Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Customers Back A380 To Keep Airbus Solvent  
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 15444 times:

Brief fair use excerpt:

Quote:
Airline customers for the Airbus A380 super-jumbo are preparing to rally round the embattled aircraft manufacturer for fear that mass cancellations would weaken the company further and play into the hands of its rival Boeing.

[...]

Airlines are concerned that if Airbus is weakened or, at worst fails, then it will give Boeing a monopoly which it will be able to use to dictate prices. One airline executive said: "Our view is that it is probably better to help Airbus through its present predicament rather than give Boeing a clear run. In the end the airline industry needs a strong Airbus. How healthy would it be to have just one supplier?"

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article1842579.ece


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
213 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 15426 times:

Quote:
Airline customers for the Airbus A380 super-jumbo are preparing to rally round the embattled aircraft manufacturer for fear that mass cancellations would weaken the company further and play into the hands of its rival Boeing

I'm not sure their motives are as pure as this, but I have never believed the likes of SQ, EK, or QF would ever consider cancelling. The plane makes good sense for these carriers. We may see them hedge their bets, as in EK converting it's 20 777 options, but I never felt cancellation was in the cards for these guys. The delay has been an absolute blessing for MAS, and probably Thai as well. Of course, this will be expensive; even though Airbus is rumored to be at the end of it's contractual obligation for compensation with some of it's customers, it's hardly in a positon to cite legalisms. They'll pay IMO.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30524 posts, RR: 84
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 15379 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 1):
I'm not sure their motives are as pure as this, but I have never believed the likes of SQ, EK, or QF would ever consider cancelling. The plane makes good sense for these carriers.

Agreed. A few carries, like MH or TG, may use these delays to get out, but I tend to think that they'd already have bailed if they wanted to, unless their contracts made it impossible. So perhaps they still truly desire the plane.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 15301 times:

I have a feeling LH will act as a "Caritas" when it comes to Airbus.


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1541 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 15261 times:

You know this is not true because even a complete A380failure would not bring Airbus down.

They can get through this mess on cash flow from existing orders.

Also even if Airbus failed, Lockheed would get themselves back in the market.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24996 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 15247 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
So perhaps they still truly desire the plane.

Perhaps more than "perhaps"?

Tim Clark, the president of the Dubai-based airline, described the A380 as a "seriously good aircraft when it eventually arrives".

 Smile

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30524 posts, RR: 84
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 15220 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well I was referring to MH and TG (who are often quoted as "likely cancellations"), however that statement does also help provide a counter to the rumors EK will cancel half their A380 order and convert it to 748Is.  Wink

User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 15182 times:

Quoting N328KF (Thread starter):
One airline executive said: "Our view is that it is probably better to help Airbus through its present predicament rather than give Boeing a clear run."

Oddly enough, in strict business terms the airlines might better serve that objective by lowering the curtain on the A380 as soon as possible.

It's becoming clear that the lion's share of Aitbus' management time, design resources, and cash (if any) is going to be concentrated on the A380 for a number of years - probably until it goes into volume production, in 2010 or later.

From the airlines' point of view, it would probably be best if Airbus finished with the A380 straight away and concentrated its cash and resources on producing some sort of A350 and an A320 upgrade.

Otherwise it seems certain that, for the foreseeable future, Boeing will secure a monopoly across the midsize widebody sector, and will also keep the lead in the single-aisle field. Surely that is the opposite of what the airlines want?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24996 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 15152 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 7):
Otherwise it seems certain that, for the foreseeable future, Boeing will secure a monopoly across the midsize widebody sector, and will also keep the lead in the single-aisle field.

I would guess - just a guess - that if Mr. Gallois is right and gets board approval to launch the A350XWB, a manager with his reputation would believe he had the necessary resources to bring it about.

???

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 15055 times:

Quoting Mariner (Reply 8):
a manager with his reputation

Not sure about that 'reputation.' Three years running SNECMA, state-owned engine-manufacturer, and four years running Aerospatiale, state-subsidised avionics company. Both companies made substantial losses while he was in charge. Then SNCF (also state-owned).

From the Airbus viewpoint the most significant thing, to my mind, is that he has been a member of the EADS Board since the company was formed. So presumably he has been a party to all decisions taken since then, including the decision to give priority to the A380 and not bother to develop competitors to the 777 and 787?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 15051 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 1):
I'm not sure their motives are as pure as this, but I have never believed the likes of SQ, EK, or QF would ever consider cancelling.

For future purchasing power and the $$$ involved, they better make certain Airbus sticks around for a long time.

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 4):
You know this is not true because even a complete A380failure would not bring Airbus down.

Hard to say, it wont be allowed to go down. By the same token, if you switch places, Boeing wouldnt be allowed to fail either.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 7):
Oddly enough, in strict business terms the airlines might better serve that objective by lowering the curtain on the A380 as soon as possible.

That is a question for the number crunchers. Boeing and Airbus are so important, that I dont think they will be allowed to completely fail. After all, even MDD did not fail, but was bought.


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7042 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 15021 times:

Ok, in general terms here's a dumb question.
One of Airbus main tenents is commonality in the cockpit across aircraft, which essentially means that if you buy only Airbus you achieve savings with lower crew training cost and "other things".

When monopoly's are discussed, should this not also be included, is this not as "bad" as Boeing getting all the business because they have "better performing aircraft", or are we saying that the way you get a monopoly makes the difference?


User currently offlineKatekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 702 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 14988 times:

What the market needs is a third significant player. The current duopoly leads to this kind of distortion in which customers and governments are willing to prop a struggling company, that would die a natural death under normal circumstances, just to avoid a monopoly. This won't help Airbus to become more efficient and competitive, and will put unfair pressure on Boeing, which in turn could lead to similar intervention by the American government, resulting in a vicious circle. In order to preserve a truly competitive environment, the industry needs at least one, preferably two significant competitors - hopefully somebody will seize the opportunity.

User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24996 posts, RR: 85
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 14977 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 9):
Not sure about that 'reputation.'

The general assessment of him would appear to be more than positive. This is just one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5142590.stm

"However, it has been his ability to combine strong management skills with a popular touch which has made him valued by politicians from both sides of the spectrum."

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 9):
So presumably he has been a party to all decisions taken since then, including the decision to give priority to the A380 and not bother to develop competitors to the 777 and 787?

I don't think "not bother" is a fair assessment. Underestimate the 787? For sure.

They were not alone there.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8182 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 14963 times:

Not canceling full orders so that Boeing will not get a clear run works both ways these days. Now that Boeing is ready to sell some 748i frames it may well be in the interests of the larger airlines to ensure that Airbus does not have a clear run. The 748i is just as important as the 380 in terms of keeping the pencils sharp for future orders. If we look at it this way then EK dropping 10 - 20 380s for an equal number of 748is would be logical - especially if Airbus stays stubborn on the 346 order.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 14843 times:

Quoting Mariner (Reply 13):
"However, it has been his ability to combine strong management skills with a popular touch which has made him valued by politicians from both sides of the spectrum."

But that's the problem. Airbus isn't supposed to be about winning an election, but about making the best planes in the world and/or beating Boeing on price. What does making politicians happy have to do with that (in a rational world)?

I find the premise of this article to be bunk. I don't see EK, for example, buying 45 planes (at a book value of $13.5 billion) it no longer believes in or needs JUST to prop up Airbus. If EK keeps all 45 orders alive, it's because they believe in the jet and want all of them. Even at a 40% discount, EK doesn't have $8 billion dollars to screw around with.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24996 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 14817 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 15):
What does making politicians happy have to do with that (in a rational world)?

(a) quite a lot when you're running a multinational corporation.

(b) his "strong management skills" might also be a help.

(c) Nor do I underestimate his "popular touch".

During his time at the French railways, there was relative (and considerable) industrial peace, even with those notoriously aggressive unions.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineM27 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 314 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 14727 times:

This is a great incentive for both Airbus and Boeing isn't it? Makes them want to get their act together, run their company correctly and develope new aircraft with new materials and new construction methods that are less expensive to own and operate! Why should either bother??? Just sell what you already have developed!!

User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 14695 times:

Quoting N328KF (Thread starter):
Quote:Airline customers for the Airbus A380 super-jumbo are preparing to rally round the embattled aircraft manufacturer for fear that mass cancellations would weaken the company further and play into the hands of its rival Boeing.

I would guess that these aren't the future customers who are demanding penalties be paid by Airbus for the late delivery, correct?


User currently offlinePVG From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2004, 723 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 14650 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 4):
Also even if Airbus failed, Lockheed would get themselves back in the market

Or, Lockheed comes in as a white-knight investor, assumes responsibility for the A350 design and construction (which presumably would move to a US location and would be pushed up to a 2011/12 EIS date) and then gets half of the US Air Force tanker contract using the A350 which would be built in the US by a US manufacturer.

Worth a look if I were them if they can get enough control over the project.


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 14575 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14):
The 748i is just as important as the 380 in terms of keeping the pencils sharp for future orders. If we look at it this way then EK dropping 10 - 20 380s for an equal number of 748is would be logical

I think it's fairly obvious that the 748I is not financially as important to Boeing as the A380 is to Airbus.

I found another Clark quote casting doubt on the cancellation scenario:

Quote:
Clark stressed that Emirates still supported Airbus and had not even considered cancellations. He remained confident that all would "come good in the end."

That's not to say he couldn't order a few 748I frames in addition to the A388's.

Quoting PVG (Reply 19):
Or, Lockheed comes in as a white-knight investor, assumes responsibility for the A350 design and construction (which presumably would move to a US location and would be pushed up to a 2011/12 EIS date) and then gets half of the US Air Force tanker contract using the A350 which would be built in the US by a US manufacturer.

What interest would Lockheed Martin have in keeping Airbus in the loop? I rather doubt this would happen, as the airliner business is a low-margin, cyclical business with enormous barriers to entry and a customer base without especially deep pockets. LM has lower hanging fruit to pick.


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 14463 times:

Is there any particular reason airlines are not just firing out and saying, "We want the airplane"? What is with this political/favoritism crap?


The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 14240 times:

This article by Steve Creedy of "The Australian" puts a rather different interpretation on similar quotes and information.

The airlines are 'dismayed' by the resignation of Streiff:-

"DISMAYED airline executives have warned plane maker Airbus to get its act together amid mounting fears that the shock resignation of chief executive Christian Streiff will slow the aerospace giant's recovery.

"The crisis facing the European manufacturer deepened overnight after Mr Streiff, the architect of a reform plan designed to restore the embattled company, resigned only 100 days into his reign."


Qantas seems to be nearing the end of its tether:-

"Mr. Streiff was instrumental in assuring airlines such as Qantas, which has 12 A380s on order, that Airbus was prepared to face up to its problems and had a plan to get its production line back on track.

"Qantas chief financial officer Peter Gregg said yesterday the airline had been assured there would be no delays beyond the postponement of up to a year announced last week. He said Qantas had been told Airbus had accepted Mr Streiff's A380 restructuring plan but not a wider plan to change Airbus.

"While the airline was not alarmed, it was tired of the situation and wanted Airbus to get its house in order.

"We just wish they would get on with it and sort it out because we're waiting for the aircraft and we don't need them to play politics -- we need them to deliver aircraft," Mr Gregg said."


Similar views were expressed by Tim Clark of Emirates:-

"The manufacturer's biggest A380 customer, Emirates, said it believed the resignation worsened the situation at Airbus and parent company EADS.

"Clearly they had no stomach for his recovery plan, which he saw as the only solution to the structural problems besetting Airbus," Emirates president Tim Clark said. "What you see here is the private sector losing out to the public sector -- which does not bode well for the company, given the magnitude of the problems. Goodness knows what will happen next."

"Mr Clark said he expected that governments would step in to ensure continuity at all costs, because failure would result in a political calamity. "This in itself may provide the impetus Airbus needs to heed the wake-up call and get going again -- but strong leadership is a must," he said."


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...ory/0,20867,20560626-23349,00.html



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineAntares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, RR: 39
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 14197 times:

Half of Macquarie Bank seemed to be at a luncheon addressed by Tim Clark the senior something at Emirates in Sydney this week, since it was held next door.

While I'm on the other side of the globe for the time being, my colleagues tell me Clark said he didn't even think of any cancellations when he told reporters over a week ago that he was considering all options.

He left people in no doubt that cancellations were not an option, and that the A-380 was an integral part of the 'plan' for world domination or whatever term he used, and that the order for 45 was the initial phase.

Pick up me up gently after hearing that. Apparently by the time they get the first A-380 they were due to have 18 in service.

Look, the UAE is damn impressive these days. And in a frightening part of the world too. I'm far from certain where or how far the bonananza will go.

Antares


User currently offlineEDDB From Germany, joined Aug 2006, 244 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 14158 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 3):
I have a feeling LH will act as a "Caritas" when it comes to Airbus.

Cause we all know that playing "Caritas" is what LH shareholders would highly appreciate instead of a nice ROI...

 no 


25 Mariner : I would think many people were surprised - concerned, dismayed, whatever - by it. I was surprised - and I don't have a horse in this race, I'm not bu
26 Poitin : This is a good point. There is a limit before the stockholders rebel. A good friend of mine is a senior airline executive and he basically says that
27 EDDB : I have my doubts... Have a look at how long it took to establish Airbus as a competitor for Boeing, and I think the chinese still have to catch up te
28 Wingman : Not to dismiss Mr. Gallois, his credentials look fairly decent, but running SNECMA is about as far from running Airbus as you can get. One operates Fr
29 Keesje : - 800 747s have to be replaced in the next 20 years - air traffic will tripple in that period - fuel costs are expected to rise above $100 / barrel i
30 Stitch : I'd be flabbergasted, frankly, if this executive's view was shared by many in the industry, even if they personally belong to an airline that does no
31 Post contains images NAV20 : I thought it was clearly explained in my post, Keesje? If Airbus continues to put all its spare cash and resources into the A380, and therefore has n
32 Keesje : NAV20, I doubt many airlines will feel the need to replace their 747's with A350 / A320 replacements, but I'll think it over.
33 Post contains images Jasond : The thread title is misleading to me. I wasn't aware that Airbus were in danger of being insolvent, unless there is something the 'airlines' know that
34 Dougloid : Well, actually there were quite a few of them in the not too distant past. Douglas, Lockheed, and Fokker come to mind. With Douglas, the cry from up
35 Lumberton : Not according to the Chinese press. There are a couple of articles today regarding the Tianjin assembly line....
36 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Keesje, your line of argument for the A380 is very weak! No requirement that they be replaced by aircraft of equal or greater size. The only real requ
37 DeltaDC9 : Or Northrup, or somebody else. When a vacuum is created, somebody gets sucked in. Not true at all. The main reason Lockheed was not allowed to acquir
38 EDDB : Keesje never talked of "near term" if I recall correctly... 20 years was the time frame mentioned and that's exactly what Airbus and Boeing use for t
39 Katekebo : I think the biggest misconception in this whole discussion is that "the world needs Airbus". The truth is that the world does NOT need Airbus, what th
40 Joni : Ok, I'm not saying your friend didn't say that or that he's not working for an airline. However, exactly how would airlines "dump Airbus"? Would they
41 Post contains images EDDB : Didn't notice something about financial support of any kind... Source? No need for a comment....
42 Poitin : I agree, but whoever thought the Europeans could compete against the likes of Boeing, Lockheed, Douglas in the 1970's. The Russians design good airpl
43 TSV : I was going to suggest something like this (without any foundation of course) but not to the same extent : Lockheed takes up a shareholding similar t
44 Burnsie28 : Not EK, they can't even fill the planes they have now, how do they plan to fill 45 A380's....
45 Post contains images TeamAmerica : I consider 20 years to be "near term", so we only differ on words. As for the forecast, I think society in general is in denial. This is in no way li
46 Zeke : If it were not for Chapter 11, how many airlines would there be in the USA today ? If a Chapter 11 style arrangement was entered into with Airbus, wo
47 FD728 : Kill the A380? Don't even think about it. Remember when Boeing created the 747 back in the late 60s and almost went bankrupt. Good thing they didn't b
48 Baroque : I had just absorbed from Nav20 that B>>>A in widebodies (fair enough) and that the A32x is dominated by the B737 (???), when now I learn that Airbus
49 Post contains images EDDB : Good point! Wow... 20 years is roughly 1/4 of my life... I suppose I should stop making long term commitments then... (just kidding) Correct me if I'
50 Keesje : I hope you're wrong. The most recent Boeing product improvements were the 737-900ER, 747-8 (stretch), 757-300, 767-400, 777-300ER and now they are th
51 Post contains images PlaneHunter : LH wouldn't belong to the most successful carriers by acting as "Caritas" towards anyone. Which airlines? You forget that numerous important carriers
52 TeamAmerica : Of course it entirely depends on what we're talking about. I mean 20 years in terms of the future of the industry - roughly the life span of each gen
53 Columbia107 : Ah yes but there is a limit as to how many 500 + seater aircraft can be operated at a profit over one particular route on a given day. And even if yo
54 B707Stu : What was Airbus's A380 sales trajectory for this time this year? I'm wondering what the cumulative effect is on the trajectory and how that translates
55 Travelin man : Airlines already are beginning to replace their 747s. And they are doing so with 772s and 773s, and smaller planes. Given that the A350 is supposed t
56 Stitch : But other airlines also intend to replace them with A380s. And the A388's delays are skewing the trends a bit as airlines have to hold on to their 74
57 Katekebo : Government-supported Airbus is no healthy competition either. Lockheed-Martin, Tupolev, Ilyushin, Embraer, Bombardier have the know-how and infrastru
58 Travelin man : I wouldn't argue otherwise. But it is somewhat silly (IMO) to ignore the obvious trend towards smaller planes on routes that once were the domain of
59 Post contains images Stitch : No argument with either statement.
60 Post contains images EDDB : But if fewer people fly(which I seriously doubt, but that's only my opinion), how is point to point with smaller planes making sense then? The theory
61 PlaneHunter : Competition between Airbus and Boeing has been extremely healthy over the last years. I doubt that 10 years would be enough. PH
62 Bringiton : 10 years is very very optimistic considering that it takes 5-7 years to come out with the EIS of a successfully jet the size of a competing narrowbod
63 TeamAmerica : You seem to believe that there is a demand for 550-seat aircraft, and yet none at all for a 450-seat aircraft. I don't see how every single airline t
64 Katekebo : I tend to agree if you talk about pre-2006 Airbus (although I believe that Airbus has been in slightly more favorable position thanks to the launch-a
65 EDDB : So you want to say that Tupolev and Ilyushin are not helped by Mr.Putin, Embraer and Bombardier are only fooling around by accusing each other of bei
66 Halls120 : As much as I once thought the A380 was the right idea launched at the wrong time, at this point Airbus no choice but to go forward. And as FD notes,
67 David_itl : Aren't most configs for the A380 that have been revealed show substantially less than 550 seats? I know EK has talked of an 800-seater version, but I
68 Post contains images EDDB : I don't think you quoted the right person...
69 AirNZ : Hmmm! I find that interesting.......could exactly the same not be said for being protected in US Chapter 11?????????
70 Hb88 : You certainly could, but that would be impolite. I think our US friends perhaps shouldn't opine too loudly about market competition given the common
71 Bringiton : No one will let airbus die , if Airbus was a free market entity even in the US the govt would not let it die , it is a major source of employment , br
72 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Quite true. I was trying to describe the relative size of the aircraft, not stating an absolute. Not really. Under Chapter 11 ownership of the bankru
73 MD80Nut : I'm quite sure the airlines are not sticking with the A380 in order to keep Airbus afloat. It makes no business sense. Airlines are not charities. The
74 Stitch : It's not so much that I personally don't believe it, but that evidence so far shows that the airlines don't believe it. Boeing has offered five varia
75 Rheinbote : That's a very important thing to note. So all of the sudden the board manages to jump from blissful ignorance to a thorough understanding? Does anyon
76 Post contains images Stitch : I've seen much the same happen with US companies, as well, Rheinbote. So if this is true (in whole or in part), it would not be unique to Airbus and t
77 Katekebo : Do you understand how Chapter 11 works? Educate yourself before stating an opinion. Chapter 11 has nothing to do with Government propping-up failing
78 TeamAmerica : I really don't see this. Better to argue that there is something fundamentally wrong with the B748i offering, not that it is the wrong size. When I o
79 Mariner : (i) The Chapter 11 law was passed by US Congress. (ii) it can mean that a failing, insolvent company is allowed dump on its shareholders and creditor
80 Bringiton : I dont think that there is anything fundamentaly wrong with what the 747-8 I is offering other then the fact that it is not going to sell 100's of air
81 Bringiton : OOPS i dont know how to delete a message !![Edited 2006-10-12 21:38:52]
82 Post contains images AirSpare : @TeamAmerica-Thanks for the Chapter 11 post. Please remember, not all companies are able to exit Chapter 11, and are liquidated to pay off creditors.
83 Hb88 : I know in general how Chapter 11 works. It is a legally mandated mechanism which allows lame duck businesses to stay in operation by various financia
84 Post contains links Mariner : Chrsyler? http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg276.cfm "What saved Chrysler, we are told, are the 1.2 billion in loan guarantees p
85 Sllevin : Transfer of ownership is the difference. The original owners generally lose everything in Chapter 11, so future success brings them not a single shin
86 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Apparently you did not read my comment above (reply 78). There is a considerable difference between a Ch.11 reorganization and a government bailout.
87 N328KF : They were private loans... Uncle Sam was just the cosigner. It's the same deal as the post-9/11 ATSB. In both the cases of Chrysler and ATSB, Uncle S
88 Stitch : Well the 748I is the best offering of the five in terms of advances and efficiency (though the 746 might have had a CASM advantage on sheer size), so
89 TeamAmerica : Applying that logic, why would anyone buy an A350?
90 Atmx2000 : Except foreign airlines can reorganize under US Chapter 11. Avianca did.
91 Bringiton : Simply because that market is quite large (777,A340 replacement)
92 EbbUK : You really are trying to wind us Europeans up aren't you? My heart really goes out to you that the world of business does not operate in the very lin
93 TeamAmerica : And we have a circular argument! The market for 777/A340 is "quite large", and the A380 market is 159 orders so far, but there is no demand at all fo
94 N328KF : Avianca did this because they had a sizable U.S. presence (MRO maybe?) The fact that they used the loophole did not go unnoticed in Congress and in o
95 Post contains images Mariner : And if - in any of the cases - any company had gone belly up, the government would have been stuck with it. The case made for the ATSB "loans" was to
96 Stitch : The A350 is designed to supersede the 777 and A340 families, which themselves superseded the DC-10/MD-11/L-1011 families. If she meets the performanc
97 Mijoatlanta : Why worry about a monopoly then? Either side of the competition can screw up and the industry will support both sides, even the one building a plane s
98 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Stitch, you wrote: I am asking you why you believe that the market is avoiding aircraft in the B748i size range. It's obvious that if an airline can m
99 Bringiton : I dont think that they'll avoid it per say - First of all we would have to assume that the 747-8I doesnt sell , although it only has 3 orders till dat
100 NAV20 : I get the impression that many people think that Airbus can afford to go on concentrating on the A380 because the rest of their range will go on selli
101 Post contains images Stitch : Because 747-400 passenger sales ceased after 2002 and no customer has expressed a public "hard" interest in the 748I. So far it's not generating any
102 Dougloid : Correct. Nothing stopping them from incorporating in Delaware and scoring some of that supposed advantage that airlines in bankruptcy have LOL
103 Post contains images TeamAmerica : 1) Dude, take a breath! Your post reads like Kerouac. 2) Both the B748i and the A388 will be niche aircraft. 3) You really didn't explain why SIZE de
104 Mariner : If it is all just a race with Boeing, then Airbus - I would imagine - will lose this year, maybe for some years - or maybe forever. It is entirely pr
105 Bringiton : That is what i claim that both the aircrafts would be niche although IMO the 747-8 might end up catering to a smaller market which might reflect in i
106 Post contains images ER757 : While some here have pointed out that there may not be room for another, citing the demise of McDD, Fokker, Lockheed etc, I think the time may be rig
107 TeamAmerica : And if they were stupid enough to do that. I assume Boeing knows that overpricing their product would be an invitation to other manufacturers to ente
108 NAV20 : As a matter of fact, Boeing already DOES have 80% of the market, as near as dammit. Boeing's net order total in 2006 is 753. Airbus list 226 gross, b
109 N328KF : Well, there are several other aspects that could indicate higher margins for Boeing, even if they keep prices proportionately competitive with EADS A
110 PlaneHunter : Currently, one should add. PH
111 Manni : Using the numbers you provided.. (Total) 200 - 100 (A320) - 20 (A330) = 80. Are these 80 A340s and/or A380s? No they aren't. Because you are comparin
112 Joni : Poitin, let's not change the subject. Why would the airlines cancel the A380 orders, taking into account the factors I mentioned in post 40:
113 Baroque : It does appear that there is something about the 748i that may not be as attractive as the Boeing sales trailers indicate - either too small, or no l
114 AirSpare : The fall of the dollar on the international market has helped B export at a lower cost, and EADS has said (though there are finance guys on a.nut tha
115 Joni : A fall in the dollar is a major risk factor for Airbus, since at least the lion's share of planes are sold in USD (for the time being). If the dollar
116 TeamAmerica : If there is truly no demand for an aircraft sized 10-20% smaller than A380, then I would suggest that there is actually no demand for the larger airc
117 Dougloid : Don't kid yourself Joni. Airbus and Boeing have hedged against this both on the buying and on the selling side. Long term it's not good for Europe bu
118 Poitin : Hopefully you are right, because we do need a third player and we can have A vs B vs C (China) arguments, which would make a.net even more fun!
119 Joni : Massive subsidies from the Japanese government also help. It's true Airbus has hedged, and doubtless Boeing as well. However, as the circumstances pe
120 Halls120 : Both companies should be pursuing the manufacture of good aircraft they can sell at a profit. Otherwise, they'll both eventually go away.
121 Stitch : If MITI wants to subsidize Japanese companies to allow them to meet Boeing's requirements and keep Boeing from choosing someone else to supply those
122 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Because the United States Government owns any of the air carriers or Boeing....the air carriers are owned by private individuals/institutions/investo
123 Bringiton : I think we have to differentiate between Direct and indirect subsidies - * Do states like Alabama , Cities like hamburg etc provide insentives for bui
124 Stitch : Yes. Probably. Possibly. Yes, as do any other aerospace industry company (and many have come to WA since that incentive package was passed by the Sta
125 Dhefty : The backlog at the end of September is 215 representing 27 months production, so it seems NAV20 is correct.
126 Sllevin : The significant difference is that launch aid is the end result of a long, deliberate and planned process where a decision is made, in light of the m
127 EbbUK : How long have you been following civil aviation NAV? The figures relating to plane orders booked by airlines for this year which is another guide to
128 Post contains links Stitch : Justplanes is counting Airbus LoI's (like SQ's 20 A350s) and has not counted the latest Boeing orders. For a more accurate picture: From Boeing's own
129 Dhefty : " target=_blank>http://www.airbus.com/odxml/orders_a...s.xls Airbus net orders are 200 through September.
130 EbbUK : My understanding from the justplanes folk is that your statement is incorrect. They only record orders announced by airlines and not those by A or B.
131 Bringiton : Whereas a more correct way of doing is to look at Actual ORDER SIGNINGS which take place between an airline and manufacterer , Boeing do not list sal
132 Mariner : The difference is of attitude as well as circumstance. The ATSB was a product of the US system, just as launch aid is a product of the European syste
133 Stitch : Airbus' spreadsheet doesn't show cancellations, evidently, just raw orders, since it plainly says 226 under Total to Date. *shrug* Fair enough. Assum
134 AirNZ : I would respectfully disagree in the sense that is not paying debts (while competitors have to), getting a refund on payments made 90 days prior to e
135 Post contains links NAV20 : EbbUK, for the truth on Airbus orders and deliveries, I would recommend the EADS site - being a publicly-quoted company they are bound to publish onl
136 Post contains links and images Manni : Yes you're right. Thank you for your correction. Did some very bad math in my previous reply. However I did correct NAV20 on this before (without bad
137 Dhefty : At the end of 2005, Airbus reported a total of 6307 total orders during their existence. Last month they showed 6511. Therefore I conclude that they
138 Spkyflyer : I think this is probably on the money. Boeing may well be rockin' it out with all the majors right now (deservedly), but it is likely the performance
139 Alessandro : Just imagine how much the service and sparepart trade are worth for the Airbuses flying today, if Airbus would stop making planes tomorrow. Offical UK
140 CHIFLYGUY : That's a bit of an exaggeration. Airbus probably has 200 A330/A340's in its backlog, with many more orders announced but not booked this year. And th
141 Joni : Then we're in a sort of agreement: the subsidies are a substantial part of the B787's success so far. Let's hope the sales success translates to tech
142 NAV20 : Pretty well dead right, CHIFLYGUY - actually about 300 midsizes, but about 100 of those are for the 'A350 Mark One' and presumably won't happen. But
143 Lumberton : You don't want to go here. Using justplanes as a source, Boeing won the 2005 orders race.
144 Post contains links WINGS : Nav20, I have learnt to respect your point of views, although from what has been presented previously about pending A330 orders, I believe thar your
145 Manni : Indeed 220 orders, 27,5 months worth of full prouction in orders and atleast another 9 months in pending orders. This could (if all pending orders ge
146 Lumberton : And the KC-30, although the chances for selection by the USAF would improve dramatically (IMHO) if EADS were to forego additional government aid.
147 CHIFLYGUY : There's no need to run the line at full speed either, if they can arrange deliveries correctly. If Boeing was able to keep the 767 line open (still!)
148 NAV20 : Cheers, WINGS - happy to return the compliment! I'm not saying that the A330 won't sell at all - just that it won't sell in the numbers required to k
149 CHIFLYGUY : The A320 line has a 1500 plane backlog. That probably makes getting delivery slots hard and depresses sales quite a bit. Airbus obviously pulled out
150 Poitin : This is a serious issue for Airbus, as it is the bread and butter aircraft, and like you I see no reason for so many 738s being sold in lieu of A320'
151 Post contains images EbbUK : Well I would not say it is a more correct way, it is a way. We know the formulas both A and B use when publishing their figures for legal and publici
152 PlaneHunter : I would be concerned if A320 operators switched to the B737NG or new operators would mostly choose the B737 over the A320 family - but that hasn't be
153 NAV20 : For the record, Poitin, on the information available to me (culled from EADS' own most recent forecasts), I, like Zvezda, would scrap the A380 projec
154 Baroque : Do not forget the holding that the Russian seem to be building up even as we busily post away, presumably mostly on oil proceeds. That might cause mo
155 B737700doctor : I am a Boeing fan through and through but I do agree with a lot of other post that both Boeing and Airbus must remain strong to keep things competitiv
156 Revelation : Not sure what you are getting at. From postings of several of our a.net members who work for Airbus, it seems the A380 flu isn't impacting the design
157 Dougloid : That's a gross oversimplification of bankruptcy law. The creditors aren't in charge. What happens is that a petition is filed. As soon as the stamp h
158 Post contains images Lumberton : In the event of that "long run", we, like Keynes, would be very dead. IMVHO, in the meantime, we'll see a lot of drama, and quite possibly some very
159 WingedMigrator : I don't understand the last part of your statement, NAV20. The longer they go with it, the more likely they are to hit their stride, selling them for
160 TeamAmerica : None of this is quite true, AirNZ. I've never heard of getting refunds for payments already made; that's news to me. Employee contracts do indeed suf
161 Stitch : Yeah, I think the worst thing Airbus can do now is start A350 design and production without their new "unified system" in place, especially since it
162 Post contains links and images NAV20 : What's undesirable, WingedMigrator, is that, by EADS' own admission, the programme is certain to make a heavy revenue loss (running into several bill
163 Post contains images WingedMigrator : But the revenue loss arises precisely because of the sorting out of systems and processes... at least in large part. Airbus has a bigger problem than
164 Ikramerica : The 767 suddenly stopped selling. The 757 suddenly stopped selling. The 747pax suddenly stopped selling. It happens. Either something better comes al
165 Zvezda : Airlines don't buy planes because they "need" them but because they perceive an opportunity to make money with them. If a better alternative becomes
166 Sllevin : Certainly. I've never claimed we do, or should, operate in an entirely free market. However, the difference of aid in the example is significant. I w
167 Sm777 : The airlines who have ordered the 380 have seen their expansion plans come crashing down while looking from the sidelines at the drama unfolding at Ai
168 AirSpare : I don't agree with this strategy, but I am the only one on the board that would like to see: 1. A second 787 line opened in 2010. 2. Move the 787-10
169 Alessandro : SM777, so why havent any B748 passenger planes been sold? Not good enough I say and it havent flown yet, when do you think you one would be delivered
170 Post contains images Baroque : Indeedy, but expect Putin to try to use his oil and gas to make his love a little more acceptable, lubricate the deal as you might say! I don't think
171 Post contains images Lumberton : If you have any kind of clout here, I'd like to ghost-write the blog....
172 CHIFLYGUY : Boeing won't announce anything on the Y3 front any time soon. Y1 is ahead of it in the agenda, and they will for certain wait until the A350X is locke
173 Zvezda : The possibility of Y3 preceding Y1 ended with the launch of the B747-8 SuperJumbo. The earliest plausible EIS for Y1 is 2012 and for Y3 is 2016. What
174 Joni : Why don't you share this vision with EADS' management? According to EADS, as you point out, the A380 is expected to generate substantial positive EBI
175 Zvezda : That may be someone's expectation, but it depends on a set of assumptions that many people find implausible. The context was buying particular airlin
176 Osiris30 : Well what else would EADS say: "Sorry but we spent $10B on a POS that no one wants, oops our bad".. They are kinda screwed into hoping they are right
177 Dougloid : The underlying assumption that guides a lot of people is that the airlines NEED the A380 like junkies need heroin, and that they'll submit to any leve
178 Zvezda : It is responsibility of the board of directors to say something like that. That is why experienced people are paid so much for an oversight role. The
179 Osiris30 : The problem with that Zvezda is that they can't do that now. A year or two ago they could have, but not after the initial planned EIS and repeated st
180 Zvezda : It would mean Airbus would have to do more lobbying to feed at the public trough. However, cancellation of the WhaleJet project would not impair thei
181 Osiris30 : Not with the same board inplace. Investors would see a group who mismanaged away $10B. Trust me I've done the fund raising thing before. Personnel tr
182 Post contains links BoomBoom : What could Canadians say? Canada has something similar to Chapter 11 in the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. That's a federal law that basically
183 Ikramerica : Especially after saying earlier this year that they pissed away billions on the 350 mark 1, and the money they seem to have pissed away on the 340E.
184 Osiris30 : 340E do you mean the HGW 346? if not that's a pretty good waste of cash too IMHO. Airbus has had so many variants and projects pop in and out of exis
185 Zvezda : There was very little spent on the A340E. While it didn't work out, it was very reasonable to spend perhaps 10M or so exploring the possibility.
186 Post contains images PlaneHunter : Not again, please... PH
187 Dougloid : Good research job. What this points to is the functionality aspect of law. All relatively free market economies have such things or something that wo
188 Osiris30 : More irrelevance from you... This has been discussed to death.
189 Post contains images AirSpare : Z, you know that I respect your knowledge which greatly surpasses mine, (except in military strategic systems ) But...if a -10 twin also depends on h
190 EbbUK : Boom I as a Brit am aware that our government intervenes in the market. Of that I can opine very loudly. What frustrates is that many of your fellow
191 Osiris30 : I don't think anyone will deny the urge exists to protect your own. However, I don't think Boeing has been protected to nearly the same levels as Air
192 EbbUK : So now it's about how much, my nation's government intervention is smaller than yours therefore I have the right to comment on yours? that's what the
193 Zvezda : Thank you for the kind words. The Y3 cross section hasn't been decided yet. It was never likely to cover the B777-200/B787-10 space. If Y3 is ever bu
194 Osiris30 : Pssst.. you left out the part where I said: So I'll just quote it again, and maybe you'll read it this time instead of cranking up the noise factor.
195 Post contains links Baroque : Both those opinions seem to be supported by what Clarke said in his ABC interview on Sunday. http://www.abc.net.au/insidebusiness/content/2006/s17651
196 N328KF : NW just bought 70-something airframes while in Chapter 11. It does happen.
197 Osiris30 : True, but it's a much rarer event.. and much harder thing to pull off (and really it was a side issue to the main point of my post)
198 EbbUK : You good man. Tell your friends in the United States would you? I think this is the first crisis of this type for Airbus. The extent of which the gov
199 Osiris30 : I try to. Just like I try to point out the different between Merkel and prior governments in Germany. I honestly try to be fair.. don't think I disli
200 BoomBoom : And many of your countrymen like to criticize Chapter 11 while they appear oblivious to the laws in the UK which are similar. Pot meet keetle.
201 Dougloid : See, that's because you've been spending too much time listening to people in your airline industry who are interested in manipulating your opinion o
202 BoomBoom : It could be argued that Chapter 11 benefits Airbus (and Boeing). Imagine if UA, US and NW liquidated and dumped all those A320s and A330s on the marke
203 Dougloid : Chapter 11 works more often than it fails. BB, the one thang that puts paid to the the "It's all a huge fucking subsidy! Boosh! Evil Boosh!" argument
204 PITrules : Not sure about Lockheed, but you can bet Bombardier and Embraer would come up with something to compete with the 737. China or Russia would consider
205 N328KF : I dunno. I think Lockheed would be more than happy to help out with the engineering aspect; I don't think they want to be the guy going door to door
206 Post contains links Dougloid : As if by magic...the Associated Press is reporting this morning that Sea Containers, Ltd., a UK company that is listed in the US, has filed for Chapt
207 NAV20 : Britain and Australia, anyway, have a very similar procedure - except that it is called 'placing the company in administration' instead of 'Chapter 11
208 DeltaDC9 : As many as the market will support. Why do we care which creditors and shareholders get paid and how much? It is more like a foreclosure than a bailo
209 474218 : Your correct, Lockheed could not sell the L-1011 Tristar and it was a superior to anything else being offered at the time. So there is no way Lockhee
210 EbbUK : The kettle knows it's black, at least this one does. It's the pots on your end of the Atlantic that somehow are deluded about how much the US shores
211 Dougloid : The secured creditors come first, though. Don't forget about that. People with open accounts and stuff like that take second place. I think you're wr
212 Sllevin : Especially since I seem to recall that BA was nationalised not all that long ago to keep it in business whilst it could be overhauled and then re-off
213 EbbUK : I thought you might. You will say as it is enshrined in law it is out of the governments hands. If there was any government that believed in true mar
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 Aims To Keep Airbus @ Bay No 787 Delays! posted Fri Oct 20 2006 04:26:05 by Coelacanth
FI: Airbus To Keep A380 On Revised Schedule posted Tue Sep 6 2005 06:39:14 by Leelaw
QF Reports Profit And To Keep A380 Order posted Mon Oct 23 2006 15:02:04 by Mptpa
Airbus:Gov. Influence Comes Back To Haunt Airbus posted Fri Oct 13 2006 15:27:00 by Halibut
Why It Makes Sense For Airlines To Keep The A380 posted Wed Sep 27 2006 05:06:27 by WingedMigrator
FI: Exec Changes Fail To Sway Airbus Customers posted Mon Jul 10 2006 11:43:31 by Leelaw
Airbus Transfers A380 To Hamburg - LH Livery? posted Thu May 4 2006 14:02:33 by Leelaw
Airbus In Talks To Sell A380 To 3 Chinese Airlines posted Thu Jun 16 2005 07:27:14 by Jacobin777
A380 Delay Help Airbus Sell More Planes To QF? posted Mon Jun 6 2005 16:12:25 by Jetfuel
Airbus A380 To Land At BIA posted Mon Apr 4 2005 04:18:05 by Squirrel83