Airbus 15 minutes of fame over?

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:04:54 -0500, E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 11:59:32 GMT, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
wrote:

Boeing is predicting 275 deliveries for 2004 while Airbus is already
downplaying its sales and saying they will only deliver about 250 this year.

Boeing already has new orders for 20 aircraft.

With the current Euro/Dollar situation, any US airline that was thinking
about buying Airbus is likely to reconsider. That Airbus plane will cost 20%
more than it would have just 12 months ago.


The Europeans should be happy, given the level of direct and indirect
subsidies that Airbus receives; the more they sell, the more the
taxpayers have to kick in.

While the U.S., specifically Washington State, kicks in a $3.2 billion
tax-incentive package for Boeing to keep 1200 assembly line jobs for
the 7E7 in the state. Then add in the millions of tax dollars spent
retraining tens of thousands of laid off Boeing workers whose jobs
have been shipped overseas and, and....

In article ,
"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote:

The Black Veil wrote:

It should be real funny too when Airbus discovers that airports
simply don't want the hassle of the A380.

Who would lock them out and why?

Airports that don't want to have to redesign their whole system to
handle a two-deck airliner.

For example, part of the reason Orlando is holding off on a new terminal
addition is to figure out if it's worthwhile to make the new layout
capable of handling such monsters. Most smaller airports just won't
have the cash to build double-deck embarkation ramps until they see a
lot of *other* places building them. Chicken-and-egg problem.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On or about Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:34:34 GMT, Chad Irby
allegedly uttered:

In article ,
"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote:

The Black Veil wrote:

It should be real funny too when Airbus discovers that airports
simply don't want the hassle of the A380.

Who would lock them out and why?

Airports that don't want to have to redesign their whole system to
handle a two-deck airliner.

For example, part of the reason Orlando is holding off on a new terminal
addition is to figure out if it's worthwhile to make the new layout
capable of handling such monsters. Most smaller airports just won't
have the cash to build double-deck embarkation ramps until they see a
lot of *other* places building them. Chicken-and-egg problem.

If you actually check out the Airbus website, they have addressed this
problem, with options for single or twin deck embarkation/debarkation.
Hence the particularly wide stairs.

Using just the main cabin level to deplane is a 14 minute evolution,
filling her up again is 22 minutes. Sounds pretty good to me for a 555
passenger layout.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

In article ,
Peter Kemp peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote:

If you actually check out the Airbus website, they have addressed this
problem, with options for single or twin deck embarkation/debarkation.
Hence the particularly wide stairs.

....and a normal-sized aircraft door, into a normal-sized embarkation
walkway. Not a good solution.

Using just the main cabin level to deplane is a 14 minute evolution,
filling her up again is 22 minutes. Sounds pretty good to me for a 555
passenger layout.

Sounds like someone's being *really* optimistic about deplaning times.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

No,absolutely not!
Airbus has an insurance guarantee until 2005 for the Euro/dollar level.
So,any US airline (why US?),like you say,that was thinking about buying
Airbus is NOT likely to
reconsider.That Airbus plane WON'T cost 20% more than it would have just 12
months ago.

You say: The Europeans should be happy, given the level of direct and
indirect
subsidies that Airbus receives; the more they sell, the more the
taxpayers have to kick in.

I suppose the situation of Airbus,now leading the market,is quite boring for
you.It's not a reason
to tell anything.
We,europeans,"should be happy" because subsidies.....
Airbus doesn't receive real subsidies for a long time now,but advances that
have to be paid back.
Have Boeing to pay back?Pentagon,washington state,aso...
Shouldn't you be "happy" of it?

The truth is simple.Airbus is,at the moment,making better.I guess
Boieng,that is a very
capable company,will react.
On civilian markets,pressions can't do everything,except maybe in Japan
(...).The companies have to
make money,not diplomacy.So the best wins.Unlike military markets...

And last,but not least,aren't able to threat without such condescension
anyone making better
than you do?


"Buzzer" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:04:54 -0500, E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 11:59:32 GMT, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
wrote:

Boeing is predicting 275 deliveries for 2004 while Airbus is already
downplaying its sales and saying they will only deliver about 250 this
year.

Boeing already has new orders for 20 aircraft.

With the current Euro/Dollar situation, any US airline that was thinking
about buying Airbus is likely to reconsider. That Airbus plane will cost
20%
more than it would have just 12 months ago.


The Europeans should be happy, given the level of direct and indirect
subsidies that Airbus receives; the more they sell, the more the
taxpayers have to kick in.

While the U.S., specifically Washington State, kicks in a $3.2 billion
tax-incentive package for Boeing to keep 1200 assembly line jobs for
the 7E7 in the state. Then add in the millions of tax dollars spent
retraining tens of thousands of laid off Boeing workers whose jobs
have been shipped overseas and, and....

To treat,not to threat.sorry.

"Mike" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
No,absolutely not!
Airbus has an insurance guarantee until 2005 for the Euro/dollar level.
So,any US airline (why US?),like you say,that was thinking about buying
Airbus is NOT likely to
reconsider.That Airbus plane WON'T cost 20% more than it would have just
12
months ago.

You say: The Europeans should be happy, given the level of direct and
indirect
subsidies that Airbus receives; the more they sell, the more the
taxpayers have to kick in.

I suppose the situation of Airbus,now leading the market,is quite boring
for
you.It's not a reason
to tell anything.
We,europeans,"should be happy" because subsidies.....
Airbus doesn't receive real subsidies for a long time now,but advances
that
have to be paid back.
Have Boeing to pay back?Pentagon,washington state,aso...
Shouldn't you be "happy" of it?

The truth is simple.Airbus is,at the moment,making better.I guess
Boieng,that is a very
capable company,will react.
On civilian markets,pressions can't do everything,except maybe in Japan
(...).The companies have to
make money,not diplomacy.So the best wins.Unlike military markets...

And last,but not least,aren't able to threat without such condescension
anyone making better
than you do?


"Buzzer" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:04:54 -0500, E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 11:59:32 GMT, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
wrote:

Boeing is predicting 275 deliveries for 2004 while Airbus is already
downplaying its sales and saying they will only deliver about 250 this
year.

Boeing already has new orders for 20 aircraft.

With the current Euro/Dollar situation, any US airline that was
thinking
about buying Airbus is likely to reconsider. That Airbus plane will
cost
20%
more than it would have just 12 months ago.


The Europeans should be happy, given the level of direct and indirect
subsidies that Airbus receives; the more they sell, the more the
taxpayers have to kick in.

While the U.S., specifically Washington State, kicks in a $3.2 billion
tax-incentive package for Boeing to keep 1200 assembly line jobs for
the 7E7 in the state. Then add in the millions of tax dollars spent
retraining tens of thousands of laid off Boeing workers whose jobs
have been shipped overseas and, and....