Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Aboulafia: Airbus The More Reliable Jet Maker  
User currently offlineBogi From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 13836 times:

In Forbes is this to read:

Quote:
In short, Airbus is able to project an image as the more reliable jetmaker, despite the merits of the 777X design.

Declared the author Richard Aboulafia in his article understandable how he comes to this opinion?

Source
http://www.forbes.com/sites/richarda...87-delays-continue-to-boost-airbus

48 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7123 posts, RR: 57
Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 13809 times:

Quoting Bogi (Thread starter):
Declared the author Richard Aboulafia in his article

Good old Richard has no problems filling the airwaves with headlines. His love hate relationship with the 787 is baffling to say the least.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 13567 times:

So, you turn one contributer's "Airbus is able to project an image as the more reliable jetmaker" into: Forbes: "Airbus Is The More Reliable Jetmaker" That's pretty weak.

[Edited 2013-05-25 04:59:28]


Andy Goetsch
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12502 posts, RR: 46
Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 13478 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 2):

Plenty here are happy to jump on anything Aboulafia says when it's positive for Boeing or negative for Airbus.   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7123 posts, RR: 57
Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 13342 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 3):
Plenty here are happy to jump on anything Aboulafia says when it's positive for Boeing

You must also be puzzled at his conversion on the road to Damascus these days though?



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 13274 times:

Good topic, Bogi, should make for a lively discussion!

Thing is, to my mind, though, that Airbus concentrated too much, for too long, on the A380. Boeing have the superior range, with the 737 holding its own, the 788 in full production, and the first 789 being built next month; plus the 777 with a solid market position and an upgrade already on the horizon. Airbus won't even have the A359 flying in service until next year, and the A358 already looks like a 'non-starter' - so far they've completely missed out on the ETOPS concept.

So, IMO, both firms will probably do all right - but Boeing will remain 'in the lead' in world terms for some time yet.

[Edited 2013-05-25 05:39:23]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3928 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 13213 times:

Really? Then he's changed his stance massively (basically a 180) since he shut up about the A380 issues...

User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2649 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 13127 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 3):
Plenty here are happy to jump on anything Aboulafia says when it's positive for Boeing or negative for Airbus

Likewise there are plenty who jump on anything Aboulafia says when it's positive for Airbus or negative for Boeing.
Swings and roundabouts! This is A.net.


Personally, I think Aboulafia is talking out of his rear end most of the time, including in this instance.



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineBogi From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 13058 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
Good topic, Bogi

Thank you, to all of you and the remarkably good moderation.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1821 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 12995 times:

Why should his words carry anymore weight than anyone's here really? This society has a way of giving wrong people too much influence and power IMO.

User currently offlineairlineaddict From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 419 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 12553 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Did anyone read the article? It's very logical and balanced.

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12457 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 12532 times:

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 2):
So, you turn one contributer's "Airbus is able to project an image as the more reliable jetmaker" into: Forbes: "Airbus Is The More Reliable Jetmaker" That's pretty weak.

I think the title of this posting is a bit misleading.

IMHO I'd use 'credible' rather than 'reliable' since 'reliable' focuses on the resulting product whereas the article more is about whether the customers have faith in Boeing as a company.

The title Forbes used, "787 Delays Continue To Boost Airbus" is a lot more accurate than the title of this posting.

Quoting garpd (Reply 7):
Personally, I think Aboulafia is talking out of his rear end most of the time, including in this instance.

I find his writing to be over-sensationalized and on the level of an a.net posting instead of a Forbes article.

His sensationalist writing detracts from the point he's trying to make, which is that the four year slip of the 787 for EIS and the three plus month withdrawal from service of the 787 this year have cost Boeing dearly.

If the program had gone relatively on track and been, let's say, 'only' been two years late instead of four, we'd have seen a much earlier response to both the A320neo and A350-1000, and perhaps one of these programs would be an all new airframe instead of an upgrade. The fact that the program went so long with such poor ability to determine when it would finish certainly has upset the customer base, as it well should have done. It also seems to have given their board of directors great concern. In short, the 787 was a highly visible disaster of a program from the business standpoint. IMHO it's put the credibility of the company into question.

I have no problem with the upgrade approach in the short term, but in the long term it means 737 and 777 are going to need replacing in a smaller time window. They'd be much better off in the long term if the money they were committing to the upgrades was going to Y1 or Y3.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 12318 times:

Quoting airlineaddict (Reply 12):
Did anyone read the article? It's very logical and balanced.

I think 'balanced' is probably the right word, airlineaddict. The last couple of paragraphs maybe get things right:-

"The A350XWB’s success is more than just Airbus taking advantage of Boeing’s misfortunes. Instead, it represents a return to form for the European jetliner, which had lost a decade with its futile pursuit of the tiny superjumbo market. After over a dozen years of trying, the 500-seat A380 has garnered just 250 orders. By the end of this year the much younger A350XWB program will have racked up three times that many orders, and they’re better quality orders too.

"The 787 looks set for a successful return to service, and the program will likely resume its long path to commercial success. The company will also begin an aggressive 777X campaign that may quickly yield sales results. But for Airbus, Boeing’s series of 787 program disasters looks like a gift that will keep on giving for years to come. The A350XWB looks set to enjoy strong commercial demand. That, plus a very strong wave of up-front orders for the new A320 Neo series, will translate to positive momentum for EADS/Airbus over next few years at least."


All seems very much to confirm my own views, expressed in Post 5 above. Airbus erred in giving 100% priority to the A380, for quite a long period, when the rest of the world (especially Boeing) was embracing long-range twins/ETOPS. Now they're catching up...........



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinebillreid From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 1006 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 12183 times:

IMO this can be argued from both sides of the mouth.
I am more affraid on an AB product than an B product when I am away from my family.

The AB product UMO is less reliable if you look at the AF problems, fly by wire A320 issues and the long term problems with the computer systems. I have not heard of any B products EVER falling out of the sky while the crew becomes dis-orientated with whether they are going up or down, and ignoring stall warnings.....

I still want to know why AB is so damn reliable then WHY do Air France pilots PREFER Boeing?
This was told to me by several AF pilots long before the A330 loss.

So perhaps the statement is simply a quest to get some sort of discount?



Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11367 posts, RR: 33
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 12108 times:

Quoting billreid (Reply 13):
The AB product UMO is less reliable if you look at the AF problems, fly by wire A320 issues and the long term problems with the computer systems. I have not heard of any B products EVER falling out of the sky while the crew becomes dis-orientated with whether they are going up or down, and ignoring stall warnings.....

> The A320 crash was pilot error.
> The A330 crash was pilot error.

Hmm, someone needs more training instead of blaming aircraft designs   



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1253 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 11881 times:

Quoting billreid (Reply 13):
I have not heard of any B products EVER falling out of the sky while the crew becomes dis-orientated with whether they are going up or down, and ignoring stall warnings.....

At least no Airbus has crashed because of flight control problems caused by design error, like two 737's that had their rudders jammed in the 90's until finally after third one (which was near crash) Boeing finally found and fixed the problem.

Anyway it's quite likely that had the situation of AF447 happened to some other airline there would have been no crash. After all Air France is quite notorious for its bad safety record compared to other major European airlines.

Personally I wouldn't feel that safe on any AF plane, no matter if its Boeing or Airbus. Any properly trained crew should understand that altitude falling fast + high nose up position = stall. I'm sure had AF447 been flown with a 777 with similar pitot tube problem they would have crashed it anyway as they didn't even detect the stall until it was too late.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1561 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 11587 times:

The market is pretty confident about Boeing. Shares made $100 yesterday and Price/Earnings is 16. (Yahoo says 18.7)
So whatever has been said, the investors give it the tick for reliability.

By comparison EADS P/E is 26 (which is ok also)

Ruscoe

[Edited 2013-05-25 08:14:56]

User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12502 posts, RR: 46
Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 11297 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting billreid (Reply 13):
I am more affraid on an AB product than an B product when I am away from my family.

That's simply paranoia.

Quoting billreid (Reply 13):
I still want to know why AB is so damn reliable then WHY do Air France pilots PREFER Boeing?
This was told to me by several AF pilots long before the A330 loss.

Then Boeing MUST be better, eh?    Just out of interest, what was your sample size?

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 16):
The market is pretty confident about Boeing. Shares made $100 yesterday and Price/Earnings is 16.
So whatever has been said, the investors give it the tick for reliability.

Have you seen EADS share price recently? Or, like the "analyst" in question, does it need to be pointed out how much they've outperformed Boeing?
http://www.richardaboulafia.com/shownote.asp?id=373

Quote:
A client recently showed me some jarring numbers. As of January 25th, EADS’s stock has returned 137% or 7.1% annualized since it was listed in July 2000. In the same period, Boeing has returned 117%, or 6.4% annualized.

It still shocks to read that an aerospace analyst has to have this pointed out to him!  Wow!



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineBogi From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 10859 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 9):
IMHO I'd use 'credible' rather than 'reliable' since 'reliable' focuses on the resulting product whereas the article more is about whether the customers have faith in Boeing as a company.
Is 'credible' a result from 'reliable' or the other way around?

[Edited 2013-05-25 09:14:12]

User currently offlinealfablue From Spain, joined Jan 2013, 43 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 10596 times:

Quoting billreid (Reply 13):
The AB product UMO is less reliable if you look at the AF problems, fly by wire A320 issues and the long term problems with the computer systems. I have not heard of any B products EVER falling out of the sky while the crew becomes dis-orientated with whether they are going up or down, and ignoring stall warnings.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birgenair_Flight_301

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroper%C3%BA_Flight_603

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Airlines_Flight_604

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya_Airways_Flight_507

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_855

Just a few. What you wanted to say is that you don't know any accident involving a Boeing which crashed after pilots lost situational awareness or suffered spacial disorientation. However those accidents did happen. Pilots have to make a quick decision which instruments deliver correct information and which ones do not. If they do the right decision the flight usually does a safe emergency landing. If they do not than they often crash. Its also no coincidence that most of those accidents happen at night (including AF) where there is no reference to the horizon. Spatial disorientation is not an aircraft specific problem.

alfaBlue

[Edited 2013-05-25 09:21:53]

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12457 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 10339 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 12):
All seems very much to confirm my own views, expressed in Post 5 above. Airbus erred in giving 100% priority to the A380, for quite a long period, when the rest of the world (especially Boeing) was embracing long-range twins/ETOPS. Now they're catching up...........

I think Airbus was way too optimistic about the market upside of the A380 and unwilling to consider the down side risks at the time they launched the program, and feel that this is being shown to be true more and more each day. On the other hand, at the time the decisions were being made around 2000, Airbus felt they had the 767 defeated by the A330 and the 777 space covered by the A340. No one at the time knew that the 777-300ER would exceed expectations, neither Airbus or Boeing.

Quoting Bogi (Reply 18):
Is 'credible' a result from 'reliably' or the other way around?

As we're seeing above, the word 'reliability' is causing the fundamental design choices of the vendors to be brought into question, whereas I feel the article is more about the company's strategic choices and the execution of their development plans.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineSA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 3431 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 10217 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

As this is an extremely sensitive topic, the moderators would like to request that all members use extra caution when posting in this thread. Please stay on topic and kindly refrain from any personal attacks, disrespecting other users or flamebait.

Failure to comply with this request will result in a lockdown of the thread. We thank you for your co-operation in this matter.

Regards,

SA7700



When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
User currently offlineToulouse From Switzerland, joined Apr 2005, 2758 posts, RR: 58
Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 10179 times:

Quoting billreid (Reply 13):

IMO this can be argued from both sides of the mouth.
I am more affraid on an AB product than an B product when I am away from my family.

The AB product UMO is less reliable if you look at the AF problems, fly by wire A320 issues and the long term problems with the computer systems. I have not heard of any B products EVER falling out of the sky while the crew becomes dis-orientated with whether they are going up or down, and ignoring stall warnings.....

I still want to know why AB is so damn reliable then WHY do Air France pilots PREFER Boeing?
This was told to me by several AF pilots long before the A330 loss.

So perhaps the statement is simply a quest to get some sort of discount?

Really billreid, NO NEED WHATSOEVER to be afraid on an Airbus or a Boeing aircraft, they are both top quality manufacturers.

I don't know why, but in the last 10 years I've only been on about 2 Boeing aircraft (not out of choice just the way it happened) and all my other 40 to 60 annual flights have mainly happened to be on Airbus aircraft (a few on Embraer, and a few on Bombardier), and I'm perfectly relaxed knowing they are well deigned aircraft and that I'm flying on reputable airlines.



Long live Aer Lingus!
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7123 posts, RR: 57
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 10124 times:

I'm wondering how one becomes a self styled aviation guru that gets quoted in Forbes magazine.


The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently onlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4957 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 10099 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 12):
From the article...But for Airbus, Boeing’s series of 787 program disasters looks like a gift that will keep on giving for years to come.

I cannot agree with this statement. My take on the airline business is that the management is a pretty pragmatic lot. They work with what they have and don't spend a lot of time wringing their hands on what may have been if this or that was different. There are no significant bail outs from the 787 program for the simple reason there was nowhere to bail to.
Other than AI and their continuing obsession to try and get something for nothing, there is no reported public "poor mouthing" by the operators. They are very satisfied to see the reduced fuel bills for every hour flown by the type. If these are not quite what they expected; according to their contract with Boeing / RR/GE they know they can collect a cheque every month for the shortfall. From an operational viewpoint from what little has been reported it appears the type has a pretty good dispatch reliability, if this is so , it keeps a whole lot of people happy on a day to day basis. The FAA action in pulling the certificate based on a pretty small sample was in my view unnecessary. I might be a minority of one on this but between flight inspections would in my view have been sufficient.


25 PVG : "The A350XWB’s success is more than just Airbus taking advantage of Boeing’s misfortunes. Instead, it represents a return to form for the European
26 babybus : What on Earth does he mean by that? Surely an order is an order. Seems the guy really can't make his mind up about anything. Airbus do make great air
27 KarelXWB : Probably based on the smooth final assembly of MSN001. He refers to the A350 order from BA I guess.
28 tmoney : Exactly! And that statement he made is bulls since he's comparing two different products. For obvious reasons smaller airframes will sell more than l
29 Revelation : Indeed so, but the impact of the 787 debacle is that Boeing has no counter at this point in time to the A350-1000 being ordered already by BA and Cat
30 Roseflyer : For the most part I agree with the article. The 787 problems definitely can benefit airbus. If airbus is able to capitalize on it is a different quest
31 Post contains links AirlineCritic : Then you'll be glad to be educated by this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_6231
32 Post contains images KarelXWB : The apples and bananas story.
33 Post contains links Revelation : As well as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522 As the old saying goes, when man tries to make something idiot proof, God invents
34 Aesma : Maybe they like flying on one engine in their shiny 77W ? Yes, AF, as a large airline, has had trouble will all their planes, including when the then
35 billreid : There was no sample size because i was not performing a survey. I have been told the difference between flying a B and an A is that a B requires a PI
36 Mayohoo : Actually, it is a fairly even handed article although the title is a little sensational. I think most would say the 787 has had a rough development pe
37 jetfixr757 : What about the AA crash in JFK? Vertical stab broke off, IIR a b52 flew without a vertical and landed safely, the numerous A380 spar fractures? BOEING
38 Aesma : AA crash, pilot error. No A380 has crashed even when an engine blew into pieces and made holes in it. Another A300 has made it after being hit by a MA
39 Dano1977 : The National Transportation Safety Board concluded that the cause of the crash was overuse of the rudder mechanism. According to the official acciden
40 Post contains images astuteman : Yeah. I guess they should have spent more time building planes like, er, the A300, A310 and A330 instead......... But producing both the A340 and A34
41 Capt.Fantastic : Heavily biased article and misleading as well. I thought there were rules on these forums prohibiting A vs B topics? That's exactly what this is. Of c
42 sweair : All aircraft flying are safe, otherwise they would be grounded.
43 KarelXWB : For some reason - I don't know why - some people see BA as the holy grail under the airlines. Therefore winning an order from BA is "a big deal".
44 packsonflight : Don't believe everything you are told... The AF447 report mentions 3 or 4 similar crashes. The air-crafts involved where B757, B727 and DC9. all sans
45 TheRedBaron : KarelWBW, seems to me Anet has an apples VS Bananas Thread twice a day, so no surprise here! I liked the Article, I think its fair and uses assumptio
46 Post contains images KarelXWB : I feel a contradiction here. It sounds like you say it's a bad thing that the A359 will EIS only next year, but the 7-years away 777X is already on t
47 Post contains images KPDX : I think they're both great manufacturers, and produce great airplanes, which I think the majority of us aviation enthusiasts can agree on. Sure, they
48 SA7700 : As this thread has evolved in nothing more than Airbus vs. Boeing diatribe, it will be locked for further contributions. Any posts added after the thr
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...
Which Is The More Efficient: F50, DH3 Or AT4? posted Thu Feb 19 2004 16:02:48 by Pe@rson
Are ComAir Pilots Greedy...or Is The More To This? posted Sun May 13 2001 16:06:01 by Cdfmxtech
What Is The Origin Of The Name "Airbus"? posted Wed Mar 6 2013 07:14:52 by flyingturtle
Is The A318 A More Jerky Plane? posted Mon Jul 7 2008 04:04:08 by Ogre727
Why Is The Airbus A330 Selling So Well? posted Sat Sep 15 2007 17:46:45 by 747400sp
Airbus A330 - The Best Is Yet To Come? posted Thu Apr 26 2007 18:44:42 by WINGS
Airbus A300 Line. Is The End In Sight? posted Fri Jan 5 2007 16:11:46 by WINGS
Airbus N.A. Chairman: "747-8i is the Ford Edsel" posted Thu Dec 7 2006 09:07:32 by Curmudgeon
Airbus 300A, Who Is The Largest PAX Carrier posted Fri Aug 25 2006 00:24:02 by Arecibo
What Is The Next Major Program From Airbus? posted Sun Nov 20 2005 17:30:49 by Grantcv