Posted on 06/12/2005 7:51:51 PM PDT by Righty_McRight
Boeing issued a new challenge to its arch-rival Airbus yesterday, saying it expected to regain its status as the world's biggest supplier of airliners by 2008 at the latest.
Alan Mullaly, head of the American group's commercial planes division, delivered a series of damaging blows to its opponent on the eve of the biennial air show at Le Bourget, Paris, which was meant to be a showcase for the European company's A380 super-jumbo.
First, he said Boeing was in talks with another 27 airlines over potentially 427 more orders for its new 787 Dreamliner - raising the prospect of nearly 700 orders for the fuel-efficient, long-range 250-seater jet.
Airbus has so far secured 10 orders for its A350 twin-engined jet compared with 266 for Boeing's 787. It is due to announce 100 more orders this week, although there are now serious doubts about whether the Emirates and Qatar Airlines will go ahead.
The official launch of the A350, the aircraft at the heart of a transatlantic trade dispute, has been postponed until September. It was supposed to have been approved by ministers from Britain, France, Germany and Spain today.
The plane has been hit by growing production difficulties at Airbus's plants, which have already caused a six-month delay in deliveries of the A380 to its first customers. Mr Mullaly rubbed salt in the wound by claiming that airlines had already seen or heard of four versions of the new A350.
Airbus has also been damaged by a long-running Franco-German power struggle at the top of Eads, its main parent, which has cancelled a series of planned events at the show because it has yet to appoint its new co-chief executives.
Boeing, said Mr Mullaly, expected to deliver 375 to 385 planes next year - 100 more than in 2004, when Airbus outsold it for a second consecutive year. The Europeans expect to deliver 360 planes this year compared with Boeing's 320, and substantially more in 2006.
However, Mr Mullaly indicated that his company's deliveries could be higher next year because it had the capability to raise output at its US plants and had already sold 80% of its 2006 production.
This would bring the date of its projected overtaking of Air bus even closer than 2008. "Our plan is to be the preferred leader in the marketplace where we have been for 99% of our history," said Mr Mullaly.
He indicated a further onslaught on Airbus's precarious supremacy with the expected launch of a stretched version of the venerable 747 jumbo, adding 50 extra seats to current capacity of about 400, compared with the basic 555 seats available on the A380. The Boeing board may give the go-ahead for the 747 Advanced later this month after receiving strong interest from airlines, including British Airways, which have been attracted by plans to fit it with the 787's new fuel-efficient, less-noisy engines.
It is also considering plans for replacing the best-selling 737 single-aisle family of planes, making it available in versions ranging from 90 to 210 seats and capturing a further slice of a market where the Airbus alternatives are much older.
Boeing executives, meanwhile, confirmed they were backing moves in the US Congress to ban Eads and its partners from bidding for the lucrative Pentagon contract for air-to-air refuelling tanker aircraft while the dispute over alleged subsidies remains.
The European Union and United States will formally lodge their tit-for-tat legal actions at the World Trade Organisation today.
Mr Mullaly said a negotiated settlement was still possible - if Airbus gave up the use of risk-free, soft loans from European governments to develop new planes.
You're correct, it wouldn't be that difficult, espeically if you don't have the source available to check for the existence of such. However, with billlions of dollars at stake, any CIO worth his salt would make sure that sensetive systems are isolated, and a two way firewall is in place. Data only goes where you want it to go, when you want it to go.
It's even easier for the tax payers to subsidize Airbus when they don't have to pay for a military. They know the good ole US of A will bail them out in times of trouble.
Nope, Boeing won't make that, the airlines don't want it.
I don't know...that's why there is a bid process. To figure these things out.
My simple point is this...don't exclude a company for political reasons only.
People want to exclude Airbus simply because they hate the EU. I hate the EU as well, but I don't want to cut off my nose to spite my face either.
My concerns are based on the actions of France in the past and present in defense contracts. Israel had a contract with Dassault, but that contract went to blazes when France disagreed with Israel's military actions. The governments of France and Germany hold the majority of the state-held shares of EADS - they are the puppet masters.
Remember, their interests and ours are not the same. They take bribes from dictators while we try to uproot them. Imagine going into Iraq with EADS aircraft in 2003. I doubt that Chirac and Schroeder would not have tried to cut-off parts and other components so as to shape events to their liking.
"Hehehe...GO BOEING! They aren't going to just sit and take it any more like a bunch of Republicans!"
With Boeing flexing their entrepeneurial muscles with such might, how can Seattle especially, and Washington State generally, be so leftist? Topeka also has Boeing, and Kansas is very much in the conservative, Republican mold. Why not Washington? Is it because of too much Microsoft influence?
Too many hippies moved there during the 1960s and 1970s. Then, they bred and attracted more hippies.
I agree completely. About as far as I am willing to go for ANY military device is Great Britain, and even then.
Well said.
In my opinion, I would exclude Airbus because I don't think the way they are structured is healthy for a corporation.
The fact that I don't like the way they are an arm of their socialist governments is just icing on the cake!
But you are right-we live in a capitalist society, and the best product will win in the end, or should.
I doubt they would have. They had the chance, because the US military does contract with French and German companies, and they didn't disrupt any supply chain, as far as I know.
DHL is one of the main logistics companies for the US Military, and they are owned by the German Gov't.
Gawd, hopefully the Sonic Cruiser will never be lauched. It is the absolute worst of both worlds: Fuel ineficent, yet not faster by enough to make it worthwile.
The speed gains over other long distance aircraft would amount to about a 15 minute savings at a 15% fuel penalty. You could eat up your 15 minutes of savings just waiting for your luggage at the baggage claim, because 3 A380s landed at the same time your plane did!
"Too many hippies...they bred and attracted more hippies."
Hmmm, interesting. I have known a few 60's-70's hippies who are now more conservative than many on this forum. One of them was a customer - he owned a small, successful rubber molding company in Tennessee.
Another one owned a company in Arkansas and he had a sign in his office during the 1996 presidential campaign that read, "Hope is not in Arkansas!"
Guess the water out there in Washington prevents that sort of thing happening?
NEVER TRUST THE FRANCE !!!!!
REMEMBER HISTORY
In mid sixty --we had a air base in Libya and french would play games with the f4E aircrafts----would not give permission
for over flight--but wait for the aircraft to top off for gas--and
then give permission --we learn to play that game
Also never drive your car with USA plate{green} to Paris in this time peroid. THIS SH!T is NOT NEW,
From what one relative told me about his years living in Seattle, the hippie culture established itself there. Once the town became "known" as a haven for hippies, they began congregating there. The same sort of thing happened in Austin. Before the counter-culture, Austin was fairly socialy conservative. Then, UT, like other universities, became hotbeds of hippie activity. After the first wave established itself, others began to arrive. Now, leftists go there becuase it has the reputation of being a left-wing paradise.
History lesson
We needed A1E in Thailand for down airman mission 65-71
and France had about 50 A1E they did not need--Would they help
us--NO, damm NO--not nice about it
Remember History ,Let not repeat
PS was DHL low bidder--I wonder WHY!!
NEVER TRUST THE FRANCE!!!!
The Sonic Cruiser wasn't a stunt, it was floated by Boeing, but its the wrong plane for today's market, no real need for it.
One problem with supersonics, aside from outrageous cost is the scheduling time, if you have a long enough range SST to go LA to Tokyo, you either have to leave at an ungodly hour, or land at an ungodly hour!
BTW, Airbus just got an order of 60 A350's from Qatar Airways, who has also ordered 20 777's. They still have a 747SP, but I think its a private plane for the royalty, must be nice.
Ah, schadenfreude. :)
Then reading after that you see why such a company as Airbus is doomed to mediocrity. The politicos are running it, with all the inherent squabbles and power struggles. And how can you properly run a company with "co-chief executives"?
while the dispute over alleged subsidies remains.
Alleged subsidies? Subsidies are the only reason Airbus is as big as it is, probably the only reason it's still alive.
The Sonic Cruiser wasn't designed to travel at supersonic speeds. Boeing set the max cruise at .98 Mach. The aircraft was intended to carry 250 passengers at 40,000ft and have performance equal to most efficient aircraft in its passenger class. However, the work stalled in late 2002. The went as far as naming a project coordinator and assembling a project team. However, that was as far as Boeing went with the aircraft.
I know the SC wasn't, but I didn't define it well in my post as two seperate subjects.
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.