Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus May Not Do A320 Replacement Alone  
User currently offlineElvis777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 360 posts, RR: 3
Posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 9684 times:

Howdy all,


Some exerpts:

"...Airbus is considering teaming with a major partner to help it replace its best-selling single-aisle aircraft, ....

....Covering the large seat range will probably require a family of aircraft and, Williams says, Airbus will "not necessarily do all of that ourselves." He adds that "we might find other partners" to work on that aircraft.....

..Industry officials indicate there have been exploratory talks between Airbus officials and representatives from Embraer..


Embraer President and CEO Frederico Fleury Curado says the company "would consider" cooperation on a future narrowbody, but he doesn't see such an aircraft emerging for another 8-9 years....

According to European aerospace company sources, EADS top management is highly interested in reaching a deal with Embraer because the Europeans are impressed with the firm's technological and management capabilities. They also see a joint venture approach as a means to cut costs.


irbus views finding a potential partner for a new program as insurance should Boeing spring a 737 replacement earlier than expected. With A380 output still ramping up and development of the A350XWB twin-widebody just starting, there is a feeling that Airbus could not react quickly on its own to a new Boeing challenge.


One of the pitfalls of trying to form an alliance with Embraer is that it could strain Airbus's relations with Russia and China, both expected to be key partners on the A350


Airbus officials are particularly sensitive to the possibility of being caught out in terms of engines. When they created the A340-500/-600, engine technology drove them to stick with the quad-turbofan design. A few years later, however, Boeing was able to take advantage of a new-generation build standard to create the 777-300ER, which has been outselling its rival.............................................."

Much more, in fact the whol article can be found here

Family Planning
Aviation Week & Space Technology
07/02/2007, page 38

Robert Wall
Paris
Jens Flottau
Frankfurt

"Airbus flirts with Embraer to develop a future narrowbody"

Peace

Elvis777


Leper,Unevolved, Misplaced and Unrepentant SportsFanatic and a ZOMBIE as well
62 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3186 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 9649 times:

Interesting...

I will point out that I suggested a pair up over a year ago in this space.. Boeing + BBD and Airbus + EMB.. I'd go and find the post, but meh.

Oddly I'm not so sure about the Boeing + BBD part of it now.. Boeing may have given themselves enough breathing room with their schedule to not need a partner (aside from possible production constraints). The 737/320 replacement segment sure is going to be interesting.

Can't wait to see the battles over that one on here  Wink



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9587 times:

Quoting Elvis777 (Thread starter):
Airbus officials are particularly sensitive to the possibility of being caught out in terms of engines. When they created the A340-500/-600, engine technology drove them to stick with the quad-turbofan design. A few years later, however, Boeing was able to take advantage of a new-generation build standard to create the 777-300ER, which has been outselling its rival.............................................."

Really? It was apparent that such engines would be available at that time. I think Airbus decisions from the late 80s combined with 90s "4 for long haul" marketing locked them into quads. Besides, it isn't clear to me that the A340 would have been much better as a quad. The installed thrust is pretty much the same as the 773ER despite the latter being a twin that has higher installed thrust requirements to support single engine failures. I suppose it is possible the A346 needs that much thrust to lug around the fuel and support higher MTOWs to compensate for poorer engine SFC coupled with increased drag and weight from the quad configuration in order to achive the target range.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineCygnusChicago From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9471 times:

I'd be surprised if this goes ahead as a full joint development. Most likely it will be an outsourcing agreement, kind of like the 787, where Embraer offers design resources and manufactures some components.

The advantage of a tie-up like this, is that it protects the lower end of the family from, say, "stretched" E-jets, and as a result an A318 replacement will be more successful.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 1):
I will point out that I suggested a pair up over a year ago in this space

Was that insightful prediction before or after the WSJ article spoke about a possible joint development of NSR between Airbus and either Sukhoi or Embraer in late 2005?  Wink



If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
User currently offlineElvis777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 360 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9430 times:

Howdy,

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 3):
I'd be surprised if this goes ahead as a full joint development. Most likely it will be an outsourcing agreement, kind of like the 787, where Embraer offers design resources and manufactures some components.

why?

Elvis777



Leper,Unevolved, Misplaced and Unrepentant SportsFanatic and a ZOMBIE as well
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29674 posts, RR: 84
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9385 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Actually I think Boeing was also looking with Embraer about the possibility of a 125-seat or less plane... I too will have to see if I can find the article.

User currently offlineCygnusChicago From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 9244 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Boeing was also looking with Embraer about the possibility of a 125-seat or less plane

Yes, in the past they were rumored to tie up with Embraer, and more recently with Sukhoi. I think the driving force behind this for both manufacturers is that the ideal replacement will probably consist of two aircraft families, and having a partner will drastically reduce development cost of the smaller, as well as reduce competition.

Quoting Elvis777 (Reply 4):
why?

Well, a complete equal-share development gets complex. Firstly, you introduce a whole new bunch of stakeholders, and most seem to agree that Airbus already has enough management complexity. Secondly, you undermine commonality with either the E-Jets, or the Airbii. Thirdly, Airbus is in my opinion more advanced than Embraer on materials technology and obviously large airframe design. They'd be bringing a lot more to the table than Embraer is.

Frankly, while this may make business sense, as an aviation fan it is a little sad. If deals like this happen, it means Embraer and Bombardier will never compete for the single-aisle, short range, 110 - 200 seat market, and the duopoly will continue.



If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
User currently offlineElvis777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 360 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9112 times:

Howdy,

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 6):
Well, a complete equal-share development gets complex. Firstly, you introduce a whole new bunch of stakeholders, and most seem to agree that Airbus already has enough management complexity. Secondly, you undermine commonality with either the E-Jets, or the Airbii. Thirdly, Airbus is in my opinion more advanced than Embraer on materials technology and obviously large airframe design. They'd be bringing a lot more to the table than Embraer is.

I don’t have a dog in this fight so at the end of the day it does not matter to me. That said I think that the roadblocks you present are not insurmountable. Some might even say that these are minors (Lots of companies have some type of equal share arrangement of some sort that works for them). As far as the complexity of eads admin it does not seem to be a big issue as this comes mainly from the political side and it appears that it will continue.... Sacrificing commonality (which might be a false god) at the altar of superior product might not be a bad idea. After all the next generation might be the new standard for commonality! Also it might just be a necessity since eads believes that if bowing comes up with a replacement model anytime soon they might not have the resources to counter it...

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 6):
Frankly, while this may make business sense, as an aviation fan it is a little sad. If deals like this happen, it means Embraer and Bombardier will never compete for the single-aisle, short range, 110 - 200 seat market, and the duopoly will continue.

There are many shades of aviation fans. None is better or holier than another one. So it might be interesting to see what the combined creative powers of these companies might produce. Or it might not. But as a person who has been labeled "not a true aviation fan" I could imagine that one day I might be interested/pleased at the product that a combination of two airline manufacturers might produce. Then again I might think its not very good. I need to go back to the authorizing authority and see if I still might the aviation fan standard!

Peace

Elvis777



Leper,Unevolved, Misplaced and Unrepentant SportsFanatic and a ZOMBIE as well
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8686 times:

An interesting thought, given EMB desire to enter the 100-130 seat catagory. If they were able to develop a new platform based on the very economical E-190/195 series, that could spring a surprise on Boeing in this critical market.


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineDougbr2006 From Brazil, joined Oct 2006, 391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8570 times:

This was buzzing here in Brazil of September last year that Airbus had entered preliminary talks on some kind of joint venture. I would think that with the Airbus factory being built in China, EMB's part if any would be design assistance and perhaps contracted to build parts of the aircraft.

But you can never tell, if the market for a new airframe is as buoyant as the A320 series has been lately then they may want to build all of them outside of France and Germany to cut labour costs and concentrate on the widebodies there.

The new EMB president stated that they were not intending to compete against the big boys by going into the 150 seat market, but if these talks fail and BBD go ahead with the C series I would see EMB going to at least 140 seat market in response.


User currently offlineMrComet From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 505 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8558 times:

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 3):
The advantage of a tie-up like this, is that it protects the lower end of the family from, say, "stretched" E-jets, and as a result an A318 replacement will be more successful.

It may protect you for this generation but not for the next. You'd be having Embraer do major fuselage sections on a plane that will cover 100 to maybe 200 passengers. Embraer will just build the plane the next time themselves as they get the credibility and know how. You share your profits in a low profit area of the market (the profits they are living off of now) and you introduce a new competitor which you develop new technology with. I think this is a mistake for Airbus. You are letting Embraer into a market you've got a duopoly on and splitting profits now three ways instead of two. They must either be very short on cash, scared of Boeing's technology or unable to develop another airplane themselves.



The dude abides
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8502 times:

I'm all for Airbus taking risk sharing partners. Allegedly they tried to take on the Japanese as risk sharers on the A380 but Boeing (understandably) did not like the idea. And of course the A350 work is now basically being shared with Russia and Qatar. What I think should be remembered though is that if Embraer was to have a 40% share on the A320 replacement, Airbus only takes 60% of the profits.

User currently offlineLogos From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 792 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8492 times:

There is a sense in which Boeing has done this on a lesser scale with the 787 given the unprecedented degree of outsourcing involved, though admittedly without having one unique entity as their "partner". It could be that aircraft manufacturing is heading toward a sort of "general contractor" model where the named manufacturer functions as a designer and general (and significant sub-) contractor, and other sub-contractor partners are brought in for other aspects. In many ways, we're already there with the way Boeing has done the 787.

Even when you look at Airbus itself, it is a consortium of various national manufacturers, not a company that arose on its own (like, say, Siemens or Daimler-Benz) . To go into a stated full blown partnership with Embraer or another entity for a particular project is merely sliding further along that scale.

Cheers,
Dave in Orlando



Too many types flown to list
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8470 times:

Quoting MrComet (Reply 10):
They must either be very short on cash, scared of Boeing's technology or unable to develop another airplane themselves.

I think that's the size of it, MrComet. Building/delivering all those loss-making A380s will probably absorb Airbus' cash resources for several years to come; and there are already signs that they are seeking 'Launch Aid Mark Two' for the A350:-

"The official, who asked not to be named, said these aims would be reflected by the finance ministry in its 2008 budget which is to go before the cabinet on Wednesday. The financial support that Germany plans to give to Airbus’s A350 mid-sized jet project has not been taken into account in the 2008 budget. The A350 is expected to go into service in 2013.

"Germany wants to contribute to the development costs of the A350, estimated at 10 billion euros ($13.6 billion), as it did for the A380, the world’s largest airliner whose troubled progress forced the introduction of a restructuring programme at Airbus this year."


http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...%5C07%5C03%5Cstory_3-7-2007_pg5_32

Boeing are clearly planning on an (all-composite) 737 replacement as their next project. No way that Airbus can follow suit and replace or upgrade the A320, unless they bring in a partner to share the costs.

Trouble is, a partner who shares the cost will also get to share the profits.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8410 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 2):
Really? It was apparent that such engines would be available at that time. I think Airbus decisions from the late 80s combined with 90s "4 for long haul" marketing locked them into quads.

I don't think their mistake was in building the A340. It made sense at the time. Where they made a big mistake was in building the A345&6. Those should have been bigger A330's with new wings.

As for being partners on a new narrowbody I will believe it when I see it.

It will kind of depend on what Boeing does with the 737RS. If they build a plane that does not compete with the current regional jet offerings then neither of those manufacturers have any incentive to really team up with either of the big boys in the field. They could make more money with their own offerings than they could by teaming up.

If Boeing does what a lot of people think they will do and builds two planes to compete in that market then the two regional jet builders will likley have to team up with Airbus or be wiped out. They do not have the money and resources to compete on their own with a CFRP airplane built by either Boeing or Airbus directly in their market.

The problem though is I am not sure either builder brings enough to the table to be an equal partner in the plane. With Airbus you would have the political problem of farming out a big share of the work on probably the most labor intensive part of their future product line to someone else. For Boeing and Airbus you have to ask what would either of those manufacturers bring. Certainly not any more knowlege of composites or airframes than they already have. If they do that without full out purchasing the company then they are just enabling a competitor to emerge by giving them the necessary technology to compete.

We often wonder about Boeing and Airbus competing against one another but I see no reason for either of them to want to make the regional jet builders healthy. You might as well kill them if you can do so with a reasonable return on your investment.


User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3186 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8071 times:

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 3):
Was that insightful prediction before or after the WSJ article spoke about a possible joint development of NSR between Airbus and either Sukhoi or Embraer in late 2005?

Well it's been something I've seen coming since the early 2000s to be honest with you. It's becoming increasingly apparant as time goes by that Embraer needs to be dealt with by Boeing/Airbus. One way to 'deal' with them is to put them under by invading their space.. the other is to partner up with them and eventually bring them into the fold. Ofcourse that logic leaves BBD in a similar position and likely leads to a similar fate. The wild card in all this is the Russian interests.

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 8):
If they were able to develop a new platform based on the very economical E-190/195 series,

Unlikely to happen right now IMHO. A brand new platform would be an awful big undertaking for EMB alone.. or even with help from Airbus.

Either way it will be interesting to see what (if anything) comes of this.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineOlle From Sweden, joined Feb 2007, 265 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7667 times:

Even the A380 was shared with other actors like the SAAB and Volvo and probaby. Do anyone know what procentage of the A380 that was shared and how much is likeley to be shared of the new 320?

User currently offlineIncitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3964 posts, RR: 13
Reply 17, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7491 times:

Any kind of association between Embraer and Airbus would be unfortunate, awful indeed. Embraer and Boeing share an entrepreneurial mindset that Airbus does not have. Bombardier and Airbus on the other hand have many traits in common.

User currently offlineAminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7420 times:

It seems to me that if these news have substance, Airbus, because of the funding and other problems related to the A380 and A350, is giving away a part of their single aisle operation, which is their only real workhorse aside the short lived A330 successes.

If this is so, jointly with the Russian and Chinese intentions, this would be a classical example of weaken the good to support the problematic.

aminobwana


User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3186 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 7359 times:

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 20):
Any kind of association between Embraer and Airbus would be unfortunate, awful indeed. Embraer and Boeing share an entrepreneurial mindset that Airbus does not have. Bombardier and Airbus on the other hand have many traits in common.

I completely disagree with the latter part of your statement (namely that BBD and Airbus have many traits in common). BBD is a radically different beast than Airbus is. While no company is perfect, BBD has historically been very entreprenurial (hence why BBD is comprised of the companies that make up BBD today).

Also, while Airbus and BBD share the fact they are the result of multiple organizations being amalgamated into one organization, BBD did so of their own accord, while Airbus/EADS was more at the urging of the local governments.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineCygnusChicago From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 7252 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 13):
Boeing are clearly planning on an (all-composite) 737 replacement as their next project. No way that Airbus can follow suit and replace or upgrade the A320, unless they bring in a partner to share the costs.

Trouble is, a partner who shares the cost will also get to share the profits.

Well, Boeing is doing the same. They are in talks with Bombardier and Sukhoi about partnering on Y1.

On the 787, the Japanese government shouldered a large of the cost, and Spirit and Alenia have paid no small amount. They're getting a healthy portion of 787 profits. You could say, Airbus is merely copying Boeing  Smile



If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 7208 times:

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 23):
Well, Boeing is doing the same. They are in talks with Bombardier and Sukhoi about partnering on Y1.

Sorry but I have not seen this anywhere. They have done some work with Sukhoi on the Sukhoi regional jet but I have seen nothing to indicate they want to bring in another OEM on any of their own airplanes. Certainly they might subcontract out some of the parts in the vein of the 787 program but nothing on the level of a joint project. Do you have a source that indicates otherwise?


User currently offlineCygnusChicago From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 7208 times:

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 21):
irbus, because of the funding and other problems related to the A380 and A350, is giving away a part of their single aisle operation, which is their only real workhorse aside the short lived A330 successes.

Wrong. Boeing has already done this with the 787. They're looking at doing with Y1. Why is it suddenly so bad for Airbus?



If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29674 posts, RR: 84
Reply 23, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 7108 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Modern airliner programs are just becoming too expensive for a company even of the size of Boeing and Airbus to tackle alone. It's more then just "buying business" through sub-contracting now. Risk-sharing and deeper partnerships in both development and production are needed to make these programs a reality with an acceptable RoI.

And before someone says "yeah, but Airbus gets free money from the EU", remember that the Repayable Launch Aid maxes out at around 1/3rd of the total projected program costs and it is not "free money", having to be repaid, albeit at favorable interest rates and terms.


User currently offlineAminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6942 times:

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 25):
Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 21):
irbus, because of the funding and other problems related to the A380 and A350, is giving away a part of their single aisle operation, which is their only real workhorse aside the short lived A330 successes.

Wrong. Boeing has already done this with the 787. They're looking at doing with Y1. Why is it suddenly so bad for Airbus?

The issues are absolutely not comparable.

Boeing has teamed up with several parts suppliers, under their full control, commercially is and will be the owner of the whole B787 product line. Airbus intends to do the same with the A350 and this perfectly OK.

Embraer is not a part supplier, but already a competitor on the lower end of the A320 spectrum and surly would become progressively for the whole line.
Teaming up with them would mean that Embraer will co-own the A320 product line, the today nucleus of Airbus.

aminobwana


25 EI321 : Ignoring the smaller suppliers that Airbus and Boeing both subcontract to (including each other), Boeing outsources major parts to companies like ale
26 BigJKU : Agreed, and it serves no purpose. Honestly it is not a bad idea for Airbus to spread some work around. I just don't think the specifics of the A320 r
27 Post contains images EI321 : I smell yet another foreign production line I think Airbus needs to know that they can trust whoever they set up shop with that there wont be a screw
28 BigJKU : That is about the only thing I can think of but there are a few factors against it I would think. Brazil is a heck of a long way from the other likle
29 Aminobwana : But you must add that the repayment is prorate aircraft sold over a prestablished total quantity. If the sales do not reach this figure, the correspo
30 CygnusChicago : Too lazy to do a lit search. But read this [url=http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3454634/?searchid=3454634&s=boeing su
31 EI321 : This is very true, and I doubt France will have sold off the French govt share be then. Any attempt to move jobs overseas would potentially have a ma
32 Aminobwana : {quote=Stitch,reply=26]Modern airliner programs are just becoming too expensive for a company even of the size of Boeing and Airbus to tackle alone.[/
33 EI321 : Since the EU-U.S. Agreement in 1992, it has repaid European governments more than U.S.$6.7 billion - 40% more than it has received.
34 Incitatus : Not in the commercial aircraft market. Witness the difficulty that Bombardier is going through developing its future lineup. Bombardier is indeed run
35 Aminobwana : This is not the point. The government is taking a huge risk away from the manufacturer By the way: if, as widely expected the A380 will not break eve
36 Stitch : That has never been shown to be true so far. The A320 program repaid the entire RLA amount and now is paying huge royalties. The A330 and A340 progra
37 Post contains images CygnusChicago : Actually wrong again. It is likely that the first case may be the A340NG. You know, given all the "facts" that you post about Airbus, you seem to als
38 PPVRA : Don't expect to see Embraer as a parts supplier, or a sub-contractor. Either EMB's current or last CEO has said that they want to partner, but they w
39 Planemaker : He was referring to the extravegant government support that BBD has and continues to receive. For example, BBD were "gifted" Canadair after the govt
40 Aminobwana : Let me clarify fmy statement "under their full control:.I mean that the teaming effort is under their control, not the subcontracting companies thems
41 Elvis777 : Howdy El321, Or perhaps chinese? Peace Elvis777
42 Stitch : Or perhaps chinese? TLS' and XFW's A320 production is being ramped up equal to, if not greater(?), then the maximum planned production on the Chinese
43 EI321 : Doubt it. By the time Airbus get to the phase where they will be lining up partners for the 320 replacement the Chinese line will have only opened re
44 Post contains links NAV20 : 51% Airbus, 49% Chinese 'firms' (i.e. quasi-government agencies):- "Upon the creation of the joint venture, Airbus will hold 51 per cent of the share
45 PM : Why so grudging? Why so mean-spirited? The A330 has been selling for some twenty years and looks like being in production (through the A330F) for ano
46 Shenzhen : I recall Airbus promised Hamburg the A320 replacement when they took away the A380 and gave it, and the A350, to Toulouse. Does anyone really believe
47 Aminobwana : Sorry. Sometimes you must bear with my bad English. I wanted to say:"successful for still a short time" I was not referring to the past, where the A3
48 Post contains images EI321 : The A330 entered service in 1994 - 13 years ago, and its been steadily rising in sales success year on year. 2007 has already been its best sellling
49 Aminobwana : I received the same message from PM and hours before I received yours had clarified/corrected my text with reply 47 aminobwana
50 Osiris30 : All of which I have no problem with given the way our government destoryed our aviation sector during the Avro days. Extravegant government support i
51 Planemaker : Only by accident. Don't forget that they inherited the CRJ program when the government gave them Canadair... it isn't as though BBD came up with the
52 WingedMigrator : And it is a final assembly line. All the fuselage sections will still be built in Europe.
53 Post contains images Aminobwana : Do we have evidence of the latter ?? Even if so, as far my own experience in China shows, in due time the Chinese will object the"high cost" of the E
54 Wsp : More profit ? Sounds like its time to buy some EADS stock.
55 Post contains images Aminobwana : Well, if you like to gamble. But of course, once the Chinese government co-owners get their hands on the sub-assemblies and the correspond know how, y
56 PM : They were making MD-80s (and MD-90s?) years ago so what's your point?
57 Dougloid : . All you ned is a careful look at the subassemblies (nose and fuselage sections) and have spent some time working in Long Beach to know where the de
58 Post contains images PM : Could be worse. If things had worked out differently for the Trunkliner it would have been a 737!
59 Aminobwana : The Trunkliner contract with China, where Chinese parts were incorporated, implied the buiding of only 20 MD90-30T following Boeing /MDD blueprints o
60 Post contains images PM : How is that different from the A320 assembly line?
61 Post contains images Osiris30 : You're right BBD didn't create the market from scratch and a lot of things had to come together just right for it to all work... just like in every o
62 Post contains images CygnusChicago : Isn't that obvious? It's a great strategic move for Boeing/McD, but if Airbus does it, then obviously it is absolutely stupid! Duh!
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...
Airbus A320 Replacement posted Fri Nov 3 2006 07:36:05 by WingedMigrator
Humbert: Airbus Sees No A320 Replacement For Years posted Thu Jan 12 2006 19:56:33 by Leelaw
Thai May Not Buy Airbus Fleet posted Wed Dec 17 2003 14:41:30 by ROP
Airbus May Put A380 Nose On A350! posted Mon May 7 2007 09:14:37 by Bells
Airbus May Extend 35 Hour Work Week-Without Pay! posted Sun Feb 25 2007 22:37:00 by Lumberton
Is Airbus Going To Do Better This Year? posted Wed Feb 7 2007 19:26:31 by Glom
Leahy Hints At A320 Replacement posted Mon Dec 11 2006 02:11:32 by 7cubed
Airbus - What To Do With A300/310 Line posted Tue Nov 21 2006 21:41:28 by A342
Reuters: Airbus Has Not Decided On China Plant posted Sun Sep 24 2006 20:50:37 by Lumberton
Airbus Tomorrow? What Do We Watch? posted Sun Jul 16 2006 18:23:45 by Ready4Pushback