Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from essay:
In conjunction with the PMO organizational structure, there are contract management process workflows that ensure airlines meet the specifications of customers. This is comparable to the engineer-to-order set of processes at Airbus yet more quickly executed to customers' specific requirements (Berman, 2004). This product development process concentrates on the PMO also coordinating next -- generation product strategies as well, with Boeing choosing energy efficiency over larger, more expensive yet more profitable planes to build.
Strategies compared: Airbus and Boeing
From the highly collaborative approach of Airbus to the project-driven strategies of Boeing, each is ideally suited for any given product strategy. Airbus ironically has created product development strategies that align perfectly with the needs of lower-cost, more energy-efficient commercial jets, yet is stressing their product development process with the behemoth A380. Contrary to their product development strategy is Boeing, which is orientated and based on a centralized PMO strategy, Airbus relies on an engineer-to-order strategy that works for component-based manufacturing. The challenge for each is the scalability of their new product development processes to support their future product strategies. For Boeing, their concentration on using CAD-based applications including standardizing the entire Model 777 development on Dassualt Software is a caser in point. The role of the PMO office and contract management, in conjunction with Engineering Change orders (ECO) is critical to their future product strategy. Boeing is more adept with its internal processes to create an A380 while Airbus excels at interlinking processes for supporting lower-end commercial jet production, which has historically been their strongest market strategy (Anderson, Sedatole, 1998).
Competition in high-speed jet liners
The competition for commercial jet airliners is in a mature stage of its product lifecycle, and estimates of the market contracting (Holmes, 2007) have been reported by a variety of research firms in the industry. Despite the slow-down in this industry, Airbus still leads the market with 29.6% followed by Boeing with 25.3% (Holmes (a), 2007). Table 1 provides the worldwide market shares of commercial jet manufacturers.
Table 1: Worldwide Market Share of Commercial Jet Manufacturers
Market Share Range
European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company EADS N.V.
The Boeing Company
United Technologies Corporation
Honeywell International Inc.
Embraer-Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
How Airbus can spread some of the risks inherent in its ventures
As Airbus is in a consortium-based business model they can alleviate or spread risks by taking the following strategies. First, concentrating on making their product strategy align more with their innate strengths and allowing suppliers to manage interrelationships between themselves more. This will greatly reduce confusion and increase shared knowledge throughout their supply chains. Second, Airbus needs to standardize on components interfaces and subassembly standards, which it has not yet done across all subsidiaries, to support greater coordination across its entire supplier base. Third, the financing and capitalization of Airbus needs to be structured more as a Joint Venture and less as a subsidiary-based model, as it is today. The reliance on European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company EADS N.V. has proven to be problematic and not capable of absorbing all the risk of this unique manufacturing consortium to this point.
Shannon W. Anderson, Karen Sedatole. (1998). Designing quality into products: The use of accounting data in new product development. Accounting Horizons, 12(3), 213-233. Retrieved September 23, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 34653543).
Phyllis Berman (2004, February). Beating Boeing. Forbes, 173(3), 129. Retrieved September 21, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 576816811).
Business: The super-jumbo of all gambles; Airbus vs. Boeing. (2005, January). The Economist, 374(8410), 55-56. Retrieved September 21, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 782135091).
Stanley Holmes (2007, January). The Secret Weapon at Boeing. Business Week,(4016), 34. Retrieved September 24, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1189394571).
Stanley Holmes (2007, February). The Battle for Air Supremacy Business Week, (4020), 102. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1211414321).
Douglas a Irwin, Nina Pavcnik. (2004). Airbus vs. Boeing revisited: international competition in the aircraft market. Journal of International Economics, 4(2), 223-245. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 710579571).
Max Kingsley-Jones, Guy Norris. (2005, November). Enhanced A340 set to take on…[continue]
"International Business Airbus Vs Boeing" (2008, September 28) Retrieved October 26, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/international-business-airbus-vs-boeing-27912
"International Business Airbus Vs Boeing" 28 September 2008. Web.26 October. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/international-business-airbus-vs-boeing-27912>
"International Business Airbus Vs Boeing", 28 September 2008, Accessed.26 October. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/international-business-airbus-vs-boeing-27912
Boeing vs. Airbus This paper focuses on Boeing and Airbus. Firstly, the paper discusses the background of both companies and assesses their current performance via SWOT analysis. Secondly, the paper reviews and evaluates the current problem facing both Boeing and Airbus. Thirdly, the paper evaluates alternative policy actions taken by both Boring and Airbus. Lastly, the paper provides recommendations for action. Case background and situation analysis: About Airbus The European Aerospace Company (EADS) has
Airbus is one of the leading producers of commercial and military aircraft in the world. The company has been successful because of the commitment it has to excellence and a global vision. The purpose of this discussion is to focus on the ways and which Airbus functions in various parts of the world given the differing cultures, political, economic and trade issues that differ from country to country. The research
9% the previous year, and Net Profit Margin up to 5.1% from 1.9% the previous fiscal year. For all full financial analysis of the last five years of Boeing's financial history, please see the Appendix for The Boeing Company Ratio Analysis. While the company continues to excel at profitability, the areas of improvement include Days-to-Sell Inventory, which grew to 147 days in FY201, and Operating Cycle (time from taking an
Comparison to Airbus Boeing is headquartered in Chicago and Airbus is headquartered in Toulouse. Boeing was founded 54 years sooner than Airbus. It numbers over 166,000 employees, whereas Airbus only numbers 48,500. Boeing's net sales for fiscal year 2002 amounted to a total of $54 billion, Airbus' were less than half ($24 billion). The American company has a total of 14,000 aircrafts on the market; Airbus' aircrafts do not exceed
Inventory Management Strategy. In his book, Streetwise Project Management, Dobson (2003) advocates the use of a just-in-time inventory management strategy to keep inventories low and manufacturing process more productive. This approach, though, will require close coordination with a Brazilian supplier, warehousing operations, planners and forecasters, and transportation directors throughout the inventory management process. In this regard, Epps (1995) advises, that such an approach requires the efficient transportation of materials from
Boeing is one of the United States' largest exporters and is a predominant aerospace and defense corporation. Boeing is the world's largest global aircraft manufacturer (by deliveries and revenue), and the second-largest defense and aerospace contractor (ranking in Defense News). The history of Boeing is as exciting as any in history, and encompasses thousands of individuals, innovations, and spectacular technological developments in airline design and manufacturing. Of course, most everyone
The company's promotional literature emphasizes the synergistic effects of this corporate structure: "IAG combines the two leading airlines in the UK and Spain, enabling them to enhance their presence in the aviation market while retaining their individual brands and current operations. The airlines' customers benefit from a larger combined network for both passengers and cargo and a greater ability to invest in new products and services through improved financial