Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator  
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4544 times:

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/expor...ws/Frontpage/032906/ss_murray.html

Makes for an interesting read. While I have my own issues with what some consider -- and some don't -- "subsidies", the fact that her report gets some very basic facts wrong (e.g., "the unveiling of the A380 last June") doesn't help her case and makes her sound like a politician...oops, she is one!


My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGlareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1308 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4528 times:

Your link isn't working Red Flyer. I didn't find it on the frontpage of The Hill either.


There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4474 times:

You can also just copy and paste this without the quotes (""):

"http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/032906/ss_murray.html"



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2754 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4060 times:

Thanks for posting the link Redflyer!

This is my thoughts after reading her comments regarding the A380. Why do politicians get away with this anyway?

Quote:
Just look at the guest list. Four European heads of state from France, Germany, Great Britain and the EU came together to celebrate Airbus' foray into the world of jumbo jets.

As a European not living in a within the EU, I have to say WOW: The EU is not a country. It does not have a state of head. The EU is a trading system. Think og it as NAFTA.

Quote:
These unfair and unprecedented subsidies are costing American workers their jobs, and it is time for Congress to wake up to the threat.

Airbus has created allot of jobs in the US. Think about all sub companies benefiting from supplying Airbus.

Subsidies are not beneficial for neither Airbus nor Boeing. The ongoing conflict in WTO I fear will make both manufacturers end up without subsidies at all.

If the American society truly are a capitalist state, and not socialist they should allow the market to develop it self.

Meaning that if Airbus can get money to produce a plane that there is not a market for, then ultimately Airbus will be bankrupt, or the states that gave them some money will loose so much that it will destabilize the whole economy of that country. In this case France, Britain and Germany. Let capitalism work it's way.  Smile



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3991 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 3):
Why do politicians get away with this anyway?

That was the point of my original post, which is that politicians sure know how to "spin". And in a shameful way sometimes.

While I don't necessarily see Airbus' viewpoint on the subsidies issue, what this jacka$$ politician says is, frankly, untrue and incendiary in nature. Pure B.S. It's comments like hers that poison peoples' attitudes towards politics.

This comment is somewhat dubious as I'm not sure where she got the $15 billion figure from nor how she derived the $35 billion commercial value:

"Airbus has received at least $15 billion in direct cash advances from European governments to develop its family of aircraft. If Airbus had to borrow that money from commercial lenders at market rates, it is estimated that the company would have spent $35 billion to develop its aircraft models."

This comment is also a little off-mark:

"U.S. airports are on the line for billions of dollars in infrastructure improvements to accommodate the massive A380. These improvements will be paid by landing fees, ticket taxes and passenger facility charges that every American citizen will have to pay when they board a plane in the United States."

Frankly, airports front improvements for all kinds of new aircraft, not to mention the constant growth in passenger traffic. And, yes, passengers do end up paying for it in ticket prices that reflect estimated landing fees. But so what? That is the business lifecycle. It's not as if anyone is getting screwed. It's called the free market.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineSeeTheWorld From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1325 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3934 times:

Election Year Politics - That's all it is. It's disgraceful.

User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2754 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3918 times:

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 4):
While I don't necessarily see Airbus' viewpoint on the subsidies issue, what this jacka$$ politician says is, frankly, untrue and incendiary in nature. Pure B.S. It's comments like hers that poison peoples' attitudes towards politics.

I totally agree with you there.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 4):
Frankly, airports front improvements for all kinds of new aircraft, not to mention the constant growth in passenger traffic. And, yes, passengers do end up paying for it in ticket prices that reflect estimated landing fees. But so what? That is the business lifecycle. It's not as if anyone is getting screwed. It's called the free market.

Great to hear a true capitalist speak. UR at my respected user list for this  Smile

By the way. IMO her statement makes the U.S standpoint in the on going WTO conflict less valid I am afraid.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineAdric10 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 17 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3839 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 6):
Election Year Politics - That's all it is. It's disgraceful.

But Murray was re-elected in '04, so she's safe for at least a few years.  Wink

As off (err, plain wrong) as many of her comments are, just remember that she's from Washington, and being a Democrat her entire constituency is based here in Seattle. Without Seattle and a pro-Boeing fight she'd have no seat in the Senate. She is, after all, a politician...


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3826 times:

Quoting Adric10 (Reply 7):
But Murray was re-elected in '04, so she's safe for at least a few years.

Yes, and she'll have a say in the eventual USAF tanker decision.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2754 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3793 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 8):
Yes, and she'll have a say in the eventual USAF tanker decision.

Hey! Cool. Why don't we try to convince here that the only way the U.S can protect it self from... You know... The enemy. Then they need to buy the 747-8 or 777-200LR as tanker planes. No other plane on the earth can protect the U.S. from.... You know. The enemy...



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7965 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3749 times:

Quote:

Not long ago, NBC News uncovered direct evidence of Airbus’s efforts to sell military aircraft to a country focused on destabilizing and undermining American interests in the Middle East.

Wasn't the actual idea to provide some transporters to Iran in exchange for abandoning efforts to enrich Uranium? There was nothing secret about it. How does this undermine U.S. interests?

Quote: NBC News was able to get a camera crew into an air show in Kish, Iran, and found EADS pitching its military helicopters to Iran.

If the company is so pro-American, why is it ignoring U.S. policy to isolate Iran?

“As a European company, we’re not supposed to take into account embargoes from the U.S.,” says Michel Tripier, with EADS.


Mr. Tripier said a litlle more than that. Full quote:

"The emphasis here is on our civil helicopters. We are not offering military helicopters here," he adds.

Yet, prominent on the company's video in Iran — a military helicopter.

"It says 'Navy' in their own promotional videotape," says John Pike. "I guess they're hoping Iran's navy is going to want to buy it."

EADS says the helicopter just happened to be on the video, and that it abides by U.S. and European rules against selling military goods to Iran.


Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050223-europe-iran.htm

I'm not going to comment on that, but it appears Senator Murray is very partial to Boeing and U.S. American companies (and of course she does not forget to mention "hard working Americans"). Nothing wrong with that, since she's an American Senator, but she is bending the truth.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21562 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3749 times:

She expresses a POV no more skewed than many others at A.net.

Most of what she says is politicking, but there's one point I agree with that I've been saying for quite a while.

Her comments re:A380 infrastructure have some validity because one main reason for the "need" for this plane is due to slot constraints and curfews in OTHER countries. If LHR had expanded like it should have, for example, there would be no need to fly 380s there. But since it hasn't, there will be A380 flights from LHR to the USA. If SYD didn't have the curfews and restrictions it does, there wouldn't be a need to fly A380s into it and still make international schedules work. So, for those airports to work effectively, they must rely on other airports building up for receiving A380. LAX, SFO, JFK, MIA, etc. are spending billions because other countries can't work their airport systems properly. In other words, there aren't really any benefits to the average USA citizen for building up for the A380, yet they are being asked to pay anyway.

Oh, and the selling to enemies of the USA? France especially has a long history of that, like it or not.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7498 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3696 times:

"As a European not living in a within the EU, I have to say WOW: The EU is not a country. It does not have a state of head. The EU is a trading system. Think og it as NAFTA."

Surprised some EU members did not correct this statement, the EU is much more than that.

"If the American society truly are a capitalist state, and not socialist they should allow the market to develop it self"

When US states give tax breaks to Boeing, my understanding is that they reduce the percentage. Is that the same as launch aid to Airbus.


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7965 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3681 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
She expresses a POV no more skewed than many others at A.net.

As a Senator you have a responsibility not to twist facts.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
Her comments re:A380 infrastructure have some validity because one main reason for the "need" for this plane is due to slot constraints and curfews in OTHER countries. If LHR had expanded like it should have, for example, there would be no need to fly 380s there.

That's bogus. On most European (and probably Japanese) Airports, you can not simply add another runway, nor can you expand airports as you please.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
LAX, SFO, JFK, MIA, etc. are spending billions because other countries can't work their airport systems properly. In other words,

... in other words you are about to make a fool out of you.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
Oh, and the selling to enemies of the USA? France especially has a long history of that, like it or not.

France. Sure. That was to be expected. For every example you provide to back your statement up, I'll provide two examples of U.S. American weapons exports, your country later regretted.

[Edited 2006-03-29 23:04:13]


I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3604 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
So, for those airports to work effectively, they must rely on other airports building up for receiving A380. LAX, SFO, JFK, MIA, etc. are spending billions because other countries can't work their airport systems properly.

OK, I see the argument, but I can't agree with it.

When the 747 was "invented" airports all over the world had to spend money to handle it. I don't recall any complaints then. And you can make a strong argument that one bigger plane carrying people from A-B is much more efficient than two smaller ones, especially in crowded skies. With the cost of jet fuel I'm surprised this trend hasn't accelerated.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2754 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3594 times:

Quoting Par13del (Reply 12):
Surprised some EU members did not correct this statement, the EU is much more than that.

Of course allot of people wants the European Union to do more than trade, but EU's constitution was turned down. I know EU is mroe political than NAFTA, but it shares the same principals. The EU is not a country and does not have a head of state.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 12):
When US states give tax breaks to Boeing, my understanding is that they reduce the percentage. Is that the same as launch aid to Airbus.

Let the market regulate it self. Give all players equal oportunities. If Airbus wanted to build planes in Washington state they could apply to the same tax break as Boeing gets. Would this work the other way around?



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineBlueFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4124 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3557 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Adric10 (Reply 7):
But Murray was re-elected in '04, so she's safe for at least a few years.

It's not election-year politics, it's home-state politics, and that doesn't wait the next election to rear its head. Murray is a senator from Washington state, where coincidentally, Airbus' major (dare I say lone) competitor, employs thousands, and just as coincidentally gave her more than $30,000 in donations for her last campaign.

As if it weren't enough, she also sits on the appropriation committee, the committee that happens to tell the Pentagon how to spend its money, which may or may not include spending a large amount of money buying tanker jets from either Airbus or that major competitor coincidentally employing thousands in Murray's home state.

It's just my opinion, but I don't think she really cares about what the few passengers from Washington state will have to pay extra in landing fees when flying to or through San Francisco. I think it's just an excuse to sling mud at Airbus.

Further, I think she is trying very hard to paint Airbus as a non-US company (no argument here), but it might very well be a way to try and dispel's Airbus efforts to make itself look a little bit more American than it is by associating itself with well-known US companies such as Honeywell to win said tanker jet contract.

Bottom line, you can read this editorial and take it at face value, and you probably wouldn't be wrong, but personally, I think she is lobbying for that Airbus competitor in the race to win the tanker jet contract.

Not that politics is one-sided either. If you think Airbus considered only economic factors in picking the location of its future jet tanker facility (shoud it get the contract, of course), I've got a two-engine, fuel-saving A340 for you.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 13):
As a Senator you have a responsibility not to twist facts.

And the voters duly remind their elected representatives of such responsability every time they re-elect people like Murray...

[Edited 2006-03-29 23:34:43]


I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7965 posts, RR: 12
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3531 times:

Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 16):
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 13):
As a Senator you have a responsibility not to twist facts.

And the voters duly remind their elected representatives of such responsability every time they re-elect people like Murray...

Which only confirms that we still share some things and habits in the New and Old World.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3531 times:

I must say I´m surprised Patty survived McCain & the Tanker drama. But she is obviously still there..

http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0349/031203_news_senators.php


User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3448 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 18):
I must say I´m surprised Patty survived McCain & the Tanker drama. But she is obviously still there..

http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/03...s.php

Keesje, rest assured that I am not voting for her. However, I live in California.

Still, she is pretty sad, and typical.  yuck 


User currently offlineAirA380 From Bangladesh, joined Mar 2006, 179 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days ago) and read 3397 times:

Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 16):
It's not election-year politics, it's home-state politics, and that doesn't wait the next election to rear its head. Murray is a senator from Washington state, where coincidentally, Airbus' major (dare I say lone) competitor, employs thousands, and just as coincidentally gave her more than $30,000 in donations for her last campaign.

shouldn't she be worried about patriot boys are getting killed in Iraq...but instead she would rather talk about airbus for petty cash $30,000..that sums up politicians..they only care about their seat and nothing else.



I'm flying without wings!!!!!!!!
User currently offlineTerryb99 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 291 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days ago) and read 3364 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 18):
I must say I´m surprised Patty survived McCain & the Tanker drama. But she is obviously still there..

It does not surprise me a bit, that you would pick the most radical, way out of the mainstream, publication in the Seattle market to link to. Big grin

But, I am not a Patty Murry defender by any means. I live in Washington, and have never voted for her. I think she is an embarrassment to both Washington state and the US in general. This rant of hers just reinforces that feeling.


User currently offlinePhuebner From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 244 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (8 years 8 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3145 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 3):
The EU is a trading system. Think og it as NAFTA.

I would not exactly compare the EU to NAFTA. I think you're a little off on that. The EU is quite a bit different and quite a bit more than NAFTA...monetary, political etc. but I would agree that the U.S. being a capitalist society, of which I fully support, is probably making a bigger deal than it really is. Boeing and Airbus are competing and therefore I believe it is important that we allow that competition to exist. If one takes out the other what do we have? A monoply and we all would agree that this is not good for us...on top of that bring about Socialistic ideals that I don't agree with.



Remember this, Your Body is a temple Not a pull toy!
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2754 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (8 years 8 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3047 times:

Quoting Phuebner (Reply 22):
I would not exactly compare the EU to NAFTA. I think you're a little off on that.

I know that EU is more than NAFTA, and that the EU even wants their own military. But allot of people on A.net refer to the EU as a country, or the entire Europe. But there are a few countries who i not a member og the EU. Norway for instance pay billions of kroner every year, so that we can treade with the European members, without being a fulltime member.

Back to topic, I would say that a U.S. Senator should be aware of this.  Smile

Quoting Phuebner (Reply 22):
A monoply and we all would agree that this is not good for us...on top of that bring about Socialistic ideals that I don't agree with.

Yup! It is a good thing that we have boht manufactorers. This U.S Senator talks down here own country with cheap and untrue comments.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 24, posted (8 years 8 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2998 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 3):
Why do politicians get away with this anyway?

Those that they answer to (in principle: their voters) are ignorant to aviation and don't bother correcting themselves.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 4):
That was the point of my original post, which is that politicians sure know how to "spin". And in a shameful way sometimes.

I don't think it is spin, as you call it. Most peopel are simply ignorant and sadly think they know enough hence do not bother informing or correcting themselves. The primary reasons for flame wars here, for example, is because of the "I'm sure of myself" mindset.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
25 BA380 : She shows a remarkable lack of understamding of international government: she mentions 4 European Heads of State - France, Germany, Britain and Spain.
26 Joni : This is rich.. the US also has an extensive history of selling weapons to its own enemies and actively undermining its own interests. And we're not e
27 Trex8 : oh pleeez. if you have forgotten your 3rd grade history , we would still be singing God Save The King if it wasn't for the French.
28 Sebolino : Patty Murray is well known for her fight against Airbus. She explained once why she was so angry about Airbus and the EU, she said something like "We
29 Halls120 : Because they are politicians, of course. Not expected to or required to tell the truth. While I don't necessarily applaud or support everything that
30 RichardPrice : Yes, because the British definately didnt sink an ex US battleship during the Falklands War, now did they? I often hear complaints of the US having t
31 Jonathan-l : That is the most twisted argument EVER! Why don't you say: "If Boeing or Airbus had developed their airplanes properly, there would be no need for cu
32 Breiz : I do agree. We are funny allies. Saving each other from destruction at some stage in history, liking each other somehow, but, God, how biased we can
33 Atnight : Ikramerica, I have just one thing to tell you, do some research before coming out with such comments... as pointed out, there are VERY VALID REASONS
34 RichardPrice : Try this: Her comments re:747 infrastructure have some validity because one main reason for the "need" for this plane is due to slot constraints and
35 Khobar : The difference is that in the case of Boeing, it's Boeing's own money and not taxpayers'. With Airbus it's the other way around. The reality is that
36 Revelation : Wow, loads of righteous indignation! I guess no one wants to discuss the (poorly stated) underlying point, that perhaps the A380 program is more abou
37 RedFlyer : I have no doubt most people are ignorant, including politicians. However, politicians like Sen. Murray, regardless of their level of ignorance, have
38 Ikramerica : That is absolutely and categorically wrong. Do you know the history of aviation or are you just so blinded by the A380 not to understand the fundamen
39 RichardPrice : Sure, the precise words dont work but the sentiment is still exactly the same - there were lots of nay sayers for the 747s introduction, and yet its
40 Prebennorholm : Mrs. Murray sure needs a geagraphic training course. About a dozen times she mentiones "EU", "Europe", or "the European governments". While she should
41 N908AW : Airbus�s slick campaign to sell itself in the United States completely overlooks the real harm it inflicts on U.S. workers, American companies an
42 Lehpron : Who is going to know or care if they are factual or not other than abunch of aviation savy folks like us and maybe someone higher up that knows other
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Another Biased Airbus Report By American Media posted Tue Aug 1 2006 08:00:00 by Tugger
Airbus Saved By Airline Industry?Monopoly,no Way! posted Sun Jul 23 2006 22:47:20 by Halibut
Leahy And Airbus Comments posted Thu Apr 6 2006 16:34:32 by RedFlyer
Airbus Rejected By Japanese Manufacturers On A350 posted Sat Oct 29 2005 13:48:32 by JetMaster
Branson Got An Airbus Discount By 'Stealing' A Watch? posted Wed Aug 31 2005 09:18:16 by Clickhappy
Mexicana Airbus Hit By Turbulence 18 Injured! posted Mon Jul 25 2005 09:26:36 by Theredbaron
Airbus Comments On A3XX And 747X. posted Fri Apr 28 2000 20:19:42 by CX747
Air Canada Fleet, Comments By Mr. Milton... posted Thu Mar 30 2000 20:06:10 by AC183
Odd Comments By Pilots posted Mon May 17 1999 02:40:45 by Dazed767
Airbus Sees 27,000 Commercial Aircraft By 2025 posted Wed Nov 22 2006 12:36:25 by Leelaw