View Full Version : Japanese give Airbus the SNUB over A380

8th Dec 2003, 23:39
Airbus A380 project hit by Japanese snub
Times of London 12/08/03
author: Ben Webster
(Copyright Times Newspapers Ltd, 2003)

THE £6.2 billion project to build the world's largest passenger aircraft yesterday suffered a setback when one of the biggest potential customers said that it had no interest in buying the aircraft.

Airbus, the European manufacturer building the double- deck A380, had said last month that it was confident of selling dozens of the aircraft to Japanese airlines. But All Nippon Airways (ANA), Japan's biggest domestic carrier, said that it would stick with the Boeing 747 for at least the next ten years.

ANA also questioned whether passengers would want to travel with 800 other people in an A380. ANA operates 747s with 569 seats on short domestic flights between densely populated Japanese cities separated by mountains.

Keisuke Okada, ANA's vice-president for corporate planning, said that the airline was concerned about the risk of purchasing an untested aircraft of unprecedented size that might prove unpopular with passengers.

He said: "The big question is whether the customer is happy. Already, when I take a ride on a big 747 we have to wait with a lot of people in the lounge and boarding is a crazy stress. Baggage and passenger handling is chaos."

Mr Okada said ANA's preferred solution was to expand Japan's crowded airports, including adding a runway to Toyko's Haneda airport, to cope with more regular flights by such smaller aircraft as the Boeing 777. He said: "If that happens we do not have to go for a risky, bigger plane."

Japan Airlines, Japan's other big airline, has also indicated it is not interested in investing in the A380 at present.

Japanese airlines have a uniquely close relationship with Boeing, which extends from the economic and military ties with the US developed after the Second World War. Only about one in ten aircraft flown by leading Japanese airlines is an Airbus, with the rest built by Boeing.

The business case for the A380 depends on Japanese airlines investing in the aircraft. The British Government has contributed £500 million of taxpayers' money in launch aid, which will be lost if the A380 programme fails to make a profit.

The wings of the A380 are manufactured in Broughton, North Wales, and one version of the engine is being built in Derby by Rolls-Royce.

Airbus has 121 A380 orders, all at a heavy discount. Singapore Airlines and Emirates are due to fly the first A380s in passenger service in 2006, with Virgin Atlantic following a couple of months later.

Airbus claims it needs to sell only 250 to make a profit but industry analysts believe the true breakeven point, after discounts are included, is 500.

Andrew Doyle, news editor of Flight International magazine, said: "Japanese airlines are the key to the success of the A380 programme. If Airbus does not sell the aircraft to the Japanese then it blows a great hole in the company's market forecast."

ANA has shown much greater interest in Boeing's plan to build a super-efficient mid-sized aircraft with about 250 seats, known as the 7E7, and Mr Okada said: "The 7E7 is a good plane so we are making very close communication with the manufacturer. We need to make some strategic decisions very soon and that plane covers a very wide range."

Boeing has reached an outline agreement with three Japanese industrial giants, Mitsubishi, Fuji and Kawasaki, to build 35 per cent of the 7E7 in Japan. Airbus attempted to forge a similar link with Japanese manufacturers for the A380 but was rebuffed.

John Leahy, Airbus's chief commercial officer, last week attempted to apply pressure to Japanese Airlines by telling them they would lose out to competitors if they failed to buy the A380.

:ooh: [B]

9th Dec 2003, 00:43
ANA has apparently rushed to clarify this, saying that it has not ruled out buying the aircraft. Frankly, it would surprise me if they didn't, given the demand for domestic air travel in Japan, not to mention competition from European competitors Virgin, AF and Lufthansa, all of which intend to fly the aircraft to Japan.

Remember, the 380 is a long term project, so what may ultimately turn out to be the largest customers may not be among the customers at the launch - look at CX and the 747. Plenty of time - and no doubt different variants to come as well.

trainer too 2
9th Dec 2003, 00:46
The Japanase will come to this aircraft as building new runways in Japan will not take place the next decade or two at least. By the then the market has grown so much that the aircraft is needed.

Sounds like Mr Boeing has been lobbying the Japanes quite a bit. Taking into account that Japan is responsible for 35% of the 7E7 (talking about untested aircraft) they are a bit pro BNoeing for the time being... :8

9th Dec 2003, 01:19
Mr Okada said ANA's preferred solution was to expand Japan's crowded airports, including adding a runway to Toyko's Haneda airport, to cope with more regular flights by such smaller aircraft as the Boeing 777

Right. And we all know how easy that proved to be -- at Narita, for instance. Or at Osaka, where they had to build their own island.

Expanding the airports may be better, but it's not going to happen. So the economics of it will inevitably drive ANA and JAL to the A380. It's really only a matter of when.

9th Dec 2003, 01:33
The Population of Japan is NOT expanding. How much more flying can they do? Rail service is increasing and improving there, where bullet trains really do go fast...

Japan INC has been dead for a decade as well. Would not be suprised if the market for airtravel in Japan was actually shrinking.


9th Dec 2003, 02:09
"John Leahy" "Airbus chief commercial officer"

Is that the same John Leahy that was the chief pilot on the BA 744 fleet?

I wondered why I hadn't seen or heard from him for a while!

If it is him, then i guess its true what they say "size matters" and now he has something bigger than a 744 to play with!:)

9th Dec 2003, 04:24
Not the BA Leahy I'm sure.

9th Dec 2003, 11:33
The Japanese are used to crowded transportation systems. They are building runways and airports in Japan now - A second runway in Osaka and a man-made island airport in Nagoya. The 2nd and 3rd largest cities I beleive. They do seem to have a hard time getting the locals to accept a runway in their backyard, though.
Boeing put their balls on the line with the 747 - I think it's the same with Airbus. If it fails (it won't), they should be able to survive, possibly because of gov. help.
But when I think about it -I only remember seeing double-decker buses in britain?

9th Dec 2003, 13:57
BIG PARTYR said.....

" But when I think about it -I only remember seeing double-decker buses in britain? "

Aviate1138 says...
Plenty of double decker trains everywhere Except the UK!
I hated the 747 because of the mass herding of humanity, the delays in Customs etc., but I became accustomed/resigned, so the same will probably happen with the 380. I notice that 747 F'F'F'FOCAL is off on a yet another Airbus Disinformation exercise.....yawn....
Just F'FOCALLING off for some breakfast.


9th Dec 2003, 15:13
I really don't give a toss about the Boeing vs. Airbus bull, as they're pretty obviously both huge state-supported industries and both play dirty ball. At that point, who really cares who is "worse"? Build me an airplane and let me fly it.

Having said that, I have a hard time seeing how FOCAL's quoting of a story from a legitimate (European, no less!) newpaper can be seen as misinformation where the most unabashedly anti-boeing rants raise nary a whimper around here. Come now, apply some of that European perspective you keep reminding us that you have in such abundance to yourselves.

9th Dec 2003, 16:51
With the Emirates engine order, supporting their 23 aircraft, amongst the 129 provisional orders made to Airbus, I don't think Airbus will start worrying yet!

9th Dec 2003, 19:19
Virgin must be likely to take up their 6 options on the A380 now the Australia route looks likely to go ahead (only EU approval now required), though there are no plans at the moment to operate the A380 to Japan (sorry, akerosid!).

This aeroplane will succeed for the same reasons that the B747 did: demand for seats is increasing (particularly in the Pacific/Asia regions) faster than airport runway capacity is increasing, therefore more seats are required for each aircraft movement. The A380 may not be pretty, but it makes economic sense -and it's a lot cheaper and more PC to improve terminal and stand capacity than it is to build new runways.

11th Dec 2003, 06:20
The difference is, when Japan snubs Airbus over the A380, Airbus will simply go and find some other customers.

If Japan snubs Boeing over the 7E7, the plane doesn't even get built....

11th Dec 2003, 19:10
The difference is, when Japan snubs Airbus over the A380, Airbus will simply go and find some other customers.

No chance...

The 7E7 is an aircraft that is being designed with boeings future traffic predictions whereas the A380 has been designed for a totally different model.

If the japanese snub the 7E7 it will still go ahead. However, letting them build 35% of it does make it more attractive to them..its a simple business deal

11th Dec 2003, 20:46
Hmmm....."letting them build it" it somewhat removed from "risk-sharing partner" which is their actual status. Remove Japan's share of the risk, increase Boeings, devalue the proposition in the eyes of a very shaky and cautious board....

And there's no reason to suggest why Airbus' traffic forecasts won't be more correct than Boeing's is there?

11th Dec 2003, 21:22
December 11, 2003 -

Penerbangan Malaysia Berhad (PMB), parent company of Malaysia Airlines, signed a firm contract for six A380-800 passenger aircraft with Airbus, firming up an earlier commitment announced in January this year.

Deliveries to PMB are scheduled to begin in 2007. The A380s will be operated by Malaysia Airlines on key trunk routes to Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. With PMBís order, Airbus now has 129 firm orders from 11 customers.

Speaks for itself, Boeing and ANA notwithstanding.

Sheep Guts
11th Dec 2003, 22:07
They are going to have to modify loading the passengers with this beast to make the Japs more interested. One AirBridge alone is too constrictive, they need at leats 2 and to load on both sides left and right rather than just left with catering on the right. I have been in the back of many 747 waiting to disembark, and it sometimes takes 30 minutes :(

Also is this A380 going to have performance, will it be faster than the Slow A340, I hope so.

Yes I agree 129 orders is impressive and Airbus will out do Boeing on orders by a mile this year. But Airbus may have trouble swaying both Japanese and Chinese Airlines. Japan especially as both ANA and JAL have been 747 stalwarts for years, I belive JALs 747 fleet being the worlds largest with 88 units at one stage. Lets face inspight of SARS the Asian Growth in Air Travel has been very exponential and promising.


12th Dec 2003, 02:05
Standard loading/unloading will be using 2 airbridges, at doors 1L and 2L.

1L serves the upper deck via the double-width staircase just aft of the door, 2L the remainder of the a/c.

Airbus believe they can turn one round in 58 minutes (IIRC).

Some very interesting information on : Airbus - A380 Planning Documents (http://www.airbus.com/product/a380_planning.asp)

12th Dec 2003, 04:17
Sheep Guts, I take it from your profile that your perspective is as a passenger? Nothing wrong with that, but you are missing a couple of points in your suggestions.

Modern large jet aircraft don't just load the catering on the starboard side; all the freight and baggage is loaded that side too. The complexities of trying to arrange boarding access via both sides of the aircraft are immense, and unlikely to be practical. It is possible, however (if unlikely), that 3 (2 main deck, one upper) jetways could be used on the port side - if airports are prepared to invest the money! Most airports rely on one jetway - even for a B747 - but there are more and more utilising 2, which makes a significant difference to boarding/disembarkation times.

The 'slow' A340 you refer to cruises at M0.82 (A343) or M0.83 (A346). Not as fast as the B744's M0.855, but the difference is not that significant to the passenger. And yes, I know that the 744 can cruise faster than that, just as the 340 can cruise faster than its normal speeds, but the difference remains relatively small.

Dropp the Pilot
13th Dec 2003, 00:11
this just in from the our "mine is better than yours department"...

The A340-600 has less range and fewer seats than a 777-300ER and is 60,000 pounds (60,000 pounds!) heavier when empty. Think about that. Once you have boarded 250 paying passengers on an ER it becomes as heavy as an empty -600.

For airlines who make a large proportion of their revenue from freight it will be important that crew rest areas are above the roof of the passenger compartment rather than taking up valuable space in the holds.

Seems like all the state subsidies that your local kleptocracy can provide can't buy good design. I hear they do a good "straight cucumber" law, though. Take pride.

Flight Safety
13th Dec 2003, 03:15
Since the 7E7 was mentioned in this thread...

Has anyone else noticed the rather interesting shaping of the tail surfaces on the latest photos of the 7E7? It seems possible to me that some significant area ruling is being applied to the shape of the 7E7. If so, then maybe something useful from Sonic Cruiser research is being applied to the 7E7.

The 7E7 proposed economic cruise speed is about as high as a 747-400. If the Citation X biz-jet can cruise economically at .90 mach, while still being conventional in design, is it possible to get a conventional airliner to cruise economically close to .90 mach with the same heavy use of area ruling that the Citation X has?

I bring this up because this year Boeing is outselling Airbus in the single aisle market, but Airbus is outselling Boeing in the 2-aisle market. One of the reasons seems to be that Airbus FBW 2-aisle aircraft are faster than the 767, which is why it will die soon in my view. I know the 747 and 777 are fast, but the 767 can't touch the popular A330, and I think the 7E7 is aimed squarely at the A330. The 777 on the otherhand is already a strong A340 competitor.

If Boeing wants to capitalize on their own predictions that point-to-point long haul will predominate over hub-to-hub in the future, then they need to be selling more 2-aisle aircraft than Airbus. Since the A380 is being built to lead the hub-to-hub future, I don't see that Boeing has any choice but to develop the 7E7 to further develop the point-to-point strategy. Right now, Airbus seems able to offer the jets for both stratagies.

fire wall
13th Dec 2003, 06:33
Flight Safety, what is area ruling ?

13th Dec 2003, 07:25
Tell me if I'm wrong but my feeling is that Boeing 7E7 is a solution that takes into account the simple fact that airlines burned more cash than thez earned in the past 25 years.

After the worldwide recession (US+JAPAN+Europe), amplified by 11/9, plus SARS, plus Desert Storm, plus plus plus... I guess that airlines might rather bet on an A/C you can use in almost any circonstances instead of a mega-jumbo that will end up in the Mojave desert at the very first crisis striking again the airline business.

Both pretenders say they intend to improve the cost/revenue ratio by 20%. But where is the gain if people fear flying ? Investing less in smaller A/C that cost you less if you have to return them to the lessor means less financing requirments and less risks in case things takes again a bad turn.

Burger Thing
13th Dec 2003, 13:51
rotornut wrote: Deliveries to PMB are scheduled to begin in 2007. The A380s will be operated by Malaysia Airlines on key trunk routes to Europe and the Asia-Pacific region.

All what is important to me as a flight crew are the little words: trunk routes... who cares how big an airplane is or who builds it. What counts are available jobs. You guys keep drooling about the A380 - for me I would prefer 2 smaller airplanes operating the same routes: more jobs. :*

ATC Watcher
13th Dec 2003, 16:03
Yes Burger , but more airplanes means more infrastucture and that exactly what we apparently cannot expand, so the larger aircraft seems to be the logic solution if ( and a big if ) traffic forecasts are correct.
For thoser here old enough to remember the same discussions occurred when the 747 arrived in 1969. ( airport congestions, evac times, too big, etc...)
During the end of the 1970's recession , many side use of the 747s was found and done , like flying tourists massively to the Canaries and to Palma, transporting flowers from Africa, and bringing back cheap electronics from Hong Kong.etc.. not many ended up in the desert.. unlike the 727s, the workhorse in those days.
The 747 had a magnificient carreer, I do not think the 380 will be different.

Flight Safety
13th Dec 2003, 22:42
ATC Watcher, I agree with your main point, however if I may, I could summarize it with one word "flexibility". The 747 was designed to be flexible, both as a carrier of passengers and a carrier of freight.

The A380 won't have the same flexibilty. I believe it will be an excellent passenger carrier, and it will make an excellent package freighter, but it will lack the 747's ability to carry bulky freight. This means its uses as a freighter would be somewhat restricted during slow times compared to a 747.

I would also point out that I'm personally not sure of Airbus's numbers when it comes to what percentage of seats on an A380 need to be filled for it to break even on a flight. The aircraft's empty weight will be 200,000 lbs more than the empty weight of a 747. While the basic A380 is advertised to carry 25 percent more passengers that a 744, its empty weight is 50 percent more than an empty 744. Again, Airbus claims the A380 can break even with a higher percentage of empty seats, but I don't see how given these weight issues.

If the break even load point actually turns out to be higher than Airbus is currently predicting, than this would also limit the A380's flexibility as a passenger carrier during slow times.

14th Dec 2003, 03:33
Also ATC watcher, 75 percent of all 747s purchased were purchased for their RANGE, not their payload. For 25 years the 747 was the longest ranged aircraft in the world. If the airlines could have had smaller aircraft connecting those cities they would have.

Infact, if you look at the Atlantic, for all practical purposes the 747 is dead there. Yes there are SOME 747s there, but for the most part the 747 was killed over the atlantic by the 767/a330/a340. SMALLER aircraft.

Why go from Pittsburg to JFK to LHR when you can simply go from Pitt to anywhere in Europe non stop if you want... And that takes care of the infrastructure problems as well.

JFK which once upon a time was maxed out all the time is a virtual ghost town now most of the day except for an exceptionally brief evening rush. INfact slot restrictions at JFK have been lifted except for a 3 hour period now.

The solution to congestion is point to point, not bigger aircraft between the hubs. You have seen it across the USA (driven by Southwest) and you are seeing th same effect in Europe driven by Ryanair. Its only a matter of time till the technology catches up and you start doing it with longer and longer flights...

Yes, there will be a market for SOME a380s. However, if you take out the 747s that were purchased for RANGE instead of payload from the 747 order book, Boeing is a bankrupt company that doesn't exist anymore, killed by the 747 program.

Of course that could never happen to Airbus though :*


15th Dec 2003, 20:14
Flight Safety, what is area ruling Google is your friend: http://www.pdas.com/wavedrag.htm

15th Dec 2003, 21:17

How do you get bankrupt when the 737 and 777 sell more than any airbus model? All the R&D cost of the 747 series was paid off a long time ago. The line goes away not the company. They are only producing 1 month anyway.

15th Dec 2003, 23:05
Oi 747focal, is that true? :confused:

777 - orders 622, delivered 460

A319 - orders 920, delivered 556
A320 - orders 1671, delivered 1234

Current figures from Boeing and Airbus sites!!

15th Dec 2003, 23:16
A330/340 Orders / Deliveries: 812/532 ....
A32x Orders / Deliveries: 3083/2086
B737NG Orders / Deliveries: 2240/1402 (Including BBJs)

Airbus has outsold Boeing by a substantial margin in both 2002 and 2003. In the meantime Boeing has announced plans to close the 757 line, with the 767 teathering on the brink of extention, having sold only 10 copies in all of 2003, which coincidentially makes it the second best selling Boeing of 2003! That is sad ... The 747 sold only 3 (three) copies, which leaves Boeing with only the 737 doing well.

Here's hoping the 7E7 will be formally launched. The aviation world will not benefit from the demise of Boeing. Here's also hoping that Boeing will bring the new technologies gained from 7E7 development over to a 737 replacement, which is roughly 10 years overdue.

15th Dec 2003, 23:22

Let's be honest:

737 delivered = 4552 oh god that number is gonna be hard to beat. :ooh: :ooh

747 delivered = 1338 it will be 30 years before there will ever be that many A380s flying and you can bet your fanny there never will be that many A380s flying.

777 delivered = 462 and nothing on the bus plate can even compete.


15th Dec 2003, 23:41
Selective blindness 747focal? You said......777 sell more than any airbus model I have quite clearly posted that both the A319 and A320 models have exceeded the 777 figures. That is "models" not "family".

With reference the 747, since it has been flying for a little over 30 years, it would be reasonable to allow that long for the A380 to "catch up"!

737 has always been recognised as the work-horse of modern short-haul flying. I did not dispute those figures!

15th Dec 2003, 23:59
Oops sorry. Did not mean to get your nickers in a bind. I had not realized that the Bus had sold as many A320s as they have and for some reason I thought there were more than 462 777s.

If you look at dollars collected by the manufacturer, the 777 asking price is about 4 times as much as an A320.


16th Dec 2003, 00:46
Let's take it one more time, shall we?

777 Orders / Deliveries: 622/460
A330/A340 Orders / Deliveries: 812/532

Boeing has sold less NGs than Airbus has sold A32x family aircraft, by a rather substantial margin actually.

Oh, now I know, you're going say that I should include the 767 with the 777 when comparing to A330/340, and the 737-3/4/500 when comparing with the A32x series. Right mate, you win ;)

Well, how about this one then. Airbus vs Boeing, total orders and deliveries in 2003:

Boeing Orders / Deliveries (All models): 229/258 (Did someone spot the discrepency?)

Airbus Orders / Deliveries (All models): 300/303 (Did someone spot the discrepency, albeit on lesser scale?)

Get that 7E7 rolling guys, it's needed!

16th Dec 2003, 06:12

I am new here and I have posted only once before. I am not a pilot and I do not work for a commercial aviation industry. However, my job takes me to Japan frequently and I have read on Japanese press regarding current domestic aviation situation in Japan.

I do understand that there is a lot of Airbus vs. Boeing thing. I do believe that Airbus vs. Boeing thing do exist for real in the mind of airline executives. How much that influences the business decision is anybodyís guess. It is true that historically Japanese commercial aviation has favored Boeing more than Airbus. ANA has announced that in next few years ANA will replace A321 and A320 with 737NG. JAS had A300 but after merger of JAL and JAS, the new JAL management has not showed any interest toward Airbus aircraft.

From what I have heard and read about Japanese commercial aviation today, beside Airbus vs. Boeing, there may be other reasons ANA and JAL do not want anything larger than 747 at this moment. Japanese domestic commercial aviation enjoyed government regulated system until early Ď90s. Under the regulated system both ANA and JAL (back then JAS also) enjoyed the system almost guaranteed some profit, or a government support when they didn't make a profit. Japan has two peak travel seasons; end of the year travel, and August summer vacation. During those two peak travel seasons there is enough demand for ANA and JAL to completely fill seats on its 747-400D. Which ANAís 747-400D has a seating of C 27 and Y 542, and JALís 747-400D has a seating of C 24 and Y 544.

During those two peak travel seasons, it can be impossible to obtain a ticket on domestic travel. However, during non-peak season it is almost unheard of in domestic Japanese travel that a flight is sold out. I have flown on 747SR and 747-400D domestically in Japan many times before. Almost always I had an empty next seat, that was for pretty much all passengers. ANA and JAL could operate under that kind of business structure under the government regulated system. You may remember back in Ď70s when the commercial aviation was regulated in the US, all cross-country flights were by 747, DC-10, or L1011. Sure there were no other aircraft which could fly cross-country non-stop. However, it was often that those flights were less than 50% full during the off season, and airlines could afford to do so.

Now Japanese domestic commercial aviation is deregulated. There have been new entrants such as Skymark, Air Do, and Sky Net Asia. ANA and JAL have carefully studied the deregulated commercial aviation in the US. ANA and JAL do not want to make the same mistake as some airlines did in the US under the deregulation. One thing ANA and JAL have realized is the over capacity. Under the regulated system, both ANA and JAL could make a profit under the business model based on the peak travel season, and let their flight fly less than 50% capacity during off season. ANA and JAL realized that they could no longer do that under the deregulated system. ANA and JAL are looking into making the business model more or less based on the off peak season. The recent reduction in passenger demand due to the US terrorist attack, the Gulf war, and SARS scare made ANA and JAL more convinced that they have to change their business structure based on off peak season demand.

Under such business structure, ANA and JAL needs aircraft smaller than current 747-400D, not larger than 747-400D. Under regulated system ANA and JAL never oversold seats on domestic flights. Even during peak travel season, ANA and JAL did not oversell flights, and there were people on the waiting list at the airport waiting for a last minute cancellation. However, now ANA and JAL are implementing the yield management system similar to one used by the US airlines. Under the guidance of the transportation ministry, ANA and JAL has established denied boarding compensation guideline on year 2000 for domestic flights. Yes, this is just one of many other business plans ANA and JAL has. Another major point is labor cost. JAL has already had few cases where new wage plan was found illegal by the court.

Both ANA and JAL now hire flight attendants as a temporary worker under one year contract. They have lower pay scale, less flight hours, and very limited benefits. After working as a temporary worker for three years, based on the performance and company demand, they have an opportunity to become a full time worker. Both ANA and JAL have established small subsidiary company and all ground staff now works for the subsidiary company. All check-in agents at an airport are employed by a subsidiary company, they do not work directly for ANA or JAL. Mechanics and dispatchers all are in same situation now at ANA and JAL.

Under these new business plan ANA and JAL has for deregulated environment, it is understanding that ANA and JAL both want an aircraft smaller than 747-400, not larger than 747-400. This is what I have read about over at Japan. Just another point of view. Thanks for reading.

16th Dec 2003, 08:45

To be fair the 737NG has only been offered for HALF the time that the A320 has been offered. If you included 300/400/500s sold during the same time period that the A320 was offered, boeing wins. If you include on A320 sold since the NG was offered boeing wins again...

Same thing for the 330/340 vs 777. 330 and 340 go back to well before the 777. 330 was designed to beat the 767 which it did. ofcourse the 767 was designed to beat the 310/300-600 which it most certainly did. 777 has pretty effectively buried the 330/340 since it came out... however the 777 is a little large, hence the need for something in the 7e7 size...

747focal. The 747 has been the largest profit center for boeing for a VERY long time. The developement costs have been fully amortized. Much of the expense of building an aircraft (cockpit and engines) aren't that much different than a 737 (cockpit the same, but a few more engines) yet you get a HUGE increase in sticker price due to the greater "value" of the work the747 can do. But the 737 are barely a break even aircraft. The real money for boeing has always been in the larger aircraft...

Without the 747s purchased for range the production run of the 747 would have been similar to the A300 A310 production run which airbus even in their most optomistic moments has never claimed was a profitable program.


16th Dec 2003, 18:41
Wino, however you try and dress it up, Boeing does appear to be losing the battle this year, not only on numbers, but also on value. From Businessweek, earlier this year:

But this impressive record isn't giving Boeing a lead in its latest race against Airbus. Just look at the numbers. By mid-June, Airbus had won 64% of this year's airplane orders -- 161, vs. 92 for Boeing, including firm orders and memoranda of understanding. But in total value, where it counts the most, Airbus' share is 76% of this year's orders, with list prices totaling about $26.7 billion versus only $8.2 billion for Boeing. If this lead holds up, it would be the third year in a row Airbus won not only more orders, but also more of the lucrative widebody variety. Says Airbus CEO No'l Forgeard: "Airbus is taking the lead in a market [that] was considered the home ground of our competitor."

Several US analysts are reported as forecasting that it could be at least 2010 before Boeing starts beating Airbus on annual orders. We shall see! :E

16th Dec 2003, 19:39
Wino - I have to take issue with your figures, old chap. You say:

If you include A320 sold since the NG was offered, Boeing wins again.

Info. I have kicking around, admittedly to end November, says that since November 1993 (date of authorisation to offer of NG), 737NG 2237 orders
A320 series 2396 orders

Don't reckon the picture's changed much since end of November - maybe the bus gets something on top from QANTAS?

Ergo electric wonderjets win that one.

16th Dec 2003, 20:27
Dear all,

I find it very amusing that this thread has pretty much split itself on geographical grounds. Europe v America.

As to who sold more of what, when and to whom. Grow up!!! Neither side plays fair and the customers (airlines) also have vested interests. Everyone is bribing everyone else in the aviation industry, hoping to get an edge and hoping not to get caught and prosecuted.

If Boeing, Airbus and most of the airlines had to operate on merit and honest money from customers we would still be flying Vickers Vimyís and taking weeks to get anywhere.



16th Dec 2003, 21:05
Oh don't be such a spoilsport BHR, flopster and I are just trying to point out to those nice Americans, that Boeing isn't always top dog!

I'm sure that, if you have any evidence of corporate wrong-doing, "the authorities" would love to hear from you!

Now do tell us how enchanted you are that the price of the Holyrood parliament building has risen from £40m to £400m in just 6 years. Any possibility of bribery or corruption there? :E

16th Dec 2003, 21:40

"Authorities", who do you have in mind. Which paragons of virtue and unimpeachable behaviour should I go to? I do not know how many times I have called The Samaritans but they keep hanging up on me telling me they have no jurisdiction over the matter and that I should kill myself and have done with it.

Scottish Parliament Building.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

I was seriously peeved when I thought that £8 of my hard earned cash was going on that but now that is over £80 and heading upwards I am furious.



16th Dec 2003, 21:56

Unless your looking at different financials than I am I can't seem to understand your comments regarding the profitability of the 747 vs the 737.

One can easily tell where the money is being made by calling Boeing Technical Services to modify your aircraft. 747, unless it is already certified you can't get them to do anything. 737, with the exception of the -100s and -200s they will jump through a hoop for you.

To All,

I don't give a bu**er about Boeing vs Airbus. I started this thread to just post an article that may not be seen by many people. I am not anti Airbus. It is amazing how little people can see than what is right in front of them.

If I worked for either, I would be more worried about the writing on the wall regarding the Russians and the Japanese aviation industry. Remember what Japan did to RCA as they send more and more of the build of Boeing aircraft to the Asian sector. :ooh: Eventually, the Japanese will say that all their "capacity" will be used by internal companies and none is available for anybody else when they launch their first big airplane program. And.....You can bet your arse that it will fly higher faster and quieter with more realiability than anything the soon to be "Boering Bus" can even come up with. :\ :uhoh: :hmm:

Flight Safety
17th Dec 2003, 01:21
I think Boeing is going to announce today whether they will offer the 7E7 for sale to customers. Sometime after this, if there's enough interest (i.e. orders), they will give the go-ahead for production.

ATC Watcher
17th Dec 2003, 01:51
I have heard the same rumour, but with a variant ; if it is a go ahead the announcement would be tomorrow 17 Dec to jump on the 100 years of (powered) flight celebrations, if it is a no-go then the announcement would be today late or Friday also late.
Let's wait and see.
A new aeroplane is always good news nowadays......even a dreamliner..