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.

 

The Escalating Woes at Airbus

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   


Boeing Roars Ahead


It looks poised to outdistance Airbus on orders for jetliners, as rising fuel prices have more carriers eyeing the 777

...
Airbus had aimed to supplant the 747 with its 555-seat A380 mega carrier. But as early as 1999, Boeing execs determined -- correctly as it turned out -- that the market was changing. They predicted passengers would prefer to fly nonstop rather than fly through a hub and switch from a big jet to a smaller one. Filling that demand, Boeing figured, would require fleets of smaller, twin-engine planes rather than Airbus' four-engine A340.



Boeing guessed the future airline demands would call for narrow, long haul,non-stop service. Additionally, rising fuel cost would meant a demand for more fuel efficient twin engine aircraft.

In both counts Boeing was correct.

The 787 will have the best operating economics of any airplane in history. And the A380 is way too big for 90% of the world's markets, and it's only getting worse as time goes on.

I root for Boeing because my Dad was a flight engineer on B-29s and worked for Boeing in the 50's. He wrote the assembly manual for the wing of the B-52. I work for the competition now, but I stil have soft spot for them.

Plus much of Europe is a enemy of America. I look foward to all of you euros living under Sharia law.




posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Europe is the enemy? Since when?



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 07:35 AM
link   
ElTiante is clearly nothing more than a troll, these atttempts a blatant goading are quite pathetic, I'm surprised he doesn't also say "collapse and failure for Airbus would seriously hurt Americas best ally and put thousands of Americans on the dole but I don't care cos I'm just plain dumb". I suppose there's time.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElTiante
Boeing guessed the future airline demands would call for narrow, long haul,non-stop service. Additionally, rising fuel cost would meant a demand for more fuel efficient twin engine aircraft.

I think you'll find that the A340-600 is both narrow, long-haul and non-stop service.


Originally posted by ElTiante
Plus much of Europe is a enemy of America. I look foward to all of you euros living under Sharia law.

You're an *swell guy*. Name a single european country that is an enemy of the usa. Can you? ... No i didnt think so.

Mod Edit: No personal attack please

[edit on 4/1/06 by FredT]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Europe is the enemy? Since when?

When? How about when France, Germany and Russia actively opposed US efforts in the UN security council to get Iraq to allow inspections prior the to the invasion of Iraq.

How about the Spanish electing a socialist government that campaigned for Spanish withdrawal from Iraq, thus undermining US efforts there?

How about Russia supporting Iran's nuclear ambitions?

[edit on 1-4-2006 by ElTiante]

[edit on 1-4-2006 by ElTiante]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 08:00 AM
link   
None of those countries are actually enemys of america. Simply opposing a ridiculously flawed plan to start a war does not make any country an enemy. Calling them such is so typical of a small minority of the american populations supremicist views, maybe you should listen to the points the opposition make rather than simply branding them an enemy!



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   
still more...



European aircraft maker Airbus will pay out millions of dollars to airlines hit by A380 superjumbo delivery delays.

Chief operating officer John Leahy said the group would be paying a "couple of million dollars" in compensation during an interview on Australian TV.

Airbus has said that the plane is running between four and six months behind, with the first delivery now expected to be late next year.

Airbus has secured 159 firm orders for the plane so far.

Read More...


Oh and I read it's overweight too.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   
This is all GWB`s fault, if he did not invade Iraq, people would buy our airplanes
.He must really hate America
Of coarse the rest of my countrymen are asshats too....
/lametroll



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Alrighty Then

Please stay on topic. If you wish to debate the Iraq war please do so in the numerous existing threads. THis one is about AIrbus and to a lesser extent Boeing.

Also, lets all take a chill pill and enjoy the debate



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElTiante


I root for Boeing because my Dad was a flight engineer on B-29s and worked for Boeing in the 50's. He wrote the assembly manual for the wing of the B-52. I work for the competition now, but I stil have soft spot for them.



same here ElTiante.

I root for boeing b/c my dad worked nearly 20 years for the Lazy B. was once part of "the incredibles" working on the very first 747, getting it from drawing board to flight in 16 months and was lead mechanic on the SST untill the government pulled the funding (the only commercial plane boeing has done with government funds)

remember this sign from seattle




and there's nothing that symbolizes the pacific northwest like boeing, seattle would only be refered to the emerald city and not both that and the Jet City. or have the band Queensryche sing "Jet city woman"
it's as northwest as salmon and starbucks

we also bash it just the same.

also known as the Lazy B.
or why is there two bells at shift change? 1st is to wake workers up and the 2nd is to let them know it's time to leave

boeing also has a legacy of helping win wwii with the rugged planes they built.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad

Originally posted by bigx01


yep boeing dupped them with the sonic cruiser and they fell for it. i wouldn't want to play texas holdem against them



Hahahaha i cant work out if this is a joke or not, boeing lost millions and millions of dollars on the doomed sonic cruiser project.
I WOULD want to play hold em' against boeing as they clearly lost on that hand!

-George





Sonic Cruiser
Boeing is focusing its product development efforts on a super efficient airplane. This is the airplane that airline customers around the globe agree will bring the best value to an industry in need of improved performance. The advanced technologies that allowed the Sonic Cruiser configuration to provide 15 to 20 percent faster flight at today's efficiencies now will be used to bring 15 to 20 percent lower fuel usage at the top end of today's commercial jet speeds. Boeing believes that in the future airlines will again be interested in faster flight and we will be ready with a concept and technologies to meet this need. These materials are presented for those interested in understanding the work that was done on the Sonic Cruiser prior to Dec. 20, 2002.


Source: The Boeing Company



Originally posted by waynos
Nice to see that other old turkey raised again "Boeing tricked Airbus into buiding the A380"

only one turkey now huh

do you really think they were going to tip their hand until airbus committed.
as soon as airbus committed they changed directions and are using the

Originally posted by gfad
millions and millions of dollars on the doomed sonic cruiser project.


to complete the 787.

those oh so wasted millions on reasearch now seem to be spent on the right thing. funny how things work out, when you lay your cards down


will they ever build a sonic or super sonic commercial plane? we'd all like to fly to destinations quicker but till then i'll take point to point



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   
I wouldnt be routing for Boeing. Anti-American company. As a former resident of Seattle, Ive seen the mess they have left good hardworking Americans in by outsourcing their friggin jobs to third world labor dumps.

Many Seattlites would be more than happy to work for "foreign" Airbus, especially since Airbus has been talking about opening plants up in that area. Lots of out of work Boeing employees would be more than happy to switch alliegance if it puts food on their tables.

Oh, and lets not forget how Boeing extorted the state of Washington some 3 billion dollars in tax breaks just to create......1000 jobs. Else Boeing was threatening to move elsewhere. Three Billion in desperately needed revenue for the state still suffering from the dot.com nightmare and the Microsoft fiasco.

Yup. Americans sure won.




posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Three Billion in desperately needed revenue for the state still suffering from the dot.com nightmare and the Microsoft fiasco.



they have not gotten a single penny, the state, well at last count we have over 900 million in the coffers down in olympia and that was just a few weeks ago. so you saying the state is suffering is a bit off. oh and microsoft is building and adding more jobs as i type.

in fact it's because of microsoft and the millions that their employees make is why unemployment compensation checks are higer than in most parts of the country, even though employment in the greater seattle are is at the national average



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 05:34 AM
link   
BigX, What in your reply to my post, proves that Boeing 'duped' Airbus?

Absolutely nothing, because such a notion is pure arse gravy.

Do you seruiously believe that the A380 programme was launched because of what Airbus thought Boeing was going to do? Surely (if that was the case) it would have been the 747-8 that was the ruse, not the Sonic Cruiser, which Airbus never showed any intention of trying to match? Bear in mind that the 747-8 was launched in response to the A380 so would you say the 'ruse' backfired somewhat?

You don't think that Airbus might have actually looked into whether such a plane was actually viable and might sell?

In fact I cannot believe I am trying to debate this with you as it is the stupidest thing I have heard since the Concorde crash was blamed on an American plot to get revenge on France for something or other, total lunacy!

Or, a complete lack of any sort of understanding into what actually goes into creating a new aircraft.

BTW, the Sonic Cruiser studies were deadly serious and Boeing should be congratulated for trying to think outside the box, the Vari-eze/Starshipt layout being translated to a 250 seat airliner would have been a wonderful innovation and having idiots make out it was all a sham does Boeing no favours at all.

You see I'm not bashing Boeing, just narrow minded stupidity'


boeing also has a legacy of helping win wwii with the rugged planes they built.


And this is different from De Havilland, how exactly? or don't you get the reference?


only one turkey now huh?


You said it buster, and I think 'Duh' would have been more accurate.

[edit on 2-4-2006 by waynos]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Deny Ignorance??

Some of the posts in this thread personify igorance!

1. Boeing gets its government funding through R&D contracts, mostly conducted through NASA as well as tax breaks. Airbus gets theirs in straight subsidies and funding. It probably works out roughly equal.


2. There are two main (and a 3rd personal view of my own) views on the future of the aircraft market.
- The passenger numbers increase, and bigger planes are needed to carry the larger number of passengers in an already congested sky (Airbus's view).
- The passenger numbers increase, but local airports shoulder the burden, and a larger number of point to point aircraft are needed (Boeing).
- Fuel costs rise to a level where current air travel levels are unsustainable, the industry enters a recession.

The top 2 have one thing in common, passenger numbers increase, so it may be that the eventual outcome is a mix of them, so there is room for the 7E7 and A380.


Unfortunately, I don't think it will be an issue, as oil prices will rise to a level where people are simply unable to afford to travel in the numbers they do now - not soley due to the direct cost increase of flights, but of wider economic factors resulting from the oncoming energy crisis.



3. I've been saying on here the A350 is a mess for some time now. The wing is 20 tonnes overweight, Airbus have tried a new kind of composite construction, and its failed, badly. FEA models are unable to provide accurate predictions, and they cannot design the wing to the tolerances they would like. But Airbus seem intent on taking the pain now, for in the future they will be in a better position to exploit the technology, whereas Boeing are avoiding it and delaying such problems until down the road sometime.


4. As for current sales being a reflection of the eventual success or failure of a type and its resulting manufacturer - get real. Only over quite a few years to come will we see who 'wins' (in so much as anyone can 'win').



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Oh, and quite why Boeing ever thought of building the sonic cruiser is beyond myself (and probably most other aeronautical engineers too). Why take the hit from the transonic drag rise without going supersonic?

I guess the sonic cruiser will be reborn as a SST if they can get legislation sorted, if they can design the nose for directing the shockwave upwards and if the oil prices don't balloon.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos



And this is different from De Havilland, how exactly? or don't you get the reference?



waynos, waynos, waynos. what did de havilland build a couple thousand plywood bombers to conserve stratigic materials.

would it suprise you that de havilland, or whats left of the company is now owned by boeing? they sold de havilland canada several years ago and still own de havilland austrailia

on to new business

this is a new update on this current topic



But Doug McVitie, an Airbus sales director just before Leahy's time and now an industry consultant based in France, said the real problem is the airplanes Leahy has to sell.

McVitie's Arran Aerospace has just completed market forecasts that show Boeing's strength in the midsized-widebody market giving it unassailable momentum. The superiority of the 777 over the A340, and the 787 over the current A350, will leave Airbus "with a vacuum where they had a product line," he said.

"We see Boeing regaining the deliveries lead in 2008 and never losing it," McVitie said. "Boeing will overtake Airbus and stay ahead. Airbus is heading back down to 30 percent market share."


Source: Seattle Times business & technology

and all this from the former airbus salesman.

ok waynos let your rant fly



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   
The Escalating Woes at Airbus

Seems that "escalating woes" was proper in use, especially after running across this:
BAE Systems to sell Airbus stake





seekerof



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
The Escalating Woes at Airbus

Seems that "escalating woes" was proper in use, especially after running across this:
BAE Systems to sell Airbus stake

seekerof




Not really:


Despite a bumper year for Airbus sales in 2005, BAE's commercial aerospace division saw its overall profits fall to £179m from £201m a year earlier because of weak demand for its regional jets.

BAE's move towards concentrating on its defence operations was reflected by last year's acquisition of US firm United Defense for £2.1bn.


They've stopped making the BAe 146 for some time now, and it seems they are moving from commerical aviation to concentrate soley on defence matters. Obviously selling airbus would be a part of that move.


edit: Me dumb!


edit2: BAe have a large recruitment drive ongoing for aerodynamicists/aerostructures/missiles/structures/software/electromagnetic/others engineers, all concentrated on defence products. Pretty obvious to me they are moving towards being a defence contractor only.

[edit on 7-4-2006 by kilcoo316]

[edit on 7-4-2006 by kilcoo316]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   
No rant forthcoming bigx, after all, the only thing you posted was a cheap shot about what De Havilland 'did in the war' as the phrase goes and demonstrate you total ignorance of the facts behind my reference, in short, Chester, where Airbus wings are produced, was one of De Havillands major production centres for many years, going also under the names of Hawker Siddeley and BAE, and surely they have as much right to prosperity and success as Boeing has, De Havilland Canada is a complete red herring and so that part of your post was utterly wrong.

edit; Does anyone else think that BAE selling its share of Airbus is madness? Not only because of the income brought in from being part of one of the world only two successful large commercial transport manufacturers, but also how long before the French decide that transporting wings from the UK is too much hassle and this skill base becomes the latest in a long line to be lost from this country?

[edit on 7-4-2006 by waynos]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join