Airbus Vs. Boeing

[Ukridge]

United has purchased Airbus products. In fact many air carriers around the world have purchased Airbus products, continue to purchase Airbus products, and will in the future purchase Airbus products.
Yet one need barely open the business section to read of yet another American effort to take action because there is not a "level' playing field due to monies that EADS/Airbus received and perhaps still receive from various European governments. To which I ask .. so?
Now, apart from a disparate grouping of trade agreements signed over the years, what difference does it make if a democratically elected representative body decides to seed money into one of its industries? Is this a sin or a moral affront? Is it written in Holy Writ that a state cannot spend its money as it chooses? If it is the money of the nation, then the nation can so decide to spend it as it pleases, or so one would think within the context of self and nationalistic determination. What about sugar subsidies in the U.S. and farm supports on both side of the sea? Countries around the world make investment within their borders to further their own interests.
Is the idea behind any business venture to have a level playing pitch? Really? Or is it rather to gain advantage where able within the context of the prevailing civil code?
To me, this seems to be looking at the problem in reverse. If I were an executive at an airline I would seek to purchase the aircraft that would suit my needs and seek to acquire said aircraft at a reasonable price. I, as the executive, have little interest in 'how' or 'where' the aircraft is produced (well perhaps only as a secondary consideration), but rather will it generate revenue and profits for the shareholders.
Airline executives around the world have in many cases tipped their hat toward Airbus. If the playing field were to be "leveled" back to what only Boeing could produce, one would think that the airlines would actually suffer because one may be forced to choose the (in many cases) second choice of Boeing.
Just curious about all this chest thumping and puffing.
Any ideas? Cosmo, Busdriver, World Traveler?

 

[kcabpilot]

Well UK - I guess if we were to look at our respective governements as being corporate entities (which I suppose, in reality, they actually are) then there's nothing wrong with it but idealistically they are not supposed to be 'in business', using tax monies that are (as far as I know) collected for the purpose of governing and not for the purpose of creating an advantage for a specific industrial conglomerate. I don't think there is any 'law' against it, nor is it 'imoral' but what good does it do? As far as trade relations go it does nothing other than to cause the other side to retaliate in whatever way it can. Eventually one governement or the other will run out of money, the taxpayers will be poor and the CEO's of the corporate entities will look like fat assed beached whales.

Kind of exactly like what is happening these days eh?

 

[casual rat]

I think the 'exchange rate' may start to come into play.... The US dollar is taking a beating these days.

 

[North by Northwest]

Boeing kept making and peddling those ####$y a$$ 737 and 757 because they were operational cash cows for airlines. They left out one very important consideration.....PASSENGER COMBFORT! The A320 and 319 is VASTLY superior when it comes to pax combfort....they have out sold boeing based on these two models alone over the past year. Guess Boeing got the message when they had to stop making the 757 because it stopped selling. I know travellers whom will book away from a flight if they find out it is a 757! There are more pax injuries on both aircraft (757/737 because of the narrow aisle, cart to knee/foot) than on an Airbus. Boeing suffered what American automakers suffered years ago....stuff pax into narrow bodies on the cheap, as long as the "corporate america" profits from it. The only combfortable aircraft Boeing makes are the 400, and the 777, and frankly, if I had a choice of traveling in coach on a 777 or an A330 I'd take the 330 simply because of not having to be stuck in a center seat...there are none on a 330/340, and it's QUIETER! The Boeing 7e7 has the potentional to be Boeings saving grace. I would advise them to balance this product with pax preference and superior performance. Airbus should be wary of EU blank ckeck subsidies for new a/c. The US has very deep pockets and will never allow commercial a/c production to vanish from these shores.

 

[Ukridge]

Northwest wrote: "I'd take the 330 simply because of not having to be stuck in a center seat...there are none on a 330/340, and it's QUIETER!"

I would agree about the center seat as well as your other thoughts on the comfort for the passenger. The 340 is a VERY comfortable and quiet ride for the customer. While I enjoy the 777 flights from London (and conversely extremely dislike the 767) you raise a very valid point. There seems to be a perception in some quarters that Airbus is a junk product that survives only because of government largesse. As seems to be borne out be the order books though, Airbus is bringing to the table a VERY competative product that is much enjoyed by both the passanger and the executive charged with juggling the costs. Your analogy the the auto sector is apt. For years there seemed to have been a perception of Japaneese autos as junk - well, we all know where that went.
Airbus also seems not ready to concede the 7E7 market. It seemed as if the paths have indeed diverged, with Boeing going the 7E7 route and Airbus the A380 and each company was tabling data to show what the future portended. Well, now Aibus seems to have thrown their hat into the ring in this segment as well. This could prove to be an even fiercer battle than one had first imagined.
Cheers

 

[North by Northwest]

Airbus's announcement is purrrfect timing for NWA. Northwest is in a win- win position, comparable product / mission = best deal. Can't wait to see how this one plays out.

 

[TechBoy]

Ukridge -- I don't think the question is whether or not Airbus is producing a good product. It clearly is (though some contend that Boeing last longer and require less maintenance). The question is whether EU governments are unfairly subsidizing Airbus. While you may not consider the subsidies important, there are plenty of people over here who have a problem with government subsidies in competitive markets (except for the airlines and employees who all got in line for big subsidies post-9/11).

If Airbus continues down the road of subsidies, look for Boeing to try and close the US market to Airbus. Not a good result. Boeing would have little to lose, as its share of the EU market has shrunk to insignificance. Airbus could run this risk when it was a little start up, but now that it's #1, it has a lot to lose if it doesn't start playing fairly.

I have no problem with the Airbus product. The A320 family is clearly superior to 737 in pax comfort. I don't think that A330/340 stacks up to 777 however or maybe it was just the airlines that I suffered on them (SN, EI, VS). I also just flew on a Lufthansa A300 last week the felt as though it could break apart at any moment. I'll do the A320 next time instead.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Airbus came on very strong with a good family of products. Boeing was sleeping during some important transformation phases of the airline and aerospace industries.
Perhaps most significantly is that the US has alienated governments in so many parts of the world. Aviation is intrinsically aligned with politics. Boeing is suffering to some extent because US products and people are not welcome in some parts of the world. Boeing is a ways from falling off the cliff but there is a good possibility that Airbus will become the dominant aircraft producer for a long time to come.

thanks for asking for my opinion, UK.

 

[kcabpilot]

I also just flew on a Lufthansa A300 last week the felt as though it could break apart at any moment.

[post="227894"][/post]​

Interesting, I just wonder what an airplane that 'could break apart at any moment' feels like to a passenger? Airbus are built very light, there's a lot of plastic, the floorboards in the pit are a part of the airframe structure but it's a certificated aircraft. Uncle Sam has told you it's safe. If the fancy plastic passenger ammenities stuff is rattling around down't worry, it has nothing to do with the aircraft's ability ti fly - or stay in one piece.

 

[North by Northwest]

Tech:"I don't think that A330/340 stacks up to 777" What are your specifics? I personally don't know 1 human being that would perfer to be sandwhiched in a ctr. (777)seat by choice, having to step over and disturb two pax vs. 1. Moreover, there is alot to be said for the most quiet (330/340) widebody flying. Now, I can speak from the position of loving both manufacturers ( a/c of preference 747-400) still the King in my eyes. The 777 is a great a/c ...it just does not stack up to 330/340 flight experience from a coach pax perspective. Let's face it, the forward cabin is fantastic on both the 777/ 330-340. Once again, I'll take the Upper Deck on a 400, thank you very much. The 7e7 has the potentional to leave'em all in the dust INCLUDING the A350, if Boeing is innovative enough. Why did they not demand exclusivity for the engine technology? Can they? If Boeing follows through with the cabin(revolutionary) plans for the 7e7 it will be very difficult for Airbus to compete outside of range and payload. Airbus is at a 2 year (market delivery) disadvantage. I am going on record in predicting that Northwest will go with the 7e7.

 

[WorldTraveler]

N by NW,
the 2-5-2 configuration is not the only option for the 777. Several carriers have 3-3-3. Swissair had 3-4-2 on the MD-11 although I personally am not aware of any 777 operators doing that.

While you may want the 7E7 in NW's fleet, I think there is a very good chance you'll see the A350. There is too little advantage to NW if Airbus produces a product that is even remotely comparable to Boeing's offering. Further, NW has been very successful at ensuring that Airbus delivers what it promises.

 

[Ukridge]

Kcabpilot - Indeed a subtle point but it could be argued that, as you said, a nation does have a part of its identity and function as being similar to a business. Seems as in this case it may very well be so.

Techboy - I believe where the question arises is in what you catagorize as an "unfair subsidy." My response is "by what defintion and from whom?" It is certainly not unfair as viewed from a nation which by its own self-determination (not trying to be wordy here but it is the only phrase that encompases the full meaning) decides to chart an economic course. Unfair if have have to compete with this entity? Perhaps, and that is why I brought this out for dicsussion as it is "unfair" according to what standard? Did Providence himself speak and thus it was? Not to be facetious, but I do stumble over this press.

World Traveler - You make a VERY apt point. Some of my distant acquantances in the striped pants set tell me how difficult it is for Britain on the diplomatic stage at the moment. I can imagine it is even more so for the U.S. in the business sense. I am sure a Boeing rep has just a bit of an uphill stuggle. Maybe not, but very well possible.

To all: Does LH even still have A300s? They used to (and I believe still do on occasion) ply the LHR-FRA route with the A310. Just was confused by the reference to the 300.


O.K. This is a link to the French Newspaper Le Monde. For those of you whose French is a little rusty your browser may be able to translate.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-...6-390574,0.html

Forgeard states that EADS/Airbus should have 50 orders in the bag for the A350 before June of 2005. He discusses that the 350 is indeed a response to the 7E7 and that originally the A330 was thought to be a counter to Boeing's efforts. Well the range issue is at stake (as the 7E7 is promising great things) and so Airbus decided to launch a 250-300 passenger aircraft with a comparable range to the 7E7. Airbus may have been a little late off the line, but is not at all ready to concede this market.

Cheers

 

[WorldTraveler]

Another point is that Airbus has generally been in the position of matching products which Boeing has produced which makes it fairly easy for them to improve on Boeing's offerings. Boeing has generally been the manufacturer that has recognized the need for a new type of aircraft model and produced it first while Airbus has come along and matched and improved on in many cases the models Boeing offered.

 

[UALDC767]

Another point is that Airbus has generally been in the position of matching products which Boeing has produced which makes it fairly easy for them to improve on Boeing's offerings. Boeing has generally been the manufacturer that has recognized the need for a new type of aircraft model and produced it first while Airbus has come along and matched and improved on in many cases the models Boeing offered.

[post="228129"][/post]​

World....

Yes and no.......

Remember Airbus was first with the large twin engine concept in the A-300. Its launch aircraft. Boeing had to follow the leader and responded with the 767. Since then its been a game of hopscotch. Each one responding and improving the next generation of aircraft in all categories.

DC

 

[WorldTraveler]

you are right about the A300. If McD D had gone for a twin engine DC10, there may never have been an Airbus. Boeing had no product in the medium size widebody until the 767.

For the most part, however, Airbus has matched Boeing's products.