Boeing vs. Airbus + Politics

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

outrun

Joined
Nov 26, 2002
Messages
1,715
Location
Texas & BWI Area
Having an interesting on going conversation with my dad...who had his fair share of aerospace engineering experiance.

Trying to get some incite from the board on these points.

A)If the world is left with two chief civil aviation companies, Boeing & Airbus that is will that sacrifice competition and innovation? Is it a dual monopoly of sort?

In this case, all a customer knows that there leverage is better since they will get a guaranteed sale from 1/2 sole bidders.

C) Boeing Aircraft are clearly superior than Airbus?

D)Airbus has copied many American designs to get where they are today.

D)Many countries select Airbus just to politically shaft the united states?

Counterpoints:

A)Then again Airbus does use American powerplants and avionics at the very least in there models. (General Electric, Pratt & Whitney eyc)

So I let this string loose for yall to eat up
smile.gif


Thanks i appreciate any notes you can add here!
 
The following comments may be a bit biased, since I used to work for BCA (Boeing Commercial Airplanes).

1. Airbus undersells Boeing in most cases to get the sale by offering incentive goodies, then they turn around and try to shove the sale up everyone's nose. The reason Airbus can undersell Boeing is because of the long-running government subsidies to Airbus from the consortium host countries. BCA does not get government subsidies, in spite of what John McCain and other liberals might say. Also consider that most production is done in France and you know how good pals the French are!
mad.gif


2. Everyone knows that Boeing is technically superior, and is the Cadillac of commercial airplanes. Boeing never designed composite vertical fins that shear-off, as has Airbus. Take the KC135. This airframe was built before the 707 and is still in service. Boeing has always overbuilt their airframes. I know this for a fact, because I worked as a Stress and Fatigue engineer at one time. And Boeing also uses some avionics and engines from other countries (British Rolls-Royces) as well.

3. I really believe that most airlines wants Boeing products, but 911 put the hurt on them, and they can make a larger profit with less costly airplanes such as Airbus. Don't think the French goverment and Airbus didn't seaze the opportunies to make a sale immediately after 911.

4. The one good thing that has come out of the Airbus competition is that it gave Boeing a wake-up call in the sense that Boeing was no longer the only kid on the block, the only airplane maker in the world. It then had to compete in a global market (as much as I hate the word 'global'). This forced Boeing to innovate even more and get back into the gym.

Boeing will survive I think and come back stronger once they get their top management's heads out of the toilet bowls. The VP for BCA is a top engineer and a no-nonsense guy with a good business acumen. If they don't torque him off, Boeing will do well.

[ February 25, 2004, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
 
An airline pilot I know calls them "Scarebus". He said the only planes he saw that were scarier were the Russian Illyushins and Antonovs from Aeroflot.

He was refering to the cockpit instrumentation and avionic technology. I bet the Russian planes are overbuilt as well.

patriot.gif
cheers.gif
 
quote:
2. Everyone knows that Boeing is technically superior, and is the Cadillac of commercial airplanes. Boeing never designed composite vertical fins that shear-off, as has Airbus. Take the KC135. This airframe was built before the 707 and is still in service. Boeing has always overbuilt their airframes. I know this for a fact, because I worked as a Stress and Fatigue engineer at one time. And Boeing also uses some avionics and engines from other countries (British Rolls-Royces) as well.
Click to expand...
Mola,
Don't forget about the mighty B52 .....one of the most successful airplanes ever. I think the USAF has estimated it life to something beyong 2020.....that's 65+ years!!
shocked.gif
patriot.gif
 
quote:
Originally posted by MolaKule:
Believe it or not, Boeing sometimes uses the large Antonov cargo planes to transport large plane parts.
Click to expand...
If I'm not mistaken the AN-225 (Myrna?) and its brother the AN-124 are the biggest airplanes (respectively) in the world....followed by the USAF's C5 Galaxy. We have quite a few here and have also flown in them 2 or 3 times.....BIG is an understatement and they still seat ~76 passenger confortably in the "ceiling."
 
Airbus is a part of EADS, thanks to the merger of Mopar and Benz, part of the USA is a part of EADS. Daimler Chrysler owns almost 33% of EADS

[ February 26, 2004, 02:04 AM: Message edited by: Bob Woods ]
 
Airbus product now superior to Boeing in many ways and have been for some time. Fly by wire etc. Cross crew qualification their big strength. Australian Aviation had an extremely good in depth tech artical on all models from both companies about 6mths back. it should be online if I subscribe then I should be able to post the link. In March issue Sth African Airways A340-600 burns 28 tonnes less fuel than 747 it replaced J'berg to HK route and carries more freight. SAA mgmt claim the massive savings in fuel & maintenance coupled with extra cargo revenue pays for the acquisition cost. Boeing main problem was when Airbus floated the A380 and Boeing didn't 'step up to the plate' and handed Airbus the future of large airliner manufacturing. To say Airbus were surprised is some understatement. The 7E7 Dreamliner now confirmed should even things up a bit but its basically an A300 with newer engines. Boeing my all time favoutite company but mgmt went missing in action big time. Then the KC-767 impropriety with Darleen Druyun ended the careers of Condit, Sears and Druyun herself. Americans must wonder just how Boeing lost the plot so badly?
 
from my personal obeservations flying on an airbus it seems like they are nicer planes then thier boeing rivals. a friend of mine works on them and says they are very nice to maintain.
both airbus and boeing are assembled from parts made around the world. their engines are too, Rolls-Royce, GE, and Pratt and Whitney are all assembled out of parts from around the globe.
 
The specification for the interior of the aircraft is supplied by the Airline. One thing we in which we have to be careful, is comparing an older Boeing aircraft with possibily a drab interior, to a more modern Airbus with new interior designs.

For example, many airlines, in order to increase revenue, had their old interiors modified with a reduced seat pitch, which meant more passenger revenue miles per airframe. But this also meant people like MWAA, had his knees almost under his chin.

I have yet to see an Airbus interior that looks any better than the Boeing 777's interior.

[ February 26, 2004, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
 
Kule 777 is real nice. Speaking of interiors the A380's will be huge. Talk of bars, gym's, even nightclub etc. It will be interesting to see what the airlines really come up with.
 
quote:
The specification for the interior of the aircraft is supplied by the Airline. One thing we in which we have to be careful, is comparing an older Boeing aircraft with possibily a drab interior, to a more modern Airbus with new interior designs.
Click to expand...
point well taken. i don't know much about commercial avation. i work on a lockheed product so any commercial interior looks better than anything lockheed puts out
patriot.gif
 
7E7 = A300???? give me a break!!! the A300 is so old who's day ended years ago. A310 was a better plane than the A300 and the 767 kicked it almost out of exsistance. A320 are fine as long as the computors keep working which has been is problem off and on(they've crashed a few so far/have a long way to go in being able to even compete with the 737 when it comes to which is safer to fly on. Same with the A330/A340 in comparing them to the 767 safety record. Airbus crashed one A330 showing it off to a customer when demoing how they could take off on one engine-didn't do so well. Can't wait to see the A380 and it's future!! If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!
 
Mola, You beat me to it!!! Nothing like government subsides to keep a company going!!! I was trained as a Commercial pilot. I have alot of friends that are active in that profession. Some are working for the Airlines and some are Corperate. They all agree that the airbus is junk! I think most pilots are aware of this! I think it comes down to working with what the company gives you!

I can not forgett that crash footage of the Airbus at Paris airshow if I remember correctly. Nothing like a computer that thinks it no more then the Pilot!

Heck, I get nervious anytime I have to board an Airbus!!!
 
The Paris airshow was the first A-320 to go down. Airfrance had had a contest between all it's pilots to see who would get to fly the all new A-320 at the airshow. As he(their BEST pilot)approched intending to do a touch and go showing it off to the public, he tryed to repower into it so as to lift/take off it would not respond. He was yelling "it won't spool up,it won't spool up" as it pancaked into the ground. The computer basicly said "NO WE ARE LANDING NOW!" THE VERY NEXT DAY THE PILOT WAS BLAMED FOR THE CRASH" which was done to cover up the computer problem with the A-320. Years later the pilot was cleared of any wrong doing. And of couse I still remember seeing the film clip of a AirIndia A-320 doing some wacy out of contol moves when it's computer's wouldn't talk to each other. Yes Boeing has had their problems(and their mangement problem today is a big one being they are now really being run by Mcdonald Douglas-always wondered who brought who back when they came together-MD built junk also) but not like Airbus.
 
Gudmund,

Uh-oh now you have me worried. I am former employee of Delta Airlines...and still a good frequent flyer with them.

Most of the time I am on an MD88 or MD90.

Are you saying McDonnell Douglas commercial aircraft are bad? What aspect most concerns you? Have most of the safety issues...I think the tail actuators are one...have been ironed out?

That being said, I do enjoy the 757 aircraft. Maybe I am wrong but I think the engines seem quite thrusty especially on take-off.

I also miss Delta's Tri-Star Lockheed L1011.

When they were around I would always try to get flights with that aircraft
smile.gif


They are pretty, roomy, and from what I read there safety record is commendable. When they were around I would always try to get flights with that aircraft
smile.gif
Well, minus Delta's windshear accident at Dallas-Ft. Worth (DFW) a while ago.
 
Off topic and back to the Russian plane... I saw the Antonov An-225 Mriya up close and personal at the Philly Airport many years ago, it was running a load of medical supplies to the children of Chernoble. It's certainly a big plane. The control deck is above the spacious cargo deck, had to go up a flight of "stairs" to get to it. One thing I remember seeing was a small instrument panel back in the crew area. There was a mount and lights for a movie camera facing the control panel. Remember, this was the plane they used to piggyback the Buran space shuttle. I guessed they took movies of the control panel as a flight data recorder for the Buran flights. Thought it was interesting, simple but effective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
World's largest airshow
Replies
0
Views
617
sprintman
dave1251
  • Locked
Exxon Mobil
Replies
19
Views
14K
MolaKule
O
  • Locked
Airbus North America Chairman response to my email *lol*
Replies
3
Views
539
cit1991
Back
Top