Samsonite

Break even? On the Airbust 380? Not likely. The rumors are they will have to sell well over 400 to break even and it has taken them 10 years to sell just a few over 200. There is a chance, remote, that the program will be terminated before they even get close to producing and delivering what they have sold so far.

One would think you would have learned to do your homework by now. The total 787s sold so far is 866. Multiply that times a price of, e.g., $200 Million and that comes $173.2 Billion, which more than covers the development cost and gives them a nice profit. Boeing will recover their cost within the first year after the first delivery if not sooner as they will have 30 ready to start deliveries by later this year and they will be putting out at least 7 a month shortly thereafter. Airbust, OTOH, has only delivered 26 A380s in the 2 1/2 years since the first delivery and it is unlikely they will deliver 20 this year, if that. Airbust will be lucky to breakeven.

Once when returning from the land of smiles and guile aboard a Boeing 747-400, our relative ground speed was a little over 700 mph. IIRC about 718 or so. Must have been one hell of a tailwind. :)

"Shoot The Dog (Part 4) April 6th, 2010 At the end of the first quarter last year, Airbus had delivered precisely zero A380’s. A year later, at the end of the first quarter of 2010 there have been just three A380’s delivered. Aside from the fact that the A380 continues to make headlines for all the wrong reasons, the real worry is the lack of existing customers stepping forward to take early deliveries. No deliveries = no revenue. The large airplane market has languished behind that of the long range, twin-aisle, twin engine segment - and with good reason. As premium traffic continues to die, the shift towards the rear cabin has forced a string of airlines this year to re-evaluate their seating configurations, capacity and which routes will be served with a particular airplane type - all of which has meant a tectonic shift even further away from the big quad jets like the A380 and 747. What makes things invariably worse for the A380 is the huge loss the program sits in, continued escalating production costs and a supply base unable to ramp up as quickly as had been first hoped - in the background, Airbus continues to run a feasibility study into the financial viability of the airplane. The initial flurry of low-priced deals to snare customers in the last decade has completely undone the business case for this airplane. It can be argued that Boeing’s lack of decisive movement in the years prior to the A380’s launch has now left Airbus reeling from a decision that it has no choice to stick until deliveries are complete - that may take quite a while based on current output! Airbus looked at Boeing’s successes with the 747 and thought it could garner the same monopoly and took the initiative to launch the A380 while its U.S. rival sat on the sidelines. The result of those events is clear - the A380’s costs have spiralled completely out of control, the entire market gravitated toward more point-to-point capable airplanes like the A330, A350, 777, and 787 and the failure to assign resources adequately has meant that the A380F has about as much chance of revival as the dodo. Boeing’s own 747-8 program sits in a loss position, albeit the costs of which are paled in comparison to the A380. Poor sales in the large market arena have shown that the concept ten years ago of a dual-deck jet simply is not required for the marketplace today - there may be limited scope at some slot-constrained airports where the need is pressing, but overall, poor sales over the last decade, the spate of deferrals seen last year and a financing market that it averse to lending money on the inconsistently priced A380 has meant that this giant airplane will be remembered for more of its failures than money making ability. About the only saving grace for Airbus and the A380 is that Bombardier has demonstrated even worse fortunes with the CSeries." http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2010/04/06/shoot-the-dog4/ "Bloomberg Airbus Postpones First A380 Delivery to Korean Air (Update1) April 08, 2010, 5:00 AM EDT (Adds Airbus confirmation in second paragraph.) By Seonjin Cha April 8 (Bloomberg) -- Airbus SAS, the world’s largest commercial-aircraft maker, said it will delay its first delivery of an A380 jet to Korean Air Lines Co. because production of the superjumbo is behind schedule. Korean Air will get its first A380, the world’s largest passenger plane, in the second quarter of 2011 instead of in December as previously planned, the Seoul-based carrier said in an e-mail today. Airbus spokesman Sean Lee confirmed the delay in a separate e-mail. Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co., which last month booked 240 million euros in charges on its A380, wants to deliver about 20 of the superjumbos this year, or twice as many as in 2009. As of March 9, it had shipped three to customers. Korean Air, the country’s biggest air carrier, has placed orders for 10 A380 jets to meet rising travel demand and cut fuel costs Some of the Korean Air orders were for deliver as late as 2014. Korean Air shares rose 1 percent to 69,700 won at the close in Seoul trading compared with the key Kospi index’s 0.4 percent gain. The stock has advanced 27 percent this year." http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-0...r-update1-.html

All part of the process of building a new aircraft, be it Boeing or that government public works program called, airbust. Read back a couple of posts about the those geniuses at airbust and the a380. They all couldn't even be bothered to use the same version of the CAD software, and to this day, 2 1/2 years after the first delivery, they still haven't been able to build them on schedule. Any real company dependent on real profits to stay in business would have had no choice but to shut the project down a long time ago.

You might want to look up the results of the a380 wing test.

Well, with only 26 delivered in 2 1/2 years I would hope they haven't had any accidents. The "typical cruising speed" of the a380 is Mach .85 vs the 747 at Mach .855, and, yes, it is very approximate due to weather conditions, altitude, air density (moisture), headwinds, tailwinds, etc., etc., etc. http://airbusa380.tripod.com/id4.html This site is obviously bias in favor of airbust, BTW.

Some of the rumors on the aviation sites say out sourcing it the reason for Qantas' rash of maintenance problems. True or not, I don't know.

Again, nonsensical. When did speed become more important than reliability? But, since you brought it up, the a380's speed is the same as the Boeing 747; approximately .855 of Mach. Here, from the guy whose airline holds 25% of the a380 order book: "Friday March 12, 2010 Emirates President Tim Clark told ATWOnline yesterday in Berlin that the airline's A380s have been a success with passengers and on the balance sheet but that "there are still problems with the reliability of the aircraft. And when we fix snags, we find new ones. I am trying to be kind to Airbus, but they have to solve the problems." The operational reliability of EK's seven in-service A380s is 90%-95%, which he said is not good enough, although he added that the manufacturer "gives us good support."....." http://www.atwonline.com/news/other.html?i...e=3%2F12%2F2010

Nonsensical. Two different aircraft for two different markets. But, btw, when it does go into service, Boeing will deliver more 787s in the first few months than airbust has delivered a380s in the 2 1/2 years (to date) since it first went into service.

And the flight will be delayed on a regular basis.

Right on the money. :) EVA took delivery of their first Boeing 777-300ER in July of 2005, and to date have 14 in their fleet. http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders...tTimeout=100000

"Initial production of the A380 was troubled by delays attributed to the 530 km (330 mi) of wiring in each aircraft. Airbus cited as underlying causes the complexity of the cabin wiring (100,000 wires and 40,300 connectors), its concurrent design and production, the high degree of customization for each airline, and failures of configuration management and change control.[43][44] Specifically, it would appear that German and Spanish Airbus facilities continued to use CATIA version 4, while British and French sites migrated to version 5.[45] This caused overall configuration management problems, at least in part because wiring harnesses manufactured using aluminium rather than copper conductors necessitated special design rules including non-standard dimensions and bend radii; these were not easily transferred between versions of the software.[46] Airbus announced the first delay in June 2005 and notified airlines that deliveries would be delayed by six months.[45] This reduced the number of planned deliveries by the end of 2009 from about 120 to 90–100. On 13 June 2006, Airbus announced a second delay, with the delivery schedule undergoing an additional shift of six to seven months.[47] Although the first delivery was still planned before the end of 2006, deliveries in 2007 would drop to only 9 aircraft, and deliveries by the end of 2009 would be cut to 70–80 aircraft. The announcement caused a 26% drop in the share price of Airbus's parent, EADS,[48] and led to the departure of EADS CEO Noël Forgeard, Airbus CEO Gustav Humbert, and A380 programme manager Charles Champion.[45][49] On 3 October 2006, upon completion of a review of the A380 program, the CEO of Airbus, Christian Streiff, announced a third delay,[45] pushing the first delivery to October 2007, to be followed by 13 deliveries in 2008, 25 in 2009, and the full production rate of 45 aircraft per year in 2010.[50] The delay also increased the earnings shortfall projected by Airbus through 2010 to €4.8 billion.[45][51]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380 They didn't deliver 25 in 2009 and it is doubtful they will deliver 45 in 2010. Only 26 have been delivered since the first was handed over to Singapore Air 2 1/2 years ago.

Lame. Very lame. Anytime you build a new airplane, especially using new technologies, you will have to make changes here and there as you go along. During the test flight phase new problems may be discovered and then fixed. That is what test flights are all about. Now, if you really want the best modern example of something NOT being "designed right in the first place" take a look at the airbust a380. Let us see.... if first flew, when was it... 5, that is FIVE, years ago, but didn't go into service until 2 years later. Yet, now, after FIVE years, it is still having trouble both in production, they have yet to meet a yearly production goal, and it has a less than sterling record at the gate and goes "tech" (delayed or canceled flights) on a regular basis. When a new aircraft first enters service some problems are expected, but after FIVE YEARS in the air the a380 is turning into a white elephant. So, sorry, charlie.

Notice the fact that this is the first time they tested it to the 150% level. Interesting, don't you think (no, you wouldn't) they caught the problem early on? BTW, didn't the airbust a380 fail that test? Didn't the a380 wing fail at 145% ?

The wings on the 787 are amazing. Here is a photo of the test:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE62M20E20100323 "UPDATE 3-WTO tells EU to stop illegal Airbus subsidies Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:37pm EDT European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company EADS N.V. EAD.PA €14.69 -0.31-2.07% 11:36am GMT-0700 The Boeing Company BA.N $72.18 +0.27+0.38% 3:00pm GMT-0700 * WTO calls on Europe to end aircraft subsidies * Airbus says ruling rejects most U.S. claims * Civil aviation market worth $3 trillion over next 20 yrs * WTO to rule on EU countersuit on aid to Boeing by end June By Jonathan Lynn and Tim Hepher GENEVA/PARIS, March 23 (Reuters) - A World Trade Organization panel called on Tuesday on the European Union to end illegal subsidies to Airbus (EAD.PA), ratcheting up the stakes in the multi-trillion-dollar large aircraft market. The call came in a confidential 1,000-page ruling by the WTO panel in one of two cases in the trade dispute involving arch-rivals Boeing (BA.N) and EADS subsidiary Airbus. The European Union said Tuesday's ruling was only part of the puzzle and it was premature for one side to claim victory. "A fuller picture will only emerge with the release of the interim report in the EU case against subsidies to Boeing which we expect to be issued in the coming months," EU trade spokesman John Clancy said in a statement. The ruling, covering EU support for Airbus challenged by the United States, said some of the financial aid at issue amounted to prohibited export subsidies and should be stopped within 90 days, several sources familiar with the ruling told Reuters. This included part of the European funding for Airbus's flagship 525-seat A380, the world's largest airliner. Other support that caused injury to U.S. planemakers should also cease, the panel ruled, but set no deadline. Airbus acknowledged the WTO had found some subsidies and said it might appeal against this ruling, but asserted the panel had rejected 70 percent of U.S. claims. The ruling does not mean the end of the dispute, which dates back decades. The WTO is due to rule by late June in the countersuit brought by the EU against U.S. support for Boeing. Both sides could drag out the litigation into next year and beyond with appeals and new disputes over compliance. "As in all other trade conflicts, resolution will finally only be found in trans-Atlantic negotiations," Airbus said in a statement. MIXED VERDICT Boeing insists the two cases are separate and hopes the ruling will stop the EU from subsiding Airbus's new A350 plane. But Airbus said the ruling would not affect funding for the A350 -- strictly correct as the panel decided the new airliner was out of its terms of reference, which only covered aid up to 2006. Washington will likely argue a precedent was set, however. In such complex cases the conclusions rarely go one way, and the panel did find that some support for Airbus, such as loans from the European Investment Bank or debt forgiveness by Germany, did not amount to subsidies, the source said. But it did say that many other forms of support -- in some cases at least -- did amount to illegal subsidies. These included infrastructure spending, equity ownership, equity infusions, and some research and development spending, sources familar with the case said. "The panel has now confirmed what we have always said: reimbursable loans are a legal instrument and they have not caused one single job loss to the U.S. aerospace industry," Airbus spokeswoman Maggie Bergsma said. "Airbus has brought competition, ensuring healthy choice for our customer airlines," she said in a statement. There was no immediate comment from U.S. officials or Boeing. The report will not be published for several weeks or months as it awaits translation into French and Spanish, but a confidential copy of the document was handed to the U.S. and EU trade missions in Geneva. While both parties are bound to secrecy until publication, more details are likely to trickle out as the two sides seek to influence the debate over government subsidies for aircraft. Subsidy rules lie at the heart of the battle for dominance of the market for civilian aircraft which aerospace firms estimate will be worth $3 trillion over the next 20 years. The United States argues that Airbus got a total of $205 billion in unfairly priced loans and other benefits from France, Germany, Spain and Britain over two decades -- making the case by far the biggest international trade dispute. Final resolution of the two cases will define the rules of the civil aviation market, where Airbus and Boeing have together nearly $1 trillion of aircraft on their order books, for years to come. (Additional reporting by Bate Felix in Brussels and Doug Palmer in Washington; editing by Janet Lawrence)" http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE62M20E20100323

Well... if you have thrown the switch on your side (enabled spell checking in the IPB software) then the problem would be on the member's side, e.g., their browser or video drivers, etc.

Just FYI, in Firefox 3.6 for Linux it is, Edit, Preferences, then as shown above.

Spell check also works in Firefox 3.6 (for Linux). Just FYI. Could be a setting in Firefox. Board member Lovedog100 has been kind enough to put step by step instructions here, http://www.pattayatalk.com/forums/index.ph...mp;#entry756039

Works fine in Opera. I'll switch to Firefox and let you know.

Yes, spell check works just fine in the Linux version of Opera.

"And on the seventh day Posted by Michael Mecham at 3/14/2010 11:01 PM CDT Boeing’s fourth 787 test aircraft, ZA003, the one that tests cabin systems, and the last one with Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines, entered the flight regime on Sunday with a 3 hr. and 6 min. flight. Captains Ray Craig and Mike Bryan were at the controls. The aircraft completed gauntlet testing last week and joins a fleet that has accumulated 100 flights and 300 hours of flight test. ZA003 will spend the least time in the air of the six flight test airplanes, but from a passenger’s and crew’s point of view it’s ranking is pretty high. It is dedicated to passenger interior features – LED lighting, electrochromatic window shades (no more pull down shades) and seat-track connections for inflight entertainment systems -- and crew support systems, meaning their rest areas. It also will include interior noise performance, flight-deck operations, avionics checks, electromagnetic effects, high-intensity radio frequency response and extended operations(ETOPS). As usual, the flight commenced from Payne Field at the 787 factory in Everett and landed at Boeing Field in Seattle, home to Boeing flight test operations. Boeing juggled its entry listing, pushing the fourth airplane built – ZA004 – ahead of ZA003. The final two test airplanes will be powered by General Electric GEnx-1B engines." http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/comme...mentId=blogDest

"Friday March 12, 2010 Emirates President Tim Clark told ATWOnline yesterday in Berlin that the airline's A380s have been a success with passengers and on the balance sheet but that "there are still problems with the reliability of the aircraft. And when we fix snags, we find new ones. I am trying to be kind to Airbus, but they have to solve the problems." The operational reliability of EK's seven in-service A380s is 90%-95%, which he said is not good enough, although he added that the manufacturer "gives us good support."....." http://www.atwonline.com/news/other.html?i...e=3%2F12%2F2010

Admin. Please deleted. Duplicate post.