Ship 741Which has nothing to do with protectionism. The issue is the relative difference in quality between US and Japanese cars on one side, and European and Japanese cars on the other. Or: don’t blame the French that Toyota builds better cars than Ford-US.
Or don’t blame Swerve that Airbus offered a better tanker/transport platform than Boeing. The original pre-2001 requirements be damned.
Let me get this straight……there are so few imported cars in France because French cars are better than Hondas and Toyotas????? If you truly believe that, well…….
For the record, I don’t recall EVER having said the Boeing product was “better” in terms of quality. I have argued that the Airbus product is too big, and that it comes from a government controlled entity that does not support U.S. foreign policy.
Thanks for finally coming right out and saying that, according to you, the original needs of the USAF can be damned. That is what several posters have been arguing tangentially for some time now.
I don’t recall ever having “blamed swerve” for anything, other than getting too personal in his/her arguments.
Ship 741False. The comparison of 767 & A330 sales was first done by Ship741, in support of his premise that the greater number of 767s than A330s delivered (so far) is an argument for buying 767 tankers.
It seemed reasonable at the time, but since objections were raised by non-hostile posters (ie., people other than you), I dropped it.
Is it possible for you to get beyond your unhealthy fixation on me?
Ship 741If the KC-30 is ‘too big’, surely that makes the KC-767 ‘too big ‘also? We are constantly told it offers 20% more fuel thant than the KC–135? Then within the same breath told the average fuel offload is much smaller than the KC-135 can offer, making the KC-30 too big)
When I say it it “too big,” I am referring to the size of the airplane, not the amount of fuel it can offload.
The 330 based platform is about 84,000 lbs heavier than the 767 based plaform (empty weight from wiki). Thats huge. I actually ran the numbers for the block fuel burn several posts back, and buying the smaller airplane allows you to buy one “free” airplane a year on the basis of fuel savings along, or something like that. It’s a huge block fuel difference.
Ship 741http://www.toyota-europe.com/rendezvous/index.aspx
:diablo:
I never said they weren’t sold. I said count the numbers. Would the protectionist French ever stand for Toyota to essentially take over the market, as they are doing in the U.S?
You’ll have to do better than this…not even really a good try, but at least you haven’t resorted to name calling (yet).
Ship 741Also note that the author of this, Roche, was also implicated in the tanker scandel and resigned later. He also stated that he offered no other option and that he was not a great fan of airbus:
“on September 5, 2002, Darleen Druyun wrote to Secretary Roche, “I read with disgust the article on Airbus tankers from the new EADS CEO of North America. What BS … should not have been surprised at the slime … his day of reckoning will come hopefully.”
Secretary Roche answered, “Oy. I agree. I had hoped you would have stayed and tortured him slowly over the next few years”
By bringing this up, you seem to imply, “and now the entire U.S. has to pay!”
EVERYONE has to pay for the prejeducies of a two people?
The “fix” is to magically change the needs of the USAF, and buy an airplane that is too big from
1) a government owned/controlled entity, that
2) does not support U.S. foreign policy, and
3) is far from suspicion regarding it’s own activities.
Ship 741I am questioning why anyone thinks there is a need for a KC-135 (not KC-10) replacement tanker to have (or should have) significantly greater cargo capacity than a C-17.
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!
The 330 crowd keeps repeating it ’cause thats all they’ve got for a selling point, the size of the airplane. When that’s all you’ve got to hang your hat on, you repeat it ad nausem.
For the ORIGINAL spec., before everything got all politicized, the 767 based platform was much better sized for the stated mission. The 330 is too big! In a de-politicized arena, the 767 platform would win based upon suitability for the originally stated mission.
Ship 741The SH reputedly has a great avionics/electronics suite.
A lot of the bashers fail to appreciate the growing by leaps and bounds importance of sensors, weapons, and electronics. Some knowledgeable observers have been arguing for a number of years that these factors are overtaking jaw dropping aircraft performance, and the SH seems to me to be a tangible product of this argument. It is a great airshow airplane, as related, but lacks top speed, accel., etc. compared to other fighters currently in production. But it does what it does very well, and given the numbers being procured by the USN, and the network the U.S. armed forces operate it within, should provide a formidable adversary to an aggressive power.
Ship 741Hey pfcem…..FYI
Not sure how much of the thread you have read, but if you persist in talking common sense, you can expect to be attacked personally. There seems to be an extremely pervasive pro-Airbus theme among several of the active posters, and when they get angry they will respond emotionally. You’ve already been accused of being a Boeing employee and being “wrong on so many levels.”
For example, I have posted many, many times that the A330 derived airframe is too big, based on the original USAF spec. Yet, people keep referencing the “lbs delivered versus lbs burned” advantage quoted in the flawed, overturned award from last year. As if that decision was not ever overturned.
The A330 would be a great replacement for the KC-10, but not so much the 135.
Ship 741😮
New development in this bidding, or just chaffs and flares…?Source: Aviation Week – 11.08.2008 – Boeing Leaning Toward Not Re-bidding KC-X
I think it’s for real. Why should they waste money competing if the fix is in for Airbus? You can’t fight city hall.
On the other hand, they would look extremely foolish appealing the last decision and then not competing after the competition has been re-opened.
Ship 741Snickering at a USAF A400M? Only till the Army realizes that it has nothing to tac-lift FCS.
Oh wait! – the Air Force couldn’t care less how the Army moves its truck!
And wait! – FCS will be cancelled anyway!
In all other cases …
Clearly, the C-130 is nearing the end and the US has no replacement in sight.
C-130 isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, and if it’s going to be replaced it won’t be by something the size of an A400. That doesn’t make sense. Newer C-130H’s and of course the C-130J will be in service for quite some time, and as the old saying goes “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The C-130J has its detractors and non-believers, but at the end of the day it’s a modern outtake on a proven airframe that will serve successfully for a very long time.
When/if the C-130 is eventually replaced, it will be replaced by something in a similar class in terms of size…..not some hybrid that is between the size of the Herc and the larger C-17. That won’t happen for quite some time though so I don’t know why you’d even discuss that option.
I think the A400M for the USA (as in U.S. Army) is a great idea. The primary reasons are that it fits a perfect size niche and the efficiency of the turboprops makes it much more efficient than the C-17. We keep hearing of all the airlift demands that are unmet……surely a larger airplane than the aged but modernized C130 would help….and the improved efficiency vs the C-17 would save a ton of money. Politically, purchasing an EADS product would reduce some of the backlash if the choose the KC767. However, I don’t see it happening.
Ship 741The 330 and the 767 are not competitor?? Oh my. Airbus built the 330 in large part to specifically challenge the 767. The 330-200 was developped to challenge the 767-300, the 330-300 competes with the 767-400.
What convincing argument that the 330 is taking over the 767?? Between 2000 and 2007, 767 orders = 143, 330 orders = 384
Has any large airline ever retired their 767’s and replaced them with A330’s? Simply quoting orders doesn’t mean that the 330 has replaced the 767 in any fleet.
Ship 741You are amazing, mindboggling. I hope you are unique. One of your kind.
Economic promotion, promotion of exports, is a basic function of government. This is the function of your Department of commerce and its International Trade administration. Go and have a look since this seems so surreal to you (http://trade.gov/promotingtrade/index.asp). To fail to promote your national companies is in fact close to a dereliction of duty.
Do you only have any idea as to how arms sales take place. They are government to government affairs before all. Governments and heads of states promote their national wares both for economic and strategic reasons. Everyone is at it. But the US and Bush never do that??? Oh my, oh my.
“President George W. Bush brought to Saudi Arabia today a promise to provide “smart bomb” technology for his host, as the U.S. leader made his first visit to a crucial ally in the Middle East. …The administration announced today it was formally notifying Congress of its plans to sell Boeing Co.’s satellite-guided smart-bomb kits to the Saudis. The package is part of a broader sale to Persian Gulf allies of as much as $20 billion in arms to shore up support against Iran’s nuclear ambitions. ” http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aykdDahNlm40&refer=homev
With Bush’s help, GE courts Indian PM, nuke sector
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Just over an hour after the White House’s surprise pledge to help India develop its civilian nuclear power sector, the head of General Electric, the American company that could benefit most from the policy change, sat down for a celebratory dinner.
The host was President George W. Bush; a few feet away was India’s prime minister, Manmohan Singh, and his top aides.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050723-ge-india-nuke.htmCheney to pitch nuclear reactors during China trip
On a trip to China next week to talk about high-stakes issues like terrorism and North Korea, Vice President Dick Cheney will have another task — making a pitch for Westinghouse’s U.S. nuclear power technology.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4704302/
I am indeed, one of a kind, as are you. The difference between us is that I keep addressing your arguments while you keep bringing me as a person into the discussion.
I did not say that the President (or the government in general since you included the link from Commerce dept., funny I though we were talking about the head of state) never promotes the products of his country. I inferred that he is not a de facto salesman, directly intervening in the overt, public, and direct (almost threatening) way that Sark and Merk did (for a “company” that is at least partially state owned). If you don’t see the difference, then you probably don’t see the difference between government ownwership and government promotion. Not surprising.
Ship 741Never thought I would see anyone so challenged in so many ways. When Bush goes on an official visit to China, he promotes Boeing. When he goes to the Middle East, he promotes Lockheed, Northrop, et al. This a legitimate and regular function of government. Does that imply that US government own Boeing? Does that mean that the US is socialist?? Maybe in your twisted mind.
You should be bothered for having sent 4,000 young men and women to their deaths for not good reason. Not me. I have nothing to do with this decision. Now, if you do believe they gave their lives for the freedom of others (after having given it to protect the world against the imminent Iraqi mushroom cloud), you should really more than simply be bothered because Iraq is a seriously dysfunctional country where freedom is not about to take roots.
More personal attacks….sigh. Of course, you can document your claims that the President directly intervenes as a salesman for PRIVATE companies, I’m waiting for wikipedia or some other “credible” source.
I didn’t send them. It might surprise you to know that I, also, had nothing to do with the decision, but once it is made, I support the troops (who are 100% volunteers) and the effort. With support of “allies” it would have spooled down a lot sooner.
The Allies will get another chance……the Iranian problem from 1979 hasn’t been fixed yet……
Your cynicism “freedom not about to take root” condemns untold millions throughout the world……I guess they’re just not worth the effort…..according to you.
Ship 741Airbus is owned 100 % by EADS. State participation in EADS is as follows: French governmen 13,7 %, Spanish government 5,46 %, German government 0%. Not convinced that an apology is warranted.
Important to remember (documented earlier in the thread)that heads of state (France, Germany) have approached the U.S. president directly to try to sell the Eurotanker…..apparently they know who they work for, and they must think that in the U.S. the president just snaps his fingers and makes industrial decisions they way they do…….:)
Ship 741You are right, I am not too bothered. No one forced you to invade Iraq. We froggies even tried to dissuade you from doing just that, and got a real b*llocking for it. So your whining is pathetic. And as said by many, you broke it, you own it. Not us.
Not too bothered about 4,000 soldiers deaths…..wow you are a sad, sad case.
No, the U.S. doesn’t own it. The Iraqies do. It’s their country….those U.S. soldiers who volunteered to risk their lives did so for the freedom of others, not imperialistic goals. It must kill you to see things going better there.
If the U.S. kept what it took, France would not exist except as a colony of the United States.
Sign In
