Reggaebird From Jamaica, joined Nov 1999, 1169 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 8715 times:
So, according to media reports, Airbuse has "created" a launch customer for the A350. Because Airbuse helped to finance the US Airways/America West merger, the new carrier has agreed to take A350's beginning in 2010. Do you think that this is an innovative move or is it a risky manuever that will cause Airbuse more heartache than they have with the A350 now? Furthermore, should Boeing do the same thing for other struggling carriers? For, example, could funding for United Airlines lead to that carrier taking large numbers of 777-200LR's or even being the launch customer for the Boeing 747Adv?
USAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1411 posts, RR: 53 Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 8568 times:
Quoting Kl911 (Reply 1): Nothing wrong with it.. Business is Business. Look at what boeing does with the tanker deal...
I don't see the similarities, unless you see a parallel with the US Air Force and US Air.
It's a very risky move on Airbus' part, and one that will either pan out or become disastrous for them. For US Air, I'm wondering if there's a "bail out" clause in their contract for the A350. I'm not sure what the thinking is when you have your house in foreclosure and decide to go out and order a new Cadillac.
[Edited 2005-05-20 17:58:25]
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
Col From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2040 posts, RR: 22 Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 8482 times:
Don't believe that you want to say that this Airbus deal is similar to Tanker deal. One is corrupt and abuse of power, using tax payers money. The other isn't, but I'm not going to confirm which one is which!!!
Cahiwa From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 52 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 8390 times:
Chalk me up to the risky column. Only because this merger is really years off from any real dividends (paying off debt, cut-cut-cut, etc.) I wish all involved the best but think in this case it is questionable. Throwing good money after bad?
Col From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2040 posts, RR: 22 Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8255 times:
I think the deal is excellent for US, HP and their employees. Just making a little humor out of the comparison Kl911 made with the Tanker deal, which was illegal and gross misuse of my tax dollars, and nobody should compare any deal of this nature to that embarrasing debacle.
PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6715 posts, RR: 65 Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8228 times:
Not really sure whose 'side' I'm on here! But, for what it's worth, didn't McD sell a bundle of MD80s to TWA at give-away prices a few years back? First people decried it. Then they praised McD's wisdom.
NYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5153 posts, RR: 49 Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8044 times:
Look if Airbus had just loaned the money to US without the A350 being forced down the throats then it would have been a good deal. But now what Airbus has done was to force a carrier to not only take on $bns worth of debt but Airbus dictates the timing of when they take on that debt irregardless if US can or cannot take on that debt load and irregardless if US has use of the planes or not.
AirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2775 posts, RR: 43 Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7891 times:
Quoting Kl911 (Reply 1):
Nothing wrong with it.. Business is Business. Look at what boeing does with the tanker deal...
Yep, in front of Congressional review, and people in Jail.
Which is not what I am saying occured here, your example is out of line.
This is a bit different then examples in the past where Boeing has bailed out companies to keep them afloat when they already had a order backlog. This is a new investment, in exchange for committing to a new product, no matter the price difference over the Boeing model. (US explicitly said that they could cancel it if it did not match the 787s performance on the other hand).
Mham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3001 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7879 times:
Quoting Solnabo (Reply 14): It looks to me that USA Civil Avi. couldnt care less if US / HP and (maybe) UA goes bankrupt. Is it only AA DL CO NW that counts here?
IMO Airbus are to help them and save thousands of jobs, am I right or am I right?
Spoken like a citizen of a socialist system.
Its a free market here. The strong survive and the problem is over-capacity. Something needs to give and Airbus is just extending the agony. It is good for the employees, they don't have to look for work right away. Although, many of the routes would still need to be served and somebody solvent would just step in and use employees too. I don't think this is good for US civil aviation as a whole.
NYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5153 posts, RR: 49 Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7852 times:
Quoting Solnabo (Reply 14): IMO Airbus are to help them and save thousands of jobs, am I right or am I right?
No Airbus is protecting it's investment in the US and trying to save a project that has not been selling very well. They really don't give two hoots about saving US jobs. If they did then why aren't they offering terms to UA or saving DLs butt?
Bottom line is Airbus is going to add to the debt load of US, they are telling them when they will accept the A350 irregardless of market conditions interest rates, route that they would serve etc.(these are things that airlines usually have control over).
MidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 16 Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7814 times:
Risky deal, 250 million, delay of the A320's, and the hope of the company to purchase the A350 in the future. Who is to say that the company will not go bankrupt and that would leave Airbus holding the keys to the A320's, A350's, and about $250 million less from the checking account.
Saying all that, I am sure that Airbus had the bean counters lay out all of the risks, so who knows. On paper, seems like a great deal for US Air/American West, and a very risky deal for Airbus.
NYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5153 posts, RR: 49 Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7780 times:
Quoting Aither (Reply 20): Boeing has no lessons to receive from Airbus,
they did the same with Primaris and the 7E7.
What are you talking about...
1) Primaris is new airline..one that hasn't started scheduled service
2) Boeing has not provided financing to them
3) Primaris is still looking for financing to start operation and start to acquire aircraft.
I think you need to check your facts.
That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
25 Kdeg00: You're joking, right? It's either that or you stopped reading about corporate law with sophomore year economics. A "free market" economy offers neith
26 Aither: That's the way it looks... now if you check the Primaris situation and management, their "independence" from Boeing is highly doubtful. At least, Air
27 DAYflyer: Wow...a whopping 10 frames....very impressive! It's not funny at all. Just goes to prove Boeing's position that Airbus is more than healthy to stand
28 Lnglive1011yyz: Some people just find difficult to read under the lines. Governments use easy ways to hide what their real intent is by using colourful language. Per
29 NYC777: Hardly, they're trying to prevent 100's of planes from re-entering the market and sell a plane that has not been selling well at all. They could give
30 Pope: This new US is a launch customer in name alone. I can't imagine that the board would consider this a bona fide indication of customre support for the
31 Mham001: I didn't know Europe was one government.
32 Reggaebird: Obviously spoken by someone who lived in a country where socialized systems dominate!! I'll stick with the market-driven approach any day.
33 Kdeg00: I would have thought the whole EU thing was pretty well public knowledge by now.