Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"Airbus Takes Swipe At Customers"  
User currently offlineNASOCEANA From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 291 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 2 months 21 hours ago) and read 14841 times:

I find this rather ridiculous that an manufacturer can blame their missteps on their customers. All they had to do was ask! And for one many told them before hand that their A350 was inferior to its market place rival.

Quote:
"Airbus has taken a swipe at potential and existing customers for its A350 long-range twinjet for failing to supply timely feedback during the development effort, admitting that any newly-designed variant could not be ready until at least 2012.

In a hard-hitting interview with UK broadcaster BBC in its Hard Talk series, Airbus chief operating officer, Charles Champion, says the airframer "underestimated how much our customers wanted a competition between Airbus and Boeing with a new product from our side". He adds that "constructive criticism" that Airbus welcomes during the development phase of any new aircraft came "a bit late, maybe"....

FlightInternational

[Edited 2006-06-01 18:42:54]


B777 greatest Airliner ever built!
110 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKatekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 702 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 21 hours ago) and read 14800 times:

I think both his comments are really stupid.

Quote:
"underestimated how much our customers wanted a competition between Airbus and Boeing with a new product from our side".

- So what was he expecting, that the customers would just keep on buying an inferior product because it's called Airbus?

Quote:
"constructive criticism" that Airbus welcomes during the development phase of any new aircraft came "a bit late, maybe"....

- The criticism did not come late, it was Airbus who was slow to listen and respond.

When will they set their stupid pride aside and learn that being humble is a quality?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30612 posts, RR: 84
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 21 hours ago) and read 14751 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well they said much the same about the A380's delays, blaming them on the fancy cabins that customers wanted. Of course, I seem to recall all of Airbus' mockups showed said fancy cabins...

That being said, Boeing was also arrogant when they were on top in the 1990's, and they paid for it with lost sales and customers to Airbus. Perhaps it is just the pendulum swinging back.

Once Airbus takes their own beating at the hands of Boeing, they too will learn humility and respond to the customer again, just as they so effectively did then and Boeing has remembered to do again now.


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 21 hours ago) and read 14730 times:

Dumb response! Just plain dumb.

There are other threads where is noted how Airbus is showing the correct response. But blaming your customers for not providing you with correct feedback is beyond logic.


User currently offlineZeus419 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 136 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 21 hours ago) and read 14646 times:

I think the way that Flight has turned that little side comment from Champion into a whole news story, with that title and intro is completely OTT.

Many of us here saw that HardTalk programme around a fortnight ago, and nobody interpreted the comment in the way Flight is now doing, in what I can only see as a cheap headline-grabbing tactic. And long after the event too.

[Edited 2006-06-01 19:16:19]

User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 21 hours ago) and read 14515 times:

Quoting Katekebo (Reply 1):
- So what was he expecting, that the customers would just keep on buying an inferior product because it's called Airbus?

Airbus was willing to concede the majority of the market to Boeing by making a less costly investment in a inferior product, but taking a percentage that allows them to stay in the game with minimal effort. Airbuses customers wanted a full competitor, and thats whats pushed the current situation.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 3):
There are other threads where is noted how Airbus is showing the correct response. But blaming your customers for not providing you with correct feedback is beyond logic.

Who says they are blaming customers? Certainly not the article, it just says the criticism may have come a little late, but it certainly doesnt allude to any blame cast for that. It could be that Airbus forged ahead in one direction before listening to the customers.

However, I think that many people are going to blow this guys comments out of proportion.


User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 14483 times:

Go ahead......alienate all your good cutomers. There are lots of people in Seattle willing to do the serious work of building airplanes.

Seriously, have you ever seen anything like it? There must be turbulance en masse within the corporate HQ that we can only immagine.

Who would do something so incredibly stupid as to slap your customers around in the press?



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12409 posts, RR: 37
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 14469 times:

With respect, I don't think people are blowing things out of proportion. This was a monumentally stupid thing to say. Boeing has had customer input for a good while (for example with the 777 - and I'm sure with the 787 too); Airbus had the chance to do that. Did they do so? No - whose fault is that?

It could also be the fact that Airbus promised the world with the 350 and as a result airlines' expectations were high; the criticism only came when it was clear that the aircraft wasn't going to meet this - as well as the fact that the fuselage wasn't wide enough.

Pick any point on the A350's development timeline and it's clear that it was all Airbus's fault - if fault is the right word. They were clearly taken aback and they acted quickly and without thinking their product through.

That's no one's fault but Airbus's.

However, I think this goes further. To criticise customers for criticising their airplane, when they didn't reach out in the first place, is more than just stupid, it's arrogant - and an excellent way to justify Boeing increasing its production rate to 16 per month. I can see a very negative reaction to this idiocy.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 14438 times:

I think it really points to the difference in the 787 design program and the 350 design program.

The 787 was a cooperative effort with airlines from the beginning, while the 350 was a response product. Airbus asked for feedback, but the airlines were not part of the "design team" in the same way.

Which is not to say the 787 is going to get orders from every airline on the design team. So far, they haven't. Anyone have a list of the "team" airlines for the 787? NH and JL were on it and both ordered, I believe the same is true for CO. AA has yet to order, nor has LH, BA or SQ, all airlines that I'm pretty sure were part of the design process.

I would assume that this time around, the new Airbus model will be far more customer focused. There can be an advantage there, as some customers who haven't bit on the 787 due to some compromises in it's design might be able to persuade Airbus to fill those gaps.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAirways45 From United Kingdom, joined May 2000, 300 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 14366 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
The 787 was a cooperative effort with airlines from the beginning, while the 350 was a response product. Airbus asked for feedback, but the airlines were not part of the "design team" in the same way

Airbus had the same process for the A3XX now A380. Many airlines were on the design team. There were airlines such as BA who were on the design team but haven't placed an order.

Airways45


User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1717 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 14344 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
I think it really points to the difference in the 787 design program and the 350 design program.

It also points to a completely dysfunctional Public Relations program at Airbus. They may well have some design and strategy problems, that remains to be seen.

One thing is certain, however, Airbus has a serious problem with its executives and program directors running around with diarrhea of the mouth. These guys build some nice aircraft, but their PR is pure amateur hour.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineAirways45 From United Kingdom, joined May 2000, 300 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 14295 times:

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 10):
but their PR is pure amateur hour.

Agreed. Airbus need to learn from Boeing's excellent PR machine.

However, I think what annoyed some people was the very 'public' A350 bashing coming from airlines and leasing companies. The point Airbus is trying to make was that they were making these points in public far down the process.

However, my theory that certain Airbus executives put these customers up to the public bashing remains strong. The faction in Airbus that wanted a change to a clean sheet was delighted when the bashing was so public. Maybe we are seeing part of the backlash from those in Airbus that didn't sign up to the public bashing.

Airways45


User currently offlineAirwave From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1117 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 14295 times:

What. The. Hell? Business 101, boys--don't be an asshole to your big-money customers.  Yeah sure

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 6):
Go ahead......alienate all your good cutomers. There are lots of people in Seattle willing to do the serious work of building airplanes.

 checkmark  Hark! Do I hear Rolodexes being dusted off?  Wink

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
I think it really points to the difference in the 787 design program and the 350 design program.

The 787 was a cooperative effort with airlines from the beginning, while the 350 was a response product. Airbus asked for feedback, but the airlines were not part of the "design team" in the same way.

Precisely. In everything I've read, it almost seems like including potential customers in the process was an afterthought, and a pretty spectacularly bad one at that. Airbus doesn't seem to have made any sort of reconciliation for it, either. Ah, well, their loss, no doubt.


Airwave  eyebrow 



When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
User currently offlineThreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2129 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 14273 times:

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 6):
Seriously, have you ever seen anything like it? There must be turbulance en masse within the corporate HQ that we can only immagine.

Who would do something so incredibly stupid as to slap your customers around in the press?



Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
That being said, Boeing was also arrogant when they were on top in the 1990's, and they paid for it with lost sales and customers to Airbus. Perhaps it is just the pendulum swinging back

There's your answer DAYflyer. Boeing did lose some ground due to some previous arrogance. It would appear that with the 777 program and now the 787, that they are listening to and involving the customer from the outset, which probably explains a good deal of their success.
I wouldn't (like many on this thread already) interpret the comments as a 'swipe' at their customers. While perhaps a bit irresponsible to claim (I mean come on Airbus, own your mistakes), it's hardly the PR disaster that many claim. Having said this, I fully expect a few changes in the upper echelon at Airbus.



The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
User currently offlineTinkerBelle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 14253 times:

Really dumb this to say if you ask me.

Can't wait to read manni's and Keesje's response to this..  biggrin 


User currently offlineAirways45 From United Kingdom, joined May 2000, 300 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 14227 times:

Where's the evidence that Airbus didn't listen to their customers and Boeing did? If you are going to quote Singapore's comments on Airbus, the same could be said against Boeing and Emirates, where only now Boeing is offering a larger 787 (which it didn't want to do initially so soon due to the effect on future 777 sales)

Airways45


User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 14211 times:

It could also be Boeing's fault - or credit, depending on how you look at it. As Boeing progressed with their program, they may have felt growing confidence to offer increased guarantees about their product's performance. Given the earlier guarantees, Airbus and their customers may have thought the A350 design would hold up, but it later appeared inadequate against later 787 guarantees.

Or not. It may be that Airbus and some airlines just didn't believe Boeing could deliver on their claims, which were pretty ambitious even then.

There's always much room for uncertainty about what your competitor may be capable of doing, vs. what he is likely to do, vs. what he has been doing. Your best response could be different in each case. If you always fret too much about the worst case, you may never pull the trigger on a new product investment.  tombstone MD tombstone  Sometimes you place your bet and miss.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 14211 times:

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 10):
It also points to a completely dysfunctional Public Relations program at Airbus. They may well have some design and strategy problems, that remains to be seen.

But as I said, the 787 process hasn't exactly translated into orders from all those customers on the team, so it's not a given that that process is superior.

But...

Quoting Airwave (Reply 12):
Precisely. In everything I've read, it almost seems like including potential customers in the process was an afterthought, and a pretty spectacularly bad one at that. Airbus doesn't seem to have made any sort of reconciliation for it, either. Ah, well, their loss, no doubt.

In the 787 (and 380, one would assume), Boeing (Airbus) went to customers and asked "if you could have an entirely new plane with no legacy parts or ideas locked in, what would you want it to be?"

This is what likely happened with the 350 after Airbus gave up on the reengined 330 gambit:

Airbus said to customers that "we want all the input you want to give us as long as..."

A. we keep the same fuselage cross section
B. we use the same engines as the 787
C. we use as much of the 330/340 as possible
D. we don't have to invest $10 billion to make it happen

Airlines answered back: okay, but what if we abandon A, C and D?

That's where we are now...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4646 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 14186 times:

Reminds me of the simpsons episode where Homer gets to design the "everyman's car".




Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 14103 times:

Quoting Zeus419 (Reply 4):
I think the way that Flight has turned that little side comment from Champion into a whole news story, with that title and intro is completely OTT.

Many of us here saw that HardTalk programme around a fortnight ago, and nobody interpreted the comment in the way Flight is now doing, in what I can only see as a cheap headline-grabbing tactic. And long after the event too.

Perhaps it took the reporter a while to find the time to wade through this twenty-three minute interview and cherry-pick this item as a basis for a news article? stirthepot  He doesn't indicate whether customers have actually been offended and/or amused by Champion's seemingly silly remark. Perhaps they weren't aware of it until now? Most likely a slow news day in London, or the reporter aspires to be a columnist.  Smile


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 14103 times:

Quoting Airways45 (Reply 15):
Where's the evidence that Airbus didn't listen to their customers and Boeing did?

Where did we say that? It is a discussion of the structure of the design process, and that is not a matter of opinion with this model. The 787 (and 380) were designed in a far more customer focused way, while the 350 was a "response product" and suffered from many of the pitfalls such a product can have. Chasing a moving target while also trying to please all the customers who had reservations about certain 787 aspects leads to this...

Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 18):
Reminds me of the simpsons episode where Homer gets to design the "everyman's car".

A plane with 'everything' that doesn't work for anybody.

Including "Rack and peanut steering."



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 14079 times:

Some people at Airbus get it e.g. Humbert and some don't e.g. Forgeard. Champion seems to be somewhere in the middle. What he said wasn't smart, but "swipe" seems to me an overstatement. He should however have known that the press love sensationalism because it sells. Anyway, I hope Humbert wins the struggle against Forgeard so that Airbus can clean house of such arrogance. Champion and others would probably quickly get with the program once Forgeard is (hopefully) gone.

User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1717 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 14059 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 17):
But as I said, the 787 process hasn't exactly translated into orders from all those customers on the team

We're getting a bit OT here, but we are still two years away from EIS. I'd say it's more than a bit premature to judge that process.

Anyway, whether the design process is more inclusive or less so, it's still just plain stupid to publicly criticize potential customers for your own shortcomings.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 months 19 hours ago) and read 13921 times:

Quoting Airways45 (Reply 15):
Where's the evidence that Airbus didn't listen to their customers and Boeing did? If you are going to quote Singapore's comments on Airbus, the same could be said against Boeing and Emirates, where only now Boeing is offering a larger 787 (which it didn't want to do initially so soon due to the effect on future 777 sales)

The difference is that the B787-8 is the fastest selling widebody model in history.


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25009 posts, RR: 85
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 months 19 hours ago) and read 13860 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NASOCEANA (Thread starter):
I find this rather ridiculous that an manufacturer can blame their missteps on their customers.

Um - he says:

Quoting NASOCEANA (Thread starter):
e adds that "constructive criticism" that Airbus welcomes during the development phase of any new aircraft came "a bit late, maybe"....

That's blaming the customers? It's a simple statement of fact.

It is also one sentence picked from a longer interview - there is no sense of context.

mariner



aeternum nauta
25 NASOCEANA : The customers did not set the time table that Airbus is chose to use! If he did not believe that the customer were at least at some kind of fault he
26 Post contains images DAYflyer : Respectfully, I think that the sales of the 787 vs the A-350 is the proof. If you build what the customers want, they buy it. To know what they want,
27 Mariner : How is the comment "ambiguous"? Or, if it is ambiguous, how is it a swipe? Look at one instance. ILFC is a most important customer for Airbus. If Mr.
28 BoomBoom : This is not the first time Airbus has blamed the customers, they did it with the A380 delay too. You should never blame the customers--even if it's tr
29 Mariner : I don't see "blame". mariner
30 NASOCEANA : What is it that you get from the article?
31 RL757PVD : Anyone who's ever worked in retail knows that THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT... (though anyone who works in retail knows that this is not true, but you
32 Stitch : I believe QF was part of the original "Working Together" 777 program, and they have yet to order any member of the family and may very well skip it a
33 Slz396 : I fully agree! Looking only at what Mr. Champion actually said and interpreting it ourselves rather than just take the Flight International interpret
34 Mariner : Without seeing the full interview, it is very hard to know precisely what was said, but I get the impression that Airbus thought everything was okay,
35 Post contains links Leelaw : A link to the full interview is available at the end of today's FI article as well as here: Airbus Champion's Hard Talk (by Pihero May 19 2006 in Civ
36 MD80Nut : I think the real reason for the A350 situation was simple: Airbus panicked. When they saw all the orders and attention the 787 was getting they tried
37 NASOCEANA : To lease to another airline. Example: Take a Car Dealership owner for example. If I own 3 dealerships that sell Ford, Suburau, BMW. I purchase the au
38 Mariner : ILFC always leases. ILFC is not an airline, ILFC is a leasing company, it's what they do. But they are fairly careful not to lease dogs to their cust
39 Post contains links Slz396 : Quoting NASOCEANA (Reply 37): To lease to another airline. But then the question becomes: 'why did he subsequently oust his doubts about the plane?' N
40 Post contains images NASOCEANA : I agree 100%
41 Douwd20 : I don't think that's the point. As long as the lessor can find someone to lease it at a favorable rate why not buy it? A chef isn't crazy about every
42 Slz396 : Thanks. But that means MR. Champion is right when he says Airbus didn't get much constructive feedback on their A350 from its customers till very lat
43 Douwd20 : Seattle Times: Udvar-Hazy said his company placed the A350 order because those planes will sell well enough in the short term if priced much less than
44 Mariner : Of course. But if they believe that they couldn't lease it on - that it was a commercial dog - they wouldn't order it in the first place. ILFC believ
45 Aerokiwi : I think it's more a matter of Airbus preconditioning the "consulting process", whereby they said the following... ...and the airlines didn't dispute
46 Slz396 : In other words: Mr. Champion said quite reasonable things on the A350 in the interview, putting a lot of blame on Airbus (which FI simply ignores), ye
47 Leelaw : Does Boeing need to teach/coach FI how to stir the pot in order to sell magazines?
48 Slz396 : Certainly not, but it might be worth the effort having authors of articles in FI with them rather than against them, don't you think? That way, if th
49 Post contains images Manni : Well, well,... keep waiting Tinkerbelle. I don't do requests. Furthermore, I, likely like many others who have replied to this topic, did not see the
50 Coa747 : I said it before and I will say it again as long as Airbus has no consistent strategy and has two camps fighting for different products they are going
51 Leelaw : Perhaps, but now you're entering into the realm of fanciful conspiracy theories, where it doesn't take much to cross from the sublime to the ridiculo
52 Slz396 : Let's give Flight International the benefit of the doubt and just call this report yet another one of their poor quality filler articles, written by
53 Post contains images Lumberton : I've read your post twice and I can't see how this is giving FI the "benefit of the doubt"! Perhaps you should have added one of these:
54 Aircellist : Well, the thread starter and at least 10 posters seem to have read the article in one way, and Mariner, Slz396 and me in a different one. I agree with
55 Post contains links Leelaw : I viewed Mr. Champions Hardtalk interview in its entirety (approximately 23 minutes) about two weeks ago, it didn't take this FI article to convince
56 Slz396 : As it was previously announced on this site to be aired on BBC, I programmed the VCR forehand so I could see it too. That's why I can say FI must hav
57 Abba : I am too. It first of all shows something about FI - it is certainly not what it used to be. Sloppy jurnalism just to take bit and pieces out of an i
58 ODwyerPW : You guys are blowing this waaay out of proportion. I think he was citing lack of timely constructive criticism as just one (1, uno, singular, etc...)
59 JAAlbert : From the FI article, it doesn't seem to me that Airbus made a "swipe" at its customers. It sounds to me like Airbus proposed a plane in response to th
60 JAL : A really stupid comment on Airbus part! Is this suppose to win them more orders? Don't think so!
61 Aither : Each time a manufacturer is at the top any thing it says about its success sounds arrogant. But it is not. For those criticizing the A350 program i'm
62 Aither : Rather a really stupid misleading article.
63 BoomBoom : Not built the A380 and gone for a 2 engine plane the size of 773 and scaled it up to take out the 747. The fact is the A350 is dead.
64 ContnlEliteCMH : You've asked two excellent questions, Mariner. I can only think of the following two answers: (1) They ordered the A350 because they know somebody, s
65 JAAlbert : "Vastly" inferior? Jeez, isn't that a bit of an exaggeration? I thought several of the airlines, including Quantas said the A-350 was very evenly pai
66 Post contains images Scoliodon : Another attempt to berate Airbus and its A350 program?? The comment doesn't look like a "blame" AT ALL! Disheartening to see such a spin-off from FI.
67 Toulouse : Haven't read the whole thread, but totally agree with the comments below made by Zeus419: Let's face it, Flight has made its interpretation on the sto
68 Post contains images RayChuang : Is that Airbus official trying to ? He may have just driven EK to buy 60-70 787-10's instead.
69 Kangar : Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.
70 Zvezda : There never would have been public criticism had Airbus taken seriously the private criticism that started years before. That's just absurd. The sugg
71 Mariner : Once again, when or where is Airbus blaming their customers? mariner
72 Lumberton : Mariner,this is clearly open to interpretation: The implication, to some, that Airbus didn't get the feedback it needs rings hollow, when the company
73 Zvezda : I already pointed out earlier that this looks like journalistic sensationalism. The argument goes, for those who see this as blaming the customer (an
74 Post contains links Halibut : Mariner, Airbus blamed the delays on the A380 on there customers . Then to add fuel to the fire . Airbus kept many A380 customers in the dark with re
75 Mariner : This is what he says in the FI piece: "He adds that "constructive criticism" that Airbus welcomes during the development phase of any new aircraft ca
76 Mariner : Gosh - when did an explanation become "blame"? And I seem to remember Airbus saying that "we (Airbus) underestimated our customers needs....." So if
77 DAYflyer : Yup-for the 4th time?. Now they will have the A370.
78 Post contains images F4N : To all: I find the entire premise of this topic hard to fathom; something in the line of "self-serving" seems to come to mind when looking at some of
79 Leelaw : People will differ over whether Mr. Champion has been treated fairly by Mr. Wastnage in "FI," and for that matter, Sarah Montague on "Hardtalk." Peopl
80 JAAlbert : What kind of program is this HardTalk anyway? I wonder if "60 Minutes" would care enough about Boeing's product line to send Mike Wallace on the attac
81 Slider : And the A350 looks like more of the same...all things to all people. They stuck with the 340 line way too long, the 330 wasn't a plug in, and now the
82 Lightsaber : This could be the issue. Part of Pratt's issues is that they started to tell the customers what they wanted instead of listening. Boeing did this too
83 Post contains links Halibut : Mariner, I know you like to promote Mr Forgeard . However , one must actknowledge how that came to be . To be completely candid . The secret to Mr Fo
84 Post contains links Halibut : Yes , Airbus said they underestimated there costumer's needs . However, you neglect to actknowledge what Mr Champion said shortly there after . " It
85 Aircellist : That's just absurd. The suggestion is that Airbus should stop blaming their customers. It's not even that they should admit their mistake (which perh
86 Mariner : That is a completely outrageous statement. I have not mentioned M. Forgeard in months. I think I last called him a "French leprechaun". That's "promo
87 Zvezda : Udvar-Hazy was saying the same thing privately for more than a year according to my sources at Airbus, but Airbus wouldn't listen. Surely you don't t
88 Mariner : Well, I would doubt it, but, unlike you, I don't have "sources" at either Airbus or ILFC. So I am dealing with the known - public - facts. Not the sp
89 Aircellist : Zvezda: OK. No offense then.Thanks for the word. I still do not believe it was a swipe, but I understand where one could have seen one.
90 BoomBoom : Exactly. Didn't Mr. U-H think the A350 would get 25% of the market. Those A350s he bought were for that 25%.
91 Halibut : Thank you for proving my point Mariner . As I stated above . Mr Forgeard was the political middle man between Airbus & the governments involved with
92 Mariner : There you go again. He is not "my" M. Forgeard. Similarly, I do not "promote" him, as you claimed. I'm still waiting for an apology for that. Assumin
93 Zvezda : I may be wrong, but you seem to be assuming that what is unknown to you didn't happen. Occam's Razor is useful here. I'm confident Champion didn't in
94 Mariner : You are seriously wrong. But if I don't know that it happened, how can I state that it did happen? You want me to deal in specualtion? I can do that,
95 Post contains links and images Halibut : Mariner, I am simply trying to debate you regarding a statement you made & as usual you do your twist & dodge thing ! I am baffled why you get all ben
96 Mariner : "bent out of shape"? "twist and dodge"? "all over the map"? Why should I want to debate with you, after all those sweet things you have said about me
97 Post contains links Leelaw : Actually, ILFC has ordered 16 A350s: ILFC in November struck a deal to take 12 A350s, after Airbus completed a round of improvements to the twinjet
98 Mariner : Well, there you go. Six more (big) reasons for Airbus to think they were on track with him, with the aircraft. Six more (big) reasons for Mr. Champio
99 Post contains links Leelaw : I'm not sure what wasn't constructive or even "late" about Mr. Udvar-Hazy's comments, as Airbus hadn't frozen the design of the A350 as of March 28 w
100 Mariner : There, we disagree. I no longer particpate in any serious A/B debates - and I have privately told you why. So you should understand if I am deliberat
101 Post contains links Leelaw : I'm not sure the members participating in this discourse are ignoring the first half of Mr. Champion's remark: Perhaps, they merely dismiss it out of
102 Post contains images Mariner : There hasn't been much discussion of it. So, yes, perhaps they do. But to dismiss without discussion is similer to ignoring it.   mariner[Edited 200
103 Post contains images Halibut : Here you insinuate Mr Forgeard as though he has been most beneficial to Airbus . And he may have been ? However , in what ways has Mr Forgeard's mast
104 Post contains links and images Halibut : Tell that to Airbus !    Seriously, As of lately , it's a typical & disappointing Airbus PR ploy to dodge the real issue at hand . They're simply n
105 PlaneHunter : Where have you been in the last ten years? Check their deliveries since 1996. PH
106 Halibut : Yes indeed , There orders have been impressive , no doubt ! However , it's there lack of investment in new a/c which is dogging Airbus now & for the
107 Mariner : I guess you did not read post #96. I will not attempt a serious debate with you because (a) you are given to personal "comments" which border on the
108 Post contains images Mariner : Post #92. You must have missed it. It must be your reading comprehension skills again. Tut, tut. Yet you keep coming back for more. You won't win me
109 Post contains images Halibut : Not only are you purposely avoiding answering my question , you are also exremely hypocritcal as well ! It's not exactly what I wanted to hear . Howe
110 Mariner : Thank you. mariner
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...
EU Says Airbus Subsidies Must Be "curbed" posted Sun Sep 25 2005 15:47:05 by Kellmark
"Airbus Spreads It's Wings" posted Mon Feb 14 2005 15:15:23 by FLVILLA
Airbus Proposes A330-200 "Lite"? posted Sat May 29 2004 17:20:37 by RayChuang
Airbus-Boss Calls 7E7 A "Chinese Copy" posted Tue May 11 2004 16:55:47 by Startknob
Airbus On 7E7 Launch : "No Response Is Needed" posted Wed Dec 17 2003 15:07:05 by KEESJE
"Buy Airbus - Get French Slots" posted Fri Feb 7 2003 15:44:44 by Capt.Picard
EK's Tim Clark On A380: "We Need That Aircraft" posted Tue Nov 7 2006 23:15:42 by PlaneHunter
Toronto Pearson Voted "Best Global Airport 2006" posted Mon Oct 30 2006 23:30:30 by Legallykev
China LoI 20 A350-XWB, "To Buy 150 A320" posted Thu Oct 26 2006 05:37:08 by PanAm_DC10
Gallois: Airbus's Very Future At Stake posted Wed Oct 18 2006 13:59:15 by Leelaw
EU Says Airbus Subsidies Must Be "curbed" posted Sun Sep 25 2005 15:47:05 by Kellmark
"Airbus Spreads It's Wings" posted Mon Feb 14 2005 15:15:23 by FLVILLA
Airbus Proposes A330-200 "Lite"? posted Sat May 29 2004 17:20:37 by RayChuang