Good Article on Airbus
 

Seems like all is not well in the land of quasi-private companies...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070220/cm_rcp/the_selfhumiliation_of_airbus

There's not a whole lot about Airbus that really makes any sense.

I'm always amazed that they have done as well and sold as many planes as they have given their Byzantine production/managment/finance methods.

Interesting article.

Boeing really bet the whole company when it developed the 747. Do or die time. Huge development costs for a previously unknown market segment, while the company wasn't being very profitable with the aging 727 and 737. They drained the savings account down to near zero, and ended up with a winner.

I would think that if it is as bad as the article sounds, somebody (probably the Germans?) will cry uncle before letting all of Airbus slip through their fingers into the history books.

I stopped reading industry stuff a few years back, but at the time it was the accepted common knowledge (and a friend was in the GC office at Boeing...) that Boeing bet on (1) the increasing importance/use of "smaller", regional airports... due to the near-saturation of the largest airports, and thus went the 777 and 787 route; (2) the elasticity of the 747 design, allowing them to revise/extend it once again, to fill the market demand for a long range, widebody aircraft; and (3) frankly, Airbus' inability to actually pull off the 380 at cost/passenger mile that made sense.

In retrospect, it seems that Boeing's skepticism about the innovative commercial capacity of a nanny-state joint venture between traditional rivals was correct.

It's almost a Cold War metaphor. Boeing pushed Airbus (because of its "gotta-have-the-biggest-balls-and-show-the-Americans-they're-not-the best" inadequacy complex) into spending and stretching itself to near-ruin.

Another (socialist) one bites the dust.

JP

I just like watching my stock price increase at Airbus' expense... :>)

It's from Reuters, so take it cum grano but even Reuters wouldn't simply make up something so easily fact-checked. Would they?

LONDON (Reuters) - British Airways <BAY.L> said on Wednesday it was choosing four Boeing 777 aircraft, with options for four more, ahead of Airbus A330s as it starts expanding its longhaul fleet.

"It was a very close decision between the Boeing 777s and Airbus A330s," said British Airways Commercial Director Robert Boyle.

"However, the ease of assimilating up to eight aircraft into our existing 777 fleet, rather than having a small number of A330s, swung the balance in Boeing's favor," he added.

"We already have 43 of the 777 aircraft, and that was the tipping factor."

The Boeing 777-200ER is a long-range, twin-engined plane that typically seats 301 passengers.

High oil prices have helped its sales as airlines look to replace older, less efficient older models. The airlines have shunned the nearest Airbus equivalent, the fuel-thirsty, four-engined A340.

The deal is further bad news for Airbus, which postponed a major announcement on job cuts this week, saying European nations could not agree how to share the work on the planemaker's next aircraft, the wide-body A350.

The surprise statement followed a stormy board meeting at parent EADS <EAD.PA> on Sunday evening, at which the group failed to sign off on management's Power8 restructuring plans, seen as crucial to the future of Airbus, a source close to the matter said.

EADS shares were down 0.8 percent at 25.73 euros by 1230 GMT, while BA shares eased 0.5 percent to 570 pence.

FLEET RENEWAL

British Airways is starting a major program of fleet renewal and expansion, with 20 of its older 747s and 14 of its 767s due to be replaced.

Analyst Andrew Fitchie at Collins Stewart said Wednesday's deal signaled confidence at BA, as it had pledged to get on track to achieving a 10 percent margin target before placing any order.

Boyle told reporters the next big order would be made in the second half of 2007, at which point the ease of assimilating the planes would be less of an issue.

"The competition is still wide open," he said.

The four Boeing 777-200 ERs, worth about $800 million in total, are scheduled for delivery in early 2009, and options have been taken out for a further four to be delivered in 2010.

Industry sources said Airbus had faced a tough time trying to win the order as BA had excluded from its list of candidate aircraft the four-engined Airbus A340, a plane which competes directly with the twin-engined 777 but is more expensive to operate.

Airbus said on Wednesday it had sold four smaller single-aisle A320s to British Airways, worth about $270 million at list prices.

Airbus' problems this week also exposed continued tensions between the four countries where its plants are based -- Britain, France, Germany and Spain -- as the planemaker's chief Louis Gallois prepares to axe up to 10,000 jobs or a fifth of its workforce.

Airbus has been roiled by almost two years of management and shareholder disputes, changes in ownership and political tensions as the A380 superjumbo project turned sour.

British Airways said it was still negotiating with General Electric <GE.N> and Rolls Royce <RR.L> about which engines will be used for the new Boeing 777 aircraft.

Airbus <EAD.PA> lost the annual battle for plane orders to Boeing Co. <BA.N> for the first time in six years in 2006, posting 790 net orders versus Boeing's 1,044.

Am overseas now (in the land of Airbus BTW) and the people working in the industry are scared, really scared as Airbus screwed the pooch on this one. Heads are going to roll and jobs will be lost over this one and its not going to be a good situation.

Personally I would rather be in a Boeing...

If it's not Boeing, I'm not going.

Why? Don't they fall out of the sky at about the same rate?

I'd be more concerned about who is flying than what I am flying in. Now if you are talking about actual piloting preference, then I could understand better your feelings.

There are a number of technical issues that make the difference.

Haaaa...I am a AME (I.A.) on all these heavy jets...I have to say than I prefer to work on Boeing aircrafts (maintenance wise) They are easiest to work on and the quality is there...you get no surprise and always on time...But at an operational point of view, Airbus is better suited to do the task...(cheaper to operate-standard cockpits)...But yea...I still prefer Boeing machines...!

As an aside...i find it rather ironic that NWA runs Airbus 330s on their Pacific routes out of Seattle. To top it off they use a really crappy Linux based OS for their entertainment system that crashes more than Win95.

Seattle is Boeing/Microsoft land and that flight's business class is full of Boeing and MS people.

+1

Therein lies the problem. In an airbus it's more the computers in control than the pilots. Nothing wrong with the aero of an airbus, it's the philosophy behind the flight control systems.

If you're ever in a commercial/large aircraft in trouble you want to be in a Boeing.

Fingpilot and I fly them for a living. Also I am an A&P (aircraft mechanic) so know them underneath as well as being a pilot.

I fly on Boeings, period. Their tails stay on, rudders stay on and just do not have the issues like an Airbus does. Some of the Airbus products the autopilot will not let the pilot over-ride the system and there are times when the pilot is smarter than a black box.

Sorry but its my life and have taken enough chances with it already.

I guess we'll casually omit any mentions of 737 rudders. ;) or 757 autopilots that plow into the side of a mountain (although that was major pilot error, perhaps like the Airbus rudder too).

Didn't Airbus fix the early problems with over-riding the autopilot after several accidents, including the infamous one at Le Bourget?

Remember the 737 that blew it's top over Hawaii? Airframe at the end of it's life cycle, more pressure cycles than normal because of the short runs between the islands, and it still landed safely. Completely missing the top of the fuselage, and yet there was enough structural integrity to drop the landing gear and land on a runway.

Boeings have a pretty good history of bringing back the passengers and crew even when damaged.

A cousin worked as an A&P for a major carrier, and all the wrenches there called the Airbuses "Scarebus". Said the Boeings are built far better.

Some of this can almost be put in the category of religious belief; that said, I'll offer a few thoughts.

1) I have friends who would be dead today had they been flying an airbus instead of a Boeing.

2) Those of us who have flown commercially care more about our passengers than most passengers would ever understand, therefore we have very strong opinions about what makes a good passenger airplane.

3) Of all the professional pilots I know, NONE would prefer to be in an airbus in trouble than in a Boeing in trouble. I know a lot of pilots and test pilots.

4) Most airlines today are managed [sic] by marketing and financial people, not operations (read: pilots and engineers). Operations people don't get to buy the airplanes.

5) The basic assumption at Boeing is that things will go wrong and the aircraft should not make the problem worse or the pilot's job harder; there should always be a fall-back position. Airbus's basic assumption is that things normally go right.

6) Boeing is not the only aircraft manufacturer capable of making an excellent large passenger airliner; however, they are the only one remaining in the large passenger airliner business.

7) The Airbus 300 was a very good airplane. The 310 was almost as good. Anything beyond that is a "die-by-wire" bird and I don't fly on them.

8) There are places in the world where I think I would actually prefer to be on an Airbus. I try not to go to those places.

Boeing builds airplanes,
Lockheed builds systems,
Douglas builds character.

Jim

Actually, it was the autopilot that overrode the pilot. To the best of my knowledge, no that has not been fixed. And they do not intend to.

weren't the 737 tails maintenance issues? i seem to remember the one in the ocean off California was one where someone didn't repair a known faulty control screw.

does auto pilot do more than control level flight? is it connected to GPS on the old 757? if not maybe someone needs to look out the windshield. or at least fly above the clouds