FT: Risks of Airbus passing 60% market share.

Olddog · Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:54 am

And the fact that Boeing has 90 % of the cargo market is fine and Airbus should not even try to get more of that market ?

WesternDC6B · Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:11 am

lightsaber wrote:
With new entrants of the C919, MC-21,

The market will correct. Recall Douglas was once a powerhouse.

Lightsaber

Yes. When Douglas was still Douglas.

seahawk · Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:17 am

keesje wrote:
seahawk wrote:
In the end it is not Airbus reaching 60%, it is Boeing reaching 40%. The imbalance is solely created by errors committed at Boeing. If Boeing continues to fumble the certification process with the regulators and continues to fail to establish a working quality control in their manufacturing, Airbus will reach 100% market share.

I think with the NB's it's also the A321NEO, that has 3000 in the backlog today. It's payload-range flexibility and performance seem hard to resist for airlines.
https://groups.google.com/group/aviatio ... 0.1&view=1

All was know more than 10 years ago, Boeing endlessly kept convincing themselves this wasn't an issue.
https://worldairlinenews.com/2014/12/12 ... placement/
https://www.reuters.com/article/boeing- ... F520150113

Stockprice & cash flow looked great over the decade, anyone questioning e.g. debts didn't really fully understand & was jealous at best.
Listening to others had become an unproductive habit at Boeing, Just go with the (free cash) flow.

https://www.ccn.com/will-boeing-stock-f ... ver-again/

Not having the 737-10 ready at launch was another mistake by Boeing. But things would still look much better, if the 787 production would run smoothly, the 737 would not have crashed and the 777-9 certification would be on time. So in the end all problems are solely the responsibility of Boeing. Airbus did very little to cause trouble for Boeing, as their own effort was not really all out. (just imagine a new wing on the NEOs)

keesje · Thu Nov 04, 2021 12:48 pm

ILNFlyer wrote:
To paraphrase someone famous, the pending demise of Boeing is being greatly exaggerated. Rough times, no doubt about it. They really screwed themselves with the whole Max fiasco. That appears to be nearing it's end. The ongoing problems with the 787 line and the delays on the 777X program will also work themselves out.

I hope so. Today: Tim Clark, CEO EK, #1 by far 777 customer, in the press:

"I can’t understand why the 777X with all its novelties was ticketed as a derivative, while it’s not when you build a new aircraft. ... The issue of the 777-9X at the moment is one of certification. We need clarification that it has been built according to the rules we will accept."

Clark also lashed out on the Boeing organisation problems:

Boeing is notorious for being in denial about a lot of things. And they close ranks very quickly, there was never a problem and they always got a solution. But time and time again they get found out and things are not right. Altogether it’s a worry to us, there are terrible problems in the organization.

Clark: The root cause is the convergence, or I should say divergence in the business models, from when you had quality and engineering excellence, which has been replaced by concentrating on market share, profits, free cash flow, dividends, and bonuses. I saw it starting to happen in the 1990s.

Link to this interview with Tim Clark, long term Emirates CEO .https://www.airlineratings.com/news/emi ... -problems/

As I suggested before Boeing better change their executive bonuses & incentive structure. It proved damaging and bad for the company. The interactions of perception management, stockprice and short term free cash drained 99% of the company. 1% got loaded and nobody intervenes, because those that should intervene are beneficiaries of the system. Rotten.

Tim Clark on this topic:

There might be more checks and balances in the European theatre because they got so much quasi-governmental involvement. Even so, Airbus is a private company, there is a lot of control through Germany, France, Spain, it’s not something I experienced there to the same extent with Airbus as more recently with Boeing.

This is gonna be a happy meeting with Boeing in Dubai.

frmrCapCadet · Thu Nov 04, 2021 1:19 pm

JKzhong wrote:
Publicly traded companies are forced to live on short-term gain in many cases, Boeing and Airbus are no exceptions. Hence the "lack of vision" and "mass production on legacy types". I personally don't believe they want to go this way, but it's not entirely up to them to decide.

The railroads have been dealing with that 'next quarter' syndrome, hence the reason BNSF was willing to sell itself to Buffet - 'and make us a lot of money .... in the long run'.

kalvado · Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:21 pm

Olddog wrote:
And the fact that Boeing has 90 % of the cargo market is fine and Airbus should not even try to get more of that market ?

Both are problems IMHO. One hurts certain people, other doesn't
On the other hand, there is economy of scale issue for a very complex systems.
Consider, say, spoons or scissors. Those can be efficiently made by a shop barely larger than mom-and-pop one, and how many spoons and scisors shops are around the world? Hundreds or thousands?
Cars are a bit more complex, and we're down to tens companies which make them. If I remember correctly, 15 large holdings.
Planes.. you can count big players on one hand with fingers to spare, use the other hand for less successful contestants. Use remaining fingers for engine makers.
Space... Sometimes I feel world is too small for even one large scale program.

So there is a real risk for aircraft manufacturing to fall into monopoly, which nobody wants. Now the way to avoid that (from my perspective) is to encourage promising newcomers, not to put failing players on life support. Some things are easier to build anew than fix.

YYZYYT · Thu Nov 04, 2021 5:15 pm

There's no question that Airbus has overtaken Boeing, which once was once far in the lead but faltered for a number of reasons (debated to death in this this forum). So the market responded. Or, as someone once said: Boeing was number one, Airbus was number two. Boeing lost it, turned it it's wings. Now Airbus is number one.

But I do have a sense that the market is very sensitive to the danger posed by over-reliance on a single OEM, so there will be pressure over time to balance it back out. So Boeing can totally make a come back, but if it can't the market will look to someone else - be it Chinese, Russian, or (perhaps least likely) some else based in the west with toes in the aerospace industry. I also think that the answer isn't as simple as "Being sold more WB v. than Airbus last year" or "Airbus' backlog grew by X, Boing by Y since Jan 2021".... These are short term fluctuations; the long term solution will emerge as a trend over time.

spinotter wrote:
Cdydatzigs wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Boeing needs an Elon Musk or Carlos Ghosn type character to take the helm.

A trillionaire frat bro or an internationally wanted fugitive? Yikes...

I doubt if Musk would be at all interested in an old school industry like commercial ainline manufacturing, and question whether any company would hire Ghosn at this point. But Boeing definitely needs some new DNA and some vigorous shaking up.

Its not necessary that new leadership be some brilliant visionary with a crazy idea that overtakes the work... so not a Musk, or even a Steve Jobs. Rather, new leadership must have solid business sense, and a new energy that can shake a once-great company out of its present troubles. Like a Lee Iacocca.

spinotter · Fri Nov 05, 2021 6:34 pm

YYZYYT wrote:
There's no question that Airbus has overtaken Boeing, which once was once far in the lead but faltered for a number of reasons (debated to death in this this forum). So the market responded. Or, as someone once said: Boeing was number one, Airbus was number two. Boeing lost it, turned it it's wings. Now Airbus is number one.

But I do have a sense that the market is very sensitive to the danger posed by over-reliance on a single OEM, so there will be pressure over time to balance it back out. So Boeing can totally make a come back, but if it can't the market will look to someone else - be it Chinese, Russian, or (perhaps least likely) some else based in the west with toes in the aerospace industry. I also think that the answer isn't as simple as "Being sold more WB v. than Airbus last year" or "Airbus' backlog grew by X, Boing by Y since Jan 2021".... These are short term fluctuations; the long term solution will emerge as a trend over time.

spinotter wrote:
Cdydatzigs wrote:
A trillionaire frat bro or an internationally wanted fugitive? Yikes...

I doubt if Musk would be at all interested in an old school industry like commercial ainline manufacturing, and question whether any company would hire Ghosn at this point. But Boeing definitely needs some new DNA and some vigorous shaking up.

Its not necessary that new leadership be some brilliant visionary with a crazy idea that overtakes the work... so not a Musk, or even a Steve Jobs. Rather, new leadership must have solid business sense, and a new energy that can shake a once-great company out of its present troubles. Like a Lee Iacocca.

How about some fundamental probity? That is what Boeing has seemed to lack for a while now.

trex8 · Sat Nov 06, 2021 3:30 pm

kalvado wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Wait, wait, I still remember when Boeing used to be the dominant manufacturer across the world. Especially before A320 enter the market.

The market would correct itself because of the diverse global need. It's not a monopoly.

Question is where the market would settle after correcting itself, and what US would say about it leading export manufacturer sales slipping down with associated loss of unionized jobs... I suspect that would be a nasty fight (and FT just fired the first round)

Im not sure any US administration these days cares if the job is unionized or not, only if its in the US.If Mobile goes to rate 8 on A320/321and increases capacity for A220 and if LM/Airbus win the KCY tanker and Boeing still keeps wanting to outsource jobs overseas.The politicians wont be that worried about "foreign" aircraft as they were a few decades ago. Especially after how KS got screwed by Boeing after their politicians lobbied for the KC46!

Revelation · Sat Nov 06, 2021 5:31 pm

spinotter wrote:
How about some fundamental probity? That is what Boeing has seemed to lack for a while now.

I don't think the toothpaste will be going back into the tube any time soon. Look at how they had a chance to make a change after Muilenberg, and went to Calhoun. Calhoun even told the media that everyone on the board was in agreement with the idea that he was "Plan B" all along.

Rekoff · Sat Nov 06, 2021 10:23 pm

Revelation wrote:
spinotter wrote:
How about some fundamental probity? That is what Boeing has seemed to lack for a while now.

I don't think the toothpaste will be going back into the tube any time soon. Look at how they had a chance to make a change after Muilenberg, and went to Calhoun. Calhoun even told the media that everyone on the board was in agreement with the idea that he was "Plan B" all along.

Toothpaste out of the tube is a very strong metaphor

But I dont think it applies to corporate culture as those are always in motion, it's never too late to change course and we seem to be entering an era that moves away from cowboy capitalism, even in the States. Their reputation is in shatters and they will need to address that at some point.

crimsonchin · Sun Nov 07, 2021 5:50 pm

Like someone said above, the market works in cycles and Boeing will most likely be fine.

It was just around 2005 with the A380 issues that some (mostly) American A.net posters (including a few present in this thread) would tell us of Airbus' impending end due to all the A380 issues and overruns, now look at where they are today.

seahawk wrote:
In the end it is not Airbus reaching 60%, it is Boeing reaching 40%. The imbalance is solely created by errors committed at Boeing. If Boeing continues to fumble the certification process with the regulators and continues to fail to establish a working quality control in their manufacturing, Airbus will reach 100% market share.

A bit disingenuous to say Boeing's mistake is the "sole" cause. Part of what has helped Airbus get to this point is the A321 running away with that segment, which has nothing to do with "mistakes" from Boeing, they just have the inferior product.

Interflug74 · Sun Nov 07, 2021 6:43 pm

Exeiowa wrote:
That is partially due to MAX grounding moving forward cancellations by airlines with reassessments because of COVID and it effect on demand, Airbus has been receiving a number of these this year while last year there was an available "get out of jail free card" for those who had ordered from Boeing. Lack of competition breeds complacency and in that lies the danger.

But bad, money driven responses to normal, ongoing comptetition lead to this situation? And, in this also lies the danger that already happens. There are manufactures no one talks about anymore. In some years we maybee talk about Comac reaches 60% market share, and how bad it is. As longest, as a leading manufactorer cares about safety, i´m fine with that.

seahawk · Mon Nov 08, 2021 6:57 am

crimsonchin wrote:
Like someone said above, the market works in cycles and Boeing will most likely be fine.

It was just around 2005 with the A380 issues that some (mostly) American A.net posters (including a few present in this thread) would tell us of Airbus' impending end due to all the A380 issues and overruns, now look at where they are today.

seahawk wrote:
In the end it is not Airbus reaching 60%, it is Boeing reaching 40%. The imbalance is solely created by errors committed at Boeing. If Boeing continues to fumble the certification process with the regulators and continues to fail to establish a working quality control in their manufacturing, Airbus will reach 100% market share.

A bit disingenuous to say Boeing's mistake is the "sole" cause. Part of what has helped Airbus get to this point is the A321 running away with that segment, which has nothing to do with "mistakes" from Boeing, they just have the inferior product.

And that they have the inferior product is Boeing´s Choice. They could have done a new single aisle design or could have made a bigger up-date of the 737s. They chose not to. And to be honest the success of the A321NEO was predictable for a long time. The sales already increased with the CEO(SL) as 757s/A300s/A310s/762s got older and were retired.

I personally think there was a lot of arrogance going around at Boeing after the A380 disaster. One big mistake was not taking the PW GTF seriously. In the end this was the root cause for the current problems, as the GTF forced CFM to do a fully optimized LEAP for the A320 series.

JonesNL · Mon Nov 08, 2021 8:13 am

The biggest issue with Boeing faltering is they seem to have skipped the root causes analyses and seem to keep on stumbling new QA troubles in every corner of the company.
The choice for Calhoun was, in hindsight, a signal that the needed radical change was not in the cards.

I don't believe they can change their fate without tackling the root cause from the Top-Down...

vfw614 · Mon Nov 08, 2021 10:06 am

How was the market split between OEMs when Airbuswas still in its infancy in the mid/late 1980s when Lockhhed had exited the passenger aircraft market and McDonnell Douglas' position on the market began to decline? Fokker and BAe were around, of course, but in the 120+ seat plus market, there had pretty much always been a duopoly since the late 1970s.

keesje · Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:34 am

All might to brought back to investment / return to shareholder strategies. Is there necessity to invest or a long term opportunity? Boeing seems to be focused on necessity, free cash flow and short term bonuses over long term portfolio strength. Often qualifying investment as a waste of free cash flow, if it can be pushed out based on optimistic market projections, competition underestimations and foreseen customer loyalty. Moving forward, that business philosophy / culture might need a reboot.

DartHerald · Mon Nov 08, 2021 1:04 pm

Moving forward, every business in the world is going to have to re-boot its strategy eventually! Present day models for success are all predicated on growth, but it must be apparent to even the most half-witted that growth cannot continue indefinitely!

SteelChair · Mon Nov 08, 2021 4:16 pm

I have heard the term "post industrial" bandied about with regard to "first world" economies. The talking heads (US eastern media and academic elite, or just the elites) have apparently decided that manufacturing in tbe USA is dying (permanently) . There are many reasons, and there are exceptions. If what they say is true, can Boeing even survive? Boeing has tried to cope to this point by contracting out specific pieces of the manufacturing process (including engineering) to lower cost countries. I can well imagine the elites on the Boeing BOD thinking in the back of their minds, unsaid, that everyone is arguing over a dead carcass. All the movers and shakers know that the action is in crytopcurrencies, renewables, etc.

As for Airbus, European governments are well versed in protecting certain industries, if they choose to do so.

djpearman · Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:54 pm

DartHerald wrote:
Present day models for success are all predicated on growth, but it must be apparent to even the most half-witted that growth cannot continue indefinitely!

I think some sectors of the banking industry would like to have a word with you about spreading such a false sense of realism. What could possibly go wrong by basing your business on an expectation of infinite growth? Why would positive feedback loops ever lead to instabilities?

Duke91 · Wed Nov 10, 2021 12:57 am

DartHerald wrote:
Moving forward, every business in the world is going to have to re-boot its strategy eventually! Present day models for success are all predicated on growth, but it must be apparent to even the most half-witted that growth cannot continue indefinitely!

I like how it is so self evident for non economist that growth will not continue, while the sources of growth since the 80s in developed countries was primarily driven by technological innovation, not by more inputs.

Yes, growth will not stop as long as there is research and innovation.

keesje · Wed Nov 10, 2021 11:57 am

It seems the situation in the current duopoly is starting to worry analysts and buyers.

“In the medium term Boeing still faces all the lasting damage issues of a serious and potentially permanent loss of market share, challenged or uncompetitive main commercial programs, and a heavy burden of debt,” Cunningham wrote.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ures-show/

In an interview with Scott, John Plueger also tables the issue that while all agree Boeing needs to get it's act together first, a moonshot is required too. https://leehamnews.com/2021/11/10/10-mi ... gs-future/

What we see but avoid to face, is that the 60% marketshare situation is already a passed station (deliveries, backlog, outlook), an unhealthy industry situation. Selecting / cutting out specific time frames / parameters to show otherwise is getting increasingly complicated.

frmrCapCadet · Wed Nov 10, 2021 2:31 pm

I concur that Boeing is in deeper sh** than most people realize. They are one step away from being desperate. The big 'ifs'. Get the MAX debacle behind them. Figure out how to make 787s. rescue the 767 tanker problems. No more delays on the 777X. Learn to compete with SpaceX.

Chemist · Thu Nov 11, 2021 7:29 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
I concur that Boeing is in deeper sh** than most people realize. They are one step away from being desperate. The big 'ifs'. Get the MAX debacle behind them. Figure out how to make 787s. rescue the 767 tanker problems. No more delays on the 777X. Learn to compete with SpaceX.

Agreed. But honestly I don't see any evidence that the current management is capable of competently executing the necessary steps going forward.

VictorKilo · Thu Nov 11, 2021 8:23 pm

keesje wrote:
What we see but avoid to face, is that the 60% marketshare situation is already a passed station (deliveries, backlog, outlook), an unhealthy industry situation. Selecting / cutting out specific time frames / parameters to show otherwise is getting increasingly complicated.

But fundamentally we can't change others, we can only change ourselves. Customers and industry analysts may view the industry situation as unhealthy, but they can't make Boeing make different choices. The consequences of Boeing's choices resulted in Boeing only delivering 27 frames in October. And Boeing's not changing - being publicly called out today by the FAA (see other thread for details).

So, yeah, it's bad for the industry, but unfortunately there's little we can do when there's a lot that only Boeing can do.

Opus99 · Thu Nov 11, 2021 8:59 pm

crimsonchin wrote:
Like someone said above, the market works in cycles and Boeing will most likely be fine.

It was just around 2005 with the A380 issues that some (mostly) American A.net posters (including a few present in this thread) would tell us of Airbus' impending end due to all the A380 issues and overruns, now look at where they are today.

seahawk wrote:
In the end it is not Airbus reaching 60%, it is Boeing reaching 40%. The imbalance is solely created by errors committed at Boeing. If Boeing continues to fumble the certification process with the regulators and continues to fail to establish a working quality control in their manufacturing, Airbus will reach 100% market share.

A bit disingenuous to say Boeing's mistake is the "sole" cause. Part of what has helped Airbus get to this point is the A321 running away with that segment, which has nothing to do with "mistakes" from Boeing, they just have the inferior product.

It’s not that inferior. In 2018 based on orders it was 5200 orders to 6500 orders. The MAX was hot, it was the fastest selling jet in the HISTORY of Boeing. And the max 10 coming into service on time etc. Boeing come even closer to closing that gap. It was not astronomical in terms of orders. Especially for narrow bodies.

Airbus has not done anything particularly ground breaking and we all know that.

Boeing has just been greedy and daft and they’re the only ones to blame for their downfall and that is just that

jetfan · Thu Nov 11, 2021 9:25 pm

LDRA wrote:
Yes there's not enough competition in the market. I think Airbus should be split up into two competing entities. Narrow body group one company and wide body group another. They should be free tp develop models to compete with each other

Competition will arise from China, they will catch up in the coming years.

LaunchDetected · Fri Nov 12, 2021 2:49 pm

This situation is indeed inacceptable, Airbus should kill 346 persons in an industrial disaster and light some fires in A350 battery compartments to balance the market. It is UNFAIR.

Here a graph that shows how the market acted since 1955:

Chemist · Sun Nov 14, 2021 6:27 am

And those market share numbers are even with Airbus' poor A340 sales, abortive redesigns of the A350, and of course the failed A380.
Airbus was by no means highly successful with everything they did. It just shows how much worse Boeing has been.

Aseem747 · Sun Nov 14, 2021 6:43 am

Chemist wrote:
And those market share numbers are even with Airbus' poor A340 sales, abortive redesigns of the A350, and of course the failed A380.
Airbus was by no means highly successful with everything they did. It just shows how much worse Boeing has been.

All of the points you mentioned have been about the wide body market tho where Boeing has always been leading.Narrow body wise Airbus has been fantastic for a while which is how they had been getting such good numbers, even after Boeing released the most successful wide body variant ever i.e 77W which no Airbus at that time could even come close to.

Duke91 · Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:27 am

Aseem747 wrote:
Chemist wrote:
And those market share numbers are even with Airbus' poor A340 sales, abortive redesigns of the A350, and of course the failed A380.
Airbus was by no means highly successful with everything they did. It just shows how much worse Boeing has been.

All of the points you mentioned have been about the wide body market tho where Boeing has always been leading.Narrow body wise Airbus has been fantastic for a while which is how they had been getting such good numbers, even after Boeing released the most successful wide body variant ever i.e 77W which no Airbus at that time could even come close to.

I mean how succesful are Boeings widebody if the largest isnt even released and will never break even while the smaller one is also unlikely to given its exploding development cost and quality issues? Do these issues already outweigh one A380 program?

Aseem747 · Sun Nov 14, 2021 8:49 am

Duke91 wrote:
Aseem747 wrote:
Chemist wrote:
And those market share numbers are even with Airbus' poor A340 sales, abortive redesigns of the A350, and of course the failed A380.
Airbus was by no means highly successful with everything they did. It just shows how much worse Boeing has been.

All of the points you mentioned have been about the wide body market tho where Boeing has always been leading.Narrow body wise Airbus has been fantastic for a while which is how they had been getting such good numbers, even after Boeing released the most successful wide body variant ever i.e 77W which no Airbus at that time could even come close to.

I mean how succesful are Boeings widebody if the largest isnt even released and will never break even while the smaller one is also unlikely to given its exploding development cost and quality issues? Do these issues already outweigh one A380 program?

Your comment kinda makes no sense imo. Firstly, the 777X isn't even the largest wide body of Boeing in production. Secondly, how can someone even claim X plane is successful or failure without it hasn't even done a revenue flight yet. The 777-300ER is and has been for years the most common wide body airplane variant in the air, even in the pandemic by a pretty decent gap compared to others meaning there's a big market for such "jumbo" planes hence I really struggle to determine either the 777X or 350-1000 as unsuccessful airplanes so early due the 77W being still so young. And thirdly, how is the 787 not a very great success in terms of market share i.e the topic of this forum when the -9 is already the most common wide body in the air behind the 777-300ER.

keesje · Sun Nov 14, 2021 11:29 am

The A350 is replacing 777s in many fleets. E.g SQ, BA, AF, DL, QR, JAL, CX, Chinese carriers but also won with other Boeing operating legacy's like Lufthansa, Virgin and Qantas.

Looking back at 77W and A380 might feel good, but doesn't help Boeing today when, Korean, United, SQ, Emirates, American start looking for 777 replacements. They would love to buy Boeings again, prefer dual source, but effiency, quality & costs matter.

djpearman · Sun Nov 14, 2021 11:30 am

Aseem747 wrote:
And thirdly, how is the 787 not a very great success in terms of market share i.e the topic of this forum when the -9 is already the most common wide body in the air behind the 777-300ER.

I think you'll find that the second most common widebody model is the A330-300, ahead of the 787-9. And as far as I'm aware, Airbus has no outstanding debt on that program. IMHO, market share is not the only parameter to consider when assessing the success of an aircraft, since that can always be gained by selling at reduced prices. The outstanding debt on the 787 program indicates that Boeing might have just been doing that.

zkojq · Sun Nov 14, 2021 11:40 am

Aseem747 wrote:
Secondly, how can someone even claim X plane is successful or failure without it hasn't even done a revenue flight yet.

So you're telling me that there's still hope for the Dornier 728, Boeing 2707, Grob SPn and the Aerion SBJ? :bouncy:

reidar76 · Sun Nov 14, 2021 1:09 pm

djpearman wrote:
Aseem747 wrote:
And thirdly, how is the 787 not a very great success in terms of market share i.e the topic of this forum when the -9 is already the most common wide body in the air behind the 777-300ER.

I think you'll find that the second most common widebody model is the A330-300, ahead of the 787-9. And as far as I'm aware, Airbus has no outstanding debt on that program. IMHO, market share is not the only parameter to consider when assessing the success of an aircraft, since that can always be gained by selling at reduced prices. The outstanding debt on the 787 program indicates that Boeing might have just been doing that.

And the third is A330-200.

Aseem747 · Sun Nov 14, 2021 1:34 pm

djpearman wrote:
Aseem747 wrote:
And thirdly, how is the 787 not a very great success in terms of market share i.e the topic of this forum when the -9 is already the most common wide body in the air behind the 777-300ER.

I think you'll find that the second most common widebody model is the A330-300, ahead of the 787-9. And as far as I'm aware, Airbus has no outstanding debt on that program. IMHO, market share is not the only parameter to consider when assessing the success of an aircraft, since that can always be gained by selling at reduced prices. The outstanding debt on the 787 program indicates that Boeing might have just been doing that.

Nah 787-9 seems to be always beating the A333 in terms of the number *in the air*. Now i don't know if this is the best way to determine that or not but I've been checking this website quite frequently over the past few months and it is always 789 above 333.
https://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/

Aseem747 · Sun Nov 14, 2021 1:35 pm

reidar76 wrote:
djpearman wrote:
Aseem747 wrote:
And thirdly, how is the 787 not a very great success in terms of market share i.e the topic of this forum when the -9 is already the most common wide body in the air behind the 777-300ER.

I think you'll find that the second most common widebody model is the A330-300, ahead of the 787-9. And as far as I'm aware, Airbus has no outstanding debt on that program. IMHO, market share is not the only parameter to consider when assessing the success of an aircraft, since that can always be gained by selling at reduced prices. The outstanding debt on the 787 program indicates that Boeing might have just been doing that.

And the third is A330-200.

Aseem747 · Sun Nov 14, 2021 1:36 pm

reidar76 wrote:
djpearman wrote:
Aseem747 wrote:
And thirdly, how is the 787 not a very great success in terms of market share i.e the topic of this forum when the -9 is already the most common wide body in the air behind the 777-300ER.

I think you'll find that the second most common widebody model is the A330-300, ahead of the 787-9. And as far as I'm aware, Airbus has no outstanding debt on that program. IMHO, market share is not the only parameter to consider when assessing the success of an aircraft, since that can always be gained by selling at reduced prices. The outstanding debt on the 787 program indicates that Boeing might have just been doing that.

And the third is A330-200.

Seems like 332 is number 9 as of now according to flight aware. Keep in mind here I was talking about how many of them are in the air, not how many have been produced or things like.

keesje · Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:23 am

Leeham mentions there are some significant orders pending for Airbus before year end. Combined with deliveries, debt, backlog figures and portfolio issues, one can be excused for having the impression Boeing is being overrun a bit. Not a good thing for the airlines/ industry.

TaromA380 · Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:39 am

Risks of Airbus passing 60% market share.

I'm worried too. In the circumstances we know Boeing is, only 60% market share?? What’s wrong with Airbus?
I really hope Airbus will survive!

EdmFlyBoi · Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:53 pm

jetfan wrote:
LDRA wrote:
Yes there's not enough competition in the market. I think Airbus should be split up into two competing entities. Narrow body group one company and wide body group another. They should be free tp develop models to compete with each other

Competition will arise from China, they will catch up in the coming years.

This statement is based on? If you are talking about Chinese airlines purchasing domestic aircraft, then yes there will be competition in that segment of the market. As it relates to “western” nations purchasing Chinese products, have a look at sectors like telecom where Chinese companies continue to be excluded for security reasons. There’s almost zero chance that the world’s major carriers from North America and Europe will by anything other than product from the two major OEM’s.

TokyoImperialPa · Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:31 pm

I wonder how much the reliance of Boeing on the US Government for sympathetic defense contracts creates a disincentive to run the company as a private business? Airbus on the other hand is forced to sell its product to several countries and it can only lean so much into the sympathetic arms of a single country. You can imagine that Texas and California would have widely different requirements for military aircraft.

I would not be so outspoken on the ability of Chinese aircraft makers to gain global acceptance. I can see a number of countries in East Asia and South East Asia willing to purchase Chinese aircraft, and can you really state that Chinese aircraft are less safe than the Boeing 737 MAX? On top of all of this, a merger between the likes of Embraer and another company (whether from a military background or an Asian country) could theoretically produce a western rival to Airbus. The rise of the third world (China and India) will undoubtedly produce some competitors to the airline industry.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net