dress it up how you like.

If its not out on the day Airbus originaly planned, its delayed 😉

I guess you are competing for 1st prize for tautology :confused:

Trying to understand what and why would seem more interesting and constructive to me. But if you’re in such need to make a point, please do!!

regardless of the interpretation.

A delay is a delay.

Not quite, currently the project is running between one and two months late (ie in terms of first flight planned). If airbus then tells Singapore today that the plane will be one and two months late, it means that the programme will simply follow its course. If, on the other hand, it adds four months to the schedule it means that the first flight has show some potential problems.

From Yahoo

anyone want to venture a guess why? The weight?

The funny thing though is that the FT article doesn’t say that the delivery of the A380 will be postponed to the end of 2006, but to the second semester of 2006 (it states “in der zweiten Jahreshälfte 2006”). Which could mean July as it could mean 31 December.

I am not too impressed by the interpretation of the Dow Jones service!!!

There is one element you may want to take into consideration as well, and this concerns Brazil.

Brazil is currently seeking to obtain a permanent seat on the UN Security Coucil (and so do Japan, India, Germany et al.). One way of buttressing one’s candidacy is to show that one can effectively (in terms of military capacity) take part in multilateral peace missions, either within a UN peacekeeping mandate or a different type of coalition.

Brazil has taken steps in order to show that they can indeed contribute to “peace promotion” by taking in charge the UN Mission to Haiti. It would also seem logical that it reinforces its military capacity overall (and in particular where major loopholes may exist) in order to obtain that UNSC seat.

This meaning that you may want to reinforce your airforce for other reasons than imminent regional threats/instability.

“What will the primer be though.
How will the US justify an attack on a democratically elected leader of a country?”

By stating that the regime in Venezuela is anti-US and is communist. The justification has already started by the way – you only need to read the editorial of USA today of the other day, which speak of a pink tide:

http://alpha.news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050425/cm_usatoday/insouthamericademocracystumblesinsecondact