Go to Saily.com/mentournow and use the code mentournow to get an exclusive 15% off your first purchase.

Never interrupt your enemy while they are making a mistake.

Perhaps you have heard the old joke... "There was a person flying over the Atlantic towards Canada. It was a 747. After a short time, engine 1 failed. The Captain came on and said: " I have to inform you that engine one has failed and so we will arive a bit late at our destination.". An hour later. Engine 2 failed. The Captain came back on. "I am sorry to inform you that we have had another engine failure and so our arrival has been put back 2 hours". 2 hours later.... Engine 3 failed. The Captain came back on and said; "I am sorry to inform you that we have lost engine 3 and our arrival time is now 6 hours from now." The passeneger looked to his buddy and said: "Heck, if we lose another engine we'll be up here all day."

As far as I know, the slogan "4 engines, for long haul" came from Virgin Atlantic and Airbus had simply adopted it for this airshow. That's why a Virgin A346 landed in front of the advert.

I always perceived the moto "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going" as safety related. Because, "I'm not going" is a relatively drastic Statement.

Honestly, Airbus doesn't need to go after Boeing. All they need to do is keep quiet and let Boeing cook. Why take the bad PR or sour business relationships when you don't have to? There's also the fact that some of their supply line overlaps with Boeing's - including Spirit Aerospace. So they want whatever's going on with Boeing and Spirit to go smoothly and negotiate either a good continuing contract for those parts or at least keep those parts coming while they find another manufacturer. Attacking Boeing doesn't serve either of those goals. While they want more airplane sales (because ofc they do), there's also the fact of when they'd actually be able to deliver those airplanes. So they certainly don't want a massive flood of orders that they won't be able to fulfill for decades. The current situation works pretty well for Airbus - they have one major competitor and they don't have the resources/space to take over if that competitor fails.

Wouldn't the old Boeing slogan "If it's not Boeing I'm not going" carry an implication that other aircraft aren't as safe as Boeing aircraft? It certainly has come back to haunt them in recent years, with plenty of people commenting on Boeing by reversing that slogan. That's probably another reason why using safety as a selling point is a bad idea, if you have a bad spate of accidents your own claims of being safe can come back to bite you, especially if your product is found to be at fault.

I think there is another aspect to not hammering Boeing into the ground. If Boeing goes under, it will only be a matter of time before Airbus trips over monopoly regulations. Like Microsoft helped save Apple when it was on the verge of bankruptcy, Airbus is better off not making waves for Boeing.

The Airbus ad suggests a recent oceanic accident, even without the small text which basically confirms it. A surprising piece of negative advertising for a market that requires implicit trust. It was a very brave decision for Airbus marketing to continue this theme in later ads. Great video!

On Airbus vs Boeing: Increasing production isn't as simpe because you also need to get all parts suppliers and engine suppliers to also be able to increase production. Airbus saw what happened to Boeing pushing the limits and rightfully is more conservative increasing production. Notable is that Airbus has a very very large orders from basket-case airlines that ordered a gazillion aircraft and am pretty sure delivery slots can be negotiated for airlines such as United. Same with lessors.

Airbus: Why should we? It's already done.

Video title makes a fair point. Airbus probably has a few Eurofighters lying around that could do the job.

An important name not really mentioned here is John Leahy. Chief commercial officer at Airbus between 94 and 2017, having earlier been head of sales at Airbus North America since the 80's. People might remember his marketing/PR style was often just generally very brash if not outright confrontational at times and given his role was to give Airbus a foothold, especially in North America, him and his approach can be somewhat compared to how Tom Kalinske ran Sega of America in the early-mid 90's, trying to break Nintendo's hold on that market (but with an ultimately more successful long-term result). Some of his quotes certainly *implied* potential safety concerns, such as saying the 787 was "rushed" to market with unreliable and immature systems. Having effectively achieving his targets and retiring by 2018, its not too unreasonable to say there has been at least a bit of a tone shift at Airbus since.

Well I think given the problems Airbus has to fullfill all of its current orders its kinda pointless to attack Boeing. They will need another 5-10 Years to even adapt their own production and get their supply fixed to increase production even to their level of demand. Things can backfire real fast if Airbus makes some stupid decisions as well. Another reason would be that a monopoly wouldnt really benefit airbus all that much either because of laws that exist to prevent monopolies. So it might just backfire as well.

You T-shirt has an early De Havilland Comet on it. I am nearly 80 years old and living in the Netherlands. My father was in charge of the ATC equipment at Heathrow Airprt (then called London airport) at the time when the Comet first entered service. At that time it was quite small, and had square windows et all. I used to watch them flying above our house on the approach to Heathrow. And then of course they started crashing.

You don't have to trash your competition when the media will do it for you. That's a double-edged sword, but why bother when you can ride out the MAX troubles by being the default choice?

If you've got there but have been told your return flight has been cancelled, be glad you're not on the ISS.

Why should Airbus do it? Boeing is doing great by itself...

The absolute irony of those A340 adverts is that the longest scheduled route operated today (over 18 hours) is being operated by twin engined Airbus A350s.

Pride cometh before the fall and all that. Airbus doesn’t want to publicly lay into Boeing, because their words would age like milk if any Airbus models have build quality issues.

On the other hand, a culture where people are afraid to question the safety of certain aircraft or designs or even a company's culture, is not a safe one

Here is a suggestion for a future video. There is a pretty widespread feeling that airplanes with 4 (or 3) engines are safer than airplanes with 2 engines. This seems to be true even among people knowledgeable with aviation. I worked on the development of the 777 and wondered and thought about this quite a bit. I'm not convinced that 2 engine airplanes designed to ETOPS requirements are not inherently safer. A couple reasons: Certain types of engine failures have the potential to take an airplane out. For example, in the case of a turbine disk failure, the segments the disk breaks into cannot be stopped - if one of them is aimed at the airplane structure, it will go right through potentially taking out important structure and systems. There are some ways to attempt to design around this - eg separated and redundant systems runs, but it still seems a problem. All you have to do is look at the Qantas A380 flight 32 engine failure and the astounding amount and variety of damage it did to see this.-this 4 engine airplane was nearly lost due to the failure of a single engine. Or, the Sioux City MD11 crash where the failure of a single engine brought the airplane down. Four engine airplanes having twice as many engines (I guess) about doubles the chances of an engine failure and it could be one of the very bad engine failures endangers the airplane. Another factor is takeoff performance. Commercial airplanes are required to be able to continue a takeoff with the failure of a single engine at a critical point. In this case, a 4 engine airplane loses 1/4 of its thrust, but a 2 engine airplane loses half its thrust. This effectively means a twin has to have more "excess" thrust on normal takeoffs (probably 99.9% of takeoffs) and this extra performance must in some cases must lead to more margin to overcome events that may happen on takeoff? In addition, the ETOPs requirements and ETOPs testing require many safety related changes to the airplane that are not required on 4 engine airplanes. So, how about and investigation and video on 2 engine vs 4 engine safety? Maybe there is even enough data out there now to look at the accident history?

Food for thought: Boeing still has "If its not Boeing, I'm not going" merch on their merch store as of July 2024...

As pointed out Airbus has its own issues which are being overlooked by the general media as any new Boeing mishap is an easy sell for their readers. Airbus has a golden opportunity to sort out its issues without attracting public interest

On the 340: Until 2009, ETOP maxed out at 180. And the early 1995 777, while having ETOPS had limited range, and it wasn't until the arly 2000s that the 777200LR came out. So both the 747 and 340 had an advantage over 777 in terms of flying more efficient routes, in particular polar flights. Where the 340 was unlucky is the timing of its launch just before massive engines for the 777 became available. But Boeing also played tricks to ensure Airbus didn't have access to those 777 engines. So Airbus was truly stuck with the 4 tiny engines for the 340 that required passengers have pedals below seats to help push plane for take off with plane barely able to stay up until passengers pedalled harder 🙂 (but it was a very quiet and comfortable aircraft with 8 across instead of the original 9 across for the 777 (now 10 across to make passenger journeys as miserable as possible). For polar routes, especially when Russia opened its airspace, the 4 engines were a huge advantage because a problem over russia stlll allowed the aircraft to continue to a western airport, while a 777 would have to land at a former soviet airbase designated as emergency landing site.

So Airbus has a an engineer for CEO? Interesting

Boeing does not need help to quit the commercial airplane market. Dave Calhoun was the best manager Airbus ever had

I'm old enough to remember when Boeing was calling the then young Airbus something to the tune of "a socialist failure".

Sun Tzu “never interrupt y our enemy when he is int he middle of making a mistake”

Before seeing the video, my guesses are : 1. Airbus has its own share of declining quality control issues, nothing as drastic but still, they'd rather avoid being too bullish and having it come back to haunt them. 2. Airbus doesn't have the production capacity to take over more market shares anyway. 3. Airbus doesn't want the US administration to feel they have to protect Boeing and take even more anti-competitive decisions in favour of Boeing.

Another great video, in which this one struck a particular chord with me. My wife have just flown again for the first time in about 20 years! Even though a bit of an aircraft buff in my earlier years, an incident occurred that had put me off flying for good (until now). My daughter, for her 16th birthday, wanted to go on an overseas holiday, in a plane for the first time. So we plucked up the courage, but did make some stipulations: It wasn't to be too long a flight; so we ended up flying about 2 and a half hours. It had to be from our nearest airport, which is an international airport but a small one; but only thirty minutes from where we live. We wanted to fly there and back in daylight. And last of all, it had to be in an Airbus and not a Boeing! All silly and irrational stuff I know, but we enjoyed both flights, so did the kids, and we're already planning on doing the same again next year.

“Attack” would mean they are making light of the fact that people actually unalive when airplanes mess up.

Kinda weird suggesting attacking safety issues from competitors puts the "safety culture at risk". Safety culture is making flying safe which this would actually encourage. What you are talking about here is purely the perception of safety even if that safety is in question.

That is quite clever... Airbus runs at 100% capacity now, and when the market scales down in a few years, it will hurt Boeing and not them.

Well, people aren’t afraid to fly in an airbus. They are afraid to fly with the competition

Mentour, Boeing competed on safety when hiding MCAS to offer the same Airbus advantage of no additional crew training. Also wrong, the B777 was not in every case "far" more efficient over the A340. Especially in hot and high conditions the A340'performed much better and efficient. You also conveniently forget how GE had a gentlemans agreement for over a decade with Boeing for large engines. Even the A350 could not get a GE engine with higher thrust then the GenX. GE has been never a neutral company regarding Airbus so their opinion means nothing. And P&W failed miserably to develop the GTF for the A340.

Hi Petter ! Excellent compilation as always ! When asking for examples on safety concerns on competitor "products" there is a statement by Boeing right after the A320 Habsheim event (AF296) back in 1988 where Boeing stated that in Boeing airplanes the pilot would be always the final control domain. In other words the pilot would always be able to overrule flight management systems. Isn't this also some sort of expressing safety concerns ? Well as we all learned from the Max8 incidents with in total 346 fatalities caused by the hidden MCAS this was not true anymore approx. 30 years later. Of course Boeing management was replaced several times meanwhile as we could oncemore learn from your recent video series. But from my point of view Boeing finally did the contrary to what they expressed right after the A320 Habsheim incident. And that might be even worse ... To be clear: Neither the A320 Habsheim incident nor the two Max8 incidents should ever have happened.

We will only fly Airbus. Too many examples of Boeing’s substandard safety culture to have any confidence in their products. Previous Boeing CEO’s have stated that Boeing needs to focus on shareholder profit rather than quality.

But if I had a choice of a 747, (4 Engines) or a 777, (2 Engines) on a Flight from Johannesburg and Perth, Australia - I'll choose the 747 everytime! I think the majority of other people would too! Wouldn't you? 🤔

In the fifties Boeing did show potential customers film of pressure testing of a de Havilland Comet fuselage verses Boeing 707 fuselage. While pressurized the Comet fuselage was sliced open by a sort of guillotine, at which point the whole fuselage split open. The 707 fuselage under the same test lost pressurization but did not split open. Boeing’s point was not so much to criticize de Havilland but rather to demonstrate a pressurized aluminium fuselage could be designed to avoid catastrophic failure. Boeing did this by ensuring the stringers and bulkheads were located close enough to each other to contain a crack in the fuselage skin rather than allowing it to grow catastrophically. Boeing felt it was important to show the world their new jetliner was safe from the fatigue issues experienced by the Comet.

If airbus could up it's production capabilities at will, Boeing would be in REALLY deep trouble. Maybe if Airbus had forseen, when the whole Max disaster started that it would hamper Boeing for that long, they may have tried to do that. But you could not possible imagine Boeing messing up that badly.

Airlines and aircraft manufacturers rarely criticize competitors' safety issues because they all know that the tables could easily turn on them the next day.

I don‘t think that the number of backorders are really an indication of needs for new airplanes. Just imagine the lead time would be one day. Most of the orders would be cancelled and the real demand would become visible. This could be the main reason why Boing and Airbus are hesitant to increase their capacities.

ETOPS: Engines Turn Or People Swim

Funny that Boeing said "To infer that one type of aircraft is safer, or another is riskier, is inaccurate and inappropriate." I am sure their inference at the time was sound, but it definitely hasn't stood the test of time lol. Oh and the later comment from Calhoun definitely hints that his days as a crook didn't just begin at Boeing. Excellent video as always, Petter.

I don’t see the problem with the extra fuel tank in the A321xlr. Most aircraft have a large centre tank which is below the fuselage and just as susceptible to a belly landing. The A320LR has a module in the fuselage used as a fuel tank as well.

Boeing has to replace the 737 Max with a clean sheet design. That is not optional. Airbus needs to do the same for the A320 so they don't let it get too old like Boeing did with the 737. Both companies also need to do this for other models. And then there are new technologies, including engine technologies, that they are both looking at. they both need to decide their timing and strategy for these things. Boeing and Airbus have a lot on their plates right now.

Hasn't Boeing criticized Airbus' "fly-by-wire" technology, stating something like it takes the pilot out of the equation (or partially out of the equation), and therefor indirect criticized the safety of Airbus' planes?

Manufacturers compete on safety wether they want to or not. As a customer I know the Boeing 737 Max is famously unreliable. As such I take pains not to travel with such planes, and filter away flights taking place on such planes when I order my tickets.

I even remember checking what air plain was supposed to be used when I book a oversea flight wit SAS.. Thence SAS use both the 340 and the 330 during som years in the 2000 decade.. I preferred the 340 because I was just intoxicated by the Commercial around just the safety with 4 engines, I think I was far from alone in that perspective.. 🤔

Because AIRBUS has no capacity for massively more orders. They are also reluctant to invest too much to expand.

Oh yeah, the creators of MCAS criticize competitor for having twice as many engines...

As always, informative, engaging, and quality production. I expect nothing else from Petter and his team! ❤

As someone that spent decades working for Airbus, nearly my entire professional life, I can add to your valid points: Airbus has always said none of us would want an air transport world with a single airframe supplier. It’s in everyone’s interest to have competition. Good for the airlines, good for the flying public, good for the Airbus and Boeing participant suppliers. After Boeing sorts out their C-suite management problems and gets back to sound engineering decisions, I’m confident they will regain their reputation. Boeing needs a white paper 150-175 seat narrow body aircraft.

Another issue might be, that they don't want to attract too much attention to smaller incidents with aircraft. Whilst it has died down by now, for a while every minor issue with a Boeing plane was picked up and reported by the major news outlets. Minor incidents happen all the time, even with Airbus planes. So encouraging a discourse where even minor issues get scrutanized is not in any manufacturers interest, as that scrutiny can just as easily be applied to their own products.

Love the Pinocchio nose on the jet! 😂

20:57 Also, a newcomer to the industry won’t have a safety record to stand on. We’re talking about incidents per millions of flight hours. Any insinuations would fall flat.

19:45 "who is an engineer btw". Nice stab! 🤣

Don’t forget the infamous “If it’s not Boeing, I’m not going” slogan a dozen years ago.They made T-Shits and apparel out of it. Strangely enough, after the MCAS scandal, this slogan kinda disappeared

There's more than one way to deal with higher demand, than to only increase production levels to accomodate a temporary spike in orders, either after a recession or a worldwide pandemic, and that is for airframe and engine manufacturers to put up prices. Both Airbus and Boeing have full orderbooks on many types, along with engine makers, so put up prices on them to claw back lost profits over lockdowns and make sure that profit margins are not so squeezed that it affects safety issues again. Economy travel is still very cheap for passengers, especially in Europe, so prices might have to go up, but really, in some cases, its cheaper by air than catching a bus. It might mean that many carriers on a budget can order less new aircraft, but will increase the second hand value of many aircraft that premier airlines are retiring and which still have life left in them. Rolls Royce put up prices, I think last year, and have been heavily criticised by the likes of the Emirates chairman, who thinks their price of the TotalCare engine maintenance package for the XWB-97 on the A350-1000 too expensive. Yet the laws of 'supply and demand', could have been specifically invented for the airline industry, who operate in the most opportunic way to fill a passenger aircraft, but are extremely vocal towards aircraft manufacturers who dare make a decent profit themselves. The response to Qatar dissing the A350 on a surface issue, now fixed, by Airbus cancelling their order schedule on all types, indicates that manufacturers are not so frightened of upsetting airlines as they once were, and airlines can see that with so few manufactuers in the market (and big problems at Boeing), especially on w/bodies, that they can't afford to fall out with them either. Of course, if the Chinese gain certification in the west of any of their types, and prove to be successful, then that's a ball changer, but is not on the cards in the foreseeable future, methinks........

Great episode once again, thank you! Curiously, airline booking sites like Kayak has a filter for customers to filter flights with no Boeing planes. Speaking of which, has this really affecting sales of flights with Boeing planes? Worth considering tackling this question for an incoming episode?

Does anyone remember the Takata airbag recall? When they were shut down the was no capacity in the industry to pick up the sudden increase in demand. So they cocked up, they learnt their lesson and they should have been supported throughout the recovery period and at the end of the day the market would have been much healthier, more competitive and no risk of a repeat.

A very interesting point you made at 10:00, and something i find funny is that the youtube sponsored ad before this video was a Mazda Commercial advertising that their safety ratings were higher than Subarus, and maybe you wouldnt want to drive that. Very different industries indeed.... but your point makes complete sense

that doesnt seem smart. Volvo has been advertising their safety and crash protection for decades and nobody bats an eyelid. whats wrong with advertising the safety of your vehicles?

Competing for safety? That seems like a brilliant engineering challenge. One that the nuclear power industry does already. It isnt about meeting minimums but rather collectively pushing for greater safety. Imagine if you find a safer way to run a reactor/plane and then encourage the rest to follow suit. Competing and holding each other to higher and higher standards allows an industry to be the safest it can be. If the goal is not to be last, then being second to last is just ok. But if the goal is being first, you don’t want to settle for second. You want to be the safest in your industry.

Simple. They really break even with the current model. You have two options: 1. Demand higher prices for new orders 2. Decrease unit costs. Scaling up production is true for many industries to achieve the latter but does not have to hold here and will always lower the price you can ask for.

Because less planes, since AB cant cover the whole demand, will hurt airbus in the long term as well. Specifically with raising ticket prices the US might discover superfast rail and start actually building something, and that will hurt them both.

A battery having thermal runaway on the ground is bad enough, but the same thing up in the air does not bear thinking about. Remember Dreamliner disasters with lithium batteries, and they were only small backup batteries....

Gaben: "wins by doing nothing" Airbus: "write that down"

My guess was that Airbus don't want anyone to attack them if they're ever in Boeing's position, so they don't want to set a precedent for that. I was partly right about that. I also thought of another possible contributing factor. Airbus & Boeing get parts made by the same companies. If Boeing goes under, suppliers like Spirit could go under & Airbus might struggle to get some of the parts they need.

Everyone pissed off at Airbus for that 4 engine A340 ad in the 90s is like that meme from Tangled where the whole tavern are pointing their swords at Flynn 🤣

I think there is an additional reason - the regulation of market power, specifically monopolistic pricing and behaviour - that focus would not only fall on Airbus but also the major engine manufacturers. Airbus needs a healthy duopoly, or at least the appearance of one.

Boeing was right to express concern over the large aft center fuel tank designed for the A231 XLR. The concern was expressed early, during the design review period, when there was time to assess the risk and make modifications as needed.

For the correct response to the Boeing spokesman, whose quote appears at the 16:02 mark, one only needs to quote the great Creed Bratton: "He wasn't inferring, he was implying. You were inferring."

This channel is incredibly interesting, my only piloting background is in hang-gliding but all the general issues regarding safety apply

The Boeing CEO said, "Straight from the tap, into the glass, " and continued with the advert.

The thought that comes to mind about touting your safety over someone else is you open yourself up when something happens on your aircraft. You lose trust since it looks like you either don't know what safety truly means or you do and chose not to do it.

In short, in a duopoly, both companies really need each other to push innovation and keep costs low. Different industry, but I'll use Subaru and Mitsubishi as an example. They used to make these two popular cars that were literally watered down rally cars, the WRX Sti and the EVO. Mitsubishi got into trouble financially and legally (due to mechanical problems and less than kosher financial bookkeeping). Subaru was left as the only manufacturer that was building the WRX sti. Eventually they stopped making the Sti and got out of WRC as well even though they still compete on the more local racing leagues. They still make the WRX, but its not quite the same as it was. Subaru wasn't making any progress on their engines as well and right now, it seems as if the company has no direction, although they are trying to boost their rugged, off-roading, nature image. I'm not sure what mitsubishi is doing.. Point is, both manufacturers, in competing with each other, brought out their best and some spectacular products were released. If Boeing reduced to the level of an Embraer, Airbus has no competition and will not be pushed/motivated to come out with anything worth noting. Will we see a newcomer? Perhaps, but this industry is brutal to newcomers. The newcomers have to come up to speed very quickly on ALL of the history that wrote the current airworthiness regulations. its not just putting a factor of 1.5 on stuff and calling it good. Testing, documentation, showing of compliance to multiple regulatory agencies (unless you are only planning to fly in one region), showing manufacturing can reliably stamp out airplanes, etc.

Yes, Airbus SA has many problems (huge backlogs, challenging supply chain issues, A 220 low productivity, etc.)! I am quite sure that Boeing (or other commercial plane manufacturers) would love very much to have these same problems.

that add attack on the comet from boeing is like now the airbus would do adds about tightening the screws or our flight computers not crashing the plane into the ground :D

It seems likely that Airbus and/or Boeing will introduce an even more efficient replacement for the A320 family and the 737 family before the over sized back log is eliminated. Of course a new competitor may also do that. It seems totally reasonable to expect that the back orders will only be eliminated when the orders are moved to a different model of airplane.

I guess Airbus is just fine. Wir sind hier nicht in Seattle, Dirk!

A Lego Concorde on the background would look amazing!

I live in Toulouse and work for a company that supplies Airbus with a lot of parts that only 2 companies in the world produce. Since we are struggling to meet the demand already on our company due to a lack of skilled workers and material shortages i dont see how Airbus could possibly increase production even if they wanted to as they are having the same problems to recruit people as we are along with their own shortages.

I think airbus knew much much earlier than we realised. The Bombardier's and Embraer's regional jet take over was one of the clue. Imagine if Bombardier, Embraer and Mitsubishi jets are still promising till this day.

Good informative video, as a non native speaker I can say you talk really clearly and I understand everything.

The only reason to continue using the same suppliers and such is that they maintain a traditional approach. The overall infrastructure is forcing everyone to maintain the status-quo with regards to overall design. For example, if we could get someone to design/build an airliner which flies above 60000ft, then supersonic travel would be more likely. However, because the infrastructure and cost-competitiveness is still most important factor, that is not going to happen. The cheapest way to move forwards is to not move forwards at all, but maintain.

I personally found Airbus's response to be classy. No one is happy about safety issues and more crashes (or the risk thereof), no one is happy that the confidence in the industry is declining... So for Airbus to take the "we are for you, and there's will not be happy if you're slacking" stance is just a solid move.

Perhaps a part of the reason Airbus doesn't want to expand their production lines too much to deal with the backlog is that they know some of those orders will be transferred to other planes, especially the orders near the end of the queue. We know that Airbus is working on its next generation of more efficient planes and they are most likely going to be announced before the last plane on the current order queue starts being assembled. Assume that you are the head of an airline, it was around 2030, and Airbus just announced (either publicly or to preferred customers, which you are one) their new line of planes. It would most likely be more advantageous to get in early on the new planes to take advantage of the extra efficiencies. Even if it took an extra year or two to start receiving your order the new technologies and better efficiencies would most likely make up the difference for having to run the existing fleet longer.

In an old book on the history of the 707, i heard of a video that showed blades piercing the fuselage of the airliner to simulate the effects of explosive decompression and how safe it was. If I am remembering right, it was shown to airline execs, so I don't know if it had any effects on public perceptions.

Always enjoy watching your videos on both channels. Thank you so much for

I guess one of the reasons to why the 380 still is very popular with passengers, is f..r engines!

Regarding Airbus, which itself refrains from attacking due to the numerous setbacks of its competitor Boeing, a catch phrase can be applied: "Do not shoot the ambulance ! ! !" : Boeing is already "sick", simply because of its own perhaps unwelcome actions, and with this episode of "bad karma"; the “medical convoy” could well, even if Airbus does nothing, become a funeral! ! And then for Airbus to be able to absorb additional orders the only solution I see is for Airbus to buy Boeing factories! ! ! These factories, newly Airbus, will still have to make the Boeing planes already ordered (what an irony) before these "ex-Boeing factories" can start making Airbus planes (~10 years after the buyout, time to supply the Boeings ordered )

I love the small comment on Airbus’s CEO actually being an engineer.. really tops off the ‘Boeings problem is it’s ran by accountants’ argument.

Since you mentioned possible other manufacturers that might enter the duopoly held by Boeing and Airbus: I would be really interested in your opinion on who those manufacturers might be

While the 1999 add is bad i don't see anything wrong with the air show one (4 engines 4 long haul): the reason the A340 had 4 engines was for long haul and the add is basically a play on 4 and for, it doesn't say a twin engines isn't safe it just say why they went with 4 engines.

Why attack a competitor when said competitor is digging its own grave? 😂

Maybe Airbus' philosophy goes along the lines of "But for the grace of God, there go I". 🙂

I cannot answer any of the questions you pose to your viewers. But I do appreciate your channel because you inform the great unwashed (like me) on facts and perspectives that - down the line - may be important for us to know. Thank you for the work you do Sir.

I honestly don’t understand why Boeing and Airbus even advertise at all. Buying aircraft’s is not an ad hoc decision and mostly based on TCO (total cost of ownership). Plus airlines are very loyal to there current supplier and will only choose to change on major business requirements.