Boeing vs. Airbus + Politics

[sprintman]

Boeing has joined with Sukhoi (Russia) to develop a series of regional jet aircraft. India's Hindustan Aeronautics has been invited to join as a risk sharing partner. Boeing-Sukhoi will build the airframe while Snecma from France along with Russia's Lyulka Saturn will develop engines for the 60, 75 and 90 seater aircraft due to fly in 2007-8. Also Blue Panorama and First Choice are buying the Boeing 7E7-8 base model. The 7E7-9 stretch model will seat 257 passengers while the shorter range 7E7-3 seats 289 passengers. And last Rolls Royce just delivered it's 1000th Trent family engine to Singapore Airlines for a Boeing 777.

 

[Jimbo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mnztr:
Why can't the new systems be retrofitted? Firstly the A330 is a newer and more advanced design then the 767, which is why it is outselling the 767 dramatically now. Also the A330 is completely fly by wire, which makes adaptation of new flight control systems MUCH easier then conventional controls. Parts of the airplane may need to be redesigned, but anything is possible. Not having designed a plane I cannot say for sure what it will take. Perhaps you can enlighten me. Are you an aerospace engineer?

---

The structure of the airplane is designed around the systems. You might as well start over, which is why Boeing is replacing the 767 altogether. Yes the A330/340 (and 777) are fly-by-wire, but by using electric valves to control hydraulic actuators, and air-bleed environmental control systems. The all-electric systems were not yet proven when those planes were designed. Yes, I am an aerospace engineer.

 

[mnztr]

Yeah but the 767 is a much older design and I think it would be much easier to convert the Airbus to modern systems then the Boeing. Do you know if there is a difference between the efficiency of the Airbus vs the Boeing? I also heard that the Airbus wings have much fewer parts then Boeing wings and have massive machined parts.

 

[Jimbo]

These systems changes are more revolutionary than evolutionary, as big a difference as the internal systems changes were from the props to the jets nearly half a century ago. I wish Boeing would do better marketing of this, but they may not want to "scare away" the more conservative airlines.

As for intregal machined wing structure, while I agree that is better, that makes it even more difficult to modify.

 

[MolaKule]

Notice the Outright Lie, Misinformation, and Inference by the Bloomberg writer in Bold:

FACT: Boeing had this composites technology long before the JSF or 7E7, and it was developed by Boeings own internal R&D budgets, which go against the bottom line.

quote:

---

U.S. Must Slash Boeing Aid to Win Airbus Cut, EU Says (Update1)
Bloomberg 09/14/04

The European Union said the U.S. would have to cut subsidies to Boeing Co. to win a reduction in aid to Airbus SAS as both sides prepared for talks this week on revising aircraft-support restrictions.

``Any tighter limit on European aid for Airbus would have to be matched by a similar limit on U.S. support for Boeing,'' EU trade spokeswoman Arancha Gonzalez told reporters in Brussels. ``We won't accept any unilateral aid cuts.''

The European Commission, the 25-nation EU's trade authority, plans talks on civil aircraft subsidies with the U.S. in Brussels on Thursday after discussions of possible rule changes in July and a U.S. threat to file a trade complaint in August. Gonzalez declined to say what U.S. aid the EU would seek to cut, saying it's a matter for the negotiators.

The U.S. says loans from the U.K., French and German governments helped turn Toulouse, France-based Airbus into the world's biggest planemaker, selling 305 aircraft last year to Boeing's 281. Chicago-based Boeing in turn gets U.S. aid through defense and space contracts.

U.S. support for Boeing and European benefits for Airbus, a unit of European Aeronautic, Defense & Space Co., are governed by a 1992 agreement that the U.S. says should be replaced with a pact banning ``new subsidies.'' Boeing says Airbus doesn't deserve handouts that may have been warranted a decade ago.

`Open to Renegotiating'

``We are open to renegotiating the 1992 agreement,'' Gonzalez said. ``It's not just about European support.''

The accord, which has a revision clause, puts a ceiling on direct government support for new aircraft programs that amounts to 33 percent of total development costs. This provision covers European loans. The pact also limits indirect support to 3 percent of a country's large civil aircraft industry turnover --a measure covering U.S. contracts.

The agreement was designed to prevent a dispute from arising between the two sides under the World Trade Organization's anti- subsidy rules, said Gonzalez, who called it a ``WTO-plus'' pact.

U.S. President George W. Bush threatened last month to file a WTO complaint over Airbus aid, which takes the form of repayable loans. The commission responded at the time with the offer mentioned today by Gonzalez to curb European state support for Airbus in return for less U.S. aid to Boeing.

U.S. government funds helped Boeing develop a version of the Joint Strike Fighter, from which it tapped technologies for the new 7E7 plane. Boeing is also using government-funded Japanese suppliers to build its new 7E7 Dreamliner.

Airbus says the loans it receives are in some cases at interest rates above market levels. State aid accounts for no more than ``a hundred-thousand bucks'' per plane, Airbus said in July.

No official figures are available specifying the amount of aid given to either company.

---

 

[Terry]

In addition to being a oil analyst I am also a rated pilot, while not an experienced or practicing aircraft engineer I do not like what I see as far as theory of design or execution of that design from a pilots point of view on many of the Airbus products.

Having lots of flight time in many brands of aircraft both Helicopter, turbo prop and jet I prefer Boeing in the heavy jet liner category.

One of the pilots of the ill fated A300 that crashed off of JFK was a friend of mine and if that plane could have been flown I know he would have been able to fly it out. When the vert stab comes off from wing tip vortices turbulence encounter and the design of the maker is fractions of a inch of rudder movement to full defection the pilot should not be blamed. So design, and then vert stab structural security was a major issue IMO.

From a pilot perspective the Boeing 777 is likened to a Cadillac to a chevy to any airbus product. 7E7 will be a answer to profitability for the longer haul legacy carriers if they can survive the current 'perfect storm" of war, and economic issues.

I would like to see #'s on the cost to maintain a mature Airbus fleet after the newness and delayed payments all wear off. Airbus seems to give away the initial purchase but I suspect the high costs of maintaining are close behind.

[ September 14, 2004, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Terry ]

 

[CTD]

I think its funny that people think that American companies came up with their products. Their was a plane in Canada called the Avro Arrow and the company that not only developed it but numerous other aircraft, flying cars etc were closed down. Oddly enough a few years later the US companies came out with flying saucers, fighter jets that looked very similar to the Avro Arrow and other projects conducted in Canada. Coincidence or copy cats

 

[MolaKule]

I don't usually cater to conspiracy theories unless they contain overwhelming data.

Fact: Most swept-wing technology was transfered from Germany to the US and Russia after the war. We shared some of that data with our Canadian allies.

FACT: The US developed and successfully applied stealth technology.

Fact: We did not get our advanced aerospace technology from Aliens or Canadians. We developed it ourselves. Area 51, LLL, and Sandia simply have scientists and engineers who think outside of the box.

Fact: Our universities train more aerospace engineers and scientists (from all over the world) than any other country. I am also involved in this area of education.

There is one Canadian company, and I believe it's Bombardier, who has plans to make 100 passenger, two engined regional jets that would compete against both Boeing and Airbus.

 

[MolaKule]

Here is the Article:

quote:

---

Pressure's on Bombardier to develop new jets. Market shift to bigger mid-size planes forcing company's hand, analysts say.

The Globe and Mail (Canada) 09/24/04
author: Bertrand Marotte
All material copyright Thomson Canada Limited or its licensors. All rights reserved.


MONTREAL -- Bombardier Inc. may have no choice but to move ahead with development of a new family of mid-size jets despite soaring cost estimates, according to some analysts and consultants.

"They're between a rock and a hard place. They really have to do this," said William Dane, senior aviation analyst with Forecast International/DMS Inc. in Newtown, Conn.

The market for regional jets is shifting as airlines move to larger, more economical airplanes in the 100-seat-plus category and Bombardier simply can't afford to miss out on that niche, he said.

Montreal-based Bombardier already passed on the opportunity to steal a march on its rivals three years ago when it shelved a feasibility study for a new-generation 100-seat-plus jet known as the BRJ-X, he added.

Bombardier Aerospace spokesman John Paul Macdonald said in an interview yesterday that the original new-jet cost estimate of the equivalent of between $1.17-billion (U.S.) and $1.56-billion -- first stated publicly in February -- is now closer to $2-billion.

"That [original] figure was based on the BRJ-X experience and was for one single aircraft," Mr. Macdonald said.

But former Boeing Co. executive Gary Scott, hired in March to head up Bombardier's new aircraft program, recommended creation of a platform for a family of four jets, which has helped bump up costs, Mr. Macdonald said.

The new estimate of $2-billion excludes the cost of developing a long-range, high-efficiency engine, but that would likely be borne by the engine makers, he said.

Bombardier executives have said the company is not under the gun and won't proceed with a new jet program unless the airplane can leapfrog over existing product and offer about 15 per cent in operating cost improvements to airline operators.

Michael Boyd, head of Evergreen, Colo.-based industry consultants Boyd Group, said yesterday that he isn't buying that argument.

"I'm betting that if [Bombardier] doesn't do anything, it's out of the airliner business," he said.

"Taking that risk is worth $2-billion," he added.

Analyst Cameron Doerksen of Dlouhy Merchant Group Inc. in Montreal stressed that the "estimates are just that -- estimates. If the company believes it needs to go ahead with this airplane to be competitive, whether it's $2-billion or $3-billion [Canadian], they will go ahead and do it."

Bombardier, still struggling to recover from a prolonged slump in the regional-jet market, is lobbying the Canadian and British governments, as well as Quebec and Ontario, for financial assistance on the project.

Chief executive officer Paul Tellier has said the company would anticipate assuming about one-third of the project's total cost, with risk-sharing suppliers and governments participating in the remaining two-thirds.

A decision on whether to proceed with the new family of jets is expected early next year.

---

 

[MolaKule]

Hmm. I am afraid to think what would happen to Boeing if Mr. "Global" Kerry gets into office.

quote:

---

U.S. and Europe Fail to Resolve Dispute on Aircraft Subsidies
New York Times 10/01/04
author: Elizabeth Becker
c. 2004 New York Times Company


WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 - Top trade officials for the United States and the European Union failed on Thursday to resolve their dispute over government subsidies to aircraft manufacturers, especially Airbus and Boeing, inching closer to a clash before the World Trade Organization.

Europe's top trade official, Pascal Lamy, said on Thursday through a spokesman that "hopes are dwindling'' for a compromise after discussions went nowhere with the United States trade representative, Robert B. Zoellick.

The United States has demanded that Europe end its subsidies for the construction of Airbus, saying the financial support amounts to unfair trading practice.

Richard Mills, the spokesman for Mr. Zoellick, said, "We will pursue all options to end these subsidies, including bringing a W.T.O. case."

"We will soon make a determination as to next steps,'' Mr. Mills said.

At issue is whether the sides can renegotiate a 1992 agreement that outlines support given for aircraft manufacturing. The Europeans want it renewed while the United States has argued that Airbus has become a serious rival of Boeing and is no longer in need of subsidies.

In response, Europe has contended that government support for Boeing, especially tax breaks from Washington State, are subsidies, and that airplane manufacturers receive assistance on both sides of the Atlantic.

The dispute was injected into the political campaigns when President Bush promised to take the European Union to the W.T.O. if it failed to end the subsidies.

For his part, the Democratic candidate, Senator John Kerry, has said Mr. Bush has a lackluster record for bringing winning cases to the global trade group.

Privately, European officials said they believed that political considerations were fueling the dispute.

Anthony Gooch, the spokesman for the European Commission in the United States, said that Europe was prepared to react immediately if the United States filed suit at the W.T.O.

"There should be no doubt that if the U.S. launches a case at the W.T.O. our response will be swift and in kind, with all the consequences that entails,'' Mr. Gooch said in a telephone news conference.

That contest could come quickly. It is to the advantage of the United States to remove what the Europeans say they believe is a legal justification for their continued subsidies.

Boeing said that it wanted the issue resolved soon and that "it is time for Airbus to accept the financial and marketplace risks that true commercial companies experience.''

A spokesman for Boeing, **** Dalton, said in an interview that Boeing's position had not changed and that the 1992 agreement had outlived its usefulness.

Without that agreement, the European Union would have to justify its direct subsidies of Airbus before the W.T.O.

Europe contends that the United States gives government subsidies to its large aircraft manufacturers in the form of military and space contracts, research and development expenditures and tax subsidies.

Since these are multibillion-dollar industries, a case before the W.T.O. could lead to expensive penalties.

---

 

[MolaKule]

quote:

---

Loaded 727 readied for tire tips on wing
Seattle Times 10/24/04
(Copyright 2004)


SALT LAKE CITY -- A Boeing 727 loaded with 68 federal prisoners tipped over on a wing after mechanics jacked up a set of wheels to replace a worn tire. No one was injured.

Airport spokeswoman Barbara Gann said Friday the plane was jacked up on asphalt not strong enough to handle the weight of a fully fueled 727. Mechanics also miscalculated the plane's center of gravity.

Maintenance workers and firefighters righted the plane using heavy equipment.

---

 

[Terry]

Heavy Metal baby !!!!

 

[MolaKule]

quote:

---

Safety Board Faults AMR, Airbus for 2001 Crash
The Wall Street Journal 10/27/04
author: Andy Pasztor
author: Amy Schatz
(Copyright (c) 2004, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)


Federal crash investigators, criticizing American Airlines and European plane maker Airbus for withholding important safety data in the past, said both were partly responsible for the November 2001 crash of one of the airline's Airbus A300 jetliners in New York.

As part of its final report on why a portion of the A300's tail ripped off during a routine takeoff climb killing 265 people, the National Transportation Safety Board took the unexpected step of recommending modifications to nearly 500 Airbus A300 and A310 aircraft with unduly sensitive rudder-control systems. In a move with potentially broad international ramifications that could reignite tensions over aircraft-design safety, the board urged U.S. and French regulators to particularly consider changes that would prevent severe aircraft damage from the kind of rapid rudder movements that brought down American Flight 587.

The safety board's recommendations also call for a review of such factors in approving future jetliner designs.

There is no dispute that four large and rapid swings of the rudder -- all commanded by the co-pilot -- broke off the tail section about two minutes after taking off from John F. Kennedy International Airport and crossing the wake of a departing jumbo jet.

During a full-day hearing, the board singled out the co-pilot's "unnecessary and excessive" rudder movements as the probable cause of the accident. American's improper pilot training, which encouraged excessive use of the rudder, and the A300's sensitive rudder controls also were cited as contributing causes.

In addition to potential design modifications, the board embraced a number of changes aimed at promoting global safety-data sharing. It also set the stage to create a system for imposing sanctions for the first time on airlines, aircraft makers and parts suppliers that fail to fully disclose safety information to the government.

The cockpit maneuvers that broke off the tail section of American Flight 587 in just seven seconds were widely known. But the NTSB broke new ground by spending a large portion of the hearing analyzing what information Airbus , a unit of European Aeronautic Defense & Space Co., and to a lesser extent American, shared about the A300's sensitive handling characteristics and pilot training years before.

The board wrestled with the notion that it never received all relevant safety information after a 1997 incident that seriously stressed the tail of another American Airlines A300, but didn't result in a crash.

Looking back, the board and staff were "certainly disappointed [Airbus ] didn't supply" all the details about rudder performance or the company's internal "specific calculations" about the stresses on the tail of that jet, according to John Clark, the board's chief aviation investigator.

In addition, he faulted American for failing to promptly turn over pilot training details. But Mr. Clark acknowledged that the board "just didn't pick up on" some of the information that was available about the 1997 incident.

Daniel Campbell, the board's managing director, said Airbus 's past information sharing was "quite disappointing," and the board agreed to draft recommendations to have the Federal Aviation Administration demand that foreign aviation authorities turn over more safety data -- even when no regulatory action is taken overseas.

AMR Corp.'s American Airlines said it supported the bulk of the board's findings but maintains the co-pilot simply didn't know the full extent of the rudder's sensitivity. American blamed Airbus for not disclosing at least two other previous incidents in which structural stresses on an A300's tail exceeded normal limits.

Airbus "made a good-faith effort to share what we knew," said Clay McConnell, a company spokesman, who promised Airbus would cooperate if the FAA chooses to study the issue.

The safety board says the A300 and A310 rudder controls, especially at higher speeds, are the most sensitive of any large commercial aircraft. American, United Parcel Service Inc. and FedEx Corp. are the only U.S. carriers flying the aircraft.

---

 

[Terry]

For you pilots and engineers and anyone who flys;

Depending on who you believe, that jets full rudder throw was 1/4 to 3 inches of pedal travel for full rudder deflection, so Sten Molin ( who had been flying since he was a preteen,and son of a retired Eastern Captain) had no indication of the rudder affectation by proprioceptive means that every NORMAL swept wing jet transport aircraft does. NO vert stab should separate at that speed and loading.

NTSB sold out and this is not the first time.

For Sten to be blamed for rudder "doublets" is a crying shame for the public, Stens good name and most importantly to every victim of this needless crash. Airbus shoulders this 100% regardless of the NTSB findings and I suspect( sadly) the lawyers will be the ones to bring that out.

I still think the vert stab/tail separated or was in the process of separating while control and data collection cables were still connected, thus the doublets recorded that no pilot would induce ,especially Sten who was very competent and experienced.

Keeping this in context, yes if you spin, then overcontrol a MaxGross Weight jetliner at 35,000 feet and hammer controls you can rip wings and controls off but at Max gross on take off not a normal aircraft, unless its a airbus 300.

Man this makes me sick.

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Terry:
For you pilots and engineers and anyone who flys;

Depending on who you believe, that jets full rudder throw was 1/4 to 3 inches of pedal travel for full rudder deflection, so Sten Molin ( who had been flying since he was a preteen,and son of a retired Eastern Captain) had no indication of the rudder affectation by proprioceptive means that every NORMAL swept wing jet transport aircraft does. NO vert stab should separate at that speed and loading.

NTSB sold out and this is not the first time.

For Sten to be blamed for rudder "doublets" is a crying shame for the public, Stens good name and most importantly to every victim of this needless crash. Airbus shoulders this 100% regardless of the NTSB findings and I suspect( sadly) the lawyers will be the ones to bring that out.

---

Everyone loves to hate lawyers, but this kind of crap is one good example of why they are needed.

 

[MolaKule]

"This makes me sick."

Yep, me too. Just like the NTSB sold us out regarding the TWA Flight 800 crash.

 

[TheLoneRanger]

quote:

---

I still think the vert stab/tail separated or was in the process of separating while control and data collection cables were still connected, thus the doublets recorded that no pilot would induce ,especially Sten who was very competent and experienced.

---

I agree, the vert stab was probably already separating and causing the aircraft to yaw. Then (and only then) the pilot reacted with opposite rudder, trying to regain yaw control. IMO, he didn't cause the failure, it had already failed and he was merely trying to regain control......

This reminds me of an Airbus crash at the Paris airshow several years ago. Upon takeoff, the plane mushed into trees at the end of the runway. The crash was attributed to a design flaw in the fly-by-wire control system, limiting the elevator travel under certain circumstances........ I'll choose Boeing any day over Airbus.

 

[MolaKule]

Another NTSB excuse?

quote:

---

NTSB to press industry to share information
Chicago Tribune 10/27/04
author: Sylvia Adcock
(Copyright 2004 by the Chicago Tribune)


In response to disclosures that Airbus had not shared information about a 1997 incident in which a plane almost lost its tail, the National Transportation Safety Board is preparing to change its rules to put more pressure on industry participants in crash probes to share relevant information.

But the board agreed yesterday to add language to the final report on the cause of the crash of American Flight 587 to make clear its belief that even if the information had been shared, the Nov. 12, 2001, crash could not have been prevented.

At issue is the case of American Flight 903, a 1997 Boston to Miami flight in which the tail nearly broke off.

The pilots of that plane, the same Airbus A300-600 model as the one that crashed in Queens, allowed the plane to stall and the pilots began a series of actions to control the airplane and moved the rudder back and forth several times. The plane landed safely but a passenger was injured, triggering an NTSB investigation. The investigation focused on the stall and the recovery attempt.

At the time, Airbus engineers suspected the tail had likely gone beyond the limit any aircraft should experience in flight, but did not share this information with American or the NTSB. After the Flight 587 accident, the NTSB again looked at Flight 903, and determined that the stresses on the tail had been nearly to the breaking point. The tail of that plane was then removed and replaced.

Airbus made a submission to the NTSB noting that back-and-forth rudder movements can break the tail of the plane, but did not mention that the plane that was Flight 903 might have undergone such stress.

Under questioning from board member Debbie Hersman, John Clark, the NTSB's director of aviation safety, said he didn't believe the information would have prevented the 2001 crash. "That's one issue we're not very pleased with," he said of the information-sharing process. "But we did understand that you could cause the fin to break."

NTSB Managing Director Dan Campbell said, "We didn't pick up on it and they should have been more forthcoming." Campbell said that during the summer of 1997, when the Flight 903 investigation took place, the investigators were swamped with the one-year-old crashes of TWA Flight 800 off Long Island and the crash of ValuJet Flight 521 in Florida. "It was on the plate but it was not the focus," Campbell said. "What they should have done is given us all the information."

Board members asked the NTSB staff to prepare a new rule that tightens the responsibilities of the industry participants, including the airline and the manufacturer. Current NTSB operating rules do not specifically say that the parties need to share everything relevant with investigators.

Clark said there were numerous differences between the Flight 587 crash and the case of Flight 903. The main difference, Clark said, was that the 903 pilots had allowed the plane to stall, which means it essentially stopped flying. To recover they needed to use the rudder, even though the rudder movement nearly broke the tail off the plane.

"There have been some assertions out there," said Clark. "We don't think there was a eureka piece to 903 that would have led to 587."

---

 

[MolaKule]

It wasn't a landing gear, it was the LG door. Yep it can even happen to Boeing planes that aren't maintained properly.

This incident interrupted a calm evening of beer drinking for one resident.

quote:

---

Plane part rattles man's house
St. Petersburg Times (Fla.) 10/28/04
author: Aaron Sharockman
(Copyright 2004)


SAFETY HARBOR - Part of the landing gear of a Delta airliner bound for Tampa fell from the sky Wednesday and onto the roof of a mobile home where a retiree was sitting down to sip a beer.

No one was injured, and the Boeing 767 aircraft landed at Tampa International Airport at 4:06 p.m. without incident, authorities said.

The plane, out of Atlanta, was grounded pending an investigation. Federal Aviation Administration officials removed the debris for examination Wednesday night.

FAA Aviation Safety Inspector Paul Kahler said a 7- by 7-foot aluminum door that covers the landing gear fell about 4 p.m. but did not affect the airplane's integrity.

Pilots aboard Delta Flight 432 may not have even known about the malfunction until after the plane landed, he said.

"This is a trim piece that keeps the plane smooth," Kahler said. "It's not essential to make it fly."

Delta spokeswoman Tanya Dunne said she did not know how many passengers and crew members were on board but said no one on the 767 was affected by the mishap.

On the ground, John Nork had just started a can of Budweiser in his screened-in porch when he thought a neighboring palm tree crashed onto his roof.

"I never thought of something falling from the sky," said Nork, 62, a former Marine and retired auto plant employee.

FAA officials said the metal object could have fallen off the plane over Nork's home or could have angled in from miles away.

But after it tumbled about 3,000 feet, it hit Nork's palm tree, which slowed its decent.

The aluminum sheet then bounced off the corner of Nork's house, denting his gutter and part of the roof. It struck a spot on the roof almost directly over where he was sitting.

When it hit the ground, it sounded like a car accident, neighbors said, and left a 6-inch gash in the lawn. A father of four grown children, Nork had spent the afternoon at the horse track. He didn't bet, he said.

"I had just gotten settled in, and here's this big KABOOM!" said Nork, wearing leather loafers, holding phones in both hands. "It was right over my head."

He stayed in his fold-up lawn chair for more than five minutes, he said, too shocked to move.

He couldn't believe what happened.

Neither could police dispatchers.

"When I called, they thought I was crazy," said Nork, who worked on aircraft while in the U.S. Marine Corps and was on board two Huey helicopters that crashed in Vietnam.

Ann Mattiuz's two Shih Tzus, Oreo and Bandit, wouldn't stop barking after the crashing boom echoed from two doors down.

Mattiuz said she thought a car had wrecked. She didn't even open her door until minutes after the accident, her dogs still panicky.

"I didn't understand what was happening," Mattiuz said. "Of all the things, an airplane?"

Kahler said the plane was descending toward TIA and could have been 3,000 feet in the air when the piece broke off. He said it's unclear what caused the mishap.

As officials examined the scene, onlookers began flocking to the site in the Bays End Manor mobile home park off State Road 580, hoping to catch a glimpse of the oddity.

Even Safety Harbor Vice Mayor Keith Zayac showed up after hearing reports on the radio.

"I'm just glad no one's hurt," Zayac said.

---

 

[sprintman]

The largest purchasers of Airbus planes are North American operators. 2000+ are in use in NA. Our flag carier Quaintass the world's safest airline had always been all Boeing until recently. They couldn't resist the A380 and A330-200/300's economics in these tough times for airlines.