More A380 Delays . . . Bummer

It’s true that I think the A380 wasn’t the right strategic move for Airbus (smaller is better), and it’s one of the uglier planes out there, but I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t looking forward to seeing it enter service.

Unfortunately, we’re going to have to wait a little longer. Airbus came out today saying what many had already predicted, there will likely be more A380 delays. This is now the third delay that has been announced.

It was a cryptic message today saying only that “from what is known today, there will be further delays.” No new timeline has been set, so we’ll just have to keep waiting.

For customers, this means that new routes may be on hold for a little while. Airlines have started planning around their upcoming aircraft deliveries, and now they’re scrambling to figure out how to get more planes. Lufthansa, for example, ordered 5 more A330s yesterday to help bridge the gap. I would expect others to either do the same or cut back on growth for the short term.

Brett

4 responses to “More A380 Delays . . . Bummer”

Airline State

Sep 22, 2006

I agree with your commentary that the size of the A380 is not the right strategy. I just don’t think the economic model that Airbus has marketed for the A380 is sound. The program also leaves Airbus at the mercy of world airports to make some very spendy changes to their facilities, runways, taxiways etc in order to handle the aircraft. Too many variables out of their control and the variables they should control (i.e. production of the aircraft) are getting away from them too. This situation could be exacerbated if Boeing manages to get the 787 and the 747-8 out the door on-time and on budget.

Reply
The CF

Sep 22, 2006

It’s true about having to rely on airports to upgrade things, but the same thing did happen back when the 747 was built. The difference is that back then there was a lot of pressure for it. I mean, 747s were routinely being flown domestically. They used to think the more capacity the better.

Now that most airlines have figured out that’s not true unless you’re in a seriously restricted airport (like Heathrow or Narita), there isn’t as much pressure for airports to upgrade. Sure, the biggies will do it, but you won’t see nearly as many airports able to handle that thing as you see that can handle 747s.

If the 787 does come out the door on-time, on budget, and meeting performance guarantees, it will hurt the A350 a lot more than the A380 I think. The 748 though should be getting more orders than it has. Maybe this latest delay will fix that.

Reply
The Burnelli Support Group

Mar 10, 2008

This is just a larger version of the flimsy, explosive design we’ve been forced to fly in for over 50 years. Accidents happen and the A380 has no exemptions from them. Denial that it will happen is just wishful thinking and when one of these does go down you can kiss a whole small town goodbye. Just a tragedy waiting to happen. Thank God it’s been delayed for so long and orders have dropped off significantly. If you have to fly one of these cracker box jumbos, fly the 747.

Titanic? Most assuredly, but only half the number of people will die in it’s crashing as did in the Titanic’s sinking. They hopefully won’t suffer as long though.

Wouldn’t it be great to fly in a plane that would take off and land at just over 100 mph, carry at least 2 times the load of any commercial airliner (any size, 727, 737, 747) with the same fuel economy, walk away from a crash instead of explode into flames from a runway overrun?

The A380 ain’t it. I’ve already seen some pretty violent tail strikes and scary take-offs by this plane. They’re all on U-Tube. Take a look.

Visit http://www.aircrash.org and find out about Vincent Burnelli’s airfoil, lifting fuselage and give them your support for a safer, more economical, eco-friendly aircraft. Just Google “Burnelli” images and see what I’m talking about. Google the 1964 GB-888A jet airliner design. It is unbelievably modern and could have carried 600 safely back then. With a wing span comperable to other airliners and its low takeoff and landing speeds, runways could actually be shortened.

Its predecessor, the UB-14 crashed violently in 1935 with 7 aboard. All was caught on film. There was no fire and all 7 walked away, unhurt. Their survival was not by chance but by design. The comments about this plane are not my opinion, they are facts from past flight and wind tunnel testing and from the documented, proven history of safety and performance.

Some of us who have found this better, safer, more intelligent and most of all “proven” design are working for its revival and construction for commercial use. Join in. Every person can make a difference if they believe they can. Reduce the risk of flying, reduce the stress of flying and reduce the huge carbon footprint made by all existing airliners including the A380. Go to the aircrash site now and see what you can do to help in this effort.

Reply
José

Oct 27, 2008

Hear hear to everything written in the last post!

If Burnelli’s design had been accepted by a US President who should have known better, commercial and military flying would have been a lot safer than it has been for over 60 years.

It may look like a strange design now, but if it had been produced back then, we’d be thinking that tubes with wings look strange now!

It’s way past time to make the change from little chance of surviving a crash situation that normally happens at take off or landing.
From almost no chance of survival in a tube, to a very good chance of survival in a BWB/ESTOL.

Reply