Nowadays we read again about a another big livethreatening crisis within Airbus Industries, the famous plane maker formed by a european conglomerate. And of course this public outcry is a a cry for help and support. But for economists it is the symbol of a tragic public partnership and missmanagement. Yes, they may make good planes with Joysticks instead of steering horns, but they have also done the A380, the greatest nonsense after the Concorde. It is pushed by the european political will of dominating the airplane industry and thus creating jobs, jobs, jobs that will secure the next election. And as always when politicians take influence (yes, France, you always want to show off to the Americans, we know) there is the wish of dominanting some complex enviroment. But as Airbus is an enterprise within an economic framework that lives by competition, it is almost obvious that the political influence will not generate sustainable growth. Now europe has a mega-corporation that dominates the industry in europe and if it fails, everything fails automatically. Cities like Hamburg have donated millions of public wealth to keep Airbus as an employer. It is so seducing to have a big technology corporation with high wages in your city. But as a result they have donated millions and in exchange are now hold ransome: If you do not continue to support this week giant, you will loose more workplaces in your city. Boeing as the american alternative knows the threats of competition and goes from crisis to highs without public partnerships. The americans know that political support can be a form of desperate action to flourish the economy, but it will not help to make a corporation economically successful and independent. It is like a bird family that is not willing to let their bird children learning to fly without any harm. 
See the Airbus 380: the media hype turned it into a mega event, but failed project management and risk management (customers in the Dollar zone, but production in the Euro-Currency area -> the car industry learned that in the 80s!) turned it into a gamble. It is obvious why they never expanded their supply chain into the dollar area – it was not politically supported. Daimler AG as major stakeholder in EADS knows well how much you depend on politicas in such an industry and therefore tries to keep risks low. No investor is keen to invest in such a corporation and now employer or talented engineer should be proud to work in such a megachaos.
And please tell me what is so fantastic of being trapped in a oversized tin box such as the A380? They lure every economy passenger with the idea of having unlimited space in such a plane – that is bullocks, of course the ratio behind that for the industry is transporting even more people with the same cost from A to B. It is so horrible in a plane of this size that they even use ambient lights so people can bear the idea of going done with 600 fellow passengers at the same time. If it would be all about the luxury of travelling, we could all still buy tickets for the Concorde. And that was a nice plan, it was a diva. Expensive, loud, difficult to handle for the pilot, pure luxury and not an ugly elephant as the A380. It is a fat, fat, fat cat. Uaaargh! When Franz-Josef Strauss used all his political influence to build a european airplane industry he was a fascinated flyer himself who knew about planes. Therefore: If you have no clue and now passion in the field you are working in, better go home and do what you are really capable of doing. Even if the answers is that the Americans make maybe not the better planes, but do not create so much harm and threat to the public life as Airbus can and cut off the political influence. If Airbus cannot finance the A380 on its own, then it should not build one.
See the Airbus 380: the media hype turned it into a mega event, but failed project management and risk management (customers in the Dollar zone, but production in the Euro-Currency area -> the car industry learned that in the 80s!) turned it into a gamble. It is obvious why they never expanded their supply chain into the dollar area – it was not politically supported. Daimler AG as major stakeholder in EADS knows well how much you depend on politicas in such an industry and therefore tries to keep risks low. No investor is keen to invest in such a corporation and now employer or talented engineer should be proud to work in such a megachaos.And please tell me what is so fantastic of being trapped in a oversized tin box such as the A380? They lure every economy passenger with the idea of having unlimited space in such a plane – that is bullocks, of course the ratio behind that for the industry is transporting even more people with the same cost from A to B. It is so horrible in a plane of this size that they even use ambient lights so people can bear the idea of going done with 600 fellow passengers at the same time. If it would be all about the luxury of travelling, we could all still buy tickets for the Concorde. And that was a nice plan, it was a diva. Expensive, loud, difficult to handle for the pilot, pure luxury and not an ugly elephant as the A380. It is a fat, fat, fat cat. Uaaargh! When Franz-Josef Strauss used all his political influence to build a european airplane industry he was a fascinated flyer himself who knew about planes. Therefore: If you have no clue and now passion in the field you are working in, better go home and do what you are really capable of doing. Even if the answers is that the Americans make maybe not the better planes, but do not create so much harm and threat to the public life as Airbus can and cut off the political influence. If Airbus cannot finance the A380 on its own, then it should not build one.
If you ask me from an aesthetic point of view I will always choose the technologically more advanced, lighter, faster and ecologically more advantageous Boeing 787 Dreamliner – this is a beautiful plane!