On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:21:47 -0700, "Clark W. Griswold, Jr."
wrote:

AJC wrote:

Airbus have publicly admitted the thing is under weight.


Come on now - you know better than that. The thing is 5 tonnes over spec weight.
Here's just one current link:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...1/s1284400.htm



The thing is 0.4-0.5% under weight. Here's just one current link:


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...c&refer=europe



Other stories have quoted Airbus saying they can fix that. Maybe, maybe not. But
weight affects fuel burn, capacity and range. You can bet there are hard numbers
in every contract.


and budget limits.

And they've already admitted a rather large overrun.

What is the percentage overrun then?

Airbus is admitting to $2B on a what was supposed to be a $10B program. Call it
20%.

15% apparently!


In large part, that overrun is attributed to the overweight problem.

How does this compare with similar projects?

Historical comparisons are not all that meaningful. The financial world for
airlines has changed significantly in the past few years. The airlines that have
orders in now won't be affected by overruns anyway.

--==++AJC++==--