Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Analysis Of Airbus/Boeing 2005 Sales Figures  
User currently offlineReggaebird From Jamaica, joined Nov 1999, 1176 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5691 times:

I found this simple chart very helpful in understanding how significantly Boeing trounced Airbus in sales this year. Despite the obvious larger total number of firm orders, Boeing beat Airbus in every category except single aisle. It should be noted that the single aisle category was severely skewed by China's "political purchase" of 150 machines from Airbus. It should also be noted that Boeing was also originally tapped for a sale of 150 machines but lost 80 of those after the US President criticized China for human rights violations just prior to his visit with the Chinese President. Additionally, Boeing has not counted those 70 machines in their numbers.

What is most astonishing about these numbers is the fact that Boeing has finally figured out how to counter the Airbus wunderkind's (Leahy) sales tactics.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/new...business/links/boeingorders30.html

[Edited 2006-01-01 17:59:43]

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5676 times:

Quoting Reggaebird (Thread starter):
It should be noted that the single aisle category was severely skewed by China's "political purchases" of 150 machines from Airbus and 70 from Boeing.

That's a very astute observation. China had floated rumors, before the meeting with President Bush, that they were prepared to order 150 737s. It then turned out to be 70, which is still a nice order for Boeing...

That 150 number can be substantially lower when finalized.

Regards, and Happy New Year to all,

Sal



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5674 times:

Another thread?

News flash: Boeing sold way more widebodies in 2005 accounting for a huge lead in future revenue, but the A320 family is pulling ahead of the 737NG especially with new carriers, so Boeing's Y1 (797) is on the way sooner than many others predicted despite huge backlog.

With so many other threads on the topic, no reason to add anything to this thread beyond that!



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5672 times:

Interesting comparison even though the value of the sales figures are somewhat speculative since they use "list prices" rather than actual sales figures, which aren't in the public domain. I found Mr. Humbert's comments at the Dubai Air Show very interesting regarding market share. It seemed to imply, for me at any rate, that he wasn't concerned with out selling Boeing, just for the sake of playing the numbers game. I took this as a his main focus would be on profitability. Right? Wrong?


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5655 times:

BTW - in that table, did they just squish a 777 for the 767/787 graphic? The APU exhaust cone shape is not 767/787 at all...


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31394 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5654 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Reggaebird (Thread starter):
It should be noted that the single aisle category was severely skewed by China's "political purchases" of 150 machines from Airbus and 70 from Boeing. It should also be noted that Boeing was also originally tapped for a sale of 150 machines but lost 80 of those after the US President criticized China for human rights violations just prior to the contract signing.

Boeing should get those orders in 2006, probably in late Q1 or early Q2, to maintain political "parity", so in the end both companies should log 150 sales in 2006.

[Edited 2006-01-01 18:15:24]

User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5052 posts, RR: 44
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5651 times:

Quoting Reggaebird (Thread starter):
It should be noted that the single aisle category was severely skewed by China's "political purchases" of 150 machines from Airbus and 70 from Boeing.

Nope. Neither of those are counted in the totals for 2005.


User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5639 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 3):
I took this as a his main focus would be on profitability. Right? Wrong?

Absolutely right.... The same thing Mr. Condit said, when faced with dwindling marketshare at Boeing.



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineReggaebird From Jamaica, joined Nov 1999, 1176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5617 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
News flash: Boeing sold way more widebodies in 2005 accounting for a huge lead in future revenue, but the A320 family is pulling ahead of the 737NG especially with new carriers, so Boeing's Y1 (797) is on the way sooner than many others predicted despite huge backlog.

Airbus is pulling ahead with the A320 because they are known to sell them at outrageously huge discounts. It is the most public secret in the commercial aviation industry. I also think that Boeing tends to do pretty well with established and stable carriers. It's nice to sell to new carriers but manufacturers have to be weary of having too much of their backlog in the hands of airlines that may not be around when the inevitable LCC shakeouts occur (already happening in the north american markets).

On your other point, Boeing and Airbus would be foolish if they did not heed the call of the marketplace and improve fuel-efficiency of their entire product line. I think that Boeing's 737 replacement is moving forward because Boeing has technology and money to do it now . This is in contrast to Airbus, which is severely tied down with development costs for the A380 and the new A350 and does not appear to have any new technology to run with.

Reggaebird


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7302 posts, RR: 57
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5601 times:

Quoting Reggaebird (Reply 8):
Airbus is pulling ahead with the A320 because they are known to sell them at outrageously huge discounts

Name one airline CEO that has publically stated that they 'Raped' Airbus before you make such a stupid statement.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5570 times:

The A320 is pulling ahead because it is a good aircraft even if a little heavier. Cost to own is roughly the same, but has better space inside. 737NG saving grace is it's range (especially the 738), which was tailor made for USA transcons, while A320 was designed just a bit short on that one. Okay for airlines hubbed 1/3 to 1/2 way across the country or who also have 757s in the fleet, but not for some carriers who want to use the plane on all domestic routes should they need to.

Newest A320s perform better, and one would assume Virgin America won't have any issues, but had the A320 had the range the 738 does, one would guess it would have sold even better, sooner.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5052 posts, RR: 44
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5546 times:

Quoting Reggaebird (Reply 8):
Airbus is pulling ahead with the A320 because they are known to sell them at outrageously huge discounts. It is the most public secret in the commercial aviation industry.

Aah yes, that explains why Airbus has, over the last few years, been more profitable than the Boeing Commercial Airplanes division, and has higher margins.

Oh no wait, it doesn't...

Seriously: change the tune, this one's getting pretty old.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5512 times:

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 11):
Seriously: change the tune, this one's getting pretty old.

Hey, I agree with you! Shock and awe...

I mean, if a company consistently sells a product below profit, they fail. Airbus is doing fine.

If the A320 sells for less than the 737NG on average (a big if, but let's assume it does), maybe it costs less to make? Maybe they can offer better volume discounts for new carriers due to production efficiencies? Maybe they can offer better maintenance contracts?

Either way, that is part of what makes the A320 a more desirable aircraft for many. You can't separate that out from the product, which also happens to carry more cargo and has better passenger space.

Thus the only way B can overcome this advantage is to introduce the 797 with lower production costs in line with the savings introduced in the 787.

PS - I fly in the 737NG all the time and think it's a great little plane. But I also think it could be a better plane than it is with a clean sheet redesign. And so does Boeing.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4575 posts, RR: 41
Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5363 times:

This thread will stay on topic. If you are going to post stuff, please ensure it is backed up with facts. I don't want to have to remove low-quality flamebait from this topic. If I do, the offending posters can expect to have their posting privileges suspended.

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5343 times:

Quoting Reggaebird (Reply 8):
Airbus is pulling ahead with the A320 because they are known to sell them at outrageously huge discounts. It is the most public secret in the commercial aviation industry.

something which is no secret at all is that Airbus is profitable, and substantially profitable.

So if the A320 is their main product and it is sold at massive discounts, where do the profits come from?

You cannot just make the bold statement that Airbus sells at huge discounts to gain market share and then ignore the bottom line, which is REAL profit. The A320 also pays royalties on the design to investors, yet still those profits stack up. Despite all the 'political' and 'impossible' deals, the money keeps rolling in.

Don't believe everything the cheerleaders try and spin.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 15, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5286 times:

Neither firm makes large profits, expressed as a percentage of turnover. That's pretty well inevitable in a field like aeroplane manufacture, given the need for high research and development expenditure, long lead times, expensive materials and technology etc.

But there is another factor reducing profits - the existence of a classical duopoly, two firms only serving a given market, each offering comparable products. Both Airbus and Boeing, up to the present time, have been producing broadly similar products - so both have been forced to keep prices at marginal levels. And both have had, in broad terms, to be satisfied with about half the available market for some time.

The outcome of a duopoly is usually a 'Nash equilibrium'; neither firm able to raise prices without sacrificing market share. The only way out of the deadlock is for one firm either to raise the quality of its products so that they command higher prices than its competitor's, or to lower its production costs and thus be enabled to reduce its prices while remaining profitable.

More info. on here:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_duopoly

That duopoly is basically why both firms have been paying a lot of attention to keeping production costs down. And why Boeing, in particular, have put a lot of effort into improving its product quality; particularly, seems to me, in the area of fuel economy.

On the face of it, Boeing have made a lot of progress this year in breaking the duopolistic deadlock in the midsize sector. Most significantly, there seems to be little doubt that the 777 is selling at quite high prices because it is quite simply a better product. The fact that Boeing claims very low production costs for the 787, as well as better quality, may prove to be even more significant in the next couple of years.

It is up to Airbus to respond quickly and effectively, particularly in the midsize sector; otherwise, seems to me, Boeing's prices (and profits) will no longer be constrained by 'duopoly' conditions, at least where midsizes are concerned.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineQutaiba From Kuwait, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5236 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 15):
It is up to Airbus to respond quickly and effectively, particularly in the midsize sector; otherwise, seems to me, Boeing's prices (and profits) will no longer be constrained by 'duopoly' conditions, at least where midsizes are concerned.

Airbus initial response is the A350, as for production efficiencies contributing to cost reductions that is a bit out of my league, but it is advertised to be 'several' tonnes lighter than the A330.

Also wouldn't a higher price 787 per say increase the ownership costs, especially for finance purchase, which may make some airlines look at the short-medium range savings in procurement?



When the tide comes in, all ships will rise
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 17, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5204 times:

Quoting Qutaiba (Reply 16):
Also wouldn't a higher price 787 per say increase the ownership costs, especially for finance purchase

Yes it would, Qutaiba - but only marginally. The cost of operating a capital asset like an airliner over its working life dwarfs the original acquisition cost. People mostly don't buy cheap thirsty cars, they are usually prepared to trade off a higher price against greater economy in use. In any case, as far as I know the 787's current list price is some $30M. below that of the A350; so all the signs are that it is cheaper as well as better.

I agree that the A350 is Airbus' initial response - but they've had to aim it midway between the 787 and the 777, trying to use one model to compete with two. Personally I don't think the A350 alone is anything like an adequate response; and the order situation so far seems to vindicate that view.

There is one aspect of classical duopoly theory that could operate in Airbus' favour, and that is production capacity. If one of the two firms succeeds in breaking the doupoly, the next question that faces it is how far it should press home its advantage.

In theory it could 'go in for the kill' - shoot for 100% of the market. But - starting from a fifty-fifty situation - that would literally require a doubling of its production capacity; which would entail a doubling of the commercial risk. In addition, it would mean diverting a high proportion of future cash flow into developing that extra capacity, which in turn means paying smaller dividends to the shareholders for long periods.

My guess is that Airbus' best hope is that Boeing will not take the risk of jacking up 787 production too high - leading to long delivery times for the 787, which will make room for some A350 sales because it will be available earlier. But I still feel that the A350 can only be a stopgap - Airbus MUST aim to develop at least one completely new model, matching or bettering the quality of the 787 in all respects, as soon as possible.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineIwok From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5168 times:

Quoting Reggaebird (Reply 8):
This is in contrast to Airbus, which is severely tied down with development costs for the A380 and the new A350 and does not appear to have any new technology to run with.

I'd be willing to bet that both companies have contingency plans in place for rapid development of the next generation single isle twin. If A or B makes a move, the other will respond immediately, and they'll make the resources available. This segment of the market is just too critical to ignore. I bet both are probably waiting for the next engine upgrades to be made availably.

iwok


User currently offlineQutaiba From Kuwait, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5088 times:

thank you for the excellent reponse NAV20, you're on my RR list


When the tide comes in, all ships will rise
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2821 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4953 times:

Can anyone normalise this year's order to pounds of payload sold? I think that's more of an accurate indication of the relative success of the manufacturers.

User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10234 posts, RR: 97
Reply 21, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4917 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):
If the A320 sells for less than the 737NG on average (a big if, but let's assume it does), maybe it costs less to make? Maybe they can offer better volume discounts for new carriers due to production efficiencies? Maybe they can offer better maintenance contracts?

Good points, Ikramerica. Whatever the mythology that abounds about the A320, two points are unquestionable.
Firstly,the A320 accounts for about 60% of Airbus operating profit. If this figure were any less, then they either sell the widebodys at very advantageous prices, or they cost next to nothing to build (neither of which I believe to be fundamentally true)

Also, in the past few years, Airbus has made more profit per frame on the A320 than Boeing have on the 737 (not by much, but it has to have done for the accounts to show what they do).

FWIW, I think the dramatic increase in 737 turnover will substantially increase its profitability for Boeing - i.e. past performance may not be a guide to the future)

Whatever, Airbus make a LOT of money from the A32x series.

Regards


User currently offlineTNboy From Australia, joined Mar 2002, 1131 posts, RR: 19
Reply 22, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4917 times:

Interesting that only ten years ago, Boeing said it had secured 69.7% share of the market for new commercial jets; Mc Donnell Douglas had 9.9 per cent, and Airbus had 14.8 per cent. It has been an interesting ten years!
Cheers
Bill



"...every aircraft is subtly different.."
User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4879 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 17):
My guess is that Airbus' best hope is that Boeing will not take the risk of jacking up 787 production too high - leading to long delivery times for the 787, which will make room for some A350 sales because it will be available earlier. But I still feel that the A350 can only be a stopgap - Airbus MUST aim to develop at least one completely new model, matching or bettering the quality of the 787 in all respects, as soon as possible.

As always, right on the money NAV. I believe that the boys and girls in Chicago are planning just what you alluded to... Word is that they will start building 787 frames in 2007 and park them prior to EIS. I've also read that they are seriously looking at substantial production increases and capacity to support those higher production goals. I don't see how Boeing has any other choice. The demand for both the 777 and 787 must be testing their current production capability.

Regards and Happy New Year to all,
Sal



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 22
Reply 24, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4823 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 17):
My guess is that Airbus' best hope is that Boeing will not take the risk of jacking up 787 production too high - leading to long delivery times for the 787, which will make room for some A350 sales because it will be available earlier.

Interesting that people keep repeating this dubious theory. However I strongly disagree. Airbus latest customer for the A350, Bangkok Airways, will not take delivery of their aircraft before 2012. No doubt, would they have wanted the 787, they would have been able to get them aswell in 2012. Qatar Airways, apparently had production slots reserved for up to 60 787, right from the start. Instead they choose the A350 and let, apparently, Qantas fill in their slots. Just 2 examples, where, despite the 787 being available earlier or at the time the airline wishes to take delivery of their aircraft, the airlines opted for the A350 instead. Nav's theory doesn't stand a chance here.



SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
25 NAV20 : Happy New Year to you too, Sal. So they're inclined to go in for the kill? I suppose I'd maybe have done the same, given the circumstances. But then
26 Post contains images USAF336TFS : With respect, NAV's "theory" as you called it, is based on the fact that the customer either wants: 1) A clean sheet designed aircraft or 2) A deriva
27 NAV20 : Manni, with respect, I wasn't really advancing a 'theory' - more an economic principle, namely the nature and consequences of the duopoly. If you said
28 JayinKitsap : Starting a 2nd 787 line has some big financial risks, but not starting it could possibly be worse. Running a line at max capacity usually involves ove
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...
Boeing 2006 Sales Ahead Of 2005 Total posted Fri Oct 13 2006 22:40:01 by AirMailer
Fuel Burn Of Airbus And Boeing? posted Tue Apr 25 2006 04:39:13 by MaxQ2351
What Investors Think Of Airbus (EADS) And Boeing posted Thu Jan 19 2006 16:42:25 by BestWestern
Airbus Says 2005 Orders Similar To Boeing posted Fri Jan 6 2006 16:42:19 by Kalakaua
Airbus Orders As Of Nov. 30, 2005 posted Wed Dec 7 2005 17:27:01 by NYC777
Conflict of Interest? Boeing funded Airbus investigation posted Mon Apr 18 2005 05:21:47 by NorCal
Boeing: We'll Outsell Airbus In 2005 posted Tue Apr 5 2005 14:18:49 by PANAM_DC10
Airbus/Boeing Future Of Gas Powered Aircraft..... posted Wed Aug 11 2004 23:22:50 by Btblue
Updated Total Number Of Orders For Airbus/Boeing posted Tue Nov 6 2001 11:44:16 by United Airline
Boeing Sets Sales Record, Pressure On Airbus. posted Tue Dec 5 2000 04:39:50 by CX747