Airbus pulls anniversary book

July 12, 2019, © Leeham News: Airbus has pulled the 50th year anniversary book it commissioned from veteran aviation reporter Nicola Clark.

LNA reviewed the book, Airbus: The First 50 Years, Monday.

Reuters, the first to report the move, reported that concerns over the timing as Airbus attempts to put more than five years of fraud investigations behind it were the reason. Reuters also reported “Airbus said the version seen by the public was a draft. ‘The draft wasn’t consistent with our ambition for celebrating 50 years of pioneering progress,’ the Airbus spokesman said.”

The book had been sold on Amazon Kindle and printed versions intended for distribution at the Paris Air Show were withdrawn. LNA’s review appeared July 8, after the air show. The Kindle book sales have also been halted.

The book had been commissioned by the regime of former CEO Tom Enders. Enders retired April 1. It was a candid book of the Airbus history that looked at the warts and the accomplishments. It wasn’t the typical puff-piece commissioned book—which made it the best such anniversary book LNA has ever read.

21 Comments on “Airbus pulls anniversary book

  1. At leats they have said it straight forward.

    And didn’t lie to regulators, airlines, pilots and general public.

  2. Perhaps the lawyers got involved because of the principle of sub judice, noting that a criminal investigation is ongoing!

    • Likely and I don’t blame them but who made the decision to release it in the first place?

      Someone does not have a handle on their organization. Or maybe its the Enders deep state?

    • It also looks as though the author wrote a critque when Airbus commissioned a celebration. On that basis it is unlikely the author told Airbus what was being written.

      • Those selling online- who actually have copies in hand, not always a given, will surely put the price up dramatically

    • Lawyers get involved where there is fat to be had.
      To a certain extent legalism can evolve into parasitism worse than corruption.

  3. If the lawyers hadn’t read the book they will be reading it now.

  4. Loren Thompson’s only real use is an indicator of what the DOD shouldn’t do.His latest piece in Forbes emphasising the “need for constructive solutions “to the MAX crisis for the sake of the USA as a whole, indicates to me that Boeing are starting to panic. After the ludicrous attempt to influence the president to overrule the safety authorities,they are still up to the same stupid tricks.

      • Usual strange stuff from Thompson, the 737s problems wont affect those working on Space projects in Los Angeles, St Louis workers on military aircraft and helicopter workers in Arizona and Philadelphia.
        In my reckoning on the total orders for the Max on 22% are for US airlines and Ive counted US based leasing companies with that ( could place the planes with offshore leases).
        Boeing cant maintain its head to head on single aisle with Airbus without international orders.
        The international aircraft certification process relies on cooperation amoung the major countries, wrecking that so the FAA gives an early green light to Boeing without international consent still wont ‘save Boeing’ . I dont believe Boeing needs saving and the 737 certification problems are solvable by Boeing. But not if Boeing tries to wriggle away from making the required changes by having the FAA on ‘its side’ not as an impartial regulator.
        Surely someone like Loren Thompson would discuss the real issues instead of ‘fact free’ hypotheticals.

      • jbeeko,

        I don’t think he comes close to saying it, he is all but saying it.

        “What is largely missing from coverage of the MAX crisis, though, is an explanation of how important Boeing’s sole single-aisle offering is to the company’s fortunes, to the nation’s trade balance, and to the fate of local economies in the U.S. ”

        This sentence prompts two questions:
        1). What is the relevance of his statement to the issue that worldwide, air safety agencies have determined that this aircraft is not safe for passenger service?
        2). How does he intend to persuade these agencies that this is a relevant statement for them or what should be done if they do not see the pertinence of this statement?

    • “Unlike companies such as Apple, Boeing has consistently resisted the pressure to build its products with cheap labor in foreign countries.”

      It is with statements such as this where he continually fails to impress me with his knowledge or honesty. I am not certain which applies.

      • Cheap labour, that’s correct but foreign government subsidised production plants like Japan, Italy etc . Yes.
        That’s another way Thompson misleads, by choosing words carefully but still misleading.
        Plus he mixes local production for the old 737 which is true without mentioning that all the newer models have large proportions made offshore .

  5. Thompson is paid to speak for Boeing. Either they are just trying to speed up the process or they are really stuck.All the usual nonsense about it all being the fault of Airbus!

    • Airbus bad, Boeing good, same old stuff. I think they’ve start to panic in Boeing after EASA requirements has been made public. So more american propaganda.

      In fact I think EASA is making very good job to save MAX, against FAA and Boeing. Pointing flaws and requiring solutions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.