Posts Tagged ‘EADS’
Airbus A320neo orders trounce Boeing at the Paris Air Show
SAFRAN Snecma’s LEAP engine selected by Airbus to power the A320neo
Daylife/Getty Images used by permission
As expected, the Boeing vs. Airbus rivalry is again front and center at this year’s Paris Air Show.
The Associated Press writes Airbus “is trouncing Boeing in the race to be the world’s biggest planemaker,” buoyed by what the European jetmaker says is the largest-ever order for commercial passenger jets.
As for the order that Airbus is lauding as historic, that comes from Malaysia’s AirAsia, which officially signed off today on a deal for a whopping 200 of Airbus’ 320neo jets…
The record-setting AirAsia order comes only a day after Airbus received what was then the record order. AP writes Airbus set “the previous record … just Wednesday by (winning) another A320neo customer, (Indian) carrier IndiGo.”
The Financial Times notes “the deal makes AirAsia Airbus’s biggest customer for narrow-body jets, with a total of 375 orders for A320-series aircraft, including 89 already in service.”
Airbus’ next-generation A320 neo — neo stands for “new engine option” — “has proven to be the star of the aviation industry’s premier event,” AP writes…
Dow Jones Newswires details the numbers for the A320neo, writing Airbus “racked up 667 orders and commitments for the A320neo, a new, more fuel-efficient version of the Airbus A320, a favorite of low-cost airlines operating medium-haul routes. Offering airlines up to 15% fuel economy compared to a present-day A320 due to new engines and wing appendages, it will be delivered to Airbus customers starting in late 2015.”
Overall, Airbus has announced deals for 730 aircraft at the air show. The orders would be worth $72 billion at list prices, though customers typically negotiate prices that are substantial lower. Boeing deals announced at the show totaled 142 aircraft worth $22 billion at list prices.
When you get past the crowing by EADS and the whining and rationales by Boeing, one factor stands out. Airlines are quite reasonably spending their money on more economical aircraft. If you can spend less per mile you stand a better chance of being competitive.
Boeing sits back on its butt in a nation that has no sensible energy policy and provides subsidies to industrial barons whether they’re advancing energy and cost-saving practices or not. The White House hasn’t the backbone or the votes. Congress is too widely owned by Big Oil to fight for practical economy.
Euro manufacturers like EADS have to compete in the real world – the one that recognizes every factor from climate change to peak oil as affecting their ability to do business. That’s a significant difference.
Pentagon scraps air-tanker bid process until after the election
The U.S. Defense Department has ended for now a $35 billion transatlantic aerial-refueling competition, handing a nagging seven-year headache to the next administration and boosting Boeing’s hopes to keep Airbus planes out of the Air Force fleet…
The Air Force in February awarded the $35 billion, 179-plane program to a team of Northrop and Europe’s EADS, parent of Boeing commercial archrival Airbus.
After Boeing protested its loss on procedural grounds, a congressional umpire found the Air Force made “significant errors” in evaluating the rival bids…
Boeing, sole supplier of tankers to the U.S. Air Force for 50 years, is seeking to curb EADS’ penetration of the rich U.S. military market. Also at stake are EADS plans to move production of A330 freighters from France to Alabama, partly to cash in on exchange rate fluctuations.
The Air Force calls acquiring new tankers its No. 1 acquisition priority. The new fleet would phase out Boeing-built KC-135 tankers, which have an average age of 47 years. Tankers are used to refuel other planes in mid-air, a critical component of projecting U.S. power around the globe.
Obviously, the politics are severe enough that even the hacks in the Pentagon are divided over spending taxpayer dollars. Divided, that is, over where to spend it. Not on the spending itself.
Perish the fracking thought that we should develop a standard – stick to it – and pick the bidding firm which best matches the standard for quality and price. That would be unAmerican.
