Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is Competition Between Airbus And Boeing Fair?  
User currently offlineAdipasqu From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 238 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6647 times:

Read the transcript from a speech given by US Senator Patty Murray of Washington and you tell me what you think!!!

http://murray.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=221196

P.S. I know it is long, but just read it...it's very interesting.


707 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 741 742 752 753 762 763 764 D9S D10 319 320 321 M80 M82 M83 M87 M88 M90 SF3 ERJ CRJ
43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6621 times:

Interesting read, but I get the feeling that this is one overy concerned Senator and does not reflect the true sentements of Boeing. There are internation laws in place to prevent Airbus from obtaining a grossly unfair position over Boeing, there are statues to the level of government funding they can recieve, and so forth.

I still find much of Airbus too shady and to be honest, I wouldn't ever invest in them. Airbus engineering competence aside, Airbus is concerned with image as much as they are finances. That's a risky way to run a business. If Airbus goal is to achieve market share with profit taking a back seat while Boeing maintains profitability with a smaller market share, who are you going to invest in?

Airbus blindsighted Boeing through the 80s and 90s, no doubt. This is changing, Boeing is smartening up and learning how to compete. Boeing does not need the government support Airbus recieved with projects like the A380. Boeing will be a different company when the 7E7 takes off than it was 10 even 2 years ago. The corperate culture is changing and I like what I see.


User currently offlineMMEPHX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6619 times:

An interesting article, one that is likely to start the biggest A v B war ever seen on this forum....and a speech that would be expected from the Senator representing Boeing Commericials' home state.....I would expect the same from the MEP for Toulouse.

I guess the biggest problem is that Senator Murray can't cope with the fact that Boeing and Airbus are strong competitors and that Boeing no longer has the commanding lead in aviation sales it used to have in previous years, for me this has been a good thing for the traveling public as it has increased innovation between Boeing and Airbus. Senator Murray can't seem to grasp that times change. What's he going to do when he realizes most of the 7E7 is actually made in countries outside of the USA, denounce Boeing for taking American jobs overseas?

Senator Murray complains about state aid to Airbus (undoubted in earlier years but not so apparent in recent years) somehow he doesn't have time to mention the mutli billion dollar tax break given to the Aerospace industry in WA state (i.e Boeing) by the state legislature last year in the worlds worst disguised attempt to lure the 7E7 project to Seattle.

I recall it was Senator McCain who wanted the tanker deal re-evaluated, not Airbus and not because he wanted Airbus but because he calculated it would be cheaper for US taxpayers to buy the aircraft rather than lease them. In other words the US government was going to pay Boeing money it didn't need to, isn't that a subsidy only by a different name?

Lets not also forget that Boeing are hardly unblemished corporate citizens...Resignations due to contractual/financial impropriety, "stealing" a competitors proprietary information (Lockheed)...fined millions of dollars and banned from certain airforce contracts. Hardly the actions of a whiter than white hard done by company that Senator Murray seems to be painting.

As for Senator Murrays claim that Airbus are not the good US Citizen they claim because they had alleged dealings with Saddam Husseins government, I refer the Senator to the large number of US weapons/technology sold to Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war, probably a few of those had a Boeing makers stamp on them.

The world needs both Boeing and Airbus, it doesn't need Senator Murray screaming for what sounds suspiciously like protectionist policies for Boeing (the very thing he complains Airbus receive). If Boeing and Airbus spend the next 25 years getting 48-52% of the market each year then we traveling souls are in for a treat of innovations and developments.....that is unless all the airlines buy flying pencils and Embraer or Bombardier are the future world leaders in commercial aviation.





User currently offlineUALongHaul From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 227 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6603 times:

I think they are two very different companies. As DfwRevolution points out, Airbus has govt. Funded projects like the A380. Boeing may be contracted for military sales, but commercial divisions are not funded directly by govt.

I found the images of the A380 pieces coming on ship and truck to be very funny. Boeing does outsourcing some things and is figuring to outsourcing more (such as wings, etc), but it seems that Airbus had the entire plane manufactured in Germany and it will be assembled in France. Boeing and its workers take pride that most major parts are manufactured in the US.

From my vantage points, and I like both companies, it just seems that France is more concerned with force feeding Airbus down people while Boeing is sitting back and making planes like they always have. Boeing is not relying on govt grants, but playing the field and seeing what consumers (airlines) demand.

I also think that they are two largely different companies in makeup. Boeing has a huge military and phantom works departments along with the large satellite business they do. Commercial aircraft is a large aspect, but only a piece of the puzzle.

I do really think that Airbus did well with the A340-500/600. Each long segment on SQ I have taken on the aircraft was pleasurable for me. The cabin is quiet, the range is awesome. KrisWorld gets credit too........

DfwRevolution hit it on the head by saying "Airbus is concerned with image as much as they are finances". Airbus had to be first with the ultra long range aircraft ,and they have to build something bigger than the workhorse of the industry 747. It appears that Airbus tries to push Airbus as being "better" and having the biggest pax aircraft and all that jazz just to say so.

Don't get on my case for my view on Airbus, it is my opinion, I like airbus planes and will continue to fly them, I just view the business as a childish playground "mine is better" game.


User currently offlineAdipasqu From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 238 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6600 times:

MMEPHX,

Excellent reply. I really can't agree with you more in general. Competition is good for all of us. I would just like to make sure that the playing field is level for everyone playing in the commercial aviation market. True and pure competition is what moves society forward with new innovations. BTW, Sen. Murray is a she (Patty).



707 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 741 742 752 753 762 763 764 D9S D10 319 320 321 M80 M82 M83 M87 M88 M90 SF3 ERJ CRJ
User currently offlineMMEPHX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6581 times:

My apologies Adipasqu.....I knew Senator Murray was a lady and yet I still refered to her as a 'he'. Sorry.

User currently offlineCol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2129 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6579 times:

Fell asleep reading this garbage. He needs to get back on this planet!!

User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6571 times:

I think this is a reaction to the EU decision that Boeing has an unfair advantage over Airbus because they receive US government research grants under DARPA for their military division.

The exact consequences of that decision are as yet unclear but there was talk of imposing 10%+ penalties on all Boeing aircraft delivered to EU customers.

He is of course correct on every point he makes... As a European I feel the "loans" and "grants" to Airbus in my pocket.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6511 times:

I think she has a very vaild point....as far as jobs, subsidies, and Airbus literally giving these planes away....the US government needs to fight fire with fire here.

DeltaGuy


User currently onlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8478 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6503 times:

I am one of those who believe that Airbus had a significant flow of EU cash into their bank accounts for years, never to be repaid. Sort of like the Marshall Plan after WW II, where Americans paid some very high taxes for years to rebuild Europe - never to be repaid.

The one thing that seems to hit me the hardest is the fact that this speech came just after Memorial Day in the US. It seems that the French really never gave a damn that there are over 60,000 American men and women buried in Military Cemeteries in France and they never will.

I think that it is time for Boeing to be hit with the 10% penalty and then the US to match that and more - like start asking for the money France and Germany received under the Marshall Plan to be repaid with interest.

There is a difference between honestly and vigorously competing on price and product and some of the approaches, like bribes, landing rights, etc. that were mentioned.


User currently offlineTrevD From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6488 times:

No question that Sen. Murray is carrying water for one of the largest employers in her state, but she does raise a lot of good points.

Whereas Boeing must go to commercial markets to finance new projects; Airbus receives huge amounts of both Direct and In-Direct aid. The Direct part is the only piece that is "regulated". The in-direct part comes from aid at the local level, such as the city of Hamburg dredging a harbor so Airbus can barge in components, or other municipalities paying for infrastructure improvements so A380 components may be trucked in.

And no offense but that old argument that 'Boeing is financed by Government / DARPA / Military / Other various US agencies with black helicopters' doesn't wash. In fact, for most years, Boeing commercial was subsidizing the military and space divisions.

In fact, you can even make the argument that Airbus has benefited from US government investment - check the airfoil design on the A300/A310 and you will find a NACA designation.

In general, I believe Sen. Murray raises a lot of important points. And if we continue to see the same unfair subsidies in aircraft development programs and continued political intrigue from the EU in Airbus sales campaigns (Malaysia, India, etc...) I would not be surprised to see more and more support for US industry and Boeing in particular against these kinds of unfair practices.


User currently offlineAeroOzzie From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6422 times:

"Boeing does outsourcing some things and is figuring to outsourcing more (such as wings, etc), but it seems that Airbus had the entire plane manufactured in Germany and it will be assembled in France. Boeing and its workers take pride that most major parts are manufactured in the US."

Um...so? Airbus is not a French company, it's a European company, 37.5% French, 37.5% German, and the rest Italian, British, Spanish...why would it seem strange that parts are manufactured in Germany, and then assembled in France?

Cheers

AeroOzzie


User currently offlineStefanDotDe From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6421 times:

Airbus had a European philosophy: a product that is produced from a continent, not a country. That is why different parts are produced in different countries/towns and travel to one place to be put together to an aircraft (like Wooster models). With the 380 there will be some problems, I think. Big parts have to travel around Europe, but I think this problems will be solved.

It's a european product!


About "fairness" in competition: it's an old story and is getting bored. A gets money from governments as US government spends money for US products, B gets money from government for their military products.
I prefer that our government spends money for civil products.

And don't forget: US government supports B with spying when airlines are about to buy A products.


User currently offlineUa777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6388 times:

It's not fair at all to say that this is an A vs. B kinda thing. So what Airbus might be schooling Boeing in orders but if Boeing's commercial Aircraft manufacturing were to go away Boeing would still be a VERY large company.

It's really hard to tell if it's fair or not. I can sure as hell say that they are both 3rd graders playing in a sandbox. They are both so well off it's not even funny. They both have very loyal buyers and won't have to worry THAT much about orders and other such matters.

I think it becomes an issue between the two makers when each other steps on the other guys "turf". The A380 7E7 (copycat..), cheap fights, it's all just a mission to see who's the bigger guy. Again, they are both SO well off its nothing to worry about.

UA777222



"It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark."
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6382 times:

UALongHaul and Deltaguy, I believe you when El Al sell all their Boeings and buy something else.


User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5052 posts, RR: 44
Reply 15, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6355 times:

UALonghaul,

I found the images of the A380 pieces coming on ship and truck to be very funny.

May I ask why exactly?


User currently offlineWorldoftui From Sweden, joined Aug 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6347 times:

and Airbus literally giving these planes away..

DeltaGuy

Didn't Boeing literally give away the 737-800's to Ryanair? Just as I am sure that Airbus gave an excellent deal to JetBlue.
Buyers market at the moment. But it is not a one-sided issue.

Mark


User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6337 times:

She´s a funny lady, "only two companies of large passenger planes"?
So Beriev, Embraer, Iljyusin, Tupolev and Yakolev don´t make passenger planes with +100 passenger?


User currently offlineGman94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 1239 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6319 times:

Sounds like the rantings of a mad woman. Airbus sole goal is not to destroy Boeing in some medieval crusade.

I have no sympathy with her argument that Airbus is putting creating jobs before profit, I just wish that more companies could be more socially conscious like that. To me a companies priorities should be it's staff and customers not fat cat shareholders. Also why is she not complaining about Boeing outsourcing work to countries like Japan which obviously has an impact on the US jobs market.

If what it was the case that Airbus, EADS or the European governments were influencing airlines to buy Airbus products then every airline in Europe would have all Airbus fleets, but this is not the case.

There are also plenty of examples of airlines just buying Boeing products such as EL-AL and most of the airlines in Japan, who seem to not even consider buying Airbus aircraft regardless of whether it makes economic sense for them or not.



British Airways - The Way To Fly
User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3682 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6288 times:

Again ??

And one more time, you see stupid guys talking about the war and the Marshall plan. I wonder when they will be able to stand European competition.

I have participated in numerous of these threads, and already gave the links to articles and opinions about the hidden subsidies given to Boeing (Tax reductions, state investments for the jobs ...) and the agreement about the loans given to Airbus.

The companies are real competitors and it's why some Boeing fan are so angry. If it was not a fair competition, Airbus planes would be banned in the USA, and fined by International Trade Organization (is it the real name ?).

[Edited 2004-06-05 15:24:24]

User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3682 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 6254 times:

Wow. I read it, this woman is sick !

The last sentence is enough to understand what she really want and why she is so active:

Let’s make sure Americans are leading it one hundred years from now.


User currently offlineNightFlier From United States of America, joined May 2004, 284 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 6222 times:

I always find myself looking at these conversations and thinking, what would happen if Boeing and Airbus merged? In the end I think these too companies are just trying to do there job and build safe,economic,and comfortable airplanes. There is no need to start a war in the aviation industry over this matter, we already have enough wars going on in the world. It really does not matter to most passengers what kind of plane they are flying, unless your a aviation nut like us. We must look to keep the passengers and customers happy, because with out them we will not be able to carry on.


Airplanes are only as good as the people who fly&fix them.
User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3682 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6190 times:

Right NightFlier.

And I would add that if all that was true, that is if Europe's goal was to sink Boeing by lowering the prices, I don't see why Boeing would still sell planes.


User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5426 posts, RR: 52
Reply 23, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6168 times:

NightFlier - the problem with the merger of the two largest aircraft manufacturers innovation occurs through competition. By having to constantly stay one step ahead of their competitor in order to provide differentiation between products and some advantage over the other's product, innovations occur. Yes, if Boeing and Airbus were to merge you'd still have the Russian manufacturers, but would they really be able to match the financial might of a Boebus corporation? Doubtful. Thus, for all intents and purposes, there'd be monopoly, which leads to stagnation, which is anathema for an indusrty as dynamic as the aerospace industry.


South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineNightFlier From United States of America, joined May 2004, 284 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6153 times:

Garnetpalmetto- You are right I don't think other aircraft manufactures would be able to keep up with Boeing & Airbus if they merged. But what if just once Boeing & Airbus said lets make a plane together, What do you think it would look like? And would anybody buy it?. In reality who really does make a better airplane, Boeing or Airbus? I like them both so Im a bit lost for words. NF  Smile


Airplanes are only as good as the people who fly&fix them.
25 Scorpio : Nightflier, But what if just once Boeing & Airbus said lets make a plane together, What do you think it would look like? And would anybody buy it?. Ac
26 Post contains images Solnabo : Such a bitter old lady, she cant stand to see Boeing loose their superiority to Europe. Its about time that another company gets the "crown" after 50
27 GDB : Could one day Boeing and Airbus make an airliner? Assuming a collaborative project, not a merger between the 2 companies? Yes, if and when it becomes
28 Dl021 : The competition between Boeing and Airbus has been as dirty as every other competition between major industrial players... I don't know if the Europea
29 Vorticity : I wasn't going to stick my head in this one, but oh well... A well run company should maintain profit, and should also try it's best to take care of i
30 Post contains images Solnabo : Why doesn´t Boeing merge with Lockheed/Martin and make the Sonic Cruiser flying at (least) M 4,0.......thats something to nibble on, right? Micke//SE
31 Dl021 : Nah, if they are going to team up (not unprecedented..F-22) they need to build a superlarge BWB aircraft that will carry 1000 pax, AND a widebody (7E7
32 Post contains images Vorticity : Would have been simpler before Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas. I'm getting the feeling people don't want any more merging in the US Aerospace In
33 Magyar : I really liked her comments about ''the Europeans pressuring the East-Europeans'' to buy Airbus. It's like my left arm is pressuring my right arm to s
34 Kaligrafy : Do you think it would be possible to create a third big plane manufacturer? Like if Bombardier and Embraer merge to build bigger aircrafts? How much m
35 VirginFlyer : Kaligrafy - it may even eventuate that Embraer or Bombardier become big manufacturers in the 100+ seat area without merging. Embraer is actively devel
36 Tungd : In response to the original post regarding Senator Murray's remarks: Her remarks are PURELY political in nature. If Airbus was one of the largest empl
37 AeroOzzie : I think it's almost inevitable that the Japanese (who have the engineering capacity, if not the fortitude and ability) and Chinese (and maybe even the
38 Dl021 : oz go see the thread on boeing and jaan cooperating too much....same ideas put forward, id like more input. and do not ever doubt the fortitude of the
39 Alessandro : DI021, I don´t think Tupolev nor Illjysin makes inferior products compared with A & B, problems are others, leasing deals and infrastructure. Both A&
40 AirframeAS : If this is a world full of free trade...then nothing is fair. (Ever heard the phrase "Its not fair!!" Well...life is not fair..) If its regulated, the
41 Dl021 : Alessandro....I am not impugning the ability of Russians to make fine aircraft. It has always been the timely delivery and follow-up maintenance and s
42 Nudelhirsch : It is the old battle between the old and the new world... Boeing has long been leading te market of commercial airliners which is ok, but what is wron
43 BWIA 772 : Whether or not competition is fair or not Boeing was still able to make history with the 737NG having reached the 1500 delivered mark in the shortest
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...
Between Airbus And Boeing Orders posted Thu Dec 15 2005 19:25:06 by Aileron11
Is It Really About Airbus And Boeing? posted Fri Jul 27 2001 22:26:17 by TWA717_200