redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:09 pm

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/expor...ws/Frontpage/032906/ss_murray.html

Makes for an interesting read. While I have my own issues with what some consider -- and some don't -- "subsidies", the fact that her report gets some very basic facts wrong (e.g., "the unveiling of the A380 last June") doesn't help her case and makes her sound like a politician...oops, she is one!
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
Glareskin
Posts: 1004
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:35 pm

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 pm

Your link isn't working Red Flyer. I didn't find it on the frontpage of The Hill either.
There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:21 pm

You can also just copy and paste this without the quotes (""):

"http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/032906/ss_murray.html"
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
Oykie
Posts: 1614
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 5:36 am

Thanks for posting the link Redflyer!

This is my thoughts after reading her comments regarding the A380. Why do politicians get away with this anyway?

Quote:
Just look at the guest list. Four European heads of state from France, Germany, Great Britain and the EU came together to celebrate Airbus' foray into the world of jumbo jets.

As a European not living in a within the EU, I have to say WOW: The EU is not a country. It does not have a state of head. The EU is a trading system. Think og it as NAFTA.

Quote:
These unfair and unprecedented subsidies are costing American workers their jobs, and it is time for Congress to wake up to the threat.

Airbus has created allot of jobs in the US. Think about all sub companies benefiting from supplying Airbus.

Subsidies are not beneficial for neither Airbus nor Boeing. The ongoing conflict in WTO I fear will make both manufacturers end up without subsidies at all.

If the American society truly are a capitalist state, and not socialist they should allow the market to develop it self.

Meaning that if Airbus can get money to produce a plane that there is not a market for, then ultimately Airbus will be bankrupt, or the states that gave them some money will loose so much that it will destabilize the whole economy of that country. In this case France, Britain and Germany. Let capitalism work it's way.  Smile
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 5:56 am

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 3):
Why do politicians get away with this anyway?

That was the point of my original post, which is that politicians sure know how to "spin". And in a shameful way sometimes.

While I don't necessarily see Airbus' viewpoint on the subsidies issue, what this jacka$$ politician says is, frankly, untrue and incendiary in nature. Pure B.S. It's comments like hers that poison peoples' attitudes towards politics.

This comment is somewhat dubious as I'm not sure where she got the $15 billion figure from nor how she derived the $35 billion commercial value:

"Airbus has received at least $15 billion in direct cash advances from European governments to develop its family of aircraft. If Airbus had to borrow that money from commercial lenders at market rates, it is estimated that the company would have spent $35 billion to develop its aircraft models."

This comment is also a little off-mark:

"U.S. airports are on the line for billions of dollars in infrastructure improvements to accommodate the massive A380. These improvements will be paid by landing fees, ticket taxes and passenger facility charges that every American citizen will have to pay when they board a plane in the United States."

Frankly, airports front improvements for all kinds of new aircraft, not to mention the constant growth in passenger traffic. And, yes, passengers do end up paying for it in ticket prices that reflect estimated landing fees. But so what? That is the business lifecycle. It's not as if anyone is getting screwed. It's called the free market.
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
SeeTheWorld
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 2:46 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:07 am

Election Year Politics - That's all it is. It's disgraceful.
 
Oykie
Posts: 1614
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:12 am

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 4):
While I don't necessarily see Airbus' viewpoint on the subsidies issue, what this jacka$$ politician says is, frankly, untrue and incendiary in nature. Pure B.S. It's comments like hers that poison peoples' attitudes towards politics.

I totally agree with you there.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 4):
Frankly, airports front improvements for all kinds of new aircraft, not to mention the constant growth in passenger traffic. And, yes, passengers do end up paying for it in ticket prices that reflect estimated landing fees. But so what? That is the business lifecycle. It's not as if anyone is getting screwed. It's called the free market.

Great to hear a true capitalist speak. UR at my respected user list for this  Smile

By the way. IMO her statement makes the U.S standpoint in the on going WTO conflict less valid I am afraid.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
adric10
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:19 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:32 am

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 6):
Election Year Politics - That's all it is. It's disgraceful.

But Murray was re-elected in '04, so she's safe for at least a few years.  Wink

As off (err, plain wrong) as many of her comments are, just remember that she's from Washington, and being a Democrat her entire constituency is based here in Seattle. Without Seattle and a pro-Boeing fight she'd have no seat in the Senate. She is, after all, a politician...
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:33 am

Quoting Adric10 (Reply 7):
But Murray was re-elected in '04, so she's safe for at least a few years.

Yes, and she'll have a say in the eventual USAF tanker decision.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
Oykie
Posts: 1614
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:39 am

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 8):
Yes, and she'll have a say in the eventual USAF tanker decision.

Hey! Cool. Why don't we try to convince here that the only way the U.S can protect it self from... You know... The enemy. Then they need to buy the 747-8 or 777-200LR as tanker planes. No other plane on the earth can protect the U.S. from.... You know. The enemy...
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:48 am

Quote:

Not long ago, NBC News uncovered direct evidence of Airbus’s efforts to sell military aircraft to a country focused on destabilizing and undermining American interests in the Middle East.

Wasn't the actual idea to provide some transporters to Iran in exchange for abandoning efforts to enrich Uranium? There was nothing secret about it. How does this undermine U.S. interests?

Quote: NBC News was able to get a camera crew into an air show in Kish, Iran, and found EADS pitching its military helicopters to Iran.

If the company is so pro-American, why is it ignoring U.S. policy to isolate Iran?

“As a European company, we’re not supposed to take into account embargoes from the U.S.,” says Michel Tripier, with EADS.


Mr. Tripier said a litlle more than that. Full quote:

"The emphasis here is on our civil helicopters. We are not offering military helicopters here," he adds.

Yet, prominent on the company's video in Iran — a military helicopter.

"It says 'Navy' in their own promotional videotape," says John Pike. "I guess they're hoping Iran's navy is going to want to buy it."

EADS says the helicopter just happened to be on the video, and that it abides by U.S. and European rules against selling military goods to Iran.


Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050223-europe-iran.htm

I'm not going to comment on that, but it appears Senator Murray is very partial to Boeing and U.S. American companies (and of course she does not forget to mention "hard working Americans"). Nothing wrong with that, since she's an American Senator, but she is bending the truth.
I support the right to arm bears
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13808
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:50 am

She expresses a POV no more skewed than many others at A.net.

Most of what she says is politicking, but there's one point I agree with that I've been saying for quite a while.

Her comments re:A380 infrastructure have some validity because one main reason for the "need" for this plane is due to slot constraints and curfews in OTHER countries. If LHR had expanded like it should have, for example, there would be no need to fly 380s there. But since it hasn't, there will be A380 flights from LHR to the USA. If SYD didn't have the curfews and restrictions it does, there wouldn't be a need to fly A380s into it and still make international schedules work. So, for those airports to work effectively, they must rely on other airports building up for receiving A380. LAX, SFO, JFK, MIA, etc. are spending billions because other countries can't work their airport systems properly. In other words, there aren't really any benefits to the average USA citizen for building up for the A380, yet they are being asked to pay anyway.

Oh, and the selling to enemies of the USA? France especially has a long history of that, like it or not.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6720
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:59 am

"As a European not living in a within the EU, I have to say WOW: The EU is not a country. It does not have a state of head. The EU is a trading system. Think og it as NAFTA."

Surprised some EU members did not correct this statement, the EU is much more than that.

"If the American society truly are a capitalist state, and not socialist they should allow the market to develop it self"

When US states give tax breaks to Boeing, my understanding is that they reduce the percentage. Is that the same as launch aid to Airbus.
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:02 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
She expresses a POV no more skewed than many others at A.net.

As a Senator you have a responsibility not to twist facts.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
Her comments re:A380 infrastructure have some validity because one main reason for the "need" for this plane is due to slot constraints and curfews in OTHER countries. If LHR had expanded like it should have, for example, there would be no need to fly 380s there.

That's bogus. On most European (and probably Japanese) Airports, you can not simply add another runway, nor can you expand airports as you please.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
LAX, SFO, JFK, MIA, etc. are spending billions because other countries can't work their airport systems properly. In other words,

... in other words you are about to make a fool out of you.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
Oh, and the selling to enemies of the USA? France especially has a long history of that, like it or not.

France. Sure. That was to be expected. For every example you provide to back your statement up, I'll provide two examples of U.S. American weapons exports, your country later regretted.

[Edited 2006-03-29 23:04:13]
I support the right to arm bears
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:20 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
So, for those airports to work effectively, they must rely on other airports building up for receiving A380. LAX, SFO, JFK, MIA, etc. are spending billions because other countries can't work their airport systems properly.

OK, I see the argument, but I can't agree with it.

When the 747 was "invented" airports all over the world had to spend money to handle it. I don't recall any complaints then. And you can make a strong argument that one bigger plane carrying people from A-B is much more efficient than two smaller ones, especially in crowded skies. With the cost of jet fuel I'm surprised this trend hasn't accelerated.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
Oykie
Posts: 1614
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:23 am

Quoting Par13del (Reply 12):
Surprised some EU members did not correct this statement, the EU is much more than that.

Of course allot of people wants the European Union to do more than trade, but EU's constitution was turned down. I know EU is mroe political than NAFTA, but it shares the same principals. The EU is not a country and does not have a head of state.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 12):
When US states give tax breaks to Boeing, my understanding is that they reduce the percentage. Is that the same as launch aid to Airbus.

Let the market regulate it self. Give all players equal oportunities. If Airbus wanted to build planes in Washington state they could apply to the same tax break as Boeing gets. Would this work the other way around?
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
blueflyer
Posts: 3701
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:17 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:29 am

Quoting Adric10 (Reply 7):
But Murray was re-elected in '04, so she's safe for at least a few years.

It's not election-year politics, it's home-state politics, and that doesn't wait the next election to rear its head. Murray is a senator from Washington state, where coincidentally, Airbus' major (dare I say lone) competitor, employs thousands, and just as coincidentally gave her more than $30,000 in donations for her last campaign.

As if it weren't enough, she also sits on the appropriation committee, the committee that happens to tell the Pentagon how to spend its money, which may or may not include spending a large amount of money buying tanker jets from either Airbus or that major competitor coincidentally employing thousands in Murray's home state.

It's just my opinion, but I don't think she really cares about what the few passengers from Washington state will have to pay extra in landing fees when flying to or through San Francisco. I think it's just an excuse to sling mud at Airbus.

Further, I think she is trying very hard to paint Airbus as a non-US company (no argument here), but it might very well be a way to try and dispel's Airbus efforts to make itself look a little bit more American than it is by associating itself with well-known US companies such as Honeywell to win said tanker jet contract.

Bottom line, you can read this editorial and take it at face value, and you probably wouldn't be wrong, but personally, I think she is lobbying for that Airbus competitor in the race to win the tanker jet contract.

Not that politics is one-sided either. If you think Airbus considered only economic factors in picking the location of its future jet tanker facility (shoud it get the contract, of course), I've got a two-engine, fuel-saving A340 for you.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 13):
As a Senator you have a responsibility not to twist facts.

And the voters duly remind their elected representatives of such responsability every time they re-elect people like Murray...

[Edited 2006-03-29 23:34:43]
Democracy 2016: 3 million California votes < 100,000 Midwest votes.
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:34 am

Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 16):
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 13):
As a Senator you have a responsibility not to twist facts.

And the voters duly remind their elected representatives of such responsability every time they re-elect people like Murray...

Which only confirms that we still share some things and habits in the New and Old World.
I support the right to arm bears
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9076
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:34 am

I must say I´m surprised Patty survived McCain & the Tanker drama. But she is obviously still there..

http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0349/031203_news_senators.php
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:52 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 18):
I must say I´m surprised Patty survived McCain & the Tanker drama. But she is obviously still there..

http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/03...s.php

Keesje, rest assured that I am not voting for her. However, I live in California.

Still, she is pretty sad, and typical.  yuck 
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
airA380
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:27 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:07 am

Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 16):
It's not election-year politics, it's home-state politics, and that doesn't wait the next election to rear its head. Murray is a senator from Washington state, where coincidentally, Airbus' major (dare I say lone) competitor, employs thousands, and just as coincidentally gave her more than $30,000 in donations for her last campaign.

shouldn't she be worried about patriot boys are getting killed in Iraq...but instead she would rather talk about airbus for petty cash $30,000..that sums up politicians..they only care about their seat and nothing else.
I'm flying without wings!!!!!!!!
 
terryb99
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 3:35 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:17 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 18):
I must say I´m surprised Patty survived McCain & the Tanker drama. But she is obviously still there..

It does not surprise me a bit, that you would pick the most radical, way out of the mainstream, publication in the Seattle market to link to. Big grin

But, I am not a Patty Murry defender by any means. I live in Washington, and have never voted for her. I think she is an embarrassment to both Washington state and the US in general. This rant of hers just reinforces that feeling.
 
phuebner
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 2:37 pm

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:23 pm

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 3):
The EU is a trading system. Think og it as NAFTA.

I would not exactly compare the EU to NAFTA. I think you're a little off on that. The EU is quite a bit different and quite a bit more than NAFTA...monetary, political etc. but I would agree that the U.S. being a capitalist society, of which I fully support, is probably making a bigger deal than it really is. Boeing and Airbus are competing and therefore I believe it is important that we allow that competition to exist. If one takes out the other what do we have? A monoply and we all would agree that this is not good for us...on top of that bring about Socialistic ideals that I don't agree with.
Remember this, Your Body is a temple Not a pull toy!
 
Oykie
Posts: 1614
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 4:06 pm

Quoting Phuebner (Reply 22):
I would not exactly compare the EU to NAFTA. I think you're a little off on that.

I know that EU is more than NAFTA, and that the EU even wants their own military. But allot of people on A.net refer to the EU as a country, or the entire Europe. But there are a few countries who i not a member og the EU. Norway for instance pay billions of kroner every year, so that we can treade with the European members, without being a fulltime member.

Back to topic, I would say that a U.S. Senator should be aware of this.  Smile

Quoting Phuebner (Reply 22):
A monoply and we all would agree that this is not good for us...on top of that bring about Socialistic ideals that I don't agree with.

Yup! It is a good thing that we have boht manufactorers. This U.S Senator talks down here own country with cheap and untrue comments.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 4:35 pm

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 3):
Why do politicians get away with this anyway?

Those that they answer to (in principle: their voters) are ignorant to aviation and don't bother correcting themselves.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 4):
That was the point of my original post, which is that politicians sure know how to "spin". And in a shameful way sometimes.

I don't think it is spin, as you call it. Most peopel are simply ignorant and sadly think they know enough hence do not bother informing or correcting themselves. The primary reasons for flame wars here, for example, is because of the "I'm sure of myself" mindset.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
BA380
Posts: 1441
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 9:59 pm

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:54 pm

She shows a remarkable lack of understamding of international government:

she mentions 4 European Heads of State - France, Germany, Britain and Spain.

3 must have been hiding, because I count one: Jacques Chirac, President of France.

Blair, Schroeder and Zapatero are only Heads of Government. The repsective Heads of State (Germany, the Federal President, Horst Koehler; GB The Queen, Elizabeth II; Spain, the King, Juan Carlos) were not in attendance
cabin crew: doors to automatic and cross-check...
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:20 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
Oh, and the selling to enemies of the USA? France especially has a long history of that, like it or not.

This is rich.. the US also has an extensive history of selling weapons to its own enemies and actively undermining its own interests. And we're not even talking of US Allies' interests, where the record is even more extensive.

Not to mention that large US corporations are falling over themselves exporting US jobs to Asia.
 
trex8
Posts: 4661
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:24 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
Oh, and the selling to enemies of the USA? France especially has a long history of that, like it or not.

oh pleeez. if you have forgotten your 3rd grade history , we would still be singing God Save The King if it wasn't for the French.
 
User avatar
sebolino
Posts: 3506
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:38 pm

Patty Murray is well known for her fight against Airbus.
She explained once why she was so angry about Airbus and the EU, she said something like "We will fight Airbus bla bla ... so the USA will be the number 1 aircraft maker as it should be".
Absolutely disgusting. That's only national pride, oversized patriotic ego and hatred of Europe.
The simple fact that she - a senator - is talking like that about a private company of another country should be considered like a unfair aid.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:43 pm

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 3):
This is my thoughts after reading her comments regarding the A380. Why do politicians get away with this anyway?

Because they are politicians, of course. Not expected to or required to tell the truth.

While I don't necessarily applaud or support everything that Murray says, one thing in her article does prompt a comment. If Airbus as a privately owned company builds a better product than Boeing, too bad for Boeing. That's what free enterprise is all about. But when Airbus acts like a subsidiary of the governments that invest in it, I do have to wonder if the playing field is all that level.

Yes, I know there is an equal argument about Boeing subsidies. But you don't see George Bush on the dais when Boeing rolls out a new product, do you?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:52 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
Oh, and the selling to enemies of the USA? France especially has a long history of that, like it or not.

Yes, because the British definately didnt sink an ex US battleship during the Falklands War, now did they?

I often hear complaints of the US having to 'protect' Europe, and France surrenduring during WW2, yet here you are complaining when France has to sell weapons to external countries to maintain its own high level of military excellence, because the internal market is too small. Or are you suggesting France should buy from the US?
 
jonathan-l
Posts: 394
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 4:20 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:52 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
LAX, SFO, JFK, MIA, etc. are spending billions because other countries can't work their airport systems properly. In other words, there aren't really any benefits to the average USA citizen for building up for the A380, yet they are being asked to pay anyway.

That is the most twisted argument EVER!
Why don't you say: "If Boeing or Airbus had developed their airplanes properly, there would be no need for curfews and there would not be any slot constraints at any airport." Sounds dumb doesn't it? Exactly!
As the Las Vegas Airport Director or equivalent said "I'm not upgrading to A380," his colleagues from LAX, SFO, JFK... could have stated just the same. Yet they chose not too. As for the billions that are being spent, that sounds far-fetched for widening the runway and taxiway shoulders. The LAX masterplan provided for billion $ worth of improvements, 95% of which would have gone through even if the A380 did not exist.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
Oh, and the selling to enemies of the USA?

I myself am American and I really don't think you want to go down that road.
 
User avatar
breiz
Posts: 1426
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:12 pm

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:13 am

Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 31):
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
Oh, and the selling to enemies of the USA?

I myself am American and I really don't think you want to go down that road.

I do agree. We are funny allies. Saving each other from destruction at some stage in history, liking each other somehow, but, God, how biased we can be in our day to day relations.
 
atnight
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:06 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:27 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
Her comments re:A380 infrastructure have some validity because one main reason for the "need" for this plane is due to slot constraints and curfews in OTHER countries. If LHR had expanded like it should have, for example, there would be no need to fly 380s there. But since it hasn't, there will be A380 flights from LHR to the USA. If SYD didn't have the curfews and restrictions it does, there wouldn't be a need to fly A380s into it and still make international schedules work. So, for those airports to work effectively, they must rely on other airports building up for receiving A380. LAX, SFO, JFK, MIA, etc. are spending billions because other countries can't work their airport systems properly. In other words, there aren't really any benefits to the average USA citizen for building up for the A380, yet they are being asked to pay anyway.

Oh, and the selling to enemies of the USA? France especially has a long history of that, like it or not.

Ikramerica, I have just one thing to tell you, do some research before coming out with such comments... as pointed out, there are VERY VALID REASONS why the airports you mentioned are maxed out and need the A380... and even your precious LAX, SFO, JFK, MIA, etc that you say "HAVE TO BECAUSE OF LHR or SYD", are showing you how short-sighted and narrow minded you are... Are you anti-growth? Haven't you though of the benefits of having more people come to the US to spend money? you know, some states like Florida, live of tourism.. do you know that SQ plans to fly SIN-HKG-LAX because they need the capacity and they want to provide BETTER service with a big airplane? I'm really disappointed with what you said, clearly you are wrong in your view... You are perhaps the only one in this whole thread that gives some support to the very messed up arguments of the senator against Airbus... and all you seem to do is being too patriotic to see her obvious mistakes and untrue statements... And for supporting her just out of pride, you are getting flamed.... so next time, take time to do some research as to why the airports you mentioned need the A380 and why an anti-airbus propaganda from a politician is just awful and makes her look very stupid... I've being seeing your post getting more and more "based on your views" than on reality or facts and thus you seem like a real politician, bunch of words, nothing real....
Oh, and your apparent dislike for the french, only makes you look even less credible... Please, change your future posts with relevant things to read... and whether you "like it or not", the A380 is indeed a needed airplane for select markets....
B707 B727 B733/5/7/8/9 B742/4 B752/3 B763/4 B772 A310 A318/319/320 A332 A343 MD80 DC9/10 CRJ200 ERJ145 ERJ-170 Be1900 Da
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:39 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):

Try this:

Her comments re:747 infrastructure have some validity because one main reason for the "need" for this plane is due to slot constraints and curfews in OTHER countries. If LHR had expanded like it should have, for example, there would be no need to fly 747s there. But since it hasn't, there will be 747 flights from LHR to the USA. If SYD didn't have the curfews and restrictions it does, there wouldn't be a need to fly 747s into it and still make international schedules work. So, for those airports to work effectively, they must rely on other airports building up for receiving 747. LAX, SFO, JFK, MIA, etc. are spending billions because other countries can't work their airport systems properly. In other words, there aren't really any benefits to the average USA citizen for building up for the 747, yet they are being asked to pay anyway.
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:27 am

Quoting Par13del (Reply 12):
When US states give tax breaks to Boeing, my understanding is that they reduce the percentage. Is that the same as launch aid to Airbus

The difference is that in the case of Boeing, it's Boeing's own money and not taxpayers'. With Airbus it's the other way around. The reality is that Boeing is subsidizing the state of Washington and negotiated to reduce the amount of that subsidy. The reverse is true with Airbus. Ultimately, both are good investments, as we have seen.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 13):
France. Sure. That was to be expected. For every example you provide to back your statement up, I'll provide two examples of U.S. American weapons exports, your country later regretted.

Hindsight anyone?

Quoting BA380 (Reply 25):
Blair, Schroeder and Zapatero are only Heads of Government. The repsective Heads of State (Germany, the Federal President, Horst Koehler; GB The Queen, Elizabeth II; Spain, the King, Juan Carlos) were not in attendance

Perhaps she was talking about people who actually matter. After all this is the 21st century.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14485
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:48 am

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 3):

Quote:
Just look at the guest list. Four European heads of state from France, Germany, Great Britain and the EU came together to celebrate Airbus' foray into the world of jumbo jets.

As a European not living in a within the EU, I have to say WOW: The EU is not a country. It does not have a state of head. The EU is a trading system. Think og it as NAFTA.



Quoting BA380 (Reply 25):
She shows a remarkable lack of understamding of international government:

she mentions 4 European Heads of State - France, Germany, Britain and Spain.

3 must have been hiding, because I count one: Jacques Chirac, President of France.

Blair, Schroeder and Zapatero are only Heads of Government. The repsective Heads of State (Germany, the Federal President, Horst Koehler; GB The Queen, Elizabeth II; Spain, the King, Juan Carlos) were not in attendance

Wow, loads of righteous indignation!

I guess no one wants to discuss the (poorly stated) underlying point, that perhaps the A380 program is more about politics than a solid business case?
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:03 am

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 24):
don't think it is spin, as you call it. Most peopel are simply ignorant and sadly think they know enough hence do not bother informing or correcting themselves.

I have no doubt most people are ignorant, including politicians. However, politicians like Sen. Murray, regardless of their level of ignorance, have staff that are responsible for researching issues and providing FACTS. When they dispense with outright and incendiary lies, they do no one a favor. Personally, I have issues with Airbus' form of government support. But that doesn't mean I'm going to stand by what Sen. Murray says. What she stated in her piece is ridiculous and does nothing to further the cause she claims to support. Frankly, it makes her look like an idiot, which only weakens her -- and her constituents' -- position.
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13808
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:13 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 34):
Try this:

That is absolutely and categorically wrong.

Do you know the history of aviation or are you just so blinded by the A380 not to understand the fundamental difference?

When the 747 entered service, the idea of severely slot restricted flying was not a reality. But the idea of efficient flying was one that people liked. And additional nonstops and added range. The 747 brought these things. The 747 brought a revolution in air travel.

There is no such A380 revolution forecast. With CASM similar or only slightly better than the 748 and possibly worse than the 787 and 350, it doesn't fly anyone more cheaply. It doesn't fly people further, as other jets do/will have longer range. It only serves to slightly alleviate traffic at the most restricted airports, and those are that way because of failure to expand. If those airports were not restricted, the case for the A380 would not exist outside of the freighter market (similar to how the 748i case is not strong, but the 748F is).

If you are going to be indignant, you should at least be righteously indignant.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:17 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 38):
If you are going to be indignant, you should at least be righteously indignant.

Sure, the precise words dont work but the sentiment is still exactly the same - there were lots of nay sayers for the 747s introduction, and yet its proven itself over the past 40 odd years.

You really think the A380 is the first aircraft people have voiced doubts over? Get real.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6445
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:11 am

Mrs. Murray sure needs a geagraphic training course. About a dozen times she mentiones "EU", "Europe", or "the European governments". While she should know that Airbus and EADS is a company which operates in four out of 25 EU countries, or four out of roughly 40 European countries.

Of course EADS has subcontracted work to some of the other 36 European countries, but much less than to the USA.

This is pure protectionist politics at its worst. Very stupid and shortsighted, especially in a country like the USA which is totally dependent upon trading with most of the rest of the world.

The EU has absolutely nothing with EADS to do. 21 out of 25 EU countries have absolutely nothing with EADS to do. As a cityzen of one of those 21 countries I am sick and tired of those US politicians who during 35 years of Airbus plane production haven't been able to learn that.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
N908AW
Posts: 864
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:05 pm

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:17 pm

Airbus�s slick campaign to sell itself in the United States completely overlooks the real harm it inflicts on U.S. workers, American companies and world security.

Is Airbus an American company with the best interests of U.S. workers and taxpayers at heart?


Well that's pretty obvious.


I really like this article. Not a lot of people realize that what gets paid for in France generally doesn't stop getting paid for outside the French government.
'Cause you're on ATA again, and on ATA, you're on vacation!
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: Airbus Comments By U.S. Senator

Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:57 pm

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 37):
However, politicians like Sen. Murray, regardless of their level of ignorance, have staff that are responsible for researching issues and providing FACTS

Who is going to know or care if they are factual or not other than abunch of aviation savy folks like us and maybe someone higher up that knows otherwise? In a democracy (majority rules), we on A.net are the minority and our opinions hold little weight. That said, there are those of us whom are 'loud' and may get all wet over this. Politicians are in because of whom ever voted them in, unless they give a darn, change is slow.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 37):
Frankly, it makes her look like an idiot, which only weakens her -- and her constituents' -- position.

We here may think she is an idiot, but compared to the majority of non-aviation Americans, no one could give a sh*t. That said, if enough of the 'loud' minority speak up about it, giving them the impression we are those that care, they may change.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos