Newsweek had a short article on Boeing's turnaround.

(see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10218663/site/newsweek/)

In 2003, Boeing was outsold for the first time by rival Airbus. In the past, Boeing sold two our of three airliners. It looked like Boeing would go the way GM seems to be headed. About 30,000 jobs were lost recently.

One thing that was scary was Airbus' new A380 - a 21st-century 747 with a complete 2nd deck that could carry from 555 to 800 passengers.

Fortunately, Boeing focused on a medium sized fuel-efficient airliner - the 787 Dreamliner. It can fly 8,000 miles directly on 20% less fuel than any other airliner it's size. Meanwhile, the A380 still has bugs and lagging sales. Boeing has outsold Airbus this year.

Hopefully, Detroit will also think bold and fuel-efficient...

 

It's not directly comparable because both Boeing and Airbus are heavily sponsored by the governments of the countries they do business in. Boeing has complained loudly about how several European governments subsidize Airbus' costs, but Boeing gets a ton of government dollars too. It's impossible to know which company is getting more sponsorship, although of course Boeing's been claiming for several years that Airbus gets way more than they do.

One of the biggest problems Boeing has is actually just the engine count. They typically only sell aircraft with 2 engines. This limits the type of routes you can take because international air law dictates you be within X minutes of an emergency landing strip at all times. See this link for the ETOPS rule. Because the long-haul Airbus aircraft are 4-engine, they can take more direct routes than the 777 and 787, thus negating a ton of the claimed fuel savings of the Boeing for flights over water and unimproved terrain.

 

AZCivic,

The Boeing/Airbus government subsidy dispute is huge and will be a major rulling when decided. Both get government help - just differently.

I heard once that two-engined airliners are now allowed to cross the Atlantic - assumed that it applied to other parts of the world....

 

It's a little more complex than just saying some body of water, it has to do with how far you are from an emergency landing strip at any given time. As long as your flight across the atlantic did some form aereal island hopping, you're good. Obviously, if you have to keep jogging north and south between landing strip zones, then you're covering more distance than a flight that could just take a direct route without regard for proximity to landing strips. ETOPS was a compromise to let twin engine aircraft remain competitive. You can read a little more about it here:

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...31015gq&a.html

 

GM and Ford may not be directy sponsored, but they will be if they come close to bankrupcy........ Just look at the U.S. govt. bailout of Chrysler in the 80's

 

Well, Chrysler was not exactly "bailed out," although the US government did guarentee the money they borrowed. But in the long run, I'm not sure that it made much difference due to the Daimler buyout. (They might have gotten Chrysler a little cheaper without the government guarentees.)

I expect that GM and Ford will need some kind of support before all is said and done - direct or indirect - government, commercial, union, big oil, private - or whatever. Let's hope that they can do better than Chrysler did!

 

I guess I'm in the minority but I hope that GM dies a miserable death. I don't know what the exec are thinking when they can't seem to get anything right.

 

livvie-

I personally am not a fan of GM. I hope they get outcompeted. But I live in Motown and already know the effects of bad decisions leading to bankruptcy and death (decisions which may have looked good for the short run). I do hope that they survive.

If GM bellies-up - miserably or otherwise - we are all in for harder times. Granted that other manufacturer's will eventually pick up the slack in vehicle production, it won't necessarily be with the same workers, suppliers, and the rest of the infrastructure that GM has. This is bad for all of us - ultimately including the competitors of GM. If nothing else, GM sets the standards of what not to do. This is valuable for those of us who believe in hybrids and other alternatively powered vehicles.

 

I don't know how you can say that Chrysler did wrong. They paid those loans from the government back with interest. Chrysler was also turning a healty profit prior to the takeover by Daimler Benz. The period of losses after the buyout was very much the result of the newly formed DC restructuring the Chrysler brand. While there is still obvious work to do in the name of improving the products, much of their efforts have had positive results.

 

John,

Yes, I agree the area that it will effect is bad so I feel for the people working there. I also think that part of the problem are the auto-unions in this country, forcing the hand of GM. Again, these are upper management issues that seem to be bad for the country. There is no excuse for a company that has all the resources in the world to fail.

Even though I feel that way about GM, deep down I hope I'm wrong, but there is yet a car made by GM that has poped up on my radar as a car that I would honestly buy.