747 vs 380

[Guest cw1011]

To be fair to both Airbus and Boeing, the decision to develop a completely new airframe is one that if frought with risks. The decision goes well beyond market size, position and competitive analysis - it also goes to capital. You have to have access to a lot cash to develop new airplanes. The fatal competition between McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed in trijets emptied MD's coffers - a defecit that was not made up by profits from the DC-10. All accounts say that the company pretty much broke even on that airplane, even with 400 units manufactured. This is why Douglas was unable to introduce a truly new airplane design after the DC-10. Every plane in its stable for the thirty years following the first flight of its three engine wide body was based on a platform that first took to the skies no later than the early 1970s. This means that you have to approach new plane decisions with a lot of care - the price of failure can mean the end of the company. A lot has been written about the great risks that Boeing took on with the 707 and the 747. Those risks were very, very real. Today, this is an area where Boeing is at a distinct disadvantage to Airbus, which, while being a far more like a private company than it was years ago, still has very murky finances that lead one to believe that it still has access to a lot of government capital - especially for a project that will create a lot of high wage, union jobs in Europe. Thus, Boeing will be far less likely to jump into a market it is not convinced exists (and it still isn't as far as I can tell - and we may never know if it is profitable given Airbus' vague private/public structure).Now, having said all of this, Airbus has been eating Boeing's lunch repeatedly in the marketing and engineering department. It took Boeing years to finally bring all of its cockpits under a single design standard (the five large displays seen in the 777, the NGs, the large 767s and the 747s). The A330/340 has a remarkable wing - it can be fitted with either two or four engines depending on the expected use of the aircraft. Airbus has also been quick to stretch or shorten its basic 320 design to meet airline demand.Add to that the fact that Airbus can likely sell its planes below cost, and Boeing finds itself in a tough position. It literally has to be much smarter in choosing what projects to take on. It has far fewer insurance policies than do the folks in Tolouse. And I have to say, I'm not sure they have risen to the challenge that well. Their responses are a lot like Douglas' in the 1980s and 1990s. Apart from the triple seven, their airframes are also all based on designs that are over thirty years old, including the baby 717 they inherited from Douglas. Times, I might add, when jet A was a lot less expensive. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. The 7E7 is an interesting experiment, and Boeing is betting a lot on the hope that our air system will become far more decentralized and less hub driven. We shall see. So, getting back to the original question, it is well known that Boeing has looked at a full two deck version of the queen of the skies many times, but has never seen the market to justify the risk of sinking millions into development. Unlike Airbus, Boeing can't afford many mistakes.

[Guest cw1011]

Sorry, another dupe. To much coffee this am.

[Guest cw1011]

Sorry, dupe post

[Guest cw1011]

dupe

[Guest oyvindhansen]

Just to comment on Boeing's finances: Unlike Airbus, Boeing gets a lot of income from lucurative millitary contracts. The US spends a lot more on millitary than the whole of Europe put together, and now that Boeing has aquired MD, Lockheed Martin remains the only real rival in the millitary sector. The profits from millitary contracts are essentially govenment subsidies as shopping abroad is no real option in the Pentagon. - Oyvind

[Guest]

There were over 100 preorders for Concorde, yet only a dozen or so were actually built.The first A380 customer has already delayed delivery, not a good sign.It's also noteworthy that not a single aircraft has been sold after the introductory pricing offered to the first 100 aircraft ordered expired.

[Guest jdu]

If Airbus has the finances to afford mistakes, then why is it delaying the first flight due to budget constraints? If engine thrust isn't a key factor in stopping, then why do they have thrust reversing? Now when it comes to contruction, haw many countires is the A380 going to be built in? The 7E7 is only going to be in 3 Japan, America, and one other, it's name is slipping my mind. Tha A380 is going to built in alot more (France, Spain, China, Italy, and who knows where else?!?). Plus, have you seen the paths the peices have to travel to get to the final assembly? The wing boxes are loaded into a ship in China, sail around Africa, to a port in Spain (I think) then transported by truck through narrow city streets (some are gravel) to the final assemby plant, and that only the wing box! Also, did you hear how Spain is saying that it is going to pull out because it wants more that 8% of the work share? If Airbus has to keep on shuffling the workload around, the A380 is going to remain on paper! Also, majority of the airlines are either delaying or even cancelling orders, if the A380 is so good, the why are they doing that? The 7E7 only has 50 orders, and all of those are firm, over half of the A380s orders are options. >The US spends a lot more on millitary than the whole of Europe put >together.Thats because the U.S. doesn't like the idea having to rely on the so-called "United Nations" to keep us safe!:-hah

[Guest jdu]

One more question, am I the only American in this string?

[BobK 0]

I think that the issue of these "lucrative" contracts was started by EADS in response to complaints about their government subsidies. :) Gov't contracts do not have much effect on the commercial division at all. Even if it did, that would not be enough to allow Boeing to sell airplanes at a loss, in order to improve market share. You've been reading too much propoganda. Publications like AW&ST will give you MUCH more balanced and factual information on issues like this.

[michal 44]

>You've been reading too much propoganda. Publications like>AW&ST will give you MUCH more balanced and factual information>on issues like this. >I happen to agree. Those government "subsidies" in form of military contracts is a typical Airbus/European propaganda. I am surprised how many times it gets repeated.Michael J.

[Guest cw1011]

No, but your less than informed commment about the UN has made us embarassed to be associated with you.

[Guest oyvindhansen]

Keeps the share price up, doesn't it?- Oyvind

[Guest oyvindhansen]

>If engine>thrust isn't a key factor in stopping, then why do they have>thrust reversing?To save the brakes. Full brakeforce is seldom used, and would probably lead to overheating, but in an emergency the bakes can be extremely capable.As for the logistics of building the aircraft Airbus has always done it this way, and still manages to be succsessfull, so I wouldn't worry too much. As long as Germany, France and the UK are in they'll be fine.My comment on defence spending was not meant as a political comment, merely a financial one.- Oyvind

[Guest]

And of course EADS gets no lucrative military and governemt contracts at all...After all, the D in EADS doesn't stand for Defense at all right?EurofighterA400MeteorEurocopterCasaAlitaliaAll EADS companies working under heavily subsidised government contracts.

[Christopher Low 5,341]

That doesn't alter the fact that thrust reversers are very good at slowing down jet planes.Chris Low.