Airbus Vs Boeing
Airbus: A Big Government Failure
Airbus Vs Boeing, Socialism vs Capitalism
Airbus sux
(What should the title of this post grouping be?) :)
Posted 10/11/06 (By Travis)
Government influence comes back to haunt Airbus
10/10/06 nvtvprofit.com
BERLIN (Reuters) - The European governments that created Airbus and funded ambitious jet programmes
that allowed it to soar past U.S. rival Boeing, are now hindering the firm's efforts to get over the
worst crisis in its history.
The sudden departure of Airbus CEO Christian Streiff on Monday after only three
months in the job has underscored just how important national considerations remain within Airbus
and its parent EADS, which has operated with a cumbersome Franco-German management structure since
its founding.
It was Streiff's attempt to break down these structures and introduce cost cuts without
regard to political sensitivities, that alienated his managers within EADS and the German
government, ultimately making his position untenable.
"The organisation and governance of EADS have as major objectives the
preservation of a delicate balance between men, power and positions," Streiff told French daily
Le Figaro on Tuesday. "This formula can work in normal times, but it is not appropriate for a
firm that is going through a serious crisis."
Louis Gallois, who took Streiff's place as CEO this week, warned on Tuesday of "painful" job cuts and called EADS structure a "bit baroque". He is likely to meet strong resistance in a company that has always had more success with balanced government-funded expansion than cutbacks.
Government run business is not run as business, but as a political machine, which is true with regards to anything government attempts.
Posted 7/25/06 (By Travis)
5/24/06 Forbes It appears that Airbus's fortunes have taken a turn for the worse, which is interesting because just a few months ago the media was reporting that Boeing was getting hammered. There are significant differences between the two companies that are worth highlighting and are reflective of the differences between the United States and Europe. First, Airbus is between 15-20% state owned. This political control more than anything else is probably the root cause of Airbus's problems. Airbus has two chief executives; in order to be 'fair' they have one from France and Germany. This, IMO, dilutes the chain of command and lessens accountability. In addition, the political control results in public complaints from various government officials etc.. about where certain parts are being built and where plants are located.
Boeing, on the other hand, is privately owned and is apparently implementing a modern business model, whereby the people who are best at making products, are the ones sought out to make them. There is also the issue of subsidies, with both sides snipping at each other and going to the WTO etc..., just like what was described in the 7/24 post below with the trade talks. In the same sense, it appears the Europeans, who give direct subsidies to Airbus, are more in violation, which, of course, doesn't excuse the American side. The rhetoric was similar though, at the Airbus news conferences, Airbus execs were liable to criticize Boeing and make comparisons between the two companies, while Boeing just stuck to talking about Boeing. Psychologically speaking, this sort of thing reflects negatively on Airbus.
Also of interest:
No one has ever built a commercial airplane with a fuselage made of plastic--more precisely, carbon fiber embedded in epoxy--much less tried to get it certified as safe to carry passengers. To keep to its timetable, Boeing is pushing the Federal Aviation Administration to apply the 5,000 standards accepted for certifying aluminum aircraft to its composite 787 months before flight testing begins. The FAA isn't saying much at this point, other than that the 787 represents a "radical way of building and certifying an aircraft."
Boeing is confident of approval. Jeffrey L. Hawk, its director of certification, says the plane's FAA certification plan, spelling out every point Boeing must meet to make the 787 airworthy, is 80% approved. Hawk hopes to finish this process by year-end so the company can begin assembling the 787 and conduct flight testing in fall 2007. "Some of this will probably have to go out for public comment," Hawk says, noting there could be ten or so exceptions, or "special conditions," where regulations need to be developed specially for the composite 787--for example, dealing with protections against lightning strikes and electromagnetic interference--as well as tougher new maintenance standards. In the Pandora's box of aviation approval, special conditions are opened up to the public, including rival Airbus, for 30 to 90 days.
What a joke the FAA is! 5000 regulations? And special ones for the 787? What interest does Boeing have in making an airplane that crashes? It would destroy their business. There is more than enough incentive for the makers of aircraft to make their airplanes safe. It wouldn't surprise me if the burdensome regulations required by the FAA result in the diminishment of technological innovation and actually serve to make the plane less safe, not to mention more expensive and delaying its entry into the market. It also wouldn't surprise me if Airbus experiences regulatory 'difficulty' with the FAA, brought about by Boeing's backdoor lobbying efforts.
We need to abolish the FAA.