You folks made plenty of valid points, and I can sort of understand views of the US government's commercial clout as being a 300-pound gorilla,at least in a general way.
Otterman-I was aware of Lockheed's sins and they were punished, however they broke the law. Well-spoken, about "casting the first stone", especially if allowed by a govt. Were I native over there, things would look a bit different.
Maybe Boeing could have designed, many years ago, its cockpits around a standard format. This is a major disadvantage, which can't be corrected.
Mr. Camus' comments still appear (to me) to be very misleading, and it is not my intention to offend anyone's national pride, but only to point out contrasts. Say what is needed about the US govt's methods ( preferably from the last twenty years, or so), and it will be enlightening and probably news to me. My goal was only to stimulate a factual debate.
Pardon my long-winded comments way up above, but it still seems to me as if huge direct subsidies (whether for R&D or basic production costs etc) simply offer a major advantage in the world markets which Boeing can't compete with. As for top-quality, IF my company had the F-70/100 (rode on Cityhopper and other codeshares), Avro, A-310/300 etc, I would put in a bid in a second, to fly them (but have no interest in long flights-as a tourist it is lousy).
Blast away-my photon/electron deflector shield and jamming pods can protect me. Not to mention my $10.00 sunglasses from Walgreen's Drugstore!
Last edited by Ignition Override; 4th November 2002 at 05:11.