Flight International

Kieran,

Here is one "observer" who agreed with you, & said & wrote so long ago,& even more recently, when Airbus declared, with deliberately vague wording, their probably "being in the same order-intake ball-park as Boeing" (designed to preserve the suspense). One sensed that Airbus had hip-pocket data which would "pip Boeing" rather than "leave Airbus pipped at the post".

It is refreshing to see Boeing bounce back. Hearty congratulations to them ! They are not losers ! Both Boeing & Airbus have brought in what is good for the industry, & the market in general. Exciting years ahead ! Let's hope that some extraneous, political event does not spoil the show.

A word on Airbus'A350 order intake. Let's take a guess: A350 will edge out B787 on the Aeroflot campaign (I could not care if I am wrong ; the whole thing is political, with business cases thrown into the shadows). Forget about the alleged mistranslation excuse! There may well be items in the pipe-line, in addition to the Aeroflot issue, on which the respective juries are still out, leaving exclusion from 2005 orders-received as the only honest option.

The "off the record" news in Air & Cosmos concerning AEROFLOT is factually correct. A&C are NOT to be criticised. Moreover, when Ms. RICE, even more strongly than EU, had lambasted Russia for exposing herself to accusations of unreliability & ugly use of energy as a political lever,in the Russia-Gazprom-Ukraine mess, Russia felt no need to favour Boeing.

It does not need much speculation to see USA & Boeing on the hotline to Moscow, to keep A350 out of the frame, despite Airbus' partnership carrot of 5% participation on A350. Wait for 2006. The jury is still out. But A&C were not wrong. Watch this space.

Ian DUNCAN

Ian DUNCAN

It is amazing that people gave Boeing the victory before Airbus came out with its numbers, and like you said, Boeing never claimed a victory. This is great news of the aviation industry that both Manufacturers, and I like you are, tickled at the cheerleaders from both sides when it comes to the Horse Race.

David4

Should be amusing for those of you, like me, who are neutral in these matters.
YES :)

Gold

Airbus may have booked more order than Boeing for its 2005 period. However, the fact that Airbus has to wait until Jan. 17th to make its announcement will, as always, cast doubt on its claims and its methodology in calculating orders. Of coure, it has to pump up the PR given that many of its biggest customers are saying aurevoir to the A340 and bonjour to the 777.

mbflyer

mbflyer, I don't believe the mid january announcement casts doubts on Airbus's numbers. Airbus in early January announced that its orders were going to be in the similar "ball park," and they were right and even surpassed Boeing.

David4

I'd really be interested to know if these were firm orders? or just LOI's or MOU's

There is a huge difference!

The Boeing orders are firm, cash in the bank deposits.

As an example an Indian Startup Indigo placed a huge order with Airbus at Paris! Where are they now?

747Pilot

With their hot selling 777's and 787's and relatively good for 737 family, the things look really bright for Boeing. The Airbus 320 family is great but it's the only one doing well.They are losing money on everything else. Huge investments with no return.Who's going to pay? The EU again or some of the CEOs....

Capt.Fox

>>As an example an Indian Startup Indigo placed a huge order with Airbus at Paris! Where are they now?

The 70A320s+30A321s order from Indigo was recorded in the order book on November 2005 (look at www.airbus.com). IAE provides the engines (http://www.iaenews.com/index.php?dtype=detail&ID=173)
and Thales provides the IFE system. You should read more to find out another example.

Huy

To 747pilot: All the Airbus orders are real, firm orders, with deposits paid. You can find all of them listed on airbus.com. Yesterday, Leahy explicitly stressed that they were firm signed orders in the press conference.

As for the IndiGo order, the final contract for those was signed in November, for 70 A320s and 30 A321s.

Nico

Well, I am one of the guys who emotionally prefer Airbus to the competitor since I consider myself a Paneuropean.
Both sides have their propaganda war. I only remember that some years ago Boeing was said to include LOIs and MOUs in its annual count whereas Airbus only included orders avter receiving the downpayment.
Have both manufacturers changed their tactics?
It is better for everybody and this includes Airbus that there is fierce competition. Like Boeing in the 1990, Airbus was slowly getting fat. The 787 came at the right time and I am convinced that the A350 will be identical if not slightly superior to it.
Wait and see.
Daniel

Daniel

Objectivity & common-sense in debate, please, instead of blind flag-waving for one or other of Boeing or Airbus. I hope this is useful.

Boeing & Airbus are serious players. They will have had audited their respective "2005 gross & net orders received", for arithmetical, financial & legal accuracy, consistency with prior-year basis & method of determination, Industry Best Practice,& respect for each other, the business community & enthusiasts.

Delays in final data publication. Time is needed to validate certain contract points important to the client. E.g. final order-confirmation by a contractual 2006 deadline-date, referring back to an ACTUAL 2005 order-signature date, "subject to final confirmation before,Jan.15, 2006", can both "firm up" an order as booked in 2005, & guarantee delivery & EIS dates for the client. These could be postponed by several months, if the Jan. 2006 confirmation deadline is missed(a highly significant point, where final approval by Government signature is required).

Deposits. This is a red herring. These do not guarantee orders. They can be partly or fully refunded on cancellation of firm orders, depending on whether or not there is full or partial penalty-waiver, or new, compensating orders (see UPS'cancellation of 37 Airbus A300-600's, which was a key reducing-factor in Airbus' 2005 gross orders down to net orders received).

Cordially, Ian D.

Ian D.

I feel like mbflyer, Airbus way of acting has always been unfair. Everybody knew the big numbers at the end of december, but the guys at Airbus pushed hard to "win" the media laurels whereas on the marketplace they were hitting the ground (15 A330/340 against 157 B777). The 1055 number hides their failure all along 2005.

Xavier

Boeing & Airbus are serious players. Both will have had audited the accuracy, from all angles, of their respective Gross & Net 2005 Orders Received, incl. consistency of basis of determination with that of prior years, & with Industry Best Practice.

Delays into 2006, for final confirmation of late 2005 data are inevitable, especially when client airlines' "firm order signatures" require subsequent ratifications by Government signature (e.g. as with China & India).

Cash Deposits are no guarantee against order-cancellation. See UPS' cancellation of 37 Airbus A300-600Fs. Then, airframer & client simply negotiate a balanced solution between penalties, & full or partial waiver thereof, according to the specific circumstances, e.g. a switch of orders between aircraft types from same airframer, resulting in full waiver.

Hope this is helpful.

Ian D.

Ian DUNCAN

Airbus's orders are firm orders too. Not LOIs, Not MOU's. Firm orders. Signed and sealed.

airbus know-it-all

I just don't understand what all the fuzz in reality is all about when it comes to Airbus announcing its order numbers for a year in January. The reality is, Airbus and Boeing had great years, and the industry as a whole had a good year. The 787 helped Boeing a lot, and it was great to see this plane Help Boeing in 2005. This propaganda nonsense between who has firm orders or not is really just a bunch of flag waving nonsense from people who not even get a penny from either company. As an American the only time I'll be pro Boeing is when they pay me!

David4

Analysts and the press are catching the real story: Airbus has become a one-trick pony: 900-plus of its orders are for the A320. Boeing beat them in every twin-aisle (read: where the money is) category.

From UK based "The Skeptic":
"There's plenty to worry about - and great-looking 2005 numbers may distract from the potential nasty problems ahead.

Airbus might be leading the overall order and delivery race, but it's losing out on higher-margin, wide-bodied and four-engine aircraft like the A340 family to Boeing's twin-engine 777."

From financial analyst Byron Callahan of Prudential:

"Much press was dedicated to the fact that Airbus's jet orders "beat" Boeing in 2005, but this is a bit silly in our view. These are businesses, not annual horse races. Regardless, the lack of twin aisle orders for Airbus, compared to Boeing, and the nature of some its single orders suggest to us that Boeing came through with a better quality order book."

From Business Week:
"Perhaps most worrisome for Airbus, sales of its widebody A340 plane are in a stall. Airlines ordered only 15 of them last year, compared to 154 orders for Boeing's competing 777. It's looking more and more likely that Airbus will have to redesign the four-engine A340, to help it compete against newer, more-efficient twin-jet models of the 777 that have snared recent orders from key customers such as Hong Kong-based Cathay Pacific and Dubai-based Emirates."

From analyst Richard Aboulafia: ""Counting airplanes is a lot of fun, but you can't pay wages with narrow-body planes. It was very much Boeing's year, and it raises questions about why Airbus felt they needed to do this."

proxl

IndiGo paid $5 million deposit for 100 A320s. CASG paid even less deposit for 150. The China "order" was so unusual that Airbus even invented a new type of contract to do it in time to make the 2005 total.

Will neither of these items will make it into this week's Flight International because their journalists are now writing blogs instead of going out and doing hardcore journalism?

What happened to the good old days when Flight would tell you what was happening and not just regurgitate company reports?

The Forgeard Informant

First blog comment aimed only at Boeing's & Airbus' respective 2005 Gross & Net Orders of Units. We did not create the media-hype problem of what is now an annual marketing show, not entirely meaningful, in a long-term business. If we glance at longer-term implications & areas such as:
ｧ US$ worth of Net orders Received : Boeing won in 2005 (congratulations , Boeing, especially for a great "bounce-back" year, with notable B787 & B777 successes) ;
ｧ Model Mix : over-hasty conclusions are out ; despite their statements, Airbus are tackling their wide-body issues; Airbus' success with A320 will put pressure on Boeing for a B737 replacement; but no matter how fine any "new B737" will be ( & it will be an excellent product), Boeing will not immediately recover recent defectors to Airbus narrow-bodies, or new airlines that have just placed first orders for A320 family ; both Boeing & Airbus have many deliveries to make ; even allowing for client order-switches, from current to new models, at launch of the latter, each needs "right timing" for next-generation narrow-bodies, & cannot afford to be too early or late to market.
ｧ Quality of margin content: though worth mentioning, arguably, Airbus percentage ROS on A320 family may be better, for a while yet, than those on Boeing's wide-bodies, notably B787, after the heavy impact of discounts; but that is surmise, NOT fact ; we outsiders do NOT know the details.
ｧ Quality of airline customers: given the bankrupt state of US "majors", one should be wary of ill-considered insults towards Airbus clients. Talk of Boeing's wide-body order-intake successes, even B787, should not neglect those which might not have occurred, without bale-out funding by Governments (e.g. Air Canada) & financial largesse via GECAS for airlines, that, without such contestable aid, could not even afford to place orders.

Ian D.

Ian DUNCAN

>>Analysts and the press are catching the real
>>story: Airbus has become a one-trick pony:
>>900-plus of its orders are for the A320.
>>Boeing beat them in every twin-aisle (read:
>>where the money is) category.

Well, isn't it typical that the Boeing Cheerleaders (BCs) are just like a mirror image of todays America; only looking at the next "quarter", and not the long term. It's quite amusing though, to observe how the usual crowd of BCs always seem to take delight in reading the superficial Aboulafia and other members of the mostly US-based "aviation" punditry class. If these people's anti-Airbus bias is repeated long enough and load enough, people in America will believe it's the truth. Hmm, isn't this quite similar to what was done regarding 9/11, Bin-Laden, WMDs and Saddam?

As a sidenote, one can only wonder if any BC would be able to identify the individual who said the following words: "People talk of situations, read books, repeat quotations, draw conclusions on the wall." BTW, what do those words mean?

In http://www.bizbuzzmedia.com/blogs/flight_international/archive/2005/11/24/780.aspx#comments

I wrote that "the BCs always seem to be unable to grasp, the LONG TERM strategic implications of Boeing's lack of commonality across it's product-line."

Apart from the 777 which shares the same Section 41 with the 767, the 737ng, 747-400 and 747-8 767, 777, and 787 have no common fuselage structures. Any future 777 upgrade can't easily take advantage of the 787 production infrastructiure.

Airbus has currently three different fuselage cross-sections. With the new A350, the company will significantly update the 222-inch wide circular single-deck fuselage shared by the A300/A310/A330/A340. Any further A340 upgrade will easily take advantage of the A350 fuselage advances and most of the production infrastructure. Also, it should be quite clear to any informed individual that Airbus is excellently positioned to "A350" it's entire product line in the near term.

Now, I would guess that a considerable number of the BCs don't care much about aircraft emissions and will consequently not consider climate change as an important environmental issue for the aviation industry.

However, outside the above mentioned community, many reasonable and informed individuals would put the climate change impact of aviation into two parts:

1. the contribution to global CO2 from aircraft burning fossil fuels;

2. other effects in the upper atmosphere, linked to the emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), particles and water vapour.

The total combination of these two effects can be described by a metric known as "radiative forcing", which combines their joint impact on global warming.

A strong reason why for example LCCs can offer extremely cheap flights is that aviation fuel, unlike motor fuels, is tax-free on international flights. However, there's a growing momentum worldwide now building in favour of some sort of a tax system and other punitive actions against the industry.

Coupled with a possible occurance of "peak oil" in the near term, the aviation industry may be in for a difficult time ahead, if the civilian aircraft manufactures consequently are not proactive and aggressive in pursuing new concepts and technologies.

In a recent study by Arthur D Little, it was stated that "overall, advances in airframe, engine and operational developments are forecast to offer average fuel efficency improvements of up to say 2 per cent. per annum until 2030". Their baseline for savings appear to be the current fleet average.

However, this is not good enough for the long term, which means that significant propulsion improvements are required at some time in the relatively near future.

Beyond 2020-2025, it looks like Airbus are considering new "concept planes" currently on the drawing board, and that these new aircraft will from then on take an increasing market share.

A fuel cell-powered BWB airline
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Anonymous
DATE: 01/20/2006 17:35:01
URL:
IP: 130.76.32.144
Canute, in your endless effort to write 1000-word posts linking hither, thither and yon, your efforts always seem to be in "proving" that a successful product line includes:

An airplane that was supposed to be in the pipeline for another 8-10 years (the A330) until it was crushed in the market by new technology; leading to:

An airplane (A350) conceived as a reaction to that crushing new technology that is essentially a warmed over A330, and is STILL getting beat 2-1 in the marketplace, and also effectively crushes:

Any and all of the sales logic for a third airplane (A340), which, let's see, is slower, more expensive to operate, and less reliable (by a wide margin) than its competitor.

And let's not forget that triumph of Euro-capito-socialism, the A380, which was outsold 2-1 in 2005, and hasn't had a really significant order year since its launch, is behind schedule and will cost millions in penalties.

PS: Easy to make good margin when your R&D money is free as long as your program is a failure (which A380 is shaping up to be).

And don't give me military R&D as an equivalent, or I'll have to point out the A400 and Eurofighter.

proxl

Proxl, it's rather amusing to watch how some BCs tend to work themselves up about "issues" such as the A380, Airbus R&D, and military R&D in Europe.

I'm not particularily fond of writing "1000-word posts", but debunking the nonsense that is spread about Airbus requires some analysis. It should be obvious though, even to the most enthusiastic Boeing cheerleader, that spreading uncorroborated claims or half-truths about Airbus doesn't require that many words.

Now, if you want to believe that the A330 is "crushed" in the market, fine, but don't expect to convince me by merely stating it.

BTW, the A350 is not a replacement for the A330, but for the A340-200/300. Also, what you don't seem to grasp is the fact that in general, base models of wide-body airliners are mostly successful only in the first decade of sales. Also, the A330-300 in particular, is an aircraft optimised for regional and medium range operations. The 787-8 and the 787-9 are optimised for very long to ultra long range operations. This means, of course, that the 787 is not really designed as a replacement for the A330-300. Airbus can easily "A350" the A330 by a substantial lightening of the structure weight, and hanging-on the airframe the proposed Trent-1500 engine with a BPR raised to about 9,5:1. Therefore, a new modernised state-of-the-art A330 base model (the Airbus A330-800?), would most likely sell very well during the second decade of the millenium.

One can only wonder how much technical insight you've actually got, when you're referring to "the crushing new technology"..............

You don't buy the BS that the use of mandrel molding is the most intelligent way of designing and building a composite fuselage, do you?

Now, Drew Magill, head of market research at Boeing Commercial Airplanes, seems to have a "slightly" different view regarding new technologies:

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRHeft05/FRH0512/FR0512g.htm

-----------------------------------------------
Excerpts

"In aircraft construction reliable, proven off-the-shelf technology is therefore increasingly preferred to always using new high-tech products that carry the risk of teething problems. One example of this is the computer screens in the 787 cockpit which come from commercially available laptop computers, or the 787's electronic electrical power management system, which comes from the French TGV high-speed trains.
-----------------------------------------------

As for the market share battle between the 787 and A350, it's interesting to note that your friend Aboulafia predicts a one-year delay for the 787 program: http://www.defenseworld.net/Military-Equipment-News.asp/var/7307-DefenseAerospacePressnews-1

But such a delay wouldn't matter to Qantas, of course, and they chose the 787 due to its "vast superiority" over the A350, didn't they? (or?)

However, any reasonably intelligent individual working as an analyst in sales forecasting of civilian airliners, would most probably not risk his/her reputation in producing a premature conclusion in the 787/A350 sales battle 4 and a half years before the EIS of the A350.

Finally, regarding the competativeness of the A340; I'm quite sure that a considerably enhanced version of the A340-600 (the A340-900?), at full pax load with a range of more than 17000 km, would be more than competative with the 777-300ER. Since EIS for the A340-300, Airbus has produced about two A340s per month. They need to sell about 50 more A340-500s/600s to maintain such a production level until 2011 when the A340-900 would be available. These 50 units could be offered, together with other incentives, with a significantly lower acquisition price.

Canute

Come on, Canute. You know perfectly well that Airbus already TRIED to create the A330-800 by hanging a GEnx on it. Of course, they called it the A350, and, when the market was wholly uninterested, only then came up with the design it's starting to take today.

And exactly WHERE in your Aboulafia link does he say anything about a 787 delay? You mean where he says,

"Boeing is clearly back in the game," he said. "The 787 is off to a very strong start. Boeing`s commitment of the necessary resources for the project has had a knock-on effect, boosting customer confidence in Boeing and its overall product line."?

Or, "The A350 is clearly much less ambitious..."

And what does the use of COTS software have to do with the fact that the 787 is the technological leader in its class?

You might note that Airbus had to go to a Boeing subsidiary to have a paperless flight deck.

proxl

Proxl, in 2003 John Leahy said, if I recall correctly, that "they could simply hang the new fuel-efficient engines developed for the 7E7 on the existing A330-200 and - poof - there goes any Boeing advantage." However, at that time Airbus had not "tried to create" an A330-800; they were merely talking about several possible design iterations regarding the A330. Isn't that a rather big difference? Also, one should be able to realise that Leahy didn't necessarily mean that they would put the exact same engines on the A330, but engines with at least the same level of technology to those that were going to be put on the 7E7.

The A330-200, which is bigger and newer than the 767, was winning most of the sales. Therefore at the time, the 7E7 was generally viewed as a response to the A330-200. It was only after the 787 was formally launched on April 26th, 2004, that Airbus indicated that they were seriously looking at a possible "A350" program.

As I indicated in my previous post, the 788 and the 789 will be optimised for very long and ultra long range operations, whereas the A330 is not. Therefore, it made sense for Airbus to introduce a "new" widebody to compete with the 787.

BTW, in case you don't know, a GEnx is simply too LARGE to hang on the A330. The MLG of the A350 actually will break away from the A330/A340 design, which was conceived to rely upon an additional central landing gear unit for the heavier A340-200/300 variants. By eliminating the A330/A340 centre landing-gear bay, the MLG of the A350 can be taller to accomodate the increased size of the GEnx and the Trent-1700. An "A330-800", however, would most likely retain the shorter and lighter MLG of the A330-200/300.

Now, it's quite amusing that you failed to read properly the last paragraph in the Aboulafia link:
-----------------------------------------------
" -- "2004 was the first year Airbus enjoyed a higher market share than Boeing (in revenue)," said Aboulafia. "The situation will stay neck-in-neck until 2009, when the 787 arrives (we forecast a one-year delay).
-----------------------------------------------

As for your first Aboulafia quote; well, he's not saying anything that should surprise anyone knowledgeable enough about aerospace.

As for your second Aboulafia quote; well, he didn't say "the A350 is clearly much less ambitious", but "the A350 looks less ambitious". The meaning of those two sentences are CLEARLY different. Even Aboulafia can occasionally be careful with his wording. Actually, it's intellectually dishonest to incorrectly site a quote just to suit an agenda.

So, the fact that Boeing is using COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) software, and not GOTS (government off-the-shelf) software, is proof that the 787 represents "crushing new technology"?

Finally, who really cares whether Airbus chose Boeing-owned Jeppesen for its EFB software products to Airbus operators, in competition with other third-party providers, or that EADS is to build the aft pressure bulkhead of the Boeing 787 at its Augsburg plant in Germany, after being sourced by Vought Aircraft Industries.

Canute

Its is interesting to see that B2 composite technology applies to the 787 structures, and Mr B may have a problem having overseas produced modules.
So, who gets subsidies? Did Boeing/ Northrop build the B2 as a private venture?

ache

ache