Airbus A380 Whistle-blower Being Suppressed

[Starcom826]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-whis...y?track=tottext

A U.S. engineer faces bankruptcy and arrest in Austria as he questions the safety of a component in the huge Airbus A380 jetliner.

By Peter Pae, Times Staff Writer

VIENNA ? Ever since the Mangans gave up their comfortable house in Kansas City, Kan., and moved here a year ago, the family has been living in a kind of suspended animation.

It almost looks as if they just moved into their two-bedroom apartment near Austria's old Imperial Palace: Some boxes shipped from the U.S. have never been opened and the bedroom windows are still covered with sheets because the family ran short of money before they could buy curtains.

The three young Mangan children have stopped asking about their plight, although 9-year-old Timothy gets angry every once in a while. "I wish I can yell at them," he blurted out recently about his father's former employer.

Joseph Mangan, 41, is a whistle-blower. As a result he and his family find themselves in a foreign country with unfamiliar laws, fighting a legal battle that has left them almost penniless....

It was surprising to me that for once the U.S. law system has done something right and protects whistle-blowers. This is your classic corporate power suppression except this time its on something as important as failure in an airplane. Sadly (and in my opinion rather illegally), Airbus has the backing of multiple governments to:(:(

[BroChaos Veteran]

wow, if what he says it's true, thats really disappointing.

[Shibby]

Also hasn't two peeps said they will not let the plane pass as they don't think it's safe, forgot what there postions are but there like people who must give there pass for planes to fly in the usa.

[raid517]

Pfft...! You are just tied up in the politics of it. Boeing are just ****ed that Airbus had the balls to take them on on their own ground - and they have their supporters in the American Republican party who are kicking up a stink on their behalf. It's the Concorde thing all over again. Europe innovates - while the US bitches.

The only difference this time is that the A380 is already a comercial success, long before even a single airline has taken delivery.

And FYI airplanes are not just thrown together - they have to pass extremely rigerous safety tests both in Europe and the US and elsewhere before they are ever allowed anywhere near commecial airspace - so there is proably about as much risk with this particular airplane (which is very small) as there is with any other.

Moreover the guy isnt stuck in some backwater corner of Muslimstan with a bunch of fanatics preventing him from leaving as the article implies - he is in austria - which for the benefits of our American friends you might be supised to learn is a highly developed modern western democracy.

He got busted for leaking confidential company doccuments - and as an ex Boeing employee there was/is a concern that he may have been a plant, who's only real interest was in damaging the project.

But at the end of the day it is all just politics. The A380 will fly, it will be a sucess, it will be safe and the guys at Boeing and their friends within the US government are simply going to have to get used to that idea.

All of the shouting and bitching in between is just pointless.

GJ

[Starcom826]

Pfft...! You are just tied up in the politics of it. Boeing are just ****ed that Airbus had the balls to take them on on their own ground - and they have their supporters in the American Republican party who are kicking up a stink on their behalf. It's the Concorde thing all over again. Europe innovates - while the US bitches.

The only difference this time is that the A380 is already a comercial success, long before even a single airline has taken delivery.

And FYI airplanes are not just thrown together - they have to pass extremely rigerous safety tests both in Europe and the US and elsewhere before they are ever allowed anywhere near commecial airspace - so there is proably about as much risk with this particular airplane (which is very small) as there is with any other.

Moreover the guy isnt stuck in some backwater corner of Muslimstan with a bunch of fanatics preventing him from leaving as the article implies - he is in austria - which for the benefits of our American friends you might be supised to learn is a highly developed modern western democracy.

He got busted for leaking confidential company doccuments - and as an ex Boeing employee there was/is a concern that he may have been a plant, who's only real interest was in damaging the project.

But at the end of the day it is all just politics. The A380 will fly, it will be a sucess, it will be safe and the guys at Boeing and their friends within the US government are simply going to have to get used to that idea.

All of the shouting and bitching in between is just pointless.

GJ

586611351[/snapback]

Quite the opposite really, because you're the one who turned this into an EU vs. US thing and an Airbus vs. Boeing thing. If you took the time, you would see that the article mainly concentrates on TTTech and mentions that both Boeing and Airbus have purchased chips from this company. And for the benefits of our friends not in America, I'll have you know that for all the corporate greed we have, at least we've got something in place to protect whistle blowers.

FYI the fact that there are extremely rigorous tests doesn't mean there won't be major problems. The airline industry has always had planes with successive problems and just look at space exploration. That has a ridiculous amount of procedures, but that hasn't prevented disaster. I think that as an engineer, it is your responsibility to do something about potential problems especially on something like an airliner. Apparently you don't, because he would have to show confidential company files. I value lives more than corporate interests. Just look at the Ford Motors recalls.

Your response was clearly not that well though out, because you charge in with guns blazing bringing up Republicans and the EU vs. US card, and in typical fashion write off the "American" point of view (which in this case there really isn't much of one because this guy is living in Austria and has lost everything to [not] work in Europe). What strikes me particularly is your idea of airline "innovation." Airbus is a company that would never have succeeded without the backing of all its major European government contributors who bailed it out when it screwed up. Now its just making bigger and bigger planes. May I redirect you to the Boeing 787, which will be made mostly out of a composite/ceramic material that is lighter and allows it to get much better fuel efficiency, reduced construction time, possess greater structural strength, has a greater time span before needing inspection, and costs less to operate. Sounds much more innovative to me than a bigger plane. And the U.S. isn't "bitching." This is an individual engineer. We're already being too light on Airbus anyways.

[raid517]

And are you saying you wouldn't love it if Airbus suddenly vanished tomorrow? Go on admit it, it is all just pure propoganda and politics. The guy never got sacked because he reported a potential safety issue that Airbus wanted to cover up, that is just nuts, unless you think Airbus are just a bunch of deliberate cold blooded murderers? He got sacked because he went public without making any real attempt to go through the proper channels.

And FYI I am a bloody engineer - and as it happens I work in the aerospace industry in the UK (although I work mainly for the military) so I know only too well about the level of safety checks and the number of failsafes and about the degree of redundancy that are built into systems such as this. I have even worked on similar cockpit pressure control mechanisms in jet fighters, so I am more than confident that the precautions that Airbus have taken are more than sufficient.

In any case the safety record of Airbus is and has been exemplorary with I think maybe only 3 serious accidents in a period of over twenty five years and with literally billions of miles flown. If you really want to compare a table of accidents over that period with that of Boeing, or with any other company, I think you will find that they rate as probably the safest airframe manufacturers in the world. So clearly they must be getting something right.

I have no clue what this guys story is, but his response to the scenario he was in certainly seems to have been hysterical. So either he really did have an agenda, or this is just some rabid tabloid garbage, where some cheap hack took the story twisted it, squeezed it for all it was worth and then injected their own agenda so that it could whip people like you into a frenzy of xenophobia and resentment against Europe and against Airbus - and so that it could pursuade you to swallow the idea that maybe Airbus (and maybe even all Europeans) are possibly just a bunch of murdering backwards facing barbarians, who care more about making a fast buck than they do about ensuring people's safety.Unfortunately, it looks like you bought it all, hook line and sinker.

Like I said Austria is hardly a backwater village in deepest darkest Africa - they don't threaten to put people in jail there unless there really has been serious criminal wrong doing. Which is why also this story just does not add up to me.

As for innovation, the if the biggest Airliner ever to fly isn't innovation I don't know what is. Almost all of the composite and ceramic technology that is now going into Boeng latest planes has been present in Airbus designs for at least the last decade - and despite it size the A380 (in power to weight terms) is really an amazingly light and amazingly efficent design. They sure as hell couldn't have built something like that (that can still BTW use almost all conventional airports without requiring them to be modified) by just re-hashing a bunch of old ideas - and then sticking it together with ducktape.

As for govenment funding, Boing is just of guilty of this as Airbus - so don't go trying to paint them as somehow being above accepting tax payers dollars. (If you want links and data, just prod me and I will give you all of the links you can swallow). That I'm afraid is nothing more than a blatant case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Not that it matters anyway like I said, as the bitching is officially pointless. The A380 has now flown and will enter full service with several major international airlines next year. It has already been a commecial success, even before entering serice. And whether you like it or not, that is something that I and a great many other people in Europe can quite happliy live with.

GJ

[Starcom826]

And are you saying you wouldn't love it if Airbus suddenly vanished tomorrow? Go on admit it, it is all just pure propoganda and politics. The guy never got sacked because he reported a potential safety issue that Airbus wanted to cover up, that is just nuts, unless you think Airbus are just a bunch of deliberate cold blooded murderers? He got sacked because he went public without making any real attempt to go through the proper channels.

No, I wouldn't love it, I believe that having two manufacturers is better than one. Uh, if someone puts a gag order on you, there is nothing you can do to go through proper channels, because they're all closed. Are you just ignoring everything I have said? Hello, I said that the article mainly deals with TTTech NOT Airbus.

And FYI I am a bloody engineer - and as it happens I work in the aerospace industry in the UK (although I work mainly for the military) so I know only too well about the level of safety checks and the number of failsafes and about the degree of redundancy that are built into systems such as this. I have even worked on similar cockpit pressure control mechanisms in jet fighters, so I am more than confident that the precautions that Airbus have taken are more than sufficient.

In any case the safety record of Airbus is and has been exemplorary with I think maybe only 3 serious accidents in a period of over twenty five years and with literally billions of miles flown. If you really want to compare a table of accidents over that period with that of Boeing, or with any other company, I think you will find that they rate as probably the safest airframe manufacturers in the world. So clearly they must be getting something right.

A safety history is exactly that. A history. The assumption that "oh we have redundancies and a great history" equating to non-existant problems is one that has been proven unwise to make many times over.

I have no clue what this guys story is, but his response to the scenario he was in certainly seems to have been hysterical. So either he really did have an agenda, or this is just some rabid tabloid garbage, where some cheap hack took the story twisted it,? squeezed it for all it was worth and then injected their own agenda so that it could whip people like you into a frenzy of xenophobia and resentment against Europe and against Airbus - and so that it could pursuade you to swallow the idea that maybe Airbus (and maybe even all Europeans) are possibly just a bunch of murdering backwards facing barbarians, who care more about making a fast buck than they do about ensuring people's safety.Unfortunately, it looks like you bought it all, hook line and sinker.

Did you even read the story, because apparently you have no idea what it is about.

Like I said Austria is hardly a backwater village in deepest darkest Africa - they don't threaten to put people in jail there unless? there really has been serious criminal wrong doing. Which is why also this story just does not add up to me.

He isn't in jail. He's just broke, has no home to go back to, and is being fined for more.

As for innovation, the if the biggest Airliner ever to fly isn't innovation I don't know what is. Almost all of the composite and ceramic technology that is now going into Boeng latest planes has been present in Airbus designs for at least the last decade - and despite it size the A380 (in power to weight terms) is really an amazingly light and amazingly efficent design. They sure as hell couldn't have built something like that (that can still BTW use almost all conventional airports without requiring them to be modified) by just re-hashing a bunch of old ideas - and then sticking it together with ducktape.

No, Airbus is not using the ceramic technology that Boeing is putting into the next 787. Currently nothing is flying with it. Allow me to redirect you here for a description http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...38037_mz011.htm (use bugmenot to log in). That is next generation plastics based on technology from NASA and DARPA.

As for govenment funding, Boing is just of guilty of this as Airbus - so don't go trying to paint them as somehow being above accepting tax payers dollars. (If you want links and data, just prod me and I will give you all of the links you can swallow). That I'm afraid is nothing more than a blatant case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Boeing is not as guilty of this than Airbus. This must be where your extreme bias kicks in for working at Airbus. Boeing does not get money by asking the government for it. Boeing gets money by winning contracts. It also gets tax breaks. Airbus gets contracts. It gets tax breaks. It also gets launch aid and loans, something which Boeing does not. So just because it has the backing of multiple countries instead of just one doesn't make it better. In fact, it makes it a lot worse. There's a big difference between Boeing which basically gambled the entire company on the plastics in the 787, and Airbus which can pretty much do anything and have governments bail it out whenever its strapped for cash.

Not that it matters anyway like I said, as the bitching is officially pointless. The A380 has now flown and will enter full service with several major international airlines next year. It has already been a commecial success, even before entering serice. And whether you like it or not, that is something that I and a great many other people in Europe can quite happliy live with.

I could care less, unless there actually is a problem with the chip, in which case it will affect more than just the A380 (including Boeing planes, although you continue to make this an Airbus vs. Boeing deal). Good for you, someone who wants to muffle the desenter and disregard what hes saying just because he's American, although he's working for a company that is contracted by Airbus and lives in Austria. He doesn't even have a home here in the U.S. to go to because he had to sell it after being sued, but that doesn't matter to you, because he's "xenophobic" and "has an agenda" that he's willing to lose everything for.

Edited October 3, 2005 by Starcom826

[raid517]

A safety history is exactly that. A history. The assumption that "oh we have redundancies and a great history" equating to non-existent problems is one that has been proven unwise to make many times over.

So what are you saying, screw history, screw the fact that Airbus have almost undoubtedly the best track record of any manufacturer in the world, let's just use a crystal ball that has been given to you by some cheap tabloid rag with an agenda to promote and use that instead to predict what *might* (given that there is no evidence for this) happen in the future?

He isn't in jail. He's just broke, has no home to go back to, and is being fined for more.

No but if you read the article you would have seen that he is facing criminal charges:

Next month he's likely to be called before a judge on his criminal case.

Forgive my scepticism then because you don't tend to get charged with criminal wrong doing unless you are suspected of doing something really quite serious. like I said, Austria (despite what you think) isn't some kind of backwater 3rd world Anti American dictatorship - if he got himself in some hot water then he will get the same legal privileges and same legal representation that he would get anywhere else in the developed world.

And as an engineer I can tell you that the assertions he is making (or is alleged to be making since I suspect that probably more than half of this story is made up, in a typically tabloid fashion) really are ridiculous, you would need all four of those chips to fail simultaneously for it to cause any really significant problem. Besides which there are some extremely advanced control systems hooked up to each of the chips that would alert the pilots of any potential problems. This is a rehashed half technical understanding of how these valves actually work, jazzed up to look damming by a not so smart tabloid journalist and written for a non technical audience in order to make it appear incriminating.

As for Boeing not getting government help, they very much do get government help. They just get it indirectly through 'tax breaks' and 'research funding' and money diverted through the military. Their government money simply comes through the back door, while European money comes through the front.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflas..._2882_db046.htm

The USAF and NASA spend huge amounts on research and buy for instance many hundreds of B707's as tankers, along with DC10s, while fighter programs have ridiculous costs to off set manufacturers costs like $8,000 for a 1/8 Allen key that cost 10 cents at Sears, or $3000 for a lightweight hammer. There is almost no competition in the US market for military products (and specifically aircraft) manufactured outside of the US. It is a virtual 'no compete deal' where all sorts of tricks are employed to make sure Boeing (and others) get as much of your hard earned tax dollars as they could ever possibly need. So why shouldn't Airbus do what ever is needed to compete against unfair competition such as this? Both major manufacturers and their respective governments are equally guilty of this that so don't flog that pathetic old story of US free enterprise against European government help. It doesn't wash here at all. If anything the Europeans are just guilty of being more open and honest about it.

As for me making it a Boeing vs Airbus thing - you did that all on your own. If you will recall:

Sadly (and in my opinion rather illegally), Airbus has the backing of multiple governments too

Those words could have been taken directly out of the mouths of any senior Boeing CEO over the last 7 or more years, so don't pretend that you didn't really know what you were implying.

The bottom line is it isn't really any of your business anyway. It is my tax money and the tax money of many others in Europe that goes towards this funding and I fully (as do most other people I know) support this. So what is it to you what we choose to spend our tax money on? It allows Airbus to compete against the unfair competition practises of other large manufacturers, it brings jobs, it promotes innovation and it ensures that there really are other large commercial Airline manufacturers in the world other than those based in the US. So I trust you will forgive me if I fail to see the downside.

And no I haven't ignored that the story is about this guy and these allegedly faulty chips. What I have said is that the story doesn't add up. Not technically and not in any other way either. Like I said, you don't get hit with criminal charges and risk being sent to jail simply for forgetting to pay your parking fine. Boeing have already been hit badly for spying on its rivals, so Airbus are right to be concerned about the leaking of potentially sensitive commecial and technical information. What I'm saying is that the story stinks, that I can smell a rat and that it really sounds to me like little more than a typical tabloid exercise in political sh*t stirring.

But if reading cheap sensationalist tabloid cr*p like this is what presses your buttons, then good luck to you. I'm sure they will make a very good job of telling you what to think again in the future too.

GJ

[OrangeSoul]

whistleblower or Boieng spy

[Starcom826]

So what are you saying, screw history, screw the fact that Airbus have almost undoubtedly the best track record of any manufacturer in the world, let's just use a crystal ball that has been given to you by some cheap tabloid rag with an agenda to promote and use that instead to predict what *might* (given that there is no evidence for this) happen in the future?

No, it is not what I'm saying. And next time I urge you to try harding in figuring out what I'm trying to say. It's not a cheap tabloid rag. My whole point, which you clearly didn't get was not that the A380 should be shelved, but that what is happening to the guy is very unfair.

No but if you read the article you would have seen that he is facing criminal charges:

Forgive my scepticism then because you don't tend to get charged with criminal wrong doing unless you are suspected of doing something really quite serious. like I said, Austria (despite what you think) isn't some kind of backwater 3rd world Anti American dictatorship - if he got himself in some hot water then he will get the same legal privileges and same legal representation that he would get anywhere else in the developed world.

[/quote

I NEVER SAID I THINK AUSTRIA IS A 3rd WORLD ANTI-AMERICAN DICTATORSHIP! Do you have holes in your head? I never even said anything remotely close or even implied anything of the sort. Note how I said "for once" the U.S. law system has done something right. He is in hot water, and that's because he raised an issue which he though would endanger people. That kind of thing is protected here, and if Austria has it, why is he not getting it? You say its "criminal" because he released some confidential information in order to sabotage the image of Europe/Airbus etc. despite the fact that what he raises is an issue that affects Boeing as well.

And as an engineer I can tell you that the assertions he is making (or is alleged to be making since I suspect that probably more than half of this story is made up, in a typically tabloid fashion) really are ridiculous, you would need all four of those chips to fail simultaneously for it to cause any really significant problem. Besides which there are some extremely advanced control systems hooked up to each of the chips that would alert the pilots of any potential problems. This is a rehashed half technical understanding of how these valves actually work, jazzed up to look damming by a not so smart tabloid journalist and written for a non technical audience in order to make it appear incriminating.

How on earth am I supposed to know? My point was that this guy has something to say, and he can't say it. I'm no aerospace engineer, and you claim to be. I won't dispute that, but you weren't working on what he was working on either. If the fact that being an engineer gives you more credibility, well he is one too. What is there to make me believe either way? I'm not arguing whether A380s will fall out of the sky or not. Without knowing anything about the source itself, you just throw around tabloid to discredit what it says without even finding out whether it really is a tabloid or not. I don't care whether the possibility of something failing is remote. That has happened plenty of times in aerospace engineering. It happens in space exploration too. The reason why airplanes are safe, is because when someone brings up a problem, people [usually] fix it instead of saying "oh now this is some xenophobic idiot who sells stories to tabloids."

As for Boeing not getting government help, they very much do get government help. They just get it indirectly through 'tax breaks' and 'research funding' and money diverted through the military. Their government money simply comes through the back door, while European money comes through the front.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflas..._2882_db046.htm

The USAF and NASA spend huge amounts on research and buy for instance many hundreds of B707's as tankers, along with DC10s, while fighter programs have ridiculous costs to off set manufacturers costs like $8,000 for a 1/8 Allen key that cost 10 cents at Sears, or $3000 for a lightweight hammer. There is almost no competition in the US market for military products (and specifically aircraft) manufactured outside of the US. It is a virtual 'no compete deal' where all sorts of tricks are employed to make sure Boeing (and others) get as much of your hard earned tax dollars as they could ever possibly need. So why shouldn't Airbus do what ever is needed to compete against unfair competition such as this? Both major manufacturers and their respective governments are equally guilty of this that so don't flog that pathetic old story of US free enterprise against European government help. It doesn't wash here at all. If anything the Europeans are just guilty of being more open and honest about it.

Uh, I did not vindicate Boeing of such things. My point was that Airbus does the same, except governments loan it money too.

Edited October 4, 2005 by Starcom826

[Starcom826]

As for me making it a Boeing vs Airbus thing - you did that all on your own. If you will recall:

Those words could have been taken directly out of the mouths of any senior Boeing CEO over the last 7 or more years, so don't pretend that you didn't really know what you were implying.

The bottom line is it isn't really any of your business anyway. It is my tax money and the tax money of many others in Europe that goes towards this funding and I fully (as do most other people I know) support this. So what is it to you what we choose to spend our tax money on?  It allows Airbus to compete against the unfair competition practises of other large manufacturers, it brings jobs, it promotes innovation and it ensures that there really are other large commercial Airline manufacturers in the world other than those based in the US. So I trust you will forgive me if I fail to see the downside.

Tell me, where is Boeing in that sentence? You know, I don't care how many contracts Airbus gives or how much it charges for anything. It's quite different when you have governments lending money directly to a company. One is not a subsidy, another one is. And although that normally wouldn't rile me up so much, because it is your tax money, it is quite a different story when the EU threatens to force an American company to pay $5 million a day in fines on the premise of "unfair business practices" when they've got Airbus looming around. Unfair competition practices of other large manufacturers? Oh, so you're saying its a good idea to subsidize a market if another nation has a majority of the marketshare? Then why aren't you subsidizing practically everything else? You know like, China?

And no I haven't ignored that the story is about this guy and these allegedly  faulty chips. What I have said is that the story doesn't add up. Not technically and not in any other way either. Like I said, you don't get hit with criminal charges and risk being sent to jail simply for forgetting to pay your parking fine. Boeing have already been hit badly for spying on its rivals, so Airbus are right to be concerned about the leaking of potentially sensitive commecial and technical information. What I'm saying is that the story stinks, that I can smell a rat and that it really sounds to me like little more than a typical tabloid exercise in political sh*t stirring.

That might have held up IF it was about something about Airbus instead of a company that it contracts to purchase chips, and if the information he leaked was about something that wasn't used in Boeing's own planes.

But if reading cheap sensationalist tabloid cr*p like this is what presses your buttons, then good luck to you. I'm sure they will make a very good job of telling you what to think again in the future too.

GJ

Right. Next time someone posts something I don't like, I'll write it off as sensationalist tabloid crap like you. I'm sure they will do a very good job of telling you about our American conspiracies to take over Europe again many times in the future too.

[Nashy]

I like the poster who said Boeing is ****ed off. Airbus will never touch Boeing, ever, EVER.

737, 767 and 777 are the best selling planes around the world. QANTAS has recently purchased A320 and A330s, which they will not be doing again.

They have purchased A380's, but what big Airline wouldn't. They have also placed a crapload of orders on 747's.

While Airbus can try their very best to beat Boing, airlines will continue to buy the planes they are used to.

737 will keep Boeing well ahead of the competition for decades to come.

[raid517]

Not a tabloid?

Lol have you seen their front page? As a rule of thumb, for future reference a 'newspaper' that has sports celebrities and pop stars as main items on its front page is generally referred to as a tabloid.

As for subsidies V's backdoor government funding - I'm glad you can see the distinction because I really don't think anyone else can. when exactly is a subsidy not a subsidy? If Boeing can have 26 billion dollars in government Tax funding since 1992, then what exactly is Airbus supposed to do, just sit about and maybe pass a begging bowl around it's employees?

And although that normally wouldn't rile me up so much, because it is your tax money, it is quite a different story when the EU threatens to force an American company to pay $5 million a day in fines on the premise of "unfair business practises"

That is a bit of a leap isn't it? I mean you go from Airbus to Boeing then inexplicably to Microsoft? The Microsoft thing was a totally different deal, that was a bunch of Microsoft's competitors bitching about not being allowed a level playing field. They already has similar anti trust trials in America - ans MS lost that too. But somehow it is justified that American companies shouldn't be allowed to break the law in America, but that it should feel perfectly free to do so in other countries? You forget that the kind of subsidies that we are talking about are completely 100% legal under the 1992 agreement between the US and Europe concerning such matters. It was agreed and signed by both parties at the WTO conference at that time, so there is nothing illegal about this practise at all. In any case MS didn't have to pay any fines. They came to an agreement with the EU and it all worked out pretty well in the end. MS didn't have to pay a penny (unlike in the US where they really were forced to repay a lot of their customers). So if anything US law was far harsher on MS than the EU ever was.

That might have held up IF it was about something about Airbus instead of a company that it contracts to purchase chips, and if the information he leaked was about something that wasn't used in Boeing's own planes.

Well it was never painted that way. Not by you and not in that story. The whole story was spun out as though it was about some lone American hero trapped in some barbarian country with no help and no hope of fair legal representation standing up against the evil that is Airbus.

If that doesn't qualify as a bunch of uninformed xenophobic claptrap then I don't know what does.

Oh, so you're saying its a good idea to subsidise a market if another nation has a majority of the market share? Then why aren't you subsidising practically everything else? You know like, China?

No I'm not saying that at all. But what I am saying is that really modern aircraft/jet liner design is so fantastically expensive that it is probably impractical for any company to do it without government assistance - and that includes Boeing, Airbus or who ever. How you do it simply appears to be a choice of styles, Airbus do it directly while Boeing (and other American companies) do it covertly. But the fact is that government funding on such massively expensive projects is pretty much just a fact of modern life, if innovation and competition is to continue. Everything else in between is just bitching and complaining by these companies, in a pretty blatant attempt to gain market share and to score some kind of political advantage.

I don't care whether the possibility of something failing is remote. That has happened plenty of times in aerospace engineering. It happens in space exploration too. The reason why aeroplanes are safe, is because when someone brings up a problem, people [usually] fix it instead of saying "oh now this is some xenophobic idiot who sells stories to tabloids."

And that is the problem with most ordinary people in that they just do not really understand risk. For example did you know that it is far more dangerous to cross the road in front of your house than it is to fly in an aeroplane? Or that more people die each year from bee stings than in aeroplane crashes. Flying is literally the safest way to travel - indeed it is even safer than not travelling as vastly more people are killed and injured in domestic accidents that have ever been injured over the same time frame spent in the air. So if you really want to be safe and never really expose yourself to any risk, the best way to achieve this is to live on aeroplanes permanently. But unlike you appear to be asserting, this level of safety is not achieved by accident. It is not a matter of luck. It is a result of extremely careful engineering and of building a great many failsafes into the aircrafts design in order to ensure that the risk of any kind of component failure is greatly minimised. Remember despite your objections Airbus is a business, so it simply wouldn't pay them to build planes that risk dropping out of the sky's after 5 minutes in the air. Rockets on the other hand are a whole different ball game. Perhaps you should try accelerating something the size of a 747 to 25 times the speed of sound and then seeing how reliable you can make it? Generally it is a good engineering principal that the faster you make something go, the more prone to failure it is likely to be. That is why fast sports cars (and jet fighters) often need servicing after short periods of use and frequently break down, whereas family cars (and airliners) can often travel for thousands and thousands of miles without ever really needing a major service.

The point is that Airbus are in no position to behave irresponsibly, particularly because they are in such direct competition with Boeing - and until it is possible for either you or I to verify the validity of this story one way or another (preferably from at least one credible source that we can both agree on) I don't think that anyone should really take it too seriously.

Best regards,

GJ

[raid517]

I like the poster who said Boeing is ****ed off. Airbus will never touch Boeing, ever, EVER.

Sorry you are a little behind the times on that count I'm afraid. Boing stoped being number one more than two years ago.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worldbiz/a...3/21/2003247225

Airbus overtook Boeing in 2003 to become the biggest manufacturer in the world's US$50 billion airliner market.

GJ

[Nashy]

Most Airlines are going the way of QANTAS. This is a fact. They are recieiving (sp) the orders they placed, and won't be making large airbus purchases again.

Its back to the Boeings.

[raid517]

Most Airlines are going the way of QANTAS. This is a fact. They are recieiving (sp) the orders they placed, and won't be making large airbus purchases again.

Its back to the Boeings.

Lol so says little old you... :p

GJ

[Nashy]

My Uncle has been with QANTAS for 30 years. So says little old him.

[raid517]

Indeed...

GJ