Is it possible to have both companies working together to compete against an emerging third competitor like the C929?

-_-

Probably not likely I would think. Anti-competitive reasons to start, but then it is more likely that one would partner to work on the C929, etc..., to 'get a piece of the action'. I could see them collaborating on technologies, ie, along the safety lines that would benefit both companies. Interesting question to be sure!

A metric Boeing.....

It's as likely to happen as AA ordering the SSJ.

I don't see why not, they have considered the possibility in the past I believe, although that was probably before Boeing realised that Airbus was their equal. It would have been the sensible way to go for a 747 replacement.

I would see it only (very slightly) in case of a new VLA development and probably for military Projects or Special freighters (A225 replacement). But all would depend on the responsiilities and risks shared and here is probably the biggest hurdle.
Anyways, in cas of a suprising Agreement the plane should not either be called.Boeing or Airbus.

Flyglobal

DartHerald wrote:

I don't see why not, they have considered the possibility in the past I believe, although that was probably before Boeing realised that Airbus was their equal. It would have been the sensible way to go for a 747 replacement.

The A380 followed a joint venture VLA project which Boeing pulled out of. I suspect that a lot of the anti-A380 back and forth stems from that moment - since Boeing had decided *not* to do a VLA they then turned all the PR against Airbus' plans and market projections etc... it's also "coincidentally" when the WTO claim against Airbus emerged,

If the coming products from China are as "superbly engineered" as the ARJ21, then I don't think Airbus and Boeing have much to worry about.

As above there was a JV for the 747 replacement.
Now that both sides know the market is too small for one company it's not impossible (I suppose) for a JV to emerge again on an equal basis perhaps in 15 years time.
Both have (in the past) put forward Blended Wing designs in the 500-600 pax class.Perhaps with geared fan engines in the future they may talk.The economics of such a plane would make everything else look like a V8 gas guzzler!

Airbus offered to McD a share in the A340 programm. McD declined they preferred a three engine plane, which ironically was even less efficient at the end.

I don't think it is impossible we might see a A&B joint venture for a specific project sometime.

Probably not on overlapping products. But there could be in other areas, e.g. helicopters, transport aircraft, trainers as long as there is a clear win-win.

Personally, I would love to see Airbus and Boeing work on a common result. Even a small venture. It's never too late to start preparing for the future.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

DartHerald wrote:

I don't see why not, they have considered the possibility in the past I believe, although that was probably before Boeing realised that Airbus was their equal. It would have been the sensible way to go for a 747 replacement.

The A380 followed a joint venture VLA project which Boeing pulled out of. I suspect that a lot of the anti-A380 back and forth stems from that moment - since Boeing had decided " WRT the *not* to do a VLA they then turned all the PR against Airbus' plans and market projections etc... it's also "coincidentally" when the WTO claim against Airbus emerged,

Not sure about your timing.

I always understood that the WTO case was a consequence of B drawing a "line in the sand" WRT the A350 launch aid.

B's statement was that RLI for the A350 would draw a WTO challenge.

The French , German & UK Govts. came to the party with the cash - and the WTO case was under way.



cheers

In a world where there unicorns and pixie dust, the only venture I see Boeing and Airbus even remotely thinking about a JV would be a new supersonic transport

parapente wrote:

As above there was a JV for the 747 replacement.
Now that both sides know the market is too small for one company it's not impossible (I suppose) for a JV to emerge again on an equal basis perhaps in 15 years time.
Both have (in the past) put forward Blended Wing designs in the 500-600 pax class.Perhaps with geared fan engines in the future they may talk.The economics of such a plane would make everything else look like a V8 gas guzzler!

Such talk gives EK the shakes, it would be a dream come true for them.

brindabella wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

DartHerald wrote:

I don't see why not, they have considered the possibility in the past I believe, although that was probably before Boeing realised that Airbus was their equal. It would have been the sensible way to go for a 747 replacement.

The A380 followed a joint venture VLA project which Boeing pulled out of. I suspect that a lot of the anti-A380 back and forth stems from that moment - since Boeing had decided " WRT the *not* to do a VLA they then turned all the PR against Airbus' plans and market projections etc... it's also "coincidentally" when the WTO claim against Airbus emerged,

Not sure about your timing.

I always understood that the WTO case was a consequence of B drawing a "line in the sand" WRT the A350 launch aid.

B's statement was that RLI for the A350 would draw a WTO challenge.

The French , German & UK Govts. came to the party with the cash - and the WTO case was under way.

US request for info submitted to the WTO in October 2004...

https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Se ... wt/ds316/1)&Language=ENGLISH&Context=FomerScriptedSearch&languageUIChanged=true#

Then going public in May 2005:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4594581.stm

But you're right that I got my timing slightly wrong - it was the US unilaterally withdrawing from the GATT agreement rather than Boeing unilaterally withdrawing from the VLA project.

So the claims are related to the A380 - but obviously intended to disrupt Airbus' response to the 787.

Pre A380 and 747X IIRC Boeing approached all the Airbus principals- Aerospatiale, BAe etc about a VLA, I thought if my ancient memory is correct they were willing to work with the component companies of Airbus while it was still a GIE and not a single corporate entity but not with Airbus per se.

I would frankly be horrified if A and B are not already collaborating. At the very least, each will have reps at all necessary and appropriate standards bodies, where they will sit together - with many others - in order to draw up industry-wide standards.

I would also suspect that there are fora looking well into the future where both will sit at the same table and contribute. I have no insight, but could imagine electric power, hydrogen power, ..... Seems that they went their separate ways on more recent battery options, for the 787 and 350 - maybe that was already "today's competitive technology", just a few years premature!

Best friends are often those who cannot work well or professionally together, while strong competitors often collaborate very well

There has been a steady flow in both directions between the USA and (initially) the UK and (more recently) the EU of military aircraft. Has Boeing been involved in any of these over the years - Canberra, Harrier, USM Hawk trainer, some helicopters, et all, and others that flowed the other way?

Anyway, I am 100% sure that the vast majority of technical/engineering/aeronautical staff in both companies have a great deal of mutual respect!

Government and industry occasionally form a joint research and development project. But the results are normally shared across the entire industry. China and Russia would contribute to the project, and share in the results.

Airbus and Boeing cooperate on things like safety standards, and they also cooperate on things like labeling for spares (at the request of the customers.) The latter has its genesis in the early 2000s.

N328KF wrote:

Airbus and Boeing cooperate on things like safety standards, and they also cooperate on things like labeling for spares (at the request of the customers.) The latter has its genesis in the early 2000s.

And through high tech subsidiaries at arms length.

The reality is every customer wants choice and competition. Every supplier wants domination, with boosted profits and lower R&D that follows. Every Government wants to be seen to please voters, maximise tax revenue, and minimise corporate dissatisfaction.

Seems more likely collaboration will occur for niche markets, such as the VLA at present.

PW and RR are working ever more closely together, in ad hoc projects and ways. Interesting how adversity can bring couples closer.

zeke wrote:

A metric Boeing.....

Haha, NASA is almost completely working on a metric base. But at the other hand, European plumbers (yes, those ordinary guys) are strictly sticking with the inch (25,4 mm) system, as well as the bicycle industry and the planemakers. Airbus uses ("imperial") Unified Thread Standard (UTS) screws, nuts, bolts etc. instead of their metric ISO/DIN counterparts.

As others have mentioned above, the common Boeing/Airbus VLA project had failed at an early stage..

parapente wrote:

As above there was a JV for the 747 replacement.
Now that both sides know the market is too small for one company it's not impossible (I suppose) for a JV to emerge again on an equal basis perhaps in 15 years time.
Both have (in the past) put forward Blended Wing designs in the 500-600 pax class.Perhaps with geared fan engines in the future they may talk.The economics of such a plane would make everything else look like a V8 gas guzzler!

I wouldn't count on ever seeing a BWB design flying for anything but cargo. Theater seating mockups have derided by passengers and evacuations (particularly with water landings) are still unresolved. I think it will be a major engineering effort to come up with an effective pressurization envelope that can take the strains during the aircraft service lifetime.

This sounds very synical but it's been a joint venture since airbus hit 50% market share. Just an unofficial one. Look up duopoly.

Although A/B do compete on price, they'd be competing on price a lot more if it was C, D, E and F!