[lowbuck]

It's getting to be a real "food fight" over Airbus and jobs. Politically, EADS/Airbus is "stuffed" whatever they do.

[Publius6961]

Any form of welfare, if it gets big enough to bankrupt countries, will eventually fail.
It's just a matter of when.

Yes, even in highly technical forms.

[Drango]

Appoint a committee to study the matter.

[mgstarr]

While I don't like their product, the consumers would ultimately suffer if there's no competition for Boeing. Companies rarely innovate unless there's a compelling business reason to do so.

[Paleo Conservative]

If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.

[untrained skeptic]

The problem with a socialist system in a situation like this is that the countries don't see net benefits to cutting costs by laying off workers.

If they lay off those workers, those workers will no longer be paying that huge portion of their incomes in taxes, and will instead rely on the welfare programs of those governments.

The end result is that laying off workers doesn't provide much of a net savings from the point of view of the governments that make up Airbus. If may improve the bottom line of the company, but doesn't improve the overall bottom line for the governments that own the company.

[Chode]

and the RATS, take another one in the...............HA ha!!!

[jpsb]

I don't understand how airbus can be in such bad shape, they've had great sales for over 5 years, yea the production delay for the 380 hurt, but from all accounts the 380 problems are solved and production will begin soon. How can things be so terrible that Airbus might go under. Makes no sense.

[norton]

The real issue, aside from my own aversion to any Airbus product, seems to be that the success of their smaller AC allowed the political influences of state ownership to override rational sales/manufacturing considerations at EADS.

The 380 is essentially a shrine to national (Euro) egos rather than benefits or advantage for airlines or their customers.

It's supposed to be 'biggest and best' but requires huge investments (and losses) by the state sponsors, huge investments (and slow recovery) by any airport accomodating it, certain gridlock for passengers, and the thinly hidden fear of even one disaster involving many hundreds of people on any given (single) flight. We know that one or two have been flown but no PAX miles have taken place yet and quality (safety) concerns that have delayed progress will not simply go away because they hand built a couple of wire looms.

This thing requires that potential users literally construct a market for it and any level of success will demand that enough travellers can be found to use it. I'm expecting to see a great big, fat, slow, SST but with far higher losses than the former generated.

[60Gunner]

Well, there you have it: as classic an example of the fruit of Euro-liberal socialism as ever existed. Airbus has become a money-sucking Frankenstein monster.

And American liberal elites want us to become like Europe. Tell me again: who are the idiots?

[Proud_USA_Republican]

This is what happens when run your business as a socialist job creation program, rather than a business based on capitalism.