GauleyPilot

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061003...poreairlinesia

Ottopilot

I think this piece of crap is going to be real bad for Airbus (good).

PilotHunter

Today,

Airbus stock = Down

Boeing stock = UP

Onfinal

I don't know why this is "Good". Or is this just some ethnocentric thinking which many of us seem to be prone to.

The aircraft advances that we've had in the last 40 years probably has a lot to do with the competition from Airbus, McDonnell-Douglas, and Lockheed. Surely without a major competitor Boeing would have had little incentive to push the limits of the technology as they have. Do you really want to see the last large hull competitor to Boeing in the civil transport aircraft market fail?

mike734

I think it is true to say, without the A320 there would never have been the 737NG.

OldAg84

I'm no fan of Airbus (FWIW-not much), but watch Airbus/EADS stumble and maybe just maybe the expertise in Toulouse will move to Shanghai. Careful for what you wish for, because Seattle might be next.

Ottopilot

I'm thinking of American workers and jobs, nothing more. I'd rather see Boeing and M.D. compete for advances, but I guess that is out of the question. And to answer your question: yes. I don't mind Airbus as much as I mind the governments behind it.

Onfinal

Ottopilot:

I hear you and understand, but the reality is that this thinking is only what Boeing wants us to believe. These aircraft may be assembled in the US, but so many subassemblies come from Europe, South America, and China that you're kidding yourself if you think Boeing or any major American corporation really cares about saving American jobs.

Why does boeing outsource it's sub-assemblies? One reason is that it may be cheaper, but the big reason is that it makes the aircraft more marketable to foreign airlines. It also gives airlines better access to foreign routes if they can say that they're supporting those economies with the manufacture of aircraft that they operate. Why do you think that Boeings now offer RR engines. Why did the Early 747s only have P&W engines. But look at the British Airways 747s which have RR engines. That's not a coincidence. Look at the American and CAL 757's flying RR engines. They have some of the most routes to the UK. This is all business leverage and nothing more.

In the late 80's MDC started having the MD80 manufactured in China, for the aircraft ordered by the Chinese Airlines. Scary to think what will happen as China is expected to be the source of such a large percentage of future aircraft orders!

Ottopilot

Sure plane parts come from everywhere (look at the 787 list), but it does affect jobs in the US too. Continental has been using RR engines on Boeing since the '80's and not because of UK routes. It's a better engine for what Continental wants in its 757's. Many airlines don't even have their 757's ETOPS qualified. They use them transcontinental when Continental is flying them from New York to Berlin. My main problem with airbus is the government subsidising and its unfair advantage over companines like Boeing.

DaveP2

What does the acronym "ETOPS" stand for? I know it references single-engine requirements for overwater flight, but what are the actual words that make it up?

Last I heard was "Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim."

Dave