A post by Maynard
The transatlantic competition for civilian aircraft has seesawed back and forth in the recent era. Introducing a new model is always a huge gamble, straining corporate resources to the breaking point in hopes of creating the right product at the right time. Airbus resolved to out-747 the aging 747 with the monstrous A380 Superjumbo; Boeing decided the world didn’t need two new huge airplanes, so they instead poured their resources into the highly efficient mid-size 787 Dreamliner.
Who got it right? At the moment, the advantage has tilted to Boeing, with 677 orders for their new plane. Meanwhile, Airbus has been struggling, with the A380 two years behind schedule and orders for only 159 planes. They must sell at least 300 to break even; estimates about how many the world might eventually buy range from 350 to 1000.
Behind the scenes, the lawyers have been battling. Boeing accuses the European governments of subsidizing Airbus, in violation of trade agreements. Airbus claims that the Americans covertly subsidize Boeing through lucrative military contracts.
The A380 could theoretically hold 853 passengers if configured as a cattle car, although airlines will probably set it up to carry 525 in a 3-class configuration. The 787 will carry between 210 and 330. Both planes have a range of about 8,000 miles. The A380 employed modern, lighter materials, but the 787 is an even newer design. Customers will be getting the first airplanes in the next year — assuming nobody’s schedule slips.
Maynard, big airplanes have their places and purposes. I recall the PBS specials 10 yrs ago about Boeing’s 777 project. They did a heck of a job getting it into service. Impressive. I realize we aren’t the only country in the world with “smart people”. I’m not sure there’s a place/market for a big plane to carry lots of people. The Antonov An-225 Mriya is a beautiful heavy-lift aircraft. Don’t know how many people it could be configured (as a comparison) to carry but from what I have read, it serves a definite need around the world in its heavy-lift cargo mode. What routes would a large-people-carry aircraft fly to be able to fill, consistently, with that many people? The supersonics were fantastic aircraft but carried so few as to make each seat very expensive. They outlived their usefulness too soon. I’m not in a position to offer any kind of qualified opinion. Only a personal observation. I would hope Airbus has done its homework and sees a long-term market for that huge of a people-carrier. Seems to my common sense way of thinking that Boeing has the better idea. The Yankee Ingenuity of a smaller, highly efficient design/operation aircraft has to be the better way to go. Time and markets will tell.
I’ve been watching the Boeing vs Airbus battle for many years now. The A380 vs 787 represent the fundamental differences in American vs “world” thinking. Airbus has the best aeronautical engineering minds in several European nations and the best they can come up with is a massive flying bus that can’t even be delivered within years of its promised delivery date? And all of this with the combined resources of major European governments behind the project? And on top of it all, the A380’s ultimate utility was an unknown quantity before and during its development, and will remain so into the future. In other words, is there really a demand for this aircraft sufficient to justify making it in the first place?
While on the other hand, Boeing, a private business located in America, turns out, on time and on budget, an aircraft that advances technology several generations, and an aircraft for which there is an immediate, indeed, an anxious market.
If it was not a creation of government and if it was not supported by government (actually several governments), Airbus would have gone bankrupt decades ago. European, utopian nanny-statism vs American private business ingenuity. Socialism vs capitalism. Which system is superior? Hmm. As the Brits would say, that’s a poser.