AA buying A320's

[islandhoper]

Boeing got their a$$ handed to them in Paris...
Any idea on who in the US may have ordered those 17 747-8s ????

 

[Jiminmem]

Boeing got their a$$ handed to them in Paris...
Any idea on who in the US may have ordered those 17 747-8s ????

Probably a freight or leasing company would be my guess

 

[islandhoper]

Nope, the 747-8 passenger version is the one that got the orders

 

[Quimby]

Nope, the 747-8 passenger version is the one that got the orders

Still could be a leasing company......ILFC maybe?

 

[islandhoper]

Leasing companies don't need to be "undisclosed" when placing an order. In fact, making it public helps to advertise that they have the aircraft available for leasing... The articles I have read seem to point to a US operator. I was thinking more like Delta, who is right now the only US 747 operator anyways...

 

[Homer Jay]

Leasing companies don't need to be "undisclosed" when placing an order. In fact, making it public helps to advertise that they have the aircraft available for leasing... The articles I have read seem to point to a US operator. I was thinking more like Delta, who is right now the only US 747 operator anyways...

United has 747's.

 

[JFReservist]

We need conservative ideas to modernize the U.S. economy and reform American government. But what we have instead are policies that don't reform but just cut and starve government — a strategy that pays little attention to history or best practices from around the world and is based instead on a theory. It turns out that conservatives are the woolly-headed professors after all."
-Fareed Zakaria

Wow... as a conservative (or classical liberal, small "r" republican, or paleo-con - take your pick), I think I'll take my medicine from TJ, Adams (both cousins), Madison, Franklin, Washington and the rest of the founders that put their lives on the line so that we could determine how to best go about things without a tyrannical, centralized government plundering my property and intruding in every aspect of my life. I don't really care what the newest socialist/state capitalist du jour thinks, or even what the latest big government neocon puts forth in a new budget plan that further enslaves the populace another $8-12TT by 2024, until we decide that plundering property from our neighbors is unequivocally immoral, and return to our founding principals that all men (and yes... even women!) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... we are $crewed.

Now, what were we saying about AA and Airbus?

 

[waveflyer]

Wow... as a conservative (or classical liberal, small "r" republican, or paleo-con - take your pick), I think I'll take my medicine from TJ, Adams (both cousins), Madison, Franklin, Washington and the rest of the founders that put their lives on the line so that we could determine how to best go about things without a tyrannical, centralized government plundering my property and intruding in every aspect of my life. I don't really care what the newest socialist/state capitalist du jour thinks, or even what the latest big government neocon puts forth in a new budget plan that further enslaves the populace another $8-12TT by 2024, until we decide that plundering property from our neighbors is unequivocally immoral, and return to our founding principals that all men (and yes... even women!) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... we are $crewed.

Now, what were we saying about AA and Airbus?

Haha- serious thread drift- I do see short term gains for airbus and long term wins for Boeing. JMO.
More food for thought though: since you went there-

Here are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga.

People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say about some event that is happening today. What would the framers say about whether the drones over Libya constitute a violation of Article I, Section 8, which gives Congress the power to declare war? Well, since George Washington didn't even dream that man could fly, much less use a global-positioning satellite to aim a missile, it's hard to say what he would think. What would the framers say about whether a tax on people who did not buy health insurance is an abuse of Congress's authority under the commerce clause? Well, since James Madison did not know what health insurance was and doctors back then still used leeches, it's difficult to know what he would say. And what would Thomas Jefferson, a man who owned slaves and is believed to have fathered children with at least one of them, think about a half-white, half-black American President born in Hawaii (a state that did not exist)? Again, hard to say.
(See the top 10 American political prodigies.)

The framers were not gods and were not infallible. Yes, they gave us, and the world, a blueprint for the protection of democratic freedoms — freedom of speech, assembly, religion — but they also gave us the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being, that women were not allowed to vote and that South Dakota should have the same number of Senators as California, which is kind of crazy. And I'm not even going to mention the Electoral College. They did not give us income taxes. Or Prohibition. Those came later.

Americans have debated the Constitution since the day it was signed, but seldom have so many disagreed so fiercely about so much. Would it be unconstitutional to default on our debt? Should we have a balanced-budget amendment? Is it constitutional to ask illegal immigrants to carry documents? The past decade, beginning with the disputed election of 2000, has been a long national civics class about what the Constitution means — and how much it still matters. For eight years under George W. Bush, the nation wrestled with the balance between privacy and security (an issue the framers contended with) while the left portrayed the country as moving toward tyranny. For the past three years under President Obama, we have weighed issues of individual freedom vs. government control while the right has portrayed the country as moving toward a socialist welfare state.
(See pictures of Tea Party tax protests.)

Where's the Crisis?
A new focus on the Constitution is at the center of our political stage with the rise of the Tea Party and its almost fanatical focus on the founding document. The new Republican Congress organized a reading of all 7,200 words of an amended version of the Constitution on the House floor to open its first session. As a counterpoint to the rise of constitutional originalists (those who believe the document should be interpreted only as the drafters understood it), liberal legal scholars analyze the text just as closely to find the elasticity they believe the framers intended. Everywhere there seems to be debate about the scope and meaning and message of the Constitution. This is a healthy thing. Even the framers would agree on that.

So, are we in a constitutional crisis? In a word, no. The Constitution was born in crisis. It was written in secret and in violation of the existing one, the Articles of Confederation, at a time when no one knew whether America would survive. The Constitution has never not been under threat. Benjamin Franklin was skeptical that it would work at all. Alexander Hamilton wondered whether Washington should be a king. Jefferson questioned the constitutionality of his own Louisiana Purchase.
(Read about the cult of the Constitution.)

Today's debates represent conflict, not crisis. Conflict is at the core of our politics, and the Constitution is designed to manage it. There have been few conflicts in American history greater than the internal debates the framers had about the Constitution. For better or for worse — and I would argue that it is for better — the Constitution allows and even encourages deep arguments about the most basic democratic issues. A crisis is when the Constitution breaks down. We're not in danger of that.

Nor are we in danger of flipping the Constitution on its head, as some of the Tea Party faithful contend. Their view of the founding documents was pretty well summarized by Texas Congressman Ron Paul back in 2008: "The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose — to restrain the federal government." Well, not exactly. In fact, the framers did the precise opposite. They strengthened the center and weakened the states. The states had extraordinary power under the Articles of Confederation. Most of them had their own navies and their own currencies. The truth is, the Constitution massively strengthened the central government of the U.S. for the simple reason that it established one where none had existed before.
(See portraits of the Tea Party movement.)

If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so. Article I, Section 8, the longest section of the longest article of the Constitution, is a drumroll of congressional power. And it ends with the "necessary and proper" clause, which delegates to Congress the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Limited government indeed.
......

 

[HA25]

With that... I think there isn't much more to say. Well said Wave.

 

[Beantown]

Wow, that was the most thought out post in FI history. Well said.

 

[tomgoodman]

As a counterpoint to the rise of constitutional originalists (those who believe the document should be interpreted only as the drafters understood it), liberal legal scholars analyze the text just as closely to find the elasticity they believe the framers intended.

Wave,
I agree with much of your post, but here's the danger: Elastic documents can shrink as well as expand. Isn't it safer to use the amendment process instead of interpretation? Slower and more difficult, of course, but the framers intended that too.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Wave-
I'll bet Obama would love to have you publishing history text books. Only they would be found in the Fiction section.

 

[Skank]

Wave-
I'll bet Obama would love to have you publishing history text books. Only they would be found in the Fiction section.

Depending on your point of view, lots of history could be filed in the fiction section. Remember the "official" version of how the war in Vietnam Nam was going (written while the war was ongoing)?

 

[Mud Eagle]

Wow, that was the most thought out post in FI history. Well said.

Well thought out by it's authors at Time Magazine.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2079445,00.html

 

[JFReservist]

Well thought out by it's authors at Time Magazine.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2079445,00.html

Wave... does your CP know you are moonlighting?

 

[waveflyer]

Wave,
I agree with much of your post, but here's the danger: Elastic documents can shrink as well as expand. Isn't it safer to use the amendment process instead of interpretation? Slower and more difficult, of course, but the framers intended that too.

First- guys.... Not that I couldn't write that- but I wouldn't do it for just FI-
After food for thought- put quotes- By Richard Stengall, latest issue of TIME. and this is only about 1/5 of it. It proceeds to examine 4 modern constitutional issues- Libya, Obamacare, debt ceiling, and immigration.
It leans further left than I would, but the overall point to this argument is good.
The constitution CREATED the central govt, and in doing so weakened states' rights.

Tom- define safer?
Look it's a good debate about the size and scope of the central govt- I'm just pointing out that nowhere in the constitution does it say that limited govt is an objective. And certainly, both parties and ALL viewpoints have proposed and even enacted laws that are unconstitutional. And the mechanism the founders created are te courts. I think its important to recognize all 3 equal branches and not just the one's convenient to the argument at hand.
It's not about "BIG" govt or "small" govt- it's about appropriate govt, and back to Zakaria's point: the govt that works in the world as it is, and not as it was or how we wish it would be. It's why I support a strong military even though as a liberal I truly wish we did not need to spend so much of our resources on it. To not would be naive however, and not recognize reality. Same with social issues, the right wants entitlements to be gone, saying that people ought to be responsible- well, people ought to be good and not WAR with us and each other- but they don't in reality- hence the military. (Never mind the gray area of HOW can people be responsible when regulations become so convoluted and anemic that millions can be duped by mortgage backed securities- ...)

So Tom- good question- but I think you're ignoring the fact that the courts were created to interpret laws. So it's a silly question as well. And as for amendments- what happens when constitutional amendments conflict with other parts of the constitution- as prop 8 does?

Now this has drifted WAY TOO FAR...
apologies.
Back to boeing v airbus- parts are outsourced - and we need competition, and if it weren't for airbus and airlines stateside who actually buy them Boeing would still be throwing rows of seats in tankers and calling them airliners- but when all the parts are made, the corporate structure and final manufacturing process is here and is a pride of the US- so I hope they get their act together and compete better.
Though I'm not sure globalized capitalism is ever pure of politics and we should protect our values and middle class.

 

[JFReservist]

Okay, I concede that the necessary and proper clause trumps everything, which is why Madison and his imperfect backwards arse hillbilly framer buddies immediately set out with (among other things):

"Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

- um, in all candor - again, I didn't come up with that. Its in that whole 'bill of rights" section in that there constitution thingy - but the emphasis is mine. Something about how the states, being sovereign entities, and their respective citizens, were best left deciding EVERYTHING that wasn't necessarily ceded to the (then brand new) federal government. If you think that for a second, these men were leaving the whole pot for the federal government to decide, you might want to read what Jay, Hamilton and Madison thought. They wrote a bunch of articles you know, even better than the one Wave wrote in Time. Maybe they realized they didn't know everything, and wouldn't imagine the federal government needing to be involved in what type of lightbulb or toilet I put in my house. You know, that whole soft, smiley faced tyranny thing.

And don't get me started on the true intent of Representatives and Senators (and the fate of individual state sovereignty being completely stripped by the the 17th Amendment), the Electoral College, and other crazy stupid ideas in a federation of sovereign republics.

Oh, and why not the C-Series (100ish seaters) and 737-800s for American v. the A320NEO?

 

[waveflyer]

"Sarcasm is the protest of the weak."- John Knowles

 

[tomgoodman]

Wave,

Courts review laws frequently, checking them for compliance with the Constitutional yardstick, but I was talking about the danger that arises if they decide, as TIME suggests, that the yardstick itself is "elastic".
In this context, I'd define "safer" as "less likely to allow Federal elected and appointed officials to substantially increase their control of States and citizens without extensive deliberation and informed consent by those States and citizens", (consistent with Amendment X). I resist the notion that courts may rule based upon what the Constitution should have said or what it would say if only the framers were as informed and as enlightened as we are. That's what the amendment process is for.
(I'm not well-informed about California Prop 8, but if it runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution, the SC can strike it down. If it were a ratified amendment to the U.S. Constitution, they could not.)

 

[C601]

Food for thought....

Based on the current order book for Airbus, AA would be looking at an 3 year wait from the time they ordered. At the International Society of Transport Aircraft Trading conference in Jan, Boeing had stated they most likely where going to make a decision before the Paris Air show of what direction they where mostly likely going to go.

It was the same talk in March and in Paris last week, all signs where Boeing would not re-engine the 737-800/NG. It's very clear they need something new. Problem is your looking at least 5 years before they enter into service, and their are also funding issues.

AA buying A320s ? few years ago, no way. Today ? yes ...

As of right now, Boeing have nothing to offer with the CFM Leap-X Engine and the PW1100G PurePower from Pratt & Whitney.

Fact is A320 Neo will burn 16% less fuel burn per seat compared to Boeing’s winglet-equipped 737-800. No airline is going to ignore that, not even AA.