NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 6211 posts, RR: 23 Posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5453 times:
What's all this about? I thought Airbus had said that they didn't need launch aid any more?
"MIKE TURNER, chief executive of defence and aerospace group BAE Systems, has intervened in the row over UK government aid to Airbus by proposing a compromise that would keep alive the talks between the EU and America on the issue.
"Airbus has asked Britain for £379m in refundable aid to develop and build its new A350 aircraft. It plans to launch the project in a month, with Britain expected to announce its decision on the aid shortly before.
"A green light would inflame American sensitivities over aid to Airbus. Washington accuses European governments of providing illegal subsidies to support the planemaker, and has begun litigation at the World Trade Organisation to stop it."
Dougloid From France, joined Jul 2005, 7691 posts, RR: 47 Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5416 times:
What smells to high heaven if you've been following this story is the thinly veiled threat to take the work elsewhere if the Brits do not fork up the dough....but that's par for the course in aviation generally as we here in the States understand all too well.
Folks, if Airbus pulls the wing production for the A350 if it ever gets built from wherever they're proposing that they be made now, do not assume for one second that the wings will automatically get built somewhere else in western Europe....there are plenty of people standing in line who will do this kind of work who do not get paid like people do in western Europe and have the technical ability to do a good job of it.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
GARPD From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Aug 2005, 1129 posts, RR: 3 Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5408 times:
oi vey oi vey.
That one large can of worms you just opened.
Scorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4467 posts, RR: 35 Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5299 times:
Quoting GARPD (Reply 2): That one large can of worms you just opened.
...and that was precisely his intention.
NAV20,
The A380 testing thread was closed, part two was deleted. So what is the first thing you do, now that your favorite Airbus bashing threads are gone? You start your own!
You need a hobby.
Oh, and to keep this thing on topic: Airbus has always said they didn't NEED the launch aid, but would take it if they could get it. So, the 'question' in the thread starter is answered, let's lock this baby up before it turns into what you want it to turn into.
MidnightMike From United States, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 23 Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5245 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Thread starter): What's all this about? I thought Airbus had said that they didn't need launch aid any more?
Let me be the 2nd one to say it, the comment from Airbus was that they do not need the launch aid, as they have plenty of cash on hand, but, would apply for launch aid.
Think about it this way, if you have have $500,000 in the bank, would you spend the cash & pay for the house or apply for a mortage from a bank, & invest your cash elsewhere.......
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5224 times:
It must drive Nav20's many critics/detractors nuts that they can't provoke him into being as caustic, mean spirited, and dismissive as they often are towards him. He just glides along making his arguments without resorting to ad hominem attacks. You can dispute his facts, theories, and conclusions, even his sources of information; but his good manners are never in question.
GARPD From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Aug 2005, 1129 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5177 times:
Quoting Leelaw (Reply 8): It must drive Nav20's many critics/detractors nuts that they can't provoke him into being as caustic and mean spirited as they often are towards him. He just glides along making his arguments without resorting to ad hominem attacks. You can dispute his facts, theories, and conclusions, even his sources of information; but his good manners are never in question.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 6211 posts, RR: 23 Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5167 times:
Not the same thing, MidnightMike. If I was running an international business I certainly wouldn't risk the WTO giving everyone a licence to set up tariff barriers against my products. Especially if I didn't actually need the money.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Scorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4467 posts, RR: 35 Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5134 times:
Quoting GARPD (Reply 9): To be fair, Nav20 is only linking us to some news about Airbus'/BAe's movements.
I see no bashing here yet, other than you questioning Nav20 for merely distributing indepentant news.
You're joking, right? It is extremely clear what his intention is with this thread, and you know that, and so does he.
He makes that very clear too: read the only thing he himself wrote in his first post:
Quoting NAV20 (Thread starter): What's all this about? I thought Airbus had said that they didn't need launch aid any more?
Knowing NAV20's history with regards to anything remotely Airbus, I can say with 99% certainty that this was a lame attempt at sarcasm.
And Leelaw, when one member is responsible for more than half the A vs B wars on here, by launching speculations against the company whenever he gets the chance, I'll call him out on that.
GARPD From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Aug 2005, 1129 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5115 times:
Quoting Scorpio (Reply 11): Quoting GARPD (Reply 9):
To be fair, Nav20 is only linking us to some news about Airbus'/BAe's movements.
I see no bashing here yet, other than you questioning Nav20 for merely distributing indepentant news.
You're joking, right? It is extremely clear what his intention is with this thread, and you know that, and so does he.
He makes that very clear too: read the only thing he himself wrote in his first post:
Quoting NAV20 (Thread starter):
What's all this about? I thought Airbus had said that they didn't need launch aid any more?
Knowing NAV20's history with regards to anything remotely Airbus, I can say with 99% certainty that this was a lame attempt at sarcasm.
And Leelaw, when one member is responsible for more than half the A vs B wars on here, by launching speculations against the company whenever he gets the chance, I'll call him out on that.
All I see is someone who has a history of openly discussing his points of view and opinions. Time and time again he has explained the reasoning for his opinions and many times defended them. That is his right.
He's never bashed anyone, nor called anyone any obscene names or doubted their intelligence. He has calmy discussed his points of view.
You cannot call him a basher simply because you disagree with his opinions.
Halibut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5014 times:
Quoting Leelaw (Reply 8): It must drive Nav20's many critics/detractors nuts that they can't provoke him into being as caustic and mean spirited as they often are towards him. He just glides along making his arguments without resorting to ad hominem attacks. You can dispute his facts, theories, and conclusions, even his sources of information; but his good manners are never in question.
Agreed !
This is why NAV20 is so hated by some and loved by others ! He has a pleasant way of making the Anti-NAV20's paint themselfs into a corner !
Kind of an A-nets Jiu-Jitsu !
Here he uses an article from his opposition to back up and vindicate one of his many arguements regarding the A380 !
""Emirates managing director Tim Clark has said that the overrun is five tonnes, calling it “miraculous”. The aircraft is expected to meet performance guarantees, says Clark. “The only hit is on fuel and maintenance — we work the engines a little harder.”
"....all the A380 operators are planning unique and uniquely elaborate interiors; and these interiors are being developed within tight weight constraints. A better recipe for a log-jam could not be imagined."
Five tonnes is maybe fifty less passengers - or say 2,000 gallons of fuel. And even keeping the extra weight down to that appears to entail the customers having to work within 'tight weight constraints' in their cabin fitouts.
" Besides, five tons overweight is no more than I and others were saying - and you were denying - on another thread, only a week or so ago. "
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 6211 posts, RR: 23 Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4980 times:
Guys, sincere thanks for springing to my defence - but when I started the thread I really did think that it was a pretty ominous development, that throws a whole new light on how controversial/risky the whole Airbus/A380/A350 situation is becoming.
Hey, though, stop the presses - yet ANOTHER 'Airbus-basher' has started a similar thread.......from an unexpected source:-
Dhefty From United States, joined May 2005, 599 posts, RR: 3 Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4952 times:
Let's see, Airbus outsells Boeing by $4Billion annually, has a much larger backlog, has the largest passenger airliner ever built, and has a higher delivery rate. Conclusion: Airbus needs launch aid. Am I missing something?
GARPD From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Aug 2005, 1129 posts, RR: 3 Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4891 times:
Thats not cash in hand though is it. Its cash Boeing does not need to pay up.
And Airbus could, and probably will, get the same if they set up shop in the US.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 6211 posts, RR: 23 Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4850 times:
Kappel, the WTO will rule on that. But I think you'll find that those are legitimate 'regional incentives' to attract industry to needy areas. Boeing gets them in Washington State, Airbus gets them in Toulouse and Hamburg and North Wales and wherever.
'Launch aid' is different. Arguably it consists of 'soft loans' direct from central government to a supposedly wealthy/viable company.
In any case, the question isn't really whether Airbus should get them. It's why on earth they chose to insist on them, and even go to the lengths of virtually blackmailing the British Government, at a time when the whole issue is before the WTO.
Many possible explanations. But the simplest one is that they can't afford to develop the A350 without it.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 5566 posts, RR: 36 Reply 20, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4820 times:
Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 7): Think about it this way, if you have have $500,000 in the bank, would you spend the cash & pay for the house or apply for a mortage from a bank, & invest your cash elsewhere.......
Not quite the same thing. That is a poor analigy. A better one would be is
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 6211 posts, 
From France, joined Jul 2005, 7691 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Aug 2005, 1129 posts, 
From United States, joined Jul 2005, 3509 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4467 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 2081 posts,