You want the A380 to be a failure?

[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

 

[bocefus]

Thanks for correcting me, I forgot to include the other Airbus owner, BAE in my post. 2004 saw a significantly greater disparity, BAE/EADS had about 10 billion more in revenues than Boeing.

The industry doesn't need the A-380, but the EU does.

 

[EagleRJ]

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.

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.

"total success of the project"? "a victory for European industrial policy"? Isn't the aim of privately owned companies to not only produce a product, but to see that the product is profitable for customers, and finally to earn a profit for the company? First Flight is only one early stage of an aircraft project.

This project is still filled with massive concerns for the airlines. It's the first civil aircraft with a 5000 PSI hydraulic system, and the first to use the untried GLARE aluminum/composite sandwich in the fuselage. It's still well over the design weight, and still hasn't passed an evacuation test. It's also 30% larger than the largest aircraft airport infrastructure has been designed around for 35 years.

Airbus has a ways to go before it sees a profit from the A380. It posts a list price of $250M-$285M, depending on options, but industry sources claim the first few customers have signed on the bottom line for $180M each. Airbus claims a 250-aircraft break even, but industry experts see the number at close to three times that, considering what the planes are selling for, and the fact that the project is $2B over budget already.
Does EADS need to worry about this project succeeding in order to protect the shareholders and the solvency of the company? No. That illustrates the primary difference between EADS and Boeing.

 

[TonyC]

Cheerleading for your team is great, but surely there's got to be a limit. When you're the only one in the bleachers wearing a block of cheese on your head, and your bare beer belly is painted "GO TEEM" in minus 30 windchill, you might look a little ridiculous. The cameraman is not focused on you because of your superior intellect, friend!


(Bocefus, you should look at your belly in the mirror! )


Obviously, the arguments are not simple, or they would have received a rapid hearing and resolution in the WTO. The fact that Boeing and Airbus are still in negotiations of one form or another over these issues indicates there is ground to be made on both sides. At least EuroWheenie has made an attempt to present some resources, from both sides of the argument I might add, to back up his claims. Believe me, I'm no fan of EuroWheenie. He and I disagree about most everything other than the makeup of the ocean and the color of the sky. But in the academic process of debate, he's the clear winner of this round.


So, cheer all you want - - there's no harm in that. But maybe it's time to put a shirt on, how 'bout it?

 

[surplus1]

I have to wonder if those who hope for the A380's failure are really ignorant enough to think that each A380 and 787 will be handbuilt by garlicky Frenchmen or apple pie-loving Americans respectively. Are they really that much in the dark as to how a global economy works?


Each A380 ordered will provide work for Americans at GE, Pratt & Whitney, Alcoa, Fairchild, Parker, Goodrich and dozens of other american employers. By the same token each 787 ordered will bring jobs to Fuji Heavy Industries, Mitsubishi, Kawasaki (Japan), Messiers Dowty, Messiers Bugatti (France), Smiths (UK) and dozens of other overseas employers.

The tone of those who hope for the failure of the A380 is at best reminiscent of a locker-room shoving match and at worst it is rabid nationalism.

The ignorance of these arguments is compounded by the hipocricy. As previously mentioned I doubt any of the A380 critics would ever tell a FedEx interviewer that they aren't interested in a position that might involve driving an A380.

Read a book folks. This aint your father's economy.

Good post! With the exception of EuroWheenie (and now TonyC whose post I just read after originally writing this) you seem to be the only one that understands the true nature of a global economy.

Personally, I would like to see the success of both Boeing and Airbus with their new products. As a native born American of European descent, a fact that most Americans who are of the same ancestry choose not to acknowledge, I'm not unable to realize that while designed in America, the Boeing 787 is essentially an aircraft that will be built in Japan. Likewise, while designed in Europe, the A380 will be full of components produced by American companies.

The two aircraft have different missions. Condemning either one of them based on the origin of its design is rather infantile.

I can't help but wonder what will happen should the negotiations fail and the WTO decide in favor of Europe rather than the US. Will the Bush administration then withdraw from the WTO as it advocates withdrawing from the UN when it can't get its way? It wouldn't surprise me. There's as much narrow mindedness in the White House as there is in this forum.

 

[bocefus]

The problem with and your cheerleaders Tony, is that you can't identify the teams. This is bigger than Airbus versus Boeing, the teams are the EU and their social agenda and the US and our way of life. Think about that and let us know which team you are rooting for.

 

[surplus1]

Bocefus,

How quickly you forget that what you call "our way of life" is born of European parentage. Shallow.

 

[bocefus]

Talk about shallow, you seem to be enamoured of that way of life, why don't you move back? I for one am thankful that my forefathers had the gumption and wisdom to leave that God foresaken place, leaving the crap behind and taking along the few positive features.

 

[Icelandair]

there is no such country as the EU.

 

[TonyC]

The problem with and your cheerleaders Tony, is that you can't identify the teams. This is bigger than Airbus versus Boeing, the teams are the EU and their social agenda and the US and our way of life. Think about that and let us know which team you are rooting for.

Did the space aliens leave a little computer chip implanted behind your ear, too?



I'm rooting for the Detroit Tigers.



.

 

[bocefus]

Who said there was? I am referring to the United States of America versus the United States of Europe, commonly known as the EU.