InsideFlyer.com [English] United States InsideFlyer.uk [English] United Kingdom InsideFlyer.de [German] Germany InsideFlyer.no [Norwegian] Norway InsideFlyer.se [Swedish] Sweden InsideFlyer.dk [Danish] Denmark InsideFlyer.nl [Dutch] Benelux
Discussion in 'British Airways | Executive Club' started by rwoman, Apr 10, 2012.
| Print Topic
Work starts on first BA superjumbo
Are the RR engines the only option for the A380 or does CFM and P&W/GE also have their own version of an engine for this bird....?
The A380 has two engine options:
The Rolls-Royce Trent 900 (in three variants of power options, mostly software differences);
The Engine Alliance GP 700 (has a GE-based core and PW-based fans and low pressure turbine system)
The story's completely wrong, of course - a classic example of thoroughly lazy journalism, probably written by someone who's misread and misunderstood the very carefully worded and planted PR piece put out by BA today.
Though full marks to the PR person for having spotted that there were gullible hacks there for the taking on a slow news day - easy meat.
Why is the story wrong...? care to elaborate...?
So what is wrong? They do have the RR engined A380's on order, a dozen of them, and the first one is scheduled to be delivered next year, and the first parts are indeed being delivered. Again, what is in error? Nothing at all, it seems.
The link is to the Airbus production schedule, showing the BA first aircraft with registration number included.
The "newsworthiness" of the story - the reason why any media outlets have published or broadcast it today - is in the very word "today".
You don't have to dig very far to find out that "construction" of this aircraft, in any reasonable sense, started in early February 2012. (The only other reasonable "start of construction" date - the start of final assembly - will probably not happen until May or June 2012.)
But the media would hardly have printed a story today that "construction of BA's first A380 started two months ago". So the word "today" was (deliberately, I think) missing from BA's Facebook post. And the hacks seem to have fallen for it - hook, line and sinker.
Historically the construction of a civil aircraft has been deemed to commence when there is a part that can be allocated to a given serial number. It seems that date can be arbitrary because many of the early parts can be assigned to multiple aircraft. It seems a bit harsh to me to call it "wrong". In fact since the start date is fairly arbitrary anyway, who cares? if it made a difference to somebody then I'd care. Oops, it DOES make a difference. Official start date occasions a progress payment under the purchase agreement, so it is an important date, albeit slightly arcane and arbitrary, but not in terms of the contract. I'd suspect they actually did care about that day and it really was as reported, because money changed hands.
Anyway, the rest of the world mostly cares about entry into service date, would you not think?
I don't much care when the actual start date was. I know that it was a long time ago.
But I care about bad journalism that's wrong because it's lazy. I care about bad journalism that merely regurgitates - and inaccurately regurgitates - a piece of corporate PR without doing any independent work on the story.
And because I care about these things, I think it worth pointing out when someone has simply posted the bad journalism without themselves checking any of the facts either. It wasn't difficult to find out that this story was a load of rubbish.
There's not an inkling of that in what BA said. That's clutching at straws, trying to defend an indefensible piece of bad journalism.