When Airbus relaunched the A350 for the whateverth time in late 2006, creating the ludicrously-named A350XWB, a sweating, barely coherent and deeply uncomfortable John Leahy stood in front of an audience of sceptics and as usual blatantly lied, saying all 182 A350 customers would convert to the A350XWB at the new price -- $171m to $215m, a jump of nearly 26%.

There was laughter in the auditorium and it didn't take Leahy long to realize just how naïve his remarks were. The first airline to agree under pressure eventually to convert was Finnair, but only after insisting on paying the old price for the new aircraft. Net result: a $396m loss before the ink was dry on the new contract. Great job, John.

Having seen a precedent established, of course, every other A350 customer was anxious to follow suit, the result being Airbus lost somewhere around $7.5bn in revenue after allowing for outright A350 cancelations. And this from an aircraft that hadn't even been successfully designed yet, despite numerous attempts.

So while Boeing writes off just $2.5bn for three test articles with no resale value but plenty of ongoing RDT&E potential, clueless Airbus has already written off $7.5bn+ in lost revenue due to market misreading, incompetent management decisions and poor reading of the industry. Oh and did i mention the A350 program cost had somehow jumped from $5m to $10m (it's $16bn+ now).

Well, do we believe Keesje or Randy? I know who I believe.

Everybody except Randy and some B groupies know we are talking the A50XWB.

Unless you believe its somehow the same aircraft announced as in 2005. (The airlines and Airbus don't )


Are you sure you want to believe Randy ? What would make you Not believing him ?

Recently I said the 787 flight test schedule should cover at least 12. Since 1 week he agrees.

Want another 10 examples?

The A350 became the fatest selling widebody ever. 500 within a few yrs.

In the same period Airbus sold 500 A330s and counting.

Not quite Sir (493).

Thanks to Rhapsody for the associated URL.



Boeing sold over 480 777's during the same period too (and counting). So what.

What would be nicer is if you could stomach the energy to discuss the numbers Doug alludes to, rather than compare apples to oranges.

Over to you Keesje.

I would spend time to so with many analysts. Spending time rebuting things Doug said I find a waste of time. He position is totally clear on Airbus & nothing will ever change his mind. He has made that clear to us all for years. It's his soul mission spread negativety on Airbus at any opportunity. Wouldn't you like to know why? Ask him.

Spending time rebuting things Doug said I find a waste of time. He position is totally clear on Airbus & nothing will ever change his mind. He has made that clear to us all for years. It's his soul mission spread negativety on Airbus at any opportunity. Wouldn't you like to know why? Ask him.

When Airbus relaunched the A350 for the whateverth time in late 2006, creating the ludicrously-named A350XWB, a sweating, barely coherent and deeply uncomfortable John Leahy stood in front of an audience of sceptics and as usual blatantly lied, saying all 182 A350 customers would convert to the A350XWB at the new price -- $171m to $215m, a jump of nearly 26%.

And the difference, of course: The $2.5bn is Boeing's money. The Airbus $7.5bn is launch aid never to be sen again..

I wouldn't trust Airbus to tell me the time of day. This lack of trust extends right through the French judicial system too and the day will soon come when certain current and former overpaid Airbus executives are forced either to pay enormous fines (starting with Leahy) or for those others still clinging on to leave the company in disgrace, like one of their many recent ceos, the the multi-despicable Forgeard.

Having seen a precedent established, of course, every other A350 customer was anxious to follow suit, the result being Airbus lost somewhere around $7.5bn in revenue after allowing for outright A350 cancelations

Airbus can't build the A350 as it doesn't have the money or the engineering engineering ability and if its cash reserves are forcibly depleted, nationalization is just around the corner. Let's see what the WTO says...

Lets see:

This is the start of the article



Now let your wife / partner read this "analyses" and ask if she considers this a serious journalism.
'nough said.

one of the crazy statements :



How can money not paid by customers change into "never to be seen launch aid" ?

Bullocks!

another





What has french juridicial system & a long gone VIP to do with this suppossed 7.5 billion loss ? Seems his emotions took over here..



So Doug suspect launch customer paid the same (undisclosed) price for the original A350 as for the XWB (he assumes list price price) and simply multiplies it with the total backlog. Aint that a bit rich? Also delay payments, A330 orders / A340 conversion were in the game.

Its the same as knowing what 1 customer got for a 2.5 yr delay of 10 x B787s and multiplying it by eighty for the total backlog.



So Airbus can build the A380 but not the A350, they don't have the engineering skills "Nationalization is just around the corner". Recently Doug stated EADS has about $11.5bn in cash reserves. http://www.glgroup.com/News/Who-Will-Cough...XWB--40940.html.
Now doug what is it? You can't have it both ways!

I think an official responds is what Doug is looking for, to get some credibility.
http://www.glgroup.com/News/Insider-Tradin...rbus-41965.html

Doug worked for Airbus indeed. For about 9 months, 14 yrs ago. http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougmcvitie

Aside from Doug's angry comments, there is IMO a more serious question. What about the critical reading & validation skills of fellow Fleetbuzz members? Will everything do as long as it is anti-Airbus or pro-Boeing?

As an aside, many folks would give an individual a whole lot of credit for leaving Airbus only after a few months.

Also if they didn't plan to?

Lets get down to business. You admit you know nothing of actual prices paid for the first A350 nor for the XWB.
Nor does Mr. McVitie. Still it is good enough for you and others to make far reaching conclusions.

I think this is totally flawed mud throwing that isn't picked up by any serious media and not even by less serious media.
http://news.google.nl/news/search?pz=1&...s+%247.5bn+A350

I think supporting this rant is a choice.

How can money not paid by customers change into "never to be seen launch aid" ?

Bullocks!

Costs : the discounts given to launch customers (remember the airlines were cautious in 03-04)

QUOTE (keesje @ Sep 2 2009, 02:47 AM) Costs : the discounts given to launch customers (remember the airlines were cautious in 03-04)
Either discounts at launch are a cost or not. One way or the other. Which is it? (I don't really care which one, but for goodness sake pick ONE and stick to it please)

One more time, how do you know that McVitie is not correct?

Doug makes a bold the statement and has to substantiate that. He clearly assumes everything, gives no sources or references and packs everything in an emotional rand.