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 |
Quite right too. As someone else suggested: it's like comparing a BMW to a Ford.
|
Originally Posted by fantom
(Post 10652265)
Quite right too. As someone else suggested: it's like comparing a BMW to a Ford.
|
Originally Posted by cxorcist
(Post 10652283)
I’ll take an F350 over any BMW everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. 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? |
Nothing to boast about ...
When your main competitor cannot deliver its products, it is quite easy to beat him :rolleyes:
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. |
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). |
Originally Posted by llagonne66
(Post 10652337)
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).
|
Originally Posted by OldnGrounded
(Post 10652330)
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? |
Originally Posted by Easy Street
(Post 10652426)
... while protesting how unfair it is that Airbus gets a state subsidy :)
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. |
Originally Posted by OldnGrounded
(Post 10652330)
What do people think about Boeing's prospects for recovering its place in the commercial airplane market?
As to its place worldwide, well... |
Originally Posted by OldnGrounded
(Post 10652244)
Not really a surprise, but relevant news:
|
Originally Posted by OldnGrounded https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gifWhat 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 |
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. |
Originally Posted by krismiler
(Post 10652691)
Surely not ? After all the complaints from Boeing and the US government about subsidies to Airbus that would be hypocrisy.
And yes, this is hypocrisy. |
Originally Posted by llagonne66
(Post 10652337)
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). |
Originally Posted by M.Mouse
(Post 10652774)
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. |
Originally Posted by krismiler
(Post 10652691)
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.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...lla_N707JT.jpg 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. |
Originally Posted by llagonne66
(Post 10652332)
Whatever the outcome, this Max story is good neither for Boeing nor for Airbus.
|
We all know the Max is currently going nowhere. Meanwhile, today I photographed what turns out to be the last 737NG to come off the production line, PH-BCL. So, if Max production is halted and no more 737NGs are to be built (at least for civil airline use), what will Boeing do to address the market for similar sized aircraft?
|
United Airlines have the MAX off their schedules until June this year, the groundings are being pushed further out in increasing amounts of time. When it was first grounded, the return to service was expected to be within a much shorter time frame and the extensions were done a lot closer to the original target. The days have turned into weeks and the weeks have turned into months. Not good.
|
Originally Posted by krismiler
(Post 10652691)
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.
|
Originally Posted by donotdespisethesnake
(Post 10653224)
Why do you think it is bad for Airbus?
|
Originally Posted by bulldog89
(Post 10653452)
The US has never been interested in fair competition. Sometimes, fairness is better honored in sporting competition. |
Originally Posted by Mk 1
(Post 10653670)
In reality its bad for everybody. When you have one manufacturer, you have complacency. Competition does improve the breed.
|
Originally Posted by Mk 1
(Post 10653670)
In reality its bad for everybody. When you have one manufacturer, you have complacency.
Rather than comparing size of company, I'd prefer to see comparisons based on safety and reliability. |
Originally Posted by Chas2019
(Post 10653091)
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.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...8%22%5D%7D&r=3 Unless the Congress changes the law, nothing in the type certification process will change for the better. I am concerned we are only beginning to see the negative effects of the transition to the ODA system. |
Originally Posted by donotdespisethesnake
(Post 10653873)
And yet in this reality of this case, Boeing took shortcuts with safety in order to compete with Airbus. The facts are the opposite of your assertion.
It is expected by manufacturers to occasionally take shortcuts, and it is expected by regulators and authorities to keep them in check. My impression/opinion is that Boeing became complacent because of their position and their influence over the FAA. |
Originally Posted by bulldog89
(Post 10653452)
The US has never been interested in fair competition. |
Originally Posted by RickNRoll
(Post 10654368)
Trump now says only deals that are a win for the US.
|
Originally Posted by bulldog89
(Post 10654886)
Who's going to sign deals which will only benefit the counterpart? Not me for sure... |
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:46. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.