Its really really simple.
The A320 first flew way back in 1988. Back then, it was far ahead of its time, not unlike the Fokker F-27 was (meaning a long life). Anyway, although the A320 has been updated a little bit here and there, it has been streached, and shortened, the basic high development costs were incurred way back in the 1980s.
So, many many many airframes later and that those costs are basically already well and truely recovered. So here is the thing. By increasing output, the any remaining costs to be recovered, are devided by an ever increasing number of airframes. Also, in this process, there are is an ever increasing number of parts from individual suppliers who also benefit in much the same way.
So by increasing its output, its unit costs fall. If you guys don't believe it, why have the Japanese, with some of the worlds highest labour costs, been able to maintain a competitive manufacturing sector? Things like cars, for example? They employed the concept of TQM, got their efficiency up, and divided it by an extremely large output. Hence the Toyota motor corp is one of the most important global players today.
The other thing is the way airbus have designed their aircraft usuing moduar omponents. This often means, you'll see the same, lav for instance, on an A330 as in an A320. This leads once again to lower unit costs. Something which boeing doesn't do all that often.
N79969..... im sorry but your comments about economics aren't exactly complete.
It isn't in society's interest to have company's making huge profits. It's in society's interest to have company's a cut throat competition, making only just enough profit for their existance to be sustainable. Why? its simple.... it basically leads to an increase in the spending power of our money, through greater efficieny, which in turn improves living standards for all. A great example is the American Automotive industry. Do you think, it would be helping the average american if GM
could charge an extra $5000 bucks on each car?
Whether airbus makes a sufficient return on capital is really only of importance to investors, and private insitutions seeking to make large amounts of money. The fact that such institutions get wealthy doesn't necessairly make things good for the economy as a whole, nor the living standards of those in it any higher(on average). The only real question here that society needs to be concerned with, is, if by extending any loans to airbus, we are diverting resources that could be used for more profitable ventures to airbus? For example...lets say there was a huge computer industry (hypothetical example so nobody get worked up about it)... and we ended up putting resources into airbus instead of the computer industry which would lead to a much higher output. Then, instead of training in IT
, we'd have ppl training in aerospace, we'd have a building being used for aerospace, etc ... and our limited resources not being allocated to their best use. That is the question for the european governments to be concerned with..... because that is gonna have a significant impact on living standards. An Individual company's profit has very little to do with it.... rather the value of these exports for trade purposes, and hence the level of economic activity the generate (as well as their ability to in turn purchase imported goods for use in that particular economic zone) are really the focus of the government.
In airbuses case.... I think the jury is still out.