Opinions are of course divided on Boeing marketing chief Randy Baseler's blog, but they're mostly divided between dedicated bloggers and everyone else. The bloggers are irritated that Randy won't play by their rules and still has quite a successful blog; everyone else is just interested in what he has to say, to some extent anyway.
But there's a third, much smaller group. Airbus marketing is even more irritated by it - and now I understand they're trying to work out what to do about it.
This week Airbus has held its annual conference in Toulouse for the technical press (expect a copy deluge over the next few weeks). For the first time in a while I wasn't at it personally, but by aerospace media standards it's a huge event and journalists fly in from literally all over the world for it.
I've just been going through the numerous presentations and noticed that Airbus devotes four complex slides to explicitly rebutting Randy's 27 April post entitled Wait a Minute. That's the sort of thing that sends the hard-core bloggers apoplectic - companies issuing their response to a blog only to the evil mainstream media!
But you can see Airbus' problem. What are they supposed to do? Getting into a public slanging match with Randy is not a great idea for either company. But how can it be avoided? I think you can assume Airbus would like your suggestions (although they wouldn't say they would - which is part of their problem.)
Actually I think their bigger problem is working out who would write it. Airbus seems to have a strategy of a) being extremely closely engaged with the aviation and general media, and b) wowing the general public with gee whiz material on their new aircraft (as Boeing has been doing with 787.) But the bit in the middle - ie engaging with the general public - doesn't fit very well with their culture, and diverging from the culture is not encouraged at Airbus anymore than it is anywhere else.
I mentioned Randy's blog in passing to a senior Airbus marketeer recently and he half-jokingly said something to the effect "oh, has Randy got a blog", but he also made it clear he knew it was causing trouble. From chatting to people who were in Toulouse this week I gather Airbus is now properly setting about addressing the issue.
I don't know how this is going to end. It constantly shocks me that Airbus and Boeing have come to be national champions in quite the way they have and any argument on the web about them - and there are thousands - is apt to sink in bizarre quantities of quasi-nationalistic poison. The garbage spouted by some airline pilots on the subject is particularly alarming (though the thoughtful stuff from them is often superb.)
What Randy hasn't really managed to do - and few blogs do - is to generate a really useful debate about much of this. Most commenters on the site are USA/Boeing flag-waving - nothing wrong with that, but nothing very productive about it either. I wonder if Airbus has an opportunity to find its way into the blogosphere via some greater engagement with the world.
And I'd be very interested indeed in your comments.
Comments (5)
I think Airbus PR has bigger fish to fry right now than getting a blog up. "Hey, all you media here for the briefing, please ignore that steaming pile of elephant dung in the corner, and look at this..."
Observer
Posted by Anonymous | June 15, 2006 6:50 PM
Posted on June 15, 2006 18:50
Cockiness is killing Airbus
We all want to dump on the big guy, and for years, that was Boeing. But wait a minute! Boeing may have taken things for granted for a few year but they paid their dues. Let's look at history.
Back in the thirties they came up with the frame work of what would become the classic aircraft features for decades to come. No subsidies and no government R&D. This airplane was the Boeing 247. There are claims that Douglas got hold of Boeing wind tunnel reports and built the better DC-1 based on this "industrial espionage". This of course, led to the DC-3. Boeing went on to pioneer pressurized passenger airplanes with the Boeing 307 but this too failed to produce large orders. During the war, Boeing got busy building bombers while Douglas received orders for a variety of aircraft, including lots of transports.
After the war, large passenger aircraft production continued to elude Boeing as the Douglas line and the Lockheed Constellations took all the orders. A few Boeing 377s were all that Boeing had to show for their efforts. You can say that the large contracts of bombers benefited the Boeing designs but I don't know if I would call it subsidizing R&D. I think for the most part, the product developed from the basic 247, through the 307 and then through the bomber lines to the C-97 and finally the 377. I know one thing, and that is that Boeing stopped relying on university wind tunnels after the Douglas affair and built their own facilities, something that was unheard of at the time (for a private manufacturer). Boeing's foresight resulted in the B-47 swept wing, which in turn resulted in the Boeing 707 wing. Now the concept of the swept wing may have originated in Nazi Germany, but it was the Boeing wind tunnel that developed the wing from concept to reality.
One could argue that most of what Boeing had developed, eventually wound up being absorbed in the overall industry. In other words, the R&D that went into Boeing wound up in many other companies. The early jets of the Soviet Union were direct derivatives of the B-29s that crash landed on their soil during the war. The basic wing dynamics of the 707 became the industry standard.
One of the most heavily government subsidized aircraft programs in Europe (at the time) had to be the Concorde. Nobody can convince me that some of that R&D didn't eventually end up benefiting Airbus. American government satellite technology is now part of the Airbus navigation systems. Most of Europe's prewar and post war aviation industries (especially in France) were all government owned or government controlled. Everything these companies did were subsidized. All that R&D had to have evolved into the present day European industry. To me the accusation of Boeing receiving R&D subsidies is a red herring.
Another red herring are the taxation issues that Airbus is claiming. The United States is made up of fifty different jurisdictions that are all competing against each other, attempting to lure industry into their states through tax breaks and other considerations. Airbus plays the game as well as Boeing. When Airbus recently announced its intentions to build a plant in the United States, did they pick the most labour-expensive area with the highest state taxes? Why is Airbus setting up a production line in China? The Airbus parts are coming from subcontractors that are offering the best quality for the best price. Business rarely has borders and except where political and social interference is present, it seeks to locate (and/or obtain from) where they can realize the best profits. They owe it to their shareholders.
Back in the fifties, Boeing was developing the 707. It took Douglas a while to realize they had better get into the game. I heard a quote that Douglas was telling customers to have patience, they would see what Boeing had and would just build a better derivative. The result was that Douglas produced a bi
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Anonymous
DATE: 06/26/2006 12:20:57
URL:
IP: 83.112.90.48
Any critiscism, or suggestion that Airbus or their lackies may be, simply not quite correct, will bring out their huffy complexed nature! It has been like that since 1990, when the A320 took the world by storm. Their arrogance took flight with the A320 family! I know, I was a Brit, working in the French environment of Toulouse since 1980. The first 10 years were great. A pioneering time, but now? Don't dare suggest anything contrary to their ideas and dreams. Especially to EADS Mr Bean - or is that "Bean-Counter"?
Tony Jones.
Anthony J. Jones. FRAeS.
Posted by Anonymous | June 16, 2006 4:06 PM
Posted on June 16, 2006 16:06
What's so difficult about putting up a blog?! Airbus' execs spout pro-Airbus stuff all the time, why not get one of the sales executives to post some of their anecdotes about what they see or say every day anyway? You don't see Randy crying about Boeing falling behind on the Austrailian Wedgetails, but rather going on about cool things about the commercial aircraft. Why can't some salesman from Airbus go posting some cool stuff about their planes. Planes are cool, so how hard can it be? They must have some satisfied customers to go on about. Airbus: Tell us a story!
It doesn't have to be better than any other blog (most blogs are garbage, anyway) but it'd be nice to see how the other side thinks. And if it's a problem with IT, there've got to be thousands of proud European IT guys that could set it up before breakfast. Maybe Airbus could hire a web engineer whlie they're scouring the Earth for aerospace engineers.
Alan
Posted by Anonymous | June 29, 2006 6:55 PM
Posted on June 29, 2006 18:55
I guess simple and smart reply written as a comment in Randy's blog would be sufficient enough. Not a big deal. Unfortunately that blog doesn't allow comments. =\
BTW The article is entitled "Weight a minute", not "Wait a minute". =)
Alexandroid
Posted by Anonymous | July 7, 2006 2:13 PM
Posted on July 7, 2006 14:13
Hi all, yes CEO's selling shares before bad news / Investment houses providing much direction than the actual organisation. seen it all before. BAE system sale 1.9 Bln. Defered orders of A380 2.1 Bln. Not profitable until 2010. Remember that turnover is vanity. profit is sanity and cash flow is KING.
Liquidity will be the massive issue. Remember the hedge fund is now over. WATCH OUT. p.s. watch being a shareholder and being laid off its a double blow. i should know its happened to me. i have no sympathy for the in house sqabblings of UK / France & Germany all wanting queen bee control.
Andy
Posted by Anonymous | October 3, 2006 9:04 PM
Posted on October 3, 2006 21:04