October 4, 2006
INCREASINGLY DUBAIOUS:
Airbus to reduce costs, streamline company (Marilyn Adams, 10/04/06, USA TODAY)
The first A380, promised to Singapore Airlines late this year, now won't be delivered until October 2007.Aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia, of the Teal Group, called the lengthy new delay "serious." Aboulafia said the A380 "has always been dangerously dependent on one customer" — Dubai-based airline Emirates.
Emirates has ordered 45 A380s, far more than any other airline. If the A380's one or two top customers walk away, "it would be fatal" to the program, Aboulafia said.
Emirates President Tim Clark, in a statement, called the latest delay "very serious" and said the company is "reviewing all its options." Customer Virgin Atlantic says it will review its six-plane order at an Oct. 12 board meeting.
No U.S. passenger airlines have ordered the plane.
Because no American city would let them land it.
MORE:
A380 production in a tailspin (LAURENCE FROST, 10/04/06, The Associated Press)
"It's an extremely dangerous time for Airbus," Richard Aboulafia, vice president of the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Va., consulting company, said in an interview with Bloomberg News. "Time is not on their side. While the A380 is unlikely to die, you can't rule out a total program failure."Posted by Orrin Judd at October 4, 2006 7:48 AMAirlines counting on using the 555-seat jet on some of the most heavily traveled routes were not pleased by the latest delays. In the couched language reserved for public consumption, they said they were considering canceling their orders.
"This is a very serious issue for Emirates, and the company is now reviewing all its options," Chief Executive Tim Clark said in an e-mailed statement.
Everyone knows that when a business starts talking about saving office supplies and turning out the lights when you leave the room it's all over.
Posted by: Lou Gots at October 4, 2006 8:15 AMImagine having to bribe those executives all over again.
Posted by: Daran at October 4, 2006 9:02 AMNo Lou, there is still a smidgeon of hope at that stage. It's all over when the CEO makes a moving speech at the annual Christmas party about how the employees are the company's most valuable resource.
Posted by: Peter B at October 4, 2006 9:11 AMJust prior to laying off a third of said employees, I presume?
Posted by: Jay at October 4, 2006 1:00 PMOJ:
There you go, changing the terms of the debate again.
Because no American city would let them land it.
The story refers to the A-380, hence "it" refers, to an A-380, which you have morphed into "passenger plane."
Here are the terms of the wager: Loser buys dinner, and winner decides the locale (within the CONUS/Canada), when either the first A-380 lands at Memphis, or A-380 production is cancelled.
John:
That simply doesn't make sense -- no airfield modifications are required for the 787.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 4, 2006 6:42 PMBecause no American city would let them land it.
"It" is an A-380, OJ.
Put your money where your mouth is, or at the very least quit quibbling.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 4, 2006 8:26 PMBecause no American city would let them land it.
Did you read the story? It is about an airplane, which you said no American city would allow to land.
NB: Passenger airlines do not land, airplanes do.
Of course, you could clear this all up by explaining precisely what the word "it" refers to.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 4, 2006 9:42 PM