Quoting md11sdf (Reply 9): They were forced to buy A380's by their Parent Company: The French Government!!

Care to back that up with some facts?

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 28): The French government only owns about 15% of AF

That is interesting as I didn't know the French government had such a big stake in AF although it seems according to a 30/9/2015 press release, the number is actually 17.6%.

I am not sure how/if the government uses this leverage but if they wanted, they could certainly throw their weight around. I have zero knowledge of French corporate governance but it seems like when you are by far the largest shareholder in a company you almost always are going to be an important voice in the direction of the company.

That said, we are all looking at the A380 in hindsight. When it came out people thought it was going to be the next step in moving air travel forward like the 747 before it. AF wasn't the only one to get that one wrong and , as is stated above, AF has a lot of problems and their small A380 subfleet is very far down the list of things that need to be corrected.



http://www.airfranceklm.com/en/finan...tion/capital-structure?language=en

http://www.4-traders.com/AIR-FRANCE-KLM-4604/company/

Quoting hb88 (Reply 50): sdf (Reply 9): They were forced to buy A380's by their Parent Company: The French Government!! Care to back that up with some facts?

The evidence is that Air France in the recent era has always had more Airbus then Boeing. AF has flown the A300, A310, A320, A330, A340,and A380 plus A350 is coming. In the last 25 years the only Boeings of any quantitiy have been the 744 and the 777. Long gone are the days when AF flew a large 727 fleet. AF never flew 757 and only a small 767 fleet.

The "force" the compelled AF to buy the A380 is French Politics.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 52): The evidence is that Air France in the recent era has always had more Airbus then Boeing. AF has flown the A300, A310, A320, A330, A340,and A380 plus A350 is coming. In the last 25 years the only Boeings of any quantitiy have been the 744 and the 777. Long gone are the days when AF flew a large 727 fleet. AF never flew 757 and only a small 767 fleet. The "force" the compelled AF to buy the A380 is French Politics.

Another a-net truth, Airbus only sells to airlines because of political influence, not because they provide competitive products compared with Boeing for airlines.

Seems that Air France could have had an all Boeing, 77W, 748 and 787 fleet and they still would have been in a difficult situation as these frames would have done nothing against the competition of LCCs and other factors currently influencing AF and their financial position.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 52): The evidence is that Air France in the recent era has always had more Airbus then Boeing. AF has flown the A300, A310, A320, A330, A340,and A380 plus A350 is coming. In the last 25 years the only Boeings of any quantitiy have been the 744 and the 777. Long gone are the days when AF flew a large 727 fleet. AF never flew 757 and only a small 767 fleet. The "force" the compelled AF to buy the A380 is French Politics.

I live in France, work for a large French company and have a fair knowledge of French company governance and culture. In my view, this often-repeated a.net 'evident truth' that AF are forced to buy Airbus products is nonsense.

Just my view of course.

Quoting blacksoviet (Thread starter): Would they be losing less money today?

I posit they would have lost even more money with the 747-8 than the A380-800. AF has one of the densest configurations for the type and a 747-8 would have held around 100 less people. So on a revenue-cost basis, the A380 would have performed better, financially.

Quoting deltal1011man (Reply 5): 777-300ERs? that would have probably been the right choice but that isn't the politically correct thing to do..........

They were the LAUNCH CUSTOMER for the bloody model! What more evidence do you need they'd have bought more if they though it was the right plane for the mission?

Quoting hb88 (Reply 54): I live in France, work for a large French company and have a fair knowledge of French company governance and culture. In my view, this often-repeated a.net 'evident truth' that AF are forced to buy Airbus products is nonsense

The best evidence that you are correct is AB's success selling planes not just outside the EU but to US airlines (AA is the largest A32x series operator). This shows that their planes are great products that sell without any political assistance.

That said, the appearance of a conflict of interest here is unavoidable. The French government is the largest shareholder in AF and one of the largest shareholders in AB. In this type of situation, even if there is no actual coercion, its unlikely any similarly situated company would be able to avoid some accusations of impropriety.

Quoting blacksoviet (Thread starter): Would they be losing less money today?

Thinking AF is losing money because of the A380 is ridiculous. Actually it is a very important cash machine for the group on the cash cow routes.

People should stop bashing AF because they are doing an incredible job in a tough environment and I'm not just talking about the unions :
- many wealthy people are leaving France,
- due to the geographical location of France people are more willing to travel by train or car in Europe,
- AF did not give up Asia like British Airways and are taking the fight with Emirates,
- they do not have the support of Paris airports as much as Lufthansa can enjoy in FRA or MUC,
- France is a huge destination with Paris having the most foreign airlines flying to
- Yields are much lower compared to the North/East of Europe

...and yet they are now making profits.

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 48): I understand what you are saying and it is just a caricature, is based on information you don't have (inside knowledge of boardroom discussions) and is at odds with the facts: AF long haul fleet is overwhelmingly B77W.

Correct.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 55): That said, the appearance of a conflict of interest here is unavoidable. The French government is the largest shareholder in AF and one of the largest shareholders in AB. In this type of situation, even if there is no actual coercion, its unlikely any similarly situated company would be able to avoid some accusations of impropriety.

And appearance it solely is: the French government shareholding in Air France is currently 17.6% and in Airbus it is currently 10.9%

I'm not sure the French state is the largest shareholder in either entity. Airbus has a free-float of about 75% which makes it most likely answerable to the largest UK and US pension funds - not the governments of the UK or France.

The oft-repeated argument on a.net of European govt interference in aircraft purchasing decisions simply isn't suported by the facts.

Quoting yoni (Reply 46): The French economy is far from "being in the toilet" or being close to it. You are reading too much crap from the BBC or other French-bashing newspaper. I do recognize also that the worst enemy of France are the French themselves who are constantly belittling their own country.

It isn't in the best place right now, and I know there is a lot of French bashing going on, growing up on Saint Martin I have been open to it. It is like the constant bashing AF get on here, while airlines like EK, SQ & Delta never could do anything wrong.

Quoting ro1960 (Reply 47): Is the A321 leaving the fleet?

They're not I just forgot to add it to the list.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 52): The "force" the compelled AF to buy the A380 is French Politics.

Prove it please with a detailed knowledge of the leverage used. If not, this just stereotypical French-bashing, an a.net specialty.

[Edited 2016-05-09 12:41:20]

Quoting Aither (Reply 57): - many wealthy people are leaving France,

Over-exagerated claim. Many wealthy people spend 182 days in France, the rest abroad. If it's Belgium, they are likely to fly out of Paris, simply because Paris provides more direct flights. Same for switzerland.

Quoting Aither (Reply 57): - due to the geographical location of France people are more willing to travel by train or car in Europe,

Not more thant Britain or Germany. Look at the air shuttle to Bordeaux, Toulouse, Nice and Lyon from Paris. It's comparable to the BA shuttle from Glasgow, Edinburgh and Manchester.

Quoting Aither (Reply 57): - AF did not give up Asia like British Airways and are taking the fight with Emirates,

BA made some choices, but is certainly not as lightweight as you emply.

Quoting Aither (Reply 57): - they do not have the support of Paris airports as much as Lufthansa can enjoy in FRA or MUC,

Look at CDG terminal 2. Purpose built for Air France. Compare it to Frankfurt for LH and Heathrow for BA, and I strongly believe AF has it better in terms of terminal, airport congestion etc.

Quoting Aither (Reply 57): - France is a huge destination with Paris having the most foreign airlines flying to

Untrue. London has way more.

Quoting Aither (Reply 57): - Yields are much lower compared to the North/East of Europe

Think yields are trashier in Amsterdam, Brussels & Copenhagen because these airports don't have such a strong home market.

Quoting kl838 (Reply 38): AF have a very high cost in labour with either unnecessary staff or paying more for labour that work less than their competitors. The medium and short haul divisions have been hemorrhaging as well and Transavia France is not big enough to take on Ryanair and easyjet, and the pilots are blocking it's expansion .

The reason for AF weakness is its labour rules as said by kl838. The market is very fine and well balanced.

Check this article out: https://next.ft.com/content/3e42fc0e-6dd9-11e5-8171-ba1968cf791a

AF Unit costs are 50% higher than IAG's.

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 60):

Let's not start an argument over this case, but just to let you know. I have extensive knowledge after my education and years of the aviation industry over these decisions and neither myself or anybody else is looking at any "French Bashing" here.

If you look at facts BA, AF, LH, AZ and IB have all chosen Airbus for short-haul operations. British politicians have also stated that it is important to secure British jobs and urging airlines in the past to purchase from British manufacturers BaE (now part of Airbus) and Rolls-Royce.

BA uses IAE engines (made partly by RR) for their A320's and AF use the CFM made partly by Snecma, A French company for their engine choice.

As stated, yes, the vast majority of AF's long-haul fleet are B777W's. That can be a factor of many explanations:

Today, with an Etops of 330 minutes, they can fly where previously you needed 3 or 4 engines before. As 2 engines are more economical and with the previously mentioned superb performance of the B777 it is a logical choice.

It is not intended as any "French Bashing". Whether we like it or not, politics are involved, to a certain degree in airline and even government aircraft choice. If not, why are also some military operators in Europe choosing the "disaster" that is the A400 military transport instead of the Lockheed Hercules?

To Finish, in regards to AF and their A380 choice, I think a lot of airlines were "premature" in their decisions to aquire this aircraft as only a few routes are suitable for this aircraft from a European view in light of the twin-engine successes that have come in the recent years, such as both B777, A350 and A330 in addition to competition from the ME3 carriers.

Look at Virgin Atlantic, they were one of the first customers for the type and have yet to receive any A7C and they also have stated that they do not know where to eventually place them.

Quoting OSL777FLYER (Reply 62): Quoting ozglobal (Reply 60): Let's not start an argument over this case, but just to let you know. I have extensive knowledge after my education and years of the aviation industry over these decisions and neither myself or anybody else is looking at any "French Bashing" here. If you look at facts BA, AF, LH, AZ and IB have all chosen Airbus for short-haul operations. British politicians have also stated that it is important to secure British jobs and urging airlines in the past to purchase from British manufacturers BaE (now part of Airbus) and Rolls-Royce. BA uses IAE engines (made partly by RR) for their A320's and AF use the CFM made partly by Snecma, A French company for their engine choice. As stated, yes, the vast majority of AF's long-haul fleet are B777W's. That can be a factor of many explanations: Today, with an Etops of 330 minutes, they can fly where previously you needed 3 or 4 engines before. As 2 engines are more economical and with the previously mentioned superb performance of the B777 it is a logical choice. It is not intended as any "French Bashing". Whether we like it or not, politics are involved, to a certain degree in airline and even government aircraft choice. If not, why are also some military operators in Europe choosing the "disaster" that is the A400 military transport instead of the Lockheed Hercules? To Finish, in regards to AF and their A380 choice, I think a lot of airlines were "premature" in their decisions to aquire this aircraft as only a few routes are suitable for this aircraft from a European view in light of the twin-engine successes that have come in the recent years, such as both B777, A350 and A330 in addition to competition from the ME3 carriers. Look at Virgin Atlantic, they were one of the first customers for the type and have yet to receive any A7C and they also have stated that they do not know where to eventually place them.

"If you look at facts BA, AF, LH, AZ and IB have all chosen Airbus for short-haul operations. " Have you looked at AA and Delta lately?? AA is the biggest A32x operator, if you 'look at the facts.' French government really pulled one out of the bag achieving that one !!  

Again, your narrative is that if AF agrees with you on a type, it's because it's so brilliant. If they agree with AA and Delta on choosing Airbus types, it's because of French government interference. This is your argument and I think it is blatantly biased.

...and do you really want to go there with military aircraft acquisition when the US government is the world champion of protectionism: just look at the 10 year tanker replacement RFP riddled with interference (even after the military chose the A330 themselves)....forced the inferior 767 outcome.

As others have indicated the problem is not with fleet. A380s are a difficult fit for AF but with such a small fleet the airline can make them work adequately.

Quoting kc135topboom (Reply 27): Both LH and KE are very satisfied with the B-748s.

So satisfied that LH didn't exercise its purchase rights for more 748s (electing to place a new order for 779s instead) and KE, according to rumor, had Boeing try unsuccessfully to place its last few 748s with another operator. If AF could have benefited from ordering smaller planes instead of A380s, then those smaller planes should have been more 77W.

I do expect AF/KL to be a very major 779 customer, possibly with an order for 50 or more, at some point.

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 63):

I did not mention French Government interference with regards to AA and DL. AA and DL purchase from both Airbus and Boeing due to the fact that one company is unable to fulfill their large orders alone. Although, Airbus has an assembly plant in the U.S. for A320's, something they also offered for the A330. In the case of DL, they inherited large Airbus numbers from when they acquired Northwest Airlines.

Without going into what is good and what is bad, protectionism exists, it has existed and will continue to exist in the future.

Quoting OSL777FLYER (Reply 65): Quoting ozglobal (Reply 63): I did not mention French Government interference with regards to AA and DL.

That was a joke. At least I thought so...  

Quoting OSL777FLYER (Reply 65): Without going into what is good and what is bad, protectionism exists, it has existed and will continue to exist in the future.

Agreed that it does exist, but you never seem to get the same threads when an airline orders from Boeing. If they do it is because the frames are capable and the best for the intended purpose. If AF orders Airbus it is because they have to, not because there is nothing between the OEMs products (as it is for every other airline where the choice comes down to fleet commonality and/or price etc.), but because there was political interference. Go figure.

Quoting OSL777FLYER (Reply 65): AA and DL purchase from both Airbus and Boeing due to the fact that one company is unable to fulfill their large orders alone.

I bet this works both ways. Like any time an American airline like AA or DL buys Boeing it is because Airbus alone cannot fulfill all their delivery schedule needs, and not because they actually buy it on its own merits.  

[Edited 2016-05-09 20:05:16]

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 67):

As OSL777FLYER said, it's not that there necessarily is political interference in AF's decision. But there can be an appearance of it when an influential shareholder of an airline is also an influential shareholder of a manufacturer from which the airline is buying. It's certainly not anti-French. It's a consequence of the way a corporation is arranged.

This is of course a very complicated and contentious issue, and has a way of becoming uncomfortable very quickly. Political interference in the case of Boeing tends to concern (1) military contracts and (2) establishing a favourable environment through Washington state tax incentives. There are some other ways in which Boeing benefits from the development of technologies through its close relationship with NASA and the DoD. All of those count as interference, but they also occur below eye-level. Speaking only of Boeing Commercial Airplanes for a moment, any interference is indirect.

Some EU member state governments have had far more direct involvement in the operation of Airbus, most notably in recent years through launch aid (somewhat euphemistically called "reimbursable launch investment"). Since 1992, the A330, A380, and A350 have received some type of launch aid. That aid is exceedingly helpful, and it is doubtful whether some of these wonderful aircraft would exist without it. The extent to which the aid is legal is a matter for the WTO, which sometimes side with Boeing and sometimes with Airbus. There are legitimate arguments in either direction. Boeing is the beneficiary of launch aid in more discrete ways. E.g., if I'm not mistaken, the Dept of Commerce had invested in the development of CFRP technologies that made their way into the 787.

The historical entanglement between Airbus and national governments (themselves often stakeholders in national airlines) make it easier to claim political influence, even where there is none.

As to the issue of AF selecting the A380, I haven't a clue if it would've been a sensible decision for them. Without any evidence at all, I have a feeling that there might have been some pressure to buy that aircraft even when the 468 capacity 77W may have already comfortably filled that role.

Quoting caoimhin (Reply 69): As OSL777FLYER said, it's not that there necessarily is political interference in AF's decision. But there can be an appearance of it when an influential shareholder of an airline is also an influential shareholder of a manufacturer from which the airline is buying. It's certainly not anti-French. It's a consequence of the way a corporation is arranged.

Sure, and I agreed with the premise. I just noted that Air France is a user of Boeing Aircraft (not just a few examples obtained through mergers either) so the posts about political influence really seems strange when you look at the fleet of Air France.

Quoting caoimhin (Reply 69): Some EU member state governments have had far more direct involvement in the operation of Airbus, most notably in recent years through launch aid (somewhat euphemistically called "reimbursable launch investment"). Since 1992, the A330, A380, and A350 have received some type of launch aid. That aid is exceedingly helpful, and it is doubtful whether some of these wonderful aircraft would exist without it. The extent to which the aid is legal is a matter for the WTO, which sometimes side with Boeing and sometimes with Airbus. There are legitimate arguments in either direction. Boeing is the beneficiary of launch aid in more discrete ways. E.g., if I'm not mistaken, the Dept of Commerce had invested in the development of CFRP technologies that made their way into the 787.

I think the WTO has ruled on that already. I believe they have said that RLI is legal as it is actually repaid, and in some cases pay back more than Airbus would to a bank if they got the loan from there instead. I bet Airbus is regretting the RLI on the A320 and A330 as they are paying back money even now. I would think that it is in Boeing's interest that Airbus is giving money away from its profits for loans that are more than 20 years old....

Quoting caoimhin (Reply 69): The historical entanglement between Airbus and national governments (themselves often stakeholders in national airlines) make it easier to claim political influence, even where there is none. As to the issue of AF selecting the A380, I haven't a clue if it would've been a sensible decision for them. Without any evidence at all, I have a feeling that there might have been some pressure to buy that aircraft even when the 468 capacity 77W may have already comfortably filled that role.

It makes it easier, it doesn't make it true. The history of slavery in the US and UK makes it easy to call anyone from those countries (and others that has a history of slavery) as racist, we don't do that unless there is facts supporting it from a poster. So why is it so easy to do that in these cases (accusations without any facts)? What I am hoping for is before someone shouts political influence they look at the fleet of the airline and if they operate a majority of Boeing widebody fleet then they keep it to themselves about political influence, unless they actually mean US political influence.

Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 61): Look at the air shuttle to Bordeaux, Toulouse, Nice and Lyon from Paris. It's comparable to the BA shuttle from Glasgow, Edinburgh and Manchester.

There is no shuttle (Navette) service to Lyon. Since the opening of the high speed train in the 80s (2 hours travel time), just a few flights a day connect LYS to ORY and CDG. The shuttle service to Bordeaux is likely to face the same fate as the new portion of the high speed track opens in 2017 reducing travel time from 3 to 2 hours.

This thread is one of the worst 747-8/77X circle-jerks ever created.

Every decent published analysis (even Boeing's) holds that the 747-8 has worse unit costs than the 77W. The 748i was simply a bad idea. Waste of Boeing's money. The putative saving grace appears to have been expectation of much bigger freighter sales, but high fuel prices should have telegraphed the relative decline of the air freight business.

It's an interesting question whether more 77W's would have put AF in a better spot today versus the A380. DL apparently specifically protected itself from the A380's yield dilution effects under its JV with AF/KLM. So there's likely some significant drawbacks from the A380 for AF. But the 748i - nah. 70's efficiency without '00's flexibility.

Quoting ro1960 (Reply 71): There is no shuttle (Navette) service to Lyon. Since the opening of the high speed train in the 80s (2 hours travel time), just a few flights a day connect LYS to ORY and CDG. The shuttle service to Bordeaux is likely to face the same fate as the new portion of the high speed track opens in 2017 reducing travel time from 3 to 2 hours.

I took a broad definition of Shuttle. 9 flights a day is sizeable. My point is that domestically AF holds its grounds.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 70): I just noted that Air France is a user of Boeing Aircraft (not just a few examples obtained through mergers either) so the posts about political influence really seems strange when you look at the fleet of Air France.

That's fair enough. But I think the rebuttal was that the 77W, at the time it was incorporated into the AF fleet, was not well matched by any other aircraft on the market. In other words, if the A35K existed at the time, perhaps it would have been favoured over the 77W. There is no evidence for that conclusion. Still, the mere fact that AF have Boeing aircraft in its fleet doesn't by itself settle the argument of whether the A380 was encouraged by state stakeholders. For that, I think you can argue that the A380 appeared at the time to fit within AF's business model. They made a purchase in good faith because they believed the aircraft was an appropriate fit. In hindsight, it didn't work out as intended. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 70): I think the WTO has ruled on that already.

Yes, you are correct. But the ruling was sort of strange and didn't really satisfy Boeing or Airbus. So it continues to evolve, and portions of it are still being litigated. The WTO found something on the order of $18 billion in subsidies to Airbus, and around $5-8 billion in aggregate subsidies to Boeing. Both were considered to have unfairly prejudiced the other company, but you are right that because Airbus makes payments on the aid, it was deemed acceptable. At the same time, they concluded that the aid was made on better terms than would have been available though commercial lending or capital markets, and to the extent that it might not need to be repaid at all, was risk-free for Airbus.

It's a strange ruling, and the followup statements by each corporation demonstrate the bitterness of these two companies toward one another. In fact, it's not a whole lot different than looking at rival political candidates trade punches. If it has the net effect of making each corporation more disciplined, and I suspect it has, then we all win in the end.

Quoting caoimhin (Reply 75): But I think the rebuttal was that the 77W, at the time it was incorporated into the AF fleet, was not well matched by any other aircraft on the market.

There was another competing aircraft at that time. It was the A340-600, something a handful of other airlines ordered instead of going the 77W route, at least initially by some of them.

Quoting Erebus (Reply 76):

The 77W has a fuel efficiency advantage over the A346. I don't recall the exact difference, but I believe I've read as high as 25% per passenger.

Quoting caoimhin (Reply 77): The 77W has a fuel efficiency advantage over the A346. I don't recall the exact difference, but I believe I've read as high as 25% per passenger.

Is this something only AF found it obvious at the time they became launch customer for the type? LH, VS, QR, and others missed this fact when they decided to place their orders for the A340-600?

Quoting caoimhin (Reply 77): The 77W has a fuel efficiency advantage over the A346. I don't recall the exact difference, but I believe I've read as high as 25% per passenger.

It is around 12% in trip fuel (per Airbus statements) on a typical mission (13-14 hours).

Quoting caoimhin (Reply 75): In other words, if the A35K existed at the time, perhaps it would have been favoured over the 77W. There is no evidence for that conclusion. Still, the mere fact that AF have Boeing aircraft in its fleet doesn't by itself settle the argument of whether the A380 was encouraged by state stakeholders. For that, I think you can argue that the A380 appeared at the time to fit within AF's business model. They made a purchase in good faith because they believed the aircraft was an appropriate fit. In hindsight, it didn't work out as intended. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sure, if the A35K existed as it is now I see at least a 50:50 split, if not more for the A35K as it is more efficient and lighter than the 77W. At the same time if you have to choose between the 737MAX and the A320ceo the market will be heavily towards the 737MAX. The A350 wasn't available, but the A340-600 was available and the fact that AF didn't buy it shows there is no real argument about favouring Airbus. But I think we are in agreement about this point.  

Quoting caoimhin (Reply 75): Yes, you are correct. But the ruling was sort of strange and didn't really satisfy Boeing or Airbus. So it continues to evolve, and portions of it are still being litigated. The WTO found something on the order of $18 billion in subsidies to Airbus, and around $5-8 billion in aggregate subsidies to Boeing. Both were considered to have unfairly prejudiced the other company, but you are right that because Airbus makes payments on the aid, it was deemed acceptable. At the same time, they concluded that the aid was made on better terms than would have been available though commercial lending or capital markets, and to the extent that it might not need to be repaid at all, was risk-free for Airbus. It's a strange ruling, and the followup statements by each corporation demonstrate the bitterness of these two companies toward one another. In fact, it's not a whole lot different than looking at rival political candidates trade punches. If it has the net effect of making each corporation more disciplined, and I suspect it has, then we all win in the end.

If you read the releases of either company they will off course claim victory. The fact that neither "won" outright shows that both companies had and may still be receiving benefits that is not available to the other, and that is unfairly benefiting one over the other. The argument from Boeing that Airbus is welcome to receive the same tax breaks that they receive in Washington is the same argument from EK that the US3 is welcome to startup in the UAE and receive the same low labour costs and low taxes. We both know that either is unlikely to ever happen so while it is true, it is really a fallacy that this can happen. At the same time Boeing couldn't receive the same RLI from the EU governments. If however these loans are at the same rates as commercial banks then there is no benefit, only that they are easier to obtain. Sort of like going to your parents for a loan that you repay at the same interest rates as you would a bank, you just don't need to go through all the documents from the bank.

What we do know is that the WTO has ruled that $5.6B that Boeing has received in tax breaks are illegal and if this is confirmed through all the appeals then what will it make the even bigger amount for the 777X? This is all beside the point about Air France though... 

Quoting OSL777FLYER (Reply 62): If you look at facts BA, AF, LH, AZ and IB have all chosen Airbus for short-haul operations. British politicians have also stated that it is important to secure British jobs and urging airlines in the past to purchase from British manufacturers BaE (now part of Airbus) and Rolls-Royce.

???

BA chose the A320 series because it was MUCH better than the rival 737 Classic, a similar decision that UA took. As a result Boeing then developed the much improved 737NG

BA has been privately owned for 30 years, the UK is the country of Thatcherism, we have foreign owned airports, water operators, power stations etc, BA's choices are nothing to do with the government

why has this thread lasted so long ? Maybe its should be why LH got 748 ?

Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 74): I took a broad definition of Shuttle. 9 flights a day is sizeable

OK for the broad definition. After all MPL is getting 9 flights a day starting November  

The number of daily flights under the brand "Navette" are as follow :

Paris-Toulouse : 25
Paris-Nice : 18
Paris-Bordeaux : 14
Paris-Marseille : 14
Paris-Montpellier : 9

Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 74): My point is that domestically AF holds its grounds.

But EY is slowing gaining market shares. At NCE it's the #1 carrier (domestic and international).

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 81): BA chose the A320 series because it was MUCH better than the rival 737 Classic, a similar decision that UA took. As a result Boeing then developed the much improved 737NG

Not quite true - BA ordered A32S over the 737NG, not the 737Classic.
BA only ordered their first A32S (on top of the 10 they'd taken over from BCal) in September 1998 (see https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-breaks-into-ba-with-huge-a320-order-41543/). The 737NG had its EIS the same year.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 81): BA has been privately owned for 30 years, the UK is the country of Thatcherism, we have foreign owned airports, water operators, power stations etc, BA's choices are nothing to do with the government

  

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 60): Prove it please with a detailed knowledge of the leverage used. If not, this just stereotypical French-bashing, an a.net specialt

Its not only about the French Government and Air France, France likes to support its National Champions, why else would Renault and Puegot exist ? The French do not make cars to the same standard as Germany does. The French car industry has been "saved" many times by the French Treasury and would be history if it was not for the press has many times called "The Glory of France". The french Government keeps its big corporations going.

I do not appreciate being accused of " French Bashing", France is not an Anglo Saxon country and sometimes the way things are done look odd to people in the English Speaking world. Its not about one culture being better its just different. I have been to Paris twice and the Rivera and would not vacation in a country i wanted to "bash".

Quoting Erebus (Reply 78): Is this something only AF found it obvious at the time they became launch customer for the type? LH, VS, QR, and others missed this fact when they decided to place their orders for the A340-600?

The 777-300ER is the rare airplane that proved better in flight testing than anyone expected. Both airframe and GE90-115B engine exceeded expectations. With respect to fuel consumption, this turned a small advantage for the 77W into a large one. With respect to payload range, this turned a pronounced advantage for the 346 into essentially a wash.

It sounds like AF should have just dry-leased some 747-300s from Air Atlanta Icelandic until they got their cost structure overhauled. They could have gotten 743s super cheap.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 85): Its not only about the French Government and Air France, France likes to support its National Champions, why else would Renault and Puegot exist ? The French do not make cars to the same standard as Germany does. The French car industry has been "saved" many times by the French Treasury and would be history if it was not for the press has many times called "The Glory of France". The french Government keeps its big corporations going.

That's not quite the full picture. It's also a common misconception that Germany and France are markedly different in this regard.

The German government takes *very* good care of German industry (Airbus included), particularly its car makers. For instance, VW is part-owned by the state of Lower Saxony, which also has a big say in company decisions, a fact that has been the subject of multiple lawsuits as it has been argued that Lower Saxony's stake in VW violates some EU free trade regulations.
Also, Germany keeps intervening at an EU level whenever, say, stricter emmission standards are on the table. Germany usually wins those arguments, too - quite often against France and Italy.
There are also very generous tax allowances for company cars, which uniquely benefit big "premium" cars, most of which are German-made, of course. Across the board, about 2/3 of all 3.2 million cars newly registered in Germany in 2015 were first registered as company cars. For some models - mostly Mercedes, Audi, BMW - 80-90% of newly registered cars are company cars. Even for the VW Passat, though, that rate is at ~85%.

Add to that that margins are much better for such big cars than for the sort of middle-of-the-road (pun intended) cars that Peugeot, Renault and Citroën make.

I know - another car example (as you also mentioned cars), but you can safely assume the same sort of thing is being done for other major industries, including aviation, space and defense.

That said - France is of course very protective of its industry; but Germany is just as protective - they're maybe not quite as public and vocal about it.

France and Germany depend more on manufacturing than the USA. In Germany about 30%, in France about 24% and in the USA 19% work in the manufacturing industry.
Both Germany and France have been more active in preserving their countries manufacturing jobs. One big reason is an education system more geared to the needs of industry, the other is active promoting their industry.

The result is a more stable middle class and a more even distribution of wealth through the population than in the USA.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 88): That's not quite the full picture. It's also a common misconception that Germany and France are markedly different in this regard. The German government takes *very* good care of German industry (Airbus included), particularly its car makers. For instance, VW is part-owned by the state of Lower Saxony, which also has a big say in company decisions, a fact that has been the subject of multiple lawsuits as it has been argued that Lower Saxony's stake in VW violates some EU free trade regulations.

OF course the Federal German Government supports the auto industry, its the Saudi Arabia of Luxury cars. The state of Lower Saxony has owned about 20% of Volkswagon for decades, its a major industrial pillar there. The difference is French cars are not very well regarded outside of France, I have been to plenty of countries where there are Renault but they were purchased for there price not because they are the best in that category like a Mercedes would be purchased. Every one world wise knows what a Mercedes "S" Class is but who know the best Renaut ? The Mercedes S class is the best car except for a Bentley or Rolls Royce.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 90): OF course the Federal German Government supports the auto industry, its the Saudi Arabia of Luxury cars. The state of Lower Saxony has owned about 20% of Volkswagon for decades, its a major industrial pillar there. The difference is French cars are not very well regarded outside of France

That's a matter of taste and image, really, isn't it?
As it happens, France and Japan are continuously competing for the spot as top importer of cars to Germany. Similar story in the UK, where Peugeot is ahead of Toyota in sales, with Citroën not too far behind. So French cars aren't all that unpopular...
Of course you can't compare a Peugeot 308 with a BMW 5 series, just like you wouldn't compare a Ford Focus with a Mercedes E class.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 90): Every one world wise knows what a Mercedes "S" Class is but who know the best Renaut ? The Mercedes S class is the best car except for a Bentley or Rolls Royce.

Firstly, not everybody is in a position to even consider any of those three.
Secondly, what constitutes "best" car is a highly personal matter of taste, of course. None of those you mention would even make it into my own top 10 list. But that's for another forum.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 89): Both Germany and France have been more active in preserving their countries manufacturing jobs. One big reason is an education system more geared to the needs of industry, the other is active promoting their industry. The result is a more stable middle class and a more even distribution of wealth through the population than in the USA.

That's quite a flattering description, but having just returned from the US to Germany I think you may actually be on to something there  

Regardless - and trying to get back on topic. Yes, governments tend to be very protective of some of their major industries, and airlines used to be meddled with quite a lot in that regard. I do not think that, as of 2016, this plays a role in fleet decisions at BA, LH or AF. The vast fleet of 777s and lack of A346s at BA and AF have been mentioned before.
Nor do I think that their fleet mix is the reason for AF's financial woes. AF's problems are structural - inflexible labour organisations coupled with mostly inadequate management for years and years, and a continuous approach of just trying to muddle through things instead of reviewing the organisation and doing a proper appraisal of What Is and What Needs to Change.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 90): The difference is French cars are not very well regarded outside of France

I think this should read French cars are not very well regarded outside the EU. These companies don't have any significant presence in USA, China, Japan or India. You simply can't be a profitable major auto manufacturer these days and have no presence in four of the five largest auto markets (EU being the fifth).

I don't have the inside knowledge to know if this affects airplane purchases at AF but the governments willingness to bail out big companies without requiring major restructuring certainly has a role in reducing the incentives of management and labor to negotiate.

This thread has reached 99 reponses, does the topic of AF buying a 748 really need that many ? it time for it to go.