Has Boeing given up?????

[enigma]

I found this at ATWonline.

"Spirit's aircraft order was Boeing's to lose…and it did
Dateline: Wednesday March 31, 2004

Boeing had the inside track to win Spirit Airlines' order for new aircraft to replace its MD-80 fleet but lost out to a more aggressive and sincere Airbus campaign, Spirit President and CEO Jacob Schorr said yesterday.

Speaking at the International Society of Transport Aircraft Trading 21st annual meeting in Hollywood, Fla., a few weeks after committing for up to 85 A320 family aircraft (ATWOnline, March 22), Schorr said Spirit was predisposed to order 737NGs for growth and to replace its 32 MD-80s owing to its experience operating the former McDonnell Douglas, now Boeing aircraft.

However, Airbus pursued the negotiation "with greater seriousness and diligence," he told attendees, adding that at one point he "thought the Airbus salesman worked for Spirit" owing to his commitment to understanding the carrier's requirements.

Over time, Spirit became convinced that the A320 family offered significant competitive advantages over the 737NG and Boeing ultimately chose not even to submit a final competitive offer. Spirit signed firm MOUs for 35 aircraft comprising 29 A319s and six A321s, with options for 50 more. All are to be powered by IAE V2500s.

Twenty of the aircraft--18 A319s and two A321s--will be leased from ILFC, Chairman and CEO Steven Udvar-Hazy confirmed to ATWOnline. Of the leased aircraft, six A319s and two A320s will arrive in 2005, followed by six A319s in 2006 and 2007, Udvar-Hazy said.

Spirit recently completed a recapitalization in which Oaktree Capital Management acquired a 51% stake in the airline for $125 million. Schorr continues to own around 37%, he told this website.--Perry Flint"

I thought that our people favored Airbus, now Schorr says that he really favored Boeing. I guess this means that I should be cussing Boeing instead of the management dudes at Spirit. Dang em!

enigma

 

[BLUE BAYOU]

We have pictures of "New Air" on 737 aircraft on the walls of our headquarters; prior to what we know now as JetBlue. They had their opportunity then and blew it, they've had more opportunities now and are still blowing it. I believe Boeing needs new blood in its marketing department or at least some incentives from our government to make their product as economically pleasing to potential customers like Airbus can... But you're right, they pretty much snubbed Spirit.

 

[cloudpuncher]

It's sad to see Boeing go by the way side. Everything they did to become prominent in the 60's and 70's displayed innovation. Everything they do now speaks of "followership." They bring out these token ideas for aircraft now....sort of like the Big 3 automakers do to try and compete with the import auto makers. They're constantly reacting, and through inept leadership, have succeeded their dominance in the commercial aircraft business.

I honestly think that losing our lead in aviation is symbolic of losing our lead as a world leader. It's a slow decline, but in our lifetimes, we're watching our country pick up the pace towards going the way of the doodoo bird. We outsource a great deal of intellectual property (for money), we let our elected leaders pander to a minority of squeaky wheels and check writers, they tax us to death and never once speak of reducing spending, we produce some of the weakest minds in the world (relative to other developing nations) with our highschools and colleges (Ref: Greenspan speech several weeks ago), many of the products we produce are not known for quality, we're behind on technology in cellphones, electronics, high capacity semi-conductor chip making, and we have a huge number of people that are increasing the burden on our increasingly social structure. Britain started on the same path about 100 years ago, and I believe we're no different in our trajectory. FOR NOW, we're still the best country in the world, but the trend does not bode well for the future in 2 or 3 generations.

 

[BLUE BAYOU]

Great post... Look at commercial aviation production post-McDonnel-Douglas; Boeing bought out the domestic competition and Lockheed got out of the market. Thereafter, Boeing became the top and only dog-- until Airbus came along. I just don't think the folks in Seattle realized that they'd be in the predicament they're in now. Airbus came out with new products after their A-300/310 were out on the line. The A-319/320/321 then came out, the A-340s to rival the 747/777 and now the A-380s. Boeing came out with an old inherited project, the 717 and the marvelous 777... But other than that, they've been stagnant... Where are their bright minds? Certainly with all that premium blend coffee out there, they should be looking for a way out of this. How much did they lose chasing the supersonic dream again? From the looks of it, the 7E7 is still a ways off. Good luck Boeing, I just don't think your shady Air Force tanker deal is going to pull you out of this one-- especially when, again, they have to use an existing model (767).

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

Don't want to hijack enigma's thread but I concur with cloudpuncher. Realize change is part of life but the changes the US is going through do not seem for the better. With the politicians wanting to open our borders to the south I am concerned people will not want to come here to be "Americans" but rather to see what this country will give them. This will also have a potential impact on our military. There won't be that drive to defend this country for Mom and apple pie.
We can still hang our hat on food and medical "industries". Although it does seem entertainment such as sports or even porn is a big industry for the US. Not a good foundation for the future.
BTW, have fun with the joysticks Spirit!

 

[SMMustang]

BUY LAND!

Farm land specifically. In the 22nd century food will be what oil is to this century. The only thing is that you can't come up with an alternative to food like you do oil. My only fear is that food will become such a crises that there will be people out there robbing crops and such, and farmers will have to sit in their fields with shotguns...and it gets to be such a mess that the gov't turns completely socialist or facist and completely controls the industry...

A socialist gov't owns the cow and tells you who to sell the milk to.

A facist gov't lets you own the cow and buys the milk and then determines who to sell it to.

Either way the farmer gets screwed.

As for the Boeing thing...JB and NWA went through the exact same thing where they kinda had their hearts set on a 737 but ended up with Buses because Airbus really wanted their business and was going to do whatever it takes to get it. You wonder about nepotism and such at Boeing. Are talented people being promoted there or is it so political that ____ get promoted.

 

[enigma]

Don't want to hijack enigma's thread but I concur with cloudpuncher.

You're not hijacking at all. I didn't intend for this to be about spirit, I posted this because as a pro-American I was appalled that Boeing seems to have just given up on the airline market. I worry about our country. How will we defend ourselves when we have no industry?

enigma

 

[bigboeings]

i would like to offer a differing opinion. I believe it is the airlines that are shortsighted and go with Airbus, which up front seems like the better deal. Sure they are much cheaper and I think that is the reason for this rash of airbus purchases. Boeing is interested in making a profit and wont budge much with the price. Also Boeings are built for the long haul. Their airplanes last 30-40yrs. I fly Boiengs all around the world and it seems as though they never break big. Occasionally a breakdown, but these planes are doing 3-4 round trips to the Middle East a week. Ive personally heard from a mechanic who works on airbuses that everyone is happy with them. The pilots cause all the cool stuff and the mechanics cause they have lots of overtime.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[jbucpt]

would like to offer a differing opinion. I believe it is the airlines that are shortsighted and go with Airbus, which up front seems like the better deal. Sure they are much cheaper and I think that is the reason for this rash of airbus purchases. Boeing is interested in making a profit and wont budge much with the price. Also Boeings are built for the long haul.


...reminds me of the auto BIG 3's mentality in the 1970's

 

[enigma]

i would like to offer a differing opinion. I believe it is the airlines that are shortsighted and go with Airbus, which up front seems like the better deal. Sure they are much cheaper and I think that is the reason for this rash of airbus purchases. Boeing is interested in making a profit and wont budge much with the price. Also Boeings are built for the long haul. Their airplanes last 30-40yrs. I fly Boiengs all around the world and it seems as though they never break big. Occasionally a breakdown, but these planes are doing 3-4 round trips to the Middle East a week. Ive personally heard from a mechanic who works on airbuses that everyone is happy with them. The pilots cause all the cool stuff and the mechanics cause they have lots of overtime.
Just my 2 cents.

I don't disagree, BUT if Boeing has those positive attributes, why do they not use them as a marketing tool to their advantage? The article I pasted here indicates that Dr. Schorr initially prefered Boeing. I read that to mean that the order was Boings to lose, and they lost it. Being a cheerleader for American industry, I was disappointed to read the story.

enigma

 

[SMMustang]

The argument isn't who has a better product it is whether Boeing has given up.

From the conversations I've had at NWA and JBLU, the 2 biggest bus users, is that Boeing said this is what we have and this is our offer take it or leave it. Where as Airbus was willing to do their homework and make the deal such that it was more beneficial to the airline.

Personally, when I come across a situation like that I'm going with the company is more interested in customer satisfaction. Isn't that what the airlines are having problems with now?

 

[JustPlane Crazy]

i would like to offer a differing opinion. I believe it is the airlines that are shortsighted and go with Airbus, which up front seems like the better deal. Sure they are much cheaper and I think that is the reason for this rash of airbus purchases. Boeing is interested in making a profit and wont budge much with the price. Also Boeings are built for the long haul. Their airplanes last 30-40yrs. I fly Boiengs all around the world and it seems as though they never break big. Occasionally a breakdown, but these planes are doing 3-4 round trips to the Middle East a week. Ive personally heard from a mechanic who works on airbuses that everyone is happy with them. The pilots cause all the cool stuff and the mechanics cause they have lots of overtime.
Just my 2 cents.

I think you are not looking at this very objectively.

First of all, Airbus is not as old as Boeing and asking a company that is only 30 years old to produce aircrafts that are over that age. So compare apples with apples and not with lemons. A300/310 where built at the same time as B767 and A320/319 where built before Boeing came out with the B737NG.

Boeing aircrafts brake down as much as Airbuses. It is always a matter of opinion. I know Mechanics and Pilots that fused to work on or fly Boeing and say they won’t go back for anything in the world.

The fact is that Boeing killed a very good aircraft (B757) by extending the B737 to a point that they are at a position that this aircraft is at its limits. They wasted a lot of time and money on the sonic cruiser (part of it was found in the drawers of MD when they purchased them). They didn’t listen to heir customers that wanted a bigger B747 and did not get their act together to design a new family of aircrafts that would replace the B717/737/757. Airbus has such a family (A318/319/320/321) and can modify them for the future.

 

[flx757]

Boeing aircrafts brake down as much as Airbuses. It is always a matter of opinion. I know Mechanics and Pilots that fused to work on or fly Boeing and say they won’t go back for anything in the world.
.

 

[LAZYB]

one more time

I think Boeing is considering profitability more important than the vainglorious massive market share battle - at any cost. The military buy, purportedly, was to balance the cyclical behavior of the commercial division.

I'd "heard", but have no evidence, that the delivery slot delay of several years, for the 737, hurt it's competitive nature.

 

[Blue Dude]

Spirit guys,

Get ready for a regular diet of "Boycott Spirit" every time you make a new order or talk about your Airbus purchases. I wrote this in response to just such a thread on another forum about a year ago, just after JetBlue announced a huge option conversion. Sound familiar?

Let's recall a little history, shall we? When JetBlue, as "New Air", was putting together its business plan in 1998 and 1999, David Neeleman, et al, assumed that they would be operating the airline with 737's, probably NG models (-700 or -800). It only made sense to do so. The order was Boeing's to lose. They lost it.

When the time came to talk terms, Boeing was flush with orders and had a years-long backlog. If a dinky little carrier like New Air wanted Boeing planes, they would have to deal on Boeing's terms, and probably delay startup for months or years if they wanted new aircraft. Meanwhile, Airbus was able to fill orders much more quickly and on terms more favorable to the company. They got the order because they were willing to work with a startup airline. Boeing was too preoccupied to bother.

Now, of course, Boeing is parking green airplanes in the desert. They would be much more willing to offer great terms now that JetBlue is an established carrier. Too late. It would cost tens of millions (every dime the airline has ever made and would make for a number of years) to convert from Airbus aircraft to Boeing. It would cost tens of millions just to operate a split fleet of Boeing and Airbus.

So you see, JetBlue isn't making a choice between Boeing and Airbus with this new order. Boeing made the decision for them four or five years ago. Put the blame where it belongs.

I was wrong about only one thing: it looks like Boeing is still too preoccupied to bother. This is a d*mn shame, since the 737 product is outstanding - perfect for the LCC role, probably better than the A320. But if you don't have factory support or a business partner that cares enough even to submit a bid, then what good is it? Airbus is winning the war because they want to win more than Boeing does, and is willing to learn new ways of using their product. Boeing seems stuck in 1984. As with so many other "dinosaur" companies, this is a failure of leadership. We can only weep for the rank and file, who have been betrayed.

We are indeed in trouble if this is the best we can do as a nation. The dinosaurs are defended even though they've lost their way, with misplaced appeals to patriotism, as though all we have to do is "buy America" and everything will be OK. But this rewards failed ideas. At the same time, we punish those who have fresh ideas (e.g. JetBlue pilots are labeled now as "scabs" by some offended entrenched interests for being non-union and having personal - not collective - contracts), though the alternatives are plainly deficient or inappropriate to the circumstances. We tax to nearly to extinction small businesses, S-corporations, in the name of having "the rich pay their fair share". What this really does is protect incumbent corporations who aren't operating as efficiently, and also cut off our major source of new jobs and new ideas. What ever happened to learning from our mistakes?

Nothing would please me more than seeing corporate America pick itself up by its bootstraps and put its game face back on. All of corporate America - Boeing, legacy airlines, everyone. We all would benefit in the long run. But as long as our collective reaction is to enact protectionist policies and artificially shield market incumbents from the effects of their failures of vision, we will all weaken until something snaps. What will result? Reregulation? More micro-management? An isolated America? European-style socialized business? Government needs to get out of the winner-picking business and yes, even let companies fail until the survivors are tough enough to put on their best game. Our system has been kicking a$$ for 200 years and will do so for another 200 and more if it's allowed to work.

Just my humble opinion of course, and hardly inclusive of other problems, like Airbus EU subsidies, or the pathetic state of education in this country. Even with such obstacles, I think we're better than this. But we're not able, indeed not allowed, to prove it. Are we now so enamored of the victim mentality that we've turned into a nation of suckling wimps? God help us, and the next generation, if that's the case.