DingDingDing!

Some of the 787 work...and all our airplanes for that matter...could be outsourced. There are some areas of the airplane that don't require the "tribal knowledge" in order for them to be manufactured properly. What Boeing failed to understand is that there is a certain level of manufacturing control that is needed. It was losing the quality control that caused all of the problems.

It wasn't that outsourcing was wrong, it was how they went about it. I really think that Boeing can (and will) make some level of outsourcing work for them...but they really need to rethink what goes out and what stays "at home."

Gee, I guess us engineers and techs actually have some worth....

B~

OT, but I can't resist.

Mr. Aboulafia takes the time to comment on the lack of a business case for the Whalejet. He's even better at it than I am!

Yeah, I think Airbus' thinking was pretty "narrow" when they decided to build the A380.

B~

Careful .. while Richard Aboulafia 'comments' on the lack of a business case for the A380, nowhere does he state that the program won't eventually be profitable.

Remember, the "Power8" program addresses fundamental Airbus/EADS issues endemic to the entire company, not just the A380 frame. One .. and possibly the most major .. issue is (and has always been) the strength of the Euro against the US dollar and Airbus' dollar-denominated costs.

In fact, if you examine Aboulafia's comment in detail, it is more directly aimed at and related to the A350XWB. Whether he is correct .. is still yet to be proven.

Actually, he said this:

How may ways are there to interpret this?

Reading the quote - in context - he makes the point .. fairly succinctly, I think :

Who's context?

The A380 was built without a business case. That is the point. He is using it as an example. The fact that it's likely to affect the A350XWB is a consequence.

That is patently untrue!
Just like Boeing with the T7, they had a steering committee of 20 airlines giving input before they decided to build it.

Just like Qantas on the T7, the glaring members of the A380 committee who walked away were NH and JL.
I think the US members never went for it for different reasons.

They did of course get launch aid from a few European Governments(ouch!), and they for sure saw a business plan and approved it.

Lets face it the launch orderbook was pretty impressive, not too many third world carriers, it stalled at a later date.

I think this Austral MOU could be a portent for the fulfilment of part of its business plan which was for mass transit in the truest sense.

Not too interested in trying it myself, I like the creature comforts thank you.

Well it's not like Airbus had anything else to spend their money on when they launched the A380 program, so I don't really see how they hurt themselves by funding it.

Boeing seems to have done more damage to themselves trying to launch three programs - 787, 777 Freighter and 747-8 - all at the same time. Even there, they didn't run out of money - just talent.

So if you think the A380 will eventually show a profit, lets get specific. Identify the amount of non recurring cost that went into the airplane. Identify all the out of sequence rework for all the wiring screw ups. Identify the cost of fixing the design and manufacturing processes that allowed the wiring problems and others to occur. Identify all the capital expended for new facilities. Account for cost of money (even if at under commercial rates) and then amortize that non recurring over the airplanes sold and when will the A380 turn a profit, which century? Make sure you take into account all the initial airplanes sold at cheap prices and all the other airplanes Airbus either gave away or sold at extremely low prices to compensate for late A380 deliveries. When again will the A380 make a profit? How much? I do not believe Airbus had a business plan when the A380 started and in fact has none now. Do you know differently?

At least not in this article...

The Euro hasn't always been strong against the dollar. It traded at in a range of ~.83 to ~.85 USD from 2000 to 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro

They had to have had a business plan. RLI only picked up 1/3rd of the R&D costs and those have to be repaid in full (with interest) whether or not the program is financially successful. I suppose Airbus funded the other 2/3rds out of their free cash flow, but I expect they had to seek capital on the open market and banks don't tend to hand out hundreds of millions or billions of dollars just because the person asking for it is really enthusiastic about their idea.

Let's see, 1/3+2/3=3/3 or 100%, so they wouldn't need to seek capital on the open market.


I guess you never heard about the real estate bubble, sub prime mortgages and liar loans.

Whatever. It's academic at this point, just as it is whether or not the 787 will make money (I expect it will, but Boeing is starting in a fiscal hole measured in eleven figures, as well).

As soon as they said they started showing pictures of the A3XX, it killed the 747 as a passenger plane. So if you want to move more then ~300 people in three classes, your only option is the A380 family going forward. To use gridiron football terms, the 747-8I was a "Hail Mary" pass into the end zone, but unfortunately the A380's size blocked the reception and Airbus won the playoff. Now they have two decades to sell as many as they can without the worries of competition.

All valid points, when considered in 'isolation'. But being "specific" about the A380, let's look at the other side of the coin for the B787 program shall we ? :

- "Identify the amount of non recurring cost that went into the airplane." Is Boeing and it's B787 program immune from this ? Usually, this is known as development cost and accounted for appropriately.

- "Identify all the out of sequence rework for all the wiring screw ups." .. vis-a-vis the extensive Boeing fastener rework on the first 5-6 test frames and rework required due to a certain strike ? At least Airbus' rework occurred on production frames which were sold. Boeing is finding this happen on test frames yet to be certified and has yet failed to build a single frame.

- "Identify the cost of fixing the design and manufacturing processes that allowed the wiring problems and others to occur." As if this has not occurred at Boeing ? The primary difference here is that much of Boeing's alterations / amendments to manufacturing processes has been cloaked by changes (and costs) made by it's out-source partners and passed on to Boeing .. for which not a lot of detail (and cost) has been directly revealed ~ by either Boeing or its partners.

- "Identify all the capital expended for new facilities." Airbus - mainly inhouse, Boeing via outsource contractors such as Alenia etc. Let's not forget to also factor in the necessitated Boeing purchase of a subcontractor organisation due to quality issues ?

- "Account for cost of money (even if at under commercial rates) and then amortize that non recurring over the airplanes sold ". Airbus' late delivery compensation payments to a handful of A380 customers will pale into insignificance, when compared to Boeing's exposure to more than a brace of clients spread over nearly 900 frames. Let's also not forget Boeing's total loss of revenue / income for the B787 family over the next 2 years minimum, due to the late delays.

- "Make sure you take into account all the initial airplanes sold at cheap prices and all the other airplanes Airbus either gave away or sold at extremely low prices to compensate for late A380 deliveries." Actions that are repeated and duplicated step-for-step at Boeing on the B787 program ? Cheap prices ? Do you suggest that there were no 'launch discounts' for the B787 ? Additionally, Boeing's exposure to 'compensatory' deals (due to late delivery) could potentially be well in excess of anything that cost Airbus on the A380. While I doubt it will happen - as a hypothetical example: what if ANA and JAL decided to completely 'walk away' from their B787-3 (still 'permanently suspended') deliveries .. and resort to court action ?

When discussing Boeing's decidedly and seemingly out-of-control outsourcing issues, it is not always a good idea to try and contrast or blame-shift that with the experience of Airbus .. and hope that 'mud will stick'. Invariably, when you fling a handful, there will be 'splatter' that sometimes sticks to the launcher.

As can be seen from the above points, these are simply paradigms of the stages of development, production, sale and marketing of a new frame - which will differ or reflect the process, irrespective of whatever company is involved.

Lufthansa doesn't seem to think so.


The A350 is already stealing sales from the A380, as will the 777 and 787.


Of course, Boeing has 910 orders to spread these costs over compared to a paltry 198 for the Whalejet. The 787 may suffer some cancellations due to the economy, but so may the A380. It's almost certain the 787 will turn a profit and it's equally certain the A380 won't.

Uh, ZA001 is a production frame that has been sold to a customer. So has ZA002. And ZA003. And so on, and so on. Only ZA997 and ZA998 are true "test frames" not intended to go to customers.

So far, they're looking pretty unique. I know Boeing is getting desperate to sell it, so they might be able to land some more orders, but Airbus seems willing to match Boeing on price and they offer a far more compelling product.



But again, you cannot put more then 350 people into any of them in three classes (even if you pack them in 10-abreast in Economy) and many airlines are not even putting 300 in them with the space-hogging premium cabins now becoming de riguer.

But you said the A380 was the only option. That's simply not true and Lufthansa proves it.


The A350, 777 and 787 compete on range, not size. The A380 will have better CASM (assuming you can fill it) while the smaller jets will have a better RASM. One only need look at the sales figures of the A380, vs the A350, 777 and 787 to see which is the better business case.

Yeah Stitch, you keep telling yourself that.

So Stitch, if you boldly say that "Airbus is willing to match Boeing on price" regarding the A380 competing against the 747-8I, wouldn't the business case for the A380 be even weaker after every deal that Airbus 'wins', (if indeed it is seen as a win), considering the A380 is a more expensive airplane than the 747-8I to start with? Airbus would therefore be offering more of a discount off the A380 than Boeing would be off the 747-8I...that's what you're implying. I can't understand why Airbus would have to offer such steep discounts on the A380 to sell it against the 747-8I if an airline needed the A380 size? If an airline wanted to grow a fleet of 520 seat airplanes that offer comfortable tri-class seating, the A380 is the only option.

Then why is it always such a battle against the 747-8I? The 747-8I is a formidable airplane, that's why, and if anything these two airplane compliment each other. The A380 never killed the 747...that's a pathetic comment. With 198 firm orders for the A380 after 9 or so years since launch, and 106 firm orders for the 747-8 after just over 3 years since launch...yeah, right, the A380 really killed the 747. Oh please. The 747-8F sent the A380F to Dodo land, and the 747-8I has virtually stalled all A380 sales campaigns. Only BA opted for the A380 after the 747-8I was launched by Lufthansa, and we all know the scandals around that order. Yes, Airbus has had follow on orders, but there's still many airlines yet to decide on VLA's -- Cathay Pacific Airways, Air India, Asiana Airlines, Eva Air, Japan Airlines, All Nippon Airlines, South African Airways, Unitied Airlines, El Al, Saudia Arabian, China Airlines, Air China. And who's saying that current A380 operators don't go for 747-8Is as well in the long run?

Stich isn't the only one saying that; many of us have posted similar comments over the years. Now Airbus is not going to come out and say, "you're spot on, Aurora; the program is a pig". But if you were buying a car and had a choice of two dealers, wouldn't you play one off against another? Way back when, Airbus thought it would have a monopoly for the Whalejet. It some segments it is the only thing that will work, but those routes are already spoken for and there will be heavy competition and whalejet wars, e.g., the kangaroo route. Not everybody needs or wants this big thing. AFAIK, there is no one in the blogosphere who can cite with certainty that "BA paid ____, or QF is paying ____ for their whalejets". However, one thing is clear and that is Airbus does NOT have the luxury of monopoly pricing on this thing. In fact, one could argue that save for a few airlines, all the airlines who can really use this thing have already ordered it. The projections for >1200 VLA's may be completely off the mark--on the high side.

First off, LH has wanted a larger 747 since the 747-400. They wanted the 747-500/747-600. They wanted the 747-X and 747-X Stretch. They wanted the 747 Advanced. And they wanted the 747-8 Intercontinental. Once Boeing finally decided to launch a larger 747, in whatever form it took, LH was going to order it, even after they also committed to the A3XX/A380. So while it's great for Boeing that LH has such faith in the 747 family, they are one of - if not the - only airline(s) that has consistently pushed Boeing to make it happen and has been willing to be a launch customer for it.

Now let's talk passenger frame sales: Since 2000, Airbus has sold 198 Airbus A380s while Boeing has sold 56 747s - 22 747-400s, 20 747-8Is, 8 747VIPs (which use the 747-8I frame) and 6 747-400ERs. The A380 handily outsold the 747 in every year but 2002, when Airbus sold no A380-800s and Boeing sold their last four 747-400s.

Now let's talk customers: AF, SQ, QF and BA all have either publicly stated or have implied that they will buy no more 747s.

While EK continues to dangle a 747-8I sale carrot in front of Boeing, I continue to believe they are not serious about it. They are either jawing to get their names in the paper or they are using it to force Airbus to improve the A380-800 quicker so it can carry a full EK-spec payload to all of North America from DXB. EK's heaviest birds are still 9t below the certified MTOW of the model (002) so I do not know if EK is fuel-volume or fuel-weight limited to reach LAX/SFO with those birds. If it is volume, then they need to wait for the A380-800R. But if it is weight, Airbus is expecting to lighten the current structure by 4-5t as they slipstream in component and production improvements. So EK could conceivably have upwards of 15t of extra fuel they could load in their later-build models. And if that is not enough, Airbus can add up to 21t of TOW (to 590t) by using the braking system of the A380-800F.

The three airlines most often tossed-around as major 747-8I customers are NH, JL and CI. All are believed by pundits to be "politically-bound to buy American", ergo they are "politically-bound" to buy Boeing. CI last bought the passenger 747 in 2002 (4 744s). NH bought one 744 in 1999 and only three in the entire 1990s. JL last bought a 744 (10) in 1995. While all my inquiries have said there never was a deal, we still have the rumor that NH had for a time entered into an agreement for 5 A388s. And then there are all the arguments that Japanese traffic is falling to the point that JL and NH need neither VLA and will instead just "top out" with the 777-300ER. If that is the case, it hurts Boeing more then Airbus because two "guaranteed 747-8I" customers now don't need it.

There is the four-frame 747-8I MoU from W3 at Farnborough, however they have only firmed the seven 738s they also announced at the show, which they did almost seven months ago. So one has to wonder how serious they are about actually firming that order.

Now let us talk about pricing:

The 747-8I is costing Boeing a good deal more to develop then they had planned. That is raising the average unit cost of the model. While Boeing is able to leverage a significant amount of those costs across the 747-8F, as well, Boeing has publicly stated they have spent at least $300 million in R&D on the 747-8I. While some pundits believe Boeing is spending $2 billion on the program, I expect the actual cost is somewhere between $500 million and $1 billion. I know what Boeing's final RFP pricing to BA was (as well as what BA paid for their A380s). I also know what they are offering JL to try and land a deal. I don't know LH's exact price, but I have a pretty good idea and it's more then what Boeing submitted to BA and JL.

I've done some spit-balling cost analysis of the 747-8I program using a $500 million R&D cost, a $100 million actual production cost and a $125 million sale price. With those numbers, Boeing makes $175 million on the LH deal. That's a powerfully slim RoI and it could be even worse now considering the extra R&D costs Boeing has incurred (those extra hours all those SPEEA engineers are burning fixing the design issues - and they're making more now thanks to the new contract) and the higher production costs they will incur (those 747-8Is will be built under the new IAM contract). Now the 747VIPs likely have very lavish profit margins on them thanks to being "green" planes that need a significant less amount of labor (no interiors to fit), but still...

So, we now get to the argument about how Boeing can price the 747-8I well below cost, knowing that Airbus is so desperate for a sale they will match any price. Trick is, what happens if Airbus blinks? And a customer accepts a 747-8I RFP well below production cost? Does Boeing re-neg? Or do they take the bath?

If it's good for the goose (Boeing screwing Airbus on a deal) then is it not good for the gander (Airbus screwing Boeing on a deal)? Boeing has invested billions in the 747-8 program. Yes, the freighter is selling quite decently, but the 747-400ERF would have sold as well, I think. And that program was fully amortized.

So where do we stand:

Airbus has sold more passenger A380s then Boeing has sold passenger 747s every year this decade except one. For almost five years, Boeing sold no passenger 747s and have only recorded one customer for their latest passenger model.

BA is the largest long-haul 747-400 operator and they have chosen the A380 going forward. SQ was once the largest long-haul 747-400 operator, but they are now one of the smallest, having replaced dozens of them with the A380-800 and 777-300ER. Soon, they will have none. LH and QF both operate 30 long-haul 747-400s. LH has decided to go 50/50 with the A380/748 while QF has (effectively) decided to replace their entire 747 fleet with the A380.

So the A380 has secured exclusive deals with four of the largest long-haul customers (BA, EK, QF and SQ). They have also effectively frozen Boeing out of four former 747 customers (AF, KE, MH and TG) and denied Boeing access to two fast-growing customers (QR and EY).

While there are a lot of 747-400 operators still on the fence, most operate less then a dozen and some under half that. So you have to wonder how many of them are going to choose the 777-300ER or A350-1000. VS, while an A380 customer, may never take delivery, but that doesn't mean they want the 747-8I, either. OZ could go either way, assuming OZ wants a VLA (they are supposedly returning the only two 744s they have to their lessors). NZ leases 75% of their 744 fleet and AI has been buying 77Ws, even though India is said to be a growth market (tell that to IT, who is deferring and canceling orders).

CX, JL and UA are all very large long-haul 747-400 operators who have not yet made a decision. UA and JL have both been drawing down their 747-400 fleets and replacing them with 777s. And UA's future remains in flux. CX has ordered enough 777-300ERs to more then cover their remaining 747-400 fleet, but they are upgrading the cabins on them, so it stands to reason they're going to be around in the fleet for awhile, even though I am sure Airbus and Boeing are fighting hard to try and land an order with them. And NH operates all of eight long-haul 747-400s right now (and CI nine).

So if the outlook for the A380 is dark, then I see the outlook for the 747-8I to be abyssal. And yes, while the 747-8F is selling okay, the fact is Boeing spent billions they didn't need to since the 747-400ERF was selling okay, as well. Boeing "wasted" money launching it no less then Airbus did on the A380. I find it even worse for Boeing, since they didn't need to launch it. Airbus, at least, didn't have anything to compete in that niche.

And when you factor in the money and talent diverted to that program which could have been focused on the 787, perhaps the 787 would not be in such a poor state at the moment. So that is even more indictment against the 747-8 program.

I have got to believe that no matter how much Boeing has spent on the new 747 it still has to have a recurring cost far less than the A380. The new 747 non recurring has to be significantly below the A380. Remember Boeing came out with these planes to insure that Airbus never made a dime on the A380 and was greatly aided by Airbus in this objective.

They were never guaranteed, you're overreaching here. NH has been considering using the 777 exclusively for some time.

What about the powerfully slim RoI Airbus made on their BA A380 deal?

Works both ways, and I'd guess Airbus has done more bathing.

You think?

So the 747-8F goes from selling quite decently to selling okay in the same post?

This went from "I think" earlier in the post to a fact here. You're overreaching again.

How much money did Airbus waste on the A380F, a plane without a single order?

We might want to move these most recent parts of the discussion out into a separate thread, since we're well off-topic now.

-----------------------



That goes without saying. Even the most pessimistic figures for the entire 747-8 program (including supplier costs) are around $4 billion. Airbus is said to have spent at least four times that on the A380, and some of the more...jaded...individuals think it could be five or even six times that.

But I don't think Boeing had to spend $4, much less $4 billion. I think the 747 was effectively killed as a passenger plane by the A380-800 and the 777-300ER. Even the A340-600 got in a quick stab to the kidneys, since it soaked up what otherwise would have been additional 747-400 orders from VS, LH, IB and SA (at a minimum).

While the A340-600 is almost as dead and buried as the 747-400, the A380-800 and the 777-300ER will only get better and squeeze what "gap of capability" the 747-8I has even narrower. The A380 has tens of tons of TOW growth in her to increase capacity, range or both. And Boeing is working hard to lighten the 777's basic structural weight and GE is improving the SFC of the engines.




But many of the 747-8I's most ardent supporters are sure that both airlines will order it - and in the scores - to bolster their claims that there is a large market for the model.



Yup. Airbus and Rolls cut almost to the bone to win that one, but they still left some meat (positive revenue). And BA has 57 747-400s to replace. This initial order for 12 was just the first tranche. I fully expect them to exercise those 7 options and likely will order more, even though I expect a majority to be replaced with the 777-300ER or the A350-1000.



I have no reason to believe it would not. It was still the best high-capacity freighter available on the market. Boeing sold 49 747-400Fs and 38 747-400ERFs this decade before closing down production in favor of the 747-8F. Of the nine 747-8F customers, six also bought 747-400(ER)F models this decade. A seventh, EK, currently operates 747 freighters leased from TNT and Atlas and Dubai Aerospace Enterprise was not founded until the 747-8F was the only option for sale. So the only customer who could be argued only would accept the 747-8F is Volga-Dnepr Airlines, who existed in 1991 but did not place their first 747 freighter order until the 747-8F in late 2006.



The A380-800F was announced in parallel with the A380-800 and announced with 17 orders - two from EK, five from ILFC and ten from FX (with an additional 10 options). Admittedly, it was five years before 5X placed their order for 10 (with 10 options), but the plane had 27 firm orders and 20+ options in January 2005.

EK canceled their order in April of 2006, deciding to take them as passenger models, instead. It was not until Airbus formally announced they had stopped development of the freighter model in November of 2006 that first FX and then ILFC canceled their orders, followed by UPS the following March.

As to how much Airbus spent developing it, I don't know. Again, considering how it leverages most of the A380-800 passenger model's systems, I imagine it was not a significant amount since Airbus was in a position to stop development on it. If they were close to having all the design work done, it would not have been prudent for them to do so. They did build at least one wingset for MSN037, which would have been FX's first bird. I suppose they can use that shipset for the first HGW model.

Indeed.

New thread started

Prior 787 thread discussing Business Week article is here.

I suppose I deserved that, but the A380 is now like the 747-100, if not the 747SP. And we've seen how far - and popular - the 747 family has come since that first attempt.

Four decades is a long time. I think it's a premature to write-off the A380 family less then one decade in.

As far as wasting money on the 380F, lets not forget that most of the work done, like the one wing set is directly applicable to the -900 or 800R, so almost nothing was lost on the F except for design effort.
Also worth making the point that the 380F has never been cancelled, although frankly I suspect it has a bedfellow in the 787-3.

From Stitch:

"But I don't think Boeing had to spend $4, much less $4 billion.

I have no reason to believe it would not. It was still the best high-capacity freighter available on the market. Boeing sold 49 747-400Fs and 38 747-400ERFs this decade before closing down production in favor of the 747-8F. Of the nine 747-8F customers, six also bought 747-400(ER)F models this decade. A seventh, EK, currently operates 747 freighters leased from TNT and Atlas and Dubai Aerospace Enterprise was not founded until the 747-8F was the only option for sale. So the only customer who could be argued only would accept the 747-8F is Volga-Dnepr Airlines, who existed in 1991 but did not place their first 747 freighter order until the 747-8F in late 2006."
-----

I think its a little shortsighted to argue that since in a time of major global expansion airlines were willing to buy the 400ERF that Boeing had no need to update the platform at all. No airframe can go on forever and clearly the -400 had reached the end of the trail. Just as FedEx was buying MD-11F's and 727's brand new at the end recent sales don't mean the product has a long term future.

The 400ERF was a good product but the near term arrival of lots of used 400's into the market as BCFs meant that sales were likely to be a mere trickle. On the other hand the -8F provides a compelling incentive to buy new given the gains over the older product. Especially when fuel prices rise again the efficiency gains of the -8F versus the ERF or especially a 400BCF could be the difference between profit and loss and provide compelling reasons to upgrade older aircraft. Especially with coming carbon caps the gains provided by the -8F are even more important to continued growth and profitability.

Boeing's investment also went a long way to kill off the 380F which had it continued could have provided real competition to the 400ERF over the long term.

The one constant in aviation is that if you stand still your going to get left on the side of the road. The -8F provided Boeing a low cost chance to update an important product at a time when new competition made such a move a real imperative in the future. One could argue about the timing but I think time will show that Boeing's timing was luckily spot on. The program came at a time when the massive oil price spike created a real imperative for the most fuel efficient aircraft possible and also when Boeing needed an updated 747 to help blunt the A380.

The economic downturn has slowed aircraft orders especially in the VLA category but again I think that fortune has favored Boeing here. Given the problems in getting both the -8 and the 787 to market the last thing Boeing needed was a flood of orders that they couldn't fulfill and would have to pay penalties on. Time will tell but I would expect that the -8F will sell quite well in the long term as airlines buy gor growth and seek the most fuel efficient solutions possible in a carbon cap world.

I also expect that many airlines will find the jump from the A350-1000/777-300ER to the A380 to large and risky and they will seek a middle ground. And that middle ground is the -8I. While the -8I may never be a huge sales success Boeing will find real value in the aircraft both for its additional sales and as a counter to the A380.

Two other thoughts come to mind. First that in my opinion Boeing will ultimately turn a modest but useful profit on the 747-8 program as a whole something that Airbus will never achieve with the A380 program.

Secondly that I've seen written the reason many airlines bought the 747 in the first place wasn't because they needed the capacity but because they needed the range. If that's the case (and I think a good argument can be made that it is) then simply looking at the current size of the 747 fleet and assuming that it provides a good indicator of the future VLA fleet would be a very flawed model. And if that's the case then the argument for selling large numbers of A380's (which Airbus has always made) is even more flawe

FG is reporting that BA and EK have both signed on to receive the new higher-MTOW A380-800.

I've never believed EK wanted the 747-8I and now that this new model will improve the ability to operate the model between DXB and LAX/SFO, I feel ever more confident in my claim you will never see the 747-8 Intercontinental in EK colors.

I know BA was leaning towards the 747-8 Intercontinental in their VLA decision, but this could help explain why in the end they chose to take the A380-800.

I don't think so. Boeing admitted recently the 747-8 program is at a loss now. Many 747-400 are parked. Many other 747-400 will be converted in the next 10 yrs (price incl. D-check < $100 million) destroying margins on new 747-8F's.

Airbus is negotiating with more airlines on the A380. No passengers version have been cancelled during the delay, it meets its performance targets from Ship #1, has growth potential, is loved by passengers and operators and has no competition.

Seems a pretty good project to me.

The A380 program is at a far bigger loss, Airbus just won't admit it. Since development costs have ballooned to $25+ billion they need to sell 500 or more to break even. This will never happen as the A350 has cannibalized A380 sales.

Seems a pretty bad project to me.

The 747-400BCF doesn't seem to be that big of a threat at the moment. Multiple operators are parking them to make room for new-build 747-series freighters.

Anyway, whether or not either program ends up making a profit no longer matters to the companies. They've already accounted it for it and so has their stock prices.

The billions of dollars in revenues those 200 A380-800s and 105 747-8s will be bringing to Airbus and Boeing over the coming years is what really matters to them.

They are parking them for economic reason. Cargo collapsed. No 747-8F exists to replace it.

Values of 747-400ERFs, 747-400Fs, 747-400SF's and 747-400BCF's dropped. Rough market to sell slightly better 8F's with a good margin, to state it mildly..

Probably a big reason why the A380F won't be developed.

Well Boeing, like Airbus, has "years of backlog" for their VLA model, so not like they need to rush to scrounge up more orders.