AirBus vs Boeing who will win

#1
AirBus vs Boeing who will win , AEI has done a couple of seminars on the subject they video archive seminars.

Boeing vs. Airbus An Examination of the Issues:March 16, 2005
http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1028,filter.all/event_detail.asp#

Boeing vs. Airbus: The Plot Thickens--July-6 2006
http://www.aei.org/events/type.upcoming,eventID.1356,filter.all/event_detail.asp

and I recently saw a tribute to Concorde broadcast by Nova. A couple of facts about the Concorde caught my attention in light of AirBus and all the problems its having.

Concorde seems eerily reminiscent of AirBus ,especially in the case of the A380 and if they don't sell enough of the A 380's, the cost per plane will skyrocket.


A380
Sixteen airlines have ordered the A380 as of April 6, 2006 including an order from AIG's aircraft leasing unit, ILFC. Currently, A380 orders stand at 159, including 27 freighter models. Break-even is estimated to be at 250 to 300 units. Former Airbus CEO Noël Forgeard stated he expects to sell 750 of the aircraft. As of 2006, the unit cost of the A380 is US$ 295 million. [17
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380

Concorde
When the Concorde sales team reached India, they found the "ban the bang" message had gotten there first. The success of the Concorde depended on sales of 250 planes. To reach that goal, Concorde needed to secure supersonic flyover rights around the globe .
Pan Am's decision did not come as a total surprise. Concorde's three-year delay in reaching the market gave a rival airplane manufacturer an opportunity. Although half the speed of Concorde, the Boeing 747, the plane about to revolutionize the travel industry, could fly further and carry hundreds more passengers. The bigger, cheaper 747 forced Concorde to lower its sales projections.
The final cost of the finished plane(Concorde) eventually reached a staggering 1.1 billion pounds, over 16 billion in today's dollars, more than ten times the original estimate
From talking about 400 planes, they then started talking about 200. Then maybe there will be 50, and then, in reality, what? There were nine or ten

CHRIS BENJAMIN: It's really a matter of great regret that an enormous amount of creativity, effort and resources were used to produce this airplane which has actually no sustainable benefits at all. Today Britain is not an independent manufacturer of civil aircraft anymore. Now that would have been inconceivable to the ministers when they started this program out
.

NARRATOR: But in France it was a different story. Experience with Concorde helped France become home to Airbus, the European aircraft consortium.

JEAN RECH: We have now a European aircraft industry which is equal to the American because we almost share 50/50 the market today. It's a big achievement in which Concorde has been an essential step.

French/German
Transcript
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3203_concorde.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/concorde/innovative.html

AirBus A380 will surly do better that the Concorde but cost is sure to increase.
 
#2
AIRBUS are really fooling themselves if they think they can compete with Boeing. A380 orders are delayed already and the AIRBUS v Boeing battle will become more intense as both companies try to sell their products to the airlines. I would liken Concorde to the failed? Boeing hyperjet? (Can't recall it's correct name but the aircraft they promised that would fly fast trans atlantic/pacific) The airlines can't decide between speed/comfort/size etc and when they do they often change their minds a few months later.
Boeing have the reputation (In my opinion) of being a company that delivers a quality product on time and not too far off budget. The name is synonomous with airline travel. But, on the other hand, when people book flights they don't ask what make of aircraft they are flying on.
 
#3
Hopefully both gain enough market place to survive .Having only one large civilian aircraft manfacturer can not be a great idea .Listening and reading some of the stuff boeing and its surporters have said about airbus you have to wonder if boeing has a problem
with competion :? .Air bus must be a great product bae want to sell there share .
 
#4
They are both as bad as each other slagging off each others products at every opportunity.
 
#5
Then again Concorde was subjected to a well planned Yank campaign to try and keep it out of US skies.

They Yanks embarked on the Ban the Bang Campaign specifically to try an destroy Concorde and maintain its own market share. It was a pefect example of free trade Septic style. Any dirty trick is allowed so long as it is to benefit the alleged leader of the "free" world.

The Yanks are gunning for Airbus and will do anything they can to damage it. It has commited an unforgivable crime in their eyes. it is offerring customers something that is not from the Excited States of America.
 
#6
Unfortunately i think Airbus are doing Boeings job for them, judgeing by the whispers i have heard from Toulouse and various other sites.
 
#7
Hopefully both gain enough market place to survive .Having only one large civilian aircraft manfacturer can not be a great idea .Listening and reading some of the stuff boeing and its surporters have said about airbus you have to wonder if boeing has a problem
What is really surprised me is Asia has not jumped in the game. Most of the successful economies in the world are in Asia. When they jump into the producing civilian planes, will it be economically viable for 3 producers. The financing models will make a difference as to who survives.
 
#8
Anyone familiar with the etablished test procedures for Carbon Fiber and large "Plastic" structural members ?
john
Affects both companies.
 
#9
No, but i am aware of what happens if you pump too many amps down a length of Kapton cable.
 
#10
Most of the "Airbus v Boeing" stuff you hear is national predjudice, marketing hype or both. Airlines will buy aircraft that suit their needs regardless of manufacturer, if anything they welcome a good war of words as that means they might be able to negotiate price reductions.

Much of what is being said about the A380 was said about the 747 - yet all objections and problems vanished when it became clear that it allowed the airlines to make money. If the economics are right for airlines to operate the A380 then it will go into service, airports will magically upgrade to handle it - if the money doesn't make sense it won't. The lifetime for this aircraft will be measured in decades, possibly a century if it's anything like the 747, so a few months here or there at the beginning are nothing.

Concorde stalled for one simple reason - fuel prices shot up and airlines couldn't make money from it. BA and Air France were only able to operate Concorde as they were handed the airframes for free after the national governments involved decided to swallow the development and manufacture costs. Clearly getting free aircraft (and no doubt a word in the ear from government on the subject of a national carrier and national pride) altered the economics to the point it could be operated.

The real problem for both Boeing and Airbus is to correctly predict the sweet spot in terms of fuel burn, purchase price, maintenance costs and capacity of their products. Or, more accurately the sweet spots as the market is highly complex. Often this is not the best performing aircraft in terms of one parameter, but the best overall compromise.
 
#12
An Airbus with Pratt & Whitney or General Electric Engines may be over 50% US content by value.

Many Boeing parts are now manufactured in Japan.

As I unerstand it, quite apart from the wiring problems, the sheer size of the A380 means that planes coming in to land after it have to stay at least 10 miles (or 10 minutes?) behind to avoid turbulence, which means A380 effectively takes up 2 landing slots at major 'hub' airports like Heathrow, which kinda ruins the business case.

It certainly seems that, after several years of Airbus success, Boeing is now on the up.
 
#13
Inf/MP said:
Then again Concorde was subjected to a well planned Yank campaign to try and keep it out of US skies.

They Yanks embarked on the Ban the Bang Campaign specifically to try an destroy Concorde and maintain its own market share. It was a pefect example of free trade Septic style. Any dirty trick is allowed so long as it is to benefit the alleged leader of the "free" world.

The Yanks are gunning for Airbus and will do anything they can to damage it. It has commited an unforgivable crime in their eyes. it is offerring customers something that is not from the Excited States of America.
This is what annoys me about Boeing / Airbus debates, it doesn't take long for it to fall into an argument about nationalities, Europeans blathering on about previous american practices and americans blathering on about EU subsidies, etc etc.

Keep nationalism out of it, let the market decide.
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#14
Just a bit of background.

I have flown almost 800,000 miles in the last three years. To put that into perspective, that’s about 1 European flight every 3 days and a longhaul flight to somewhere in Asia once per fortnight. Every week for the last three years. I am 'gold' with Lufthansa, BMI, KLM, Air Berlin and someone else.

But, on the other hand, when people book flights they don't ask what make of aircraft they are flying on.
Actually Airlines do trade on the planes they fly (Virgin: All our translantic planes have 4 engines because 4 are safer than 2). Though I am not aware of any planes dropping out of the sky because they've not got enough engines.

When I book a flight I will check what planes are available because the seating is different. For example, LH F Class 747 FRA - ICN you are in the bubble and it is lovely… LH F Class Airbus FRA - OHD you are at the front and it is crummy. SG C/D Class to LHR - SIN 747 in the middle nicest seats, SG C/D Class SIN - JFK(?) at the front better seating. Airlines tend to put the latest seats in the latest aircraft, the more modern seats the better the flight, more leg room, less engineering, more space, flatter laying seats. If you fly regularly this information switches you from a 7.30 with an LH Airbus to a 21:00 the night before with LH 747.

I've flown BA 747 to NYC in Y Class and once we had our own mini TV's and once there was a big screen up front. It was the age of the 747 that decided it.

So, just because you don't worry about what plane you are on doesn't mean that others don't or that you shouldn't...

To my mind the bigger the plane, the better it is. Your seats tend to have more room and so on.

From talking about 400 planes, they then started talking about 200. Then maybe there will be 50, and then, in reality, what? There were nine or ten
17 IIRC. 9 or 10 for the Brits, Froggies had less. Last two sold for 1GBP IIRC

Most of the "Airbus v Boeing" stuff you hear is national prejudice, marketing hype or both. Airlines will buy aircraft that suit their needs regardless of manufacturer, if anything they welcome a good war of words as that means they might be able to negotiate price reductions.

Much of what is being said about the A380 was said about the 747 - yet all objections and problems vanished when it became clear that it allowed the airlines to make money. If the economics are right for airlines to operate the A380 then it will go into service, airports will magically upgrade to handle it -
LHR5 and FRA2 maybe 3 at least are A380 ready or being built for it. I imagine more are coming online especially SIN and other APAC locs.

10 miles (or 10 minutes?) behind to avoid turbulence,
I suspect this is an exaggeration. Isn't the 747 time 2 minutes?

IMHO the Airbus is the superior product and in reality the only way that Airbus could go. The longest scheduled flight is the Singapore to New York route, it takes 17 hours or so and is Operated by Singapore Airlines with an Airbus. http://www.vacationidea.com/airlines/singapore_airlines_ny_direct.html It is arguable that you don't need to fly further than that. (It is almost London to Sydney direct and I believe, in a part loaded plane possible within the IAAC (?) rules). Therefore, for Boeing to make a long distance endurance plane was natural because Airbus had the longest and was unbeatable in that market segment. In he same way that for Airbus to make a bigger plane than the 747 was the natural next step for the same reason. They are simply moving into each others dominated market.

Bearing this in mind I offer this as to why Airbus should win:

1. Airbus already runs the longest route on the planet. 747 fleets have to stop and change at Tokyo, LA or a European hub. Adding hours and hours to the schedule.
2. The new A380 is bigger and that means better that the 747's and I expect capable of the same long trips like the SIN-JFK flight.
3. Boeing product, long haul flights, Its natural home market is the states? WTF needs it. I know the model is to cut out the use of hubs but….
4. Airbus have many more orders than Boeing and you can't argue with that basic truth

And the number one reason why Airbus will win?

5. Boeings home market is states and all the fffing airlines are bust!
 
#15
This is what annoys me about Boeing / Airbus debates, it doesn't take long for it to fall into an argument about nationalities, Europeans blathering on about previous american practices and americans blathering on about EU subsidies, etc etc.

Keep nationalism out of it, let the market decide.

I might be partly to blame . I though the subject might be little bit on the boring side so I framed the subject in provocative fashion.

To me what is interesting is the need of the company's to predict what future markets will be and produce a plane that will meet market demand. Each company bets Billions on their prediction and if they are wrong Billions will be lost.
With just two competitors it much easier for the general public and me to see the decisions made and what the results are.
How the companies are financed can determine what risks the companies are willing to take. With hind site it easy to see who made the right decision on the market, but certainly while it is happening I didn't have the faintest Idea what the outcome would be. There are certain advantages to each funding model and over the long run I am still not sure which company be left standing of course there may be enough world wide market demand to support 2 big aircraft companies.
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#16
NEO_CON said:
I might be partly to blame . I though the subject might be little bit on the boring side so I framed the subject in provocative fashion.

To me what is interesting is the need of the company's to predict what future markets will be and produce a plane that will meet market demand. Each company bets Billions on their prediction and if they are wrong Billions will be lost.
With just two competitors it much easier for the general public and me to see the decisions made and what the results are.
How the companies are financed can determine what risks the companies are willing to take. With hind site it easy to see who made the right decision on the market
All this and you still wrongly predict Boeing!!!!!
 
#17
But that is the point as I see it the Septic position on such matters is that all opposition to them is to be destroyed if possible.

The EU & US arguments are what this is all about. The Yanks do not care about anything the EU does until it starts to impose on what they believe to be their sacred ground i.e. world market leader position.

Both side blow smoke and mirrors. But remember when the chips (of freedom fries) are down the Yanks will stab anyone in the back if it is to their advantage. Concorde was an excellent example of this. Who arranged the Ban the Bang Campaign? The US aircraft industry. It was never an environmental issue, it was all about the Yanks trying to destroy the first super-sonic passenger service. If the Yanks had invented it, they would have done everything in their power to force the rest of the world the accept it.

Of course any opposition to it would have been written of as "anti-americanism" as are all failures in thinking that the Septics are the best bla bla......
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#18
You're correct but don't blame Americans. its business and they are very good at it*. backed of course by a corrupt government (not a-moral just votes and legislation for contributions corrupt.

Was it not the head of the CIA who said at the end of the cold war that the primiary purpose of hte CIA was now to help American Business abroad (for is that not world domination of a non-war kind).

Which is an excellent exmaple of the US reacting intelligently to the changing world in a practical sense. They just got blindsided by 9/11


* Remember BA screwing over Laker Airlines and trying the same with Virgin? Same damn thing and they fly the Union Flag and get knighthoods.
 
#19
All this and you still wrongly predict Boeing!!!!!

The A380 is not really competing with the Boeing's new product The 787
The markets are different. A380 500-800 seat range Boeings new product is the 250-300 seat range.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787

When 767 sales began to weaken in the face of competition from the Airbus A330-200 in the late 1990s, Boeing began to consider a replacement. As the Boeing 747-400 was also beginning to lose traction, the company proposed two new aircraft — the Sonic Cruiser and the 747X. The Sonic Cruiser was intended to achieve higher speeds (approximately Mach 0.98) while burning fuel at the same rate as the existing 767 and A330 products. The 747X, intended to compete with the Airbus A380, would stretch the 747-400 and give it a composite supercritical wing to improve efficiency. The limited potential market for superjumbos was an issue, however; the earlier Douglas DC-10 and Lockheed L-1011 widebodies split a similarly limited market and drove both companies out of their strong positions in the commercial aircraft market.

Market interest for the 747X was tepid; the Sonic Cruiser had brighter prospects. Several major airlines, primarily in the United States, voiced their optimism for the concept. By decreasing travel time, they would be able to increase customer satisfaction and aircraft utilization.

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the global airline market was upended. Airlines were not able to justify large capital expenditures, and due to increased petroleum prices, were more interested in efficiency than speed. The worst-affected airlines were in the United States — those same airlines were considered to be the most likely customer of the Sonic Cruiser. Boeing proceeded to offer airlines the option of using the airframe for either higher speed or increased efficiency. Due to high projected airframe costs, demand continued to evaporate. Eventually, Boeing switched tracks and decided to offer an alternative project, cancelling the 747X once Airbus launched production of the Airbus A380 aircraft.[

More airlines are interested in planes in the 787 product range than in A380 product range.
The price range of 787-8 currently sells for $US 148-157 . Boeing has to have already achieved its break even point.

Boeing 787
Customer announced orders and commitments for the 787 reached 237 aircraft during the first year of sales, and exceeded 400 in June of 2006. This makes the 787 the fastest-ever selling airliner upon launch; by comparison, the 747 sold 92 units during its first full year of sales
A380
Sixteen airlines have ordered the A380 as of April 6, 2006 including an order from AIG's aircraft leasing unit, ILFC. Currently, A380 orders stand at 159, including 27 freighter models. Break-even is estimated to be at 250 to 300 units. Former Airbus CEO Noël Forgeard stated he expects to sell 750 of the aircraft. As of 2006, the unit cost of the A380 is US$ 295 million
.

Each company is introducing planes that are going to compete with the others main product
Boeing decided to introduce the 747-8 that will aim at the 450 - 550 seat market depending on configuration. The plane will be a 747 stretched and with the new technology developed for the 787 . I think it will sell for about 50million less than the 295million that the A380 will sell for. Will the 747-8 cut in to the already thin market for the A380

AirBus tried to introduce the A350 to compete with the 787 but may rework the design and introduce it as the A370 soon
Boeing has the lead in the largest market segment. Will Airbus's new A350-A370 be able to catch up to Boeing in the this market segment ? You will have to tune in later to find out.
 

Similar threads

Top