Goings on at Airbus

Airbus yester announced the $10 billion dollar releaunch of the A350. Dubbed the A350 XWB extra wide body, the aircraft will have 3 variants and a wider fueselage. The new chairman, Christian Streiff, indicated that several months were needed before the industrial launch of the product.

He also indicated that a top to bottom review would be made of its supply chain in an effort to get the A380 delivery schedule back on track.

THe subsadies issue will rear its ugly head again im afraid with ministers of Britain, France, Germany and Spain scheduled to give a press release regarding thier stance on aid for the plane

Story

Yes Fred, this is the same model that people were referring to as the 'A370' that we discussed before. I read yesterday that Airbus has proposed a settlement to the subsidies row quite a while back but that Boeing are stalling because it is in their interest to keep the pot bubbling re the the potential USAF tanker order.

There's a video report from Farnborough here which has a report on the new Airbus and the company's fightback plus a brief glimpse of the V-22 and the MiG 29 OVT in flight (amazing backflip!) If you double click on the small player it goes to full screen.


[edit on 18-7-2006 by waynos]

The new, new A350, the XWB (althought this designation will soon fall into disuse, much like '7E7' did) has now got its first firm committed customer, on the day of its announcement, with Finnair becoming the first airline to announce it is firmly committed to its A350's (it first ordered the previous incarnation of the design) and its chief has said that 'we are happy that we will be receiving an even better aircraft than the one we ordered initially'.

Its only a little acorn, but Airbus needed some good news for a change. Now they just have to convince everyone else, although US Airways are of the same general opinion as Finnair and are likely to be the second airline to announce their commitment to it.

Originally posted by waynos
Yes Fred, this is the same model that people were referring to as the 'A370' that we discussed before. I read yesterday that Airbus has proposed a settlement to the subsidies row quite a while back but that Boeing are stalling because it is in their interest to keep the pot bubbling re the the potential USAF tanker order.

In other words, you are accusing the USAF of being biased and ordering only American planes.

YEAH! BLAME THE CUSTOMER! It works in a socialist economy, but in the global economy, which is a market economy, it doesn't.

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter
In other words, you are accusing the USAF of being biased and ordering only American planes.

YEAH! BLAME THE CUSTOMER! It works in a socialist economy, but in the global economy, which is a market economy, it doesn't.

Don't be so naive.


Of course the USAF are going to strongly favour American aircraft manufacturers. Senators and congressmen/women can therefore declare to their electorate they have secured X amount of jobs in Seattle etc through forcing the USAF to buy American. It happens everywhere in the world.


If it truly were an open economy, then why [for instance] does the USAF operate the F-111 instead of the Tornado? Or why does the Navy not use Rafales? Or the RAF use Nimrods instead of Orions?

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Of course the USAF are going to strongly favour American aircraft manufacturers.

YEAH! BLAME THE CUSTOMER! It is him who should obey you, not vice versa! It is him who should fulfill your demands, not vice versa! I assure you that you will earn nothing in the global economy if you continue to behave like that.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
If it truly were an open economy, then why [for instance] does the USAF operate the F-111 instead of the Tornado?

For a simple reason: because American military equipment is the best in the world, as proven in numerous wars.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Of course the USAF are going to strongly favour American aircraft manufacturers.

YEAH! BLAME THE CUSTOMER! It is him who should fulfill your demands, not vice versa! I assure you that you will earn nothing in the global economy if you continue to behave like that.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
If it truly were an open economy, then why [for instance] does the USAF operate the F-111 instead of the Tornado?

For a simple reason: because American military equipment is the best in the world, as proven in numerous wars.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]

JimmyCarterisnotsmarter; In a thread on the weaponry forum you accused someone of 'falsifying' the content of your posts when they replied to you (even though they did no such thing). How ironic therefore that you are doing this with my post. I did not accuse the USAF of anything, in fact I did not even mention them except in relation to the fact that they have a requirement for a tanker, ie "the USAF tankeer requirement". That is as much as I said so its interesting to try and guess where you got your interpretation from.

I also recognise your prosaic style, although you call yourself 'jimmyCarterisnotsmarter' now, I know perfectly well what names you posted under in the past and that you are a troll with an anti European/pro American agenda that will not rest, nor let the truth get in its way, hey zibi?

Originally posted by waynos
JimmyCarterisnotsmarter; In a thread on the weaponry forum you accused someone of 'falsifying' the content of your posts when they replied to you (even though they did no such thing). How ironic therefore that you are doing this with my post. I did not accuse the USAF of anything, in fact I did not even mention them except in relation to the fact that they have a requirement for a tanker, ie "the USAF tankeer requirement". That is as much as I said so its interesting to try and guess where you got your interpretation from.

Sorry for misinterpretation.

Regarding your other claims, I don't know why you are saying this rubbish, and honestly I don't care. I am not zibi, I don't know who's that, and I do not want to know. If believing otherwise makes you feel better - do so. But don't make such ridiculous claims on public forums because it makes you look bad.*

*I'd use a harsher word but my point is not to namecall anyone so I'll refrain from that.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]

Yeah, whatever you say pal. I'll let others judge for themselves who looks bad and who doesn't. Thats me finished on that topic, lets move on.

Oh, so I am considered "anti-European" because I criticise Europe? That's ridiculous. And had you read my posts in forums other than Weaponry and Aircraft Projects, you'd notice that I've also presented my proposals of policies to reform Europe.

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter
YEAH! BLAME THE CUSTOMER! It is him who should fulfill your demands, not vice versa! I assure you that you will earn nothing in the global economy if you continue to behave like that.

- You're surely not suggesting that these large (and strategic) 'programs' are only subject ot 'normal' commercial considerations are you JCINS?

They're so politically loaded that you can't possibly think of them solely in 'normal' and straight-forward commercial economic terms, right?

[edit on 30-7-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter
YEAH! BLAME THE CUSTOMER! It is him who should fulfill your demands, not vice versa! I assure you that you will earn nothing in the global economy if you continue to behave like that.

- You're surely not suggesting that these large (and strategic) 'programs' are only subject ot 'normal' commercial considerations are you JCINS?

You mean the USAF tanker contract? Well, the USAF's primary mission is to protect all 300 million Americans. If that means sacrificing a few jobs for the sake of buying better military equipment, the USAF would do it.

The, you and waynos say that "if the senators and the congressmen allowed this, they'd be voted out of office". No, they wouldn't. The voters would remember than they allowed a few people to lose their jobs, but they'd also remember that they voted for giving the USAF the best military aircraft in the world which helped the US win e.g. the war against Iraq.

In short, you and waynos believe that the USAF is choosing unfairly, my opinion is different.

JCINS, do not tell me what I believe, because you do not have a clue, also please do not attribute comments to me that I did not make. Where is the reference to US senators getting voted out? It strikes me that you are simply looking for an argument.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
please do not attribute comments to me that I did not make. Where is the reference to US senators getting voted out?

Sorry, it wasn't you who said that, it was kilcoo316.

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter
You mean the USAF tanker contract?

- Yes but pretty much any USAF large-scale 'buy' would fall into this catagory.

(and this did all start with a reference to the USAF and their tanker requirement, right?)

Well, the USAF's primary mission is to protect all 300 million Americans. If that means sacrificing a few jobs for the sake of buying better military equipment, the USAF would do it.

- That's as maybe but I was merely pointing out that your original "blame the customer" line and inference that this was all just another 'ordinary' commercial decision was very wide of the truth.

The, you and waynos say that "if the senators and the congressmen allowed this, they'd be voted out of office".

- I didn't say that at all.
In fact Airbus now has capacity and partnerships in the USA so if they were awarded the contract there would be positive implications for US skilled aero-industry jobs.

No, they wouldn't. The voters would remember than they allowed a few people to lose their jobs, but they'd also remember that they voted for giving the USAF the best military aircraft in the world which helped the US win e.g. the war against Iraq.

- Well I doubt very much whether the outcome of the Iraqi war rests on any aircraft project Aibus is involved with.

But the plain fact is that for perfectly reasonable and fairly universal strategic reasons very large military aircraft projects usually entail considerations way beyond mere economics - and they always have done so too.

In short, you and waynos believe that the USAF is choosing unfairly, my opinion is different.

- No, don't try to put words into my mouth, stop trying to paraphrase and just stick to what I've actually said, please.

'Fair' has got nothing to do with it.

This is merely a realistic and sober assessment of what actually happens (for the most understandable - sometimes very desirable - of reasons).
It is merely a recognition of reality as we repeatedly see it, it is not about not an inappropriate economic or political dogma.

Large scale national military decisions are rarely (if ever) conducted on the basis of an 'ordinary vendor' attempting to satisfy an 'ordinary customer' in a 'normal' free market situation.

.....and no amount of wishful thinking (on anybodies' part) will make it so.