By Dan Reed, USA TODAY
Criticism from customers has pushed Airbus to consider redesigning its planned A-350, the jetliner the European planemaker is counting on to compete directly with Boeing's ground-breaking, hot-selling 787 Dreamliner.
A costly redesign ~{!*~} which would be the fifth ~{!*~} could spell big trouble for Airbus, delaying the plane until 2012, four years after the expected availability of the Boeing plane.
Not an easy decision
Still, the decision to invest an additional $3 billion to $5 billion in redesigning the A-350 is not an automatic one for executives at Airbus and its corporate parent, EADS.
To invest in an A-350 redesign, Airbus may have to depend on government-backed loans, which likely would draw a legal challenge from Boeing and the United States at the World Trade Organization.
Airbus and EADS are facing other big cash drains. BAE, the longtime British partner in Airbus, last week said it wants to sell its 20% stake in the planemaker, worth up to $5 billion, back to EADS, which owns the other 80%.
The current debate over the future of the A350 programme started when ILFC chairman and chief executive Steven Udvar-Hazy in a 29 March speech at an aircraft finance conference in Orlando, Florida said Airbus must decide if it should settle on its current A350 offering - which is based on the A330 fuselage - and proceed with its already delayed launch schedule or pull the program and design an entirely new aircraft.
Co7772wuh From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 10145 times:
The point is that it makes no sense that Al-Li is that much lighter than the current high spec alloys or CFRP for that matter...IIRC Airbus engineering stated publicly that Al-Li use on the A350 will only save 8,000kg over aluminum and that was combined savings from Al-Li and composite structures...How in the world is Al-Li going to reduce the structural weight of the A340-500 by more than 51,000lbs (24,000Kg)?
Agreed Widebodyphotog,
How on earth is that possible ???
I think you're just a little off ...., " again " - Mr. Joni .
Cricket From India, joined Aug 2005, 2936 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 10141 times:
I don't think Airbus will allow the 150-300 seat market to become a Boeing monopoly, however it seems Airbus is facing the problems of being a multi-country owned organisation. I just whatever it does it makes a decision soon, which will be for the good of the entire industry.
No matter what the pro-Boeing types say, a monopoly isn't a good thing. And I like both guys after all.
DeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 10068 times:
Quoting Cricket (Reply 2): No matter what the pro-Boeing types say, a monopoly isn't a good thing. And I like both guys after all.
Don't worry about a monopoly, the market is too big for that. Do worry about the players changing should one falter. Lockheed has the bucks and experience to move in should either player totally blow it, and so do many other companies in and out of the US. One thing I am not clear on is how vulnerable Airbus is to corporate raiders should they financially blow it, thier structure is just so different that what I am used to.
Airbus is just fine for the near future, but risk dropping back like MD did. All that means is the playing field is ripe for someone else. The A-350 is a critical fork in the road, should they do a "330NG" or a new plane. This is bigger than the decision to build the 380 in my opinion. Unless something new happens I think Airbus will at least break even on the 380 which will vindicate the program. Breaking even on the 350 is not enough, again in my opinion.
The 350 is a much bigger risk, its not about breaking even, its about market share. MD was never the same after losing the 707-DC8 war were they? And many say they had a better plane. Whereas the 380 is nowhere near as risky for Airbus as the 747 was for Boeing. Which scenario is repeating itself with the 350? That's the question. History does tend to repeat.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
Areopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1357 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 10030 times:
Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 3): Airbus is just fine for the near future, but risk dropping back like MD did.
MD's problem was that time after time, management* looked at the costs and risks of a new program, gulped, and blinked. Airbus at least has management willing to keep spending to stay competitive.
*In St. Louis, anyway, and they had the upper hand.
DeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9933 times:
Quoting Areopagus (Reply 4): MD's problem was that time after time, management* looked at the costs and risks of a new program, gulped, and blinked. Airbus at least has management willing to keep spending to stay competitive.
Thats exactly what I'm saying, and my theory is that the 707-DC8 battle might be responsible for MD being gun shy. I am wondering if Airbus got gun shy on the 350, and all that bluster was a diversion from internal paralysis.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
Halibut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9773 times:
Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 5): Thats exactly what I'm saying, and my theory is that the 707-DC8 battle might be responsible for MD being gun shy. I am wondering if Airbus got gun shy on the 350, and all that bluster was a diversion from internal paralysis.
I am curious to what happened with airbus ??? Is it me or did something change in Airbus's mgmt after 2000 ?
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9081 posts, RR: 37 Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9709 times:
Quoting Halibut (Reply 6): Is it me or did something change in Airbus's mgmt after 2000 ?
Halibut, EADS was set up in 2000. It split control of the company fifty-fifty between the French and German blocs, with each bloc appointing half the Board. And it also finally committed Airbus to the A380.
EADS formation was chaotic - this article gives some idea of the amount of confusion and double-dealing that went on. The net result appears to have been a company with too many built-in 'warring factions', and no-one clearly in charge.
"But this time, Schrempp wanted no failure--or, if there was failure, no one was to know about it. After the collapse of talks with the British, the press had clearly labeled Schrempp and DaimlerChrysler as the losers. So Schrempp and Lagardere now quickly agreed that negotiations would have to be conducted in the utmost secrecy. Only three executives from each side would be involved. For the Germans, it would be Schrempp and two top DaimlerChrysler executives, Eckhard Cordes and Rudiger Grube. Lagardere would be flanked by Matra CEO Philippe Camus, who had helped rescue him from financial disaster in the late 1980s, and Jean-Louis Gergorin, Matra's brainy head of strategy who had been a top adviser to the French Foreign Ministry.
"The French and German governments were kept in the dark. So were Dasa boss Manfred Bischoff, Airbus CEO Noel Forgeard, and the chairman and CEO of Aerospatiale, Yves Michot. Special high-frequency telephones Matra had developed for the French intelligence services were used for almost all important communications. And Schrempp himself came up with the code name for the top-secret project: Diamond. ''Schrempp explained that this time, the merger would be indestructible,'' says Gergorin.
"By the end of June, 1999, it was time to break the news to the French government, which retained a 48% stake in the privatized Aerospatiale Matra. On the evening of June 29, Lagardere was ushered into Jospin's hushed office in the Prime Minister's 17th century residence, the Hotel de Matignon. Only Jospin, Lagardere, and Strauss-Kahn were present. The Aerospatiale Matra chief revealed to a stunned Jospin the state of the secret negotiations with Schrempp. Neither Jospin nor Strauss-Kahn had had any idea that discussions were so advanced. ''Jospin was almost speechless,'' remembers Lagardere, ''but he was civil and polite.''
As soon as Lagardere left, though, Jospin blew up. Aerospatiale Matra had only come into existence on June 11. Now, just 18 days later, Lagardere was proposing a full merger with the Germans. And, under the pact, the French state's role was to disappear. The Prime Minister ''was furious about the idea of the government withdrawing totally from the company,'' remembers Strauss-Kahn.
But the politically astute Strauss-Kahn calmed down Jospin, who charged him in the following days with opening up back channels with the Germans. Soon, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder himself was involved."
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 9608 times:
Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 3): Don't worry about a monopoly, the market is too big for that. Do worry about the players changing should one falter. Lockheed has the bucks and experience to move in should either player totally blow it, and so do many other companies in and out of the US.
Agreed.
Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 3): One thing I am not clear on is how vulnerable Airbus is to corporate raiders should they financially blow it, thier structure is just so different that what I am used to.
It's difficult to imagine anyone wanting to buy a failed Airbus. Many assets would be attractive, but the organization itself is more of an albatross -- even though it's been getting better. Given the political constraints, the organizational structure may have been the best that was possible at the time.
Joni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9554 times:
Quoting Co7772wuh (Reply 1): The point is that it makes no sense that Al-Li is that much lighter than the current high spec alloys or CFRP for that matter...IIRC Airbus engineering stated publicly that Al-Li use on the A350 will only save 8,000kg over aluminum and that was combined savings from Al-Li and composite structures...How in the world is Al-Li going to reduce the structural weight of the A340-500 by more than 51,000lbs (24,000Kg)?
Do you have a link where it's stated (the newest) Al-Li is lighter than CFRP? I recall linking a Boeing vp long ago, saying that in certain applications, Al-Li is lighter than composite structures but in others it's the other way around, which combined with Airbus' statement that the A350 could be 500kg lighter if made of 100% composites as opposed to the current mix, IMO indicates that in aircraft there are more structures where composites can be built lighter than Al-Li than the other way around.
With regard to the numbers you mentioned, naturally I haven't done them but I've just read in Flight International what I posted a link to in the "part 1" of this thread. However you can look at it this way: Consider that 60% of A350 is built of Al-Li and composites, which is reported to give 8t weight saving over some unspecified material (which may be newer/better than that used in A345 now, but let's not even consider that now). If we first scale it to 80% for an imagined 345E and further scale with the size difference of the planes (I used MTOW) then we get a saving of 24t. We could further consider that the structure of the two planes is different, which would increase or decrease this figure.
By the way, the plane most considered for this upgrade is IIRC the 346, not 345. And even further, referring to my post on the "part 1" thread, why on Earth would Airbus consider spending ��� on this kind of upgrade if the end result wasn't superior to the 777?
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9516 times:
Quoting Joni (Reply 9): Do you have a link where it's stated (the newest) Al-Li is lighter than CFRP? I recall linking a Boeing vp long ago, saying that in certain applications, Al-Li is lighter than composite structures but in others it's the other way around, which combined with Airbus' statement that the A350 could be 500kg lighter if made of 100% composites as opposed to the current mix, IMO indicates that in aircraft there are more structures where composites can be built lighter than Al-Li than the other way around.
Al-Li has a slightly better strength/weight ratio than CFRP in compression, but CFRP is several times better than Al-Li in tension. So, the only structures which would be lighter using Al-Li than CFRP are those which sustain only compressive loads. I can't think of such a component on an aircraft, those there may be a few. It certainly would not be the fuselage barrel sections, which are mainly in tension when pressurized.
Widebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 68 Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9415 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10): Al-Li has a slightly better strength/weight ratio than CFRP in compression, but CFRP is several times better than Al-Li in tension. So, the only structures which would be lighter using Al-Li than CFRP are those which sustain only compressive loads. I can't think of such a component on an aircraft, those there may be a few. It certainly would not be the fuselage barrel sections, which are mainly in tension when pressurized.
Correct, and for that reason CFRP construction on 787 allowed incredible weight reductions by being so inherently stiff that frame spacing could be increased from 21 to 24 inches, reducing significantly the number of ribs and floor beams in the fuselage...
Unfortunately for Airbus the "Enhanced" program for the A340 is dead as well as the four engine concept for aircraft in this capacity category...
If I had not made it clear before, I believe the Airbus conclusion that a CFRP fuselage for A350 would have only saved 560kg is just plain wrong. That is evident by the fact that composite 787-9 is 9t lighter than the noticeably smaller A350-800, and has a better structural weight/useful load ratio. The Airbus concept and methodology of composite fuselage construction must be completely different than the principles Boeing is operating on, otherwise the weights of relatively similar airframes, 787-9 and A350-800, would be much closer. In fact I'll go as far as saying that if the application of the Airbus CFRP analysis is correct then the A350-800 airframe should be much lighter than 787-9...but that is not the case...
-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
Johnny From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9399 times:
After reading some posts the last weeks reference A350 and B787 i got one impression.
I am really happy that Airbus and Boeing both have very experienced engineers which, in opposition to some self-called experts on this page, know exactly what to do.
Some people here seem to be experts in nearly all airplane programmes and seem to know each detail.
Experts in avionics, wing and fuselage design, materials and other things like engines, flight planning, operations, fleet planning and crew limitations and so on...
I am really impressed.For me in my daily business it is hard to be an expert in only one of the obove mentioned areas...
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26700 posts, RR: 83 Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 9303 times:
Quoting Joni (Reply 9): ...why on Earth would Airbus consider spending (money) on this kind of upgrade if the end result wasn't superior to the 777?
Why did Boeing spend the cash to develop the 767-400ER, when they knew it wouldn't be superior to the A330-300? Because it kept two important Boeing customers "in the family" and those two customers are now likely candidates to order the 787 instead of the A350.
Airbus would not like IB, LH, VS, TG and other A346 customers moving to the 7773ER. While it is likely many of them won't, period, Airbus would have been as foolish as Boeing in the 1990's if they had just assumed those customers would never look elsewhere for aircraft.
In the end, the cost of developing the program seems to have not justified the benefits/orders that it would have provided. Airbus may have decided that enough A346 operators won't move to the 773ER, or they may fear that Boeing would sacrifice the 773ER for a 787-10HGW/787-11 and that plane would have put the A346E "behind the eightball" as much as the 773ER has the A346.
Johnny From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 9283 times:
@stitch
The B767-400ER is no competitor to the A 330-300, but the -200.
It was not only designed for two airlines.It was designed for all airlines.
Boeing had orders from ILFC,GECAS,Delta,Continental and Kenia Airways (-400ERX)
They made a round-the world-trip to get more sales,but the truth was, that all airlines they met, ordered either the A332 or kept their old fleets.
The two leasing-companies canceled their orders together as soon as they realized that their was no market for that airplane.
Sorry, but the -400ER came some years too late to be a success.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26700 posts, RR: 83 Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 9141 times:
Quoting Johnny (Reply 14): The B767-400ER is no competitor to the A 330-300, but the -200.
I was aiming more for range, but yes, the A332 is the better match in terms of capacity to the 764ER, though the A332 has a significant range advantage.
Quote: It was not only designed for two airlines.It was designed for all airlines.
Oh I am sure Boeing would like to have had more carriers then just DL and CO order it, but they must have decided those two were enough since they built it anyway with just those two customers.
Quote: Sorry, but the -400ER came some years too late to be a success.
Some are saying the same about the (A350)-800 and -900... Though, for the record, I'm not one of them.
Halibut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 9052 times:
Quoting Joni (Reply 9): Do you have a link where it's stated (the newest) Al-Li is lighter than CFRP? I recall linking a Boeing vp long ago, saying that in certain applications, Al-Li is lighter than composite structures but in others it's the other way around, which combined with Airbus' statement that the A350 could be 500kg lighter if made of 100% composites as opposed to the current mix, IMO indicates that in aircraft there are more structures where composites can be built lighter than Al-Li than the other way around.
I'm not an aviation engineer . However , Airbus's very own " Noel Forgeard " recently stated the significance of composites . And from reading his thoughts on ultra lite aircraft , composites are the way to go .
Furthermore , he also mentioned the price of oil . How ironic , the last I checked today ! Oil was over $74 a barrel .
He says too that the price of fuel would be the main factor in determining how fast industry moves to developing an aircraft overwhelmingly built using composites. "If fuel is very expensive, you need an ultra-light aircraft, even if the cost of manufacture is higher," he says.
Airbus will spend €450 million ($540 million) in 2007-08 in developing composite technology. "Low cost industrial composites are the big challenge," he says. "But we will be ready to react."
Having gone to the trouble of designing a new wing, tail and cockpit using advanced composite materials, Airbus "should have gone the whole hog and designed a new fuselage," Chew said last week.
EssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8926 times:
Airbus has eventually built great products...but they got so enamored in simply besting Boeing that it will be their demise. A multinational conglomerate wanted to beat Boeing, so they used they same naming conventions, eventually conceded that deliveries meant more that orders as Boeing did, and then simply wanted to build the largest airliner in the world. Remember the early ads in AW&ST? They showed shopping malls, gyms, and other ridiculous concepts..."please get off the treadmill and got up 2 flights and aft 100 yards to put on your seat belt..." but the biggest was their focus...Despite all other issues, the wake sep issue kills the A380 for the US pax market. Freight operators fly at night, right? So no big deal there...but the freight market along won't along the A380 to break even.
And now a reworked wide body like the A350 just won't cut it. BAE wants out of the conglomerate...Unfortunately I give Airbus about 8 years.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8891 times:
Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 18): And now a reworked wide body like the A350 just won't cut it.
I disagree. If Airbus can win 25% of the 3000 estimated total A350/B787 orders, then they can make money on the program. Remember, market share is the wrong goal. Profit is the right goal. If I were Airbus, I would be working on an all new aircraft a little bit larger in cross section than the B777 to replace the A340 and kill the B777 and the B747-8 SuperJumbo.
That's pesimistic. If Airbus can execute well on the NSR and the aircraft above, then they will survive modest profitability on the A350 and a loss on the WhaleJet.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7453 posts, RR: 5 Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8868 times:
Well, oil blew past $75 today. I believe that Airbus will stay with their current 350 plans, but it would be sadly ironic if they make that announcement on the day oil hit $78.70 . . .
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9136 posts, RR: 96 Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8790 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 19): Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 18):
Unfortunately I give Airbus about 8 years.
That's pesimistic. If Airbus can execute well on the NSR and the aircraft above, then they will survive modest profitability on the A350 and a loss on the WhaleJet.
A good post, Zvezda. Thanks.
Without wishing to play down Airbus's issues, I think it's a bit premature to write-off the company that still has (just) the biggest commercial aircraft order backlog by value that the world has ever seen just yet.
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 19): If Airbus can win 25% of the 3000 estimated total A350/B787 orders, then they can make money on the program. Remember, market share is the wrong goal. Profit is the right goal. If I were Airbus, I would be working on an all new aircraft a little bit larger in cross section than the B777 to replace the A340 and kill the B777 and the B747-8 SuperJumbo.
Agree again. It may be that Airbus resign themselves to the A350 being a "spoiler" for the 787 programme for an interim period, whilst at least breaking even on the programme, allowing time for the aircraft you mention above to be developed.
PlaneHunter From Germany, joined Mar 2006, 6190 posts, RR: 79 Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8778 times:
Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 18): And now a reworked wide body like the A350 just won't cut it. BAE wants out of the conglomerate...Unfortunately I give Airbus about 8 years.
And why eight and not six, seven or nine?
It's just ridiculous to conclude Airbus will completely disappear. We're talking about an established multi-billion global player and not an amateurish start-up venture.
Going into detail and learning more about the structures of Airbus and EADS could help a bit...
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8719 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 21): Quoting Zvezda (Reply 19):
If Airbus can win 25% of the 3000 estimated total A350/B787 orders, then they can make money on the program. Remember, market share is the wrong goal. Profit is the right goal. If I were Airbus, I would be working on an all new aircraft a little bit larger in cross section than the B777 to replace the A340 and kill the B777 and the B747-8 SuperJumbo.
Agree again. It may be that Airbus resign themselves to the A350 being a "spoiler" for the 787 programme for an interim period, whilst at least breaking even on the programme, allowing time for the aircraft you mention above to be developed.
Perhaps, but it still doesn't explain why Udvar-Hazy of ILFC, with the apparent backing of a faction within Airbus, decided to "drop the dime" on the A350? What would be "their beef" with 25% of 3000?
Halibut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8695 times:
Looks as though the author of this article saw the " Pickle " some 11 months ago . It's obvious now , that Noel Forgeard sees that 787 & composites much differently !!!
June 14, 2005 Print | Send this article | Feedback
FALLING BEHIND BOEING
Airbus A350 No Match for Dreamliner
For a long time, Airbus didn't take Boeing's 787 "Dreamliner" project seriously. Now, with the American model selling much better than Airbus's planes, the company is being forced to react. Unfortunately, the company doesnt have the time, money or manpower to create a competing jet.
One year ago, Noel Forgeard was still flying high. When asked to comment on the announcement of chief rival Boeing's plans to introduce the long-haul, super-efficient 787 Dreamliner jet, the Airbus chief responded: "We don't need to react to the presentation of this plane."
25 Trex8: gaining market share usually but not always also translates into a even more profits, but while there will always be those who see market share "at a
26 Leelaw: Why would Udvar-Hazy give a hoot about Airbus maximizing market share if he thought a 25% market share was a realistic goal, which meant a viable and
27 Trex8: well if you really want to know you'll have to ask him but one obvious answer is he wants to preserve the value of his few A350 orders and he does no
28 Leelaw: If achieving a 25% market share in a 3000 aircraft market, with the A350 as it's currently proposed, is a worthwhile and potentially profitable enter
29 Trex8: it may be profitable for A to produce only several hundred planes but if in a market segment that is the minority product, it may make those planes h
30 EssentialPowr: ??? Airbus doesn't have the funding for the loss on the A380, a rework/abandonment of the A350, and to start a completely new program. No way...
31 Leelaw: Would this be a case of marginally lower v. dramatically lower residual values? Udvar-Hazy must fear dramatically lower residual values? Wouldn't it
32 Trex8: to be honest if I were UH I would be more worried about a Boeing monopoly than a residual value problem. residual values are certainly an important b
33 NAV20: There seems to be quite a concensus forming around the notion that Airbus' market share in this sector will 'bottom out' at say 25%. That would be al
34 Trex8: I don't think a winner take all will happen because while the 787 economics seem wonderful, for some smaller A operators the commonality issues may ma
35 Leelaw: ILFC can probably live with marginally lower residual values for one aircraft v. the competitors offering; and a marketplace where the competing OEMs
36 Trex8: thats where my money will be as to the real reasons for his utterances!
37 PlaneHunter: Now after learning what is "very possibly" to happen, we will soon read the first thread discussing when all these A350 customers will drop their ord
38 Tifoso: I doubt Udvar-Hazy would be as concerned if the roles were reversed, i.e. 787 was getting its ass kicked by the A350. Boeing's limit on the number of
39 Zvezda: When one gains market share by improving productivity, profits go up. When one gains market share by cutting prices, profits can go up or down. While
40 FlyDreamliner: I'm confident Boeing can ramp production up, and will only get smoother as production rolls on. With fuel prices where they are however, my guess is
41 EssentialPowr: -That becomes a very risky proposition from and investor standpoint when they're in for a loss on the A380, and then have to get billions more to rep
42 Zvezda: Has this been previously mentioned on A.net? If Airlines start cancelling their WhaleJet orders, then Airbus' A350 problems are going to seem like th
43 Atmx2000: The A350 won't win 25% of the orders for over two decades if the 787 and A350 end up being what they are current advertised as. Maybe 6-8 years at th
44 787engineer: You keep bringing up this point, Joni. Haven't you read all the posts that basically debunks the theory that CFRP only has minimal weight savings. Th
45 AvObserver: This is why I don't think Airbus will junk the current A350 design. They'd throw out all of the cost savings derived from being able to use the same
46 BoomBoom: Don't you think they've already lowered the prices as much as posssible? After all they have $5 billion in development costs to recoup, not to mentio
47 CWFan: If Airbus does leave the 350 as is, and then as quick as possible develops a 360 plane to replace the 340-5/600 and compete with the 77W and 748, how
48 Zvezda: That depends on a number of factors, such as whether Airbus use the GE90-115s or ask GE, PW, and RR to develop new engines. If I were Boeing, I would
49 Co7772wuh: NAV20's comments may frustrate & anger some AB fans , however he is accurate . Judging from the final count for 2005 , it's rather obvious . It looks
50 Leelaw: Apparently, you don't subscribe to the theory that an A388 size aircraft (450-550 pax) is desparetly needed to provide the necessary increased capaci
51 Zvezda: If we're talking only about airports so slot-restricted that there are no narrow-body ops, then perhaps there would be a market for a VLA not having
52 Art: Roll on the "real" A380 - the A389 - ASAP.
53 PlaneHunter: There's no disagreement over the duopoly. Which one - the proof for Airbus "virtually finishing up with none of the 250-320-seat market"? Quote it. W
54 Art: Why do you say that it will go from cash-flow negative to positive in the next 12 months? What is that based on? How would cancellations affect cashf
55 Zvezda: Up to now Airbus have been spending money on the WhaleJet program and have been receiving only deposits from the airlines. The deposits certainly don
56 Stitch: I am not familiar with how Airbus handles payments, but Boeing personnel have stated that the company (in general) takes 1/3rd down with the order, 1
57 Art: I do not know the discount given to launch customers; I do not know how much it costs to produce an A380. I have so far read of reported launch disco
58 Zvezda: I'm skeptical about the 50% off rumors but I think the production cost is probably in the ballpark of 50% of list price. 40% off seems much more plau
59 Astuteman: The answer to that is probably "It depends what you think is included in the build cost, and what is not". Examples of costs that might or might not
60 JayinKitsap: Widebodyphotog a few days ago identified the dream 787-10 which is the current -10 with larger engines and increased MTOW. I think Boeing decided for
61 Zvezda: The context was: Boeing will continue to produce the B737NG as long as there are orders.
62 Boeing767-300: This theory of making excuses for the inefficiency of the A346 versus 777 or in this case for an aircraft not yet built(A350) amazes me. You don't or
63 Atmx2000: I think that point has been made with regard to the A340 vs 777. The A350, because it uses the same engines as the 787 and will benefit from improved
64 Zvezda: Fuel efficiency is the most important measure of efficiency for an airliner, but it is not the only measure. For example, there is an efficiency in p
65 Aeronut: Ultimate design efficiency? No, you should design an aircaft based on what the customer wants.
66 Zvezda: So overstretched? No, the A350-900 is not overstretched at all. An A350-1000X would be.
67 Atmx2000: I don't think it is an excuse and is a reasonable point. The costs from operating an aircraft are apportioned to the purchase/lease cost for the air
68 Atmx2000: That's why i said "from not being so overstretched".
69 Astuteman: Achieving the ultimate design efficiency will also achieve the ultimate production cost. The optimum design for the customer is the one giving him th
70 Zvezda: That implies that the A350 is overstretched, but less so than the A340-600. Well put.
71 Art: It costs more to develop a better aircraft: if you are prepared to invest $5 billion but not $8/$9/$10 billion in a new aircraft, your design will no
72 Boeing767-300: What I mean't was design shouldn't rely on cheaper oil
73 Steeler83: If they want to push for a state-of-the-art bird with the most up-to-date technology and design/aerodynamics, then the 8/9 billion or so would be the
74 Halibut: An interesting article about the " Pickle " ! Halibut http://www.charleston.net/stories/?newsID=82749§ion=business But 2006 hasn't started well for t
75 Art: Strange, I thought it was Airbus that made the A320. And the A380.
76 NAV20: Art, Leahy's remarks were made in November 2005. By that time he must have been pretty sure which way the wind was blowing as far as prospects for 20
77 Johnny: @ ZVEZDA JUST A QUESTION - IF YOU ASSUME THAT AN A350-1000X WOULD BE OVERSTRETCHED, WHAT IS ABOUT YOUR IDEA TO DEVELOPE A B787-11X AND 12X, LIKE YOU S
78 Zvezda: There are two reasons why a B787 can be longer than an A340 before it becomes overstretched. One reason is the B787 has a fuselage cross sectional he
79 DeltaDC9: 320/737 is a wash, period. Accord or Camry, Silverado or F-150...and its Boeing who at this point that is poised to take a clear lead there with Y-1.
80 Zvezda: Airbus and Boeing both recouped their development investments on the A320 and B737NG a long time ago. Both products are now cash cows for them. Neith
81 Joni: Agreed. Neither is also going to develop a new narrowbody before there are new-generation engines to power them. Does anyone here know, btw, how much
82 DeltaDC9: Agreed, but that reaaly was'nt my point. I was not being clear. My point was that with thier other planes newer planes still in the red or at risk, t
83 Astuteman: In the late '80's and early 90's that was undoubtedly the case. This margin was down to c 4% - 5% by the turn of the decade as both the A346/773ER an
84 DeltaDC9: Agreed, I have read 8-10% more recently, 4-5% seems a little low, but what ever it is, its more than the 380 will see for a long time, and maybe ever
85 Zvezda: The theoretical limit is epsilon less than converting all the energy in the fuel into thrust. I'm tempted to calculate what that would be in terms of
86 Astuteman: I'd be reasonably comfortable saying the 747-8 will get back up to c 10%-12% operating margin for the OEM. I'm not sure I agree with your A380 assert
87 Manni: That's great NAV. Notice that in your chosen timeframe the A340 has outsold the 777, IIRC not a single 777 has been sold this year. Does that sound i
88 Joni: Do you have a source for this? I mean, both current and future margins for the A380? The plane has a monopoly in it's segment so 10-20% would sound m
89 Poitin: Isn't this "positive cash-flow" dependent on what sort of discounts A gave the first "X" customers. There are reports that the first 100 or so 380s w
90 Stitch: I would not be surprised if some of the fence-sitters (like BA and CX) are waiting for the A380 to enter revenue service. Same with current A380 cust
91 Joni: I wouldn't call that "CPA" solid data to begin with... We've had some discussions of it in the past, you can try and search the archives here.
92 PlaneHunter: Interesting - not even a third of the year is over and certain people jump to early conclusions. Such a comparison only makes sense at the end of the
93 Zvezda: If Airbus sold WhaleJets below cost, it was not intentional. Airbus know better than to try dumping. They have enough problems with the WTO. Dumping
94 Poitin: It is clear that is that there is NO solid data, just speculation about the actual discounts, since A sees fit not to publish their internal accounti
95 Zvezda: A reasonable comparison could be made from 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006.
96 Astuteman: Another nice post. Correct again. If you read the CPA carefully, it is riddled with the word "speculation" - in fact, it's all speculation. As it is,
97 PlaneHunter: If we talk about "2006 sales" (and the user I referred to mentioned "this year"), we should concentrate on 2006 sales. PH
98 Poitin: Or maybe after the Paris Airshow/Farnborough Airshow in June/July? Airbus has always loved to do their show and tell at these shows and I expect they
99 Zvezda: Thank you for the kind words. That would be true even without follow-on orders. The only reports in the press of possible cancellations are AF, thoug
100 Poitin: This is true, but I suspect the first year or so of deliveries will be to the first buyers. After all EK has 43 or so on order or about 25% of the to
101 Dougloid: That in itself may be in doubt. There's a report that RR and KHI in Japan will jointly develop the Trent 1700 for the A350. http://www.forbes.com/mar
102 DeltaDC9: My opinion is as states 8-10% bottom end 20% at peak production. Astuteman said 4-5% so I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. Having read his pos
103 Astuteman: I'm using the term positive cashflow to indicate that the cash coming in pays for building the aircraft, and servicing the debt interest associated w
104 Art: To provide potential ammunition to fire against Airbus in the WTO A v B subsidies war - in the event that Gellman's efforts were helpful to the Boein
105 Poitin: Back in the days I ran a corporation, I not only had to pay the interest on whatever money I borrowed for the R&D of a product, but also the money it
106 Astuteman: If it helps, the evidence I've seen (which includes Gellman's A380 shadow appraisal, funnily enough) indicates 4% - 5% for those few 744 orders prior
107 Dougloid: That would put you among the paranoids, right? It was all a plot of the devilish americans to torpedo les Frenchies. Like I said, they didn't get muc
108 Manni: You missed the point I was trying to make. You wrote 'wathever it is' it is more than the A380 will see for a long time and maybe ever. My question t
109 Stitch: The aerospace union workers in WA killed Boeing's plans to build military 737s and BBJs at Long Beach in favor of a second line at Renton. So chances
110 Texfly101: As stated earlier in the thread, McD did just that. The development costs and the ROI just didn't work for the bean counters at a company that was al
111 NAV20: Reminds me of previous discussions on the difference between 'autumn' and 'the end of the year', PlaneHunter. I think one thing that we all agree on
112 DeltaDC9: This is based on my opinion that they will never completely recoup their investment on the 380 so no real profit is possible. Positive cash flow yes,
113 NAV20: This appears to indicate that:- A. Airbus has indeed decided on yet another A350 redesign. B. The programme will be 'on hold' until at least July 2006
114 Poitin: Living in CA, I understand why Boeing would want to leave CA -- bloody taxes. I didn't realize that there was room for two 787 lines in Everett. That
115 Poitin: I think we really have to wait until Farnborough is over, given Airbus's predilection to announce business at these shows. However, come July 24, thi
116 N328KF: Not true. Skunk Works is in CA, and the Global Hawk is made around there somewhere.
117 Stitch: Well, that's The Everett Herald for ya (which is where I read that little "factoid"), but perhaps they meant "manned aircraft" since Skunk Works just
118 Halibut: http://news.monstersandcritics.com/b...liner_A350_from_customer_criticism Business News Airbus defends newest airliner, A350, from customer criticism
119 AvObserver: Halibut's comments on Noel Forgeard make me glad Gustav Humbert is making most Airbus statements, these days; at least HE has a grip on reality. While
120 Halibut: I bet it was Noel Forgeard's brilliance to keep all the airlines in the dark regarding the a380 delay . Smart Noel , blame the airlines for your F-up
121 Poitin: HUH!!! I think I seen about 10 wonderful pearls of wisdom from Noël Forgeard for every one I have seen from Gustav. In fact, in the last few weeks t
122 BHMBAGLOCK: If Boeing decides to open a second line I think it's likely that they'll look again at the other sites that were in the running for the first line. I
123 Poitin: Sadly, I must agree about CA, but not for A330 tanker production. Snowball's chance in hell. The Air Force brass will never accept a "French" airplan
124 Areopagus: It's kind of hard for me to imagine, considering how much American content goes into Airbus products, which could be held in a counter-embargo. That'
125 Revelation: Yep, the only ones with the real numbers is Airbus. Too bad they didn't do what they were obliged to do with them, thus the "shadow" report.
126 Zvezda: So, according to Forgeard, the A350 has new engines while the B787-8 does not.
127 Poitin: Those are not military aircraft you are talking about, tankers are, and if they are used to support a war, such as Iraq II, do you think that pin-hea
128 Manni: Why do you conclude that Mr. Foregaerd has a blind hatred of the US? You might not like this man and that's your right (wathever the reason is), it i
129 Areopagus: I do not presume to know what Chirac would do, and it's not clear to me that a credible threat of retaliation in nonmilitary goods is immaterial to h
130 Poitin: I would doubt even the Alabamians would support a bill that paid US military funds to anything French. A bunch of their boys are dead in Iraq. As for
131 Joni: Why would that make them averse to buying French hardware? Logically, it should make them averse to buying _American_ hardware.
132 Zvezda: Manni is right. Any journalist who thinks that Airbus got more orders than Boeing last year either has an agenda or did very little research. If one
133 Art: What sort of counting methodology allows for x+x > 2x?
134 Halibut: Ok Manni , how about just plain blind for starters ! Mr. Foregaerd states the A350 is the most modern aircraft of this century ! Well , the airli
136 Manni: Is that suppose to be the answer to my question? Mr. Foregaerd, who's was leading the worlds biggest civilian aircraft manufacturer, sole competitor,
137 Halibut: In my oppinion Mr Foreaerd's constant criticism of Boeing , which by the way , is inaccrrate most of the time , his denial & some other factors lead
138 NAV20: Can this be the cavalry riding to the rescue? My guess is that this is one guy who is going to have a busy first couple of months in his new job. "The
140 Zvezda: It looks like EADS is now serious about learning how to produce a composite fuselage, most likely starting with the NSR (A320 replacement).
141 JayinKitsap: But I thought EADS said that composite fuselages were BAD and saved only a little weight. I recall touring a long time ago GM's tech center in Warren
142 Saturn5: If they want to remain true to their beliefs and prior proclamations they should not consider using composites (or high perecentage of) in the fusela
143 AirFrnt: It's a little bit harder with planes. No one will miss the odd Honda CRV that disappears into a Saturn VUE lab. On the other hand, a 787 not showing
144 N328KF: And how do you propose that this will occur? Boeing will notice if a customer let Toulouse have a 787. There are people at Boeing who keep track of w
145 Stitch: Even if Airbus legally gets their hands on a 787, it's not like Airbus doesn't know how to build a plane - even one from composites. Plus Boeing is so
146 Poitin: Exactly so. Composite is no longer a great mystery. Its been around for 20 years and there are dozens of planes built from it. The clever thing is th
147 Trex8: like maybe from that EADS factory in Germany who are building a composite pressure bulkhead for the 787! I don't think there is much proprietray in t
148 AvObserver: He's probably used to doing that, lately. Why else would he be so quiet in recent months, unless his new boss laid down the law on sales rhetoric pro
149 BHMBAGLOCK: I wouldn't be so sure about that. The location they picked was very smart logistically as well as politically. The location will also have major bene
150 Art: Am I unaware of something here? I fail to see any connection between France and US servicemen (or UK servicemen) losing their lives in Iraq.
151 Halibut: http://heraldnet.com/stories/06/04/27/100loc_a1boemain001.cfm Published: Thursday, April 27, 2006 Boeing's booming: First-quarter profit up 29% By Bry
152 DeltaDC9: You dont have a clue. http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Reality/composites.html
153 Joni: IIRC the A400M has a composite fuselage. Also the A350 has a composite wing and large sections of the A380 is made of them. It's not as if Airbus isn
154 DeltaDC9: Quoting Joni (Reply 153): IIRC the A400M has a composite fuselage. Also the A350 has a composite wing and large sections of the A380 is made of them.
155 N328KF: Are you referring to the fact that Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites has also built sailboats? (The most famous example is Dennis Conner's Stars & Strip
156 Joni: My point was that Airbus already has the necessary know-how to make a composite fuselage, since they've been making large sections of planes from com
157 Poitin: " target=_blank>http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concep....html I fail to see your point. Perhaps you can explain. All this article confirms is that comp
158 Poitin: DeltaDC9, you really don't understand. Joni is completely correct in his statement. If you can build a complex structure with compound curves like a
159 DeltaDC9: It confirms that composites have been used on commercial airliners since 1962 by Boeing. Composites have been around much longer that 50 years.The Co
160 Oryx: Yes North Sails is correct. I think they are even world market leader for sails.
161 DeltaDC9: Not a snap, very comples operation. A400 is not in any way similar to the 787. Show me a picture of an a-400 composite fuse barrel. It's not built th
162 Poitin: NASA is across the street at Moffit Field, haven't you noticed? I was there working on their Cray computers, which are used to design all this neat s
163 Poitin: Airbus is not years behind anyone in technology. The sole difference between the two companies is Boeing fire Condit and Airbus still has that idiot
165 DeltaDC9: You completely misunderstood that post, please read again. Is the 787 going to be flying around in pieces? I said CONNECT. Lots of technology has bee
166 DeltaDC9: Wait a minute, are you saying that each barrel is a two piece structure? If so you are completely wrong. Each barrel is one piece and yes they can ge
167 787engineer: For ages. . .right. . . so are you counting the A330/340 flap parts, and keel beam as "large sections". Last I checked the first "large section" on t
168 Poitin: That I did not know, but if Burt can go to space why not a sail as well. Thanks for the update. I wonder if he is going to do any of the next round o
169 DeltaDC9: Maybe I misunderstood, are you saying that its not easier with the 787 construction method? I am not saying its "easy".[Edited 2006-04-27 17:53:36]
170 787engineer: Nothing against Mr. Rutan, but I doubt he'd make all that great of a commercial airline. He's a smart guy; I've heard him speak a couple times, but c
171 Poitin: I never said that the 787 was a snap, but an oval is far easier to calculate the stresses and lay up than a square with bulges. My point was that Air
172 BoomBoom: If they'd only save 550kg, they're doing something wrong! All this shows is that Airbus needs to scrap the A350 and start over with a clean sheet des
173 Poitin: Somehow I think it was Airbus Marketing making these statements about CRFP, because the Airbus engineering department clearly understands. You are ri
174 Halibut: This is the question & purpose of this thread ! Judging by the "Pickle" , the Airbus A350 dilemma. I feel ...., it is safe to say...., that Airbus "
175 BoomBoom: How many such jokes can Airbus afford before their credibility is completly destroyed? Does that mean the A350 is dead?
176 787engineer: Boeing is not pushing for a blended wing just as Airbus isn't pushing for standing room only. The only reason the B-2 is a flying wing is for its ste
177 787engineer: LOL! Good old BoomBoom, always around to come down on Airbus.
179 DeltaDC9: They have not demostrated that apability as of now, so how do you even know that to be true? First, lets see the numbers, second, X-15 are you kiddin
180 Poitin: My lips are sealed, the non-disclosure signed and wouldn't you like to know? Have you not seen the rumors? Leahy repainted a model of the B 787 to lo
181 Zvezda: That may have been your point, but it isn't what you wrote. The first thing you wrote was false. The second is yet to be demonstrated. True, Airbus u
182 Stitch: Maybe not something "wrong", per se, but if CRRP would only save 500kg of weight on the A350 program, then it must need a lot more structure then the
183 Sangas: Why wouldn't that be good enough for Udvar-Hazy? He must have concerns that the A350 won't meet that threshold?
184 Poitin: Please note that I said "if B opens two 787 production lines." That would give them the ability to deliver many more slots before the first A350 roll
185 Zvezda: Udvar-Hazy has somewhat different interests than Airbus. He cares first and foremost about resale values.
186 BoomBoom: I think it's a perfectly reasonable question. If Airbus is going to build an A360 or A370, would that be in addition to the A350 or in place of it?
187 A319XFW: So with all the work still being done on the A380, A400M and A350, don't you think 2 more aircraft programmes will stretch Airbus a bit... Well at le
188 Zvezda: As of now, there is no A360 or A370. There haven't even been rumors from reliable sources. The only thing we have on an A360 or A370 is A.net specula
189 Texfly101: yes, he's right and that's been at the heart of the two different approaches A and B have taken. A has invested a lot of time and effort into Al-Li,
190 Poitin: The A360 or A370 is to my mind speculation, although I do have some interesting reports from someone who works at an airline front office. If A decid
191 DeltaDC9: I thought that was Seve Austin and they rebuilt him for just 6 million.
192 BoomBoom: Not really. It would simply plug a BIG hole in the product line. A composite fusealge wider than the 777 that would take out the 777 and could be sca
193 Art: Is "six years" a typo? Did you intend to write "six months"?
194 Sangas: Don't all potential customers care about resale values? If Airbus can capture 25-30% of a 2000-3000 unit market with the A350 as currently conceived
195 CWFan: Wait. Let me get this right. Let's say Airbus decides to build a 350/360 (whatever the name) with a composite fuse and slightly wider than the 787 (gi
196 Areopagus: Presumably, because the lease rate he can get from a follow-on customer is related to the aircraft's value. Or, he might want to sell it.
197 Jacobin777: the current version of it should be around 2011-2012.....and this is before they have anything else going...right now, the A350 is on a sheet of pape
198 Sangas: I understand that, but if Airbus can have a viable business with 25-30% of the market with the A350 as argued by Zvezda, why would he be concerned th
199 Zvezda: Airlines and leasing companies both care about operating costs and resale values. Airlines care more about operating cost than do leasing companies.
200 Texfly101: very funny...its good to see someone show up with a sense of humor...
201 Sangas: I understand that, and I think lessors can live with marginally lower residual values garnered by the aircraft holding the smaller market share when
202 Atmx2000: That's assuming that Boeing doesn't have any say in it. Boeing developed many of these processes and transferred some technology to its partners. I w
203 Poitin: To EIS. That is 2012, no? It would take more than six months to design a new composite fuselage, but they could have started already. I have no infor
204 Poitin: Since the leasing companies usually hold an airframe for ten to fifteen years, they also care a great deal about the future popularity of the airfram
205 Zvezda: Exactly. The metric of future popularity is resale value.
206 Astuteman: To which I think the answer would probably be :- As well as the centre wing box, the A380 fuselage from the aft pressure bulkhead back is made from t
207 Halibut: Something Joni may find interesting . http://www.compositesnews.com/cni.asp?articleID=10844 Boeing Shows Interest in New Carbon Fiber Recycling Proces
208 Stitch: One thing Airbus needs to worry about with an "A350E" that has an EIS even later is that when the A350 launches in 2011, it will be the smaller A358 m
209 DeltaDC9: Funny how they eventually find a way to recycle just about anything, and then keep finding new uses for that recycled material. Here in Lexington KY,
210 Poitin: A very Astute thought. Airbus, and EADS are both more political entities than an commerical corporations. While I am sure that the Airbus engineers c
211 787engineer: Hmmmm a new totally redesigned A350 might be ready for EIS by 2012. Considering the 787 should take Boeing 4-5 years, it would probably take Airbus 5-
212 Poitin: Now you know why I sold my EADS stock. A nice summary. This is fairly much the argument I heard. Whether it is true or not, I don't know, but this is
213 Stitch: Perhaps a more...dynamic...management team, throwing away the current A350 design for either a new one, coming to the market half-a-decade late and m
214 Jacobin777: pipped you guys to the post (well partially at least-787engineer had some more good information to add)...
215 Poitin: While I agree you are making valid points, there comes a time to fold and cut your losses. I think B has A right over a barrel with the A350 and 787.
216 Halibut: I'm curious to what Mr. Leahy is saying now about the A350 ! Hhmm http://www.charleston.net/stories/?newsID=82749§ion=business Top Airbus salesman Le
217 Poitin: Hey, it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. And besides, he is being paid the big bucks, isn't he? It's about time he started to earn it.
218 Halibut: I have a feeling Gustav will straighten things out for airbus . Noel on the other hand , was most deffinately not happy when he learned he was no lon
219 Poitin: My source, an airline exec, says he is hearing Gustav is under fire and may get shot. Noel is behind that. So I suspect either Noel or Gustav will re
221 EssentialPowr: I tend to go on to other threads after they have gotten this large, but the above comment seems to summarize a misconception at Airbus and obviously
222 Poitin: Thanks, and I didn't use a supercomputer to figure that out, either The gut feeling I get is Airbus is about to go through a serious reorg. Just what
223 EssentialPowr: The above author seems to have the same indecisions, at the moment, as Airbus - replace the A330/340, or not???
224 Poitin: While Zvezda and I have very different opinions about supercomputer clusters and calculational aerodynamics, I rarely find fault with his ideas about
225 DeltaDC9: Like I said in another thread, the current 350 will make a profit, a redesigned 350 will also make a profit, but if the new 350 doesn't capture more m
226 EssentialPowr: You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however, his opinions are not only in opposition with each other but are not exactly a good demonstration
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From India, joined Aug 2005, 2936 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9081 posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 0 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9136 posts, 
From Germany, joined Mar 2006, 6190 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
