Airbus - the fightback continues

irbus, which it is fair to say probably hit rock bottom in terms of morale and reputation in the run up to this years Farnborough airshow, has revealed more good news in its continued fight to win back its reputation and the trust of the airline industry.

following on from the initial stages of replacing the company CEO and the flawed A350 being replaced by the XWB, Airbus has now revealed a 20 aircaft order for the redesigned version from Singapore Airlines, who's previous decision to order 20 787's was seen as a damning indictment of the Airbus project by many.

The Airbus order, for 20 plus 20 options, is identical to the airlines 787 order, which is unaffected, and shows that SIA were true to their word when they said they would still consider buying the Airbus if it met their requirements.

Given that SIA were one of the fiercest critics of the previous version and one of those calling loudest for a redesign, this order is a massive PR boost for the manufacturer and goes a long way to restoring the balance in the commercial market.

In a similar vein Airbus has also announced that SIA has ordered an additional 9 A380's with 6 more on option, giving a boost to another beleageured project and reiterating SIA's faith in the plane. SIA had been, and probably still is, also considering an order for the 747-8.

A further boost for the company, although an admittedly more tenuous one, is that they won the Farnborough sales battle with 114 new Airbus orders announced compared with 72 Boeings. In terms of value it went $9.7bn of Airbus' sales against $9.1bn to Boeing.

Boeing would, however, have recorded a clear victory in terms of value, if not numbers, had it not been for the expected announcement of an, already signed, order for 20 777's by Qatar Airways (significantly, an all-Airbus operator) worth $4.9bn suddenly being cancelled by the airline for reasons which have not been revealed.

Originally posted by waynos
Boeing would, however, have recorded a clear victory in terms of value, if not numbers, had it not been for the expected announcement of an, already signed, order for 20 777's by Qatar Airways (significantly, an all-Airbus operator) worth $4.9bn suddenly being cancelled by the airline for reasons which have not been revealed.

Speculating - perhaps they see one of the versions of the A350 [which is supposed to compete with the 777] as being a better solution?

"The fightback continues"? I wouldn't say so. Consider:

1) In this year, airlines have so far ordered 4 times more Boeings than Airbuses
2) Customers from around the world have ordered 393 787s, over two times more than they have ordered A350s
3) Boeing also leads in terms of total orders for mid-range jets - they have received more orders for the 737 than Airbus has received for its entire product line www.boeing.com...


fixed link


[edit on 30-7-2006 by masqua]

1 Yes, this is the first year of this decade where Boeing has outsold Airbus, this is entirely due to the the mess Airbus made of the A350 first time round combined with the A380 delays plus the fact that the 787 is superb and selling like hot cakes, that is why Airbus is in the position of having to fight back, as I said. The fact that Boeing has massively outsold Airbus disproves that Airbus are now starting to fight back, how exactly? In actual fact it only underlines the mess that Airbus got itself into in the first place.

2 Duh, yes, obviously, hence the XWB design being created and a fightback beginning. Have you actually got anything worthwhile to add?

3 The 737 has been on sale since 1967 (or before Airbus even had a plane to sell). You would hope that they have racked up large orders for it by now. At Farnborough Airbus sold more planes than Boeing, so what? The thread is about Airbus' fightback with the XWB to try to regain some lost ground with the 787. What is the relevance of 737 orders, thats a different class, a different discussion?.

Originally posted by waynos
3 The 737 has been on sale since 1967

Airbus was founded in 1970 and their first plane was the 737's counterpart, the A320.

Regarding the A350XWB, it won't defeat the 787. It's only as fast as the 787, not faster, has the same range, not a longer range, and is inferior to its American counterpart in terms of fuel efficiency, which is the #1 criterium. Link: www.boeing.com...

It's also worth pointing out (just one more time ) that the Boeing 787 is still a completely untested and only partially constructed plane; it hasn't been completed or done any of the testing that caught out the first A380.

Boeing have even admitted problems with weight and software themselves so it remains to be seen what will happen there.
(one can only wonder what a little run of problems like the A380 has just had would do to Boeing)

So far we have an actual flying aircraft encountering the kinds of teething problems that almost all new leading-edge designs encounter and we also have one advanced design some way off of actual flying and yet another advanced design a little further away from making it to being a flying reality.

I wouldn't be so extravagant in my claims about any of those planes yet to take to the air.

The first Airbus model was the A300B, a 250 seater which was the worlds first widebody twin, it has nothing to do with the 737.

The A320, the 737 rival that you mentioned, was first flown in 1987, giving the 737 a 20 year start. Which of these is 'best' is entirely subjective, witnessed by the continuing big sales successes of both models. To try and prove a superiority between them is infantile as they both have their plus points.

Who is trying to claim the XWB is going to 'beat' the 787??? If it outsold the 787 Airbus would be very happy, but that is not the be all and end all of the programme. The XWB only has to sell in sufficient numbers to make a profit and maintain Airbus' presence in the market sector to be a success. Airbus claims the XWB will technologically leapfrog the 787, Boeing claims it wont. Such has it ever been between them, stop swallowing the propaganda of your favourite and try to be objective. The fact that Airbus can now offer a product which at least matches the 787 is the main thing as it gives the airlines a choice which in turn gives them a bit more bargaining power. You don't think a Boeing monopoly would be a good thing do you?

Just ask Singapore Airlines if they want a single company monopoly, they have placed 20 orders and 20 options on both models.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
The first Airbus model was the A300B, a 250 seater which was the worlds first widebody twin, it has nothing to do with the 737.

The A320, the 737 rival that you mentioned, was first flown in 1987

Right.

Airbus claims the XWB will technologically leapfrog the 787, Boeing claims it wont.

Because it won't. It's not better than the 787. It's only as fast as it's American counterpart, has the same range as it, and is worse than the 787 in terms of the #1. That is fuel efficiency. The 787 consumes 20% less fuel per flight than any other long-range plane.

Links:
www.airbus.com...
www.boeing.com...

try to be objective.

I am. The fact that I bring up facts that prove Boeing to be better than Airbus doesn't mean than I'm biased.

The fact that Airbus can now offer a product which at least matches the 787 is the main thing as it gives the airlines a choice which in turn gives them a bit more bargaining power.

The only problem is that it's not true. The A350XWB cannot match the 787 because it's inferior to it in terms of fuel efficiency, which is the #1 issue for airlines. Range is not important, as there is an Airbus plane that has a longer range than the A350XWB (the A340).

You don't think a Boeing monopoly would be good do you?

No, but an Airbus monopoly wouldn't be good, either.

Because it won't. It's not better than the 787. It's only as fast as it's American counterpart, has the same range as it, and is worse than the 787 in terms of the #1. That is fuel efficiency. The 787 consumes 20% less fuel per flight than any other long-range plane.

'as fast' it what was required by the airlines themselves, the same range is also a requirement set by the airlines, it was the need to meet these that led to the XWB in the first place. The 787 is 20% more efficient than existing long range aircraft, do you think the XWB will be no more efficient than existing planes?

So whats the problem?

he fact that I bring up facts that prove Boeing to be better than Airbus doesn't mean than I'm biased.

What facts? tell me some facts, other than 'the 787 is better' which is an opinion not a fact.

The only problem is that it's not true. The A350XWB cannot match the 787 because it's inferior to it in terms of fuel efficiency, which is the #1 issue for airlines. Range is not important, as there is an Airbus plane that has a longer range than the A350XWB (the A340).

There you go with the fuel efficiency thing again. Am I supposed to believe this is a fact just because you say it is? Or maybe because it is claimed on a website that was put up before the XWB was designed (in which case how could Boeing possibly know?) After all the XWB has only been on the market a week, so how can you possibly compare its fuel efficiency with the 787?

Range is extremely important because the 777 has virtually killed off the sales of the A340, The A350-1000 is the model that will take on the 777 and replace the A340 so how can you say it does not matter?

No, but an Airbus monopoly wouldn't be good, either.

At last, something we agree on.

Originally posted by waynos
The 787 is 20% more efficient than existing long range aircraft, do you think the XWB will be no more efficient than existing planes?

The 787 is 20% more efficient than existing long-range aircraft AND the A350XWB. Had you read Boeing's official website, you would find out that:

the 787 will provide airlines with unmatched fuel efficiency, resulting in exceptional environmental performance.

Link: www.boeing.com...

What facts? tell me some facts, other than 'the 787 is better' which is an opinion not a fact.

I'm not saying only that. I'm saying also WHY the 787 is better, and providing links.

There you go with fuel efficiency again. Am I supposed to believe this is a fact just because you say it is?

No, you are supposed to believe this is a fact because Boeing's website says so.

Or maybe because it is claimed on a website that was put up before the XWB was designed (in which case how could Boeing possibly know?)

Don't you think that Boeing updates its website?

Range is extremely important

I didn't say that in general it's not important. I'm saying that regarding comparisons of the A350XWB with the 787, range is not important, because the A340's range is longer. And before you say: "No, it's not" - yes, it is. The A350XWB's range is 15800 kms, while the A340-500's range is 16600kms. Links:
www.airbus.com...
www.airbus.com...

[edit on 30-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]

The 787 is 20% more efficient than existing long-range aircraft AND the A350XWB. Had you read Boeing's official website,

You are twisting the meaning of what it says, it actually, explicitly says (with my own emphasis in bold):

the 787 will provide airlines with unmatched fuel efficiency, resulting in exceptional environmental performance. The airplane will use 20 percent less fuel for comparable missions than today's similarly sized airplane.

Whatsmore there is no mention of the XWB at all, anywhere.

Don't you think that Boeing updates its website?

I'm sure they do, however you are simply assuming that the claim includes the XWB, there is no mention of it so your claim to be offering proof is false. read it again, it says "20 percent less fuel for comparable missions than today's similarly sized airplane"

The A340 is a dead duck, the A350-1000 is its replacement, like I already told you.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by waynos]

Here are some facts courtesy of Flight International, which is impartial and respected;

Seating - A350-800=270, 787-8 = 250. A350-900 = 314, 787-9 = 290. A350-1000 = 350, 787-10 = 320

Cabin width - A350 (all models) = 554cm, 787 (all models) = 546cm.

Range - A350 (all models) = 15,700km, 787-8 = 14,800 km, 787-9 = 15,700km, 787-10 = 13,900 km.

cost/seat (equivalent A350 model as datum) - 787-8 =+8%, 787-9 = +7%, 787-10 N/A. 777-200LR and -300LR both +25%


Sourced from Airbus AND Boeing. (in issue dated 25-31 July 2006, go look it up).

Originally posted by waynos
Range - A350 (all models) = 15,700km, 787-8 = 14,800 km, 787-9 = 15,700km, 787-10 = 13,900 km.

Exactly, the range of the A350 is 15700 kms, while the A340's range is 16600kms. My claim that the A340's range is longer is right. The fact that the A350XWB is replacing the A340 is irrelevant to my claim.

777-200LR and -300LR

There is no such plane as the 777-300LR.

cost/seat

Post data regarding cost per seat for the A350 too, OK?

[edit on 30-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]

No, your claim is irrelevant as the A340 *will not be on the market* as it is not sufficiently cost effective and the market acceptance of the -500 and -600 models has been poor. Therefore what does it matter to the A350 V 787 argument what the range of the A340 is? It only matters how the competing planes match up to each other. To drag the A340 into the deate is just muddying the waters.

In fact, according to Jane's, the range of the A340-500 is 16,019km, not 16,600, making a gap of just 319km. In any case, the A350-1000 *is* the replacement for the A340 whether it is 300km or 1,000km shorter ranged so what purpose does your bringing this aircraft up serve?

There is no such plane as the 777-300LR.

I meant the -300ER of course, but you must have known that. No need to be obtuse.

Post data regarding cost per seat for the A350 too, OK?

As I said, each equivalent A350 was datum. Therefore the figure for the 787-8 of +8 is how it compares to the A350-800 (meaning a cost/seat of 8% higher than the Airbus model) the other comparisons are the A350-900 with the 787-9 and the -1000 with the 787-10. I had hoped that by telling you this in the table I wouldn't have to type it out in full

[edit on 30-7-2006 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
No, your claim is irrelevant

You are the one who said that range is important.

Originally posted by waynos
the market acceptance of the -500 and -600 models has been low.

Incorrect. So far, 21 A340-500s and 79 A340-600s have been ordered. Link: www.airbus.com...

As I said, each equivalent A350 was datum. Therefore the figure for the 787-8 of +8 is how it compares to the A350-800 (meaning a cost/seat of 8% higher than the Airbus model) the other comparisons are the A350-900 with the 787-9 and the -1000 with the 787-10. I had hoped that by telling you this in the table I wouldn't have to type it out in full

Ah, so the A350XWB is more efficient. I didn't know that. However, it (the A350XWB) is inferior to the 777-200LR in terms of range.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]

I know squat about airplanes unlike many knowledgeable posters on this site and it is a learning experience to read their posts.

But there should be no doubt that Airbus can build good planes with the kind of resources behind them and the track record of European aviation.

The bigger question is whether they can build planes at a profit or will the Airbus consortium continue to be a drag on the European taxpayer into the future?

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
The bigger question is whether they can build planes at a profit or will the Airbus consortium continue to be a drag on the European taxpayer into the future?

Unfortunately, it will continue to be an unnecessary expense for the European taxpayer. It is now producing better planes than Boeing, but it treats the customers in the way customers don't like to be treated. Airbus believes that they are owed orders from airlines no matter how good are the planes they produce. This way, they're not going to earn even 1 cent in the global economy, which is a market economy. They have to understand that customer knows best, and they should listen to customers.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]

denythe statusquo;

The bigger question is whether they can build planes at a profit or will the Airbus consortium continue to be a drag on the European taxpayer into the future?

As a matter of fact all the development loans for aircraft up to and including the A340 have been repaid with dividends to the respective Govs, so, on balance, Airbus has made countries richer, not poorer. Whether this trend is repeated with the A380 and A350 launch aid loans is something that time will tell.

JCINS;

You are the one who said that range is important

I'm afraid you'll have to explain what you are on about here. Range is important so the A350 can compete with the 787/777 ER models and replace the A340. If it didn't have the range it couldn't do the job. Can you explain why the range of the A340 is relevant to this argument when it is not going to be competing in the segment?

Incorrect. So far, 21 A340-500s and 79 A340-600s have been ordered.

Pardon? You don't think sales of 21 and 79 are poor? Compared to more than 170 A380's and 182 A350's in far less time, not to mention 345 787's?

I can tell you that Airbus, EADS and BAE are all very unimpressed by these figures, hence the need for the -1000 model.

the A350XWB) is inferior to the 777-200LR in terms of range.

According to the figures (supplied by Boeing) in the 'Flight' table I extracted the data from in my earlier post the range of the 777-200LR is 14,200km (and 14,400 for the -300ER) compared with 15,700km for the rival A350-900 and -1000.

Airbus believes that they are owed orders from airlines no matter how good are the planes they produce

This argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny when Airbus completely redesigned the A350 into the current XWB at the behest of customers, that is hardly a case of expecting orders no mater how good the plane is, is it. Likewise the current project to produce the A320E next year, surely if you were right they would just expect customers to keep ordering the A320 as it is now?

They have to understand that customer knows best, and they should listen to customers.

Did the circumstances surrounding the creation of the XWB completely pass you by?

[edit on 30-7-2006 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
According to the figures (supplied by Boeing) in the 'Flight' table I extracted the data from in my earlier post the range of the 777-200LR is 14,200km (and 14,400 for the -300ER) compared with 15,700km for the rival A350-900 and -1000.

The 777-200LR performed a world record flight that has proven that its range is 20,300kms.

This argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny when Airbus completely redesigned the A350 into the current XWB at the behest of customers, that is hardly a case of expecting orders no mater how good the plane is, is it. Likewise the current project to produce the A320E next year, surely if you were right they would just expect customers to keep ordering the A320 as it is now?

Nevertheless, airlines still buy Boeings, not Airbuses. No wonder why Boeing has so far this year received 4 times more orders than Airbus.

World records are great achievements and not to be sniffed at, but you must surely realise that the record flight was a special effort with extra fuel and only 35 passengers, made up of Boeing execs, crew and journalists? This is not the actual commercial operational range of the type, no airline could operate a 777 carrying only 35 passengers!

Nevertheless, airlines still buy Boeings, not Airbuses. No wonder why Boeing has so far this year received 4 times more orders than Airbus.

Now you are going round in circles, of course Boeing has outperformed Airbus, the company has been in turmoil and the XWB was only launched last week! This is where we came in, isn't it?

Don't forget that Boeing has had the same problems itself with senior heads rolling and fines for late deliveries, not to mention the quandary they were in when they couldn't make up their minds what new model to launch before they came up with the 787. In fact the two companies troubles are uncannily similar over the last few years. Boeing has recovered from its troubles however and I'm sure Airbus will too.