Amachado From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2556 times:
ATW online's top 20 airlines ranked by RPK's(http://www.atwonline.com/stats_top25.cfm) help explain the relative dearth of orders for Boeing as compared to Airbus over the last couple of years.
It can be generally be concluded that the more RPK's the larger the fleet for a particular airline. For example, AA, with the most RPK's operates the worlds largest fleet.
When adding the RPK's of all airlines that are LARGELY Boeing customers (AA, Delta, Continental, BA, SWest, Signapore, Cathay, Japan, Korean, Alaska and China air, and for simplicity 50% of United) total RPK's is 430 million. Of this total, 262 RPK's are represented by airlines that are VERY unlikely to stray from the Boeing camp! (AA,DL,Continental and SWest)
The same calculation for LARGELY Airbus operators (NW,LH,AF,USair, Emirates, AWest,IB, SAS and 50% of UA) yield a total of 248 Million RPK's.
Even the disappearance of one US legacy carrier would not change the relative potential advantage Boeing has.
Barring unforeseen circumstances, it is safe to argue that a sales surge for Boeing will occur once the financial health of its customer airlines improves, and/or fleets reach replacement age....
Whitehatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2454 times:
"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics...."
Those numbers don't mean anything as they are far too heavily slanted to major carriers of today and yesterday. It's what happens tomorrow that counts in aviation. It also seems to discount those people who operate mixed fleets, and to call BA a 'largely Boeing operator' is strange too!
Same with Air France. 777/747/737.... or Lufthansa (747/MD11/737)
What about RJs? Are their RPKs added in there for someone or other? In short any interpretation of those figures you have posted is pure guesswork and has no basis in any form of fact.
JeffDCA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2365 times:
Taking the Airbus aircraft of Dec 02 and future deliveries, the total comes out as 76. Add to that the 99 options, and BA looks like a fairly substantial Airbus operator. That's compared to 196 current Boeing aircraft, as of Dec 02.
Whitehatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2300 times:
Unfortunately you just shot down your own argument with the 'RJs don't count' comment.
Why don't they count?
Have they been counted?
If so what proportion of the RPKs are done on non-mainline jets?
Without any form of justification or explanation of the figures, they are totally meaningless. Trying to 'spin' them into something is just opinion on your part. Those figures just cannot be made to justify anything as they are far too vague.
Worthy of a politician in fact! (please don't take that as an insult)
Amachado From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2110 times:
Well..ok...I don't see a way to convince you that I may have a point. I agree this is just a "guestimate" but unless the reported RPK's are fiction I think I'm on pretty solid ground.
Insofar as the RJ's, they DO NOT count, I'm extrapolating future market penetration trends only for Airbus and Boeing. Generally, Both Boeing and Airbus customers, to a varying degree, operate RJ's...it's a wash.
Is it meaningless to assume that (AA,DL,Continental and SWest) which flew 262 mil RPK's 1/04 thru 5/04 (far more than airlines in the "Airbus sphere of influence) will not be placing major orders in the future??
I don't think so..
Matt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 50 Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1993 times:
It's what happens tomorrow that counts in aviation
I'm not sure I agree with this statement. Airlines have, for as long as I can remember, been extremely short sighted and always reactive as opposed to proactive.
If it was really tomorrow that really counted, then American would've had no reason to buy AirCal, Reno Air, and TWA. PSA would still be flying their Smileliners had they and USAir not gone into panic mode and gotten married.
United probably wouldn't be flying either the large Boeing or Airbus fleets that they are had they waited for either the 73G or Airbus family.
Kim777fan From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 510 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1907 times:
*Sigh* Too bad we don't have Douglas and Lockheed around anymore to REALLY spice things up. Of course, some have even suggested that with both those companies investing SO much in aircraft that were in such direct competition with each other with the DC-10 and the L1011 Tri-Star that they drove each other out of business. Maybe it's best that Boeing and Airbus don't have products on the upper end that are largely identical to each other even though the 320 family and the 737NG are clear competitors aimed squarely at the same (somewhat larger) market.
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2445 posts, RR: 9 Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1832 times:
"Too bad we don't have Douglas and Lockheed around anymore to REALLY spice things up."
Don't worry, Kim. I've a feeling that both Embraer and Bombardier will both be climbing in rankings in the years to come and will soon be seriously nipping at both A & B's smaller offerings, Embraer's already actually doing it. An AW&ST article said the Airbus/Boeing duopoly is unlikely to last forever; surely at least one major new competitor will rise to challenge them. If TWO do so, things will REALLY get interesting! Back on topic-Boeing is down but not out. The right product, in the form of the 7E7, will soon arrive to help reverse their sales slide.
Miamix707 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1803 times:
Whitehatter don't be so offended by his opinion. Geez the guy is not really insulting your beloved european Airbus. Even if it meant nothing to you, it's still an original observation.
'Boein' is how you'd write it in spanish based on what you hear, since in Spanish letters pretty much always sound the same, probably machado's first language is Spanish although it does look funny written that way
my guess would be Revenue Per Kilometer, but I'm just guessing since nobody answered.
I feel exactly the same! At least for the 20+ year old age group who remembers the great Douglas and Lockheed aircraft on their hayday, Airbuses just don't cut it as far as originality, beauty, noise, etc. Embraer and Bombardier.. well they both make nice planes but can't replace Douglas and Lockheed in my mind either. Even if they built larger jets, unless they came out with a tri-jet or something, it'd just be the same boring and not so great looking aircraft, in the case of the ERJs..
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 858 posts, RR: 51 Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1752 times:
Why not simply look at order back log, product portfolio & 5-10 yr trend ?
Not need to make difficult assummptions.
Given that Boeing is in the process of consolidating to a 3 member family, I'd say 2 giant sucesses in the form of the 737NG and 777, a rising star in the form of the 7E7, and a new outlook on competition, I'd say Boeing is doing great.
An AW&ST article said the Airbus/Boeing duopoly is unlikely to last forever; surely at least one major new competitor will rise to challenge them. If TWO do so, things will REALLY get interesting! Back on topic-Boeing is down but not out.
Eh... the market will always ebb and flow, but certain dominances will only remain unless either Airbus or Boeing falls apart from the inside (which Boeing got close to doing) or they chose to leave a market (like Lockheed). No I do not think Embraer (as if EADS would let them) or Bombradier to crack into Boeing or Airbus territory.
The C-series will come awfully close to the 737NG/A320, but given that WN has presented Boeing with an open invitation to build a 737NG sucessor, I feel Boeing won't let this happen.
Greenjet From Ireland, joined Aug 2001, 935 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1659 times:
Um, excuse my ignorance, but what is RPK?
Vatveng, RPK is Revenue Passenger Kilometres - ie the number of revenue passengers multiplied by the distance of flights. Obviously airlines with large fleets and a lot of long haul services will have high RPK figures. However this means nothing really when assessing aircraft manufacturer market share as long haul flights operated by widebody aircraft distort figures. Boeing obviously dominates that particular market so naturally it will be have impressive RPK stats.
BlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1817 posts, RR: 4 Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1562 times:
I agree with the lack of beauty in Airbus product line - except for A320 and A321 - they are much better looking aircraft than 737-800 and -900.
As far as originality - puhleese... as much as you probably hate to admit it, it was Airbus that invented twin engine twin aisle airliner, with the best cross-section there could be - 2+4+2.
All Hail Mighty Triple Seven, The MURDERER of the so-called "Queen"!!!!
Usatoeze From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 358 posts, RR: 2 Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1502 times:
Well Boeing is so much bigger. If one dies it ll be Airbus.
Since we are all using figurative language today, I thought I would add that Airbus can't die as it is a robot, that was built from many spare parts in a few European countries. If it ceases to exist it will only be refashioned by those same countries into another unit. Then it will be reprogrammed and told to compete with some other product coming from across the ocean.
Boeing, on the other hand, keeps falling down but is pulled back up by the DOD offering it sizable contracts to build technical military equipment to fight people in countries with hardly any technology. If it falls down too far Lockheed Martin will pick up the pieces and kill whatever is left of the commercial airplanes division. Boeing would, unlike Airbus, die.
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 858 posts, RR: 51 Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1489 times:
Boeing, on the other hand, keeps falling down but is pulled back up by the DOD offering it sizable contracts to build technical military equipment to fight people in countries with hardly any technology.
Ha! Boeing has been, for much of its history, been the dark horse in military contracts. Remeber the C-4, C-14, X-32, V-22, RAH-66, and countless other contracts that were not given to Boeing? They have never been a sucessful fighter/combat aircraft manufacture until they aquired McDonnel Douglas and their F-15 and F-18, nor did they have the Harpoon missile, Delta launch vehicle, B-1b, ect. until they went on their aquring spree in the early 90s.
If you boil away all the contracts Boeing was left with through buy-outs, all that remains are the KC-135 contracts from the 50s, B-52 contracts from the 50s, and E-3 AWAC contracts. The biggest contract Boeing has won with a wholy Boeing product is the 737-MMA contract.
Boeing survived, flourished, grew, and innovated on BCA alone for the past 5 decades. There is nothing to say Boeing will not continue.