A380 vs RJ7 @ JFK

[FTJR]

The only thing the centerline does it makes sure you don't get off the pavement in 0 visibility. You are responsible for where your wings are.
Also he was not even on a taxiway, it was a ramp, I'm not sure he even had a centerline.

Not sure thats entirely correct, if the taxiway is limited to a particular wingspan, it will be notamed or in the aerodrome notes.

As to the ramp statement.. we talking about the RJ ? If so we may be talking cross statements here

[RTHolmes]

How can it be public money if it is not collected?

hmmm ...

company X has a tax bill of $1m, they pay all of it, then the govt gives them £200k of public money.
company X has a tax bill of $1m, the govt gives them a tax break of £200k, the company pays $800k.

same thing. its still $200k of public money, whether you collect it and give it back, or just collect the difference.

[flight17]

assistance programs and tax breaks are examples of using public money to support a private enterprise. are you really suggesting boeing has never used public money in any form?


interesting, you have any details on these loans?


so you're saying EADS has received 40bn of public money from somewhere. how did that work? loan? gift? tax break? investment capital? what amounts and from whom?

As for the second part of the first line, Boeing launched the 747 back in the 1960's betting the entire company on its success. Airbus launched the A380 with at least 33% of the costs being paid by the governments. Big difference especially since the A380 has taken orders away from the 747.

Yes the claim on airbus is that they have recieved 26-40bil dollars in loans by the Goverments of the countries that EADS builds in (UK, Spain, Germany, France) that were all under the average market interest rates that boeing would have had to pay for the same amount of money on the free market. Airbus only has to pay back the money if the Aircraft is a commercial success, which as of now, the A380 is nowhere near being. 

[F22RaptorDude]

Tell you what, Woulda crapped my pants had I been on that small plane. 

[RTHolmes]

Airbus launched the A380 with at least 33% of the costs being paid by the governments.

you need to work out the difference between a gift, a loan, and an investment.

[Vulcan]

States give businesses tax breaks to keep jobs within the state. If you consider that a public loan, so be it. We call it capitalism.

Err technically thats socialism rip. Capitalism lets the business stand alone on its own two fit.

I don't disagree with it, I see the benefits. Just saying that people accusing airbus of being govt funded needed to check their own house is order. Plus different countries around the world dress up tax payer funding in different disguises - despite what many of it's citizens believe the US is highly protectionist (we see it in steel, wood, meat exports) - quite the opposite of pure capitalism.

[RTHolmes]

^ this


edit: so I did a little digging on recent UK investments (RLIs) in airbus and I found ~£600m for the A380 in about 2000, and ~£400m for the A350 in about 2005. sounds like alot, but it isnt - thats less than the cost of 2xA380s and 2xA350s respectively.

It comes from the UK govt strategic investment fund and as a taxpayer I have no problem with it at all - the yields on SIF investments in airbus going back to the 70s have been stunning. we could lose all of the A380 RLI and all of the A350 RLI and still have better than FTSE100 yields our airbus investment over the long term.

[Flipperk]

lol Indeed

A guess off the vision would be its the fault of the CRJ, or maybe JFK ground

 Tronsky

Can not be controllers fault, the ramp is NOT under ATC control.

[flight17]

per the 1992 US-EU Bilateral, Airbus can be given up to 33% of the entire developemental costs of a large aircraft program by European government through RLIs. These RLIs are to be repaid within 17 years in full including interest and royalties if and only if the aircraft is a commercial success, if it fails, then Airbus got completely free money to use to develope technologies and processes. The interest on these RLI's are minimum interest rate equal to the cost of government borrowing plus 0.25%, which ends up being lower than the market rates that airbus would be paying in interest if they got the money through the free market like boeing does.

if you seriously think they have only reciving a few hundred million for both the A380 and A350, then you are pretty naive considering the A380 is a 20 billion program and the A350 will be almost as much!

[MachFly]

Not sure thats entirely correct, if the taxiway is limited to a particular wingspan, it will be notamed or in the aerodrome notes.

As to the ramp statement.. we talking about the RJ ? If so we may be talking cross statements here

So what do the NOTAMs and obstacles on the side of a taxiway have to do with a centerline? Sure you will get a NOTAM if there is something like a snowbank but the centerline will always be in the center.

Both aircraft were on the ramp.

[FTJR]

I didn't realise the A380 wasn't on a taxiway. So that's the confusion from my part. As to the notam. I mean it will state whether the taxiway is suitable for a particular category of plane, which means to me, if the 380 is on a taxiway that is suitable for its use, than there is provision made for its wingspan.

However since it was on the ramp, all points are moot, but its an interesting discussion.

p.s
Just went back to watch the video, if the 380 was on the ramp, he was moving Waaay too fast.

[MachFly]

I didn't realise the A380 wasn't on a taxiway. So that's the confusion from my part. As to the notam. I mean it will state whether the taxiway is suitable for a particular category of plane, which means to me, if the 380 is on a taxiway that is suitable for its use, than there is provision made for its wingspan.

However since it was on the ramp, all points are moot, but its an interesting discussion.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember ever seeing a NOTAM regarding the size of the aircraft and if it will fit on a taxiway. Sometimes they have a weight limit, but I don't remember ever seeing a NOTAM for the wingspan.

p.s
Just went back to watch the video, if the 380 was on the ramp, he was moving Waaay too fast.

Take a look at the airport diagram at JFK (link is bellow). We know that the video was taken from the terminal, and we know that the A380 was not far from the terminal. There are no taxiways that close to any terminal at JFK.
http://tiles.skyvector.com/sky/files/tpp/1104/pdf/00610AD.PDF

It does seem that he was moving a little fast for the ramp, but as I don't know his exact speed I can not comment.

[Tupac]

I was gonna say, I've never seen one either.

[FTJR]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember ever seeing a NOTAM regarding the size of the aircraft and if it will fit on a taxiway. Sometimes they have a weight limit, but I don't remember ever seeing a NOTAM for the wingspan.

Yeah I see it all the time, though maybe its in relation to upgrade works, I dont really note the reason, just that  taxiway x is limited to  cat X/Y aircraft which in addition to their weight is also related to the wingspan (im my interperation).

I just edited my previous post about the 380's speed being excessive on the ramp.

Cheers

[MachFly]

Yeah I see it all the time, though maybe its in relation to upgrade works, I dont really note the reason, just that  taxiway x is limited to  cat X/Y aircraft which in addition to their weight is also related to the wingspan (im my interperation).

I just edited my previous post about the 380's speed being excessive on the ramp.

Cheers

Would you remember what airport that was at?
I'd like to see the actual notam (I'm not saying I don't believe you I just want to see what it looks like)