Boeing 797 Blended Wing

[Ripsnort]

 

Vulcan has been OW3N3d!


Vulcan, FYI, chairboy is correct. The Govt is just another purchaser of civilian aircraft.

On the defense side, we make bids along with other aerospace companies to compete for Govt business. They just a customer. They don't give us an open checkbook on the backs of the taxpayers and say "build this for us". Matter of fact, its just the opposite, we have to compete, and when we do get contracts, we are constantly under scrutiny to be on time, on schedule and on budget with constant military audits.

[dynamt]

It's going to be hard to evacuate that puppy in 30 seconds.
Maybe they can install bomb doors and drop the load. That way they can do it in about 3 secs.

[Yeager]

Too bad the US government doesnt give Boeing risk free money to develope planes that if they dont sell Boeing does not have to return a dime of the money given.

Maybe they should......

[moot]

Stupid question, but why not have trap-style emergency exits every x square feet?  That'd make for quick exit without much structural complications.
Why not have the airport terminal's gate corridors serve each BWC, two at a time?  That'd make it 500 passengers per corridor, as opposed to 800 for the big Airbus, for example.

Every possible solution has probably already been thought of at Boing, I'm just curious.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Krusher
Well you didn't dig very deeply to start with. Your post is straight out of a Lawsuit filed in 2004. I would guess they (the filers) are not exactly representing both sides of the issue. But hey maybe lawyers in Europe are different

WTO lawsuits tend to be based on facts, perhaps you should spend some time outside the US legal system. Its not a 'ohhh my coffee's too hot' lawsuit you know

Rip, why the massive extra margin for defence contracts? Usually defence contracts are tighter on margin... not so owned huh...

U.S. trade policy suffers a blow as WTO rules against tax break
Tuesday, August 21, 2001

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER STAFF AND NEWS SERVICES

The World Trade Organization ruled yesterday that a popular U.S. tax break is actually an illegal trade subsidy, threatening a corporate strategy used by thousands of companies, including The Boeing Co.

The ruling will force the United States to either file an appeal, settle the issue or possibly face as much as $4 billion in sanctions by the European Union. The issue is now the biggest trans-Atlantic trade dispute.

U.S. corporations have been watching the trade dispute carefully because exporters from Bellevue-based Attachmate Corp. to Pennsylvania-based Bethlehem Steel Corp. support the tax provision.

"This issue has the potential to be enormously destabilizing, so both sides have a strong incentive to solve it," said Chris Padilla, a Washington, D.C., lobbyist for Eastman Kodak Co.

Washington state companies have plenty at stake. Boeing alone claimed tax benefits tied to foreign sales corporations -- a previous incarnation of the tax provision -- worth $291 million in its 2000 annual report.

General Electric, meanwhile, saved $746 million and Motorola Inc. saved $378 million from 1991 to 1998, according to the European Union Web site.

"We are disappointed in this decision and we are hoping that the USTR (Office of the United States Trade Representative) will be able to find a way to negotiate a mutual acceptable solution that fully protects U.S. interests," said Boeing spokesman Rick Fuller.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said he has been consulting closely with Congress and U.S. businesses and will work to "promote U.S. economic interests while at the same time fulfilling our WTO obligations."

U.S. trade officials have not yet decided how to respond, according to Zoellick's spokesman, Richard Mills.

"We are weighing our options," Mills said.

Under WTO rules, the United States has 60 days to decide whether to appeal.

The case affects U.S. exporters that obtain tax breaks by channeling transactions through overseas companies and dwarfs other U.S.-EU disagreements, including fights over banana and beef imports.

The disputed tax law allows U.S.-based companies to shield some foreign income from tax as long as they have paid tax overseas on the earnings.

It also adds to tension that has been heightened by a U.S. decision to back away from a global-warming treaty and European opposition to the Bush administration's plans to set up a missile defense shield, among other clashes.

The European Union welcomed the decision.

"The WTO panel has upheld the EU's reasoning on all points," the European Commission, an arm of the European Union, said in a statement.

Joseph Englert, president of San Francisco-based Export Assist Inc., which manages the so-called "foreign sales corporations" used by U.S. exporters to shield overseas earnings, said he believes the two trading partners can resolve the issue.

"I don't know if an appeal would be appropriate so much as asking the Europeans or the WTO if they would just suspend the case while we find an answer," he said. "I think we will find a solution without a trade war," he added.

Englert, whose company lists Boeing, Kodak and communications equipment maker Harris Corp. among its clients, said he thought there was an appetite in Congress to revamp the tax system and a willingness by the Europeans to be flexible. "Forty-five percent of world trade is between Europe and the U.S., and this is quite a hammer hanging over our heads," Englert added.

If the United States loses an appeal or does not alter its trade policy, the EU has asked the WTO for permission to impose the trade sanctions on the United States.

"We are very confident we can defend our position," said Stephen Gospage, an EU trade official.

The current trade fight actually goes back to 1998, when the EU challenged an earlier version of the tax law.

In 1999, the World Trade Organization ruled that tax system was an illegal export subsidy.

So, the United States scrapped the system, replacing it with the tax law the WTO ruled yesterday was also illegal.

The persistent dispute has led some policy-makers to consider whether it's time to revamp the way the federal government taxes overseas corporate income.

But, veteran tax lobbyists say Congress is unlikely to take any broad steps this year.


WHAT'S NEXT?

The United States and the European Union have argued for years over the tax breaks the United States grants its exporters.

The World Trade Organization's decision to reject the latest U.S. tax tool could spark a variety of steps on both sides, including:


The United States could appeal the decision, a move that would also buy it a few months to work out a solution. The United States has 60 days to decide whether to appeal.


Whether or not the United States files an appeal, it can attempt to negotiate a solution with the European Union.


Congress and the Bush administration could attempt to pass new legislation designed to address the WTO's concerns.


The European Union could seek to impose up to $5 billion in sanctions on U.S. goods, if the United States loses its appeal or leaves the law unchanged.

Source: Bloomberg News.

The WTO says you're subsidising Boeing.

[Golfer]

Originally posted by moot
Stupid question, but why not have trap-style emergency exits every x square feet?  

Think about what is underneath the passenger cabin of an aircraft.

Typically lots of bags, fuel and various large systems components such as landing gear, hydraulics and controls.   Trap doors on the belly of an airplane also don't do any good if the gear isn't down, fuel leaked and is burning and what not.  Overwing is simple, easy, less expensive and dare I say...safer.

I for one don't want to ride my firehouse pole down into a pool of burning jet fuel to escape.

Window seat in an exit row, please.  Or first class.

[Maverick]

Not very many window seats in the wing design there.

[eskimo2]

This thing is better than the Airbus or Boing:

[Krusher]

Originally posted by Vulcan
WTO lawsuits tend to be based on facts, perhaps you should spend some time outside the US legal system. Its not a 'ohhh my coffee's too hot' lawsuit you know

The facts according to Airbus.

You do know that Boeing filed a lawsuit earlier? If the facts are not in dispute then Boeing should win by filing first !

[moot]

Golfer, I was thinking of topside exits.  Would that be feasible?

[Arlo]

Since when is this a "new idea" or "new technology?" Seems to resurface every 20-25 years then gets buried in money to be rediscovered at a later date.


http://www.warbirdforum.com/paxwing.jpg

http://www.warbirdforum.com/paxwing.htm

[Golfer]

Originally posted by moot
Golfer, I was thinking of topside exits.  Would that be feasible?

Not really.  Each emergency exit section with it's seals and reinforcment as well as latching mechanism is heavier (obviously) than a regular section of fuselage in the same area.

When you say "Trap style" exit what do you exactly mean anyway?  When I think of that I think of trap door and trap doors fall into the floor into an alligator pit.

[RAIDER14]

When you say "Trap style" exit what do you exactly mean anyway? When I think of that I think of trap door and trap doors fall into the floor into an alligator pit.

alligator pit could be added to the aircraft as a anti terrorist thing

[moot]

hehe.
I wasn't thinking of anything in particular.. I thought of it as was a way to clear an emergency path thru the roof, explosive-bolt style, or by a topside door like you described if it's not acceptable to save lives at the cost of some localised damage, without costing too much structural integrity either.. like somewhere already reinforced, like at the food/video closets.

I don't know what there is between the cabin ceiling and outer surface in that plane.

[RAIDER14]

Link 1

NASA's opinion