To: COEXERJ145; microgood; liberallarry; cmsgop; shaggy eel; RayChuang88; Larry Lucido; namsman; ...
Ping! If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail not by posting to this thread.
2 posted on
06/06/2005 10:42:31 PM PDT by
Paleo Conservative
(Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
To: Paleo Conservative
There is no doubt that we will meet the performance specs we promised our customers,'' she said. "That's not a concern. Mary Anne, now this may just be a spurious reading, but my little internal lie detector just buzzed.
.
3 posted on
06/06/2005 11:05:37 PM PDT by
Seaplaner
(Never give in. Never give in. Never...except to convictions of honour and good sense. W. Churchill)
To: Paleo Conservative
""A couple of months in the grand scheme of things is really nothing in terms of scheduling,'' Greczyn said." Damn!
In my former business, here in Silicon Valley --it could make the difference between success or failure.
Our product life cycles were running about 9 months!
Semper Fi
6 posted on
06/06/2005 11:43:02 PM PDT by
river rat
(You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
To: Paleo Conservative
A380- Super Jumbo...
Soon to be know as the "EUie that never Flewie"
Semper Fi
8 posted on
06/06/2005 11:46:57 PM PDT by
river rat
(You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
To: All
The lack of bias among the aviation fans here is truly commendable
To: Paleo Conservative
I'm only a spectator in this fight and don't have the engineering expertise to really know how this will all end up, but from what I've read to date the Airbus is in real trouble.
Why would you build a plane so big that there are only 1 or 2 airports in the world that today can land it or off load it. The cost of making the changes to existing airports is so big you would need thousands of these planes to be coming and going through your airport to make it economically viable.
It's the reverse analogy of building a boat in your basement so big and not having a way to get it out when your done.
The Euros are hearing the sucking sound of their money going down a wide drain. They should rename it the "Spruce Goose"!
To: Paleo Conservative
I have no particular knowledge of this industry, but it strikes me that saying you are going to be six months late a year from now has more to do with design than production. If production were lagging, you would figure the could add on more men, push the workers, and make up lost time. If you have a design problem, you know now that you will not be ready in a year. The problem is, you don't really know you'll be ready in 18 months, either.
20 posted on
06/07/2005 4:23:30 AM PDT by
gridlock
(ELIMINATE PERVERSE INCENTIVES)
To: Paleo Conservative
"There is no doubt that we will meet the performance specs we promised our customers,'' she said. "That's not a concern.'' That's not the concern, Mary Anne. It's "when". Customers want their planes with the performance promised in a reasonable amount of time.
31 posted on
06/07/2005 10:41:37 AM PDT by
hattend
(Alaska....in a time warp all it's own!)
To: Paleo Conservative
This has to be the dumbest airplane since the the Spruce Goose. 800+ passengers? How about we try for a plane that carries 8000 or 80000?
Why would these clowns expect that airports would be eager to add to their current debt so they can extend and re-enforce their runways, upgrade their boarding and departing systems, and the rest of the infrastructure needed to support such a sudden and foolish addition to the problems they already have?
33 posted on
06/07/2005 2:17:29 PM PDT by
Octar
To: Paleo Conservative
Maybe they found a radio tranmitter within the carbon-fiber core of the first jumbo-liner;
that had the business card of Al-Ansar-bin-Atwat-bin-Gringo-bin-Raghed, and got concerned about the Arabic employees on the assembly line.
58 posted on
06/08/2005 12:30:38 PM PDT by
aShepard
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson