Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Too Slow To Announce Orders  
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4329 posts, RR: 28
Posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7513 times:

isn’t Airbus now a wholly-owned subsidiary of a listed company? That’s why it is puzzling that the European planemaker appears so sluggish in announcing material information about its business, particularly after EADS took control late last year.

The problem is timely disclosure of aircraft orders, something investors might be forgiven for thinking EADS would be focusing on, given Airbus is lagging behind rival Boeing on sales.

EADS’s communication with financial markets is also under scrutiny because of the current investigation into alleged insider trading at the company in 2006.


http://www.thebusinessonline.com/Doc...41E0E1-A58E-4E42-8D9F-15506DF8C062

Same argument that some on A.net have put forth.


My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
68 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7419 times:

IIRC, BoomBoom suggested in another thread that the reason Airbus takes until January 17th to report/husband its "order intake" results is because France is using one version of Excel and Germany is using another.  Smile

User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10031 posts, RR: 96
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7246 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RedFlyer (Thread starter):
Airbus Too Slow To Announce Orders

Interesting that one of the most common criticism of Airbus I see on here is that they're too quick to announce orders........  Smile

Ah, well. One man's poison.......

Regards


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7241 times:

Last week Europe was still too drunk from New Year's Eve to work. This week Europe is too hungover to work. Next week will be a normal 35 minute work week and Airbus will strive to get the orders counted during those 35 minutes.  Smile

User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7196 times:

As per governing rules of EADS, the only legally binding statements from the consortium to its shareholders are through regulatory statements, published at regular intervals.

All the rest -be it an 'ad hoc' press release from EADS or Airbus, an updated order sheet from Airbus or just a verbal comment from John Leahy himself- is just complimentary and should be taken for what it is worth: 'for entertainment of the audience only':
No need to be immediate,
no need to be complete,
no need even to be made at all.


User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7168 times:

To Boeing:

Live with it, A is in no hurry..

Micke//  Wink



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7125 times:

Reading through the article, I saw this which is actually quite ironic:

EADS should be doing its utmost to ensure orders are communicated to the market as speedily as possible. If not there's always a chance that information can leak and give some investors an unfair advantage.

Not a single upcoming Airbus order has recently been leaked by a source other than one close to the airline-customer, whereas in fact several upcoming Boeing orders were widely leaked by a source close to the US manufacturer....

Go figure!


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7107 times:

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 5):
To Boeing:

Live with it, A is in no hurry..

Did Boeing complain about Airbus' procedures for announcing their annual "order intake" results?


User currently offlineBR076 From Netherlands, joined May 2005, 1086 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7085 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 3):
Last week Europe was still too drunk from New Year's Eve to work. This week Europe is too hungover to work. Next week will be a normal 35 minute work week and Airbus will strive to get the orders counted during those 35 minutes.

Hmm.... I work at least 10 hours a day and some days it's 14 hours, ok it's a company with American headbase maybe that's why  Smile



ú
User currently offlineBoeing777/747 From Belgium, joined Dec 2001, 643 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7084 times:

Why rush, rush? Did you miss the Bus? So what? There will be another one over 5 minutes. Take it easy, life is too short to live it stressed and rushed.

User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7074 times:

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 5):
To Boeing:
Live with it, A is in no hurry.

Did Boeing make a complaint? Perhaps you meant "To A.Net:" smile 

Or worse..."To Stockholders:" mischievous 



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2826 posts, RR: 42
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7023 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 2):
Interesting that one of the most common criticism of Airbus I see on here is that they're too quick to announce orders........ Smile

Ah, well. One man's poison.......

To be fair (and I believe I have probably been the harshest critic of Airbus's order practices) my point is not on timing so much as the current system being gimmicked for whatever reason Airbus wants.

Slz396 put it better then I could:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 4):
As per governing rules of EADS, the only legally binding statements from the consortium to its shareholders are through regulatory statements, published at regular intervals.

All the rest -be it an 'ad hoc' press release from EADS or Airbus, an updated order sheet from Airbus or just a verbal comment from John Leahy himself- is just complimentary and should be taken for what it is worth: 'for entertainment of the audience only':
No need to be immediate,
no need to be complete,
no need even to be made at all.

Which leaves this system wide open for manipulation and ethically questionable purposes. Airbus fans will jump all over me for making that statement, but experience in both Europe and America has shown that when the possibility exists for something unethical and possibly illegal to occur, it usually does.

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 5):
To Boeing:

Live with it, A is in no hurry..

Micke// Wink

This was actually raised by a well regarded European paper. And why should transparency be just for American companies. As this article mentions, it leaves a lot of room for people profiting on insider knowledge, as some here have claimed, allows Airbus the possibility to play reporting games ala Enron, Qwest and Worldcomm.


User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7006 times:

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 5):

"Live with it. A is in no hurry...

[edit] Just look at A380!!!

Micke//  laughing 



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6955 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 4):
No need to be immediate,
no need to be complete,
no need even to be made at all.

That sounds like the mission statement for the A380 project  Wink


User currently offlineAviator27 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6914 times:

I think one of the reasons Airbus takes so long to announce their 2006 order totals is because they actually take their Christmas + New Year holiday. Its a stretch. Plus not every company has the same calender year. Iran uses March to March. The USA Federal government uses September to September. Some publically listed companies in the USA use January to January while others use March to March. Everyone has different standards and its not for us to complain because Airbus is different than Boeing. In the end, its still one year (12 months). Its not like Airbus is counting 13 months of order for every calender year. By the way Boeing had a fabulous 2006. I am going to go out on the limb and say Airbus will beat them again. I know Airbus was over 200 airplanes behind at the start of December but they racked up a lot of orders at the end of the year (as they always do). I suppose we will all find out next week. More airplanes = more work for me. Yay!

User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10031 posts, RR: 96
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6906 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 12):
To be fair (and I believe I have probably been the harshest critic of Airbus's order practices) my point is not on timing so much as the current system being gimmicked for whatever reason Airbus wants.

To be fair to Airbus, provided you stick religiously to the orders spreadsheet on their website, and pretty much ignore everything else, you won't go far wrong. (Actions not words....  Wink )
Except, maybe..

Quoting RedFlyer (Thread starter):
Airbus Too Slow To Announce Orders

A bit of this.  Smile

A weekly update of the Boeing order spreadsheet invariably means it's more "current" than the Airbus one.

Regards


User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6872 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 12):
Experience in both Europe and America has shown that when the possibility exists for something unethical and possibly illegal to occur, it usually does.

There is nothing illegal in NOT making a press release the day you sign an order... What would be illegal is not having the order appear in your Q, H or Y results when you publish them at the end of the term.

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 12):
As this article mentions, it leaves a lot of room for people profiting on insider knowledge, as some here have claimed, allows Airbus the possibility to play reporting games ala Enron, Qwest and Worldcomm.

At regular intervals, EADS has to make regulatory statements containing audited financial data and its board can be held responsible if and when in hindsight the contents of these statements is not reflecting the full reality at the time of posting. As long as they do, EADS -and any of its subsidiaries- are well within the legal framework and must not make any additional communications. Them electing to do so -on selected occasions- is purely informative and should not be used to base assessments on, something many arm chair analysts here and even in the popular press often forget, because it has become a habit listed companies normally do so in full.

Since EADS -contrary to Boeing- focuses almost entirely on their strategic/institutional long term investors (banks/states/industrial consortium) they don't feel the need to pamper their smaller and often much more volatile share holder's base in the way Boeing does.

I've said it before and I say it again: EADS is not a company Joe Average is supposed to buy shares in if his aim is to sell those shares off with the best possible profit within only a few months, because he might indeed be doing so based on knowlegde which does not fully reflect the situation as of that day yet.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6806 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 12):
why should transparency be just for American companies. As this article mentions, it leaves a lot of room for people profiting on insider knowledge, as some here have claimed, allows Airbus the possibility to play reporting games ala Enron, Qwest and Worldcomm.

This is the most salient point in the thread so far.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 18):
At regular intervals, EADS has to make regulatory statements containing audited financial data and its board can be held responsible if and when in hindsight the contents of these statements is not reflecting the full reality at the time of posting. As long as they do, EADS -and any of its subsidiaries- are well within the legal framework and must not make any additional communications. Them electing to do so -on selected occasions- is purely informative and should not be used to base assessments on, something many arm chair analysts here and even in the popular press often forget, because it has become a habit listed companies normally do so in full.

Are you saying that Airbus have no obligation to be truthful when making such an elective statement?


User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2826 posts, RR: 42
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6754 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 17):
To be fair to Airbus, provided you stick religiously to the orders spreadsheet on their website, and pretty much ignore everything else, you won't go far wrong. (Actions not words.... Wink )

How long did it take Airbus to reflect things like the A340 cancellation from EK, some of SQ's cancellations and UPS's A300 cancellation (even after they signed for the A380?)

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 18):
Since EADS -contrary to Boeing- focuses almost entirely on their strategic/institutional long term investors (banks/states/industrial consortium)

And there is truth there. But the reality still is that if I were a investor that did not have supra-normal access to Airbus's internals (ie, a government PM, or the head of BAe) I would not trust the Airbus's reporting requirements to prevent funny business from going on.

And if the purpose of reporting isn't accountability, what's the purpose of it? (That was meant the be rhetorical).


User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6724 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 19):
Are you saying that Airbus have no obligation to be truthful when making such an elective statement?

EADS are not obliged to make any additional statements (apart from the regulatory statements) in the first place.

If they do elect to make a complementary statement on an 'ad hoc' basis however, I am sure you'll find it truthful.


User currently offlineN1786b From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 560 posts, RR: 17
Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6698 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 6):
Not a single upcoming Airbus order has recently been leaked by a source other than one close to the airline-customer, whereas in fact several upcoming Boeing orders were widely leaked by a source close to the US manufacturer....

Sure and weren't you sitting in front of your computer looking for the major order Monday that was leaked to the WSJ?

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 12):
This was actually raised by a well regarded European paper. And why should transparency be just for American companies. As this article mentions, it leaves a lot of room for people profiting on insider knowledge, as some here have claimed, allows Airbus the possibility to play reporting games ala Enron, Qwest and Worldcomm.

Not to mention Noel and family cashing in before the A380 announcement. Aren't there over 500 people being investigated for bailing out/cashing in (insider trading) before the announcement?

-n1786b

[Edited 2007-01-10 23:14:19]

User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6697 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 21):
If they do elect to make a complementary statement on an 'ad hoc' basis however, I am sure you'll find it truthful.

Is your surety based on a legal obligation? Are Airbus legally required to be truthful when making such statements?


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6623 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 18):
Since EADS -contrary to Boeing- focuses almost entirely on their strategic/institutional long term investors (banks/states/industrial consortium) they don't feel the need to pamper their smaller and often much more volatile share holder's base in the way Boeing does.

I've said it before and I say it again: EADS is not a company Joe Average is supposed to buy shares in if his aim is to sell those shares off with the best possible profit within only a few months, because he might indeed be doing so based on knowlegde which does not fully reflect the situation as of that day yet.

Hmmm...67.2% of Boeing common stock is held by "institutional" investors. If EADS management indeed cops the attitude you suggest, they're alienating the very stockholder constituency which provides the market liquidity they sought by going public in the first place. Such an approach can't ultimately be good for any "class" of investor in a publicly traded company.


User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6583 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 21):
Are Airbus legally required to be truthful when making such statements?

Since Airbus is not making any non-regulatory statements about unidentified customers (contrary to Boeing BTW), external verification proofs to be much easier than with Boeing should you have any doubts about the truthfulness of the information they elect to provide you with....


User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6397 times:

Quote:
Airbus is a past master at stage-managing order announcements, particularly at airshows. Boeing, in contrast, says it has a policy of not holding orders over for airshows such as Paris and Farnborough.

But with Airbus now a wholly-owned subsidiary of EADS, in need of reassuring its investors after all its confidence-sapping problems of 2006, it’s time to curtail this particular song and dance.

http://www.thebusinessonline.com/Doc...41E0E1-A58E-4E42-8D9F-15506DF8C062

[Edited 2007-01-11 02:20:51]

25 Zvezda : Again, you didn't answer my question. I'm not asking whether or not Airbus are truthful in their elective statements. I'm asking whether or not there
26 Astuteman : I don't know. Do you? Regards
27 JayinKitsap : The saga with BAE selling their stake speaks volumes about how Airbus / EADS keeps their investors in the dark. BAE had a wildly different valuation o
28 Scouseflyer : EK hasn't actually cancelled any order for A340 - they've said that they don't want them and that someone else will be taking the planes - in effect
29 Jdevora : Things are even better in Spain, the Christmas period only ends the 6th January when "Los Reyes Magos" bring the presents for all the "good guys" JD
30 Post contains images Astuteman : Unfortunately we're all too quick to convert "rumour" into "law" on A-net. It's entirely possible that the A340 orders are embroiled in an "A380 comp
31 Slz396 : Contrary to Boeing, Airbus only announces orders from identified customers, leaving you with the possibility to ALWAYS double check ALL of their orde
32 Zvezda : Thank you for answering my question. That is neither apparent nor true nor even relevant to the discussion. That is just silly. The legal consequence
33 Slz396 : In fact this discussion itself is irrelevant since we should be discussing the exisitance of several NON-reported real orders and not the fictitious
34 Post contains links Osiris30 : I repeatedly see you levelling this accusation without providing any proof that: a) Airbus doesn't have leaks b) Boeing does Frankly I'm a tad surpri
35 Ebbuk : How transparent is the practice of posting numbers of planes bought by customers with no names? That's what Boeing does all the time. Some sit there
36 Osiris30 : The point is, at the end of the day, the person who ordered the plane is of little relevance. The deposit is received when the contract is signed. As
37 Post contains images Scbriml : How does Airbus shove orders under the covers? Because they don't show them on their website weekly like Boeing does? There's absolutely no requireme
38 Osiris30 : Illiterate much? Airbus sits on some orders for months (supposedly).. if you don't see that as a problem then say so, but don't take a quote out of c
39 Slz396 : It is not an accusation, but an observation. The fact Boeing leaks is something we've seen demonstrated on this site almost continuously over the las
40 Scbriml : Are you calling me illiterate? That's not very nice. Do you have an example of this supposedly happening?
41 Gbfra : Yes, but insiders would have the opportunity to do insider trading even in the case of a quick announcement. An insider is by definition a person who
42 Aviator27 : I think some people on this forum are insinuating that Airbus lies about their order sheet because they take "so long" to report final 2006 numbers. O
43 Osiris30 : But I showed you how it's an incorrect observation, so why keep saying it? I have nothing against Boeing "leaking" as you put it. My problem is with
44 Post contains images Osiris30 : Nope it was a question (seriously, it was meant jokingly) Circumstantial only, as I'm not privy to the internal of Airbus, but I think one can make a
45 Zvezda : It's completely transparent. Who the customer is is completely irrelevant -- except in so far as the market might be able to divine a guess about the
46 Post contains images Slz396 : Interesting comment... it could be of great use whenever we discuss orders from China... And this is a problem? Orders don't just fall out of the sky
47 Post contains images Scbriml : But these are rarely firm orders at the time of announcement and often take many months (sometimes years) to hit the order books. Usually most of the
48 Post contains images Osiris30 : The entire order payment process is documented (at least on Boeing's site). A deposit of several million per frame is due at signing. As such the ord
49 Slz396 : You are aware that insider trading becomes much more interesting if you can buy at today's price, knowing almost for sure that tomorrow's price will
50 Osiris30 : Ok obviously you aren't getting this: Here goes (made up dates and events): Mar 15th: SQ order for 100 a350s gets recorded but sat on till April 15th
51 EvilForce : The only people so obsessed by "orders" are those people here at airliners.net. Both Boeing and Airbus answer to their shareholders and regulatory age
52 N1786b : Airbus has 18 unidentified (referred to as undisclosed) orders and 37 (!) in operation. And speaking of sitting on the order book for ages, what is t
53 BoomBoom : " target=_blank>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm....html Four years--is that what you mean by thinking long term?
54 Flying-Tiger : You are just having one clear problem with your insider trading by people "in the know" from the OEM. Most if not all large companies have black-out
55 Zvezda : This statement is incorrect. Everyone in the sales department would know. Everyone.
56 Post contains images Astuteman : Guessing - they still hold the deposits, and therefore have a legal obligation still in the "liabilities". FWIW Vosper Thorneycroft still have a cont
57 Post contains links Slz396 : Sadly, the insider CAN'T buy on April the 14th, since it is will definitely fall out of his window of opportunity to buy.... I suggest you go to the
58 EbbUK : regular trading updates are made at regular intervals, Boeings are more frequent then Airbus. Doesn't alter the facts does it. If someone wants to fi
59 Zvezda : That restriction applies to very few insiders. No. Nearly every public company reports volume of sales, not customer names. Consider Apple, Inc. as a
60 Slz396 : Still not giving up are you? Presumably again in yet another effort to make sure "others" don't get the wrong idea from the information I've provided
61 Zvezda : Again, it restricts only a very small fraction of insiders. It applies only to Vice Presidents and higher and their associates. All lower ranking emp
62 Breiz : Airbus regular practice for as long as I can remember, is that an order is only announced if and when the customer agrees to disclose it. As a conseq
63 Slz396 : You really are incredible! How many people you think are allowed to sign purchase-sale agreements on behalf of Airbus? Per definition these people wi
64 Post contains images Scbriml : Maintenance of an up-to-the-minute website is not "core business" for either Airbus or Boeing. They both do more than the statutory minimum in report
65 Post contains images Jacobin777 : I'm sure most here could care less..
66 Zvezda : Irrelevant. No. Associates has a clear meaning in law, and that's not it. It's even spelled out in the text you quoted. No.
67 Post contains images Scbriml : But care just enough to post?
68 Post contains images Aviator27 : Maybe Zvezda is none other than Randy Baseler himself?   Come on guys take a step back and relax. Enjoy the show being put on by Boeing and Airbus.
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...
Paris: Airbus To Announce 100 Orders From India posted Thu Jun 16 2005 11:31:18 by Keta
Anymore Orders To Announce Before The End Of Year? posted Fri Dec 15 2006 15:32:35 by UALMMFlyer
ATR To Announce More Orders posted Tue Aug 8 2006 09:23:37 by Flying-Tiger
Airbus To Announce New A340 Deal Soon posted Thu Mar 9 2006 15:43:00 by Flying-Tiger
Why It Took Airbus Until Jan 17 To Count Orders posted Thu Jan 19 2006 07:56:08 by Vfw614
Qantas To Announce Order For Mix Of Boeing, Airbus posted Thu Oct 6 2005 01:26:55 by AeroPiggot
Airbus To Announce New A380 Customer In Paris posted Mon Jun 13 2005 15:04:06 by Keesje
N349BA To LFPB, Orders To Announce? posted Fri Jun 20 2003 04:30:01 by B764
AirMalta To Announce Airbus Or Boeing By 15 May posted Sun Apr 28 2002 16:48:41 by LMML 14/32
SIA To Announce Aircraft Orders In 11/2 Hours! posted Fri Sep 29 2000 10:45:52 by GUNDU