Talk:Competition between Airbus and Boeing/Archive 1

Archive 1

industrial espionage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_%28signals_intelligence%29#Controversy "An article in the US newspaper Baltimore Sun reported in 1995 that European aerospace company Airbus lost a $6 billion contract with Saudi Arabia in 1994 after the US National Security Agency reported that Airbus officials had been bribing Saudi officials to secure the contract." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing#Industrial_espionage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.198.228 (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Necessary?

Is this article really necessary? It seems more like a magazine piece than anything. It does have sources, which is a good thing, but some of the conclusions are OR. In addition,most of the material is covered in the airliner and manufacture articles. Not ready to AfD this yet, just asking questions. - BillCJ 20:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not fit in an encyclopedia, fairly interesting subject if you are interested in aircrafts. But should be removed as an own entry IMHO.81.227.2.232 21:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

---

It isn't brilliantly written, but brings something useful together into one place. The context of relative orders and comparisons between planes is very interesting - albeit the tables are trying to represent too much and because of that are a bit difficult to read. I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. PaulL: 202.168.20.241 10:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for "the benefit of the doubt", it is a question of time ! See down --Laurent Simon 11:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Useful, a bit later, I hope !

My intention, with this new page, is to focus on the competition inside this duopole and, later, to reduce the actual pages "Boeing" and "Airbus". I have for the moment let the parts of these pages in "Boeing" and "Airbus", but they should be reduced according to me.

And I didnt have the time yet to create information about this competition, but it is still my intention. I've begun in french, on http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel_Boeing_Airbus and will translate asap. Please HELP !

There is already some content on the french page which is not yet translated. (I have mainly transfered the tables, which were already in english).

I've hidden some parts (tables) on the french page (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel_Boeing_Airbus#Comparaison_au_niveau_des_avions_civils), but I dont know how to do that on the english pages. Please HELP again !

Thanks ! --Laurent Simon 11:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

{{Hidden}} - Used for hiding stuff like on the french one... Reedy Boy 12:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Original research or unverified claims, why ?

I dont understand why "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims." because the content is already on the Airbus page (Airbus#Competition_with_Boeing)..., and this mention in not on this page ! --Laurent Simon 11:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Other manufacturers?

Is it time to expand this article to include other aircraft manufacturers, such as Embraer, Bombardier, Sukhoi, and other regional jet manufacturers? Streltzer 22:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC) {fixed spelling and link errors Streltzer 18:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)}

2007 Orders

We should not accept justplanes.com as a proper reference when listing current orders. During the years 1989 to 2006, only finalized orders are shown in the orders box. Justplanes.com uses letters of intent and other factors when deciding their final numbers and tend to over estimate orders by 30%-40% from the official tally from Airbus and Boeing. We should only use official tallies from Airbus and Boeing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.180.189 (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but the 'gross' and 'net' stuff is nonsense, and the news source is hardly authoritative, given the fact that the manufacturers themselves give numbers in their websites. It just happens that Airbus releases figures on a per month instead of a per day basis, and so we should stick to that in order to have comparable figures. Causantin (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you want to list two separate sources from both the Airbus and Boeing websites. My reference is from a credible journalism company and has the correct official tallies as listed by Boeing and Airbus. Its true that Boeing updates its order book on a weekly basis and airbus does theirs on a monthly basis. So in order to keep this page as up-to-date and current as possible, I'll update the figures, and make a note that the Airbus numbers are from November.

However, there still is a problem. Airbus reports their gross orders and won't adjust their numbers to reflect cancellations and such till January. So to give an accurate representation of this industry we should either make note of this or use gross orders for Boeing.

Just so y'all are aware, Boeing also reports gross figures [1]. In addition, Airbus does indeed tally "Letters of Intent" as "Firm Orders". Apparently, Boeing does not.--Happysomeone (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Boeing also offers gross numbers for their orders but net is more realistic. For the most part, Airbus doesn't tally letters of intent as firm orders but at times they do at the end of the year to catch up to or surpass Boeing in total orders for the year. It will be interesting what they do with that large Chinese order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pntsurf (talk • contribs) 21:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Year Ordering of Orders & Deliveries

What's with the reverse ordering of the orders and deliveries tables? I found it quite uncomfortable. Also, the orders table lacks a sum column which detracts to the consistence of the data representation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.53.66.114 (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

payload/range

The table could become usefull, but at this moment, you could only draw false conclusions.

1. The classification of pax and range is highhanded. 2. Which kind of seating is considered? (3 class/2 class/ high-density...) (the A330-200 is two rows below the A340-200, but it's about the same fuselage) 3. Payload varies by range.

Please put a warning sticker on this table or remove it. 89.197.143.142 (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

A preliminary diagram for payload and range is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RangePayload.PNG , sources are section 3-2-1 page 5-6 and page 25 TGCP (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Unidentified Customers

I noticed that Boeing's totals for their orders contain an extraordinary number of "unidentified customers" (161 orders out of 275 in 2008 are unidentified), while all of Airbus's customers are identified. Is there some explanation for that? Causantin (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Machs and km/hs

There is something weird in the A330_MRTT_-_KC-45A section. Machs and km/hs does not add up properly, and I don't know which ones are the correct ones. --MoRsE (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is optimistic beyond reason.

The article should address the drawbacks of Airbus/Boeing feud. The two are duelling so much that true innovation is totaly trampled. Today's airliners basically still look like a B-707 from the late 1950's and only the minor details are tweaked. Radical new designs, Sonic Crusier and SST all go to the wastebin, because neither side dares to step on uncharted terrain for fear of losing sales.

The airliner manufacture situation is similar to the stagnation we have historically seen in oriental and mediterranean societies, which innovated "inwards", creating ever more sophisticated and truly incredible forms of chinese martial arts or venetian gondola rowing, but frankly said neither worth much when compared to even the most primitive musket or powerboat.

Essentially with the B-787 Boeing is now building a slightly up-styled gondola made of carbon fiber instead of precious woods and the Airbus Corp. with the A-380 is now producing the likeness of the Bucintoro, but both are still "oar-powered" era, thus severely speed limited. The premise is no one in the world, neither brazilian, canadian or russian manufacturer can come up with the equivalent of a "battleship Bismarck" airliner, but if anybody does, the current jet fleet will become floating junk, much like the HMS Dreadnought made all warships obsolete in a flash in 1906.

If there was true aviation innovation, we would either have hypersonic one-hour commercial transpacific crossing now or if we put the environment's sake to the front, there would be zero-emission subsonic jetliners with whisper-soft noise, based on radical new airframe shapes and engines. Yet, neither ex=ists.

Also, look at the cockpit, the A380 has more LCD screens than a stock broker's office, which is insane. Doves or storks do not have digital visual implants, yet they travel transcontinental distances pin-accurate. The life-or-death competition between A/B prevents ergonomists from rethinking the cockpit's purpose and the man-machine interface like it was reinvented during the late 1970's analog clock to glass cockpit transition.

The Airbus-Boeing competition is not a moral good in the adamsmithian sense, but rather a dead-lock of duelling reindeers, where both sides are bound to die eventually. The situation is crying for MORE government intervention, not less - taxpayer money should go into steering the two companies away from feud and force them into free innovation mode. 91.83.21.86 (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A machine called Concorde once proved that point with pre-digital, pre-composite technology.--86.168.115.89 (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And yet it wasn't a commercial success. I think he's got you beat here. 208.87.137.230 (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Updating needed

The final section is now out of date regarding the US air-to-air refuelling aircraft contract. Is it suitable at all for an encyclopedia? Tomopope (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the comparison between the two aircraft mischaracterizes the entire contract situation in ways that were made clear by the GAO's statements issued when they announced they were forcing the Air Force to redo their tanker contest. While I'm sure a whole article could be written on it, it would take someone far less biased than anyone who cares about this particular article to write it. For some reason, there's quite a pissing contest between the Americans and Europeans about Boeing and Airbus, and I don't believe for a second that either side is getting (or willing to get) the whole story. 24.227.240.72 (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Other aspects of competition

This article was heavily focused on comparisons between the aircraft products of the respective companies. However the article's title suggests that other aspects of competition should be included as well. I've therefore introduced some new sections and tidied up the existing headings a bit to accommodate them. No doubt others will be able to expand and add to these areas.--JCG33 (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Whats with the A330 being compared to both the 767 and 777, when it should be A330/A340 instead?¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melrosepark (talk • contribs) 19:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

other sources could be " http://hbr.org/product/boeing-and-airbus-competitive-strategy-in-the-very/an/KEL022-PDF-ENG?N=4294934592 516178&Ntt=Competitive+strategy " and [2] TGCP (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Environmental data?

I'm missing data about fuel usage of the planes, e.g. fuel per passenger per 100 miles. Supersymetrie (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

False data on Boeing 737-300

If You look at the Boeing 737-300, -400, and -500 information something tells me the information about the -300 isn't correct. First of all, the length (should be 33.4m/109ft7in) of the plane is false, the MTOW given is false etc. I believe some of the information under the -300 dates back from a time that the -100 / -200 or the -200adv. info has been part of the comparison. I suggest the the correct information be added. 02:30, 12 November 2009 (GMT+2) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.14.146 (talk)

Orders updates

Can anybody who is able to update the orders and deliveries charts? Currently ends at 2007. I would but I don't know how it works. The data is there. Ex nihil ^(talk) 02:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Airbus A350-900R and -900F

---

1. These aircraft (A350-900R and -900F) are not launched and should be removed, the data provided is not valid and is only speculations.

2. An existing aircraft, the 787-8 is missing from the table.

3. The 787-10 aircraft should be removed as the data is inavlid and the product is not launched by Boeing.

4. The chart should remove aircraft not launched by Airbus or Boeing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malshayef (talk • contribs) 23:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Boeing 777 LD3 capacity

Seriously? Only 6 and 24? The Boeing 777 page states 33 for 772 and 44 for 773. IrfanFaiz 01:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

True, many of the data in this article are, unforetunately, inaccurate, here are the 777 and 787 cargo hold numbers:

777-200LR: 32 LD3 or 10 pallets (96x125) or (10 pallets (88x125) + 2 LD3).

777-300ER: 44 LD3 or 14 pallets (96x125) or (14 pallets (88x125) + 2 LD3).

777F  : 32 LD3 or 10 pallets (96x125) or (10 pallets (88x125) + 2 LD3) on lower cargo deck plus 27 pallets (96x125) on main deck.

787-8  : 28 LD3 or (8 pallets (96x125) + 2 LD3) or 9 pallets (88x125).

787-3  : same as -8.

787-9  : 36 LD3 or 11 pallets (96x125) or 11 pallets (88x125).

The data should also state if the cargo hold capacity is maximum "usable" volume or "total water volume".

(Malshayef (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC))

If there is uncertainty over the numbers, I think we need to put more emphasis on sources. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but where did you get those numbers from?

bobrayner (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

These numbers come from the manufacturer's operations manuals/documents, and also, from Jane's All the World's Aircraft as an excellent accurate reference book. For aircraft specifications and performance, unless the reference document is technical in nature then its should not be trusted 100% as is the case with manufacturer's web sites and marketing leaflets, as numbers and data therein, in many cases, are "marketing" numbers written mostly by marketing staff to show how good their products are. Both Airbus and Boeing are good in marketing! The real/technical world is different. Ask the "Engineer" about the product rather than the "Sales man". We need to have and create accurate and more consistent technical data on aircraft.Thanks Malshayef (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

I was hoping for specific sources for the LD3 counts. When different sources yield different numbers and there is potential for bias, that's an even bigger reason to be clear about sources; preferably a single reliable source of numbers for both vendors, to allow fair side-by-side comparison.

Oh well - I recently asked my library for the latest edition of JAWA, maybe they'll get it, maybe not...

bobrayner (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hope this document will help for the 777 [[3]] see page 22-25.

And this for the 787: [[4]] see page 15. The 787-9 aircraft are not yet available but data is in JAWA latest edition 2010.

These are sections from the Boeing ACAP documents, available on the Boeing website.

Malshayef (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Safety

You know that section "Safety" says absolutely nothing at all, which side had more crashes per flight? Hmmm? Yo Boeing and Airbus, get your hands out of wikipedia, this is anarchy here.

This article is "Competition BETWEEN" Airbus and Boeing, and in a competition you have a winner and a loser, so if that's true then which has a better safety record?98.165.15.98 (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Page layout

I'm concerned that it's difficult to read the article, as an article.
There's lots of good content, and I think the tables are very valuable, but the page as a whole is dominated by big tables of different things. That's fine if a reader wants to look up a particular data point, but not so fine if a reader wants to read an overview of "Competition between Airbus and Boeing" - they'd get swamped by detail.
Is there any way to rearrange or tidy the page, or move some content to different pages, in order to improve readability? I think it might be a good idea to have a separate page comparing tech specs of particular aircraft - which is important information but only a small part of the competition between Airbus and Boeing.
Any comments / criticisms?
bobrayner (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference 20

Reference 20 is advertising by Boeing taken as fact. The extraordinary margins given are somewhat fanciful, if not hyperbole; they look like they had their origins in Public Relations not Engineering. Fundamental performance parameters up by 21% or 11% over the A380 would make a decision for the B747 8 a forgone conclusion but in fact airlines are not going for the B747, presumably because they have more realistic numbers. Perhaps it would be better to remove the whole sentence that relies on this advertising blurb. There must be some more credible figures available. People? Ex nihil ^(talk) 17:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Updating

The fact that Boeing datas on orders and deliveries are set always before than Airbus shows a clear complex of Boeing towards Airbus.Generally all the times Boeing datas are updated before than Airbus ,also during the month.151.60.118.128 (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)