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.
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.
Have you actually noticed the huge contradiction in your own latest opinion?
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.
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.
This thread has become such a piece of crap. I wanted to share this thought:
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.
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....