FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION

Wrong, Cicerone. All airports expecting them have already extended runways and added gates for them.

Walter - E.A.D.S. and various ancestors of same (including but not limited to Messerschmitt Boelkow Blohm and Fokker of the Netherlands) are extremely well known to George and, to a lesser extent except when it comes to the Kartellamt ref. the Daimler-Benz deal - also to me. Thanks all the same

ad your first: correct, and all airlines bying or willing to buy them, have formed special departments just for this airbus - as have the airporst (both is running for years now).

ad you second: I do know that, and tha's exactly the reason for my previous post. :wink:

HofT, I don't remember where I heard or read about the airports being unprepared for those Airbus, but I thought it was pretty recent information. I stand corrected.

George - Albania and Malta do have predominantly Moslem populations but are small and not a problem in the overall scheme of things in the EU, esp. since they're secular.

You are correct that Giscard refused to include anything about "Christian heritage" in the constitution text - but that was done precisely so as not to antagonize the Turks! He now sees his mistake on the general point but it's too late, at least as far as that text is concerned.

And yes, I do diligently read the Osservatore Romano - and I'm not even Catholic - for its wonderfully classical Italian mostly, but you never know when their information might come in handy.

Isan January 16th, 2005 10:07 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Super Jumbo : A380 VS B747-"Advance"

US aircraft maker Boeing has decided not to build a new jet to compete directly with the superjumbo A380, seen here, of rival Airbus, saying its tried and true 747 will satisfy limited worldwide demand for bigger planes



Boeing will let Airbus fly solo into superjumbo market -- for now

US aircraft maker Boeing has decided not to build a new jet to compete directly with the superjumbo A380 of arch-rival Airbus, saying its tried and true 747 will satisfy limited worldwide demand for bigger planes.

Airbus plans to unveil its A380 amid great pomp in Toulouse, France on Tuesday. But according to Boeing, Airbus's market projections are too optimistic.

The giant European manufacturer predicts that 1,500 A380s will sell over the next 20 years. It expects its new model to represent 25 to 30 percent of those sales starting in 2008 -- about 35 deliveries a year.

Boeing says the market can't absorb more than 320 500-plus-seat planes in the next two decades.

The A380 can seat 555 passengers in coach, and up to 840 charter, making it a very economical mode of transport.

But its size limits it to the largest airports, and even they must upgrade their facilities to enable the A380 to land.

Passengers "would have to take several small aircraft to get to the hubs," major airports where the A380 can land, said Leslie Nichols, a spokeswoman for Boeing.

"The 747 can access 210 airports in the world, whereas the A380 will be able to access 29 airports by 2009," Nichols said.

Boeing is also betting against a move towards bigger planes.

"Even though airplane travel has grown overall, the reliance on hubs has declined while non-stop service has increased. The demand for large aircraft has decreased," said Amanda Landers, another Beoing spokeswoman.

Boeing's largest aircraft, the 747-400, has 416 seats. The group could decide by June whether to develop a new version -- the 747 "Advanced" -- which would seat 450. Boeing says that size will satisfy the demand for superjumbo jets.

"After four years, Airbus has 139 commitments from 14 customers for the A380. Boeing had 165 orders from 21 customers for the 747-400 after its first four years," Landers said.

But many analysts are in line with Airbus's industry predictions.

"The A380 provides good economics in an environment where a growing number of airports in large cities are more and more congested," said John Ash, president of the consulting firm Intervistas-GA2.

In his view, expanding air travel will mean bigger planes, rather than more flights.

Roman Szuper, an analyst with Standard and Poor's, said that Airbus will find itself in a monopoly position and may be able to stay on top of the emerging market for superjumbo jets for a long time.

"It was similar with the 747. There was no competition for several decades," he said.

But Boeing is keeping a door open in case the future proves it wrong, Boeing CEO Harry Stonecipher has made clear.

Boeing might consider building a new jet to compete directly with the A380 if demand for such an aircraft is strong enough, Stonecipher said in a German newspaper interview in November.

"We estimate demand at around 400 aircraft. Airbus is forecasting 1,500 jets over the next 20 years. Time will tell who is right. If demand increases, we'll build a supersize aircraft," Stonecipher told the daily Die Welt in remarks reproduced in German.

Cicerone - the first deliveries of the new planes won't start for another 6 months, so you may be correct that many airports won't be finished with all the necessary work until the end of summer

I know everytime I land in Japan there's a huge mock-up of the new plane somewhere with people practicing evacuations and the like - they have it now down to 4 minutes for all passengers, while in U.S. and European tests it's still over 20 minutes. Whether because we're fatter or we're less disciplined I don't know

The Boeing Airbus competition will be very interesting to watch. Both companies are heavily dependent on government procurements, and Airbus is partly governed by government managers & capital. I have great faith in the ability of governments anywhere to screw up even simple things and, most importantly destroy the focus of what should be a profitable enterprise. The much greater involvement of government in Airbus, gives Boeing a great long-term advantage, in my view.

Airbus leapt ahead 15 years ago by accelerating the application of lightweight structures and electronic flight controls, both of which innovations yielded larger than anticipated performance benefits with new engine technologies and higher fuel costs. (It also helped that Boeing was undergoing a period of relative stagnation.) I have little doubt that the A380 will be a good aircraft, and I agree there is a clear market segment for it, including the terminal facilities required. However I believe the market segment for 747 and smaller sized aircraft will, in the long run, be much larger. More importantly the inescapable Airbus heavy investment in the A380 development reduces their agility precisely at the moment Boeing needs an opening to overcome the advantage Airbus gained a decade ago. If Boeing is smart they will leap forward in even lighter weight structures and coordinated improvements in flight programming, engine design and aerodynamics - all of which they can later, and with relative ease, apply to a second generation super jumbo competitor to the A380.

There is an alternate scenario to all this however. Many of these same arguments were put forward 35 years ago when Boeing introduced the then revolutionary 747.

It is an intersting game. It is worth remembering that both Britain and France were ahead of the U.S. in the introduction of both turboprop and jet passenger aircraft. Moreover both the old Comet and Caravelle used superior aerodynamic design (from a drag perspective) for engine placement in the wing roots. However Boeing later trumped that with the 707 which used far more practical nacelle placement for the engines, and figured out how to place them on the wing at key points to reduce flutter, significantly increase attainable wing span and load capacity. Nacelles also later facilitated the use of bypass engines which wouldn't fit in the European designs.

Helen,

I find your views of the Roman perspective quite interesting. Perhaps I am over-reacting to the many examples of contemporary political correctitude I see reported, primarily about EU governing bodies. My guess would be that the Curia estimate of the situation would be that the chief danger is the secularization of Europe, and not the potential for its "Turkification". On the other hand, perhaps these very subtle minds seek a period of reduced external influence while they organize a second Counter Reformation.

Fascinating reading re Aierbus and Boeing. Both are, according to a story I heard on NPR a week or two ago, heavily subsidized in some manner by the governments involved. Thus the accusations they have made against each other are probably a wash. johnboy's great adventure these days is to go to the Kroger, so I can't comment as to the statement by HofT that "all airports...have added gates." I defer to cicerone who has probably visited every major airport in the world. I can't imagine 500 people and a thousand pieces of luggage arriving at the same time.
And, as metnioned by the spokesperson from Boeing as quoted by ci, the hub and spoke system that was quite the rage in the US is failing. It may have worked for the airlines but sure didn't work for the passengers. I can now fly directly from Charlottesville VA to Detroit MI (not that I would ever want to) without going through some hub. Smaller plane? sure. It seems to me that you have to go where the customers are and the Bigger-Is-Better mentality is going to be obsolete.

contributions here are welcome

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=50470&highlight=

The U.S. government purchases goods from Boeing (and/or Lockheed, etc.) because it has need for its products.

Airbus, on the other hand, is directly subsidized by the government for product development.

Yes, we don't have need for Airbusses here

US has 'strong case' against EU over Airbus

The head of the US's largest and most powerful aerospace lobby group on Thursday warned that efforts in Congress to punish European companies as part of an acrimonious trade dispute over aircraft subsidies were gaining steam.

He accused Airbus, whose commercial rivalry with Boeing is tied up in a transatlantic dispute over subsidies, of trying to launch its nascent A350 aircraft with improper government aid.

Speaking in Paris, John Douglass, head of the Aerospace Industries Association of America, argued that the US had a strong case against the European Union, saying Boeing's government tax advantages were available to any aerospace company that does business in the US and therefore were not improper.

"Airbus claims that it does not require state launch aid to develop the A350, that its balance sheet is strong enough given sales of both the A380 [superjumbo] and A350," said Mr Douglass.

"If that is the case, then the only reason to seek European taxpayer launch aid is either to obtain an unfair comparative advantage or because Airbus's financial situation is not as favourable as they claim."

Mr Douglass's remarks repeated many accusations made by other US government and industry officials in recent weeks. But the tough tone of the US chief lobbyist, just three days ahead of the Paris Air Show, contributed to an increasingly bitter mood heading into the industry's showcase event.

The biennial air show, held in alternating years along with its sister event in Farnborough, England, is normally used to burnish the industry's image with the public, media and government customers.

But the World Trade Organisation dispute, coupled with the fact that the world's two largest commercial aircraft companies - EADS, Airbus's parent, and Boeing - enter the air show without chief executives, has put a damper on festivities. Boeing has been without a permanent chief executive since March, when Harry Stonecipher - the hard-driving industry veteran put in charge to clean up after a series of Boeing procurement scandals - was forced out when the company discovered he was having an affair with a co-worker.

EADS's board has twice been forced to postpone approving the company's co-CEOs - Frenchman Noel Forgeard, currently Airbus chief, and Thomas Enders, a German, head of EADS's defence business - because of infighting between the company's German and French shareholders over management structure.

Despite assurances that board approval would come in time for the show, held in the Paris suburb of Le Bourget, no agreement is expected soon.

Adding to the gloom, EADS officials said this week that the A350, which many in the industry expected to be formally launched at the show, would not get a formal unveiling until September at the earliest.

Still, EADS executives said they expect to announce at least 100 commitments to purchase the A350 - Airbus's answer to Boeing's increasingly popular 787 Dreamliner - at the air show.

Source

Was watching BBC World (well, more like listening cause the cable isnt working yet, so I get sound + snow), looking at all the extensive reporting about today's spectacular debt-cancellation agreements at the G8, 100% cancellation for the 18 poorest countries (or something like that), coupled with commitments by France, the US, Germany, Italy and the UK to double (or more) development aid - muchos interesting. Gordon Brown was speaking, as is right, because this is one line of development that the British (New) Labour team gets big-time credit for, theyve been really pushing both the US and the EU to get to this result. (Hes not much of a speaker tho, is he, that Gordon? Wont that get him into trouble when he gets to be PM?)

Anyway, all that and then there was time for an item about the political crisis of the EU, post-referendum, and they had extensive footage from a European Parliament debate.

Man.

It brought home to me one thing for sure: it made me realise that I hadnt actually ever seen EP debate footage. Which alone is well weird if you think about it. Even taking into consideration that I havent had a TV for much of the past decade. I simply cannot remember seeing Dutch national news ever showing EP stuff.

The fascinating footage taught me two things. One is that unlike what I expected, the EP debate was no sedate, consensual bureaucratic session of technocrats like I expected. The very opposite. It was a very, eh, vivid debate. Very ... temperamentful, yes. This was definitely politics in action.

Two is that ... yeh. The very vibrancy of the debate also showed off a flabbergasting variety of ... political styles, lets put it that way. From Cohn-Bendit hacking the air in pieces with fierce arm gesticulations, excitedly calling the Commission to account, to a British UKIP guy launching into one off-the-cuff putdown after another like he was a stand-up comedian, to a sonorous German holding forth, to a Polish gentlewoman niffily insisting that the Poles didnt want the French and the Dutch to decide for them, they should have their own referendum, to a Swedish woman ... the contrasts in rhetorics, styles, personalities were amazing. Very colourful. But also ... I wonder how the Dutch would react/evaluate to this all if they did see it on the news.

I'm aware of Zakaria's background.


We all have our standards, though insistence that one be born in a place and speak the language may not the best standard to measure the value of one's opinion.

This:

Fareed Zakaria (born January 20, 1964) is a writer and journalist specializing in international relations. He writes a regular column for Newsweek, which also appears in Newsweek International and often in The Washington Post. He was named editor of Newsweek International in October 2000; the magazine reaches an audience of 3.5 million worldwide. He hosts the weekly Foreign Exchange news show for PBS. He is also a regular member of the roundtable of ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" and an analyst for ABC News.
Zakaria came to the magazine from Foreign Affairs, the widely-circulated journal of international politics and economics, where he was managing editor. Prior to joining Foreign Affairs, Zakaria ran a major research project on American foreign policy at Harvard University, where he taught international relations and political philosophy. He has written for such publications as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker, The New Republic, and the webzine Slate.

He is the author of From Wealth to Power: The Unusual Origins of America's World Role (Princeton University Press), which has been translated into several languages, and co-editor of The American Encounter: The United States and the Making of the Modern World (Basic Books). His most recent book, The Future of Freedom, was published in the spring of 2003 and became a New York Times bestseller as well as a bestseller in several other countries. It is being translated into over eighteen languages.

Zakaria has won two Overseas Press Club Awards and has been nominated for two National Magazine Awards. He won the Deadline Club award for his columns and numerous honors for his October 2001 Newsweek cover story, "Why They Hate Us." In 1999, he was named "one of the 21 most important people of the 21st Century" by Esquire. In 2005 he won the World Affairs Councils of America's International Journalist Award. He serves on the boards of the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the International Institute of Strategic Studies, and Columbia University's International House, among others.

He received a B.A. from Yale, where he was a member of Scroll and Key, and a Ph.D. in political science from Harvard. He lives in New York City with his wife, son and daughter. He was born in India, and is the son of Indian politician and writer Rafiq Zakaria.

[edit]
Bibliography
The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad, Fareed Zakaria, (W.W. Norton & Company; 2003) ISBN 0393047644
From Wealth to Power, Fareed Zakaria, (Princeton University Press; 1998) ISBN 0691044961
The American Encounter: The United States and the Making of the Modern World Essays from 75 Years of Foreign Affairs, edited by James F. Hoge and Fareed Zakaria, (Basic Books; 1997) ISBN 046500170X

...while it doesn't elicit my immediate approval of his every thought, garners him much more respect and deference than someone who has achieved the enviable accomplishment of being born and learning to speak.

LOL Lash - if memory serves you spent months advocating for the admission of Israel (sic) in the EU; not that I ever addressed that fantasy of yours, but I do know the person you are referring to in your latest post and what was said here was confirmed by him. All the best to you in any further endeavors to rearrange geography <G>

Your memory doesn't serve.

Therefore, the fantasy is all yours.

In my language, this sentence fragment of yours:

I do know the person you are referring to in your latest post and what was said here was confirmed by him

means: Zakaria (the person [I am] referring to in [my] latest post) confirmed that Zakaria's article was wrong from top to bottom (what you took issue about with me--hence this bizarre exchange).

:/

Later, that same day, HofT said:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL Lash - if memory serves you spent months advocating for the admission of Israel (sic) in the EU; not that I ever addressed that fantasy of yours, but I do know the person you are referring to in your latest post and what was said here was confirmed by him. All the best to you in any further endeavors to rearrange geography <G>
---------------------------
And, good luck backing up those opposing statements.
LOL!!!

My dear Lash

The same day, or any other day, facts remain identically the same. In view of your severe medical problems I will try to be as explicit as possible on the matter:

What was said "here" refers to what was said "here by me". Kindly relax (what was your previous problem, a brain aneurism?) and lose both bold and large font while you breathe in and out. I speak as a longtime friend of yours, with e-mails to prove it.

Please accept my best wishes for a further improvement of your health, and perhaps ask someone physically close to you to read the statements you're having trouble understanding

P.S. please reflect before attempting to reply - best of all, communicate with your doctor; I will not be held liable for any worsening of your condition.

Am leaving for Paris in an hour so will not be able to respond to any news of yours, but wish to reiterate I wish you all the best - and I'm sure I speak for the entire thread on this one subject.

It seems a brief discussion of the ramifications of a 'what-if' somehow becomes a months-long campaign in your estimation.

Here is the discussion.

Compelling months long campaign to redesign geography.

Your stalk-mode lie about any e-mail exchange with me borders on a reportable offense--but that's not any different than the great majority of your postings.

Interestingly, you didn't say anything with that post.

Let's review:

My dear Lash

<A little forward for a complete stranger, but I'm tolerant of other lifestyles.>

The same day, or any other day, facts remain identically the same.

<A notable generic dodge. Means nothing.>

In view of your severe medical problems I will try to be as explicit as possible on the matter:

personal attack

What was said "here" refers to what was said "here by me".

Still. If his article is completely wrong (your first claim), and he confirms what you say (your second claim), and the article and the discussion are about current European trends and causes, it would follow that you and he are completely wrong.
Kindly relax (what was your previous problem, a brain aneurism?)

I'm very relaxed. I am enunciating...
and lose both bold and large font while you breathe in and out.
Ummm. No, I think I'll choose my fonts.
I speak as a longtime friend of yours, with e-mails to prove it.

A lie. If you were ever engaged in e-mail exchange with me--under a false identity, you certainly don't qualify as a friend, longterm or otherwise. And, it is distinctly boorish and low to discuss private exchanges--whether lie or not.

Please accept my best wishes for a further improvement of your health, and perhaps ask someone physically close to you to read the statements you're having trouble understanding

LOL! I am recovering from a rather severe illness that impacted my memory (and thank you for the revelation into an additional layer of your personality--making fun of something like that is quite special)--yet, I have proven you are incredibly mistaken. I know the personal attacks are a good dodge most of the time--but how do you reconcile the duelling opinions again???

You know, the larger font question???