Airbus and Boeing products running behind schedule

[eltib 54]

The continuing saga of the Nightmareliner delays must be costing Boeing big time.... especially after the latest saga of the incendiary electrical panels.....

 

 

 

It's already hit Boeings share price.

 

Looks like I'll have to vote against the Board of Directors again in 2011 for any of their recommendations on my 9 puny shares they gave me.

[eltib 54]

We have three quality airlines and they all ignored maintenance bulletins on a new series of engines? I could go along with one airline with shoddy maintenance practices but three all at the same time. I don't think so.

 

 

Who was it? United, American, and Delta?

[wacmedia 277]

Hi,

 

BigD is aways on about subsidies Airbus/EADS get from EU. Here is some of Boeings.

* NASA-funded federal research programmes have injected more than $10 billion into Boeing. The U.S. defends these funds as being payments for a service; the EU says they break WTO rules.

 

* The U.S. Department of Defense (Pentagon) has given Boeing $2.4 billion worth of dual-use technology for its large civil aircraft, as well as access to the department's facilities, equipment and staff.

 

* Boeing received $726.4 million worth of intellectual property rights in free patents, industry secrets and data rights from NASA and the Pentagon for its large civil aircraft.

 

* NASA and the Pentagon paid Boeing another $3 billion for independent research and to pay for Boeing government contract bids. Washington says these payments are legal commercial transactions.

 

 

* Washington state gave Boeing $3.5 billion in illegal tax breaks, tax rate discounts, interest subsidies and bond issuance. Illinois and Chicago gave Boeing a relocation package, tax credits and rent subsidies. Kansas supports Boeing with a $900 million package of tax breaks and subsidised bonds.

 

* Boeing is still eligible for $2.2 billion of export subsidies known as Foreign Sales Corporation, which the WTO has already ruled illegal.

 

* All U.S. support, which has helped Boeing launch its 787 Dreamliner, is non-repayable. By contrast, Boeing's European rival Airbus (EAD.PA) has to repay EU support.

[BigDUSA 71]

SYDNEY – Up to half of the Rolls-Royce engines of the type that disintegrated on an Airbus superjumbo this month may need to be replaced by the three carriers that use them, the Qantas chief executive said Thursday.

 

Australia's Qantas, Singapore Airlines and Germany's Lufthansa fly A380s powered by four giant Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines, with a total of 80 engines on 20 planes.

 

Qantas CEO Alan Joyce told reporters on Thursday that Rolls-Royce had indicated that the number of engines that needed to be replaced was "40 engines worldwide."

 

"That's what they think they'll have to change," he said.

 

"Rolls-Royce are still working through the criteria for which engines need to be changed," Joyce said one the sidelines of an event in Sydney unrelated to the A380 incident. He said that 14 of the 24 engines on Qantas planes may have to be replaced.

 

It was not clear what impact the engine replacements would have on future A380 deliveries, but it raises the prospect of delays in filling orders.

 

London-based Rolls-Royce declined to comment. The engine maker's shares were down 0.2 percent at 598.5 pence in the first hour of trading on the London Stock Exchange.

 

One of the Trent 900s on a Qantas superjumbo caught fire and blew apart shortly after takeoff from Singapore on Nov. 4, in what experts say was the most serious safety incident for the world's newest and largest passenger plane. The Sydney-bound flight returned safely to Singapore where it made an emergency landing.

 

Investigators say leaking oil caught fire in the Qantas engine on Nov. 4 and heated metal parts, causing them to disintegrate. Experts say chunks of flying metal cut hydraulics and an engine-control line in the wing of the A380, causing the pilots to lose control of the second engine and some of the flaps on the damaged wing in a situation far more serious than originally portrayed by Qantas.

 

The European air-safety regulator last week issued an urgent order requiring all operators of Trent 900 engines to conduct repeated inspections of several parts, including the oil service tubes, to ensure there was no "abnormal" leakage. If any such leaks are found, the airlines are prohibited from using the engines.

 

All six of Qantas' A380s have been grounded while extensive safety checks and fixes are carried out, and the airline says three Trent 900 engines have been removed in addition to the one that blew out. Singapore Airlines, with 11 A380s, and Lufthansa, with three, briefly grounded some of their planes after the Qantas scare but returned almost all of them to service after conducting safety checks.

 

Singapore Airlines has said it replaced three Trent 900s. Lufthansa replaced one but said the reason was unrelated to the Qantas blowout.

 

The other airlines that fly A380s, Dubai's Emirates and Air France, use engines built by Engine Alliance, a 50/50 joint venture between GE Aircraft Engines and Pratt & Whitney.

 

Joyce reiterated that Qantas would not be putting its A380s back into service until the airline was satisfied they were safe to fly.

 

"We'll have a daily dialogue with Rolls-Royce to determine which engines actually need to be taken off," he said. "We're hoping to understand precisely which engines need to be replaced and therefore we can have a firm timeline for when they will be back in the air, but we are still a few days away from that."

 

Rolls-Royce has been criticized for not providing enough detail on how it is resolving the Trent 900 problem. The London-based company has said the problem was linked to an unspecified single part and has outlined a plan of action to replace it.

 

Last Friday, Rolls-Royce said it would be replacing modules, or sections of linked parts, aboard Trent 900 engines that were found to have oil leaks.

 

But the company has said little about how long that process will take and if it will affect the delivery of new A380s to existing and new airline customers. It has not responded to reports that entire engines may need to be replaced or that engines currently in production may be diverted to existing customers with problem engines. Both issues raise the prospect of delays to the delivery of new planes.

 

Rolls-Royce had been scheduled to hold a news conference at a major biennial air show in the southern Chinese city of Zhuhai in Wednesday, but canceled it, without giving a reason.

 

Joyce said Rolls-Royce had ordered modifications on parts of the Trent 900 engines and indicated it had done so before the Nov. 4 incident. But there was no early indication to Qantas that the modification was significant.

 

"Modifications are made to engines ... all the time," he said. "Rolls-Royce have gone and modified certain parts of this engine."

 

"If this was significant and was known to be significant, we would have liked to have known about that," he said. "We and Airbus weren't aware of it.

 

"But it depends on what the purpose of modifications were for," Joyce added. "It doesn't look like it's a significant modification, but it is a modification that has an impact on how the engines are performing. And it is a modification that indicates whether you are going to have a problem or not with the engine."

 

Airbus has said new Trent 900s coming off the production line should not have the oil leak problem, but says the changes were ordered after the Qantas incident. It has denied an Australian newspaper's report that an Airbus executive said Rolls-Royce started making changes to some versions of the engine before Nov. 4.

 

Rolls-Royce has not commented.

 

Joyce said the normal procedure for nonurgent modifications ordered by an engine manufacturer is to make the change when the engine is next brought in for routine maintenance.

 

"If this incident hadn't occurred, eventually all these engines would have had this modification," he said. "Now, because it is an indicator, we are not taking any risks. We're taking the engines off and making sure this modification is in place before the engines are put back on the aircraft."

 

___

 

Associated Press Writer Christopher Bodeen in Zhuhai, China, and Rod McGuirk in Canberra, Australia, contributed to this report.

QUOTE

.

[BigDUSA 71]

Summary

 

The loss-making Airbus A380 is still proving a miserable headache for Air France, an airline that has spent more money tending to the airplane on the ground than it has made using it in the air.

 

Analysis

 

Two months into service with Air France and four grounded flights later, the A380s reputation, like its weak financial position is in tatters.

 

The irony of this recent grounding is that the airplane was being ferried back to Paris due to a technical fault, but then developed another glitch before returning back to John F Kennedy International Airport.

 

Qantas, Emirates and Singapore Airlines have also suffered fuel system problems that have grounded one or more of their A380s in the last year. While it is not uncommon for new airplanes to have teething problems after entry into service, the frenetic pace of electronic system failures that have forced the grounding of the A380 poses questions about the quality and maturity of the airplanes that have thus far been delivered.

 

We must remember that these are the first A380s that were wired up all incorrectly and had painstaking man-hours spent re-wiring and reconfiguring all of the electronic systems on board before refurbishing the cabins prior to customer delivery.

 

It’s bad enough the A380 will never make money for Airbus, even worse when airlines are doing away with first class cabins and relying on low yield passengers for traffic growth – the predicament the A380 is in is horrendous, at best.

 

With the WTO ruling also pummelling the entire financial ethos for this, the biggest commercial airplane development disaster the world has ever seen, the quicker Airbus can complete and deliver the A380 backlog and ease the monetary and resource drain, the better.

 

In a decade it has only sold 202 units, almost all in loss-lead deals to secure sales – market rejection of this airplane could not be any clearer.

 

No one is seeking early A380 deliveries. Everyone who drunk the air show cool-aid is deferring their commitments to it.

 

It remains an airplane as incompatible with air travel trends today as it was when it was launched.

 

Analyses are solely the work of the authors and have not been edited or endorsed by GLG.This author consults with leading institutions through GLGQuestions for the authorEngage this author or other Energy & Industrials experts

 

Contributed by a Member of the GLG Energy & Industrials Councils

QUOTE

[samfreeland 64]

well i hate to say it fire the ground crew there's probably a sleeper there. whats the chances of it happening to the same company twice in quick succession. cricket anybody.

[joekicker 53]

BigD is aways on about subsidies Airbus/EADS get from EU. Here is some of Boeings.

 

I get the point, but this part is NOT true, and it kind of makes me wonder about all of it:

 

Boeing received $726.4 million worth of intellectual property rights in free patents, industry secrets and data rights from NASA and the Pentagon for its large civil aircraft.

 

NASA, the Pentagon and the entire US government cannot hold patents (or copyrights or trademarks). Anything that "belongs" to the US government automagically belongs to everyone. EVERY patent, every scrap of intellectual property and data of any kind produced or held by the US government is yours, mine and everyone's. That includes Airbus. And it includes Boeing, why not?

 

The total value (to the government) of all patents, copyrights and trademarks of the US government and all its arms, departments and divisions, including the IP being used by Boeing, is $0.00.

 

.

[Samsonite 181]

"Cascading failures followed airline engine blowout

 

By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press – 28 mins ago

 

WASHINGTON – Pilots struggled against a rapidly cascading series of system failures after a Qantas airliner's engine blew out, severing electrical and hydraulic lines and puncturing fuel tanks.

 

The description of the pilots' ordeal on the Nov. 4 flight came as Qantas' chief executive said Thursday the engine failure may lead to replacement of as many as half of the 80 Rolls-Royce engines that power some of the world's largest jetliners, the Airbus 380.

 

After the Qantas engine disintegrated, blasting metal shards into the left wing, the pilots were inundated with 54 computer messages alerting them of systems that had failed or were close to giving out, said Richard Woodward, vice president of the Australian and International Pilots Association. Woodward has talked with all five pilots who were in the cockpit.

 

"I don't think any crew in the world would have been trained to deal with the amount of different issues this crew faced," Woodward said.

 

"The amount of failures is unprecedented," he said. "There is probably a one in 100 million chance to have all that go wrong."

 

Among the pilots' troubles, the wing's two fuel tanks were punctured. As fuel leaked out, it caused a growing imbalance between the left and right sides of the plane.

 

At the same time, the plane was becoming tail heavy. The electrical power problems prevented pilots from pumping fuel from tanks in the tail to tanks farther forward, Woodward said. Gradually the plane's center of gravity began to change, he said.

 

That may have posed the greatest risk, safety experts say. If a plane gets too far out of balance, it will lose lift, stall and crash.

 

The pilots managed to return the crippled plane to Singapore and land safely, with 450 passengers aboard.

 

Qantas has since grounded its fleet of six A380s, each powered by four of the giant Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine. Qantas CEO Alan Joyce told reporters that Qantas may have to replace 14 engines, each worth about $10 million.

 

Rolls-Royce has indicated that the number of engines that needed to be replaced was "40 engines worldwide," he said.

 

Rolls-Royce has remained virtually silent since Nov. 4 as its stock price has dropped."

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20101118...superjumbo_woes

Edited November 18, 2010 by Samsonite

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Summary

 

The loss-making Airbus A380 is still proving a miserable headache blah, blah blah ...

 

Got to laugh at Bunky trying to pass that off as news. Talk about slice and dice ......

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile, back at the ranch ...

 

 

 

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Ouch ...! Again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The words 'foot' and 'shoot' come to mind.

 

 

 

 

[BigDUSA 71]

WASHINGTON – Nobody trains for chaos like this. Out the pilots' left window, far above the ocean, an engine as big as a bus had disintegrated, blasting shrapnel holes in the superjumbo's wing. And now an overwhelming flood of computer alarms was warning the pilots that critical systems might be failing.

 

Two weeks after the pilots somehow landed their Qantas jetliner and its 450 passengers, their two-hour cockpit drama was described Thursday in an interview with The Associated Press by the vice president of the Australian and International Pilots Association.

 

"The amount of failures is unprecedented," said Richard Woodward, a fellow Qantas A380 pilot who has spoken to all five pilots. "There is probably a one in 100 million chance to have all that go wrong."

 

But it did.

 

Engine pieces sliced electric cables and hydraulic lines in the wing. Would the pilots still be able to fly the seven-story-tall plane?

 

The wing's forward spar — one of the beams that attaches it to the plane — was damaged as well. And the wing's two fuel tanks were punctured. As fuel leaked out, a growing imbalance was created between the left and right sides of the plane, Woodward said.

 

The electrical power problems prevented the pilots from pumping fuel forward from tanks in the tail. The plane became tail heavy.

 

That may have posed the greatest risk, safety experts said. If the plane got too far out of balance, the Singapore-to-Sydney jetliner would lose lift, stall and crash.

 

And then there was that incredible stream of computer messages, 54 in all, alerting the pilots to system failures or warning of impending failures.

 

One warned that a ram air turbine — a backup power supply — was about to deploy, although that never did happen, Woodward said. The message was especially worrisome because the system deploys only when main power systems are lost. The smaller backup supply is able only to power vital aircraft systems.

 

That's "the last thing you need in that kind of situation," he said.

 

The pilots watched as computer screens filled, only to be replaced by new screenfuls of warnings, he said.

 

"I don't think any crew in the world would have been trained to deal with the amount of different issues this crew faced," Woodward said.

 

As luck would have it, there were five experienced pilots — including three captains — aboard the plane. The flight's captain, Richard de Crespigny, was being given his annual check ride — a test of his piloting skills — by another captain. That man was himself being evaluated by a third captain. There were also first and second officers, part of the normal three-pilot team. In all, the crew had over 100 years of flying experience.

 

De Crespigny concentrated on flying the plane, while the others dealt with the computer alarms and made announcements to the giant planeload of passengers, some of whom said they were frantically pointing to flames streaming from the engine. Working flat out, it took 50 minutes for the pilots work through all of the messages.

 

When pilots receive safety warnings, they are supposed to check the airline's operating manual and implement specific procedures. But with so many warnings, the Qantas pilots had to sort through and prioritize the most serious problems first.

 

It's likely that for some of the problems there were no procedures because no airline anticipates so many things going wrong at once, John Goglia, a former National Transportation Safety Board member said.

 

Attention since the Nov. 4 incident has focused on the Airbus 380's damaged Rolls Royce engine. As many as half of the 80 engines that power A380s, the world's largest jetliners, may need to be replaced, Qantas CEO Alan Joyce said Thursday. That raises the possibility of shortages that could delay future deliveries of the superjumbo.

 

Qantas has grounded its fleet of six A380s.

 

The drama two weeks ago still wasn't over when the pilots finally got the plane back to Singapore and the runway was in sight.

 

Wing flaps that are used to slow the plane were inoperable. So were the landing gear doors. The pilots used gravity to lower the gear.

 

Brake temperatures reached over 1,650 degrees Fahrenheit during the landing, causing several flat tires. If fuel leaking from the damaged wing had hit the brakes, it could have caused a fire. The pilots allowed the plane to roll almost to the end of the runway so it would be close to fire trucks that could put foam on the brakes and undercarriage.

 

Among the other issues Woodward said the pilots faced:

 

• When the engine failed it caught fire, but the fire suppression system was difficult to deploy.

 

• An electrical bus — a connection between electrical devices — on the left wing failed. The plane was designed so that a second bus on the same wing or the two buses on the opposite wing would pick up the load. That didn't happen.

 

Actually, Woodward praised the plane, saying it was a testament to its strength that it was able to continue to fly relatively well despite all the problems. But he also said it's likely reconsideration will be given to the design and location electrical wiring in the wings.

 

Airplanes are supposed to be designed with redundancy so that if one part or system fails, there is still another to perform the same function. That didn't always happen in this case, safety experts say.

 

"The circumstances around this accident will certainly cause the regulatory authorities to take a long and hard look at a number of certification issues," said Goglia, the former National Transportation Safety Board member and an expert on aircraft maintenance.

 

"What we have got to ensure is that systems are separated so that no single point of failure can damage a system completely," Woodward said. "In this situation the wiring in the leading edge of the wing was cut. That lost multiple systems."

 

However, Michael Barr, who teaches aviation safety at the University of Southern California, said a commercial plane can't be designed with certainty to withstand a spray of shrapnel, which can inflict damage anywhere. The proper focus, he said, should be on determining what caused the engine to fail and fixing that problem.

 

All the experts were agreed on one point.

 

"It must have been an exciting time on that flight deck," Barr said drily. "It's not something you'd ever want to try again."

 

___

 

Associated Press writers Rohan Sullivan in Sydney, Greg Keller in Paris and Joshua Freed in Minneapolis contributed to this report.

QUOTE

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Blah, blah, blah ...

 

And?

[BigDUSA 71]

And?

 

Another sad day for the Airbus A380. So many news stories about all the problems with this plane.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Another sad day for the Airbus A380. So many news stories about all the problems with this plane.

 

Is that why you have to go back to February to dig up some news?

 

Between your "Boeing is kicking Euro butt" nonsense and Scally's "On budget and on time" crap this thread must rate as the biggest own-goal in the history of the board.

 

 

 

 

[TheFiend 1,181]

Blah, blah, blah .........

 

And?

 

Exactly Tom...... All BigD ever does is "cut and paste" anti-Airbus articles.... he never actually tries to debate about the topic....

[jacko 8,814]

"Cascading failures followed airline engine blowoutWoodward has talked with all five pilots who were in the cockpit.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20101118...superjumbo_woes

I thought the Airbus A380 required only 2 pilots....

Where were the other 3 sitting?

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Exactly Tom...... All BigD ever does is "cut and paste" anti-Airbus articles.... he never actually tries to debate about the topic....

 

You've got to laugh. Having started the "Boeing is kicking ... " thread, he suddenly doesn't want to talk about the Dreamliner.

 

Do you reckon room service at Skytop delivers humble pie?

 

 

[BigDUSA 71]

Exactly Tom...... All BigD ever does is "cut and paste" anti-Airbus articles.... he never actually tries to debate about the topic....

 

I let the current news stories do the debate.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

I let the current news stories do the debate.

 

February isn't current.

[BigDUSA 71]

February isn't current.

 

Is to me.

[MrMango 670]

WASHINGTON – Nobody trains for chaos like this. Out the pilots' left window, far above the ocean, an engine as big as a bus had disintegrated, blasting shrapnel holes in the superjumbo's wing. And now an overwhelming flood of computer alarms was warning the pilots that critical systems might be failing.

"The amount of failures is unprecedented," said Richard Woodward, a fellow Qantas A380 pilot who has spoken to all five pilots. "There is probably a one in 100 million chance to have all that go wrong."

 

But it did.

 

And then there was that incredible stream of computer messages, 54 in all, alerting the pilots to system failures or warning of impending failures.

 

One warned that a ram air turbine — a backup power supply — was about to deploy, although that never did happen, Woodward said. The message was especially worrisome because the system deploys only when main power systems are lost. The smaller backup supply is able only to power vital aircraft systems.

 

That's "the last thing you need in that kind of situation," he said.

 

The pilots watched as computer screens filled, only to be replaced by new screenfuls of warnings, he said.

 

"I don't think any crew in the world would have been trained to deal with the amount of different issues this crew faced," Woodward said.

 

 

 

When pilots receive safety warnings, they are supposed to check the airline's operating manual and implement specific procedures. But with so many warnings, the Qantas pilots had to sort through and prioritize the most serious problems first.

 

It's likely that for some of the problems there were no procedures because no airline anticipates so many things going wrong at once, John Goglia, a former National Transportation Safety Board member said.

This post is a compelling reason to ground both the 380 and 787.

When you give pilots too much information, they cannot do anything - They are in overload.

The software needs to be totally rewritten on both birds to prevent this from happening.

[BigDUSA 71]

SYDNEY: About 40 Rolls-Royce engines used in the world’s fleet of Airbus A380 aircraft may need to be replaced to ensure safety after one such engine partly disintegrated mid-flight this month, Australia’s Qantas said.

 

That would represent about half of all Rolls-Royce engines currently in service on A380 aircraft, the world’s largest passenger plane with a list price of around $350 million each.

 

“We’ve been talking to Airbus and Rolls-Royce and we understand that the number (of engines to be replaced) is around 40,” Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce said on Thursday. A source familiar with the process said that Singapore

 

Airlines, which operates 11 of the A380s, could be forced to change around two dozen, Qantas may have to swap around a dozen while Lufthansa, which operates the newest A380s, will have to change just one or two. Emirates, the biggest operator of the A380 globally, is not affected as it uses a different type of engine.

 

A Qantas A380 with 466 people on board made an emergency landing in Singapore on Nov. 4, after one of its Rolls-Royce engines partly disintegrated mid-flight after an oil fire. Since then, airlines have sought to replace their existing engines with newer versions.

 

Rolls-Royce said last week that the problem with the Trent 900 engine is confined to a specific component in the turbine area. Aviation experts say the fault develops over time, so the new engines should not present any safety issues and will give Rolls-Royce time to come up with a permanent solution.

 

Singapore Airlines would not confirm any future engine change and said it was acting in compliance with a European emergency directive.

 

“We remain in very close contact with Rolls-Royce and Airbus, and all checks that we have carried out to date have been in full compliance with their recommendations and instructions,” the airline said. Qantas’s six A380s have been grounded since the incident, while rival Singapore Airlines has also been forced to cancel several flights in order to swap out some old engines.

QUOTE

[CheshireTom 1,377]

SYDNEY: About 40 Rolls-Royce engines blah, blah blah ...

 

Rolls Royce isn't owned by EADS. In fact, it's no different to Boeing.

 

The bottom line is you're just trying to avoid acknowledging that your whole thread has backfired and left you looking like a total twat.

 

"Analyst: Boeing 787 fire will spur four- to six-month delay

 

The fire on Boeing's second flight-test 787 Dreamliner last week will delay the first 787 delivery by four to six months, analyst Scott Hamilton wrote Friday.

 

Based on "numerous conversations with many sources who have knowledge of events," Hamilton wrote that the investigation is focusing on foreign-object damage as the cause of the fire in a power control panel, although investigators do not yet know how and when this damage occurred. He said the fix will "almost certainly" require some redesign of the panel and electrical system".

 

So, who are you blaming for this delay?

 

 

 

[nidnoyham 30]

Now, I know why BigD started the Boeing V Comet thread. It was a diversion from this one.

 

Good try bigD,

[BigDUSA 71]

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) – A group of institutional investors, who lost heavily in June 2006 when EADS's share price collapsed, will file a civil suit over the way it announced production delays on the A380 project.

 

Pieter Koetsier, lawyer with Kennedy van der Laan, said on Tuesday the suit would be filed this week or next at the Amsterdam civil court on behalf of a special foundation representing some 100 institutional investors.

 

Earlier this month the Amsterdam commercial court threw out a request by some investors for a probe into the management of EADS and the way it had communicated the production problems -- in particular about a complex wiring issue that caused big delivery delays and prompted compensation claims from clients.

 

The A380 superjumbo, Airbus' biggest passenger plane, is currently beset by a problem with Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines that forced Australia's Qantas to ground its fleet temporarily.

 

"We are filing a civil suit, that is a different jurisdiction (than the commercial court). First we want to establish that EADS was responsible for the losses caused and if that is the case we will file for damages," Koetsier said.

 

The special foundation is headed by Alexander Reus, a partner at U.S. class-action specialists Diaz, Reus of Miami.

 

OPEN TO OUT-OF-COURT SETTLEMENT

 

Philipp Lehmann, a spokesman for EADS, said the claims were likely to be dismissed.

 

"The announcement of law suits in the Netherlands is not new to us: they refer to delays which were made public in 2006; respective claims have always been totally unfounded, from our point of view," he said in an emailed statement to Reuters.

 

"Only recently on 3 November 2010, the potential plaintiffs learned that the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ... had dismissed their application to order an investigation regarding alleged "mismanagement" by EADS in connection with the A380 delivery delays in the year of 2006," he said.

 

"If a Dutch civil court would have to deal with the same issue, we anticipate that it would come to the same conclusion."

 

Reus, a German-trained lawyer, said the foundation (http://www.investorclaimsagainsteads.com) represented 60 million shares which was over 20 percent of the free outstanding shares. EADS is 55-percent controlled by French, German and Spanish entities.

 

He declined to say who was behind the foundation other than saying there were institutional investors from many countries including those that were behind the case at the commercial court -- Irish Life Investment Managers and DekaBank Investment.

 

Reus said the foundation was not legally able to seek damages itself but if the court was to find EADS liable, the investors could seek damages individually.

 

"We are not trying to get the U.S. class-action system to Europe but we are seeking ways to permit investors to seek compensation," Reus said, adding that incurred losses were in the region of 800 million to 1 billion euros ($1.12-$1.40 billion).

 

Reus said the foundation was open to an out-of-court settlement. EADS has its statutory headquarters in Amsterdam.

 

Clifford Chance, lawyers for EADS, declined to comment.

 

Koetsier and Reus said the civil case could take several months.

 

(Reporting by Marcel Michelson; Editing by Jon Loades-Carter)

QUOTE