China Airlines to order 747-8's

[teach]

Please run this by me again.... how can you possibly skew the figures to show Airbus ahead?

I wrote it in English, didn't I? Anyway, once more: if you (as you seem to be suggesting) take the orders announced by Airbus in January away from last year's tally and add them to this year's, Airbus would be ahead of Boeing in the 2006 orders race. Remember: that's folowing YOUR and fleabyte's suggestion that the orders announced in January weren't signed in December.

It's obvious that Boeing has sold more in 2005 and 2006.

Airbus sold more in 2005, Boeing (so far) in 2006. And that's per official numbers, which really are the only ones that matter.

[Mercutio]

I wrote it in English, didn't I?

Yes but poorly expressed. It's hard to decipher your meaning.

Anyway, once more: if you (as you seem to be suggesting) take the orders announced by Airbus in January away from last year's tally and add them to this year's, Airbus would be ahead of Boeing in the 2006 orders race. Remember: that's folowing YOUR and fleabyte's suggestion that the orders announced in January weren't signed in December.

I was rather suggesting that the disputed Chinese orders should not be counted in the tally. However, having made this argument, can you support it with figures?

Airbus sold more in 2005, Boeing (so far) in 2006. And that's per official numbers, which really are the only ones that matter.

I disagree. Boeing said they wouldn't have counted the Chinese orders. The Chinese airlines themselves protested at their inclusion. And even if they're added to the 2006 total they are insufficient to pull Airbus ahead. Ultimately it doesn't matter if you put them in 2005 or 2006. The order tally for the two years combined has Boeing in the lead - and that's merely by numbers of airframes. In terms of the total value of orders, Boeing holds a commanding lead. In terms of profitability, Boeing's lead is even more emphatic....

[teach]

Yes but poorly expressed. It's hard to decipher your meaning.

That says more about your reading comprehension than it does about what I wrote, I'm afraid. I read it again, and it's perfectly clear what is meant.

can you support it with figures?

Airbus booked 424 orders in December 2005 miscounted in the previous reply, but the point stands). 635 (Airbus orders to end of November) + 424 = 1059. Boeing announced today they received 1014 orders this year. Think that proves the point.

I disagree.

Hey, you want to make up your own numbers, be my guest. I'll go with the real ones.

[Mercutio]

That says more about your reading comprehension than it does about what I wrote, I'm afraid. I read it again, and it's perfectly clear what is meant.

No my comprehension is fine. Your point was just poorly expressed. I do now understand what you're trying to say. However I remain at a loss to comprehend its' relevance or value.

Airbus booked 424 orders in December 2005 miscounted in the previous reply, but the point stands). 635 (Airbus orders to end of November) + 424 = 1059. Boeing announced today they received 1014 orders this year. Think that proves the point.

No it proves a rather valueless point chosen by you but it doesn't disprove my point. My point is this (one more time...): It doesn't matter whether Airbus's orders announced in early January 2006 (but claimed for December 2005) are added to the 2005 or 2006 total. It also doesn't matter if the disputed Chinese orders are added to Airbus's 2005 or 2006 total. Those are mere moot points but there is still no way you can skew the figures to show that Airbus has matched Boeing's order total over 2005 and 2006 combined. You know that as well as I do.

Hey, you want to make up your own numbers, be my guest. I'll go with the real ones.

But you are the one selecting numbers that have no value or relevance. What's the point of dragging Airbus's December 2005 orders (announced in January 2006), adding them to Airbus's 2006 total (so far....), and then adding the two numbers together and asserting that it's more than Boeing's 2006 total not including Boeing's own orders from December 2005? That's not comparing like with like and therefore proves nothing.

[jal]

Sorry guys, but isn't the point whether China Airlines will be 747-8 customer

All the speculation is off-topic.

[teach]

Are you kidding me, Mercutio? You're accusing me of throwing around 'useless numbers that don't prove a thing' when YOU and fleabyte are the ones claiming Boeing 'clearly won in 2005 AND 2006'.

I'm perfectly willing to just go by the official numbers. You're the one who wants to tamper with them. I was just playing along with YOUR game, and showing you what WOULD have been the case if we followed YOUR and fleabyte's argumentation.

What's the point of dragging Airbus's December 2005 orders (announced in January 2006), adding them to Airbus's 2006 total (so far....), and then adding the two numbers together and asserting that it's more than Boeing's 2006 total not including Boeing's own orders from December 2005? That's not comparing like with like and therefore proves nothing.

I think you just made my point for me. As I said before: You and fleabyte are the ones complaining that the orders Airbus received in December 2005 shouldn't be counted for 2005. I'm just showing you what the consequences of that would be.

[Mercutio]

Are you kidding me, Mercutio? You're accusing me of throwing around 'useless numbers that don't prove a thing' when YOU and fleabyte are the ones claiming Boeing 'clearly won in 2005 AND 2006'.

Boeing said they wouldn't have counted the Chinese orders and the Chinese airlines themselves disputed their inclusion in Airbus's 2005 order total. So I am hardly alone in my view! So yes I think Boeing won in both 2005 and 2006 separately. However I am not intersted in nit-picking over whether the Chinese orders should be counted in 2005 0r 2006 or whether Airbus's orders announced in January 2006 should be counted for December 2005 or in 2006. Those are moot points of little importance. However what is beyond any doubt or dispute in that Boeing has scored more orders than Airbus over 2005 and 2006 combined. And you must concede that point because no amount of skewing the numbers gives any other result!!

I'm perfectly willing to just go by the official numbers. You're the one who wants to tamper with them. I was just playing along with YOUR game, and showing you what WOULD have been the case if we followed YOUR and fleabyte's argumentation.

As I said before I was rather suggesting that the disputed Chinese orders should not be counted in Airbus's 2005 tally. However I did ask you to explain your figures for your argument and, having seen them, I dispute your methodology because you do not apply the same count to both Airbus and Boeing. Clearly some of the 400+ orders counted by Airbus for December were indeed recieved in December (the large Chinese order for instance....). The "suspect" orders were those unannounced by midnight 31st December that nonetheless appeared in Airbus's 2005 total.

I think you just made my point for me. As I said before: You and fleabyte are the ones complaining that the orders Airbus received in December 2005 shouldn't be counted for 2005. I'm just showing you what the consequences of that would be.

But this "consequence" you claim doesn't follow does it? ....because you don't apply the same count to both Airbus and Boeing! You are just shifting this great bulk of Airbus's claimed orders for December 2005 into either of the 2005 or 2006 totals to put Airbus's annual total ahead for that chosen year. But that doesn't prove very much does it? If you're going to shift all of Airbus's genuine (as well as dubious) December 2005 orders into 2006 to put Airbus ahead then why not do the same for Boeing?

[teach]

But that doesn't prove very much does it? If you're going to shift all of Airbus's genuine December 2005 orders into 2006 then why not do the same for Boeing?

I'm speechless.

This just completely baffles me...

You don't get the point, so much is clear, and never really intented to. I give up, this is useless. You keep on claiming the real numbers aren't the real numbers, if that suits you better.

[Mercutio]

^ It's really very simple. You are skewing the figures to put Airbus ahead. However your methodology is clearly wrong so the point fails. Some of Airbus's 400+ orders for December 2005 really do belong in 2005 just as they claim. It's only those announced after midnight 31st December 2005 (ie in 2006) that are dubiously counted in the 2005 total. You are taking the whole lump of Airbus's claimed December 2005 orders and dumping them in 2006 without doing the same for Boeing. The simple solution to all this pointless nit-picking is to simply count the total for the two years combined. That has been my argument from the outset. However I note that you have never engaged me on that point....

[smokejumper]

Two points:

1) This topic is about the Boeing 747-8 and China Airlines

2) The sales leader should not be the one who sold the largest number of planes, but the value of the year's orders. I'd rather sell 700 Boeing 777's than 1,100 Airbus 320's. Or conversely, sell 700 A-330s, than 1,100 B737's.

Looked at another way, Cessna has sold more planes in one year than both Airbus AND Boeing combined - yet, I do not consider them to be the yearly sales leader.

[teach]

The simple solution to all this pointless nit-picking is to simply count the total for the two years combined. That has been my argument from the outset. However I note that you have never engaged me on that point....

Come on, man, don't change arguments mid-course. Your point was, and I quote, "The reality is that Boeing comfortably outsold Airbus in both 2005 and 2006."

Not combined, no, BOTH in 2005 AND 2006. You even fortified your stance by saying, and I quote again, "Airbus would be behind Boeing regardless. It doesn't matter if you count the years separately or in combination." So, even counted separately, you say, Boeing would be in the lead in both years.

THAT, and ONLY that, is what I am arguing with you over. I never argued with you over the combined number, because that might, depending on Airbus' final numbers, be higher for Boeing than for Airbus. My point of disagreement is, and always has been, you not recognising the official numbers which put Airbus in the lead for 2005, and trying to change them so Boeing would be in the lead.

Remember, once more, YOU are the one tampering with the numbers, I am perfectly fine with the official ones.

If you still don't get the point, then I'm sorry, but I'm not going to keep on repeating this infinitely.

[Mercutio]

^ Yes I am claiming that Boeing beat Airbus in both 2005 and 2006 separately as well as combined. I said it twice before and I say it again now. However I recognise that the 2005 figures are open to dispute. The main point of contention (as I have also said twice before....) is whether Airbus's large Chinese orders should be counted for 2005 or 2006. Airbus counted them for 2005 but Boeing said they would not have counted the orders at that early stage and the Chinese airlines themselves disputed their inclusion in Airbus's 2005 order totals. The simple way around that is to just count the combined total for both years which covers either possibility (the third time I explain that now....). You know as well as I do that Boeing have scored more orders than Airbus over the last two years - more in numbers, even more in value, and even more in profitablity. Boeing has been winning the orders race for two years now.

[RC20]

There is lots of life in the old girl (747 airframe) that Boeing will certainly exploit. With new engnes, wings and minor touchups, she'll be around for another 25 years or so.

Such longevity might only be overshadowed by the Boeing B-52 which first rolled out of the plant in 1951. Upgrades, new engines and other modifications will keep her in the air until 2040 or later.

I think we can all acknowledge, the 747 is still Queen of the Skies.

The A380 is the king for sure, but this rate, the 747 mayl exceed the A380s total orders by the end of next year).

A good airframe goes on forever (and don't forget the DC3!)

[Zenfookpower]

Teach and Mercutio.....please read your postings again and see how ridiculous this all sounds.. Can you please teach yourself how to share the front seat of the EU bus...Happy New Year...

[David747]

ah. when it comes to China Airlines and the possibility of them ordering the 747-8I, what do you Teach and Mercutio think?

[smokejumper]

There is lots of life in the old girl (747 airframe) that Boeing will certainly exploit. With new engnes, wings and minor touchups, she'll be around for another 25 years or so.

Such longevity might only be overshadowed by the Boeing B-52 which first rolled out of the plant in 1951. Upgrades, new engines and other modifications will keep her in the air until 2040 or later.

I think we can all acknowledge, the 747 is still Queen of the Skies.

The A380 is the king for sure, but this rate, the 747 mayl exceed the A380s total orders by the end of next year).

A good airframe goes on forever (and don't forget the DC3!)

The DC-3 and the Ford Tri-Motor were standard US Forest Service planes used for parachuting Smokejumpers into wilderness areas to fight forest fires for many years. The DC-3 is still in service (although converted to turbo-prop) while the Fords were parked in 1967.

Both were cool aircraft and really gave good service under very rugged conditions - they often flew into very remote, rough, mountain-top fields and only rarely suffered damage.

[David747]

DC-3 is a great airplane, can you believe there are few still in service 71 years after its first flight! The title Queen of the Skies would probably fit the DC-3, but when it comes to the 747, nothing beats that most beautiful bird!

[CXRules]

For Airbus and Boeing, the most important thing is to make profit. Number of planes sold is important, but you also have to look at what kind of planes they are selling, ie, widebodies versus narrowbodies.

For China Airlines, I won't be surprise to see them ordering the B747-8 since they're closer to Boeing (or the U.S.) than Airbus. Politics could be in play here since CI is partially owned by the government (if I'm not mistaken). EVA Air is a different story.

I thought the Lufthansa's order is interesting since it is a German carrier, a very loyal Airbus customer. I never thought it would be LH ordering the very first B747-8 among all carriers.

[PYX]

DC-3 is a great airplane, can you believe there are few still in service 71 years after its first flight!......

Four hundred, if you believe the information at this site,
http://www.baslerturbo.com/

For China Airlines, I won't be surprise to see them ordering the B747-8 since they're closer to Boeing (or the U.S.) than Airbus. Politics could be in play here since CI is partially owned by the government (if I'm not mistaken).

I believe you are correct as they are called the National Airline of Taiwan, but there is no mention of it on their web site "Fact Sheet,"

http://www.china-airlines.com/en/about/about.htm

[smokejumper]

DC-3 is a great airplane, can you believe there are few still in service 71 years after its first flight!......

Four hundred, if you believe the information at this site,
http://www.baslerturbo.com/

Photo of DC-3 conversion used by US Forest Service (Missoula, Montana)

http://www.baslerturbo.com/usfs.html