Airbus A380

[The Gentleman Scamp]

I'm not a n aviation or engineering nut but I can't help but take a big interest in this new bohoemeth that will be gracing our skies (and the skies over Thailand) in the coming years, however, I do have my concerns. (and so may Thai people and expats coming to Thailand)

1: We have seen that it can fly, but there are already orders for hundreds of these planes and yet the worlds fuel is supposed to be on the decline to the point that by the time the A380 is a regular sight at mainline airports, (Including the new Bangkok airport at Suphanburi or wherever) surely the price of fuel will have risen considerably enough to have a big impact on the cost of travel, which would contradict the point of the A380 objective.

2: If there is just one accident too early on that involves fatality or not, Airbus will be finished.

3: Won't the arrival of the A380 have terrorists licking their lips as well as Airbus bigwigs?

4: If a success, is it possible that it would hurt Boeing so much that they may even be reduced to sabotage?

I admit I am looking at the worst case scenarios and I'm not quite as cynical as I am making out, but they are all points that I have thought about following a very interesting 2hr documentary last Sunday.

I have been following the A380 since I first heard about it years ago, back when it was the AXXX and it was my first point that came to mind even back then.

I would love to fly on one but only after it had been inservice at least six months.

What do you all think?

Would Buff horns want to fly on the A380?

Would Mattnich, dereklev or Pie Boy fly on it?

Would Wolfie?

I also saw a photo of the A380 in the Bangkok Post which is a newspaper for expats in Thailand.

[daleyboy]

I'm not a n aviation or engineering nut but I can't help but take a big interest in this new bohoemeth that will be gracing our skies (and the skies over Thailand) in the coming years, however, I do have my concerns. (and so may Thai people and expats coming to Thailand)

1: We have seen that it can fly, but there are already orders for hundreds of these planes and yet the worlds fuel is supposed to be on the decline to the point that by the time the A380 is a regular sight at mainline airports, (Including the new Bangkok airport at Suphanburi or wherever) surely the price of fuel will have risen considerably enough to have a big impact on the cost of travel, which would contradict the point of the A380 objective. 

2: If there is just one accident too early on that involves fatality or not, Airbus will be finished. 

3: Won't the arrival of the A380 have terrorists licking their lips as well as Airbus bigwigs? 

4: If a success, is it possible that it would hurt Boeing so much that they may even be reduced to sabotage? 

I admit I am looking at the worst case scenarios and I'm not quite as cynical as I am making out, but they are all points that I have thought about following a very interesting 2hr documentary last Sunday.

I have been following the A380 since I first heard about it years ago, back when it was the AXXX and it was my first point that came to mind even back then.

I would love to fly on one but only after it had been inservice at least six months.

What do you all think?   

Would Buff horns want to fly on the A380?

Would Mattnich, dereklev or Pie Boy fly on it?

Would Wolfie? 

I also saw a photo of the A380 in the Bangkok Post which is a newspaper for expats in Thailand. 

just making sure you got the thai bits in

My friend helped on the design of the wing in Bristol at airbus, and he has been on the plane while it was on the ground and he reckons it is a true feat of engineering

[Spee]

My own wrong opinions ....

1: We have seen that it can fly, but there are already orders for hundreds of these planes and yet the worlds fuel is supposed to be on the decline to the point that by the time the A380 is a regular sight at mainline airports

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The biggest issue is modifying airport gates to accommodate the double decks and other facilities to handle the sheer volume of people. We're talking in excess of 600-700 people. If the airports can't reasonably accommodate them, then the airlines can't use them. For example, I read somewhere that few if any American airports will be making modifications for them. But so what, most of the jumbo traffic is in the Pacific Rim anyway.

2: If there is just one accident too early on that involves fatality or not, Airbus will be finished. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Possible, but unlikely. The amount of qualification testing required to make an aircraft flight ready for commercial passengers is incredible. These and other aircraft have all kinds of fault tolerance built in.

The closest recent thing was the unfortunate accident with the Concorde, which was something of a fluke (though not to diminish the severity or the lives lost). If that debris is a few feet either side of the wheel, then nothing happens.

It is rarely the mechanics of the machine that cause catastrophic failures. More often than not, there are human errors in the loop.

3: Won't the arrival of the A380 have terrorists licking their lips as well as Airbus bigwigs? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, possibly but unlikely. Security will be incredibly tight for one thing. For another, Airbus is based in France and the French government has been anti-US/UK in recent middle east activity, if not sympathetic to the plight of some countries known to harbor terrorist elements. Why do something to turn a neutral (?) or ally (?) country against them?

4: If a success, is it possible that it would hurt Boeing so much that they may even be reduced to sabotage? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're way off the deep end on this one Scamp! The aircraft industry is so compact now that what hurts one will hurt the other. Boeing looked at doing the design, but felt that their best long term strategy is to keep the 747 which is and has been hugely profitable, and then move forward with their smaller 7E7. They have more orders for the 7E7 than they can handle right now. They have little need to worry about Airbus, nor Airbus to Boeing. Boeing's biggest concern is getting their 7E7 flight qualified. This will be no insignificant feat, as it will be the world's first majority composite commercial passenger aircraft. It is more revolutionary than the A380, a plane whose general design has been around for decades.

Edited June 27, 2005 by Spee

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Very well said Spee

[The Gentleman Scamp]

Well Spee, you haven't left much room for discussion but you have at least made me feel a little better about the whole thing.

[Sir Burr]

I believe that the wing of the A380 was designed so that the maximum wing length did not exceed the maximum that the aprons can handle. The air-bridges themselves will not have to be modified.

My only worry is how long it is going to take to board passengers. If the plane departs the gate within +/- 5 minutes of departure time, it is considered "on schedule". Instead of checking in at the recommended two hours before departure, for the A380, this may have to be changed to three, maybe even four hours before departure.

Edited June 28, 2005 by Sir Burr

[TokyoT]

It is already a nightmare to board the large 747’s at many Asian airports – nobody seems to understand the concept of standing in line, and waiting your turn. Can you image what it will be like when the number of passengers doubles?

I think the price of fuel may play a role in several ways. Not only in regard to the economics of the A380 but also in regard to the money people have available to travel in general.

Along the lines of accidents – The only thing I could foresee as a possible disaster would be if something went wrong with the plane while still on the ground and evacuating the plane quickly became of the utmost importance. How do you get 600 people out of that thing quickly? Do you want to be on the upper deck and have to use the slide?

I don’t thin terrorist will target the A380 any more than any other plane. Unless of course Airbus offers some kind of special flight school training for them.

Did not surprise me to see many of the Asian carriers make orders for the planes as the Pacific rim seems to be the main market for such an airplane.

[The Gentleman Scamp]

How do you get 600 people out of that thing quickly? Do you want to be on the upper deck and have to use the slide?

I'm sure this was taken into account by the design team.

There was a whole factory and think tank in the U.S. totally devoted to the slide design and evacuation.

[sadman]

Like a previous poster, I have a friend working for BAe down at Bristol and he thinks the thing is just incredible.

Also, given that the A380 is intended (we shall see) to fly more people for greater distances using less fuel per passenger and with less environmental impact, I think that Boeing and others would be wise to be worried in the long term. Look how long the 747 has been in service - if the A380 takes the market place by storm and maintains a grip for the next 30 years, competitors may find themselves perusing the situations vacant sections of the newspapers.

Also, by its launch date, the A380 had secured 80% of orders required to hit the break-even point, which bodes well for what seems to be an awesome aeroplane.

[Spee]

Look how long the 747 has been in service - if the A380 takes the market place by storm and maintains a grip for the next 30 years, competitors may find themselves perusing the situations vacant sections of the newspapers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Newer isn't always better. While the same general 747 airframe has been in service for about 35 years, the newest 747-400's are hardly like the originals. Also, the key to the 747 v. the A380 is its age and legacy. The 747 production line has been paid for many moons ago, and has been running for so long that it is extremely efficient.

All of this and other factors, make for a very profitable product. This is huge difference compared to a brand new product with a big enough up front investment to potentially bring the company down in a worst case scenario.

I'm not discounting the fact that getting the A380 prototype to first flight is a tremendous feat of modern engineering. It really is something.

Also, by its launch date, the A380 had secured 80% of orders required to hit the break-even point, which bodes well for what seems to be an awesome aeroplane.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think anyone has any doubt that Airbus will secure enough orders to reach their break even point on paper. The key is whether or not Airbus can meet the production schedules to deliver sufficient quanities to generate sufficient cash flow to reach the break even point, and then go beyond.

We're talking many billions of dollars of finance for the R&D and production startup costs. This is all up front money that is already spent and sitting there in big red numbers in the company books. Airbus won't recoup any significant money until they start delivering aircraft. I think first aircraft delivery is still a couple of years away. That's a long time for billions of debt to be sitting on the ledger.

Even people working for Airbus will tell you that this is their major concern. Can they meet their product delivery schedules to sustain the cash flow they need to reach long term profitability and success with the program?

[sadman]

Look how long the 747 has been in service - if the A380 takes the market place by storm and maintains a grip for the next 30 years, competitors may find themselves perusing the situations vacant sections of the newspapers.

Newer isn't always better. While the same general 747 airframe has been in service for about 35 years, the newest 747-400's are hardly like the originals. Also, the key to the 747 v. the A380 is its age and legacy. The 747 production line has been paid for many moons ago, and has been running for so long that it is extremely efficient.

All of this and other factors, make for a very profitable product. This is huge difference compared to a brand new product with a big enough up front investment to potentially bring the company down in a worst case scenario.

I'm not discounting the fact that getting the A380 prototype to first flight is a tremendous feat of modern engineering. It really is something.

Also, by its launch date, the A380 had secured 80% of orders required to hit the break-even point, which bodes well for what seems to be an awesome aeroplane.

I don't think anyone has any doubt that Airbus will secure enough orders to reach their break even point on paper. The key is whether or not Airbus can meet the production schedules to deliver sufficient quanities to generate sufficient cash flow to reach the break even point, and then go beyond.

We're talking many billions of dollars of finance for the R&D and production startup costs. This is all up front money that is already spent and sitting there in big red numbers in the company books. Airbus won't recoup any significant money until they start delivering aircraft. I think first aircraft delivery is still a couple of years away. That's a long time for billions of debt to be sitting on the ledger.

Even people working for Airbus will tell you that this is their major concern. Can they meet their product delivery schedules to sustain the cash flow they need to reach long term profitability and success with the program?

You're absolutely right on all counts, IMHO. However, I think I'd rather be an investor/creditor/employee of BAe than Boeing at present. I'm certainly not suggesting that Boeing McDonnell-Douglas (or is it the other way round?) will go to the wall in the next couple of years, but I do feel that their reign as kings of the passenger aircraft may be reaching its conclusion.

[Spee]

However, I think I'd rather be an investor/creditor/employee of BAe than Boeing at present. I'm certainly not suggesting that Boeing McDonnell-Douglas (or is it the other way round?) will go to the wall in the next couple of years, but I do feel that their reign as kings of the passenger aircraft may be reaching its conclusion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wouldn't invest in any aerospace industries right now. It's too dicey of a proposition, too unstable especially with fuel prices and several airlines worldwide virtually bankrupt or close to going belly-up. I don't know that Boeing has ever been the "king" of passenger aircraft. They have some products that have been very successful (e.g., 737, 747, etc.), but others that have not. They will also never be allowed to go under because they have too much strategic value to the US government.

[Spee]

It is already a nightmare to board the large 747’s at many Asian airports – nobody seems to understand the concept of standing in line, and waiting your turn.  Can you image what it will be like when the number of passengers doubles?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No kidding! Many moons ago I flew on a 747 from Fukuoka to Tokyo Haneda. Even though it was a 747, it was essentially a commuter airplane. There was very little baggage checked. Most of the passengers were of the suits and briefcase type. The plane was configured in full coach seating, front to back and top and bottom. I estimated there somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 passengers on the flight. It was a zoo!

The basic 3-class configuration for the A380 calls for approximately 555 seats. Analysts indicate that an all-economy class version of the aircraft could seat up to about 800 passengers. This would almost certainly call for a quad jetbridge set-up (2 floors front and middle), as well as all the internal gating facilities to check that large quantity of people in and out of the plane.

[patsfangr]

You're way off the deep end on this one Scamp! The aircraft industry is so compact now that what hurts one will hurt the other. Boeing looked at doing the design, but felt that their best long term strategy is to keep the 747 which is and has been hugely profitable, and then move forward with their smaller 7E7. They have more orders for the 7E7 than they can handle right now. They have little need to worry about Airbus, nor Airbus to Boeing. Boeing's biggest concern is getting their 7E7 flight qualified. This will be no insignificant feat, as it will be the world's first majority composite commercial passenger aircraft. It is more revolutionary than the A380, a plane whose general design has been around for decades.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am, of course, hopelessly biased, having been Boeing employed for the past 20 years. Still, I objectively believe that Boeing has read the needs of the market much more accurately than has A***** (a profanity that I can not bring myself to say aloud or type). The 7E7 provides greater range, and considerably greater flexibility in its use than does the airborne cruise ship. It will be considerably more economical, and, as is the case with all Boeing aircraft, more easily maintained, with significantly superior customer support for the airlines.

Boeing, and its merged McDonnell Douglas elements, has made the best airplanes in the world since the airplane was invented. That, despite the sales figures inflated by the A***** subsidy funded price cuts , will not change in the foreseeable future.

[TokyoT]

I am, of course, hopelessly biased, having been Boeing employed for the past 20 years. Still, I objectively believe that Boeing has read the needs of the market much more accurately than has A*****  (a profanity that I can not bring myself to say aloud or type).  The 7E7 provides greater range, and considerably greater flexibility in its use than does the airborne cruise ship. It will be considerably more economical, and, as is the case with all Boeing aircraft, more easily maintained, with significantly superior customer support for the airlines.

Boeing, and its merged McDonnell Douglas elements, has made the best airplanes in the world since the airplane was invented. That, despite the sales figures inflated by the A***** subsidy funded price cuts  , will not change in the foreseeable future.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Europeans (including the UK) will not allow Airbus to fail. The US will not allow Boeing to fail.

Don’t really know enough specifics to comment on the economics to compare the A380 and the 7E7 – so I won’t. Time will tell if there is room in the market for both system, or if one company truly made the better call.

As far as the “subsidies” for Airbus – this is of course a rather hotly debated topic/issue in regard to European/US trade relations. I find myself in a rather unique position of actually agreeing with the Europeans on this one. Europe give subsidies, the US gives tax breaks – different, but the same. I mean just look at the “effective tax” for Boeing in 2004 – direct from the Boeing 10-K report – effective tax rate 7.1%. A company paying less than 10% tax should not be whining about subsidies – make no mistake Boeing got their corporate welfare just as Airbus is getting theirs.

Another little clip from the Boeing 10-K in regard to tax:

"During 2004 we received $896 million relating to federal income tax refunds for which estimated accruals had primarily been recorded in prior periods. Of this amount, $681 million related to the 2003 federal tax return...."

$681 million tax REFUND related to 2003 - man 2003 must have been a really rough year for Boeing.

[patsfangr]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

$681 million tax REFUND related to 2003 - man 2003 must have been a really rough year for Boeing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It sure as ###### was! I personally had to lay off 20% of my employees. We were still reeling from 9/11, as the airlines continued to suffer and cut back on current aircraft. Buying new ones was virtually out of the question. Boeing lost tens of thousands of employees in 2003. Things began to stabalize in 2004, and this year has seen our first true signs of recovery.

[TokyoT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

$681 million tax REFUND related to 2003 - man 2003 must have been a really rough year for Boeing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It sure as ###### was! I personally had to lay off 20% of my employees. We were still reeling from 9/11, as the airlines continued to suffer and cut back on current aircraft. Buying new ones was virtually out of the question. Boeing lost tens of thousands of employees in 2003. Things began to stabalize in 2004, and this year has seen our first true signs of recovery.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wasn’t attempting to make light of people loosing there jobs. I know how difficult it can be in the type of industry Boeing operates in. A good friend of mine from college works for Lockheed Martin, and when times get bad there do tend to be major layoffs.

So I sympathize for the employees. You are certainly lucky to have been able to weather the storm as many times those near retirement find the ax swinging their way fast and furious.

Just attempting to point out that the US gives Boeing plenty of “benefits” in the form of tax related issues, whereas the Europeans use subsidies. Different approaches to get the same end point.

[sadman]

Boeing, and its merged McDonnell Douglas elements, has made the best airplanes in the world since the airplane was invented.

Presumably you mean commercial airliners. If not, methinks there are a few people who might disagree, especially those who invented and developed aircraft which are now made under licence in the US, notably the (Hawker) Harrier and the (Westland) Sea King.

So its fair to say that you wouldn't put the Illuyshins or Tupolevs at the top of your wish list?

Just a thought.

[gerry1011]

You're way off the deep end on this one Scamp! The aircraft industry is so compact now that what hurts one will hurt the other. Boeing looked at doing the design, but felt that their best long term strategy is to keep the 747 which is and has been hugely profitable, and then move forward with their smaller 7E7. They have more orders for the 7E7 than they can handle right now. They have little need to worry about Airbus, nor Airbus to Boeing. Boeing's biggest concern is getting their 7E7 flight qualified. This will be no insignificant feat, as it will be the world's first majority composite commercial passenger aircraft. It is more revolutionary than the A380, a plane whose general design has been around for decades.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am, of course, hopelessly biased, having been Boeing employed for the past 20 years. Still, I objectively believe that Boeing has read the needs of the market much more accurately than has A***** (a profanity that I can not bring myself to say aloud or type). The 7E7 provides greater range, and considerably greater flexibility in its use than does the airborne cruise ship. It will be considerably more economical, and, as is the case with all Boeing aircraft, more easily maintained, with significantly superior customer support for the airlines.

Boeing, and its merged McDonnell Douglas elements, has made the best airplanes in the world since the airplane was invented. That, despite the sales figures inflated by the A***** subsidy funded price cuts , will not change in the foreseeable future.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is always said that Airbus and Boeing compete with respectively the A380 and the 787. But in fact it is a competition between the A350 and the 787.

Airbus has the advantage because it killed the 747 with its new super jumbo, for which there is no competition.

And now the Europeans will go on competing with Boeing with the new A350.

It is clear that the competition will be fierce, after we see the results of the sales of Airbus at Le Bourget fair. It surpassed Boeing again in terms of orders, including for the A350.

I guess that if there is such a success it means that the Europeans build planes at least as good as the americans... if not better.

[penzman]

There was a 4 hour program about the A380 on TV5 this evening. At one point, I saw a Thai Airways logo on it.

Has anyone heard of Thai Air purchasing it?

[gerry1011]

There was a 4 hour program about the A380 on TV5 this evening. At one point, I saw a Thai Airways logo on it.

Has anyone heard of Thai Air purchasing it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think they bought 4 of them.

[Sir Burr]

Someone mentioned earlier about Boeing having the advantage over Airbus because the 747 series is a best seller and the production line was paid for .

All true, but, it wasn't always this way.

What eventually became the 747 was a cargo plane that had been designed for the US military. It had a cargo door at the nose, which is why the pilots are up, and above. It got rejected by the military, in favour of it's opposition.

Some genius at Boeing decided to market as an airliner, and the rest, as they say, is history.

I think you will find the A380 a worthy sucessor to the Jumbo Jet.

[Spee]

Airbus has the advantage because it killed the 747 with its new super jumbo, for which there is no competition.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What ludicrous nonsense! The 747 has been flying commercially longer than Airbus has been in existence!

According to company websites:

- Airbus has taken orders for 144 A380 aircraft, but as yet has delivered none and has none in service.

- Boeing has taken orders for 1382 747 aircraft and has delivered 1358, leaving 24 yet to be delivered. (They also have 128 orders on their newest 787 aircraft.)

If you want to open a debate, at least back it up with some relevant factoids!

According to Spee opinion:

- Boeing is making money hand over fist on every 747 they deliver and service.

- Airbus is billions in the red on the A380 and have yet to prove that they can make a Euro of profit on it.

Methinks you ought to recheck Websters for the meaning of kill.

Besides all this fact and conjecture, it has never been a war between product lines. It is all about two different companies and cultures marketing their products in the manner they see fit.

Jeeeeezzzz!

[alex100]

The bottom line is the US aircraft industry will flame and try to destroy anything that they perceive to be a threat to their previous monopoly on world aviation be that civil or military. Examples in history are Concorde and the TSR2 both of which were so far ahead of their time that they caused non commercial moves by the US that eventually finished off the programmers real long term development.

In essence the US wants everyone else to wait for their lead that will ensure that remain the worlds major arms exporters. In the military the Harrier proved that innovative thought can sometimes actually defeat pure resource one of the few aircraft - oh sorry - and the Hawk to be built under license in the US.

Now the monopoly is over ---- The A380 and airbus will now take over as the major commercial aircraft manufacturer in the world. I predict once it comes into service their will be a major accident in US Airspace or by a US operated aircraft and the whole world of US aviation will pronounce the aircraft unsafe.

It won't work guys when the AA pilots went on camera 10 years ago announcing they would never fly another airbus after the accident was caused by poor separation in terms of US air traffic control separation and jet wash limits

not being understood nobody believed you - they did not then and they will not now... your glory days are over in many respects.

By the way before someone dismisses this as just another Yank bashing thread think of the truth and not the propaganda.

[Spee]

By the way before someone dismisses this as just another Yank bashing thread think of the truth and not the propaganda.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This after 4 paragraphs of your own yank-bashing propaganda.

Time for the mods to close this topic before it degrades further.

[patsfangr]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

$681 million tax REFUND related to 2003 - man 2003 must have been a really rough year for Boeing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It sure as ###### was! I personally had to lay off 20% of my employees. We were still reeling from 9/11, as the airlines continued to suffer and cut back on current aircraft. Buying new ones was virtually out of the question. Boeing lost tens of thousands of employees in 2003. Things began to stabalize in 2004, and this year has seen our first true signs of recovery.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wasn’t attempting to make light of people loosing there jobs. I know how difficult it can be in the type of industry Boeing operates in. A good friend of mine from college works for Lockheed Martin, and when times get bad there do tend to be major layoffs.

So I sympathize for the employees. You are certainly lucky to have been able to weather the storm as many times those near retirement find the ax swinging their way fast and furious.

Just attempting to point out that the US gives Boeing plenty of “benefits” in the form of tax related issues, whereas the Europeans use subsidies. Different approaches to get the same end point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't take your comment in that way at all, TokyoT. I was just passing along some substantiation of the "tough year" assumption.

Bottom line is that we're all lucky to have survived the aftermath of horrors of 9/11. The world, and that certainly includes Thailand, is still reeling economically from it. Two of my Thai nieces and a nephew-in-law, all of whom had good jobs prior to 9/11, lost those jobs, and are still struggling to make ends meet. They lost houses and cars, and really had it rough when the Thai economy went down the tubes in 2002. I'm sure that you guys over there saw enough pain that I don't have to say more on that subject.

George

[patsfangr]

Boeing, and its merged McDonnell Douglas elements, has made the best airplanes in the world since the airplane was invented.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Presumably you mean commercial airliners. If not, methinks there are a few people who might disagree, especially those who invented and developed aircraft which are now made under licence in the US, notably the (Hawker) Harrier and the (Westland) Sea King.

So its fair to say that you wouldn't put the Illuyshins or Tupolevs at the top of your wish list?

Just a thought.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let's see ... B-17, B-29, C-47, C-119, Dauntless, B-52, KC-10, B-1B, C-17, F-18, F-15E, Apache ... just to name a few. I think Boeing/McDonnell Douglas have done OK in the military airplane arena over the years.

George

[TokyoT]

The bottom line is the US aircraft industry will flame and try to destroy anything that they perceive to be a threat to their previous monopoly on world aviation be that civil or military. Examples in history are Concorde and the TSR2 both of which were so far ahead of their time that they caused non commercial moves by the US that eventually finished off the programmers real long term development.

In essence the US wants everyone else to wait for their lead that will ensure that remain the worlds major arms exporters. In the military the Harrier proved that innovative thought can sometimes actually defeat pure resource one of the few aircraft -  oh sorry - and the Hawk to be built under license in the US.

Now the monopoly is over ---- The A380 and airbus will now take over as the major commercial aircraft manufacturer in the world. I predict once it comes into service their will be a major accident in US Airspace or by a US operated aircraft and the whole world of US aviation will pronounce the aircraft unsafe.

It won't work guys when the AA pilots went on camera 10 years ago announcing they would never fly another airbus after the accident was caused by poor separation in terms of US air traffic control separation and jet wash limits

not being understood nobody believed you - they did not then and they will not now... your glory days are over in many respects.

By the way before someone dismisses this as just another Yank bashing thread think of the truth and not the propaganda.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In today’s’ business world pretty much any company with a very high market share will do what ever they can to crush the competition - US company or European company. The ethics of what they do is another issue, but pretty much any modern company does what if can to protect it’s market share, and pretty much every modern government does what it can to aid companies from their country/region (regulation, tax breaks, subsidies, etc).

Nothing new here between Airbus and Boeing. Determining which company offers the better products, and is currently making the more sound business decision will only become clear in the future. Everyone has a right to their opinion as to which one is making the best moves at this time, but the market will determine the winner.

The future may even show that neither one comes out of this a clear winner or dominate force. As this market certainly has room for both to make plenty or product, and plenty of profit over the long haul.

[gerry1011]

Airbus has the advantage because it killed the 747 with its new super jumbo, for which there is no competition.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What ludicrous nonsense! The 747 has been flying commercially longer than Airbus has been in existence!

According to company websites:

- Airbus has taken orders for 144 A380 aircraft, but as yet has delivered none and has none in service.

- Boeing has taken orders for 1382 747 aircraft and has delivered 1358, leaving 24 yet to be delivered. (They also have 128 orders on their newest 787 aircraft.)

If you want to open a debate, at least back it up with some relevant factoids!

According to Spee opinion:

- Boeing is making money hand over fist on every 747 they deliver and service.

- Airbus is billions in the red on the A380 and have yet to prove that they can make a Euro of profit on it.

Methinks you ought to recheck Websters for the meaning of kill.

Besides all this fact and conjecture, it has never been a war between product lines. It is all about two different companies and cultures marketing their products in the manner they see fit.

Jeeeeezzzz!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, for me here is a fact:

747 orders in 2005: 3 (www.boeing.com)

A380 orders in: 144

It does not seem that the 747 is doing too well. Looks like dying to me.

[sadman]

Boeing, and its merged McDonnell Douglas elements, has made the best airplanes in the world since the airplane was invented.

Presumably you mean commercial airliners. If not, methinks there are a few people who might disagree, especially those who invented and developed aircraft which are now made under licence in the US, notably the (Hawker) Harrier and the (Westland) Sea King.

So its fair to say that you wouldn't put the Illuyshins or Tupolevs at the top of your wish list?

Just a thought.

Let's see ... B-17, B-29, C-47, C-119, Dauntless, B-52, KC-10, B-1B, C-17, F-18, F-15E, Apache ... just to name a few. I think Boeing/McDonnell Douglas have done OK in the military airplane arena over the years.

George

Absolutely they have. What I was gently trying to point out was that Boeing are not the only aircraft manufacturers in the world, and that sometimes better aircraft are made outside the US. In fact, the US aircraft industry domination in terms of both quality and quantity probably dates only from the mid-1940s, although Boeing have been going for longer (the 1920s, or perhaps earlier, I think).

And the bit about the Russian aircraft was a joke. Nearly.