Posted on 02/03/2005 4:58:33 AM PST by The Jitters
Yes I saw that story earlier.
I'm feeling a lot of anger here, Kwasi. Is there something you'd like to talk about?
Surely you can admit that the idea of a gigantic plane is kind of cool? Though, I must say, I don't want to be last in the queue for disembarking. You could be there for days!
Atlanta said, "Nope, aint gonna happen!" I believe others will too.
Are you talking about our allies? ; )
Yeah, but there will be plenty of demand in the Asian markets where they pack 'em in like sardines. I think their, and the Middle East is where the 380 will thrive. I can't see the US airports spending much money to accomodate the planes (I believe the Atlanta airport manager already came out publiclly saying this).
Well, at least some airports are willing to spend http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2005-01-16-a380-side_x.htm
Yes Atlanta said no and so will most others. Without the US routes and US airline orders for 380s 1500 will never be sold.
JFK, LA, Ontario, Calif, San Francisco are all upgrading to accomodate it.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2005-01-16-a380-side_x.htm
That's for sure. Embraer is going to take a big bite out of Boeing's future profits. I still predict Boeing will exit the commercial airliner business within ten years.
I'm surprised. More wasted tax dollars.
"JFK, LA, Ontario, Calif, San Francisco are all upgrading to accomodate it."
The cost of the airport mods should be paid for by the airlines that fly the 380 but in reality, the costs will be passed on to the majority of travelers who will never set foot on a 380.
Boeing does not build small commuter aircraft. Embraer is not a competitor to Boeing (maybe just a tiny bit on the now-defunct 717 that should have been killed years ago and on the low end of the 737-600 market).
But Embraer is going to start building bigger ones now...just watch. ;)
Uh, I hate to break it to you, C-Guy, but neither Boeing nor LockMart nor NorGrumm would exist but for massive legal subsidies from the U.S. government. The Big Three are more like government design bureaux than private companies, with Boeing in the Mikoyan role, Lockheed as Antonov, and NorGrumm as Tupolev.
For that matter, the same is true for the major airlines (save perhaps Southwest). In todays business, regulatory and litigation environment aerospace development and certification is so expensive and risky that it has to be subsidized up front by the taxpayer. No group of shareholders can afford the risk of bringing a new aircraft to market nowadays.
And then there's direct cash subsidy. Congress bailed out the whole airline industry post-911. If it hadn't, we'd all be taking Amtrak today. (Hmm...) Speaking of rail, do you think railroads would have gotten the same sweet taxpayer cash if the terrorists had used a train to blow up, say, Grand Central? Hell no, they wouldn't've. Billions for big aerospace (and the motor freight industry) but not one dime for the railroads - that's our national transportation policy.
And of course there are the airports to consider. Airplanes require airports, and without taxpayer dollars every airport in America would be forced to shut down. (Railroads own and maintain their own infrastructure without government subsidy and still turn a profit.) And who builds and maintains the national navigation and air traffic control system? Uncle Sam, that's who. So much for the free market there!
Market, schmarket. There is no such thing as a free market in the aerospace business. Air transportation is essential to national security and national prestige, and no nation can afford to risk the loss of same due to the viccisitudes of the market. This is why Airbus is subsidized by the EU, and why Congress shucks out and will continue to shuck out massive moola to keep our own "private" aerospace industry afloat. The only difference between the U.S. and other countries of the world is that the other countries are simply more upfront about their government-sponsored aerospace industries and their government-owned national airlines.
All things considered, it might be more efficient (as well as more honest) if the U.S. were to go the same route and fold all the aerospace companies into one quasi-governmental body a la Airbus -- at least we could meet the Euros on a level field then. Call it BoeLockThrop.
As for the airlines, I suspect that 911 was their death knell. Ten years from now there will probably be just one major carrier -- AmericanDeltaSouthwest -- operating long-distance services (i.e. troop transport, coats-2-coast, and international routes) on government money, plus a bunch of small, privately-owned point-to-point air taxi services for civilian traffic. There is also a good chance that one or more operators will be offering hyper-fast travel via commercial suborbital spaceflight to the wealthy. In any case, it is only through quintessentially American-style innovations such as air-taxi services and commercial passenger spaceflight that we can hope to stay ahead of the Euros. The market is just too rigged.
Time will tell. But there will not be 1500 A380s built.
Any plane that carries that many hostages/targets wont be a big seller for long, IMHO...
Excellent point.
*sigh* Yeah. Want to start a dead pool? Or is that too tacky for even me?...
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.