Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Is Boeing More Expensive Than Airbus?  
User currently offlineUal747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 10 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6030 times:

While I don't have any figures, over the years I have come to the conclusion that Boeings are more expensive to buy than their competitor Airbus. Why is this? Of course their are many factors to put into cost, such as range, payload capabilites, size, etc., so I may be wrong in my assumption...

UAL747

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePilottim747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1607 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (10 years 10 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5938 times:

It may be because Airbus is a consortium and subsidized by some European countries. The subsidies mean Airbus can cut prices lower than Boeing.

Also, it may simply the cost of production. I have heard anything but Airbus may have cheaper labor and production costs than Boeing.

pilottim747



Aviation Photographers & Enthusiasts--Coordinate your life.
User currently offlineStevenUhl777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5910 times:

Airbus is a consortium made up of several countries, receives subsidies from certain goverments (I'm not sure which specific ones). Another user may be able to provide specifics...Boeing currently does not receive such subsidies, and never has, from the **FEDERAL** government. Boeing has military contracts, but I'm not including that in my answer here, referring only to commercial aircraft. It's a matter of debate and a political hot potato, especially amonst the congressional delegation in Washington state, specifically Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)

However, it is important to mention also that some states that Boeing has plants in (like Kansas, etc.) may give them certain tax incentives/breaks, and my state (Washington) has just approved a package offering them $3.2b in incentives, labor law changes, etc., to ensure the 7E7 assembly is done in Everett and Moses Lake, WA (about 2-3 hours east of Seattle in the central part of the state)


User currently offlineCanadianNorth From Canada, joined Aug 2002, 3389 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5885 times:

Well I know it involves alot more things, like those stated above, but I feel that Boeings are more expensive than Airbusses, but they are also ussually more capable than the Airbusses, therefor are worth more.
Also because Airbus seems to get more government funding than Boeing, and if Airbus Industries had the same ammount of government funding as Boeing Commercial Aircraft, they probably wouldnt be here.

CanadianNorth



What could possibly go wrong?
User currently offlineElwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (10 years 10 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5858 times:

Boeing has military contracts, but I'm not including that in my answer here, referring only to commercial aircraft.

I've seen others refer to the military contracts as "subsidies" for Boeing. One thing I've never pointed out (because it didn't occur to me that people might not understand it) is that Boeing has to spend billions of dollars to develop that military hardware before it gets any money to build it.

Military hardware, in this country, has been developed by the manufacturers, not the government, since th early 1920s. The last government-developed military system I am aware of is the M3-A1 Lee light tank, which was a terrible vehicle to inflict upon the allied troops. Almost all military systems since (except the original atom bombs and the first couple of thermo-nuclear devices, and some of the X-planes) have been developed by civilian contractors with input from the military in regards to "this is what we want."

I am not saying that it isn't a significant source of revenue or that the technology and aerodynamics learned cannot be applied to civilian use. But Boeing actually has to do something for the money.

As I now understand it, Airbus does not recieve direct subsidies, but rather discount-rate loans, which apparently must be paid back. I have less difficulty with this concept that I do with direct subsidy.



Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (10 years 10 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5811 times:

Not entirely correct Elwood but very close.
There have been some joint projects in which the US government provided facilities and manpower for research under DARPA and similar agencies but in all cases there was indeed also a lot of corporate money involved.

Airbus is now getting loans (usually zero-interest loans) that officially have to be paid back.
In the past they received outright grants but after international pressure that was stopped (countries threatening to ban Airbus for unfair competition etc.).
Crux here is that most or all of those loans do not mention when they have to be paid back so Airbus can decide on their own when to pay back a loan they don't have to pay interest on either. Of course there is no reason to ever pay it back...




I wish I were flying
User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 6, posted (10 years 10 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5803 times:

Despite the cries of some that Boeing gets subsidized via its military contracts, it is important to mention that Lockheed gets way more military business than Boeing. EADS (Airbus) also gets plenty of military contracts.
Jeremy


User currently offlineEmiratesA345 From Canada, joined Jun 2003, 2123 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (10 years 10 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5780 times:

"are also ussually more capable than the Airbusses, therefor are worth more."

Oh yes? How so?

EmiratesA345



You and I were meant to fly, Air Canada!
User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 8, posted (10 years 10 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5727 times:

This is about the point where common sense leaves the thread, and childish attacks happen by both sides, usually led by someone who has never flown on any plane, never mind an Airbus or Boeing....



User currently offlineEmiratesA345 From Canada, joined Jun 2003, 2123 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (10 years 10 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5704 times:

I sure hope you're not referring to me. I'll have you know that I've flown on many airplanes. As of October 2nd, I will have flown on Concorde as well.

Also, I was simply asking him what he meant by what he said.

EmiratesA345



You and I were meant to fly, Air Canada!
User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 10, posted (10 years 10 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5688 times:

Emirates, wasn't refering to you at all, or anyone else in this thread, just have been around long enough to recognize the breaking point, and it is about now

User currently offlineEmiratesA345 From Canada, joined Jun 2003, 2123 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (10 years 10 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5685 times:

Artsyman,

Ok, just making sure. LOL

I'd say you're about right.

EmiratesA345  Smile/happy/getting dizzy



You and I were meant to fly, Air Canada!
User currently offlineVonRichtofen From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 4627 posts, RR: 37
Reply 12, posted (10 years 10 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5612 times:

Perhaps CanadianNorth is referring to Boeings longevity. There are a lot of old Boeing still ripping around carrying pax. Hell, a good chunk of the Canadian domestic travel is operated with 732's (WJ, CDN North, Air North, And AC).
Most of the Airbus planes the same age are flying cargo or have already been grounded. I'm not slagging Airbus here, but they have yet to prove their longevity being equal to Boeing.

Also, CanadianNorth may have been referring to the 732's capability of landing on crappy gravel runways up North. You should see what those little Boeings can take. You'd never see an A320 on runways like that.



Word
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 10 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5526 times:


According to BusinessWeek, Airbus is more efficient in producing airplanes than Boeing. I don't have a link with me right here, but this issue has been discussed on this board earlier a few times, so you can do a search and find more info.

According to a study prepared for the European Parliament, US subsidies to its aerospace sector are 2-3 times the level offered by EU countries. Now this includes military aerospace, so this sum isn't relevant to commercial airplanes in its entirety.

Jwenting, your information on the launch loans given to Airbus by the member states is incorrect, and I suspect you know it.


User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (10 years 10 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5470 times:

Also, CanadianNorth may have been referring to the 732's capability of landing on crappy gravel runways up North. You should see what those little Boeings can take. You'd never see an A320 on runways like that.

You'd never see the 737NG doing that, either.

(not that I'm an Airbus fan or anything...)



Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3697 posts, RR: 34
Reply 15, posted (10 years 10 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5466 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I am archiving this thread as the post content will just go round and round the same old views that have been expressed many, many times on this board.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Is STN More Popular Than LTN? posted Sat Jun 10 2006 19:25:42 by CRJ900
Why Is One Way More Expensive Than Round Trip? posted Tue Nov 22 2005 14:29:38 by RootsAir
Why Is One-Way More Expensive Than Return? posted Sun Nov 7 2004 22:52:23 by SQNo1
B777-300: Why 50m$ More Expensive Than B747-400? posted Wed Aug 17 2005 17:13:51 by Vfw614
Single More Expensive Than Return Tickets. Why? posted Sat Jun 21 2003 22:29:48 by SAA-SAL
Why Are One Way Tickets More Expensive Than RT posted Sat Mar 8 2003 14:50:32 by Jhooper
Boeing Sold More A340 Than Airbus? posted Mon Feb 5 2001 05:27:47 by Cruising
Why Is Boeing Confident On 787 posted Thu Nov 23 2006 20:22:08 by SJCRRPAX
Why Is ATH So Expensive? posted Thu Sep 14 2006 19:47:59 by Phoenixflyer
Why Is Airtran So Expensive? posted Fri Mar 3 2006 20:11:05 by AirWillie6475