Boeing's Trump Card Over The A3XX

widebody · Mon Oct 02, 2000 1:00 am

Airbus has openly stated that if the A3XX goes under, the whole of Airbus will follow...that's why they are making very, very sure that the timing is right.......don't forget that Airbus is looking to 'break into' this thype of aircraft market......40% of Boeing commercial aircraft profits come from the 747......work that out per 747 per aircraft Boeing has ever sold....any loss to the A3XX will be a big blow.......

B747-400...you're blowing hot air, as someone mentioned earlier, your arguments are coming from manufacturer websites, which must be taken with a many grains of salt.........in your most honest view, why did SIA choose Airbus over Boeing? I'll be interested to hear your response......

Guest · Mon Oct 02, 2000 2:03 am

Fly-By-Pilot wrote:
-------------------------------
The 747 is a proven desighn. 30 years and going strong. It obviously is the better design. There just isnt any comparison. Does the 747 have that noise problem the A3XX has? They already downgraded the A3XX range. The 747 range just keeps growing. The A3XX model is barely in the computer, how can they have all these numbers and figures. I smell McD and the MD11. The 747 was a winner 30 years ago and has become a legend. Legends never die. 13000 boeings in the sky and 3000 other. Sorry Airbus fans, Boeing will be with us for a long time.

You comments defy logic. If Boeing had taken the "proven design" route in the 1960s they would not have launched the 747, but a much-stretched 707. And how do you come to the conclusion that the 747 is a better design because it has been around for 30 years?

I would suggest Airbus has a considerable opportunity to learn from their own mistakes and problems, and those of Boeing that have been made in the last 30 years and incorporate these improvements into the A3XX.

The MD-11 analogy is more likely to apply to the 747X than the A3XX. MD tried to take quite an old design and "modernise" it while making it larger, more efficient and extending its range. They failed, and all-new designs from Airbus and Boeing sealed the fate of the MD-11. I don't for a minute that Boeing would make the same mistakes as MD did, but I was just making the point that your analogy between the MD-11 and A3XX is ludicrous.

MD-90 wrote:
-------------------------------
Delta orderd MD-11s. Now they're ditching them for 777s.
American ordered MD-11s. Now they're ditching them for 777s.
Singapore Airlines ordered A340s. They may ditch them for more 777s (have they already?)

Your point being?
And by the way, SIA have outstanding orders for the A340-500 for use on future ultra-long range services. The A340-300s may give way to the B777-200 but that is because the aircraft are broadly similar and duplicate one another. SIA obviously prefers the B777-200 to the A340-300, but they are not ditching the A340.

Boeing747-400 wrote:
-------------------------------
To all the Airbus guys out here, there's nothing wrong with improving one of the best designs ever. I wouldn't care if the 747 frame was designed in the 1800's, it still is a great design and will be improved on for many years to come. There may come to be a completly different plane than today's 747, but when that different plane rolls out of the Boeing plant, it will still carry the numbers "747" on it's tail.

You say there is nothing wrong with improving on one of the best designs ever, but there comes a point where technology progresses so far ahead, that the proven design can be taken no further and the company will have to start from scratch with a new design. Who knows whether Boeing is approaching that point with the 747? If Boeing does produce a totally new aircraft, it is highly unlikely it would be called a 747, because it would be a totally new design.

Pandora wrote:
-------------------------------
As i have mentioend b4, several key airlines are lookiung seriously into the 747X instead of the A3XX.

Again, what is your source? No airline would look at one aircraft but not the other; it is ridiculous to claim they would. Airlines usually look at both aircraft right up to the time they make a final choice, with last minute offers and counter-offers from each manufacturer. No airline would get the best deal, if the manufacturer knew it was a one-horse-race.

Boeing747-400 wrote:
-------------------------------
Just keep your wishes going for airlines like United, etc. to order A3XX. Sure, the airlines that you could list are interested in A3XX, but they are more interested in the 747X. Don't be expecting to see the A3XX in US colors, but keep on dreaming

If there's one person here dreaming it is YOU. You persistently ignore common sense and stated fact, and continue along in your own fantasyland. I would have loved to have seen your face the day United ordered the A320, but you were probably about 7 years old at the time. Boeing will definitely not be complacent about US airlines ordering the A3XX, neither should you be. FedEx are reportedly very interested in the freighter version.

Once again you claim certain airlines are more interested in the 747X. Please, share your information directly from the fleet evaluation meetings that are underway at the highest levels of the world's major carriers.... Thought not.

-----

Some people who have replied to this thread need to re-assess the reasons for participating in this forum. Airliners.net is supposed to be about people with a mutual interest in aviation exchanging ideas and opinions with each other.

However, some people seem to think this forum is about an argument and trying to prove a point, however impossible that may be. I was very disheartened, but not surprised, when I logged on today to see what had happened to this quite interesting thread overnight.

There is a hard-core of respondents who flatly refuse to listen to the opinions of anyone else if they do not correspond with their own views. These same people make statements based on conjecture, wishful thinking, shortsighted opinion or more often apparently based on nothing. The same people ignore factual information provided by other, respected members, which has a source quoted and is verifiable. The basic premise here is that Boeing and the 747 are the best ever, and I will say anything to attempt to prove it.

Pandora,
Boeing747-400,
Fly-By-Pilot,
MD-90,
Do you really believe that your arguments are valid, and that you are really more knowledgeable than PhilB and MAC_Veteran?

You have generally made claims that certain airlines are very interested in the 747X, but not the A3XX. Others are claimed to already have rejected the A3XX. Absolutely no evidence was provided to support these opinions, and there is no way you could know such information unless you occupy very senior positions at the airlines concerned [impossible given your age profiles]

Comments like "It [the 747] is the best plane out there" and "Boeing rulz 4 ever" are very telling, and just back up the comments from Sabenapilot and PhilB;

Sabenapilot wrote:
-------------------------------
I think the fundamental rejection of the A3XX by some readers on this forum is simply because this biggest plane ever is not an American plane.
Claims like: if it isn't American, it can't be flying right, are very similiar to German Nazi propaganda from the 1940s....

Phil B wrote:
-------------------------------
[U]nfortunately, most of the posts on this topic which declaim one mfg and defame the other are nothing short of meaningless garbage put about by ill informed supporters who have attached themselves to a type or a manufacturer, in the way they support a football or baseball team and many of them are written by teens who, by the content of the postings, haven't taken the time to research "the rest of the story"

I would just like to echo these final comments. I am sick and tired of;
uninformed comment,
invented "fact,"
unfounded bias,
complete nonsense,
That fills up a lot of posts on this forum. If you have nothing to contribute other than the above types of opinion, please don't contribute.

Also, show a bit of respect to people who clearly have a vast wealth of experience and knowledge to share with us. The forum is a better place for having them.

You do yourself no service, or anyone else in your agegroup, by behaving in the way you do.

Regards
JET SETTER

Navion · Mon Oct 02, 2000 2:13 am

I haven't checked this forum in 12 hours, but I must say this thread has taken some strange turns. First of all, Airbus is not like McD in any way I can see. Where McD was timid and unwilling to spend much of anything, Airbus is actively designing 3 new designs (not counting the Airbus Military Co. design). Second, I seriously doubt the $12.5 Billion Airbus will incur (minimum) on developing the A3XX, will bring the company down if it's not successful on a large scale. I can see them easily selling 200 of them, and that may well be surpassed, so the amortization of development costs could be largely mitigated. Any remaining debt could be managed, like companies do all the time. The rest of Airbus product line is pretty full, and I predict a stable future for the manufacturer.

philb · Mon Oct 02, 2000 2:30 am

Jet Setter,

Your comments are appreciated

widebody · Mon Oct 02, 2000 2:46 am

Firstly, I agree completely and absolutely with Jetpilot, some people seem to be arguing with their opinions rather than fact......the aviation industry is broken up into many different categories, just because one is a professional in one, it doesn't add credibility to their opinions in another.......

Navion,

It was Noel Forgeard himself who said that Airbus are going into the A3XX project as a whole..if one fails, the other does also...personally, I don't think it would be enough to bring Airbus down, though it would severly prevent it's ability to develop it's existing products in the following years......

A study this year (Lehman brothers) showed Airbus needs to sell around 665 A3XX's to receive a strong return in the next 20 years, 528 to prevent the company being financially threatened, and that 364 would be a financial disaster..........it also stated that Airbus has more to lose by not building it, as market share would be capped in the 35 - 40% range over the long term if it wasn't built......

It also said, which is an interesting point......'the A3XX would not threaten the viability of Airbus as the 747 launch did Boeing in 1967.............

And most importantly, according to current manufacturer specs and list prices, the A3XX will be cheaper than the 747 on a per seat basis.......

Guest · Mon Oct 02, 2000 5:25 am

I would just like to thank Boeing747-400 for proving my point;

Since I wrote my last post on this thread, he has obviously had a birthday! He is now in the 21-25 age range, rather than the 16-20 age range he was in last time I looked. And that's not all....
He has also become a Training Pilot at the same time!

Must be an exciting time for him!

TIP: If you're going to invent a fictitious occupation, pick a real one. A student pilot would never refer to themselves, or be refered to, as a "Training Pilot" The term just isn't used, it is too similar to "Training Captain"

Try, Student Pilot, Pilot Under Tuition (PUT) etc...

As a general comment, It is what you write in your posts that is important, not your profile. If you write complete garbage, saying you are a 50-year-old 747-400 Captain won't make it not garbage. Nothing contained in your User Profile will make people respect what you've written, if you've written total rubbish.

User Profiles are fairly transparent anyway when someome is pretending to be something that they blatantly are not...

Guest · Mon Oct 02, 2000 5:37 am

I love airbus, but boeings widebody aircraft i prefer better.Airbus has taken all of the A3XX pics off thier webpage they have also been talking to P&W and RR about the engines. They are way to loud!!! I agree with whoever started this topic, boeing does have an edge over airbus in the widebody department.Boeing may make the 787. but then as some one earlier stated that it would be a superjumbo. it may not be. it could be a plane similar to the md-80 you never know. and as for the 777 being better than the A340....

Click for large version

Photo © Baldur Sveinsson

I rest my case.

B r i t A i r 7 7 7

teahan · Mon Oct 02, 2000 5:40 am

Here is the pic of the 777 look-alike with 4 engines. designated the Model 763-246:

BoeingB747-400, adding xyz in your profile will not make you more mature. Maturity comes with age (well I am only 15 myself) and experience.

Jeremiah Teahan

Guest · Mon Oct 02, 2000 6:00 am

Gyro wrote:
Leaders make new airplanes, followers just stretch, pull and give the result a new name....
Airbus leads in innovation and technology and designs new aircraft which gives them an an advantage for the future!!! The 747X will not be a new aircraft, it will be another "upgrade". Wonder what their slogan is going to be.......
-------------------------

Oh, I'm so moved by your visionary comment on leaders and followers. You've just described what Airbus did when Boeing took the lead and designed the 777. Airbus leads in innovation and technology? Check again, buddy. The Boeing 777 is the most advanced commercial aircraft flying the skies, and will remain so after the A3XX first takes flight, should that ever happen.

As for the subject of government subsidies, I think MAC_Veteran and his friends have confused a business transaction known as a "sale" with free money. So for those of you that are a little weak in economic concepts, let me explain. The B-47 was an example of a "sale." A sale is when a consumer says to a manufacturer "give me your product, and I'll give you some money in exchange." In this case the Air Force said to Boeing "build a bomber and we'll buy it."

Free money is when somebody gives somebody else money for nothing in exchange. In this case, the consortium of European governments that fund Airbus said "here's some money."

But, for the sake of argument, let's concede to your twisted definition of subsidies and compare the numbers.

The B-47 saw service in the Air Force, as property of the U.S. Taxpayers that paid Boeing to build it. The KC-135 was a derivative of the 707, which was designed using technological advances Boeing made while designing the B-47. So I suppose we could call one Boeing model, the 367, "government subsidized," according to MAC_Veteran and his economically misguided friends.

The A300, A310, A320 family, A330/A340 family, and A3XX have all been funded by government subsidies, no matter which way you look at it. Money for nothing. No buts about it.

So Boeing has the 717, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777, which have all been produced totally independent of any government intervention as defined by Airbus fans.

Airbus has.... nothing.

To summarize....

The A3XX, should it not be a huge success--and we still don't know that it will be successful--will be the downfall of Airbus Industrie. The Boeing Company has the enviable position of being able to start an all new within the next year or two, should it become apparent that the market is there for NLAs, and Boeing has the option of sitting back and watching Airbus go under should the A3XX be a failure.

That's what I'm talking about when I say Boeing has the trump card.

Pat

widebody · Mon Oct 02, 2000 6:06 am

BritAir777,

Why are the A3XX's engines way too loud? Maybe you could back your point up by simply stating the decibel levels, and maybe include the sound caused by aerodynamic whistle...........I'll be waiting for your answer..........maybe also include the current sound requirements for LHR, if you don't mind.......

sabenapilot · Mon Oct 02, 2000 6:07 am

Oh, please let them change their profile....
In the mean time they can't write any other rubbish...

Guest · Mon Oct 02, 2000 6:16 am

AirCanadaSFO, go and look up Boeings Homepage. The Civil-aviation is just a part of their business. Most of their military and Space programs is and has always been payed by the US-taxpayers.
That´s where alot money flows into Boeings cash.

Guest · Mon Oct 02, 2000 6:21 am

You missed my point completely. The U.S. Taxpayers give Boeing money in exchange for products. That's called buying.

The European taxpayers in the countries that subsidize Airbus give Airbus money for nothing. That's called free money.

I swear, some of you must have failed economics!

Pat

Guest · Mon Oct 02, 2000 6:25 am

Airbus got Loans, and huge parts of these loans are already paid back.

philb · Mon Oct 02, 2000 6:30 am

AirCanadaSFO

When you have worked in (any) industry for 33 years. When you have run two companies of your own and employed people, made profits for yourself and your companies. When you have won awards for organising events. When you have bid for and successfully obtained government funding for projects. When you have been in close and detailed conversation on aviation topics with senior officials, managers and some of those who "made history" and when you have made enough money to successfully retire at 52, with enough money to never have to work again - and yet still be asked to organise events for major aviation organisations; then and only then should you dare to talk about my "twisted definition of subsidies".

Until then I look forward to your humble apology and also a correction to your typically grossly innaccurate statement that:
"The KC-135 was a derivative of the 707".
READ SOME HISTORY and then apologise.

Finally no-one has claimed that the "Boeing model, the 367, (was) "government subsidized,"

I have stated in every post that this was built by Boeing as a gamble. In plain language that means they paid for it as arisk venture - but it doesn't mean they didn't lift technology from elsewhere.

Perhaps you need to look closely at your methods of argument (much of which is insulting), collation of facts and presentation of detail before returning to your college.

I'd expect better of kids in grade school.

To all other readers, I'm sorry to get personal - I'd rather not but there comes a time when kids have to learn that there are people around who know more than they do and actually lived through what they are talking about.

sabenapilot · Mon Oct 02, 2000 6:59 am

AirCanadaSFO-
Have you actually noticed the huge contradiction in your own latest opinion?
I quote:
Free money is when somebody gives somebody else money for nothing in exchange. In this case, the consortium of European governments that fund Airbus said "here's some money."
Somewhat further down the text you've written:
The A3XX, should it not be a huge success -and we still don't know that it will be successful- will be the downfall of Airbus Industrie.
My question:
If the governments are not expecting anything at all for their money as you claim, then how can even a total faillure of the A3XX program lead to the downfall of Airbus?

Before you start again;
I know Airbus receives government support, but what's your problem with that? If you think (as I do) that because of this Airbus is harming Boeing's sales figures, then why doen't the American government give the same support to Boeing? Surely nobody in Europe would protest against that! Washington has the free choice to do so, but if they don't want to help, then that's their own choice too. You shouldn't be looking angry at us in Europe. The unequal position is solely created by the American government's refusal to help its struggling companies, rather then by our solidarity with European workers.

---------

BTW,
excuse me if I'm wrong,
but I always thought that in a free world, everyone has the right to live and organise its own life...
If we in Europe feel it is our duty to help our economy, then it's our right to do so. The day we have do whatever Washington tells us to do, I think we can stop talking about a free world.
The European socialist governments apparently very much hated by several forum members are all democratically elected by a mayority of the people. So, saying the European policy is wrong, is actually saying the European voters are wrong. So, basically, you are trying to tell them what to do and who to vote for! Very democratic and free, isn't it?

cicadajet · Mon Oct 02, 2000 7:38 am

Maybe Boeing should bail out the An-225 program and bring it up to Western Specs to compete with the A3XX....or is this technologically more problematic than starting from scratch as the An-225 was designed for cargo?

N863DA · Mon Oct 02, 2000 8:13 am

I must say that reading through these posts has saddened me. To read the opinions that 'Airbus planes are unquestionably better than any Boeing aircraft' or 'Boeing builds much better airplanes than Airbus because I don't like Airbus' puts this post to the lower end of the Maturity and Reason scale.

Is it totally impossible to some of you people to conceed that both Boeing AND Airbus make excellent products??? Do you really think that if the 777 really was soooooooo much better than the A340, the A340 would still be selling as well as it is?

There is patriotism, and then there is paranoia. And we have reached the latter stage. Just because you personally don't like an airplane type or aircraft manufacturer doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't, and it doesn't mean that they are not excellent airplanes. All the major craft from both major manufacturers are EXCELLENT pieces of equipment for what they are designed to do.

Recently we have had comments such as 'The A340 climbs only because the earth is round - I hate the A340 and all Airbus planes.' The first part is amusing the first time that one hears it. The rest is boring, immature and incredibly self-centered. - Just because you don't care for one manufacturer doesn't mean that a) the rest of the world has to share your view, and b) that the airplanes are not good at what they are designed for.

Also, bitching till the cows come home on an anonymous website about how 'It's so unjust that Airbus gets loans from the Governments' is not going to achieve ANYTHING. It only starts wars. Regardless of how the airplanes get to the flying stage, they are all excellent aircraft. (Hell, I hope to get to know a specific A300 very well in the near future, so I should if anything be biased - but I am mature enough not to be.)

It must also be said that teenagers (I conceed I'm only 19 myself) seem to be denying and undermining facts from unquestionably knowledgeable people. Excuse me, but Sabenapilot, I am assuming, flies the darned airplanes! He is the most likely out of anyone on these boards to know about the economics of the specific aircraft which he flies. It can almost be said that if he doesn't know about it, it's probably not true. The only people to know more about the specific workings of the aircraft he fly would be the beancounters in their offices in Brussels counting the money in and money out. Add a mechanic to the equation and you have a very knowledgeable force about a specific aircraft type.

In short, can't some of us just grow up just a bit and conceed that you might be wrong in one or two of your somewhat conceited opinions?

FLY DELTA JETS and sail UNITED STATES LINES

N 8 6 3 D A

Louis · Mon Oct 02, 2000 8:14 am

I finally finished reading all the bullshit that has been posted in this thread. As quite possible the only neutral observer here, none of you have succeeded in convincing me that Boeing or Airbus has the upper hand or whether or not either project will succeed or fail. What I see here is a bunch of babies whose egos have gotten out of control and have resorted to childish name-calling. What astonishes me in this argument is how it always seems to boil down to nationalism, pure and simple. Fact is, none of you work for Airbus or Boeing, nor are you privy to any “inside information” from both companies. None of you are “experts”, yet I find it amusing to find how many of you are arrogant enough to actually think you are. Don’t forget, neither project has been officially launched yet.

Maybe it’s time I add my bit. I think the real trump card in issue is London’s Heathrow airport. Both companies have designed their super jumbos to alleviate the congestion at some of the world’s busiest airports. Much of the busiest and most desirable routes are to London Heathrow. All potential A3XX and 747X customers plan to use the plane on their routes to LHR. As of right now, LHR cannot facilitate very large aircraft. There are plans to expand the airport by adding the giant T5, which will be able to accommodate these planes. However, T5 has not been given the go-ahead. Last time I checked, 96% of people polled by the British Airport’s Authority do not approve of a new terminal at Heathrow. Your guess is as good as mine on whether T5 will actually be built, but if it isn’t and unless the current terminals at Heathrow are expanded in someway to accommodate these VLAs, then I think both the A3XX and 747X are in jeopardy.

Louis

P.S. Why doesn't Airbus have the specs of the A3XX-200 or the A3XX-100ER on their website anymore?

Vctony · Mon Oct 02, 2000 8:24 am

I personally believe that the A3XX is a revolutionary aircraft that will change the course of aviation for the 21st century. Airbus doesn't have a bunch of dummies on their governing board. I think that all of the European taxpayers will be greatly rewarded with the prestige of developing the LARGEST aircraft in the world. That being said I am an American and I do have a wish that an American company like Boeing or Lockheed will make a true A3XX competator and not use the 747 as the base for this aircraft. The 787, 797, or 807, or L-1211, or whatever should be built. Competition always makes things better and the A3XX needs a competitor. I am just afraid that the 747X may be a waste and Boeing may, at this point, just need to wait and get its new aircraft designed instead of a $4 million waste.

Guest · Mon Oct 02, 2000 8:50 am

N863DA,
Thankyou for your balanced input, and I wasn't having a go at everyone in your age range - It's only a few years since I was in the same age band! I'm sure you are aware of the types of post I was complaining about.

Something to think about;
When you hear the usual "Airbus is crap" and "Boeing builds death-jets" type comments, a question that often crosses my mind;

What are these people doing here? How can anyone who claims to be an Aviation fan have a pathalogical hatred of one of the worlds 2 largest aircraft manufacturers?

Pleople who have a geniuine love of flying and aviation, wouldn't make the type of comments that we regularly see here. The kind of excitement you fleel about flying...well I can't believe you only feel it when sitting in a Boeing. The planes I fly at the moment aren't Boeings, they only have one engine, the windows are made of plexiglass...I get the same excitement whatever aircraft I'm in.

I understand dislike of a specific aircraft or airline, for whatever reason, but not a hatred (or fear?) of a planebuilder, especially one that appears to be without rhyme or reason. I don't understand that.

I'm aware I may seem pro-Airbus to some, I'm not. I just feel compelled to respond to many of the unfounded claims made, there are a lot more anti-Airbus posts here than anti-Boeing ones.

Regards
JET SETTER

N863DA · Mon Oct 02, 2000 8:57 am

Jet Setter,

Au Contraire, I wasn't having a go at you... I was saying how out of order it was that teenagers were questioning the knowledge of undoubtedly more knowledgeable people, on certain subjects, than they are; a fact that they seem completely unaware of and completely non-capable of admitting.

Teenagers, remember, you don't know it all.

FLY DELTA JETS and sail UNITED STATES LINES

N 8 6 3 D A

Guest · Mon Oct 02, 2000 9:09 am

I know you weren't having a go at me! I just wanted to make sure you knew my comments were only aimed at a few specific people, rather than everyone in the sub-20 age ranges

philb · Mon Oct 02, 2000 9:39 am

I notice that 3 hours after asking for an apology from AirCanada SFO, I haven't had even a riposte. I can only assume that he went on shift after his latest post.

Its 01.30 BST now, so I'm going to bed in the hope that, on Monday, we can get back to real debate about the problems/benefits/characteristics of the new generation of widebodies instead of this ridiculous "only xxx have he right to yyy's order" and "only zzz builds proper airplanes" nonsense which makes this forum look as if it were inhabited by thirteen year old schoolgirls (and that's doing thirteen year old schoolgirls a disservice).

Guest · Mon Oct 02, 2000 9:43 am

NO comment.Being a Boeing lover myself,I also could state that Boeing has a trump card against the A3XX!!I would not like to see Airbus fall,if it does,Boeing,the monopower in the Western aviation sector,would start charging exorbitant rates for their aircraft and your airfare might go up from example $1000 to $7000 or $8000!

My point is,Airbus will never be allowed to fall and it will never fall.And also,I've never heard about the Boeing NLA.I thought it was scrapped!

My wish is to see both Airbus and Boeing to succeed in the NLA market,with the A3XX and the 747X respectively.I'm sure some airlines would squueze in 800 pax in their A3XX-200D aircraft,but that would make cheaper fares!I'm sure everyone likes cheaper fares!

Gundu regrets burning his SIA Herpas now

Rgds,

widebody · Mon Oct 02, 2000 10:01 am

AirCanadaSFO,

I hope I never have to come up against someone like you in the aviation industry, you have the knowledge and sincerity of a goldfish......

"The Boeing 777 is the most advanced commercial aircraft flying the skies, and will remain so after the A3XX first takes flight, should that ever happen. " To 'help' myself and us other misinformed people, please give us a full description, analysis and comparison of the cockpit systems present in both the 777 and the A3XX to prove this argument........thanks in advance.....

Can someone explain to me how Boeing can have the upper hand if tomorrow, the need arises for a VLA, they spend the next few years designing and developing a new design, I take it they would have to spend the equivalent of 12 billion to develop a new design; and fly the aircraft say 12 months after the A3XX......while in those few months, the A3XX has secured say 100 orders from the major carriers.......I cannot for the life of me 'spot' the upper hand.......they have been trying to convince airlines for the last few months that there is no need for the A3XX, the 747X will suffice...how would they reverse that deduction??

Guest · Mon Oct 02, 2000 10:10 am

I changed my User Info about 5 weeks ago! Some people get older, you know. Hmmmmm, I was 20, but now I am 21, impossible! Whatever.

Jet Setter, I get all my facts from Boeing itself. As well as from a family member that works at Boeing. I've stated this manys time before.

United is more interested in the 747X than the A3XX. From Boeing! From Boeing! And From Boeing!

I don't know why you Airbus fans seem to think that the A3XX will be soooooo successful, Airbus won't even make a profit out of it! As for the 747X, airlines save money, and a lot of it, Boeing spends 6 billion less, etc.

Do I have to explain the reasons that the 747X is better for airlines than the A3XX again?

I'd be happy to.

B744

Guest · Mon Oct 02, 2000 10:11 am

I changed my User Info about 5 weeks ago! Some people get older, you know. Hmmmmm, I was 20, but now I am 21, impossible! Whatever.

Jet Setter, I get all my facts from Boeing itself. As well as from a family member that works at Boeing. I've stated this manys time before.

United is more interested in the 747X than the A3XX. From Boeing! From Boeing! And From Boeing!

I don't know why you Airbus fans seem to think that the A3XX will be soooooo successful, Airbus won't even make a profit out of it! As for the 747X, airlines save money, and a lot of it, Boeing spends 6 billion less, etc.

Do I have to explain the reasons that the 747X is better for airlines than the A3XX again?

I'd be happy to.

B744

widebody · Mon Oct 02, 2000 10:17 am

B747-400,

You're getting so repetively boring, it worries me to think you're actually going flying aircraft...tell me, what does your family member do at Boeing? Commercial sales??

'United is more interested in the 747X than the A3XX. From Boeing! From Boeing! And From Boeing!' no, not from Boeing, from this family member.....

'Airbus won't even make a profit out of it!' Why so?

'Do I have to explain the reasons that the 747X is better for airlines than the A3XX again?'

Maybe you better explain for the first time......

cwapilot · Mon Oct 02, 2000 10:31 am

Well, my brother's wife's sister's brother-in-law changes lightbulbs at Boeing, and my other brother's cousin's father's ex-girlfriend washes windows at Airbus......For the love of God! Just stop! Boeing does not have an underground design department. They are not going to suddenly emerge with a new NLA plan with 250 already signed orders.

They may still be right....Airbus may never reach the 50 order mark they set out to begin building the A3XX, and the 747X will reign supreme. Or, they may be squandering an opportunity to be genuinely competitive in an emerging market sector. Either way, Boeing is reacting to Airbus...that means that Airbus is leading, and Boeing is following. Boeing used to be a leader, and now it seems they are falling behind in that area.

United is interested in the equipment that will make them the most money...they don't even know for sure what that will be, let alone yourself. The same with any other airline.

The point is, it looks like the A3XX will be built...Airbus is leading, Boeing is following....if they don't get up off their arse (this is the third time this past decade, with the 737/A32X, 777X/A340-500/600 and 747X/A3XX) they are going to have to rely on their military and space programs.

MD-90 · Mon Oct 02, 2000 10:33 am

I seem to think that my 17 year old brain can remember facts that certainly seemed true. My copy of R.E.G. Davies history of Delta Air Lines is falling apart from having read it so much. I have utmost respect for his knowledge and research.

Can someone correct me about the B-47? I thought Boeing had to compete for and win the contract, and while they were allowed a reasonable margin of profit (not more than 12%, I believe), it wasn't directly subsidized via loans or cash payments. The USAF paid for the aircraft they received. So many were built, that the USAF asked Boeing to share production with Douglas and Lockheed (I think it was those two, but since I've lost the book, I can't be sure), and this gave them knowledge on how to build high speed jet tranports.

I've never heard about the problems that (apparently) plagued the early KC-135s. I didn't know that the gov't (apparently) paid large sums of money to get them fixed quickly. That would be a sort of subsidy, I suppose.

I liken the A3XX to Douglas and the DC-10. They were first on the market, although their competitor, the L-1011, is generally regarded to be the superior aircraft. Surely Boeing (hopefully without Lockheed's engine troubles), will design a worthy competitor to the A3XX. Of course, avoiding Lockheed's fate would be nice.

What I meant about Delta and American and ditching their MD-11s for 777s, is that it's generally regarded on this forum that the 777 is the better aircraft, and that despite having relatively new types in their fleets, they've both ordered them in quantity. Maybe some will buy the current 747X, but if Boeing offers a better aircraft, and the airlines can support the necessary traffic, they'll buy it.

Okay, next time I'll do some more research before posting on what became a highly emotional topic.

FlyPNS1 · Mon Oct 02, 2000 10:41 am

Is there a market for the A3XX?

YES.

How large is that market?

I don't thinks anyone knows for sure. Airbus obviously has done research and has computed what they believe is the demand for the A3XX. They may be right and they may be wrong. They are taking a risk which is how business is done. Businesses have to take risks in order to be competitive in the future. Boeing took a risk with the 747 and it paid off. Now Airbus has come to the plate and they are going to take a risk. There isn't a single person on this forum that knows for sure if they will or will not be successful.

However, I am happy to see Airbus take this risk as I believe innovation and calculated risk taking is what drives our global economy. I hope A3XX is successful just as a I hope that Boeing is successful. Believe it or not, they can both coexist. This is not a fight to the death kind of battle that many are making it out to be. It will be a very, very sad day if either Airbus or Boeing goes out of business. Without competition, the innovations that we have seen in the airline industry might never have happened.

If you want to debate what markets there are for the A3XX and what airlines may order them....please do so, but try to back your arguments with facts and well-thought out opinions.

Guest · Mon Oct 02, 2000 11:02 am

I have explained it before, many times. The 747X is better for airlines because it is cheaper for them to operate, and buy. That's the most basic way to put it. But I'll get into SOME details. The 747X price is lower. It is more efficient. I costs less to operate, Pilot Training, Employees (less required), fuel, economics. All these great advantages, for just a little less capacity. Sounds smarter to go with 747X to me.

Let's put it this way, if someone were to give you $1000 or $950, which would you take? The person that gives you a $1000 gives you 1000 $1 dollar bills. The person that gives you $950 gives you a check.

Now, let's look at the advantages of the $950. You wouldn't have to mess with taking 1000 dollar bills to the bank. These advantages go on, but wouldn't you just take the $950 instead?

jm-airbus320 · Mon Oct 02, 2000 11:25 am

A very interesting column my friend and you have many valid point.However you have made several statements that could be torn to shreds by anyone with a bit of knowledge on aviation.You stated that boeing holds an advantage on airbus due to the fact that they will be able to assess the A3xx and thus make an aircraft which will be more of a success than that built by airbus and that the A3xx would be a failure. But, did you ever stop to assess what was said about the 7373 when designed? People thought it would be a flop, and look, it's not.Airbus had a chance to assess the 737 and create the A320 is it a bettere aircraft? maybe, maybe not.The bottom line is the A320 was made after the 737, has it sold more than the 737? not to date and from the looks of things it won't .So you can't make a judgement to say because boeing has the advantage of coming up with an aircraft to rival the A3xx it will necessarily be a success.And the A3xx has not even started to fly and yet you are projecting a forecast like that for the aircraft? Airlines buy airplanes according to their needs and requirements,you cannot possibly make an assumption like this so early.Give the aircraft time and then make your assessment.The 737 never sold 1000 overnight or early the next morning, so just wait and see and then make your statements, and then maybe who knows.........you could have been right after all or wrong, who knows?

widebody · Mon Oct 02, 2000 11:28 am

The 747X is cheaper per unit but the A3XX is cheaper per seat.....you can't compare the cost of a 737 to a 757....the 747X is not more efficient, and is not cheaper to run......the A3XX will have 15-20% lower operating costs than the current operating costs, even Boeing have said the most they could squeeze out of a 747X is 8-10%, without redesigning key components of the design.......

Now, to your next argument...

It costs less to operate.....as stated above, no, it doesn't....

Pilot Training....why did UAL choose the A320 over the 737, same with AWE, and now more importantly, SIA...what would you say about SIA's choice?

Employees (less required)......so ridiculous I won't go there.........

Fuel......???? ..........compare per seat, not per aircraft...again, can't compare 737 to 757...

Again, stop reading manufacturers websites and press releases, take it from someone who works inside the walls........

widebody · Mon Oct 02, 2000 11:30 am

Answer my earlier question B747-400, where does this 'family friend' work at Boeing??

Guest · Mon Oct 02, 2000 11:53 am

I don't know what her present job is yet, she recently changed. But she was some kind of manufactering manager in Seattle. I haven't talked to her in awhile.

As for your other post, it really wouldn't matter if UAL had chosen the 737NG or A320. They have no othe aircraft in the same class. But they do have a lot of 744's, so the 747X cockpit commonality matters.

cwapilot · Mon Oct 02, 2000 12:00 pm

B744....are you completely ignorant? UA has aircraft in the same class as the A320.....they have 737-200s, -500s and -300s. And they chose the A32X over the 737-300/-400/-500, and Boeing had to come up with a 737NG. Airbus leading, Boeing following. It took a loyal Boeing customer going to Airbus for Boeing to get up off its arse.

We can only hope the same thing happens here with the A3XX....maybe, if they get a bad reaction to the 747X (despite what your incredible inside info may say), they'll get up off their arses and come up with a new design. They will be that much more behind, but at least still in the ballgame.

And, so far, all the figures anyone here is spouting off is what the manufacturers have on paper.

Guest · Mon Oct 02, 2000 12:17 pm

Cwapilot, are you completely ignorant?

You didn't get my point. My point was that why United turned to the A32X instead of 737NG. I should have rehprased what I had said. I meant that United had no other aircraft in the same Airbus class, no A32X's at all, but they did have those 737's that you mentioned. That was my point.

MAC_Veteran · Mon Oct 02, 2000 12:35 pm

USAirways737 wrote:
-------------------------------
About your comment about Boeing Shareholders being really nervous, If you had been paying any attention to Boeings stock you would see that the stock has gone from $35 to 64 in a few months, man those shareholders are really nervous about buying Boeing stock arent they?

And the Stock Market can crash tomorrow also! It's as risky as building a house on top of the San Andreas faultline. Alan Greenspan lets loose a some candid views on the markets and we have seen how Wall Street reacts.

I dont place ANY faith in this current market, already September has been defined as "one to forget" on Wall Street and it doesnt look like the trend is changing anytime soon.

If you think that the current share prices are going to stay where they are, think again. If fuel prices continue climbing and that word called inflation starts to bite, take root and grow, then that card house starts to collapse.

I dont place any credence on the stock market for it's about as chancey and stupid as mortgaging your house to pay for $120000 worth of Powerball tickets hoping for a $64 million dollar payoff. Boeing's share value came back in a few months and can vaporize just as fast if not quicker. It can happen to any company. BTW, Ask anyone at Intel how they are feeling these days? (G)

Just my views on that.

MAC

sammyk · Mon Oct 02, 2000 12:46 pm

I asked you about your relative at Boeing months ago, and you told me you would get back to me about them. You never did. Your reason back then was the same as your reason now, that you don't talk to them much. How often DO you talk to her, I mean its been months since I asked, now how long must we wait since Widebody asked?

Also, I'd take the $1000 in cash, no matter what the denomination, cash is king, and you have to wait for a check to cash, and take the risk of it being bad.

Sammy

Guest · Mon Oct 02, 2000 12:55 pm

Just finished talking to her, she hasn't changed jobs yet. She is a Manufacturing Manager in a department at the Boeing center. Her name is Linda.

SammyK, sorry, I forgot about that. I haven't talked to her for about a month since now.

Fly-by-pilot · Mon Oct 02, 2000 1:07 pm

Your all morons. Why dont you all just shut up, it doesent matter what any of you think. Why cant you idiots stick to aviation. You all think you philosophists but your not. I am starting to hate this damn forum. You people make me sick.

MAC_Veteran · Mon Oct 02, 2000 1:25 pm

Pandora wrote:
-------------------------------
The fact is, you can't face that 747X will beat the A3XX very soon. As i have mentioend b4, several key airlines are lookiung seriously into the 747X instead of the A3XX.
-------------------------------

Who?
I'd like to know.

I've seen in the online reporting and some print magazines that Virgin has considered a few 747X's -AND- A3XX's (which means they are playing the field for pricing, and given 49% shareholder SIA's choice, guess what looks more likely? (G). Similarly I saw the BA 747X comments which I read between the lines as "We are still very much shopping around, waiting to see what others do") Lufthansa has gone from rejection of the A3XX by one of their senior managers a few months ago to now a much more receptive manner to it, not a peep about the 747X though. Now UAL and LH are in some sort of protracted talks with Airbus on the A3XX (I think the proposed USAirways merger is playing big in any sort of decision right now). Air France's CEO rejected the A3XX -not very long ago- and now look and see who is going to buy them...it goes on and on. I believe Cathay Pacific is going to go A3XX, probably targeting London, Vancouver and the US with them. I think Qantas will go A3XX also. Thai very likely could via lease from GECAS and/or ILFC (remember their orders?)

I think about the only market that could really go for the 747X right now would be JAL and ANA. They have been a heavily 'Boeing operation' for the most part (although Airbus has made inroads at ANA with narrowbodies). If Airbus can convince either one of them to get on the A3XX, then I believe it's serious trouble for Boeing.

I see a gradual groundswell build in favor of the A3XX, especially airlines that compete with SIA on routes that are their "bread and butter". particularly to/from Asia to London/Paris/Frankfurt, Australia and the USA. The problem is some people here hate Airbus so vehemently (which means - a ton-load - in 'simpletonspeak') that the 'seeing blood anger' they have in their eyes over SIA's purchase and rejection of the 747X (and it -was- a rejection) has set off such a tremedous backlash of denial hiding their disappointment. It's ok to be disappointed. You win some and lose some, but with this football game just started, if it's the beginning of the first quarter, the score is now 32-0.

MAC

Guest · Tue Oct 03, 2000 1:33 am

Widebody wrote:
AirCanadaSFO,

I hope I never have to come up against someone like you in the aviation industry, you have the knowledge and sincerity of a goldfish......
--------------------
Well, what a nice comment. You had nothing to say on this thread until a bunch of people got angry at me, then you thought you'd join the fray? You may not have much respect for me, but I have even less for you. Try posting your own opinion instead of jumping in a dogpile, which is what this topic has become.

PhilB-
Congratulations on your successes. Really. You sound like you'd have more than a few interesting stories. But I respectfull disagree with you on the subsidies issue, and I do think you and other members' definition of subsidies is somewhat twisted.

I apologize if you were insulted by the fact that a college student and lowly Customer Service Rep would dare contradict an industry veteran. I will not apologize for making comments that you believe were factually inaccurate. The KC-135 was borne out of the same design that produced the 707. Boeing did not design a tanker and then convert it to an airliner. Boeing designed an aircraft that would be useful as both a tanker and a commercial aircraft.

You missed my point entirely on subsidies. Read below.

Sabenapilot wrote:
AirCanadaSFO-
Have you actually noticed the huge contradiction in your own latest opinion?
I quote:
Free money is when somebody gives somebody else money for nothing in exchange. In this case, the consortium of European governments that fund Airbus said "here's some money."

Somewhat further down the text you've written:

The A3XX, should it not be a huge success -and we still don't know that it will be successful- will be the downfall of Airbus Industrie.
My question:
If the governments are not expecting anything at all for their money as you claim, then how can even a total faillure of the A3XX program lead to the downfall of Airbus?
---------------------
No contradiction, Sabenapilot, you just took my words out of context. Let me put them back in their context.

When I was talking about government giving Airbus money and expecting nothing in return, I meant to draw the distinction between Airbus receiving free money from European governments, and Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group receiving no money from the U.S. government. When the european governments give Airbus money, they don't expect any product or service in return. That is a subsidy. When the U.S. government gives Boeing money, it's in the form of a defense contract, and the government is purchasing some military product from Boeing. That is a purchase.

I didn't really understand your question at the end of your post, but I interpreted it as "if Airbus is getting so much government money, how could the failure of the A3XX lead to the downfall of Airbus?"

Because the amount of money Airbus would lose would be more than it gets from the governments, so much so that the company would probably go bankrupt.

As for the rest of your post, do me a favor. Keep the "imperialistic America" sentiments out of my face. You are entitled to your own opinion, and you are entitled to share it, but not by making wildly inaccurate critical assumptions about the way Americans who don't like Airbus receiving government subsidies think. I'm not saying socialistic governments or the European voters are wrong. You put words in my mouth once again. I'm saying that government subsidies for one company are unfair since the other company does not receive subsidies. If Airbus didn't get the government money, we wouldn't even be talking about an A3XX.

EVERYBODY:

This thread has become such a piece of crap. I wanted to share this thought:

AirCanadaSFO wrote:
The A3XX, should it not be a huge success--and we still don't know that it will be successful--will be the downfall of Airbus Industrie. The Boeing Company has the enviable position of being able to start an all new within the next year or two, should it become apparent that the market is there for NLAs, and Boeing has the option of sitting back and watching Airbus go under should the A3XX be a failure.

That's what I'm talking about when I say Boeing has the trump card.
------------------------
.... and so many people have come back with horse shit Airbus vs. Boeing arguments and turned this topic into yet another slugfest.

I know, I know, half of you are going to come back and say that I am an unabashed Boeing fan, totally biased against Airbus and that I probably kneel by my bed and pray every night that the Airbus factory in Toulouse will explode.

So... I would like to respond preemptively.

Nowhere here (or anywhere else, for that matter) have I said that I hate Airbus. I may not like the fact that they get government subsidies, but there's not much else I can do about it except rant and rave in this forum. They design fine aircraft, and as I've said about ten zillion times before, the A320 line is clearly superior to the 737NG line. The A3XX would clearly be superior to the 747X. I also happen to think that the 767/777 are clearly superior to the A330/340. Does that mean the A330/340 are worthless? Hell no. I work for a company that has chosen the 340 over the 777, much to the frustration of its pilots. I've flown on the 340. It's a nice ride. But I've flown on the 777 and it's an unbelieveable ride.

I think we can sum up this whole topic with the words of MAC_veteran:

The problem is some people here hate Airbus so vehemently (which means - a ton-load - in 'simpletonspeak') that the 'seeing blood anger' they have in their eyes over SIA's purchase and rejection of the 747X.......
--------------------------

He makes a fairly valid point about people hating Airbus, but apparently he hates Boeing so much that he couldn't resist adding this:

(and it -was- a rejection) has set off such a tremedous backlash of denial hiding their disappointment. It's ok to be disappointed. You win some and lose some, but with this football game just started, if it's the beginning of the first quarter, the score is now 32-0.

MAC
------------------------

Well, MAC, you seem to be happy Airbus is in the lead, but you made sure to get your shots in on Boeing.

And that's what so many other people here have been doing. Express a mature, well supported opinion, then get the shots in on the sonzabitches that like the opposing manufacturer.

I give up....

Pat

MAC_Veteran · Tue Oct 03, 2000 3:01 am

Yeah I am glad that Airbus is in the lead (so far) and they are actively deflating the somewhat self serving argument of "no need" for an A3XX which was pure fiction anyway.

For any clarification on subsidies and see how it DOES exist on the US side with the various schemes and methods the US side employs to somewhat make it look "prettier", "innocent", or worse (as visited by some of the ignorant out there), "nonexistent". CATO has documented $110 billion of US subsidy in at least one case, with average right now between $65 and $75 billion. Again, it's the truth, but some refuse to see it. Yes, Boeing has been the recipient of it in various forms that convert military technology into civilian "commercial" programs, but some still refuse to see it, not willing to accept it until they see some specific program named and which one it benefits in a scatological attempt to again, deny. So if you'd like to be much better informed and not assume, please go over to www.cato.org and look up the litany of examples posted there.

I implore you to -Take on- senior fellows and professors who have taken the time to document this very real condition of subsidy to US industry. If you have the proof and evidence to refute CATO, I'd like to see that here. Line item by line item. I've challenged others here who similarly refuse to see this and again, as expected, no reply.

I would love to go over it again, but some here cant handle a typed version of -anything- more than what can fit on a post card or the total text that appears on a traffic Stop Sign.

It's great living in the 'McWorld' of today. Posessing or Yearning for a level of intelligence is passe', boring and especially 'not hip'. Orwell or Bradbury couldnt do better.

MAC

sabenapilot · Tue Oct 03, 2000 3:09 am

AirCanadaSFO,

Let me help you out of a dream:
At this moment Airbus Industrie still is a GIE, which means that under French law, they do not have to keep any accounts or year figures!
Simply speaking, they can not go bankrupt since there is technically speaking no legal posibility for that!
This economical mechanism may look strange to you, but you can compare it to an army; they too normally have no positive result at the end of the year athough there is no official result published, but they keep on going anyway, don't they?

Also, you say:
government subsidies for one company are unfair since the other company does not receive subsidies.
True, but do we therefore have to stop subsidising Airbus? Why doesn't Washington go ahead and help Boeing? You'll say they don't want to do that. I can understand that, but then they have to bear the consequences of their political decision; they shoudn't be attacking Airbus on the support it gets.
Remember, America could resolve this 'inequality' very easily if it wants to...

MAC_Veteran · Tue Oct 03, 2000 3:19 am

Here's a very interesting story just posted on Reuters. Thought I'd post it here.
Take a look at the response to EADS in this story. Now, that doesnt at all change my view that anything is possible in the market and tomorrow it can of course 'go south'. -Nonetheless-, it's interesting to see what is being said in this news item.

MAC

------------------------------------------------
Monday October 2, 11:26 am Eastern Time

Superjumbo order spurs EADS shares to new peak

(UPDATE: updates share price, adds background)

PARIS, Oct 2 (Reuters) - Shares in European aerospace group EADS cruised up to a new peak on Monday, boosted by a high-profile Airbus superjumbo order from Singapore Airlines and a series of favourable brokerage reports.

At 1515 GMT the shares were 0.76 percent higher at 20 euros, just below a fresh high of 20.20 euros hit in morning trade. Since slumping in their market debut on July 10, EADS shares have traded in a range between 16 and 19 euros for much of the past few months.

The shares are still below the near-24 euro peak reached in June by Aerospatiale Matra, one of three companies that was folded into EADS.

Aerospatiale shareholders received one EADS share for each share held, so its shares are viewed as a proxy for the historical share price of EADS.

Monday was the second consecutive day of gains for the stock following a decision by Singapore Airlines on Friday to buy 10 Airbus A3XX aircraft over a
competing stretch version of Boeing's (NYSE:BA - news) 747 jumbo.

``There were two main reasons why the shares had not been doing much over the past few months -- worries about the impact of the A3XX on profitability and
concerns over the EADS hedging strategy,'' said Credit Lyonnais analyst Philippe Gossard.

``After the Singapore order, the first issue is scaring people a little less. I expect the second issue to be cleared up with the first-half results.''

The European Aeronautic, Defence and Space Co (EADS), which has an 80 percent stake in Airbus, is scheduled to release its half-year results on October 20.

Other analysts have also been warming to the shares in recent weeks, given the strength of the civil aerospace market and the positive impact that the weak euro is expected to have on EADS profits.

Lehman Brothers started coverage on Monday with an ``outperform'' rating and an initial price target of 28 euros for the stock, saying it believed EADS profits
would significantly beat expectations due to an increase in Airbus production and benefits from a favourable exchange rate.

The bank also cut its rating on Boeing (NYSE:BA - news) to ``neutral'', saying the Singapore order raised new concerns about the competitiveness of the Boeing stretch jumbo.

Guest · Tue Oct 03, 2000 3:38 am

MAC_Veteran:

For every quote from the Cato Institute you put up here, I can find another one to support my viewpoint. I did do a search of their webpage for "Boeing" and I saw lots of articles entitled "The Scanadal of Corporate Welfare," and "Corporate America on the Dole." I saw lots of articles that said Boeing gets money. I did not see any sources quoted that prove this, nor did I see the statement that the Boeing Commerical Aircraft Group gets money from the government, nor did I see the statement that money received by Boeing from the government is funneled toward development of commercial aircraft. Perhaps you've once again confused Boeing Defense and Space with Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group.

This is quoted directly from your profile info:

"Yes indeed, I am a *DEVOUT* Airbus Industrie Fan....."

No shit!

So much for a reasonable discussion. MAC_Veteran, you have such a liberalized view of history, global commerce, and probably everything else, that I'm not even going to argue with you. It's futile. You are so starry-eyed for Airbus that it's impossible to have a rational conversation with you.

By the way, there is no such thing as an unimpeachable source.

Pat

MAC_Veteran · Tue Oct 03, 2000 4:06 am

I see, so according to your denial of what CATO offers, (you have more sources? where are they? I'd like to see them, dont BS me, show me your sources) you continue to deny their findings and therefore declare them as pure bunkum.

Incredible!

You then use emotive oratory further on, and then "give up"

Indeed, you do admit that you are looking for a way out in this litany of denial by trying to say it's the "Defense side of Boeing, not the Commercial side." Hogwash!

I cant believe you are so willing to cut a company like Boeing a break when the fact is, they receive Corporate Welfare, donate to politicians and receive millions of dollars in grants in return (documented again on CATO) and then turn around and LAY OFF their workers..and somehow, this hapless company is a "victim".

Again, Incredible!

Hello? But can you go take another read of something called the Technology Reinvestment Project? Can you define that for me? Can you put it together in terms that you can understand? Can you look under the various other schemes in the Defense and Commerce Department as well? You probably wont.

Again, you are so stuck in this ludicrous -fairytale- that Beoing doesnt receive subsidy that you will reject these well researched and (by George -lengthy-) reports, the sources of which are always posted at the bottom, which amongst others uses Congressional Budget Office material to show indeed this goes on!

Again, Incredible!

Indeed I like Airbus and I'm glad they are on the scene to compete. So much for the attempt to assuage some sort of "guilt" over that! Is that all you have. If I didnt post that it wouldnt be honest would it, yet you attempt to make an issue of my honesty and yet at the same time you cant give an honest answer to a researched CATO Institute -series- of reports on Corporate Welfare and how some of the biggest benefactors happen to be the mighty Boeing Commercial Airplane Company. Then resorting to this farcicial attempt to split hairs over a what is defense and what is not, when the knowledge is known that Boeing has indeed -lifted- the technology from military programs and applied them to commercial ones and you argue with me saying they havent and that isnt a form of subsidy!

Let me spell this out for you in simple terms: You cant see the research, R&D into composites the military uses, then transferred to the 757 program or 777 program as an indirect subsidy?

Then it goes into more blatant examples of US government sponsored -sales- of Boeing products via the EXIM Bank and so forth. From start of process to finish the US government has helped Boeing in MANY ways to produce their -commercial- products and to deny such, given the proof that there is out there tells me very much that the Flat Earth Society is still very much alive and well!

Then it gets better, when finally challenged and you dont have anything more meaningful to say, you and people who think like you resort to a "guilt trip" because you really, truly -dont- desire competition and accountabilty. "Only the other side uses subsidy".

Then you go ahead and mock the veracity of CATO and claim there is no "unimpeachable" sources of info without any sort of factual reply, just more vagueries and assumptions "I have proof...somewhere..uhhm...in my cardboard box under the table...uhhm..somewhere" type of twitspeak that frequents this forum!

Ignorance lives doesnt it? Your comments and several other -personify- the level of incredible ignorance that truly exists out there.

This 'Easter Bunny world' that some have wrapped themselves up in is beyond compare. Rational conversation on my part? How about an intelligent and informed one on yours?

MAC

AirCanadaSFO wrote:
-------------------------------
MAC_Veteran:

For every quote from the Cato Institute you put up here, I can find another one to support my viewpoint. I did do a search of their webpage for "Boeing" and I saw lots of articles entitled "The Scanadal of Corporate Welfare," and "Corporate America on the Dole." I saw lots of articles that said Boeing gets money. I did not see any sources quoted that prove this, nor did I see the statement that the Boeing Commerical Aircraft Group gets money from the government, nor did I see the statement that money received by Boeing from the government is funneled toward development of commercial aircraft. Perhaps you've once again confused Boeing Defense and Space with Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group.

This is quoted directly from your profile info:

"Yes indeed, I am a *DEVOUT* Airbus Industrie Fan....."

No shit!

So much for a reasonable discussion. MAC_Veteran, you have such a liberalized view of history, global commerce, and probably everything else, that I'm not even going to argue with you. It's futile. You are so starry-eyed for Airbus that it's impossible to have a rational conversation with you.

By the way, there is no such thing as an unimpeachable source.

Pat

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net