Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Aboulafia's Comments On A380 And 787  
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5790 posts, RR: 47
Posted (7 years 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8135 times:

Interesting comment by Rishard Aboulafia:

http://fleetbuzz.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/richard-aboulafia-speaks/


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31117 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8089 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Eh. He does himself no favors with the "he's biased to Boeing" crowd.

I do agree the 787's problems don't see as dire now as the A380's did, but then when the A380 was only expected to be six months late, that didn't seem so bad, either.

I also agree that despite the delays, the 787 is the only viable choice in the 200-250 seat market for the long-term.

I just don't see the 747-8I being competitive against the A380-800 on anything but price, and Boeing doesn't appear willing to lose money on an order to win it when they can let Airbus win it, but at minimal margins.

The A350-800 is likely not as poor a plane as he thinks, since it does cover the A330-300 and A340-300 market. I do agree with him that 8000nm range is not going to be critical for airlines - payload over range will be. If a 787-10 can haul a full load 7,000nm, it should be very palatable to airlines.

He seems to be taking the same tack with EK that many Boeing Boosters do - they expect EK to order the A350, so they have to spin the order to make it seem less important then it actually is.

And frequency/fragmentation will impact the market for 400+ seaters, but for those who must have them - even if it's only 300-400 units - the A380-800 is going to effectively win all those orders, IMO.


User currently offlineSirOmega From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8078 times:

"Unlike most industry pretenders, Richard has a well-spirited reputation for calling things on the industry both sharply and accurately. Little wonder then, he is the de-facto industry Oracle."

Ugh...

Regardless of that type of dreck, the point about the 748F being the important part of the 748 program is right on. Given the collapse of the A380F (for now), the 748F and the upcoming 777F will capture most of the freight market. The passenger part of the 748 is just gravy. It works if they can hurt Airbus in the slightest way - stealing a few orders here and there, pricing pressures, etc.

[Edited 2007-10-15 08:33:09]

User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9154 posts, RR: 76
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8046 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Thread starter):
Rishard Aboulafia

Name change ?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Eh. He does himself no favors with the "he's biased to Boeing" crowd.

Well said Stitch, he lost his global independent appeal when he co authored "A "Shadow" Critical Project Appraisal: the A380 Program", trying to pass it off as independent comment, then to find out it was paid for by Boeing.

Every comment he makes about Airbus seems to be negative, and as you observed "he's biased to Boeing" crowd.

Like he previous said "The A380 is "somewhere between hubristic and outright folly," says aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia of The Teal Group, adding it could be relegated to "a footnote in aviation history.""

If he wants to be taken seriously outside the USA, drop lines like that, and this....

"Airbus really doesn't have the financial resources to do a true 400-seat plane until 2020, at the earliest. That assumes the A350 family gobbles up all available cash and engineering until 2015, and is followed by an A320 replacement. For the next 15 years, Airbus will sell the great albatross at whatever price it can realize."

and realise that with a order backlog at the end of last year at over 263 billion euros, and with more orders than ever likely this year, Airbus can afford to do many things.

It is a good day for Airbus, why trash it with such cheap talk. When the 787 rolled out Airbus sent Boeing a letter congratulating them about the achievement, a similar historical achievement happened today, and what I read looks like sour grapes.

As Enders said today, they are not out of the woods, but I think they have the momentum back going in the right direction.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12634 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8043 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
He does himself no favors with the "he's biased to Boeing" crowd.

You spotted that?  wink 

Indeed, simple opinion presented as fact (with absolutely no explanation) and out-and-out undisguised bias. I'm glad I wasn't the only one to read it like that.

Quote:
The -800 looks useless against the 787-8/9.



Quote:
Airbus will sell the great albatross



Quote:
But despite its tremendous success, Emirates is a government creation with unlimited funding



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineWsp From Germany, joined May 2007, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7983 times:

Quote:
Little wonder then, he is the de-facto industry Oracle.

A little research into the past columns on Aboulafia's own website should easily dispel that myth.

Quote:
There are no other important programs that require pressing attention and siphon off financial and engineering resources. Airbus needs to worry about the A350 XWB and A400M. This is particularly true because the A350 DOES have enormous broad commercial appeal–already it has more orders than the A380 has received over a much longer time period Boeing can stay focused on its single most important project.

Hmm, single project? Has the 747-8 been canceled?

Quote:
One guy is in charge. Boeing might have needed to supervise some of its first tier suppliers a bit more closely, but they have the power to impose changes to the supply chain as they see fit. Airbus has two major power centers at the top who argue over work apportionment.

Work appointments for Boeing are obviously tied to the work shares and their distribution is from what I understand totally outside Boeing's control. The fact that factories inside Airbus can argue about the distribution means that Airbus has more flexibility, not less.

Quote:
BA will likely watch the 777NG/new design and A350-1000 battles play out

Spin spin spin. Boeing in that audio interview on Wallace's blog phrased it as if BA is almost begging them to put something into the ring. That "battle" seems to be very one-sided for the near future with Boeing not really interested in that fight.

Aboulafia:

Quote:
The -800 looks useless against the 787-8/9.

Boeing777 about Aboulafia:

Quote:
...analysts like Richard call the scene in the best and most neutral light possible.

 banghead 

Quote:
The biggest variable is engine performance, and that’s why they should try hard to get two competing engine providers.

Can't wait for him to reverse that statement when that A350-1000 competitor that he keeps talking about is presented with only one engine choice...

Quote:
Funny thing–Rolls makes good engines, but the only widebodies built with Rolls as a sole source have been disappointments on the market–L-1011 and A340-500/600.

Yeah, superstition is a core virtue for a market analyst.

Quote:
More importantly, when Boeing launches an all-new plane (once a decade), it gets it right. Everyone involved knows that sales will be at least 1,000, and usually more.

I wonder why they needed so many risk-sharing partners then. And why Randy I stated that they never expected the high sales they got now.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
He seems to be taking the same tack with EK that many Boeing Boosters do - they expect EK to order the A350, so they have to spin the order to make it seem less important then it actually is.

 checkmark 


Also the post is full of the 'Airbus had to discount heavily' / 'Boeing's products are in high demand' pricing speculation that quickly highlight the poster's biases. The idea that Aboulafia has insight into these aircraft deals is hard to believe. Especially after last year he discussed possible A380 cancellation scenarios while at the same time in the real world the same airlines were negotiating additional purchases.

I didn't comment on the 'questions' in that 'interview' as they are so loaded and biased that its really not worth it.


User currently offlineWsp From Germany, joined May 2007, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7969 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 3):
Well said Stitch, he lost his global independent appeal when he co authored "A "Shadow" Critical Project Appraisal: the A380 Program", trying to pass it off as independent comment, then to find out it was paid for by Boeing.

Every comment he makes about Airbus seems to be negative, and as you observed "he's biased to Boeing" crowd.

I don't think he is necessarily biased per se. It seems more that he will provide the quote that matches the audience. Since he more often provides quotes for US publications he will provide something that suits that news market. In a European publication he would certainly find more nuanced words towards Airbus and see Boeing's future challenges in a more critical light.


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25418 posts, RR: 86
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7954 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Wsp (Reply 6):
In a European publication he would certainly find more nuanced words towards Airbus and see Boeing's future challenges in a more critical light.

Not according to his comments about the A350 at the Paris Air Show, where he was constantly raising the bar for the aircraft.

(It's in the archives but I can't get "search" to work at the moment).

Every time orders for the aircraft met a goal that he had set, he set a new benchmark for it to achieve.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineWsp From Germany, joined May 2007, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7951 times:

Quoting Mariner (Reply 7):
Every time orders for the aircraft met a goal that he had set, he set a new benchmark for it to achieve.

Yes, but IIRC that was in US publications.


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25418 posts, RR: 86
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7940 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Wsp (Reply 8):
Yes, but IIRC that was in US publications.

The articles containing the statements were printed in many UK and various European language newspapers.

It was the Paris Air Show - it received considerable international attention.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7921 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):

The A350-800 is likely not as poor a plane as he thinks,

 checkmark ....I do think his comments were off on that.....



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1613 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7904 times:

Who is the author of this editorial? I particularly love the objective, neutral questions he asks. Asking leading questions (questions which suggest how the responding party should answer) are not very helpful in assessing any situation, and certainly not helpful in understanding the facts on each side of the debates involving the 787, 350 and 380 programs.

User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7488 times:

Quoting Wsp (Reply 5):
Quote:
One guy is in charge. Boeing might have needed to supervise some of its first tier suppliers a bit more closely, but they have the power to impose changes to the supply chain as they see fit. Airbus has two major power centers at the top who argue over work apportionment.

Work appointments for Boeing are obviously tied to the work shares and their distribution is from what I understand totally outside Boeing's control.

Boeing has total control of the work share to Tier 1 suppliers. What they don't generally control is how the Tier 1's farm out their work to subcontractors, but they generally don't care either.

Quoting Wsp (Reply 5):
Quote:
More importantly, when Boeing launches an all-new plane (once a decade), it gets it right. Everyone involved knows that sales will be at least 1,000, and usually more.

I wonder why they needed so many risk-sharing partners then.

Risk-sharing isn't really about risk sharing...neither A nor B can afford to have a commercial airplane program actually fail. It's all about cost-sharing...heavy "risk-sharing" allows both A & B to develop new aircraft with a lot less money out of their own pockets (good for shareholders) and also ties their suppliers much more closely to the program, which is good for long-term support.

Tom.


User currently offlineWsp From Germany, joined May 2007, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7292 times:

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 12):
Boeing has total control of the work share to Tier 1 suppliers. What they don't generally control is how the Tier 1's farm out their work to subcontractors, but they generally don't care either.

They lost control when they made the subcontractors risk-sharing partners. Boeing can't take away work from one of these partners and give it to someone else. Airbus can for example move A380 work from Hamburg to Toulouse if that makes more sense.

Aboulafia was playing down Boeing's 787 organizational issues and to distract pulled out a silly and unrelated comparison to Airbus' work organization.

What is more interesting in the context of Boeing's 787 troubles is that the processes inside the suppliers seem to be partially in-transparent to Boeing. This is fine unless you suddenly have traveled work where your suppliers and your processes are getting intertwined in unplanned ways (for example when it comes to documentation).

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 12):
Risk-sharing isn't really about risk sharing...neither A nor B can afford to have a commercial airplane program actually fail. It's all about cost-sharing...heavy "risk-sharing" allows both A & B to develop new aircraft with a lot less money out of their own pockets (good for shareholders)

Risk-sharing is cost-sharing is risk-sharing. There is no either or. If Boeing was guaranteed (in the way Aboulafia puts it) to sell 1000 pcs of the 787 they would have sought financing that would have left more profits in their accounts.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 12):
and also ties their suppliers much more closely to the program, which is good for long-term support.

Profit is what binds partners, not past investments. Suppliers who waste tears over spilled milk from a decade ago don't stay in business for long.


User currently offlineHloutweg From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 238 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7153 times:

Quote:

There are no other important programs that require pressing attention and siphon off financial and engineering resources. Airbus needs to worry about the A350 XWB and A400M. This is particularly true because the A350 DOES have enormous broad commercial appeal–already it has more orders than the A380 has received over a much longer time period

The comparison is fair as it is true that the A350 has gained more sales than the A380. But the markets are different and they do not compare. Besides, under normal conditions, meaning that no upsets had happen to the A380, Airbus would have counted several more orders already; orders that have been held back still and could very easily go to the A380 vs 747 in a most fair tete-a-tete. Comparing the number of contracts of the A350 vs the A380 almost as dramatically incorrect as comparing the number of sales toilet paper vs trouffles.

Mr. Aboulafia is clearly inclined to one side, and one side only, and using arguments that seems to be 'fair' in use while inherently conflicting, is a foxy way to go around his bias.



In Varietate Concordia
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12634 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7038 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This comment was also telling - not so much what he said, but what he didn't say:

Quote:
There are no other important programs that require pressing attention and siphon off financial and engineering resources. Airbus needs to worry about the A350 XWB and A400M. ... Boeing can stay focused on its single most important project.

Implying that all Boeing has to work on is the 787 (not that they don't have challenges there), while totally neglecting the 748 and 767 tankers (again a project with some challenges).

Personally, I would say Boeing has as much on its plate right now as Airbus does. Despite the rabid desire of the fanboyz here for Boeing to announce "an Airbus killing Y1", I believe neither Airbus nor Boeing is in the slightest bit interested in this segment right now. Just look at the incredibly strong sales of the A320 and 737 families to see why there is no pressure on either right now.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineDistantHorizon From Portugal, joined Oct 2005, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6332 times:

This guy has much less credibility than the vast majority of a-net users.

The reasons are already clearly stated.

His "independent" comments do not deserve any of our time.

DH


User currently offlinePutnik From Brazil, joined Aug 2007, 229 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5907 times:

Call me ignorant but who is Richard Aboulafia? And why is he important? He pops up in a.net topics and suddenly a discussion gets ignited.


LH504 - we always remember our first :)
User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4165 posts, RR: 36
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5744 times:

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 15):
Despite the rabid desire of the fanboyz here for Boeing to announce "an Airbus killing Y1", I believe neither Airbus nor Boeing is in the slightest bit interested in this segment right now.

IMO there is another factor in here: sooner or later sales will go back drastically and there is the risk that many orders might be cancelled - at that might exactly be the window when a possible A320NG or Y1 might appear on the market. Taking cancellations for these new birds will realy hurt, taking a cancellation for an A320 or a B737NG will urt far less - both lines have been written down and essentially everything above variable costs makes fun. It is far easier to run a written down line during a downturn than a new line where you still need to recoup the investment.

Thus I think that both Airbus and Boeing will only launch their new narrowbodies when a slump is apparent to have them both available once orders pick up again.



Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
User currently offlineCol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2122 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4535 times:

Funny thing–Rolls makes good engines, but the only widebodies built with Rolls as a sole source have been disappointments on the market–L-1011 and A340-500/600.


This guy seems to be a legend in his own mind, and in the mind of the interviewer!! Think we can all see that he has a slight negative to Airbus in this interview. The RR comment blows me away, especially when they have handed PW/GE their asses in a lot of competitions, and even a child could explain to him why the L-1011 and 345/346 did not compete so well. I live in PW country, and I know who they fear the most on competitive projects!


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31117 posts, RR: 85
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4118 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Putnik (Reply 17):
Call me ignorant but who is Richard Aboulafia? And why is he important? He pops up in a.net topics and suddenly a discussion gets ignited.

He's a senior analyst for the Teal Group, which is an aircraft industry consulting company based out of Virginia. He's been following Boeing and Airbus for decades, but during the past decade, has been mostly critical in his view of Airbus and favorable in his view of Boeing, so Airbus Aficionados dislike him and Boeing Boosters like him.

His counterpart on the Airbus side is Scott Leeham of leeham.net. His general tone of late is favorable towards Airbus and critical of Boeing, so the AA's like him and the BB's dislike him.

When either one makes a comment, it is immediate grist for the airliners.net mill.  Smile


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3514 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4109 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Eh. He does himself no favors with the "he's biased to Boeing" crowd.


Quoting DistantHorizon (Reply 16):
His "independent" comments do not deserve any of our time.

Well said.  checkmark 

[Edited 2007-10-16 08:06:00]

User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4060 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):

His counterpart on the Airbus side is Scott Leeham of leeham.net. His general tone of late is favorable towards Airbus and critical of Boeing, so the AA's like him and the BB's dislike him.

I see a huge difference between the two. While Aboulafia is just plain biased, Leeham is more open minded towards both Airbus and Boeing.

Aboulafia has lost nearly all credibility as an independent analyst. He might as well go work for the Boeing PR department.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31117 posts, RR: 85
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4034 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WINGS (Reply 22):
I see a huge difference between the two. While Aboulafia is just plain biased, Leeham is more open minded towards both Airbus and Boeing.

Yes, Leeham is less pontificating then Aboulafia, but when he talks, BB's get about as bent out of shape as AA's do when Aboulafia speaks.

Hence I generally approach both with a healthy sense of skepticism. There is wheat amongst the chaff, but you need to thresh pretty hard to find it.  Smile


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3514 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3908 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
Quoting WINGS (Reply 22):
I see a huge difference between the two. While Aboulafia is just plain biased, Leeham is more open minded towards both Airbus and Boeing.

Yes, Leeham is less pontificating then Aboulafia, but when he talks, BB's get about as bent out of shape as AA's do when Aboulafia speaks.

Hence I generally approach both with a healthy sense of skepticism.

Check how balance comments Leeham published on 787 delays.


25 Baron95 : In 1999 it looked like the .com/telco/stock market boom was going to be going on forever. In 2005 it looked like the US real estate boom was going to
26 Col : , plus the rest of your reply. WTF. Red Sox lost again even I am not this depressed. Isn't this just a repeat of what you have written elsewhere, its
27 Baron95 : Huh? Topic is his comments on the A380 and 787 and how he feels the challenges for the A380 are in a different league. One thing that no-one has poin
28 Stitch : I would be interested to see how 747-400 passenger family orders tracked during the last airliner boom. Her strongest year appears to be 1990.
29 Baron95 : Indeed. And you must also note that during that time the only other viable option for the Pacific long haul routes (were the 744 was selling into) wa
30 Swallow : Quote from the article, 'I’m hearing news that the A350-1000 may yet go the way of the A340-600 and fall short on projected performance promises' Av
31 Stitch : Well the nominal range for the A350-1000 has been shrinking even as MTOW has been rising, so Richard may have a point. Also, the drop in engine thrus
32 Rheinbote : What's wrong about that, other than one might differ on the long-term prospects of the A380? A popular fallacy. An order backlog like this may actual
33 Post contains images Astuteman : It doesn't. But if achieving a range/payload was the objective, then the MTOW would rise until the necessary fuel could be "tanked". I find it inconc
34 Stitch : Yup. And the 787-9 saw a serious MTOW boost, herself, to the current 540,000lbs. I wasn't implying that it's necessarily a "bad" thing that MTOW is r
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...
Gordon Bethune Comments On 7E7 And A380 posted Fri Apr 30 2004 21:30:50 by STT757
ANA CEO Comments On A380, A320, 737 And 7E7 posted Sun Nov 9 2003 00:56:34 by Teahan
A Few Questions And Comments On US And AC's 340's. posted Sat Feb 17 2007 03:44:48 by Jdwfloyd
US Carriers - Missing On A380 And Intl Routes? posted Sun Nov 26 2006 02:55:38 by Acabgd
Mike Boyd On A380 And 737 Successor posted Tue Oct 31 2006 18:23:46 by Lumberton
Airbus Reacts To Boeing's Comments On A380 posted Fri Aug 18 2006 02:34:43 by A5XX
Need A Laugh? See "Robin Wood's" Comments On A380 posted Sun Oct 30 2005 13:11:45 by JetMaster
Airbus Comments On A3XX And 747X. posted Fri Apr 28 2000 20:19:42 by CX747
Randy B. Comments On 787 Fuse, A380 Hiccups posted Sat Jun 24 2006 00:12:36 by Greaser
SIA CEO Comments On Airbus A380 And Sonic Cruiser posted Fri Apr 13 2001 23:21:58 by Singapore_Air