Talk:Competition between Airbus and Boeing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Focus on orders instead of revenue[edit]

This article is quite good, but the focus is very heavy on the number of orders for each manufacturer, which is a bit misleading. An order for an A320 is in no way equal to an order for an A380. For this reason, I think revenue would be a much better indicator of how the companies are doing in terms of competition. Either that, or total value of orders. (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC) (BonusOnus)

The individual prices paid for planes by airlines is commercially secret and isnt released, revenue is a good additional indicator but cant be directly compared due to the additional non-commercial aircraft activities of Boeing and Airbus parent EADS such as warplanes, research contracts, weapons, etc... WatcherZero (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Attempting to compare the costs of individual deals would be a sisyphean task, considering the size of the market that A and B have divided between them. Overall revenue is easier to keep track of. Generally speaking, the military divisions are operationally separate and it's possible to get separate figures; although I don't doubt that both A and B indulge in a little transfer pricing from time to time, that's likely to be a very small distortion of the airliner business' figures. Simply counting aircraft ignores the complexity of the mix - you might as well say that Cessna is a bigger manufacturer than A and B combined. bobrayner (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Number of planes is a good ready reckoner because A & B compete across almost identical markets, (unlike Cessna). Revenue or value of planes would be of interest but maybe impractical to obtain. Profitability of both would be easy from annual reports but that does not indicate the influence each have on the industry or whose planes we are likely to be seeing flying around. Keep the plane numbers, everybody can understand that and it tells a story. Ex nihil (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • This is the straightforward and fair way to go here. They will sell airliners for below list prices at times, such as for launch customers and large orders. Revenue is also made sale of parts and support. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Wait, what? Revenue would be impractical to obtain? Well, I suppose many folk tend to approach this article from an aviation-fan angle and might not be familiar with the basics of financial reporting Face-smile.svg
  • Airbus: Google Airbus 2010 annual report and click on the first result. Open the "financial statements" PDF. Scroll down to the segment reporting table; Airbus revenue was €27,067m in 2010 (EADS total was €45752m).
  • Boeing: Google Boeing 2010 annual report and click on the first result. Scroll down to the first big table of numbers. Boeing Commercial Aircraft revenue was $31834m in 2010 (Boeing total was $64306m).
Revenue is the most basic number a business can report. Revenue also reflects the mix of aircraft types (if A sells more expensive aircraft than B, A's revenue is higher) and it also reflects discounting (If A has to slash prices to get sales, A's revenue is lower). $1 or €1 is a fixed amount, so you can put two numbers together and compare them fairly, but the value/importance of an aircraft is definitely not fixed and the two are making different aircraft, so you can't put two numbers of planes together and compare them fairly. was right; it would be a good idea to mention revenue. bobrayner (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • So you're saying it does not really matter if non-sales revenue is included then, right? -Fnlayson (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
If you think it's a good idea, why not add the figure? (Add, note, not replace another figure.) It's hardly going to do any harm. Then if anyone has any violent objection they can explain here why they don't think the information should be present. The main problem I see is that for the figures to be comparable without further effort a currency conversion would be necessary and that is not constant. PRL42 (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Revenue quoted from the ARs is not going to compare apples with apples. The companies are structured very differently. Taking those figures from the annual reports is going to be misleading. I think it will take too much analysis of A&B's Annual Reports to come up with a figure that meant anything. But, by all means have a go. If they both have an isolated line in there for revenue from commercial aircraft sales, and if they have accounted for that in comparable ways, and if they both come under the same accounting standards, then go for it. Might be tricky. Ex nihil (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's not going to be a terribly meaningful comparison but then neither is comparing the number of aircraft ordered. One could come up with any number of metrics - such as the total maximum configured seats or the tonnage. Each metric would have its own particular problems. PRL42 (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Also the issue of development costs, one off adjustments, tax refunds, research contracts, writeoffs, interest on cash reserves, fluctuating exchange rate, for example the Airbus commercial aircraft revenue accounts you quoted abobe exclude 606m internal company cross charging 'carried out at arms length' for a total of 27,673, (presumably from airframes for non commercial divisions). WatcherZero (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure who you think you are replying to - I did not quote any revenue accounts. I've already said that it would not be a meaningful figure but then neither is number of aircraft - at least in so far as determining which company is doing best. As someone has already pointed out, on the basis of the number of aircraft produced, Cessna would be doing better than either. If there was a nominal 'list price' you might be able to do something. PRL42 (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The nominal list prices are, alas, nominal. Large discounts from those prices are routine, and the real prices are rarely published (sometimes they may be, but not consistently enough for us to compare A versus B). On the other hand, A and B's revenues are consistently published, and reflect how much their products were actually worth on the market. bobrayner (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you try find some reputable financial publication that does the comparison. They are less likely to fall into accounting traps, and adding the comparison from a reliable secondary source is less likely to be considered WP:OR. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the thrust of the first comment on this thread. This article is headlined Competition between Airbus and Boeing and the question that I (and I guess many others) would like answered is: Who is winning? Definitively providing an answer to that is probably beyond the scope of this. But still, the text on this is confused and misleading and unreferenced: "In the early 2000s Airbus received 6,452 orders, while Boeing received 5,927. Airbus had higher deliveries during 2003-2009, but fell slightly short of Boeing's deliveries overall, delivering 3,810 aircraft in comparison to Boeing's 3,950." As a reader, I look at that and think it's unreliable - how can Airbus have higher deliveries but fall short of Boeing??? So I then turn to the table of orders and deliveries - and this seems to bear no relation to the earlier text and also gives the impression that Boeing is winning hands down. But to quote Bloomberg Business Week from August 2011: "Boeing is the world’s second-largest commercial planemaker, after ceding the top spot to Airbus in 2003." Is there anyone here who knows enough to fix this? Willbown (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It might be beast to remove all text of the 'x is/was doing better than y'. Apart from the problems with which metric to use you can get pretty much any result you like by picking your timeframe. PRL42 (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Rename Article[edit]

The Evil IP address had moved this article to Airbus–Boeing competition. I have moved this back as i couldnt find a discussion regarding this. --JetBlast (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That would imply that any move is invalid unless first discussed, which sounds a bit silly to me. Presumably you prefer the old name and that's the real reason for moving back. Could you discuss why the old name is better? Personally, I think Evil IP's move was a good one, as it's more concise but loses neither meaning nor neutrality. bobrayner (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, the title Airbus–Boeing competition is less clear. "Airbus–Boeing" could be mistaken for a single entity, with "competition" referring to some sort of contest that it organized. Competition between Airbus and Boeing, while less concise, is unambiguous and more closely resembles ordinary speech. —David Levy 23:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
The abbreviated version makes it look like its refering to one individual event rather than the ongoing wider status quo. WatcherZero (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough; I can live with that. bobrayner (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I moved it back so we could reach a decision first before making moves, this seems to be the norm on here. Also i do agree with the statements above. --JetBlast (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

JetBlast is quite right in moving the article back until after discussion. I do not know if Competition between Airbus and Boeing is the best possible title but as a rule no title should contain a non-word construction such as the hyphenated Airbus-Beoing proposed unless that hyphenation is a recognised and commonly used association of words; in this case it is just an ad hoc neologism. Doing so will make searches and intuiting of subject titles difficult. Unless somebody comes up with a better one I vote we keep the existing. Ex nihil (talk) 05:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I had fixed up many dashes in similar rivalry/competition articles, like rapper1–rapper2 feud, sportteam1–sportteam2 rivalry, and so noted this one, too. The arguments given forward, however, are indeed quite good to not choose the title suggested by me. Indeed, on second look, I notice that this article's title contains two prepositions, unlike the other rivalries which contained only one that was then replaced with a dash. --The Evil IP address (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Boeing's product plan[edit]

Should this section be in this article? Although their product plan is doubtless influenced by competition so is virtually every other aspect of their operations. Also the absence of a similar section for Airbus makes the article lopsided, even though the section is neutral in tone. Possibly the section should be renamed and reduced to cover attributes of both companies product plans that are demonstrably driven by specific competitive factors. PRL42 (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. It would be nice to have a comparison of product plans, perhaps with some flightglobal-sourced text on directly competing products or proposals. Having a fragment of content from one "side" with no indication of how it relates to the competition does a disservice to readers. bobrayner (talk) 12:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this section does not belong here. It should probably be in the Boeing article itself if it is not already covered there. I suggest that it be deleted in toto until somebody writes a comparisosn of Airbus-Boeing plans. Ex nihil (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong A380 Delivery number[edit]

In the <<Orders and deliveries, by product>> table, it is stated that there have been 32 A380 deliveries in 2011. Both wikipedia A380 article and the source give this number to 2010, and the wikipedia article gives 18 as the correct number for 2010. I have not corrected as that would demand a full check of (almost) all the numbers as there is a sum involved. Given the difficulty of keeping so much data accurate, I suggest that we delete this table altogether Frohfroh (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Addition of the A340 to "Competition by product"[edit]

I feel the section Airbus A330 vs Boeing 767 & 777 should be changed to Airbus A330 & Airbus A340 vs Boeing 767 & 777. The A340 is quite similar to the 777, so I think adding the A340 to that section would showcase the competition between the two industry's mid-to-long range aircraft better.

Thank you Zahir (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Detailed orders and deliveries[edit]

In the detailed table under Orders and deliveries all orders/deliveries in the A320 family were totalled. As these figures are published per model I used these details in the table (couldn't find the backlog figures that quickly, so stated that that was/is for the whole famimily). Hope everyone is happy with that.
Also changed alignment to right (as per the other order/delivert tables and used red ink for negative numbers. Also added the location of the exact Excell sheet in the sources and references section as referred to in the primary tables. Only checked the Airbus details: people who want to work out the details for 'that America' company can check that. Tonkie (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Graphics: y-axis label is wrong in deliveries graph (currently says "Orders"). --HAdG (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Intro: Background details about production in history[edit]

I do think, its important to give min. 1 sentence about the history. And the tone of the whole article is to present raw figures, which is IMHO the best to let the reader itself find the final valuation. I like:

However, in the years 1989-2011 Airbus delivered 6,590 aircraft with totally 6,646 in service (January 05, 2012), while Boeing delivered 9,802 and had even higher market shares before.

The disadvantage is, that i have no figures about Boeings in service, which should be included. Tagremover (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I think, ideally, that we should give total figures for aircraft in service and the figures for the last decade. Unfortunately we don't have the total figures for Boeing. Whilst we know that there must be more Boeing in service overall, we can't really speculate as to the figure. I can't see any justification for picking 1989 as a starting point for a 'snapshot'; it is entirely arbitrary. It also seems wrong to start from a year when there was no duopoly. To my mind we should either pick the start year as the year when there was an unequivocal duopoly or use the last decade, as that is a good indicator of the trend. PRL42 (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

March Orders[edit]

Two publications I've seen now has Airbus net orders for 90 at the ned of March, not 100, as there were 10 cancellations. Here's one link.. I hope I placed this in the right are and apologize if I did not. Thank You. ( (talk) 09:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC))

Ah, does this explain the repeated change to the order numbers? I don't know that there is a fixed policy on this but what seems to have happened in the past is that the figure is reconciled at the end of the year. So we retain the actual number of orders throughout the current year and adjust it in one go when the new year starts. (I think this may be because the companies themselves do not give a running total and trying to synthesie a figure is fraught with error, particularly later in the year when you may have to add up figures gleaned from various sources (some of which may no longer be available)). Also, when you make a change like that it's always a good idea to give some indication why you did it in the edit summary as otherwise it may well appear to be either vandalism or a good faith edit made in error. PRL42 (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The companies both update the figures as gross and net, see the excel file under the table on the Airbus page, Gross 100, Net 90. WatcherZero (talk) 04:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, so that may not be the explanation for the way it has been done. It's probably because the fact that there are cancellations does not actually change the number of orders received. If we can have accurate, comparable, figures from both companies it could be done either way. If anyone wants to set up a discussion to try to get consensus for change ... PRL42 (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


This (inofficial) voting about flags and country info in orders might concern even this article. It is proposed to remove about 10.000 flags related to aircraft orders and articles including country info. Tagremover (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Last line Orders and deliveries[edit]

Heya edittors, The last line of the orders and deliveries is a misplaced line. I think its a copy-paste error.

Check the main article, the LAST line (So the line BEFORE) the chapter "Controversies" says this: /font> 747 | 186 A380 | 97 747 | 67 A380 | 1427 747 |----- | Total ! 534 ! 477 ! 1419 ! 805 ! 4437 ! 3771 ! 7042 ! 14327 |-align="center" | colspan="9" | Boeing (1957) and Airbus (1972) until 31st December, 2011 |}

Dont think it should be there, all the information is already written there. This is why i deleted it. It must be a copy/paste "typo" sort of error. Njirk (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I very much doubt it is a 'copy and paste error'. There is no other line like that in the article and it would be one hell of a coincidence if someone happened to copy and paste some random line that totalled the data above it where it was 'mistakenly' placed. Secondly, some of the data in the line is not summarised elsewhere - i.e. this is the only place that backlog and historical deliveries are totalled. Thirdly, what exactly is the problem? Why are you so concerned at a line of column totals at the end of a table? It seems to be a perfectly reasonable thing to have. The last four figures in the line do not appear anywhere else in the article. What exactly is wrong with adding the columns up for readers? PRL42 (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The line is clearly an error, it is out of syntax apart from anything else because it is just a broken copy of part of the table. It seems that 100% of the data in the line appears placed in proper syntax, correctly, in the table so I deleted it. However, while we are on the subject, the last two columns compare Boeing sales from 1957 with Airbus sales from 1972, this does not seem useful; the dates need to be the same. The dates are also arbitrary, Boeing was trading before 1957, so why pick that date? Suggest we take it from the year Airbus commenced trading because the article is about competition. Somebody want to have a look a that? Ex nihil (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, thats what I ment, out of syntax. The information is already written in the table above. Didnt knew how such a line was called... Loosing the line in where it stood didnt add anything to the story as it was already written above and wasnt readable for normal visitors.Njirk (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The date isnt arbitrary, its when Boeing started producing its first jet airliner the 707 since all the sales of which are tallied in the table, it also reflects the 'headstart' they had over Airbus. WatcherZero (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
OK WatcherZero, I'll go along with that but I strengthened the note to Historical Deliveries a little because I found it a little confusing. Ex nihil (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Financials, again[edit]

I would love this article to include financial stats, rather than just counting airplanes. However, some recent additions to the article have included numbers very different from what reliable sources say: [1] [2] [3]. Where did the per-product sales figures come from? No source is named, and I was hitherto unaware that either A or B published details of per-product revenue. Worse, when those numbers are added up for Boeing, they give a number much larger than the sales revenue which BCA reported [4] [5]. I think we should stick to what reliable sources say. It's really not hard to get key financials for both A and B. bobrayner (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I find these edits to be particularly worrying, since they restore the dubious content but cite sources which don't actually support those numbers. Hitting the revert button doesn't make those numbers true; can't we discuss the issue here? bobrayner (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Alas, the latest edit restored the same problematic content. I'm not going to make a fourth revert. If anybody else is unhappy with us having an article which directly contradicts what reliable sources say, I would invite them to fix it. bobrayner (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes this is bordering on wilfull vandalism, sanctions should be applied if the action does not stop. WatcherZero (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Orders/deliveries updating and edit warring[edit]

What is this edit warring concerning updates about? For the last year or so the Boeing figures have been updated twice a month and the Airbus figures monthly. All of a sudden there is an edit war going on. Surely, if you believe that the update is incomplete the best course of action would be to complete it rather than repeatedly undoing it.

At any rate, we should attempt to get a consensus as to what is the acceptable granularity for an update rather than indulge in childishly reverting/unreverting. PRL42 (talk) 07:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the first question should be: Is it accurate? What do sources say? bobrayner (talk) 10:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
If that were the case and that were the primary objection, the initial reversion should have said that rather than talking about the update being 'incomplete'. The two problems are quite different. If a reversion needs to be made it is vital that the reasons are stated clearly and accurately otherwise it is likely to lead to an edit war. PRL42 (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems to have started again. I updated the Airbus orders figure based on the number of orders received in the cited source. An IP editor reverted this. I undid that because - obviously - the source backed up the figure I used. It was then reverted again so that it appeared to show that there were zero orders in August. It seems that different people are getting data from different places. We need to settle on one place and put a comment in the source to point editors there. PRL42 (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Having checked the Airbus bulletin again I can see that it does, indeed, say that total orders are 384, but that is what it said for July. Unless there have been exactly 114 cancellations it looks as if Airbus have not correctly updated the article. I'm not sure what we should do about this. PRL42 (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The numbers are from the .xls file of the website. Its always listed in their .xls file of the month, not on the monthly text message: It is always listed on the "orders" tab. Furthermore, i dont think we should worry about the frequency of the updates as long as they are correct. Njirk (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Not sure that we really need orders and deliveries, this is not a score card and is probably is misleading unless you also add all deliveries from other companies. MilborneOne (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
There arent any, Boeing and Airbus are the only companies that off a full range of large aircraft, they have a duopoly, theres a few minor competitors in the 150-190 seat narrowbody segment and potential new entrants on the horizon (Russian new airliner has no sales yet, larger Bombardier and other executive jet manufacturers potential products havent managed to match price and performance). WatcherZero (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I do not get an 'orders' tab in that file. I agree that frequency of updating is not particularly important but if someone updates deliveries they should update orders as well (A couple of months back someone kept reverting an update claiming it was incomplete - without explaining exactly what his or her problem was). Also, the citation should point to where the data is coming from. It's seems pretty obvious that there is a mistake somewhere in the Airbus figures as they have stated that there were 114 orders during August - a fact confirmed by the detailed news items - and yet the total orders for the year hasn't moved. Yet the citation implies that we have information up to date until the end of August. PRL42 (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like this was targetted at me as I reverted some incomplete changes (date was not changed, maybe other issues). In generel it would be best if we just use the monthly reports by both Boeing/Airbus to update data tables. Remember, that's an encyclopedia and not a news service so a monthly rate is more than sufficient (and that's based on hard facts (firm orders, deliveries) but may contain possible errors made by them). Does anyone have the older Excel order list from Airbus to compare the values? Maybe they made an error or there were indeed a lot of cancellations booked in this month. --Denniss (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
From memory there was 30 odd cancellations this month. WatcherZero (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Active airplanes by product and year[edit]

User:Alainmoscoso moved the Active airplanes by product and year into its own table, as this highlighted the fact that it doesnt appear to be relevant to the article so I deleted it. Apart from the fact it uses an unreliable amateur website for most of the sourcing the number of active aircraft has no relevance to what is seen as a competition between Airbus and Boeing. As far as I am aware they dont compete on support for inuse airframes. So unless somebody can explain why it is relevant it should really go. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hidden comparisons[edit]

Suggest we get rid of the hidden comparison tables, they appear to be of no relevance to the so called competition. All of this information is in the linked article and I find it hard to believe that the difference in length or fuselage height between types is really relevant to the reader, by the way the A380 v B747 section has text which far better explains the differences than the tables do. Suggest we get rid of all the type comparison tables as not relevant clutter to this article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. I think that the overall structure of the article is really unwieldy, and the tables (and maybe an image or two) are the worst bit. They have a whiff of OR to them too. it would be nice to have more sourced prose about other aspects of competition (commercial, economic detail &c rather than technical details of specific products) bobrayner (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the some tables (the hidden tables comparing different products). They were an obstacle for readers and they were synthesis anyway. bobrayner (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I find the comparison tables quite useful, similar to the range/pax chart. Is there a wiki outside Wikipedia where they can be parked, if indeed they are not encyclopedic ? By the way, what is synthesizing about them (they contain simple data), and which position would that lead to? TGCP (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I remember some of the non-encyclopedic fan stuff from A380 was copied to fwiw. MilborneOne (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Done. TGCP (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Orders Table[edit]

I had an idea to improve the orders/deliveries table, placing a star after the order number in a year a new product was launched by that company, it adds granularity to the peaks and troughs of orders. WatcherZero (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If you can first determine when every product was launched? I can't find data about historic Airbus orders/deliveries for every year, from xls file we can see only current year orders and deliveries, anyone foud it? Boeing provide data since 1954 also for MD aircraft. --SojerPL (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Nice idea, but in practice too hard I think. The Orders are always going to be volatile and misleading; many of those orders will never happen. The only real hard indicator is Deliveries, at least they are real planes somebody paid for. Ex nihil (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Where would we draw the line on a new product? The A320, say, was certainly a new product. Would a re-engined A320 count as a new product? Does a stretched A320 count as a new product in 1988? Does the A320-200 count as a new product? Probably not - the changes were minor - but practically all A320 sales have been based on the newer one. If there's no clear boundary (and if launch dates are debatable, too) then adding the star is a recipe for original research, synthesis, and drama. bobrayner (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
There are some obstacles with the order table. Boeing's 2003 and 2004 are net orders, while Airbus provide gross orders; also 1989-2002 both companies count as gross orders, but since 2005 as net orders. Boeing's orders and deliveries between 1989 and 1997 include McDonnell Douglas, despite it was seperate company no longer. [6] EADS accounts sales comparison without MD, this way they have more gross order in 1998. --SojerPL (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Actual edits are without cancellations: Search with Boeings search orders function. Tagremover (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Range Overlap section[edit]

An 'original research' template has been placed on this section, and quite quite rightly so. I propose that we delete the Range Overlap section in its entirety because:

  • it has no citations
  • the readers can make their own comparisons better from the passenger/range table immediately below and the section adds nothing. I suspect that it was just made up from looking at the table anyway.
  • some of it is debatable Ex nihil (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Support. As you say it's highly debatable PRL42 (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
    • It has gone. Nobody against, no strong feelings evident. I also removed the citations required template because all of the information in the remaining table would appear to have been derived from cited data in the rest of the page and is therefore merely a graphical representation of reliable information that is already accounted for. It would be good, however, if the table described its sources. Ex nihil (talk) 04:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Orders and deliveries section[edit]

I appreciate that Boeing an Airbus both update their orders monthly, but Boeing had about 260 777x orders, 100 737max orders, 30 787 orders and a handful more recently, like 2 787s from Thomson. That makes their orders withing the last month to about 400. So why is it that, from last month, they have only gone up about 100 on the orders charts? Also, Airbus got about 160 more orders, why isn't that yet shown. I know my figures aren't exact, but it should be somewhere around that Airbus and Boeing have similar figures, not that Airbus are over 200 ahead still. I thought Airbus' and Boeing's orders were firm orders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 747-8info (talkcontribs) 13:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Some orders were indeed options, unlike the deliveries which both update monthly Boeing tends to update their orders page regularly between weekly and fortnightly and usually also after a large order is announced while Airbus updates it monthly. The official sources we use are:

WatcherZero (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The order overview site at Boeing receives frequent updates, the by-type-list once per month. --Denniss (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

O&D Graphics Update request[edit]

I have requested an update of the O&D graphs to 2013 at


unless somebody has a better idea. Presumably somebody has these set up in Excel or something and doing this would be easy. Ex nihil (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

New net orders graph[edit]

There are two issues with the new net orders graph: File:Airbus Boeing net orders.svg|Net orders.

  1. The colours representing Airbus and Boeing are reversed from the other diagrams and needs to be brought into line. As it stands it is confusing.
  2. The sources cited on the picture are not the sources used elsewhere. The article has been using ONLY and and not press releases, which are too hard to interpret. Although the sources cited on the image are not the right ones the actual figures appear to be correct, for 2014 at any rate. If the graph is correct pre-2013 changing the sources may be a fix.
  3. What does this graph show that is not already shown in the existing graphs? Is it actually needed? Ex nihil (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \bairbusmilitary\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency between the table "Deliveries" (also possibly "Orders") and the table "Deliveries by year and product"[edit]

In the table "Deliveries by year and product", all Boeing planes are listed. For the year 1991 for example, the total number of planes delivered is stated as 435 planes. However, in the table "Deliveries", the total number of deliveries for the same year, 1991, is stated as 606 planes. I think this is higly misleading and confusing.

The reason for this is that the number in the "Deliveries" table also includes former MD models. For the year 1991 for example, this table includes 31 MD-11 and 140 MD-80 planes. Adding those 171 planes to the 435 Boeing planes give the total of 606 planes in the "Delivery" table. Deliveries table for the year 1991 including former MD models

I suggest removing former MD planes from the total in the "Deliveries" table. I dont know if I have the privileges to do this editing my self, if I do have I will do this edit if not anyone can give a reason not to do it. SteinarNnor (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If the MD models were delivered after Boeing took over MD, then the MD aircraft should be included in Boeing's tally. If before, then not. The tables need to be brought into line. Ex nihil (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I've edited the delivery table. However the orders table also most likely need to be checked/edited. There still is some inconsistency in that after Aug 1st 1997 (the date for the merge) former McDonnel planes, like MD-90 still are included in the total table, but in the table showing the individual models no former McDonnel planes is listed. This cause the total for the years 1997 through 2001 to differ between those two tables. Also the graphic chart is not updated. I don't think I have the knowledge to update that chart.SteinarNnor (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I've edited the orders table and removed MD models ordered before August -97. But I wonder if orders before about 2002 is orders before cancellations and thus numbers in this table actually still is to high for those years. I don't know if the same my apply for Airbus orders also?SteinarNnor (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

World Airlines Census data inconsistency[edit]

I have just added the 2014 data to the WP article. I found this exercise quite a bit frustrating. On side 4 of the 2014 Airliner Census pdf it is a table stating Boeing NG family to 4576 aircraft and the 200/300/400/500 series to 1067 aircraft for a total of 5643 aircraft. However when adding the individual aircraft models stated further down in the Airliner census I get a totally different number of 1095 aircraft for the 200/300/400/500 series and 4682 aircraft for the NG series for a total of 5777 aircraft! A difference of over 100 aircrafts. Does anyone have any idea for this discrepancy or any suggestions for what numbers to use? Other aircrafts also add up differently compared to the table on side 4, A320 series have a discrepancy of ten or twenty or so aircrafts. SteinarNnor (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for trying. Maybe this is a problem for World Airliner Census; I have forwarded it to them for comment. Ex nihil (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
SteinarNnor, Flight Global kindly responded and have a revised version. FG replied: Thank you for your message and our apologies for the data discrepancy you’ve noticed in the census. The version that you have has been updated and please find attached a new version. The information in the global section of the previous report was indeed wrong and has been updated retrospectively at this point in time (24 July 2014). The totals are a lot closer to the figures from the census, but not necessarily exactly the same figures for the reason that parked aircraft may have been adjusted to that point in time. Please note that this information is for in-service aircraft used only in a commercial role (airlines only).
I have the revised version, which I can send to you, or, in all probability the revised version is available from the FG site now. I won't be making the changes any time soon, so please feel free. Ex nihil (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I've updated the article with the numbers from page 4 of the revised census for those models stated on that page. There is still some discrepancy in the numbers, but I won't try to get the numbers any more acurate than this. SteinarNnor (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Comparison table[edit]

Airbus and Boeing Passengers vs Range.png

The lead of Boeing 777 says it's the world's longest-range airliner, while the table in this article shows 777 slightly behind Airbus A350-900ER. Could someone check those inconsistencies? Brandmeistertalk 17:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The 350-900ER is only proposed and not launched, the B777-200LR is still the longest-range airliner. It has been removed from the [7] on 20 january 2015. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

this is a nice graphic. It would be a bit nicef\r if the colored brick datapoints were scaled for size wrt number of orders for each model, and perhaps shaded to indicate "age" of each model (pale colors for old models, bold color for new models?) For example, notice a tremendous number of Airbus models clustered around a small area to the right (the A340's and A350's) surrounded more or less by Boeing models. Additional info could help sort out what is going on there marketing strategy-wise. (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Orders and deliveries by product[edit]

I think the A330 compares more to the Boeing 787 and the A350 compares better with the Boeing 777. Size is more important in this case than the percentage of composite technology. The A330neo for example was launched to steal potential Dreamliner customers. The A350 is used for replacing 777-300´s, not smaller planes like the Boeing 767 or A330´s and A340´s. The order in the columns should be changed to reflect the real competition by models according to the airlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


Hello, I compiled some relevant information about real prices : User:Marc_Lacoste/sandbox/Airliner_prices. Do you think it would be better suited in Competition between Airbus and Boeing, in Airliner, Jet Airliner, or another relevant article? Thanks. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

  • That is quite interesting. Well done. I would suggest Competition between Airbus and Boeing as it only concerns A & B. If it were later to be included in another page I suggests it be done via a template that can be invoked by any page and ensuring that all changes are made once in one place only. Perhaps this itself could be a template. I made some minor suggestions in the sandbox. I also tried to right justify the price columns but was unable to for now. Ex nihil (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey thanks. I would be interested to see Bombardier's efforts for the CS300 (listed 66MUSD) against the A319 and B737, if it were the same 50% discount, they would steal the show at 33MUSD vs 45MUSD. But it have to prove itself in operation. For the rest of the bunch, here is a compilation of list prices: [8] (french, but the list is understandable whatever your language is). I don't have info on their real price though. We could indeed make it a trans-article section, it would be neat. I used text-align:right for the whole tables and text-align:left for the first column, it's better. Also, thanks for the better wording! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I added it here since there is no support on other pages. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Need to take care of making assumptions on sell prices except from the company price list, sales include all sort of variables as well as the aircraft like logistic support, flightcrew training and simulators and the like which differ from deal to deal. MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps could add something on deferred pricing since its mainly a result of competition, e.g. on the 787 program Boeing has deferred in excess of $25bn of production costs and wont break even on unit price now until production ramp up in 2016, this means the first 300 planes will be sold at below production cost, nevermind recouping development costs. WatcherZero (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Boeing reduces aircraft ranges[edit]

Boeing have updated their official range calculation used for the last couple of decades to better reflect real world experience of users and customers generally heavier than baselines specifications with higher density seating arrangements with Boeing Marketing Director Jim Haas describing the old figures as 'obsolete'. Some of the figures used in this page may need to be updated.

WatcherZero (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Capacity vs. range chart[edit]

It would be great if the 737MAX and A320neo variants could be added to the chart (possibly in brackets). (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Why was this chart deleted? I found it very informative. --Gfox88 (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Because it was out of date and impossible to maintain. I've created a new one.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you Marc. I also created one that looked similar to the old one, but updated with the MAX and NEOs. I was trying to add fuel efficiency to it as well (because that has been a driving force for new and modernized types), but don't have it figured out yet how to represent that well graphically. Gfox88 (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Difficult endeavour --Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The new chart is good. How about the circle diameters are made proportional to seat numbers? Or Airbus circles are pale blue vs Boeing pink? I don't think anyone has reliably got to the bottom of fuel efficiency for any of these aircraft, it may not even be possible. Ex nihil (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The chart is an editable Google doc, link in the description, if you want to improve it. Difficult to put information not crossing WP:OR. It's already so-so to compare airbus and Boeing brochures. Other undebatable metrics could be mtow or list price. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Boeing order discontinuity[edit]

The current order/deliveries table states that Boeing took 769 orders in 2015, and gives the Boeing commercial site as a source. However, the Boeing's site 2015 yearly report clearly states that Boeing received 869 orders in 2015. I have reverted the table back to the corrected values. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Net orders is not the same as gross orders... --Rabenkind (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
869 is the net order total. Boeing has 878 gross orders in 2015, and 768 net orders in year of cancel. Essentially, Boeing received 878 orders in 2015, of which 9 were cancelled. The other 101 were canceled from the backlog of previous years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
You still don't understand - all (gross) orders and cancellations of one year make up this year's net orders. --Denniss (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Competition between Airbus and Boeing[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Competition between Airbus and Boeing's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "737_O_D_summ":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 12:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Competition between Airbus and Boeing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)