[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/n/ - Transportation

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 20 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks Make sure to check your spam box!



>Despite securing 41 net orders last month, Airbus still ended the first quarter with just 62 new firm orders year to date, compared to 120 cancellations. The European aerospace giant still has some work to do just to get its net order total for 2019 into positive territory.

Just put an end to this unprofitable vanity project that only exists so Europeans can feel like they matter.
>>
>>1314476
>backlog of over 7000 planes
>deficit in orders for current year, only 1/4 of way through the year
>aiRBuS aBsOLuTeLy bTFo

Seethe harder B*eing shill, just because you realise the European product is superior to anything you burgers make.
>>
>>1314507
If Airbus were actually superior they wouldnt be in the red one third of the way into 2019.

The 777X hasn't arrived yet. The 797 hasn't been unveiled yet. The worst is yet to come for Airshills.
>>
>>1314508
>Hahaha you guys lost dozen of orders out of thousands you have got! Meanwhile we are happily gaining orders - oh wait we Boeing are actually losing more orders in the recent months!
>>
>>1314553
>A380
failure
>A340
failure
>A330neo
failure
>A350
failure
>A318
failure

tell me how a compnay can stay in business despite being so terrible?
>>
>>1314565
How can a company stay in business if they are really all failure? Of course it can't but Airbus is still here, that's why they aren't failure
>>
>>1314584
Ask GM or Chrysler or any one of the companies worldwide kept afloat by government handouts and subsidies.
>>
>>1314584
because they are literally owned by european governments who will gladly use public funds to plug any leak. and Airbus doesn't even do anything in defense to justify this treatment, its all pride and classic euro butthurt.

A320 is one hell of an aircraft though. gotta give em credit for the one they got right.
>>
>>1314605
Airbus gets zero gov handout though. What it gets is low interests loans from euro gov when launching programs. Boeing on the other hand gets direct gov handouts.
>>
>>1314605
>>1314610
t. Financially illiterate conspiracists
>>
>>1314613
No Boeing gets contracts. That is not the same thing as a handout.
>>
>>1314626
And federal grants and tax credits.
>>
>>1314610
>doesn't even do anything in defence
A330 MRTT, A400M, Eurofighter Typhoon?

>>1314626
Contracts like KC-X aerial tanker? After Airbus won the initial competition with the A330MRTT, Boeing complained and forced the change of the specifications, and then "won" the newly reopened competition?
>>
>>1314646
Don't forget the C295 (inherrited from CASA) and the Airbus A320neo Modular Multi-Mission Aircraft, though it's predicted that it will likely be a mix of smaller AWACs and Martitime Patrol aircraft designs.
Oh, and Airbus' 4 UAV designs, mostly for aeriel recon. These include smaller UAVs which can be launched by hand to larger UAVs which require runways and airports to operate from.
Oh, and we haven't forgotten Airbus Helicopters? There's a lot of scout and utility helicopter conversions from civilian models as well as a few heavy helicopters and one attack helicopter model.

Oh, and let's not forget both the military satellites both for communications and recon (earth observation and SIGINT), as well as the parts they make for the Ariane 6 and the adaptor parts for the Soyuz-ST.

Oh yeah, Airbus also make payload adaptors for various spacecraft types to the Vega, Ariane, Soyuz, Atlas, Delta, Falcon and Proton rockets.
>>
>>1314646
>>1314804
Gigacopes for a failing company
>>
>>1314584
the subsidies that airbus gets makes even sukhoi look good in comparison.
>>
>layman defending corporations on the internet for free like if they were theirs
bunch of cucks you all are
>>
>>1315088
>failing company
Airbus has not once been in a situation where its existence was threatened. Boeing has.

The only aircraft which sold far below expectation for Airbus was the A318. The A310, A340 and A380 were all profitable aircraft, even if they never sold as many as their comparable Boeing competing aircraft.

Meanwhile, Boeing is actually losing orders for the 737 MAX, Airbus is gaining orders for the A320neo, and the only real area where Boeing has been making any headwind in has been the area of the 787 and the 777X orders.

Boeing is the one which is more concerning. Boeing's incompetence has lead to a 2 year delay for the SLS rocket, to the point where NASA might have to abandon SLS entirely for EM-1. Meanwhile, Airbus' European Service Module is ready, completed and is now only awaiting further testing.
>>
>>1315107
>The A310, A340 and A380 were all profitable aircraft,
this level of cope
>>
>>1314804
That is a pretty pathetic resume tbqhwyf
>>
>>1315112
They were profitable though. The same cannot be said for projects like the 2707 which never flew and nearly bankrupted the company and nearly destroyed Seattle through the huge amounts of lay offs the company had to make.

Even the 737 MAX is sold at a loss, because Boeing makes their money from after sales service and parts.

Airbus has never sold aircraft at a loss. The A318 broke even, but it was the only disappointing aircraft in terms of sales. The A310 was before it's time, the A340 was... good but in an awkward position and the A380 came too late.

The A330neo is selling well for now and the A350 has huge numbers of orders, essentially matching that of the competing 777-8s, with Airbus looking at an even longer A350.

Airbus is the newer player, that's all. Once we get to the mid-2020s, we'll see how wide body marketshare changes, as older Boeing widebodies get retired.
>>
>>1314476
>anons actually responding to a thread with a phone screenshot
/n/ absolutely btfo by OP
>>
File: no sense.png (41 KB, 615x516)
41 KB
41 KB PNG
That makes no sense though...
Should have really bought boeing stocks.
>>
>>1315107
The A350 (and all it's desperate derivatives like the ULR and XWB) and A330neo are headed for the same scrapheap as the A340 and A380 but by some ***miraculous*** accounting I'm sure they'll be able to somehow salvage profitability just like the rest of Aircopes flops.
>>
>>1315127
COPE
O
P
E
>>
>>1315127
>The A310 was before it's time, the A340 was... good but in an awkward position and the A380 came too late.

just fucking lol at this european nonsense. the A380 is going to be outlasted by an aircraft designed in the 1960's. 747's will be rolling off the line for the next ten or so years while the absolute pinnacle of of european aerospace engineering will all be retired and rotting for parts by 2030.
>>
>>1314565
Using similar metrics,
>707
Failure
>717
Failure
>737 Max
Failure
>747-8
Failure
>757
Failure
>767
Failure
>777X
Failure
>787
Failure
>>
>>1315150
>747's will be rolling off the line for the next ten or so years while the absolute pinnacle of of european aerospace engineering will all be retired and rotting for parts by 2030.
Of course it will, because you guys will be embargoed by the world and nor capable of building newer, more efficient planes
>>
>>1315150
>747's will be rolling off the line for the next ten or so years
As a freighter only. Need I tell you what a complete failure of a plane the 747-8 Intercontinental was?
10 sold to Korean Air, 19 sold to Lufthansa, 7 sold to Air China and 2 sold to Transaero, which went bankrupt and are now being converted into VC-25s. Plus an additional plane sold to the Saudi government and 8 sold as VIP jets.

That makes only 47 747-8Is.

Meanwhile the 747-8F has 107 orders, of which 19 are unfilled for UPS Airlines and 4 are unfilled for the Saudi government.

Meanwhile, the A380 had 251 firm orders (accounting for the Emirates order cancellation) with 235 delivered. 2 more for ANA and 14 more for Emirates.


Let's TL;DR.
>A380 has 251 orders
>747-8 has 154 orders
>-8I production ended in 2017
>A380 production to end in about 2021
>-8F production to continue until 2021/22
>somehow A380 is a "failure"
>>
>>1315339
The A380 is a failure. It literally sold like 1/4 of what Airbus predicted.
>>
>>1315416
And what do you know, it still outsold the 747.

The A380 was not a failure, but it did not take off in the way it was envisioned. It was a muted success, but overall turned a profit for Airbus.
>>
>>1315438
It, AT BEST, broke even for Airbus. It was not a commercial success. That is not an opinion. It is a fact. Boeing also never predicted the -8 would sell over 1000 units; it was a low-risk, much lower cost way to fuck with Airbus without betting the farm on a superjumbo.
>>
>>1315453
No, every A380 sold was profitable. That too is a fact.
>>
>>1315457
This is very incorrect.
>>
>>1315457
you know how much infrastructure had to be put in place to support its manufacture? now all of that is useless. its a colossal failure and should've sunk Airbus as a company.
>>
>>1315416
last I checked

>747-8
still in production

>A380
to be discontinued
>>
>>1315663
>still in production
A380 is also still in production and the 747 is to be discontinued, but no firm time frame has been set (Boeing is still hoping for more -8F orders).
>>
>>1315664
UPS will be adding more 747-8F orders to replace their aging 747-4's. The 747 will probably stay in production well into the 2030's.
>>
>>1315457
>>1315469
A380s were sold at a price higher than the cost to make one, so individually Airbus made money on each plane. However, the total profits haven't and probably never will cover the costs of development for the entire program. There, you're both right.
>>
>>1315662
While a lot of the specialist infrastructure would only be able to be used for the A380, not all of it is useless. A lot of the development work, technology and experience gained from the A380 went into the A350 (avionics, composites, propulsion etc) and would undoubtedly be used in future Airbus designs.
>>
>>1315311
How boeing managed to make only one decent aircraft, 777 original?
>>
>>1314507

eat shit airfag
>>
>>1315771
Nope. Profit accounts for all costs, not just production. Every A380 was unprofitable.
>>
>>1315773
and the A350 is another Airflop dud that isn't moving nearly the units they thought it would because all the airlines are just waiting for the 777X. this is evidenced by that fact that over the last five years Airbus has suffered negative orders in 2014, 2015 and 2019 (so far) and overall added only seventy-eight orders total for the aircraft over that span. That's fifteen orders a year on average.

Meanwhile in that span the 777X has amassed three-hundred fifty orders for an average of seventy orders a year.

So this aircraft you say wouldn't exist without the A380? Its just another piece of shit like the A380 and will be out of production soon because Airbus CANNOT compete with Boeing when Boeing is allowed to come up with new innovative designs. Had Boeing just scrapped the MAX idea in the mid-2000's and let the 737 die Airbus would be totally fucked, but as it stands Boeing seems like its willing to be good sports about letting Aircope at least have one successful line of aircraft.
>>
>>1315667
Yeah, if UPS have that much money to burn to order a fuel inefficient aircraft
>>
>>1315841
747-8f is basically THE perfect cargo aircraft for busy routes. its cubes out at almost the exact time it weighs out, its legitimately perfect for its role and its very unlikely UPS will let it fall out of production.
>>
>>1315842
Yeah, because using up every single inches of space is more important than saving fuel cost
>>
>>1315845
in the parcel world every square inch not taken up by cargo is a waste of fuel
>>
>>1315846
Even with all those extra space, the fuel consumption per tonnes of cargo is still gonna be lower than the outdated aircraft



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.