Telegraph: Airbus is largest aircraft manufacturer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Telegraph: Airbus is largest aircraft manufacturer
Not really a surprise, but relevant news:
Airbus has trounced Boeing to become the world’s biggest aircraft maker as the US aerospace giant continues to grapple with the fallout from the grounding of its 737 Max jet.The European company delivered 863 planes in 2019, against just 345 deliveries by its American rival.
Shares in Airbus rose almost 4pc after the figures were released. They were ahead of the 860 shipments the firm had forecast in October when it trimmed projections because of production problems.It is the first time since 2011 that Airbus has overtaken its US competitor.
More
Shares in Airbus rose almost 4pc after the figures were released. They were ahead of the 860 shipments the firm had forecast in October when it trimmed projections because of production problems.It is the first time since 2011 that Airbus has overtaken its US competitor.
More
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're going to annoy the mods with these flippant remarks, so . . .
What do people think about Boeing's prospects for recovering its place in the commercial airplane market?
Last edited by OldnGrounded; 2nd Jan 2020 at 23:59. Reason: Typo: Fingers added misplaced apostrophe.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In one of the two main circles
Age: 65
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing to boast about ...
When your main competitor cannot deliver its products, it is quite easy to beat him 
As usual, media are making headlines about a non-event that was known since the Max production was stopped ...
Whatever the outcome, this Max story is good neither for Boeing nor for Airbus.
As usual, media are making headlines about a non-event that was known since the Max production was stopped ...
Whatever the outcome, this Max story is good neither for Boeing nor for Airbus.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In one of the two main circles
Age: 65
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do people think about Boeing's prospects for recovering it's place in the commer
Based on the "too big to fail" principle, US politicians will not allow such a strategic business to go down the drain.
So, they will recover.
How long will it take ?
IMHO, it will depend on whether the Max can be re-certified.
If the Max is re-certified, it will be one to three years.
If not, a five to ten years timeframe looks reasonable (in this last case, they will be heavily supported by the US DoD with a big additional order of tankers).
So, they will recover.
How long will it take ?
IMHO, it will depend on whether the Max can be re-certified.
If the Max is re-certified, it will be one to three years.
If not, a five to ten years timeframe looks reasonable (in this last case, they will be heavily supported by the US DoD with a big additional order of tankers).
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Castletown
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've owned both. I'd rather tow with the F350 and save the high-speed cornering for trips in the Beemer.
We're going to annoy the mods with these flippant remarks, so . . .
What do people think about Boeing's prospects for recovering it's place in the commercial airplane market?
We're going to annoy the mods with these flippant remarks, so . . .
What do people think about Boeing's prospects for recovering it's place in the commercial airplane market?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, llagonne66 thinks it will take Boeing 1-3 years to recover if the MAX flies again and 5-10 if it doesn't. I guess that could be right, if all those backed-up MAX orders come through in a big hurry.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by OldnGrounded
What do people think about Boeing's prospects for recovering its place in the commercial airplane market?
What do people think about Boeing's prospects for recovering its place in the commercial airplane market?
Boeing's plight was self-inflicted (with the help of a neutered FAA). They built an aircraft that was unsafe for Airline Operations which resulted in hundreds of fatalities.
Only Boeing can fix Boeing. But to accomplish that, Boeing will need (and will certainly be granted) US Gov subsidies and/or funding of some sort even if it is disguised as Military research program funding.
It is very unlikely that 400+ brand new B737 MAX airframes and 450 odd used B737MAX airframes will be junked due to costs involved. So eventually an FAA sponsored fix will be agreed upon by the various foreign Civil Aviation Regulatory bodies.
The FAA's previous gold-standard aircraft certification standard has also now been indelibly tarnished. That blemish will take some time to swallow for all involved.
At the moment, they are just arguing over the "price" that the USA and FAA will pay for international re-certification of the MAX and the quid pro quo involved with future cross-recognition of aircraft certification by said foreign Civil Aviation Regulatory bodies (read FAA, EASA, CAAC, etc).
There is also the impeding possible problem of how does the B777X get certified. The FAA will not want their hands "burnt" twice therefore they will want everyone to see how they certify that "new" aircraft. Not much composite on the present B777 so that plus folding wingtips could take the B777X far enough away from claiming "grandfather rights". 2020 could turn out to be an "interesting" year.
But to accomplish that, Boeing will need (and will certainly be granted) US Gov subsidies
Controversial, moi?
The FAA's previous gold-standard aircraft certification standard......
The then Air Registration Board's chief test pilot flew it and refused to certify it claiming the rudder forces were too high for the average line pilot in the event of an outboard engine failure. He was backed by Lord Brabazon, the head of the ARB.
To gain British certification, if I recall correctly, Boeing fitted a bigger rudder which, funny enough, they retrofitted, free of charge, to aircraft already flying.
A later model had an undesirable pitch up approaching the stall. The FAA certified it, the British wouldn't. A stick pusher was fitted and, similarly to the bigger rudder, Boeing retrofitted the pusher to aircraft already flying.
Gold standard indeed.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: MTL
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Based on the "too big to fail" principle, US politicians will not allow such a strategic business to go down the drain.
So, they will recover.
How long will it take ?
IMHO, it will depend on whether the Max can be re-certified.
If the Max is re-certified, it will be one to three years.
If not, a five to ten years timeframe looks reasonable (in this last case, they will be heavily supported by the US DoD with a big additional order of tankers).
So, they will recover.
How long will it take ?
IMHO, it will depend on whether the Max can be re-certified.
If the Max is re-certified, it will be one to three years.
If not, a five to ten years timeframe looks reasonable (in this last case, they will be heavily supported by the US DoD with a big additional order of tankers).
I recall that the FAA certified the B707.
The then Air Registration Board's chief test pilot flew it and refused to certify it claiming the rudder forces were too high for the average line pilot in the event of an outboard engine failure. He was backed by Lord Brabazon, the head of the ARB.
To gain British certification, if I recall correctly, Boeing fitted a bigger rudder which, funny enough, they retrofitted, free of charge, to aircraft already flying.
A later model had an undesirable pitch up approaching the stall. The FAA certified it, the British wouldn't. A stick pusher was fitted and, similarly to the bigger rudder, Boeing retrofitted the pusher to aircraft already flying.
Gold standard indeed.
The then Air Registration Board's chief test pilot flew it and refused to certify it claiming the rudder forces were too high for the average line pilot in the event of an outboard engine failure. He was backed by Lord Brabazon, the head of the ARB.
To gain British certification, if I recall correctly, Boeing fitted a bigger rudder which, funny enough, they retrofitted, free of charge, to aircraft already flying.
A later model had an undesirable pitch up approaching the stall. The FAA certified it, the British wouldn't. A stick pusher was fitted and, similarly to the bigger rudder, Boeing retrofitted the pusher to aircraft already flying.
Gold standard indeed.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely not ? After all the complaints from Boeing and the US government about subsidies to Airbus that would be hypocrisy. It would be unfair competition if other countries aerospace industries have to compete with a state subsidised company, tariffs could be put in place in retaliation and complaints made to the WTO.
Forgive me if I missed an irony tag.
The B707 had to have a fairing placed at the underside rear of the fuselage to help with the excessive rudder forces before it was allowed on the british register. Other airlines demanded the same modification before delivery.
The model with the undesirable pitch up was the B747, which was also modified before being allowed on the British register.
This is how it should be done, an independent regulator with proper resources, free from commercial pressures tests and certifies new aircraft. I doubt D.P. Davies would have accepted the MAX after reviewing the MCAS system.
The model with the undesirable pitch up was the B747, which was also modified before being allowed on the British register.
This is how it should be done, an independent regulator with proper resources, free from commercial pressures tests and certifies new aircraft. I doubt D.P. Davies would have accepted the MAX after reviewing the MCAS system.