Discussion:
Boeing Eating Airbus' Lunch--U.S. Free Enterprise Wins Again
(too old to reply)
Proteus
2005-06-05 13:19:35 UTC
Permalink
Even socialist Canada's flagship line, Air Canada, has chosen Boeing's
787 Dreamliner over the huge Airbus 380A in a multi billion dollar order.
This was followed by a 300+ Boeing aircraft order by Indonesia.

Let's face it. The new Boeing 787 and 7E7 Dreamliner planes are much more
practical than Airbus ' "flying Titanic" 380A. And production delays for
the 380A have already been announced by the heavily taxpayer-
subsidized Airbus consortium. All of this is very damaging publicity for
Airbus.

The Boeing airplanes are more fuel efficient, quieter than the Airbus
monstrosity
and can fly non-stop to any destination on the planet. Whereas the Airbus
requires
costly airstrip enlargements. For air passengers, who would want to be on a
plane
with 550-600 smelly, proletarian passengers. Can you envision the processing
lineups
and nightmares in the airport after landing? Also anti-terrorist security
would be more
difficult with the Airbus 380A. And what a juicy target it would be.

Still we can be glad that Airbus is there. Competition is good. Without
Airbus there
wouldn't be any.
Mel Fury
2005-06-05 13:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Proteus
Even socialist Canada's flagship line, Air Canada, has chosen Boeing's
787 Dreamliner over the huge Airbus 380A in a multi billion dollar order.
This was followed by a 300+ Boeing aircraft order by Indonesia.
Air Canada is a private sector corporation with shares traded on the stock
exchange , something that wouldn't exist if Canada was a socialist country
where all goods and services are provided by the government.

You have proved again how much of an imbecile you are. Boeing is just as
subsidized as Airbus, neither are "free enterprise" corporations by your
warped measure.

You seriously require psychiatric counselling.
Mel Fury
2005-06-05 13:34:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Proteus
Even socialist Canada's flagship line, Air Canada, has chosen Boeing's
787 Dreamliner over the huge Airbus 380A in a multi billion dollar order.
This was followed by a 300+ Boeing aircraft order by Indonesia.
Air Canada is a private sector corporation with shares traded on the stock
exchange , something that wouldn't exist if Canada was a socialist country
where all goods and services are provided by the government.

You have proved again how much of an imbecile you are. Boeing is just as
subsidized as Airbus, neither are "free enterprise" corporations by your
warped measure.

You seriously require psychiatric counselling.
Post by Proteus
Let's face it. The new Boeing 787 and 7E7 Dreamliner planes are much more
practical than Airbus ' "flying Titanic" 380A. And production delays for
the 380A have already been announced by the heavily taxpayer-
subsidized Airbus consortium. All of this is very damaging publicity for
Airbus.
Airbus doesn't just make the 380A, you imbecile. Fuck, are you ignorant.
howtrue
2005-06-05 13:45:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Proteus
Even socialist Canada's flagship line, Air Canada, has chosen Boeing's
787 Dreamliner over the huge Airbus 380A in a multi billion dollar order.
This was followed by a 300+ Boeing aircraft order by Indonesia.
Let's face it. The new Boeing 787 and 7E7 Dreamliner planes are much more
practical than Airbus ' "flying Titanic" 380A. And production delays for
the 380A have already been announced by the heavily taxpayer-
subsidized Airbus consortium. All of this is very damaging publicity for
Airbus.
The Boeing airplanes are more fuel efficient, quieter than the Airbus
monstrosity
and can fly non-stop to any destination on the planet. Whereas the Airbus
requires
costly airstrip enlargements. For air passengers, who would want to be on a
plane
with 550-600 smelly, proletarian passengers. Can you envision the processing
lineups
and nightmares in the airport after landing? Also anti-terrorist security
would be more
difficult with the Airbus 380A. And what a juicy target it would be.
Still we can be glad that Airbus is there. Competition is good. Without
Airbus there
wouldn't be any.
Socialist Canada? Smelly, proletarian passengers? You wouldn't have a ugly bias, would you?
TheMan
2005-06-05 13:48:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Proteus
Even socialist Canada's flagship line, Air Canada, has chosen Boeing's
787 Dreamliner over the huge Airbus 380A in a multi billion dollar order.
This was followed by a 300+ Boeing aircraft order by Indonesia.
Face the facts sore loser... Airbus is now the worlds largest commercial aircraft
maker.

"Such and Such bought Boeing" doesn't mean jack shit, you can say the same thing
about the Airbuses A380's.

-TheMan-
Mack Dixon
2005-06-05 13:55:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by TheMan
Post by Proteus
Even socialist Canada's flagship line, Air Canada, has chosen Boeing's
787 Dreamliner over the huge Airbus 380A in a multi billion dollar order.
This was followed by a 300+ Boeing aircraft order by Indonesia.
Face the facts sore loser... Airbus is now the worlds largest commercial aircraft
maker.
"Such and Such bought Boeing" doesn't mean jack shit, you can say the same thing
about the Airbuses A380's.
-TheMan-
The only thing Proteus has on his side are childish lies by omission, half-
truths and lies. His name is Lambourn, he bends the truth worse than anyone
you'll ever know but his biggest problem is that he doesn't have the brains
to do it very well. His obvious deception is a reflection of
his low intelligence.
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-05 14:12:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by TheMan
Post by Proteus
Even socialist Canada's flagship line, Air Canada, has chosen Boeing's
787 Dreamliner over the huge Airbus 380A in a multi billion dollar order.
This was followed by a 300+ Boeing aircraft order by Indonesia.
Face the facts sore loser... Airbus is now the worlds largest commercial aircraft
maker.
"Such and Such bought Boeing" doesn't mean jack shit, you can say the same thing
about the Airbuses A380's.
-TheMan-
=================================

You were saying?

from WSJ

Airbus faces possible penalty payments of several million dollars to
airlines for delays in delivering its new A380 jetliner amid complaints
by some customers about lateness.

One airline executive said the penalties could run in the tens of
millions of dollars for one airline. Airbus declined to comment on
financial effects of the delays.

Details of the delays are trickling out from airlines more than a month
after Airbus said the delivery schedule would slip from the first half
of 2006. Geoff Dixon, chief executive of Australia's Qantas Airways,
said the delays of "at least six months" are "a major concern to us."

Qantas is due to be among the first airlines to receive the two-deck,
555-seat A380. The airline said in a statement that the delay was
"disappointing, given that we have met all of Airbus's deadlines" to
tell the aircraft maker how to customize the 12 A380s Qantas has
ordered. Mr. Dixon said his concern was lessened because Airbus isn't
changing the order in which it will deliver the planes to airlines, so
the delays won't put Qantas at a disadvantage against rival carriers.

An Airbus spokeswoman said delays will be between two months and six
months. Airbus officials blamed the delay largely on the complexity of
customizing the enormous aircraft, which buyers plan to fly as their
flagship jetliner and so are making quite elaborate. Other technical
issues also appear to be a factor, but Airbus wouldn't disclose details.

"We are embarrassed," said Airbus Chief Commercial Officer John Leahy.
"We will obviously owe some penalty payments to customers for a few
months' delay." Mr. Leahy said "we never realized" the degree of
customization airlines would want. When Airbus launched the A380 in
2000, it advertised the largest passenger jet ever as "the eighth wonder
of the world," and promised new amenities such as health clubs and
casinos on board.

Airbus said on April 27, after the A380's first flight, that the plane
would enter service "in the second half of 2006." When airlines ordered
the plane, some as far back as 2000, Airbus targeted deliveries for
early 2006, and more recently said the A380 would enter service in "the
first half" of next year.

A spokesman for Singapore Airlines said several days after the first
flight that "Airbus has advised us of a delay," and the two were working
on compensation terms. Singapore Airlines Chief Executive Chew Choon
Seng said this week at an industry gathering in Tokyo that confidential
talks continue with Airbus. The airline has ordered 10 of the planes and
originally hoped to start service next April. The company's logo hails
it as "First to fly A380 in 2006."

Tim Clark, president of Emirates Airline, another early customer, has
said several times recently that delays aren't a surprise for an
ambitious new aircraft model and that they don't worry him unless they
grow beyond six months. A spokeswoman for Air France-KLM, which was due
to start flying the A380 in April 2007, said the airline had been
informed by Airbus of delays, but she offered no details.

Mr. Leahy said that in the life of the A380 program, which could run 50
years, a few months' delay will soon seem insignificant. He also said
that customers' frustration is a sign of how much they want the plane.

"It's taken us longer than we were hoping" to get designs and equipment
from suppliers handling interiors for the planes, added Airbus Marketing
Vice President Colin Stuart. Each airline's fleet of A380s has its own
designs for wiring, plumbing and other customized elements.

Airbus is 80%-owned by European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. and
20%-owned by BAE Systems PLC. The uncomfortable news for Airbus came as
EADS again delayed announcing a new slate of senior executives. EADS has
faced several months of management turmoil amid disputes between its
main French and German shareholders over who will fill its two
chief-executive posts as well as run key divisions including Airbus. A
person close to the company said an announcement could come within days.
__________
2005-06-05 15:54:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Proteus
Post by TheMan
Post by Proteus
Even socialist Canada's flagship line, Air Canada, has chosen Boeing's
787 Dreamliner over the huge Airbus 380A in a multi billion dollar
order.
Post by TheMan
Post by Proteus
This was followed by a 300+ Boeing aircraft order by Indonesia.
Face the facts sore loser... Airbus is now the worlds largest commercial
aircraft
Post by TheMan
maker.
"Such and Such bought Boeing" doesn't mean jack shit, you can say the
same
thing
Post by TheMan
about the Airbuses A380's.
-TheMan-
=================================
You were saying?
from WSJ
Airbus faces possible penalty payments of several million dollars to
airlines for delays in delivering its new A380 jetliner amid complaints
by some customers about lateness.
One airline executive said the penalties could run in the tens of
millions of dollars for one airline. Airbus declined to comment on
financial effects of the delays.
Details of the delays are trickling out from airlines more than a month
after Airbus said the delivery schedule would slip from the first half
of 2006. Geoff Dixon, chief executive of Australia's Qantas Airways,
said the delays of "at least six months" are "a major concern to us."
Qantas is due to be among the first airlines to receive the two-deck,
555-seat A380. The airline said in a statement that the delay was
"disappointing, given that we have met all of Airbus's deadlines" to
tell the aircraft maker how to customize the 12 A380s Qantas has
ordered. Mr. Dixon said his concern was lessened because Airbus isn't
changing the order in which it will deliver the planes to airlines, so
the delays won't put Qantas at a disadvantage against rival carriers.
An Airbus spokeswoman said delays will be between two months and six
months. Airbus officials blamed the delay largely on the complexity of
customizing the enormous aircraft, which buyers plan to fly as their
flagship jetliner and so are making quite elaborate. Other technical
issues also appear to be a factor, but Airbus wouldn't disclose details.
"We are embarrassed," said Airbus Chief Commercial Officer John Leahy.
"We will obviously owe some penalty payments to customers for a few
months' delay." Mr. Leahy said "we never realized" the degree of
customization airlines would want. When Airbus launched the A380 in
2000, it advertised the largest passenger jet ever as "the eighth wonder
of the world," and promised new amenities such as health clubs and
casinos on board.
Airbus said on April 27, after the A380's first flight, that the plane
would enter service "in the second half of 2006." When airlines ordered
the plane, some as far back as 2000, Airbus targeted deliveries for
early 2006, and more recently said the A380 would enter service in "the
first half" of next year.
A spokesman for Singapore Airlines said several days after the first
flight that "Airbus has advised us of a delay," and the two were working
on compensation terms. Singapore Airlines Chief Executive Chew Choon
Seng said this week at an industry gathering in Tokyo that confidential
talks continue with Airbus. The airline has ordered 10 of the planes and
originally hoped to start service next April. The company's logo hails
it as "First to fly A380 in 2006."
Tim Clark, president of Emirates Airline, another early customer, has
said several times recently that delays aren't a surprise for an
ambitious new aircraft model and that they don't worry him unless they
grow beyond six months. A spokeswoman for Air France-KLM, which was due
to start flying the A380 in April 2007, said the airline had been
informed by Airbus of delays, but she offered no details.
Mr. Leahy said that in the life of the A380 program, which could run 50
years, a few months' delay will soon seem insignificant. He also said
that customers' frustration is a sign of how much they want the plane.
"It's taken us longer than we were hoping" to get designs and equipment
from suppliers handling interiors for the planes, added Airbus Marketing
Vice President Colin Stuart. Each airline's fleet of A380s has its own
designs for wiring, plumbing and other customized elements.
Airbus is 80%-owned by European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. and
20%-owned by BAE Systems PLC. The uncomfortable news for Airbus came as
EADS again delayed announcing a new slate of senior executives. EADS has
faced several months of management turmoil amid disputes between its
main French and German shareholders over who will fill its two
chief-executive posts as well as run key divisions including Airbus. A
person close to the company said an announcement could come within days.
Summary: The world grows impatient for the best airliners ever built.
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-05 17:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by __________
Summary: The world grows impatient for the best airliners ever built.
========================================

Best ! LOL! ROFLMAO !


Emirates, Largest A380 Buyer, Seeks Airbus Damages (Update2)
June 5 (Bloomberg) -- Emirates, the largest customer for the Airbus SAS A380
aircraft, said it's seeking damages from the European planemaker because of
a six-month delay in delivering the aircraft, joining Qantas Airways Ltd. in
the action.

Airbus Chief Executive Noel Forgeard visited Dubai, United Arab Emirates,
yesterday to explain the delay to the carrier, which has ordered 45 of the
aircraft worth $7 billion, Emirates' spokesman Mike Simon said. The delay
was first reported on June 1.

``Certain clauses in our agreement with Airbus come into being that are of a
compensatory nature because of the delay,'' Simon said in a telephone
interview. He declined to be more specific.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&refer=europe&sid=anGNUq8dkQy
M
bernard spilman
2005-06-05 19:24:45 UTC
Permalink
Go to one of these:

www.goarmy.com
www.marines.com
www.airforce.com
www.navy.com

You have supported President Bush so
enthusiastically in this forum, I'm sure you
will not let him down in the face of ultimate
sacrifice. Its what you ask others to do, now
it is your turn.
WS
fritz
2005-06-05 23:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by __________
Summary: The world grows impatient for the best airliners ever built.
========================================
Best ! LOL! ROFLMAO !
You always have to wait to get the best of anything, boy.
Now, tell us how good the US space shuttles are !
dre
2005-06-05 14:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Proteus
Even socialist Canada's flagship line, Air Canada, has chosen Boeing's
787 Dreamliner over the huge Airbus 380A in a multi billion dollar order.
This was followed by a 300+ Boeing aircraft order by Indonesia.
Let's face it. The new Boeing 787 and 7E7 Dreamliner planes are much more
practical than Airbus ' "flying Titanic" 380A. And production delays for
the 380A have already been announced by the heavily taxpayer-
subsidized Airbus consortium. All of this is very damaging publicity for
Airbus.
The Boeing airplanes are more fuel efficient, quieter than the Airbus
monstrosity
and can fly non-stop to any destination on the planet. Whereas the Airbus
requires
costly airstrip enlargements. For air passengers, who would want to be on a
plane
with 550-600 smelly, proletarian passengers. Can you envision the processing
lineups
and nightmares in the airport after landing? Also anti-terrorist security
would be more
difficult with the Airbus 380A. And what a juicy target it would be.
Still we can be glad that Airbus is there. Competition is good. Without
Airbus there
wouldn't be any.
what whas the comment about the 747 ,35 years ago?
see above...
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-05 14:17:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Proteus
Post by Proteus
Even socialist Canada's flagship line, Air Canada, has chosen Boeing's
787 Dreamliner over the huge Airbus 380A in a multi billion dollar order.
This was followed by a 300+ Boeing aircraft order by Indonesia.
Let's face it. The new Boeing 787 and 7E7 Dreamliner planes are much more
practical than Airbus ' "flying Titanic" 380A. And production delays for
the 380A have already been announced by the heavily taxpayer-
subsidized Airbus consortium. All of this is very damaging publicity for
Airbus.
The Boeing airplanes are more fuel efficient, quieter than the Airbus
monstrosity
and can fly non-stop to any destination on the planet. Whereas the Airbus
requires
costly airstrip enlargements. For air passengers, who would want to be
on
Post by Proteus
a
Post by Proteus
plane
with 550-600 smelly, proletarian passengers. Can you envision the
processing
Post by Proteus
lineups
and nightmares in the airport after landing? Also anti-terrorist security
would be more
difficult with the Airbus 380A. And what a juicy target it would be.
Still we can be glad that Airbus is there. Competition is good. Without
Airbus there
wouldn't be any.
what whas the comment about the 747 ,35 years ago?
see above...
===========================

35 years ago there was no aircraft capable of carrying 250 + people
nonstop to almost anywhere in the world.
Boeing bet their own $$ and entire company on the 747 success. If it failed,
Boeing would have been reduced to only defense contracting.
Airbus gets to bet EU taxpayers $$ on the 380 . If it failed and no one
bought it, so what? It was all paid for by taxpayers . No big loss.
Apparently you have not read about the 380's garganuan problems either.
Right now , not one aairport has the ability to let one land because they
runways are too underconstructed for the weight. There are no concorses big
enough to unload 2 levles of passengers at a time , and then ther eare these
problems.

from WSJ

Airbus faces possible penalty payments of several million dollars to
airlines for delays in delivering its new A380 jetliner amid complaints
by some customers about lateness.

One airline executive said the penalties could run in the tens of
millions of dollars for one airline. Airbus declined to comment on
financial effects of the delays.

Details of the delays are trickling out from airlines more than a month
after Airbus said the delivery schedule would slip from the first half
of 2006. Geoff Dixon, chief executive of Australia's Qantas Airways,
said the delays of "at least six months" are "a major concern to us."

Qantas is due to be among the first airlines to receive the two-deck,
555-seat A380. The airline said in a statement that the delay was
"disappointing, given that we have met all of Airbus's deadlines" to
tell the aircraft maker how to customize the 12 A380s Qantas has
ordered. Mr. Dixon said his concern was lessened because Airbus isn't
changing the order in which it will deliver the planes to airlines, so
the delays won't put Qantas at a disadvantage against rival carriers.

An Airbus spokeswoman said delays will be between two months and six
months. Airbus officials blamed the delay largely on the complexity of
customizing the enormous aircraft, which buyers plan to fly as their
flagship jetliner and so are making quite elaborate. Other technical
issues also appear to be a factor, but Airbus wouldn't disclose details.

"We are embarrassed," said Airbus Chief Commercial Officer John Leahy.
"We will obviously owe some penalty payments to customers for a few
months' delay." Mr. Leahy said "we never realized" the degree of
customization airlines would want. When Airbus launched the A380 in
2000, it advertised the largest passenger jet ever as "the eighth wonder
of the world," and promised new amenities such as health clubs and
casinos on board.

Airbus said on April 27, after the A380's first flight, that the plane
would enter service "in the second half of 2006." When airlines ordered
the plane, some as far back as 2000, Airbus targeted deliveries for
early 2006, and more recently said the A380 would enter service in "the
first half" of next year.

A spokesman for Singapore Airlines said several days after the first
flight that "Airbus has advised us of a delay," and the two were working
on compensation terms. Singapore Airlines Chief Executive Chew Choon
Seng said this week at an industry gathering in Tokyo that confidential
talks continue with Airbus. The airline has ordered 10 of the planes and
originally hoped to start service next April. The company's logo hails
it as "First to fly A380 in 2006."

Tim Clark, president of Emirates Airline, another early customer, has
said several times recently that delays aren't a surprise for an
ambitious new aircraft model and that they don't worry him unless they
grow beyond six months. A spokeswoman for Air France-KLM, which was due
to start flying the A380 in April 2007, said the airline had been
informed by Airbus of delays, but she offered no details.

Mr. Leahy said that in the life of the A380 program, which could run 50
years, a few months' delay will soon seem insignificant. He also said
that customers' frustration is a sign of how much they want the plane.

"It's taken us longer than we were hoping" to get designs and equipment
from suppliers handling interiors for the planes, added Airbus Marketing
Vice President Colin Stuart. Each airline's fleet of A380s has its own
designs for wiring, plumbing and other customized elements.

Airbus is 80%-owned by European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. and
20%-owned by BAE Systems PLC. The uncomfortable news for Airbus came as
EADS again delayed announcing a new slate of senior executives. EADS has
faced several months of management turmoil amid disputes between its
main French and German shareholders over who will fill its two
chief-executive posts as well as run key divisions including Airbus. A
person close to the company said an announcement could come within days.
David Segall
2005-06-05 14:48:00 UTC
Permalink
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Right now , not one aairport has the ability to let one land because they
runways are too underconstructed for the weight. There are no concorses big
enough to unload 2 levles of passengers at a time
You can land one at Melbourne Airport now. For the time being some
passengers will have to use the aircraft's internal stairs to
disembark.
<http://www.melair.com.au/corporate_info/media_release.asp?id=250>
Jim E
2005-06-05 15:43:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Segall
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Right now , not one aairport has the ability to let one land because they
runways are too underconstructed for the weight. There are no concorses big
enough to unload 2 levles of passengers at a time
You can land one at Melbourne Airport now. For the time being some
passengers will have to use the aircraft's internal stairs to
disembark.
Great, stand in line for an hour to get OFF the plane.
What a fiasco.


Jim E
Kwyjibo.
2005-06-05 16:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim E
Post by David Segall
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Right now , not one aairport has the ability to let one land because they
runways are too underconstructed for the weight. There are no concorses big
enough to unload 2 levles of passengers at a time
You can land one at Melbourne Airport now. For the time being some
passengers will have to use the aircraft's internal stairs to
disembark.
Great, stand in line for an hour to get OFF the plane.
I take it you missed this bit:
"Terminal (Underway)
- International terminal being expanded by over 5000m2
- Installation of two double tiered aerobridges to allow passengers to board
and disembark from both levels of the double-decker A380.
- Construction of a new third level above the terminal expansion for use as
penthouse airline lounges."
Post by Jim E
What a fiasco.
Only to those who can't read.
--
Kwyj.

(Remove your finger from that dyke to reply by email)
Jim E
2005-06-05 16:45:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kwyjibo.
Post by Jim E
Post by David Segall
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Right now , not one aairport has the ability to let one land because they
runways are too underconstructed for the weight. There are no concorses big
enough to unload 2 levles of passengers at a time
You can land one at Melbourne Airport now. For the time being some
passengers will have to use the aircraft's internal stairs to
disembark.
Great, stand in line for an hour to get OFF the plane.
"Terminal (Underway)
- International terminal being expanded by over 5000m2
- Installation of two double tiered aerobridges to allow passengers to board
and disembark from both levels of the double-decker A380.
- Construction of a new third level above the terminal expansion for use as
penthouse airline lounges."
Post by Jim E
What a fiasco.
Only to those who can't read.
Did you see where it said

===========================
There are no concorses
Post by Kwyjibo.
Post by Jim E
Post by David Segall
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
big
enough to unload 2 levles of passengers at a time
You can land one at Melbourne Airport now. For the time being some
passengers will have to use the aircraft's internal stairs to
disembark.
========================

I was commenting on real world facts, not proposals.


Jim E
TheMan
2005-06-05 17:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim E
Post by Kwyjibo.
Post by Jim E
Post by David Segall
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Right now , not one aairport has the ability to let one land because they
runways are too underconstructed for the weight. There are no concorses big
enough to unload 2 levles of passengers at a time
You can land one at Melbourne Airport now. For the time being some
passengers will have to use the aircraft's internal stairs to
disembark.
Great, stand in line for an hour to get OFF the plane.
"Terminal (Underway)
- International terminal being expanded by over 5000m2
- Installation of two double tiered aerobridges to allow passengers to board
and disembark from both levels of the double-decker A380.
- Construction of a new third level above the terminal expansion for use as
penthouse airline lounges."
Post by Jim E
What a fiasco.
Only to those who can't read.
Did you see where it said
===========================
There are no concorses
Post by Kwyjibo.
Post by Jim E
Post by David Segall
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
big
enough to unload 2 levles of passengers at a time
You can land one at Melbourne Airport now. For the time being some
passengers will have to use the aircraft's internal stairs to
disembark.
========================
I was commenting on real world facts, not proposals.
"For the time being"??? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

Real world facts would have told you the planes aren't going to be in use for
another year and a half. You talking about the real world or your fantasy world
where the plane is actually in use already?

-TheMan-
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-05 17:22:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by TheMan
Post by Jim E
I was commenting on real world facts, not proposals.
"For the time being"??? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
Real world facts would have told you the planes aren't going to be in use for
another year and a half. You talking about the real world or your fantasy world
where the plane is actually in use already?
-TheMan-
=============================
For the time being AIRBUS is already getting fined for delays. Ooops, no
problem . Just pass the fines on to the stupid EU Taxpayers. They are too
stupid to know they are even paying it.



Emirates, Largest A380 Buyer, Seeks Airbus Damages (Update2)
June 5 (Bloomberg) -- Emirates, the largest customer for the Airbus SAS A380
aircraft, said it's seeking damages from the European planemaker because of
a six-month delay in delivering the aircraft, joining Qantas Airways Ltd. in
the action.

Airbus Chief Executive Noel Forgeard visited Dubai, United Arab Emirates,
yesterday to explain the delay to the carrier, which has ordered 45 of the
aircraft worth $7 billion, Emirates' spokesman Mike Simon said. The delay
was first reported on June 1.

``Certain clauses in our agreement with Airbus come into being that are of a
compensatory nature because of the delay,'' Simon said in a telephone
interview. He declined to be more specific.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&refer=europe&sid=anGNUq8dkQy
M
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-05 17:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kwyjibo.
Post by Jim E
Post by David Segall
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Right now , not one aairport has the ability to let one land because they
runways are too underconstructed for the weight. There are no
concorses
Post by Kwyjibo.
Post by Jim E
Post by David Segall
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
big
enough to unload 2 levles of passengers at a time
You can land one at Melbourne Airport now. For the time being some
passengers will have to use the aircraft's internal stairs to
disembark.
Great, stand in line for an hour to get OFF the plane.
"Terminal (Underway)
- International terminal being expanded by over 5000m2
- Installation of two double tiered aerobridges to allow passengers to board
and disembark from both levels of the double-decker A380.
- Construction of a new third level above the terminal expansion for use as
penthouse airline lounges."
Post by Jim E
What a fiasco.
Only to those who can't read.
==============================

And Who is going to pay for all that extra Construction costs ?
Meanwhile 2 747's can unload more people in less time and the Airports
do not have to spend $$ Millions$$$ in construction at a time when Airlines
are declaring bankruptcy every month.
David Segall
2005-06-05 17:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim E
Post by David Segall
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Right now , not one aairport has the ability to let one land because they
runways are too underconstructed for the weight. There are no concorses big
enough to unload 2 levles of passengers at a time
You can land one at Melbourne Airport now. For the time being some
passengers will have to use the aircraft's internal stairs to
disembark.
Great, stand in line for an hour to get OFF the plane.
What a fiasco.
A typical A380 carries about 33% more passengers than a typical
747-400. If it now takes you 45 minutes to get off a 747 at your local
airport then you should be complaining to them because that would not
happen anywhere outside the United States.
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-05 17:18:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Segall
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Right now , not one aairport has the ability to let one land because they
runways are too underconstructed for the weight. There are no concorses big
enough to unload 2 levles of passengers at a time
You can land one at Melbourne Airport now. For the time being some
passengers will have to use the aircraft's internal stairs to
disembark.
<http://www.melair.com.au/corporate_info/media_release.asp?id=250>
==============================

My point was not 1 US Airport can handle an A 380 yet , and most will not
spend the hundreds of MIllions$$ needed to upgrade the Runways and Concorses
to handle it when teh Airline industry is already facing multiple
bankruptcies. Besides, 2 747's can transport more people anyway and US
Airports are already configured to handle them with no additional costs.
Oh, BTW...............


Emirates, Largest A380 Buyer, Seeks Airbus Damages (Update2)
June 5 (Bloomberg) -- Emirates, the largest customer for the Airbus SAS A380
aircraft, said it's seeking damages from the European planemaker because of
a six-month delay in delivering the aircraft, joining Qantas Airways Ltd. in
the action.

Airbus Chief Executive Noel Forgeard visited Dubai, United Arab Emirates,
yesterday to explain the delay to the carrier, which has ordered 45 of the
aircraft worth $7 billion, Emirates' spokesman Mike Simon said. The delay
was first reported on June 1.

``Certain clauses in our agreement with Airbus come into being that are of a
compensatory nature because of the delay,'' Simon said in a telephone
interview. He declined to be more specific.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&refer=europe&sid=anGNUq8dkQy
M
packard
2005-06-05 17:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by David Segall
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Right now , not one aairport has the ability to let one land because
they
Post by David Segall
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
runways are too underconstructed for the weight. There are no concorses
big
Post by David Segall
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
enough to unload 2 levles of passengers at a time
You can land one at Melbourne Airport now. For the time being some
passengers will have to use the aircraft's internal stairs to
disembark.
<http://www.melair.com.au/corporate_info/media_release.asp?id=250>
==============================
My point was not 1 US Airport can handle an A 380 yet
Wrong again.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/01/27/BUGLBB0UL01.DTL
SFO up and ready for 2006 arrival of Airbus A380

The jumbo Airbus A380 jetliner, unveiled with great fanfare in France
last week, won't fly to San Francisco International Airport until late
next year. SFO officials, however, say they are ready now for the huge
new plane, which they believe will boost lucrative international travel.
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-05 17:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by packard
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by David Segall
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Right now , not one aairport has the ability to let one land
because
Post by packard
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
they
Post by David Segall
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
runways are too underconstructed for the weight. There are no concorses
big
Post by David Segall
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
enough to unload 2 levles of passengers at a time
You can land one at Melbourne Airport now. For the time being some
passengers will have to use the aircraft's internal stairs to
disembark.
<http://www.melair.com.au/corporate_info/media_release.asp?id=250>
==============================
My point was not 1 US Airport can handle an A 380 yet
Wrong again.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/01/27
/BUGLBB0UL01.DTL
Post by packard
SFO up and ready for 2006 arrival of Airbus A380
===========================

Great . The San Fran Radlibs will be the first to have the fun of waiting in
line with 800 other passengers at the baggage carousel for hours trying to
identify their luggage among the 2000 other pieces .
Meanwhile, regular airline passengers will already have their rental car
and be at their hotel or busines meetings , while the A 380 passengers are
still trying to find their luggage among the deluge of thousands of
others.
Bert Hyman
2005-06-05 17:42:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Great . The San Fran Radlibs will be the first to have the fun of
waiting in line with 800 other passengers at the baggage carousel for
hours trying to identify their luggage among the 2000 other pieces .
Gee... Were you one of those who was saying the same thing when the 747
was about to fly?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN ***@iphouse.com
Jam Sandwich
2005-06-05 17:43:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bert Hyman
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Great . The San Fran Radlibs will be the first to have the fun of
waiting in line with 800 other passengers at the baggage carousel for
hours trying to identify their luggage among the 2000 other pieces .
Gee... Were you one of those who was saying the same thing when the 747
was about to fly?
Richard Keebler never thinks before he posts, the result is idiocy at its
highest level. He's a very low level thinker.
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-05 17:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bert Hyman
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Great . The San Fran Radlibs will be the first to have the fun of
waiting in line with 800 other passengers at the baggage carousel for
hours trying to identify their luggage among the 2000 other pieces .
Gee... Were you one of those who was saying the same thing when the 747
was about to fly?
==================================


Apples and oranges . We have had 30 years of experince and infrastructure
dealing with 747's.

If Airports have to spend Millions $$$ upgrading their airports to handle
a few flights a day from a 380 , or not spend any more money to already
handle an extra couple of 747's , which makes more sense in todays airline
business when many aaairlines are declaring bankruptcy and threaten to
leave airports all together like US Air did in Pittsburg?

Using your logic then , a plane capable of carrying 10,000 passengers
would be worthwhile .
Bert Hyman
2005-06-05 23:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Using your logic then , a plane capable of carrying 10,000 passengers
would be worthwhile .
No one is being forced to either buy or fly on the A380 or 747 or any
other plane.

If the airlines think they'll be useful, they'll buy them and make sure
the airports are equipped to handle them.

The only obstacles to such deployments will be the actions of government
agencies of various countries.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN ***@iphouse.com
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-06 02:14:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bert Hyman
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Using your logic then , a plane capable of carrying 10,000 passengers
would be worthwhile .
No one is being forced to either buy or fly on the A380 or 747 or any
other plane.
If the airlines think they'll be useful, they'll buy them and make sure
the airports are equipped to handle them.
The only obstacles to such deployments will be the actions of government
agencies of various countries.
--
==================================

Mos t Airportswill not choose to spend Millions to upgrade their
infrastructure to only accomodate the extra few flights a day from an A
380. Airports are already stretched as airfares keep falling and revenues
neede for Security are priority .
Bert Hyman
2005-06-06 02:29:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Mos t Airportswill not choose to spend Millions to upgrade their
infrastructure to only accomodate the extra few flights a day from an
A 380. Airports are already stretched as airfares keep falling and
revenues neede for Security are priority .
Then you have nothing to worry about, do you? Airbus Industries will spend
billions on a plane that nobody will buy.

But, weren't you one of those saying the same thing when the 747 was about
to fly?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN ***@iphouse.com
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-06 02:45:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bert Hyman
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Mos t Airportswill not choose to spend Millions to upgrade their
infrastructure to only accomodate the extra few flights a day from an
A 380. Airports are already stretched as airfares keep falling and
revenues neede for Security are priority .
Then you have nothing to worry about, do you? Airbus Industries will spend
billions on a plane that nobody will buy.
But, weren't you one of those saying the same thing when the 747 was about
to fly?
--
==============================

I never said that . I said they are building a plane , that if the actual
total development costs were in the sales price , they would not make a
profit . The Concorde is all the proof that you need to know thats a true
statement. Even with Taxpayer buying tickets for thoise millionaire
passengers, it still lost money.
Joe
2005-06-06 00:06:21 UTC
Permalink
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/01/27
Post by packard
/BUGLBB0UL01.DTL
Post by packard
SFO up and ready for 2006 arrival of Airbus A380
===========================
Great . The San Fran Radlibs will be the first to have the fun of waiting
You said, "My point was not 1 US Airport can handle an A 380 yet..." and
were proven wrong. Admit it and move on.
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-06 02:17:26 UTC
Permalink
"Joe" <***@dropdead.com> wrote in message news:1sMoe.10673$***@newshog.newsread.com...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/01/27
Post by Joe
Post by packard
/BUGLBB0UL01.DTL
Post by packard
SFO up and ready for 2006 arrival of Airbus A380
===========================
Great . The San Fran Radlibs will be the first to have the fun of waiting
You said, "My point was not 1 US Airport can handle an A 380 yet..." and
were proven wrong. Admit it and move on.
===================================

Wow , so Airbus has 1 Airport that claims to be ready, even though the
article said more works is still neede before the 2006 arrival. All those
other p[assengers on other planes are going to have bigger airport taxes
put in theri tickets to pay for infrastructure forthe 2 or 3 flights a day
of teh 380's.
All this while airline fares keep falling and Airlines keep failing .
Sounds like a winner to me.

Not
fritz
2005-06-06 00:13:18 UTC
Permalink
Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu> wrote ...
<snip>
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Great . The San Fran Radlibs will be the first to have the fun of waiting in
line with 800 other passengers at the baggage carousel for hours trying to
identify their luggage among the 2000 other pieces .
Why do you assume that the airport will only use one carousel for each plane ?
It would be quite straightforward to allocate two or more carousels to the
A380s. The computerised ticketing system would simply allocate A, B or C etc.
to your luggage at check-in. The baggage is already handled automatically by
barcode tags so the airport system would not need any changes to route luggage
to different carousels. I have seen how it works.
The only difference is that you go to the carousel displaying QF101-A instead
of QF101-B etc. .
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Meanwhile, regular airline passengers will already have their rental car
and be at their hotel or busines meetings , while the A 380 passengers are
still trying to find their luggage among the deluge of thousands of
others.
Only if the airport management is totally incompetent.
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-06 02:21:12 UTC
Permalink
@Berkeley.edu> wrote ...
Post by Haximus
<snip>
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Great . The San Fran Radlibs will be the first to have the fun of waiting in
line with 800 other passengers at the baggage carousel for hours
trying to
Post by Haximus
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
identify their luggage among the 2000 other pieces .
Why do you assume that the airport will only use one carousel for each plane ?
It would be quite straightforward to allocate two or more carousels to the
A380s. The computerised ticketing system would simply allocate A, B or C etc.
to your luggage at check-in. The baggage is already handled automatically by
barcode tags so the airport system would not need any changes to route luggage
to different carousels. I have seen how it works.
The only difference is that you go to the carousel displaying QF101-A instead
of QF101-B etc. .
=====================================
So the passengers from the dozens of other flights landing each hour will
have to get pushed back at the carousel for the 800 passengers on teh 380.
How do they decide what 380 passenger baggages get put on the different
carousels.
Imagine waiting at Carousel #1 for 20 minutes for your luggage , only to
find out later it was actually revolving around on carousel # 3. Guess
thta makes the odds of you picking the right carousel for your flight 3 to
1 or more. Yeah, after 12 hour flights , passengers want to waste anothther
2 hours wandering between 3 carousels trying to figure out whic\h one has
their luggage on it.
fritz
2005-06-06 02:27:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by fritz
@Berkeley.edu> wrote ...
Post by Haximus
<snip>
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Great . The San Fran Radlibs will be the first to have the fun of
waiting in
Post by Haximus
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
line with 800 other passengers at the baggage carousel for hours
trying to
Post by Haximus
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
identify their luggage among the 2000 other pieces .
Why do you assume that the airport will only use one carousel for each
plane ?
Post by Haximus
It would be quite straightforward to allocate two or more carousels to the
A380s. The computerised ticketing system would simply allocate A, B or C
etc.
Post by Haximus
to your luggage at check-in. The baggage is already handled automatically
by
Post by Haximus
barcode tags so the airport system would not need any changes to route
luggage
Post by Haximus
to different carousels. I have seen how it works.
The only difference is that you go to the carousel displaying QF101-A
instead
Post by Haximus
of QF101-B etc. .
=====================================
So the passengers from the dozens of other flights landing each hour will
have to get pushed back at the carousel for the 800 passengers on teh 380.
How do they decide what 380 passenger baggages get put on the different
carousels.
Imagine waiting at Carousel #1 for 20 minutes for your luggage , only to
find out later it was actually revolving around on carousel # 3. Guess
thta makes the odds of you picking the right carousel for your flight 3 to
1 or more. Yeah, after 12 hour flights , passengers want to waste anothther
2 hours wandering between 3 carousels trying to figure out whic\h one has
their luggage on it.
No you stupid fool. Your ticket will tell you exactly which corousel to wait at.

You really must be a few cents short of a dollar........
Margo Fargo
2005-06-06 02:35:05 UTC
Permalink
fritz <***@address.com> wrote in message: news:<d80cj5$sli$04$***@news.t-
online.com>
Post by fritz
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Imagine waiting at Carousel #1 for 20 minutes for your luggage , only to
find out later it was actually revolving around on carousel # 3. Guess
thta makes the odds of you picking the right carousel for your flight 3 to
1 or more. Yeah, after 12 hour flights , passengers want to waste anothther
2 hours wandering between 3 carousels trying to figure out whic\h one has
their luggage on it.
No you stupid fool. Your ticket will tell you exactly which corousel to wait at.
You really must be a few cents short of a dollar........
He's never been on one of them fancy flying machines before.
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-06 02:43:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by fritz
Post by fritz
@Berkeley.edu> wrote ...
Post by Haximus
<snip>
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Great . The San Fran Radlibs will be the first to have the fun of
waiting in
Post by Haximus
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
line with 800 other passengers at the baggage carousel for hours
trying to
Post by Haximus
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
identify their luggage among the 2000 other pieces .
Why do you assume that the airport will only use one carousel for each
plane ?
Post by Haximus
It would be quite straightforward to allocate two or more carousels to the
A380s. The computerised ticketing system would simply allocate A, B or C
etc.
Post by Haximus
to your luggage at check-in. The baggage is already handled automatically
by
Post by Haximus
barcode tags so the airport system would not need any changes to route
luggage
Post by Haximus
to different carousels. I have seen how it works.
The only difference is that you go to the carousel displaying QF101-A
instead
Post by Haximus
of QF101-B etc. .
=====================================
So the passengers from the dozens of other flights landing each hour
will
Post by fritz
Post by fritz
have to get pushed back at the carousel for the 800 passengers on teh 380.
How do they decide what 380 passenger baggages get put on the different
carousels.
Imagine waiting at Carousel #1 for 20 minutes for your luggage , only to
find out later it was actually revolving around on carousel # 3. Guess
thta makes the odds of you picking the right carousel for your flight 3 to
1 or more. Yeah, after 12 hour flights , passengers want to waste anothther
2 hours wandering between 3 carousels trying to figure out whic\h one has
their luggage on it.
No you stupid fool. Your ticket will tell you exactly which corousel to wait at.
You really must be a few cents short of a dollar........
============================

Yeah , we all know how well airlines are at getting luggage on one carousel
correctly from one flight , now you think the minimum wage people are going
to have time to sort out luggage on multiple carousels .
Denvers airport was delayed months in opening because of automated baggage
handling problems, and finally went back to manual handling .
David Segall
2005-06-05 17:48:22 UTC
Permalink
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by David Segall
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Right now , not one aairport has the ability to let one land because
they
Post by David Segall
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
runways are too underconstructed for the weight. There are no concorses
big
Post by David Segall
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
enough to unload 2 levles of passengers at a time
You can land one at Melbourne Airport now. For the time being some
passengers will have to use the aircraft's internal stairs to
disembark.
<http://www.melair.com.au/corporate_info/media_release.asp?id=250>
==============================
My point was not 1 US Airport can handle an A 380 yet , and most will not
spend the hundreds of MIllions$$ needed to upgrade the Runways and Concorses
to handle it when teh Airline industry is already facing multiple
bankruptcies.
I have to confess that, at first, I thought that the United States was
really lagging the rest of the world in their uptake of new
technology. They "invented" the cell phone but were among the last to
universally adopt it. Perhaps they were going the same way with the
Jumbo jet. Fortunately, I did a Google before I said so. You can land
an A380 in San Francisco now. The other airports that matter are on
the way.
<http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2005-01-16-a380-side_x.htm>
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-05 18:01:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Segall
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by David Segall
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Right now , not one aairport has the ability to let one land
because
Post by David Segall
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
they
Post by David Segall
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
runways are too underconstructed for the weight. There are no concorses
big
Post by David Segall
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
enough to unload 2 levles of passengers at a time
You can land one at Melbourne Airport now. For the time being some
passengers will have to use the aircraft's internal stairs to
disembark.
<http://www.melair.com.au/corporate_info/media_release.asp?id=250>
==============================
My point was not 1 US Airport can handle an A 380 yet , and most will not
spend the hundreds of MIllions$$ needed to upgrade the Runways and Concorses
to handle it when teh Airline industry is already facing multiple
bankruptcies.
I have to confess that, at first, I thought that the United States was
really lagging the rest of the world in their uptake of new
technology. They "invented" the cell phone but were among the last to
universally adopt it. Perhaps they were going the same way with the
Jumbo jet. Fortunately, I did a Google before I said so. You can land
an A380 in San Francisco now. The other airports that matter are on
the way.
<http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2005-01-16-a380-side_x.htm>
=========================

Gee, since 747's can already be configured to fly 500 passengers at a
time , but almost none of the airlines choose to do so, i wonder where the
demand for 500 to 800 seat A 380 planes will come from ?

If airports spend millions more in upgrades just to handel a few 380's a
week , why not save that money and spend it on really needed items like
security related ones.
A 747 and a 767 landing within 2 minutes of each other can carry as many
people as 1 A 380 and the Airports do not have to spend 1 extra dime to
accomodate them.
howtrue
2005-06-05 17:57:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
My point was not 1 US Airport can handle an A 380 yet , and most will not
spend the hundreds of MIllions$$ needed to upgrade the Runways and Concorses
to handle it when teh Airline industry is already facing multiple
bankruptcies. Besides, 2 747's can transport more people anyway and US
Airports are already configured to handle them with no additional costs.
Oh, BTW...............
Emirates, Largest A380 Buyer, Seeks Airbus Damages (Update2)
June 5 (Bloomberg) -- Emirates, the largest customer for the Airbus SAS A380
aircraft, said it's seeking damages from the European planemaker because of
a six-month delay in delivering the aircraft, joining Qantas Airways Ltd. in
the action.
Why do you love Boeing so much? Because it's your patriotic duty to stand behind your country
regardless of facts? Well guess what... for all the foreign parts it's to be made up of, the
highest foreign content of any commercial jet that Boeing has built, you can't even really call the
787 an American plane! LOL.

I bet you're one of those patriotic Americans who has an American flag, magnetic "support the
troops" ribbon and Harley-Davidson sticker on the back of your Toyota import truck.

When the plane is finally built, you go ahead and find an airline which flies it and give them your
business. When you look out over the wing, think of Japan... because that's where it will have come
from. LOL.
Mel Fury
2005-06-05 18:02:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by howtrue
Why do you love Boeing so much? Because it's your patriotic duty to stand behind your country
regardless of facts? Well guess what... for all the foreign parts it's to be made up of, the
highest foreign content of any commercial jet that Boeing has built, you can't even really call the
787 an American plane! LOL.
In all fairness, I read recently where approximately 50% of the AirBus Jumbo
consisted of US made parts.

He's a dreamer if he thinks the sticker on the plane is an example of where
it comes from. He must be living in the pre-war era where everything was
made right there in the US of A and nothing was imported! :)
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-05 18:18:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mel Fury
Post by howtrue
Why do you love Boeing so much? Because it's your patriotic duty to
stand behind your country
Post by Mel Fury
Post by howtrue
regardless of facts? Well guess what... for all the foreign parts it's
to be made up of, the
Post by Mel Fury
Post by howtrue
highest foreign content of any commercial jet that Boeing has built, you
can't even really call the
Post by Mel Fury
Post by howtrue
787 an American plane! LOL.
In all fairness, I read recently where approximately 50% of the AirBus Jumbo
consisted of US made parts.
He's a dreamer if he thinks the sticker on the plane is an example of where
it comes from. He must be living in the pre-war era where everything was
made right there in the US of A and nothing was imported! :)
=======================

Boeing bet it's entire company and existance on teh 747 Success.
Airbus bets its entire taxpayers money on teh A 380 success. Just like teh
Concorde that never made a profit , the A 380 will be the same.
Wasnt that nice of all those mom & pop Frenchies & Brits that helped pay
the tickets for the millionaires that flew the concorde for 30 years .
Joe
2005-06-06 00:09:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Boeing bet it's entire company and existance on teh 747 Success.
Airbus bets its entire taxpayers money on teh A 380 success. Just like teh
Concorde that never made a profit , the A 380 will be the same.
Take a valium wait 5 years and then post the profit/loss of the A380.
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-06 02:22:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Boeing bet it's entire company and existance on teh 747 Success.
Airbus bets its entire taxpayers money on teh A 380 success. Just like teh
Concorde that never made a profit , the A 380 will be the same.
Take a valium wait 5 years and then post the profit/loss of the A380.
==========================
Actually i want to see the 800 passengers all arrive at the baggage
carousel and see how many of them are still there 2 hours later waiting for
their luggage to come by.
Now thats going to be a laugh.
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-05 18:15:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
My point was not 1 US Airport can handle an A 380 yet , and most will not
spend the hundreds of MIllions$$ needed to upgrade the Runways and Concorses
to handle it when teh Airline industry is already facing multiple
bankruptcies. Besides, 2 747's can transport more people anyway and US
Airports are already configured to handle them with no additional costs.
Oh, BTW...............
Emirates, Largest A380 Buyer, Seeks Airbus Damages (Update2)
June 5 (Bloomberg) -- Emirates, the largest customer for the Airbus SAS A380
aircraft, said it's seeking damages from the European planemaker because of
a six-month delay in delivering the aircraft, joining Qantas Airways Ltd. in
the action.
Why do you love Boeing so much? Because it's your patriotic duty to stand
behind your country
Post by howtrue
regardless of facts? Well guess what... for all the foreign parts it's to be made up of, the
highest foreign content of any commercial jet that Boeing has built, you
can't even really call the
Post by howtrue
787 an American plane! LOL.
============================
Evasion from the subject of AIRBUS' Delays and fines because it cant get its
fat pig to pass FAA mandated safety tests , noted.
howtrue
2005-06-05 18:25:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
My point was not 1 US Airport can handle an A 380 yet , and most will
not
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
spend the hundreds of MIllions$$ needed to upgrade the Runways and
Concorses
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
to handle it when teh Airline industry is already facing multiple
bankruptcies. Besides, 2 747's can transport more people anyway and US
Airports are already configured to handle them with no additional
costs.
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Oh, BTW...............
Emirates, Largest A380 Buyer, Seeks Airbus Damages (Update2)
June 5 (Bloomberg) -- Emirates, the largest customer for the Airbus SAS
A380
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
aircraft, said it's seeking damages from the European planemaker because
of
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
a six-month delay in delivering the aircraft, joining Qantas Airways
Ltd. in
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
the action.
Why do you love Boeing so much? Because it's your patriotic duty to stand
behind your country
Post by howtrue
regardless of facts? Well guess what... for all the foreign parts it's to
be made up of, the
Post by howtrue
highest foreign content of any commercial jet that Boeing has built, you
can't even really call the
Post by howtrue
787 an American plane! LOL.
============================
Evasion from the subject of AIRBUS' Delays and fines because it cant get its
fat pig to pass FAA mandated safety tests , noted.
Read the Subject line... "Boeing Eating Airbus' Lunch". YOU evaded the subject matter, ya
hypocritical pug. Boeing is most certainly not "eating Airbus for lunch", as evidenced by your
conceding the debate in a similar thread ("EU In Meltdown : US Dollar Surges , EURO Collapses").
Let me guess, you've been meaning to get back to me on that. <chuckle> Here's the question for you
again, since you obviously suffer from A.D.D...

Since 2000, has Airbus sold more aircraft than Boeing most of those years? Yes or no?
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-05 21:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
My point was not 1 US Airport can handle an A 380 yet , and most will
not
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
spend the hundreds of MIllions$$ needed to upgrade the Runways and
Concorses
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
to handle it when teh Airline industry is already facing multiple
bankruptcies. Besides, 2 747's can transport more people anyway and
US
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Airports are already configured to handle them with no additional
costs.
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Oh, BTW...............
Emirates, Largest A380 Buyer, Seeks Airbus Damages (Update2)
June 5 (Bloomberg) -- Emirates, the largest customer for the Airbus SAS
A380
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
aircraft, said it's seeking damages from the European planemaker because
of
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
a six-month delay in delivering the aircraft, joining Qantas Airways
Ltd. in
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
the action.
Why do you love Boeing so much? Because it's your patriotic duty to stand
behind your country
Post by howtrue
regardless of facts? Well guess what... for all the foreign parts it's to
be made up of, the
Post by howtrue
highest foreign content of any commercial jet that Boeing has built, you
can't even really call the
Post by howtrue
787 an American plane! LOL.
============================
Evasion from the subject of AIRBUS' Delays and fines because it cant get its
fat pig to pass FAA mandated safety tests , noted.
Read the Subject line... "Boeing Eating Airbus' Lunch". YOU evaded the subject matter, ya
hypocritical pug. Boeing is most certainly not "eating Airbus for lunch",
as evidenced by your
Post by howtrue
conceding the debate in a similar thread ("EU In Meltdown : US Dollar
Surges , EURO Collapses").
Post by howtrue
Let me guess, you've been meaning to get back to me on that. <chuckle>
Here's the question for you
Post by howtrue
again, since you obviously suffer from A.D.D...
Since 2000, has Airbus sold more aircraft than Boeing most of those years?
Yes or no?
================================

Lets include Defense planes in that total and see. Airbus has no defense
operations .
howtrue
2005-06-05 22:58:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
My point was not 1 US Airport can handle an A 380 yet , and most
will
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
not
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
spend the hundreds of MIllions$$ needed to upgrade the Runways and
Concorses
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
to handle it when teh Airline industry is already facing multiple
bankruptcies. Besides, 2 747's can transport more people anyway and
US
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Airports are already configured to handle them with no additional
costs.
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Oh, BTW...............
Emirates, Largest A380 Buyer, Seeks Airbus Damages (Update2)
June 5 (Bloomberg) -- Emirates, the largest customer for the Airbus
SAS
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
A380
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
aircraft, said it's seeking damages from the European planemaker
because
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
of
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
a six-month delay in delivering the aircraft, joining Qantas Airways
Ltd. in
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
the action.
Why do you love Boeing so much? Because it's your patriotic duty to
stand
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
behind your country
regardless of facts? Well guess what... for all the foreign parts
it's to
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
be made up of, the
highest foreign content of any commercial jet that Boeing has built,
you
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
can't even really call the
787 an American plane! LOL.
============================
Evasion from the subject of AIRBUS' Delays and fines because it cant get
its
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
fat pig to pass FAA mandated safety tests , noted.
Read the Subject line... "Boeing Eating Airbus' Lunch". YOU evaded the
subject matter, ya
Post by howtrue
hypocritical pug. Boeing is most certainly not "eating Airbus for lunch",
as evidenced by your
Post by howtrue
conceding the debate in a similar thread ("EU In Meltdown : US Dollar
Surges , EURO Collapses").
Post by howtrue
Let me guess, you've been meaning to get back to me on that. <chuckle>
Here's the question for you
Post by howtrue
again, since you obviously suffer from A.D.D...
Since 2000, has Airbus sold more aircraft than Boeing most of those years?
Yes or no?
================================
Lets include Defense planes in that total and see. Airbus has no defense
operations .
I'll take that as a "yes, but..." or a "yes, because...", which is still a "yes". You concede.
Rubber Schmidt
2005-06-05 23:10:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by howtrue
I'll take that as a "yes, but..." or a "yes, because...", which is still a "yes". You concede.
You're arguing with complete idiot named Richard Keebler. Don't expect him
to be truthful. He's a half-wit who is notorious for lying and deceiving his
way through a discussion in his often hapless attempt to score debating
points.
howtrue
2005-06-05 23:48:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rubber Schmidt
Post by howtrue
I'll take that as a "yes, but..." or a "yes, because...", which is still a "yes". You concede.
You're arguing with complete idiot named Richard Keebler. Don't expect him
to be truthful. He's a half-wit who is notorious for lying and deceiving his
way through a discussion in his often hapless attempt to score debating
points.
No shit.
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-05 23:38:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
My point was not 1 US Airport can handle an A 380 yet , and most
will
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
not
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
spend the hundreds of MIllions$$ needed to upgrade the Runways and
Concorses
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
to handle it when teh Airline industry is already facing multiple
bankruptcies. Besides, 2 747's can transport more people anyway and
US
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Airports are already configured to handle them with no additional
costs.
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Oh, BTW...............
Emirates, Largest A380 Buyer, Seeks Airbus Damages (Update2)
June 5 (Bloomberg) -- Emirates, the largest customer for the Airbus
SAS
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
A380
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
aircraft, said it's seeking damages from the European planemaker
because
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
of
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
a six-month delay in delivering the aircraft, joining Qantas Airways
Ltd. in
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
the action.
Why do you love Boeing so much? Because it's your patriotic duty to
stand
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
behind your country
regardless of facts? Well guess what... for all the foreign parts
it's to
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
be made up of, the
highest foreign content of any commercial jet that Boeing has built,
you
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
can't even really call the
787 an American plane! LOL.
============================
Evasion from the subject of AIRBUS' Delays and fines because it cant get
its
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
fat pig to pass FAA mandated safety tests , noted.
Read the Subject line... "Boeing Eating Airbus' Lunch". YOU evaded the
subject matter, ya
Post by howtrue
hypocritical pug. Boeing is most certainly not "eating Airbus for lunch",
as evidenced by your
Post by howtrue
conceding the debate in a similar thread ("EU In Meltdown : US Dollar
Surges , EURO Collapses").
Post by howtrue
Let me guess, you've been meaning to get back to me on that.
<chuckle>
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Here's the question for you
Post by howtrue
again, since you obviously suffer from A.D.D...
Since 2000, has Airbus sold more aircraft than Boeing most of those years?
Yes or no?
================================
Lets include Defense planes in that total and see. Airbus has no defense
operations .
I'll take that as a "yes, but..." or a "yes, because...", which is still a
"yes". You concede.
===============================

Lets look at the total of BA airplanes in service worldwide vs Airbus
then.
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-05 23:50:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
My point was not 1 US Airport can handle an A 380 yet , and most
will
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
not
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
spend the hundreds of MIllions$$ needed to upgrade the Runways and
Concorses
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
to handle it when teh Airline industry is already facing multiple
bankruptcies. Besides, 2 747's can transport more people anyway and
US
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Airports are already configured to handle them with no additional
costs.
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Oh, BTW...............
Emirates, Largest A380 Buyer, Seeks Airbus Damages (Update2)
June 5 (Bloomberg) -- Emirates, the largest customer for the Airbus
SAS
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
A380
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
aircraft, said it's seeking damages from the European planemaker
because
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
of
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
a six-month delay in delivering the aircraft, joining Qantas Airways
Ltd. in
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
the action.
Why do you love Boeing so much? Because it's your patriotic duty to
stand
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
behind your country
regardless of facts? Well guess what... for all the foreign parts
it's to
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
be made up of, the
highest foreign content of any commercial jet that Boeing has built,
you
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
can't even really call the
787 an American plane! LOL.
============================
Evasion from the subject of AIRBUS' Delays and fines because it cant get
its
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
fat pig to pass FAA mandated safety tests , noted.
Read the Subject line... "Boeing Eating Airbus' Lunch". YOU evaded the
subject matter, ya
Post by howtrue
hypocritical pug. Boeing is most certainly not "eating Airbus for lunch",
as evidenced by your
Post by howtrue
conceding the debate in a similar thread ("EU In Meltdown : US Dollar
Surges , EURO Collapses").
Post by howtrue
Let me guess, you've been meaning to get back to me on that.
<chuckle>
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Here's the question for you
Post by howtrue
again, since you obviously suffer from A.D.D...
Since 2000, has Airbus sold more aircraft than Boeing most of those years?
Yes or no?
================================
Lets include Defense planes in that total and see. Airbus has no defense
operations .
I'll take that as a "yes, but..." or a "yes, because...", which is still a
"yes". You concede.
Post by howtrue
========================
IN 2002 Boeing sold 78 more planes than Airbus even after the 9-11
downturn.

In 2003 Airbus sold 305 Aircraft , Boeing sold 281


The boom is coming back at Boeing
Company ramps up production; hiring to continue upward trend

By JAMES WALLACE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER AEROSPACE REPORTER

For the first time since 2001, business seems to be booming at The Boeing
Co.'s Puget Sound-area factories -- enough that it's increasing output at
Renton and Everett factories.

The company plans to open a second production line in Renton that will push
output there to a record 31 planes a month. It is also requiring some 777
workers in Everett to work overtime and will replace a key executive there
amid a series of production problems before it boosts output of that
twin-aisle jetliner as well.

http://www.airbus.com/media/deliveries_business.asp
howtrue
2005-06-06 00:01:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
My point was not 1 US Airport can handle an A 380 yet , and most
will
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
not
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
spend the hundreds of MIllions$$ needed to upgrade the Runways
and
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Concorses
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
to handle it when teh Airline industry is already facing
multiple
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
bankruptcies. Besides, 2 747's can transport more people anyway
and
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
US
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Airports are already configured to handle them with no
additional
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
costs.
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Oh, BTW...............
Emirates, Largest A380 Buyer, Seeks Airbus Damages (Update2)
June 5 (Bloomberg) -- Emirates, the largest customer for the
Airbus
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
SAS
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
A380
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
aircraft, said it's seeking damages from the European planemaker
because
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
of
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
a six-month delay in delivering the aircraft, joining Qantas
Airways
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Ltd. in
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
the action.
Why do you love Boeing so much? Because it's your patriotic duty
to
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
stand
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
behind your country
regardless of facts? Well guess what... for all the foreign parts
it's to
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
be made up of, the
highest foreign content of any commercial jet that Boeing has
built,
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
you
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
can't even really call the
787 an American plane! LOL.
============================
Evasion from the subject of AIRBUS' Delays and fines because it cant
get
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
its
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
fat pig to pass FAA mandated safety tests , noted.
Read the Subject line... "Boeing Eating Airbus' Lunch". YOU evaded
the
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
subject matter, ya
hypocritical pug. Boeing is most certainly not "eating Airbus for
lunch",
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
as evidenced by your
conceding the debate in a similar thread ("EU In Meltdown : US Dollar
Surges , EURO Collapses").
Let me guess, you've been meaning to get back to me on that.
<chuckle>
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Here's the question for you
again, since you obviously suffer from A.D.D...
Since 2000, has Airbus sold more aircraft than Boeing most of those
years?
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Yes or no?
================================
Lets include Defense planes in that total and see. Airbus has no
defense
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
operations .
I'll take that as a "yes, but..." or a "yes, because...", which is still a
"yes". You concede.
Post by howtrue
========================
IN 2002 Boeing sold 78 more planes than Airbus even after the 9-11
downturn.
In 2003 Airbus sold 305 Aircraft , Boeing sold 281
The boom is coming back at Boeing
Company ramps up production; hiring to continue upward trend
By JAMES WALLACE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER AEROSPACE REPORTER
For the first time since 2001, business seems to be booming at The Boeing
Co.'s Puget Sound-area factories -- enough that it's increasing output at
Renton and Everett factories.
The company plans to open a second production line in Renton that will push
output there to a record 31 planes a month. It is also requiring some 777
workers in Everett to work overtime and will replace a key executive there
amid a series of production problems before it boosts output of that
twin-aisle jetliner as well.
http://www.airbus.com/media/deliveries_business.asp
So Richard, it *is* Richard, isn't it? Are you changing your answer to a "no"?
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-06 02:28:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by howtrue
So Richard, it *is* Richard, isn't it? Are you changing your answer to a "no"?
==============================
Actually yes. BTW my name is Mike Nabisco , no wait , it is Betty Crocker.
No wait it is Steve Oreo .


Boeing beat Airbus 2000 2001 2002 in sales. So when you learn math , that
means Airbus lost to Boeing more than 50 % since 2000.


Enjoy.............

Airbus tops Boeing in battle for jetliner sales


by Ian Goold

This year could prove a watershed in the provision of large jetliners, with
long-time lead supplier Boeing involuntarily ceding that position to Europe'
s Airbus in 2003 and for the next few years. The European airframer will
deliver the majority of new large aircraft (100+ seats) in the coming 10
years, according to Aviation International News' analysis of recently
published statistics.



http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/paris/paris_03/pd2battlepg76.html
howtrue
2005-06-06 02:44:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by howtrue
So Richard, it *is* Richard, isn't it? Are you changing your answer to a
"no"?
Post by howtrue
==============================
Actually yes. BTW my name is Mike Nabisco , no wait , it is Betty Crocker.
No wait it is Steve Oreo .
Boeing beat Airbus 2000 2001 2002 in sales. So when you learn math , that
means Airbus lost to Boeing more than 50 % since 2000.
Oh, you are good for a laugh, Richard. The article you cite below is dated June, 2003, and talks
about PROJECTIONS for sales, not ACTUAL sales relative to Airbus. Nor does it mention the period
prior to 2003. Are you making-up the above claim by making *assumptions* based on the projections
in that article, or do you have actual numbers you can quote? Even a link to an article or document
with numbers will suffice. Until then, I accuse you of lying.
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Enjoy.............
Airbus tops Boeing in battle for jetliner sales
by Ian Goold
This year could prove a watershed in the provision of large jetliners, with
long-time lead supplier Boeing involuntarily ceding that position to Europe'
s Airbus in 2003 and for the next few years. The European airframer will
deliver the majority of new large aircraft (100+ seats) in the coming 10
years, according to Aviation International News' analysis of recently
published statistics.
http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/paris/paris_03/pd2battlepg76.html
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-06 03:03:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by howtrue
So Richard, it *is* Richard, isn't it? Are you changing your answer to a
"no"?
Post by howtrue
==============================
Actually yes. BTW my name is Mike Nabisco , no wait , it is Betty Crocker.
No wait it is Steve Oreo .
Boeing beat Airbus 2000 2001 2002 in sales. So when you learn math , that
means Airbus lost to Boeing more than 50 % since 2000.
Oh, you are good for a laugh, Richard. The article you cite below is
dated June, 2003, and talks
Post by howtrue
about PROJECTIONS for sales, not ACTUAL sales relative to Airbus. Nor
does it mention the period
Post by howtrue
prior to 2003.
===========================================

Don't you ever research your accusations before you make an ass of
yourself? 2000 2001 2002 Boeing beat Airbus by more than 100 planes
average , and more than 50 % of the time between 2000 and 2004.
Arent you up past your bedtime now little child?

Boeing : 2000 Deliveries 489
Airbus 2000 Deliveries 311

Boeing 2001 Deliveries 527
Airbus 2001 Deliveries 325

Boeing 2002 Deliveries 381
Airbus 2002 Deliveries 303

Boeing 2003 Deliveries 281
Airbus 2003 Deliveries 305

Boeing 2004 Deliveries 285
Airbus 2004 Deliveries 320



Q :"Since 2000, has Airbus sold more aircraft than Boeing most of those
years? Yes or no?

A: NO
You lose. Boeing beats Airbus by more than 50 % in the 2000 to
2004 timeframe
http://www.speednews.com/lists/lists.shtml
Joe
2005-06-06 00:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Lets include Defense planes in that total and see. Airbus has no defense
operations .
You must work for Airbus.
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-06 02:24:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by howtrue
Since 2000, has Airbus sold more aircraft than Boeing most of those years?
Yes or no?
=======================

No . You lose again. 2000, 2001 2002 Boeing had the lead. 2003 was the
first year they did not.
Do you like making an ass of yourself , or is it just a habit you can't
shake off?



Airbus tops Boeing in battle for jetliner sales


by Ian Goold

This year could prove a watershed in the provision of large jetliners, with
long-time lead supplier Boeing involuntarily ceding that position to Europe'
s Airbus in 2003 and for the next few years. The European airframer will
deliver the majority of new large aircraft (100+ seats) in the coming 10
years, according to Aviation International News' analysis of recently
published statistics.

http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/paris/paris_03/pd2battlepg76.html
howtrue
2005-06-06 02:51:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by howtrue
Post by howtrue
Since 2000, has Airbus sold more aircraft than Boeing most of those years?
Yes or no?
=======================
No . You lose again. 2000, 2001 2002 Boeing had the lead. 2003 was the
first year they did not.
Do you like making an ass of yourself , or is it just a habit you can't
shake off?
So if, say, Airbus sold more aircraft than Boeing in 2000 and 2001, but not in 2002, would that
invalidate the claim made in the quote below? No, it wouldn't. Besides, that article talks about
PROJECTIONS, not ACTUAL sales. Let's talk reality, not your dreams which never came true.
Post by howtrue
Airbus tops Boeing in battle for jetliner sales
by Ian Goold
This year could prove a watershed in the provision of large jetliners, with
long-time lead supplier Boeing involuntarily ceding that position to Europe'
s Airbus in 2003 and for the next few years. The European airframer will
deliver the majority of new large aircraft (100+ seats) in the coming 10
years, according to Aviation International News' analysis of recently
published statistics.
http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/paris/paris_03/pd2battlepg76.html
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-06 03:05:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by howtrue
Post by howtrue
Post by howtrue
Since 2000, has Airbus sold more aircraft than Boeing most of those years?
Yes or no?
=======================
No . You lose again. 2000, 2001 2002 Boeing had the lead. 2003 was the
first year they did not.
Do you like making an ass of yourself , or is it just a habit you can't
shake off?
So if, say, Airbus sold more aircraft than Boeing in 2000 and 2001, but
not in 2002, would that
Post by howtrue
invalidate the claim made in the quote below? No, it wouldn't. Besides,
that article talks about
Post by howtrue
PROJECTIONS, not ACTUAL sales. Let's talk reality, not your dreams which never came true.
===============================

EAT THIS MAGGOT FACE YOU LOSE AGAIN LOSER! Quit while you are behind .


Boeing : 2000 Deliveries 489
Airbus 2000 Deliveries 311

Boeing 2001 Deliveries 527
Airbus 2001 Deliveries 325

Boeing 2002 Deliveries 381
Airbus 2002 Deliveries 303

Boeing 2003 Deliveries 281
Airbus 2003 Deliveries 305

Boeing 2004 Deliveries 285
Airbus 2004 Deliveries 320



Q :"Since 2000, has Airbus sold more aircraft than Boeing most of those
years? Yes or no?

A: NO
You lose. Boeing beats Airbus by more than 50 % in the 2000 to
2004 timeframe
http://www.speednews.com/lists/lists.shtml
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-06 03:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by howtrue
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Evasion from the subject of AIRBUS' Delays and fines because it cant get its
fat pig to pass FAA mandated safety tests , noted.
Read the Subject line... "Boeing Eating Airbus' Lunch". YOU evaded the subject matter, ya
hypocritical pug. Boeing is most certainly not "eating Airbus for lunch",
as evidenced by your
Post by howtrue
conceding the debate in a similar thread ("EU In Meltdown : US Dollar
Surges , EURO Collapses").
Post by howtrue
Let me guess, you've been meaning to get back to me on that. <chuckle>
Here's the question for you
Post by howtrue
again, since you obviously suffer from A.D.D...
Since 2000, has Airbus sold more aircraft than Boeing most of those years?
Yes or no?
===============================

No .

Boeing : 2000 Deliveries 489
Airbus 2000 Deliveries 311

Boeing 2001 Deliveries 527
Airbus 2001 Deliveries 325

Boeing 2002 Deliveries 381
Airbus 2002 Deliveries 303

Boeing 2003 Deliveries 281
Airbus 2003 Deliveries 305

Boeing 2004 Deliveries 285
Airbus 2004 Deliveries 320



Q :"Since 2000, has Airbus sold more aircraft than Boeing most of those
years? Yes or no?

A: NO
You lose. Boeing beats Airbus by more than 50 % in the 2000 to
2004 timeframe
http://www.speednews.com/lists/lists.shtml
Joe
2005-06-06 00:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
My point was not 1 US Airport can handle an A 380 yet , and most will not
spend the hundreds of MIllions$$ needed to upgrade the Runways and Concorses
to handle it when teh Airline industry is already facing multiple
bankruptcies. Besides, 2 747's can transport more people anyway and US
Airports
And will operating two 747's be cheaper than one A380?
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-06 02:29:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
My point was not 1 US Airport can handle an A 380 yet , and most will not
spend the hundreds of MIllions$$ needed to upgrade the Runways and
Concorses
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
to handle it when teh Airline industry is already facing multiple
bankruptcies. Besides, 2 747's can transport more people anyway and US
Airports
And will operating two 747's be cheaper than one A380?
======================================
2 Used 747's that cost maybe 40 Million each compared to one Airbus that
costs 200 Million . Gee , which mortgage would you rather have to pay
interest on , or lease?
dre
2005-06-05 17:05:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
35 years ago there was no aircraft capable of carrying 250 + people
nonstop to almost anywhere in the world.
Boeing bet their own $$ and entire company on the 747 success. If it failed,
Boeing would have been reduced to only defense contracting.
Airbus gets to bet EU taxpayers $$ on the 380 . If it failed and no one
does boeing pay his taxbreakes back? 50 billion?
very unlikely...
eads is....

--------------------------------

Since 1992, Airbus has received $3.7 billion in loans that are repaid only
if a new airplane is commercially successful.
Now, Airbus wants another $1.7 billion to help it develop the A350, the jet
that will compete against Boeing's 787 Dreamliner.

The E.U. says Boeing (NYSE: BA) receives its share of government aid in the
form of state government tax incentives, launch aid from Japan, research
funding from the U.S. Department of Defense and tax export breaks.

---------------------------------------

Take, for example, the much ballyhooed Boeing incentives. Everyone says it's
a great deal to give Boeing $50, $41 or $30 million (depending on its final
structure) of taxpayer money to locate its headquarters here. Touting the
Boeing subsidy as a "great investment", Governor Ryan insists that all
public money we give to Boeing now will more than come back to the state
later. I want to believe him. The problem is, there is no way to know
whether the governor's evaluation is on the mark. Why? Because Illinois is
giving Boeing its cash subsidy in the form of a "tax expenditure".

"Tax expenditure" is just a fancy way of saying Illinois is letting Boeing
keep money it otherwise would rightfully owe in taxes. Say the legislature
settles on $41 million for Boeing's subsidy. Economically, this $41 million
tax expenditure works the same as a direct cash payment from Illinois to
Boeing - that is, state revenues are reduced by $41 million and Boeing's
coffers are increased by $41 million.
Mel Fury
2005-06-05 17:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by dre
does boeing pay his taxbreakes back? 50 billion?
very unlikely...
eads is....
--------------------------------
Since 1992, Airbus has received $3.7 billion in loans that are repaid only
if a new airplane is commercially successful.
Now, Airbus wants another $1.7 billion to help it develop the A350, the jet
that will compete against Boeing's 787 Dreamliner.
You're not being honest because Boeing has been subsidized for decades as
well. You can cut and paste all the articles you wish, but the fact remains
that both companies receive subsidies to operate.
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-05 17:23:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mel Fury
Post by dre
does boeing pay his taxbreakes back? 50 billion?
very unlikely...
eads is....
--------------------------------
Since 1992, Airbus has received $3.7 billion in loans that are repaid only
if a new airplane is commercially successful.
Now, Airbus wants another $1.7 billion to help it develop the A350, the jet
that will compete against Boeing's 787 Dreamliner.
You're not being honest because Boeing has been subsidized for decades as
well. You can cut and paste all the articles you wish, but the fact remains
that both companies receive subsidies to operate.
============================

Boeing gets no subsidies for its commercial operations.
Its defense operations do because it is building Defense planes asshole.


Emirates, Largest A380 Buyer, Seeks Airbus Damages (Update2)
June 5 (Bloomberg) -- Emirates, the largest customer for the Airbus SAS A380
aircraft, said it's seeking damages from the European planemaker because of
a six-month delay in delivering the aircraft, joining Qantas Airways Ltd. in
the action.

Airbus Chief Executive Noel Forgeard visited Dubai, United Arab Emirates,
yesterday to explain the delay to the carrier, which has ordered 45 of the
aircraft worth $7 billion, Emirates' spokesman Mike Simon said. The delay
was first reported on June 1.

``Certain clauses in our agreement with Airbus come into being that are of a
compensatory nature because of the delay,'' Simon said in a telephone
interview. He declined to be more specific.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&refer=europe&sid=anGNUq8dkQy
M
Joe
2005-06-06 00:15:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Boeing gets no subsidies for its commercial operations.
Its defense operations do because it is building Defense planes asshole.
Better check the history of the development of the 707. Military sales (ex
KC 135's) were used to set up the production of the 707.
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-06 02:30:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Boeing gets no subsidies for its commercial operations.
Its defense operations do because it is building Defense planes
asshole.
Post by Joe
Better check the history of the development of the 707. Military sales (ex
KC 135's) were used to set up the production of the 707.
=============================================

So you have to go back 40 years for one possible example to compare to the
$ Billions taxapers are funding now for Airbus ?
fritz
2005-06-06 00:15:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Boeing gets no subsidies for its commercial operations.
Its defense operations do because it is building Defense planes asshole.
Does Boeing transfer any technology from its defence operations to its
commercial operations, ARSEHOLE ?
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-06 02:31:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by fritz
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Boeing gets no subsidies for its commercial operations.
Its defense operations do because it is building Defense planes
asshole.
Post by fritz
Does Boeing transfer any technology from its defence operations to its
commercial operations, ARSEHOLE ?
=========================

How many 747's can fly at Mach 2 like the B-2?
Or carry sidewinder missiles for that matter?
fritz
2005-06-06 02:34:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by fritz
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Boeing gets no subsidies for its commercial operations.
Its defense operations do because it is building Defense planes
asshole.
Post by fritz
Does Boeing transfer any technology from its defence operations to its
commercial operations, ARSEHOLE ?
=========================
How many 747's can fly at Mach 2 like the B-2?
Or carry sidewinder missiles for that matter?
Answer the question........
Does Boeing transfer any technology from its defence operations to its
commercial operations, ARSEHOLE ?
Bert Hyman
2005-06-06 02:44:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by fritz
ARSEHOLE
Well, that's certainly couched in a way to guarantee civil discussion.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN ***@iphouse.com
dre
2005-06-05 17:56:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mel Fury
Post by dre
Since 1992, Airbus has received $3.7 billion in loans that are repaid only
if a new airplane is commercially successful.
Now, Airbus wants another $1.7 billion to help it develop the A350, the jet
that will compete against Boeing's 787 Dreamliner.
You're not being honest because Boeing has been subsidized for decades as
well. You can cut and paste all the articles you wish, but the fact remains
that both companies receive subsidies to operate.
well, i pasted that also ,

read it this time....bush complains about a few billion,while boeing gets 50
billion !!!
+ Subsidising the exports
hypocrits.......
---------------------------------------
Take, for example, the much ballyhooed Boeing incentives. Everyone says it's
a great deal to give Boeing $50, $41 or $30 million (depending on its final
structure) of taxpayer money to locate its headquarters here. Touting the
Boeing subsidy as a "great investment", Governor Ryan insists that all
public money we give to Boeing now will more than come back to the state
later. I want to believe him. The problem is, there is no way to know
whether the governor's evaluation is on the mark. Why? Because Illinois is
giving Boeing its cash subsidy in the form of a "tax expenditure".
Mel Fury
2005-06-05 18:03:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mel Fury
Post by Mel Fury
Post by dre
Since 1992, Airbus has received $3.7 billion in loans that are repaid
only
Post by Mel Fury
Post by dre
if a new airplane is commercially successful.
Now, Airbus wants another $1.7 billion to help it develop the A350, the
jet
Post by Mel Fury
Post by dre
that will compete against Boeing's 787 Dreamliner.
You're not being honest because Boeing has been subsidized for decades as
well. You can cut and paste all the articles you wish, but the fact
remains
Post by Mel Fury
that both companies receive subsidies to operate.
well, i pasted that also ,
read it this time....bush complains about a few billion,while boeing gets 50
billion !!!
+ Subsidising the exports
hypocrits.......
---------------------------------------
Take, for example, the much ballyhooed Boeing incentives. Everyone says it's
a great deal to give Boeing $50, $41 or $30 million (depending on its final
structure) of taxpayer money to locate its headquarters here. Touting the
Boeing subsidy as a "great investment", Governor Ryan insists that all
public money we give to Boeing now will more than come back to the state
later. I want to believe him. The problem is, there is no way to know
whether the governor's evaluation is on the mark. Why? Because Illinois is
giving Boeing its cash subsidy in the form of a "tax expenditure".
Yeah! I caught that later on and issued a message cancel which apparently
didn't take hold. That's why I posted a subsequent post supporting your
contention.
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-05 18:14:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mel Fury
Post by Mel Fury
Post by dre
Since 1992, Airbus has received $3.7 billion in loans that are repaid
only
Post by Mel Fury
Post by dre
if a new airplane is commercially successful.
Now, Airbus wants another $1.7 billion to help it develop the A350,
the
Post by Mel Fury
jet
Post by Mel Fury
Post by dre
that will compete against Boeing's 787 Dreamliner.
You're not being honest because Boeing has been subsidized for decades as
well. You can cut and paste all the articles you wish, but the fact
remains
Post by Mel Fury
that both companies receive subsidies to operate.
well, i pasted that also ,
read it this time....bush complains about a few billion,while boeing gets 50
billion !!!
+ Subsidising the exports
hypocrits.......
==============================

Liar. Boeing gets money to build B-2 Bombers NOT Airliners .
Mel Fury
2005-06-05 17:07:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
35 years ago there was no aircraft capable of carrying 250 + people
nonstop to almost anywhere in the world.
Boeing bet their own $$ and entire company on the 747 success. If it
failed,
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Boeing would have been reduced to only defense contracting.
Airbus gets to bet EU taxpayers $$ on the 380 . If it failed and no one
does boeing pay his taxbreakes back? 50 billion?
very unlikely...
eads is....
--------------------------------
Since 1992, Airbus has received $3.7 billion in loans that are repaid only
if a new airplane is commercially successful.
Now, Airbus wants another $1.7 billion to help it develop the A350, the jet
that will compete against Boeing's 787 Dreamliner.
The E.U. says Boeing (NYSE: BA) receives its share of government aid in the
form of state government tax incentives, launch aid from Japan, research
funding from the U.S. Department of Defense and tax export breaks.
---------------------------------------
Take, for example, the much ballyhooed Boeing incentives. Everyone says it's
a great deal to give Boeing $50, $41 or $30 million (depending on its final
structure) of taxpayer money to locate its headquarters here. Touting the
Boeing subsidy as a "great investment", Governor Ryan insists that all
public money we give to Boeing now will more than come back to the state
later. I want to believe him. The problem is, there is no way to know
whether the governor's evaluation is on the mark. Why? Because Illinois is
giving Boeing its cash subsidy in the form of a "tax expenditure".
"Tax expenditure" is just a fancy way of saying Illinois is letting Boeing
keep money it otherwise would rightfully owe in taxes. Say the legislature
settles on $41 million for Boeing's subsidy. Economically, this $41 million
tax expenditure works the same as a direct cash payment from Illinois to
Boeing - that is, state revenues are reduced by $41 million and Boeing's
coffers are increased by $41 million.
There are a few too may American right wingers who decry what they consider
socialism when the examples they hold up of "capitalism" are just as guilty
of sucking off the taxpayer tit. They're hypocrites.
Iskandar Baharuddin
2005-06-06 00:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
35 years ago there was no aircraft capable of carrying 250 +
people
nonstop to almost anywhere in the world.
Boeing bet their own $$ and entire company on the 747
success. If it
failed,
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Boeing would have been reduced to only defense contracting.
Airbus gets to bet EU taxpayers $$ on the 380 . If it failed
and no one
does boeing pay his taxbreakes back? 50 billion?
very unlikely...
eads is....
--------------------------------
Since 1992, Airbus has received $3.7 billion in loans that are
repaid only
if a new airplane is commercially successful.
Now, Airbus wants another $1.7 billion to help it develop the
A350, the jet
that will compete against Boeing's 787 Dreamliner.
The E.U. says Boeing (NYSE: BA) receives its share of
government aid in the
form of state government tax incentives, launch aid from
Japan, research
funding from the U.S. Department of Defense and tax export
breaks.
---------------------------------------
Take, for example, the much ballyhooed Boeing incentives.
Everyone says it's
a great deal to give Boeing $50, $41 or $30 million (depending
on its final
structure) of taxpayer money to locate its headquarters here.
Touting the
Boeing subsidy as a "great investment", Governor Ryan insists
that all
public money we give to Boeing now will more than come back to
the state
later. I want to believe him. The problem is, there is no way
to know
whether the governor's evaluation is on the mark. Why? Because
Illinois is
giving Boeing its cash subsidy in the form of a "tax
expenditure".
"Tax expenditure" is just a fancy way of saying Illinois is
letting Boeing
keep money it otherwise would rightfully owe in taxes. Say the
legislature
settles on $41 million for Boeing's subsidy. Economically,
this $41 million
tax expenditure works the same as a direct cash payment from
Illinois to
Boeing - that is, state revenues are reduced by $41 million
and Boeing's
coffers are increased by $41 million.
$41 million?

Gee, that's a lot of money.

Izzy
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-06 02:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Iskandar Baharuddin
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
35 years ago there was no aircraft capable of carrying 250 + people
nonstop to almost anywhere in the world.
Boeing bet their own $$ and entire company on the 747
success. If it
failed,
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Boeing would have been reduced to only defense contracting.
Airbus gets to bet EU taxpayers $$ on the 380 . If it failed and no one
does boeing pay his taxbreakes back? 50 billion?
very unlikely...
eads is....
--------------------------------
Since 1992, Airbus has received $3.7 billion in loans that are repaid only
if a new airplane is commercially successful.
Now, Airbus wants another $1.7 billion to help it develop the A350, the jet
that will compete against Boeing's 787 Dreamliner.
The E.U. says Boeing (NYSE: BA) receives its share of
government aid in the
form of state government tax incentives, launch aid from
Japan, research
funding from the U.S. Department of Defense and tax export
breaks.
---------------------------------------
Take, for example, the much ballyhooed Boeing incentives.
Everyone says it's
a great deal to give Boeing $50, $41 or $30 million (depending on its final
structure) of taxpayer money to locate its headquarters here. Touting the
Boeing subsidy as a "great investment", Governor Ryan insists that all
public money we give to Boeing now will more than come back to the state
later. I want to believe him. The problem is, there is no way to know
whether the governor's evaluation is on the mark. Why? Because Illinois is
giving Boeing its cash subsidy in the form of a "tax
expenditure".
"Tax expenditure" is just a fancy way of saying Illinois is
letting Boeing
keep money it otherwise would rightfully owe in taxes. Say the legislature
settles on $41 million for Boeing's subsidy. Economically,
this $41 million
tax expenditure works the same as a direct cash payment from
Illinois to
Boeing - that is, state revenues are reduced by $41 million
and Boeing's
coffers are increased by $41 million.
$41 million?
Gee, that's a lot of money.
Izzy
===============================

Yeah, compared to the Billions Euro taxpayers are paying for Airbus 's
gamble.
Glen Hallick
2005-06-05 16:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Has the Boeing 787 Drealiner flown yet? Seems to me it is about a year away
from its first flight and won't be in service with airlines for another 2 or
3 years. With that said, Airbus is already flight testing the 380A.


Glen
Post by Proteus
Even socialist Canada's flagship line, Air Canada, has chosen Boeing's
787 Dreamliner over the huge Airbus 380A in a multi billion dollar order.
This was followed by a 300+ Boeing aircraft order by Indonesia.
Let's face it. The new Boeing 787 and 7E7 Dreamliner planes are much more
practical than Airbus ' "flying Titanic" 380A. And production delays for
the 380A have already been announced by the heavily taxpayer-
subsidized Airbus consortium. All of this is very damaging publicity for
Airbus.
The Boeing airplanes are more fuel efficient, quieter than the Airbus
monstrosity
and can fly non-stop to any destination on the planet. Whereas the Airbus
requires
costly airstrip enlargements. For air passengers, who would want to be on
a plane
with 550-600 smelly, proletarian passengers. Can you envision the
processing lineups
and nightmares in the airport after landing? Also anti-terrorist security
would be more
difficult with the Airbus 380A. And what a juicy target it would be.
Still we can be glad that Airbus is there. Competition is good. Without
Airbus there
wouldn't be any.
Mel Fury
2005-06-05 16:49:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glen Hallick
Has the Boeing 787 Drealiner flown yet? Seems to me it is about a year away
from its first flight and won't be in service with airlines for another 2 or
3 years. With that said, Airbus is already flight testing the 380A.
Glen
It hasn't been built yet.
Glen Hallick
2005-06-05 21:36:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mel Fury
Post by Glen Hallick
Has the Boeing 787 Drealiner flown yet? Seems to me it is about a year away
from its first flight and won't be in service with airlines for another 2 or
3 years. With that said, Airbus is already flight testing the 380A.
Glen
It hasn't been built yet.
Things better pan out for Boeing as they have presold many of these
Dreamliners. Otherwise it could be oneof the biggest white elephants of all
time. But then the rightiods here would just end up blaming Airbus.


Glen
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-05 17:24:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glen Hallick
Has the Boeing 787 Drealiner flown yet? Seems to me it is about a year away
from its first flight and won't be in service with airlines for another 2 or
3 years. With that said, Airbus is already flight testing the 380A.
============================================

And paying fines for lengthy delays because they cant get the fat pig
unloaded within the 2 minutes emergency drills teh FAA mandates.




Emirates, Largest A380 Buyer, Seeks Airbus Damages (Update2)
June 5 (Bloomberg) -- Emirates, the largest customer for the Airbus SAS A380
aircraft, said it's seeking damages from the European planemaker because of
a six-month delay in delivering the aircraft, joining Qantas Airways Ltd. in
the action.

Airbus Chief Executive Noel Forgeard visited Dubai, United Arab Emirates,
yesterday to explain the delay to the carrier, which has ordered 45 of the
aircraft worth $7 billion, Emirates' spokesman Mike Simon said. The delay
was first reported on June 1.

``Certain clauses in our agreement with Airbus come into being that are of a
compensatory nature because of the delay,'' Simon said in a telephone
interview. He declined to be more specific.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&refer=europe&sid=anGNUq8dkQy
M
Joe
2005-06-06 00:17:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
And paying fines for lengthy delays because they cant get the fat pig
unloaded within the 2 minutes emergency drills teh FAA mandates.
Have any of these drills actually taken place yet?
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-06 02:34:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
And paying fines for lengthy delays because they cant get the fat pig
unloaded within the 2 minutes emergency drills teh FAA mandates.
Have any of these drills actually taken place yet?
==============================
If they had and were successful, Airbus would be bragging about it for
sure. The fact is they are not saying why the delay because it will be
rather embarassing that something so simple is logistically unachievable.
Watch Airbus beg the FAA for an exemption so as not to make their pregant
Pig an Albatross that cant fly .
Glen Hallick
2005-06-06 02:59:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by Joe
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
And paying fines for lengthy delays because they cant get the fat pig
unloaded within the 2 minutes emergency drills teh FAA mandates.
Have any of these drills actually taken place yet?
==============================
If they had and were successful, Airbus would be bragging about it for
sure. The fact is they are not saying why the delay because it will be
rather embarassing that something so simple is logistically unachievable.
Watch Airbus beg the FAA for an exemption so as not to make their pregant
Pig an Albatross that cant fly .
Airbus has gotten their big plane into the sky...what about Boeing?



Glen
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-06 03:08:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glen Hallick
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Post by Joe
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
And paying fines for lengthy delays because they cant get the fat pig
unloaded within the 2 minutes emergency drills teh FAA mandates.
Have any of these drills actually taken place yet?
==============================
If they had and were successful, Airbus would be bragging about it for
sure. The fact is they are not saying why the delay because it will be
rather embarassing that something so simple is logistically
unachievable.
Post by Glen Hallick
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Watch Airbus beg the FAA for an exemption so as not to make their
pregant
Post by Glen Hallick
Post by "Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
Pig an Albatross that cant fly .
Airbus has gotten their big plane into the sky...what about Boeing?
Glen
============================================

What do you mean ? Boeing has its big plane in the sky for 36 years? Are
you just off the boat or something?
Haximus
2005-06-05 18:31:30 UTC
Permalink
<snip>

I guess you don't understand the concept of hub-to-hub vs point-to-point.
When it comes down to it there will be demand for both types of markets,
there will always be flyers wanting the smallest bottom line and there will
always be flyers wanting the most convenient routes. Airbus will be in a
position to supply efficient aircraft to both types of markets, Boeing will
not.

BTW, Boeing is heavily subsidized by the Pentagon and NASA, not to mention
the State of Washington, and even Japan who forked out several billion for
the priviledge of building wings. Boeing is far more "socialist" that Air
Canada considering how much it depends on the taxpayer to survive.
MI Wakefield
2005-06-05 18:51:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Haximus
<snip>
I guess you don't understand the concept of hub-to-hub vs point-to-point.
When it comes down to it there will be demand for both types of markets,
there will always be flyers wanting the smallest bottom line and there
will always be flyers wanting the most convenient routes. Airbus will be
in a position to supply efficient aircraft to both types of markets,
Boeing will not.
Actually, what kicked off the latest set of WTO complaints was Airbus asking
for subsidies to develop the A350, a 787 clone.
Post by Haximus
BTW, Boeing is heavily subsidized by the Pentagon and NASA, not to mention
the State of Washington, and even Japan who forked out several billion for
the priviledge of building wings. Boeing is far more "socialist" that Air
Canada considering how much it depends on the taxpayer to survive.
Sylvia Else
2005-06-05 23:26:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Proteus
Let's face it. The new Boeing 787 and 7E7 Dreamliner planes are much more
practical than Airbus ' "flying Titanic" 380A. And production delays for
the 380A have already been announced by the heavily taxpayer-
subsidized Airbus consortium. All of this is very damaging publicity for
Airbus.
The Boeing airplanes are more fuel efficient, quieter than the Airbus
monstrosity
and can fly non-stop to any destination on the planet.
When did the 787 and 7E7 commence test flights? I must have missed that.

Sylvia.
Tabor
2005-06-05 23:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Proteus
Let's face it. The new Boeing 787 and 7E7 Dreamliner planes are much more
practical than Airbus ' "flying Titanic" 380A. And production delays for
the 380A have already been announced by the heavily taxpayer-
subsidized Airbus consortium. All of this is very damaging publicity for
Airbus.
The Boeing airplanes are more fuel efficient, quieter than the Airbus
monstrosity
and can fly non-stop to any destination on the planet.
When did the 787 and 7E7 commence test flights? I must have missed that.
Sylvia.
They haven't turned a screw to build even one yet.
Sylvia Else
2005-06-06 01:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tabor
Post by Sylvia Else
When did the 787 and 7E7 commence test flights? I must have missed that.
Sylvia.
They haven't turned a screw to build even one yet.
Thought as much.

Don't buy those rubbish Boeing paper aeroplanes.

I have much better ones. Transpacific range, mach 7, 1 ml of fuel per
passenger mile. 3000 ft takeoff run at MTW.

Sylvia.
Joe
2005-06-05 23:59:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Proteus
Even socialist Canada's flagship line, Air Canada, has chosen Boeing's
787 Dreamliner over the huge Airbus 380A in a multi billion dollar order.
This was followed by a 300+ Boeing aircraft order by Indonesia.
Save your bragging. Boeing make the best airliners in the world, as far as
I am concerned. However, Airbus is outselling them and the product they
make is not bad.

Who is eating who's lunch is still to be determined.
howtrue
2005-06-06 00:09:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
Post by Proteus
Even socialist Canada's flagship line, Air Canada, has chosen Boeing's
787 Dreamliner over the huge Airbus 380A in a multi billion dollar order.
This was followed by a 300+ Boeing aircraft order by Indonesia.
Save your bragging. Boeing make the best airliners in the world, as far as
I am concerned. However, Airbus is outselling them and the product they
make is not bad.
Who is eating who's lunch is still to be determined.
Here's an interesting and fairly recent take on the topic, which also seems pretty balanced in
viewpoint...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4598711.stm

Richard, don't bother... it's from one of those "icky" Socialist countries.
Maelon
2005-06-06 00:19:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by howtrue
Here's an interesting and fairly recent take on the topic, which also seems pretty balanced in
viewpoint...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4598711.stm
Richard, don't bother... it's from one of those "icky" Socialist countries.
Any country that isn't the USA under Bush is a "socialist" one according to
the undereducated sub-twit called Richard Keebler. That despite the fact
that the US government has ballooned under Bush while taxpayer funded
corporate welfare in the form of bail outs, subsidies, protectionism, and
pork has increased substantially. He considers that kind of activity somehow
to be "capitalist".

He doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-06 02:38:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maelon
Post by howtrue
Here's an interesting and fairly recent take on the topic, which also
seems pretty balanced in
Post by Maelon
Post by howtrue
viewpoint...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4598711.stm
Richard, don't bother... it's from one of those "icky" Socialist countries.
Any country that isn't the USA under Bush is a "socialist" one according to
the undereducated sub-twit called Richard Keebler. That despite the fact
that the US government has ballooned under Bush while taxpayer funded
corporate welfare in the form of bail outs, subsidies, protectionism, and
pork has increased substantially. He considers that kind of activity somehow
to be "capitalist".
He doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
===========================

Does your Ex boss know you are posting his name on the net ?
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-06 02:37:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
Post by Proteus
Even socialist Canada's flagship line, Air Canada, has chosen Boeing's
787 Dreamliner over the huge Airbus 380A in a multi billion dollar order.
This was followed by a 300+ Boeing aircraft order by Indonesia.
Save your bragging. Boeing make the best airliners in the world, as far as
I am concerned. However, Airbus is outselling them and the product they
make is not bad.
===================================
Airbus is barely leading in sales , and only since 2003 by a few percent
points.
Boeing can jump back in the lead as the 380 becomes further and further
delayed since they can't get 800 people off the plane in under 2 minutes in
an emergency drill.
fritz
2005-06-05 23:53:03 UTC
Permalink
Proteus wrote ...
<snip>
Post by Proteus
Still we can be glad that Airbus is there. Competition is good. Without
Airbus there
wouldn't be any.
You're right there.
Airbus is kicking Boeing arse so hard that B are resorting to dirty tactics.
They are such whingers (and will be losers) for dragging it into the courts.
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-06 02:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by fritz
Proteus wrote ...
<snip>
Post by Proteus
Still we can be glad that Airbus is there. Competition is good. Without
Airbus there
wouldn't be any.
You're right there.
Airbus is kicking Boeing arse so hard that B are resorting to dirty tactics.
They are such whingers (and will be losers) for dragging it into the courts.
====================================

Oh yeah , really kicking ass. Last year they barely beat Boeing in total
sales. And thats after huge price cuts due to EURO taxpayers getting
hosed.

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:zAiApG29NNAJ:www.ainonline.com/Publicati
ons/paris/paris_03/pd2battlepg76.html+boeing+2003+sales+production&hl=en
"Another BO Reeking Maggot Ridden Sandal Wearing Radlib" <Radlib Maggot@ USC @Berkeley.edu>
2005-06-06 03:15:40 UTC
Permalink
Guess France cant wait around for those A 380's to pass Airworthyness
testing , so they go to the proven workhorses of Boeing .



Air France orders Boeing cargo 777s
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
SEATTLE

The Boeing Co. is starting a cargo version of its long-range, twin-engine
777 after getting an order from Air France for five of the airplanes,
Boeing, based in Chicago, announced yesterday.

Air France also took options on three more 777 freighters, only four days
after receiving approval from the Air France-KLM board of directors.
Deliveries are scheduled to begin in the fourth quarter of 2008, executives
with the company and the airline said.

The orders would be worth about $1 billion at list prices, but airlines
typically negotiate steep discounts, especially on multiple and launch
orders.

The chairman of Air France, Jean-Cyril Spinetta, said that the planes would
be used to replace aging Boeing 747-200 freighters and would save money
because Air France's fleet already includes 777-200ER and -300ER passenger
planes.

Air Canada also will be part of the 777 freighter launch. Last month it
ordered two 777 freighters, 16 passenger versions of the plane and 14 787s.

The 777 freighter is based on long-range 777-200LR passenger plane, which is
scheduled to enter service early next year. In the fall when Boeing first
offered the plane, it said it would be able to carry 222,000 pounds of cargo
up to 6,400 miles.

Boeing said it had shortened the freighter's range to just under 5,000 miles
and increased its payload to 229,000 pounds. Lars Andersen, the 777 program
manager, said that airlines told Boeing it was more important to carry more
cargo than fly farther.

http://tinyurl.com/de4g9

Loading...