Elvis777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 360 posts, RR: 3 Posted (7 years 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 13752 times:
Howdy all,
Now for our european aircraft manufacturing loving friends, dont get all riled up. This is just your guy talking. I did not search google for any news on how bad EADS sucks. Part of my job necessitates me subscribing toAviation Week, so I get the electronic version. Man I wish I did not have to put that disclaimer but If not I fear I will soon be branded with the scarlet letter A (for EADS basher). Mind you since I am with the competition I do hope EADS loses market share (lots). Anyways, I digress. The article in question basically echoes one of our A.net members (The Eads side) optimism of the new (really new) A350. It will be a "Stunner" (that words makes me giggle) according to EBBUK and the EADS guy basically says the same. Although he does say that it is more than a redesign (or did I infer that?). Anyways, we are shaking in our collective American (Australian, Japanese, Italian) boots since the new (really new) A350 will almost cure the Avian Flu. Or maybe we are not really worried.. Uhm.. I wonder.
Airbus 'Guessed Wrong' On A350, McArtor Says
By James Ott and Martial Tardy
05/23/2006 10:23:25 AM
Airbus North America Chairman Allan McArtor said the European manufacturer "guessed wrong" in the initial design of the A350 and that by summer it will develop an aircraft that will be more competitive and even dominant against Boeing's 787.
Summer also appears to the timeframe for French, British, German and Spanish governments to decide if they plan to resume support for the A350 development program, said French Transport Minister Dominique Perben in a May 22 interview with French daily Le Figaro. "We will make a common decision before the opening of the air show in Farnborough," Perben said.
In the meantime, Perben and his colleagues will be informed about the intentions of European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) on the future of the A350. "We believe in this project, and we have no intention to continue wasting time," Perben said. European governments suspended launch aid for the A350 program last year as a token of good will to settle their dispute with the United States on state aid to the aircraft industry, which is now pending at the World Trade Organization.
McArtor, meanwhile, said in an interview Monday that Airbus thought the A350 would be successful if it was "put on steroids" and powered by the GEnx engine. But "customers said we want something a little bit different than that, [and] be more aggressive with your innovation."........................................................There is more. Click on the link.
Peace
Elvis777
Leper,Unevolved, Misplaced and Unrepentant SportsFanatic and a ZOMBIE as well
EbbUK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13528 times:
Quoting Elvis777 (Thread starter): according to EBBUK and the EADS guy basically says the same. Although he does say that it is more than a redesign (or did I infer that?). Anyways, we are shaking in our collective American (Australian, Japanese, Italian) boots since the new (really new) A350 will almost cure the Avian Flu. Or maybe we are not really worried.. Uhm.. I wonder.
Everything is in place for the unveiling of a new A350 that will dominate the market place,
Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 4): Airbus "guessed" wrong?? Heavens, I hope the airframe manufacturers base their decisions on more than a guess!
No need, Airbus has just guessed everything throughout it's whole existance. In fact the composite features in its products as well as innovations like fly-by-wire have just been guesses to name but two. Not bad huh??
Manni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 23 Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13528 times:
Quoting Elvis777 (Thread starter): Airbus North America Chairman Allan McArtor said the European manufacturer "guessed wrong" in the initial design of the A350 and that by summer it will develop an aircraft that will be more competitive and even dominant against Boeing's 787.
The first step to solve a problem is to recognize that you have a problem. Congratulations to Airbus to take such a tough decision, with an already not to underestimated orderbook. I, and I'm sure many others, look forward what Airbus will propose to develop to counter the 787.
Quoting Elvis777 (Thread starter): I do hope EADS loses market share (lots). Anyways, I digress. The article in question basically echoes one of our A.net members (The Eads side) optimism of the new (really new) A350. It will be a "Stunner" (that words makes me giggle) according to EBBUK and the EADS guy basically says the same. Although he does say that it is more than a redesign (or did I infer that?). Anyways, we are shaking in our collective American (Australian, Japanese, Italian) boots since the new (really new) A350 will almost cure the Avian Flu. Or maybe we are not really worried.. Uhm.. I wonder.
Howdy,
Pitty that a rather interesting article is acompanied by the above. A while a go, I've decided to totally ignore your posts, you've probably realised besides reading them and have a bit of a laugh. Maybe you wanted to know.
My goodness can't we have a thread that is honest?
I think a competive aircraft will be released.
Dominate?
Well that's for the market to decide. No one here knows what the future will bring. Even if you have "special inside knowledge" of what is to be released, until the customers start to make firm orders it is all conjecture! Just make the case, don't brag about what hasn't yet happened or been seen.
With love,
Tug
[Edited 2006-05-24 07:50:51]
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
Iwok From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1106 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13442 times:
Interesting quote from the article ;
' He mused that manufacturers should not "fall in love with legacy programs." '
How true. Sometimes it takes a good set of kahunas make these decisions. I suspect there is some second guessing and loss of confidence at Airbus over recent setbacks.
If they can make the "right choice", expect to see more of what is good about Airbus come to the limelight again.
Woosie From United States of America, joined May 2006, 115 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13277 times:
Quoting Manni (Reply 9): Quoting Elvis777 (Thread starter):
Airbus North America Chairman Allan McArtor said the European manufacturer "guessed wrong" in the initial design of the A350 and that by summer it will develop an aircraft that will be more competitive and even dominant against Boeing's 787.
The first step to solve a problem is to recognize that you have a problem. Congratulations to Airbus to take such a tough decision, with an already not to underestimated orderbook. I, and I'm sure many others, look forward what Airbus will propose to develop to counter the 787.
While I confess to wanting Airbus to "take a bath" in this market segment (for obvious reasons), they are smart and terrific competitors who try their best to ensure a safe product.
Dalecary From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13246 times:
Quoting Manni (Reply 9): The first step to solve a problem is to recognize that you have a problem. Congratulations to Airbus to take such a tough decision, with an already not to underestimated orderbook. I, and I'm sure many others, look forward what Airbus will propose to develop to counter the 787.
I wonder what the formal A350 order book is now? 0? I would imagine every order would have to be reworked and there will be some losses to the 787.
Ah the irony of the champions of the existing A350, trumpeting it's 8-abreast comfort and ability to compete against the 787. Some here thought that the A350 didn't have a problem. Others seemed to know it was doomed.
But yes, I'm glad Airbus seem a convert to the 9-abreast fuselage. Give them a few more years and they might even be able to produce a composite fuselage!
Pitty that a rather interesting article is acompanied by the above. A while a go, I've decided to totally ignore your posts, you've probably realised besides reading them and have a bit of a laugh. Maybe you wanted to know.
Well why read the bloody things if you ignore them?
AndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13246 times:
Quoting Manni (Reply 9): The first step to solve a problem is to recognize that you have a problem.
And lets not forget to recognize the problem quickly, they should have done this about a year ago.
Quoting Elvis777 (Thread starter): In the meantime, Perben and his colleagues will be informed about the intentions of European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) on the future of the A350. "We believe in this project, and we have no intention to continue wasting time
They have already wasted plenty of time at this stage of the game. More time wasting is not good. Instead of this BS about announcements by such date, the members should sit down in a marathon session and figure out what they are going to do NOW.
Antares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, RR: 41 Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 13159 times:
Oh dear, Be careful what you wish for.
Boeing should have gone for the other pitch, arguing that the A350 was a damned good plane (which it was, for 787 sales) which it was going to counter with a daring, high risk punt on unproven but promising technology.
Not that this means curtains for the Dreamliner. But it does mean most likely a suspension of big order decisions until the undecided assess the new offering, the time frame, and maybe wait a while to see if the first 787 emerges on schedule for first flight by the middle of 2007.
The risk for Boeing is that Airbus will offer a family to supersede not just the A330/340 line up, but the 777 and 747-8s. On the other hand/boot the risk for Airbus is that the market will say 'too late'.
The could end up in a massive sending/subsidy hunting fest on both sides if either also tosses a single aisle family replacement onto the bonfire, so to speak, forcing both into a comprehensive redesign of their entire range.
If that happens, neither can do it relying on the capital or equity markets for all of the necessary support, and the demand for assistance from governments keen to support suppliers (Japan comes to mind) will be just as enthusiastically pushed in the US as in Europe.
Should we worry. No. Lots of new aircraft to argue about for at least the next decade.
RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 13032 times:
Leelaw,
the main issue I and many people have is that every time Airbus, the industry or a journalist so much as clears their throat and it sounds like they said 'A350' - it gets a brand new thread on here, thereby splintering the discussion and ensuring the same topics get rehashed.
Here are some of the open A350 topics at the moment:
Can you honestly say that every new article needs its own thread? It would do better to keep all discussion in one thread and then people can get on and discuss new developments as they happen, not rehash old stuff.
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 12989 times:
Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 22): Can you honestly say that every new article needs its own thread? It would do better to keep all discussion in one thread and then people can get on and discuss new developments as they happen, not rehash old stuff.
It's definitely a quandry. This subject matter is hotly followed. The threads quickly fill up with a large number of replies, so appending new articles which are truly newsworthy to existing threads, IMO, is problematic as well. Many members without high-speed connections complain that the long threads take too long to download, etc.
Art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 12909 times:
From the article:
Quoting Elvis777 (Thread starter): "We believe in this project, and we have no intention to continue wasting time," Perben said.
Note that Dominique Perben is the French Transport Minister. The French Transport Ministry is not part of Airbus, so I do not understand when he says "we have no intention to continue wasting time".
Quoting Elvis777 (Thread starter): Airbus North America Chairman Allan McArtor said that... ...by the summer it will develop an aircraft that will be more competitive and even dominant against Boeing's 787.
Airbus NA Chairman may believe that. I won't believe that until I see it.
Challiday From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 88 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 12895 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 2):
So now Aviation Week articles are taboo? Let's all grow a collective pair and allow articles from and about the aviation industry. It's should not be the job of the moderators to coddle people.
777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 11318 posts, RR: 17 Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 12879 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting Prosap (Reply 18): Mmmm, a thread about Airbus started by someone with '777' in his sign and the stars and stripes at the top of his post -
So does that mean that an American, or any one with Boeing, 737, 777 etc etc etc in their name has no right to post anything about Airbus? Can the same be said about Airbus fans posting things about Boeing?
the main issue I and many people have is that every time Airbus, the industry or a journalist so much as clears their throat and it sounds like they said 'A350' - it gets a brand new thread on here, thereby splintering the discussion and ensuring the same topics get rehashed.
The reason why all those posts were started was because they deserve being discussed, same as when the media did a story on the B787, or when members have thought about B787. Airbus addmitting to their mistake totally deserves being discussed. If you don't like the topic then don't read, its that SIMPLE
CHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 63 Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 12863 times:
Quoting Leelaw (Reply 5): Quoting N328KF (Reply 2):
So now Aviation Week articles are taboo?
Actually, BoomBoom, merely posted the article without any comment whatsoever, other than the fact that he was the threadstarter. Apparently, on that basis alone, it was considered "incitement" of an A v. B flamewar
Sad thing is that BoomBoom has no credibility on here because he appears to have nothing better to do than slag off Airbus and pontificate endlessly about how great the gap is and how Boeing is killing the Airbus counterpart in all categories etc. It means that even if he does post an article "in good faith" (we assume he is capable of such a thing) then his motives are always questioned. You know this. To claim the Europeans are being hypersensitve about an "incitement" ignores BoomBoom's seemingly daily "contributions" to the bitterness, resentment and bitching that we all have to put up with. We all know, based on what he says, that the guy just hates Airbus, and has an agenda to this effect in everything he says on here.
I've got time for you Leelaw, as you seem to be a bit more balanced and reasonable than him, but you playing the bias card against the Europeans for how BoomBoom has been treated is a little rich. It seems you, like most of the cheerleaders on here, are frighteningly intelligent when it comes to performance figures and fuel burn, and the intricacies of ETOPS rules, but when it comes to being objective and smart about some of your more embarassing brethen, and insinuating bias on the part of the Europeans on here in the way they get treated, you suddenly seem to conform to this "dumb, blindly protectionist American" stereotype that you and your fellows work so hard to shake off.
BoomBoom conforms to this stereotype a great deal more than you do, which is why you get taken more seriously on here than he does.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 12809 times:
Quoting 777ER (Reply 26): The reason why all those posts were started was because they deserve being discussed, same as when the media did a story on the B787, or when members have thought about B787. Airbus addmitting to their mistake totally deserves being discussed. If you don't like the topic then don't read, its that SIMPLE
It isnt about liking or disliking the topic, its about having to trawl through 20 or 30 threads to find the tidbits of useful information in each of them because a new thread has been opened for the slightest reason. A new article on an old topic should not mean a new thread.
There is useful information to be had, but the effort required to look for it is increased whenever someone opens a new thread because it also opens the door for the same old subjects to be discussed over and over again. If this was all contained in one or two threads, that wouldnt happen.
Airbus have admitted to their mistake, and there are at least 3 other threads on that exact subject - so why create more for each new news article that appears?!
Flying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4111 posts, RR: 39 Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 12758 times:
Quoting Dalecary (Reply 16): Give them a few more years and they might even be able to produce a composite fuselage!
Dale, while I respect what you write on orders, you know damn well that this is absolute bollocks what you write here. EADS / Airbus have been long working with composites, be it for parts only (wings, tails, stabilizers) , be it for full planes (for example the newly revealed Barracuda UAV, which is full-composite, manufactured by EADS Augsburg). They know very well the possible applications of composites, and that they have so far refrained from using composites for the fuselage might have its good reasons - just believing the Boeing PR "everything will be fine" is not necessarily the correct way...
To date nobody - and that includes Boeing as well - really knows how exactly the composites fuselage of the 787 will perform. They have done test, they have sophisticated [computer] models, everything the public knows is that it looks fine - but that does not mean that in real life everything will be as expected. Murphy's law comes to my mind.
26 777ER: If something like that happens (which happenes everyday) then no need to to post another topic if the same subject is happening
27 Galapagapop: Is Bob Dole doing the grammar checks on this one?
28 Halibut: What about the A380 ? The A380 is the main culprit for Airbus's current dilemma " Pickle " in the twim ailse , mid size market . RichardPrice, You fo
29 Flying-Tiger: ... however at the moment the surfboard is nothing more than a computer rendering with a couple of pre-production items being manufacturered. It rema
30 MotorHussy: Boeing guessed wrong with the Sonic-Cruiser too and they're now back with a family of winners. Don't discount Airbus, they still have the capacity to
31 Antares: As I said, be careful what you wish for. It could be difficult for the 787 to win otherwise unlooseable contests in the near term, or maybe even sell
32 Halibut: Can someone please provide photos of the 787 in the Autoclav . I don't know how to do that yet . Thanks ! The 787 has generated close to 400 firm ord
33 Flying-Tiger: That's what Forbes reported about one month ago. Currently running between 1 and 2 months behind schedule, with a number of issues still unsolved, an
34 CHRISBA777ER: LOL how can they complain about a plane that they havent seen fly yet?
35 Art: Could he have been taking a swipe at a certain European rival which has not been seen flying yet?
36 Dalecary: No worries Bjoern. It was a sarcastic jibe at Manni and not to be taken seriously. If you haven't noticed, Manni and myself don't see eye-to-eye onmu
37 Joni: Boeing also "guessed wrong" with the 747X.
38 RichardPrice: Didnt LH recently have some complaints about it? Lufthansa Not Satisfied With A350 And 787 (by Columba May 8 2006 in Civil Aviation) Im not saying th
39 Halibut: Easy, If the plane is not up to snuff while still being designed ! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12250172/from/RL.3/ Halibut
40 Halibut: What do you expect from a Fat American ? More Pickles , more food ! Sorry , have to go - I'm F-ing late for work ! Halibut
41 Dougloid: Ummmmmm....you seem to have a pretty good command of the language....so what's your complaint about? Or are you just flatulating? Signed, Joe Redneck
42 Dalecary: Well heck if Airbus can cover this market with 1 model, good luck to them, but I fear it would spell trouble for the A380. I think it is drawing a lo
43 DistantHorizon: No, he couldn't. No A350 buyer as complained about the drawings they have bought. Only possible buyers have. And that's why they are just "possible b
44 N754PR: As Boeing is saying the 787 line is now full till...2012 or something does that mean Airbus now have time to make a new design and STILL build planes
45 RichardPrice: ILFC have signed up for a number of airframes and have raised doubts about the current design.
46 RayChuang: The big issue right now for Airbus is whether EADS is willing to fund what amounts to a clean sheet airplane now. We're talking development costs that
47 Wingman: Who knows, the new 350 may be precisely what Boeing is wishing for. First, it immediately addresses 3-4 primary customers (SIA, EK, and ILFC). I don't
48 DistantHorizon: Yes, they have. But ILFC is a very special buyer, isn't it? They'll basically buy anything they might fell their customers want. So their views are,
49 AirFrnt: Just one point from this thread. This is the third or fourth time that someone in this thread has asserted that a new Airbus plane magically will hav
50 NAV20: Can't help feeling a bit victimised. Being of mixed English and Irish ancestry and having lived for various periods in Australia, Britain, and the US
51 Baroque: Not unless your short term memory is extremely low on bytes. And I dare say that some with faster connections complain that they can receive the same
52 Rolfen: They meant a commercial guess. The guessing relates to marketing strategy decisions where there is always a part of risk.
53 DistantHorizon: It has nothing to do with magic. Was A330 magicaly better than 767? Is A320 magically better than 737? The truth is, we DO NOT know. Yet. We have no
54 NAV20: Most of the threads RP mentioned ran to over 200 posts and 15,000 views, Baroque. I'm afraid that Airbus' current predicament just happens to be 'new
55 AirFrnt: The A330 was introduced 10 years after the 767. The A320 was introduced 22 years after the 737 was introduced. The 350 will be less then three years
56 Nwray: This is what interest me. News. This is Business with a capital B, and it is fascinating to see it played out between the airliner manufacturers at t
57 Art: From the Forbes article: "To counter the 787, Airbus is offering a white elephant called the A350, which has been widely derided as out of step with t
58 DistantHorizon: That is your conclusion. But if both manufacturers never competed the way they are doing now, how can you conclude the way you do? Couldn't you say t
59 Eatmybologna: And how do you measure this? Weren't more 737NGs ordered this year? Aren't the MX costs, CASM values, and seat capacities almost the same, give or ta
60 AirFrnt: No. The 340 and the 777 were only 6 years apart and both were clean sheet designs. In the airline manufacturing business, logistics is one of the mos
61 DistantHorizon: Do not get me wrong: the 737 is a great plane. But those "few percentage points" do make the difference. And when I say "better" I mean "economically
62 DistantHorizon: That is true. But those 6 years made all the difference. The A340 was built with the engines available then. Only a few years later the T7 became pos
63 Mham001: I cannot download large threads. Even when I can, it gets horribly tedious when you only want to see the last ten or so posts. Maybe it has something
64 RichardPrice: There was more like 9 years between the programmes - A340 launched in 1981, 777 launched in 1990.
65 AirFrnt: That's kind of my point. There is no technological advantage that the A350 will have that the 787 doesn't already have. Maybe Airbus can magically pu
67 Wingscrubber: I disagree with this - a new thread every now and then keeps this discussion fresh and abreast of new developments, 1 continuous A350 Vs. 787 thread
68 Spartanmjf: For the same reason that boarding/deplaning a 747 is slower than boarding/deplaning an A330 or B767. More people moving through a similarly sized jet
69 Tjc2: just a question, when was the last time an Aircraft was redesigned in the same style as the current situation?
70 Abba: Well - it seems that your comand of English is good as well (sure better than mine) - even if I wonder about your true nationality. Wonder if you hav
71 B707Stu: What does this all mean to the current A350 orders? Renegotiate? Guaranteed same price for a better plane? Is there any press/facts out there about wh
72 FlyDreamliner: Huh, their track reccord on this project would indicate domination..... I think Airbus can bring to market an aircraft that will be very competitive
73 Elvis777: Howdy all, I guess my little preamble didn’t work and all of our european aircraft manufacturing loving friends got their feathers ruffled. Ok no wo
74 Jacobin777: I hope you are using IBM's Via Voice or have a personal secretary...
75 ContnlEliteCMH: I too am left puzzled by the glowing promises that the new A350 will leapfrog the 787 *and* pose a clock-cleaning threat to 787, 777, *and* 748. I wo
76 Elvis777: Hi Jacobin, Its a tablet PC so it is a microsoft product. It seems to work but I still have trouble with certain words! Anyways, do you think anyone w
77 Baroque: The link you give does tempt me to suggest that the Airbus plans for new planes might be news unlike the article you cite. Apart from one sentence ab
78 NAV20: One has to bear in mind that the writers are business analysts and that the hub/point controversy, though fully-established in our minds, will be new
79 Baroque: I cannot see much to argue about with your post and certainly not with the quote above. The direct flight argument must, however, have different forc
80 NAV20: Looks like we'll largely have to 'agree to agree', Baroque. Like especially the comments about 'suspended animation' and 'holding our collective breat
81 Baroque: Thank you for that. Interesting, but it is more than just selling and the tables relating to the options are hard for me to follow. It appears he sol
82 NAV20: Hard for me too, Baroque, and I haven't gone through them in detail. But basically he seems to have exercised stock options (i.e. the right to buy sh
83 Dougloid: That there is what our friends in Liberia and Panama call a "flag of convenience". It was adopted as an honorific for our friends in Denmark who ain'
84 RichardPrice: Nav20, I wouldnt read too much into share selloffs, they dont mean much. As an example, Google founders recently silently sold $6.5billion of shares t
85 Abba: Add to this the large parts of the population that lives close to third level airports and have the choice of going to a major hub on another cointin
86 Baroque: What puzzled me most was how his wife and kids came by their options. I looked through the statements for illumination, but the only allocations seem
87 NAV20: Nor do I, RP - As I said, I mentioned it as a 'sidelight'. But we're all speculating. In my experience, once the full story is known, hunches and 'im
88 RichardPrice: It happens all the time, stock option owners can share out those stocks in anyway they want so long as the receiver is bound to the same limitations
89 NAV20: Must admit, my old man was never fool enough to 'park' any big money with me. Just wondering how Forgeard will fare if he ever wants any of the kid
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 360 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1106 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 11318 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, 
From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4111 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
