What Forgeard said was, that in the event that any other airline (ie. other than AF or BA) ever operated Concorde, Airbus would not support them.

If I told Ford to refuse to supply parts for my Mustang if ever my evil neighbour manages to acquire it, do you think Ford would say “yeah, sure”???

(I don’t have a Mustang by the way!)

Also, the fact that Airbus inherited Concorde from Aerospatiale/BAC is irrelevant. They assumed that particular liability and it remains a liability regardless of whether the aircraft was an “A” series or a product of an Airbus predecessor company.

Don’t you find it odd that Rolls Royce seem perfectly happy to support the Olympus engines, even though it inherited them from SNECMA and Bristol Siddeley?

So what if SIA got a good deal with Boeing by playing Airbus off? That is what all companies do – play hard ball to get the best deal. Sometimes A wins (Easyjet), sometimes B wins (Ryanair). The losers sometimes issue childish press releases (eg. Boeing losing out the A346 with Iberia recently). But Airbus has taken matters to a new level of childishness.

I stand by my assertion that Airbus have it in for SIA/VS.

I disagree, Airbus is the bad party.

Airbus have an obligation to support all their aircraft, irrespective of which airlines like or don’t like each other!

They keep on withdrawing that support for political reasons. Am I the only one to see the clear link – first, SIA are targeted, then their associate VS! It is all deeply pathetic and Airbus deserve to loose a really big order from somebody as a result. If I was an airline CEO, I would choose the 737NG now; I would not be prepared to risk Airbus throwing a tantrum in 10 years time and grounding my fleet. Forgeard must go.