nJayMMy tongue was very much in my cheek …..
Hi GA and Sekant
My tongue was very much in my cheek with a 😮 beside my original sentence. “My point is unless the WTO plan to rapidly themselves build (free of any subsidies) an alternative to Boeing’s 787 PP then they are wasting enormous resources doing all this ‘digging'”.
I am well aware that the WTO cannot manufacture aircraft.:D
nJayMMy gripe with the FT article is ….
My gripe with the FT article is that words that are used could be fair rather than ultra judgemental.
e.g. The FT could have printed something on the lines of ” The WTO identifies as they did in the case of Airbus that Boeing have received government subsidies with respect to the Boeing 787 Dreamliner project”
Words such as “illegal” are very strong and it puts both Boeing and the US Government ‘in the dock’ in the eyes of readers of the FT.
nJayMPlease see my post on WTO above
What a bizarre statement.
By your logic, Trading Standards would be wasting their time and resources investigating a complaint against Tesco unless they were themselves planning to open a chain of large supermarkets.
It simply makes no sense.
Hi GA
Nationally (in UK) organisations like Trading Standards, OFTEL, OFCOM ,etc have jurisdiction in UK courts.
From my post above you will see that the WTO hasn’t got any automatic jurisdiction in national courts. The WTO may flag aspects and then it’s up to national law to decide if there is a case to answer (The WTO is often and can be completely ignored by national law or government).
nJayMWTO simply rock political boats – but have very little national jurisdiction
WTO simply rock political boats – but have very little national jurisdiction
“WTO decisions are not considered to be binding and both US courts and the ECJ have denied that WTO Agreements have any direct effect on national legislation.Accordingly, WTO panel and Appellate Body decisions (‘WTO decisions’) are not considered binding. This approach is due to several factors, the most important of which is that the World Trade Organization currently oscillates between a political approach to disputes, which was the main feature of GATT (the organization from which the current World Trade Organization evolved) and a juridical, more technical one. Compliance with WTO panel and Appellate Body decisions is generally considered a political issue that should be solved through international relationships.”
JIPLP 2008 V3N5p314
I don’t suggest the WTO be completely ignored but if the US Courts thinks there is a case for Boeing or other parties to answer then I am sure by now there would have been legal ‘rock and roll’ across the pond.
Every UK local authority and UK government departments would also be in the ‘dock’ if the WTO ruled on every employment incentive scheme paid to employers, tax havens in certain areas to attract industry investment, etc.
These are ‘subsidies’, ‘sweeteners’ or incentives – just slightly different words.
nJayMGA has summed up already above
What is your point????? The US has filed a case against Europe and Airbus and the WTO has ruled that Airbus was receiving illegal subsidies that were distorting competition.
Europe has filed a case against the US and Boeing and the WTO has now ruled that Boeing was receiving illegal subsidies as well.
The WTO does what it was set up to do, to adjudicate dispute regarding the implementation of trade rules member states have committed to.
But if one of those decision comes down against Boeing, that is beyond the pale????
Hi Sekant
GA has summed up already above – “They are all at it”.
My point is unless the WTO plan to rapidly themselves build (free of any subsidies) an alternative to Boeing’s 787 PP then they are wasting enormous resources doing all this ‘digging’.:eek:
“Illegal” is a strange word and especially when quoted by Journalists.:rolleyes: – Well it did not take this fanfare to know that both Airbus and Boeing have received subsidies – all with good long term national interests (ie jobs) at heart.
In most industrial and manufacturing sales globally this word can be used (along with others) but the effort in shouting it from the rooftops does not make the problem go away – but simply shifts it’s focus temporarily.:D
Sales of both Boeing and Airbus and other defence related aerospace technology is vital for an economic balance and vital to saving jobs and dare I say it; possibly maintaining a peaceful democratic world.:cool:
As a potential ‘bean counter’ provided the audited accounts are given a clean ‘bill of health’ under modern audit techniques then I am happy as the subsidies will have been identified and accounted for accurately.
nJayMTalk about negative publicity – FT is at it again
Talk about negative publicity – FT is at it again Tue 01 Feb 2011:(:mad:
WTO rules Boeing had illegal subsidies
The company’s flagship 787 Dreamliner has benefited from illegal US government subsidies that have distorted market competition, according to the World Trade Organisation 😮
http://link.ft.com/r/8P1R88/8AHZX8/ZO8K5/YHS7GC/8APR57/SN/h?a1=2011&a2=2&a3=1
WTO is going to obviously start building direct competitor aircraft to the 787 :mad:- Fruit and Nut cases is all I can say.😀
nJayMBoeing CEO Jim McNerney live broadcast on Feb 10 2011
CHICAGO, Feb. 1, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — Boeing (NYSE: BA) Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Jim McNerney will speak at the 32nd Annual Cowen Aerospace and Defense Conference on Feb. 10, 2011, in New York from 9:40 a.m. to 10:20 a.m. ET.
Visit http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/financial/ or http://www.wsw.com/webcast/cowen2/ba/ to access a link to the live broadcast of the conference.
Individuals should check the website prior to the session to ensure their computers can access the audio stream.
Contact: Communications (312) 544-2002 SOURCE Boeing
This may shed some light on strategy and financials
nJayMSure it may just slip into Q4 but it will be nice to see it GO
[QUOTE=Skymonster;1698528]First Plastic Pig to be handed over in September??
That’s awefully close to the end of the Q3 target set by Boeing… And if it’s handed over in September, will it EIS in Q3 or will that drift into Q4?
Andy[/QUOTE]
Hi Andy
Sure EIS may just slip into Q4 but it will be nice to see her (PP) GO to customers.:D
nJayMPlanning to – in my dreams sadly
Planning to – in my dreams sadly
Awesome tribute to the ‘All Blacks’
Thnks for the pics
nJayMInteresting application and could turn out to provide stand up comics with material
A rather intriguing and innovative idea I think, but I am not so sure that it/they will really help to get the message across anymore effectively than a human being, and will it really help to reduce the queues…?
Interesting application, closer to my ideal of 3D holographic TV whenever it materialises.
On the funny side it may provide some fun material for stand up comics in the future.
Nervous passenger approaches holographic security adviser who is spouting forth, “Please remember liquids must be in containers less than 100 mls and fit in the plastic ziplock bag provided……..Please remove waist belt, shoes (may not be the case anymore), all metal objects in your pockets, all jackets and overcoats, and place them in the containers in front of you…….Then pass slowly through the walk through screening device……”
Passenger sets off walk through device alarm.
Through the walk through screening device is another holographic security adviser who says, “Please raise your arms and spread your legs……..” – aha adds a entire new slant on being frisked by a ‘ghost’
Completely bewildered passenger approaches holographic security adviser with arms raised and legs spread, expecting to be frisked. Nothing happens.
This tableau is caught on CCTV by real security staff having their cuppa.
What look like Holographic armed police are visible beyond the security screening area.
Passenger says ‘ sod this holographic nonsense’ and walks out of the screening area and is promptly arrested by the armed police who weren’t holograms after all…
nJayMThe crew are a valuable and irreplaceable asset – wishing them a speedy recovery
The crew are a valuable and irreplaceable asset – wishing them a speedy recovery.
Their partner Tornado staying around possibly until help arriving was confirmed must have been a great re-assurance to the ‘downed’ crew.
One less GR4 – pity.
nJayMThere are some clues in some of my posts – and why my comments
Hi Guys
I am not an expert psychologist in anti terrorist subjects.
What I have studied in depth are PAN-Am Lockerbie, El-Al (Boeing 747 freighter) in Holland tower block, 9/11, Gonesse and some other well documented over land major air crash incidents, and the specific interest was in preserving (making them disaster tolerant) the operation of nationally sensitive or commercially vital software applications and storage (server) information systems.
The aspect of vital technical interest is the largest projectile impact, debris spread and ensuing fire.
PanAm Lockerbie has in the archive footage (public domain) very clear radar plots and it always brings a tear to my eye when I look over my records and see the ‘radar plot’ pictures of the one minute intact PanAm (under full ATC control), a millisecond later simply changing into a myriad of large to tiny moving dots and the ensuing geographical spread of post explosion debris over vast areas around Lockerbie and other places in Scotland.
The fighter escorts as described in my posts (ideally 2 flankers and 1 atop) usually permits the regular civilian flight crew to gently bank and descend the civilian to ideally head over the ocean (applicable if civilian has arrived over mainland Britain).
Unless the terrorists are many in number and using expert GPS units (or at night good with the visible positions of stars and planets in the sky). This buys the RAF command centre some time as a gentle unobtrusive change of civilian’s course occurs.
The terrorists can see the fighters from windows (deliberate) and start to rapidly wonder what is likely to happen next. Keep the ‘maniacs’ guessing.
Of course they may detonate a device/s at any time and prevention of this isn’t ever possible using the RAF or at present any other external means (apart from careful verbal negotiation inside the civilian or via RT from the ground).
The big emotive decision comes in, if, when and where to shoot the civilian down in the event of the terrorists not permitting an agreed landing.
I don’t think in any terrorist situation in the air or on the ground one can predict who will give the final order to shoot and it is likely in the air to be the collective information from the airborne RAF (plus all available intelligence on the terrorists if identified), ATC dialogues, and radar plots, being relayed to a very senior member of the defence staff/cabinet; on the basis that the civilian could or is heading for a vital/strategic defence or civilian terrorist target.
This is no different to any real theatre of war situation.
A very very ugly situation but at all times paramount is to minimise the un connected civilian deaths and prevent destruction of vital resources on the ground.
Again no different to the situation presenting in the two world wars when the RAF defended the UK from enemy attack.
Also RAF Northern QRA regularly intercept similar intruders (intent on possible espionage) or other purposes (occasionally accidental) from the old adversary from the ‘cold war’ era.
We sleep soundly in our beds thanks to the boys in blue being so highly trained and professional in the way they guard our skies over Britain.
nJayMIn response PMN
[QUOTE=PMN;1695604]A 3rd aircraft carefully manoeuvring the aircraft out of any civilian airspace? Surely ATC can just tell the pilot what direction to point in and he manoeuvres the plane himself? :confused:
I need something explaining here! Many commercial aircraft have a glide ratio of around 15:1 so if you get rid of the engines at, say, 10,000 feet then the thing could potentially fly on and crash something like 30 miles further on. Surely if you were shooting an aircraft down you’d want to choose where you did it very carefully and make it as swift and quick as possible rather than let it fly on and potentially end up somewhere less than ideal? I’m no expert in shooting planes down but the logic of what you say there isn’t quite getting through to me. :confused:
I think he is possibly aware of that. ;)[/QUOTE]
Hi PMN
Quote 1 response
Terrorists are not likely to adhere to instructions of an ATC or any authority.
A cockpit crew under a terrorist threat may not be able to take ATC instructions as easily as imagined – if denied such by the potential terrorist/s.
A visual on either side of RAF fighters as flankers and a fighter atop showing just ahead of the civilian cockpit is adequate to keep the terrorist/s guessing as to what is likely to happen next. The civilian crew can either gently follow the only path being carved out for them by the 3 fighter escorts, usually slowly down to a safe height or deliberately try to force a crash into one or all of the fighters (unless flying being done by terrorist themselves – this may already have been revealed by any ATC contact, unlikely though with modern door access to cockpit). The diversion direction in an island the size of UK mainland would be towards the ocean.
Quote 2 response
As above slowly heading the civilian downwards, towards and over the ocean, then if any shooting down had to occur there may/would be a chance of saving some passengers. Hence engines first target. A glide 30 miles (as you say) across the sea of the civilian isn’t a difficult distance for any rescue craft including helicopters to reach. RT from RAF can be trying to organise such support.
There is absolutely no logic in a situation like this, bar simply trying to stay ahead of sick minds (they are usually illogical when faced with discovery or heavy armed opposition and can behave even more irrationally/illogically).Regular training included in the RAF professional programme supplied by anti terrorist psychologists is likely to be in place since 9/11.
The scenarios above are unlikely and if a shooting down had to be carried out (heaven forbid) the press and do-gooder politicos would be at it for years following trying to be armchair RAF pilots as well as an armchair civilian pilot.:rolleyes:
Quote 3 response
I am sure he is.:D:rolleyes:
As you will gather I have no time for blackmailers, terrorists or anarchists – this remains a democratic country and there is absolutely no need to try to win arguments by taking innocent lives whatever one’s grievance or cause and certainly no reason to bring international terrorism into UK airspace on the possible premise that the perpetrators will be treated leniently.
The crazy SNP’s nonsense over the Megrahi release certainly isn’t a reason for terrorists to head towards Scotland or it’s airspace either.
Leuchars scrambles northern QRA Typhoons so orders come from outwith SNP control thankfully.
nJayMThis wasn’t a nostalgic air display or air show
Al i can say is the typhoon may have did its bit on the QRA but you will never beat a pair of lightnings!:diablo::diablo:
Hi Zouzy86
This wasn’t a nostalgic air display or air show,but for want of a better word an attention seeking ‘lunatic’ on the civilian flight threatening God knows what. Sure in it’s time it probably would have been English Electric Lightnings scrambling as QRA.
You have had your nostalgic moment.:cool::)
In reality the speed to reach the civilian after scrambling is critical but after that the Typhoons or for that matter 2 Lightnings would have great difficulty (throttled right back) in staying (if in daylight) in close visual contact with the civilian cockpit in addition to any RT which may have to be via RAF ground control (for security reasons).
Flanking and flying atop could be done even by nimble RAF Hawks but reaching the civilian quickly after scrambling may be the drawback they may suffer. Let’s face it one hopes it would never come to actually shooting the civilian out of the skies and if it did RAF Hawks could do it by taking out the engines very quickly. Can you imagine the politically correct inquiry after that.:eek:
Along with the civilian ATCs and radar operators who shouldn’t be forgotten in praise for accurately tracking the civilian in this instance.
Still its the RAF that count from Hurricane and Spitfire days through to the Typhoon – they guard our skies very professionally.:D
nJayMLet’s simply be glad of RAF QRA still working
Nobody has made an argument about the costs of this operation. It is also worth noting that questions were only asked about who would have ordered such an operation (and who would foot the bill) before it was revealed that this was a passenger threatening to detonate some sort of explosive device.
Hi Michael
It does not matter RAF QRA may at times ‘scramble’ for similar hoaxes some of which we may never know about – that’s what QRA is about – safer than sorry and avoiding extra lives being lost.
At a time when the RAF are being ‘pruned’ let’s applaud their professionalism and let politicians begin to think again.
Some of the world out there is a nasty defiant venemous piece of vermin ready to strike like a coiled spring and the economic recession is causing even previously sane people to go completely ‘loopy’.
Mainland Britain is an island, therefore defending it is relatively easy if we let the professionals do it for us with tools that are adequate.
Can’t see a politician managing to fly a Typhoon or other RAF jet in an emergency.
No ‘beef’ with you Michael 🙂 just mad at all the defence cuts.:mad:
Sign In
