Airbus and Boeing products running behind schedule

[CheshireTom 1,377]

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.

 

Since it isn't a public company of any size, Airbus doesn't have to, nor does it, report to the public. That's what happens when you quote The Seattle Times as a respected publication.

[BigDUSA 71]

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!

 

Your problem is when the voices get so loud they filter out the reality of continuing EU taxpayer subsidies.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Your problem is when the voices get so loud they filter out the reality of continuing EU taxpayer subsidies.

 

No problem for me. My home in UK is 25 minutes from Broughton and we've done very well out of the deal - you certainly won't hear anyone complaining. Jeez, new factories, roads, canals, bridges, harbours ... what's there not to like.

 

The fact that it irritates the fuck out of some fat, xenophobic cripple is just a bonus.

Edited January 14, 2011 by CheshireTom

[BigDUSA 71]

No problem for me. My home in UK is 25 minutes from Broughton and we've done very well out of the deal - you certainly won't hear anyone complaining. Jeez, new factories, roads, canals, bridges, harbours ... what's there not to like.

 

The fact that it irritates the fuck out of some fat, xenophobic cripple is just a bonus.

 

Why would I be irritated by silly EU taxpayer money being poured down a rat hole called Airbus? No skin off of my nose and certainly it's not coming out of my pocket.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

No skin off of my nose ...

 

Obviously. Otherwise you'd be trying to claim from the US taxpayer for melanoma as well.

Edited January 14, 2011 by CheshireTom

[TheFiend 1,181]

Why would I be irritated by silly EU taxpayer money being poured down a rat hole called Airbus? No skin off of my nose and certainly it's not coming out of my pocket.

 

Do you hear EU citizens complaining about our taxes being invested a European company that supports employment in many European states, as well as elsewhere in the world? I don't!!!!

 

Airbus is proof that the EU can work together.

 

But, you do hear complaints about European banks that were stupid enough to invest in the USA which are now being bailed out by the EU Taxpayers...

 

Funny how I don't hear you complaining about that!!!

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Do you hear EU citizens complaining about our taxes being invested a European company that supports employment in many European states, as well as elsewhere in the world? I don't!!!!

 

Airbus is proof that the EU can work together.

 

But, you do hear complaints about European banks that were stupid enough to invest in the USA which are now being bailed out by the EU Taxpayers...

 

Funny how I don't hear you complaining about that!!!

 

 

What happened with the annual orders thing for 2010? Did Boeing eventually win that particular race, or not?

 

p.s. Scally, Net orders.

[btm1735 232]

Since it isn't a public company of any size, Airbus doesn't have to, nor does it, report to the public. That's what happens when you quote The Seattle Times as a respected publication.

 

The Seattle Times was reporting on Boeing profit being down, it was not a positive puff piece. The Airbus profit was reported by UK source that cited figures released by Airbus. Face it, the only arguement is which sucks more. I say that Airbus sucks more by at least a factor of x 2.

 

If you are going to continue this, why don't you calculate the return on investment. Hard to argue that either company has acceptable profit margins based on their sales. That is unless you have extremely low expectations and you discount inflation along with currency fluctuations.

[btm1735 232]

Do you hear EU citizens complaining about our taxes being invested a European company that supports employment in many European states, as well as elsewhere in the world? I don't!!!!

 

Airbus is proof that the EU can work together.

 

But, you do hear complaints about European banks that were stupid enough to invest in the USA which are now being bailed out by the EU Taxpayers...

 

Funny how I don't hear you complaining about that!!!

 

EU citizens should be complaining.

 

Bailing out EU banks is an EU problem.

 

Bankers on both sides of the pond should be held at the very least criminally libel for negligence in the banking mess. A version of this happened in the late 1980's and it was allowed to happen again. The bonds that crashed where rated using a model that didn't even allow for possiblity that US home values can decline. Anybody who is running a bank and evaluating investments should know that ALL markets go down.

 

As for the subsides to Airbus, see my reply to Tom, it is rather poor return on investment. If job creation is what desired there are better ways to use public money, but that is not what this is about.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

The Seattle Times was reporting on Boeing profit being down, it was not a positive puff piece. The Airbus profit was reported by UK source that cited figures released by Airbus. Face it, the only arguement is which sucks more. I say that Airbus sucks more by at least a factor of x 2.

 

If you are going to continue this, why don't you calculate the return on investment. Hard to argue that either company has acceptable profit margins based on their sales. That is unless you have extremely low expectations and you discount inflation along with currency fluctuations.

 

How often do I have to repeat - Airbus isn't a public company. Just as Boeing Commercial Aircraft Division isn't a public company.

 

I'm happy that you think Airbus sucks by at least a factor of x2 compared to Boeing. However, I'm well used to being told on this forum just how much it does suck - it brings a smile to my face if nothing else and puts the opinions of some posters and their amateur analysis in context. FWIW, you don't have to read any financials to realise how well or bad EADS/Airbus is doing - just measuring the volume of bitching and whining from across the pond is a much more accurate barometer.

 

BTW, Airbus has it's end of calendar year report on Monday. Be sure to tune in.

 

 

Edited January 14, 2011 by CheshireTom

[TheFiend 1,181]

 

Scallywally's predictions are nearly as good as BigD's..... 34 months later Boeing still haven't delivered a 7LATE7...

[TheFiend 1,181]

As for the subsides to Airbus, see my reply to Tom, it is rather poor return on investment. If job creation is what desired there are better ways to use public money, but that is not what this is about.

 

It is more than just job creation..... it is about Europe working together....

[BigDUSA 71]

It is more than just job creation..... it is about Europe working together....

 

Really? Is that the reason and how's that working out? Given all the major fuck ups with the A380. Nice to see EU working together.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Really? Is that the reason and how's that working out? Given all the major fuck ups with the A380. Nice to see EU working together.

 

See what I mean about all the whining and bitching. Great stuff!

[TheFiend 1,181]

Really? Is that the reason and how's that working out? Given all the major fuck ups with the A380. Nice to see EU working together.

 

You seem to forget about the American fuck-up that is the 7LATE7!

[BigDUSA 71]

See what I mean about all the whining and bitching. Great stuff!

 

Once again poor tommie is befuddled by the truth. So many fuck ups with the A380 culminating with the latest Rolls Royce engine catastrophic engine explosion that came damn close to killing the crew and passengers.

[TheFiend 1,181]

Once again poor tommie is befuddled by the truth. So many fuck ups with the A380 culminating with the latest Rolls Royce engine catastrophic engine explosion that came damn close to killing the crew and passengers.

 

FFS How many times does it have to be said that RR aren't the only engines that have suffered catastrophic failure?

 

The truth is nobody died and the plane landed safely.....

 

One of the recent TAAG 777 engine failures resulted in several puncture holes of the fuselage.... funny how you don't mention that one!!!!

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Once again poor tommie is befuddled by the truth.

 

BigD lecturing on recognising "the truth".

 

So many fuck ups with the A380 culminating with the latest Rolls Royce engine catastrophic engine explosion that came damn close to killing the crew and passengers.

 

Apparently there was a loud whining noise shortly before the explosion, but the crew just put it down to the number of Yanks on board.

 

 

 

[BigDUSA 71]

News

Share this article:2 Comments

Email this articleFacebookDiggPrint this article

PrintprintAirbus to disclose sales figures Monday; Boeing may be No. 1 again

 

Airbus to disclose sales figures Monday; Boeing may be No. 1 again

 

by GLENN FARLEY / KING 5 Aviation Specialist

NWCN.com

Posted on January 14, 2011 at 2:31 PM

 

SEATTLE - On Monday the aircraft manufacturing industry will find out whether Boeing or Airbus is number one in orders for 2010. Boeing issued its numbers on January 6th, with a total of 530 new orders. Airbus is expected to fall short, perhaps well short, of that number.

 

The European airplane company hasn't discussed numbers since early December. If the forecast holds, Monday will put Boeing back in the number one position as the world's biggest plane maker.

 

The majority of Boeing and Airbus orders will surround the 737 and the A320. Airbus is trying to start 2011 off with a bang, playing up an agreement to sell up to 180 A320s to India's low cost carrier IndiGo. This does not appear to be an official order yet, but rather a memo of understanding, which could make 150 of those jets new A320 NEOS, which stands for New Engine Option. That's a more efficient power plant that’s designed to put pressure on the 737NG family.

 

Boeing is still leaving open its options to the possibilities of putting new engines onto the existing 737 or building an all new replacement jet.

 

For the meantime, Boeing says it will keep squeezing out more efficiency out of the current 737.

QUOTE

[BigDUSA 71]

FFS How many times does it have to be said that RR aren't the only engines that have suffered catastrophic failure?

 

The truth is nobody died and the plane landed safely.....

 

One of the recent TAAG 777 engine failures resulted in several puncture holes of the fuselage.... funny how you don't mention that one!!!!

 

I agree all engines will eventually fail. The difference between the 777 engine failure and the Rolls Royce failure. There are hundreds of the 777 engines in service and so few Rolls Royce engines in service. Almost 50% of the Rolls engines had major problems along with one catastrophic engine failure that damn near killed the passengers and crew.

[Samsonite 181]

I agree all engines will eventually fail. The difference between the 777 engine failure and the Rolls Royce failure. There are hundreds of the 777 engines in service and so few Rolls Royce engines in service. Almost 50% of the Rolls engines had major problems along with one catastrophic engine failure that damn near killed the passengers and crew.

Another way to phrase that would be, 910 Boeing 777s have been delivered to date. That is 1820 engines at 2 per aircraft.

How many Airbut A380s with Rolls Engines have been delivered? 20? Less, I believe. Maybe 12 or 15? Let's say 15 at 4 per aircraft is 60 engines. So, what are the odds.....

Edited January 16, 2011 by Samsonite

[Samsonite 181]

It is more than just job creation..... it is about Europe working together....

Really? Why has there been persistent rumors for the last couple of years that the Germans want out of the EU, or, at the very least, to dump the Euro and go back to the Mark?

[CheshireTom 1,377]

I agree all engines will eventually fail. The difference between the 777 engine failure and the Rolls Royce failure. There are hundreds of the 777 engines in service and so few Rolls Royce engines in service. Almost 50% of the Rolls engines had major problems along with one catastrophic engine failure that damn near killed the passengers and crew.

 

Put you're xenophobia to bed; it just makes you look a bigger idiot then you already are .... it doesn't take a lot of effort to come up with ...

 

"A complete disintegration of a CF6-6 fan assembly resulted in the loss of cabin pressurization of National Airlines Flight 27 over New Mexico, USA in 1973.[4] The failure of a CF6-6 was the primary cause of the Sioux City, Iowa USA crash of United Airlines Flight 232 in 1989". 110 passengers lost their lives, I believe.

 

Need something a bit more recent ... not one, but four uncontained engine failures ...

 

Four uncontained failures of CF6-45/50 engines in the preceding two years prompted the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board to issue an "urgent" recommendation to increase inspections of the engines on U.S. aircraft in May 2010.[5] None of the four incidents of rotor disk imbalance and subsequent failure resulted in an accident, but parts of the engine did penetrate the engine housing in each case.[5]

 

CF6-80. Following a series of high-pressure turbine failures,[6] [7] [8] some which resulted in 767s being written off,[9] [10] [11] the FAA has issued an airworthiness directive mandating inspections for over 600 engines. The NTSB feels this number should be increased to include all -80 series engines with more than 3000 cycles since new or since last inspection. [12]

 

As for 777s ... your missing a trick ....

 

 

Edited January 15, 2011 by CheshireTom

[nidnoyham 30]

Air Canada had a delayed 747, due to engine problems It was Fin 303 a real dog of an aircraft.

 

The engine cowling was still off as the passengers made their way from a bus to the steps. One of them turned to me and asked if it would be possible to get a picture of this engine, due to the irony of it having a badge with " Pratt and Whitney- Reliable Engines " displayed on the side. I took the picture for him closer to the engine, than he was allowed to go.

 

He may still have it somewhere

[TheFiend 1,181]

Put you're xenophobia to bed; it just makes you look a bigger idiot then you already are .... it doesn't take a lot of effort to come up with ...

 

"A complete disintegration of a CF6-6 fan assembly resulted in the loss of cabin pressurization of National Airlines Flight 27 over New Mexico, USA in 1973.[4] The failure of a CF6-6 was the primary cause of the Sioux City, Iowa USA crash of United Airlines Flight 232 in 1989". 110 passengers lost their lives, I believe.

 

The fact that passengers have lost their lives as a result of P&W catastrophic engine failures is completely irrelevant as far as BigD is concerned - all he cares about is the fact that a RR Trent suffered a failure and could have killed all the passengers and crew.... The fact that the A380 landed safely without a single fatality is completely irrelevant to him!!!