Watch the Briefings

"Watch the briefings, and you will note Airbus never compares its A3XX to its real competitor, our new 747X Stretch," complains Joe Ozimek, Boeing's director of product marketing. "It compares it to the current 747-400."

And that is crucial, because Airbus has said all along the A3XX must prove 15% more efficient in seat-mile costs than the benchmark 747-400 to be economically viable.

"Nobody bothers to ask 'Are they using the same set of rules?'" in presenting their technical data and comparisons, Ozimek says. He believes there are profound differences. "Boeing uses industry standard evaluations, while Airbus has chosen to show a set of data that neglects to tell a few things," he said. For example, he questions whether Airbus includes weight-based landing and navigation fees in the trip costs for the 1.2-million-pound A3XX-100, which tips the scales at 200,000 pounds more than the 747X.

Boeing is somewhat miffed that the world believes the A3XX to be so efficient and so much better than its own aircraft.

Airbus claims the A3XX has 17% better seat-mile costs than the 747-400. Boeing retorts that using the same methodology, the 747X Stretch comes in 19% better than the 747-400. Yet, using typical international airline economic rules, the 747X Stretch appears only 8.5-10% better.

Compared to the A3XX, the 747X Stretch has several advantages, Ozimek said:

• 700 nmi more range.
• Seat-mile costs 3-5 % lower.
• Trip costs about 10% lower.
• Faster (same engines, less weight).
• Freighter cost per ton-mile 17% lower.