The Battle between Airbus and Boeing
At the commercial aircraft industry, there are three main segments:
-
large commercial airplanes (LCA);
-
regional jets;
-
Private jets.
At this moment only Boeing and Airbus belong to segment of large commercial
airplanes (LCA), with firms such as Embraer of Brazil and Bombardier of Canada
taking up positions within the segment of regional jets in North America, firms such
as Gulfstream and LearJet round out the market of private jets (Heppenheimer
2001:135).
The Boeing and Airbus are only two firms that share almost 100% of the
market of LCA. While there are still older planes produced by defunct Soviet firms as
well as some European manufactures such as British Aerospace or France’s
Aerospatiale that remain in limited commercial service, it is safe to say that nearly all
LCA were produced by either Boeing or Airbus. Therefore the market is highly
concentrated and qualifies as a classic duopoly.
Firms Structure
Boeing. The Boeing Company is a publicly‐traded firm registered with
Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States and listed on the New York
Stock Exchange (ticker symbol BA). In the Boeing Annual Report (2006) says that the
firm is owned by shareholders via 1,012,261,159 outstanding shares of Boeing Stock
(2006 Boeing 10‐K), making it a publicly owned firm managed by a board of directors
on the shareholders’ behalf. Boeing regularly publishes its financial information in
both its SEC filings and distributes an annual report to its shareholders. If You will see
any annual report of the Boeing, for example Boeing Annual Report (2007), You will
see that these filings and reports contain extensive detailed information on Boeing’s
commercial airplanes division, the entity responsible for the design, testing, and
manufacture of all Boeing commercial jetliners.
Airbus. The current structure of the firm now known as Airbus S.A.S. is
extraordinarily complex and difficult to fully discern. Airbus S.A.S. was formed after
the merger of DaimlerChrysler Aerospace AG (DASA) of Germany, Aerospatiale‐
Matra of France, and Aeronauticas SA (CASA) of Spain to form European Aeronautic
Defense and Space Company or EADS. As a result of the merger, EADS now holds
80% of the shares of Airbus S.A.S. The remaining 20% is owned by a British firm –
BAE Systems. All four firms, DASA, Aerospatiale, CASA, and BAE, were the original
founding firms of the Airbus Consortium.
EADS is a simplified joint‐stock company that has major shareholders such as
SOGEADE a French state-owned holding company, SEPI a Spanish state‐owned
holding company, and Daimler AG, with the French government directly owning a
portion of the publicly traded shares (Newhouse 2007). Daimler is partially owned by
the German government, and BAE Systems is partially owned by the British crown. In
addition, EADS is traded on six public stock exchanges in Europe. Though the
connection is not direct, Airbus S.A.S. continues to be partially owned and controlled
by the governments of four European countries.
EADS and BAE Systems each publish annual financial reports. However, Airbus
S.A.S does not publicly distribute its financials. The Airbus financial information is not
directly contained in either the EADS or BAE reports – it is therefore very difficult to
determine Airbus’s financial status.
Figure 1. The Airbus’s firm structure
EADS
80% Ownership
DASA
DaimlerChrysler
AeroSpace AG
German
Government
AerospatialeMatra
SOGEADE a
French State
Holding Company
CASA
Aeronaucticas SA
SEPI a Spanish
State Holding
Company
Private
Shareholders
Airbus S.A.S.
BAE Systems
20% Ownership
Six Public Stock
Exchanges
French
Government
British Crown
(Minority Stake)
Private
Shareholders
(Majority Stake)
Orders and deliveries
The number of orders and deliveries for Boeing and Airbus companies from
year 1993 till 2013:
Year
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Orders
Deliveries
Airbus Boeing Airbus Boeing
38
236
138
409
125
125
123
312
106
441
123
256
326
708
124
271
460
543
126
375
556
606
182
563
476
355
294
620
520
588
311
491
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
375
300
284
370
1055
790
1341
777
271
574
1419
833
902
314
251
239
272
1002
1044
1413
662
142
530
805
1203
830
325
303
305
320
378
434
453
483
498
510
534
588
626
527
381
281
285
290
398
441
375
481
462
477
601
648
According to the data table we have next graph of yearly deliveries and orders
for Boeing and Airbus:
a)
Yearly total orders (Airbus vs. Boeing):
Number of orders
Yearly Total Orders (Airbus vs. Boeing)
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Airbus
Boeing
Figure 2. Yearly Total Orders
b)
Yearly total deliveries (Airbus vs. Boeing):
Number of deliveries
Yearly Total Deliveries (Airbus vs. Boeing)
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Airbus
Boeing
Figure 3. Yearly Total Deliveries
As we can see from the pictures above, the Boeing was the leader of the LCA
for more than 10 years until 2003. It was happened because in early 2000s Airbus
has taken some important decisions that affect the company's financial position at
the moment. The strategy includes next two points:
1.
First, it was made the risky decision to initiate the development and
production of A380. Even after four years from the start of the production of A380 it
has not come to a profitable level.
2.
The second important factor was the decision to sell the aircraft at a
loss or with minimal profit in order to increase market share.
And this strategy was right! For example, as we see from the chart Airbus
delivered 311 aircraft to customers, Boeing – 491 in 2000. In year 2003, the ratio
changed in favor of Airbus (at first time!) - 305 against Boeing - 281. Airbus’ orders
grew up from 132 billion euros in 2000 to 541 billion euros in 2011 (from 124 to 700
billion dollars). For comparison, the volume of Boeing’s orders has grown up from
153 to 355 billion dollars.
But Boeing has been more profitable. In year 2011, its EBIT margin in
commercial airplanes was 9.7% vs. 1.7% at Airbus. This dichotomy between one
party's push for market share gains and the other's focus on profitable orders has
defined the relationship between the two competitors for over a decade.
In a decade of astounding revenue and order growth, Airbus has not improved
its profitability. In fact, its operating income (EBIT) was negative in three of the last
six years (2006-2011) despite healthy revenues and deliveries. Boeing has remained
profitable but its commercial airplane sales and operating income have been rangebound for a decade. From 2000 to 2011, Boeing sales grew at a small 1.4%
annualized rate and EBIT at only 2.3%. At Airbus, sales have grown at a 7.6% annual
rate (11% in dollar terms) but EBIT has nosedived into the red for the past six years.
Boeing's commercial plane division accounted for 66% of its group sales in 1999 and
now accounts for 52%. Airbus sales have remained consistently above 60% of EADS
group sales and reached a new high of 67% in year 2011. Airbus's drive for market
share at the expense of profits has had a very measurable impact: its revenues are
up, its profits are down, and Boeing's airplane sales and earnings have flat lined.
Airbus is trying to improve its poor profitability. Airbus management is
targeting an EBIT margin of 10% for 2015, a level last reached in year 2005. The
margin is expected to start expanding in 2012 as A380 losses subside and low-margin
orders from the early 2000s are finally phased out.
Long-term expectations remain high and both manufacturers are likely to add
more capacity in coming years. Because these expectations are predicated on
continued growth in emerging markets, a cyclical downturn in these markets will
depress utilization rates and put pressure on pricing at the same time that new
competitors enter the lower end of the market. On the other hand, continued
expansion of emerging market airlines and operational improvements at Airbus
could result in better pricing power unless COMAC manages to gain significant
market share.
Exchange Rates Effect
An exchange rate between currencies is the rate at which one currency will be
exchanged for another. It is also regarded as the value of one country’s currency in
terms of another currency.
To begin with it needs to say that U.S. dollar is the de facto currency of the
global aerospace industry (Wall Street Journal 2009:B3). In the same time the cost of
producing aircraft to Boeing and Airbus are calculated in dollars and euros,
respectively. While the euro was cheaper dollar, Airbus had the advantage of a
cheap currency. However, with the growth rate of the euro against the dollar this
advantage was transferred to Boeing.
Exchange rates:
-
U.S. dollar / Euro
Figure 4. Exchange rate U.S. dollar per Euro
Exchange Rate - U.S. dollar per Euro
1,4
1,38
1,36
1,34
1,32
1,3
1,28
8.4.13
9.4.13
10.4.13
11.4.13
12.4.13
1.4.14
2.4.14
3.4.14
4.4.14
5.4.14
6.4.14
7.4.14
-
U.S. dollar / Japanese Yen
Figure 5. Exchange Rate Japanese Yen per U.S. dollar
Exchange Rate - Japanese Yen per U.S. dollar
106
104
102
100
98
96
94
92
8.4.13
-
9.4.13
10.4.13
11.4.13
12.4.13
Euro / Japanese Yen
1.4.14
2.4.14
3.4.14
4.4.14
5.4.14
6.4.14
7.4.14
Exchange Rate - Japanese Yen per Euro
150
145
140
135
130
125
120
8.4.13
9.4.13
10.4.13
11.4.13
12.4.13
1.4.14
2.4.14
3.4.14
4.4.14
5.4.14
6.4.14
7.4.14
Figure 6. Exchange Rate Japanese Yen per Euro
In addition, the exchange rate plays a role in the sale of aircraft. Boeing usually
sells its cars in dollars, while Airbus, indicating in most cases the prices in dollars, in
certain transactions, particularly in Asia and the Middle East, more flexibility and
exposes the prices in other currencies. Depending on fluctuations in the interval
between order and delivery airliner this may lead to additional revenue and
additional losses for the producer (Wall Street Journal 2009:B3).
What we have in the situation when we want to buy an airplane? The price for
the airplane from Boeing is in U.S. dollars. Let take that the price is 260 million of
dollar. And the price for the airplane from Airbus is 389.9 million of dollar (or nearly
290 million of euro).
If we will calculate the price of the airplane of the Boeing:
1)
The price of the airplane is 260 million of dollar. The exchange rate U.S.
dollar / Japanese Yen is 104.86 yen per dollar (on January, 8, 2014).
2)
The price of the airplane in Japanese Yen in this case will be:
𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒𝐽𝑃𝑌 = 𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑈𝑆𝐷 ∙ 𝑟𝑈𝑆𝐷𝐽𝑃𝑌 = 260 million of dollar ∙ 104.86
= 27263.6 million of dollar.
3)
The exchange rate U.S. dollar / Euro is 1.3576 dollar per 1 euro (on
January, 8, 2014). The exchange rate Euro / Japanese Yen is 142.35 yen per euro (on
January, 8, 2014). If we will take the same price and convert it into euro and then we
will calculate the price in Japanese Yen, we will have:
𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒𝐽𝑃𝑌 =
𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑈𝑆𝐷
260 million of dollar
∙ 𝑟𝑈𝑆𝐷𝐽𝑃𝑌 =
∙ 142.35 =
𝑟𝐸𝑈𝑅𝑈𝑆𝐷
1.3576
= 27262.08 million of dollar.
We have lower price. But why? If we will count exchange rate U.S. dollar /
Euro using two exchange rates U.S. dollar / Japanese Yen and Euro / Japanese Yen,
we will have:
𝑟𝐸𝑈𝑅𝑈𝑆𝐷 =
𝑟𝑈𝑆𝐷𝐽𝑃𝑌 142.35
=
≈ 1.3575 < 𝑟𝐸𝑈𝑅𝑈𝑆𝐷 = 1.3576.
𝑟𝐸𝑈𝑅𝐽𝑃𝑌 104.86
We know that it is important for customer and producer how stable is the
currency. The graph below show the change in exchange rates (weekly) during one
year.
Figure 7. Changes in Exchange Rates
Changes in Exchange Rates (USD/JPY and EUR/JPY)
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
1
3
5
7
9
11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
-0,5
-1
-1,5
-2
-2,5
-3
Japanese Yen per dollar change
Japanese Yen per Euro change
According to this graph we can say that U.S. dollar has smaller change, while
Euro has higher changes in exchange rate.
Date (weekly)
USD per Euro
Yen per dollar
Yen per Euro
7/27/14
1.348
101.55
136.89
7/20/14
1.3563
101.47
137.62
7/13/14
1.3607
101.64
138.3
7/6/14
1.3642
101.73
138.77
6/29/14
1.3616
101.79
138.58
6/22/14
1.3574
102.01
138.47
6/15/14
1.3572
102.21
138.72
6/8/14
1.3625
102.33
139.43
6/1/14
1.3626
101.83
138.75
5/25/14
1.3676
101.56
138.9
5/18/14
1.3724
101.84
139.76
5/11/14
1.3864
101.87
141.23
5/4/14
1.3852
102.33
141.75
4/27/14
1.3819
102.41
141.52
4/20/14
1.3831
102.04
141.13
4/13/14
1.3805
102.27
141.18
4/6/14
1.3751
103.42
142.21
3/30/14
1.3783
102.35
141.07
3/23/14
1.3862
101.88
141.22
3/16/14
1.3887
102.56
142.41
3/9/14
1.3795
102.34
141.18
3/2/14
1.374
102.22
140.45
2/23/14
1.3723
102.17
140.22
2/16/14
1.3652
102.2
139.52
2/9/14
1.3542
101.81
137.88
2/2/14
1.3616
102.49
139.55
1/26/14
1.3594
103.81
141.11
1/19/14
1.3625
104.12
141.86
1/12/14
1.3615
104.62
142.44
1/5/14
1.3719
105.03
144.09
12/29/13
1.3702
104.48
143.16
12/22/13
1.3718
103.52
142.01
12/15/13
1.3744
103.03
141.6
12/8/13
1.3614
102.52
139.57
12/1/13
1.3571
101.87
138.24
11/24/13
1.3505
100.48
135.7
11/17/13
1.3431
99.62
133.81
11/10/13
1.346
98.64
132.78
11/3/13
1.3688
98.06
134.22
10/27/13
1.3749
97.66
134.27
10/20/13
1.359
98.25
133.53
10/13/13
1.355
97.64
132.31
10/6/13
1.3554
97.72
132.45
9/29/13
1.3509
98.77
133.43
9/22/13
1.3423
99.14
133.06
9/15/13
1.3258
99.62
132.07
9/8/13
1.3182
99.26
130.84
9/1/13
1.3318
98.14
130.7
8/25/13
1.3361
98.01
130.95
8/18/13
1.3307
97.36
129.56
8/11/13
1.3315
97.4
129.68
8/4/13
1.3265
98.47
130.6
Variance:
-
Japanese Yen per U.S. dollar: 𝑣𝑈𝑆𝐷𝐽𝑃𝑌 = 4.4359.
-
Japanese Yen per Euro: 𝑣𝐸𝑈𝑅𝐽𝑃𝑌 = 17.1697.
We see that it is better and less risky to use dollar prices (if we are in Japan).
Exchange Hedging
Forward Contracts. Forward Contract (FC) is a customized contract between
two parties to buy or sell an asset at a specified price on a future date. A forward
contract can be used for hedging or speculation, although its non-standardized
nature makes it particularly apt for hedging. Unlike standard futures contracts, a
forward contract can be customized to any commodity, amount and delivery date. A
forward contract settlement can occur on a cash or delivery basis. Forward contracts
do not trade on a centralized exchange and are therefore regarded as over-thecounter (OTC) instruments. While their OTC nature makes it easier to customize
terms, the lack of a centralized clearinghouse also gives rise to a higher degree of
default risk. As a result, forward contracts are not as easily available to the retail
investor as futures contracts.
How JAL could hedge its foreign exchange exposure by utilizing forward
contracts? We know that it needs time to build an airplane and during this time the
exchange rates Japanese Yen per U.S. dollar (or Japanese Yen per Euro) can change
significantly. These changes can be positive for us, when the price will be lower than
order price. But they also can be negative, when the price will be higher than order
price. And this difference between exchange rate change and price change can be
significant. If the price is $100 per item of something than it is not important when
price changed by $0.01, but when we want to buy a plane even this change is quite
significant.
Let see an example with Boeing-747. The price of this plane is nearly 260
million of dollar. We made an order on the July, 1, 2013, when the exchange rate for
U.S. dollar and Japanese Yen was 99.14 JPY per 1 USD. And we should buy this plane
in one year (make a payment), when the exchange rate for U.S. dollar and Japanese
Yen was 101.35 JPY per 1 USD. It is easy to see that we will lose a lot of money.
1)
The price of the plane on July, 1, 2013:
𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒2013 = $260,000,000 ∙ 99.14 = 25,776,400,000 (𝐽𝑃𝑌).
2)
The price of the plane on July, 1, 2014:
𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒2014 = $260,000,000 ∙ 101.35 = 26,351,000,000 (𝐽𝑃𝑌).
3)
The difference in prices:
∆= 26,351,000,000 − 25,776,400,000 = 574,600,000 (𝐽𝑃𝑌).
The difference in prices is more than 570 million of Japanese Yen.
But we could use forward contract for this purchase. In this case we fix or
exchange rate at the level of 99,14 JPY per USD and even after a year, when the
exchange rate will change we will pay “old” price or $260,000,000 by 99.14 Japanese
Yen per U.S. dollar or only. In this case we will save more than 570 million of
Japanese Yen (according to our example).
The opposite side of the forward contract in this case: if we made an order at
the same date (July, 1, 2013) when the exchange rate was 99.14 Japanese Yen per
U.S. dollar. And we made the forward contract with Boeing with the date of payment
of October, 1, 2013 when the exchange rate was 97.93 Japanese Yen per U.S. dollar
(the exchange rate decreased). In this case we will have:
1)
The price of the plane on July, 1, 2013:
𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒𝐽𝑢𝑙𝑦 = $260,000,000 ∙ 99.14 = 25,776,400,000 (𝐽𝑃𝑌).
2)
The price of the plane on October, 1, 2013:
𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑂𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑏𝑒𝑟 = $260,000,000 ∙ 97.93 = 25,461,800,000 (𝐽𝑃𝑌).
3)
The difference in prices:
∆= 25,776,400,000 − 25,461,800,000 = 314,600,000 (𝐽𝑃𝑌).
The difference in prices is more than 310 million of Japanese Yen. But in this
situation the exchange rate change was positive for us (we could save more than 310
million of Japanese Yen). But in this case we also should pay “old” price according to
the forward contract.
Thus, the forward contract could have both positive and negative effects on
the contract price.
Money Market Hedges. A money market hedge is a technique for hedging
foreign exchange risk using the money market, the financial market in which highly
liquid and short-term instruments like Treasury bills, bankers’ acceptances
and commercial paper are traded.
Foreign exchange risk can arise either due to transaction exposure (due to
receivables expected or payments due in foreign currency) or because assets or
liabilities are denominated in a foreign currency. Translation exposure is a much
bigger issue for large corporations than it is for small business and retail investors.
The money market hedge is not the optimal way to hedge translation exposure -
since it is more complicated to set up than using an outright forward or option - but
it can be effectively used for hedging transaction exposure.
If a foreign currency payment has to be made after a defined period of time
(as we have in our case), the following steps have to be taken to hedge currency risk
via the money market:
1)
Borrow the domestic currency in an amount equivalent to the present
value of the payment.
2)
Convert the domestic currency into the foreign currency at the spot
3)
Place this foreign currency amount on deposit.
4)
When the foreign currency deposit matures, make the payment.
rate.
For example. We made an order for Boeing-747 on July, 1, 2013. We will need
to pay $260,000,000 on July, 1, 2014. At this moment the exchange spot rate for U.S.
dollar is 99.17 Japanese Yen per dollar. In this case we will need:
1)
The price of the plane on July, 1, 2013:
𝑃𝑉 =
$260,000,000
≈ $257,425,743.
(1 + 0.01)
𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒𝐽𝑢𝑙𝑦 ≈ $257,425,743 ∙ 99.17 = 25,528,910,891.09 (𝐽𝑃𝑌).
According to the strategy of the Money Market Hedges we need to borrow
25,528,910,933.31 in some Japanese bank. Let take that the interest rate will be
1.75%. Then we need to convert these money into the foreign currency (U.S. dollar)
at the spot rate (99.17 JPY per USD):
25,528,910,891.09
2)
𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑈𝑆𝐷 =
3)
Then we place this amount in U.S. dollar on deposit. Let take that
99.17
= $257,425,743.
deposit rate is 1%. It will give us exactly the same amount that we need, or
$260,000,000.
4)
And we need to pay an interest:
𝐼 = 25,528,910,891.09 ∙ (1 + 0.0175) = 25,975,666,831.68317.
We have a “fixed rate” of:
𝑟=
25,975,666,831.68317
= 99.906.
260,000,000
On the July, 1, 2014 the exchange rate was at least 101.35 Japanese Yen per
U.S. dollar. Thus, our “fixed rate” saved our money. We will save:
∆= 260,000,000 ∙ (101.35 − 99.906) = 375,440,000 (𝐽𝑃𝑌).
We will save more than 375 million of Japanese Yen by using the money
market hedges.
Over the counter foreign currency option. Over the counter options are written
by financial institutions. These OTC options are more liquid than forward contracts.
At any moment, the holder can sell them back to the original writer, who quotes
tow-say prices.
The main advantage of OTC options is that they are tailored to the specific
needs of the firm: Financial institutions are willing to write or buy options that vary
by contract size, maturity, and strike price. As a consequence, the bid-ask spread in
the OTC market is higher than in the traded-options market.
Firms buying and selling currency options as part of their risk management
program do so primarily in the OTC market.
In OTC market, most of the options are written at a strike price equal to the
spot price of that moment (at-the-money options). A firm wishing to purchase an
option in the OTC market normally places a call to the currency option desk of a
major money center bank, specifies the currencies, maturity, strike price(s), and asks
for an indication (a bid-ask quote). The bank normally takes a few minutes to a few
hours to price the option and return the call.
How JAL could hedge itself with the help of OTC foreign currency option? It
could ask some firm to sell currency option for the U.S. dollar for $260,000,000 at
the spot rate (date: July, 1, 2013). The spot rate of U.S. dollar was 99.17 Japanese
Yen per U.S. dollar on July, 1, 2013. It will mean that we will fix our exchange rate on
this value.
We will save:
𝑆 = $260,000,000 ∙ (101.35 − 99.17) = 566,800,000 (𝐽𝑃𝑌).
We will save more than 560 million of Japanese Yen by using over the counter
foreign currency option.
Exchange traded futures contracts. Exchange traded futures contract is a
variety of derivative products based on exchange-traded funds. ETF futures are
contracts that represent an agreement to buy (or sell) the underlying ETF shares at
an agreed-upon price on or before a specified date in the future. ETF options, on the
other hand, are contracts that give the holder the right, but not the obligation, to
buy (or sell) the underlying ETF shares at an agreed-upon price on or before a
specified date in the future. These products are typically used when you adopt a
bullish or bearish outlook on the economy or an industry as a whole, over individual
stocks.
We will save some money by using this option in the case in proposed
exchange rate will be less than 101.35 Japanese Yen per U.S. dollar.
Conclusion
As we understand during working on this task there is a high risk to have
heavy losses because of exchange rate fluctuations. It is especially important when
we have pay large amount of money in some time period. Any company who work
on foreign markets (buy or sell) should remember about this and try to minimize
their risk to have some losses. How they can do this? With the help of such economic
tools like:
-
Forward Contracts;
-
Money Market hedges;
-
Over the Counter foreign currency options;
-
Exchange traded futures contracts.
But at the same time we should always trace financial and many other
changes in the world which can influence on the money market to find the best time
for purchase and best option for this.
Bibliography
Boeing Company. Form 10‐K. Chicago, IL: Boeing Company, 2006.
Boeing Company. Annual Report. Chicago, IL: Boeing Company, 2007.
Boeing: Investor Relations – Archived Quarterly Earnings Releases and
Financial Reports. - www.boeing.com/companyoffices/financial/quarterly.htm.
EADS Global Website – Strategy. – www.airbusgroup.com/int/en.html.
Heppenheimer, T. A., 2001. A Brief History of Flight. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Historical Exchange Rates – www.oanda.com/currency/historical-rates.
Newhouse, John, 2007. Boeing versus Airbus. New York: Alfred A Knopf.
Official Airbus Website. – www.airbus.com.
Official Boeing Website. – www.boeing.com/boeing.
Strong Euro Weighs on Airbus, Suppliers, Wall Street Journal, October 30,
2009, p. B3.