Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Aboulafia: Boeing Could Gain 56:44 Share V Airbus  
User currently offlineqfa787380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8736 times:

As per this article in today's Seattle Times:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...nology/2017446458_aerospace08.html

Granted, the risks are high, particularly with the 787. Max parity with the Neo seems a reasonable assumption and I think it is also fair to assume the 777X will carry over from the 777 and be successful. But it is crystal balling, no doubt about that.

39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8667 times:

Parity with the NEO isn't a given, as while Boeing is dependant on one engine manufacturer, if PW REALLY get it right with the GTF, it could open up a gap in performance that might be hard to overcome.


it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2686 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8529 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 1):

The ng has done just fine with one engine supplier



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6938 posts, RR: 63
Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7936 times:

"We don't know that much about the 787 at this point," he [Aboulafia] said.

Am I the only one to find that an astonishing comment? He's talking about it as if it was the A350-1000, not yet fully defined and long before first flight. The 787 has been flying for over two years and is already in service.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3417 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7899 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 1):

Parity with the NEO isn't a give

Given the split in sales of the A320 and 737 have match the relative production rates for each frame for quite some time now... It *IS* a given now that Boeing is willing to push 737 production to match Airbus. Airbus can't magicly make an extra 500 A320NEO a year. So it will remain that unless the Airlines implode in some massive unforseen event, Airbus and Boeing will continue to make less than the market demand for new narrowbodies, and thus the sales split will match the production split.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7803 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 3):
"We don't know that much about the 787 at this point," he [Aboulafia] said.

Am I the only one to find that an astonishing comment? He's talking about it as if it was the A350-1000, not yet fully defined and long before first flight. The 787 has been flying for over two years and is already in service.

I agree, it's astonishing.

We know its performance to a large degree from the planes flying and we know its marketability from the sales. Chief unknowns rest with the 787-9 and hypothesised -10 combined with the production ramp up. 10 frames/month would get the backlog out the door in roughly 6 years, so slower than that seems problematic.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9153 posts, RR: 76
Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7758 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):
Airbus can't magicly make an extra 500 A320NEO a year

They did however say they are looking are building a new A320 FAL in the USA, no reason why that and the one in China cannot turn out a 200 frames a year between them if the rest of the supply chain can keep up.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7398 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 2):
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 1):


The ng has done just fine with one engine supplier

The difference is that IAE and CFM had fairly similar engine performance, PW has introduced a different technology. IF (and it is a big if) the GTF proved to be significantly better than the Leap56, then would airlines really keep buying the 737Max is the same volumes, just because it's available sooner? Or would they wait for the neo, or force Airbus to ramp up production even more? Or if global demand sags, Airbus could maintain it's production, while production for the 737Max declines?

After all, if Boeing was to achieve 56:44, that implies a serious ramping up of Boeing production from current levels.



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4802 posts, RR: 40
Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7375 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting qfa787380 (Thread starter):
But it is crystal balling, no doubt about that.


It is.  Smile

And one could just as well think of a scenario where Airbus would lead Boeing by 60:40%. Right now Airbus has been just over 50% for the last 6 or 7 years. It would not surprise me if they can retain that for a couple of years more to come. Just as it would not surprise me if Boeing would turn that around in a few years and have them slightly leading the market instead. But 60:40, or 40:60 is not going to happen imho. I would crystal ball on 55:45 or 45:55 maximum either way.  

But that is just my crystal ball.  .

[Edited 2012-02-08 01:59:05]

User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2245 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7121 times:

IMO the key is the statement, that the risk is quite high. This indicates exactly what I think:

While there is an opportunity that he is right and things will turn out like he said, his analysis does not describe the most likely case (imagine a Gauss curve) but about the most optimistic case which has a low probability (the optimistic 20% case).

Overly optimistic assumptions can easily be spotted:

- The MAX maintaining paritiy with the NEO. This is even based on a wrong premise because there is no parity to maintain until it has been gained first. At no point the MAX enjoyed parity with the NEO so far. And making up for the gap despite that 1000 NEO's will be delivered at the time when the MAX production just will fully start, seems virtually impossible to me.

- Highly questionable assessment about the 777X. No reasoning why the 777 should keep its position.

On the other hand IMO he underestimates the 787. It is almost funny that he thinks the two upgrades would fare better (in one case against a paradigm-breaking clean sheet design) than the sole Boeing product that qualifies as paradigm-breaking clean sheet design. I mean he describes the 787 as the most uncertain part in Boeing's lineup. This seems so odd, because if the 787 will not be the least challenged Boeing product, I don't know what other product could stand out equally strong.

As a last note the fact that he makes 10-year predictions with two significant digits is just unprofessional. Because these digits suggest a non existing accuracy. Even leaving the term "market share" undefined (per value or per units?) creates an uncertainty of several %.

In real science, if you have a figure that is affected by a certain uncertainty (because of the risks he mentions), you never state significant digits where the model is not able to make a valid prediction anyway. E.g. 56 +/-11 would correctly have to be written as 60 +/-10.

Rewriting his figures correctly they would look like this:
60 +0/-30 (for Boeings market share) vs 40 -0/+30 (for Airbus' market share). Written like that they show a reasonable accuracy as well as the probability.

As I have written these figures the most likely outcome (per Gauss curve) would be 55%:45% for Airbus. Reasonable? I would say so... Even contradicting myself in other threads...  

Also please note: any of my figures as an armchair commentor here is never meant to have more than one or two significant digits (even if I don't specify it each time). I say this because people could misunderstand me. So 40 (of anything) could be 45 as well as 35. I very rarely paint things with a high accuracy and a sharp contrast between truth and untruth. Let's keep an eye on the big picture...


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7380 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7014 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 7):
The difference is that IAE and CFM had fairly similar engine performance, PW has introduced a different technology. IF (and it is a big if) the GTF proved to be significantly better than the Leap56, then would airlines really keep buying the 737Max is the same volumes, just because it's available sooner?

Why exactly would Boeing or any OEM continue to use an obsolete technology in the form of an engine, unless the claim is that Pratt will sign an exclusive deal with Airbus for its engine technology and not just the engine?

If the GTF cannot be matched or beaten every OEM will have no choice but to use it, if that means a new frame or adjustments to the existing frame that will be done, there are thousands of Boeing 737's in use worldwide, they would have no choice but to build a new frame to accomodate the engine technology or at worst attempt to make it work on the existing 737 frame. Financially, a no brainer.


User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 893 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6816 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 1):
if PW REALLY get it right with the GTF, it could open up a gap in performance that might be hard to overcome.

IF... (highly doubt it)

While I agree that Boeing has some good products coming, I just don't see the parity changing at all. the MAX is not that far behind the NEO as far as commitment go, and there are still many big orders on the horizon that are very likely to be all Boeing. I think the NEO pond is pretty much dry at this point, orders will trickle in, but no massive orders at the rate which we have seen will come in because of the massive backlog. Even operators like EasyJet are looking at both MAX and NEO, even though they are a 100% A320 operator.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12633 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6816 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting par13del (Reply 10):
Why exactly would Boeing or any OEM continue to use an obsolete technology in the form of an engine, unless the claim is that Pratt will sign an exclusive deal with Airbus for its engine technology and not just the engine?

But for Boeing the situation is reversed - they've given CFM exclusivity on the MAX. So, for MAX, Boeing has made their bed. On the surface, it would seem the only way Boeing could get the GTF on a single-aisle would be to launch a new model. The very thing they've just decided against.

Personally, the way I see it, the GTF would have to be massively better than LEAP in order for Boeing not to be able to offset the performance difference in other ways (price, availability, etc.)



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4802 posts, RR: 40
Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6723 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 11):
IF... (highly doubt it)


I have quite a lot of confidence in that. The latest technology should give the NEO an edge. But how big that will be, nobody knows yet  .

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 11):
there are still many big orders on the horizon that are very likely to be all Boeing

You know something we do not? Please share that with us. So far some B737 customers have made split orders including the A320-NEO. No A320 customer has done the opposite thing so far. That does not mean it will never happen, but it is imho less likely to happen due to the fact that overall the NEO looks to improve more then the MAX.

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 11):
Even operators like EasyJet are looking at both MAX and NEO, even though they are a 100% A320 operator.

As did Southwest, They seriously looked at the NEO. In the end the effort to include a new type in their fleet was not worth their while, though they came very close. Everyone should take a real good look into what might be best for them now AND in the future. Even if they are all Boeing or Airbus customers.  .

Quoting scbriml (Reply 12):
Personally, the way I see it, the GTF would have to be massively better than LEAP in order for Boeing not to be able to offset the performance difference in other ways (price, availability, etc.)

That I can fully agree with.


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6630 times:

With regard to market share being driven partly by availability, was the Tianjin plant built to easily allow a considerable hike in production if desired? I appreciate that getting assemblies to China is not easy but could Chinese A319/A320 assembly be doubled or more using the existing final assembly building?

User currently onlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4399 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6550 times:

Let me comment that his numbers have an uncertainty of about 10% and he is at the optimistic side of course. Average over the next decade will most likely be much nearer to 50:50.

User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7380 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 6426 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 12):
But for Boeing the situation is reversed - they've given CFM exclusivity on the MAX.

The premise of the post is that the GTF is not a technology that cannot be matched, CFM have confirmed that they can match it so Boeing has taken them at their word and figures and will use it.
But to continue the point, if the CFM does not match the GTF Boeing will either go out of business or cease making the MAX and develop the NSA immediately which will use the GTF.


User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 511 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5662 times:

I seem to think that Mr. Aboulafia is only echoing what a certain John Leahy said a little while ago, so I don't know why there is such disbelief.

"Mr. Leahy cautioned that competition from Boeing’s revamped 737 could unseat Airbus from its leadership in the orders race this year. After a market share of new orders of 64 percent last year, “in 2012 we will be down around 50 percent or probably lower than that,” Mr. Leahy told reporters at the company’s annual New Year’s news conference."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-orders-2011-beat-boeing/?page=all

Pretty logical. Not so much a crystal ball as two guys who are looking at the market realistically.

Also, I think JL is looking at profit. I don't think he'll mind giving up market share if it means he can make more money per plane. He's probably thinking Boeing will eat profit to regain market share. And Airbus has their hands full for a while with jammed deliveries and it seems a new plane every week. A330S, A350, A320neo, A389..so yeah, he'll be busy

[Edited 2012-02-08 10:02:42]

User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5232 times:

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 17):

I seem to think that Mr. Aboulafia is only echoing what a certain John Leahy said a little while ago, so I don't know why there is such disbelief.

"Mr. Leahy cautioned that competition from Boeing’s revamped 737 could unseat Airbus from its leadership in the orders race this year. After a market share of new orders of 64 percent last year, “in 2012 we will be down around 50 percent or probably lower than that,” Mr. Leahy told reporters at the company’s annual New Year’s news conference."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-orders-2011-beat-boeing/?page=all

Pretty logical. Not so much a crystal ball as two guys who are looking at the market realistically.

But he's not talking about 2012, in which Boeing is likely to lead as Max orders come in, but rather the long term position, which is a much more debatable assumption.

Quoting par13del (Reply 10):
If the GTF cannot be matched or beaten every OEM will have no choice but to use it, if that means a new frame or adjustments to the existing frame that will be done, there are thousands of Boeing 737's in use worldwide, they would have no choice but to build a new frame to accomodate the engine technology or at worst attempt to make it work on the existing 737 frame. Financially, a no brainer.

But that's the point, Boeing cannot use the GTF on the 737, and an all new narrowbody would be a massive commitment which would impair their ability to do other programmes such as the 777X.



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 855 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5096 times:

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 17):
I seem to think that Mr. Aboulafia is only echoing what a certain John Leahy said a little while ago, so I don't know why there is such disbelief.

I think you will find that John Leahy is referring only to the orders places in 2012 not Airbus's market share over the next decade.

Also, given Airbus took 64% of the orders last year with the launch of the NEO he still only expects Boeing to get 50% or slightly over of the total orders this year which would still leave Airbus with a considerable lead.


In regards to the actual topic, it all seems to be "if this" "if that" - not exactly an exact science.


User currently offlineChiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 1160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4204 times:

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 17):
"Mr. Leahy cautioned that competition from Boeing’s revamped 737 could unseat Airbus from its leadership in the orders race this year. After a market share of new orders of 64 percent last year, “in 2012 we will be down around 50 percent or probably lower than that,” Mr. Leahy told reporters at the company’s annual New Year’s news conference."

Mr Leahy is clearly talking about 2012, not the next decade.

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 17):
Pretty logical. Not so much a crystal ball as two guys who are looking at the market realistically.

I don't share your logic!!!
The last decade shows that Airbus has 53% of market share over Boeing in frames ordered.

Airbus: 7181 (53%)
Boeing: 6360 (47%)

IMO there is nothing that indicates that this will change in the next decade as Airbus has won 8 of 10 order battles the last decade.
But even more important Airbus has topped Boeing the last 9 years of deliveries.

Airbus: 4218: (52 %)
Boeing: 3871 (48 %)

As for Mr Aboulafia'science where he makes a scenario in where Boeing hits bulls-eye on everything, whereas Airbus does not, is hardly going to happen.
IMO 2011, which could have been a freak accident, shows otherwise.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12633 posts, RR: 46
Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3572 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting par13del (Reply 16):
But to continue the point, if the CFM does not match the GTF Boeing will either go out of business or cease making the MAX and develop the NSA immediately which will use the GTF.

Well, even if MAX didn't sell a single frame more than the current commitments that Boeing says they have, they're certainly not going bust. But I have to question your logic on the NSA - having decided not to do NSA, but MAX instead, I simply cannot see them dumping MAX to jump to NSA because of GTF.

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 17):
I seem to think that Mr. Aboulafia is only echoing what a certain John Leahy said a little while ago, so I don't know why there is such disbelief.

Not if you compare apples and apples. Leahy is clearly talking only about 2012, Aboulafia considerably longer.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15781 posts, RR: 27
Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3344 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 1):
Parity with the NEO isn't a given, as while Boeing is dependant on one engine manufacturer, if PW REALLY get it right with the GTF, it could open up a gap in performance that might be hard to overcome.

For all the talk about the MAX being a low risk proposition, this is something that often gets glossed over. Even if Boeing does everything right, should the GTF exceed expectations, Boeing could find themselves with a knife at the gunfight.

Quoting garpd (Reply 2):
The ng has done just fine with one engine supplier

Past performance does not guarantee future performance. Furthermore, in the 1980s to 1990s when the MD-90, A320, and 737 Classic and NG were designed, all the engine manufacturers were using mostly the same playbook. The geared turbofan threatens to throw a wrench into that.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):
It *IS* a given now that Boeing is willing to push 737 production to match Airbus. Airbus can't magicly make an extra 500 A320NEO a year.

Delivery parity is not the same as performance or profit parity.

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 17):
I seem to think that Mr. Aboulafia is only echoing what a certain John Leahy said a little while ago, so I don't know why there is such disbelief.

Because manufacturers don't get paid for orders, they get paid for deliveries. And you can't make 1000 deliveries during an airshow.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineSASMD82 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 781 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3281 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What market share? What about Embraer, Bombardier, Aerospatiale etc.? Is it for the upcoming year? Does he include the past?

Quoting Chiad (Reply 20):
don't share your logic!!!
The last decade shows that Airbus has 53% of market share over Boeing in frames ordered.

Airbus: 7181 (53%)
Boeing: 6360 (47%)

IMO there is nothing that indicates that this will change in the next decade as Airbus has won 8 of 10 order battles the last decade.
But even more important Airbus has topped Boeing the last 9 years of deliveries.

Airbus: 4218: (52 %)
Boeing: 3871 (48 %)

As for Mr Aboulafia'science where he makes a scenario in where Boeing hits bulls-eye on everything, whereas Airbus does not, is hardly going to happen.
IMO 2011, which could have been a freak accident, shows otherwise

Nice work Chiad!

It will be interesting times indeed.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7380 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3130 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 18):
But that's the point, Boeing cannot use the GTF on the 737, and an all new narrowbody would be a massive commitment which would impair their ability to do other programmes such as the 777X.

The premise of the response was that the Leap engine on the 737 would not be competitive in relation to the GTF, if testing proves that to be the case the MAX is dead.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 21):
Well, even if MAX didn't sell a single frame more than the current commitments that Boeing says they have, they're certainly not going bust. But I have to question your logic on the NSA - having decided not to do NSA, but MAX instead, I simply cannot see them dumping MAX to jump to NSA because of GTF.

Boeing abandoned the NSA because the customers wanted improvements sooner rather than later. If the engine of choice fails to meet promised performance and the GTF proves to be vastly superior, the MAX is also dead, what would you expect Boeing to do, walk away from the narrow body market, what would you expect existing 737 customers to do, walk to Airbus or pressure Boeing for a solution? If they all walk to Airbus how long would it take them to get a/c, 40+ per month by one vendor when both are producing close to 70 at this time won't cut it.

The post below was the basis of my initial response.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 7):
The difference is that IAE and CFM had fairly similar engine performance, PW has introduced a different technology. IF (and it is a big if) the GTF proved to be significantly better than the Leap56, then would airlines really keep buying the 737Max is the same volumes, just because it's available sooner?

I guess I should have also added that most carriers are not flocking to the MAX with a bum engine because of when its available, they are flocking because it is an improvement over the existing frames, ditto for the NEO. The issue of how much better one engine is over the other may be in doubt, but since the insiders have given out exclusive contracts, I have to believe that based on information available to them, neither engine will be superior is all phases of flight.


25 Stitch : I'd be surprised if the 737MAX matches the A320neo in orders for no other reason than Airbus' higher production rate will make more delivery position
26 Post contains links Stitch : Well if Boeing is to take the lead in deliveries, their suppliers are going to have to step up even more, and some of them are complaining about the c
27 ferpe : Well it is even tougher in other businesses, here you have a business with 4 years backlog at the prime. If you qualify, does a good job and can keep
28 abba : It is nice to see that Mr. Aboulafia is still up and kicking. It has been a while since we have had the last chance to enjoy his analysis of the aviat
29 PM : I'm not getting into predicting the future concerning the MAX/Leap56 vs. NEO/GTF but you might considerr this historical reality. Airlines were happy
30 ghifty : I feel compelled to believe that the 77L/77W are more than just a cut above the A345/A346. The 777s are much more efficient than the A340s. I'd be su
31 Cerecl : I thought the difference was high-single digits.I agree though it is very unlikely such difference will exist between the MAX and the NEO.
32 Stitch : I cannot help but believe that if Boeing could only have met around half the demand for the 777-300ER, the A340-600 would have continued to sell and
33 art : Boeing claims the MAX will have better fuel burn than the NEO (no doubt choosing range/load criteria where the MAX performs better vis a vis the NEO)
34 JoeCanuck : Actually, there is a point; deliveries. Since the 320 was introduced, 737 deliveries have been within 2% of the 320. While sales are obviously necess
35 Post contains images Stitch : Pratt can provide only so many engines a month to Airbus. So even if the LEAP-X1A and -1B are not as good as the PW1100G, they will still be better t
36 BMI727 : Because there have been pretty strong rumors that Pratt is holding back on their promises regarding the GTF and the actual engine may be better than
37 JoeCanuck : Right...and that's just like it's always been...two engines for the 320, (one maker shared between both airframers, one exclusively Airbus), and that
38 JerseyFlyer : "could leave Boeing with 56 percent market share to Airbus's 44 percent in 10 years" When Airbus was created, I am sure such a split was beyond thier
39 packsonflight : Richard is dissapointing. this "insight" is not worth nothing. He is basically saying. If everything goes well, everything will be fine!
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...
SQ's A380s Stealing Market Share, Airbus Claims posted Sat Feb 6 2010 11:52:04 by huaiwei
"Boeing Could Offer T7 Replacement" posted Thu May 14 2009 10:24:25 by AFKL
Boeing CEO Claims 5-year Lead Over Airbus posted Fri May 23 2008 00:06:51 by Sofianec
Boeing Sees Vindication In Strategy Against Airbus posted Sun Sep 17 2006 13:15:15 by Columba
Boeing Feels "Compassion" For Airbus' Troubles posted Sun Jul 16 2006 22:31:19 by BoomBoom
First 5 SIA A380s Could Be Loss-Making For Airbus posted Tue Jun 27 2006 18:35:10 by Singapore_Air
Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350 posted Thu Oct 6 2005 23:51:24 by NYC777
Boeing Says "Congratulations" To Airbus posted Thu Apr 28 2005 17:41:41 by Udo
Boeing Trying To Avoid Spat With Airbus posted Thu Sep 23 2004 16:22:39 by Nyc777
U.S. Could Go To WTO Over Airbus Subsidies -- Bush posted Sat Aug 14 2004 03:15:45 by Eksath