Date: 04 Sep 99 11:38:33 From: H Andrew Chuang <firstname.lastname@example.org> Organization: Concentric Internet Services References: 1 2 3 4
View raw article or MIME structure
Niels wrote: > > In article <airliners.1999.825@ohare.Chicago.COM> > email@example.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.