It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Looks like Airbus did it.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Ive seen posts about the Airbus/Boeing fued here before so I figure its the right place, if it isnt, someone kindly move it.

Looks like airbus is doing to boeing in the commercial aircraft industry what toyota did to ford in the auto industry.

Airbus has more orders than boeing, and their new generation aircraft is finished and ready.

Personally, I think companies will go with airbus more and more because not only does the A380 represent the companies ability to turn corporate strategy and vision into reality, but it also shows that such vision has quality. As a result, the market has responded favorably to the release of the a380. Looks like the boeing 7E7 will be too little too late im afraid. Shame since I really liked the eccentric/kwerky design of their JSF entry.

Enjoy

news.bbc.co.uk...




posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Its much of a muchness.

Before I dive in, can I *please* ask those people willing to take part in this discussion to not allow this to descend into a 'X is better than Y' or the perennial subsidies battle. There are other threads for that stuff.

Ok, taht said lets get on with it.

The 787 (what the 7E7 became) is a very nice aircraft, its got lots of new tech in it, and its not too late at all. The 787 will not compete with the A380, it doesnt have the range and it doesnt have the economy needed, its a different aircraft for a different market.

Airbus have had the major share of the market (54% last year, larger this year) in orders and deliveries for a couple years now, and thats not going away. Thats not to say Boeing wont steal something back, theyve just rested on their laurels too much (one new plane in 15 years verses Airbuses 5 and one announced).

The A380 market is the extermely busy airport market, longhaul mainly. Slots are getting tight at Heathrow and other major airports, and if a single A380 can bring in as many passengers as 2 747s will, then that airlines just saved themselves huge amounts in landing fees, gate fees, stand fees etc.

I will also say this - Boeing is not relying on the point to point mode and Airbus is not relying on the hub and spoke mode. The point to point mode currently doesnt support the volume of traffic for the routes the A380 will fly, and the hub mode generally covers too much distance for the 787 to fly. What you will see is gradually, the 787-200LR when it comes into service wll fly the longer routes, and you will start to see high density A380s brought into service for holidaying routes.

The A350 is touted to save as much as 30% fuel on a per passenger basis verses the 787 when it comes into service, but the A350 will have a good 3 years on the 787 since it enters service in 2010, so the 787 can be in service and earning Boeing money sooner. Boeing havent got the market wrapped up at all, for a type that Boeing has predicted a 2000 unit market for, it currently has 246 orders, so thats a lot of units yet to be sold and it can go anyway.

That said, Boeing have the 747ADV on route, and that can put a dent in the A380 sales for airlines that predominently have historically gone with Boeing.

The place to watch now is the Indian market, the sales of aircraft coming out of there is phenominol. For example, Indigo Air ordered 100 A320 series aircraft. Yes, 100! Unheard of.

The Paris Airshow orders are as follows:

Airbus - 279
Boeing - 148
Embraer - 25
ATR - 20
Bombardier - 4



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice


Airbus - 279
Boeing - 148
Embraer - 25
ATR - 20
Bombardier - 4



Ouch! Airbus has almost twice as more orders! I live in Washington State, where there is software(Microsoft) and planes(Boeing). Four years ago, both companies had no lay-offs, but now, 4 years later, Boeing layed-off about 3,000 workers(or so).



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Well apparently the key flaw in Airbuses is that they're supposedly a pain in the @$$ to do maintenence work on. It's amazing what the typical airliner goes through during the course of one flight. If airbuses are any

Adding more difficulty to fixing those things is not a good way to keep your mechanics happy. And trust me you want to keep your mechanics happy. I remember hearing the last time my grandfather went on strike (which was a long time ago) an airplane crashed shortly after take off because of something the regular mechanics would have seen with ease. So in other words, don't piss off your mechanics. Few people realize it but in truth, the airline technicians are what keep the show running. Without them the entire system comes crashing down.

Of course one thing to consider is that Boeing doesn't make you buy there planes in order to fly in the US. The major airliners had to buy some Airbuses before they were allowed to fly certain European routes. So don't think that the airlines bought Airbuses completly out of making better aircraft.

[edit on 7/28/2005 by cyberdude78]



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Those were just the Paris orders and included previously announced orders. Its actaully quite close with Boeing having a 100 or so plane lead untill the A350 orders are firmed up, then it will swing to even or slightly ahead for AB.




Through midyear, Boeing is ahead in aircraft orders by more than 100, with a bit more than 400 received. Airbus' order book lists a comparatively thin 276.

The European manufacturer's numbers suffer from the fact that its newest endeavor, the A350, is still not formally underway. A holdup in the shareholders' approval of the industrial launch is proving to be an impediment. That means that more than 100 commitments made in recent weeks for the A350--the rival to Boeing's 787--don't count. If the industrial go-ahead is given no later than Sept. 30, as the company expects, it could wipe out the gap quickly, assuming the conversion of commitments into firm orders goes as smoothly as anticipated.
You build them we buy them



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Those were just the Paris orders and included previously announced orders. Its actaully quite close with Boeing having a 100 or so plane lead untill the A350 orders are firmed up, then it will swing to even or slightly ahead for AB.


Dont know where they get their info, but thats wrong. Both those figures were for JUST the Paris airshow, and didnt include any previous orders.

The breakdown is as follows:

Airbus 279
Qatar 60x A350
ALAFCO 12x A350
Jet Airways 10x A330
GECAS 10x A350
Tiger AIrways 8x A320
Air Cairo 6x A318
Kingfisher 5x A380
Kingfisher 5x A350-800
Kingfisher 5x A330-200
Air Caraibes 2x A330-300
Indigo Air 100x A320
Interjet 10xA320
TAM 8x A350-900
TAM 20x A320
Germanwings 18x A319

Boeing 148
Ryanair 5x B737-800
Qatar 20x B777-200
GECAS 20x B737NG
Jet Airways 6x B777-200LR
Jet Airways 4x B777-300ER
Jet AIrways 10x B737-800
ILFC 20x B737-700/800
ILFC 2x B777-200ER
ILFC 6x B777-300ER
Air Europa 18x B737-800
Westjet 2x B737-600
Alaska 35x B737-800

All of those were announced at the airshow.

Currently, the order books stand for the new aircraft like this:

Airbus -

A350 - 105
A380 - 159

Boeing -

787 - 246

The outstanding orders are:

Airbus - 481
Boeing - 608

The current delivery rate is:

2003
Airbus - 305
Boeing - 281

2004
Airbus - 320
Boeing - 285


2005 (to end of May)
Airbus - 153
Boeing - 127

Boeings order book may look good, but thats purely because they arent delivering as many aircraft to customers.

Sources
www.bizjournals.com...
seattlepi.nwsource.com...
justplanes.com...
www.speednews.com...
www.speednews.com...
www.speednews.com...
www.speednews.com...

[edit on 28/7/2005 by RichardPrice]



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 02:30 AM
link   
I was refering to overall not just Paris. But my info came from AWST who have seldom steered me wrong. But you are correct in that Airbus is delivering more planes than Boeing.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Airbus also is able to produce and transport sections of planes easier than Boeing. Parts of the 787 are being built in Japan, and having to be shipped to the US for completion of the planes. That's going to slow production down. All the Airbus sections are built right there in Europe, yes some are far away, but not halfway around the world.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Also the A350 comment in that article is misguided. Airbus has an Authority to Offer the aircraft, which in itself is a commitment to production, the ceremonial launch is being held back for the Dubai Airshow where Airbus historically has centre stage. Therefor theres nothing wrong with counting an A350 order right up there with any other order.

As for Airbus aircraft being difficult to maintain, having asked around thats an opinion that only seems to surface on forums such as these. Join any of the technical forums and theres nothing said (and you would think people would mention it) when asked, so all I can say is 'not true' really.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Airbus also is able to produce and transport sections of planes easier than Boeing. Parts of the 787 are being built in Japan, and having to be shipped to the US for completion of the planes. That's going to slow production down. All the Airbus sections are built right there in Europe, yes some are far away, but not halfway around the world.


Boeing has been doing manufacturing that way since the 777 was launched. You will find that the 777 is put together in much the same way an Airbus is put together, using prebuilt sections shipped from other countries. Id hesitate to use that as an excuse for poor deliveries, since that was Boeings decision and they have had 10 years to perfect it.

What will be interesting is the cost to maintain the 787s composite body after damage. There have been a number of private jets that have been fully composite for a while, and they are horrendously expensive to fix if damage occurs to the skin, since you cant just remove a panel and replace it, you have to bond new material to the old material. Boeing have said this isnt a problem, but havent said why.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Also the A350 comment in that article is misguided. Airbus has an Authority to Offer the aircraft, which in itself is a commitment to production, the ceremonial launch is being held back for the Dubai Airshow where


Historicaly they have only "counted" aircraft if and only if the program has officialy been launched. I agree its simply a matter of time till those orders are officaly counted in Airbuses order book.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Yeah, they've both been doing that for years, but from what I recall the sections always came from much closer than Japan. It's an advantage when you're building a plane in France and all your sections are coming from countries "next door"



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Yeah, they've both been doing that for years, but from what I recall the sections always came from much closer than Japan. It's an advantage when you're building a plane in France and all your sections are coming from countries "next door"


Actually Airbus does quite abit of business in Japan. May not be huge fueselage peices, but avionics and the like cost as much if not more than the physical structure of the aircraft.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 03:33 AM
link   
And avionics can be shipped by air a lot faster than putting a huge section of fuselage on a ship and shipping it that way. I think the only planes around in the US that can carry fuselage sections are the C-17 and the C-5, and the military isn't going to dedicate a couple of them to transport parts for Boeing.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Of course one thing to consider is that Boeing doesn't make you buy there planes in order to fly in the US. The major airliners had to buy some Airbuses before they were allowed to fly certain European routes. So don't think that the airlines bought Airbuses completly out of making better aircraft.


I have never EVER heard of this before. Can you provide more details and a link perhaps to enlighten me some more?



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Of course one thing to consider is that Boeing doesn't make you buy there planes in order to fly in the US. The major airliners had to buy some Airbuses before they were allowed to fly certain European routes. So don't think that the airlines bought Airbuses completly out of making better aircraft.


Complete and utter crap. Im sorry, but thats all there is to say about it. You need to stop spouting utter rubbish like this.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I was going to ask about that too. Can it really be true or is it another one of those myths that surface over the pond without foundation?



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
I was going to ask about that too. Can it really be true or is it another one of those myths that surface over the pond without foundation?


British Airways was approached to purchase the origiona A300 and A310 series aircraft, and both times it turned Airbus down, instead choosing Boeing aircraft and Rolls Royce engines so it could still point at how it was supporting the British economy.

Air France and Lufthansa had obligations to buy the origional A300s because both were state owned or state funded at the time of Airbus' creation and the initial designs were based on requirements documents submitted by both airlines. This is where the majority of the initial production run went. This might be what he is referring to, but its completely different to what he is insinuating as there was no limitation on routes or other requirements.

US airline Eastern Airlines ordered 23 examples in 1977 and the demand for the aircraft rocketed after that.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
I was going to ask about that too. Can it really be true or is it another one of those myths that surface over the pond without foundation?


I HAVE never heard this one. I would would have been all over it like flies on stink


JAL has an all Boeing fleet and serves Europe. I doubt the US Government would have kept that one quiet.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Why do I have this insatiable urge to ignore this thread?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join