Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Misses 200 A350 Sales By "10-15%"  
User currently offlineN1786b From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 558 posts, RR: 17
Posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10698 times:

This just hit the wires here… Forgeard said that came within 10 to 15% of their objective of 200.

Anybody else out there hear about this or have a quote?

- n1786b


From boursier.com in French:

http://fr.biz.yahoo.com/09012006/17/...r-l-a350-confirmes-ou-presque.html

Airbus : objectif initiaux sur l'A350 confirmés, ou presque...

L'objectif de 200 commandes pour l'A350, nouveau programme lancé en octobre 2005, sera atteint à 10 ou 15% près, indique aujourd'hui Noël Forgeard, PDG d'EADS (Paris: NL0000235190 - actualité).

http://fr.biz.yahoo.com/09012006/17/...r-l-a350-confirmes-ou-presque.html

100 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2674 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10653 times:

Interesting that Airbus did the exact same mistake as Boeing just one year later. This will not affect the future sales and they need to provide the give them estimates.


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10577 times:

.........So I take it that there were no further A350s sold in 2005? (Counting the existing 172 orders/commitments)?

User currently offlineMrComet From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 505 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10484 times:

Quoting N1786b (Thread starter):
.........So I take it that there were no further A350s sold in 2005? (Counting the existing 172 orders/commitments)?

Obviously the firmed up the committments and got 170 to 180 firm orders. Anything other than that would be misleading investors which is a serious problem. Unless, of course, Airbus is playing the semantic game again which erodes credibility.



The dude abides
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10471 times:

Why don't they know the numbers yet? It's well over a week since the start of the year. 5% uncertainty seems to be a lot for this point for commitments.


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12045 posts, RR: 47
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10396 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 4):
Why don't they know the numbers yet? It's well over a week since the start of the year. 5% uncertainty seems to be a lot for this point for commitments.

All part of a dastardly Euro plot old chap. Let the old Yanky Doodle Dandies think they've won the sales battle, then spend a couple of weeks cooking the books before we announce our totals. It's worked the last few years. wink 



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently onlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4991 posts, RR: 44
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10376 times:

Quoting MrComet (Reply 3):
Unless, of course, Airbus is playing the semantic game again which erodes credibility.

Seriously, the only ones who keep on playing these semantics games with this are right here on a.net.


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10350 times:

Quoting MrComet (Reply 3):
Obviously the firmed up the committments and got 170 to 180 firm orders. Anything other than that would be misleading investors which is a serious problem. Unless, of course, Airbus is playing the semantic game again which erodes credibility.

Airbus has two private investors, and so long as they are informed as to the meanings of terms used, Airbus are at liberty to use whatever terminology they want to determine targets and numbers.

We keep coming back to this same crap over and over.


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10337 times:

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 5):
All part of a dastardly Euro plot old chap. Let the old Yanky Doodle Dandies think they've won the sales battle, then spend a couple of weeks cooking the books before we announce our totals. It's worked the last few years. wink

Atmx2000 asks a legitimate question. They have a figure somewhere between 1 and 200 ordered by 10-20 companies. It should not be a particularly perplexing computation.

I recall reading Sabenapilot et al a year ago stating how Boeing had lost all credibility because they failed to make their 200 goal by the end of 2004....Somehow I think the rules have probably changed over the past year.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10317 times:

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 5):
All part of a dastardly Euro plot old chap. Let the old Yanky Doodle Dandies think they've won the sales battle, then spend a couple of weeks cooking the books before we announce our totals. It's worked the last few years.  

We're talking commitments which don't have to booked in the same sense as a firm order. There really isn't any excuse for having a count on commitments.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineMham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3390 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10309 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 7):
Airbus has two private investors, and so long as they are informed as to the meanings of terms used, Airbus are at liberty to use whatever terminology they want to determine targets and numbers.

Not quite.. Airbus has two publicly held investors and as a subsidiary, is subject to the same reporting laws as its parents.


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10259 times:

Quoting Mham001 (Reply 10):

Not quite.. Airbus has two publicly held investors and as a subsidiary, is subject to the same reporting laws as its parents.

Actually, no not really. The company is marketted as a seperate independant company, wholly owned by two investors with its own board of directors, financial standing and brand name. In this case under EU law it ONLY has to provide information to the owning investors, and its up to the investors to divulge information to their public investors.

As long as Airbus inform EADS and BAE of the terminology used and the exact figures involved, then Airbus are legally in the clear because itself has no public investors.


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12045 posts, RR: 47
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10254 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting N79969 (Reply 8):
I recall reading Sabenapilot et al a year ago stating how Boeing had lost all credibility because they failed to make their 200 goal by the end of 2004....Somehow I think the rules have probably changed over the past year.

Some did indeed claim this. Personally, I said it would be no more than an embarrassment (as it now is for Airbus). It hardly hampered Boeing's sales in 2005 did it?  scratchchin 

Perhaps they'll both keep their mouths shut in 2006? pray 



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10235 times:

Blah, Blah, Blah. Why all this meaningless chatter from Airbus when they set January 17th as the time to discuss their sales results for 2005? Can't Forgeard keep his mouth shut for eight more days?

User currently offlineCPH757 From Denmark, joined Sep 2005, 684 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10196 times:

Quoting N79969 (Reply 8):
I recall reading Sabenapilot et al a year ago stating how Boeing had lost all credibility because they failed to make their 200 goal by the end of 2004....Somehow I think the rules have probably changed over the past year.

Exactly. 1002 net orders is quite good for Boeing with bad credibility. Do anyone really think that professional airline management take PR credibility factors into consideration when buying an aircraft? I don't.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 7):
Airbus has two private investors, and so long as they are informed as to the meanings of terms used, Airbus are at liberty to use whatever terminology they want to determine targets and numbers.

Exactly again. However, at least EADS is listed on stock exchanges. So the information may at least not be misleading or incorrect. But as this was a prediction, it's wasn't, and i don't think that the EADS stock is that volatile. It probably reacts more to firm orders and product launches from Airbus.

If we have to talk about credibility in this discussion, one have to remember that Boeings credibility on such statements in probably easier reflected in the Boeing stock rates, as EADS is not only Airbus.



Last flight: SAW-CPH on H9 on 02/11/09 - Next Flights: 23/12/09 CPH-AAL on QI, 30/12/09 CPH-LHR on SK, 19/01/10 CPH-CDG-
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10183 times:

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 12):
Some did indeed claim this. Personally, I said it would be no more than an embarrassment (as it now is for Airbus). It hardly hampered Boeing's sales in 2005 did it?

I agree it really is not a big deal. In some ways, December 31 is an arbitrary date. However I think it is notable that Airbus did set up itself for this somewhat embarrasing situation even after seeing Boeing miss its target exactly one year before.


User currently offlineTifoso From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10141 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 13):
Blah, Blah, Blah. Why all this meaningless chatter from Airbus when they set January 17th as the time to discuss their sales results for 2005? Can't Forgeard keep his mouth shut for eight more days?

Way more press coverage, of course.


User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10140 times:

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 6):
Seriously, the only ones who keep on playing these semantics games with this are right here on a.net.

And the PR dept of Airbus...and Mr Leahy......
 Wink



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12045 posts, RR: 47
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10123 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 13):
Blah, Blah, Blah. Why all this meaningless chatter from Airbus when they set January 17th as the time to discuss their sales results for 2005? Can't Forgeard keep his mouth shut for eight more days?

Agreed. Presumably he was speaking from an EADS perspective seeing as he's no longer an Airbus exec.



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 10079 times:

Quoting Tifoso (Reply 16):
Quoting Leelaw (Reply 13):
Blah, Blah, Blah. Why all this meaningless chatter from Airbus when they set January 17th as the time to discuss their sales results for 2005? Can't Forgeard keep his mouth shut for eight more days?

Way more press coverage, of course.

I guess that makes sense if the goal is to accentuate the fact that they've missed their earlier forecast.


User currently onlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4991 posts, RR: 44
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 10056 times:

Quoting N79969 (Reply 8):
Atmx2000 asks a legitimate question. They have a figure somewhere between 1 and 200 ordered by 10-20 companies. It should not be a particularly perplexing computation.

I don't quite get what the problem is with all these people who are now (for the first time AFAIK) making such a big deal about Airbus not announcing its final results until halfway through January, even though it's something they've been doing for years. Do they know the number of orders? Of course they do. But they're not going to tell you before the 17th. Why only on the 17th? Well, my guess is that announcement will be a little more than "We've sold xxx planes to yy airlines, and we've delivered zzz planes. Well, see you next year, buh-bye." And it *could* just be that they need to finish and check some numbers for some of the other things they'll be saying, wouldn't you agree?

As for why that press secretary didn't give the number to a journalist a few days ago? Well, would you actually expect him to say "Well, we were kinda planning to save this for the 17th, but what the heck, because you have such nice legs, we've sold xxx"??? Did he know? Of course he did. Was he allowed to tell the press before the press conference however?...

Quoting N79969 (Reply 8):
I recall reading Sabenapilot et al a year ago stating how Boeing had lost all credibility because they failed to make their 200 goal by the end of 2004....Somehow I think the rules have probably changed over the past year.

And I don't see anyone here saying Airbus shouldn't be criticized for not making the 200 number. They can and should, as it was a PR blunder they should have avoided. What's being criticized here is the allegations being made here (by the Usual Suspects, in several threads) that the only reason Airbus is waiting with the announcement is because they're 'cooking the books'. It almost seems that some here are already looking for a stick to hit with in the unlikely case that Airbus were to announce they have won more orders than Boeing last year. And that's kind of sad...

[Edited 2006-01-09 15:48:11]

User currently offlineTifoso From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9998 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 19):

I guess that makes sense if the goal is to accentuate the fact that they've missed their earlier forecast.

As they say, any publicity is good publicity, especially when they are not setting the precedent of missing announced targets.

For all of last week, and until the 17th, the press is going to talk about Airbus, not Boeing. B got maybe 2 days of fame when they announced the 2005 tally. Airbus PR is smart.  Wink


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6482 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9926 times:

Fair use excerpt from AP (considerably snipped):
PARIS (AP)--Boeing's (BA) resurgence is an area of concern for European plane maker Airbus (ABI.YY), the head of parent company EADS said Monday.

But Noel Forgeard, joint CEO of European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. (5730.FR), wouldn't confirm that Boeing last year reclaimed its lead in orders that it lost to Airbus in 2001.

Airbus, which is 80%-owned by EADS, is due to announce its 2005 orders on Jan. 17, but has already said the contest was close. Boeing last week announced it took 1,002 net orders in 2005.

Forgeard nevertheless said Boeing's resurgence was among "areas of concern" facing Airbus, singling out sales of the Boeing 777, which overtook those of the rival A340 last year, he said.

"The 777 took a preponderant market share in relation to our A340 family," Forgeard told a news conference. He didn't elaborate on order figures.

[...]



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 47
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9916 times:

Quoting N79969 (Reply 8):
I recall reading Sabenapilot a year ago stating how Boeing had lost all credibility because they failed to make their 200 goal by the end of 2004....Somehow I think the rules have probably changed over the past year.

If you would have paid attention to the semantics, you'd notice the subtile difference in what Boeing said 2 years ago, and what Airbus has been mentioning as their sales target for 2005.

Boeing guaranteed over and over again to everybody they would get to 200.

Airbus said they were highly confident they could sell 200 too.

Boeing missed their rock solid target of minimum 200 and the salesmen had to pay the price because as a stock listed company, they broke their word to their investors.

Airbus on the other hand comes pretty close to what they were confident off, yet won't have to pay a single price, since they were not as stupid to GUARANTEE the exact number...

Really, the obsession with the EXACT number of 200 only lives in the minds of those who have seen their favourite manufacturer miss it by a margin by which asteroids miss planets...

Now, because I just know you love me to see it give it some spin, here it is:

We all know the A350 might as well have been called the A330NG, but marketeers decided otherwise. Now, this year around 50 A330s were ordered by customers who didn't want to wait till the A350 or in fact the 787 would be available, so 'the twin engined large wide body' from TLS easily met the sales target you are so obsessed about! It's just that some customers wanted it sooner than possible and thus opted for the most modern plane currently available (A330) rather than wait for the highly improved new version of it, the A350. Rather than talking about the A350 missing its sales target, we should be discussing the unexpected urgent need for it, as demonstrated in the A330 sales!

How's that for spin?

[Edited 2006-01-09 16:17:30]

User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9912 times:

Quoting Tifoso (Reply 21):
Airbus PR is smart.

IMO, too smart by half. This type of chattering hucksterism befits the operator of a carnival, not an aerospace giant.

BTW, Boeing is mentioned six times in the AP article, so much for grabbing all the attention.

[Edited 2006-01-09 16:16:39]

25 N79969 : I agree and disagree. They should be criticized for the PR blunder but not for missing the target. Like I say above, it is not a huge deal that they
26 Scorpio : I think we agree on this. They should above all be criticized for setting the target in public and repeating it over and over again. Especially after
27 N79969 : Thanks for proving my point. How many different standards do you use when judging these situations? I count at least two and suspect that you have ev
28 Scbriml : Agreed. So, can we all now call it a "dishonourable" draw and move on to 2006?
29 Sabenapilot : Well, can you name them then please, so I can stand corrected? I think those who keep on posting topics about it would want that to happen too dearly
30 Birdbrainz : Really! I didn't know you bought aircraft. Well then, I have an brand-new, all carbon-fibre 250-300 seat aircraft, as well as a bridge for sale. Inte
31 N79969 : Scorpio and Scbriml, I think the three of us do actually agree. The financial impact of missing a December 31 sales target on investors, suppliers, an
32 BestWestern : Yes indeed... Its getting tedious beyond belief.
33 NAV20 : "L'objectif de 200 commandes pour l'A350..." Sorry to 'go on' about a director's duty to shareholders, but I'd be obliged if someone would supplement
34 BestWestern : WHy inexplicable NAV20.... because it doesnt suit your Airbus hatred? Do we have to go over this yet again.... Its obvious to everyone that he isnt t
35 NAV20 : BestWestern, the percentages are inexplicable because they must know exactly how many orders they have. I'd have thought that the rest of my post was
36 Post contains links and images Heavierthanair : G'day But here it says Airbus has beaten its target for more than 200 A350 "orders and commitments" in 2005 by at least 10%, EADS co-chief executive N
37 Aircellist : Ha ha ha! :D Bravo!!!
38 Leelaw : Call in the Delphic Oracle, the A350 tally is somewhere between 220+ and 170 depending on which press account you read.
39 N79969 : Maybe they just a closed a deal a few days past January 1. Airbus would be so much better served if they just let Enders and Humbert make these kinds
40 Post contains images Scbriml : Either FI or N1786b has totally got the wrong end of the stick!
41 Post contains images RichardPrice : I will say! Hmm, this is going to be ... interesting
42 Post contains images CPH757 : Sure, I'm up for it, what's the price, and what's your credibility? Off course you are right in general, but in this business I don't think that PR c
43 BestWestern : IF thats true, there will be lots of red faces from the half dozen airbus haters. Well then put up or shut up... come out and publically (not hiding
44 Post contains images Leelaw : Seems everyone erroneously interpreted this language as meaning Airbus was falling short of the sales objective.
45 RichardPrice : Yes, babelfish seem to translate it as the following: *shrug*
46 N79969 : Why would you blame N1786b? He just posted news written by a French news organization.
47 Post contains images BestWestern :                I have started a new thread that correctly states the new information[Edited 2006-01-09 17:23:32]
48 Post contains links N1786b : Thank you. Reuters also reported this: http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuot...06-01-09_14-50-51_l09735150_newsml "It is true that one of us had a sli
49 Post contains images Scbriml : I certainly wasn't "blaming" him. And what for anyway? All he did was post it, but since the linked article is in French, I assumed it was his transl
50 N79969 : Well then it was my mistake. You said that either Flight Internation or N1786b screwed up...
51 Glom : They may win in the race to get the fastest selling widebody, but they're losing in the likeability. I can't stand these smoke and mirror games of ho
52 Post contains images Scbriml : No, I said one of them had got the wrong end of the stick, that's all. I really don't want to get in a fight over something that I think is pretty fu
53 RichardPrice : You dont like them. Whoot! Good for you. But... We dont care.
54 Glom : Then why did you bother responding?
55 Leelaw : or This is what happens when you speak with the clarity of the Delphic Oracle.
56 N328KF : Nimrods. If they were a US-listed company, the SEC would come down on them so hard for playing with the markets.
57 RichardPrice : To let you know. I can reply without caring, it doesnt create a hypocritical situation or a universe ending schizm or anything.
58 BestWestern : Thats right, all of us outside of the US are ignorant, and mislead the markets every day, and get away with it.
59 Post contains images Glom : But why do you care so much that I know? You've consumed valuable a.net bandwidth to let me know you don't care about my post. How do you ever expect
60 Post contains images RichardPrice : So are you saying that you dont care that I dont care that you care, and that you care about the bandwidth my not caring about your caring uses? I ca
61 Post contains links Halibut : Airbus Misses 200 A350 Sales By "10-15%" (by N1786b Jan 9 2006 in Civil Aviation) Me too ! From your article : Airbus Agrees With Boeing On
62 N328KF : You think you're being funny, but the EU has been making a deliberate (and well publicized) effort to bring their accounting and compliance standards
63 BestWestern : No, I dont think I'm being funny - just sick and tired of the everything European is wrong brigade on Airliners.net. Amazing how the minute airbus ma
64 Post contains images MBJ2000 : Speaking of bad PR, has anyone looked at the current Boeing webpage? I have and noticed that it points to Airbus all over the place like a silly littl
65 Post contains links Scbriml : They have told everyone that their year totals will be announced on the 17th. Why hasn't Boeing told us how many planes they delivered in 2005? Their
66 N79969 : Don't you have the exact opposite problem with hypersensitivity? Any discussion of anything remotely negative about Airbus is considered "bashing" an
67 Astuteman : It's remarkable how many people like to highlight accounting discrepancies between EADS + Boeing, and yet when you analyse them, they're remarkably s
68 Post contains images BestWestern : Must be fraud. they would never get away with that in Europe.
69 Post contains links N328KF : I just think that rather than give conflicting hints that could cause stock market movement, the EADS/Airbus heads should either be quiet until their
70 PlaneDane : Why do you take all this so very personally, BestWestern? No one said you're to blame for all of this. We're speaking of Airbus only. Anyway, why can
71 N328KF : Too many captains/cooks/Indian chiefs/etc...
72 707lvr : There is no comparison between corporate disclosure heat in Europe and the United States which is why Airbus can say pretty much what it wants and it
73 Atmx2000 : " target=_blank>http://active.boeing.com/commercial/...15520 I'm sure Boeing knows the number. But Boeing is slow on updating data for parts of the or
74 RichardPrice : Airbus may not have a single number. They may have a number of final signed orders in front of their lawyers at the moment, that came in during the c
75 Post contains links Glom : Indeed. Bad chartsmanship it's called.
76 Post contains images Glideslope : Not for Yanky Doodle Dandies anyway. Then again, we work 40 hr weeks.
77 Post contains images Scbriml : But then they don't seem to be able to tell us how many planes Boeing delivered in December.
78 N1786b : You obviously have never listened to a EADS/Airbus conference call, attended press event, or read an interview with Enders, Forgeard, or Leahy. - n17
79 Tom_EDDF : Well, no need to do so... same is going on here all the time...
80 Post contains images GARPD : Sure, and the Airbus website is any better
81 B707Stu : 200 - 15% = 170 200 - 10% = 180 What would make the 10 aircraft difference? Wouldn't they know what's firm or not by January 9. I don't get it. Still,
82 Glom : They may have the known 174, but that would be a 13% margin. Saying give or take 13% sounds rather geeky.
83 N79969 : Has there been any correction published anywhere? Either they missed by 10-15% or they beat their goal by 10-15%. The French language article suggests
84 NAV20 : I do believe that you've 'got it in one', Glom! The PR people gave Forgeard the '174' figure and suggested he said '13%', he said just that, that it
85 Post contains images Abba : - good joke indeed! (I suppose that the above should not be taken serious) Abba
86 HZ747300 : The problem may be in translation, or in the way he said it if it is translated (the only French I learned in 6th grade was silence, si vouz plait). T
87 Post contains links and images NAV20 : Probably not, Abba, since it was only Forgeard who said it . But he did waffle about all three subjects at the press conference, without saying anyth
88 Abba : That is possibly not unintentionally. Abba
89 Iwok : NAV20, I keep loosing track here... Are they saying there will be about 180 firm orders, or will there be 180 orders and commitments? iwok
90 Calags : Eh? The pronouncements that I've read from Boeing regarding the 747-8 concede that they did not expect a passenger variant customer until 2006. Did I
91 Post contains links NAV20 : That's the point, Iwok. Forgeard said 'orders' - but common sense suggests that the c. 180 figure is the usual waffly 'orders and commitments' stuff.
92 Post contains images PanAm_DC10 : Which is still open to question as they have yet to publicly update their Orders and Delivery site. That will happen next week. We're not to know wha
93 Post contains images NAV20 : Not sure that applies when THEY are the ones creating the doubt in the first place, PanAm. As to Qatar, if they'd finally signed up for 60 aeroplanes
94 Shenzhen : The total tally for Boeing doesn't show the Qatar order for "at least 20 777s" that was anounced at Paris along with the "upto 60 A350s". This of cou
95 Scbriml : I don't think that's correct. I believe they announced their intention of ordering "up to 60" A350's at Paris, then later (I think Oct/Nov) did sign
96 WINGS : Actually Boeing stated that they would expect to get 2 passenger customers by the end of 2006. They still have sometime to reach that goal. You are c
97 BestWestern : That is correct Wings - Boeing was not expecting a 748 order in 2005.
98 NAV20 : 'Fair go', WINGS - the future of the Triple Seven programme doesn't depend on Qatar, Boeing are rolling in 777 orders. But I think that the future of
99 PanAm_DC10 : How can that be? Flight International report that they have exceeded their target whilst Reuters report that they haven't. I'd fault the various medi
100 WINGS : That's true Nav, but don't you think its strange that Qatar has not signed for the B777 yet. I can easily start to speculate like you are doing and s
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airbus Reiterates "200 A350 Orders By Year-end" posted Fri Nov 11 2005 16:48:15 by Joni
Flight Intl: Airbus Exceeds 200 A350 Sales Target posted Mon Jan 9 2006 17:22:43 by BestWestern
Airbus : 200 A350 Orders By End-2005 posted Tue Jun 14 2005 11:41:16 by Keesje
Will Airbus Reach 200 A350 Commitments This Week? posted Sun Dec 25 2005 05:49:07 by AC787
FI: Embattled Airbus A350 Rethink To Be "Dramatic" posted Mon May 8 2006 10:00:34 by Leelaw
Airbus "Creates" A350 Client - Lesson For Boeing? posted Fri May 20 2005 17:20:10 by Reggaebird
Boeing Won't Imitate Airbus' "Symbolic" China FAL posted Tue Oct 31 2006 09:03:15 by Leelaw
Baseler: Boeing In "Serious" 787-10 Talks posted Thu Sep 14 2006 07:09:26 by Leelaw
United Airlines The "U' Mistaken By A "tulip" posted Sun Aug 13 2006 21:21:54 by USADreamliner
Forbes Article RE: "Steenland Pleased By NWA Deal" posted Wed Jul 19 2006 04:07:44 by FireFly