Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues

Date:         07 Aug 99 01:22:39 
From:         "John Vincent Lombardi" <>
Organization: UniPhone MP
References:   1 2
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1999.809@ohare.Chicago.COM> ,
(Niels Sampath) wrote:

> James Matthew Weber wrote in message ...
>>It's been reported that the aircraft is currently 6.5 metric tonnes
>>overweight, which puts it about 400nm short of the range requirement.
>>The problem may well be worse than that. The A340-500 has a new
>>engine, the RR Trent 500, and industry experience is that new engines
>>rarely make fuel guarantees 'out of the box'.
> You mean `rumoured'  not reported as fact.
> If the Airbus retort to these rumours  this week is true...
> that the 6.5 tonne overweight rumour stems merely from future
> development version projections of the 340  and is -not- related
> to the -500, -600 `as is' programme,
> then the rumour is a red herring.
> It is a Sporty Game tho isn't it?<g>
> Meanwhile,  objective reports say that AA, UAL, BA, and CX
> have all expressed much displeasure at the GE exclusivity deal
> on the 777X.

The "objective" reports you sight are hardly so, having been spun by
Flight International to suit their readership. You need to ask yourself
whether the "displeasure" would be as extensively reported if RR was the
monopoly holder and not GE. If the Trent had been chosen, the monopoly
would have been just as real, but by default rather than by contract.

On the same note, I notice that the French Government has stepped in to
hang the CFM56 on the A318. Are the British taxpayers up to the task?
Maybe the US government can cough up a few million to help PW onto the

On the A340 issue, the tone of the article suggested to this reader that
FI isn't quite ready to back away from their earlier report. The belated
Airbus rebuttal seems just a bit contrived.


John Vincent Lombardi     
San Francisco, CA