AIRBUS and BOEING approaches to innovation in aviation

Discussion

Boeing has built its 787 model and heavily relied on open innovation. On the other hand, this

effort was regard as a failure by many critics for several reasons. Essentially, Boeing work in

partnership with too many players in developing its new model (Κουτσεκίδης, 2012).

Consequently, Boeing had to depend on on outside partners due to control lost. Furthermore,

during its open innovation Boeing has placed too much focus on profit maximization and cost

reduction and consequently it could not uphold its fundamental technologies and specialties.

Airbus will be able to offer a wide range of customers in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and

other North American nations if it commences manufacturing in the aforementioned area in the

United States. Having access to a huge market is one of the most compelling arguments to

produce in the United States in this situation The second factor is the existence of already

constructed specialized infrastructure that is now serving to Boeing and other related sectors. As

a result of this infrastructure (Lamiraux, et al., 2005), Airbus could commence production as

soon as practicable. As a result, the Airbus will be able to more easily satisfy its material and

human resources needs, as well as manage other production factors that will aid in its operations.

The government's policies make up the last component.

A major benefit of Airbus starting operations in the United States is that it will provide much-

needed new jobs for Americans at a time when many companies are exporting work and laying

workers off. As a result, it will have a favorable effect on the local economy, which in turn will

have a positive effect on the US economy.

Thus, Airbus is benefiting from the government's policy, which is favorable.

AIRBUS and BOEING approaches to innovation in aviation

As a result, suppliers and vendors will be allowed to work with Airbus, putting pressure on

Boeing's negotiation position. If Boeing doesn't lower its prices and provide a choice of discount

options, it will lose market share to its competitors in that particular region. By working with the

numerous interest groups that will favor Boeing and against Airbus, this may be accomplished.

Using this path, Boeing will try to get lawmakers to raise the issue in order to secure a better deal

for itself in order to keep its status as a regional favorite.

In order to increase productivity and efficiency in these well-paying professions, the United

States should put more focus on innovation, creativity, and technological advancements. These

businesses will have a lower opportunity cost as a result of this (Barrand, J. et al., 2013).

Consequently, the US will maintain its competitive edge in the global marketplace. For this

reason, the United States must also work to move up the value chain, enabling higher-paying

jobs or people to produce more sophisticated goods. Competition will be restricted, prices will

rise, and a competitive advantage will be established, all while justifying the new high-paying

jobs that are created.

SUMMARY

To summarize, we see after a comparison spanning across various criteria, that both Boeing and

Airbus are, and foreseeably will continue to remain the leaders in the aviation industry with their

unmatched innovation and drive (Kock, A. et al., 2016). It is also evident that we now live in a
AIRBUS and BOEING approaches to innovation in aviation

time past the era of the jumbo jet, due to their impractical nature and deficits that the airlines and

manufacturers faced. Research and development for newer models are now focused towards

more compact and efficient dual engine aircraft, to meet the demands right in the middle.

The duopoly is helpful to the market since it forces both manufacturers to constantly one-up

each other, in terms of cost and efficiency. This duopoly is what led to the introduction of flight

as a mainstream, low cost, and by far the safest mode of transportation across the world. The

currently booming popularity of air travel across newer markets such as those in South-East

Asia, including countries like India, Pakistan and China are also proving to be worthy chances

for both manufacturers to radically globalize their products and establish themselves in those

markets, who are currently anyone’s game (Henman’s, M., 2021).

Lastly, despite their occasional failures and misjudgments, both competitors have made constant

and recurring efforts to emerge on top, and they evidently have, dominating the market by

making up 99% of airliner orders across the globe.

AIRBUS and BOEING approaches to innovation in aviation

REFERENCES

1. Ketchen, D.J., Jr.; Snow, C.C.; Hoover, V.L. Research on Competitive Dynamics:

Recent Accomplishments and Future Challenges. J. Manag. 2004, 30, 779–804. [Google

Scholar] [CrossRef]

2. Shenhar, A.J.; Holzmann, V.; Melamed, B.; Zhao, Y. The Challenge of Innovation in

Highly Complex Projects: What Can We Learn from Boeing’s Dreamliner

Experience? Proj. Manag. J. 2016, 47, 62–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

3. Altfeld, H.H. Commercial Aircraft Projects: Managing the Development of Highly

Complex Products; Ashgate: Farnham, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]

4. Nikita (2013). Difference between Airbus and Boeing. [online]

www.differencebetween.info. Available at:

http://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-airbus-and-boeing.

5. ‌Allal-Chérif, O. (2015). THE WAY TOWARDS OPEN INNOVATION: AIRBUS

MULTI-FUNCTIONAL TEAMS. European Scientific Journal, [online] 1, pp.1857–

7881. Available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/328025243.pdf. . [Google Scholar]

6. Kwon, Y.; Kang, D.; Kim, S.; Choi, S. Coopetition in the SoC Industry: The Case of

Qualcomm Incorporated. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 9. [Google

Scholar] [CrossRef]

7. ennomotive (n.d.). Open Innovation: Definition and Types of Innovation.

[online] www.ennomotive.com. Available at:
https://www.ennomotive.com/open-innovation.

‌
AIRBUS and BOEING approaches to innovation in aviation

8. Chesbrough. H.W. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting

from Technology; Harvard Business School Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003; pp. 43–

56. [Google Scholar]

9. Eisenhardt, K.M. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag.

Rev. 1989, 14, 532–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

10. Baxter, P.; Jack, S. Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and

implementation for novice researchers. Qual. Rep. 2008, 13, 544–559. [Google Scholar]

11.www.airbus.com. (2021). Our History | Airbus. [online] Available at:

https://www.airbus.com/en/who-we-are/our-history#1960s [Accessed 3 Jun.
2022].
12.eflightlevel.blogspot.com. (n.d.). eFlightLevel.com. [online] Available at:
http://eflightlevel.blogspot.com/ [Accessed 3 Jun. 2022].
13.‌Amir, A.R. and Weiss, S.I. (2018). Boeing Company | Description, History, &
Aircraft. In: Encyclopædia Britannica. [online] Available at:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Boeing-Company.

14. Kovacic, W.E. Transatlantic turbulence: The Boeing-McDonnell Douglas merger and

international competition policy. Antitrust Law J. 2000, 68, 805. [Google Scholar]

15. hankyung.com. (1997). 에어버스, 주식회사로 전환 .. 보잉-MD 합병 대응. [online]

Available at: https://www.hankyung.com/international/article/1997010600331

[Accessed 27 May 2022].

16. ‌Yonhap News Agency. Available

online: https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20171222063800009 [Accessed 27 May

2022].
AIRBUS and BOEING approaches to innovation in aviation

17. Chosun Biz. Available

online: https://biz.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2020/04/28/2020042802777.html [

Accessed 27 May 2022].

18. Barrand, J. & Deglaine, J. (2013). Développer l'agilité dans l'entreprise : De nouveaux

leviers d'action et d'intelligence collective, ESF Editions, 247 p. Berger, P

19. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the

sociology of knowledge, Anchor.

20. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and

Profiting from Technology, Harvard Business Review Press.

21. Saunière, J.-C., & Leroyer, S. (2012). Innovation Collaborative et Propriété

Intellectuelle : quelques bonnes pratiques. INPI

22. Bonanza, F. L. Z. & Zylber, M. A., 2013. Innovation and Business Model: a case study

about integration of Innovation Funnel and Business Model Canvas. REVISTA

BRASILEIRA DE GESTÃO DE NEGÓCIOS Review of Business Ma, 16(53), pp. 616-

637.

23. Boons, F., Montalvo, C., Quist, J. & Wagner, M., 2013. Sustainable innovation, business

models and economic performance: an overview. Journal of Cleaner Production,

45(2), pp. 1-8.

24. Braga, A. and Braga, V., 2013. Factors influencing innovation decision making in

Portuguese firms. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 14(3-4), pp.329-349.

25. Dörfler, I., & Baumann, O. (2014). Learning from a drastic failure: the case of the

Airbus A380 program. Industry and Innovation, 21(3), 197-214.

AIRBUS and BOEING approaches to innovation in aviation

26. Gallia, E.-P. & LeGros, D., 2012. French firms’ strategies for protecting their

intellectual property. Research Policy, 41(4), pp. 780-794.

27. Hartmann, J., Meeker, C., Weller, M., Izzard, N., Smith, A., Ferguson, A., & Ellson, A.

(2004). Determinate assembly of tooling allows concurrent design of Airbus wings and

major assembly fixtures (No. 2004-01-2832). SAE Technical Paper.

28. Henman’s, M., 2021. The innovation pyramid: five approaches to strategic decision-

making. Journal of Business Strategy.

29. Jackson, R. (2021). Airbus A380. Airbus A380, 1-88.

30. Jiménez-Jiménez, D. & Valle, R. S., 2011. Innovation, organizational learning, and

performance. Journal of Business Research, 64(4), pp. 408-

31. Kock, A. and Georg Germander, H., 2016. Antecedents to decision‐making quality and

agility in innovation Strategy management. Journal of Product Innovation Management,

33(6), pp.670-686.

32. Lamiraux, F., Laumond, J. P., Van Geem, C., Boutonnet, D., & Raust, G. (2005). Trailer

truck trajectory optimization: the transportation of components for the Airbus A380.

IEEE robotics & automation magazine,

33. Lee, S., Park, G., Yoon, B. & Park, J., 2010. Open innovation in SMEs—An

intermediated network model. Research Policy, 39(2), pp. 290-300.

34. Leroy, A. and Morin, M., 2018. Innovation in the decision-making process of the

RFMOs. Marine Policy, 97, pp.156-162.

35. Norris, G., & Wagner, M. (2005). Airbus A380: superjumbo of the 21st century. Zenith

Imprint.
AIRBUS and BOEING approaches to innovation in aviation

36. Rasmussen, B., 2010. Innovation and Commercialisation in the Biopharmaceutical

Industry: Creating and Capturing Value. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

37. Singh, M., 2012. Marketing Mix of 4P’S for Competitive Advantage. IOSR Journal of

Business and Management, 3(6), pp. 40-45.

38. Smith, H. L. & Sen, S. B., 2004. Innovation geographies: international perspectives on

research, product development, and commercialisation of biotechnologies. Environment

and Planning C: Government and Policy, 22(4), pp. 159-160.

39. Zesty, M. B., Gassmann, O. & Winter halter, S., 2014. From Cost to Frugal and Reverse

Innovation: Mapping the Field and Implications for Global Competitiveness. Research-

Technology Management, 57(4), pp. 20-27.

40. Κουτσεκίδης, Ν. (2012). Airbus A380, the new ascendant in air transportation (Doctoral

dissertation).