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.
Not sure, but the new Smithsonian has lots of room, I'd like to see a Stratocruiser join the exhibit. They have a DC-7C coming, and I believe a Connie. I would hope they get a 737-100, and a DC-8. Of course I would kill for a 747-SP.
The 247 was a revolutionary plane when introduced, but Boeing made the error of committing the initial deliveries to United, which was a sister company. This effectively froze all the other airlines out of the new technology. So Jack Frye of TWA went to Donald Douglas and asked him to build something that could compete with the 247. Thus was born the DC-1 and its follow on DC-2 and DC-3 versions.
Boeing's "United preference" caused the competition to build an alternative that turned out to be a "better mousetrap". There is a lesson to be learned here!
I think they'll get the prototype 737-100 that NASA used as test bed.
Thank you. This one-sided bashing, deserved or not, isn't very informative, so your input (being an aviation enthusiast and a veteran in the field) is refreshing.
There is no way that Boeing received, in any form, anywhere near as much "government cheese" as Airbus has received for the development of this one plane.
And how do you feel about Boeing ?
My airline flew the last 737-100 in service in the US. It was a hangar queen, spend lots of time stuck because of it being broke down. Its been scrapped since.
I think they are going to keep that NASA plane in a museum.
I like Boeing, I spend a lot of time on 757's and 747-400's. I really like the 717 (technically not Boeing), and wish that they could have sold lots more, it beats the hell out of flying on a noisy ATR-72, which I seem to get stuck with frequently.
The fact is, that was back in the late 60's, they don't do that anymore the first 777 is still in the air. And don't go preaching to me how to behave at FR, you came onto this thread like a braying ass and can't handle any opposite views.
You are getting worked up over a plane for god's sake, imagine what you would do over something important!
The FAA amd CAA are responsible for the certification of these new airplanes from the design through production, testing and delivery. I agree with you that many on this board diss Airbus because of the "French connection" which is kind of juvenile. What I tend to look at are the little things that Boeing does (and MDC used to do) to please the airlines because their profit margins had to be met. As long as Airbus has part of their costs born by their mother countries, they will never learn what true competition and customer satisfaction is all about.
They do tests and destroy stuff, but they don't sacrafice a whole plane like in the old days. They have enough data so that "if its fixed, don't break it"
One of the great things about living in Phoenix is that Boeing does heat testing of new designs here in the summer. We got the first 747-400 and the first 777, it was cool to be able to see them coming in and out on a blazing hot day.
As for the ripping of Airbus, yeah, its irrational, good thing everyone here likes Brazil, otherwise Embraer would be villified!
I like Mcdonnell Douglas planes, with the exception of the MD-11, it was not a good plane. I really miss the L1011, an advanced plane for its time, ATA just sent a bunch of theirs into D check, so they will be flying in the US for a few years (mostly military charters).
I can't help but wonder about how much "Oil for Food" money went toward building Frances Air Folly!
Maybe they found a radio tranmitter within the carbon-fiber core of the first jumbo-liner;
that had the business card of Al-Ansar-bin-Atwat-bin-Gringo-bin-Raghed, and got concerned about the Arabic employees on the assembly line.
The FAA and JAA (sorry, I said CAA earlier) review the design submittals and work with the manufacturers to ensure the necessary tests are done to achieve an Airworthiness Rating. This includes calling for demonstration tests on any new or uniquely designed areas of the plane. If that means that the design is "new" enough where there is no existing data to rely on, then a full-scale test can be called for. Believe you me, I sat though enough design strategy sessions trying to pencil whip a design to the point where it is "similar enough" to an existing one so that a high cost test could be avoided. There haven't been as many full-scale tests because there haven't been enough all new designs coming out of the box - most are derivatives of existing ones so that similarity can be claimed.
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.