Evan Summers's Blog

Airbus A380 vs Boeing 787 Dreamliner

The Airbus vs Boeing competition has been interesting to watch in recent years. With the increasing number of world travellers, and limited airport capacity, there is a need for a very large carrier eg. 500+ seats. But the market can only support one such product. So Airbus stepped up with the A380 superjumbo, which in a typical three-class configuration supports 555 seats (and 853 in single cattle-class configuration). It's a double-decker 4-engined 10 billion dollar baby.

Boeing went for a more modest successor to the illustrious 747-400, namely the 787 Dreamliner, to debut in 2010. It's a 2-engined composite-framed liner seating 223, ie. half that of the A380. So it's gonna use more advanced materials, and wing design, but otherwise not be a radical departure from current models.

At the time, i thought Boeing had the right idea. I thought, I'd rather be a shareholder betting on Boeing, than Airbus. The young mechanical engineer in me thought it would be tremendously exciting to be involved in this ambitious A380 project, but the more experienced software engineer thought, oooo, dunno, a bit risky...

Anyways, now it seems that Airbus is having a hard time, with a two year delay, caused by wiring and weight issues because of its relatively oversized frame. FedEx and now UPS have cancelled their orders for cargo versions of the A380 superjumbo, and Airbus has announced 10,000 job cuts. Ouch.

I wonder what, if any, are the lessons to be learnt from this, for software development projects?

Comments

• The 787 isn't the "successor" to the 747-400. The 747-800, a stretched version of the original 747, is it's successor. The 787 is more a successor to the 767. The only competition between the A380 and the 787 is whether most airlines will move towards fewer flights carrying more passengers between major hubs or if they will opt for small flights going point to point. To me, point to point is the way most will choose to go, and the delays to the A380 aren't helping a thing...

  Posted by: chicagojd on March 05, 2007 at 12:02 PM

• 
  Thanks for the correction. I should have read the Wikipedia article more closely ;)

  regards your point on airtravel trends, I agree, and believe the trend is increased utilisation of smaller airports in/near major hubs, eg. Stansted and Gatwick in London, and more (budget) airlines ie. smaller aircraft, more flights. Still they reckon there is sufficient demand for the likes of A380 for major carriers/hubs.

  Posted by: evanx on March 05, 2007 at 12:28 PM

• 
  oops sorry, i missed your point about point-to-point as in bypassing major hubs, which are not your actual destination.

  An interesting aircarrier i always think in terms of, is RyanAir. They use smaller airports in europe where they can negotiate landing rights at cheaper cost than the likes of LHR. But my experience is limited to from Stansted (outside London) to Dublin

  
  

  Posted by: evanx on March 05, 2007 at 12:40 PM

• It's not so much a technical issue as a management issue, i.e.: not having clear leadership (shared between financial stakeholders and political stakeholders). The A380 is a technical success, but has been held back by certain suppliers not telling the whole story about their ability to deliver certain components on time.
  Personally I find the A380 project more inspiring, it's about taking risks and pushing back the limits, as opposed to a rather dull and timid evolution. Both planes are more than just bigger capacity though, there is more innovation going on (if I remember correctly, the A380 can supply its own oxygen and fly higher over mountain ranges.
  Both planes are also excellent examples of computer-based design and simulation.
  Nevertheless, all planes are a major source of pollution. The US in particular should stop bending over backwords to the automobile and aeronautics industry and invest in high-speed mass transport systems (peak oil prices will be crippling in a few years, even if preserving the air we breathe isn't motivation enough). Air travel should really only be used when crossing very large distances.
  - Chris

  Posted by: chris_e_brown on March 05, 2007 at 01:59 PM

• the fear and the innovative thinking are always together ... There is no lesson to be learnt here, just the obvious fact that life is not safe. If you choose the worst design, the simplest case, the cheaper choice available - even this way you are still not safe. and if you guess you can choose better next time, then you really didn't got the point :)

  Posted by: felipegaucho on March 06, 2007 at 04:37 AM

• 
  i thought there might be a comparison of MacOSX (being an evolution rather than a revolution, building on existing platform with various enhancements) vs Vista, being the Boeing vs A380 ;)

  Of course the A380 program might well still be a success. But doing big radical projects, pushing out into ambitious new frontiers, is always gonna be hard and somewhat risky.

  Posted by: evanx on March 06, 2007 at 07:48 AM

• The lesson is the French and Germans should use the same design software. As far as which stock is better...Boeing has more in its pipeline than EADS (Airbus' parent). Buy low...so maybe EADS is a better buy right now. Airbus needs to sell, at last tally, around 420 A380s to turn a profit. The order book hasn't moved much in the last two years...around 160.

  The Boeing 777 killed the A340 basically. Airbus is selling a few A330s and lots of A320s but if Boeing announces a composite 737, that is likely to put a big dent into Airbus' A320 biz.

  Another thing that Airbus doesn't advertise...the A380 is over weight and can't carry the numbers of passengers previously claimed. The 787 is fat too but Boeing is agressively addressing the problem.

  Also Airbus just conceded the large freighter biz to Boeing and is likely to lose the USAF tanker contract to Boeing as well. The A350XWB is more or less on hold until Louis Gallois gets the cost savings he wants. Airbus would be taking on a $10-15B development project when it hasn't finished the one it already has. Don't look for the A350 until 2013-2015.

  On top of everything else, you have the politicians, who may also be shareholders, constantly trying to micro manage the company. It's a bad situation with not much daylight at the end of the tunnel.

  Posted by: sputnik on March 07, 2007 at 03:13 AM

• P.S. Delivery of the first 787 is still on schedule for May 2008, not 2010. Regarding the design software...I didn't make it clear but the French and German design teams were using different and incompatible design software. Hence the wiring problems that have been the major source of the A380 delays. By the end of this year, they should be using the same software. I forget the name of the software but I believe it's of French origin and already used by Boeing.

  Posted by: sputnik on March 07, 2007 at 04:05 PM

• Geeeezzz Evan, other than getting almost everything wrong in your original post, you're right. Duh!!!

  Posted by: boeingboy on March 07, 2007 at 08:26 PM

• yes, thank you boeingboy. Nice nic.

  Posted by: evanx on March 08, 2007 at 02:07 AM

• Forgive me for rambling on but there are just so many interesting facets to this story. Boeing is now negotiating with the Italians to boost fuselage production from 7/month to 10 and possibly as high as 14. My guess is 10 would be something like adding a shift to the current production line whereas 14 would be if Boeing decides to add an entire second production line. With 464 787s already sold, Boeing's problem is how to meet demand. Boeing aims to build a new 787 every 3 days.
  Two years ago the 767 and 747 were just about dead but lately they are seeing nice sales. Airbus' exit from the large freighter market garantees the 747 for a while and if Boeing gets the mega-billions tanker contract, that will definitely breath new life into the 767.
  Meanwhile Airbus still has problems. The latest is the workers going on strike. I thought the original number of pink slips was supposed to be 20,000 but the 10,000 announced is spread out over 4 years and many of the layoffs (redundancies) will be on the contractors, not employees. Spinning off some of the factories will take time. I am not sure if the Power8 restructuring is more about politics than cost savings.
  On another topic, I see Bill "javaboy" Gates recommended to Congress to allow an unlimited number of HR-1B "guest workers" into the US. If that were to happen, I guess any IT worker making more than 20K would be applying for a job at Mickey D's. The slave traders would need those A380s for all those trips to India and China. Start polishing your burger flipping skills. I can't see congress moving on Bill's request though.

  Posted by: sputnik on March 08, 2007 at 05:19 AM

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.