Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
aloges
Posts: 14807
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 6:08 am

Good to know YOUR point, Scorpio!  Big grin
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
skymileman
Posts: 577
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2001 2:32 am

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 6:13 am

I never said that Boeing made a perfect aircraft. In fact, they have had some very embarassing accidents that have hurt their reputation. I am just saying that as a measure of accidents to time of existence. Airbus has a much higher rate.
 
emiratesa345
Posts: 2049
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 10:11 am

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 6:14 am

"1. The A320 demonstrator aircraft that crashed at the Paris air show on demonstration flight.

2. The American Airlines A300 that went down in Queens on November 12, 2001 due to structural failure including the separation of one engine as well as structural damage done to the tail."


The aircraft that crashed at the Paris airshow had fly-by-wire technology. How is this a careless mistake? You do realize that your beloved Boeing, has incorporated this system in the 777.

It has been argued that the aircraft that went down in 11/12/2001 wasn't being flown according to how it should have been. Too much stress on the ruder due to the pilot's actions. Do you not remember these threads?

EmiratesA345  Yeah sure
You and I were meant to fly, Air Canada!
 
Scorpio
Posts: 5045
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 6:17 am

1. The A320 demonstrator aircraft that crashed at the paris airshow on demonstration flight.

Ah, the good old conspiracy theorists are at it again, I see. All official reports put the blame with the crew, who set the FMS wrong, among other things. Do a little search.
Of course you'd rather believe the fantastic little conspiracy theory where the black boxes were stolen, and it's all a giant cover-up, right? Watch out for those men in black, you obviously know too much  Insane

2. The American Airlines A300 that went down in Queens on November 12, 2001 due to structural failure including the separation of one engine as well as structural damage done to the tail.

The investigation on that one is not done yet, no conclusions drawn. Everything points toward wrong maneuvers by the crew, overstressing the fin, something BOTH Airbus and Boeing had warned AA about.

There are many more.

OK, let's see 'em. Wait, I'll help you: uncommanded rudder movements, exploding fuel tanks, thrust reversers deploying in-flght... Oh no, wait, that was Boeing. My bad... This is a knife that cuts both ways, you know...

Enough for you to see the light of day yet?

Let's see: a conspiracy theory and and an investigation not yet closed where everything points to the airline's practices? Nope, you'll have to do better than that...
 
skymileman
Posts: 577
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2001 2:32 am

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 6:19 am

Yes, it had to do with the fly-by-wire system, but let me ask you, who designed the way the fly-by-wire system for the A320. Airbus did. It was their fault that the plane went down because they gave too much automated control. The crew of the AA A-300 on 11/12/01 was only brought into question by none other than Airbus themselves. They were trying to cover their ignorant mistakes of the A300 design that constantly show themselves.
 
Scorpio
Posts: 5045
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 6:20 am

Skymileman,

I am just saying that as a measure of accidents to time of existence. Airbus has a much higher rate.

Wrong again! No it doesn't. Look up the facts. There are numbers out there...

They were trying to cover their ignorant mistakes of the A300 design that constantly show themselves.

And what 'ignorant mistakes' would those be then?

[Edited 2003-06-18 23:23:27]
 
skymileman
Posts: 577
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2001 2:32 am

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 6:22 am

Yes there are. I work for the NTSB. Boeing has had more accidents. The ratio I was referring to were the number of accidents caused onboard by a manufacturer error that is considered "Uncommon".
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 6:27 am

It was their fault that the plane went down because they gave too much automated control.

No it was the fault of a PF who didn't react to the situation and wasn't familar enough with his aircraft.

The crew of the AA A-300 on 11/12/01 was only brought into question by none other than Airbus themselves.

Until the NTSB come up with a final report you have no right to speculate.

Remember the JAL 747-SR? How many died? 500ish? That was directly Boeing's fault. 737 rudder hardovers? Engines falling off onto apartment blocks in Amsterdam?

As much as I like Boeing, you're talking out of your arse.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
aloges
Posts: 14807
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 6:30 am

"I never said that Boeing made a perfect aircraft."

Who the hell was talking about "perfect aircraft"?!? There is no such thing as that; all I said was "very good", trying to calm someone.
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
skymileman
Posts: 577
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2001 2:32 am

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 6:45 am

As I said earlier, I know that Boeing has had many very embarassing accidents, but not as many as airbus. You are under the same fantasy as everyone else who doesn't know anything about aviation. "Blame the pilots and other crew." Absolutely not. The pilots on the A320 were very, very well trained. I must say it, Airbus trains their test pilots very well. The flight systems recorder that monitors the panel and other systems has shown without a doubt that the aircraft would not allow the maneuver that the pilots were attempting to perform. As for the A300 in NYC, the NTSB put that in its report as part of an agreement between investigators from Airbus and American Airlines. The crew of the aircraft was not well-trained, I will admit that as well, but the aircraft doesn't fall apart from too much rudder. There is also a report with the NTSB stating that there were structural failures that Airbus agreed to repair.
 
aloges
Posts: 14807
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 6:53 am

"You are under the same fantasy as everyone else who doesn't know anything about aviation."

Yeah. My bad.  Yeah sure
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 6:58 am

As for the A300 in NYC, the NTSB put that in its report as part of an agreement between investigators from Airbus and American Airlines.

The NTSB hasn't even released it's final bloody report yet!

The flight systems recorder that monitors the panel and other systems has shown without a doubt that the aircraft would not allow the maneuver that the pilots were attempting to perform.

Alpha-floor was engaged. The pilots misjudged the height and the time taken for the engines to spool up. Human error.

There is also a report with the NTSB stating that there were structural failures that Airbus agreed to repair.

You mean like the structural failures in the JAL 747-SR that Boeing repaired?
Your bone's got a little machine
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 9:21 am

The flight systems recorder that monitors the panel and other systems has shown without a doubt that the aircraft would not allow the maneuver that the pilots were attempting to perform.

You've just said so yourself: pilot error. No blame on Airbus.
 
skymileman
Posts: 577
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2001 2:32 am

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 9:23 am

The pilot error was simply the response. With the extent of the structural damage, the aircraft would have crashed anyway. That is blame on Airbus.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 9:32 am

A good number of crashes had elements of human errors by cockpit crew, maitenance crew, and/or air traffic controllers, etc. Good designs can prevent certain human errors from happening. Bad designs can sometimes magnify human errors.
 
skymileman
Posts: 577
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2001 2:32 am

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 9:35 am

Thank you very much, Dynkrisolo. That is exactly what this situation is. There was an extent of human error that could have been over-ridden by a good aircraft.
 
emiratesa345
Posts: 2049
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 10:11 am

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 10:02 am

"I work for the NTSB."

That tells us nothing. As far as we know, you clean the office building.

EmiratesA345  Yeah sure
You and I were meant to fly, Air Canada!
 
skymileman
Posts: 577
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2001 2:32 am

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 10:06 am

True, I didn't clearly state my position at the agency. My job is to create similarity reports regarding many different air crashes. I chart problems that are constantly recurring and report them to the board.
 
JBirdAV8r
Posts: 3463
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2001 4:44 am

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 11:20 am

@Na:

Sorry for coming across harshly, but all the posts I've read from you have given me the impression of anti-American sentiment. I know that our government has made some really crappy decisions as of late, and agree with you on that. So yes, I apologize for insulting you. (An A.net member apologizing!??! WTF Is the world coming to?!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy )

What I meant in the post is that I don't see your government or any others for that matter going after the latest and greatest in technology to fill the tanker/transport role; it just isn't necessary.
I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
 
delta-flyer
Posts: 2631
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2001 9:47 am

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 11:57 am

Airbus has a much higher rate.
Wrong again! No it doesn't. Look up the facts. There are numbers out there...


What are the numbers? Can you share it with us?

Pete
"In God we trust, everyone else bring data"
 
magyar
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2000 4:11 pm

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 12:27 pm

Back to the subject.

I think Boeing will build something new in this decade, whether it
will be the 7E7 or something else. I always thought that the Sonic
Cruiser was bullshit, but the 7E7 seems to be a feesible plane.

Beside, what do you think would happen with Boeing if they don't
come out with new planes. They have to or otherwise they will get
their respectable place in the aviation history.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 12:49 pm

Although I believe that Airbus airplanes are as safe as Boeing. The 1988 A320 crash in Mulhouse was followed by an irregular investigation.

http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml
 
tekelberry
Posts: 1309
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 6:37 am

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 1:47 pm

Regarding the A320:

OEB 19/1 (May 1988): Engine Acceleration Deficiency at Low Altitude. This means that it was already known before the accident that the engines sometimes did not respond normally to the pilot's commands on the Airbus A320. However Air France did not inform their pilots about this anomaly. After the Habsheim accident, the engines have been modified (OEB 19/2, August 1988).

OEB 06/2 (May 1988): Baro-Setting Cross Check. It stated that the current design for barometric altitude indication on the Airbus A320 did not comply with airworthiness. This could be a hint why the aircraft was as low as 30 ft (9 m) above the runway whereas Asseline affirms that the altimeter indicated 100 ft (30 m).


Do you call that a safe airplane? I hope the modifications made by Airbus has fixed these problems. Airbus was never held accountable.

[Edited 2003-06-19 06:54:35]
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 5:53 pm

Interesting how Skymileman's profile age suspicously jumped from 16-20 to 21-25 overnight.....celebrate a birthday did we!?

I smell a wind-up........
 
Scorpio
Posts: 5045
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 6:27 pm

Interesting how Skymileman's profile age suspicously jumped from 16-20 to 21-25 overnight.....celebrate a birthday did we!?

Yeah.. So did his occupation BTW. Yesterday he was a student/teacher/architect(!), today he's an investigations agent... Someone sure seems to have a vivid imagination...

What are the numbers? Can you share it with us?

Do a little search on any site that deals with aviation safety.
 
aerosol
Posts: 500
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2000 10:31 pm

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 7:43 pm

Where the hell has this discussion gone to.
This would be the point where I bring in the 737 rudder problems.
Just kidding.
 
MD-11 forever
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:15 am

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 7:54 pm

@Tekelberry

"Do you call that a safe airplane? I hope the modifications made by Airbus has fixed these problems. Airbus was never held accountable"

If you have some spare time, please please check the FAA website to see the directory of all AD's that were issued!!! Then you will find out, that NO manufacturer is perfect, ok?

I have no intention to contribute to those silly arguments any further......

Cheers, Thomas
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 7:56 pm

What interests me is that aircraft look the way they do today for a reason. They sometimes have apparently sharp edges and surfaces, just look at the 777's APU casing, but these are not deficiencies in the design rather key areas of the aircraft with highly optimised airflow. If this PR shot is any way representative of the final shape of the 7E7, I would wonder how Boeing had suddenly decided that a smooth, 'organic' shape was better for airflow than a more common 'machined' shape.

After all, you can pretty much do anything with metal: look at Concorde. I doubt that there has been significant discoveries of a new material allowing more streamlining: and even if streamlining were done, what benefits would there be? I'm not standing in the way of progress; but there is a reason certain things haven't been done before.

I would think that new-technology powerplants will be the main area with performance efficiency. If this is the case, I would be concerned for Boeing. At least with the Sonic Cruiser the engines would be unique to that aircraft and hard to refit on another airframe....but the 7E7 is conventional in this sense. Any new engine on it will quickly appear on the A330.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 8:21 pm

With the extent of the structural damage, the aircraft would have crashed anyway. That is blame on Airbus.

Are you talking about the AF A320 or the AA A300? The AF plane wasn't damaged before it crashed. The AA plane might have had a pre-existing condition...kind of a like a certain JAL 747-SR.

There was an extent of human error that could have been over-ridden by a good aircraft.

The fact that there are 1000s of them flying makes them good aircraft. Are 737s bad aircraft because they have rudder hardovers?

Do you call that a safe airplane? I hope the modifications made by Airbus has fixed these problems. Airbus was never held accountable.

Oh please, there's no deep dark conspiracy in the (anti-American?) EU to cover up what actually happened. Of course Airbus would have complied with FAA/JAA mandates. "Airbus was never held accountable" - what do you want them to do? They had to change the design (slightly). If ANYONE should be held responsible it would have been whoever trained the pilots.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
BestWestern
Posts: 8358
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 8:39 pm

A 25 year old reporting to the NTSB board....

Someone telling porkie pies?

Greetings from Hong Kong.... a subsidiary of China Inc.
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3352
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Thu Jun 19, 2003 8:47 pm

well, for a 16 year old a 25 year old is somebody with a very respectable age.... Big grin
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Fri Jun 20, 2003 12:19 am

Interesting how Skymileman's profile age suspicously jumped from 16-20 to 21-25 overnight.....celebrate a birthday did we!?

Yeah.. So did his occupation BTW. Yesterday he was a student/teacher/architect(!), today he's an investigations agent... Someone sure seems to have a vivid imagination...


Heh I was noticing exactly the same thing.  Laugh out loud

Not only that, but if he DID work for the NTSB making comments of this nature after identifying himself as an employee with relevant knowledge would be grounds for immediate termination. That aside, the NTSB would never hire someone with the emotional maturity of a 3 year old.


N
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Fri Jun 20, 2003 12:53 am

I believe the DGAC and Airbus colluded to protect the A320-program and screwed the pilots in the 1988 crash. I think the accusation of mental instability was particularly egregious.

I have read that the harshest criticism of the DGAC over that investigation came from the French judiciary. Has anyone else read about this? I cannot recall where or when I read it.
 
F4N
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2000 11:37 pm

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Fri Jun 20, 2003 2:13 am


Na:

While the K767 lease does smack a bit of a coporate bailout for Boeing, the a/c itself does represent the only viable option for the USAF to begin replacing older KC135's which are tired frames with questionable amounts of fatigue life left in them. It is probably not economically viable to try and extend the frames further for what is arguably one of the most demanding missions in the USAF; just think of the strain every time one of these goes up with max load. And if you ever had to crew or service an "A" or "E" version with the original PW's...if the noise didn't get you, the exhaust would.
No, I don't think the USAF can wait for 7E7.

I guess I wouldn't put much stock in what Leahy says about any Boeing program. After all, who talks up their competition? One thought though.
I seem to recall that Boeing executives expressed considerable and deriscive skepticism about A380 at one time or another. Mr. Leahy would be ill-advised to make the same mistake of under-estimating his nemesis while basking in the glow of Airbus' current success.

Regards,

F4N
 
na
Posts: 9779
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Fri Jun 20, 2003 5:24 am

JBirdAV8r,
your apologies are accepted. No bad feelings left from my side.

F4N,
it might be true that the USAF can´t wait for the 7E7 to replace older tankers. Looking at their age (some are 40 years plus) it is even highly likely that many of them have to go soon. I´m just a bit disturbed about that there seem to be plans the USAF also wants 767s for other roles like reconaissance where that doesn´t seem logical because the old aircraft are still in good shape.
 
F4N
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2000 11:37 pm

RE: Airbus Sales Chief Scoffs At Rival's 7E7

Fri Jun 20, 2003 5:49 am

Na:

If I had to guess, Boeing is probably hoping to use militarised versions of 767 in order to bridge the gap between now and the phase-in of 7E7 in order to keep a constant revenue stream, compensate for the small number of commercial orders that the 767 may garner and retain a skilled workforce.
In that sense, the 767 becomes more of a transitional program although the 707 certainly lasted longer than anyone would have possibly foreseen in say, the 1970's. I do not, however, view a 767 military program as a threat to 7e7 developments anymore than I would view Boeing offering a militarised 737 to the USN for ASW as a threat to a new 150 seater. Boeing is probably fully aware of the limited interest these models will have in the future for commercial carriers, so it is in their best interest to maximise the utilisation of these models in both military and civilian roles until they have a new program to offer.

F4N

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos