> "I think we will be right on time. I'm hoping even a bit early."
> Airbus plans a much less ambitious production ramp-up on the A350 than Boeing initially proposed for the 787, Leahy said.
More interesting stuff:
> "The 787-8 is too small for a widebody plane," Leahy said. "I'm even discovering that my A350-800 might be a bit small. Most of the airlines are pushing for bigger capacity."
> "Airbus has an A350-1000 that absolutely kills the 777- 300ER," he said, "and they know it."
Khobar From United States, joined Mar 2006, 2184 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 11126 times:
Quoting Scipio (Thread starter): > "The 787-8 is too small for a widebody plane," Leahy said. "I'm even discovering that my A350-800 might be a bit small. Most of the airlines are pushing for bigger capacity."
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 17694 posts, RR: 58 Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 11104 times:
What a load from the master of crap, JL.
1. Won't be early. That's bad business. What a silly statement.
2. The 788 is not too small. Boeing has sold 645 of them. Repeat, 645.
2a. Leahy is selling a lot of A332s, which are about the same size. Are they too small?
2b. Most airlines are pushing for the A359 instead of the A358 because the A358 is heavy.
3. The A350-1000 is smaller with less range, and has not sold at all. It's far too soon to know the true impact of that plane. But 40 sales doesn't say too much right now.
"Point Dog."
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
United1 From United States, joined Oct 2003, 2821 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 11087 times:
I think its an admirable goal to be ontime or even early but I don't think anyone expects any aircraft that are making fairly significant technological leaps to be ontime. If anything I would rather see Airbus (and Boeing for that matter) take their time developing and engineering a fantastic aircraft rather then rushing to meet a deadline and only producing a good aircraft.
Scbriml From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 8730 posts, RR: 40 Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 11028 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 3): 2b. Most airlines are pushing for the A359 instead of the A358 because the A358 is heavy.
Hmm. -800 sales are 158* vs. 181 for the -900 (which is available a year earlier). That represents 40% of all A350 sales. It can't be as bad as you or Mr Aboulafia might wish.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 3): But 40 sales doesn't say too much right now.
For a plane with EIS still 7 years away. By the end of the year, the situation might be very different.
It amuses the hell out of me that so many folks get so bent out of shape by Leahy. He's a slaesman for goodness sake.
I love the arrogance this man is showing. You can say a lot of things about JL, but he is a killer salesman, that's for sure.
On the "787 is too small for a widebody"-thing though, I think he is well of. Airbus is pushing A332's which is in the same size.
Kappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 2457 posts, RR: 5 Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10924 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 5): It amuses the hell out of me that so many folks get so bent out of shape by Leahy. He's a slaesman for goodness sake.
Totally agreed. I'm actually very amused by his statements. Especially the "788 is too small" comment. Of course it's not too small, seeing it's sales and a332 sales. Why does he say that? Because the a358 is bigger... DUH!!
Don't get so worked up over what a sales guy says people, it's just PR. Furthermore, what he says in the papers may be different (or at least more nuanced) than what he says to (potential) customers.
MadameConcorde From Monaco, joined Feb 2007, 3665 posts, RR: 9 Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10887 times:
Are we not a bit early to tell if the A350XWB will be on time or not?
SQ with the A380, ANA with the 787 now which airline will be "first to fly" the A350?
There was a better way to fly. It was called Concorde.
BoeingFever777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10843 times:
Quoting Scipio (Thread starter): "Airbus has an A350-1000 that absolutely kills the 777- 300ER," he said, "and they know it."
Right... Cocktail napkin drawings vs a 77W that has 366 firm orders!
787-800 has 645 orders and 645 reasons why carriers choose it... John is BSing from his horse mouth, please. Is not the A330 series the same size? John is a salesman and a BS artist/hypocrite.
ON TIME? LMAO... When more that SQ is fly the A380 ill believe that. Boeing got hit with 787 delays. A got hit with A380 delays... John needs to count the eggs before they hatch and he goes and makes stupid statements like that.
Frigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 321 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10789 times:
Ah, good to hear Mr. Leahy is back! I've missed his comments dearly.
I'm pretty sure Airbus has learned from their (and Boeings) mistakes. Their ramp-up to the 350-900's EIS sounds for more realistic than B's with the 787. And I'm pretty sure the French and German software are the same versions as well
But I do think they are a tad too optimistic with the EIS of the -800 and the -1000. 3 new models in 2 years.... I know, the -800 is just a 'simple' shrink, but Boeing cannot even say when the 787-3 will enter production. And from the outside, the difference between these 2 models is even less compared to the 358 and 359.
But the -1000 is quite a bit more than just a simple stretch. To me, it's like Airbus planning to introduce the 343, 342 and 346 within 2 years...
Well, after 'lurking around' for too long, I decided to join A-net properly. Look forward to some interesting discussions
flown on: 146,318,319,320,321,AB6,332,343,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,E90,F50,M11,M82
WINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2737 posts, RR: 71 Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10747 times:
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 8): Are we not a bit early to tell if the A350XWB will be on time or not?
SQ with the A380, ANA with the 787 now which airline will be "first to fly" the A350?
Slz396 From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 2238 posts, RR: 17 Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10686 times:
I think he's right about the small size of the 788.
The plane may be ideally sized for today, but knowing the size of widebodies is constantly creeping up, it begs the question how many planes of this size will still be sold halfway next decade...
Besides, just as with the A380-800, it might be interesting to ask early 787-8 customers if they would not have preferred a slightly larger plane instead... Boeing may very well have had the order in which they launch the 787 completely wrong indeed and the market may have just adapted to this mistake, ordering sub-optimally sized frames too just because they happen to come far earlier. I have a strong feeling that many of the orders for 787-8s were placed because the customers wanted to get a new plane asap, rather than wait for the larger 787-9 and I would definitely not be surprised to see many customers having 787-8s on order swap them to larger versions of the 787 as time goes by.
In their defence, I can say that for Boeing it probably did make sense to launch the smallish 787-8 first, because they had to prevent the A332 from taking a 100% landslide victory in its market segment against the clearly inferior 767. As such, the 787-8 is just a stopgap plane to allow Boeing to cover a lost market segment which is likely to disappear in 10 years time, just as the segments of the A310/762 disappeared before it.
The massive snowballing delays to the 787 program will in my view have as consequence that a large portion of the 787-8s on order today will never actually be build, because they will arrive only at a time when they aren't really needed anymore, because larger and more efficient solutions will be available as well..
Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 10): I know, the -800 is just a 'simple' shrink, but Boeing cannot even say when the 787-3 will enter production.
They can not say so, because they have stopped working on it completely.
The reason is this version of the 787 product is a total commercial failure. It is far to heavy for what it only can do! In fact a 20-year old A300 is structurally more efficient than the 783. Don't expect it to ever see the light of the day...
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 1275 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10665 times:
Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 10): Ah, good to hear Mr. Leahy is back! I've missed his comments dearly.
Also my first reaction, I really was worried what was wrong with him. He is a salesman - so take everything he said as serious as a presidential candidate - and rant about it or not.
But the industry feels that
a) the oil will not become very cheap again
b) Jet A will remain in high demand, since so similar to Diesel
so better look for efficiency, and if you can fill it a larger plane is more efficient than a smaller one. So maybe he refers to the A3510 to come before the A358 - sorry I take something he says way too serious already...
WINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2737 posts, RR: 71 Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10619 times:
"The 787-8 is too small for a widebody plane," Leahy said. "I'm even discovering that my A350-800 might be a bit small. Most of the airlines are pushing for bigger capacity."
The "sweet spot" in this midsize market, Leahy predicted, will be for planes the size of the A350-900 and 787-9. The A350- 900 is bigger than the 787-9.
I find it strange that the majority of members are upset about his observation. I see things very differently.
1* The 787-8 was to be introduced in 2008. It competes directly with the A332, which is the desired sized plane for this market segment, at this present time.
2* The A350-900 is to be introduced in 2013. Thats 5 years from now. Maybe the market is expecting an increase in traffic? Does this really sound ridiculous?
3* We have witnessed this in the past. The 763/A332 basically became the preferred option for airlines vs smaller airplanes such as the 762,A300/A310.
4* Mr Leahy is also admitting that the A350-800 may also be too small for the future. He clearly mentions the 787-9 as the ideal size for the future.
5* It might also indicate that the market is slowly moving towards more capacity and less frequencies. Fuel price will basically dictate this in the future, and I think that we all expect the price of fuel to keep on increasing , which will make smaller capacity widebody's even less attractive.
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 383 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10563 times:
I must say he is a laugh a minuite. I think that if he chose his words more carefully he may "hit" harder. Of course its silly to say that an aircraft that has just sold 650 copies is too small -you have just really offended all those potental customers who bought it.
Perhaps he could have said.For medium range operations the 800 is just too much plane (i.e the 330 is about right). He might of said that now the true weight/performance of the 800 is known we can see a switch to 900 orders (for longer ranges) and a flood of A330 orders (ie they wern't to blame they were given the wrong info by Boeing.)
None of it necessarily true but perhaps more believable
BlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1154 posts, RR: 4 Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10500 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 3): The A350-1000 is smaller with less range, and has not sold at all. It's far too soon to know the true impact of that plane. But 40 sales doesn't say too much right now.
We'll talk in a year or two, when A350-1000 has 140 - 200 orders. Why don't you remind yourself how many orders 777-300ER had at the very start?
Slz396 From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 2238 posts, RR: 17 Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10446 times:
Quoting WINGS (Reply 18): Its good to be open minded and see things from a different angle
Indeed.
People here often read words of John Leahy as another round of BS, but in fact he's one of the few insiders who occasionally happens to give us some insight in the future of the industry. Albeit biased with a strong Airbus point of view, I've not often caught him being wrong on where this industry is heading in the long term, and I feel too that vast orders for planes the size of the A332 and 787-8 will not be part of it in ten years from now, just as 762 sized aircraft aren't ordered anymore today.
The trend in size of WB is definitely up and it is irreversible.
The 787-8 is the last new WB plane of this size ever and it was launched because Boeing had to do it to still cover this market segment before it disappears due to the sudden implosion of 767 sales in the face of the superior A332. This is why the plane did make sense from a Boeing point of view and not from an Airbus point of view.
Now with the delays to the 787 program, I dare to bet a great number of 787-8s on order will never be built: they will be converted to larger versions of the plane in a few years time.
I don't agree in all things with JL, but people have to realize Airbus really is going a new way with the A350XWB.
-CFRP fuselage and wing demonstrators are well on track, most tooling has been purchased /installed (If Airbus wants to sell off a plant and has no buyer yet, tools will be still purchased and prepared for production )
- A350 is mostly known A380 technology and less risky
-Airbus will start assembly in 2011 much later then on any other program from Airbus or Boeing(Boeing started very early just after design freeze of the 787 with assembly)
-final design freeze is also coming to a end (2008)
-each department will no longer do everything depending on politics, they will only do what they are good at(fully responsable for sections or technologies, much lower risk of CATIA problems)
Now what the hell will Airbus do from early 2009 until end of 2011?
They have 2 fully years to inspect suppliers, processes, skills, tools,spares, etc.. almost everything to identificate as early as possible a bottle neck wich could disturb production or ramp up. Thats a pretty radical approach IMO.
So the risk of delays will be relative small, having such margins and so much time to find problems in the assembly/production. I would be carefully assuming automatically the A350XWB will be inevitably late comparing it with the A380 or 787 fiasco.
Frigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 321 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10336 times:
From the article mentioned by Scipio in the thread-starter, talking about the A350-1000:
"we are...giving customers performance guarantees," Leahy said, adding that Boeing is "trying to figure out a solution"
To me, this is the most significant part. We've heard earlier that the specs of the -1000 are still not fully clear, yet Airbus has given performance guarantees which Boeing knows about. So they know what to do to keep the 77W competitive - and as we've seen with the current success of the A330, doesn't have to be better in all aspects. It can still carry more payload, has the same range, albeit at the cost of a lot more fuel. But, if you order one now, you will get it delivered at least 5 years earlier than an A350-1000. Still something not to discard too easily.
I have the feeling Boeing will announce an improved 77W as soon as the A350-1000 sales will really start to take off - and it doesn't have to be spectacularly improved to continue selling. Since most sales will be current operators of the type (new customers will most likely choose the A350), I don't even think it's smart to change it that much - for commonality's sake.
Just my
flown on: 146,318,319,320,321,AB6,332,343,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,E90,F50,M11,M82
PM From Japan, joined Feb 2005, 4903 posts, RR: 57 Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10332 times:
Quoting BoeingFever777 (Reply 9): ON TIME? LMAO... When more that SQ is fly the A380 ill believe that.
I'm working on a translation into English of what you wrote so please accept my apologies if I've misunderstood, but EK will have the A380 in service eight weeks from now. So in early August you'll believe that the A350XWB will be on time? Excellent!
Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 22): Now what the hell will Airbus do from early 2009 until end of 2011?
Aha!
This really is the back bone of Airbus' self-confidence in the fact the A350 will not run into any major delays like the 787 and A380 did.
They have more than 2 years indeed in which they can do nothing else but screen all potential partners, have them demonstrate their skills based on detailed and completed plans for the plane to be produced and in the end select only the best. No guessing will be involved here as the requirements will be fixed and the quality of work be verifiable in real.
Heck, they could even make a full pre-production test frame if they'd want too, something which isn't done anymore because computer simulations have allegedly made this obsolete, but as the A380 and 787 have shown us, it might have been a good thing to (partly) still do it, since computer simulated production and real word production are 2 worlds apart.
Now, if Airbus finds out they are ready to shoot their gun after just 1,5 years iso 2,5 years, the A350 may indeed come early! Imagine that: the A350-900 flying before the 787-9! Would be quite a shocker, don't you think? And not as impossible as it may sound indeed....
For the moment, John Leahy may just be talking about the A350 flying earlier than planned too soon indeed, but he's not talking complete BS neighter.
AutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1028 posts, RR: 8 Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10527 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 25): Heck, they could even make a full pre-production test frame if they'd want too, something which isn't done anymor
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 25): Now, if Airbus finds out they are ready to shoot their gun after just 1,5 years iso 2,5 years, the A350 may indeed come early
This could really be the case if they don't find to many issues but they will be very conservative.
Airbus could use this time to make (A EIS earlier or (B to do more flight tests and bring a very mature product a la A380 into the market.
Scipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 388 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10579 times:
Quoting PM (Reply 24): I'm working on a translation into English of what you wrote so please accept my apologies if I've misunderstood
PM, one thing I respect in you (in addition to your unwavering support for RR) is your persistent efforts to promote and defend the proper use of the English language.
Of course, in this (SMS and IM) day and age, this may be a losing battle.
[Edited 2008-06-06 03:18:25]
26 Scbriml: So what's your opinion of him saying Airbus would only sell 20 A380s this year, not 30 as they had earlier predicted? Is that BS as well? Or is it on
27 JoeCanuck: ...and by the time the -900 flies, Boeing will have had years of real world, revenue experience which they can use to improve the 787 and refine the
28 Bringiton: 788 is Just the right size aircraft for its target market , It aint the right size for the A350-800/900 target market but their is enough BUISNESS to
29 Farzan: Hi Wings, What's wrong with you. You are seeing things objectively. Not popular on A-net, but I like it Even a sales man manage to predict the market
30 CygnusChicago: I think you're wrong there. John Leahy predicted that the 787 would be 6 months late. He's wrong only in the it is even later.
31 Bringiton: I bet back in the day he claimed that the 380 would be on time aswell ? (when they were claiming not much is wrong) .... He also claimed the 787 is a
32 Baron52ta: How many of you have actually thought, the size of the plane is of no relevance if no one can afford to fly anyway and as things are going with the in
33 CAL764: "A350XWB Will Be On Time:" That's the dumbest thing anyone can say about the program...
34 Kappel: OMG, almost peed my pants with that remark... Agreed. I can get really irritated by what younger people sometimes write in Dutch as well. Just terrib
35 AirFrnt: Ahh. just what we need, new marching orders for the Airbus canon fodder on A.net. And yet they fall for it, every single time.
36 Pmg1704: Anyone check if Leahy made any trades before he made the announcement? I assume they'll spend the time gathering fasteners...
37 Baroque: I presume that was a subtle reference to Airbus' knowledge of tactics: When I know more of tactics than a novice in a nunnery— In short, when I've
38 EA772LR: I hope that the 350XWB is on time. I think it has a great shot at it and I think it will be a magnificent aircraft when it is in service. The A cheerl
39 WAH64D: Absolutely . Where is that "Ignore" button? Seriously, its the usual profusion of idiots. Perhaps he'd be a bit more palatable to them if he was gene
40 Ikramerica: Grow up. I don't wish anything, so go put words in the mouth of someone else. If we aren't allowed to question the words of a salesman, we might as w
41 Ikramerica: What part of "it's too soon to tell" is so controversial? The 77W was not a completely new model, so it's not a fair comparison (the 777 was a known
42 Scipio: Assume for a moment that Leahy turns out right and that Boeing suffers some further delays in the 787 program. That could mean the A350-900 entering i
43 Scbriml: Nothing I said suggests you can't. I was merely suggesting that the sales figures of the much-maligned -800 don't support the theory it's the weak-li
44 ChrisNH: I don't know why any person from either Boeing or Airbus would have the seeds to spread their feathers like this. Both companies have been made into l
45 MadameConcorde: No one knows what the cost of the barrel of crude (and jet fuel) will be in 2013. The trend is that it will go up rather than down. Maybe $200 by then
46 Plairbus: i am sure Boeing would love to have John Leahy on board... He is the best Seller in the world!
47 DocLightning: Well bully for Airbus. Almost two decades after the introduction of their competitor, which has sold like snow-cones on a hot day, they have come up
48 PlaneInsomniac: Everything one needs to know about the pro-B crowd on a.net in a handful of replies. You guys are really outdoing yourselves. Feet getting cold?
49 Scipio: Eh... Are you attributing those statements to me?
50 Gsosbee: I wasn't aware that he is personally footing the bill for the A350-800.
51 PolymerPlane: Why? Boeing has sold more planes than Airbus for the last 2 years. They are doing fine without JL. Boeing has a lot of better people than Leahy on th
52 Ikramerica: That's kind of my take on this. Airbus could be on time. Or "early". But man, right now, there is no evidence that Boeing or Airbus can do that. The
53 FrmrCAPCADET: As I understand Zvezda's discussion of CASM interacting with RASM the smaller plane with otherwise the same capability will usually outsell a larger
54 Astuteman: Huh? Apart from RA, says who? Than what? IMO the -800 will have no problems EIS'ing a year after the -900 - everything it needs will have been proven
55 Azhobo: So what is he a great salesman or a seer of all things to come. Predicting the wave of the future is not his thing, that is for sure. He should have
56 Jacobin777: Why let facts get in the way? Why let facts get in the way? C'mon Bringiton, why are you letting facts get in the way? Why let facts get in the way?
57 Ikramerica: Than the 77W. It's smaller, and though the range has fluctuated (at one point it was 7500nm), I see the 7990nm range as a best case much as the 787 r
58 Manfredj: The bottom line is Leahy is not doing Airbus any favors. If their are delays he will be the one to blame. Secondly, I understand that he is a salesman
59 Ikramerica: Leahy reminds me of the Dilbert salesmen who say "our product does this and that and will be available yesterday" and then goes back to engineering a
60 JTR: I understand he's a salesman and all, but you've got to think that predicting anything will be on time in this industry, years away from production, i
61 Ikramerica: I don't agree. I think it is fine to say it will be on time. Otherwise, it's hard to sell, and it would show lack of faith in your company and engine
62 Rheinbote: Neither can the Russians nor the Chinese. Cheap shot. The initially proposed ramp-up for the A350 was even more ambitious than that of the 787. But g
63 JohnKrist: Being such an idiot, JL sure has a good job and earns more than most (if not all) of you. Boeing is like Volvo or Mercedes, they sell a lot of planes
64 Ikramerica: Can't we say that about every airline CEO bashed here on a.net? Just to be clear: Being a liar and a loudmouth does not equal being an idiot. They ar
65 Boeing4ever: You're obviously NOT an engineer nor do you even have a clue what it takes to get these machines in the air... The fact that Leahy has claimed the A3
66 AirNZ: No, I don't find it strange at all. Some just wait to jump on anything then to feel good and then, don't worry, the same people will later make every
67 Boeing4ever: Common wisdom in the coporate world seems to suggest otherwise. How often marketing and sales can be seen detached from the reality in the engineerin
68 Slz396: ROTFL One more hick up in the 787 program and the A350-900 flies BEFORE the 787-9. Not to mention the fact that the competitor to the 787-8 flew 15 y
69 Astuteman: Have you checked recently exactly what his job is? Rgds
70 Boeing74741R: It makes me laugh whenever I read the comments that have risen from John Leahy's statements, because until proven otherwise they are all wide of the m
71 Bringiton: Because we are discussing claims made by JL and not the umpteen boeing employs who claimed that the EIS would not be effected when they must have kno
72 PlaneInsomniac: Sorry, I don't. The forum's broken quoting function does.
73 Boeing4ever: Cheif Operating Officer since '05, Chief Commercial Officer since longer, forgot the date. And he may very well be as detachted as some of Boeing's u
74 Ikramerica: If Randy were to go out there and say there is no market for the A359 and that the 737RS may be early, yeah, probably. Not a big fan of the new Randy
75 JoeCanuck: These statements seem somewhat contradictory to me. On one hand, using the past for comparison then, in the next paragraph, deriding those who use th
76 Jacobin777: You are assuming everything on the A350 is going to go peachy clean...maybe it will, maybe it won't. While I've seen a photo of the "test" panel for
77 DocLightning: Of course, the competitor to the A350 flew over 15 years before it and is doing great, so much so that even the A350 has a hard time outclassing it o
78 BrianDromey: Well he could not sell the many initial non-XWB proposals. IIRC it was JL who made public criticism of the non-XWB, saying it was not what the custom
79 AirNZ: Sure enough yes, I hope, but we'll see. However, for the same "all intents and purposes" Boeing was implying to the world that the 787 was actually a
80 Jacobin777: No, not really... ..they told everyone it was an empty shell...
81 Scipio: Nonetheless, they still told everyone that first flight was just a few months away.
82 Boeing4ever: Who's to say he wasn't behind the non-XWB proposals as well. He seemed quite certain that the 787 was nothing but a cheap "Chinese copy" after all. A
83 Astuteman: Possibly, But as COO, he shouldn't be.... So you say, whilst hareing round telling everyone else they haven't got a clue. And who's to say that this
84 Mariner: I have never met a (good) salesman who did not use the personal pronoun when referring to the product. They may use it in the singular (my) or the pl
85 AutoThrust: I don't think the Airbus engineers are concerned now, you know they have more then 2 years to work this out until end of 2011, a "luxury" Boeing engi
86 BrianDromey: Interesting argument. I wont argue with you about my choice of the term "sweet spots" because I agree that no aircraft is brilliant at everything, in
87 BlueSky1976: No, I was asking how many 77Ws were sold a year and a half after the programme launch. Using the same measure, I can assume that A350-1000s range can
88 AirNZ: I'm curious as to why this really innoccous statement seems to bother you so much? Equally, frankly, it is HIS plane in the context of being a salesm
89 Boeing4ever: No, he shouldn't. But he isn't a designer. He's up top selling it. People in A.net have clues? News to me. Yes, and given the current A330 sales, why
90 Mariner: "Ours" being, as I said, a personal pronoun. mariner
91 Jacobin777: I'm as disappointed as everyone else here that the B787 isn't up and running and management is certainly to blame for this multi-billion dollar blund
92 Boeing4ever: Yes. But there's a difference between "ours" and "my". There's no "I" in "team" remember. B4e-Forever New Frontiers
93 AirNZ: I'm not getting technical at all. I merely asked why such an innoccous statement seems to bother you so much. Again, there was nothing disrespectful
94 Astuteman: I'd be proud to have an employee who took that level of ownership. You can bet your a** that Astute has been MY submarine when the situation has aris
95 Boeing4ever: John Leahy's arrogance. There's a large team of engineers, technicians, etc, working on A350. He isn't sitting there designing the whole thing himsel
96 Boeing4ever: We'll agree to disagree on this, but with the level of teamwork necessary in this profession, I'd hesitate to say call F-35 BF-1 or any of its bulkhe
97 Moo: But he never said "it'll be early". Perhaps a recap of what was actually said is needed: Its a qualified statement, hes saying that they may have add
98 Boeing4ever: The first half is a fair statement and the only thing anyone can conclude at this point in time. The second half can invite trouble. Yes, I understan
99 Scbriml: Finally, the truth is revealed - you're the project tea-boy!
100 AvObserver: As recent history showed, NEVER paint yourself into such a corner. Even a master salesman should steer clear of prognostications that can be derailed
101 Baroque: Technical term Scbriml. It relates to the T group - those associated with Thwaite Flat operations, as opposed to the S group at Sowerby and the R gro
102 JohnKrist: No, I'm not, I studied to become a engineer in the field of computer technology, but found that programming them was more fun than constructing them.
103 Astuteman: If anyone else has a clue what you're talking about.......... Apologies for the spelling mistake, Scrimbl. It should of course have been "tee" Rgds
104 Keesje: You'll be surprized to know how many former engineers work on marketing & sales of the various OEM's. Then the senior people at those departments are
105 Scbriml: That's a bit of a stretch. He THINKS they'll be on time, but he HOPES they might be early. It's not exactly promising the Earth is it?
106 Astuteman: Sadly, Scrimbl, the opportunity is too good for the "teenagers" to pass up, whatever he actually said. Can't say it wasn't expected, can we? Rgds
107 Mariner: Oh, those sophomoric platitudes. There is no "i" in "my" either. mariner
108 WAH64D: I think its fair to assume that you'll hate him then? Underestimating your enemy is one of the most patently stupid things you can do. Are we to assu
109 Moo: Theres no assuming going on. He hasn't put anything into stone, he hasn't commited the company to anything and he hasn't made a definitive statement
110 Glareskin: Being in sales myself I would say that we have learned a lot from the A380 fiasco and the current dreamliner-drama. We will take all necessary measur
111 DocLightning: Well, all he's said is that "we're running on time." He says "I hope, but can't promise, we might be done a bit early." Now by publicly stating an EIS
112 Glareskin: I hope the same but honestly I don't see that Boeing learned form Airbus's mistakes. They are way too late and made the same PR mistakes as well. Und
113 DocLightning: Boeing has learned from Airbus in the past. Just not on the 787.
115 FrmrCAPCADET: By definition sales people are utterly essential in a market economy. We are all entertained by Leahy's antics. What we don't have a clue about is the
116 Abba: To put your very fine point into perspective: Leahy has been the driving force in the sales team that has placed Airbus where Airbus is today. As a s
117 Boeing4ever: Well I've seen nothing in JL's resume beyond business and management degrees. He isn't doing anything nuts and bolts as far as I can see it. Getting
118 FruteBrute: Where do you think those "empty promises" come from? From engineers who can't deliver what they promised. Doh! Do you think he's out there making stu
119 Moo: Experience trumps schooling every time - Leahy has spent 14 years on the board of Airbus, 20 years as a special projects person (he masterminded Airb
120 AirNZ: With all due respect, neither are you. You're still a student, yet try to talk yourself into believing you're suddenly an expert. There you go again
121 Mariner: Both are personal possessives. However, getting away from English pronouns, you seem overly concerned with "team playing". With the best will in the
122 WAH64D: Quite how somebody with such an obvious username can condemn another user as a "fanboy" is rather oxymoronic and downright amusing. I was going to re
123 Cloudy: It is very rare for large projects of any type to come in early, especially if a large team is involved. One of murphy's lesser known laws is "A task
124 Tdscanuck: In the case of the 787, sending all of the travelled work to Everett to make the 7-8-07 rollout certainly was a partial contributor to the current de
125 AirNZ: I understand that Tom, and was meaning no disrespect whatever to your profession. What I was responding to was the arrogance shown by a certain membe
126 Boeing4ever: Here's the problem I have. As it seems now some feel the need to defend the man to the death... Do you really think Airbus would not have sold as man
127 Astuteman: About 2 - 2 1/2 years ago, I think John might have disagreed with you when the A380 was going through its pains...... the common concensus on this fo
128 Tdscanuck: Oh, none taken. I just wanted to point out that the 787 had the rollout going against it, which wasn't something that hurt the A380 nearly as badly.
129 Boeing4ever: Well, I wouldn't use the consensus of these forums as something to suggest the A380 project engineers weren't doing their jobs. Need I remind you som
130 Mariner: But the airline world would be a whole lot duller without him. mariner
131 JohnKrist: Well, setting your homepage to www.boeing.com on your profile also adds to the fanboy label IMO. Me on the other hand is not a fanboy, Boeinglover si
132 Moo: Your problem is other people being defensive? If people were not needlessly attacking him, I would not feel the need to defend him - you have taken w
133 XT6Wagon: I think the tinest portion of the people here thought that, including people who saw it as more than an economic failure. Now I think if you said tha
134 Scbriml: Well, of course, they lost the freighter orders, but otherwise, it would seem, the plane is worth waiting for. Presumably, those airlines that ordere
135 Rheinwaldner: The plane that will be replaced by the A351 is the newest and most modern widebody that already flies in large numbers (773ER). The demand in that se
136 Keesje: The Airbus A380 began selling in December 2000 and first delivery was in October 2007. Airbus is developing the A350 for entry into service by 2013.
137 N1786b: Right. And it IS overweight. Airbus has admitted that: 1. the A350 is 2t overweight 2. raised MTOW of all A350XWBs While the level of overweight conf
138 WAH64D: Hostility???????? See below. Let me assure you that I feel no hostility toward you or your viewpoint whatsoever. However, your oft' quoted "fanboy" m
139 Moo: Airbus has firstly never denied that the A350 was overweight, and secondly Airbus has not confirmed the 2T figure - its a figure cited by industry so
140 Scbriml: I emailed her about that, and she confirmed it was an editorial decision to include those words (based on original A350). She has asked for it to be
141 Vfw614: What do you expect him to say? "Folks, let me promise you - our A350XWB will be mighty delayed!"
142 Baroque: Reading some types of a.net posts does wonders for the membership of the contrarians club. Many of the screams seem to be, as was said of our last Tr
143 AirNZ: No, and the actual problem is that you are refusing to recognise what exactly the 'issue' is. No one is defending him to the death at all, but rather
144 Boeing4ever: So far you're the only two users who feel that way, so chortle on. But unless I've launched childish attacks on Airbus or its products, then keep dig
145 Moo: The only person assuming that is you, as part of a strawman argument.
146 Boeing4ever: I think Airbus would have managed to climb from ~400 to ~8000 in two decades with or without him. If not him, then someone else. Airbus' own stakehol
147 Moo: I agree, my point however was that the lions share of Airbuses success was made on his watch, and he has presided over every Airbus launch and EIS si
148 Baroque: I guess some folk are good at their job and some are lucky and some unlucky. We don't really know how good MM J Leahy is at his job, and we don't kno
149 Boeing4ever: I'm sure he has some technical knowledge, but it's nowhere near in depth. He's sold 12 generations of aircraft, but he hasn't designed them, not to d
150 Moo: Its certainly going to be more indepth than you are giving him credit for - remember he has had to sit down and mediate between customers and the eng
151 Boeing4ever: Like I said, I'm sure he does know. But given what happend with A380, and with what's going on with 787, I'd wish he'd chose words very carefully. As
152 Moo: And I think you are both reading too much into this and overreacting at the same time.
153 Burnsie28: The point of the 787 is not to fly say DTW-NRT like NW has with a 744 now, but smaller point to point routes, such as DTW-PVG, DTW-CAN etc. Places th
Sponsor Message: 
From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 388 posts, 
From United States, joined Mar 2006, 2184 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 8730 posts, 
From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 29 posts, 
From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 2457 posts, 
From Monaco, joined Feb 2007, 3665 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 321 posts, 
I know, the -800 is just a 'simple' shrink, but Boeing cannot even say when the 787-3 will enter production. And from the outside, the difference between these 2 models is even less compared to the 358 and 359.
From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2737 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 1275 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 383 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 620 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1154 posts, 
From Japan, joined Feb 2005, 4903 posts, 
This could really be the case if they don't find to many issues but they will be very conservative. 
Printer friendly format 
