Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on June 23, 2004, 03:41:21 PM
-
AIRBUS engineers have attacked the high proportion of composites used in Boeing's new 7E7 Dreamliner, branding the aircraft's development "rushed" and "ridiculous".
The 7E7 will contain double the amount of composites - a non metallic material made from two more chemicals - used in the Airbus A380, including most of the fuselage and wings. But Airbus claims Boeing has rushed through the technology before it is matured.
Colin Stuart, Airbus vice-president of marketing, said composites should be introduced with caution.
He told an engineering conference: "If you start to look at the various loads on composites (in an all-composite fuselage), it is absolutely the wrong thing to do." Current composite material is unsuitable for many areas of the fuselage claimed Alain Garcia, executive vice-president of engineering. "It's perfect for tension and fatigue, but poor for compression," he said.
Airbus stepped up the war of words with Boeing after the US company criticised weight increases in the A380. Airbus claims the 7E7 will be heavier than Boeing has admitted.
Dr Jürgen Klenner, Airbus senior vice-president of structure engineering, said today's carbon fibre is often no more than "black aluminium" - with the same attributes as traditional materials - offering few benefits for the extra cost. Carbon fibre does have weight advantages, but according to Klenner the cost of the raw material is up to 500%.
"We do not apply a material because it is trendy, we do it when we are convinced it is mature enough. There are crucial questions that have not yet been answered," he said.
There are concerns that composites present a higher fire risk.
Prof Phil Irving, civil aviation authority expert in damage tolerance at Cranfield University, said engineers should drip-feed composites into aircraft to avoid "unexpected failures". Airbus accused Boeing of tinkering with the 7E7's supposedly advanced technology during its development, saying the final product will be more conventional and heavier than originally claimed.
But Boeing denies this, pointing out that the aircraft was developed in parallel to, rather than after, the company's now-cancelled project, the Sonic Cruiser.
A Boeing spokesman said: "We've put a great amount of work into composites, drawing on the work we've already done on the 777 and a whole variety of military aircraft.
"The 7E7 is a bold move, but if you look at the efficiency and environmental advantages it's a move in the right direction." The 7E7 will contain 50% of its weight in composites, making it lighter and more fuel-efficient, Boeing claims. The A380 structure contains under 25% composites, while Airbus chose not to use the carbon fibre wing planned for its future military aircraft.
Boeing expects to announce up to 200 orders for the 7E7 this year. So far only Japan's All Nippon Airways and Air New Zealand have placed orders, compared with 129 orders to date for the A380.
Italian charter airline Eurofly has ordered one Airbus A319 Long Range aircraft and plans to acquire a second.
The aircraft will be equipped with 48 seats and will operate all-premium class services from Milan and Rome to New York.
The Milan-based airline is already an Airbus operator with five A320s and two A330s flying to European and Caribbean holiday destinations.
Meanwhile, Egyptair has taken delivery of the first of seven Airbus A330-200s on order.
====
Sounds like airbus views the 7E7 as a threat to their core business.
Hmmm.....
-
In other news, the Coca-Cola corporation expressed grave misgivings over Pepsi's recent product releases.
-
Airbus is the one with vertical stabilizers falling off.
Socialist weenies worried that free enterprise is going to spank their hinies.
-
Sound like Boeing recruited some marketing guys from Microsoft.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Airbus is the one with vertical stabilizers falling off.
Socialist weenies worried that free enterprise is going to spank their hinies.
Did Airbus pass Boeing in having the most tax dollars thown at it and I missed it in the news?
-
I think there might be confusion about the difference between 'subsidies' and 'government purchases' in your post, Pongo.
-
Ya big difference, one is honest.
-
So by extension, no company should ever sell goods to the government because doing so will be the same as "receiving massive government subisidies to bail them out of bad decisions"? I only ask, because that's what happened with Airbus.
BTW, the US government owns plenty of Boeing-built aircraft ranging from fighter to cargo planes. How many Airbus planes are owned by EU governments?
Helpful guide:
1. If you give money to a company in exchange for goods, it is a purchase.
2. If you give money to a company because they have mismanaged their business and you receive nothing except assurances that the company will remain intact and that your voters won't lose their jobs at the plant, then it is a subsidy.
-
Just pretend that the French airforce needs a fleet of 200 "tankers" so they are paying for the developement of them.
No "capitalist' would do that..develop a "tanker" under a very lucrative SAC contract then take out the seats and undercut the rest of the world selling the airframe as an "Airliner" Destroying much of the world aerospace industry because they cant "compete"
Save it.
-
Are you referring to the 707/KC-135 deal? I'm not sure if it was a government handout or a masterful deal, but either way, that was 50 years ago. Airbus collects welfare checks every month.
Don't get me wrong, I think they make some really nice planes, but we are talking about subsidies, aren't we?
-
There is no difference. The europeans just dont want fleets of bombers or tankers.
Other then that there is absolutly no difference in the Market or to the taxpayer.
Boeing would not exist in any form without huge US goverment tax money infusions.
So calling thier competition "socialist" is silly. Thier product competes on the world market. May the best one win.
-
The europeans just dont want fleets of bombers or tankers
They don't need them. They know we'll come bail their tulips out again if they get attacked.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
There is no difference. The europeans just dont want fleets of bombers or tankers.
Other then that there is absolutly no difference in the Market or to the taxpayer.
Boeing would not exist in any form without huge US goverment tax money infusions.
So calling thier competition "socialist" is silly. Thier product competes on the world market. May the best one win.
Pongo,
A subsidy is proposed to help keep a company afloat, usually in it's development phases.
A government purchase is a legitimate purchase made usually to the lowest bidder (in the US atleast). Boeing sold aircraft to the US gov't, (many other gov'ts too) Airbus, received many billions in subsidies to keep them afloat. There is a major difference.
-
I have enough experience with Airbus aircraft to certainly believe that the Airbus people shouldn't throw stones at other manufacturers.
dago
-
Originally posted by AKWeav
They don't need them. They know we'll come bail their tulips out again if they get attacked.
WHO will attack Europa and for WHAT reason ?
...please, just ONE reason? (and please exlude the "...'until Islamic rule is back on Earth" BS thread.)
thank you.
and Airbus 380 will beat the Boeing 7E7 anyway, so whats left ? ;)
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
and Airbus 380 will beat the Boeing 7E7 anyway, so whats left ? ;)
Lots of unemployed engineers in India?
-
Didn't Boeing get a subsidy from Washington state of over $3 billion fairly recently?
-
The civil version of the 707 has a wider fuselage than the KC-135. IIRC, it was built on completely different jigs as a result.
It's also not the only military design to have been sold commercially either.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
WHO will attack Europa and for WHAT reason ?
I agree there is no reason to attack europe at all, just like there was no reason for a certain country to attack Switzerland or Sweden in WW2....
-
I don't understand why Boeing vs. Airbus has to be turned into a nationalistic argument?
They're just two different companies working on planes... and theres alot more.
Somehow only Boeing vs. Airbus often turns into a nationalistic bashing.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Pongo,
A subsidy is proposed to help keep a company afloat, usually in it's development phases.
A government purchase is a legitimate purchase made usually to the lowest bidder (in the US atleast). Boeing sold aircraft to the US gov't, (many other gov'ts too) Airbus, received many billions in subsidies to keep them afloat. There is a major difference.
I find it hard to believe the US Goverment doesn't help Boeing out one way or another (tax relief etc) - the US Govt regularly props up its industries when they're in trouble, look how often they end up in front of the WTO getting fined for it. Recent examples include farming, forestry and steel.
Throwing the socialist insult at Airbus is ironic, if not totally hypocritical!
-
I don't understand why Boeing vs. Airbus has to be turned into a nationalistic argument?
I believe a poster from our neighbor to the north (who seems to hate all things US) started that particular bash.
-
Originally posted by AKWeav
They don't need them. They know we'll come bail their tulips out again if they get attacked.
well not exactly......some people seem to hate Europe and Europeans.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Didn't Boeing get a subsidy from Washington state of over $3 billion fairly recently?
Who needs that when you have people like Perle.
-
Originally posted by AKWeav
I believe a poster from our neighbor to the north (who seems to hate all things US) started that particular bash.
And what was Funked doing before that?
-
Originally posted by AKWeav
I believe a poster from our neighbor to the north (who seems to hate all things US) started that particular bash.
What an assinine statment, I just hate dishonesty. If being honest is anti american, if saying Boeing gets hand outs is anti american, then you have real issues.
This thread was about Airbus guys dissing Boeing designs...how has the direction its gone off topic?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I agree there is no reason to attack europe at all, just like there was no reason for a certain country to attack Switzerland or Sweden in WW2....
evil overlords have learned from the mistakes of the past, we now take out south america and africa first, then move into canada and australia, then once thats done we move on europe (starting with britain and not letting ourselves get holed up in france and spending the remainder of the war drinking wine while waiting for the reinvasion) once the rest of the world has been conquered we invade mongolia and from there invade the rest of asia...
or we just wait till 1 political party type gets into power in as many places as possible then take over and have the nations join...yes that will work nicely...
-
Originally posted by Dago
I have enough experience with Airbus aircraft to certainly believe that the Airbus people shouldn't throw stones at other manufacturers.
dago
I know you hate me, but those split infinitives are like a kick in the goolies. :(
-
I cant believe RIPSNORT hasnt responed to this thread yet!
-
I just hate dishonesty
And judging from most all of your posts, virtually anything Americian. You gotta admitt, you're usually the first to chime in with a negitive view of anything US.
Granted I work for Boeing and may be somewhat biased in my view of Airbus. I also know that Airbus has dumped their airplanes on the market for less than what it costs to build them. I know that airline board of directors love Airbus because they are very cheap to buy, while most pilots, and maintenance people don't like them. Airbus customer support sucks, and the price of their spares are through the roof.
I'm fairly sure that Airbus will never see a penny (or euro) of profit on the A380. I don't think they will sell enough of them. In a captalistic enviroment the plane would not have been built. Only in a Socialistic enviroment with goverment funding can such a project be undertaken. Very similar to the AN 224, of which only two were built.
-
OFF TOPIC ALERT!!
I hate to see airliners go in under any circumstance.
This video of a A320 going in at the Paris Airshow is inertesting only because of the dialog.
http://www.airdisaster.com/download/af320.shtml
They are talking about it being computer controled as it is slowly decending into a forrest. It didnt do much to boost confidence in computer controlled aircraft.
-
AKWeave.
What kind of enviorment is it when planes like the Spruce Goose get built on goverment money. And only 1 of them gets built.
No matter what you post on this board some american will come on and say that its unamerican. You think that pointing out goverment hand outs to Boeing is anti american. An employee of one of the many US aircraft manufacturers that got chewed up by boeing over the years might not see it as un american at all.
Its a distinclty american phenominom. You get to define anything you like or more accuratly any opinion you dont like as anti american.
I prefer Boeing Aircraft myself. I want to support a north american aircraft manufacturer over a european one. I am north american after all. I prefer to do it honeslty and not deride the other guy as socialist because they have admitted that the goverment will back the aircraft factory with subsidies instead of doing it in all the myrad ways that the US goverment(and the canadian goverment with bombardier) does the same thing.
-
but those split infinitives are like a kick in the goolies.
Where I came from, people who dwelled on very proper grammar were considered pencil neck, nit picking, booger eating, "never get a girl" dweebs, and were used as punching bags for amusement.
Now, you were saying?
dago
-
Originally posted by Pongo
AKWeave.
What kind of enviorment is it when planes like the Spruce Goose get built on goverment money. And only 1 of them gets built.
Wow, that's some pretty timely criticism. Next, let's talk some dirt on Eleanor Roosevelt's blatant misuse of petroleum-based hair products during the enforced shortages of 'the war'. Also, the Glen Miller disapearance is still sizzling, have you heard anything new on that lately?
-
Originally posted by Dago
Where I came from, people who dwelled on very proper grammar were considered pencil neck, nit picking, booger eating, "never get a girl" dweebs, and were used as punching bags for amusement.
Now, you were saying?
dago
And where I come from, you're a prize dick - whichever way you cut it.
-
Glen Miller disapeared? Oh no...
-
And where I come from, you're a prize dick - whichever way you cut it.
Funny, I see it the other way.
You Beetle made a habit of coming on this board and tearing down everything you could about the USA. It was unsolicited and uncalled for, and normally always inaccurate.
I responded in defense of my country.
You came on this thread and with nothing of value to add, so you just insult my grammar.
I make light of your comment by making fun of someone who would correct grammar on this board.
You call me a dick.
Look in the mirror extrahunk, and you will be looking at a drunken dick.
dago
-
Originally posted by beet1e
And where I come from, you're a prize dick - whichever way you cut it.
if they cut "it" at all
-
Originally posted by Dago
Funny, I see it the other way.
You Beetle made a habit of coming on this board and tearing down everything you could about the USA. It was unsolicited and uncalled for, and normally always inaccurate.
But oh how quickly, and conveniently, you forget your own tirade of abuse against France. Nothing of value, just plain old insults. But in your book, France doesn't matter, does it? Just some blot on the globe as far as you're concerned. Keep your mirror. You need it more than me. A-hole.
IN
-
Beetle
Lets consider these facts:
1) Your anti-USA garbage started long before I ever disparaged France.
2) You aren't French, they can and have defended themselves without the assistance of a babbling British alcoholic
3) In your drunken state, you started the nastiness in this thread
4) The French government was happy to have Iraqis slaughtered by Saddam Hussein as long as they made money off him.
5) Dowding usually has to step in to most threads and try to defend you as you are incapable of doing it yourself
dago
-
.... can't people be from this nationalistic crap even on a thread which doesn't originally involve US vs. EU politics?
(those who calls euros as anti-american should look into the mirror as well... just not to get yet another reply faulting just one side.. right now its both sides causing trouble!)
-
A couple of years ago i remember Boing sending Airbus a letter explaining that the A3xx would be a big flop and that, as a friend, they advise to stop the dev before Airbus gets hurt economically :D
-
Well, the 747 still rocks.....
-
Dago - "facts"? Hah! Don't make me laugh. :lol And I never mentioned Saddam/Iraq. Get over your fixation. How do you know I'm not French? How do you know I'm not from French ancestry? You don't. Q.E.D.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Dago - "facts"? Hah! Don't make me laugh. :lol And I never mentioned Saddam/Iraq. Get over your fixation. How do you know I'm not French? How do you know I'm not from French ancestry? You don't. Q.E.D.
Arent all British at least part French, they did invade and rule your country for a long long time..
-
Originally posted by Krusher
OFF TOPIC ALERT!!
I hate to see airliners go in under any circumstance.
This video of a A320 going in at the Paris Airshow is inertesting only because of the dialog.
http://www.airdisaster.com/download/af320.shtml
They are talking about it being computer controled as it is slowly decending into a forrest. It didnt do much to boost confidence in computer controlled aircraft.
That narration sounds like it's from Ripley's or something. Firstly the plane is human controlled like all other passenger planes. Secondly the accident happened because the pilot came in too slow and low. I'm sure Straffo can explain it in more detail.
-
Apparently the accident occured because the computer was programmed in landing mode, and the pilot never counter-ordered that program.
IIRC, afther that accident they changed the interface so that overriding the laws was much simpler.
Daniel
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Arent all British at least part French, they did invade and rule your country for a long long time..
Norman Conquest, 1066. You know that because you're smart and educated. Dago doesn't because he's neither.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Wow, that's some pretty timely criticism. Next, let's talk some dirt on Eleanor Roosevelt's blatant misuse of petroleum-based hair products during the enforced shortages of 'the war'. Also, the Glen Miller disapearance is still sizzling, have you heard anything new on that lately?
Are you saying there are not any more recent examples of the same thing?
-
Nice response beetle, I guess you can't argue the facts.
Don't you British usually drop a gun before you surrender so quickly? (or sword in the old days when the French visited)
dago
-
BTW beetle, I mentioned Iraq in French context (hope that word isn't too big for you). It was relating to why I have thrown some less that complimentary comments towards France.
Maybe Dowding can help you with comprehension lessons. Maybe you were just too drunk at the time to read well and understand, my sympathies, they say it (alchoholism) is a "sickness".
Oh and my apolgies for not including all the times in history England took it up the butt from invaders. I thought you would have preferred that not be brought up.
dago
-
Why the mean spiritedness between the two of you? Is it really neccesary?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Are you saying there are not any more recent examples of the same thing?
Just responding in kind. The example used was of the 'Spruce Goose', which flew in 1947.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Just responding in kind. The example used was of the 'Spruce Goose', which flew in 1947.
So then you have no opinion on how simular Airbus and Boeing goverment funding are?
-
Why the mean spiritedness between the two of you? Is it really neccesary?
I gained a serious dislike of beetle on this board. For a long time, he seemed to be obsessed with coming on the board and posting everything negative he could think about the USA.
I laid off him as he seemed to finally move on and stop that nonsense.
I think if you read each of the comments in this board, you might find he both started this crap by nitpicking on my grammar, and then after I tried to make light of it, he called me a dick. And so it has accelerated. Too bad really, I was comfortable not getting into this kind of crap anymore.
As far as GSholz goes, I accept I was unfair to you before, I made a mistake in interpreting your meaning in a post, and as a result I was a dick towards you for a long time. I apologize, I have moved on and not said anything in a long time towards or about you. But, if you care to keep that stuff going, so be it. Your choice.
I still don't apologize for my anger towards France. I still believe they (the French government) served greed without consideration of the human toll.
I still have no real idea exactly why Bush was so intent on attacking Iraq, but until proven differant, I am choosing to believe it was for noble reasons. Maybe history will answer that question some day.
so, Beetle, piss off.
GSholz, whatever.
dago
-
Originally posted by Dago
I still don't apologize for my anger towards France. I still believe they (the French government) served greed without consideration of the human toll.
I still have no real idea exactly why Bush was so intent on attacking Iraq, but until proven differant, I am choosing to believe it was for noble reasons. Maybe history will answer that question some day.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Dago
I still have no real idea exactly why Bush was so intent on attacking Iraq, but until proven differant, I am choosing to believe it was for noble reasons.
It was to free the 'good people of iraq'!:lol
(http://www.twaze.com/aolpix/ostrich.gif)
-
Originally posted by Krusher
OFF TOPIC ALERT!!
I hate to see airliners go in under any circumstance.
This video of a A320 going in at the Paris Airshow is inertesting only because of the dialog.
http://www.airdisaster.com/download/af320.shtml
They are talking about it being computer controled as it is slowly decending into a forrest. It didnt do much to boost confidence in computer controlled aircraft.
It wasn't the computer's fault it's because the airplane built in (unmentionable) by (unmentionable)
-
Originally posted by Pongo
So then you have no opinion on how simular Airbus and Boeing goverment funding are?
I guess I don't see the similarity. The US government purchases airplanes from Boeing for use in the military. The EU gives Airbus money for nothing in return to bail it out of selling planes below cost.
One is business, the other is charity.
-
To get back to the point, ie aeroplanes or airplanes depending on your view. All this nationalist bollox gets tiresome sometimes. It annoys me to see the aviation industry which I worked in for nearly twenty years talked about in such an childish, trivial and asinine fashion.
FYI Airbus is not now nor has it ever been French. They are final assembled in France but are built by the British, French, Spanish, Italians and Germans. Have I left anyone out? Oh yes Americans. Many components engines etc are American. In fact 50% of the new Airbus A380 is American made. Yes that's right, any more it would legitimately be called American. Note too, that no government subsidy is being paid to Airbus for the A380. Airbus was subsidied in the past mainly to allow the European aviation industry to compete against America. Otherwise there would be no European aviation industry. Don't you think the US government would do the same for their industry?
Air France bought Boeing 777's recently just so you know. Airlines these days get the best deals they can. Of the two big low fare carriers in Europe, Easyjet and Ryanair. Easyjet bought Airbuses and Ryanair 737-800's. Both were probably hard headed commercial decisions. Ryanair's certainly was. The CEO O'Leary won't even buy pens for his staff. They have to steal them from hotels etc! Both probably got good deals. Either way it was good for America's aerospace industry because of the high American content in both. That's the way it works. If there was no Airbus, Boeing would have no incentive to develop and vice versa.
Everybody makes money on spares by the way. It was always that way. You could give away the aircraft knowing you'd make money on spares sometimes.
It's clear that many of you have no idea how the aviation business works. Maybe you should stick to the usual Iraq,Bush,Kerry,boobs and car threads in future.:mad:
-
Fair point cpxxx, but that doesn't mean the French don't suck.
(Joke son, that's a joke!)
-
So true cpxxx, the space industry works that way in many aspects. The technology for the upcoming 12 Ton Ariane 5 has been shared with the vector companies from the USA so that satellite manufacturers trust the new 12T launchers.
If there was just one company building them, companies wouldn't construct 12T satellites because they'd be limited to one launcher (and the prices they set).
Daniel
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I guess I don't see the similarity. The US government purchases airplanes from Boeing for use in the military. The EU gives Airbus money for nothing in return to bail it out of selling planes below cost.
One is business, the other is charity.
In one case the goverment give tax dollars to a company to make an airplane. In the other the goverment gives tax dollars to a company to make a plane. On each airbus they probably make good money but the development cost is probably moslty tax dollars. Very simular situations exist with Boeing. The 707 development was paid for by developeing the kc135. A long time ago you will say. But the europeans have wanted to make a competitor for Boeing. So they went back to the foundations of how that company got to where it is in the comercial airliner business. And US tax dollars have alot to do with that story.
Both are socialist business practices.
-
The nonsense stops now ... shall we?
Fine by me.
dago
-
Originally posted by Dago
Beetle
Lets consider these facts:
1) Your anti-USA garbage started long before I ever disparaged France.
2) You aren't French, they can and have defended themselves without the assistance of a babbling British alcoholic
3) In your drunken state, you started the nastiness in this thread
4) The French government was happy to have Iraqis slaughtered by Saddam Hussein as long as they made money off him.
5) Dowding usually has to step in to most threads and try to defend you as you are incapable of doing it yourself
dago
LOL! - all this, out of a split infinitive :lol
-
It was to free the 'good people of iraq'!
Now xrtoronto and straffo, all I would ask is solid proof of what YOU know was Bush's real reason for attacking Iraq.
Please limit yourself to proven or at least provable facts.
Avoid conjecture, avoid conspiracy theories, and avoid liberal babble, and offer real proof.
If you can't, then you are just another slightly distracting nuisance.
Of course, you are free to give your opinion, but that should limit you to comment only on your thoughts. Doesn't really give license to ridicule others.
dago
-
you're a prize dick -
Actually beetle, it all came from that comment. You English sure have an way with words.
dago
-
The 707 and the KC-135 modifications of the same airframe, but at a great risk to the financial future of Boeing.
By the time development of the 707 actually concluded, development costs had surpassed $185 million - more than the company's total net worth.
Boeing's development of a commercial jet airliner was a gamble on which the entire company was bet. Much the same as the gamble ot develop the 747, 15 years after they first bet the company.
-
Boeing's development of a commercial jet airliner was a gamble on which the entire company was bet. Much the same as the gamble ot develop the 747, 15 years after they first bet the company.
True enough, now I wonder if the new 7E7 is the same thing again? Make or break?
dago
-
I'll drop the thread w/ Pongo, because I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall.
In regards to betting the company on the 747, that has to be one of the scariest and best decisions Boeing ever made. There was no turning back, they developed their entire Paine Field complex around the promise of Jumbo Jet construction, and it's astonishing how good that plane is.
Last I heard, the 747 remains the fastest subsonic (and now, w/o the Tupolev or the Concorde, the fastest period) airliner in service. Not only that, but it's so versatile, it's been used or will be used as:
1. Passenger liner
2. Cargo freighter
3. Spaceship transporter
4. ICBM interceptor (w/ laser)
5. Water dropper for fighting forest fires (for some reason)
and more.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
5. Water dropper for fighting forest fires (for some reason)
What? Got any more info on that? :D
-
Evergreen in McMinnville OR is converting one (747) to fight fire.
-
Aggree with what? that there is no comparison between Boeing and Airbus as far as goverment mony contributed?
Then your blind. Yes the 747 was a huge expense with limited Military contribution. But the 707, that got boeing on the airliner map that is totally not the case. Most of the developement for that aircraft was paid for by the us goverment.
Its no crime. Its just assinine to throw stones at airbus for the same thing. Initial developement payed for by the goverment.
-
The Dash 80 was developed by Boeing with Boeing money. They risked the net worth of the company to build it. The US Airforce was not considering a jet powered refueling aircraft at the time. Boeing convinced them after it was built that it was far superior to prop refulers of the time. The KC-135 project actually caused Boeing's commercial 707 to lag behind the Douglas DC-8 in inital sales.
-
There was a need for a jet refueler.
There was a need for a jet airliner.
Boeing risked more than the net worth of the company on the development of a largely common design that would fulfill both market niches. At the time of the development, the refueler was the first customer and not until Tex Johnson rolled the 707 over Lake Washington during the hydroplane races did they get their first civilian order.
That Boeing chose to amortize the development cost over the large number of military versions is not socialism, it is bookkeeping. 15 or 20 years of civilian sales could have more than paid for the development. A direct subsidy would have eliminated the risk to Boeing, but the risk of the decision to develop the 707/KC135 remained.
If the 707/KC135 had failed, Boeing would have ceased to exist. They were paid for their performance. The US government paid for a product and a product was delivered.
For example the cost of the Concorde, the Anglo/French cooperative production of which was the genesis of Airbus, was not fully amortized over the dozen or so that were produced.
The cost of that development program was paid for by a subsidy from the French and British people. A taxpayer subsidy without a corresponding production of aircraft.
-
I suspect that we'd best not try to interject facts into the conversation, Pongo appears to have his mind made up. That's why I'm washing my hands of it. I suspect that the mere fact that the government purchased a product is enough to damn the selling company in his eyes.
-
Originally posted by Dago
I was a dick
Spelling error. The correct spelling of "was" is "am".
-
Sure Beetle he still is.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
FYI Airbus is not now nor has it ever been French. They are final assembled in France but are built by the British, French, Spanish, Italians and Germans. Have I left anyone out? Oh yes Americans. Many components engines etc are American. In fact 50% of the new Airbus A380 is American made. Yes that's right, any more it would legitimately be called American. Note too, that no government subsidy is being paid to Airbus for the A380. Airbus was subsidied in the past mainly to allow the European aviation industry to compete against America. Otherwise there would be no European aviation industry. Don't you think the US government would do the same for their industry?
Air France bought Boeing 777's recently just so you know. Airlines these days get the best deals they can. Of the two big low fare carriers in Europe, Easyjet and Ryanair. Easyjet bought Airbuses and Ryanair 737-800's. Both were probably hard headed commercial decisions. Ryanair's certainly was. The CEO O'Leary won't even buy pens for his staff. They have to steal them from hotels etc! Both probably got good deals. Either way it was good for America's aerospace industry because of the high American content in both. That's the way it works. If there was no Airbus, Boeing would have no incentive to develop and vice versa.
Wow - EasyJet bought Airbus planes? I'm a regular customer of EasyJet - even met and shook hands with Stelios and then shared a flight with him down to Nice a few years ago. One of the reasons back then why they had all B737 was that all their pilots could fly all their aircraft. Also, the maintenance arrangements were greatly simplified and they needed only one simulator(?). But then they started adding other 737 variants like 700 (and I think there's now an 800?). But the news that they bought into Airbus was a big surprise. Story here (http://www.easyjet.co.uk/EN/about/aircraft.html).
Yep, the Airbus was part British. I worked for BAe in Weybridge during the mid 1980s. BAe built the wings. Some of the work was done at Weybridge, but I think the heavy work was probably done at Filton.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I suspect that we'd best not try to interject facts into the conversation, Pongo appears to have his mind made up. That's why I'm washing my hands of it. I suspect that the mere fact that the government purchased a product is enough to damn the selling company in his eyes.
It doennt dam it in my eyes that the goverment contributed to it. It dams you in my eyes that you hate airbus for thier goverment support but love Boeing for thier rugged capitalism. lol
There are no facts you can prevent and no fact presented above that changes the situation. Boeing exists due to massive US goverment contracts.
-
con·tract
'kän-"trakt
noun
Middle English, from Latin contractus, from contrahere to draw together, make a contract, reduce in size, from com- + trahere to draw 1 a : a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties; especially : one legally enforceable b : a business arrangement for the supply of goods or services
sub·si·dy
's&b-s&-dE,
noun
Middle English, from Latin subsidium reserve troops, support, assistance, from sub- near + sedEre to sit -- more at SUB-, SIT
: a grant or gift of money: as a : a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation b : money granted by one state to another c : a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public
Learn the difference and you will gain wisdom