Boeing beating Airbus again (woot)

[cellardoor6]

Civilian aircraft sales for Boeing beat out Airbus for 2006 for the first time since 2000.

Not too shabby considering Airbus has a massive unfair advantage due to the fact that they receive massive government grants from European governments for its civilian industry, while Boeing only receives grants for military aircraft (which aren't included in civilian sales count) and isn't subsidized by the US government, all in order to play fair.

Airbus is actually subsidized by France, Germany, and the UK, (against WTO agreements) and yet it still struggles to meet delivery dates. I wonder how bad Boeing would own Airbus if Boeing was subsidized by the US government.

And what I think is funny is that the launch of Airbus itself was done by European governments, it's not even technically a private, competing company. It's a government controlled, government favored monolith, it doesn't abide by the same free trade rules that Boeing does.

And Karma came back to bite Airbus and the Europeans in the ass, with the near total failure in 2006 to produce and deliver their new [government funded] A380 super jet liner on time.

And for anyone interested, do some research on the early history of Airbus. The US actually gave Airbus technology so that their domestic aircraft market would thrive so that Europe could pull itself out of its economic funk it was in and lessen its dependence on the US.

Then despite the US lifting Europe up by the bootstraps by giving them a massive advantage, the EU and Airbus still felt it necessary to bite the hand that feeds them some more, and unfairly subsidize their products and put tariffs on American aeronautics products, all while they demand that the US not do the same to them.

Karma is a beautiful thing. But honestly, considering Airbus's unfair advantage and how it still fails, I wonder how much it would suffer and Boeing would own if Boeing decided to adopt Europe's unethical business practices?

[Lagerkapo]

You know, at first I was going to mock you for giving a fuck about airplane sales, but then after I read your post I found that that was actually somewhat interesting. Lol @ failed monopolization.

[PyroGreg]

I tried reading that, three times, but I'm getting sleepy, might go to bed soon

[cellardoor6]

At 1/20/07 03:08 AM, Lagerkapo wrote: You know, at first I was going to mock you for giving a fuck about airplane sales,

Its actually a pretty big deal. If you're old enough to remember all the controversy during the 90's both the EU and the US threatening to cut off sales to eachother, and preventing the other from selling in domestic markets.

Then it all came to an agreement, and the EU was supposed to quit subsidizing their airliners. And the US would accept a EU-imposed tariff on Boeing planes being sold to EU countries. The US kept its end of the bargain, and the bargain even gave EU an advantage. But the EU and their scandalous bureaucrats decided to side-step WTO agreements and stab the US in the back.

but then after I read your post I found that that was actually somewhat interesting. Lol @ failed monopolization.

Read up about it, don't take my word for it. Its actually quite interesting.

[Lagerkapo]

It is interesting, but the second article is from september of 2004. I don't quite have the alertness or attention span to look for more recent news on the topic, so I'll just ask you, have Airbus and the EU started playing more fairly, or is it still the same story?

[Shadow-XII]

Im sure sales will pick up soonish. When's the A380 go into main service?

[Lagerkapo]

At 1/20/07 03:38 AM, Shadow-XII wrote: Im sure sales will pick up soonish. When's the A380 go into main service?

The first article said that Airbus's estimate is october.

[cellardoor6]

At 1/20/07 03:35 AM, Lagerkapo wrote: It is interesting, but the second article is from september of 2004. I don't quite have the alertness or attention span to look for more recent news on the topic, so I'll just ask you, have Airbus and the EU started playing more fairly, or is it still the same story?

Airbus and the EU are still playing dirty. In fact, their recent A380, the ultra Jumbo Jet was funded almost entirely with EU government funds, not private investment by Airbus or others. Research, development, testing, and production were all nearly entirely paid for by the EU.

Conversely, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner which is the rival of the A380, will only received a fund of 30% production cost aide from the State of Washington (not the federal government) so that workers could keep their wages and to prevent employee downsizing and this was allowed in WTO agreements. Research, design, development and testing for the Dreamliner was all paid for by Boeing itself or private investors.

I heard recently that Boeing might take this to court soon. But recent EU-US talks in Belgium discussed it briefly and there was talk that this and other trade disputes would be worked on. But then again, that was probably just the typical pandering to the camera bullshit.

[cellardoor6]

At 1/20/07 03:38 AM, Shadow-XII wrote: Im sure sales will pick up soonish. When's the A380 go into main service?

No its not sales or orders that Airbus lagged in, it was deliveries. Because Airbus couldn't produce and refine the A380 in time to fill all the orders. This led to cancellations of orders and subsequent sales. Just the UAE alone canceled 20 orders or something along those lines.

[Shadow-XII]

At 1/20/07 03:42 AM, Lagerkapo wrote: The first article said that Airbus's estimate is october.

United Arab Emirates Air are already using two or three. I wonder which airlines will buy them.

[Lagerkapo]

At 1/20/07 03:49 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: I heard recently that Boeing might take this to court soon. But recent EU-US talks in Belgium discussed it briefly and there was talk that this and other trade disputes would be worked on. But then again, that was probably just the typical pandering to the camera bullshit.

Most of the time, from what I've seen, when people smile for the camera and then keep walking their level of seriousness on the matter is comparable to that of a toddler's about global warming. If these things do get worked out outside of court it'll be in a year or two, and by then I bet Airbus will have maneuvered its way into a nice, comfy spot. If I were the decision making body behing Boeing I'd take it to court if nothing happens 3 months from now.

[Shaun]

Is this supposed to be some sort of american pride, our aircraft are better then Europes wank fest?
as long as both companies remain reasonably competitive so one company can not create a monopoly and send air travel prices up by increasing the sale price of their product then who really cares?

[Ratso]

WOW AIRPLANES... GAY!!!!!!!!

[Lagerkapo]

At 1/20/07 04:10 AM, Madknt wrote: Is this supposed to be some sort of american pride, our aircraft are better then Europes wank fest?
as long as both companies remain reasonably competitive so one company can not create a monopoly and send air travel prices up by increasing the sale price of their product then who really cares?

I could care less where each company is from, it's just that Boeing, playing by the rules, has managed to surpass Airbus which, from what I've now gathered, recieves a shitload of money from the EU that it's not supposed to be getting, and is performing poorly on top of that.

[cellardoor6]

At 1/20/07 04:10 AM, Madknt wrote: Is this supposed to be some sort of american pride, our aircraft are better then Europes wank fest?

Partially. But really its just a jab at the EU and Airbus. And a jab against certain individuals who gloat about Airbus all the time while disregarding the inconvenient facts about whats going on.

But I thought this would provoke debate, maybe with some Europeans adding their point of view, but I guess not. Not yet at least.

as long as both companies remain reasonably competitive so one company can not create a monopoly and send air travel prices up by increasing the sale price of their product then who really cares?

Myself, millions of people who are interesting in economics. Anyone else who cares about something that is actually a fairly big deal internationally. Would it be uncommon for someone to discuss the rival companies in any other industry? No.

Would you react the way you just did if it was a thread of Ipod Vs Zune, or Xbox 360 vs. PS3 and so forth?

[cellardoor6]

I'm going to bed, but the British NGers should be bombarding BBS with their shenanigans any moment now.

So I'll just give this thread a little bump and respond in the morning.

[Stealth-Emergence]

Actually it makes a whole lot of sense for any government to fund a scheme such as this.

Think about it this way, Government funding = Tax payers money.

Ok Now considering the U.K. for sure are running out of space to build more airports, I'm sure this is true to some extent for other EU Nations.

Now to build an airport will also cost a lot of money, most of which will need approval and funding from government, again with the funding which will come out of tax payers pockets.

So to ease off the problem of having to build more airports, why not build larger capacity aircraft?

So that's what they're doing. To save money from additional airports to throw into the production of the airbus.

Would it be considered unfair for the EU Nations to fund more airports?

I'm guessing and am almost certain, that you will think that is fair (as it is)

now taking into account the points I made, about, instead funding these aircraft, I see no real problem and certainly no case for concern.

End of discussion.

[Shaun]

At 1/20/07 04:18 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Would you react the way you just did if it was a thread of Ipod Vs Zune, or Xbox 360 vs. PS3 and so forth?

yes, if someone made a thread about one product beating another in sales with no reasoning behind why they cared other then the fact that one is smart and gets government subsidies.
sif question me.

[JohnnyWang]

At 1/20/07 05:41 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: I'm going to bed, but the British NGers should be bombarding BBS with their shenanigans any moment now.

So I'll just give this thread a little bump and respond in the morning.

So I gather you want to incite argument between UK and US users over this.

Odd that you mentionunfair goverment bonuses and work for a Israeli national weapon company.

Also, the whole debate doesn't really interest me, as I see airlines as a source of polution (a big one).

[Shaun]

At 1/20/07 06:22 AM, JohnnyWang wrote: Also, the whole debate doesn't really interest me, as I see airlines as a source of polution (a big one).

the pros of airline travel far outweigh the cons, so far its not even funny.

[JohnnyWang]

At 1/20/07 06:25 AM, Madknt wrote:
the pros of airline travel far outweigh the cons

Well, idk. It would still be a good idea to cut back on airline travel. At least personally I'll rather go by train.

so far its not even funny.

For some reason my brain does not recognise the use of that phrase in this context... Explain.

[LazyDrunk]

At 1/20/07 06:39 AM, JohnnyWang wrote:

At 1/20/07 06:25 AM, Madknt wrote:
the pros of airline travel far outweigh the cons

Well, idk. It would still be a good idea to cut back on airline travel. At least personally I'll rather go by train.

so far its not even funny.

For some reason my brain does not recognise the use of that phrase in this context... Explain.

Meaning it's so bizarre that it isn't even funny, but dead pause dinner-stopping stupid.

Airplanes and pollution?

[JohnnyWang]

At 1/20/07 06:57 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:
Meaning it's so bizarre that it isn't even funny, but dead pause dinner-stopping stupid.

Now you just completely lost me.

Airplanes and pollution?

If you mean that planes and pollution = wtf, well, do keep in mind that they are machines that have to escape earths gravity for long distances. That requires a lot of energy. Energy comes from fuel, and fuel burns, burning creates Carbon dioxide and depending on the fuels chemical composition, a lot of other tings.

[LazyDrunk]

At 1/20/07 07:01 AM, JohnnyWang wrote: If you mean that planes and pollution = wtf, well, do keep in mind that they are machines that have to escape earths gravity for long distances. That requires a lot of energy. Energy comes from fuel, and fuel burns, burning creates Carbon dioxide and depending on the fuels chemical composition, a lot of other tings.

Have you kept in mind that getting people from point A to point B over long distances requires MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF FUEL REGARDLESS OF ITS ENGINE?

Driving 50 cars 1400 miles on unleaded gas is NOT more economical or environmentally-friendly as one jet-fueled trek across the sky.

Can you guess why planes haven't been forced out of business by other industries yet?

[JohnnyWang]

At 1/20/07 07:16 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Have you kept in mind that getting people from point A to point B over long distances requires MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF FUEL REGARDLESS OF ITS ENGINE?

Off course.

Driving 50 cars 1400 miles on unleaded gas is NOT more economical or environmentally-friendly as one jet-fueled trek across the sky.

Yes, but I'm thinking more in the lines of trains.

You see, the difference is still, that to a plane to travel, it has to raise several kilometers, and one of the first thing about physics, a movement upwards requires more energy than a movement vertically.

[LazyDrunk]

At 1/20/07 07:19 AM, JohnnyWang wrote: Yes, but I'm thinking more in the lines of trains.

And friction causes the loss of even more energy. Which has more resistance, a plane at 35,000 or a 500,000kg train on an iron track?

You see, the difference is still, that to a plane to travel, it has to raise several kilometers, and one of the first thing about physics, a movement upwards requires more energy than a movement vertically.

It's more complicated than that.

[zzzzd]

Personaly I'm Glad Boeing are in the lead again. I prefer Boeing than that french bollocks. French are shit engineers always have been.

Anyhow I expect Boeing and Airbus will Be overtaking each other alot more in the future.
Goverment funding or not, Airbus has done well to get to the same place as Boeing. Boeing had been Flying without any real competion for years. It's like a company getting to the same level as microsoft.

This is quite an interesting topic, even so it's just Cellardoors attempt to try and provoke some europeans into an argument.

[cellardoor6]

At 1/20/07 05:55 AM, Stealth-Emergence wrote: Actually it makes a whole lot of sense for any government to fund a scheme such as this.

Would it be considered unfair for the EU Nations to fund more airports?

No, because there is no agreement between EU and US airport building companies (if there is such a thing) that prohibits them from doing so.

You are ignoring the issue here. The issue is that the welfare of companies that employ hundreds of thousands of people is at stake. And in order to give people an equal playing field, the WTO acts as a venue for people to speak their grievances and concerns and to come to agreements in order to enforce fair play.

The EU agreed not to subsidize Airbus to the extent to which they have. Therefore, no matter how moral you think the act is in and of itself, its still in violation of agreements. The US obeyed the WTO rules that were set in place based on complaints and concerns from the EU, so by disregarding these agreements, the EU is scandalously getting the best of both worlds. The EU and Airbus (and other EU companies) whine and complain when the US companies dominate over their companies, so the US gives the EU certain handicaps in order to allow them to compete. But then the EU turns around and breaks the agreements, and unfairly and unethically subsidizes their aeronautics companies, then they put TARIFFS on US products in the same industry, all while they DEMAND that the US not do the same thing.

The US obeys the WTO agreements that have been made with the EU. But the EU exploits this, but refuses to abide by the same rules all while they enjoy the advantages they receive because the US DOES abide by the rules.

I'm guessing and am almost certain, that you will think that is fair (as it is)

Um no, because if the US and Boeing did the same shit that the EU and Airbus do, then Airbus would crumble and Boeing would dominate even more than it currently is. Then all the Europeans would be screaming bloody murder, and would start retaliatory economic measures such as higher tariffs on US products in Europe (higher than they already are).

The point here is that the EU and Airbus are being like disgruntled Brats. They demand fair treatment, then when they get fair treatment along with an UNFAIR advantage, they turn around and cheat anyway.

And the fact that they do this has causes Boeing to suffer because the US actually plays fairly and abides by WTO agreements. So its not just a moral thing of "let the taxpayers help the companies" sort of thing, because the people who actually work at Boeing are affected.

And people like you would be accusing the US of ruthless imperialism if the US did what the EU does, because thousands of EU workers and people in related fields would suffer tremendously if the US had the lack of honestly and lack of empathy that the EU has.