Date: 17 Dec 96 03:09:21 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Organization: Concentric Internet Services References: 1 2 3 4 5 Followups: 1 2
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1996.2893@ohare.Chicago.COM> Alan Wong (Alan.Wong@anu.edu.au) wrote: > > Mmm. In my opinion the B777, B747-500/600 and B737-600/700/800 are somewhat > influenced by the existence of equivalent Airbus models. Remember that > Boeing was putting forward the B767-400 before the airlines insisted > on something brand new? With the A330/A340 available, Boeing couldn't say > "This is what we are building. Take it or leave it." Boeing has to put a new wing (and various other things) on the B737 to make it fly higher, faster, and farther. Yes, Boeing is responding to the competition (the A320 family), but Boeing is also responding to what the market wants. It's simply wrong to assume that Boeing would not respond to the market if there were no Airbus. Without Airbus, Boeing would have to respond to a different competitor, most likely, McDonnell Douglas (as well as the market). In the beginning, Airbus was set out to break the monopoly by US suppliers in the commercial avaition market. They have done it successful (mostly at the expense of MDC). Boeing had never had a monopoly, nor will it likely to ever have in the future. It's true that in certain market sectors, there is no one directly competing with Boeing's products, for example, the 757 (even the A321-200 will have significantly shorter range than the 757), the 767-300ER (the A330-200 is about 15% larger than the -300ER), and, of course, the B747. However, even with the B747, Boeing has to listen to their customers. For example, when the B747-400 was initially introduced, there were quite a few problems. According to your reasoning, Boeing could have said "take it or leave it." But did Boeing do that? Competition between Airbus and Boeing is good, but Boeing would have serious competition whether Airbus existed or not.