Airbus and Boeing products running behind schedule

[BigDUSA 71]

The head of Boeing's commercial airplanes division says the company hopes to announce a delivery schedule for its 787 aircraft within two weeks, but getting federal approval for fixes to the problem-plagued plane will be key.

 

Jim Albaugh, Boeing's president and CEO for airplanes, said Wednesday that Boeing needs the Federal Aviation Administration "to agree to the fixes we're going to put in place" and to restart certification test flights before the company can release a delivery schedule.

 

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency is working with Boeing Co. on planning for a resumption of flight tests.

 

The 787 has suffered a string of production problems and is three years behind schedule. Boeing resumed test flights of the plane in December after an in-flight fire haled them in November.

QUOTE AP

[MrMango 667]

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

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.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

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.

 

Thank-you, my fruity friend.

[TheFiend 1,181]

Hi,

 

This is the order Cheshire Tom mentioned earlier. Good to get orders from developing markets.

 

http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/news-even...n-history/3103/

 

IndiGo commits to 180 A320s, largest jet order in aviation history

Becomes a launch customer for the A320neo

 

11 January 2011 Press Release

 

Boeing fanboys go crazy over a big Airbus deal!!!

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Boeing fanboys go crazy over a big Airbus deal!!!

 

The same people mocked AirAsia's A320 order. Small, insignificant Malaysian airline, and all that.

[wacmedia 277]

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.

 

Hi,

 

So Samsonite is wrong ? Again.

Edited January 13, 2011 by wacmedia

[nidnoyham 30]

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

 

 

Thanks Samso' you have answered something that has puzzled me for years.

[Samsonite 181]

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.

 

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

Edited January 13, 2011 by Samsonite

[CheshireTom 1,377]

It was a MOU, not a MOA.

If, IF, IF....

 

If only you'd bothered to read your own links.

 

 

 

[TheFiend 1,181]

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

 

Apart from Airbus and Indigo nobody knows what is in the actual agreement, but if Airbus has gone as far as naming Indigo as the launch customer for the 320NEO then they must be confident the deal is signed, sealed and delivered.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Apart from Airbus and Indigo nobody knows what is in the actual agreement, but if Airbus has gone as far as naming Indigo as the launch customer for the 320NEO then they must be confident the deal is signed, sealed and delivered.

 

They went further and described it as a firm order in their press release ....

 

 

Edited January 13, 2011 by CheshireTom

[Samsonite 181]

If only you'd bothered to read your own links.

 

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.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Samsonite

[Samsonite 181]

They went further and described it as a firm order in their press release ....

 

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?

Edited January 13, 2011 by Samsonite

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Just f*%king amazing!

You are absolutely without any shame or conscience.

How do you sleep at night?

 

I count sheep. 1. Scally, 2. BigD, 3. Evil ... ... ...

 

What you attached to your post is not shown at either of the links I provided.

 

You've learnt nothing after all this time ...

 

Click on the Discussion tab ... and voila ...

 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2011 by CheshireTom

[BigDUSA 71]

So many times what tommie reads compared with the voices only he hears in his head. He see things that are not based on reality.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

So many times what tommie reads compared with the voices only he hears in his head.

 

Ooops ... see above. ^^^^^

 

 

He see things that are not based on reality.

 

Such as you're life story.

Edited January 13, 2011 by CheshireTom

[TheFiend 1,181]

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?

 

Becomes a launch customer for the A320neo

11 January 2011 Press Release

 

India's largest low-cost carrier, IndiGo has signed a Memorandum of Understanding for 180 eco-efficient Airbus A320 aircraft of which 150 will be A320neo’s and 30 will be A320s. It is the largest single firm order number for large jets in commercial aviation history, and also makes IndiGo a launch customer for the A320neo. Engine selection will be announced by the airline at a later date.

 

The A320neo, available from 2016, incorporates new more efficient engines and large wing tip devices called Sharklets delivering significant fuel savings of up to 15 percent, which represents up to 3,600 tonnes of CO2 annually per aircraft. In addition, the A320neo provides a double-digit reduction in NOx emissions and reduced engine noise.

 

“This order for industry leading fuel efficient aircraft will allow IndiGo to continue to offer low fares,” said Rakesh Gangwal and Rahul Bhatia, co-founders of IndiGo. “Ordering more A320s was the natural choice to meet India’s growing flying needs. The opportunity to reduce costs and to further improve our environmental performance through the A320neo were key to our decision.”

 

“The A320 Family is the recognised market leader. The A320neo, offering maximum benefit for minimum change, will ensure that this continues to be the case for many years to come,” said John Leahy, Chief Operating Officer Customers. “This order positions IndiGo to take full advantage of the predicted growth in Indian air travel and we are delighted that they continue to build their future with Airbus.”

 

The A320 Family (A318, A319, A320 and A321) is recognised as the benchmark single-aisle aircraft family. Some 6,800 Airbus A320 Family aircraft have been ordered and some 4,500 delivered to more than 310 customers and operators worldwide, making it the world’s best-selling single-aisle aircraft family. With 99.7% reliability and extended servicing periods, the A320 Family has the lowest operating costs of any single aisle aircraft. The A320neo will have over 95% airframe commonality with the A320 Family whilst offering up to 500nm (950 km) more range or two tonnes more payload.

 

See footage from the agreement's signing in the Airbus video gallery.

 

Looks like you didn't bother to read the whole press release, only the first sentence!!!

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Looks like you didn't bother to read the whole press release, only the first sentence!!!

 

I think he's been sniffing the AVGAS again.

[Samsonite 181]

Looks like you didn't bother to read the whole press release, only the first sentence.

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.

[Yzi 72]

So many times what tommie reads compared with the voices only he hears in his head. He see things that are not based on reality.

 

After all those ego boost lies, that coming from you is just ridiculous.

Good luck with your parasite paraplane hobby

[btm1735 232]

The same people mocked AirAsia's A320 order. Small, insignificant Malaysian airline, and all that.

 

OK Tom, now that you have had more then enough fun mocking BigD you need to be set straight.

 

Here are some quotes from respected publications that one can only assume are reporting numbers supplied by both Airbus and Boeing in public filings.

 

reported Jan 12, 2010

 

"According to the catalog list prices of the airplanes delivered, not allowing for discount pricing, Boeing's delivery total is $55.1 billion compared to Airbus' $51.6 billion"

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/busi...0_airbus13.html

 

reported July 28, 2010

 

"Boeing reported earnings of $787 million during the quarter – down from $998 million a year ago. That decline was driven by a 12 percent drop in revenue generated by the Chicago-based company’s commercial aircraft division"

 

reported May 15, 2010

 

"Plane manufacturer Airbus has endured a disastrous start to the year with its operating profits slumping by 92 per cent to just seven million euros."

 

http://www.southwestbusiness.co.uk/aerospa...il/article.html

 

Now both to me are pretty shitty companies. Profit margins suck for both. Businesses are supposed to make a profit, if they don't, well then they should no longer be in business. Both get subsides, it's the only way they survive. Actually tax payers on both sides of the pond should be out raged.

 

So now what do we have left? We can argue which sucks more. Looking at the books I think you could say that Airbus sucks by at least a x 2 magnitude.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

OK Tom, now that you have had more then enough fun mocking BigD you need to be set straight.

 

Here are some quotes from respected publications ....

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/busi...0_airbus13.html

 

btm,

 

I thought you were going to add something different but then you quote Boeing's mouthpiece, The Seattle Times, as a respected publication . Good one! Sheesh, neither of your respected publications even realise that Airbus isn't a company. Or maybe that's for the benefit of their readers.

 

Now both to me are pretty shitty companies. Profit margins suck for both. Businesses are supposed to make a profit, if they don't, well then they should no longer be in business.

 

Yeah, right. Remind me again of the bailout figures.

 

Both get subsides, it's the only way they survive.

 

Nice to see you agreeing with the WTO.

 

Actually tax payers on both sides of the pond should be out raged.

 

The governments who provided launch-aid to EADS get a good return on their investments. Compared to the amount of taxpayers money, on both sides of the pond, that has been thrown at companies within the financial sector, EADS is an unqualified success story.

 

So now what do we have left? We can argue which sucks more. Looking at the books I think you could say that Airbus sucks by at least a x 2 magnitude.

 

Not bad for a company who has gained 50% of the commercial aircraft market in a few short years. However, I can fully appreciate why guys on the other side of the pond think that EADS sucks. Pretty much the same as Hoover and Dyson - I think that there is no doubt that Hoover sucks.

[BigDUSA 71]

The voices in tommie's head surely are getting louder if you think after what 20 years in business. Airbus is an unqualified success. Billion's of EU taxpayer money poured down a continuing rat hole. Airbus unable to fund R&D without taxpayer help. Easy to sell airplanes when the EU taxpayer subsides the discounted price.

[btm1735 232]

btm,

 

I thought you were going to add something different but then you quote Boeing's mouthpiece, The Seattle Times, as a respected publication . Good one! Sheesh, neither of your respected publications even realise that Airbus isn't a company. Or maybe that's for the benefit of their readers.

 

 

 

Yeah, right. Remind me again of the bailout figures.

 

 

 

Nice to see you agreeing with the WTO.

 

 

 

The governments who provided launch-aid to EADS get a good return on their investments. Compared to the amount of taxpayers money, on both sides of the pond, that has been thrown at companies within the financial sector, EADS is an unqualified success story.

 

 

 

Not bad for a company who has gained 50% of the commercial aircraft market in a few short years. However, I can fully appreciate why guys on the other side of the pond think that EADS sucks. Pretty much the same as Hoover and Dyson - I think that there is no doubt that Hoover sucks.

 

The Seattle Times reports numbers that both Boeing and Airbus have to report to public as required by law for public companies of their size.

 

Take these self reported numbers and Boeing is at least twice as profitable but both provide horrible return on investment by any sane measure.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

The voices in tommie's head surely are getting louder if you think after what 20 years in business. Airbus is an unqualified success. Billion's of EU taxpayer money poured down a continuing rat hole. Airbus unable to fund R&D without taxpayer help. Easy to sell airplanes when the EU taxpayer subsides the discounted price.

 

If it wasn't a success, we wouldn't have to put up with the continual whining from across the pond. The fact that it is really grates at your xenophobic instincts. Tough!

Edited January 14, 2011 by CheshireTom