First, Airbus is a European company, so how is it "outsourcing" American jobs? It is a competitor to Boeing. By your logic, BMW, Ferrari, Fiat, Mazda, etc., are responsible for "outsourcing" American jobs as they are competition for Ford and GM. So competition and free-markets are not what you like, apparently.

Second, if you really are concerned about supporting companies that outsource American jobs, then you definitely should NOT fly on Boeing. Unlike Airbus, Boeing is an American company, but has decided to outsource overseas. Or perhaps you were unaware that the ONLY piece of the 787 that is being made in the USA is the tailfin. The rest are produced overseas, and shipped in for assembly in the USA. Even the wing, which Boeing previously had held close to home as an essential in-house and secretive manufacturing gem, is now being made by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, in Japan. This article details just where the different sections are made:

Business & Technology | Boeing 787: Parts from around world will be swiftly integrated | Seattle Times Newspaper

So to protest your aversion to "outsourcing", you had better not fly at all, seeing as how you will likely end up on an Airbus, Boeing, Canadair, or Embraer...

That article is pretty funny in hindsight. "when the 787 enters service in 2008"...yeah, right!

Eagle,

You have done a great job of taking things totally out of context. I mean you pretty much called me a Communist by saying that I don't like a free market.

By an American company not purchasing American products they are sending US dollars out of the country and taking work away from American workers. Yes I know some of the components of an airbus come form the US and that brings some of the money back and backs some of our jobs but do you really believe that it is more beneficial to our economy to bypass our own industry and import from another nation? If you do then, well you have a wright to your opinion but myself and a lot of others certainly do not agree.

I am fully aware of where the Dreamliner components are manufactured, I don't necessarily like it but it is what it is. While they do eliminate jobs by outsourcing this work the overall program keeps a lot of Americans employed. In fact Boeing is the 4th largest industrial employer in the US and 24th largest overall in the US, employing over 77,000 just in Washington state. Another large assembly plant is coming on line in Charleston SC to support the 787 assembly. This coming from MSNBC.

Bottom line when you buy from a US company you are supporting our economy more than you do from buying an import. This is true with more than just aircraft, and yes to answer another comment in your above post I have always purchased my pickup from a an American company. As for your comment that I shouldn't fly because I am supporting outsourcing, I have no problems with people buying a ERJ or CRJ because no one in the US builds anything to compete with that type of airframe.

I don't see how my personal choice to not fly on carriers that buy primarily airbus turned into such a big deal to you. It is my personal way of supporting the companies that support our own economy the most, I am not trying to push my opinions on anyone else, I am simply stating them.

The aluminum might have something to do with the possible AA purchase of 320's. If you get all the aluminum from the same mine, you dont have to paint them grey or anodize the panels so they are all the same aluminum color. So AA can keep them bare to save wait. No aluminum mine in the EU is big enough for Airbuses so if you keep it bare it looks like patch work. Remember the A300s? The painted ones were leased and the aluminum were owned but had to be treated.

Reliable? Really? Then why did the roof of a SWA 737 just peel off a couple months ago? Becuase it's such a 'superior' product? And I believe there are still plenty of A300's flying around. The DC9 is still flying, but you don't see the B717 still being built.

The 737 may be a great airplane, but in a world of $90 a barrel oil and no GTF's hanging off those wings, it ain't worth squat. Boeing needs to swallow their pride and clean off the drawing board. They're losing orders, and they will continue to until they realize the 737 is a dying airplane.

The 737NG series is "dead" ?

Aside from sounding like you have an ax to grind, you're being overdramtic.

Dealing with the French will always be a major negative.

I disagree that Boeing is making 'a(n) absolutely craptastic product' the 737 still has 2000 orders on the books for delivery. 777 still has 300 orders to be filled.. and the 787...delayed - oh yeah, a pain in P.R. department's arse - Yes. However, I would hardly call a widebody with 835 firm orders a 'disaster'. The 787 is still a revolutionary plane, although Boeing's overzelous development plan backfired, in the long run the 787 will be exceptionally successful.

I think Boeing just needs to make a decision on it's narrowbody fleet. I understand that there are potentially billions of dollars riding on the decision, but one that needs to be made none the less.

just my $.02

To get back on topic and avoid the Airbus v Boeing fight (although I enjoyed the Douglas comparison). Does anyone else think American is just playing airbus against boeing to get a sweetheart deal on another large 737NG order? I have no idea, but I would venture a guess and say they could get a great deal with the pressure Airbus is putting on them at the air show, not to mention possibly getting earlier delivery slots with the 737??

I will agree that the 777 is a great product. But the 737 NG is far from a 'new generation' aircraft. Yes it's avionics are nice, but the overhead panel needs a massive overhaul, the flight deck is tiny & noisy, & it has less efficient engines then a geared turbofan. Boeing needs to get on board with a new NB.

or....... Bombardier C Series deal??