B757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23 Posted (12 years 10 months 14 hours ago) and read 3295 times:
EU chief slams Boeing over gas-guzzling new jet
By Robin Pomeroy
BRUSSELS, June 22 (Reuters) - The European Union's top environmental official lashed out at U.S. aircraft maker Boeing on Friday for planning to make a gas-guzzling new high-speed airliner.
In a letter to the Seattle-based aircraft giant, EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom accused Boeing's Vice-Chairman Harry Stonecipher of nonchalance towards the environmental impact of the planned new 'Sonic Cruiser' jet.
Wallstrom criticised comments Stonecipher made to The Times newspaper on Tuesday in which he appeared to dismiss concerns about increasing greenhouse gas emissions from aviation as a "bandwagon," saying there were was "plenty of fossil fuel still around."
"I find it hard to believe that anyone today could afford himself the luxury of a 'let's-not-think-about-tomorrow' attitude which runs diametrically opposed to the aims of sustainable development," Wallstrom said in an open letter to Stonecipher.
Boeing says the Sonic Cruiser will travel at 95 percent the speed of sound -- 15 percent faster than existing commercial jets. But it will consume 35 percent more fuel and emit more carbon dioxide, the main gas blamed for global warming.
SENSITIVE MOMENT FOR U.S./EU RELATIONS
Wallstrom's assault comes at a politically sensitive moment for trans-Atlantic trade relations in the aeronautics field.
The European Commission -- which acts as the EU's competition authority -- is coming under pressure from the United States to allow General Electric Co ., which makes jet engines, to buy avionics firm Honeywell International Inc .
The Commission has serious concerns over whether the $41.8 billion deal would damage competition in the sector and in the past week political pressure to accept the deal has been applied by U.S. President George W. Bush, members of his cabinet and several members of the U.S. Senate.
Boeing's Stonecipher weighed in on the debate last Saturday, accusing the European aircraft firm Airbus Industrie 1/8ARBU.UL 3/8 of lobbying against the GE deal. He later retracted the accusation in the face of denials from GE, Airbus and the EU.
FUEL STILL TAX-FREE
Wallstrom said as air travel emits 3.5 percent of the world's greenhouse gases -- and those emissions were set to double over the next 10-15 years -- manufacturers should concentrate on developing more fuel efficient, rather than faster, aircraft.
"The question is whether a one-hour time saving on a trans-Atlantic flight is worth a significant increase in CO2 emissions...In my view the environmental price is simply not worth paying," she said.
The Commission has called for aviation fuel -- which has a worldwide tax exemption -- to be taxed as a way of slowing the growth in air transport and its environmental costs.
Copyright 2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7925 posts, RR: 54
Reply 2, posted (12 years 10 months 12 hours ago) and read 2666 times:
I have lost a lot of respect for Boeing over recent statements about the Sonic Cruiser. Some idiot from Boeing announced that "there is plenty of fossil fuel left" - yeah, let's chuck all of it into the atmosphere now and cut trans-Atlantic flying time by a mere hour - then, when criticised, said, "I apologise for not jumping on the environmental bandwagon earlier". It's not a 'bandwagon', you f***ing idiots, it's a genuine concern. I think some Americans, Dubya amongst them, think limiting emissions and caring for the environment that sustains us are just tactics to limit US economic growth. Well, you reap what you sow.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
174thFWff From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 10 months 11 hours ago) and read 2660 times:
Excuse me but your wrong. The A380 isn't going to use that much more fuel.
"The new A380 will have 49% more cabin floorspace but only 33% more passenger seats, resulting in a significant improvement in comfort. Fuel consumption will be 20% lower, working out at three litres per passenger per 100 kilometres and raising environmental acceptability significantly. And even the aircraft noise restrictions in London Heathrow, which are feared throughout the industry due to their strictness, will pose no problem to the new model.
This performance will be possible, according to Forgeard, thanks to the use of new, weight-saving composites made out of fibreglass-aluminium and carbon fibre and through the development of a state-of-the-art wing. This wing actually poses a quite special design challenge, for, instead of stretching it out freely so as to optimise fuel consumption, as is possible today and is in fact customary with other Airbuses, the engineers have to keep its wing span under 80m. If they can do this, then the A380 will fit onto most of the taxiways and aprons used by today's jumbo jets so that the airports will not need to make expensive structural modifications. "
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7925 posts, RR: 54
Reply 6, posted (12 years 10 months 11 hours ago) and read 2642 times:
I see where you're coming from re the Concorde but six or eight Concorde flights a day (assuming it gets it's CoA back) by a handful of museum pieces is not the same as a mass-market new design which is expected to sell more than 500 aircraft. And Concorde was designed when there wasn't a lot of awareness of the damage done to the environment by aviation. Now we DO know, should we be launching a new type which is a gas-guzzler? Or looking at efficiency.
I agree with Silverstreak, I don't think the Sonic Cruiser will fly. I can think of a few reasons, here's what Richard Branson (Virgin Atlantic) announced recently: "I have had detailed talks with Boeing and I am excited about the Sonic Cruiser which will change the face of aviation. I expect to order three." THREE?! I think Boeing are screwed.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10989 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (12 years 10 months 10 hours ago) and read 2601 times:
So, Cedarjet, gas guzzling, and ozone depleting is okay, if it's only done by a handful of flights a day? I don't think you agree with that statement either.
My point is that there is a lot of hypocrisy going on. Concorde (which will still be much more polluting and gas guzzling than the boeing type) is being pushed back into the skies. It has had its curtain call imo, and the EU, BA, and AF still want encores. But, when an AMERICAN company wants a piece of the action, then it's too polutant. It's too gas guzzling. etc. You can't have it both ways.
This reminds me a good bit of the 737-200 debacle where the EU banned reselling the model in Europe, forcing airlines to buy newer jets; Airbus jets in specific.
Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (12 years 10 months 10 hours ago) and read 2588 times:
can see the Airbus supporters are out in force tonight. Folks, this is just a PR blitz by the EU on behalf of Airbus. It's a concerted effort by the two to boost sales of the A380, which is still on the drawing board, and try to draw away any interest in the Sonic Cruiser, which is still on the drawing board.
Can't any of you see how transparent this statement is? It has nothing to do with gas-guzzling; it has nothing to do with fuzzy environmentalism. It's about the EU, who's memebers heavily subsidize Airbus, pushing as hard as they can for the A380, because they're scared to death of the Sonic Cruiser.
PanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (12 years 10 months 10 hours ago) and read 2572 times:
They are definitely trying to help Airbus the best they can. Now it's becoming U.S.A. vs. Europe in the environment area.
Personally, the Europeans are calling the kettle black. If they want to talk the talk then they have to walk the walk. If they want to call us barbaric because of the environment, then they better prove that they are better in that regard. How much air pollution do they generate per person in their old factories? They also haven't signed the Kyoto Treaty either, so why are they making GWB look bad, they haven't done anything to make themselves look good.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
Boeing747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (12 years 10 months 10 hours ago) and read 2566 times:
I am not too bog a supporter for the Sonic Cruiser myself, but you Euros need to back the hell off.
Do we see Boeing released shit statements each week about the A380? NO.
I think Boeing is making the Sonic Cruiser as a coverup of working hardly on either the 747-400LRX or 747X and -Stretch programs. The Sonic Cruiser won't beat the A380 consuming that much fuel for just an hour less of flight, and I know it.
Just my 2 cents, so don't go freaking out and flaming me.
IMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6260 posts, RR: 34
Reply 17, posted (12 years 10 months 8 hours ago) and read 2536 times:
#1) The A380 and the Sonic Cruiser are not direct competitors. Different mission plans entierly.
#2) What continent has the greatest percentage of leisure flights? Could it be Europe? Why yes, it is. How badly do the European people care about the environment when they galavant around the continent on "charter flights". Nothing intrinsically wrong with it, just don't pretend you're better.
#3) Are we going to face another situation where the EU has veto power over US companies? REF Boeing-McDonnell Douglas merger. When did the US become part of the EU?
I really do not mean to slam Europeans in any way, just consider how imperialistic it is. I know, I come from the country of Imperalist thought. Doesn't make it right though.
Just several of my opinions.
Is grammar no longer taught is schools? Saying "me and her" or some such implies illiteracy.
Cwapilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1166 posts, RR: 17
Reply 18, posted (12 years 10 months 8 hours ago) and read 2554 times:
Quite frankly, the EU can piss off. The article below pretty much sums it all up. Pay special attention to the portions regarding Kyoto. I remember the "hard-hitting" European press corps asking President Bush to explain himself regarding this issue, and for the EU President or commissioner (or whatever the hell his title is) to explain why the Kyoto treaty has not been ratified by any EU countries. They kept hammering away at Bush, while letting the leader of the EU, the man they SHOULD have been demanding accountability from, not the President of the United States, they let him (Mr. Prodi I believe, or at least something close to that) off with some half-intelligible, garbled answer in broken English...when the man speaks perfect English when he wants to. It still amazes me how fiercely Europeans defend their sovereignty on one hand (evil USA trying to meddle) while formally giving it up to the EU, while at the same time STILL attempting to comment on all aspects of US policy (from the environment to the death penalty to McDonald's hamburgers). The President of the United States is accountable to the people of the United States....Boeing is accountable to its stockholders and bound to follow the laws of the United States and the State of Illinois.
While we are lectured by the Europeans on this forum for turning Airbus vs Boeing into USA vs Europe, this is just proof positive that, to the EU, A v B is USA v EU. Notice also that the article in the original post is from Reuters, the new public relations wing of Airbus Industrie.
Environmentalism, in the form preferred, apparently, within Europe, IS a bandwagon. People differ in their opinions on environmentalism based on the science they choose to place more stock in. It seems the Euro tree huggers, like many over here, choose to follow the school that says that anything humans do damages the environment. It's just that, in the European version, the failings of their own leaders on environmental issues, are ignored, while they fervently seek out the accountability of other leaders.
June 17, 2001
Europe Builds Itself Up at Bush's Expense
By GREGG EASTERBROOK
WASHINGTON — THOUSANDS of protesters chanted against President Bush
during his stops in Spain, Belgium and Sweden last week, some baring their
rear ends; European leaders spoke condescendingly of America's president;
the European press depicted him as a cowboy hayseed. In other words, from
the European perspective, the Bush visit could not have gone better.
As the European Union struggles to expand, to "harmonize" its thousands of
overlapping rules, to manage its uncountable internecine jealousies and to
formulate a new understanding of what it means to be European, there is one
thing all Europeans seem to agree on. It is faux horror about the United
For all their pretenses of being dismayed by Mr. Bush, if European Union
leaders were to describe their dream American president for this moment in
time, they might well specify someone exactly like Mr. Bush —
seemingly, at least to European eyes, unsophisticated, swaggering and
brash, all the qualities the European Union can unite on in dreading the
"The European Union has a hormone problem," says Jeffrey Gedmin, a Europe
scholar who runs the New Atlantic Initiative at the American Enterprise
Institute in Washington. "They are developing a sense that whatever
diminishes the stature of the United States is of benefit to Europe."
During Mr. Bush's visit, President Jacques Chirac of France, Chancellor
Gerhard Schroeder of Germany and Prime Minister Wim Kok of the Netherlands
all criticized his positions on global warming and missile defense,
breaking the taboo that heads of state do not air disagreements during
state visits. The Council of Europe, roughly analogous to the Organization
of American States, was so underwhelmed that the American president was in
its jurisdiction that by midweek the front page of its Web site had no
mention of his presence. Instead, the major news was, "Parliamentary
Assembly to Observe Elections in Bulgaria."
Such slights against the leader of the best friend Europe has ever had were
intended to inflate the European Union's collective ego. For great issues
have recently made the European Union fractious: proposed expansion from 15
to 27 member nations (basically all the former Eastern Europeans states
want in, and Ireland just voted no to that); whether Turkey should become
part of Europe (if it qualifies for the European Union, Turkey would
receive huge subsidies); whether there should be a European meta-government
that supersedes national capitals. And with the demise of the Soviet Union,
Europe now has no enemy to unite its competing states.
In such a context, Europe might find it useful to have a common antagonist.
Enter Mr. Bush.
The Bush administration's rejection of the Kyoto global warming treaty,
supposedly bad news, actually could not have been scripted better. European
Union leaders got to repeatedly denounce Mr. Bush for saying the United
States will not ratify Kyoto — though no European Union nation has
ratified it, either. After the 1992 "Earth Summit" in Rio, when Mr. Bush's
father declared that the United States would not accept mandatory
greenhouse-gas reductions, he was lambasted by European leaders, who vowed
prompt, decisive action to impose restrictions on their own. They did
Last week, after deriding the Bush position on Kyoto, the European Union
again vowed prompt greenhouse action, promising to ratify Kyoto on its own.
Yet no European nation other than Denmark has any serious
greenhouse-reduction strategy even in the planning stages, while a
stand-alone European Union ratification of Kyoto is a million-to-one shot.
From the Europeans' standpoint, the ideal outcome was for the Kyoto treaty
to collapse but for Washington to take the blame. Now Europe gets to act
outraged, while being spared the hard work and cost of actual reform.
Indeed, despite European protestations, American ecological standards are
far more strict than European rules, and have been for 20 years or more.
"Europe is now the world leader on environmental issues," the Swedish
environment minister, Kjell Larsson, said as Mr. Bush arrived in his
nation. But Paris today has worse smog than Houston; water quality,
especially of rivers, is lower in Europe than in the United States; acid
rain reduction has been more rapid in the United States than in Europe;
European Union nations like Greece, Italy and Portugal still discharge huge
volumes of untreated municipal waste water, a practice all but banned in
America. In addition, the European Union did not act against leaded
gasoline till more than a decade after the United States; the forested
percentage of the United States is higher than the forested percentage of
most European countries, while America has fewer threatened species than
Europe; and many other environmental indicators favor the United States.
It is true that Europe is more energy-efficient than America. And moreover,
as Bjorn Lomborg, a professor at the University of Aarhus in Denmark,
demonstrates in the forthcoming book "The Skeptical Environmentalist," smog
is declining and water quality improving everywhere in the West, Europe and
America alike. But the idea that Europe is ahead on environmental matters
is a convenient fiction of European politics.
TRYING to build up Europe by acting outraged against America has become the
European national sport on many fronts. One is anger about globalization by
American companies, though European firms are themselves active
European diplomats harp on America's refusal to agree to a global treaty
banning land mines. (The Pentagon maintains that its defense of the
North-South Korean border rules out a land-mine ban.) Land-mine reduction
is an important goal, but pales on the arms agenda compared with reduction
of nuclear warheads — something that, inconveniently, Washington is
On no subject is Europe's internal need to feel superior to the United
States more clear than capital punishment. Outlawing capital punishment is
now a condition of European Union membership, and European commentators
like to suggest there is a huge values gap between Europe and America.
Always skipped is that 12 American states ban the death penalty, while
polls show public pro-and-con views regarding capital punishment are nearly
identical in the United States and the European Union. When the French
politician Jack Lang was campaigning for mayor of Paris, he ostentatiously
traveled to Texas to meet with a death- row prisoner; he was lauded in
France. (Imagine if a candidate for mayor of Dallas traveled to Paris to
meet with poor North African immigrants to discuss French racism.)
Something besides moral opposition to the death penalty underlies this
That something may extend to a realignment of American-European relations.
Speaking in France before Mr. Bush's visit, former Secretary of State Henry
A. Kissinger said the European allies now perceive a need to check American
strength. Using the balance-of- power calculations that are the mainstay of
traditional European diplomacy, Europe worries that America is too strong,
and wants to bring it down a notch.
Mr. Gedmin of the American Enterprise Institute thinks the day may not be
far off when Europe sides with Russia or even China against America on some
key issue. A possible preview: When Mr. Bush first decided to review North
Korea policy, the European Union sent a delegation to Pyongyang to confuse
It seems certain there's more Euro-static coming, because for the moment,
many European leaders believe that making small of America is in their
Gregg Easterbrook, a senior editor of The New Republic and visiting fellow
at the Brookings Institution, is the author of "A Moment on the Earth: The
Coming Age of Environmental Optimism."
Southside Irish...our two teams are the White Sox and whoever plays the Cubs!
Hamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2703 posts, RR: 58
Reply 22, posted (12 years 10 months 6 hours ago) and read 2513 times:
As an avid hiker and camper, as well as a member of the Sierra Club and several outdoor recreation clubs here in the Seattle area, I can tell you that I am no fan of Pres. Bush or other industrialists who think jobs are more important than the planet.
However, that being said, let me say this - I don't know what's worse, an honest industrialist or a hypocritical environmentalist. Mr. Stonecipher's comments were purely idiotic, and probably taken out of context. However, that does not excuse the E.U. to use the environment as a commercial weapon in some foolish anti-U.S. tirade. This is no better than Mr. Bush's unilateral actions when dealing with North Korea or his push for a missle defense. It truly angers me when environmental issues are cheapened by becoming pawns for people who don't really give a damn, as long as it sounds good. I recently read with amazement that Germany has decided to phase out nuclear power and will replace it with more coal- and oil-burning power plants. I hardly think this is a step in the right direction, or a decided boon for the atmosphere. Of course, nuclear waste is an immediate hazard, and one we must deal with. But not by taking a step backwards.
If the Reuters article provided by CWApilot is any indication, the comments made by this E.U. official is hypocrisy in the highest form. Please, let's learn some more about the Sonic Cruiser, which is at best still 7 years away, before we lambast it. BTW - I'm curious what will be said if airlines such as British, Virgin, Air Frace, Lufthansa, etc. order this aircraft. Will it still be an environmental hazard?