Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on November 07, 2006, 12:11:20 PM
-
http://www.komotv.com/news/4583192.html
Could be the start of some rough days ahead for Airbus. Interesting to note that on the Boeing webpage doesn't even mention that the 777 orders are a result of A380 cancelations. A classy move and an example of Boeing behaving respectfully in light of Airbus difficulty. No need to gloat over the euro planemakers production problems. Im sure if this were reversed, Airbus would be rubbing Boeings nose in it.
Just my opinion.
-
While Airbus clearly has problems with A380 production streamlining the plane itself is on schedule in final trials for certification. Also while this is a big economic setback for Airbus they still sold more planes so far in 2006 than any previous year.
Am sure Boeing would love to "rub Airbus's nose it in", but it might look petty and unprofessional to potential buyers, so it's bad for business.
-
Fedex didn't like all the delays with the 380
photo (http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/search/photo_search.php?id=00006731)
They built all those special commanders for nothing
-
Originally posted by Viking
While Airbus clearly has problems with A380 production streamlining the plane itself is on schedule in final trials for certification. Also while this is a big economic setback for Airbus they still sold more planes so far in 2006 than any previous year.
Am sure Boeing would love to "rub Airbus's nose it in", but it might look petty and unprofessional to potential buyers, so it's bad for business.
But nothing prevent the usual O'club *beeeeeppp* to do it here.
-
Originally posted by straffo
But nothing prevent the usual O'club *beeeeeppp* to do it here.
:cry
-
aaah! looking like a Boeing vs. Airbus thread!
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
Fedex didn't like all the delays with the 380
photo (http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/search/photo_search.php?id=00006731)
They built all those special commanders for nothing
rofl lookit that little twin next to the jetliner!!!:O :O :eek: :eek: :D :D :aok CUTE!!! ^_^
-
commander is another word for loader(seen below)
(http://www.airbusnorthamerica.com/img/newsroom/gallery/a300600f_fedex_mr.jpg)
-
Airbus should just cancel the 380 and stop the bleeding. It's never going to make money, IMO.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
Airbus should just cancel the 380 and stop the bleeding. It's never going to make money, IMO.
Emirates looks to make a profit from the 380
proof (http://www.emirates.com/a380/news_emiratesLargestOperator.asp)
-
Qantas cut a deal and ordered more 380's
-
Boeing stock price jumped up over $4.00 a share yesterday upon yet another Airbus A380 order cancellation, this time by FedEx, who agreed with Boeing to buy 15 777 in lieu of the now-canceled 10 A380 freighters.
At this point, it appears that Airbus will out-sell (and deliver) more aircraft in 2006 than Boeing once again, but these were for orders taken years ago..what will the future hold for Airbus on deliveries in 2008/2009/2010? None of this looks good for Airbus.
-
Welcome to yesterday:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=191532
You're getting sloppy Rip.
-
Are you by any chanse employed by Boeing Mr. Ripsnort? :D
-
Originally posted by Viking
Welcome to yesterday:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=191532
You're getting sloppy Rip.
I was on vacation yesterday, sort of...I took the day off to shoot two events, a flag ceremony at a local school and a wrestling meet. Thanks for the link!
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Are you by any chanse employed by Boeing Mr. Ripsnort? :D
Since 1979.. :)
-
The A380 is a prestige product for Airbus, not its bread and butter plane. Currently Airbus has orders for 2061 planes, 1575 of which are A320 series.
-
Originally posted by Viking
The A380 is a prestige product for Airbus, not its bread and butter plane. Currently Airbus has orders for 2061 planes, 1575 of which are A320 series.
Boeings cash cow was the 747 for many, many years. Airbus intended for the A380 to play that role for its company.
-
I think its too soon to give the 380 the thumbs down. The highly successful 747 has had years to build its market and dominate it. Lets see in 5-10 years time how many airbus sell, and if they manage to make any real money on it.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I think its too soon to give the 380 the thumbs down. The highly successful 747 has had years to build its market and dominate it. Lets see in 5-10 years time how many airbus sell, and if they manage to make any real money on it.
I agree, however I was correcting Vikings analyst saying the A380 was about prestige...you don't spend that kind of R&D money for "prestige"...you spend it to increase your revenue and make it your cash cow. Boeing sells more 737 aircraft (A320 equivelent) than any other of its fleet, but the money maker is the 747.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Boeings cash cow was the 747 for many, many years. Airbus intended for the A380 to play that role for its company.
I'm sure that's correct, but it is not what made Airbus the market leader of commercial aircraft. The A380 may very well become a cash cow for Airbus, but the company's future does not depend on it, unlike the 747 which was a big gamble for Boeing … and an equally big success. The A380 will never match the 747's success; it can only hope to replace it.
IMHO.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I'm sure that's correct, but it is not what made Airbus the market leader of commercial aircraft. The A380 may very well become a cash cow for Airbus, but the company's future does not depend on it, unlike the 747 which was a big gamble for Boeing … and an equally big success. The A380 will never match the 747's success; it can only hope to replace it.
IMHO.
Only because Boeing was not subsidized by government(s). It took a gamble, and had it not paid off, there would be no Boeing today. OTOH, Airbus could roll that dice knowing the taxpayers of the EU would bankroll any failure. Its nice to have an uncle with money!
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Only because Boeing was not subsidized by government(s). It took a gamble, and had it not paid off, there would be no Boeing today. OTOH, Airbus could roll that dice knowing the taxpayers of the EU would bankroll any failure. Its nice to have an uncle with money!
Indierctly Boeing is subsidized by the government.
-
Well, probably why not that many people are buying A-380's is because airports are now required to extend the runways if they are allowing A-380's to land / takeoff there. Kennedy International itself had to extend its runways by (I think) 4,500 feet to accommodate the A-380.
Also, I see this plane almost the same as the Concorde. A few nations will buy it, yet in the end it will be so hazardous they have to ditch the fleet.
-
The A380's main marked is in Asia, not in Europe or the US.
-
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Denholm
Also, I see this plane almost the same as the Concorde. A few nations will buy it, yet in the end it will be so hazardous they have to ditch the fleet.
What is hazardous about the A380?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Indierctly Boeing is subsidized by the government.
Boeing receives no money for commerical aircraft R&D, and it bids on potential military projects just like other competitors. It is not directly subsidized by its government like Airbus, thus Boeings gamble on the 747 was a true gamble, where Airbus's gamble on the A380 is no gamble at all considering that 4 countries are there to bail them out with taxpayers money.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Boeing receives no money for commerical aircraft R&D, and it bids on potential military projects just like other competitors. It is not directly subsidized by its government like Airbus, thus Boeings gamble on the 747 was a true gamble, where Airbus's gamble on the A380 is no gamble at all considering that 4 countries are there to bail them out with taxpayers money.
This is an intersting read: http://www.cei.org/gencon/004,04679.cfm
-
Originally posted by Viking
The A380's main marked is in Asia, not in Europe or the US.
Well then excuse me, I read the news and that's what they said. They were using an example of how much runway would be required....
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
This is an intersting read: http://www.cei.org/gencon/004,04679.cfm
I have to agree 100% with this statement from the article:
The question of military contracts as subsidy points to fundamentally different mindsets on the two sides of the Atlantic
We see R&D contracts as something you bid on, with others bidding as well. You win the contract, and you are paid upon delivery of what it was you bid on. That's called free enterprise.
Over in Europe, I'm not sure how their thinking process is...I mean, its not like Boeing was given money and told it was a sole contractor, no...we had to bid on it with others trying to win that bid as well.
Regarding money made off the contracts, well DUH! If I sell computers and TV's and my computer sales make more money, and I decide to re-invest that money to make better TV's that will sell, that IS NOT subsidy! That's called good investment of money earned!
-
Well.. when The US government has a tradition of selecting american suppliers for lets say.. fighter jets. Then is it really free enterprise that reigns, or is that a form of subsidies?... When a US firm is guaranteed to get the contract? How many manufacturers of fighter jets are there in the US atm?
I can think of LM and Boeing.
Who will pick up the tab if any development on aircraft goes way over budget? LM/Boeing or the US government?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Well.. when The US government has a tradition of selecting american suppliers for lets say.. fighter jets. Then is it really free enterprise that reigns, or is that a form of subsidies?... When a US firm is guaranteed to get the contract? How many manufacturers of fighter jets are there in the US atm?
For what its worth, Boeing does not have any jet fighter contracts other than what it picked up from other US companies that have gone under (McDonnel Douglas F-18 for example). We are a subcontractor to others, but we've lost two bids in the past 10 years to companies who work statement is primarily 95% military contracts, where as our work is comprised of about 80% commercial.
Due to the proprietary nature of our technology vs Europe's technology when it comes to fighter aircraft, wouldn't you think that our Gov't would go to the company that provides superior technology? (I'm not talking strictly about aircraft design, but rather avionics and radar capabilities) Take a look at over the past 40 years of military aircraft sales around the free-world, pre-1989 USSR, and I'll bet you see that the sophisticated aircraft that sold best were US made. (Shrugs)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Who will pick up the tab if any development on aircraft goes way over budget? LM/Boeing or the US government?
99% of R&D contracts with US companies and US Gov'ts regarding aircraft have a Cost plus fixed fee-type contract (or Incentive fee, but still a cost based contract) so if the winning company runs over budget, they don't get more money, they eat it. The only the the taxpayer "eats it" is if a project is canceled, then the return for investment is passed off to the taxpayer, in other words money spend for R&D does not return a feasible product in use for national defense.
-
Well Ripsnort, you are half right.
US jet manufacturers have one HUGE benefit. When an american supplier deliver to let say the US Airforce then they deliver not 50 or a 100 jets of the same brand... but alot more. That gives that supplier a large production line and can drive cost per unit down compared to what a european (or other) can manage. That low cost is a huge sales pitch. Would the F16 for example have been an export success if it had not been guaranteed a huge order for the US govenmenent.. answer... NO.
Benefit of numbers.... nothing more.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
http://www.komotv.com/news/4583192.html
Could be the start of some rough days ahead for Airbus. Interesting to note that on the Boeing webpage doesn't even mention that the 777 orders are a result of A380 cancelations. A classy move and an example of Boeing behaving respectfully in light of Airbus difficulty. No need to gloat over the euro planemakers production problems. Im sure if this were reversed, Airbus would be rubbing Boeings nose in it.
Just my opinion.
sounds like yer licking yer chops over this
-
Didn't you get the memo? yurop = bad bad baaaad!!!
Booo!
-
I think it is rather obvious that Airbus is receiving more government/state support than Boeing. The only question is: Is it wrong?
Europeans have always been willing to use subsidizing to strengthen/protect our industry. If we want to give out "free" airliners to the world is that not our prerogative?
-
If we want to give out "free" airliners to the world is that not our prerogative?
====
You want to see Mustangs over Berlin, again?
:rolleyes:
-
Yes please! I love Mustangs! ;)
-
do Boeing employees get into the Boeing Field museum free?
that place owns
-
Boeing is subsidized through the back door by the US government. It receives R&D grants, huge tax breaks and cheap finance.
China's purchase of airliners was subsidized through loan guarantees issued by the US tax payer funded Export-Import Bank.
At the end of the day Boeing and Airbus are huge employers in their respective countries, and both receive aid from their respective host countries. No objective (i.e. non-employee of Boeing since 1979) person could argue differently.
All is fair in love, war and business... except when US companies is on the receiving end of 'unfair' protective measures? Sounds like sour grapes to me.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Boeing is subsidized through the back door by the US government. It receives R&D grants, huge tax breaks and cheap finance.
China's purchase of airliners was subsidized through loan guarantees issued by the US tax payer funded Export-Import Bank.
At the end of the day Boeing and Airbus are huge employers in their respective countries, and both receive aid from their respective host countries. No objective (i.e. non-employee of Boeing since 1979) person could argue differently.
All is fair in love, war and business... except when US companies is on the receiving end of 'unfair' protective measures? Sounds like sour grapes to me.
The last "R&D grant we received was for $500,000 for a Flywheel Energy storage system in 1998!. :lol :lol
Sour grapes? No, we'll probably own Airbus at the rate they're running their business! :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
The last "R&D grant we received was for $500,000 for a Flywheel Energy storage system in 1998!. :lol :lol
Sour grapes? No, we'll probably own Airbus at the rate they're running their business! :rofl :rofl :rofl
:rofl
-
Fedex T7 (http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/search/photo_search.php?id=00006731)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Sour grapes? No, we'll probably own Airbus at the rate they're running their business! :rofl :rofl :rofl
The last 30 years has seen Airbus take over Boeing's role as the marked leader. Even if the A380 flops Airbus will make more money than Boeing ever did, and that's what's eating at you making you post crap about Airbus at every opportunity.
Perhaps you're afraid that someday more than your software will be French. ;)