Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Habu on June 01, 2005, 07:55:42 PM
-
Customers scream for compensation. Losses should be huge. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050601/ap_on_bi_ge/france_airbus_a380_delay)
:p
-
awww.
Such a shame.
Hate to see it.
My condolences to the Airbus Team.
gotta stop typing now. My nose has grown to the point that I can't reach the keyboard without dripping snot on the monitor.
-
Dont be so shortsighted.
Boeing needs competition to win.
Otherwise you ride in a 767 the rest of your life
-
LOL..
If it don't say 'Boeing' I ain't going. Competition is well and good.. just don't expect me to ever pay a farging dime to park my bellybutton in a seat on the 'competitions' airplanes.
-
you back again? sheesh. how many user agreements do you violate a day, anyway?
WRGT to your frevrent wish regarding my demise on a Boeing... don't hold yer breath.
on second thought, please do.
-
Well, there is a tried and true saying in business "you do not make a promise that you cannot deliver on."
Hell, my handsomehunk was tasked to fly the CEO of our company about 300km north for an 8am meeting, which meant wheels up at 0430. But...my alarm was set for PM rather then AM. Since taught me to get a 24 / hr alarm clock.
But hey, thats how we learn. Boeing has done it before - i'd imagine Airbus as well.
Wolf
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
... don't hold yer breath.
on second thought, please do.
Ahem (http://www.thehowdydoodyuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=manly_suicide) :D
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
LOL..
If it don't say 'Boeing' I ain't going. Competition is well and good.. just don't expect me to ever pay a farging dime to park my bellybutton in a seat on the 'competitions' airplanes.
Whether you pay a dime to sit in the seat or not and always stick to Boeing is irrelevant since your still benefiting from the competition.
Personally I've always prefered Boeings as well, with the 722 and 742 being my favourties but I still wish Airbus all the best and think they make great aircraft.
Just a shame the WTO has been dragged into the spat between the two I'm sure they have better things to do with their time at the moment then referee a fight.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by bunch
Otherwise you ride in a 767 the rest of your life
767 is a nice plane though, have a look at this clip from MSFS.
http://www.fsclips.com/aircraft.html
...-Gixer
-
I like all the 700 series, but they only ri$k to make the new ones because of competition. No A350 = no 787 = you ride in a 767 the rest of your life.
-
A delay? No big deal. I read the text, but I couldn't find any reference to customers "screaming" for compensation, or anything about "huge losses".
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
LOL..
If it don't say 'Boeing' I ain't going. Competition is well and good.. just don't expect me to ever pay a farging dime to park my bellybutton in a seat on the 'competitions' airplanes.
Oh mein Gott! now THIS is a big loss for Airbus LOL
-
Funny, it's not as if Boeing ever exceeded the original cost/time estimates on any of its projects, right?
-
Um. Pan Am expressed an interest in a large aircraft in 1965. In 1966, Boeing proposed a design, and agreed to deliver it by 1970. It entered service in December, 1969.
Come to think of it, I can't find any cases of major delays in Boeing's bringing a completely new commercial airframe to market. Now, delays undoubtedly do occur, such as the 737 backlog a few years ago, but on a new aircraft, on which the company is banking everything and concerning which there is more than a little debate about the utility or demand, delays are poison. Hell, if I'm buying aircraft, I'd be seriously considering an A380, since they'll be going at fire-sale prices.
-
well habu, since goodrich has a landing gear manufacturing facilities in oakville ont, which makes components and tests gear for the A380. i'm all for the plane doing well.
-
50% of the Airbus A380's components are sourced in the good old USA.
Bear that in mind before you wish it ill.
We need and Airbus and Boeing and a level playing field, subsidy wise. That includes Boeing.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
A delay? No big deal. I read the text, but I couldn't find any reference to customers "screaming" for compensation, or anything about "huge losses".
I am practicing for my new job as headline writer for the Sun.
-
WTF is this? Corporate 'nationalism'?
You tards have any large Airbus banners or Boeing flags in your front yard?
-
Originally posted by Octavius
WTF is this? Corporate 'nationalism'?
You tards have any large Airbus banners or Boeing flags in your front yard?
Shhhhhh. Damnit Octavius. I have the Boeing yard sign you sent me.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Octavius
WTF is this? Corporate 'nationalism'?
You tards have any large Airbus banners or Boeing flags in your front yard?
Ummmm....yes. :D (Not really, but my Home office looks like an avertisement for Boeing Jets. Complete with a huge protrait of the first 747 flying in air in 1970-something...its fleet name was "Airbus" believe it or not. I'll snap a pic if you doubt me..)
Competition is always good. It makes those respective competitors work that much harder to achieve a quality product for the consumers.
-
When I flew with United, I hated the Boeing, it was cramped, hot, and the legroom and seats were uncomfortable.
Airbuses rock, better everything.
-
The Airbus Boeing war has started again I see.
Whats the deal? Its just a big thing for getting you to far more interesting places than the one you are in. Who cares what it says on the side? You'll still get thrombosis whatever :lol
-
Originally posted by RTSigma
When I flew with United, I hated the Boeing, it was cramped, hot, and the legroom and seats were uncomfortable.
Airbuses rock, better everything.
You mean you hated United? The interiors including seats are customer-ordered items. United modified their own interiors, as every airline does (Seat configuration)
-
Interesting read:
http://www.komo-am.com/stories/37171.htm
"I think the biggest concern of all ... is that this might not be due to flight testing delays or paperwork. It might be due to a need to meet performance specifications. In other words, they might have to be looking at design aspects of this plane," said Richard Aboulafia, an aviation analyst with Teal Group in Fairfax, Va.
Airbus spokeswoman Mary Anne Greczyn said delays of this kind are "relatively typical" with new airplanes.
"A couple of months in the grand scheme of things is really nothing in terms of scheduling," Greczyn said.
In late April, Airbus warned Singapore Airlines Ltd. it would receive its A380s late next year instead of in March. Since then, other airlines said they were expecting late deliveries, too.
Airbus has not said what's causing the delays. Australia's Qantas Airways Ltd. said "manufacturing issues" are to blame.
If those "issues" mean Airbus is struggling to meet the design specifications it promised airlines, the Toulouse, France-based jet manufacturer could be headed for some serious turbulence.
"It increases the chances that the A380 was oversold in terms of economics and technology, and that is a boon for Boeing and the 747," Aboulafia said.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
You mean you hated United? The interiors including seats are customer-ordered items. United modified their own interiors, as every airline does (Seat configuration)
Yes, and United also flies Airbus aircraft, as I found out (much to my surprise) on a flight from Denver to San Francisco a few years ago.
-
Big airplanes have big teething problems. No surprise there. I am surprised AB didn't build in a delivery buffer to allow for potential delays...then again, maybe they did.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
50% of the Airbus A380's components are sourced in the good old USA.
And dosn't Boeing Japan build about 20 to 30% of all new Boeings and contracted for a third of every new 787
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
Oh mein Gott! now THIS is a big loss for Airbus LOL
Nope. And my refusal to own anything but an american car hasn't disturbed Toyota a bit.
I just have an opinion.. it's not particularly relevant, but regardless; it's how I choose to spend my bucks.. here, on american made things as much as possible. And no, I don't shop walmart, and yes, my TV is made in Mexico, 40% of my chevy came outta japan and probably half the white goods sitting around here have dubioius foriegn pedigrees.
But, at least I think about it, endeavor to preserve the job of the guy next door and 'buy american' whenever possible.
Something 'wrong' with that attitude?
-
Nope I have a Simillar one But I prefer to Buy British
Hence The "Winnebago:rolleyes:" :lol
(http://www.triumphrat.net/albums/album634/aaz.sized.jpg)
-
I had a Trophy about 30 years ago... wonderful machine; thrill to ride (once yah got the shifter figured out).
Was easy to figure out where it was parked when it was stolen.
Just look for the oil slick.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Something 'wrong' with that attitude?
You're a friggin communist.
-
only in finland.
over here, what's mine stays mine. Over there, what's yours is theirs.
wave to the nice rooskies over the border for me... and play nice with the neighbors, dearie.
;)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
... half the white goods sitting around here have dubioius foriegn pedigrees.
I think the space shuttles are fitted with computer parts built in Belgium.
This is of course one of those moments where Wotan or Widewing comes back to you with a 279 pages manual that nobody but them ever gets arsed to read, but that proves you wrong... *tic tic tic*
-
explains why my commodore 64 is still faster than whats on the shuttle.
-
Interesting point - what is used on the shuttle these days?
-
The shuttle started with a system called "Pyramid", but I don't know what is in there now. In early '80s Pyramid was ****-hot, though.
-
If the 380 is like the rest of the Airbus aircraft, it will not meet the performance figures originally promised by Airbus.
I think the 380 will be a failure in the long run. Another Concorde.
dago
-
Originally posted by Dago
I think the 380 will be a failure in the long run. Another Concorde.
Doubtful. Apples and oranges. Concorde's destiny was set before it was deployed into service. Only 14 in active service, a one-way fare between London & New York of around $8000+, 26,000 litres of fuel an hour - I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did.
A380 will cater to an entirely different market.
-
Originally posted by Dago
I think the 380 will be a failure in the long run. Another Concorde.
That comment indicates how little you know of the civilian aviation.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
That comment indicates how little you know of the civilian aviation.
Yeah - the joke is that's his job. No wonder so many airlines go bankrupt.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Yeah - the joke is that's his job. No wonder so many airlines go bankrupt.
I wouldn't believe it after his comments, because there isn't anything similar with A380 and Concorde's issues.
Such comments are only the result of bias or ignorance.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Such comments are only the result of bias or ignorance.
In his case, it's both.
-
The A380 future is yet to be decided, it could go either way as is the fact about any new aircraft introduction. My opinion is mine, and given with a fair amount of knowledge about the airline industry. A lot more than either of you clowns.
The Concorde was a failure. Commerically it never made money, always lost money. For an aircraft built specifically for the commericial airline industry, that is an unmitigated failure. Sure it flew, but so do other aircraft. Sure it was supersonic, but it was so freaking loud it wasn't allowed in many airports.
It lost money. Always. Very few were built or sold. It never recovered its cost of design and manufacture. That is a failure.
Now beetle, dont you have some women to physically assault in another drunken rage? (http://www.cpinternet.com/~tlong1//beetle_tomato.gif)
dago
-
Originally posted by Dago
The Concorde was a failure. Commerically it never made money, always lost money. For an aircraft built specifically for the commericial airline industry, that is an unmitigated failure. Sure it flew, but so do other aircraft. Sure it was supersonic, but it was so freaking loud it wasn't allowed in many airports.
It lost money. Always. Very few were built or sold. It never recovered its cost of design and manufacture. That is a failure.
Well, we can agree on that. Which is why the comparison with A380 is so lopsided. Last time I looked, there were orders for 139 A380s - almost 10 for every Concorde, and that's before it even enters service. Concorde was a publicity stunt - seems the people holding the purse strings wanted Europe to develop a supersonic airliner before America did - not the best reasons I can think of.
A380 will be an entirely different kettle of fish, and will be used to remote destinations often 10,000km+ distant, and where there are few other destinations en route. It will also be the salvation of airports like LHR which are simply running out of runway slots.
LOL Dago - while we're trading insults, you keep on using the same two arrows in your quiver - this time both in the same sentence! Methinks you need some fresh material. :aok
-
As I said, the story is yet to be told on the A380. It might succeed, it might not.
But, right now, can you tell me what airports that can handle it? Not too many.
What is the footprint weight at max gross ramp weight, and how many airports have the structural ability built into the runways, taxiways and ramps to hold it. (I assume they already considered it, but that might limit the airports)
How many airports have passenger waiting areas where 800 people can wait?
If a flight is canceled, what will be the cost of accomodating 800 people, and the impact on thier opinion of the airline?
How many jetbriges are required to load and unload 800 people? How long are the passengers willing to wait to unload when stopped at the gate?
What will be the required load factor necessary to break even or profit from a flight with that much fuel, food and cabin crew?
Assuming the aircraft will have LD3 capable cargo compartments, how much cargo weight can it carry and still retain a full cabin and fuel for a flight of distance? (a big question that one, that will have a direct and huge effect on cost/profit)
God forbid an accident, but if one ever crashed, what would be the political and commercial impact, and how much negative publicity would accompany that? (think the Comet)
I am trying to just touch on a few of the many factors to consider beyond "it's really big and cool".
BTW, if you tire of the insults, you need to stop throwing them. But in case, just to please you, I will find some additional assault related graphics to have on hand.
dago
-
Thank you, Dago. I don't claim to be an aviation expert, but I do travel quite a bit in different parts of the world. Let's skip further insults this thread, and concentrate on the material at hand...
As I said, the story is yet to be told on the A380. It might succeed, it might not.
I think it will. The airlines who plan to operate it must have taken into account their passenger loadings versus the cost of operation. I certainly don't believe that just being a few months late (the subject of this thread) is going to be a make or break issue. But, right now, can you tell me what airports that can handle it? Not too many.
It's not many, it won't be that many, and it doesn't need to be many. A380 is destined to be a hub-to-hub plane. What is the footprint weight at max gross ramp weight, and how many airports have the structural ability built into the runways, taxiways and ramps to hold it. (I assume they already considered it, but that might limit the airports)
I don't know the weights, and whether spreading the weight across more landing gear wheels makes a difference to these considerations. The main task of the airports preparing for A380 readiness seems to be that of widening the runways - not lengthening, or preparing for extra weight. How many airports have passenger waiting areas where 800 people can wait?
What's the 800 figure? The initial design of the A380 accommodates about 550 pax. A couple of 747s carry more than that, and in some cases BA despatches two of those from London to New York within half an hour of each other. Given that check-in is 2 hours before flight departure, you can see that an airport like LHR is already handling large volumes of passengers on the ground. A fifth terminal is being built, so it's all in hand. If a flight is canceled, what will be the cost of accomodating 800 people, and the impact on thier opinion of the airline?
Ah the 800 figure again! These considerations are already in hand. It's not just the size of individual aircraft which affect the impact of cancellation. In case of bad weather, all passengers would be stuck - regardless of the size of aircraft they were planning to fly in. How many jetbriges are required to load and unload 800 people? How long are the passengers willing to wait to unload when stopped at the gate?
Part of the LHR A380 upgrade plan (and this may be what T5 is all about) is to provide both upper and lower loading ramps. So to load 550 pax shouldn't take longer than loading ~275 pax on a smaller plane. What will be the required load factor necessary to break even or profit from a flight with that much fuel, food and cabin crew?
They'll be looking to fill every seat, and they should be able to do it quite easily. On some routes in the Asia/Pacific/Oceana regions, capacity has tripled in less than 5 years. Clearly the operators need more seats than could be provided by the aircraft they had 5 years ago. Don't know about the cargo specifics, but A380 is supposed to have a range about at least 10% greater than other long range planes. God forbid an accident, but if one ever crashed, what would be the political and commercial impact, and how much negative publicity would accompany that? (think the Comet)
People will still fly. Boeings have crashed and people still fly them. The worst aviation disaster on record involved TWO 747s (KLM and Pan-AM) at Los Rodeos Airport, Tenerife, Canary Islands in 1977, and about 575 lives lost. The KLM pilot was arguably to blame for taking off without a take off clearance. But... KLM is still alive and kicking 28 years later...
All interesting points, Dago. I'm sure the operators to be will have done their homework.
-
So, basically you think airlines will line up to buy an aircraft that does what the 747 does?
Time will tell, but support and infarstructure necessary will be huge, and for a plane not offering all that much more than a 747.
Japan has already carried 520 people in a 747-200. :)
Buy a much bigger plane to carry 30 more?
-
They're already lined up, Dago, with 144 firm orders to date.
I don't know what you mean by not offering much more than a 747. The 747s I've seen have had about 300 seats - maybe 350? But certainly not 555. Japan has already carried 520 people in a 747-200.
Buy a much bigger plane to carry 30 more?
Individual airlines can configure the seating any way they want. Japan may have been able to squeeze over 500 peeps aboard a 747, but you have to remember that the Japanese are much smaller people than westerners. It wouldn't work in other countries - can you imagine if they tried that in.... no, I'm going to be nice in this thread. :D
-
"giajin! I stick you in eye wif chopstic!! you no touch nuts!"
-
Originally posted by beet1e
They're already lined up, Dago, with 144 firm orders to date.
and the concord had projected sales of 100 aircraft.
it's a "firm" order when you cash the check.
-
Originally posted by john9001
and the concord had projected sales of 100 aircraft.
it's a "firm" order when you cash the check.
Yup, exactly, there are "firm orders" and then there are deliveries.
Whatever.
dago
-
Dago,
You fail to take into consideration that there was nothing which would've made Concorde a profitable aircraft.
Concorde drunk gas like million drunkards, had almost nil cargo space and only carried a handful of passengers.
It doesn't take a scientist to figure out the outcome.
So far I don't see any obvious reasons why A380 would fail on a long run. The B747 didn't, which is pretty much the same thing.
Only thing is that will there be enough passengers. However passengers doesn't matter to FedEx or UPS - there'll be always enough cargo for their A380's.
"and given with a fair amount of knowledge about the airline industry. A lot more than either of you clowns"
Yeah and making comparisons which simply can't be used between two different planes.
What exactly is your job in the aviation industry? Surely not the one making decisions which planes to buy for an airline.
If you somehow are doing it, then I do greatly pity the company you're working for.
I'm sure japanese could fit over 800 passengers in the A380.
Then again they do sometimes use 'pushers' at train stations to cram in the passengers. :rolleyes:
-
Concorde would have been a nice moneymaker for speedbird if they knew to set the ticket price 5 times higher. People that rode in that thing were "money is no object" types, most of them didnt even know or care about the ticket price. As for the 380, it will not be a failure, as Airbus doesnt have to pay back loans on losing projects. With that type of deal, i'm dissapointed they dont try some more aggressive design innovation.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Dago,
You fail to take into consideration that there was nothing which would've made Concorde a profitable aircraft.
Concorde drunk gas like million drunkards, had almost nil cargo space and only carried a handful of passengers.
It doesn't take a scientist to figure out the outcome.
And your point is?
I said it was a failure. It was. Now you agree.
Your point?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
They're already lined up, Dago, with 144 firm orders to date.
I don't know what you mean by not offering much more than a 747. The 747s I've seen have had about 300 seats - maybe 350? But certainly not 555. Individual airlines can configure the seating any way they want. Japan may have been able to squeeze over 500 peeps aboard a 747, but you have to remember that the Japanese are much smaller people than westerners. It wouldn't work in other countries - can you imagine if they tried that in.... no, I'm going to be nice in this thread. :D
The main point that your both missing is that a 742 with 500 people on board will have alot less range then a 380 with 555 people on board.
I think the record for a 742 is something like 800 and something that were evacuated out of Darwin before a hurricane. Of course that would only give it enough gas for a few hundred NM range.
...-Gixer
-
Well, to evacuate from a hurricane, you only need a few hundred nm.
Boeing hurricane evac planes kix the krap of eurotard hurricane evac planez!
"if it ain't Boeing, im riding the tidal surge!"
-
with 416 souls 747-438 does 7,892 miles.
I'd assume if yah double the body count, you'd about halve the range to 3,500 miles, yes?
-
WHERE ARE THE CANADIANS? ARGHHHH!!!!
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
with 416 souls 747-438 does 7,892 miles.
I'd assume if yah double the body count, you'd about halve the range to 3,500 miles, yes?
hahaha great news! Now i can fly my C-150 150 miles with 8 passengers. who wants to go to the beach!?!?!!?
-
Originally posted by john9001
and the concord had projected sales of 100 aircraft.
it's a "firm" order when you cash the check.
Apples and oranges again. You're not wrong about the Concorde; there were dozens of cancelled orders, and it was a commercial failure for all the reasons fishu said earlier - noise, fuel consumption, massive ticket price, only 123 seats.
The A380 is different. It's not intended as a record breaking plane. It's just the next in a line of "sensible" planes, which have got bigger and bigger in the last 50 years. The only factors which are needed for it to succeed in finding its niche are for A380 designated airports to be prepared (already being done eg. London, Singapore, Melbourne, Sydney, Auckland, plus a few in the US and elsewhere) and for the operators to be confident of filling all the seats. I see no problem on either count.
-
Teh Avro Arrow would have flown 1000 people, 20,000 miles on a cup of gas. :mad:
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The A380 is different. It's not intended as a record breaking plane. It's just the next in a line of "sensible" planes, which have got bigger and bigger in the last 50 years.
Exactly. I can't believe how retarded arguments people make against it.
-
Originally posted by mora
Exactly. I can't believe how retarded arguments people make against it.
And that alot of them are the same arguments used 36 years ago.
(http://plane-truth.com/images/First%20Boeing%20747.jpg)
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Yeager
WHERE ARE THE CANADIANS? ARGHHHH!!!!
it's summer, most own water craft and a second residence usually located in some wood area with a lot of clean lakes. they be there now.
-
Originally posted by mora
Exactly. I can't believe how retarded arguments people make against it.
It becomes much easier when you look at who is making them. :lol
-
I think the record for a 742 is something like 800 and something that were evacuated out of Darwin before a hurricane. Of course that would only give it enough gas for a few hundred NM range.
EL AL holds the record for carrying the most passengers in a single trip. EL AL’s 747 4X-AXF took off from Addis Ababa airport With 1,086 passengers with the birth of a baby en route it landed at Tel Aviv with 1,087 passengers.
The previous record was 674 passengers set by QANTAS during a rescue airlift from an Australian cyclone.
Oh, and a minor point, Hurricanes never hit Darwin. Cyclones and maybe Typhoons, but never Hurricanes.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The previous record was 674 passengers set by QANTAS during a rescue airlift from an Australian cyclone.
Oh, and a minor point, Hurricanes never hit Darwin. Cyclones and maybe Typhoons, but never Hurricanes.
Cyclone,Typhoon whatever I knew it was some sort of storm. Thanks for the pax count though and new record.
...-Gixer
-
Typhoon. Tracy was it?
Hurricanes and Typhoons are distinguished by hemisphere.
You know, just 'cos some nut said "the Boeing 747 will never be successful" doesn't mean that was the prevailing opinion at the time. The airlines practically begged Boeing to make the 747. Airbus is practically begging airlines to take the A380. (ooh... 144 "firm" orders negotiated at a steep discount, add it penalties for late delivery and performance problems, and the break-even point starts to slide way down towards 500 aircraft)
for me, this isn't about hatred of europe or airbus; it's simple economics.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Cyclone,Typhoon whatever I knew it was some sort of storm. Thanks for the pax count though and new record.
...-Gixer
I'm wondering how you can live where you do and not know the difference...
interesting.
-
Originally posted by Dinger
for me, this isn't about hatred of europe or airbus; it's simple economics.
The break even point for Airbus will slide - I don't have any precise figures and wondered if your 500 planes value was a finger in the air figure like Dago's 800 pax figure. Sure, the potential customers will want compensation - it's in the terms of contract. But the deals will still go ahead. One key user will be Qantas of Australia. The A380 is tailor made for an airline like Qantas - remote area, relatively few major airports (about 10) and long distances (10,000km+). For anyone interested in the facts, this report is from the Qantas news desk.
Source: http://www.qantas.com.au/regions/dyn/au/publicaffairs/details?ArticleID=2005/jun05/3276
Qantas today confirmed that the delivery of its first A380 would be delayed by six months as a result of manufacturing issues at Airbus.
The Chief Executive Officer of Qantas, Mr Geoff Dixon, said the airline was now scheduled to take delivery of the first of its 12 new A380 aircraft in April 2007.
"This is disappointing, given that we have met all of Airbus' deadlines for Qantas specifications, however we are developing contingency plans to ensure there is no impact on our schedules or available capacity during the six month delay."
Mr Dixon said possible contingencies under discussion included deferring the retirement of a number of aircraft, redirecting capacity, and bringing forward the delivery of other aircraft on order.
Mr Dixon said that all airlines with early A380 orders were in the same situation, and that Airbus had advised that the deliveries would be made in the same sequence with the same time differentials.
"We will be working closely with Airbus to ensure the new deadline is met," Mr Dixon said.
He said Qantas would also be seeking compensation from Airbus in line with the terms of its contract.
Erm... see anything in there about order cancellations??? Nope, but Qantas sure wants that new deadline to be met!
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I'm wondering how you can live where you do and not know the difference...
interesting.
I know the differance, I just couldn't recall what it was that hit Darwin, I guess I should always just check the facts (just to avoid some petty dig) from the net and sound like a expert like you instead of just relying from memory on what I'd read a few years ago in a aviation magazine.
...-Gixer
-
dago if you want to see a real commercial failure then click here
http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tech/Aviation/Aircraft/SST.asp
You are simply a deluded individual driven by jealousy
wipass
-
Commercial failure?
They did research. Determined that the plane would not be economic and scrapped it.
That is a much better position to be in what the euros found themselves in.
Unlike the French Anglo consortium that barged on and went into production and flew they planes for 30 years even though they never would recoup their initial investment and even after writing off that investment still barely broke even on most flights.
The big problems with SST (high fuel comsumption, very low payload, sonic booms that force it to fly subsonic over populated areas) doomed the first generation planes, no matter who designed them or built them. The smart money folded their cards before investing in production.
-
8 years research and more money spent on "research" than was spent on getting Concorde in the air,
I would call that a commercial failure, and a big one at that too
wipass
-
Originally posted by Gixer
I know the differance, I just couldn't recall what it was that hit Darwin, I guess I should always just check the facts (just to avoid some petty dig) from the net and sound like a expert like you instead of just relying from memory on what I'd read a few years ago in a aviation magazine.
...-Gixer
petty? I said it was a minor point... I just refrain from using emoticons as much as possible... I guess I should have used a winky eyed thingy...