Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses

Airbus CEO Says Boeing's Problems Are Bad For Whole Industry (reuters.com) 62

Airbus takes no pleasure in the technical problems plaguing U.S. rival Boeing as they damage the image of the entire aerospace industry, said the CEO of the European planemaker. From a report: "I am not happy with the problems of my competitor. They are not good for the industry a whole," Guillaume Faury told the "Europe 2024" conference in Berlin, when asked about technical problems at Boeing. "We are in an industry where quality and safety is top priority," he added. Further reading: Airbus Is Pulling Ahead as Boeing's Troubles Mount.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Airbus CEO Says Boeing's Problems Are Bad For Whole Industry

Comments Filter:
  • As right as he is, Mr. Faury is very classy to say it. As someone who works in a MUCH smaller industry, I have aired similar concerns within my vertical when one of our "competitors" loses, shrinks, or has trouble.

    • As right as he is, Mr. Faury is very classy to say it.

      He just doesn't want to be seen publicly gloating.

      Of course, he's delighted with Boeing's blunders.

      Worries about "the image of the industry" are nonsense. People won't stop flying.

      • Indeed; he just said what he was supposed to say to avoid controversies. We can take a guess at what he really thinks but we also could make the same guess without this article. Nothing here is newsworthy.

      • There are classy ways to thank industry situations for their growth without thumbing their nose. His publicly-spoken words don't change the fact that it's classy.

        • Agree it's classy, but do you have examples where a chairman of a big international company would have harsh words in a similar situation? I imagine when there is an issue with a self-driving car model, the competitor CEO doesn't go publicly "what a bunch of idiots". Or if say Google is hacked by bad actors and Microsoft is asked about it (or the opposite), I also expect classy words. I can imagine Musk would not follow the rule but he's really an exception.

          • Agree it's classy, but do you have examples where a chairman of a big international company would have harsh words in a similar situation? I imagine when there is an issue with a self-driving car model, the competitor CEO doesn't go publicly "what a bunch of idiots". Or if say Google is hacked by bad actors and Microsoft is asked about it (or the opposite), I also expect classy words.

            Yes!

            I can imagine Musk would not follow the rule but he's really an exception.

            Oh, well... you took one of them away.

            Back in the day, Walt Disney pretty specifically spoke out about Pacific Ocean Park and Knott's Berry Farm. He never publicly called them idiots, and operationally they coordinated their calendars, but he was unabashedly willing to point out publicly how Disneyland was better especially when they weren't keeping up. I don't have a google link to share, however....

          • self-driving cars need to be safe or face big oversight on safety issues.
            boeing self certificating is not working that well maybe say airbus does want to be forced to give their own self certificating

          • do you have examples where a chairman of a big international company would have harsh words in a similar situation?

            In the late 90s, when Apple was stumbling, Michael Dell publically gloated and said Apple should liquidate.

            Larry Ellison is famous for dancing on the graves of his victims.

        • by hey! ( 33014 )

          It's also *smart*, which acting classy often turns out to be. What people want from the leader of a company in an industry that is having these kinds of problems is maturity, perspective, and thoughtfulness. Naked opportunism and unbridled competitiveness at any cost isn't a good look when people need reassurance.

          For that reason, not twisting the knife is the most effective way to twist the knife, especially when you can pretty much count on your competitor to do the twisting for you. Also, if a quality

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 )

        As right as he is, Mr. Faury is very classy to say it.

        He just doesn't want to be seen publicly gloating.

        Of course, he's delighted with Boeing's blunders.

        Worries about "the image of the industry" are nonsense. People won't stop flying.

        From watching the videos on Youtube of the oopsies that Airbus has, he might be worried about his company getting a close look.

        As much glee as some folks have over Boeing and its travails these days, there is no point in getting cocky - even in private.

        • he might be worried about his company getting a close look.

          Indeed. Consider, what's the likely response to all of Boeing's screwups? More regulation, which will also affect Airbus. Ergo, Boeing's fuckups are going to screw over Airbus as well. Plus, if we lose the duopoly, become an actual monopoly, Airbus might end up with countries trying to split it up to still have competition.

      • In my experience, I don't know the make of the plane I'm to fly on when I make a booking.

        This may have benefits in the longer term, but in the short term, the trouble affecting his competitor will be squeezing his clients. And those that survived CoVID lockdowns will be struggling against more debt that they were hoping for.
      • Worries about "the image of the industry" are nonsense. People won't stop flying.

        No. People will still fly. But, people will stop flying your airline or your airplanes if you start showing a trend of killing passengers, or shedding parts while in flight. Or worse, lose a whole airplane or half a dozen.

        Can your company take it, or will something like this make it tank?

        Once lost, confidence is very hard to regain. Take Pan American World Airways, for instance. One of the nails in Pan Am's coffin was people started associating Pan Am and "bomb" and "palestinians" and then Lockerbie happe

      • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

        Worries about "the image of the industry" are nonsense. People won't stop flying.

        Whoopi Goldberg did. [people.com]

      • As right as he is, Mr. Faury is very classy to say it.

        He just doesn't want to be seen publicly gloating.

        Of course, he's delighted with Boeing's blunders.

        Worries about "the image of the industry" are nonsense. People won't stop flying.

        While what you say is true, he also has to be wondering about what sort of regulations are going to get tossed on every airframe manufacturer because of Boeings Blunderous Freefall. We see similar things with competitors blowing up big issues and then we see new regulations passed that we all have to meet. Those moments suck balls because the companies that have been doing well with the looser regulations, jumping through all the correct hoops, doing everything they can to not step on their own toes, let al

      • by Swiper ( 1336263 )
        No, Faury is being very honest here. Working in the industry, I know that when Boeing had the issues with the MAX, it made a whole lot of extra work at Airbus. This was/is due to the way the manufacturers interact with certification authorities, and levels of trust. Suddenly the European certification authorities started much more in depth reviews and checks, and it required a LOT of work on all sides. Many processes were considerably tightened up. Now, this is not necessarily bad, but it di have a lasting
      • by teg ( 97890 )

        As right as he is, Mr. Faury is very classy to say it.

        He just doesn't want to be seen publicly gloating.

        Of course, he's delighted with Boeing's blunders.

        Worries about "the image of the industry" are nonsense. People won't stop flying.

        Doubt it. Boeing is big enough that safety concerns reflect upon air traffic in general. Doors falling off in the middle of the air etc results in fewer passengers and reduces the demand for planes. What he'd want is a gradual decline in the attractiveness of Boeing vs Airbus, corruption scandals, strategic missteps, etc - not scandals related to accidents or quality,

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      He probably means it too. Airbus has no interest in being in an industry that has low safety standards. They have geared everything in their manufacturing and design process to high safety standards.

      • by Luckyo ( 1726890 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2024 @05:23PM (#64332025)

        They also don't want to be seen as monopolizing the field. That invites a lot of extra scrutiny they just don't need.

        • They also don't want to be seen as monopolizing the field. That invites a lot of extra scrutiny they just don't need.

          Absolutely, and also Chinese competition is trying to get into the market. These problems make the difference between that and what Boeing can provide less clear, which might let give them more space to get involved. The US definitely needs to see this as a strategic problem to solve rather than something to let the market sort out. I don't even like the solution some have suggested here of having Lockheed buy Boeing because you don't want them to become infected too.

          • by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

            Boeing fusing with McDonnel Douglas makes for a good case why you shouldn't mix the good with the bad in strategic sector unless you're willing to really slash and burn the bad parts before and during the fusion.

          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            The main issue that Comac has at the moment is not safety - it's record is perfect on new airliners - it's that it doesn't have enough of an operational history built up to reassure airlines of durability and maintenance costs. That is going to change fairly rapidly though.

            • Well, also range and fuel burn.

              For now, of course.

              • C919 has the same engines that power the A320 NEO and the 737 MAX, but with a significantly more modern wing than either, which compensates it being somewhat overweight, so the fuel burn will be about the same.

                • It's only a year newer than the 737 max and a couple newer than the A320 NEO, neither of which have identical wings to their predecessors. I doubt there were advances that significant within a year or two which make up for the extra weight.

                  Early prototypes were reportedly better than the 737 and 320, but not the newest variants.

                  • Neither the 737 nor the A320 have fully new wings, otherwise they would have been required to get a completely new certification which a 737, built to the 1960s standards, wouldn't pass. What they have are old wings that have been tweaked.

  • Spirit Aerosystems (Score:5, Informative)

    by TWX ( 665546 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2024 @04:49PM (#64331931)

    Spirit Areosystems is one of Airbus' subcontractors too. So of course the problems within the Boeing supply-chain could affect the Airbus supply-chain.

    • +1 Informative

    • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2024 @05:16PM (#64332001)

      Interesting. So Spirit _can_ deliver good quality if the customer insists on it and verifies.

      • Spirit Aerosystems has multiple factories, many of these by acquisitions of other aerospace companies. This is where Airbus gets their parts. Boeing, on the other hand, gets theirs from the original ex-Boeing factory that became Spirit.

    • Spirit was spun off from Boeing in 2005. Boeing wanted to create a company that could supply others in the industry.. you know, for profit. Boeing bought Rockwell in 1996 and merged with McDonald Douglas in 1997. After the merger, Boeing stopped being and "engineering" company and became focused on profit over engineering. Since Spirt was spun off post MD merger, all the corporate fundamental flaws of Boeing were already part of Spirit DNA.
      As someone who lives quite close to Boeing's Everett plan
      • I came to this article to post to ask if anyone knew what happened to cause Boeing to go cluster fuck the last few years.

        Thank you.

      • by bkmoore ( 1910118 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2024 @07:08PM (#64332229)

        ....Which is exactly what happened when the 737 was retro-fitted with larger engines that changed the center of gravity necessitating the creation of MCAS system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].. which lead to the sudden nose dives and crashes.

        I am a 737 pilot for a major airline and have flown the 737 Max 9. The MCAS system has been beaten to death like a dead horse at this point. But what is often overlooked, is that the 737 Max flies just fine and is a perfectly safe aircraft without the MCAS system. It's arguably a safer aircraft without this system. The only issue was that it handled slightly differently than the legacy 737 NG, and would have required additional pilot simulator training on the different handling characteristics. MCAS was a band-aid fix that was intended to simulate the handling characteristics of the 737 NG on the 737 Max, so that the FAA would not require any flight simulator training for NG crew transitioning to the Max. This was one of Boeing's main selling points to airlines, even though they would have bought the Max anyways, as they were already committed to the 737 and the 737 NG would eventually be phased out of production. Obviously this was a very bad decision, and simulator training is now required anyways, thereby defeating the need for MCAS in the first place. I would have personally preferred that the MCAS system were deleted altogether. Instead there was a "software fix"..."we fixed the glitch" so to speak.

        For those blaming MDAC, or thinking Boeing's problems only began in the last 10 years, read up on the 737 Hard Rudder Over in the 1980s and 1990s. Boeing blamed "average airline pilots" for incorrect control inputs leading to several fatal 737 crashes, and refused to fix a design defect until the FAA took action. Boeing has always played loose with the rules and put profits above safety, going back long before the MDAC merger in 1996. It's just now the public has less tolerance for air disasters than they had in the 1980s, and Boeing now has meaningful competition from Airbus.

        • by Shinobi ( 19308 )

          There was also the rather nasty issue with the thrust reverser deploying mid-air on the 767, which turned out to be a flaw in the 767's control systems, rather than in the engines.

          And McDonnell-Douglas had the lovely little issue that was a contributing factor in the GottrÃra crash, even though it was glossed over by NTSB and Haverikommissionen, namely the Automatic Thrust Restoration system. SAS ordered the planes without ATR. Simulators arrived with manuals that didn't have ATR included. Planes were

  • ...Namely with the jet engine suppliers.

    CFM International can barefly ship enough LEAP-1A engines for the A320eno Family airliners, Pratt & Whitney has to rebuild a large number of PW1xxxG geared turbofan engines due to compressor disk issues, and Rolls-Royce is having issues with reliability with the Trent XWB-97 engines for the A350-1000. No wonder Airbus is way backed up with aircraft deliveries.

  • Who thought that was a good idea? =/

  • I don't believe him. He's just saying the right thing.

This is now. Later is later.

Working...