Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
CX747
Posts: 6700
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Boeing's B52 Info For Cedarjet.

Thu Aug 12, 1999 10:37 am

After killing all of those innocent North Vietnamese, the B52s were used to presicion bomb Kosovo and defend the European continent against Russia. Maybe Europe should give Boeing some subsidies instead of Airbus seeing that U.S. metal protects most of the continent.
 
wingman
Posts: 4190
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Lost Marbles

Thu Aug 12, 1999 11:28 am

To the people of this forum: Cedarjet has lost his marbles. Please help us find them. They were last seen halfway through this thread. Back to the original topic: we talk about overcrowding in Asia and pax growth as the primary motivators for the development and eventual success of the A3XX. This is due to slot restrictions at the major Asian airports. Let's look at some other factors which we haven't discussed at any length. If we agree that more slots are out of the question and that this means that an A3XX is the only solution, isn't this just a temporary bandaid? 100-200 more pax per plane is not going to solve Asia's infrastructure problems or its explosive growth. Airport expansion at existing locations and the building of new airports WILL happen. That is without any doubt. Even if no further slots were ever built, what about expanded terminal space to handle these new pax? What about baggage handling and parking? What about Public Transportation infrastructure? The A3XX does nothing to solve any of these related problems. I think that Boeing is betting that slot expansion and new airports are inevitable, which is the underlying assumption behind their belief that direct 777 flights between final destinations is a viable solution. It will take much more than just an airplane to address the increased demand for air travel in the next century, it will take a smart solution that is flexible and efficient. It will take new airlines and new airports. The 777 in conjunction with deregulation may just be it. Nobody wants to suffer the horrible type of air travel we have in the US, but how to avoid the onslaught of millions of new travellers worldwide? I truly believe that for better or worse, the US model is just the tip of the iceberg.
 
Guest

RE: Cedarjet

Sat Aug 14, 1999 1:11 am

You know, it's amazing how we import billions upon billions dollars worth of Japanese electronics, European cars, Mexican goods, and the like, and very few people here complain. When we export our products, all these people scream, "THEY'RE FORCING THEIR PRODUCTS AND CULTURE ON US!!!!!!"

What kind of reciprocal trade is that?

If you don't believe in a borderless economy and trade between nations, that's fine. But if the USA stopped importing European goods, Europe would be in financial ruin. So appreciate the United States of America for what it is: an ally, both strategically and commercially.

Now, about aviation: If Airbus wants to build the A3XX, they can go ahead. They're barking up the wrong tree. Their North American CEO would be correct in saying that the A3XX is the last project for which they'd seek subsidies, because if they build the A3XX, it will be the last airplane they build. They'll go down in flames.

Boeing, on the other hand, has hit a home run with the 777. It is a joy to fly and has all of the attributes necessary for a 21st century airliner.

United946
 
LeoDF
Topic Author
Posts: 349
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 1999 11:44 am

RE: Airbus Or Boeing? Who Is Right?

Sun Aug 15, 1999 10:26 am

Thank you all for exposing your opinions it has been very helpful for me!!!
 
User avatar
F-WWKH
Posts: 335
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 1999 8:23 pm

RE: Airbus Or Boeing? Who Is Right?

Sun Aug 15, 1999 3:43 pm

I guess that is not exactly what you expected when you started this topic, right?

Oh bytheway, having a US Senator (accidently the one of the State of Washington) flying in a goverment airplane (United States of America B757) to CAL to make them reverse their order of A340s to the B777 - you call that what, courtesy call, subsidy, ...?
 
CX747
Posts: 6700
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Fwwkh

Tue Aug 17, 1999 12:53 am

It is called acting on behalf of your constituents.
 
Guest

RE: F-WWKH

Tue Aug 17, 1999 1:12 am

I think the correct term would be to ask, not make. My grandfather is a U.S. Congressman, and visits like that are commonplace. Don't get the idea that they only do that for Boeing.

United946
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

Political Pressure-Now With AMX And MX..Ethics?

Tue Aug 17, 1999 2:18 am

Whispers to my e-mail say:

"The speaker of the California state assembly, Antonio Villaraigosa, has met with Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo. Among the items they discussed was the pending Mexican narrowbody order - Villaraigosa "encouraged" Zedillo to get Aeromexico and Mexicana to order Boeing narrowbodies, including the made in California 717."

This type of shenanigans is a bit on the shall we say "ethically challenged" side once and for all. If French President Jacques Chirac or Prime Minister Lionel Jospin did something like this for Airbus Industrie..the US newsmedia would be all over it like "stink on s***!"

I personally have a very difficult time seeing a US Senator or Congressman flying aboard a USAF operated airplane (just to give an idea in FY1987 dollar figures for the C-141B Starlifter ...to the tune of USD$80000.00 per hour!..so can you imagine the costs of a 757?) to fly overseas to finagle a quote "private business deal" is beyond me.

For Shame! It appears that the word Ethics means nothing..but then again..those campaign commercials are coming up for the 2000 elections..gotta shoot that "Congressman so and So brought X amount of jobs to California..." commercial......right?

It's called "Bringin' home the bacon".

What galls me is this level of government sponsored effort (read that as US taxpayer supported in laymans terms) and support to get that sort of sales (the government sponsored high pressure "sales department" in full swing I guess? A hidden perk for US business eh? I think so.) and nothing is said about it, yet, the subsidy issue is placed totally on Airbus as a yoke that should hold that entity is a guise of suspicion and ridicule.

We have to look at the whole picture here folks...not just manufacturing or developmental subsidy! How about tax payer funded sales trips that are questionably unethical at best!

If I tried this sort of thing, attempting to use my influence in the US military with my position and rank to get some sort of advantageous commercial venture going..Do you have any idea what type of prison time I could face!!!? Hmmm?
But I guess it's OK for Congressmen and Senators to be exempt from these same US Federal government rules..as it now begins to enter the words of "Constituency" or in laymans terms -carreer enhancement and furtherance-.
What a joke!

Furthermore..I have -yet- to hear of -any- report here in Taiwan that the French Government or President, let alone Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair or Germany's new Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder along with any of their paliamentarians --do any sort of maneuver-- like the US Senator or Congressmen did with regards to Taiwan and China Airlines...But when to comes to the US congressional and senatorial people..It's "just a common accepted thing" I guess...something is seriously skewed with this picture.

Time to slam the brakes on and look at it for what it is.

Now we are expanding this to the State government of California..When does it stop? I suppose the Mayor of Everett, Washington or Long Beach, California are next to get involved...heck..send in the local Chamber of Commerce while they are at it. Get as much pressure pressed to bear...right?

Folks..in these quite deplorably "ethically challenged times" it's time to start looking at oneself and re-learn that precious word called -Ethics-. When practiced in it's pure right, that's when the true spirit of competition excels.

Regards
MAC_Vet

(whose Great Uncle was a State Senatorial candidate 5 years ago)
 
wingman
Posts: 4190
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Political Pressure-Now With AMX And MX..Ethics?

Tue Aug 17, 1999 2:44 am

Government assistance in closing a commercial deal is unethical? This has been going on since biblical times! Everyone does it, the EU countries, the US, Japan, everyone! MAC, you've lost your grip on reality and truth. You claim that Chirac, Schroeder, and others don't do this on behalf of their own countries. My God man, what planet are you living on? This is one of their fundamental roles. Business is everything. I can't believe that people in this forum completely deny 200 years of commercial history from Europe to Japan to the US. So many of you decry the US government as evil and interested only in its own self-interest, that being the interest of the AMerican people. Is this something new? Are the governments of the rest of world any different? Of course not! When Schroeder and Chirac travel overseas at public expense, do you think they are teaching language lessons? Some of us are living in a fantasy world. This forum is out of control. Between MAC, Cedar and Udo, the US is the most evil empire in history, hell bent on world domination and willing to kill to sell Boeings. I wonder what you guys think of our illustrious superpower forebears. Rome-oh so sweet, Spain-no plundering there, France-peace and love baby, Germany-no comment, England-ask any Indian, Japan-ever seen pictures of Nanking? I think the US is relatively tame by comparison don't you?
 
Guest

RE: MAC_Veteran

Tue Aug 17, 1999 7:38 am

In case you didn't make the connection, those taxpayer funded flights help keep JOBS for hardworking Americans.

You know, Wingman is absolutely right about the apparent demonization of the United States in this forum. Should we bring up European history, for a change? Why don't we talk about Germany in the 1930s, or maybe feudal England.

Now, suppose for a minute that the Senate, House of Representatives, and the President all approved a bill that placed a complete trade embargo on Europe. Europe would be in financial ruin. So would the USA. Imagine those Concordes with nowhere to fly. The execs at BA, AF, and LH scrambling to find profitable routes to keep their airlines floating.

Europe needs the USA as much, if not more, than the USA needs Europe. Try and go a day without American products. I guarantee your quality of life would be much lower.

If you think for a minute that European heads of state and members of legislative bodies don't lobby private customers to buy European products, you've got your head in the sand. We do the same. My grandfather, a senior member of the U.S. House of Representatives, went with Senator Slade Gorton (R - Washington) on that trip to Taiwan. He went because he wanted to keep Boeing jobs going in his district.

And another thing: Don't give us Americans a bunch of BS about us "pretending" to be the Great Defender of Democracy, Liberty, and Freedom. Those are the three reasons I serve in the U.S. Navy Reserve. Those are the three things that make America a great country. And in case you don't know your history, those are the three greatest products we ever exported out of this country.

United946
 
mirage
Posts: 3612
Joined: Mon May 31, 1999 4:44 am

United946

Tue Aug 17, 1999 9:00 am

You don't teach me nothing or give me any lessons about Democracy, Liberty, and Freedom. Stop with that arrogance please.

Luis, Faro, Portugal

PS: I want to avoid this posts but you guys keep with the provocations, sorry.
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

RE:United946

Tue Aug 17, 1999 11:54 am

You are missing something entirely in all of this. In some of these threads we hear the arguments that Airbus doesnt need subsidies because it is a quote "healthy and mature" enterprise. OK..given that rationale, if Boeing is in the same boat with the infrastructure and so forth, well established sales force, good product line which does speak for itself In essence that very same "healthy and mature enterprise".

Then why is it that that so called "healthy and mature" enterprise need assistance in the form of sales pressure from US government officials showing up? Why cant the product and company sell itself?

And to all who would like to make some cheap shot believing that I think the Europeans dont do this..Puhhleaaase! I dont need to hear that. Of course they do it. The trouble is we havent heard of it in such a high handed way that has been going on in recent times. If there is examples of this that someone can point to..please..show me it and I'll holler about that as well!

As for keeping jobs in someone's district, the job that has to fall upon is ultimately -the-company-who-is-offering-the-product-to-begin-with, not some bureaucrat in a suit wearing a plastic smile who wants to show he's "bringing home the bacon" so he gets re-elected.

Some of these legislators that showed up here in Taiwan certainly didnt go pounding down the door at UAL when they opted for Airbuses a few years ago.
Did they?

Yet they came-a-knocking at President Lee's office in Taipei last week, to which he resoundingly __showed them the door__ I might add, leaving comments on this to less than a sentence or two, referring these people to the Taiwan CAA and China Airlines.

On top of that there was the question of phoneyness in all of this. They knew full well that some of these same people that showed up have an established record voting -against- Taiwan and then have the -nerve- to come over here with the not-so-veiled-threat that US military support might not be there if CAL didnt order from the US.

And above all of this...-Galling I might add-...Irregardless of the-fact-that-CAL -had-placed-the-lions-share-of-that-order-with-the-US-to-begin-with-and-still- -not-being-satisfied...

In laymans terms..That's called being a "-hog-".

Maybe if you can look at it from a broader perspective you will understand that.

Overall, The whole concept of American democracy has been skewed with this foul involvement, then we hear cries of "unfair" behavior pointing accusatory fingers at Europe..from the same people. Simply amazes me.

We are dearth as a people to admit our problems yet are great exposers of other people's problems and or weaknesses and capitalize upon them thru various means, government, business, media, etc. The infrastructure attacking that is so well rooted and massive that any sort of challenge to it, is squashed within seconds, especially when exposing the simple fact of poor ethical practices being employed.

The US is no angel nor is anyone else. When people stop playing this "Angel card" then more credibility and acceptance of each side's arguments will happen.

I'm ex-military (almost 8 years in the USAF) and one thing I remembered was the way there was a -quiet form- of dignity that one held in respect for one's accomplishments and job. Not running around with jingoisms saying "We defended your liberty" ..that entitles me to crap on you..and so forth. That's exactly why some times things or events get ugly overseas I might add.

That really takes it to a level that grates upon folks overseas. That's where people get the "Ugly" image of Americans from. They dont sit around with a great big cookpot going filled with ideas on how to be mean to Americans..the silly problem is Americans -do it to themselves- 9 times out of 10 and then get angry about it..making it worse! I hope you can see that.

(As a former NCO who had to act as a role model and if cases warranted, enforcer of standards of conduct off duty as well as on duty, one thing that I had no problem "bringing up in short pants" was a military member or members who got out of line in this sort of thing. It happened many times and I had absolutely -NO- problem -correcting it-. To include severe administrative punishment.)

One thing I go out of my way here in Taiwan is to fit in amongst the people and above all -listen- to what they feel and say. Not cramming this "We're defending you!...You'd better buy my country's airplanes!...You wont get help from my country if you do!." BullSh*t. I'd be shown the door in an instant..and would -deserve- it.

It's a simple two word connection called. Mutual Respect. When that gets employed, watch and see how business and relations will improve on its own merits.

Regards
MAC_Vet

 
CX747
Posts: 6700
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

MAC_Veteran

Tue Aug 17, 1999 10:04 pm

First off I would like to apologize for whatever America has done to make you hate it so much. Did an American G.I. steal your candy bar as a child or something. Also, after the Senators went to Taiwan what aircraft did China Airlines order? I guess they didn't force them to order 777s after all.
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

RE: CX747

Tue Aug 17, 1999 11:43 pm

CX 747

Afterall I was a GI so I guessed I would have to have stolen from -myself-. Really made a lot of sense with that didnt it? (LOL!)

Maybe if some of the people that represent -you- and -me- back there would act more responsibly with a better standard of ethics and professional conduct we wouldnt be having this conversation? The sad fact is, Ethics are in the toilet -everywhere-, but I notice it especially taking a turn for the worst and more brazenly so --back there-- in a way that makes me hang my head in shame at times. This has taken an aggravating and embarrassing turn for the worst in the past few years.

You dont win friends to your causes or your way of thinking, let alone being trade partners or allies if your government and business community quite frankly acts like an -ass-.

If that doesnt square well, well then, examine why its being said. Instead of imbibing everything that is spoonfed in the US media and education system to you, why not take a chance by learning and exploring on your own.

That's what I did!

I used to be one of those who used to parrot this "We're the greatest" line of bilge too. Thankfully I took a step back and started to examine things as well as getting a healthy helping of reality living back there as well.

This endless "Airbus versus Boeing" needling diatribe has got to be one of the most inane (read that as -Stupid-) arguments this century! Nothing said here or anywhere else on the Internet is going to change the outcome no matter what you or I or anyone else says. It's accomplishing nothing.

The fact is, Boeing is here and so is Airbus Industrie. Accept it. Deal with it. Move on! They arent going away anytime soon. If anyone here who harps on this topic with any sort of dreams attempting to change the way the government or business community in the European Union or the US conducts itself, think again. The fact is though that people need to inquire their own arguments and examine their sides far more carefully. There are pluses and minuses on both sides and some more glaring than others. If all one wants to do is have this become some stupefying "US versus Them" argument (which it is definitely showing it's head now) it will confirm to be that some believe they need a "Big Enemy" to buttress their viewpoints.

I'm quite frankly tired of the polarization being created. The problem is where facts get pointed out exposing the US side for it's not-so-honest-or- questionably-unethical practices and more clever means of covering up or sweeping aside (people are so used to it you dont think it's wrong anymore) to brazenly looking away or making excuses for when it comes to US government or corporate ethics and/or direct and indirect subsidies to US industry as a whole that -do- exist and -still- exist to the tune of $75 BILLION --a Year-- as of 1995.

If you still refuse to see the point there..then I guess this conversation has ended. It will prove to me and the rest of the forum participants that indeed; It's perfectly fine to overlook or ignore or pretend the US side and involvement in this -and-blame-everything-or-make-a "boogey-man-out-of" Airbus Industrie. With the Cold War being over, I guess a new enemy has to be created..right? That point I believe is showing quite well.

MAC_Vet

 
CX747
Posts: 6700
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: CX747

Tue Aug 17, 1999 11:58 pm

I didn't know that you were a G.I but let me say thank you for serving our country. I still don't understand were you get all this pent up anger. Anyway I have accepted that Airbus is here and I have never said anything to the countrary. I just believe that their way of doing business is unfair.
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

RE: CX747-Start Here

Wed Aug 18, 1999 12:06 am

CX747

If you really want to start getting informed about what -really- goes on in your country, I suggest you visit this website and start your exploration.

http://www.cato.org/home.html

Of note this month is a Policy Analysis on Corporate Welfare (the new phrase for government subsidy to industry) for Weapons makers.

Another interesting link above that one is an analysis of Anti-dumping Laws that punish Foreign businesses for exactly the --same things-- American firms get away with.

The Cato Institute is a valuable place to start ones inquiry over this issue and others.

I wish you a newly independent and enlightened mind!

(We'll see (LOL!)

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

RE: CX747

Wed Aug 18, 1999 12:19 am



CX747 wrote:
-------------------------------
I didn't know that you were a G.I but let me say thank you for serving our country. I still don't understand were you get all this pent up anger. Anyway I have accepted that Airbus is here and I have never said anything to the countrary. I just believe that their way of doing business is unfair.

I was in the Air Force for almost 8 years and served in the Gulf War. My former command was the Military Airlift Command, or MAC, hence my nickname and moniker here. Thanks for your words. It was an honor to have served and I'm glad I did.

As for anger. I wouldnt call it anger at the States per se', but there is an incredible sense of frustration with people not looking at both sides in a balanced way.

Both sides I believe employ things for whatever reasons they do that can be viewed as unfair or not. No enterprise, nor country is perfect, but I do think that people generally want to operate in good stead.

But. and I must stress..But. There are some who are unscrupulous and who employ means or tactics to cover up not-so-savory-means that should be exposed. Especially if they want to curry favor and sympathy with a mass of people that can effect an outcome, via elections, elected representatives who in turn enact legislation affecting trade issues and so forth that could be viewed as punitive and truly unfair and misguided.

In the case with the US defense industry, if anyone has any illusions of piety, think again! Some of the things that I witnessed in my military years almost turned my hair white at a very young age. When you get exposed to things like that..then you begin to question. It's not a statement of hate at all. It's a statement of finding the truth.

I sincerely think that if you explore the CATO website and take your time with it you'll come away with a better understanding of where I'm coming from.

Regards
MAC_Vet
 
User avatar
F-WWKH
Posts: 335
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 1999 8:23 pm

RE: MAC_Veteran

Wed Aug 18, 1999 12:19 am

United946 wrote:Username:

In case you didn't make the connection, those taxpayer funded flights help keep JOBS for hardworking Americans.
----------
I can recall someone mentioned 845 pages ago that the Airbus 'support' doesnt yield the government(s) anything in return rather than 'keeping people busy' (=employed)...

Anyway, it's People->Tax->Government->Aircraft Manufacturer->People for both cases, Boeing and Airbus. We are discussing names and ways for the above -> (arrows) since a while... Get it guys, no matter how much you argue.


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

$65 Billion In US Subsidy FY97

Wed Aug 18, 1999 1:00 am

Check this out!

http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-028.html

One of the more recent surveys on subsidy released for FY 1997. It shows not much has changed, albeit some names for programs previosly referred to. Only $10 billion in reductions were realized overall from FY1995 to this latest report so it goes to show that while times changes, things still remain the same.

In some cases, the direct subsidy for programs that benefitted Boeing and General Electric actually -increased-.

Search under the Appendix: Worst Corporate Welfare Abusers

The key areas to zero in on are:

Commerce Department:

Advanced Technology Program (1997 appropriation: $225.0 million). The mission of the Advanced Technology Program is to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. companies by helping them to make better use of basic research in new technologies. ATP doles out more than $300 million annually in R&D grants to huge high-tech corporations like Caterpillar, General Electric, and Xerox. U.S. General Accounting Office audits have found many ATP grantees whose overhead costs exceed actual research expenses. [14] ATP was zeroed
out by Congress in the 1996 budget cycle, but President Clinton vetoed that bill and secured a compromise that allowed ATP to survive with a 49 percent budget cut. In 1997, ATP's budget was actually expanded by 2 percent.

International Trade Administration (1997 appropriation: $270.0 million). The International Trade Administration conducts export promotion programs directed toward specific industry sectors through its Trade Development Program. ITA's U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service provides counseling to U.S. businesses on exporting and facilitates participation of U.S. firms in trade shows. ITA also provides marketing services, develops regional and multilateral trade strategies, and investigates economically antiquated antidumping and countervailing duty cases. All those activities are more appropriately conducted directly by the private businesses and industries they are intended to benefit.

Defense Department: (This is where the increase is realized)

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: applied R&D programs (1997 appropriation: $1,111.0 million). The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency funds a variety of applied R&D programs, some of which exist for nonmilitary purposes. For example, the new Dual Use Applications Program (which builds on the former Technology Reinvestment Project) is the primary vehicle of the Defense Department's strategy to encourage the development of dual-use technologies (i.e., those with both military and civilian uses). Proponents of dual-use technology development argue that it will help to reduce procurement costs and enable the military to more rapidly integrate new technologies into defense systems. In reality, the millions of dollars of research grants given to huge high-tech firms like Boeing, Hewlett Packard, and Texas Instruments end up subsidizing the development of profitable new civilian technologies that should be developed by private industry.

Independent agencies and Other

Export-Import Bank (1997 appropriation: $772.6 million). The Export-Import Bank uses taxpayer dollars to provide subsidized financing to foreign purchasers of U.S. goods. Eximbank's activities consist of making direct loans to those buyers at below-market interest rates, guaranteeing the loans of private institutions to those buyers, and providing export credit insurance to exporters and private lenders. In effect, Eximbank subsidizes the exports of some of America's largest companies, including Boeing, General Electric, and Westinghouse.

Furthermore, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in the 60 years of its existence, Eximbank has lost $8 billion on its operations--most of it in the last 15 years. In addition, the new subsidy costs for Eximbank are estimated to be about $800 million a year.

Trade and Development Agency (1997 appropriation: $40.0 million). The Trade and Development Agency provides grants to fund feasibility studies and other planning services for major economic development projects in developing countries. Those grants go largely to governments and to private investors in developing countries who then use the money to engage in commerce with U.S. businesses. TDA projects thereby subsidize new business opportunities for large U.S. corporations, such as Booz, Allen, and Hamilton; Bechtel; Caterpillar; EDS; General Electric; Honeywell; and Westinghouse.
---------------------------------------------------------
The source for this is at:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-028.html

A simple word of advice is to go to the CATO Institute website at:
http://www.cato.org/home.html

Then do a keyword search on Subsidies filling in whichever company or industry one would like to explore with -ahead of it- and have a "tea party of information acquisition" afterwards (LOL!)

Regards

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

Want Another Excellent Source? Follow This Link!

Wed Aug 18, 1999 1:16 am

I'm downloading this PDF format report on Welfare for Weapons Makers that was just released on the Cato Institute site and it makes for quite a read.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa350.pdf

You need Adobe Acrobat to read this file. That is a free download from their website BTW.

This is a -very- recent report released last week! I ask all interested to take a look.

The primary reason I add this in here is it exposes one of the more insideous programs that has been going on for years in language that defines corporate welfare for what it really is and that is -subsidy-.

It also exposes the shameless manner how those in the industry seem to feel it -isnt- subsidy.

(Which by the way is a --frequent-- point of disagreement -here- on this very forum, This -very well- prepared and researched report -completely debunks- that myth in terms people can understand.)

Hope all can read this as it's an educational experience and I hope all can benefit from it and come away with a clearer understanding.

Let the enlightenment begin!! (LOL!)

Regards
MAC_Vet
 
wingman
Posts: 4190
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

A Revelation

Wed Aug 18, 1999 4:33 am

MAC- what a revelation. The US government supports research and economic development with tax dollars. We better get this tyo the New York Times. It's the story of the decade. YAWN! You missed the real point entirely. The US government does not give tax dollars to Boeing for COMMERCIAL programs. Boeing maintains separate ledgers for MILITARY and COMMERCIAL divisions. What a waste of time to have to explain this ten times to an adult. Are you suggesting that Europe does not do the same for its own industries? Did you know that BAe, DASA, AAerospatiale, and CASA are primarily defense companies and that each receives significant subsidies for their own weapons programs? This is easily the most misinformed opinion ever posted in the forum. This coupled with your complete misunderstanding of the concept of representation makes me shudder. You said that state legislators should not represent Boeing, the largest employer in the state as well as the number one exporter in the US? This is what the government is supposed to do! Represent the interests of the people that voted them into office. If economic welfare through the creation and maintenance of jobs isn't the absolute number one priority of any legislator I don't know what is. Finally MAC, you have been duped like most other people who do not know any better by the world press. It is dedicated to writing about stories that sell. Why do you think it's always about war and crime and death? Because this sells the best. And stories about the US being stupid and ignorant are the #2 best sellers. But does Taiwan ever print stories about the great things the US does? Of course not, this doesn't sell at all. You've been brainwashed by the local press, the same way I was when growing up in Europe. Your country's not so bad MAC, the press just makes it out to be.
 
kaitak
Posts: 10104
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: Airbus Or Boeing? Who Is Right?

Wed Aug 18, 1999 6:28 am

Since this is obviously a rather sensitive topic, perhaps we should just keep to the economic facts. Air transport will continue to grow and grow and grow. Airport slots will not. The likes of Heathrow, Frankfurt, Narita and Sydney (to name but a few) will always be congested and the growth in trade, commerce and tourism between countries - the general global village effect - will undoubtedly bring about a demand for larger aircraft. Look at LHR-SIN; five daily nonstop 747s. Los Angeles - Seoul/Tokyo and many other city pairs . . . Yes, Airbus will be able to find a market for the A3XX, but that doesn't necessarily mean Boeing is "wrong". It will be a very interesting battle and one of the priveleges of being an enthusiast is being able to sit on the sidelines and watch the giants slug it out . . .
 
boeing777
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 6:15 am

RE: Airbus Or Boeing? Who Is Right?

Wed Aug 18, 1999 7:45 am

Hello,

Here's what I think. Boeing already has the 777 which I flew on with British Air Once. I thought its big enough. I mean How many people want to go to the same place at one time? I would rather fly on a 747 because I feel that if there aren't so many peolpe on board you probably get better service from flight attendents. I'm on Boeing's side. Wouldn't it be much more convient to have direct flights to places where normal planes would need to refuel, etc?

Regards,
777
 
wingman
Posts: 4190
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Airbus Or Boeing? Who Is Right?

Wed Aug 18, 1999 9:57 am

I disagree with the opinion that no more slots will be built. That is simply impossible. The A3XX would be a mere bandaid for 2-3 years. Growth in Asian air travel will not be solved by an airplane with 100-200 extra seats, it will be solved through infrastructure development. Perhaps not at existing airports, though I think here as well. When the A3XX is introduced, increased parking space, baggage handling, and terminal space will be required. Why would the airport expand all this and not slots? It just doesn't make economic sense. Boeing makes a valid point in that more direct flights will become commonplace in Asia. Not everyone going to Thailand is going to Bangkok for example. Many are going to Phuket or Koh Samui. These airports will be the ones to expand in order to handle 330s or 777s from Tokyo, HK, or even LA. If this didn't happen and no further slots were introduced at the big Asian hubs, all air traffic in Asia would come to a grinding halt within 10 years.
 
LeoDF
Topic Author
Posts: 349
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 1999 11:44 am

RE: Airbus Or Boeing? Who Is Right?

Sun Aug 22, 1999 12:45 am

Thank you for your answers!
 
kaitak
Posts: 10104
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: Airbus Or Boeing? Who Is Right?

Sun Aug 22, 1999 1:04 am

Oh you're welcome LeoDF. I'll bet you're just delighted you asked.
Of course, the answer is Airbus.
And Boeing.

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