Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR


Airbus Purchases

Tue May 25, 1999 12:41 pm

Is anyone else out there disappointed with the purchase of Airbuses by major US airlines? It strucks me as odd that US Airways, which in its new corporate identity claims to want to be "the very best America has to offer in aviation" has decided to order hundreds of the very best Europe has to offer. Everytime I see the new A319s and A320s with the American flag on the back of them I cringe. I am also dissapointed in TWA's A330 choice. At least Delta and American have remained supportive of American aviation. I understand that today it is the dollar that counts most, but that doesn't mean I can't complain. If it were my airline, I'd stick to Boeings even if it cost more.
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: Airbus Purchases

Tue May 25, 1999 12:48 pm

I agree. Granted, the Airbus planes to me are nice, but they are no different than any other narrowbody. Ohh...a whole inch extra in my seat!! (AA operates A300's...quite a few, actually). I think that the American carriers should support American businesses...Pratt and Whitney, Boeing, etc. The European carriers sure are doing the same with their Airbusses and RR engines!

Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:40 am

RE: Airbus Purchases

Tue May 25, 1999 2:23 pm

It should be criminal. The U.S. government should offer a tax break to any domestic airline purchasing Boeing equiptment. But the trade laws adopted by the U.S. lawmakers and europe don't allow this. That is the Airbus company is so bogus. Since Airbus is a government owned company just by lowering unit prices they are giving breaks to the government owned airlines. But Boeing can't compete on that level because it operates on different principles. It must meat earning predictions or the stock will plumet. Airbus has no concerns.
Posts: 2639
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: Airbus Purchases

Tue May 25, 1999 3:02 pm

Get real guys!

The USA introduced the concept of 'globalisation" to the world - primarly so American companies could expand and access markets it didn't have any say in before. It would be an extreme double standard to tell other countries that it is only democratic to allow free trade(without penelties) for american firms in their countries if you turn around and tell american companies that they can't buy a foreign product if they like it! Well, its completely against the prinicples of democracy, and, it is just one of the small prices america has to pay for its interest in a lot of foreign markets. You have give a little as well, the world can't be a one way street to the bank account of america.

And if i am not right, tell me, why does the american governments allow this to continue? They're not stupid, they know whats in their own interests, and overall, a few airbuses flying in the US in nothing compared to other industries combined and certainly not worth risking such valuable markets to your country. You can't have it all your way. Be fair. America worldwide has already got the better end of the stick ecconmically.
Besides that, it gives you all the chance to fly on airbus aircraft.
Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:40 am

RE: Airbus Purchases

Tue May 25, 1999 3:11 pm

I just don't believe that airbus makes a better product and if some do it can't be that much better that a domestic airline should go to another country to buy it. Aircraft automobiles and military equiptment are the only industries left in the United States. We need to hold our position as the largest aircraft manufacturer in the world. And Airbus has a huge advantage over Boeing in that market. But then again I just bought an Audi. He He He!! What the hell do I know.
Posts: 4288
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

What A Nonsense!

Tue May 25, 1999 8:07 pm

I can't believe what I hear!

"American airlines shall buy American planes and nothing else! Even if they cost more and are more expensive to operate."
Who can tell such a stuff?
We have a free market today, every carrier can buy what it wants. No aircraft "IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER", the airlines have different needs, so they buy the aircraft which can be used most profttably on their own special network. One carrier sees the B737 in front, the other prefers the A320.
What would you guys say if all European carriers decide to buy Airbus because they are "European"? What sould the Asians and Australians buy? Nothing because they don't want to support "FOREIGN" industries?

My tip is you guys should compete, develop and sell. The best product finds most customers. If you can't accept that "FOREIGN" companies sell their stuff in your US, just close all the borders, throw out all foreign companies, and buy your own stuff only.
Maybe you should then install an air-protection system also which helps to avoid that your air cab be breathed by anybody else outside the US.

You Americans and your politicians fly around the world and tell the people stories about freedom, liberty, democracy, human rights and so on.
But what about the free choice in you own country? Forced to order Boeing or getting attacked for ordering ridiculous.

As long as American companies sell their stuff throughout the world it's ok. Profit is good, money counts, nothing else. But as soon as one US company buys something foreign, the big cry goes around.
People, that is just ridiculous. Maybe you should learn how global markets work.

Reading your opinions against Airbus I can just say: Only frightened dogs bark...

I hope I won't see such topics in the future again. I want to see aviation discussions, no permanent attacks and nationalistic messages.

Best Regards
User avatar
Posts: 5029
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:55 pm

RE: Airbus Purchases

Tue May 25, 1999 8:08 pm

I agree with you Lufthansa.

Once again another post, Airbus v Boeing.

It is up to the airlines to decide which aircraft they think is the most economical, cost effective etc.

If they choose Airbus...ok.
If they choose Boeing....ok.

Posts: 4224
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 3:49 am

RE: It's About Time!

Tue May 25, 1999 8:35 pm

Dear friends.

I really don't believe you american aviation enthusiasts!
Tell me this:

If Boeing have the position it has now they can really thanks a lot to Europeans during many years!
In Europe ( for decades ) all the airliners bought american airplanes with very few exceptions ( the Caravelle, the Viscount, the F-27 ) and now that we can play fare game with Airbus versus Boeing. here we have our american friends showing their flag, saying that they must buy american and all that stuff, that's very unfair what you're saying, very, very! Did you forgot the past? Now has another friend here said, built planes, and compete! If you guys have better planes show them, show results, show improvements!
I personally give ALL the credit to Airbus! They started humbly with A.300, then they improved to A.310, they shaped the A.300 with the 600R version, they were the first to start the concept of "150 passenger" airplane. They were the first to fly with "side-stick", they developed the "one cockpit" concept from A.319/320/321/330/340 and now after that our friends from America say - "No, we must buy Boeings, because they're american!"
Be aware that soon Airbus will be competing with our jewel, the 747, and then we'll see!!!
Take care!
Ice Cream Man
Posts: 121
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 3:45 am

RE: Airbus Purchases

Tue May 25, 1999 9:26 pm

I do agree with BostonLogan 100%.

The guts of some US airlines to buy foreign aircraft. I decree that from now on no US airline is allowed to buy foreign aircraft or foreign engines!

To make it a fair game though...

No European airline is to buy any US aircraft anymore, nor are they allowed to order US manufactured engines.

And also....Would Coco-Cola, Pepsico, McDonalds, KFC, GM and any other US companies kindly leave all foreign countries and retreat to their own blessed country ?

No US movies and television series should be allowed to be shown outside the borders of the USA and American music will be illegal outside US borders.

So, finally we have a fair world where everybody sticks to their own and can lead a nice ignorant life.
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Airbus Purchases

Tue May 25, 1999 9:43 pm

I'll bet the airlines of the world wish they had some of our experts on board so they wouldn't keep buying the wrong aircraft.

Nicely put "Irony" Cream Man :)
Posts: 9168
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: Airbus Purchases

Tue May 25, 1999 9:44 pm

Why are Americans so jingoistic and convinved of their superiority over the rest of us? Boeing have had billion-dollar subsidies for decades, the KC135 resulting in the 707 etc., so to complain that Airbus are subsidised with (returnable) loans is double standards on a grand scale. You Americans want to sell your products (Coke, Levis, McDonalds, lots and lots of arms) around the world but expect your domestic markets to be unsullied by any form of foreign product (especially if it is a superior one, as in the case of Airbus). If you want protectionism and a ghetto mentality, fine - see how well your corporations do just by selling their wares within the 52 states (I hate McDonalds anyway).
Posts: 4224
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 3:49 am

RE: Airbus Purchases

Tue May 25, 1999 11:00 pm

Listen to this too!

I'm sure american airlines are going to look close to the US Air example, if it works I'm sure they will have to think deeply about how to handle their fleets. If you look to the big american airlines what do you have? A big mix of aircrafts with lots of cockpit configurations, lets take a nice example: UNITED or AMERICAN - they have:


B. 737-300/500


B. 767-200/300
B. 777-200
B. 757-200
B. 727-200
B. 737-800

How the hell you can certify a pilot from a MD83 to a 757? Well it will cost a lot to an airline, they have to give time for the pilot to study the manuals, make some trining flights in the new airplane ( some extra money for the training crew ), some simulated flights ( extra money for simulators ) etc. etc. With the Airbus, you start with the 319 and here it goes, its like when you get the drivers licence, you start with a small car and within a few hours you can drive a truck, it's just the lenght and the wing area is diferent from the 319 to the 340, not a big deal. The times are diferent now!

RE: Airbus Purchases

Tue May 25, 1999 11:49 pm

First of all, to all of the non-Americans, not all of us are that narrow-minded.

Second, let's take my employer, UAL, as an example. UAL operates A319s and A320s. When I first came to UAL, I was certified for an A319. I loved it. Then I moved to a 737-500, which I also enjoyed. But, moving from an A319 to a 737 took quite a bit of work on my part. Then I moved up from the 737-500 to an A320. My training for the A320 was minimal. It was, for the most part, like flying an A319. Since then I've moved up to larger jetliners, which require more and more training.

The point is that from A319 to A330, the aircraft are so similar that training for flight crews and maintenance personnel is drastically reduced. Boeing is trying to copy this with the 737 family, from -500 to -900. But Airbus got there first. Why DON'T they deserve the business of U.S. carriers?
Posts: 4224
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 3:49 am

RE: Airbus Purchases

Wed May 26, 1999 12:06 am

Its good to hear someone that really flies planes!
I absolutely agree with United946, and more I'm sure if he had in United a 330 instead of a 757 or a 767 in 2 or 3 days he was ready to fly it!
Please I want our american friends to understand this, Boeing is a money maker, I'm sure they're not sleeping and soon they'll do the same, they must do that!!! And also its good for us that travel and fly planes to have Beoing and Airbus around, although I miss McDonnell and Lockheed, with those 4 building I'm sure that something would be diferent. I'm confident that like in late fifties when Lockheed stopped with the L.188 Electra and had a gap of 10 years with another airliner, Lockheed will come soon with another airliner!
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Airbus Purchases

Wed May 26, 1999 12:48 am

Precisely, CV990. The last thing this world needs is one dominant manufacturer. Competition keeps manufacturers on their toes and prevents them from producing substandard machines to a captive market for easy money. The same goes for cars, computers, hamburgers, etc.

PS I quite like a burger from MacDonalds from time to time... and from Burger King as well.
Posts: 864
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 1:32 am

RE: Airbus Purchases

Wed May 26, 1999 1:23 am

Go Boeing, and never accept the idea of a "side-stick".

With Regards,

David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Airbus Purchases

Wed May 26, 1999 1:51 am

And some people will never accept the idea of the video-recorder or "motor car" either. As long as they're happy.

Go apples and never accept the idea of an "orange".
Posts: 1006
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:56 am

'Foreign' Equipment

Wed May 26, 1999 2:12 am

This thread began with an admonition that US carriers are shirking responsibility by sinking so low as to purchase, for example, RR engines. Let me quote a Delta purchasing rep when I asked him what influenced DL's choice of RR engines for its 777s:

"It was a NO BRAINER"

He went on to explain the excellent track record of the Trent engine. Quite frankly, if I were an airline exec, I would welcome as many 'no brainers' as I could get my hands on. (This is not to say P&W and GE are unworthy)

The time was when McDonnell-Douglas and Boeing kept each other in line, and as fine as many Boeing products are, they have a history of lapsing into shoddy workmanship when under pressure and for some time have probably needed a kick in the ass as far as general production methods are concerned. At the very least, Airbus is providing an incentive and an alternative, and at best offers a more comfortable narrowbody twin (A320 vs. 737). Without them, who knows, there may be two flashlights left in every 777 flap instead of just one. As for McDonnell-Douglas, if they had built the DC-10 as a twin (as considered early on) instead of copying the L-1011, both manufacturers may have remained a viable force in commercial aviation. Instead, the Airbus moved into that niche.

The issue of government subsidies is a thorny one. While it appears that Airbus is getting more direct government support than typical American free enterprise is comfortable with, let us not forget the typically large American military budgets which afforded Boeing and other US manufacturers to cut their eyeteeth on new technology. I am not anti-military, but let us not forget that these funds are provided by taxpayers just like the European subsidies supplied by your average Hans and Jean-Pierre.

I am sure that one can counter this with some off-color stories regarding Airbus. In fact, I have heard some allegations that it is subtly suggested to Asian carriers that their access to European cities will be made easier by choosing the 'right' aircraft.

As an airline enthusiast, I am somewhat grateful that we have this Boeing vs. Airbus 'show' and plan to relax and enjoy it. The worst thing that could happen is one or the other gaining a monopoly.

Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:40 am

RE: Airbus Purchases

Wed May 26, 1999 3:02 am

Why is it so upsetting that Americans want to to see American companies buying American Products. If Airbus competed in a fair market the way Boeing does then I wouldn't care who's airplanes they bought.

I can't believe you foreigners don't realize what goes into negotiating the price of an airliner but you come to the forum to bitch about us. If you really believe the bettere product wins out. You need to be enlightened. It always comes down to who's unit price come out lowest. That's where the unfairness comes into play. Airbus does not have to turn a profit. Boeing does.

And whoever said the KC-135 turned into the boeing 707 needs to be turned around. The 707 turned into the 135.

Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:40 am


Wed May 26, 1999 3:10 am

Ask that same rep who told you that the RR was a no brainer to explain to you why the most popular engine on the 757 the RR was dropped for the Pratt&Whitney.
Posts: 4224
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 3:49 am

RE: To Jetpilot

Wed May 26, 1999 4:55 am

Hi JETPILOT! I hope you're having fun with this discussion ( it looks you're not in the mood though! ). I'm going to answer you about what you said. First of all it's extremely unpolite from you saying "you foreigners" looks like we all come from the 3rd. world, and we not. Second it was american enthusiasts that came with this saying that why should american airlines buy european stuff, like he was extremely shocked with that and when we all know that during the last 30 years lots and lots and lots of american planes were bought by europeans too, so are we talking fair or not? You haven't seen any of "the foreigners" saying that europeans should buy any american airplanes have you? Its like you set a fire I put some wood, latter it turns in a huge fire and you charge me because I shouldn't put wood in the fire!!!
Also please don't talk about prices and all that stuff because you know has well has I know that Boeing guys are not always the angels and the Airbus guys the devils, I remember a few years ago Kuwait Airways negociated first with Airbus for A.310 and after the Boeings guys appeared they bought 767 and they received the A.310 ( that stayed parked for a while! ) back! Do you recall that? No? Pitty! Lets talk serious Boeing needed a strong competitor, here it is, its Airbus no matter is european or chinese or nepalese or mongolian, its a strong competitor and he's playing with same rules that Boeing is!
Take care!
Posts: 1006
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:56 am

757 Engines And DL

Wed May 26, 1999 5:46 am

Delta selected the P&W engine in the early 1980s, prior to the track record set by the derivative RB.211 which powers the 757, and the similar one that by all accounts is accompanying the Trent introduction on the 777.

It was in fact the good performance of the derated RB211 for the 757 that put RR back on the map in terms of being a major supplier of powerplants. Naturally, this had yet to be history when DL ordered. At the time, DL was a different company and to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if mild xenophobia worked its way into the good ol' boys from Monroe. (Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if they were trying to keep Roman Catholics off the school board -- just kidding).

When the P&W 2037 was placed into service on the 757, there was a period of significantly higher-than-spec fuel consumption and a look at the 757 order book in the mid-1980s looks like a romp for RR. Over time, the P&W 20** series has proven reliable and I suppose the fuel consumption issue has been brought under control. UA went for Pratts and so did TW (but commonality with the 767 fleet may have been an issue here).

FYI, I have ridden a GE90 powered 777 and it was fine -- very smooth and robust -- and realize that GE was attempting to break into a completely new engine, which I respect. On a final note, however, one of the advantages of the GE90 was supposedly growth potential, but when a market for a 102,000 lb. thrust engine for the 777 materialized, GE declined to bite. Guess who's going ahead with one? RR.

RE: To Jetpilot

Wed May 26, 1999 5:52 am

I agree, and besides, Jetpilot, you are the one who really is a foreigner here.

BostonLogan, JETPILOT, Etc.

Wed May 26, 1999 6:06 am

I have a couple things to say to each of you, as well as any other one of us "Yanks" that inhibit this forum (or is that inhabit, oh well :)

#1: (to JETPILOT) We are the ones who are foreigners in this forum. In case you didn't know this server is located in Lulea, Sweden (that's not in the USA) and I have a problem with any of us Americans who go around here acting like we own the place. We don't. Our hobby is global. Live with it.

#2: (to BostonLogan) So there's another airline company that makes good planes. Problem? Not for me. I am pleased with United States airlines decisions to buy Airbus aircraft. They are very dependable. And I happen to be a bona-fide American (born in Californ-i-a)

#3: (to JETPILOT) Airbus doesn't sell Airbus planes with only Rolls-Royce engines. In fact, most of the engines they offer are American-made. For example, Finnair's order of 12 A320 family aircraft (5 A319's, 3 A320's, 4 A321's) will all use General Electric engines. As a matter of fact, every single plane Finnair owns doesn't have a Rolls Royce engine(s). And all of their aircraft are not Boeing (except for 5) Finnair bought Boeing 757-200's, yes, but those are used mainly on charter flights. It's really the only Boeing plane that is beautiful (in my sense, don't beat me up like the school bully)

There. I'm done. Now i'm satisfied.

Petaluma, Californ-i-a

RE: Airbus Purchases

Wed May 26, 1999 9:02 am

I can't believe that there is even a complaint from my fellow Americans on this issue. Ice Cream Man made a good point. A globalized, borderless economy is exactly what we Americans, pioneers of democracy and capitalism, have envisioned for all of our 223 years of existence. And now that it's here, people are complaining that WE aren't being loyal enough to our own brands. Ridiculous.

Let's be fair. The Airbus A319 is superior to the 737-500. The A320 is superior to the 737-700. I know. I fly airplanes for a living. In my experience, passengers find the A319 and A320 to be more comfortable and quieter than the 737. Second, as a pilot, I enjoyed flying the A319 and A320 more than I ever enjoyed the 737-500 or the 757.

Why is everybody so mad at U.S. carriers for choosing the better product? I drive a BMW not because it is German, but because it is the best! So sue me!
Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:40 am

You Foreigners

Wed May 26, 1999 9:02 am

If somebody hadn't grouped every single man woman and child as "Americans" then I wouldn't have grouped everyone else as foreigners. That is the context within which I was speaking. If your not American, German or whatever nationality you are speaking about at the moment then we can therefore refer to ther other group as foreigners. I did not mean non Americans I meant it to mean people excluded from the topic group. Not people from other countries. However they just happened to be.

I am definetly in the mood for this discussion CV990. However part of my personality is I lack all social graces and as a hole I am not very nurturing. I have even been told I'm "rough around the edges". Imagine that. But I say whatever is on my mind. If you were wearing an ugly tie I'm the type of person that would tell you. In a polite way however. But you would definetly know about it.

And Rolls Royce engines are awesome. How come nobody is mad at BA who only buys RR engines?
Posts: 3744
Joined: Tue May 25, 1999 7:40 am

RE: BostonLogan, JETPILOT, Etc.

Wed May 26, 1999 9:58 am

I agree... I am not an American, I am not a European. I am a Canadian, I agree,
with Kai. Looking at this as a neutral party, my country building only the Dash 8's,
A CANADIAN COMPANY. I can not believe what I am hearing from you
people. Fist of all, Boeing doesn't build everything for their planes in the US,
therefore the planes are not truly american, neither are most of your engines. Boeing
builds wings for some of your planes in TORONTO, and PW builds engines and
parts also up here. If it wasn't for other countries supporting your aviation industry
you wouldn't have one. I would like to see boeing as well as all of your airlines
survive without and international market. In true American fashion you people don't
think before you talk.

Quite A Squabble I've Caused!

Wed May 26, 1999 10:21 am

Well hello there. I'm glad that people at least find this interesting. I did not realize that this server was located in Europe, and it is obvious that the majority of the posters are Europeans. That being the case, you see my opinion as obscure. In fact, I would venture to say that in the American aviation industry it is the majority. I work in that industry for Logan Airport in Boston, and I can tell you that the majority of employees of US Airways and Logan employees feel that it would be nice if American companies supported other American companies. This to me rather natural. After all, many in America have friends or relatives that work for Boeing. I am not saying the US should ban American airlines (general, not the specific airline) from buying foreign aircraft. I was merely expressing my personal opinion on this matter. I understand about free market and free trade and all of that. What bothers me is that Boeing and Airbus are not playing on the same playing field. Airbus does not have to (and in fact does not even come close to) making a is government subsidized. Boeing does, our government stays out of this. How can Boeing compete with this if Airbus can always swoop in with a better deal? In reality, I feel that Boeing aircraft are superior, and the statistics are proving me right (especially in regards to the A330 vs the B-777, in which the A330's dispatch statistics are proving to be quick low, especially compared to the 777's near flawless performance thus far). However, I am not saying that Airbus planes are not good planes---before some of you jump on me---although many pilots I know at the airport don't like the idea of controlling a plane with a joystick! I don't even object to an airline like United placing some isolated orders with Airbus. I mainly object to the scope of US Airway's multi-hundred plane order, which costs the US thousands of jobs. My view is the view held by many in this country, including our politicians.
I understand that some of you disagree with me. I understand this and I respect your opinion. There is no reason to be nasty with me. I am enclosing an email a received from a 'head system' member. I found this email to be rude and disrespectful. I think there is no need for some people to get so upset over this, and I ask that we can ask a respectful, intelligent discussion. Thank you.
This email is in regard to your posting on forum about . I am
part of the head system and was very shocked with your message to say the
least. It basically shows IGNORANCE to say the least. Please read the other
postings which demonstrate more intellectual thoughts than this ridiculous
and pathetic message you have posted. I would ask you as a head member to
not post ridiculous and irrelevant messages on the forum anymore else the
rules will be enforced. THIS FORUM IS ABOUT AVIATION ONLY! Well, you can't
ever be more nationalist than Hitler himself, so by history we may learn.

Elleon Cheetham

Posts: 2639
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: Quite A Squabble I've Caused!

Wed May 26, 1999 11:06 am

WEll, i would have to agree with that head member. I am Australian, but i have lived in Europe and have the europian blood in me. Regardless, the whole concept of a global market is that there is no barriers. And i still stand by my original comments about that attitude being an extreme double standard. Everybody wants to have their cake and eat it, but you can't, you have to chose one or the other. Politicians, well, they only dribble what ever people want to hear, so naturally, they too are going to complain when they can't have their cake and eat it too.

And as for pilots and side-stick controllers, well, i think its just a matter of what you are used to. I spoke to the pilots i know that are A320 type rated used to fly 727s and F28s. A long time ago, i asked that very question. My initial reaction was 'wouldn't it be strange flying with sidestick controllers", and they told me that everybody thinks that at first. After about a day in the sim, its second nature.

Also, i would like to take this opertunity to tell united946 and Johans that you are amoungst the most open minded americans i have herd from in a long time. You guys have the right attitude and its people like you who unfortunatly have to bear the 'sterotypes' from other americans being outright arrogant to the rest of the world. You two, and others like you, will go far with an open mind. Keep up the good work, try and teach the others to have an open mind and best of luck with what ever you chose to do in life.

And as for USAirways, well, i haven't heard the best things about this airline in the past. I am sure, though, if passengers who are loyal enough to stick with USAirways, experience the new 'changes' they will be impressed. I think it was very brave of USairways to take such a step, and, i commend them for it. I will also extend this to UAL and TWA for their recent dessions. And, i bet, once they realise the benifits of this system, they'll stick to it for a while. Its going to be a long time before boeing can offer the same, as it basically needs a complete new product range(with the exception of the 777) to offer all of the benifits airbus offers. Just how long will that take? A long time. If you want to have anger at someone, resulting basically from nationalistic ideals(i am talking about SOME americans here) be angry at boeing for not providing they same sorts of technology that airbus have on offer. If there is a loss of jobs in the USA, why is that, well, its because boeing didn't sell enough. Who's fault is that, well, it's boeings. It design its product, nobody else. The attitude that you should just 'put up' with what is produced in your own country if you feel its not as good, is exactly what lead to designs like the Tu-134, or the Tu-154, which happily burns away about double what a 727 does, which is in turn almost double what an A320 burns. Think about it!

RE: Quite A Squabble I've Caused!

Wed May 26, 1999 12:09 pm

No one is suggesting that an airline should HAVE to buy a plane from it's home country. My original intent with this post was merely to point out the irony of US Airways saying that if offers the very best in American aviation and then going out and ordering was US Airways who went to a nationalist theme for its corporate identity. Furthermore, to suggest that the Boeing 737 Next Generation series is akin to Tupolev's is pure blasphemy. US Airways ordered the A320 series SOLELY for economic reasons. The company has not even tried to hide this fact. According to one of their employees who I had a long chat with the other day, they were set to have a deal with Boeing when Airbus swooped in as they normally do with a similar product and a sweeter deal. Just because I want to look out for my countrie's economic interest does not mean I am obnoxious. I shouldn't have to remind you that there would be no Airbus without the US...or a Lufthansa because France would have been destroyed and Europe would have been controlled by the Nazis. Have a little respect for the red, white and blue....

RE: Airbus Purchases

Wed May 26, 1999 12:35 pm


I understand your viewpoint, but what's wrong with an airline doing what's best for the bottom line? It keeps ticket prices down, which is what the consumers want!

I already talked about the difference in training for flight and mainenance crews. The Airbus A320 and its derivatives are clearly superior.

This is not to say that Boeing aircraft are inferior. The 777-223IGW I fly is the finest aircraft I have ever operated. The reason is that Boeing put focus groups of pilots, flight attendants, and passengers together and used their input to create a superb aircraft.

I hope the 777 is a sign of the quality of future Boeing aircraft. If this is so, then we won't have to worry about U.S. carriers operating non-Boeing equipment.

Burlingame, California
Posts: 2639
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: Quite A Squabble I've Caused!

Wed May 26, 1999 2:47 pm

BostonLogon wrote:

. Have a little respect for the red, white and blue....

You know how i interpret this? I will tell you, as many people from nations other than the US will interpret it the same. The way i interpret this is: I am American, bow down to me now!!!! Well, tough, If hitler controlled Europe i would be fine anyway, i have blonde hair and blue eyes! Not a problem for me. But its all rediculous, WWII was a long time ago, and not faught by me, or my parents. Let the past die, or we'll all end up like northern ireland, who has been fighting for so long, sometimes i wonder if they even know why they are still fighting. Which, is stupid. If you want to use stupid arguements like world war 2, well, lets go back even further and say we should all bow down to britian, as there would be no America without the UK.

Get the point?
Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:40 am

Seargent Slawko

Wed May 26, 1999 3:07 pm

First of all boeing has been building planes before there was a global economy and they did just fine. And If there was no world economy and every country bought there own countries aircraft we would probably be doing about the same as wew are now.

And those planes you speak of are TRULY American. If Boeing chose we could uild every last screw and rivet right here in the red white and blue. So don't act like your doing us a favor. I's actually the other way around. Countries don't support our aviation industry by building parts for us. We support their aviation industry by creating jobs. You couldn't have things more backwards.

And for the record I don't consider myself American or anything else for that matter. I'm an individual and not to be categorized as something because I live in a geographical location somewhere on the face of the earth. I don't need to be related to something to have an identity. Do you have any more stereo types you'd like to discuss with the group. I think your touke is a little too tight. Gooday Aye.
Posts: 4224
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 3:49 am

RE: Specially For You Jetpilot

Wed May 26, 1999 5:07 pm

Hi JETPILOT. Its good to see your true personality! But dont forget, if your boss is very narcisist and he loves the ugly tie you hate I'm sure you think twice before you say that to him, even in a polite way!!!!
Regarding Boeing and what you said, this really looks like very american, the others dont support America, America supports the other countries, its always the same I understand why this big fuzz because Airbus. Boeing had the monopoly, now a strong competitor is comming and sudenly the red alarm rings -
"Hey guys how come these guys are buying Airbus? No way, we must buy Boeing to help our economy, the help our nation etc. etc. " Dont you think its about time to be real?
And by the way BA do have other engines besides RR. They have CFM on the B. 737-400!
Posts: 4224
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 3:49 am

RE: Quite A Squabble I've Caused!

Wed May 26, 1999 7:48 pm

Dear BostonLogan ( by the way you work in a great airport, its beautifull and with the sea around it looks like you're in Caribe! I landed last year in a BA 747. ).
Here are the words from someone that really knows about aviation business:

"The airline's decision to buy an all-Airbus fleet had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with economics and common crew management."

This was said by Mr. Jeffrey Katz - Swissair American president. has we all know Swissair was a strong american plane buyer, look to their fleet since the beggining: DC-2, DC-3, DC-4, DC-6, DC-7C, DC-8-32/51/62, CV240, CV440, CV880, CV990, DC-9-15/30/50/80, DC-10, MD11, B. 747-200/300. How many european airplanes? Caravelle, A.310 and that's all!!! So when you see an airline like Swissair to say this its very, very heavy and deep.
Have a great day!
Posts: 2702
Joined: Mon May 17, 1999 5:11 am

RE: Quite A Squabble I've Caused!

Wed May 26, 1999 8:01 pm

Hello all,

In regard to BostonLogan's post;
I Just wanted to make it very clear to you all that the person calling himself part of the "head system" is by no way affiliated with We never interfere with a discussion and we certainly do not send out unsolicited e-mails to people.

We do however try to delete posts that do not comply with the rules. Similar "Airbus vs Boeing" topics have been discussed before and seem to bring out the worst in people. I kindly ask that you all pay high attention to the third rule.

Finally I just wanted to say that according to our logs, about 64% of our visitors come from the US. is physically situated in Sweden, but that means nothing in the online world.

Kind Regards,
Johan Lundgren
Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:40 am

That's My Story And I'm Sticking To It. Damn It !

Thu May 27, 1999 8:39 am

My boss wears the same black tie that everyone else in the airline wears. I might not tell him to his face but I might leave a note on his car or something. No. Just kidding.

The whole point of my original post has been obscured by the politics that have gone on above. All that I want is an even playing field and if Airbus can compete on that level then let the better man survive. I could care less about who's planes U.S. domestic carriers purchase just as long as the products being sold are competing in an equal market. Which is the foundation for free enterprise in the United States. If American manufacturers have to follow these rules of ethical business practices then in the new world order everyone should follow suit.

No one manufacturer makes a better airplane as I stated before if one airplane was falling out of the sky then there would be a clearly better choice. But both products get you to your destination safely and economically. You nor I nor anyone in this forum can take all factors into account that influence the decisions of an airline to buy a particular airplane. So the point of arguing weather a A320 is better than a 737 is mute. People who do think that they know are just talking to hear themselves speak. I'm not buying one and neither is anyone in this forum. So why bother. I hope this posts resolves this issue. Because my eyes are bleeding, and my fingers are numb.
Posts: 4383
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Reasonable Debate

Thu May 27, 1999 9:26 am

Wow, those are some really vicious exchanges. As usual with internet chat rooms, everyone sinks to the lowest common denominator. My feeling is that Boeing and Airbus each make very good products. I've flown just about evry one with the exception of the 737NG. Personally, flying in coach under two hours is comfortable. Flying more than two hours in coach is not comfortable, even with the A320's highly touted extra inch! The only thing airlines care about is making money. They can never be blamed for choosing the best deal....BUT is the deal fair? I see a person named Lufthansa blasting Logan for wanting to have his cake and eat it too. I take it that Lufthansa uses Logan as a symbol for all Americans. Well, he's not. But in his defense and in defense of US trade policy, with very very few exceptions such as Hong Kong, not other country in the world has a more liberal and free trading regime than the US. Europe's trend is highly protectionist as was recently explained to me my numerous editorials in the Economist regading Bananas and Beef. Europe does not comply with rulings made by the WTO. And the US trade deficit with the rest of the world clearly indicates that we Americans buy stuff from all over. Europe and Europeans do not. I think anyone who made posts to the contrary are the ignorant ones. Read the papers, digest the facts, its all very clear. Airbus dumps its products and that is something Americans should worry about because Boeing is our largest exporter of capital goods and when they suffer unfairly due to subsidies and dumping, that is something that hurts this country economically. And I really do never want to get in an A340 with some junior pilot fresh out of an A319 who just went through 4 days of training. Would you put your kids on a bus being driven by some guy who's been driving minis his whole life. Cockpit commonality arguments between different classes of aircraft are insane. I don't care what anyone says, when the crap hits the fan I want a pilot with real flying experience in a plane he knows like the back of hand. I wonder which airlines practice this madness, please let me know so I can avoid them like the plague. Thanks for listening.
Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:40 am


Thu May 27, 1999 9:41 am

I'm glad to see another reasonable human being on this forum that talks facts and not opinion. As far a scommonality you bring up a good point. I started another thread with that as the topic. But you are 10% carrect in your assesment of the current situation.
Posts: 6984
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

To All.

Thu May 27, 1999 9:46 am

I agree very much with what Wingman had to say. What is being lost though is the thought behind the original post. What BostonLogan was saying is that U.S. Airways is promoting itself as an American corporation and is touting the red white and blue. In reality though, they have purchased European prouducts. That is what makes his blood boil and mine also.
Posts: 9168
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: Airbus Purchases

Thu May 27, 1999 9:55 am

Maybe when USAirways advertise themselves as "The best in American aviation", maybe they mean "The best equipment purchasing decisions in American aviation". Not to say that Airbus are better (necessarily), but "The best in American aviation" claim would hardly stand up if the airline were not purchasing the most suitable equipment (in their opinion) for their network.
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 4:41 am

RE: Bottom Line

Thu May 27, 1999 10:43 am

USAirways, formally USAir hit rock bottom a few years back. They are cutting cost to revive themselves, if they want to be unloyal and by cheaper products overseas that is fine. In the long run they will unfortunatly pay in the long run due to the fact that some moron in the higer ranks will decide he likes Boeing Aircraft because they came out with this great new system. This could very easily happen to Boeing also. Airbus is for airlines that need to cut costs (No Offense) beacsue Airbus makes good aircraft. Boeing is for companies that are doing just fine and like to stay loyal and dont need to cut costs. Lets all not forget the order to be placed by China Airlines for 747's and 77's totaling 4 Billion.
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:09 am

RE: Airbus Purchases

Thu May 27, 1999 10:53 am

Ok, I'm tired of this eternal bashing on Airbus from our US friends. Let me give you some facts:

How was the original A300 program funded?

Securing funding through traditional market sources was out of the question. This was due to several factors: costs for new entrants in the aircraft manufacturing industry were prohibitive, the Airbus Industrie was unproven as a competitor in the commercial marketplace, and the consortium faced competition with U.S. companies that held a 90 percent share of the world market.

As a result, the only recourse was to seek help from the consortium countries' governments, and to persuade them to invest in the aircraft's launch.

So a subsidy was sought?

No. The consortium members sought launch aid for the program in the form of repayable loans. The launch aid essentially was used for research and development work -- the most costly element of a new aircraft program.

Has that method been used since?

The A300 -- was funded entirely this way, and the subsequent versions partially so. However, starting with the A321, Airbus Industrie's projects are financed totally by internally generated cash flow and external commercial sources.

How much launch aid was provided?

Refundable launch aid for Airbus Industrie programs amounted by only to a fraction of what the aircraft cost to develop.

In 1970, the French and German governments provided close to 100 percent support for the A300's development.

Support for the A310 represented about 90 percent of the total development costs. At this point, the consortium's had expanded with British Aerospace and Spain's CASA joining the membership. A similar support amount of support was provided in development of the A300-600 derivative of the A300

For the A320, which was launched in 1984, repayable launch aid was reduced to about 75 percent of the development costs. The government aid continued to decrease, becoming limited to some 60 percent of launch costs for the A330 and A340.

Starting with the A321, development of Airbus aircraft is being financed without any launch aid.

How does each consortium partner recoup its investment?

Airbus Industrie repays its partners a levy from the proceeds of each aircraft sale (before charges for production and overhead costs). The repayment is calculated to fully amortize the research and development costs associated with a given program over a determined number of sales. In turn, this levy enables each partner to meet its commitments on the loans they have obtained.

Does Airbus Industrie have a repayment schedule for development costs?

Yes. Every time Airbus Industrie delivers an aircraft, it has to pay a levy on sales to the consortium's partners. In 1991, this levy totalled $670 million. It went up to $730 million in 1992, and has been rising to $750 million-$1 billion each year as deliveries of the A330 and A340 increase. This figure will continue at some $700 million annually from 1997 through 2006.

Is direct government support really a justifiable means of entering the civil aviation industry?
"It was [Europe's] right to get into the market [for commercial aircraft]. It was legal under international law, and they did it." President Clinton at a White House press conference, February 1993.

Does the U.S. aerospace industry benefit from government support?

Definitely! Commercial aircraft programs in the U.S. traditionally have been closely linked to government funding and support.

The government-industry link, provided through the "indirect" support, helped propel the U.S. into a globally dominant position. U.S. companies today continue to enjoy the fruits of government-backed research and technology, development programs, and defense-related projects. These efforts have acknowledged spillover into commercial aircraft manufacturing activity. The support comes in contracts from sources such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Defense Department, the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration. Furthermore, special tax privileges provide U.S. aircraft manufacturers with additional support.

Is there acknowledgment of such support?

Yes. Here are a few examples:

"The Federal Government already spends nearly $10 billion annually on aeronautical research and development," U.S. Senator John Danforth, introduction to the Aeronautical Technology Consortium Act of 1993.

"During the first 20 years of its existence, for example, Boeing ran losses on its commercial operations, just as Airbus did during its first 20 years... Boeing was able to sustain these losses only because of its military operations," Laura 'Andrea Tyson, "Who's Bashing Whom? Trade Conflict in High Technology Industry," Institute for International Economics. (Ms. Tyson is Chairman, Council of Economic Advisors to President Clinton).

"Support for civil aeronautics research and development is strong in the United States, compared with that for most other areas of the civilian economy..." U. S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment," Competing Economies" America, Europe and the Pacific Rim.



Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

Airbus' Financing

Thu May 27, 1999 11:09 am

I don't want to take sides...again...both Airbus and Boeing are nice aircraft...however, from the info above, it says, "Starting with the A321, development of Airbus aircraft is being financed without any launch aid." That's great that Airbus is now able to do this but what...the A321 is the FIRST or SECOND airplane to be done like this (the A321 first, then the A319..?)!! Sorry to burst your bubble, but developing a 'stretched' or 'shortened' version of a plane where almost EVERYTHING IS IDENTICAL is not going to be a very difficult project to fund!!! I would really like to see Airbus TRY and do that with their new A3XX !! Airbus is still trying to pay off their other debt for the developments of their other aircraft, and now with the development of the A3XX costing a TON of money (billions) Airbus is NEVER going to recoup their costs from the development by selling "[Airbus']cheaper aircraft" at the prices they are currently at.

UPS Pilot
Posts: 902
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:17 pm

Answer To Airbus Purchase

Thu May 27, 1999 12:30 pm

Airbus has been lowballing aircraft for a while hoping to cash in on Boeings production woes and to try to sell aircraft commonality later on with higher priced models. I wonder how much Airbus is going to lose $$$ Until the Government says no more $$$. I'm sure some carriers also bought Airbus as leverage for negotiating deals with Boeing. I am a strong Boeing supporter but with no other commercial jet manufacturer left in North America what else can we buy? After all it is now a World economy right?
Posts: 4224
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 3:49 am

RE: Answer To Airbus Purchase

Thu May 27, 1999 4:43 pm

Yes you're right and more, it was a fight between 3 big companies in America, Boeing McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed, and when these 3 were fighting Airbus slowly and very humble started their business!
Posts: 4288
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

I'M SO Crying!

Thu May 27, 1999 5:57 pm

Hi everybody,

thanks for that nice discussion, I really enjoed it.

But you must believe me, hearing all that horror stories about that unfair monster Airbus, I almost started to cry. Boeing is so helpless, so small and poor, big big, government-supported Airbus gets big big orders, and they don't have care about costs...Oh my god, I'm so sad, I've really started crying right now. People of the world, help Boeing against that rude monster which lives somewhere between Toulouse and Hamburg-Finkenwerder...

Wow, there are still some people who think that Boeing doesn't receive any help from the US gov. That's the most ridiculous opinion which I ever heard in that forum (ok, almost).

It's right that Airbus gets help, ok, but don't think the governments pay and pay and pay. We have big problems over here, high unemployment rates the worst, just to mention one problem.
Do you really think the governments' only task is it to support Airbus with billions and billions in such a situation?
That shows how longrange-thinking is missing in some heads!

About the missing-Boeing-support I remember an interesting story which took place some years ago. Saudi Arabian was in negotiations with Boeing and Airbus about a fleet renewal program. Saudia was already close to order Airbusses, and Boeing was almost out. But then a US satellite catched some phone calls between Airbus and Saudia...
The result was Saudia ordered Boeings, at prices just a little little bit below Airbus'.
Wow, that is government support, right? Or was it a terrible mistake while trying to hear Saddam Hussein's morning call?
Or why should have an airline ordered MD-90s then which is just a modified oldtimer?
And please don't come along with big messages defending and praising the MD-90. Today it is known that Saudia is not satisfied with that aircraft any more and looks for a solution. Sorry, but facts.

I'm sure there are more examples, now and in the past, for strong Boeing support by the US gov. Please don't think Boeing is helpless, that's just nonsense.
Maybe some people just can't accept that airlines choose Airbus because they can operate those planes more economical on their own special network than Boeings.
And the first reaction to that an order is: "Airbus is unfair!".
Oh my god, I can't stop crying...

Best Reagards
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 4:29 pm

Last Time I Looked Boeing Lost Money

Thu May 27, 1999 7:14 pm


Give us a break boeing making a profit you must be dreaming!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Posts: 6984
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am


Thu May 27, 1999 11:32 pm

Then you haven't looked lately. Last year Boeing posted a profit and Airbus posted a LOSS. Also, they have already said they will post a LOSS for this fiscal year also. Make sure to look at up-to-date information.
Posts: 4288
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

Profit: "Made By Boeing..."

Fri May 28, 1999 6:13 pm

Boeing profit?
That's easy, dumping some ten thousands of workers, then they save lots of money.
Turning loss into profit, made by Boeing.
Hire and Fire, an American specialty. The problem is when they need more workers again some day, they won't find em that fast which means a decrease of quality, as happened not long ago.
In Europe such an acting is not possible and that's good.

Up to date information is important, but see the facts behind is even more important...


Popular Searches On

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