As a retired airline Exec VP, in my view Emirates is trying to grow too fast, too quickly. More than likely it will end badly. Mr. Clark wants to build the world's largest long-haul carrier...Good luck! Why 66 A380s? The A350 is still on paper! Both AB and Emirates suffer from the same afflication, excessive egos. When egos supercede good business decisons, failure is just around the corner. I fear the A380 will never make profit for AB with over 500 required just to break even! Boeing's 747 is a time tested, highly refined, proven platform whose development costs were earned back decades ago. Most aircraft models improve over time as lessons are learned in service. A big plus for Boeing in the jumbo arena. The A380 requires substantial airport operator investment to accomodate it. The 747 does not. Fuel availability will be the big question over time. Peak oil may be the achilles heel of the world economy. If it comes to fruition, aircraft orders will become academic.

Alex, Los Angeles, CA

Whilst Boeing seems to be placing all its eggs in theIr B-787 programme, decrying the benefits of hub and spoke operations, whilst just quietly offering updates on their classic widebody with the B747-8 option, it's becoming very obvious that the big six US air carriers are all just sitting on their hands, not placing orders for new, energy-efficient aircraft for their own fleets, many of which are becoming much longer in the tooth than their international competitors' fleets!

Duncan Tribute, Truro, Cornwall, United Kingdom

I think the Emirates will have to help address the growing political tensions in the world if it wants to maximise its investments in tourism. If the Middle East issues and Arab extremists – I use the phrase in deference to the millions of peace loving Muslims – are not resolved there will not be the mass tourism which the Emirates are hoping for.

Richard, Oxford, Oxfordshire

All this hype about buying flocks of overpriced, oversized aircraft to satisfy paper dreams will end in tears - has anyone else noticed that the dwindling oil needed to provide these dynasaurs with fuel is rapidly becoming so expensive that only the despised rich or military will be able to travel by air.
The sight of jet trails in the sky will provoke anger from you and I packed into our daily citybus journeys, or infrequently approved intercity rail trip (but only if government gets their reality act together and we get cheap nuclear power capacity built right now).
As we recall childhood memories of cheap air travel to far flung places which our children can now never experience - will demand us to know: who gave them state persmission for that flight, was it necessary, and who was important enough to justify them flying in the damned thing.
Dream on Dreamliners and Flying French Blimps - you've all got your sums horribly wrong - the tanks are running on empty.

david mason, stavanger, norway

As a regular long-haul traveller, I will say without a doubt:
"If it aint Boeing, I aint going ..."

David Michael, London, UK

For the first time in years, I have recently flown in both Boeing 737 and 747 planes. The Airbus A319/320/321 variants leave the 737 in the shade and Boeing's 777 eclipses the aged 747. I realised that I'd become complacent about the comforts of modern aircraft. Thus I welcome the shake-up that the A380, A350 and 787 will bring because there's a lot of aged flying metal to be recycled. How long before the first plane can fly on biofuel? At the moment, parafin (kerosene) is preferred because of low volatility even in a vented tank at high altitude. I suspect that any change would entail rather more than just engine modifications, so perhaps these new aircraft are already partly obsolete?

R Parks, Bracknell, Berks

Hub and spoke is an old discredited flight management style. It's so 70's and should have gone out with the disco ball and shag carpeting (and would have but for geopolitical constraints). While Dubai is certainly a lovely place, I have little more interest in visiting it en-route to my destination than Reykjavic. Cost analyses show the per passenger-mile rates to be higher with HNS than point to point (not only two planes and two crews, but two airports to boot). Dubai does have one advantage over London, New York, etc.. - many of the people who fly into these other big hub cities actually WANT to go there, and are finding their already busy airports clogged with transients - a problem of which Dubai has less.
As for the A380, Airbus had to build this big city cattle-car at a loss in order to offer a complete package - it effectively subsidizes Airbus' whole lineup, and when cost accounting factors this in, the A380 is hands down profitable while at the unit price it may not be.

David Lawrence, New York, USA

Boeing is effectively carrying all of its eggs in one basket, the new 787. Airbus initially did the same with the new A380 but then got wise and decided to compete in both strategies by making the A350 a true competitor to the 787. Boeing has no real competitor to the A380.
A key demand in air travel is cheap prices; people have become to expect it. The A380 carrying more people in one go should be a cheaper option. You need at least two 787's for one A380; that means two crews, two lots of maintenance, etc. Airbus is poised for a better long term performance because by initially lagging the 787 it allowed Airbus to size the competition and design something that will be better (A350 XWB) all be it later. And it has a runner in both races.
Ironically the industry needs both Boeing and Airbus so that there is no monopoly in pricing. I expect that the industry will never let one or the other get to dominate lest the industry be held to ransom over pricing.

Jack SPrat, Bristol, UK

The 747 uses 50 year old design and technology - what customers (airlines or passengers want) is cheap operating costs and high efficiency. The 747 simply cannot efficiency savings that Airbuses can with newer designs.
Not withstanding the different strategies of Boeing (point-to-point medium capacity) and Airbus (hub with small/med feeder and very large hub-to-hub) Airbuses are so much nicer to fly on as they are quieter and more comfortable than Boeings.

Marios Patrinos, Reading, UK

The view that people want smaller airports and smaller planes applies only to those who have enjoyed the recent boom in cheap flights and foreign holidays.Thjere's a whole new market of flyers in India and China who are only now beginning to experience the wonders of long distance flights and big airports.

These newly rich passengers will fill Emirates' planes.

JR, Birmingham, UK

Come on Americans, your economy model is going down the drain now. Airbus like other European companies are taking over. Ann, Airbus took a closer look at what customers wants. Have a look at the features of the A380 and the Boeing 747. The A380 is a new concept of plane where the 747 is old. And from the business point of view, it can carry more people than the Boenig making it more enviromentaly friendly.

Stefano Valle, Oxford, UK

I really do not understand why they need so much aircrafts and so big airports, I am agree with ann, people they do not want to travel with big businness airport, that is a nightmare start for holidays. As everywhere politicians and government talk about reducing CO2 emission, this kind of super rich people do not mind at all.... Obscene ... and really dangerous for everybody

fab, London,

In this case, I have to agree with Richard/LA. The article said it clear, Airbus was lagging in sales behind Boeing before this deal came along. As far as the A380 jumbo jet is concerned, Airbus should actually take a close look at what customers(the people who travel and/or fly often) want. Because believe me, I don't see many people already flying a crowded airplane wishing there's more people in that plane! Bad idea!! Also, smaller airports are growing fast and many consumers are prefering smaller airports to larger/busier airports these days.One problem, the A380 can't land in smaller airports!

Ann, Pasadena, CA

Both Airbus & Boeing are great companies and I guess the sparring is a part of the game. I was at Boeing (a little time ago...!) when they rolled out the 1,500th 727..... A thousand of them went to domestic US Airlines - the home market. Airbus did a great job to overcome that kind of market domination. And the 747?? Ever wondered what happened to Northrop's losing bid on the C-5 Galaxy programme? Just take a good look at the nose of a '47 and then at the a C-5 (vaguely familiar?)

Gary James, Southampton,

What a strange thing to say ,where would airbus be without UAE. If it is the most rapidly expanding places in air transport then of course it's demand would have an affect on one of the world's largest aircraft producers. That's like saying where would Boeing be without the US. BTW the answer for the question you ask Richard is Toulouse.

Pancham, huddersfield, w yorks

Richard, Los Angeles, in answer to your question....with the other 1000 Airbus orders so far this year?

AG, Bristol, UK

It was a very good day for Airbus and Boeing. Boeing sold 12 777's to Emirates and "57" 787's to Qatar. Airbus won the day however; Where would Airbus be without United Emirates.

Richard, Los Angeles, USA