[Troll]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

Now your giving me a "Wink and a Nod."

No, my point is that you've been wrong about every single thing you've had to say about the A380 so far. I think even you realise that some of the ridiculous things you say are probably wrong. Like claiming that they will never be able to evacuate the passengers in time. Which means that you're really just trolling in this thread.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Troll 

No, my point is that you've been wrong about every single thing you've had to say about the A380 so far

This is wrong as well. Were is the certificate Troll?

He said they are losing money on it. And THEY ARE. There has been quite a few things he has said that are true.

Calling out someone for trolling, then being dishonest about his "troll" doesn't make you any better.

[mduell]

I think Cargolux and Korean Air may be two other candidates for the A380F... flowers are low density.

[Sherman Homan]

More news about Airbus: may extend 35-hour work week: report

Airbus may extend 35-hour work week: report - Yahoo! News

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Sherman Homan 

Airbus may extend 35-hour work week: report

Airbus may extend 35-hour work week: report - Yahoo! News

If you can't cut 18% of your work force like you want to, may as well add 14% more hours and increase production (which they're doing on both the A320 and A330 lines).

[Buckaroo]

Absolutely they should bump it up to 40 hours.

[Kevin]

Like putting lipstick on a pig.

[Troll]

I was talking to a guy I met this weekend who puts together Rutan EZ's and other kit aircraft for clients. I asked him about this production certificate business. He said that "production certification" is a certification of the production line. If you have a production certification and build your planes according to the certified production process, then you don't need to have each airframe certified. If you don't have production certification, then each plane needs to be certified individually - in a similar way to that which each of his planes is certified. That obviously takes more time and costs more. However, he said that Airbus doesn't need production certification to start producing A380's. I thought glideslope had implied that without what he called a production certificate, Airbus couldn't build A380's. According to this guy, that is not the case and apparently Boeing and Airbus both build aircraft from time to time that are not covered by production certifications (notably when they have customised bits fitted).

He said he thought Airbus would go for production certification on their aircraft as close to the first production run as possible so that the production process would be close to final before the certification were obtained. He said it wouldn't surprise him if the first few were built and individually certified before the production certification came through unless the agreements with the airlines specified production certification as a condition precedent.

Anyway, I thought that was interesting. I'd got the impression that a "production certificate" was a sine qua non for the A380 being used but apparently this is not the case.

[Kevin]

Doesn't change the fact that the craft is a economic failure.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by Troll 

I was talking to a guy I met this weekend who puts together Rutan EZ's and other kit aircraft for clients. I asked him about this production certificate business. He said that "production certification" is a certification of the production line. If you have a production certification and build your planes according to the certified production process, then you don't need to have each airframe certified. If you don't have production certification, then each plane needs to be certified individually - in a similar way to that which each of his planes is certified. That obviously takes more time and costs more. However, he said that Airbus doesn't need production certification to start producing A380's. I thought glideslope had implied that without what he called a production certificate, Airbus couldn't build A380's. According to this guy, that is not the case and apparently Boeing and Airbus both build aircraft from time to time that are not covered by production certifications (notably when they have customised bits fitted).

He said he thought Airbus would go for production certification on their aircraft as close to the first production run as possible so that the production process would be close to final before the certification were obtained. He said it wouldn't surprise him if the first few were built and individually certified before the production certification came through unless the agreements with the airlines specified production certification as a condition precedent.

Anyway, I thought that was interesting. I'd got the impression that a "production certificate" was a sine qua non for the A380 being used but apparently this is not the case.

1) Correct, as I stated. No Production Certificate, no production line. Each frame is hand built and certified as experimental. They will need a production cert prior to the first revenue flights by an operator. Like, down the road a way.

2) There are 12 hand built airframes currently buzzing around as experimental.

3) It is if you plan to transport paying customers as an operator.

4) It's really moot at this point anyway. The EADS Board's approval of Power 8 today will cause riots once the job cuts, and 40 hr work weeks are announced. I must give Kudos to the EADS Board. Gutsy move. I hope it keeps the Russians away.

5) All this will delay the 350 even longer. Boeing will announce the 737RS next summer and cut the legs out from under the 320ER.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by mduell 

I think Cargolux and Korean Air may be two other candidates for the A380F... flowers are low density.

Lilies and Carnations would be best. Roses tend to require more water turning the issue into "Lift" Capability."

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Doesn't change the fact that the craft is a economic failure.

Can you please repeat that 100 times. Everyone reading this thread should see at least 5 times on each page so they don't forget. It's so important to all fans of the plane to know that the company isn't making money on it yet. Please keep saying it over and over again. Either that or go bother some other thread.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

Boeing will announce the 737RS next summer and cut the legs out from under the 320ER.

Ah.. no. Not unless someone provides next-generation engines. Both A and B are waiting for just that and nothing else to launch their latest narrowbodies. Until RR, GE or P&W comes out with the next-generation power plants, nothing is going to happen.

As well you know.

V

[mduell]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Ah.. no. Not unless someone provides next-generation engines. Both A and B are waiting for just that and nothing else to launch their latest narrowbodies. Until RR, GE or P&W comes out with the next-generation power plants, nothing is going to happen.

Boeing (Carson) stated publicly that one engine manufacturer has already offered to have a next gen narrowbody engine ready in 2011. Launching next year would be typical for a 2011 first flight (for which Boeing prefers certified engines) and 2012 EIS.

Personally I think they'll wait longer. There's a huge 737 backlog, and little downside to launching second, after Airbus NSR.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

3) It is if you plan to transport paying customers as an operator.

Can you point us to some literature on the point? Because that's not what I was told. The guy I spoke to wasn't referring to the Experimental category. He said that an airframe can be certified for commercial use without the production line being certified. He told me that many manufacturers of commercial aircraft produced aircraft without production certifications. Apparently Airbus and Boeing produce certain customised aircraft that have to be separately certified because they have not followed the certified production steps - and these aircraft are not categorised as Experimental.

I'm not saying you're wrong and my guy is right but if you have a source for your information, I'd like to see it.

Now that I understand what a production certification is, it makes perfect sense that Airbus hasn't YET got it. They won't ask for it until they sure that there aren't going to be changes in the way they produce the planes. Otherwise, they will have to do the certification twice. Ideally, I would think, you'd get the certification the day before the first plane rolls off the line.

Originally Posted by glideslope 

5) All this will delay the 350 even longer. Boeing will announce the 737RS next summer and cut the legs out from under the 320ER.

Moot really though isn't it because the 350 will never fly and they will never be able to get the passengers out of it in an emergency and the wing will never pass the stress test and ...

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Boeing (Carson) stated publicly that one engine manufacturer has already offered to have a next gen narrowbody engine ready in 2011. Launching next year would be typical for a 2011 first flight (for which Boeing prefers certified engines) and 2012 EIS.

Personally I think they'll wait longer. There's a huge 737 backlog, and little downside to launching second, after Airbus NSR.

B will not launch anything in 2008 based on a promise by a 3rd party manufacturer that powerplants *may* be ready in 2011. Why did you bother post this? I already know. The supplier is likely P&W, but they haven't been delivering. CFM and RR have stated they are years from a new engine.

There will be no next gen narrowbody - meaning with new engines - launched until 2012 the earliest. The current models are selling well with huge backlogs as you mention and the margins are thin. 2012 at the earliest, but realistically I'd expect *after* 2015.

V

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

Can you please repeat that 100 times. Everyone reading this thread should see at least 5 times on each page so they don't forget. It's so important to all fans of the plane to know that the company isn't making money on it yet. Please keep saying it over and over again. Either that or go bother some other thread.

When certain people in here stop deluding themselves about the plane and it's status and start treating it as the failure it is, I might.

Like I said, they should code name it "Copeland"

[TETENAL]

Workers in the Airbus factories in Varel, Nordenham and Laupheim have now stopped work in protest against Aribus' saving measures.

source: European Pain-Maker: Workers Strike as Airbus Announces Cuts - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

[Sherman Homan]

And for the English speaking translation:

Airbus confirms to cut plants, 10,000 jobs: union - Yahoo! News

[voodoo]

Power8 is going to be a headache for Airbus and EADS. However, they can only blame their incompetent management such as Louis Gallois. He is part of the problem. Not the workers.

V

[glideslope]

PW will have a 737RS engine in flight testing by the end of 2007. It will be 2008 with EIS around 2012. Boeing has been running a co-technology development program with the 787 for the 737RS. The timing is perfect. I'm also predicting the 737RS will be a Twin Isle.

Just a quick reminder on my no 380F's for 10 years.
http://www.airliners.net/discussions....main/3282123/

[Mark Larr]

heh™

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

PW will have a 737RS engine in flight testing by the end of 2007. It will be 2008 with EIS around 2012.

As if.

V

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

When certain people in here stop deluding themselves about the plane and it's status and start treating it as the failure it is, I might.

So that's why you've been posting so much for the last 5 years on every freaking thread. You really think you can badger the whole world into agreeing with you on every subject on earth. What a twit.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

So that's why you've been posting so much for the last 5 years on every freaking thread. You really think you can badger the whole world into agreeing with you on every subject on earth. What a twit.

Umletmethinkaboutit


no

[analogika]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

So that's why you've been posting so much for the last 5 years on every freaking thread. You really think you can badger reality into agreeing with you on every subject on earth. What a twit.

fixed.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

So that's why you've been posting so much for the last 5 years on every freaking thread. You really think you can badger the whole world into agreeing with you on every subject on earth. What a twit.

Quite

V

[Kevin]

Aah look at my fanboys/wonder twins activate.

*pinches cheeks*

Aren't they so tooooot!?



I am not the one hating on and trolling on anyone that has anything bad (And honest) to say about the "aircraft" And I use that term lightly.

[Kevin]

Former Airbus chief Jean Pierson attacks EADS structure, criticises German workshare greed-23/02/2007-London-Flightglobal.com

Former Airbus chief Jean Pierson has struck out at the EADS organisational structure, believing the current set up is doomed to fail unless it is changed.

Speaking to French business daily Les Echos yesterday, Pierson – who ran Airbus between 1985 and 1998 - said: “The current set-up is destined for failure. Customers will firstly lose patience and then confidence.”

Now this is what those against the craft have been saying. And now people the former chief working there is saying it as well.

It's a failure. Esp if they don't change the way they are doing things. They are NOT doing it right. It's a complete mess.

So unless the reorganize and rethink they way they are doing things (Read TONS MORE money spent on an already money losing deal) then it's done. Finished. stick a fork it it.

Even if they DO get it right in the end, it will STILL be considered a FAILURE.

It will be a map of what NOT to do in the future.

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

It's a failure. Esp if they don't change the way they are doing things. They are NOT doing it right. It's a complete mess. Even if they DO get it right in the end, it will STILL be considered a FAILURE. It will be a map of what NOT to do in the future.

We got it dude. Thanks. It's a failure. We all admit it. We still love the plane though. Even though it's a failure. You can go now. I was just kidding about repeating it over and over. You don't really have to do that. We know it's a failure. Go now. Seriously. You're really a downer. We know it's a failure. Your work here is done. We're convinced. All of us. Go. Please.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

When certain people in here stop deluding themselves about the plane and it's status and start treating it as the failure it is, I might.

Like I said, they should code name it "Copeland"

I don't like the 380, and I'll never fly in one, but I believe failure is a little strong.

I suspect that it will be a long time before it is profitable, if it ever is. But that does not make it a failure.

I'm not sure at what point it could be considered a failure. If it flies with reasonable fuel consumption and doesn't crash, then that is a good sign. If it causes huge bottlenecks for people deplaining, that would make people unhappy. I don't know if it would keep them from flying another one in the future, but it would be a negative thought on people's minds.

I wonder what people will think the first time one crashes with 800 people on board. It's not like a plane with 200. 800 is a lot of people, you could potentially wipe out a whole town in one crash.

Anyhow, enough rambling. I don't think of it as a failure. Atleast not yet. A lot worst things have to happen, then it can be called a failure. Such as if they only build 30 and then shut down the line for good. That would be a failure.

If they build all 300 and they fly with minimal crashes, then that is not a failure, that may not be profitable, but not a failure.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Workers in the Airbus factories in Varel, Nordenham and Laupheim have now stopped work in protest against Aribus' saving measures.

source: European Pain-Maker: Workers Strike as Airbus Announces Cuts - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

Ouch. This ain't going to help things at all. Stupid Unions. They would rather be out of work, then to have to work an extra 5 hours per week. Not that they would loose their jobs, but it dosen't help matters much. They need to pitch in and give a little extra to make the program a success.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I don't like the 380, and I'll never fly in one,

Do you actually decide which ticket to take on the basis of what plane is being used? I fly quite a lot and I seldom even know before I've reserved the ticket what plane is involved.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

... deplaining ...

Is this a real word in Americanese?

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I wonder what people will think the first time one crashes with 800 people on board. It's not like a plane with 200.

555 passengers not 800.

It makes absolutely no difference to me whether I'm in a crash on a 747 with 300 other people that also die or on an A380 with 500 other people that die. Either way I'm dead. If the plane is as reliable as a 747 then I would be stupid to turn it down. The big draw of the A380 for me is the extra space. If I can choose, I will far rather take one of them on a long haul than a 747. You can already wipe out a whole town in one crash and that doesn't stop people from flying.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

If they build all 300 ...

Who says they'll stop at 300?

[voodoo]

It is not hard to know the make and model of the plane scheduled to carry you, at least on one of the legacy carriers. Could be harder to know for a charter.

I'd fly with the 380 in a heartbeat. I know it is a fine piece of engineering. It's size is of no consequence. If buckaroo is shy about the size then he sure won't fly the 748 anytime in the future.

I would never fly on a DC10 or MD11 though. I just don't like them and think they are a shoddy design. Nor will I fly the Shorts 360 ever again. That is utter crap.

V

[analogika]

Development on the 380F has been suspended for now.

Which is interesting, since it will rekindle the HUGE brou-ha-ha between Airbus, the Hamburg Senate, and the dozens of farmers who owned the land that the runway extension is to be built on. It was bought off them for a good price after several years of major piss-matches.

I'm curious to see what happens now.

[mduell]

BOSTON (Reuters) -- Troubled Airbus suffered its second hammer blow in a week Friday when the last cargo customer deserted the freight version of its delayed A380 superjumbo, days after the planemaker announced 10,000 job cuts.

...

UPS said it was concerned that Airbus, a unit of EADS, could not fill its orders in a timely manner.

UPS had already said it was delaying taking deliveries of its 10 aircraft beyond 2010 and reached agreement with Airbus last week to wait for the results of a review.

All that changed when EADS and Airbus said Thursday the planemaker would temporarily stop working on the cargo version of the world's largest airliner in Toulouse, France.

"UPS had intended to complete an internal study of whether it could wait until 2012 for the aircraft, but now understands Airbus is diverting employees from the A380 freighter program to work on the passenger version of the plane," it said.

"Based on our previous discussions, we had felt that 2012 was a reasonable estimate of when Airbus could supply this plane," UPS president David Abney said in a statement. "We no longer are confident that Airbus can adhere to that schedule." (CNNMoney source)

Looks like last weeks 10 year postponement was just a smokescreen, as many people predicted.

Another article at Bloomberg.

[Kevin]

So can we stick a fork in it yet?

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Do you actually decide which ticket to take on the basis of what plane is being used? I fly quite a lot and I seldom even know before I've reserved the ticket what plane is involved.

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.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Is this a real word in Americanese?

I was in a hurry, and I didn't know how to spell "getting of the plane".

what is it, de-planeing? I think you drop the e, but MS Word wanted to change it to de-planning which isn't right.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Who says they'll stop at 300?

Have they ever gotten that production certificate someone was talking about? (whatever it was called).

[Buckaroo]

So Glidescope was right. I had a hunch the freight version was never going to be built.

Originally Posted by mduell 

BOSTON (Reuters) -- Troubled Airbus suffered its second hammer blow in a week Friday when the last cargo customer deserted the freight version of its delayed A380 superjumbo, days after the planemaker announced 10,000 job cuts.

...

UPS said it was concerned that Airbus, a unit of EADS, could not fill its orders in a timely manner.

UPS had already said it was delaying taking deliveries of its 10 aircraft beyond 2010 and reached agreement with Airbus last week to wait for the results of a review.

All that changed when EADS and Airbus said Thursday the planemaker would temporarily stop working on the cargo version of the world's largest airliner in Toulouse, France.

"UPS had intended to complete an internal study of whether it could wait until 2012 for the aircraft, but now understands Airbus is diverting employees from the A380 freighter program to work on the passenger version of the plane," it said.

"Based on our previous discussions, we had felt that 2012 was a reasonable estimate of when Airbus could supply this plane," UPS president David Abney said in a statement. "We no longer are confident that Airbus can adhere to that schedule." (CNNMoney source)

Looks like last weeks 10 year postponement was just a smokescreen, as many people predicted.

Another article at Bloomberg.

[Buckaroo]

Now that they have canceled the freight version, it's one more push into the failure direction. Maybe that other poster was right, failure is just around the corner.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

So Glidescope was right. I had a hunch the freight version was never going to be built.

(Glideslope) as in obtaining the Outer Marker.

....and now with the exception of the 332F Boeing will almost completely own the fastest growing segment for the next 15-20 years.

Watch for a UPS order mid April for 15-777F and 15 748F.

I actually feel sorry for the people being laid off. The fact that there will still be 2 CEO's after Power 8 is mind boggling IMO. I don't think Power 8 would have be voted in by the EADS Board if not for the threatening comments of Putin.

Airbus needs to learn from this if they survive. The cuts are the only way from keeping the Russians from taking over EADS to rebuild their decomposed infrastructure.

[voodoo]

The 380F has been postponed, but it hasn't been cancelled. Airbus wants the pax version out and in production and flying revinue before going for the F. A wise choice.

V

[Kevin]

Of course it's a wise choice. They didn't have any OTHER choice.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Of course it's a wise choice. They didn't have any OTHER choice.

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

[Buckaroo]

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

Infinite funds. Yeah, that's why they had to cut 10,000 jobs. I smell failure in the wind.

[analogika]

Yep, and Apple is going out of business.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Yep, and Apple is going out of business.

Tochie.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Yep, and Apple is going out of business.

Back in 97 they looked a lot like the A30.