Points: 15

Airbus Should Continue Producing The A380

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
Ragnar
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Technology
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender
Points: 21
Description
No information
Round 1
Forfeited
Published:
There are outstanding contracts to manufacture more of the planes, defaulting in contracts results in penalties,
thus not continuing production would result in serious harm to the company.
Round 2
Published:
Hello, now, the A380 is already losing patrons, as said in simpleflying.com/a380-termination/and www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/14/a380-airbus-to-end-production-of-superjumbo. If this is the case, why keep producing a redundant giant that wastes fuel? Costs per seat are commensurately high. Because of its sheer size, ground infrastructure is expensive. Those factors are offset to some extent by the passenger preference – some people will pay a premium to fly the aircraft – and the way that it extracts maximum value from “slot-constrained” airports such as London Heathrow. But the main problem is that there are relatively few routes on which it is a successful plane, as said in www.msn.com/en-sg/travel/news/airbus-a380-superjumbo-what-went-wrong-for-the-largest-passenger-plane/ar-BBTBDOT. The theory behind the A380, as Airbus was conceiving it almost 20 years ago, was that airlines would continue to serve passengers through increasingly congested hub airports like London Heathrow and Los Angeles International, and that ever larger planes would be necessary to cope with the limited number of daily takeoffs and landings these airports could handle. Instead, air traffic grew more slowly than expected, and the rise of long point-to-point routes to secondary cities, increasingly operated by 787 or Airbus’s own A350, took pressure off the largest hubs. This is also a reason to why the super jumbo should be scraped, as well said in http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/what-killed-the-airbus-380-the-biggest-plane-ever-flown.html. Also, most airlines preferred smaller aircraft that were more economical to operate, as proven in www.npr.org/2019/02/14/694620105/airbus-to-stop-production-of-a380-superjumbo-jet.Another reason is that the plane is  so huge that airports had to build new runways and modify terminals to accommodate it, so in another sense it is a waste of money too. "Without Emirates, Airbus has no substantial order backlog and no basis to sustain A380 production after 2021," said Guillaume Faure, who would be the new CEO of Airbus. Through his statement, it is clear that the super jumbo is losing patrons, as said above. /www.engadget.com/2019/02/14/airbus-a380-production-ends/also says that when Emirates had cut orders, there was no basis to sustain production. "This was a joint decision. We cannot run after illusions and we have to take the only sensible decision and stop this programme," Airbus Chief Executive Tom Enders said, as confirmed by https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/airbus-to-scrap-a380-superjumbo-production-as-sales-slump-11242010. "As a result of this decision we have no substantial A380 backlog and hence no basis to sustain production," Airbus Chief Executive Tom Enders also said. “While we are disappointed to have to give up our order, and sad that the program could not be sustained, we accept that this is the reality of the situation,” Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum, the chairman and CEO of Emirates, said in a statement. “For us, the A380 is a wonderful aircraft loved by our customers and our crew. It is a differentiator for Emirates. We have shown how people can truly fly better on the A380.”, as shown in /www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2019/02/14/airbus-to-stop-making-superjumbo/2867953002/.
More relevant sites:

Published:
Resolution:
This debate was entered with both of us having read the same news reports but having different interpretations. My opponent believes they should outright halt production, whereas I believe they must continue production for some number of years at least until outstanding contracts are fulfilled (until production is actually halted, it is easy to extend should new demand arise). To continue producing the A380 for any number of years, by definition defeats the resolution.


1. Outstanding Contracts:
Rather than challenge this argument, my opponent has opted to concede it. He reminds us (with strong sources to back up his concession), that they indeed have years of outstanding contracts awaiting fulfillment.
 
Further, each plane takes just a couple months to produce. Which means I am not arguing for them to merely finish builds they have started (which would be a cheap semantics game).


2. Gish Gallop:
My opponent has chosen to use the Gish Gallop fallacy, and worse do it as one huge block of text. I'll at least answer the direct question he posed within it.


"why keep producing a redundant giant that wastes fuel?"
As stated last round: money!
 
The A380 are listed with a price tag of $445.6 million, and indeed have contracts forcing them to continue manufacture. The compensatory damages they would have to pay did they not deliver, would likely bankrupt the company.


3. Plagiarism:
The remainder of my opponent's wall of text, seems to be plagiarized material he lazily copy/pasted. If he insists it is valid anyway, I will quote mine what he did not bother to read, to show how it proves my side of this debate rather than his.
Round 3
Published:
Well, I think I'll rebutt this:
The A380 are listed with a price tag of $445.6 million, and indeed have contracts forcing them to continue manufacture. The compensatory damages they would have to pay did they not deliver, would likely bankrupt the company.

Well, the A380 is worth $445.6 million, however, your second statement is written with the word 'likely' and the meaning is: "Such as well might happen or be true; probable", according to the dictionary, and from the meaning, we can see that it is a 'probable' and not definite. Plus, you do not have any sources, at least as far as I can see, and I shall not have full confidence in what you have said without proof.

Now, another short fact that I have not mentioned in my previous argument, even Emirates is redirecting its money into buying 70 smaller passenger jets from Airbus, a mix of the manufacturer's newest A330 and A350 models, which has more advantages over the superjumbo.


Published:
1. Outstanding Contracts:
"you do not have any sources"
As seen last round in the links (blue underlined text are links):

Gambrell, Jon, and Associated Press. “Emirates Throws Airbus A380 a Lifeline with $16 Billion Deal.” Financial Post, 18 Jan. 2018, business.financialpost.com/transportation/airlines/emirates-throws-airbus-a380-a-lifeline-with-16-billion-deal.

RationalMedia Foundation, and Et al. “Gish Gallop.” RationalWiki, RationalMedia Foundation, 15 Mar. 2009, rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop.

Terdiman, Daniel. “Building the A380, the World's Largest Passenger Plane.” CNET, 15 July 2011, www.cnet.com/g00/news/building-the-a380-the-worlds-largest-passenger-plane/.


"[bankruptcy] 'probable' and not definite."
The exact probably is unimportant, when it is a certainty that it would greatly harm the company. Breaching a $16 billion contract, is not something any company does lightly (Gambrell).


"Emirates is redirecting its money into buying 70 smaller passenger jets from Airbus"
Redirecting some of their money. They have already undertaken the cost of retrofitting their airports to support the behemoths, which adds an additional cost Airbus would owe in compensatory damages should the planes not be delivered (LII Staff).


4. Q&A With Pie Analogy:
Imagine you're the chairman for Airpie (a fictional company which makes pies). Demand predictions after three-years are not favorable for your biggest most expensive pie. In fact, the grocer who buys most of it is already ordering less. Said grocer has paid you ahead of time for years more of the pie, and invested their money in an expensive retrofit of their coolers to support the pies (cooler doors were not big enough, or the conveyor belts at checkout, whatever).

Should the pie never be delivered, you will at a minimum have to pay back not just the upfront money for the pie, but expected lost profits to the grocer for their inability to sell the pie, and all the money they spent on the retrofit which was done in support of selling the pies. These are just the actual damages any judge is guaranteed to force you to pay, there is a chance of additional punitive damages (LII Staff). Further, such a move will harm the stock price of your company.

Explain to the board how incurring such unnecessary costs and damaged reputation, would be in the best interests of Airpie?


Sources:
LII Staff. “Actual Damages.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, 2 Oct. 2018, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/actual_damages.
Round 4
Forfeited
Published:
Extend arguments.
Round 5
Forfeited
Published:
My opponent has forfeited more than half the rounds, filled one of the others with plagiarism, and was never able to disprove my brief opening (his sources accidentally supported it).
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Thanks for voting.
Contender
#4
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Sorry if I didn't paragraph it.
Instigator
#3
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Come on, you can do better. I bet.
Instigator
#2
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
Please accept.
Instigator
#1
#3
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
FF more than half the rounds................
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con forfeited 3/5 rounds, which is more than half by my calculations.
https://www.debateart.com/rules
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Cons forfeited multiple rounds and plagiarized the bulk of his only argument round: conduct to pro.
Nothing con raised in his main argument rounds relating to making money from fulfilling remaining contracts. I will not assess any cons opening arguments as these appear both to be plagiarized with little or no genuine attempt to make an argument - and constitute an unfair attempt at a gish gallop - to overload pro with individual points.
As a result - pros entire argument lays unrefuted. Arguments to pro.