|Quoting Swallow (Reply 17):|
BA goes head to head with SQ and QF with the 380.
Not with QF
. The JSA (Joint Services Agreement) between BA
calls for the two airlines to share all revenue, costs and profits on all routes flown by both airlines between Australia and Europe (not just the UK).
|Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):|
the pressure politically to order the RR powered A380 with British wings was also a factor.
Of course. I mean no one would order Airbus aircraft without political pressure, would they? The only mystery about all of this is who applied the political pressure on US to make them the largest airline in the world when measured by the number of Airbus aircraft they either operate or have on order. Perhaps it was George W?
|Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 109):|
This keeps BA on the good side of the UK politicians and citizens by the spec of UK made RR engines, and that some major components of the A380 are made in the UK.
Some major components? Of course the 380 is a French (or is it a Franco-German) aircraft. But the version BA
have ordered will have British wings, British engines and a whole host of smaller British components to the extent that well over 50 per cent of the BA
monies used to purchase it are destined to be paid to British companies. God save the Queen. Damn! Where's my Union Flag!
|Quoting Revelation (Reply 135):|
In the engines, the choice of Rolls-Royce was because British is best
I don't know what Walsh was trying to say, but this reeks of jingoism to me.
Jingoism? But he's an Irish national. He's not British. So where's the jingoism in that? This brings to mind a famous quotation by Winston Churchill (who had an American mother). Talking of the UK and the USA (so I guess it also applies to Canada) he said that they are "two peoples separated by a common language".
As you should know we do lots of peculiar things on this side of the Atlantic. For example we walk on the pavement (not the sidewalk). And about twenty years ago - this is an absolutely true story - I sent a young British male graduate who had just joined my company to work in our HQ
in the USA primarily with a group of highly technically qualified young women. Of course there was a no smoking rule in their office. So, as a smoker, it was not long before he announced to his new colleagues (somewhat to their consternation) that he was "just popping out for a fag". Some days later he asked one of his new colleagues if she had a rubber. By the next time he wanted one he had learnt to ask for an eraser.
Returning to Willie Walsh what he said was that BA
chose Rolls Royce because the British engine is the best choice. I think if you are American (or Canadian) that adding just the word "choice" may put a somewhat different slant on your interpretation of this remark.
|Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 182):|
BA claims that the choice for the 380 was made with absolutely no political interference or sense of nationalistic obligation (noting large portions of the bird are made in Britain (this is paraphrased from another aviation website), and only because it was the best A/C for their needs, bar none. However, practically in the same breath, they have stated that Rolls Royce will power their 380's because "British is Best." Does anyone else find those two statements contradictory to the extreme?
I do not. First it was not BA
that made this claim but its CEO, Willie Walsh. He is an Irish national. So the concept of "nationalistic obligation" fails immediately. So do allegations made elsewhere of jingoism. And if BA
had ordered GE
power plants and Walsh had explained this by saying that BA
chose "GE because American is best" what problems would you have had with such a statement?
Walsh played two political (with a small "p") cards in his announcement. One was the "British" card. This counters Branson and many of his "British" statements. It also recognises that more of BA
's customers are British than any other nationality. And as any worthwhile CEO will tell you saying something your customers like to hear is good for business.
The other "political" card he played was the "green" card. In the UK (and I believe elsewhere) air travel has become the kicking boy not just of fervent greens but in our case of all three of our major political parties. They seem to be vying with each other to invent the most punitive tax regimes that they can think of to apply to commercial aviation to establish their own green credentials. So when you take a step towards reducing gaseous and noise pollution (even though in ordering new aircraft you could not help but take that step) you apply the political pressure for all you are worth to try to get the electorate on your side and save your industry from being taxed into oblivion.
|Quoting Scbriml (Reply 258):|
Viscount, Vanguard, Trident, BAC 1-11, VC-10, 748 (the HS variety!)?
I do not think they were first with the 1-11 or the HS
748. But they were both first (and, if you exclude Singapore Airlines and Braniff's flirtations with it) and last with Concorde and also first with the Bristol Britannia. But none of these were a free choice. There was more than political pressure in each case. There were political orders.
It is those political orders that explain why we Brits can be so sure that there no longer is such pressure. In simplistic terms the privatisation of BA
in the late 1980s meant that for almost 10 years before (from July 1979) and ever since no British government would dare to apply the slightest pressure to BA
. If they did that today it woulds be leaked to the media immediately. And lesser things than that could bring governments down.
Finally congratulations to both Airbus and Boeing. Interestingly A went the VLA route and then had second thoughts and also aped Boeing's Dreamliner but won the BA
VLA order. Similarly B went the Dreamliner route and then had second thoughts and also aped Airbuses VLA but won the Dreamliner order. Perhaps they should both have stuck with their original decision.