Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Was Some Of Randy Baseler's A380 Thinking Right?  
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9307 times:

Here's an interesting item which appeared in the Flight International Blog this week with the headline:

"We'll soon see if some of Randy Baseler's A380 thinking was right"

http://www.bizbuzzmedia.com/blogs/fl...ional/archive/2007/01/03/6185.aspx

99 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineToulouse From Switzerland, joined Apr 2005, 2758 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9304 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Thread starter):

Interesting read, thanks. I found the very last comment to be interesting:
We should know for sure later this year, but I think Randy will lose that battle (and, in fact, he may well be fighting a related one for the 787 by then.)

Basically the biggest doubt is the number of airframes Airbus will manage to sell, yet the article does state that things has recently removed with the two recent follow-on orders and rumours of more similar orders. Apart from that, the article appears to diplomatically refute most of what Randy said about the 380 three years ago, yet also admits a lot of mystery around the 380 from Airbus. So in summary, the article is simply reviewing Randy's past statements, and then states the obvious which is that later this year (fingers crossed for no more delays), the 380 will take to the skies and we'll start to find out the reality of this aircraft.



Long live Aer Lingus!
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 9185 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Thread starter):
Was Some Of Randy Baseler's A380 Thinking Right?

The journalist' opinion (last part of the article):

Quoting ,reply=0:
We should know for sure later this year, but I think Randy will lose that battle (and, in fact, he may well be fighting a related one for the 787 by then.)

I think if we look through Randy's archive we find some fine predictions on the 747-adv, Sonic Cruiser and if we are talking year 2000, a lot more (Although he didn't have a blog then..)



User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6880 posts, RR: 46
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9005 times:

I think anything that Randy Baseler or John Leahy says about the other side should be taken with a barrel of salt-they both perceive that part of their job description is to knock the competition. My observation is that historically Boeing has a very good track record of meeting its promises as to performance and delivery while Airbus has a good track record of meeting performance promises. Boeing is certainly aware of the repercussions that can ensue from not meeting expectations, and Airbus should be. Just hope that Airbus does not let any of the politicians get involved in performance specs-they'll be promising airplanes that don't need fuel, or something like that.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offline2wingtips From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8972 times:

The article is quite true IMO. Airbus desperately needs new A380 customers this year, not just the follow-on orders from existing customers. It's a small customer base that has to grow and they will have to it with pax sales alone, as the 380F is practically dead.
How on earth will Airbus get to break-even on the 380 with the existing customer base, let alone reach the Airbus 750 predicted orders? It will be the biggest niche carrier of them all IMO.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9002 posts, RR: 75
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8916 times:

FI article seem to have the finger on the pulse with the numbers, as far as I know their target OEW is about 270t (about 595klb), the first 54 frames will be within 2% of that, after MSN 54 it will be within 1%, and reducing further down the track.

Note that this matches with the 5t number EK has mentioned previously.

A380 fuel flows are slightly lower than predicted, range/payload slightly better than predicted, so everyone seems to be happy with the weight progress at the moment.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8847 times:

I find it particularly interesting that FI write that the spec OEW is 596,000 lbs but Airbus admit that actual OEW will typically be about 619,000 lbs. Two years ago, when I suggested that actual OEW, as configured by the airlines, would be about 20,000 lbs over spec, I was excoriated here. Turns out I underestimated the weight problem.

User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8668 times:

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 4):
The article is quite true IMO. Airbus desperately needs new A380 customers this year, not just the follow-on orders from existing customers. It's a small customer base that has to grow and they will have to it with pax sales alone, as the 380F is practically dead. How on earth will Airbus get to break-even on the 380 with the existing customer base, let alone reach the Airbus 750 predicted orders?

I'm surprised Mr. Daly of FI neglected to point-out in his blog entry that it currently looks as though Mr. Leahy has failed in 2006 to achieve his often repeated goal (since 2002) of "growing the the A380 orderbook by one customer a year through to the first delivery."

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...22/After+the+show+-+Forecasts.html


User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8488 times:

The only post-delay follow-ons have been from SQ and QF, and apparently tied to discounts received as compensation. Airbus needs to sell some A380's on the merits alone, without added incentives.


Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2826 posts, RR: 42
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8458 times:

One more point that needs to be made is that Airbus has essentially written off all of the existing orders to this point, because of the cost overages of the production problems, and the damage clauses in the contracts.

Airbus basically is starting from scratch, so instead of having to have each carrier double the number of established orders, they have to triple it (or be in that ball park) just to break even.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9002 posts, RR: 75
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8278 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 6):
I find it particularly interesting that FI write that the spec OEW is 596,000 lbs but Airbus admit that actual OEW will typically be about 619,000 lbs. Two years ago, when I suggested that actual OEW, as configured by the airlines, would be about 20,000 lbs over spec, I was excoriated here. Turns out I underestimated the weight problem.

The 787 has an internal OEW their target weight which is it slightly above, however they have a spec OEW which they are within tolerance with.

Same with the 380, the are slightly off their internal OEW (by less than 2%, and less than 1% after MSN 54), however well within the OEW guaranteed to operators.

If you had actually been watching the OEW closely, in Sept 2003 it was published as 280.7t (618.8klb), now it is published as 270t (595.2 klb), a significant reduction.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8166 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
I think if we look through Randy's archive we find some fine predictions on the 747-adv, Sonic Cruiser and if we are talking year 2000, a lot more

In the intrest of fairness, I think we should examine some of John Leahy's comments on the A350 Version 4, and we need only go nine months for this gem:

Quote:
The A350 uses aluminum lithium over composite for the fuselage because, Leahy says, it will be easier to repair for “ramp rash.”Using composite would save only about 550kg, not enough to offset the damage issue.

The flight crew rest area will be below the cockpit in stand-up capability, vs. what Leahy called the 787 crew rest area in the overhead bin (above the cabin).

Leahy also argued that the A330 is more efficient than the 787.

http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn032806.pdf


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8220 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8143 times:

When Randy made his comments about follow-on orders I would guess he was talking about the 380 being delivered on time (or just slightly late), the 380 operators having time to evaluate actual performance and then placing follow-on orders.

That situation didn't pan out. SQ & QF have placed follow-on orders, but (while we don't know the details) it appears that these orders were part of a negotiated compensation. It may well mean that the airlines consider the 380 a great plane, but it may also mean that the deal was too good to pass up - probably a combination of both.


User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 8104 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 12):
SQ & QF have placed follow-on orders, but (while we don't know the details) it appears that these orders were part of a negotiated compensation. It may well mean that the airlines consider the 380 a great plane, but it may also mean that the deal was too good to pass up - probably a combination of both.

It has to be both - nobody is buying aircraft they don't want. What we need to see is an A380 sale to a customer who isn't getting an extraordinary deal, but wants it anyway.



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineRIXrat From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 788 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7573 times:

If there would not be this utter delay on the A380 and the A350, would Airbus be able to sell the A330 and A340 as compensation merchandise "for the time being" until the delays are made good?

It seems to me that Airbus is pumping out unwanted aircraft at a bargain price just to satisfy the client and then having to take them back once the real order is done.


User currently offlineGlideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1611 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7353 times:

Quoting RIXrat (Reply 14):
If there would not be this utter delay on the A380 and the A350, would Airbus be able to sell the A330 and A340 as compensation merchandise "for the time being" until the delays are made good?

No.

Quoting RIXrat (Reply 14):
It seems to me that Airbus is pumping out unwanted aircraft at a bargain price just to satisfy the client and then having to take them back once the real order is done.

"Subsidized Price" would be more appropriate. Interesting way to look at it though. IMO, we will see the same chaos with the 350 as the 380. Airbus never learns from their mistakes, or notices the mistakes of others.



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6880 posts, RR: 46
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7191 times:

Quoting Glideslope (Reply 15):
"Subsidized Price" would be more appropriate. Interesting way to look at it though. IMO, we will see the same chaos with the 350 as the 380. Airbus never learns from their mistakes, or notices the mistakes of others.

IMHO this is due to two factors: Airbus has been the sales leader for 5 years, and they have only been a major player for 20; before that Boeing was sales leader for 40. I think it went to their heads and they didn't know how to handle it. The other is the political nature of Airbus that gets in the way of sound business decisions.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7092 times:

Quoting Glideslope (Reply 15):
IMO, we will see the same chaos with the 350 as the 380. Airbus never learns from their mistakes, or notices the mistakes of others.

That seems like quite a wild assertion. Can you back that up? Evidence? Logic? Anything?


User currently offlinePVG From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2004, 723 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6551 times:

Quoting Glideslope (Reply 15):
"Subsidized Price" would be more appropriate

That's why they are so worried about the WTO case. Airbus will do anything to maintain market share as layoffs are just not possible for this company. It is and will continue to be a European jobs program until and unless the government influence is reduced. Not likely IMO.


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3501 posts, RR: 66
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5863 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 10):
If you had actually been watching the OEW closely, in Sept 2003 it was published as 280.7t (618.8klb), now it is published as 270t (595.2 klb), a significant reduction.

Can you provide a link that shows the A388 OEW as 270t? The Airbus web site says 276.8t.

http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam...lies/a380/a380/specifications.html



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineGlideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1611 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5772 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 16):
IMHO this is due to two factors: Airbus has been the sales leader for 5 years, and they have only been a major player for 20; before that Boeing was sales leader for 40. I think it went to their heads and they didn't know how to handle it. The other is the political nature of Airbus that gets in the way of sound business decisions.

Then you replace those who are incapable. Once again going back to "Airbus can never make a tough, quick decision. It's the Business Model. They are run like a Government Agency they simply keep throwing money ( cough, cough, Loans) at problems. Airbus will continue to drown in their own National Pride, and Labor Union woes. Europeans need to undrstand a job is not a birth right. This will hit home when the second 320 line opens in China.  Wink



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineGlideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1611 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5708 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 17):
That seems like quite a wild assertion. Can you back that up? Evidence? Logic? Anything?

Because Airbus is still run as a Government Agency. I see no signs of executives being replaced with outside people with new ideas. I see no way of dealing with the EU Labor Unions, and China. I see way too much on their plate. The 380 is still a mess , IMO. So let's start the 350X, 332F, finish the A400, do the 320NG, and start planning for it's replacement.

All with the same people who are still trying to finish the 380.

I'm a positive person, but the plate is WAYYY to full.



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5632 times:

Quoting PVG (Reply 18):
That's why they are so worried about the WTO case. Airbus will do anything to maintain market share as layoffs are just not possible for this company. It is and will continue to be a European jobs program

I suspect that the situation regarding layoffs might change after the French elections (which I believe are due in May?).

I also expect that the EU governments will have trouble getting the proposed Euro4.0B. government-guaranteed bond issue past the World Trade Organisation. The US Government would be mad not to add the bond issue to its current complaints, it is nothing more nor less than the 'launch aid' wolf in sheep's clothing.

It remains to be seen what Airbus will do (or be forced to do) if it doesn't get its hands on the promised E4.0B. during 2007?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21507 posts, RR: 60
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5592 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 12):
When Randy made his comments about follow-on orders I would guess he was talking about the 380 being delivered on time (or just slightly late), the 380 operators having time to evaluate actual performance and then placing follow-on orders.

This is the part the article doesn't mention, and it's spot on.

The test of the follow-on orders vs. new customers is going to come after delivery. So whether Randy is right or wrong (and I think he's right because, horror of horrors, his numbers add up and the market is reflecting that), we won't know until 2008+, since the whole answer has been pushed back 2 years due to delays in delivery.

I expect all current major customers save for VS and UPS to fill out their options and possibly order more (depending on the carrier) but not until after some have been delivered and there is a track record. SQ and QF will both have fleets of 25 or so, AF will add 5 more, China will order more. EK will order A389s if they are offered. VS will convert to 350s and UPS is waiting for the A332F launch to reconvert their order, in my opinion.

And under the old sales pitch, even with cancelations (which would be fewer since there wouldn't be the delays), the follow ons would have amounted to more than 270 orders, so the aircraft would have been at break even. By 2008-2009 (at least in orders).

Fighting for 500 new orders from new customers was still a monumental task, but at least the project wouldn't have lost money...

But now that the first 150 delivers are a net zero to the bottom line (according to Airbus), they need to make up for the cancelations and get 150 NEW orders just to break even, and that may happen, but not right away. Not by 2015 even. And by then, will they already have to be investing into updates to the plane, since it is based on pre-787/350 technology?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5559 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 22):
It remains to be seen what Airbus will do (or be forced to do) if it doesn't get its hands on the promised E4.0B. during 2007?

I don't think they will be getting 4B EU from the governments, or anywhere close to that.. *maybe* 1B in local/"state" incentives, which frankly the B supporters can't say much about.. I think the gravy train has just about left the station.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
25 Ikramerica : but with the factories built and jobs already secure, what kind of incentives are there? bribes for Airbus not to move stuff overseas? usually, and I
26 Post contains links and images NAV20 : That's not what the pre-Christmas FT report said, Osiris30:- "Citing anonymous sources, the Financial Times said EADS directors agreed late Thursday
27 FlyDreamliner : There was an article published in today's (well, soon to be yesterday's for europe) Independent - out of Britain, which stated that Airbus had been t
28 NAV20 : I think 'the plot thickens' even more, FlyDreamliner. Both companies traditionally spend only around $US2.0B. per annum on new model development. Air
29 Post contains images Zwaving : Reading this frenzy between combatants and champions of their favourite knights is a delightfull way to pass the time my fellow travellers. However, f
30 Dougloid : I too missed this somewhat startling admission from back in 04. It was the considered opinion of a friend of mine who is a structures DER and well ac
31 Dougloid : The Power8 program would worry the hell out of me if I worked for Airbus. Part of their funding for the A350 is going to come from several billion in
32 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Using Airbus's own accounting, they need the first 150 plus another 270 just to break even. The additional 270 have to be sold at normal discount, an
33 Zvezda : This is why I suggested that Airbus stop taking additional WhaleJet orders (after a fair notice period to the airlines for one last chance to order).
34 Osiris30 : Lots of psuedo legit ways, like big (additional) R&D tax credits, etc. It's not uncommon anywhere in the world... and frankly if it's 1B EU worth I d
35 Ikramerica : What I said though was that under Randy's original projections, which seem to be spot on based on the market and what I had come up with without seei
36 Zeke : Page 2-1-1 of the A380 airport planning guide, 270,015 kg for the A380-841 and 270,281 kg for the A380-861. I know you have access to this document a
37 SEPilot : This is the heart of Airbus's dilemma. Either they are a business or a government sponsored jobs program; it just doesn't work to try and straddle th
38 Post contains images NAV20 : Very perceptive IMO, Osiris30. I get exactly the same impression, that even now no-one is truly facing the facts. Not surprising, really - they tried
39 Joni : I read an article about this somewhere (I forget where) and there were clear parallels between how Airbus let things slip once it became the predomin
40 Post contains images Astuteman : I enjoy reading your posts, NAV20, but some days you don't half post some crap . IF E4.0Bn is Borrowed to assist in the A350 development, it will be
41 NAV20 : So, Joni - are you saying that, simply because the WTO takes a long time to reach decisions, the 'way to go' is for the EU governments to go on pouri
42 NAV20 : Don't see where we're disagreeing, A'man. If the E4B. is indeed intended to assist A350 R & D, why wouldn't it be paid in instalments? If it's just p
43 Dougloid : Zeke, I think those numbers from the APG are pretty much out of date and have been overtaken by events. Airbus is using 608,400 these days and some s
44 Leelaw : MSN003, the first production aircraft for SQ isn't one of the designated flight-test aircraft (MSN001, 002, 004, 007, 009-first EA powered). IIRC, 00
45 OldAeroGuy : I wonder which one is correct? If Airbus can't sort out the 555 pax typical OEW, how we poor mortals ever do it?
46 BoomBoom : This would hurt Airbus far more than Boeing, because Airbus gets all the same government support Boeing gets in addition to launch aid.
47 Post contains images Osiris30 : @joni: I think you overrate the strategic importance of Boeing to the US. The government hasn't stepped in to save MD or any other number of aerospace
48 Dougloid : Grazie....molto bene...thank you for the correctification. If Singapore is getting the first "production aircraft" we ought to have some interesting
49 SEPilot : I remember reading things to this at the time, and I also had observed that 747 sales were falling off, and I didn't believe that it was because it w
50 Leelaw : Supposedly, MSN003 is being used as the "template" for sorting-out the "wiring harness imbroglio"/"industrialization meltdown" on the road to achievi
51 Zvezda : Since Airbus haven't yet been able to get a Production Certificate and are known to have lost control of change management, it's difficult to think o
52 Osiris30 : It's not uncommon in business to have two competitors take differing views on fundamental market direction. That's why I say it's not totally unreaso
53 Osiris30 : I agree.. and what a lot of folks here are forgetting is, the longer they go on with this hand fixing crap the higher and higher the costs for the pr
54 Leelaw : At launch in 2000 break-even was 250 units and ROI 20%+; the break-even point was revised to 270 units and a ROI of 19% in early 2005, even before th
55 Poitin : Which is why the government should not run a "commerical" business. I have no problem with them running EADS as a defense contractor, which is in the
56 SEPilot : I'll concede the point; it is certainly true that hindsight is 20/20; it's just that at the time I agreed with Boeing's logic, but it could have been
57 Post contains images Leelaw : He's received warnings from the highest levels not to tell tales out of the "Grandes Ecoles."
58 Osiris30 : Thanks. Just further proves what I was trying to say, which is, the initial decision could have been conceivably driven off business logic (regardles
59 SEPilot : It is an axiom of mine (like the Peter Principle) that no government is capable of competence.
60 Post contains images Zvezda : So true! This is exactly why Airbus needs to be fully privatized in order to compete effectively with Boeing over the long haul.
61 Zeke : The "poor mortals" do the same as everyone else does, put the aircraft on jacks and makes a measurement. NO AIRLINE TAKES THE MANUFACTURES OEW TO COR
62 RIXrat : Although the 748i may not turn out to be a runaway best-seller, at least it is a thorn in Airbus' side, or the elusive little mosquito which won't al
63 Dougloid : I would have to say that the US is not homogeneous at all. If anything it is more stratified than ever, but the groups involved have changed. People
64 SEPilot : I don't believe Boeing ever envisioned it being even a mild best seller-but they didn't need it to be. They seem to be selling plenty of 748F's to re
65 PVG : So, the military should be privatized entirely as well? Let's not get crazy, there are some things that government has to do and does well. Building
66 OldAeroGuy : The A380 OEW has been the subject of controversy. It would be to the advantage of Airbus to present a consistent story. The difference between APD an
67 Post contains images Glideslope : Which would be logical, but not financially sustainable. One of their issues (350 Bail Out Aside) is EADS is it's own entity. They have financial pre
68 Glideslope : Congratulations. The best description of the 380 Fiasco I've read to date, and why the Hub system bet will be Aibus' undoing.[Edited 2007-01-06 03:22
69 Post contains links Zeke : The APD only refers to the A380-841 (RB211 Trent 970B-84) and A380-861 (GP 7270), the TCDS includes the A380-842 (RB211 Trent 972B-84) which has the
70 SEPilot : Plus if you think the French and the German politicians are a hindrance, you ain't seen nothing yet. Putin and his buddies will have their hands so d
71 OldAeroGuy : Nice explanation Zeke, but there is still something strange going on here. I just did a check on the A342/3/5/6 MTOW from the TCDS to the APD. All th
72 Zeke : We know the 600t A380F is not in the document either, that is a well know option. The A380R is not in that document, nor is the A380-900, this comes
73 Post contains links OldAeroGuy : The TCDS establishes the A380-841 as the RB211 Trent 970-84 or RB211 Trent 970B-84 powered version of the A380-800. Within this model designation the
74 Zeke : I do not agree with that, the limit of the 841 is the type design 000H0841/C01. Until they publish the certification register for the type we do not
75 OldAeroGuy : Agreed. But the way this conversation started was your assertation that the APD OEW information showed that the A380 was reducing as time went by. My
76 Zeke : It has been reducing as I have just mentioned, it will be reducing again by about 1%, I think all up the total reduction has been 4-5%. The numbers i
77 OldAeroGuy : Then where's the proof? More evidence that the A330 APD does not reflect the reality of airplane OEW?
78 ContnlEliteCMH : Hear, Hear! I'm an Ohioan, born and raised, and now my children are Ohioans. I don't have to travel any farther than Chicago (a mere 350 miles from C
79 PVG : Here's an example: Americans spend more on health care per person (using a private system) than anyone else, almost twice as much as the French (usin
80 Leelaw : Sorry, that's a bunch of baloney. The cost of both the American health care and education systems has been skyrocketing out-of-control for decades, d
81 ContnlEliteCMH : I recommend a Google search on "Medicare" and "Medicaid". After you read carefully what you find, report back to us. If you can still say what you ju
82 SJCRRPAX : Statistically this is a very bad argument, too many other factors go into life expectancy to use it as a yardstick to measure the perfomance of a cou
83 Post contains images SEPilot : I agree with that; my basic point is that government is basically immune from competition which opens the door wide for corruption. It is only compet
84 Post contains images TeamAmerica : You have rightly been taken to task for this ridiculous statement. Pure propaganda. So many posters cite US military spending and completely miss the
85 BoomBoom : Airbus benefits from government financed military R&D spending too. They also benefit from infrastructure improvements and tax policy. But only Airbu
86 Post contains images Ikramerica : Those last 0.5 years are the worst. You can keep them. As for life expectancy, it has to factor in the unfortunate issue of gang violence, and the hu
87 Dougloid : What I hate is people who take a point on a graph and make extrapolations to the stars, usually along the lines of, "F is better than A because _____
88 PVG : Guys, I figured that I was going to open a can of worms here. The point was made that government isn't good at anything. I'm simply pointing out that
89 Osiris30 : All NASA research goes into the public domain. So it benefits Airbus as well as Boeing (just a minor point, but wanted to clear that up) The key diff
90 WingedMigrator : This is a common misconception. I have one word for you (actually, it's an acronym!) ITAR Most aeronautical research falls under the provisions of th
91 Zvezda : To answer that question, one has to look at how much money NASA spent to put a man in space and compare it with how much money private enterprise spe
92 Post contains images SEPilot : I agree totally.
93 Baroque : And if it was not for Government investment, there would never have been an A32x program. Without an A32x it looks as if GoUK would be about Stg one
94 PVG : Private enterprise would not put a man on the moon as there is no profit motive. Only government would spend money to do that as sometimes the public
95 Osiris30 : You're right.. psuedo public domain. Having said that most of the relevant information for this case would be available rather freely IMHO, at least
96 Post contains images GBan : What was the topic of this thread again? I'm not complaining - it's an interesting read
97 Zvezda : The tourist industry would pay for it. Space tourism is set to be a very lucrative industry.
98 Dougloid : I think you're right. Mercury and Apollo were technology forcing projects in the way that the Manhattan project was....it stretched the envelope. Of
99 PVG : Right, after the government funded the basic R&D! By the way, let me know what Space is like when you get back! Maybe we can start an A.NET space cad
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...
Randy Baseler Talks About His Blog posted Sun Jul 23 2006 16:13:50 by Leelaw
Some Of Virgin Express' Routes From BRU posted Sun Jun 11 2006 13:55:29 by Pe@rson
Randy Baseler Takes A Quote From A.net posted Wed Mar 15 2006 02:54:06 by Jacobin777
Randy Baseler On The "Dash 10" posted Thu Feb 9 2006 01:51:13 by SNATH
Randy Baseler Takes The Gloves Off posted Sat Oct 8 2005 06:56:26 by NAV20
Randy Baseler On The B787 Cockpit posted Thu Sep 22 2005 04:04:29 by SNATH
Some Of NW Mechanics' Duties, Now Ground Workers' posted Fri Aug 26 2005 02:01:30 by KarlB737
Development/loads On Some Of DL's Newer Routes posted Wed Aug 3 2005 14:05:04 by DAL767400ER
Air Asia To Take Over Some Of MH's Domestic Routes posted Tue Jun 28 2005 17:18:26 by SQuared
Boeing's Randy Baseler On The B747Adv posted Fri Jun 24 2005 03:10:58 by SNATH