Airbus Nets Records
January 12th, 2010
Record Deliveries For Airbus In Single Year
A320 Leads Delivery Surge
A350XWB Margin Shrinks
Airbus ended 2009 on a high and looks to the forthcoming year with questions surrounding the fate of the $44bn A400M transporter.
Despite suffering a near 4% fall in revenue, Airbus managed to deliver 10 A380’s, down from its initial projects of 18 earlier last year.
Image copyright/owned by FleetBuzz Editorial.com
In contrast to arch-rival Boeing, the end figures for 2009 ended up like this:
Single Aisle:
Boeing 737NG : 372 deliveries
Airbus A320 : 402 deliveries
Twin Aisle Widebody:
Boeing 767/777 : 101 deliveries
Boeing 787 : 0 deliveries
Airbus A330/A340 : 86 deliveries
Airbus A350XWB : 0 deliveries
Large Widebody:
Boeing 747-400 : 8 deliveries
Boeing 747-8 : 0 deliveries
Airbus A380-800 : 10 deliveries
The immediate challenge for Airbus will be to make good on attempting to deliver double the amount of A380’s this year in contrast to 2009 while trying to alleviate the spate of technical glitches that have led some to question the maturity of the model given the frequency and variety of faults that have plagued the current operators of Singapore Airlines, Emirates, Qantas and Air France.
“The A380 will still be a financial liability of the company for years to come,” said CEO Tom Enders.
“I’m not happy with the cost situation, it needs significant improvement.“
In declaring the A380 a financial liability, Enders made clear that definitive action on the other big drain, the A400M, was also needed.
“Airbus won’t be taking a cent of profit on the aircraft [A400M] should it still be being manufactured twenty years from now for domestic Europe or export. Maybe the same is true for the A380 program as well,” says senior BGC Strategist Howard Wheeldon.
However, he cautions against culling the A400M.
“To my mind what matters most now is that having got this far it would be quite ridiculous for governments to walk away.“
Terminating the A400M would incur significant penalties and would obliterate the €8bn cash that EADS currently has, much of which will be used on the R&D expenses as costs on the A350XWB program peak prior to assembly of the first prototype.
The most interesting numbers that emerge from Airbus’ 2009 achievements is that of the A340 family.
The order spreadsheet now no longer lists the six outstanding A340-600’s for Virgin Atlantic - most likely dropped as part of their order for A330-300’s. In a stunning reversal of fortune since launch, it appears that the A340-500/600 have come to a sudden industrial death less than a decade after being launched.
Airbus has had a great 2009 - no question.
While securing 310 orders (gross), the challenge for the next twelve months starts immediately with the work on the A350XWB family - while Airbus affirms its 2013 service entry date, Chief Operating Officer Fabrice Bregier noted that the A350 had used some of its margin in relation to first deliveries as the company trades cutting excess weight for a timely first handover to launch customer Qatar Airways.
Questions have been raised about the viability of sustaining production rates on the 737 and A320 and perhaps this is the year adjustments are made. With 80% of Airbus deliveries comprising A320’s, it’s a decision that will not be made lightly, particularly as customers have already deferred orders across both model families.
Expenses during 2010 will underscore Airbus’ ability to deliver.
A decision on the A400M, funding required for the A350XWB as well as Enders criticism on the A380 and the shifting of resources away from the commercial division serve only to remind that Airbus, like Boeing, has more hurdles ahead than have been cleared.
Whether 2010 yields results for either OEM will depend on where their portfolio of airplanes are on December 31st.
Entry Filed under: Airbus, Airbus A318, Airbus A319, Airbus A320, Airbus A321, Airbus A330, Airbus A330-200, Airbus A330-300, Airbus A340, Airbus A340-200, Airbus A340-300, Airbus A340-600, Airbus A350, Airbus A350-1000, Airbus A350-800, Airbus A350-900, Airbus A350XWB, Airbus A380-800, Airbus Global Market Forecast, Boeing, EADS, Howard Wheeldon, John Leahy, Louis Gallois, Tom Enders
56 Comments Add your own
1. Paula K | January 12th, 2010 at 17:09
I agree with Wheeldon, it doesnt make much sense to scrap the A400M.
On the flip side, if resources are being stretched, perhaps its a price worth paying to stop it?
2. Mike M | January 12th, 2010 at 18:13
Great Satan Aboulafia seems right when he said the A350 would hit a two year snag.
Now the Comaradarie are starting to make noises that the XWB has eaten into margin.
Hm, where did we hear those words before…?
3. Mike M | January 12th, 2010 at 18:15
BTW, where is Leelaw?
4. Vero Venia | January 12th, 2010 at 18:21
I posted this comment on SeattlePI http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/190822.asp
QUOTE
If Fleetbuzz is correct, then the only viable widebody product Airbus has is the A350XWB, which will enter into service only in three years.
The other widebody products are either a “financial liability” (as stated by Tom Enders) or entered into service more than a decade ago (”old-tech”) or the A340.
5. Airbus Supplier | January 12th, 2010 at 18:24
Airbus will NOT deliver 20 units.
We’re planning for the same number as 2009.
Airbus will change the figures for the A380 like last year as it becomes apparent that the deferrals because the “cause” behind the altered goals.
6. bob | January 12th, 2010 at 18:26
Until the 787 and a350 come on. The a330 is the only medium wide body that makes sense. Sorry 767
7. Paulo M | January 12th, 2010 at 18:40
Looks good. Twice as many orders as Boeing. Lots to prove for both this year.
8. USAF Fan | January 12th, 2010 at 18:44
“The a330 is the only medium wide body that makes sense.”
I’d agree with that, except that there are quite a few 777s being used in similar roles such as Cathay Pacific, for example.
9. Erik Bloodaxe | January 12th, 2010 at 18:48
Actually Airbus Supplier I call Bullshit… They WILL deliver 20, provided they don’t totally screw up cabin installation. Now some customers who had expected to get deliveries in 2010, won’t, like KAL and DLH, maybe Emirates too. But bleed over from the screw ups in 09 will cover those and they should still comfortably make 20.
10. WTF! | January 12th, 2010 at 18:51
Where is Doug McVitie?
I thought he’d be ALL over the A340 and A380!
11. unregistered user | January 12th, 2010 at 19:19
Surely the fact that the “old tech” A330 outsold the 787 in the past 2 years and has put out to pasture all iterations of the 767 as well as the 777-200,200ER and 300 can only be bad news for Airbus and great news for Boeing…
The fact that Airbus has outsold Boeing in 7 out of the last 9 years also means doom and gloom for Toulouse…
Also the fact that Airbus delivered more planes than Boeing for the 7th straight year couldn’t be anything but dreadful news for Airbus…
12. Leelaw | January 12th, 2010 at 19:24
Interesting. Mr. Turner (former CEO of BAE), came to the conclusion that the A380 was a hopeless financial albatross back in 2005-06, and ran away as fast as he could. The financial markets reached the same conclusion in 2007-08. It appears Mr. Enders is beginning to tacitly admit the same in 2010.
13. Mike M | January 12th, 2010 at 19:39
>>>the “old tech” A330 outsold the 787 in the past 2 years
Big deal.
It took the A330 TWENTY TWO years to reach 1000 orders.
The 787 has reached over 80% of that target since 2004.
The 767 and 777 combined have and continue to outsell the A330.
It is dreadful news
>>>Interesting. Mr. Turner (former CEO of BAE), came to the conclusion that the A380 was a hopeless financial albatross back in 2005-06, and ran away as fast as he could. The financial markets reached the same conclusion in 2007-08. It appears Mr. Enders is beginning to tacitly admit the same in 2010.
It appears that Enders is not the only jackass to realize the A380 is a heap-o-turd this year
14. Buster | January 12th, 2010 at 20:32
2. Mike M | January 12th, 2010 at 18:13
the A350 would hit a two year snag.
Hilarious conclusion.
Airbus publicly states that DESPITE eating in to some of the buffer, they were still on target for 2013 delivery and you interpret that as a 2-year delay!
How did you arrive at that Sherlock?
15. Buster | January 12th, 2010 at 20:37
4. Vero Venia | January 12th, 2010 at 18:21
the only viable widebody product Airbus has is the A350XWB, which will enter into service only in three years.
The other widebody products are either a “financial liability” (as stated by Tom Enders) or entered into service more than a decade ago (”old-tech”) or the A340.
Meanwhile, the A330 has outsold the 787 for the last two years. Yep, that’s the very definition of unviable.
16. Jimmy | January 12th, 2010 at 21:14
This comment was interesting
“spate of technical glitches that have led some to question the maturity of the model given the frequency and variety of faults that have plagued the current operators of Singapore Airlines, Emirates, Qantas and Air France.”
I read the other day in Australian Aviation magazine that the A380 has had the best entry into service of ANY new model aircraft. Kinda contradicts the above comment.
Will be interesting to see how many issues plague the 7late7 when it eventually comes into service.
17. Buster | January 12th, 2010 at 21:36
13. Mike M | January 12th, 2010 at 19:39
It took the A330 TWENTY TWO years to reach 1000 orders.
To use your own words, big deal.
The 787 has reached over 80% of that target since 2004.
Of course, at one point it reached 95.7% of that target, but has been going backwards fast.
18. Jack | January 12th, 2010 at 22:07
“I read the other day in Australian Aviation magazine that the A380 has had the best entry into service of ANY new model aircraft.”
Is there a link to this, I’d like to read it if possible.
Thank you in advance.
19. Boeing Investor | January 12th, 2010 at 22:30
34 Buster
Airbus can claim that it is on schedule to deliver its A350XWB on time, but this is all nonsense talk.
Lets see what the situation is in late 2012. Then predictions can be made.
Both of these Companies have made promises that could not be met
20. Mike M | January 12th, 2010 at 23:05
>>>Airbus publicly states that DESPITE eating in to some of the buffer, they were still on target for 2013 delivery
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. So its okay to slam Boeing for the same but somehow Airbus are right just because they “say” they are on target?
Way to go sucking off their PR department, they must love you immensely!
>>>How did you arrive at that Sherlock?
I didnt. If you read what I posted, I repeated the views of Aboulafia.
>>>but has been going backwards fast.
As a result of airlines woes, not the 787 delays. But why let some truth enter your statement huh?
Selective moron.
21. Leelaw | January 12th, 2010 at 23:37
IRC, the “storyline” coming out of Airbus itself between Type Certification (December 2006) and EIS (October 2007), suggested this unusual hiatus period afforded a unique opportunity for an unprecedented level of customer familiarization and route proving flights before EIS, which would largely overcome the problems normally encountered by operators introducing a new aircraft type. Given the prosaic rate of deliveries since then, and the unprecedented level of customer support provided by an OEM, the results so far have to be very disappointing.
22. B380 | January 13th, 2010 at 00:24
This article is too well written to be a fleetbuzzeditorial material
However…
“$44bn A400M transporter”
How did you arrive at that figure?
‘attempting to deliver 50% more A380’s this year ‘
I think you mean 100% more A380s…
‘no longer lists the six outstanding A340-600’s for Virgin Atlantic’
I will be happy if the lipming animal is finally put to death. She is a beauty and I can’t wait to fly on the QR bird in a few weeks… but times change…
‘Questions have been raised about the viability of sustaining production rates on the 737 and A320 ‘
Planned production for 2010 is the same as 2009. It may change but it won’t be by much and certainly not by 30-35% as Aboulafia had been predicting.
4. Vero Venia | January 12th, 2010 at 18:21
You do realise that this is nonsense. With 394 frames on order for the A330 line, this is the only thing that is keeping the A380 and the A350 afloat. 10 more widebodies are being planned for delivery in 2010 and they will need every $ of that revenue.
5. Airbus Supplier | January 12th, 2010 at 18:24
“Airbus will NOT deliver 20 units.”
Not delivering… is not an option. By the way, the planned number is 21.
12. Leelaw | January 12th, 2010 at 19:24
Mr. Turner had no interest staying in the civil aerospace sector. All he need was an excuse to sell his Airbus share and sail across the pond to get some juicy contracts from the DoD.
18. Jack | January 12th, 2010 at 22:07
You might want to start here first:
http://www.flightglobal.com/page/A380-In-Service-Report/
23. USAF Fan | January 13th, 2010 at 03:50
“This article is too well written to be a fleetbuzzeditorial material”
Give the guy a break. A well written piece and its frowned upon!
Do people even know what the word “editorial” even means?
24. Paula K | January 13th, 2010 at 05:23
“$44bn A400M transporter”
How did you arrive at that figure?”
This was cited in the FT and Bloomberg last week quoting EADS programme managers.
25. Paula K | January 13th, 2010 at 05:28
I’m surprised this hasn’t been brought up:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awx/2010/01/12/awx_01_12_2010_p0-196378.xml&headline=Airbus Hits Order Targets, Delivery Record&channel=comm
“In the past 18 months, the company rearranged delivery slots for 600 aircraft in the 2009-2011 timeframe. According to Leahy, many financially weak carriers postponed deliveries while stronger airlines pulled them forward to take advantage of the available slots. ”
Thats a phenomenal amount of deferrals. What are Boeing’s figures like?
26. ikkeman | January 13th, 2010 at 07:28
16. Jimmy | January 12th, 2010 at 21:14
it seems that the 380, after an almost flawless EIS has been hit by glitches more often lately.
Ofcourse, those first few a/c were loved for quite a while before they got tothe operator - the newer ones spend less time at toulouse/hamburg.
19. Boeing Investor | January 12th, 2010 at 22:30
20. Mike M | January 12th, 2010 at 23:05
Last time Airbus had a delay they didn’t announce it in drips. Let’s hope A won’t go down B’s path of self delusion - but to claim up front that whatever A says is wrong as long as they don’t announce a 2 year EIS delay goes a bit far.
The 777 could do it, why shouldn’t the 350 be able?
22. B380 | January 13th, 2010 at 00:24
I have to agree with supplier - A will (in all likelyhood) not deliver 20 (or 21) airframes in 2010. The state of the business is to volatile to be able to confidently predict deliveries for 2010.
I did see some 6 a/c just about ready at toulouse a month or 2 ago - that’s 30% of their target for 2010 ready before the year starts.
27. ikkeman | January 13th, 2010 at 07:49
16. Jimmy | January 12th, 2010 at 21:14
it seems that the 380, after an almost flawless EIS has been hit by glitches more often lately.
Ofcourse, those first few a/c were loved for quite a while before they got tothe operator - the newer ones spend less time at toulouse/hamburg.
19. Boeing Investor | January 12th, 2010 at 22:30
20. Mike M | January 12th, 2010 at 23:05
Last time Airbus had a delay they didn’t announce it in drips. Let’s hope A won’t go down B’s path of self delusion - but to claim up front that whatever A says is wrong as long as they don’t announce a 2 year EIS delay goes a bit far.
The 777 could do it, why shouldn’t the 350 be able?
22. B380 | January 13th, 2010 at 00:24
I have to agree with supplier - A will (in all likelyhood) not deliver 20 (or 21) airframes in 2010. The state of the business is to volatile to be able to confidently predict deliveries for 2010.
I did see some 6 a/c just about ready at toulouse a month or 2 ago - that’s 30% of their target for 2010 ready before the year starts.
25. Paula K | January 13th, 2010 at 05:28
the 600 number is not the number of deferrals - but rather the number of delivery slots that changed due to deliveries. Each deferral would need to be filled by another order - so each deferral requires at least 2 changes. many more when a chain of changes is required to fill the empty slot.
on the $44bn A400M number. So far the most outrageous number I’ve seen quoted for the 380 is about $25bn. How can you justify claiming almost twice that much for the A400M.
Is that $44bn perhaps total program cost, including R&D, design & development, Production & maintenance and end of life costs for the total planned fleet? (C-17 estimated $41bn for 210 a/c in 1995)
28. B380 | January 13th, 2010 at 09:30
23. USAF Fan | January 13th, 2010 at 03:50
Perhaps somebody other than you could interpret it as a compliment
29. Skeptic | January 13th, 2010 at 09:55
ikkeman, A400M program costs are a moving target. The last number I had seen was 25 billion EUROS, with Enders trying to shakedown the member governments for another 7 billion euros. That’s way over 30 billion euros. That would exceed USD$44 billion using today’s exchange rates. And it could include all the R&D costs as well. Perhaps we’ll have more clarity after Jan 14, 2010 when the member governments meet to come up with a face saving solution and keep this jobs program moving?
30. Vero Venia | January 13th, 2010 at 10:28
19. Boeing Investor | January 12th, 2010 at 22:30 says “Airbus can claim that it is on schedule to deliver its A350XWB on time, but this is all nonsense talk.”
As an outsider, we need to take their discourse seriously. If they say it would be on time, I have no reason to believe otherwise.
However, I agree that there are signs that things are not going as fast as expected. I expressed this in my blog entry titled “Delays”
Here is the blog entry “Delays” http://wp.me/siMZI-delays
Having said the above, I have to believe Airbus’ claim about the A350 being on schedule. If they say it’s on time, then it’s on time.
31. Leelaw | January 13th, 2010 at 10:33
I’m sure the doctrinaire “Airbusiers” will just roll their eyes, but Dominic Gates had some interesting news analysis in his piece yesterday:
“Airbus topped Boeing both in the number of planes produced and in the total of new orders last year, but the U.S. company prevailed in perhaps the most important tally: the actual money received for airplanes delivered to customers.
Whether calculated on list prices or on more realistic data using standard sales discounts, Boeing’s deliveries were worth about $4 billion more than those of Airbus…”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2010775490_airbus13.html
32. Buster | January 13th, 2010 at 11:40
20. Mike M | January 12th, 2010 at 23:05
Selective moron.
Classy.
I can only worship at the feet of the king of such.
25. Paula K | January 13th, 2010 at 05:28
Thats a phenomenal amount of deferrals.
Obviously, the 600 figure includes rearranging many slots for airlines wanting earlier delivery. So it’s far from 600 deferrals. A reasonable person (excluding a few here) might assume 300 deferrals and 300 earlier deliveries.
33. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | January 13th, 2010 at 11:57
¥€$ Money! ¥€$
34. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | January 13th, 2010 at 12:24
¥€$ Money! ¥€$
Some of the language by EADS CEO Tom Enders is impressive though. At least they’ve come out and admitted their problems. Ended Enders the denial. They is know what problems may be - they can be like to focus.
We can look forward to a more focused and assertive Airbus going forward. Eu acho..
It appears from the industrial purchases that Boeing realises that they could have done some of the work better. (Insert conspiracy theory here.) Hope Boeing has a great year - especially with the 787 and 747-8 testing.
Someone on A.net said something about #7478FF RC501 on Jan 22, and RC521 on Feb19. But they say a lot there. @flightblogger says it’s looking like February. Can’t wait. Becoming impaciente.
35. Boeing Investor | January 13th, 2010 at 14:06
Vero Venia # 30
My comment that Airbus statements about scheduling the A350 are all nonsense was intended to convey that it is too early to be able to predict the successful completion of production and delivery at this stage.
Yes, we can accept that they believe they are on schedule but we know there will be many bumps and turns in the road and the assurance with which they convey their success so far is to be taken with a grain of salt. Your blog indicates some of the challenges they are already facing but you are being very generous and feel that there is still time to reorder and regroup and you give them the benefit of the doubt.
I am simply being more skeptical to make up for the overenthusiasm which Airbus practices and their difficulties with the A400 and A380 are signs of distorted measurements
36. Mike M | January 13th, 2010 at 14:47
I note how buster hasnt debunked the myth that what Airbus says is right etc. Not to worry, I dont expect or demand such. You had your opportunity and failed.
>>>Boeing’s deliveries were worth about $4 billion more than those of Airbus…
And this will ring true now matter how many years of record orders and deliveries Airbus reports.
Perhaps at least until A350 deliveries start in a few years.
37. Leelaw | January 13th, 2010 at 15:11
The A350 & A380 have kind of an unhealthy industrial relationship, as each has been an unwanted distraction during a critical point in the other’s development/industrialization process.
38. Daniel Tsang | January 13th, 2010 at 16:36
Well… the A320 actually had a production increase, not a production cut in 09.
14. Buster
Airbus publicly states that DESPITE eating in to some of the buffer, they were still on target for 2013 delivery and you interpret that as a 2-year delay!
How did you arrive at that Sherlock?
Multiple Airbus suppliers are hinting at an A350 delay of at least 6 months…
with my own Airbus source declaring that a 2-year delay is a realistic forecast. This was also told by many well-known analysts such as Richard Aboulafia.
Airbus always disappoints me… the A380 deliveries as “5. Airbus Supplier” revealed.
Airbus was just doing yet another smoke-and-mirrors show. All the time.
39. Leelaw | January 13th, 2010 at 17:06
“with my own Airbus source declaring that a 2-year delay is a realistic forecast. This was also told by many well-known analysts such as Richard Aboulafia.”
I’m not aware of such a forecast, I’m under the impression that Mr. Aboulafia is fairly sanguine about the prospects for the timely development/industrialization of the “Panel-liner.”
40. Buster | January 13th, 2010 at 20:46
36. Mike M | January 13th, 2010 at 14:47
I note how buster hasnt debunked the myth that what Airbus says is right etc.
As if anything I (or Airbus) can say will assuage your bitterness.
Not to worry, I dont expect or demand such.
Kind of contradicts your first statement, no? And despite your lack of expectation and demand, you still couldn’t stop yourself from mentioning it!
Why does Airbus bother you quite so much?
41. Leelaw | January 14th, 2010 at 07:28
“Last time Airbus had a delay they didn’t announce it in drips.”
Sorry, I missed this before. They were at least four small drips in 2009 alone as delivery forecasts were revised downward over the course of the year, following a couple of drips in 2008. Airbus is currently more than 80 aircraft deliveries behind the original production plan (before the first delay was announced in June 2005), if the forecast of about 20 deliveries in 2010 holds, they’ll “only” be more than 100 deliveries behind schedule at the end of this year, which is more than two years of production at the maximum anticipated annual rate.
I’m not sure either OEM can claim moral superiority in the “drip” department.
42. ikkeman | January 14th, 2010 at 08:14
41. Leelaw | January 14th, 2010 at 07:28
Sorry for not beeing clear. I was specifically talking about delays during design/development.
I’m sure the current rise and (mostly) fall of the production numbers have much to do with the eagerness of airlines to recieve this aircraft in the current market.
And ofcourse Ab should be happy with the extra time to finally get production streamlined.
On the A350, I don’t doubt it is likely there will be some delay - I do very much doubt anyone will try to repeat the 787. That includes Boeing.
And yes, no OEM can claim moral superiority, but they have shown they can learn from each other.
43. Daniel Tsang | January 14th, 2010 at 10:35
39. Leelaw
I’m not aware of such a forecast, I’m under the impression that Mr. Aboulafia is fairly sanguine about the prospects for the timely development/industrialization of the “Panel-liner.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aRjDYscn4Xrk
“We have the A350 entering service in 2015…”
Moreover, the A350 is seriously overweight…
http://www.glgroup.com/News/Airbus-A350XWB-Weight-Grows-As-Pressure-On-Schedule-Mounts-45899.html
44. Leelaw | January 14th, 2010 at 12:11
Thanx Daniel, somehow I missed that, very embarassing considering my office subscribes to Teal!
“On the A350, I don’t doubt it is likely there will be some delay - I do very much doubt anyone will try to repeat the 787.”
If there is indeed a two year delay on the horizon, they’ll be knocking on the door, considering the fairly conservative six-year development/industrialization time scale they gave themselves at the outset it would be a devastating development on the financial front.
45. Dave_BC | January 14th, 2010 at 16:12
Teal/Aboulafia? The same muppet outfit also wrote this drivel not long ago about the A350, where he (a) predicts the A350 would get no “blue-chip” customers (787 would get them all), (b) that the the 787 might only be delayed by 6-12 months, and (c) that Airbus should launch an “A360/A370″ instead. . .
Have a read (and some laughs) . . .
[The A350] has yet to garner a serious blue chip airline customer. That vaunted Qatar order (not blue chip, but at least big) hasn’t been signed. The 787 has swept Asia, including India and Australia. Just as important, numerous blue chip airlines are set to place an order for a mid market jet this year, including BA, Emirates, Lufthansa, and Singapore. What if they all go with the 787?”
Bwahahaha!!
Abandoning the current A350 means leaving Boeing alone in that segment for at least five years.
ROTFLMAO!
It would also delay any A320 follow-on necessary to respond to a 737 follow-on, potentially hurting Airbus’s important narrowbody revenue stream. And a massive course change would hurt Airbus’s credibility in the eyes of customers. This is serious stuff. But it beats relying on CannibalAir to rescue your 200-550 seat market standing (“We have met with your A350 salesman; he was delicious. Send another for further consultation.”). That’s a recipe for a slow, steady decline.
. . . .
Boeing’s worst ever technical hiccup [787] would mean only a ***6-12 month delay*** ROTFLMAO!!! painful, but not enough to help Airbus. The only real problem would be performance or operating economics shortfalls. There’s certainly risk there. But banking on the other guy’s failure is a strategy for defeat.
. . . .
For years Airbus dismissed critics of its widebody product strategy as being in Boeing’s pocket. And now Airbus has exactly Two Options. One: “We made mistakes, and are now paying for them. This will take hard work, and we will lose business in the short run but we will embark upon a new product development strategy that ultimately will return us to market strength. We’ll be back!” Option Two: “Steve Udvar-Hazy? He’s in Boeing’s pocket.”
Yours, Waiting For An A360/A370, Richard Aboulafia
http://www.richardaboulafia.com/shownote.asp?id=212
46. Leelaw | January 14th, 2010 at 16:36
@ Dave_BC
Doesn’t all the commentary you’ve cited date back to the days of the old “all-new” A350 (i.e. pre-XWB and CFRP) Hasn’t Airbus essentially abandoned everything they said they were committed too regarding the A350 (particularly Al-Li) as late as Farnborough 2006?
47. Mike M | January 14th, 2010 at 16:46
Dave BC brings along Aboulafia’s four-year old newsletter and thinks its somehow relevant.
Well done.
You can call him a “muppet” all day long - he commands more industry respect than you or I. The fact you mock him shows your lack of credibility.
Muppet.
48. Dave_BC | January 14th, 2010 at 17:16
“Doesn’t all the commentary you’ve cited date back to the days of the old “all-new” A350″
No. Because as RA was writing that (1st qtr 2006), Airbus was already briefing the airlines on the XWB. And barely weeks later, “blue -chip” SIA announced its order at the airshow.
49. Ryan | January 14th, 2010 at 17:43
Just to follow up on Dave_BC’s comment, SQ signed the deal at the Paris Airshow in 2007:
http://www.singaporeair.com/mediacentre/pacontent/news/NE_3007.jsp
“Singapore Airlines today signed a contract with Airbus for twenty A350-900 XWB aircraft, with options to purchase twenty additional units, affirming the Letter of Intent signed and announced by the parties in July last year.”
(Think you may need to register on SQs website to read the full press release).
50. Leelaw | January 14th, 2010 at 18:09
“No. Because as RA was writing that (1st qtr 2006), Airbus was already briefing the airlines on the XWB. And barely weeks later, “blue -chip” SIA announced its order at the airshow.”
It really wasn’t that clear cut. At the time of the Great[est] Satan’s comment, it was reported in the media that Mr. Leahy and Dr. Humbert (then CEO of Airbus) had journeyed to Singapore to show the boys at Changi yet another design iteration of the A350, and were sent packing and told to work harder. Subsequently, in May and June 2006, it was widely reported in the media that there was a real tug of war within Airbus as to how to proceed with the A350. Dr. Humbert was ousted at the end of June, the “XWB” and SIA’s “commitment” to order for it were announced at Farnborough 2006 in late July. Even then, Messrs. Leahy and Williams emphatically insisted the only thing not subject to change was Al-LI, of course the A350 was subsequently relaunched in December 2006 as a CFRP plane. Influential customers, like SIA, didn’t begin firming orders until Le Bourget 2007 after even more tweaking of the design. In fact Mr. Udvar-Hazy, who had publicly “dropped the dime” on the old “all-new” A350 at ISTAT 2006, was not satisfied with the design changes until later in the year. Given these facts, Aboulafia’s commentary/insight, which you want to ridicule with the aid of 20/20 hindsight, was far more on the money than you suggest.
51. Erik Bloodaxe | January 14th, 2010 at 21:16
Ikkeman,
Care to say why exactly you don’t think Airbus will hit their target for 20 A380s this year? What is your basis for this?
Since you don’t think they will get 20, just how many do you think they will deliver?
I have to admit being surprised you are taking the Anti-Airbus side, and I’m taking the Pro-Airbus.
52. ikkeman | January 15th, 2010 at 07:58
51. Erik Bloodaxe | January 14th, 2010 at 21:16
They won’t hit their target because the market conditions during the coming year is to volatile.
The number further has nothing to do with their production capability, but with wheter the airlines see profit in it’s use. This may decline in the coming year before picking up again later.
They may deliver more, more likely they will deliver fewer. But the chance of hitting 20 is just that, a chance.
So I’m not exactly anti Airbus (as I’m usually not anti Boeing), but rather am getting sick and tired of management speak and marketing promises.
Both OEMs suffer from that.
53. Vero Venia | January 15th, 2010 at 08:57
51. Erik Bloodaxe | January 14th, 2010 at 21:16
If Airbus says that the target is 20 deliveries for 2010, then I hope you won’t reject that. There is no reason to dispute their target to deliver 20 A380 this year.
If you ask the question whether they will actually be able to deliver 20 A380, that is another issue. I think in term of production it won’t be too difficult for Airbus to get 20 or more airframe ready this year. Please remember that the target announced in early 2009 was 18 A380 in 2009. So I can conceive easily that there are actually about 8 to 10 airframes already completed in Toulouse, Hamburg and other places.
Whether those aircraft will be delivered will depend much on airlines’ willingness to take delivery and the availability of financing. If airlines are eager to take delivery then they will do their best endeavour to get the financing. If they are not enthusiast to get those aircraft, they will do anything to avoid financing deal to happen.
The only issue I see if ever airlines don’t want to take delivery is the fact that A380 inventory will get bigger at Airbus. Those aircraft are expensive. If you have five A380 on inventory, you have roughly one billion US$ sitting on the tarmac doing nothing. And that’s also one billion dollar of revenue that they don’t get.
By the way, I have just posted something about twin engined aircraft here: http://wp.me/piMZI-yI
54. Airbus Supplier | January 16th, 2010 at 23:39
Erik Bloodaxe
I take your point on deliveries, but in terms of actual units being produced this year, we wont be making parts for twenty jets.
55. keesje | January 17th, 2010 at 23:22
I don’t blame Richard A for being over enthousiatic. A few months ago he admitted being in a rush & quoted some of his own comments. He was caught in the Dreamliner PR Tsunami that stpooed many thinking for themselves / making realitsic assumptions for a few years. Not the least within Boeing themsleves.
http://www.richardaboulafia.com/shownote.asp?id=295
At least he had the guts.
56. Leelaw | January 18th, 2010 at 15:31
In other news today, Airbus has delivered its 6000th aircraft, an A380 (25th delivered since October 2007) to Emirates.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed