Mls515 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3076 posts, RR: 9 Posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1395 times:
Not that they would do this, but could Boeing buy a liscense from Airbus to produce it's own clones of the A3XX?
This is about as likely as a snowball in hell, but imagine Boeing cancelling the superjumbo 747X and 747X stretch and phasing out the 747-400/400X in favor of the A3XX clone. It would force the industry to accept the larger A3XX while saving them development money on their planned superjumbos.
An interesting thought.....You can tell it's 2am where I am!
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1287 times:
I'll through you a more interesting possiblity.....
A couple of months ago I heard a rumor that Boeing was going to make a bid on Bae. Correct me if I am wrong but Bae builds the Airbus wings and is a risk sharing partner. If that rumored bid/buyout was to be true and successful you could be Boeing a member of the Airbus consortium......
And you think politics where interesting.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
A student From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1217 times:
As far as I know, the original A3XX project (flying wing etc) was a cooperation between Boeing and Airbus. It failed because it was too expensive and too far into the future.
Anyway: Why should Boeing even consider becoming someone else's production plant? We're talking about Boeing here, not a small Israeli company producing Dornier428 Jets or a small Romanian company producing BAC 1-11s.
Maybe Boeing should ask Airbus to use its production lines for producing 777s and 747s, and to scrap the A340-600...
Mx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1209 times:
A very interesting thought and one that is not that far fetched. With globalisation on the increase, in theory it would make great economical sense for Boeing and Airbus to combine forces and be the dominant force in aircraft manufacture. Boeing could concentrate on it's strenghts and AI the same.
Just look at the globalisation of banks and financial institutions. Most people probably don't even know that their local bank that they may think is local is actually owened by Chase or some other huge major player.
Look at the stakes in different airlines that different carriers have. All in the name of business and shareholder profit. Another example are the telecom companies. Small national co's are being swallowed up by the big guns in the name of globalisation.
Wait and see what happens when we are left in the world with a few major corporations controlling everything. You will find that conservative attitudes to big business running everything will change, except for those that will benifit.
The globalisation of the worlds business, is a reverse form of competition, which has been forced upon the world nations in the name of free enterprise and "privatisation". I am not a communist but can see the writing on the wall when you find that instead of a creative government looking after the peoples interests (like power, transport, hospitals and fresh water) you find that it's a big business that has decided that your water supply will be cut forthwith as you are two days late with your payment. For whatever reason you are then forced to pay a reconnection fee of $2000.
Why are you forced? Because of the ideals of privatisation / globalisation has allowed your current choice of providors to be taken over into one big company. The difference this time is that it's not the government that you have to pay you water rates too, it's a large company that doesn't give a rats if your water is disconected. You have no other choice as there is no other provider of the service. Instead of a democraticaly elected government to answer for it you will have a big global company to deal with. Good luck!!
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6461 posts, RR: 54
Reply 13, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1164 times:
The whole idea is of course hypotetical. All developed countries have some sort of "competition control authority", and a A/B merge would obviously never be granted.
Anyway, if we imagine that it was possible, then there would be a lot of technical obstacles, and here comes maybe the worst:
When a new type gets its certification, then it is not just the blueprints which are certified. It is also the manufacturing processes of almost every single component, quality check procedures and all such things.
New subject: Mx5_boy, you are so right. I copied your post for non-aviation purposes. You said it so well.
Best regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
Wingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2276 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1149 times:
Boeing and Airbus discussed this in the past, so it's not impossible. What it would mean is a rebranding of the A3XX project as a JV with Boeing ponying up at least $6BB. This would save both partners a lot of money in the rollout and the result would be a complete monopoly of VLAs. Boeing rules out the 745 and 746 and guess what? No more discounts because there's no competition. Boeing could still roll out an updated version of the 744 as a step between the 777-340 and A3XX while AB continues to develop the 340 series. Now I see some real profit potential for the A3XX.
Still this is unlikely. The airlines would howl in protest. More likely is the Boeing purchase of BAe's defense units and the sale of the Airbus unit to EADS.
Hmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2104 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1086 times:
Co-operation in business is always more profitable than competition. By rights, Boeing and Airbus should go in cohorts on the super jumbo. That way the risk is halved, as is the start-up capital. And it is just those two issues, risks and capital, that have stopped Boeing from going ahead with a super jumbo of its own.
How many here are aware that arch rivals, GE and Pratt & Whitney, are already in business making a new line of engines?
Nor do I see a reason why such a co-operation on a super jumbo would, or could, be blocked. It would not be an amalgamation of the two companies, but merely a co-operation on one product line. That happens all the time. The US has anti-trust laws but those apply to American companies removing other American competition from a US market. They have no jurisdiction over foreign companies in a global market. And let's face it, Boeing swallowed MD, making Boeing the only manufacturer of commercial airliners in the US. A perfect case for the application of anti-trust laws, but they were not invoked.
An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised