Author Topic: Airbus claims victory in jet war (Read 1311 times)

Vulcan · « **Reply #15 on:** January 26, 2006, 01:55:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
No, not direct subsidies. The EU thinks that because we use our commercial models for military use (AWACs 767) they consider that subsidized. Pretty funny if you think about it.

Meh I'd seriously doubt that rip, it just the US hides it subsidies a lot better. You've been dragged into the WTO so many times over illegal tarrifs on things like steel, timber, beef, dairy products lamb etc. You're just call subsidies different things.

weaselsan · « **Reply #16 on:** January 26, 2006, 02:23:39 PM »

See rule # 6 3/4

Gh0stFT · « **Reply #17 on:** January 26, 2006, 03:11:47 PM »

cpxxx · « **Reply #18 on:** January 26, 2006, 03:27:56 PM »

So finally the Germans and the French and the Spanish and the British get to say to Americans.

'We whipped your tulips in the great jet war':lol

Anyway, nobody loses because a very high proportion of any Airbus jet is made up of American components. 50% of the A380 will from bits sourced in the good old USA.

I alway thought the Airbus V Boeing war was so much hot air.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #19 on:** January 26, 2006, 03:54:41 PM »

Just some (possibly) trivia

EADS, which is 80% shareholder of Airbus, is 34% publicly traded, 30% owned by Daimler Chrysler, 15% owned by the French Government, 15% owned by Lagardere, and about 5% by the Spanish Government.

So from the EADS share, 16% of Airbus is owned directly by an EGovt.

Debonair · « **Reply #20 on:** January 26, 2006, 04:59:24 PM »

But 17% by Lee Iacoca

RAIDER14 · « **Reply #21 on:** January 26, 2006, 07:59:37 PM »

The 747s look better

The 380 looks like a manatee

Debonair · « **Reply #22 on:** January 26, 2006, 11:56:22 PM »

That vertical stabilizer looks quite outsized, even for that monster.
Built from B-26 parts they had laying around?

Pooh21 · « **Reply #23 on:** January 27, 2006, 12:00:57 AM »

the only way to claim victory between Boeing and Airbus should be at the Paris air show every year, 1 B737 vs 1 A320. give them a few vulcans to mount in the nose and let them dogfight for supremacy.

Yeager · « **Reply #24 on:** January 27, 2006, 12:03:25 AM »

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/01/17/airbus.boeing.reut/

the Boeing backlog, although smaller than Airbus, has a higher economic value.

Boeing is selling more of the larger more profitable airplanes while Airbus is selling the cheaper smaller planes, usually with little or no profit, in order to have bragging rights over Boeing sales and backlogs.

Excel1 · « **Reply #25 on:** January 27, 2006, 05:09:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vulcan
Meh I'd seriously doubt that rip, it just the US hides it subsidies a lot better. You've been dragged into the WTO so many times over illegal tarrifs on things like steel, timber, beef, dairy products lamb etc. You're just call subsidies different things.

The Yank's 'all talk and no walk' stance on protectionist trade practices reeks of hypocrisy. With them it's more of a case of do as I say not as I do.

At least the Euros, annoyingly misguided that they are, don’t pretend that they trade "fair"

Anyway screw both of them, we are suppose to be getting a free trade agreement with China soon.

Oh yeah, o/t , Boeing and Airbus both suck. I fly Honda.

Excel

Fishu · « **Reply #26 on:** January 27, 2006, 05:24:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by RAIDER14
The 747s look better

Many of the older planes do

Could I have DC-3's?

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #27 on:** January 27, 2006, 11:57:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by wipass
Airbus have been subsidised by billions undoubtedly, so have Boeing though.

Govt. sales is not the same as subisidies. Not even close.

GreenCloud · « **Reply #28 on:** January 27, 2006, 12:07:32 PM »

hahaha...manatee..

it is ugly compared to the 747

straffo · « **Reply #29 on:** January 27, 2006, 12:13:20 PM »

yep Foreign Sales Corporation or Domestic International Sales Corporation are not subsidies.