Reeling: Airbus A380 delayed again....

[Dr Mordrid]

Jezzzz.....

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/10/04/airbus.delay.eads.reut/

Air industry reels at A380 delay

PARIS, France (Reuters) -- The world's airlines were forced to review growth plans on Wednesday after Airbus revealed more delays to its troubled A380 superjumbo, while the jetmaker's parent EADS faced a threat to its key credit rating.

Europe's aerospace firm delayed deliveries of the world's largest jetliner by another year on Tuesday, leaving it two years behind schedule, because of wiring installation problems.

EADS shares opened more than 11 percent lower and broker Natexis changed its investment recommendation to 'hold' from 'buy'.

EADS predicted a profit shortfall of 2.8 billion euros over four years on top of 2 billion euros disclosed in June and announced a 2-billion-euro annual cost-savings program, far above previous measures.

It also took provisions for penalties to airlines and acknowledged the risk of further charges for its new A350 aircraft, which needs to be redesigned to counter Boeing's 787 Dreamliner.

Debt rating agency Standard & Poor's said overnight it might cut its rating on EADS on the back of the profit warning and the delay, due mainly to problems installing wiring in the $300 million double-decker.

"As the delay will disrupt the expansion strategies of a number of major airlines, the group's competitive position on wide-body aircraft could be adversely affected," the agency said.

Australia's Qantas Airways Ltd. said it would not receive its first A380 until August 2008, two years late. It expects to receive four of the planes by the end of that year and seven by mid-2009.

In the meantime it said it was reviewing its capacity needs.

"How are we going to mount the capacity in the short-term? What does it mean in the long-term? Where do we go from here? It's all part of the review," Qantas executive general manager John Borghetti told Reuters.

Qantas did not rule out canceling the A380 order.

"I'm not going to speculate on that. That's just between us and Airbus," Borghetti said

[rylan]

Does anyone actually want to get on one of these planes when its sitting at the gate?

[lecter]

I don't understand your question...the delays suck, but when it does finally enter production, it will be the current pinnacle of commercial air travel.

[Dr Mordrid]

Last European plane that was said about was the Concorde, and it was far from being a commercial success

[az]

Every time I see your posts I wonder why there is no english word for Schadenfreude, you seem to like the concept so very much.

[jms]

Every time I see your posts I wonder why there is no english word for Schadenfreude, you seem to like the concept so very much.

Schadenfreude = Gloating , right? And I would have to agree with you az.

[Brian Ellis]

Gloating is rather weak, compared with Schadenfreude. I agree there is no direct translation, because there is a great deal more maliciousness incorporated into the pleasure of others' misfortunes than 'gloating' implies. The latter is more likely to contain even an element of envy: e.g., you may gloat when you hear a friend has just lost $10,000, because the DJ has gone down 1%, but you envy him the fact that he has a cool million invested and that is the reason behind the gloat.

[rylan]

The plane may be a pinnacle of air travel due to its size and ability to carry an obscene amount of people at once... however thats why I wouldn't want to get on it. Its essentially a giant flying sardine can and a huge easy terrorist target.

[Dr Mordrid]

And my concerns are not parochial but are born out of the now questionable investments made by EADS stockholders. At least Rolls Royce is protected a bit by the fact that they don't depend on the A380, but EADS has a lot of eggs in that basket.

I also find it problematic that for all its supposed savings a lot of expenses will be incurred by the airports (and taxpayers who pay for same) which will have to be redesigned and terminals modded to fit its requirements.

Also note that the title of my post came from the Reuters article. If your fellow Europeans feel that things are reeling due to the EADS A380 fiasco who am I to argue with them?

[Brian Ellis]

The plane may be a pinnacle of air travel due to its size and ability to carry an obscene amount of people at once... however thats why I wouldn't want to get on it. Its essentially a giant flying sardine can and a huge easy terrorist target.

It's not so much the number of people but the comfort that is important. Anyone who has flown in a 747 from Europe to LA or SF (or vice versa) with their chin on their knees, an obese person snoring in the seat next to you, as he overflows into your space, the guy in front on full recline and the kid behind kicking the back of your seat will know what I mean. Most of the airlines having ordered the A380 have not opted for max no. of passengers but for a reasonable compromise with improved passenger comfort in mind. For example, Singapore will be operating with 480 seats; AFAIK, no airline has ordered the 853 maximum approved by safety regulators (a test showed an evacuation time of 853 persons, in the dark, with only half the emergency exits being used, not known beforehand to the passengers, in 78 seconds - try that in a 747-400 which can barely do it in the maximum 90 seconds with all the exits being used!)

As for terrorism, this is just paranoia. Even a Cessna could kill 853 persons if cleverly arranged.

The holistic costs of flying one person from S'pore to Europe non-stop, with 75% occupancy, will be 15% lower than in a 747-400, including the terminal construction, and the fuel consumed will be 20-30% less (of course, the major cost reduction, but also pollution reduction, including noise).

Of course I regret the delays, especially for such banal reasons as the wiring of the entertainment systems, but this aircraft will become the preferred hub-to-hub machine for dense routes, such as Europe>USA and Europe>Far East.

[VJ]

The plane may be a pinnacle of air travel due to its size and ability to carry an obscene amount of people at once... however thats why I wouldn't want to get on it. Its essentially a giant flying sardine can and a huge easy terrorist target.

Terrorist attacks are mainly intended to make a statement; the exact number of victims is not as important (in that aspect, the difference between a 747-400 and the A380 isn't that big).


Jörg