Since the inception of the 21st century, Boeing or Airbus, which has been more innovative? Introduction-Background To be innovative, one needs to have a very strong and clear vision of the future (Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2010). It requires one to project what their customers will want in decades to come (Lindgardt, et al., 2009). By picturing this, one can begin to create innovations that will put them in the right place when the future comes (Nagji and Tuff,It is for this reason that the rivalry between Boeing and Airbus has been very fascinating, largely because they have completely different visions about what the future of commercial aviation holds. And these two visions have seen the airlines produce different airplanes. However, Airbus has invested more on innovation and research and development over the past twenty years and emerged the most innovative airline compared to Boeing, at the 2015 Air Show in Paris, which is the biggest aviation event in the world. Brief Literature Review Boeing versus Airbus has been one of the most immense rivalries on the planet (Carbaugh and Olienyk, 2004). While both aerospace companies have different visions, they have however agreed on the fact that the future belongs to the most efficient which is measured by the cost per passenger mile. On their part, Boeing has opted to work on the numerator, which is operating cost. Airbus on the other hand has narrowed on the denominator, which are passenger miles. This has seen the two companies produce two remarkably different airline experiences. These are point-to-point for Boeing and hub-to-spoke for Airbus. Airbus strategy is to produce aircrafts that are best suited for the market needs (Campos, 2001). The strategy also involves supporting these aircrafts with the best quality service. In its approach, Airbus will assess demand of travel between two cities and when it can ascertain that the demand is not very high, will have a regional hub where passengers can fly to, so that these passengers can join hundreds of other passengers on an Airbus A380. This idea is built around the assumption that many airlines will fly smaller planes getting passengers to the few large (or regional) hubs on short routes. In addition, their strategy also holds that passengers will opt to endure the hustles of having to change planes so that they can enjoy the privilege of boarding jet-powered cruiser lines. With this, Airbus is able to offer its passengers the lower seat-mile cost compared to other aircrafts. This lowers ticket prices by as much as 25 percent. Boeing on the other hand takes a completely different tack and their vision states that if a hub does not have much demand, then the best approach is to create a smaller plane that will carry passengers on long and thin routes helping the airline to operate profitably (Irwin and Pavcnik, 2004). This is the vision behind Boeing 787, which is a light-weight and long-distance plane. This approach offers passengers the option of flying from one hub to their final destination, as opposed to having to transfer in mega hubs. What the two strategies demonstrate is that it is vision that leads one to the type of innovation that they deliver. And this explains why Boeing and Airbus have different visions for the future which is why they are making different planesOlienyk and Carbaugh, 2011). There are various reasons why Airbus strategy and approach is more innovative is because its cabins are designed to provide passenger with the best possible level of comfort, efficiency and services. Comfort remains a major design consideration in ensuring that passengers enjoy the best possible passenger experience, and this is consistently maintained across all airbus families. In addition, the company is committed to the wellbeing of the passengers, and it is for this reason that the airline has an entire product line designed to specifically provide modern comfort and standard (Maji, et al., 2013). This is very critical in a rapidly evolving aviation industry. Other aspects of innovation that the company puts premium on s seat width. Specific Research Objectives and Research Questions The objectives of this research are to find out which aerospace company has been innovative since the beginning of the 21st century. The focus in this analysis is between Boeing and Airbus, which are the two largest manufacturers of commercial aircrafts. The research will look at innovation in terms of vision and strategy. It will also look the airline that has adopted and invested in the most innovative design feature with a keen emphasis on enhancing customer experience. Methodology The research will utilize both qualitative and quantitative research methodologies. This is because the research seeks to find out the innovativeness of Boeing and Airbus where statistical data will be assessed to find out which of the two companies has been the most innovative since the beginning of the 21st century. The use of both qualitative and quantitative data will improve our evaluation because it will ensure that the limitations of one methodology are balanced with the strengths of the other methodology (Bernard, 2011). This is important since it will ensure that understanding is fostered through the integration of different ways of knowing. Therefore, our evaluation will collect both qualitative data in form of text, and quantitative data in form of numbers. The data will first and foremost be up to date or based on current trends for it to be reliable. Since this dissertation is limited to the 21st century, the data will feature information generated since the year 2000 to date, where appropriate, some historical data will be included to provide some basis. Time scale Task Start Date Duration End Date Decide on a conceptual framework for project 3 March 2016 1 day 4 March 2016 Source and prepare 15 quality and applicable sources 7 March 2016 2 days 10 March 2016 Review the sources 11 March 2016 2 days 12 March 2016 Decide on most appropriate theme for article structure and headings 14 March 2016 1 day 15 March 2016 Decide on the appropriate method for analyzing the results 16 March 2016 1 day 17 March 2016 Research on the methodology 18 March 2016 1 day 19 March 2016 Carrying out practical study and data collection 21 March 2016 5 days 26 March 2016 Analyze the data (secondary sources) 29 March 2016 5 days 1 April 2016 Write up the paper 4 April 2016 9 days 13 April 2016 Revise the final draft and fill the gaps 14 April 2016 4 days 18 April 2016 Final proofread and edit 19 April 2016 2 days 21 April 2016 Submit the dissertation 22 April 2016 1 day 22 April 2016 References Carbaugh, R. J., &Olienyk, J. 2004. Boeing-Airbus subsidy dispute: A sequel. Global Economy Journal, 4(2). Campos, L. B. 2001. On the competition between Airbus and Boeing. Air & Space Europe, 3(1), 11-14. Irwin, D. A., &Pavcnik, N. 2004. Airbus versus Boeing revisited: international competition in the aircraft market. Journal of international economics, 64(2), 223-245. Heymann, E., Frank, H. J., & Walter, N. 2007. Boeing v Airbus: The WTO dispute that neither can win. Deutsche Bank AG, DB Research. Olienyk, J., & Carbaugh, R. J. 2011. Boeing and Airbus: Duopoly in Jeopardy?. Global Economy Journal, 11(1). Maji, S., Rahtu, E., Kannala, J., Blaschko, M., &Vedaldi, A. 2013. Fine-grained visual classification of aircraft. arXiv preprint arXiv:1306.5151. Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. 2010. Managing innovation paradoxes: ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies. Long range planning, 43(1), 104-122. Lindgardt, Z., Reeves, M., Stalk, G., &Deimler, M. S. 2009. Business Model Innovation. When the Game Gets Tough, Change the Game, The Boston Consulting Group, Boston, MA. Nagji, B., & Tuff, G. 2012. Managing your innovation portfolio. Harvard Business Review, 90(5), 66-74. Bernard, H. R. 2011. Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Rowman Altamira.