One thing I find very interesting in all this is the way the non-technical press present things. When you read an article you can often see the reporter trying to put some technical issue (wiring in the A380, the flaws in the production method for the 787 fuselage) into a much larger context, where it might not fit at all.
When they do that, as seems now to be happening with Airbus, then it can create a real problem, something like a 'run on the bank.' All the other reporters don't want to be seen missing out on whatever is happening so that they start spinning away like a Chinese circus act, when chaos ensues.
For M. Forgeard to have cashed in some of his shares, well, what was he thinking there? 'Show me the money!' of course, but what lousy timing!
Either he now looks like an opportunist or perhaps a crook or else although he's the head of the company he had no idea at all about these serious production issues. In fact, he was just quoted saying something along those lines, that he would rather look incompetent than dishonest. You would have thought he'd know enough to either take the financial hit or else cash in his chips and leave the table, resign.
Perhaps they do things differently in France, since it is another country, but the States just got through dealing with a lot of 'grands fromages' who were caught taking advantage. There was Martha Stewart, a nobody in financial terms but a household icon, caught doing insider dealing and sent away to make license plates. Then we had Skilling and Lay of Enron fame, just convicted and awaiting sentencing. This is not the time to give even the slightest hint of opportunism, is it?