Airbus’ announcement of production cuts may not have come as a surprise against a backdrop of economic woes, but dissecting the numbers reveals an altogether different story.
In its press release issued yesterday, Airbus stated that it would cut production of its “A320 Family programme from 36 to 34 a month from October 2009 onwards.”
Based on Airbus’ 2008 delivery figures, the monthly production figures do not match up or make sense. In 2008, Airbus delivered 386 A320 family airplanes. Over twelve months, that equates to just over 32 airplanes a month – certainly not 36.
Image copyright/owned by FleetBuzz Editorial.com
36 airplanes a month would equate to 432 deliveries and as we all know, Airbus did not deliver that many single aisle jets at all. Even the production rate of the A330/A340 is skewed. In 2008, Airbus delivered 85 A330/A340 jets, roughly 7 airplanes a month. Yet Airbus claims to be pausing the A330/A340 production at 8.5 a month – that would mean 102 deliveries of A330/A340′s a year, not 85!
Airbus’ figures are a smokescreen. Clearly, it is not cutting back because it is not operating at the levels it claims it is.
Arran Aerospace MD Doug McVitie tells me that Airbus numbers are inconsistent and disingenuous.
“Airbus is trying to give the impression it is reacting ahead of time, but it is not reacting at all. How come there are no layoffs?
Airbus are not actually cutting anything as the unions of course wouldn’t allow it.
If the narrowbody production rate is 36/month, how come they only delivered 386 last year instead of 432,” says McVitie.
“In 2008 the delivery rate was 32.16/month, in 2007 30.58 aircraft. In January 2009 Airbus delivered 31 A320-family aircraft. So the 25-month rolling production rate is 31.36 aircraft/month, not 34 and not 36,” he adds.
Critically, Airbus has failed to identify which A320 customers deliveries it would cut, if indeed it is going to cut production in 2009.
The only other plausible scenario here is that Airbus has a raft of cancellations that have yet to be made public – the numbers do not add up and in the absence of any major A320 operator stating that they want to slow down deliveries, cancellation of orders is the likely scenario that will inevitably emerge.
I’ve long believed Airbus brought a touch of magic to the aerospace industry… Now they’re ‘cutting’ production to rates which are ‘above’ the current ones — and that is certainly an extraordinary feat. Magic, even.
Why am I not surprised that the former Airbus employee Doug McVitie is not aware of the fact that Airbus — and most companies for that matter — does not operate its production system 24/7/365?
In fact, an Airbus production year is equal to about 10,5 – 11 months (i.e. not much production going on in August and other holiday periods).
10,5×36 = 378
11,0×36 = 398
With 386 A32S aircraft delivered in 2008, one can easily see that Airbus has reached a production output of 36 per month (in eleven months – minus one week!)
As for the A330/A340 line, Airbus is (was) in the process of ramping up production to 9 per month in 2009, and 10 per month in 2010 (from about 7-8 per month in 2005-2008).
10,5×8 = 84
11,0×8 = 88
With 85 A330/A340 aircraft delivered in 2008, 79 in 2007, 86 in 2006 and 80 in 2005, one can easily see that Airbus has maintained the production output of a little less than 8 per month for the last 4 years.
Airbus has a full month shutdown MPTA-098?
Unlikely!
In any numbers game, they can be “sliced ‘n’ diced” in any way that pleases you – last I checked, Airbus does indeed deliver airplanes each and every month.
Do the August deliveries appear miraculously? Or perhaps they make 72 A320′s in July and split the deliveries through Jul/Aug?
Or is it just better not to count the/a twelfth month to get a better production rate?
Astonishing, isn’t it, that Airbus neglects to mention this well-known salient industry production metric in publicity material like yesterday’s, and in all similar previous disingenuous press releases going back years?
I imagine Airbus is busy right this minute contacting all global media sources who have run with this — oops! accidentally misleading — story by Airbus, to put them right…
And isn’t FleetBuzz lucky to have a Frenchman like MPTA to enlighten all us out here in the wilderness who just take Airbus press releases at face value?
Aye, right.
Anyway, what does a small part of my professional background have to do with the issue here? How dare I be ‘disloyal’ and question all the little Toulousain Harry Potters? That it? LOL.
Funny stuff, indeed. An honest press release from Airbus would have avoided any follow-up, but in the ongoing absence of a bit of Airbus accuracy, this story will run and run.
That’s for sure.
“this story will run and run”
Only in the minds of bitter, ex-employees.
boeing investor, dont’t mix up production and deliveries, which btw, is made at the discretion of the customer.
In fact, for European companies having assembly lines; they’re usually shut down completely for three weeks in August (July in Scandinavia). Is this so hard to comprehend?
Seriously, this assertion that Airbus is supposedly “cutting a smokescreen” has a certain tempest-in-a-tea-kettle flavour. I would suggest that some research in how industrial production lines are run in the world at large, would do you some good.
I think the deeper issue is whether Airbus is facing more difficulties than the press has covered. Yes, it is easy to fudge numbers..but news coming out of Airbus relative to the 380 has been much worse than covered. Also, the 350 will not be a smooth ride to completion but Airbus is being given the benefit of the calls.
There is a better story here about EADS and its future. Smokescreen is just a metaphor and covers the heart of the matter. Can Airbus producie planes that are economical and sustainable. That is the question
Doug-I’m pleased to be in your august presence as I’ve been following your observations on the industry for years-I haven’t been around Saj’s living room putting my feet up on the coffee table for a while but I am back.
The fact that you are the subject of the usual ad hominem attacks from people who can’t think their way out of a brown paper bag tells me you’re on to something.
The answer to the question “W-w-where’s the layoffs, Sparky?” is answered by something I heard in the last aerospace implosion, which I was a casualty of.
It may have been Mullaly who said back then “Firm orders and contracts are all very well, but if the customer calls up and says ‘I cant make my payments’ all of a sudden they don’t mean much any more.”
It also means shuffling the delivery deck, and that carries its own internal configuration control costs, as I learned when I saw two JAT MD-11s get converted over so they could be sold to AA. Yugoslavia had ceased to exist, you see.
“Why am I not surprised that the former Airbus employee Doug McVitie is not aware of the fact that Airbus — and most companies for that matter — does not operate its production system 24/7/365?”
Don’t most companies account for weekends and holidays when they put out monthly production figures?
Oh, but this is Airbus, where there are 11 months in a year and the the year end in the middle of January.
neglected to mention the A400M which is bleeding and has become nearly cost ineffective…there is alot of red forming up on EADS balance sheet…Isn’t this part of the matter with underlying production schedules…
MPTA-098 – I am not confusing delivery and production, otherwise Airbus would have “whitetails”!
The point is, is noted by BeauNG is that ALL companies account for vacation. Airbus’ methodology works to suit its “figures” at the end of a calendar year, but they do not tally up with monthly production figures.
McVitie is on to something and its a shame people cant see that past their noses.
Mr. McVitie, although Boeing divides annual output by 12 to get their average monthly output, this is not necessarily the true and only production metric. Why would it be disingenuous not to count production output when you’re not producing anything?
Do note that most large industrial production companies — i.e. those running production lines which are usually shut down in July/August and at Christmas/New Year — mainly use quarters and annual output as the main production metrics, while energy production companies usually use daily output as their main metric. In fact, talking about monthly output of units in the lower “teens”, surely must be some special peculiarity of the aerospace industry.
It’s interesting to note your seeming dislike of “the French”. However, I’m not French, I’ve never lived in France and I’ve never worked for Airbus.
“Anyway, what does a small part of my professional background have to do with the issue here? How dare I be ‘disloyal’ and question all the little Toulousain Harry Potters? That it?
Well, I would say that it’s got a lot to do with the issue here. You being director of sales intelligence at Airbus seems to be mentioned at places such as this one; http://www.glgroup.com/Council-Member/Doug-McVitie-107212.html Apart from arran aerospace, Airbus is the only company mentioned in your 29 years of work experience in the aerospace industry. Why? As I said in a previous post, this assertion that Airbus is supposedly “cutting a smokescreen” has a certain tempest-in-a-tea-kettle flavour. It’s puzzling therefore that a seemingly informed industry insider like yourself make such a fuzz about how Airbus is stating their production output. In fact, one could suspect that their might be some deeper lying motives at work here.
Only an “Airbusier” (aka busboys) would find the necessity of multiplying a monthly rate by 10.5 to reach the annual rate a “logical” process. Of course this kind of chicanery is relatively minor compared to the “Potemkin Dreamliner Hoax,” where Boeing’s leadership apparently had the utter temerity to countenance the staging of a fake roll-out of the 787 on 7/8/7.
MPTA-098: “It’s puzzling therefore that a seemingly informed industry insider like yourself make such a fuzz about how Airbus is stating their production output. In fact, one could suspect that their might be some deeper lying motives at work here.”
I think think that making a “fuzz” is fair game here. Doug McVitie doesn’t trade publicly; EADS does–on the CAC as EAD.PA.
Why get in an uproar over honest questioning. Boeing has hordes of press groupies who maintain the “Boeing watch”, pouncing on every little bit of ambiguity in ANY news story around the world. And, to be perfectly honest, that’s fair. EADS has no right to an exemption from honest questioning. I hope Mr. McVitie won’t be discouraged by these personal attacks and continue to question the actions of EADS. After all, this is not the most transparent company in the world.
Skeptic and others,
Discouraged? I’m heartened…
There’s nothing like an independent Airbus reality-check to bring out the died-in-the-wool brainwashed trolling nutters, whatever their nationality and irrespective of their preternatural predisposition to avoid the subject (generally a French trait, that).
And if they can’t argue the case objectively, particularly the excellent points made by boeing investor, JerrF, Dougloid, BeauNG and your good self, well then, hey, let’s make personal attacks on the messenger.
Got news for all you anonymous Airbus apologisits: I’ve suffered more personal attacks from my kids’ docile little guinea pigs than I have from huffy panic-merchants like you boys.
Airbus is as transparent as concrete. Wonder if they’ll go back and edit this misleading press release on their website, as they have numerous others?
Wouldn’t surprise me.
As I said, this story will run and run. After all, less than three weeks to the next Airbus monthly production update. Stay tuned.
Well at the end of the day Airbus is producing 31 A320s per month (January 2009 production). They said in their press release yesterday that production starting in October 2009 will be 34/month. TO me that sounds like a production increase. Even my 6 year old can add and subtract those numbers and tell me if they’re increasing or decreasing production.
Why can some of the Airbus fanboys do a simple addition and subtraction problem. No wonder Airbus has such trouble on the A400M!
It seems to me that we are discussing a “trees through the forest” story here. Minor obfuscations in production rates are not as significant as the overview of the enterprise and its ability to produce what it says.
There have certainly been some credibility issues about the Boeing 787 but I think there are a greater number of issues and complexities that EADS face which have not been exposed not even properly discussed.
I think that is what at center here…not mathmatical formulas for measuring accurate production rates
MTPA:”Do note that most large industrial production companies — i.e. those running production lines which are usually shut down in July/August and at Christmas/New Year — mainly use quarters and annual output as the main production metrics, while energy production companies usually use daily output as their main metric.”
Do note that EADS is a large industrial production company and they use monthly output in their press release.
http://eads.com/1024/en/pressdb/pressdb/20090219_airbus_production_rates.html
And nowhere in this press release do I see an asterisk and footnote explaining this is based on an 10.5-11 month year excluding weekends and holidays. So if what you are saying is true, Airbus is guilty of a very misleading press release.
A smokescreen.
boeing investor, production and deliveries are not synchronised — i.e. one aircraft might be delivered before the one8s) preceding it on the final assembly line.
Skeptic, making a “fuzz” here surely is much ado about nothing.
Mr. McVitie, it seems to me that it’s you, and not me, who are resorting to name-calling. When I indicated in my first post that “I’m not surprised that the former Airbus employee Doug McVitie is not aware (OK, I could have said; seems not to be aware) of the fact that Airbus — and most companies for that matter — does not operate its production system 24/7/365″, it was partly based on my impression that you never, or rarely have anything positive to say about Airbus. In fact, most of your analysis regarding Airbus seems to exude negativity, and sadly your latest tirade regarding something which really is much ado about nothing, was no exception.
BeauN, it’s true, of course, that press releases are important for the successfulness of any business. However, the real movers and shakers look way beyond a simple “press release”. In fact, the metrics “quarter” and “annual” are used by company accountants as well as investors and traders alike, while the metric “monthly” seems to be a preoccupation of some analysts and bloggers, or people with way too much time on their hands.
MPTA-098, it appears that you dislike questions being asked about EADs. Why? Are they, or are they not, a publicly traded company? If so, they are fair game. If you have information to the contrary, point to a source and refute.
As I said, Boeing is subject to constant media scrutiny by a dedicated group of bloggers and journalists (some self proclaimed). That’s just the nature of 24 hour news and the internet.
MPTA: The “monthly metric” seems to be a preoccupation of EADS, since they used it in their press release.
Your preoccupation appears to be making excuses for them.
BeauNG: Whatever!
N.B. Suggestion for a weekend assignment: See if you can find production output figures for any Scandinavian production company in July and any European production company in August. Good Luck!
In the end, I would guess you’ll find out that it’s self-explanatory that a production year in Europe is between 10.5 and 11 months. Monthly figures are not used in the “books” partly because figures for July/August and December would not look “good”.
OK, let’s see if we can get this kettle of the fire:
airbus announces it is cutting production from 36 to 34 a month – based on their internal 48week year (or there about, who cares what they use). The news in the release is not in the absolute numbers quoted – it’s in the 6% cut in their output.
What ‘internal 48-week year’? Airbus does NOT shut down production for four weeks/yr. It builds aircraft 52 weeks/yr, at differing rates of course according to holidays, strikes, etc.
As mentioned above, the manufacturer also reports monthly production figures 12 times/yr. Twelve, not 11.3…
But taking the standard 12-month calendar that we all know and love — and which Airbus itself uses to reports its production figures, as several contributors have rightly commented — the true rates are of course lower than Airbus misleadingly claims.
It’s that simple. Why the lack of Airbus transparency?
Habit or repeated action probably. After all — it’s an imperfect world.
MPTA, wer’e not talking about “any Scandinavian production company,” we’re talking about EADS.
They are the one’s the put out the MONTHLY production figure. They could have put out annual or a quarterly production number, but they didn’t.
I’ll take a pass on your assignment. How Scandinavian companies report their production is irrelevant.
I’ve seldom seen a level of bitterness like displayed in this comment section by the few Airbus haters.
In any case, if you run the maths you will find that both Airbus and Boeing will have to cut production this year and next year.
http://verovenia.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/simple-math
I’m afraid there are some errors in this report. I don’t anything about production metrics or taking the month of August off or anything like that. All I know is the facts.
You claim that in 2008 Airbus had a production rate of 36 A320 family aircraft per month. That is simply not true.
In 2007 Airbus was producing 32 A320s per month. On May 16, 2007 Airbus announced it was increasing the production rate from the current 32 per month to 40 per month by the end of 2009.
In that press release Airbus said production would reach 34 by March 2008 and then 36 in December 2008. Therefore, the average would not be 36 per month. It would be slightly less than 34.
Now, it will be claimed that the delivery rate was just over 32 per month and, therefore, still not equal to the production rate of slightly less than 34 per month.
The only thing I have to say to that is the timeframe is too short to make a comparison. It appears two brick walls were built between December 2007 and January 2008 as well as between December 2008 and January 2009. One must look over a greater time period in order to compare the two rates.
[Ronald Reagan Voice]
SAJ, TEAR DOWN THOSE WALLS!
[/Ronald Reagan Voice]
Delivery rates will naturally lag behind production rates. If production is at 36 per month in December 2008, the delivery of those aircraft will occur in early 2009, not in 2008.
It is not wise to compare delivery rates and production rates, especially when the production rate was increasing throughout 2008.
A greater time period like 3-5 years would be better to gauge any differences between production and delivery.
A similar argument can be made for the A330/A340 figures. In 2007 Airbus was producing seven per month. In the same press release on May 16, 2007, they announced an increase to eight per month in 2008 and nine per month in 2009.
Airbus was producing 8.5 per month at the end of the year. Therefore, the average was probably between 7.5 and 8, which gets it closer to the delivery rate.
I believe claiming there is a smokescreen to obscure production is unfair. I feel better research should have been performed before the article was written and thus the mess involved in the comments avoided.
http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre/pressreleases/pressreleases_items/07_05_16_production_rate.html
I think we’re all missing the point here – even if Airbus’ production was 32 or 34/month, their news of the “production cut” is a red-herring.
The fact remains that they never have produced 36/month, whether it be for the one month of Dec 08 or both including Jan 09.
The “cut” is a PR stunt to fit in with their prior press releases. Did anyone even read what mcVitie said??
Stand a bit further away from the aircraft, next time, Jet Blast. The damage is showing.
Boeing Investor — you got it right, again. It’s not complicated, is it?
Airbus spun a line, the line snagged. Simple.
It is incredibly sad to see that a supposedly respectable independent industry analyst like Mr. McVitie resorts to petty namecalling on an internet blog. In stead of reacting to the points made by Jet Blast, he simply decides to throw around little-veiled insults.
The reason for that is very simple: Jet Blast’s post is based on facts, he even posts a link to the press release he refers to, which clearly and unequivocally states the production rate of 36 per month was to be reached by December 2008, and thus there was never meant to be an average monthly production rate of 36 for the entire year 2008.
Mr. McVitie knows this, as I’m assuming he is an intelligent man, and can therefore read a press release, and therefore knows that he has very little, if anything, to say to counter Jet Blast’s points. It is therefore very unfortunate, Mr. VcVitie, that instead of gracefully admitting you were wrong and jumped to conclusions on this, you decided to deride the person setting you straight. Quite honestly, I expected better from an ‘aviation analyst’…
So maybe someone can explain this:
http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre/pressreleases/pressreleases_items/09_02_19_revised_production_rates.html
“Airbus is adapting production rates of its A320 Family programme from 36 to 34 a month from October 2009 onwards.”
According to the link posted by commenter Scorpio from Airbus, they’d reach 36/month by December 2008 and they’re announcing a cut in rates just 2 months later? Even the supply chain wouldn’t be operating on a 36-a-month basis yet – there’s lead times and progressive ramp up to consider which don’t happen at the drop of a hat.
Even Jet Blast acknowledges the average is less than 34 a month – McVitie is bang on when he says that Airbus’ figures are make-believe – he even gave us a figure of “32.16/month”.
Rather than take pot-shots at McVitie, perhaps we should all be asking Airbus to clarify its position, no?
Mr. Kent, the press release I referred to, and which Jet Blast linked to, is not from December 2008, announcing an increase, but from May 2007, announcing the increase BY December 2008. There’s plenty of time from May 2007 to December 2008 for the supply chain to have sped up to 36 per month. In that regard, I really don’t see how your remark makes sense.
As for the real number being closer to 32 per month: it has been said before that if Airbus counts their monthly rate based on the months when the factories are actually fully at work, it makes sense. The problem is: neither you, nor I, nor Mr. McVitie, or the person who wrote this editorial, actually knows the details of what the numbers actually mean.
The easiest way to ‘solve’ this is, as you suggest, to simply ask Airbus for clarification. And there lies my main beef with Mr. McVitie: why is he on an internet board, throwing cheap shots at whoever disagrees with him, when he should really be asking Airbus for clarification of the numbers.
Why does this editorial immediately take the accusatory, sensationalist tone with assumptions of intentional wrongdoing, when they should be trying to find out the real facts, before jumping to conclusions?
And I am not taking ‘cheap shots’ at Mr. McVitie: if you read through the comments here, you’ll see that Mr. McVitie himself is the one who, repeatedly, takes cheap shots at whoever has the nerve to disagree with him.
Scorpio “There’s plenty of time from May 2007 to December 2008 for the supply chain to have sped up to 36 per month.”
From the 2007 news release – Airbus says it would ramp up from Mar 08 to 34/mth and then Dec 08 to 36/mth. So between May 07 and Mar 08, the production rate is anyone’s guess. The key thing is the Mar 08 – Dec 08 time frame, so lead times will play a key factor albeit based on the latter time span, you’d agree that Airbus hadn’t yet reached the full 36-per-month.
Even disecting Airbus’ projected numbers on a 10-and-a-half month year or 11 month year still produces a figure below a potential 36/mnth – ignoring Mcvities off-topic comments, I see where the guy is coming from in that Airbus may never have actually reached that figure- certainly not on a moving average anyway.
As you say, only Airbus can verify this for us all.
Maybe Mcvitie has the actual numbers hence his insistence Airbus never got to 36/mnth? Why else would he claim the numbers game?
On the pot-shots, I didn’t mean you specifically Scropio, I meant it generally to the previous people who’d left comments
“you’d agree that Airbus hadn’t yet reached the full 36-per-month.”
No, I would not. The press release very clearly states that the rate of output was set to reach 36 per month by December. They never said they’d only start ramping up to 34 by March 08 and 36 by December, the release clearly said the OUTPUT was set to reach those numbers by those months. The ramp-up in the supply chain started way sooner than those dates.
“Even disecting Airbus’ projected numbers on a 10-and-a-half month year or 11 month year still produces a figure below a potential 36/mnth ”
Let’s see: 34 per month by March, 36 by December, as per Airbus’ own release. Given the fact they themselves speak of an incremental increase, I’d say that, spread over the entire year, that would mean an average of about 35 per month. On an 11-month basis, that’s 385 frames. Actual deliveries: 386. Seems pretty damn close to me!
“Maybe Mcvitie has the actual numbers hence his insistence Airbus never got to 36/mnth?”
He doesn’t. The tone and content of his posts here leaves extremely little doubt about that: he’s basing himself on the press release and the readily-available delivery numbers for 2008, nothing more, nothing less.
“Well at the end of the day Airbus is producing 31 A320s per month (January 2009 production).”
No. All we know is they delivered 31 in January. Production and delivery are two different metrics. For all the difference it makes, they delivered 39 in Nov 2008. Does that mean the built 39 in Nov? No, it doesn’t.
A laughable storm in a tea cup, whipped up by all the usual suspects.
Steve:
”
“A laughable storm in a tea cup, whipped up by all the usual suspects.
That is a great summary!
Airbus delivered 386 A320 family aircraft in2008. The most optimistic view would be that the production level was also 386 aircraft. If they had produced more finished aircraft than this number it would mean they had some very expensive inventories on the tarmac.
It could be the other way round (deliveries greater than production), they might have delivered many aircraft that had been produced in 2007.
So, Doug’s assumption “deliveries=production” is a good one.
Maybe we should use the term average monthly delivery rate instead of monthly production rate?
Oh Dear Lord… you really are clutching straws here, Dougie.
Steve is has correctly said, this is a laughable story.
The industrial plan calls for 38 A32S aircraft to be delivered in February. Assuming this will be achieved, Doug will no doubt be writing another ‘exclusive’, called ‘Smokescreen 2: the return of the veil’, where he will reveal that Airbus is actually producing more than it is claiming. If Airbus will only deliver the first A380, for 2009, in April, does this mean it is on zero rate until then?
Give it a rest, Doug.
Airbus supply chain has been operating at the 36/mo rate since mid last year. The announcement is pretty much telling the supply chain to go back down to 34/mo.
As others have pointed out production does not equal deliveries IN A GIVEN MONTH, but a 6 month average, is a pretty good indicator. An item as expensive as an aircraft is not something you want a long term pent up inventory of. The Inventory Holding Cost would eat you alive. Both Airbus and Boeing like to roll em out, and shove em off to the customer. Sometimes it doesn’t happen straight away, but it’s normally pretty close to that. Kingfisher being the current example of “not normal” with everything currently being delivered to storage in TLS.
Relax, ladies and gentlemen. I am sure Airbus will rectify the misleading nature of their press information next time…
Meantime, those of us who look at the bigger picture will all just increase the dose of salt required to deal with the Toulouse spin. That’s what most objective people do, anyway.
Clearly, a lot of people out there have bought into the Airbus myth. Fortunately, not everyone in the aerospace industry is so brainwashed.
Doug McVitie.
Do you think this is an Airbus specific thing? Just to check what you think. A car manufacturing plant reported daily production at 1100. What should their yearly production be? Hint it is not 1100 x 365. Nor was monthly the number of days x 1100 for a single month. Neither was weekly 7 x 1100 for a single week and while there were weeks with 5 x 1100 it wasn’t even the majority of them.
Hoping for a serious answer for why you claim Airbus is misleading when I can’t think of any company where yearly production is 12 x monthly, ~52 x weekly and 365 x daily.
Mr. McVitie,
Why is it that, after several DAYS, and several people having pointed out the grave errors in you assessment, the only way you can react is to simply claim all those who don’t buy into your little ill-constructed conspiracy theory filled with half-truths and conjecture are ‘buying into the Airbus myth’?
Why is it you completely and utterly fail to even address the several things we find verifiably wrong with your assertions? A real man would by this time have simply manned up, and admitted he got at least a few facts wrong, and moved on. Unfortunately you decided to simply go for the old ‘evade the remarks and tell them you’re better’ approach, in this case ‘us in the industry know better’.
I have the feeling that the main problem you have, Mr. McVitie, is not that people are ‘buying into the Airbus myth’, but it’s rather that, based on most of the recent reactions here, they’re NOT buying into the ‘Doug McVitie myth’…
Doug,
Not a pinch but a barrel of salt is needed when it comes to reading your comments. You like nothing more than engaging yourself in venomous Airbus bashing at every opportunity, which is embarrassing to read sometimes. As an ex employee you should know that there are two distinct troughs in production as pointed out by several people. That is the August period, when the whole of France is on holidays, it seems, and the Christmas period. After each one, it takes time to ramp up to the full rate. As I said in my previous post, 38 are planned for delivery in February. However, you point specifically to the January delivery figure and accuse Airbus of PR spin! You are doing a good job yourself there…
Early next week, we’ll see how many SAs they delivered.
Doug, I hope you understand unrelentlessly bashing Airbus at every opportunity and finding a plus behind every Boeing fuck-up isn’t going to help you gain credibility with either Airbus or Boeing.