 |
| |
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
They've been promising to build the California High Speed Rail Network for two decades now but neither the state nor the feds ever seem to come up with the money. I know about four years ago a commericial company was talking about building a bullet train between LA and Las Vegas but they went bankrupt before construction even started. |
We were supposed to have high speed rail in Florida. They even put it in our constitution in 1998. But the GOP gov and the GOP dominated legislature simply refused to put any money into it. The first leg was supposed to start running this year, betwen Tampa and Orlando. The GOP started a push-poll campaign and put an amendment on the ballot to get it out of our Constitution, which passed, overwhelmingly.
They made all sorts of BAMs which the proponents of high speed rail never bothered to counter. They said it would take away from expansion of our highways, without anyone saying, with HSR we won't need to expand our highways, etc. It would have been really good for Orlando, because it would have made the city a central hub for Florida, where everyone could live, and then work in Tampa, Miami, Jacksonville, etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adam Smith
|
 |
Maryland, USA
Jan 1970
time: 00:30
|
|
A few comments from a transportation economist.
1. Subsidies
Airbus’ launch payments and low-interest loans are subsidies by any economic definition. The fact that Boeing receives money from the military and NASA does not necessarily make these payments subsidies.
Military R&D and commercial R&D art what economists call joint products. If Boeing conducts basic R&D, and it has both military and commercial applications, then we would expect both the military and commercial applications to pay for the R&D. Suppose it costs a US farmer and an EU farmer $1000 to raise a cow. Either cow produces both one hide and one ton of meat. In the US the military is willing to pay $200 for the hide to make boots, so the meat can be sold for less. In the EU there is no market for hides, so the meat costs more.
In addition, what each party pays for hides or meat depends on their competitive situation. If Boeing is in a very competitive commercial aviation market, then they would be willing to pay a relatively small part of the R&D costs. The mere fact that the US military makes a payment proves nothing. Unless the EU can show that the US military is paying waaaaay more than it “should” for the R&D, then there is no economic basis for saying there is a subsidy.
[All that said, Boeing appears to have been asleep at the switch in terms of product development.]
2. Need For Larger Aircraft
Both Airbus and Boeing see the same overall growth in airline traffic over the life of their new products. The question appears to be whether the growth will come in high-density or lower density routes. Airbus’s initial orders provide a market indication that they may be right, or at least right enough to make a go of it. But Boeing is probably looking at a few indications that argue against the use of ever-larger aircraft flying between hubs.
First, hubbing appears to have peaked in the US. While most major airline still use hubs, the most efficient airlines (e.g., Southwest) are famously NOT hubbed.
Second, large aircraft are not likely to be effective on short routes. It takes a long time to gather up enough passengers to fill up a large aircraft. But in many high-volume US markets (NY-Chicago, Washington-Chicago, NY-Atlanta that I know of personally) airlines advertise hourly departures for convenience, not huge aircraft for low cost. The only exception I can think of is Tokyo-Osaka, where there are hourly 747 departures and passengers are packed in like cattle.
Third, large infrastructure improvements will be required to handle larger planes in any sort of hub operation. In 1998 my wife and I flew to China through Narita Airport in Tokyo. Eight 747-400’s arrived at United Airlines’ terminal from various parts of the US and then departed to various parts of Asia two hours later. The process of changing planes in the 150 foot diameter terminal could best be described as Brownian motion with luggage.
3. Fuel Efficiency
In the US, aircraft are about as fuel efficient per passenger mile as passenger cars, each at average loading. Intercity rail is about twice as fuel efficient as either mode, again evaluated at average loading.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Che, I'm surprised at what you said about the GOP in Florida being against building railroads. Here in Kalifornia, it is the Dems who are against building infrastructure of any kind. The reason we are even discussing building RR's here in Kalifornia is because of Arnold.
With regard to the Airbus subsidies, I think we should bar Airbus planes that benefitted from subsidies from using US airspace for a number of years equal to the advantage the subsidies gave them. |
wouldn't Airbus's benefactor the EU simply respond in kind with a ban vs Boeing aircraft?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-01-2005 22:58
That's quite an accurate description of all the people wandering about. Plus looking at Japanese men staring at photos in skin magazines at various stores was fun.
).
As if the Euros would allow that to happen. You're cute Fez 
|