Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus: 2006 A Year To Forget-Boeing's Jovial  
User currently offlineOU812 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8621 times:

2006 was a jovial year for Boeing. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said regarding Boeing's rival Airbus. 2006 for Boeing had a few small bumps in the road, but for the most part, Boeing continued upward reminiscent of a F-15 going straight up at full throttle. With the significant launch of the 747-8i, to name just one of their achievements for 2006.

Airbus started the year [2006] off in controversy with a very questionable 150 order from the Chinese. 2006 was also the year where it became clear that Airbus's shared co-CEO/political-Franco/Germany set-up with EADS/Airbus is not laudable and the company was heading into an indigent state. With German politicians looking to counter France's leverage within EADS/Airbus, it appears the turmoil with in EADS may continue.


http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2262286,00.html

Aviation | 06.12.2006

For EADS and Airbus, 2006 Was a Year to Forget

The head of European aerospace giant EADS said 2006 had been a very bad year indeed. Especially difficult will be getting its airplane unit, Airbus, back on track in 2007.

"Getting Airbus to be competitive again will be like running a marathon," Enders told the press on Monday. On the long road, EADS will certainly be looking to its arch rival for some tips -- for instance, looking at exactly how Boeing's restructuring was done, and seeing how useful it was to sell factories.


http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayA...business_January9.xml§ion=business

Boeing stages triumphant comeback as Airbus lags in sales

BY A STAFF REPORTER

1 January 2007

DUBAI — As the US aircraft maker Boeing enters 2007 with near-record orders of over 1,000 aircraft, its transatlantic rival Airbus, which lags behind in number of orders for the first time in five years, is bracing for another year of challenges.


With a rush of last-minute commercial jet sales, Boeing has broken its remarkable 2005 record order tally with total sales of 1,014 net jet orders, compared to 1,002 net orders last year.




63 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30989 posts, RR: 86
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8565 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting OU812 (Thread starter):
Airbus started the year [2006] off in controversy with a very questionable 150 order from the Chinese.

Nothing questionable about it. The Chinese signed the order in December and Airbus listed it as such when they announced their final December and 2006 numbers in mid-January. And they announced it in mid-January because Airbus' order announcements are once a month where Boeing's are once a week.

Boeing aficionados get their knickers in a twist because Boeing's first weekly announcement showed them as being the winner. But then Airbus' only monthly announcement a week later bumped Boeing off. So some claim "conspiracy" and believe Airbus intentionally "back-loaded" orders signed in the first two weeks of January to the December 2006 numbers to beat Boeing.

If Boeing aficionados should be upset at anyone, it should be President George Bush whose verbal gaffe during a State Visit to the People's Republic of China compelled China to reduce their 737 order by 70 units and defer them to 2006, which is what allowed Airbus to win the 2005 order battle and gave Boeing a nice kick-off to winning the 2006 order battle.


User currently offlineMrComet From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 547 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 8363 times:

Thats not how it works. Airbus has an inconsistent policy of counting orders. They count them sometimes when the order comes (the Chinese order) and sometimes when the paperwork is signed. It seems rather political. Boeing announces them only when the final paperwork is signed.

Both got the same order. Boeing announced it when each airline chose the planes and signed the paperwork which took most of the orders into 2006. Airbus counted all of them in 2005 so they could win the order race.

Which is right? I'd argue either is okay if you know exactly what is being announced. However, Airbus has consistently misdescribed orders in the past especially Leahy and Forgeard as appearing to be firm. Airlines announce intentions all the time that end up not getting acted upon. Until the paperwork is signed, you don't really know if they will follow through (and even then sometimes). If I was buying stock, I'd prefer the Boeing approach -- more conservative.

In the end, it hurt Airbus making their fall in sales more precipitous. I'd bet they'd love to have 150 more planes this year on their books.



The dude abides
User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5032 posts, RR: 43
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 8331 times:

Quoting MrComet (Reply 2):
They count them sometimes when the order comes (the Chinese order) and sometimes when the paperwork is signed.

They always count them only when the paperwork is signed. That includes the Chinese order, which was signed by the CAAC in December. Airbus has always counted CAAC orders as such, so they ARE being very consistent.

Quoting MrComet (Reply 2):
However, Airbus has consistently misdescribed orders in the past especially Leahy and Forgeard as appearing to be firm.

Examples please? And I mean examples where Airbus accounted for orders in its spreadsheet which were not, in fact, firm.

Quoting MrComet (Reply 2):
Airbus counted all of them in 2005 so they could win the order race.

Again: no. They've always counted Chinese orders the moment CAAC signed for them.


User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2826 posts, RR: 42
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 8334 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):

Nothing questionable about it. The Chinese signed the order in December and Airbus listed it as such when they announced their final December and 2006 numbers in mid-January. And they announced it in mid-January because Airbus' order announcements are once a month where Boeing's are once a week.

Which of course is why the Chinese later complained about Airbus counting the entire order.

For that matter, it's still massively inconsistent. Airbus still has obviously canceled orders on their books to delay having to lower their order numbers, and usually flips LoI and actual orders to make them look good when they need it.

Sooner or later, that practice will burn them, but while they don't have to meet European reporting requirements (EADS does) or American, they can pull these tricks.


User currently offlineTimboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1336 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 8309 times:

OMG, my time machine worked. I'm back at the start of 2006. Woohoo! Seriously people, get over it. It happened. Whether Airbus was right or wrong, and whether it helped or harmed them can be debated forever. Fact is, they claimed victory in the 2005 orders race and Boeing seem to have soundly beaten them in 2006. It does seem pointless to keep rehashing old news.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 8286 times:

Quoting Timboflier215 (Reply 5):
It does seem pointless to keep rehashing old news.

Very much so. Airbus knows what they did, and Boeing knows that they've "won" 2 years in a row now, and so does the market. I don't think Boeing really cares what Airbus PR department says or doesn't say...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineMrComet From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 547 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 8285 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 4):
Quoting MrComet (Reply 2):
However, Airbus has consistently misdescribed orders in the past especially Leahy and Forgeard as appearing to be firm.

Examples please? And I mean examples where Airbus accounted for orders in its spreadsheet which were not, in fact, firm.

I am not saying they misrepresent them in their spreadsheets. I am saying that Forgeard and Leahy used to say all they time that the A350 had a certain number of orders when they meant LoI or MoU -- not the same thing. As a investor, it confuses you. This has been discussed to death on this list.

The CAAC paperwork is different from the airline paperwork. Boeing counts orders when each airline takes its order. Boeing, who clearly understands all the contingencies in the contract, decided this approach better helped investors understand when a plane had actually been purchased. Since we don't have access to the CAAC documents, we don't know how restrictive the terms are but given the size of the purchase, I imagine they are favorable to the CAAC. There are likely to be some outs.

Boeing is clearly more conservative than Airbus. Given the much larger numbers of cancellations over the years by Airbus, this clearly better helps us understand the future earnings of the companies. Sorry, Boeing wins this one.



The dude abides
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8253 times:

Airbus have had a good year for sales. The A320 had a fantastic year.  Smile The A330 and A340 did surprisingly well. Most remarkable of all, the WhaleJet even had positive net orders.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8224 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 8):
Airbus have had a good year for sales.

2nd best ever, and if they were to count the 150 this year, it would have been the BEST year ever (assuming they firm up a bunch of orders in Dec which I think they will).

But Enders comments are obviously due to the looming problems and A380 trainwreck, not just the very strong sales.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5032 posts, RR: 43
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8212 times:

Quoting MrComet (Reply 7):
The CAAC paperwork is different from the airline paperwork.

So? CAAC signed a contract with Airbus. That means Airbus are fully in their right to report the order. If Boeing chooses not to, that is their right. To each their own. What I find most irritating about this whole situation (besides the fact that some still feel the need to continue dragging it up after a year) is how people, including you, continue claiming Airbus did this 'in order to win the race with Boeing', thereby indicating they did something they would otherwise not have done, while, in fact they were just doing what they have always done, and were thus being consistent with their own practises. The fact you continue with those accusations simply spits in the face of truth.


User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8170 times:

Quoting Timboflier215 (Reply 5):
It does seem pointless to keep rehashing old news.

This thread is supposed to be a retrospective--a look back at 2006.

However, there was a lot more than "the Chinese New Years" order: A380 delays, A350 delays, CEO sackings, resignations, insider trading charges, political intrigue, compensation payments, profit warnings, cancellations, potential job cuts...


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30989 posts, RR: 86
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8139 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 4):
Which of course is why the Chinese later complained about Airbus counting the entire order.

Why did they complain? Did the French do something to annoy them so they wanted to make some waves?

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 4):
For that matter, it's still massively inconsistent. Airbus still has obviously canceled orders on their books to delay having to lower their order numbers, and usually flips LoI and actual orders to make them look good when they need it.

I imagine when an airline cancels it's order, it is not an immediate termination with either party exchanging cheques and a wave. I expect a good deal of paperwork has to be handled in the background. Also, in EK's case, while they have stated they "will not take delivery of any A346HGW currently on order", I do not believe they and Airbus have come to formal terms on cancelling their outstanding commitment. So until all the "I"'s are dotted and the "T"'s crossed, those planes are still on order and therefore carried on the books. Same with the FX order for A388Fs and the ILFC transfer from the A388F to the A388.

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 4):
Sooner or later, that practice will burn them, but while they don't have to meet European reporting requirements (EADS does) or American, they can pull these tricks.



Quoting MrComet (Reply 7):
I am not saying they misrepresent them in their spreadsheets. I am saying that Forgeard and Leahy used to say all they time that the A350 had a certain number of orders when they meant LoI or MoU -- not the same thing. As a investor, it confuses you. This has been discussed to death on this list.

Both of these comments assumes the world's investment banks and houses are incompetent and whose only due diligence when determining a company's valuation is looking at Boeing's Orders web page and Airbus' Order spreadsheet. They assume each plane is sold for list price and has a fixed production cost through the life of the delivery cycle, even if that cycle extends over years.

Quoting MrComet (Reply 7):
The CAAC paperwork is different from the airline paperwork. Boeing counts orders when each airline takes its order. Boeing, who clearly understands all the contingencies in the contract, decided this approach better helped investors understand when a plane had actually been purchased.

Yet CAAC is acting as the broker for the airlines. It is no different when Boeing records an order for GECAS or ILFC. Boeing doesn't wait until the leasing company has signed their own contract with an operator before they record the sale to the leasing company. Why Boeing waits in the case of CAAC is beyond me, but that's how they want to do it.

Quoting MrComet (Reply 7):
Since we don't have access to the CAAC documents, we don't know how restrictive the terms are but given the size of the purchase, I imagine they are favorable to the CAAC. There are likely to be some outs.

So? The PR still says Boeing sold 150 planes to China and the market will take that information at face value, as CAAC is a "solid" customer unlikely to cancel. And should CAAC exercise cancellation options later, then the market will address that then. I fail to see how that is different with Airbus recording all 150 sales upon signing the paperwork with CAAC. It's not like CAAC is more likely to cancel an Airbus contract then a Boeing one, so the market will value both orders identically, whether they are recorded in one day or over many...

Quoting MrComet (Reply 7):
Boeing is clearly more conservative than Airbus. Given the much larger numbers of cancellations over the years by Airbus, this clearly better helps us understand the future earnings of the companies. Sorry, Boeing wins this one.

No, Boeing is just different then Airbus. Boeing waiting for Primaris to actually sign their 787 order before recording didn't affect the company's valuation anymore then if Boeing had recorded it the moment Primaris said "yeah, we plan to take them". And Primaris formally cancelling that order after signing the paperwork did not hurt the valuation anymore then if Primaris had never signed the paperwork, period, after Boeing had recorded the order at the announcement of Primaris' intent to buy.

It would be nice if Airbus and Boeing recorded orders with the same standards, reporting frequency, and ease of look-up (Boeing is vastly better then Airbus in this area), but they don't. That does not mean, however, that one is deceitful or dishonest compared to the other.


User currently offlineBlackbird1331 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1893 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8108 times:

From the sound of the above posts you would think B&A are trying to impress the general public rather than those who purchase the aircraft. Aircraft performance, not hype, sells airplanes, right? I would rather have a T&A debate before we go through another who-is-better-B or A argument. Viva la stews.


Cameras shoot pictures. Guns shoot people. They have the guns.
User currently offlineOU812 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8038 times:

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 3):
Quoting MrComet (Reply 2):
However, Airbus has consistently misdescribed orders in the past especially Leahy and Forgeard as appearing to be firm.

Examples please? And I mean examples where Airbus accounted for orders in its spreadsheet which were not, in fact, firm.

Examples?

Here's one! This was obviously Forgeard spinning things just a tad ! However, on Airbus's part, having Noel Forgeard gone should help the new Airbus with their denial issues!

http://www.compositesnews.com/cni.asp?ArticleID=10164

Forgeard Says Airbus beats 200-order Target for A350 in 2005

Jan. 9, 2006 — Airbus has beaten its target for more than 200 A350 "orders and commitments" in 2005 by at least 10 per cent, EADS co-chief executive Noël Forgeard said today.

Forgeard did not specify how many would be officially classed as firm orders when the Toulouse manufacturer reveals its year-end figures on Jan. 17


User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5032 posts, RR: 43
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7966 times:

Quoting OU812 (Reply 14):
Examples?

Here's one!

Really? Those orders appeared on the spreadsheet? I never knew.  Yeah sure

Oh, and FWIW, the issue has been beaten to death over and over and over again back when this first appeared, that:

a) Forgeard was referring, as the article itself says, to orders AND commitments;
b) the report that Forgeard said they had 'beaten' the 200 forecast is simply false and stems from a mistranslation: he said they came to 'within 10%'. And guess what, they did.

So no, you didn't answer the question. Another try?


User currently offlineJdevora From Spain, joined Aug 2006, 353 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7710 times:

Quoting OU812 (Thread starter):
Airbus started the year [2006] off in controversy with a very questionable 150 order from the Chinese.

Once again....
The order was announced the 5th December 2005: CASGC signs agreement for largest ever Chinese order with purchase of 150 A320 Family aircraft

There was even a thread here about it: China To Order 150 A320 Posted Sun Dec 4 2005 20:28:41 UTC+1


User currently offlineOU812 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7518 times:

Scorpio,
The order was in the works when announced, since the on going deal between France and/or Airbus to have the Chinese build A320 was yet to be agreed on.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2005/12/05/afx2371339.html

China Airbus order unlikely to shift market share from Boeing - analyst
12.05.2005, 11:50 PM


The framework agreement to buy 150 aircraft, signed yesterday during Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao's four day trade visit to France, does not necessarily mean China will buy that amount of planes, with the final order likely to be for significantly less, Sadubin told XFN-Asia.

Airbus has confirmed that yesterday's agreement with China was preliminary, and that it does not yet have any actual orders for the aircraft.

The accord, a general terms agreement, is expected to evolve over time into firm contracts, with the final order likely to be closer to China's recent agreement to buy 70 aircraft from Boeing, Sadubin said.

'I don't expect that all 150 aircraft will be a firm order -- I think it will be much less than that -- it will probably be on a par with Boeing's firm commitment, with some options as well,' Sadubin said.


User currently offline4Left From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 81 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7453 times:

Who cares who books more jobs, that number is fluid anyway.


Planes aren't busses, put service back into the air!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7422 times:

Quoting OU812 (Reply 17):
Airbus has confirmed that yesterday's agreement with China was preliminary, and that it does not yet have any actual orders for the aircraft.

It was an MoU, and China could have modified it as it saw fit at a later date. It was still a "solid order" in that China was pretty much bound to buy 150 after pledging the same to Boeing, but as has been explained numerous times:

It's fine for Airbus to count it.

It's bullshit for them to then claim the year's sales title when they knew that Boeing counted orders DIFFERENTLY. Airbus knew this because Airbus announced 2 weeks later, so they could see what Boeing counted. Airbus decided to count all 150 orders anyway.

FINE. But where in Airbus's PR of January 17th did Airbus bother to explain this? Where do they say that if they counted orders like Boeing did, or if Boeing counted orders like Airbus did, in EITHER case, Airbus would have been #2? Nowhere, that's where, and that's why it's dishonest. And it is indicative of a much greater problem of honesty at Airbus that surfaced a few months later regarding the A380 delays and the extent to which they knew about them 18 months earlier.

Have a nice day.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineCO7772WUH From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7348 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 8):
Airbus have had a good year for sales. The A320 had a fantastic year. The A330 and A340 did surprisingly well. Most remarkable of all, the WhaleJet even had positive net orders.

Airbus's order numbers were impressive, but why did eads stock value drop so significantly while Boeing's went to new highs?


User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5032 posts, RR: 43
Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7327 times:

Quoting OU812 (Reply 17):
The order was in the works when announced, since the on going deal between France and/or Airbus to have the Chinese build A320 was yet to be agreed on.

The order was announced on the fifth, as per that artcile, and signed on (I believe) the 31st.

For the rest, that article you quoted has some more interesting things: first; contrary to what is being said here, the orders WERE all firm, all 150 (and all have meanwhile long been placed with airlines). Second, this order was not subject to the A320 line in China (the contract was signed well before the decision for the line was taken, and most planes had already been placed by the time of the decision). The result of the decision to build the line was actually another Chinese order for 150, signed in 2006. In short, pretty much everything that Sabudin character said in what you quoted turned out to be wrong.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7329 times:

Quoting CO7772WUH (Reply 20):
Airbus's order numbers were impressive, but why did eads stock value drop so significantly while Boeing's went to new highs?

Mainly due to the WhaleJet fiasco, but also due to the insider trading scandal and Airbus' difficulty in getting an A350 to market.


User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5032 posts, RR: 43
Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7283 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 19):
It's bullshit for them to then claim the year's sales title when they knew that Boeing counted orders DIFFERENTLY.

It wouldn't have made a difference if Boeing had used the same counting practices as Airbus. The original Boeing deal was for only 70 737s, all of which, BTW, were included in the 2005 tally. The other 80 were only ordered in 2006. For Airbus, the entire 150 were ordered all at once, in 2005.


User currently offlineOU812 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6936 times:

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 23):
It wouldn't have made a difference if Boeing had used the same counting practices as Airbus. The original Boeing deal was for only 70 737s, all of which, BTW, were included in the 2005 tally. The other 80 were only ordered in 2006. For Airbus, the entire 150 were ordered all at once, in 2005.

Com'on Scorpio,
Airbus counted/included an order that was still in the process of being completed. Unfortunately, many , including myself have a tough time believing many of Airbus's claims, especially their order totals, after it has been learned that Airbus was disingenuous on many issues, one being Airbus knowing about the A380 delays far longer than they originally stated.

Quoting OU812 (Reply 17):

http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/....html



Quoting OU812 (Reply 17):
Airbus has confirmed that yesterday's agreement with China was preliminary, and that it does not yet have any actual orders for the aircraft.


25 Zvezda : I'm hoping that the departure of Noel Forgeard will provide Airbus an opportunity to regain the credibility they had under Jean Pearson. I would love
26 Scorpio : And you know that the deal with CAAC was not signed.... HOW exactly? Yes? See the date on that article? Did you choose to completely ignore the fact
27 OU812 : Zvezda, I believe they will. Forgeard's narcissism went with him. Their candor on many issues is a positive step forward. However, Airbus being pump
28 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : How about all the A-350 orders, before it was re-introduced and redesigned as the A-350XWB (Mk. VI). For example, the US order for 20 A-350s came soo
29 Scorpio : Firm contracts for those were signed. Since the plane changed, the contracts will need to be renegotiated, no doubt, but as long as that hasn't been
30 OU812 : Good point KC135TopBoom, Interesting, Airbus's totals for 2005 included roughly 100 A350's, which was a plane that did not exist! Very creative Airbu
31 Scorpio : I'm so looking forward to hearing you explain why exactly Airbus, in January 2006, should not have counted those A350 orders. I'm really looking forw
32 Zvezda : If I were US (or another carrier that ordered an earlier iteration of the A350), I would insist on the new plane at the old price and compensation fo
33 Scorpio : One of the many a.net 'myths'. Airbus have always booked cancellations the moment they happened. Every order which was cancelled by an airline was bo
34 JayinKitsap : It will take a change in business practice, more open reporting, and meeting performance targets and scedules. It will also take being more humble th
35 OU812 : Is the A350 situation unprecedented? In that I mean, has it ever happened to another air-framer where an air-framer designs a paper plane, receives a
36 Scorpio : I hope that's not your attempt at an explanation.
37 Post contains images OU812 : It's just step one! Well, is it? Unprecedented?
38 Scorpio : As far as I can think of, yes. In which bizarre way that explains why Airbus shouldn't have counted orders back in early 2006 for what was at that ti
39 EbbUK : The thread title is so totally wrong. How could Airbus possibly want to forget the sizeable order book it bagged this year? An "annus horribilus" for
40 Zvezda : I agree. The order book is the one great aspect of a year that hasn't gone well for Airbus. Every model sold better than expected. Orders might be ne
41 Post contains images OU812 : Zvezda & EbbUK I have to respectfully disagree. But 1st, I will have to admit that I over looked Airbus's orders for 2006. However, regarding the titl
42 Post contains links PanAm_DC10 : Yes, that is close to it, but not quite. Boeing only booked 50 of the 70 in their 2005 total, the balance of 100 have been booked in 2006. The first
43 CO7772WUH : I don't agree. Trust me airbus would love to forget 2006! Yah, they sold a bunch of a320s, but the media had a field day with airbus in 2006. 2 a380
44 Zvezda : It's too early to call it with that much precision. Airbus' market share in 2006 was between 30 and 40 percent. I can't pin it down better than that
45 Post contains links OU812 : I was simply going on what was recently reported on this matter. The article below was done in late Nov.. Is there any indication that Airbus's share
46 Post contains images Manni : Looking at what you quoted from the article... At that time Airbus had sold about 55 widebodys. Airbus more then doubled that number in december (add
47 Post contains images EI321 : If airbus had signed firm orders for a plane that was on offer and had been launched, than why should they not be on the order list? The 787, 748 or
48 OU812 : They didn't get their 1st significant order until Lufthansa ordered the 747-8i in Nov. of 2006. Unfortunately, it was a year to forget for Airbus. I
49 OU812 : Irish, You are taking what I said out of context. The difference is that airlines that bought Boeing a/c are getting that particular a/c. Airlines th
50 Post contains images RichardPrice : The Boeing 2707 springs to mind Several design iterations, finally the program was cancelled with 122 unfilled orders outstanding.
51 Stitch : Yet it was still sold. That is the crux of the argument. Some, most, or all of those sales could very well be cancelled since that plane's specificat
52 Post contains links CO7772WUH : Because the airline industry had to buy it! Boeing was starting to run away in the twin aisle wide-body market. Yes, things were that bad with Airbus
53 Post contains links and images OU812 : Oh! I also forgot to mention that there is a good chance Airbus will be short of cash next year to fund the A350! Interesting, airlines bought an air
54 Scorpio : To be quite honest, I don't see the relation between that comment and the rest of your post, which states almost exactly the opposite, i.e. that nobo
55 Zvezda : I think a few of the Boeing fans are just taking the piss. Obviously, a signed order is a signed order and should be counted until it's cancelled --
56 Astuteman : I suspect in reality, the negotiating positions are substantially more complex. IF the -XWB offers significant advantages to the airlines, Airbus are
57 Zvezda : Having sat across the negotiating table from Airbus, I can assure you it is more complex. Anything that anyone writes here about airliner negotiation
58 EI321 : Im not taking what you said out of context at all, your point is extremly fickle. Are you saying that there should not be any A350 orders on airbus'
59 Stitch : Airbus should not totally be at the mercy of their customers, since the A350X will be more efficient then the 777 and A340 families (as well as the A3
60 Zvezda : Neither Airbus nor Boeing take a deliberate loss on any sale.
61 Post contains images Stitch : Something I've been saying for months on this board...
62 Zvezda : As have I, but it persists as an A.net myth.
63 Post contains links DTW757 : Here is another article posted today about Airbus losing market share to Boeing. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070115...anyearningseadsairbus_07011508
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...
Will Boeing Outsale Airbus This Year? posted Tue Dec 19 2006 20:32:51 by LY777
Lufthansa Giving Airbus 3/4 Year To Present 350XWB posted Sun Nov 19 2006 19:57:23 by LHStarAlliance
Judge Declines Airbus' Effort To Axe Boeing Lawyer posted Tue Sep 5 2006 02:21:21 by Clickhappy
Airbus Eyes 3 New Planes To Battle Boeing posted Fri Jul 14 2006 16:06:15 by Okelleynyc
Airbus To Match Boeing In 2005 Orders. posted Mon Nov 21 2005 17:08:25 by WINGS
Boeing, MD & Airbus ... Any More To Come? posted Thu May 5 2005 23:46:25 by Cxsjr
Airbus Poised To Thrash Boeing 2004-2009 :-( posted Fri Nov 5 2004 17:45:45 by KEESJE
Air Berlin To Choose Boeing Or Airbus posted Wed Aug 18 2004 16:14:07 by 7LBAC111
Boeing And Airbus Have Agreed To Collaborate On... posted Fri May 7 2004 20:27:03 by Ulfinator
HK's Cathay Pacific To Buy Boeing, Airbus Aircraft posted Wed Apr 14 2004 09:12:55 by Alexchao