Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus VP -Will Need Years For A380 Wing Cracks  
User currently offlinecubastar From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 408 posts, RR: 5
Posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 18981 times:

Quoted on Reuters - Airbus Vice President of Programs says it will take years to get past problems of "Wing Cracks" on the A380.

Brief Article here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...+News%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Who is this individual Tom Williams? Does anyone have better information on this?

51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineB6JFKH81 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2882 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 18933 times:

Quoting cubastar (Thread starter):
Who is this individual Tom Williams? Does anyone have better information on this?

His Bio is on the Airbus website:

http://www.airbus.com/company/people...ecutive-vice-president-programmes/



"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9617 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 18935 times:

Years makes sense. Nothing is quick when making design changes. A year is about the minimum a simple change can get done in, so a change that requires both manufacturing process change and revised stress analysis is something that would take multiple years to fully incorporate and get retrofitted into the fleet.

No airplane is immune from this type of problem. That's why there are Service Bulletins in the first place. When such problems can be found is what makes the solution much different. If such problems are found after type certification, there usually is a window that they can get incorporated in using established. If it is prior to type certification then it can cause massive delays and hold up the program.

Quoting cubastar (Thread starter):

Who is this individual Tom Williams?

It looks like an executive in Engineering which is in my opinion is far better than seeing a quote from John Leahy who is in sales.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 18680 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 2):
a change that requires both manufacturing process change and revised stress analysis

The problem is certification. Getting the new parts certified takes a long time, so that current productions are still delivered with the faulty parts. Eradicating the problem will take years because younger aircraft won't be pulled from service for the repair, but will have these parts changed during their first scheduled maintenance visit after 1500 cycles.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlinewindshear From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 2330 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 16352 times:

I am scheduled to fly on an A380 in April(be'ezrat hashem)... And this is concerning me a bit.

I know it's safe etc. but 2000 bolts with cracks... And the forces on those wings... Sounds scary to me.

Boaz



"If you believe breaking is possible, believe in fixing also"-Rebbe Nachman
User currently offlinefarzan From Sweden, joined Jul 2007, 180 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 16266 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 2):
Years makes sense. Nothing is quick when making design changes. A year is about the minimum a simple change can get done in, so a change that requires both manufacturing process change and revised stress analysis is something that would take multiple years to fully incorporate and get retrofitted into the fleet.

No airplane is immune from this type of problem. That's why there are Service Bulletins in the first place. When such problems can be found is what makes the solution much different. If such problems are found after type certification, there usually is a window that they can get incorporated in using established. If it is prior to type certification then it can cause massive delays and hold up the program.

As much as I love the A380, should I be worried about flying the plane? Obviously the plane is not grounded and production and deliveries are ongoing without (any further) delays? As such I assume that the "fix" is already established and can be carried out during normal maintenance.

Or?


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 15411 times:

Quoting farzan (Reply 5):
As much as I love the A380, should I be worried about flying the plane?

Is anyone able to find the article they are reporting about? Would be interesting to see the context of his comments.

In regards to it being safe to operate, I was under the impression that some operators had already pulled effected aircraft from the fleet and applied fixes. In fact there were several hysterical posts on here about the A380 being grounded for repairs to be undertaken (It was found to be a little awquad to do at 40,000 feet) and I’m sure that all of them will have been inspected by now.

So no, you have absolutely nothing at all to worry about, it’s as safe as any other modern aircraft flying today.

[Edited 2012-03-20 04:49:24]

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 14606 times:

Quoting windshear (Reply 4):
I am scheduled to fly on an A380 in April(be'ezrat hashem)... And this is concerning me a bit.

I know it's safe etc. but 2000 bolts with cracks... And the forces on those wings... Sounds scary to me.
Quoting farzan (Reply 5):
As much as I love the A380, should I be worried about flying the plane?

No, you should not be worried. Even I, who clearly is not an Airbus fan, nor a fan of the WhaleJet do not believe this is as huge a safety issue as some think it is. Airbus has to wait until the new designed clips are approved and production can be ramped up. In the meantime broken and cracked clips can be replaced with the current design clips, even though the airlines expect these replacements to eventually crack and break. The airlines can also fly the airplane at reduced "G" to relieve some of the stress on the wings. As long as the spars stay intact, the wing will not break. The worse that I see that can happen is the skin seperates from the ribs inflight, and then ripples. Then that section of skin has to be replaced, but flying it in a reduced "G" will reduce the chances of this happening.

All airplanes are designed to survive and fly with a certain degree of damage, I believe the A-380 clip problem is one of these events, just as the tail delamination problem on the B-787 is.


User currently offlinea380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1110 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 14475 times:

Well, this could very well postponed any A380-900 version of the plane. The A380 team will have their hands full for a while...

User currently offlinetraindoc From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 354 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 13554 times:

As this is the largest pax aircraft now in production, is this a factor? Clearly, when planes get bigger and heavier, physical stresses also increase. And these stresses are magnified by such things as wing length and flex.

On the other hand, the A380 is quite a strong airframe. Look how well the QF bird survived the significant damage from the unconfined engine failure!


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30922 posts, RR: 87
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 13441 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Sounds all perfectly normal to me and while I admit to never giving thought to when I board a plane that I might not disembark, this cracking issue does not give me any pause about flying the A380.

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 13379 times:

Quoting traindoc (Reply 9):
As this is the largest pax aircraft now in production, is this a factor? Clearly, when planes get bigger and heavier, physical stresses also increase

Unless the manufacturers screw up, or they change materials, the stresses shouldn't increase. The *forces* increase and you increase the size of the parts to keep the stress the same. The allowable stress for, say, 7075 aluminum doesn't change just because it's installed on a bigger airplane.

Tom.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3521 posts, RR: 27
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 12079 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

My suspicion is that although Airbus press releases reflect this is not a big concern as far as flight safety and remove and replace at the operators can happen during normal maintenance, I suspect the behind the scenes they will push airlines for rapid repair just to get the problem and press behind them.

User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9617 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 11877 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 12):
My suspicion is that although Airbus press releases reflect this is not a big concern as far as flight safety and remove and replace at the operators can happen during normal maintenance, I suspect the behind the scenes they will push airlines for rapid repair just to get the problem and press behind them.

Airbus really doesn't have that ability. They come up with the requirements for repair and create a Service Bulletin. The regulatory agencies decide/approve the interval that parts must be repaired/replaced in. The airlines are then required to follow the Service Bulletin by an Airworthiness Directive. As soon as the Service Bulletin and Airworthiness Directive is issued, Airbus has little to say and do with the fix. It is up to the airlines and their own regulatory authorities.

Quoting farzan (Reply 5):

As much as I love the A380, should I be worried about flying the plane? Obviously the plane is not grounded and production and deliveries are ongoing without (any further) delays? As such I assume that the "fix" is already established and can be carried out during normal maintenance.

People far more knowledgeable on the problem than anyone posting on the internet made the decision on if the airplanes are safe or not. It's the same people that designed the parts that are responsible for deciding if they are safe or not. Cracks are allowed in parts as they are always present. How big cracks can get is a determination made by engineering and stress analysts. If they say they are ok, then you are good to go and since the airplanes have not been grounded, you can feel confident that they are safe. If you don't trust them to decide if cracks are acceptable or not, you wouldn't trust them if the airplane was safe to begin with and probably never fly.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3521 posts, RR: 27
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10540 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 13):
Airbus really doesn't have that ability.


While in principal I agree with you, I have known the other manufacturer to add incentives for rapid incorporation like paying for the downtime and labor. Service bulletins are quietly reviewed for public relations impact and based on the comments about flying on these planes the problem (real or imagined) is a PR problem.
Regulatory just says must be done by "x" flight hours, landings, etc. They don't say it can not be done sooner. Charge/no charge, implementation cost compensation are all the manufacturers call not regulator.


User currently offlineCactus1549 From France, joined Jun 2010, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9843 times:

The A380 is safe despite of these ribs cracks. Today there's only a follow up on the fleet in service but no retrofit yet. Airbus has started shortly after the EASA's request to check the aircrafts in FAL1 and to think about the english manufacturing process. From next April, the A380 wings manufacturing process will change a little bit to avoid stress in the first building steps. It could be the solution. Let's see.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 8750 times:

Quoting traindoc (Reply 9):
Look how well the QF bird survived the significant damage from the unconfined engine failure!

That event had notihing to do with the current foot cracking problem. The A-380 should be able to adsorb the type of damage the QF airplane had.

Quoting Cactus1549 (Reply 15):
Airbus has started shortly after the EASA's request to check the aircrafts in FAL1 and to think about the english manufacturing process. From next April, the A380 wings manufacturing process will change a little bit to avoid stress in the first building steps. It could be the solution. Let's see.

I doubt this problem is a manufacturing problem. It is a design failure or a material selection failure. Blaming the British for this is only going to cause political problems for Airbus as well as the EU.


User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1317 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7816 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

While I agree that this issue is a non-issue for the 380, I would point out that there have been plenty if cases where cracks did cause major flight issues in recent years - from depressurization to wings falling off. True, nothing on aircraft as new as the 380, but I'm not sure that is an affirmative statement. I find it interesting that it would not have been found so early if it wasn't for NB.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 13):
People far more knowledgeable on the problem than anyone posting on the internet made the decision on if the airplanes are safe or not.

You have a 'rosier' view than I do. History is rife with people in the know being ignored by people in the $'s.



rcair1
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3521 posts, RR: 27
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 7674 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
I doubt this problem is a manufacturing problem. It is a design failure or a material selection failure.


Awhile ago there was a video of the A380 wing being assembled up to the point of some secret process that they didn't want filmed. One of the things I noticed was the wrapping of the skin to the inspar ribs with what appeared to be hydraulic jacks. So far so good. Th next step was the attachment which wasn't shown. this where a process failure could occur leading to unusual stresses on a series of brackets. If the fastening process didn't pick up enough brackets to carry the load before moving to the next rib there could be problems.. kind of like the stagger tightening of engine heads bolts. If this was the cause, it's easily rectified.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9617 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 7446 times:

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 17):

You have a 'rosier' view than I do. History is rife with people in the know being ignored by people in the $'s.

In a high profile case where cracks have been found, I don't think anyone would be able to pull off something like that. It used to be that the only regulatory agency was the FAA and Boeing, Douglas and Lockheed could pull some strings. Nowadays, there are there formidable regulatory agencies; FAA, EASA and Transport Canada. Airbus is far too ethical of a company with too much at risk to try falsifying stress analysis to indicate the cracks are acceptable when in fact they engineering doesn't back it up.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 17):
While I agree that this issue is a non-issue for the 380, I would point out that there have been plenty if cases where cracks did cause major flight issues in recent years - from depressurization to wings falling off. True, nothing on aircraft as new as the 380, but I'm not sure that is an affirmative statement. I find it interesting that it would not have been found so early if it wasn't for NB.

In almost all cases, dramatic failures like that are for where cracks haven't been analyzed and they were missed. Rarely does the engineering come out incorrect when engineering says the crack is acceptable when it is not. Usually it is the case of never knowing about the crack or not thinking it was possible and then it happening. The only example that I can think of where engineering incorrectly responded to a design was the JAL 747 crash due to a faulty repair on the aft pressure dome.

In aviation it is almost never the problems that you do know about that bring down a plane. It is the problems and circumstances that no one thought of as possible that resulted in unpredicted failures.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2107 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 7345 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):

No, you should not be worried. Even I, who clearly is not an Airbus fan, nor a fan of the WhaleJet do not believe this is as huge a safety issue as some think it is.

I bet in your days you flew on may airplanes that have cracks on them. I have seen a 707 wheel well with with large cracks and stop drill holes in them. I bet they existed on the KC-135 also.  
Quoting rcair1 (Reply 17):
While I agree that this issue is a non-issue for the 380, I would point out that there have been plenty if cases where cracks did cause major flight issues in recent years

I would also bet that the cracks that caused the problems are the un-known cracks. At least for the A380, these cracks are known.

So to allay or perhaps increase the thread starter's fears. Cracks on airplanes are not exclusive to the A380. In fact, you may have already flown on aircraft with cracks on them. You just have to trust the airline, and the regulatory agency to address these crack is the proper manner to provide safe air travel, no matter which aircraft you fly.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineUnflug From Germany, joined Jan 2012, 475 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks ago) and read 7005 times:

Quoting cubastar (Thread starter):
Airbus Vice President of Programs says it will take years to get past problems of "Wing Cracks" on the A380.

The bad news is that it will take years. The good news in the same message is that we are talking about a problem not needing an immediate fix: they obviously can take quite a lot of time to fix it.


User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1317 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6835 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 19):
In almost all cases, dramatic failures like that are for where cracks haven't been analyzed and they were missed. Rarely does the engineering come out incorrect when engineering says the crack is acceptable when it is not. Usually it is the case of never knowing about the crack or not thinking it was possible and then it happening.

Yes - and luckily, an unlucky incident lead to finding these cracks which were not expected and had been missed so far. But - let's see, before that incident, the cracks had not been found (missed) and had not been analyzed. No do I think the fine AB engineers expected them (did not think it was possible, as they would surely not have designed it that way if they did). So I don't really understand the point of your post in relation to mine. All I said was that cracks, undiscovered in some cases, ignored in others, have caused problems. In this case the cracks were discovered long before they became an issue and are being managed. That is a good thing, not a bad one.

However, blanket statements that cracks in airliners are not a problem is not valid. I see more of that here than I like.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 20):
I would also bet that the cracks that caused the problems are the un-known cracks. At least for the A380, these cracks are known.

In many of the cases, the cracks were known, or at least there were indicators for them that were ignored. In the Chalk Airlines crash there were many indications (repeated fuel leaks) of a problem. I agree that it is good that the cracks in the A380 were discovered long before they were an issue and this allows AB to address them very nicely. Nor, as an engineer who has done both design and manufacturing, am I surprised that a manf process could operate in such a way that a design the engineers think is fine, turned out to have a problem. It has happened to me. I've been standing on the production line, watching production while trying to find the source of a problem we were having and seeing a production working do something that was perfectly reasonable, but not what I had envisioned, and went 'duh, - that's it.'.

BTW - despite some AB-fan's apparent assumption - my comment is not an indictment of AB.. or Boeing, MD, Lockheed ... ah.. you fill in the blank.



rcair1
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2107 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6774 times:

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 22):

In many of the cases, the cracks were known, or at least there were indicators for them that were ignored.

Yeah, it is confusing to the general public when we talk about acceptable and non acceptable cracks.

I guess that is why if you are concern about flying, then select an airline that have a track record of not ignoring these cracks.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6758 times:

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 22):
But - let's see, before that incident, the cracks had not been found (missed) and had not been analyzed.

There was no requirement to inspect them before that incident so the fact that they hadn't been found didn't mean they'd been missed.

They definitely would have been analyzed; the A380 (like every airliner since about the 757) is a damage tolerant design. You analyze it assuming there is a crack present, whether there is one or not.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 22):
No do I think the fine AB engineers expected them (did not think it was possible, as they would surely not have designed it that way if they did).

They absolutely did think it was possible and absolutely did design it to handle a crack. What went wrong, here, is that the expected stress was off from the actual stress so the expected crack growth rate was *way* off (crack growth is extremely non-linear with applied stress). As a result, the inspection interval was too long and the cracks got a lot bigger than the AB engineers expected in the given time.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 22):
All I said was that cracks, undiscovered in some cases, ignored in others, have caused problems.

Which is why airliners are damage tolerant designs, rather than safe-life or fail-safe now. Not saying cracks aren't a problem, they are, but they're handled *very* differently today than they were on aircraft like the original 737 with the Aloha Airlines event.

Tom.


25 Post contains links windshear : It seems to be getting worse... http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...pe-two-cracks-on-two-a380s-369868/ I am beginning to think that the A380 I am s
26 Post contains links abba : ??? I think that it has been known for quite some time that there were two types of cracks. See e.g. (dated Jan. 20) http://www.flightglobal.com/news
27 bikerthai : True, but I think what is getting worse is the estimated cost of performing all the repairs. At the beginning of the crack discovery, I was wondering
28 Revelation : To split hairs a bit, the correct repair was developed, but the person doing the repair didn't do the specified work. They used one doubler instead o
29 KC135TopBoom : I saw that video, too. You could be right about the tourque seqence being part of the problem. But the sequence would be designed by engineers, so th
30 kanban : I concur, and thinking about the disjointed engineering presence at AB, I would suspect that the tool design engineers didn't think about it, the win
31 milesrich : You will land safely, be'esrat hashem. It's beshert! Enjoy your Pesach!
32 tdscanuck : The structural guys still get surprised...every time they change design philosophies the one they change to is the "be-all-and-end-all"...until they
33 bmacleod : This is a minor issue right? I mean it won't result in the A380 being grounded for wing repairs?
34 Revelation : Correct. The current state of affairs is that inspections are being made and repairs are being scheduled but there is no known reason for a mass grou
35 Ruscoe : A manufacturing fault may not show up on a fatigue test frame but surely a fatigue crack (type 2) should Surely there are not 2000 wing ribs, where t
36 tdscanuck : The fatigue crack is caused by the manufacturing fault. Unless the fatigue test frame was build differently, the crack will show up in the fatigue fr
37 Post contains images windshear : תודה רבה! וגם פסח שמח לך Bezrath Hashem everything will be fine! I have a crush on the 747, and I loved my flight from HKG to LHR l
38 Post contains images NWAROOSTER : There have been "engineering" design problems since the Wright brother first flew and new problems will continue to exist. The Comet had cracking prob
39 Ruscoe : I must be confused. So what's new. I agree there are 2000 rib feet and these are where the manufacturing fault has resulted in what are cracks of a r
40 Post contains links Revelation : http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...tress-a380-wing-components-367394/ makes it clear that some cracks are in the feet and others are in the ribs:
41 Ruscoe : This indicates to me that it aldo a fatique related problem. Ruscoe
42 KC135TopBoom : In other words, it is a design/engineering issue. The engineers select the material to be used on a part and design a method to install/assemble the
43 Revelation : Tom's reply in #36 explains it well. It takes some usage/fatigue to make the problem visible, but the manufacturing process triggers it by putting mo
44 Daysleeper : Where does it say it’s a design issue? The above quote says its related to the material and it’s installation process, which would be a manufactu
45 Post contains images zeke : No the cracks are not in the ribs, half of the ribs on the A380 are made from Al, the other half are made from composite. All of them have Al rib fee
46 babybus : Maybe us Brits need to apologize for letting the Airbus side down, cracks in wings on the World's most prestigious aircraft and engines that blow up i
47 Roseflyer : Typically robust design can overcome manufacturing defects. Manufacturing cannot overcome design defects. Many times manufacturing problems are fixed
48 kanban : Before you start self flagellating, were the feet designed and manufactured in Britain?
49 Daysleeper : I don’t believe, or at least the last press release I read stated that Airbus is making changes to the manufacturing process – Not the design. I
50 Roseflyer : Warranty claims wouldn't cover what EK is compensating customers for. Warranty is relatively clear in what it covers in the contract but differs betw
51 bikerthai : "Boeing uses similar Al-Zn (7XXX) series alloy on the 777 wing and fuselage." And we had our own problem with low cycle fatigue problem with the 7050
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...
Airbus Traces A380 Wing Cracks To Manufacturing Pr posted Thu Jan 19 2012 04:38:08 by LXSWISS
Will Airbus Open 2nd Assembly Line For A380? posted Tue May 11 2010 09:20:24 by Sjoerd
Airbus Seeing Strong Asian Demand For A380 posted Thu Jun 28 2007 19:52:32 by EI321
EK: Airbus Faces Massive Write-Off For A380 Delay posted Mon Jan 15 2007 09:57:31 by Leelaw
Airbus Pays Kingfisher $22 Millions For A380 Delay posted Fri Oct 6 2006 11:08:54 by Thorben
Airbus Has 250 Orders/options For A380 posted Sat Jan 22 2005 16:47:35 by Flying-Tiger
New York JFK International Will Be Ready For A380! posted Wed Mar 24 2004 02:31:52 by AvObserver
Airbus Assembly Plant In Toulouse For A380 Opened posted Tue Jul 16 2002 23:01:54 by Singapore_Air
How Hard Will It Be For Airbus To Reconfigure A380 posted Thu Oct 18 2007 06:20:51 by B777A340Fan
Mergers Good For A380 In USA: Airbus posted Tue Aug 10 2010 05:35:35 by PM