Posted on 10/06/2006 8:42:26 AM PDT by phantomworker
I thought the propellers fell off of that carrier?
I recall they also had a bit of a problem designing a propulsion system that didn't shed the screws.
Ah yes... the old "four envelope" ploy.
When a Program Manager is forced to leave his post, he gives his replacement four envelopes... and tells the new Program Manager to open Envelope #1 when he has his first huge problem, Envelope #2 when he has his second huge problem, Envelope #3 when he has his third huge problem, and Envelope #4 when he has his fourth huge problem.
A few months into his new job, the Program Manager gets called on the carpet for a major problem and he opens Envelope #1, inside there's a note that says "Blame the previous Program Manager". That seems to get him off the hook...
... until the second major problem hits. So he opens Envelope #2, which says, "Blame the subcontractors". This gets him off the hook for a while, until the next major problem arises.
... so he opens Envelope #3, which says, "Blame the software". So, he skates by again... until the next problem shows up... confidently, the new Program Manager pulls out Envelope #4, thinking it will get him off the hook again... but he opens the envelope to find this message: "Make Four Envelopes".
I think Airbus CEO Christian Streiff is making four envelopes right about now.
OMG! I suspected that something was fishy about the "wiring" story. In other posts I noted that this should all have been blueprinted long before the first plane was built. Now, we see that it was, but incorrectly. This is astonishing! They couldn't even DRAW it correctly.
Wiring problem = smoke screen because the plane was several tons overweight.
Better question:
How'd they get four P-types in the air?
I read Streiff's little lecture - BS meter at max!
(Not to mention that this article was written just before the boy was forced out)
they'll have hordes of engineers working 8/4 (snicker) on problems that have nothing to do with wiring or CAD systems.
They'll be doing it without the Brits.
And, they'll do it right up until enough customers cancel out and the business becomes too big a loss to their governmental sugar daddies.
Talk of a 2000 reorganization is a hoot as well - that was done in order to hide the government sponsorship that never even slowed down.
As a corporation Boeing sucks, but at least they are second only to the former McDonnall Family Guraranteed Income Corporation (MDC) for quality airplanes.
Perfect, except where I come from they can reverse #1 and #2 depending on the weather.
Airbus, proving why socialistic corporations will fail
That should have been the title of this article.
"How could the global No. 1 aircraft maker have messed up so badly?"
Because they wanted to return to their rightful number 2 position.
My question is: This is not the first time Airbus has designed a plane. Why hasn't this problem come to light in the previous A3-whatevers?
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.