Airbus vs. Boeing: Strategic Management Investment Analysis
This paper applies strategic management frameworks to evaluate Airbus and Boeing as investment candidates. Rather than relying solely on financial metrics such as NPV or IRR, the analysis focuses on qualitative indicators including competitive advantage, firm independence, internal resources and capabilities, macro-environmental factors, and cost advantages. The paper examines each company's reliance on government subsidies, supplier relationships, market share, and executive decision-making culture. Drawing on these dimensions, it concludes that Boeing presents the lower-risk investment, given its stronger market share, more robust balance sheet, and reduced dependence on government subsidies compared to Airbus.
- Introduction: Strategic vs. Financial Investment Criteria: Qualitative strategic criteria vs. financial metrics for investment
- Relative Firm Independence: Comparing firm autonomy and stakeholder constraints
- Firm Internal Resources and Capabilities: Human capital, technology, and supplier relationships
- Macro-Environmental Factors and Industry Environment: Government subsidies and industry-level challenges
- Cost Advantages: Economies of scale and market share cost leverage
- Final Recommendation: Boeing recommended as lower-risk strategic investment
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper clearly distinguishes between financial investment criteria (NPV, IRR) and qualitative strategic management criteria, establishing a focused analytical lens from the outset.
- Each section maps directly to a stated evaluation dimension, giving the argument a logical, scaffolded progression that is easy to follow.
- The conclusion ties back to the opening framework, reinforcing cohesion by explaining how each factor cumulatively supports the final recommendation.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative strategic analysis using a multi-criteria framework. Rather than making a binary judgment, the author systematically evaluates both firms across the same dimensions — independence, resources, environment, and cost — before synthesizing findings into a recommendation. This mirrors the structured reasoning expected in business strategy courses and case study assignments.
Structure breakdown
The paper is divided into two named parts. Part I works through four analytical lenses (firm independence, internal resources, macro-environmental factors, and cost advantages), assessing both companies under each. Part II delivers a concise final recommendation grounded in the Part I findings. This two-part structure — analysis then synthesis — is a standard and effective format for strategic management essays at the undergraduate level.
Introduction: Strategic vs. Financial Investment Criteria
Since strategic management is concerned with the decisions that companies make in order to remain viable, profitable, and competitive, an investment decision in this context must focus on which company is better equipped to adapt, innovate, and execute in both the short term and the long term. An investment decision based on strategic management concerns differs from one based on Internal Rates of Return, Net Present Value, or Average Accounting Returns. Whereas the latter criteria are concerned with numerical assessments of a company's profitability, the former are far more concerned with qualitative factors such as competitive advantage, relationships within the supply chain, ability to lobby regulatory agencies effectively, executive leadership, employee retention rates, and many other qualitative measures. This is not to say that financial and economic measures play no role in strategic decision-making — they are simply not the only indicators considered.
In determining whether a specific investment consortium should invest in Boeing or Airbus, this paper considers what appear to be three distinct strategic management concepts but are, in reality, deeply interconnected. The analysis identifies which company holds the advantage and then makes a recommendation based on the relative strengths and weaknesses of each. That recommendation is driven by consideration of the following: (1) competitive advantage indicators; (2) macro-environmental factors; and (3) firm internal resources and capabilities.
The competitive advantage indicator is listed first because it is the most important feature of a company's sustained profitability and success. The very purpose of strategic management is to position a company as one of the chief competitors within its industry. A company is considered competitive when it can leverage internal resources within the broader industry environment to favor its own agenda. Importantly, the concept of competitive advantage is an umbrella term under which environmental factors and a firm's internal resources are measured against competitors in the marketplace. Competitive advantage is a result, not an act.
In the case of Airbus and Boeing, the key variables concern how dependent each company is on competitors and regulatory agencies before it can execute its plans; what challenges the broader industry environment poses for both companies; what internal resources and capabilities each possesses; and whether either company can offer significant cost advantages to buyers.
Relative Firm Independence
Although firm independence is not a conventional strategic management consideration in the aviation industry, the degree to which competitors are consolidated and interdependent means that a firm capable of acting autonomously may hold a significant advantage. As such, it serves as an appropriate lens through which to evaluate Airbus and Boeing.
A large portion of firm independence in this context is environmental. Boeing, as a large company with over 100,000 stakeholders, is held accountable by a great number of invested individuals and entities (Masanell, 2007). The independence of its executive and business teams is therefore limited by heightened public and industry scrutiny.
Airbus, which is still establishing itself and is a considerably smaller company, may possess a greater degree of flexibility and agility. Unfortunately, Airbus is a consortium of multiple European companies and governments, and as such may be subject to even greater scrutiny and interference. Neither company holds a clear advantage in this dimension.
Firm Internal Resources and Capabilities
An assessment of a firm's internal resources and capabilities examines the company's human capital, technological capabilities, and financial resources. These are not the only components of internal resources, but they are among the most important.
The development of super jumbo jets would require new and deep relationships with suppliers and technology developers. Japanese companies — which are highly technologically advanced — appeared to express a preference for Boeing. For instance, as Airbus attempted to court manufacturers in Japan, Mitsubishi declined, citing loyalty to its existing relationship with Boeing (Masanell, p. 11). The ability to leverage market relationships in ways that prevent competitors from developing new products is a meaningful advantage. In this dimension, the advantage in both human capital and technological capabilities belongs to Boeing.
As the Airbus A380 program illustrated, developing next-generation aircraft demands not only financial investment but also a reliable network of technologically capable suppliers — an area where Boeing's established partnerships proved especially valuable.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.