Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Sales Anomaly  
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6294 times:

I am not trying to start an A vs B war. Honest.

I am writing as someone who has been or is still, at various times, been a private investor investor in EADS stock, and a person involved in consolidating and reporting results for multinational corporations. As both a shareholder and a reporting specialist, I say the orders Airbus announced in December 2005 deserve some serious scrutiny.

First of all, as a consolidations and reporting specialist, and having also worked in line management, I am very well familiar with a concept called "loading". Loading is when you call your customers just before the end of the year (let's say 2005) and beg them to buy more stock than they really need. If you can get the invoice sent before the end of the 2005, it's counted as a sale, and that way you can pad your financial results for the year, and get yourself a nice bonus. The problem with loading is that, in January, your customer now has twice as much stock as he needs, and your sales decrease while he tries to get his inventory back under control. So that screws up your sales for 2006, UNLESS you do the same thing again at the end of 2006. And 2007. And 2008. Loading helps you in one year, but then you are trapped in a cycle which you cannot get out of.

Many of you might say. "What's the problem with that? All you are doing is shifting sales from one period to another. Over the long term, it comes to the same thing"

Not true. You have to convince your customers to buy more than he needs, which messes up his inventories and could make his results look worse. That means you have to offer steep price discounts or abnormal payment terms (which hit your cash flow eventually, but not your Income Statement). Sometimes you pay for nice vacations for your customer and his employees in Tahiti. But in all cases, loading results in sales that do not provide as much Return On Sales (ROS) than normal.

And since you have trapped yourself in the cycle, you will have maybe 10% or 20% or even 30% of your annual sales which provide substandard profitability, every year.

Therefore, a company that allows itself to load results ends up short-changing itself. Shareholders have the right to to get upset when this happens. Loading is, essentially, a form of fraud. You, as an sales manager, are padding your sales in order to meet a particular target in order to get a good bonus, or to make a cool PR impact, but at the cost of your company's profitability.

The typical indicator that loading is going on is when there is a sudden jump in sales right before the end of a period, particularly when that jump "just happens" to coincide with a need for just that, in order to meet a forecast, or (in the case of Airbus) a competitor threatening to take over your lead.

So when I see Airbus announce orders for 424 planes (40% of their entire year's orders, and more than all of 2004 orders) in just the one month of December, that indicates to me that they pulled out all the stops to beat Boeing's order book. Is that proof that Airbus sold planes at a loss or made other unreasonable efforts to make it? No. But it is enough to raise suspicion.

http://www.airbus.com/odxml/orders_and_deliveries.xls

I also see that Airbus announced orders from 20 different companies in December. The average number of customers per month is between 6 and 7. Is this proof? No.

Each order announcement prior to December was for 11.6 planes per customer. In December, it was 21.2 per customer, which could be an indication. If we discount the massive CASC order, it is still 14.4, which is perhaps not significant, but maybe it is.

Taken individually, one could assume that Airbus had a good month. In fact, November was also a good month, with 193 announced orders, more than double that of any prior month. November also showed 19.3 planes per client.

But the facts taken together: 1) The unusual number of clients, 2) the unusual number of planes per client, 3) the timing of over 50% of the year's sales in only 2 months, and 4) that a similar ordering pattern is not really present with Boeing (Boeing's December was 204 units ordered) gives rise to suspicion.

So, as a shareholder, I have to question the sincerity of these sales. Did they make those sales due to give-away prices? I would support kicking out the management for those practices. I don't care to be number one in unit volume if it means making a loss an a large number of those sales.

How can we find out what the purchase prices are for these sales?

49 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBR076 From Netherlands, joined May 2005, 1086 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6259 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Thread starter):
I am not trying to start an A vs B war. Honest.

 Yeah sure



ú
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25712 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6210 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Cfalk (Thread starter):
I am not trying to start an A vs B war. Honest.

The primary fiduciary responsibility of the officers of Airbus/EADS is to their shareholders, both public, corporate and governmental.

To fudge the books with unprofitable sales, simply to beat Boeing in sales numbers, as you are suggesting, would mean the end of the careers of those officers involved.

If you are a shareholder and you believe these officers to be capable of these acts, then you should divest yourself of your shareholding immediately.

Sell 'em. Unless you bought quite recently, you would certainly make a profit in so doing.

And if you have any actual evidence of wrongdoing, you should immediately complain to your nearest corporate watchdog.

regards

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1607 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6171 times:

Cfalk
Go to the AGM and demand an answer!

Ruscoe


User currently offlineLY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2744 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6155 times:

I do agree with you,Cfalk.I don't understand how they ended the year with more than 1000 orders!!!


אמא, אני מתגעגע לך
User currently offlineMarshalN From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2005, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6120 times:

Well, a few things which I think we need to keep in mind. What you said is all well and good, and would normally raise some suspicion, but...

1) Whereas the example you gave of loading is that of a typical industrial goods type company, where the order and the delivery happen around the same time, the fact is that aircraft manufacturers can't do that. They are by design limited to whatever they deliver every month, and normally do not raise capacity beyond that. Whether Airline A orders in December or January makes little to no differences in terms of when they actually deliver the planes. So, unlike your example where the purchaser has to deal with immediate problems of inventory control and such, an airline that placed an order a month early (assuming that's what actually happened, which is debatable) can see, IMHO, little to none of the impact that you claim would happen. It matters little exactly when they place their order if the delivery won't happen till 2010 anyway.

2) Somehow, there is a myth here that Airbus sells their planes at giveaway prices or they can't compete with Boeing. While that could have been true for isolated instances/orders, I cannot imagine that they do this as a general practice long term (as some here claim is the case). Where on Earth does Airbus' profit margin come from, if their planes are sold at rock-bottom prices? They obviously don't spin it out of thin air, and if, say, they can sell the planes at cheap prices and still make money at a decent clip, as the books seem to indicate, then all the more power to them. That said, if 40% of their annual sales are at very low prices I think the company would've imploded by now.

And it's not the first time Airbus has put lots of December orders on the books. IIRC they did that last year, and is actually typical of Airbus (I remember a recent FI article made mention of that as well). Given that, it's not particularly abnormal.


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6088 times:

I do understand loading, but I dont think what Airbus did is precisely that.

The orders that it firmed up before year end 2005 were already that, jsut not finalised. All Airbus did was firm those orders up and in doing so moving them from one period to another, they didnt ring up a customer and get them to order MORE stock, they just rushed through orders ALREADY outstanding.

This is different to the loading scenario you give in that these companies werent likely to place another order in 2006 for the same product anyway, and by firming up the orders in 2005 they werent stealing sales from 2006 nor are their customers gaining a backlog of stock since the deliveries wont differ in dates.

Airbus could either have had a good end of year numbers result in 2005 or have had a head start in 2006. To move an order from 2006 to 2005, the order had to be either close to closure anyway or subject to a very time limited special price that resulted in a snap decision by the customer (eg place your order now and get 10% off). To see which one applies, take a look at who firmed up in December, and when they origionally went with Airbus for that order.

Pricing is another matter though, but I think it applies across the board.


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6040 times:

Cfalk,

You may be onto something. BestWestern started a thread recently and the analysis from one investment house caught my attention. See the comment about the A320 sale to China:

Source: NATEXIS BLEICHROEDER, INC.;
Date: Dec 14, 2005
* *** Order intake looks highly promising, since airlines have ordered 687 aircraft from Airbus since the start of the year. Meanwhile, Boeing/$70.59 has received orders for 827 units. Compared to the previous cycle, this high level can be viewed as an advanced indicator of a return to cycle peak. Total orders for the two plane builders should total almost 1,600 aircraft this year, but we do not expect this amount to be replicated next year. A standard level would range between 800 and 850 units. The current buoyant trend was boosted by India’s contribution to orders.
* *** Slowing air traffic in October 2005 (up 6% in passenger traffic and 1.1% in freight) signals a slowdown, whereas growth since the start of the year (10 months) stands at 7.9% (passenger) and 2.6% (freight).
* *** The latest orders from China (150 A320s) call for two comments: 1) even though discounts are customary, prices cuts were so steep for these aircraft that they are worth noting (between 18% and 28%); and 2) this price was accompanied by the relocation of final assembly to China, raising the risk of technological transfers, particularly for equipment.
* *** Although the next renewal of the range is likely to focus on the A320, a price war can be expected between the two aircraft makers, although hedging conditions are less favorable for Airbus than in the past.
* *** Repayable aid is likely to disappear progressively, while extra costs to develop new aircraft could appear. These could slow the launch of the A380, since the cost per unit tapers off as aircraft deliveries rise.
* *** BAE Systems/336.75p looks increasingly committed to pull out of Europe, but if it is set to make a move relative to Eads, this could be the disposal of MBDA (37.5%).

This is the thread in which BestWestern's entire post can be found and the above quote material may be put into more context

What Investors Think Of Airbus (EADS) And Boeing (by BestWestern Jan 19 2006 in Civil Aviation)

[Edited 2006-01-22 22:26:42]

User currently offlineBoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1597 posts, RR: 17
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5970 times:

Just imagine if this thread was started by a non-EU member... Their would be a public execution. lol

I have the very same feelings as the thread starter. But does it really matter at this point? Airbus took many risks in the past and they turned well for them.

Agreed that Airbus focuses to much on year end sale counts. This is only to feed the media and PR. Is anyone that matters listening? Do investors care for the order count? Or do they watch for Quality (blue chip airlines, or New / LCC orders) oppose to quantity?

I'd be willing to bet investors look for order values and that alone is the final judgment of the performance and the 2005 winner.

Airbus has huge challenges ahead... the dying A340, sales for the A380 and firming up the design for the A350 that can compete with the 787 of today as well as future 787 variants. Will their current business plan support all their challenges. Are they going to have some growing pains from all this expansions and new products? We shall see...

I believe Boeing biggest challenge right now is finding passenger sales for 747 and when to start offering an all new 737. To Airbus' credit the A320 is proving to be a superior plane - year after year... Time for Boeing to deliver in this segment.



Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
User currently offlineSwissy From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 1734 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5914 times:

[quote=BoeingBus,reply=8]Just imagine if this thread was started by a non-EU member... Their would be a public execution. lol

Last time I checked Switzerland is not a EU member, however Cfalk has some
good points ...............

Cheers,


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31444 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5867 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As noted by others, it is highly unlikely Airbus "dumped" new plane orders but instead fought hard to sign as many outstanding orders, commitments, and LOIs they could, once it looked like Boeing would overtake them in orders for the year.

Airbus might have sweetened the incentives a bit to sign in December instead of January, but notice that QR, for example, still has not firmed their A350 order and I imagine Airbus would have gladly traded 120 (or even 180) A320s for those 60 A350s as it would be a serious statement of confidence to the program vs. the 787 over and above the constellation of smaller orders they have put together. So if Airbus did offer some incentives, they didn't "give away the store to do it".


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5838 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
As noted by others, it is highly unlikely Airbus "dumped" new plane orders but instead fought hard to sign as many outstanding orders, commitments, and LOIs they could, once it looked like Boeing would overtake them in orders for the year.

That begs the question if they get those kinds of dramatic improvements in results as a matter of just effort, why not "fight hard" all year around? Or if they do fight hard all year around, why did wallets around the open nearly simulantaneously in December for Airbus? In other words, what exactly was so special about December? (Are A320s now stocking stuffers?)

[Edited 2006-01-22 23:24:37]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31444 posts, RR: 85
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5818 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting N79969 (Reply 11):
That begs the question if they get those kinds of dramatic improvements in results as a matter of just effort, why not "fight hard" all year around? Or if they do fight hard all year around, why did wallets around the open nearly simulantaneously in December for Airbus? In other words, what exactly was so special about December?

How did Boeing sign the AI order in the last two weeks of 2005 when a formal (now ceremonial) signing ceremony was scheduled in the first two weeks of 2006? The Indian government had already knocked a few percentage points off, yet Boeing also got them for convert options to firm orders. So did Boeing do anything...special...to get AI to sign the papers a few weeks early to record the sale in 2005? And if they did so, then why should Airbus doing the same be viewed "suspiciously" by some?

Airbus saw what happened to Boeing when a hard sales target for the 787 was stated, yet did the same thing themselves 12 months later with the A350. Airlines who were committed to the 787 waited to see if they would get a better deal, and QR might have done the same. Boeing didn't "bite" with additional discounts, so the airlines ordered early the following year. Since QR didn't sign in December, it is possible Airbus also didn't offer additional discounts, and QR will sign in early 2006 and other carriers expected to order A350s (like Aer Lingus) will probably place orders, as well.

That's the business.  

[Edited 2006-01-22 23:27:11]

User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5786 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
How did Boeing sign the AI order in the last two weeks of 2005 when a formal (now ceremonial) signing ceremony was scheduled in the first two weeks of 2006? The Indian government had already knocked a few percentage points off, yet Boeing also got them for convert options to firm orders. So did Boeing do anything...special...to get AI to sign the papers a few weeks early to record the sale in 2005? And if they did so, then why should Airbus doing the same be viewed "suspiciously" by some?

I do not think anyone is suggesting that a little "dash to the finish line" is a horrible, unacceptable thing. It is just the sheer scale of what Airbus sold in December is undeniably dramatic. They did 40% of their annual sales in a month. That would not be such a strange thing if it was a megaorder from a single customer. But as Cfalk points out, those volumes were generated by a broad customer base.

As Cfalk points out that is not sufficient evidence to draw an inference, but is surely enough to warrant some questions.



The AI order you cite has been a done deal for a while. I think the renegotiation came only after some Indian government committee insisted on a review of some kind in late 2005....I am not sure what Air India got out of it in terms of price reduction but Boeing definitely managed to have them convert some of their options into firm orders and maybe they had them move up the signing date as you suggest.

[Edited 2006-01-22 23:35:50]

[Edited 2006-01-22 23:42:23]

User currently offlineMarshalN From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2005, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5652 times:

Quoting N79969 (Reply 13):
I do not think anyone is suggesting that a little "dash to the finish line" is a horrible, unacceptable thing. It is just the sheer scale of what Airbus sold in December is undeniably dramatic. They did 40% of their annual sales in a month. That would not be such a strange thing if it was a megaorder from a single customer. But as Cfalk points out, those volumes were generated by a broad customer base.

Well, let's not over dramatize. Some of those orders have been talked about, discussed, or even signed various sort of MOU, LOI, etc. The China order, for example, was announced earlier and in early December, they must've signed some sort of contract for Airbus to count it as part of the year's total, but the deal has been in the making long before that. It's not as if they just "found" these new customers out of thin air.


User currently offlineHalibut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5579 times:

I d o n ' t K n o w !!!! Something sure smells real fishy !

 scratchchin 

It'll catch up to them sooner or later .

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/256050_air18.html

Boeing does not count Chinese orders until deals have been signed with individual airlines that will take the planes, said Randy Baseler, Boeing's vice president of marketing and the company's point man Tuesday in commenting about the Airbus order victory.

In this case, Airbus counted the 150 orders from the Chinese government before the planes have been allocated to various airlines.

The Chinese government in 2005 also announced that it would buy 150 jets from Boeing. Baseler said Boeing counted 50 of those as orders in 2005 from six airlines. The remaining 100 should be booked this year once the airlines have signed contracts, he said.

Aboulafia said the Airbus orders from the Chinese government were "symbolic" of how Airbus "loaded" its order book at the end of the year to beat Boeing.

"The fact they felt this was necessary raises questions," he said.

Halibut


User currently offlineWidebody From Ireland, joined Aug 2000, 1152 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5479 times:

Price cuts of 18% to 28% for an order of 150 aircraft are considered note worthy?! Boeing discounted 46% for the almost similar Ryanair order.

User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5442 times:

Quote:
It wasn't clear how Airbus achieved such a come-from-behind victory in December.

Typically, airlines announce commitments months before signing binding orders for planes. Boeing, in the past, hasn't counted orders until the airline has signed a binding deal.

But there are no hard-and-fast rules about how and when orders can be counted and no referees in the order game to ensure both companies are using the same standards for their tallies.

It will take years to determine how many of those record orders will eventually become deliveries.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/busine...space/story/5465354p-4931357c.html

[Edited 2006-01-23 03:29:57]

User currently offlineMagyar From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5420 times:

I believe Boeing used similar tricks a few years back.
IIRC, a huge portion of the total orders was "signed" in December AND a significant number of those were UFO-s!
I believe both manufacturer does some accounting "magic"
to do some "make up" on their order book.


User currently offlineCongaboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 352 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5419 times:

I work for a company that practices "loading" to a degree...its not unusual. What I find interesting for Airbus is their focus on beating Boeing, and not addressing the future of the market place. Yes, they believe the A380 fills what they perceive as more than a niche in hub to hub traffic. If I were you, I would buy BA (Boeing)...they are less inclined to constantly look in their rear view mirror....I have.

Conga



"Joey, you like movies about gladiators?"
User currently offlineColumbia107 From Gibraltar, joined Aug 2004, 358 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5407 times:

Quoting Widebody (Reply 16):
Price cuts of 18% to 28% for an order of 150 aircraft are considered note worthy?! Boeing discounted 46% for the almost similar Ryanair order.

Re BA's 46% discount. For interest purposes only, please substantiate. Thanks.



In God we trust
User currently offlineToulouse From Switzerland, joined Apr 2005, 2759 posts, RR: 57
Reply 21, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5395 times:

Quoting Columbia107 (Reply 20):
Re BA's 46% discount. For interest purposes only, please substantiate. Thanks.

Well known fact, yet I cannot confirm exact %. Do you not remember Ryanair's CEO's expression after the order in which MOL put it as diplomatically as only he can... "We 'raped' Boeing".



Long live Aer Lingus!
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5353 times:

Quoting MarshalN (Reply 14):
The China order, for example, was announced earlier and in early December, they must've signed some sort of contract for Airbus to count it as part of the year's total, but the deal has been in the making long before that. It's not as if they just "found" these new customers out of thin air.

I agree that the deals were in the works in some form...but why the dramatic, multi-faceted spike in closures in December? As Cfalk points out, December is clearly an outlier. The numbers themselves are dramatic...not my characterization.


User currently offlineMarshalN From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2005, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5264 times:

Well, I don't know your answer to that, although according to FI

http://www.flightinternational.com/A...pursuit+as+Boeing+sets+record.html

"The manufacturer traditionally adds a large number of orders to its backlog in the final month of the year."

I don't remember how the situation was like the last two years, but FI seems to think that Airbus does this every year. That, at least, would make it seem as though this year is not particularly surprising, although I do not remember any numbers and can't seem to locate any.

Regardless, this is not much more than empty speculation. The bottom line is, Airbus is still a very profitable business.


User currently offlineElvis777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 360 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5240 times:

Hi Toulose,

since it is a well known fact it must be documented somewhere! not just the quote fom the ceo of ryanair... Anyways, I am not disagreeing with you, Ryanair and Easyjet both got sweetheart deals from their respective suppliers. It is just the 46% bit that raises eyebrows. It indeed may be 46 or maybe 45 or maybe 36.3456%. What if I said it is a well know fact that Easyjet and the Chinese govt robbed EADS by getting their planes at a 53% discount? I am sure that you would not stand for that! Although it is a well known fact.. Or is it?

Peace

Elvis777



Leper,Unevolved, Misplaced and Unrepentant SportsFanatic and a ZOMBIE as well
25 Jwenting : Airbus is well known for some shady business practices, including selling under production price and listing options and LOUs as hard sales, especiall
26 N79969 : I think both of these comments are not helpful for this discussion.
27 Manni : Dont mix up your obsessive hatred towards anything possibly related to France, with fictional facts. As N79969 already said, they are to no use in th
28 Post contains images N754PR : Runs like a dream, "Honest" guv
29 Scorpio : God man, do you ever give up? Under production price: Let's see ONE shred of evidence for that. One. Listing options and LOUs (whatever that is) as f
30 Post contains images Scbriml : Here's a quotation from this week's Flight International on Airbus's stunning order total for 2005: Maybe some of the "surprised" can now just get ove
31 Shenzhen : I think that one of the biggest carrots that was held out in front of airlines was delivery positions (less China, for Airbus). Both manufactures were
32 Post contains images Astuteman : Airbus have a simple corporate objective - to consistently achieve double digit margins. I think you're right on the button with that, Shenzhen (look
33 Post contains images BestWestern : Only yesterday did I post the financial results for Airbus SAS that show a healthy profit margin. Can we put this stupidity to bed for once. They oper
34 Jonathan-l : Not that it is in any way related to the original subject, but read up on: Airbus: la veritable histoire, by Pierre Sparaco (I think it is only in Fr
35 Post contains images NAV20 : BestWestern, with a turnover of only E701M. - say 2.5 A380s! - and only 3,501 employees, that simply CANNOT be the Airbus Division. My guess is that
36 BestWestern : Can you provide a source to this comment? if not, it should be taken as untrue. even an proper rumour of one - where the airline has come out and sai
37 Keesje : I can imagine Airbus pushed the order book towards the end of 2005 to defuse perceptions that the balance has changed, the momentum continues & Boeing
38 We're Nuts : Hmm... US Airway's A350's, jetBlue's A320's... Airbus will do anything to put a plane in the air it seems.
39 Jonathan-l : Absolutely! It's terrible and tragic when an aircraft crashes.
40 DistantHorizon : You don't need to imagine anything. Switzerland IS a non-EU member...
41 Widebody : It says thEUR -> thousands of EUR. That makes 701 equal to 701Bn EUR. I think.
42 Stitch : I believe Ryanair posted the actual contract price, by line-item in a press release (so not "$x billion, including frames, engines, and maintenance c
43 Sinlock : I'm not sure I'd agree with all of your points, but most of them on principle. Actually you could get an Idea. Compare order announcements by their Ai
44 Bohlman : Could someone address these comments and possibly quote the real numbers?
45 787engineer : I don't know how you go from thousands to a Billion, but 1,000 x 700,946 is about 701 Million Euro. 701Bn EUR would be ridiculous. . .
46 Glideslope : This is obviously an area of concern. There should be an independent investigation as to the methods involved in reaching the sales numbers.
47 Scorpio : Why? There are NO indications of any wrongdoing, so there is no reason for any independent investigation.
48 Post contains images Scbriml : But apparently only for those who were convinced that Boeing was going to win the sales number "war" The rest of us are either too busy laughing, or
49 Post contains images Halibut : Then they'd have to investigate all the others !    We should be used to these AB anomalies by now . Nothing new !    Go ahead flame me ! lol  
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...
Airbus Sales Announcement At ILA? posted Tue May 16 2006 11:15:57 by Scouseflyer
Ex-Airbus Sales Chief Rips A380 Forecasts posted Tue Mar 14 2006 19:47:19 by Dhefty
Airbus: Sales & Widebodies Right Now posted Fri Dec 23 2005 02:37:12 by Anxebla
Boeing Engineering-led Co-Airbus Sales Led~? posted Tue Dec 20 2005 00:01:04 by Halibut
Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7 posted Wed Jun 18 2003 14:46:31 by Clickhappy
New Airbus Sales Terms By Boeing posted Sat Oct 14 2000 14:04:37 by Ual747-600
Airbus Beats Boeing And Own Sales Forecast posted Sun Jan 15 2006 00:16:41 by Terryb99
Flight Intl: Airbus Exceeds 200 A350 Sales Target posted Mon Jan 9 2006 17:22:43 by BestWestern
Airbus Misses 200 A350 Sales By "10-15%" posted Mon Jan 9 2006 13:58:16 by N1786b
Analysis Of Airbus/Boeing 2005 Sales Figures posted Sun Jan 1 2006 17:50:19 by Reggaebird