Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Fragrant Harbour
Reload this Page >

A350 delayed (again)

Fragrant Harbour A forum for the large number of pilots (expats and locals) based with the various airlines in Hong Kong. Air Traffic Controllers are also warmly welcomed into the forum.

A350 delayed (again)

Old 27th Jul 2012, 13:52
  #1 (permalink)  
711
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Up in the air
Age: 57
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A350 delayed (again)

BBC News - Airbus delays A350 XWB entry as EADS profits triple
711 is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2012, 14:08
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If it delays another 5 years, it'll almost be as late as the 787.

Seriously, has there EVER been a new aircraft type delivered on time??
broadband circuit is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2012, 18:36
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This is important because further delays will inhibit CX's ability to grow while creating opportunity for competitors, assuming they have the aircraft and crews, etc. Those -400s and 340s will be around that much longer because of 350 delays, and those jets will deliver an inferior product and economics. It's too bad really because the 787-9/10 will likely be better aircraft anyways. I guess we will have to wait until this time next decade to really know for sure.
cxorcist is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2012, 22:09
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cupboard
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just like RA65, aircraft purchases mean faster time to command.....to be right back where 80% of pilots were before joining this awesome company....albeit at 2-10 times the pay.
Iron Skillet is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2012, 01:27
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Asia
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
albeit at 2-10 times the pay.
True, but at what cost to your health, and I am not talking polution. I am talking about this caring companys track record of court cases involving employees and the all check no train culture.
Beta Light is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2012, 03:49
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cupboard
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just 1 more month before the court of final appeal hears the 49er case...

Last edited by Iron Skillet; 28th Jul 2012 at 13:49.
Iron Skillet is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2012, 16:06
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: VHHH Ocean 2D
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
cxorcist,

Have a day off. We get it - you love Boeing.
betpump5 is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2012, 19:21
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bet pump,

I don't love Boeing, I dislike Airbus. They lie constantly about their aircrafts' capabilities and seldom get called on it, in public anyways. They have yet to build an aircraft which can carry full pax and decent cargo and go anywhere near the published range (ie 330, 340, 380). I'm taking a wild guess here, but the A350 will probably be no different. Their wing technology is at least 5 years behind Boeing, and they build throw away aircraft that don't last. For evidence, how many successful Airbus P2F conversion programs have there been? One, the A300. The only reason their aircraft sell is because the cost of ownership is lower than the Boeing equivalent. How? With higher labor costs than Boeing, I'm pretty sure this has much to do with public funding from their socialist parents. I don't respect that at all. Why should Euro tax dollars subsidize the global airline industry? It's sad and pathetic really.

I'll take the rest of the day off, thanks.

CXorcist
cxorcist is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2012, 00:29
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For evidence, how many successful Airbus P2F conversion programs have there been? One, the A300.
Actually a fairly large number of A310 P2Fs were done as well, although mostly to Fedex. There is/was a conversion programme for the A320P2F, but it has been shelved for the time being not because it isn't popular, but because the A320 is so popular with airlines that there is not enough feed-stock to keep a P2F conversion line up and running! They have just launched the A330P2F, although they are going to have difficulty finding feedstock for that as well because of the A330s popularity. (They launched it mainly to appease Qatar's CEO who threatened to buy a large fleet of 767Fs). Similar story for the A340, there is not enough feedstock to make a conversion line viable although there is a third party who are about to launch their own non-permanent P2F programme for the A340-300.
geh065 is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2012, 00:59
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 3,462
Received 135 Likes on 73 Posts
Their wing technology is at least 5 years behind Boeing,
Have you got any documentation to support that? It's a new one on me.

Ta.
TURIN is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2012, 03:51
  #11 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 2,171
Received 24 Likes on 13 Posts
Originally Posted by cxorcist
They have yet to build an aircraft which can carry full pax and decent cargo and go anywhere near the published range (ie 330, 340, 380).
The design payload for any aircraft made by Boeing or Airbus does not include any cargo, it is purely a nominal load based a paper configuration (Boeing uses 210 lb (95 kg) per passenger with baggage).

The design payload of the 744 is 416 passengers paper configuration (39,520 kg) with a design range of around 7,200 nm. The 744 should be able to do ORD, JFK, YYZ, DFW. It is flat out doing YVR, LAX and SFO even with the reduced seat counts Cathay use.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/sta...47_payload.pdf

To carry ANY cargo, the seat count is reduced or the range, they do both on the 744.

It is amusing you mention the technology difference, a long standing Captain converting to the 777 fleet recently from the Airbus made an interesting observation of the 777, "Its a dumb blond, beautiful body, but no brains". That is someone who has seen both sides, unlike yourself.

Ask how many of the 777 pilots know how the 777 VNAV actually works, or how the smart radar paints nothing with cells everywhere.

For evidence, how many successful Airbus P2F conversion programs have there been?
How many CX/KA BCFs have been destroyed so far ?

They were a great investment.
swh is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2012, 05:36
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How many CX/KA BCFs have been destroyed so far ?
Just one actually, B-HOZ.
geh065 is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2012, 11:32
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 4,787
Received 7 Likes on 3 Posts
Quote CXorcist ''With higher labor costs than Boeing,''

Your spelling gives away your nationality. Bias because it's not made in the US of A?
Dan Winterland is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2012, 12:44
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wherever I lay my hat.
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SWH,
It's just a real shame that captain didn't just stay on the Airbus!
As for the 777, It is ten times the aircraft the 330/340 is. Our first are almost twenty years old and have worked hard, yet they still fly with rarely an MEL item in the book when you turn up at the aircraft. Also, the oldest 777 and the newest ERs are basically identical in the flightdeck.....they built it right in the first place and have no need to change anything. Airbus can barely keep aircraft built in the same month the same.
As for the 350, well, good luck with that when it is up against the 777X!
Kasompe is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2012, 13:29
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pot calling kettle....

Cxorcist, you say:

With higher labor costs than Boeing, I'm pretty sure this has much to do with public funding from their socialist parents.
A 25 millisecond Google search found articles relating to a recent WTO ruling that Boeing isn't whiter than white as far as subsidies go. Apparently, Boeing has received in the order of $4 billion in illegal funding so this subsidy business isn't something that only Airbus gets up to.

I suppose you could (and probably will) dispute the amount each manufacturer received.

That's my twopenneth anyways.

STP
Steve the Pirate is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2012, 13:58
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Boeing has been listed by the DoD as the worst defence contractor for never delivering on-time and always over budget. EADS on the other hand has been listed as the best for being ahead of schedule, on budget and easiest products to integrate.
AsiaMiles is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2012, 15:54
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wherever I lay my hat.
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Asia Miles,
Tell that to those countries who ordered the A400 Military transport. You might wish to Google it and then review your post!
Kasompe is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2012, 17:10
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wherever I lay my hat.
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Experts: Boeing 777X could have edge over Airbus A350 1000
Puget Sound Business Journal by Steve Wilhelm, Staff Writer
Date: Thursday, March 15, 2012, 2:47pm PDT
Enlarge Image

Boeing image
An upgraded 777 will likely mesh composite wings with an aluminum-lithium alloy fuselage. Pictured, Boeing assembles its 1,000th 777.

Sponsored Links
Double Discount promotion
Receive double interest rate discounts on select new auto refinances & purchases
wellsfargo.com/doublediscount
Get Listed Here

Steve Wilhelm
Staff Writer- Puget Sound Business Journal
Email
As details emerge about Boeing’s plans for an updated 777 jetliner, the “777X,” as it's being called, this is increasingly looking like one area where Boeing may be able to maintain a firm capability lead over Airbus.
Analysts are saying the bigger and more efficient 777 (it’s already the world’s biggest twin-engine jet), will stay ahead of Airbus’ planned A350 1000 in size, and possibly in efficiency.
“We want to make sure we have an airplane with greater capability than what comes on from Airbus,” said Boeing Commercial Airplane CEO Jim Albaugh, neatly summing up Boeing’s strategy during a March 14 JP Morgan conference call with analysts.
During that call, he expressed enthusiasm about prospects for the 777 upgrade, saying the combination of a new fiber composite wing and new engines will increase overall efficiency “pretty dramatically.”
“If we can satisfy ourselves the risk is acceptable, we'll take this to the board,” he said, referring to a planned program launch.
Another widely rumored upgrade to the aircraft likely will be a switch to building the fusealge from a new aluminum-lithium alloy. Using the new alloy, an advance over the traditional aluminum Boeing now uses, would allow the company to reduce the aircraft’s weight significantly without requiring significant changes in how it’s made.
All of this will add up to a larger aircraft able to carry just over 400 passengers about 8,000 miles, compared to about 350 passengers for the competing Airbus A350.
(Airbus sized the A350 between Boeing’s 787 and 777 to compete against both. Whether or not that was wise will partly depend on how efficiently Boeing can upgrade the 777.)
Boeing’s tactics “are going to pose a significant challenge to the largest A350 variant and could potentially undermine its business case,” said a recent story in Aspire Aviation.
That story said the new plane could burn 15 percent less fuel per seat than the current model.
Development of the new model will be orchestrated by Scott Fancher, who ran the 787 program until a recent job swap with Larry Loftis, who had run the 777 program.
On March 14, Albaugh suggested the main reason for the switch was to tap each person’s skills.
“We wanted Scott to help develop what 777X will be,” Albaugh said, adding, “Already, after two weeks, I’m very pleased with the results.”
STEVE WILHELM covers manufacturing, aerospace and trade for the Puget Sound Business Journal. Phone: 206-876-5427 | Email: [email protected] | Twitter: stevewilhelm108 Click here to sign up for the PSBJ Daily Update.
Kasompe is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2012, 17:51
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One at a time here:

Geh, I thought it intuitively obvious when mentioning the A300 that I meant the 310 as well. So how many Boeing aircraft have had successful conversion programs? Well, the 72,3,4(Classic and -400),5,& 67 - count them, 7. Did I miss any? As you rightly point out, the 777 will probably happen when the aircraft become available. I think the 330/40 conversion (should it ever happen) will have limited utility because the MZFW is so pathetically low. Hence, the need for that bulbous nose wheel housing on the production A330F, which seems like a good freighter as long as you're not planning to cross the Pacific with it.

Turin, my evidence regarding wing technology is mostly empirical. Sorry if you were hoping for equations. Pit the the 738 against the 320 and even the most 'bus friendly numbers give the Boeing a 5% advantage. How long has it taken Airbus to even get "sharklets" on the 320? Wow, way behind. The 777, it still has no equal after how long? You going to tell me that is all about the engines? A380 wing cracks... whoops. Aren't these airplanes just a few years old? And the 787/350, well the race is on but who believes Boeing is not light years ahead in working (and patenting) carbon fiber technologies and processes. I think the A350 will be massively delayed as Airbus will run into problems relating to assembly and Boeing patents. We'll see...

Swh, I'll accept what you wrote, but most (if not all) long haul airlines reduce the seats from the manufacturers' numbers. Again I'll go empirical, which airplanes can fly HKG-JFK with a full pax load and reasonable (10-20T) cargo? One (perhaps 2), the 777 and maybe the -8I. If any of you throw the A380 out there, we all know that thing would be lucky to even carry all the passenger bags on this route, much less any cargo (ref Qantas who runs a 744ER as cleanup behind the A380 to LAX if you need evidence). The A340-5/6 simply does not cut it on payload or fuel burn. I'm not that familiar with the A330-200 long range bird, but it doesn't seem all that popular.

I'm not going to argue about cockpit technology as Airbus does seem to be more well liked. However, I do think being able to feel the aircraft can be useful to a pilot, something Airbus controls do not allow. This might have been particularly helpful in the AF accident over the Atlantic.

With regard the the -400BCFs, this aircraft will be a cargo workhorse for generations. The destruction of a single CX BCF, I'm told, has more to do with a down cargo market and not wanting to sell capacity to other airlines. Fuel prices and the delivery of 10 -8Fs might have something to do with it as well...

Jizz, You are an idiot! Get a new name and start posting with some IQ...

Dan, actually the computer corrects that spelling for me. Too much hassle to always go back and fix it just to make the monarchs happy. My bias is against the socialist elites running Airbus. They wouldn't last ten seconds in a real capitalist economy without government help. The blue-collar "labourers" at Airbus have my utmost respect as fine manufacturers of the second rate designs they are given.

Kasompe, the 777X really does look posed to seal the deal on long haul, wide body aircraft. It will have better seat economics than the A380, -8I, -300ER, and 350-1000. It will carry more pax and cargo further than its predecessor. What a nightmare for Airbus...

STP, more google searching. $15B+++ for Airbus and $5B for Boeing. Half of that $5B came through NASA on "space related" research. Much of that $5B had direct defense (ie gov't) contract implications as Boeing is the third largest defense contractor in the world since acquiring McD. No doubt, there is some technology cross-over, but it is nothing compared to the predatory lending and development grants Airbus has pulled in over the years. This is not apples to apples... I expected better from you of all people.

Asia Miles, A400... Oh sigh. How many C-17s could already be in operation if the money had just been used for those instead of building this hair-brained disaster? Arrogance is so expensive!

I'm pleased to see my post garnered so many responses. It is good to hear of google searches and the like so we can cut through the media hype and drivel to arrive at the real story, which we (pilots) fly everyday. Boeing is far from a perfect company, but Airbus makes me want to throw up every time they hold a press conference or release. They are the biggest liars in the industry. The Euro press props them up every chance they get, and the NAM press loves to rip on Boeing. It seems a bit unfair as this has a real impact on public perception.

Last edited by cxorcist; 30th Jul 2012 at 20:01.
cxorcist is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2012, 21:43
  #20 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 2,171
Received 24 Likes on 13 Posts
Originally Posted by geh065
Just one actually, B-HOZ.
KAA/KAC/HOZ are history. KAB, KAD, HMD, HME, HVX, HVZ already deregistered in various forms of destruction.

Originally Posted by Kasompe
It's just a real shame that captain didn't just stay on the Airbus!
He did come from something else before the Airbus, and yes it is a shame he left. The Airbus fleet has lost a lot of very good trainers to the Boeing fleet. I see the Boeing fleet office has let some of their more robust people take different directions outside of training.

Originally Posted by Kasompe
Our first are almost twenty years old and have worked hard, yet they still fly with rarely an MEL item in the book when you turn up at the aircraft. Also, the oldest 777 and the newest ERs are basically identical in the flightdeck.....they built it right in the first place and have no need to change anything.
Come on, pull the other leg, you are up to the block 14 or so software update, it is not the same aircraft that left the factory. And the only reason Cathay still has them, nobody wants a 777 that you cannot load cargo into (even Biman Bangladesh Airlines said no to them), some bright person decided to put the small cargo doors on the early 777s.

Notice how Singapore Airlines replaced their regional and medium haul 777s with A330s ?

Originally Posted by Kasompe
Airbus can barely keep aircraft built in the same month the same.
You obviously never flown one then, they fly the same. What are these big differences you talk about ? Removing ADFs ? Location of the camera ? The style of table ? Different IFE systems ?

As for the 350, well, good luck with that when it is up against the 777X!
I do not expect the first A350 to be as good as an A350 that will came off the production line 10 years later. That is the same for any new aircraft. Even in CX there is a few tonnes difference in empty weight on the 777-300ERs, and that was a mature airframe to start with over a short production span. The A350 will still be a lot lighter, faster, and more fuel efficient than the 777 or 77X.

Originally Posted by Kasompe
An upgraded 777 will likely mesh composite wings with an aluminum-lithium alloy fuselage.
We read about that idea before, that is how Airbus initially decided to upgrade the A330 against the 787. Look how that turned out.

Originally Posted by Kasompe
Analysts are saying the bigger and more efficient 777 (it’s already the world’s biggest twin-engine jet), will stay ahead of Airbus’ planned A350 1000 in size, and possibly in efficiency.
They are doing this by playing with seat counts. They are proposing to remove a few inches of insulation from the cabin to make wider, and increase the seat count that way. Cathay would have to use the skinny 747 economy seats and 7 across in business in a 777X to take advantage of this, and you would end up flying with them empty on long haul flights like United does from EWR.

Originally Posted by cxorcist
I think the 330/40 conversion (should it ever happen) will have limited utility because the MZFW is so pathetically low.
What is the MZFW ? Can this be changed ? (I know the answer to both).

Originally Posted by cxorcist
Hence, the need for that bulbous nose wheel housing on the production A330F, which seems like a good freighter as long as you're not planning to cross the Pacific with it.
The block between the nose gear and fuselage is to make loading easier, it is not actually required, all A330s can still be loaded without it. You will notice the new 737MAX has copied the nose blister idea as well to get some additional engine clearance.

Originally Posted by cxorcist
Pit the the 738 against the 320 and even the most 'bus friendly numbers give the Boeing a 5% advantage.
5% advantage in aviation is massive, how is Airbus able to sell any ?

So how has the market got it so wrong ? Why have 30+ airlines changed from 737s to A320s ? Why did Dragon order the A320 ? Why is the market split 50/50 ? is it due to "your" numbers being "questionable" ?

Originally Posted by cxorcist
How long has it taken Airbus to even get "sharklets" on the 320?
The A320 wing is still very efficient, the sharklet upgrade is more than just a winglet, it is a series of aerodynamic modifications starting from the wing/body fairing out. With the 737MAX, Boeing will be on their 3rd wing for the type. Winglets alone actually cost fuel and payload on short sectors, that is why some 737NG operators within the same fleet have aircraft with and without winglets. They are used for different routes. The winglet in the 737NG was not actually developed by Boeing either.

Originally Posted by cxorcist
And the 787/350, well the race is on but who believes Boeing is not light years ahead in working (and patenting) carbon fiber technologies and processes.
The technology to build the one piece fuselage sections actually came from a company called North Sails, it is their 3DL composite tape layup technology used to make massive sails on a flexible mandrel that was adapted to build the fuselage barrels. They built the first composite barrel for the sonic cruiser concept, which was the technology basis for the 787. Boeing does not have a lot of composite patent technology, and they actually did not build much of the 787 in house until the bought a few of their failing suppliers out to try and get the project back on track.

Originally Posted by cxorcist
A380 wing cracks... whoops. Aren't these airplanes just a few years old?
Do you realise that every single aircraft flying has cracks in it, even brand new out of the factory ? Why have you not mention the various ADs over the years with widespread cracking found on the 747 ? The upper deck cracking has come up again this year, that was the issue of an AD back in 2005, the AD did not fix it.

If you were to actually understand the role a rib plays in the structural load path of a semi-monocoque wing construction, you would realise how much this was a media beat up. Sure they need to be fixed at some point, it will not however cause a wing to fail.

Originally Posted by cxorcist
The 777, it still has no equal after how long?
That would be why the A330-300 has replaced the 777-200 as the de-facto medium haul wide body. Singapore Airlines is in the process of replacing their 777-200 fleet with A330s on medium haul route to Australia etc. Malaysian has indicated they will be doing the same with their 777-200 fleet. Cathay has tried a number of times to offload their 777-200s as well.

Originally Posted by cxorcist
Again I'll go empirical, which airplanes can fly HKG-JFK with a full pax load and reasonable (10-20T) cargo? One (perhaps 2), the 777 and maybe the -8I.
A340/A350/A380. The 747-8I would not make it, the tail fuel tank is still not certified, Lufthansa 747-8I aircraft have it deactivated like a BCF.

Originally Posted by cxorcist
If any of you throw the A380 out there, we all know that thing would be lucky to even carry all the passenger bags on this route, much less any cargo (ref Qantas who runs a 744ER as cleanup behind the A380 to LAX if you need evidence).
The 777-300ER is even limited LAX-MEL, they are diving into NZ for fuel occasionally. The QF 744ER (which they have 6 total) only has around 300 seats in it (Cathay has more economy seats in our 744s than they have for the whole aircraft). The 744ER cargo hold has less room in it due to the additional fuel tanks. What you are talking about is not a regular occurrence.

The A380 has a lot of range over the 747-8I, and SQ have recently announced they will be upgrading their SQ1 service Hong Kong-San Francisco to A380s later this year. China Southern also plans to deploy A380s Guangzhou-Los Angeles at the same time. Routes that you have previous claimed the A380 is incapable of flying. JFK is actually shorter in terms of air nautical miles.

Originally Posted by cxorcist
With regard the the -400BCFs, this aircraft will be a cargo workhorse for generations.
There are 744BCF conversion slots available worldwide now, and 744 passenger feeder stock available at bargain basement prices (Lufthansa, Thai, Cathay, Qantas, Malaysian all trying to offload, some only 10 years old). Airlines are just not getting BCFs, Cathay is trying to get rid of them. The experiment did not work, as a freighter, they are no where as good as the 744ERFs.

Air China also has three of their BCFs they are trying to get rid of (B-2460, B-2458, B-2456).

Originally Posted by cxorcist
Half of that $5B came through NASA on "space related" research. Much of that $5B had direct defense (ie gov't) contract implications as Boeing is the third largest defense contractor in the world since acquiring MCD.
The true value of a lot of that is not known, Boeing got to keep the patents and intellectual property at zero cost as a result of that research. Boeing in percentage terms has been spends a lot less on R&D than Airbus has, the reason being they were being funded externally by the US taxpayer.

Originally Posted by cxorcist
predatory lending and development grants Airbus has pulled in over the years
Boeing benefits from them as well. They have the EXIM bank which is the US government lender that loans airlines worldwide (except in the US) the money to buy US made engines and aircraft. The WTO only looked at the relationship between the US and Europe, to have real understanding of the picture with Boeing, you need to include other countries like Japan, Korea, China, and Australia who have all subsidised Boeing civil projects. Japan for example subsidised the 787 wing development by 3 billion US dollars alone.

The main difference between the European repayable loans, and the Boeing subsidies is that the loans are being repaid, while the subsidies are not. the Japanese Government still has not be paid back a cent in the subsidies it gave on the 767 development. The WTO found the European repayable loan mechanism legal, their assessment was the interest rate being paid was below commercial rates.

The European governments today get a royalty fee for every A320 and A330 series aircraft built, even after the governments loans have been fully paid off, that is why they are so keen to participate. The governments that have supported Boeing get nothing like that.

Originally Posted by cxorcist
How many C-17s could already be in operation if the money had just been used for those instead of building this hair-brained disaster?
A large number, however the A400Ms role is not the same as the C-17, it can do a lot of things a C-17 cannot do. The same reason why most countries operate C-17s and C-130s, different aircraft, different roles.
swh is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.