One has to admit: most statements are actually correct. If the 1960 heritage is such a bad thing, and if it actually matters to operators, that is an entirely different question. Reply
One has to admit: most statements are actually correct. If the 1960 heritage is such a bad thing, and if it actually matters to operators, that is an entirely different question.
I find it funny Airbus panders their A330’s as fuel efficient-even against the B787 yet they don’t bother to mention their A330 fuselage is based on a 40 year old frame as well.
While they are at it, maybe they should advertise that their “Xtra Wide Body” fuselage is actually narrower than that of their competitor (at least in 1 particular case).
I would like to meet one CEO who basis a fleet decisions based on these marketing terms…
I think WN would dispute Airbus’s claim the B-737 has a slow turn around due to the seats. Airbus’s fuel claim of the A-320 is based on just 150 seats and not the 162 seats in the B-738.
Are you saying Airbus use 150 seats for the 737-8? As far as I know, they use 150 for the A320, and 159 for the 737.
@kc135topboom….I think we can agree that both manufacturers do some “data fudging” or “data manipulation”.
“they don’t bother to mention their A330 fuselage is based on a 40 year old frame as well.”
I don’t think the A330 is based on a 40 year old design. If so, the 737 design is 60 yrs old.
“Airbus’s fuel claim of the A-320 is based on just 150 seats and not the 162 seats in the B-738.”
In the past Airbus assumed 162 seats for the 738 and 150 for the A320..
“I think WN would dispute Airbus’s claim the B-737 has a slow turn around due to the seats.”
Southwest never said anything negative about Airbus. They were positive about the NEO and used it to put pressure on Boeing. Everyone understands switching to A320 would have enormous operation dissadanvantages for SW, with their large 737 optimized infrastructure.
Can anyone link the original Boeing MAX vs NEO advertisement that triggered Airbus? I’ve googled around but I find only slides, not the MAX vs NEO advertisement..
Last I remember, the A330 fuselage width and cabin width is based on the fuselage of the 1972 A300..don’t know about you but 1972-2012 sounds like 40 years to me.
Might I add, you left out the other part of my argument..:-)
Yep, and the 737 fuselage width is based on the 707’s.
1955-2012 – close to 60 years at this point, over 60 years at 737 MAX EIS.
Who will EIS first, the MAX 9 or the A321? Who gets to be jet and who gets to be lag?
A321 EIS scheduled for 2016. Max 8 EIS 4Q2017, Max 9 to follow, probably the next year.
Firm configuration for the MAX is 2013. When is firm configuration for the A321, or is it already nailed down?
Airbus certainly has their panties in a wad, this is now two responses to one set of ads from Boeing. I hear a 400hz whine coming from Toulouse.
tinnitus, consult with your doc 😉
this ad was part of the responds, not a new one..
Another round of “mine’s bigger than yours”, pointless…
The reason behind A ads is unraveling of ambitious goal of seriously crippling B. From that point of view timing of NEO launch was good:
B is mired in 787 and 748 cost overruns and delays. No positive cash flow from the programs yet.
B is supposed to be forced to design a new aircraft as the only viable answer to low cost NEO.
Such a design is costly and lengthy and combined with diminished cash flow from obsolete NG would create “perfect lack of finacial resources storm” putting B on brink of elimination (figuratively speaking).
Customers’ response to MAX design makes the goal less achievable and A is angry.
It seems you assume every direction Airbus takes is a response on Boeing action, or at least aimed at Boeing. I think they are more driven by market demand and long term ambitions. The A320 NEO is not a response on anything Boeing. More on the new engine technology available, customer demand and the CSeries.
The A330 is based on a 40-year old cross section. Using an old cross section is no problem unless it penalizes the cabin product. Exactly that is mentioned in the ads: smaller seats, no option for a wider aisle. I think Airbus does not claim that an old cross section has a disadvantage just by its age. Anyways, there are surely few parts in the B737-MAX that haven’t been looked at, modernized and analyzed all-over in the lest 60 years.
By the way: the A300/330 cross section does allow a acceptable 9-abreast seating. So most airlines use 8-abreast with a decent 18-18.25inch seat width. The B787 allows wider seating in 8-abreast (18.5-19), but many operators went for the 9-abreast with 17.5inch. So, from a passenger perspective, the new cross section might turn out less desirable.
CORRECTION: … A330 does NOT allow acceptable 9-abreast ….
I don’t know too many airlines put 9-accross, but AirAsiaX does and Air Transat does on their A332s.
Lies > Damned Lies > Statistics > Marketing
Can anyone link or upload Boeings MAX vs NEO advertisement Airbus is assumed to be reacting on ( the above ad is at least 2 weeks old) ? Does it exist?
I don’t think there was a specific Boeing ad on MAX but there have been plenty of Boeing press releases and PPT presentations that hit the points that’s got Airbus in a twist.
Scott I think you are right. In that case it is interesting that Airbus communications selects hard copy to respond on what Boeing mostly sends out via presentations / internet and its blog..
In for a penny, in for a pound or however that saying goes.
Would be interesting for an analyses. The Airbus and Boeing approaches towards Internet and Social Media. Two different approaches, both successful? If so what were/ are the goals? First strike when something happens? Damage tolerance? Positive Propaganda? Honestly keeping the stakeholders informed? Spinning public opinion? A mix? No easy answers or conclusions, but something could ask Airbus and Boeing and see what they say / think..