View Full Version : Boeing General
With The current A380 snafu (Delays etc...), The A350 program is in jeopardy thus Airbus could be in severe financial trouble ( I doubt A will make any profits from the A380) the only logical recourse would be a Boeing-Airbus alliance and we will end up with a truly giant (not A380) any Thoughts ?
6000PIC
6th Oct 2006, 11:59
You must be kidding.
hetfield
6th Oct 2006, 12:10
With The current A380 snafu (Delays etc...), The A350 program is in jeopardy thus Airbus could be in severe financial trouble ( I doubt A will make any profits from the A380) the only logical rcourse would be a Boeing-Airbus alliance and we will end up with a truly giant (not A380) any Thoughts ?
Yes, and Chirac, Blair and Merkel will become US Governors.
knockyoak
6th Oct 2006, 12:11
you have more chance of george bush finding osama bin laden than boeing buying airbus
flying_tyger
6th Oct 2006, 12:14
i think the anti-competition people would have a lot to say about that!!
Andy_S
6th Oct 2006, 12:22
the only logical rcourse would be a Boeing-Airbus alliance
Actually, a more likely outcome would be several european governments re-financing EADS. Or maybe allowing the Russians to invest. C'mon..... the whole point about Airbus is that they are a European champion. Their prime purpose in life is to try and out-do the Americans, not to surrender to them....
Hamid_27
6th Oct 2006, 12:37
lol bush alredy knows where osama is, as stated in a CIA report leaked by an ex CIA agent. no im not joking :cool:
i think airbus will get ver it to be honest, with profit from a380, depending if EK decide to get only 20 a380s and invest in the 747, from what i heard.
but hey, who knows, good luck to airbus anyways.
regards
Hamid:ok:
boogie-nicey
6th Oct 2006, 12:40
France would never let Airbus fall into US or foriegn hands no matter how badly they are performing. But I'm pleased to see that Boeing are having the upper hand at the moment :)
With The current A380 snafu (Delays etc...), The A350 program is in jeopardy thus Airbus could be in severe financial trouble ( I doubt A will make any profits from the A380) the only logical rcourse would be a Boeing-Airbus alliance and we will end up with a truly giant (not A380) any Thoughts ?
Come on man... i hope you are kidding ? :D :D
parabellum
6th Oct 2006, 12:49
Way, way back when the idea of a very large aircraft, (VLA), was first discussed both Airbus and Boeing set out their stall. Boeing did a market survey of their customers and soon realised that the required market for such an airframe simply wasn't there in commercial numbers. Airbus continued to push for a VLA project so Boeing offered them a consortium to spread the cost/risk. Airbus turned this offer down and said they would go head to head with Boeing on a VLA project.
Boeing, having properly surveyed their market, said "OK" and withdrew from the competition.
Airbus originally need 269 sold airframes to break even on the A380, this was way before delays and discounts to get the order book moving were properly considered. Right now with the extent of delay and the extent of penalty payments due, added to the extra costs of product development over and above budget then the A380 will need to sell between 500 and 600 just to break even.
The market simply isn't there. The airlines will happily accept the A380, in limited numbers, to fill a niche market, but that is all and they will want it properly supported, as per contract.
The A380 was intended as a B747 replacement with similar market share but that replacement is the B777 with all it's variants and those Airbus 340 that can compete. The A380 will never exceed fifty aircraft in any one company, unlike the B747-400 which exceeded 40 to 50 in quite a few companies.
The A380 is a dead duck and may well take Airbus down with it.
(All said before, a year or two ago, on these very same forums, no recent events could have influenced these predictions).
18-Wheeler
6th Oct 2006, 12:49
My guess it that Airbus will appear on Ebay early next year.
(just jokes ...)
barit1
6th Oct 2006, 12:50
No, it's true. Boeing buys Airbus, and in return Renault buys GM.
It must be true, I read it in an e-mail.
Dutch74
6th Oct 2006, 13:35
It would be a shame if Airbus collapses or is severly downsized because of this. Head to head competition always leads to better products.
I have always thought the A380 was a marketing adventure more than anything because EVERYBODY knows (well almost) the "747". Airbus currently doesn't have an Aircraft the everyone worldwide recognizes.
Hence the A380 to make Airbus a household name. My thoughts anyway.
A lot of half-truth in these postings.
Boeing had no interest in building a 747-competitor because it had already one. Boeing was able to subsidise its smaller models with the profit of the monopoly-747. It's not the market that is missing, its the missing opportunity for Boeing. So even if Airbus never makes profit with the A380, it still makes more money by selling more of the other models.
Having said this I do agree that the flaws in Airbus' organization and production is embarassing and unprofitable. But not the end of Airbus. People with a longer memory of just a few years know that nearly every new aircraft concept had delays (if I'm correct every single aircraft except the 777).
Dani
F900EX
6th Oct 2006, 14:52
Actually you are all wrong.. The fact is that Ryanair are planning on buying boeing and based on the fact that they have recently bought aer lingus they will use their shell company in Ballydehob, West Cork to slowly aquire airbus in order to get better control over future aer lingus orders.
Simple as that really.
Outlook
6th Oct 2006, 16:19
Yes, and Chirac, Blair and Merkel will become US Governors.
I thought Blair was running for US VP.
Colonel Klink
6th Oct 2006, 16:28
Why would Boeing, just on the verge of an amazing comeback, even consider buying Airbus, which as Parabellum says above, is a dead duck? The A350 has been delayed until oil runs out, the A340-600 is not selling compared to the Boeing777 and doesn't come close to specs. You might as well find a hole in the ground and pour the money right in!!! The A380 may well be the airplane that drags Airbus down, such was the desire to build an airplane to outsize the 747 but was there really the case to build it, just because they could?
It would appear Boeing, with it's hot selling 787, massive backlog of 737's and about to be hot-selling 747-8, is doing just fine by itself!!
Why would Boeing, just on the verge of an amazing comeback, even consider buying Airbus, which as Parabellum says above, is a dead duck? The A350 has been delayed until oil runs out, the A340-600 is not selling compared to the Boeing777 and doesn't come close to specs. You might as well find a hole in the ground and pour the money right in!!! The A380 may well be the airplane that drags Airbus down, such was the desire to build an airplane to outsize the 747 but was there really the case to build it, just because they could?
It would appear Boeing, with it's hot selling 787, massive backlog of 737's and about to be hot-selling 747-8, is doing just fine by itself!!
Well... if the return on Airbus Market share outperforms the debts and negative effects of the A380 /350 program, why not !!! I would do it !!
Airbus has some good products .
punkalouver
7th Oct 2006, 12:26
Time to go for the jugular. Give a steal of a deal to Emirates on the new 747.
alexban
7th Oct 2006, 13:39
Studi,you forget one thing ,the 380 is not for every airport.As far as IU know,but I may be wrong,there are only around 15 airports that'll receive the 380.So,a bit far untill they'll replace the 747.:E
As I've heard,when B buys A they'll do something with the sticks..put some forcefeedback on them or even install a real life yoke...:)
and also ,put some cables in it,just to make it FBC ,as it should've been....
Just kidding...:ouch:
Studi,
The costs of the airbus go up because the interest on the loans made to develope the aircraft continue to accumulate untill you repay those loans. So every day of delay on the claimed 10 billion in development costs = many 10s of millions of dollars in cost over runs, and all those employees are sitting around getting paid as well while no aicraft move out the door.
Of course that only applies for a commercial company and not a state sponsored jobs program that doesn't have to make financial risk benefit decisions before launching a program. Boeing really did bet the whole company on the 747. If it had failed they would have been out of the passenger jet business just like Lockheed and douglas are. Airbus of course will just get the german/french tax payers to foot the bill :rolleyes:
Also. The market for the 380 is not nearly has big as you think. The aircraft that killed the 747 was not a bigger aircraft. It was a smaller aircraft. More than two thirds of all 747s sold were sold for the RANGE not capacity. Panam didn't want that LARGE and airplane, they had to accept the aircraft as a byproduct of its range. The 767 killed the 747 on the atlantic, and the the 777 came along and killed it on the pacific.
If you take the 2/3rds of the sales out of the picture that were sold for range instead of capacity than boeing sold only about 400 aircraft over 40 or so years. They would be out of business.
Cheers
Wino
MercenaryAli
14th Oct 2006, 19:38
. . . . Airbus will be on EBay next week and probably won't make reserve! :)
Clarence Oveur
21st Oct 2006, 10:36
As usual, Airbus/Euro phobia seems to shape the argument of some.
It does seem odd to me - while Boeing is trying to sell the 748i, and potential customers want it bigger at the expense of range - to use questionable historic data to argue what operators want in the future.
I would appear to me, while Boeing continously seems to up their estimates for the number of Very Large Aircraft needed, that Airbus is ahead in that game, and are not the one who have changed their tune.
How do you arrive at the statement that 2/3 of all 747 were sold due to range? Doesn't seem to make sense to me then that each version of the 747 was bigger than the previous one. This trend will be continued with the 747-8. It must have something to do with capacity and not with range.
Well, you aren't paying attention to 747s if you believe that. Leaving out the 747-8 for the moment which doesn't exist yet, there virtually no difference in capacity between a 400 and a 100 from 1970. just a few seats on the upperdeck.
The BIG difference between the 2 is RANGE. for 30 years the 747 ruled the world as the worlds longest ranged airliner. The 777-200lr finally took that away from it. All the growth in the 747 was put to range.
There is a SMALL market for capacity. but not a large one. the ability to connect more city pairs profitably on non stop services without need to go to a hub and change planes reduces the market for very large aircraft. Boeing has NOT raised their estimates of the market, which is why they haven't launched an all new aircraft.
Don't believe me? what is the predominant short haul aircaft these days? In the USA its the 737/a320. etc.... It WAS bigger aircraft for a while. The dominant domestic aircraft at AA for the longest time was the DC-10. A DC-10 full still has lower seat mile costs than a 737, but you have to fill it.
Same thing is happening in Europe. A300 is gone. b757 is leaving, being replaced with SMALLER jets not bigger ones.
Same thing happend on the atlantic. 747s became A310/767/dc-10 have now become 757s in many cases. smallest aircraft that can connect two cities pulls all the hub connection traffic that those city pairs used to generate.
787s are gonna exacerbate the trend.
yes there are a FEW city pairs that can justify 700 seat aircraft, some of the year, and even fewer that can do it year around. But its a miniscule market and its under attack as people bypass hubs.
Cheers
Wino
Clarence Oveur
21st Oct 2006, 16:57
Boeing has NOT raised their estimates of the market, which is why they haven't launched an all new aircraft.
In 2004 Boeing estimated a marked for 500 very large aircraft over the next 20 years. This year they are saying 1000. I would call that a raise.
In two years Boeing have doubled their estimate. I would say they are aligning themselves with the estimates made by Airbus pretty well.
And, as I said, it seems that the potential 748i customers Boeing have spoken to, want a bigger aircraft. Even at the expense of range.
Dan Air 87
21st Oct 2006, 19:18
So when are Boeing going to formally launch the pax version of the 747-800 then? Who will be the launch customer? Its interesting that EK have ordered the freighter version..I wonder if they will transfer their latest 777 order into 747-800's? Also, what are Airbus doing about the A330 & A340 in terms of increasing the competitive edge of Airbus against the 777 and 787?
barit1
22nd Oct 2006, 13:41
... In Europe, we never had DC-10 flying domestic traffic on a bigger scale. It was always the A320 family and the 737 family doing this job...
But THY used the DC-10-10, and Air Inter (& LH, AZ, AF, etc.) had A300s and A310s, with nearly the DC-10's pax capacity.
codpiece face
27th Oct 2006, 10:45
The 380 will be fine, it has one major advantage over all of the others and that is the carbon footprint per passenger has to be wildly less than other aircraft. This may not be a massive deal just now but give it a few years and i am sure that it will be far more important. Things will start to change when it enters airline service and becomes proven.
The 747 had its share of problems at the beginning and endangered the boeing company but the problems where sorted. Talk of cancellations by airlines i am sure in the most part is spin to get decent discounts and compensation from airbus.
The idea of a joint boeing/airbus company is laughable and worrying at the same time, can you imagine how a company with that sort of monopoly could operate !. The world needs competition and so needs at least 2 large airliner manufacturers, and these companies are very similar just the american gov helps boeing in slightly different ways to the european way of helping airbus, both lots of governments aware that these manufacturing jobs are some that might actually stay in the western world as they are not easily transferrable to the far east etc.
panda-k-bear
27th Oct 2006, 11:53
Don't worry, Wino is just a Unionized American who believes that Airbus is taking jobs from good ol' Americans. And nobody else in the world should have a job other than Americans "cuz that just ain't fair, boi". He's sore that it's not only the U.S. that can produce jetliners.
Now if we're talking about RANGE, a coupl o' facts fo' ya, there boi:
1) It was the A340-500 that offered a longer range than the 747 fbefore the 777-200LR. Airbus played the range game before Boeing did. 777-200LR came more than 2 years after the A340-500. The A340-500 beacme the world's longest ranged airliner.
(By the way, I love thae markeitng schpeel from Boeing that says that the -200LR will fly from the U.K. to Australia nonstop. It never talks about the return flight, does it?)
2) How many A340-500s have been sold? How many 777-200LRs? And how many 747s? If it's range that the airlines want, how come the A340-500 and 777-200LR, when you add their sales figures TOGETHER, have sold less than one tenth as many units as the 747?
Hmm, doesn't quite add up, does it?
Wino seems to believe that the air traffic saturation situation will magically become a non-issue and that slot constrained airports like LHR, FRA, MUC, AMS, CDG etc. will find a solution - he doesn't seem to realise that Europe is not like the U.S. and that there is only a finite amount of land available for expansion. He therefore can't see past the slot constraint argument that larger aircraft become necessary in order to reduce traffic congestion.
Now, let's look at the A300/757 argument, shall we?
A300 - getting old. Quite inefficient. 767 the same. Relatively high fuel burn, certainly high maintenance costs. 757, ditto but even worse on the fuel burn front - very inefficient but great performance. Being replaced by? 737-800s, A320s and A321s. Why? Because there's nothing in the market to replace them of the same size. 787-3 is too much aeroplane for what it does, hence not a bestseller. Why have a -3 when you could have all of that capability in a -8? Northwest bought A330s as did USAirways. Continental took 767-400s (bet they wish they hadn't now - residual values must be disastrous). These have effectively replaced the DC-10 size category. A step down in capacity? Erm, no, not really. American is making do with 767s and abusing 777s. Well, Ok, but is that really beacuse they haven't had the disposable income to buy into the slightly larger airfcraft? Or after Sept 11th did they see demand drop and therefore smaller aircraft to be used?
No market for the A380? Get out of here! I guess you believe that Elvis is working in Wal-Mart?
The 340-500 and the 340-600 didn't meet there promises and have not sold. They are pretty much doa. The airplane didn't do its job ECONOMICALLY. A lot like concorde...
The 777 200 LR is selling well now (delta among other now putting them online)
American used to operate MANY 747s. They did away with them well before 9/11, and the last 747s they operated were the 747SP. (yes the smallest ones ever made with the long range, though 400s were later stretched to that range) They were replaced by the MD-11, which also didn't make its promises, so the SPs were brought back for a while till the 777's arrived.
I didn't say there was NO market for the A380. Just a TINY one.
And boeing has NOT raised there forecast for large aircraft. You moved the goal posts by 100 seats. they are still forecasting 500 or so aircraft with a capaity of over 500 seats. You included 400 or more seats... Different animal.
And 757 production ended with the 737-900 as the replacement, but that hasn't sold well even though it has the capacity and better fuel burn.
Cheers
Wino
rotornut
27th Oct 2006, 20:47
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/newsanalysis/transportation/10317411.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA
barit1
28th Oct 2006, 00:56
How to design (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCv-F763Xc0&mode=related&search=)an Airbus
Clarence Oveur
29th Oct 2006, 09:35
And boeing has NOT raised there forecast for large aircraft. You moved the goal posts by 100 seats. they are still forecasting 500 or so aircraft with a capaity of over 500 seats. You included 400 or more seats... Different animal.
Eh no I didn't. I was using the numbers put out by Carson and Baseler. If you want to continue the 400+ and 500+ Boeing PR spiel then go ahead. Everybody else recognizes it for what it is.
As I said, the arguments used by some are shaped by less than rational motives.