US vs. EU aka. Boeing vs. Airbus

Background:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4699373.stm

This really gets on my nerves. First of all, why the hell shouldn't governments be allowed to subsidise huge projects like the A380? If it weren't for state subsidies the A380 would probably have never been built, and neither would the 747 or Concorde. There are projects, like large airliners or space exploration that no individual company could ever possibly hope to have the resources to fund on its own. Projects like these require massive long term investment to get off the ground.

So, I object to this whole argument on principle becuase I think that Airbus should be perfectly allowed to receive state subsidies to make great aeroplanes...and so should Boeing.

The next part that annoys me is that Boeing and the US only started this whole WTO spat when they realised that Airbus was starting to give them a sound thrashing in the market. Instead of trying to compete by building something just as good or better they play dirty and throw their toys out of the pram and cry to the WTO about "unfair" state subsidies. Bollox . Boeing has been receiving direct and indirect subsides by way of military aircraft and space research contracts over the years that easily dwarf anything that Airbus has received.

I only hope that some kind of agreement can be reached before this goes to a WTO ruling. Not only will the WTO case be a fantastic waste of money but any ruling will likely be a disaster for the future of large scale projects such as the A380. As far as I can see the WTO is a crock of sh1t that really hasn't done any good for anyone and generally is used as a tool by the US to ride rough shod over less powerful countries when it can't win by fair means.

Michael.

 

calm down, its just an aeroplane.

 

billions if not trillions are at stake so the fighting will be extreme and dirty.
i'm all for 'big science' and it's subsidy by govornments even if it isn't immediately commercially viable.
cheers


julian.

 

Both arguments about subsidies are true, but I think the U.S. support is more annoying because of its sneakiness in giving it via other programs. Also, it is such hypocracy to see them moan about our Airbus now.

Its big stakes they are playing for, isn't it? What will really settle the success or failure of these aircraft is whether the market goes more towards flying via a very small number of giant hubs or, towards flying into more places directly. That will start with what the big airlines believe is most wanted and so will order accordingly.

I must say the Airbus is awe inspiring to see on their website. Its interesting to see the sort of things that could go inside these huge cabins, like gyms, bars, restaurants etc. However , I think in reality most of the space will go on seating. As one of the cattle myself that's all I have to look forward to other than the novelty of its size.

I wonder if with this new aircraft we will finally see the installation of active anti-noise systems in the cabin. I feel its about bloody time. There is hardly any weight involved per passenger - just a few speakers every now and again along the cabin and the wiring. If they think about it now when they are getting the interiors sorted I don't see why it need be expensive either.

 

Cloth-Ears, you've got a return button!

I dont think it should be subsidised, I think the money is better spent on big dome, or a big football stadium with a fancy roof or better still, a war with some middle-eastern oil-rich country on the basis that theres a rumour they have WMD's that can hit us in 45 mins, Iran would be my choice.

Those bloody Americans cant half wind me up at times. They quote WTO rules and how many do they breach? Im more than happy to see funding for this type of project, hell the company even makes a profit! I think they're smarting at getting a smaking from us Europeans who once again show that when we pull together we're pretty formidable.

 

I think it should be spent on me :student:

 

Precisely; wait until they have 2 crash into each other, like the Jumbo carnage in 1977...

Planes wreck the ozone layer too - and although it might take (much!) longer, at least if you're on a ship, you can swim if it sinks. You're pretty well ****ed if a plane crashes.

That said, I *do* want to go on an A380 - my first flight was on a Jumbo in 1992 and it was awesome...

BTW - too right re the US - they're just pissy because they aren't the no1 for a change - I guess they can't stomp all over a combined Europe on this one so they'll whinge and moan and whine about having an inferior, out-of-date product.

 

I have seen the wings for the A380 sailing down the river dee on its way to France and they are massive. They can stretch the plain aswell to fit more people in it.

I have been informed by an insider that the Americans are looking at ways not to let the A380 in the USA (remember Concorde). The main market for the A380 will be the far east eg China.

 

Typical bloody Yank attitude, that.

"America, your head is too biggguuhhh" - I think that's how Morrissey opened his last album.

 

Why would that have been a bad thing? Why should the taxpayer (ie me) subsidise cheap holidays for chavs? Or rapid transport for rich people?

Paul

 

Paul - it's something called society or "the common good". If humans had followed your particularly extreme brand of individualism we'd still be running around each killing our own rabbit for dinner, cooking it on our own individual camp fire outside our own one-man mud hut . Even wolves have figured out it's better to work as a team.

You might find the following illustration enlightening:



Michael.

 

A buddy sent me some pictures of the damage caused to an A380's undercarriage after some slow speed manouvering on the ramp, aparently because they decided to fit non-steerable undercarriage legs it doesn't turn corners too well. You could clearly see that it ripped up the tarmac and twisted the undercarriage, one of the wheels/tyres looked completely trashed too.
Obviously not a problem if your airport is big enough to add a few acres to accomodate the larger turning circle.....

 

Does anyone here have knowledge of the practicality or otherwise of fitting an active anti-noise system to the cabin, like I suggested above ?

 

Sid - Actually those pictures were from a quite deliberate test to see whether the landing gear can tolerate a tighter-than-spec turn (90 degrees, pulled by a tug) WHILST a fault condition exists preventing the main gear from turning (which it can on the A380). It was the tarmac that gave up before the landing gear, and the test was passed.

Cloth-ears - Airbus aircraft already have the quietest cabins of passenger airliners. Anti-noise systems are more effective as a part of the headset and many airlines give out noise-cancelling headsets in first class and possibly business.

 

So polluting directly into the upper atmosphere so that boring people can go to boring places very cheaply is more important to the 'common good' than building many hospitals or subsidising university tuition for doctors?

If there's a commercial case for the A380 then it doesn't need government investment. If Airbus or Boeing can sell military aircraft at sufficient profit to subsidise the development of commercial transports then who can complain?

Yet again you reveal your prejudice...

Paul

 

The guy who sent me the pics said that the A/C was under test but didn't specify whether it was self powered or on a tug. You can get an Aircraft to pull some much more accute angles with a Tug. The damage to the wheel and the twisting of the Under carriage looked to be quite significant though, although i know you need to test to the extremes at this stage of development and certification. I wish the guy who had designed the undercarriage on the Aircraft that i work on had adjusted his angles a little at the design stage, then i wouldn't have to swap the wheels over on the same axle half way through the tyres life ( all of the Main wheels wear out on the OB shoulders first).

I used a set of Sennheiser Noise cancelling Headphones for the first time the other week on a customers Aircraft. We had to do some Hi Power EGR's and Taxi checks and in the end i turned the noise canellation off as it was just too silent, i kept thinking that the Radio was dead and I could hear myself think too much ( noisy cogs clunking in my swede ) . They are awesomely effective though, i can see why folk would use them in envoiroments with a constant drone or noise.

 

Now that's funny

 

What prejudice?

 

Do they still give you that funny pressure feeling in your ears? Our editors in the old Design Studio (before we relocated) tried them out as our printers/aircon/phones were too damn noisy. I tried a pair for a laugh and they gave me even more of a headache than all that damn noise.

Incidentally, our office here is even noisier, with even less oxygen, than the old one. Maybe this is what puts me off of flying - it's like being smothered slowly in a submarine in this office - you can feel the O2 going down as the day goes on...

 

Spot on!