Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2226 times:
It has now come to light, at least in Boeing's claims, that those 20 UFO 737s are NOT from China, and further, that they DO have a 150 LOI from China (not the 70 widely reported in the press), and they only booked 50 in 2005. Their claim is that their 70+80 order (no options) is identical to the Airbus 150 A320 order in structure.
It was my impression that China had settled all their accounts pre-dec 31, but this turns out not to be the case. Boeing also claim that Airbus is not being truthful when listing all 150 A320 series from China as booked, as they are not actually ordered and allocated to airlines, per Chinese procedures.
So, is Airbus right here for how they listed their orders? Or is it not okay to do what Airbus has done? Should we count the 100 737NGs that aren't booked toward the Boeing gross for 2005? Or subtract the 150 A320s, since NONE have been allocated to airlines? Is there a political angle to this whole issue that we are not aware of, basically China saying to Airbus to book them all so they can win and "embarrass" the USA as punishment for Taiwan policy? (that's my opinion, but its' my own).
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2185 times:
If Airbus has historically (pre-2005) booked unallocated orders under GTAs with the Chinese Government as part of its annual order total, then its merely a procedural difference between the OEMs, and is kosher. If this practice began in 2005 to win the units sales derby then it's at a minimum bad sportsmanship.
In the end, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans, because the aircraft in question are likely to be delivered. The Boeing boosters should gracefully concede defeat, and console themselves with the knowledge that it's 150 less orders for the A320 family in 2006.
MarshalN From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2005, 1521 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2162 times:
Quoting Leelaw (Reply 2): In the end, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans, because the aircraft in question are likely to be delivered. The Boeing boosters should gracefully concede defeat, and console themselves with the knowledge that it's 150 less orders for the A320 family in 2006.
I agree, chances of the delivery not happening is virtually nil, as the Chinese can use every plane they get, so whether it's booked this year or next year matters very little in substance. It might make a difference in the "we got more orders this year" contest, but big deal...
Shenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1701 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2137 times:
I made this point in another thread, that the orders were not firmed by the Chinese carriers, as they need to negotiate both the airplanes specification, price and delivery position.
Airbus had a chance in a lifetime to lay claim to the largest order year in the history of commercial airplane manufacturing, and simply couldn't let this slip away to Boeing.
If I were Airbus, and part of their management team (which isn't the most credible these days) I would have probably done the same thing. The chances of anouncing 1111 orders in a single year won't be that high for the foreseeable future.
At the end of the day, it doesn't hurt either companies bottom line, and most companies skew numbers to some extent.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2125 times:
Just a couple of things to consider:
1. This is a prime example of how sales numbers and stats can be manipulated and adjusted.......you can make numbers say basically whatever you want them to say. Boeing had a great year, Airbus had a great year.
2. Boeing and Airbus do have different ways of counting orders......and not to start an A vs B war, Boeings numbers tend to be more realistic/accurate and Boeing is a bit more straight forward when it comes to cancellations. The China thing always raises special issues.
3. If Boeing did sell 150 737NGs to the Chinese, they are happy.......probably the a.net crowd is more concerned with the sales race numbers for 2005 than they men and women in Chicago/Seattle.
Quoting Leelaw (Reply 2): The Boeing boosters should gracefully concede defeat, and console themselves with the knowledge that it's 150 less orders for the A320 family in 2006.
Good point......Boeing did just fine in 2005 and has done especially well with the 777 family and getting the 787 program off the ground....and if the information concerning China is, in fact correct, the 737NG sales are off to a great start for 2006.
Intothinair From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 392 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1992 times:
Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 6): and if the information concerning China is, in fact correct, the 737NG sales are off to a great start for 2006.
Lol, yes indeed, at least one good point coming out of this, though i really do find this bad sportsmanship should I call it of Airbus to "Manipulate" and twist these numbers.
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11360 posts, RR: 50 Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1952 times:
Quoting Leelaw (Reply 2): If Airbus has historically (pre-2005) booked unallocated orders under GTAs with the Chinese Government as part of its annual order total, then its merely a procedural difference between the OEMs, and is kosher.
Indeed it has handled all the Chinese "bulk" orders this way. They are initially listed as being placed by CASC, then as the individual planes are allocated to the airlines, the orders are "moved" to that airline. Once the entire order is allocated, the entry for CASC is simply removed.
In front of the World's press Airbus clearly stated that they only book an order once a contract has been signed and a deposit paid. I saw an online news report yesterday where an Airbus spokesperson was asked specifically about the Chinese A320 order. She said "Contracts have been signed and deposits paid."[I can't find the link just now]
The Boeing cheerleaders won't (or simply refuse to) believe it, but I fail to see why Airbus would lie in front of the World's press and break the law by falsifying business records.
CPH757 From Denmark, joined Sep 2005, 684 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1935 times:
If this is a manipulative marketing stunt from Airbus, kudos to their management. They get a lot of positive media appearance of it, and Boeing doesn't.
You can talk about all the crap that is isn't fair and so on, but who listens to you?
It's not Airbus who are the fools here, it's Boeing
And no, I'm not into this pro-Airbus or Pro-Boeing thing. I just view them as two competitive companies, both making good and less good decisions, which is always fun to comment on in these subjective discussions
Last flight: SAW-CPH on H9 on 02/11/09 - Next Flights: 23/12/09 CPH-AAL on QI, 30/12/09 CPH-LHR on SK, 19/01/10 CPH-CDG-
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10456 posts, RR: 20 Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1831 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 8): "Contracts have been signed and deposits paid."
So this is the rule used by Airbus, what is the rule used by Boeing? I think Boeing waits till a delivery position is assigned, no? In any case, if Boeing's customers don't care, why not just add another column to their orders spreadsheet titled "deposits accepted", and let the public sort it out? Then they would not have to look like childish complainers when A announces their numbers.
PlaneDane From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1664 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 8): I saw an online news report yesterday where an Airbus spokesperson was asked specifically about the Chinese A320 order. She said "Contracts have been signed and deposits paid."[I can't find the link just now]
The Boeing cheerleaders won't (or simply refuse to) believe it, but I fail to see why Airbus would lie in front of the World's press and break the law by falsifying business records.
Then we should just consider Airbus the winner in total sales for last year and move on.
Quoting CPH757 (Reply 9): It's not Airbus who are the fools here, it's Boeing
Where and when did Boeing publicly challenge the total sales numbers Airbus came up with for last year? Randy merely pointed out the difference in accounting methods in a typically polite way.
Reggaebird From Jamaica, joined Nov 1999, 1169 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1547 times:
I am sure that I am in the minority here but I do believe that it's in the industry's best interest to know that both Airbus and Boeing received identical order quantities (with appropriate deposits) from China. This will show, as I have said since 1/17 (see my post in the original thread), that Airbus has not "triumphed" over Airbus but instead has just manipulated numbers to appear as if they did.
Airbus received a substantial amount of positive press when they announced that they had "won" the 2005 sales race. Many are saying "who cares" but obviously, many industry observers and others do care. Indeed, reports of Airbus' supposed win even made headlines in the mainstream news (e.g., reported on the morning chat program called the "Today Show" in the USA). We also know that it was a huge headline in the commercial aviation industry.
I also think that an airline executive looking to buy planes in the A320/B737 class might look more favorably on a model that sold 918 frames versus one that sold 564 frames.
Therefore, I think that Boeing to fight to reveal the truth, which is that they won the 2005 sales war.
Mham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3001 posts, RR: 3 Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1471 times:
As Reggaebird points out-its all about the publicity. Everywhere in the press you see that Airbus has won the orders war for so many years. Add to that that they can now say they recieved the most orders ever. Only the a-netters and industry insiders will know its tainted, but John Public will continue to believe that Airbus' fumes don't stink. Long term though, Airbus' tendancies to fudge the truth have already begun to hurt them. Read Tim Clarks recent comments.
MarshalN From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2005, 1521 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1453 times:
Quoting Reggaebird (Reply 13): I am sure that I am in the minority here but I do believe that it's in the industry's best interest to know that both Airbus and Boeing received identical order quantities (with appropriate deposits) from China. This will show, as I have said since 1/17 (see my post in the original thread), that Airbus has not "triumphed" over Airbus but instead has just manipulated numbers to appear as if they did.
Uh.... everybody in the industry, heck, everybody on a.net knows that Boeing and Airbus both got an order for 150 planes from China. The difference is really in accounting, nothing else. What doesn't go in this year will go in next year. Airbus counting all 150 means none of it will go into 2006. If, say, Boeing wins the 2006 race with a count of less than 100, will you then say Boeing manipulated the numbers to win the race because they could've booked the whole order but didn't?
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, 
From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2770 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2005, 1521 posts, 
From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 392 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11360 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Sep 2005, 684 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22714 posts, 
From Jamaica, joined Nov 1999, 1169 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Apr 2004, 543 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
