Eurocopter changes name to Airbus Helicopter?
Join Date: May 2011
Location: In Communicado
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Earlier mentioned "rebrandings" (MBB+AS=EC, Agusta+Westland=AW, MDH=Boeing, etc) were a result of corporate acquisitions or mergers.
This one is strictly a new name tag on the same old dog....
This one is strictly a new name tag on the same old dog....
Anyone twig at recently Le Bourget why the Eurocopter static was parked out of the way / sight when traditionally its always been at the front by the exhibition halls??
Plus it was kinda shielded dwarfed by the new BA A380
Guess the warning signs were there
Have to agree with RVTD, the hassle and cost with rebranding especially the AD/SBs, tech manuals, logs, publications etc etc....
Then again with graphics software packages nowadays should be tad quicker then 20 years ago where things weren't that advanced
Plus it was kinda shielded dwarfed by the new BA A380
Guess the warning signs were there
Have to agree with RVTD, the hassle and cost with rebranding especially the AD/SBs, tech manuals, logs, publications etc etc....
Then again with graphics software packages nowadays should be tad quicker then 20 years ago where things weren't that advanced
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Name change
In marketing terms alone, this is a very poor decision. The rebranding of the Eurocopter marque worldwide has been very successful over the past decade with the UK and Japan both becoming Eurocopter facilities after having their own identities for example.
Airbus Helicopter is not only a misnomer, it doesn't have an identity or heritage. The lineage has just stopped and it will take a very long time I suggest before anyone in the helo industry will stop using Eurocopter, either specifically with reference to a helicopter type or as a general nod to any type from the Alouette stable all the way to the EC175, or is that AH175?
Airbus Helicopter is not only a misnomer, it doesn't have an identity or heritage. The lineage has just stopped and it will take a very long time I suggest before anyone in the helo industry will stop using Eurocopter, either specifically with reference to a helicopter type or as a general nod to any type from the Alouette stable all the way to the EC175, or is that AH175?
#1
Airbus?
What? They make helicopters now?
Who knew?
Lets wait a while until they know what they are doing making helicopters before we buy one. After all they only make aeroplanes.
#2.
Airbus Helicopter (previously Eurocopter) has in "incident" for example.
Oh it's only a helicopter - WTF?
How to completely destroy a brand - gone forever and possibly tarnish another.
Why not just save the money to fix the current one?
The core of the company is good as it is successful in spite of itself at the customer interface. People will put up with the bad customer service if the product itself is pretty good.
The competition has better customer service but unfortunately no product to speak of.
This is an admission that their customer service sucks and how out of touch they really are.
Received a "customer survey" questionnaire a couple of days ago from EC. I cannot complete it because the questions are so "loaded" and not relevant to us.
If EC want customer feedback why not just "lurk" here and other sites. Its free!
Even some subtle "phishing" would work!
Other companies have worked this out and it is not proprietary. How hard can it be?
VW AG = Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, Porsche, SEAT, Škoda, Volkswagen, Ducati, MAN, Scania and Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles.
BMW AG = Mini, BMW Motorsport, Rolls-Royce Motor Cars.
I don't expect that they would throw any of those away too soon.
HeliHub has done some footwork.
A good place to start might be to get rid of the current management as they can't "rest on their laurels" as well proven to date.
This will be held up in educational institutions as an example of PR disaster for all to see in the future.
Looks like everything will be moving to Ottobrun after they throw out the ECD folks to go to their new shed in Donauworth.
The delusion.
The buck stops here with a PhD in Politics.
Is this all a strategy to make your d!çk bigger than Boeings at the cost of the brand? Remember when Pepsi tried to outdo Coke? They spent a fortune to remain at #2 which they could have done without spending a cent.
The strategy - change the name of EADS to Airbus so everything is in the Airbus pot to make yourself "look" bigger after you have sacked a bunch of EADS workers.
Brave or stupid? €2.5 million a year? I guess that would influence whats on the inside of your goggles and it will be a shorter commute to work!
Rant over.
Airbus?
What? They make helicopters now?
Who knew?
Lets wait a while until they know what they are doing making helicopters before we buy one. After all they only make aeroplanes.
#2.
Airbus Helicopter (previously Eurocopter) has in "incident" for example.
Pilots raise concerns after Airbus helicopter gearbox warning
Alarm came on during Airbus Super Puma testing
By Anthony Joseph
Published: 03/08/2013
FEARS were raised by pilots testing grounded Airbus Super Puma helicopters ahead of their return to operations after a warning message told them the gearbox shaft had failed.
The Airbus EC225s took to the skies this week all over the world for the first time in nearly a year, in a series of tests.
The helicopters were grounded last October after two ditchings in the North Sea.
The Evening Express can today reveal that pilots raised concerns when the warning “MOD 45 failed” appeared on their screens when testing the aircraft.
Alarm came on during Airbus Super Puma testing
By Anthony Joseph
Published: 03/08/2013
FEARS were raised by pilots testing grounded Airbus Super Puma helicopters ahead of their return to operations after a warning message told them the gearbox shaft had failed.
The Airbus EC225s took to the skies this week all over the world for the first time in nearly a year, in a series of tests.
The helicopters were grounded last October after two ditchings in the North Sea.
The Evening Express can today reveal that pilots raised concerns when the warning “MOD 45 failed” appeared on their screens when testing the aircraft.
How to completely destroy a brand - gone forever and possibly tarnish another.
Why not just save the money to fix the current one?
The core of the company is good as it is successful in spite of itself at the customer interface. People will put up with the bad customer service if the product itself is pretty good.
The competition has better customer service but unfortunately no product to speak of.
This is an admission that their customer service sucks and how out of touch they really are.
Received a "customer survey" questionnaire a couple of days ago from EC. I cannot complete it because the questions are so "loaded" and not relevant to us.
If EC want customer feedback why not just "lurk" here and other sites. Its free!
Even some subtle "phishing" would work!Other companies have worked this out and it is not proprietary. How hard can it be?
VW AG = Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, Porsche, SEAT, Škoda, Volkswagen, Ducati, MAN, Scania and Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles.
BMW AG = Mini, BMW Motorsport, Rolls-Royce Motor Cars.
I don't expect that they would throw any of those away too soon.
HeliHub has done some footwork.
A good place to start might be to get rid of the current management as they can't "rest on their laurels" as well proven to date.
This will be held up in educational institutions as an example of PR disaster for all to see in the future.
Looks like everything will be moving to Ottobrun after they throw out the ECD folks to go to their new shed in Donauworth.
The delusion.
The buck stops here with a PhD in Politics.
Is this all a strategy to make your d!çk bigger than Boeings at the cost of the brand? Remember when Pepsi tried to outdo Coke? They spent a fortune to remain at #2 which they could have done without spending a cent.
The strategy - change the name of EADS to Airbus so everything is in the Airbus pot to make yourself "look" bigger after you have sacked a bunch of EADS workers.
Brave or stupid? €2.5 million a year? I guess that would influence whats on the inside of your goggles and it will be a shorter commute to work!
Rant over.
Last edited by RVDT; 3rd Aug 2013 at 09:06.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Understanding EADS: A Crisis of Identity
To understand the crisis of identity currently exhibited by EADS you need to understand the mindset of their board of directors and that is not always an easy thing to do.
There are no doubt multiple factors which have influenced this decision to re-brand but one factor which has frequently affected Airbus Industrie (as it once was) thinking - is their insatiable rivalry with Boeing.
The A3XX project (late 80's) was (according to some) specifically generated to knock out the "irritating" 747 series which some saw as being responsible for keeping Airbus firmly in "second place". Establishing themselves as the dominant airline manufacturer has been an all-consuming agenda of Airbus since its earliest days.
I mention this because a business which is driven (even in part) by a desire to achieve conquest, particularly over a specific rival, will always possess a slightly skewed sense of purpose in comparison with a company which is focused on the pursuit of achieving technical ingenuity and delivering customer service. Now, somewhere down the line in the current EADS structure the politics and motives of senior executives will peter out and the "regular employees" will share a common goal (one hopes) of developing technical expertise and customer service but this will always, to some extent, be influenced by the executive culture further up the line.
Rumours about this culture have been many over the years and include some pretty petty jealousies on the part of EADS towards Boeing. Following this train of thought, it is not inconceivable that board members find it irksome that EADS does not share the same "brand power" as Boeing. Boeing can be regarded a household name whereas EADS cannot. The question is .. how necessary is it for EADS board members to drop the EADS name from their conversational encounters?
At present when an EADS board member meets some dignitary (say a senior government minister outside Europe) and he is introduced as a board member of EADS, nine times out of ten you can bet that within a few seconds he (or she) validates this with the statement "the parent company of Airbus."
EADS board members want their children to be able to tell their schoolmates that their mother or father works on the board of "Airbus" so that, as with Boeing, they can enjoy a globally recognised brand. Paganini as much as admits it (at some level) in his memo when he refers to their (Airbus') "high profile brand name."
Boeing Helicopters? "We now have Airbus Helicopters" so says EADS!
An important factor influencing the timing of this move is the global economy. There are respected economists who are convinced that the US Dollar will have collapsed (as in completely collapsed) by 2030 and an accompanying belief that before then the US economy is going to face a downturn in international trade such as has never before been seen. Airbus Industrie's dream of surpassing Boeing is no longer a dream and when the A380 was rolled-out that final hurdle of manufacturing the world's largest airliner was overcome. Airbus were now the airline manufacturer beyond compare!
Is this all about Airbus/Boeing rivalry? Obviously not (as stated in the second paragraph) but, I believe it is a factor. To share brand recognition on a par with Boeing throughout the organisation.
Was it necessary? No. As with Boeing, the Airbus brand is already a household name but (crucially) within the industry EADS is similarly well known. Therefore there was and is no commercial benefit for EADS to be a household name in the same way as Airbus but, as has already been suggested by other posters, what we are dealing here are the egos of the EADS board.
In Paganini's memo he writes "Eurocopter management fully supports this new direction." Yes indeed. As if Eurocopter's management had much choice in the matter!!
And, "It reflects our European roots, but does not fit with our modern stature as an international company and rotorcraft industry leader." To me this confirms that its about being the world industry leader and which agenda Eurocopter has also pursued since its formation in 1992.
What EADS has ignored is that human nature is slow to change (most times) and human nature generally seeks to define things by way of cultural identity so that whatever name you give to an organisation, people instinctively want to know something about its origin. You can call yourself the "Global Helicopter Corporation" but people still want to know your roots and will still seek to define you (to some extent) according to your origins.
What we are witnessing is, in my view, some of EADS' "not so admirable" boardroom politics!
In summary, a successful company which is adamant (almost desperate) to cement its place as "the" leading global airframe manufacturer and, in the process, making some rather unnecessary (and initially counterproductive) decisions.
There are no doubt multiple factors which have influenced this decision to re-brand but one factor which has frequently affected Airbus Industrie (as it once was) thinking - is their insatiable rivalry with Boeing.
The A3XX project (late 80's) was (according to some) specifically generated to knock out the "irritating" 747 series which some saw as being responsible for keeping Airbus firmly in "second place". Establishing themselves as the dominant airline manufacturer has been an all-consuming agenda of Airbus since its earliest days.
I mention this because a business which is driven (even in part) by a desire to achieve conquest, particularly over a specific rival, will always possess a slightly skewed sense of purpose in comparison with a company which is focused on the pursuit of achieving technical ingenuity and delivering customer service. Now, somewhere down the line in the current EADS structure the politics and motives of senior executives will peter out and the "regular employees" will share a common goal (one hopes) of developing technical expertise and customer service but this will always, to some extent, be influenced by the executive culture further up the line.
Rumours about this culture have been many over the years and include some pretty petty jealousies on the part of EADS towards Boeing. Following this train of thought, it is not inconceivable that board members find it irksome that EADS does not share the same "brand power" as Boeing. Boeing can be regarded a household name whereas EADS cannot. The question is .. how necessary is it for EADS board members to drop the EADS name from their conversational encounters?
At present when an EADS board member meets some dignitary (say a senior government minister outside Europe) and he is introduced as a board member of EADS, nine times out of ten you can bet that within a few seconds he (or she) validates this with the statement "the parent company of Airbus."
EADS board members want their children to be able to tell their schoolmates that their mother or father works on the board of "Airbus" so that, as with Boeing, they can enjoy a globally recognised brand. Paganini as much as admits it (at some level) in his memo when he refers to their (Airbus') "high profile brand name."
Boeing Helicopters? "We now have Airbus Helicopters" so says EADS!
An important factor influencing the timing of this move is the global economy. There are respected economists who are convinced that the US Dollar will have collapsed (as in completely collapsed) by 2030 and an accompanying belief that before then the US economy is going to face a downturn in international trade such as has never before been seen. Airbus Industrie's dream of surpassing Boeing is no longer a dream and when the A380 was rolled-out that final hurdle of manufacturing the world's largest airliner was overcome. Airbus were now the airline manufacturer beyond compare!
Is this all about Airbus/Boeing rivalry? Obviously not (as stated in the second paragraph) but, I believe it is a factor. To share brand recognition on a par with Boeing throughout the organisation.
Was it necessary? No. As with Boeing, the Airbus brand is already a household name but (crucially) within the industry EADS is similarly well known. Therefore there was and is no commercial benefit for EADS to be a household name in the same way as Airbus but, as has already been suggested by other posters, what we are dealing here are the egos of the EADS board.
In Paganini's memo he writes "Eurocopter management fully supports this new direction." Yes indeed. As if Eurocopter's management had much choice in the matter!!
And, "It reflects our European roots, but does not fit with our modern stature as an international company and rotorcraft industry leader." To me this confirms that its about being the world industry leader and which agenda Eurocopter has also pursued since its formation in 1992.
What EADS has ignored is that human nature is slow to change (most times) and human nature generally seeks to define things by way of cultural identity so that whatever name you give to an organisation, people instinctively want to know something about its origin. You can call yourself the "Global Helicopter Corporation" but people still want to know your roots and will still seek to define you (to some extent) according to your origins.
What we are witnessing is, in my view, some of EADS' "not so admirable" boardroom politics!
In summary, a successful company which is adamant (almost desperate) to cement its place as "the" leading global airframe manufacturer and, in the process, making some rather unnecessary (and initially counterproductive) decisions.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RVDT, your comments prompted my own, so consider yourself the catalyst!
I might mention that I admire your posts, in particular your grasp of technical matters.
I might mention that I admire your posts, in particular your grasp of technical matters.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Iceland
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not such a good decision?
Regardless of the causes of the accident in the Shetlands, given the PR fiasco now underway. Does anybody besides me think that Airbus executives might be thinking this isn’t such a good idea at all?
Ice Heli
Ice Heli
Perhaps they might begin to look at Boat Hulled Helicopters for the next generation!
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Royal Leamington Spa
Age: 78
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps they might begin to look at Boat Hulled Helicopters for the next generation!
In fact, if they go down that route I know some people in Beijing that could make them for Airbus on the cheap - then everyone would be happy!
With what is going on in the UK North Sea Sector right now.....Air Bus might as well get out of the Helicopter Business as the Super Puma family is headed the way of the Buffalo.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Royal Leamington Spa
Age: 78
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dominique Maudet, executive vice-president of global business and services at the Marignane-headquartered manufacturer, says although some customers have expressed sadness about the loss of 20 years of history, it is good move for the airframer.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Europe
Age: 51
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eurocopter upbeat on planned name change
By: Dominic Perry London
12:00 12 Sep 2013
Source:
Eurocopter is eyeing next year's planned rebrand - which will see it become Airbus Helicopters - as an opportunity to move the business forward.
Dominique Maudet, executive vice-president of global business and services at the Marignane-headquartered manufacturer, says although some customers have expressed sadness about the loss of 20 years of history, it is good move for the airframer.
He is positive that the new name brings with it the reputation for "quality and innovation" associated with Airbus.
"We are happy to bolt on this image and have the Airbus name on our front gate," he says.
Aside from this, he says, surveys conducted by Eurocopter revealed that potential clients felt its name was too closely associated with one part of the world and, as such, was "a bit restrictive".
"All in all we are happy to be under the Airbus brand. For the new management team it is an opportunity to move the company towards new challenges," he says.
Internal discussions are still ongoing to iron out the day-to-day effects of the change, for instance the designation of any hew helicopters produced by the rebranded operation. Details should be finalised by year-end, says Maudet.
The name change is part of a wider restructuring effort at parent EADS that will take effect in early 2014.
12:00 12 Sep 2013
Source:
Eurocopter is eyeing next year's planned rebrand - which will see it become Airbus Helicopters - as an opportunity to move the business forward.
Dominique Maudet, executive vice-president of global business and services at the Marignane-headquartered manufacturer, says although some customers have expressed sadness about the loss of 20 years of history, it is good move for the airframer.
He is positive that the new name brings with it the reputation for "quality and innovation" associated with Airbus.
"We are happy to bolt on this image and have the Airbus name on our front gate," he says.
Aside from this, he says, surveys conducted by Eurocopter revealed that potential clients felt its name was too closely associated with one part of the world and, as such, was "a bit restrictive".
"All in all we are happy to be under the Airbus brand. For the new management team it is an opportunity to move the company towards new challenges," he says.
Internal discussions are still ongoing to iron out the day-to-day effects of the change, for instance the designation of any hew helicopters produced by the rebranded operation. Details should be finalised by year-end, says Maudet.
The name change is part of a wider restructuring effort at parent EADS that will take effect in early 2014.
Whats in a name?
I am having difficulty understanding the logic of changing the fairly successful name of Eurocopter to the new one of Airbus - Helicopters.
I understand the desire for corporate branding etc etc, but Eurocopter flowed off the tongue fairly easily, and I personally do not find the same ease with "Airbus Helicopters". Especially when the "Helicopters" bit is then followed by a model no.
Untidy?
TF
I understand the desire for corporate branding etc etc, but Eurocopter flowed off the tongue fairly easily, and I personally do not find the same ease with "Airbus Helicopters". Especially when the "Helicopters" bit is then followed by a model no.
Untidy?
TF
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Previously debated here: Eurocopter changes name to Airbus Helicopter?.
More to the point, since my boarding pass stated January 1st, but since our flight only arrived on January 8th, can I claim compensation for a delayed flight? (When I told my travel agent to book me on an Airbus for my flight from Perth to Indy, I was thinking more of an A380 than an EC175!)
More to the point, since my boarding pass stated January 1st, but since our flight only arrived on January 8th, can I claim compensation for a delayed flight? (When I told my travel agent to book me on an Airbus for my flight from Perth to Indy, I was thinking more of an A380 than an EC175!)
