Post-Gazette Editorial – 1/31/05

This page was last updated on February 6, 2005.

Bigger jumbo / The Europeans unveil a new flight of fancy; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; January 31, 2005.

Another apparent example of the liberal belief that if Europe is doing it, it must be right.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Airbus’s unveiling of its gigantic, 555-passenger double-decker plane, the A380, in Toulouse, France, has provoked a lot of comment and some envy among Americans.

“Unlike Concorde, a marvel in its own time that never quite made it financially, the A380, because of its size, special features and multinational parentage, has good prospects for economic viability. The A380’s usable passenger space, half again larger than a Boeing 747, will be able, for example, to host gyms for the health-conscious, casinos, bars and shops.”

[RWC] The editorial glossed over the Concorde. The Concorde “never quite made it financially” because it addressed a miniscule market and was expensive to operate. The only thing that kept the Concorde alive was that France and Great Britain paid for the plane and they required their state-run airlines to fly it.

Unless government subsidies are involved, why would “multinational parentage” contribute to the A380’s economic viability?

The editorial failed to mention a “special feature” of the A380 is that the plane is so large, many runways must be upgraded to accommodate the weight. Likewise, terminals must be modified to provide multiple jetways so loading and unloading passengers doesn’t take forever. This means the A380 likely won’t be able to access all airports that can accommodate the 747, at least not immediately. That’s not an issue for the new Boeing 787 (formerly known as the 7E7).

FYI, the usable passenger space of an A380 is about 33% larger than a 747 (555 vs. 416), not 50%.

“The A380 is the sort of gee-whiz innovation that American aircraft manufacturers used to present to the world. Now Boeing and the others content themselves to nestle snugly to the breast of the U.S. government, feeding off military and other contracts obtained by careful attention to congressmen and government officials.”

[RWC] I don’t mean to demean the A380, but when did simply building bigger become “gee-whiz innovation?” Did the P-G laud Ford when it built the Excursion, the world’s largest SUV? Regarding being a “double-decker plane,” that’s not an innovation. The Boeing 747 was the first (partial) double-decker back in 1970. It also used the second deck as a lounge on some models. Most customers opted for seats instead of lounges because more seats meant more passengers and more passengers meant more revenue. My guess is relatively few A380s will ”host gyms for the health-conscious, casinos, bars and shops.” I also wonder about passenger safety in these configurations. I used to fly frequently and part of the pre-flight instructions always included advice to stay seated unless absolutely necessary and to keep your seatbelt fastened when seated. Would you want to be lifting weights or doing jumping jacks when the plane hits a patch of rough air?

Staying on innovation, the 747 remains the world’s fastest subsonic passenger jet as it has since its first flight. I’m not trying to be “rah rah” for Boeing. I’m only trying to point out the editorial is a bit over the top with praise for A380 “gee-whiz innovation.”

“American aircraft manufacturers,” with emphasis on the plural? Apparently the P-G hasn’t been reading its own pages over the years. Boeing is the sole remaining manufacturer of large commercial aircraft.

“Now Boeing and the others content themselves to nestle snugly to the breast of the U.S. government?” What others? As noted above, Boeing is the sole remaining U.S. manufacturer of large commercial aircraft. And Airbus? Perhaps the P-G should have done its homework. Airbus is owned by two companies who focus primarily on defense contracts. Further, the French and Spanish governments are major owners of one of the Airbus parents (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company).

“The A380, developed and manufactured by French, German, British and Spanish enterprises, was presented to the world in a show of European unity by President Jacques Chirac of France, Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany and Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero of Spain. Project cost is running at $16 billion, but orders have been received so far for 149 planes from 14 airlines, including Federal Express. No U.S. passenger carrier has bought yet.”

[RWC] The editorial glosses over the fact that Airbus has its roots in government-owned companies.

“Boeing expresses no intention to build a competing plane, based on a different assessment of the market. The United States is protesting to the World Trade Organization what it considers to be European government subsidies to the A380 project. The Europeans responded by citing Pentagon and Washington state subsidies to Boeing in developing its new midsize 7E7 ‘Dreamliner.’ For comparison, Airbus passed Boeing in aircraft deliveries in 2003 and 2004.

[RWC] The editorial glosses over the “different assessment of the market” by Boeing and Airbus, though it’s clear the editorial believes Boeing is wrong. Airbus believes there is a profitable market for “super sized” planes. Boeing believes there is greater market potential for extremely efficient midsize aircraft (220 – 300 passengers) that drastically drive down operating costs. Which assessment is correct? The truth is, both market segments could be profitable. For what it’s worth, far more passengers fly on mid-size planes than fly on jumbo jets. It’s also true neither manufacturer has the resources to build new airplanes for both markets.

The editorial glosses over the Airbus subsidy issue. European countries have subsidized Airbus since its inception. Europe didn’t like the fact that U.S. airplane manufacturers built nearly all large commercial aircraft. As a result, several countries – not private investors – founded Airbus with the specific intention of taking market share away from Boeing, Lockheed, and McDonnell Douglas. Today, Boeing is the only surviving U.S. maker of large commercial aircraft.

“The A380’s inaugural flight is scheduled for March, and it sounds as if it will be worth being on board.

“It’s also worth asking why the U.S. airline industry has to present such a sorry tale by contrast. Too many airlines, high fuel costs and obsessive government-imposed security are probably part of the picture. Could a lack of imagination be another?”

[RWC] I don’t understand this final paragraph. Is it complaining about the U.S. aircraft manufacturing industry or about the U.S. airline industry not yet buying any A380s?

The editorial repeatedly refers to innovation and imagination. It’s important to understand the goal of a private sector business is to maximize profit.