Samsonite

Yep. You are correct, I didn't see the word "firm." How so very typical of Airbus to call a MOU a "firm" order. Not at all a surprise.

It would be just like Airbus to do so, but in this case where in the above press release do you see ANYthing that says it is a firm order?

Just f*%king amazing! You are absolutely without any shame or conscience. How do you sleep at night? You and the management at Airbus have to a lot in common. What you attached to your post is not shown at either of the links I provided. Here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_understanding and here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_agreement Did you read what you attached? It says, " Don't bother responding. I'm done jousting with you. You are not a worthy opponent.

You might send Sa-teef a PM as he is a big proponent of Jolly's. He hasn't signed on here since October, but he usually signs on daily at that 'other' web site.

It was a MOU, not a MOA. If, IF, IF.... "A memorandum of understanding (MOU or MOU) is a document describing a bilateral or multilateral agreement between parties. It expresses a convergence of will between the parties, indicating an intended common line of action. It is often used in cases where parties either do not imply a legal commitment or in situations where the parties cannot create a legally enforceable agreement. It is a more formal alternative to a gentlemen's agreement. In some serious cases, depending on the exact wording, MOUs can have the binding power of a contract; as a matter of law, contracts do not need to be labeled as such to be legally binding. Whether or not a document constitutes a binding contract depends only on the presence or absence of well-defined legal elements in the text proper of the document (the so-called "four corners"). For example, a binding contract typically must contain mutual consideration—a legally enforceable obligations of the parties, and its formation must take place free of the so-called real defenses to contract formation (fraud, duress, lack of age or mental capacity, etc.)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_understanding MOA is, "A memorandum of agreement (MOA) or cooperative agreement is a document written between parties to cooperatively work together on an agreed upon project or meet an agreed objective. The purpose of an MOA is to have a written understanding of the agreement between parties. An MOA is a good tool to use for many heritage projects. It can be used between agencies, the public and the federal or state governments, communities, and individuals. An MOA lays out the ground rules of a positive cooperative effort." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_agreement

The 727 was the first tri-jet airliner and wasn't retired by many airlines until the early 2000s. It is still in use with some of the smaller airlines and as freighter. Over the years I've heard the number 717 was used internally by Boeing to designated the KC-135 (tanker). I just found this on Wikipedia, "After McDonnell Douglas merged with Boeing in August 1997,[10] most industry observers expected that Boeing would cancel development of the MD-95. However, Boeing would go forward with the design under a new name, Boeing 717. Some believed Boeing had skipped the 717 model designation when the 720, and then the 727 followed the 707. The 717 name had actually been used within the company to refer to the KC-135 Stratotanker. 717 had also been used to promote an early design of the 720 to airlines before it was modified to meet market demands. A Boeing historian notes that the air force plane had the designation "717-100" and the commercial airliner had the designation "717-200".[11] The lack of a widespread use of the 717 name left it available to rebrand the MD-95." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_717

A Memorandum of Understanding is not an order. Until the contracts are signed and the deposits paid there is no order.

Ditto!

When someone calls and asks me to look at their computer the first thing I ask is, "Do you have Norton's (Symantec) installed on your system?" Removing it usually fixes the problem(s).

If you mean the McDonnell/Douglas MD-95, here you go: "The Boeing 717. On On May 23, 2006, Boeing delivered its final two 717 airplanes to Midwest Airlines and AirTran Airways in a ceremony before thousands of employees, retirees and dignitaries in Long Beach, Calif. The deliveries conclude commercial airplane production in Southern California that began in the 1920s with the Douglas Aircraft Co. The 717 program, which produced 156 airplanes, pioneered breakthrough business and manufacturing processes for Boeing Commercial Airplanes. The program was launched by an order from AirTran Airways in 1995, and the airplane quickly became renowned by customers for its excellent economics, performance and reliability. Based on the Douglas DC-9 and launched as the McDonnell Douglas MD-95, the 100-seater was renamed the Boeing 717 after McDonnell Douglas and Boeing merged in 1997. The 717 will continue to deliver unsurpassed economy and value to our airline customers for years to come. Boeing will continue to provide the outstanding customer service support for the 717s operating at carriers worldwide. Douglas opened the Long Beach factory in 1941 as part of President Roosevelt's Arsenal of Democracy -- a request to the nation's industries to halt civilian production and assist in making wartime equipment. The facility produced almost 10,000 airplanes for World War II before transitioning to commercial airplane production after the war. Douglas merged with the McDonnell Aircraft Company in 1967, forming the McDonnell Douglas Corporation. More than 15,000 airplanes have been produced in the Long Beach factory." http://www.boeing.com/commercial/717/index.html

The price is right!

Hasn't most of the world, at least the Western world, been in a recession for the last couple of years? "DATE:07/01/11 SOURCE:Air Transport Intelligence news Boeing posts sales rebound after two-year decline By Stephen Trimble Boeing has posted a dramatic sales rebound for commercial aircraft in 2010 as the airline market recovered from the two-year, global recession. Net sales rose from 142 in 2009 to 530 aircraft a year later, with overall orders dominated by the 737 next generation family. But Boeing's overall sales still remain far below the historic, four-year run of 1,000-plus aircraft orders posted from 2004 through 2007. After the recession struck credit markets near the end of 2007, Boeing's aircraft sales dropped to a then-low 662 orders in 2008. The latest figures show Boeing's sales campaign still has not rebounded to the heady days before 2008. Nor has the company's orders achieved a healthier balance between narrow- and widebody aircraft sales. Of the 530 net orders in 2010, only 49 sales came from widebody programmes, with 46 orders for 777s and 3 for 767s. The 787 and 747 programmes posted net declines for new orders in 2010 due to cancellations. Meanwhile, the 737 family accounted for 486 aircraft sales last year. Boeing's gross orders, not counting cancellations, totalled 625 aircraft last year. The company's overall backlog grew by 68 aircraft to 3,443, or roughly eight years of lead-time at current production rates. Boeing delivered a total of 462 aircraft last year." http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/...ar-decline.html

The GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program). http://www.gimp.org

Well, no. The gross figures are the real as they represent the number of actual orders for the year, before cancellations of orders placed in prior years are figured in.

Grace Kelly (The most beautiful woman to ever appear on the silver screen, imho).

"Arsenic and Old Lace."

Those were to be leased to Korean Air Cargo which has already bought 5 directly from Boeing. Most likely Korean Air will just up their order to 7. Those two 747-8Fs have already been assembled, painted in the Korean Air Cargo livery and are sitting on the flight line. Why didn't you post the gross sales to show how many were actually sold during the year. 737 = 508 747 = 1 767 = 3 777 = 76 787 = 37 Total Gross orders = 625 The cancellations of 777s was the result of the troubles at JAL and that Dubai leasing company (sorry, can't remember the name).

"The French Connection."

The plane that had the fire flew again on 23 December and made 3 flights on Monday, 3 January. Boeing traditionally closes for the Christmas Holiday from the end of business on 23 December until the first business day of the new year.

Interesting that the A320 family (comparable to the Boeing 737) it the only line that usually sells well for Airbust, so it is good to see they also sell a few twin aisle aircraft every now and then. The a330 is selling well for airbust, but many were sold not only due to the delays in the Boeing 787 program, but because the 787 production line is sold out for the next few years and they can get a a330 in a year or so. Emirates placed another large order for the a380 and now controls about 40% of the a380 order book. The a340 is dead for all practical purposes. They have sold some 350s. Plus the are three other companies trying to break into the A320/B737 market and I hope they do well as the Airbus/Boeing duopoly could use some serious competition. It will be interesting to see how it all washes out over the next five years to ten years or so.

Not very well. It is only a rumor that there was anyone there from GE. "Quoting Aesma (Reply 5): I guess one week of maintenance can't undo the damage done during months/years of poor oversight. **************** I read today that they're now trying to blame Boeing for it. LOL. Hundreds of 777's with GE engines are operating in the world and all 3 of theirs have a problem. Gee, I wonder where the real problem is. ******** Quoting MHTripple7 (Reply 7): Right, but an engine failure still shouldn't happen literally a day after the aircraft gets out of heavy maintenance in Portugal. Shouldn't they have seen the problems in Portugal before letting the aircraft fly again? ************* Quoting MHTripple7 (Reply 14): Again, I don't have an official source but from what I've heard a team from GE was in LIS doing some work on the engines of both D2-TEF and D2-TEE. ******** I'm not sure where you got that from. The 777 from the accident at LIS is still parked at LIS, without an engine, and it's not going anywhere any time soon. There is no GE90 maintenance at LIS. TAP maintenance is not certified on the GE90." The only person trying to defend TAAG is an Angolan citizen and here is a respond to some of his statements: "UAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1931 posts, RR: 16 Reply 37, posted Mon Dec 27 2010 20:10:33 your local time (3 days 23 hours 25 minutes ago) and read 3208 times: Quoting Speedbird741 (Reply 30): Quite frankly, 2 (serious) engine failures within one month in a fleet of 3 state of the art, well maintained and appropriately operated aircraft is reason enough for me to believe something out of TAAG's control is happening. Response: I would think that this would lead you to believe that the only reasonable explanation is that TAAG is doing something wrong and that the problem is completely within their control. With over 900 Boeing 777's flying everyday without major problems how can an airline who only has 3 of them experience these problems without being the cause of the problem? When you look at the fact that TAAG's maintenance and operational standards have been seriously lacking behind worldwide standards I think it should be more than obvious that the problem with these aircraft is TAAG not Boeing or GE. Quoting Speedbird741 (Reply 30): This is ridiculous. TAAG is a good airline with appropriately trained flight crews that follow the operational procedures recomended by Boeing and set by leading international carriers. Response: The only ridiculous thing here is your statement, TAAG is nowhere near the leading international carriers when it comes to operational procedures, maintenance, or anything else that goes into running an airline. TAAG was just recently taken off of the EU blacklist and must prove itself worthy to stay off of that blacklist constantly. With the upcoming audit from EU authorities I have a strong feeling that they will find themselves banned again from Europe. When you compare the practices and procedures of TAAG to an airline like United I find it extremely offensive. We work very hard to have a safe efficient operation and we are so far beyond TAAG on all levels that its upsetting to hear someone say that their crews are trained to the same level as ours. (see below!) Quoting Speedbird741 (Reply 30): Furthermore, even if crews were using more thrust than is required for takeoff and climb (which they are not), GE have committed some quite serious mistakes as they have built an engine that either explodes or fails after no more than two years of operation within the limits of maximum continuous thrust. Response: Again another ridiculous statement! The problem here is not GE the problem is TAAG. GE has thousands of engines flying around on 777's all over the world without problems, TAAG has a total of 3 aircraft and cannot even keep those airworthy. There is a reason TAAG is blacklisted and it has nothing to do with GE or Boeing. Quoting cahmc85 (Reply 23): It might have nothing to do with this but let's not forget that these aircraft were grounded in Seattle waiting delivery because the pilots were having difficulties in learning to fly the aircraft. Response: Hmmmm I guess thats Boeing's fault for not being up to the high international standards of TAAG, right speedbird?!?!?"

Is that just for the one airline?

You didn't read the thread, obviously.

You might want to check TAAG's reputation for poor to non-existent maintenance. One week's maintenance after months, if not years, of neglect does not make for a safe airline. You might want to read this thread: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/g...d.main/5018670/

Stockard Channing.