Airbus questions market for near-supersonic jet

Reuters 03/29/01

NEW YORK - A top executive of European commercial aircraft maker
Airbus Industrie on Thursday questioned the need for a new mid-size,
near-supersonic aircraft that rival U.S. Boeing Co. plans to develop.

Boeing said Thursday it had halted development of a superjumbo version
of its 747 -- intended to compete with Airbus's giant A380 -- in favor of a
smaller jet that would fly just below the speed of sound and about 20
percent faster than most current commercial jets.

The speed of sound is 750 miles per hour at sea level or 660 mph at
30,000 feet above sea level. Current commercial jets -- excluding the
lightly used and expensive supersonic Concorde -- fly below 40,000 feet at
speeds of Mach .80 to Mach .86. The new Boeing plane would fly at Mach
.95 and would fly higher than the current commercial fleet, Boeing said.

"We've looked at that," said John Leahy, Airbus's chief marketing officer,
when asked about the Boeing plans at a presentation Airbus made to Wall
Street analysts and investors Thursday.

Leahy said such an aircraft would burn 40 percent more fuel and have
significantly higher operating costs per seat.

In addition, because the jet would have to fly at a higher altitude, it could
be be impractical for flights within the United States, though it "could be
good for some routes in Asia," Leahy said.

The limited usefulness for U.S. flights would mean it could not replace
some existing jets in the Boeing 757/767 category, Leahy said.

"You've got a $10 billion to $12 billion investment and you've got to build
a business case...Personally I'd go to Mach 1.5 or something like that; I'd
go supersonic," Leahy said.

In response to Airbus's plans for the giant A380, a 550-seater, Boeing had
planned to develop a larger version of its 747 jumbo, tentatively called the
747X. But so far Airbus has won orders from a number of carriers, while
the 747X has not received any orders.

The A380 orders threaten to erode Boeing's dominance in the jumbo
aircraft market. Airbus has received orders from non-U.S. passenger
airlines, from a U.S. leasing company, and from package shipper FedEx
Corp., but from no U.S. passenger airlines.

Still, Leahy repeated his optimism that carriers like UAL Corp.'s United
Airlines and Northwest Airlines Corp. would likely choose to fly A380s.

The A380 has garnered close to 62 firm orders and 54 options, and
"several deals are right now close to closing," Leahy said.

And Airbus was supposed to congratulate Boeing?? This is called discrediting your competitor's product, mainly by saying there is no market....NOW, I want all of the Airbus fanatics who bashed Boeing for choosing to do that very thing against the A380 instead of competing, to come on and bash Airbus for turning around and doing the same thing here...trying to discredit the competitor's product and deny that its market exists rather than compete!

Sounds like Leahy was caught off-guard by the announcement or by a question during the presentation and blurted out that weak response. He's sounding really Condit.

I think both manufacturers should be congratulated for developing new products. This is an exciting time for enthusiasts.
Airbus chose bigger....Boeing chose faster. There is a market for both.
Time will tell which is more successful.

Leahy: "uhhh, uhhh, well, uhhh, sh-t."

The right answer to Boeings desperate move to cover the defeat in the Jumbo "war".

Na, if you ever need help to get your foot out of your mouth, let me know.

Perfect response from a man that now knows the A380 making a profit is now not a possible bonus some 30 years from now, but an absolute necessity if Airbus is going to be able to spend any money in the future to develop new products to stay competitive.

Let me ask this question to the ignorant Airbus lovers. (Not all Airbus lovers, just the ones with their head stuck up their a**) If the position of the two manufactures was reversed, would you now support Boeing for building a VLA and say Airbus was dumb for building a mach .95 airliner?
I would bet that every one of you would suddenly say: "There is no market for a VLA but there is a big one for a mach .95 airliner. Boeing is stupid for building an 800 seat airliner and Airbus is sooooo smart for building a smaller, faster aircraft."

Ok, neither the A380, nor Boeing's new toy have flown yet. Neither has a finalized design. Until they are flying and in service with the airlines and their performance is truly known, SHUT THE HELL UP!!!

Are you talking about the flying piece of cake ?  

B757300,

Good point. Nuf said.

Funny B757300, all I seem to pick up from the majority of your posts is that you remind me of ".....an ignorant Boeing lover, with your head stuck up your....."

You get the same from both camps, the same biased, bullshite comments no matter what happens in each company...........don't lower yourself down to meet them......

No offense intended,
Regards,
WB.

757300,
your bad manners don´t help that you have to admit Boeing lost against Airbus for the first time in big style. I´m not one of the one-eyed Airbus- or Boeing-fanatics on this forum (you seem to be one), even if you might think so. I would have wished Boeing more success with the 747X-project. The new Boeing "Yellowstone"-project looks nice, even if I think its a cannibal Boeing is planning here. The real future in aviation is how to save fuel big style and not to bring out a gas-guzzler. You can´t beat nature´s laws. Show me one example where faster is cheaper in consumption (same size, same weight).

So, B757300, next time think first, than try to write a statement on this forum. Otherwise your tasteless post will be eliminated.

I'll say what I want Na and you can't tell me not too.

Widebody,

Where did I say anything bad about Airbus? All I said was people need to stop spouting stuff that has no basis in fact. I'm not one of the Boeing loving idiots who never thinks the company can do no wrong. I've made plenty of statements taking about dumb things Boeing has done or is planning to do.

Eliminate posts?? Who do you think you are? Are you the forum administrator now? If so, you should be removed, as it is not your place to delete posts in order to control what people think or say. That is why they are called administrators and not the though police!

Agreed B757300, you have made plenty of comments regarding the dumb things Boeing has done, though its clear you have a much better knowledge of Boeing than Airbus, and lean ever so slighty so.......as I do the other way......my point is to let the pratts to themselves, they exist in all camps, and the lack of information to support their comments make them stick out like an A380 in a GA airfield.......

Airbus/Boeing have gone their own separate ways....neither can be judged right, and neither can be judged wrong, until many years after the EIS of each aircraft.....

Regards,
WB.

I have been out of touch with the world for three days now - sorry - but is the 747X really officiall cancelled?

             
Nooooooooooo!

Regards

Ikarus


PS: I don't believe in the high-subsonic-speed project. Sounds like some fancy project without a real market to me....

Hi all,

Consider this...

Irrespective of who is right or wrong...there is likely a market for both products...HOWEVER...given that the Boeing product will do nothing to reduce congestion at airports (gates/runways/slots)...and given that congestion is arguably THE number one problem faced by commercial aviation now and in the immediate future...it might be argued the Airbus offering makes a little bit more sense...

Just my 2 cents...

I am European (English) and I love 777 and 757...hate 767...love A330 and adore A300...not fussed about the other 'buses...so no particular axe to grind...

Cheers,
Dean Barnes

It all depends on what happens. An airline could buy some of these almost-supersonic, and use them on routes like JFK-LAX, JFK-HKG, LHR-SYD, or LAX-LHR, have business class seats, and charge $1000 more than full-fare.

On the other hand, the A380 isn't all that great either. Many airports wouldn't have any flights on it in the foreseeable future. It is only good when you have a bunch of flights(3 or more) on widebody aircraft going somewhere. If you only have 2 widebodies on a route(say PHL-LHR on BA), when you switch it to an A380 you only have one flight, while your competitor(US) has two.

The current positions the flights are in allow a person to either make a flight from PHL so they can either get in to London by business hours(9am), or leave after business hours(5-6pm) in PHL. When only one flight is involved, you have to make a choice, and will lose some customers because of it to the competitor.

BTW: I know BA hasn't bought any A380s yet.

ADMIT IT! We love it when these two get childish and criticise eachother to high heavens! This is just another episode of the A v B soap opera. (But with no fat lady).

ANyway, what airbus said is great and what Boeing done is great. =

So tell me, how is the A380 suopose to magically save fuel. It will have 4X70,000lbs thrust engines. The only reason it has to be so big is to carry all that extra fuel. Boeing new plane will be a delta wing desighn so it will be able to sustain mach .95 flight much more efficiently than a conventional wing desighn. How come you dont already know this? Everytime somebody has to explain something to you Airbusfanatics its like they have to explain it to 13 year old. Dont you people know anything except that Airbus is God and Boeing is evil. Dont listen to your beloved Airbus exec when he says "it will but %40 more fuel" because its totaly ridiculous. Just like "%15-%20 lower operating cost than the nearest compritor" when they have no clue as to weather it will fly at all.

The 747X and 767-400ERX are not canceled. Both are now on the back burner until enough airlines express a desire to purchase them.

There was a recent Airways article about a South African 747-400 flight in which the captain clearly stated that he cruised (gasp!) at .86 Mach, faster than the book's .84 or .85 (can't remember), and YES, HE USED LESS FUEL.

As far as potential fuel burn goes regarding the "sonic cruiser", as Boeing has dubbed it, I can't conceive that any airline would even look at it if the fuel burn were not competitve to current aircraft. I'm guessing that the engines are going to be extremely efficient at the proposed cruising altitudes of the "sonic cruiser".

Hold on MD-90

Before you say you can "refute NA" something needs to be examined with regards to the SAA 744 and it's routing, operational configuration, etc.

To be complete in what you posted, Did the SAA pilot -possibly- mention that he achieved this fuel savings due to a -tailwind- behind him helping him get better fuel economy?

What was the routing of the flight in question? Date this occurred (to establish season of year and zero in on the weather patterns over the route in question), *particularly cruise altitude weather conditions and what direction it was headed with attention paid to the upper level jetstream and whether it was facing a jetstream or riding "piggyback" on quite-a-dilly of one*, the total aircraft fuel load, passenger cabin load, cargo weights etc. Was it a GE equipped 747-400 or RR equipped model (they operate both engines on the -400 now and both have slightly differing fuel burn numbers at high altitude). All of these points would be interesting to peruse and examine.

I tend to believe this aircraft you singled out was taking advantage of a *substantial tailwind* behind it (which explains the Mach and enjoying the lower fuel burn they were afforded on that particular run).

Just Wondering..

MAC

I think what really caught Airbus off-guard was not because of its radical design (there has been published hints about this for a couple of months), but the fact that Boeing wants to give the plane the range of 9,000 nautical miles.

The is very scary for Airbus because suddenly a lot of very long non-stop routes thought impossible in the past now may become reality: LHR-SYD, JFK-SIN, LHR-HNL, JFK-CPT non-stop year-round, and a few others. And it will do these routes in 14 hours total flight time or less.

This will be bad news especially in regards to premium passengers. I mean, will they want to spend around 20 hours in transit on the LHR-SYD route flying the A380-800, or save six hours on a non-stop flight with this new proposed plane?

This is all hiaraious in a sense.

When the A3XX moved closer to reality last year, Boeing and its zealots rushed to discredit the design, market claims, etc.

Same scenario today, reverse the participants. Airbus and its zealots rush in to refute the B20XX design, market claims, range, etc.

Airbus needs to design and build the best A380 it possibly can, and quit worrying about what Boeing is doing. Boeing needs to quit worrying what Airbus is doing, and concentrate on designing and launching this revolutionary design.

If they do this, everybody wins.

Rgds,
Joe

Ever thought about who was the first to fly? An American. Ever thought about who built the first wide-body? An American company. Who holds the record for most types of aircraft sold? An American company. So just because Boeing is deciding not to compete with the A380, that means nothing in comparison to who holds the status as best airplane builder. Look at the 777 design. A engineer's dream. It took Airbus a few crashes and a few accidents before they got their best aircraft, the A320 up to the status it is today. Give me a break!!!

From the December, 2000 issue of Airways pg. 32-43.

The aircraft was a South African 747-400 powered by RR RB211-524H engines with 60,600 lbs. of thrust each. The flight was SAA Flight 202 from JFK to Johannesburg. 14 hr. 35 min. flying time (it's a extremely long flight).

Avg. wind component of +12 knots, planned flying time of 13 hr. 56 min., and a planned landing with 23,540 lbs. of fuel.

From pg. 33

Like many old heads, Erasmus does not always agree with the computer prognostications. He selected Mach 0.86 for cruise. The computer selected 0.855 for long-range cruise and 0.847 for best economy. Capt Erasmus says, "At .86 we will burn more fuel initially but overall I can usually beat the flight plan." With an en route time of 13:56 and a burn of 156,820lb this works out to 24,700lb/hr, slightly higher than the captain's estimate. However, if you take out the 5% penalty, the figures are very close. At the end of the flight we will see how it worked out.

From pg. 34

Our fuel remaining "in the blocks" was 23,590lb for a burn-off of 353,180lb, including taxi. Flight plan would have been 351,196lb burn-off with taxi. However, at the lower planned Mach 0.84-0.85, the trip would have lasted longer. More fuel would have been used. So it looks like Capt Erasmsu was right on this trip.

To sum it up, the writer is saying that cruising faster shortened the trip, so even though the fuel burn was higher per hour, the overall time lessened the trip enough that it was more efficient to go faster.

All of that sounds fine and well on one hand. But the flip side is, we have no idea of the operating economics of the aircraft, and we need to see more concrete numbers of such to PROVE them out. Will this new "Sonic Cruiser" -imbibe- fuel flying at just below Mach 1 (which at that speed has been shown to prove will have incredible amounts of drag on it, causing more fuel burn, meaning higher operating costs)

I believe this aircraft is geared towards a niche market, which means business travelers willing to pay a higher price getting from Point A to Point B.

The A380 may fly 10 knots slower, but will carry -far more- at a lower unit cost than the Sonic Cruiser.

This same argument proved the worth of the 747-100 back in the early 1970s when it faced competition from the Concorde. The 747 was beaten over the head for being slower than the Concorde then.

Who won that argument? The answer is obvious.

I cannot forget to add that you must factor in the -reality- that availability of worldwide oil supplies will be falling over the next 20 years which means higher fuel costs than we are seeing now. Has anyone caught onto this yet?

Has anyone contemplated the realities of overall worldwide fuel availability and the predicted higher costs the fuel for these aircraft may very well incur?

That means this aircraft will be geared to a *niche market*. Biz Travellers and First Class travellers that can afford it. Of course there will be a demand for a premium service taking advantage of speed as the Concorde has proven in a very small niche market. But we also must look at overall economics on the ground as well as the air. Some carriers like SIA and JAL will most probably like to offer this service. These are prestige services that they will be able to market themselves with. That's elementary.

But will it ensue in a flood of orders from the major carriers trying to turn around the same aircraft with same pricing on routes say from New York to Honolulu? Or New York to London? Perhaps a few carriers will but I dont believe they will ever relieve their larger aircraft like the 777, 747, 767, A340, A330, A380 either.

As far as I'm concerned, Airbus is pursuing the mass scale market of passenger and cargo movement with the A380 very wisely, the lower unit costs will prove far more advantageous than the higher costs of a niche market targeted aircraft like the "Yellowstone".

We've been through all of this before...the years in question this was last debated were 1969-1971.

Just my views..

Regards
MAC

Actually, Otto L. (that Liethenal guy) flew man-carrying gliders before Kitty Hawk, and the Wright Brothers would not have succeeded without his pioneering research.

767-332ER

Grow up man! The first man to fly was not an American. The First company to build a wide-body - who cares, if Boeing had not done it, someone else would have, big deal. The 777 is a great aircraft for sure but it's no big deal either! It will be obsolete in time, same as everything else. And if anything means nothing, it is this so called '....status as best airplane builder' Give ME a break!!!!!!!!

You better put your gear down because you will not be flying much longer. Just stating my opinion. By the way, who was the first man to fly?

Good post, however one comment.

Worldwide oil supplies are not decreasing. Recent exploration has uncovered new oil deposits. With the price of oil now justfying the cost, newer technology is being introduced to access these new deposits. We now have more oil than we ever did. Technology is advancing at an ever increasing rate, which makes these formerly difficult deposits to access economically viable. The whole Club of Rome and Limits to Growth is a bunch of bunk. Read Paul Pilzer's book Unlimited Wealth, or any of Julian Simon's works if you want more info.

Technology is not constant. It is continually improving. World oil supplies are only decreasing if you hold technology constant.

Rgds,
Joe

"Who was the first man to fly?"

Have you ever looked back to Pre-Napoleonic France and the various hot-air balloons they test flew over the Louis the XIV's residence? The first -beings- to fly werent human, they were a small assortment of animals if I'm not mistaken. I believe a chicken, a goat and a dog were the worlds -first- flyers. Oh my Gawd! French livestock were the worlds first flyers! (Gasp!) LOL!..Laugh but it's true.

I encourage you to look up Otto Lilienthal though, he was a pivotal aeronaut and flew before the Wright Brothers. This is like a course in basic Aerospace History..memories of my 1985-86 classes at Kent State! (LOL!) Anyway look up Lilienthal on any good search engine and you'll get a dose of fact showing the first person to fly wasnt who you thought it was.

MAC

I get a little miffed when these discussions go way out of balance. Believe it or not, it is not my intent to offend you. In any case, the first man to take to the wild blue was a frenchman by the name of Montgolfier. He was not on Airbus Industrie's payroll however!!!

Well, from my comprehension, it only describes him as the first man to have ever flown a glider, which in my book and fellow members of my aviation family, it means to "fall with style." Sorry but, yes it is in the history books, the Wright Brothers were the first to have ever "flown," here again, you take the term "fly" as you like, but it was very interesting reading on Mr. Lilienthal.

Republic

I've got to check those books out, thanks for posting that. I've read quite different information from other sources that current oil resources (from current suppliers mind you) are going to get much skinnier than ever over the next few years. I just hope these new oil exploration efforts are being made into long lasting areas or petroleum reserves that people can depend upon and rely upon for many years to come, otherwise, the whole global economic system will be in real trouble. I've read various arguments pro-and con over the tapping into the Alaska Wildlife Reserve areas, some say this will only yield a miniscule amount of fuel. Conjecture is one thing, but I would really like to see some facts backing these arguments up on either side.

One has to look at the Middle East as a place that eventually -will- run out of oil, maybe the price increases and production reductions are an effort by them so they can stagger out and enjoy the final decades of oil wealth before the well literally runs dry there. If these other areas of new exploration do develop, then we'll be ok, if not, then we are screwed. One region in particular, the Spratly Islands off the west coast of the Philippines faces becoming a potential war-zone versus the People's Republic of China. I believe the PRC is firmly set on a quest to establish regional hegemonism and grab as much territory it can in that region to build a new petroleum industry for itself there. Look up the words "Mischief Reef" on any search engine and read the stories available on it. It will curl your hair what the PRC is up to there. If Mid-East reserves dry up at the time either side wants to push or get pushed by the other, it will get rather "hot" in that part of the world.

Regards
MAC

This is ridiculous!

I second that of B757300, Fly-By-Pilot, 767-332. Here we go again, Airbus fans bragging about how much better their company is than the American Company named Boeing. Why is it a lot of you have NO respect for Boeing? They are probably one of the most successful, best, greatest company in the world. Just because Airbus is also a great, successful, etc, companies, you guys have to lie about them being so much better, using false facts and very immature comments. Na, please don't throw your medication pills in the trash can tomorrow, ok?

Most of you need to understand that Boeing is not letting Airbus take over the NLA market, they are "slowing down" the new, larger 747s, and the 767-400ERX until they can seriously focus on the plane, and until airlines look at it more carefully. A lot of you are now day-dreaming that the A380 is on a pleasure ride because Boeing "canceled" 747X and -Stretch. WRONG.

None of those planes are canceled, and I am sorry to tell you that. Boeing is a great Aircraft company, why can't you understand this? I even heard one person earlier on the forums say the 737 is only selling because the A320 doesn't have enough slots in the market. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! These are the kinds of "facts" a lot of you Airbus fanatics state. Complete BS.


Boeing fans vs. Airbus Fans Round 2!

DING DING DING!!!!!!










RIDICULOUS.

If Airbus makes 'near-sonic cruiser' and Boeing makes 'NLA', as B757300 said, I would be a Boeing-fan, not an A-fan what I am. What I say is that I'm not praising VLAs because Airbus makes it, although I've kept to be Airbus-fan before even there was the name '3XX'.

Even if 380 was Boeing's, I would say 'VLA will sell more than Airbus's niche one'. For now, I think Boeing's embryo is successor of 767-400ERX that isn't realized yet. Smaller than 777 but has long range, superior than its direct competitor of size 330s except operating cost. Ah, don't forget to keep silent when you want to say 'it costs less because it has delta wings or other reasons', you don't know before it really flys. (Same with 380.)

Of course Airbus is going to try and discredit the new Boeing. Boeing's biggest competitor isn't going to come out and say "you have a great plane that will sell in high numbers", they will say basically the same as Boeing is saying about the A380, there is no market for it.

I don't see how people can already know that the sonic cruiser will have crap fuel efficiency. AIrlines wouldn't be already interested if the plane wasted gas, and so little has been told about the plane I am supprised you have the data to truthfully say that the sonic cruiser is a fuel guzzler. Boeing probably knows some things about the fuel efficiency that we don't. How about we wait untill the data has been released to dismiss the plane.

I would think that a 15% savings in time would be a great point to sell tickets to business travelers. If business people can have a flight that is an hour or more less flying time that is a big reason to fly the airline with the sonic cruiser and not the other airline with the A380 or what ever planes are out now.

In Korea, there are Seoul (po.10.5mil.), Taegu (po.2.5mil.) and Sokcho(po.70thou.). In U.S. west costal area, there are LA, Sacramento and Eugene. Currently if passengers want to fly between Korea and U.S. west, he/she must reach ICN first, and to LAX, and furthurmore. If Boeing produces planes like 777 or 20XX and carriers go PTP, there can be another routes like Taegu-LAX or Seoul-Sacramento. But never, never comes Sokcho-Eugene route. There would no traffic even for one 737 weekly.

According to Boeing's announcement, it would save 1.5 hours for transpacific or Europe-U.S. wests. But the most busy one, Europe, its delay is not entirely due to airport jam. If 1.5 hours save with more frequency means more ATC delay it doesn't make sense. Boeing must make enhancement for Air Traffic.

What's this, a company doubting the competitor's claims? Has hell REALLY fozen over?  

There is more of a market for this bird than there is for the city of the skies....

Republic,

The new oil deposits you refer to are less accessible than present ones. Tapping into them will be more expensive, even if "new technology" (?!) does make it possible. Also, fuel-specific taxes are set to rise because of environmental conditions. In ten years, the practical cost of aviation fuel may be roughly double what it is now. If the new Boeing plane guzzles huge amounts of fuel, it will not have a future, or it's future is that of Concorde.

It a plane's velocity increases 15%, the drag will increase 50% (1,15^3) before shape factors are taken into consideration. Leahy's overall fuel consumption estimate of 40% over present airliners sounds realistic to me.

Boeing747-400,

The idea that 737 gets sales because 320 slots are out isn't mine, it's a view held by many aerospace professionals in addition to me. Airbus is increasing its 320 output precisely because they've sold more or less all their slots several years in to the future.

Fly-by-Pilot:

YOU seem to be the 13-year old!

Fly-by-Pilot wrote: "Everytime somebody has to explain something to you Airbusfanatics its like they have to explain it to 13 year old"

Fly-by-Pilot wrote: "So tell me, how is the A380 suopose to magically save fuel"

Hmmm, ever heard of "economics of scale" + newer technology = lower costs...?

Fly-by-Pilot wrote: "(...) when they have no clue as to weather it will fly at all."

Since when do we spell "whether" like "weather" ????  

It's so funny how you disqualify yourself everytime you try to post something! Does anybody take you serious?

Hey, don't forget to check out this site next time: http://www.lego.com ! 

Regards
the WorldTraveller

Have you seen this yet?

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2001/photorelease/q1/photo_release_010329a.html

How closely do you think this will resemble the final effort when/if it is made

I really don't care about who says what about whom. I have my own thoughts, and I agree with Boeing747-400, Fly-by-pilot and B757300 have to say. Yes we are Boeing fans, fun if we all try to say something about Airbus or even give out some criticism, we get bashed. I certainly don't see when you talk about Boeing, how you are not guilty as charged. Well, we will all stick together and fight against each other and let's see what Boeing and Airbus do.

Cwapilot, didn't Boeing say a similar thing about there being a limited market for superjumbos? I believe that both companies make products as good as each other, as do the Russian companies. However, I am sick of the arrogance shown by some of our forum members who only take the issue of A vs. B on one side and not objectively.

Don't take the issue of A vs. B. personally; it only results in huge brawls.

Huge brawls by immature users..... This is the first A vs B war I've seen this year. Sigh. We were doing so well.......

Try reading my post again....is that not what I had originally said? In short, what I said was, Boeing didt it with the A380, Airbus fanatics cried and moaned and bashed Boeing about it, citing their support of BOTH companies, and the fact that Boeing should compete rather than discredit. Now, Airbus is doing it, and I have asked the Airbus fanatics to prove their supposed objectivity, which they had claimed before, by joining me in admonishing Airbus for doing the same thing. So far, all that has happened is Boeing fanatics have turned this into an A v B war, Airbus fanatics have shown they are incapable of objectivity as well as fanned the flames (Airbus can do no wrong), and only a few people have actually called Airbus on doing exactly what they have been criticizing Boeing for.