MrMango

You forgot the time of day in the date...

I knew one in Angleles. She was a stunner (and a 3 holer). She would tell me many days she would go to the club, only to find after 3-4 hours that there wre no players or it stated to rain - Guess how much she made? Zip. The Golf course was her version of Beach Road.

He did not help himself when he hit a customer over the head with a beer bottle - Bad PR!

I have no dog in this hunt. if you think that rebutting biased posts as partisan, then you need a reality check...

Goodwill tot he owner? Think of how much more it would be worth if he did not hit customers over the head with beer bottles...

Give it up - It is patently obvious that they are the alter ego of each other.

There was nothing "questionable" about his post, least of all his honesty! You sir, are delusional. Nothing questionable about his post? He claimed without sources that the 380 was soon to be profitable - A JOKE! When I politely asked for sources for hie outrageous statement, he refused. That in my book is being dishonest. All that was highlighted, again, is that you, in common with the other two stooges, are ill-informed, if informed at all. How come you are responding for him? Ar you his alter ego? All honorable men I know will defend themselves rather than hide behind the skirts of another.

Why on earth should I do that? IMHO, I acted wtih complete honor - He made a absurd statement IMHO, and I politely asked him for his sources and did not berate him in any way - I wished to see them and then I could respond. When he conveniently refused to back up his statement, IMHO, that is way over the line. When you post a declaration that is of questionable honesty, you will and should be challenged. You are way out of line, IMHO.

I notice you ducked my question of your absurd statement that they were close to making a profit on the 380. When you make a statement like that a honorable man would be prepared to back it up or apologize.

Please post sources for your crazy statement - Make a profit? How about covering the development costs? I have not seen any information either for or against this statement - Sources?

A typical response from a supporter in denial - Blame bad design on other peoples bad designs also.

Or with the disastrous Trent engines.

It sounds to me like you could increase your business greatly if you made it that "type" of club...

What have you been smoking! I hope you are not assembling 380's in your condition! The 787 is flying and has been for a while - Got it? And when will that be? Maybe 5 years of so? Really? Lots? And how much cash from the EU does airbust take? Any rational person can see that the 380 will NEVER make money as at the rate that they are delivering them, their backlog is about 50 years or so, which is good, because they have almost no orders.

Is this the upgrade that works for cell phones?

Actually, usually a MOA is a legal binding contract - It depends on the terms, but it usually is binding, and if it is, then there is an order.

This drives me Crazy!!! They are bookings, not sales!!! When you get a firm order, it is a booking. When you ship something, it is a sale. Got it???

You missed one thing in your analogy - Boeing looked at doing a SST, but deceided it would be unprofitable, which it was! As I remember,they built something like 15 of them! You are touting this ship as a success? Unbelievable! Makes me think that we have some board members here that do not have a clue on how free enterprise works.

Fat chance, judging by the orders it has received.

Well, look at the present backlog- Airbus - Maybe what? 100-200? New order possibility? ZERO. Boeing - 800-900 maybe firm orders, with a good possibility of many more once the kinks are straightened out.

OK I stand corrected. It is a airship. Why do we call them airports? Why do we measure airspeed in nautical miles per hour? the list could go on, but if you don't get if from the above, you never will.

Are you crazy??? of course when a aircraft is designed and built the government gives them a test certificate that is good only for testing the airworthiness of the ship. When it passes all of the tests and hoops that the government puts up, they then give it a airworthiness certificate to carry passengers. Boeing has not received one, Airbus has. The Government says that the airbus is safe to operate, and it clearly has a question mark now.

Maybe, just maybe the reason he did not bash Boeing is none of their engines exploded with paying passengers aboard.

Come on, How can you blame Boeing for a bunch of Union thugs asserting their muscle?

Don't know that, but so what? Plenty of US rockets have blown up using American parts. Thats the worst straw argument I have ever herd. Maybe. As the poor world gets richer, there is less incentive to outsource, which is a good thing.