• Join FlightAware (Why Join?)
  • Login
  • US Flag 
08:55AM EDT


 

Airport Tracker/Info


-or-


 

Squawks & HeadlinesAirbus beats Boeing in net orders with more than 1,000 aircraft in the first nine months of the year

Back to Squawk list

Airbus beats Boeing in net orders with more than 1,000 aircraft in the first nine months of the year

Submitted
Airbus net orders rose to more than 1,000 aircraft in the first nine months of the year, beating Boeing and its own target for 2013, after the planemaker booked a raft of orders which had been pending from European airlines. (airguideonline.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


chalet
chalet 4
Boeing or Airbus, Airbus or Boeing, to be or not to be on either side is the question...?. No, the real issue is that there is nothing like good ole competition for it forces both airframe makers to come up with excellent products allowing the airlines to choose the type(s) that in their opinion suits them the best.
jshhmr
josh homer 3
Yep I agree. Just like Apple vs Android, consumers are the winners.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Not always the case. Whilst the Adam Smith principalss of 1777 have stodd the test of time the market place has always been manipulated by politicians and inevitable those with greed, power and hubris motivations. This cancer exists in places where it should not.
Muliba
Nice competition, good for consumers
wopri
PC versus Apple all over again? I much prefer two big player that push each other to invent, improve and develop than only one big player than will become complacent in no time.
jshhmr
josh homer 0
Apple is a good example. They are struggling to keep up. They got complacent by thinking marketing to kids and hipsters would keep them competitive without innovation. Their stock dive proves otherwise.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
So what do Apple's increasing sales, record profits and largest pile of cash of any company mean. Not sure if I understand where you're going with your example. (Can't be sure you knon either.)
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
I don't like articles that read like they were copied straight from a press release without some additional investigation and reporting.

Both major aircraft manufacturers have years of order backlogs, and much work to do for many years.

The article was somehow trying to show that Airbus was besting Boeing in the marketplace.

I just show that there's much behind the scene that is often left out of press releases.

Both companies have issues. Boeing has had new plane issues with their 787. They'll get it right, and the 787 will be a very profitable plane. If they flub this plane and can't get it right, it will severely damage Boeing's reputation.

Airbus is living the result of putting so much effort into building the A380, which hasn't provided the amount of sales to justify the effort. That misdirected effort means Airbus doesn't have a large 2-engine longhaul plane.

The A350 is a great step in the right direction. They'll need another model once they finish developing the A350 variants.

Once the 777X begins deliveries, Boeing will make and deliver more 777X planes in acouple years than all A380 ever made since day one. And they'll keep making them.

Airbus would be wise to consider that big hole in their lineup that matches up to Boeing's most profitable plane.

Some may consider that taking sides. I consider it good advice.
awinn
Alan Winn 3
The resources Airbus spent on its slow selling and niche market A380, should have been allocated to the A350 and A370 where all the demand is from customers. Airbus has yet to finish and deliver the A350-800 and -1000, and will not be able to develop and deliver an other model until the mid 2020s.
JetMech24
JetMech24 2
You need to quit over analyzing articles to make yourself look smart. The article says that AB recieved more orders this year than BAC, end of story, no further comment required. There will be a article later that states BAC put out more aircraft this year than AB (I think I already read that somewhere though), again, end of story, no further comment required.
wopri
I do think what you wrote here is sound advice. It's very balanced view of the strengths and weaknesses of both manufacturers. Not everybody's opinion is as balanced.
projectabove35000feet
PATFTF PATFTF 0
I disagree with your opinion of "A350 is a great step in the right direction." Airbus came up with the A350 to save the company from going bankrupt. I got to admit that the A350 came out as a very uneventful and under controversy.

I do believe Boeing is on the right track to get the B787 right. I believe that Both companies will hold the future of commercial aviation.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Boeing has a full order book and long waiting times. The market is not without contsraints: ogliopolies. One of the imperfections in the market are that people make decisions and often, in hindsight, those decisions are stupid.
Northeastern292
I have an anti-Airbus sentiment, and not only will I be the first to admit it, but I have family reasons for it (my dad's cousin, who is like an uncle to me, lives in Seattle and despite not having worked for Boeing in years, has many contacts still with the company, along with my personal tastes). So there, I have a bias.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 0
Reads as an Airbus press release with little new info, but slicing and dicing stats to give them an appearance of better financial performance than the reality may be.

I'd much rather they explain what their widebody strategy is going forward. Their A380 jas had a small update globally, with little sign of improving, as airlines slash their A380 orders. Also Airbus currently has no competition for the current 777, nor the upcoming 777X.

There are rumors that Airbus may be working on such an aircraft, purported to become the A370. Why don't they give us an idea that they realize that they flubbed their model planning, and idea when they'd fix it.

Even if they announce such an A370 tomorrow, it would take better than a decade to actually deliver it. And Airbus may not announce it for years if at all. It may be idhful thinking by those of us who acknoledge how badly Airbus has gotten it.

Airbus has no high demand plane that's so valuable to customers that it's also highly profitable to the manufacturer. They will have the A350, which I expext will be such plane. It's expected to begin deliveries close to a year from now, but might not be produced in quantity for a couple years or more from now.

Boeing had the 777 that had been such a cash cow. Now they're also ramping up the 787, which has been delivered for a couple of years and us now being sent to customers in larger quantities. They also have the upcoming 777X that will reach their profitability to ever higher plane capacities.

Neither 747 nor A380 are being sold in sufficient numbers to consider them profitable for their makers. Maybe one or the other may over their operational costs of fabrication, bit are contributing little to their development costs.

The 737 and A320 families are profitable and sell in large numbers, and are solid parts of respective manufacturer's offering. But the margins on these planes are much thinner than their highly profitable widebody brethren.

So why doesn't Airbus have an answer to the 777. Why hassn't Airbus developed an answer in 2 decades that the 777 has provided Boeing and its' customers wild profits. When will Airbus develop an answer to the 777?
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
* A370 may just be wishful thinking by those who acknowledge that Airbus has a huge hole in their product offerings.
btweston
btweston -1
If you want to negate this article because it wasn't written in a way that furthers your agenda (Boeing stockholder?), that's up to you.

Your comment has very little to do with the actual contents of the article, which contains little more than provide some current numbers for comparison. I don't see any reason for you to get defensive.

I guess it goes without saying that your theories on the A370 and 777 are kind of out of left field.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish -2
"I guess it goes without saying that your theories on the A370 and 777 are kind of out of left field."

You should ask the EADS board of directors how left field that comment is. My guess is that it has come up repeatedly over the years. And they've just never been able to agree on a sensible plan for model strategy.

Some must've just been waiting for the A380 to miraculous become much more successful than it's proving to be.

At least the A350 is a big step in the right direction. But that'll still leave them with a hole in the very profitable 2-engine aircraft larger than an A350-1000. That is airlines' most profitable long haul aircraft segment, which has been filledby the 777 over the past couple decades and will be filled by the 777X alone, until Airbus gets around to designing, developing, certifying, and delivering a suitable competing product some time in the next decade or two. That is if they ever get around to it. Or they can just leave that very profitable market to Boeing alone.

Boeing has been concentrating on getting the 787-9 and 787-10 out next. But if they ever decide to bring back the plans for the 787-3, that'll kill off the A330 (which is being sold at great discount to stay competitive as a short haul widebody),

Buy they'd be smarter to put their effort intothe 777X instead. It will being much more bang for the buck for airlines and for aircraft manufactureres, or for now, only manufacturer, as the 777X will be alone in that market segment for the foreseeable future.

Airbus is stuck with the 4-engined A380, with both too much capacity on most routes and the added expense of twice as many engines.

Maybe in a couple of decades, that kind of capacity may become useful. If that market were to appear, Boeing could use the profits from 787 and 777X to develop a replacement for the 747 that could compete with the A380.

But for at least a decade, maybe two, Boeing will own the much more profitable 2-engine market with the 777, 787, and the upcoming 777X.

I don't want Airbus to do bad. But no one else can do their work for them.
awinn
Alan Winn 1
Great series of comments guys ! The Airbus - Boeing sales battle will keep going until the Dubai air show in Nov. Airbus for now has the lead in sales, but I think Boeing is holding back on at least 2 or 300 orders, mainly 777X, 787-10 and 737MAX to be announced at the show or by year end.

In terms of deliveries Boeing will beat Airbus, and probably in terms of order values. Meaning the total dollar value of the orders it will tally. The Boeing monopoly in the 350 to 450 seats market, with the 777X, will give it and advantage, plus the ability to charge more for its larger aircraft.

See related articles
http://airguideonline.com/2013/06/13/airbus-and-boeing-are-competing-for-the-lions-share-of-the-widebody-long-haul-jet-market/
and
http://airguideonline.com/2013/06/05/a-closer-look-at-boeings-787-and-777-portfolio-for-the-paris-air-show/
Moviela
Ric Wernicke -3
People buy Airbus to satisfy the political appetite for keeping Europeans working, others buy Boeing to make money.

The headline only compares figures for pancakes that have not even hit the griddle. Buried in the story is that Boeing has served up 476 full breakfasts (delivered planes) to 445 for EADS. This tells you customers are in no hurry to collect the heavier, slower, low flying Scarebus aircraft.
btweston
btweston -2
Scarebus? Are they the ones whose batteries catch on fire from time to time? But don't worry... They built a fireproof box around them...

By the way, your reasoning is specious.
mikezc128
Yes, Scarebus. They also put spacers in between the cells of the batteries to prevent thermal runaways. The Scarebus A320 family has had over 40 cockpit instrument failures due to computers. Atleast with a Boeing PILOTS still FLY the aircraft, rather than a computer.
JetMech24
JetMech24 0
There were spacers there before as well, they just spread them out further.

I don't know about you, but I have never heard of any Airbus's spontaneously combusting, including once in the cockpit with the FAA right next to it.

Neither is any better than the other, if the public knew the multitude of service bulletins, AD's, etc... that came from Airbus AND Boeing, no one would want to fly. It is what it is.
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 0
Your right that ECO's, AD's, and service bulletin's flow from both airframers. They range from advisory (meaning keep an eye out) to mandatory (meaning do not operate prior to compliance.) I feel both companies do their best to share maintenance experiences with operators. Some are certainly scary, but most are really precautionary.

People still fly because it is one of the safest forms of travel. I think only elevators are safer.

Air travel is safer because mechanics deliver planes first class condition to the gate. Pilots prepare with education and training to deliver conduction of the flight safely. They do it with a better record than other forms of transportation.

I still can't put aside the feeling I get when boarding any Airbus that is not quite as well fitted and finished as I would expect for a free world airplane.
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
But they all come from (even the precautionary ones) someone finding something bad on atleast one, but usually several, aircraft. That is, in most cases, the only way that they would know it was bad, for whatever reason. In total, Boeing has WAY more out than Airbus does and will probably always be that way, most likely just because there are more Boeing planes out there.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Jet. You misunderstood. Airbus and Boeing use the same handful of suppliers. The software is automatically updated by satellite. The soft or hardware was not flawed. The Luftech avionics engineers noticed the updates. They did not like the idea that the supplier could change the FMS without them knowing. So that year they ripped all of the FMS systems out, I mean ALL of it and got Siemens in to install new hardware and got a company to rewrite the software. The new kit did not include that access code, not in the hardware and not in the software. The upshot of all of these precautions was proven to be a good decision after the events in NYC on Sept 11 2001. The only way those ships could have been flown into the towers is if the FMS had been compromised. That is the issue...preventing remotes access to the FMS system. To this day all Lufthansa machines can not be compromised by remote signals
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
My comment was for Ric, I understood what you commented Roland. The flight crew can overide the FMS and hand fly the aircraft, if need be, and THAT is how those planes crashed on 9/11. The only way you could remote operate a plane using the FMS is with autopilot engaged.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
The Lufthansa machines have soft/hardware that cannot be accessed as were the machines' systems on Sept 11 2001. The only machines that are capable of that catastrophic manoever on that cathartic day are military fighters.

If you do some reserch Jet you will be astounded at what can be achieved by remote access into the FMS of a commercial airliner.

No more than a handful of avionics engineers are aware of the codings. Luftech is aware. All of this information is on a need to know basis. All of it is "fictional"
Derg
Roland Dent -1
Ric. Sometime look into the FMS systems that are common to both AB and Boeing. Lufthansa has a customised system that is unique. The udates do not come direct from the supplier. Siemens hardware and Luftech avionics engineers have to sanction all FMS updates. That is the major difference. A Lufthansa airbus cannot be controlled from a remote location. The same with their Boeing fleet. The FMS systems are secure fom remote inputs. Example: the events of 9/11.
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 0
Every reported problem with a 787 while serious is inconsequential contrasted against an uncontained engine failure. Especially on a power plant that has been over specified to allow favorable comparison with Boeing aircraft.

How many Boeing airplanes are in the Atlantic because it is cold at altitude?

By the way, my reasoning is accurate, credible, and honest.
JetMech24
JetMech24 0
Do you really not know that that was a Rolls Royce problem and not an Airbus problem?

How many 737's went down due to a bad actuator?

It goes both ways, neither is any better than the other.
JetMech24
JetMech24 -1
*How many 737's went down due to a bad rudder actuator design?* Was what I meant to say and down voting my comment without comment means zero to me, fyi.
yr2012
matt jensen -6
Airlines are buying EUBuses b/c Dreamliners don't work. My boss wants two Global's - b/c they are neither an EU Bus or Boeing.
rarebear14
Dolf Brouwers 0
I am a European but still I rate Boeing over Airbus !
Why ? Boeing built airplanes long before Airbus
started building airplanes.
'if it aint Boeing it aint going'
Derg
Roland Dent -4
The USA is in the process of self induced disintegration. The thing is they don't know.