LeoDF
Topic Author
Posts: 349
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 1999 11:44 am

Airbus Or Boeing? Who Is Right?

Mon Aug 09, 1999 8:22 am

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
 
Guest

RE: Airbus Or Boeing? Who Is Right?

Mon Aug 09, 1999 10:08 am

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
 
dash8tech
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 1999 8:40 pm

RE: Airbus Or Boeing? Who Is Right?

Tue Aug 10, 1999 2:12 am

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?!?
 
Guest

I Know!

Tue Aug 10, 1999 2:24 am

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
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

RE: Airbus Or Boeing? Who Is Right?

Tue Aug 10, 1999 2:48 am

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
 
mirage
Posts: 3612
Joined: Mon May 31, 1999 4:44 am

Frequent Flights Is Utopic

Tue Aug 10, 1999 2:50 am

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
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

RE: Frequent Flights Is Utopic

Tue Aug 10, 1999 3:02 am

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
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

Who Is Right? Mirage And MAC_Vet

Tue Aug 10, 1999 3:06 am

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
 
CX747
Posts: 5576
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Who Is Right? Mirage And MAC_Vet

Tue Aug 10, 1999 6:26 am

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
 
william
Posts: 1594
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

RE: Who Is Right? Mirage And MAC_Vet

Tue Aug 10, 1999 8:59 am

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.
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: Airbus Or Boeing? Who Is Right?

Tue Aug 10, 1999 10:01 am

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
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

Cedarjet-excellent Point

Tue Aug 10, 1999 12:39 pm


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
 
Navion
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:52 am

RE: Cedarjet-excellent Point

Wed Aug 11, 1999 3:01 am

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."
 
CX747
Posts: 5576
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Cedarjet

Wed Aug 11, 1999 4:25 am

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
 
wingman
Posts: 2793
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Cedarjet-excellent Point

Wed Aug 11, 1999 4:36 am

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.
 
CX747
Posts: 5576
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

A3XX Vs 747-XXX Or 787.

Wed Aug 11, 1999 4:47 am

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
 
Guest

CX747

Wed Aug 11, 1999 5:56 am

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.
 
CX747
Posts: 5576
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

IAD

Wed Aug 11, 1999 6:02 am

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
 
Guest

CX747

Wed Aug 11, 1999 6:11 am

You're right. Sorry - I just got confused after reading all those posts.
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

RE: Cedarjet-excellent Point

Wed Aug 11, 1999 11:35 am

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
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

RE: A3XX Vs 747-XXX Or 787.

Wed Aug 11, 1999 11:40 am

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
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

RE: CX747

Wed Aug 11, 1999 11:54 am



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
 
CX747
Posts: 5576
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

MAC_Veteran

Thu Aug 12, 1999 12:30 am

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
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: Airbus Or Boeing? Who Is Right?

Thu Aug 12, 1999 1:29 am

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
 
CX747
Posts: 5576
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

You Don't Get It.

Thu Aug 12, 1999 1:34 am

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
 
CX747
Posts: 5576
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Airbus Or Boeing? Who Is Right?

Thu Aug 12, 1999 1:43 am

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 from the A330 to the A340. Air France stated in Aviation and Space Technology Weekly that it takes just as long to move from the 767 to 747-400 as it does from the A310-A340
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: Airbus Or Boeing? Who Is Right?

Thu Aug 12, 1999 1:58 am

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 pioneered the dual A330/340 rating. You say AF pilots need the same amount of time to convert from the A310 to the A340 as 767-747, I'm not surprised. I made no mention of the A310 in my posts, it's from a previous generation of flightdecks. I'm sure the AF statement is absolutely correct and it in no way contradicts my statement about commonality/similarity. I would say your argument about the 707/KC135 is equally specious. The KC135 may be a military development of the 707 but do you think the 707 would have been affordable if it hadn't been preceded by the B47 and B52? Billions of taxpayer dollars pushed Boeing into the jet age (and years after the Comet and Tu 104, by the way). And those fabulous machines that Boeing built to pave the way to the 707 are, lest we forget, tools of destruction that were used to kill 2 million Vietnamese. I bet Airbus are green with envy about THAT.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
ken4556
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 1999 5:28 am

Both Are Right

Thu Aug 12, 1999 2:05 am

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, BA doing the same) because they are more worried about yields and not the number of passsengers. The high paying passenger wants to go from point A to point B non-stop. Hence, the desire for smaller longer range plans.

All new planes (heavy's) were launched after airlines committed to the plan. Airbus has not launched because of few number of launch orders. Boeing is investing into what they can sell now (Airbus doing the same with A340-500/600). The market changes everyday and when a new jumbo is required, both Airbus and Boeing will offer versions and launch when the committment is given by the airlines.

Lastly, travel through Asia once. Still a large number of smaller planes, not all flights are 747's!!
 
Navion
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:52 am

TO:MAC Veteran RE: Cedarjet-excellent Point

Thu Aug 12, 1999 2:53 am

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 Boeing's purchase of another company have to do with our discussion of subsidies? I don't follow you. Please elaborate.
 
Navion
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:52 am

TO: MAC Veteran

Thu Aug 12, 1999 3:00 am

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 Mac Veteran, McDonnell Douglas is not an airliner company. They had major divisions in military (which last time I checked included F15, F18C/D, F18E/F, JSF Candidate, MD17), space (Delta rocket booster family including Delta II, Delta III, and Delta IV), information systems, and finance. Your point regarding the merger was so absurd that I totally missed it. Now that I get it I realize you may be airliner centered and not realize that the little company called McDonnell Douglas has a richer history and product line than most manufacuterers in this world. I guess you know best though. You're right, Boeing should have said screw it to all of the military markets, space markets, satellite markets, information systems markets etc., just so they could build a new super jumbo to help Airbus justify building theirs. I really can't believe you actually took that position.
 
mirage
Posts: 3612
Joined: Mon May 31, 1999 4:44 am

My Two Cents (I'm Not Rude)

Thu Aug 12, 1999 3:01 am

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 brainwashed in the US and worst, you don't give any credit to other systems in the world (it seems everybody else is a bad comunist ready to attack your country).
Please take your heads from that holes, wake up for the world outside.
I know I will be attacked by saying this but some people here must be shaken or they will just eat hamburgers for the rest of life.

Boeing started in the crazy days of flying back to 1915. William E. Boeing and G. Conrad Westervelt formed the Aero Club of Seattle as a part time venture.
Making naval trainers, fighter planes and mailplanes Boeing survived until today.
Do you think Airbus was crazy enough to get in this business with a mature market dominated by Boeing without subsidies? Ofcourse not!

Airbus receives subsidies, so what? everybody knows that.
Boeing receives hidden money so that nobody can know about that.
What is the worst? Who is playing a dirty game?

Luis, Faro, Portugal
 
Navion
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:52 am

RE: My Two Cents (I'm Not Rude)

Thu Aug 12, 1999 3:14 am

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 Airbus is the only one "honest" enough to admit to subsidies. I realize we American's are brainwashed (thanks again Mirage for the European superiority slant), but I will say it again: GIVE ME THE COLD HARD CASH AND YOU WILL SEE A 787. You take Boeing's so called "hidden subsidies". You truly are good Airbus party line drones who repeat all of the hidden conspiracy funding machinations to justify Airbus greatest failing. This whole discussion is insane.
Mirage, somebody in Europe must think Americans have some redeeming qualities when the U.S. forces provided about 2/3 (or more) to help clean up the Serbian/Kosovo problem in Europe's own back yard. Maybe some of the sentiment that NATO and other non-U.S. groups should start footing their part of the bill could free up some U.S. government money which could be GIVEN (no strings) to Boeing to develop a super jumbo so Boeing can still be a big dog. I think Airbus is more determined to prove they are the big player by having the biggest jet whether or not the business case is justified.
The U.S. bashing is pretty remarkable, and I must say, grossly hippocritical. Airbus is now a mature company. They need to stand on their own and let go of the public funding nipple. They are no longer a struggling one product company trying to get started. Enough already.
 
JZ
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:55 am

RE: Both Are Right

Thu Aug 12, 1999 3:22 am

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 767/777/A310 on the North Atlantic routes have proven the case. As UA move 777 into US-Asian market, the argument will be proven true, too.

The argument for A3xx is true for markets like LHR-HKG, LHR-SIN where you have large number of point-to-point traffic; or in Japan domestic market. But overall, the need for A3xx is smaller.
 
mirage
Posts: 3612
Joined: Mon May 31, 1999 4:44 am

Navion

Thu Aug 12, 1999 3:48 am

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 as I know.

Navion wrote:
"...the U.S. forces provided about 2/3 (or more) to help clean up the Serbian/Kosovo problem in Europe's own back yard."
After you saying this I can also say: thanks Navion for the US arrogant superiority.

The US only goes to war were they have economic interests, forget all that crap about "defeating the evil".

Luis, Faro, Portugal
 
wingman
Posts: 2793
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: My Two Cents (I'm Not Rude)

Thu Aug 12, 1999 4:11 am

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?????Shall we just abandon GATT and the WTO and return the wonderful days of European mercantilism? Can you spell "reverse progress"? Think of some other critical European industries such as telecom, semiconductors, auto manufacturing etc...Do these companies/industries enjoy the coddling that Airbus does? The end of subsidies to Airbus is desired not only by the US gov't, but also by Germany and Britain. You're the hycropite in this exchange Mirage, because you fail to understand or recognize similar points of view originating from within the EU. It's all about hamburgers and idiotic Americans blinded by the red, white, and blue. Face it, Airbus can't compete without help from mommy and daddy. Funny how all other mega European companies can.
 
mirage
Posts: 3612
Joined: Mon May 31, 1999 4:44 am

Wingman

Thu Aug 12, 1999 4:48 am

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 prices than yours and so, just can't compete inside the US? The US is on of the biggest protectionists countries in the world. Are you talking about fair trade with me? That's what I call a hypocrit discussion.

I'm not hypocrit because I admit and the guys at Airbus also admit they receive subsidies.

Luis, Faro, Portugal
 
wingman
Posts: 2793
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Wingman

Thu Aug 12, 1999 5:10 am

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 may actually believe such nonsense. The US economy, according to all independent non-governmental agencies and publications such as the UN and the Economist for example, is listed as one of the most liberal in the world. Where do you think our massive deficit comes from? A box of cereal? No, it is the result of a liberal import regime which guarantees a continuous flow of CHEAP and COMPETITIVE foreign goods to poeple that buy them in copious quantities. Where do you get your information? I highly doubt that you are as ingnorant as your posts would indicate.
 
Navion
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:52 am

RE: Mirage

Thu Aug 12, 1999 5:28 am

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 statement and in fact, one of the U.S.'s biggest problems is an enormous balance of trade deficit. The U.S. market is extremely open (too much so I think) and once again, the fact is the Europeans have incurred many more incidents of "dumping" products such as steel on the world (and U.S.) market which the U.S. is, in turn, obligated to respond to with higher import tariffs.
As far as your comment regarding American interests in Kosovo being the only reason they were there (and not any altruistic reason like saving lives or stopping genocide) you're right. The U.S. spent billions of dollars for NATO because they wanted to tap into selling American goods to that huge Kosovo and Yugoslav market. All sarcasm aside, I think you're being extremely subjective about this whole mess which is how is all came into being in the first place.
 
mirage
Posts: 3612
Joined: Mon May 31, 1999 4:44 am

Wingman

Thu Aug 12, 1999 6:15 am

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 with the Congress in order to make decisions to protect your industry from low price imports.

2º My information is about some years ago when some exports of textiles from Europe to the US were not possible due to share restrictions. The "Uruguai Round" wants to abolish this shares and commercial barriers but we're still away from a fair market.

Sorry for my confusing previous post and for deviating so much from the topic.

Luis, faro, Portugal
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

A Rant.

Thu Aug 12, 1999 6:21 am

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 off my chest: the US only goes to war to serve it's own interests. Period. It has no love of democracy or freedom outside the 52 states, this is painfully obvious when you look at some of it's allies. Without naming the most obvious example of this, how about a few others: Saddam Hussein was a very good ally before he invaded Kuwait. The Shah, before he was overthrown, made Iran (and I quote US diplomats of the era) America's "aircraft carrier in the Middle East" (the Shah, for those who only know the Western version of events, was a right bastard and human rights in Iran, while not great now, were non-existent). I could go on, probably at the risk of getting deleted. While there are no direct interests in Kosovo to be defended (as was pointed out above by someone), there is one hell of a big military machine that needed to be exercised, and it is accepted wisdom in Europe (whether true or not I'd rather not say) that the attacks on Serbian policemen, teachers and local politicians in Kosovo that led to the Serbian agression and the war were performed by KLA guerillas trained / armed / financed in Albania by the CIA to get a little conflict going. By the way, Baghdad was a major CIA outpost before the 1990/1 Gulf War and it's hard to believe the US didn't know exactly what Iraq was planning (how can you amass 100,000 troops on the border and the US not know? And why would you attempt it without a covert green light from Washington?). Anyway, the US has a huge military that needs to be let out every now and then and Kosovo was a great opportunity to try out some new weapons systems and show those superior Europeans (who are probably commies anyway) who's boss. So to aviation. Airbus are subsidised. So are Boeing. I think Airbus win by a slight margin cos they are up-front about it, while Boeing play the innocent "we just build airplanes" act and accept billions of dollars worth of military R&D money and of course the contracts themselves. Oh yeah, and the below-rate loans for financing exports via the Exim Bank. I'm not saying Boeing are worse, but it is very irritating to see the same people who think that the US is a defender of democracy claim that Boeing isn't subsidised, and when Europeans try to protect themselves against accusations of nationalism they are put down by being described as "superior". Well, if not subsidising civil programs with war machines and inciting conflict around the world to justify the war machinery is SUPERIOR, then I guess we ARE.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
mirage
Posts: 3612
Joined: Mon May 31, 1999 4:44 am

Navion

Thu Aug 12, 1999 6:23 am

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 natural language so I must avoid getting in such specific discussions.

No problem  

Luis, Faro, Portugal

PS: about your deficit, I replied that in my previous post. Oh boy I want to keep a low profile in this forum but I get involved in this discussions very quickly.
Back to aviation please.
 
Guest

RE: A Rant.

Thu Aug 12, 1999 6:37 am

Here we go with the big bad America crap.

United946

PS- we only have 50 states.
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: A Rant.

Thu Aug 12, 1999 6:42 am

"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 love America, it's a great country to visit and provides an excellent level of freedom and a good quality of life to a vast percentage of her people. But it's not perfect and it's foreign policy sucks the big one. You must understand if us "superior" Europeans get upset sometimes when you throw your weight around. I'm from neither continent, I just prefer the European version, it's not so infatuated with it's own myths.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
wingman
Posts: 2793
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Cedarjet

Thu Aug 12, 1999 6:46 am

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 history you will see that on both occasions, both the AMerican people and the US Gov't were loathe to get involved. It was only due to heavy pressure from European allies and the inevitable fact of German victory in WWII that the US committed itself to the defense of a free Europe. I suggest you read Winston Churchill's serial on the Second World War which might shed some light in this respect. Most other wars, yes, are fought over economic advantage. But do you deny that the successful resolution of the Cold War only benefitted the US? Last time I checked, Europe was an economic superpower that did not carry near the financial burden the US did in order to guarantee victory. In all three cases, the best interest of the US was also the best interest of Europe. Finally, you would be foolish to argue the merits of US foreign policy with someone who knows qute a bit about Europe's own bloody and self-serving foreign affairs over the past 300 years. My next post brings me back to the topic.
 
Guest

Re: Wingman

Thu Aug 12, 1999 6:53 am

Amen.
 
TP343
Posts: 364
Joined: Sun May 23, 1999 9:01 pm

RE: Airbus Or Boeing? Who Is Right?

Thu Aug 12, 1999 7:04 am

Once again, more emotive posts than objective ones.
People, when are you going to really discuss aviation?

My opinion: Airbus AND Boeing are both right. Both have very intelligent people working to and both forecast markets, but each one looks to one side.

TheA3XX will be a sucess because many airlines want to operate it in alliance-shape (the plane belong to the alliance) and not just in predatory one-against-one and 800 places config., but in high confort just 1st class versions as well. The 777 will continue being a sucess because there are new markets (city-pairs, medium cities and not hubs) for it borning each day.

Both are right and both porposes are complimentary.

Regards,
TP343, São Paulo, Brazil.

p.s. Behave properly, people, although it's quite difficult when it's a Airbus vs. Boeing shape post!!!  )
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

And The A330 Is Nice.

Thu Aug 12, 1999 7:44 am

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 assistance. It was since then that the US military has lost the plot. Understand this: the cold war was not won by American military power. In fact the opposite, US intervention in regional conflicts (Vietnam, M East, Central America) that turned people off the Americans. The thing that brought down the wall was western culture, to wit: Bruce Springsteen, Levis, Diet Coke, Madonna, Sylvester Stallone, Nike, KFC, Chrysler, Marilyn Monroe, Wonderbra and yes, Boeing. All the bombs and missiles in the world can't shake a person's idealogy by one iota, it will only make them stronger and more stubborn (a la the Viet Cong). But one whiff of a Bacon Double Cheeseburger in the direction of someone who's spent their whole life eating cabbage and they'll do anything. The US (and for that matter most others') military is totally self-serving and is also useless unless Mexico or Canada invade. Those other things I mentioned are the real weapons America wields in it's quest for global domination.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
Guest

RE: And The A330 Is Nice.

Thu Aug 12, 1999 7:51 am

Quest for global domination???????

What are you talking about? What does this have to do with aviation?

United946
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

United 946

Thu Aug 12, 1999 7:54 am

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 have to do with aviation? What do any of the last twenty posts on this thread have to do with aviation?
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
mirage
Posts: 3612
Joined: Mon May 31, 1999 4:44 am

LeoDF, Sorry...

Thu Aug 12, 1999 8:54 am

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 today thanks to Europe who helped you when the US was still a very young country who needed every kind of products from outside (until the civil war). Ofcourse you didn't have enough money by then, that's were Europe helped.

Now I'm going to sleep (00.45 here) so you may say what you want without any word from me.

Luis, Faro, Portugal

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 33lspotter, AdsBot [Google], BravoOne, ciarano, coolian2, cumbancha, dubaiamman243, G500, Google Adsense [Bot], JoeCanuck, LAX772LR, LJ, msycajun, OslPhlWasChi, panair, Planesmart, PlymSpotter, PW100, QuarkFly, rta, rutankrd, ScottB, Tewks, thomasphoto60, Tvilum, Waldo and 337 guests