Posted on 01/18/2006 3:02:24 AM PST by lowbuck
Airbus has done it again. On Jan. 17, the European planemaker reported that it booked 1,055 net aircraft orders in 2005, just ahead of the 1,002 logged by Boeing in a record-breaking sales year for both companies.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessweek.com ...
Once Airbus builds a product that fills a "Certain Market Niche" the state run Airlines within Europe will buy it. The A380 is a good example. A stillbirth because it does not fit into the trend (Hub and Spoke is not the trend and thats what the A380 was designed for) this plane is built and BOUGHT by who?
Lufthansa, British, Air France
and what other airlines have ordered this plane? Please tell us who the FEW are outside of the COINCIDENTAL Airbus consortium member states that have bought this massive jetliner? Ahhhhh yes, all just a big coincidence again!
Once Airbus offers a long range jet equivalent to a 747SP what do they buy? Ahhhh yes the A340
..
BTW- guess who owns the FRAPORT and will gladly pay for Terminal modifications, hangars etc? Ahhhhh-yes the FRAPORT who is owned by who?
Within Europe you have private Airlines and Boeing sells even TODAY IN THOSE MARKET NICHES (i.e. Ryan Air and the 737). Some privates buy Airbus and that's just how competition is. Even in the US Airbus sells well and had users such as United. But the State run airlines within Europe favor a certain manufacturer. There is a TREND. To state otherwise can only be supported with polemics, taking statistics out of context of time and markets or airframes that the manufacturers offer. The state run airlines within Europe buy what the state built aircraft builder builds.
Airbus was birthed by the state, it is managed by the state, it is given preferential treatment by the state when it comes to purchases.
Red6
Whatever newbie. Nice attempt at trolling.
Yes boeing is and in ways we'll never know.
As for the space shuttle I'll say this,
It is the size inside its payload area of a single wide moblie home. That is about a trailor for a tractor trailor. An enormous payload. While N.a.s.a. is a waste and nearly paralyzed the shuttle is only a minor reason why.
Like any govt agency it is heavy with waste and repetition.
1. some internet start-up I s'pose
2. sir yes sir !
1. The FRAPORT has as much of Rhein Main as they want. They were building on Rhein Main 10 years ago already. Go to Google earth (Which is old pics BTW) and if you look at all the West Hangers, Southern buildings etc you'd have a clue and wouldn't make such an asinine statement.
FRAPORT gets what they want, when they want, how they want. The environmentalists have no say. Nor do the people living in the surrounding area. The Airport has its own little TV channel which they use to appease the Volk and by this point most of the tension is not taken serious anymore. Minister president Koch himself sat on the Board of Directors for the FRAPORT until recent, between the state of Hessen, City of Frankfurt and BUND the FRAPORT is 70% STATE OWNED (Another one of those SO CALLED private firms). The state is in bed with business and there is a conflict of interest. The Will of the people does not matter. Even when you did have a referendum years ago and the overwhelming majority was against the Startbahn West, even when nearly EVERY city major and counsel was against the expansion, it all went ahead, 100% full speed ahead.
2. The A380s near exclusive market is within Europe and within those nations that are members of the Airbus consortium. The A380 HAS NOT sold enough planes to recoup the initial investment. It as a project is right now flapping in the wind and people are crossing their fingers, hoping that they just might scrape by and get their initial investment back. To do that they will need to actually get contracts that STICK for about another 100 units. Right now, the only people who are remotely interested are in Asia and are looking at using this jet as a giant cattle car with an In excess of 800 passenger load. The A380 is a stillbirth, as the Eurofighter is as well.
The trend in the last years has been AWAY from the Hub and Spoke concept. Do you want a connect flight with a hold over, plane transfer etc? No, no one does. People want to fly direct. They want to fly from Frankfurt to Cincinnati WITHOUT a layover in New Jersey. It is the smaller jets with longer range that are selling, like the 787 BECAUSE he can ECONOMICALLY do this. The A380 was designed for high capacity long range and about the only market it has is in some of Asia where they will reconfigure this plane as a tight fitting mass cattle car, and in Europe, where the state airlines, state owned and operated Airports will bye and make all necessary accommodations at whatever the cost. When the 747 was built, the Hub and Spoke concept was alive and kicking. Today someone wants to fly from the US and go directly to Leipzig WITHOUT landing in Frankfurt. Look even in Germany and how all these airports are busting out at the seams. In the US its the same way.
When the 747 was built, the Hub and spoke concept was there, today its fading away. Your comparison between the A380 and the 747 is therefore BS. Today even in the US you would be hard pressed to find an airport willing to do what they did in the 70s for the 747. Why? Passenger air travel has changed. The cost in infrastructure changes, its basic concept (A huge super Jumbo) and and and, is a day late and dollar short.
3. Southwest airlines in the US is one example of the small airlines encroaching on the big guys (In this case AA). Southwest will continue to beat the snot out of AA in the Southwest US especially now with Dallas/Love Field and some other issues. The huge mega carriers of past are in for some hard times. Even in Germany you have Ryan air, German Wings
.. These guys are taking business from who? Lufthansa. The consumer will be the profiteer and can enjoy more direct flights AND lower airfares. But even there, you notice a trend I hope? Its not the big Vater staat and their Gremium and Komitee and an Ausschuss that with a bunch of bureaucrats decided to make this so. It was PRIVATE and FREE enterprise. It works! Believe it or not, when and where given the chance German private and free business does VERY well. But in Germany the old institutions want to stay alive. They want a piece of the pie. The Telecom did not volunteer the privatization or look forward to an open and competitive market. In fact they did all they could to keep the market closed.
4. Lets look at a typical example of the German state mastermind Beampte at work. If you go back in time to the days of the monopoly of the Bundespost on the phone system you had your choice of Green, beige, maroon, black or white phone. They had about three models of phone and when you called you could still hear the rotary dials in the background turning as a connection was being made. Worst of all this antiquated and crappy telecommunications net was expensive WHILE it gave you no choices and poor service. If your kid wanted a Mickey Mouse phone to bad! It was near communist! Any importation of phones was actually forbidden! Why? Well, you dont want any competition for the state monopoly do you? In Germany you have Ziess, German Wings, Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Sauer, Walther and so many more PRIVATE and successful stories. The list nearly never includes the old state created, managed or subsidized firms or industry. If you really think about it Airbus has massive backing in financial subsidies (13 Billion Euro or 15 billion USD by early 2005), a semi closed market where some airlines (not all) within Europe give them preference in purchase, the states (Laender and Federal governments) even build crucial infrastructure (Special hangers at FRAPORT etc) for them and and and. Yet a PRIVATE firm beats them. Even the training of pilots, technicians that work on engines to airframe is subsidized through a state run education system. Most of these things are non-issues; in fact Germany just has a different way of doing things than we do. The fact that a turbine mechanic in Germany is trained not at his or the companies expense; but that the state pays for it is non-issue. No one in the US will use this as a argument. But DIRECT money injections like Airbus gets. Direct subsidies to develop aircraft for the commercial civilian use, intended to compete on a international market is NOT fair trade. All these Bullshit arguments you hear are nothing more than distracters. They are intended to draw attention away from the real matter at hand. The US DoD procuring a C17 from Boeing does not equate to a subsidy. These topics are brought up to derail and refocus attention. Airbus is a state CREATED, state MANAGED and heavily state SUBSIDIZED firm. The defense of Airbus is based on polemics. Those who try to defend what is going on have to resort to cheap rhetorical arguments that have no weight.
quote - The subsidies offered so far for the development of the Airbus A380 super jumbo jet amount to $6.5 billion, the largest amount of government funds committed for a single project, according to Allgeier. Airbus has also requested $1.7 billion in launch aid for the A350 model it is about to develop.
Make some bad decisions? No problem, ask for more money from the government of Germany, France, Spain
..
But dont worry. Airbus will do just fine. Even though they are behind now they will quickly make up the lost ground. The UK already pledged ~250M USD and other will follow. Airbus despite not having even made back the money on the investment to build the A380 will quickly and soon crap out a A350. Why do you think that is possible?! lol
Red6
You simply dont WANT to understand what a subsidy and unfair trade is. You choose to overlook the fact that Airbus WAS CREATED with ILLEGAL practices.
Just throwing out some bogus Counter Accusation in a defense dont cut it.
Let me explain it this way to you:
1. Imagine we slap a tax on all our private airlines if they want to buy an Airbus. That way we cut Airbus out just as the state run Airlines in Europe did do in the 90s only without a tax or tariff. It was just an understood thing that the state airline will buy the state built airplane.
2. Then what we need to do is give Boeing Direct aid in financial injections so they can quickly develop aircraft in a complete vacuum of profits, assets available etc. Can you go to the bank and get a 15 Billion Euro loan? Airbus was getting money injected into it like mad. They were building model after model after model of airframe. This is not possible if youre a REAL stock traded firm that has to finance its own development off of profits generated. If you have REAL shareholders who expect and demand a return on their investment.
The expansion and growth of Airbus is NOT because of their overwhelming successful market strategy, their stream lined and efficient production, new innovative technology which gives them and edge! No, Airbus was made to what it was because it had the financial backing of several governments who pumped 13 BILLION EUROs just by early 2005 into this consortium and shielded it from competition.
BMW has to pay for the development of a new car with the revenue gained off of past sales, selling off assets, taking on more debt with the promise to pay it back with an interest
..etc. Boeing is the same way. Boeing cant just go to the US government and say Give me 1.7 BILLION USD more for free please to develop an A350 quickly! That is exactly what is happening! Already today Great Britain has pledged ~250 MILLION USD equivalent to Airbus to do just that.
What has happened is that unfair trade has become acceptable! Saying nothing and doing nothing for a decade allowed this to become the norm.
What will happen Eventually this will fuel a major trade dispute. If the EU wants to play the game of selected trade and big subsidies to create an industry and sustain it, then we need to close our market off to their products as well. Bottom line We dont need them as much as they need us / our economy is in much better condition than all consortium member states.
In about 2000 2001 the issue was already growing and taking a front seat. However, on the political radar screen the illegal subsidies to Airbus took a back seat after 9-11 for the Bush administration and State Department. Over time you will see a reemergence of this issue a growth in importance.
I suggest you read the history of the DeHaviland Comet. Research Why McDonald Douglas went under after the DC-10 and then look at Airbus and ask yourself how an Aircraft manufacturer who has had Jetliners AT AIRSHOWS full of high ranking business executives crash into forests, a worse safety record with major retrofits to flight controls and the tail on some of their aircraft because they caused crashes survives so well. In fact, the company just keeps getting business and just keeps pumping out one new model after the other. Take a look at how long Cessna stopped building a few of its airplanes and why? Yet after Several Airbus tails ripping off one shortly after 9-11 and one just about a year ago in Cuba, despite no feedback controls and no control input limiters which have allowed for airframes to be overstressed and helped lead to several crashes, Airbus moves full speed ahead! The money just keeps flowing.
Airbus was made into what it was by the backing of the state, not some great market strategy, some new technological break through or super efficient production and low cost. Cost was low, and development fast because BILLIONS were pumped into this firm. No normal business has the means to develop at the pace they did, growing as fast as they did, having to build infrastructure etc. It takes money to develop a plane -Lots of it. How does a small firm in 1980 get all that money to develop all those airframes?
http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=550
:))))
.... it's amazing I can read minds through the internet.
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.