Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus SAS Valued At "less Than Zero"  
User currently offlineBA380841 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2008, 11 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 17002 times:

Suprised no one has spotted this one.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...601109&sid=aGJ2ZIlArxyw&refer=news

Some quotes:

"Airbus SAS, the world's largest commercial aircraft maker, is valued at ''less than zero'' after this year's 31 percent drop in the shares of parent European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co., according to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. analyst Joe Campbell."

''The market is viewing Airbus as a liability, rather than an asset,''

"Investors' low valuation of Airbus is ''a bizarre outcome for a large company,'' Campbell, whose firm is an investment bank for EADS, said in an interview. ''It reflects both the industrial challenges of engineering and making big airplane programs, and particularly and primarily, the euro trading at $1.50 or $1.60.''

"EADS's non-Airbus assets, including helicopters, satellites, rockets, fighters and defense electronics, are worth 15 or 16 euros a share, or about where the stock is trading, estimates Campbell."

65 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAsturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 2148 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 16733 times:

Oh if it is worth zero, I'll be glad to take it off the hands of EADS! Big grin

Whoo-hoo!!

asturias



Tonight we fly
User currently offlineFoxDelta From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 16657 times:



Quoting Asturias (Reply 1):
Oh if it is worth zero, I'll be glad to take it off the hands of EADS!

... and carry on with the (huge) debt  banghead 


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21516 posts, RR: 60
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 16388 times:

Not to worry. A few years back, Apple computer's computer division was valued at zero. Their stock was trading at a price that was equal to the value of their investments, making their actual business worthless.

A couple killer products here and there, and the stock went from $7 (adjusted for split) to $180.

[Edited 2008-05-23 09:41:47]


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineBabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 16266 times:



Quoting Asturias (Reply 1):
Oh if it is worth zero, I'll be glad to take it off the hands of EADS!

Me too! Me too! Where do I sign?

Naturally as the new Chairman I'd expect a A380 super jumbo flying palace as a perk of the job.

No doubt Boeing was quoted in the same article as being worth over 200 zillion billion dollars. American financial journalists, where do they get their info from?  Yeah sure


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3509 posts, RR: 66
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 16068 times:

The interesting thing is that Gallois agrees.

Free use quote from the article:

"Gallois, at a May 20 briefing, promised unspecified new cost-cutting announcements before September. In an interview, he agreed with Lehman's Campbell about EADS's valuation.

''He's right,'' Gallois said. ''Either you're getting Airbus free or the other activities are free. In any case, the shares don't represent the company's value."

Quoting Asturias (Reply 1):
Oh if it is worth zero, I'll be glad to take it off the hands of EADS!

If you buy all the stock, you'll be taking Airbus off their hands for zero since the value of the stock is for the other parts of EADS.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 16014 times:



Quoting Babybus (Reply 4):
No doubt Boeing was quoted in the same article as being worth over 200 zillion billion dollars. American financial journalists, where do they get their info from?

It's clear you didn't read the article before posting.  sarcastic  indeed.


User currently offlineCageyjames From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 321 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 15597 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 3):
Not to worry. A few years back, Apple computer's computer division was valued at zero. Their stock was trading at a price that was equal to the value of their investments, making their actual business worthless.

"Do you want to spend the rest of your life selling airplanes, or do you want a chance to change the world?"

[Edited 2008-05-23 10:50:42]

User currently offlineManfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 15306 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 3):
Not to worry. A few years back, Apple computer's computer division was valued at zero.

The I-Pod was solely responsible for the Apple comeback...what product does Airbus have in the pipeline that's going to turn the tides? The 380 still costs money everytime one is built, the 350 won't produce anything but debt until 3 or 4 hundred are made...That leaves the 320 and the 330 as the only money makers. I see a point to this article. Then again I don't see why it matters. There are probably plenty of companies out there worth zero while new products in development take up financial resources.

[Edited 2008-05-23 11:38:34]

[Edited 2008-05-23 11:39:32]


757: The last of the best
User currently offlineMaskeer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 14753 times:



Quoting FoxDelta (Reply 2):
... and carry on with the (huge) debt   

If the value is zero, you have huge debts and huge assets.
So you can buy it for pocket change, throw a party in the Flying-Palace (shh, don't tell the sheik) and then file for bankruptcy. Sounds good.


User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5525 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 14596 times:



Quoting Manfredj (Reply 8):
The I-Pod was solely responsible for the Apple comeback...what product does Airbus have in the pipeline that's going to turn the tides? The 380 still costs money everytime one is built, the 350 won't produce anything but debt until 3 or 4 hundred are made...That leaves the 320 and the 330 as the only money makers. I see a point to this article. Then again I don't see why it matters. There are probably plenty of companies out there worth zero while new products in development take up financial resources.

And that of course is the curse of aircraft manufacturers! Every time nowadays developing a new aircraft is a "bet the company" moment due to the huge level of investment and resources required to bring one to the market. Then it takes years to recoup the investment and meanwhile if anything goes seriously wrong (product defect, crash, market shift, cash crunch) everything can be lost.

Not an easy thing for investors to deal with.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2826 posts, RR: 42
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 14532 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 3):
Not to worry. A few years back, Apple computer's computer division was valued at zero. Their stock was trading at a price that was equal to the value of their investments, making their actual business worthless.

The apple parallel is interesting - it's easy to argue that the A380 is Airbus's Newton. I fail to see Airbus's Steve Jobs though.


User currently offlineAsturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 2148 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 13282 times:



Quoting Manfredj (Reply 8):
The I-Pod was solely responsible for the Apple comeback..

It is wonderful how you both manage to write iPod wrong and at the same time be wrong about Apple's comeback. The iMac was the product that created the modern Apple niche and allowed the company to survive indefinitely posting growth and profit every year. With the iPod's success the growth and profit simply went from comfortable to obscene.

Quoting FoxDelta (Reply 2):
... and carry on with the (huge) debt banghead

Yeah well, I'm optimistic I will be able to make ends meet as soon as Airbus is in my possession Big grin

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 5):
"Gallois, at a May 20 briefing, promised unspecified new cost-cutting announcements before September. In an interview, he agreed with Lehman's Campbell about EADS's valuation.

Yeah you see Gallois is a loon, they should have asked Leahy! Taking Apple as an example again. Back in 1997 Mike Dell said that if he was the CEO of Apple he's sell the company in parts and give the money back to the shareholders.

What a dumb thing that would have been, eh? Thankfully Steve Jobs doesn't care one squat what analysts or the stock market thinks of his company. Unfortuanately, Gallois seems to be more of a Dell than a Jobs. I say sack him.

asturias



Tonight we fly
User currently offlineBrianDromey From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 3920 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 13104 times:



Quoting Manfredj (Reply 8):
what product does Airbus have in the pipeline that's going to turn the tides? The 380 still costs money everytime one is built, the 350 won't produce anything but debt until 3 or 4 hundred are made...That leaves the 320 and the 330 as the only money makers.

You could say the same about boeing really. The 748i has not won a significant sales competition against the 380 (did Arik even look at the 380?) and will break even at best, even with the -F programme sales. Airlines and thier passengers prefer the 380.

The 787 is wrought with problems right now and the bread and butter planes the 737 and 777 will soon be looking long in the tooth. Just ask QF what they think.

This industry is cyclical. Twelve months ago airbus was deep in crisis and Boeing was riding high. There has been a 180 turn. At the end of they day a share price is not indicative of future performance. It reflects past performance.

Brian.



Next flights: MAN-ORK-LHR(EI)-MAN(BD); MAN-LHR(BD)-ORK (EI); DUB-ZRH-LAX (LX) LAX-YYZ (AC) YYZ-YHZ-LHR(AC)-DUB(BD)
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12868 times:

Andrea has found an odd analist that says what she and her public want to hear. Next time she'll probably call Richard A again.

A year ago A was behind in orders, rushing to get the A380s rewired, searching for the optimal A350 design and had internal scandals while Boeing was selling in record numbers. Andrea was on sideline cheerleading & throwing oil on the fire from Paris. Ref. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...601087&sid=a5NdTAzcbz2o&refer=home

Since then a thing or two has changed. A320 moves away from the 737 & Boeing doesn't act, the 747 is pushed out of the passenger business, the 767 missed the tanker deal and according to Boeing the 777 needs an upgrade. I won't comment on what happened since 7-08-07. The A380 entered service succesfully, the A330 is selling and being produced in record numbers.



Andrea seems desperate for some good old Airbus bad news.

 Wink


User currently offlineShannoninAMA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12547 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 14):
the A330 is selling and being produced in record numbers.

Mostly due to the fact that customers REQUIRE them due to massive A380 delays. Plus, its not like they are selling full price.

Its funny that some people still refuse to admit Airbus is not in trouble. Its like smiling through grinned teeth. Will I be shunned for being a Non-Believer?  Wink


User currently offlinePlunaCRJ From Uruguay, joined Nov 2007, 574 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 12255 times:



Quoting ShannoninAMA (Reply 15):
Its funny that some people still refuse to admit Airbus is not in trouble.

Of course they´re in trouble, as well as everyone else in the industry with such unbelievable oil prices...

But, Airbus was in big, BIG trouble a year ago. We have to admit that they have indeed reached rock bottom and are coming back up very quickly.

Boeing, in the other hand, was very successful, but that success proved to hard to cope and now they find themselves in big trouble.

Fixing the 787 Dreamliner 7 - 8 - 07 mess and make sure everything from now on goes as smooth and fast as possible, delivering as many 787s they can in the shortest period of time is the major thing they should focus now.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21516 posts, RR: 60
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 12075 times:



Quoting Manfredj (Reply 8):
The I-Pod was solely responsible for the Apple comeback...

No, not for it's comeback. It had already come back. The iPod is responsible for the meteoric rise to new heights, though.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 12):
The iMac was the product that created the modern Apple niche and allowed the company to survive indefinitely posting growth and profit every year.

The progression was as follows:
iMac (new image), iBook (got Apple back in the classroom), iPod (got Apple into the consumer space), iTunes music store (constant revenue stream and "cradle to grave" tie in), iPhone (catching the wave of new market using existing #1 product as leverage), and each one of those products helped bring Apple back from nothing to what it is now. But part of it was buying NeXT and taking Jobs back on board, as he's a great public face to the company. (Oh, and dumping the clones, which meant taking control of their products centrally again.) And not just "responding" to the market but creating the market.

So, Airbus can make a come back by CREATING a market for something, not just responding. They tried to do that with the A380, but like the Newton, maybe it was too soon, as the A380 is needed in 2012-15 or later, but was created for 2006 with older technology.

To me, Airbus can really flourish by replacing the A320 even when people aren't demanding it, and adding a family that replaces the A321/757/762/763/A300s of the world. If they wait for the market to demand it, it's already too late to be the leader. But if they were to announce in 2009 this new plan, with a single aisle 149-199 seat and double aisle 199-299 (one class nominal) product with 3500 and 5500nm range and common cockpit, they would knock Boeing on their ass…



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 11978 times:



Quoting ShannoninAMA (Reply 15):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 14):
the A330 is selling and being produced in record numbers.


Mostly due to the fact that customers REQUIRE them due to massive A380 delays. Plus, its not like they are selling full price.

ShannoninAMA, Interesting observation. I took a look at the current A330 order backlog (excluding KC45 & LOI's), 924 aircraft from 94 operators. I tried to find the A330's you mention, but many A380 customers ordered the A330's before the A380 got delayed. So it is not very clear. Apart from take I'm not sure how an A330 can replace an A380. Maybe you can assist. Thnx in advance.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...e_pics/a330orders.jpg?t=1211581066


User currently offlinePlunaCRJ From Uruguay, joined Nov 2007, 574 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 11958 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 17):
But if they were to announce in 2009 this new plan, with a single aisle 149-199 seat and double aisle 199-299 (one class nominal) product with 3500 and 5500nm range and common cockpit, they would knock Boeing on their ass...

Just what Boeing did, with the 757/767.

Do you think splitting this market in two different families (737s / 787s) was a mistake?


User currently offlineManfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10312 times:



Quoting Asturias (Reply 12):
It is wonderful how you both manage to write iPod wrong and at the same time be wrong about Apple's comeback. The iMac was the product that created the modern Apple niche and allowed the company to survive indefinitely posting growth and profit every year. With the iPod's success the growth and profit simply went from comfortable to obscene.

Big deal....I spelled IPod wrong....just goes to prove my absolute hatred of anything Apple. Anyways, I still think it's responsible for the comfort-ability they enjoy now. It will pay the bills for years to come while disenfranchising every Rock/Popstar who ever existed, not to mention poison kid's minds across the world.

Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 13):
You could say the same about boeing really. The 748i has not won a significant sales competition against the 380 (did Arik even look at the 380?) and will break even at best, even with the -F programme sales. Airlines and thier passengers prefer the 380.

Couldn't disagree with you more. The Military side of Boeing pays a few bills. They also enjoy profits from a little known aircraft called the triple seven and the 737. The fact that you forgot about the 748F and 777F is a major flaw in your theory. The 747 has been making profits since the 70's and it's not about to stop anytime soon....Sorry.



757: The last of the best
User currently offlineIronDuke08 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 117 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10198 times:

Does this mean that we can finally start to admit that Airbus is not an organization whose motive is profit? Of course it's not worth anything...as a company. It does serve to produce jobs and serves as a feel-good showcase of European industrial and engineering expertise. If I were in a position to buy airliners I'd be glad to buy Airbus products, particularly if it means I can get a better deal on them than I can from a company that is responsible to its shareholders.

User currently offlineEVILTHETURTLE From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10074 times:



Quoting Manfredj (Reply 20):

Big deal....I spelled IPod wrong....just goes to prove my absolute hatred of anything Apple. Anyways, I still think it's responsible for the comfort-ability they enjoy now. It will pay the bills for years to come while disenfranchising every Rock/Popstar who ever existed, not to mention poison kid's minds across the world.

What about real rhapsody?

Twenty five free songs every month. How much money do you think they give to the artists?


User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 10048 times:

Airbus and Boeing are different from Apple in one respect. Not many companies buy an A380 or 787 on the basis of its looks. Or its hip appearance. Or its advertising. Or even how easy it is on an airline's pilots and mechanics. It is nearly always a decision based on a rational comparison of quantifiable costs and benefits. There are some other considerations like politics and the influence of certain key individuals. Personal and company reputation plays a role as well. But mostly, people in charge of spending billions of dollars do so by the numbers.

This is not true of consumer electronics. Image, easy of use, etc. are big in consumer electronics. Specifications are somewhat important but to have large margins a company has to extend its appeal beyond mere specs. Apple excels at this. It is by far and away the best in its industry in making products with "sex appeal". Not even Sony comes close. Combine this with a reputation for quality and you have success. Apple's strategy would never fly in the airframe industry - where some sexy, unique look might sell a few business jets but little else.

A better comparison would be with Dell. Or better yet, Intel. Intel's business resembles that of Boeing and Airbus far more than Apple's does. But even that analogy has problems.


User currently offlineMagyar From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9909 times:



Quoting IronDuke08 (Reply 21):
Does this mean that we can finally startnto admit that Airbus is not an organization whose motive is profit? Ofncourse it's not worth anything...as a company. It does serve to producenjobs and serves as a feel-good showcase of European industrial andnengineering expertise. If I were in a position to buy airliners I'd benglad to buy Airbus products, particularly if it means I can get anbetter deal on them than I can from a company that is responsible tonits shareholders.

Airbus did not make sense as a "make profit" organization from the beginning. Nobody in his/her right mind
would have entered in a market dominated by big players and required high investment. Airbus IMHO did not
make "business sense" in the traditional way and should have been long passe according all "free market"
calculation. That is why I am reluctant to pay attention to yet another "market oriented"
calculation/prediction/judgement.

IMHO, Airbus and EADS was created to do something that you do through "defense related spending"
in the US. Sort of safety net for risky, high investment projects but with potential high technological return.


25 Flighty : Very sharp observation. Nobody pointed that out at the time. It was an example of pure negative hype (without justification). Their market value was
26 Astuteman : At last. The only comment required. Thanks to everyone else for another A-net kindergarten thread...... Rgds
27 Worldrider : in what way did Apple change the world? crap, the A330 is by far the best in it's field long before the A380 was launched.. who doesn't? i do admit,
28 Cpd : Not really, more because of the massive 787 delays - a lot of airlines are scrambling to get their hands on A330's to fill the same role that the 787
29 NWALAS : Can I offer $2.00 per share for it??? Oh, sorry! I forgot! That was for Bear Stearns.... NWALAS
30 Art : Is that a bad thing for airliner manufacturers able to offer substantially less thirsty aircraft than many in use? Even if airlines drop some unprofi
31 BillReid : Unfortunately they look at business from a P&L and futures investment perspective. If the A-380 is a cash loser then explain how the company would ha
32 BestWestern : Ryanairs assets are also worth more than the share price.
33 Leskova : I'd say it depends on what you define as agreeing... I read that Gallois confirms that this is what the valuation effectively claims, but by saying "
34 NAV20 : The information is publicly available, Babybus. Just to put some facts on the table, at close of business yesterday the capitalised value of the whol
35 Ikramerica : No, I think Boeing has temporarily abandoned the middle market of 757/762/763/A300 sized aircraft. The 739ER is not quite a 757, not close to a 762.
36 Post contains links Cageyjames : See here: http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/09/28/mac_linux/index.html I guess I was the only one to find the Steve Jobs quote funny, but maybe
37 BillReid : But you are forgetting that they have positive cash flow.
38 SA7700 : My guess would be that you should send Lufthansa Chairman and CEO Wolfgang Mayrhuber an email and explain what a huge mistake LH made by ordering the
39 RedChili : Which is a very interesting piece of fact if someone would tell me: "I will give you all shares in EADS or all shares in Boeing for free. Please, cho
40 Mptpa : I disagree. Share price is a formulation of the value of the company based on future cash flows. Remember, EADS is the traded company, not Airbus. Th
41 Glacote : 1) Only in Internet forums will one compare iPods to aircrafts... 2) Eads is in the market for the profits, they have been (even more than BCA) and wi
42 Tdscanuck : Great list, on the whole, but wouldn't the largest piece of load bearing carbon flying be the B-2 wing spar? I must have read that wrong...you're sug
43 Bramble : maybe Airbus should drop the A and pput an i there-----the new model i380 on the way in a lovely white colour
44 Glacote : Thx for the kind words and the correction. Should probably have read "largest commercial". I know your stance - but that's exactly my claim. Not to s
45 Post contains links NAV20 : Have to disagree there, Glacote. On present indications it will probably be 2011 at the earliest before the A380 'turns a profit' even on production
46 SEPilot : This whole issue is largely irrelevant. Yes, Airbus is in a tight place financially due to the A380 problems, but does anyone disagree that things loo
47 PM : Correct! Quite. Thank you. The sight of some posters here salivating at the outlandish prospect of Airbus going bust is not a pretty one. I guess we
48 Post contains links NAV20 : As far as I can see, SEPilot, the situation has at best remained the same. EADS has failed to achieve the primary objectives of 'Power 8' - the sale
49 Flighty : The Dollar : Euro issue is far more important than any small-detail A380 events of the past 24 months. They sold a couple and delivered a couple. Tha
50 Astuteman : Some might disagree, but things did look worse a year ago, and MUCH worse 2 years ago.... In the 2 years since Power8 was announced, EADS have improv
51 SEPilot : I do recall 2 years ago considerable speculation that Airbus would not be able to raise the money to develop the A350; since then that talk has prett
52 Post contains links NAV20 : OK then, Astuteman, let's say they're having a 'Spring Appeal' - Enders has joined in now, and he actually uses your 'playing field' phrase:- "The ch
53 Astuteman : Or I might have been using his.. Just pointing out that "begging-bowl" might not be the only plausible reason.. (that and a little pun on begging-bow
54 AirFrnt : I agree with this Astuteman, but I would also point out that two years ago, you were arguing that EADS situation wasn't that bad . The decline in the
55 Ikramerica : Not at all true. Even two years ago Airbus said the first few planes delivered would add to the debt, not cut into it. There will be a line number wh
56 Jacobin777 : "When EADS was founded in 2000, management promised 10 percent margins on earnings before interest and taxes by 2003. The best so far was 7.3 percent
57 Art : I don't follow the idea that the planes built over a year ago do not inevitably generate positive cash flow when the customer takes delivery and pays
58 RedChili : It is quite obvious that Airbus gets a positive cashflow for each A380 delivered. But at the same time, Airbus also has a huge number of A380s being
59 Jacobin777 : Longer...while not as important as generating positive cash flow...the program as a whole will be in the red until "break-even" status is achieved, t
60 Ikramerica : It's more that than. The cost of the program on a daily basis is greater than the cash from a delivery, thus it doesn't create a positive cash flow a
61 RedChili : Which is also true. It all depends on what you mean with "generate positive cashflow" and "being in the red or in the black."
62 RedChili : Which is basically what I said in my reply.
63 Astuteman : I always was the forward-looking type... Airbus managed it for a while, but not EADS. Rgds
64 NAV20 : Not according to EADS' own forecasts, Ikramerica. The loss of the freighter deliveries (which were counted in in 2006), plus the currently-forecast f
65 Ikramerica : I remembered it as 2009. But also, there will be a period of time where the program "washes." For a few frames, it's likely that the program will be
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 Takes Swipe At Customers" posted Thu Jun 1 2006 18:39:55 by NASOCEANA
Flight - "Airbus Has No Timeline On The A380F" posted Tue Mar 11 2008 09:52:16 by Stitch
Is Airbus "Saving Up" Orders For Airshow Yet? posted Sat Mar 17 2007 13:28:49 by Art
"Airbus Wiring Fixed For First A380 Only" posted Fri Jan 26 2007 17:04:24 by Pygmalion
Strikes At Eads Planned Over "Power 8" In Germany posted Tue Jan 23 2007 14:47:25 by Lumberton
Will Airbus's "XWB-A350" Be Delivered On Time? posted Fri Dec 8 2006 23:20:39 by OU812
Question About Conditions At MNL "Aborted Landing" posted Sat Oct 28 2006 04:16:51 by Cjpark
Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane posted Sun Sep 10 2006 16:03:17 by BuyantUkhaa
Should Boeing Fear Airbus' "Double Daggers" posted Tue Jul 18 2006 02:27:10 by Reggaebird
FAA: Gary, Peotone Airports At "different" Stages posted Thu Feb 9 2006 20:01:49 by KarlB737