Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Fallout against JETBLUE for odering A320

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Dav8tor

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2002
Posts
131
Tuesday, April 29, 2003
JetBlue Snubs U.S. Aircraft Companies for the French

When JetBlue Airways Corp. recently announced that it had ordered 65 A320 aircraft from the French Airbus company, with options for 50 more, a lot of the boycott-France folks got up in arms - none more so than a former Capitol Hill staffer who helped write the FAA rules, which were designed to discourage such foreign airliner purchases in the first place.

JetBlue’s newly ordered aircraft will be delivered starting in 2004. In addition to the 41 aircraft in service, JetBlue already had 46 A320s on order. With the latest French order, JetBlue’s fleet could grow to as many as 202 French-made A320 jetliners by 2012.

Here is what Carl Biersack is telling NewsMax and anyone else who will listen:

"I was one of the congressional staffers who wrote the FAA Reauthorization that changed the rules at the slot-controlled airports. One of the conditions I put in the law was that the allocation of the slots would be based on the maximum contribution to America’s aviation system/infrastructure.

"This was meant to ensure that slots would go from those controlled airports to cities where there would be lots of passengers or to hubs because they will connect to many other cities, and, finally, it was meant to require carriers to buy American airplanes.

Clinton Again

"When one writes laws - especially authorization laws - one cannot be as specific as appropriators can where they make earmarks. Well, Clinton’s DOT [Department of Transportation chief] Rodney Slater allowed JetBlue to get the slots - knowing they were going to buy French jets.

"A number of my fellow staffers - who worked on the law and had left the Hill - complained that the JetBlue decision was not within the spirit of the law: It was neither going to maximize passenger benefits nor buy American. But as we all know, the fidelity of the Clinton administration to the letter of the law was just not possible.

"Our complaints fell on deaf ears. Here is just another illustration of the Clinton’s ‘empowering’ our enemies by inaction or insufficient action.”

JetBlue, a low-fare, low-cost passenger airline that launched operations in February 2000, features roomy leather seats equipped with free live satellite television. Its travel agents work from their home computers.

The airline is doing well in a notoriously slow market, but not well enough to routinely rub its French connection in the face of an American public still stinging from that country’s antics before, during and after Operation Iraqi Freedom.

For its part, Airbus is careful to point out in its press releases that each order for its aircraft means a boost to the U.S. economy, as Airbus spends some 40 percent of its procurement budget with hundreds of suppliers in more than 40 U.S. states. "In 2002 alone, Airbus spent $5.5 billion in U.S. contracts - more than it spent in any other country. Using U.S. Department of Commerce figures, that dollar amount translates into Airbus support of 120,000 American jobs.”

Airbus prefers to tout not its its made-in-France airframe but its plans to build the world’s largest jetliner: a double-decker that will hold 555 passengers, 35 percent more than Boeing’s 33-year-old 747.

Meanwhile, Airbus chief executive Noel Forgeard sits in his top-floor office by the airport in Toulouse, France, watching Europe’s largest building taking shape across the runway. The new factory is the venue where the giant passenger jet will be constructed, thanks in generous measure to JetBlue.

Forgeard feels warmly toward his big customer across the Atlantic:

"As JetBlue continues to conquer the odds, their repeated choice of Airbus aircraft proves that efficiency on all levels, including equipment and operations, is a must for an airline’s continuing health. With this [latest] order, JetBlue demonstrates that with the right people, the right product and the right cost structure, airlines can grow, even in this current, challenging, environment.”

Not feeling so warmly are upset Americans who are sending e-mails to JetBlue voicing concern about its cozy relationship with Airbus.

One example: "Has anyone told JetBlue that there is an American company located over there in Everett, Washington that makes perfectly good airplanes?”



Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Corporate Scandals

Editor's note:
France Hates America and Is in Bed With Saddam - Boycott Cowardly France! Click Here Now!




Printer Friendly Version

Reprint Information
 
more than France

If you take the US, UK and Spanish input to the Airbus over 50% of the bus in built by Gulf War II Coalition partners
 
Another Paid Lobbyist

Carl Biersack is currently a paid lobbyist for Delta Air Lines.

You can draw your own conclusions about his sincerity and apparent desire to protect US interests. IMO, Mullin, et. al. have hired him to stir the political pot and attempt to seize the opportunity to paint jetBlue as some enemy of the state; hoping that it will divert some of their passengers into Delta jets.

All's fair in love and war as they say!
 
Maybe, I'm missing something here but Delta is trying to fight jetBlue while AirTran is taking market share from their backyard?

ABC news had a good story on jetBlue yesterday....anybody catch it?
 
SWA/FO said:
Maybe, I'm missing something here but Delta is trying to fight jetBlue while AirTran is taking market share from their backyard?

ABC news had a good story on jetBlue yesterday....anybody catch it?

AirTran is spreading in their home turf. They too are looking to order 50 more aircraft for their west coast expansion. They have spoken to Boeing to build a sort of -300 variant of the 717 with more range and capacity. Unfortunately the 717 becomes a glider beyond Denver. Boeing seems to be dragging their feet saying that is going to take a loong time. Airbus, which they are looking at as well, seems to be making a good impression.

If AirTran wanted a 8 engine 300 passenger aircraft with winglets on the roof and the main gear on the wingtips, Airbus will have a prototype in 3 months. Go figure. I would like to see AirTran stay with Boeing IMHO.:D
 
I'm all for "buying American", however, it seems to me that if Boeing offers 50 planes at $40M a piece and Airbus offers 50 at $37M a piece (NOTE: ficticious numbers for illustrative purposes), you'd better bet that they would pick Airbus.

Now, how can Airbus offer a similar plane for $3M less? Is it less expensive labor? Less expensive parts? Are they doing it at a loss just to get market share and bragging rights (highly doubtful). However, I doubt any airline would pick the low bidder if the manufacturer were doing so at a loss. If they go out of business tomorrow, where is the product support?

Boeing seems to be dragging their feet saying that is going to take a loong time.

Building a new aircraft, even stretching an exsisting model, is a very expensive proposition for a manufacturer. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I read something that Airbus would have to sell something like 500 A380's just to break even on the venture. Thats why I see Boeing dragging their feet on a stretch B717. I've read where the plane isn't selling that well so is there a market for a stretch version?

2000Flyer
 
The B717 is agreat airplane. So is the A320 and the NG737. But the prob with Boeing seems to be as much as they battled MD they are following in the foot steps. The B717 would be a great airplane if streached with coast to coast range but that would compete with the bigger 73's. But what I dont think they (Boeing) see is that the B717 keeps canadair and Embraer out of (to some) the over 100 seat market. If the B717-300 with real range is not porduced I think very soon you will see a Canadair 140 or so seat model. The Boeing has more than just Airbus to contend with.
 
yep

exactly right. the 717 probably directly competes with the 600/700 series and doesn't have a bigger brother(800/900) for expansion. if i'm right, the only reason boeing built the 717 was commitments md made to buyers, but the a/c keeps selling...
 
Is Airbus still government subsidized by France, Spain, and Great Britain? If so, that's how they could produce a 'scarebus' for less then the Boing product. It's certainly been how they gained market share in the past.

I don't know what the point is of attack JetBlue. They can't buy Boeing, as it would destroy their 1 fleet type low costs. It'd be like asking WN to buy airbus. Totally assinine.

It's only a matter of time before the ERJ 190 starts putting pressure on the 717 and the smaller 73's. The CRJ can't really be stretched too much further (I think you can set up a CRJ-900 for 86 passengers in a single class cabin).

-Boo!
 
Fallout? Do you work for a news organization? Your headline was so sensational (albeit not accurate) that I thought you must have received some training in tht area. Keep 'em coming.
 
stillaboo said:
Is Airbus still government subsidized by France, Spain, and Great Britain? If so, that's how they could produce a 'scarebus' for less then the Boing product. It's certainly been how they gained market share in the past.

Airbus is not government subsidized, although it definitely was at one time, however, the French govt. would never allow it to become bankrupt un-like Boeing in the US. As far as how can "they" make produce an airplane cheaper than Boeing, I think you could narrow it down to two major factors: First of all, the above mentioned countries are not plagued by liability lawsuits against manufacurers and furthermore, they have socialized medicine which means that their governments pay for worker's medical benefits and therefore help keep labor costs down.

I don't have any time in an Airbus, but if I had a choice between the two, I think I'd rather fly a Boeing. I've never heard anyone say that about Airbus... although all that space in the cockpit with the joystick on side must be great!
 
Last edited:
This is a FACT!!! JetBlue went to Boeing first for our airframe. Pictures on the wall of our headquarters had a 737 with "New Air" colors on it. When it came time for the purchase, our folks went to Seattle to see what kind of deals Boeing could come up with for the 737 series aircraft. We couldn't even get a sim ride!!! To keep them honest, we went to France and Airbus where our group was warmly received and were allowed full access, including all the sims. Still, our group wanted the 737, so we went back to Boeing with the Airbus deal... Boeing said they couldn't/wouldn't match the deal and now we're flying the BUS! Why do you think Boeing moved it's headquarters to Chicago? Just like the Major Airlines having to address the LCC issue, Boeing needs to alter the manner in which they sell airframes-- the old way of "It's a Boeing and it'll sell itself days are gone".
 
I own Boeing stock. Not much of it but even if you have one share they send you an annual report. From reading the report you can see there is a good deal of business between the US Government and Boeing. You could even argue that our government is in essence subsidising Boeing with contracts.

Boeing has already stated they would like to move civilian aircraft production overseas. The distinction between the two manufacturers is blurring. Sounds like Airbus made a bonafide effort to earn Jet Blue's business while Boeing was arrogant. Seems like a wakeup call for Boeing.
 
Freedom
An Airline should have the right to buy the aircraft the best suits their needs. A free market will produce the best quality.
US Jobs & Economy
I strongly believe the US economy and our trade balance will benefit the most from Boeing sales.
Lobbying, fair play and tactics?
Many have claimed that the Europeans and especially the French influenced the JAR's in such a way that they clearly favored the certification of Airbus. JAR-OPS (the European equivalence of FAR 121) required a lot of performance information that was not available for some Boeing Jets through the use of retroactive regulations.
 
Boeing could make out great if the USAF requirements for new tankers comes to fruition. Right now the number varies between 180-250 new 767s for tanker/cargo variants. Additionally, the Navy is replacing almost all of their DC-9s with I believe 737-700s. So in a way, the previous post is correct with the government somewhat helping Boeing out. But I also remember when the US Coast Guard acquired Falcon Jets and Desault helicopters instead of all the other suitable US airframes, additionally, the Navy made a great order of British Goshawks T-45s-- beating out the Cessnas and Beech of America airframes.
 
That's it. I'm boycotting the Navy!! Better not tell George W. while he's on the carrier.

USAF also ordered British trainers, but that didn't work out too well.
 
Tanker Requirement

Blue,
Just to clearify the USAF requirement for tankers. The AF didn't have a requirement for new tankers. Congress "back-doored" that requirement to help Boeing from going under. I use to be a requirements guy in the Pentagon and know for a fact there was no articulated requirement for new tankers. I'll be the first to admit that the Air Forces needed a new tanker, but when Sen McCain threw a monkey wrench into the works by say that Airbus needed to be considered, you could hear "trator" under breath. Airbus cost were about half of the Boeing cost, but Congressional "Buy American" won that battle. Now we, the taxed public, will pay more per unit cost for a product that many believe is of lower value.
 
Isnt Airbus proped up by the French govmt just like Embarer is proped up by the Brazialain govmt? And you wonder why the can sell airplanes cheaper than Boeing or Bombadier.
 
i dont know if this has been brought up before. but the reason airbus is cheaper than boeing is because airbus industries gets money from their government. does boeing? i think not.
 
The last 2 posts seem to have been a rehash of mine, which was answered (quite convincingly, IMO) by BigFlr above. Here it is again for those who don't like to scroll up :)

BigFlyr said:
Airbus is not government subsidized, although it definitely was at one time, however, the French govt. would never allow it to become bankrupt un-like Boeing in the US. As far as how can "they" make produce an airplane cheaper than Boeing, I think you could narrow it down to two major factors: First of all, the above mentioned countries are not plagued by liability lawsuits against manufacurers and furthermore, they have socialized medicine which means that their governments pay for worker's medical benefits and therefore help keep labor costs down.

Regarding protectionist schemes, it's quite obvious that Airbus' former backers continue to help Airbus through regulatory means, just as the US appears to be awarding contracts based on production locations. It's the way the world works. It should be pointed out that Boeing gets alot of US contracts for the military b/c Boeing has bought up alot of the companies that produce them (MD, for example, was NOT purchased by Boeing so they could get rights to the MD-11 and MD-90/717 as much as for it's military contracts). Furthermore, the US spends billions on development of cutting edge military hardware. It's not like we could develop the F-117 and B-2 conceptually and then ask for bids for foreign companies to build the things. US military and space hardware HAS to be built by US companies. They get in trouble all the time for trying to outsouce the production to places like China. Boeing will try to send alot of production out to the cheap labor abroad, but the wing will never go. Wing technology is closely guarded (I don't see how China couldn't just buy a 777 and then copy it's wing, but apparently it's harder than that). The 74 is the largest export in the world, and it's ours! You don't think we're going to cuddle it? What world do YOU live in?

Is Gulfstream still facing certification issues from the JAR for the G-V? I had thought that JAR had declared that 2 engines are unsafe for jets with engines of less than a certain thrust for extended over water ops (less than 76, 77, A300, A330 type engines). Isn't it convient that the Falcon et. al. is a tri-engine bird? :)

-Boo!

The apple juice I'm drinking contains concentrate from China, Hungary, and Germany! What a world we live in.
 
Re: Tanker Requirement

jll said:
Blue,
I use to be a requirements guy in the Pentagon and know for a fact there was no articulated requirement for new tankers. I'll be the first to admit that the Air Forces needed a new tanker, but when Sen McCain threw a monkey wrench into the works by say that Airbus needed to be considered, you could hear "trator" under breath.

jll,
OK, you said you admit the AF needs new tankers. So how can the Pentagon think it doesn't need them when the KC-135 fleet is older than almost everyone flying them? And there's way too few KC-10's to make up the difference? I listen to the guys flying the -135's for the Hawaii ANG, and they talk about planes held together with bailing wire and duct tape. Is the Pentagon that much out of touch?

HAL
 
Boeing had made plenty of questionable decisions in the past. When Canadair and Embraer were working hard on a line of RJ's (the current wave of purchasing), Boeing was working on the high-sub sonic, intercontinential thing. After pouring more than a billion dollars into it, they scrapped it.

Why didn't boeing even LOOK at producing a regional jet? If they had come to market with something reasonably competitive they would have had a ton of orders--not to mention service and spare parts. I don't get it.

Boeing seems to be living in days past when their name sold their products. Perhaps Boeing is just plane losing interest in the commecial market and is shifting procuction to military and other items.

Pretty poor business on Boeings part, as a result 35,000 of their people are out of work.
 
Re: Re: Tanker Requirement

HAL said:
jll,
OK, you said you admit the AF needs new tankers. So how can the Pentagon think it doesn't need them when the KC-135 fleet is older than almost everyone flying them? And there's way too few KC-10's to make up the difference? I listen to the guys flying the -135's for the Hawaii ANG, and they talk about planes held together with bailing wire and duct tape. Is the Pentagon that much out of touch?

HAL
Subject: Amazing. (Not this old man's Air Force. I was too early!)
The photo won't come with this but the text is good;

These Blonde “bombshells” do not look old enough to drive, let along fly! Man, I am getting old.



RUE!! Mail 19K
(Clockwise from lower left) 1stLt Alison, Capts Heather and Waynetta, and Senior Airman Lyndi [Last names withheld for operational security.], all from the 376th Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron, flew an all-female KC-135 Stratotanker air refueling mission over Afghanistan on Jan. 31.


Notice they are all blondes. This should throw a lot of the blonde jokes out the window. This item also counters the thought about women typically not working well together. Let this put that one away as well!

In one of her songs, country singer Shania Twain croons about all the things women do these days-they are judges, politicians, doctors and soldiers, to name a few. Not mentioned in the song, but occurring more frequently as the global War on terrorism continues, is something else: female fliers in combat missions over Afghanistan. Early on Jan 31, a KC-135 Stratotanker took off from Ganci Air Base, Kyrgyzstan, carrying more than 180,000 pounds of fuel and an all-female crew -- both pilots, a navigator and a boom operator. The event marked the first all-female crew to fly an air refueling Mission into Afghanistan from Ganci. "We've been really lucky," said 1stLt Alison, the navigator on board. "You don't always deploy with a lot of women. The fact that we have four women on this deployment, and the fact that we make up a crew is amazing." After living with each other in the same tent for almost two months, the women were eager to fly on the same mission. "We've gotten along really well living together, so we were very excited to finally be able to fly together," said Capt Waynetta, one of the two pilots on the mission.

The women, including the other pilot, Capt Heather, and the boom operator, Senior Airman Lyndi, are all assigned to the 99th Air Refueling Squadron at Robins Air Force Base, Ga. They have been deployed here since Dec 9. Once inside the tanker, the women began their pre-flight and take-off duties with an ease borne of plenty of experience and skill. Most of them have deployed before, to places like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iceland and Thailand. Between the four of them, they total almost 4,000 flying hours in the KC-135. The flight path to Afghanistan traversed three of the "Stans." The country itself remains a dangerous place. Just a few days before the historic flight, coalition forces on the ground encountered the heaviest fighting since Operation Anaconda last year. Norwegian F-16s from Ganci dropped munitions in support from the air. Once over Afghanistan, the crew got down to business, refueling F-16s from the European participating air forces of Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway. Based at Ganci, the aircraft provide combat air support to coalition ground forces. In the refueling world, the motto is, "Nobody kicks ass without Tanker gas." The crew emulated that motto when the boom operator connected two moving aircraft together on a night with 1 percent moon illumination.

"It's awesome knowing that I'm having a direct impact on the mission," said Lyndi on her 17th combat mission over Afghanistan. "The fighters couldn't put bombs on target without gas, and I'm the one who gets it to them," she said. More than 50,000 combat missions have been flown in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. In all, Lyndi refueled 10 European F-16s during the flight, off-loading 63,000 pounds of fuel. "I'm accomplishing something with my Air Force career," said Alison. This is especially true in the case of OEF, an operation that more than 1,800 women support, according to the public affairs office at Central Air Forces, the air component of U.S. Central Command. "I've always thought the greatest thing I could do with my life was to serve my country and be willing to die for it -- for my family, my neighbors, people I don't even know," Waynetta said. "Now, we're here supporting troops in Afghanistan who are defending our freedom and way of life." Basking in the early morning sunlight, the tanker headed back to Ganci. As the snow-capped mountains poked out above the clouds, the women reflected on the significance of the flight. "All we wanted was to fly together," said Lyndi. "I'm so excited we got to do it." "We believe in equality," Waynetta said. "But, the fact of the matter is, we're still girls and we're doing something our grandmothers couldn't do.
 
Race:

What does all this have to do with Airbus vs. Boeing?:eek:
 
Palerider957 said:
Race:

What does all this have to do with Airbus vs. Boeing?:eek:

It is a stretch,..... hijack;
but the Females are in a Boeing, and they did have to interview for the job!!!
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom