[driven]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Absolutely. I know every single model and if there are any landings in between.

When I was younger, I use to ride in props with no problem. I'm not sure what happened, but I don't fly props anymore. It might have been a couple real rough flights, and the time the pilot shut down one of 2 engines during the flight didn't help my impression of prop flight.

Come to think of it, ever since that flight, I've never flown on a prop plane since. I always check when I book my flights. I've refused to get on one plane once because it was a prop and they had to reschedule. I'm sure they are safe, but I can't fly in them anymore, well not sober anyhow.

I not only know what plane I'm on, but which seat I'll be in. I absolutely must fly in an aisle seat. Since I fly nearly 150,000 miles per year I do value comfort. I have been known to wait for the next flight instead of sitting in the window or middle seat.

[voodoo]

I choose the airline I fly with first on the route they fly, second on the equipment they fly, third on the service they provide and last the price they want.

V

[driven]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I choose the airline I fly with first on the route they fly, second on the equipment they fly, third on the service they provide and last the price they want.

V

I do all of that too ... and then I look at where I'm sitting. :-)

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

With a virtually infinite amount of funds, of course Airbus has another choice. Never would we give Airbus up. That is power my dear Kevin.

Airbus chose not to use it. Wise IMO, but not the only choice.

V

It's not the 90's any longer my friend. The bailouts are over. The days of paying for their mistakes are upon them. There are too many other eyes watching the funding these days.

As far as the Power comment, power comes not only with money, but respect, and trust. There is not an airline out there today that believes a word out of Airbus. No respect, no trust, just money? I suggest a view based more in reality than "just wait till next month, it will be ok."

[Troll]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

It's not the 90's any longer my friend. The bailouts are over.

Evidently not for Boeing!

In any event, if you look at Boeing and EADS from a purely financial perspective, I don't see how you can say that EADS's position is any more tenuous than Boeing's. You don't need to go back very many months to read about the possibility of Boeing going into liquidation. Airbus is way away from the depths that Boeing recently plumbed.

[Troll]

So, EADS results in. Airbus delivered a record number of planes in 2006 - 434. Never built more planes before. EADS profits down but they did make a profit. 99m Euros despite being in the throes of developing two major new products. EADS confirmed that the A380 will be delivered on time.

Of course, a lot of people are focussing on the negative but I think things look quite positive. Power 8 will allow them to cut costs. They have two great new products close to release and they're building more aircraft than they ever have in their history.

[OreoCookie]

Good to hear. So even in the worst of times, someone makes a profit, hehe. So much for all the doom's day talk.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Troll 

So, EADS results in. Airbus delivered a record number of planes in 2006 - 434. Never built more planes before. EADS profits down but they did make a profit. 99m Euros despite being in the throes of developing two major new products. EADS confirmed that the A380 will be delivered on time.

Of course, a lot of people are focussing on the negative but I think things look quite positive. Power 8 will allow them to cut costs. They have two great new products close to release and they're building more aircraft than they ever have in their history.

2006 EBIT is E399m, down 86% from E2.6b in the previous year. Airbus wiped out about a billion euros worth of profit in just the final quarter, netting a loss of about half a billion euros for the year.
2006 NPAT of E99m, as you mentioned, is down 94% from last year.
They withheld the announcement of a dividend and the stock is off 5% today.
But as you note, revenue and deliveries are up, probably the only pieces of positive news.

What are the two products you refer to?

[driven]

How many A380s have been ordered (and not canceled) at this point?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by mduell 

2006 EBIT is E399m, down 86% from E2.6b in the previous year. Airbus wiped out about a billion euros worth of profit in just the final quarter, netting a loss of about half a billion euros for the year.
2006 NPAT of E99m, as you mentioned, is down 94% from last year.
They withheld the announcement of a dividend and the stock is off 5% today.
But as you note, revenue and deliveries are up, probably the only pieces of positive news.

What are the two products you refer to?

I'm going to guess A350 and A380, but I can't imagine why you'd pose a leading question?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by driven 

How many A380s have been ordered (and not canceled) at this point?

176 gross firm orders, 20 cancellations, so 156 net firm orders plus 1 announced-but-not-signed VIP order.

Originally Posted by analogika 

I'm going to guess A350 and A380, but I can't imagine why you'd pose a leading question?

The OP said two products "close to release." Release is an ambiguous term that could mean program announcement, authority to offer, delivery, entry into service, or a few other things. But I can't think of two products in Airbus' pipeline that are both close to the same stage (A350XWB just got ATO and is a long way from delivery, A380 is nearing delivery, NSR is still far away from announcement, A400 is between ATO and delivery, etc). So I was wondering what two products he thinks are close to release.

Me, pose a leading question? Never!

[marden]

March 10, 2007
Airbus says problems could get even worse this year

Airbus says problems could get even worse this year-Business-Industry Sectors-Transport-TimesOnline

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by marden 

Airbus says problems could get even worse this year-Business-Industry Sectors-Transport-TimesOnline

Why are you happy about it?

[marden]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

Why are you happy about it?

Silly American parochialism.

Go Boeing!

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by mduell 

2006 EBIT is E399m, down 86% from E2.6b in the previous year. Airbus wiped out about a billion euros worth of profit in just the final quarter, netting a loss of about half a billion euros for the year.
2006 NPAT of E99m, as you mentioned, is down 94% from last year.
They withheld the announcement of a dividend and the stock is off 5% today.
But as you note, revenue and deliveries are up, probably the only pieces of positive news.

What are the two products you refer to?

There you go. Bringing reality back into the topic. When are you going to learn.

Besides the A vs B stuff is not the issue. B will dominate for the next 20 years. Fending off the Russians is the crisis. The only reason Power 8 was voted in was from Vladamir Stalin's threats to buy more EAS stock to develope the Russian Aerospace Industry (IE: take over) Do you really want him turning off you natural gas again? I'd have thought you Europeans had learned from the 40's that bending over hurts more than it helps.

15,000 protesters last week with strike threats, and this was week one. LOL.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Good to hear. So even in the worst of times, someone makes a profit, hehe. So much for all the doom's day talk.

Try looking at Power 8 and don't focus on the attempted layoffs. What got Airbus into this mess in the 1st place? Easy 2 CEO's. What will Airbus have after Power 8 minus 10,000 employees? 2 CEO's. Neither of whom car for each other (disturst from the 30's and 40's you know.)

Recovery is futile. Airbus will be absorbed by the Borg. It is so written.

[TETENAL]

Profit Crash: Airbus Goes Into The Red - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

[Kevin]

[Buckaroo]

Sometimes hard times can make a company leaner and more competitive. With everything I'm reading, It's hard to say with Airbus.

I get the impression they are dealing with too many problems including political problems. Right now I can't even guess what the outcome will be.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I take it this was just a photo taken right at the worst time.

[marden]

Well, that fact that we will fall eventually is unavoidable. The problem is the denial of this but the struggle to prevent the inevitable.

It's not a matter of quitting, it's a matter of accepting that things change and learning to adapt without destroying ourselves in the process.

If you're asking what we should do to prevent that, I say nothing. Let it happen. Let humankind walk its path.

"The harder we struggle to prevent what can't be prevented the more likely we are to bring about our own early demise. "

Your whole argument assumes that we must stop our inevitable demise or the world will end. I say, let our inevitable (yes it is inevitable) demise happen, and let something better take our place. I am not saying, however, that we allow anyone to take us down and replace us. I'm saying that there will be something better to come along, and we will fall to it/them. And I'm all for it.

I too am optimistic that the next major "cycle" for human life holds promise for great advancement but I am confident too, sadly, that there will be great amounts of violence and destruction before the next cycle can begin.

http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...n-survive-our/

In another thread I lamented the complacency in the West in supporting our civilization. The quotes above represented some of the comments by some posters with regard to THAT subject. I wonder how those folks would feel about efforts to save AIRBUS from going belly up or being sold or merged or broken up. I wonder what some of the posters to this thread think about my thread topic.

Some things are worth trying to save. Some things are worth fighting for.

[voodoo]

Shesh.. Airbus will never be allowed to fail. Boeing wasn't even allowed to fail and they really should have been cut up and sold in pieces in the late 90s.

Now, the A380. Beatuiful plane and a marvellous piece of engineering.

Originally Posted by Boeing CEO McNerney

"We´ve had similar problems" "It´s an technological exciting Aircraft " "wonderful Aircraft"

http://www.aero.de/news.php?varnewsi...7d13f6367db3b7

V

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Shesh.. Airbus will never be allowed to fail. Boeing wasn't even allowed to fail and they really should have been cut up and sold in pieces in the late 90s.

Now, the A380. Beatuiful plane and a marvellous piece of engineering.

V

Ha

You are full of crap. Boeing has been buying several of their competitors and is doing much better than Airbus by a long shot.

The A380 is ugly in my opinion. I prefer the design of the 747, much sexier. You know, big up front.

As far as better engineering, I have no idea, but I doubt it. I don't see any real technology advancements, but I haven't studied it, so I can't say for certain. It's just a fatter plane, big deal.

[Kevin]

If it was such a marvellous piece of engineering they wouldn't be having all the problems they are having with it now.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Ha

You are full of crap. Boeing has been buying several of their competitors and is doing much better than Airbus by a long shot.

The A380 is ugly in my opinion. I prefer the design of the 747, much sexier. You know, big up front.

As far as better engineering, I have no idea, but I doubt it. I don't see any real technology advancements, but I haven't studied it, so I can't say for certain. It's just a fatter plane, big deal.

Boeing almost went bankrupt in the late 1990s and allowed Airbus to become the largest civil aviation company in the world for a decade.

They were up to their knees in bad management decisions, bad acqusitions and corruption. Remember the KC767?

Not their finest moment and by far way worse than anything Airbus is in now.

V

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Boeing almost went bankrupt in the late 1990s and allowed Airbus to become the largest civil aviation company in the world for a decade.

They were up to their knees in bad management decisions, bad acqusitions and corruption. Remember the KC767?

Not their finest moment and by far way worse than anything Airbus is in now.

I am not taking up for, or rah rahing Beoing. I could care less.

That doesn't take away from the fact that Airbus is in trouble. Or that the A30 is a failure.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by marden 

In another thread I lamented the complacency in the West in supporting our civilization. The quotes above represented some of the comments by some posters with regard to THAT subject. I wonder how those folks would feel about efforts to save AIRBUS from going belly up or being sold or merged or broken up. I wonder what some of the posters to this thread think about my thread topic.

Some things are worth trying to save. Some things are worth fighting for.

If the best way for Airbus to survive is "being sold or merged or broken up" then that will be be the best way for it to progress to its next stage of existence. With Airbus, or Western Civilization for that matter, the question is whether or not the political powers are brave enough to allow the short-term pain of destruction to occur in exchange for the long-term success of the company.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

If the best way for Airbus to survive is "being sold or merged or broken up" then that will be be the best way for it to progress to its next stage of existence. With Airbus, or Western Civilization for that matter, the question is whether or not the political powers are brave enough to allow the short-term pain of destruction to occur in exchange for the long-term success of the company.

Airbus and Boeing are not and never will be anything but semi-private and ultimately protected industries.

Being sold, merged or split up on a 'free market' is not an option for neither company. They are and will always be dependent on the government that protects them.

Airbus and Boeing are semi-private duopolies. There is no next level for them.

V

[analogika]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

(disturst from the 30's and 40's you know.)

Have you actually ever been to Europe, or is everything you know about us based on your great-uncle's war stories?

Actually, I know the answer to that question, so don't bother.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by marden 

Silly American parochialism.

Go Boeing!

Boeing? Isn't that the company that can't exist without US military contracts/subsidies and manufactures most of their flagship aircraft line abroad?

I remember when they were American.

[marden]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Boeing? Isn't that the company that can't exist without US military contracts/subsidies and manufactures most of their flagship aircraft line abroad?

I remember when they were American.

Boeing. It's not Airbus. 'Nuff said.

[marden]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

If the best way for Airbus to survive is "being sold or merged or broken up" then that will be be the best way for it to progress to its next stage of existence. With Airbus, or Western Civilization for that matter, the question is whether or not the political powers are brave enough to allow the short-term pain of destruction to occur in exchange for the long-term success of the company.

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Airbus and Boeing are not and never will be anything but semi-private and ultimately protected industries.

Being sold, merged or split up on a 'free market' is not an option for neither company. They are and will always be dependent on the government that protects them.

Airbus and Boeing are semi-private duopolies. There is no next level for them.

V

Voodoo, I yield to your knowledge of this matter. I just wanted to make the people who are so ready to give up on Western Civilization apply their philosophy (re: our way of life) to other entities that must not be allowed to fail.

The fact that the government would not allow these companies to fail shows that certain things are worth supporting and fighting for.

Now that dcmacdaddy has gone through the exercise of trying to think about his position and adapt it to fit in a couple of other frameworks maybe this will be enough.

[Troll]

This is probably pretty obvious to most people with some financial background but maybe it needs to be repeated. EADS is the holding company of Airbus. EADS is listed. Airbus is a private enterprise wholly owned by EADS.

EADS made a PROFIT in 2006. Let's just say that again so it sinks in. EADS made a profit. EADS profit was almost exactly double the loss that Airbus made. EADS is not in trouble. EADS knows that Airbus sold more planes last year than ever in its history so it clearly has products that are selling well. EADS knows exactly why Airbus made a loss despite good sales. Bad management at a critical time and high expenditure on R&D because of new products in the pipeline. EADS also knows that Airbus has a plan to address those problems. Why on earth would EADS even consider selling? It doesn't need to sell. It's flush with cash. In one of it hardest years ever ... it made a PROFIT. Airbus will have to do a lot worse than it did in 2006 for there to be any talk of selling or spinning off Airbus.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by marden 

Boeing. It's not Airbus. 'Nuff said.

Whatever that means - neither is Microsoft.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Boeing? Isn't that the company that can't exist without US military contracts/subsidies and manufactures most of their flagship aircraft line abroad?

Perhaps you're thinking of Airbus? Boeing's commercial division turned a pretty profit this year and their flagship 747 is mostly produced in the US.

Originally Posted by Troll 

EADS made a PROFIT in 2006. Let's just say that again so it sinks in. EADS made a profit. EADS profit was almost exactly double the loss that Airbus made. EADS is not in trouble. EADS knows that Airbus sold more planes last year than ever in its history so it clearly has products that are selling well. EADS knows exactly why Airbus made a loss despite good sales. Bad management at a critical time and high expenditure on R&D because of new products in the pipeline. EADS also knows that Airbus has a plan to address those problems. Why on earth would EADS even consider selling? It doesn't need to sell. It's flush with cash. In one of it hardest years ever ... it made a PROFIT. Airbus will have to do a lot worse than it did in 2006 for there to be any talk of selling or spinning off Airbus.

Indeed, EADS did make a profit. Adding up the businesses aside from Airbus, they made about a seven hundred million euro profit. But then Airbus wiped out about 80% of that profit with their 572 million euro loss. By and large EADS is not in trouble; they have very profitable helicopter, military, and space divisions. But let's not pretend things are going well at Airbus.
Flush with cash? A380 just dug them a $6b hole over the next ~4 years, revenue from A350 keeps getting pushed further and further out (now looking to be 2014 at the earliest), and they have to cough up billions of euros to buy BAE out.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by marden 

Voodoo, I yield to your knowledge of this matter. I just wanted to make the people who are so ready to give up on Western Civilization apply their philosophy (re: our way of life) to other entities that must not be allowed to fail.

The fact that the government would not allow these companies to fail shows that certain things are worth supporting and fighting for.

Now that dcmacdaddy has gone through the exercise of trying to think about his position and adapt it to fit in a couple of other frameworks maybe this will be enough.

Enough for what, pray tell?

[marden]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Whatever that means - neither is Microsoft.

And may a PC overclock your ATC and crash in your tarmac.

[marden]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Enough for what, pray tell?

Straighten up. Fly right. Support Western Civilization. Stand up with America.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by marden 

Straighten up. Fly right. Support Western Civilization. Stand up with America.

No thanks. That's not for me. Have you got anything else I might be able to support other than banal, meaningless platitudes? How about some topic that is meaty with specific stances on said topic. How about topics like poverty, health-care, or natural resource depletion?

Anyway, so as not to derail this thread any further, if we are going to carry on this discussion submit your reply to this post in your "collapse of Western Civilization" thread. I will not have any more of this discussion in here.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Perhaps you're thinking of Airbus? Boeing's commercial division turned a pretty profit this year and their flagship 747 is mostly produced in the US.

I was under the impression that the 787 is the hottest thing out of Boeing's Asian subcontractors these days.

And don't pretend Boeing would have survived the 90's without a healthy dose of government support.

[Sherman Homan]

Airbus exec hints at tardy 787

Let the sniping begin, again!

[Buckaroo]

Radical new Boeing aircraft takes flight

Last November a team from MIT and Cambridge University unveiled the SAX-40, a blended-wing design that promises to be more fuel-efficient than a Toyota Prius - and thanks in part to the engine placement, just as quiet (at 63 decibels).

Boeing unveils a radically new kind of aircraft. - Mar. 13, 2007

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Sherman Homan 

Airbus exec hints at tardy 787

Let the sniping begin, again!

Like he knows squat. Oh instead he wants you to wait many many more years (I don't know exactly how many) for an Airbus failed design/redesign. Even if it was 6 months late, which it ain't, it's a decade before the A350 is available.

My decade reference is no less legitimate than his 6 months comment on the 787.

[OreoCookie]

Blended-wing designs have been around for ages, both Boeing and NASA have done some research on this a while ago. AFAIK Airbus considered a blended-wing model for the A380.

I'm much more excited about the Dreamliner … 

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Like he knows squat. Oh instead he wants you to wait many many more years (I don't know exactly how many) for an Airbus failed design/redesign. Even if it was 6 months late, which it ain't, it's a decade before the A350 is available.

How can you be so sure that there won't be any delays? Unless you know better
Delays in such large undertakings are the rule, not the exception (Vista, Tiger, Leopard, pretty much all military projects, etc.).

[voodoo]

Meh it's just more Leahy posturing. He's an Amercan after all

Blended wing will never be used for pax. Freight perhaps.

V

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Troll 

This is probably pretty obvious to most people with some financial background but maybe it needs to be repeated. EADS is the holding company of Airbus. EADS is listed. Airbus is a private enterprise wholly owned by EADS.

EADS made a PROFIT in 2006. Let's just say that again so it sinks in. EADS made a profit. EADS profit was almost exactly double the loss that Airbus made. EADS is not in trouble. EADS knows that Airbus sold more planes last year than ever in its history so it clearly has products that are selling well. EADS knows exactly why Airbus made a loss despite good sales. Bad management at a critical time and high expenditure on R&D because of new products in the pipeline. EADS also knows that Airbus has a plan to address those problems. Why on earth would EADS even consider selling? It doesn't need to sell. It's flush with cash. In one of it hardest years ever ... it made a PROFIT. Airbus will have to do a lot worse than it did in 2006 for there to be any talk of selling or spinning off Airbus.

Yeah but that doesn't make the A30 a success. It's not. It's a financial failure.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

How can you be so sure that there won't be any delays? Unless you know better
Delays in such large undertakings are the rule, not the exception (Vista, Tiger, Leopard, pretty much all military projects, etc.).

I don't know if there is going to be a delay. But more important neither does the Airbus idiot who even said he didn't know. He even said he was shooting off his mouth. Just to put the thought into people's head.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Blended-wing designs have been around for ages, both Boeing and NASA have done some research on this a while ago. AFAIK Airbus considered a blended-wing model for the A380.

I'm much more excited about the Dreamliner … 

One of the big concern about flying in a blended-wing design is for the passengers sitting out in the wing. Every time the plane banks, those guys are going for one heck of a ride. The flight will be smoother, but those turns will be hell. If I ever fly in one, I'll stick to the center section. There are talks about doing flat turns, which I don't think I'd like.

More than likely, I'd avoid the blended wing body, and stick with the trusted old 747.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I don't know if there is going to be a delay. But more important neither does the Airbus idiot who even said he didn't know. He even said he was shooting off his mouth. Just to put the thought into people's head.

Actually he clearly indicates how he came to that conclusion:

Originally Posted by Leahy

"But if you talk with suppliers, most people are talking about up to a six-month delay as a possibility."

Keep in mind that Boeing and Airbus share quite a few suppliers.