The Impact of the A380 Project on the Financial Performance of EADS

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.

Suppliers generally have a moderate to high bargaining power within the industry due to the limited number of suppliers which forces aviation companies to choose from the number available and accordingly to accept their prices. In fact, fuel is the second highest cost for aviation companies. There are highly depended on supplier’s prices and the availability which indicates on a relatively high bargaining power of suppliers. In addition, there are high switching costs which are strongly in favor of the suppliers and means that the company experiences an increase in operating costs when switching to another supplier as flying another type of aircraft leads to additional costs (maintenance, training etc.).Aircrafts are vulnerable to delays due to the location of gate locations which leads to a decrease in utilization and therefore to an increase in costs.

Some governments provide subsidies that provide an unfair advantage and prices lower than market conditions which affects the functioning of airline industries directly and Global

Boeing being the market leader for almost a decade as a manufacturer of large commercial aircraft and had also reached economies of scale, the need to sustain its market share it presumed that “customers might demand for new”. Any potential growth was only through taking super leap and making VLCT jumbo aircraft which needed

American airline industry is steadily growing at an extremely strong rate. This growth comes with a number economic and social advantage. This contributes a great deal to the international inventory. The US airline industry is a major economic aspect in both the outcome on other related industries like tourism and manufacturing of aircraft and its own terms of operation. The airline industry is receiving massive media attention unlike other industries through participating and making of government policies. As Hoffman and Bateson (2011) show the major competitors include Southwest Airlines, Delta Airline, and United Airline.

In 2000, Airbus Industrie’s Supervisory Board was making the biggest decision in the company history: whether Airbus should commit to develop world’s largest jumbo jet. At that time, there are only two major commercial jets manufactory companies: the younger Airbus and the bigger Boeing. Boeing had been at the forefront of civil aviation for over half century. Airbus was founded in 1970as a consortium and merged into a new company known as European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company. Airbus developed “fly-by-wire” technology and “cross crew qualification” technology to compete with Boeing in large jets (those with 70 or more seats) market. While Airbus was booked more than

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

By looking at all the data showed by the case we can realize that the worst company in the industry of aircraft manufacturing was McDonnell Douglas because it confronted serious financial problems since 1980s when Airbus squeezed its market share. In 1984, MD's fleet comprised 28% of aircraft in service, by 1989 had only 23% of the worldwide fleet, while for example Boeing had 53% in the same year; in 1990 Boeing had 45% of the market share while Airbus had 34% leaving only 21% of the market to MD. The strongest company was Boeing which cover about 70% of worldwide demand, nevertheless the Airbus Industry was

The United States government does not actively help any companies compete in world markets. However, legislature has indirectly helped civil aircraft manufacturers. Many domestic civil aircraft manufactures are also large contributors to military aircraft production and share resources between the two tasks. Personnel, facilities, and resources necessary for both types of production are largely the same. Manufacturers often devote resources to civil aircraft when military contracts are low in supply. Civil aircraft is one of the largest exporting industries of the US and contributes a trade surplus. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the US to aid companies that manufacture civil aircraft.

The Boeing Company has registered strong growth in the developing markets in China, Oceania and Africa (Boeing Frontiers, Nov. 2005). For the fiscal year 2005, revenues from China grew by 87.9%; revenues from Oceania grew by $32; and revenues from Africa grew 61.8% over the 2004 fiscal year. These regions represent some of the fastest growing economies of the world. The Boeing Company's growing market share in these regions would boost the company revenues of the future (DATAMONITOR).

Aircraft industry is deeply related to the government sector. As case says, both companies Bombardier and Embraer S.A, were the originally in government sector. Since this industry generally have a historical relationship with the military, each state has tendency to protect it.

The main barrier to entry in the aircraft manufacturing market is the sheer size of the industry and the amount of capital investment required to make the aircraft. Moreover, the concerns of the aviation industry are not similar

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).

When looking the aircraft manufacturers (Boeing and Airbus), the bargaining power is low. This is due to the airline industry being the only major source of income for these companies, this is also a costly product to both manufacture and purchase, costing millions. Airline companies are generally locked into favourable contracts with these companies and show loyalty to

Acknowledgement: We would like thank our colleagues Prof. Dr. Herbert Dawid and Prof. Dr. Stefan Wielenberg,