Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Are Airbus-Boeing Each Happy With 50-50?  
User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 903 posts, RR: 7
Posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4536 times:

Through the years, Airbus set goals to capture 30%, 40%, and then 50% of the large commercial civil aircraft market. After achieving the 50% goal (roughly speaking) in terms of net orders, and even overtaking Boeing until a couple of years back, it seems that they are not hungry for more. Boeing on the other hand has made a tremendous come back, but they did so by focusing on profitability, and not market share. What are your thoughts? What do you think are the long term ambitions for each?


Only the paranoid survive
51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4524 times:



Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
What do you think are the long term ambitions for each?

Gaining 100% of market share should be their ultimate goal, anything less and they could be seen as not trying their best.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8646 posts, RR: 75
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4492 times:



Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
What do you think are the long term ambitions for each?

I think EADS will want more of the military market that Boeing IDS gets.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29694 posts, RR: 84
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4469 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The airlines themselves want to strong suppliers to help maintain a sense of balance as well as drive product improvements. And both companies benefit from a stable balance since it likely helps their long term fiscal planning and keeps the credit markets and such content knowing long-term revenues are stable.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 2):
I think EADS will want more of the military market that Boeing IDS gets.

Agreed. Programs like the Eurofighter, Eurocopter and A-400M showcase EADS' and the EU's technical excellence in defense products and are winning them deals that used to be the exclusive domain of the US, the Russians and the Chinese.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4462 times:



Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
Through the years, Airbus set goals to capture 30%, 40%, and then 50% of the large commercial civil aircraft market. After achieving the 50% goal (roughly speaking) in terms of net orders, and even overtaking Boeing until a couple of years back, it seems that they are not hungry for more. Boeing on the other hand has made a tremendous come back, but they did so by focusing on profitability, and not market share. What are your thoughts? What do you think are the long term ambitions for each?

50% of the market based on orders isn't what they should be seeking, it's fifty percent or more of revenue and more importantly fifty percent more of profits earned in the aircraft industry.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 2):
I think EADS will want more of the military market that Boeing IDS gets.

Boeing gets less of the military market than Lockheed. Anyway, if EADS wants more of the military market, the most likely route for that is via increased European expenditures and taking share away from other European vendors.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8646 posts, RR: 75
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4441 times:



Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 4):
Boeing gets less of the military market than Lockheed. Anyway, if EADS wants more of the military market, the most likely route for that is via increased European expenditures and taking share away from other European vendors.

Is that true outside of the US ?



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4421 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 5):
Is that true outside of the US ?

Is what true?



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 903 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4365 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
The airlines themselves want to strong suppliers to help maintain a sense of balance as well as drive product improvements. And both companies benefit from a stable balance since it likely helps their long term fiscal planning and keeps the credit markets and such content knowing long-term revenues are stable.

True but doesn't this better serve better the two manufacturers than the airlines? The recent complaints of the major carriers that A & B are taking too long for replacement of narrow bodies and setting the agenda themselves is an example of duopoly.



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29694 posts, RR: 84
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4352 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 7):
True but doesn't this better serve better the two manufacturers than the airlines? The recent complaints of the major carriers that A & B are taking too long for replacement of narrow bodies and setting the agenda themselves is an example of duopoly.

Yes, but think of how the market would look today if Airbus had never launched the A320 family. We'd likely still see Boeing selling the 737 Classic for short-to-medium haul and the 757 for medium-to-long haul. The 737NG was launched specifically because it out-classed the 737 Classic in the medium-haul segment and could perform long-haul missions.


User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1368 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4307 times:

No matter what the market shares, both A and B will contend vigorously for each possible sale. Each would love to be dominant. But if one put the other under, there would also be a shakeout of suppliers that missed out on the current round of production models, leading to fewer choices between less-hungry suppliers for the next project. And that would make it worse for the surviving top-tier producer, as well as the customers. ISTR that one of Boeing's top officers recently said something along these lines: that they need a healthy supplier base, which is possible because of Airbus's existence.

User currently offlineT773ER From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 277 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4291 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 5):
Boeing gets less of the military market than Lockheed. Anyway, if EADS wants more of the military market, the most likely route for that is via increased European expenditures and taking share away from other European vendors.

Is that true outside of the US ?

Yes, Lockheed Martin is the world's largest defense contractor. Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is the second largest.



"Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man."
User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 903 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4246 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
Yes, but think of how the market would look today if Airbus had never launched the A320 family

Exactly my point. It seems that they are both content with the status quo of 50% market share and both are now focusing on profitability. Which is good. However aren't they getting a bit complacent, too comfortable, and even arrogant by serving themselves first and the airlines second. Airbus dragged its heels when ILFC told them that making a non carbon fibre composite plan will not fly for the initial A350 designs. The current stand by A&B to not launch a narrow body replacement until the next decade by saying the engines are not there IMO is not the real truth as they prefer to milk the current design This is why I believe, if the Russians, Chinese, Embraer, Japanese, and Bombardier start making bigger and better airplanes, A & B will rethink their attitudes. At least 3 of these 5 additional players are serious.

Boeing at one time was arrogant and thought Airbus would never get 50% market share, while they had their eye on MD. Then Airbus got arrogant and thought Boeing was on the ropes and relied far too much on their commonality benefits. I think they are now getting a little to arrogant thinking that airlines don't have any other alternative than the status quo.



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlineRbgso From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 585 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4213 times:

Given that both manufacturers are sold out for the foreseeable future, and probably will be as well for the next ten years at least, the only difference will be production rates. Both companies are running wide open right now on their bread and butter lines. While both may be looking to increase production, those increases will be minimal IMHO. So regardless what each sells each year, they will be about 50/50 (with minor swings each year) in deliveries for the next decade.

User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8646 posts, RR: 75
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4210 times:



Quoting T773ER (Reply 10):
Yes, Lockheed Martin is the world's largest defense contractor. Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is the second largest.

Outside the US, like Europe, what do they supply apart from the obvious like the C130 ?



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29694 posts, RR: 84
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4202 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Zeke (Reply 13):
Outside the US, like Europe, what do they supply apart from the obvious like the C130?

This is a listing of their products - http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/A-Z/index.html - though I am not sure if they break it down by customer use.

The biggest one I can think off of the top of my head would be the F-35. They're also prime contractor on the F-22, but that is currently USAF-only.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9840 posts, RR: 96
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4116 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
After achieving the 50% goal (roughly speaking) in terms of net orders, and even overtaking Boeing until a couple of years back, it seems that they are not hungry for more.

I think the situation is skewed by the huge glut of orders we've had recently. I suspect if the order rate for the last 3 years had only been 500 aircraft per year, instead of 2 500 aircraft per year, market share would assume a whole new significance.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
Boeing on the other hand has made a tremendous come back, but they did so by focusing on profitability, and not market share

I suspect the situation is far more complex than that. I think the implication that Airbus haven't/don't focus on profitability is false, as is the implication that Boeing don't/didn't focus on market share. I believe the situation is a bit more complex than that.
I was going to post that you can't separate market share and profitability, but in truth, it would be more accurate to say
I suspect you can't separate throughput and profitability. All other things being equal (and they never are  Wink ) increasing throughput will usually increase your margin, and vice versa.
However, because of that "vice versa", both manufacturers will be exceedingly reluctant to increase throughput beyond a certain point, as it would leave them vulnerable to carrying an overly large cost base, if/when the market nosedives.

Therefore the current backlogs (c.3 500 frames each) more than satisfy what the businesses need in order to justify their planned production rates.
I don't think either firm would want to get too out of kilter with its competitor, though, because of the long-term implications for market share and market penetration.

Regards


User currently offlineT773ER From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 277 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4107 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 13):
Outside the US, like Europe, what do they supply apart from the obvious like the C130 ?

Keep in mind they manufacturer a lot more than just aircraft. Things like their space system which deals with satellites, Transportation & Security Solutions, and Missiles & Fire Control. Lockheed supplies a good number of the world's missiles and naval rockets. These subsidiaries don't even include the numerous partnerships they have with various companies across the world. Defense contractors also do a lot deal of work concerning military logistics and other related fields.



"Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man."
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12043 posts, RR: 47
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4004 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 7):
The recent complaints of the major carriers that A & B are taking too long for replacement of narrow bodies and setting the agenda themselves is an example of duopoly.

I don't think so. The non-complaining airlines that are ordering the current models by the shed-load and those pesky engine manufacturers not bringing out new engines are the ones responsible for pushing a new narrowbody EIS further out. What incentive is there to invest $billions in new products when the old ones are selling so well? None!

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 11):
However aren't they getting a bit complacent, too comfortable, and even arrogant by serving themselves first and the airlines second.

Not that I agree with your assessment of the situation, but they are actually in business for themselves, not the airlines.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 11):
The current stand by A&B to not launch a narrow body replacement until the next decade by saying the engines are not there IMO is not the real truth as they prefer to milk the current design

Again, why shouldn't they when they are selling so many of them. AA, WN and a few other airlines are bitching about it. So what?

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 11):
This is why I believe, if the Russians, Chinese, Embraer, Japanese, and Bombardier start making bigger and better airplanes, A & B will rethink their attitudes.

There's a huge difference between what those companies are doing today and what they might like to be doing in the future. It's a massive step-up for any of those to be able to make a competitive mainline airliner that will be accepted by the market. Additionally, what can any of those other players do today to produce a new, super-efficient A320 or 737 replacement? A CFRP A320 wannabe with V2500s or CFM56s will be maybe 5% more efficient - not enough to temp the airlines to a new product and certainly not enough to justify investing $billions.

One delicious irony in the A380 and 787 delays is that it has shown the World that producing modern, state-of-the-art planes is far from simple, even for the only two players in the market. It's a sobering thought for those eyeing the market and thinking they want a slice of the pie.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 11):
I think they are now getting a little to arrogant thinking that airlines don't have any other alternative than the status quo.

I really don't see the arrogance. Both manufacturers are working flat out to get new models out the door (A380, 748i, A350, 787, A330F, 777F) for the airlines. Both are building radical, new-technology planes that will be a quantum leap over current models. This is a long-term business that requires massive investment in new products. They can't simply throw together a new narrowbody just because a couple of airlines are whinging.



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9840 posts, RR: 96
Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3965 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 17):
One delicious irony in the A380 and 787 delays is that it has shown the World that producing modern, state-of-the-art planes is far from simple, even for the only two players in the market. It's a sobering thought for those eyeing the market and thinking they want a slice of the pie.

In fact you make a good point, that any entrant will be trying to plug into the same supply chain, which is already saturated to choking point with contracts for the big 2. Fasteners, mate? You'll be lucky..  Smile

Regards


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8646 posts, RR: 75
Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3867 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
The biggest one I can think off of the top of my head would be the F-35. They're also prime contractor on the F-22, but that is currently USAF-only.

I think some of the non US customers will cancel some or all of their F-35s.

Quoting T773ER (Reply 16):
Keep in mind they manufacturer a lot more than just aircraft. Things like their space system which deals with satellites, Transportation & Security Solutions, and Missiles & Fire Control. Lockheed supplies a good number of the world's missiles and naval rockets. These subsidiaries don't even include the numerous partnerships they have with various companies across the world. Defense contractors also do a lot deal of work concerning military logistics and other related fields.

So does EADS, Airbus is just one of many business units. http://www.eads.com/1024/en/eads/world_of_eads/products/products.html

EADS is what will push for a greater percentage of the defense dollar.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 17):
One delicious irony in the A380 and 787 delays is that it has shown the World that producing modern, state-of-the-art planes is far from simple, even for the only two players in the market. It's a sobering thought for those eyeing the market and thinking they want a slice of the pie.

 checkmark 

And any single isle replacement will more than likely need to see an investment of over 10 billion, with 3-5 years to develop the product, 1-2 years to test it, and then several years of sales just to start to get a return, not to mention the massive amount of engineers and hardware needed to get that extra 0.01% efficiency out of the aircraft.

It is also worth noting that the 737 and A320 series are works in progress, they are under a continuous development cycle. The A320 built today is very different to the one built 20 years ago, same with the 737. Both CFM and IAE have come out with engine improvement of late in the order of 1% which all helps.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 months 23 hours ago) and read 3729 times:

Well, there are other players, Embraer, Iljyshin and Tupolev as well...

User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12043 posts, RR: 47
Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 months 20 hours ago) and read 3598 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Alessandro (Reply 20):
Well, there are other players, Embraer, Iljyshin and Tupolev as well...

Yes, and I'm sure they'd all like a slice of the pie. Unfortunately, they face the same "entry barrier" - the need to invest anything up to $10billion to produce a competitive product. Then they need to sell in sufficient numbers to provide ROI.

To be honest, I think the "entry barrier" has grown to the point that we will not see a new entrant in the global market producing their own plane. What I can see is the likes of Embraer and others working in partnership with Airbus and Boeing on new airliners - kind of reverse situation to Boeing's involvement on the Sukhoi SuperJet. Basically, they would be Airbus or Boeing sub-contractors.



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3426 posts, RR: 67
Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 months 20 hours ago) and read 3563 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 19):
I think some of the non US customers will cancel some or all of their F-35s.

Of course there is also the F-16 which is still selling outside the US along with all its associated spares and support requirements.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f16/index.html

Lockheed has made a living on export sales since the days of the F-104.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9840 posts, RR: 96
Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 months 19 hours ago) and read 3513 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 21):
To be honest, I think the "entry barrier" has grown to the point that we will not see a new entrant in the global market producing their own plane

Having thought a while, I return to the rising production and backlog scenario.
The supply chain is so strtched now that the last thing they need is to try and serve the needs of a new entrant.

Ironically, it might be a major downturn that prompts the whole industry to look for more "economic" solutions to stimulate demand. Just my   

Regards

[Edited 2008-01-24 07:52:24]

User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 903 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (6 years 3 months 18 hours ago) and read 3458 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 15):
the current backlogs (c.3 500 frames each) more than satisfy what the businesses need in order to justify their planned production rates.
I don't think either firm would want to get too out of kilter with its competitor, though, because of the long-term implications for market share and market penetration.

Thank you have answered the original question. Therefore, as long as there is plenty to go around, they are happy with the 50-50 market share for the large commercial aircraft market.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 17):
The non-complaining airlines that are ordering the current models by the shed-load

"Non-complaining airlines" are the younger and new upstarts. They have an advantage as they start with far lower overheads and labor costs.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 17):
AA, WN and a few other airlines are bitching about it. So what?

The ones that have been complaining are not just AA and WN, but they include FR, LH, NW. Note that Rynair and Southwest who are known to be LCCs have joined the legend carriers complaint that there is no replacement for a long time. All these carriers have been there long enough to realize that yields are not improving, oil prices are all time high and will continue to be, and they have continuous labor issues to deal with. They are doing all they can to reduce costs and find creative ways of new revenue (such as charging for bags, and charging for non-online check-ins). But they are running out of ways to improve profits. One size fits all, or a 25 year old design such as the A320 are no longer acceptable for those who want to replace 100-130 seat MD-80s and Classics. and those who want to replace a 20+ year old A320.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 17):
those pesky engine manufacturers not bringing out new engines are the ones responsible for pushing a new narrowbody EIS further out.

Yes and no. Yes for CFM, they are are milking it right now, and longer the A320/737NG replacement take, better for CFM. So they will prefer to drag out a replacement engine as far as they can. But look at P&W. They made a mistake by not realizing that if they did not come up with a replacement for the JT8 fast enough, someone else will. This has been a bitter pill for them to swallow over the last 25 years. Along came CFM and they relaized that serveing their needs over zealously came with a big price . Fast forward, P&W pushing the geared turbo fan, while GE and CFM are saying the technology is not there yet. How much of that can you believe? It is in Airbus, Boeing, and CFM interest to stretch out and milk out the current narrowbody production as far as they can while singing in a chorus that the technology is not there for a new engine.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 17):
what incentive is there to invest $billions in new products when the old ones are selling so well? None!

Because there is a duopoly

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 17):
what can any of those other players do today to produce a new, super-efficient A320 or 737 replacement? A CFRP A320 wannabe with V2500s or CFM56s will be maybe 5% more efficient - not enough to temp the airlines to a new product and certainly not enough to justify investing $billions.

Well, the CSeries is not exactly a 737/A320 replacement but it is targeted to go up to 149 seats. They are going ahead with the GTF engine, more electrics, and over 50% CFRP including the wings. So here you have an engine manufacturer eager to get back in to the narrowbody market, an airframer with ambitions, and a supply base ready to provide the technologies of electric systems and CFRP processes. BBD are targeting 15%-20% DOC benefits over existing 737-600/-700 and A318/A319 products. No where near 5% as you mention above.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 17):
Both manufacturers are working flat out to get new models out the door (A380, 748i, A350, 787, A330F, 777F) for the airlines. Both are building radical, new-technology planes that will be a quantum leap over current models.

Let's step back an think for a moment. The 787 was launched because the 767 was being outsold by the A330. Given that the 767 was over 20 years old in design, it made sense to come up with an all new design rather than a new generation. Airbus immediately reacted by saying that "we already have a 787, it's called the A330 (Leahy)". Realizing that the 787 has radical new features, Airbus then started to tweak the A330 and called it the A350. It still was not good enough to those "pesky" potential customers that were "bitching". At the same time oil prices started going through the roof. Airbus, only by admitting it was being outdone by its "competitor" had to follow the radical CFRP, electric design concept. They would have preferred nothing better than to continue selling A340s and A330s for another 10 years without announcing replacements (in the same way they are selling A320s today for 8-10 mote years), but their competitor made a large enough move on them that no matter what they said or tweaked, they had to come up with a matching response. And let me add that the GenX engine and the 787 are in co-development. As long as there is a will to develop an new engine by a reputable supplier, it is good enough to launch a new program.



Only the paranoid survive
25 DAYflyer : George S Patton once said the idea of losing is hateful to Americans.
26 Tdscanuck : If Boeing and EADS shareholders want to serve the airlines, they should buy stock in airlines. If Boeing wants to survive they need to profitably bui
27 Scbriml : I don't think you'll find Airbus and Boeing care very much who is buying their planes, as long as they are selling. Which they are. In record numbers
28 Astuteman : And of course, as others have said, it's not as if Boeing and Airbus are doing NOTHING with their narrowbodys. I'd bet an arm and a leg that, should
29 Post contains images Scbriml : Indeed, and fairly recently! BTW, Happy Birthday!
30 Tangowhisky : Where did I say that they should spend money on developing new narrowbodies? My point is, and as you have repeated over and over, the airlines will h
31 Stitch : What also needs to be taken into account is how much benefit a new plane brings to the airlines because you need to sell those planes at a price that
32 Scbriml : If I misinterpreted your arguments, then I apologise, but you seemed to be complaining on behalf of the legacies that neither Airbus nor Boeing had a
33 EvilForce : Personally I think the $10 billion figure is rather high. Perhaps if you are trying to develop an entire new range of narrowbodies from 140 to 225 pas
34 Stitch : It's more then just the raw R&D of the plane, however. There are also the costs of building a factory and all the tooling necessary. As well as secur
35 Astuteman : It would be interesting to speculate on how much pricing pressure the big two, with their huge widebody backlogs, and turnover, could/would bring to
36 EvilForce : Agreed. Both Boeing commercial division and Airbus are $30 billion +/- entities in annual sales. You have to be very careful to poke the lion. Right
37 Post contains images Tangowhisky : You mean the lions not lion - remember its a duopoly . Each happy with 50, together they keep 100.
38 Gigneil : I don't think anyone could argue that a third strong player that covered Airbus and Boeing's product range would be a bad thing. Especially given thei
39 Tangowhisky : True. It's not like together they are selling a couple of hundred planes a year. The two lions are enjoying over 2000 orders a year or over $300 bill
40 Post contains images Gigneil : They don't currently copy it, and we shouldn't be promoting that kind of behavior either. Embraer has the technology and capability to aggressively a
41 Tdscanuck : If there were three makers in the market, thanks to the current state of engine technology, the airlines would be bitching that they only have to cho
42 Tangowhisky : What is your definition of technology being available? Is it when they decide to launch and say that we now have the technology to get 15%-20% better
43 Tdscanuck : In order to get 15-20% improvement, which is what you need to economically replace the current fleets, you need a new engine with about that level of
44 Parapente : Previous Post.... "Yes and no. Yes for CFM, they are are milking it right now, and longer the A320/737NG replacement take, better for CFM. So they wil
45 Post contains images Tangowhisky : Tom that is not exactly right. Airframe and systems maintenance cost savings PLUS fuel efficiency savings is how it works. There are also peripheral
46 Stitch : It's nice if the GTF saves fuel because it is more efficient. It is not so nice if the GTF also saves fuel because it is usually off the wing being fi
47 R2rho : I definitely think that with the current and projected size of the narrowbody market, the huge A&B backlog becoming increasingly annoying to airlines
48 Tdscanuck : Good point. I wasn't being very clear. The engine is the major contributor to fuel burn savings. Airframe and systems and fuel efficiency are all maj
49 Tangowhisky : That is true as long as one believes that all routes all the time require 150-200 seats in the narrow-body segment. More and more, I am beginning to
50 Tdscanuck : Not really. If you have one more seat than the Cseries can handle, you need another flight (or you leave a potential paying customer behind). If you
51 Scbriml : PW hardly covered themselves in glory with the PW6000 either. These failures have surely put a large dent in their credibility, which will be difficu
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 To Cut Fuel Consumption 50% By 2020 posted Wed Mar 28 2007 19:49:44 by BoomBoom
Airbus To Boost Production By 50% posted Mon Jul 19 2004 22:20:46 by YUL332LX
AirAsiaX To Buy 50 Airbus A350s Or 50 Boeing 787s posted Wed Oct 31 2007 23:03:38 by Victor009
ILFC "happy" With New Airbus A350 Design posted Mon Jul 17 2006 22:34:29 by Astuteman
How Many Airbus Boeing McDonell Jets Are Flying? posted Tue Sep 20 2005 21:15:01 by Emrecan
Virgin Nigeria (VNA) Negotiates With Airbus/Boeing posted Mon Jan 17 2005 07:26:00 by EurostarVA
Nice Site With Rich Airbus, Boeing, Etc. Archives posted Fri Jun 11 2004 20:49:20 by Keesje
Embraer/Bombardier Competing With Airbus/Boeing? posted Tue Dec 9 2003 12:12:28 by UTA_flyinghigh
How Are Airbus And Boeing Still Trading? posted Thu Apr 17 2003 11:11:25 by LUFC
Ryanair Negotiates With Boeing Over 50 737NGs posted Tue Aug 21 2001 16:24:16 by CX747
AirAsiaX To Buy 50 Airbus A350s Or 50 Boeing 787s posted Wed Oct 31 2007 23:03:38 by Victor009
ILFC "happy" With New Airbus A350 Design posted Mon Jul 17 2006 22:34:29 by Astuteman
How Many Airbus Boeing McDonell Jets Are Flying? posted Tue Sep 20 2005 21:15:01 by Emrecan
Virgin Nigeria (VNA) Negotiates With Airbus/Boeing posted Mon Jan 17 2005 07:26:00 by EurostarVA
Nice Site With Rich Airbus, Boeing, Etc. Archives posted Fri Jun 11 2004 20:49:20 by Keesje
Embraer/Bombardier Competing With Airbus/Boeing? posted Tue Dec 9 2003 12:12:28 by UTA_flyinghigh
How Are Airbus And Boeing Still Trading? posted Thu Apr 17 2003 11:11:25 by LUFC