🌟 Exclusive Amazon Cyber Monday Deals 🌟

Don’t miss out on the best deals of the season! Shop now 🎁

A350 Jet Plans

a320av8r

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
1,429
2
Airbus, EADS Launch A350 Jet Plans

PARIS - Airbus and its parent company, EADS, launched a program to build a plane to rival Boeing's 787 on Thursday but agreed to put government aid on hold as Europe and the U.S. try to resolve their trade dispute on aircraft subsidies.

European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., which owns 80 percent of Airbus, gave the go-ahead to build the mid-sized A350 plane at a board meeting in Amsterdam. Britain's BAE Systems PLC, which owns the remaining 20 percent, also approved the launch.

"With the official industrial launch of the A350, Airbus will now be able to book firm orders and expects around 200 of these by the end of the year," EADS said.

The launch of the A350 program had initially been planned earlier this year. Airbus said in June that the trans-Atlantic trade row had delayed the decision.

European Union and U.S. negotiators are trying to work out a settlement to the dispute, which began last year when Washington tore up a 1992 pact on aircraft subsidies and filed a World Trade Organization complaint against EU government aid to Airbus.

Brussels retaliated in a countersuit citing tax breaks and research and development subsidies to Chicago-based Boeing and its suppliers, including Japanese companies working on the 787 Dreamliner, due to enter service in 2008.

Airbus has applied for about 1.5 billion euros ($1.8 billion) in funding from France, Germany, Britain and Spain toward the estimated 4.4 billion euro ($5.3 billion) cost of the A350 program. Under pressure from Washington, however, the four governments have stopped short of committing public funds to the A350 program.

EADS said all four governments had "responded favorably" to Airbus' funding applications, adding that "Airbus, EADS and BAE Systems have decided that no disbursement should take place throughout 2006" while trans-Atlantic negotiations continue.

But a British government spokesman said in an interview that London had so far made no funding pledges to the A350 program.

"We haven't given anybody any money and we're still deciding whether we will," said James Thomson, spokesman for the Department of Trade and Industry. "We're still looking at whether we are going to provide any kind of repayable launch investment to Airbus."

Thomson added: "The four Airbus governments have agreed that no financial support will be paid to Airbus as long as there is a credible prospect of negotiations with the U.S."

French Transport Minister Dominique Perben said in an interview with financial daily La Tribune that France had agreed "in principle" to provide funding but that the funding application is still "in the process of being examined."

U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman had warned EU governments that any commitment of funds to the A350 program would complicate efforts to negotiate a broader compromise on aircraft subsidies.

Peter Power, spokesman for EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson, said "no such launch investment has been put in place for the A350, although there is general support for the plane."

He added: "This helps a possible negotiation in the dispute with Boeing, which we would welcome."

But Portman's office reacted angrily to the A350 launch. "It's clear that the EU countries are unwilling to stop subsidizing Airbus. Therefore, we will continue to push ahead with our WTO case," spokeswoman Christin Baker said in an e-mailed statement.

Boeing had no immediate comment about the Airbus launch.

But Jim Condelles, a spokesman for Boeing's commercial airplane unit in Seattle, said, "We're certainly not surprised. We've been anticipating this. The question for us is why it took so long for them to react to the 787."

He said Boeing has had 273 orders for the Dreamliner and commitments from 23 customers.

Rolls-Royce Group PLC also announced Thursday it had reached a deal with Airbus to supply engines for the A350. Its new Trent 1700 engine will be available for deliveries from mid-2011, the company said.

Airbus plans to begin commercial deliveries of the long-range, fuel-efficient A350 in 2010, with engines first developed for the Dreamliner by General Electric Co.

EADS shares closed 1.3 percent lower at 29.11 euros ($35.11) in Paris trading. Boeing shares rose $1, or 1.5 percent, to $68.05 in afternoon New York trading.
 
Put another way.

The A350 is a loser up against the 787.. Years behind the 787 launch and technically inferior to the 787..

The smart play, don't build it. The A350 will be the Fokker 100 of Airbus..
 
justaumechanic said:
Put another way.

The A350 is a loser up against the 787.. Years behind the 787 launch and technically inferior to the 787..

The smart play, don't build it. The A350 will be the Fokker 100 of Airbus..
[post="309571"][/post]​


Why do you make this statement? I have not yet seen the specs of the A350 - in what ways is it deficient?
 
Boeing4me said:
Why do you make this statement?  I have not yet seen the specs of the A350 - in what ways is it deficient?
[post="309574"][/post]​
you can read the rest of the article from Der Spiegel for yourself, there are many others.

B]Even the new Airbus A350 is unlikely to be a major seller. Because the Europeans lacked the available personnel for a complete redevelopment and apparently wanted to save money, they simply freshened up their existing model, the A330, to the annoyance of many customers. Moreover, even the new A350 won't come onto the market until two years after the 787's debut.[/b][/I]



http://service.spiegel.de/cache/internatio...,359407,00.html
 
Leave it to USAirways to jump in the sack with Airbus....when many other US Airlines are going Boeing in favor of the 787.

Many do not understand how bad an idea it is to go against the tide in regards to keeping aircraft flying

U has a history of flying odd-ball fleet types...that are or will become difficult to support. Airbus is no gem in regards to providing support in this country...and inter-dependence between carriers is all to often the only option to keep a given plane flying.

Hmmm, here are a few examples of Acft that U has had or have...that are hard to support...cuz few other US Airlines fly them..or flew them.

(1) A330-300.....NW only has a handfull of them...and its tough to support
(2) A321....other than Spirit and Air Jamaica we are solely dependent on Airbus..and they are dependent on US. The A321 presents just enough differences between itself and the remainder of the A320 family , to make itself a monumental pain in the arse. We should have opted for more B757's for a zillion reasons.
(3) F-100...with AA and the former Midway being the only other options beyond Fokker in AMS....plus it noted shortcomings , its spells DOG in many ways.
(4) F-28...pretty much the same as the F-100

Sure...everything has its share of pluses and minuses....but a carrier that still in an uphill fight , does not need to saddle itself with added problems...and being the first kid on the block with a new toy is not always the brightest idea.

Noting that AC is going with the 787 after a lengthy run with Airbus tell me something...and it should be painting a picture that others need to look at with very trained eyes.
 
A lot of the problems between US Airways and Boeing stem back from the 427 crash. Boeing treated this airline horribly, ask the suits and ask the guys that stock the parts.
 
If all the negativity about the 350 is true then the 787 may turn out to be a real thorn in the Airbus rear end. There is no doubt that Boeing is betting the farm that the 787 will be an Airbus killer.
 
can the new US get a better relationship with Boeing and get over the bitterness that stemmed from teh FLIGHT 427 crash? To me that would actually make a bit more sense but that is just me
 
Boeing killed 132 people on Flight 427 by using a faulty hydraulic rudder actuator and not having a backup actuator. They then tried blame USAirways for the accident. If it wasn't for USairways pilot John Cox the truth would have never come out. Anyone can make a mistake but then to lie about it is unconscionable.

I hope Boeing never gets another dime of our money.

P.S. Have you ever sat in the middle seat of a 757 for five hours? It's a miserable experience. I'll take the Airbus 321 any day.
 
Phantom Fixer said:
Hmmm, here are a few examples of Acft that U has had or have...that are hard to support...cuz few other US Airlines fly them..or flew them.

(1) A330-300.....NW only has a handfull of them...and its tough to support
(2) A321....other than Spirit and Air Jamaica we are solely dependent on Airbus..and they are dependent on US. The A321 presents just enough differences between itself and the remainder of the A320 family , to make itself a monumental pain in the arse. We should have opted for more B757's for a zillion reasons.
(3) F-100...with AA and the former Midway being the only other options beyond Fokker in AMS....plus it noted shortcomings , its spells DOG in many ways.
(4) F-28...pretty much the same as the F-100

[post="309591"][/post]​

Air Canada also has some 321's now.
Mexicana had the F100 at the same time we did.

I agree that they might be foolish to have gone with the 350 instead of the 787, considering how far along the design stage the 787 is, but nobody at old US was talking to Boeing.

Part of the fallout from 427 was the cancellation of the remaining 757 order (which was most likely the reason for the 321) and a still unknown settlement to Boeing for cancelling the order.
 
Can anyone elaborate on what Boeing did to US regarding the 427 accident? This is a story that I am not familiar with.
 
They basically blamed them and then it turned out it was Boeings fault.

1588340058.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIlitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,32,-59_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
 
Light Years said:
They basically blamed them and then it turned out it was Boeings fault.
[post="309616"][/post]​


First of all....after a crash , everyones ducking for cover because of liability issues. That's not too difficult to understand when you start talking law suits.

Next...I commented about the lack of US operators of certain Airbus products....and then people pull Mexicana and AC out of their....Never Mind.
Being a person that follws these issues...and all to ofetn has to wait for product support...I can tell you without fail , that buying from operators or vendors outside the US...including countries that we share common borders with , is NOT a breeze.

US Customs has a big play in delays....and Custom declarations to get a part from Canada or Mexico further complicates the process. Issues of the declaration present an issue...and then you have documentation of the items actual cash value that come into play. Then you have to involve a bonded courior...and hope to be able to have the item "Pre-Cleared" when it arrives at the end user destination. Any lapse along the way adds time to the problem


Next....427's problem was not Boeing itself. The maker of the defective item was Parker-Hannifan. After all was said and done...and all the affected Acft were re-fitted...No further problems have taken place. Sure....427 was an aweful ordeal for all involved....but the 737 still reigns as the largest numerically produced Acft in commercial aviation history....and with such large numbers , eventually something is going to happen. The odds support this.

Lastly...U has saddled itself with Airbus for the long haul in terms that have spelled out with regards to a large number of lease returns...and additional creative financing. U does not have the option of simply going back with Boeing....no matter how much sense it would make in the 787 Vs. A350 purchase. We have made our bed....and thats that.
 
Notwithstanding the problems with the 737 rudder, Airbus has managed to place its equipment at airlines in the USA only during times of financial stress - with the exception of AA's A300 order which was done solely as a political move.

It's doubtful Boeing will kill Airbus with the 787 but Boeing will clearly lead the industry in the widebody sector for generations. The 787 is light years technologically ahead of the A350. Already the 777 is the reigning market leader over every model in the A330/340 family. The market for the A380 is quite small and Boeing still can pitch an updated 747-400 for a fraction of what the A380 costs to major int'l airlines like British Airways that have not committed to the A380 - and still make money because the 747 program paid for itself decades ago. And Boeing is probably just years away from launching a narrowbody replacement to the 737 family based on the 787. Airbus simply doesn't have the resources to develop yet another aircraft esp. since everything they are doing is trailing Boeing's products technologically. In aerospace and technology driven industries, being a price leader isn't a viable business plan. No airline or passenger wants to fly second or third tier airplanes. The 90s were good to Airbus but their star is fading in favor of Boeing.
 
traderjake said:
Boeing killed 132 people on Flight 427 by using a faulty hydraulic rudder actuator and not having a backup actuator. They then tried blame USAirways for the accident. If it wasn't for USairways pilot John Cox the truth would have never come out. Anyone can make a mistake but then to lie about it is unconscionable.

I hope Boeing never gets another dime of our money.

P.S. Have you ever sat in the middle seat of a 757 for five hours? It's a miserable experience. I'll take the Airbus 321 any day.
[post="309607"][/post]​
ok thanks. PS I have been on the 321 once with a window seat and it isnt bad at all. Is the acuator the part that actually moves the rudder?
 
Back
Top