On with the theme... Airbus bad, Boeing good!

Much has been reported about the engine problems that a Qantas Airbus A380 faced soon after taking off from Singapore bound for Sydney at the beginning of November 2010. Logic had it that this was yet another problem in a long line of incidents facing the world's largest passenger aircraft. The UK media at first fell into line with the negative reporting on the A380; however once it was discovered the problem lay with the British-built Rolls Royce engines (lucky they weren't Russian - refer to the previous post for details), the negativity was reduced and replaced with more optimistic reporting of solutions to be found quickly.

I am extremely suspicious of this event. As I have reported previously, the Airbus A380 has unfairly been receiving negative press, while its conceptual rival, the US-built Boeing 787 constantly is praised as the way forward. What is reported is far from reality. What does not get reported as prominently is that the Boeing 787 is now 3 years behind schedule and this is due to the fact that in testing its performance is not living up to what was promised. Namely, the Boeing 787, with its lightweight structure and state-of-the-art technology, will provide 20% less fuel consumption and extremely long flights. Boeing's rationale was that the future will be frequency over capacity, which is much how the US airlines maintain their flight operations. Also, it would open the opportunity for airlines to actually afford to operate point-to-point flights. Boeing sold the idea that the Boeing 787 would be able to fly, for instance, New York to Jakarta non-stop. Using current aircraft, either their size do not warrant such a non-stop flight or make it cost-effective. Airbus saw things differently saw that there would be a big need in future to move more people between hub airports (such as London and Singapore) from where passengers can connect onto smaller aircraft to lesser destinations.

For the past few years, airline specialists have been monitoring to see which out of the two concepts will succeed. I personally believe that Airbus has the best policy, on an operational basis. The main problem facing airports such as London's Heathrow these days is capacity. There simply is not enough time in the day using the current airport infrastructure to afford the luxury of having many smaller aircraft flying at high frequency to far-off places as what the Boeing 787 supposedly offers. Taking into account that there is increasing public hostility to building new airports or expanding existing ones, such a operation model just won't work in the future. The way that Airbus sees it will be the way. Instead of having 5 planes heading off from an airport like London Heathrow to 5 different destinations in South East Asia, two Airbus A380s can fly to Singapore, from where passengers can transfer to smaller destinations, reducing the amount of aircraft in the air on a time ratio, which means that less congestion at airports and less pollution. Essentially, in a perfect world, it would be better if there were more direct flights as what the B787 would offer because there's less hassle for passengers; however this is just not fitting with actual circumstances. On a more symbolic aspect, the B787 is an American vision of the triumph of individualism while the Airbus approach is more collectivist, placing the common good before the selfishness of the individual.
However, the best concept doesn't always win. Beta was superior in quality to VHS, but we all know who won out. Good marketing and/or sledging opponents wins out. And that is what we are witnessing here. It seems like that Boeing has a far better marketing system whereby the world's media are practically in their pockets emphasising Airbus's faults while concealing those of the Boeing 787.

What has been interesting to note is the near absence of any negative reporting on the Boeing 787 despite experiencing far greater problems than the Airbus A380! The best example of this was this report on the BBC website whereby the CEO of Qatar Airways labelled the Dreamliner 'a failure', which is far damning that any comment made about its Airbus rival. However, rather than being given headline coverage, it was only to be found in the rather obscure 'Aerospace' section of their website far from the World's conscience. This is despite the fact, as already mentioned, that the project is already 3 years behind (actually it is much later than that - the launch customer ANA of Japan should have received their planes back in 2005!) and that in testing one of the 787s actually caught on fire! This is scandalous! Had the A380 caught on fire during testing, I'm sure we wouldn't have heard the end of it, much like how its engines caught on fire on the Qantas flight. The fire was due to the flammable nature of the revolutionary composite materials used and the wiring problems the 787 has been facing ever since testing started. It was also quite apparent that the amazing performance statistics touted for the aircraft will not be met, therefore for all of its supposed innovations and new technology, Boeing has created a plane no different from those already on the market. Precisely, as Akbar Al Baker of Qatar Airways said, this plane is a failure. But how come it is the Airbus A380 which is being associated with failure instead?

Some in aviation circles allude to conspiracy theories pointing to US efforts to undermine the A380 due to a bruised ego of no longer having the largest passenger aircraft in the world: the iconic Boeing 747. As much as I would like to be optimistic that such playground behaviour would not be a factor, considering the uneven reporting of these two aircraft, I am inclined to believe that this bruised ego does play a big role. This was evident with the lack of readiness of major US airports such as at Los Angeles and New York to accommodate the A380, despite being given the same time as other airports in other parts of the world who were ready for such large aircraft years before they entered service in 2007. The US attitude was that by using such delay tactics, along with a negative local media campaign, will show how such a European plane is not practical. It was almost successful at the beginning; for instance the busy Los Angeles Airport had to come to a complete standstill whenever an A380 took off or landed as no infrastructure changes such as widening taxi lanes were made. This disruption almost led to either A380 operators threatening to cancel their services to Los Angeles, or other airlines redirecting their planes to other airports in the LA area.

All new products, whether they are huge aeroplanes or small household items, experience teething problems, hence why testing actually happens. But the problems associated with this process should not be mixed with national pride. As the reporting on the problems facing the A380 and B787 show, there is no level playing field here. However, we pride ourselves over places like North Korea of being transparent and just... I don't see it here

There's another suspicious aspect to this Qantas A380 saga. Australia's flag carrier is known foremost as the world's safest airline, something even mentioned in films like Rainman. Qantas also has been a very profitable airline, thanks mainly to streamlining operations and an ability to fill its planes. This in turn has made the airline quite attractive to speculators and equity groups. In 2006, an ostensibly Australian entity owned by a consortium of US equity groups tried staging a share takeover of the airline causing much fear in Australia that, like in previous experiences when airlines have been taken over by such groups, Qantas would be stripped of its assets and attributes while outsourcing operations so as to cut costs and generate greater profit yields. Fortunately US insularity saved the day when the proposal to stage the takeover was handed in past the deadline as the Americans did not factor the 18 hour time difference between themselves and Australia! However, it seems a bit too coincidental that since then the amount and extent the media reports of Qantas accidents and incidents have been excessive, especially relative to other airlines such as more accident and delay-prone Virgin Blue and Tiger Airways. All this excessive negative reporting seems to be pointing towards a concerted plan to drive Qantas' share prices downwards, allowing for the stage to be set for another takeover attempt in the near future.

This is all speculation at the moment, though I find it hard that when Virgin Blue has an accident we hear nothing, but if something happens when a Qantas flight is delayed due to the discovery of a faulty part, it's top news. Qantas is the victim of its own meticulous attention to safety and keeping passengers informed. Many other airlines would just use some smokescreen excuse to hide such an incident to passengers.

But what all this shows is that dishonesty and concealment wins the day.