Paris Air Show: GE Capital Aviation Services, GE's (GE) aircraft leasing arm, has confirmed that it has committed to purchasing 10 Boeing (BA) 787-10X aircraft in a deal valued at$2.9B at list prices, pending the launch of this larger version of the Dreamliner. SkyMark Airlines plans to buy at least four Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, making the carrier the first from Japan to commit to the latest variant of the 737. [View news story]
Hey, anybody else have trouble posting comments on Sky News HD? I tried to post the below comment but it never posts; it just sits there saying “Please wait while we add your comment” forever! I tried to comment on this story, “Paris Air Show: Airbus Beats Boeing, http://bit.ly/127H1Re”. I’m looking for volunteers to try and post my comment to see if it’s my computer, their web site, or maybe they just don’t like what I’m saying but won’t tell me that, hoping I’ll just go away?! :) ======================... The business press has a lot of fun with the yearly orders race between Boeing and Airbus, but is rather lacking, when it comes to providing context for those order numbers. For example, in the decade leading up to 2012 (last year), Airbus accumulated an order back log that is about 50% larger than Boeing’s. But, in 2012, Boeing delivered more planes than Airbus did!
It’s not difficult to understand how that could be. For one thing, the order numbers are not independently tabulated; Airbus “decides” what their order total is and Boeing decides theirs. Airbus has put a huge emphasis on winning the orders race each year and getting the business press to cover their wins, as if they were very meaningful.
The reason the order numbers are so “fudgeble” is that there is often little or no info for when many of the planes in an order are to be delivered. Therefore, you can simply get a “customer” to play along with the game and order planes for delivery, oh let’s say, in 2100. And then count those orders in this year’s order totals. Not that Airbus would EVER do anything like that to obtain a yearly order victory! :-)
Anyway, without knowing how many planes are to be delivered this year, next year, etc., the order numbers are not useful for comparing Boeing and Airbus, as 2012 demonstrated, as well as the financial numbers from the years prior to that.
Paris Air Show: GE Capital Aviation Services, GE's (GE) aircraft leasing arm, has confirmed that it has committed to purchasing 10 Boeing (BA) 787-10X aircraft in a deal valued at$2.9B at list prices, pending the launch of this larger version of the Dreamliner. SkyMark Airlines plans to buy at least four Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, making the carrier the first from Japan to commit to the latest variant of the 737. [View news story]
Looks like Airbus is working hard to win the orders race this year; they’ll “make it happen”, like they did 9 out 10 times leading up to 2012, accumulating something like 50% more orders than Boeing. But then in 2012, Boeing delivered more planes than Airbus did. The very shallow business press coverage of the orders race, much to the delight of Airbus, I’m sure, helps Airbus give the impression that they are much more successful than Boeing. Simply checking that against the standard financial numbers, which do not support that contention, reveals how little significance the orders race has. It appears to be beyond the abilities of the business press to put those numbers into context, with some financial numbers! It’s really not that hard to figure out why the “real” numbers don’t support the “unreal” order numbers, particularly the Airbus orders, which for more than a decade now, have projected a much more successful Airbus than has been the case, in comparison to Boeing.
The problem with the order numbers, aside from the fact that they are not independent numbers, is that there is little or no info on when many of the planes in an order are to be delivered. Without knowing how many orders are scheduled to be delivered this year, next year, etc., order numbers are almost meaningless. Obviously that massive Airbus order backlog which is 50% larger than Boeing’s, has a lot of orders that are further out than Boeings. Either that or Airbus missed delivery dates in 2012, right? There has been a lot of coverage of Boeing being late with deliveries and customer attempts at getting compensated for those delays, which shows that Boeing had more order delivery dates for 2012, not to mention prior years, than they were able to deliver. I've not seen much (any?) coverage of Airbus missing delivery dates?
Without being able to tabulate how many planes each company is scheduled to deliver each year, orders do not tell a meaningful story. It’s not difficult to see that the order numbers can be very misleading; the bottom line numbers, AKA the financial numbers, which are not so easy to fudge, show how unreliable the order numbers have been for comparing Boeing to Airbus.
Paris Air Show: GE Capital Aviation Services, GE's (GE) aircraft leasing arm, has confirmed that it has committed to purchasing 10 Boeing (BA) 787-10X aircraft in a deal valued at$2.9B at list prices, pending the launch of this larger version of the Dreamliner. SkyMark Airlines plans to buy at least four Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, making the carrier the first from Japan to commit to the latest variant of the 737. [View news story]
Hey, thomas85225, do you have a Reader's Digest version of all that? What's you point(s)? :)
Airbus' (EADSF.PK) A350 wide-bodied jet has taken off from the company's Toulouse factory on its maiden flight after eight years of development that has cost an estimated $15B. Built with lightweight carbon composites and boasting increased fuel efficiency, the A350 is seen as a direct competitor to Boeing's (BA) troubled 787. The A350 has so far attracted over 600 orders. [View news story]
Relating to the above comments: The 787 production rate is currently at 7 / month, going to 10 / month by the end of this year and plans for increasing that going forward. Airbus hopes to be producing 4 A350s / month by the end of 2014 and has over 600 orders to date. Obviously, it'll be a while before Airbus will be delivering the A350s in any large quantities.
Boeing does have a large backlog for the 737NG but the newest model being sold is the 737-MAX, which is selling quite well.
The A350 uses composite panels, attached to a frame, as is the case with aluminum panels. The 787 has a solid composite tube; holes are cut into that solid tube for the windows and doors. That's significantly different than the A350 and some of Airbus's customers were not happy when Airbus refused to match the 787 solid tube technology.
I'm sure Airbus will take in a lot of orders for the A350. They're very good at padding their yearly order totals; it's of the highest importance to Airbus to beat Boeing's yearly order total. They reported something like 50% more orders in the decade leading up to 2012 but then Boeing delivered more planes in 2012 than Airbus did. Airbus is always better than Boeing, in the future! :)
Airbus (EADSF.PK) is the front-runner in negotiations with European budget carrier EasyJet. The airline may buy ~100 re-engined A320neo jets in an order worth $10B, a blow to Bowing (BA +1%) which lost the account in 2002. (Reuters) [View news story]
OUCH, BA stock probably just crashed today; that's a really big blow. :( HMmmm, let's see how bad it was - - - - OK, BA +$1.28! Apparently Mr. Market doesn't agree with you – ‘probably just hasn't read your post, you suppose?! :)
For some context on Airbus orders, the Airbus order back log (as calculated by Airbus - there are no independent numbers on orders) is somewhere around 50% larger than Boeing's reported order backlog. This accumulation occurred primarily during the decade leading up to 2012. But then in 2012, Boeing delivered more planes than Airbus did! Explain that one; OK, I’ll do it. :)
As I noted above, there are no independent numbers for orders; Boeing reports their numbers and Airbus reports their order numbers each year, usually after waiting to see what Boeing reports so they’ll know what number they need to GEN up to retain the title. :) The Airbus order numbers imply that Airbus is much more successful than Boeing, and you’d expect, Airbus delivers would be larger than Boeing’s, right? However, the bottom line numbers, which are not as easy to fudge as the order numbers, refute that implication (revenue, profits, market cap. etc.). The reason order numbers are so “worthless” is that there is no reporting as to when the aircraft will be delivered and often, a large portion of the orders are only commitments to do the orders at some future date (no delivery dates exist). But, to be useful, one would need to know how many of the orders are to be delivered in each succeeding year. I’ve never seen any such compilation and was told, in a reply to my discussion as to why order numbers are not meaningful, that those numbers are not available, i.e. the companies do not provide that detail. In my opinion, without that detail, they are worthless and the 2012 delivery numbers support that contention.
Normally, one would expect that orders would project future business activity but, a number of Airbus “futures” have passed by without the Airbus order “projections” resulting in Airbus “crushing” Boeing. :) Never fear, there’s always a future to look forward to: stand by! :)
OK, thanks again, also, Dhierin; I appreciate your civil tone - I don't do as well, sometimes, sorry. :)
I'll just make one more comment; this is a hot button issue for me and I usually don’t get an answer, to what I consider “my” key points (evidence of the lack of significance of the Boeing and Airbus order numbers). Ordinarily, I think, orders would (and should) indicate what the future holds for a company. But, on paper, Airbus's order book has been much larger than Boeing's for a number of years now (I believe that's true, right). Previous projections for growth, based on those numbers, would have put Airbus deliveries way ahead of Boeing by now but that didn't happen in 2012, despite Boeing’s tardiness on 787 deliveries.
When I pointed out those 2012 delivery numbers, you replied "The only explanation for Boeing's deliveries being higher than Airbus' is that Boeing has a higher production rate and keeps increasing it". That’s true, of course, but I don’t see how that addresses my question. Given Airbus’s much larger order book, if their delivery schedule required it, they would just increase their production rate – which they are able to do as well as Boeing. But they didn’t; why? I say it’s more likely that they don’t have the delivery requirements, which goes to my point that Airbus’s order book is filled with orders, that on average, go out further into the future than Boeing’s order book.
As you noted, it is difficult if not impossible to get the kind of detailed info on orders, that I would like to see tabulated, in particular when all those planes are scheduled to be delivered. You site that they are “firm” orders; but “firm orders are hardly firm, when it comes to deliveries far out into the future. The fact that detailed info for aircraft orders isn’t available, I'd say, is another good reason not to put much significance on those numbers.
Numbers should never be taken to stand alone; you always need to have some way to audit them, generally with other numbers that support them. In the case of aircraft orders, especially the Airbus orders compared to Boeing orders, I don’t see the “auditable” numbers supporting what Airbus orders imply (Revenue, profits, dividends, deliveries/production et al).
OK, I’ve got that off my chest. :) I guess you and I can just agree to disagree. I do appreciate you taking the time to respond; most of the time, I never get any response. And I enjoy reading your analysis (and commenting on them). :)
Dhierin, the problem with the order numbers is that there is no consistency as to when the ordered planes are to be delivered. For an exaggerated illustration, let’s say that Boeing’s 8500 orders were all to be delivered before 2015 and that Airbus’s 12000 orders were not to be delivered until 2030. Obviously, without knowing when the ordered planes will be delivered, “orders” have no context. And, without that context, i.e. x number of those 12000 orders are to be delivered in 2014, y in 2015 etc, the order numbers are not meaningful. I suspect that that’s why Boeing delivered more planes in 2012 than Airbus, i.e. Boeing’s deliveries for their orders were not as far out as Airbus’s orders.
That’s why I say it would be very interesting to see a table, based on each company's orders, of the scheduled deliveries, by year, going forward and compare them with actual deliveries in the past and going forward.
At any rate, the usual financial numbers are the bottom line numbers for measuring a company’s success and, as I’ve pointed out in the past, they do not confirm the implication that the order numbers would suggest. Just another reason one should question those order numbers usefulness.
Does Qatar Airlines still have a bad taste in its mouth after 787 Dreamliner delays caused it to forego $200M in revenue until April? "We like launching aircraft but not every aircraft. We are not a supermarket," the airline says, denying reports that it will be one of the launch customers for the Boeing (BA) 787-10X, a larger version of the now infamous original. [View news story]
It is much too early to term the 787 program "infamous"! You might take a look at the early years of the "infamous" 737 program - perhaps you called that program "infamous" back then? But then, if you were around back then, you probably wouldn't be so foolhardy as to call the 787 infamous at this early date! :)
Your analysis assumes that Airbus orders and Boeing orders are comparable, i.e. equal in significance. However, there are no independent numbers for orders; Boeing "decides" what their yearly orders totals are and Airbus waits to see Boeing's numbers and then reports their yearly order total. :) One year, analysts had pretty much decided that Boeing had finally won the yearly orders race but after quite some time after Boeing had reported their order numbers, Airbus finally reported their order numbers and, shock-er-rou, Airbus won again! :) I remember one analyst who just ignored the Airbus numbers and continued to say Boeing won.
Deliveries, on the other hand, are a more difficult to fudge. For example, in the decade leading up to 2012, Airbus reported taking in more orders every year except one. Then, in 2012, Boeing delivered more planes than Airbus did!
What I'd love to see is a table showing the delivery dates for the orders taken in, e.g. if the delivery dates for Airbus planes are further out than Boeing's, that would explain how Boeing could deliver more planes than Airbus after a decade of fewer orders than Airbus. I've not seen anyone attempt to explain why the Airbus order "victories" didn't translate into a delivery victory in 2012. I'm guessing, which I've thought for quite some time now, that Airbus takes orders for deliveries going further out than Boeing? If you had a table showing how many deliveries those pervious yearly orders would have resulted in, each past year, vs. the actual deliveries in those years, I'm sure you'd see major discrepancies (for both companies). But, despite the unreliability of the order numbers, much to Airbus's delight (they successfully used them to project a more successful image, in comparison to Boeing, than is justified), they are still hyped in the press as if they were as significant as the financial numbers. But, as 2012 has shown, they are not even reliable as an indicator of future financial performance.
Boeing (BA) receives an order for 60 737 MAX aircraft from British holiday company TUI Travel (TUIVY.PK) in a deal worth $6.1B at list prices, with the booking also including an option for another 90 planes. The order is so large that it will require the consent of TUI's shareholders. The jets will use LEAP-1B engines, which are made by CFM International, the joint venture partly owned by GE (GE). (PR) [View news story]
kwm3, you're not suggesting that Boeing pads their order numbers more than Airbus does, are you? Airbus "reported" taking in more orders than Boeing 9 out of 10 years leading up to 2012; if you added up all their claimed yearly orders, Airbus had a huge advantage over Boeing. But, then, in 2012, Boeing delivered more planes than Airbus did! Airbus is clearly the king when it comes to padding order numbers! :)
The 787 Dreamliner is back in the air in the U.S. as the CEOs of Boeing (BA) and United Airlines (UAL) fly with 250 other passengers from Houston to Chicago aboard the jet. [View news story]
Combie, where did you get that "2 or 3 a month" figure from? It's been widely reported that the current rate is at 7 and will be at 10 by the end of they year. How could be so "out of date" and expect anyone to pay any attention to what you have to say?!
Boeing: Great Company, Little Upside [View article]
The main point of this opinion piece appears to be that Boeing will not be able to grow at the rate that analysts are expecting; significant growth is the main driver for the recent stock price increase. But, citing domestic airlines buying Airbus planes is off the mark. Even Air France buys Boeing planes. Boeing has a large backlog of orders and appears to finally be getting manufacturing up to where they'll be able to deliver on time. That's what will drive up revenue and profits significantly, for a number years, going forward.
The outlook for Boeing (BA) has improved according to Soc Gen's Zafar Khan who upgrades the shares to Hold from Sell and raises his price target to $94 from $86. The stock still has some "catching up" to do with its civil peers but solid Q1 results and a resolution to the 787 battery problem point to "strong cash generation in the medium term [which should] support the buyback program as well as dividend increases," Khan notes. [View news story]
bberuch "peut-etra Societe General pense que De Gaule ete le factoire major de le victoire de WWII?"
The outlook for Boeing (BA) has improved according to Soc Gen's Zafar Khan who upgrades the shares to Hold from Sell and raises his price target to $94 from $86. The stock still has some "catching up" to do with its civil peers but solid Q1 results and a resolution to the 787 battery problem point to "strong cash generation in the medium term [which should] support the buyback program as well as dividend increases," Khan notes. [View news story]
"The stock still has some "catching up" to do with its civil peers"; interesting term, "civil peers"?! Who might that be, other than EADS / Airbus?
Boeing's PE is now at 17.67, EADS/Airbus is 27.58. Even with that rather large PE, EADS Mkt cap is much lower than Boeing's 71.50B. So Soc Gen says Boeing is a HOLD and EADS is a BUY?! OK, time will tell.
Paris Air Show: GE Capital Aviation Services, GE's (GE) aircraft leasing arm, has confirmed that it has committed to purchasing 10 Boeing (BA) 787-10X aircraft in a deal valued at$2.9B at list prices, pending the launch of this larger version of the Dreamliner. SkyMark Airlines plans to buy at least four Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, making the carrier the first from Japan to commit to the latest variant of the 737. [View news story]
======================...
The business press has a lot of fun with the yearly orders race between Boeing and Airbus, but is rather lacking, when it comes to providing context for those order numbers. For example, in the decade leading up to 2012 (last year), Airbus accumulated an order back log that is about 50% larger than Boeing’s. But, in 2012, Boeing delivered more planes than Airbus did!
It’s not difficult to understand how that could be. For one thing, the order numbers are not independently tabulated; Airbus “decides” what their order total is and Boeing decides theirs. Airbus has put a huge emphasis on winning the orders race each year and getting the business press to cover their wins, as if they were very meaningful.
The reason the order numbers are so “fudgeble” is that there is often little or no info for when many of the planes in an order are to be delivered. Therefore, you can simply get a “customer” to play along with the game and order planes for delivery, oh let’s say, in 2100. And then count those orders in this year’s order totals. Not that Airbus would EVER do anything like that to obtain a yearly order victory! :-)
Anyway, without knowing how many planes are to be delivered this year, next year, etc., the order numbers are not useful for comparing Boeing and Airbus, as 2012 demonstrated, as well as the financial numbers from the years prior to that.
Paris Air Show: GE Capital Aviation Services, GE's (GE) aircraft leasing arm, has confirmed that it has committed to purchasing 10 Boeing (BA) 787-10X aircraft in a deal valued at$2.9B at list prices, pending the launch of this larger version of the Dreamliner. SkyMark Airlines plans to buy at least four Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, making the carrier the first from Japan to commit to the latest variant of the 737. [View news story]
The problem with the order numbers, aside from the fact that they are not independent numbers, is that there is little or no info on when many of the planes in an order are to be delivered. Without knowing how many orders are scheduled to be delivered this year, next year, etc., order numbers are almost meaningless. Obviously that massive Airbus order backlog which is 50% larger than Boeing’s, has a lot of orders that are further out than Boeings. Either that or Airbus missed delivery dates in 2012, right? There has been a lot of coverage of Boeing being late with deliveries and customer attempts at getting compensated for those delays, which shows that Boeing had more order delivery dates for 2012, not to mention prior years, than they were able to deliver. I've not seen much (any?) coverage of Airbus missing delivery dates?
Without being able to tabulate how many planes each company is scheduled to deliver each year, orders do not tell a meaningful story. It’s not difficult to see that the order numbers can be very misleading; the bottom line numbers, AKA the financial numbers, which are not so easy to fudge, show how unreliable the order numbers have been for comparing Boeing to Airbus.
Paris Air Show: GE Capital Aviation Services, GE's (GE) aircraft leasing arm, has confirmed that it has committed to purchasing 10 Boeing (BA) 787-10X aircraft in a deal valued at$2.9B at list prices, pending the launch of this larger version of the Dreamliner. SkyMark Airlines plans to buy at least four Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, making the carrier the first from Japan to commit to the latest variant of the 737. [View news story]
Airbus' (EADSF.PK) A350 wide-bodied jet has taken off from the company's Toulouse factory on its maiden flight after eight years of development that has cost an estimated $15B. Built with lightweight carbon composites and boasting increased fuel efficiency, the A350 is seen as a direct competitor to Boeing's (BA) troubled 787. The A350 has so far attracted over 600 orders. [View news story]
The 787 production rate is currently at 7 / month, going to 10 / month by the end of this year and plans for increasing that going forward. Airbus hopes to be producing 4 A350s / month by the end of 2014 and has over 600 orders to date. Obviously, it'll be a while before Airbus will be delivering the A350s in any large quantities.
Boeing does have a large backlog for the 737NG but the newest model being sold is the 737-MAX, which is selling quite well.
The A350 uses composite panels, attached to a frame, as is the case with aluminum panels. The 787 has a solid composite tube; holes are cut into that solid tube for the windows and doors. That's significantly different than the A350 and some of Airbus's customers were not happy when Airbus refused to match the 787 solid tube technology.
I'm sure Airbus will take in a lot of orders for the A350. They're very good at padding their yearly order totals; it's of the highest importance to Airbus to beat Boeing's yearly order total. They reported something like 50% more orders in the decade leading up to 2012 but then Boeing delivered more planes in 2012 than Airbus did. Airbus is always better than Boeing, in the future! :)
Airbus (EADSF.PK) is the front-runner in negotiations with European budget carrier EasyJet. The airline may buy ~100 re-engined A320neo jets in an order worth $10B, a blow to Bowing (BA +1%) which lost the account in 2002. (Reuters) [View news story]
For some context on Airbus orders, the Airbus order back log (as calculated by Airbus - there are no independent numbers on orders) is somewhere around 50% larger than Boeing's reported order backlog. This accumulation occurred primarily during the decade leading up to 2012. But then in 2012, Boeing delivered more planes than Airbus did! Explain that one; OK, I’ll do it. :)
As I noted above, there are no independent numbers for orders; Boeing reports their numbers and Airbus reports their order numbers each year, usually after waiting to see what Boeing reports so they’ll know what number they need to GEN up to retain the title. :) The Airbus order numbers imply that Airbus is much more successful than Boeing, and you’d expect, Airbus delivers would be larger than Boeing’s, right? However, the bottom line numbers, which are not as easy to fudge as the order numbers, refute that implication (revenue, profits, market cap. etc.). The reason order numbers are so “worthless” is that there is no reporting as to when the aircraft will be delivered and often, a large portion of the orders are only commitments to do the orders at some future date (no delivery dates exist). But, to be useful, one would need to know how many of the orders are to be delivered in each succeeding year. I’ve never seen any such compilation and was told, in a reply to my discussion as to why order numbers are not meaningful, that those numbers are not available, i.e. the companies do not provide that detail. In my opinion, without that detail, they are worthless and the 2012 delivery numbers support that contention.
Normally, one would expect that orders would project future business activity but, a number of Airbus “futures” have passed by without the Airbus order “projections” resulting in Airbus “crushing” Boeing. :) Never fear, there’s always a future to look forward to: stand by! :)
Boeing, EADS And The Future Market [View article]
Have a good day,
garry
Boeing, EADS And The Future Market [View article]
I'll just make one more comment; this is a hot button issue for me and I usually don’t get an answer, to what I consider “my” key points (evidence of the lack of significance of the Boeing and Airbus order numbers). Ordinarily, I think, orders would (and should) indicate what the future holds for a company. But, on paper, Airbus's order book has been much larger than Boeing's for a number of years now (I believe that's true, right). Previous projections for growth, based on those numbers, would have put Airbus deliveries way ahead of Boeing by now but that didn't happen in 2012, despite Boeing’s tardiness on 787 deliveries.
When I pointed out those 2012 delivery numbers, you replied "The only explanation for Boeing's deliveries being higher than Airbus' is that Boeing has a higher production rate and keeps increasing it". That’s true, of course, but I don’t see how that addresses my question. Given Airbus’s much larger order book, if their delivery schedule required it, they would just increase their production rate – which they are able to do as well as Boeing. But they didn’t; why? I say it’s more likely that they don’t have the delivery requirements, which goes to my point that Airbus’s order book is filled with orders, that on average, go out further into the future than Boeing’s order book.
As you noted, it is difficult if not impossible to get the kind of detailed info on orders, that I would like to see tabulated, in particular when all those planes are scheduled to be delivered. You site that they are “firm” orders; but “firm orders are hardly firm, when it comes to deliveries far out into the future. The fact that detailed info for aircraft orders isn’t available, I'd say, is another good reason not to put much significance on those numbers.
Numbers should never be taken to stand alone; you always need to have some way to audit them, generally with other numbers that support them. In the case of aircraft orders, especially the Airbus orders compared to Boeing orders, I don’t see the “auditable” numbers supporting what Airbus orders imply (Revenue, profits, dividends, deliveries/production et al).
OK, I’ve got that off my chest. :) I guess you and I can just agree to disagree. I do appreciate you taking the time to respond; most of the time, I never get any response. And I enjoy reading your analysis (and commenting on them). :)
Thanks,
garry
Boeing, EADS And The Future Market [View article]
That’s why I say it would be very interesting to see a table, based on each company's orders, of the scheduled deliveries, by year, going forward and compare them with actual deliveries in the past and going forward.
At any rate, the usual financial numbers are the bottom line numbers for measuring a company’s success and, as I’ve pointed out in the past, they do not confirm the implication that the order numbers would suggest. Just another reason one should question those order numbers usefulness.
Does Qatar Airlines still have a bad taste in its mouth after 787 Dreamliner delays caused it to forego $200M in revenue until April? "We like launching aircraft but not every aircraft. We are not a supermarket," the airline says, denying reports that it will be one of the launch customers for the Boeing (BA) 787-10X, a larger version of the now infamous original. [View news story]
Boeing, EADS And The Future Market [View article]
Your analysis assumes that Airbus orders and Boeing orders are comparable, i.e. equal in significance. However, there are no independent numbers for orders; Boeing "decides" what their yearly orders totals are and Airbus waits to see Boeing's numbers and then reports their yearly order total. :) One year, analysts had pretty much decided that Boeing had finally won the yearly orders race but after quite some time after Boeing had reported their order numbers, Airbus finally reported their order numbers and, shock-er-rou, Airbus won again! :) I remember one analyst who just ignored the Airbus numbers and continued to say Boeing won.
Deliveries, on the other hand, are a more difficult to fudge. For example, in the decade leading up to 2012, Airbus reported taking in more orders every year except one. Then, in 2012, Boeing delivered more planes than Airbus did!
What I'd love to see is a table showing the delivery dates for the orders taken in, e.g. if the delivery dates for Airbus planes are further out than Boeing's, that would explain how Boeing could deliver more planes than Airbus after a decade of fewer orders than Airbus. I've not seen anyone attempt to explain why the Airbus order "victories" didn't translate into a delivery victory in 2012. I'm guessing, which I've thought for quite some time now, that Airbus takes orders for deliveries going further out than Boeing? If you had a table showing how many deliveries those pervious yearly orders would have resulted in, each past year, vs. the actual deliveries in those years, I'm sure you'd see major discrepancies (for both companies). But, despite the unreliability of the order numbers, much to Airbus's delight (they successfully used them to project a more successful image, in comparison to Boeing, than is justified), they are still hyped in the press as if they were as significant as the financial numbers. But, as 2012 has shown, they are not even reliable as an indicator of future financial performance.
Boeing (BA) receives an order for 60 737 MAX aircraft from British holiday company TUI Travel (TUIVY.PK) in a deal worth $6.1B at list prices, with the booking also including an option for another 90 planes. The order is so large that it will require the consent of TUI's shareholders. The jets will use LEAP-1B engines, which are made by CFM International, the joint venture partly owned by GE (GE). (PR) [View news story]
The 787 Dreamliner is back in the air in the U.S. as the CEOs of Boeing (BA) and United Airlines (UAL) fly with 250 other passengers from Houston to Chicago aboard the jet. [View news story]
Boeing: Great Company, Little Upside [View article]
The outlook for Boeing (BA) has improved according to Soc Gen's Zafar Khan who upgrades the shares to Hold from Sell and raises his price target to $94 from $86. The stock still has some "catching up" to do with its civil peers but solid Q1 results and a resolution to the 787 battery problem point to "strong cash generation in the medium term [which should] support the buyback program as well as dividend increases," Khan notes. [View news story]
Say what now??? :)
The outlook for Boeing (BA) has improved according to Soc Gen's Zafar Khan who upgrades the shares to Hold from Sell and raises his price target to $94 from $86. The stock still has some "catching up" to do with its civil peers but solid Q1 results and a resolution to the 787 battery problem point to "strong cash generation in the medium term [which should] support the buyback program as well as dividend increases," Khan notes. [View news story]
Boeing's PE is now at 17.67, EADS/Airbus is 27.58. Even with that rather large PE, EADS Mkt cap is much lower than Boeing's 71.50B. So Soc Gen says Boeing is a HOLD and EADS is a BUY?! OK, time will tell.