You want the A380 to be a failure?

[FL000]

One can't help but think that most of these posts are driven by a juvenile nationalist anti France mentality

...and?

 

[EuroWheenie]

On subsidies

Since noone here seems willing to listen anyway, I wonder why I even bother. However, someone has got to provide a counter point to the ignorance being sprouted here. Do you get all your information from Fox, that beacon of 'fair and balanced' reporting, or are you so dim that you trust the politicians and their spinmeisters?

In any case, here are a couple of links with which to eduate yourselves but before you get to that will you please tell me which part of this sentence you are unable to comprehend:

Under the current agreement, European governments can lend money to cover up to 33% of plane manufacturers' research and development costs. This money is repayable with interest within 17 years

One Side Of The Issue:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/airlines/story/0,1371,1323657,00.html

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2004/10/eu-takes-us-to-wto-over-boeing.php

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3569062.stm

The Other Side Of The Issue:

http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1111300394.html

http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xht...nts_on_Boeing_Airbus_Subsidies&story_id=32603

A Fairly Balanced View:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/207500_boeingeu12.html

One quote from which reads:

The decision heads off the immediate threat of a court case after the United States filed a complaint at the WTO on Oct. 6, a month before the presidential election, saying European government loans to Airbus worth $15 billion amount to illegal subsidies under global trade rules.

The EU countered, saying Boeing has benefited from unfair support worth as much as $23 billion -- including a multibillion-dollar agreement with the state of Washington.

Summa sumarum: Both companies are receiving subsidies, but in different shapes. Hardly surprising, given the number of jobs involved and, especially for Boeing and the USA, the national security implications. In my mind Boeing may just have shot themselves in the foot when they went crying to Washington, and at the end of the day neither of the Big Two stand to gain anything from this juvenile war of words.

 

[bocefus]

No one want to listen to BS Wheenie. Firstly, I never said I "wanted" the -380 to be a failure, I am merely opining as many industry experts do who are looking
much further than the aesthetics of the -380. habubuaza is spot on and is one of the few here who realizes the big picture in the Boeing vs Airbus saga more aptly named, the United States of America vs the United States of Europe. You are in left field on your subsidies info, all Boeing and the US are saying is to level the playing field. The US agreed to allow Airbus to receive subsides back in the 70's, to allow the playing field to be leveled as it was dominated by US manufacturers. Things have changed significantly since then and if Airbus is as successful and profitable as they claim, there is no reason for them to receive free financing to launch new aircraft programs. The US will continue to press the subsidies issue and I will bet you 10-1 that EADS/Airbus will relent, as they know they don't have a case once the BS, propaganda and nationalistic hype is eliminated. I will continue to maintain that Boeing builds better aircraft of all competing models than Airbus, better dispatch reliability, lower maintenance, better utilization rates, lower operational costs. Check with Airclaims or just ask any bean counter at an operator that has both brands in their fleets. I say again, the A-380 will be a commercial flop and the only way Airbus will come close to achieving the projected number of "sales" is by their tried and proven method of giving them a way at a cost lower than that which it took to produce.

 

[EuroWheenie]

bofecus

Then why to you continue to sprout BS then?

I will respectfully have to disagree with you. From this side of the salty divide, our understanding of a level playing field, when called for by the US, is one that is heavily biased in favour of the US. We can go on and on about this till the cows come home, and we'll never agree.

Tell you what a level playing field is: Either you withdraw all those N-reg'd aircraft plodding along in the European skies, flying intra-EU, or you open up the domesitic US market to EU carriers. I'm not holding my breath though; FedEx, UPS and ALPA will never allow it to happen.

Your claim that Airbus are giving their metal away is noted; I could readily make the same unfounded claim with regards to the 787 which, it has been allegeded, Boeing are offering at a price lower than the current 767-300, and much lower than the competing A350. Fact of the matter is that neither you nor I are involved in direct negotiations with Airbus or Boeing, and therefore neither of us know what is true and what is BS.

However, buying market share by lowering the price below that of your competitor is not illegal, some might even say it's a sound strategy, and the losses incurrred (if sold below manufacturing costs) may be lower than the gains from after sales service. Since EADS are turning a profit, and has done so for a number of years, their strategy cannot be all wrong. Recent wins by Boeing, most notably the Air Canada one, seems to suggest that Boeing may have taken a leaf off the Airbus book and lowered their prices considerably. Below manufacturing costs? Who knows, but low enough to secure the order and most likely with a service contract that will see the entire deal show a profit, if not on the airframes alone. I see nothing wrong with that, and congratulate Boeing for winning that order.

As for your claim of lower, well everything really, I am unable to reject that, other than saying that you are obviously a more knowledgeable person than 100s of airline executives who's bought Airbusses over the years.

I say again that the A380 will sell in great numbers (rumours of 154 orders/commitments and 100 options are floating) and it will take over the market so far dominated by the Whale. It will be the best thing since sliced bread on a fairly large number of slot restricted routes, and since air travel is only forecast to grow, it will be the answer to the congestion headaches both airlines and airports are suffering from.

I understand that Americans have severe troubles finishing second in a race of two, and this stinks of sour grapes. But, for the moment, you'll have to live with the fact that Airbus is on top and that Boeing is no longer the manufacturer of the biggest passenger aircraft on the market.

The difference between you and me is that you hate Airbus. It may have tricked a lingering inferiority complex, what do I know? But I don't hate Boeing. I'm a European and therefore proud of their accomplishments. But I'm not blind to their fallings, and the A350 is one of them, and I recognise that the B777-300ER is a better machine than the A340-600. In my opinion the 757 is a superior machine compared to the A321, but fact of the matter is that not many airlines need the hot and high capabilities inherent in a 84K lbs thrust machine, not many airlines need transatlantic capability in a 185 seat machine, and not many airlines need a 245K lbs MTOW. What many airlines need is to transport 185 pax over short to medium range and doing it as cheap as possible. Hence the A321 is still being made, and the 757 is not. It breaks my heart, but there you have it - the market has spoken. However, I have no dislike of Boeing and I have never said anything bad about a Boeing product. I wish both manufacturers the best, but if Airbus could retain the upperhand that obviously would suit me just fine. Should Boeing edge ahead, and recent sales success seems to prove that they are, then more power to their elbow!

 

[bocefus]

Disagree all you like, your understanding of the subsidies issue apparently comes from the Airbus website.. Care to explain exactly how it is heavily biased in favor of Boeing?
And please be more creative than, “Boeing gets big government contracts and that is a subsidy” We are talking direct versus indirect subsidies. Boeing gets, indirect subsidies, Airbus gets both.
Boeing is a defense contractor with an aircraft manufacturing company as one of its business units, just like EADS, with Airbus as a business unit. In 2004 EADS had sales of 60.2 billion versus 50 billion for Boeing, EADS also claims that their defense order book now exceeds that of Boeing. The government has no ownership in Boeing unlike Airbus in which government is the majority owner. Airbus is a jobs program for Europe subsidized by the taxpayers at outlandish tax rates. The propaganda being spouted by EADS/Airbus is essential in order for them to feel like they are getting their euros worth.
Race of two? Americans have no problems with Airbus claiming market share, and you are correct, nothing illegal about giving product away at a loss in order to claim that. Airbus can afford to do that as they receive both direct and indirect subsidies. Boeing does not and will not sell aircraft at a loss as they are responsible to their shareholders who expect profits, not market share data. 100s of airline executives who bought Airbusses? That is quite another story, I’d “buy” one too if they gave it to me and let them use me to claim market share.

 

[EuroWheenie]

bofecus

Sorry mate, I'm close to giving up. You have decided not see your position influenced by the (non-Airbus) links I provided. You are immersed in propaganda and are set to stay there. Fair enough, have it like that.

Can we, at least, agree that both Airbus and Boeing are receiving subsidies? Airbus in the form of refundable launch aid, and Boeing in the form of tax breaks? Are we discussing the lenght of a piece of string here?

As for Boeing having business morals, you are of course joking right?

Anyway, as for your claims re. EADS claiming to be a bigger defence contractor, that is certainly news to me! As is your claim that Airbus has a bigger turnover. According to the links I'll provide below, EADS had a turnover of around 31.7 Billion Euro (around 40 Billion USD) and Boeing had a turnover of 52.5 Billion USD, both in 2004. Where do you get your information from, or do you just pull random numbers out of a hat to fit your argument? However, if I may direct your attention to this link: http://www.eads.com/xml/content/OF00000000400004/0/85/40596850.pdf you'll see that EADS generates around 30% of revenue from non-Airbus related activities, and around 20% from Defence.

The same figures for Boeing, according to this link: http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/financial/2004q4/2004q4.pdf
indicates that Boeing generated around 7.6 Bill from "Integrated Defence Systems" and roughly 5.4 Bill. from "Commercial Aircraft" - both in Q4 of 2004. In other words, a defence side of the business that is almost 50% bigger than commercial aircraft. Do research your arguments before posting them, it generally makes you look much better.

I also note that you elegantly evaded the level playing field issue, but that's allright - I've grown to learn on this site that if reasonable thoughts or ideas contravene your preconceptions, they are just ignored.

Finally, EADS NV is a publicly held company listed on the Amsterdam stock exchange. Yes, there is government holdings in the company. But it's a company that is owned in majority by publicly traded stocks. And just like the Boeing board, the Airbus board also have stock holders they are reporting too.

Your misconceptions are baffling. I ask again, where do you get your information from?

 

[Whale Rider]

bofecus

Sorry mate, I'm close to giving up. You have decided not see your position influenced by the (non-Airbus) links I provided. You are immersed in propaganda and are set to stay there. Fair enough, have it like that.

Can we, at least, agree that both Airbus and Boeing are receiving subsidies? Airbus in the form of refundable launch aid, and Boeing in the form of tax breaks? Are we discussing the lenght of a piece of string here?

As for Boeing having business morals, you are of course joking right?

Anyway, as for your claims re. EADS claiming to be a bigger defence contractor, that is certainly news to me! As is your claim that Airbus has a bigger turnover. According to the links I'll provide below, EADS had a turnover of around 31.7 Billion Euro (around 40 Billion USD) and Boeing had a turnover of 52.5 Billion USD, both in 2004. Where do you get your information from, or do you just pull random numbers out of a hat to fit your argument? However, if I may direct your attention to this link: http://www.eads.com/xml/content/OF00000000400004/0/85/40596850.pdf you'll see that EADS generates around 30% of revenue from non-Airbus related activities, and around 20% from Defence.

The same figures for Boeing, according to this link: http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/financial/2004q4/2004q4.pdf
indicates that Boeing generated around 7.6 Bill from "Integrated Defence Systems" and roughly 5.4 Bill. from "Commercial Aircraft" - both in Q4 of 2004. In other words, a defence side of the business that is almost 50% bigger than commercial aircraft. Do research your arguments before posting them, it generally makes you look much better.

I also note that you elegantly evaded the level playing field issue, but that's allright - I've grown to learn on this site that if reasonable thoughts or ideas contravene your preconceptions, they are just ignored.

Finally, EADS NV is a publicly held company listed on the Amsterdam stock exchange. Yes, there is government holdings in the company. But it's a company that is owned in majority by publicly traded stocks. And just like the Boeing board, the Airbus board also have stock holders they are reporting too.

Your misconceptions are baffling. I ask again, where do you get your information from?

Hey Wheenie,

Do us all a favor and quit!

 

[EuroWheenie]

Whale Rider

Sorry to burst any bubbles. Second thing I've learned here then: If facts contravene your preconceptions either ignore them or shoot the messenger. What a delightful way to conduct a discussion!

 

[bocefus]

Yes, please do give up. Apparently you have a hard time understanding that no one disputes the fact that both A&B receive subsidies, the issue is B receives indirect only whereas A receives both. It's fairly easy to deduce from your little commentaries that you are anti American. Please help us all to understand how the open skies issue has any relevance to the issue of leveling the playing field when it comes to the issue of subsidizing aircraft manufacturers. Do give up, put please stay tuned to the subsidies issue, it will be resolved and I think that both you, the EU and Airbus will be dissapointed.

 

[Whale Rider]

Whale Rider

Sorry to burst any bubbles. Second thing I've learned here then: If facts contravene your preconceptions either ignore them or shoot the messenger. What a delightful way to conduct a discussion!

You can delightfully quit too while your still behind.

 

[bocefus]

From Reuters:
UPDATE 6-World's biggest airliner completes maiden flight
Reuters News 04/27/05
author: Louise Knowles
author: Jean-Michel Belot
(C) Reuters Limited 2005.

TOULOUSE, France, April 27 (Reuters) - The world's biggest airliner, the European Airbus A380, flew for the first time on Wednesday in a new challenge to U.S. rival Boeing Co. (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research) in the battle for the global aviation market.

The double-decker A380, designed to carry 555 passengers but with room for more than 800, touched down smoothly almost four hours after soaring into sunny skies on its maiden flight above Airbus headquarters near Toulouse in southern France.

The European Airbus consortium is counting on the A380 to help it keep its edge over Boeing, while the U.S. company says it believes the future lies in smaller long-range airliners.

Thousands of enthusiasts cheered outside the perimeter fence as the plane, carrying a six-man test crew, landed after completing a series of tests of equipment and in-flight procedures on the world's heaviest commercial airliner.

"You handle (this aircraft) as you handle a bicycle. It's very, very easy to fly," chief test pilot Jacques Rosay said after fellow pilot Claude Lelaie landed the $285 million plane.

The A380, as long as eight London buses and with enough room on its wings to park 70 cars, heralds a new era in passenger travel, just as the supersonic Concorde jet set new standards by breaking the sound barrier in 1969.

But Airbus faces a tough battle with Boeing and is still short of selling 250 of the A380s, which it says is the break-even point. Some experts say it will have to sell almost three times as many to make a profit.

Boeing said it was pleased the flight test passed successfully and congratulated Airbus. "We always thought it would fly because that's what airplanes do," Boeing Chief Executive James Bell said.

"And we also thought our bet on the mid-range market was a better bet and we think our orders traffic is sustaining that, so we're 2 and 0," he said referring to two big orders Boeing announced this week.

BOEING GOES FOR DREAMLINER

Boeing has vowed to end the dominance of Airbus, which has outsold the Chicago-based plane maker in every year since 2001, and the two rivals are locked in a struggle in which each accuses the other of having unfair subsidies.

Boeing has been focusing on a much smaller money-saver in the 787 Dreamliner which is due in 2008, and has won two big deals in the past few days with Air India [AIN.UL] and Air Canada (ACErv.TO: Quote, Profile, Research) worth a total of around $13 billion.

The A380 will now make up to 2,500 hours of test flights to pave the way for it to enter service in the second half of 2006.

European aerospace group EADS (EAD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) (EAD.DE: Quote, Profile, Research) has an 80 percent stake in Airbus and British defence firm BAE Systems (BA.L: Quote, Profile, Research) has a 20 percent stake. It has taken Airbus nearly five years and some 12 billion euros ($15.68 billion) to develop the A380, including 1.45 billion euros of cost overruns.

The A380 ended the four-decade reign of Boeing's 747 jumbo as the biggest airliner to have flown. It looks like a 747 with the upper deck stretched all the way to the tail.

The French cabinet burst into applause when President Jacques Chirac announced the A380 had successfully taken off. Chirac hailed its safe return as a "total success" of the project which had written a new page of aeronautical history.

"It is a magnificent result for European industrial cooperation and an encouragement to pursue this path of building a Europe of innovation and progress," he said.

His close ally German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder saluted a victory for European industrial policy: "This shows that when we work hard ... we can be the best in the world.

Airbus has a combined 154 orders and commitments from 15 customers and Airbus Chief Executive Noel Forgeard said he expected more orders this year, although not in the next few days. He gave no details.

 

[siucavflight]

You can delightfully quit too while your still behind.

I am not sure who is behind. Is it Boeing or Airbus? Last time I checked there were many more Boeing aircraft flying than Airbus. I know Boeing has been around much longer. But numbers are numbers. The 787 already has more orders than the 380 and no one has even seen the 787 yet. The 380 is awesome I think it looks cool and I would love to fly it. Hopefully they will put a picture of it on Airbus's tombstone, seening as how it will be the aircraft that will put Airbus outta business.
And one more question, did Airbus ever solve the 4 tons over weight issue? I know that a few companies that had orders said that they would drop them if they could not get the weight down.

 

[bocefus]

Well, I don'twant to see Airbus out of business, if the young lad Eurowheenie ever got anything right, it was the observation that competition is good. Boeing needs competition, this is exactly what got them to wake up and smell the expresso brewing in Europe. Finally, they have gotten their total act together. Market share and "outselling" the competition don't mean crapola. Would you buy a Hyundai because they outsell the comparable Toyota, Chevy, etc? If you cut through the rhetoric and BS, actually compare apples and apples you will clearly see which product is the overall "best".

 

[Whale Rider]

Well, I don'twant to see Airbus out of business, if the young lad Eurowheenie ever got anything right, it was the observation that competition is good. Boeing needs competition, this is exactly what got them to wake up and smell the expresso brewing in Europe. Finally, they have gotten their total act together. Market share and "outselling" the competition don't mean crapola. Would you buy a Hyundai because they outsell the comparable Toyota, Chevy, etc? If you cut through the rhetoric and BS, actually compare apples and apples you will clearly see which product is the overall "best".

Thank you.

 

[mzaharis]

From the numbers I could find quickly, Airbus' two owners, EADS and BAe, had a combined total of 25.2 billion in defense revenue in 2003. Boeing had 27.4. About the same. So, I can't buy the "cross-subsidy" plea that Airbus uses to justify launch aid. Even if they weren't about the same, many businesses are in both government and private sectors - that's not, in itself, anticompetitive. And the payback argument - If they could pay back at market rates given the risk of their projects, they could have gotten the money from private equities markets. Remember, in finance, risk costs money. The launch aid subsidizes the cost of that risk, even if they "pay it back with interest." It also allows Airbus to "roll the dice" in ways that a private company can't - if they can't pay the loan back, big deal. That IS anticompetitive.

http://www.defensenews.com/content/features/2004chart1.html