EADS Sees US Airways Emerging As a Strong Buyer...

[AOG-N-IT]

Again, We know that on paper. Airbus offered Wolf a sweet deal. How sweet is the deal in regards to a business that has to,or should be focused on the cost of Initial purchase Vs. the cost of long term ownership? Simply put, Wolf couldn't have cared less. He had no long term aspirations for U. His sole focus was to show a decrease in current operating costs and fuel savings. This was completely directed to making U look more attractive to UA for the buy-out he dreamed of. Lets see..He took the company for a financial ride...we all highly suspect he got Kick-Backs for the Airbus purchase...and then he sought personal multi-millions in additional gain by selling us off to United. This is a triple-dip if there ever was one. Surely the lack of a Plan B when the merger failed to happen says everything about a failed business plan...and no real concern for U's investors or employee's. This is downright criminal in my opinion. I just hope that somehow the Investors can gain enough tangible proof of these issues , to take Wolf to task in court. Greed was the only driving force...and it was at the expense of everyone involved.

 

[Chock]

AOG-N-IT,
Your description of the Airbus is highly accurate, but when USAIR was in the process of selecting a new airframe, the mechanic's knew that the Airbus was an inferior product in regards to the Boeings. But, as in every other aspect in USAIR, our recommendations were ignored. BTW, I remember reading a few years ago a cover story in the NY Times business section, on corporation's that are heavily involved in under the table payment's. Care to guess who was at the top of their chart?....AIRBUS. It also doesn't hurt when Wolf owns a chateau (that's a castle for all you Marines) in France.........how convenient!

 

[ref80]

[BR]Busdrver:[BR][BR]And a couple of those stupid pilot's were Airbus factory test pilot's that did a beautiful approach and landing in a forest during the Farnborough Air Show in 1988. These pilots could not of been that stupid since this aircraft should of been very familiar to them. Maybe it wasn't pilot induced, but Airbus's design concept of putting too much faith in computer technology and a lack of understanding between flight test and engineering about whether it supposed to do this or that.

 

[ref80]

Besides the fact US was on Boeing's *#$@ list at the time, and Boeing had developed a huge backlog of their NG A/C. US had no other choice except the Airbus deal. And yes, Wolf was getting a % (approved by the BOD) on every Bus delivery that made it to US's property. I believe US settled their long standing breach of contract (on a A/C order that US failed to carry through with) with Boeing by settling out of court for $150 million(guess?). What a Waste!!

 

[UAL777flyer]

The ultimate decision in ordering the Airbus for US was made because of the very sweet deal Airbus offered Wolf.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/9/2002 5:08:49 PM UAL777flyer wrote:

The ultimate decision in ordering the Airbus for US was made because of the very sweet deal Airbus offered Wolf.
----------------
[/blockquote]

And, as with UAL and NWA, the lack of a comparable product from Boeing. UAL wanted a 727 replacement, Boeing offered some cheesy 737-400s for a MUCH higher price. Maybe had boeing been proactive and had a comparable product, the 320 would have never gotten off the ground. FWIW, there has not been an A320 crash due to anything other than stupid pilots.

 

[ref80]

[P][BR][A href=http://av-info.faa.gov/GetFleetAge.asp]http://av-info.faa.gov/GetFleetAge.asp[/A][BR][BR]Average age of Aircraft Link[/P]
[P]Interesting comparisons esspecially with Boeing, Douglas (DC-3 with 62 years) and Lockheed.[BR][BR][BR][/P]
[P]

---

[P][/P]
[P][BR][/P]

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/9/2002 7:29:32 PM ref80 wrote:


Busdrvr wrote: Had he done the SAME thing in a Boeing, what do you think would have happened? [/P]

---

[/P]A landing on a runway or a go-around, since the pilots on a Boeing are not wondering if the computer is going to let it stall,they know it will because they are flying the machine and not being flown by the machine.
----------------
[/blockquote]

While flying the bus I never once said let's see if I can stall this thing. The test pilot was performing an unauthorized unresearched demo. If a Boeing test pilot crashed a 747 doing an aileron roll because he thinks it'll do it, would that be the jets fault or the idiot who tried it? BTW the 777 is Fly by wire.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/9/2002 5:57:08 PM ref80 wrote:

Busdrver:

And a couple of those stupid pilot's were Airbus factory test pilot's that did a beautiful approach and landing in a forest during the Farnborough Air Show in 1988. These pilots could not of been that stupid since this aircraft should of been very familiar to them. Maybe it wasn't pilot induced, but Airbus's design concept of putting too much faith in computer technology and a lack of understanding between flight test and engineering about whether it supposed to do this or that.
----------------
[/blockquote]


The test pilot was trying to prove that the bus would not stall to a bunch of reporters. Funny thing is it will, and was DESIGNED to BELOW 100 ft (like when your trying to land). Had he done the SAME thing in a Boeing, what do you think would have happened? Yes, he would have crashed! The jet performed as advertised and only crashed because the moron was trying to prove it WOULDN'T!

 

[ref80]

[P]Busdrvr wrote: Had he done the SAME thing in a Boeing, what do you think would have happened? [/P]
[P]

---

[/P]A landing on a runway or a go-around, since the pilots on a Boeing are not wondering if the computer is going to let it stall,they know it will because they are flying the machine and not being flown by the machine.

 

[ref80]

[P]Busdrvr wrote : BTW the 777 is Fly by wire[/P]
[P]

---

Also the 777 is accident free to date. Could it be Boeing's concept to fly-by-wire is more user friendly (by keeping the pilot in command of the A/C) rather than the overkill approach of Airbus that a computer can do anything and everything better than a human. Granted their are many functions a computer is far superior than a human trying to accomplish the same task,such as anti-skid,Cat3 approaches,engine parameters, etc. However in a Boeing you know what you see is what you get vs. in a Airbus what you don't see you still might get. Again, I'm not slaming Airbus or trying to sell Boeings, but just offering my own opinion. [BR][/P]

 

[AOG-N-IT]

The A320 Test-Mow was a big mess. I have heard varying accounts regarding the French/German post-crash investigation ..and final report. I feel certain that with the large amount of goverment funding behind the Airbus Consortium..that maybe the findings were not as Matter of Fact as they could have been? The Pilot was an easy mark for blame...and without hampering the production schedule or certification of the aircraft. I have to wonder..If the A321 is as Smart has we hear about?..Why have we had two known cases of them dragging thier tails? Was this a Software problem?...or was the flightcrew over-riding something? I saw the results of the first episode in PHL...and I monitored the repair progress in CLT. The best part was waiting to see Hans and Franz finally show up from Hamburg to aid in the process. Amazing..Boeing could have looked at the data regarding the damage...and simply fowarded a repair scheme to our very capable mechanics and sheet-metal guys. (Thus cutting down on the Out of Service timeframe.

 

[Bob Owens]

I agree with the Boeing gang. Airbus is junk, a throw away aircraft. They have their pluses. The A-300-600s Cargo Capacity is excellent, or so I've been told. It seems that the Airbus cant make altitude. This helps stowaways. A while back a mechanic was startled when a badly injured man fell out of the Wheel Well while he was doing his walk around. The stowaway complained of being cold and that his ears hurt, gee I wonder why? If it had been a 767 he would have been dead. $600 headrests, $400 blow out panels that break if you look at them the wrong way, hydraulic leaks, inferior aluminum,wings that leak fuel if you leave too much fuel in them, small wings, structural floor panels, smelly galleys and the uniqueness of each aircraft that hinders the quick replacement of panels etc are just some of the things that make the scarebus the overtime machine. Most airlines got them because they got a deal. Boeing is a better airplane.
They make more more in the air than in the hangar!

 

[AM49AAA]

Douglas aircraft are the best for pure durability. Th DC9 has operatrd in the short haul, high cycle markets since it inception. NWAC has decided to extnd their duty to 40-45 years on many in their fleet. The sky is litered with many ex pax DC9, DC8 and DC10 aircraft now converted to freighters. The 737, 727, and 747's have proven to be solid aircraft. The A300 family is not holding up well. Another 10 years should tell the tale on the A320 family.

 

[AOG-N-IT]

AM49AAA , I agree!! MDC (Formerly Douglas Aircraft) built a hell of an airplane. The Longevity of the DC-9 in passenger service is legendary. The DC-10 may have it's critics? ..and alot of that was due to the McDonnell influence after the merger with Douglas. Unfortunately for Douglas , money became tight in 1967..and the influx of the McDonnell's windfalls in profit from military contracts like the F-4 Phantom during the Vietnam War years..and Secretary of Defense Robert S. Mcnamara's insistance on a multi-role , Multi-Service aircraft , became an absolute must for the Douglas Commercial line to continue. Thankfully this did help...but McDonnell taking the lead from the marketing standpoint ultimately killed everything. McDonnell had no expierience in dealing with airline brass...or any tact in attempting to sell to airline brass. This became an achiles heel till the needed takeover by Boeing became an absolute must in 1995. The genious of Douglas designs become most evident when a person considers the growth and evolution of the DC-8 and DC-9 programs. The ability to stretch a fuselage..increase range and wieght carrying capabilities is nothing short of phenominal. Then toss in the ability to re-engine a DC-8 with more economical and efficient engines like the CFM-56. This spells Winner all day long. Even the venerable B707 cannot boast simular capabilities or flexabilities by design adaptability. This is not to say the B707 was not a great aircraft..any attempt to do so would be foolish. The DC-10 after having a few growing pains..and some avoidable mishaps , will live on and on in service with the USAF (KC-10 Extender/tanker)...and in frieght service with the DC-10-30 series being the premier example. All in all..te DC-10 will still be making money when just about every L-1011 has become a Budwieser can. Maybe I'm a bit biased in my views? My dad is after-all retired from MDC in Long Beach Ca. I was at the roll-out ceremony for the DC-9 when I was 6...and I remember the first Stretch-8 leaving the assembly building for it's maiden flight from LGB. Every saturday afternoon was a trip back to the plant for our family..Dad always had to take me to see the aircraft awaiting delivery. I can still remember the Playboy DC-9 awaiting departure from LGB to LAX , where Hugh Hefners duluxe interior was to be installed. The Bunny-Hutch was a real big deal in it's day for Douglas. God Bless the good people of Long Beach...a broken hearted Donald W. Douglas Sr. would still be proud of the efforts they put forth.