F 
R

1
1
- 
9 
9

AIRBUS A3XX IS RISKY GAME

Boeing is going to build the mega-jet, at least if you believe recent reports of the German news media.

"Challenge from Seattle" and "Race for the Super-Jumbo" were the highly motivated headlines, though most of the aerospace insiders soon noticed that the 747X was back again. But has it really been away? Not really, because it should be clear to everybody that no company will watch action-lessly how the competitor positions a rivalling product on the market, especially if it deals with a cash-cow like the 747. Therefore Boeing has been knowing what to do not only since yesterday. A stretched variant of the 747, in other words the 747X, could be realised with considerable less investment as would be necessary for developing and building the A3XX. A stretched fuselage and modified wing could create an aircraft which could carry 500 passengers in a three-class layout and 620 people in a single-class configuration.

With ranges of 14446 up to 16112 kilometres the "large" 747 family would be on the same level with the A3XX. With Boeing's claimed basic price of 197 million US dollars the super-jumbo would even be three million dollars cheaper than its rival from Toulouse.

It would be, if the market would need such an aircraft after all. Or does Airbus on the other hand need the highly publicised challenge of the transatlantic arch rival to get the European governments' 33 percent program subvention which is linked to the transfer of the consortium into a single corporate entity even before this still slowly progressing process is finished? Is it a kind of Pawlow's conditioning for the modern industry tactician where the creation of an enemy picture generates subsidies?

It remains to be doubted that such methods will be successful despite all perceptions of the political maturity of the acting government at least in Germany.

Fact continues to be that even the world's largest airlines could produce at the moment letters of intent for only three dozens of the mega-liner, even if DaimlerChrysler Aerospace Airbus in Hamburg attempts to view the presumed (and already denied) announcement from Seattle as a confirmation of own market forecasts for large airliners. To compensate for the 12 billion US dollars necessary for developing the A3XX, Airbus would need to sell 600 examples, not to mention production- and customer support-costs.

Well, Airbus sees a market potential of 1200 aircraft. Naturally, Boeing views a considerably lower number of aircraft (about 365 planes) to repel the competitor. But what does the very-large-aircraft-market really look like? Boeing's reasoning of a increasing route fragmentation appear plausible. After all who wants to travel using an overcrowded hub system, if there is a time and nerve saving non-stop connection. No super jumbos are needed for this. But the consideration of Airbus that the large hubs will be necessary in the future does not appear overly wrong on the other side. Tokyo, Chicago, London, Frankfurt and Hong Kong will be among the most-frequented airports of the world in the future as well, and that at airspace capacities that have reached their limits even today. Speaking of airtraffic control: If a real harmonising of ATC systems would take place one fine day, a final increase of the dispatch rate by ten to 15 percent would be achievable. This would delay the final necessity-date for a super jumbo to around the year 2010.

If it should come, the Airbus super jumbo is to be approximately 15 percent cheaper in operations than the Boeing super jumbo, as Airbus claims. But how? The wheel will not be re-invented in Toulouse and Hamburg, not to mention Chester. A total CFRP-solution is not feasible. Neither will engine technology generate the mentioned advantage. This leaves maintenance costs as the only field where money can be saved by innovative solutions to reduce operating costs. Is that the way Airbus wants to do it. Boeing nods and Airbus remains silent.

Be it as it may: the program launch of the A3XX is to happen next year. If this will be the case then it will prove to be fortunate that there does not exist a single corporate entity because by applying SEC-economic standards, the board of directors may not approve the program. Not if there are letters of intent for just about three dozens of aircraft.

But who knows...?

From page 4 of FLUG REVUE 11/99