Airbus said to be Losing "Altitude"
Discussion
jimbeaux said:I wouldn’t be to concerned about this setback unless its proven that the time to assemble a whole aircraft is longer than they anticipated or takes more manpower.
What are your takes on this?
www.businessweekasia.com/magazine/content/05_25/b3938069_mz054.htm
I still think that ultimately as a competitive company it is seriously flawed however.
bruciebabe said:
Businessweek American.
Boing = American.
I would far rather be trying to sell the Airbus range than the Boing range. Younger, better designs. Nicer to fly in as well.
Yep. Couldn't agree more. Yes the A380 is suffering a delay. But the whole project is past its "risk" stage as first flight has taken place. So it will be delivered - and I'm certain it will be a massive success.
I'm sure the European press is similarly biased against Boeing - who also make fine planes.
apache said:
I still think that ultimately as a competitive company it is seriously flawed however.
What makes you think that ST? they seem to be moving metal and I think their philosophy regarding the 380 is on the money. Business wise they fight as dirty as anyone else
I agree with apache. How can it be flawed ? The numbers speak for them selves. Airbus took on the might of Boeing and they have won, at leat at the moment. Fact : Airbus are currently selling and have more orders than Boeing.
As I said on the other Airbus 380 thread, Airbus is in a much better state regarding orders with the 380 than Boeing were when they first flew the 747. In fact, Boeing very nearly went under in the early 1970s because the orders for two of their main aircraft, the 737 and 747 were so poor at that time. It was only the 727 and continuing military contracts that kept them going back then.
Airbus is in a a much stronger position at this point in time comapred to Boeing 30 odd years ago.
From what I can see, there is room for two major airframe manufacturers in the world - but only two. Until the 1990s, the main players were Boeing and McDonnell Douglas. As the 1990 progressed, Airbus grdually took over McDonnell Douglas' role. McD finally succumbed to the competition, mainly because they had failed to introduce any totallly new designs since the launch of the DC-10 in 1966, a damning comment on the management following the takeover by Mc Donnell of the Douglas Aircraft Corporation in 1967.
Boeing, at least, have continued to launch new models and keep pace with the technical innovations introduced by Airbus.
Airbus is in a a much stronger position at this point in time comapred to Boeing 30 odd years ago.
From what I can see, there is room for two major airframe manufacturers in the world - but only two. Until the 1990s, the main players were Boeing and McDonnell Douglas. As the 1990 progressed, Airbus grdually took over McDonnell Douglas' role. McD finally succumbed to the competition, mainly because they had failed to introduce any totallly new designs since the launch of the DC-10 in 1966, a damning comment on the management following the takeover by Mc Donnell of the Douglas Aircraft Corporation in 1967.
Boeing, at least, have continued to launch new models and keep pace with the technical innovations introduced by Airbus.
bruciebabe said:
It is worth noting that Boing has slagged off every technical advance from Airbus big style. Then copied them.
Can you point me at any references for this?
bruciebabe said:
I remember the way Boing kicked up over Fly By Wire. Said it was unsafe fror passenger aircraft and shouldn't be certified.
IMO Boeing are right to be cautious about total reliance on FBW, quadroplex systems used to include one basic mech backup, I know this has become redundant in unstable platforms but an airliner isn't an unstable platform.
I'm a bit out of the avaition loop these days and maybe one of the redundancies includes assymetric throttle control, a lesson learned from the Sioux City crash
>> Edited by apache on Sunday 19th June 10:25
Watching the documentary last night, and particularly the spectacular "blade off" test, reminded me immediately of the Sioux City DC-10 crash. This was caused by a "fan off" (as opposed to just a "blade off" )incident which caused grevious damage to the plane's hydraulic system. Were the tests carried out on the DC-10 (which would have been back in 1970-71) less stringent than tests carried out today?
In 1972 a DC-10 was almost lost when a blade disintegrated on a wing mounted engine so the Sioux City crash was not the first time it had happened.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 19th June 10:37
In 1972 a DC-10 was almost lost when a blade disintegrated on a wing mounted engine so the Sioux City crash was not the first time it had happened.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 19th June 10:37
Eric Mc said:
Watching the documentary last night, and particularly the spectacular "blade off" test, reminded me immediately of the Sioux City DC-10 crash. This was caused by a "fan off" (as opposed to just a "blade off" )incident which caused grevious damage to the plane's hydraulic system. Were the tests carried out on the DC-10 (which would have been back in 1970-71) less stringent than tests carried out today?
In 1972 a DC-10 was almost lost when a blade disintegrated on a wing mounted engine so the Sioux City crash was not the first time it had happened.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 19th June 10:37
Our old Victors used to do that quite often. They used modified Conways that had an extra fan at the front, sometimes one would throw a blade which would lunch the engine, the inards would then be spat out the front and get promptly ingested by it's neighbour. This was not too much of a problem as the old things were well overpowered but we lost one at Marham on take off when the whole fan came off and ploughed into the forward fuselage tank, the aircraft was gone within 3 minutes!
After that some boffins pitched up and fitted stress/vibration analysis kit everywhere and proceeded to test one to destruction, I foolishly offered my services and operated the engineers position till the consequences sank in
>> Edited by apache on Sunday 19th June 10:58
nick heppinstall said:Right basically I don’t believe that Airbus can survive in the open market because it has basically been built on the EU’s bankroll. Now don’t get me wrong, Boeing has also received financial aid from the U.S. government but never as a direct “no strings attached” loan. In contrast Airbus received some $6.5 billion (This in excess of 30% of the total development cost of the aircraft and then I believe it still overran it’s budget by nearly $2 billion) of taxpayers money to build the A380.
speedy_thrills said:
I still think that ultimately as a competitive company it is seriously flawed however.
What makes you think that ST? they seem to be moving metal and I think their philosophy regarding the 380 is on the money. Business wise they fight as dirty as anyone else
I agree with apache. How can it be flawed ? The numbers speak for them selves. Airbus took on the might of Boeing and they have won, at leat at the moment. Fact : Airbus are currently selling and have more orders than Boeing.
Initial claims of Airbus breaking even by 2010 seem to have been a great exaggeration, but time may prove me wrong.
Boeing has a history of making unusual market decisions to save the company; they have often predicted the market changes ahead of rivals and privately financed ventures that turned out to be excellent profiteering aircraft. So does the world want smaller aircraft to more destinations or just really big aircraft?
This story actually reminds me of the Bugatti Veyron where they said “It’s going to have over 1000hp and go over 250mph” before any one had ever even set pen to paper. Well this seems to be on a similar level but with an aircraft bigger than the 747.
apache said:
It is worth noting that Boing has slagged off every technical advance from Airbus big style. Then copied them.
Can you point me at any references for this?bruciebabe said:
I remember the way Boing kicked up over Fly By Wire. Said it was unsafe fror passenger aircraft and shouldn't be certified.
IMO Boeing are right to be cautious about total reliance on FBW, quadroplex systems used to include one basic mech backup, I know this has become redundant in unstable platforms but an airliner isn't an unstable platform.
I'm a bit out of the avaition loop these days and maybe one of the redundancies includes assymetric throttle control, a lesson learned from the Sioux City crash
>> Edited by apache on Sunday 19th June 10:25
Boing use FBW now on the 777, so they employ what they once derided. Likewise composites for main structural members. Airbus have done this for years to much Boing criticism, now the Dreamliner is, you guessed, mainly composite.
bruciebabe said:
bruciebabe said:
It is worth noting that Boing has slagged off every technical advance from Airbus big style. Then copied them.
Can you point me at any references for this?
bruciebabe said:
I remember the way Boing kicked up over Fly By Wire. Said it was unsafe fror passenger aircraft and shouldn't be certified.
IMO Boeing are right to be cautious about total reliance on FBW, quadroplex systems used to include one basic mech backup, I know this has become redundant in unstable platforms but an airliner isn't an unstable platform.
I'm a bit out of the avaition loop these days and maybe one of the redundancies includes assymetric throttle control, a lesson learned from the Sioux City crash
>> Edited by apache on Sunday 19th June 10:25
Boing use FBW now on the 777, so they employ what they once derided. Likewise composites for main structural members. Airbus have done this for years to much Boing criticism, now the Dreamliner is, you guessed, mainly composite.
Your 'quote' mentions FBW being used by Airbus first, it was never 'derided' by Boeing, merely questioned. It would be impossible to compete with an aircraft equipped with a mech back up/q feel/ etc due to weight and production costs.
Where did you see that Boeing 'criticised' the use of composites?
As for "Boing has slagged off every technical advance from Airbus big style. Then copied them" I think that's a little niaive. Before Airbus came on the scene Boeing made advancements in many areas that are probably used on aircraft all over the world
To be honest I do think that the pendulum could swing back a bit in the coming year. We have the 777 200LR here tomorrow night and a walkround on Tuesday this and the 787 are leading a bit of a Boeing comeback and if they just stretched the 787 a bit they would have a 350 beater, it's a better plane but too small for hubbed longhaul.
Either way for us airlines this level of competition is good with silly discounts all round.
One issue that may swing it is the strength of the Euro, a 787/777 is way way cheaper than a 350as it stands now.
spelling
>> Edited by willmcc on Sunday 19th June 15:32
Either way for us airlines this level of competition is good with silly discounts all round.
One issue that may swing it is the strength of the Euro, a 787/777 is way way cheaper than a 350as it stands now.
spelling
>> Edited by willmcc on Sunday 19th June 15:32
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff