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.

 

A380

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX

Originally posted by mwm1331

The two posts were expressing two different opinions about two different subjects, thus two different posts. Who the hell are you supposed to be the king of ATS etiquette? Why don't you report yourself as well for posting somethng which just as easily could have been handled by U2u and did not advance the topic at hand one whit.

I never said I'm the king of ATS etiquette. I just don't like people dividing their opinion into several posts without punishment
You could have wrote your 2 opinions on 2 subjects in one posts; you know it wouldn't look bad
As for the topic are there US or German companies that will participate in its creation?


I couldn't care less what you like if I tried to.
Are there U.S. or german companies that will participate in whats creation? The A380?




posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331

Are there U.S. or german companies that will participate in whats creation? The A380?

Yes A380's. I'm a German and European so I hope there are as much German companies as possible and as little US companies as possible 'cause I want Europe to be self-relying



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 08:41 AM
link   
The germans are participatng and as far as I know there is no U.S. participation. As for you being german you have my condolences and sympathies.



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX
Mr ShatteredSkies, though I'm not a moderator I'd like to remind you that as far as I know it's forbidden to divide your opinion into several posts one under another

So basically, posting more than one post in a row?

Well I did not divide my opinion, it still stands clear, the A380 is an amazing aircraft.

And uhh, I've been here for more than a year, and I have never heard of that rule, so can anyone clarify that?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 01:03 AM
link   

ShatterdSkies
And uhh, I've been here for more than a year

I think you forgot that is says the date you became a member. and last time I checked there are 365 days in a year and not 322.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Okay now. Lets try to keep this one on topic okay!

Thanks
FredT



posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 01:25 AM
link   
boeing dropped a boeing747-500 & 600
instead they are designing sonic cruizer, it flighs at mach.95 - mach.98 and carries smaller ammounts of people
and i will bet 100bilions of $$$ $$$ that the 7e7 will sell at least 3 times more than the a380'

the a380 is a sweet aircraft though

BOEING RULES
also i know i cant spell



[edit on 8-10-2004 by super64]



posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by super64
boeing dropped a boeing747-500 & 600
instead they are designing sonic cruizer, it flighs at mach.95 - mach.98 and carries smaller ammounts of people
and i will bet 100bilions of $$$ $$$ that the 7e7 will sell at least 3 times more than the a380'

[edit on 8-10-2004 by super64]


You cant do bets like that. THe A380 and the 7E7 are COMPLETELY different aircraft, doing COMPLETELY different jobs within the aviation industry. Thats like saying 'I bet the 737 has sold more than the 747', because the two arent comparable.

And again, the sonic cruiser concept is something that has been thrown around by Boeing since the concorde first flew. Come back when its under production, until then theres nothing to shout about. Just like the BWB design, all Boeing currently have is artists impressions, just like they have for the past 20 - 30 years.



posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by super64
boeing dropped a boeing747-500 & 600
instead they are designing sonic cruizer, it flighs at mach.95 - mach.98 and carries smaller ammounts of people


- This idea has been kicking around since the 1980's. Usually it's suggested as some sort of business jet and sometimes they get really carried away and start talking supersonic. LOL.

There may even be a market but my bet would be that it is tiny and there is no real money in it.

Hence it has yet to happen. Anywhere.



and i will bet 100bilions of $$$ $$$ that the 7e7 will sell at least 3 times more than the a380'


- My bet is the 7e7 loses an enormous proportion of any of it's projected sales the instant the imminent announcement of the A350 actually occurs.

In any case the A380 is selling just nicely. Half way to the necessary break-even sales required and it hasn't even flown yet. That's rare for such an expensive piece of kit.......and far exceeds the critic's expectations.

Suck it up Boeing boys!


the a380 is a sweet aircraft though


- You got that right....and just wait for the stretched super-sized versions coming over the years down the line!


BOEING RULES


- really? What, exactly?

See this is the point.....

......US manufacturers dominated airliner production for over 40yrs. Those days are over. Gone. Never coming back. From now on it'll be Europe's manufacturers leading sales in some years and - if they can compete with modern product - US manufactures leading in others.....but basically somewhere around the 50 - 50 level for each over the next few decades if the US manufacturers can compete.




[edit on 8-10-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
See this is the point.....

......US manufacturers dominated airliner production for over 40yrs. Those days are over. Gone. Never coming back. From now on it'll be Europe's manufacturers leading sales in some years and - if they can compete with modern product - US manufactures leading in others.....but basically somewhere around the 50 - 50 level for each over the next few decades if the US manufacturers can compete.
[edit on 8-10-2004 by sminkeypinkey]


I wonder if Airbus could be the one to do the competing if the government subsidies were cut off?

If they are doing so well then why to European governments have to pay them to keep the prices down? Shouldn't they be self-sufficient by now?



posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
I wonder if Airbus could be the one to do the competing if the government subsidies were cut off?


- They're loans actually. Repayable just like others Airbus has had and repaid.


If they are doing so well then why to European governments have to pay them to keep the prices down? Shouldn't they be self-sufficient by now?


- Airbus is still comparitively young and new jets cost a lot to develop however loans on this basis are hardly unique to Airbus.

It might be every interesting to see how US manufacturers manage without the soft money they get and enjoy.

Maybe the permanent development grants, soft military contracts and outright straight subsidy the US gov has handed out (particularly to US airlines post 9/11 to the tune of $billions!) have an effect there too, huh?

There's the thing about this so-called subsidy business. When the matter has been examined by people like the WTO it almost invariably turns out that each side operates it's own 'proceedures' and neither is totally operating a 'free market' nor ever likely to be.

(and we haven't even mentioned the underhand manner in which the national European manufacturers were practically killed off completely between 1950 - 1980. Free market my a$$!)

However as the WTO keeps finding in Europe's favour maybe we (of the EU) do things more right than wrong, eh?





[edit on 8-10-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   
So its fair and right and just for Boeing to be given billions of dollars to keep but it is unfair and restrictive for Airbus to borrow money and pay it back. No, sorry I just don't get it.



posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- They're loans actually. Repayable just like others Airbus has had and repaid.


Proof? I have never heard of them as loans, nor have I heard of them being repaid.

If they were loans, doesn't that beg the question of why they still need loans if they are doing so well?



- Airbus is still comparitively young and new jets cost a lot to develop however loans on this basis are hardly unique to Airbus.

Can you point out other aircraft manufacturers who enjoy such things?



It might be every interesting to see how US manufacturers manage without the soft money they get and enjoy.

Maybe the permanent development grants, soft military contracts and outright straight subsidy the US gov has handed out (particularly to US airlines post 9/11 to the tune of $billions!) have an effect there too, huh?


Those go to the airlines to offset the costs of decreased business coupled with increasing operating costs. That money does not go to the people who make the planes directly. Airplane manufacturers were not given large sums of money after 9/11 to lower the unit costs for aircraft, unlike Airbus which has enjoyed that from the start.



posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 11:56 AM
link   
So you don't think Boeing recieves money directly?

Here's one source

And you didn't know Airbus money was loans? That was never in doubt;

And they are fair so its about time the cry babies on your side of the pond grew up.

Airbus Loans fair



posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 11:58 AM
link   
What Waynos said.

Cheers Waynos!



posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
So you don't think Boeing recieves money directly?

Here's one source

Can you explain to me how tax incentives are the same as an outright loan? I missed that.



And you didn't know Airbus money was loans? That was never in doubt;

And they are fair so its about time the cry babies on your side of the pond grew up.

Airbus Loans fair


Hmm, that quote makes no mention of how or when the loans will be repayed. Are we supposed to take it at the word of one article that it is in fact a loan? What are the terms, payment schedule, etc. If it is a loan the information should be easy to find.



posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 12:49 PM
link   
The point is that tax incentives aren't the same as a loan. Thats what we've been saying! Boeing is being manipulative and yet crying foul when Airbus is following rules that the US agreed to!

The terms are in the article, didn't you read it? You asked for a source, when you got one it suddenly isn't good enough. It is BBC report BTW not a Fox one


Besides, if Boeing thinks a machine above the 747 is unnecessary and unsaleable and they could have built one if they wanted to, whats the problem? Unless of course they knew perfectly well that that was all PR BS?



posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Can you explain to me how tax incentives are the same as an outright loan? I missed that.


Uhm, thats the freaking point, THEY ARENT THE SAME. Airbus is repaying the loans, Boeing doesnt repay the money it receives through tax incentives et al.




Hmm, that quote makes no mention of how or when the loans will be repayed. Are we supposed to take it at the word of one article that it is in fact a loan? What are the terms, payment schedule, etc. If it is a loan the information should be easy to find.



From a BBC article:


Under the (1992) accord, EU governments can cover up to 33% of a manufacturer's research and development costs with loans to be repaid over 17 years.


17 years is the repayment schedule, AS AGREED IN *1992*. Basically this entire arguement has been brought up because THE AMERICAN AVIATION INDUSTRY DONT LIKE WHAT THEY AGREED TO. Thats it. Nothing more. Chances are that if Boeing and the US withdraws from the 1992 accord and takes this entire fiasco to the WTO, the EU will do the same over tax breaks and incentives Boeing has received, and the US *WILL* loose on both fronts.

Boeing was the top dog when the 1992 agreement was signed, now Airbus has overtaken and Boeing doesnt like it, and Boeing sees the 1992 agreement as an unfair advantage because Airbuses concessions given in the agreement now outweigh Boeings concessions

The WTO recognises the 1992 accord, and it recognises the fact that the US agreed to the terms voluntarily and willingly under no duress. The US dont have a hope in hell of winning at the WTO, as the loans and terms granted to Airbus were by prior agreement, but the breaks Boeing gets arent, and the WTO will come down on the EUs side in both counts. This entire thing is election year posturing by Bush, purely so he can be seen as doing something.

Heres another article on it (also from the BBC): source

let me again quote from it



The US claims Airbus has received the equivalent of $40bn (£22.4bn; 32bn euros) in subsidies since its inception in 1967, in the form of government loans with advantageous repayment terms.

The EU says Boeing has pocketed some $18bn in direct and indirect subsidies since 1992, including a $3.2bn tax break from the authorities in Washington state, where the firm has assembly operations.


Both sides have received moneys from their respective governments. Difference is that Airbus received moneys in a manner consistent with the 1992 accords rules, Boeing didnt. Regardless of the fact that the repayment terms are 'advantageous', the US are going to have to wait until the 17 year payment deadline is past before the WTO can do anything, because in all cases the loans are within the boundaries of the agreement. Withdrawing from the accord at this point does nothing positive for the US case, it only strengthens the EU position by way of underlining the legitimacy of the terms agreed in 1992. The only reason the US have threatened to withdraw is because it raises the ante.

The money Airbus received before 1992 cannot be brought up before the WTO because of the 1992 agreement. Expect the US to present a much smaller figure for the 'subsidy' amount when it goes to the WTO.

Note how the 60 day limit for WTO intervention? Thats way past the elections, so expect a backdoor deal done after the election if Bush wins, or the case dropped if Bush looses.



posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 02:31 PM
link   
You people are missing the point. By the US gov't giving a tax break to Boeing they are saying that it is better to get some money from you than none at all if you go bankrupt.

Compare that to the EU who have given Airbus money in order to allow Airbus to sell their planes at a lower cost.

In essense Airbus can charge less and make a greater profit percent because they are given money from the European government to offset any loss that may occur.

Why won't Airbus release the terms of the "loan?" I am curious as to what percent the loan was offered at. Was it a fixed percent? What happens if Airbus defaults on the loan? etc.



posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 02:33 PM
link   
i hope the A380 is successfull..... I also heard the engines are probably going to be built by GE.

Boeing might not want it to be successful, but many american companies that supply components will suffer if it isnt.




Airbus spends approximately 40% of its total procurement budget in the U.S. 50% percent of the A380 is procured in the U.S. At over 5 billion dollars per year, Airbus is the largest export customer of commercial U.S. aerospace.

www.washingtonpost.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join