Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Setback for sales of cargo version of giant Airbus
Khaleej Times ^ | 2 June 2006 | Staff

Posted on 06/03/2006 11:12:41 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative

Dusseldorf, Germany - European plane-maker Airbus has suffered a setback in sales of the cargo version of its giant A380 plane, with the airline Emirates dropping two from its order, a German magazine said on Friday.

In Paris, Airbus confirmed the Dubai-based airline had cancelled orders for two such A380F jets, but said Emirates had ordered two passenger versions of the huge double-deck aircraft instead.

Airbus said this meant Emirates, the biggest customer for the huge jet, would still be buying 45 of the new planes.

The magazine, Wirtschaftswoche, quoted the European manager of Emirates, Keith Longstaff, as saying there was lack of clarity in the ”technical data” for the cargo version, and adding, “We want to see first how the plane turns out.”

Airbus has booked just 25 orders for the cargo version, with the first delivery, to Fed Ex of the United States, set for early 2009, the magazine said. The passenger version is set to enter service later this year.

Boeing aims to bring a new cargo version of its jumbo, the 747-8F, onto the market half a year after the A380F.

The magazine said aerospace experts were beginning to doubt if Airbus would ever recover through sales the hundreds of millions of euros it has additionally spent on developing the freight version of the A380.

Although the plane would be the world’s biggest air-cargo jet, airlines are wary of its high cost.

The planemaker is already under pressure from customers on another front, with demands to revamp its planned A350, a smaller twin- engined plane set to go on sale in 2010. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner has outsold the A350 three-to-one.



TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: 747; 7478f; a380; airbus; boeing
This can't be good for Airbus. Emirates has ordered almost one third of all the 150+ A380's on order.
1 posted on 06/03/2006 11:12:41 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145; microgood; liberallarry; cmsgop; shaggy eel; RayChuang88; Larry Lucido; namsman; ...

If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.

2 posted on 06/03/2006 11:15:37 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
Emirates has ordered almost one third of all the 150+ A380's on order.

Do the Emerates just buy everything? It seems like they have hge Boeing orders, huge Airbus orders and an order for a bazillion cups of lemonade from the kid around the corner's lemonade stand.

3 posted on 06/03/2006 11:21:03 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (FRee Charles Hendrickson!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
The magazine, Wirtschaftswoche, quoted the European manager of Emirates, Keith Longstaff, as saying there was lack of clarity in the ”technical data” for the cargo version, and adding, “We want to see first how the plane turns out.”

"Technical Data"? We all know what that means, don't we.

The only thing still unknown is the weight. If the aircraft comes in over weight, that excess weight comes right off the top of payload. And payload is what matters in air frieght.

Sure, Airbus has the cubes, but they are going to be limited to delivering the World's Largest Orders of Packing Peanuts if things keep on going the way they are going.

The magazine said aerospace experts were beginning to doubt if Airbus would ever recover through sales the hundreds of millions of euros it has additionally spent on developing the freight version of the A380.

As if Airbus gives a damn. They'll just bill the overrun to the taxpayers of the European Union. It's not like they have to make money, or anything. They're not going to break even on the passenger version, either, as if that mattered...

Although the plane would be the world’s biggest air-cargo jet, airlines are wary of its high cost.

The political objective of this aircraft has achieved because now Airbus can claim to have "The World's Biggest Air-Cargo Jet", just as they can claim to have the World's Biggest Jetliner. That was the purpose of the A380 project from the git-go. All the design work and financial analysis followed to bring about the pre-conceived political goal.

4 posted on 06/03/2006 11:26:48 AM PDT by jebeier (RICE '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jebeier
I think Airbus would like to say about the 380 - "never mind".
5 posted on 06/03/2006 11:37:33 AM PDT by llevrok (The next greatest generation is now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jebeier
"They'll just bill the overrun to the taxpayers of the European Union"

Yep, like they have been doing in like forever.
# 1 reason why Airbus should be BANNED from bidding on the USAF tanker project.
We can't have Boeing bidding against a bunch of European cheats.
Tanker project should go to Boeing. Period.


"The political objective of this aircraft has achieved because now Airbus can claim to have "The World's Biggest Air-Cargo Jet", "

Like they had "the world's only commercial supersonic aircraft"(concorde) yes?

What happened to that one?
The Euros are very good at government funded white elephant projects.
Reason why Europe has been the slowest growing region in the world amongst the world's economic powers like America, China etc.
Europe is going to get increasingly weaker with time.
6 posted on 06/03/2006 12:15:47 PM PDT by Jameison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jameison

When it comes to payload, performance, proven reliability and cost of operation, I don't think Boeing's going to have anything to worry about from the great white elephant.


7 posted on 06/03/2006 12:19:14 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jameison
Like they had "the world's only commercial supersonic aircraft"(concorde) yes?

That wasn't an Airbus product.

We can't have Boeing bidding against a bunch of European cheats.

So you favor no-bid contracts to the American cheats? Boeing deserves the hit for what they did on the Tanker project.

8 posted on 06/03/2006 12:23:53 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Do the Emerates just buy everything?

Pretty much, yeah. Not only is the airline a very high quality product, but they're bascially the hub airline for the Middle East and anyone traveling through the Middle East. Until super-long distances become regularly possible on flights, Dubai will always be a natural stopover for people on their way to East Asia or Australia from Europe.

The Dubai airport expansion project is also huge.
9 posted on 06/03/2006 1:06:08 PM PDT by July 4th (A vacant lot cancelled out my vote for Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: July 4th
the hub airline for the Middle East

The A380 is Muslim terrorist bait. What are they thinking? Are nuclear power plants built to handle a direct hit by a fully fueled and loaded A380?

10 posted on 06/03/2006 1:21:33 PM PDT by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jebeier
As if Airbus gives a damn. They'll just bill the overrun to the taxpayers of the European Union. It's not like they have to make money, or anything. They're not going to break even on the passenger version, either, as if that mattered...

Thou speakest a hunk of wisdom there, neighbor.

11 posted on 06/03/2006 1:23:22 PM PDT by yankeedame ("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
"That wasn't an Airbus product"

It was French government product, together with the British government.
Same thing. There is little division between the French goverment and the aerospace industry in France

"So you favor no-bid contracts to the American cheats? "

Boeing does not get Billions of dollars "loans" from the American government, which are the written off, to develop commercial planes.


"Boeing deserves the hit for what they did on the Tanker project."

Nothing Boeing has ever done even comes close to the utter sleaze and corruption of Airbus.
Airbus doesn't have one honest bone in it's body.

Read about the man at the heart of the current scandal in French politics, erstwhile Head of Strategic Coordination at EADS, Jean-Louis Gergorin, right here:


http://www.thespacereview.com/article/630/1

In France, they'd be giving a medal to Boeing to what they did on the tankers.
12 posted on 06/03/2006 1:26:13 PM PDT by Jameison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jameison; PAR35
".....We can't have Boeing bidding against a bunch of European cheats. Tanker project should go to Boeing. Period."

The EADS tanker would be built by BBQ-eatin, beer drinkin, bass fishin, pickup truck drivin NASCAR fans right here in the USA.

See:

Landing The Tanker: When the South goes courting, it often wins Boeing's biggest competitor is welcomed with open arms

or

There's nothing more all-American than a (EADS) cowboy

There are a couple more on the this P.I. Business page. Sroll to June 1 articles.

13 posted on 06/03/2006 1:26:22 PM PDT by skeptoid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: skeptoid
"The EADS tanker would be built by BBQ-eatin, beer drinkin, bass fishin, pickup truck drivin NASCAR fans right here in the USA."


Doesn't in the least change the fact that EADS cheats by receiving massive Euro-goverment subsidies, ostensibly as "loans", which they then conveniently forget to collect.
That is what matters.
EADS has no business being even allowed to bid for this contract.
14 posted on 06/03/2006 1:30:51 PM PDT by Jameison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PAR35; Jameison
Jameison:
Like they had "the world's only commercial supersonic aircraft"(concorde) yes?

PAR35:
That wasn't an Airbus product.

It was a precursor to Airbus. The French part of the partnership were one of the founders of Airbus. Airbus also built the spare parts for the 16 Concordes that were built.

15 posted on 06/03/2006 2:13:50 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
The French part of the partnership were one of the founders of Airbus.

So would you consider the DC-8 to be a Boeing product?

16 posted on 06/03/2006 4:07:24 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jebeier
The political objective of this aircraft has achieved because now Airbus can claim to have "The World's Biggest Air-Cargo Jet", just as they can claim to have the World's Biggest Jetliner. That was the purpose of the A380 project from the git-go.

Sometimes it just doesn't do a damn bit of good to be "The World's Biggest..."

17 posted on 06/03/2006 4:58:45 PM PDT by GATOR NAVY (Twenty years in the Navy. Never drunk on duty - never sober on liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
So would you consider the DC-8 to be a Boeing product?

Boeing considers the Boeing 717 to be a Boeing product, not a McDonnell Douglas MD-95.

18 posted on 06/04/2006 4:16:41 AM PDT by jebeier (RICE '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Reeses

........Are nuclear power plants built to handle a direct hit by a fully fueled and loaded A380?......

You have it all wrong. They are not going to use an airplane. They are going to use a 40' high cube container. The American public has already decided the issue.


19 posted on 06/04/2006 4:23:03 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. Slay Pinch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jebeier
Yes, and if Airbus had continued to make a derivative of the Concorde, your point would be valid. But since they didn't you can't credit/blame them for aircraft developed and made by Bristol/BAC and Sud/Aerospatale. So the DC-8 analogy is better than the DC-9/MD-95/717 analogy.
20 posted on 06/04/2006 4:26:03 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PAR35

Be that as it may, I think the trials of the builders of the Concord(e) and Airbus with the A380 are similar and stem from the same source.

The Concord(e) was a marvelous product that had no market. Furthermore, this was predictable before the first rivet was set. The decision to develop and build the Concord(e) was based on a political decision to build a SST, and the financial and market analysis had nothing to do with it, because the European governments could always be counted on to cover the losses.

American companies do not have that luxury. Sure, they make a bad decision from time to time, but the errors are usually of improper analysis, not of ignoring analysis.

I see a similar scenario developing for the A380. This aircraft is too large for most routes and will have a very hard time earning customer acceptance. Furthermore, the weight issues may make the fuel and/or payload unacceptably small, particularly for the cargo variant. But things like payload, range and consumer acceptance simply don't matter, because the objective was to build the largest airliner in the World, and that objective has been achieved. If the thing never earns a dime, that is no problem, because the manufacturer can just soak the European taxpayer for the loss.


21 posted on 06/04/2006 5:54:52 PM PDT by jebeier (RICE '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jebeier

I can agree with all those observations.


22 posted on 06/04/2006 7:38:45 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jebeier
" Although the plane would be the world’s biggest air-cargo jet, airlines are wary of its high cost. "

And something that Airlines need to reduce ( high fuel cost ) to stay competitive or go out of business.

It's no wonder the 787 is selling like hotcakes because of the potential of fuel savings.
23 posted on 06/05/2006 9:31:20 PM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

You could probably fit all the Dixie Chicks in one of those.


24 posted on 06/05/2006 9:32:13 PM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network (H.R.4437 > S.2611)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jameison
Yup.
" Europe is going to get increasingly weaker with time. "

Germany's unemployment rate is around 14 % - 15 %.
25 posted on 06/05/2006 9:33:31 PM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

your right, they will be too busy with their own white elephant, the 747-800.


26 posted on 06/05/2006 9:40:35 PM PDT by Energy Alley ("War on Christians" = just another professional victim group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PAR35

Boeing treats the entire McDD product line as though it was their own. For example most airlines refer to the MD-80 as the Boeing MD-80 now etc, etc.


27 posted on 06/05/2006 9:43:45 PM PDT by Energy Alley ("War on Christians" = just another professional victim group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jebeier
The A380 is going to do fine, on the routes it was intended to serve. It is hard to contextualize that in regional jet crazy America.
Major international airports world-wide have had their expansion plans destroyed by environmentalists. London Heathrow is going to have to accommodate more than double the pax it does today with its existing geographic footprint. This phenomenon applies to most major airports world wide.

Environmentalists and their political enablers have effectively abolished airport expansion.

This crisis is going to hit the US in the next decade as Southern California and New York Metro airports hit the wall in terms of capacity.

If airlines want to continue growth on valuable international routes like London, Frankfurt, Tokyo etc. they will need larger planes.

There are routes today where a 747 just isn't big enough and they will grow over time.

28 posted on 06/05/2006 9:52:15 PM PDT by Energy Alley ("War on Christians" = just another professional victim group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Energy Alley
If airlines want to continue growth on valuable international routes like London, Frankfurt, Tokyo etc. they will need larger planes.

Ah, but with the 787, you can avoid the high traffic, bursting at the gills hub-and-spoke routes, and aim at distributing the load more. For example, instead of Atlanta-New York-Frankfort-Munich, you can go Atlanta-Munich. That saves fuel, landing slots, and a whole lot of passenger time.

29 posted on 06/05/2006 10:07:51 PM PDT by Yossarian (Everyday, somewhere on the globe, somebody is pushing the frontier of stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Yossarian

Not when London or Frankfurt is the actual destination!


30 posted on 06/05/2006 10:10:22 PM PDT by Energy Alley ("War on Christians" = just another professional victim group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
You could probably fit all the Dixie Chicks in one of those.

Are you sure including Natalie wouldn't exceed maximum takeoff weight?

31 posted on 06/05/2006 10:14:00 PM PDT by dc27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Energy Alley

Have you really ever heard ANYONE refer to a "Boeing DC-8?" If so, did you laugh in their face? I would.

How about an Airbus Caravelle or an Airbus BAC-1-11? Makes as much sense as an "Airbus Concorde" which is where this discussion started.


32 posted on 06/06/2006 2:00:42 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
Sadly enough yes... I have heard of the entire McDonnell Douglas jet family being refereed to as Boeings now.

I thought describing the MD-95 as the 717 was sacrilegious enough!

33 posted on 06/06/2006 1:01:55 PM PDT by Energy Alley ("War on Christians" = just another professional victim group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson