Boeing Lay Off Merry Christmas

Yahoo | 12/15/01 | Staff

[boris]

"Airbus makes some great planes. They didn't at first, but they do now."

When you don't count the tail fins that fall off, they're the best.

--Boris

[RightOnline]

"Well, see post 33, for example."

I read the article you posted in reply #33 as you suggested, and I see ZERO evidence of "government subsidies" of any shape, form, or fashion. What I read was an interview with the head of Airbus........that's the head of Airbus (and if you know who and what Airbus is, how they were formed, and how they're funded, then you see both the irony and the hypocricy) whining about the Federal Government of the U.S. somehow, indirectly generating business for Boeing.

Not only is he whining, he's dead wrong.

The legislation he's mewling about is one involving funds for the "bailout" of the domestic airline business. Nowhere in that legislation are the airlines told to buy airplanes with those funds, let alone Boeing airplanes. That's ludicrous. In fact, as was pointed out by another poster above, the LAST thing those airlines will do with those federal bailout funds is buy more aircraft when they can't come close to filling their existing aircraft. They'll pay their people; pay their bills with those monies.

As to leasing 767's as tankers.........do you think that that's a bad idea? Do you deny that our current tanker fleet is "aging"? Think again.

I mentioned earlier that I had 1800 hours flying time in Boeing airframes. I was referring specifically to the KC-135, the Boeing Stratotanker. Those things are darned-near as old as I am (and I'm 46 years old). Hell, they were old when I flew 'em, and I left the service in '84, fer pete's sake. What about the KC-10? They were brought into service over 20 years ago. Plus.......they were a McDonnell Douglas aircraft.

You do know who owns McDonnell Douglas now, don't you?? Yep; Boeing.

So.........who has the most experience in the world building tankers? Who has been building them for nearly 50 years? That's right. Without tankers, there would have been no air war in Afghanistan.......or Desert Storm..........or anywhere else you can think of. Tankers are the linchpin of our air arm as a nation, and we need more of 'em AND newer ones. The 767 is a sensible, logical choice......and on top of that, the article specifically mentions "leasing" them, not even outright buying them.

So, my friend, sorry..........your "examples" of "Government subsidies" for Boeing don't hold up.