You couldn't make it up - Airbus A380 grounded by French civil service strike

Unfortunately for Airbus, the US denizens of the darker Francophobic corners of the web are going to be in near-ecstasy over this one...

The first media flight of the A380, due to take place from Toulouse early next month, has had to be rescheduled. The reason: the French civil service is going on strike.

Could just as easily happen to Boeing of course (OK, maybe not.)

posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 4:32 PM by Kieran Daly

# re: You couldn't make it up - Airbus A380 grounded by French civil service strike @ Wednesday, January 24, 2007 1:43 AM

I'm suprised you have no comment on the following article

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/01/22/211629/picture-airbus-a330f-gets-blister-for-new-nose-gear-as-revised-layout-levels-cabin-floor-to-ease.html

Or does it show whats REALLY wrong with airbus right now? It clearly shows why the A330F went AWOL 3seconds after "launch" last year. The plane flat didn't work since when they first did the 330 they couldn't be bothered to correctly measure/design the landing gear hieghts. So now they have to "redneck" thier PLANE design... GOOD JOB. I'm sure slapping on a big buldge to the underside of the plane is going to do wonders for the cruise economics of the thing. Oh and I'm waiting to see how often that big chunk of composite gets broken in use.

The clear mistake though is that Airbus was selling a plane that DIDN'T work, without checking back to see if it did work before they sold it. Which is why the ultra quick disappearing act it pulled happened. Someone who actualy pays attention to the real world hardware saw the public announcement and went running up the chain of command to shut the sales men up till they had a real working plane to sell. After all its not going to make cargo operators happy when they have to shove tons of containers uphill into the back of the plane then secure it before loading the next one.

On the A380 media flight? WHO CARES. It *might* enter service next year. It won't get a production certificate till even later than that. The program is so so far behind that a single media flight getting canceled is like the titaninc loosing a deck chair during the grinding along the iceberg. Only important questions left are.... Who will survive, and how much pain are they in till they get back to dry land. while I don't think the A380 will take airbus down with it, its sure working long and hard at doing so. After all they only need to triple the current sales ammount by 2010 or 2011 to break even. Oh and the dollar has to rebound back to 1.2:1 vs the euro too.

witte

# re: You couldn't make it up - Airbus A380 grounded by French civil service strike @ Wednesday, January 24, 2007 9:44 AM

Interesting point, but fact is that the A330F is actually off to a pretty decent start - 32 firm orders from three solid customers, two of which are also buying new Boeing freighters, and two of which are major US lessors.
I think the A330F delay has far more to do with Airbus' priorities in view of the other problems with A380/350 and getting A400M out the door. Here's Technical Marketing Director Colin Evans speaking on 17 March 2004: A330F has "to go on the back-burner” because of A380 demands. "It’s unlikely at the moment. Airbus is stretched design-wise and production-wise."

Kieran Daly

# re: You couldn't make it up - Airbus A380 grounded by French civil service strike @ Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:49 AM

No doubt the A330F is off to a great start. \

Its a start I feel should have come years ago, as the A310 was a bad joke, and the A300 had its limitations when brought to market, and those limitations while not a major concern for those buying it for its intended role, did limit the A300 as a frieghter.

So where as the A330F been? With its better lower deck cargo capiblities it should be a clear winner in the frieghter version over the 767, yet.... Nothing till now.

Last, Wouldn't you prefer to see the A330 get in atleast its most popular varients one of the 787 era engines? To me it would have made sense if the A330F was to be launched at the same time as the 787 as the origional A350mk I aka re-engined A330. While I realise the time has long since past for that to make sense, it remians that they could have avoided the rednecked landing gear modifications, and given the A330 a slim chance against the 787 in small fleets. Not to mention making the A330F a clear hands down winner for a long time to come, possibly causing Boeing to delay or never do a 787F. Now after all this time, I can't help but think a 787F is "done" the second they have 3 free minutes to draw a front section with a cargo door and a few slots in production to actualy sell them with. Lead times being what they are in this industry, I think airbus is trending to being just a few years to late a few times too often. Certainly the misnamed A350XWB would have had time to have had more rational behind the scenes design, and less of the parade of bad jokes designed by powerpoint. I certainly feel that the A350XWB could have the same timeline as currently announced, yet with better actual design. More over I'm sure Airbus has driven away customers who actualy like to know what they are buying and when they are doing so. The A380 caused thier crediblity to go down hill on the production side. The A350 Mk 1-6 did it for the sales side. The finance side certainly was crying over the 800million they announced to pay off the pre-XWB customers. And the writeoffs for time spent designing and selling said pre-XWB A350.

I wish airbus well, but wishes don't sell planes

Witte

# re: You couldn't make it up - Airbus A380 grounded by French civil service strike @ Thursday, January 25, 2007 1:44 PM

I'm sorry Witte, but is it really that smart trying to mask a lack of REAL insight (i.e. GLARE, Al-Li and friction stir welding) by writing long posts?. Why am I not surprised that once again, your "contribution" is lacking any real insight.

However, I can sympathise with the fact that when one lives in an environment where most of the "analysis" regarding Airbus, and particularily the A380, is mostly negative -- and when this bias is repeated long enough and loud enough, a substantial majority of US based individuals seem to follow the same anti-Airbus bandwagon.

Likewise, it's interesting to note that in this identical (US) environment, there were mindbogglingly few contrarian views to that of the current US administration in February/March 2003, regarding the imminent
invasion of Iraq.....

>>Or does it show whats REALLY wrong with
>>airbus right now? It clearly shows why the
>>A330F went AWOL 3seconds after "launch" last
>>year. The plane flat didn't work since when
>>they first did the 330 they couldn't be
>>bothered to correctly measure/design the
>>landing gear hieghts.

Actually, using an A306 as a test-bed, Airbus began conducting experiments in 2001, which showed the need for some changes to the A330-200. The Main Landing Gear (MLG) of the A330/A340 is taller than the MLG of the A300/A310. However, the nose landing gear well is identical in size on the A300s/A310s/A330s/A340s. This meant that when Airbus designed the A330/A340 family, they knew that these new models would have a slightly "lower" nose. Consequently the OEM developed a revised design for the freighter version of the A332. The "Dropped Nose Landing Gear Bay" is designed in such a way as to preserve the aircraft's original nosegear and its retraction mechanism. However, the attachment points are lowered by 0,37 m. As a result, the nose of the A332F is raised to a level where the pitch-down atitude is 0.5 degrees during loading operations. As reported by flightglobal.com, this redesign has required the incorporation of a blister fairing on the underside of the nose to accommodate the revised gear layout.

One should note that if the re-profiled nose section of the original A350 (pre XWB-version) had been adopted for new-build A332Fs, it should be obvious that the "blister fairing" approach is by far the most cost effective solution for conversions.

>>So now they have to "redneck" thier PLANE
>>design... GOOD JOB

When you write a comment in a blog originating from outside the US, it's culturally highly arrogant to assume that the word Redneck -- which predominantly refers to a particular stereotype of people who may be found in many regions of the United States or Canada -- is understood globally. Not everybody have seen "Deliverance".

>>I'm sure slapping on a big buldge to the
>>underside of the plane is going to do
>>wonders for the cruise economics of the thing.

It would be more interesting to know what you wrote in your latest article submitted for peer-review and publication in the AIAA Journal.

>>The clear mistake though is that Airbus was
>>selling a plane that DIDN'T work, without
>>checking back to see if it did work before
>>they sold it. Which is why the ultra quick
>>disappearing act it pulled happened.

Again, I'm not surprised that you seem to be unaware of the fact that new cargo aircraft generally sell for lower prices/margins then passenger aircraft. One of the reasons Boeing is hardly motivated to think about a 787 freighter yet. Large fleets of cheap converted freighters and low cost operators help to keep prices for new airframes "low".

Furthermore, it was widely reported in the trade journals in July 2006, that the "disappearing act" was due to the leasing arrangement -- which was announced at Farnborough -- for 19 A333 airframes for SQ.

Finally, when the A332F enters service in late 2009, the A330/A340 assembly line will likely have undergone a production ramp up to 9 airframes per month. Any reasonably informed individual would know, of course, that the first A333 for SQ will be delivered in early 2009; coinciding nicely with the ramp up in production.

Canute

# re: You couldn't make it up - Airbus A380 grounded by French civil service strike @ Thursday, January 25, 2007 5:09 PM

Why a civil servants' strike in France should provide an opportunity to joke at Airbus' expense beats me, specially as journalists trying to get to Toulouse on that date by BA would be frustrated by the planned cabin crew strike ...
Time for a jeer at Yookay ???

John Price

# re: You couldn't make it up - Airbus A380 grounded by French civil service strike @ Thursday, January 25, 2007 5:23 PM

Canute, if you want to point fingers at arrogance, try reading your own comments once in a while.

Eric

# re: You couldn't make it up - Airbus A380 grounded by French civil service strike @ Friday, January 26, 2007 1:48 PM

Eric, what I wanted to do was to "point fingers" at American cultural arrogance, and not arrogance in general. Nice try though.

However, I do agree that part of my "writing style" in the comments section of this blog, could at times be interpreted as borderline arrogance; but only in responses to opinonated "Airbus bashers" -- many of whom not seeming to have their facts straight.

Canute

# re: You couldn't make it up - Airbus A380 grounded by French civil service strike @ Friday, January 26, 2007 8:44 PM

Canute:

It's one thing to be arrogant. It's quite another to be just plain wrong.

Here are some of your gems from the past:

"By introducing the FSW method onto the production lines, and by using new third-generation Al-Lithium alloys in the production of their conventional aluminium fuselages, Airbus will basically be able to match the physical strengths of the 787 composite fuselage barrels."

And:

"Therefore, it's obvious that it's relatively cheap, and easy, for Airbus to apply all of the A350 fuselage upgrades on the A340-500/600 since most of the R&D costs have been paid for by the former program. "

And:
"My estimate, ... , is that the cost for Airbus in developing the A339, A348, A349, A358, A359, A368, A369, A378, A379 and A398 will not exceed all of the R&D costs costs of developing the 787 by more than [100] percent."

And:
"One should also note though that GE will not stand idly by, and not offer a version of the GEnx for these new Airbus products. "

Regular Reader.

# re: You couldn't make it up - Airbus A380 grounded by French civil service strike @ Monday, January 29, 2007 6:30 PM

"Regular Reader", you dig up some old quotes of mine, but refuse to elaborate further on what <B>exactly</B> is "plain wrong". Isn't that a lazy and arrogant way to make yourself heard in the comment section of this blog?

I've been offline and away for the weekend but let's go through <B>now</B> your accusations point for point:

>>"By introducing the FSW method onto the
>>production lines, and by using new third-
>>generation Al-Lithium alloys in the
>>production of their conventional aluminium
>>fuselages, Airbus will basically be able to
>>match the physical strengths of the 787
>>composite fuselage barrels."

It's true that a "barrel fuselage" is more rigid and structurally stronger than a conventionally built fuselage. However, one should be aware of the fact a "barrel fuselage" still contains rather big cutouts and is <A HREF="http://www.dlr.de/fa/PortalData/17/Resources/dokumente/publikationen/2004/11_kolesnikov.pdf">not</A> an optimal and lightweight construction from the point of view of structural mechanics. Therefore, because of all the pits and cutouts in load-carrying structure in the lower lobe areas, increased material consumtion is required. This holds true whether CFRP or Al alloys are used.

Welds have been used in the making of steel pipes, or barrels, for many years; in the joining of pipe and components during construction, and during maintenance and repair. During the pipe manufacturing process, longitudinal welds join the edges of steel plate to form sections of pipe.

Now, what's new is that the extremely conservative aerospace industry is starting to use welding to replace the time-consuming riveting process.

Friction Stir Welding (FSW) is particularily well suited to be used on <A HREF="http://www.polishengineers.org/data/news/84.pdf>current</A> aircraft platforms

However, it's <A HREF="http://www.sme.org/cgi-bin/find-articles.pl?&04mam004&ME&20040301&PUBME-129.240.146.47&SME&#article/">Eclipse Aviation</A> that currently is leading the way by using FSW extensively on the Eclipse 500.

-----------------------------------------------
quote:

To test the reliability of FSW, engineers built a barrel-like fixture that holds four fuselage segments and is the same diameter as the Eclipse 500 cabin. Ends of the test segment were sealed to make it airtight. Then the segment was subjected to pressurization cycles that simulate the mission profiles. The test segment survived 460,000 cycles or approximately 23 aircraft lifetimes. In addition, several test panels were notched to determine crack propagation rates.
-----------------------------------------------

The one-piece CFRP fuselage barrel section of the 787 eliminate thousands of rivets/fasteners as compared to metallic structures. On a non-welded aluminium fuselage, rivets are required to attach both longitudinal stringers and to splice panels together to make a complete barrel. For one-piece composite barrels they are eliminated, but <B>circumferential frames</B> still <A HREF="http://www.electroimpact.com/research/2006-01-3170.pdf">need</A> to be installed, and mechanically fastened to the composite barrel.

On the Eclipse 500, FSW has eliminated 60% of the rivets and designers at the company hope to reduce rivet content by 80 percent; or about the same percentage point reduction as the 787 program.

By introducing the FSW method onto current production lines, laser beam welded stringers and by using new third-generation Al-Lithium alloys; I still stand by my assertion that Airbus -- or any other OEM for that matter -- will <B>basically</B> be able to match the physical strengths (i.e. life cycle) of the 787 composite fuselage barrels.

As explained, the frame assemblies of the 787 are mechanically inserted at the end of the assembly process. This requires drilling even more holes in the fuselage -- in addition to the pits and cutouts -- which will be more suceptable to delamination.

One should also note the fact that many Airbus bashers don't seem to realise that the circumferential joints, on the fuselage sections of the 787 will be using much more titanium (i.e. expensive) than what would be required in more "advanced" joint designs such as <A HREF="http://www.dlr.de/fa/PortalData/17/Resources/dokumente/publikationen/2005/08_fink.pdf">a double-lap three row bolted joint</A>

So what then is the <B>holy grail</B> of composite fuselage construction?

I seriously doubt that the mandrel molded method will be used much in the future where concepts; such as <A HREF="http://www.eid.dlr.de/dlr/Presse/dlr-nachrichten/102/42-47.pdf>this one;</A> would have composite frames that are bonded/integrated with the composite load-baring fuselage panels -- i.e. <B>Zero</B> rivets required to fasten the frame to the fuselage. In such a configuration the only fasteners or bolts required will be between the longitudinal fuselage panels and the circumferential joints.

Also, any future civilian BWB airliner would most probably be constructed by using composite fuselage panels with integrated frames and stringers, and not be mandrel molded. The top and bottom fuselage panels would obviously have less curvature than the "side" panels.

>>"Therefore, it's obvious that it's
>>relatively cheap, and easy, for Airbus to
>>apply all of the A350 fuselage upgrades on
>>the A340-500/600 since most of the R&D costs'
>>have been paid for by the former program. "

Not sure what's the problem. Don't take my statements out of context. They are based on the non-xwb version of the A350, which was <A HREF="http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2005/11/29/203391/exclusive-enhanced-a340-to-take-on-777.html">reported</A> on at flightglobal.com

Why should such a program not have been relatively cheap and easy for Airbus to undertake?

I still believe though that an enhanced A340 program could go ahead for EIS in 2011. Most of the fuselage upgrades have already been designed for in the A350 non-xwb, and could be implemented on the A330 as well.

However, the single most important development that would be required for the enhanced A340 would be the proposed "Trent-1500" engine with contra rotation, 3rd generation swept fan design + other improvements leading to a 10 percent drop in fuel burn. Add a conservative estimate of a reduction in OEW of 5 metric tonnes, thanks to the new fuselage manufacturing methods, and you would have an A340-600E with a range equaling or exceeding that of the A340-500HGW.

An A340 Enhanced would still be a niche aircraft, but well suited for polar flights and Himalayan/Karakoram overflights.

Also, one should note that a "Trent-1500" should be a perfect powerplant for an A310 sized WB. It would be interesting though to see if a market for such an airliner would develop during the next decade.

>>"My estimate, ... , is that the cost for
>>Airbus in developing the A339, A348, A349,
>>A358, A359, A368, A369, A378, A379 and A398
>>will not exceed all of the R&D costs costs
>>of developing the 787 by more than [100]
>>percent."

What's "plain wrong" with these estimates? In case you dont't know, the "A339 to A398" were only hypothetical Airbus developments proposed by me. If you are indeed a "general reader", why didn't you make a comment at the time, if you thought the estimate of US$22 billion was way off?

>>And:
>>"One should also note though that GE will
>>not stand idly by, and not offer a version
>>of the GEnx for these new Airbus products."

And your point is?

GE seems to have been more than eager for Airbus to hang a version of their GEnX on the A330-200F, but they seem to have failed.

Also, one should note that although GE have stated that they won't manufacture an engine for the A350-1000XWB, they couldn't have used a GEnX on that airframe anyway.

Canute

# re: You couldn't make it up - Airbus A380 grounded by French civil service strike @ Tuesday, January 30, 2007 7:44 AM

It looks like tags and the Hypertext REFerence do not work here. Hmm, that's a pity.

Anyway, here are all of the links that I wrote down in the above comment:

1.) ...fact that a "barrel fuselage" still contains rather big cutouts and is not an optimal and lightweight construction from the point of view of structural mechanics:

http://www.dlr.de/fa/PortalData/17/Resources/dokumente/publikationen/2004/11_kolesnikov.pdf

2.) Friction Stir Welding (FSW) is particularily well suited to be used on current aircraft platforms:

http://www.polishengineers.org/data/news/84.pdf

3.) However, it's Eclipse Aviation that currently is leading the way by using FSW extensively on the Eclipse 500:

http://www.sme.org/cgi-bin/find-articles.pl?&04mam004&ME&20040301&PUBME-129.240.146.47&SME&#article/

4.) For one-piece composite barrels they are eliminated, but circumferential frames still need to be installed, and mechanically fastened to the composite barrel:

http://www.electroimpact.com/research/2006-01-3170.pdf

5.) ...the circumferential joints, on the fuselage sections of the 787 will be using much more titanium (i.e. expensive) than what would be required in more "advanced" joint designs such as a "double-lap three row bolted joint":

http://www.dlr.de/fa/PortalData/17/Resources/dokumente/publikationen/2005/08_fink.pdf

6.) I seriously doubt that the mandrel molded method will be used much in the future where concepts; such as this one:

http://www.eid.dlr.de/dlr/Presse/dlr-nachrichten/102/42-47.pdf

..,would have composite frames that are bonded/integrated with the composite load-baring fuselage panels.

7.) Not sure what's the problem. Don't take my statements out of context. They are based on the non-xwb version of the A350, which was reported on at flighglobal.com:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2005/11/29/203391/exclusive-enhanced-a340-to-take-on-777.html

Canute

# re: You couldn't make it up - Airbus A380 grounded by French civil service strike @ Tuesday, January 30, 2007 7:34 PM

My point, Canute, is that you have posted astoundingly long treastises with the aim of pointing out the fallacy of Boeing strategy and the too-clever-by-half strategy of Airbus.

And in those cases -- regardless of what the engineering papers might say -- the market has spoken otherwise.

To wit:

First, Airbus abandoned Al-Li for A350XWB. Then, it abandoned CFRP panels on stringers for single barrels. (IE: the 787 strategy).

Second, with A350XWB development costs already exceeding those of the 787, not to mention the astronomical cost of the A380 (420 frames to break even? Great. Only 40 percent of the way there), and, oh yes, let's not forget the A400, forgive me if I don't believe that Airbus has gotten discount development down.

Finally, with the abject failures in the marketplace of the A340-500/600 and never-to-be-recovered investments incurred, I seriously doubt anybody is going to send another Euro-dime their way anytime soon. Especially with the end of ETOPS limitations, the era of long-range quads below 400 seats is over.

Regular Reader

# re: You couldn't make it up - Airbus A380 grounded by French civil service strike @ Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:21 AM

>>My point, Canute, is that you have posted
>>astoundingly long treastises with the aim of
>>pointing out the fallacy of Boeing strategy
>>and the too-clever-by-half strategy of Airbus.

I'm sorry Regular Reader, but you're wrong. Those "long treastises" was written to debunk some of the nonsense written about Airbus by people such as yourself. I've not pointed out any "fallacy of Boeing's strategy". What I have been pointing out though is:

i) the fallacy that the fuselage barrel design of the 787 is somehow the "holy grail" in the design of modern airliners,

and

ii) the fact that new and revolutionary aluminium welding techniques used on the latest Al-alloys can be used effectively and economically on current airliner platforms.

>>And in those cases -- regardless of what the
>>engineering papers might say -- the market
>>has spoken otherwise.

Ahh, the beleif in the infallability of market forces and the power of marketing...

Wouldn't you agree though that the US presently seems to be lost in a haze of marketing hype and over-the-top, effectively meaningless product names, such as the "Dreamliner"?

Anyway, don't forget the fact that Boeing does very well in bull markets. Also, they do carry a lot of weight as an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), and based on Boeing's past performance credentials, the company obviously has a lot of clout with their customers, and on the 787 program specifically; these customers trust that Boeing knows what it's doing. However, past performance is not necessarily indicative on how a future program will perform; and especially not when the OEM does not follow industrial best-practice recommendations that suggest new products should use existing processes and tools, the existing organization and demonstrated technologies.

Furthermore, it's interesting that you seem to dismiss the "engineering papers".

We just passed the 21st anniversary of the Challenger disaster. On the evening of January 27, 1986, the vice president of engineering at Morton Thiokol, was asked by his immediate superior to "take off your engineering hat and put on your managment hat". The VP switched hats, the launch was approved, and all seven of the crew perished the next morning.

In his personal observations in the aftermath of the disaster, Richard Feynman concluded that: "for a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled".

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt

Seen in this context, I would say that a dismissal of "the engineering papers" by people such as yourself, who don't seem to have much technical insight, is quite revealing actually.

>>First, Airbus abandoned Al-Li for A350XWB.

When Airbus abandoned the non-xwb version of the A350, there was no reason not to look at ALL options since the A350XWB is a 100 percent NEW design. Airbus has publicly stated that the design will not be frozen till late 2008. Is that point so difficult to understand?

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/Article.aspx?liArticleID=211028&PrinterFriendly=true

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2007/01/30/211781/airbus-hastens-xwb-supplier-plan.html

>>Then, it abandoned CFRP panels on stringers
>>for single barrels. (IE: the 787 strategy).

... or not

http://iagblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/airbus-denies-crfp-barrel-story-on-a350.html

Don't believe everything Geoffrey Thomas is telling you. Last March, he wrote that Boeing was in final negotiations with Emirates for up to 50 787-10s:

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=4505

Well, it's 10 months and counting...

>>Second, with A350XWB development costs
>>already exceeding those of the 787, not to
>>mention the astronomical cost of the A380
>>(420 frames to break even? Great. Only 40 >>percent of the way there)

The A350 XWB looks like it will be a larger and better frame than the 787, so I would not be surprised that it might cost more to develop.

In an earlier comment, I wrote that the approximate R&D costs for the 787 would be, according to the following paper (page 10), approximately US$13.4 billion (in 2004 dollar value):

http://igeographer.lib.indstate.edu/pritchard.pdf

Don't make the mistake in assuming that the total cost of the 787 program just would include Boeing's own self-financed launch funding pluss that of the risk-sharing partners.

Now, as for the "astronomical cost" of the A380 program; look at the cost increase in Euros and not in US dollars. This will give you a more balanced view.

Also, I suppose you're not aware of Boeing's cost overrun in the development of the 777?

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_50/b3862001_mz001.htm

-----------------------------------------------
quote

But Condit wildly overshot his initial budget. The plane was budgeted for $6 billion in development costs but ultimately cost $12 billion, say close observers. "We were milking money from the 767 and the 737, and that money was going right into the 777," said one former high-ranking Boeing exec. "Even though it's a wonderful machine, on a stand-alone basis, the 777 is not a commercial success." Boeing declined to discuss development costs, saying they are proprietary.
-----------------------------------------------

So General Reader, would you classify these massive cost overruns as "astronomical"???

>>and, oh yes, let's not forget the A400,

Yes, what about the A400M?

Since you claim to be such an authority on the cost of Aircraft R&D, why don't you explain it to me then?

>>forgive me if I don't believe that Airbus
>>has gotten discount development down.

That sentence doesn't make much sense, does it?

>>Finally, with the abject failures in the
>>marketplace of the A340-500/600

Sure, if you're only looking at current sales. However, Airbus is close to reaching total sales of 150 airframes, which is not great but OK.

>>and never-to-be-recovered investments incurred

Are you sure about that? Let say the R&D for the A345 and A346 was about 3 billion dollars. If you look at the current outlook for the A380 (420 frames to break-even) and total program costs, it's not unreasonable to assume that the break-even point of the A345/A346 is somewhere around 150 frames. No profit, but no loss either.

>>seriously doubt anybody is going to send
>>another Euro-dime their way anytime soon.

Wrong, Airbus has just sold another VIP version of the A345 at a price much closer to the stated list-price than what's typical in "normal" airliner transactions.

http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre/pressreleases/pressreleases_items/07_01_29_VIP_first_European_customer_EN.html

>>Especially with the end of ETOPS >>limitations, the era of long-range quads
>>below 400 seats is over.

You're wrong again, for the nth. time.....

LROPS places similar restrictions on quads that ETOPS places on twins. The new rules state, among other things, that quads MUST have the same fire detection and suppression systems as twins with ETOPS approved twins.

AND, twins are NOT allowed to fly over the Himalaya/Karakoram range.

Finally, John F. Kennedy once said in a speech at Berkeley:

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03Berkeley03231962.htm

-----------------------------------------------
quote

__ that "I sometimes think that we are too much impressed by the clamor of daily events. The newspaper headlines and the television screens give us a short view. They so flood us with the stop-press details of daily stories that we lose sight of one of the great movements of history. Yet it is the profound tendencies of history and not the passing excitements that will shape our future." ....and: "Wisdom requires the long view....."

-----------------------------------------------

The long view is exactly what many of you Airbus bashers seem to be missing. This is an industry where short-term misfortunes WILL NOT decide the future of a product development and an OEM.

Canute

# re: You couldn't make it up - Airbus A380 grounded by French civil service strike @ Friday, February 02, 2007 10:51 PM

Canute, I might advise you to seek therapy...

Airbus is not a God, Airbus is not a religion. It doesn't need followers, worshipers, priests, whatever.

You clearly ignore the history of the aviation industry. Boeing has NEVER had it to itself, and in fact wasn't even #1 till it emerged as king of the hill in the jet age. How many companies got killed in the switch to the jet age? How many got killed because they were selling props in a jet world. How many got killed because they FAILED with thier first jet? How many got killed because they just gave up?

Then look at Douglass and lockheed. While you can still catch a flight on a L1101 or a long in the tooth DC-10... thats all she wrote for thier fortunes in the industry.

More over look at how close Boeing was to selling off or shutting down its commercial side... when it was at the time unarguably the ONLY major plane maker left? Airbus was comming on strong due to boeings failure, but given that this industry usualy needs to see 10+ years to really feel the effects of a change... Runaway success like the 737 and 727 wasn't at all protection because in this industry you are only alive as your NEXT airplane. So when everyone asked boeing for a 737NG and boeing told them to buy whats in the production hall, Airbus got essentialy a free ride with thier A320 line. This is what airbus is doing to itself now.

The A380 was a answer to a question no one asked. Its sales are not. The A350 was a bold statement to the airlines. THIS IS WHAT YOU WILL BE BUYING. Only, for some odd reason, they didn't. When it didn't they again said "THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE BUYING". Any wonder it still didn't sell?

Instead Boeing took Airbus's stratagy for the A330, and is now taking airbus to the cleaners with it. Why did they do that is so right? They ASKED the customers what is thier fondest desires. They studied the hell out of said desires. They then proceeded to just start getting it done. The Sonic cruiser is allways pointed to as a great failure, but in fact its one of boeings greatest successes. It was under development because thats exactly what the airlines were asking for. They wanted more speed, they wanted reduced costs. They didn't mind if the total fuel for a given flight was no better than the old 767. Afterall fuel was cheap then. Suddenly downturn hits, premium passangers both leaving for private jets from the private jet boom and now for the down turn in the world economy... make the sonic cruiser less attractive. Boeing switches gears. Sonicruiser goes 7e7. They still get thier cargo, they get thier reduced operating costs, they get some of thier extra speed, and they get a huge slice off the fuel bill too. The sonicruiser won, when it was called off at the right time.

Airbus? Yah, it really has been missing the handwriting on the wall for the A380 program. Decades of trending to smaller planes as each generation becomes more capible... is lost on airbus management. Trends that show that cargo densitys are about X lbs/cubic foot, is ignored and the A380 can only take something like 70% of the industry standard.. FOR AIR FREIGHT. So the A380 is bucking trends in both the passenger and frieght world. Fortunately there is some routes in the world that can support a A380, leading to some passenger sales. Sadly the freighter is DOA given that companies that ship flowers and other low density goods, either shop used since passenger conversions are cheap and just as good. The package freight industry (ups/Fedex/dhl) already are fragmenting many of thier routes and trying to build back in more flexiblity. A pair of A330F's makes a hell of alot more sense for most of these companies than a single A380F. One plane goes tech? 1/2 the frieght still gets there. ALOT of penalties is avoided. Less hubbing is required since two A330F's can go two different places instead of trying to offload a A380 at one hub, and reload onto a second plane to get 1/2 its load to the secondary location. The 747-8F has the key nose-loading to offset the dispatch flexiblity. Its nice to be able to win the big $$$ contracts for air frieghting stuff that doesn't fit in any other plane. Try stuffing a 40' mast or other long object in A380F. Even airbus knows this as they do charter the belugas out at times for oversize cargo.

Only time will tell on the A350, but so far even airbus's Powerpoint designs are uncompelling to anyone in the industry. Sure ok, it will be cheaper to run than the 777. But you can get a 777 today. You know what the 777 does. you know Boeing has improved the 777 constantly and most of the improvements retrofit to existing planes.... and you know that if needed you can go to boeing and ask them for a 787-10, or suck it up and wait till they have time to get you a nice shiny Y3 that is vastly more compelling than the A350/747-8/A380. A Y3 design that will have your fingerprints all over it as the customer who is needing a plane for a given mission.

I'll say it again. Teh A330F is years late. The A350 is years late. The A380 should have never been. The A320E will be not enough, not soon enough. The A320ng whatever that is, will either be years late or years late and not enough. Doesn't mean airbus is dead... just that they are if they don't fix airbus.

Witte