tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45568420387083033862024-02-20T23:59:06.387+00:00Saj Ahmad StratAero Research Fact CheckerFact Checkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01144215114031979137noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556842038708303386.post-73675464280008403212013-10-07T15:18:00.001+01:002013-10-07T15:18:13.316+01:00Japan Airlines orders A350-900 and A350-1000<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Japan Airlines ordered the A350-900 and A350-1000. Instead of the Boeing 777X. It seems that the A350-1000 isn't as "dead" or "ailing" as one critic suggests, now does it?<br />
<br />
One of the reasons given, according to press reports, is that JAL is concerned about the delivery dates of the 777X and the ability of Boeing to deliver on time.</div>
Fact Checkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01144215114031979137noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556842038708303386.post-8062436267760622182013-07-11T15:44:00.000+01:002013-07-11T17:56:22.952+01:00'Absolute Mayhem': Is Saj Ahmad kidding?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Ever since Saj Ahmad begin hiding his 'analysis' behind a password, Fact Checker has ignored his rantings. His Tweets @strataero have been amusing diversions when you take the time to read them. His continuing shameless promotion of all things Boeing and rants of all things Airbus weere so over the top that how could anyone take him seriously?<br />
<br />
His Paris Air Show post, Absolute Mayhem: 787-10, is even more over the top than his usual rantings. The 787-10 will be a good airplane, of that there is no doubt. Is the A350-1000 as bad as Saj suggests? Tell that to the airlines that are now lining up to order the airplane and the possibility that Airbus will create a production line dedicated to the demand for it.<br />
<br />
'Absolute Mayhem'? More likely 'Absolutely Unbelievable'.</div>
Fact Checkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01144215114031979137noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556842038708303386.post-11329017621204652032013-01-08T21:37:00.000+00:002013-01-08T21:37:27.485+00:00Embraer choose P&W GTF<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Several news reepoirts indicate Embraer chose Pratt & Whitney's Geared Turbo Fan for the re-engining of the E-JET.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pw-eclipses-ge-once-dominant-lead-in-70-120-seat-segment-380822/?cmpid=SOC|FGFG|twitterfeed|Flightglobal">Flight International's report notes</a> that P&W has now supplanted GE as the dominate supplier of small engines.<br />
Saj Ahmad was engaged for years as a one-man crusader agqainst the GTF and in favor of the GE LEAP engine. What do you have to say today, Saj?</div>
Fact Checkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01144215114031979137noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556842038708303386.post-53340759457031587832012-11-18T05:33:00.001+00:002012-11-18T05:33:41.950+00:00Chop, Chop, 737/777/787: Wake Up, Saj Ahmad<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Saj Ahmad, the persistent Airbus-basher, c<a href="http://www.strategicaeroresearch.com/2012/11/13/chop-shop/">ontinues his one-sided, skewed look at things</a>. He doesn't mention that Boeing has 32 737 cancellations, 6 777s cancelled and 60 (that's right, 60) 787s cancelled this year.</div>
Fact Checkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01144215114031979137noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556842038708303386.post-68220732817046968892012-05-22T22:05:00.000+01:002012-05-22T22:05:06.686+01:00Saj Ahmad sucks up Boeing's fantasy<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Is Saj kidding?<br />
<br />
Is Boeing kidding?<br />
<br />
"Mike Bair's words still resonate after ISTAT"?<br />
<br />
Who are they kidding?<br />
<header class="entry-header">
<h1 class="entry-title">
<a href="http://www.strategicaeroresearch.com/2012/05/22/airbus-boeing-1/" rel="bookmark" title="Permalink to Boeing Marching To Put Airbus Out Of Business In The Twin Aisle Space? (Part One)">Boeing Marching To Put Airbus Out Of Business In The Twin Aisle Space? (Part One)</a></h1>
<div class="entry-meta">
<span class="sep">Posted on </span><a href="http://www.strategicaeroresearch.com/2012/05/22/airbus-boeing-1/" rel="bookmark" title="06:00"><time class="entry-date" datetime="2012-05-22T06:00:44+00:00" pubdate="">May 22, 2012</time></a> </div>
<div class="comments-link">
<a href="http://www.strategicaeroresearch.com/2012/05/22/airbus-boeing-1/#respond" title="Comment on Boeing Marching To Put Airbus Out Of Business In The Twin Aisle Space? (Part One)"><span class="leave-reply"></span></a> </div>
</header>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><em><strong>Three-Part Overview</strong></em><br />
<em><strong></strong></em></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><em><strong>Long Term Airbus / Boeing Positioning</strong></em></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><em><strong>Airbus Overview<br />
</strong></em></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><em><strong>Mike Bair’s Words Still Resonate After ISTAT</strong></em></li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While the end of the decade is some time
away, the next two-to-three years will ultimately define whether Airbus
or Boeing has the better, revenue generating widebody airplane line-up.</div>
</div>Fact Checkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01144215114031979137noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556842038708303386.post-73657456339682917182012-05-07T11:53:00.000+01:002012-05-07T11:53:09.600+01:00Saj Ahmad to Everett: Charleston will snare all 787 production<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Saj Ahmad has given another one of his "sage" predictions: he thinks Charleston, SC, will get all Boeing 787 production.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20120428/PC16/120429184&slId=15">He's quoted in the Charleston newspaper</a> on this prediction. He said:<br />
<br />
<div class="p14">
<i>Saj Ahmad is chief analyst at StrategicAero Research, a
private aviation consulting firm operating in Europe and the Middle
East. Ahmad said he thinks South Carolina could well become one of the
country’s largest aerospace manufacturing hubs in the coming years.
Boeing would not have invested so much in the area had it not planned on
maintaining a long-term presence, and other aerospace companies will
likely be drawn here as a result, he said.</i></div>
<div class="p15">
<i>While
Boeing’s roots go deep in Everett, Wash., it has a spanking new
production facility in Charleston and a workforce here that is trained
in the latest technologies and processes. Workers here didn’t have to
unlearn old ways of doing things to make this new-generation plane, he
said.</i></div>
<div class="p16">
<i>That bodes well for the plant landing more and
more work as Boeing expands its lines, and it could conceivably become
the main assembly point for 787s in the future, he said.</i></div>
<div class="p17">
<i>“I
don’t think South Carolina will be a one-trick pony,” Ahmad said. “I
think there is a very real opportunity for Charleston to snare all of
the 787 production.”</i></div>
<div class="p17">
<br /></div>
<div class="p17">
Fact Checker is sure IAM 751 will find this prediction of more than passing interest. Everett has the primary 787 line and the surge line, which gives Everett the ability to produce 10 787s a month. </div>
<div class="p17">
<br /></div>
<div class="p17">
The "analysis" reported by the Charleston paper is not only weird, the first part is hardly insightful--of course Boeing plans a long-term presence there.</div>
<div class="p17">
<br /></div>
<div class="p17">
The Everett IAM also had to fix all the problems coming out of Charleston.</div>
<div class="p17">
<br /></div>
<div class="p17">
<i><br /></i>Saj Ahmad and his new Strategic Aero Research still leave a lot of "analysis" behind.<i><br /></i></div>
</div>Fact Checkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01144215114031979137noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556842038708303386.post-53849335082449423582012-05-04T18:15:00.001+01:002012-05-04T18:15:45.990+01:00Saj Ahmad is 'back,' with 'analysis' at Strategic Aero Research<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
After a long absence, Saj Ahmad is back with supposed "analysis" that looks more to be public relations promotions for Boeing and CFM than analysis that actually is meaningful.<br />
Its hard to tell for sure, since he once again is using password-protected blog postings to hide what he writes, but what is in the public domain certainly lends to the conclusion that he is back to his old ways at Fleetbuzz Editorial.<br />
His latest posting simply repeats the line promoted by Boeing that the 787 will "kill" the A330 and the claims about how much kore efficient the 787 is than the A330. From the public portion of his posting, it appears that there is no balance that would make an "analysis" meaningful.<br />
A previous blog about CFM's win at Qantas suggests in the public portion that Pratt & Whitney is in dire shape after CFM won this competition. <a href="http://aeroturbopower.blogspot.com/2012/04/leap-leaps-ahead.html">A blog from Aeroturbopower</a> puts a better perspective in fewer words about what is behind the Qantas win.<br />
Fact Checker enjoyed the time off, hoping that Ahmad might have mended bhis ways. No such luck. It looks like Fact Checker is back as well.<br />
<br /></div>Fact Checkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01144215114031979137noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556842038708303386.post-4271799523060238142012-03-08T21:14:00.000+00:002012-03-08T21:14:23.045+00:00Boeing asks GE, RR and P&W for engine proposals on 777X<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Note to "Matthew": Aspire Aviation was right all along. <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2012/03/rolls-royce-pratt-whitney-set.html">Boeing did ask for data from the three engine manufacturers.</a></div>Fact Checkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01144215114031979137noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556842038708303386.post-73811549443524780842011-12-15T13:23:00.000+00:002011-12-15T13:23:27.692+00:00Saj Ahmad quiet on P&W JetBlue win<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Saj Ahmad, the unrelenting cheerleader for CFM, had nothing to say when JetBlue selected the Pratt & Whtiney GTF for its A320neo order. This was a hot competition between P&W and CFM. JetBlue leases a lot of Embraer E-190s, which are powered by GE engines, from GECAS, a sister company to CFM.<br />
<br />
Aeroturbopower, who obviously knows something about engines and a lot more than Ahmad, <a href="http://aeroturbopower.blogspot.com/2011/12/technology-credibility.html">delves into some technical issue</a>s between the GTF and LEAP engines. But as Fact Checker has long pointed out, facts don't seem to be important to Ahamd.</div>Fact Checkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01144215114031979137noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556842038708303386.post-23899021544200722152011-12-11T16:11:00.000+00:002011-12-11T16:11:04.661+00:00SAj Ahmad and "StrategicAero Research"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Saj Ahmad now identifies himself as being with "StrategicAero Research", whatever that is. The website for this company is http://strategicaeroresearch.com/ and initially is "Under Maintenance, Check Back Later".<br />
<br />
The first evidence that Ahmad now uses the new name appeared 11 December <a href="http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/industry-insights/aviation/million-a-month-use-abu-dhabi-airport">in the Gulf regional newspaper "The Nation</a>". Ahmad's Fleetbuzz Editorial password protected website still is published.<br />
<br />
</div>Fact Checkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01144215114031979137noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556842038708303386.post-44751580152963228492011-12-09T18:56:00.000+00:002011-12-09T18:56:38.157+00:00SAj Ahmad's lack of understanding SEC rules<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Fact Checker finally got a copy of Saj Ahmad's "protected" posting on the Pratt & Whtiney geared turbo fan and it is stunning in its lack of understanding.<br />
<br />
Ahmad relies on Pratt & Whtiney including what is called "Forward Looking Statements" in the press release that are required under US securities laws to attack P&W claims on fuel efficiency.<br />
<br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style> <![endif]--> <div class="MsoNormal">“It comes as a surprise to see Pratt & Whitney caveat all of its fuel burn claims from once cited as "16%" to now "double digit" in its press releases”, Ahmad writes.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">If he is surprised, he hasn't been reading his own writings. He has been whinging on about "double-digit" references for years.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">He then repeats P&W's Forward Looking statement: </div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">"Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated or implied in forward looking statements include changes in the health of the global economy and the strength of end market demand in the aerospace industry; as well as company specific items including the ability to achieve cost reductions at planned levels; challenges in the design, development, production and support of advanced technologies including this engine, and new products including the engine discussed in this press release; and delays and disruption in delivery of materials and services from suppliers."</div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“Why else would such a forward looking statement contain, what effectively amount to get out clauses, if the technology suite in the GTF was or is as good as Pratt & Whitney claim to be”? Ahmad writes.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">This shows a remarkable lack of understanding (or worse, a willful desire to ignore) US securities laws.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">This is a typical Forward Looking statement from one of the most successful companies in the world, Southwest Airlines"</div><div class="MsoNormal"> </div>"This website contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Forward-looking statements are based on, and include statements about, the Company"s beliefs, intentions, expectations, and strategies for the future. Specific forward-looking statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts and include, without limitation, words such as "plans," "believes," "expects," "anticipates," "may," "could," "intends," "goal," "will," "should," and similar expressions and variations thereof. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual results may differ materially from what is expressed in or indicated by the Company"s forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause these differences include, but are not limited to, the factors described under the heading "Risk Factors" in the Company's most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, and in other filings, the press releases and materials contained on this website. The Company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of new information, future events, or developments, except as required by federal securities laws."<br />
<div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">There is very similar language between Southwest and P&W.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">If this example is not enough, then look at the Forward Looking statement of Boeing and note the similarities between the statements. Of course, Saj loves all things Boeing but this doesn't come in for the same sort of whinging directed at P&W.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><b>"Forward-Looking Statements </b><br />
This document contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Words such as "may," "should," "expects," "intends," "projects," "plans," "believes," "estimates," "targets," "anticipates," and similar expressions are used to identify these forward-looking statements. Examples of forward-looking statements include statements relating to our future financial condition and operating results, as well as any other statement that does not directly relate to any historical or current fact. Forward-looking statements are based on our current expectations and assumptions, which may not prove to be accurate. These statements are not guarantees and are subject to risks, uncertainties, and changes in circumstances that are difficult to predict. Many factors could cause actual results to differ materially and adversely from these forward-looking statements. Among these factors are risks related to: (1) general conditions in the economy and our industry, including those due to regulatory changes; (2) our reliance on our commercial customers, our suppliers and the worldwide market; (3) our commercial development programs, including the 787 and 747-8 commercial aircraft programs; (4) changing acquisition priorities of the U.S. government; (5) our dependence on U.S. government contracts; (6) our reliance on fixed-price contracts; (7) our reliance on cost-type contracts; (8) uncertainties concerning contracts that include in-orbit incentive payments; (9) changes in accounting estimates; (10) changes in the competitive landscape in our markets; (11) our non-U.S. operations, including sales to non-U.S. customers; (12) potential adverse developments in new or pending litigation and/or government investigations; (13) customer and aircraft concentration in Boeing Capital Corporation's customer financing portfolio; (14) changes in our ability to obtain debt on commercially reasonable terms and at competitive rates in order to fund our operations and contractual commitments; (15) realizing the anticipated benefits of mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures, strategic alliances or divestitures; (16) the adequacy of our insurance coverage to cover significant risk exposures; (17) potential business disruptions related to physical security threats, information technology attacks or natural disasters; (18) work stoppages or other labor disruptions; (19) significant changes in discount rates and actual investment return on pension assets; and (20) potential environmental liabilities".<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div></div>Fact Checkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01144215114031979137noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556842038708303386.post-59739777982660835922011-11-27T21:47:00.000+00:002011-11-27T21:47:36.409+00:00While Saj Ahmad disses GTF, Time magazine honours it<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Saj Ahmad and Fleetbuzz has renewed the long-running attack on the Pratt & Whitney GTF, returning to his private postings but issuing inflammatory headlines and Tweets. In his latest, Ahamd, the "analyst" without a public CV, claims concerns continue with the GTF.<br />
In the meantime, Time magazine honoured the engine as one of the 50 best inventions in 2011. Time has been doing this list for years.<br />
With Ahmad's post returning to "protected" status, there is no way to know if he talks about the challenges CFM is having with the LEAP-X engine. Or is it possible to know if Ahmad talks about the concerns the industry has about the exoctic materials for the LEAP-X that are used to try and meet the GTF fuel economy.<br />
How about making this post public, Saj?</div>Fact Checkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01144215114031979137noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556842038708303386.post-47684770783855688932011-11-23T16:41:00.001+00:002011-11-23T16:42:08.749+00:00Saj Ahmad: All mouth and no trousers<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Saj Ahmad resurfaced in recent weeks, showing a complete lack of "analysis", but resorting to invective and insults instead of providing any rational or rationale for his positions.<br />
He started with insults for John Leahy of Airbus, followed by a remarkable display of hypocrisy over the A350.<br />
His latest is over scruitiny of A350 delays, with the question why the delays are receiving the same attention as those of the Boeing 787.<br />
Never mind that Airbus is owning up to delays well in advance of consturction of the first A350.<br />
Boeing rolled out the 787 and said the first flight would be two months later.<br />
As further delays were revealed, led mostly by Jon Ostrower of Flightblogger, but also by JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and some other key analysts, who was the biggest denier? None other than Fleetbuzz Editorial and Saj Ahmad.<br />
Ahmad was the biggest denier of delays for the 747-8.<br />
Boeing denied delays all the time and Ahmad was the biggest denier of them all.Also, the 787 scruitiny began as roll-out neared.<br />
This makes his latest missive all the more hilarious.</div>Fact Checkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01144215114031979137noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556842038708303386.post-51568779539524092262011-11-16T14:22:00.000+00:002011-11-16T14:22:08.094+00:00Saj Ahmad back to his insulting ways<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">NO comment from Fact Checker is needed.<br />
<br />
<div class="tweet-content"> <div class="tweet-row"> <span class="tweet-user-name"> <a class="tweet-screen-name user-profile-link js-action-profile-name" data-user-id="14107703" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/FleetBuzz" title="FleetBuzz Editorial">FleetBuzz</a> <span class="tweet-full-name">FleetBuzz Editorial</span> </span> <div class="tweet-corner"> <div class="tweet-meta"> <span class="icons"> <div class="extra-icons"> <span class="reply-icon icon js-reply-notice">@</span> <span class="inlinemedia-icons js-icon-container"></span> </div></span> </div></div></div><div class="tweet-row"> <div class="tweet-text js-tweet-text"><a class=" twitter-atreply pretty-link" data-screen-name="vumi10" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/vumi10" rel="nofollow"><s>@</s><b>vumi10</b></a> Typical cop-out from armchair expert. Do one, <a class=" twitter-hashtag pretty-link" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search?q=%23tool" rel="nofollow" title="#tool"><s class="hash">#</s><b>tool</b></a></div></div><div class="tweet-row"> <a class="tweet-timestamp js-permalink" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/FleetBuzz/status/135109033190359040" title="1:37 PM, Nov 11th"><span class="_old-timestamp" data-long-form="true" data-time="1321047478000">11 Nov</span></a> <span class="tweet-actions js-actions" data-tweet-id="135109033190359040"><span class="tweet-action action-favorite"><a class="favorite-action js-toggle-fav" href="https://twitter.com/#" title="Favorite"><span></span></a></span><span class="tweet-action action-retweet"><a class="retweet-action js-toggle-rt" href="https://twitter.com/#" title="Retweet"><span></span></a></span><a class="reply-action js-action-reply" data-screen-name="FleetBuzz" href="https://twitter.com/#" title="Reply"><span></span></a></span> </div><div class="tweet-row tweet-activity tweet-activity-retweets"> </div></div><div class="tweet-image"> <img alt="FleetBuzz Editorial" class="user-profile-link js-action-profile-avatar" data-user-id="14107703" height="48" src="https://twimg0-a.akamaihd.net/profile_images/1258823616/Boeing_777-200LR_normal.jpg" width="48" /> </div><div class="tweet-row"> <span class="tweet-user-name"> <a class="tweet-screen-name user-profile-link js-action-profile-name" data-user-id="14107703" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/FleetBuzz" title="FleetBuzz Editorial">FleetBuzz</a> <span class="tweet-full-name">FleetBuzz Editorial</span> </span> <div class="tweet-corner"> <div class="tweet-meta"> <span class="icons"> <div class="extra-icons"> <span class="reply-icon icon js-reply-notice">@</span> <span class="inlinemedia-icons js-icon-container"></span> </div></span> </div></div></div><div class="tweet-row"> <div class="tweet-text js-tweet-text"><a class=" twitter-atreply pretty-link" data-screen-name="vumi10" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/vumi10" rel="nofollow"><s>@</s><b>vumi10</b></a> Funniest <a class=" twitter-hashtag pretty-link" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search?q=%23shit" rel="nofollow" title="#shit"><s class="hash">#</s><b>shit</b></a> I ever seen! Bwhahahaha!!! <a class=" twitter-hashtag pretty-link" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search?q=%23A340" rel="nofollow" title="#A340"><s class="hash">#</s><b>A340</b></a> & "efficient" <a class=" twitter-hashtag pretty-link" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search?q=%23oxymoron" rel="nofollow" title="#oxymoron"><s class="hash">#</s><b>oxymoron</b></a> if there ever was one. <a class=" twitter-hashtag pretty-link" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search?q=%23A340" rel="nofollow" title="#A340"><s class="hash">#</s><b>A340</b></a> = <a class=" twitter-hashtag pretty-link" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search?q=%23craptacular" rel="nofollow" title="#craptacular"><s class="hash">#</s><b>craptacular</b></a>.</div></div></div>Fact Checkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01144215114031979137noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556842038708303386.post-64295369690002434312011-11-11T16:00:00.000+00:002011-11-11T16:00:59.749+00:00Saj Ahmad finally publishes a public post--with no analysis<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Saj Ahmad, the self-proclaimed "analyst", finally published a public post after more than a year. No wonder he keeps his posts private. This post about the A340 termination and A350 delay was completely absent of any analysis or information. It was a self-congratulatory bloviating piece of opinion.<br />
<br />
A true "analyst" would provide information and analysis about why Airbus did what it did. Nothing.<br />
<br />
There still is no information about his CV that gives anyone any basis on which to determine his credentials. <br />
<br />
Ahmad's "About":<br />
<div id="top"></div><div class="widget-area top" role="complementary"> </div><div class="header-title"> <h1>About</h1></div><strong><em>FleetBuzz Editorial.com </em></strong>is a private intelligence and analysis resource for the aerospace, airline and aviation industries.<br />
<em><strong>Do not</strong></em> ask for a password to the content because you <em><strong>won’t</strong></em> be given one.<br />
<em><strong>Strictly by invitation only.</strong></em><br />
<br />
<br />
</div>Fact Checkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01144215114031979137noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556842038708303386.post-1609499538586739362011-11-10T15:27:00.000+00:002011-11-10T15:27:12.748+00:00Saj Ahmad is back with his snide comments<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">After a long and blessed absence, Saj Ahmad--the "analyst" without any discernable CV--is back with his snide comments.<br />
<br />
Instead of offering useful commentary, Ahmad is up to his old tricks of trashing Airbus:<br />
<br />
"Will <a class=" twitter-atreply pretty-link" data-screen-name="Airbus" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/Airbus" rel="nofollow"><s>@</s><b>Airbus</b></a> John Leahy follow thru on promise he made to shoot himself now that A350-900 is delayed? <a class=" twitter-atreply pretty-link" data-screen-name="qatarairways" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/qatarairways" rel="nofollow"><s>@</s><b>qatarairways</b></a> CEO might be 1st to it!"<br />
<br />
<div class="tweet-row"> <span class="tweet-user-name"> <span class="tweet-full-name"></span> </span> <div class="tweet-corner"> <div class="tweet-meta"> <span class="icons"> <div class="extra-icons"> <span class="inlinemedia-icons js-icon-container"></span> </div></span> </div></div></div>"Time To Kill Off The Waste-Of-Time Airbus A350-800"<br />
<br />
These pointless, snide comments provide no useful "analysis" and certainly no facts.<br />
<br />
When is Ahmad going to actually provide useful comment for all of us to read?<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>Fact Checkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01144215114031979137noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556842038708303386.post-47790601539857676642011-08-12T16:52:00.000+01:002011-08-12T16:52:01.495+01:00Where is Saj Ahmad about Embraer 2,000nm concept?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">According to Flight International and Merrill Lynch's aerospace analyst Ron Epstein, Embraer is planning on a new airplane with 2x3 seating and 2,000nm range.<br />
<br />
These are both elements Ahmad has bleated about for two years with the CSeries (even though he constantly misrepresents the CSeries range capability).<br />
<br />
Where is he on the Embraer concept? Silent, just like he is silent on Boeing's No Launch Operator for the 737RE.<br />
<br />
What's that game, Where's Waldo?<br />
<br />
Where's Saj?</div>Fact Checkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01144215114031979137noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556842038708303386.post-26124733476752839702011-07-29T00:58:00.000+01:002011-07-29T00:58:57.031+01:00Speaking of no launch operator, where's Saj Ahmad?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">For the past two years, that sage "analyst" Saj Ahmad complained bitterly that Bombardier didn't have a launch operator for its CSeries.<br />
<br />
Neither does Boeing for the 737 re-engine. American Airlines doesn't want the plane until 2018 and Boeing planes to introduce the 737RE in 2016. Boeing doesn't want to be the first to operate the 737RE.<br />
<br />
Where's Saj? Awfully quiet, that's where. Not a peep.</div>Fact Checkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01144215114031979137noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556842038708303386.post-51248269821056224752011-07-20T13:11:00.000+01:002011-07-20T13:11:44.623+01:00Saj Ahamd twists facts, againSaj Ahamd, the self-proclaimed aviation analyst without a C.V. that is available to see his credentials, is at it again.<br />
<br />
In a tweet he once more tries to perpetuate that the current CSeries was launched in 2004 and 2008 is a re-launch. The 2004 version was a similar but different design using old engines and old materials. Bombardier withdrew this design from the market and in 2008 launched the current design, using advanced materials, an advanced engine and larger capacity.<br />
<br />
And, as usual, Ahamd selectively chooses the "facts" to fit his irrational hatred of the CSeries. While he perpetuates the myth that the current CSeries does not have trans-continental US range (despite the fact that the Bombardier website clearly shows a 2,950nm range for the extended range version), while Ahmad points to the 2004 press release to bolster his "case" about short range, the <i>headline</i> in that very release and the text point to the CSeries trans-continental range. If this self-promoting analyst-without-C.V. is going to use the 2004 press release to perpetuate his myths, then he has to drop his myth about the range and rely on the same press release that headlines trans-continental range.<br />
<br />
The duplicity is there for all to see.<br />
<br />
And then there is his next Tweet, "A320 consumes 10-15% more fuel than 737", linking to an article--but neglecting to add that in the very same sentence, the reporter includes that Airbus disputes the figure.<br />
<br />
Once more this self-proclaimed analyst-without-C.V. selectively chooses his "facts".Fact Checkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01144215114031979137noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556842038708303386.post-62511077657394329782011-07-03T17:07:00.000+01:002011-07-03T17:07:32.619+01:00Saj Ahmad: the "analyst" who can't make up his mind<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><span class="blac9KTBIZ"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-font-kerning: .5pt;">"...the market penetration for new A320neo’s will be high,” said Saj Ahmad Chief Analyst at FBE Aerospace London.--Khaleej Times, 24 June, 2011.</span></span><br />
<span class="blac9KTBIZ"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 125%;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="blac9KTBIZ"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 125%;">"Airbus A320neo may be scapped." Fleetbuzz Editorial, 5 April, 2011.</span></span><br />
<span class="blac9KTBIZ"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 125%;"><br />
</span></span><br />
"The fact that a big Asian airline has decided to agree in principle to commit to the CSeries should alleviate concerns about Bombardier's ability to market and sell the airplane, particularly when Airbus and Boeing combined have over 4,000 A320s and 737s yet to be delivered," said Saj Ahmad, a chief analyst at FBE Aerospace.--Wall Street Journal, 21 June, 2011.<br />
<br />
<span class="blac9KTBIZ"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 125%;">This is the first nice thing Ahmad has ever said about the CSeries. Who knows--maybe hell will freeze over after all. </span></span><br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody>
<tr><td class="storyAuthor"><br />
</td></tr>
<tr><td class="storyBody"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table></div>Fact Checkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01144215114031979137noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556842038708303386.post-46937874010896614962011-06-23T21:18:00.000+01:002011-06-23T21:18:03.004+01:00Covertly promoting himself: Saj Ahmad does email campaign<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Fact Checker learned that Saj Ahmad, the self-promoting "analyst who doesn't tell anyone what his credentials are, endlessly promotes himself by sending journalists an unending stream of long unsolicited comments on a never-ending series of topics, ranging from maintenance, repair and overall to one of his favourite bashing targets, the A350. (Fact Checker was <i>shocked</i>, mind you, <i>shocked</i> when he recently had something nice to say about the Bombardier CSeries following the order by Korean Air Lines. If there is anything Ahmad hates worse than Airbus, it is Bombardier.)<br />
<br />
<br />
Given his long unsolicited and frequent missives, you have to wonder how he has time to be an analyst (for money, that is).</div>Fact Checkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01144215114031979137noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556842038708303386.post-69256983646749882602011-06-13T11:00:00.000+01:002011-06-13T11:00:25.981+01:00Saj Ahmad, the Airbus-basher, and his A350 predictions: are they any good?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Saj Ahmad has a multi-year history of being a basher of all things about Airbus (except when he uses the A320neo, which he also has a history of bashing, to bash the one thing he hates ever more--the Bombardier CSeries).<br />
<br />
All you have to do is check out Airliners.net and Google searches to see his venom toward Airbus, exceeded only by his buddy, the late Doug McVitie.<br />
<br />
Ahmad's latest comes<a href="http://www.airlineberg.com/index.php/2011/06/08/a350-delay-may-hit-gulf-carriers/"> in an article</a> on airlineberg.com. In it, he is quoted as follows....<br />
<br />
<br />
“With Emirates, Etihad and launch customer for all three A350 variants, Qatar Airways, hoping that Airbus can avoid the pitfalls seen by Boeing on the 787, it appears increasingly likely that a series of crippling delays are inevitable for Airbus’ latest wide-body airplane,” said Saj Ahmad, Chief Analyst at FBE Aerospace, London."<br />
<br />
"He said it is certain that the A350XWB airplane will be at least 18-24 months late with the subsequent A350-800 and A350-1000 models also being delayed by similar timescales."<br />
<br />
“Airbus is still coming to terms with the problems and delays faced on the A380 programme and now with the A350 poised to slide as well, the big three Arab carriers, as well as leasing companies like DAE and ALAFCO will have to seriously consider their near-term capacity options,” Ahmad said."<br />
<br />
On a high level, these comments may appear to be reasonable. However, his predictions that "it is certain" the A350s will be "at least 18-24" months late are awfully, to use his word, "certain." Only time will tell if this is correct, but remember that this comes from the same person who steadfastly refused to believe the Boeing 787 and the 747-8 were going to be late. Ahmad made excuses for Boeing through half the 787 delays and relented in his unremitting defence only after it became too embarrassing to defend the airplane. He followed a similar patter with the 747-8, refusing to concede delays were coming to this programme.<br />
<br />
Although he claims to be a sage analyst and particularly well connected to the Middle East (he boasts of his dual bases in London and the Middle East), Ahmad fails to realise that DAE Capital, the leasing company, is winding up its business and has been cancelling all its new orders. DAE doesn't care when the A350 is delivered. It will have cancelled all the orders well before the delivery date.<br />
<br />
Will the A350 be delayed? Yes. Delivery schedules already slipped from the first half of 2013 to the second half. Will they be delayed "at least" 18-24 months, as Ahmad predicts? There is little in his history on predicting the 787 and 747-8 will be on time or that Airbus won't proceed with the A320neo programme, or that airlines and leasing companies won't buy the Pratt & Whitney geared turbo fan to give confidence that this prediction is any better than those.<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>Fact Checkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01144215114031979137noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556842038708303386.post-15706736937744823432011-06-07T20:41:00.000+01:002011-06-07T20:41:16.937+01:00More myth-busting for Saj Ahmad and Fleetbuzz<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">It's time for some more myth-busting of Saj Ahmad and Fleetbuzz.There's so much fodder--where to begin?<br />
<br />
<b>In a blog posting</b> 13 October 2010, Ahmad said,“While Airbus seems poised to push ahead with re-engining the A320 family, more likely because it has no choice or money to go with a more comprehensive update due to its cash commitments on the A380, A350 and A400M - it is likely that Boeing will sit on the sidelines to come up with something as game-changing for the narrowbody market in the same way as the 787 has been a game-changer for the widebody market.To that end, the relationship that Boeing has with CFM International as well as the room for improvement on the current CFM56-7BE engine, Airbus could find itself saddled with a GTF engine that delivers less than 9% better fuel burn while incurring $2 billion or more for that privilege and Boeing could achieve the same without a new engine, thereby increasing commonality for operators and keeping the costs down. That is far more of an incentive for buyers than is Airbus’ proposals and it resonates because we haven’t exactly seen a queue of customers banging on Airbus’ door to get the GTF engine given that it is still laden with performance issues that Pratt & Whitney simply chooses not to want to discuss. One only looks at the pathetic sales of the CSeries to see that the GTF is as big a problem as the airplane and that’s why airlines won’t buy it.” <b> </b><br />
<br />
<b>Fact:</b> Ahmad comes up with "less than 9%" out of thin air, or at least he doesn't cite any source for this claim. Airbus said over and over the A320neo uses up to 15% less fuel, with 3.5% coming from the sharlets. This means 12.5% comes from the engine.<br />
<br />
<strong>More</strong>: EADS has a cash balance of more than 11 billion euros. That's a lot more than Boeing has, and Saj continually boosts the idea Boeing will proceed with a new airplane to replace the 737. If EADS doesn't have the cash required for a new airplane, what about his favourite company?<br />
<br />
<b>More</b>: where does Ahmad come up with "Boeing could achieve the same without a new engine...."? No facts, no sources, just another thin-air claim. Even Boeing doesn't make this claim.<br />
<br />
<b>More</b>: P&W "doesn't want to discuss" performance issues? P&W has frequently discussed performance issues.<br />
<br />
<strong>More</strong>: All A320neo orders so far have been for the GTF. The fact is, Saj, that the customers aren't lining up for the Leap-X.<br />
<br />
<b>Performance and the GTF</b>. In Chapter 3 of the Saj Ahmad/Fleetbuzz Comedy Show, Ahmad persistently criticises the GTF and likes to say it hasn't flown on the CSeries. At the same time, he persistently touts the performance and fuel savings of the CFM Leap-X.<br />
<br />
<strong>Fact</strong>: What makes this so laughable is that the CFM Leap-X hasn't flown at all and it is years behind in testing vs. the GTF. The GTF has flown on the P&W test 747 and on the A340-600 test airplane. He also dismisses the positive comments of Boeing's Mike Bair about the GTF.<br />
<br />
<b>A320neo</b>: Orient Aviation <a href="http://www.orientaviation.com/section.php?currenyIssue=I20110415160401-lS19A&currentSection=newsbackgrounders&currentArticle=A20110428100418-57Pb3&">has a good article</a> talking about the neo and <a href="http://www.orientaviation.com/section.php?currenyIssue=I20110415160401-lS19A&currentSection=newsbackgrounders&currentArticle=A20110428110440-0f79E&">another talking about the GTF</a>. In it, Tom Ballentyne quotes Airbus' Tom Williams endorsing the GTF and P&W's testing methodology. Ballentyne also quotes Lufthansa's Nico Buchholz, the head of fleet planning, about the GTF engine and the A320neo. While Ahmad continues to dismiss the neo (except when he bases the Bombardier CSeries, then the neo is the cat's meow) and the GTF, Ahmad has never interviewed Airbus or Buchholz, so he chooses to ignore their information.<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"></ul><strong></strong><br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;"></ul></div>Fact Checkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01144215114031979137noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556842038708303386.post-46028582032832904602011-04-28T07:22:00.001+01:002011-04-28T14:58:40.106+01:00Saj Ahmad got it wrong (again) on Pratt & Whitney GTF<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Saj Ahmad's 10 Aug 2010, "analysis" via GLG (through Google News) is so laughable it deserves to be reproduced in its entirety. Fact Checker's Fact Checks follow.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>Summary</i></b><br />
<i>Pratt & Whitney may end up a big loser if either re-engining doesn’t happen or if it is blocked out on a new narrowbody.</i><i> </i><br />
<div><b><i> Analysis</i></b><br />
<ol style="text-align: left;"><li><i>CFM International is under pressure to find another platform for the LEAP-X engine, but being aligned with the COMAC C919 means that they will have less to worry about than Pratt & Whitney.</i></li>
<li><i>Pratt & Whitney has to develop three different fan and core engines for the Mitsubishi MRJ, the Irkut MC-21 and the Bombardier CSeries. That’s three times more risk than CFM is taking on. Further, any re-engine efforts by Airbus and Boeing would mean a fourth engine needs to be developed and would not be available until at least 2016, by Pratt & Whitney’s own admission.</i></li>
<li><i>The MC-21 will struggle to sell beyond Russia and the MRJ can still be usurped by Embraer, who are rightly playing their cards close to their chest right now. The CSeries, as we all know, has been a six year long disaster yet to turn any corner (</i><i>if ever). The C919, being a different animal may not sell well, if at all beyond the Chinese border, but in sheer unit terms, it will outsell and out deliver its nearest rivals in the CSeries and MC-21 combined.</i></li>
<li><i>If Boeing re-engines the 737, the fact that the LEAP-X engine can fit with less headaches (and cost) than previously thought, Pratt & Whitney would be isolated from one of the big two OEMs. It cannot hope to recoup its engine investments on the marginalised MRJ-MC-21-CSeries triumvirate. Even if Pratt & Whitney is selected by Airbus (who want the GTF engine through the IAE consortium), they will be pitted <a href="http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2010/03/04/airbus-a320/">directly against the LEAP-X</a>. There are hardcore A320 customers who will not operate anything other than CFM engines – for Pratt & Whitney to make them switch will be an arduous task if not outright miraculous since the LEAP-X exists.</i></li>
<li><i>Pratt & Whitney’s capital outlay for (potentially) four new engines against one CFM engine will be difficult to cover, especially if within a decade the move to a clean sheet replacement emerges – does Pratt & Whitney have the financial and engineering resources to partake? Probably, but that doesn’t mean they can deliver – the woeful PW4098 and PW6000 engines are proof of that.</i></li>
<li><i>And while Pratt & Whitney’s partner in the IAE consortium, Rolls-Royce, continues to deride the benefits of the (essentially four decade old) geared turbofan design, the U.K engine maker is believed to favour the airline view of going toward a new narrowbody design ahead of re-engining the current A320 and 737 families.</i></li>
<li><i>Pratt & Whitney is certainly back into the market and has made its presence felt, but the love isn’t being shared by everyone in the industry. The company is already dead in the large airplane market and its success in the narrowbody market is at the mercy of its competitors and their offerings.</i></li>
<li><i>With CFM International at relative ease knowing that the C919 will be a hot seller post-Zhuhai Air Show, Pratt & Whitney may yet be marginalised all over again because of its alignment to products whose own longevity is questionable.</i></li>
</ol><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Fact Checker's Fact Checks</b></div><div class="MsoNormal">Going down Ahmad's "analysis" point-by-point:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Summary</b>: Airbus has more than 300 orders for the A320/321neo and so far every customer who has chosen an engine has selected the Pratt & Whitney GTF. With Boeing putting off proceeding with a new airplane for another year or two, there is little to worry about for Pratt. Boeing says it likes what it sees in the GTF.</div><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>CFM "has less to worry about than Pratt". This is another of Ahmad's fitting the situation to suit his purposes. As another one of Fact Checker's posts revealed, Ahmad runs hot and cold on C919 depending on his point of the day.</li>
<li>Pratt's GTF core is scalable; Ahmad completely overstates the risk. Furthermore, one needs to remember that nothing Ahamd has written suggests he has talked with any independent, knowledgeable engineers--rather, it seems his information is derived from his small circle of nay-sayers.</li>
<li>The MC-21 has sold to Malaysia and in fact has more sales than the C919. Ahmad once again gets his facts wrong on the CSeries launch date: it was launched in 2008; 2010 minus 2008 is, by anyone's math except Ahamd's, two years not six. Ahmad also wrote the C919 will sell well at least within China. Keep this thought in mind.</li>
<li>"Pratt won't make CFM customers switch to GTF because Leap-X is available." Don't count on this.</li>
<li>Sheer speculation that, in fairness to Ahmad, will takes years to provie right or wrong.</li>
<li>Considering this had been in the press for months before Ahmad wrote this "analysis", this is hardly a sage opinion.</li>
<li>This is a baffling statement that defies rationality or fact checking.</li>
<li>"The C919 will be a hot-seller post Zhuhai Air Show". See Fact Checker's previous post in which Ahmad ran down the C919 just 30 days later. Also, the C919 had disappointing sales at the Zhuhai air show in November (only 55 firm orders) and none since.<br />
</li>
</ol></div></div>Fact Checkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01144215114031979137noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556842038708303386.post-32655684040701159982011-04-16T15:19:00.000+01:002011-04-16T15:19:34.585+01:00Saj Ahmad and Fleetbuzz: getting it wrong on airline analysis<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Saj Ahmad has been a regular contributor to the Arabian Supply Chain website, and is often called by certain Middle Eastern press to provide analysis and commentary on airline matters in the Middle East.<br />
<br />
But his track record at Arabian Supply isn't any better than his track record on matters involving Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, and Pratt & Whitney.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.arabiansupplychain.com/article-4847-qantas-cast-aside-due-to-etihad-partnership/#show=comments">Take a look at this one example</a>. It's typical; note the comments by readers. <a href="http://www.arabiansupplychain.com/article-4878-emirates-etihad-qatar-airways-in-that-order/1/print/#show=comments">Another exampl</a>e, also ar Arabian Supply Chain, is also the subject of a "Fact Check". Or <a href="http://www.arabiansupplychain.com/article-4669-too-late-many-have-already-written-off-cseries/#show=comments">this one, in which Ahmad once more misrepresents the fact</a>s about the CSeries. The readers justifiably challenge Ahmad on this "analysis."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.arabiansupplychain.com/article-4229-chinese-airlines-poised-to-move-on-c919/">His column touting the COMAC C919</a> is another episode in the Saj Ahmad and Fleetbuzz industry comedy show. While he praises the C919 here, in other columns--including on his now-hidden Fleetbuzz Editorial--he's dismissed the C919 threat to Boeing. He can't even keep his own opinions straight.<br />
<br />
Ahmad has this to say about the C919:<br />
<br />
<br />
“China may well have broken the barriers to entry and emerge as a viable rival to Airbus and Boeing, but given that it has based the ARJ21 on an old design and the C919 is more than likely a rehash of a reverse-engineered Airbus A320 – China has to find a way of producing airplanes that it can sell en masse beyond its borders.<br />
<br />
"Airbus and Boeing already have great relationships with many carriers – will these airlines really support a state producer if Airbus and Boeing already fit the bill for them?<br />
<br />
"Unlikely. What China needs is innovation, not emulation. Right now their aerospace activities bear a striking and scary resemblance to their carmakers, who have plagiarized many cars by bigger and better automakers.” <a href="http://www.aspireaviation.com/2009/09/11/">Sept. 11, 2009</a>.<br />
<br />
It hardly gets more harsh than that. Or more contradictory of his own opinions. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJallBJgrDI">He may as well be chasing his own tail.</a></div>Fact Checkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01144215114031979137noreply@blogger.com0