Peter, do you agree with the "no competing regarding safety" "rule"? Isn't that a cartel? Not doing something in order to make more money? I do not think, making people think flying is super safe, has any noble reason, other than for them to make more money. What would you say if car companies would do the same, and they would not invest in to safety? So we would not have such safe cars today? People would be disgraced! I am not saying plane manufacturers does not invest in safety, but that cartel is sickening, and I am sure they could have been investing more in safety anyways.
Hey Peter, do you truly agree that not talking about safety is good? I see this more like a cartel. Basically companies agreed not to talk about a real thing, in order to sell more tickets, to make more money. I think this is unethical. Also, this does not help with development. This way companies will and can not excel regarding new innovations in safety above others. If this would have happened in the car industry, we would have today lot less safer cars, and would be a scandal.
It's maybe not their conscious strategy but they only gain more respect by treating the Boeing problems like this. They seem very humble and professional this way while Boeing looks very amateurish. It is only even more good publicity for Airbus.
Perhaps you have heard the old joke... "There was a person flying over the Atlantic towards Canada. It was a 747. After a short time, engine 1 failed. The Captain came on and said: " I have to inform you that engine one has failed and so we will arive a bit late at our destination.". An hour later. Engine 2 failed. The Captain came back on. "I am sorry to inform you that we have had another engine failure and so our arrival has been put back 2 hours". 2 hours later.... Engine 3 failed. The Captain came back on and said; "I am sorry to inform you that we have lost engine 3 and our arrival time is now 6 hours from now." The passeneger looked to his buddy and said: "Heck, if we lose another engine we'll be up here all day."
I think the true story of British Airlines 009 is funnier: “Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress.”
As far as I know, the slogan "4 engines, for long haul" came from Virgin Atlantic and Airbus had simply adopted it for this airshow. That's why a Virgin A346 landed in front of the advert.
@@Ismsanmar Nobody but you inferred that from OP's comment. OP simply said that the text for the ad was not Airbus' idea but Virgin's. Airbus just took it and ran with it. That's it.
my ex company (small to medium buisness) issued a statement to our travelagent that we will not accept offers for any flight that inclued a boeing when the door blowout happend - sadly (?) the statement was withdrawn when the dust was settelt
For aviation professionals, safety objections are the only valid reason for refusing to fly, and Boeing at least accepts that the slogan is interpreted as safety related within the aviation community.
Honestly, Airbus doesn't need to go after Boeing. All they need to do is keep quiet and let Boeing cook. Why take the bad PR or sour business relationships when you don't have to? There's also the fact that some of their supply line overlaps with Boeing's - including Spirit Aerospace. So they want whatever's going on with Boeing and Spirit to go smoothly and negotiate either a good continuing contract for those parts or at least keep those parts coming while they find another manufacturer. Attacking Boeing doesn't serve either of those goals. While they want more airplane sales (because ofc they do), there's also the fact of when they'd actually be able to deliver those airplanes. So they certainly don't want a massive flood of orders that they won't be able to fulfill for decades. The current situation works pretty well for Airbus - they have one major competitor and they don't have the resources/space to take over if that competitor fails.
I think there is another aspect to not hammering Boeing into the ground. If Boeing goes under, it will only be a matter of time before Airbus trips over monopoly regulations. Like Microsoft helped save Apple when it was on the verge of bankruptcy, Airbus is better off not making waves for Boeing.
Boeing and Airbus have never been able to make aircraft quick enough to supply the market demand, if Boeing removed itself from the market it would be impossible for Airbus to fill that gap
IIRC Microsoft didn't save Apple out of their own free will, rather it was because, through a third party or two, Microsoft ended up (unknowingly?) using Apple's QuickTime code in their software. It just so happened that they were able to play it into some good PR that *may* have helped them on their antitrust case. I can't remember the details off the top of my head, though.
Boeing has four huge divisions. They are not going to go under, They employ 30000 more people than Airbus. This sensationalism needs to stop. Their problems are because they put bean counters in charge. The CEO is leaving soon and Boeing will fix the issues. Engineers need to run manufacturing companies, not accountants.
Wouldn't the old Boeing slogan "If it's not Boeing I'm not going" carry an implication that other aircraft aren't as safe as Boeing aircraft? It certainly has come back to haunt them in recent years, with plenty of people commenting on Boeing by reversing that slogan. That's probably another reason why using safety as a selling point is a bad idea, if you have a bad spate of accidents your own claims of being safe can come back to bite you, especially if your product is found to be at fault.
It's tempting to use the slogan _Better than Boeing_ . It's a slogan worth paying for. The trouble with it is that it's just the first step onto a long and hard journey, _Always Strive for Excellency_ . cheers! / CS
That wasn't an *official* marketing slogan from Boeing or anything. I'm not even sure what the exact origin is, there's accounts that it came from unions in the industry, possibly The Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA) or IAM District 751. Another one you used to hear a lot was to refer to "Scarebus". Not from Boeing directly, but from pilots who flew Boeings or, much more commonly, avgeeks who were Boeing fans on internet forums. You started hearing that one a lot less after US Airways Flight 1549 and the DHL A300 surviving a missile hit over Baghdad. Those were probably the two really big incidents that finally give Airbus the undeniable credibility of building solid, safe aircraft that really could get you back to the ground safely when things went terribly wrong.
@@BrySkye The slogan may not have been used in their marketing but if you go to Boeing's online store you may see that they offer a button, t-shirt, and lanyard with the slogan on. They don't have anything for sale (to the public at least) with Scarebus.
Boeing was the safest aircraft manufacturer because anybody could shut down the line if they thought there was a problem. Profits would follow later, as the reputation for uptime and readiness became widely known. America became finance capitalist in stages, where profits became worshipped. The MBA types, not the engineers, destroyed Boeing.
Boeing isn't gone just yet. They made some very big mistakes but be aware that weakness can make you stronger as you realize what went wrong and they fix the problems can make a very strong come back.
On Airbus vs Boeing: Increasing production isn't as simpe because you also need to get all parts suppliers and engine suppliers to also be able to increase production. Airbus saw what happened to Boeing pushing the limits and rightfully is more conservative increasing production. Notable is that Airbus has a very very large orders from basket-case airlines that ordered a gazillion aircraft and am pretty sure delivery slots can be negotiated for airlines such as United. Same with lessors.
Airbus doesn't need to troll Boeing. The SeeSeePee has an Airbus production line and a massive bot farm running anti-Boeing posts in every corner of social media. Foreign countries would love to have the brand gone.
@@justvid366 basket-case refers to a disorganized high risk company (or person). Some airline that is just starting up and orders 200 jets is a high risk one because it is unlikely that either Beoing or AIrbus would actually deliver 200 aircraft to them (and even of they do, when they go belly up, those 200 return to lessors who will put them on the amrlet which means someone else will take those aircraft from lessor instead of ordering from Airbus/Boeing.
@@mikeblatzheim2797the French slightly like certain groups of people from nearly everywhere slip into a state for which absolute delusion is an understatement when talking about their arms industry first it's confusing then I started getting mad at their rudeness but in the end it just a sad and tragic way to see that these people are not capable to rationally think
An important name not really mentioned here is John Leahy. Chief commercial officer at Airbus between 94 and 2017, having earlier been head of sales at Airbus North America since the 80's. People might remember his marketing/PR style was often just generally very brash if not outright confrontational at times and given his role was to give Airbus a foothold, especially in North America, him and his approach can be somewhat compared to how Tom Kalinske ran Sega of America in the early-mid 90's, trying to break Nintendo's hold on that market (but with an ultimately more successful long-term result). Some of his quotes certainly *implied* potential safety concerns, such as saying the 787 was "rushed" to market with unreliable and immature systems. Having effectively achieving his targets and retiring by 2018, its not too unreasonable to say there has been at least a bit of a tone shift at Airbus since.
@@tedferkin When I said "But with an ultimately more successful long-term result" I was referring to Airbus succeeding. Sega of America in particular very much did not.
I remember Leahy confidently stating that Airbus will sell one A380 for every 747 in service, going on to say that the A380s efficiency over the 747 would kill it off overnight. He accused the 787 as being a warmed over 767 with new engines and would be outsold by the A330. He also said that overhauling a model and selling it as new isn't the way forward. (Um.... A320/A330 NEO anyone?) He was very much a load mouth that caused controversy but was very quick to play victim when called out on the disaster the A380 was.
The Airbus ad suggests a recent oceanic accident, even without the small text which basically confirms it. A surprising piece of negative advertising for a market that requires implicit trust. It was a very brave decision for Airbus marketing to continue this theme in later ads. Great video!
Well I think given the problems Airbus has to fullfill all of its current orders its kinda pointless to attack Boeing. They will need another 5-10 Years to even adapt their own production and get their supply fixed to increase production even to their level of demand. Things can backfire real fast if Airbus makes some stupid decisions as well. Another reason would be that a monopoly wouldnt really benefit airbus all that much either because of laws that exist to prevent monopolies. So it might just backfire as well.
The thing is tho, the backlog is technically because they all switched up from boeings to airbus. Its good for airbus. But it also means that airbus has to cover for boeings shortcomings.
Boeing is very lucky there isn't any other company that could compete with the two majors. Airbus could never have forecasted that Boeing would shoot themselves in the foot the way they did. Even if they had, increasing capacity to the level that would be required to make up for the slower Boeing output is impossible. Airbus and Boeing use the same third party suppliers anyway. Airbus has had its share of ill-fated decisions too. The A-380 was short-lived and turned to be a fiasco. Airbus completely misread the market with this project. Passengers no longer want to change planes to reach their destination. I live in Houston, and I don't want to go through Denver to go to Phoenix, which is what flying with Southwest implies.
@@ursodermatt8809 Not in the slightest. But they would be massively restricted in some areas as the (unwanted) monopolist to prevent a situation where they'd be able to abuse the position.
You T-shirt has an early De Havilland Comet on it. I am nearly 80 years old and living in the Netherlands. My father was in charge of the ATC equipment at Heathrow Airprt (then called London airport) at the time when the Comet first entered service. At that time it was quite small, and had square windows et all. I used to watch them flying above our house on the approach to Heathrow. And then of course they started crashing.
That's the risks of being the first, had the 707 pre dated the Comet it may well have been Boeing that discovered the high altitude metal fatigue problems that doomed the original. He's right about one thing, safety should never be utilized as a financial gain. Volvo showed us this in the automotive industry with its design and subsequent public release of the three point seat belt harness as did De Haviland with its comprehensive and public investigation into the Comet. And aviation and other manufacturers benefited. I think the turning point for Boeing was the acquisition of Mcdonald Douglas ant the integration of aspects of that organizations culture into its own.
You don't have to trash your competition when the media will do it for you. That's a double-edged sword, but why bother when you can ride out the MAX troubles by being the default choice?
Pride cometh before the fall and all that. Airbus doesn’t want to publicly lay into Boeing, because their words would age like milk if any Airbus models have build quality issues.
On the other hand, a culture where people are afraid to question the safety of certain aircraft or designs or even a company's culture, is not a safe one
Why does Airbus have to do it for us? Most of the people watching this video follow aviation news and throw it into conversation. I know I do. I’m very into educating my acquaintances.
The absolute irony of those A340 adverts is that the longest scheduled route operated today (over 18 hours) is being operated by twin engined Airbus A350s.
@@mgmmj6664 Are mentally deficient? I do not care either way only for the 170000+ people who are directly employed by Boeing and the several million that indirectly benefit from them. Can your small little brain even process the impact?
Here is a suggestion for a future video. There is a pretty widespread feeling that airplanes with 4 (or 3) engines are safer than airplanes with 2 engines. This seems to be true even among people knowledgeable with aviation. I worked on the development of the 777 and wondered and thought about this quite a bit. I'm not convinced that 2 engine airplanes designed to ETOPS requirements are not inherently safer. A couple reasons: Certain types of engine failures have the potential to take an airplane out. For example, in the case of a turbine disk failure, the segments the disk breaks into cannot be stopped - if one of them is aimed at the airplane structure, it will go right through potentially taking out important structure and systems. There are some ways to attempt to design around this - eg separated and redundant systems runs, but it still seems a problem. All you have to do is look at the Qantas A380 flight 32 engine failure and the astounding amount and variety of damage it did to see this.-this 4 engine airplane was nearly lost due to the failure of a single engine. Or, the Sioux City MD11 crash where the failure of a single engine brought the airplane down. Four engine airplanes having twice as many engines (I guess) about doubles the chances of an engine failure and it could be one of the very bad engine failures endangers the airplane. Another factor is takeoff performance. Commercial airplanes are required to be able to continue a takeoff with the failure of a single engine at a critical point. In this case, a 4 engine airplane loses 1/4 of its thrust, but a 2 engine airplane loses half its thrust. This effectively means a twin has to have more "excess" thrust on normal takeoffs (probably 99.9% of takeoffs) and this extra performance must in some cases must lead to more margin to overcome events that may happen on takeoff? In addition, the ETOPs requirements and ETOPs testing require many safety related changes to the airplane that are not required on 4 engine airplanes. So, how about and investigation and video on 2 engine vs 4 engine safety? Maybe there is even enough data out there now to look at the accident history?
That was exactly what I was thinking and asked above. 2x more engines is 2x more chance for an engine failure. Engine failure is not that big of an issue but how often other vital parts will get damaged as well. I wonder if there's done some actual research on the topic.
But both the Qantas A380 and the United DC10 had perfectly functional engines remaining which whose contribution to mitigating the damage caused only amounted to keeping the aircraft airborne, something any twin losing an engine with consequential systems damage is certified to do. The El Al 747 at Amsterdam literally lost an engine, as did the American DC10 at Chicago. The physical damage was such that no number of additional engines would have helped the aircraft survive. 35 years ago your post would have had some validity. Today twins have proved themselves on a daily basis to be capable of safely operating anywhere under ETOPS rules - some Air New Zealand twins now have 5 hours (presumably 300 very long minutes) capability on one engine. 35 years ago with an average ETOPS clearance of 90 -120 minutes and 180 minutes starting to become more common, the chances of me booking on an ETOPS twin were precisely zero, yet I was happy to board a 747, built within weeks of the El Al 747, just a matter of a few weeks after the accident on the basis that the trip over the Atlantic and sub Arctic to LAX was safe due to the number of engines. Today, having completed many flights over the North and South Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic on board a range of twin engined types, engine redundancy doesn't bother me. Collateral damage to systems from an uncontained blade event causing systems or structural damage, on board fire and other failures which no amount of extra engines can mitigate are still a concern and the safety rules for tri and quad jets are now as stringent as for twins - necessary for instance on Emirates A380 flights between Australia/New Zealand and Dubai which in certain conditions traverse vast stretches of water of the southern parts of the Indian Ocean hours from a suitable airport. The fact is many millions of hours of ETOPS have proved the reliability of twin engined aircraft. The chances of losing both engines are negligible other than due to fuel starvation when, again, no amount of extra engines would help.
@@philblinkhorn8304 "The chances of losing both engines are negligible other than due to fuel starvation " Please be so kind as to tell that to captain Chesley Burnett "Sully" Sullenberger III.
@@LegionOfEclaires I really like the quote by Real Engineering when he made a video about the 737 Max debacle. Saying that Boeing is run by accountant instead of engineers is “self-congratulatory nonsense”, because Boeing’s CEOs have engineering degrees too. Engineers are not immune from greed. They are well capable of ignoring what they were taught if the money is big enough. The same can be said for other high skilled professions too.
As pointed out Airbus has its own issues which are being overlooked by the general media as any new Boeing mishap is an easy sell for their readers. Airbus has a golden opportunity to sort out its issues without attracting public interest
Ofcourse, every manufacturer has its issues. But I wanna bet Airbus has a rigorous safetyprogram in effect, and unless the first whistleblower at Airbus gets attention, we can assume every insdecomplaint is being dealt with internall. Right now the only real issue Airbus has is shortage of workers to put the parts in Ireland/Germany/France/Spain together. If it stays that way, they are lucky.
@@Dirk-van-den-Berg I agree with you. It should be noted that Airbus SA, being a European company, faces stricter regulations regard termination of its employees. It cannot (and will not be allowed) lay off thousands of workers and replace them with little-trained cheaper workers, as commonly done by many North American companies to cut payrolls and temporarily boost quarterly cashflow & profits.
@@crypton7572 Airbus doesn't have to fix the production/suppliers issues, if they keep their current safetyrecord. With about every branch of business now putting help wanted signs all over, it is a small miracle Airbus has delivered more planes in the last year than its main competitor.
This is a hard topic, not the whole "Boeing quitting" thing because that's just stupid, they aren't going anywhere. Boeing HAS to get back to a more TQM structure for manufacturing which is where the expectation is a product rolls off the line and it's exactly the way it's supposed to be AND each person is supposed to feel free to give comments about what they see happening in production. That's BASICALLY the way they ran before the merger. And this is the ONLY REAL topic to talk about. If they do that they'll get back to making lots of money and the quicker they can get back to that, maybe with some oversight that can be transparent with the public about what Boeing is doing to improve, they can get back to a higher level of production again than what Airbus has. I mean before the accidents with the MAX and all the issues were discovered Boeing's production level was VERY HIGH. It's in no one's interest for Boeing to drop out ESPECIALLY Airbus, because what was said in this video about safety would plague a new comer into the market, and it WILL be a Chinese manufacturer since there already IS a Chinese company making aircraft and it's their goal to move into the global competition. Chinese manufacturing isn't really known for maintaining a high level of quality in production, only enough quality to get into a market and then their quality slips. This would affect the airlines and consequently would affect Airbus is a whole lot of the flying public decides flying is unsafe.
@@johndoh5182No way any Western regulator would allow Chinese aircraft. Not only their quality assurance would be a question mark, but also there are strategic reasons not to allow Chinese aircraft to be at least bought by Western carriers. Those same kind of strategic reasons made China start their own aircraft manufacturing industry. The worldview of the CCCP and Western countries just diverge that massively. The risk for Airbus in such a scenario - at least short term - are monopoly-related restrictions as well as the risk of cliënt carriers going under because Airbus can't deliver the amount of aircraft they need.
On the 340: Until 2009, ETOP maxed out at 180. And the early 1995 777, while having ETOPS had limited range, and it wasn't until the arly 2000s that the 777200LR came out. So both the 747 and 340 had an advantage over 777 in terms of flying more efficient routes, in particular polar flights. Where the 340 was unlucky is the timing of its launch just before massive engines for the 777 became available. But Boeing also played tricks to ensure Airbus didn't have access to those 777 engines. So Airbus was truly stuck with the 4 tiny engines for the 340 that required passengers have pedals below seats to help push plane for take off with plane barely able to stay up until passengers pedalled harder 🙂 (but it was a very quiet and comfortable aircraft with 8 across instead of the original 9 across for the 777 (now 10 across to make passenger journeys as miserable as possible). For polar routes, especially when Russia opened its airspace, the 4 engines were a huge advantage because a problem over russia stlll allowed the aircraft to continue to a western airport, while a 777 would have to land at a former soviet airbase designated as emergency landing site.
TBH a 10 across 777 is still better than the cramped sardine can that is a 9 across 787. A 9 across 787 is worse than a max 8 in terms of comfort. Imagine.
Another great video, in which this one struck a particular chord with me. My wife have just flown again for the first time in about 20 years! Even though a bit of an aircraft buff in my earlier years, an incident occurred that had put me off flying for good (until now). My daughter, for her 16th birthday, wanted to go on an overseas holiday, in a plane for the first time. So we plucked up the courage, but did make some stipulations: It wasn't to be too long a flight; so we ended up flying about 2 and a half hours. It had to be from our nearest airport, which is an international airport but a small one; but only thirty minutes from where we live. We wanted to fly there and back in daylight. And last of all, it had to be in an Airbus and not a Boeing! All silly and irrational stuff I know, but we enjoyed both flights, so did the kids, and we're already planning on doing the same again next year.
If airbus could up it's production capabilities at will, Boeing would be in REALLY deep trouble. Maybe if Airbus had forseen, when the whole Max disaster started that it would hamper Boeing for that long, they may have tried to do that. But you could not possible imagine Boeing messing up that badly.
The A220 is the perfect model to go up against the MAX if it wasn’t for its complicated supply chain issues, if Airbus was really serious about increasing output they would overhaul the A220 supply chain, they’ve done nothing and the recent Spirit Aerospace acquisitions makes the A220 supply chain in even worse shape
@@oadka the factory in Ireland that they acquired has issues with its location and also its diverse range of production, in order to fix this production needs to move to the USA nearer to the Alabama Plant, which means starting a new facility which is costly, the A220 is too far off what is required to boost production anywhere near to go up against the MAX, and the A320 21 NEO is pretty much maxed out supply and production wise
@@ytzpilotYou're ignoring that such contracts are often more long-term and will be very costly to buy out. And that is after Airbus already renegotiated the contract for lower costs due to the bigger amount of orders they can guarantee for (sub) contractors compared to Bombardier. Plus they'd need to find and set up new supply chains, which also cost a bit upfront so any contracted party can set up their own supply chains.
In the fifties Boeing did show potential customers film of pressure testing of a de Havilland Comet fuselage verses Boeing 707 fuselage. While pressurized the Comet fuselage was sliced open by a sort of guillotine, at which point the whole fuselage split open. The 707 fuselage under the same test lost pressurization but did not split open. Boeing’s point was not so much to criticize de Havilland but rather to demonstrate a pressurized aluminium fuselage could be designed to avoid catastrophic failure. Boeing did this by ensuring the stringers and bulkheads were located close enough to each other to contain a crack in the fuselage skin rather than allowing it to grow catastrophically. Boeing felt it was important to show the world their new jetliner was safe from the fatigue issues experienced by the Comet.
Kinda weird suggesting attacking safety issues from competitors puts the "safety culture at risk". Safety culture is making flying safe which this would actually encourage. What you are talking about here is purely the perception of safety even if that safety is in question.
At worst this is a "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" situation, which was hinted at in the video with their own quality control issues. An industrywide sweep under the rug would be really ugly re: safety culture.
Before seeing the video, my guesses are : 1. Airbus has its own share of declining quality control issues, nothing as drastic but still, they'd rather avoid being too bullish and having it come back to haunt them. 2. Airbus doesn't have the production capacity to take over more market shares anyway. 3. Airbus doesn't want the US administration to feel they have to protect Boeing and take even more anti-competitive decisions in favour of Boeing.
Hi Petter ! Excellent compilation as always ! When asking for examples on safety concerns on competitor "products" there is a statement by Boeing right after the A320 Habsheim event (AF296) back in 1988 where Boeing stated that in Boeing airplanes the pilot would be always the final control domain. In other words the pilot would always be able to overrule flight management systems. Isn't this also some sort of expressing safety concerns ? Well as we all learned from the Max8 incidents with in total 346 fatalities caused by the hidden MCAS this was not true anymore approx. 30 years later. Of course Boeing management was replaced several times meanwhile as we could oncemore learn from your recent video series. But from my point of view Boeing finally did the contrary to what they expressed right after the A320 Habsheim incident. And that might be even worse ... To be clear: Neither the A320 Habsheim incident nor the two Max8 incidents should ever have happened.
Mentour, Boeing competed on safety when hiding MCAS to offer the same Airbus advantage of no additional crew training. Also wrong, the B777 was not in every case "far" more efficient over the A340. Especially in hot and high conditions the A340'performed much better and efficient. You also conveniently forget how GE had a gentlemans agreement for over a decade with Boeing for large engines. Even the A350 could not get a GE engine with higher thrust then the GenX. GE has been never a neutral company regarding Airbus so their opinion means nothing. And P&W failed miserably to develop the GTF for the A340.
We will only fly Airbus. Too many examples of Boeing’s substandard safety culture to have any confidence in their products. Previous Boeing CEO’s have stated that Boeing needs to focus on shareholder profit rather than quality.
I don‘t think that the number of backorders are really an indication of needs for new airplanes. Just imagine the lead time would be one day. Most of the orders would be cancelled and the real demand would become visible. This could be the main reason why Boing and Airbus are hesitant to increase their capacities.
But if I had a choice of a 747, (4 Engines) or a 777, (2 Engines) on a Flight from Johannesburg and Perth, Australia - I'll choose the 747 everytime! I think the majority of other people would too! Wouldn't you? 🤔
If they're the same price! But in reality the 777 flight will be cheaper because the aircraft is more fuel efficient per passenger. If the difference is say, $200 (all other things being equal) how many will still go for the 747? Especially the vast majority of people who don't have an interest in the aviation world...
@@trevorrobinson2941 I actually wonder if that's a fact. Having four engines sounds nice but you've also 2x the chance of something happening with the engines. And I'm not sure how often damaged engines cause other parts of the plane to get damage as well and what the results would be.
Airlines and aircraft manufacturers rarely criticize competitors' safety issues because they all know that the tables could easily turn on them the next day.
Remember also a lot of boeing 777x and airbus 737max orders are being swapped to aiebus equivelants. Its nice and all but now airbus has to essentially cover for boeing. So backlog ensues
I don’t see the problem with the extra fuel tank in the A321xlr. Most aircraft have a large centre tank which is below the fuselage and just as susceptible to a belly landing. The A320LR has a module in the fuselage used as a fuel tank as well.
Another issue might be, that they don't want to attract too much attention to smaller incidents with aircraft. Whilst it has died down by now, for a while every minor issue with a Boeing plane was picked up and reported by the major news outlets. Minor incidents happen all the time, even with Airbus planes. So encouraging a discourse where even minor issues get scrutanized is not in any manufacturers interest, as that scrutiny can just as easily be applied to their own products.
Hasn't Boeing criticized Airbus' "fly-by-wire" technology, stating something like it takes the pilot out of the equation (or partially out of the equation), and therefor indirect criticized the safety of Airbus' planes?
Boeing has to replace the 737 Max with a clean sheet design. That is not optional. Airbus needs to do the same for the A320 so they don't let it get too old like Boeing did with the 737. Both companies also need to do this for other models. And then there are new technologies, including engine technologies, that they are both looking at. they both need to decide their timing and strategy for these things. Boeing and Airbus have a lot on their plates right now.
I even remember checking what air plain was supposed to be used when I book a oversea flight wit SAS.. Thence SAS use both the 340 and the 330 during som years in the 2000 decade.. I preferred the 340 because I was just intoxicated by the Commercial around just the safety with 4 engines, I think I was far from alone in that perspective.. 🤔
20:57 Also, a newcomer to the industry won’t have a safety record to stand on. We’re talking about incidents per millions of flight hours. Any insinuations would fall flat.
As someone that spent decades working for Airbus, nearly my entire professional life, I can add to your valid points: Airbus has always said none of us would want an air transport world with a single airframe supplier. It’s in everyone’s interest to have competition. Good for the airlines, good for the flying public, good for the Airbus and Boeing participant suppliers. After Boeing sorts out their C-suite management problems and gets back to sound engineering decisions, I’m confident they will regain their reputation. Boeing needs a white paper 150-175 seat narrow body aircraft.
There's more than one way to deal with higher demand, than to only increase production levels to accomodate a temporary spike in orders, either after a recession or a worldwide pandemic, and that is for airframe and engine manufacturers to put up prices. Both Airbus and Boeing have full orderbooks on many types, along with engine makers, so put up prices on them to claw back lost profits over lockdowns and make sure that profit margins are not so squeezed that it affects safety issues again. Economy travel is still very cheap for passengers, especially in Europe, so prices might have to go up, but really, in some cases, its cheaper by air than catching a bus. It might mean that many carriers on a budget can order less new aircraft, but will increase the second hand value of many aircraft that premier airlines are retiring and which still have life left in them. Rolls Royce put up prices, I think last year, and have been heavily criticised by the likes of the Emirates chairman, who thinks their price of the TotalCare engine maintenance package for the XWB-97 on the A350-1000 too expensive. Yet the laws of 'supply and demand', could have been specifically invented for the airline industry, who operate in the most opportunic way to fill a passenger aircraft, but are extremely vocal towards aircraft manufacturers who dare make a decent profit themselves. The response to Qatar dissing the A350 on a surface issue, now fixed, by Airbus cancelling their order schedule on all types, indicates that manufacturers are not so frightened of upsetting airlines as they once were, and airlines can see that with so few manufactuers in the market (and big problems at Boeing), especially on w/bodies, that they can't afford to fall out with them either. Of course, if the Chinese gain certification in the west of any of their types, and prove to be successful, then that's a ball changer, but is not on the cards in the foreseeable future, methinks........
Does anyone remember the Takata airbag recall? When they were shut down the was no capacity in the industry to pick up the sudden increase in demand. So they cocked up, they learnt their lesson and they should have been supported throughout the recovery period and at the end of the day the market would have been much healthier, more competitive and no risk of a repeat.
that doesnt seem smart. Volvo has been advertising their safety and crash protection for decades and nobody bats an eyelid. whats wrong with advertising the safety of your vehicles?
Automotive is an oligopol, many manufacturers. That lead to independant standards and testing institutes. So any manufacturer can advertise their NCAP or other crash test rating. Aviation is essentially a duopoly between Airbus and Boeing. There is no truely independant testing facility which crashes new passenger planes and give ratings. The aircraft are just built to spec by both manufacturers.
It also has to do with the way people perceive risk. Automobile accidents spread out the fatalities in time and space, while airliner accidents produce newsworthy death tolls. This makes people nervous flyers even though air travel is hundreds of times safer per passenger kilometre. The two 737 Max accidents represent less than three hours' work for the world's motorists, yet Boeing had to ground the fleet and undergo extensive examination, both internal and external. An auto accident investigation is little more than determining who is at fault for insurance purposes and letting what is substantially the same accident occur several hundred more times that day. If you are nervous about flying, you should run screaming when the taxi picks you up at your destination.
There's also the control issue. The majority of auto trips are single-passenger (i.e. just the driver) so (1) you're in control and (2) you selected he vehicle. In aviation you lose both of those. You're not driving/flying the plane, and you didn't select or maintain it. The loss of control is the big fear.
@@kuebbisch Weak excuse. Doesn't follow at all that you then can't have attack ads.Ultimately what is being said here is that the perception of safety is the priority as to not hurt profits. Even equates "safety culture" with it. Not a fan.
Manufacturers compete on safety wether they want to or not. As a customer I know the Boeing 737 Max is famously unreliable. As such I take pains not to travel with such planes, and filter away flights taking place on such planes when I order my tickets.
I think there is an additional reason - the regulation of market power, specifically monopolistic pricing and behaviour - that focus would not only fall on Airbus but also the major engine manufacturers. Airbus needs a healthy duopoly, or at least the appearance of one.
Great episode once again, thank you! Curiously, airline booking sites like Kayak has a filter for customers to filter flights with no Boeing planes. Speaking of which, has this really affecting sales of flights with Boeing planes? Worth considering tackling this question for an incoming episode?
Simple. They really break even with the current model. You have two options: 1. Demand higher prices for new orders 2. Decrease unit costs. Scaling up production is true for many industries to achieve the latter but does not have to hold here and will always lower the price you can ask for.
A very interesting point you made at 10:00, and something i find funny is that the youtube sponsored ad before this video was a Mazda Commercial advertising that their safety ratings were higher than Subarus, and maybe you wouldnt want to drive that. Very different industries indeed.... but your point makes complete sense
Because less planes, since AB cant cover the whole demand, will hurt airbus in the long term as well. Specifically with raising ticket prices the US might discover superfast rail and start actually building something, and that will hurt them both.
Don’t forget the infamous “If it’s not Boeing, I’m not going” slogan a dozen years ago.They made T-Shits and apparel out of it. Strangely enough, after the MCAS scandal, this slogan kinda disappeared
My guess was that Airbus don't want anyone to attack them if they're ever in Boeing's position, so they don't want to set a precedent for that. I was partly right about that. I also thought of another possible contributing factor. Airbus & Boeing get parts made by the same companies. If Boeing goes under, suppliers like Spirit could go under & Airbus might struggle to get some of the parts they need.
In short, in a duopoly, both companies really need each other to push innovation and keep costs low. Different industry, but I'll use Subaru and Mitsubishi as an example. They used to make these two popular cars that were literally watered down rally cars, the WRX Sti and the EVO. Mitsubishi got into trouble financially and legally (due to mechanical problems and less than kosher financial bookkeeping). Subaru was left as the only manufacturer that was building the WRX sti. Eventually they stopped making the Sti and got out of WRC as well even though they still compete on the more local racing leagues. They still make the WRX, but its not quite the same as it was. Subaru wasn't making any progress on their engines as well and right now, it seems as if the company has no direction, although they are trying to boost their rugged, off-roading, nature image. I'm not sure what mitsubishi is doing.. Point is, both manufacturers, in competing with each other, brought out their best and some spectacular products were released. If Boeing reduced to the level of an Embraer, Airbus has no competition and will not be pushed/motivated to come out with anything worth noting. Will we see a newcomer? Perhaps, but this industry is brutal to newcomers. The newcomers have to come up to speed very quickly on ALL of the history that wrote the current airworthiness regulations. its not just putting a factor of 1.5 on stuff and calling it good. Testing, documentation, showing of compliance to multiple regulatory agencies (unless you are only planning to fly in one region), showing manufacturing can reliably stamp out airplanes, etc.
I live in Toulouse and work for a company that supplies Airbus with a lot of parts that only 2 companies in the world produce. Since we are struggling to meet the demand already on our company due to a lack of skilled workers and material shortages i dont see how Airbus could possibly increase production even if they wanted to as they are having the same problems to recruit people as we are along with their own shortages.
It seems likely that Airbus and/or Boeing will introduce an even more efficient replacement for the A320 family and the 737 family before the over sized back log is eliminated. Of course a new competitor may also do that. It seems totally reasonable to expect that the back orders will only be eliminated when the orders are moved to a different model of airplane.
AB already has almost ready replacement for A320 and shorter versions, A220-300. It's possible to extend that airframe even more returning to flying pencil
The thought that comes to mind about touting your safety over someone else is you open yourself up when something happens on your aircraft. You lose trust since it looks like you either don't know what safety truly means or you do and chose not to do it.
Boeing was right to express concern over the large aft center fuel tank designed for the A231 XLR. The concern was expressed early, during the design review period, when there was time to assess the risk and make modifications as needed.
The only reason to continue using the same suppliers and such is that they maintain a traditional approach. The overall infrastructure is forcing everyone to maintain the status-quo with regards to overall design. For example, if we could get someone to design/build an airliner which flies above 60000ft, then supersonic travel would be more likely. However, because the infrastructure and cost-competitiveness is still most important factor, that is not going to happen. The cheapest way to move forwards is to not move forwards at all, but maintain.
Safety plays a very big role that aviation is being in a sort of stalemate. There would be plenty of new systems available, but all those systems need to be safe. See the 787 battery fires as an example for the risks which the introduction of new systems can pose.
I personally found Airbus's response to be classy. No one is happy about safety issues and more crashes (or the risk thereof), no one is happy that the confidence in the industry is declining... So for Airbus to take the "we are for you, and there's will not be happy if you're slacking" stance is just a solid move.
Competing for safety? That seems like a brilliant engineering challenge. One that the nuclear power industry does already. It isnt about meeting minimums but rather collectively pushing for greater safety. Imagine if you find a safer way to run a reactor/plane and then encourage the rest to follow suit. Competing and holding each other to higher and higher standards allows an industry to be the safest it can be. If the goal is not to be last, then being second to last is just ok. But if the goal is being first, you don’t want to settle for second. You want to be the safest in your industry.
Perhaps a part of the reason Airbus doesn't want to expand their production lines too much to deal with the backlog is that they know some of those orders will be transferred to other planes, especially the orders near the end of the queue. We know that Airbus is working on its next generation of more efficient planes and they are most likely going to be announced before the last plane on the current order queue starts being assembled. Assume that you are the head of an airline, it was around 2030, and Airbus just announced (either publicly or to preferred customers, which you are one) their new line of planes. It would most likely be more advantageous to get in early on the new planes to take advantage of the extra efficiencies. Even if it took an extra year or two to start receiving your order the new technologies and better efficiencies would most likely make up the difference for having to run the existing fleet longer.
I am willing to bet that all orders with delivery after about 2030 have a clause that allows to change to a comparable but newer model if it is certified before assembly starts, maybe even an earlier stage than certification.
Funny that Boeing said "To infer that one type of aircraft is safer, or another is riskier, is inaccurate and inappropriate." I am sure their inference at the time was sound, but it definitely hasn't stood the test of time lol. Oh and the later comment from Calhoun definitely hints that his days as a crook didn't just begin at Boeing. Excellent video as always, Petter.
A battery having thermal runaway on the ground is bad enough, but the same thing up in the air does not bear thinking about. Remember Dreamliner disasters with lithium batteries, and they were only small backup batteries....
Airbus doesn’t need to attack Boeing when the media and Congress are more than willing to get the job done. The media has managed to turn any airline maintenance, tire or engine issue into a verdict on Boeing. The whole thing feels overdone to me but we have a tendency these days when someone is down to keep kicking until they stop moving. Many of us apparently have a lot of anger and distrust that just needs a suitable target for venting. The Boeing fearmongering seems silly to me but I’ve ridden a motorcycle for 20 years so I may have a finer appreciation for what real risk looks like in daily transportation.
As shocking as Boeing's issues genuinely are, it annoys me when I see those "more trouble for Boeing" headlines and the story turns out to be about mechanical issues in a 30-year-old 757, obviously nothing to do with Boeing's current manufacturing.
In an old book on the history of the 707, i heard of a video that showed blades piercing the fuselage of the airliner to simulate the effects of explosive decompression and how safe it was. If I am remembering right, it was shown to airline execs, so I don't know if it had any effects on public perceptions.
For the correct response to the Boeing spokesman, whose quote appears at the 16:02 mark, one only needs to quote the great Creed Bratton: "He wasn't inferring, he was implying. You were inferring."
Since you mentioned possible other manufacturers that might enter the duopoly held by Boeing and Airbus: I would be really interested in your opinion on who those manufacturers might be
There are COMAC (from West Taiwan), Embrear from Brazil could get ambitious and expand into the widebody market and a lot of GA/business plane manufacturers could decide to go for the airliner market. The latter include but are certainly not limited to Honda, Lear, Cessna and Gulfstream. And I'd say Honda is the most ambitious and the newest entry to aviation.
I think airbus knew much much earlier than we realised. The Bombardier's and Embraer's regional jet take over was one of the clue. Imagine if Bombardier, Embraer and Mitsubishi jets are still promising till this day.
I honestly don’t understand why Boeing and Airbus even advertise at all. Buying aircraft’s is not an ad hoc decision and mostly based on TCO (total cost of ownership). Plus airlines are very loyal to there current supplier and will only choose to change on major business requirements.
@yacaattwood2421 Are you saying they made buying decisions on the basis of an ad in an airplane magazine? The airplane industry is based on a duopoly, so if you don't want one of the them you have to take the other.
@@sanderdeboer6034 I was referring to the commitment Southwest has made by only having Boeing aircraft in their fleet - a decision made because of cost savings on personnel education and maintenance of one model of aircraft
Yes, Airbus SA has many problems (huge backlogs, challenging supply chain issues, A 220 low productivity, etc.)! I am quite sure that Boeing (or other commercial plane manufacturers) would love very much to have these same problems.
Go to Saily.com/mentournow and use the code mentournow to get an exclusive 15% off your first purchase.
You forgot to mention "If it ain't Boeing I ain't flying" ... which was all about safety
Peter, do you agree with the "no competing regarding safety" "rule"?
Isn't that a cartel? Not doing something in order to make more money?
I do not think, making people think flying is super safe, has any noble reason, other than for them to make more money. What would you say if car companies would do the same, and they would not invest in to safety? So we would not have such safe cars today? People would be disgraced!
I am not saying plane manufacturers does not invest in safety, but that cartel is sickening, and I am sure they could have been investing more in safety anyways.
no
Hey Peter, do you truly agree that not talking about safety is good? I see this more like a cartel.
Basically companies agreed not to talk about a real thing, in order to sell more tickets, to make more money.
I think this is unethical. Also, this does not help with development. This way companies will and can not excel regarding new innovations in safety above others. If this would have happened in the car industry, we would have today lot less safer cars, and would be a scandal.
It's maybe not their conscious strategy but they only gain more respect by treating the Boeing problems like this. They seem very humble and professional this way while Boeing looks very amateurish. It is only even more good publicity for Airbus.
Never interrupt your enemy while they are making a mistake.
They're not enemies, they're competitors who respect each other
@@Ldavies2 Never interrupt your competitor while they are making a mistake.
Exactly
@@Ldavies2 I doubt airbus has much respect for Boeings example of ``leadership``
@@cannack I wasn't referring to current management
Perhaps you have heard the old joke... "There was a person flying over the Atlantic towards Canada. It was a 747. After a short time, engine 1 failed. The Captain came on and said: " I have to inform you that engine one has failed and so we will arive a bit late at our destination.". An hour later. Engine 2 failed. The Captain came back on. "I am sorry to inform you that we have had another engine failure and so our arrival has been put back 2 hours". 2 hours later.... Engine 3 failed. The Captain came back on and said; "I am sorry to inform you that we have lost engine 3 and our arrival time is now 6 hours from now." The passeneger looked to his buddy and said: "Heck, if we lose another engine we'll be up here all day."
This is so sigma😊
I think the true story of British Airlines 009 is funnier: “Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress.”
The original joke was regarding the DC 6, commonly called the best 3 engined airplane ever built.
@@nightshift5201 Do you mean 4 engined?
@@ivangenov6782 Given the context of the previous comments, you're missing the joke.
As far as I know, the slogan "4 engines, for long haul" came from Virgin Atlantic and Airbus had simply adopted it for this airshow. That's why a Virgin A346 landed in front of the advert.
Indeed, exactly.
Are you implying that was Virgin who asked Airbus how to design and make his plane?
@@Ismsanmarhow did the OP even remotely imply that?
@@hydrolifetech7911 Yes? Of course?
@@Ismsanmar Nobody but you inferred that from OP's comment.
OP simply said that the text for the ad was not Airbus' idea but Virgin's. Airbus just took it and ran with it. That's it.
I always perceived the moto "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going" as safety related. Because, "I'm not going" is a relatively drastic Statement.
I don’t know if Boeing came up with that, but they pushed hard on it,selling mugs and T shirts etc
I haven’t looked at their website recently
You can perceive it that way, but it is very generic. You can also see it as being related to e.g. comfort or reliability.
@@andrewpease3688
The public Boeing store seems to just have a button, t-shirt, and lanyard with the slogan now.
my ex company (small to medium buisness) issued a statement to our travelagent that we will not accept offers for any flight that inclued a boeing when the door blowout happend - sadly (?) the statement was withdrawn when the dust was settelt
For aviation professionals, safety objections are the only valid reason for refusing to fly, and Boeing at least accepts that the slogan is interpreted as safety related within the aviation community.
Honestly, Airbus doesn't need to go after Boeing. All they need to do is keep quiet and let Boeing cook. Why take the bad PR or sour business relationships when you don't have to?
There's also the fact that some of their supply line overlaps with Boeing's - including Spirit Aerospace. So they want whatever's going on with Boeing and Spirit to go smoothly and negotiate either a good continuing contract for those parts or at least keep those parts coming while they find another manufacturer. Attacking Boeing doesn't serve either of those goals.
While they want more airplane sales (because ofc they do), there's also the fact of when they'd actually be able to deliver those airplanes. So they certainly don't want a massive flood of orders that they won't be able to fulfill for decades. The current situation works pretty well for Airbus - they have one major competitor and they don't have the resources/space to take over if that competitor fails.
More airplane sales isn`t an objectives mostly that for the next 20 years Airbus has already nearly amxed out their capacity sales.
@@Lecd63 That was kind of my point.
I think there is another aspect to not hammering Boeing into the ground. If Boeing goes under, it will only be a matter of time before Airbus trips over monopoly regulations. Like Microsoft helped save Apple when it was on the verge of bankruptcy, Airbus is better off not making waves for Boeing.
The US government would never allow Boeing to go under.
They wouldn't trip over monopoly regulations when a competitor goes.bankrupt
Boeing and Airbus have never been able to make aircraft quick enough to supply the market demand, if Boeing removed itself from the market it would be impossible for Airbus to fill that gap
IIRC Microsoft didn't save Apple out of their own free will, rather it was because, through a third party or two, Microsoft ended up (unknowingly?) using Apple's QuickTime code in their software. It just so happened that they were able to play it into some good PR that *may* have helped them on their antitrust case. I can't remember the details off the top of my head, though.
Boeing has four huge divisions. They are not going to go under, They employ 30000 more people than Airbus. This sensationalism needs to stop. Their problems are because they put bean counters in charge. The CEO is leaving soon and Boeing will fix the issues. Engineers need to run manufacturing companies, not accountants.
Wouldn't the old Boeing slogan "If it's not Boeing I'm not going" carry an implication that other aircraft aren't as safe as Boeing aircraft? It certainly has come back to haunt them in recent years, with plenty of people commenting on Boeing by reversing that slogan.
That's probably another reason why using safety as a selling point is a bad idea, if you have a bad spate of accidents your own claims of being safe can come back to bite you, especially if your product is found to be at fault.
It's tempting to use the slogan _Better than Boeing_ . It's a slogan worth paying for. The trouble with it is that it's just the first step onto a long and hard journey, _Always Strive for Excellency_ . cheers! / CS
That wasn't an *official* marketing slogan from Boeing or anything. I'm not even sure what the exact origin is, there's accounts that it came from unions in the industry, possibly The Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA) or IAM District 751.
Another one you used to hear a lot was to refer to "Scarebus". Not from Boeing directly, but from pilots who flew Boeings or, much more commonly, avgeeks who were Boeing fans on internet forums.
You started hearing that one a lot less after US Airways Flight 1549 and the DHL A300 surviving a missile hit over Baghdad. Those were probably the two really big incidents that finally give Airbus the undeniable credibility of building solid, safe aircraft that really could get you back to the ground safely when things went terribly wrong.
@@BrySkye it's always the avgeeks/nerds they are up there with the flat earthers tbh
@@BrySkye
The slogan may not have been used in their marketing but if you go to Boeing's online store you may see that they offer a button, t-shirt, and lanyard with the slogan on. They don't have anything for sale (to the public at least) with Scarebus.
Boeing was the safest aircraft manufacturer because anybody could shut down the line if they thought there was a problem. Profits would follow later, as the reputation for uptime and readiness became widely known. America became finance capitalist in stages, where profits became worshipped. The MBA types, not the engineers, destroyed Boeing.
Airbus: Why should we? It's already done.
When you opponent is making mistakes, don't interrupt them.
@@charlesmartin1121 (Sir Winston Churchill)
@@gottfriedheumesser1994Thats actually napoleon
@@JamesDavis-mm2mi Correct.
Boeing isn't gone just yet. They made some very big mistakes but be aware that weakness can make you stronger as you realize what went wrong and they fix the problems can make a very strong come back.
On Airbus vs Boeing: Increasing production isn't as simpe because you also need to get all parts suppliers and engine suppliers to also be able to increase production. Airbus saw what happened to Boeing pushing the limits and rightfully is more conservative increasing production. Notable is that Airbus has a very very large orders from basket-case airlines that ordered a gazillion aircraft and am pretty sure delivery slots can be negotiated for airlines such as United. Same with lessors.
There’s also the fact that there is a world wide shortage of skilled fitters and engineers.
There’s also the fact that there is a world wide shortage of skilled fitters and engineers.
What does "basket-case" mean?
Airbus doesn't need to troll Boeing. The SeeSeePee has an Airbus production line and a massive bot farm running anti-Boeing posts in every corner of social media. Foreign countries would love to have the brand gone.
@@justvid366 basket-case refers to a disorganized high risk company (or person). Some airline that is just starting up and orders 200 jets is a high risk one because it is unlikely that either Beoing or AIrbus would actually deliver 200 aircraft to them (and even of they do, when they go belly up, those 200 return to lessors who will put them on the amrlet which means someone else will take those aircraft from lessor instead of ordering from Airbus/Boeing.
Video title makes a fair point. Airbus probably has a few Eurofighters lying around that could do the job.
Airbus have no input in the euro fighter at all never did.
Dassault did right in the beginning but dropped out and built Rafalé.
🕊
@@muzmason3064
No input, aside from the fact that they literally build them...
Wait, doesn't Gerstlauer make those? Oh, right, this isn't a roller-coaster video...
Don't think Airbus wants to go to war against Boeing.😂 They make like half the US military's hardware
@@mikeblatzheim2797the French slightly like certain groups of people from nearly everywhere slip into a state for which absolute delusion is an understatement when talking about their arms industry first it's confusing then I started getting mad at their rudeness but in the end it just a sad and tragic way to see that these people are not capable to rationally think
An important name not really mentioned here is John Leahy. Chief commercial officer at Airbus between 94 and 2017, having earlier been head of sales at Airbus North America since the 80's.
People might remember his marketing/PR style was often just generally very brash if not outright confrontational at times and given his role was to give Airbus a foothold, especially in North America, him and his approach can be somewhat compared to how Tom Kalinske ran Sega of America in the early-mid 90's, trying to break Nintendo's hold on that market (but with an ultimately more successful long-term result).
Some of his quotes certainly *implied* potential safety concerns, such as saying the 787 was "rushed" to market with unreliable and immature systems.
Having effectively achieving his targets and retiring by 2018, its not too unreasonable to say there has been at least a bit of a tone shift at Airbus since.
He wasn't lying, 787 was rushed, wasn't safe and basically was testbed for technology (battery fires on early models)
Umm, what consoles are Sega making now, exactly? (Yes I know they are a software house now, but just saying)
@@tedferkin When I said "But with an ultimately more successful long-term result" I was referring to Airbus succeeding.
Sega of America in particular very much did not.
@@BrySkye that makes perfect sense now 👌
I remember Leahy confidently stating that Airbus will sell one A380 for every 747 in service, going on to say that the A380s efficiency over the 747 would kill it off overnight.
He accused the 787 as being a warmed over 767 with new engines and would be outsold by the A330. He also said that overhauling a model and selling it as new isn't the way forward. (Um.... A320/A330 NEO anyone?)
He was very much a load mouth that caused controversy but was very quick to play victim when called out on the disaster the A380 was.
The Airbus ad suggests a recent oceanic accident, even without the small text which basically confirms it. A surprising piece of negative advertising for a market that requires implicit trust. It was a very brave decision for Airbus marketing to continue this theme in later ads. Great video!
Probably best not to do that.
It's not like Airbus haven't had planes crash for stupid reasons.
"We have built an aircraft the pilots cannot crash".
@@ryanlittleton5615 Air France 447 checking in.
@@ryanlittleton5615Then Air France 447 happened...
@@ryanlittleton5615same was said about Titanic
Well I think given the problems Airbus has to fullfill all of its current orders its kinda pointless to attack Boeing. They will need another 5-10 Years to even adapt their own production and get their supply fixed to increase production even to their level of demand. Things can backfire real fast if Airbus makes some stupid decisions as well.
Another reason would be that a monopoly wouldnt really benefit airbus all that much either because of laws that exist to prevent monopolies. So it might just backfire as well.
The thing is tho, the backlog is technically because they all switched up from boeings to airbus. Its good for airbus. But it also means that airbus has to cover for boeings shortcomings.
Boeing is very lucky there isn't any other company that could compete with the two majors. Airbus could never have forecasted that Boeing would shoot themselves in the foot the way they did. Even if they had, increasing capacity to the level that would be required to make up for the slower Boeing output is impossible.
Airbus and Boeing use the same third party suppliers anyway.
Airbus has had its share of ill-fated decisions too. The A-380 was short-lived and turned to be a fiasco. Airbus completely misread the market with this project. Passengers no longer want to change planes to reach their destination.
I live in Houston, and I don't want to go through Denver to go to Phoenix, which is what flying with Southwest implies.
@@1EnZBosS1 there was backlog before that, the backlog was years already. There would be no point selling planes they cant deliver
a law to prevent monopolies?
so if boeing goes down the gurgler, that law shuts down airbus as well?
@@ursodermatt8809 Not in the slightest. But they would be massively restricted in some areas as the (unwanted) monopolist to prevent a situation where they'd be able to abuse the position.
You T-shirt has an early De Havilland Comet on it. I am nearly 80 years old and living in the Netherlands. My father was in charge of the ATC equipment at Heathrow Airprt (then called London airport) at the time when the Comet first entered service. At that time it was quite small, and had square windows et all. I used to watch them flying above our house on the approach to Heathrow. And then of course they started crashing.
Pretty sure he sells that shirt.
That's the risks of being the first, had the 707 pre dated the Comet it may well have been Boeing that discovered the high altitude metal fatigue problems that doomed the original. He's right about one thing, safety should never be utilized as a financial gain. Volvo showed us this in the automotive industry with its design and subsequent public release of the three point seat belt harness as did De Haviland with its comprehensive and public investigation into the Comet. And aviation and other manufacturers benefited.
I think the turning point for Boeing was the acquisition of Mcdonald Douglas ant the integration of aspects of that organizations culture into its own.
@@Deevo037 Nice one mentioning Volvo, deserves more than the one thumb up I can (and did) give you.
@@apveening Well I was thirty years in the automotive trade. 😊
@@Deevo037MD certainly was the upper camel in that merger
You don't have to trash your competition when the media will do it for you. That's a double-edged sword, but why bother when you can ride out the MAX troubles by being the default choice?
If you've got there but have been told your return flight has been cancelled, be glad you're not on the ISS.
Funfact that happened to a cosmonaut on the MIR station in 1989. The next flight took a year to arrive. Google Krikalev.
Why should Airbus do it? Boeing is doing great by itself...
Pride cometh before the fall and all that. Airbus doesn’t want to publicly lay into Boeing, because their words would age like milk if any Airbus models have build quality issues.
On the other hand, a culture where people are afraid to question the safety of certain aircraft or designs or even a company's culture, is not a safe one
Why does Airbus have to do it for us? Most of the people watching this video follow aviation news and throw it into conversation. I know I do. I’m very into educating my acquaintances.
The absolute irony of those A340 adverts is that the longest scheduled route operated today (over 18 hours) is being operated by twin engined Airbus A350s.
I'm old enough to remember when Boeing was calling the then young Airbus something to the tune of "a socialist failure".
Food for thought: Boeing still has "If its not Boeing, I'm not going" merch on their merch store as of July 2024...
How many total Boeing jets are still flying versus how many crashes? This is beyond ridiculous. Sensationalism and fear mongering at its best.
And also, what do you want them to do? Cause a headline "Boeing No Longer Sells Merch With Famous Safety Slogan"?
@@c.san.8751 stop fanboyism it doesn't help boeing reputation
@@fclfclfcl that will be good
@@mgmmj6664 Are mentally deficient? I do not care either way only for the 170000+ people who are directly employed by Boeing and the several million that indirectly benefit from them. Can your small little brain even process the impact?
Here is a suggestion for a future video.
There is a pretty widespread feeling that airplanes with 4 (or 3) engines are safer than airplanes with 2 engines. This seems to be true even among people knowledgeable with aviation.
I worked on the development of the 777 and wondered and thought about this quite a bit.
I'm not convinced that 2 engine airplanes designed to ETOPS requirements are not inherently safer.
A couple reasons:
Certain types of engine failures have the potential to take an airplane out. For example, in the case of a turbine disk failure, the segments the disk breaks into cannot be stopped - if one of them is aimed at the airplane structure, it will go right through potentially taking out important structure and systems. There are some ways to attempt to design around this - eg separated and redundant systems runs, but it still seems a problem. All you have to do is look at the Qantas A380 flight 32 engine failure and the astounding amount and variety of damage it did to see this.-this 4 engine airplane was nearly lost due to the failure of a single engine. Or, the Sioux City MD11 crash where the failure of a single engine brought the airplane down.
Four engine airplanes having twice as many engines (I guess) about doubles the chances of an engine failure and it could be one of the very bad engine failures endangers the airplane.
Another factor is takeoff performance. Commercial airplanes are required to be able to continue a takeoff with the failure of a single engine at a critical point. In this case, a 4 engine airplane loses 1/4 of its thrust, but a 2 engine airplane loses half its thrust. This effectively means a twin has to have more "excess" thrust on normal takeoffs (probably 99.9% of takeoffs) and this extra performance must in some cases must lead to more margin to overcome events that may happen on takeoff?
In addition, the ETOPs requirements and ETOPs testing require many safety related changes to the airplane that are not required on 4 engine airplanes.
So, how about and investigation and video on 2 engine vs 4 engine safety? Maybe there is even enough data out there now to look at the accident history?
That was exactly what I was thinking and asked above. 2x more engines is 2x more chance for an engine failure. Engine failure is not that big of an issue but how often other vital parts will get damaged as well. I wonder if there's done some actual research on the topic.
But both the Qantas A380 and the United DC10 had perfectly functional engines remaining which whose contribution to mitigating the damage caused only amounted to keeping the aircraft airborne, something any twin losing an engine with consequential systems damage is certified to do. The El Al 747 at Amsterdam literally lost an engine, as did the American DC10 at Chicago. The physical damage was such that no number of additional engines would have helped the aircraft survive.
35 years ago your post would have had some validity. Today twins have proved themselves on a daily basis to be capable of safely operating anywhere under ETOPS rules - some Air New Zealand twins now have 5 hours (presumably 300 very long minutes) capability on one engine.
35 years ago with an average ETOPS clearance of 90 -120 minutes and 180 minutes starting to become more common, the chances of me booking on an ETOPS twin were precisely zero, yet I was happy to board a 747, built within weeks of the El Al 747, just a matter of a few weeks after the accident on the basis that the trip over the Atlantic and sub Arctic to LAX was safe due to the number of engines.
Today, having completed many flights over the North and South Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic on board a range of twin engined types, engine redundancy doesn't bother me. Collateral damage to systems from an uncontained blade event causing systems or structural damage, on board fire and other failures which no amount of extra engines can mitigate are still a concern and the safety rules for tri and quad jets are now as stringent as for twins - necessary for instance on Emirates A380 flights between Australia/New Zealand and Dubai which in certain conditions traverse vast stretches of water of the southern parts of the Indian Ocean hours from a suitable airport.
The fact is many millions of hours of ETOPS have proved the reliability of twin engined aircraft. The chances of losing both engines are negligible other than due to fuel starvation when, again, no amount of extra engines would help.
@@philblinkhorn8304 "The chances of losing both engines are negligible other than due to fuel starvation "
Please be so kind as to tell that to captain Chesley Burnett "Sully" Sullenberger III.
@@secondskins-nl on the other hand it can also be 2x the redundancy
@@philblinkhorn8304 yeah the chances of losing both engines is
.... but it can happen and it did happen
So Airbus has a an engineer for CEO? Interesting
Yeah, what a novel idea when Boeing even replaced their design engineers with accountants...
@@chrissmith2114 Eh, one of the worst CEOs of Boeing was an engineer, and their best CEO was a lawyer sooooooo...
Faury is an engineer, but his background is in helicopterengineering. Google him and you will see even a stint in the carindustry.
@@FrostlifeV Yuppers. People are selective with information.
@@LegionOfEclaires I really like the quote by Real Engineering when he made a video about the 737 Max debacle. Saying that Boeing is run by accountant instead of engineers is “self-congratulatory nonsense”, because Boeing’s CEOs have engineering degrees too. Engineers are not immune from greed. They are well capable of ignoring what they were taught if the money is big enough. The same can be said for other high skilled professions too.
Sun Tzu “never interrupt y our enemy when he is int he middle of making a mistake”
“Attack” would mean they are making light of the fact that people actually unalive when airplanes mess up.
As pointed out Airbus has its own issues which are being overlooked by the general media as any new Boeing mishap is an easy sell for their readers. Airbus has a golden opportunity to sort out its issues without attracting public interest
Ofcourse, every manufacturer has its issues. But I wanna bet Airbus has a rigorous safetyprogram in effect, and unless the first whistleblower at Airbus gets attention, we can assume every insdecomplaint is being dealt with internall.
Right now the only real issue Airbus has is shortage of workers to put the parts in Ireland/Germany/France/Spain together. If it stays that way, they are lucky.
@@Dirk-van-den-Berg I agree with you. It should be noted that Airbus SA, being a European company, faces stricter regulations regard termination of its employees. It cannot (and will not be allowed) lay off thousands of workers and replace them with little-trained cheaper workers, as commonly done by many North American companies to cut payrolls and temporarily boost quarterly cashflow & profits.
safety wise airbus unlikely has issues, but production wise and suppliers yes, and airbus has to fix those issues
@@qtdcanada Excellent point.
@@crypton7572 Airbus doesn't have to fix the production/suppliers issues, if they keep their current safetyrecord. With about every branch of business now putting help wanted signs all over, it is a small miracle Airbus has delivered more planes in the last year than its main competitor.
Boeing does not need help to quit the commercial airplane market.
Dave Calhoun was the best manager Airbus ever had
Calhon was definitely better than Muilenberg. He tried to fix stuff but simply could not. Just like gorbachev and the ussr.
@@oadkaInteresting point, Gorbachev meant well, but reality overtook him.
This is a hard topic, not the whole "Boeing quitting" thing because that's just stupid, they aren't going anywhere.
Boeing HAS to get back to a more TQM structure for manufacturing which is where the expectation is a product rolls off the line and it's exactly the way it's supposed to be AND each person is supposed to feel free to give comments about what they see happening in production. That's BASICALLY the way they ran before the merger.
And this is the ONLY REAL topic to talk about. If they do that they'll get back to making lots of money and the quicker they can get back to that, maybe with some oversight that can be transparent with the public about what Boeing is doing to improve, they can get back to a higher level of production again than what Airbus has. I mean before the accidents with the MAX and all the issues were discovered Boeing's production level was VERY HIGH.
It's in no one's interest for Boeing to drop out ESPECIALLY Airbus, because what was said in this video about safety would plague a new comer into the market, and it WILL be a Chinese manufacturer since there already IS a Chinese company making aircraft and it's their goal to move into the global competition. Chinese manufacturing isn't really known for maintaining a high level of quality in production, only enough quality to get into a market and then their quality slips. This would affect the airlines and consequently would affect Airbus is a whole lot of the flying public decides flying is unsafe.
@@johndoh5182No way any Western regulator would allow Chinese aircraft. Not only their quality assurance would be a question mark, but also there are strategic reasons not to allow Chinese aircraft to be at least bought by Western carriers. Those same kind of strategic reasons made China start their own aircraft manufacturing industry. The worldview of the CCCP and Western countries just diverge that massively.
The risk for Airbus in such a scenario - at least short term - are monopoly-related restrictions as well as the risk of cliënt carriers going under because Airbus can't deliver the amount of aircraft they need.
@@johndoh5182 good points
On the 340: Until 2009, ETOP maxed out at 180. And the early 1995 777, while having ETOPS had limited range, and it wasn't until the arly 2000s that the 777200LR came out. So both the 747 and 340 had an advantage over 777 in terms of flying more efficient routes, in particular polar flights.
Where the 340 was unlucky is the timing of its launch just before massive engines for the 777 became available. But Boeing also played tricks to ensure Airbus didn't have access to those 777 engines. So Airbus was truly stuck with the 4 tiny engines for the 340 that required passengers have pedals below seats to help push plane for take off with plane barely able to stay up until passengers pedalled harder 🙂 (but it was a very quiet and comfortable aircraft with 8 across instead of the original 9 across for the 777 (now 10 across to make passenger journeys as miserable as possible).
For polar routes, especially when Russia opened its airspace, the 4 engines were a huge advantage because a problem over russia stlll allowed the aircraft to continue to a western airport, while a 777 would have to land at a former soviet airbase designated as emergency landing site.
TBH a 10 across 777 is still better than the cramped sardine can that is a 9 across 787. A 9 across 787 is worse than a max 8 in terms of comfort. Imagine.
ETOPS: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Another great video, in which this one struck a particular chord with me. My wife have just flown again for the first time in about 20 years! Even though a bit of an aircraft buff in my earlier years, an incident occurred that had put me off flying for good (until now). My daughter, for her 16th birthday, wanted to go on an overseas holiday, in a plane for the first time. So we plucked up the courage, but did make some stipulations: It wasn't to be too long a flight; so we ended up flying about 2 and a half hours. It had to be from our nearest airport, which is an international airport but a small one; but only thirty minutes from where we live. We wanted to fly there and back in daylight. And last of all, it had to be in an Airbus and not a Boeing! All silly and irrational stuff I know, but we enjoyed both flights, so did the kids, and we're already planning on doing the same again next year.
That is quite clever... Airbus runs at 100% capacity now, and when the market scales down in a few years, it will hurt Boeing and not them.
If airbus could up it's production capabilities at will, Boeing would be in REALLY deep trouble.
Maybe if Airbus had forseen, when the whole Max disaster started that it would hamper Boeing for that long, they may have tried to do that. But you could not possible imagine Boeing messing up that badly.
The A220 is the perfect model to go up against the MAX if it wasn’t for its complicated supply chain issues, if Airbus was really serious about increasing output they would overhaul the A220 supply chain, they’ve done nothing and the recent Spirit Aerospace acquisitions makes the A220 supply chain in even worse shape
@@ytzpilot I think you're mistaken on the A220. Airbus just acquired the spirit plant making the A220 parts. They will turn it around.
@@oadka the factory in Ireland that they acquired has issues with its location and also its diverse range of production, in order to fix this production needs to move to the USA nearer to the Alabama Plant, which means starting a new facility which is costly, the A220 is too far off what is required to boost production anywhere near to go up against the MAX, and the A320 21 NEO is pretty much maxed out supply and production wise
@@ytzpilotYou're ignoring that such contracts are often more long-term and will be very costly to buy out. And that is after Airbus already renegotiated the contract for lower costs due to the bigger amount of orders they can guarantee for (sub) contractors compared to Bombardier. Plus they'd need to find and set up new supply chains, which also cost a bit upfront so any contracted party can set up their own supply chains.
@@ytzpilot do u know A220 for non-us clients are still made in Canada, Airbus only make A220 in Mobile Alabama because tariffs
In the fifties Boeing did show potential customers film of pressure testing of a de Havilland Comet fuselage verses Boeing 707 fuselage. While pressurized the Comet fuselage was sliced open by a sort of guillotine, at which point the whole fuselage split open. The 707 fuselage under the same test lost pressurization but did not split open. Boeing’s point was not so much to criticize de Havilland but rather to demonstrate a pressurized aluminium fuselage could be designed to avoid catastrophic failure. Boeing did this by ensuring the stringers and bulkheads were located close enough to each other to contain a crack in the fuselage skin rather than allowing it to grow catastrophically. Boeing felt it was important to show the world their new jetliner was safe from the fatigue issues experienced by the Comet.
Kinda weird suggesting attacking safety issues from competitors puts the "safety culture at risk". Safety culture is making flying safe which this would actually encourage. What you are talking about here is purely the perception of safety even if that safety is in question.
Agreed, it sounds more like it puts safety theater culture at risk.
At worst this is a "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" situation, which was hinted at in the video with their own quality control issues. An industrywide sweep under the rug would be really ugly re: safety culture.
Before seeing the video, my guesses are :
1. Airbus has its own share of declining quality control issues, nothing as drastic but still, they'd rather avoid being too bullish and having it come back to haunt them.
2. Airbus doesn't have the production capacity to take over more market shares anyway.
3. Airbus doesn't want the US administration to feel they have to protect Boeing and take even more anti-competitive decisions in favour of Boeing.
Both 2 and 3 are true, don't know with certainty about 1, but somehow I doubt it.
Hi Petter ! Excellent compilation as always !
When asking for examples on safety concerns on competitor "products" there is a statement by Boeing right after the A320 Habsheim event (AF296) back in 1988 where Boeing stated that in Boeing airplanes the pilot would be always the final control domain. In other words the pilot would always be able to overrule flight management systems. Isn't this also some sort of expressing safety concerns ?
Well as we all learned from the Max8 incidents with in total 346 fatalities caused by the hidden MCAS this was not true anymore approx. 30 years later. Of course Boeing management was replaced several times meanwhile as we could oncemore learn from your recent video series. But from my point of view Boeing finally did the contrary to what they expressed right after the A320 Habsheim incident. And that might be even worse ...
To be clear: Neither the A320 Habsheim incident nor the two Max8 incidents should ever have happened.
Oh yeah, the creators of MCAS criticize competitor for having twice as many engines...
Mentour, Boeing competed on safety when hiding MCAS to offer the same Airbus advantage of no additional crew training.
Also wrong, the B777 was not in every case "far" more efficient over the A340. Especially in hot and high conditions the A340'performed much better and efficient.
You also conveniently forget how GE had a gentlemans agreement for over a decade with Boeing for large engines. Even the A350 could not get a GE engine with higher thrust then the GenX. GE has been never a neutral company regarding Airbus so their opinion means nothing. And P&W failed miserably to develop the GTF for the A340.
Well, people aren’t afraid to fly in an airbus. They are afraid to fly with the competition
We will only fly Airbus. Too many examples of Boeing’s substandard safety culture to have any confidence in their products. Previous Boeing CEO’s have stated that Boeing needs to focus on shareholder profit rather than quality.
I won't have problems flying on B747s and older B777s, but I prefer Airbus.
I don‘t think that the number of backorders are really an indication of needs for new airplanes. Just imagine the lead time would be one day. Most of the orders would be cancelled and the real demand would become visible. This could be the main reason why Boing and Airbus are hesitant to increase their capacities.
But if I had a choice of a 747, (4 Engines) or a 777, (2 Engines) on a Flight from Johannesburg and Perth, Australia - I'll choose the 747 everytime! I think the majority of other people would too! Wouldn't you? 🤔
If they're the same price!
But in reality the 777 flight will be cheaper because the aircraft is more fuel efficient per passenger. If the difference is say, $200 (all other things being equal) how many will still go for the 747? Especially the vast majority of people who don't have an interest in the aviation world...
4 engines, indeed...
The 777 has one of the best safety records
Yes only corporate greed has denied us the pleasure and safety of the safer 4 engine and Tri-jets
@@trevorrobinson2941 I actually wonder if that's a fact. Having four engines sounds nice but you've also 2x the chance of something happening with the engines. And I'm not sure how often damaged engines cause other parts of the plane to get damage as well and what the results would be.
Airlines and aircraft manufacturers rarely criticize competitors' safety issues because they all know that the tables could easily turn on them the next day.
Because AIRBUS has no capacity for massively more orders. They are also reluctant to invest too much to expand.
Remember also a lot of boeing 777x and airbus 737max orders are being swapped to aiebus equivelants. Its nice and all but now airbus has to essentially cover for boeing. So backlog ensues
I don’t see the problem with the extra fuel tank in the A321xlr. Most aircraft have a large centre tank which is below the fuselage and just as susceptible to a belly landing. The A320LR has a module in the fuselage used as a fuel tank as well.
Another issue might be, that they don't want to attract too much attention to smaller incidents with aircraft. Whilst it has died down by now, for a while every minor issue with a Boeing plane was picked up and reported by the major news outlets. Minor incidents happen all the time, even with Airbus planes. So encouraging a discourse where even minor issues get scrutanized is not in any manufacturers interest, as that scrutiny can just as easily be applied to their own products.
Hasn't Boeing criticized Airbus' "fly-by-wire" technology, stating something like it takes the pilot out of the equation (or partially out of the equation), and therefor indirect criticized the safety of Airbus' planes?
Boeing has to replace the 737 Max with a clean sheet design. That is not optional. Airbus needs to do the same for the A320 so they don't let it get too old like Boeing did with the 737. Both companies also need to do this for other models. And then there are new technologies, including engine technologies, that they are both looking at. they both need to decide their timing and strategy for these things. Boeing and Airbus have a lot on their plates right now.
I even remember checking what air plain was supposed to be used when I book a oversea flight wit SAS.. Thence SAS use both the 340 and the 330 during som years in the 2000 decade.. I preferred the 340 because I was just intoxicated by the Commercial around just the safety with 4 engines, I think I was far from alone in that perspective.. 🤔
Love the Pinocchio nose on the jet! 😂
As always, informative, engaging, and quality production. I expect nothing else from Petter and his team! ❤
20:57 Also, a newcomer to the industry won’t have a safety record to stand on. We’re talking about incidents per millions of flight hours. Any insinuations would fall flat.
Which is why COMAC is first building a track record before expanding outside of West Taiwan.
19:45 "who is an engineer btw". Nice stab! 🤣
As someone that spent decades working for Airbus, nearly my entire professional life, I can add to your valid points: Airbus has always said none of us would want an air transport world with a single airframe supplier. It’s in everyone’s interest to have competition. Good for the airlines, good for the flying public, good for the Airbus and Boeing participant suppliers. After Boeing sorts out their C-suite management problems and gets back to sound engineering decisions, I’m confident they will regain their reputation. Boeing needs a white paper 150-175 seat narrow body aircraft.
Not only C-suite, but also D-suite and at least one level below that.
There's more than one way to deal with higher demand, than to only increase production levels to accomodate a temporary spike in orders, either after a recession or a worldwide pandemic, and that is for airframe and engine manufacturers to put up prices.
Both Airbus and Boeing have full orderbooks on many types, along with engine makers, so put up prices on them to claw back lost profits over lockdowns and make sure that profit margins are not so squeezed that it affects safety issues again. Economy travel is still very cheap for passengers, especially in Europe, so prices might have to go up, but really, in some cases, its cheaper by air than catching a bus.
It might mean that many carriers on a budget can order less new aircraft, but will increase the second hand value of many aircraft that premier airlines are retiring and which still have life left in them.
Rolls Royce put up prices, I think last year, and have been heavily criticised by the likes of the Emirates chairman, who thinks their price of the TotalCare engine maintenance package for the XWB-97 on the A350-1000 too expensive. Yet the laws of 'supply and demand', could have been specifically invented for the airline industry, who operate in the most opportunic way to fill a passenger aircraft, but are extremely vocal towards aircraft manufacturers who dare make a decent profit themselves.
The response to Qatar dissing the A350 on a surface issue, now fixed, by Airbus cancelling their order schedule on all types, indicates that manufacturers are not so frightened of upsetting airlines as they once were, and airlines can see that with so few manufactuers in the market (and big problems at Boeing), especially on w/bodies, that they can't afford to fall out with them either. Of course, if the Chinese gain certification in the west of any of their types, and prove to be successful, then that's a ball changer, but is not on the cards in the foreseeable future, methinks........
IRC ARJ21 have Indonesia certification also
Does anyone remember the Takata airbag recall? When they were shut down the was no capacity in the industry to pick up the sudden increase in demand. So they cocked up, they learnt their lesson and they should have been supported throughout the recovery period and at the end of the day the market would have been much healthier, more competitive and no risk of a repeat.
that doesnt seem smart. Volvo has been advertising their safety and crash protection for decades and nobody bats an eyelid. whats wrong with advertising the safety of your vehicles?
Automotive is an oligopol, many manufacturers. That lead to independant standards and testing institutes. So any manufacturer can advertise their NCAP or other crash test rating.
Aviation is essentially a duopoly between Airbus and Boeing. There is no truely independant testing facility which crashes new passenger planes and give ratings. The aircraft are just built to spec by both manufacturers.
It also has to do with the way people perceive risk. Automobile accidents spread out the fatalities in time and space, while airliner accidents produce newsworthy death tolls. This makes people nervous flyers even though air travel is hundreds of times safer per passenger kilometre. The two 737 Max accidents represent less than three hours' work for the world's motorists, yet Boeing had to ground the fleet and undergo extensive examination, both internal and external. An auto accident investigation is little more than determining who is at fault for insurance purposes and letting what is substantially the same accident occur several hundred more times that day. If you are nervous about flying, you should run screaming when the taxi picks you up at your destination.
There's also the control issue. The majority of auto trips are single-passenger (i.e. just the driver) so (1) you're in control and (2) you selected he vehicle.
In aviation you lose both of those. You're not driving/flying the plane, and you didn't select or maintain it.
The loss of control is the big fear.
@@kuebbisch Weak excuse. Doesn't follow at all that you then can't have attack ads.Ultimately what is being said here is that the perception of safety is the priority as to not hurt profits. Even equates "safety culture" with it. Not a fan.
Manufacturers compete on safety wether they want to or not. As a customer I know the Boeing 737 Max is famously unreliable. As such I take pains not to travel with such planes, and filter away flights taking place on such planes when I order my tickets.
A Lego Concorde on the background would look amazing!
I think there is an additional reason - the regulation of market power, specifically monopolistic pricing and behaviour - that focus would not only fall on Airbus but also the major engine manufacturers. Airbus needs a healthy duopoly, or at least the appearance of one.
Great episode once again, thank you! Curiously, airline booking sites like Kayak has a filter for customers to filter flights with no Boeing planes. Speaking of which, has this really affecting sales of flights with Boeing planes? Worth considering tackling this question for an incoming episode?
Simple. They really break even with the current model. You have two options:
1. Demand higher prices for new orders
2. Decrease unit costs. Scaling up production is true for many industries to achieve the latter but does not have to hold here and will always lower the price you can ask for.
Gaben: "wins by doing nothing"
Airbus: "write that down"
A very interesting point you made at 10:00, and something i find funny is that the youtube sponsored ad before this video was a Mazda Commercial advertising that their safety ratings were higher than Subarus, and maybe you wouldnt want to drive that. Very different industries indeed.... but your point makes complete sense
I think people who make ads overestimate the impact of ads.
Because less planes, since AB cant cover the whole demand, will hurt airbus in the long term as well. Specifically with raising ticket prices the US might discover superfast rail and start actually building something, and that will hurt them both.
I wanna remember u France reduced flight's on short distance if u can travel same route with similar time on TGV
Don’t forget the infamous “If it’s not Boeing, I’m not going” slogan a dozen years ago.They made T-Shits and apparel out of it. Strangely enough, after the MCAS scandal, this slogan kinda disappeared
It didn't disappear, it got twisted to "If it is Boeing, I'm not going".
My guess was that Airbus don't want anyone to attack them if they're ever in Boeing's position, so they don't want to set a precedent for that. I was partly right about that. I also thought of another possible contributing factor. Airbus & Boeing get parts made by the same companies. If Boeing goes under, suppliers like Spirit could go under & Airbus might struggle to get some of the parts they need.
If u talk about same suppliers, they have QC in their plants, if part is bad they scrape it on spot. That's difference in QC give AB big advance.
Why call attention to yourself while your competitors digging their own grave.
In short, in a duopoly, both companies really need each other to push innovation and keep costs low.
Different industry, but I'll use Subaru and Mitsubishi as an example. They used to make these two popular cars that were literally watered down rally cars, the WRX Sti and the EVO. Mitsubishi got into trouble financially and legally (due to mechanical problems and less than kosher financial bookkeeping). Subaru was left as the only manufacturer that was building the WRX sti. Eventually they stopped making the Sti and got out of WRC as well even though they still compete on the more local racing leagues. They still make the WRX, but its not quite the same as it was. Subaru wasn't making any progress on their engines as well and right now, it seems as if the company has no direction, although they are trying to boost their rugged, off-roading, nature image. I'm not sure what mitsubishi is doing..
Point is, both manufacturers, in competing with each other, brought out their best and some spectacular products were released. If Boeing reduced to the level of an Embraer, Airbus has no competition and will not be pushed/motivated to come out with anything worth noting. Will we see a newcomer? Perhaps, but this industry is brutal to newcomers. The newcomers have to come up to speed very quickly on ALL of the history that wrote the current airworthiness regulations. its not just putting a factor of 1.5 on stuff and calling it good. Testing, documentation, showing of compliance to multiple regulatory agencies (unless you are only planning to fly in one region), showing manufacturing can reliably stamp out airplanes, etc.
I live in Toulouse and work for a company that supplies Airbus with a lot of parts that only 2 companies in the world produce. Since we are struggling to meet the demand already on our company due to a lack of skilled workers and material shortages i dont see how Airbus could possibly increase production even if they wanted to as they are having the same problems to recruit people as we are along with their own shortages.
It seems likely that Airbus and/or Boeing will introduce an even more efficient replacement for the A320 family and the 737 family before the over sized back log is eliminated. Of course a new competitor may also do that. It seems totally reasonable to expect that the back orders will only be eliminated when the orders are moved to a different model of airplane.
AB already has almost ready replacement for A320 and shorter versions, A220-300. It's possible to extend that airframe even more returning to flying pencil
The thought that comes to mind about touting your safety over someone else is you open yourself up when something happens on your aircraft. You lose trust since it looks like you either don't know what safety truly means or you do and chose not to do it.
Boeing was right to express concern over the large aft center fuel tank designed for the A231 XLR. The concern was expressed early, during the design review period, when there was time to assess the risk and make modifications as needed.
21:13 I see what you did there
The only reason to continue using the same suppliers and such is that they maintain a traditional approach. The overall infrastructure is forcing everyone to maintain the status-quo with regards to overall design. For example, if we could get someone to design/build an airliner which flies above 60000ft, then supersonic travel would be more likely. However, because the infrastructure and cost-competitiveness is still most important factor, that is not going to happen. The cheapest way to move forwards is to not move forwards at all, but maintain.
Safety plays a very big role that aviation is being in a sort of stalemate.
There would be plenty of new systems available, but all those systems need to be safe. See the 787 battery fires as an example for the risks which the introduction of new systems can pose.
The Boeing CEO said, "Straight from the tap, into the glass, "
and continued with the advert.
I personally found Airbus's response to be classy. No one is happy about safety issues and more crashes (or the risk thereof), no one is happy that the confidence in the industry is declining... So for Airbus to take the "we are for you, and there's will not be happy if you're slacking" stance is just a solid move.
Competing for safety? That seems like a brilliant engineering challenge. One that the nuclear power industry does already. It isnt about meeting minimums but rather collectively pushing for greater safety. Imagine if you find a safer way to run a reactor/plane and then encourage the rest to follow suit.
Competing and holding each other to higher and higher standards allows an industry to be the safest it can be.
If the goal is not to be last, then being second to last is just ok. But if the goal is being first, you don’t want to settle for second. You want to be the safest in your industry.
I guess one of the reasons to why the 380 still is very popular with passengers, is f..r engines!
Maybe Airbus' philosophy goes along the lines of "But for the grace of God, there go I". 🙂
Perhaps a part of the reason Airbus doesn't want to expand their production lines too much to deal with the backlog is that they know some of those orders will be transferred to other planes, especially the orders near the end of the queue. We know that Airbus is working on its next generation of more efficient planes and they are most likely going to be announced before the last plane on the current order queue starts being assembled. Assume that you are the head of an airline, it was around 2030, and Airbus just announced (either publicly or to preferred customers, which you are one) their new line of planes. It would most likely be more advantageous to get in early on the new planes to take advantage of the extra efficiencies. Even if it took an extra year or two to start receiving your order the new technologies and better efficiencies would most likely make up the difference for having to run the existing fleet longer.
I am willing to bet that all orders with delivery after about 2030 have a clause that allows to change to a comparable but newer model if it is certified before assembly starts, maybe even an earlier stage than certification.
The thumbnail has major Vhagar vs Arrax vibe.
I guess Airbus is just fine. Wir sind hier nicht in Seattle, Dirk!
Funny that Boeing said "To infer that one type of aircraft is safer, or another is riskier, is inaccurate and inappropriate." I am sure their inference at the time was sound, but it definitely hasn't stood the test of time lol. Oh and the later comment from Calhoun definitely hints that his days as a crook didn't just begin at Boeing. Excellent video as always, Petter.
“Don’t interrupt your opponent when they’re making a mistake”
I love the small comment on Airbus’s CEO actually being an engineer.. really tops off the ‘Boeings problem is it’s ran by accountants’ argument.
A battery having thermal runaway on the ground is bad enough, but the same thing up in the air does not bear thinking about. Remember Dreamliner disasters with lithium batteries, and they were only small backup batteries....
Do u watched "broken dreams"?
Airbus doesn’t need to attack Boeing when the media and Congress are more than willing to get the job done. The media has managed to turn any airline maintenance, tire or engine issue into a verdict on Boeing. The whole thing feels overdone to me but we have a tendency these days when someone is down to keep kicking until they stop moving. Many of us apparently have a lot of anger and distrust that just needs a suitable target for venting. The Boeing fearmongering seems silly to me but I’ve ridden a motorcycle for 20 years so I may have a finer appreciation for what real risk looks like in daily transportation.
As shocking as Boeing's issues genuinely are, it annoys me when I see those "more trouble for Boeing" headlines and the story turns out to be about mechanical issues in a 30-year-old 757, obviously nothing to do with Boeing's current manufacturing.
Always enjoy watching your videos on both channels. Thank you so much for
In an old book on the history of the 707, i heard of a video that showed blades piercing the fuselage of the airliner to simulate the effects of explosive decompression and how safe it was. If I am remembering right, it was shown to airline execs, so I don't know if it had any effects on public perceptions.
For the correct response to the Boeing spokesman, whose quote appears at the 16:02 mark, one only needs to quote the great Creed Bratton: "He wasn't inferring, he was implying. You were inferring."
Since you mentioned possible other manufacturers that might enter the duopoly held by Boeing and Airbus: I would be really interested in your opinion on who those manufacturers might be
There are COMAC (from West Taiwan), Embrear from Brazil could get ambitious and expand into the widebody market and a lot of GA/business plane manufacturers could decide to go for the airliner market. The latter include but are certainly not limited to Honda, Lear, Cessna and Gulfstream. And I'd say Honda is the most ambitious and the newest entry to aviation.
I think airbus knew much much earlier than we realised. The Bombardier's and Embraer's regional jet take over was one of the clue. Imagine if Bombardier, Embraer and Mitsubishi jets are still promising till this day.
Safety is not used for competitive advantage; the sharing of safety information is a strength of the industry.
This channel is incredibly interesting, my only piloting background is in hang-gliding but all the general issues regarding safety apply
I honestly don’t understand why Boeing and Airbus even advertise at all. Buying aircraft’s is not an ad hoc decision and mostly based on TCO (total cost of ownership). Plus airlines are very loyal to there current supplier and will only choose to change on major business requirements.
cough *Southwest* cough
@yacaattwood2421 Are you saying they made buying decisions on the basis of an ad in an airplane magazine?
The airplane industry is based on a duopoly, so if you don't want one of the them you have to take the other.
@@sanderdeboer6034 I was referring to the commitment Southwest has made by only having Boeing aircraft in their fleet - a decision made because of cost savings on personnel education and maintenance of one model of aircraft
Yes, Airbus SA has many problems (huge backlogs, challenging supply chain issues, A 220 low productivity, etc.)! I am quite sure that Boeing (or other commercial plane manufacturers) would love very much to have these same problems.