Dougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1316 times:
There's been a lot of chaff recently about the shadow critical project assessment that was produced by Aaron Gellman and others in response to a commission from the Boeing company, which funded the research.
Gellman's report states that Boeing did not interfere with his work or otherwise fudge the results. Some of you take issue with that.
The report is considerably less sanguine about the long term prospects for the A380 than the assumptions that are driving Airbus...of course, that's what the public sees and there's really no way of knowing what's going on inside the Tolouse Puzzle Palace. Some of you take issue with Gellman's conclusions.
I can tell you Aaron Gellman is a respected academic whose credentials are impeccable....some of you take issue with that, kinda along the lines of "He's a slut and Boeing's the pimp!" Well never mind.
It stands to reason that if Gellman and Boeing "got it wrong" then Airbus should be selling a huge pile of airplanes very soon while Boeing and Gellman are consigned to the dustbin of history.
Because of this it makes you wonder why people have such a problem with this information....unless you subscribe to the theory that it was some sort of a 1918 stab in the back directed at Airbus to discredit them and throw them off their stride. Well, if THAT was the motive, it didn't work.
Here's a link to the report....let's all print it out, READ the dang thang and figure out what he's saying. Henceforth and forevermore, the first question when discussing this report should be "Did you actually READ the danged thing?"
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1283 times:
I reckon that the Gellman Report may soon be topical again, due to the fact that the World Trade Organisation is currently considering the matter of 'launch aid'. The agreement between the US Government and the EU, under which 'launch aid' is provided, specifies that any aided project must be supported by a 'critical project appraisal' proving its commercial viability.
It's pretty clear that 'launch aid' was given to the A380 without such an appraisal. And it remains to be seen whether one has been carried out in respect of the A350. If neither project was subjected to the stipulated appraisal, it's hard to see how the WTO can avoid the conclusion that the EU is in breach of the agreement. To quote Gellman:-
"Under the terms of a 1992 agreement between the United States and the European Union, in order to qualify for “state aid” it is necessary to produce a “critical project appraisal” which forecasts the project’s economic and financial viability. The “ground rules” for the requisite critical project appraisal are set out in the inter-governmental agreement:
“ Governments shall provide support for the development of a new large civil aircraft programme only where a critical project appraisal, based on conservative assumptions, has established that there is a reasonable expectation of recoupment, within 17 years from the date of first disbursement of such support, of all costs as defined in Article 6(2) of the Aircraft Agreement, including repayment of government supports on the terms and conditions specified …”
"As far as is known, no critical project appraisal has been produced covering the A380 program. It clearly was a responsibility for Airbus (or EADS, it’s 80% owner) to do so as a condition precedent to qualifying for public support of this program. Absent even a claim that a critical project appraisal was produced prior to receipt of the first state aid for the A380, it was decided to develop one—a “shadow” critical project appraisal."
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci