What's new

Airbus grabs giant deal (300 aircrafts) amid Boeing woes

TaiShang

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 30, 2014
27,843
70
98,200
Country
China
Location
Taiwan, Province Of China
Airbus grabs giant deal amid Boeing woes

By Tu Lei and Shen Weiduo Source:Global Times Published: 2019/3/26

Order also reflects rising demand in nation’s plane sector

473554d4-c712-4ee6-bc43-d939af0d0bb6.jpeg

A Chinese pilot undergoes training in a simulator cockpit of an Airbus A350 on March 5. Photo: VCG


France-based Airbus Monday signed a deal for up to $34 billion worth of aircraft with a Chinese buyer, a blow to Boeing as it hopes to win deals amid recovering trade ties between the China and the US.

The higher than expected contract covers 290 aircraft in the A320 family and 10 A350 XWB family aircraft, and the buyer - China Aviation Supplies Holding Co - said the deal is worth about 30 billion euros ($33.95 billion) at list prices.

The latest giant contract awarded by China was in 2017 as US President Donald Trump visited Beijing, when the state buying agency purchased 300 Boeing aircraft worth $37 billion.

China and France have long-term mutually beneficial cooperation in the aviation field and have achieved fruitful results, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said Tuesday.

He said Airbus has made positive contributions to the growth of the Chinese civil aviation fleet and the modernization of the nation's air transport. Meanwhile, the development of China's aviation industry and market has promoted the growth of Airbus.

China will continue to cooperate with relevant parties in the aviation field in accordance with the development of China's air transport industry and the needs of the market, he added.

The Airbus deal came after the global grounding of Boeing's 737 MAX, after the model had two crashes within five months, killing 346 people in total.

To recover market confidence, Boeing said it will host more than 200 airline pilots, technicians and regulators in a session on Wednesday, in a bid to get the MAX planes back in the air.

In a fresh move, the Civil Aviation Administration of China has suspended its airworthiness certificate for Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, which means that Chinese carriers, at least for now, can't introduce new 737 MAX aircraft.

Wider gap

At present, the ratio of Boeing's 737 MAX and Airbus' 320 neo, in terms of narrow-body orders, is 45:55, and the gap between Boeing and Airbus could widen after this big order, Lin Zhijie, a market observer, told the Global Times on Tuesday.

The A320 neo is regarded as a direct rival of the Boeing 737 MAX.

Wang Yanan, chief editor of Aerospace Knowledge magazine, denied claims that the Airbus orders were made to replace the Boeing series after the crashes. "Plane deals like this would have been studied for months - long before the crash happened in March - and Chinese authorities must have made calculations based on the demand of different airlines in China," Wang told the Global Times.

Industry experts pointed out that the move is a result of rising demand in China, which has become one of the largest markets in the world. The International Air Transport Association forecast in October 2018 that China will displace the US as the world's largest aviation market in the mid-2020s.

"The deal reflects the strong demand in all market segments including domestic, low-cost, regional and international long-haul from Chinese carriers," Airbus said in a note sent to the Global Times.

To gain more orders, the two global plane producers have both opened factories in China.

Airbus' Tianjin factory delivered its 400th A320 series aircraft last year, and the factory has now started to deliver A330 aircraft.

Boeing last year delivered the first 737 MAX jet from its plant in Zhoushan, East China's Zhejiang Province, the first such Boeing facility outside the US.

Airbus forecast that China will need some 7,400 new passenger and cargo aircraft by 2037. That would represent more than 19 percent of the world's total demand for more than 37,400 new aircraft.

As of end-January, the in-service Airbus fleet of Chinese operators stood at some 1,730 aircraft, of which 1,455 were from the A320 Family, and 17 were A350 XWB Family planes, Airbus said.

Wang said that the crashes will of course exert some influence on the global aviation industry, but the influence would only be "short-term."

"Sales of Airbus and Boeing planes have long been neck-and-neck. Out of concerns over Boeing's 737 Max series, Airbus might win a bit more in both China and the global market. Meanwhile, Boeing might also face a huge amount of compensation due to the crashes," Wang said.

How much impact the crashes will have on Boeing in the long run depends on the investigation results, the specific problems of the aircraft, and to what extent Boeing can fix the aircraft, said Lin, the market observer.

"A giant like Boeing will not be simply toppled by a single incident," Wang said.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1143542.shtml
 
The Max is a disaster for Beoing just becuase they got greedy and wanted to get a plane out quickly to compete with the A320 NEO
 
Max is a bad name, because after Max you can't go up further, max is the peak and thereafter going forward it is down the hill slope. LOL!
 
It is meant to be seen as a 2 finger salute to the orange fool. Has very little to do with the crash.
 
The Max is a disaster for Beoing just becuase they got greedy and wanted to get a plane out quickly to compete with the A320 NEO
Speaking of the A320...


I was active duty back in 1988 when that A320 crashed AT AN AIRSHOW. Nineteen eighty-eight. Probably before most in this forum were born.

AcBl0es.png


Boeing will recover and the MAX will resume sales and operations. Just as Airbus turned the A320 into a commercial success that people are conveniently using to jerk-off over Boeing's debacle.

The world do not have that many options when it comes to aviation mass transit. Airlines make their purchase decisions literally YEARS in advance and that includes factoring in negative events like crashes, economic conditions, wars, mergers, going out of business, natural disasters, etc...etc...

Russia? Fugetaboutit.

China? The C919 program is about 10 yrs old.

So the world STILL have only two options -- Boeing and Airbus -- that will continue for at least another 10 yrs. Each airline have its own ecosystem, to use that buzzword, and it will take yrs and money to even include a new aircraft of the same class, let alone out of class. A flight do not start with full fuel load. The jet will be fueled just enough to make the trip plus a margin load for unexpected air time like loiter. The airline calculate its fuel cost as precise as it can, so that mean the new aircraft must be able to conform to that ecosystem in terms of fuel, range, time to travel, cargo loading which means both human and non, maintenance, turn-around time at gate, parts availability, and many more less critical items. Boeing and Airbus are established manufacturers despite any negative publicity which includes crashes.
 
Speaking of the A320...


I was active duty back in 1988 when that A320 crashed AT AN AIRSHOW. Nineteen eighty-eight. Probably before most in this forum were born.

AcBl0es.png


Boeing will recover and the MAX will resume sales and operations. Just as Airbus turned the A320 into a commercial success that people are conveniently using to jerk-off over Boeing's debacle.

The world do not have that many options when it comes to aviation mass transit. Airlines make their purchase decisions literally YEARS in advance and that includes factoring in negative events like crashes, economic conditions, wars, mergers, going out of business, natural disasters, etc...etc...

Russia? Fugetaboutit.

China? The C919 program is about 10 yrs old.

So the world STILL have only two options -- Boeing and Airbus -- that will continue for at least another 10 yrs. Each airline have its own ecosystem, to use that buzzword, and it will take yrs and money to even include a new aircraft of the same class, let alone out of class. A flight do not start with full fuel load. The jet will be fueled just enough to make the trip plus a margin load for unexpected air time like loiter. The airline calculate its fuel cost as precise as it can, so that mean the new aircraft must be able to conform to that ecosystem in terms of fuel, range, time to travel, cargo loading which means both human and non, maintenance, turn-around time at gate, parts availability, and many more less critical items. Boeing and Airbus are established manufacturers despite any negative publicity which includes crashes.

I don't disagree.
but in the age of social media and 24 hour spotlight it will be tougher.
But like you said, the world does not have many options.

I do think the FAA is going to have to re-think it's idea of letting the inmates run the asylum.
 
Unfortunately I have to agree that it will be impossible to abandon Boeing. If you abandon Boeing, Airbus will have a monopoly and will charge anything they want. It is so difficult for aircraft manufacturing companies to challenge the duopoly of Boeing and Airbus.

Aircraft manufacturing is the crown jewel of Western technology. I don’t think there is another industry that is more difficult than aircraft manufacturing. It is more difficult than semiconductor industry (especially chip making equipment) which I would put as the 2nd most difficult industry.
 
Speaking of the A320...


I was active duty back in 1988 when that A320 crashed AT AN AIRSHOW. Nineteen eighty-eight. Probably before most in this forum were born.

AcBl0es.png


Boeing will recover and the MAX will resume sales and operations. Just as Airbus turned the A320 into a commercial success that people are conveniently using to jerk-off over Boeing's debacle.

The world do not have that many options when it comes to aviation mass transit. Airlines make their purchase decisions literally YEARS in advance and that includes factoring in negative events like crashes, economic conditions, wars, mergers, going out of business, natural disasters, etc...etc...

Russia? Fugetaboutit.

China? The C919 program is about 10 yrs old.

So the world STILL have only two options -- Boeing and Airbus -- that will continue for at least another 10 yrs. Each airline have its own ecosystem, to use that buzzword, and it will take yrs and money to even include a new aircraft of the same class, let alone out of class. A flight do not start with full fuel load. The jet will be fueled just enough to make the trip plus a margin load for unexpected air time like loiter. The airline calculate its fuel cost as precise as it can, so that mean the new aircraft must be able to conform to that ecosystem in terms of fuel, range, time to travel, cargo loading which means both human and non, maintenance, turn-around time at gate, parts availability, and many more less critical items. Boeing and Airbus are established manufacturers despite any negative publicity which includes crashes.
Actually Russian planes also can fly well, they only consume more fuel. How could N.VNese fly during VN war when we didnt have Ari Bus or Boeing ??

We buy Air bus and Boeing just for balancing the trade.thats all. If Boeing getting worse, then Russian planes will be used again.

Not mentioning Russian war planes Su 27, Su 30 r so good and easy for maintenance
 
And that is why Russian airliners are not welcome -- consume more fuel.
Just wait, old man :cool:

-------

New Russian MC-21 Aircraft Can Compete With Boeing And Airbus Models, Analysts Say
Ted ReedContributor
Aerospace & Defense


960x0.jpg
960x0.jpg

Irkut MS-21 prototype lands at Ramenskoe Airport, near Moscow, after long-haul flight from Irkutsk in October 2017. (Getty photo)

GETTY

A new report says the Russian narrow body Irkut MC-21 “appears to be an excellent aircraft” that can compete with similar models from Airbus and Boeing, but sales outside Russia will be hampered by concerns over maintenance and geopolitics.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...ith-boeing-and-airbus-models-report-says/amp/
 
Just wait, old man :cool:
Been waiting...And waiting...And waiting...

Soviet/Russia produced many great aerodynamicists, they taught Americans a few things, and I have problems saying that as when I was active duty, I saw many examples of what we learned from them.

But an aircraft, no matter for which side of the purpose line, is more than great aerodynamics. Many great designs never made it out of the wind tunnel stage. Those that made it to operational R/D faces a long list of obstacles present in the real world.

Here is an example of operating in cold weather...

http://code7700.com/g450_cold_weather.htm

Every time nature and/or humans places a demand on a design, something on that design is a candidate for at least one compromise. The result is that an aircraft becomes a collection of compromises. No one will buy an aircraft that can operate only in a dry environment and expects to be profitable. A floatplane is a niche product for a niche market with thin profit margin. Every few yrs, there is always someone claiming to be able to challenge Boeing and Airbus in the mass transit market, and their products ended up in niche markets or out of business altogether.

Right now, China have the best chance of challenging the Big Two and infrastructure is the main reason why. China's civil aviation -- for now -- is practically non-existent. Do not confuse commercial with the broader civil market. China's airspace, for the most part, is still under military control. The true civil aviation market is like that of the US where most US airspace is under civilian control and private pilots are plenty. I learned how to fly when I was in high school and by the time I joined the USAF, I was already well versed in basic aviation and flying skills.

China have the chance to design a new aviation infrastructure that can accommodate the current fleet from Boeing and Airbus as well as the new infrastructure being flexible enough to handle new aircraft classes such as supersonic transport. The Concorde failed but that does not mean the public does not want to cross the Atlantic and Pacific faster. The current aviation infrastructure are not equipped to handle the unique demands of the Concorde when it came out. China have the chance to resurrect the SST if her civil aviation infrastructure is designed for it as well as the current subsonic fleet.

But put aside the uniqueness of the SST for now. The current hub-and-spoke infrastructure is proven for efficiency and profitability, but that does not mean the concept cannot be improved or even do away with it. China's essentially virginal civil aviation market have the chance to make those improvements and if China's indigenous aircrafts proved viable in both sides of of the Pacific, Chinese airliners will be viable challengers to the Big Two. Civil aviation is huge, much more than military. As long as Chinese airspace is closed to the public, there will be no innovation from Chinese indigenous aircraft manufacturers and whatever they produced will be close to the current fleet from the Big Two and that mean Chinese aircrafts will be followers, not leaders. Fancy LED displays in the cockpit are not innovations. Sorry to say.

We will most likely see Chinese airliners in the West before we see Russian ones.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Back
Top Bottom