Background- The Boeing Corporation is one of the United States' largest exporters and is a predominant aerospace and defense corporation. Boeing is the world's largest global aircraft manufacturer (by deliveries and revenue), and the second-largest defense and aerospace contractor (Defense Contractor Ranking, 2008). Airbus is an aircraft manufacturing subsidiary of EADS, a European aerospace company. It is a merged consortium of several aircraft manufacturers, and is based in France. Airbus is continually neck in neck in competition with Boeing; Airbus winning some of the features (largest aircraft), Boeing the others (more revenue) (Heppenheimer, 2006; Casadesus-Masanell, 2007).
Legal, Cultural, and Ethical Challenges- The very crux of the Boeing-Airbus conundrum is the manner in which each is able to use governmental contracts or subsidies to compete. Up until the late 1980s, prior to the merger of several European companies, Boeing was the undisputed leader in global aircraft design and manufacturing. From the mid-1990s onward, though, Airbus and Boeing have been in heavy competition for market share (See Figure 1) (Airbus vs. Boeing, 2006). Prior to this fervent "war," Boeing believed Airbus had "an unfair competitive advantage due to the level of subsidy it received from the governments of Great Britain, France, Germany and Spain" (Boeing Versus Airbus: Two Decades of Trade Disbutes, 310). Culturally, Boeing is moving to a more globalist approach, outsourcing many of
The Boeing Company designs, develops, manufactures, sells, services, and supports commercial jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human space flight, and launch systems and services worldwide. It operates in five segments: Commercial Airplanes, Boeing Military Aircraft, Network & Space Systems, Global Services & Support, and Boeing Capital. The Commercial Airplanes segment develops, produces, and markets commercial jet aircraft for various passenger and cargo requirements; and provides related support services to the commercial airline industry. This segment also offers aviation services support, aircraft modifications, spare parts, training, maintenance documents, and technical advice to commercial and government customers. The Boeing Military Aircraft segment researches, develops, produces, and modifies manned and unmanned military aircraft, and weapons systems for global strike, vertical lift, and autonomous systems, as well as mobility, surveillance, and engagement. The Network & Space Systems segment researches, develops, produces, and modifies strategic defense and intelligence systems, satellite systems, and space exploration products.
With only a few large companies across the globe (Boeing, MD, and Airbus), the commercial aircraft industry essentially exhibits the qualities of an oligopolistic competition with intense rivalry. Here is an analysis of competition in the commercial aircraft business using Porter’s Five Forces.
As the two largest producers in the commercial aircraft industry, Boeing and Airbus have been in a long rivalry for over two decades. Because of its huge research and development cost and a volatile market demand situation, the large commercial aircraft industry has only a few viable producers that can successfully operate in this industry. At the end of 1996, there were three competitors in the industry – Airbus, Boeing, and McDonnell Douglas (MDC). When Boeing announced in December 1996 the merger between Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, the dispute has again started between Boeing and Airbus. The merger was expected to go under
Boeing pursues Product Differentiation strategy in order to create competitive advantage over Airbus. Boeing differentiates its products by increasing number of seating capacity, engine capacity, innovating new winglet designs and by manufacturing wide range of products in respect to the change in market
Airbus had a reputation for innovative design and technology. All Airbus planes employed “fly-by-wire” technology that substituted computerized control for mechanical linkages between the pilot and the aircraft’s control surfaces. This technology combined with a common cockpit design permitted “cross crew qualification” (CCQ) whereby pilots were certified to fly similar aircrafts, thus offering flexible scheduling in flight crews on various models, leading to better pilot utilization and lower training costs. These features helped explain why Airbus had received over half of the total large aircraft orders for the first time in 1999. However, despite the gains in market share, Airbus still did not have a product to compete with the monopoly of Boeing’s 747 in the VLA market.
• High capital requirements to establish +huge set up+ large investments + economies of scale/scope: Boeing having advantage over Airbus in large commercial aircraft sector.
Looking at the brief history of Boeing, the company was first founded in Puget Sound, Washington in 1916 by William Edward Boeing.
Nevertheless, as Boeing gears up for its all-new 7E7 airliner, arch rival Airbus may already be putting 7E7 orders at risk by talking to airlines about a similar plane. Airbus is viewed a having advanced technologies coupled with a conglomerate backing and Boeing has not come up with any new innovative ideas in the last ten
Dominating the commercial aircraft market for decades, Boeing is considered to be the most highly competitive U.S aerospace industry. “U.S. firms manufacture a wide variety of products for civil and defense purposes and, in 2010, the value of aerospace industry shipments was estimated at $171 billion, of which civil aircraft and aircraft parts accounted for over half of all U.S. aerospace shipments. The U.S. aerospace industry exported nearly $78 billion in products in 2010, of which $67 billion (or 86% of total exports) were civil aircraft, engines, equipment, and parts” (Harrison, 2011). However, its position of influence has lessened in recent years. This is due to its main competitor, Airbus, who in recent years has made significant
Given the high-tech nature of the airplane industry, there are relatively few suppliers capable of providing parts to Airbus and Boeing. In contrast to Boeing, who relies heavily on suppliers, Airbus has tried to manufacture the
Boeing Company has been and is still at the forefront of the aviation industry. The late 1990s were a time of trial and transition where the company encountered and overcame a number of
The main objective of Boeing's strategy is to analyze the commercial aircraft industry, to understand the demand that is present, and to formulate a solution that will fulfill that segment. Currently, there are only two major players in the global market: Boeing and Airbus. Boeing is widely known as the "free market" champion, while Airbus represents the "not-so-free" approach of the European Union's organized and government subsidized
The supplier power in airlines is dominated by the world’s two largest aircraft manufacturers are Airbus and Boeing. The competition between the two manufacturers is neck to neck but that would prove to be a boon for Emirates as the prices would not rocket through the ceiling. A study shows that Emirates holds 93 Boeing aircrafts and 83 Airbus units (Planespotters, 2009). In 2007, Emirates purchased 81 Airbus flights, to extend it services- however, they chose Airbus over Boeing as the latter failed to deliver its latest aircrafts on time and moreover, Airbus had quoted a good price (Barryl, 2007). The changing oil prices also have an adverse effect on the aviation industry. In a nutshell, the bargaining power of suppliers is high.
Developing the World's Largest Commercial Jet In this case, we will be analyzing strategic interaction between Airbus and Boeing, the two leading producers in the global commercial aircraft industry. In particular, we will be considering Airbus' proposed launch of the A3XX, their entry into the intercontinental jumbo jet segment, and Boeing's potential competitive responses to this entry. We will attempt to answer the questions: Should Airbus enter the jumbo jet segment? If so, how?
Weaknesses that Airbus has, is that due to their structure, and having a multi country consortium, they were slow to make decisions. In the 1980’s Airbus experienced difficulties in financing the A-320 project, since all the Airbus partner governments had not approved the program (Carpenter, M. A., & Sanders pg. 613). Airbus was slow in its decision making process because the partners of the consortium tried to safeguard its own interests rather than make decisions that would benefit them as a whole (Carpenter, M. A., & Sanders pg. 613).