Boeing has dominated the news in recent weeks because of the tanker and the IAM contract negotiations. At long last, here’s some news about Airbus.
The company is actively talking about stretching the A380-800 to a -900, 1,000 passenger version. A new intereview with Louis Gallois, CEO of Airbus parent EADS, looks at 2010 as when this program might be launched. The story is here. Meanwhile, delivery of Emirates Airlines’ second A380 is delayed.
For all those Airbus-Northrop critics who whine about the prospect Northrop (the prime contractor, let’s remember) won’t protect and honor US restrictions on selling the KC-30 or its components to nations hostile to US interests, here’s a Reuter’s story about how Airbus won’t sell airliners to Syria as long as sanctions are in place.
Pratt & Whitney shipped its P1000G Geared Turbo Fan engine to Airbus for installation on an A340 test bed, according to this Flight International story. Airbus is considering offering the GTF on its A320 family.
Update 8:40 AM PDT, Aug. 29: EADS says there are no current discussions underway with Syria for a large Airbus order. The operative word in the statement is “currently.”
I’m unclear as to who is saying what; is Airbus saying they won’t sell aircraft to Syria, or is this an opinion by an unidentified “industry analyst”? The article says that Airbus VP for the middle east is in Damascus to sign the agreement. Can you clarify who in Airbus is saying they won’t sell their Airbii to Syria?
The operative paragraph:
“Another source said the cooperation agreement would amount to little if no legal way could be found to conform to the sanctions, with French officials assuring the United States that Airbus had no intention of breaking them.”
So the French will agree to the sale, refuse to deliver, and blame American sanctions for the deal falling through?
Thats your interpretation, no matter how nefarious your issues with airbus, or particularly french people might be.
George, unfortunately, that is the way things work here in France.
What I read here is NOT that Airbus won’t sell (implying they have a choice), but rather US content will complicate the deal. One executive talked about how they will find it hard to get export licenses for the US content of the planes.
And then the article goes on to show how Airbus may find a loophole in the sanctions by getting a leasing company to wet-lease the planes – meaning that if they want this deal to go through – they can – no matter what.
There is no high road or brownie points here for Airbus for “honoring” US restrictions – they are legally obliged to. It is not “Airbus won’t” it is “Airbus can’t”
Sarkozy will sign the deal and Syria will be flying Airbuses no matter what restrictions or sanctions are in place.
And from the A380 article, you have to love this “Gallois said Airbus would extend its plant at Dresden in the eastern German state of Saxony if it won a contract for tanker aircraft…” I wonder if the new jobs there (and in the UK where they are defending British jobs from Boeing) are in addition to the 45k they are claiming the NG/EADS bid will create 😉
I stand corrected. EADS is now saying there are no talks going on….
“We are not currently discussing any deal on Airbus planes with the Syrian airline or authorities,” an EADS spokesman said.
I still can’t believe anyone would want to fly on the A380, even the ‘small’ one – and they’re going ahead with the bigger versions: Ack!
I make sure to check the equipment data on any long flights before booking any long flights these days…
Another “official” says talks are “on” An extract of a Reuters article:
“Oil major Total in talks over Syrian oil blocks
PARIS, Sept 2 (Reuters) – French oil major Total is in talks over expanding its oil blocks in Syria, an official close to French President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Tuesday.
“There will probably be contracts signed,” said the official, referring to the Total talks. Sarkozy is due to go to Syria on Wednesday.
The official also said European planemaker Airbus and Syrianair were in talks over a possible deal, but no transaction was imminent.”