20-01-2005 14:57									#91
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Combat Ingrid The inside of that plane sure looks big and comfy, but I bet they will squeeze in a few hundred extra chairs in there to keep the ticket prices down

quote: Originally posted by Zkribbler How long do you think it will take the airlines to rip out the bar and bed in order to cram in knee-to-butt seating?

Anyone remember the 747's piano lounge?



That didn't last long.

	20-01-2005 17:09									#92
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Ned 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.

Great idea! Hurting all the airlines that operate Airbus - including US airlines. The terrorists couldn't have done better. Why do you hate America?

	20-01-2005 19:06									#93
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Boshko As if the Euros would allow that to happen. You're cute Fez

They'll keep it afloat for sure, but it won't be profitable. It will be a disaster. French economic disasters. Wow... another one to that long list after the Concorde. Yeah sure, Europe wasn't going to let Concorde go down in bankruptcy.. what happened to it in the end? It went down in bankruptcy.

	20-01-2005 19:09									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo They'll keep it afloat for sure, but it won't be profitable. It will be a disaster. French economic disasters. Wow... another one to that long list after the Concorde. Yeah sure, Europe wasn't going to let Concorde go down in bankruptcy.. what happened to it in the end? It went down in bankruptcy.

The difference is that Airbus is making money. And as time passes, it is less and less dependant from the EU's subsidies, considering the progresses of its marketshare.

	20-01-2005 19:13									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor The difference is that Airbus is making money. And as time passes, it is less and less dependant from the EU's subsidies, considering the progresses of its marketshare.

There was already an estimation on how much Airbus will have to sell to break even. You think too optimistically. Airbus is going to lose money in this stupid venture. And just ask yourself this.. airliners are going to have to raise fees... you think this will be profitable? I think not! European airlines should go with the Boeing 7E7 because it will be more profitable. Right now it is better to operate smaller but more fuel efficient airplanes. The progresses of its marketshare is highly temporary, as it has an unworthy business model. I'm not saying Boeing hasn't ****ed up (they did, and it ended up in the conviction of one executive I believe)... however Boeing understands the market more then Airbus.

	20-01-2005 20:25									#96
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by BeBro Great idea! Hurting all the airlines that operate Airbus - including US airlines. The terrorists couldn't have done better. Why do you hate America?

BeBro, If the Airlines know this in advance, they won't buy the new Airbuses until the sanctions have lapsed. You assume that airlines are stupid. I assure you they are not.

	20-01-2005 20:27									#97
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov @ Ned, you are such a crank. Let's not forget that airspace rules are a product of treaties, not subject to the whims of administrations. Thankfully.

Why of course, Boris. We have to go through Gatt now to get "permission" to retaliate. But we should in fact retaliate because the Euro's are f*cking with us.

	20-01-2005 20:47									#98
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Ned we should in fact retaliate because the Euro's are f*cking with us.

If you attempt to retaliate, the WTO will give Europe the right to retaliate against your retaliations. Such a behaviour would put a complete stop to transatlantic transportation, not to mention to a good chunk of transportation from other continents. Neither you or us want to paralyze our economies in such a strong way.

That's why commercial wars have been avoided between the US and the EU so far. Since we are both able to do major damage to the other (the question as to whom will make the more damage is irrelevant here, that's akin to wondering whther the US or the USSR would have "won" the nuclear war), we are both wise enough to avoid a direct and destructive confrontation.

	20-01-2005 21:03									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Ned Why of course, Boris. We have to go through Gatt now to get "permission" to retaliate. But we should in fact retaliate because the Euro's are f*cking with us.

Steel tarriffs.

	20-01-2005 22:24									#100
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor If you attempt to retaliate, the WTO will give Europe the right to retaliate against your retaliations. Such a behaviour would put a complete stop to transatlantic transportation, not to mention to a good chunk of transportation from other continents. Neither you or us want to paralyze our economies in such a strong way. That's why commercial wars have been avoided between the US and the EU so far. Since we are both able to do major damage to the other (the question as to whom will make the more damage is irrelevant here, that's akin to wondering whther the US or the USSR would have "won" the nuclear war), we are both wise enough to avoid a direct and destructive confrontation.

Bull. I said we should pursue our WTO remedies and retaliate. Europe clearly is in the wrong here and would have no legal ground to counter a WTO-sanctioned response by the US. There will be no trade war as such is now illegal.

	20-01-2005 22:52									#101
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Ned Bull. I said we should pursue our WTO remedies and retaliate. Europe clearly is in the wrong here and would have no legal ground to counter a WTO-sanctioned response by the US. There will be no trade war as such is now illegal.

The WTO might grant you the right to put tariffs on importing Airbuses, making it more expansive for American companies to buy them. But the practices of the plane manufacturer are no ground to punish the plane's exploiters by any stretch of the imagination. Besides, such a form of retaliation would be completely disproportional to the damage done by Airbus to the US, and would thus not be accepted by the WTO.

Fortunately, your leaders are not stupid enough to contemplate such an idea. Starting a trade war is a very hurtful thing to do. Your leaders will be intelligent enough to avoid tihs one, just like they avoid MAD with the Soviets.

	21-01-2005 05:25									#102
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Spiffor, if the US were to annouce that this was their intended remedy, then Airbus would have a difficult time selling any A380s during the entire time the WTO proceedings were pending regardless of the outcome of the proceedings. Furthermore, if the US were to announce the remedy they would prefer now, every airline will be forwarned and can take the risk of buying A380s knowing that when the WTO proceedings were complete, and the US authorized to impose sanctions, they would have to replace those planes with others in order to continue to fly to the US. They could take the risk or not take the risk. Their choice.

But it would be criminal for the US not to retaliate in some measure.

(You mentioned tarriffs on sales of A380s to US airlines. If you think about it for a minute, this would harm US airlines, not harm foreign competitors and only marginally affect Airbus. I hardly think that the US would impose such a stupid remedy.)

	21-01-2005 05:39									#103
	Put an end to popups!

And, BTW, Spiffor, a trade war implies that Europe would impose countervailing tarriffs or the like without WTO authorization. I am very sure that Europe would do no such thing.

	21-01-2005 05:40									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

They'd have the same grounds we would wrt Airbus: state aid to Boeing.

	21-01-2005 05:52									#105
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc They'd have the same grounds we would wrt Airbus: state aid to Boeing.

Prove it.

	21-01-2005 09:33									#106
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Yeah sure, Europe wasn't going to let Concorde go down in bankruptcy.. what happened to it in the end? It went down in bankruptcy.

How can a model of plane go bankrupt

	21-01-2005 10:35									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Hurting all the airlines that operate Airbus - including US airlines.

I don't think any US airlines have signed up to buy the A380.

	21-01-2005 10:44									#108
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Neddie, is that Jeb Stuart in your avatar?

	21-01-2005 10:51									#109
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by DanS I don't think any US airlines have signed up to buy the A380.

UPS has ordered the freight version, FedEx as well. And btw, I primarily meant those which use current Airbus models. Don't you think banning planes that are so common in the international market (not US) will have a negative effect on air travel business overall?

	21-01-2005 10:58									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Ned Prove it.

Prove what?

	21-01-2005 10:59									#111
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

it

	21-01-2005 11:00									#112
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ned Prove it.

Illinois and Chicago shelled out quite a bit of money to get Boeing to move their headquarters there. I even applied for a job with them back in 2001. Thing is, the states and cities cannot be punished for violating treaties, so the Feds will have to pay the fine (NAFTA) or various companies will get hit with tariffs (WTO/GATT).

	21-01-2005 11:05									#113
	Suffering from ads?

That's just run of the mill stuff that wouldn't trigger the WTO's gives a ****. Hell you should see the deal MS cut for Nissan. This would be more in line of what they'd care about : http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-028.html

	21-01-2005 15:44									#114
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Neddie, is that Jeb Stuart in your avatar?

No, a radical named Ned Kelly.

	21-01-2005 15:56									#115
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I think there may be a difference between reimbursing moving costs and direct subsidies to develop a new model plane. With the latter, one can impose duties/penalties on the particular plane that benefitted from the subsidies.

Also, why would state taxes or lack thereof count anyway? Some states have higher property taxes than others. Is a company getting a subsidy for locating in a low tax state?

Now the Euro complaint is that Boeing gets preferences with the Pentagon and NASA -- to develop and deploy military aircraft. How this has anything to do with its commercial business is beyond me, unless it can be shown that Boeing makes excess profits from its military business.

	21-01-2005 21:00									#116
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ned Now the Euro complaint is that Boeing gets preferences with the Pentagon and NASA -- to develop and deploy military aircraft. How this has anything to do with its commercial business is beyond me, unless it can be shown that Boeing makes excess profits from its military business.

Then you clearly don't understand the aircraft industry.

	21-01-2005 23:45									#117
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Ned Now the Euro complaint is that Boeing gets preferences with the Pentagon and NASA -- to develop and deploy military aircraft. How this has anything to do with its commercial business is beyond me, unless it can be shown that Boeing makes excess profits from its military business.

It would be hard to imagine Boeing not applying technology it developed under their military contracts to their commercial divivsion if it didn't violate national security rules. But, that being said, most military contracts are open to bid and competition; it would hard to say that this is a subsidy.

	22-01-2005 03:00									#118
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki Then you clearly don't understand the aircraft industry.

Perhaps I don't. Educate me.

	22-01-2005 03:04									#119
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by PLATO It would be hard to imagine Boeing not applying technology it developed under their military contracts to their commercial divivsion if it didn't violate national security rules. But, that being said, most military contracts are open to bid and competition; it would hard to say that this is a subsidy.

Bingo.

As to technology, I hardly think much of it transfers from the military to the commercial. The military is not interested in "quiet" engines, for example.

	22-01-2005 03:13									#120
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

PLATO got the gist of it. It's not receiving abnormal profits from military work that's at issue, it's the commonality of parts between military and civilian use aircraft. Just because a 777 doesn't look like a bomber or fighter aircraft doesn't mean that there isn't a considerable amount of practical knowledge gleaned from designing something from military specs - think about wiring, computer systems, hydraulics, material design and testing, just to name a few. And it's not just Boeing itself that benefits from this, but other component manufacturers as well. I did a case study on GE's aircraft engine division a few years back and there was considerable lamenting about the recent trend away from government sponsored R&D, to the point where it was a really tough decision whether to develop altogether new engines or just improve existing designs.

Which kind of leads into PLATO's other point, although he didn't say much about it - there has been a movement in recent years away from blatant government R&D subsidies towards a more open tendering process. So, yeah, today Boeing, GE et al aren't receiving the same kind of government "subsidies" that they used to, but they sure as hell took advantage of what they did get in the past, and I'm sure they still do whenever it's an option.