sekantI really don’t have the time to go through international trade law 101, but I would suggest that you dig deeper into what the WTO is and what its prerogatives are.
To make it really simple, States commit in their sovereign capacity to specific trade rules. They empower a body (that is the WTO) system to settle disputes if one party to the rules believes that another party does not abide by its commtiments.
The WTO is empowered to adjudicate whether the charged party indeed violates the rule. It is empowered to judge that one of the party behaves illegaly. If it so judges, it gives a period of time to the condemned party to correct the situation. If the condemned party does not do so, it gives the plaintiff the go ahead to impose import tariffs on goods from the condemned party. The WTO ruling does not bind the national court system, but by granting the right to impose specific import tariffs, it has a mechanism to impose its decision.
I suggest that you go ahead and look at the different cases and how (and whether) decisions that found the conduct of a party illegal were enforced. I suggest you start with the US vs EU on the banana case or the US vs EU on hormone loaded meat.
sekantTalk 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=1WTO is going to obviously start building direct competitor aircraft to the 787 :mad:- Fruit and Nut cases is all I can say.😀
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????
sekantBoeing has been testing new ‘next-gen’ engines from P&W (?) on United and Air India air frames from what I know.
My understanding (stand to be corrected) was that the 737 (including the NG) is already so low on the ground that you simply cannot equip it with the PW1000G.
sekant2013 EIS is a dream that Airbus fanyboys have been wetting themselves with on A.net. Dreamt of because it brings the 787 EIS closer to the planned A350 EIS, making Airbus appear superior.
Funny, there has been no criticism of Boeing on this thread whatsoever, those levelled in the former threads were mild at best (the only attacks are on those filthy foreigners that supply the 787 with parts), you have spent a good two years at attacking Airbus day in day out for a couple of years during the 380 saga and you come up with this.
Speak of a chip on a shoulder.
What is important to bear in mind is that this delay announcement is not actually a new one. It is a confirmation of the delay brought about by the inflight fire, the measures taken to fix it and a new schedule as a result. Unfortunately, the media has picked up on it as a seperate delay.
The delay is not due to the fire and the measures taken to fix it, as addressing that single question (ingestion of foreign object) would have been fixed in a matters of a couple of weeks. The delay is due to the fact that the fire resulted in a power failure and that the test plane did not respond as expected to this event. Not only this, it did not respond as expected to the power failure when that eventuality/case and the normal response have already been covered by the testing campaign (and validated). Hence the head scratching and the necessary redesign (and retesting).
sekantapparently, the french press is now reporting that a tool mistakenly left int he electrical cabinet caused the short circuit/fire.
If true, this is very good news for Boeing and the 787 program. IMHO, that is a quality control problem and not a design problem. If true, no redesign of the electrical system would be required.
Not so simple. The FOD induced fire seems to have led to the identification of weaknesses in the electrical system that require to redesign part of it. In other words, the system did not react as it should have and did not redirect the supply of electricity to ensure a safe continuation of the flight (instead, it deployed the ram turbine).
We now speak of an additional delay of some six months. If it was a simply FOD issue, the 787 would already be back in the air. They have now been grounded for more than three weeks.
sekantEVERETT, Wash., Nov. 11, 2010 /PRNewswire/ — Boeing continues to investigate Monday’s incident on ZA002. We have determined that a failure in the P100 panel led to a fire involving an insulation blanket. The insulation self-extinguished once the fault in the P100 panel cleared. The P100 panel on ZA002 has been removed and a replacement unit is being shipped to Laredo. The insulation material near the unit also has been removed.
Damage to the ZA002 P100 panel is significant. Initial inspections, however, do not show extensive damage to the surrounding structure or other systems. We have not completed our inspections of that area of the airplane.
The P100 panel is one of several power panels in the aft electronics bay. It receives power from the left engine and distributes it to an array of systems. In the event of a failure of the P100 panel, backup power sources – including power from the right engine, the Ram Air Turbine, the auxiliary power unit or the battery – are designed to automatically engage to ensure that those systems needed for continued safe operation of the airplane are powered. The backup systems engaged during the incident and the crew retained positive control of the airplane at all times and had the information it needed to perform a safe landing.
Molten metal has been observed near the P100 panel, which is not unexpected in the presence of high heat. The presence of this material does not reveal anything meaningful to the investigation.
Inspection of the surrounding area will take several days and is ongoing. It is too early to determine if there is significant damage to any structure or adjacent systems.
As part of our investigation, we will conduct a detailed inspection of the panel and insulation material to determine if they enhance our understanding of the incident.
We continue to evaluate data to understand this incident. At the same time, we are working through a repair plan. In addition, we are determining the appropriate steps required to return the rest of the flight test fleet to flying status.
Boeing will continue to provide updates as new understanding is gained.
Contact:
Lori Gunter
787 Communications
+1 206-931-5919
sekantIt does seem the airport charges and fees are getting out of hand worldwide.
I believe the Germans just passed some egregious new tax for departing passengers, and the of course the UK fees for London (apparently to pay for T5?) are completely beyond the pale. What is it, 100 or 150 dollars to leave the UK now?
The difference being that in the West Indies or countries like Cambodia, you have to pay this departure tax cash on the spot. Which makes it always more painful.
And the only way out is to pull out a diplomatic passport.
sekantIn Antigua, it costs you $25 to get out, there was rumors it was getting ended, but not sure if it has. It is a great queue forming event, first you queue to check in, then you queue to pay the tax and then queue for security. I guess its a shock to the virgin passengers who have paid extra and checked in at hotel, to find they still have to queue twice!!!!!
The departure tax is still applied in Antigua (or at least was in July this year) as is the case in most Carribean islands. Where it seems to have disappeared (for instance in St Marteen), it has simply been added to your airport taxes.
sekantAF has been so bad for so long, I wonder how they continue to stay in service. Unconsciously, I always place them in the “quasi-state run” category that several European carriers seem to enjoy in their nationalistic countries. Lacking that as an explanation, ie., “indirect” state support, I’m at a loss to understand how they maintain their standing as a respected world carrier.
Rather funny comment when one considers that AF/KLM has been one of the most profitable airline worldwide over the past ten years.
Rather funny comment when one takes into account the tens of billions pumped by the US government into american airlines over the past decade to keep them afloat.
Rather funny comment when one takes into account the service quality on US airlines. Took UA, CC and AA transatlantic over the past year, and between the cancelled connections in Chicago, the 90 minutes line up to speak to an agent to get rerouted, the crappy food on board, et al., I say give me AF any day. At least, I don’t get screamed at on AF because I loiter next to the bathroom. And don’t even get me started on US domestic flights.
Rather funny comment if one compares the number of day BA and AF personnel have been on strike over the past few years.
sekantThey expect the 350 to come out on time?
sekantWhat is interesting is that the rate of accidents seems to have increased lately. It was not as bad when the MD-11 was mostly used to transport passengers.
If this really the case, there are several ways to explain this. One is linked to freight transport (weight increasing the deficient handling characteristic of the -11?).
The other explanation is linked to pilot skills. Here, one can think that top pilots will not elect to do freight (less glamorous than doing passengers and no stewardess, less rewarding financially). One can also think that some skills are gradually lost by pilots coming into the trade because of increased widespread automation (and this concerns both A and B products, for those who would want tomgondown one way).
sekantNot really surprised by this tosh, from the usual same quarters.
All planes have snags when they enter into service. That applies to the 777 and/or the 380, notwithstanding the revisionists posts above. Ask UA about the issues they had when they inducted the 777 (see below). We may also add that last month only, the FAA requested boeing to correct a software snag that cause this type to potentially overshot the runway (software to be found on the 777 since its induction).
+++
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19960306&slug=2317566
Risks Taken By Boeing Underscored By Letter
By Byron Acohido, Polly Lane
Seattle Times Business Reporters
The Boeing Co. prefers to handle its customer complaints quietly.
But a copy of a scathing letter from a top United Airlines executive, characterizing the Boeing 777 as a “major disappointment,” found its way into today’s Wall Street Journal.
The letter from Joseph O’Gorman, United’s executive vice president for fleet operations, to Ron Ostrowski, Boeing’s 777 manager, cites the airline’s frustration with “pilot write-ups and flight cancellations as well as the airplane’s out-of-service time.”
Company sources told The Seattle Times the problems ranged from door seals wearing out to glitches in the flight-management computer to landing-gear parts jamming.
United 777s have made five unscheduled landings because of mechanical or electrical problems. The most serious involved an engine losing most of its oil and having to be shut down in flight.
Boeing watchers and safety experts say the surfacing of O’Gorman’s letter reflects a changing business environment, while underscoring the risks Boeing accepted in introducing the highly complex, computer-operated jetliner under an immovable deadline.
Coming off a 69-day Machinists Union strike last fall and busy with new airplane orders, Boeing has been slow to respond to warranty claims filed by United.
“These are normal teething problems,” said a United insider. “United is just trying to get Boeing off the dime. Our people are saying we’re not going to sit here and fix this stuff ourselves because it’s expensive.”
Some analysts think United may be trying to get Boeing to pay penalties or offer some concessions for problems with the early 777s.
“It’s the ’90s, and in-your-face management is in style,” said Wolfgang Demisch, an analyst at BT Securities in New York. “My assumption is we wouldn’t be seeing this kind of friendly message unless United wanted to create some heartburn for Boeing and get people to pay attention.”
Another take on O’Gorman’s letter is that it reflects problems associated with Boeing’s scramble to deliver the first 777 on time last June, despite major delays in developing and testing the company’s first fly-by-wire model.
Copyright (c) 1996 Seattle Times Company, All Rights Reserved.
sekantThe 777, like any new airplane, had dozens of snags that needed iron out. Neither better nor worse.
sekantsome more details
The treaty also stipulates that strategic offensive weapons are to be based solely on the national territories of Russia and the United States.
.
SSBN anyone???
sekantMaybe Air France relieve crew practices (from the news paper articles quoted above) might be called into question?
The article doesn’t seem to know and understand anything about Air France crew procedures, gets it all wrong and in any case doesn’t know what happened on board (i.e. no one knows, which makes the article a pile of rubbish as it is not even written in the conditional form).
Sign In
