Connect with us

Business

Airbus is about to eclipse a record that Boeing held for decades

Published

on



In 1981, the year Airbus SE announced it would build a new single-aisle jetliner to take on Boeing Co., the 737 ruled the roost. 

The US-made narrowbody, already in use for more than a decade, had reshaped the airline industry by making shorter routes cheaper and more profitable to operate. By 1988, when Airbus began producing its upstart A320, Boeing had built a formidable lead by delivering some 1,500 of its cigar-shaped best-seller.

It’s taken the better part of four decades, but Airbus has finally caught up: The A320 series is poised to overtake its US competitor as the most-delivered commercial airliner in history, according to aviation consultancy Cirium. As of early August, Airbus had winnowed the gap to just 20 units, with 12,155 lifetime A320-family shipments, according to the data. That difference is likely to disappear as soon as next month.

“Did anyone back then expect it could become number one – and on such high production volumes?” Max Kingsley-Jones, head of advisory at Cirium Ascend, wrote of the A320 in a recent social-media post. “I certainly didn’t, and nor probably did Airbus.” 

The A320’s success mirrors the European planemaker’s decades-long rise from fledgling planemaker to serious contender, and finally Boeing’s better. By the early 2000s, annual deliveries of the A320 and its derivatives had surpassed the 737 family; total orders eclipsed the Boeing jet in 2019. But the 737 stubbornly remained the most-delivered commercial aircraft of all time. 

At the outset, Airbus faced an uphill battle. The European planemaker, an assemblage of aerospace manufacturers formed in 1970 with backing from European governments, didn’t yet offer a full aircraft lineup. Infighting hindered everything from product planning to manufacturing, and leadership decisions had to finely balance French and German commercial and political interests. 

Yet it was clear even then that Airbus needed a presence in the narrowbody segment to firmly establish itself as Boeing’s top rival. Those aircraft are by far the most widely flown category in commercial aviation, typically connecting city pairs on shorter routes. 

Higher fuel costs and the deregulation of the US aviation industry in the late 1970s had given the European planemaker an opening with American airline executives, who clamored for an all-new single-aisle, according to a history of Airbus written by journalist Nicola Clark.

To set the A320 apart, Airbus took some risks. It selected digital fly-by-wire controls that saved weight over traditional hydraulic systems, and gave pilots a side-stick at their right or left hand instead of a centrally mounted yoke. The aircraft also sat higher off the ground than the 737 and came with a choice of two engines, giving customers greater flexibility. 

Airbus’s gamble paid off. Today, the A320 and 737 make up nearly half of the global passenger jet fleet in service. And the A320’s success contrasts with strategic blunders like the A380 behemoth that proved short-lived because airlines couldn’t profitably operate the giant plane. Boeing maintained that smaller, nimbler planes like the 787 Dreamliner would have an edge — a prediction that proved right.

Read More: Boeing’s Struggles Give Airbus a Chance at Aviation Dominance

Yet the longtime dominance of the two narrowbody aircraft raises questions about the vitality of a duopoly system that favors stability over innovation. Both airplane makers have repeatedly opted for incremental changes that squeeze efficiencies out of their top-selling models, rather than going the more expensive route of designing a replacement aircraft from scratch. 

Airbus was first to introduce new engines to its A320, turning the neo variant into a huge hit with airlines seeking to cut their fuel bill. Under pressure, Boeing followed, but its approach proved calamitous. The US planemaker came up with the 737 Max, strapping more powerful engines onto the aircraft’s aging, low-slung frame. 

It installed an automated flight-stabilizing feature called MCAS to help manage the higher thrust and balance out the plane. Regulators later found MCAS contributed to two deadly 737 Max crashes that led to a global grounding of the jet for 20 months, starting in 2019.

More recently, Airbus has been bedeviled by issues with the fuel-efficient engines that power the A320neo. High-tech coatings that allow its Pratt & Whitney geared turbofans to run at hotter temperatures have shown flaws, forcing airline customers to send aircraft in for extra maintenance, backing up repair shops and grounding hundreds of jets waiting for inspection and repair. 

Read More: Lost Decade of Planemaking Costs Airlines Thousands of Jets

With both narrowbody families near the end of their evolutionary timeline, analysts and investors have begun asking about what’s next. China, for its part, is seeking to muscle into the market with its Comac C919 model that’s begun operating in the country, but hasn’t so far been certified to fly in Europe or the US. 

Boeing Chief Executive Officer Kelly Ortberg said in July that the company is working internally toward a next-generation plane, but is waiting for engine technology and other factors to fall into place, including restoring cash flow after years of setbacks. 

“That’s not today and probably not tomorrow,” he said on a July 29 call. 

Airbus’s healthier finances give it more flexibility to explore design leaps. CEO Guillaume Faury toyed with rolling out a hydrogen-powered aircraft — potentially with a radical “flying wing” design — in the mid-2030s but has since pushed back the effort to focus on a conventional A320 successor.

The Toulouse, France-based company is considering an open-rotor engine that would save fuel through its architecture rather than the current jet turbines that push the limits of physics to eke out gains.

Speaking at the Paris Air Show in June, Faury called the A320 “quite an old platform” and affirmed plans to launch a successor by the end of this decade, with service entry in the mid-2030s.

“I have a lot of focus on preparing that next-generation of single aisle,” Faury said. “We are very steady and very committed to this.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Paramount launches WBD hostile bid that includes Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner

Published

on



In a separate regulatory filing, Paramount disclosed that Affinity Partners, the private equity firm led by Jared Kushner, is part of the bid. It added that sovereign wealth funds from Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar are also participating.

Affinity and the other outside financing partners have agreed to forgo any governance rights, which Paramount said means the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States would have no jurisdiction over the transaction. Meanwhile, Chinese tech conglomerate Tencent is no longer a partner.

The offer comes after Paramount lost out in the bidding war for the assets last week to Netflix, which made a cash-and-stock deal worth $27.75 per share. Paramount’s proposed transaction is for the entirety of WBD, including the Global Networks segment, while Netflix’s deal is for the studio and HBO Max.

Paramount argued its offer to WBD shareholders provides a superior alternative to the Netflix transaction, which offers “inferior and uncertain value and exposes WBD shareholders to a protracted multi-jurisdictional regulatory clearance process with an uncertain outcome,” referring to the likely antitrust concerns for Netflix’s megadeal.

At the Kennedy Center over the weekend, President Donald Trump partially confirmed reporting from Bloomberg’s Lucas Shaw about his private conversations with Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos, saying they had met in the Oval Office before Netflix announced its winning bid, while adding that its combined market share with WBD could be an antitrust concern.

Paramount argued that WBD’s recommendation of the Netflix offer is based on an “illusory prospective valuation of Global Networks that is unsupported by the business fundamentals” and encumbered by high levels of financial leverage assigned to the entity. Netflix’s offer would assume $11 billion of debt and involve a $59 billion bridge loan, which Bloomberg reported was among the highest ever.

David Ellison, chairman and CEO of Paramount, said: “WBD shareholders deserve an opportunity to consider our superior all-cash offer for their shares in the entire company.”

Paramount, which earlier sent a letter to WBD CEO David Zaslav complaining of a “tainted” sale process, further asserted today that although Paramount made six offers for WBD over 12 weeks, “WBD never engaged meaningfully with these proposals, which we believe deliver the best outcome for WBD shareholders.

“We believe our offer will create a stronger Hollywood. It is in the best interests of the creative community, consumers, and the movie theater industry. We believe they will benefit from the enhanced competition, higher content spend and theatrical release output, and a greater number of movies in theaters as a result of our proposed transaction,” Ellison continued. “We look forward to working to expeditiously deliver this opportunity so that all stakeholders can begin to capitalize on the benefits of the combined company.”

Paramount’s tender offer is scheduled to expire at 5 p.m. ET on Jan. 8, 2026. The company said its offer will be financed by new equity backstopped by Paramount’s well-capitalized principal equity holders, and $54 billion of debt commitments from Bank of America, Citi, and Apollo.

Centerview Partners and RedBird Advisors are acting as lead financial advisors to Paramount, and Bank of America Securities, Citi, and M. Klein & Co. are also acting as financial advisors. Cravath Swaine & Moore and Latham & Watkins are acting as legal counsel to Paramount.

Disclosure: The author worked at Netflix from June 2024 through July 2025.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Craigslist founder signs the Giving Pledge, and some of his fortune will go to a pigeon rescue

Published

on



Of the wealthiest people in the world, about 250 have pledged to give away the majority of their fortune—an effort coined the Giving Pledge. It was started by Bill Gates, Melinda French Gates, and Warren Buffett in 2010, and billionaires including Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Larry Ellison, and Bill Ackman have signed on. 

Although it’s often also referred to as the “Billionaire’s Pledge,” other wealthy donors have committed to the endeavor. One of the latest signatories is Craigslist founder Craig Newmark, who announced on LinkedIn this weekend he’s officially joining the Giving Pledge.

“Okay, I’ve formally signed up for the Giving Pledge, sometimes considered the Billionaire’s Pledge, though I’ve never been a billionaire, particularly after I gave away all my Craigslist equity to my charitable foundation,” Newmark wrote. “Seems like a good way to officially enter my middle seventies, which I’ve done today.”

Newark built his fortune by founding popular online marketplace Craiglist in 1995. It started as an email list for local San Francisco residents, but turned into an online classifieds page the following year. Today, Craigslist is estimated to be worth about $3 billion

“This all feels like a follow up to my decision in early 1999 to monetize Craigslist as little as possible,” Newmark said of signing Giving Pledge. “The best estimate so far is that I turned down around $11B that bankers and VCs wanted to throw at me. I still made plenty after that.”

In 2020, Forbes estimated Newmark’s net worth at $1.3 billion, although in 2022 he said he’d give away most of his fortune to charitable causes. There aren’t more recent estimates of his net worth, but he emphasized in his LinkedIn post he is not a billionaire.

His foundation, Craig Newmark Philanthropies, mostly supports cybersecurity and veterans causes. And in his post committing to the Giving Pledge, Newmark said he’d continue making similar donations. 

“My focus is where I can do some actual good in neglected areas, like for military families and vets, like fighting cyberattacks and preventing scams,” he wrote. “Also, a little for pigeon rescue.”

Wait, what?

Newmark is also dedicated to rescuing pigeons. 

“I love birds, have a sense of humor, and I suspect that pigeons may become our replacement species,” he told the Associated Press in 2023.

His favorite neighborhood pigeon is named Ghostface Killah, who is featured in a painting on his mantle at home. 

He said he developed his love for pigeons in the mid-1980s when he lived in Detroit. Pigeons are “the underdog,” he told NYU’s student newspaper Washington Square News

“They’re the grassroots, most prominent bird and possibly our successor species,” Newmark said. “But pigeons are, well, I identify with them as well. I grew up with no money, living across the street from a junkyard.”

Early this year, Newmark donated $30,000 to San Francisco-based pigeon rescue Palomacy, which was the largest donation the organization had ever received. 

“Craig Newmark is many things: the founder of craigslist, an ‘accidental entrepreneur,’ a self-proclaimed old-school nerd, a full-time philanthropist and a life-long lover of pigeons,” Palomacy said in January. “We so appreciate the support they provide our feathered friends.”

With Newmark’s donation, Palomacy can continue to “save hundreds of pigeons and doves through hands-on rescue, rehabilitation, and rehoming in Northern California,” according to the organization. “We are reversing the unfair stigma against pigeons and showing the world they deserve our respect and protection.”

Recent criticisms of the Giving Pledge

Although there undoubtedly are some billionaires and other high-net-worth individuals who are genuinely committed to the Giving Pledge, there has been recent criticism many of the signatories aren’t living up to the pledge. Even Melinda French Gates, one of its founders, recently said people could be doing more. 

“Have they given enough? No,” she said in a recent interview with Wired.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent last week also called the Giving Pledge a failure—but for different reasons. He said it was “well intentioned,” but was “very amorphous” and claimed wealthy people made the commitment out of fear that the public would “come at it with pitchforks.” Bessent also pointed out that not many billionaires have actually delivered on their promise to donate their fortunes. 

Warren Buffett, another Giving Pledge founder, also recently admitted he had to rethink some of his original philanthropic plans.

“Early on, I contemplated various grand philanthropic plans. Though I was stubborn, these did not prove feasible,” he wrote in a recent letter to shareholders. “During my many years, I’ve also watched ill-conceived wealth transfers by political hacks, dynastic choices, and, yes, inept or quirky philanthropists.” 

Several studies have also poked holes in the Giving Pledge, showing how it’s benefitted billionaires by presenting themselves as generous and public‑spirited, but doesn’t question inequalities and tax rules that led to such massive wealth in the first place.

The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) argues the Giving Pledge is “unfulfilled, unfulfillable, and not our ticket to a fairer, better future.” 

To be sure, many wealthy signatories like Newmark appear to be genuinely committed to the cause. 

“Like I say, a nerd’s gotta do what a nerd’s gotta do, and a nerd should practice what he preaches,” Newmark wrote over the weekend.





Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang urges a return to factory careers: ‘Not everyone needs a PhD’

Published

on



“We want to re-industrialize the United States. We need to be back in manufacturing,” Huang said recently on theJoe Rogan Experience podcast. “Every successful person doesn’t need to have a PhD. Every successful person doesn’t have to have gone to Stanford or MIT.”

Huang believes more Americans need to take on manufacturing gigs—not just to pivot to where the work will be in the age of AI, but also because the entire industry could be at risk. As much as the thought of U.S. citizens heading back into factories may seem like a back-track, he said it impacts the nation’s ability to remain prosperous and build AI companies like his.

“If [the] the United States doesn’t grow, we will have no prosperity,” Huang continued. “We can’t invest in anything domestically or otherwise—we can’t fix any of our problems. If we don’t have energy growth, we can’t have industrial growth. If we don’t have industrial growth, we can’t have job growth. It’s as simple as that.”

“If not for [Trump’s] pro-growth energy policy, we would not be able to build factories for AI, not be able to build chip factories, we surely won’t be able to build supercomputer factories. None of that stuff would be possible without all of that. Construction jobs would be challenged, electrician jobs—all of these jobs that are now flourishing, would be challenged.”

Lutnick’s intergenerational manufacturing push amid talent shortages

As the cofounder and leader of the world’s most valuable company, Huang has a peek under the hood of America’s changing workforce dynamic. The CEO of the $4.53 trillion chip giant has a direct line to U.S. President Donald Trump and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, who are determined to bring U.S. manufacturing back to its glory days. 

The Trump administration is pressing for American self-reliance while curbing immigration, leading officials like Lutnick to push for an intergenerational manufacturing boom. He even framed it as a step into the future, not a stumble back into the past. 

For example, Lutnick claimed that technician jobs are promising gigs with a low barrier to entry, that can pay anywhere between $70,000 to $90,000 at the onset—no college degree required. 

“It’s time to train people not to do the jobs of the past, but to do the great jobs of the future,” Lutnick toldCNBC earlier this year. “This is the new model, where you work in these plants for the rest of your life, and your kids work here, and your grandkids work here.”

It’s an appealing proposition: avoid college debt and earn more than the average U.S. worker, all while having stability during an AI jobs wipeout. Yet many manufacturing roles have been left unfilled, despite the sector continuing to grow. 

Employment in the manufacturing surpassed pre-pandemic levels, standing at about 13 million jobs as of January 2024, according toDeloitte. It was estimated that the need for human workers in manufacturing could stand at around 3.8 million, but over half of these jobs—around 1.9 million—could remain unfilled if skill gaps aren’t addressed and the tune on the jobs doesn’t change. 

After all, only 14% of Gen Zers said they’d consider industrial work as a career, according to a 2023 study from Soter Analytics. There are a few concerns holding them back: they believe the industry doesn’t offer work flexibility, and the conditions are unsafe.

Huang even believes robots will create new jobs for humans

Huang has hope for the future of jobs, even as robot employees step onto the scene—and it’ll give yet another boost to factory jobs. 

Some tech leaders, like Tesla CEO Elon Musk, are already developing their own fleets of autonomous workers; Musk predicted his company’s Optimus humanoid robots will be used internally within Tesla by the end of 2025, and the following year, other companies will have the tech in their hands. 

It’s assumed that these robots will take over the work of employees, leaving humans high and dry—but Huang is optimistic that the tech will create new opportunities, especially for technicians.

“I’m super excited about the robots Elon’s working on. It’s still a few years away. When it happens, there’s a whole new industry of technicians and people who have to manufacture the robots,” Huang explained in the podcast. 

“You’re going to have a whole apparel industry for robots. You’re going to have mechanics for robots. And you have people who come to maintain your robots.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.