3 ms·

2 points: Airbus had a competitor to the 747. The A340 was close to the 747 with all the benefits of a single airframe supplier. Second point: Airbus was in a

2 points: Airbus had a competitor to the 747. The A340 was close to the 747 with all the benefits of a single airframe supplier. Second point: Airbus was in a tough spot with the A380. They had to make it huge because Boeing was always threatening a cheaper 747 stretch. I almost feel like Boeing only ever spent money on the post -400 stretch as a "special teams" move to force Airbus into the A380.

mpweiher 9y ago
> competitor to the 747. The A340 The A340 was not competitive. The cost of a 4 engine plane with the seating of a large twin. Beautiful plane, though, very quiet near the front. > Airbus was in a tough spot with the A380 Absolutely. To me it was damned if you do, damned if you don't. A lot of industrial jiu-jitsu going on at that level.
- valuearb 9y ago
  Making a money losing investment isn't a "tough spot". You are only damned if you choose to do it. Not only did they know that 747 sales were falling, they knew point to point was becoming more popular. It was a really easy decision and they blew it. Engineering the world's greatest aircraft is an addictive endeavor, but the numbers have to work and they never did.
  - mpweiher 9y ago
    > 747 sales were falling A380 was officially started in 1993. 747 orders per year, starting 1993 2, 16, 32, 56, 36, 15, 35, 26, 16, 17, 4, 10, 43, 72 I don't see "falling". At best, I see cycles.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      In the 1970s the 747 averaged 32 orders per year. In the 1980s it averaged 43 orders per year. It peaked in 1990, taking in 122 orders that year alone, but from 1992-2000 orders dropped to average 27 per year. Ironically in 1993, the year A380 design work began, the 747 had it's worst sales year ever (till then), with only 2 orders. The A380 was approved for production in 2000. In 2005, Boeing announced the 747-8 to better compete with the A380. From 2000-2009, the 747 had 214 total orders, almost all after 747-8 was announced. The A380 had 212. Combined that's 43 orders a year. The market did not grow, despite substantially better, more capable, and more efficient, products. From 2010-2017, the 747 and A380 have booked 18 orders per year combined. It is by far the smallest jumbo market since it was created. And what point to point advocates predicted.
      - toyg 9y ago
        > The market did not grow I think part of the parent's point is that, even in a stagnant market, Airbus basically took half of it from what was previously a monopolist. Those 43 orders per year used to be all for Boeing, and now they only get half. That's a victory of sort, regardless of where the market is going for both companies.
        valuearb 9y ago
        Again, it’s not a victory, it’s been a horrific loss. Airbus disintegrated $30B of their own capital, while Boeing walked away after spending only $2.5B more.
    - aj7 9y ago
      And you see low numbers. All throughout the discussion here, I see mostly references to the 787 and 747. No. It was the 777 all along that constrained the A380. And the 777X was the coup de grace.
      - peki 9y ago
        This.. Airbus product line (cash cow) is based on midsized fuselage cross section twin. A300 fuselage cross section. This is what funded the A380. 4 engines (A340) dont make economic sense after ETOPS. Airbus does not have large cross section twin. Hence the A350xwb is critical to their future, not A330neo. Large cross section ETOPS twin 777X is the real 747 replacement. A380 is a halo product and not 747 replacement. The market is too small for A380 production run vs RnD costs. Now Airbus product line is more secure. A350xwb completes their prouct line-up. Single aisle, medium cross section twin, large cross section twin.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      BTW: I forgot that Boeing wasn't the only company to understand how poor the prospects were for the Super Jumbo market. McDonnell Douglas designed a new super jumbo just before Airbus it did, but saw the writing on the wall when they tested customer demand, and canceled it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_MD-12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_MD-12
- smachiz 9y ago
  > The A340 was not competitive. The cost of a 4 engine plane with the seating of a large twin. Well, they built the A340-600 hoping it would. But it couldn't - and the length caused CG issues which reduced cargo capacity.

mpweiher 9y ago

> competitor to the 747. The A340 The A340 was not competitive. The cost of a 4 engine plane with the seating of a large twin. Beautiful plane, though, very quiet near the front. > Airbus was in a tough spot with the A380 Absolutely. To me it was damned if you do, damned if you don't. A lot of industrial jiu-jitsu going on at that level.

valuearb 9y ago
Making a money losing investment isn't a "tough spot". You are only damned if you choose to do it. Not only did they know that 747 sales were falling, they knew point to point was becoming more popular. It was a really easy decision and they blew it. Engineering the world's greatest aircraft is an addictive endeavor, but the numbers have to work and they never did.
- mpweiher 9y ago
  > 747 sales were falling A380 was officially started in 1993. 747 orders per year, starting 1993 2, 16, 32, 56, 36, 15, 35, 26, 16, 17, 4, 10, 43, 72 I don't see "falling". At best, I see cycles.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    In the 1970s the 747 averaged 32 orders per year. In the 1980s it averaged 43 orders per year. It peaked in 1990, taking in 122 orders that year alone, but from 1992-2000 orders dropped to average 27 per year. Ironically in 1993, the year A380 design work began, the 747 had it's worst sales year ever (till then), with only 2 orders. The A380 was approved for production in 2000. In 2005, Boeing announced the 747-8 to better compete with the A380. From 2000-2009, the 747 had 214 total orders, almost all after 747-8 was announced. The A380 had 212. Combined that's 43 orders a year. The market did not grow, despite substantially better, more capable, and more efficient, products. From 2010-2017, the 747 and A380 have booked 18 orders per year combined. It is by far the smallest jumbo market since it was created. And what point to point advocates predicted.
    - toyg 9y ago
      > The market did not grow I think part of the parent's point is that, even in a stagnant market, Airbus basically took half of it from what was previously a monopolist. Those 43 orders per year used to be all for Boeing, and now they only get half. That's a victory of sort, regardless of where the market is going for both companies.
      - valuearb 9y ago
        Again, it’s not a victory, it’s been a horrific loss. Airbus disintegrated $30B of their own capital, while Boeing walked away after spending only $2.5B more.
  - aj7 9y ago
    And you see low numbers. All throughout the discussion here, I see mostly references to the 787 and 747. No. It was the 777 all along that constrained the A380. And the 777X was the coup de grace.
    - peki 9y ago
      This.. Airbus product line (cash cow) is based on midsized fuselage cross section twin. A300 fuselage cross section. This is what funded the A380. 4 engines (A340) dont make economic sense after ETOPS. Airbus does not have large cross section twin. Hence the A350xwb is critical to their future, not A330neo. Large cross section ETOPS twin 777X is the real 747 replacement. A380 is a halo product and not 747 replacement. The market is too small for A380 production run vs RnD costs. Now Airbus product line is more secure. A350xwb completes their prouct line-up. Single aisle, medium cross section twin, large cross section twin.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    BTW: I forgot that Boeing wasn't the only company to understand how poor the prospects were for the Super Jumbo market. McDonnell Douglas designed a new super jumbo just before Airbus it did, but saw the writing on the wall when they tested customer demand, and canceled it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_MD-12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_MD-12
smachiz 9y ago
> The A340 was not competitive. The cost of a 4 engine plane with the seating of a large twin. Well, they built the A340-600 hoping it would. But it couldn't - and the length caused CG issues which reduced cargo capacity.