Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Or Boeing? Who Is Right?  
User currently offlineLeoDF From Mexico, joined Aug 1999, 359 posts, RR: 5
Posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2855 times:

On the July issue of a very well known commercial magazine, I read about the visions that Airbus and Boeing had for the future. Airbus thinks that airlines will need a very large transport, but Boeing thinks that airplanes bigger than the 747 won't be needed. Boeing says that what airlines need an airplane with more range rather that an airplane with more seats available. Who do you think will be right and why?


Lloyd Aereo Boliviano
75 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUnited946 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2335 times:

I definitely think Boeing is on the right track by pouring money into the 777 rather than developing a 747X or a larger aircraft. It is definitely better to let passengers choose between more frequent flights between two destinations rather than only offer one or two flights with a huge aircraft such as the A3XX or 74X.

United946


User currently offlineDash8tech From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 732 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2292 times:

Bombardier...... :-) Because whilst Boeing and Airbus are in their constant battle, 10 years from now this 'growing everyday company' will pass them both with a level of stealth!

Okay, sorry. Sounds good though doesn't it?!?


User currently offlineFlexeBex From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2306 times:

I know for a fact that Airbus are working on a plane that is capable of carrying 800+ passengers. At the moment a feeseability report is taking place to try to establish which aitports around the world are capable of having an 800+ passenger plane landing and taking off on a regular basis. boeing on the other hand, scrapped all design ideas etc on a project.

I posted something on this Airbus plane (A3XX) under the name "A whopping plane". It's probably a few pages back by now, but if you are interested in this take a look.

FlexeBex


User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 4 days ago) and read 2289 times:

Both reports have very good merits and I believe there will be healthy room for the models either side propose. The reason why is the airline industry and it's operating model vary so much from region to region that one really cant say that either one is absolutely right and the other is absolutely wrong. Boeing of course wants people to buy it's 777 and Airbus wants people to buy it's A3XX.
The problem is..the High frequency model that Boeing pitches is primarily focused upon the US Airline industry's Deregulated market. Where it falls very short are Highly regulated markets that are slot controlled/capacity controlled like Asia along with Europe's growing ATC problems and saturation. That's where High frequency is going to be stetched to it's limit.

The Airbus idea is more closer to the mark I believe as they are looking at the high capacity market with particularly Asia in mind I believe. If anyone has looked at the market projections for Asia from either manufacturer, one common thing is noticed. --It will be very busy here in Asia--.

The big catch is, Asia isnt the US deregulated market. Where an airline can just increase flights or frequencies at will. This is where widebodies are still very much the king. Not narrowbodies. I do see the potential for A3XX flights on Japanese domestic routes, as well as intercontinental hops from Hong Kong to London.

The plus side of Boeing report's leaning on the 777 does help them with the North Atlantic market where it's lower capacity than the A3XX does target the market well for an airplane like that, the narrowbody sales of the 737NG in the US market and a growing market in Latin America.

Airbus isnt letting up though and is making inroads there as well so overall I believe it's going to be a contentious period with the better attributes from both reports becoming what will happen.

MAC_Vet


User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 4 days ago) and read 2280 times:

It's nice to choose between more frequent flights between two destinations rather than only offer one or two flights with a huge aircraft but this sounds a little utopic to me because airports are more and more congested and slots available are becoming very rare.
People must think in this too. Unless we'll see lots of new airports around the world I think Airbus is on the right way.
Simply there is no space for so many frequent flights.

Luis, Faro, Portugal


User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 4 days ago) and read 2268 times:

Mirage

Exactly!

I believe it's total utopia to believe that frequent flights are the universal accepted idea. The problem is airfield and ATC capacity, Which is running out.
It also in a way seems to suggest that the world airline system is somehow going to adopt US based Southwest Airlines operating model. This is where Boeing's report I believe to be very flawed. Frequencies are nice where you can add them, but try doing that at Narita, Haneda, Osaka's Itami or Kansai? (G)
The other side is demand. Asia is now slowly rebounding from it's economic morass. This market is unlike any in the world. Widebodies are needed to move people here. The demand dictates..-use the right equipment or lose money in a slot restricted environment-. I hope someday Boeing will realize that. It seems focused upon the US and TransAtlantic market.

MAC_Vet


User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8114 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 4 days ago) and read 2280 times:

This idea that "passengers like frequent flights" is all very well and good and but anyone who has ever travelled on a plane in the last ten years or so may have noticed that the ATC system and airports are bursting at the seems. This is even true at US airports, the hub-and-spoke thing sucks completely, nothing leaves on time and even if the pushback is to the second, you still spend half an hour on the taxiway. The only answer is greater capacity. In twenty years time the A3XX will represent most movements (more than 50%) at Heathrow, Tokyo (HND & NRT), Hong Kong, Seoul, LAX etc. There is a limit to the number of planes that can go down a runway in an hour and while it might be possible at DFW to have six runways or whatever, Heathrow is a sixth of the size (or is it a tenth? can't remember) of DFW and completely surrounded by built-up suburbia and can't be expanded. Same with many airports, not just in Europe but JFK and other US ports are cramped by urban sprawl.

So, Airbus are right. That's not a Europhile slant, if Boeing were building a Large Transport and AI favouring this "frequency" pipe-dream then I'd say Boeing were right. But in this and many other areas, Boeing (my first love) have lost the plot and are virtually handing the market to their competitor on a silver platter.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2267 times:

I agree that Boeing's market forecast seems to be modeled after the U.S's deregulated airspace and the Atlantic. While the 777 is a great plane and will make some inroads I think that a larger 747 type aircraft is needed.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineWilliam From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1279 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2254 times:

I think Airbus's model is correct,do you know how much it costs to build those out in the water airports in asia? It is not cheap! Look in our deregulated country,can someone tell me how many new airports have been built since 1978? I can count 2 without thinking,DEN and AUS. Thats not good for the future of airtravel in America. But even if Airbus's view of the future is correct,do not feel sorry for Boeing,I HOPE they are not going to throw all their eggs in one basket. If the need for bigger aircraft arises,expect to the 747-xxx or whatever they call it to be on the market within 24 months.

User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8114 posts, RR: 54
Reply 10, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2263 times:

No 747 variant will stand a chance against the A3XX. If Boeing try to compete with the A3XX with a 747X then that will be the death knell for the company. It would sell about as well as the 757-300.


fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2272 times:


Cedarjet wrote:
-------------------------------
No 747 variant will stand a chance against the A3XX. If Boeing try to compete with the A3XX with a 747X then that will be the death knell for the company. It would sell about as well as the 757-300.
-------------------------------

That is an excellent point to explore with. It really is a difficult position for Boeing to be in and I think they know it, which is why I believe they are trying to get people to agree with their market synopsis; which I think will be appreciated by the airline industry but largely passed upon due to the many factors that exist outside of the US market as detailed in this thread.

The make or break decision will be if they go forward with a response to the A3XX outside of the 747X family. The leaked report on a Boeing "787" using 4
engines adapted from the 777 would make a unique response that will win orders. They would be forced to reply with that or the 747X, the market response to that may be better than nothing at all granted, but I dont think it will quite do it in terms as a real response to the A3XX. The "787" would be.
Hanging over this is this "banking everything" on the current market model they propose. They had better watch the market carefully and expand their market analysis beyond the US and North Atlantic.

Airbus is in many-many aspects looking at it from a purely global perspective. One reason that makes it so much easier for Airbus to realize this is it's based in Europe where so many constraints are so obvious to think otherwise is a fools dance. Europe simply is not the US in terms of airline market or niche. Granted there are growing low cost carriers, but the overall system is maxxed. Hence, the quest to get bigger aircraft maximizing the available infrastructure and system better. It's ingenious as it fits not only Europe, but Asia as well. The US market side which is a predominantly narrowbody market -right now- is filed in with their A32X series nicely. It's win-win for Airbus at this point. Boeing though needs to really ramp up it's forward thinking or it's going to be left by the wayside in a similar manner Douglas was in, but more protracted over time. It's market perspective needs to think globally in its forecasts as well as tailoring its product. If not, it will see itself in a position commanding only 40% of the market. I see that happening within 5-10 years if they cling to their current forecast. The background to that is Boeing has made mistakes like this before. It mistook or overlooked the 150 seat market to Airbus for almost 11 years, to mistakennly thinking airlines would flock to the 757 or 767 early on. It took many years to get those programs up and running, which again were primarily designed with the US market in mind in the late 70s. American's former CEO was stubborn as a mule about the 757 until the late 80s. He felt there was no need for it from reading a book about him and AA, resisting that airplane tooth and nail until they absolutely needed them, He felt the 727 was perfect for AA and would fly them for as long as possible. Look what happened. (G) The 757 line is just -now- approaching 1000 airplanes sold, 16-17 years after it's first flight.

So it's not outside of the realm of thinking that Boeing could repeat such an error with the large capacity aircraft market as well. I hope not, as competition is excellent and keeps airfares affordable in the end sum of everything..but we'll see.

Regards
MAC_Vet


User currently offlineNavion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1013 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 3 days ago) and read 2249 times:

After reading everything above, I have one overriding concern which none of my European friends either raises or probably will talk about. Who is going to give Boeing the $4 Billion in government subsidies that Airbus will receive for the development of the A3XX? Everyone talks glowingly of Airbus market forecasts and global thinking (kind of a nice backhanded put down to American companies guys, thank you) but the only reason Airbus is like this is cold hard subsidies. It is easy to build up a multi-billion dollar dynasty when you will not be allowed to fail financially. If Boeing got the kind of guarantees Airbus has received and continues to receive, you would see new model developments because the price of development is discounted due to pure and simple subsidies. These subsidies are a fact that Airbus freely admits. Bottom line, it would cost the same for Boeing to develop a derivitive 747X that it will cost Airbus to develop a completely new design. I see no nobility or heroics in that accomplishment. I think it's high time for the US government to start pumping billions of dollars Boeing's way. As we all say, "A rose by any other name is still a rose."

User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2236 times:

You are really funny. You say the exact opposite of what the professionals say. Please read Aviation Week and Space Technology or another aviation magazine. Boeing has the trump card. They can match the A3XX with their own super-jumbo or steal enough orders with the 747 to make Airbus take a death kneel after all the costs.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2260 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2241 times:

Exactly, how easy is it to build the A3XX when you're getting a basically "free" $4-5 billion. Cedarjet and MAC simply refuse to point out that Boeing will have to pay for its next jumbo all by them goddamn selves. Big difference people. Do you understand this point? Read between the lines. OF COURSE Beoing does not want to see the need for a new super jumbo. The last time this happened, they almost blew it and went broke. Will this possibly happen to Airbus? Of course not. Airbus knows that no matter what happens, like a worst case scenario of a developmental A3XX going down in flames and all airlines cancel orders, the EU will come riding in and pamper their asses for another 25 years. This isn't competition, its a crime. 25 years old and still can't feed or cloth itself. Absolute disgusting. What more does Europe want after 50% market share? To sink Boeing entirely? I would love to see Airbus compete with Boeing if Boeing had all the subsidies and tax exemptions that AIrbus enjoys. When it comes to aviation related technology, the US gov't has the best technology in the world by at east 10 years. If France's complete disregard for fair competition forces the US to give this to Boeing for a fair shot, then so be it. Time to leave the nest Airbus.

User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2251 times:

We have to look at what would happen if the A3XX was launched and Boeing countered with the 747-XXX. First off the A3XX costs 8% less to operate than the 747-400 as reported by QF a month ago. The 747-XXX would operate 10% "wind tunnel only" less than the 747-400. Airbus launches the A3XX which is VERY expensive for airlines to buy and Boeing launches the 747-XXX which is cheaper to purchase and about the same to operate and has a common family line that is a proven profit maker and would offer commonality with the 747 "Classics", 777, and 737NG. This would steal to many orders away from the A3XX and think of the drastic consiquences that that would have? Also, think of all the airlines that already operate the 747 and could easily adapt their maintenance, training and other procedures. BA, UAL, CX, SQ, JAL, ANA, NW, QF, ANZ, MH, LH, SAA, AF just to name a few.
Now lets look at the A3XX vs the 787. Both companies spend billions on a market where there is not truly enough orders to make both lines profitable so both companies lose out. Which senario sounds better to you? Now, I am not saying that the 747-XXX will be a successs I just think it will be and I am not saying that their won't be an A3XX or 787 I just think there will not be.



"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineIAD From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2243 times:

Oh, Please! Why does it matter that Cedarjet and MAC_Veteran did not point out that Boeing will have to pay for a 787 itself? That is not relevant to whether Airbus or Boeing's position is right. If Airbus gets subsidies to build the plane, and the airlines find out that the A3XX is too big, the A3XX didn't make it and Airbus was wrong - therefore why does it matter if they talked about Airbus' subsidies or not? And by the way CX747, not all professionals believe in Boeing's position. Go talk to some of the aerospace engineering professors, here at U of M. They are very very knowledgable about the aviation industry and believe the A3XX could make it.

User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2236 times:

Did you not read my early posts. I agree with Airbus that there is a need for a larger aircraft than the 747 I just think that it doesn't need to be a totally new aircraft.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineIAD From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2231 times:

You're right. Sorry - I just got confused after reading all those posts.

User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2230 times:

Navion

That $4 billion you are looking for went towards the purchase of McDonnell Douglas. That's where it went! Forget about that?

All these stories of sympathy for Boeing and yet not one examination of the bungled decisions they made, to include spending vast sums of cash on purchases that could have been better spent on a product line that would truly compete with Airbus, instead of bellyaching about those awful Socialist French.
When will accountability for Boeing come into play? Remember how much was expended in that -huge- merger and how much that could have been applied to a competitor to the A3XX as well as other programs.

MAC_Vet


User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2231 times:

Airbus is now saying the A3XX will be 15% cheaper (versus 8% as you stated) to operate than the 747-400. Per Reuters report posted August 9 by Chris Stetkiewicz.

MAC_Vet


User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2231 times:



IAD wrote:
-------------------------------
Oh, Please! Why does it matter that Cedarjet and MAC_Veteran did not point out that Boeing will have to pay for a 787 itself? That is not relevant to whether Airbus or Boeing's position is right. If Airbus gets subsidies to build the plane, and the airlines find out that the A3XX is too big, the A3XX didn't make it and Airbus was wrong - therefore why does it matter if they talked about Airbus' subsidies or not? And by the way CX747, not all professionals believe in Boeing's position. Go talk to some of the aerospace engineering professors, here at U of M. They are very very knowledgable about the aviation industry and believe the A3XX could make it.

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

The whole subsidy issue didnt enter into this from my standpoint at all, I was simply looking at the reports and comparing them on their value alone.

Some however are trying to use the subsidy issue to paint one side as worse than the other when the simple -fact- is subsidy exists on -both- sides, with
one side being more open about it than the other.

I give credit to Airbus to admitting to it, but where I get my hair worked up is when I see people -actually believe- that Boeing has not received subsidy and then compunding their hatred of Airbus in a very misinformed conclusion.

The truth is known via venues to include the CATO Institute, which is a US based watchdog/thinktank in Washington. I believe as people learn more about just what is going on people will make up their own minds.

We will all find out just whose market forecast is right in a few years time. I believe there are good points in both reports, whi;le leaning more heavily onthe Airbus Report due to it's more open minded approach to global markets. I am quite convinced the Boeing report is more focused upon the US and North Atlantic market, which will then serve as a precipice they attempt to force in other markets but I quite comfortably believe will be resisted in terms of orders given to Airbus. That's really the only way it can be proven out. Airline niches and operating environments vary incredibly around the world. I find it incredible Boeing believes that frequency is somehow available in a severely strained ATC and airfield environment..that point really showed up a flaw to me. I believe Airbus has prepared a more global aware report in this regard.

Regards
MAC_Vet


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2226 times:

Airbus may say 15% but Qantas put the aircraft to its own tests and stated that it was only 8% cheaper to operate.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8114 posts, RR: 54
Reply 23, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2225 times:

Qantas are hardly objective, these people's love of Boeing makes that of a 15 year old girl's love for Hanson or the Backstreet Boys look like mere mild interest. You couldn't find a more Boeing-centric carrier outside the 52 states.

But what I wanted to point out is that Boeing are subsidised, a rose is still a rose etc., so whether the Europeans hand over cash or the US hand over lucrative military subsidies, loans to customers way below market price through the Exim Bank and tie aircraft purchases to other political issues (Taiwan, Israel, Turkey, blah blah), it's still mightilty assisted by the state. To criticise Airbus and not Boeing just cos Airbus and it's paymasters are honest is jingoism on a grand scale. The US is not going to let it's aerospace industry fail any more than the Europeans will and they'll do whatever they have to do to protect themselves.

Finally, there is commonality and similarity. An A320 pilot can fly A318s, A319s, A321s, A330s and A340s (with maybe half a day in a simulator before flying the widebodies, to learn 'differences' the way a 727-100 pilot would spend half a day learning the -200). A 747-400 pilot cannot fly a 737NG, nor a 777 nor anything else. It's not a common type rating even if the cockpits look a little bit similar.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2231 times:

Those military contracts are to build things. The B47, B52 were produced. The Pentagon didn't just give Boeing money to R&D these aircraft and then sell them to other countries with the Pentagon or military never seeing a deliver to the air force. The KC-135 came about after the 707 was already operating. The KC-10 order came how many years after the DC-10 was introduced? I assume you are going to tell me now that the only reason the 747-400F was produced was to be the Ballistic Laser Carrier aircraft for the Air Force to use?


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
25 CX747 : Spending only half a day in the simulator? That is fantasy land my friend. It will take a little longer than that to jump to widebodies or even move f
26 Cedarjet : There is no conversion time at all from the A330 to the A340. None at all. CX747, your screen-name (or whatever they're called) is Cathay, they pionee
27 Ken4556 : I think both are right, just under different timetable. Right now all airlines are watching capacity growth (UAL switching from orders from 747 to 777
28 Navion : Mac Veteran, What are you talking about when you say the $4 Billion Boeing paid for McDonnell Douglas was where the money went? What money? What does
29 Navion : Please disregard my prior post. I now get what you were saying. To say the least, your logic is flawed. To say the most, it's gross obfuscation. FYI M
30 Mirage : I don't understand why our american friends think that all the other countries in the world must act like them. Now I can see how you are really brain
31 Navion : Well now I've heard it all. Mirage says in order to break into a market dominated by Boeing, Airbus must have subsidies and it's o.k. MAC VETRAN says
32 JZ : In many cases, we can support Boeing's frequency argument, in both the number of flights and direct service between 2 points. The popularity of 767/77
33 Mirage : Navion wrote: "thanks again Mirage for the European superiority slant" I don't see where is the "superiority", to get subsidies is not a crime as far
34 Wingman : Mirage says that not all countries need to follow the US economic model. Are you saying that Europe does not support capitalism or fair trade?????Shal
35 Mirage : Don't you agree that you're the hypocrit when the US puts high taxes to foreign products exported to your country so that they are sold at a high pric
36 Wingman : Your reply has nothing to do with the subject. It barely deserves a response, but since it so completely misinformed, I have to warn other people who
37 Navion : Luis, It is completely false to claim that America is one of the "most protectionist" countries in the world. You have absolutely no basis for that st
38 Mirage : I respond you in two parts: 1º It's true the US has an enormus deficit, everybody knows that, but it's also true there are lobbies making pressure wi
39 Cedarjet : This is great fun. I hope no-one takes it too personally.I know this is straying off aviation a bit but in response to the above let me first get this
40 Post contains images Mirage : You're very right about being subjective. That's a danger when I don't have a strong vocabulary to say exactly what I want in english. Is not my natur
41 United946 : Here we go with the big bad America crap. United946 PS- we only have 50 states.
42 Cedarjet : "Big Bad America" crap perhaps, but what do you expect when your lot give us "America The Great Defender Of Democracy And Freedom"? Neither is true. I
43 Wingman : You must be learning your history from the same source Mirage gets his protectionist opinions. Have you ever heard of WWI and WWII. If you read your h
44 United946 : Amen.
45 Post contains images TP343 : Once again, more emotive posts than objective ones. People, when are you going to really discuss aviation? My opinion: Airbus AND Boeing are both rig
46 Cedarjet : I don't dispute the victory of the Allies in WW2 was cos of US military might. And I thank you, on behalf of the people of Europe, for coming to our a
47 United946 : Quest for global domination??????? What are you talking about? What does this have to do with aviation? United946
48 Cedarjet : Of course Americans want to dominate the world, isn't there a specific mention of McDonalds in the constitution? And what do you mean, what does this
49 Mirage : I think this is a fair end for this discussion: The americans helped us europeans in the WWI and WWII, thank you guys. But you are a solid country tod
50 CX747 : After killing all of those innocent North Vietnamese, the B52s were used to presicion bomb Kosovo and defend the European continent against Russia. Ma
51 Wingman : To the people of this forum:Cedarjet has lost his marbles. Please help us find them. They were last seen halfway through this thread. Back to the orig
52 United946 : You know, it's amazing how we import billions upon billions dollars worth of Japanese electronics, European cars, Mexican goods, and the like, and ver
53 LeoDF : Thank you all for exposing your opinions it has been very helpful for me!!!
54 F-WWKH : I guess that is not exactly what you expected when you started this topic, right? Oh bytheway, having a US Senator (accidently the one of the State of
55 CX747 : It is called acting on behalf of your constituents.
56 United946 : I think the correct term would be to ask, not make. My grandfather is a U.S. Congressman, and visits like that are commonplace. Don't get the idea tha
57 MAC_Veteran : Whispers to my e-mail say: "The speaker of the California state assembly, Antonio Villaraigosa, has met with Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo. Among
58 Wingman : Government assistance in closing a commercial deal is unethical? This has been going on since biblical times! Everyone does it, the EU countries, the
59 United946 : In case you didn't make the connection, those taxpayer funded flights help keep JOBS for hardworking Americans. You know, Wingman is absolutely right
60 Mirage : You don't teach me nothing or give me any lessons about Democracy, Liberty, and Freedom. Stop with that arrogance please. Luis, Faro, Portugal PS: I w
61 MAC_Veteran : You are missing something entirely in all of this. In some of these threads we hear the arguments that Airbus doesnt need subsidies because it is a qu
62 CX747 : First off I would like to apologize for whatever America has done to make you hate it so much. Did an American G.I. steal your candy bar as a child or
63 MAC_Veteran : CX 747 Afterall I was a GI so I guessed I would have to have stolen from -myself-. Really made a lot of sense with that didnt it? (LOL!) Maybe if some
64 CX747 : I didn't know that you were a G.I but let me say thank you for serving our country. I still don't understand were you get all this pent up anger. Anyw
65 MAC_Veteran : CX747 If you really want to start getting informed about what -really- goes on in your country, I suggest you visit this website and start your explor
66 MAC_Veteran : CX747 wrote: ------------------------------- I didn't know that you were a G.I but let me say thank you for serving our country. I still don't unders
67 F-WWKH : United946 wrote:Username: In case you didn't make the connection, those taxpayer funded flights help keep JOBS for hardworking Americans. ---------- I
68 MAC_Veteran : Check this out! http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-028.html One of the more recent surveys on subsidy released for FY 1997. It shows not much has chan
69 MAC_Veteran : I'm downloading this PDF format report on Welfare for Weapons Makers that was just released on the Cato Institute site and it makes for quite a read.
70 Wingman : MAC- what a revelation. The US government supports research and economic development with tax dollars. We better get this tyo the New York Times. It's
71 Kaitak : Since this is obviously a rather sensitive topic, perhaps we should just keep to the economic facts. Air transport will continue to grow and grow and
72 Boeing777 : Hello, Here's what I think. Boeing already has the 777 which I flew on with British Air Once. I thought its big enough. I mean How many people want to
73 Wingman : I disagree with the opinion that no more slots will be built. That is simply impossible. The A3XX would be a mere bandaid for 2-3 years. Growth in Asi
74 LeoDF : Thank you for your answers!
75 Kaitak : Oh you're welcome LeoDF. I'll bet you're just delighted you asked. Of course, the answer is Airbus. And Boeing.
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...
2005 Orders, Who Won? Airbus Or Boeing? posted Wed Jan 4 2006 22:37:26 by ElGreco
What Is Easiest Way To Determine Airbus Or Boeing? posted Wed Feb 16 2005 16:46:07 by Bpaulg
Suppose There Was No Airbus Or Boeing? posted Mon Sep 25 2006 03:02:02 by JAM747
Why No Airbus Or Boeing RJ? posted Fri Jun 17 2005 05:12:22 by Airbus3801
Factory Tours, Airbus Or Boeing? posted Wed Dec 15 2004 14:49:09 by Manu
Major Airports Without Airbus Or Boeing posted Tue Jul 20 2004 02:11:38 by Js
Airbus Or Boeing For ACA? posted Tue Sep 30 2003 03:02:06 by Ampropilot2b
Airbus Or Boeing On The Web. posted Wed Sep 10 2003 06:48:34 by Irishpower
NWA Or UA, Who Is Bigger In Asia? posted Sat May 17 2003 06:43:38 by Rajivvyas
EasyJet Still Pondering Over Airbus Or Boeing posted Thu Sep 26 2002 23:47:05 by Singapore_Air