US Air force 7E7 launch customer
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
From: Fantasy Island
Wino,
Significant projects supported in the past include the Airbus A320 and A330/340 programmes. The A320 investment has already been repaid to government, and continues to provide a return. The A330/340 is contributing a steady stream of funds to the Exchequer, and is expected to pay for itself in the medium term. In November 1997, the Government reached agreement with Rolls-Royce to support the development of three new engines in the Trent family, for the Airbus A340-500/600, and for stretched and longer-range versions of the A340.
(Don't think the UK govt. paid anything towards the A300/A310....were BAE not a partner until the A320 days?)
Significant projects supported in the past include the Airbus A320 and A330/340 programmes. The A320 investment has already been repaid to government, and continues to provide a return. The A330/340 is contributing a steady stream of funds to the Exchequer, and is expected to pay for itself in the medium term. In November 1997, the Government reached agreement with Rolls-Royce to support the development of three new engines in the Trent family, for the Airbus A340-500/600, and for stretched and longer-range versions of the A340.
(Don't think the UK govt. paid anything towards the A300/A310....were BAE not a partner until the A320 days?)
Union Goon
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
From: New Jersey, USA
Yes but Bahrain lad,
Take the money that was loaned to airbus and apply a 5 percent interest rate on it from the date the check was written (in otherwords at the rate that a corporation would have to pay on money borrowed on the real market, not as a government subisidy) and if you do that even the A320 hasn't paid i ts way yet. Yes in total dollars it has, but not if you compound the interest in a way that ANY corporation would be required to do... The interest ran for a LONG time with almost no aircraft sold...
But what is even more odious, is when Boeing goes out to borrow the money, they have to repay WHETHER OR NOT THEY SELL ANY AIRCRAFT! Airbus had ZERO risk. They only have to pay back if they sell the aircraft, and not with any reasonable interest schedule.
THat is NOT a level playing field no matter what you think or say.
Cheers
Wino
Take the money that was loaned to airbus and apply a 5 percent interest rate on it from the date the check was written (in otherwords at the rate that a corporation would have to pay on money borrowed on the real market, not as a government subisidy) and if you do that even the A320 hasn't paid i ts way yet. Yes in total dollars it has, but not if you compound the interest in a way that ANY corporation would be required to do... The interest ran for a LONG time with almost no aircraft sold...
But what is even more odious, is when Boeing goes out to borrow the money, they have to repay WHETHER OR NOT THEY SELL ANY AIRCRAFT! Airbus had ZERO risk. They only have to pay back if they sell the aircraft, and not with any reasonable interest schedule.
THat is NOT a level playing field no matter what you think or say.
Cheers
Wino
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
From: Redistributing SLF
Is everyone involved in the A v. B debate so naive to believe that deals for aircraft are on a "may the best man win" basis?
These decisions are so political reason is chucked out the window very early on in the process. The 767 deal was probably sweetened by kickbacks in other programs and A's offer probably had some incentives for "partners" to buy some items from U.S. companies as a sweetener.TC
These decisions are so political reason is chucked out the window very early on in the process. The 767 deal was probably sweetened by kickbacks in other programs and A's offer probably had some incentives for "partners" to buy some items from U.S. companies as a sweetener.TC
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
From: Dallas, TX USA
As long as the 7E7 airframe is appropriate for tanker use, I think this might be a good choice for a new US tanker.
The US military could probably use a good long ranged mid-sized tanker/cargo/personel transport, as these aircraft would probably be multi-use in the same way that KC-10s are now. The US military often ponders its needs for more airlift capacity, and this mid-sized aircraft could be ideal at this role, leaving the C-5s and C-17s for handling the outsized cargo. The 7E7 would probably be easier to maintain and upgrade than a soon-to-be out of production airframe like the 767. BTW, I'd love to see how they install a cargo door in the side of a composit airframe.
It doesn't matter if the military or a civil airline lauches the 7E7, a customer is a customer. I'd love to see if the WTO can creatively come up with some twisted way of seeing this possibility as "uncompetitive", as 50,000 plus pages of the GATT treaty leaves a lot of room for imaginative interpretation.
The US military could probably use a good long ranged mid-sized tanker/cargo/personel transport, as these aircraft would probably be multi-use in the same way that KC-10s are now. The US military often ponders its needs for more airlift capacity, and this mid-sized aircraft could be ideal at this role, leaving the C-5s and C-17s for handling the outsized cargo. The 7E7 would probably be easier to maintain and upgrade than a soon-to-be out of production airframe like the 767. BTW, I'd love to see how they install a cargo door in the side of a composit airframe.
It doesn't matter if the military or a civil airline lauches the 7E7, a customer is a customer. I'd love to see if the WTO can creatively come up with some twisted way of seeing this possibility as "uncompetitive", as 50,000 plus pages of the GATT treaty leaves a lot of room for imaginative interpretation.
