From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

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.
>
> 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.
>

Indeed.

>
>> 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. & That from an American. The 707 required a long runway. As
such the UK created the VC10 which could operate off short runways.
So...the US gov (at Boeing's behest) "extended aid" to countries
with "poor airport infrastructure" so as the increase the runway
length. The famous example of this was Nairobi.

Lot's of EU civil engineering companies wot could do with the work.

>
>>> 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.
>

Boeing goes from state to state seeing who can offer it the best tax etc
deal while also spreading itself across as many states as possible so as to
capture the maximum number of "home state" congress people.



>>>> &....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?  The
> technology involved is very advanced.  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.
>

Huh? WTF does new high tech shiny stuff have to do with whether it's the
737 for the new millenium? The 737 had "very advanced" tech for
it's day.

Gee whiz they are going to put jet engines on it....it's almost like dan
dare it's so advanced.

All those nice DoD financed composites.....not that that's State aid of course.

Adam


> George

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