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.
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.
I can agree with all those observations.
You could probably fit all the Dixie Chicks in one of those.
your right, they will be too busy with their own white elephant, the 747-800.
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.
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.
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.
Not when London or Frankfurt is the actual destination!
Are you sure including Natalie wouldn't exceed maximum takeoff weight?
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.
I thought describing the MD-95 as the 717 was sacrilegious enough!
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.