Posted on 06/23/2006 1:01:57 PM PDT by Red Badger
"Whatever happened to on time, on target?
I guess that is a distinctly American concept."
You mean like the B-2, F-22, F-35, SDI, Comanche..........
Every industry? I swear computers have gotten cheaper over the years.
Who won?
True, if demand were inelastic and there are no alternatives available for the customer from other producers. Hello! I wonder if they even teach microeconomics in a socialist country?
No. That would not be an apples to apples comparison.
Let's start by limiting ourselves to fixed-wing programs. That would leave out SDI, which in addition to being in essence a space program also had requirements which were in a constant state of flux for political and developmental reasons. It would also leave out Comanche, yet another ill-advised attempt to "fly" by beating the air into submission with which I am, thankfully, utterly unfamiliar.
Otherwise, the programs you reference were all military fixed wing programs, utilizing some previously nonexistent, and at best developmental technologies. As a result, the requirements were redefined several times, sometimes significantly, for a variety of reasons, as development proceeeded.
I have no insights into this particular Airbus program, but it does not appear to me that this mega-Airbus was ever intended to be a military airframe. And I believe that my characterization here is charitable.
Nor does it appear that the failure of Airbus Industries to meet schedule has anything to do with previously nonexistent, or developmental, technologies. I may be wrong here, and if so I would be happy to be corrected. It appears, however, that Airbus has proven to be unable to deliver what they promised, when they promised it, to a number of commercial users, who are notoriously unforgiving. And for whom there are other options which are commercially available.
Your response, then, sets up a number of false comparisons, all of which are not apropos to the latest Airbus debacle.
This is not to say that US miliary developmental programs have not had their failures. They have. Nor is it to say that Boeing hasn't previously fallen on its ass, because it has.
It appears, however, that Airbus Industries has failed yet again to deliver as promised on time. Thus keeping intact what I believe is a perfect record of failure in this regard. But I am more than willing to be corrected in this regard as well.
Boeing has been a profitable enterprise since about 1922 and has always banked its profits on the balance sheet as short term cash and cash equivalents. While the A380 was financed by the Euopean consortium Boeing's R&D moneys are the cash component of their balance. The European accounting doesn't take into effect the investment by the government which is a debt that will never be repayed. Many in the financial world would like to see this inequity taken to the World Trade Organization since it is "illegal" in the world of trade equality. It's a subsidy but not accounted for in that manner.
That is so interesting how European accounting is so different.
Yup, and airlines will be even more relutant to order some more A-380s, and give the 747-8I a another look.
I agree... as long as the planes from both companies meet the same standards.
However, from what limited knowledge I have -- if it's not Boeing, I'm not going.
-ccm
oooooh, that one STUNG! You are a bad, bad man!
-ccm
Still a bargain at 1/2 the price.... oh, they raised the price.
What is that? A chicken?
...and still stay in business due to government support.
I love my Boeing stock.
Up over 130%
My thoughts exactly. We don't have to worry about Reaganomics carrying too much weight in Frogland. Boeing sits pretty.
Isn't it great when your prices aren't controlled by market forces. Of course, on a purely supply-and-demand basis, a price hike is appropriate given that the production rates have been slashed, cutting into the supply.
Airbus won’t go broke nor even suffer a major setback.
I wasn’t joking in my sarcastic rant that all that will happen is that the governments of France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy and Spain will pump more money into this consortium. This is a state created, state subsidized, state backed firm that is not subjected to the forces of a free competitive market.
--
Understand this about EADS. This firm is closely tied into the political establishment within several European countries. Political careers ride on the success or failure of Airbus. Example: The Frankfurt Airport is investing millions (triple digit) for the building of new hangers for this A380. This plane failing, equates to a black eye even for the governor of Hessen, believe it or not (That’s how far reaching this matter is). The Europeans involved in Airbus, in their “centralist” way of thinking, have created a giant. But they also put all their eggs in one basket. Airbus going under would mean an end to the commercial airline industry for them. It would be a disaster economically, politically, and they would be eliminated from the market for a long time. A market they have through dubious purchasing schemes of state run airlines and large scale subsidization have spent years trying to establish a foothold in. Do you really think they will let Airbus sink?
Here is reality - Without large advertisement or fanfare, the consortium member states pledge more and more money to this firm to float any failure in poor market analysis, inefficient production, fat overhead and sometimes a qualitatively shoddy product that most often is technologically behind its competitors. If you dig hard enough you can already find official pledges of the government of Great Britain which will help fund the development cost of the A350. This is not something they brag about, but it’s a reality and Airbus will survive because at this point, no matter how bad the product is placed on the market, no one in those consortium member countries can afford to see this firm go under. So in the end, expect Airbus to “mysteriously” have all the capital required for massive investments in a rapid development of an A350 and other planes; this despite stocks and their products crashing.
Boeing has been raising prices all year.
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.