Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Will Airbus delay mean much? (A380's postponement might aid Boeing, might not)
Associated Press via the Corvallis Gazette-Times ^ | Tuesday, June 7, 2005 | ELIZABETH M. GILLESPIE

Posted on 06/06/2005 10:41:11 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative

SEATTLE -- In the neck-and-neck race for dominance in commercial aircraft, bad news for Airbus is usually good news for The Boeing Co.

The question is how bad and how good.

On Wednesday, when Airbus confirmed that deliveries of its new A380 superjumbo passenger jet will be two to six months late, some analysts called it a hiccup that probably won't hurt the company -- or help its U.S. rival -- that much.

Others wondered if the delay might be a sign of big underlying problems that could threaten the future of the world's largest plane.

"I think the biggest concern of all ... is that this might not be due to flight testing delays or paperwork. It might be due to a need to meet performance specifications. In other words, they might have to be looking at design aspects of this plane,'' said Richard Aboulafia, an aviation analyst with Teal Group in Fairfax, Va.

Airbus spokeswoman Mary Anne Greczyn said delays of this kind are "relatively typical'' with new airplanes.

"A couple of months in the grand scheme of things is really nothing in terms of scheduling,'' Greczyn said.

In late April, Airbus warned Singapore Airlines Ltd. it would receive its A380s late next year instead of in March. Since then, other airlines said they were expecting late deliveries, too.

Airbus has not said what's causing the delays. Australia's Qantas Airways Ltd. said "manufacturing issues'' are to blame.

If those "issues'' mean Airbus is struggling to meet the design specifications it promised airlines, the Toulouse, France-based jet manufacturer could be headed for some serious turbulence.

"It increases the chances that the A380 was oversold in terms of economics and technology, and that is a boon for Boeing and the 747,'' Aboulafia said.

Greczyn scoffed at that suggestion that Airbus might be struggling to keep its promises.

"There is no doubt that we will meet the performance specs we promised our customers,'' she said. "That's not a concern.''

Without discussing exactly what prompted the delay, Greczyn said staying on schedule depends not only on Airbus' production process, but also design requirements from each airline, and a global supply chain.

Boeing's 747, the largest commercial jet in service today, seats about 420 passengers in the standard three-class configuration or 525 in two classes. The A380 will fly 555 passengers in three classes, or a whopping 840 if everyone jams into one class.

Boeing is thinking about building a slightly larger and more fuel-efficient version of the 747. The Chicago-based company, which builds most of its commercial planes in the Seattle area, has said it will decide by the end of the summer whether to offer the 747 Advanced, which would seat about 30 more people than the existing 747.

Peter Jacobs, an analyst with Ragen MacKenzie, said he doesn't see the A380 delay having any impact on Boeing's decision about the 747 Advanced, since that plane probably wouldn't enter service until 2009.

"If there are further delays in the A380 or major problems come up with it during flight testing, it could sway the competitive landscape somewhat, but that's highly unlikely,'' Jacobs said.

In general, Jacobs said he thinks a setback like this one isn't a huge deal — or a surprise.

"When you're breaking new ground, which Airbus is with this large airplane, these kinds of things happen,'' he said.

Scott Hamilton, an aerospace consultant with Leeham Companies LLC, agreed, noting that Boeing was a bit late delivering its first 747-400s in 1989.

"Certainly for the airlines, it's a major inconvenience,'' Hamilton said. "And certainly for Airbus, they're going to have to pay penalties.''

But Hamilton said he doesn't think the delay will cost Airbus any customer loyalty.

"The airlines that have already ordered the A380 are almost certainly going to stick with the A380 unless something humongous happens to the program.''

Shares in European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., which owns 80 percent of Airbus fell as much as 2.2 percent in early trading before recovering to close just 0.3 percent lower at 23.97 euros ($29.31). BAE Systems, which owns the remaining 20 percent of Airbus, closed 1.5 percent higher at 2.73 pounds ($4.97) in London.

Boeing shares fell 10 cents Wednesday to close at $63.80 on the New York Stock Exchange.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; US: Illinois; US: Missouri; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: 747; 747advanced; a380; airbus; boeing; cary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last
To: Prophet in the wilderness
... without jeopardizing the airworthiness of the A-380.

Too late!

21 posted on 06/07/2005 4:44:56 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

I see Airbus is going to make a plane to compete with the 787. Which is funny because they said they already had models to compete when Boeing launched it!


22 posted on 06/07/2005 4:45:15 AM PDT by pissant (will a Sleep Number bed prevent morning stiffness?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neutrality
The majority of posters to the Airbus threads are heavily biased against it. I understand why, but it does detract in general from the quality of post and information that is given in them. Its just one of those things..

There is at least one member who posts some pretty informative articles in these threads sometimes (Central Scrutinizer?).

As for myself, I like for people and companies to dream big. While I am not the biggest fan of Airbus, I do want to see large projects succeed, in general. I believe this beast will eventually fly and be minimally profitable for Airbus, not that profitability matters much to them..

23 posted on 06/07/2005 5:27:52 AM PDT by Paradox ("You may disapprove of what I say, but I will defend to your death my right to say it")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness
The first 747 prototype is loaned out to a museum now ( I wished the Smithsonian - Air&Space Museum would have gotten it).

It was used to flight test the PW and RR engines for the 777, and it has been used by Boeing for flight testing various other equipemnt.

24 posted on 06/07/2005 6:56:50 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness
You might be right about the 777 , but, at least one of the new program or new airplane design is sacrificed ( take one for the team ) is tested for fatigue and broken into pieces.

I don't think the ones used for fatigue tests ever were fitted out with a flight deck or interior. There's one test where they measure how much force it takes to break the wings, and another one where they put the fuselage in a water tank and simulate tens or hundreds of thousands of pressurization cycles till the hull fails due to metal fatigue.

25 posted on 06/07/2005 7:04:32 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness

Wrong, all the planes built will go into service, there is no prototype. The second will not be broken into pieces. I don't know where you get your information from, but its not from any knowledge of airplanes.

Airbus will be doing flight testing on the first 5 planes, they are all the same, no prototype. 2500 hours of flights, with one plane engined with GE/PW GP7200 engines, and the others with the Rolls Royce Trent 900 engines.

First plane goes to Singapore airlines, and will be in service in the last quarter of 2006. Good article about the first flight and testing program in this month's Air Transport World.

As for the name calling of Airbus, pretty childish.



26 posted on 06/07/2005 7:42:16 AM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Intelligent design is neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness

The first 777 ever built is still flying for its original customer, United Airlines.


27 posted on 06/07/2005 7:43:40 AM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Intelligent design is neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

Thanks for the ping, the bias here is silly and misinformed. Its OK to bag on the French, but to carry it to an airplane that is built by a consortium of countries and carries a hell of a lot of American built parts is stupid.

Airbus makes good planes, Boeing makes good planes, Embraer makes good planes, they all compete and make each other better. My airline is going to be the launch customer of the A350, should be fun.

The A380 is a niche plane, they aren't being built to service every route in the world, just medium long range high density routes. The plane is being built primarily for the needs of Asian carriers that operate from slot controlled airports and for Middle Eastern carriers that can afford to outfit their cabins with extravagance that their customers will pay for. And it will be a hell of a good cargo plane. The A380 may not make a profit for a while, but hats off to Airbus for pushing the envelope and building it. Airbus makes its dough from the A318/319/320/330/340 aircraft.


28 posted on 06/07/2005 7:50:08 AM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Intelligent design is neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Hopefully Boeing will win out..


29 posted on 06/07/2005 8:30:27 AM PDT by sheik yerbouty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
Be aware that much of the derision that Airbus gets here is due to the fact that the company has grown cocky and arrogant over the past few years, as if the company does no wrong and offers the best planes for every market and every customer. Reminds me of Japan in the early 90's, right before their economy tanked. Therefore, if they lose an order, its because Boeing 'cheated' somehow, factors other than 'economics' were involved, yadda yadda. Pot, kettle anyone? This business with AI is just freaking hilarious, and now they send a letter to the Japanese govt complaining about the lack of Airbus sales there?

If Boeing pulled this crap, they would get the same reaction. They need to realize the 777 and 787 are damn good planes that are superior to most of their offerings for the markets that these airlines are buying for right now, that's why they are getting their asses handed to them lately.

30 posted on 06/07/2005 9:52:15 AM PDT by Citizen of the Savage Nation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
"There is no doubt that we will meet the performance specs we promised our customers,'' she said. "That's not a concern.''

That's not the concern, Mary Anne. It's "when". Customers want their planes with the performance promised in a reasonable amount of time.

31 posted on 06/07/2005 10:41:37 AM PDT by hattend (Alaska....in a time warp all it's own!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser

If the A380 development was funded with private money and provided competition for Boeing, I would not criticize it. I would still favor Boeing, because in my opinion the development of the 747 is one of the greatest capitalism success stories.

Instead, the A380 development was subsidized with a seemingly bottomless pocket of public funds, with the goal of putting Boeing out of business.

I am all for competition - it creates better, cheaper products. My dislike of the A380 has nothing to do with product quality.


32 posted on 06/07/2005 11:03:59 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
This has to be the dumbest airplane since the the Spruce Goose. 800+ passengers? How about we try for a plane that carries 8000 or 80000?
Why would these clowns expect that airports would be eager to add to their current debt so they can extend and re-enforce their runways, upgrade their boarding and departing systems, and the rest of the infrastructure needed to support such a sudden and foolish addition to the problems they already have?
33 posted on 06/07/2005 2:17:29 PM PDT by Octar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
ahhh ? guess what ? I got my information from a BOOK about the planes being broken i.e. the wings snapped in half from fatigue test.
Name calling of AirRUST ? SO WHAT !!!
34 posted on 06/07/2005 5:16:02 PM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness

Ahhhh, guess what? I get my information from having been in the industry and subscribing to the trade journals and magazines!

You are a buffoon.


35 posted on 06/07/2005 8:25:06 PM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Intelligent design is neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: kidd

Boeing gets its share of government cheese, don't be naive.


36 posted on 06/07/2005 8:26:35 PM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Intelligent design is neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
Yea..... look who is doing the name calling now.
Look who is being childish now.
37 posted on 06/07/2005 10:17:37 PM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness

I speak from experience, I know a bit about planes. You just know how to make really stupid names for Airbus.

Stick to whatever it is that you know and comment on that.


38 posted on 06/07/2005 10:37:06 PM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Intelligent design is neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

The new Smithsonian Air and Space Annex at Dulles has the prototype 707 on display, its gone through all kinds of mods since day one, it looks great. They also have a Concorde and the only remaining Stratoliner.

Wish they had the surviving XB-70 on display, but its at Wright Patterson.


39 posted on 06/07/2005 10:52:29 PM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Intelligent design is neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
They also have a Concorde and the only remaining Stratoliner.

I wonder why Boeing didn't get more market share with the 247 and Stratoliner? It seems like until the 707, Boeing was always the underdog when competing for comercial airliners. Weren't the Stratoliners mostly used for transporting generals and other VIP's across the Atlantic during WWII?

40 posted on 06/07/2005 11:01:07 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson