Fallout against JETBLUE for odering A320

[stillaboo]

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

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.

 

[HAL]

Re: Tanker Requirement

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

 

[Palerider957]

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.

 

[race#53]

Re: Re: Tanker Requirement

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.

 

[Palerider957]

Race:

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

 

[race#53]

Race:

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

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