Originally Posted by bocastephen
Airbus always had an unfair advantage over Boeing because of the overt and covert subsidies it receives from the European nations that own interest in it. Although Airbus tries to make a case that Boeing is also subsidized by the US government to some degree (if they want to count sales of military products), it would be very naive to think that Airbus is not able to undercut Boeing on price and financing because of its government underwriting.
I think the best arsenal against Airbus and the 380 are the airports themselves.
No one can say "don't buy this aircraft" without touching off a trade war, but the major US hub airports like JFK, LAX, ORD, MIA, etc. can simply state "we are not upgrading our facilities to service this aircraft, and no landing permits will be issued for this aircraft unless flying cargo only and taxiing to a cargo processing facility". In one shot, you have made the purchasing decision alot more difficult for those international (and possibly domestic) carriers considering an order - and these airports are so busy with capacity demand outstripping supply, it's unlikely any carrier like BA or SQ will storm off and cut service to vital markets like these.
I find Airbus' analysis of the global passenger aviation market to be flawed - their guesstimate that passengers and airlines are best served by a cookiecutter solution of A380s sending huge numbers of passengers between major global hubs to be sent off to A320s and 319s for distribution to secondary and tertiary markets is not the direction most airlines or passengers want to go. The Boeing model of flexible, comfortable, mixed-range aircraft based on the 777 and 787, with secondary distribution to 737s and a focus on point-to-point service between markets with ideal O+D traffic loads is the better option. I will concede that the 380 would make a good all-cargo or mixed-cargo/pax plane.
Well, actually the discussion about subsies is as old as Airbus and simply ridiculous….
Boeing receives a huge amount of government aid, not to mention from the State of Washington or when they sell military aircraft at funny prices, but this discussion is not about subsidies….
What people tend to underestimate is that Boeing is developing an aircraft for a market that does not even exist, what is point to point ?? Does CO fly Austin, TX-Nuremberg ??
Probadly not, there are no point to point markets, not TATL and not TPAC. Since some years now Lufthansa is flying a so called point to point BBJ route, from DUS to both EWR and ORD and since a couple of months they do the same ex MUC and Swiss is doing the same now as well , all routes are offered on a BBJ or ABJ und have an all C class cabin and it is said you need a load of 50-55 % to break even…
What people underestimate is, that it is working, yes but why.?
On one side of the pond, we have DUS , home of the biggest fair in Germany, home of 25 % of the DAX 100 companies and a legitimate * Alliance minihub, on the other side we are talking about New York City and Chicago, both huge cities and important aviation hubs…so yes hub to point or call hub to spoke is working and that could be a niche for a 787, but if the demand is too high, a 747 or 380 is simply much much cheaper to operate, the A 380 will fly approximately 40-80 % more pax, but the operation only rise by about 20 % , easy calculation…
But there are certainly other players with a slightly different business concept, for example Continental, relying on intercontinental expansion, but aware of their limits and utilising smaller aircraft and CO would probably be better off with a 787 instead of a 752 on those thin TATL routes, but is it point to point ?? No, simple and easy, they need a hub to fill those flights, cause BDL-LIS would not work, cause there is no bub to feed.
So what is Boeing doing, they are actually developing an aircraft which is a modern version of a 762 or 763 in a bigger version and Airbus will build the 330-500/600 newer and likely more efficient aircraft, but designed for an already existing market and both will be successful selling their aircrafts, so there will be always be demand for a big bird on routes, but also for a smaller bird later on in the day and earlier, so it also should work out.
The problem I fear is, that US hub and spoke airlines ( or call them legacy carriers ) have to show that it is a working business model. So far they have lost much more money then they have earned and without huge government aids, all legacy would have been long gone, sad but simple fact…
But back to the A 380 discussion,if there is no demand for pax alone, we will see Combi aircrafts, right now all successful intercontinental airlines on this planet use Combi aircrafts and rely more and more on Cargo, despite the price drops in the last months and years…
And actually KLM`s daily IAH flight is on a 744 Combi, same with LAX or ORD, so the 380 should be a huge success as an all pax plane, Combi and Cargo plane.
And airports will desperately have to adjust to the bigger bird, cause it is by far the easiest way to make money, one big plane and a lot of pax, especially at the most congested places like ORD, NRT or FRA…
KLM is already introducing a non manned gate solution concept, it is already used at two gates at Schiphol and will be presented at the Passenger Terminal Expo next week in Cologne, so the number of employees needed to operate a gate will also be reduced massively in the near future, probadly comparable with the number of agents needed years ago and today with e tickets and e check in procedures in place, so it will get smoother and faster…