During the Dubai Air Show late last year, John Leahy repeatedly emphasised various points about the Airbus A380 to his audience.
To his credit, a video showing an A380 at Heathrow Airport claimed that it could be turned around faster than a 747 was impressive to say the least. Of course the recent spate of highly embarrassing glitches on the A380 overshadows much of its achievements in bringing a few more inches of legroom to passengers in all cabin classes, as well as on-board showers if that sort of thing appeals to you.
Leahy went on to discuss how the A380 “increases revenue” without verifying this from any of the (then) three operators at the time – again, marketing comments aside, it was flattering to hear. Let us not forget that this is the same fellow who also claimed that the A380 would break even at “65% load factor” – of what composition that is in terms of passenger yields is anyone’s guess but despite the hype behind the worlds biggest flying passenger machine, often dubbed the “Whalejet”, the ominous silence about profitability comes to the fore.
Image copyright/owned by FleetBuzz Editorial.com
Singapore Airlines has during the last six months at least, struggled to fill the top end seats of the A380 services deployed to Heathrow. Emirates too, forced recently by the German Government to bump up its business fares to stop Lufthansa losing customers, has found that filling the first and business class on its A380′s a more difficult task than they imagined. Qantas too, only weeks after taking delivery of their third A380 last year announced they’d be changing their configuration to account for the weaker traffic in the high yield seating block, or even curtail services on various other routes on its operations - a costly exercise if ever there was one for something so new.
As we know, the model of high-fare reliance for legacy, full service airlines is dead.
Pretty much just like how the $25bn+ business case for the A380 has been dead since its birth (see Shoot The Dog – Part 3).
So the question is simple – which of the A380 operators can claim they’re making money with them?
Its all well and good writing puff-pieces packed full of PR spin about how customers are happy with performance, low cabin noise and the like, but that no operator thus far, in over two years of operation, talks about profit potential of the airplane further underscores the difficulties the A380 is having in actually being a money-spinner.
Volume through low yield fares doesn’t make for profitability. Ask Emirates.
So while the A380 program reels from financial, production and in-service challenges, the customer base, albeit small, faces the bigger challenge of actually making money.
Perhaps they will one day – as of now, consumer trends point to the back of the cabin, not the front. That’s why long range twin-jets like the A330, A350, 777 and 787 will always secure more orders than Toulouse’s not-quite-so-finest quadjet.
Dave sez Doug, “it promises to be an interesting year.” Indeed. So you don’t even know how one year will pan out, let alone the next 10.
Dave, I guess you’re speaking to me? And you know what the year will bring because you are ___________ (fill in the blank-I like Doctor Science myself).
MR PTA sez “Sorry, I don’t by that. Actually, that $7 billion USD figure was incidentally the same as the initially projected cost of Boeing’s all new 777 programme, or twice the programme cost of the initial A330/A340 programme.”
Choke on it then, because that is the number and the point was not whether the MD11 was a good aircraft or not, but (I’m going to depart from a long held principle here and add emphasis because you haven’t been listening) IT WAS THE COST OF THE DEVELOPMENT, NOT WHETHER IT WAS A GOOD THING OR NOT.
I was there. You can read as many articles in Flight International and AW&ST as you like.
Instead, you tell me how Airbus can reconcile the development cost over the number of aircraft in the order book. The stated breakeven figure accordin’ to Airbus was 420 frames as of 2007, but that went up again to some unspecified figure.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/114957.asp
“I’m talking technical, engineering.”
Can you provide a specific example because the A380 doesn’t exactly have anything out of the ordinary in terms of engineering.
I’m with Leelaw and USAF Fan here.
She’s got huge tracts of land but the A380 is of conventional construction. The engineering that emerges from its construction will be useful but it breaks no new ground.
There’s just more of it-lots more, and the real question is whether a business case will emerge that supports it, or whether the A380 represents an evolutionary dead end.
“Choke on it then, because that is the number and the point was not whether the MD11 was a good aircraft or not, but (I’m going to depart from a long held principle here and add emphasis because you haven’t been listening) IT WAS THE COST OF THE DEVELOPMENT, NOT WHETHER IT WAS A GOOD THING OR NOT.”
USD 7 billion for MD-11 R&D ?
LOL!
Again, there’s just no way that the risk-adverse bean-counting macdac management would have sanctioned USD 7 billion on a DERIVATIVE model of the DC-10, or even half that figure (+ 100 percent cost over-run). Airbus spent about half that amount on the original A330/A340 series which featured an entirely NEW wing etc (i.e. wing R&D accounts for up to around 40 percent of a new LCA development). Saying you were “there” means nothing if you were not at, or near the top, of the management ladder. Hearing “something” through the grapevine on the shop floor, and believing it for a fact then and now, indicates that your analytical skills are less than satisfactory; and certainly not at a level one would expect from a “Doctor of Science” candidate.
So you see, I was “listening”, but what I was actually doing was rather questioning your judgment on the validity of that USD 7 billion figure, while my “evil twin” couldn’t stop himself in going on a diatribe against the worst designed wide body aircraft ever made (i.e. second worst being the DC-10), and where the lack of research dollars on the MD-11 was the most likely reason why macdac managed to design and produce a woefully inadequate horizontal stabilizer.
As for your last point, it’s generally accepted that the larger/bigger the “product”; the higher the profit margins (per copy); and consequently, the lower the number of units required to reach breakeven.
USAF, re innovations:
5,000 psi hydraulics (and on such a huge scale);
Electro-hydraulic actuation;
A wing and front fuselage with exceptional low-drag aerodynamics (allowing mach 0.89 shock-free cruise capability, and also providing excellent low speed handling and low approach speed)
Very low external and internal noise
Composite rear fuselage/empennage;
Glass-fiber/aluminium sandwich upper fuselage construction
Aluminium lithium alloy where appropriate
Brake-to-vacate
If I was to single out one aspect it would probably be that amazing wing.
140. Dave_BC | January 24th, 2010 at 22:12
You can refer all questions to Doug’s office. I’m just moderating.
===================================================
141. 123xyz | January 25th, 2010 at 02:44
Reports that link deliveries to respective orders from Boeing’s public site? – nope. You’ll have to reconcile that on your own with Boeing’s user reports. Or you could have at look at ATI.
===================================================
147. ikkeman | January 25th, 2010 at 10:42
Then the A380 is equally evolutionary – the basic idea of the Airbus A380 goes back to the Boeing 367-80, which gave birth to the 707 – as with every jetliner ever built, apart from the Concorde and Tupolev Tu-144 perhaps. Perhaps, further back, all airliners are descendants of the Boeing Model 247.
===================================================
155. Dave_BC | January 25th, 2010 at 19:50
Those are not revolutionary so much as evolutionary innovations.
5,000 psi hydraulics where first used commercially on the Concorde – but you’re right, scaled up for use on a much larger aircraft that the A380 is.
It’s a beautiful wing.
Noise levels in the cabin and outside are evolutionary on Airbus expertise in this department. Reference the A340 vs. the 777.
The Raytheon Premier 1 and Cirrus SR-20/22 are all-composite aircraft. Sure, much, much smaller application of composites than the A380. But as far as a scaled-up comparison goes, the aircraft that best compares here is the Boeing 787. The A380 still utilizes a significant percentage of regular/evolutionary materials; compares to the A340-600 and Boeing 777-300ER.
Brake-to-vacate – very smart. But also evolutionary inline with computer/software advances in airliner cockpits in the 21st century. Boeing’s tailstrike system, which is available on a number of airliners, including the 777-300ER and 737-900ER, is piece of software built into the aircraft’s flight laws that allows operators to increase take-off payload performance.
It’s a great aircraft, the A380. But in terms of technologies, I just can’t help seeing it as making use of available ideas and applying them to the A380 case. Not that this makes the A380 in less than you think it is. But I think asking for the aircraft to be revolutionary as opposed evolutionary technically would be ignorant of the fact that such an aircraft would be too expensive for the niche market it faces.
Mr. PTA
You still don’t seem to understand what I’m saying.
It was common knowledge because one thing that McD-D did-at least when Worsham was running the shop-was get all of the QA people in one room to talk about what was going on and where the company was headed. That dollar figure was the figure that was given out by Jim Worsham in one of those meetings.At that time management didn’t think it had anything to hide.
Remember-I was there, and I heard it from the man himself, in public. But when the CEO of a company gets up in public and says “Here’s what we’re spending.” I tend to give that a certain amount of credence.
Now. Maybe you disagree. Fine. Go find Jim Worsham and call him a liar. Spin your conspiracy theories.
As far as what happened after Worsham was forced out, I couldn’t say because the communication between the shop and the Puzzle Palace was pretty much severed at the time Robert Hood came on board.
“As for your last point, it’s generally accepted that the larger/bigger the “product”; the higher the profit margins (per copy); and consequently, the lower the number of units required to reach breakeven.”
It is not “generally accepted” and that theory is preposterous-does a Westclox Big Ben wind up alarm clock yield more profit than a Rolex watch? Does a Ford van yield more profit than a Porsche Carrera? Maybe generally accepted in Too Loose and other emerald cities?
151. Dougloid | January 25th, 2010 at 16:06
Doctor Who?
152. USAF Fan | January 25th, 2010 at 16:38
read the bottom half of 147. ikkeman | January 25th, 2010 at 10:42
155. Dave_BC | January 25th, 2010 at 19:50
Glare actually makes up quite a bit of the fuselage panels. The upper 3/4 of the bit from behind the cockpit up to the wingroot and from the wing trailing edge to the empennage.
156. Paulo M | January 26th, 2010 at 00:22
And all aircraft descent from da Vinci… I see the A380 as a step away from the baseline like the 747.
If your argument holds, there are no revolutionary aircraft, and in the strictest sence this is true. All development is just that – a development based on what came before. However, I’d call the bigger evolutionary steps revolutions just to differentiate them from the smaller steps.
And many claim it is to expensive for the niche market is serves.
Dougloid wrote:
“Does a Ford van yield more profit than a Porsche Carrera?”
Actually, for Porsche, it’s the much **larger** Cayenne which has been generating the profits. Not the 911.
Dougloid (-/Mcdonnell), it’s certainly touching and much like a fairy tale if a former macdac employee chooses to worship Mr. Worsham in such a way as to believe that the rushed DC-10 derivative (the MD-11), (supposedly) according to Mr. Worsham, really cost in the order of USD 7 billion to develop, making it by far the most expensive derivative aircraft ever made, or in other words, the closest to a fools errand ever attempted in the LCA business. Again (for the last time), there’s just no way that the risk-adverse bean-counting macdac management would have sanctioned USD 7 billion on a DERIVATIVE model of the DC-10, or even half that figure (+ 100 percent cost over-run).
Now, if the former macdac CEO said that the MD-11 really cost that much to develop, then the most logical explanation for such a claim would have been to fool as many of the company’s lower ranked employees as possible, in order to trick them into believing that even after such a massive cash infusion, their “heroic non subsidized” employer,
nevertheless could not compete with those f*##ing “euros” with their damned “subsidized” aircraft, and it was therefore not the macdac management’s fault that countless new employees had to be sacked.
As for my last point in my previous comment, I though it was self evident that I meant the LCA business, and not, for example, IT-related technical topics which is dealt with in techblogs etc.
LOL at all the mental masturbators talking about the Trent XWB going on the A380. That is NEVER going to happen. There is ZERO incentive for Rolls to do something that stupid. Rolls supplies both engines. They will do nicely with the XWB since GE isn’t jumping on board, so they have that locked up. The A380 is ALWAYS going to be a niche player, and they still have yet to recoup the losses from the Trent 900, so thinking of dumping that line is nuts, unless of course the Queen kicks in a couple 20 billion more pounds.
Additionally, this “simple” re-engine isn’t as simple as all that. They need to design a strut, a REAL strut, not some one off test article BS. That’s spendy money there by itself. Then there are the wing changes to accomodate a larger and HEAVIER engine, remember the A380 wing has ZERO margin (according to Bregier himself). That means wing changes too. Now we are talking Big bucks… er euros. Neither Airbus nor Rolls is going to spend that kind of money on a niche market plane like the A380. The sooner you fanboi’s realize it’s not about whose pecker is bigger than the other guys, it’s about MONEY, the better off you’ll be.
Mike M:
>>>The 787 program suffered cancellations because those airlines didn’t like what the physical aircraft itself was turning out [not] to be.
Is that so?
-overweight by several tons
-engines missing their SFC
-the wing issue
-missing range promise
-delayed by three years
-production probably never going to catch up promise (14 planes a month)
So what else do you want? LOL.
“Additionally, this “simple” re-engine isn’t as simple as all that. They need to design a strut, a REAL strut, not some one off test article BS. That’s spendy money there by itself. Then there are the wing changes to accomodate a larger and HEAVIER engine, remember the A380 wing has ZERO margin (according to Bregier himself). That means wing changes too.”
You don’t know what you’re talking about, do you?
The fan diameter of the XWB is 118 inches, only two more than the Trent-900, while the “heavier” core is actually smaller on the XWB.
Also, it’s worth remembering that the GE90-115B with an extra 5 inches growth in the fan diameter over that of the GE90-94B, managed to fit inside a slightly revised nacelle of the original engine (overall diameter only increased by one inch). Since the XWB will be lighter than the Trent-900, it can easily use the same wing pylons as the latter engine.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/03/06/323432/r-r-details-trent-xwb-development-strategy.html
Quote: “We’ve ended up with a core a bit smaller than the Trent 900, even though the thrust is a bit higher,” says Young. The 9.3:1 bypass ratio XWB is also the first Trent to feature a two-stage intermediate-pressure turbine, which Young says “puts growth capability into the engine”, and is the first to incorporate blisks, which have seen several years of successful service in the Boeing 717′s BR715 turbofan.
MPTA-098, he’s also wrong when he refers to ‘margin’ of the A380 wing.
The one presently flying on the -800 is internally optimised for that aircraft.
Of course any wing for the family growth versions would be structurally tailored for the heavier aircraft weights.
Then there is the issue of business case for Rolls: Erik the axeman overlooks the fact that Rolls competes with Alliance on the A380.
Now if RR can suddenly pull an ace out of its sleeve and offer 6 percent better fuel efficiency than its competitor, then it will, at a stroke, have an incredible market advantage. But right at the moment Alliance has the leading mkt position. Having the XWB on the A380 would change the game for Rolls completely in their favour.
Both of you twits neglect that Rolls has already dumped a couple billion pounds into the development and fielding of the T900 that would now be booked as a loss… of course to you continentals, losses don’t mean much, but to people who live in the “Anglo-American” business model they mean a lot. Rolls is not going to just dump the T900 and chalk up the loss for the same reason that GE isn’t going to jump into the XWB… because it doesn’t make BUSINESS SENSE.
The margin in the wing is not there, the man himself said so. This means that any stretch or weight increases require wing work… and wing recertification.
It’s really funny, in a sad way, when two fanboi’s just can’t admit their “great and glorious” Airbus screwed the pooch. There will be no A380-900 there will be no reengining. Not at least, unless the Euro governments are willing to throw more billions of euros down the A380 crapper. Since they are having a hard time convincing them to pony up on the A400M which is already “bought” (ha ha), don’t see that as likely that they’d just push more wheelbarrows of cash at Airbus for yet another boondoggle.
Dave_BC, I didn’t correct him on his somewhat distorted perceptions on the A380 wing as I expected you would nail him on that one.
Interestingly, the A380′s wing is sized for a MTOW over 650 tonnes in order to accommodate future growth models, albeit with some internal strengthening required. Even 750 tonnes is feasible with the current wing planform.
Finally, the Trent-900 is nearing the 400 mark on firm orders. In comparison, total sales for the Trent-800 on the triple seven stands at just under 450 units. Unless the axeblood truly believes that the Trent-800 is a dismal financial failure, he can’t be taken seriously when he’s dissing the Trent-900.
161. Erik Bloodaxe | January 26th, 2010 at 17:07
stop watching hustler channel for a second and think. Aviation is just about the most heavily subsidized industry in the world.
Do you really think the cost to design a simple engine strut is so prohibitive, like a significant percentage of the airframe.
Did RR suffer from cost overruns? if not, what was their ROI target. And who knows, they might be happy to be able to close down a line after it becomes cost neutral so they can focus on a single model and further streamline their process
never say never in aviation.
164. Dave_BC | January 26th, 2010 at 21:52
perhaps that a real reason for airbus not to offer the new RR on the 380 – do you really want to piss off one of your mayor suppliers like that.
165. Erik Bloodaxe | January 26th, 2010 at 22:29
so you’ll take this carier arbusier at his word when it suits you eh?
Did you notice how the wing failed the ultimate load test, yet it was certified after structural improvement without the need for further testing.
The wing test is only a requirement to validate the analysis. The analysis showed the wing would break below ultimate, and the wing did break below ultimate. It broke very close to the predicted load and the failure type prediction was correct. That validates the analysis and thereby validates changes based on that same analysis.
BTW, is Boeing planning to do a static test on a 747 wing or is that completely new lofted, composite design still getting certified as a derivative.
Erik, don’t preach to Europe about ‘losses’. You forget that is was American excess and greed that caused this whole reccession. People writing cheques their bodies can’t cash.
156. Paulo M | January 26th, 2010 at 00:22
“the Airbus A380 goes back to the Boeing 367-80, which gave birth to the 707 – as with every jetliner ever built, apart from the Concorde and Tupolev Tu-144 perhaps. Perhaps, further back, all airliners are descendants of the Boeing Model 247.”
Although the 247 flew earlier, it didn’t have the extraordinary impact on aviation as the DC-3 did.
And, if we talking the evolution of big planes we should include Bristol Brabazon.
[i]Did RR suffer from cost overruns? if not, what was their ROI target. And who knows, they might be happy to be able to close down a line after it becomes cost neutral so they can focus on a single model and further streamline their process[/i]
Considering the financial bath they’ve already taken as a result of the poor industrial performance of the OEMs’ marquee development programs, it may be a way to squeeze a fairly small glass of lemonade out of some very large lemons. Of course this speculation presupposes that the WhaleBus[t] program evolves into a robust industrial enterprise with relevance in terms of capital budgeting priorities beyond 2015, which is probably far less than a 50-50 proposition these days.
“Both of you twits neglect that Rolls has already dumped a couple billion pounds into the development and fielding of the T900 that would now be booked as a loss… of course to you continentals, losses don’t mean much, but to people who live in the “Anglo-American” business model they mean a lot.”
Actually, the defenders of the “Anglo-American” business model, which today is mostly an “American” business model, like to believe that “their model” is based, or structured, on Adam Smith’s epic work, The Wealth of Nations from 1776. Smith, of course, presented a radical condemnation of business monopolies sustained and protected by the state. However, his ideal was a market comprised solely of small buyers and sellers. He showed how the workings of such a market would tend toward a price that provides a fair return to land, labor, and capital, produce a satisfactory outcome for both buyers and sellers, and result in an optimal outcome for society in terms of the allocation of its resources. It is a market that bears little in common with a globalized economy dominated by massive corporations without local or national allegiance managed by professionals who are removed from real owners by layers of investment institutions and holding companies.
When the necessary conditions are met the market is a powerful and efficient mechanisms for allocating resources. What you now have in the US, after four decades of ever more deregulation, is not a “free” market economy. It is increasingly a command economy centrally planned and managed by your largest corporations to maximize financial returns to top managers and the wealthiest shareholders at the expense of the rest of your society. Your “free market” proponents don’t seem to care much about the public interest. What they do seem to care about though, is to defend the right of the economically powerful to do what best serves their immediate interests without public accountability for the consequences.
“Considering the financial bath they’ve already taken as a result of the poor industrial performance of the OEMs’ marquee development programs, it may be a way to squeeze a fairly small glass of lemonade out of some very large lemons.”
Actually, if anybody has taken a “financial bath” it’s likely to have been GE, and not so much RR. First, the latter does not have an engoine on the 748, and second, the Trent three spool design makes it possible for RR to develop a family of advanced scaled engine cores allowing the engine thrust and performance to be optimised for each aircraft application (and with new technologies introduced for each new generation), all the while being significantly cheaper to develop than what is the case for a new engine derived from a two spool design. The Trent-XWB is now in a sole pole position on the A350 partly thanks to the fact that for GE, it would’ve cost more than what is the case for RR, to produce a “new” engine for the A350-family of LCA.
“Actually, if anybody has taken a “financial bath” it’s likely to have been GE, and not so much RR. First, the latter does not have an engoine on the 748″
I doubt the financial impact has been significantly less at Rolls since they had to absorb 100% of the cost of mothballing A380 production, while GE only had 50% exposure for its participation in the program. The jury is out on the profitability potential of the Trent-XWB, everything really depends on whether or not the “Panel-liner” winds up being considered a technological dead-end in comparison to the “Nightmareliner.”
Even if GE’s and Rolls’ respective R&D outlays on the relevant programs are evened out, please do note that Rolls could quite easily shift technicians and engineers, without additional and costly on-the-job training, between the similar Trent-700/-800/-500/-900/-1000 production lines, while GE just couldn’t do that with their people on the substantially different CF6-80E1/GE90/GP7200/GEnx production lines.
The jury is always out on any product before it has matured in the market place. However, I don’t think anybody at Boeing are kidding themselves that the A350/Trent-XWB combo will not live up to promise.
As for “technological dead-end”; on this blog, I’ve repeatedly stressed that, in fact, it’s the 787 which is in risk of being a technological dead-end due to the fact that it’s largely an impossible task to co-cure/integrate fuselage frames, window frames, and passenger/cargo door frames when using a convexly shaped (“outside”) mandrel for use on a second or third generation CFRP fuselage. A next generation “panel-liner” may use large composite panels where no mechanical fasteners are used to fasten the fuselage frames, window frames, and passenger/cargo door frames to the fuselage panel. The only fasteners required will be to fasten the large panels into a fuselage barrel. This, in fact, is the holy grail of composite fuselage construction.
>>>162. CE7 | January 26th, 2010 at 17:41
-overweight by several tons
-engines missing their SFC
-the wing issue
-missing range promise
-delayed by three years
-production probably never going to catch up promise (14 planes a month)
All wrong jackass.
Prove the overweight figure. Boeing’s earnings today said that it would meet mission goals.
Wing issue, what wing issue? Like the A380 which failed below 150% you mean and was fixed with Band Aid?
As for production, Boeing has nearly twice the orders for the 787 as the A350 and five times more than the A380 – they can produce how many they want when they want – airlines are happy to wait for it.
Do you get paid to be an Airbusier?
158. iikeman | January 26th, 2010 at 08:09
Da Vinci? No! Icarus!!
161. Erik Bloodaxe | January 26th, 2010 at 17:07
Mental masturbation! Lol I only care too know when the Boeing 747-8F will fly, but I do think the Trent 1000 test on the A380 is a very intriguing development.
169. 123xyz | January 27th, 2010 at 09:09
Of course. Or the Spruce Goose.
171. MPTA-098 | January 27th, 2010 at 12:23
I’m agreeing with this. There has been much talk about the need to undo companies that are to big to fail – especially financial companies. Interestingly enough, the combined top 10 companies on the Fortune 500 have greater economic power than some of the world’s top 10 leading national economies.
But if you look at Global 500 – you’ll see that the nation with the largest share is the US – and this share is (was the last time I checked) larger than the EU. The argument there goes that only the freedoms of the United States could have allowed the messure of entrepreneurial successes against all of it’s competitors. While before I used to think that was a messure of American economic strength – it has revealed itself to be a major flaw. Too much centralised power under management of so few.
However, this is the United States we talk of, and no country matches its propensity for correcting its ways or indeed its entrepreneurial spirit to chart a new course. A course that the rest will follow.
174. MPTA-098 | January 27th, 2010 at 15:09
What of the RB211 – also three spool, but still significantly different to the Trent line. Plenty of those all over the place.
With GE, the trend is for the GE90 for the foreseeable future and the GEnx which replaces the CF-6. Airlines today will be ordering GE90′s and GEnx’s for their latest Boeing aircraft – not the CF-6. Of course, airlines will still be ordering CF-6′s for the installed fleet for years to come.
And what of the low-risk GP7200 which utilizes GE90 and P&W PW4000 technologies? Well, sales of the A380 more than validates GE’s – and P&W’s – choice of teaming up with another manufacturer than to go it alone.
175. Mike M | January 27th, 2010 at 20:11
You’re right – it’s not overweight, they only increased it’s OEW in the latest iteration of the airport planning doc.
Just because the 380 meets it’s guaranteed payload/range would you agree it’s not overweight?
wing issue – no not the wing issue that the 380 suffers, but the wing issue the 787 suffers where repairs were required because the wing started failing (delaminating) at around limit load.
Or the center wing box that required rework even before they started testing because the material properties didn’t come out at spec.
Laughing at the fighting going on here…especially towards the end of the comments. But also very intrigued by the level of knowledge and the way it is presented ( I can actually sort of understand what u’r saying.)
But as a an semi-illiterate poster (my wife is an aerospace engineer, but gave it up for something different…she did design work for some sort of strut assembly for some sort of plane in the 90′s…she’s in bed asleep otherwise I would ask her for details.)
But even as a “non-techie” I am LMAO off at 174. MPTA-098 | January 27th, 2010 at 15:09:
“I’ve repeatedly stressed that, in fact, it’s the 787 which is in risk of being a technological dead-end due to the fact that it’s largely an impossible task to co-cure/integrate fuselage frames”…blah blah blah. Then maybe u should have made major Euros/$s from Boeing explaining exactly why their design was so woefully deficient. You could gather all the engineers in a single, small, claustrophobic room and explain to them that they were about to be out of a job because:
A. They were so stupid and
B. They were al fired because you had just been hired as CEO/HTIKIA “Head Think I Know It All.)
Again, no animosity meant here. But you sound like someone whose never experienced zero gravity, but explaining how all astronauts are shitting incorrectly.
And please…feel free to regale me with your aeronautical engineering skills. As I said I’m not an aerospace engineer. But I smell BS when I step into/read it.