Hi all

Just got a glimpse on the news at lunchtime, HEADLINE, that the British Government have injected millions into the A3XX project. I am not sure of the definate amount.

I think all the A3XX needs now is airlines.

The news had some nice graphic illustrations of inside the cabin which includes a gym !!

Anyone have more definate news?

PLEASE......don't make this into an Airbus v Boeing post. I will be watching!

Regards
Gary Watt
Aberdeen, Scotland

Airlines would be nice, so we don't wind up with another Trident on our hands... I'll bet Cathay Pacific would place an order.

Check out the article at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_675000/675522.stm

But......I think it will not be any extra ordinary ting liks gym or someting like that.....The Airlines must have the space for seats.....But who know....Maybe It will be A extra first klass premium....  

I would be really cool to see the A3XX....If it will be reallity I would go down to Toulouse and see the first flight!

But I don´t think it will be any A3xx at my home airport: Stockholm/arlanda.....

But what are the name going to be? A350?

Regards
Lauda 777, Stockholm

Yes it was confirmed by someone who works in Airbus that it will be called the A 350. Cool
.      

Jeremiah Teahan

As one of my other postings said - Malaysia Airlines has already expressed a keen interest to purchase a few A350s...hence the earlier (now closed) speculation about the A34X. MAS is keen to use the aircraft on restricted routes like KUL-LHR, KUL-SYD, KUL-MEL where MAS is restricted by landing slots. MAS has been badgering the UK for more flights but the UK is keen to protect BA (as any nation would) - so MAS is still only flying twice-daily 747s into LHR - and (boy) try getting onto any of them - as they are always fully booked!

MAS is also keen on international recognition 'kudos' and may well invest in the A350 in an attempt to market itself more as a major player in the field.

More EU government funding for Airbus. No comment.

I read a lot of posts about shopping galleys and gyms on the A3XX. The 744 and 777 have room for this nonsense as well. I say "nonsense" because the first passenger injury resulting from hanging around a gym or a shop during heavy turbulence is going to cost that carrier millions in litigation. Are all these people going to be running back to their seats every time the Captain illuminates the seatbelt warning? Nice idea but I don't think the airline lawyers will buy it.

If European gouvernments support Airbus, well that´s fine. So does the US gouvernment to Boeing.

Airbus (specifically the A3XX or A350) will be getting $850 million (U.S.) from the British alone!!!!!!!! $850 million!!!!! Mr. Jospin of France has stated clearly they will support the A3XX, EVEN THOUGH THE PRIVATE MARKETS HAVE SAID IT IS A BAD BUSINESS CASE!!!!!!!!! This is the height of a public works project. I love airliners and would love to see any and all new designs fly, but this is not a level playing field. The British actually said this will "create 22,000 jobs and protect 60,000 jobs"!!!!!!! This has nothing to do with a good case for a new airliner, it is a public works project designed to both create jobs and give European aerospace prestige. Let's face it everyone, Boeing cannot get this kind of financial goody package. Boeing goes to the financial markets who decided if they will fund a new project, THE SAME MARKETS WHICH SAY THEY WON'T FUND THE A3XX, HENCE THE FRENCH, BRITISH, GERMAN GOVERNMENT LOW INTEREST LOANS. Any other argument from Airbus is just a smokescreen. Period. Please understand my position, I love airliners, I hate bad business.

If it can't make it on the private market, it shouldn't be funded or built. That goes for Boeing and Airbus. I can't stand government getting involved where it has no business. The best government is that which governs,taxes, and subsidizes least.

It's not obcene, it's different.
Why don't the US government do the same to help creating more jobs, protect your workers and the economy?

(it already does in other ways)

Luis, Faro, Portugal

There you go again Mirage, no specifics, just rhetoric. Europe is much more socialistic than the U.S. and this bleeds through everything, including the corporate culture. By everyone's standard, there is a great deal of difference between the U.S. and European economies, especially when compared to the French. By the way, I was just waiting for you to jump in on this. You are consistent if nothing else!! I am always glad to hear from you Mirage, but I strongly disagree with you on this, and I'm sure we won't change each others minds. On the plus side, I would like to see this beast fly. That's the good part of this deal. One final note to highlight the "loose business case" for this aircraft. Airbus started 3 years ago saying it would cost $8 Billion to build the A3XX. Then the number "crept" up to $12 Billion!! Now they (Airbus) are saying $12.9 Billion!!!! And we all know what happens to budgets on projects like this. How about if you and I bet $100 that the final price tag exceeds $12.9 Billion?! You take the Airbus company line, and I'll take the side that says they exceed the $12 Billion figure. What do you say?!

For all those who are crying about an unfair business: How would you name the fact that poor Boeing gets secret informations from the US secret service and their echolon-spy-system about Airbus plans ?
That´s embarrassing, especially since they still fly behind Airbus.....  

The reference Ab.400 makes to the US giving secrets to Boeing is the result of last week's sensationalist news on economic espionage. I remind you that this so-called espionage network has a full partner in the UK. Furthermore, France is widely regarded as having one of the most developed economic espionage networks in the industrial world. They've been busted plenty of times here in the US. It's a game we all play.

And finally, here's my favorite Airliners.net statement which no one has responded to yet. Boeing recieves subsidies for military programs as do CASA, DASA, Aerospatiale/Matra, and BAe. Can you say Rafale, Typhoon, Meteor, Splendid, Eurocopter, Challenger etc.? Only Europe gives these four partners subsidies for BOTH military and commercial programs. But kudos to the EU for sticking it to their taxpayers and also sticking it to the candy-striper pushovers in Washington. How do they get away with this? Their negotiators must have as much scam artist skills as Newman and Redford in "The Sting".

Well I feel better. How about everyone else?

Every country which has high evoluted industries such as aviation, military, space etc. would probably do just anything to support and protect it as much as possible against competitors from elsewhere. As long it´s just espionage and not sabotage might be ok.

Well?.........People often refer to the reaction and the market when the 747 was first launched. But I think that one difference then than now was PAN AM. PA would buy anything it sometimes seemed, the bigger the better. Who is the PA now? I know that the Consortia governments can put quite a bit of pressure on their national carriers to buy a few who but this is not "just a buy a few narrow bodies for $5.99 and get ten free" airbus isn't trying get its foot in the door, its already there. Now, I don't know but I would think that airbus is intent on trying to sell this one on its merrit rather that deep deep discounts as they have with their narrow bodies. They cannot afford to have the A350 to fail, according to DASA they airbus lost $196,000,000 last year and these 'investments' by UK and other consortia governments are 'loans'.
So who will place the order for 15 or 20 frames? will anyone.

Question: is 550 the the number of seats in a three class configuration or cattle car design 'Charter'?

Lance

Normal 3 class not catlle car.      

The PA now is the fast expanding market of worldwide travel. Very simple......
But how do you want to know about pressure from the gov´s to their carriers ?

If I was Atlas, Cargolux, or FedEx (UPS too?), I would buy about 10 of the new A3XXF's which I am sure will be built. I'm not sure Northwest, Lufthansa, or Air France (companies who currently operate 747F fleets) would buy the aircraft as it seems somewhat ill suited to their current loads and routes. I may be wrong though. I see some of the Asian and Australasian carriers buying some A3XX's, but I don't see fleets of 10 aircraft or more, unlike the 744's, 777's, and A340's.

I don't bet the $100 with you because I predict that if the A3XX is to be built, that $12.9 Billion number will be increased.
I only jump to this because you always start to talk about the EU subsides but that only reflects the difference between capitalism who puts money ahead of everything and socialism who has some care for citizens.
I don't want you to agree with me, I know all the americans here don't agree with me and I respect that because you were born and raised in a different system and culture.
My point is just the different ways of doing business, not one being better or worst, just different.

Luis, Faro, Portugal

Currently there is no market for this aircraft. If Airbus wants to launch it and the European TAXPAYERS want to see the bird fine. What this truly boils down to is an answer for the Jumbo Jet. Something Airbus can say they have. Our plane is the biggest and so on. The jet doesn't make financial sense. BA, LH, AF and others have all said they would not order it now and could not forsee ordering large numbers of them in the future. The A3XX is a swan dive into a pool with no water. The 747-400X/400X Stretch and OTHER derivatives will kill this bird. I think the way to sum up the A3XX is nice thought, bad business.

" Currently there is no market...blah blah blah........" How comes that so many airlines are expanding their fleets and airports building terminals , parking-places for cars and so on. Look a little more ahead and you see the demand.

Seriously though, really, who's gonna buy it? Are the economics of this plane to be so great that the aero-people-movers (Airlines) that are currently reatiring 747 classics and replacing them with 777s and converting remaining 744 orders to 777s may buy 3 or 4 of them for a couple of heavy routes? Into whome's(?) fleet does this planes fit in any significant numbers that can afford it?

Lance

There is an arguement for this size plane, but it is not that big of an arguement. Could some routes and some airlines use more capacity. YES. But not at the volume the A3XX brings. That is why I feel that the 747-400X and 747-400X Stretch make better economic sense. These aircraft offer more seats than the current 7474-400 and better operating economics. Eventually there will be a need for a Super Jumbo but not before 2010.

Hi Guys

Nice discussion here with no arguments.

This is what I like to hear!!

Lets make a proposition. Hopefully within the next 5 years the A3XX (or A350) will make it's first flight.

For anyone who wants to, lets save a bit of money and all meet up to witness it's first flight?

This could be the first Airliners.Net meeting  

Regards to all
Gary Watt
Aberdeen, Scotland

Gary...

I agree! I'd love to be a part of an airliners.net sendoff for the A350.

Personally, I would like to see the A3XX built; however, I strongly feel that Airbus should scale the aircraft back to say, a single-deck aircraft, ten-across seating, that would compete directly with the 747. Personally, the thought of a double-decked aircraft that spans the whole length of the plane scares the hell out of me (I don't want to see 747 2nd deck getting any bigger, either.)

Frankly, given the historical results of governments designing aircraft (From the R.A.F. Pulpit, through the Bristol Brabazon and beyond) instead of private concerns, I'm amazed that Airbus has been this successful so far. I can only credit the excellent techincal and design work of the European engineers.

Anyway, my point is not to bash airbus, but just to mention that, thare have been many overambitious airliner projects (The aforementioned Brabazon, the Dornier DO-X, the Princess, the "Spruce Goose" and the TU-144, to name a few). If you guys go to Tolouse, bring plenty of peanuts. You'll need to feed that white elephant.

I've got an idea..............

Let's all meet in Tokyo a day before the scheduled first flight and fly to cdg on a brand-new JAL 747-600 that the US gov't gave BCAC $6 Billion to develop.

That way, we could kill 2 birds with 1 stone.......

Or we could meet in Los Angeles and fly an SQ777-200LR to Singapore. Transfer onto one of their new 747-600's to CDG, you know the one's the US Gov't gave BCAC $6 Billion to develop. We could then return to CDG and fly a new AF 777-300ER back to LAX.

Let's see........4 birds with one field trip. AWESOME!!!!

Could you explain to me how BCAG got 6 billion from Uncle Sam. Sorry to dissapoint you but business doesn't operate that way over here. Tax cuts? Yes but they still have to pay taxes. Heck my own family gets tax cuts.

the EU we call it an economic mircle.      
Hey fellow europeans the Americans are jeallous.
Ah for once we have superior in the aviation industry.

Jeremiah Teahan      

Pro A 350

There is no national pride in building an aircraft subsidised to the tune of 6billion. With that sort of money even Australia could build it.

There is an interesting paragraph in the FI which states Airbus made a loss last year of over 200 million dollars because it sold aircraft to US carriers at too low a price.

This confirms what we already suspected.

I have heard it said that Airbus needs the cash flow from A3XX development just to keep the organisation going, and this is what is driving the push for the A3XX.

As for European supremecy in airspace, airliners are relatively low tech. Look at your fighters. The generation Europe is developing now, are the ones the USA are replacing.

I think Airbus would be much better off from a buisness sense to put less than half the money into a 777 competitor.

Ruscoe

The U.S. Government supports Boeing because Boeing builds these cute little things called F-22s and B-2s. The B, by the way, stands for Boeing. A lot of other companies are involved in those programs, in fact the -22s aren't even Boeing's for the most part. The European Government(s) support Airbus for show, to prove their technological equivelance.

As far as attributes to an airliner, the A3XX CD I have from Airbus depicts a hair salon, three seperate bunk rooms for passengers below decks, each with six bunks, and asian flight attendants in sports bras and mini-skirts. It's all for show. How much of it will be real I can't say, but don't count on getting your hair done in flight. You wanna' know what the interior will look like? Go to the Airbus webpage and get into their Photo Library (not gallery) and you'll see a futuristic 747, but nothing fancy, and it won't be there. Do y'all realize that if Cathay packed it up like they do their 777s, they could get over 750 people in one?

750 people are u mad ??
Forget the gyms etc. Fantasy Fantasy Fantasy etc.

Jeremiah Teahan

Vote A 350

Some of you dont realise how much air travel is increasing. In ten years it will be twice the size it is now.
The technology used in the european fighters is equal to all the american fighter jets. The americans dont know something the europeans dont.

Thanks

Avion

An the european government isnt capitalistic nor is it communistic. It is a mixture of both and it works good. There is no poverty in europe and there are no homeless people.

The Eurofighter fits pretty well into present and future predictions. So does the A350. It´s good that we Europeans are more involved into the Programs of our aviation industries ( let it be taxes ) like it seems to be in US, great business for very few people but hard work (if there are even jobs available) for those who have to work their as.. off.

I am not going to even get into the differences in government support. But to say the Eurofighter can compete with the F-22 is ridiculous. As stated above the American built fighters that are being worked on right now are at least a generation ahead of the European aircraft. The F-22 and JSF blow all of the competition. Even the F-16 can't compete against these products. Meanwhile it gives the Eurofighter a real good run for the money. The new Block 60 aircraft of a 25 year old aircraft are equal to that of a fighter that has yet to fly its first real military sortie.

The F-22 is a new generation, no doubt. But who pays for it and who needs it ?

The F-22 is a fighter aircraft that won the competition between it and the YF-23 to eventually replace the U.S. Airforces fleet of F-15 Eagles. It is manufacture by Lockheed Martin. The United States Government pays for these aircraft through income generated by taxes etc. The United States needs the F-22 to defend itself and protect its forces and allies in future military conflicts.

Don´t you think the F-15 could do this as well for the next 10 years ahead ?

I will respect Johan's wishes and cease and disses all military aviation posts.

OK, let´s be happy with competition as long it makes air-travel safe, cheap and peacefull .

It´s a great idea to meet at the A350´s maiden comercial flight. We all are less than 24 hours away. Maybe we could charter this flight. I will be there, even if just for spotting .

Some of your facts are wrong. Boeing does not build the B-2. Northrup does. Also, the F-22 is a primarily Lockheed design. Boeing and Lockheed are partners on the F-22. The F-22 only came into being after a fighter competition which included the McDonnell Douglas/Northrup YF23. To say the U.S. Government is supporting Boeing by buying F-22's is convoluted logic to say the least, scary to say the most. This post includes a lot of the red herrings and muddied water I said would occur earlier in the discussion. The U.S. (and any free market economy) has a big problem with a multi-billion dollar subsidy of the A3XX, something which has never happened, a does not happen to free market competitors like Boeing. For the third time, would I like to see the A3XX fly yes?!!!! Is it fair to Boeing, no?!!!!

Just a few notes, the B in B-2 or B-52 or B whatever, does not stand for Boeing, it stands for Bomber, just as F stands for Fighter, A for Attack, etc.

The F-22 is primarily a Lockheed, with Boeing as one of the lead subcontractors, or partners, whatever you want to call it. The B-2 is a Northrop Grumman plane, which Boeing builds components for. The F-15, the F/A-18 and the AV-8B Harrier were all brought over from MDC with the Harrier being originally from British Aerospace. Even the upcoming JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) is of MDC design. This is one of the primary reasons Boeing even bought MDC, for their military business...incase some of you think I meant for the JSF  

Sammy

It's funny to me how you always try to start an America vs. Europe and Boeing vs. Airbus fight. Believe me, I'm not at all jealous of Airbus or Europe. Boeing has had the market cornered on super high capacity transports for 30 years. Now they are facing the possibility of competition from their European rivals, but don't for one second think Boeing will not have a response. The demand for an airplane the size of the A3XX will probably be very limited and perhaps not even enough to recoup development costs. this is due to the fragmentation of many worldwide routes, and the proliferation of ultra long range airframes such as the 777X and A340-500 and -600. They may be a small demand for this aircraft in SE Asian countries such as Japan and China (most notably CX in Hong Kong) and maybe BA, but I could not possibly foresee this airplane having a huge worldwide market. Then again, that's what they said about the 747, but that was a different era, when the high capacity transports were heavily utilized on Trans-Atlantic routes and even U.S. domestic routes. Times have changed, and smaller aircraft and more frequencies are the norm these days. I have serious doubts that the A3XX will ever be launched, but I assure you, I will not be jealous if it is. Get off your high horse Teahan, both aircraft manufacturers make great airplanes. It's funny how Boeing can rule the market for 25+ years, but when Airbus has 1 good year you think we Americans are all so jealous and distraught at what you perceive to be our failure to produce a good product. Oh well, it's a moot point to you, because you're obviously anti-American, and that's too bad because it has no room on this forum (neither does being anti-European). But if ever you learn to debate your points, instead of just posting an ignorant blurb and running, I'd be happy to oblige!

Pete

Hi all

Well, it has turned out to be a nice discussion, but please refrain from the Europe v America postings.

I don't want to delete.........so lets keep it going.

Regards

Gary Watt
Aberdeen, Scotland

One quick note: the Boeing JSF is actually a Boeing design. It beat the McD design in phase one of the competition between Northrop Grumman (-Martin Marietta-and whoever else), McD and Boeing. That was also one of the straws that broke the camel's back in that McD lost out on a military jet, and that was their main strength. The buyout from Boeing came almost immediately following this defeat.


As for the 3XX... If Airbus can whine about a merger on foreign soil and cry about unfair competition with exclusive contracts, then poo on them. Boeing can get the US government to put the slap down on Airbus subsidy. I would like to see more details on the money injected by the British. I wouldn't object so much if it only goes to BAe (they're the only ones that have paid back their government "loans" to date) and if it is a true LOAN, not a gift, with real interest rates that are in line with the market. If the interest rate is lower than normal, I would expect the British government to make some concessions towards the Americans they are hurting. Perhaps by opening their skies for a real air travel treaty?

No way because of BA.

I think all this aviation stuff (Hushkit, open skies, subsidies) is going to get messy real soon!!! It was mentioned on CNN last night and one of the US negotiators mentioned that there was going to be some political fall out affecting trade and security arrangements if this didn't get settled amicably. Who knows????

I'm wondering why all those anti-Airbus Americans always cry around whenever Airbus gets some tax money from the EUROPEAN taxpayers...?
It is US, the EUROPEANS who have to pay, NOT anybody else.
And whatever we do with our money shouldn't interest you. If we open the window and throw it out, or burn it, who cares? It's not an American question.

But I know, America wants to influence everything, everybody, and so on, no news.

My tip: All those "I will tell you little Europeans what you have to do-Americans" shall care about their own problems or situations. There's much about America many Europeans don't like, but over here we don't always point the finger on anything and try to play Mr.PerfectWorldWise.
Maybe those Mr.Perfects should go down to Saddam and drop some bombs with their F-22 if they feel bored; instead of always trashing anything on Europe.


Regards
Udo

Such a pitty that this degenerated into patriotic rumble with no sound arguements for support.

Udo, thou speaketh crap.  

I'm sorry you feel like Americans look down upon you as small, but that is merely your interpretation of what we say.

When direct funding (or improper loans, or subsidy, or whatever you want to call it) puts working Americans out on the street due to unfair competition, like it or not, you've just made it an American issue.

If Airbus and the EU can inflict legislation upon an American company (in the form of the EU approving the Boeing/McD merger with stipulations) then fair is fair. The US will impose stipulations on the EU, and Airbus. It's a two way street. Deal with it.


"There's much about America many Europeans don't like, but over here we don't always point the finger on anything and try to play Mr.PerfectWorldWise. "

Do bananas ring a bell?

To Dlx, if Boeing would build better aircraft they would sell them better and that is their problem. Poor for those who work at Boeing that the company plans to get rid of thousands of jobs. Shure they blame it on others.

There is a perfectly real reason why the 3XX discussion always turns into America vs. Europe.

I'd like to think that sometimes the only similarity between Britain and America is that we speak the same language (almost). There are very large cultural differences between the US and the EU. The EU is quite socialistic. (That phrase in America is almost equivalent to communist to most people.) America is as capitalistic as you can get really. Now, of course there are some problems with that, especially when you are competing in a global environment.

Imagine for a second if Boeing were an EU company, and Airbus was American.

The 3XX project could never be built in America under the current conditions of the market. While there is a market for a plane its size, it is incredibly small, especially in this changing world where frequency is being pushed more than capacity. In the American system, no bank would give a loan. The government is too busy finding use for its comparatively limited funds in the small number of social and defense programs it must run to help any corporation out. In fact, here, govt. giving money to a corporation is bigtime taboo. If the market won't fund it, there are reasons why it shouldn't be done.

Now, if Boeing were an EU company, besides every measurement being in metric, you would have drastically different funding situations. Being such a large company, there are direct benefits to the unemployment rate by helping that company out when needy. So, if a subsidy keeps a company aloft, and therefore 50,000 people employed, then that subsidy is a good thing. Also, you can deny it if you want, but there is an awful lot of "Do it better than the Americans" sentiment in Europe that I've seen with my own eyes.

As long as these differences exist (and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon) there will be these squabbles between America and the EU especially since the world economy is getting more and more linked. The problem now is that any subsidy given to a competitor from the EU or any favorable treatment at all for that matter, directly hurts American workers. It should be expected that Americans and our government would get upset and try to do something about it.

The 3XX program is a threat to Americans, and a trophy for Europeans. IMO, that is the entire reason why any 3XX post will be quickly followed by anti-American or -European sentiment. They are closely linked.

Otherwise, I really don't think there is that much to talk about for a plane that hasn't been built yet, and if it ever does, will not fly for another 5-8 years.

Do you really think that Boeing sells inferior products? I don't believe so.

As for the technical improvements that Airbus has over Boeing (and there are some, just like Boeing has some over Airbus) such as common cockpits for all of their planes, I'm sure Boeing would love to put these features in their planes, but since Boeing's competition can artificially reduce the price Boeing has to sell at, the funds may not be there to do so. (However, this particular technical improvement is on the drawing boards. Did anyone notice that the 737NG and 764 have cockpits that can actually change via software to look like the 777/744 cockpit?)

I have one question for DLX et al, and it is this. Given the economics of developing an aircraft in the recent world markets, how would you go about funding the development of any major aircraft, given that you are a relative newcomer, trying to elbow your way onto the global scene? Remember, Boeing is an established player, with many years of building up a company, and as such, would always have a greater internal funding capabilities than AI. If you wish to make an impact, risks must be taken, and that's what AI is doing. Don't get me wrong, I'm also a fan of Boeing, and their aircraft. But my point is that there is a great difference between a loan at below the market rates, and a subsidy, after all, the EU has the right to protect jobs also does it not? Or does that only apply when it's not US jobs which are threatened? The bottom line is, it takes years of investment, NOT subsidy to break into such a big industry which was almost a monopoly, and this is what the EU is investing in.

"how would you go about funding the development of any major aircraft, given that you are a relative newcomer...?"

Well, there was a point in time where Boeing was a relative newcomer. It took them many years (decades) before they became the powerhouse they are today. It took a lot of risk, and betting the company. Lucky for them, the 747 sold or else we'd all be flying DC-somethings or L-10somethings exclusively.

It takes many years of being a rookie before you can be a powerhouse veteran. And that's in just about any industry save the Internet.

Boeing had to tough it out, so why should any new entrant be simply given the top spot through subsidy, improper loans, legislation, and whatever other tricks a company can use?

"If you wish to make an impact, risks must be taken, and that's what AI is doing. "

Not quite. Airbus is not handling much of the risk in there ventures. The risk is entirely being held by the governments of the consortium's respective countries. And being mostly socialist regimes, their pockets are certainly much deeper than Boeing's will ever be.

"the EU has the right to protect jobs also does it not? "
Absolutely. But, when protecting and adding European jobs threatens US jobs, you had better expect that the US government will do something about it, and that Americans will complain very loudly, and very bitterly. All I'm saying is that it is a two way street.

So you somehow believe that Airbus must "serve it's time", so to speak, before it can compete with Boeing. What you fail to notice is that no newcomer to this market can quietly try and nudge their way in, it does not work that way. Put simply it's an all or nothing strategy, Airbus must commit on a grand scale to have any chance of remaining a realistic challenger in future decades. In any case, Airbus would not have the financial muscle to independently develop the A3XX now, so it requires government loans to do so. Otherwise the aircraft will not be developed, and the status quo remains, which I am sure you'll agree is not really acceptable to AI, although quite acceptable to Boeing. Also, you say AI is not taking a risk in developing the A3XX, can you honestly say you believe they will survive if the A3XX fails? Also I think that by consistently calling our governments socialistic, you are somehow trying to liken AI to state run concern, something like the collectives of old mother Russia, and by default unwieldy and inefficient. Innacurate to say the least. Finally, you say Boeing was a relative newcomer at one point....I think it's fair to say that when they were a newcomer, aircraft were also relative newcomers, success in those days was, like it or not not as difficult as success in the aviation industry now. I really would like to know what is improper about low interest loans, somehow, a lot of people like to blur the difference between them, and subsidies......You should check out the archives for topics by MAC_Veteran, he's done a few mini exposes on NASA, and governmental "help" for Boeing. All I'm saying is it's a leveller playing field than a lot of people are willing to believe....
Regards to all...

"So you somehow believe that Airbus must "serve it's time", so to speak, before it can compete with Boeing. " No company in any industry can expect to be the dominant player a few years after opening shop. The only way to achieve that is by artificial stimulation from one's government.

"What you fail to notice is that no newcomer to this market can quietly try and nudge their way in, it does not work that way. " Tell that to Embraer, Fairchild-Dornier and Bombardier. They did it the right way. They saw holes in industry product lines, and exploited them with this newfangled "RJ" idea. And check them out now! They're kicking the pants off Saab and other prop makers. Airbus actually DID have it right in the early days. The A300 and 310, and eventually 320 were perfect introductions. The 767 did not exist, but there was quite a market for a plane that size. Airbus beat them to it with the 300, and improved on that with the 310. The 727 had been a very popular aircraft with many sales, but it got old, and replacements were needed. Boeing didn't offer a true 727 replacement, so Airbus' first narrowbody was a 727 size jet. Brilliant, and it worked out quite well for them. However, they had bigger and better ideas, but lacked the patience to wait until they had the means to implement them. The free market doesn't like their all or nothing strategy because it is too risky, so they don't lend. Don't worry, the governments will give them everything they need. If the governments did not offer their assistance, then Airbus would be happy making a killing off of their 320 while Boeing gets around to making a 727 replacement (it JUST came out) and also, building a family based on the two platforms 320 and 300. (And McDonnell Douglas is still in business.)


"Also, you say AI is not taking a risk in developing the A3XX, can you honestly say you believe they will survive if the A3XX fails? " Yes, Airbus will survive if the A3XX fails. If they are particularly needy, the governments will bail them out. That's better than losing x thousand jobs.

As for MAC_Veteran, ay yah! He does not compare apples to apples. Yes, Boeing has benefited from Nasa research. Airbus has benefitted from Nasa research as well. Yes, Boeing has learned techniques from its military contracts. Surprisingly enough, Airbus' member companies are also military contractors that have learned many techniques because of their military contracts. (Do you think the Concorde could have been built without Aerospatiale's knowledge about delta wings from their military contracts?) Yes, Boeing (and Airbus) get money directly from the government to pay for their products. However, that is not subsidy. The US Govt also pays money to American Standard in return for sinks and toilets. Does that mean that they are subsidizing the toilet industry? Hardly. Fee for service, and Fee for product. The only difference is that Airbus gets direct loans from the government at better than market rates in order to offset the risk of development, and to allow the firm to discount their airframes to sell better. That is not right, and threatens American jobs. And as I said before, once America is threatened, we step in and do something about it.


Also, please don't put words in my mouth about saying socialism is the same as the Soviets. I only speak of the differences in culture between the US and the EU. I did note correctly that many Americans feel that Socialism and Communism are one in the same. They are not, however they are both far far away from the American ideal.

I ask you one question:
Why are you afraid that US jobs are in danger just because the EU gives money to Airbus for the A3XX?
Due to Boeing's and many of A3XX-haters' opinion the A3XX has no future, no market, so Boeing wouldn't be affected by any A3XX in the future as nobody buys it and therefore nobody can prefer it over an American product, which means: no loss of work in the States. So why worry?

Or are some of you just afraid that a non-American company builds the largest plane on earth?


Regards
Udo

"Why are you afraid that US jobs are in danger just because the EU gives money to Airbus for the A3XX? "

That's easy. Because when the EU gives money to Airbus for any of their projects, it allows them to sell the product at less than it is worth in order to undercut Boeing, who does not have that same luxury. Thus, Boeing's profit margins are artificially reduced resulting in the inability to both pay its workers and continue business. That means people would be laid off.

"Due to Boeing's and many of A3XX-haters' opinion the A3XX has no future, no market, ..."

I strongly doubt that any of the opinions on this board are examined for even a millisecond by the people who would buy or sell these planes. If the price is cheap, the airlines will buy.

"Or are some of you just afraid that a non-American company builds the largest plane on earth? "

Actually, the A3XX will still be smaller than the An225. You don't see any of us yelling at them, do you? Your claim is misguided.

Alright guys,
at this very moment, I'm about to hop in my car to head to New Hampshire and catch a flight to sunny LA. It is currently snowing in Boston, even though it was 71 degrees F outside yesterday, and I would really like to go someplace warm. So, see you all next week!

Hi all you aviation fans out there!

It was nice to watch this discussion, and although I didn't want to get involved into another Boeing vs. Airbus debate I think it's time now to state something which may be of importance for all people who are criticizing the money european governments give Airbus as loans to help them build the A3XX.

The US government agreed that 33% of the developing costs of the A3XX can be financed through public loans like the one the British government recently approved (if you want to have a source, it's from the Financial Times). So why are criticizing european governments ant not your own?

What do you say now?? Please THINK before you make unjustified accusations against european governments or Airbus.

And remember, Airbus only gets loans which have to be repayed!


Regards,
the WorldTraveller

Since I heard about the A3xx was my mission to save enough buks for a travel to Toulouse!

I have bin there before and I will love to go there again...BUT

I like Seattle better than Toulouse.

Regards
Lauda 777,Stockholm

Hi Guys

Thanks for keeping this discussion civil without any bad arguments.

For that, and if I win the lottery tomorrow night, I will buy you all a ticket to Tolouse.

 

Regards
Gary Watt
Aberdeen, Scotland

You're my new best friend.      

Jeremiah Teahan

Hey Gary, I take your word on that one!  

But if I win, you're all on my party!

Happy flying (on future big birds too),
the WorldTraveller