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.

 

Airbus Airbusted?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   
With so many threads on the subject going, I thought I'd start my own!

On Oct. 12 Virgin Atlantic is meeting to consider dropping it's order for the now indefinetely delayed A380.

The Emirates and Quantas are asking the company for compensation for the delay and are "exploring alternative options".

Two management changes have taken place in the last several weeks.

Goldman Saks has down rated the company's possiblities, and a published assessment has stated:

"Airbus employs 55,000 people at 16 plants across Europe. Analysts have indicated that seven of these must be sold."

Things seem to be snowballing towards a collapse; with even the politicians eager to see a change beyond another symbolic reorganisation.




posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   
With so many threads on this another wants to make me puke



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Well I do have to wonder with the A380 if Airbus put all its eggs in one basket. I highly doubt this will be the end of Airbus but due to the setbacks with the A380 Airbus is also going to have to push back the launch date for the A350 and maybe even the A400M. These delays could give Boeing a huge advantage in terms of market share with the 787. And of course that assumes that the 787 gets off on time(which it may not).



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Sorry if I'm making the Canucks puke, my intention is to draw together many different elements of the EADS / Airbus saga into a coherent thread that does not focus on any one of the many problems the company faces, and if the entitity is viable.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Airbus is viable regradless of its current troubles. Reason: Because the airlines wouldn't allow either Airbus or Boeing to go under. Why? Because its bad enough for the airline industry to face a duopoly they can't imagine facing a monopoly whether it be Airbus or Boeing. A challenger like Embraer may one day emerge to become a third player or to replace one of the two current contenders depending on the future market but even if that does happen its a long way off.

Airbus has taken a big hit no doubt. And Boeing is probably going to enjoy +50% market share for 5-10yrs at least. But knowing American management that might not be such a good thing. Can anyone say General Motors, Ford, RCA. If Boeing is smart they will never stop innovating and continue to push the technological envelope. That is what put them back on top and if they want to stay there they better remember it.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by aaaaa
Sorry if I'm making the Canucks puke, my intention is to draw together many different elements of the EADS / Airbus saga into a coherent thread that


Doesn't bother me so I don't know what that person's problem is? Some Canadians think that we are part of Europe and not North America
.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   
There's life in the old girl yet:

www.adetocqueville.com...

Don't know how this squares with the "diverting resouces" to the troubled A380.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by aaaaa
-On Oct. 12 Virgin Atlantic is meeting to consider dropping it's order for the now indefinetely delayed A380.

-The Emirates and Quantas are asking the company for compensation for the delay and are "exploring alternative options".

-Two management changes have taken place in the last several weeks.

-Goldman Saks has down rated the company's possiblities, and a published assessment has stated:

- "Airbus employs 55,000 people at 16 plants across Europe. Analysts have indicated that seven of these must be sold."



5 contemporary points to comment upon, so I don't see how this thread is uneccesary.

What I don't understand is how Canadians are 'on topic' in this discussion.

This Canadian citizen of Dutch descent asks you to please stay on topic.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Countless delays, CEO resigns, orders dropped and now there's talk of job cuts. The weeds grow taller for airbust.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Unbelievable. more Government:
news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 01:28 AM
link   
The 747 had major delays which pushed Boeing much closer to bankrupcy than what Airbus is currently going through. Just look where Boeing is now.

I have no doubt that Airbus will recover, however it may take some years. Airbus most likely also has Government backing.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
I have no doubt that Airbus will recover, however it may take some years. Airbus most likely also has Government backing.


Yeah, whats this talk of Airbus going broke. I mean Airbus receives start up loans for new aircraft development that have to be repaid when an aircraft becomes profitable. So if the A380 doesn't make a profit it doesn't have to repay the loans.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Well the UK govt, for one, had to think long and hard before committing any money to the A380, I am pretty sure that Airbus has to make a sound commercial case before it gets its hands on any taxpayers cash in any country. If anyone thinks that money is simply handed over whenever Airbus asks for it, they are deluded.

I would imagine that the first time Airbus fails to repay a loan, even if this is allowed in the terms, then it will find launch aid much more difficult to come by next time, especially if the loan that isn't repaid just happens to be the biggest one ever.

Just imagine being in Airbus position asking for money to help develop the XWB and NGSA if all the govts had just been screwed to the tune of a couple of billion euros. Actually raising the money for its next two models is a massive headache for the company and what the proposed job losses are all about.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Another thing that'll make the airlines wanting to be patient and not give up on Airbus is the fact that if Airbus were to go under, the contracts for maintenance of the "in use" planes would become void and they'd have a big problem if that occured.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
The 747 had major delays which pushed Boeing much closer to bankrupcy than what Airbus is currently going through. Just look where Boeing is now.

I have no doubt that Airbus will recover, however it may take some years. Airbus most likely also has Government backing.


Well of course any project that Boeing starts, increases risk of bankruptcy, because of RISK, as in what if the project fails. Boeing does it with their own money, Airbus gets government loans that may not have to be paid back if the project fails.

Would Airbus have made the A380 if they assumed all of the financial risk? Who knows



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   
When McDonald Douglas left the passenger plane business, thier products and service requirements were absorbed by others. Names were changed.
"Airbus" as an entity could be dissolved by EADS and re-incorporated as something else if the stink gets bad or there are legal and financial incentives to do so.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   
How much will this be worth?
I'll bet there's going to be a battle royal to get this order:

news.yahoo.com...



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   
This is one order I would be very surprised to see Airbus win. I've always felt that this was the one contract that the 747-8I would take for sure, I also expect the 787 to win the other part of the deal. BA has always been a big and loyal buyer of Boeings, as several of the articles I have posted on this site (VC-7 for example) have shown.

If (when) this order goes to Boeing, anyone who might try to paint it as an illustration of Airbus' impending collapse just doesn't know their history of the subject.


On the other hand Aeroflot have announced that they intend to follow the lead of SIA and order equal numbers of the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 after the Airlines owners virtually demanded that Aeroflot replace its Tu-134's, Tu-154's and Il-86's as soon as possible. The Sukhoi Superjet will replace the 'Crusty' while the transatlantic widebody rivals are to share the Il-86 'Camber' replacement order between them. I am not aware which type, if any, has been selected to replace the 'Careless'.

If my feelings about the BA order are proven correct and the Aeroflot order goes ahead as planned this will, interestingly enough, mean that the only orders won by the XWB will be ones it has shared with the 787, with none placed entirely for this model in its own right since the re-design. This does not mean I think it proves the re-design was unnecssary of course (before Carch gets excited and starts jumping up and down
), its just an interesting point to note.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   
and No Waynos im not jumping...


The A350XWB is positioned to compete with the 777 more than with the 787. There is a general consensus that the 787 will be more efficient than the A350. Also it is expected that the A350 will perform better than the 777. So it is possible that Airlines will buy 787 for the smaller planes and A350 for the bigger ones. The problem is of curse that the A350 is going to be delayed until 2014 a very close date to the Y3 programme launch. Would the Airlines wait? the 777 is performing exceptionally well better than expected so there is no need to replace those in the near future, specially the 300ER. Now BA doesn't have 300's so could they launch the 787-10 and the 747-8i?

[edit on 17-10-2006 by carcharodon]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 04:14 AM
link   
Airbus is certainly not going anywhere, but they do have some major decisions to make and some definite lost ground to make up.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join