The reasons Airbus hasn't killed Boeing... yet!

The Boeing company is experiencing its worst crisis in decades due to the 2 Boeing 737 MAX 8 accidents in Indonesia and Ethiopia. The MCAS software has really put questions in the heads of potential airline customer to Boeing.
It would seem like a perfect opportunity for a rival like Airbus to swoop in and take over the market completely.... So why isn't in happening?!
In todays video I will give you 3 (possibly 4) different reasons why Airbus is staying nicely on the sidelines as this is unfolding.
As always I would love to hear your views on this. Please come into the Mentour Aviation app and share your thoughts.

To download the FREE app, use the links below! 👇🏻

Follow me on Instagram👇🏻

Join my Patreon-crew and support the channel! 👇🏻

A special thank you to the channels which were featured in todays episode. Check out the full AWESOME videos below:

Jetline Marvel (Which is better, Airbus 320 NEO or Boeing 737MAX)

Airbus (Airbus family flying together)

Inselvideo (A320NEO takeoff)

Navgeek Aviation (Boeing 797)

Topfelya (Boeing 737MAX takeoff)

Aviation: Benefits beyond borders (Carbon fibre construction B787)

Below you can find the links to the different media outlets I have partially based my research on. The rest comes from my own experience and rumours in the market.

[falconath]

I'm doing a Masters degree in Aerospace Engineering, I have some guest lecturers who are structural engineers from Airbus. I asked one of them if Airbus is going to take advantage of the Boeing crisis, and he said "what could we do even if we wanted to? The waiting list on a new aircraft is eight years, it's much quicker for the airlines to just wait for Boeing to fix it".

[captainwin]

Never interupt your enemy when he's making a mistake.

[bwacuff]

Airbus doesn't have to do a thing: Boeing's management is destroying Boeing faster and more efficiently than any external force could.

[truthfacts]

the dog sleeping is too cute, didn't notice it at first...

[arphaksad]

Once upon a time, Boeing was run by Engineers and now it's run by bean counters.

[mikecawood]

Your little dog is dreaming about running across the range.

[soughtbug]

The comments on this video: 75% actually stuff about the video. The other 25% is about the dog

[thomasmiller]

This reminds me of 50 years ago: my father was an airline exec and their main competitor had a long strike. I said to my father, "This is good for you, right?" and he replied "In the short term. But in the long term, anything that's bad for the industry is bad for us."

[shovsky]

Airbus has such long list of orders for A320 neo, that I suppose they simply cannot deliver more

[streamyoutub]

Hey, As always I hope you're doing absolutely fantastic.
Your dog is always sleeping on the couch in a particular manner that it makes me wonder if it's a real or just another fluffy toy!

[andyowens]

Not just a pilot, but a half-decent economist too. Nice insight, thanks.

[quillmaurer]

I remember talking about this with my dad, an airline pilot, years ago. In his case, in favor of Boeing actually, as he was a Boeing fan and at times referred to Airbuses as "Airbags" or "Crash-buses." I'd say the tables have turned a bit since then, not to mention that he's now become an A320 captain and, while still not a fan of how it flies, he seems reasonably happy with it. I asked him about airlines or airplane manufacturers bashing the safety record of competitors, and he said that this would hurt everyone, be a net loss for the company doing it. Despite the safety record of flying being one of the safest possible ways of traveling, the public is still very fearful of it, scared of flying. Anything that mentions hazards of flying, even if on a competitor's airline or plane, will turn the public away from flying period, hurting all airlines and manufacturers. The biggest opponent isn't other competing airlines or manufacturers, it's the public's fear of flying. The other points are interesting as well - basically that it would be in both manufacturer's benefit to cooperate and agree upon how much improvement to make rather than either developing a new vastly superior product, forcing the other to do the same, at great expense to both. They aren't actually scheming on this, more it sounds as though Airbus tricked Boeing into staying with this strategy. From an airline and industry perspective this is sort of a disadvantage, as it means that neither are making the best planes they could, a drawback of a duopoloy like this - more players in the game might change that. The other thing is simply that both are at their capacity for manufacturing planes, and if something happened to one, the other wouldn't be able to sell any more planes than they already are as they can't build them.

[tomaszg]

The thumbnail made me laugh for a good few minutes :)

[Dwesley]

Love that you changed the pillow- that means you definitely read your viewers comments! Love the channel keep it up!

[ghstark]

Very well reasoned, as always. If either manufacturer starts casting stones at their rival you can bet the rival will throw back just as hard.

[gaguy]

Airbus cant kill Boeing and vice versa...it is a duopoly. Airbus would have to more than double capacity and lose billions driving Boeing from the marketplace

[ALA-uvjq]

If the max was built by Airbus it would have been grounded in the US immediately after the first accident in Indonesia. It took a second deadly accident to ground the max, and even then Boeing and FAA were reluctant. Says it all really.

[norbertblackrain]

i serious hope that Boeing will survive and learn from this crisis. A healthy and respectful competition is vital for advancement.

[daltonbanks]

That thumbnail is the most creative one i've ever seen.

[Mariazellerbahn]

6:05 In the beginning there was DeHavilland. Their Comet was the first ever jet airliner. After initial problems and the likes of Boeing learning from DeHavilland's errors, the Comet became one of the safest ways to fly.