AirBus vs Boeing who will win

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by NEO_CON, Jul 5, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  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,filter.all/event_detail.asp#

    Boeing vs. Airbus: The Plot Thickens--July-6 2006,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.





    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. 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 ?
    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.
  11. Kapton, That the cable where the insulation cums off after say 15-20 years ?
  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. 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.
  14. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    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.

    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.

    17 IIRC. 9 or 10 for the Brits, Froggies had less. Last two sold for 1GBP IIRC

    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.

    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. 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. 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.