From: Ad 

George Sherwood wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:38:40 +0000, Adam wrote:
>
>> B) I do think they will make a profit because there are simply going to
>> be more people flying. Since 1990 in effect the capitalist liberal
>> economies have grown to include China, India & Russia (& others e.g.
>> Vietnam, some African countries etc.etc.).
>>
>> There also is a great transfer of cash going on from the rich countries
>> to those with oil.
>
> Not enough to make this come true.  Russia's population is going
> backwards and most of the money is going to line pockets.  For ordinary
> people their lives are only getting marginally better.  Not looking for
> international travel anytime soon.  Africa?  You have got to be kidding
> me.  Nigeria is a disaster.
>

So stick just with India & China coz hey there's only 2 billion or so
potential travelers there.

The Russian economy is going much better btw. It's a fallacy to think it's
all going into the pockets of the oligarchs now.


> Not saying you are completely wrong, but I still think the model in these
> countries fits a large airliner like the 787 and not a jumbo like the
> 380.  We will see.
>

Not India, or China or a number of the major routes where airport capacity
is the problem.

>
>> That's a lot of people.
>>
>> Frankly I think the 380 would be ideal for Chinese inter-city routes.
>>
>> & they already have a factory in the PRC.
>>
> Not anytime in the foreseeable future.  The airport infrastructure isn't
> any where close.  You can come up with all these wouldn't it be great
> ideas, but as they say, an idea that isn't based on reality is a
> hallucination.
>

ROFLMAO. This from an American. Remember the 707? Gee it required a longer
runway & other infrastructure than was common.

The UK invested in the VC-10. The US decided to aid Boeing by helping
countries with aid packages aimed at "improving airport
facilities". The famous case being Nairobi but there were many others.
Ditto wrt the 747
& how many airports can handle the 747 now?

There are a fair few EU construction companies (inc German & French)
who'd love a bit of "improving airport facilities" EU aid
directed to those airports which the Eu wished to see handle the 380.

You set the precedent here.

>
>>> Probably close to
>>> double that now.  Although lately EADS is seeming more like a state
>>> concern that doesn't care about profit then a real company.
>> & Boeing isn't?
>
> Not nearly in the same way.  EADS can't even complete a reorganization
> due to its entanglements with the states.  I have never seen the US
> government stop Boeing from hiring, firing and closing factories.
> Congress may make some noise if it is in their district, but EADS is at
> all full stop.  Whatever decision comes out will not be driven by what is
> best for the company.
>

Rigggght. That's why it's "lose the JSF pick up these defence
contracts" as offered to both the JSF contenders. It will be humorous
to see which tanker the USAF goes for.

However in one way you are correct in that Airbus should be allowed to
structure in much the same way as Boeing i.e. scout about the EU to see who
offers them the most cash/tax incentives & to spread themselves into as
many EU states as possible so as to get the maximum number of "home
state legislators".


>>>> &....has this dreamliner flown yet? So any/many
delays? No reason to
>>>> think it will break the golden rule of new aircraft
designs & that as
>>>> such it will be on time.
>>> Ready to start a pool?  I bet not half as late as the 380 and most
>>> likely going to be within six months of the target date.
>>>
>>>
>> Well it is a much simpler aircraft.
>>
>> A 737 for the new millenium.
>
> Wow! You really haven't studied much about the 787 have you?

I have but ..

> The technology involved is very advanced.

WTF does this have to do with the dreamliner being the 737 for the next
couple of decades? The 737 was full of "advanced technology" for
the time.

Gee I hardly expected they'd put piston powered propellers on the dreamliner.....


> From a technology point of view,
> the A-380 is only big.  Very little completely new.  The materials on the
> 787 are very advanced.  This is what drove EADS to redesign the A-350.
> It was going to look very old fashioned compared to the 787.

& the 747 was just very big compared to concorde. No new tech & yet...

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5