scheduled for the next five. I'm sure they'll be ready for the 380 soon.

Wikipedia's list of airports compatible includes "Brisbane, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Tokyo Narita, Kuala Lumpur, London, Melbourne, Singapore, and Sydney".

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: z0mb13
IIRC even boeing admits that there is a significant market for this extra large jumbo jet (forgot how many units they predicted). They say the market is large enough for both players (Boeing and airbus)

no they didn't, boeing has made statements the international market for this size is maybe 400 planes, and that airbus is "welcome to have it".

As mentioned earlier, the breakeven point for the project is exactly how big the market is, and the more airbus encounters engineering delays and cost overruns, the less likely the project will ever make a single dime, let alone dig airbus deeper into the hole.

Of course, when you suck on government teat for your commercial product development, it doesn't really matter.

go pick up the latest version of popular mechanics. Boeing said the market for this super jumbo jet is more than 1000 planes.

"But Boeing officials insisted the market for the double-decker A380 is relatively small, and said it had no immediate plans to build planes of the same size.

Boeing's vice president of marketing, Randy Baseler, said the company's market analysis shows only about 300 passenger planes the size of the A380 were needed globally.

"We are not at this point in time addressing that 300 airplanes of above 500 seats, because we don't believe that that is an area worth spending a lot of money on because it's a relatively small market," Baseler told reporters. "Airbus, if they want to make a stretch and dilute their share ... it's OK with us.""

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=19606


"Jim Proulx, a spokesman for Boeing, said that "the A380 is chasing a market of about 300 airplanes for airplanes of 500 seats and above, and they're welcome to it.""

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/13/business/airbus.php

That's Boeing's defense for not having a double decker response. If it were the other way around, you would see AIrbus throw out random stats about how double deckers are not necessary while you Boeing fanboys would be yelling how Airbus is screwed because they don't have a big@$$ plane while Boeing does.

 

[rh71]

I just have to say... I feel sorry for anyone who has to travel 5+ hours on any one leg of airplane travel. If you do it for work sometimes, I don't envy you even if you made 6 figures. I just flew to Thailand and back (my 2nd time across the pacific) and once again I swore I'd never do it again. This was an A330 too so it wasn't small or cramped... I just can't stand being stuck on a plane for so long.

The airport thing is a PITA. Being stuck on a plane with no chance for stopping for X hours is a PITA. You have no idea how many times I swore I'd never leave the good ole USA again. Hell, flying is the biggest waste of time even if it's necessary. Going from coast to coast isn't just 6 hours... it's about 9 with the checkins and all... F-that.

 

[Nerva]

Originally posted by: Mardeth

Originally posted by: Googer

Wait to get off, walk accross 1 mile of tarmac, walk some more, and keep walking.

Im guessing you have never been to an airport before.

haha, he has a pick up truck

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: z0mb13
IIRC even boeing admits that there is a significant market for this extra large jumbo jet (forgot how many units they predicted). They say the market is large enough for both players (Boeing and airbus)

no they didn't, boeing has made statements the international market for this size is maybe 400 planes, and that airbus is "welcome to have it".

As mentioned earlier, the breakeven point for the project is exactly how big the market is, and the more airbus encounters engineering delays and cost overruns, the less likely the project will ever make a single dime, let alone dig airbus deeper into the hole.

Of course, when you suck on government teat for your commercial product development, it doesn't really matter.

go pick up the latest version of popular mechanics. Boeing said the market for this super jumbo jet is more than 1000 planes.

"But Boeing officials insisted the market for the double-decker A380 is relatively small, and said it had no immediate plans to build planes of the same size.

Boeing's vice president of marketing, Randy Baseler, said the company's market analysis shows only about 300 passenger planes the size of the A380 were needed globally.

"We are not at this point in time addressing that 300 airplanes of above 500 seats, because we don't believe that that is an area worth spending a lot of money on because it's a relatively small market," Baseler told reporters. "Airbus, if they want to make a stretch and dilute their share ... it's OK with us.""

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=19606


"Jim Proulx, a spokesman for Boeing, said that "the A380 is chasing a market of about 300 airplanes for airplanes of 500 seats and above, and they're welcome to it.""

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/13/business/airbus.php

That's Boeing's defense for not having a double decker response. If it were the other way around, you would see AIrbus throw out random stats about how double deckers are not necessary while you Boeing fanboys would be yelling how Airbus is screwed because they don't have a big@$$ plane while Boeing does.

I was just giving out Boeing's current stance, not justifications. If you had followed the replies for comprehension, you would have seen someone else was saying Boeing was making other claims.

But while we're at it, it's hardly "random stats". Boeing doesn't get free government money to throw around and waste for commercial product development. They obviously felt that for a given amount of money, it would be better spent on the 787 first.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: George P Burdell

Originally posted by: gsethi

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: brtspears2
I am worried that this plane will severely limit the flight time choices for people. Instead of running 2-3x 777/787, they place a A380 in, you would be limited to one time slot. Miss your flight? Tough luck. Equipment problems? Wait it out, or hope they can find another A380 to get you there.

I say frequency beats capacity.

You guys think way too American. Unlike in America the space in most places of the world is limited. Many Airports are already operating at max capacity - how should they cope with more traffic? You cant just build new runways - besides the spce requirements, the attempt usually results in 10-20 year legal battles

If airport space is limited, then there's no room to expand runways to fit an A380 in.

Expanding a runway is way different from building new ones. Besides how big does it have to be? Runway in Frankfurt is 4000x60m

Pretty damn big... According to a link
from an earlier post here are the European airports that can handle it
FRA Frankfort
CDG Charles DeGaulle
MUC Munich
LHR London Heathrow
AMS Amsterdam
TLS Toulouse

Which might be good enough (?), I don't know.

While in the continental U.S.
SFO San Francisco
JFK Kennedy
DFW Dallas
LAX LA
MEM Memphis (Fed Ex)
SDF Louisville (UPS)

Not a bad list if you had to pick 6, I guess, but O'Hare and ATL (big hubs) aren't there, not to mention Miami, Vegas, Hawaii (popular destinations) and maybe a few more.

But I don't know how reliable the info from the thread is.

That list represents less than (estamated) 1% of the worlds runways. To buy a jet that can oly fly to or from six destinations is not a smart or profitable buisness decision. An only Four of those are commercial passanger flights.

Oh and Hawaii is begging for more space but It will never get it. They probably cannot afford the room to revamp, rebuild, or relocate an airport.

But I am sure that that list handles way more than 1% of the world's air traffic in terms of passengers.

There has to be some Asian airports on that list though inorder for the A380 to be successfull. (Hong Kong, Seoul, Japan, Bangkok, China have to be on that list)

There's also Dubai with their new airport. India is currently working Delhi and Bombay so they should be ready in a few years. I'm sure many airports are currently being worked on, though I don't know about them.

ATL has had construction for the last few years, and they have construction scheduled for the next five. I'm sure they'll be ready for the 380 soon.

Or never...

 

[KillerCharlie]

It's a cool plane, but I wouldn't consider it high-tech. It's not the biggest airplane by weight, volume, wingspan, or length. The 787, on the other hand, is a radical departure from the ordinary civil transport - using a single large piece of carbon fiber instead of several aluminum components.

 

[ntdz]

The Boeing 787 is a better plane for what the airlines need right now. Airbus anticipated what the airline industry wrong, while Boeing got it spot on. Medium sized planes with great gas mileage and very long range.

 

[silverpig]

Vancouver has the runways for it already, and the gates will be ready in 2007.

An A380 will be landing here on the 29th

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: z0mb13
IIRC even boeing admits that there is a significant market for this extra large jumbo jet (forgot how many units they predicted). They say the market is large enough for both players (Boeing and airbus)

no they didn't, boeing has made statements the international market for this size is maybe 400 planes, and that airbus is "welcome to have it".

As mentioned earlier, the breakeven point for the project is exactly how big the market is, and the more airbus encounters engineering delays and cost overruns, the less likely the project will ever make a single dime, let alone dig airbus deeper into the hole.

Of course, when you suck on government teat for your commercial product development, it doesn't really matter.

go pick up the latest version of popular mechanics. Boeing said the market for this super jumbo jet is more than 1000 planes.

"But Boeing officials insisted the market for the double-decker A380 is relatively small, and said it had no immediate plans to build planes of the same size.

Boeing's vice president of marketing, Randy Baseler, said the company's market analysis shows only about 300 passenger planes the size of the A380 were needed globally.

"We are not at this point in time addressing that 300 airplanes of above 500 seats, because we don't believe that that is an area worth spending a lot of money on because it's a relatively small market," Baseler told reporters. "Airbus, if they want to make a stretch and dilute their share ... it's OK with us.""

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=19606


"Jim Proulx, a spokesman for Boeing, said that "the A380 is chasing a market of about 300 airplanes for airplanes of 500 seats and above, and they're welcome to it.""

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/13/business/airbus.php

That's Boeing's defense for not having a double decker response. If it were the other way around, you would see AIrbus throw out random stats about how double deckers are not necessary while you Boeing fanboys would be yelling how Airbus is screwed because they don't have a big@$$ plane while Boeing does.

I was just giving out Boeing's current stance, not justifications. If you had followed the replies for comprehension, you would have seen someone else was saying Boeing was making other claims.

But while we're at it, it's hardly "random stats". Boeing doesn't get free government money to throw around and waste for commercial product development. They obviously felt that for a given amount of money, it would be better spent on the 787 first.

Generous defence contracts are a subsidy by any other name. This is a well worn argument with no clear resolution due to obfuscation of facts by both sides.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: z0mb13
IIRC even boeing admits that there is a significant market for this extra large jumbo jet (forgot how many units they predicted). They say the market is large enough for both players (Boeing and airbus)

no they didn't, boeing has made statements the international market for this size is maybe 400 planes, and that airbus is "welcome to have it".

As mentioned earlier, the breakeven point for the project is exactly how big the market is, and the more airbus encounters engineering delays and cost overruns, the less likely the project will ever make a single dime, let alone dig airbus deeper into the hole.

Of course, when you suck on government teat for your commercial product development, it doesn't really matter.

go pick up the latest version of popular mechanics. Boeing said the market for this super jumbo jet is more than 1000 planes.

"But Boeing officials insisted the market for the double-decker A380 is relatively small, and said it had no immediate plans to build planes of the same size.

Boeing's vice president of marketing, Randy Baseler, said the company's market analysis shows only about 300 passenger planes the size of the A380 were needed globally.

"We are not at this point in time addressing that 300 airplanes of above 500 seats, because we don't believe that that is an area worth spending a lot of money on because it's a relatively small market," Baseler told reporters. "Airbus, if they want to make a stretch and dilute their share ... it's OK with us.""

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=19606


"Jim Proulx, a spokesman for Boeing, said that "the A380 is chasing a market of about 300 airplanes for airplanes of 500 seats and above, and they're welcome to it.""

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/13/business/airbus.php

That's Boeing's defense for not having a double decker response. If it were the other way around, you would see AIrbus throw out random stats about how double deckers are not necessary while you Boeing fanboys would be yelling how Airbus is screwed because they don't have a big@$$ plane while Boeing does.

I was just giving out Boeing's current stance, not justifications. If you had followed the replies for comprehension, you would have seen someone else was saying Boeing was making other claims.

But while we're at it, it's hardly "random stats". Boeing doesn't get free government money to throw around and waste for commercial product development. They obviously felt that for a given amount of money, it would be better spent on the 787 first.

Generous defence contracts are a subsidy by any other name. This is a well worn argument with no clear resolution due to obfuscation of facts by both sides.

Airbus has defense contracts also, but no one ever mentions that.

So if Airbus has defense contracts AND "optional repayment" commercial development loans, does that mean Airbus gets double the free money?

 

[silverpig]

Must you guys fully quote each other?

 

[z0mb13]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: z0mb13
IIRC even boeing admits that there is a significant market for this extra large jumbo jet (forgot how many units they predicted). They say the market is large enough for both players (Boeing and airbus)

no they didn't, boeing has made statements the international market for this size is maybe 400 planes, and that airbus is "welcome to have it".

As mentioned earlier, the breakeven point for the project is exactly how big the market is, and the more airbus encounters engineering delays and cost overruns, the less likely the project will ever make a single dime, let alone dig airbus deeper into the hole.

Of course, when you suck on government teat for your commercial product development, it doesn't really matter.

go pick up the latest version of popular mechanics. Boeing said the market for this super jumbo jet is more than 1000 planes.

"But Boeing officials insisted the market for the double-decker A380 is relatively small, and said it had no immediate plans to build planes of the same size.

Boeing's vice president of marketing, Randy Baseler, said the company's market analysis shows only about 300 passenger planes the size of the A380 were needed globally.

"We are not at this point in time addressing that 300 airplanes of above 500 seats, because we don't believe that that is an area worth spending a lot of money on because it's a relatively small market," Baseler told reporters. "Airbus, if they want to make a stretch and dilute their share ... it's OK with us.""

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=19606


"Jim Proulx, a spokesman for Boeing, said that "the A380 is chasing a market of about 300 airplanes for airplanes of 500 seats and above, and they're welcome to it.""

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/13/business/airbus.php

Hmm this is the popular mechanics artilce that I was saying about:

Airbus believes the market for aircraft that carry 500-plus passengers will be about 1200 planes over the next 15 years. Boeing, which initially argued that the market is no greater than 350 planes, now seems to quietly agree that the world needs a next-generation jumbo. Its recent forecasts on the demand for jets in this category are far more bullish than its public pronouncements. "They are now saying that the market could be almost 1000 planes," aerospace consultant Scott Hamilton notes. "That means room for both Airbus and Boeing."

Link can be found here