I don't understand the point about heavy first class sections playing "havoc with the aerodynamics and potentially endanger[ing] passengers and crew."

Here is Aero 101 from my college days: at a given weight and speed, the wing needs to operate at sufficient angle of attack to produce lift equal to the aircraft weight. If the center of gravity (cg) moves forward due to the heavy first class section, then the tail needs to create more lift in a downward direction to balance the aircraft. The wing produces more lift to compensate for this increased download by increasing its angle of attack. The overall aircraft lift is the same, but the wing lift is higher to offset the higher downward lift of the tail.

This means the aircraft flies in a more nose-up attitude, not more nose down as the article implies. This higher attitude would not "play havoc with the aerodynamics," but would cause the aircraft's drag to be higher and therefore increase the fuel burn.

Bob Rapp, Everett, WA, USA

Seems kindof odd that an airline would have to remove 5 TONS of cargo to compensate. Doesn't that seem like an enormous oversight? I find it hard to believe that the airlines added +5 tones of furniture.

kava, seattle, wa

Mr, JOE BLOGGS

You aswked where the info about the VIRGIN aircrafts
comes from. Look at VIKIPEDIA A340-600. US hating
does not compensate thedesign mistakes of tyhe A380,
A340 and the blamable failure of the initial A350.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A340
"The initial seven A340-600 aircraft were delivered with overweight wings. After the A340-600 launch customer, Virgin Atlantic, elected to receive replacement aircraft, these airframes were delivered at a reduced price to Iberia Airlines and Cathay Pacific. Cathay Pacific uses the plane on its nonstop service between Hong Kong and New York City (JFK)."

H.Q.SUTI, Bernalillo, NM87001, USA

Cursed socialist - Airbus.

Punky, Sapville, CA

Well Joe Bloggs, at 6-metric tons overweight and 3-Billion Euro over budget, lets see if you can dig the A380 out of its smoking hole! The A380 is the biggest boondoggle of all times. What tell hell were you thinking over there?

Spider, Boeing City, USA

you're all a tad oversensitive

lerbo, brno, czech republic

I heard the CEO of Emirates say the A-380 is 6 tons over
design weight. Of course that is only 1 percent of its max
T/O weight but it is just another example of Airbus' reach
exceeding its grasp.

Sangell, Richmond, Virginia, US

pkcasimir, Arlington, MA/USA,

What utter rubbish. VS have still got those aircraft. They were not returned to Airbus and then re-sold. I don't know where you got your information from.

Oh and I think you will find that more Boeing a/c have made smoking holes in the gound than Airbus a/c have.

joe Bloggs, Heathrow, United Kingdom

It is Bush's fault. Everything is Bush's fault!

Hugh Smith, Burnsville, NC, USA

The problem is that the British are breathtakingly racist about the French, to an extent that would be unacceptable against other nations or peoples. Most of it is pure ignorance as the majority of British people that I know have never even had a conversation with a French person. I think it would be fair to say that the UK is in danger of becoming one of the most ignorant nations in Europe. Although I think this has happenned to a certain extent already.

Jack Deveroe, London, UK

Isnt this more to do with the Bloated plutocrats who fly on these things ?? .. take them out and put them on a third world diet (like their exploited workers) and they will soon lose enough weight to make up the difference. Look at most businessmen, right porky old gas bags, guzzling away to their hearts content in first class, while the underclass sit on metal framed seats squashed together like sardines
If its boeing I aint going, If its airbus then its a plus, If its lockheed then I'm deead, if its bombardier then I'm all out of rhymes.

Elwin parsley, london , UK

Airbus, by far, for this Washington State resident, is far superior to Boeing. It has almost become evident to me that if it is Boeing, I ain't going! Boeing is just not worth it.....not only do they make an inferior airplane, they discriminate against military veterans and age in their hiring practices.

Don Thomason, Moses Lake, USA/Washington (state)

Paul, Geneva - re. your final paragraph; flying with the Centre of Gravity towards the fore will cause the aircraft to be MORE stable in pitch. The extra elevator trim required to counter the nose-down moment WILL increase drag and hence fuel burn. The aircraft is more efficient with the CoG positioned towards the aft limit; putting it towards the forward limit increases drag. Also, much greater forces on the elevator would be required to control the aircraft's pitch.

The aircraft will only pitch uncontrollably if the CoG is aft of its limits due to the lift and mass components forming a moment couple. The CoG is always kept forward of the centre of pressure, through where the lift acts, to prevent this. With the CoG too far forward, the aircraft will either be extremely stable and need much harder elevator forces than normal to control, or obviously if it was so far forward that the nose could not be lifted, it would not even get off the ground.

Ben, Chesterfield, UK

Some of my countrymen's comments about France are histrionic, ignorant and unworthy of further reading and/or consideration. Having said that, if it isn't Boeing, I'm not going!!!

Mario S. Cano, Miami, Florida

Forgive me if I'm wrong but this article starts out with the statement "Airlines are considering suing Airbus after the aircraft manufacturer warned them that the front-end of the A340-600 was dangerously overweight"

So I can assume that Airbus is the one that initiated this warning not the airlines, what if anything has the writer of the article got to do with researching the information that plainly stated. Secondly Airbus is once again blaming its customers for buying seats that Airbus installed, "Airbus says that the airlines are to blame for fitting premium cabins with full-sized beds, heavy furniture and weighty entertainment systems." If Airbus knew at the time of installation of all those very heavy seats and entertainment systems would cause a CG imbalance then Airbus should be liable for selling an unsafe aircraft. Where's John Leahy when you need him.

Ken, Vancouver, Canada

As a Boeing engineer, methinks 'twould be better to have more
information before belitting Airbus. We all must remember
that it's one to thing to design and build the machine, and
another to get the business types to use it correctly. I've
taught undergrad and grad engineering classes - the D students
end up in business. They use machinery accordingly.

Mike , Colo Springs, CO, USA

Just goes to prove yet again...that BOEING is BEST.

paul, Hamilton, New Zealand

One wonders why this story has taken so long to surface. The economics could be severe. Even before this, according to Aviation Week & Space Technology (AW&ST), the order backlog for A-340-600s had declined sharply vs B-777ERs, as twin vs 4-engine fuel and maintenance costs are even more dramatic.

Richard Cook, Sanibel, USA/Florida

All airframe manufacturers , EU and US, set Centre of Gravity (CofG) limits within which their aircraft must operate. The Captain signs off the CofG limits before every flight.

This Times article does not conclude whether Airbus changed these CofG limits, or if airlines have added significant weight to the airframe in areas where it effects CofG and results in re-distribution of cargo.

This is central to the whole story and the journalist could at least have bothered to research and state this.

The third paragraph continues the litany of bad research. Flying outside the CofG limits initially means that the elevator has to compensate causing additional drag and therefore fuel burn. Should the elevator run out of authority due to excessive out of balance CofG , the aircraft will either pitch up uncontrollably, stall and probably crash, or pitch down uncontrollably and probably crash - not increase fuel burn as the Times states!

Get it right or don't bother

Paul, Geneva, Switzerland

I read this quite neutral sounding article and as usual was amazed at how somehow it was twisted into some kind of pro Atlanticis rant by the kneejerk anti-American loonies running around the UK. Is there something in the air in the UK that causes precipitous IQ declines among some of the population? Maybe it is the pollution caused by those big nasty jets?
John from Portland

John, Portland, Ore, USA

When You British wake up and stop falling for the French smokescreen. How You can let France have any position in the EU amazes me. France has been a third rate country pretending to be a major power since WWII. Germany and Britain were duped into the common market and now must pay for the French drain. The world will wake up some day and put France in the right place. At the end of the line.

robert, pottsville, usa

Why has First and Business got to be at the front of the aircraft, Having travelled in all three classes. It is often more noisey at the front due to the aircraft pushing through the air. But at the rear there is less noise. if the engines are on the wings! secondly with wide bodied aircraft there is no reason not to have first and business down one side! Finally it is easliy the highest return if First and business are full than cargo.
If a route relies on part returns on cargo such as AMS-BKK the airlines use Combi aircraft where the back half of the plane is for cargo only! the front would be used for baggage! So approx 40 business seats full up the front and full cargo in the bag. they are in profit! and all the standard seats are just icing on the cake!
On the airbus I would expect that the computer would not allow the aircraft to fly if it was dangerous config!
Instead of moaning about the weight fly First and business only flights as well!

Peter, Phetchabun, Thailand

These planes are accidents waiting to happen. I will never set foot on one. No, Sir..

bluesuede, Williamsport, PA

It is about time that Times writers realise that when they criticise “Made In Europe” they are criticising “Made in England” too.

It's time to stop pretending that England is the 58th state of America (thank God it isn't), and wake up to the fact that we English ARE European and let's take pride in that and all that is European including OUR wonderful Airbus.

Peter GODDARD, Cheam, England

mmm,great comment pkcasimir, 'Eurojunk' . . . think you'll find more 737's and DC10's have ploughed themselves into the ground through defect than Airbus equipment....so a pretty unqualified statement.

chris, worth, uk

To Mr Pkcasimir of Arlington, MA; Sir, did you believe spouting xenophobic comments about European aircraft in a British newspaper would gain you many supporters? Your assertion that Boeing make safer aircraft than Airbus is misleading.From the Sage Publications "An Empirical Examination of Airframe Manufacturers’ Safety Performance", I quote from the summary "he data investigation yields statistical evidence that over the 9-year period between 1990 to 1998, there was no significant difference in safety records between the Boeing and Airbus product lines. A data analysis for the past 4 years of the same period, however, indicates that Airbus is improving its safety posture when compared to the recent safety record of Boeing products."

So, rather than vulgar comments and flag waving, I would suggest you check your own undercarriage first.

James Peters, London, UK

Why does 1st and business class have to be forward of the wing? Why not put it in the center section. Of course then the common people would have to walk through it when loading/unloading. Not that it might bother the 1st and business class people but also maybe it would make those in steerage understand just how poor they are treated

Lee Smith, Seattle, USA/Washington

The "spaghetti with wings" comment makes sense to any layman who has seen this aircraft. Long ago, car manufacturers put the wheels "in the corners", to improve stability. Without knowing much about aerodynamics, even the casual observer acquainted with basic physics will perceive this aircraft as "overstretched", and its credibility will suffer with the travelling public.

This points to a wider issue, and not just in aerospace: the increasing power of marketing departments at the expense of the engineers. Taking technical risks (or at best, stretching the margins of error to razor thin), to make a buck, has now led to yet another dent in Airbus's already fragile reputation.

Let's hope the A380 rectifies things once it's commercially in air.

Thomas Browne, Wimbledon, UK

When Virgin accepted delivery of the first seven A340-600s ever built, it found that the planes wings were overweight and demanded replacement aircraft, which they received. The original seven aircraft were sold, at a reduced price, to Iberia and Cathay Pacific.
The airplane is just another piece of Eurojunk, like the A380 and the Eurofighter.
Buy Boeing, fly safe and sound.

pkcasimir, Arlington, MA/USA

Mr. Bizzell:

I had the good fortune to travel in the 'Upper Class' cabin of a Virgin A340-600, as well as steerage, and in response to "do one of the lie flat first class seats/ wiht a passenger actually weigh more than 3 or four economy seats with passengers?" the answer is probably yes -- they are that big, with walls around them to a height of about four feet (it is a sort of pod), a footstool, electric bits (heavy motors), automatic tables, various compartments, seat + mattress, etc. More like 10 times, when you note that many economy seats share a single frame.

Meanwhile, back in stearage the seats have being dropping precipitously in weight, much to general passenger discomfort. The A340-600 is also odd in having a lot of the stretched fuselage forward of the wing.

People need to be fairer to Airbus - seats like this were not really expected when the aircraft was designed, just as such very massive amount of wiring for extreme entertainment was not anticipated for the A380.

MacK, London,

I thought Concorde was the only airliner to have fuel pumped backwards and forwards to maintain C of G.

John, Kingston, UK

If you buy a piece of equipment, you follow the manufacturer's instructions. You don't make them up and then blame the manufacturer for the consequences.

Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England

The weight problem can be corrected.
A bigger problem which should cause greater concern is that planes are the biggest polluters in the World. Just take a sniff round London Heathrow or Paris Roissy Airport.
The prospect of ever bigger planes and increased number of flights, is a health ticking time bomb waiting to take off, Who is responsible for that., nobody cause planes are big business.

John.Gilmore, Chantilly, France

When France angered the US with her stand against agression in Iraq she was warned to expect "punishment".
This is just another manifestation.
Courage, mes amis !

Brian, Trebeurden, France

It is nice to hear for once about a fat epidemic without a mention of the Americans. Overweight planes; you could not make this up! By the way, a question for the better informed among us on airline matters: why is it necessary to have the first class at the front of the cabin; if its weight is too much why not move it to the centre or the back?

Frederick Davies, Oxford, UK

Sorry to be technical, I will try to keep it simple. The centre of pressure (lift) moves backwards with increase in airspeed, the downforce on the horizontal stab counteracts this (normally automatic and called mach trim).

As an aircraft is like a seesaw, the more weight at the front end the more counteracting force required at the tail. This increases drag. Reduce weight at the front, less force at the tail, less drag, more efficient.

Yes it can happen, yes it can be a problem.

GC, Manama, Bahrain

Another horse designed by comittee. Im sure boeing are having a chuckle.

mitch, wolverhampton, england

The first class cabins may have furniture/features are heavier per passenger, but those cabins would also have less passengers and possibly less carry on luggage. Some of these lay flat seats take up the space of 3 to 5 economy seats. Even if Airbus's explanation is accurate, should they not help the airlines with placement of the infastructure(Entertainment system, electrical, etc). Do one of the lie flat first class seats/ wiht a passenger actually weigh more than 3 or four economy seats with passengers.

A typical buisiness class seat has seat pitch of 60 inches. On a 747 two of the seats almost take up the space of 6 economy seats.

In the center section you would have 3 business seats inplace of about 8 economy seats.

I realize the ratios may not be exact.

Tom Bizzell, Austin, TX

Everybody should fly economy but pay business fares and cary nothing but their VISA cards. That should please the Airlines and the markets.

Ronnie, Paris,

The third para of this article is absolute rubbish

Newton's 3rd Law means in effect that to maintain level flight then the Lift must equal the weight

Every Pilot knows that the Weight and balance must be correctly calculated before take off and adjust their loadings - of passengers, freight and fuel - accordingly

During flight fuel is often pumped from one tank to another to maintain the correct position of the Centre of Gravity

If the weight of an aircraft increases then the wings would have to fly at an increased angle of attack to aquire more lift - effectively flying more nose up than nose down

If significant extra weight - due furnishings or any other - is placed ahead of the C of G then this would cause instability and danger and is in fact illegal if outside the aircraft's published W & B charts

Your correspondent should get his facts right

I only fly light aircraft but the identical factors obtain

Murray Pevan, Stanmore, U K

Not yet another problem with Airbus?

RangerRon, Reedsville, Wyoming