July 20, 2006
MARGINAL COUNTRIES, MARGINAL PRODUCTS:
Without fix, Airbus may turn into afterthought (Andrea Rothman, 7/05/06, Bloomberg News)
Buffeted by delays in the A380 superjumbo jet that triggered the ouster of senior management this week, Airbus faces the growing risk of losing its position as one of the world's two dominant aircraft makers. [...]Without a plane in this category, Toulouse, France-based Airbus would cede a market worth an estimated $450 billion over the next 20 years to Boeing.
"Airbus is at risk of becoming a marginal, niche manufacturer in a couple of years unless they act now," says Richard Aboulafia, vice president of Teal Group, a Fairfax, Va.-based consulting firm.
Is there really much of a niche for airplanes made by dying countries?
MORE:
Boeing takes lead as Airbus order book nosedives (David Robertson, 7/05/06, Times of London)
AIRBUS will confirm tomorrow that it has lost the lead in aircraft orders to its rival Boeing after five years of dominance, The Times has learnt.The beleaguered jet builder will collate its half-year order book at a sales meeting in Toulouse tomorrow and a yawning gap between the two companies will become apparent.
Airbus has definitive orders for 145 to 150 aircraft so far this year. In May it had 105 orders. Boeing has three times as many with 445 (358 in May).
There was no pig in the poke. Posted by Orrin Judd at July 20, 2006 8:58 PM
Airbus is terrible and no sane person would fly them.
Posted by: Pepys at July 20, 2006 11:24 PMAmericans won't fly any third world planes.
Posted by: oj at July 20, 2006 11:30 PM
FOKKER!
How can you have "definitive" orders for 145 to 150 aircraft? Would not a definitive order imply a single number, not a range?
Posted by: Earl Sutherland at July 21, 2006 8:42 AMOJ:
Can John say that? I guess I have to take a different passport with me tomorrow because I am flying an Embraer from Glascow to Birmingham.
Pepys:
Better he mess with your posts than burn you at a stake. Flight I took in an Air Canada Airbus 319/20 was superb.
Posted by: Rick T. at July 21, 2006 10:08 AMA-300, A-319/320, A-330.
All flown by Americans. Lots of them.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 21, 2006 10:27 AMMr. Sutherland;
The range likely represents lack of knowledge by the author of the article, not Airbus.
Pepys;
Can't you edit it back?
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at July 21, 2006 10:31 AMAirbus' earlier models really weren't innovating designs; they simplay built onto the styles as developed by Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas and Lockheed during the previous 30 years. The A-380 was their first real attempt to step into uncharted territory and set a new standard in commercial aviation, the way the 747 did for Boeing in 1970.
Right now, though, Airbus' gamble looks as if it will pay off as well as the last time the Europeans tried to compete with Boeing to develop a jetliner that would revoutionize the industry and came up with the BOAC/Air France SST. And we all know how well that one turned out.
Posted by: John at July 21, 2006 10:37 AMThose Embraers are just buses and Airbus is folding. Anybody make a real passenger plane not a commuter?
Posted by: oj at July 21, 2006 11:11 AMIIRC, the A-319/320 was the first commercial fly-by-wire aircraft.
There are more ways to be innovative than airframe design.
Posted by: jeff Guinn at July 21, 2006 11:44 AMIt's not actually innovation when you just ape the US Air Force.
Posted by: oj at July 21, 2006 11:49 AMGroundhog Day at Bros. Judd, I see.
Posted by: curt at July 21, 2006 12:14 PMThought you guys could try to make a coherent argument that Boeing has any challengers, but apparently not.
Posted by: oj at July 21, 2006 12:17 PM[crickets]
Posted by: curt at July 21, 2006 12:25 PMAirbus was a very serious competitor to Boeing.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 21, 2006 2:15 PMI certainly can't demonstrate my point better than Jeff has--note that it's the rapid and entirely predictable demise of the "serious competitor" we're talking about?
Posted by: oj at July 21, 2006 2:41 PMcurt. Thanks for making me laugh.
Posted by: erp at July 21, 2006 2:52 PMkeyword: "was"
A state run Euro plane company never was serious.
Posted by: oj at July 21, 2006 6:26 PMA state run Euro plane company never was serious.
That's as may be.
But when Airbus came on the scene, Boeing was building junk -- stodgy designs and dodgy quality control. According to your argument, that made the US a dying country, right?
OJ:
You have previously asserted Airbus aircraft are junk. They are not.
You have previously asserted Americans won't fly in junky third-world airliners. They do.
... note that it's the rapid and entirely predictable demise of the "serious competitor" we're talking about?
Due to a singularly stupid decision. Do you remember the L-1011? What did that aircraft have to say about the US, or capitalism?
A state run Euro plane company never was serious.
That's as may be.
But when Airbus came on the scene, Boeing was building junk -- stodgy designs and dodgy quality control. According to your argument, that made the US a dying country, right?
OJ:
You have previously asserted Airbus aircraft are junk. They are not.
You have previously asserted Americans won't fly in junky third-world airliners. They do.
... note that it's the rapid and entirely predictable demise of the "serious competitor" we're talking about?
Due to a singularly stupid decision. Do you remember the L-1011? What did that aircraft have to say about the US, or capitalism?
A state run Euro plane company never was serious.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 22, 2006 9:17 AMNot at all. I've said that because they're a state run European company they will die as Europe does and because we increasingly view Europe as Third World Americans will be increasingly reluctant to fly in them, fueling the demise.
Yes, America was not sufficiently different than Europe in the 70s and could have died too. But we rejected secular rationalism vehemently in the early 80s and have diverged from them rapidly.
As you've correctlky stated Airbus is no longer a competitor, though you were mistaken in ever taking them seriously. Of course, your ideology requires you o think France can be a rival, so your blindness is unsurprising. Ideologues can rarely see clearly..
Posted by: oj at July 22, 2006 12:42 PM