Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues

Date:         04 Sep 99 11:38:33 
From:         H Andrew Chuang <>
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
References:   1 2 3 4
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

Niels wrote:
> In article <airliners.1999.825@ohare.Chicago.COM>
>   "H Andrew Chuang" writes:
> > 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.
> >
> > So, do you mean Flight International is not credible?  ;-)
> > > Meanwhile,  objective reports say that AA, UAL, BA, and CX
> > > have all expressed much displeasure at the GE exclusivity deal
> > > on the 777X.
> >
> > Hmmm... Now, you think FI is credible.  ;-)  In the FI report,
> `FI'?
> H,  despite your little smileys it appears you are trying to
> disparage me by comparing/attributing things I haven't said (again).
> Note who mentions `FI' above.  Only you.
> Express your facts/opinions but please don't create and then
> embellish those of others just to shore up your own soapbox.

All the reports that I have seen on the alleged AA, UA, BA, and CX's
displeasure at the Boeing/GE exclusivity deal appeared *after* Flight
International reported it.  Some made a reference to FI, some
didn't.  It's very common that newspapers and other media reported
aviation-related stories using Flight International and/or Aviation
Week reports, because both of them are reasonably credible and
knowledgeable.  Most newspapers don't have the resources (both
the appropriate personnel and contacts) to make this kind of
reports.  (Seattle Times is one of the few exceptions.)

In short, it's not a coincidence that these reports all appeared
after that particular issue of FI was published.  You obviously
don't even know the source of the reports you were referring to,
then how can you claim that they are *objective*?  (You did say
objective, didn't you?)

I admit I made the wrong assumption that you knew the source
of the reports you were referring to.  Obviously, you didn't.
Anyway, I can't help if you felt that you were disparaged
because that wasn't my intent.