Re: 2 Vs 4 engines - CFM56 Engineering Dept Costs

Date:         18 Jan 2000 05:24:18 
From:         "Russell Short" <>
Organization: The Internet Group (Sydney)
References:   1 2 3 4 5
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

John van Veen <> wrote in message <airliners.2000.33@ohare.Chicago.COM> ...
> Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
> > Airbus has been running some ads lately, notably one in The Wall Street
> > Journal, _strongly, strongly implying_ that four-engine airliners are
> > safer than two-engine craft.  "When you're flying over water in remote
> > locations... you really want to be between four engines," or words to
> > that effect.  Very interesting.  First time I can remember an aircraft
> > company making a competitive safety claim in an advertisement.

Airbus has pulled the ad from circulation (at least for now). Airline
resentment was extremely high - especially for airlines considering
using A330-200/300s over the North Pacific or in overwater situations.
The A300/310 line might not attract passenger airline customers any
longer, but the A330 certainly does and operators were suitably upset.

Not to mention a legion of airline safety experts who thought they were
watching decades of work go down the drain by one irresponsible act of
advertising terrorism. I feel sorry for the probably majority of Airbus
employees who would have shaken their heads that their employer would be
so irresponsible. These things happen, however, and it probably won't be
the last time if we all know advertising companies as we do.

I haven't seen sex sell airplanes yet... oh hang on... yes I have. Saab
used to run ads for their turboprops with a chick with nothing but boxer
shorts and boxing gloves on. Tall blonde if I remember correctly.

> I guess AirBus has forgotten that Boeing makes a 747.

Either that or they forgot they produce the A330.