Airbus Still No 1

[Brown1950 67]

Gus

 

Emirates will operate A380 no frills service round the world commencing mid-2007

London-Sydney £ 225.00 return

London-New York £125.00 return

London - Hong Kong £ 175.00 return

 

 

Chris

[Gus 97]

Chris

If it happens at those prices it will be fantastic, time will tell

[Samsonite 181]

The real point is:How on earth could Boeing, effectively the only manufacturer of large passenger jets in the world at that time, let it go to anyone??????

 

No wonder the yanks are spewing sour grapes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, no. At one time there was Lockheed and McDonell/Douglas. As I said a few message back, many in the industry believe it was Airbus' practice of selling below cost, something they could do with the financial backing of 4 governments, that made Lockheed decide to stop commerical passenger aircraft production and drove Douglas to merger with Boeing. There was period when Boeing was resting on their laurels, granted, plus the period where Lockheed pulled out of the business and Douglas' fortunes were failing. That has all passed now and Airbus is going to have to do more than just cut prices to get the business. Such things as building an airplane on time and that performs as advertised, something they haven't been able to do recently. Doesn't look like the A380 is going to be any different than the A340 in terms of performance sold vs reality.

As I have said before, something like 60-70% of the air freight is carried in the belly of passenger aircraft and the money is in hauling cargo, not passengers. One reason the A320 and its derivatives sell well is they can carry more cargo than the 737. BTW, the 5,000th 737 is being built, as we speak, and there are over another 1,000 Firm orders, and more rolling in all the time.

I'm sure Boeing is working on a replacement of the 737, and as they have the experience and technology in place as a result of the 787 and Sonic Cruiser programs, they will probably deliver it before Airbus can replace the A320.

787 orders skyrocketed after Airbus showed their plans for the A350.

After the A380 rolled out 747 orders almost doubled.

Airbus is going to hard pressed to compete over the next several years.

[Samsonite 181]

As Samsonite so spectacularly demonstrated, the Boeing bully boys can't even predict correctly whats going to

Have to Say, Mr. Airbus, that I resent being the target of your hyperbole. The prediction was mine, based on what I had been reading in the press, AND had both firms been counting apples instead of apples and oranges, I would have been correct. In my mind if the ink wasn't dry on the contract by midnight December 31, 2005, then it was NOT a 2005 order. Watch for those same orders to be counted again for their 2006 total. There is an old saying,

what goes around, comes around," and Airbus is about to get theirs.

Cheers, old boy.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Samsonite,

 

Now ,now!

 

BTW, the 5,000th 737 is being built, as we speak, and there are over another 1,000 Firm orders, and more rolling in all the time.

I'm sure Boeing is working on a replacement of the 737, and as they have the experience and technology in place as a result of the 787 and Sonic Cruiser programs, they will probably deliver it before Airbus can replace the A320.

787 orders skyrocketed after Airbus showed their plans for the A350.

After the A380 rolled out 747 orders almost doubled.

Airbus is going to hard pressed to compete over the next several years.

 

Another worthless prediction and even for all that, those damn Frogs are still building and selling more aircraft! Merde!

 

Tom

 

p.s. I understand Etihad had to delay launching their Manchester service. Something to do with the delay in the delivery dates of their new 777s due to last years strike at Boeing.

[Samsonite 181]

Another worthless prediction and even for all that, those damn Frogs are still building and selling more aircraft! Merde!

 

p.s. I understand Etihad had to delay launching their Manchester service. Something to do with the delay in the delivery dates of their new 777s due to last years strike at Boeing.

Yeah, they are currently kings of the single aisle market. Won't last much longer.

 

As you pointed out it was a Machinist Strike, something Boeing couldn't control,

versus Airbus' purposeful misrepresentations.

The ultimate difference between the companies is Boeing is Engineer driven, Airbus is Sales/Marketing driven.

Very common in Sales driven organizations for the "mouth to write a check the body can't cash."

[echster 1]

The real point is:How on earth could Boeing, effectively the only manufacturer of large passenger jets in the world at that time, let it go to anyone??????

 

No wonder the yanks are spewing sour grapes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, I am a yank. No, I am not spewing sour grapes. I love all aircraft! don't get me wrong, there are some folks here let the A vs B thing get to them, just not me.

 

To answer your question, Boeing simply got complacent. That, poor management, and one very poor decision allowed Airbus to one-up them on a few deals. From there it snow-balled.

[echster 1]

A much easier and more accurate reflection of both companies' fortunes, or in Boeing's case, misfortunes, can be judged by the actual number of aircraft that they delivered to customers in 2005. What are the figures? 30%? 40% more aircraft delivered by Airbus and will continue along those lines for the next couple of years at least. As for future markets the Indians and Chinese will have a bigger say in that than Qantas, BA, Cathay etc.

I assure you, mate, you place too much emphasis on deliveries.

 

Let's say we both delivered pizzas. You delivered 30% more than I last year. That's cool with me because I was more likely in Pattaya for an extended time! However, you also happened to sell 30% more cheese pizzas (A320 series) than I at a profit margin of $1/per. I, though, sold 70% more 3 toppings pizzas (B777/B747 series) than you at a profit margin of $5/per.

 

Tell me, which profit margin would you rather have? It's OK, I already know the answer!

 

[CheshireTom 1,377]

echster,

 

I assure you, mate, you place too much emphasis on deliveries.

 

Some guys around here seem to put way too much emphasis on wishful thinking.

 

The pizza analogy looks great except that your pizzas aren't more profitable, just more expensive.

 

Anyway, if you bought EADS shares a year ago you would be sitting on a tidy 50% profit now so somebody else thinks there is good value to be had in cheese baguettes.

 

Tom

[Sa-teef 44]

"A much easier and more accurate reflection of both companies' fortunes, or in Boeing's case, misfortunes, can be judged by the actual number of aircraft that they delivered to customers in 2005."

 

Hardly misfortunes Tom. They both had record years for sales in units. And Airbus should be proud of their accomplishments in such a short period of time. But what you were first quoting were "SALES" and not deliveries. And when it takes until the 17th or 18th of January to report the sales in units by Airbus some of us might get a bit suspicious of the numbers? But then those frogs wouldn't fudge the numbers, would they?

 

"The announcement took the aerospace industry by surprise, as Airbus disclosed that it had secured 1,111 gross new orders in 2005 compared with the 1,029 claimed earlier this month by Boeing and said it had booked 38 per cent of the orders in December alone after trailing Boeing for the rest of the year. "

 

And eckster is right on the mark in regard to the sales mix of the two companies.

 

"According to Airbus figures the European group won 52 per cent of the world market by units, but Boeing won 55 per of the market by value, as it beat Airbus in a series of key strategic sales campaigns for long-haul jets at leading airlines including Qantas, Cathay Pacific and Emirates and won over some traditional Airbus customers such as Air Canada.

 

The twin engine Boeing 777 large capacity long-haul jet established a wide lead over the rival four engine Airbus A340 and Boeing also led in the toughly contested segment for long-range, medium capacity 250-300 seat jets, where its 787 Dreamliner, which went on sale at the beginning of 2004, outsold the rival A350, which came to the market a year later. They will enter commercial service in 2008 and 2010 respectively.

 

Airbus maintained its overall lead by units by winning record orders for its A320 family of narrow body, single aisle jets, which with 918 new orders, many from start-up low cost carriers around the world, accounted for 82.6 per cent of its orders last year.

 

Boeing sold 569 of the rival 737 family, which accounted for 56.8 per cent of its net orders."

 

A record sales year like this should keep a lot of workers worldwide busy for years to come.

 

~Sa-teef

[Sa-teef 44]

"Anyway, if you bought EADS shares a year ago you would be sitting on a tidy 50% profit "

 

You keep moving the goal posts to suit your argument, Tom!

 

First it's sales, then deliveries, now share value!

 

The Boeing shareholders can only muster a modest 38% market price rise in 2005 I'm afraid! You Euros are just too good it seems!

 

 

~Sa-teef

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Sa-teef,

 

You keep moving the goal posts to suit your argument, Tom!  First it's sales, then deliveries, now share value!

 

Please do try to keep up at the back! First it was orders, then deliveries then shareholder value. It's better to address one thing at a time to give folk such as yourself an opportunity to understand and perhaps join in. The fact that you feel confident enough to now contribute, albeit cut and paste jobs, would seem to indicate that was at least partially successful.

 

The Boeing shareholders can only muster a modest 38% market price rise in 2005 I'm afraid!

 

Maybe they should invest in pizza futures.

 

You Euros are just too good it seems!

 

That's the first really perceptive thing you've contributed. There's hope for you yet.

 

Tom

[CheshireTom 1,377]

sa-teef,

 

But then those frogs wouldn't fudge the numbers, would they?

 

That's really quite distasteful and is more appropriate to the off-topic section, however, it speaks volumes about your prejudices. :unsure

 

Tom:

[Sa-teef 44]

Do you ever post any response that is not insulting to others Tom?

 

I only joined the conversation because I just saw the string, Tom Taleung. Or do you prefer Tom joi nuu?

 

 

" It's better to address one thing at a time to give folk such as yourself an opportunity to understand and perhaps join in. The fact that you feel confident enough to now contribute, albeit cut and paste jobs, would seem to indicate that was at least partially successful."

 

I was posting positive things about both the companies. I think it's GOOD to have two successful companies competing in the market. The consumer will win in the long run IMO.

 

 

You are just such an arrogant ass sometimes Tom....

 

 

~Sa-teef

[Sa-teef 44]

Thank you Hub for showing both of us how silly we can get sometimes!

 

~Steve

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Hub,

 

Funny, I don't see a similar rise in your hackles when the term "septics" is used (which you could argue is a bit more defamatory)?

 

Judging by the responses on this thread, don't you mean sceptics?

 

My 777 is bigger than your A-340. Na nana na naaa!

 

Maybe so ..... but my A340 can get you to BKK a damn sight quicker than your 777!

 

Tom

[CheshireTom 1,377]

sateef,

 

I was posting positive things about both the companies. I think it's GOOD to have two successful companies competing in the market.

 

My unreserved apologies. I didn't realise that "But then those frogs wouldn't fudge the numbers, would they?" was meant to be taken in a positive vein.

 

Tom joi nuu?

 

Sorry, mate; you've got me there. I haven't got a clue what that means, nor even what language it's meant to be in.

 

Anyway, its nice to see that the guys in Seattle have got something to cheer about this morning. Well done, the Seahawks.

 

Tom

Edited January 23, 2006 by CheshireTom

[echster 1]

Maybe so ..... but my A340 can get you to BKK a damn sight quicker than your 777!

I assure you, dude, the B777 is faster than an A340 in both max and cruise speeds.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

I assure you, dude, the B777 is faster than an A340 in both max and cruise speeds.

And I can assure you, dude, (and as you are well aware) that the A345 will still get Hub to LOS a lot quicker than a 777.

[nidnoyham 30]

These Airbuses- Do we still build the wing in U.K and ship them over to France ? Seems like a modern day Stonehenge thing.

 

I remember the Chairman of Air Canada, having to resign over a dodgy deal with Airbus. He ended up living in the South of France. Last I heard of him, he was head of I.A.T.A. What do these blokes put down on their job applications ?

Edited January 23, 2006 by nidnoyham

[BigDUSA 71]

sa-teef,

 

 

 

That's really quite distasteful and is more appropriate to the off-topic section, however, it speaks volumes about your prejudices. :unsure

 

Tom:

I think it's kind of 'special' when Tom refers to other people's prejudices. Tom's always good for a laugh.

[bobgod 5]

Total bullshit about "my aeroplane is faster than yours"

Limiting factor is the speed of sound.They all hit the wall at approx mach.82

so the only way to go quicker is get higher. thats where the technology is, along

with fuel economy.

It is well known that the 4 engine Airbus[340?] is notoriously slow on approach and holds up all the aircraft behind it on letdown.

As an engineer who has worked on both brands,I would take the Boeing everytime.

Ask someone who knows

[CheshireTom 1,377]

bobgod,

 

The question wasn't about which aeroplane was faster, it was about which one can get Hub from the (east coast) US to BKK quickest. The straightforward answer is Thai's A345. However, should he at some point in the future decide to change his mongering destination to Islamabad then the 777LR would be the way to go.

 

Tom

[CheshireTom 1,377]

nidnoyham,

 

Yep, the wings are still built at Broughton, just outside Chester and for most aircraft types they are flown direct from Broughton to Toulouse in Beluga super-transporters. The wings for the new A380, however, are moved to Toulouse by a combination of road/barge/ship.

 

 

That is not really Stonehenge stuff since the aircraft components (wings, fuselage, tail etc) arrive at Toulouse as part of a JIT manufacturing process already stuffed with all the electronics and gizmos and are merely sellotaped together at the French facility. It's a pretty outlandish concept, so-much-so that Boeing has decided to go down the same route and build the components for the 787 in places such as Japan and merely assemble the bits together at its Washington state facility. As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!

 

Tom

[Samsonite 181]

bobgod,

 

The question wasn't about which aeroplane was faster, it was about which one can get Hub from the (east coast) US to BKK quickest. The straightforward answer is Thai's A345. However, should he at some point in the future decide to change his mongering destination to Islamabad then the 777LR would be the way to go.

 

Tom

What our friend Tom, aka, Mr. Airbus, has failed to mention, if you haven't figured it out, is the only plane flying non-stop to BKK from the East Coast of the U.S., or the West Coast for that matter, is a Thai Air A340-500. However, should a B777 be added to the schedule on the same route, it would probably end up a draw or a slight advantage to the B777. The airlines usually schedule the flights with such a large "fudge factor" that either aircraft would get there on time. If it were a direct race, the B777 would beat the A340, IHMO.