Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Telegraph: Airbus is largest aircraft manufacturer

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Telegraph: Airbus is largest aircraft manufacturer

Old 2nd Jan 2020, 18:36
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 689
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
OldnGrounded is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2020, 19:02
  #2 (permalink)  

Dog Tired
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,675
Quite right too. As someone else suggested: it's like comparing a BMW to a Ford.
fantom is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2020, 19:29
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 1,933
Originally Posted by fantom View Post
Quite right too. As someone else suggested: it's like comparing a BMW to a Ford.
Iíll take an F350 over any BMW everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.
cxorcist is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2020, 21:13
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 689
Originally Posted by cxorcist View Post

I’ll take an F350 over any BMW everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.
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 its place in the commercial airplane market?

Last edited by OldnGrounded; 3rd Jan 2020 at 00:59. Reason: Typo: Fingers added misplaced apostrophe.
OldnGrounded is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2020, 21:19
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In one of the two main circles
Age: 60
Posts: 93
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.
llagonne66 is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2020, 21:26
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In one of the two main circles
Age: 60
Posts: 93
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).
llagonne66 is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2020, 00:21
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,276
Originally Posted by llagonne66 View Post
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).
... while protesting how unfair it is that Airbus gets a state subsidy
Easy Street is online now  
Old 3rd Jan 2020, 00:45
  #8 (permalink)  
568
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Castletown
Posts: 149
Smile

Originally Posted by OldnGrounded View Post
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?
You are the voice of reason, kudos to you
568 is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2020, 00:57
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 689
Originally Posted by Easy Street View Post
... while protesting how unfair it is that Airbus gets a state subsidy
Of course. I think that's part of a script all new B hires have to memorize. The whole world knows that nation states always find ways to subsidize their most important industries, and I think the complaints have become pro forma -- except for the stubborn few who insist on believing that there's actually such a thing as a "free" market.

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.


OldnGrounded is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2020, 01:08
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 325
Originally Posted by OldnGrounded View Post
What do people think about Boeing's prospects for recovering its place in the commercial airplane market?
With some help from the DoD, it is quite reasonable to predict that Boeing will recover. Period.
As to its place worldwide, well...
Fly Aiprt is online now  
Old 3rd Jan 2020, 06:57
  #11 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 1,950
Originally Posted by OldnGrounded View Post
Not really a surprise, but relevant news:
Havenít they always had that title while the A380 was in production ? I remember similar articles in previous years where the noted the difference between the size of aircraft, and the number produced.
swh is online now  
Old 3rd Jan 2020, 07:21
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: GC Paradise
Posts: 1,033
Originally Posted by OldnGrounded

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).
FlexibleResponse is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2020, 10:21
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Freedom Sound
Posts: 121
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.
esscee is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2020, 10:31
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 609
But to accomplish that, Boeing will need (and will certainly be granted) US Gov subsidies
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.
krismiler is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2020, 12:30
  #15 (permalink)  

Controversial, moi?
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,549
The FAA's previous gold-standard aircraft certification standard......
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.
M.Mouse is online now  
Old 3rd Jan 2020, 19:08
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 325
Originally Posted by krismiler View Post
Surely not ? After all the complaints from Boeing and the US government about subsidies to Airbus that would be hypocrisy.
Indeed.
And yes, this is hypocrisy.

Fly Aiprt is online now  
Old 3rd Jan 2020, 19:21
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: MTL
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by llagonne66 View Post
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).
Eventually Boeing will regain trust and will continue to sell commercial jets. That said the FAA must do its job and certify new jets independent of corporate interference. The performance by D.M. shows the arrogance of CEO when called out.
Chas2019 is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2020, 20:28
  #18 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 1,950
Originally Posted by M.Mouse View Post
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.
Similar on the 737NG, FAA certified it, Europe said no thanks unless you install STS, STS was installed and retrofitted.
swh is online now  
Old 3rd Jan 2020, 23:00
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 75
Posts: 475
Originally Posted by krismiler View Post
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.
President Trump has disabled the WTO by refusing to allow the appointment of judges: Reuters on WTO which looks as though there is consistent policy here.

Forgive me if I missed an irony tag.
FlightlessParrot is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2020, 23:13
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 609
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.
krismiler is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.