824 gross orders to be exact.
With 824 new gross orders, Airbus achieved its second best year in terms of sales. These orders make up for 44 per cent of the market, and include 673 Single Aisles, 134 A330s, A340s and A350s as well as 17 A380s. Net order intake stand at 790, making a 43 per cent share. Valued at US $ 75.1 billion at catalogue prices, the gross orders make for 40 percent of the total transaction values.
Airbus vs Boeing: 2006 Order Book
Moderator: Latest news team
730 net orders, 824 gross, for all the negative news concerning Airbus in 2006, in terms of sales, they had a good year, not as great as Boeing, but good enough to increase their backlog production. Now that we know the numbers for 2006, what will happen in 2007? Seeing that airline companies in the US will start to emerge out of bankruptcy(Delta if it doesn't merge) and other will look to renew their fleet, how do you guys feel both manufacturers will do, especially in the all important widebody market.
-
cageyjames
- Posts: 514
- Joined: 03 Jun 2005, 00:00
- Location: On Lease to PHL
Since Airbus sales for 2006 were 80% A320, they have their work cut out for them. I'm not sure growth in U.S. companies helps Airbus that much. NW and US are the only two that fly Airbus widebodies and NW has already decided that they are going Boeing for future (at least 787 over A350) orders. I guess US is a good bet, but we still can't make up our minds over the existing A350 order (if you can believe that). The rumor is we are waiting until after Feb 1 to make any decisions because of the DL deal. I don't see how US doesn't sign up with the A350XWB, but who the heck knows. (I do know that US enjoys having the largest Airbus fleet in the world and probably wants to keep it that way)David747 wrote:Seeing that airline companies in the US will start to emerge out of bankruptcy(Delta if it doesn't merge) and other will look to renew their fleet, how do you guys feel both manufacturers will do, especially in the all important widebody market.
The other Airbus customers in the U.S. only fly A320s. I mean can you see AA ordering the A350? I sure as heck can't. UA might be the wildcard as they like PW Engines and the 787 doesn't have them. (not that the A350 does, but...)
Not a good year for Airbus. The A380 program really dragged them down. I don't think this 1000+ aircraft order years for Boeing is sustainable, maybe 800 is a more realistic goal for both manufacturers.
http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=7638
http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=7638
I don't want to disagree with that statement you made, but I'm going to play devil's advocate, suppose that American Airlines for example has to renew its fleet of 767's, at the moment, they will have to wait until 2012 for a 787 as Boeing production slots are full, on the other hand, they can go to Airbus order the A350-800, at a discount and get the plane a year later in 2013, looking at it from that point of view, my guess, but I could be wrong, would be that American would go with Airbus, and any other U.S airliner that needs a fleet replacement, like United, and as you mentioned, the 787 doesn't have at the moment PW engines. But then again, it is true what you said, U.S companies, aside from Northwest and US Airways have been the only solid Airbus customers on widebodies, the rest just buy the narrowbodies A320.cageyjames wrote:I'm not sure growth in U.S. companies helps Airbus that much. NW and US are the only two that fly Airbus widebodies and NW has already decided that they are going Boeing for future (at least 787 over A350) orders. The other Airbus customers in the U.S. only fly A320s. I mean can you see AA ordering the A350? I sure as heck can't. UA might be the wildcard as they like PW Engines and the 787 doesn't have them. (not that the A350 does, but...)
I look at it differently.
An airline that needs to order medium wide-bodies in the 2012-13 timeframe has to consider the 787 and the 350, both of which currently have plenty of slots available. In this timeframe, the 787 has more advantages than disadvantages over the 350.
1) By that time, the 787 will have had four years of production to have worked all the kinks out of the design. The 350 will have just started.
2) In the same line of thinking, if there are delays in production ramp-up of the 787, by 2012 those delays will have been smoothed out for the most part. So there is a greater likely you'll get your plane on time. The 350 is only planned for entry into service in 2013. If you order for delivery in 2013, any delays will immediately impact you.
3) By 2012-13, the 787 will have or be close to breakeven. With its initial investment paid off, Boeing can offer better discounts than Airbus. Sure, launch customers of the 350 will get great discounts, but Airbus still needs to pay off its investments eventually. The airline that orders the 200th unit off the line will not have the same discount as the launch customers.
4) Without going all composite on the fuselage, the 350 will have a difficult time being more efficient than the 787.
An airline that needs to order medium wide-bodies in the 2012-13 timeframe has to consider the 787 and the 350, both of which currently have plenty of slots available. In this timeframe, the 787 has more advantages than disadvantages over the 350.
1) By that time, the 787 will have had four years of production to have worked all the kinks out of the design. The 350 will have just started.
2) In the same line of thinking, if there are delays in production ramp-up of the 787, by 2012 those delays will have been smoothed out for the most part. So there is a greater likely you'll get your plane on time. The 350 is only planned for entry into service in 2013. If you order for delivery in 2013, any delays will immediately impact you.
3) By 2012-13, the 787 will have or be close to breakeven. With its initial investment paid off, Boeing can offer better discounts than Airbus. Sure, launch customers of the 350 will get great discounts, but Airbus still needs to pay off its investments eventually. The airline that orders the 200th unit off the line will not have the same discount as the launch customers.
4) Without going all composite on the fuselage, the 350 will have a difficult time being more efficient than the 787.
By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly an airplane?
It's a very bad year to make your second ever best sales total and yet still make a loss.Buzz wrote:How do you figure that? Ok, they had their problems, but you they just had the 2nd best year ever in terms of sales and they never had a backlog this big. I wouldn't call that a bad year... (in terms of sales)CXRules wrote:Not a good year for Airbus.
Mercutio, you're right on. That's what I was saying. All companies are here to make money, the bottom line in black, not red. It's never good to report losses in any year, especially during your 2nd best sales ever!
Moreover, the A380 hurts its reputation more or less. That will have some impact on future negotiations with airlines for new orders. It's something we can't measure since it's intangible but definitely a factor for my comment as well.
Moreover, the A380 hurts its reputation more or less. That will have some impact on future negotiations with airlines for new orders. It's something we can't measure since it's intangible but definitely a factor for my comment as well.
This WTO thing is going to get a bit ugly, but that was expected, now as to Airbus hurting McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed, well, that is stretching it a bit. The failure of Lockheed had more to do with their production of the L1011, and its engine suppliers than any subsidy Airbus got during the 1970's. As far as the DC-10 is concerned, that plane got maligned by the US government after several accidents, at one point the FAA grounded the plane, which hurt MDC's ability to produce the plane and deliver it to customers. Before the late 80's, Lockheed and Douglas outsold Airbus in North America and Europe.