Samsonite

"While EADS CEO Louis Gallois stated on Friday the 23rd that the A350 program is "not in any way delayed", the French paper La Tribune today (the 27th) ran an article by Michel Cabirol stating that the program is running behind and will not meet the planned EIS date. It appears Mr. Cabriol is using suppliers and "people at the closest levels to the program" as his sources and he claims this is not an "idle rumor". The majority of these sources claim the delay will be around 12 months, though some believe it could be 18 and a few believe it could be less than 12 months. Airbus COO Fabrice Brégier also denied at Farnborough that the A350 program is delayed and noted that all but a couple of "critical" industrial equipment is in place to begin production. He reiterated that they are planning first flight in a year, but he did add the caveat "if we do not have any uncertainties". Mr. Brégier also admitted that Airbus had experienced issues with the electrical systems integration into the CFRP fuselage, but that the delays were only a few weeks and he is confident they can catch up. He also stated that launch customer QR will not cut them any breaks for missing their EIS targets. The original article is currently only in French on La Tribune's web page." http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises/indust...irbus-a350.html http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/g...d.main/4879501/

"Wild Geese."

The late Patrick Swayze.

Harrison Ford.

"Young Frankenstein."

Here is the order totals from the Farnborough Air Show as of Wednesday, 21 July 2010: Airbus: Aeroflot - 11 x A330-300 Air Lease Corp - 31 x A320, 20 x A321 Garuda Indonesia - 6 - A330-200 GECAS - 60 x A320 Germania - 5 x A319 Hong Kong Airlines - converted 15 XA330 to 15 x A350 (MoU) ordered 10 x A330 (MoU) LAN - 50 x A320 (MoU) RBS Aviation - 53 x A320 (previously booked as unidentified customer) Thai Airways - 7 x A330-300 (MoU) Total - 5 x A319, 91 x A320, 20 x A321, 17 x A330 (133 firm, new orders). Boeing: Air Lease Corp - 54 x 737 + 6 x 737 (options) Air Austral - 2 x 777-200LR (previously booked as an unidentified customer) American Airlines - 35 x 737-800 Avolon Air Lease - 12 x 737 (ordered in 2009) Emirates - 12 x 777-300ER (30 total, 18 were previously ordered this year as an unidentified customer) GECAS - 40 x 737-800 Norwegian Air Shuttle - 15 x 737-800 (exercise of purchase rights) OK Airlines - 10 x 737-800 (previously booked as an unidentified customer) Qatar Airways - 2 x 777-200LR (previously booked as an unidentified customer) RBS Aviation - 43 x 737-800 (previously booked as an unidentified customer) Royal Jordanian Airlines - 3 x 787-8 (previously ordered as an unidentified customer) Total - 144 x 737, 12 x 777-300ER (156 firm, new orders).

Carpet munchers (Lesbian)?

Here you go: It made a fly-by, circled the field, and landed. The roll out was only about 2,000! Amazing for a plane that size, even if there were only 12 people on board. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightbl...down-at-fa.html So far, 40 B737-800NG, 42 B777-300ER, and 54 A320 orders have been announced at the show.

Apocalypse Now

Oops! Thanks for point that out. :)

Which is good. The more competition the better.

"The Deer Hunter."

The key words here are "could be," as in, "might" or "maybe." As to the tanker, the Air Force outlined what they wanted and requested bids. Boeing submitted their bid tailored to meet the Air Force's stated requirements. Somewhere during the time their original request was made and the deadline, the Air Force changed their requirements in favor of the Northrup/Airbus proposed tanker. Boeing filed a complaint with the G.A.O. (general accounting office) which is, in theory, at least, a non-political entity. They reviewed the facts and determined the Air Force violated the bidding procedures on eight different issues, IIRC. Personally, I don't think the U.S. should be buying anything pertaining to the military or national security from another country, especially the French, if it is at all possible to make the needed item in the U.S.

You can walk it in about 15 minutes. As to motorbikes, I'm not suicidal. I've stayed at the RG and liked everything about it, EXCEPT the location. If you are going to spend all your time in the Walking Street area, then I don't think there is a better hotel, but if you plan to spend anytime north of South Pattaya Road, then Soi 13 is a more central location. Leaving the RG is not a problem, but getting back is a pain in the a**, especially later at night. I even tried hiring a baht bus to go directly back to the RG and the idiot driver still stopped along the way and picked up other passengers. There should be an open hunting season on baht bus drivers.

With reason if you followed the story.

As usual, you don't know your ass from a hot rock. The Air Force needs to replace their old tankers regardless of who wins the contract, but, according to you, if Boeing wins the contract it is a subsidy? What would you call it if airbust were to win the contract? Even if Boeing does win the tanker contract you won't be seeing too many, if any, new commercial 767s built as they will be replaced with the 787-8. The 787-9 will, most likely, take the market from the 777-200/ER.

Richard Aboulafia on the A380 and Emirates, from his June 2010 newsletter: "...This is one of my favorite themes in the civil aerospace industry too. Government-funded national airplanes hurt national airlines. For decades, governments in Indonesia, India, Russia, and other emerging aviation players have gotten the bright idea of creating national planes, which usually means sealing the borders and forcing local airlines to take them. Heaven help, for example, any Chinese carriers forced to accept ARJ 21s. A new variation on this theme: Funding a national airplane and subsidizing foreign carriers to take it. Not only are you hurting taxpayers with a subsidized airplane, but you’re hurting your airline industry too. This brings us to the big event at ILA: Emirates’ order for 32 more A380s. This somewhat overhyped event (Airfinance Journal reports that it was compensation for a Dubai Aerospace Enterprise Airbus orders “restructuring”) represents the only significant A380 order in years. It also cements Emirates’ status as the only enthusiastic A380 customer. The A380 isn’t a Trabant. Having flown on it, it offers a very quiet and comfortable passenger experience. But it’s a commercial disaster. Put aside Emirates’ 90 planes and the latest round of dumb hype (“it takes an A380 to compete with an A380!”), and Airbus has sold a dismal 144 aircraft over 10 years (this month marks the 10th anniversary of the commercial launch decision, which was followed by Singapore’s order). Some of those 144 A380 orders are basically dead, and many others have been deferred. The only hope for the A380 program, therefore, is Emirates. Like its wannabe colleagues Etihad and Qatar, Emirates is enjoying remarkable growth rates by grabbing other people’s traffic. Airbus tacitly acknowledges this. Their latest Global Market Forecast calls for 6.9% annual Mideast traffic growth. To absorb the current backlog of 90 A380s, 200+ A350XWBs, 200 777s and 787s, and scads of other planes, Emirates and its pals need to grow at a much faster pace than 6.9%. It’s very unlikely that they’ll grow fast enough to absorb all 90 A380s, but they have enjoyed impressive growth. They’ve achieved that by siphoning traffic away from European legacy carriers, especially Lufthansa, Air France/KLM, and British Airways (these three very large carriers, by the way, have ordered a combined total of just 39 A380s). Emirates is an excellent airline that has won that traffic by offering great service at a good price (with some help from its home base). Europe would only hurt its consumers if it kept Emirates out of its air travel markets, and protectionism is a bad idea. But the A380 represents a publically funded way to help Emirates beat up on those European airlines. Europe is subsidizing the aeronautical rope that Emirates is using to hang European airlines in four ways: 1. Export Credit Finance. Many A380s exported to the Mideast enjoy European government export credit finance, which is particularly important as Dubai’s financial uncertainties affect capital availability. ECA finance, of course, is not available for the European carriers whose traffic is Emirate’s favorite lunch. 2. Landing Rights. According to many press reports, the latest round of A380 orders was announced in Berlin to curry favor with German authorities. The goal is to gain landing rights for Emirates at Lufthansa’s expense. 3. A380 Development Funding. The A380 itself would have been impossible without billions in taxpayer euros that will never, ever be paid back. 4. A350XWB Development Funding. Airbus might not need public cash for this new plane if it weren’t losing tens of millions on each A380 it delivers. Airbus now says that A380 production won’t turn cash-positive until at least 2015. Until then, losses on each plane delivered to Emirates will effectively be made good by A350XWB launch aid. In short, from Emirate’s viewpoint, the A380 represents Europe’s fat and vulnerable aviation underbelly. Europe has shown it is quite willing to protect its national plane, even if that means throwing its national airlines under a bus. After ILA I joined my family in Amsterdam. As I landed at Schiphol, it occurred to me that the Netherlands holds a unique distinction. It had a national jet and a national airline, and it let go of both of them. Fokker and KLM were good, but not good enough, or big enough, to be successful global players. Fokker devolved into a components manufacturer, and KLM, of course, was rolled into Air France. The Netherlands has one of the most advanced economies in the world. Perhaps protecting national airplanes and national airlines is merely a phase countries go through as they grow up. Until then, as Europe supports the A380 by getting Emirates and friends to take them, Lufthansa and its fellow European carriers face a tough time. On that note, this month’s WMCAB updates include the Trainer and Military Transport Aircraft Overviews, and updates of India’s LCA and ALH, the Learjet series, and the AMX and Tornado reports. See you on Farnborough’s melting tarmac. Yours, ‘Til US Transcon Routes Are Routed Through Dubai, Richard Aboulafia" http://www.richardaboulafia.com/shownote.asp?id=318 The highlights are Mr. Aboulafia's.

Other than its location, I've always thought of the RG as a good value, so I would be interested in your opinion of what is the best value in a Pattaya hotel.

China Air bought the last 4 or 5 passenger versions made of the 747-400, and they have all the gadgets, but they are usually used on the TPE-LAX-TPE route.

The Residence Garden is too far south, IMHO, but if one is going to spend all their time on Walking Street then it is a good choice. There is so much more to see away from Walking Street that I prefer a more "central" location. Every trip I spend less and less time on Walking Street. If it wasn't for scheduled parties, e.g., at the FLB, I wouldn't have ventured down there at all the last couple of trips. Well... maybe to do a little people watching while having a cold drink in a beer bar along the street.

The Marriott.

They already do and still have only sold 234 over the last 10 years and only 29(?) of those have been delivered. Plus, almost 50% of a380 sold have been bought by one customer.

The BBC version of the story: "EU Airbus subsidies illegal, says WTO The EU paid illegal subsidies to aircraft giant Airbus, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has ruled, in the latest twist in a long-running dispute. The US lodged a complaint with the WTO six years ago, but the decision has only now been made public....." Read the story at the following link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10463761.stm

The a380 wing actually FAILED the wing test. It has to hold up to and including 150% of maximum stress and it failed at 145%. Just read the article linked by spacebass and it looks like Vietnam Airlines is trying to use the press, that is negotiate with Boeing through the media. Not exactly new. According to Boeing the 787 does meet original spec and all the weight savings, as a result of design changes, will be incorporated into the planes Vietnam Airlines will received.

Not the first time they have had trouble with their Italian sub-contractor. "...Exactly a year ago, Boeing issued a stop-work order to Alenia's other 787 plant in Grottaglie, Italy, after Everett engineers discovered wrinkles in the 787 fuselage skins. The wrinkles arose because the edges of the fuselage stiffening rods, called stringers, that Alenia had manufactured were way out of the specified thickness...." This time it was a result of, "...Alenia mechanics in Foggia, Italy, improperly installed brackets used to attach the horizontal tail to the fuselage, according to people familiar with the problem. The error, discovered during final assembly in Everett, involved small pieces of composite material, called shims, that are used routinely to fill small gaps when assembling structural parts. The Alenia mechanics also applied too much torque when tightening fasteners through the brackets, Boeing confirmed. As a result, the shims at the horizontal-tail attachment became compressed and the material degraded. Potentially, this could create a small amount of give in the structural join that would increase localized stresses and could cause fractures that shorten the life of the tail attachment. "Shims were improperly installed in a manner that could lead to lower-than-expected longevity for a joint within the horizontal stabilizer," said Leach. Leach said no actual cracks had been found and that the airplanes can be fixed without taking off the horizontal tail. "It is not unusual for these issues to arise in the course of production programs," she said...." http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/busi...7_boeing25.html