Engineers Report Problems on Super Jumbo

It's stressful being the world's biggest passenger jet and the first-ever direct competitor for the Boeing 747. It's especially so when everyone is talking about you well before you've had your maiden run. So, it's no wonder that Airbus' new A380 is having a few pre-flight, stress-related pains. Or is it? Airbus engineers say stress tests on the jumbo jet have turned up some unexpected problems that may delay next month's scheduled first flight. The tests are necessary before the A380 -- scheduled to start flying in 2006 -- can get its certificate of airworthiness. They include tests that put pressure on all the major parts of the plane in an effort to recreate conditions that would only be expected after the super jumbo has clocked up thousands of hours of flight time. During the "rear end test," in which the tail is violently shaken, an insider told DER SPIEGEL, the aircraft encountered "unexpected and considerable difficulties" with the plane's four-meter-long tail cone. Test engineers have also expressed concern about the super jumbo's landing gear, which is supposed to be able to carry up to 853 passengers and land with a total weight of up to 386 tons. According to internal documents obtained by DER SPIEGEL in 2004, the jet's bow and center landing gear were slimmed down by close to 760 kilograms in order to get a handle on the super jumbo's serious weight problems. Sources familiar with the tests said that the planned maiden flight of the A380, scheduled for next month, could be delayed by weeks. However, Airbus spokesman David Voskuhl denied the severity of the reported problems, saying the stress tests results have been "within the limits we expected and are going in the right direction." (10:30 a.m. CET)

Is Washington Pushing Ukraine and the EU into a forced marriage?

At the White House's special request, Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko will travel to Brussels on Tuesday to join United States President George W. Bush as he meets with the heads of state and government of the NATO and European Union member countries. Ukraine isn't a member of either body, so Bush has declared the first hour of his short visit to Brussels the "NATO-Ukraine Commission." But the forceful gesture hasn't exactly been embraced by EU leaders, who are expecting a more concialiatory approach from Bush. Of course, Europe is celebrating the victory of democracy in Ukraine, but it has considerable concerns about bestowing EU accession negotiations or even NATO membership for the former Soviet satellite nation in part because it would threaten to upset the delicate balance between the EU, NATO and Russia.

Jacques Chirac, France's short-tempered president, was "indignant" and "markedly angry" about the decision, a visitor to the president said. But the concern wasn't just limited to the Elysee Palace -- in Berlin and other European capitals, there is worry that Ukraine is growing closer and closer to NATO and the EU, unchecked, despite the fact that the majority of Europeans are against deepening those ties -- at least not yet. EU membership for Ukraine could have considerable economic consequences, since the Black Sea country's economy relies so heavily on agriculture. That, of course, could further burden the EU's already burdensome agricultural subsidies. Membership for the Ukraine in NATO, the trans-Atlantic alliance, would also push the military pact even closer to Moscow's back door and rattle Russian nerves. Both Berlin and Paris are keen to avoid a touchy situation like that. Nevertheless, few believe that Kiev will be happy with the EU's current offer of extending it a "good neighbor policy," which would provide funding for transportation and environmental infrastructure projects as well as economic aid. Now the US is threatening to accommodate Ukraine for "strategic reasons." The US isn't alone, either: most of the new EU and NATO members in Eastern Europe would also like to bring their larger, but destitute, neighbor on board. (12:00 p.m., CET)

UN Official: Caring Is a Lot Like a Lottery

Back in January, we lamented about how the international community is always quick to pledge funds in the wake of natural catastrophes like the South Asian tsunami that killed more than 175,000 on Dec. 26. This time, we're happy to report, things are turning out very differently. Three-quarters of the pledged $900 million in immediate aid promised to the United Nations in its relief efforts have already been delivered, Jan Egeland, the UN's emergency relief coordinator, told DER SPIEGEL. Egeland said over $470 million has already been wired to the UN's accounts. The UN has obtained binding pledges for an additional $228 million. The Norwegian, who is also the UN'S vice secretary-general, said the news was a relief, especially coming within two months of the catastrophe. "On average, it takes at least three months from the point where the responsible ministers pledge money to when the first payments arrive," he told CNN.

Now, the UN has shifted its concern to reconstruction efforts in the devastated Indian Ocean rim region. Egeland said the world body still needs "another $6 or $7 billion" to finish a job that has only just begun. Previous natural disasters, like the December 2003 earthquake in Bam, Iran, have sadly demonstrated the fact that governments often only pay a fraction of the money they pledge immediately after a catastrophe -- the money flows when CNN and the BBC's satellite trucks are still there, but as soon as they pull up the stakes, the promised money starts to evaporate. Still, enough money is pouring into South Asia that UN officials fear Africa will be forgotten. Egeland said he was "a hundred times more worried" about crisis regions in Africa. In Sudan's Darfur region, he noted, "more people have been displaced than in the Asian flood." During the past four months, the UN has only had enough money for its Darfur operation to provide food -- more ambitious aid programs have been out of the question.