Sept. 12, 2016, © Leeham Co.: Sully, the movie about the miracle of the successful water landing of US Airways 1549 on the Hudson River in New York City, sullies the National Transportation Safety Board.
Apparently not content with the gripping drama of the flight’s emergency itself and the dramatic rescue of all 155 souls on board, the movie gins up an NTSB out to hang Capt. Chesley Sullenberger (Sully) and co-pilot Jeffrey Skiles.
This plot line all but charges the NTSB is out to frame and blame the two pilots for wrongly deciding to land in the Hudson rather than turn back to LaGuardia Airport or
continue to Teterboro Airport in New Jersey for an emergency landing.
The movie has Tom Hanks, who portrays Sully, dismiss the questions posed by NTSB investigators as routine (which they are) in an apparent attempt to downplay the obvious hostility written into the script. It’s a throwaway line that doesn’t work.
It’s a disservice to the NTSB. The investigators involved protested the portrayal, and some of my peers have done likewise.
Once director/producer Clint Eastwood get beyond this unfortunate plot line and actually focuses on the flight and rescue, the movie is gripping. He replays the flight several times to bring in new information and recollections, perhaps one too many times, but it works.
The rescue of all passengers took 24 minutes. I don’t think Eastwood gave enough time or credit to the herculean efforts (other than closing credit text) of all those involved.
Contrast this to the TV movie, Crash Landing: The Rescue of Flight 232. This movie eschewed the typical disaster movie focus (often contrived) on the passengers and instead centered on the preparation by first responders to disaster drills and the execution of the plans when United Airlines 232 crash landed at Sioux City (IA) after a catastrophic engine explosion severed control systems.
Eastwood had rich, rich material to work with about the backgrounds and professionalism of Sully, Skiles, the flight attendants. Only fleeting glimpses of Sully’s background is included.
He also had rich material to work with on the 24-minute rescue of the ferry system boats, crews and captains; and of the NYPD helicopter crew. This didn’t get enough attention.
Finally, an honest portrayal of accident investigation, while probably not dramatic enough for movie-goers, would have demonstrated the meticulous nature of probes that typically take more than one year.
Eastwood could have really upped the tension if he sequenced the flight, the impact with the birds, the emergency landing and the rescue in real time, all in under 28 minutes, with a little clock in the corner of the screen. Repeated references to “208 seconds” for the flight and 24 minutes for the rescue are abstract figures. Imagine audience reaction living all this as it happened.
Put aside the hyped NTSB story line and you have a three-star movie. With it, it’s a two-star.
I wrote about last week’s Bloomberg report that Boeing is looking at a stretched 737-9, the 737-10, in my column at Forbes.
You can also read LNC posts from April 2016 here and February 2015 here.
Thanks for the reviews, I especially enjoyed the mention of Crash Landing: The Rescue of Flight 232 which is an underrated movie.
I do have a question; reading your Forbes article do you agree with Leahy’s estimate of 8 billion to do the MAX 10?
Also who would you rather have as pilot, Tom Hanks or Charlton Heston (remember he was in flight 232 and Airport 75!) though Tom Hanks also commanded Apollo13. Tough choice.
I would not trust any of these guys beyond the realms of a soundstage 🙂
There is a lot of “cargo cult” society visible in these movies.
@Geo: I like Hanks more than Heston, so I’ll take Hanks.
An “extreme makeover” 737-10 would be about a three quarters new airplane, so I think $8bn is not an unreasonable number.
Scott: Once again we agree, the Earth Shook, life on the Planet as we know it must be coming to an end!
I am sorry Hanks got involved in this farce.
A bit shocked at the 8 billion price, that’s getting into spitting distance of a new aircraft, phew.
And unlike some I am more than willing to give Scott full credit for his take on this and the rest as even handed and fair.
Does the film suggest that the investigators think that with the benefit of hindsight, that they would of managed to get to a runway?As I understand it the engines were still capable of producing about 50%,not 0% which is what the crew had to assume at the time without the benefit of hindsight.
As far as the 737/10 goes, I don’t think Boeing has any intention of building it, although I’m not quite ready to put large sums of money on it. Some accuse Scott of being anti Boeing. This is obviously not true, in fact I suspect that secretly he’s a bit of a fan. It does seem to me that LNC writes more about Boeing at the moment, Airbus are very quite about how they are going to respond. Both companies must be doing a lot of work on production technology, particularly with carbon, otherwise they’ll get caught with their pants down.
Yeah if it’s going to cost 8 billion (assuming that estimate is right which is a big assumption) there is no way they would pour that much money into MAX10.As Scott wrote it really doesn’t make sense period at almost any cost. It’s a slice of market that won’t return a large investment. It’s best for Boeing just to write it off and move on, the 9 is going to be a cash cow regardless.
@Grubbie: The film’s underlying premise is that the NTSB thinks Sully erred in landing in the Hudson and could have instead made LGA or Teterboro (hence, the “untold” story). The left engine spooled back and the crew attempted a relight almost until impact.
I could be wrong but I think if knowing it was coming you could make it back to LGA if done immediately.
However, that is hindsight.
Any good pilot believes his training that you take the sure thing and not what you think and by the time the assessment was done it was too late or extremely iffy.
An awful lot of planes crash and kill all on board trying to do that turn back when there are options if not good ones ahead.
Such is Hollywood.
The NTSB sponsored realistic tests conducted with real pilots and simulators determined that anything but a water landing was unrealistic. Also, Sully received accolades from the NTSB.
So Sully did the right thing.
Look forward to watching it. I suppose Hollywood had to sensationalise something about the story. Even if one of the engines was at 50%, I cant imagine how it would be a good idea to make for the tarmac in one of the most densely populated urban centers in the world. If they didnt make it, the loss of life would have been horrendous.
Also, he didnt just make a calculated bet on the safest place to land, he made a bet on New Yorjs water commerce doing tbeir best to help which they did
Its human nature to contextualise things and imagine how he could have done better, but if he was asked before the incident whether he would have settled for zero fatalities from a water landing, as opposed to not knowing how a ground landing would have gone, I think he would have picked the former.
Hindsight is 20:20
I don’t really know what the calculations for a successful ditching were, prior to this incident I don’t think it had ever been done in a jet airliner.Calm water and lots of rescue boats were on their side. Safer for people on the ground.
@Grubbie: four jet ditchings I can think of:
Overseas National Airlines (operating under wet lease to a Caribbean airline) DC-9, in the Caribbean, fuel starvation; some died.
Ethiopian 767, hijacking/fuel starvation, some died.
Japan Air Lines DC8 off SFO, CFIT, I believe all survived.
National Airlines 727 off Pensacola, CFIT, all survived.
OK, so the odds are better than I thought. I knew about the Ethiopian one, but I thought that they were trying to land along the beach and didn’t make it.
Whats your definition of a ditching? I have quickly researched those incidents and only the first one really involved landing in deep water. The CFIT incidents do prove hitting the water is survivable. Is it more dangerous with big high bypass engines? In the last incident 3passengers drowned.
While not Jets, I can add two specifically I know of, The DC-7 off Sitka and a P-3 out off the Aleutians.
Oddly both had the same issue, a non controllable propeller.
I believe there was a P-3 that ditched around the Philippines but murky on that one and why.
As I understand it, they had partial thrust that dwindled rapidly as the engines failed. None shortly but I don’t have the timeline.
I do have to reconsider my thoughts Boeing would do that -10 when I saw the price tag.
They certainly have put themselves in a very poor position in single aisle.
Yeah I did a double take when I saw that, I just can’t imagine spending that much on an aging derivative, can you?
Kind of why you don’t make your living developing aerospace strategy? If enough customers want it, and they are willing to pay to cover the development costs, why would they not produce the aircraft? Understand the theory of business is to produce things that customers want. Who really cares what John Leahy thinks about a Boeing development strategy? He floats $8 Bil, and the Leeham folks say that makes sense? Is he not the guy that said the 787 was not going to work, and now almost 500 are flying and he’s trying to get 50 of his “me too” frames in the air. Look at how long it took Mr. Leahy to get the A321 to a point customers wanted the thing. 15 years and the A320 family was nothing more than the A319 and A320, with a A321 and A318 that were jokes. Now the A318 is finally dead and the overweight lover is finally able to make it over the Atlantic. You people are your great knowledge of aircraft strategy. How about those 20 A380s he said he was getting for the past 5 years? Get them yet Mr. 8 Bil?
This is not about corporate premature ejaculation but
about having a product portfolio that can adapt to changes in demand and improvements in technology.
“future proofing” comes to mind.
you saw/see this on the A340/A330 combo. and you see it again in the A320 family.
Improvements in efficiency and growth in demand have worked hand in hand to move the demand center from A319 to A320 to A321 ( without all that much ado from Airbus after inception of the family ).
Truth is from those 500 frames flying Boeing hasn’t seen a single dime of profit and they will have to saturate the market with a further 1000 frames to come into a situation were they actually are able to fulfill their declared primary mission : “real” profits. Users of the 787 do not seem to suffocate under profits either.
Airbus are quiet since at the moment there’s no motivation to upset the status quo. The single aisle market is a cash cow and is tipped in Airbus’ favour. No need to upset the (lucrative) apple cart.
Be assured there is plenty going on behind the scenes for a rapid response should Boeing bite the bullet… 😉
“Be assured there is plenty going on behind the scenes for a rapid response should Boeing bite the bullet…”
I have developed a conspiration theory around this. I have mentioned it here before but I will repeat it for those who might have missed it. This idea was inspired by an exchange I had with keesje in previous threads about the gap between the A320 and A321.
It goes like this. Since the 737-8 has an advantage over the A320 because of its seating capacity, some of us think Airbus should develop an A320.5 to fill the gap with the A321. And if Airbus were to launch this new variant it would make the 737-8 obsolete overnight. But since the -8 is the only 737 variant that is still competitive Boeing would have no choice but to launch the NSA immediately. Of course the thought of Boeing launching the NSA frightens Airbus, because it would in turn make the A320 family obsolete. So Airbus would refrain from pursuing an A320.5 because it may have a boomerang effect for them.
The reverse is also possible, that Airbus keeps the A320.5 in reserve as a potential response to Boeing if it became necessary. And here lies the difference between the A320 and 737: Airbus still has one bullet left in the barrel whereas Boeing can only shoot blanks, and while this makes a lot of noise it produces little effect.
Unfortunately movies about real events are always removed from reality. how many times have we heard that the Titanic was trying to break speed records when she was about 6 kts slower than the Mauretania, and was built for economy anyway.
Movies trying to find something that was never there is just par for the course, I generally don’t bother with reality movies as they nearly always disappoint.
I did not know that about Titanic, did not remember speed records but interesting what she was intended for.
Shades of modern air travel, wealthy up front and us cattle in the back! (below decks)
Remember the popular theory about the Titanic being made of inferior brittle steel? That was put to rest when they tested a piece but people still believe it.
Problem is they throw a theory out and make headlines and then the reality never catches up.
I thought it was rivets, couple aspects.
1. ships should not run into icebergs.
2. If you are going to do that, make sure your bulkheads go all the way to the main deck!
Titanic construction was normal commercial practice for the time, vessels like Mauretania which had bulkheads to deck height were built for military use with a govt subsidy. These vessels did over twenty kts with open bridge and open crows nest. Want to guess what that felt like on a cold North Atlantic night? There wasn’t much of a lookout!
One positive about the Titanic, if you can say anything is positive in something like that, is it gave rise to SOLAS, which was about the first international treaty dealing with travel safety. So Titanic is more relevant to aviation than you might have thought.
I won’t say I gave it any thought, its an inherent aspect that safety issue (or not) have gone in hand with advances in transportation as well as the era.
From none to a lot more.
Still a work in progress in many ways, for each improvement someone tends to find a work around.
FAA regionals are omnipotent.
787 should have been grounded after the first battery issue (which never should have been issued as designed anyway) .
Pretty much go write your own spec, then drive a nail through it and we are good.
Reading the Bloomberg article the following stands out:
“The market wants a choice, not an Airbus monopoly, so they can continue to have access to competitive pricing.”
Shades of TW’s comments here, obviously Airbus are getting a lot for 321NEOS. I see a big risk for Boeing here in that many customers will shop the B737-10 MAX against the A321NEO while never intending to take the MAX, leaving Boeing with a big bill to develop the aircraft and not much return. While I doubt JL’s $8B estimates I can imagine it being between $3-$5B, and needing a thousand or so to pay for it, with NSA only 5 years away from launch. Boeing might still do it but it would tell us that there will be no Boeing NSA before 2030.
All good points.
I wrote 3-5 billion on the basis of the Bloomberg article, Boeing talk about modified wing rather than a new one, but as Scott says 8 billion or more I will withdraw that comment, I guess he is reckoning on a new wing? I lot of money for a variant of a very old design. While the NG is lighter than the A320 series I wonder much a larger stronger wing will add to the weight, or maybe it would have to be composite? Expensive. Then does lengthening the fuselage mean strengthening it to deal with bending moments? More weight, and all for a less satisfactory customer experience, unless somebody gives us more leg room, which I can’t see happening. I won’t say Boeing won’t do it, “clean sheet” seems to be a dirty words in Chicago, but it sure doesn’t look worth it. I stand by my other comments, if it is done there will be no NSA in the near future and the rest.
A “proper” solution for a MAX 10 needs:
New center wing box, and all the related changes that would result from this.
Maybe a new wing ($2bn-$3bn right there).
Taller landing gear.
Changes to the tail.
Likely some new systems.
About the only thing unchanged is the fuselage.
Almost certainly new certification.
That’s why a total makeover isn’t going to happen.
Could they get new certification using the existing fuselage? I though it didn’t stand up to current requirements. Only a curiosity question, looking at the above I think the idea is dead.
Airbus thinks they would have to change the fuselage and this would automatically void its certification because it does not meet modern standards for crash survivability. That is why the 737 has a lighter fuselage than the A320’s, which had to comply with the new requirements because it was a newer design and the amendements had already been made.
That being said, I am not absolutely convinced Boeing would have to modify the fuselage enough to void the grand-father clause. All the 737-10 would need is a taller gear to provide adequate clearance for the larger engine. But this taller gear would have to fit inside the existing landing gear compartment. One way to accomplish this without altering the compartment is to equip the aircraft with a new landing gear that would incorporate a shortening mechanism. The A330 landing gear already incorporates such a mechanism because the A300 fuselage it was based on sat lower to the ground. That is why the A330 fuselage droops towards the front when it sits at the gate.
However, if the landing gear compartment had to be modified to accommodate a taller gear it would impact the wing centre box, which is tied to the fuselage. In fact they work as one system and if you alter one you affect the other. This would have for consequence to void the grandfather clause. For the word grand-father and 737 go hand in hand, all the way to the hospice. Or the museum.
I have to concur with Nomand, they might get away with it if they tried.
Looking at the price I don’t think they will try but these are desperate times for Boeing.
I know Airbus squawked a the grandfather clause for the 747-8.
Scott, I would greatly appreciate your full analysis of what I consider Boeing’s most likely choice: to repeat the 757/767.
Boeing realized 35 years ago that they couldn’t make one MoM plane. The reason was, and is, simple – a widebody inherently cannot compete with the lower cost of a narrowbody of equal size. So they bracketed the MoM with one family at the high end of the narrowbody range – the 757. And one at the lower end of the widebody range – the 767.
Boeing’s proper opportunity today is to expand the 737 to a new family at the high end of the narrowbody range, which all the proper modifications you list make possible. The new family starts with the 737-10, its smallest member, at only $8B. It won’t compete with the 2030s NSA, which will replace the smaller 737 family. It will compete with the 321LR and its upcoming larger variants. Potential 321LR buyers will be able to choose Boeing’s bespoke largest narrowbody design, albiet with delayed delivery.
The proper opportunity at the low end of the widebody range is Boeing’s self-described New Midsized Aircraft, NMA.
EIS timing is daunting: 737-10=2023, 767x/NMA=2026, 737x/NSA=2030s. Boeing avoids near term moonshots by upgrading its current 737 and 767. Their next moonshot, clean sheet design, will be the NSA, with advanced NASA features for a quantum leap in aerodynamic efficiency.
How could Boeing spend 8B$ on a 737MAX10, when Bombardier has developped both the all-new CS100 and CS300 for “only” 5B$?
I was wondering about that too. One answer could that BBD and contributing countries have spent more than that or that they are not properly set up and have a lot more to spend.
Or maybe BBd are a smaller and therefore a leaner company. Maybe 50 BBD engineers are doing the same task in the same time as say 100 Boeing/Airbus engineers?
I am fairly sure that as a general rule you can say that as a company gets larger there is an equivalent larger risk that the bigger company are asingning too many people to do a particular task compared to the smaller and leaner company.
I expect Normand will weight in but as the Wing factory? is in Ireland, fuselage were or were supposed to be made in China there may be joint venture funding involved.
Also a lot of subsides from Quebec and Canada including but not only the bail out, so maybe pretty murky picture per actual costs.
The subsidies you are talking about are not free. They are reimbursable loans accompanied by limited royalties. The total amounts to roughly this: 350M from the UK, 250M from Québec and 150M from Canada. In addition to this Québec took a participation of 1B into the C Series and now owns 49% of the programme. This is not a subsidy though but a strategic investment, which took effect after a 5B right-off on the programme.
One aspect to take into consideration when comparing Bombardier with Boeing is the low value of the Canadian dollar relative to the US$. And most of Bombardier’s engineers are based in Montréal where the cost of living is extremely low, even by Canadian standards. It is also true, as Steinar has pointed out, that BBD is a leaner and smaller company than Boeing. Which makes BBD more nimble. But it is also less experienced than Boeing. And this showed in the development of the C Series, particularly the flight testing part, which took longer than it would have at Boeing.
Also, BBD saved a great deal of money by using the existing CRJ facilities, which were underused, and modified them to make room for the larger C Series. This somewhat limited BBD’s investment in expensive new infrastructures, or postponed them until higher production rates would outgrow the CRJ facilities.
Thank you for the data.
A 1 billion dollar buy into a program that will not make any returns for 5 or 10 years seems to be far less a strategic investment than a subsidy.
Give me that 1 billions and I can have you earning a nice safe return tomorrow.
Of course you say Tomatoes and I say Tomato.
I am of course skeptical on the rest as well,
What about the Chinese?
Simply because BBD didn’t develop the CSeries for anything like $5Billion (except maybe in Pierre’s imagination).
Total development cost of CSeries when all is said and done will be approaching double that.
It would not be possible for BBD to hide the development costs because of their accounting system. This has not always been the case though and they received a lot of flack from investors in 2002 when they were on the verge of bankruptcy. That is when they changed the way they present their financial results.
So they verged and bankruptcy again?
Twice now, hmmmm
The first time around they had a good excuse: the aftermath of 9/11. The second time around though they were looking for trouble. They launched simultaneously the Learjet 85, which was completely unnecessary; they launched the C Series, which was quite a bite for such a small mouth; and finally they launched the Global 7000, which was an absolute necessity because Gulfstream was taking their bread and butter away with the highly attractive G650, and which was introduced at the worst possible time for Bombardier. In the end I think it was a good thing for aviation that in both instances Bombardier survived to give to the world some of its best airplanes.
While Sullenberger shew competence in selecting a path with very high probability of success. ( based on a worst case assessment of the situation. IMHO very well done! )
The only questionable issue ( very much imho ) is him leveraging the case for (his) political objectives afterwards.
I would change that to Sullenberger did it exactly right, beyond competence.
I would have to re-read the report, I believe he also had his co-pilot turn on the APU (not on the checklist). That meant he had full control power not batteries.
I think the mfg had forgotten that yes you could loose both engines.
While I always deeply admired the DC-7 pilots that ditched their aircraft, they did have some time to setup.
This was all split second reaction, assessment and judgment and even if there had been loss of life it would have been the absolutely perfectly done actions.
Having been involved with flying since a child, I have been in and seen some great work flying. He and his co-pilot have my sincere admiration as having done it as close to perfection as those situations allowed.
not sure what political thing you are talking about, while he has made some money off it he did not have T shirts and such, generally my impression is he conducted his life afterwards in the same vein as before.
And if he did leverage it for a personal goal, I don’t know that is bad, depends on how he went about it.
When guys do unexpected, but successful, out of the box things like the APU bit you mention here it usually means they have thought about it sometime beforehand and had it in the back of their mind ever since. Sullenberger therefore seems to me to have shown more foresight than the various authorities and emergency planners. Anyway I think everybody is just trying to do there best when it comes to air safety and it is nasty to see an organisation villainised for the sake of entertainment.
You have to have some bad guys in a movie even if they have to invent it. In Apollo 13 they made the engineers for the command module rocket look like weasels and the crew never had verbal spats either, all made up.
Can you imagine if Oliver Stone directed Sully?!
LOL. Oliver Stone would have the Pentagon as the bad guys instead of the NTSB, which most of the ordinary public have never heard of.
How much effect does ground effect have on the 737? She is pretty low. Is the “9” field performance only due to rotation or is it part wing height? If Boeing were to just lengthen the “9” and add MTOW to make the “10” how long a field would it need to get off? A lot of the 757s popularity was due to her high and hot performance, not quite as relevant now as runways get longer, but still, there are limits.
It is not ground affect, its rotation of a longer fuselage on the original short gear, i.e. you can’t get the nose up before you hit the tail skid.
Even the 900/9 has limitations there.
Add in larger engine size and ……
757 sits high, A320 sits high, 737 is an old fashioned architecture ground hugger (good reasons at the time and nothing wrong with that, but two generations out of date now, ie should have been replaced instead of buying shares back, aka eating your see corn. )
Also keep in mind, Jets have spoiler to kill lift , so ground affect is probably not a factor (not having flown a 737 even in simulator I don’t know for sure.
Between spoilers, high speed wings and thrust reverse I think for a 737 non factor.
More than once in light aircraft I longed for spoilers!
Light aircraft and glider man myself. I’m aware of the rotation issues but upping the MTOW=faster take off speeds so I can imagine GA playing a bigger part in a non-jacked up “10”. It all adds up to faster take off speeds and if you keep getting faster eventually you will exceed tyre limits and run out of runway.
I don’t see any point to this proposal truth be know.
As per Eastwood, keep in mind this is the guy who makes a fool of himself talking to empty chairs. ie, I think he is loosing it.
While I like Tom Hanks a lot, I am disappointed he would agree to be part of that farce of a film.
Two thumbs down.
LNC: “Boeing is looking at a simultaneous development of a new single aisle airplane and a new light twin, just as it did with the 757/767. We believe this is the route that will ultimately be chosen. We also believe, as with the 757-767, the twin aisle will be the first launched (around 2018), followed by the single aisle (around 2020).”
It is not the “simultaneous development of a new single aisle airplane and a new light twin” that Boeing needs to undertake, but multiple variants of the same basic platform; i.e., what Boeing could not do back then with the 757 and 737 because the latter did not have an adaptable airframe, just like Boeing is clearly demonstrating today with the 737-10. There is only one economical way to achieve this: multiple variants of the same basic platform. That is what the 737/757 should have been but could not be because of the 737’s inherent limitations.
I do recognize that there is a gap between the 737-9 and the 787-8. Nature abhors a vacuum and so does Boeing apparently. But this should have been taken care of with proper portfolio planning. Something Boeing has forgotten how to do since the McDo takeover. Yes there is a hole to plug there, but it should have been properly addressed by Boeing before the Dreamliner was launched. It’s too late now. The gap is not big enough to justify a 12B dollar investment for the MoM over and above a 10B dollar investment for the NSA (I am being conservative here). In my opinion the latter is the only viable solution. For the investment required for the MoM would sink Boeing into oblivion. The reality is this: the market for the NSA is ten times that of the MoM and would cost less to bring to market.
LNC: “Although having a miniscule portion of the 100-150 seat market, Boeing today plans to continue participation in at least the 130 or 150 seat sector even as airplane size moves up every year.”
Again, it’s too late now and Boeing should come to terms with the fact that Bombardier now owns that segment. Instead, Boeing should focus on the upper segments of the single-aisle, all the way up until its maximum potential is exploited. I believe it would be possible to design a single-aisle that would offer better performances and comfort than the 757-200/300. The immediate segment above this being too big for a single-aisle (and also too small for a twin-aisle). This could only be achieved with multiple NSA variants: some smaller variants with a 737 range (to replace the 737-8/9/10) and one or two larger variants with a 757 range (to replace the 757-200/300). This would likely require two basic wing designs of different sizes and optimization. Such a large encompassing package would be quite a challenge to design, but I believe it would be possible with the new technologies that are available today. And it would certainly be less costly than developing two clean-sheet designs back to back.
LNC: “Quote: “We believe that the A321LR’s danger to Boeing is the ability to becoming the sales leader for the standard A321neo and A320neo for airlines that either haven’t ordered Airbus or which have held back for a variety of reasons.”
That’s why to undertake the NSA has become so urgent. The MoM remains for me a would-be-nice-to-have airplane. Nice to have but not absolutely necessary and to be avoided at all costs by Boeing, because this once great company may very well disappear into the hole it is trying to plug.
Normand: with all due respect (as well as to Scott) Boeing is looking at it from a different reference, right or wrong.
What you are offering cannot be done. You can’t have one aircraft that covers the whole range that Boeing is discussing (single aisle to the MOM market).
Airbus did it right (lucky involved as well as the larger engines at the time dictated the higher gear for the A320 as did the one son the 757)
While I too think the single aisle match or maybe a tad better than Airbus is the part they need to address, they are looking at a whole new market segment that they would be exclusive in. I can see the appeal.
The 757-300 showed the limitations of a long single aisle.
they got themselves into a corner and now are stuck with it.
I am glad I do not have to make that decision, Boeings future does ride on it.
I think for the 20 year period of 2016 to 2036, the 150 seat segment will be mostly the CS300/500 and the MAX7. Some airlines may skip it altogether and go with the E190 and A320 combo. But, Delta is probably good for 300 CS, Southwest is good for 300 MAX7, plus a few other airlines who will target that capacity.
No airplane can compete with the CS500, neo or MAX. The only problem is that it does not exist. And it won’t happen until Ottawa loosens its purse strings. The combination of the CS100, CS300 and CS500 will remain unmatched for some time because there is no equivalent in this vital segment. And this family of aircraft will be certainly be part of fleet planning for an increasing number of operators around the world.
I was left wondering if Delta might not have long term plans for the CS500 once they went for their CS100 order. Maybe BBD said off the record that it was planned? DL already had cheap used E-jets lined up, which would have been their normal way of working, so I always thought there might be more to it than just the announced CS100 order.
In fact as early as 2011 Delta pressured Bombardier to launch the CS500 and withheld an early order for the new aircraft until BBD would answer their plea. So I can imagine that before they placed their historical order for 125 C Series they had obtained some guarantees that BBD would launch the CS500 as soon as it would become possible for them to do do.
I wasn’t there when they made this deal, so I don’t really know. But we all know that the CS500 will eventually become a reality one way or another, hopefully sooner than later. This widely expected variant is inevitable because the CS100 and CS300 are now recognized by most observers as an exceptional aircraft, and the CS500 would better them both because of its extraordinary CASM. It would also fall squarely into one of the hottest segment of the industry.
All Delta needed was to feel comfortable that BBD would survive financially, and that reassurance was provided by Québec’s direct investment into the programme. Something that did not go unnoticed by Embraer and Boeing and they complained at the time that the deal would not have taken place without this bailout and they threatened to sue. The fact of the matter was that the Québec agreement was not yet signed at the time the transaction was made and this nullified the litigation. Yet, Delta were reassured and that’s all they needed.
You do have to laugh about Boeing complaining
1. Who us with an 8 billion dollar tax break with no strings attached! (at least Charleston got a factory and work out of their deal)
2. Who us sell an aircraft at a loss!
and said with a straight face, man, what a racket.
This youtube video does a great job of overlaying a bunch of the info, including ATC.
The MAX10 is a dog’s dinner. The 757-300 sold less than the 777LR, so generally not a great idea. Twin aisle is the way to go over 50m.
Build about a 48m, 2-2-2, 100t aircraft with a bigger wing and milk the current engines at 35K to 40K. Leapfrog the A321 with more capacity and comfort for the bulk of the market, 1 to 5 hour flights. Then use that fuselage to build the MOM at 130t, with a bigger wing, longer range, and 45K to 50K engines when they are developed in 8 to 10 years.
For 8 billion, the 737 can get a variable incidence wing like the F-8 Crusader, and they can leave the gear where it’s at.
“737 is an old fashioned architecture ground hugger (good reasons at the time and nothing wrong with that, but two generations out of date now, ie should have been replaced instead of buying shares back, aka eating your see corn. )”
How come you, Scott, myself, and likely a huge number of other people out there understand this but not Boeing? I bet you they all understand this very well at Boeing except the board, and the CEO is there to please them. If they tell him to buy back he obliges. But if he tells them he wants to spend 10-15B on a NSA they tell him to buzz off because the backlog for the 737 has never been so big. And a surprising number of people would agree with the board. But don’t count me among those short-sighted people.
I’d be very surprised if Boeing are not putting a lot of work into the NSA right now, they’re just doing their research under cover. They can’t launch just yet for several reasons, one of those is the shortage of engineering resources. Boeing can afford to waste billions making the wrong decision, but it can’t afford to waste it’s engineers.
“I’d be very surprised if Boeing are not putting a lot of work into the NSA right now, they’re just doing their research under cover.”
I wouldn’t be surprised either. In fact they were already preparing to launch in 2011 when American threatened to go look elsewhere. That is when Boeing took the worst decision in its 100 year history: they killed the NSA point blank. But I think it was only an attempted murder and the project survived. There is no doubt that a small faction has since tried to keep it alive. In fact, as I write this it may very well be flexing its muscles in the rehabilitation department, for all we know.
I can’t fully answer the question.
737 and 727 came out of the day when stairs were hard to come by, Jetways did not exist and a lot said for close to the ground (727 could de-plane and plane itself)
Good answers in both to the situation.
I have long held the view that the NG should never have been built.
The old saying Pride goeseth before the fall applies.
It may look rosy on numbers, but they get walloped on A321 sales, Airbus gets what it wants and the 737MAX is a lot more costly an upgrade than the A320/21NEO. Less return.
If there was a Fantasy Airplane makers league I would be all in on the A320 series.
Easily made more of a (as good or better) with competitor with NEO and you can still do a new wing and probably very closely match anything all new (some upside to all new as everyone talks about it more maybe)
“The A330 landing gear already incorporates such a mechanism because the A300 fuselage it was based on sat lower to the ground. That is why the A330 fuselage droops towards the front when it sits at the gate.”
The A340/330 has a completely different center wingbox, wings and center fuselage section all covered by a completely different belly fairing ( just compare the two .. )
the front L.gear well might be rather similar to the A300.
They did land not too far from the beach and were actually rescued by people on the beach. Most survived the crash. Among those who died many had drowned because they were trapped inside the hull, having prematurely inflated their life vests, which kept them trapped inside, under water.
The above comment was intended for you in order to answer the following comment you made earlier: “I thought that they were trying to land along the beach.”
Crash is an accurate word for that one in my opinion. Surprisingly survivable, the deceleration in water is less than one would think.
Water at that speed is as hard as a rock, a lot of skipping and breakup as you slow down and then start the drag part.
If the aircraft hits the water directly it is said to be as destructive as the ground. But in this particular case the aircraft skimmed the water initially and the left wing tip entered water first and the wing was torn from the fuselage while slowing the plane down; and the engine on that wing hit the water at the same time and had a similar effect, with the result that a lot of energy was bled in the process. Water is not a compressible fluid but under some specific circumstances it can be more survivable than the ground. I have memory of a US Navy pilot who ejected from his airplane, I think it was an F8U Corsair, and his parachute did not pop open and he landed in the water and was badly wounded, but he survived. I am not sure he would have survived had he hit the ground under similar circumstances.
Maybe Boeing needs a “skunk works” or a Bert Rutan to build a prototype NSA.
Show that it works and then get European style repayable launch aid from the market.
Boeing already has access to a form of government help which is much better than repayable loans. They are entitled to long-term tax abatements that they never have to reimburse.
ALL aircraft mfg benefit to some degree or the other due to Government subsides (including airports)
Each Airbus country aside for the so called Free Launch has their own breaks and incentives.
Some of it gets absurd where they fly the A350 wing to Germany to do a few add on parts and then to Toulouse.
Also for the record, US aeronautical research has been available to other countries.
Europe put several billion euoros into general aviation research recently.
They also have the clean skies engine research program.
All that is probably a relative wash but they are out there and probably a number I do not know about by individual countries sans the EU (or what is left of it)
Two areas of contention continue to be.
1. Washington State and its 8 billion subsidy with no accountability and not guarantees.
2. Airbus Countries with the so called reimbursable free lunch. However, the devils is in the details and I have yet to see the agreement on that other than word of mouth. A320 is obviously paying back. A380? We don’t know what the terms of pay back are do we.
Mostly its along the lines if we build 1000 aircraft, then we will give you 5 million an aircraft after that. hmmm. That amounts to what rate of interesting?
As those numbers can be and are set at very high and in most cases unrealistic numbers (A320 and A330 probably aside now) then its self serving and totally opaque.
Until the Washington state deal the lopsided numbers were on the European side, the rest was about an equal wash.
And we have to add Charlotte into the tax breaks though they actualy got jobs for theirs.
For the A380 I don’t think the governments will recover their investment. But nearly all the other programmes are, or were, lucrative for the governments involved. People who walk on the right side think this is unfair competition. So be it. I don’t really care. Like we say in French, let’s not be more Catholic than the Pope himself.
I will give you an example of how this system works. I am not sure about Europe, but in Canada there is a programme where the government lends money for R&D which have to be reimbursed, but my understanding is that the interest rates are low. And for the risks it takes the government is entitled to receive royalties as a compensation. Most of the programmes are relatively successful and the government makes more money than it looses. Since 1966 Bombardier has received, IIRC, something like 3.5B, of which only about 600M has not been returned. P&WC has long been benefiting from these facilities, but recently elected to return the entire loans in one shot because all their programmes were highly successful and they were of course loosing money to royalties on each engine they sold. While the government was laughing all the way to the bank P&WC didn’t think it was so funny and they bailed out of the programme.
In the end if the government makes money it is the taxpayers who benefit. And the latter, like their name implies, pay taxes. So it’s a winning situation for all. But I will stop here because I am afraid you might think I am a communist. And Scott may think I am a wacky lefty. 🙂
I appreciate the humor but would also like to add:
Unlike many of my fellow Americans, I am not wigged out by a progressive (aka Socialist) aspect to Society.
Even communism has its place in the discussion as unrealistic as I believe it to be. Its real s problem is it seems to lead to dictatorships in each case with a communist face.
I think there is a balance in all this (not the spin about a fine line, but a balance) and I think the US is on the wrong side of the teeter totter these days.
“US aeronautical research has been available to other countries.”
Same with RLI.
“the devils is in the details and I have yet to see the agreement on that other than word of mouth”
BS. There’s loads out there. E.g. I found this in five seconds: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/september/tradoc_146503.pdf
“We don’t know what the terms of pay back are do we.”
Again BS. 17 years, 250 frames. (Plus royalties on every frame sold.) Was publicly known since the beginning of the programme.
“what rate of interesting?”
More BS – look through all the WTO findings to get the base interest rates, since that’s what those findings were about. Incidentally, those which were deemed lower-than-market-rate were subsequently compensated by Airbus to be in line with WTO. And royalties continue to be paid – so the “interesting” rate ends up much higher than market taken over the life of the programme.
“very high and in most cases unrealistic numbers”
Oh come on! 250 frames for A380 is hardly unrealistic.
Totally public knowledge.
“Until the Washington state deal the lopsided numbers were on the European side, the rest was about an equal wash.”
The WTO would beg to differ. As would common sense – just consider for a second US military spending (highest in the world by far) and then the companies who benefit from that… And that’s before getting into the tax breaks the WTO went after.
Seriously, I know it’s rehashing the same old crap again, but I couldn’t let all these lies remain unchallenged.
I am delighted you weighted in. WHen I get the chance I will download the PDF
However, you do not list a link that shows the 250 you cite for the A380. Everyone knows it does not make it so. Happy to be proven wrong.
On the other hand there is no mention that soon they will be paying royalties on the A380 either.
You are very defensive about US defense spending, “how dare we do that?”
First: I have no issue with spin off from defense to commercial nor do I have an issue with the other direction (going a lot there these days actually)
On the other hand, as I noted with Normand, socialism while not a bad word with me also has its drawback that from the evidence, they do not want to spend on defense. Europe has between in the cross hairs forever (and yes the US is fortunate geographically ) .
What follows may seem harsh, but it is the other side of the coin and while I am happy to listen to and debate the other view I think its worth Europeans thinking about as well.
We are about to have an election and there is a possibility that the one Whacko who is running could upend all sorts of things and what that would do to Europe (and no I do not endorse him) .
I do think Europe should reflect on what issues are driving this with the American public and European defense is one of them.
Europe has hidden behind US defense efforts and then you complain about us benefiting some from that spending?
Any idea what that has cost us?
While it is in the US interest not to have Europe under a dictators, it is even more compelling for the people that live there (to say the least).
And yes I follow European history avidly, including the pre WWI wars, WWI and WWII, Cold War and then the Balkans debacle as well as Libya intervention.
A common theme since WWI is the US bailing Europe out of what they let get away (due to not spending on defense) while it lurches from one crisis to the other.
In the meantime that same defense spending has also taken away from the US and its desperate need to spend on its own infrastructure and public needs and neglect.
Something to think about as my mother would put it.
Please read this, will post down the line as well
It is European, clearly states that if target goals are met after 17 years the free lunch is repaid.
If not the government takes a loss.
You have to understand that this a strategic investment from the point of view of the government because Bombardier is the locomotive of the aerospace industry in Québec, just like Boeing is in the United States. Each time the US government gives a military contract to Boeing it represents a strategic investment for the government, in both senses of the word “strategic”.
“Each time the US government gives a military contract to Boeing ”
Gives ? They compete for contracts and win when they have the best product. You will notice the next gen Bomber contract wasnt given to Boeing , it was won by Northrop. Same goes for F-35, that was won by Lockheed over Boeings offering.
In spite of Bombardier being ‘given subsidies’ for its highly regarded Cseries line , its learjet line is facing a selloff or close down, same goes for its Q400 line.
Its a badly run aerospace business
Boeing didn’t win f-35 contact but they did benefit from the money and technology in the demonstration phase. People seem to be very up and down about BBD, management has still got a lot on.
The above post was intended as a reply to the following comment you made earlier:
“A 1 billion dollar buy into a program that will not make any returns for 5 or 10 years seems to be far less a strategic investment than a subsidy.”
I’d define “ditching” as a forced but actively managed landing on water.
CFIT does not meet this definition,
Neither does the “fight in the cockpit” abducted 767 crash
in front of a seaside beach resort.
Did the 737 NG “upgrade” cost less than a “from new” design?
Any realistic numbers around on the 747-8 redesign?
What kind of bill is expected realistically for the 777X ?
( Apropos what percentage of the A340/A330 project budget did the €3.5B for the S340NG comprise?
Invariably there are “more equal pigs” around 🙂
At sufficient speed water is harder than a brick road. 😉
I meant landing on water rather than straight into it. Most fatalities were exposure or drowning. I not so sure what would happen in big waves
Hope we never find out but sooner or latter a big twin is going to have a dual engine failure and where they roam is exactly over those areas.
“For the A380 I don’t think the governments will recover their investment. ”
This tiring repetition of factually wrong information is …. rather tiring 🙂
“Repayable launch Investment”
Is a lower interest loan ( and not all that much in relation to “free” markets) with a clear timeline when it has to be repaid. The lender will invariably recoup all his money.
What may or may not produce further backflow of cash is the royalties component of this investment.
( And surprise all functional investment carries risk in that domain. )
All the trashy language used by some doesn’t change the facts.
the conditions require that the recipient actually works profitably with the availed money
Obvious Boeing must try to destruct this instrument lest the US government gets ideas.
Uwe, to be honest I dont really know how those repayable loans work. Right or wrong, I always thought that the reimbursements were tied to the success of the programme. In other words as long as the programme is in the red the loans don’t have to be paid back immediately or fully, and may never have to if the programme is unsuccessful. But I do recognize that I could be completely wrong here. Like you suggest I may be confusing royalties with repayable loans. Quantum Mechanics would actually be less obscure for me. I think OV-099 once corrected me and tried to explain how this works. He was completely successful at the time, but only for a short period because I have now forgotten all he said. So I don’t really have an excuse for my ignorance. If you hear me OV, please come back to my rescue.
The loan is always paid back… with interest.
The success of the programme, in terms of build rates, will determine if that is paid back faster or slower than planned – but it is always fully paid off after the 17-year limit.
And on top of that, a commission continues to be paid for every aircraft sold, even after the 17 years are up.
Thanks Someone. I will try to be a better student this time around. What you say here in in line with what OV had previously explained, and it is all coming back now.
How is the weather in Toulouse today?
I didn’t realise that either, but I suppose that the clue is “repayable”. Quite a few people have yet to repay me, some for more than 17 years.
That assumes he is correct.
I would like to see that documentation.
What he is not saying is there is a specified number of airframe involved. You make fewer than spec airframes, at the very leas you do not pay royalties.
I believe the royalties are actually the repayment mechanism, I could be wrong.
He listed 250 airframe on the A380. To my knowledge other than Airbus and the free lunch air countries, no one knows.
The guess I read was 1200.
While this is Boeing and it does not discuss their now dark current history, I believe it is accurate the reflects the other reading I have done.
You should always get some listed source as the poroivide can be very concicng and compelty wrong.
The breakdown originally was that Boeing and Airbus were pretty much equal on the various small free lunch they got, the big swing was free lunch aid that was massively in favor of airbus.
Boeing was kicked for the State Tax break at the time and now has an even bigger one that has evened things up impressively .
It all distorts the market.
He cherry picked data to make it look good.
“Gimli Glider” and “Air Transat Flight 236” already brought you that kind of failure. ( But in a fault scenario that was mostly engine number independent. No fuel works the same for 4,3,2 or 1 engine.)
The self destruction of GenX engines had the central element of common failure that the ETOPS requirements ecology tries to subdue. Same with recent gearbox failures.
(not actually in Toulouse any more… shhh!)
You may not be in Toulouse anymore, but you are still with us and I enjoy reading you very much.
Actually it is in the name “Reimbursement”:
You’re projecting things I didn’t think or say.
The USA is a big defence spender, Boeing makes truckloads of money from that defence spending.
I never said I had a problem with that…
That was directed at Transworld, by the way… difficult to reply in line when getting mails through the phone.
As regards the 250 aircraft for A380 RLI, another five-second Google gives me this, which points to the original break-even which was the basis for RLI:
But since I’m at work I’m not going to go trawl for a “better” link than that. There were plenty of threads about it on Airliners.net over the years – I recall Astuteman frequently produced a number of links in very very similar circumstances.
That is a blog with an argument, where is the actual source material to the 250?
As for military spending, if the reason is to simply benefit Boeing, that is a issue. Name me one though.
All those programs are open bids, Boeing had a much or little chance as anyone.
when was the last time they won a new aircraft contract?
Open bid and I will remind all that Airbus was allowed to bid on a US program, I have yet to see the US being allowed to bid on the European program, engine for the A400, any tanker purchase by Europe.
“That was directed at Transworld, by the way… difficult to reply in line when getting mails through the phone.”
It is not you nor your phone. I had the same problem. Normally when we reply to a post directly from our personal email a links open that puts us immediately in Reply mode to the post we have selected from our email Inbox. But for some reason this no longer works and we now have to make the reply once we are in the thread and not from our Inbox. This may be related to earlier problems LNC experienced with WorldPress when their notification system was temporarily deactivated. But I am not sure if Scott is aware of this latest problem. Notification is still problematic also, because I don’t always receive immediate notification when a new thread is up.
I just go to the blog and replay as needed.
I do insist on actual sources not blogs with opinions.
Boeing link is an example, it clearly says how it works. Happy to see a citation where that is wrong.
they do gloss over their own state tax thing (Washington state and South Carolina .
Airbus ignores the big breaks they got in Alabama.
None of it is good for anyone.
Also keep in mind, give me a free 5 billions and I make money on it, what is the ROI of that money if not given to me?
Also you can bring out product that other side can’t because you had it to play with for free, do your damage, make a profit and then pay it back?
I think its a valid issue though I don’t expect it will ever change.
Boeing has lost all credibility by what its doing now as well.
“I just go to the blog and replay as needed.”
As Normand said; when you replied from the notification mail it used to work – yesterday it was adding my responses at the end of the list instead.
“I do insist on actual sources not blogs with opinions.”
You can insist all you want; I don’t actually owe you a source if you choose not to believe me, and right now I’m too busy to do the searching for you.
Obviously, you are wrong, you know it and are pulling the same old thing that people who are wrong do, you waffle.
On this side of the Atlantic we call it cherry picking (at best), it is not repaid in 17 years if the targets are not met and you stick with the mantras everyone knows it.
They all knew the world was the center of the solar system at one time but they were wrong as well.
If you can’t cite a valid source then you are just putting out an opinion and we know what those are worth.
It is boring to see you meandering around this topic like all the other “skeptics”.
All this information has been brought up and enhanced with sources in the past. Over the time I’ve read this blog a significant number of times.
While you, like some others, question this over and over you seem to inhale facts “from the other side” that better fit your view/agenda without cortical pause.
This fits the sophist but unproductive arguments protrayed in Eco’s Name of the Rose than the modern fact based environment here.
(It really won’t let me reply at the tail of the thread I’m responding to…)
So I quickly checked out the link http://www.boeing.com/company/key-orgs/government-operations/wto.page
That language is clearly skirting the edge of truth.
“illegal subsidies” – the subsidy mechanism and the amounts borrowed were both ruled legal by the WTO. Only the interest rate was deemed unduly low… and we’ll just ignore the fact that Airbus paid the difference following the ruling, shall we?
“Airbus still receives one-third of the billions of dollars needed to develop new commercial airplanes.” … as a loan which must be paid back – but let’s skip that minor detail for now so it leaves the right impression with the reader. (We’ll mention that they’re loans later to cover ourselves.)
“in the event a product does not hit a pre-determined sales target, remaining loans on the product are forgiven.” and I believe this is an outright lie.
Didn’t bother after that.
I always try to be as objective as I can be but this false information is so widely spread that even after OV-099 had clearly explained to me the way it worked I unconsciously persisted in believing this Boeing’s spin. This shows how powerful propaganda can be. Like they say, if you keep repeating a lie often enough it will eventually become a truth. That is what we call in French “fausses vérités”. Or false truths, as opposed to real lies.
You could try asking the WTO itself…
But it’s not exactly clear.
I think the most pertinent bits are:
“However, the panel rejected the US argument that the specific subsidies in this dispute provided Airbus with significant additional cash flow and other financial resources on non-market terms which allowed it to price its aircraft more aggressively than it would otherwise be able to without those subsidies, or that the effect of LA/MSF on cost of capital was such that it enabled Airbus to lower prices of LCA during the period 2001-2006. Therefore, the panel concluded that the United States had failed to demonstrate that an effect of the subsidies was the significant price depression or price suppression observed during that period.”
from the first ruling, then this from the appeal:
“Consequently, the Appellate Body reversed the Panel’s findings that the financing provided by Germany, Spain and the UK to develop the A380 was contingent upon anticipated exportation and thus a prohibited export subsidy under Article 3.1(a) and footnote 4 of the SCM Agreement. The Appellate Body also rejected the United States’ cross-appeal of the Panel finding that it had not been established that certain other member State financing contracts constituted prohibited export subsidies. As a consequence, the Appellate Body reversed the Panel’s recommendation that the European Union withdraw prohibited subsidies within 90 days. The Appellate Body also found that the United States’ claims regarding an alleged unwritten launch aid/member State financing programme were outside its jurisdiction. In addition, the Appellate Body reversed the Panel’s findings regarding the rate of return that a market lender would have demanded for launch aid/member State financing loans because they were not based on an objective assessment; but found that a benefit was conferred even on the basis of the European Union’s calculations. Finally, with respect to the actionable subsidies that have been found to cause adverse effects to the interests of the United States, the Panel’s recommendation that the European Union “take appropriate steps to remove the adverse effects or … withdraw the subsidy” stands.”
I.e. Airbus didn’t really have an unfair advantage (first ruling) then the mechanism wasn’t illegal anyway (second ruling) except “regarding the rate of return […] a benefit was conferred even on the basis of the European Union’s calculations”. The European Union had to “take appropriate steps to remove the adverse effects”… which it did. (But of course that was then itself immediately disputed by the US.)
Interesting to note that both parties called it quits in 2012 (so that Boeing page shouldn’t really exist IMO) and that the final final final report was be released in 2012, no 2014, no 2015, no June 2016… 😉
As to the specific terms and conditions of RLI…
September 15, 2016
I would like to see that documentation.”
I had already posted a link to a PDF on the official EU website (which you didn’t seem bothered to actually download – then had the cheek to demand I provide proof when I already did!). Turns out to be the same document OV-099 provided to this blog in October 2013.
Among other things, that says “The levy is set so that, once an agreed sales target is reached, the whole amount should be repaid with a rate of return, i.e. with interest, over a repayment period of 17 years (i.e. 11-12 years from the first delivery).”
And just to be sure: “A spokesman for Airbus said: “Repayment of RLI does not depend on the success of a project. It is repayable regardless of how successful the programme is.””
Although that article claims the base number of frames for RLI is unclear, it would obviously have to be similar to the business case of 250 units at the time (page 8 of https://www.airbusgroup.com/dam/assets/airbusgroup/int/en/investor-relations/documents/2005/presentations/Global-Investor-Forum/gif2005_airbus1_a380_sperl.pdf) and I remember it being stated as such on many occasions over the years. In any case it would definitely have to be less than the total 751 projected deliveries…
Again, read this, from a European source.
Free Lunch is not repaid if the secret goals are not met, said secret goals are an inducement to guess high so they don’t have to be.
I read both your so called proof.
One is a blog that has no source material in it.
the other is a propaganda tool of the EU (much as the Boeing piece is though Boeing actually had some facts)
In reality you ignore that they eliminated the risk.
If Magellan went around the world in a cruise ship, wow what an accomplishment !!!!!!! Can you say reduced risk, like none. Chances of getting hit by lightning far higher.
Big whoop that the A318 was done without free lunch aid!
Really? wow, cut a few sections out of an A319 and its the worlds biggest deal.
Over here we call that lame.
I too can endlessly launch product if I have free money I don’t have to repay if I fail.
Boeing always launched with its own or partners money .
I note that EADS did not sue Japan did they? Wonder why, that part was free lunch air from the Japanese government.
That government influences who buys what.
I provide multiple sources, give factual quotes and try to back up what I’m saying… when I didn’t even need to since it’s only YOU who has a problem with me providing facts from my own knowledge.
Then all I get in return is one super-biased fluff piece from an extremely partisan party (they’re the reason for the whole cock up in the first place!) plus multiple links to an irrelevant paper on game theory based on the author’s model of the problem.
And NEVER with a quote to explain your point. Fat chance I’m going to read that whole PDF on my phone just to try to even see what you mean (even though the source doesn’t even pretend to be an authority in the matter) when I’ve already wasted an hour of my time on this stupid willy waggling instead of doing something useful like filling in my employee satisfaction survey. (I jest, but even that is more appealing now.)
Since you can’t be arsed to play your own game then I’m out.