Posted on 03/23/2010 9:25:34 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
Boeing’s biggest supporters roared out of the gate Tuesday after the World Trade Organization issued a final ruling that Airbus enjoyed unfair subsidies from European governments.
“Enough is enough. For too long, workers in Washington state have had to fight an uphill battle. Instead of competing just with Airbus, they’ve been forced to compete with the deep pockets of European governments that supply Airbus with illegal launch aid,” Sen. Patty Murray of Washington said in a statement. Then she aimed straight at the tanker competition. “It’s clear that the A330, the very plane Airbus would offer our military, has received illegal subsidies that have hurt American workers. Now’s not the time to delay this competition further. Especially not for a company that is undercutting our workers. It’s time to stop bending over backwards to meet the demands of an illegally subsidized foreign company and to move forward with providing America’s military with an American-made tanker.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dodbuzz.com ...
LOL
I lived in a Seattle suburb for a few years in the late 80’s and early 90’s. The Boeing people’s mantra was “Buy American!!!!” Of course, they were all driving Nissans and Toyotas and Subarus to Starbucks while they said that. “Buying American” only means one thing to those people; Boeing.
I know some Boeing people and that comment is true.
A Democrat worried about jobs? Yea right.
Box of rocks Murray has a problem with socialism?
Indeed, start with that idiot former Boeing Chairman Phil COndit, now disgraced in kickback schemes, who, before 911 said that we do not need a US flag in Wall Street, it’s all happy global customers now.
All hypocrisy aside, that A330 is a real piece of crap, though.
What we need bad is a new design, like a flying wing fuel tank or that UAV box-wing concept refueling 4 aircrafts at a time.
“....the World Trade Organization issued a final ruling that Airbus enjoyed unfair subsidies from European governments.”
Well, DUH! How long has it taken the WTO to come to this startling and timely decision? Seriously, this has been known for a couple of decades. Fortunately, most folks didn’t need to wait this long for an industrial group to make it “official”. I think that maybe one or two people in the industry were unaware of this, but that figure may be a little high.
What other people think of the decision:
Airbus, in its own statement, said that the WTO had rejected 70 percent of the U.S. claims in the subsidy case. Airbus also said that the European “reimbursable loan mechanism” was found to be a legal part of any relationship between government and industry.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/mar/24/wto-rules-airbus-unfairly-subsidized/
And still the counter claim is pending. I think, we should wait to reach any conclusion until we self can read the case. I don't trust people like Sen. Patty Hurray.
Tankers should be simple, reliable and proven technology. Save the high tech for aircraft that have to face the enemy head on.
That would rule out the KC-767NewGen with the 75 % bigger LCD displays, with the yet to build 6th Gen boom, with the wing pod issue, with the strange cargo handling, ... .
airbusted ping
What strange cargo handling?
That would rule out the Airbus A330 as it is all computer driven. LCD displays are jsut that they replace analog.. At least with the KC-767 you can take over full manual control. Unlike the Airbus,
From the current SRD:
“3.2.3.3.2 No major reconfiguration, such as removing aircrew seats, barrier net, aircrew rest facilities, or other peripherals, should be required to load or unload the KC-X main deck cargo compartment. (NON-MANDATORY)”
I can't imagine why this shouldn't be mandatory except for the fact a KC-30 got no problems and a KC-767 got problems with this feature.
Maybe the short 767-200 fuselage got some problems due to the space between the tip of the left side engine or wing root, the cargo door, the crew compartment and the permanent seating for 15 crew members. So each time a KC-767NG loads or unloads cargo some semi-permanent features have to be removed first.
Distance nose to wing root for -300 is about 60 ft. For a -200 it's about 45 ft. So a -200 is about 15 ft shorter in front of the wing. Distance between forward door and wing is about 25 ft for a -200. Cargo door is about 12 feet width. There is not much space left.
That feature is called direct law on an Airbus. The flight control is certified by FAA. Your 767 would also fall out of the sky without computer support.
Here you can watch fully manual controlled Boeing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E21byPXR1ek
horse hockey
That feature is called direct law on an Airbus. The flight control is certified by FAA. Your 767 would also fall out of the sky without computer support
Boeing continued to the chose conventional control systems for its 757 and 767 aircraft but Airbus Industries went ahead and introduced digital fly-by-wire in its A320 airplanes. It was only on the Boeing 777 that the Company finally decided to introduce the digital fly-by-wire controls. Thus, this concept which is basically the result of wanting to put a man on the moon, have today become an accepted part of modern aviation design.
Although the Boeing 777 and the Airbus 320 series and later, adopted this new concept, there are slight differences in their applications. Airbus has taken a much different philosophical approach to using computers than Boeing. The European airplane maker designed its new fly-by-wire jets with built-in protections or hard limits.
The Boeing Company, on the other hand, believes pilots should have the ultimate say, meaning that on the Boeing jets, the pilot can override onboard computers and their built-in soft limits. The issue is, should pilots or a computer have the ultimate control over a commercial jetliner as the plane approaches its design limits in an emergency? There were strong arguments by pilots on both sides of the debates. Some pilots were of the opinion that computer protection of the A320 is very good whereas other pilots support the Boeing philosophy that they must have the final say in controlling the airplane
the 767 has FULL OVER RIDE.. when you hit the autopilot disc switch or apply a certain amout of pressure on the YOKE it disconnects giving the pilot full CONTROL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.