Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Do You Think Of The A350 Ads?  
User currently offlineMarshalN From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2005, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5664 times:

This is out of curiousity -- has anyone seen these?

I read the Economist regularly, and for a while now, I've been seeing these 4 page ads (yes, 4 full pages!). First page is 10% more seats, then 25% less fuel, then 60% advanced materials, then 100% A350. One statement for each page. The punchline is "Airbus A350. The world's most advanced twin-engine aircraft". I think the most telling is the page about 25% less fuel -- "it saves up to 25% fuel per seat compared to competing aircraft in production". Now, obviously, the last two words are key.

It also says on the 10% more seats page "Flying 300nm farther with space for almost 30 more passengers while burning less fuel per passenger than its future competitor" (i.e. 787, I assume).

Any thoughts? I can just see the flaming...

Tangentially -- I still don't really understand why aircraft manufacturer advertise in magazines intended for more or less the general public

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1597 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5637 times:

Quoting MarshalN (Thread starter):
Tangentially -- I still don't really understand why aircraft manufacturer advertise in magazines intended for more or less the general public

Airlines executives, share holders who approve purchases, A.Net buffs and mechanics can are part of the general public. I love ads like this...

I'm still trying to determine what Boeing plane they comparing against. 777 is still a bigger aircraft than the A359, so the 777 is not it. The 764??? So they are comparing an aircraft that won't be out till 2010/12 to something that was conceived in the early eighties? I hope the A350 is better.



Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
User currently offlineETStar From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5588 times:

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 1):

I'm still trying to determine what Boeing plane they comparing against. 777 is still a bigger aircraft than the A359, so the 777 is not it. The 764??? So they are comparing an aircraft that won't be out till 2010/12 to something that was conceived in the early eighties? I hope the A350 is better.

I think you are new around here, and have not heard of the 787... Look it up on Boeing's website when you can. It's very easy to do so.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5572 times:

Quoting ETStar (Reply 2):
I think you are new around here, and have not heard of the 787... Look it up on Boeing's website when you can. It's very easy to do so.

He is referring to the "in production" part.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineAirfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5550 times:

Quoting MarshalN (Thread starter):
I still don't really understand why aircraft manufacturer advertise in magazines intended for more or less the general public

CEOs trying to drive the stock price up


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5548 times:

The figures are obviously quoted in ways that exaggerate the A350's competitiveness. But advertisers are probably immune from accusations of 'mispresentation' in this field - it's not as if anyone is likely to claim that they bought a $200M. aeroplane solely on the strength of claims in an ad in the 'Economist'.  Smile

Quoting MarshalN (Thread starter):
I still don't really understand why aircraft manufacturer advertise in magazines intended for more or less the general public

MarshalN, don't forget that, on this occasion, payment of EU 'launch aid' is at least going be delayed. So Airbus will actively be trying to borrow money in the market to finance the first stage of design development. And the first thing prospective private financiers are going to ask about is whether the product is competitive.

Airbus is also trying to 'lay off' 40% of the risk on the development to risk-sharing partners worldwide. Once again, any such partners will need to know how competitive the A350 is, and therefore how risky the project actually is.

i'"PARIS, Oct 7 (AFP) - Aeronautics groups in Russia, China and India could be among those firms helping to finance the new Airbus A350 aircraft, in which total foreign participation could amount to 40 percent of the development cost, the head of Airbus said Friday. Airbus chief executive Gustav Humbert told a press conference that the Russian aviation industry had been invited to contribute up to three percent of the program costs while China's contribution could reach five percent. Airbus communications director Christoph Hoppe added that India could also figure among Airbus partners in developing the A350, a mid-size, long-haul carrier destined to compete with Boeing's fuel efficient 787 Dreamliner."

http://www.adetocqueville.com/200510071637.j97gbd225213.htm



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineMarshalN From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2005, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5533 times:

Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 4):
CEOs trying to drive the stock price up

Last time I checked Airbus' CEO isn't responsible to any shareholder directly, not ones who will find out these things from The Economist anyway.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
MarshalN, don't forget that, on this occasion, payment of EU 'launch aid' is at least going be delayed. So Airbus will actively be trying to borrow money in the market to finance the first stage of design development. And the first thing prospective private financiers are going to ask about is whether the product is competitive.

Good point.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
Airbus is also trying to 'lay off' 40% of the risk on the development to risk-sharing partners worldwide. Once again, any such partners will need to know how competitive the A350 is, and therefore how risky the project actually is.

I think I asked in the other thread (since deleted, I believe) how this compares to the 787. Anyone knows?


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21590 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5489 times:

Quoting MarshalN (Thread starter):
It also says on the 10% more seats page "Flying 300nm farther with space for almost 30 more passengers while burning less fuel per passenger than its future competitor" (i.e. 787, I assume).

What's interesting is that this is a lie, in that they are comparing the 358 to the 788, which is not the "competitor" to the model, and claiming the WHOLE 350 line flies further than the WHOLE 787 line, which is false. The 789 flies further than does the 359, the 788 flies further than the 359, the 358 flies further than both the 788 and 789, but doesn't fly 30 more pax further than the 789, it flies the same number of pax further.

Then there's the whole issue of Airbus fudging the seating ratios and that the number of seats goes down when using the same F/C/Y ratio as Boeing. Further the concept of "space for" 30 more pax is very unclear, as some analyses have shown near equal floor areas, so where does the "space" come from.

The claim about planes in production is silly, as the A350 isn't in production, so they are purposely avoiding comparisons to their actual competition, as the 767 line will close unless they build more tankers. The A350 will never be a direct competitor to the 767, but a successor, and one would HOPE that a successor from any company will be better...

One thing these ads point out is that Boeing is setting the table for this battle, and Airbus is responding. Airbus is not offering anything new on this plane and is thus reduced to making comparisons only. Boeing can say their plane offers better air, bigger windows, etc., and all Airbus can do is say 'that was such a great idea, we decided to do it too.'

This is what I am hearing from Airbus right now: "Oh, and we promise ours is better, but we have no way to back that up right now and we are two years behind, but we promise, if you wait, you'll get a plane that basically performs the same as our competitor but is a bit bigger than you may need (but might be just the right size), depending on who you are. Oh, and we may not be able to build them in a timely fashion, but you should still buy ours and not theirs..."

If I am already an A330/340 customer with a large fleet, or a customer looking to expand far in the future and wanting to make headlines with a big order for a whole new fleet type, I'm not unhappy.

But if I'm a 757/767/777 customer looking to replace/supplement them, or a growing airline who needs planes when they want them in the mid-size class, and I see the uninspired responses from Airbus right now, I'm leaning more toward the 787 than I was a couple weeks ago.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5460 times:

Quoting MarshalN (Reply 6):
I think I asked in the other thread (since deleted, I believe) how this compares to the 787. Anyone knows?

I think the short answer is that no-one can possibly know, because the 787 is only at mock-up stage and the A350 exists only on paper.

But Airbus' marketing pitch is clear enough - the A350 will burn more fuel per mile but carry more passengers to compensate.

Personally I think they'll have a hard time delivering on that - they're basically stuck with the A330 fuselage, which was designed for 8-across seating. Boeing's Indian sale showed that the wider, better-shaped 787 fuselage can much more easily be fitted out in 9-across if need be.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
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...
Fly Baboo, What Do You Think Of The Name? posted Sat Nov 11 2006 00:50:21 by Dambuster
What Do You Think Of The New Jat Colours? posted Tue Jan 13 2004 23:19:29 by Adriaticflight
What Do You Think Of The New First Choice Liverly? posted Wed Nov 19 2003 19:29:36 by Aircraft88
What Do You Think Of The Boeing 764? posted Mon Nov 10 2003 02:56:38 by ACB777
What Do You Think Of The New Piarco posted Tue Aug 19 2003 04:36:51 by Vkstealth
What Do You Think Of The New Tame Livery? posted Tue Jul 22 2003 08:14:53 by Kjet12
What Do You Think Of The A330? posted Thu Nov 29 2001 20:23:46 by EGFF
WHat Do You Think Of The New AA 717 posted Sat Oct 20 2001 20:28:16 by Delta2006
What Do You Think Of The New "Pax Bill Of Rights"? posted Wed Jun 13 2001 02:17:52 by LAX
What Do You Think Of The Aer Lingus Livery? posted Sun Nov 19 2000 02:14:46 by Teahan