Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A3XX Success Or Bust?  
User currently offline747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6
Posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2429 times:

The A3xx is upon us. But who will buy it? I think where it would be successful is in the Asia Pacific rim, since ANA and JAL already use 747SR's and they aren't enough. Even with high load factors on other routes, I really wonder how economical it will really be. Remember fuel prices are going up. In the early 70's the US went 747 crazy, flying on routes like NY to Miami, but found it was hard to fill and expensive to run on a short route (and that demand leveled off from the heady days of the 60's). There was such a rush at the begining in 1970-72 but all the airlines like like American, Delta and Eastern dumped them. (yes they were waiting for the Tristar/DC-10 but it is a good example of the science of load planning) It appears that the operators of the really long range a/c's like the A340/330 and 777 and 747-400 seem to be happy with them and operate them economically. I really think the A3xx will have limited appeal because of how much traffic will grow in light of costs of fuel/tickets and the initial purchase price. I don't blame Boeing for being conservative on this issue.

84 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1980 times:

Why start a new thread with an old argument that has been done to death on at least two other threads over the past 2 weeks?

You state nothing new, don't extend the range of discussion and your economic projection contradicts everything that every long term indicator points to.

Still, I suppose your nom de plume says it all.


User currently offline747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1960 times:

I am new here, miskeyed, so lighten up.

My nom de plume has no bearing on objectivity. Remember "51", the number 4 airline in the US, is the biggest Airbus customer in the US, which says something doesn't it? BTW, I don't have any affiliation with NW except that I flew them overseas a few times and like their livery.

I also differ on economics. I remember when oil prices went up in '73 and '80 and how Marana filled up with big planes. I don't think people (except for business flyers who don't have a choice) will shell out for the increases in tickets due to fuel prices.

Really!


User currently offlinePhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1946 times:

OK, understood.

Re fuel prices, in real terms they are now lower than the 1970s and the 2-3 year trend is of no consequence in the 30 year life of an airliner. The overall trend is escalating growth of traffic.


User currently offline747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1935 times:

PHil,

Thanks.

Anyway, taking the fuel price factor you state, do you think the A3XX could be used on domestic routes like JFK-LAX? because anything would be better than a 757 red eye....hah!

I also think charters would be successful too. Especially for holiday things and specialty flights like the Hajj.

PS do you have a difinitve source of information on the A3XX?

747-451 ( yeah, I know got some learning to do! You know too much time spent as strcitly a PAX...hah!))


User currently offlinePhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1932 times:

Highly unlikely to offer benefits in the short term on JFK-LAX but if another PeoplExpress comes along, who knows and when the slot crisis hits the US in about 2009, the A3xx and B747X might come into domestic contention, but there are too many imponderables to do anything but speculate.

As for holiday flights and the Hadj, no doubt the time will come.

As to definitive sources on the A3XX, I have some contacts at Airbus but only generally get from them what everyone else does.


User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 58
Reply 6, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1926 times:

I think the A3XX will be a success. Probably not as much as the 747, but I think it will be profitable especially with Asian customers. Asia has a extremely dense population as you know, so probably most of the sales will go Asian carriers. Singapore Airlines has shown the most interest so far and I think later on other airlines like Cathy Pacific will follow. United and Lufthansa are under discussions about the A3XX and might jointly place orders. There is a good chance for United and Lufthansa ordering the A3XX. Fed Ex and other cargo carriers are also quite interested.
Hope that helps!

Kind regards,
BA



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1942 times:

PhilB

The 2009 timeframe you mention is quite interesting and compelling.

Some here on this forum seriously "think" that the US is somehow "immune" to the constraints many foriegn airports undergo, yet it's becoming _very_ obvious that as the airways become saturated in the US, the capability to handle traffic must be met somehow...with some means of functionality.

(This follows upon a vastly -flawed- idea that US airspace and airport capacity can go "on and on without worry", which is also espoused by a certain US based aerospace manufacturer (G)..and taken to the extreme again, by some here...(VBG) I wonder if any other -forward thinking- people here can agree with this. It really IS going to happen.

Watch and see how quick Boeing jumps to the SuperJumbo crowd at or around that 2009 timeframe and espouse how "essential it is for airlines to buy it's SuperJumbo"..And I'll also remind how much people will quite 'conveniently forget' the conversations we had in the Year 2000 as well.

The mindless pablum 'dissing Airbus and the A3XX..the "folly" that was..(LOL!) The endless "analyst" reposts on this fora, focused rabidly short term and woefully (stupidly) devoid of any future based thought. Oh, so predictable...so very hilariously predictable..

I should get a crow farm reserved NOW..for I cant imagine the massive amounts of it which -will- be served then..(LOL!)

All the Best
MAC


User currently offlineCNBC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1915 times:

The A3XX, although bigger, is more economical than the 747-400 in the long run. Fuel is more of a problem on the current 747 than it would be on the A3XX.

User currently offline747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1922 times:

Airport congestion is a major problem (Chi, LGA, Washington National). We are always building new airports. No we don't have some of the constraints that Europe has. The US is not Europe. We have different problems.

Capacity is a problem as well. But then again, the A3XX isn't the first huge plane that airlines and airports have had to adjust to. Actually, there area lot of forward thinking people at the airlines. They are concerned about the longevity of their companies. Some airlines can't afford the outlay or to subsidize an oversized aircraft until demand grows (which may or may not). Remember the 70's in the US when some of the domestics bought 747's and ended up getting rid of them even though "research" from "experts" said traffic was growing at such rates? Some where waiting for trijets, others not. But the conclusion was it was hard to fill them. Well alot of people learn from their mistakes.

The A3XX is a necessary development from a company who produces excellent products. It will sell very well. But I don't blame Boeing for saying what they say now and what they may say later. After all, they are public company (and have stockholders to answer to), not a government subsidized concern (where any shortfalls are subsidized by EC taxpayers). That's not a "dis" but a fact.


User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1916 times:


747-451 wrote:
-------------------------------
Airport congestion is a major problem (Chi, LGA, Washington National). We are always building new airports. No we don't have some of the constraints that Europe has. The US is not Europe. We have different problems.

Add to that Asia as well...Chicago cant even decide on an expansion of O'Hare let alone the third airport in that metro area, Newark is absolutely sapped for expansion capability in the New York area, JFK is having to rebuild itself airsidewise but still constrained, Dulles has to build an addtional terminal and yet it faces incredible opposition to any runway expansion, LAX is so hemmed in Narita would be jealous, as would San Francisco (although it has an awesome terminal rejuvenation/expansion going on, Miami is having to knock down almost it's entire north side concourse area and it northerly aviation services area to build a 4th runway...Boston-Logan is absolutely *crammed* into it's landlocked parcel of space to operate from and no relief in sight short of modest terminal upgrades...We can go on and on and on! Then we can get into the strains of the American ATC system using computers from the 1950s! Oh it gets great after this point...!

yet some will think

"Yeah, we can dump a billion flights through New Yawk and ...no worries"...

Yeah..Right..I'm Bob Hope too!

The fact is, US capacity IS going to run it's full course and by 2009 people HERE will bve wondering where an Airplane like the A3XX has been!

That's the point!

The detractors and denial artistes out there seeking to diss' Airbus (publically traded company as it is called EADS now) cant seem to get through the skull that an airplane like the A3XX -is- needed, and NOW is the time to get it going. But instead of forsighted thought we seemingly subject ourselves to needless time and effort discrediting an idea and design that is truly ahead of it's time because it doesnt -originate here-, which shows the complete LACK of thought some imbibe themselves and comfort themselves upon..


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Capacity is a problem as well. But then again, the A3XX isn't the first huge plane that airlines and airports have had to adjust to. Actually, there area lot of forward thinking people at the airlines. They are concerned about the longevity of their companies. Some airlines can't afford the outlay or to subsidize an oversized aircraft until demand grows (which may or may not). Remember the 70's in the US when some of the domestics bought 747's and ended up getting rid of them even though "research" from "experts" said traffic was growing at such rates? Some where waiting for trijets, others not. But the conclusion was it was hard to fill them. Well alot of people learn from their mistakes.

------------------------------

The 70s' was a totally different ballgame!

And with that rationale, Tell that to:

Singapore Airlines
Emirates
Air France
ILFC
GECAS

They obviously think and believe differently!


The A3XX is a necessary development from a company who produces excellent products. It will sell very well. But I don't blame Boeing for saying what they say now and what they may say later. After all, they are public company (and have stockholders to answer to), not a government subsidized concern (where any shortfalls are subsidized by EC taxpayers). That's not a "dis" but a fact.

Who cares about this difference in economic models, we dont need to subjugate Europe nor their system of governance as superior or not to the US system (which is a frequent failing of some US based contributors here to assuage some sort of "guilt complex" upon Euope. The US restablished democracy in Europe and Europe's choice is -theirs-. And as for stockholders to respond to then you need to look at DASA, BAe, EADS, Messerschmitt, CASA, Aerospatiale, etc to see where -stockholders- and companies answer to. This idea that Europe is some vast "Scandinavian Socialist myth" operating off free money is incredible to contemplate!

Which inevitably goes down the path of yet another one-sided scam foisted by some on one side of the pond to point fingers at the other.

I guess we can conveniently dismiss the massive amounts of US taxpayer assisted "Corporate Welfare" to companies like Boeing (*documented* by the CATO Institute mind you (to the tune of $65-75 billion a year!!) of course.

Bambi lives on the western side of the Atlantic, the Wicked Witch of the East on the other...

This "Good (Boeing) versus Evil (Airbus)" fairy tale is incredible to see how it still lives!!

Amazing how fact goes completely unreported..and unaccepted.
Stupidity reigns!

When in a glass house, dont throw stones..

MAC


User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1901 times:

747-451

You have to understand something from me.

I for one completely dismiss the idea that the US side is somehow a "victim" of European subsidy issues when facts presnet themselves via various outlets, particularly one US based outlet called the CATO Institute which has gone to the trouble of documenting the various methods US government has gone to to support its industrial base. CATO has -proven- subsidy exists on -this- side of the Atlantic, in SPADES!

I suggest a trip over there with about two -three weeks of time devoted to reading the various papers and documents written on it. I have rferred MANY here to it and SOME have learned from it, others unfortunately have not. If you want a -fair- approach and an open mind to something like this. Take a look.
CATO is a Libertarian organization that wants to eliminate this sort of thing. If the United States would eliminate "Corporate Welfare" (and remember the dollar figures mentioned before $64-75 Billion annually) then it would -truly- have a leg to stand on in any sort of trade dispute over Airbus. until then it does NOT have any sort of leg to stand upon and looks quite hypocritical.
The US may attempt to pride itself as a "bastion of free trade" when facts completely contradict this myth.

The US happens to be one of the most **protectionist** of countries as exposed by documented facts (Tariffs to begin with) on this and many other web sources.

http://www.cato.org

Regards
MAC


User currently offlineArchie Bunker From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1900 times:

MAC,

Have you heard of the Gellman Report. The title is Economic and Financial Review of Airbus Industrie by Gellman Research Associates, Inc. If so, is it available for free somewhere in the internet, I've search for it without luck. I'm a cheapo, don't feel like paying $36.50.  


regards,

Arch & Edith


User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1900 times:

Archie

No I havent but firstly, where did you get the source on that report and second have you heard of the recommendations of some on EADS (Airbus) shares to "outperform"?

I feel EADS -will- outperform and do very well.

Their A32X orders garnered over the past few years are now going into production coupled with the increased number of A330 and A340 aircraft coming into production as well.

I see a stiff 50-50 competition between Boeing and Airbus over the next 3-5 years with Airbus solidly eclipsing Boeing after 6.

Main reason is that Boeing needs a new narrowbody aircraft to replace it's 737NG within the next 6 years and as yet we dont have one, Airbus already has a family established that can -really- grow, widebodywise, the A330-200 is killing the 767-400, the 737 already has peaked in growth with the NG, then factor in the gradual build in orders for Airbus widebodies like the A330-500/A330/A340NG and A3XX to cap off the list.

Boeing NEEDS to define a new narrowbody, a new mid range widebody family and then a new ultra-widebody to really remain competitive with Airbus.

Airbus has a very smart mix for itself with a very capable, pliant and expandable product line over the next 20 years.

Boeing has a winner with the 777 overall poised well for quite a while, the 747-400 Freighter, a very modest response in demand called the 747X. The 737NG will need a true replacement within 5 years. To me, that's about it.

Compare the two product lines and see if you arrive at the same conclusion.

Has Edith 'gotten you a beer yet? (LOL)

MAC


User currently offlineFly-By-Pilot From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1903 times:

Oh no you you woke up MAC. He is the master of BS.

User currently offlineArchie Bunker From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1899 times:

MAC,

From what I can recall, it was commissioned by the Commerce Department in 1987 investigating Airbus's profitability. For diplomatic reason it was suppressed initially, but was released in 1990.

I don't want to get into a subsidies debate, it's getting tiresome. I just thought that you might have some knowledge about this report. Like I said, don't want to pay $36.50, but I might have to...  


regards,

Arch

burp! thanks for the beer dingbat. 


User currently offline747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1902 times:

Such needless vitriol. Let's see, beat up on someone with a differing point of view, that's what nerd forums are for....

I am not looking to start a war over Airbus vs. Boeing. Both have their vices and virtues. Both make excellent planes, congratulations on the A3XX.

I stand by my comments on Airbus and Boeing. I am well aware of the CATO report, so what? I know the members of Airbus are public companies too, but Airbus as a consortium is subsidized, very well I surmise, since taking on a project of such scope as the A3XX will attest, because it is a ground up project, not a derivitive. (12 Billion USD?).

Here are some more "facts".The US didn't write the book on "corporoate welfare" by any means. Consortiums and government sponsored monopolies are the norm in Europe and Asia and are fiercely guarded with restrictive protectionist laws worse than anything in the US. Eurpoe "subjugated"?, really....don't be so melodramatic, since I never said that...

Asia and Europe don't get it right either. I have had my share of and seen many problems at Nartia, Kai Tak (r.i.p.) and Degualle among others.

Economics is a concept lost on "purists". Airlines think long and hard about what to buy and will it be a profit or a loss.

Actually, the 70's aren't that different. I remember them. Everyone thought the DC-8-6x and 707-320 were the biggest and then the 747 arrives. Everyone falls all over themselves to get it, few keep it; realizing that the DC-10 and (superb!) L1011 fit the bill. Then fuel prices go up. Alright, so what's so different? Not that much. Overdoing it with flying too-large planes into crappy airports (history repeats itself). Just what we need at JFK or OHare. 600+ pax on several planes arriving at once. A flood of people at the airport and traffic all over coming and going. I've thought about it sitting in traffic by the airport....sure throwing bigger planes is always better? Spare me the geography lesson in the airports.

Yes, don't point your finger or throw stones in your glass house either.


User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1883 times:



747-451 wrote:
-------------------------------
Such needless vitriol. Let's see, beat up on someone with a differing point of view, that's what nerd forums are for....
-----------------------------------------

That's not vitriol...thats pointing out the glaring flaws in your argument. I cant stand it when we seek to dismiss one side (protectively) and not open up the floor for discussion. Then when confronted with not so pretty information exposing something, we call it 'vitriol'. Come on, let's discuss this. Lets expose all sides on this.

------------------------------------------
I stand by my comments on Airbus and Boeing. I am well aware of the CATO report, so what? I know the members of Airbus are public companies too, but Airbus as a consortium is subsidized, very well I surmise, since taking on a project of such scope as the A3XX will attest, because it is a ground up project, not a derivitive. (12 Billion USD?).


------------------------------------
I deduce from your comments then that it's better to dismiss CATO and proceed onwards not discussing the US role in the "subsidy pie"? Avoiding it?
Sorry, but I wont let that one go.

US government backed subsidy exists and it continues to.

The issue that I would love to get my hands into the dollar figures that existed from the late 1950s to the present day. I just cant imagine how far off the charts it goes.

CATO only exposes a few years worth of this "shell game". What went on during the 60s, 70s and 80s? Has anyone wanted to know?

I'll bet my next paycheck that if this were exposed, the number exceeds -ANYTHING- Airbus Industrie ever received over it's lifetime. Count it all up.

The glaring difference between Airbus Industrie and US Aerospace Corporate Welfare is that at least the European side acknowledged it was in the form of loans from banks (which are repayable and have been paid).

The US side however seemingly has gotten a free ride. No repayment of government support documented whatsoever. So in essence, the US side is much more guilty of a "free ride" in my view. The US side pays taxes on the development and production, sales costs, but then one has to also admit the US government -actively- allowed "Foreign Sales Corporation" (FSC) loopholes which register sales of big ticket items like airplanes to be made on US territories such as Guam, the Virgin Islands, etc . These have allowed a massive amount of money to go unpaid in taxes to the US government. ($4 billion annually average) This is one issue currently in debate with the WTO.

Particularly when you factor in 4 major manufacturers on the US side (Boeing/McDD/Lockheed,Convair) and then factor in the two major engine manufacturers (GE and PW). I'm talking about the WHOLE picture.

---------------------------------------------------
Here are some more "facts".The US didn't write the book on "corporoate welfare" by any means. Consortiums and government sponsored monopolies are the norm in Europe and Asia and are fiercely guarded with restrictive protectionist laws worse than anything in the US. Eurpoe "subjugated"?, really....don't be so melodramatic, since I never said that...
---------------------------------------------------

That's been discussed and defined as the "Third Way".

Clinton, Blair, Schroeder..all have spoken gloriously of it also. As for trade disputes and protectionism, I'll refer you to the ongoing tiff between the US and the EU over bananas, cashmere and other products, with threats coming from the EU of retaliatory measures. Then we can start to talk about massive US tariffs imposed on SDRAM products from Asia.

Case in point: It's amazing to see $5-$10 SDRAM in Taiwan becomes $99-$199 SDRAM in the US.

How is that? US imposed Protective tariffs that are anti-competitive and protectionist.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Asia and Europe don't get it right either. I have had my share of and seen many problems at Nartia, Kai Tak (r.i.p.) and Degualle among others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

No one has said they "get it right", I too have frequented airports in Asia and Europe and no one has a lock on "perfect". DeGaulle has been termed a "nightmare" to connect through and I'll take HKG-Chek Lap Kok airport any day over Narita.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Economics is a concept lost on "purists". Airlines think long and hard about what to buy and will it be a profit or a loss.

Actually, the 70's aren't that different. I remember them. Everyone thought the DC-8-6x and 707-320 were the biggest and then the 747 arrives. Everyone falls all over themselves to get it, few keep it; realizing that the DC-10 and (superb!) L1011 fit the bill. Then fuel prices go up. Alright, so what's so different? Not that much.

-------------------------------------------
The "fuel crisis" fueling a *major recession* at the same time which scared off passenger traffic. That was the major difference.

Remember Nixon's attempts to get the economy going to no avail? "Misery Indexes" of Carter's time..all of that.

MAC



User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1870 times:

Archie

I would love to get ahold of that report. Sincerely. I would love to go over it.

I wonder why they held back on releasing it for 3 years? Could it be that a retaliatory "report" had been commissioned by Airbus exposing things that are being discussed in this thread?  

Could it have touched off a trade war?

I tend to think that strategic politik had a part in this. Back in 1987, the Cold War was still very much going on and it could not have been an opportune time to release it. The negatives of it could have soured US-Europe relations to potentially critical levels at a very sensitive time.

With the impending fall of the Soviet Union the climate change may have made the Commerce Dept more apt to release it in 1990 though.

MAC



Archie Bunker wrote:
-------------------------------
MAC,

From what I can recall, it was commissioned by the Commerce Department in 1987 investigating Airbus's profitability. For diplomatic reason it was suppressed initially, but was released in 1990.

I don't want to get into a subsidies debate, it's getting tiresome. I just thought that you might have some knowledge about this report. Like I said, don't want to pay $36.50, but I might have to...  


regards,

Arch

burp! thanks for the beer dingbat. 


User currently offlinePhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1857 times:

Its Sunday evening 22.00 here in Ireland and that means down to the pub for me in half an hour but, before I go, I'm going to drag you all back to that time frame I mentioned of a slot crisis in 2009.

I wasn't talking about a runway or gate slot crisis, I was talking of a slot crisis where airplanes are supposed to be - in the air.

The current congestion with lack of gates and runway occupancy is being mitigated by airlines stretching timetables, sometimes even spending longer in the air (which will lead to dearer fares eventually), to try and kid the public delays are not getting worse.

When the Great Slot Crisis happens, today's chaos will look like a gentle wind on a summers day.

At present, weather is the greatest genuine cause of ATC delay (and I'm not talking of the ATC delays airlines "engineer" to cover their own deficiencies) and is bad enough.

But when IT happens, air transportation will REALLY grind to a halt.

Why? Because the USA will run out of the airspace it needs.

Think about it and let's have some comments by 20.00 CET (Central European Time) Monday.

But please think before telling me how much blue sky there is over the Land of the Free and how American Ingenuity won't let it happen. Because when I tell you the "Rest of the Story" you will see how relevant the VLAs are going to become.


User currently offline747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1856 times:

I am not "dismissing" the CATO report. We all know about that. But then again susbidies are subsidies. Wheter European or US. But I guess we should dismiss Airbus as being an "I.G. Farben" right? As far as subsidies and welfare, Telefunken and Rolls Royce (which helped destroy Lockheed) come to mind. And what about Japan, Inc.? Protectionism is the result of "dumping". Such a conbtridiction. The "EU" itself is collusion several wealthy countries to protect their interests? So if the US chooses to protect it's intrests it is wrong. Please! Your USA bashing makes ma gag.
This is so tiring.

Yes we the US has "tarriffs", like any other country to prevent dumping. If we had more effective one's, Pittsburgh wouldn't be a ghost town and we would still have factories making TVs.

I don't know where you are getting your SDRAMs from , but I dont pay that much here, even for name brand.

Don't bother to reply. It is obvious that we come from different perpectives. All I wanted to do was find out who woould likely use an A3xx, not settle the problems of the world.




User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1841 times:



747-451 wrote:
-------------------------------
I am not "dismissing" the CATO report. We all know about that. But then again susbidies are subsidies. Wheter European or US. But I guess we should dismiss Airbus as being an "I.G. Farben" right? As far as subsidies and welfare, Telefunken and Rolls Royce (which helped destroy Lockheed) come to mind. And what about Japan, Inc.? Protectionism is the result of "dumping". Such a conbtridiction. The "EU" itself is collusion several wealthy countries to protect their interests? So if the US chooses to protect it's intrests it is wrong. Please! Your USA bashing makes ma gag. This is so tiring.
-------------------------------

Hahahahaha! I knew it!

Oh I will reply to this one. Again when confronted with a serious challenge that requires facts to back them up this becomes "USA Bashing". Gawd how predictable.

"Raise the flag fellow weeble scouts, lets chant patriotic songs..MAC's speaking his mind again!"

Oh..bite me..

All this is is supposed to be is a discussion to elicit facts and seperate fact from hogwash..and exposing both sides of the coin, but no, once the heat gets a little too much, one runs and hides, asking not to be replied to. This is hysterical!

----------------------------------------
Yes we the US has "tarriffs", like any other country to prevent dumping. If we had more effective one's, Pittsburgh wouldn't be a ghost town and we would still have factories making TVs.
----------------------------

Oh I see, so politicians and corporate pressure upon those politicians to issue protective tariffs (to "leve the playing field" which in many ways is nespeak for "yup, we're inefficent as hell and we dont know how to compete so daddy will you please protect us") makes everything nice.

You can also thank trade agreements like NAFTA, GATT and trade organizations like the WTO for the removal of American industries from Pittsburgh, Gary and so forth. Negotiated by supposedly "patriotic" American politicians and their corporate friends who also donate millions to further their careers.

That coupled with the soft pass you seem to give to some industries who refused to make products that were fuel efficent in the late 1970s while a gas crunch was going on and recession (hmm..I remember the term "stagflation?). The US auto industry was tought a severe lesson in how not to let it's guard down with it's products at that time (remember the Plymouth Volare, the AMC Eagle, on and on..."land battleships" consuming massive amounts of fuel let alone the adage at the time not to have your car built on a Friday or Monday due to Weekenditis or Hangoveritis at the auto factories.)

-------------------------------------------
I don't know where you are getting your SDRAMs from , but I dont pay that much here, even for name brand.
-------------------------------------

Walk into any BestBuy, Circuit City, CompUSA, or any local "mom and pop" computer store (where prices are usually a few bucks less) in the Northeastern US and tell me what the prices are on 64 meg and 128 meg SDRAM, Please?!
If you dont see these ridiculous prices then I've got to move where you are.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Don't bother to reply. It is obvious that we come from different perpectives. All I wanted to do was find out who woould likely use an A3xx, not settle the
problems of the world.
-------------------------

Hahahaha...again. I had to leave that in there to get a parting hoot out of this.

I eagerly await PhilB demolish this fantasy that there "is no market for the A3XX" tomorrow. I -cant wait-.

MAC



User currently offline747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1834 times:

Bite me too.

Utopian socialist!

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Open your eyes, If the US waves it's flag it's politics if the EU does it' it's Nationalism!

Give me a break.

Oh, politicians, corporate pressure? Politics? Give me a break. And the Europeans don't do it? You even say it yourself "the EU is thinking retaliatory sanctions on banana's and cashmere..."

Such cliches.....

And also, you are really losing it. Don't mis quote me.

I never said there was no market fir the A3XX; there most ccertainly is. I just wondered who would buy it and how they justify it.

BTW, for cheap memory, shop on the net.....



User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1840 times:

Hahahahaha

Utopian Socialist? Hahahahaha!

Ooooh...that's supposed to make me run and hide isnt it?!
Would Joe McCarthy be related to you would he!? Ooooh....ahhhhh....let's get a trial started...a witchhunt...

Actually I'm a member of the Green Party and -quite the Progressive-. Proud of it too. I'm a -former- Reagan Conservative Republican mind you. I suppose if you were to use the word "socialist" then you'd probably want to connotate "communist" in that too. Shall we go to that extreme? Most who like to throw a fit like the one you are having generally see the two as the same. Look it up in Websters.

I truly tire of conservative, reactionary "Falling Down" types who cant challenge their politicians and their corporate oligarchs and monoliths.

(Remember that movie?...a reactionary, frustrated, laid-off, aerospace worker gone berserk..with a gun..)

This vast new "Silent Generation" are like cows, ripe for a mass slaughter. And there are quite a few million of them walking around this Great Land I might add. They say nothing about how their politicians and corporate oligarchs -sell their country out-, receive millions if not billions in US taxpayer subsidies while they lay Americans off, and yet they'll point the finger of blame at -someone else- be it Japan, Europe or the man on the moon.) Then they seemingly rally around the same back-stabbing politician creeps come electiontime..and then wind up getting their asses canned by their company when it comes time to move operations to Mexico..but they'll still not challenge. It's still all Europe or Japan's fault. So the process repeats itself and repeats itself ad nauseaum. Getting worse each time.

I suggest a read of Morris Berman's "The Twilight of American Culture" while we are at it. Quite a good book. It'll open your eyes if you want them to be opened.

MAC


User currently offlineFly-By-Pilot From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1837 times:

Go to the non-aviation forum.

25 MAC_Veteran : Gee thanks Fly-by-Pilot, I was just going to suggest that to 747-451...BTW, do you have anything intelligent to add to this thread above the level of
26 Louis : I think a big factor on the success or failure of any VLA would be Heathrow Airport. I talked about this before on another thread. Most airlines that
27 MAC_Veteran : I believe T5 will be built eventually. If that doesnt get built -in time- for the A3XX, I see several gates at Terminal 4 being "kit bashed" quickly t
28 RayChuang : Louis, Well, LHR has now approximately six years to improve their facilities to handle the A3XX-100. They have to anyways due to the fact that SQ (and
29 Louis : Yes. Inchon, Frankfurt, CDG and even JFK are making modifications to handle VLAs, but the BAA hasn’t done a thing. I hope T5 does get built (fro
30 RayChuang : Louis, By the time the A3XX becomes operational (e.g. Spring 2006), Eurostar train operations could be upgraded to the point that 160+ km/h operations
31 Louis : LOL! Eurostar trains may reach 160+km/hr, but not on the UK side! Yes, they could connect through Paris. But don't forget how expensive the Eurostar i
32 Louis : Oh, yeah. I'm not laughing at you, but the idea that any train will reach that speed on the English side of the channel.
33 RayChuang : Louis, I believe that they've already begun the construction of a new high-speed line for Eurostar from Waterloo to the British end of the Channel Tun
34 Tupolev154B2 : May I have more info about the design about the A3XX-capable gates? Would they allow upperdeck boarding?
35 Boeing747-400 : A3XX Success Or Bust? Bust. Indianguy, Adria, Udo, etc, please don't freak out and start a war. BTW, just my 744 cents.
36 Post contains images Udo : I now declare war on you, B744! Regards Udo
37 Joni : Tupolev: The plane is designed so that the upper deck will be boarded from the front door and the lower deck through the "forward" door, both on the
38 ScottB : I am certain I'll get flamed for this, but... The routes on which you'll see the A3XX flying in the future are the ones on which airlines are now flyi
39 RIX : I'm absolutely agree that A3XX is not a plane to save the Mankind from "Great Slot Crisis" or "running out of airspace". It's not THAT big, and even i
40 PhilB : O K guys, you are all pretty much missing the point. As far back as 1991, the FAA was becoming extremely worried about the lack of airspace in various
41 Post contains images Boeing747-400 : I don't intend to start a war, I said it was my opinon. (744 cents, ) I just did the "747-400" cents just for grins, so relax. My last post was my 2 c
42 Wingman : Did I see someone writing about the demise of American culture again? In a thread about aviation? I think someone needs to get a refill on their Xanax
43 MAC_Veteran : Or should that read? Boeing: Poor, Victimized, misunderstood corporation Joe McCarthy: Who's Joe McCarthy? Europe: Loathesome, underhanded, scheming,
44 MAC_Veteran : Excellent post! Free Flight, while a dream will not be viable given the current state of affairs with the current ATC system and the points you bring
45 MAC_Veteran : A Correction: C.) We -ALREADY- get airport arrival and departure delay reports in the New York Metro areas on the major networks and radio, informing
46 Sv11 : Smaller planes are the rage nowadays. Just look at the regional jets and the popularity of the 737/A320 class aircraft. In the long haul arena, smalle
47 Boeing747-400 : Sv11, I agree, somewhat, the market will go up in the furutre and it may keep the A3XX alive, but the A3XX will have to survive till then, it may not.
48 MAC_Veteran : Read PhilB's post. You will "see the light" hopefully after understanding what he's talking about. In simple terms, "ATC overcrowding" completely demo
49 Fly-By-Pilot : Hey MAC leve your little shack in the woods and come to the civilized world. If you dont like this country then leave, no body is stoping you. If you
50 MAC_Veteran : Fly-By-(fill in the blank) There's no -hate-, how about yours? Care to define that, by virtue of your post it appears you've got plenty of it to discu
51 Granite : Hi all Why is it always the Yanks who are against this magnificent beast? Live in the real world, there IS life outside Boeing! It will fly, be succes
52 Gerardo : Hey, Mac_Veteran Could you please eMail me privately? I tried to send you an email, but it didn't work. Gerardo
53 Joni : The observation that small planes sell more units than bigger ones is AFAIK entirely correct. Please note, however, that smaller planes cost substant
54 RIX : Hey, MAC... life is not that bad. Wish you to overcome it finally. Hope to meet you here many more times discussing airliners-related topics. Regards,
55 ScottB : It's interesting that very little was said about the content of my post - instead just the usual A vs. B flame war - and the flames certainly are comi
56 Joni : I have not noticed that there would have been more flames from the "A side", but then I don't care much either. I find it odd that some people will c
57 PhilB : Unless airlines upgrade to larger aircraft, the largest of which (for the forseeable future) will be the VLAs , you can forget a viable aircraft indus
58 MAC_Veteran : Operators of the A3XX would never try to use LGA or DCA..that's flat out impossible. 7000 foot long runways? I know better than that. (G) The technica
59 Gerardo : MAC_Veteran I recieved an email from you, but I can't reply, because I always recieve an error message (undeliverable ...). Is your mail-adress on the
60 MAC_Veteran : Yeah it is..I've had this problem with some other folks email as well (from Japan the last time?) Keep trying to send the e-mail. I have a feeling it'
61 Fly-By-Pilot : The east coast will get a new rail system in the near future. I think this will alleviate airport congestion and clutter caused by smaller regional tr
62 PhilB : Rail would be the way to go for many short trips but to be really effective, you would need a rail line paralleling the I-95 between Miami and Boston
63 Fly-By-Pilot : I dont think there will be a gate problem but there will be a slight logistical problem. I am not saying its impossible but it would take time to adju
64 PhilB : Re the airports, the logistical problems which the industry is working on are: Keeping the number of ramp vehicles per VLA to a minimum Keeping the li
65 Fly-By-Pilot : All those things you listed are gate and taxi problems. I said there won't be too much of a problem there. The problem will be in the logistical side
66 PhilB : I mentioned the only problem about when it is parked - the number of vehicles on the ramp. This IS a serious problem and is the subject of a number of
67 Fly-By-Pilot : The A3XX wont be replacing anything for a long time to come so the A3XX will just be adding more traffic.
68 Post contains images Boeing747-400 : Come on people. Boeing knows what they are doing, they know how the market works. Boeing has introduced a "SuperJumbo" before when there was none, and
69 PhilB : Fly By Pilot, Sorry but I've tried to explain on this thread what the realities of the industry are in relation to traffic growth and the impact of th
70 Fly-By-Pilot : Ok, yes you have more experience and such. I am glad you are on this forum, there neads to be more mature people like you here.
71 Post contains links Gerardo : Regarding the noise problem of the A3XX, which was mentioned here as well. Is there really a noise problem? This "problem" was mentioned a few days be
72 Udo : Boeing's plane after the B747X killing the A3XX in sales? Yes, possibly, if there is any demand left after the A3XX has been placed all around the wor
73 PhilB : The A3xx noise problem is twofold: The fans on both engine options are expected to produce too much noise on take off for the projected limits at LHR
74 Post contains images Gerardo : OT about the noise: Nothing beats the sound a few seconds after a landing MD-11 with a little bit of of side wind at ZRH. I LOVE it But then again, mu
75 ScottB : Phil- I don't see why you're convinced that VLA's will replace the smaller planes. I can certainly see 737's upgraded to larger 737's, A321's, 757's,
76 PhilB : Hi ScottB, The only viable alternative to the current ATC system is Free Flight. The system is already overloaded (not just in the Northeast and parts
77 Boeing747-400 : You didn't understand my post. Read it again... The 747X will be a short term solution to the A3XX, but when the time and market comes, Boeing will ha
78 Gyro : And you 747-400 didn't understand Udo's post... He knows what you mean by new plane. What he's saying is that by the time Boeing "finally" comes out w
79 Gerardo : Now that would be funny to see, how Boeing will then explain, why they develop a new B747, aka 787. For the B747X Boeing claims, that development cost
80 Udo : B744, that sounds strange still... Developing a new aircraft takes a long time. And if Boeing some day finds out that the A3XX sells well due to a lar
81 Boeing747-400 : Who knows? Maybe Boeing has been using the 747X to shield what they've been doing in preparation for the A3XX, who knows? Boeing is not being near as
82 Post contains images B744 : I think they guy you're referring to is Boeing747-400, not B744 which is me. Although (as you can tell from my user ID) I like the 747-400, I don't su
83 Tupolev154B2 : Hey, if Boeing could survive the risk of developing the 747, of which widebodies were unheard of then, why would Airbus go bankrupt by coming up with
84 Post contains images Fanoftristars : All I want to know is if Johan will replace the 747 on the top of the pages on this site with the A3XX? Enough of the other stuff!!!
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...
Transatlantic Or Bust! posted Thu Sep 15 2005 21:08:21 by BHXDTW
That Time Again, SAN-LHR Or Bust? posted Tue Mar 2 2004 20:57:43 by ConcordeBoy
737-900- A Success Or Failure? posted Thu Feb 26 2004 01:38:59 by Khushdesi
Airline Deregulation: Success Or Failure? posted Sat Dec 20 2003 16:15:53 by IslandHopperCO
Boeing 717, Success Or Failure? posted Thu Nov 20 2003 19:40:52 by JU101
Was The BAC 1-11 A Success Or Failure? posted Tue Nov 18 2003 19:40:24 by IslandHopper
BAe-146/Avro RJ...a Success Or Failure? posted Tue Oct 28 2003 20:57:15 by IslandHopper
Alliance Or Bust Says Air NZ Boss posted Sun Apr 13 2003 11:13:52 by Rmm
The A3XX: Goldmine Or Financial Burden? posted Tue Jul 4 2000 01:25:00 by AerLingus
MaxJet - Bust Or Not? posted Sun Mar 12 2006 17:48:05 by B777a340fan