SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: locogringo who wrote (1191715)1/8/2020 7:12:27 AM
From: FJB1 Recommendation

Recommended By
locogringo

  Respond to of 1576363
 



To: locogringo who wrote (1191715)1/8/2020 7:27:17 AM
From: sylvester80  Respond to of 1576363
 
BREAKING: TRUMP'S U.S. BOEING PLANES CONTINUE TO CRASH & BURN, WHILE EUROPE'S AIRBUS HITS RECORD NEW ORDERS & BECOMES WORLD'S LARGEST COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT MAKER!!!!!!! OH MY!!!!!

How Airbus Has Grown Over The Years To Dethrone Boeing As The Largest Commercial Aircraft Maker
forbes.com
Jan 6, 2020, 11:00am

Airbus ended the year 2019 on a high, with the European commercial airplane manufacturer delivering 863 airplanes for the year in comparison to its larger rival Boeing, which could only manage 345 deliveries. While Airbus has done extremely well over recent years to ramp up production for its popular A320 family of jets, Boeing’s fortunes took a significant hit with the grounding of its 737 MAX aircraft earlier this year. Trefis compares key operating metrics for Boeing vs. Airbus over the years – highlighting how Airbus looked poised to overtake Boeing as the largest commercial aircraft manufacturer even before the latter ran into trouble.

Boeing, established in 1916, was the only airplane supplier till 1974 until Airbus (established in 1970) launched its first commercial airplane. Both companies today have a combined share of 91% in the commercial aircraft market globally. Notably, Airbus has been able to take market share away from Boeing over the last 5 years, and had an order book 56% larger than Boeing’s at the end of September 2019. We take a deep dive into the operating performance of both companies over last few years in our interactive dashboard, parts of which are highlighted below.



Understanding Delivery Numbers For Boeing and Airbus & Their Market Share Since 2014:

Growth in airplane deliveries has been higher for Airbus than for Boeing on account of Airbus A320 familyBoeing further had bleak deliveries in 2019 on account of the grounding of its 737 MAX series – an issue that is expected to be resolved only in Q4 2020.Boeing delivered a total of 345 commercial aircraft in 2019 – down from 806 in 2018. On the other hand, Airbus’ aircraft deliveries has swelled from 629 in 2014 to 863 in 2019.Airbus has improved its market share from 41.1% in 2014 to 45.3% in 2018.We estimate Airbus’ market share to have spiked to almost 62.5% in 2019 due to the sizable reduction in deliveries for Boeing.

Today In: Money



PROMOTED

Northern Trust BRANDVOICE
| Paid Program
Wealth Management In The C-Suite: Digital Risks And Cybersecurity

Impact Partners BRANDVOICE
| Paid Program
Why Now Is The Time To Beat Taxes In Retirement

Oracle BRANDVOICE
| Paid Program
Why Brands Matter, And Always Will

Order Backlog for Airbus and Boeing as on September 2019:

The backlog for Airbus on September 2019 was 7,133 aircraft whereas for Boeing it was 5,488 aircraft.Boeing’s entire global fleet of 737 MAX aircraft was grounded in March 2019, following two fatal aircraft crashes.The company had an order book of 4,636 units worth $600 billion of the 737 MAX family at the time of the grounding, and faces the threat of order cancellation from several airlines.



Additionally, Boeing’s average revenue per aircraft has been declining over the years while Airbus’s average revenue has remained stable. Additional details about how Airbus’ revenue per aircraft has trended over the years compared to Boeing are available in our interactive dashboard.



Revenue & Profit Comparison For Boeing & Airbus:

Boeing Revenues:Commercial Segment Revenues for Boeing declined by 10% in 2016 from $66 Bil in 2015 to $59.4 Bil in 2016 due to lower deliveriesRevenue decline of 2.3% was observed in 2017 to $58 Bil.The revenue increased again in 2018 by 4.7% to 60.7 Bil.Airbus Revenues:Airbus’ Commercial Aircraft revenue grew 7.1% in 2016 from a revenue of $50.9 Bil in 2015 to $54.5 Bil in 2016.Revenue further grew by 5.6% in 2017 to $57.6 Bil.A 1.6% decline in revenue was observed in 2018 on account of change in revenue recognition towards engine procurement for the AircraftOperating Margins:Although the margins earned by commercial section of Boeing are higher than Airbus, the margin improvement in Airbus is much higher than in Boeing, with CAGR in Operating Profits for Airbus coming in at 9.3% versus 4.9% for Boeing.



To: locogringo who wrote (1191715)1/8/2020 8:07:47 AM
From: sylvester80  Respond to of 1576363
 
JUST A REMINDER: REPUBLICAN IRAN-CONTRA AFFAIR
en.wikipedia.org

Reagan meets with (left to right) Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of State George Shultz, Attorney General Ed Meese, and Chief of Staff Don Regan in the Oval Office
20 August 1985 – 4 March 1987
McFarlane affair (in Iran), Iran–Contra scandal, Iran–Contra
Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Robert McFarlane, Caspar Weinberger, Hezbollah, Contras, Oliver North, Manucher Ghorbanifar, John Poindexter, Manuel Antonio Noriega
The Iran–Contra affair popularized in Iran as the McFarlane affair, [1] the Iran–Contra scandal, or simply Iran–Contra, was a political scandal in the United States that occurred during the second term of the Reagan Administration. Senior administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, which was the subject of an arms embargo. [2] The administration hoped to use the proceeds of the arms sale to fund the Contras in Nicaragua. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the government had been prohibited by Congress.

The official justification for the arms shipments was that they were part of an operation to free seven American hostages being held in Lebanon by Hezbollah, a paramilitary group with Iranian ties connected to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The plan was for Israel to ship weapons to Iran, for the United States to resupply Israel, and for Israel to pay the United States. The Iranian recipients promised to do everything in their power to achieve the release of the hostages. [3] [4] However, as documented by a congressional investigation, the first Reagan-sponsored secret arms sales to Iran began in 1981 before any of the American hostages had been taken in Lebanon. This fact ruled out the "arms for hostages" explanation by which the Reagan administration sought to excuse its behavior. [5]

The plan was later complicated in late 1985, when Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council diverted a portion of the proceeds from the Iranian weapon sales to fund the Contras, a group of anti- Sandinista rebels, in their insurgency against the socialist government of Nicaragua. [3] While President Ronald Reagan was a vocal supporter of the Contra cause, [6] the evidence is disputed as to whether he personally authorized the diversion of funds to the Contras. [3] [4] [7] Handwritten notes taken by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger on 7 December 1985 indicate that Reagan was aware of potential hostage transfers with Iran, as well as the sale of Hawk and TOW missiles to "moderate elements" within that country. [8] Weinberger wrote that Reagan said "he could answer to charges of illegality but couldn't answer to the charge that 'big strong President Reagan passed up a chance to free the hostages.'" [8] After the weapon sales were revealed in November 1986, Reagan appeared on national television and stated that the weapons transfers had indeed occurred, but that the United States did not trade arms for hostages. [9] The investigation was impeded when large volumes of documents relating to the affair were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials. [10] On 4 March 1987, Reagan made a further nationally televised address, taking full responsibility for the affair and stating that "what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages". [11]