Specop 007
Diamond Member
- Jan 31, 2005
- 9,454
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: A5
Boeing gets a LOT of money from the US government as well, it's just not directly into the commercial jet program like Airbus's money.Originally posted by: Nextman916
Ive learned quite a lot about passenger jets recently. My dad has a huge infatuation about planes hes on airliners.net forums daily chatting up about them, he is extremely biased and favors boeing. He says Airbus pretends to be a privately owned organization but everyone knows their govermently funded, while boeing isnt and still has safer better, more reliable planes.
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: A5
Boeing gets a LOT of money from the US government as well, it's just not directly into the commercial jet program like Airbus's money.Originally posted by: Nextman916
Ive learned quite a lot about passenger jets recently. My dad has a huge infatuation about planes hes on airliners.net forums daily chatting up about them, he is extremely biased and favors boeing. He says Airbus pretends to be a privately owned organization but everyone knows their govermently funded, while boeing isnt and still has safer better, more reliable planes.
Huge difference.
Boeing gets funding from the .gov to make .mil vehicles. While it is a lucrative contract there still has to be orders filled.
Scarebus gets free money from the .gov to stay in business, without having to meet any orders in order to qualify for the money.
Its the difference between you getting 10 bucks to mow the lawn, and you getting 10 bucks just because.
Originally posted by: jjsole
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: A5
Boeing gets a LOT of money from the US government as well, it's just not directly into the commercial jet program like Airbus's money.Originally posted by: Nextman916
Ive learned quite a lot about passenger jets recently. My dad has a huge infatuation about planes hes on airliners.net forums daily chatting up about them, he is extremely biased and favors boeing. He says Airbus pretends to be a privately owned organization but everyone knows their govermently funded, while boeing isnt and still has safer better, more reliable planes.
Huge difference.
Boeing gets funding from the .gov to make .mil vehicles. While it is a lucrative contract there still has to be orders filled.
Scarebus gets free money from the .gov to stay in business, without having to meet any orders in order to qualify for the money.
Its the difference between you getting 10 bucks to mow the lawn, and you getting 10 bucks just because.
Boeing gets federal subsidies designed to not look like federal subsidies to circumvent trade agreements. Same sh!t. :roll:
Originally posted by: UNESC0
isn't competition good?
I'd much rather have Airbus and Boeing than only one or the other.
People defending airline companies due to nationalistic pride dosen't make much sense.
Oh, and Bombardier FTW!
Originally posted by: Connoisseur
Originally posted by: Nextman916
Ive learned quite a lot about passenger jets recently. My dad has a huge infatuation about planes hes on airliners.net forums daily chatting up about them, he is extremely biased and favors boeing. He says Airbus pretends to be a privately owned organization but everyone knows their govermently funded, while boeing isnt and still has safer better, more reliable planes.
Hey another win for capitalism. In either case, the 787 does have more advanced technologies than the A380's. However, I for one support taking all the big airline companies down and going with a more taxi-cab model of air transportation. Instead of having to share an aircraft with 300+ sweaty, smelly disgruntled people, I'd rather share it with only 20 or 30 disgruntled people and be able to land in airports other than the big ones... it's probably not going to happen until the flying car becomes feasible... but I can always dream.
Originally posted by: UNESC0
isn't competition good?
I'd much rather have Airbus and Boeing than only one or the other.
People defending airline companies due to nationalistic pride dosen't make much sense.
Oh, and Bombardier FTW!
Originally posted by: UNESC0
isn't competition good?
I'd much rather have Airbus and Boeing than only one or the other.
People defending airline companies due to nationalistic pride dosen't make much sense.
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: Connoisseur
it's probably not going to happen until the flying car becomes feasible... but I can always dream.
Flying terrorist cars FTL.
Originally posted by: Pantoot
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: Connoisseur
it's probably not going to happen until the flying car becomes feasible... but I can always dream.
Flying terrorist cars FTL.
Forget about the terrorists, just watch the people around you as you drive home today. Do you really want those people in the air?
Originally posted by: ElFenix
the A380's real downfall is that it costs more to operate per seat mile than the current 747-400, and way more than the upcoming 747-8.
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: gsellis
Originally posted by: Nextman916
Ive learned quite a lot about passenger jets recently. My dad has a huge infatuation about planes hes on airliners.net forums daily chatting up about them, he is extremely biased and favors boeing. He says Airbus pretends to be a privately owned organization but everyone knows their govermently funded, while boeing isnt and still has safer better, more reliable planes.
The French government used to have a bounty on laptops from Boeing personnel. They would pay folks for stealing Boeing laptops to pass on to Airbus. Boeing had to have some really paranoid laptop procedures.
First time I've heard about that laptop thing.
Originally posted by: Connoisseur
Hey another win for capitalism. In either case, the 787 does have more advanced technologies than the A380's. However, I for one support taking all the big airline companies down and going with a more taxi-cab model of air transportation. Instead of having to share an aircraft with 300+ sweaty, smelly disgruntled people, I'd rather share it with only 20 or 30 disgruntled people and be able to land in airports other than the big ones... it's probably not going to happen until the flying car becomes feasible... but I can always dream.
Originally posted by: iamwiz82
Originally posted by: ElFenix
the A380's real downfall is that it costs more to operate per seat mile than the current 747-400, and way more than the upcoming 747-8.
They are talking about creating a new category for the A380 regarding wake turbulence. I guess it is significantly worse than a 744. They are doubling the minimum distance from A380s to 10NM, up from 5NM of a 747.
Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Originally posted by: ElFenix
the A380's real downfall is that it costs more to operate per seat mile than the current 747-400, and way more than the upcoming 747-8.
... and that was before the doubling of costs of development was factored in.
(from the article in the OP)
Airbus, meanwhile, said it expects the redesign of the A-350 ? seen as a competitor to the Dreamliner ? would nearly double the cost of developing the plane to about $10 billion.
Originally posted by: foghorn67
Originally posted by: kranky
Originally posted by: iamwiz82
They are talking about creating a new category for the A380 regarding wake turbulence. I guess it is significantly worse than a 744. They are doubling the minimum distance from A380s to 10NM, up from 5NM of a 747.
Hmmm... 10 nanometers doesn't sound like much of a distance.
pssst. It's Nautical Miles.
In the meantime, I will calibrate my sarcasm meter.