Airbus has announced the first delvery of the A380 has been further
set back to
Oct or November of 2006,with the possibility of a further delay until
early 2007.
Stories circulating in the industry are reporting significant
problems, Weight, landing gear,bilkheads.

Delivery delays are going to prove very costly for Airbus, but what
the heck they're losing money on everyone they sell anyway.

KT

On 3 May 2005 13:40:12 -0700, (Ken) wrote:

>Airbus has announced the first delvery of the A380 has been further
>set back to
>Oct or November of 2006,with the possibility of a further delay until
>early 2007.
>Stories circulating in the industry are reporting significant
>problems, Weight, landing gear,bilkheads.
>
>Delivery delays are going to prove very costly for Airbus, but what
>the heck they're losing money on everyone they sell anyway.
>
>KT

So far, Airbus has booked 154 orders for the A380, which will carry
passengers 5 percent further than Boeing's longest-range 747 jumbo at
a per-passenger cost up to one-fifth lower.

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

Ken wrote:
/snip/
> Stories circulating in the industry are reporting significant
> problems, Weight, landing gear,bilkheads.
>
> Delivery delays are going to prove very costly for Airbus, but what
> the heck they're losing money on everyone they sell anyway.
>
> KT

Arrrggh! It's those darned *bilkheads* again!!!

Scott Skylane > wrote:

>Ken wrote:
>/snip/
>> Stories circulating in the industry are reporting significant
>> problems, Weight, landing gear,bilkheads.
>>
>> Delivery delays are going to prove very costly for Airbus, but what
>> the heck they're losing money on everyone they sell anyway.
>>
>> KT
>
>Arrrggh! It's those darned *bilkheads* again!!!

Yeh...bilking everyone right and left...no wonder they're losing
money...

--
-Gord.

"Perhaps my memory isn't what it
used to be - if it ever was"

"Ken" > wrote in message
om...
> Airbus has announced the first delvery of the A380 has been further
> set back to
> Oct or November of 2006,with the possibility of a further delay until
> early 2007.
> Stories circulating in the industry are reporting significant
> problems, Weight, landing gear,bilkheads.
>
> Delivery delays are going to prove very costly for Airbus, but what
> the heck they're losing money on everyone they sell anyway.
>
> KT

And of course they won't lose any money it they scrap it either since that
bill's already been paid by the EU. Anyone want to give _me_ a 0% "loan" of
billions to see if I can design a new jet and sell it? Promise to pay it
all back out of the profits! Something like, say, 5% on the profit of each
plane?

Robert,

> Anyone want to give _me_ a 0% "loan" of
> billions to see if I can design a new jet and sell it?
>

No, but you can have a nice, fat government contract for something else
to support you. How about that?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Robert,
>
> > Anyone want to give _me_ a 0% "loan" of
> > billions to see if I can design a new jet and sell it?
> >
>
> No, but you can have a nice, fat government contract for something else
> to support you. How about that?
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

Government contracts require you to actually deliver a product or a service.
They aren't charity by any stretch of the imagination, and they are bid out
on a competitive basis. Big difference between that and getting low
interest no-obligation loans.

On Thu, 5 May 2005 16:36:35 -0600, "Dean Wilkinson"
> wrote:

>"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>> Robert,
>>
>> > Anyone want to give _me_ a 0% "loan" of
>> > billions to see if I can design a new jet and sell it?
>> >
>>
>> No, but you can have a nice, fat government contract for something else
>> to support you. How about that?
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>>
>
>Government contracts require you to actually deliver a product or a service.
>They aren't charity by any stretch of the imagination, and they are bid out
>on a competitive basis.///

....lavatory seats, for example

[sorry, sorry, couldn't resist...]

Brian W

Dean,

> They aren't charity by any stretch of the imagination, and they are bid out
> on a competitive basis.
>

Uh, yeah, right, if you say so. Oh, and that's exactly how I remember it with
the new Airforce tankers, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> > They aren't charity by any stretch of the imagination, and they are bid out
> > on a competitive basis.
>
> Uh, yeah, right, if you say so. Oh, and that's exactly how I remember it with
> the new Airforce tankers, too.

So, you are saying that the Airbus deal is equivalent to the deal Boeing got
from the USAF because of Drunyan?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Bob,

> So, you are saying that the Airbus deal is equivalent to the deal Boeing got
> from the USAF because of Drunyan?
>

What I'm saying is that both Airbus and Boeing get strong support from their
respective governments.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> > So, you are saying that the Airbus deal is equivalent to the deal Boeing got
> > from the USAF because of Drunyan?
>
> What I'm saying is that both Airbus and Boeing get strong support from their
> respective governments.

Mentioning the bogus (illegal?) deal Drunyan made with Boeing doesn't support
any claim that both Airbus and Boeing get equal treatment from their respective
governments. In fact, it would provide additional support to the view that
Airbus gets better deals.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule