Boeing accuses Airbus of dumping
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing accuses Airbus of dumping
Fri "The Guardian" London
Boeing accuses Airbus of dumping
David Gow
Friday March 26, 2004
The Guardian
Boeing yesterday launched a frontal assault on Airbus's new 555-seater superjumbo, asserting that its European rival had "bet the farm" on the $11bn A380.
Randy Baseler, head of marketing for Boeing's commercial airplanes, claimed that Airbus would deliver so few A380s it could be unable to repay the $3.5bn in launch funds lent by governments.
Ridiculing Airbus's forecast global demand of 1,138 planes, he said demand was at most 320 and the European company would find it impossible to break even on sales of 250 A380s.
His remarks, in London, indicate that the dogfight between the rival plane-makers over future aviation trends has escalated since Airbus overtook Boeing in terms of aircraft deliveries last year.
The Europeans are banking on soaring demand for non-stop flights on routes such as London and Sydney while Boeing, which is launching its 200/250-seater 7E7 Dreamliner later this year, has staked its future on shorter point-to-point direct services.
Mr Baseler, armed with a 80-page rebuttal of Airbus's market analysis, claimed that the Europeans had won its first 129 orders for the A380 by offering a 40% discount on the $230m list-price to airlines such as Singapore Airlines.
The 7E7, likely to be powered by Rolls-Royce and GE engines, has a list price of $120m and is due to enter service in 2008, with 50 airlines, including British Airways and Virgin, said to be interested.
Airbus, which sees the first A380 fly with Singapore in 2006, attacked Mr Baseler's comments as "ridiculous" and "absolute rubbish."
"The suggestion we are going around the world trying to dump this aircraft in order to get it off the ground is is nonsense," an insider said. "The price is up to $260m now."
Last week Iain Gray, Airbus UK managing director, said the A380 was the most successful launch in Airbus history, with plans to increase production to 50 aircraft a year. At least one new customer is expected this year.
============================================
Boeing accuses Airbus of dumping
David Gow
Friday March 26, 2004
The Guardian
Boeing yesterday launched a frontal assault on Airbus's new 555-seater superjumbo, asserting that its European rival had "bet the farm" on the $11bn A380.
Randy Baseler, head of marketing for Boeing's commercial airplanes, claimed that Airbus would deliver so few A380s it could be unable to repay the $3.5bn in launch funds lent by governments.
Ridiculing Airbus's forecast global demand of 1,138 planes, he said demand was at most 320 and the European company would find it impossible to break even on sales of 250 A380s.
His remarks, in London, indicate that the dogfight between the rival plane-makers over future aviation trends has escalated since Airbus overtook Boeing in terms of aircraft deliveries last year.
The Europeans are banking on soaring demand for non-stop flights on routes such as London and Sydney while Boeing, which is launching its 200/250-seater 7E7 Dreamliner later this year, has staked its future on shorter point-to-point direct services.
Mr Baseler, armed with a 80-page rebuttal of Airbus's market analysis, claimed that the Europeans had won its first 129 orders for the A380 by offering a 40% discount on the $230m list-price to airlines such as Singapore Airlines.
The 7E7, likely to be powered by Rolls-Royce and GE engines, has a list price of $120m and is due to enter service in 2008, with 50 airlines, including British Airways and Virgin, said to be interested.
Airbus, which sees the first A380 fly with Singapore in 2006, attacked Mr Baseler's comments as "ridiculous" and "absolute rubbish."
"The suggestion we are going around the world trying to dump this aircraft in order to get it off the ground is is nonsense," an insider said. "The price is up to $260m now."
Last week Iain Gray, Airbus UK managing director, said the A380 was the most successful launch in Airbus history, with plans to increase production to 50 aircraft a year. At least one new customer is expected this year.
============================================
Bottums Up
I suppose Boeing didn't go out on a limb in the 60's when they developed an aircraft that was said to be too big, would cause masive disruption with 300+ pax disembarking at a time and that many thought would be a white elephant.
No wonder they called it the jumbo!
No wonder they called it the jumbo!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to agree with the Boeing camp on this one.
The Boeing product is of a much higher overall quality than that of Airbus in my opinion - and especially of those that perform heavy maintenance on both.
Look at how Airbus subsidises their cost structure at such a high level. Boeing may be accused of the same thing but to a much lesser extent.
Look at the problems QF has had with the introduction of their Airbuses (floor strength hassles and poor workmanship).
Range/payload is a problem on certain legs as CX has found out on MEL-HKG flights, in particular when freight is carried.
Someone mentioned something like 30-40 or so empty seats on that sector so that freight can be carried at times.
This is not the case on the B777's.
Look at the quality hassles QF have encountered with major things such as paint peeling from the roof of aircraft on delivery flights and having to be returned to Toulouse at huge expense to Airbus.
If they cant get paint to stick what else has gone wrong in the manufacturing process???
Remember when AN did the first heavy maintenance in the world on the A320's.
Mr Airbus was very keen to see how they faired and had engineers overseeing the maintenance.
The aircraft was in the shop for over two months longer than anticipated and the cost of the overhaul was almost twice that expected.
And this was an aircraft that wasnt in any way abused and had been maintained to a good standard according to both Airbus and CASA.
The quality isnt as good at the end of the day and their residual value is far less than their Boeing counterpart.
The upside???
They are cheaper to purchase/lease and more readily available to deploy.Bean-counters love them and that is why they are regularly turned-over so to speak.
Remember Singapore Airlines getting rid of all of their A340-200/300's and replacing them with B777's?
Airbus had a cow as the aircraft were purchased by Boeing and resold.
Airbus threatened to terminate the warranty on those machines.
SQ could see what a superior aircraft the B777 was and made a very gutsy move.
Now they have their extended range A340's bet your life they will ditch the A340 in favour of the new B777 with a greater range and payload capability.
Look people, the fact of life is that they are a different monster altogether, but talking to those that work with them very closely find them more expensive to maintain and their overall market value far less than a Boeing.
Add to that the fact that in terms of operating an A330 to a Boeing the satisfaction just isnt there with the bus.
Dealing with the French isnt always a joy either................
The Boeing product is of a much higher overall quality than that of Airbus in my opinion - and especially of those that perform heavy maintenance on both.
Look at how Airbus subsidises their cost structure at such a high level. Boeing may be accused of the same thing but to a much lesser extent.
Look at the problems QF has had with the introduction of their Airbuses (floor strength hassles and poor workmanship).
Range/payload is a problem on certain legs as CX has found out on MEL-HKG flights, in particular when freight is carried.
Someone mentioned something like 30-40 or so empty seats on that sector so that freight can be carried at times.
This is not the case on the B777's.
Look at the quality hassles QF have encountered with major things such as paint peeling from the roof of aircraft on delivery flights and having to be returned to Toulouse at huge expense to Airbus.
If they cant get paint to stick what else has gone wrong in the manufacturing process???
Remember when AN did the first heavy maintenance in the world on the A320's.
Mr Airbus was very keen to see how they faired and had engineers overseeing the maintenance.
The aircraft was in the shop for over two months longer than anticipated and the cost of the overhaul was almost twice that expected.
And this was an aircraft that wasnt in any way abused and had been maintained to a good standard according to both Airbus and CASA.
The quality isnt as good at the end of the day and their residual value is far less than their Boeing counterpart.
The upside???
They are cheaper to purchase/lease and more readily available to deploy.Bean-counters love them and that is why they are regularly turned-over so to speak.
Remember Singapore Airlines getting rid of all of their A340-200/300's and replacing them with B777's?
Airbus had a cow as the aircraft were purchased by Boeing and resold.
Airbus threatened to terminate the warranty on those machines.
SQ could see what a superior aircraft the B777 was and made a very gutsy move.
Now they have their extended range A340's bet your life they will ditch the A340 in favour of the new B777 with a greater range and payload capability.
Look people, the fact of life is that they are a different monster altogether, but talking to those that work with them very closely find them more expensive to maintain and their overall market value far less than a Boeing.
Add to that the fact that in terms of operating an A330 to a Boeing the satisfaction just isnt there with the bus.
Dealing with the French isnt always a joy either................
TIMMEEEE,
I see this as a ploy from Boeing to get more US DOD equipment purchases, who said "empty ships make the most noise'.
The SQ 59x777 for 17x340 deals could be thought of as dumping also. What you did not mention is that the SQ 340s had a custom entertainment system installed which I was lead to believe was 8t additional weight above a standard aircraft, reduced range, reduced payload.
The early 340s were a dog, most people from what I have understood have elected to do engine upgrades, and same could be said for QF with the 744's, they have always been performing worse than the 743's.
The 340/330 is not the same class of a/c as the 777, fairer to compare it to a 764.
Feel free to compare the 777 to the 345/346. That’s what SQ did when it ordered the 345 over the 773 recently. SQ is now operating 3 out of the 5 345's it ordered.
According to
Beoing no airline has ordered a 777 this year, last time SQ ordered a 777 was 1998. Airbus had two 345 orders in Jan & Feb.
The real fact or the matter is Boeing is killing itself by not having commonality between types, I see QF going with the 345 shortly as the 330 crews and sim can be used on the 345 for a fraction of the cost of getting a 773-ER into the system. 330->340 CCQ takes a few days, the sim, unclip the throttle quadrant, clip in the 4 throttle quadrant, and unclip the fire bottles and replace it with the 5 button one, very simple, take a few minutes at most.
With sims costing US$20 mil plus, its not an insignificant expense when considering a new type.
QF have a lot a very very smart people involved in the aircraft selection process, the 777 has been considered, but people with better knowledge than me and you have decided its not the best ship for QF, AT THIS STAGE.
Interestingly South African Airlines who are also geographically remote have not gone with the 777 also.
I see this as a ploy from Boeing to get more US DOD equipment purchases, who said "empty ships make the most noise'.
The SQ 59x777 for 17x340 deals could be thought of as dumping also. What you did not mention is that the SQ 340s had a custom entertainment system installed which I was lead to believe was 8t additional weight above a standard aircraft, reduced range, reduced payload.
The early 340s were a dog, most people from what I have understood have elected to do engine upgrades, and same could be said for QF with the 744's, they have always been performing worse than the 743's.
The 340/330 is not the same class of a/c as the 777, fairer to compare it to a 764.
Feel free to compare the 777 to the 345/346. That’s what SQ did when it ordered the 345 over the 773 recently. SQ is now operating 3 out of the 5 345's it ordered.
According to
Beoing no airline has ordered a 777 this year, last time SQ ordered a 777 was 1998. Airbus had two 345 orders in Jan & Feb.
The real fact or the matter is Boeing is killing itself by not having commonality between types, I see QF going with the 345 shortly as the 330 crews and sim can be used on the 345 for a fraction of the cost of getting a 773-ER into the system. 330->340 CCQ takes a few days, the sim, unclip the throttle quadrant, clip in the 4 throttle quadrant, and unclip the fire bottles and replace it with the 5 button one, very simple, take a few minutes at most.
With sims costing US$20 mil plus, its not an insignificant expense when considering a new type.
QF have a lot a very very smart people involved in the aircraft selection process, the 777 has been considered, but people with better knowledge than me and you have decided its not the best ship for QF, AT THIS STAGE.
Interestingly South African Airlines who are also geographically remote have not gone with the 777 also.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: OZ
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gday
I thought we accused the opposition of dumping when we were getting our arses kicked and couldn’t compete on a level marketing field.
Good old labour told us that some years ago in regards to the motor Industry.
The world keeps rotating.
Cheers Q
I thought we accused the opposition of dumping when we were getting our arses kicked and couldn’t compete on a level marketing field.
Good old labour told us that some years ago in regards to the motor Industry.
The world keeps rotating.
Cheers Q
EPIRB,
I was one of the design engineers who helped get the 777 in the air, I worked on the 777 rudder package, I know that it predominantly not metal, > M 0.8, I have not seen one melt.
Only plastic aeroplanes I have seen melt were those incorrectly treated after the fuel contamination debacle.
So what’s your point ?
I was one of the design engineers who helped get the 777 in the air, I worked on the 777 rudder package, I know that it predominantly not metal, > M 0.8, I have not seen one melt.
Only plastic aeroplanes I have seen melt were those incorrectly treated after the fuel contamination debacle.
So what’s your point ?
Props are for boats!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: An Asian Hub
Age: 56
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One word, I can say is "marketing". It seems Boeing have forgotten this and are crying wolf. Come on boeing stop with the retoric and give some interesting Products. Why did they stop with the NG 747 idea?
Sheep
Sheep
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SWH
All I can say is that these "very smart people" as you so succintly put it were those same individuals that ordered a long range aircraft (A330-200 as opposed to the A330-300) and installed domestic galleys on the same!
QF will now be using them for International sectors and the galleys will have to be replaced at great expense - very friggin intelligent SWH wouldnt you say?
The same smart guys went and had small overhead lockers in business class where you have difficulty putting in a normal sized carry-on bag.
Even my notebook computer barely even fits!!
Numerous complaints from business class pax and F/A's cop whines about the same problem from pax.
Remember the AA A300 that had its tail torn off after an encounter with wake turbulence?
I think that the report was evidence enough on this particular occassion as to a case of an under-engineered rudder.
Airconditioning is noisy and it doesnt seem to ride the turbulence as well in my opinion as a 767/777.
My experience comes after paxing well over 20 times on these aircraft.
Just my opinion guys but in terms of quality I know which seat my bum would rather be strapped to.
Speaking to engineers that work on both (and have done heavy maintenance) they will confirm my points on quality and durability.
Any other brain-washed Airbus die-hards want to have a swipe???
QF have a lot a very very smart people involved in the aircraft selection process, the 777 has been considered, but people with better knowledge than me and you have decided its not the best ship for QF, AT THIS STAGE
All I can say is that these "very smart people" as you so succintly put it were those same individuals that ordered a long range aircraft (A330-200 as opposed to the A330-300) and installed domestic galleys on the same!
QF will now be using them for International sectors and the galleys will have to be replaced at great expense - very friggin intelligent SWH wouldnt you say?
The same smart guys went and had small overhead lockers in business class where you have difficulty putting in a normal sized carry-on bag.
Even my notebook computer barely even fits!!
Numerous complaints from business class pax and F/A's cop whines about the same problem from pax.
Remember the AA A300 that had its tail torn off after an encounter with wake turbulence?
I think that the report was evidence enough on this particular occassion as to a case of an under-engineered rudder.
Airconditioning is noisy and it doesnt seem to ride the turbulence as well in my opinion as a 767/777.
My experience comes after paxing well over 20 times on these aircraft.
Just my opinion guys but in terms of quality I know which seat my bum would rather be strapped to.
Speaking to engineers that work on both (and have done heavy maintenance) they will confirm my points on quality and durability.
Any other brain-washed Airbus die-hards want to have a swipe???
Bottums Up
Buster,
Ever have the American's been thus. Think of all the times the rules to the America's Cup changed to rule contenders out of contention.
Boeing has benefitted enormously over the years from military (read govt) funding for projects which have given them a huge boost in the commercial sphere.
The words that spring to mind ...... sour grapes.
Ever have the American's been thus. Think of all the times the rules to the America's Cup changed to rule contenders out of contention.
Boeing has benefitted enormously over the years from military (read govt) funding for projects which have given them a huge boost in the commercial sphere.
The words that spring to mind ...... sour grapes.
TIMMEEEE,
I was referring to the professional engineers in QF that are involved in fleet selection, they are not the people who sign the contract or come up with the galley/overhead locker config. They work on airframe/engine packages across the route structure. They (the professional aeronautical engineers) are the very smart people I am referring to.
How the aircraft is delivered to the customer is specified by the customer, I note that a customer has elected to order some 737NG's without window shades or reclining seats. Seems silly to me, but that’s what the customer wants.
As to the A300 rudder, no civil jet airliner is designed for rudder application in the fashion that AA had trained their pilots. They were using IMHO military training techniques on a civil airliner that designed in the normal CAT.
To quote IFALPA "The rudder/fin combination is sized for the worst case of engine failure at slow speed and maximum engine thrust on the remaining engine(s), or other foreseen unsymmetric flight conditions. Rapid rudder movement, particularly rapid rudder reversals can produce loads on the vertical fin that exceed the limits to which the airplane was certified."
I would strongly suggest yo have a look at what IFALPA has to say about this, Use of Rudder on Airbus Use of Rudder on Boeing Aggressive Aircraft Manoeuvring
I would appreciate it if you could cast your eye over the reports on the AA A300 accident, and then get back to me to see if your employer advocates the same rudder technique.
As you know Boeing products have been know to have uncommanded rudder failures, uncommanded thrust reverser deployment, and uncommanded engine shutdowns, all you need to do is look at the 737 PCU secondary valve jams. Maybe this ALPA SAFETY ALERT will shed some light on this for you.
No airliner/manufacturer is perfect.....they all have their faults.
I was referring to the professional engineers in QF that are involved in fleet selection, they are not the people who sign the contract or come up with the galley/overhead locker config. They work on airframe/engine packages across the route structure. They (the professional aeronautical engineers) are the very smart people I am referring to.
How the aircraft is delivered to the customer is specified by the customer, I note that a customer has elected to order some 737NG's without window shades or reclining seats. Seems silly to me, but that’s what the customer wants.
As to the A300 rudder, no civil jet airliner is designed for rudder application in the fashion that AA had trained their pilots. They were using IMHO military training techniques on a civil airliner that designed in the normal CAT.
To quote IFALPA "The rudder/fin combination is sized for the worst case of engine failure at slow speed and maximum engine thrust on the remaining engine(s), or other foreseen unsymmetric flight conditions. Rapid rudder movement, particularly rapid rudder reversals can produce loads on the vertical fin that exceed the limits to which the airplane was certified."
I would strongly suggest yo have a look at what IFALPA has to say about this, Use of Rudder on Airbus Use of Rudder on Boeing Aggressive Aircraft Manoeuvring
I would appreciate it if you could cast your eye over the reports on the AA A300 accident, and then get back to me to see if your employer advocates the same rudder technique.
As you know Boeing products have been know to have uncommanded rudder failures, uncommanded thrust reverser deployment, and uncommanded engine shutdowns, all you need to do is look at the 737 PCU secondary valve jams. Maybe this ALPA SAFETY ALERT will shed some light on this for you.
No airliner/manufacturer is perfect.....they all have their faults.
