Airbus and Boeing products running behind schedule

[TheFiend 1,181]

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.

 

It seems as though TAAG has been cleared by the IATA of any short-comings with maintenance...

 

ATA inspection of Angolan air carrier TAAG “extremely satisfactory” [ 2011-01-28 ]

 

 

Luanda, Angola, 28 Jan – The inspection of Angolan national airline TAAG carried out this month by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) was considered to be “extremely satisfactory,” state newspaper Jornal de Angola reported.

 

“Brilliant,” was the airline’s assessment of the inspection according to the newspaper. The inspection was the third carried out b IATA covering all the company’s operating areas - maintenance, flight and ground operations and operational safety.

 

At the same time, US company General Electric, the manufacturer of the Boeing 777/200 air craft, has exonerated Taag of any responsibility for the problems in the aircrafts’ engines that led the board of the airline to ground those aircraft until the cause of the faults was found.

 

The aircraft that was grounded in Rio de Janeiro is due to start flying again this week, the one in Lisbon is expected to start flying in mid February and the third, which is in Luanda, will be the last to start operating. (macauhub)

[BigDUSA 71]

"sad and very late" would suit boeing 787 best.

 

One could say the same about the Airbus A380. Years late, overweight, over budget and last but not least inferior engines provided by Rolls Royce.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

The ad slogan "new and improved" comes to mind. Companies world wide have moved billions of products based on that slogan.

 

Or as Scally would say, "Evolutionary, not revolutionary!".

[TheFiend 1,181]

One could say the same about the Airbus A380. Years late, overweight, over budget and last but not least inferior engines provided by Rolls Royce.

 

But what about the exploding GE90's??? Notice how you haven't commented on that - just resorted to attacking Airbus yet again!!!

 

And what about the fact that as the 7LATE7 delays continuing to drive that over budget reducing Boeings already slim margins!!!

 

And you seem to have forgotten the A380 also use Engine Alliance engines!

[joekicker 53]

The ad slogan "new and improved" comes to mind. Companies world wide have moved billions of products based on that slogan.

 

The big difference here is that consumers use all of their soap and toothpaste and go out for more. They MUST have "new" and "improved" sounds good, why not? In the most extreme cases, consumers trade in their Fords or Hyundais, which they planned on from the start.

 

737s are not consumed. They are not traded in. "New" MIGHT work. "Improved" probably won't, but will occasionally work. "New and improved" is stupid.

 

.

[Yzi 72]

One could say the same about the Airbus A380. Years late, overweight, over budget and last but not least inferior engines provided by Rolls Royce.

 

At least there are A380's flying commercially, unlike 787's.

Maybe next year?

[BigDUSA 71]

The big difference here is that consumers use all of their soap and toothpaste and go out for more. They MUST have "new" and "improved" sounds good, why not? In the most extreme cases, consumers trade in their Fords or Hyundais, which they planned on from the start.

 

737s are not consumed. They are not traded in. "New" MIGHT work. "Improved" probably won't, but will occasionally work. "New and improved" is stupid.

 

You need to get out more. There's a huge market for used 737. Someone is trading them in. Goggle is your friend. Use it.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Goggle is your friend. Use it.

 

LOL. Always good for a laugh!

[Yzi 72]

Goggle is your friend. Use it.

 

Specially if you like alpine skiing

[Samsonite 181]

But what about the exploding GE90's???....

 

When, where, and on what aircraft did a GE90 explode?

Edited January 28, 2011 by Samsonite

[TheFiend 1,181]

When, where, and on what aircraft did a GE90 explode?

 

Have you forgotten about these incidents? Debris from a catastrophic engine failure caused damage to the airplanes skin.

 

Looks like it happens to all of them.

 

 

Incident: TAAG B772 at Luanda on Dec 23rd 2010, engine shut down in flight

By Simon Hradecky, created Friday, Dec 24th 2010 14:31Z, last updated Friday, Dec 24th 2010 14:31Z

 

A TAAG Angola Airlines Boeing 777-200, registration D2-TEE performing flight DT-550 from Luanda (Angola) to Dubai (United Arab Emirates) with 32 passengers and 13 crew, was climbing through 2500 feet out of Luanda when the right hand engine (GE90) emitted a loud bang followed by an engine fire indication. The crew shut the engine down and returned to Luanda for a safe landing.

 

The airline reported, that following this second serious engine failure within 17 days they decided to ground their 777 fleet and requested clarification of the causes from Boeing and General Electrics.

 

Another Boeing 777-200 registration D2-TEF had experienced engine trouble dropping engine parts near Lisbon earlier in the month, see Incident: TAAG B772 at Lisbon on Dec 6th 2010, engine vibrations, dropped parts.

 

Full link below.

 

http://avherald.com/h?article=4351f54c

 

Regards

Fireman Sam

 

As I posted earlier TAAG have been cleared by the IATA with regards to maintenance, who you were quick to point the blame at....

[Samsonite 181]

Have you forgotten about these incidents?....

No, you are correct. My mistake. I was thinking of a different model GE90 that are installed on the newer 777 models (-300ER, -200LR and -200F).

Edited January 28, 2011 by Samsonite

[Samsonite 181]

Dupe. please delete.

Edited January 28, 2011 by Samsonite

[TheFiend 1,181]

No, you are correct. My mistake. I was thinking of a different model GE90 that are installed on the newer 777 models (-300ER, -200LR and -200F).

 

Thanks for admitting your error!!!

[joekicker 53]

Well tsk tsk. Breaking news:

 

WTO rules 'Boeing got huge illegal aid'

European planemaker Airbus said Monday that the World Trade Organization had confirmed that its US rival Boeing received "massive and illegal government subsidies for many decades''.

 

Earlier, the WTO confirmed it had handed a confidential ruling on the dispute to the United States and the European Union, parties to a seven-year battle over state aid to the world's top two civil aircraft firms.

 

"Today's World Trade Organization decision confirms Boeing has received massive and illegal government subsidies for many decades, and they have had a significant and ongoing negative effect on European industry,'' Airbus said.

 

Airbus has received loans from European states to help it compete in the airliner market, but claims Boeing received far larger support in the form of cash from the Pentagon, NASA and the state of Washington.

 

"The WTO can be expected to say that the billions in subsidies benefiting Boeing have a significantly greater distortive effect than the Reimbursable Loans to Airbus,'' the European firm's statement said.

 

Much more to come, I presume.

 

 

.

[Samsonite 181]

"Boeing Response to Public Reports Regarding the WTO's Final Ruling in DS 353

 

CHICAGO, Jan. 31, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- Boeing (NYSE: BA) today released the following statement, responding to public reports that the WTO panel deciding European Union claims of U.S. government assistance to Boeing has issued a confidential final ruling rejecting the vast majority of Europe's claims:

 

"Today's reports confirm the interim news from last September that the WTO rejected almost all of Europe's claims against the United States, including the vast majority of its R&D claims – except for some $2.6 billion. This represents a sweeping rejection of the EU's claims.

 

"Nothing in today's reports even begins to compare to the $20 billion in illegal subsidies that the WTO found last June that Airbus/EADS has received (comprised of $15 billion in launch aid, $2.2 billion in equity infusions, $1.7 billion in infrastructure, and roughly $1.5 billion in R&D support).

"The WTO's decisions confirm that European launch aid stands alone as a massive illegal subsidy only available to Airbus, which has seriously harmed Boeing, distorted competition in the aerospace industry for decades, and resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of good-paying U.S. jobs.

 

"Today's decision will not require any change in policy or practice, or other remedy that comes close to approaching the billions of dollars of launch aid that must be repaid by Airbus or restructured on proven commercial terms. As a result of the June WTO ruling, EU governments and Airbus/EADS must repay or restructure $4 billion in still outstanding illegal launch aid subsidies Airbus received to develop the A380. They must also remedy the adverse effects of the additional $16 billion in other illegal subsidies Airbus received.

 

"Under the WTO's decisions, Airbus must now compete in the global marketplace without the massive illegal subsidies it has received since its inception and without which, the WTO held, Airbus would be 'a much different, and we believe a much weaker' company than it is today. It will be required to finance airplanes the same way Boeing does – with its own money. Having recently announced it has more than $13 billion dollars of cash on hand, Airbus should have no problem with this new requirement.

 

"Today's ruling underscores our confidence in the WTO processes and dispute-resolution procedures. We applaud the body for its work and continue to look to Airbus/EADS and the EU to recognize that in today's global market, everyone must play by the rules and abide by WTO requirements. Playing by the rules, for Airbus/EADS, means withdrawing the still-outstanding A380 prohibited launch aid subsidy and financing the A350 on commercial terms. Airbus should confirm its intention to comply with the WTO's decisions."

 

Editor's Note: More information about the WTO cases can be found at www.boeing.com/WTO."

 

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1603

Edited January 31, 2011 by Samsonite

[joekicker 53]

"Almost all".

 

I always loved that phrase.

 

.

[BigDUSA 71]

Twenty billion in illegal subsidies. Damn the EU taxpayer must feel like finally the is over.

Edited February 1, 2011 by BigDUSA

[TheFiend 1,181]

Well tsk tsk. Breaking news:

 

WTO rules 'Boeing got huge illegal aid'

European planemaker Airbus said Monday that the World Trade Organization had confirmed that its US rival Boeing received "massive and illegal government subsidies for many decades''.

 

Earlier, the WTO confirmed it had handed a confidential ruling on the dispute to the United States and the European Union, parties to a seven-year battle over state aid to the world's top two civil aircraft firms.

 

"Today's World Trade Organization decision confirms Boeing has received massive and illegal government subsidies for many decades, and they have had a significant and ongoing negative effect on European industry,'' Airbus said.

 

Airbus has received loans from European states to help it compete in the airliner market, but claims Boeing received far larger support in the form of cash from the Pentagon, NASA and the state of Washington.

 

"The WTO can be expected to say that the billions in subsidies benefiting Boeing have a significantly greater distortive effect than the Reimbursable Loans to Airbus,'' the European firm's statement said.

 

Much more to come, I presume.

 

 

.

 

So the WTO has come to the conclusion US Taxpayer Boeing!

[TheFiend 1,181]

The truth of the whole WTO thing is that both Boeing and Airbus have been getting "aid" from governments.

 

Considering it was supposed to be a confidential report both Airbus and Boeing have publicised the finding from "their" point of view.

Edited February 1, 2011 by TheFiend

[CheshireTom 1,377]

The truth of the whole WTO thing is that both Boeing and Airbus have been getting "aid" from governments.

 

Considering it was supposed to be a confidential report both Airbus and Boeing have publicised the finding from "their" point of view.

 

I noticed that some of these senator geezers are now highlighting the difference as Airbus receives "foreign subsidies".

Edited February 1, 2011 by CheshireTom

[Hub 203]

I noticed that some of these senator geezers are now highlighting the difference as Airbus receives "foreign subsidies".

 

 

I find it ironic that Denny has any issue with subsidies whatsoever, as he has made a life out of living off them.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

I find it ironic that Denny has any issue with subsidies whatsoever, as he has made a life out of living off them.

 

Agreed. There's the fat, useless, ugly monstrosity that's been subsidised by the taxpayer for years - and then there's the A380.

Edited February 1, 2011 by CheshireTom

[TheFiend 1,181]

I find it ironic that Denny has any issue with subsidies whatsoever, as he has made a life out of living off them.

 

US-taxpayer BigD

[BigDUSA 71]

The truth of the whole WTO thing is that both Boeing and Airbus have been getting "aid" from governments.

 

Considering it was supposed to be a confidential report both Airbus and Boeing have publicised the finding from "their" point of view.

 

Your surprised corporations would spin the ruling to their own advantage?