Perhaps Airbus were slow to react - but what would you have them do - respond to something they hadn't read? Even the Seattle press manage a more balanced perspective
Sorry Kuningen but I still think you're missing the point. You can't write a balanced perspective about a biased analysis. The Times wasn't trying to write a balanced article about the aircraft - in which case your complaint would be justified - it was writing a balanced article about the American report into the aircraft. There's a subtle difference.
It's not the Times' job to refute the report. It's Airbus' because they built the bloody thing. The paper simply has a duty to state clearly what the source of the information is - which it did - and let its readers decide whether they want to believe the stuff which the US has churned out or not. I think any suggestion that the readers are too dumb to work out that there might be a hint of sour grapes or biased assessment in an American report into the A380 is highly insulting.
If Alex Ferguson says that Arsenal is a crap team, do you really need it explaining to you that he might not be entirely independent? Do you really need an equal number of sentences from Arsene Thingy to make sure your poor readers aren't misled? Tripe.
As for Airbus needing time to read the report before commenting, that's just rubbish. Airbus is quite capable of reeling out a shedload of rent-a-quote, feel-good comments about the A380 at the drop of a hat. If they chose not to take a spoon-fed opportunity to redress the balance a bit, having been handed it by a Times reporter, more fool them.