Case Study Airbus Vs Boing
Case Study Airbus Vs Boing
Case Study Airbus Vs Boing
Prof Zia-ur-Rehman
Prepared By :
Rana Shahzaib Zubair Ahsan Mudassar Iqbal Zia Ishaq Ghulam Nabi Junaid Muzaffar 249 248 219 252 209 237
Industry Background
Competition in the aircraft industry has attracted attention not just because of the controversy surrounding subsidies, but because of the industrys unusual structure. It has extremely high barriers to market entry, due to the economies of scale and scope and the huge capital requirements, making it extremely difficult for newcomers to compete successfully. Another characteristic is the long investment cycles; large numbers of aircraft are needed to be sold to recover R&D and production costs. The uncertainty surrounding the success or failure of developing new aircraft combined with the large amount of capital invested means manufacturers tread a fine line when developing new products. The industry also has high exit barriers, due to financial considerations and the fact it is difficult to use investments already made for alternative purposes (Deutsche Bank Research, 2007). The efficient industry theory suggests that if an industry looks particularly attractive, then companies will seek entry, while unattractive industries will see more companies leaving. However, this often does not take into account industries which governments consider strategic; the value and numbers affected in the US by aircraft manufacturing only serve to highlight the necessity of state support, affecting the attractiveness and number of companies exiting. Furthermore, airline operators worldwide have enjoyed much the same state sponsorship as
manufacturers due to similar reasons. Most of the US airline operators have been in bankruptcy (and subsequently Chapter 11 protection) at least once. One could say that bankruptcy court judges are as essential to keeping planes in the air as pilots. Even manufacturers are not immune to failure. The industry is littered with examples such as Lockheed and Convair in the USA, and Dornier and Fokker in Europe, pulling out of civil aviation manufacturing after disappointing sales and continual economic problems. Changes in the industry dynamics have been dramatic. During its early days, the industry was characterised by competition among a large number of sophisticated, entrepreneurial firms. Survival risk was low because of guaranteed access to national airlines and a rapidly expanding market. Technological advances were often financed by states in deference to their defence industries. Since WWII, however, the industry has transformed into an oligopolistic production structure, extremely high survival risks, and intense competition for sales in a global market (Irwin & Pavcnik, 2004). Technological advances have extended development lead times, increased launch costs, complicated marketing, and lengthened the time between initial research and revenue earning (Irwin & Pavcnik, 2004). During the 1940s and 1950s, a returnon- investment cycle required four to five years for new products; by 1992 the return on investment timeframe had expanded to 10 to 15 years (Golich, 1992). The value of the industry is also staggering. Since the late 1950s, aerospace has been the leading industrial contributor to US export earnings and since 1982, aviation exports have increased at an average annual rate of US$1 billion per year (Gresser, 2004); small wonder the governments sees the returns from state sponsorship. The exact current value of the industry is difficult to ascertain; airplanes are among the most valuable export products of international trade, but some have forecasted a US $2 trillion export market over the next 20 years (Gresser, 2004). Former American Airlines president Robert Crandall made the observation that civil aviation was the largest component of the travel and tourism business, which at US $21.2 trillion annually was considered the largest industry in the world by 1990 (Golich, 1992), although questions can be raised as to how that amount was quantified. Civil aviation is the largest export industry in the US (Meier-Kaienburg, 2005). Boeing controls nearly 100% of the civil aviation manufacturing industry in the US, while Airbus occupies much the same space in Reference : http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web
Department of Commerce. Including suppliers and defence, the industry directly employed 818,000 people in 2009 and supported more than 1.8 million jobs in related fields. This industry is quite different compared to other major industries such as automotives. With the aviation industry considered a strategic industry and the spill-over to military ties, there will always be government interest shaping this industry's structure. With controls on market access, ownership, various legal outlets to avoid bankruptcy, and state aid, the civil aviation industry will never be fully liberalized.
-Historical Background-
Boeing
Historical Flash backs : 1903: William Boeing pursued opportunities with the northwest timber industry, which grew into a small airplane manufacturing company. War Years (1940s): Building B-17s at a very rapid rate in response to the Armys requests. Women rapidly built airplanes. Post-War: 70,000 employees lost jobs due to the military canceling orders. Cold War: Invention of analog computers guiding missiles, an intercontinental ballistic missile system, and space shuttles. 1970s: Recession causes the company to go 18 months without a single domestic order. The workforce also was cut from 80,400 to 37,200 between 1970 and 1971. Reference : http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/news/releases/2013/q1/130130_nr.pdf
1992: Production of stealth bombers, joint strike fighters, and satellite boosters. Boeing also became the prime contractor for the first International Space Station. 1996: Merger with Rockwell International Corporations aerospace and defense units. 1997: Merger with McDonnell Douglas Corporation.
2001: Boeing is focused on 787 Dreamliner Boeing lost ground to Europes Airbus and lost its position as market leader in 2003. 2006 sets another new Boeing 2006 sets another new Boeing record for total commercial orders in a single year.
Competitors
The following are the main competitors of Boeing Company :
Defence Contractors
Lockheed Martin Northrop Grumman
-CompetitionBoeing Company has direct competitor that is European Company Airbus . In recent few decades Airbus significantly emerges a leading aircraft manufacturing company whose main target is to decrease the market share of Boeing that in the past enjoys a sole king of aircraft industry. So there for our main focus is on Airbus and its strategies.
History of Airbus
1970 Airbus was formed as European Consortium of French and German companies . Spanish companies joins the consortium. 1979 : British Aerospace joined Airbus Industries Each of the four partners operated as national companies. Airbus developed a deserved reputation 2001: Airbus became a single fully integrated company 2004: company had overtaken its main rival In January 2005 the worlds largest and most advanced passenger aircraft appeared, the A380 Sold more then 10000 air crafts and delivered 6500 crafts since its creation Yearly revenue in 2010 is 29.9 billion Euros Airbus is one of the worlds leading aircraft manufacturers. The A300 became the worlds first twin-engine wide-body jet, entering airline service in 1974.This was followed in the early 1980s by Airbus shorter-fuselage
A310 derivative, and was joined later that decade by the single-aisle A320 which developed into one of the most successful aircraft families in history with the A318, A319, A320 and A321. The 1990s saw Airbus introduce its long range A330/A340 jetliner Family, and a new era of airline travel started in 2007 when the 525-seat A380 began commercial operation. Looking to the future, deliveries of Airbus long-range twin-engine A350 XWB are expected to commence in 2013, while its military product line is expanding to include the A330 Multi-role Tanker Transport and the A400M.
Passenger Aircrafts includes the following jets : o o o o o A320 Family A330 Family A340 Family A350 XWB A380 Family (100-220 seats ) (220-330 seats) (300-400 seats) (270 -350 seats ) (525 seats)
Corporate Jetliner includes the following aircrats ; o ACJ Family (launched in 1997 and accommodates 19-50 passengers ) o VIP wide bodies ( Accommodates 60-120 passengers ) o Air Bus Corporate Jet Centre (Provide top quality cabins ,outfitting and associated services) Freighter Aircrafts includes the following jets : o A330-200F (Mid size long haul freighter ) o A380F (3 deck cargo facility ) o Beluga ( worlds largest cargo ) Military Aircrafts includes the following aircrafts : o o o o C212 (For any type of military mission ) CN235 (The lost cost tactial airlifter ) C295 (For any type of armed force mission) A330 MRTT (New generation tanker )
The air bus crafts production is divided among various countries these includes : AIRBUS FRANCE AIRBUS DEUTSCHLAND AIRBUS UK AIRBUS ESPANA BELAIRBUS
Airbus
No of orders taken
2010
2011
2012
Boeing
No of orders taken
2010
2011
2012
824
1419
833
610
884
1338
68.3 $b 43%
64.3 $b 36%
81.7 $b 34%
1) Short distance and low capacity: Many 2) Short distance and low capacity: Many 3) Long distance and high capacity: Some Reference :
http://www.unc.edu/~eennis/boeing.pdf
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
employers makes decisions on their own with little or no input from employees. This does not fit in the modern management and for this reason; Boeing has several problems in management when it practices racial discrimination, tussles with its union workers, and then lets its executives flee the scene to avoid accountability. Labour Problems : When production problems delayed delivery, Boeing was forced to increase its work force, working in three shifts, to complete the planes. This inexperienced work force created additional problems and the cost per plane is increased substantially. Moreover, the inexperienced workforce found the aircraft design too complex to implement. The managers ordered forced overtime: 50-to-60-hour workweeks became common. The problems affected other Boeing airplanes and complaints from customers began to mount. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ordered special inspections of all Boeing jetliners produced since 1980 to look for defects that might affect safety. The strains of the forced overtime contributed to a 48-day strike in the fall of 1989 that hurt Boeing financially. Dependency On US Govt : Boeing mainly gains the benefit from the US which is 65 % of the company total annual sales. Moreover, Boeing is being criticized by Airbus for the subsidy contracts as well as foreign and domestic support all amount to aid for Boeings 7E7 model that is double what was available for the new Airbus A380
Reference :
http://www.airbus.com/company/environment/documentation/?docID=10262&eID =dam_frontend_push
ORDER
1600
1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0
BOEING
AIRBUS
DELIVERY
700 600
500
400 300 200 100 0
BOEING
AIRBUS
66.4
50.3
2004
2000
2001
2002
2003
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
revenue ( $ in billion)
Reference : http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NYSE/Company/Boeing-Co
2011
i.
Price Effect
This could be explained by comparing the prices of both the competitors aircrafts
A318 A319 A320 A321 A330-200 A330-200* A330-300 A340-300 A340-500 A340-600 $65.2 $77.7 $85.0 $99.7 $200.8 $203.6 $222.5 $238.0 $261.8 $275.4 737-600 737-700 737-800 737-900ER 747-8 747-8* 767-200ER 767-300ER 767-300* 767-400ER Boeing Model 777-200ER 777-200LR 777-300ER 777* 787-8 787-9 $56.9 $67.9 $80.8 $85.8 $317.5 $319.3 $144.1 $164.3 $167.7 $180.6 Price $232.3 $262.4 $284.1 $269.1 $185.2 $218.1
============================================ Airbus Model Price A350-800 A350-900 A350-1000 A380-800 $236.6 $267.6 $299.7 $375.3 ============================================
attention to it as a result the interior of Airbus Planes are more attractive than Boeings crafts.
Conclusions
The decision by Airbus and Boeing to put new high efficiency engines on their planes will provide airlines with upgraded products that have a reputation for dependability. Although Bombardier, COMAC, and Irkut are building narrowbodies that represent a more radical departure from the 737 and A320, their programs are inherently riskier and have not yet demonstrated that the promised benefits can be delivered. Many airlines may decide to stay with aircraft that they know. It is too soon to know whether the newcomers will succeed. Bombardier and Embraer have established themselves as successful aircraft manufacturers and the Chinese appear to be determined to build a civil aviation industry that competes directly with Boeing and Airbus. Whether the Russians will succeed in building civil aircraft capable of competing in international markets remains to be seen.
For now, the real competition is between Boeing and Airbus. Neither company appears likely to walk away from the segment of the commercial aviation industry that accounts for almost half of revenues. Although the Boeing/Airbus duopoly in small commercial jets is clearly under challenge, it is not obvious that the civil aircraft market is large enough to sustain as many as five additional competitors. Nevertheless, all of the challengers to the Boeing/Airbus duopoly believe that their ability to compete in the narrow-body segment will be critical to the creation of successful domestic aerospace industries. It is clear that the United States, the European Union, Russia, China, Japan, Brazil, and Canada all consider the aerospace to be commercially and militarily strategic.
References:
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~npavcnik/Research_files/airbus.pdf http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web& cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dartmouth. edu%2F~npavcnik%2FResearch_files%2Fairbus.pdf&ei=eAjDUc_7B4HD4 AO8vICYDw&usg=AFQjCNF9gtrwOUZW0LsP38hs65Ety1_ew&sig2=rG1GdBtLNrxYdgXoE0G_sQ&bvm=bv.48175248,d.dmg http://www.unc.edu/~eennis/boeing.pdf http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/news/releases/2013/q1/130130_nr.pdf http://www.airbus.com/company/environment/documentation/?docID=1026 2&eID=dam_frontend_push http://www.airbus.com/company/environment/documentation/?docID=1026 2&eID=dam_frontend_push