US representitives go to WTO over Airbus (must be time for another slapping)

Originally posted by drfunk
well actually General Dynamics created the f-111 not boeing.

That is a fact with which I am aware of. That being said as you posted and posted again "screw America" I find that attidue funny again given the F-111 fighter as your avatar and given the fact that Aus. is part of the JSF and is not buying the EU nor the Rafale and is instead upgradign the F-111 and thier F-18's (hmmmmm Boeing product). That being said, the A380's ultimate sucess will depend entirely on who's vision for the future of air travel is correct. Airbus is betting on the hub and spoke system serving slot limited airports like Kennedy and Heathrow etc. Boeing sees smaller point to point city pairs and has tailored its approach to that.

If Airbus would be forced to compete on equal footing and make things fair, all of this would go away IMHO. While the Airbus types will point to US government is indirectly aiding Boeing, I would also point to the purchases made by government owned and recently government owned airlines that is basically defacto support. You can talk to your blue in the face about Air France being private but the government still controlls things indirectly. Nor do they play fair either. Its funny when Airbus does something the governemnt of Europe lookt he other way. Just as Pratt and Whitney Canada about thier experience in bidding for the engines for the A400.

let's get one thing straight, I am an Australian citizen and that's as far as it goes. What my govt buys in weapons and from whom is there own business and I have no say what they buy .

Just coz i'm aussie you can't say "you say screw america yet australia bought jsf over rafale or eurofighter" because my govt is buying that not me. by somehow i am contradicting myself or being hypocritical because of what my govt buys is silly.

The problem with americans is that you think attacks on your government are attacks on you. You seem to link yourself with the government and anything who criticizes the american govt or american companies is criticizing you. it's ridiculous.

If it was upto me we would be buying su-30MK.

thanks,
drfunk

[edit on 7-10-2004 by drfunk]

Originally posted by Murcielago
The 7E7 will hold around 200-300 passengers, depending on what version of it you in.

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

I know that the BWB isn't brand new, So you dont think it will ever get made? I personally would say No, But its nice to know that there working on a airliner that isn't considered to be the norm. Does Airbus have any radically different plane designs in mind? New style or propulsion?

As I stated in previous posts, Airbus looked at the BWB design for the A380, and found it to be unviable as a civil passenger aircraft design. Radically different also means unknown and potentially expensive problems.

Bear in mind that Boeing hasnt actually got anything past the artists impressions stage yet, so really Boeing doesnt have anything new and radical either.

On my previous statements while typing them I started thinking about more and more stuff and started relizing that its been to damn long since we have had something really different in passenger jets. I guess getting a little "antzy" about it all, like they put money in every year and a new jet comes out and its not all that different, so in other words i'm just a little annoyed at the current airliner industry.

Start your own business and make jets. Seriously, Boeing and Airbus are COMPANIES. There sole purpose is to make money. If standard designs make them more money than pouring research costs into radical new stuff, then fair play to them. Radical designs cost money.

RichardPrice
indeed they havent had a new civil aircraft design since 1989.

True, But you cant expect them to pump out a new desigh every other year.
The more expensive things get the longer it takes to replace them. Liek cars are replace often because they dont cost that much (relative), and space vehicle (shuttles) we kept for along time because they cost a lot, and commercial jets are in the middle.

Boeing havent produced something new since 1989, yet airbus have found a market for 3 new aircraft in that time (A330, A340 and the A380). Boeings dropped the ball. Aircraft are replaced all the time, 747s only have a short and limited lifespan (10 - 20 years depending on the route) and are being retired all the time. Older aircraft are retired all the time, as its cost effective to replace older inefficient planes with new ones.

The Shuttles were kept because they cost a lot, and because noone had a replacement.

Originally posted by drfunk
The problem with americans is that you think attacks on your government are attacks on you. You seem to link yourself with the government and anything who criticizes the american govt or american companies is criticizing you. it's ridiculous.

drfunk

[edit on 7-10-2004 by drfunk]

Amen to this.... I really find it amazing how some confuse patriotism with Facism.

Here in Mexico we have 2 major carriers both have mixed fleets, Mexicana has like 30 Airbuses and 757 and 767 for longer more congested routes.
Aeromexico has Douglas/NBoeing Md-XX, a lot of 737 and 767 and NO Airbuses, basically because of fleet standarization.
I prefer the A320 to the 737, but I like more the 757 to the a 321. But I recognize the European product to be more advanced than the Us product. In my opinion its a shame that Lockheed doesnt make civil craft anymore, those guys really knew how to make planes.

Now, back to topic, Boeing did bussines as usual until the saw Airbus win countless orders from loyal customers, the 380 was the final straw sisnce they were saying FOR YEARS that a bigger 747 was not requiered nor needed by the industry, now they face a real threat and they are complaining instead of launching a winner....

An attack on the American government is an attack on the american people. It's that whole Of the people, by the people for the people thing.

Originally posted by FredT
That being said, the A380's ultimate sucess will depend entirely on who's vision for the future of air travel is correct.

- I think you're over-stating things with this idea Fred.

In any case the A380 is already a 'success'.

It's right now 50% of the way to the necessary definite sales to the break-even point and it hasn't even flown yet. By any reasonable assessment of it's potential over the next 5yrs it'll have gone the other 50% and from then on be making money.

(and Airbus will be paying it's governmental loans back, like they do)

Airbus is betting on the hub and spoke system serving slot limited airports like Kennedy and Heathrow etc. Boeing sees smaller point to point city pairs and has tailored its approach to that.

- No. I don't agree. I don't think that is their strategy at all.

Given the imminent announcement of the A350 I'd say Airbus has both possibilities very well covered.

I'd say it's one of the reasons for the current weeping from your side of the pond.

(.....and given US behaviour previously to our national manufacturers and govs I'd say "suck it up" and count yourselves lucky we never treated your industry the way you lot have treated us and ours in the past.)

If Airbus would be forced to compete on equal footing and make things fair, all of this would go away IMHO.

- All this is going to go away Fred. IMHO it's just crap for the coming election, showing the gullible that 'they're doing something' about this (myth).

There are too many 'problems' from the US side if you want to talk totally 'free and fair' trade. Everybody knows it and knows it isn't changing anytime soon, if ever.

Americans are just crying their eyes out that Europe won't allow the US to carry on playing the game the way they have always done and that we're giving you a little of your own medicine back.

What's up wasn't 40yrs+ dominating the airliner industry (by fair means and foul) enough for yous?

There hasn't yet been a WTO adjudication that has gone the US's way over this and - given that nothing has changed - there isn't likely to be one yet.

While the Airbus types will point to US government is indirectly aiding Boeing, I would also point to the purchases made by government owned and recently government owned airlines that is basically defacto support. You can talk to your blue in the face about Air France being private but the government still controlls things indirectly.

- Yeah and we can all yadda yadda yadda over this one.

I'll say that to hell with stocks and shares (as you seem to over the ex-state Euro airlines) etc and just assert that most if not all the US airlines are basically connected to the US state shall I?

(Afterall such connections have been and are well documented in the past between the US gov and, say, Pan Am & TWA (supposedly private companies). Why shouldn't it be claimed to be going on now.....especially in view of the massive multi-billion $ bail-out post 9/11?)

Whether or not it is doesn't matter and regardless whether it's not clear how I'll just claim it's a secret, tenuous but well understood operating connection anyway. How's that?

Now prove a negative. LOL.

Nor do they play fair either. Its funny when Airbus does something the governemnt of Europe lookt he other way. Just as Pratt and Whitney Canada about thier experience in bidding for the engines for the A400.

- Oh come on Fred. We done this a few times already.

You can't say the A400 deal was 'unfair' as you can't possibly know the full ins and outs of it.....where is the approach to the WTO over it if what you keep claiming is so, hmmm?



[edit on 7-10-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

In my opinion its a shame that Lockheed doesnt make civil craft anymore, those guys really knew how to make planes.

Yeah Lockheed made good aircraft, esp the connie and the doomed tristar

thanks,
drfunk

Originally posted by drfunk
whatever happened to that long held american tradition of freedom of speech?

while the rest of the world embraces it you just seem to agree with your govt and must believe in taking it away from the people. I am entitled to say what i want without fear of persecution of others.
The US wants to go to the WTO over airbus because Boeing's having a cry. I say screw america and screw boeing.
drfunk

yes there is the freedom of speech, but This board has rules prohibiting such talk If you continue to bash like this I will report you, then you can go talk all you want to a blank screen.

Originally posted by Murcielago
On my previous statements while typing them I started thinking about more and more stuff and started relizing that its been to damn long since we have had something really different in passenger jets. I guess getting a little "antzy" about it all, like they put money in every year and a new jet comes out and its not all that different, so in other words i'm just a little annoyed at the current airliner industry.

Well, spirit of this economic anarchy called capitalism is that profits go beyond everything else.
And I would say that it might be much more profitable just to milk money from government saying that they're developing something than actually make something.

Originally posted by kix
In my opinion its a shame that Lockheed doesnt make civil craft anymore, those guys really knew how to make planes.

Propably they found out that making military products is more profitable because politicians make sure they're given what they want because moneys spent aren't politicians'.

Originally posted by mwm1331
An attack on the American government is an attack on the american people. It's that whole Of the people, by the people for the people thing.

Well, about half of the country hates our current gov right now, so your logic is flawed. I personally do NOT like this government and I am 100% American. I am also HUMAN. HUMANS live all over the world, not just here. You need to step down off of your patriotic high horse and back to reality. Oh and btw, this government is of the GOP & Supreme court, for big corporations and rich a$$h@les.

How did murcialago get 10,000 points?

The last few posts i've seen him in he got everything wrong, and his arguments are purely based on opinion and not fact!?

I would click on ignore but that's a bit of a shame for him

Plz Plz Plz research even just a little before you post and then double back on your argument again.

On the topic, I think that's it's good that Airbus get funding from governments because if boeing had a monopoly the commercial aerospace industry would get no where. Not because it is boeing but because competition forces companies to achieve excellence in their products and spurs on R&D which ultimately ( in theory ) improves the airline industry over the long term... with any luck

Originally posted by LogansRun

Originally posted by mwm1331
An attack on the American government is an attack on the american people. It's that whole Of the people, by the people for the people thing.

Well, about half of the country hates our current gov right now, so your logic is flawed. I personally do NOT like this government and I am 100% American. I am also HUMAN. HUMANS live all over the world, not just here. You need to step down off of your patriotic high horse and back to reality. Oh and btw, this government is of the GOP & Supreme court, for big corporations and rich a$$h@les.

CAN WE PLEASE GET OFF POLITICS. STOPS SAYING SOME PERSON/GOVT /COUNTRY STINKS. this is a board about aircraft, now lets keep it this way shall we?

The EU is condemning a decision by the US to back out on the 1992 subsidies agreement and say as far as the EU is concerned, the 1992 Accord is still active.

EUBusiness
The European Commission condemned Friday a unilateral US decision to terminate a 1992 accord on transatlantic air subsidies, saying the move was invalid and therefore the deal remained in force.

A spokeswoman for EU trade commissioner Pascal Lamy said Washington appears to trying to wriggle out of the rules agreed by the 1992 agreement on aid to rival aircraft manufacturers Boeing and Airbus.

"We don't think they have provided grounds for terminating the aggreement and therefore we dont think it is a substantiated termination," spokeswoman Arancha Gonzalez told reporters, citing a letter sent to Washington.

"We have the feeling that this may be away for them to escape from the disciplines in the 1992 agreement," she added.

If boeing have so much advanced military tech (not saying they don't)why don't they use some of it in the commercial sector i am sure there are thousands of applications that could make it a leading innovator, that is unless they already do to try and keep up with airbus.