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 7 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 13968 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, 7319 posts, RR: 57
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 13941 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, 1903 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 13699 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, 12900 posts, RR: 46
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 13610 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! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7319 posts, RR: 57
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 13474 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 7 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 13406 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, 4092 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 13345 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, 2721 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 13259 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 7 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 13190 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, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 13127 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, 421 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 12685 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, 12975 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 12664 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 7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 12450 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, 1052 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 12315 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, 13232 posts, RR: 36
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 12240 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, 1429 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 12013 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, 1607 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 11719 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, 12900 posts, RR: 46
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 11429 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! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlineBogi From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 10991 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 7 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 10728 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, 12975 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 10471 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 7 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 10349 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, 2759 posts, RR: 57
Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 10311 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, 7319 posts, RR: 57
Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 10256 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 offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 10231 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.


User currently offlinePVG From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2004, 728 posts, RR: 2
Reply 25, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 10625 times:

"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.


Why does he assume a smooth introduction of the 350? Based on recent history, there's a good chance that misfortunes could be reversed!


User currently offlinebabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 26, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 10507 times:

Quoting PVG (Reply 25):
they’re better quality orders too

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 aircraft. He cold have left it at that.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13232 posts, RR: 36
Reply 27, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 10575 times:

Quoting PVG (Reply 25):
Why does he assume a smooth introduction of the 350? Based on recent history, there's a good chance that misfortunes could be reversed!

Probably based on the smooth final assembly of MSN001.

Quoting babybus (Reply 26):
What on Earth does he mean by that? Surely an order is an order.

He refers to the A350 order from BA I guess.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetmoney From Myanmar, joined Nov 2011, 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 10468 times:

Quoting PVG (Reply 25):
Why does he assume a smooth introduction of the 350? Based on recent history, there's a good chance that misfortunes could be reversed!

Exactly! And that statement he made is bulls since he's comparing two different products. For obvious reasons smaller airframes will sell more than larger ones. So he can't just say 350 has more orders than 380. Surely, 737s have more order than 777s.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12975 posts, RR: 25
Reply 29, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 10402 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 24):
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.

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 Cathay, with JAL and ANA quite likely to join too.

Quoting PVG (Reply 25):
Why does he assume a smooth introduction of the 350? Based on recent history, there's a good chance that misfortunes could be reversed!

It's pretty easy to compare the chaos that was the 787 development program, with Boeing engineers flying all around the world trying to make up for management's terrible outsourcing decisions, to Airbus's orderly execution of the A350 program. Even the slips it's had, like the ones related to the rate at which the automated drilling machines could work, were quickly resolved, and much more easy to deal with than a fundamental design error such as 787's mistakes on the side of body join, as well as the chaos on the factory floor that has lead to the first few frames being unsaleable and acres worth of ramp space being taken up by airframes needing to be reworked.

In short, the failures of the 787 development program were/are of epic proportion, and it should be no surprise that this results in a huge hit to Boeing's credibility and a large opportunity for Airbus to take advantage of.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9836 posts, RR: 52
Reply 30, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 10405 times:

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 question. If the A350 enters service with only the delays we have seen so far, then airbus has done a great job and should receive benefits, but we all know what can happen in the lead up to first flight, the flight test phase and entry into service.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 748 posts, RR: 1
Reply 31, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 10383 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.....

Then you'll be glad to be educated by this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_6231


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13232 posts, RR: 36
Reply 32, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 10286 times:

Quoting tmoney (Reply 28):
Exactly! And that statement he made is bulls since he's comparing two different products. For obvious reasons smaller airframes will sell more than larger ones. So he can't just say 350 has more orders than 380. Surely, 737s have more order than 777s.

  

The apples and bananas story.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12975 posts, RR: 25
Reply 33, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 10264 times:

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 31):

Then you'll be glad to be educated by this article:

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 a better idiot.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineAesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 6963 posts, RR: 12
Reply 34, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 10073 times:

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.

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 new GE90-115 lost blades at an alarming rate.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinebillreid From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 1052 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 10067 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 17):
Then Boeing MUST be better, eh?    Just out of interest, what was your sample size?

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 PILOT, an A requires a SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR.
So at the end of the day the Guy/Gal up front loves their job, but they also prefer to FLY ..... not Program.......

Ab-fool-a forgets the A380 took a massive three year delay and has not sold anything near what was projected. I believe that the A380 is now slated to LOSE in the Billions because all the new long range twins kill the need for the four engine A380.
Long haul Point to Point is killing the Hub to Hub mammoth. No need for the A380 or B748.

So Ab-FOOL-a needs to shut his idiotic mouth.
So lets not talk about AB is Better than BA..
Both companies are not always right....



Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
User currently offlineMayohoo From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 32 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 9539 times:

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 period with delays and issues. It is now at the ramp up stage with much of its risk retired for the 787-8. It is likely the 787-9 is on firm footing, but things can show up in flight testing for any aircraft.

Airbus has had its own issues with the 380 (a400m, 350, helicopter division, etc.) with which they are still trying to fix in a timely and efficient manner. They have an opportunity to launch the 350 smoothly, but likely there will be some issues. Since it is a more conservative plane than the 787, it could be argued that they will have less risk. On the other hand, they will have less advanced technology to take advantage (potentially). Of course, new doesn't always mean better...

If Boeing had been flawless in execution, they would have had a longer lead. They still have a lead, it depends on who stumbles and who executes. I still see issues in 5 years for Airbus in the 200-300 passenger capacity planes as the 330 will have a harder and harder time competing with the 787 IF the 77 ramps up successfully and IF the planes deliver the promised results and IF nothing else show up as issues.

As for losing sales to the 350-1000? The margins are so tiny for airlines now that they will have to maximise every percent that they can in purchse and in operating costs. Fuel is taking up a much larger percentage of the operating cost so the more efficient jet for each segment is in general going to win. I would predict that there will be a lot of mixed buys from the airlines as they will be pairing the best fit aircraft to their network mix. The advantages of a single manufacturer fleet is going to be less as they go to power by the hour contracts and outsource maintenance to third parties or use general maintenance companies.


User currently offlinejetfixr757 From Jamaica, joined Jan 2006, 158 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 9208 times:

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!!!!!

Jet


User currently offlineAesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 6963 posts, RR: 12
Reply 38, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 9015 times:

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 MANPAD. I'm not aware of any Airbus having crashed after dropping a couple of engines, happened to two B747.

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 31):
Then you'll be glad to be educated by this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwe..._6231

Wow, and another 727 (made by B) crashed on the same day, horrible !



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDano1977 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Jun 2008, 515 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 8973 times:

Quoting jetfixr757 (Reply 37):
What about the AA crash in JFK?
BOEING!!!!!

The National Transportation Safety Board concluded that the cause of the crash was overuse of the rudder mechanism.


According to the official accident report, after the first officer made his initial rudder pedal input, he made a series of alternating full rudder inputs. This led to increasing sideslip angles. The resulting hazardous sideslip angle led to extremely high aerodynamic loads that resulted in separation of the vertical stabilizer. If the first officer had stopped making these inputs at any time before the vertical stabilizer separation, the natural stability of the airplane would have returned the sideslip angle to near 0°, and the accident would have been avoided. The airplane performance study indicated that when the vertical stabilizer separation began, the aerodynamic loads were about two times the loads defined by the design envelope. It can be determined that the vertical stabilizer's structural performance was consistent with design specifications and exceeded certification requirements.



Children should only be allowed on aircraft if 1. Muzzled and heavily sedated 2. Go as freight
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 40, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 8955 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
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.

Yeah. I guess they should have spent more time building planes like, er, the A300, A310 and A330 instead.........

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 12):
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...........

But producing both the A340 and A340NG wasn't an error? Just the A380?   

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 27):
He refers to the A350 order from BA I guess.

Because BA's A380 order obviously wasn't a quality order, any more than SQ's, LH's and QF's were ......

Quoting billreid (Reply 35):
So lets not talk about AB is Better than BA..

LOL

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

  

Quoting SA7700 (Reply 21):
Failure to comply with this request will result in a lockdown of the thread

If it were me, I'd just go ahead and make it so. We're half way there already

Rgds


User currently offlineCapt.Fantastic From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 751 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 8852 times:

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 course the author is entitled to his opinion, but why is his opinion even posted here?

User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 8840 times:

All aircraft flying are safe, otherwise they would be grounded.

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13232 posts, RR: 36
Reply 43, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 8857 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 40):
Because BA's A380 order obviously wasn't a quality order, any more than SQ's, LH's and QF's were ......

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".



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 8652 times:

Quoting billreid (Reply 35):
I have been told

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 FBW air-crafts with old fashion control wheel.


User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2333 posts, RR: 10
Reply 45, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 8646 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 32):
The apples and bananas story.

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 assumptions not very far for the truth.

Now on the never ending A vs B war here on Anet, I think that both companies are world class dynamos, I like both products for different reasons, and in this case it would be Naive to think that the A380 was going to sell 500 right away, as is naive to believe that the 787 delays and grounding would not have any consequences ...

In the end as bad as it may sound the market share will be 50% / 50% or something close, so arguing that pilots prefer some brand would be believable when they PAY THE DARN AIRPLANES THEMSELVES.

Arguing of a plane falls of the sky makes a bad company its a moot point... but heck! Anet would never be as interesting if this flame wars were not present.

Best Regards

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13232 posts, RR: 36
Reply 46, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 8605 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
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,

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 the horizon?   



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKPDX From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2777 posts, RR: 2
Reply 47, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 8567 times:

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 tend to make poor decisions at times, but that's part of risk, and sometimes poor management... Too bad people on here care so much about national/continent pride.   


View my aviation videos on Youtube by searching for zildjiandrummr12
User currently offlineSA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 3431 posts, RR: 26
Reply 48, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 8622 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

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 threadlock will be removed for housekeeping purposes only.

Regards,

SA7700



When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
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