Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Some At Airbus May Be Behind Udvar-Hazy Comments  
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7911 times:

Sources in London told ATWOnline yesterday that Udvar-Hazy's comments in Orlando may have been promoted by those within Airbus who desire an all-new aircraft to combat not only the Dreamliner but the 777, which eclipsed the A340 family last year.

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=4534

78 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMarkATL From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 539 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7870 times:

Ooooooh, "sources" eh? Sounds like a Dale Gribble aka Rusty Shackleford quote.


"...left my home in Georgia, 'n headed for the "Frisco" Bay...
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7851 times:

At a guess, 'some within Airbus' could very well include the Daimler-Chrysler bloc and BAe.  Smile

Does begin to look as if the A350 is DOA.......



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6918 posts, RR: 63
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7687 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Thread starter):
Sources in London told ATWOnline yesterday that Udvar-Hazy's comments in Orlando may have been promoted by those within Airbus who desire an all-new aircraft

I missed that when I read the item. Thanks. And it has a ring of truth to it. Airbus were clearly wrong-footed by the 787 and their reaction has been hasty and unconvincing. The 777-300ER has turned out to be better than expected and the A340-600 not (quite) as good as expected. People in Toulouse (and elsewhere) aren't stupid. They'll talk their products up in public but behind the scenes there must be some furious arguments going on. It seems increasingly improbable that anything that will come off the A330/A340/A350 line will ever outperform the 777 and 787 at their best. Sales won't dry up, of course. The A350 is selling (though nowhere near as well as the 787) and there may yet be life in upgrades of the A340. But going down that path concedes 60-80% of the market to Boeing for the next decade or more.

The problem is that the time, cost, and public loss-of-face of opting for an all-new design (or designs) will be bitter pills for Airbus to swallow. But I'd bet that some insiders have concluded that they have no choice. Whisper as much in Steve's ear and let him crank up the pressure.

In short, this is a "conspiracy theory" I can believe.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 2):
BAe

Some years ago this company changed its name to BAE SYSTEMS.


User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7575 times:

Airbus shouldn't overhaul the A350. When people talk of the sales difference between it and the 787 they tend to neglect that the latter could be ordered two years earlier. In competitions such as the ones at QR (where the A350 won) or QF (where the 787 won because of a lower price) the A350 showed that it can compete with the 787. I don't know how people can come up with a 75 to 25 figure. It may be 60 to 40, but Boeing can have the larger orders with the larger rebates while Airbus gets smaller orders with smaller discounts. Boeing is after market share, Airbus wants profit. They can both get what they want.

What Airbus should do is introduce a new type between the A359 and the A380. The A346 is nice, but even with an A346E there is too much of a size gap between it and the A380.


User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7556 times:

It's well known that there are 2 schools at Airbus: the one who want to answer fast to Boeing and the 787, and the other who think each plane should be designed from scratch ("each plane should be a revolution").
The first one seems to have won for the moment, but things could change.


User currently offlineTifoso From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7552 times:

Quoting Thorben (Reply 4):
QF (where the 787 won because of a lower price)

This is false. QF made it clear in the press conference that both manufacturers were very close in terms of price. They chose the 787 because of technical superiority, and earlier availability.

Quoting PM (Reply 3):
The problem is that the time, cost, and public loss-of-face of opting for an all-new design (or designs) will be bitter pills for Airbus to swallow.

Is loss-of-face going to be such a big issue? I don't know. If its quite clear that the A350 does not match up to the 787, what's wrong with refining (or re-doing) the product? The airlines would love it, for they would now have some good competition between the two manufacturers. Airbus, I'm sure does not care much about what the general public folk think; they'll fly whatever jet an airline puts them on.


User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7540 times:

Quoting Tifoso (Reply 6):
This is false. QF made it clear in the press conference that both manufacturers were very close in terms of price. They chose the 787 because of technical superiority, and earlier availability.

What I remember is they first told everyone how close the planes where and then, after going for Boeing, the suddenly told how much better it was. The truth probably was that Airbus wouldn't lower the price any more because it didn't want to have one year's production for planes that don't contribute much to the R & D cost. Boeing can do that since the Japanese government and the state of Washington pays them enough to produce planes.


User currently offlineTifoso From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7516 times:

Well Thorben, you are free to conjure up your own version of the truth and take solace in the thought that a QF loss was only based on price. I don't think it's a true representation of what happened though.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 7):
Boeing can do that since the Japanese government and the state of Washington pays them enough to produce planes.

 rotfl   rotfl 


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7516 times:

That's what most people - including people who work there - still call it, PM. Still, thanks for the correction - I'll call it BAE SYSTEMS if you in your turn will stop using the informal term 'Airbus' and instead refer henceforward to 'the Airbus Division of the European Aeronautics, Defence, and Space Company.' NV  Smile

Found this article by Carol Matlack, the long-serving and distinguished Paris correspondent of 'Business Week'. First mention I've seen of the possibility that Airbus (sorry, 'EADS NV'  Smile) may not in fact be able to AFFORD to develop a 'clean sheet' answer to the 787 unless it receives 'launch aid':-

"The Escalating Woes at Airbus - Just when things were going so well for the European plane maker, two major customers demand costly redesigns. The likely winner: Boeing

"Airbus, struggling to gain altitude against a couple of archrival Boeing's (BA) hot-selling models, has hit two major patches of turbulence in the past few days.

"On Mar. 28, the European planemaker's biggest customer, the International Lease Finance Corp., a Los Angeles-based subsidiary of American International Group (AIG), called for a top-to-bottom redesign of the A350, the plane Airbus plans to launch as a rival to Boeing's 787 Dreamliner.

"FUEL FACTOR. Then, on Mar. 30, Airbus acknowledged that Dubai-based airline Emirates, the biggest buyer of its A340 widebody plane, has delayed a $4 billion order for 20 of the aircraft because it wants them redesigned to match the fuel efficiency of Boeing's competing 787 model.

"This adds up to a big embarrassment for Airbus. But even more important, these public rebukes by two key customers are likely to cause severe problems for Airbus's financial-planning and marketing efforts.

"FEW OPTIONS. Yet industry watchers say Airbus will probably be forced to revamp the plane, even though the changes suggested by Udvar-Hazy would boost development costs from $5.3 billion to as much as $10 billion. Airbus' current design is based on its existing A330 widebody plane, with the addition of more fuel-efficient engines and increased use of lightweight composites.

"At the conference, Udvar-Hazy said that a design based on "leftovers" would sell poorly against the 787, perhaps winning as little as 25% of the market. "Airbus has boxed themselves in on the A350," he told BusinessWeek Online earlier in March. "Airbus has to make some changes."

"Even before the criticism by Udvar-Hazy, Airbus was struggling to match Boeing's sales success with the 787. Since putting the A350 on the market in December, 2004, Airbus has logged 100 firm orders -- including an order for nine planes signed on Mar. 30, 2006, by Finnair. That compared with 291 orders booked by Boeing for the 787 since May, 2004.

"FINANCIAL SQUEEZE. While redesigning the A350 might attract more customers, it would cause big headaches for Airbus. It would delay the launch of the plane, now scheduled to enter service in 2010, about two years after the 787. That would give Boeing an edge in snaring orders from carriers eager to expand their fleets quickly.

"Moreover, it's unclear how Airbus would finance R&D for a more-expensive A350 without loans from European governments. Airbus has used such loans in the past to pay for up to one-third the cost of developing new planes such as the doubledecker A380. But now the U.S. has complained to the World Trade Organization that the loans amount to unfair subsidies.

"Airbus, in hopes of reaching a negotiated settlement in the WTO dispute, until now has not requested any government loans for the A350. But analysts say Airbus can't afford to finance a $10 billion project out of current cash flow."


http://www.businessweek.com/globalbi...tent/mar2006/gb20060330_075258.htm



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7450 times:

Quoting Thorben (Reply 7):
What I remember is they first told everyone how close the planes where and then, after going for Boeing, the suddenly told how much better it was. The truth probably was that Airbus wouldn't lower the price any more because it didn't want to have one year's production for planes that don't contribute much to the R & D cost. Boeing can do that since the Japanese government and the state of Washington pays them enough to produce planes.

Your are entitled to your opinion. However, both of the OEMs sit in front of the governmental trough as much as possible in numerous ways, neither comes to the "subsidies" debate with "clean hands," and the complex calculus necessary to sort out how all this relates to the pricing of individual deals is certainly beyond the ken of most members of this forum.


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6918 posts, RR: 63
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7439 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 9):
That's what most people - including people who work there - still call it, PM. Still, thanks for the correction - I'll call it BAE SYSTEMS if you in your turn will stop using the informal term 'Airbus' and instead refer henceforward to 'the Airbus Division of the European Aeronautics, Defence, and Space Company.' NV

Still don't know what was wrong with Hawker Siddeley...  Sad


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7421 times:

Cheers, PM.

Or De Havilland, come to that.  Smile



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6918 posts, RR: 63
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7407 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 12):
Or De Havilland, come to that.

Ah, but that's 'cause you're older than me!   By the time I picked up the story it was HSA and BAC. (Not to mention Sud Aviation and MBB...)

[Edited 2006-03-31 12:58:23]

User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7390 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 11):
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 9):
That's what most people - including people who work there - still call it, PM. Still, thanks for the correction - I'll call it BAE SYSTEMS if you in your turn will stop using the informal term 'Airbus' and instead refer henceforward to 'the Airbus Division of the European Aeronautics, Defence, and Space Company.' NV

Still don't know what was wrong with Hawker Siddeley...

Actually, isn't the official name: Airbus SAS? Technically, I don't think "Airbus" can be considered a "division" of EADS as it's not a wholly-owned by them, but that's just me being anal.  Smile I mourn the demise of the Hawker Siddeley brand name as well. Sad


User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7345 times:

Quoting Thorben (Reply 4):
QF (where the 787 won because of a lower price)

QF said the key difference was earlier availability, in terms of performance and price the planes were very close.

Quoting Tifoso (Reply 8):
Well Thorben, you are free to conjure up your own version of the truth and take solace in the thought that a QF loss was only based on price. I don't think it's a true representation of what happened though.

Well it is a fact that massive subsidies permit Boeing to offer the 787 at a very low price, such that EADS for one (admittedly not necessarily an impartial entity) has called it dumping.


User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7307 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Thread starter):
Sources in London told ATWOnline yesterday that Udvar-Hazy's comments in Orlando may have been promoted by those within Airbus who desire an all-new aircraft to combat not only the Dreamliner but the 777

Dammmm I knew I spoke out too loud. Big grin

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7307 times:

Funny how far back some of those names go. I can still dimly remember the days when the chairman of Hawker Siddeley was one Sir Thomas Sopwith. Of 'Camel' fame......


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7301 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 16):
Dammmm I knew I spoke out too loud.

Wasn't the famous double-agent of WWII "Garbo" based in Lisbon?  Smile


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6918 posts, RR: 63
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7301 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 16):
Dammmm I knew I spoke out too loud.

So it'll be your fault when the A350 is cancelled and TAP have to lease back their old TriStars! I'd go underground, if I were you!  Wink


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7231 times:

Quoting Joni (Reply 15):
EADS for one (admittedly not necessarily an impartial entity)

This has my nomination for understatement of the day.  Smile


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6918 posts, RR: 63
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7211 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 17):
Funny how far back some of those names go. I can still dimly remember the days when the chairman of Hawker Siddeley was one Sir Thomas Sopwith. Of 'Camel' fame......

That isn't something I'd want to admit! Was Sydney Camm still designing things?!

Such a roll-call of ghosts. The only sadder story is that of the British car industry. In 1950 it made 50% of all cars in Europe...


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7191 times:

Maybe I should wave my walking-stick at some of these younger lads and say, "You mark my words! I've seen more bloody aeroplane firms go broke in my time than you've 'ad 'ot dinners..."  Smile


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7164 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 18):
Wasn't the famous double-agent of WWII "Garbo" based in Lisbon? Smile

Have no idea Leelaw. Portugal was a neutral country during WWII.

Quoting PM (Reply 19):

So it'll be your fault when the A350 is cancelled and TAP have to lease back their old TriStars!

Hey PM that would actually be sweet. Can you actually imagine a return of the good old L1011?

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/photos/big/00004716.jpg

Quoting PM (Reply 19):
I'd go underground, if I were you! Wink

That's right PM. I would not want any trouble from this bloke.



One scary looking bloke when he is angry.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6918 posts, RR: 63
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7121 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 23):
Hey PM that would actually be sweet. Can you actually imagine a return of the good old L1011?

A great colour scheme on a classic airliner. Love it!

Quoting WINGS (Reply 23):
One scary looking bloke when he is angry.

He scares me even when he's not...!  scared 

(Actually, this is all double bluff. I think you are Forgeard!)


25 Post contains links and images Halibut : Published: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 Boeing's strategy is working, expert says Bryan Corliss Herald columnist http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/06/03/2
26 Post contains links NorCal : Not true, read the press release from QF Mr Dixon said the B787's lighter fuselage, which was constructed from composite material, allowed the aircra
27 Joni : We discussed this press release back when it was made, and you should pay attention to the fact that Dixon is comparing the 787 to their current 767s
28 NorCal : Please, the order books speak for themselves. Also the comments from the two largest leasing companies in the world aren't exactly a ringing endorsem
29 Post contains images NAV20 : Thanks, Joni. Perfectly clear that Dixon and the other guys at Qantas are just gullible idiots who didn't do their homework and believed anything Boe
30 Post contains images Joni : Huh? Dixon and his staff at Qantas are of course only too happy to benefit from the largesse of US, Japanese and Italian taxpayers. (i'm afraid you d
31 Revelation : They'd go to banks and ask for loans, just like Boeing does? We keep hearing about the gorgeous profits Airbus is contributing to EADS, well, it's no
32 ClassicLover : Whaaaaat? Apparently the offers were very similar - so if Qantas had chosen the 350, you would be saying that QF was only too happy to benefit from t
33 N328KF : By U.S. and E.U. law, they are majority-owned and thus must be accounted as a division. This isn't universal—in Japan, the largest shareholder with
34 JayinKitsap : I laugh when I see the Washington State is subsidizing Boeing. The legislature here passed some revised laws to level the playing field for aerospace
35 Post contains images Dougloid : Jeez, Thorben-here I am not arguing with you. I think that is the right answer too, but the folks at Airbus are between a rock and a hard place right
36 Trex8 : does Airbus actually have to worry about finding R & D money for the A400M since its a military project, won't that be already funded by the customers
37 Post contains images A319XFW : Actually, people at BAE call it BAE..... But the official writing should be "BAE SYSTEMS" and all in capitals. I'm sure Astuteman can clarify this on
38 Ken777 : I don't see the 350 being delayed in order to turn it into the 360. We seem to be in an up-swing of orders for the 787/350 market. It might be because
39 Kaitak : What can Airbus actually do to the A350 that can give it any advantage over the 787? Unless it can physically widen the aircraft, it seems that the co
40 N328KF : Why does this rumor keep showing up? Boeing has actually cut sample fuselage barrels with the enlarged window size, and they keep illustrating that s
41 AirFrnt : I stand by my speculation yesterday that given Udvar-Hazy's close relationship with Leahy, Leahy may be behind these comments. That may be Leahy just
42 AirFrnt : From my experience, whenever contract details (and particular cancelation details) start leaking out, it's yet another form of a threat. I think QR w
43 Abrelosojos : = Lets just be clear on who starts the B vs. A crap. -A.
44 BoomBoom : This excuse is getting rather old. What kind of deal did Airbus have to give QR to get them to take the A350? " target=_blank>http://seattletimes.nws
45 Thorben : Just wait two more years, compare the sales then. The better product is what they gave them. Besides, the Seatle times is not a neutral source. They
46 Zvezda : I've been suggesting for a long time that Airbus should consider this approach. This is completely false. The Japanese government subsidized some of
47 Post contains images BR076 : is it already 15 years this way
48 Zvezda : Were most A.netters born 15 years ago?
49 Gigneil : There is no possible way to defend this statement. Simply put, the A350 is not and is incapable of being made a superior product to the 787 without a
50 Post contains images 787engineer : Save your speculation and give me a real source! Naturally if the price is pretty close and the 787 better suits QF's needs then naturally QF will pi
51 BoomBoom : I'm sure it will be even more lopsided in favor of Boeing. The markeplace has been pretty clear that the A340/A350 are inferior products. Did the Sea
52 Kaitak : I would argue that the A350 is a good plane; it is (and I know Airbus denies this) an upgraded version of what is already a fine aircraft - the A330.
53 Zvezda : I believe that airlines would seriously consider the A350. The evidence is that some are ordering the A350, which now has about 25% of the sales, wit
54 MD-90 : 291 orders since May 2004. 787. 100 orders since Dec 2004. A350. Frankly, that speaks for itself. No indeed, but Boeing and EADS are such gargantuan c
55 Angelairways : lol I am amazed at how fast news travels because I work with one of these so called "sources" and never expected their comments to have come this far!
56 Gigneil : This has been rumored on several previous occasions. There was a leaked memo, the veracity of which of course can't be verified but its highly likely
57 MD-90 : Um, maybe because they're not financially reckless would be a better way to put it. Sure Airbus would love to develop a 787-type plane, and they have
58 Zvezda : Airbus can borrow the money in the market, just like everyone else. Airbus are credit-worthy. The real question is: Are Airbus willing to pay the cos
59 AirFrnt : It's nowhere near that simple. Building up staff at a location (esp when you are dealing with skilled workers) is very difficult to do. Borrowing a l
60 BlueSky1976 : If I remember correctly, the entire A vs. B thing was actually started by Boeing's PR department around time when A320 came out... Which is no surpri
61 TrevD : Jay - what a great post! Welcome to my respected users list. Now that you've posted the facts, I'm hopeful that Thorben and Joni will be intellectual
62 Leelaw : Perhaps you're confusing a subsidiary company with a division of a company?
63 N328KF : You might say that, but the distinction between the two terms is grey at best, and varies from company to company. For example, and I've seen this ma
64 Post contains links Trex8 : So maybe Boeing will be willing to pay back those property taxes on its HQ in Chicago to the city and cook county. Of course lowering taxes is a subs
65 Jacobin777 : there is a big difference.........a subsidy includes 'startup' costs.......where as a tax break doesn't, it only allows a product to be competitive A
66 Post contains images Leelaw : The HQ building was largely vacant before Boeing occupied it. Consequently, the owners were entitled to a substantial reduction in assessed valuation
67 Post contains images Astuteman : Probably the most accurate thing I've ever seen posted WRT subsidies on A-net. Nice one, Leelaw
68 MarcoT : First I'll remark that we're debating the economical differences between tax break, launch aid, etc. not the fact that they're subsidy as regard to t
69 Post contains images Jacobin777 : I see your point....which does make sense...but I respectfully disagree.... However, a couple of things come up.....1)does Airbus get tax breaks in t
70 Post contains images HanginOut : These constant A vs B battles are pointless. Both companies need each other to push them to perform to the best of their abilities. For example, witho
71 Post contains images Jacobin777 : living in Chicago for 3 decades (and downtown Chicago for 15 years), I had the good fortune of seeing Boeing move their Corporate HQ to Downtown Chic
72 Zvezda : If Airbus had not introduced the A320, Boeing would still be making B737 classics in 2006.
73 Post contains links MarcoT : The preferred (only?) method of support in the EU is via launch aids. In Italy for sure, and I suspect in most other centralized countries like Franc
74 Post contains images Jacobin777 : That's incorrect, not only does Airbus get subsidies, but it also gets tax breaks in both the United States and Europe....also, unlike what someone h
75 Leelaw : deleted...the link to the older thread MarcoT finally opened up for me and my question was answered. [Edited 2006-04-01 23:41:02][Edited 2006-04-01 23
76 Post contains links Leelaw : Here's a couple of interesting items from Geoffrey Thomas this week: "The factions within Airbus that are pushing for a redesign of the A350 gained an
77 AirFrnt : My guess is that Airbus is going to take stabs in the dark on the performance numbers even without the studies. They have no option but to try and co
78 N328KF : And of those remaining, the only one that Airbus has a realistic chance at is UA. We'll see A380s at Alaska before we see A350s at AA or CO. DL is a
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...
Udvar-Hazy Comments On A350XWB At Farnborough posted Wed Jul 19 2006 17:38:42 by Leelaw
Airbus: A380F Program May Be Cancelled posted Wed Nov 8 2006 20:44:08 by ShortSquat
Airbus May Get Respite At Farnborough posted Thu Jul 13 2006 13:09:21 by Manni
Udvar-Hazy: Don't Destroy Airbus Over A380 Mistake posted Mon Jun 26 2006 06:48:09 by Leelaw
Spotting At IAD/Udvar-Hazy posted Sun Jun 25 2006 06:23:42 by USPIT10L
Udvar-Hazy's A350 Comments "undramatic"-FI Article posted Mon Apr 3 2006 12:05:29 by Astuteman
End Of Northwest Strike May Be At Hand posted Fri Dec 30 2005 15:08:05 by KarlB737
Airbus Could Be Building A Plant At PIT posted Thu Mar 10 2005 06:31:25 by Jdwfloyd
Runway At Airbus Plant Hamburg Can Be Built! posted Sun Dec 5 2004 20:09:05 by Maddy
Food Vouchers At DEN May Soon Be Worthless posted Fri Oct 26 2001 20:17:25 by LoneStarMike