New problems for the Airbus A380

[PYX]

Before posting new messages, read the previous pages...

I read through the previous messages, but unlike you and others here who are so blindly bias in favor of Airbus, I'm trying to see through the smoke and mirrors.
When it is all said and done I'm sure you will find the problems were far greater than just the wiring.

[CX]

OK let's admit it, no one can be totally neutral, it is impossible that you are equally in favour of Airbus and Boeing. Even biased, facts are facts.

Whether there are other problems with the A380 apart from wiring, only they will know, but my guess is, if some other problems do exist, it will somehow be leaked out by an employee or something..

As for whether some airlines will lease a plane to cover the A380 delay, I think that is possible, especially for Emirates.

[David747]

OK let's admit it, no one can be totally neutral, it is impossible that you are equally in favour of Airbus and Boeing. Even biased, facts are facts.

Whether there are other problems with the A380 apart from wiring, only they will know, but my guess is, if some other problems do exist, it will somehow be leaked out by an employee or something..

As for whether some airlines will lease a plane to cover the A380 delay, I think that is possible, especially for Emirates.

First, I don't understand why people can't be neutral when it comes to Both companies, we don't work for them, well, I least I don't so I praise and criticize both when necessary, I hope everyone else could do the same.
Second, I agree CX, only Airbus will know if there are more problems with the A380 and only a leak of that information will allow the public to know. Hopefully the problem of the A380 will be just wiring. Third, what planes do you think Emirates will seek to cover for the delay? It could be possible that Emirates could cancel a few A380's and replace them with the 747-8I. This delay also gives Boeing an opportunity to push for Emirates to committ to the 787-10.

[achace]

Its a great pity that production has slipped a further year, but can anyone offer an alternative available in that time frame?

The main issue is that it is obvious that the SIA order increase confirms that the beast performs as promised. This delay over the life of the project will in the end be seen as no more than a glitch.

Cheers
Achace

[CX]

OK let's admit it, no one can be totally neutral, it is impossible that you are equally in favour of Airbus and Boeing. Even biased, facts are facts.

Whether there are other problems with the A380 apart from wiring, only they will know, but my guess is, if some other problems do exist, it will somehow be leaked out by an employee or something..

As for whether some airlines will lease a plane to cover the A380 delay, I think that is possible, especially for Emirates.

First, I don't understand why people can't be neutral when it comes to Both companies, we don't work for them, well, I least I don't so I praise and criticize both when necessary, I hope everyone else could do the same.
Second, I agree CX, only Airbus will know if there are more problems with the A380 and only a leak of that information will allow the public to know. Hopefully the problem of the A380 will be just wiring. Third, what planes do you think Emirates will seek to cover for the delay? It could be possible that Emirates could cancel a few A380's and replace them with the 747-8I. This delay also gives Boeing an opportunity to push for Emirates to committ to the 787-10.

Honestly, with 43 beasts on order, I don't see Emirates will switch to the 748I, they obviously want A380s to be their future fleet, and I mean just how many 748I will they order if they do so? This delay (one year) probably means they're receiving maybe 4, 5 less than what they would've receive in the next few years. Currently they operate no passenger 747s, so apart from deliberatly wanting to start a huge protest against Airbus, I don't think they'll get 748Is.
A plane that they might be offered to cover the delay can be A346HGWs, which they intended to order before. I mean Airbus just can't let Emirates get a Boeing plane to cover/replace their own orders. You let Ethiad go it is less of a problem, but with 43 A380s on order, and a huge potential A350 customer (787 does not conflict with xwb), you just can't let Emirates slip away.

[CX]

Its a great pity that production has slipped a further year, but can anyone offer an alternative available in that time frame?

The main issue is that it is obvious that the SIA order increase confirms that the beast performs as promised. This delay over the life of the project will in the end be seen as no more than a glitch.

Cheers
Achace

Yes, but how they manage this 'glitch' is a potential problem, the way they are trying to fix this has not been right, or else this 'glitch' shouldn't even been a glitch.

[smokejumper]

There is another issue to be considered, in addition to compensation, that of inflation.

Airbus has fixed price contracts for the A380 in place. By delaying production and delivery, labor costs will probably be higher each year due to labor contracts. Also, I do not know what the suppliers (e.g., engines, wings, tail sections, etc) have in their contracts, but if I was the supplier, I'd demand a higher price since my costs would also be increased. Are the suppliers risk sharing partners?

[DFW]

Good point. On the flip side, EADS may get some relief though if the Euro comes down. No one expected that the Euro would be this strong when the deals were made.

[achace]

Having worked for a multi-national group, the news given out that the wiring disaster stems from the use of three different and now obviously incompatible software programmes, each obviously giving different answers as far as routing and lengths were concerned is totally believable!

Unfortunately so often the "we are right" attitude takes precedence over good sound common sense, quite often nationalistic in origins.

I suspect if not already identified and resolved, Boeing will be looking at who is using what in their very far flung production programme on the 787.

On the bright side, having identified the problem for what it is, there are solutions, maybe even quicker than has been suggested by the latest delay, which if they have an ounce(or gram) of brains has a built-in fudge factor.

Cheers
Achace

[Stepha380]

There is another issue to be considered, in addition to compensation, that of inflation.

Airbus has fixed price contracts for the A380 in place. By delaying production and delivery, labor costs will probably be higher each year due to labor contracts. Also, I do not know what the suppliers (e.g., engines, wings, tail sections, etc) have in their contracts, but if I was the supplier, I'd demand a higher price since my costs would also be increased. Are the suppliers risk sharing partners?

Major suppliers have shared the investments with Airbus to be part of the program, I don't think it is in their interest to increase their prices, however, inflation is taken into account in the contracts but I don't think compensation are foreseen when the customer delays the delivery in this particular case. (we have not heard anything like this from engine manufacturers for example).

[David747]

Before posting new messages, read the previous pages...

I read through the previous messages, but unlike you and others here who are so blindly bias in favor of Airbus, I'm trying to see through the smoke and mirrors.
When it is all said and done I'm sure you will find the problems were far greater than just the wiring.

And you are baised towards Boeing, what's the problem?

[PYX]

I am. Never said I wasn't, but I am willing to look at both sides of the story and know the difference between direct government funding and tax breaks.
Here, just for you, someone else's point of view:

".......Airbus is a good plane maker. But as an industrial model, it’s in dire need of change. The bad old days of getting 70% of its equity from governments and their large industrial proxies is ending. EADS/Airbus needs cash (equity or debt) from new private sector investors. What does a broad float of new investors get them?.....

See, "Aboulafia digs France," "posted at 10/12/2006 09:18:00 AM" here,
http://iagblog.blogspot.com/

[David747]

I am. Never said I wasn't, but I am willing to look at both sides of the story and know the difference between direct government funding and tax breaks.
Here, just for you, someone else's point of view:

".......Airbus is a good plane maker. But as an industrial model, it’s in dire need of change. The bad old days of getting 70% of its equity from governments and their large industrial proxies is ending. EADS/Airbus needs cash (equity or debt) from new private sector investors. What does a broad float of new investors get them?.....

See, "Aboulafia digs France," "posted at 10/12/2006 09:18:00 AM" here,
http://iagblog.blogspot.com/

Like I said, you are biased to the point where you are willing to excuse a subsidy for one manufacturer, and condemn the other, :laugh: Of course, the fact that you don't know much about the US/EU agreement will lead you to drink the Boeing kool aid instead of trying to look at thing from both sides, which you obviously can't do.

[RC20]

What I can do is seperate out the techncial merits from each other.

I really get tire of that bogus subsidies argument. Its like you are part of the Airbus propaganda campaign.

Lets separate things out.

Boeing has a governments division as does Airbus (EADS), which includes jet fighters, transports, missiles, satellites, smart bombs and all that good stuff.

In many cases, in Europe, they do not compete these programs, they come with a proposal, and figure out how to divvy up the work shares, and then they make it. Extremely inefficient, no competition, and its simply turning money over to their Aerospace groups. That’s a subsidy.

The US has competition, sometimes not so good, but there is competition. Both side then try to keep the production lines gong once they start. Its up the the congress to keep that in line (and yes I know they are corrupt).

There is not ONE US company that is government owned. Many of the European ones are

I am willing to call it a wash on who gets what benefit, though while I cannot prove it, I think it’s a given, that the European companies get more. Boeing is willing to let that go as well (no way to untangle it, and it does not affect them so they let it go).

Now lets look at aircraft subsidies. A huge deal is made when Washington state evens out its tax rate (and for aerospace it used to be very high). Boeing wanted equal treatment and got it. The days of being able to compete and still pay for Washington states prosperity are over.

Airbus sites this, but they take even greater subsidies from Alabama to set up the A330 tanker factory. So, why should be even allow a US state to subsidize a foreign firm?

And, the papers in Europe site the act that Germany spend “hundreds of millions in Euros to build up the Hamburg production facility”. Washington state did not do that for Boeing. And there are literally hundred if not billions of those same subsides by all European parties in this. Its part of Boeings WTA case and why Airbus will loose it.

Those far surpass anything Boeing has, AND WE HAVE NOT EVEN GOTTEN TO THE DIRECT LAUCNH AID, which Boeing does not nor ever has gotten.

And, I am not enamored with Boeing sending so much of the 787 production overseas. I would be all in favor of taxes on those parts to make up for the lost jobs in the US. And I will admit, that I am unabashedly biased to the US. I think the government should use all legal means to keep jobs in the US, and not ship them overseas.

[achace]

RC20, I sympathize with your sentiments, but USA is a part of the free trade agreement.

Unfortunately if import duties were levied on the foreign content of the 787, the only victims would be the US customers, as any duty imposed would be refunded once the aircraft went to an offshore carrier.

To be fair to Boeing, I am sure they have done as much as they could to maximize the US content, but the foreign partners did put up the cash to participate, even if (dare I say it) some of them received soft loans/ subsidies to do so.

Lets face it Boeing and Airbus although nationalistic, and rightly so, buy significant percentages of their planes from offshore.

If memory serves me correctly, about 35% of an airbus is of US origin.

The Boeing percentage when RR engines are fitted will not be so far behind.

Cheers
Achace

[airazurxtror]

Emrates could well cancel some orders for A380 if there are further delays, and order B777-300 as substitution, said Tim Clark, president of Emirates :
http://fr.news.yahoo.com/13102006/5/emi ... n-cas.html

[RC20]

RC20, I sympathize with your sentiments, but USA is a part of the free trade agreement.

Unfortunately if import duties were levied on the foreign content of the 787, the only victims would be the US customers, as any duty imposed would be refunded once the aircraft went to an offshore carrier.

To be fair to Boeing, I am sure they have done as much as they could to maximize the US content, but the foreign partners did put up the cash to participate, even if (dare I say it) some of them received soft loans/ subsidies to do so.

Lets face it Boeing and Airbus although nationalistic, and rightly so, buy significant percentages of their planes from offshore.

If memory serves me correctly, about 35% of an airbus is of US origin.

The Boeing percentage when RR engines are fitted will not be so far behind.

Cheers
Achace

Agreed, I do think that our government does a horrible job in representing the interests of its citizens, but that’s a whole different website, and beyond the discussion limits other than what’s been talked about.

[boeing797]

RC20, I sympathize with your sentiments, but USA is a part of the free trade agreement.

Unfortunately if import duties were levied on the foreign content of the 787, the only victims would be the US customers, as any duty imposed would be refunded once the aircraft went to an offshore carrier.

To be fair to Boeing, I am sure they have done as much as they could to maximize the US content, but the foreign partners did put up the cash to participate, even if (dare I say it) some of them received soft loans/ subsidies to do so.

Lets face it Boeing and Airbus although nationalistic, and rightly so, buy significant percentages of their planes from offshore.

If memory serves me correctly, about 35% of an airbus is of US origin.

The Boeing percentage when RR engines are fitted will not be so far behind.

Cheers
Achace

Agreed, I do think that our government does a horrible job in representing the interests of its citizens, but that’s a whole different website, and beyond the discussion limits other than what’s been talked about.

The US government never represents the interests of its citizens; it represents ones of corporates, tycoons and even FOREIGN countries. Although I am against European government subsidies to Airbus, I believe they have done the right thing. Look at Airbus's achievements, and its contribution to Euro economy. And Japan, Korean, China. These countries provide subsidies to key industries not only creating tons of jobs but also helping their country grasping the lead in technology innovations.

Well I am off the topic. Sorry.

CP

[achace]

Boeing and Airbus need partners these days to build new planes, its just too expensive to do "in-house"

Hopefully they will continue to keep sensitive technology at home. No need to produce a competitor is there?

Its interesting to note how little technology gets transferred by the big three engine builders.

Cheers
Achace

[smokejumper]

Today's edition of The Wall Street Journal has an article regarding the A380. Among the issues reported are:
- The breakeven point is now substantially above the 250 unit number publically announced. Airbus insiders confirm this but no new breakeven point number has been released.
- The market for large planes is lower than befire due the cost of fuel. Except for a few selected heavily traveled routes, airlines realize that they need to fly more fuel efficient planes in a point-to-point manner.