Airbus A350 announced.

We all knew it was coming but now the announcement has finally arrived. Airbus is to build the A350 to rival the Boeing 7E7

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.airbus.com...

Frankly I would not want to be a Boeing employee right now.

They stepped aside from the market for the really big stuff and competeing with the A380 and now their imagined 'trumph card' 7E7 market just got massively diluted.
Whether Boeing now takes the majority of this market or not the fact that Airbus are now in it means they will draw sales away as Airlines and lease companies stick with the one manufacturer for maintenance & service deals etc.

....and American companies going crying to the WTO over the loan system Airbus and the govs of Europe operate is unlikely to be ruled in their favour (that would be a 1st!) just as Europe's complaints fell on deaf ears about the USA's hidden and over it's subidies to it's aero industry and airlines.

Even if the WTO ruled in the US's favour (ha! as if ) we could always do what the USA chooses to do from time to time (like over steel) and just ignore the rules and ruling untiul markets and alternates are established etc.

Hah, I predict that within 10 posts this thread has descended into mud throwing over subsidies

Serious, on topic:

The A350 price point has been put at $90million USD, whereas the 7E7 has been put at $120million USD, the 7E7 is set to be slightly more efficient than the A350 by nearly 4%, but is this efficiency enough to save an airline over $30million USD over the 10 year operating life of the aircraft (major airlines only like to keep aircraft on the books for between 7 and 10 years due to the increased maintenance required for older aircraft)?

The 7E7 may be more efficient in use, but for the above reason Boeing is finding a lot of 7E7 proposed purchasers to be hanging back to see how the A350 winds up before settling on an aircraft. Boeing is finding itself in serious competition, with Airbus essentially uncompeted in the superheavy class (A380 - which is coming on VERY nicely, visited the construction plant in Toulouse a month or so ago, the aircraft structure is together now and engines etc are being fitted) and now outselling Boeing in the carrier class (Airbus had 56% of sales during 2003-2004 with that increasing to 63% in future sales during 2004-2005).

That said, the 7E7 is a *very* nice looking aircraft, so it will be interesting to see how far the A350 deviates from the current A330 design in looks.

Sminkey says:

"Frankly I would not want to be a Boeing employee right now."

I would.

Boeing comments on Airbus A350

In response to the announcement today that Airbus has secured authorization to offer the A350 to customers, Boeing issued the following statement: �Airbus has discussed a number of options in its scramble to bring something to market. Airbus realizes its A330 can�t compete with the 7E7. It also seems to be realizing that it missed the market by focusing its resources on the A380 when what passengers and airlines really want is a new midsize airplane with the range, comfort and economics of larger ones. We�re also concerned that Airbus may seek government launch aid for the A350.�

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Boeing comments on Airbus A350

In response to the announcement today that Airbus has secured authorization to offer the A350 to customers, Boeing issued the following statement: �Airbus has discussed a number of options in its scramble to bring something to market. Airbus realizes its A330 can�t compete with the 7E7. It also seems to be realizing that it missed the market by focusing its resources on the A380 when what passengers and airlines really want is a new midsize airplane with the range, comfort and economics of larger ones. We�re also concerned that Airbus may seek government launch aid for the A350.�

Exactly what I expected Boeing to come out with. The A330 CAN compete with the 7E7 on price grounds, and that is where Airbus is coming from, Airbus has already conceeded that the A350 wont be as efficient, but with a considerable cost saving for each aircraft at the start is where Airbus is competeing.

As for launch aid (dammit, turns out that the prediction i made above is a self fulling one), Boeing dont seem to mind that the 7E7 factories in Washington State are basically free gifts from the local government (massive subsidies for bringing the work there), and that the 7E7 wings are 90% financed by the Japanese government. Boeing also doesnt seem to mind that the G.E. engines for the 7E7 were the direct result of a 80% government financed project.

Yes, that Boeing statement is so predictable that I could have written it for them

I like the bit about "in their scramble to bring something to to the market"
Like the 747-500 -Commercial BWB- Sonic Cruiser-7E7 path that followed the A380 launch was a carefully concieved strategy

Anyone got news of the Boeing Sonic Cruiser? What are the chances that it's really put into production? I was wondering: long-range planes have stuck on a cruise speed of 0.85 mach for quite a long time for economic and enviromental issues (the only exception being the Soviet built IL-82, with a cruise speed of 0.92 mach). Like Richard Branson rightly remarked, nowaday air transport is not faster than thirty years ago, not only, but longer check-in times on security basis often means longer "idle" time at the terminal. I may sound naive, but where are the bloody supersonic aircrafts we dreamt of in the '70s?

I think orbital airliners are the future of air travel imagine getting anywhere on the planet in under 2 hours Now that is some speed still a way off but the way to go in my book.

I know what your saying though Kakugo he might still be going 0.85 mach in 20 years I hope not though

Originally posted by Kakugo
I may sound naive, but where are the bloody supersonic aircrafts we dreamt of in the '70s?

It was decommisioned at the end of 2003 Seriously tho, Concorde proved that the 1960s 1970s dreams of supersonic travel were financially unviable, and even the Sonic Cruiser isnt designed to cruise at anything other than transsonic speeds (mach 0.99 -> mach 1.0) so it doesnt become fuel hungry and doesnt produce sonic booms (and mach 0.99 is still quite a bit faster than mach 0.85).

Once someones created a fuel efficient, environmentally friendly, boomless supersonic aircraft, expect it to take off, but currently the only real option was the Concorde or a suborbital aircraft travelling at multiple mach at something like 100,000 feet. Concorde became financially unviable because its production run was so short (more planes less cost, same reason the B-2 costs so much) and because Rolls Royce refused to extend a contract to service the engines and produce spare parts. The suborbital aircraft route is again just too financially unproven.

So in short, its all down to costs.

[edit on 10/12/2004 by RichardPrice]

The Sonic Cruiser was canned when Boeing decided to go with the 7E7. There is a school of thought that believes the Sonic Cruiser programme was a bit of a 'smoke and mirrors' reaction to try and draw attention away from the A380 until they could offer something genuine themselves once they realised that the big Airbus really was going ahead. The existance of the 7E7 in place of the Sonic Cruiser today superficially supports that argument but I think that Boeing were genuinely looking to launch it at the time.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
We all knew it was coming but now the announcement has finally arrived. Airbus is to build the A350 to rival the Boeing 7E7

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.airbus.com...

Frankly I would not want to be a Boeing employee right now.

I would. (Want to be a Boeing Employee that is)

I think Airbus may be moving a tad bit too fast. They have yet to fly the first 380, so rather then wait they announce yet another model to counter what Boeing announced last year. One can assume everything will go fine with the 380 aircraft, but no one really will know until they actually get into service will they?

Originally posted by shots

I would. (Want to be a Boeing Employee that is)

I think Airbus may be moving a tad bit too fast. They have yet to fly the first 380, so rather then wait they announce yet another model to counter what Boeing announced last year. One can assume everything will go fine with the 380 aircraft, but no one really will know until they actually get into service will they?

I think Airbus can handle multiple development projects at once, considering the A380 is currently well on schedule and they have solved the weight issues that came up, and the fact that the A350 is merly a modification of an already proven design. Plus the fact that Airbus have done it before

Its not abnormal to have multiple development projects on the go at once, Boeing do it all the time, and since the A350 and the A380 teams will be working seperately I see no reason why one project would interfere with another.

Yeah, I see what you mean, but the A350 is a relatively low risk programme anyway, and don't forget that Boeing did the 757 and 767 simultaneously.

edit; like what Richard said

[edit on 10-12-2004 by waynos]

I can't see how these companies plan on making much money on any of these programs. US Air carriers can't seem to stay in business, and we have more planes laying about in the southwestern desert than we know what to do with. The international market is a bit better, especially in the third world, but won't those countries just go deeper in debt paying for perks like new planes and air transprotation industries?

I just see most airlines slowly sliding in a crash situation, financially; a result of higher costs due to fuel, security, and new equipment. Here in the U.S., yes. In Europe, probably after a few planes start to get thrown at buildings, which will start to happen once enough anti-arab measures start going into effect.

Originally posted by soulforge
I can't see how these companies plan on making much money on any of these programs. US Air carriers can't seem to stay in business, and we have more planes laying about in the southwestern desert than we know what to do with. The international market is a bit better, especially in the third world, but won't those countries just go deeper in debt paying for perks like new planes and air transprotation industries?

I just see most airlines slowly sliding in a crash situation, financially; a result of higher costs due to fuel, security, and new equipment. Here in the U.S., yes. In Europe, probably after a few planes start to get thrown at buildings, which will start to happen once enough anti-arab measures start going into effect.

Dont look at the US market, look at the asian market. The airlines coming out of there are growing fast, for example Gulf Air has recently placed a 162 plane order with Boeing and Airbus, Chinese airlines are placing similiar sized orders. Just because the US market has priced itself out of the game doesnt mean theres no growth in other areas.

That is where these people expect to make money.

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Dont look at the US market, look at the asian market.

Why do you think Chirac was over in China kissing ass and saying that the Tienneman Square Massacre Arms Boycott was wrong in the first place. Yeah that will be lifted sometime next year. And wow, after Chirac made his statements, an Airbus order

Not for the A380 as of yet, but that may simply be a matter of time for China. Esp if they configure one along the lines of a 747-400D.

---------

I have to get to bed, but I will make sure I throw the first subsadies mudball later tonight.

I would love to be a Boeing employee. With its diversified commercial and Defence offerings, it would be a fun place to work and is always listed among the best employers to work for.

Airbus is almost as good. EVERYBODY in Europe works for Airbus what with the free to cheap government loans, risk free development, In the past national airlines that were forced to purchase products and the like.

[edit on 12/10/04 by FredT]

originally posted by Fred T.

I have to get to bed, but I will make sure I throw the first subsadies mudball later tonight.

Fred you when you wake up, you might want to start here. It is Mondays edition of MSNBC News Week on this very issue.

Airbus Showdown

Originally posted by shots
Fred you when you wake up, you might want to start here. It is Mondays edition of MSNBC News Week on this very issue.

Airbus Showdown

Well that was a really one sided article with comments such as this: "But it may be necessary to run these risks to send Europe a clear message: if you target our major companies, we will target yours."

They hardly touched on the Boeing subsidies.


Here's a different article:

International Herald Tribune
The United States contends that Airbus has received more than $15 billion in government loans since 1967, helping it wipe out Boeing's sales lead and become the world's No. 1 aircraft maker. The EU says Boeing has pocketed $23 billion in aid since 1992 through state tax breaks, military research and Japanese subsidies to suppliers

Originally posted by AceOfBase

Originally posted by shots
Fred you when you wake up, you might want to start here. It is Mondays edition of MSNBC News Week on this very issue.

Airbus Showdown

Well that was a really one sided article with comments such as this: "But it may be necessary to run these risks to send Europe a clear message: if you target our major companies, we will target yours."

They hardly touched on the Boeing subsidies.


Here's a different article:

International Herald Tribune
The United States contends that Airbus has received more than $15 billion in government loans since 1967, helping it wipe out Boeing's sales lead and become the world's No. 1 aircraft maker. The EU says Boeing has pocketed $23 billion in aid since 1992 through state tax breaks, military research and Japanese subsidies to suppliers

Do you perhaps have some further info that backs up what the Heard States. Also why are you putting in state tax breaks? I do not consider those as a subsidy per se. It is not uncommon at all for states to give companies breaks to remain where they are.

I would really be interested in seeing just how japanese subsidies to suppliers plays a part in the picture. Are you saying that Japan is subsidizing boeing or are you saying Japan is subsidizing its suppliers. They have been doing that for years?

This is a whole new thing to me so bear with me; while I sort out what each side is claiming, so I can make my own mind up who is right and who is wrong.

Originally posted by shots
Do you perhaps have some further info that backs up what the Heard States. Also why are you putting in state tax breaks? I do not consider those as a subsidy per se. It is not uncommon at all for states to give companies breaks to remain where they are.

I would really be interested in seeing just how japanese subsidies to suppliers plays a part in the picture. Are you saying that Japan is subsidizing boeing or are you saying Japan is subsidizing its suppliers. They have been doing that for years?

This is a whole new thing to me so bear with me; while I sort out what each side is claiming, so I can make my own mind up who is right and who is wrong.

Yes, there's a good report on it here: CANADA � UNITED STATES TRADE CENTER OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 28

That report also lists the Japanese involvement in the project:

The WTO could determine the Japanese government support of the 7e7 program as a violation of the TRIMS Agreement and Article III: 4 GATT.
This violation might be classified as a prohibited subsidy, which could result in the WTO remedying the issue by having the Japanese government withdraw the subsidy through retroactive repayment. Should this scenario play out
after the Japanese Aircraft Development Corporation (JADC) disperses upwards of $2 billion dollars of support to the Japanese aircraft companies involved with the 7e7 program, the result could be catastrophic for Mitsubishi, Fuji and Kawasaki. These firms are slated for delivering the first of set of wings and fuselage sections to support the 7e7 aircraft.

BTW, if tax breaks are not a subsidy, why are loans that must be paid back called a subsidy?