Wingman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2676 times:
This article has a key line in it that just makes you wonder. The author writes that even the debate over the cost issues of the 7E7 puts Boeing's commitment to this business in question. And the debate begins with the former MDD execxs like Stonecipher. So the fundamental question is why poeple that hate aerospace want to work in the business in the first place? Stonecipher clearly detsts aviation AS WELL as shareholders. He's never once in his career done anything positive for either. Perhaps he's a sleeper agent from Toulouse.
Jwenting From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2660 times:
It's quite simple for Boeing, either the 7E7 works out or they could well be finished.
Boeing IS gambling the future of the company on the success of the project, but they're no stranger to that.
They did the same with the 747 and won bigtime, they did it with the 707 as well.
The 727 and 737 were massive investments that might have killed them had the gamble not paid off.
Airbus can always get interest-free loans without a set time for repaying them, Boeing has to work with the money the have...
That's the difference between a private company and a government-run conglomerate.
Zak From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2644 times:
jwenting, and what is the 767 tanker deal? a subsidy covered up in a defense contract. i think thats worse then what airbus gets and got. airbus is on its own now with full order books. they are just more competetive right now since they are not as affected from 9/11 as boeing in addition to "bad timing" with boeings aircraft family restructuring.
it really gets old blaming EVERYTHING on the "no risk business airbus conglomerate".
besides the governments, just like a big private investor, invest money into companies to make profit. and it seems airbus is quite a success so far.
Leskova From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2639 times:
Oh, good grief, here goes another one...
Once and for all - Airbus does not get interest-free loans without a set time for repaying them: this is a myth and nothing else.
And - believe me, I really do not want this topic to take a turn in this direction, but false statements such as yours simply cannot be left standing without comment - considering all the money that Boeing gets from the government by RFPs (or whatever they're called in the case of military equipment being bought) being written that only they can deliver what's needed doesn't really sound like Boeing "has to work with the money they have"...
AA737-823 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2501 times:
Heads up to our friends across the pond-
boeing does not get as many contracts from our government as you seem to think. Lockheed gets most of them.
And don't forget- Airbus has, to the best of my knowledge, never been profitable. They are getting there- but gee, it only took 33 years of government subsidy to achieve it. And the European governments have admitted to paying the cost of R&D for the A380. The only people who seem to deny this are the European taxpayers!!
Additionally, it looks as though the 767 tanker project may be vetoed by our own government... so your point that it's the same thing (as government subsidy) mught just be moot, huh? Who won the F-35? Lockheed. So where is all of this 'subsidy' to Boeing? I don't see it.
I think Boeing is in dire straits, and I hope this 7E7 thing is what pulls them back into the race. It sounds like a great idea... we'll see if they can pull it off.
TOO MUCH competition is almost as bad as not enough- we have found out, in the last twenty years, that it doesn't work. BAe, Dassault, Sud, and many other European companies have left the scene, or been absorbed by Airbus. Douglas, Convair, Lockheed... same story... SURELY, however, there is room for at least TWO manufacturers, competing from two seperate hemispheres!?!?!?!?!? Especially when they both build a viable airplane!?!?
Adria From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2428 times:
Well I really don't get it. For years the Boeing company claimed it has the best planes and so on, now that Airbus aircraft are selling faster than ever they come (AGAIN) with this loans thing. The arogante attitude continues and will probably never stop. I find the Boeing aircraft very beautiful but the attitude of the management sucks. Just take Ron Woodward for instance. In an interwiev all he was talking about is how the 737NG is a lot better than the A320 family. It is one thing to give reasons to buy your product and it is another one to offend the competitor. Even in a book for my college there is this smart writer who describes how Arbus is supported by the government and so one. I wonder when the Boeing company will stop blaiming Airbus for their bad results. And even if the 7E7 fails(which in my opinion won't) Boeing will still build commercial aircraft.
Motech722 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2406 times:
This article was very interesting to read. Boeing might be down at the moment, but to think that it would get out of this business seems unwarranted just because orders are down and that Airbus will deliver more planes this year. Just as Jwenting, Boeing has made gambles in the past and come out on top. The same can be said about Airbus too, the A380 is a gamble, if it doesn't succeed, Airbus will be in dire straits. The same is true about the 7E7, if it fails, Boeing will be in trouble, but at the same time, if both the A380 and 7E7 succeed for both companies, they both will be in hog heaven.
Of course I don't really think that this article is really criticizing Boeing, rather it is letting the public know what is going on with Boeing at the moment. While the article states that recapturing the global market share will be difficult at best, one has to ask if that really matters? Why can't Boeing and Airbus simply split the market share? They both make great planes, so who cares? And what would happen if Boeing got out of the commercial airline business, then that would leave Airbus as the mainline manufacturer only, giving it a monopoly.
Boeing has succeeded in the past, they can succeed again. Of course my favorite quote in the article is from Airbus' Clay McConnell, saying, "By launching the 7E7, Boeing is acknowledging just how good our 330-200 plane really is." This is beautiful, because if the 7E7 was only going to be as good as the A330, Boeing wouldn't be doing it. It's a guarantee that the 7E7 can be better than the A330, and that's why Airbus is saying what it is saying, to discourage people from supporting this program. Newer planes are always better in some fashion then their previous counterparts.
The problem that Airbus has is that it is tied up in the A380 and A340-500/600 projects primarily. The A318 is in some trouble since the original engines did not measure up, and now airlines, like AWA, are threatening to cancel their orders. Then, Boeing says it is going to bring out the 7E7 to fill the niche of the B757/767 category, and Airbus doesn't have that filled, so this is where the argument and taunting begins. Both companies drive each other for more technologically advanced planes.
And while I don't want to get into the argument of Airbus being subsidized by the government vs. Boeing being subsidized through military projects, if you're interested to see the fact vs. the fiction on this subject, pick up Stephen Aris' book, Close to the Sun, it'll give you a great perspective on the industry. A quick synopsis of the book for those interested...The history of Airbus is an extraordinary story involving diplomatic dramas, billion-dollar gambles in high technology, and a life-and-death struggle between Europe and the giants of the US aerospace industry. Today, Airbus and Boeing gallop neck-and-neck, while charges of unfair government subsidies, breaches of international trade treaties, and general corruption and skullduggery fly back and forth.
Leskova From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2297 times:
Well, maybe I let out a bit more steam than necessary, but...
767Lover: Let's take a look at the statements that you can read in the threads here on a.net - lot's of "If it's not a Boeing, I'm not going" and similar, as well as lot's of people claiming that Boeing builds the best planes and that nothing even comes close. Then there are those that describe the 767 and 777 as "gracing the skies" and call 330s and 340s as eye-sores... the point of all this is that there is a huge amount of pro-Boeing-bias here that you're sometimes downright torn apart for making a pro-Airbus statement.
Just as several people before me have stated - Boeing makes brilliant airplanes, there's no doubt about that: after all, what airline would buy their planes if they were crap.
But, and this is the other side of the coin: Airbus makes brilliant aircraft as well, which is why there are quite a lot of airlines buying their aircraft as well.
There are people that will wait for hours to avoid boarding an A320 to fly on a B737, but there are people who'll do the same just the other way around.
I've not been around a.net for very long, but in these few days I've already read so many A vs. B wars that I can really only wonder if a lot of us (and I'm purposefully NOT excluding myself here) really have such a dull life that we have nothing better to do than just continue bashing the product that we don't like as much as the one that we prefer...
I shudder when thinking of a world where planes are only supplied by Airbus - but the thought of only having Boeings flying around comes close to being a nightmare as well...
AA737-823: As soon as congress really blocks the lease/purchase of the 767s on current terms, I'll agree that Boeing isn't getting too much help anymore - but let's just wait to see how that turns out before making a final judgement.
But, just as was mentioned in another post, Boeing and/or (parts of) the US Administratio are always quite quick in blameing subsidies to Airbus when they loose a competition - wonderful propaganda for their own clientele, but just that: propaganda.
I lived in the US a while back, for about 3 years, and as soon as I was back in Europe I was surprised to find how little amount of national pride exists over here: in the US, a lot of people see Boeing as a national icon - and rightly so: the company has achieved very much and air travel would certainly not be where it is today if it did not exist.
In Europe, on the other hand, most people couldn't care less if Airbus exists or not: there are no TV programms showing the development and first flights of a new aircraft (ok, the A380 will - as soon as it's flying - probably be another story) as there were programms about the 777 - the general public over here would simply not care.
I guess that this, and the sometimes almost overwhelming pro-Boeing-sentiment here, cause some of us Europeans to sometimes react as if it were us being criticized personally... but, as I've mentioned before: take a step back and read the statements defending Boeing - you'll see that they're about as fierce sometimes as the statements defending Airbus.
As for me, I'll fly on just about anything as soon as I can or - in some cases - have to: of course I have my preferred planes, but I'm beyond saying that I'll wait for a connecting flight for hours just to avoid a plane by one or the other manufacturer...
And, just to comment on the actual subject of this thread: I don't think that Boeing will be damaged by the discussion about whether to build the 7E7 in the long run: what would damage Boeing would be the decision not to build it, I fully agree with the conclusions drawn in the article about that - but, in all honesty: I do not think that this is something that Boeing really needs to worry about, I expect Stonecipher and - who was it, a McDonnell our a Douglas? - the other board member to eventually accept the business case being made for the 7E7: after all, they are shareholders (the unfortunate type - the ones only looking at the short term value, not the long run) and, in exactly the long term that they'll probably try to ignore at first, the 7E7 will most likely be a cash cow for Boeing.
So much from this side of the Atlantic...
... or as I once put it: Europe will, whatever they do, always be at least 6 hours ahead of the United States...
Motech722 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2228 times:
Leskova, Great post on here, I couldn't agree with you more. Few people that argue for one aircraft over another actually think about the "other side". I get so tired of hearing people say, "if it's not Boeing, I'm not going." I honestly don't know anyone who will wait for a different flight because they dislike one airplane over another, people like that have way too much time on their hands.
I've flown Airbus, Boeing, McyD, Lockheed, Embraer, BAe, and Canadair aircraft, and while I'm not a big fan of the ERJ and CRJ aircraft (since I'm 6'6", and have to duck while walking down the aisle), I'll still fly any type of airplane out there. This whole "Boeing is better" argument is stupid, because there is no proof to back anything like that up. If that was true, Airbus would have died a long time ago. Same would be true if Airbus is the best plane out there, or any others. People that say that one manufacturer is better than another have very closed minds.
Everyone needs to free their mind on here. This is a forum of discussion, but I know what you mean, in many instances if you say something nice about Airbus, you get your head ripped off. This thread is but one more place for people to argue about B vs. A.
Gopal, This article is interesting, but I'm curious how you ascertained that "Everybody thinks Boeing is finished." As far as I can tell, the article doesn't say that, merely it says what "could" happen if the 7E7 project is not carried out. Boeing is still getting orders for its established planes, and as long as orders are gotten, and backorders have yet to be delivered, Boeing is certainly not finished.
GDB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2180 times:
If you think the UK government gives out free money to BAE for Airbus work, you are sadly mistaken, Germany is also not known for being that supportive of Aerospace, what with their budget problems.
What were the most subsidized airliners? Russian ones, hardly taken any real market from Boeing have they?
No military KC-135 programme, with the huge leg up it gave in reducing production and development costs, likely no 707.
No C-X military transport programme in the 60's, (which Lockheed won), much more of Boeing own cash would have been used in developing the technology for what became the 747, still that was a risk for Boeing, if A380 fails in some way, that's Airbus cut down to size.
It's always a risk in this game.
Our ex-manager (who was part of BA's team on the 777, before running Concorde Engineering until 1999), said it best;
"The US tends to subsidise development, Europe has tended to subsidise production"
I could argue that since septa 11th, the US has subsidized airlines more than anyone, which indirectly helps manufactures, both of them.
BA had to pay themselves for the required cockpit doors, unlike US majors.
The US airline market is one of the most nationally protected of all.
On all this, no one is innocent.
Not that it always works, how much is US industry suffering in higher costs from subsidized steel production? Auto makers don't like that for a start.
I think Boeing will build the 7e7, they have to.
Moaning about European subsidies (never mind that Airbus is much more like a 'real' business now, that was a requirement for A380 launch repayable loans), is just an excuse, and a poor one at that, not even grounded in any real facts, beyond the simplistic mass media.
If airlines like the aircraft, they'll buy it.