Re: Orders for Airliners in 1997

Date:         11 Feb 98 04:26:43 
From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
References:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

>I used to be a route planner and scheduler for TWA and AIA, and my
>sources tell me that ATR and Airbus Industrie were partners with
>Aerospatiale.

One source told me the Tupolev 154 I was looking at was a DC-10.  Choose
your sources more carefully.

>We are talking about Aircraft Manufacturing corporations, not airlines.

We are talking about the legal framework of businesses.  Such laws do
not generally distinguish between the particular product and/or service
a business offers when determining details of ownership strucuture.
Indeed, Airbus is organized as a Groupement d'Intérêts Economiques
(GIE), a structure unique (or nearly so) to France which was created for
winemakers.  The law does not specify that it can only be used for
enterprises engaged in the making of wine, and since it was convenient
for the purpose it ended up being applied to a maker of airliners.

>They all were tied together to form the Aerospatiale group.

Wrong.  From http://www.aerospatiale.fr/:

   On January 1, 1970, the French government officially approved the
   merger of the three companies Sud-Aviation, Nord-Aviation and Sereb,
   creating a single company: Société Nationale Industrielle
   Aerospatiale.

No mention there of Airbus nor of ATR, perhaps since neither existed at
that time -- Airbus was created on December 18, 1970, while ATR was not
created until 1981.  (AI(R), the successor to ATR, was created January
1, 1996.)

>Everything from the concorde to the guppy was considered part of
>Aerospatiale.

Wrong again.  Concorde was created by an agreement between the British
and French governments, dated November 29, 1962.  Amongst other things,
it specified a company from each country for the airframe (BAC and Sud
Aviation, respectively) and for the engines (Bristol Siddeley and
SNECMA, respectively).  With the 1970 merger, Aerospatialle became the
French airframe partner in the program.

As for the guppies, they were built in the US from Boeing 377s.  Airbus
merely operated a fleet of them.

>Making ATR, Airbus, and Bae a european aircraft manufacturing group.

If you definte "group" loosely, sure.  And ATR, Airbus, BAe, Boeing,
Lockheed-Martin, Tupolev, ad nauseum, are a (the!) worldwide aircraft
manufacturing group.  Which says absolutely nothing.

>Of course...if you run XXX airlines, and you have a piece of YYY and
>ZZZ, you therefore are apart of each other.  Take Star Alliance for
>instance.  All airlines in that net work together to help and better
>one another.

Working together does not make one a part or a division of the other.
They are simply partners.  Indeed, United and Lufthansa (the original
Star Alliance partners) made quite clearly that neither had any
intention of making any equity investment ("(partial) ownership") in
the other, as opposed to, e.g., Northwest and KLM.

>I see where your coming from...and I can grasp what your saying

Obviously not.

>but I still feel that ATR was just as much a
>part of Airbus and Airbus was a part of Aerospatiale...etc...etc.

You're welcome to feel anything you like.  That doesn't make it true,
though I doubt we'll change your mind.

For those who still don't get it but would like to, try exploring
Aerosptiale's web site (http://www.aerospatiale.fr/), which does a very
good job of detailing the various parts of the business and how they fit
together.

--
Karl Swartz	|Home	kls@chicago.com
		|Work	kls@netapp.com
		|WWW	http://www.chicago.com/~kls/
"The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney