You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Europe
More delays in A380 superjumbo program
2006-09-15
PARIS (AP) — Airbus parent EADS insisted Thursday that it is too early to say whether the troubled A380 superjumbo jet faces further production hitches, after a minority shareholder said another delay is likely. Mike Turner, chief executive of BAE Systems, said Wednesday he would be "surprised if there weren't" any further delays. BAE owns 20% of Airbus and is planning to sell the stake to European Aeronautic Defence and Space, which owns the remaining 80%.

But a spokesman for EADS said Thursday that the superjumbo's delivery schedule would not become clear until the results of a program audit are presented to the board the end of September. "I don't know where he (Turner) has that information from," EADS spokesman Michael Hauger said. "The audit which EADS is doing at Airbus on the A380 is still ongoing."

Turner also said he believes there are risks over Airbus' A400M military transport plane program. EADS and Airbus officials have repeatedly denied newspaper reports that the program also faces long delays.
Posted by:Steve White

#15  Or just fill the 747-200 airframe with MOAB type explosives and enough electronics to turn it into a big damm cruise missile.
Posted by: 3dc   2006-09-15 22:20  

#14  Yes, lotp, but it was a cool idea.

Who's gonna leak it to the NY Times?
Posted by: Bobby   2006-09-15 22:04  

#13  Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's feasible. It would make for a VERY challenging flight control problem, I suspect, even if the 747s were fly by wire (which they're not, IIUC).

But maybe someone else here is more knowledgeable on that than I am.
Posted by: lotp   2006-09-15 21:09  

#12  Here is a free idea (possibly indicating its worth, heh) for Boeing to put in their proposal to the USAF.

There is a sh*tload of B-747-200 airframes out there to buy up cheap. They ought to carry 230,000 lb of payload, IIRC. Reconfigure to fly remotely, and install a magazine to hold 8-10 MOABS. Configure a tube in the pressure hull like a torpedo tube, an airlock, if you will. Make the whole thing work like a revolver pistol. You can fly hellacious MOAB loads over places like Iran, one after another and systematically take out serious infrastructure. Just an off-the-napkin idea for getting a govt. Contract. Will haul more that a BUFF any day.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2006-09-15 20:35  

#11  SOP35/Rat, right about now, anything that puts the kibosh on Europe's oversized hijacker's wet dream suits me just fine. Boeing has done their homework and presented the market with exactly what cost-conscious and fuel-conserving carriers need. An intermediate range craft with good passenger capacity and light-weight composite construction.

Compare this to the European behemoth that can seat almost 900 people and the extremely restricted market appeal it will have and I think Boeing has positioned themselves rather well. Yes, business could be better but at least Boeing has brought a useful design to market.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-09-15 16:55  

#10  ....chortle...chortle....heh...heh...hah....hah....OH! Excuse me. I was just laughing my ass off. Kinda get that way when another euro program is going down the crapper.
Posted by: mcsegeek1   2006-09-15 16:22  

#9  BAE has been saying publicly that they are (considering) selling for about a month or better. Don't underestimate Boeing and their product line. prediction: the LCF airplanes they built (three specially configured 747s for hauling 787 parts) for internal use will be sought after by other operators of outsize air cargo, and BCAC will be only too happy to recoup their investment in them. There are an awful lot of older 747 airframes out there that are prime candidates for the conversion. It starts with cutting away about all but the wings, cockpit and landing gear and putting new skin on it.
Posted by: USN, ret.   2006-09-15 16:08  

#8  Since BAE has yet to sell its stake in EADS, why would Turner be speaking openly about problems at Airbus that could diminish the value of that investment?
Posted by: Classical_Liberal   2006-09-15 13:24  

#7  Turner also said he believes there are risks over Airbus' A400M military transport plane program.

Wonder if that had anything to do with yesterday's announcement that NATO would buy C-17s for their airlift capacity.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-09-15 11:32  

#6  BAE decide to pull out last spring. And, Zen, Boeing has nothing to smirk about. They've bet the whole farm on the 787 and Mullaly waited for the perfect moment to screw them by abruptly leaving. They better hope everything continues on an even keel for the 787. They haven't won a fighter contract since they took over McDonnell, which used to win with regularity. Their other operations are behind schedule or losing orders. I think their existence depends on 787. But, it should. That's their core and they need to get back to it.
Posted by: SOP35/Rat   2006-09-15 11:30  

#5  ROFLMAO!!! What a pic accompanying the article posted.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2006-09-15 11:22  

#4  Yes, BAE is bailing. Think they know when they see a turkey?
Posted by: Steve White   2006-09-15 10:40  

#3  And, of course, the new 5% investment by the Ruskies is sure to turn things around for EADS
Posted by: Captain America   2006-09-15 02:42  

#2  Boeing officials were unavailable for comment due to 'round-the-clock mandatory attendance smirking sessions.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-09-15 01:54  

#1  BAE is bailing?
Posted by: 6   2006-09-15 00:43  

00:00