FedEx Scraps Airbus A380 Order, to Buy 15 Boeing 777s

[compuwiz1]

Airbus better get it together, or they could go the way of the Spruce Goose.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Airbus better get it together, or they could go the way of the Spruce Goose.

I think you mean they'll go the way of the Luftwaffe

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Isnt the A380 too big for a bunch of airports? If so, could that have anything to do with the decision?

Las Vegas will not allow the A380 in.
The wake creates to large of a spacing requirement and they would have to close most of the airport until the plane was at the gate.

 

[K1052]

updated

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Airbus better get it together, or they could go the way of the Spruce Goose.

I think you mean they'll go the way of the Luftwaffe

The Luftwaffe still exists.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: sandorski
The A380 will still be a success, just not until it's available. The switch in orders shows why, fewer planes to carry the same load is a big advantage. Provided that you can get them.

I honestly dont know if the A380 will be a success at this point.

I don't think it will...I think that plane is the wrong strategy for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it relies on the hub and spoke model of air transport to become even more prominent than it is right now, and given the increasing strain on hub airports in many countries, I suspect more direct flights are the future...which plays nicely into Boeing's hands.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: sandorski
The A380 will still be a success, just not until it's available. The switch in orders shows why, fewer planes to carry the same load is a big advantage. Provided that you can get them.

I honestly dont know if the A380 will be a success at this point.

I don't think it will...I think that plane is the wrong strategy for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it relies on the hub and spoke model of air transport to become even more prominent than it is right now, and given the increasing strain on hub airports in many countries, I suspect more direct flights are the future...which plays nicely into Boeing's hands.

I think the passenger loads will determine if it is a success or not. One of the things is, the 767 is the most used equipment on transcontinetal flights. The 767 is a 250-300pax plane.

If they needed more seats the 747s and DC-10s could do the job but they dont. So does it make sense to buy a plane that doubles the capacity of the most used piece of equipment today? I guess it all depends on what they expect for passenger loads in 15-25 years.

Boeing obviously feels the 200-350 range is where it is at and worked on efficieny per mile. While Airbus went for sitting as many butts as possible to reduce the cost per mile.

I have a feeling Boeings strategy is better, but only time will tell.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Balt


Not good news?

It's great news for the United States and Boeing. Fair competition is healthy, but Airbus receives government subsidies so I have zero sympathy.

Not good news for Airbus.
Being an American, I obviously prefer that Boeing get the orders.

Airbus argues that Boeing's gov contracts are basically the same thing, though it is looking increasingly like the EU is going to have to pull their bacon out of the fire again on the A380.

The EADS also gets european government defense contracts.

 

[Slickone]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: sandorski
The A380 will still be a success, just not until it's available. The switch in orders shows why, fewer planes to carry the same load is a big advantage. Provided that you can get them.

I honestly dont know if the A380 will be a success at this point.

I don't think it will...I think that plane is the wrong strategy for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it relies on the hub and spoke model of air transport to become even more prominent than it is right now, and given the increasing strain on hub airports in many countries, I suspect more direct flights are the future...which plays nicely into Boeing's hands.

I think the passenger loads will determine if it is a success or not. One of the things is, the 767 is the most used equipment on transcontinetal flights. The 767 is a 250-300pax plane.

If they needed more seats the 747s and DC-10s could do the job but they dont. So does it make sense to buy a plane that doubles the capacity of the most used piece of equipment today? I guess it all depends on what they expect for passenger loads in 15-25 years.

Boeing obviously feels the 200-350 range is where it is at and worked on efficieny per mile. While Airbus went for sitting as many butts as possible to reduce the cost per mile.

I have a feeling Boeings strategy is better, but only time will tell.

Also some parts of the 787 are being redesigned, and some aluminum parts being replaced with titanium, to reduce weight, which will make the 787 even more effecient/better performing than the specs customers had. The 787 orders have surpassed any previous new design orders from them.
Text

 

[Slickone]

Airbus - more:

Airbus woes not limited to A380
The current spate of problems at Airbus aren't confined only to its struggling A380 superjumbo jet program. In a blow for the European jetmaker, Emirates this week reportedly decided to cancel an order for up to 20 of the long-range A340-600 jets it had ordered from the jetmaker. "Emirates delayed the delivery in March after Airbus proposed making an enhanced version of the high-gross-weight variant of the plane. Emirates President Tim Clark said at the time that the airline did not want to take delivery of an aircraft that would overtaken by a better model," Reuters reports. That was followed by a quote this week by Emirates spokesman Mike Simon, who offered no further explanation when he said: "We will not be taking delivery of these planes."

Airbus also is losing ground with airlines that were once loyal customers. In Latin America, Boeing inked a deal with TAM, the largest Brazilian airline and the top Airbus customer in Latin America. "The deal is important for Boeing because it breaks the stranglehold Airbus has had on the airline's business in recent years. Boeing said the international airline would become the first Latin American carrier to operate the long-range 777-300ER," writes The Wall Street Journal (subscription required). The Seattle Post-Intelligencer adds that "in picking the Boeing jet, TAM rejected the A340-600 offered by Airbus. That's another setback for Airbus, which has seen sales of its A340 family of planes almost disappear. ? With fuel prices sky high, airlines have said they favor the two-engine 777 over the four-engine A340," the paper writes. TAM already has an order for an Airbus A350 mid-size jet, but The Seattle Times says the carrier needed the 777s right away to fly new routes to Europe.

And Airbus was dealt more bad news on its A380 superjumbo jet, which has been beset by problems that have put Airbus nearly two years behind schedule on the model. The latest comes from Japan Airlines (JAL), which said early this week that it does not plan to consider buying the A380. "The A380 is a completely controversial concept to the present aviation market," JAL CEO Haruka Nishimatsu says according to the Malaysia Star, which cites a report in the Financial Times. "The A380 has a much bigger problem than the 787 in terms of delivery," Nishimatsu says. The Star writes that the JAL CEO believes the A380 runs "counter to a trend in the market whereby most carriers preferred to purchase more fuel-efficient, mid-sized planes such as Boeing 787s."

However, there is some good news for Airbus. On Sunday, Australian carrier increased its order for Airbus's A380 jets to 20, an increase of eight.

 

[GTaudiophile]

It would be a good move on Boeing's part to RIGHT NOW like next week put out a press release that their 787 series is on track for on-time delvery.

Really sieze the day while Airbus is on its knees.

 

[Genx87]

The Star writes that the JAL CEO believes the A380 runs "counter to a trend in the market whereby most carriers preferred to purchase more fuel-efficient, mid-sized planes such as Boeing 787s."

This pretty much backs my previous post about the 200-350 pax capacity airlines are looking for and expecting for the next 15-25 years.

 

[intogamer]

How big is the 777 compared to the A380?

How big are we talking here?

I think Fedex is going to have a circle transport on their biggest hubs. Memphis>Newark>IN>TX>CA>AK and International Flights

 

[Colt45]

****** 'em both. Buy an Antonov if you want big. Probably half the price too.

http://www.antonov.com/products/air/transport/AN-124/index.xml

 

[Googer]

Welcome to November 1, 2006. REPOST.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: intogamer
How big is the 777 compared to the A380?

How big are we talking here?

I think Fedex is going to have a circle transport on their biggest hubs. Memphis>Newark>IN>TX>CA>AK and International Flights

Airbus A380-800
Seating capacity: 555
Length: 239 ft
Span: 261 ft
Maximum take-off weight: 1,235,000 lbs
Range at design load: 15,000 km

747-400
Seating capacity: 416
Length: 231 ft
Span: 211 ft
Maximum take-off weight: 875,000 lbs.
Range fully loaded: 13,450 km

777-300ER
Seating capacity: 365-550
Length: 242 ft
Span: 212 ft
Maximum take-off weight: 775,000 lbs.
Range: 14,594 km

Remember, the B777 is doing it with two engines, not four. That's a big reduction in fuel and maintenance costs.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: magomago
Wow that sucks for Airbus! Btw I don't see how I should be cheering for boeing...its a company. IF you can't swim you will sink. Maybe if I was an employee of Boeing I'd be enthralled because it would mean a Christmas bonus or something, but other than that I don't see how we relate "Boeing" and the "US" together. Do we cheer when walmart opens more stores?

ummm Boeing pays a bit more than min wage...

besides what in the hell kind of logic is that? :disgust: