ryane946

I came across the actual numbers that show Boeing "downright dominating" Airbus also in the long haul market.

Boeing 787: 235
Airbus A350: 87

Boeing 777: 154
Airbus A340: 15

Boeing 747: 43
Airbus A380: 20
(Lets not forget about Airbus' research and development costs)

Boeing 767: 15 (And potential for 100 as part of USAF tanker deal)
Airbus A330: 0

Totals, Boeing 447, Airbus 122.
(325 more orders for Boeing) X ($150 million an aircraft) = $50 BILLION dollars more than Airbus.
I see Boeing downright dominating in the long haul/freighter market.

SigmaPIlot

Ryane946, from one 22 year old cfi student to another... good job. Just remember to respect your elders, but don't take any crap from them. ---Go Boeing!---

Packer Backer

Numbers don't mean much. You have to look at who is purchasing these new Boeing's. Established carriers will tend to continue purchasing an aircraft even thought they are not happy with the "product" because they are already locked into a Boeing fleet. But new emerging carriers are leaning toward Airbus. Here is a quote from your earlier post, "Why is it that Airbus continues to receive so many orders?" The answer (in my opinion from actually flying both), is that Airbus produces a superior product. Almost the entire Airbus fleet is identical. This provides numerous advantages in training and transition of pilots, mx, and FA's. This fact alone is KILLING Boeing. And even with as many upgrades that Boeing has put into the 737NG, it's still a 737 based on old technology. But what does Boeing continue to do? They continue to create new aircraft models that have nothing in common with earlier models! Why not make the new 787 identical to the 777? It seems they haven't learned their lesson. And if they continue on their current path, Airbus will eventually "dominate" them.

Daniel Larusso

By most accounts, the 777 vs. A330/340 fight has been essentially a stalemate so far. Seems to me that they are both good aircraft but reign in different areas. The 777 seems to be an extremely versatile aircraft that is superior in speed and in markets where a revenue premium is available. The 330/340 can match the 777's speed but not at optimum fuel burn, however it seems to be cheaper to operate. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and we're way past the Boeing-Airbus war being about simply subsidies and the like although they of course play a factor on both sides (Boeing has always gotten indirect subsidies, bully for them). Having flown representatives of both manufacturers, I'd have to agree with the previous poster who said that Boeing has for whatever reason missed the boat on commonality and it's updates of previous models only go so far. They haven't built a 737 yet that has forced Airbus to re-evaluate the basic A320-200 which was built around 1988 or so. If ryanne wants people to take him seriously, he should post his numbers in a realistic context. If one were to believe him, Airbus launched an entirely new airframe(with the r & d he spoke of) with only 20 orders. The 380 is a new airframe, it won't get many new orders until it proves itself in service. A similar trend will likely hit the 787 as it enters the flight test phase, in the end it's likely the follow-on versions of these aircraft will sell better than the originals. At least one carrier, Fedex. has publicly said that they're counting on this to get cheap pax versions of the A380 to convert into freighters down the line.

Outside of the non-777 cockpit the 787 is a huge step in the right direction for Boeing. That said, let's be honest; if Airbus was proposing a predominately composite airplane with electric generators in charge of engine starting(2 gens required), pneumatics/pressurization, anti-icing, etc, most would say that they were nuts and wouldn't want to be the first to fly the bird. Many people are still upset that the 380 uses 540 kva generators and only has inboard reversers-rather innocous things consider the leaps on the 787. Listening to the reviews of the bleedless engines from the manufactures, it seems that the inital advantage isn't that great, if any at all, because of the added weight and rotational speed required by having two engine driven generators per engine and gearing the generators for the pneumatics and whatnot to the engine which hadn't been previously done. Those reports all availible in AW & ST since ryanne seems to be so sensitive to those who criticize his opinion. The real leap and advantage for Boeing seems to be getting an initial jump on optimizing this technology for later variants, 737 variants, and possible 777 changes along the lines of the A330 vs. A350. With only two major manufacturer s of aircraft left, I think the 787 moves position Boeing well to hold a 50% share of the steady state market going forward which wasn't a sure thing previously given the A320's sucess vs. the 737NG, the A380's relative dominance in orders vs. the 747-400 in recent years, the A330-200's dominance of the 767-300ER in recent orders, all in the landscape of the 330/340 holding basically even with the 777 in overall orders(ATW if you're interested ryanne).

Going forward, I think the battle will be pretty much even but interesting. The 787 will provide the platform for a new array of Boeing products, and will exceed A350 orders but not by the margin that appears now due to deep launch discount/incentives from Boeing. The 787 will likely marginilize 777-200 variant orders, but the second iteration of the aircraft will sell strong like the 767-300. The A350 will hold it's own against the 787 particularyly with charter operators, but it's greatest legacy will what it contributes to Airbus' new narrowbody a/c and enhancements of the 330/340 line which will be readily availible since Airbus hasn't changed the fuselage structure at all on the A350. The A380-800 will be similar to the 747-100; it will prove to be a good airframe, but the the next version will be the big seller. If it holds to it's promise of lower DOC than the 747-400, it will likely sell big in the end marginilizing 747-8 sales. Brittish Aero's wing seems to be far more than the initial version needs, meaning that in the end the efficiency offered could potentially dip into some 777-300 or A340-600 sales. I think both Boeing and Airbus will be forced to revamp their narrowbody lines, the only question is who goes first to set the mark. I'd imagine it would be Boeing since the NG really doesn't beat the A320 series and they have a big launch customer in Southwest who already seems to be welcoming the idea. I would suspect Airbus' aircraft would embody lessons learned on the 380/350. In the end, neither manufacturer is going to gain dominance just the same 50% share they hold now. That is unless Boeing decides to become less agressive in the face of the 'shareholder doctrine' that grips so many US companies. The only reason Boeing cares about sanctions on Euro subsidies for the A350 is because they thougth Airbus wouldn't match their 787 offering like Boeing hadn't matched the A380 offerring allowing each a relative monopoly and $$$ for ryanne and the shareholders. When Airbus didn't comply, the trade war started anew and the 747-8 was launched.

ryane946

Apparently my second answer was not simple enough. So I will make this answer even simpler with a story that anyone can understand.

Timmy and Johnny start their own lemonade stands for their 4th grade class. Timmy (Boeing) works hard and uses his business and products to pay for costs associated with running his company. Johnny (Airbus) has rich parents (EADS) who own 80% of his business and give him an "allowance" to make his product cheaper than Timmy.

Last year, Johnny sold only a few more glasses of lemonade (1055 to 1002) than Timmy, and Johnny bragged about how his business was doing better. While the public thought that Johnny was out preforming Timmy, a few smart investers knew the truth. They knew Johhny sold almost all (933 of 1055) SMALL glasses of lemonade (A320), while Timmy sold four times as many (447 to 122) LARGE glasses of lemonade (747,767,777,787) which costs 3 times as much as Johnny small lemonade.

When 4th grade teacher Mrs. Martin (the WTO) realized that Johnny had an unfair advantage, she ordered Johnny's parents to stop subsidizing his lemonade stand, and Timmy's lemonade stand which had been winning before now "downright dominated" the lemonade market on Coconut St. (This has not happened yet, but it should!!)

Does that describe how even with Airbus being subsidized, Boeing is downright dominating the market.

Daniel Larusso

Ryanne, I believe you are the first person to discover in almost of 35 years of operations that Airbus/EADS has recieved subsidies. Next you'll crack the case of the U.S. government funnelling money to Boeing through military sources, I bet the GAO or WTO would be interested in that. BTW, just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that your argument is over there head in some ethereal plain and requires resorting to Dick and Jane style explanations-they just disagree with you.

Neither company is dominating overall, the 'problem' is that Boeing like the U.S. as a whole has lost it's commanding edge of years past in the sale of technolgy which makes for a heck of news story which is why we read about it all the time. Subsidies, formidable competiton, bad ideas, dumb luck or whatever the reason one believes is the case, the global aircraft market is at a relative stalemate and will likely stay that way. BTW, the industry overall is far more reliant on the small, far less glamourous, glasses of lemonade than the big gulps. Lockheed and McD both bet the farm at one time or another on widebodies only to be sorrily dissapointed with the results-but they do make good flying hospitals and freighters though.

Boeing's biggest problem is that like most U.S. companies today, they are gripped by shareholder doctrine: that is their moves are guided primarily by what effect it will have on stock price and the shareholders vs. what it is strategic best for the company. Look at how quick Airbus was to offer the A350 vs. Boeing tippy toeing into a 747-8. Both aircraft are likely not quite as good as their competitors will be, although the A350 is likely(guess) closer to the 787 because of the relative youth of the basic A330/340 airframe vs. the 747. Boeing would basically prefer a steady state market where both manufacturers only really compete on the cheaper capital outlay products like the 737 and A320 series' with the heavy capital products being basic monolopies with Boeing in the 777/787 category and Airbus with the 380. As far as stock prices and balance sheets go, Boeing is probably right in that this is the best deal. Problem is Airbus doesn't think that way, and I don't see them changing their thought process of strategically competing with everything Boeing offers.

The 'downright dominating' stuff you refer to is just rhetoric and both companies have been doing it in the media and at airshows for years. It's all part of the game, get used to it. Good news is that both fly very nicely.

stupidpilot

No gov subsidies just put tariffs on the aircraft equal to the govt subsidies to airbus. Level the playing field.

L'il J.Seinfeld

Yeah and the states of Washington/Kansas et al. have never subsidized Boeing in the form of tax breaks. Get a clue!!

crappypilot

Those subsidies from the states were/are available to any manufacturer. In fact,
Airbus/Eads is taking advantage of tax breaks in Kansas, Louisiana and Mississippi. You don't think that Eads receives extensive state subsidies from the EU? No one ever disputed that Boeing gets subsidies, it is the type and amounts that are in dispute. Boeing receives indirect subsidies, Eads/Airbus receives both direct and indirect subsidies. I'd build airplanes too if I could get a free loan to do it.

OOTSK

I read this earlier today from another web board.

Airbus A380 test wing breaks just below ultimate load target
Flight International 02/16/06

The wing of the Airbus A380 static test specimen suffered a structural
failure below the ultimate load target during trials in Toulouse earlier
this week, but Airbus is confident that it will not need to modify
production aircraft.


"Airbus is downplaying the significant of this failure by saying the unit
which undergoes qualification test is no longer resemble the production
units, implying the later units were beefed up therefore should not be
difficult to pass the NEXT test. "

YIKES!! I don't recall a Boeing ever doing that. Maybe someone can shed some light on this subject.