|
Author
|
Topic: Lost cost carriers and the airbus?
|
Franklin
Post Captain
Member # 372
|
posted
Does it bother anyone else that all these start ups are buying the Airbus and other foreign builds and no Boeings?
I would have thought by now the unionists around the nation would have started at least some minor noise about this and the loss of jobs in the US as a result.
Posts: 326 | From: St. Louis, MO usa
| IP: Logged
|
|
Franklin
Post Captain
Member # 372
|
posted
I meant LOW cost, not lost cost....whoops
Posts: 326 | From: St. Louis, MO usa
| IP: Logged
|
|
Subsonic Transport
Post Captain
Member # 2139
|
posted
This has bothered me for a long time. Everytime I read Air Transport World's news briefs, another carrier has bought more Airbuses. This isn't just a problem in the US. It's seems to be happening all around the world.
Almost weekly some carrier in some part of the world made a purchase of an Airbus. And to think the US could purchase Airbus a/c to fly in the US Air Force for our tankers. What a slap that would be!
What's going on with Boeing anyways?! Have they lost their minds or something? Is the backlog so extensive or the Airbus discount so steep that nobody can refuse the offer?
Posts: 407 | From: Buffalo, NY
| IP: Logged
|
|
B717FLYER
Post Captain
Member # 269
|
posted
Two reasons: Airbuses are cheaper and the unions care more about jobs than buying U.S. products. (BTW Airbus touts that fact that the U.S. is the largest parts supplier to Airbus, BFD!)
IMHO Boeing dropped the ball by countering the A320-series with an updated 1960's design. Not only that but everyone seems to love the fact that the Airbuses have fuselages several inches wider than the 737. I sure hope the 7E7 kicks butt.
Posts: 454 | From: commuting purgatory
| IP: Logged
|
|
Draginitin
Post Captain
Member # 2324
|
posted
Airbus sells a lot of airplanes because they give sweetheart deals. Of course, they're not subsidized at all by their governments. In addition I think their design philosophy is different than Boeing. Boeing designs a much more robust aircraft meant to last a long time. Airbus builds it cheap and disposable. However, given the rapid advances in engine and airframe technology and the cost of fuel, I think Airbus may have the right approach. With the 380, however, I think they're going to lose money.
From a pax standpoint, I like the 320 a lot more than the 737 due to the increased size of the cabin.
One other observation. It's interesting that Air France claims to be making money and, no kidding, if you've ever been to CDG, I think Air France has every single aircraft ever made in service in it's fleet.
Posts: 31
| IP: Logged
|
|
TWA Fan 1
Post Captain
Member # 1926
|
posted
Regarding AF making money, let's put things in perspective. Of the amount publicly acknowledged, Air France has received over $10 billion in subsidies from the French government just in the past decade.
Because of the very tight relationship between AF and the French government (AF was once wholly owned by the French government, and the government is now the company's majority shareholder) it's impossible to know what the full extent of the financial support AF truly receives.
One example of financial support received by AF was an action taken about three or four years ago by the French government in order to reduce AF's payroll costs.
Instead of firing or furlouging these employees, the French government simply agreed to keep paying the AF employees directly for 10 years at full salary, with built in cost of living increases. In addition, this 10-yr. period counts toward pension calculations.
All this support is "off the books" for AF because it accrues directly to former employees.
I suppose it's great if you're a former AF employee, but it's not so great if you're an unsubsidized U.S. carrier trying to compete with AF or an unsubsidized European carrier, struggling with high labor costs and the brutally low fares that are proliferating in Europe now (you can buy a one-way ticket from Geneva to Nice on EasyJet, one of Europe's ultra low fare start ups, for about $15).
[ 06-19-2004, 15:26: Message edited by: TWA Fan 1 ]
Posts: 400 | From: Brooklyn, NY
| IP: Logged
|
|
ss278
Post Captain
Member # 244
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by B717FLYER:
...IMHO Boeing dropped the ball by countering the A320-series with an updated 1960's design. Not only that but everyone seems to love the fact that the Airbuses have fuselages several inches wider than the 737. I sure hope the 7E7 kicks butt.
Hit the nail on the head. Even a cursory look at Boeing's management over the past few years will show you that they were more interested in doing things relatively cheaply than in innovation.
Innovation used to be Boeing's strength. It's how they beat out Douglas, Lockheed and Convair to become the worlds' leading commercial manufacturer. They rested on their laurels and now they have to race to catch up.
Similarly, the 100-seat market is one they should own. They have given it away to Embraer by not bothering to compete. If the Dreamliner doesn't sell well, the world will be down to two major manufacturers of commercial airframes, Airbus and Embraer, and one minor one...Bombardier.
Hate to say it, but from this passengers' perspective, the Airbus is indeed a better ride than the 737.
jm
Posts: 184 | From: Salt Lake City, Utah USA
| IP: Logged
|
|
Subsonic Transport
Post Captain
Member # 2139
|
posted
If Airbus is such a good plane, then why is Southwest making a profit using the 737? Or, would SW being making a bigger profit if they were operating the Airbus?
Here's something that both Boeing and Airbus should be concerned about where the 737-500 and 318 market is concerned. ERJ170
This particular a/c was just in Buffalo the other day.
[ 06-28-2004, 13:49: Message edited by: Subsonic Transport ]
Posts: 407 | From: Buffalo, NY
| IP: Logged
|
|
B717FLYER
Post Captain
Member # 269
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Subsonic Transport:
If Airbus is such a good plane, then why is Southwest making a profit using the 737?
Because they've stuck to just one type. Of course there weren't any A320s around in the early '70s. But as you know even SW has announced that they're looking into the E170/190 for possible future growth.
Posts: 454 | From: commuting purgatory
| IP: Logged
|
|
donuway
Post Captain
Member # 803
|
posted
In response to the opening post, It bothers the hell out of me not only that all of these start ups, who may be the US "Legacy" carriers of the future are going outside of the US for planes, but that Boeing seems to have rested on their laurels too long. How much engineering and retooling would it have taken over the last 20 or so years to develop a fuselage that was a bit wider? The first Airbus I flew was a long time ago on AWA I believe to Phoenix. I was surprised that this medium sized plane had entertainment on it! It seems like Boeing would only market this on its larger planes, but you could still get an MD-80 or 737 to take you on a flight that lasted over 3 hours. My wife flew one (US Air?) a while back and really noticed the improved elbow room. I sometimes wonder what the heck engineers at a VERY mature company do most of the time when you don't see a lot of innovation? Maybe the whole staff is working on the 7E7?
From casual observation, I am wondering if a study was done trying to show a correlation between fleet diversity and profitability of an airline, what it would show? I know in my industry, the trucking companies that bought everything under the sun because they were a "deal", all went the way of the dionosaur.
I read in a magazine a while back that Airbus is also much more aggresive in its marketing, aka sweetheart deals, kissing major butt,,etc.
Take what I said with a grain of salt if you'd like. I'm still a guy who looks at Labels for "Made in the USA", and can arguably show products of all tyes that are sturdier, heavier, etc, from clothing to electrical products to cookware that are still made here, and often cost just a bit more. But it's getting harder to find stuff made here everyday, as it is EASIER to find daily stories of plants closing in the business section of the paper. And our Economy is doing SO well!?
Should I jump or step down from my soapbox? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Don
Posts: 414 | From: St. Louis, Mo
| IP: Logged
|
|
gambit3131
Post Captain
Member # 261
|
posted
I remember when TWA was first looking at the A318 for its fleet. One of the issues that the engineering staff had was the fact of inconsistant tooling. The airframe was all metric, but the componenets were a mish mash of metric and english. They did not dictate the standards to that level.
I myself am not happy with the influx of the Airbus in US carriers. But this is business, you have to go with the less expensive option. Obviously Boeing isn't willing to make deal like Airbus has.
I think Boeing has coasted for a long time and now are feeling the effects. I hope that they stay in the Commercial Airline business. I would hate to see only one manufacturer for narrow and wide body aircraft. That would be bad.
Posts: 176 | From: Fort Worth, TX
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jim Urie
Post Captain
Member # 1305
|
posted
Donuway and Gambit I agree with both of you that Boeing has been resting on it's laurels for too long. In 1960 the U.S. had Boeing, Convair, Lockheed and McDonnel Douglas all building commercial aircraft today we are down to just Boeing.
From a passengers perspective the A-320 family aircraft are comfortable and generaly well received. Both the B-737 family and MD-80 family aircraft are workhorses for many airlines and have made a ton of money for Boeing but they are growing a bit long in the tooth. If you are a start up like Jet Blue you need something to differentiate you from the rest of the pack: leather seats, inflight T.V. rolled into a brand new A-320!
I have flown on both the A-330 and A-340 and they are both nice aircraft however I prefer the B-777 over either Airbus offering as well as the B-747, I can't even begin to immagine the 555 people on an A-380 for 11 or 12 hours!
Hopefully Boeing will get it right with the new 7E7 there are a lot of carriers out there with B-767's that will need replacing soon.
Posts: 29 | From: Northridge, Ca.
| IP: Logged
|
|
ss278
Post Captain
Member # 244
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Urie:
...I have flown on both the A-330 and A-340 and they are both nice aircraft however I prefer the B-777 over either Airbus offering as well as the B-747, I can't even begin to immagine the 555 people on an A-380 for 11 or 12 hours!
Hopefully Boeing will get it right with the new 7E7...
Couldn't agree more. The 777 is my favorite long haul airplane. I will fly the A-380 when it comes out -- once -- just to say I've done it, but if I have a choice subsequently when I need to fly, it won't be my first option. I don't like crowds when I travel. I can handle 50,000 at Dodger Stadium with ease, but 500 on an airplane would make me insane, even with the onboard gym, showers, bars, and Harrods boutiques etc. that we all KNOW they will have.
Regarding the E-170/190 aircraft, I went through the cabin mock-up of them a couple of years ago at Farnborough and was duly impressed. With only 2X2 seating and the fact that they offer more shoulder room than even the Airbus I'm sure they will be a hit with the public. When I mentioned the advantages of this airplane to a couple of Boeing guys I know and asked how they planned to counter, they looked at me as if I were from another planet. Obviously they don't care about the fastest growing segment of the market.
I just hope the 7E7 lives up to all its advance billing.
jm
Posts: 184 | From: Salt Lake City, Utah USA
| IP: Logged
|
|
Subsonic Transport
Post Captain
Member # 2139
|
posted
I was watching National Public Television the other day about UAV's operating in Iraq and other places. There is a UAV made by Boeing that all commercial pilots should be concerned about.
The Boeing X-45! Operates completely automonously. No pilot on board and no remote control either. Programmed to fly either recon missions or bombing missions. It can determine a change in tactics if needed and can communicate with other X-45's and determine the best possible operations. All by itself!
I would bet that at some point in time, that commercial a/c will operate with just one pilot/manager and the plane will do the rest. The time is coming.
The computer isn't working well today so I didn't look at Boeings website for a pic.
Posts: 407 | From: Buffalo, NY
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tom Girtman
Post Captain
Member # 1021
|
posted
NO-WAY! Who will manage the Aircraft when the Pilot/Manager has to take a Crap? Or has a Heart Attack!
Posts: 169 | From: Buckingham, Pa.
| IP: Logged
|
|
B717FLYER
Post Captain
Member # 269
|
posted
The technology has existed for some time for unmanned airplanes. The issue is whether passengers would be willing to get on those airplanes.
Posts: 454 | From: commuting purgatory
| IP: Logged
|
|
Subsonic Transport
Post Captain
Member # 2139
|
posted
I suspect that if you step outside the cockpit to take a crap and the X-45 commercial variant has determined that you are "disposable" your gonna get a swirly and the plane will just operate to its intended destination without any further concerns.
Posts: 407 | From: Buffalo, NY
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tom Girtman
Post Captain
Member # 1021
|
posted
Sure! Nothing can go wrong,go wrong,go wrong,etc!
Posts: 169 | From: Buckingham, Pa.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jeff I.
Post Captain
Member # 2334
|
posted
All I know is, as a passenger, I really don't want to hear over the PA something like this ...."Hello, this is HAL. I will be controlling your flight today from JFK to LAX. That's right, I'll be in COMPLETE control of your flight today ....."
I don't know .... the minute I start hearing a message like that, the FA's better start pouring me doubles of scotch ..... pronto!
Jeff I.
Posts: 482 | From: New York
| IP: Logged
|
|
donuway
Post Captain
Member # 803
|
posted
I read this weekend that the 7E7 has only one part being manufactured in Washington. The rest are coming from various locations from, "around the globe"?? to be "stitched" together in Washington.
Kind of like the label on some clothes today, "Manufactured in Honduras from USA materials" except the opposite, "Made in the
USA from Foreign Materials".
500 people in the back of a plane for 11-12 hours does not sound like fun. I spent 10 hours in the back of a 737 with about 150 yesterday. It wasn't fun. We made it bearable by cleaning out the liquor supply that the FA's doled out to keep the peace for almost 6 hours in San Antonio
Don
Posts: 414 | From: St. Louis, Mo
| IP: Logged
|
|
makemyday
Junior Poster
Member # 2669
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Franklin:
Does it bother anyone else that all these start ups are buying the Airbus and other foreign builds and no Boeings?
I would have thought by now the unionists around the nation would have started at least some minor noise about this and the loss of jobs in the US as a result.
No it doesn't bother me in the least...then again, I could care less about aviation because I am making 3-4 time the USA's lowest paid airline!!!
Posts: 7 | From: Miami
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic