Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Disadvantaged By US Foreign Policy?  
User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2742 times:

I would be the first to acknowledge that the 320 and 330 are excellent A/C and deserve all the success (and orders) they have been receiving.

But I wonder to what extent Boeing is at a disadvantage because of the hard-line and relatively autocratic stance of the Bush administration with regard to many foreign policy issues of late? (Kyoto, The Hague, Iraq, Iran, etc., Launch aid vs tax-break dispute...). Even if you agree with the various policies of this administration, one result is that American popularity overseas and its "moral authority" has really taken a beating.

With the Chinese president visiting Seattle, then visiting Europe, then the French President visiting China, and all of these visits coinciding with large A/C orders, it's clear that politics often plays at least as large a role as the actual performance and economic case for the A/C being considered.

I realize that there are exceptions to my suggestion, (Air France has 777s for example) but would anyone care to speculate how much Boeing loses because Europe is considered a more moderate/tolerant/friendly entity in the world than the U.S. these days?


I come in peace
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2730 times:

You can replace "Boeing" with any other USA company in any industry and all of a sudden it's not about aviation, thus this is a non-AV topic disguised as an aviation topic and should be moved.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2706 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Thread starter):
I realize that there are exceptions to my suggestion, (Air France has 777s for example) but would anyone care to speculate how much Boeing loses because Europe is considered a more moderate/tolerant/friendly entity in the world than the U.S. these days?

Little to none because Airlines order for a very long time and governments change. You could argue every sale Boeing has lost due to policy they have made up for the same reasons.

I agree this should be moved to non-av as it's political and not about aviation.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineEugdog From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 518 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2655 times:

I think this a very good discussion and very important. Let me say that I am not anti-Bush. I would of voted for him if I was a US citizen.

But no one should deny that US foriegn policy is an extra hurdle Boeing have jump through which Airbus does not have to

The problem is that both companies sell similar products. Moreover aircraft are extremely high profile. The result is that political factors can be the tiebreaker in choosing between similar products. What could be easier for politicians to block a US order to show their displeasure to the public. And what could be controversial then ordering high profile American plans when there is strong anti-american feeling in your country.

The fact that Boeing were able to make big orders from Emirates and other Arab airlines despite strong anti-US feeling in the Arab world just goes to show how much better the 777 is over the A340!

But I think that the main political interferance is in Europe. I am sure that European airlines are under great pressure to buy Airbus. This is what you would expect given the high profile of Airbus. I would do exactly the same if I was puting tax payers money into the project.

But that said, I am sure the US puts pressure on its allies to buy Boeing (Israel especially who are totally reliant on US aid for its existance).

It will also be interesting to see how the big US airlines place their orders as they gradually move out of bankrupcy - soon NW will have to replace its aging fleet of DC-9s. There is going to blood on floor for this order!!!

[Edited 2006-10-28 11:19:03]

User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7202 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2623 times:

Quoting EugDog
"But I think that the main political interferance is in Europe. I am sure that European airlines are under great pressure to buy Airbus. This is what you would expect given the high profile of Airbus. I would do exactly the same if I was puting tax payers money into the project"

How does this principle jive with US carriers buying Boeing equipment or even the US Airforce not seriously looking at the Airbus tanker option? If as many Airbus fans claims that Boeing is getting govt. subsidies, then should it not follow along with your precedent that the US companies bow to pressure to buy locally to offset the political advantage Airbus has internationally?

Other posters are correct though, this is a political discussion for Non-Av, just could not resist asking the question after reading your post. Pot and kettle thing and all that.


User currently offlineEHHO From Bulgaria, joined Dec 2005, 815 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2622 times:

I think the politcal side of a procurement decision varies in intensity according to airline and country. E.g. I don't think that KL ordering A332s was dictated politically anyhow (IIRC, it was before the AF/KL merger), and same goes for NW and their A332s/A333s. However, LO being all-Boeing (except RJ) and the never-ending SU decision on longhaul do have political components. I think that the best equation to determine the "politicalness" of an order is to see whether the country of the airline has a special/difficult relationship with either EU or USA, and then see how large the state's stake in the given airline is.

Also, if airline managment has a special relationship with a specific aircraft maker, it also matters. When Bethune came to CO, A340 orders were cancelled and the carrier went all-Boeing: Airbus wasn't an option anymore for this ex-Boeing exec.



"Get your facts first. Then you may distort them as much as you please" -- Mark Twain
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13113 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2541 times:

I wouldn't say that aircraft brand choice isn't so much based on short term political policies of the USA, but due to more local pressures. There are some exceptions such as with ElAl, but I am quite sure someday they will buy some Airbus a/c as times and politics change and as they are now a private company rather than a government owned company. A number of airlines around the world split their orders between A & B so to deal with their national political pressures, but more likely for financial reasons, such as fianacing, pricing competition, ops costs for their needs and so on. There are a number of airlines that have Airbus models for their mainline narrowbodies and Boeing models for widebodies Boeing models for some routes and Airbus for other routes.
You have USA companies like NW that have gone heavily into Airbus (although part owned by KLM/AF? as an influence) and you have EC airlines like Ryanair that are all Boeing (737's). That is more due to pricing, financing, operational costs, fits for their needs, preference for fewer variances in models and brands and so on rather than political pressures.


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2520 times:

Quoting Par13del (Reply 4):
How does this principle jive with US carriers buying Boeing equipment or even the US Airforce not seriously looking at the Airbus tanker option? If as many Airbus fans claims that Boeing is getting govt. subsidies, then should it not follow along with your precedent that the US companies bow to pressure to buy locally to offset the political advantage Airbus has internationally?

You are talking apples and oranges when you mix military and civilian aircraft procurement. It makes sense for a European government to prefer Airbus over Boeing (and US to prefer Boeing over Airbus) for military aircraft because you are talking about taxpayer dollars. It makes far less sense to favor one manufacturer over the other when you are talking about civilian aircraft.

If I ran a US airline, I'd buy the best aircraft I could find for the best price. If it was Airbus, I'd buy Airbus. If it was Boeing, I'd buy Boeing.


User currently offlineA380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1112 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2515 times:

It's the entire US of A that is disadvantaged by US Foreign Policy!

User currently offlineGr8Circle From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 3106 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2496 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
You can replace "Boeing" with any other USA company in any industry and all of a sudden it's not about aviation, thus this is a non-AV topic disguised as an aviation topic and should be moved.

Not very true. For example, Marlboro cigarettes are banned (for obvious reason) in certain Middle East countries, but are freely available due to a black market and smuggling.....and are in high demand......aircrafts cannot be smuggled in similar manner and easily fall prey to political trends.....

Quoting Eugdog (Reply 3):
The problem is that both companies sell similar products. Moreover aircraft are extremely high profile

 checkmark 


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2481 times:

Quoting A380900 (Reply 8):
It's the entire US of A that is disadvantaged by US Foreign Policy!

I guess it's all i how you look at it and what your idea of "advantage" is.  Wink

Look, the USA was unpopular overseas long before the Bush administration. I remember some particularly unkind stuff coming out from abroad during the Clinton administration. It's not about who's in office right now, so I'd say no, business as usual.



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2446 times:

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 10):
Look, the USA was unpopular overseas long before the Bush administration. I remember some particularly unkind stuff coming out from abroad during the Clinton administration. It's not about who's in office right now, so I'd say no, business as usual.

Bravo! You are absolutely correct - we are seeing "business as usual". Nothing has really changed.


User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2402 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
You can replace "Boeing" with any other USA company in any industry and all of a sudden it's not about aviation, thus this is a non-AV topic disguised as an aviation topic and should be moved.

I was surprised that this would be your response. I am not speaking to what American foreign policy is, or it's merits. A political discussion has no place here.

But I am talking about the EFFECT of American foreign policy on Boeing sales. I would suggest that because civilian A/C are large profile and high-ticket items, especially if bought in quantity, and I believe Boeing is our biggest exporter (in value), that this issue is much larger than we, the general public, would be led to believe. I could easily see a foreign government blocking a large sale from Boeing to punish the U.S. for a particular policy. For example, there is no doubt in my mind that if the U.S. fully recognised Taiwan and called it by it's real name, the Chinese 150 737 order would be cancelled.

Airbus, by the way, has just finalized a very effective way to secure more orders in China by building an assembly line there. They understand politics very well.

Quoting EHHO (Reply 5):
I think the political side of a procurement decision varies in intensity according to airline and country. E.g. I don't think that KL ordering A332s was dictated politically anyhow (IIRC, it was before the AF/KL merger), and same goes for NW and their A332s/A333s. However, LO being all-Boeing (except RJ) and the never-ending SU decision on longhaul do have political components. I think that the best equation to determine the "politicalness" of an order is to see whether the country of the airline has a special/difficult relationship with either EU or USA, and then see how large the state's stake in the given airline is.

Also, if airline managment has a special relationship with a specific aircraft maker, it also matters. When Bethune came to CO, A340 orders were cancelled and the carrier went all-Boeing: Airbus wasn't an option anymore for this ex-Boeing exec.



Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 6):
I wouldn't say that aircraft brand choice isn't so much based on short term political policies of the USA, but due to more local pressures. There are some exceptions such as with ElAl, but I am quite sure someday they will buy some Airbus a/c as times and politics change and as they are now a private company rather than a government owned company. A number of airlines around the world split their orders between A & B so to deal with their national political pressures, but more likely for financial reasons, such as fianacing, pricing competition, ops costs for their needs and so on. There are a number of airlines that have Airbus models for their mainline narrowbodies and Boeing models for widebodies Boeing models for some routes and Airbus for other routes.
You have USA companies like NW that have gone heavily into Airbus (although part owned by KLM/AF? as an influence) and you have EC airlines like Ryanair that are all Boeing (737's). That is more due to pricing, financing, operational costs, fits for their needs, preference for fewer variances in models and brands and so on rather than political pressures.

These are very interesting, compehensive posts. I gather that at some times the merit of the A/C prevails but at other times political or local pressures play a larger role.

Does anyone know of a particular A/C deal in recent history that went through or went "south," as a result of a corresponding foreign policy decision? Thank you, all, for participating.



I come in peace
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2402 times:

Quoting Khobar (Reply 11):
Bravo! You are absolutely correct - we are seeing "business as usual". Nothing has really changed.

And considering how disadvantage Boeing is, imagine how they'd dominate the market if they weren't... of course that's not true, and should get Airbus fans riled up, but you can't have the argument both ways.

Personally, if selling more jets means transferring technology and manufacturing to China and giving Iran long range nuclear missiles, I'd settle for selling fewer planes as an American. But I guess I don't have the moral compass of our thread starter here, where everything is equivalent.

Canada may have not political will of it's own, but the USA is still sovereign and independent. It bothers some greatly that the USA does not play lap dog to the UN and subjugate it's laws and economy to the demands of those in Europe. I'm afraid it's going to happen eventually, but it hasn't happened yet.

And despite our unwillingness to be broken and dominated by an otherwise powerless, unelected world body, Boeing has still sold 1800 jets in 22 months, more than it ever has before.

So, not only is the OP allowing his political views to influence analysis of the market, his premise is not borne out by the facts...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinePlaneHunter From Germany, joined Mar 2006, 6807 posts, RR: 77
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2393 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
Personally, if selling more jets means transferring technology and manufacturing to China and giving Iran long range nuclear missiles

Where's the relation between selling Airbus jets and giving Iran nuclear missiles?


PH



Nothing's worse than flying the same reg twice!
User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2359 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
Personally, if selling more jets means transferring technology and manufacturing to China and giving Iran long range nuclear missiles, I'd settle for selling fewer planes as an American. But I guess I don't have the moral compass of our thread starter here, where everything is equiv

Actually, I have the same misgivings as you on that point. I think some countries are far too eager to do business with certain dictators. And you'll notice I did not condone Airbus building a plant in China, but I noted it as a political move in order to sell A/C.

But I notice that it is YOU who are talking about politics, not I.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
o, not only is the OP allowing his political views to influence analysis of the market, his premise is not borne out by the facts...

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? What I glean from your brief post is that your political views are extremely polarized.

(By the way, I live in Los Angeles and have dual citizenship.)



I come in peace
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2344 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 12):
I could easily see a foreign government blocking a large sale from Boeing to punish the U.S. for a particular policy.

And I can see retaliatory moves by the US as well, and let's not forget the WTO....

So tell us, though, just how would the governments of EU countries be able to force private airline companies to not buy Boeing aircraft? Is President Chirac going to order Air France to cease buying Boeing? And if that trend keeps up, what incentive does Airbus have to continue to innovate? After all, if they are going to become the beneficiary of required purchases, seems to me that in the long run, their product would suffer.


User currently offlineOU812 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2297 times:

 checkmark 

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
Personally, if selling more jets means transferring technology and manufacturing to China and giving Iran long range nuclear missiles, I'd settle for selling fewer planes as an American. But I guess I don't have the moral compass of our thread starter here, where everything is equivalent.

Concur,
All eyes are on the US . Yet , what countries continue to deal with Iran [ a Terrorist state ] which publicly states the end of a nation [Israel].

Nicely said Ikramerica !

Quoting SSTsomeday (Thread starter):
But I wonder to what extent Boeing is at a disadvantage because of the hard-line and relatively autocratic stance of the Bush administration with regard to many foreign policy issues of late? (Kyoto, The Hague, Iraq, Iran, etc., Launch aid vs tax-break dispute...). Even if you agree with the various policies of this administration, one result is that American popularity overseas and its "moral authority" has really taken a beating.

Boeing may loose one here or there & vice versa for Airbus . However , when one looks at Boeing now ! Under the Bush administration . Boeing orders & stock have gone to new heights . While Airbus's have done quite the opposite . Looks like Bush's presidency have done nothing put help Boeing .Not to mention the US economy as well . 4.6 % unemployment , surging tax revenues and a Stock Market at all times highs !!!

SSTsomeday,
In short, you argument is weak at best !

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 15):
But I notice that it is YOU who are talking about politics, not I.

 talktothehand  Hogwash !

Hypocritical statement ! Nice try , but your motives are obvious !

Quoting SSTsomeday (Thread starter):
But I wonder to what extent Boeing is at a disadvantage because of the hard-line and relatively autocratic stance of the Bush administration with regard to many foreign policy issues of late? (Kyoto, The Hague, Iraq, Iran, etc., Launch aid vs tax-break dispute...).

Your motives were to bash Bush/American !

Quoting SSTsomeday (Thread starter):
I realize that there are exceptions to my suggestion, (Air France has 777s for example) but would anyone care to speculate how much Boeing loses because Europe is considered a more moderate/tolerant/friendly entity in the world than the U.S. these days?

The US saved the EU twice & continues to save the weak & repressed to this day . There are always consequences to actions taken good or bad . And there are always spin doctors out there who are either too biased or too ignorant to know the differences .


User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2242 times:

My original question (which I posted in the aviation forum) was not intended to be political. I think I can be a democrat and still talk about aviation. I'm frankly surprised that the thread was moved here. It has now BECOME a political thread.

It would seem that some members are so politically fired up and polarised in their political views that they couldn't see the thrust of the question, which was essentially - how does politics effect A/C sales, both positively and negatively?

You will note that a number of people did take up the spirit of the discussion and suggested examples or scenarios where politics at times did play a role in which manufacturer got the contract, and sometimes they did not. All aviation orientated answers, not having to do with the alleged merits or problems with our foreign policy.

Now, since we are in "Non-aviation," to briefly address some of your political pronouncements:

You can back our present administration all you want, but to suggest that our reputation and status around the world as a moral leader and "international policeman" is not at an all time low is to be in denial. And our effectiveness in finding world consensus and world cooperation to deal with some of the huge issues we face (terrorism, global warming, hunger, AIDS in developing countries, 3rd world debt.) will be compromised by our arrogant and autocratic stance. I think we would be much more effective to more vigerously look for consensus with our allies.

For example, I believe that "The Marshall Plan," organised by the United States, was an amazing and proud time for America, when we rallied the resources and will of many diverse European countries and citizens, including Germany, to rebuild after World War 2. It was leadership in the spirit of inspiration and coorperation. That does not seem to be the thrust of American foreign policy now. I don't think being a leader means one must be arrogant or consumed with self interest, or suggest to our allies "you are either with us, or against us..."

Also, since George Bush took power six years ago, we have millions more people under the poverty line, millions more people without health insurance, colleges reducing their enrollment because of lack of funds, social security failing much sooner than we anticipated, medicare failing much sooner than anticipated, a safety net that is so underfunded that we can't deal with a hurricane effectively, nor do we have the personel to guard our borders, a federal deficit at an incredible record high, and having reached that high in an unprecedented short amount of time, and American politics more divisive and partisan than ever before. And I do not trust the employment figures, per ce. How many good paying jobs with benefits and possibilities for advancement have been replaced by "Walmart" type jobs?

But I suspect that some of us are going to have to agree to disagree. Also, I wish to assert here that I believe I have spoken rationally and with respect, according to my believe structure, and have not attacked anyone personally or become emotional or even indignant in this mini debate. I cannot say that about some others.

Please note my note to the moderators:

#################

Thank you for your message.

However, I believe that the person who objected to my post and suggested it be moved was the person being political, not me.

I believe that my post pertained specifically to aviation, which is why I posted it there.

However, I have learned over time that this forum is full of a lot of sensitive individuals with strong agenda, be it political or otherwise, and be a conduit for some pretty emotionally motivated posts. I have discovered that it is often those who object to original posts and cry foul the loudest who are ironically the ones who are the most biast, not necessarily the starters of threads in all cases.

You have the right, as moderators of the website, to do with my post what you will. With respect, I disagree with your decision.

Best Regards,
SSTsomeday



I come in peace
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2229 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 18):
My original question (which I posted in the aviation forum) was not intended to be political. I think I can be a democrat and still talk about aviation. I'm frankly surprised that the thread was moved here. It has now BECOME a political thread.

If you really thought the thread wasn't going to become political, then you are truly naive.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 18):
You can back our present administration all you want, but to suggest that our reputation and status around the world as a moral leader and "international policeman" is not at an all time low is to be in denial.

Our reputation may be low, but our influence has been largely unaffected. I work with international colleagues on a routine basis on general law enforcement matters, and there has been NO blowback from the Iraq invasion. The rest of the world might not like us, but they still need us, and are practical and professional enough to set aside differences over Iraq policy.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 18):
Also, since George Bush took power six years ago, we have millions more people under the poverty line, millions more people without health insurance, colleges reducing their enrollment because of lack of funds, social security failing much sooner than we anticipated, medicare failing much sooner than anticipated, a safety net that is so underfunded that we can't deal with a hurricane effectively, nor do we have the personnel to guard our borders, a federal deficit at an incredible record high, and having reached that high in an unprecedented short amount of time, and American politics more divisive and partisan than ever before.

What a load of unmitigated hogwash to blame Bush for all of the above.

in 2000, 39.8 million working adults lacked health insurance - 14.2% of the working population. In 2004, that number had risen to 45.8 million, 15.7 % of the working adult population. An increase of millions, yes, but you act as like Bush is singlehandedly responsible for the 40 million uninsured workers he inherited.

Social Security has been hemorrhaging money for decades. The deficit has been huge for years.

And then - laughably - you conclude with blaming Bush for the increase in partisan politics - not realizing that your post contributes to the partisan divide by your blatant mischaracterizations.

there is more than enough blame to go around. Placing t all on Bush and the republicans undermines your credibility on this issue.


User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2219 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 19):
unmitigated hogwash



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 19):
laughably

...to a Republican. Many of us Democrats are horrified and dismayed.

From a psychological standpoint, it's amazing to me that our opinions can differ so much. It's like we live in two different countries, too different worlds.

It lends credence to the contention that truth seems to be extremely subjective, and we are more influenced by where we are coming from, as opposed to the "facts," whatever they may be, since we all have access to the same information. Yet we draw wildly different conclusions.

No wonder it is so hard to get anything productive done in the political arena.



I come in peace
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2216 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 20):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 19):unmitigated hogwash


Quoting Halls120 (Reply 19):laughably
...to a Republican. Many of us Democrats are horrified and dismayed.

Ah, the erroneous assumption. I'm a former democrat, now an independent. Never have been a GOP'er, never will. But feel free to slap on labels, if it makes you happy.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 20):
It lends credence to the contention that truth seems to be extremely subjective, and we are more influenced by where we are coming from, as opposed to the "facts," whatever they may be, since we all have access to the same information. Yet we draw wildly different conclusions.

LOL, since when was truth ever completely objective?

Keep blaming Bush all you want. But when the democrats take over Congress in January, and the WH in 2009, and the same problems exist, what are you gong to do then - blame the republicans?

I'm still amazed you thought this thread wouldn't turn political.


User currently offlineMolykote From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1340 posts, RR: 29
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2194 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EHHO (Reply 5):
Also, if airline managment has a special relationship with a specific aircraft maker, it also matters. When Bethune came to CO, A340 orders were cancelled and the carrier went all-Boeing: Airbus wasn't an option anymore for this ex-Boeing exec.

I find this to be an interesting scenario. The Boeing/CO connection certainly raises eyebrows but clearly CO is better off having taken 777s.



Speedtape - The asprin of aviation!
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...
What Is The US Foreign Policy Re:- The Middle East posted Sat Apr 3 2004 19:02:57 by Sammyhostie
Foreign Policy Creating "problems" For US Students posted Wed Apr 27 2005 15:02:12 by DIJKKIJK
Need Help On US Immigration Policy... posted Sun Oct 15 2006 02:49:03 by Boeinglover24
British Reporter Killed By US Marines posted Fri Oct 13 2006 21:32:50 by Cosec59
Conservative Anger With Bush Over Foreign Policy posted Wed Jul 19 2006 17:33:03 by RJpieces
Slam Dunk Rebuke Of Bush Foreign Policy posted Wed Jul 5 2006 22:31:53 by ArtieFufkin
Germany's Foreign Policy posted Tue May 23 2006 21:55:13 by AerospaceFan
Stupid Foreign Policy Tricks, Cont'd. posted Sun May 7 2006 22:17:01 by AerospaceFan
President Bush On Mid East Foreign Policy posted Thu Jan 20 2005 13:34:29 by Rjpieces
Democratic Realism--Thoughts On Foreign Policy posted Sun Jan 9 2005 09:02:26 by Rjpieces