Cool Cat IIIc From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (16 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 950 times:
Dear CX747, you always make me laugh with your pro-Boeing posts (well, not really actually). Please do not fail to mention that Boeing too made a loss this year. This sure is a turnaround for a company that supposedly is no.1 in commercial aircraft sales (just borrowed your words there for a sec).
On a more intersting note, both Boeing and Airbus have admitted that they have made losses due to the pricewar of shorthaul aircraft (737 vs 320) from 1995-1997.
Here is a list of the prices Boeing charged for their planes and how much it was below the list price, mainly due to competition between the two manufacturers. Sorry, no Airbus list is available but I'm sure something similar applies to them:
Boeing 747, $129 million, 27 % down on list price
Boeing 777, $114 million, 17 % down
Boeing 767, $ 67 million, 25 % down
Boeing 757, $ 49 million, 25 % down
Boeing 737, $ 31 million, 14 % down
NYC Int'l From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (16 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 950 times:
Boeing posted a PROFIT of $63M last ('98) year, They raised their prices early last year. The year before ('97) Boeing posted significant losses due to competition with Airbus and a charge taken to restructure the company.
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4489 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (16 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 951 times:
It does seem humorous that I do have to bring this up. But it seems to me that if I didn't all the others would just let this slide underneath the rug. When Boeing stumbles there here posting up to the minute press releases on Boeing's demise but seem to miss Airbus's blunders.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
NYC Int'l From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (16 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 950 times:
No, Your right Cool Cat IIIc. But I would submit that Boeing profits will increase quite a bit once M/Douglas production has ceased completly. I guess the company will be more flexable as well. I think you would agree that it will be interesting to see what Boeing vs. Airbus would look like when Airbus finally becomes a single company.
Rich Collins From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (16 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 950 times:
Think about this:
Airbus is a governmental consortium set-up to compete with and de-value U.S. aircraft builders. McDonnell Douglas became "affordable" to Boeing after successful predatory pricing efforts by Airbus. Now Airbus has forced a successful large aircraft marketer & builder to spend private cash to acquire and operate a medium sized aircraft builder. "Check-Mate": Now we can watch Airbus go after this equity-weakened American company with European mega-tax dollars! A governmentally owned European consortium doesn't care about equity / share value. They are basically Socialist enterprises.
Beware the "blue-eyed Devils"
As is our tradition, we must "circle the wagons"
P.S.: I have seen comments to the contrary in this forum, but those planes will always be airBUSSES.
I fly 150,000/yr. , I've suffered it all.
Jetpilot From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 28
Reply 9, posted (16 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 950 times:
I'm sorry I have no idea what the point of that post was. Why was boeing forced to buy MD. And whats that 150,000/yr thing about. Whose tradition is it to circle the wagons. And what the hell are blue eyed devils. Maybe it's just me but I'm lost.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29968 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (16 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 950 times:
1. Any major exec. is going to prefer a 63 million dollar profit instead of a 204million dollar loss
2. Airbuses cost of manufacturing is significantly higher then Boeings (UNION WORKERS).
3. As a result of two Airbuses are more expensive to manufacture. I think if you where to add 5 to 10 mil the the Boeing prices you should end up pretty close to the Airbus prices.
4. Airbus knows that the governments that started it, will back it when it loses money. Just politically expedient
5. Because of 3 Airbus knew that they would have to lower their prices to be more competitive with Boeing.
6. Boeing responed with it's own cuts.
7. Airbus was forced to drop prices again. This time below the break even point. They feel safe doing it since their respective governments won't let them go under.
8. Because of the lower costs at Boeing they where able to still break even despite the smaller profit. Also they are a much more diverse company and are not totally dependent on civillian aircraft sales for their earnings.
9. Both Airbus and Boeing have had press problems Boeing with the overstated 737 rudder problems and Airbus with their FMGS systems ignoring pilot commands.
10. This is about the fourth time this has come up in the past two weeks. lets give it a rest.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.