daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Airports and Aviation

Airports and Aviation » Airports | Photos and Videos



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old June 16th, 2006, 10:26 PM   #981
boricuba
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 386
Likes (Received): 1

There is a distinct difference when you make a military purchases like the U.S does with Boeing. Or what the goverments of france & Britain due to pour money directly into the Airbus company.(that is Subsidy)

Boeing is a military contrator just like Mcdonald Douglas, Lockeed-martin, Norhtrup etc..
boricuba no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old June 16th, 2006, 10:28 PM   #982
boricuba
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 386
Likes (Received): 1

Yes I am talking so far the disaster that is Airbus specially the A-380.

Please mate dont say bad words!
boricuba no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 16th, 2006, 10:30 PM   #983
boricuba
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 386
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by mic of Orion
by any chance you wouldn't be working for Boeing, you sound like some one who trolls for Boeing, how great they are and all kinds of crap.

Who gives a rats arse about Boeing, this thread is about A380.

f**k do I hate trolls,

USA And Britain are supose to be allies!
boricuba no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 16th, 2006, 10:49 PM   #984
phnzn2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 23
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by boricuba
Did you know that Airbus had to delayed delivery of the first A-380 super jumbo jet for security failures. This shows that Airbus a Heavily subsides company unlike Boeing has shown their inexperience again. Boeing just grab the last big order of the Year singapore Airlines for their High Tech Dreamliner which is the most economicall fuel efficient long range and mid range cruiser in the world. This cements that Boeing is the largest producer of commercial jetliners in the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boricuba
There is a distinct difference when you make a military purchases like the U.S does with Boeing. Or what the goverments of france & Britain due to pour money directly into the Airbus company.(that is Subsidy)

Boeing is a military contrator just like Mcdonald Douglas, Lockeed-martin, Norhtrup etc..
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/505372/

The Airbus subsidy is in the form of repayable loans with interest for aircraft development, which is legal according to the World Trade Organization, Pritchard says. The Boeing subsidy, on the other hand, is for aircraft production, which is prohibited by the WTO and which never will be paid back, he says.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus#Subsidies

On the other hand Airbus argues that the pork barrel military contracts awarded to Boeing (the second largest U.S. defence contractor) are in effect a form of subsidy (see the Boeing KC-767 military contracting controversy). However, Airbus receives military contracts that are awarded by various governments all over the world. It would be a mistake to say that one side is getting the subsidy, while the other side is not. The significant U.S. government support of technology development via NASA also provides significant support to Boeing, as does the large tax breaks offered to Boeing which some claim are in violation of the 1992 agreement and WTO rules. In its recent products such as the 787, Boeing has also been offered substantial support from local and state governments.

phnzn2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 16th, 2006, 11:00 PM   #985
boricuba
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 386
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by phnzn2
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/505372/

The Airbus subsidy is in the form of repayable loans with interest for aircraft development, which is legal according to the World Trade Organization, Pritchard says. The Boeing subsidy, on the other hand, is for aircraft production, which is prohibited by the WTO and which never will be paid back, he says.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus#Subsidies

On the other hand Airbus argues that the pork barrel military contracts awarded to Boeing (the second largest U.S. defence contractor) are in effect a form of subsidy (see the Boeing KC-767 military contracting controversy). However, Airbus receives military contracts that are awarded by various governments all over the world. It would be a mistake to say that one side is getting the subsidy, while the other side is not. The significant U.S. government support of technology development via NASA also provides significant support to Boeing, as does the large tax breaks offered to Boeing which some claim are in violation of the 1992 agreement and WTO rules. In its recent products such as the 787, Boeing has also been offered substantial support from local and state governments.

Boeing does not get subsidies where do you get this eurotrash info.
U.S Military is buying a MILITARY PRODUCT!!!!!

Boeing does not get cash influx by any kind from the U.S goverment to run operations. Boeing does get cash influx for developing technology INTO PRODUCTS.....

Airbus does get loans with ridiculous interest rates that is like giving money to a little kid.

If Boeing does not Produced a product using the money for R.D that is given to an Specific proyect for the U.S Military the company must repay money with penalty and MARKET interest.
boricuba no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 16th, 2006, 11:07 PM   #986
boricuba
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 386
Likes (Received): 1

Boeing was founded as a private company that later became a publicly trade company.

In the ohter hand Airbus parent company EADS was develop mainly by the goverments to Britain, France in order to compete with the dominance of Boeing.

For me the Airbus company looks to me like the failure of the passenger supersonic concorde that in fact was a great development but not cost efficient! Right now BA,AF have lost billions in that proyect and i dont see any flying anymore. It was a disaster.

Did you know A-300 is becoming the airliner with the worst airline record due to the many problems arising by their design.

(www.faa.gov) ( Airplance magazine 2005)
boricuba no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 16th, 2006, 11:16 PM   #987
phnzn2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 23
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by boricuba
Boeing does not get subsidies where do you get this eurotrash info.
U.S Military is buying a MILITARY PRODUCT!!!!!

Boeing does not get cash influx by any kind from the U.S goverment to run operations. Boeing does get cash influx for developing technology INTO PRODUCTS.....

Airbus does get loans with ridiculous interest rates that is like giving money to a little kid.

If Boeing does not Produced a product using the money for R.D that is given to an Specific proyect for the U.S Military the company must repay money with penalty and MARKET interest.

http://igeographer.lib.indstate.edu/pritchard.pdf

The Airbus versus Boeing subsidy debate
has been raging for more than three decades
(for a concise overview, see Esty and
Ghemawat, 2002). A new debate would
likely differ from earlier disagreements in
at least three respects. First, the 7e7
launch plan includes both foreign and domestic
subsidies. Second, close to 50% of
the launch funding is slated to come from
sources that are classified as ‘actionable’ or
‘prohibited’ under the WTO’s subsidy rules.
Third, substantial state-level subsidies are
part of the launch plan (e.g., $3.2 billion
The Industrial Geographer
Pritchard & MacPherson 71
from the state of Washington).
Taken together,
these three elements of the launch
process add up to a public/private partnership
of massive scale. From a public policy
perspective, one has to question whether
this represents good value for money.
Given that most of the value-added on the
7e7 will be earned by foreign partners
rather than by Boeing or by US-based
suppliers, US institutions might better
serve the national interest by subsidizing
those aspects of Boeing’s aerospace business
that operate with higher US content.
Alternatively, subsidies might be allocated
to Boeing for key parts of the airframe
(e.g., wings), so that the US could at least
maintain its core competence in airframe
design and production. While Boeing is a
global company, which means that production
must also be global, the devolution of
critical tasks to foreign suppliers ultimately
raises strategic questions regarding
the long-run viability of US commercial
aircraft production in the LCA category.

The proposed structure of launch funding
for the 7e7 clearly violates global as well as
plurilateral subsidy regulations. Subsidies
deployed by the governments of foreign
production partners also violate these regulations.


phnzn2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 16th, 2006, 11:33 PM   #988
phnzn2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 23
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by boricuba
Boeing was founded as a private company that later became a publicly trade company.

In the ohter hand Airbus parent company EADS was develop mainly by the goverments to Britain, France in order to compete with the dominance of Boeing.

For me the Airbus company looks to me like the failure of the passenger supersonic concorde that in fact was a great development but not cost efficient! Right now BA,AF have lost billions in that proyect and i dont see any flying anymore. It was a disaster.

Did you know A-300 is becoming the airliner with the worst airline record due to the many problems arising by their design.

(www.faa.gov) ( Airplance magazine 2005)
Similarly the NASA looks to me like the failure of the Columbia! A great developments, but disastrous security failure. Now stop it, agree ?????? Besides, what's so terribly wrong with Airbus being government-founded ??????

Last edited by phnzn2; June 16th, 2006 at 11:43 PM.
phnzn2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 16th, 2006, 11:36 PM   #989
boricuba
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 386
Likes (Received): 1

Please you are basing your determination that Boeing is in fact Susidies by U.S Goverment and Airbus is not. You are basing your knowledge on a study conducted 2002 with findings that go back 1988-1991 when the U.S and USSR were into and arm race. Please note that Boeing does not received money to operate the corporation from the U.S Goverment and Airbus does to received money to operate company.
boricuba no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 16th, 2006, 11:44 PM   #990
boricuba
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 386
Likes (Received): 1

Space Exploration is a more Scientific endevour than Passenger business flying. The United States is the only country in the world that could afford to put a men on the Moon. The debacle of the Russian space program that has received Billions of dollars bailout from Nasa to update and assist in space exploration in order and divide the risks is shown that the U.s always becomes everybodies benefactor.

Mentioning what Happen in New York 2001 is a Cheap shot! This could have happen even worst in europe but you have to understand the terrorist wanted to hit what is the leader of the free world which is the U.S.A, I could also mention the disasters in Madrid 2002 and London Bombings i dont think in every way this disaster show the inability of Spain, And britain to protec there citizcens.

- We are talking about business aircraft manufacturing! ventures and Airbus is not a business is a Goverment own disaster to happen!
boricuba no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 16th, 2006, 11:52 PM   #991
phnzn2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 23
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by boricuba
Please you are basing your determination that Boeing is in fact Susidies by U.S Goverment and Airbus is not. You are basing your knowledge on a study conducted 2002 with findings that go back 1988-1991 when the U.S and USSR were into and arm race. Please note that Boeing does not received money to operate the corporation from the U.S Goverment and Airbus does to received money to operate company.
What in that study is specifically right for the Cold War period ????? Do we observe any sharp change between before and after the Arms Race ??? If so, where is it mentioned in the study and how is this change concretely ???????? Your claims are largely unsubstantiated.

I would like to note with pleasure that Boeing does not receive any money influx from the government, but pardon me, I'm not used to accept gratuitous and manipulative claims easily, as you Americans are.
phnzn2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 16th, 2006, 11:57 PM   #992
boricuba
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 386
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by phnzn2
What in that study is specifically right for the Cold War period ????? Do we observe any sharp change between before and after the Arms Race ??? If so, where is it mentioned in the study and how is this change concretely ???????? Your claims are largely unsubstantiated.

I would like to note with pleasure that Boeing does not receive any money influx from the government, but pardon me, I'm not used to accept gratuitous and manipulative claims easily, as you Americans are.

It is incredible the inferiority complex that SOME europeans have whe it comes to americans. I live in Puerto rico USA the poorest territory in the U.S but the Most develop and advance island in the caribbean and Latin america.
boricuba no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 17th, 2006, 12:00 AM   #993
cladiv
----
 
cladiv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: 上海
Posts: 363
Likes (Received): 0

guys dont feed the troll, its not worth it
cladiv no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 17th, 2006, 12:06 AM   #994
phnzn2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 23
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by boricuba
Space Exploration is a more Scientific endevour than Passenger business flying. The United States is the only country in the world that could afford to put a men on the Moon. The debacle of the Russian space program that has received Billions of dollars bailout from Nasa to update and assist in space exploration in order and divide the risks is shown that the U.s always becomes everybodies benefactor.

Mentioning what Happen in New York 2001 is a Cheap shot! This could have happen even worst in europe but you have to understand the terrorist wanted to hit what is the leader of the free world which is the U.S.A, I could also mention the disasters in Madrid 2002 and London Bombings i dont think in every way this disaster show the inability of Spain, And britain to protec there citizcens.

- We are talking about business aircraft manufacturing! ventures and Airbus is not a business is a Goverment own disaster to happen!
This is cheap talk in its purest and simplest form. Prestige and honor are just what really matter to you, right ???? ...see the world in terms of heroes, inferiority and superiority, gratefulness and all those things... I stop here, for my patience with troll is quite limited.
phnzn2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 17th, 2006, 12:09 AM   #995
boricuba
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 386
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by phnzn2
This is cheap talk in its purest and simplest form. Prestige and honor are just what really matter to you, right ???? ...see the world in terms of heroes, inferiority and superiority, gratefulness and all those things... I stop here, for my patience with troll is quite limited.

Is it true that Ontario is a county of the state of New York!
boricuba no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 17th, 2006, 12:24 AM   #996
Rapid
Skybar Posts: 24,564
 
Rapid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 986
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by bustero
who is actually ordering the 380 with these specs, anyone? nice cabin too bad about the delay.


sorry, no cabin details though
Rapid no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 17th, 2006, 02:19 AM   #997
matthewcs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 103
Likes (Received): 2

wow, seriously, who cares whether Airbus or Boeing is better? Avro is obviously the best , fourty odd years ago.....

The cabin design is awsome, but I wonder if there are any routes that have enough volume to make an entire plane layed out like that (esp an A380)? That obviously wasn't it's intention, but it'd be cool none the less.
matthewcs no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2006, 10:55 AM   #998
Wezza
©
 
Wezza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Townsville
Posts: 8,888
Likes (Received): 996

Emirates is getting way to ambitious IMO. Honestly, do they need 43 A380's? Not to mention all the other a/c they have on order.
Wezza no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2006, 11:02 AM   #999
drmadham
Registered User
 
drmadham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Seattle/Austin/Khobar
Posts: 241
Likes (Received): 1

Emirates...lol

typical, but im sure itll work out. their airline kicks ass, and flies so many more places now
__________________
Invited to Stewie's Sexy Girl Party
drmadham no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 19th, 2006, 03:13 PM   #1000
Ballota
Powered by Jet-A1
 
Ballota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Split
Posts: 32,683
Likes (Received): 23712

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wezza
Emirates is getting way to ambitious IMO. Honestly, do they need 43 A380's? Not to mention all the other a/c they have on order.
These Arabs are crazy!

We'll see how will they do when they run out of oil!

P.S. Love the cabin!
__________________
< < < < < SPLIT from the AIR > > > > >

__|__
\_______O(-)O_______/
" " "

Ballota no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
air france, airbus, airplane, changi airport, emirates, lufthansa, singapore airlines, suvarnabhumi airport, thai airways

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium