It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Airbus parent brands itself "American," plans more work in U.S.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Here, by the way, is a reprint from a UK newspaper.

I am publishing the article in its entirety (and I apologize for the bandwidth use) because, although there is a link, it to the company Intranet, which you can't access.

Airbus super-jumbo
The Independent 01/20/05
author: Jeremy Warner

The idea that Airbus might serve as a template for how the rest of European industry should be structured will have President George W Bush choking on his pretzels. Brussels and Washington have only just escaped a damaging trade war over aircraft subsidies and now there's Jacques Chirac suggesting what a wonderful place Europe would be if its telecoms, energy and even drugs industries were run along similar lines to Airbus.

Admittedly, the French President did not spell out whether this would entail the same kind of launch aid that Airbus enjoys, but it is in the Gallic nature of things to see state support for key industries as au naturel. The latest product of that largesse, courtesy of the taxpayers of Britain, France, Germany and Spain, was on display in Toulouse this week as Airbus rolled out its first A380 super-jumbo. Everything about the plane is big and that includes the £2.5bn of subsidy the aircraft is receiving.

Airbus prefers to call it refundable launch aid but that is an oxymoron because the money gets repaid in full only if the aircraft is a success. To break-even on its own investment, Airbus needs to sell 250 of the A380. To repay the four governments it needs to shift 700. To count as a real commercial success, Airbus needs to sell twice that number. So far it has firm orders for 149. Airbus points to the A320, which was launched on a business case that sales would reach 700. They now stand at more than 3,000. Not only has the original launch aid been repaid, but taxpayers are quids in because Airbus continues to pay a levy on each new delivery ad infinitum.

However, the two aircraft are not comparable. The A320 was built to compete in an existing market against the Boeing 737. The A380 is defining an entirely new market - one in which passengers will be happy to be crowded as many as 800 on a single aircraft and ferried hub to hub from where they will fly on a smaller aircraft to their final destination.

To witness the exuberance and sheer self-confidence on display in Toulouse, it is hard to believe that the A380 could fail. But M. Chirac could surely have picked a better analogy when he prophesied that it would go down in aviation industry in the same way that Concorde did. Boeing continues to cling to the belief that the A380 will prove to be not a super-jumbo but a super-Dumbo - a white elephant of the skies.

If it is wrong, there will be a serious price to pay in Seattle and American dominance of the skies will be broken once and for all. It's only a shame that the European technological success story the super-jumbo plainly amounts to isn't replicated in the wider performance of the European economy. You don't have to look far for the reasons. Europeans won't spend, and the reason they won't spend is the inflexibility of their economies. The super-jumbo is a triumph of state-funded co-operation. Yet that's no guarantee of commercial success, nor is the creation of such European champions capable of solving France and Germany's unemployment problem.




posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Ahhh yes, so we are back to this then. People, this is starting to sound like a broken record. I fully admit that 'Launch Aid' loans may not be fair, but they are made under the terms of the 1992 agreement, which Boeing and the US government seemed to like when they negotiated it. Lets talk steel tarifs shall we?



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   
How in the hell can the US expect to stay dominant n the Air if we buy any of the planes we use for our military from europe?
I mean come on the best they ever came up with is thier eurofighter and the F-22 makes it look like a redheaded stepchild.

Just say no to eurocrap!



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   
The Eurofighter is a hell of a lot cheaper than the F-22 to boot. The US seems more than happy coercing other nations to purchase US military hardware over homegrown solutions, seems strange that so many people seem reluctant to accept that the US might purchase outside their own country.

This is not an arguement im willing to participate in.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Agreed, the gist of the US based opinion on here seems to be "we want fair competition to sell planes abroad but foriegn sales to the US are to be blocked at any cost".

Incredible double standards and not worth arguing about.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Agreed, the gist of the US based opinion on here seems to be "we want fair competition to sell planes abroad but foriegn sales to the US are to be blocked at any cost".

Incredible double standards and not worth arguing about.


Waynos there is a huge difference between buying airplanes for the civilian market and buy the planes our pilots will fly into war.
No in terms of Miltech no foreign anything the only people we can trust to build our Military vehicles is IMHO us.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   
The thing is those viewpoints go across the board, not just the Airbus v Boeing row. Well, its a competition for tankers, not fighters so there shouldn't be any problem there, also don't forget the B-57, AV-8, T-45 and, coming the other way, C-130, F-4, C-17 and even the British input into the F-35. What a way to treat so called trusted allies, is alliance with America worth so little?

[edit on 20-1-2005 by waynos]



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Oh this is beautiful and so well worth high-lighting.

Did you spot this Fred, mwm1331?


To break-even on its own investment, Airbus needs to sell 250 of the A380. To repay the four governments it needs to shift 700. To count as a real commercial success, Airbus needs to sell twice that number. So far it has firm orders for 149.


- ....and the first flight hasn't even happened yet.
How many MD10's, 767's, 747's up for replacement in the coming 2 decades?



Airbus points to the A320, which was launched on a business case that sales would reach 700. They now stand at more than 3,000. Not only has the original launch aid been repaid, but taxpayers are quids in because Airbus continues to pay a levy on each new delivery ad infinitum.


- See, repayable loans being repaid, not subsidy.

Not only do we make the best planes (and the customers/world knows it) but we make it fully economically viable too - and can prove it in time.

Enjoy your speculative ifs, buts and maybes but we have a track-record of success to point to.....and a lot of customers to deliver our stuff to.



[edit on 20-1-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Enjoy your speculative ifs, buts and maybes but we have a track-record of success to point to.....


Yeah you have a track record alright. Caravel (sp?), Comet and Concorde come to mind real fast here............


[edit on 1/20/2005 by shots]



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   
er, lets see. Caravelle was successful in its own right, Concorde was an unequalled technical achievement and Comet brought jet travel to the world and provided the data that made the 707, DC-8 and all that came after it that much safer, your point?

Oh, yes. The Hughes Hercules, Lockheed Constitution, Convair 880 & 990 and McDonnell 119 were all resounding successes weren't they.


All of which merely serves to show how facile the preceding post was.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Yeah you have a track record alright. Caravel (sp?), Comet and Concorde come to mind real fast here


- well Waynos has already answered in regard to the specific models mentioned here but as for the wider politics?

Europe will never stand for the US using corruption and political blackmail to allow the destruction of our pan-European aero-industry in the way we let you pick off and send our individual national aero-industries within an fraction of going totally to the wall.

Airbus is number one manufacturer in the world now and you can be assured that we will not be giving that up easily.

We could care less whether the US opens her market fully or not, it would be nice - and, let's be honest, we have already made some excellent, very lucrative, inroads there already - but the rest of the world is so much bigger than the US and is so happy to buy from us.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
er, lets see. Caravelle was successful in its own right, Concorde was an unequalled technical achievement and Comet brought jet travel to the world and provided the data that made the 707, DC-8 and all that came after it that much safer, your point?


I beg to differ they only made the caravelle for a few years then dumped it because of costs and minor design flaws as I recall. As for the comet; what are you talking about they stopped making them because of severe design flaws. I do not know how many dehavlen made but they were darn few. Now if the Concorde was such a technical achivement why is not still flying rather then hanging in museums?

As for your other comments they are not relevant since they were not jets.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Now if the Concorde was such a technical achivement why is not still flying rather then hanging in museums?

Well it is over 20 years old and is a bitch to cost , you know how airline companies are, out for every pound/dollar/euro they can scrounge.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
How in the hell can the US expect to stay dominant n the Air if we buy any of the planes we use for our military from europe?

Sheer size ,money and some T-R-A-I-N-I-N-G mabye......



I mean come on the best they ever came up with is thier eurofighter and the F-22 makes it look like a redheaded stepchild.

Just say no to eurocrap!


If i may say the typhoon (Stay awake people its not the EF.) is NOT designed to do the same job as the F22 and they didnt have a really stupidly large budget.
The typhoon is the most advanced fighter in the world. Proven fact.
The F22 is designed to do what the US wants , a fighter for fighting some unknown enemy...
BTW , the US did stay in air superiority with the british made harrier didnt they?



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Well it is over 20 years old and is a bitch to cost , you know how airline companies are, out for every pound/dollar/euro they can scrounge.



I don't know if that was true. Right before thier retirment I read an AWST article that talked about them eeking out a profit. I will try to find it.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Incredible double standards and not worth arguing about.


*Chokes on Pate* What!!!!! Did ya read Chirac comments???? Double standard my butt.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
I don't know if that was true. Right before thier retirment I read an AWST article that talked about them eeking out a profit. I will try to find it.

I think it might be, if not then oh well.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
*Chokes on Pate* What!!!!! Did ya read Chirac comments???? Double standard my butt.

Is the UK france now?



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
I beg to differ they only made the caravelle for a few years then dumped it because of costs and minor design flaws as I recall.


- The manufacturers sold 282 Caravelles and made a profit on the plane. www.airliners.net...


As for the comet; what are you talking about they stopped making them because of severe design flaws.


- Actually this is wholly untrue.
The Comet was an excellent design with one new serious flaw, a flaw then unknown throughout the entire world of aviation.
In fact every plane manufacturer in the world and every passenger owes de Havilland and the British government a debt.
They (along with the Royal Aircraft Establishment) researched the then unknown phenomenon of metal fatigue due to high altitude flight with a pressurised cabin.

.....and then gave the results of their work for free to the rest of the world.

www.rafmuseum.org.uk...


I do not know how many dehavlen made but they were darn few.


- de Havilland made approx 100 - 120 depending on source and calculation (some later mk's were converted earlier versions)
www.britishaircraft.co.uk...


Now if the Concorde was such a technical achivement why is not still flying rather then hanging in museums?


- This is absurd.
It is all about costs and the lack of a committement by the supporting aero industry to continue to produce spare parts.


Of course the Concorde is an enormous technical achievement.....just like the XB - 70 Valkyrie was/is and yet it too (for similar cost reasons) sits 'hanging' in a museum.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   
"our pan-European aero-industry" -- Fabrique en France



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join