PlaneHunter From Germany, joined Mar 2006, 6190 posts, RR: 79 Posted (7 years 2 months 5 hours ago) and read 8036 times:
The New York Times has just published an interview with EADS CEO Thomas Enders. Asked about the origin of the trade battle between Airbus and Boeing, Enders refers to "panic" on Boeing's side. He also calls the B787 a "good plane", but claims the A350 to be better, with sales just about to start. The A380, still planned for delivery by year-end, would subsequently cover the world's dense routes.
I feel the 1992 bilateral agreement wasn't bad. But it was abrogated by the United States in 2004, I feel due to the panic on Boeing's part that Airbus was outselling them and outpacing them on every front.
We are not taking any launch support for the A350 from the government, as long as there is a viable proposal for negotiations.
The 787 is certainly a good plane. But we are putting a better plane against it with the A350. Boeing went out first, and they had to because, since the early 1990's in the long-range segment, Airbus had a great product with the A330 and A340. From 2000 to 2004, we outsold Boeing in that segment.
In the second half of 2006, we will get the plane [ A380 ] certified. We have four in the air right now. We are still planning to deliver the first aircraft by the end of the year, to Singapore Airlines.
Interestingly, no comments on the recent lack of A340 sales and the B747-8.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 5 hours ago) and read 7982 times:
Quoting PlaneHunter (Thread starter): The New York Times has just published an interview with EADS CEO Thomas Enders. Asked about the origin of the trade battle between Airbus and Boeing, Enders refers to "panic" on Boeing's side. He also calls the B787 a "good plane", but claims the A350 to be better, with sales just about to start. The A380, still planned for delivery by year-end, would subsequently cover the world's dense routes
Maybe he needs to have a chat with one of his friends, the CEO of ILFC, Steven Udvar Hazy
". The problem, he said, is that the A350 is a hybrid of new 787-inspired engines, advanced materials -- and a 1970s airframe. "It's still an old A300 (cross section). ... It's not optimized. It's not where the 777 and 787 are."
"Airbus," he continued, "has to address whether they keep refining this A330 line and calling it an A350" or instead to make serious upgrades to the design."
777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 11317 posts, RR: 17 Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 4 hours ago) and read 7922 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting PlaneHunter (Thread starter): since the early 1990's in the long-range segment, Airbus had a great product with the A330 and A340.
Wouldn't really call the A340 a success considering the B777 Family is totally murdering it. Airbus is now resorting to offering money to airlines in order to get more A340 sales, doesn't that tell you something?
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 4 hours ago) and read 7904 times:
Quoting Enders (Thread starter): Boeing went out first, and they had to because, since the early 1990's in the long-range segment, Airbus had a great product with the A330 and A340.
I don't get it. A330 is long range or medium range? A340 outsold Boeing's long range planes, or A330/A340 outsold 767+777? If he's going to make such statements, he should be more clear.
I like how he said that they had a "great product" but only takes a SPECIFIC range of dates to say it outsold so it is better. Just so happens that 2000-2004 had 9/11 and SARS in it, and operators of Boeing aircraft were affected in greater numbers during that time. Yet it still was a good period with 310 sales in this class.
From 1990-present, B has sold 1348 767+777
From Jan1/2000 to Dec31/2004, B sold 310 767+777
From Jan1/90 to Dec 31/99, B sold 863 of the same planes
Airbus has sold 967 330+340 in history, including pre-1990. That's 200 less than Boeing sold only in that time period he is so proud of (early 90's through 2004).
I don't know how to find out how many planes Airbus sold in that family from 1990-2000, but it is not more than 863. Not sure why he brings up the 90s. 340 had a head start on the 777 by many years, 767/3 had a head start on the 332, 333 had a head start on 764, so it's sort of hard to compare anyway.
2000-2004 had all the models available, does someone have the 330/340 sales numbers (no options). I assume it's more than 310, but not a great deal more.
In other words, Enders is really grasping at straws to try to show his long-range products are superior, considering he lumps medium-range products in there and even then haven't outsold Boeing in that combined category. Except in a very specific period that had very extenuating circumstances for USA and Asian carriers...
This creativity might help explain the way they counted orders last year...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
AC7E7 From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 639 posts, RR: 24 Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 4 hours ago) and read 7882 times:
Airbus has done very little to convince me (and apparently most major carriers) that the A350 is a superior plane. The problem is they are running around in circles with all their models, and don't seem to know what to do. The A350 is so far still on the drawing board. The A340 is a big question mark as the 777 is a far superior aircraft, and why bother ordering an A330 if Airbus is already proposing its replacement (but still doesn't have a final design).
Boeing has finally got their act together and now Airbus can't even give their aircraft away. Let's not get over sensitive here. I am not instigating an A vs B discussion here. I happen to love the A320 family and the A330. However, Boeing could very well start making a profit on the 787 even before it has started production, while the A350 is still on the drawing board.
If Airbus is going to compete with Boeing, it should start developing an entire new family of aircraft, maybe starting with a new A32X family and start securing those orders now. Boeing is still busy with the 787 and 747-8, and Airbus could take advantage of this to start developing a new narrowbody family. They could get a few years ahead of Boeing getting it to market. But as long as they continue with their finger up their butt with a plane that in its present state won't outsell the 787, Airbus is going nowhere fast. By the time the A350 is about to go into production, Boeing will have begun taking orders for the 737 replacement.
As for the people out there that will no doubt complain about every sentence I have written here, please take off the blinders and look at the facts. Airbus should simply back away from the 787 market for the time being and focus all their attention on a next generation A32X family.
Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.
UAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2225 posts, RR: 13 Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 4 hours ago) and read 7869 times:
Quoting PlaneHunter (Thread starter): We are not taking any launch support for the A350 from the government, as long as there is a viable proposal for negotiations.
They will have to change that tune pretty soon without any support from ANYWHERE!!! With the Russia pullout and China wanting no part in it where is the money going to come from?
This is typical Airbus crap being spewed. Just take a look at the order books and you will see which plane is better. Its funny how just over a year ago Airbus was telling everyone how wrong Boeing was with the 787 and how the A380 was the future. What happened to that?
I dont know what he was thinking by calling the A330 and A340 a success. They were sold for a short time while there were no other options. Since the 777 the A340 line is dead. After the intorduction of the 787 the A330 is also completely dead.
What does that leave Airbus with?
A320 family is doing great, as is the 737.
They have the A380 that from all accounts is failing on certification. It couldn't pass the wing test and is over weight and going to be far overdue.
As said before the A330/A340 line is dead.
Now were left with the A350. A generic 787 with promosies to not be better than the 787 but about the same. The question becomes how can you trust the people at Airbus to even accomplish that? They failed to deliver on the 340 now the 380 and why not on the 350?
Airbus has so many problems of their own they should try to fix their own issues before talking down about anyone.
PlaneHunter From Germany, joined Mar 2006, 6190 posts, RR: 79 Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 4 hours ago) and read 7840 times:
Quoting AC7E7 (Reply 6): Airbus should simply back away from the 787 market for the time being and focus all their attention on a next generation A32X family.
The problem is Airbus have no choice. They need to continue with the A350 at his moment, otherwise they will completely fail in that segment. A totally new A330 successor would be too far away compared to the B787's EIS.
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 72 Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 4 hours ago) and read 7808 times:
Quoting 777ER (Reply 4): Quoting PlaneHunter (Thread starter):
B787 a "good plane", but claims the A350 to be better
How many customers has the B787 have compared to the A350?
How long has the B787 been offered compared to the A350? Not saying this explains the complete difference in numbers, but the head start the B787 had certainly didn't hurt.
Of course, the fact that Airbus - at first - didn't even seem to take the B787 seriously didn't help Airbus one bit... they should have learned that from their own history: after all, neither Boeing nor any of the former big passenger aircraft manufactureres took Airbus seriously at the beginning, and that certainly didn't help those companies...
Quoting AC7E7 (Reply 6): As for the people out there that will no doubt complain about every sentence I have written here, please take off the blinders and look at the facts. Airbus should simply back away from the 787 market for the time being and focus all their attention on a next generation A32X family.
You seriously think that backing away from the replacement of the large, and in terms of aircraft sales rather lucrative, longhaul market in favor of the also large, but in terms of aircraft sales rather less lucrative, shorthaul market is a good idea? The fact that Airbus is several years behind Boeing with the A350 doesn't even come close to doom (though Airbus really needs to get going soon), after alll, being second to market certainly didn't hurt the B777 against the A330/A340, did it?
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 7): They have the A380 that from all accounts is failing on certification.
Yes... right...
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 7): As said before the A330/A340 line is dead.
Just because it was said before, doesn't make it true.
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 7): Airbus has so many problems of their own they should try to fix their own issues before talking down about anyone.
Didn't stop Boeing when the situation was reversed, so why should it stop Airbus?
Just to clarify: I don't agree with Enders on all he says, but - lets face it - what else would a CEO say in such a situation? "Our products are taking a beating by those of our competitor"? "We've had, and still have, a completely wrong strategy and vision of the future"??
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 3 hours ago) and read 7748 times:
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 7): A320 family is doing great, as is the 737.
They have the A380 that from all accounts is failing on certification. It couldn't pass the wing test and is over weight and going to be far overdue.
As said before the A330/A340 line is dead.
Now were left with the A350. A generic 787 with promosies to not be better than the 787 but about the same. The question becomes how can you trust the people at Airbus to even accomplish that? They failed to deliver on the 340 now the 380 and why not on the 350?
Don't go overboard. Your bias is showing.
The A330 is not dead by any means. It is the only plane in it's class (333) pretty much, and it is available now, not 5 years from now like the 358 and 789. It has a range between the 783 and 788/9/358/9 as well.
Further, the A320 is really slaughtering the 737NG if you look at who's buying. A320 is winning more and more new Airbus customers, while 737NG is mostly going to existing customers. The longer this happens, the harder it will be for Boeing to win them back with the 737RS/797.
A380 is not failing certification. It just may underperform in it's initial form, much like the initial 747 did. Give it a couple years for engine and aero improvements, I think it will meet targets. And even with the slight, and it is likely slight, lack of performance, it will do the job most airlines bought it for.
Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 8): The problem is Airbus have no choice. They need to continue with the A350 at his moment, otherwise they will completely fail in that segment. A totally new A330 successor would be too far away compared to the B787's EIS.
Yes and no. It's 2006. They are already saying they need to 2011 for the current 350. Why it would take LONGER than 5 years for a clean-sheet design considering the engines are already being developed and they won't have to throw away the new systems work they did for the 350 design, only Airbus knows. I think, despite the claims, it's about lack of R&D money, not lack of time or desire.
Quoting Leskova (Reply 10): How long has the B787 been offered compared to the A350?
It was talked about in some form as soon as the 7E7 was announced, in order to try to slow sales. Airbus offered all sorts of ideas, from an A330 with new engines and better interior, to a modified wing, to a new wing, to a lighter fuselage and a wider interior cabin, etc. Each attempt was to try to thwart 787 sales, yet after each jab, more and more carriers outside of Latin America and Arabia were convinced the 787 was better. It was as if the more Airbus says they can do, the more carriers are saying they think Boeing already has it right....
Further, it was only 1 year behind in authority to offer, and MANY carriers WAITED to see what it could do before decided. Being second to the table by 1 year isn't such a bad thing if your product truly is better when the lead time is 5-6 years anyway. The fact that the A350 is just barely breaking 100 firm orders is not something to be taken lightly. As each month passes, the argument that the 787 had a head start becomes less and less meaningful.
As does the "Airbus needs to focus on the A380" so they had to wait until 2011 for the 350 EIS. Somehow Boeing was able to sneak the 777F, 739ER and 748i/F into service before the 350 despite being offered after it. All three are derivatives like the 350, aren't they? How much time does Airbus need between the pending EIS of the 380 and the EIS of the 350 anyway?
If the 350 were superior to the 787, carriers would have said "this is the plane the 787 should have been. this is the one we were waiting for" and jumped on it. Instead, the smaller 788 sold like crazy once airlines saw what Airbus was offering. The 788 Airbus says is too small. And now the 789 is picking up steam, and carriers are begging for the 787-10. I don't hear the same begging for the Airbus to modify the A350 for their needs. At least not in the press...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 3 hours ago) and read 7707 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11): The fact that the A350 is just barely breaking 100 firm orders is not something to be taken lightly. As each month passes, the argument that the 787 had a head start becomes less and less meaningful.
in fairness, the A350 isn't doing all too bad.....there are some questionable Boeing orders also, such as Blue Panorama....so I'll go with www.justplane.com numbers of 385 for Boeing's 787 and 182 for Airbus' A350.....
that being said, I think the proof of the pudding will be when the carriers fly the various planes and comparisons can be made...
Manni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 23 Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 3 hours ago) and read 7707 times:
Quoting 777ER (Reply 4): How many customers has the B787 have compared to the A350?
This quote from Ikramerica applies aswell when comparing the 787 with the A350, altough we're not talking a headstart of years here. BTW, if we include the latest A350 commitments (as reported in a newspaper 15 A350's for Air Madrid), altough not confirmed yet by Airbus, the A350 has outcommited (dont wanna start arguing again about commitments and orders) the 787 by 4 to 1, so far this year.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5): 340 had a head start on the 777 by many years, 767/3 had a head start on the 332, 333 had a head start on 764, so it's sort of hard to compare anyway.
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 7): What does that leave Airbus with?
A320 family is doing great, as is the 737.
They have the A380 that from all accounts is failing on certification. It couldn't pass the wing test and is over weight and going to be far overdue.
As said before the A330/A340 line is dead.
Now were left with the A350. A generic 787 with promosies to not be better than the 787 but about the same. The question becomes how can you trust the people at Airbus to even accomplish that? They failed to deliver on the 340 now the 380 and why not on the 350?
Airbus has so many problems of their own they should try to fix their own issues before talking down about anyone.
A320 is doing fine so is the 737. Nevertheless Airbus sold a few hundred units more of the A320 then Boeing sold 737's.
I've yet to read any proof about the so called 'failing on certification' of the A380. And this proof does not include posts from our self declared airliners.net aviation experts. And before you start reffering to the wingtest, guess why it's a 'test'? Tomorrow you may pray for a failure of the evacuation test, and then claim victory, if you feel like...
It's pathetic that on the worlds biggest aviationwebsite, so many people are loud out wishful thinking that the A380 in particular and Airbus in general goes belly up.
The A330, just had a record year of sales, and the A340 is bound to steal a 20 frame deal away from Boeing, not bad for a death line.
So the A350 promises not to be better than the A350? Says who, certainly not EADS CEO Eenders, but could we expect anything else from him? And even so, I didn't think the 787 would be such a bad aircraft that any aircraft not being better (or equal) should be doomed.
Finally, the question how you can trust Airbus. Why is that? Did you buy a 2006 calendar on their website.. and are you still waiting for it to arrive? No, it's not you who has to trust Airbus. The question is how airlines can trust Airbus. Judging by the nearly 200 orders they racked up for the A350 in just over a year, despite 'god's gift to avaition' the 787 being on offer, airlines seem to trust Airbus very well indeed.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5): I like how he said that they had a "great product" but only takes a SPECIFIC range of dates to say it outsold so it is better. Just so happens that 2000-2004 had 9/11 and SARS in it, and operators of Boeing aircraft were affected in greater numbers during that time
Really how's that? Swissair and Sabena went bust, Airbus operators. US Airways went straight into chapter 11 together with United, both major Airbus operators... And for the exception of JAL and ANA (I do not remember Japan being affected by SARS) just about any major Asian carrier has a sizeable Airbus fleet, including Cathay pacific and Dragon Air, airlines that were probaply most of all affected by SARS.
Quoting AC7E7 (Reply 6): Airbus should simply back away from the 787 market for the time being
That's the cherry on the cake. You can't be possibly serious.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 3 hours ago) and read 7678 times:
Quoting Leelaw (Reply 13): Oh my, even the American newspaper of record:
gave up that title years ago in my book. so many errors and lies, it's sad.
Quoting Leelaw (Reply 13): Don't those "DumboJet" loving editors at the NYT know the difference between a "Whale" and a "WhaleJet?"
They can't figure out who they interview, how do you expect them to get that right.
In two weeks they had two major expose articles, one about Iraq and one about Katrina, and both poster children turned out to be frauds. A little fact checking would have saved them a lot of embarrassment. But fact checking no longer seems to be part of news reporting, even at the NYT.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, RR: 73 Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 3 hours ago) and read 7678 times:
Dont believe Airbus or Boeing when it comes to paper aeroplane performace. Interview like that provide nothing more than a filler to a newpaper, does not provide anything of substance.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
WAH64D From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 966 posts, RR: 14 Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 months 3 hours ago) and read 7629 times:
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 7): They have the A380 that from all accounts is failing on certification.
Hahaha, wishful thinking on your part maybe.
Perhaps you should worry more about Boeing actually building a 787 prototype before you go shouting about certification. The B787 at this stage is nothing more than a big pile of components. A pile of components with plenty of orders, granted. But a pile of components none the less.
The B787 has a lot more certification worries than anything else in current development. Something a lot of us seem to forget.
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 months 3 hours ago) and read 7624 times:
Quoting WAH64D (Reply 18): The B787 has a lot more certification worries than anything else in current development. Something a lot of us seem to forget.
Mercifully, Airbus won't be running the certification program.
MrComet From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 497 posts, RR: 8 Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 months 3 hours ago) and read 7590 times:
The 787 may have been around longer in design but in sales they aren't much off. As soon as Boeing started selling planes, Airbus was promising something different and designing as they pitched. Head to head, 787 has still outsold them.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, RR: 73 Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 months 2 hours ago) and read 7514 times:
Quoting 777ER (Reply 22): Its interesting how its mostly all Airbus carriers simply choosing the A350 when both Airbus and Boeing carriers are choosing the B787
It is a 757/767 replacement, FBW set up to fly like other Boeings, with cross qualification onto the 777 it a logical choise for other factors than pure trip economics.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 22 Reply 24, posted (7 years 2 months 2 hours ago) and read 7450 times:
Quote: But we are putting a better plane against it with the A350. Boeing went out first, and they had to because, since the early 1990's in the long-range segment, Airbus had a great product with the A330 and A340. From 2000 to 2004, we outsold Boeing in that segment.
Someone's full of themselves...
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
25 A380Heavy: My sentiments exactly. There is no doubt whatsoever that these two undoubtedly fine aircraft will bring something new and or advantageous to the worl
26 Art: "The 787 is certainly a good plane. But we are putting a better plane against it with the A350." I think the second sentence is ambiguous through elip
27 UAL747DEN: Boeing has never had a mouth like Airbus. They haven't even steeped into the arena Airbus is in when it comes to bad PR about other companies. You ar
28 PlaneHunter: Are all of the sales out of the window? Well, then let's wait which airlines will dump the A380 and switch... That's PR. What's important is performa
29 WAH64D: Yes. The B737NG had a raft of problems on introduction, so much so that Easyjet, one of Boeing's biggest potential customers on the NG, went for A319
30 Art: You appear to overlook the 1000+ aircraft Airbus sold in 2005. The following is conjecture. They could do as you say. They would need a few more sale
31 777ER: Because Airbus offered them a deal that Boeing couldnt match
32 Manni: That's all part of the game. Airbus was way ahead of Boeing when it comes to efficiency in the production of an aircraft. Did you think that the pric
33 PlaneHunter: Never heard that before, neither related to EZY nor to another B737NG operator. Do you know a reliable source for that? PH
34 Dhefty: What paper do you recommend reading and where do you personally get news you can trust?
35 Glidepath73: Please provide a source for that comment...
36 Astuteman: Not possible, I'm afraid. They may be able to project profitability beyond break-even, but virtually no money will come in before production starts.
37 Art: OK, I stand corrected. What I should have said was that Boeing could get enough orders to ensure a paper profit on the program even before the first
38 AC7E7: The Airbus will play catch up for the next 15 years if they don't take the lead in a segment. Airbus took the lead in efficiency with their A23x fami
39 Dhefty: I agree, and yet you can't blame him for putting the best light on a bad situation. Comparing sales of the A330/340/350 against the B767/777/787 over
40 Jacobin777: I think that is the crux of the matter.....was it on purpose? I don't know..but with comments such as teh one he made, of course, its going to be ope
41 Dougloid: What I thought was the most interesting part of this article had nothing to do with the A350. It was this: Q. What is happening with the superjumbo A3
42 A342: That´s business as usual I´d say. Boeing sometimes had given a good deal to initial customers, but for follow-on orders they asked for higher price
43 Revelation: I don't know if that's as valid a statement as it has been in the past. Both AC and QF were willing to switch from Airbus to Boeing in large numbers.
44 PlaneDane: I spotted that earlier too and was surprised no one else mentioned it until now. Maybe, he just got the numbers wrong...
45 Ikramerica: Go with whatever numbers you want. I just go by reality, and reality says that QF has committed to a huge number of 787s, but ordered exactly zero. T
46 Jacobin777: don't get your knickers in a twist mate...I agree with most of your comments anyway.. the only order from justplanes.com which is questionable would
47 ElGreco: First of all, respect for Ikramerica and his excellent analysis. Concerning B787/A350, from pure technical point of view (I'm engineering side, not ai
48 AC7E7: You got issues man. Nobody here wants to see Airbus go under. However, if they don't get their act together, they will be playing catch up to Boeing
49 Jacobin777: thanks for the insight ...there is no doubt from an engineering standpoint that the A350 will be a good plane....but I still see the "cross-section"
50 Bohlman: One of the best, most balanced posts I've seen in a while, and from a relative newcomer as well (I read more than I post ). I agree with most of your
51 Ikramerica: US is not certain to get them, despite the Airbus financing. If US can't afford them, doesn't need them at the time, they could be deferred, not to m
52 Glideslope: To create a false sense of reality.
53 Jacobin777: of course, its assumed that HP/US won't go into bankruptcy... ..but they are booked....so one can assume unless something majour happens, they will b
54 Luisca: Only 1 latin country has ordered the A350, JJ, and they are an all airbus operator. The only other prospect that the A350 has in Latin America is Mex
55 Manni: As you say deffering, still better than a deal that doesn't go trough altogether. Nice publicity nevertheless and a lot of hot air for both Boeing an
56 Luisca: The QR deal was never signed, so technically Boeing isn't losing anything, the EK A346 deal is signed, so this is more of a blow if you ask me, becau
57 Jacobin777: "Emirates says it must be convinced the A350 will not repeat recent �misses� by Airbus in performance and delivery targets for new aircraft
58 Manni: First you call QR switching from 777 to A346 speculation, then you call it a fact that QR wants the A346... So that's what you think. Sorry, it doesn
59 Abba: Yeps - the 767 did not do as promisseed and Boeing had to pay huge penalties. Abba
60 Hamlet69: Can I ask to who? Or is that secret information only you know? Hamlet69
61 Jacobin777: thanks for only quoting part of what I wrote.....EK has publicly stated that the 787-10 will be superiour to the A359...its simple as that.. and time
62 Manni: The 787-10 hasn't even been launched yet, stating that a proposed 787-10 will be superior to the A359 is premature. Tyler should know better and does
63 Jacobin777: the 787 program is well underway, there is much more information about it now than 6-12 months ago, unlike the A350, which is still undergoing CAD de
64 Manni: That's not what I denied. I said that the 787-10 isn't even launched yet, wich is 100% true and a complete different thing. As a long as the A350 is
65 PlaneHunter: I'm sure that was a mistake, somehow produced during or after the interview. Airbus certainly did not reduce the number to 500 and it's very unlikely
66 ElGreco: Your welcome, Agree with you big difference between B747-200 and -800 but most parts of the fuselage will stay in good old aluminium, simply because
67 Jacobin777: its called "time constraint"....valuable slots for the A350, and especially the B787 are being taken up......EK and SQ have to decided soon, as other
68 Bohlman: Misquote But anyway, I agree with you, but I'm not sure that's a good thing. I agree that it seems that the bigger companies that mix Airbus and Boei
70 PlaneDane: Sources, please. You'll definitely need to provide evidence of this.
71 Iwok: oh man, don't get me started on that website! Take a look at the numbers for '05, and you'll see what I mean... Which are scheduled to fly next year.
72 Astuteman: I have a feeling you may well be mistaken
73 Abba: A friend of mine working in the organisation in a position to know. The reason was that the plane wasn't able to carry the cargo it was promissed tra
74 Toulouse: My thought exactly. Well afaik, this is an aviation forum, The New York times has published an interview with the CEO of one of the world's two major
75 Leelaw: You've told this apocryphal yarn many times in the past. I've found it incredible and unlikely that an OEM would enter into a contract with a custome
76 Hamlet69: So this has been going on since 1989, yet has never been reported anywhere else, has never been commented on by our more feverish Airbus-cheerleaders
77 Jacobin777: I know what you mean, yes some are MOU's and not full orders.... but so far, their 787 versus A350 number look pretty good...
Sponsor Message: 
From Germany, joined Mar 2006, 6190 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 4657 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 11317 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 639 posts, 
From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 966 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 497 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
