More on the Boeing Tanker corporate welfare case

[Vympel]

Air Force allowed Boeing to rewrite terms of tanker contract, documents show

[Iceberg]

US government plays footsie with major American defense industrials. Film at 11.

[The Kernel]

This can only be bad for a company like Boeing. They have been getting their butts kicked repeatedly by Airbus in the civilian sector (brand loyalty is the only thing keeping them going) with no plans for new technology or airframes while Airbus has the new A380 which looks perfectly capable of thrashing both the 747-400 and the 777 in every way imaginable.

Has Boeing decided to fight back with new designs? Of course not, instead they have only a medium range new plane on their agenda with no replacements for their larger aircraft even on the drawing board.

So now the USAF has decided to infuse more money into Boeing with a rigged contract (probably to make up for the YF-23 fiasco) when what they really need is new leadership. Boeing hasn't had a truly innovative drive for years, and the only thing keeping them from losing even more marketshare is brand loyalty (which can only last so long) and government contracts like this, which in this case they had no right to win.

I wonder if the government is ever going to realize that these kinds of actions are actually harmful to the economy in the long run. *Sigh*, probably not.

[phongn]

This can only be bad for a company like Boeing. They have been getting their butts kicked repeatedly by Airbus in the civilian sector (brand loyalty is the only thing keeping them going) with no plans for new technology or airframes while Airbus has the new A380 which looks perfectly capable of thrashing both the 747-400 and the 777 in every way imaginable.

The A380 doesn't really compete with the 777, the A340 does. Also, Boeing has their 7E7 project coming out - midrange, I know.

I wonder if the government is ever going to realize that these kinds of actions are actually harmful to the economy in the long run. *Sigh*, probably not.

IIRC, the US government will do their best to keep at least two major aerospace firms in business, probably for defense purposes. Hence the KC-767 project, though IIRC, Boeing did pretty well with the C-17 contract.

[Vympel]

Not to mention F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

[Howedar]

This can only be bad for a company like Boeing. They have been getting their butts kicked repeatedly by Airbus in the civilian sector (brand loyalty is the only thing keeping them going) with no plans for new technology or airframes while Airbus has the new A380 which looks perfectly capable of thrashing both the 747-400 and the 777 in every way imaginable.

This is simply wrong. Neither company/consortium has a clear advantage in the civilian sector. Certainly on an individual basis, some Boeing products beat Airbus up and down the ramp and vice versa. You don't think they've sold thousands of 737's cause the name sounds good?

As for the A380 beating up on the 747, that remains to be seen. The 747 is still in service for a reason - it is a very efficient and fairly inexpensive (for the size) aircraft. Airbus will need to convince airlines to reject a very proven design for an unknown quantity that promises a few more passengers and probably slightly lower fuel costs. This is not necessarily an easy thing to do.

Has Boeing decided to fight back with new designs? Of course not, instead they have only a medium range new plane on their agenda with no replacements for their larger aircraft even on the drawing board.

And Airbus has only one civilian aircraft on their board at this point to my knowledge, that being the A380.

It's a choice of which market to focus on, it's not a sign of weakness. Boeing feels that the most growth will be in the midsize market (and it's hard to disagree, given the aircraft you see at most US terminals). Airbus, on the other hand, is apparently choosing to focus on the very large routes (Hong Kong to Tokyo and such).

So now the USAF has decided to infuse more money into Boeing with a rigged contract (probably to make up for the YF-23 fiasco) when what they really need is new leadership. Boeing hasn't had a truly innovative drive for years, and the only thing keeping them from losing even more marketshare is brand loyalty (which can only last so long) and government contracts like this, which in this case they had no right to win.

OHOHOHO you do not want to talk about the US government giving Boeing unfair cash infusions in a Boeing-Airbus discussion.

I wonder if the government is ever going to realize that these kinds of actions are actually harmful to the economy in the long run. *Sigh*, probably not.

No offense, but it's clear you don't really know much about this entire situation. While I'm not defending the US government on this one, the one thing the government isn't doing is trying to shore up a dying company.

[Dahak]

This can only be bad for a company like Boeing. They have been getting their butts kicked repeatedly by Airbus in the civilian sector (brand loyalty is the only thing keeping them going) with no plans for new technology or airframes while Airbus has the new A380 which looks perfectly capable of thrashing both the 747-400 and the 777 in every way imaginable.

This is simply wrong. Neither company/consortium has a clear advantage in the civilian sector. Certainly on an individual basis, some Boeing products beat Airbus up and down the ramp and vice versa. You don't think they've sold thousands of 737's cause the name sounds good?

Airbus sold more civilian machines than Boeing in 2003, being now the leader in that market. Not too shabby.

As for the A380 beating up on the 747, that remains to be seen. The 747 is still in service for a reason - it is a very efficient and fairly inexpensive (for the size) aircraft. Airbus will need to convince airlines to reject a very proven design for an unknown quantity that promises a few more passengers and probably slightly lower fuel costs. This is not necessarily an easy thing to do.

Airbus already has several orders for the A380, the latest info I have were about 34 machines.
So they already have convinced airlines.

Has Boeing decided to fight back with new designs? Of course not, instead they have only a medium range new plane on their agenda with no replacements for their larger aircraft even on the drawing board.

And Airbus has only one civilian aircraft on their board at this point to my knowledge, that being the A380.

It's a choice of which market to focus on, it's not a sign of weakness. Boeing feels that the most growth will be in the midsize market (and it's hard to disagree, given the aircraft you see at most US terminals). Airbus, on the other hand, is apparently choosing to focus on the very large routes (Hong Kong to Tokyo and such).

Airbus is very strong in the midsize market, where many of their models belong. Boeing will face some heavy resistance in that market, whereas Airbus almost breezes through the long-range segment without much of a resistance. Which does not bode well for Boeing.

[Crown]

This is simply wrong. Neither company/consortium has a clear advantage in the civilian sector. Certainly on an individual basis, some Boeing products beat Airbus up and down the ramp and vice versa. You don't think they've sold thousands of 737's cause the name sounds good?

You haven't been following the markets recently have you? Airbus became the largest civil aircraft manufacturer (in sales and in orders) in 2003.

As for the A380 beating up on the 747, that remains to be seen. The 747 is still in service for a reason - it is a very efficient and fairly inexpensive (for the size) aircraft. Airbus will need to convince airlines to reject a very proven design for an unknown quantity that promises a few more passengers and probably slightly lower fuel costs. This is not necessarily an easy thing to do.

You are correct. But Boeing's recent apathy towards the civil sector - indeed it's total lack of direction - has the airline operatetors nervous in buying Boeing, simply because they don't want to buy a plane that will not sell well (increasing overall cost) and not have a large produciton run (which if it did have a large production run means; good service life over the long term and a steady stream of spare parts and upgrades).

And Airbus has only one civilian aircraft on their board at this point to my knowledge, that being the A380.

It's a choice of which market to focus on, it's not a sign of weakness. Boeing feels that the most growth will be in the midsize market (and it's hard to disagree, given the aircraft you see at most US terminals). Airbus, on the other hand, is apparently choosing to focus on the very large routes (Hong Kong to Tokyo and such).

The difference being though that Aribus already has an entire fleet of good models in the 'midsize' market which enjoy a large share of the market. Boeing needs to come up with something cheap and/or radical to crack into it.

OHOHOHO you do not want to talk about the US government giving Boeing unfair cash infusions in a Boeing-Airbus discussion.

Hey it just means both sides can keep the other honest ... honest at both breaking the rules.

No offense, but it's clear you don't really know much about this entire situation. While I'm not defending the US government on this one, the one thing the government isn't doing is trying to shore up a dying company.

I think a few of your points need to be examined more closely Howedar ... I am not saying that Kernel is right about the whole 'harmful to the economy thing', but you are somewhat ignorant in this thread.

[Howedar]

Airbus sold more civilian machines than Boeing in 2003, being now the leader in that market. Not too shabby.

By something like 60 airframes, out of about 1800

I didn't say they were literally neck-and-neck down to the last airframe, but neither company is wailing on the other.

Airbus already has several orders for the A380, the latest info I have were about 34 machines.
So they already have convinced airlines.

Yes, I did not mean to suggest otherwise. But compared to over 1300 747s sold over the years, Airbus has a logn way to go.

Airbus is very strong in the midsize market, where many of their models belong. Boeing will face some heavy resistance in that market, whereas Airbus almost breezes through the long-range segment without much of a resistance. Which does not bode well for Boeing.

Wow, that's quite a statement to make without any numbers. The 737 well and truly dominates the domestic midsize market, and the 7E7 will enhance this dominance. It is true that Airbus has taken a significant lead in the widebody domain, but you omit the key point that the widebody market is very much smaller than the midsize market.

Another factor to consider is that Airbus's sales dominance began in 2002, after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Being German, I'm not sure how familiar you are with the beating the US airlines took after the attacks, but several airlines went bankrupt and many others heavily curbed new orders. As the domestic airline industry recovers, I would not be at all surprised to see Boeing retake the lead in sales, as it had in 2001 (before the attacks) by almost 200 airframes.

[Howedar]

You haven't been following the markets recently have you? Airbus became the largest civil aircraft manufacturer (in sales and in orders) in 2003.

Indeed I do. See above.

You are correct. But Boeing's recent apathy towards the civil sector - indeed it's total lack of direction - has the airline operatetors nervous in buying Boeing, simply because they don't want to buy a plane that will not sell well (increasing overall cost) and not have a large produciton run (which if it did have a large production run means; good service life over the long term and a steady stream of spare parts and upgrades).

This recent apathy, as you may have noticed, has ended. Boeing has committed fully to the 7E7. And again, the continuing recovery of the domestic market should (though it's not certain) return Boeing to the forefront of the civilian aviation sector.

The difference being though that Aribus already has an entire fleet of good models in the 'midsize' market which enjoy a large share of the market. Boeing needs to come up with something cheap and/or radical to crack into it.

Yeah, it's called the 7E7. The modified 737s that have been coming out should also help, since they cut fuel consumption by about 6 percent, which is significant since the next-generation 737's (the 700-900 series) are already a cut above their Airbus counterparts, which (aside from stretching) have not seen any attention for something like a decade.

Hey it just means both sides can keep the other honest ... honest at both breaking the rules.

Do you want me to pull up the numbers? We're still far from pairity.

I think a few of your points need to be examined more closely Howedar ... I am not saying that Kernel is right about the whole 'harmful to the economy thing', but you are somewhat ignorant in this thread.

I'm waiting for you to show that I'm wrong about any of these points.

[aerius]

The 737 is the plane that will not die, it's the aviation equivalent of the old Volkswagon Beatle IMO. Trusty & reliable for the most part, but seriously lacking in many areas. I've flown in a couple of them and they suck. They're cramped and loud compared to more modern jets such as say a 757 or A320, and from a passenger's perspective the 737 ain't fun to be in.

[Dahak]

Airbus sold more civilian machines than Boeing in 2003, being now the leader in that market. Not too shabby.

By something like 60 airframes, out of about 1800

I didn't say they were literally neck-and-neck down to the last airframe, but neither company is wailing on the other.

Given Airbus current aggressive stance, and Boeings apathy, I don't see how Boeing will recover any time soon.
The 7E7 will face a very stiff competition in the market it intends to enter, whereas the A380 is without much competition.

Airbus already has several orders for the A380, the latest info I have were about 34 machines.
So they already have convinced airlines.

Yes, I did not mean to suggest otherwise. But compared to over 1300 747s sold over the years, Airbus has a logn way to go.

Which means almost nothing in the current situation of Boeing. It's great and all how many planes they sold, but it won't bring them into the future.

Airbus is very strong in the midsize market, where many of their models belong. Boeing will face some heavy resistance in that market, whereas Airbus almost breezes through the long-range segment without much of a resistance. Which does not bode well for Boeing.

Wow, that's quite a statement to make without any numbers. The 737 well and truly dominates the domestic midsize market, and the 7E7 will enhance this dominance. It is true that Airbus has taken a significant lead in the widebody domain, but you omit the key point that the widebody market is very much smaller than the midsize market.

There is also a market outside the USA...

Another factor to consider is that Airbus's sales dominance began in 2002, after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Being German, I'm not sure how familiar you are with the beating the US airlines took after the attacks, but several airlines went bankrupt and many others heavily curbed new orders. As the domestic airline industry recovers, I would not be at all surprised to see Boeing retake the lead in sales, as it had in 2001 (before the attacks) by almost 200 airframes.

It may be new to you, but all airlines suffered seriously after the attacks. SARS didn't help either. This is not a problem only American airlines faced.

[Col. Crackpot]

so far the discussion in this thread is as follows:

European: wank wank wank wank airbus wank wank airbus wank wank jizz

American: wank wank wank wank boeing wank wank boeing wank wank jizz

to which the logical next step in this thread's lifespan will be the following:

Vympel: wank wank wank Tupolev wank wank wank Tupolev wank wank jizz

[phongn]

The 737 is the plane that will not die, it's the aviation equivalent of the old Volkswagon Beatle IMO. Trusty & reliable for the most part, but seriously lacking in many areas. I've flown in a couple of them and they suck. They're cramped and loud compared to more modern jets such as say a 757 or A320, and from a passenger's perspective the 737 ain't fun to be in.

Which version of the 737 did you fly in and what airline? The old 737-200s were kinda loud, yeah, but the 737NGs (-600 to -900) are fairly quiet. And yes, it is kinda small, but that's the point of the 737.

And as for comfort, well, you can make them less cramped, but 737s are usually flown packed with people (a'la Southwest Airlines).

[phongn]

Given Airbus current aggressive stance, and Boeings apathy, I don't see how Boeing will recover any time soon. The 7E7 will face a very stiff competition in the market it intends to enter, whereas the A380 is without much competition.

OTOH, the 7E7 appears to be (on paper launch) more efficient than previous airliners, so it may be able to sweep the competition in that area. Airbus, AFAIK, has concentrated on its A380 project.

There is also a market outside the USA...

Yes, there is. And who has the largest market for the aircraft such as the 7E7, 737, etc?

[Sebastin]

Airbus already has several orders for the A380, the latest info I have were about 34 machines.
So they already have convinced airlines.

Thats seriously outdated. Airbus currently has 129 fixed orders plus an unkown number of options from 11 customers for the A380. Meanwhile in the time since the A380 was officialy announced orders for the B-747 went through the basement. Look at the numbers: 2000:27; 2001:16; 2002:17; 2003:4; 2004:3. Those 4 orders in 2003 are also the only ones for the new 747ER to date. That was to Quantas which ordered them simultanly with 12 A380 and intends them strictly as a stop gap purchase till the airbus comes avaiable.

Airbus current market share is: 54% in number of aircraft sold and 67% in value of aircraft sold. (both 2003)

[Ma Deuce]

OHOHOHO you do not want to talk about the US government giving Boeing unfair cash infusions in a Boeing-Airbus discussion.

Which reminds me: I really wonder how long Airbus would last against Boeing without those massive subsidies (something like 60% of the development costs for the A380 were footed by the French gov't IIRC).[/quote]

[Sea Skimmer]

Which reminds me: I really wonder how long Airbus would last against Boeing without those massive subsidies (something like 60% of the development costs for the A380 were footed by the French gov't IIRC).

Without massive subsidies Airbus wouldn't exist as a major airliner producer. Though by now it should be more then able to stand on its own feet, though its ability to compete would be greatly reduced. However Boeing's 707 was subsidized by the US government (course it went on to buy a fuckload of them for vital military work while the French government and military won't be buying any A380's) so really debating this point isn't very pointful.

[The Kernel]

OHOHOHO you do not want to talk about the US government giving Boeing unfair cash infusions in a Boeing-Airbus discussion.

Which reminds me: I really wonder how long Airbus would last against Boeing without those massive subsidies (something like 60% of the development costs for the A380 were footed by the French gov't IIRC).

I don't have a problem with subsidies (they are a necessary part of the business), it's the awarding of military contracts for reasons other than merit that bother me, especially when you are involved in a design war. That kind of behavior strangles innovation since they don't make the viability of the design their #1 priority.

[Sea Skimmer]

I don't have a problem with subsidies (they are a necessary part of the business), it's the awarding of military contracts for reasons other than merit that bother me, especially when you are involved in a design war. That kind of behavior strangles innovation since they don't make the viability of the design their #1 priority.

What, so you'd rather we outright give companies money then give them something and get something back for it? That's just stupid. The KC-767 has a radio and it has a boom to offload fuel, everything else is just refinement (actually so is the radio, in-flight refueling can be done under radio silence). No one is going to get killed over this sort of thing and in a screwball deal like this thats all that really matters.

[Howedar]

I don't have a problem with subsidies (they are a necessary part of the business), it's the awarding of military contracts for reasons other than merit that bother me, especially when you are involved in a design war. That kind of behavior strangles innovation since they don't make the viability of the design their #1 priority.

What the unholy fuck, you'd rather we give them the money?

[aerius]

Which version of the 737 did you fly in and what airline? The old 737-200s were kinda loud, yeah, but the 737NGs (-600 to -900) are fairly quiet. And yes, it is kinda small, but that's the point of the 737.

And as for comfort, well, you can make them less cramped, but 737s are usually flown packed with people (a'la Southwest Airlines).

Going by the pictures and specs it's definitely not one of the new 737NGs, and it was a United Airlines plane.

[Howedar]

United flies only old 737s I believe. The problem was the age, not the type. I've flown on a few old Airbuses before and they were pretty shitty as well.

[Aaron]

Not to mention F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

Isn't the F/A-18 a Northrup product? Or did they get bought out?

[Howedar]

The YF-17 was exclusively Northrop. It lost the Lightweight Fighter competition to the YF-16, but the US Navy was seeking a F-4 and A-7 replacement. So Northrop paired with McDonald-Douglas to modify the YF-17 to the Navy's requirements. This yielded the YF-18. Workshare was to be 60% McD-D, 40% Northrop. In the event any land F/A-18's were sold, the share would be split: 60% Northrop, 40% McD-D. Ultimately, no land F/A-18's were sold.

Cut to 1997, when McDonald-Douglas was bought out by Boeing. The F/A-18 became a primarily Boeing product. When the F/A-18E/F program began, it began as a Boeing program. To what extent Northrop Grumman is involved in the E/F I don't know, but I suspect it is zero. The E/F is very nearly a new aircraft, and Northrop Grumman is really getting out of the aircraft business.

So to answer your question, the F/A-18E/F is a Boeing product primarily if not exclusively.