EADS
I have more than a passing knowledge of this company, the parent of Airbus. Due to certain ethical problems, I cannot go into specifics about the company: but I can say that the French regard this company as a doting parent might ... they'd do anything to see it succeed.
You see, Airbus is a symbol of national prestige on which a considerable number of jobs depend. And French credibility across the globe. When you sell an airplane, it is not the mere cost of the airplane that accrues to the seller, but it is the business in spares and service across the life of the airplane that makes the cash. So what we miss in the bland sale of airplanes is the MASSIVE hidden profits to be made later, as well as the future tie-ins in technology licensing, shared manufacturing etc. that are the real driving force in airplane sales. This impacts not just Airbus, but a huge number of companies throughout France, Germany and Spain ... voila the real reason why countries will make total whores of themselves to promote the airplanes of their darlings.
Now Airbus makes some good aircraft, and in some cases they are superior to those of Boeing. In most cases the Boeing aircraft are lower tech than Airbus' products -- and that generally results in lower operating costs over the long haul and greater dependability. So while Airbus provides a wonderful cheap price on an extremely high tech product, the long haul makes you look elsewhere -- at least seriously contemplate it. A problem arises here: CEOs looking for short term benefits and material to present at the next annual meeting like the cheap prices and generous financing provided by Airbus. Of course that this comes out of the French tax payer's hide is irrelevant. Airbus counters that Boeing is support by development slurs between military contracts and the commercial division -- so that is the US equivalent of the absurdly generous loans and terms provided to Airbus for development costs. To be sure, some degree of skulldudgery is present on the US side, but it involves commerce ... the Euros simply "give."
Now we are at an interesting place in Airbus history: if they cannot deliver the A380, they go bust. Simple. Never has Boeing been in that place. The 787 Dreamliner is threatening to put them in that place, but not yet.
So do we need the A380? I just cannot think so. There are very few hubs that can even support the weight of the aircraft, let alone service it. And does it provide the leap in numbers and cost of the venerable 747? No. It does not. The 747-400 is massive and carries almost 560 people in domestic set-up and up to 430 in three class international form. The A380 seats 550 in standard set-up ... and as to that bar and health club crap you see in the ads? Well remember the 747 was meant to have the same upstairs for its first class passengers. That lasted all of three nanoseconds -- you can put seats there. True, Virgin Atlantic does have a "bar," sort of. But Branson is different too and does not resemble the grubbers of the major airlines. It is a case of an aircraft that would only make sense in an environment of huge growth in travel ... something that will not happen in a world of expensive fuel and threats to the individual. So as a hub-to-hub vehicle, say from Heathrow to Dubai? Maybe. Sydney to LA? Probably. NYC to London? NO. there is too much need for multiple flights on a varied schedule.
Other little issue? the A350 is completely outclassed and out designed by the 787. Airbus totally missed the target there and is having to redesign the aircraft in an impossibly short time to counter the threat from Boeing. So if you see sales at the airshows this year, it is only because Airbus has put the squeeze on its existing clients, political partners, and groups/people/airlines that may be "beholden" to the company. Not because it is a viable and realistic design right now.
And the A380? Uh, how about that wiring? Another 6 month delay? By contrast, believe Boeing when they say that they can stretch or adapt the 747 to accomodate the same as an A380: the technology is proven (if old) and ready to roll.
One other thing, I just flew on the older A340 -- the initial answer to the 747. I HATE that plane. Especially if you sit in the back of the 'Bus. The tail wiggles to and fro throughout the flight -- a very nauseating and frightening thing that you can feel in your seat. Sooner or later there is going to be an issue about fatigue related to this, and the result probably catastrophic. Not terrorism, but flagrantly bas design stuffed under the public's eyes in the interests of commercial success.
You see, Airbus is a symbol of national prestige on which a considerable number of jobs depend. And French credibility across the globe. When you sell an airplane, it is not the mere cost of the airplane that accrues to the seller, but it is the business in spares and service across the life of the airplane that makes the cash. So what we miss in the bland sale of airplanes is the MASSIVE hidden profits to be made later, as well as the future tie-ins in technology licensing, shared manufacturing etc. that are the real driving force in airplane sales. This impacts not just Airbus, but a huge number of companies throughout France, Germany and Spain ... voila the real reason why countries will make total whores of themselves to promote the airplanes of their darlings.
Now Airbus makes some good aircraft, and in some cases they are superior to those of Boeing. In most cases the Boeing aircraft are lower tech than Airbus' products -- and that generally results in lower operating costs over the long haul and greater dependability. So while Airbus provides a wonderful cheap price on an extremely high tech product, the long haul makes you look elsewhere -- at least seriously contemplate it. A problem arises here: CEOs looking for short term benefits and material to present at the next annual meeting like the cheap prices and generous financing provided by Airbus. Of course that this comes out of the French tax payer's hide is irrelevant. Airbus counters that Boeing is support by development slurs between military contracts and the commercial division -- so that is the US equivalent of the absurdly generous loans and terms provided to Airbus for development costs. To be sure, some degree of skulldudgery is present on the US side, but it involves commerce ... the Euros simply "give."
Now we are at an interesting place in Airbus history: if they cannot deliver the A380, they go bust. Simple. Never has Boeing been in that place. The 787 Dreamliner is threatening to put them in that place, but not yet.
So do we need the A380? I just cannot think so. There are very few hubs that can even support the weight of the aircraft, let alone service it. And does it provide the leap in numbers and cost of the venerable 747? No. It does not. The 747-400 is massive and carries almost 560 people in domestic set-up and up to 430 in three class international form. The A380 seats 550 in standard set-up ... and as to that bar and health club crap you see in the ads? Well remember the 747 was meant to have the same upstairs for its first class passengers. That lasted all of three nanoseconds -- you can put seats there. True, Virgin Atlantic does have a "bar," sort of. But Branson is different too and does not resemble the grubbers of the major airlines. It is a case of an aircraft that would only make sense in an environment of huge growth in travel ... something that will not happen in a world of expensive fuel and threats to the individual. So as a hub-to-hub vehicle, say from Heathrow to Dubai? Maybe. Sydney to LA? Probably. NYC to London? NO. there is too much need for multiple flights on a varied schedule.
Other little issue? the A350 is completely outclassed and out designed by the 787. Airbus totally missed the target there and is having to redesign the aircraft in an impossibly short time to counter the threat from Boeing. So if you see sales at the airshows this year, it is only because Airbus has put the squeeze on its existing clients, political partners, and groups/people/airlines that may be "beholden" to the company. Not because it is a viable and realistic design right now.
And the A380? Uh, how about that wiring? Another 6 month delay? By contrast, believe Boeing when they say that they can stretch or adapt the 747 to accomodate the same as an A380: the technology is proven (if old) and ready to roll.
One other thing, I just flew on the older A340 -- the initial answer to the 747. I HATE that plane. Especially if you sit in the back of the 'Bus. The tail wiggles to and fro throughout the flight -- a very nauseating and frightening thing that you can feel in your seat. Sooner or later there is going to be an issue about fatigue related to this, and the result probably catastrophic. Not terrorism, but flagrantly bas design stuffed under the public's eyes in the interests of commercial success.
posted by Zaphod at Friday, June 23, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home