From the article.

Airbus’ adjusted earnings for its commercial aircraft division at the nine-month stage trebled to €2.34 billion, with revenues increasing by 11% to €30.5 billion.

Its third-quarter performance has benefited, it says, from improvements to ramp-up on the A320neo-family programme and good progress on the A350 programme.

Please absorb slowly.

It seems we are missing out on the real condition of the company & focus on problems & generalize that a bit.

mjoelnir wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

PW100 wrote:

As I read the Flight Global article, I was wondering how long it would take for A.net to come out and put a negative headline spin to that. I just knew if would not be disappointed. It was not question of if, just a question of when, and by whom . . .

I was wondering how long it would take for A.net to come out and say "nothing to see here". I just knew I would not be disappointed. It was not question of if, just a question of when, and by whom. My money was on someone on a certain island around the 64th parallel north with a username evoking Norse mythology, and who is apparently an expert in aviation accounting. He surely would have risen to the defense of, and snuffed out this unseemly mockery of his beloved OEM.

You seem to be a super hyper Boeing fan boy, fighting of attacks that have not happened or will never happen. I care about things that matter, If Airbus delivers 780 frames this year or 800 frames by coopting A220 deliveries since July this year, who cares?

But always ready to start a new thread on deferred production costs and call it cheating? This truly illuminates the stupidity of these AvB threads.

ElroyJetson wrote:

I think the true story here is Airbus is not hitting their delivery targets. I do not see deception on their part. I see a company with significant problems.

So far right, but I wonder how your post is in anyway related to the thread topic. Just a poor starter for another A vs B thread.

1. New management struggling to find its way.

Unrelated to the delivery issue!

Poorly selling products in the A380 and a misread of the market with the A330 neo.

A380 part is and was low and I guess everything is said, no need to reopen it here.
The A330neo has actual enough customers to be delivered, so where is again where is the link to the topic.

the A320 neo PW issue is really hurting deliveries.

Fully true in the 1st half of year but not for the 2nd half. Airbus will likely not miss that part so much.

An underestimation of Boeing and their ability to bring down production costs on the 787 program

Boeing is using program accounting with fixed cost per frame, so the real cost "does not matter" for profit calculation. The 787 production cost did not changed in the last 5 quarter, at least the deferred cost blocked reduction per frame was steady. So the argument has some logical issues. But cool that this a.net myth comes up in every A vs. B thread.

keesje wrote:

From the article.

Airbus’ adjusted earnings for its commercial aircraft division at the nine-month stage trebled to €2.34 billion, with revenues increasing by 11% to €30.5 billion.

Its third-quarter performance has benefited, it says, from improvements to ramp-up on the A320neo-family programme and good progress on the A350 programme.

Please absorb slowly.

It seems we are missing out on the real condition of the company & focus on problems & generalize that a bit.

You make a good point. Profit is up nicely. Deliveries are up nicely.

We are expending a lot of calories over a goal of 800 deliveries.

Lightsaber

keesje wrote:

From the article.

Airbus’ adjusted earnings for its commercial aircraft division at the nine-month stage trebled to €2.34 billion, with revenues increasing by 11% to €30.5 billion.

Its third-quarter performance has benefited, it says, from improvements to ramp-up on the A320neo-family programme and good progress on the A350 programme.

Please absorb slowly.

It seems we are missing out on the real condition of the company & focus on problems & generalize that a bit.

The real condition of the company is good because they have more orders for planes (specifically A320's) than they (and their suppliers) know how to build. This is a problem, but as far as problems go, it is a pretty good one to have. It seems they overestimated the number of planes they would deliver this year, which investors don't like, but they are still going to deliver a tremendous amount of airplanes.

SC430 wrote:

In 2014 John Leahy and other Airbus honchos held a press conference to announce a recently signed order with Amedeo,a leasing company. Leahy proudly announced " This FIRM order from Amedeo is a clear recognition of the A380's long-term market appeal" We later learned this was more of a re-marketing agreement with no real delivery criteria or penalties. The number might just as well been 10 frames or 50. The A380 was in an order drought at the time, so they created an order that is still lanquishing in the back log.

This A220 is more of the same. Airbus did not sell these planes, and the were built in Canada by Bombardier. Shame...

speaking of which, when will airbus actually cancel the amadeo order?

ElroyJetson wrote:

I think the true story here is Airbus is not hitting their delivery targets. I do not see deception on their part. I see a company with significant problems.

Those are:

1. New management struggling to find its way.

2. Poorly selling products in the A380 and a misread of the market with the A330 neo.

3. Engine problems with two programs, one of which, the A320 neo PW issue is really hurting deliveries.

4. An underestimation of Boeing and their ability to bring down production costs on the 787 program, and Boeing's ability to accurately predict trends in commercial aviation.

Airbus will get it's act together eventually, but no question right now they are going through a rough time.

Ah, how the world turns!


Very discomforting to recall, just a couple of years back, that highly-credentialled members on this forum were predicting that 2018 would be the "Airbus Year".

And the thesis seemed quite reasonable, something like:

1) the AB order book (circa 2016) was strong in all segments, such that, extrapolating those facts,:
2) AB would be sure to launch a completely-new type in 2018, given that , at that future time, all it's development tasks would then be complete;
3) and in 2018 AB would have a huge development staff all itching for a new project.

So by 2018 all AB's significant development activities would be then completely done; which is what has basically happened (ignore the A338).


But meanwhile, "across the pond", the2016 thesis continued that:
- BA would then still be struggling (as in 2016 it seemed that it would be); but additionally:
- BA in 2018 would still have a huge backlog of unfinished work such that BA would be completely unable to counter the obvious new development that AB would launch in 2018.


As of November 2018, BA still have plenty to do. So that part is certainly still correct.
And as was already (correctly) predictable in 2016, the following major development tasks require completion EG:
1) 737-7; 737-10
2) 777-8; 777-9
(Still completely excluding an "unlaunched" 797 ).

Nevertheless, how things have changed!

FWIW, even now I regard the contest between a future NMA and an A321LR as being no sure outcome.
However the current load on AB Management and resources makes me guess that right now AB does not have too much resources to employ to fight back against BA.
No shiny new announcements!
Maybe 2019?

cheers

ElroyJetson wrote:

I think the true story here is Airbus is not hitting their delivery targets. I do not see deception on their part. I see a company with significant problems.

Those are:

1. New management struggling to find its way.

2. Poorly selling products in the A380 and a misread of the market with the A330 neo.

3. Engine problems with two programs, one of which, the A320 neo PW issue is really hurting deliveries.

4. An underestimation of Boeing and their ability to bring down production costs on the 787 program, and Boeing's ability to accurately predict trends in commercial aviation.

Airbus will get it's act together eventually, but no question right now they are going through a rough time.

They didn't quite read the upper narrowbody sector, nor the upper VLA sector, and only time will tell whether they've got the lower VLA sector right. The 789 and 738 are in very sweet spots, the 78X should be, but the rest all have question marks. For Airbus the A320/A321 and A359 are in sweet spots, the A339 is the right size but not execution, leaving only the A380 and A35K, though the latter has all the time to see gains. Seems like it's roughly par, especially if most of Airbus' problems are production related, not product related.

armchairceonr1 wrote:

juliuswong wrote:

HNA Group A3300ceo order has been sorted, all backlogged aircraft have been delivered, those in production lines are being delivered on time. As for their rumored A380, it's everyone guess if it will come to fruition. I highly doubt it.

Ok, thanks about HNA info. If I look it right EK has taken this year only 4 A380's so far, maybe there is some delays ongoing?

!!


If so, it would inject a great deal of extra "spice" into the negotiations currently ongoing between AB and STC.

One would imagine that the failure of the Trent PiP would be a major factor in EK not accepting the frames(?).

cheers

armchairceonr1 wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

4. An underestimation of Boeing and their ability to bring down production costs on the 787 program, and Boeing's ability to accurately predict trends in commercial aviation.

You seems to be very clever guy and that's why I want you tell us how much 787-9 production cost is now and how much in the future? I and many analyst will be very grateful about your knowledge.

Thanks for the compliment, you "seems" to be a clever guy as well. But Boeing bringing down production costs on the 787 program was reported several times in Leeham and has been discussed here on a-net at length.

This listed production costs on the 789 per Leeham is 90-95 mil. Boeing has reportedly sold the 789 for as little as 115 million.

I don't think, after all the initial screw ups that Airbus believed Boeing would get its act together on the 787 program.

Well....apparently they have. Hope this clears things up and thanks again for the nice words.

brindabella wrote:

Nevertheless, how things have changed!

FWIW, even now I regard the contest between a future NMA and an A321LR as being no sure outcome.
However the current load on AB Management and resources makes me guess that right now AB does not have too much resources to employ to fight back against BA.
No shiny new announcements!
Maybe 2019?

cheers

They upped their profit expectations & will deliver more than ever before while ramping up NEO to 60, certificating A330NEO & A321LR and slowly beating the Boeing 777X program. Stock value rose. Will they beat Boeing in deliveries + TO, or next year? They must be panicking

http://www.cityam.com/267884/airbus-sha ... oing-order

MrHMSH wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

I think the true story here is Airbus is not hitting their delivery targets. I do not see deception on their part. I see a company with significant problems.

Those are:

1. New management struggling to find its way.

2. Poorly selling products in the A380 and a misread of the market with the A330 neo.

3. Engine problems with two programs, one of which, the A320 neo PW issue is really hurting deliveries.

4. An underestimation of Boeing and their ability to bring down production costs on the 787 program, and Boeing's ability to accurately predict trends in commercial aviation.

Airbus will get it's act together eventually, but no question right now they are going through a rough time.

They didn't quite read the upper narrowbody sector, nor the upper VLA sector, and only time will tell whether they've got the lower VLA sector right. The 789 and 738 are in very sweet spots, the 78X should be, but the rest all have question marks. For Airbus the A320/A321 and A359 are in sweet spots, the A339 is the right size but not execution, leaving only the A380 and A35K, though the latter has all the time to see gains. Seems like it's roughly par, especially if most of Airbus' problems are production related, not product related.

I agree with your comments and would only add I see Airbus continuing to dominate the middle of the market for the foreseeable future. I also think the A359 is an outstanding aircraft and is in the sweet spot of the WB market along with the 789.

The acquisition of the C-series was a brilliant move imho.

I am not down on Airbus, but they are going through a rough patch right now.

Stitch wrote:

So according to the article, Airbus will be adding 18 A220 deliveries to their 2018 guidance.

Wikipedia says that 38 CSeries/A220 frames have been delivered by the end of September 2018. So Airbus is only claiming a subset of the total number of deliveries. Airbus took formal majority control of the program on 1 July, so how many frames were delivered and are scheduled to be delivered between 1 July and 31 December? If it is 18, I don't see an issue with them adding that to their guidance.

According to proper accounting they simply have to.

[url][/url]

keesje wrote:

brindabella wrote:

Nevertheless, how things have changed!

FWIW, even now I regard the contest between a future NMA and an A321LR as being no sure outcome.
However the current load on AB Management and resources makes me guess that right now AB does not have too much resources to employ to fight back against BA.
No shiny new announcements!
Maybe 2019?

cheers

They upped their profit expectations & will deliver more than ever before while ramping up NEO to 60, certificating A330NEO & A321LR and slowly beating the Boeing 777X program. Stock value rose. Will they beat Boeing in deliveries + TO, or next year? They must be panicking

http://www.cityam.com/267884/airbus-sha ... oing-order

And yet according to wiki Boeing has delivered more planes than Airbus every year for the last six years. Deliveries are when you get paid....yes?

osiris30 wrote:

I own a farm. You invest in my farm. i tell you "I will ship 50 tonnes of apples this year". You calculate that 50 tonnes of apples makes a good profit and buy more stock.

Late in the year i have only shipped 30 tonnes of apples. But i buy a farm next to me that has shipped 10 tonnes. Now that farm already recognized the revenue and profit from those apples and I drove up my costs buy the farm, but i tell you I have shipped 40 tonnes of apples.

Would you take issue with me?

Speaking from an Investment Firm, the answer is yes. The farm you acquired has an output forecast too originally. For your farm, the number is:

Forecast: 50
Actual: 30

Let's say the acquired farm had a forecast of 8, and now has actually delivered 10 (like in your example), then the news release now should become:

Forecast: 58
Actual: 40

NOT

Forecast: 50
Actual: 40

ElroyJetson wrote:

[url][/url]

keesje wrote:

brindabella wrote:

Nevertheless, how things have changed!

FWIW, even now I regard the contest between a future NMA and an A321LR as being no sure outcome.
However the current load on AB Management and resources makes me guess that right now AB does not have too much resources to employ to fight back against BA.
No shiny new announcements!
Maybe 2019?

cheers

They upped their profit expectations & will deliver more than ever before while ramping up NEO to 60, certificating A330NEO & A321LR and slowly beating the Boeing 777X program. Stock value rose. Will they beat Boeing in deliveries + TO, or next year? They must be panicking

http://www.cityam.com/267884/airbus-sha ... oing-order

And yet according to wiki Boeing has delivered more planes than Airbus every year for the last six years. Deliveries are when you get paid....yes?

Through September 2018 Boeing delivered 568 aircraft. Let's see how this plays out in 2018, 2019, 2020... Boeing has seen positively more stable deliveries since 2015, and has probably a more balanced, higher quality backlog. We better ask Randy how to see this..

ElroyJetson wrote:

Deliveries are when you get paid....yes?

Even if Boeing Capital is doing the buying at list?

ElroyJetson wrote:

Thanks for the compliment, you "seems" to be a clever guy as well. But Boeing bringing down production costs on the 787 program was reported several times in Leeham and has been discussed here on a-net at length.

This listed production costs on the 789 per Leeham is 90-95 mil. Boeing has reportedly sold the 789 for as little as 115 million.

Yes, boeing is bringing down production costs of 787's, but those are not even near 95 m$ now. Leeham can guess what is the costs now, same we do here but it's not truth before we have numbers on the table. BTW. Boeing other products profit margins (737, 777, 747) are very low single digit, if Leeham assumption is right.

musman9853 wrote:

Doesn't Europe have even stricter regulations on companies? How is Airbus allowed to do this?

Because they own the 50% plus 1 of the whole project/program. This is general accounting and normal, even legally mandatory. If you own a company or program etc for 50% + 1, you bear its costs and revenues, a company, the owner (the mother) can add it to its books, general accounting principles that need to be followed. 1st year of university accounting teaches you this. It is logical they add the A220, they own the program and take the risks, Bombardier doesn't count the A220 to their deliveries anymore, they produce the C series for Airbus under their brand name now.

I don't understand the fuzz about this, the title of this thread is a bit confusing... Airbus only states they had a goal of 800 deliveries without the A220 which wasn't owned at the time, and now with the A220 they mention it is still going to be a challenge to deliver 800 frames in 2018.

SFOtoORD wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

I was wondering how long it would take for A.net to come out and say "nothing to see here". I just knew I would not be disappointed. It was not question of if, just a question of when, and by whom. My money was on someone on a certain island around the 64th parallel north with a username evoking Norse mythology, and who is apparently an expert in aviation accounting. He surely would have risen to the defense of, and snuffed out this unseemly mockery of his beloved OEM.

You seem to be a super hyper Boeing fan boy, fighting of attacks that have not happened or will never happen. I care about things that matter, If Airbus delivers 780 frames this year or 800 frames by coopting A220 deliveries since July this year, who cares?

But always ready to start a new thread on deferred production costs and call it cheating? This truly illuminates the stupidity of these AvB threads.

I have not started new threads about Boeing deferred production cost, but once. What got me going is stupid super hyper Boeing fan boys crowing about how Boeing is more profitable than Airbus. If you compare two companies accounting to different systems you have to account for the differences. You can keep raving about a company busily inflating there profits using accounting practices nobody else does. You can also keep raving about how clever it is of Boeing to run with a negative equity. Usually a sign how stupid people are. Low equity at banks produced the banking crisis, low equity made it necessary to bail out the USA car producers. Low equity is OK as long as the sun shines. Going through a bust cycle a proper equity helps a company survive. You Boeing fan boys seem to believe that we will never see a bust cycle in the airline industry.

mjoelnir wrote:

I have not started new threads about Boeing deferred production cost, but once. What got me going is stupid super hyper Boeing fan boys crowing about how Boeing is more profitable than Airbus. If you compare two companies accounting to different systems you have to account for the differences. You can keep raving about a company busily inflating there profits using accounting practices nobody else does. You can also keep raving about how clever it is of Boeing to run with a negative equity. Usually a sign how stupid people are. Low equity at banks produced the banking crisis, low equity made it necessary to bail out the USA car producers. Low equity is OK as long as the sun shines. Going through a bust cycle a proper equity helps a company survive. You Boeing fan boys seem to believe that we will never see a bust cycle in the airline industry.

And as I always say to you, short Boeing. Almost everyone on the planet misses something you're convinced about. What a perfect opportunity to cash in big and at the same time give a big middle finger to all the Boeing fanboys. Just do it!

mjoelnir wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

You seem to be a super hyper Boeing fan boy, fighting of attacks that have not happened or will never happen. I care about things that matter, If Airbus delivers 780 frames this year or 800 frames by coopting A220 deliveries since July this year, who cares?

But always ready to start a new thread on deferred production costs and call it cheating? This truly illuminates the stupidity of these AvB threads.

I have not started new threads about Boeing deferred production cost, but once. What got me going is stupid super hyper Boeing fan boys crowing about how Boeing is more profitable than Airbus. If you compare two companies accounting to different systems you have to account for the differences. You can keep raving about a company busily inflating there profits using accounting practices nobody else does. You can also keep raving about how clever it is of Boeing to run with a negative equity. Usually a sign how stupid people are. Low equity at banks produced the banking crisis, low equity made it necessary to bail out the USA car producers. Low equity is OK as long as the sun shines. Going through a bust cycle a proper equity helps a company survive. You Boeing fan boys seem to believe that we will never see a bust cycle in the airline industry.

All amortization programs and processes distort actual yearly profits; and program accounting is just a form of amortization (although not on a fixed time table) Airbus amortizes a lot of things. I don't see you arguing about how that distorts their profit (nor for any other company).

In another thread I got you to admit that Boeing's use of Program accounting was legal, and you personally did not like that form of accounting. That is fine. There are many things in this world I don't like, and I suspect that you don't either. I may occasionally mention in a tread on a forum somewhere that I don't like something. However, I rarely say much more than that as there really is not much more to say.

I personally believe that if we just went to straight simple accounting, with no amortization allowed for anything; that Boeing would be more profitable than Airbus. Look at the long term numbers...

Have a great day,

mjoelnir wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

You seem to be a super hyper Boeing fan boy, fighting of attacks that have not happened or will never happen. I care about things that matter, If Airbus delivers 780 frames this year or 800 frames by coopting A220 deliveries since July this year, who cares?

But always ready to start a new thread on deferred production costs and call it cheating? This truly illuminates the stupidity of these AvB threads.

I have not started new threads about Boeing deferred production cost, but once. What got me going is stupid super hyper Boeing fan boys crowing about how Boeing is more profitable than Airbus. If you compare two companies accounting to different systems you have to account for the differences. You can keep raving about a company busily inflating there profits using accounting practices nobody else does. You can also keep raving about how clever it is of Boeing to run with a negative equity. Usually a sign how stupid people are. Low equity at banks produced the banking crisis, low equity made it necessary to bail out the USA car producers. Low equity is OK as long as the sun shines. Going through a bust cycle a proper equity helps a company survive. You Boeing fan boys seem to believe that we will never see a bust cycle in the airline industry.

The irony is both sides of these stupid threads say the same thing about each other. I’m a fanboy of nothing. Just interested in aviation and trying to have a few less trolls in these debates.

Not a great Airbus fan, but anybody who thinks they're actuall trying to fool their customers with this has a few rivets loose.

ElroyJetson wrote:

armchairceonr1 wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

4. An underestimation of Boeing and their ability to bring down production costs on the 787 program, and Boeing's ability to accurately predict trends in commercial aviation.

You seems to be very clever guy and that's why I want you tell us how much 787-9 production cost is now and how much in the future? I and many analyst will be very grateful about your knowledge.

Thanks for the compliment, you "seems" to be a clever guy as well. But Boeing bringing down production costs on the 787 program was reported several times in Leeham and has been discussed here on a-net at length.

This listed production costs on the 789 per Leeham is 90-95 mil. Boeing has reportedly sold the 789 for as little as 115 million.

I don't think, after all the initial screw ups that Airbus believed Boeing would get its act together on the 787 program.

Well....apparently they have. Hope this clears things up and thanks again for the nice words.

leehamnews.com has not been freiendly to 787 costs.
The $16m is still a low rate, although better than the $11m 1Q2017
https://leehamnews.com/2017/07/27/boein ... 787-debts/

But now: https://leehamnews.com/2018/02/20/boein ... 800-order/
The cost to produce a 787-9 is now believed to be between $80m and $90m, Wall Street analysts suggest.


So Leeham has actually dropped their number further.

Now put another way, the prior article notes a sales price of $125 million and profit of $16 million or $109 million production cost about 15 months ago.

Boeing isn't done with cutting production costs. There are efforts to cut another $3 to $5 million per airframe still going forward plus discounts from the rate increase. So perhaps another $3 million to $5 million price cut. So $6 to $10 million further discount. That is going to be tough for Airbus.

I'm not saying Airbus cannot cut costs. But some of that means increasing A350 production rates (and A330 rates). How much automation is wise to invest in is a function of production rate. This has always been true in aviation, the payback curve is just steeper today. More of making a plane is software and software costs money to develop, not per unit.

Lightsaber

cledaybuck wrote:

keesje wrote:

From the article.

Airbus’ adjusted earnings for its commercial aircraft division at the nine-month stage trebled to €2.34 billion, with revenues increasing by 11% to €30.5 billion.

Its third-quarter performance has benefited, it says, from improvements to ramp-up on the A320neo-family programme and good progress on the A350 programme.

Please absorb slowly.

It seems we are missing out on the real condition of the company & focus on problems & generalize that a bit.

The real condition of the company is good because they have more orders for planes (specifically A320's) than they (and their suppliers) know how to build. This is a problem, but as far as problems go, it is a pretty good one to have. It seems they overestimated the number of planes they would deliver this year, which investors don't like, but they are still going to deliver a tremendous amount of airplanes.

And I would expect the AB profit-performance to climb rapidly from here.

But two interacting problems IMHO:

1) the annual 4th-quarter panic at AB to get a huge pile-up of undelivered frames out and into the hands of customers is a worry; and it isn't just this year.
Another consistent negative is the poor cash-generation; and again, it's not just this year.
Business/Stock Market analysts have a history of making mention that on-balance they recommend AB shares despite these negatives.


For instance, comparing the first 3 qtrs of 2018 to the 2017 equivalents, AB has burned-through more than 7Bn euros cash.

2) by comparison, the arch-rival BA is throwing off more free-cash every year It is running at more than 15Bn dollars presently, and is still accelerating.
So is the BA Nett profit.

So the worry is that while AB will do considerably better from here, as they sort-out the production problems; nevertheless BA is getting still further ahead.
It looks rather ominous to me.

And I noted a recent comment by an Analyst wherein he summarised BA in 2018 as being "ferociously competitive".


cheers

LewisNEO wrote:

musman9853 wrote:

Doesn't Europe have even stricter regulations on companies? How is Airbus allowed to do this?

Because they own the 50% plus 1 of the whole project/program. This is general accounting and normal, even legally mandatory. If you own a company or program etc for 50% + 1, you bear its costs and revenues, a company, the owner (the mother) can add it to its books, general accounting principles that need to be followed. 1st year of university accounting teaches you this. It is logical they add the A220, they own the program and take the risks, Bombardier doesn't count the A220 to their deliveries anymore, they produce the C series for Airbus under their brand name now.

All good.

And now the election of this particular new Brazilian President seems likely to seal the deal between BA and EMB.

So at some future time we will doubtless be furiously debating whether it was proper for BA to include deliveries of E-jets which "BA did not build or sell"(!)

LewisNEO wrote:

musman9853 wrote:

I don't understand the fuzz about this, the title of this thread is a bit confusing... Airbus only states they had a goal of 800 deliveries without the A220 which wasn't owned at the time, and now with the A220 they mention it is still going to be a challenge to deliver 800 frames in 2018.

Bit too cute I think.

A lot of the noise is directed at what has the appearance of "spin".

First AB are adamant that they will do the 800, no probs.
And now they will still do the 800 - sorta.
Apples and apples? Hardly.

But on a scale of 1-10, I would rate it at ...
Actually I wouldn't, as I would already have dozed-off ...



cheers

ElroyJetson wrote:

I think the true story here is Airbus is not hitting their delivery targets. I do not see deception on their part.

I also see it as how difficult it is to bring new aircraft models to market successfully. Is that any wonder why manufacturers think long and hard before they launch something new?

lightsaber wrote:

This listed production costs on the 789 per Leeham is 90-95 mil.
Lightsaber

FMI, would that include the capital cost of the engines? Some PBTH schemes take engine capital cost outside airframe production cost.

ODwyerPW wrote:

Oh spare me all of the righteous indignation from all of you 100% objective commentators.

Good grief. Stop the US vs THEM rhetoric. Just be glad that Airbus, Boeing, Embraer and Bombardier are still building fine product and keeping us all entertained. (Unfortunately for the rest of us, all of this posturing and grandstanding is entertaining for some of you....)

<hmmm, Searches Forum / Thread Tools.... must be a way to permanently hide a thread...……>

YES! agree fully

Is there any need of having the onging B vs. A discussions? If you can't stop eith it thread will be locked.

raylee67 wrote:

osiris30 wrote:

I own a farm. You invest in my farm. i tell you "I will ship 50 tonnes of apples this year". You calculate that 50 tonnes of apples makes a good profit and buy more stock.

Late in the year i have only shipped 30 tonnes of apples. But i buy a farm next to me that has shipped 10 tonnes. Now that farm already recognized the revenue and profit from those apples and I drove up my costs buy the farm, but i tell you I have shipped 40 tonnes of apples.

Would you take issue with me?

Speaking from an Investment Firm, the answer is yes. The farm you acquired has an output forecast too originally. For your farm, the number is:

Forecast: 50
Actual: 30

Let's say the acquired farm had a forecast of 8, and now has actually delivered 10 (like in your example), then the news release now should become:

Forecast: 58
Actual: 40

NOT

Forecast: 50
Actual: 40

If it's an updated forecast and your only going to be able to deliver 4 the updated forecast would be 54 & actual would be 44. When they are bought out they usually adjust both figures based on analsys done during purchase.

SQ22 wrote:

Is there any need of having the onging B vs. A discussions? If you can't stop eith it thread will be locked.

Thank you, I agree.

SQ22 wrote:

Is there any need of having the onging B vs. A discussions? If you can't stop eith it thread will be locked.

Why not make a "sticky" thread for AvB matters and then quickly shut down threads or remove posts that are off topic by being AvB.

Ruscoe

SQ22 wrote:

Is there any need of having the onging B vs. A discussions? If you can't stop eith it thread will be locked.

If you don't like a discussion ignore it. What's the big deal?

SC430 wrote:

SQ22 wrote:

Is there any need of having the onging B vs. A discussions? If you can't stop eith it thread will be locked.

If you don't like a discussion ignore it. What's the big deal?

Nothing wrong with a discussion, but this goes complete off topic.

October deliveries:

https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/market/ ... eries.html

A220: 2
A320 fam ceo: 19
A320 fam neo: 48
A330: 3
A350: 9
A380: 0

Total: 81

total 2018: 584

October had the most deliveries for 2018 so far, but the people working at Airbus will he busy these last 2 months to reach the 800 for the year as they still need to deliver 216 planes.

Momo1435 wrote:

October deliveries:

https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/market/ ... eries.html

A220: 2
A320 fam ceo: 19
A320 fam neo: 48
A330: 3
A350: 9
A380: 0

Total: 81

total 2018: 584

October had the most deliveries for 2018 so far, but the people working at Airbus will he busy these last 2 months to reach the 800 for the year as they still need to deliver 216 planes.

Is there a 5th quarter for deliveries?

Seriously, November and December are crazy in the industry. With all the engine delays (all vendors), there is a rush going on. The intensity this year is INSANE! Not just for Airbus either (Boeing, Bombardier, not just A220, and Gulfstream all are waiting for engines).

Lightsaber

Airbus will deliver a record number of commercial aircraft in 2018.

They will be deemed to have failed by most commentators because they fall short of their target.

Engine supplier problems will be cited as the ‘excuse’.

Pity the successes can’t just be celebrated.

Geoff