If you want on or off the aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.
Posted on 06/25/2006 7:03:11 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
WASHINGTON, June 22 (Reuters) - The chief executive of Honeywell International Inc. (HON.N: Quote, Profile, Research), the world's largest maker of cockpit electronics, said on Thursday that delays in the launch of Airbus' superjumbo jet the A380 were "not a problem" for the company.
"If you've spent the money to be on any platform you'd just as soon see the platform take off," David Cote, who is also Honeywell's chairman, said in an interview.
"I wouldn't be happy about saying, 'Gee, all that money we spent on the A380 was wasted,' but the money's been expensed, gone, you just move on," Cote said. "I would just as soon see it fly, but if it doesn't, it's not a problem for us."
Airbus and parent EADS (EAD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) last week pushed back the release date of the A380, which seats up to 853 passengers, by another six months.
Cote said Honeywell, based in Morris Township, New Jersey, could make up any lost business from the A380 program by selling cockpit electronics and other airplane components to other plane manufacturers.
If you want on or off the aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.
LOL! aka 'sunk' costs.
My question from the gitgo on this MONSTER aircraft is with the huge cap investment Airbus has made in facilities to turn out ONE A WEEK (that's 48 a year since the frogs take August off), who the hell is going to BUY all those planes??
Looks better all the time for Boeing with it's smaller planes capable of efficiently running short or longer routes.
The avionics package was already paid for. Honeywell already got their money..
No, Honeywell is an American company and hasn't been bought out by anyone. (I work there.)
translated:
The stockholders might be put in the bent over position, but my salary and backdated options are protected.
Really? I assumed that Honeywell would have the same problems that Airbus has - they need to move a certain number of units to pay off R&D and startup costs, and turn a profit.
Is Honeywell smart enough to get all their money up front? I doubt Airbus would go for that.
As a Honeywell employee (involuntary -- we wuz bought!) I assure you from deep inside the "parent" company that the American firm known as Honeywell is not owned by a French, German, Russian, Italian, Uruguayan or any other American or non-American company.
(This is neither an official nor an approved communique from within Honeywell; it is only a personal statement of personal knowledge -- from one who used to work for an "internationally-owned" organization before working for Honeywell.)
Thanks.
Is it Rockwell then? I thought that Thales or Thompson bought out one of ours?
If Honeywell is owned by any parent firm, US or otherwise, it will be a complete and total surprise to me!
Flight deck electronics supplied by Honeywell must be similar on both Boeing and Airbus planes? That must how they can recoup their costs. BAE is a supplier to both Boeing and Airbus as well.
The package can be installed by Airbus employees. Our avionics guys order say, 100 FMS units for replacement, repair, whatever. They send the parts and collect a check. Thats how they deal with my company anyway.
I'm not even sure the Sonic Cruiser was a real program. The engines and materials investigated for the Sonic Cruiser all got incorporated into the 787. I think it was mainly a diversion to allow Boeing to investigate the use of composites for civilian aircraft fuselages without alarming Airbus. If they had stated in 2000 that they intended to build an all new super efficient replacement for the 767 and competitor to the A330 and A340, Airbus might have gotten its act together and come up with a product to counter the 787. If you think my reasoning is farfetched read about the history of the 707. The Boeing 367-80 technology demonstrator aircraft was given a misleading name to make competitors think it was just a further development of the Boeing 367 propeller driven airliner and freighter which was a derivative of the WWII B-29 bomber.
The SST was a federally funded program make sure the US had a competitor to the Concorde. When Congress pulled the plug, the private sector wasn't interested in continuing to fund the American SST. Boeing was lucky the project got cancelled much earlier in the development process than the Concorde was.
Got it.
Thx
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.