Sales of A380 not taking off

Chicago Tribune ^ | March 18, 2007 | JULIE JOHNSSON

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

As the biggest commercial jet ever made swoops into Chicago for the first time Tuesday, Airbus SAS, the plane's European maker, has yet to find a U.S. airline buyer.

Manufacturers typically show off new planes to buyers and members of the media through demonstration flights -- barnstorming tours such as this week's inaugural visit.

That the A380 is stopping in the Midwest on its maiden voyage to the U.S. is no coincidence, analysts say. Elk Grove Township-based United Airlines and Minneapolis-based Northwest Airlines Corp. are considered the two likeliest purchasers in an otherwise tough market for the superjumbo jet.

Airbus spokeswoman Mary Anne Greczyn confirms the Europe-based manufacturer is in talks with North American airlines about the jet, but declines to say with whom it is talking -- or which potential customers will be hopping rides on the new plane.

Representatives for United and Northwest won't say if they are scoping out the double-decker jumbo jet.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Can't imagine why airlines aren't jumping onboard with the A-380. Maybe it has something to do with having to change the infrastructure of entire airports and the fact that it's such a ramp hog that it actually decreases capacity. Then there's the wiring and structural problems with the wing and tail...

[Parley Baer]

The anti-American liberals in this country will be saddened. Big corporate American Boeing is succeeding to their dismay. The government supported Airbus is taking on water. That does not fit their agenda.

[Calvin Locke]

That the A380 is stopping in the Midwest on its maiden voyage to the U.S. is no coincidence...

Is not Boeing now HQ'd in Chicago?

Perhaps it's a case of "See, we can make a plane that wasn't born in the belly of a Boeing fly..."?

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

I prefer to fly in aircraft that retain their wings and tails after takeoff.

[Jagman]

Even the name Airbus reeks of the collectivist mindset.

But in that sense, it is brutally honest: Flying today is exactly like taking a long-distance motor coach, smelly fellow passengers and all...

[Gay State Conservative]

Message to airlines throughout the world:

If it's not Boeing,I'm not going.

[I see my hands]

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

A new pinglist, so if you're interested.....

	pan-Europe pinglist.* This pinglist covers a broad range of topics relating to Europe: culture, current events, politics, science, history, arts, etc. Warning: This could be a high volume pinglist. Note: This pinglist covers--but not as much--Eastern Europe. There is already a moderate volume pinglist for that region. Ping if you see a pertinent thread.
*To get on or off this list, freepmail with the subjects Europe on or Europe off . No message is necessary. To get on or get off this pinglist, freepmail here, with the appropriate subject.
There is also a: pan-Africa pinglist. pan-Asia pinglist. pan-Latin America pinglist. John 3:16 (New King James Version): "16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
This pinglist can terminate at any time, without notice.

[Sawdring]

Amazon comments on his book.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"But analysts expect [United & Northwest] to take a serious look at the jet as they rebuild their fleets over the next several years... However, neither airline is in the position to write a check if executives like what they see in the new aircraft. United has been out of bankruptcy for only a year and is still struggling to improve its finances; Northwest plans to emerge from bankruptcy this year."

Airbus has made a habit of liberally financing airline purchases with below-market or even free money rates.

The airlines' shaky finances won't get in the way if the planes make economic sense in other regards. But I think Boeing has got that covered.

[Young Werther]

Do you know what United Airlines was called prior to the US Congress legislating the break up of those evil, vertically integrated air-monopolies?

I'll give you a hint...It had Boeing in its name!

The Air Mail Act of 1934 would require that aircraft mmanufacturers and air transport companies couldn't be under the same corporate entity so William Boeing would sell all his stock and curse Congress for its meddling.

He had built a magnificent business and it still rules today!!! When Washington State and especially Seattle started to squeeze Boeing they left town!! Some Pols never learn.

[Southack]

The Airbus is overweight, with less range than advertised...with higher fuel consumption than advertised...and it's behind in its delievery schedule by years.

European governments can subsidize its purchase cost, and may subsidize financing (perhaps even maintenance), but even EU governments can't extend the range or lower the fuel consumption of the plane.

Likewise, waiting extra years for delivery might not be high on many airlines' wish lists.

[Chode]

there is NOPLACE, NOW OR IN THE FUTURE, i will ever need to be bad enough for me to get on that flyin pig.

[Calvin Locke]

That's a bit of historical trivia that I was unaware of, or forgot.

How many airlines were there, compared to aircraft manufacturers, at the time?

[PAR35]

Yes, but if they will essentially give them to you, the economics change.

[gonzo]

"...The Airbus is overweight, with less range than advertised...with higher fuel consumption than advertised...and it's behind in its delievery schedule by years..."

Can you say: WHITE ELEPHANT? Of course you can ...

The only advantage that the consortium SST-Concorde had was its' ability to buy time, albeit at a violently-expensive price tag.

The simple ability to carry huge numbers of people at one time from point A to point B is questionable in todays world.

I suppose the Saudi Royal family would like to have a few of them, fueled and at the ready, so they could 'get-the-hell-out-of Dodge' when they're Regime is overthrown ............ FRegards

[R.W.Ratikal]

The A 380 will probably not do well in the U.S. U.S. airlines found out decades ago with the Boeing 747 that a huge airplane of that size is of limited use. The A380 is even larger than the Boeing 747.

It can land only at a few airports and even some of those do not attract the number of travelers it takes to fill an A380. Can you imagine the A380 landing at a medium size airport? The number of arriving passengers would equal the number of passengers going through that airport for a month.

From an operations standpoint it's better to operate three smaller jets on the same route at spaced times than to run one jet scheduled to run once a day.

It's possible that superjumbo jets could be profitably operated on such runs as New York to Calcutta India. Even there the market determines the size of airplane needed.

[blue state conservative]

Since this is a publicity tour for the cameras maybe they should put one in the baggage area so people can see what a crowd of 550 people waiting around a luggage carousel looks like.

[DennisR]

Yes, it is.