Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 7:21 am

EU chief slams Boeing over gas-guzzling new jet

By Robin Pomeroy

BRUSSELS, June 22 (Reuters) - The European Union's top environmental official lashed out at U.S. aircraft maker Boeing on Friday for planning to make a gas-guzzling new high-speed airliner.

In a letter to the Seattle-based aircraft giant, EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom accused Boeing's Vice-Chairman Harry Stonecipher of nonchalance towards the environmental impact of the planned new 'Sonic Cruiser' jet.

Wallstrom criticised comments Stonecipher made to The Times newspaper on Tuesday in which he appeared to dismiss concerns about increasing greenhouse gas emissions from aviation as a "bandwagon," saying there were was "plenty of fossil fuel still around."

"I find it hard to believe that anyone today could afford himself the luxury of a 'let's-not-think-about-tomorrow' attitude which runs diametrically opposed to the aims of sustainable development," Wallstrom said in an open letter to Stonecipher.

Boeing says the Sonic Cruiser will travel at 95 percent the speed of sound -- 15 percent faster than existing commercial jets. But it will consume 35 percent more fuel and emit more carbon dioxide, the main gas blamed for global warming.


Wallstrom's assault comes at a politically sensitive moment for trans-Atlantic trade relations in the aeronautics field.

The European Commission -- which acts as the EU's competition authority -- is coming under pressure from the United States to allow General Electric Co ., which makes jet engines, to buy avionics firm Honeywell International Inc .

The Commission has serious concerns over whether the $41.8 billion deal would damage competition in the sector and in the past week political pressure to accept the deal has been applied by U.S. President George W. Bush, members of his cabinet and several members of the U.S. Senate.

Boeing's Stonecipher weighed in on the debate last Saturday, accusing the European aircraft firm Airbus Industrie 1/8ARBU.UL 3/8 of lobbying against the GE deal. He later retracted the accusation in the face of denials from GE, Airbus and the EU.


Wallstrom said as air travel emits 3.5 percent of the world's greenhouse gases -- and those emissions were set to double over the next 10-15 years -- manufacturers should concentrate on developing more fuel efficient, rather than faster, aircraft.

"The question is whether a one-hour time saving on a trans-Atlantic flight is worth a significant increase in CO2 emissions...In my view the environmental price is simply not worth paying," she said.

The Commission has called for aviation fuel -- which has a worldwide tax exemption -- to be taxed as a way of slowing the growth in air transport and its environmental costs.

11:27 06-22-01

Copyright 2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
Posts: 2590
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 10:58 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 9:24 am

Blah blah blah blah blah.. They are just quaking in their boots because they have to practically give away those white elephant A380's. What Hypocrites.
My views as expressed above are my views alone and do not constitute the views of my employer.
Posts: 8220
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 9:36 am

I have lost a lot of respect for Boeing over recent statements about the Sonic Cruiser. Some idiot from Boeing announced that "there is plenty of fossil fuel left" - yeah, let's chuck all of it into the atmosphere now and cut trans-Atlantic flying time by a mere hour - then, when criticised, said, "I apologise for not jumping on the environmental bandwagon earlier". It's not a 'bandwagon', you f***ing idiots, it's a genuine concern. I think some Americans, Dubya amongst them, think limiting emissions and caring for the environment that sustains us are just tactics to limit US economic growth. Well, you reap what you sow.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
Posts: 2831
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 12:47 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 9:40 am

Excuse me but your wrong. The A380 isn't going to use that much more fuel.

"The new A380 will have 49% more cabin floorspace but only 33% more passenger seats, resulting in a significant improvement in comfort. Fuel consumption will be 20% lower, working out at three litres per passenger per 100 kilometres and raising environmental acceptability significantly. And even the aircraft noise restrictions in London Heathrow, which are feared throughout the industry due to their strictness, will pose no problem to the new model.

This performance will be possible, according to Forgeard, thanks to the use of new, weight-saving composites made out of fibreglass-aluminium and carbon fibre and through the development of a state-of-the-art wing. This wing actually poses a quite special design challenge, for, instead of stretching it out freely so as to optimise fuel consumption, as is possible today and is in fact customary with other Airbuses, the engineers have to keep its wing span under 80m. If they can do this, then the A380 will fit onto most of the taxiways and aprons used by today's jumbo jets so that the airports will not need to make expensive structural modifications. "

From http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH0103/FR0103a.htm
Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, Staten, Uptown, what now? Lets make it happen.
Posts: 11956
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 9:52 am

Umm... if the EU are so damned concerned about fuel efficiency, why did/do they allow the fricking Concorde to fly? You want to talk about guzzling fuel...
Posts: 259
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 2:49 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 9:53 am

I agree with EU rep about the Boeing project. Frankly, I doubt if Boeings' plane sees the runway. It seems flawed somehow, but I can't say just how.
Posts: 8220
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 10:01 am

I see where you're coming from re the Concorde but six or eight Concorde flights a day (assuming it gets it's CoA back) by a handful of museum pieces is not the same as a mass-market new design which is expected to sell more than 500 aircraft. And Concorde was designed when there wasn't a lot of awareness of the damage done to the environment by aviation. Now we DO know, should we be launching a new type which is a gas-guzzler? Or looking at efficiency.

I agree with Silverstreak, I don't think the Sonic Cruiser will fly. I can think of a few reasons, here's what Richard Branson (Virgin Atlantic) announced recently: "I have had detailed talks with Boeing and I am excited about the Sonic Cruiser which will change the face of aviation. I expect to order three." THREE?! I think Boeing are screwed.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2001 2:07 pm

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 10:14 am

I think Rich Branson only wants 3 as novelty items too.
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 10:33 am

Here is my message to the EU:
"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2000 4:36 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 10:36 am

Spring time for tree huggers in Europe...
Posts: 11956
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 11:03 am

So, Cedarjet, gas guzzling, and ozone depleting is okay, if it's only done by a handful of flights a day? I don't think you agree with that statement either.

My point is that there is a lot of hypocrisy going on. Concorde (which will still be much more polluting and gas guzzling than the boeing type) is being pushed back into the skies. It has had its curtain call imo, and the EU, BA, and AF still want encores. But, when an AMERICAN company wants a piece of the action, then it's too polutant. It's too gas guzzling. etc. You can't have it both ways.

This reminds me a good bit of the 737-200 debacle where the EU banned reselling the model in Europe, forcing airlines to buy newer jets; Airbus jets in specific.
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2001 2:07 pm

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 11:13 am

Well they have to look out for their own...if I were the EU, I'd be doing the same thing, especially since it is a somewhat valid, if not unbiased, point that they make.
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 11:17 am

can see the Airbus supporters are out in force tonight. Folks, this is just a PR blitz by the EU on behalf of Airbus. It's a concerted effort by the two to boost sales of the A380, which is still on the drawing board, and try to draw away any interest in the Sonic Cruiser, which is still on the drawing board.

Can't any of you see how transparent this statement is? It has nothing to do with gas-guzzling; it has nothing to do with fuzzy environmentalism. It's about the EU, who's memebers heavily subsidize Airbus, pushing as hard as they can for the A380, because they're scared to death of the Sonic Cruiser.
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 11:20 am

They are definitely trying to help Airbus the best they can. Now it's becoming U.S.A. vs. Europe in the environment area.

Personally, the Europeans are calling the kettle black. If they want to talk the talk then they have to walk the walk. If they want to call us barbaric because of the environment, then they better prove that they are better in that regard. How much air pollution do they generate per person in their old factories? They also haven't signed the Kyoto Treaty either, so why are they making GWB look bad, they haven't done anything to make themselves look good.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 11:36 am

I am not too bog a supporter for the Sonic Cruiser myself, but you Euros need to back the hell off.

Do we see Boeing released shit statements each week about the A380? NO.

I think Boeing is making the Sonic Cruiser as a coverup of working hardly on either the 747-400LRX or 747X and -Stretch programs. The Sonic Cruiser won't beat the A380 consuming that much fuel for just an hour less of flight, and I know it.

Just my 2 cents, so don't go freaking out and flaming me.



BTW, Alpha 1, great post!
Posts: 5750
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:43 pm

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 12:33 pm

It was OK for Clinton to try and stop the A380 because its made by more then one country.

Why is it not OK for the EU to try and stop a plane thats going to burn even more fuel then the planes of today ???

Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 12:39 pm

Hkgspotter1-If they are going to get serious about air pollution then I want to see their names on the Kyoto treaty, until then this "environment" stuff, is just PR for Airbus.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
Posts: 6199
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:58 pm

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 12:45 pm

#1) The A380 and the Sonic Cruiser are not direct competitors. Different mission plans entierly.

#2) What continent has the greatest percentage of leisure flights? Could it be Europe? Why yes, it is. How badly do the European people care about the environment when they galavant around the continent on "charter flights". Nothing intrinsically wrong with it, just don't pretend you're better.

#3) Are we going to face another situation where the EU has veto power over US companies? REF Boeing-McDonnell Douglas merger. When did the US become part of the EU?

I really do not mean to slam Europeans in any way, just consider how imperialistic it is. I know, I come from the country of Imperalist thought. Doesn't make it right though.

Just several of my opinions.

Steve  Smile
The day you stop learning is the day you should die.
Posts: 1085
Joined: Mon May 01, 2000 7:10 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 1:16 pm

Quite frankly, the EU can piss off. The article below pretty much sums it all up. Pay special attention to the portions regarding Kyoto. I remember the "hard-hitting" European press corps asking President Bush to explain himself regarding this issue, and for the EU President or commissioner (or whatever the hell his title is) to explain why the Kyoto treaty has not been ratified by any EU countries. They kept hammering away at Bush, while letting the leader of the EU, the man they SHOULD have been demanding accountability from, not the President of the United States, they let him (Mr. Prodi I believe, or at least something close to that) off with some half-intelligible, garbled answer in broken English...when the man speaks perfect English when he wants to. It still amazes me how fiercely Europeans defend their sovereignty on one hand (evil USA trying to meddle) while formally giving it up to the EU, while at the same time STILL attempting to comment on all aspects of US policy (from the environment to the death penalty to McDonald's hamburgers). The President of the United States is accountable to the people of the United States....Boeing is accountable to its stockholders and bound to follow the laws of the United States and the State of Illinois.

While we are lectured by the Europeans on this forum for turning Airbus vs Boeing into USA vs Europe, this is just proof positive that, to the EU, A v B is USA v EU. Notice also that the article in the original post is from Reuters, the new public relations wing of Airbus Industrie.

Environmentalism, in the form preferred, apparently, within Europe, IS a bandwagon. People differ in their opinions on environmentalism based on the science they choose to place more stock in. It seems the Euro tree huggers, like many over here, choose to follow the school that says that anything humans do damages the environment. It's just that, in the European version, the failings of their own leaders on environmental issues, are ignored, while they fervently seek out the accountability of other leaders.

June 17, 2001
Europe Builds Itself Up at Bush's Expense

WASHINGTON — THOUSANDS of protesters chanted against President Bush
during his stops in Spain, Belgium and Sweden last week, some baring their
rear ends; European leaders spoke condescendingly of America's president;
the European press depicted him as a cowboy hayseed. In other words, from
the European perspective, the Bush visit could not have gone better.

As the European Union struggles to expand, to "harmonize" its thousands of
overlapping rules, to manage its uncountable internecine jealousies and to
formulate a new understanding of what it means to be European, there is one
thing all Europeans seem to agree on. It is faux horror about the United

For all their pretenses of being dismayed by Mr. Bush, if European Union
leaders were to describe their dream American president for this moment in
time, they might well specify someone exactly like Mr. Bush —
seemingly, at least to European eyes, unsophisticated, swaggering and
brash, all the qualities the European Union can unite on in dreading the
United States.

"The European Union has a hormone problem," says Jeffrey Gedmin, a Europe
scholar who runs the New Atlantic Initiative at the American Enterprise
Institute in Washington. "They are developing a sense that whatever
diminishes the stature of the United States is of benefit to Europe."

During Mr. Bush's visit, President Jacques Chirac of France, Chancellor
Gerhard Schroeder of Germany and Prime Minister Wim Kok of the Netherlands
all criticized his positions on global warming and missile defense,
breaking the taboo that heads of state do not air disagreements during
state visits. The Council of Europe, roughly analogous to the Organization
of American States, was so underwhelmed that the American president was in
its jurisdiction that by midweek the front page of its Web site had no
mention of his presence. Instead, the major news was, "Parliamentary
Assembly to Observe Elections in Bulgaria."

Such slights against the leader of the best friend Europe has ever had were
intended to inflate the European Union's collective ego. For great issues
have recently made the European Union fractious: proposed expansion from 15
to 27 member nations (basically all the former Eastern Europeans states
want in, and Ireland just voted no to that); whether Turkey should become
part of Europe (if it qualifies for the European Union, Turkey would
receive huge subsidies); whether there should be a European meta-government
that supersedes national capitals. And with the demise of the Soviet Union,
Europe now has no enemy to unite its competing states.

In such a context, Europe might find it useful to have a common antagonist.
Enter Mr. Bush.

The Bush administration's rejection of the Kyoto global warming treaty,
supposedly bad news, actually could not have been scripted better. European
Union leaders got to repeatedly denounce Mr. Bush for saying the United
States will not ratify Kyoto — though no European Union nation has
ratified it, either. After the 1992 "Earth Summit" in Rio, when Mr. Bush's
father declared that the United States would not accept mandatory
greenhouse-gas reductions, he was lambasted by European leaders, who vowed
prompt, decisive action to impose restrictions on their own. They did

Last week, after deriding the Bush position on Kyoto, the European Union
again vowed prompt greenhouse action, promising to ratify Kyoto on its own.
Yet no European nation other than Denmark has any serious
greenhouse-reduction strategy even in the planning stages, while a
stand-alone European Union ratification of Kyoto is a million-to-one shot.
From the Europeans' standpoint, the ideal outcome was for the Kyoto treaty
to collapse but for Washington to take the blame. Now Europe gets to act
outraged, while being spared the hard work and cost of actual reform.

Indeed, despite European protestations, American ecological standards are
far more strict than European rules, and have been for 20 years or more.
"Europe is now the world leader on environmental issues," the Swedish
environment minister, Kjell Larsson, said as Mr. Bush arrived in his
nation. But Paris today has worse smog than Houston; water quality,
especially of rivers, is lower in Europe than in the United States; acid
rain reduction has been more rapid in the United States than in Europe;
European Union nations like Greece, Italy and Portugal still discharge huge
volumes of untreated municipal waste water, a practice all but banned in
America. In addition, the European Union did not act against leaded
gasoline till more than a decade after the United States; the forested
percentage of the United States is higher than the forested percentage of
most European countries, while America has fewer threatened species than
Europe; and many other environmental indicators favor the United States.

It is true that Europe is more energy-efficient than America. And moreover,
as Bjorn Lomborg, a professor at the University of Aarhus in Denmark,
demonstrates in the forthcoming book "The Skeptical Environmentalist," smog
is declining and water quality improving everywhere in the West, Europe and
America alike. But the idea that Europe is ahead on environmental matters
is a convenient fiction of European politics.

TRYING to build up Europe by acting outraged against America has become the
European national sport on many fronts. One is anger about globalization by
American companies, though European firms are themselves active

European diplomats harp on America's refusal to agree to a global treaty
banning land mines. (The Pentagon maintains that its defense of the
North-South Korean border rules out a land-mine ban.) Land-mine reduction
is an important goal, but pales on the arms agenda compared with reduction
of nuclear warheads — something that, inconveniently, Washington is

On no subject is Europe's internal need to feel superior to the United
States more clear than capital punishment. Outlawing capital punishment is
now a condition of European Union membership, and European commentators
like to suggest there is a huge values gap between Europe and America.
Always skipped is that 12 American states ban the death penalty, while
polls show public pro-and-con views regarding capital punishment are nearly
identical in the United States and the European Union. When the French
politician Jack Lang was campaigning for mayor of Paris, he ostentatiously
traveled to Texas to meet with a death- row prisoner; he was lauded in
France. (Imagine if a candidate for mayor of Dallas traveled to Paris to
meet with poor North African immigrants to discuss French racism.)
Something besides moral opposition to the death penalty underlies this
European obsession.

That something may extend to a realignment of American-European relations.
Speaking in France before Mr. Bush's visit, former Secretary of State Henry
A. Kissinger said the European allies now perceive a need to check American
strength. Using the balance-of- power calculations that are the mainstay of
traditional European diplomacy, Europe worries that America is too strong,
and wants to bring it down a notch.

Mr. Gedmin of the American Enterprise Institute thinks the day may not be
far off when Europe sides with Russia or even China against America on some
key issue. A possible preview: When Mr. Bush first decided to review North
Korea policy, the European Union sent a delegation to Pyongyang to confuse
the situation.

It seems certain there's more Euro-static coming, because for the moment,
many European leaders believe that making small of America is in their

Gregg Easterbrook, a senior editor of The New Republic and visiting fellow
at the Brookings Institution, is the author of "A Moment on the Earth: The
Coming Age of Environmental Optimism."
Southside Irish...our two teams are the White Sox and whoever plays the Cubs!
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 1:32 pm

Cwapilot's novel can be purchased on the Internet for $24.99 USD. All proceeds go to the building of the Sonic Cruiser.  Smile

Alpha 1

Sat Jun 23, 2001 1:40 pm

lol......that last remark made my day.
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:51 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 1:55 pm

I SAY SCREW THE EU. They can take their 'concerns' and shove them up their collective asses.

The EU has absolutely no business whining about this because it is, after all, a ploy to attack their (yes- their) competitor.
Posts: 2534
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 3:20 pm

As an avid hiker and camper, as well as a member of the Sierra Club and several outdoor recreation clubs here in the Seattle area, I can tell you that I am no fan of Pres. Bush or other industrialists who think jobs are more important than the planet.

However, that being said, let me say this - I don't know what's worse, an honest industrialist or a hypocritical environmentalist. Mr. Stonecipher's comments were purely idiotic, and probably taken out of context. However, that does not excuse the E.U. to use the environment as a commercial weapon in some foolish anti-U.S. tirade. This is no better than Mr. Bush's unilateral actions when dealing with North Korea or his push for a missle defense. It truly angers me when environmental issues are cheapened by becoming pawns for people who don't really give a damn, as long as it sounds good. I recently read with amazement that Germany has decided to phase out nuclear power and will replace it with more coal- and oil-burning power plants. I hardly think this is a step in the right direction, or a decided boon for the atmosphere. Of course, nuclear waste is an immediate hazard, and one we must deal with. But not by taking a step backwards.
If the Reuters article provided by CWApilot is any indication, the comments made by this E.U. official is hypocrisy in the highest form. Please, let's learn some more about the Sonic Cruiser, which is at best still 7 years away, before we lambast it. BTW - I'm curious what will be said if airlines such as British, Virgin, Air Frace, Lufthansa, etc. order this aircraft. Will it still be an environmental hazard?

All gave some. Some gave all.

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 4:22 pm

When they start whinning thats a good sign! Build it and build it fast!
Posts: 6945
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 4:43 pm

Who cares what an EU politician said?They talk out of their asses all the time just like American politicans.It's A common political property!And B757300, remember Pearl Harbour?
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2000 5:31 pm

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 4:44 pm

If Boeing contineus building the sonic-cruiser they will not find many customers for it. Especially with those high fuel prices everywhere.
So I don't think we have to worry about the sonic-cruiser although it is a BAD move of Boeing. Once again it shows the USA (seems) to don't care about the environment.
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2001 4:32 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 4:47 pm

As an Aussie and no tree hugger, I can well imagine
the European newspapers if and when the S/C flys,


I have no idea at all what percentage of Europeans are
environmentalists but would imagine if their numbers
are significant then it would kill S/C stone dead.

If the publicity on this got out of hand, some airlines
would not order it on the chance that people boycotted
their airline.

Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 4:59 pm

No doubt Airbus is engineering this press coverage from behind the scenes.

But who cares - the Seattle PI does it all the time.

Anyone who gets upset by it should chill out....and grow up.

My guess is that Airbus were a bit miffed at the Sonic Cruiser taking the thunder on the A380 launch day....and are getting their own back.

Such is le monde de chien mange chien in which we toil....
Posts: 11621
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 5:27 pm

Although some might not want a USA vs. Europe war, comments like EU can piss off, and not fly SC because it pollutes the Earth, are very hypocritical

I think you are blowing this way out of proportion. The man said 35% more fuel burn than other aircraft. OK. Now each and every one of you, and don't say you don't because you do, knows that this will mean more pollution to the environment. Then how can you say that it won't

Secondly, the Boeing man saying there's plenty of fossil fuel around. Well really, he got what was coming to him

Thirdly, the USA isn't reducing environmental emissions. I dunno about Europe as a whole, but I am sure, as I am definately sure about the UK, that they are trying and trying hard, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Now I'm not saying the USA isn't trying, but building coal and gas power stations is hardly the path they should be taking.

So really, this is not about the Sonic Cruiser, this is about Europes and the US' attitude to the environment, and honestly, only the UK can hold their head high (unless someone tell me about some other EU country).

Oh and BTW, thanks for voting Labour
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 10:57 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 9:03 pm

I really don't understand all those anti EU replies. The EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom's question is a good one.
Is it time to build an aircraft that burn so much fuel when all countries (except USA) try to limit air pollution and atmosphere warming?
EU 'll signe the Kyoto Treaty (they have sign an agreement in Göterborg) but Bush don't want to (even if US is the biggest CO producer in the world) because he only see all the holy $$ he'll lose.
When the Concorde was launched US also said that it'll pollute the atmosphere to much compared with conventional aircrafts, and poeple weren't talking about atmosphere warming yet. Now, we all know the impact on the earth of such warming. But it's no more a problem for US  Smile Maybe because it's US-made?

«Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae.»
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2000 4:36 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 9:14 pm

Its a damn lie that USA is not trying to limit air pollution. What do you know what my and other companies have been required to do in order to protect the enviroment?

As the matter of fact, I've been caughing on polluted air in Central Europe, not in Chicago.

This Kyoto treaty - name me ONE European country next to Romania country which signed it? If there is one, that one country could criticize Bush and not seem hypocritical.
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 10:57 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 9:32 pm

Here is an article for you:
US rejection of Kyoto treaty still drawing world criticism

Nations from the South Pacific to the Caribbean and Latin America joined Europe in denouncing United States President George W Bush for rejecting the Kyoto environment treaty.

Top environment officials from around the world vowed today to move ahead to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty aimed at reducing heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide which are the prime cause of global warming.

Mexico views "with great consternation" the decision by Bush to reject the previous US commitment to reduce emissions, said Francisco Szekely, undersecretary of the planning and policy of Mexico's environment secretariat.

Chile, speaking on behalf of several South American nations, expressed hope "that the government of the United States will reconsider its position not to participate." Chile's United Nations Ambassador Juan Gabriel Valdes accused Washington of abandoning its international responsibility.

Environment ministers are in New York this week for the ninth annual meeting of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, which is charged with implementing the agenda adopted at the 1992 UN environment conference in Rio de Janeiro.

However, while they were meeting today at UN headquarters, Bush held a White House news conference to throw his support behind another treaty that seeks the worldwide phaseout of a dozen highly toxic chemicals known as POPs. Industrial countries such as the US no longer use most of those chemicals, including DDT, dioxins and PCBs.

Bush announced last month that the US would not ratify the UN accord, reached in Kyoto, Japan in 1997, because its mandatory pollution reductions were too harmful to the American economy.

At the UN meeting, Bishnu Tulsie of the Caribbean island of St Lucia said small countries like his that take a beating from violent weather conditions must support the accord - regardless of what the US does.

"We the small island states cannot afford distractions such as these, for the issue before us is not economics - it is survival," said Tulsie, St Lucia's planning minister and chief spokesman on climate change issues.

Samoa's UN Ambassador Tuiloma Neroni Slade, speaking on behalf of small island states, said every effort must be made "to bring the Kyoto Protocol into operation."

The accord calls for countries to agree to legally binding targets for curbing the so-called "greenhouse gases," mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels such as oil and coal. The gases are believed to hold heat in the atmosphere, warming it like a greenhouse. The accord had aimed for a 5 per cent drop in emissions by 2012.

The European Union has said it is ready to renegotiate parts of the Kyoto accord that are problematic for the Bush administration.

Swedish Environment Minister Kjell Larsson, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency, said yesterday the 15-nation group is losing hope of getting Washington's support but has pledged to keep the accord alive.

Bush's administration has said it will present an alternative to the accord.

"The world is watching us," said Germany's Environment Minister Jurgen Trittin. "Having come this far, it is our responsibility to finalise the decisions which will make ratification of the Kyoto Protocol feasible."

Japan's Environment Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi held bilateral talks today to drum up support for the treaty and met with the Netherlands' Environment Minister Jan Pronk. He is chairing the global climate change negotiations and has invited ministers and senior officials from 40 countries to informal talks in New York on Saturday.

Not only EU criticize USA!

«Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae.»
Posts: 1977
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 12:14 am

Sonic Loser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 9:40 pm

If aircraft fuel prices do get heavily taxed by Kyoto signing countries..............
` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
MD-11 forever
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:15 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 9:45 pm

I think if one country alone can pollute the planet with one quater of the overall CO2 emissions, then I think it's up to this country to question itself whether it should point out to other countries to do the first step! I don't care in which context the boeing manager made his statement. We have only this one planet, and we should do every possible effort to save it!
And, don't come with the Concorde, it's a design made prior to the first fuel crisis, and make a guess why it wasn't a big seller...... Now we know a lot more about the resulty our need of unlimited traffic has got.... We can't go back in time, but we can try to make the best possible effort to try to combine ecology and traffic needs!

So no matter if it's a boeing or an airbus project, a plane that increases fuel consumption about 35%, is just not the right way to proceed. Just remember the dinosaurs.....
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2000 4:36 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 9:52 pm

Gaut, how come no one criticizes EU, China, Russa or countries for their pollutions. Which industrial giant nation in the world has signed the treaty (and I assume Romania is not a giant, but is heavily polluted)? Show me one such giant, and that country would be in their right to criticize US.

I still claim that we do protect enviroment here. I've been around enough and I claim that the enviroment here is cleaner than in Europe. I can only imagine how bad things are in China and Russia, and I don't see world criticizing them for their pollutants.

All this fuss is against US prestige, or hegemony how many leftist groups would claim. To put breaks on US economy so that local economies can have easier ground in 'competition' with US industry. Many interest groups are joined in this.

Anyways all commies who lost their ideological bases a decade ago, now are hiding among enviromentalists. I remember them well, and that is why I will never trust enviromental movement. Let them chant against China and fix things there, then we can talk....
MD-11 forever
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:15 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 9:58 pm

Well KUGN,

I'm no communist at all, and I also saw a bit of the world...... It's good to have one to say "they have to start first".... you'll always find one! but if one country pollutes the planet with 25% of the whole emissions of the world, so i can hardly find any excuse why they can wait to act.....
btw, in china, people don't use their cars to drive along some blocks to go to a convenience store, because they don't have that many cars at all.......
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2000 4:36 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 10:12 pm

I am not accusing anyone personally of being communist, but you get to admit that all those anti-globalist enviromentalist and other movements have been manipulated from their standpoint. Not every enviromentalist is a commie, bot nowdays commies are among them.

China does have cars! It is not houshold commodity, but it does have cars, trucks, busses. Have you ever thought about emmision standards that vehicles sold to US consumers vs. emmsion standards of cars in China, Russia, and other countries? Do you know how strict rules we have about diesel engines, and what sort of diesel engines you can find on streets in China, Russia, Eastern Europe, etc?

Besides, they do have factories, don't they? What about emmission standards created by steelworks, coal powerplants and other factories in such countries?

I somehow doubt that the worst pollutants are cars here, Sonic Cruiser or A380.

The worst enemy of clean nature is old technology in industrial complexes in 3rd world countries. But I don't see anyone arguing against them.

Have there been any articles about criticizing the other 75% pollutants lately? I haven't, and I have quite clear idea why is that.
MD-11 forever
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:15 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 10:16 pm

Well these 75% are all the other countries of this planet. Ever heard that the emissions of a plane are the most dangerous ones because they are at high altitudes? It's simply not the time to wait for others to act, every (and I mean every!) country has to act! but i think it's nonsense to sicuss any further.....
Posts: 3876
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2000 12:37 pm

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 10:27 pm

I'm not surprise that the EU is slamming the Sonic Cruiser as it has the potential of taking away some potential customers for the A380.

If the EU is so concern about the environment why do they still let the Concorder fly?
Work Hard But Play Harder
Posts: 11621
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 10:31 pm

Good point and I think that COncorde should be dismantled or put in a museum, we must move on from that. And BA will lose a status symbol which will make me happy  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

KUGN: I can name one country who has done proud on the environmental front. The United Kingdom. I dunno about the statistics, but go to http://www.labour.org.uk, click Policies, and find it there.

Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 10:32 pm

Really this conversation is a big piece of sh*t. I'm so tired of those EU vs. US conversations.

It's true that the Sonic Cruiser will probably end up where the 747X ended, in a drawer with lots of dust on it. Think of it...

1) Ever rising prices of fuel
2) Fuel hungry aircraft
3) Not economical, no airlines are interested in making a loss

But after all, there's plenty of fossil fuel still around! uh? LOL hahaha  Laugh out loud

MD-11 forever
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:15 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 10:41 pm


I totally agree with you! we should leave these people to their dreams.........
Posts: 1631
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:55 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 10:42 pm

F#@$ the Earth.......... let it burn!!!!!!

I'm going to go live on mars. :P
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 10:57 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 11:05 pm

"Gaut, how come no one criticizes EU, China, Russa or countries for their pollutions. Which industrial giant nation in the world has signed the treaty (and I assume Romania is not a giant, but is heavily polluted)? Show me one such giant, and that country would be in their right to criticize US."

I think we can say EU is an industrial giant and they will sign the treaty. Here is an extract from the presidency conclusions of the Göteborg European Council:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activity are contributing to global warming with repercussions on the world's climate. Therefore, the Conference of the parties in mid-July in Bonn must be a success. The Community and the Member States are determined to meet their own commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. The Commission will prepare a proposal for ratification before the end of 2001 making it possible for the Union and its Member States to fulfil their commitment to rapidly ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The European Union will work to ensure the widest possible participation of industrialised countries in an effort to ensure the entry into force of the Protocol by 2002. To enhance the Union's efforts in this area, the European Council:

- reaffirms its commitment to delivering on Kyoto targets and the realisation by 2005 of demonstrable progress in achieving these commitments. Recognising that the Kyoto Protocol is only a first step, it endorses the objectives set out in the 6th Environmental Action Programme;

- furthermore reaffirms its determination to meet the indicative target for the contribution of electricity produced from renewable energy sources to gross electricity consumption by 2010 of 22 percent at Community level as set out in the Directive on Renewable Energy;

- invites the European Investment Bank to promote the Sustainable Development Strategy and to cooperate with the Commission in implementing the EU policy on climate change.

And as you said EU is in their right to criticize US.


«Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae.»
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2001 4:48 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 11:11 pm

What a shame I have to live among all you idiot anti-environmentalists. Your criticism of "tree-huggers" is really something that I just can't understand. These are some of the most selfless people on the face of the Earth, trying in every way to prolong this planet's life that has been taken for granted for so long.

Saying that America is pro-environment is laughable. For years now we have had "leadership" in this country questioning the science of global-warming. And for what purpose? To hold on to their mighty greenback until the very last glimmer of hope can just barely be seen on the horizon. Then, and only then, will they admit that the time has come to act. Is this a country that is actively seeking to preserve it’s environment?

NO! We are a country that takes the environment for granted until it becomes an economic necessity to care about it. Our economy has been buoyed by cheap gas among other things. But its price tag deceives. Everything has a true cost. A cost immeasurable in dollars and sense. It’s a cost that this country is paying everyday and every week, with cheap gas and sweatshop-produced products. America is a country that is deeper in debt with all that we take from this world than any other.

By continuing to cut every corner for the sake of the economy, we’re only digging a deeper hole to climb out of. But it’s all to be expected in this land of contradictions. Where we try to limit abortions, while at the same time execute more and more people. America is no God, but not everyone agrees.

The Sonic Cruiser is not a viable transportation mode. I don’t see the fairness in letting a few get to their destination quicker while the rest of us have to choke on greenhouse gases. Boeing is taking the wrong direction. Imagine for a monent if they concentrated their efforts on fuel-efficiency rather than speed. If they can build a Sonic Cruiser, they can build a plane designed from the groud up as one that consumes the least amount of fuel with todays already high speeds. Instead of working for the greater good of Boeing, or Boeing shareholders, why not look out for the greater good of the world we all need to live in, together. Condit has this all wrong. Most of you environmental nay Sayers do too. What a shame.

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 11:23 pm

Ok quickmath for everybody

We are in 2010 and Air Canada just received it's first Sonic Cruiser, it decides to put it on the YUL-CDG route. Average price for that route is 600$. Now if the Sonic Cruiser burns 35% more fuel then you could expect AT LEAST a 35% raise in the price of the ticket, now we are talking of 810$ for the same route, just to save an hour or so! HAHA is that a joke?!?

I had to put some $$$ into the equation since it's a religion compared to environmental issues for a couple of people on this board.

The Sonic Cruiser look like a beautiful bird, I'd love to see it fly just for the sake of it phisical appearance, but the problem is that this plane is far from being econonical, so it'll never probably touch any asphalt.

A330/B777 very nice post!

Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 11:31 pm

There are responsible environmenalists, who want to balance the enviroment with obvious human needs to survive in this modern world, and are willing to compromise to achieve that balance. And there are "tree huggers", who are oblivious to the needs of the people on this planet, and want no compromise at all. The latter put the enviorment TOATLLY ahead of human beings, and that's just a load of garbage. As far as those radicals are concerened, we should just immediately stop driving, flying, refrigerating, etc, simply so the planet can heal itself. Well, that's well and fine, but it isn't very practical, now is it?

Now back to subject. Again, this has NOTHING to do with the envoirment, or Kyoto, or any of that. This is simply an eceonomy ploy by the EU on behalf of, and as a front for, Airbus. Plain and simple. It's an anti-Boeing strategy that's been going on for several years, from the proposal to ban anything non-Stage IV from flying across the pond, to this concerted effort to promote the A380 over the Sonic Cruiser. It has nothing to do with wheather the Sonic Cruiser will ever get off the ground (or conversely, if the A380 will ever fly, too). It's become a game of chicken, mostly being played by the EU and Airbus, to perhaps "scare" Boeing into dropping the project.

And once again, for all you who think the SonicCruiser is a "smokescreen" for Boeing, let me just say that I'm glad none of you run a large corporation, because large corproations don't spend this kind of money on something simply to be a "smokescreen". Does that mean it will ever materialize? No, it doesn't. But in my mind, it means Boeing is serious about making it materialize.
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2000 1:19 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 11:34 pm

I could only read 70% of this post before i moved down to throw in my thoughts!

Firstly, sorry Republicans, but Bush is an ignorant leader on world affairs. I would put money that the man cannot spell environmentalism and that he thinks Kyoto treaty is the dessert course at his local Chinese restaurant.

Europeans are in general not as capitalist. This means we don't mind the higher taxes, and are prepared to give a little to help the environment. The reason we didnt ratify Kyoto is a kind of wait-and-see approach. There is no point in signing without a unanamous agreement. But here in the UK, we are likely to meet the Kyoto treaty mainly by getting rid of coal and replacing with gas.

Spain generates 15% of power by wind, while each American churns out twice the pollution that we do. (It is those SUVs that pollute, not our old factories!) Americans are bound to be less concerned with what the rest of the world thinks if your kids college fund is invested in Lockheed, Esso and Ford.

As for aviation, the A380 does look set to at least be somewhat successful. Boeing wants to get some attention so they stir up some fuss about a project of their own. Who knows if it will fly. Like Americans though, Europeans are fiercely patriotic and are retaliating by making claims about the SC.
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 5:52 am

RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sat Jun 23, 2001 11:49 pm

A330/B777 & Hamlet69: well said.

Firstly, I don't think any of us can be so sure that EU concerns of the Sonic Cruiser are thinly veiled barbs in defense of the A380. The spectrum of politics involved in so wide ranging and deep that any conspiracy theory can be countered with another one. Take everything with a grain of salt.

No political entity is without some type of hypocrisy. Don't call apples oranges in comparing the faults of the EU and U.S.. Each have their respective merits and drawbacks. That being said, I'd much prefer a comments to the media that shows concern for environmental sustainability than one that claims that there's plenty of fossil fuels to go around.

Lets think about this rationally folks - take politics out of it. This Sonic Cruiser only saves an hour to an hour and a half on transatlantic flights. That's a time savings of roughly 12.5%, depending on the destination and starting point. The fuel increase in 35% on what would have been otherwise used on this type of route. That means a 35% increase in prices. I'm not sure what the increase is on the Concorde, but the travel time is cut down to just over 3 hours. I can't understand the waste of fuel, increased costs, development costs, etc, just to cut 12.5% off a flight!!

There's a reason why environmental concerns are most important at the root of things like the S/C. Politics aside, it is obvious what a wasteful aircraft it is. The A380 cuts down on fuel used, and transports more people. That's like people taking the bus instead of using their gas-guzzling Corvette to get to work.


RE: EU Slams Boeing Over Sonic Cruiser

Sun Jun 24, 2001 12:00 am

Two points:

Jonnyboy, you are at least an order of magnitude off on your estimate of wind power in Spain -- it doesn't even register on the power planning routines on the transmission network meaning that it is more likely 1.5% than 15% of total power. (But that's hardly the topic here).

Second, no one seems to have connected two facts together. First is that to go faster means a very high increase in drag (numbers have varied -- I don't know them) requiring more fuel. I'm going to guess that Boeing hasn't repealed the laws of physics so this will hold. Second fact is that Boeing claims that is will be much more efficient that a convential design at a high speed. Now let us suppose that the SC isn't flying at .95 but rather at a more 'normal' speed of .85. My guess is that it would be much more efficient than a convential aircraft at this velocity as well. Therefore, this plane will be the _most_ efficient in the sky if the airlines choose not to go for max speed.

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