Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Versus Airbus Growth Strategy  
User currently offlineScalebuilder From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5782 times:

I realize that this topic may have been discussed many times before (and may even have been deleted many times)...

However, all members of this great forum read about orders made and orders cancelled by airlines every day.

We all know about the delay of the A380. Two years behind schedule as we speak. Boeing, on the other hand, is promoting its 787 aggressively, and is gaining ground.

These two aircraft are very different, and the launch of each come from a very different mindset. Airbus, with its A380, firmly believes that future air travel will be through feeder traffic via major hubs. Boeing seems to believe that the furture will be more point-to-point between smaller populated cities. Who is right?

This is not about whose aircraft is supreme; it is about whose future strategy is right.

I think Boeing is on the right track with its 787. We need to advance the technology when it comes to performance, and not so much the travel experience. The A380 tilts heavily towards latter objective if you ask me.

Any additional thoughts?

Thanks!

Scalebuilder

55 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGrantcv From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 430 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5746 times:

I think that Airbus and Boeing have a similar understanding of how jetliners will advance. But Airbus wasn't thinking in terms of how their lineup should evolve; rather they were still in the mode of expanding out their lineup to be a complete offering - starting with the A300/310 in the middle and then expanding down with the A320 family and up, first with the A330/A340 family and on to the A380. They have promoted their lineup as modern, consistent, with a high degree of commonality. But they went too far - broadening the family too much and neglecting the fact that over time, parts of the family would come up for replacement. So now they must face closure of the A300/A310 line without a replacement, the need to replace or dramatically update the A330/A340 line, while keeping an eye on Boeing over what they do in the narrowbody market, all while staying completely focused on getting the A380 out the door.

Now they have to consider how many families of airliners they can reasonably have - if their development cycle is 6-8 years and the lifespan of a typical design is 20 years, then they should have no more than 3 families - or else something will always get neglected. That is what Boeing is trying to get to with their Y1, Y2, Y3 proposals.


User currently offlineScalebuilder From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5694 times:

I really agree with you in all that you say.

But why build this "perceived" family of aircraft that no airline wants just because " Airbus wants to stack up to Boeing or offer the same family of products"?

It is almost as though Airbus wants to replicate what Boeing has done very well for 40 years or so: to build great jet aircraft, and a family of these that could fit any airline well.

I think the strategy between developing and building the A380 vesus the 787 represents a dividing point in the vision of future air travel. Do we go to major hubs and fly on the A380, or do we fly point-to-point with the 787?

You have this thought implemented in its infancy here in the US today. We have plenty of 757s serving numerous niche markets particularly in Europe already. I believe that this strategy will be followed by even more airlines in the coming years.

But is that to say that there is no room for the A380 in the travel industry? No, not at all. It just does not represent the wave of the future. I think the 787 does - not because of it's design - but because how it was designed and how it was intended to serve its intended smaller point-to-point markets.


User currently offlineZBBYLW From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 1982 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 5626 times:

With the ever incrasing price of fuel, I think Airbus might be on the right track. With the price of fuel consistenly increasing i can see many people begining to use trains more and more again. Of course this is only in places that have a decent train system, such as europe. For example if someone was living in lets say Stuttgart and wanted to go to NYC they could take a train to FRA and then fly FRA-JFK and only limit to the one flight needed to cross the pond. In this case airlines can have one airplane carry the ammount that two or more 787's can carry. This could actually save money in the long run, as you only have crew for one aircraft, only need to service one aircraft only have maintenance for the one aircraft. Even thoguh it would be cheaper for someone to run a 787 vs a 380 it would be cheaper to fly on 380 vs two 787's and thus save money.


Keep the shinny side up!
User currently offlineScalebuilder From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5532 times:

Quoting ZBBYLW (Reply 3):
With the ever incrasing price of fuel, I think Airbus might be on the right track. With the price of fuel consistenly increasing i can see many people begining to use trains more and more again.

This is only one strategy out of many. In densly populated Europe, I certainly see your case. However, I believe that direct point-to-point flights and niche marketing will still be the wave of the future, and I think Boeing has realized this. Airbus is going a different route. They are going more along beliving that feeder traffic should be routed through major hubs, and larger aircraft should accommodate this traffic flow from there on.

There have been a lot of threads about A versus B in this forum, and it often comes down to very granular technicalities about who builds the best aircraft. Both Boeing and Airbus build superior aircraft. However, the competitive edge is found in the shaping of future of air travel, what the public wants, and the vision is very different between the two companies.

I really do think that this is what distiguishes Boeing from Airbus. It is not the aircraft per se, but the vision behind it.


User currently offlineBoeing767-300 From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5508 times:

Quoting ZBBYLW (Reply 3):
With the ever incrasing price of fuel, I think Airbus might be on the right track

Wrong... unless you can fill the A380 this won't work and attempting to always fill A380 will ultimately reduce yield.

The thought of flying 80 people from Frankfurt to New York in 250+ tons of aircraft must quite frankly scare the hell out of the bean counters.

The big question mark remains over real operating economics but given Airbuses recent efforts with performance/fuel burn on A346 and the lack of 'crowing' about A380 tests leads me to believe that all is not as good as it could or should be.

If A380 were exceeding targets then surely we would have heard about it as some good news in a disastrous programme.

I still believe ultimately that the OEW weight is too heavy and A380 will be undermined by the likes of 787-9 and -10.

No one ever went out of business operating an aircraft TOO SMALL. Remember how many operators bailed out of 747 ops in the 70's because they were too big and this only esculated during the oil crisis of 1973 and many of those acquired the 741 for its range rather than size and A380 does not have its range market all to itself.

The 767 777 and A330 with their range and economics have gradually killed off 747 sales and whether you like it or not the 777-300ER has developed into a extemely efficient 744 replacement(AF CX NZ JL NH...)

I believe there is a market for A380 but the market for it is niche and not big enough for one manufacturer let alone two. Boeing made the right call with 787 there is no doubt.


User currently offlineScalebuilder From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5496 times:

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 5):
No one ever went out of business operating an aircraft TOO SMALL.

That is one powerful statement.

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 5):
I believe there is a market for A380 but the market for it is niche and not big enough for one manufacturer let alone two. Boeing made the right call with 787 there is no dou

I truly believe there is a limited market too. But I still believe that Boeing is on the right track assuming that point-to-point travel on a mass basis, using smaller capacity and economical aircraft, and avoiding congested hubs, represents the future of air travel.


User currently offlineBoeing767-300 From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5459 times:

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 6):
Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 5):
No one ever went out of business operating an aircraft TOO SMALL.

That is one powerful statement.

This was a quote by an american airline chief and i believe it has merit.

As an example a 744 can carry 380 odd passengers Auckland to Brisbane and burn around 30 ton of fuel.

A 733 can carry 130 for around 6 ton. The 744 carrys 3 times the passengers but burns 5 times the fuel. Do the maths again yourself when both are half full............


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 960 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5430 times:

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 5):
No one ever went out of business operating an aircraft TOO SMALL

Ignore the broke Independence Air investor behind the curtain!!  Wink


User currently offlineDazeflight From Germany, joined Jun 1999, 580 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5415 times:

Quoting Boeing767-300 (Reply 7):
A 733 can carry 130 for around 6 ton. The 744 carrys 3 times the passengers but burns 5 times the fuel. Do the maths again yourself when both are half full............

There are no maths do be done here. The comparison of a B733 and a B744 on such a short routing is just pure b/s, even more so when using fictive data to compare.  sarcastic 


User currently offlineShinkai From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5373 times:

Both Airbus' and Boeing's strategies do work and makes sense.

Firstly, I'd like to bring up Boeing's model of point-to-point flying. Indeed it has many advantages such as time-saving on the passenger's part. However, one must not forget the politics involved in air travel. A case in point - even though PIA has the aircraft capable of flying non-stop from Lahore to USA, they were still not allowed to fly it directly. I am sure the SIN-LAX issue would come to mind as well.

So there is definitely room for hub and spoke flying and I do not see how Airbus' business model is a "failure".


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 960 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5312 times:

Quoting Shinkai (Reply 10):
Firstly, I'd like to bring up Boeing's model of point-to-point flying

Boeing's strategy is not point-to-point. Ditch the A.net myth, Boeing calls their strategy hub-to-point...

Quoting Shinkai (Reply 10):
Both Airbus' and Boeing's strategies do work and makes sense.

Neither OEM denies their opponents' target market exist. If you need proof, consider the following:

Boeing's primary new aircraft - 787
Boeing's secondary new aircraft - 747-8

Airbus' primary new aircraft - A380
Airbus' secondary new aircraft - A350

Quoting Shinkai (Reply 10):
So there is definitely room for hub and spoke flying and I do not see how Airbus' business model is a "failure".

You need only look at RD budgets to see the obvious: Airbus screwed up

From the comparison above, Boeing launched the 747-8 as a secondary project while Airbus launched the A350 as a secondary project. One manufacture has completely scrapped their initial plans and are now pursuing an all-new aircraft at twice the RD cost. The other manufacture has essentially maintained their original strategy and isn't far from securing the necessary backlog to amortize both programs.

The implications of those two considerations is a Big Deal and arguably the most significant shift in the Airbus-Boeing battle since the debut of the A320 in 1988.


User currently offlineScalebuilder From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5188 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 11):
The implications of those two considerations is a Big Deal and arguably the most significant shift in the Airbus-Boeing battle since the debut of the A320 in 1988.

Any deeper thoughts on how Boeing and Airbus could have ended up having such different visions of how the future travel market will be shaped?

To me the A versus B battle (threads in abundance in this forum) is not about competing products and nitty gritty technical details, but much more about competing future visions and directions of air travel.


User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 5182 times:

Quoting ZBBYLW (Reply 3):
With the ever incrasing price of fuel, I think Airbus might be on the right track.

That statement only holds true if the fuel burn (and hence majority of CASM) is lower. The 380 is 'old technology' and it's CASM is matched or surpassed by the 787 and 350. They burn even LESS fuel per seat.

Big doesn't mean efficient. The biggest problem the 380 faces is not it's size, but the fact it's the last plane of the AL generation (IMHO). As such it will likely prove to be an also ran, much like the last gasp for props launch around the time of the jet age.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineScalebuilder From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 5161 times:

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 12):
That statement only holds true if the fuel burn (and hence majority of CASM) is lower. The 380 is 'old technology' and it's CASM is matched or surpassed by the 787 and 350. They burn even LESS fuel per seat.

I think the argument made by ZBBYLW is based on the traditional thinking that the airline industry is generally scale-intensive. The bigger the the airplane, the wider the margin.

This is generic thinking applied to an industry that is incredibly diverse with multiple niches.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30553 posts, RR: 84
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 5144 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Essentially, the A380 is built on the model of spoke-hub-hub-spoke travel. If I want to fly from SAN to FCO, I'd fly SAN-LAX then LAX-LHR and then LHR-FCO. I'd be on a 737/A320 SAN-LAX, then an A380 LAX-LHR, and then back to a 737/A320 LHR-FCO.

However, as performance of narrowbodies improves and as the operating costs of widebodies falls with the next generation (787 and A350XWB), spoke-hub-spoke becomes possible. So I'd fly an A350XWB SAN-LHR and then an A320 LHR-BRU or a 737 SAN-LAX and then a 787 LAX-BRU. Or one could fly a theoretical A320R or 737LR direct between SAN and BRU.

I believe the majority (not the totality) of future air travel will move towards spoke-hub-spoke and, to a lesser extent, spoke-spoke. That trend does not bode well for either the A388 or the 748 in the long-term, though there is sufficient spoke-hub-hub-spoke traffic to justify a few hundred frames...


User currently offlineScalebuilder From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 5140 times:

Quoting Dazeflight (Reply 9):
There are no maths do be done here. The comparison of a B733 and a B744 on such a short routing is just pure b/s, even more so when using fictive data to compare.

Can you pick one or two examples and prove this wrong?


User currently offlineShinkai From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 5133 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 11):
You need only look at RD budgets to see the obvious: Airbus screwed up

Yes, in the case of the A350/A380, there is no denying that Airbus screwed up.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30553 posts, RR: 84
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5124 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 12):
To me the A versus B battle (threads in abundance in this forum) is not about competing products and nitty gritty technical details, but much more about competing future visions and directions of air travel.

The A vs. B battle in this forum predominately is about "national pride".

The A vs. B battle in the marketplace predominately is about efficiency, which is driven (in part) by technology, performance and meeting an airline's varying demand curves.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 960 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5119 times:

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 12):
Any deeper thoughts on how Boeing and Airbus could have ended up having such different visions of how the future travel market will be shaped?

As in: How did Airbus and Boeing arrive at a different market vision?

For Airbus, the answer lies all the way back in their humble beginnings. Airbus was formed to halt American dominance in commercial aviation, with not-so-subtle aspects of national pride. The 747 was arguably the strongest icon of American aerospace power, and the aircraft was a cash-cow through the 80s and 90s. I suspect that Airbus wrote their market vision in such away to justify the A380 and supplant the 747, allowing pride to cloud their business decisions.

For Boeing, I believe the answer lies in the "wake up call" that began in the 90s when Airbus began to dramatically gain market share. That led Boeing to some deep soul searching and exploratory market studies, which IMO gave Boeing a stronger grasp of where commercial aviation is moving. Finally, I believe Boeing maintains stronger customer dialog and incorporates their input into product development.

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 12):
To me the A versus B battle (threads in abundance in this forum) is not about competing products and nitty gritty technical details, but much more about competing future visions and directions of air travel.

IMO, it all boils down to the concept of return on investment

The OEM who consistently has the highest ratio of RD funds going-in and profits coming-out will eventually become the dominate manufacture. Since about 1999, Boeing has consistently obtained higher ROI on their investments.

The 777LR is a great example. Boeing developed the 773ER/772LR for 1/3 the funds Airbus needed to develop the A345/A346, and yet sold twice as many 777 as A340.

Also consider the 787. The program will likely cost $8-10 billion dollars versus more than $15 billion for the A380. Without question, Boeing will amortize the 787 development first, allowing them to move on to other projects with greater agility.


User currently offlineScalebuilder From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5101 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
The A vs. B battle in this forum predominately is about "national pride".

I can't seem to fit this "National Pride" argument into the big picture. Certainly, the U.S. Government has an interest in private enterprise maintaining the capability of producing techologically advanced aircraft (military and civil) here in the US. But in this case I think we are talking about the future travel market and the aircraft that can best serve these markets.

I can't imagine that Boeing would even spend a dime building an airplane that would maintain the "pride", but that would fall short when it comes to efficiency.

If it comes from Boeing, it would have to be both.


User currently offlineScaledesigns From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5090 times:

The only problem for the Airbus idea is that more than 1 airline run the
better routes.Unless they share the aircraft(buy sections ) and only run 1 aircraft the A380 will work on very few routes.If they dont you need smaller
aircraft for each airline.I think in the future countries with slot resrictions
will become less for international,not more.That also if true would be a good case for smaller long range aircraft.It may be that larger aircraft will only be used for cargo and very high long range routes with only a few slots available.There will be very few of those routes left in 10 years.



F1 Tommy
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30553 posts, RR: 84
Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5085 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 20):
I can't seem to fit this "National Pride" argument into the big picture.

That is why I split my answer into "this forum" and "the marketplace".

The marketplace is the "real world". And in the "real world", jingoistic themes like "national pride" and the "superiority of the American or the EU way" are irrelevant. What matters in the "real world" is, as DfwRevolution notes in Reply 19, the return on the investment. And that return is measured in the cold reality of profits and losses, incomes and expenditures.


User currently offlineScalebuilder From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5048 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
That is why I split my answer into "this forum" and "the marketplace".

OK. I think I am with you.

Reading some of the "A versus B" discussions in this forum is for sure entertaining and even tiring, but they don't make a whole lot of sense. I guess this is where the "National Pride" gets a strong hold, and many good threads end up way out of context. The Forum Moderator will come, and close the thread down. Just another "A versus B war" discussed so many times before.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
What matters in the "real world" is, as DfwRevolution notes in Reply 19, the return on the investment. And that return is measured in the cold reality of profits and losses, incomes and expenditures.

I could not agree more with either you or with DfwRevolution. Return on investment is key and carefully considered before any new development is even launched. $$ billions at stake. It should be considered carefully.

I guess I am simply impressed by Boeing for this company's vision and how they can develop completely new products for tomorrow. I am somewhat puzzled by Airbus and how they have used their R & D funds on their end. The A380 surely is magnificent and beautiful; I just don't think the launch of this aircraft will change the way passengers will travel. Instead of being new thinking, it is just an enhancement of existing thinking.

I would for sure like to fly on one, but that will mostly be for the experience. Should it fit my schedule better to fly on a 787 that will get me there and get me home faster and more directly, I would chose that option, even at additional cost.

I don't think we're looking at whose "aircraft reigns supreme" but rather whose "future vision of air travel" does. To me, Boeing clearly has more of this vision today, and they are doing something about it.


User currently offlineAerosol From Germany, joined Oct 2000, 556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4896 times:

Most of you seem to assume that there is no increase in air travel.
Most of you talk about efficiency - efficiency and hub-to-point are not coexisting strategies.


25 Osiris30 : No.. Most of us assuming that any increase in air travel will be handled with increased frequency. Also, most of us post more than one-liners.
26 SSTsomeday : I hope this doesn't break an A-net "rule," but I would like to offer you a post I just put into another current thread: "Airbus Has Never Replaced an
27 Stitch : Why not? More efficient aircraft allow new hub-to-point routings that prior could not be justified or make those routings more profitable. Boeing cre
28 Post contains images Scalebuilder : I'm sure everybody will welcome your post. It fits well with our discussion .
29 Adria : What about the A350?the A330?...I know it's hard to believe but strategies are not that much different, because the 748 is not that much smaller than
30 Osiris30 : Just do the math on fuel capacity / range / seats (real world seats that is.. sure at 800 all economy the 380 is CASM king, but that's not how most w
31 Scalebuilder : These are really enhancements from the 767s offered by Boeing. I am not by any means saying that the A330/350 are or will be inferior products. Not a
32 Adria : hehe...if it's that easy than why are you unable to post a source (a reliable one) ?? The A350 is still a mystery and Airbus has a complete aircraft
33 SSTsomeday : Forgive me, Adria, but I have seen statistics in this regard as well. My understanding is that the selling point of the 380 is the ability of airline
34 Adria : What you have seen are calculations of other a.netters and if you regard this as a reliable source then go ahead...
35 Osiris30 : Do the math yourself if you don't believe it.. it's really pretty simple. Why doth thou protest so much.. you think Airbus has some special magic tha
36 Par13del : Quoting Adria reply 32 "The 737NG is still behind the A320 family and the A330/A340 family outsold the 777 family" Strange how you place the 777 famil
37 SSTsomeday : I must admit I sift through a lot of information, mostly in these threads, posted by sometimes by what seem to be credible participants, and sometime
38 DfwRevolution : Nor does anyone else. You can't decide Boeing's market strategy for them, so you would do best to properly observe their outlook. You can't call them
39 Post contains images CJAContinental : Yeah, thats very innaccurate, you can even go on the boeing website, and they'll say themselves that they lead this market. Interestingly, you might
40 Adria : looking at the orders and the production rate the 737NG is behind Well pro Boeing a.netters compare a frame to a frame (a 747 to A 380 no matter whic
41 CJAContinental : By the way, I was reffering to whoever first said about the 737, not DfwRevolution. he knows his facts.
42 Adria : hey if this works in your little world that it's fine with me...
43 RJ111 : IMO The better aircraft will shape the future and vindicate one or the others prediction. Airlines like smaller jets because it allows increased flex
44 Scalebuilder : I find the threads discussing A versus B deteriorating constantly, and it is mostly due to typical posts just like the one quoted above. Surely, ever
45 Scaledesigns : RJ111, That was a well thought out post. I think the change to smaller aircraft started well before the A380 or 787 were developed .The airlines have
46 Post contains images Scalebuilder : My belief is just in line with yours. But just to be clear: By that I am not saying that Boeing products are superior to Airbus products. I am only s
47 Tootallsd : My two cents on this topic. I think both the A350 and A380 highlight a problem at Airbus. They are simply too introspective and not market driven. It
48 JayinKitsap : Another significant advantage with Boeing is their shorter time from launch to EIS, it is essential for Airbus to shorten their time also. Back to th
49 SSTsomeday : I think "Secondary hub-secondary hub" or "spoke-secondary hub" is also part of Boeing's projection. All of that kind of traffic takes away O + D as w
50 Dougloid : Actually the price of jet fuel has been declining from a high of about $2.08 USD per gallon six months ago to the present $1.78 or so. I talked to a
51 Scalebuilder : I think you're spot on. I am not really sure about all the enhancements that have been made to the A-350 (version 2). This complete news is yet to co
52 Osiris30 : And you just ignore facts at will if you don't like them, so what's your point? Really Adria, I try and be patient, but I fail to see how any of your
53 Stitch : Also, one should note that neither Airbus nor Boeing have a single, monolithic "growth strategy". A-netter soundbites to the contrary, both companies
54 SSTsomeday : True, they may focus on different things, yet Boeing has hedged it's bets regarding the 380 with the 747-8. Airbus is responding to the 777 and 787 w
55 Scalebuilder : Very good point, and a really good post. In many regards it may seem out there like how you describe this, though I don't think anyone can deny that
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 Sees Vindication In Strategy Against Airbus posted Sun Sep 17 2006 13:15:15 by Columba
Better Fly By Wire Philosophy: Boeing Or Airbus? posted Mon Oct 2 2006 22:14:40 by Tangowhisky
Planes Most Profitable To Boeing And Airbus? posted Wed Sep 13 2006 21:29:14 by JAM747
Boeing & Airbus New Development Maxed Out? posted Mon Jul 31 2006 22:07:11 by United787
Should Boeing Fear Airbus' "Double Daggers" posted Tue Jul 18 2006 02:27:10 by Reggaebird
BAE’s Long Journey To An Airbus Exit Strategy posted Mon Jul 10 2006 16:58:56 by Leelaw
How Does Boeing And Airbus Decide How Much Range? posted Tue Jun 20 2006 01:20:03 by AirCanada014
Boeing 231- Airbus 92 posted Thu Apr 27 2006 13:16:12 by RootsAir
Boeing And Airbus Post Huge Profits posted Wed Apr 26 2006 15:14:59 by MrComet
Boeing And Airbus Aircraft Model Numbers posted Sat Apr 1 2006 00:22:53 by MaxQ2351