Airbus and Boeing products running behind schedule

[BigDUSA 71]

EADS faces new US lawsuits over Airbus insider trading claims

Last Updated: 11:44pm BST 17/06/2008

 

A French court has placed former EADS co-chief executive Noel Forgeard under formal investigation and is expected to question a handful of other current or former executives and representatives of the major shareholders as a result.

 

 

I'm curious do the French still place prisoners on Devil's Island?

 

It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

[eltib 54]

I'm curious do the French still place prisoners on Devil's Island?

 

The answer to that question can been found on Nat Geo.

Edited June 18, 2008 by eltib

[Samsonite 181]

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/

 

"Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing Tanker Protest

This is a breaking story and will be updated as details become available.

 

GAO Statement

 

"We recommend that the Air Force reopen discussions with the offerors, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals and make a new source selection decision, consistent with our decision."

 

UPDATE:

The GAO sustained Boeing's tanker protest on seven different criteria. Explained in English.

 

1. The USAF used a different ruler than the one Boeing thought they were using.

 

The Air Force, in making the award decision, did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation, which provided for a relative order of importance for the various technical requirements. The agency also did not take into account the fact that Boeing offered to satisfy more non-mandatory technical "requirements" than Northrop Grumman, even though the solicitation expressly requested offerors to satisfy as many of these technical "requirements" as possible.

 

2. The USAF said "no points for extra credit" then awarded extra credit points to Northrop.

 

The Air Force's use as a key discriminator that Northrop Grumman proposed to exceed a key performance parameter objective relating to aerial refueling to a greater degree than Boeing violated the solicitation's evaluation provision that "no consideration will be provided for exceeding [key performance parameter] objectives."

 

3. Northrop Grumman didn't adequately show that they could refuel all the Air Force's fixed wing aircraft.

 

The protest record did not demonstrate the reasonableness of the Air Force's determination that Northrop Grumman's proposed aerial refueling tanker could refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing tanker-compatible receiver aircraft in accordance with current Air Force procedures, as required by the solicitation.

 

4. The USAF told Boeing they met a key requirement, but later decided they hadn't fully met it and didn't tell them while still talking to Northrop about it.

 

The Air Force conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing, by informing Boeing that it had fully satisfied a key performance parameter objective relating to operational utility, but later determined that Boeing had only partially met this objective, without advising Boeing of this change in the agency's assessment and while continuing to conduct discussions with Northrop Grumman relating to its satisfaction of the same key performance parameter objective.

 

5. The USAF interpreted Northrop's refusal to meet a specific maintenance requirement as an "administrative oversight" when it may not have been.

 

The Air Force unreasonably determined that Northrop Grumman's refusal to agree to a specific solicitation requirement that it plan and support the agency to achieve initial organic depot-level maintenance within 2 years after delivery of the first full-rate production aircraft was an "administrative oversight," and improperly made award, despite this clear exception to a material solicitation requirement.

 

6. The USAF made errors in determining how much the tankers would cost over their life and later admitted that the correct formula had given the advantage to Boeing.

 

The Air Force's evaluation of military construction costs in calculating the offerors' most probable life cycle costs for their proposed aircraft was unreasonable, where the agency during the protest conceded that it made a number of errors in evaluation that, when corrected, result in Boeing displacing Northrop Grumman as the offeror with the lowest most probable life cycle cost; where the evaluation did not account for the offerors' specific proposals; and where the calculation of military construction costs based on a notional (hypothetical) plan was not reasonably supported.

 

7. The USAF used their own metrics to estimate Boeing's cost and also couldn't prove that their estimates would produce reliable results.

 

The Air Force improperly increased Boeing's estimated non-recurring engineering costs in calculating that firm's most probable life cycle costs to account for risk associated with Boeing's failure to satisfactorily explain the basis for how it priced this cost element, where the agency had not found that the proposed costs for that element were unrealistically low. In addition, the Air Force's use of a simulation model to determine Boeing's probable non-recurring engineering costs was unreasonable, because the Air Force used as data inputs in the model the percentage of cost growth associated with weapons systems at an overall program level and there was no indication that these inputs would be a reliable predictor of anticipated growth in Boeing's non-recurring engineering costs. "

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/

[CheshireTom 1,377]

That doesn't exactly come as a shock, does it. American defense jobs going to those nasty French ........

 

 

CheshireTom Mar 12 2008, 10:36 PM Post #211

 

 

Elite Poster

 

 

 

QUOTE(Hub @ Mar 12 2008, 10:10 PM)

 

Is that your backhanded way of admitting you were wrong relative to the US policy on awarding contracts??

 

Posted by: CheshireTom Feb 1 2008, 11:36 AM

Heh,

 

Obviously, I'd like to see EADS get the order but I think the best they can hope for would be a split order. I just can't envisage that the award of such a large defense order to an overseas player, particularly when they are making such a big noise about EADS being French (it is not), would be politically acceptable in the States

.

 

 

 

Hub,

 

I'll be the first one to hold up my hands and admit that I called that wrong. All credit to the procurement people for staying focussed on choosing the best bit of kit for the job and ignoring the xenophobic furore that went beforehand and has intensified since. That said, given the comments since the award of the contract we're still someway away from the order being seen as being politically acceptable ......... which was the point of the post.

[eltib 54]

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/

 

"Breaking: GAO Sustains Boeing Tanker Protest

This is a breaking story and will be updated as details become available.

 

GAO Statement

 

"We recommend that the Air Force reopen discussions with the offerors, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals and make a new source selection decision, consistent with our decision."

 

UPDATE:

The GAO sustained Boeing's tanker protest on seven different criteria. Explained in English.

 

1. The USAF used a different ruler than the one Boeing thought they were using.

 

The Air Force, in making the award decision, did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation, which provided for a relative order of importance for the various technical requirements. The agency also did not take into account the fact that Boeing offered to satisfy more non-mandatory technical "requirements" than Northrop Grumman, even though the solicitation expressly requested offerors to satisfy as many of these technical "requirements" as possible.

 

2. The USAF said "no points for extra credit" then awarded extra credit points to Northrop.

 

The Air Force's use as a key discriminator that Northrop Grumman proposed to exceed a key performance parameter objective relating to aerial refueling to a greater degree than Boeing violated the solicitation's evaluation provision that "no consideration will be provided for exceeding [key performance parameter] objectives."

 

3. Northrop Grumman didn't adequately show that they could refuel all the Air Force's fixed wing aircraft.

 

The protest record did not demonstrate the reasonableness of the Air Force's determination that Northrop Grumman's proposed aerial refueling tanker could refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing tanker-compatible receiver aircraft in accordance with current Air Force procedures, as required by the solicitation.

 

4. The USAF told Boeing they met a key requirement, but later decided they hadn't fully met it and didn't tell them while still talking to Northrop about it.

 

The Air Force conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing, by informing Boeing that it had fully satisfied a key performance parameter objective relating to operational utility, but later determined that Boeing had only partially met this objective, without advising Boeing of this change in the agency's assessment and while continuing to conduct discussions with Northrop Grumman relating to its satisfaction of the same key performance parameter objective.

 

5. The USAF interpreted Northrop's refusal to meet a specific maintenance requirement as an "administrative oversight" when it may not have been.

 

The Air Force unreasonably determined that Northrop Grumman's refusal to agree to a specific solicitation requirement that it plan and support the agency to achieve initial organic depot-level maintenance within 2 years after delivery of the first full-rate production aircraft was an "administrative oversight," and improperly made award, despite this clear exception to a material solicitation requirement.

 

6. The USAF made errors in determining how much the tankers would cost over their life and later admitted that the correct formula had given the advantage to Boeing.

 

The Air Force's evaluation of military construction costs in calculating the offerors' most probable life cycle costs for their proposed aircraft was unreasonable, where the agency during the protest conceded that it made a number of errors in evaluation that, when corrected, result in Boeing displacing Northrop Grumman as the offeror with the lowest most probable life cycle cost; where the evaluation did not account for the offerors' specific proposals; and where the calculation of military construction costs based on a notional (hypothetical) plan was not reasonably supported.

 

7. The USAF used their own metrics to estimate Boeing's cost and also couldn't prove that their estimates would produce reliable results.

 

The Air Force improperly increased Boeing's estimated non-recurring engineering costs in calculating that firm's most probable life cycle costs to account for risk associated with Boeing's failure to satisfactorily explain the basis for how it priced this cost element, where the agency had not found that the proposed costs for that element were unrealistically low. In addition, the Air Force's use of a simulation model to determine Boeing's probable non-recurring engineering costs was unreasonable, because the Air Force used as data inputs in the model the percentage of cost growth associated with weapons systems at an overall program level and there was no indication that these inputs would be a reliable predictor of anticipated growth in Boeing's non-recurring engineering costs. "

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/

 

I wonder if someone in the GAO has been promised a cushy job to vote in Boeings favor, the same way Druyun chose Boeing over Airbus. Druyun got a cushy job. In that instance her daughter was given a job (which she was eventually fired for incompetence). The son in law was given a job (but he was qualified as to the best of my knowledge is still employed with Boeing.) So in this instance I'm sure Boeing has greased some palms in GAO, like the above parties that got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

 

Scally all the post means at worst the contract will go out for bidding again. It is not a win for Boeing. The GAO recommends, it didn't order the USAF to redo bidding.

Edited June 18, 2008 by eltib

[BigDUSA 71]

I wonder if someone in the GAO has been promised a cushy job to vote in Boeings favor, the same way Druyun chose Boeing over Airbus. .

 

 

Government Accounting Office (GAO) has a rock solid rep as fair and balanced.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Government Accounting Office (GAO) has a rock solid rep as fair and balanced.

 

Possibly, but if they are it seems to indicate that the USAF is a bit incompetent when it comes to spending billions of taxpayer dollars.

[wacmedia 277]

Hi,

 

Just protectionism from the lovers of the "Free Market". See they are complaining about InBev's proposed takeover of Budweiser now ??? At least the Sage of Omaha is on the ball on this one.

 

Politics an obstacle for InBev’s bid for Bud

Politicians, activists are already lining up against proposed deal

.

Opposition to a potential takeover has already been fierce in Anheuser-Busch’s hometown of St. Louis, and elsewhere in the U.S. The brewer employs 6,000 people in St. Louis, and many workers are worried InBev would cut jobs as the companies consolidate.

ST. LOUIS - Belgian brewer InBev is offering a big payday to shareholders of Anheuser-Busch Cos. Inc., but its bid to create the world’s largest beer company is already facing a major obstacle — U.S. election-year politics.

 

InBev SA, whose brands include Beck’s and Stella Artois, delivered an unsolicited all-cash bid of $46 billion, or $65 a share, for Anheuser-Busch, which makes Budweiser, Michelob and Bud Light.

 

The bid, disclosed after the markets closed Wednesday, was an 11.3 percent premium over the St. Louis-based company’s closing share price of $58.35. They had risen 2 percent in late-afternoon trading, when rumors of the offer were reported on CNBC. Anheuser-Busch shares rose $3.50, or 6 percent, to $61.85 in midmorning trading Thursday after rising to a 52-week high of $62.72 earlier in the session.

 

 

 

In a conference call Thursday with investment analysts, InBev Chief Executive Carlos Brito laid out the company’s rationale for the acquisition. A key part of the strategy is making Budweiser a global brand along the lines of Coca-Cola or Pepsi, Brito said.

 

“We see a similar opportunity here,” Brito said. “Budweiser would be a flagship brand. It’s a brand known by a lot of consumers around the world. They look for what we call international premium brands.”

 

InBev would use the Budweiser brand to boost business in European and Asian countries where Budweiser is now a niche player, Brito said.

 

But politicians and activists are already lining up against the deal, saying it could cost jobs in the United States and send ownership of an iconic American company overseas. With economic concerns at the front of voters’ minds, the opposition could cause a headache for InBev.

 

Republican Gov. Matt Blunt said Wednesday he opposes the deal, and directed the Missouri Department of Economic Development to see if there was a way to stop it.

 

“I am strongly opposed to the sale of Anheuser-Busch, and today’s offer to purchase the company is deeply troubling to me,” Blunt said in a statement.

 

Web sites have sprung up opposing the deal on patriotic grounds, arguing that such an iconic U.S. firm shouldn’t be handed over to foreign ownership. One of the sites, called SaveAB.com, was launched by Blunt’s former chief of staff, Ed Martin.

 

“Shareholders should resist choosing dollars over American jobs,” Martin said in a statement Wednesday night. “Selling out to the Belgians is not worth it — because this is about more than beer: it’s about our jobs and our nation.”

 

But Brito said in the conference call Thursday the proposed combination “is in the best interest of all constituents, including both companies’ shareholders, employees, consumers, wholesalers, business partners and the consumers they serve.” He said the plans do not foresee the closing down of any breweries in the U.S.

 

If the deal goes through, it would create a beer-brewing giant and mark just the latest phase of consolidation in an industry facing rising ingredient costs and stale demand in the United States.

 

“Anheuser-Busch said that its board of directors will evaluate the proposal carefully and in the context of all relevant factors, including Anheuser-Busch’s long-term strategic plan,” the company said in a statement. “The board will pursue the course of action that is in the best interests of Anheuser-Busch’s stockholders.”

 

A spokeswoman said the company would not comment beyond the statement.

 

InBev was formed in 2004 when Belgium’s Interbrew merged with South America’s biggest brewer AmBev. Since then, the company has cut jobs in several European countries while its sales were boosted by strong demand in Latin American countries.

 

Worries about job cuts at Anheuser-Busch could be justified. InBev has a reputation for squeezing costs out of the companies it acquires, said Benj Steinman, editor of the Beer Marketer’s Insights trade publication. Because of its size — and control of nearly half the U.S. beer market — Anheuser-Busch could be a ripe target for cost-cutting.

 

“One theory is that their own cost reductions are winding down in Europe and Asia and around the world, and they need somewhere to sort of implement what they’re best at,” Steinman said.

 

InBev tried to allay those fears Wednesday, saying it would make St. Louis the headquarters for its North American division and would invite some Anheuser-Busch directors to join InBev’s board.

 

Anheuser-Busch executives have made cost-cutting a goal over the last two years. Sales in the United States have been stagnant as consumers turn toward wine and cocktails, and the rising costs of ingredients have bitten into profit margins.

 

.

 

 

Last year, Anheuser-Busch turned a profit of $2.12 billion, up nearly 8 percent from $1.97 billion in 2006. But its core brands of Budweiser and Bud Light continued to lag as sales of craft beers and imports rose.

 

While the InBev deal looks sweet on paper, it’s far from a sure thing. InBev said it plans to pay for the deal with $40 billion in debt, and raising so much capital could be tough as banks tighten their standards during a global credit crunch.

 

InBev’s statement said the company has “strong support” from a number of financial institutions, including Barclays Capital, Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan. The company would pay for part of the deal by divesting some “noncore assets” along with equity financing.

 

Opposition to the deal is sure to be stiff in St. Louis. SaveAB.com offers visitors yard signs and bumper stickers to express their distaste for the purchase.

 

“Like baseball, apple pie and ice cold beer (wrapped in a red, white and blue label), Anheuser-Busch is an American original,” the site

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Hi,

 

Just protectionism from the lovers of the "Free Market". See they are complaining about InBev's proposed takeover of Budweiser now ??? At least the Sage of Omaha is on the ball on this one.

 

Politics an obstacle for InBev’s bid for Bud

Politicians, activists are already lining up against proposed deal

.

 

Yep, their concept of a free market is somewhat skewed ................

 

 

"SaveAB.com says it “investigated” Dehaene to learn of his role in the European Union’s governing body. Its statement adds:

 

“It is wrong for an American company to be taken over by a board comprised of a voting EU member” stated Ed Martin, a founder of SaveAB.com. “This man is setting policy for the EU and impacting the American economy – he clearly has a confict of interest. This indicates yet another reason that the InBev hostile takeover must fail.”

 

 

Politicians on the board of companies ............ whatever next?

Edited June 19, 2008 by CheshireTom

[eltib 54]

Government Accounting Office (GAO) has a rock solid rep as fair and balanced.

 

With the way this administration has operated, I doubt it very much.

 

Possibly, but if they are it seems to indicate that the USAF is a bit incompetent when it comes to spending billions of taxpayer dollars.

 

I agree with the incompetence on sending Minuteman warhead components to Taiwan, labeled as helicopter parts. I disagree with the issue of B-52s carrying the nukes from Minot to Barksdale. The B-52s on airborne alert back in the 60s always were carrying them, and no nuke went off then. So why is it a big problem now? They can't go off unless they were fused and armed, and that also requires a Presidential EWO.

 

This is basically the media trying to draw fear again out of the public.

Edited June 19, 2008 by eltib

[Samsonite 181]

.... Hell when we use to power up the shuttle after a mod, that's when we found all the things that went wrong.

Now how are them apples?

 

"Boeing Achieves 787 Power On

 

EVERETT, Wash., June 20 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA) has completed the Power On sequence for the first 787 Dreamliner, marking the completion of the next major milestone on the path to first flight later this year.

 

Power On is a complex series of tasks and tests that bring electrical power onto the airplane and begin to exercise the use of the electrical systems. The 787 is a more-electric airplane with the pneumatic, or bleed air, system being totally replaced by electronics.

 

"The team has made great progress in bringing the bold innovation of the 787 to reality," said Pat Shanahan, vice president and general manager of the 787 program. "There is plenty of work to be done between now and first flight, but with every step forward we grow more and more confident."

 

The Power On sequence began in early June with a series of pretest continuity checks to verify that the wiring installed in the airplane had been connected properly. Upon completion of those checks, the Boeing team plugged in an external power cart and slowly began to bring full power into each segment of the system, beginning with the flight deck displays. From that point forward, the pilot's controls were used to direct the addition of new systems to the power grid."

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/

 

I have flown in a 747, and after that experience I go out of my way to avoid flying in one..... It is a dinosaur!

 

And an ugly looking dinosaur at that!

Purely subjective.

The interiors are picked by the airline and in some cases designed by the airline. The airline picks the type of seats, the arrangement of the seats (distance apart front to back and side to side) and to a limited effect, the type and position of the kitchens and toilets. In theory, two different aircraft could have the same interior and most people wouldn't know the difference, including you.

Edited June 20, 2008 by Scalawag

[Samsonite 181]

I wonder if someone in the GAO has been promised a cushy job to vote in Boeings favor, ....

The GAO has a excellent reputation, so given what they pointed out as errors in the Air Force procedures perhaps there should be a criminal investigation into the relationship between the Air Force selection committee and Airbus/EADS?

[eltib 54]

The GAO has a excellent reputation, so given what they pointed out as errors in the Air Force procedures perhaps there should be a criminal investigation into the relationship between the Air Force selection committee and Airbus/EADS?

 

Same thing was thought about the pentagon some 6 years ago too. Are you an expert that knows what goes on in the government, and the procurement process?

Edited June 20, 2008 by eltib

[CheshireTom 1,377]

The GAO has a excellent reputation, so given what they pointed out as errors in the Air Force procedures perhaps there should be a criminal investigation into the relationship between the Air Force selection committee and Airbus/EADS?

 

Being French isn't a crime. There again, given the ramblings in the US media, maybe it is.

[wacmedia 277]

Being French isn't a crime. There again, given the ramblings in the US media, maybe it is.

 

Hi,

 

The next time these right wing Americans want help they will be even more on their own than they are now. What a way to treat your allies. Tossers.

[Indiscipline 6]

Maybe they will stop the procurement for a new tanker when the US public finds out, that Boing is developing the planes with shitty french software. (Dassault Systemes) ,

and all A1 Abraham tanks will be wrecked, cause they use a 122 mm Rheinmetall (German) gun.

 

Nothrop Grumman has announced today, that they stopped the building of the new plant for the A330 tanker

in Alabama. Looks like the lobbyists of Boing have pushed the right triggers in Washington DC.

US Tax payer: :Boing

[eltib 54]

Nothrop Grumman has announced today, that they stopped the building of the new plant for the A330 tanker

in Alabama. Looks like the lobbyists of Boing have pushed the right triggers in Washington DC.

US Tax payer: :Boing

 

From what I'm reading, it looks like no change....

 

NG press release

 

If your statement is true, hopefully that will be a temporary stop. I'm sure if there is a new bid process Team Airbus / Northrop will win again.

 

I took a procurement class while at Boeing. Basically the government can make changes during the whole proposal process. This is just Boeing acting like a bunch of 2 year olds again trying to influence the government.

 

One thing we know the 767 is good for, and that's inflicting maximum damage.

Edited June 21, 2008 by eltib

[spacebass 0]

"Boeing Achieves 787 Power On

 

EVERETT, Wash., June 20 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA) has completed the Power On sequence for the first 787 Dreamliner, marking the completion of the next major milestone on the path to first flight later this year.

 

Power On is a complex series of tasks and tests that bring electrical power onto the airplane and begin to exercise the use of the electrical systems. The 787 is a more-electric airplane with the pneumatic, or bleed air, system being totally replaced by electronics.

 

"The team has made great progress in bringing the bold innovation of the 787 to reality," said Pat Shanahan, vice president and general manager of the 787 program. "There is plenty of work to be done between now and first flight, but with every step forward we grow more and more confident."

 

The Power On sequence began in early June with a series of pretest continuity checks to verify that the wiring installed in the airplane had been connected properly. Upon completion of those checks, the Boeing team plugged in an external power cart and slowly began to bring full power into each segment of the system, beginning with the flight deck displays. From that point forward, the pilot's controls were used to direct the addition of new systems to the power grid."

 

 

Yes, but have they weighed it lately? Did they substantially strengthen the way the wings are attached to the body without adding any weight?

[BigDUSA 71]

Boeing said Friday that tests on the 787 Dreamliner's power systems were successful, putting the plane on schedule for its initial flight in the fourth quarter and delivery to customers next year.

 

The so-called power-on process began June 11 for the Dreamliner, which will use more electricity than current models to help conserve fuel. Boeing's new carbon-composite aircraft has been pushed back at least 14 months from the original delivery target of last month, partly because vendors were unable to complete all the work they promised.

 

"They had missed so many deadlines that it's important that they met this one on target, even if that target was revised," said Michael Derchin, an analyst at FTN Midwest Research Securities in New York.

 

The 787 milestone follows a win two days ago for another Boeing plane, the aerial refueling tanker. A government agency agreed with Boeing that the Air Force made errors in February when it awarded the $40 billion program to a team of Northrop Grumman and Airbus parent European Aeronautic, Defence & Space (EADS). The Air Force is now deciding whether to reopen the bidding.

 

"It's a very good week for them, because the tanker was very big, and this is a big step in the 787 program for them," Derchin said.

 

Boeing stock fell $1.12 to $75.83 Friday, following the broader market lower, but it was up 71 cents for the week.

 

Boeing is counting on the 787's fuel efficiency to help it win orders from airlines struggling to cut costs. Boeing already has orders for 896 Dreamliners, valued at about $155 billion at list prices, from 58 customers, a record for a new plane that hasn't yet flown.

 

The Dreamliner's reliance on electricity, along with lighter-weight composite materials and new technology, will reduce fuel consumption by 20 percent from comparable planes in service now. The electrical system on the 787, whose power levels are five times higher than on Boeing's 767, is largely independent of the jet engines, reducing fuel usage because power isn't being bled away to run lights and other systems.

 

"We have verified both that the electrical-power distribution system is installed as designed and that it functions as intended," Pat Shanahan, who was put in charge of the 787 program in October to get the plane's production back on track, said in a statement Friday.

 

 

Power on is 100% successful and Boeing has 896 orders for this plane. Not bad for a plane that has never flown. BTW how may A380 has Airbus sold???

[eltib 54]

The 787 milestone follows a win two days ago for another Boeing plane, the aerial refueling tanker. A government agency agreed with Boeing that the Air Force made errors in February when it awarded the $40 billion program to a team of Northrop Grumman and Airbus parent European Aeronautic, Defence & Space (EADS). The Air Force is now deciding whether to reopen the bidding.

 

The operative sentence is the last one...I say it won't because of the fiasco from 2003.

Edited June 22, 2008 by eltib

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Power on is 100% successful and Boeing has 896 orders for this plane. Not bad for a plane that has never flown. BTW how may A380 has Airbus sold???

 

Not bad, power on a month after the first aircraft was due to be delivered.

 

Boeing has taken 896 orders for the plane, as of today it hasn't sold any. That puts it in the same territory as the A350XWB.

 

How's the visa coming along?

[Hub 203]

How's the visa coming along?

 

Come on man, he's in Thailand six months at a time when not "summering" in "lovely" Philadelphia.

 

It's just that his six months only last a few weeks.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Come on man, he's in Thailand six months at a time when not "summering" in "lovely" Philadelphia.

 

It's just that his six months only last a few weeks.

 

Hub,

 

Where have you been? Congrats to the Celtics, by the way!

 

I assumed with his new truck and SATNAV system that he was driving to Thailand.

[wacmedia 277]

Yep, their concept of a free market is somewhat skewed ................

[

 

Hi,

 

For our American boardies this is an example of British understatement.

[eltib 54]

I assumed with his new truck and SATNAV system that he was driving to Thailand.

 

That means BigD would have to put pontoons on it.