I wonder how much "Oil – For – Food" money went towards the creation of the Airbus A380.

Er...none, since it was made by a private corporation?

I fail to see the corollary.

A., He's a troll, and probably one we've met before and,

B. Should someone known as "crash" really be commenting on anything having to do with aviation?

what i saw was that the first reply to "airbus a380" was by crash. (sorry dp i cross posted this.)

they seem to be getting their nickers in a knot out here about it, the runways aren't big enough generally. i heard that mobiles (cell phones) won't interfere with their operation and a reporter on the radio said she didn't fancy a 22hour flight with 550 people and their mobiles. i don't really understand why they need bigger planes. for mine, i thing they need much cheaper to run planes (so that i could actually afford to board one.)

quote:

---

i heard that mobiles (cell phones) won't interfere with their operation

---

Cell phones don't interfere with modern jetliners. That said, people who would use cell phones for any but the direst of emergencies on a modern jetliner should be invited to take a long walk on a short wing.

EU had given Airbus subsidies amounting to US$3.2 billion (S$5.4 billion) to produce its new super-jumbo, the A380.


Wonder where they got the money.

Oh!! Maybe From Thailand.......

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=66782005

i haven't been on a jumbo for almost 9 years. the only planes i've been on in the meantime are the little 40?50? seaters with propell... i can't spell it. it's just a minor blockage. in intellectual confidence more than anything.

As opposed to the gravy written into contractrs for Boeing, Lockeed-Martin, et al. Nope, none of that corporate welfare in this hear god-fearing-faggot-hating-bible-thumping-lib-a-tarian-US-of-A.

Yeah, yeah, I know I'm feeding it; I just hate the fuck out of ignorance.

Wait wait wait a damn minute.

First you say that Oil for Food money is used then you actually say that money was TAKEN from Thailand to fund the airbus.

Now...that's amazing. I would love to meet the construction crew that could design, manufacture, assemble, test, and deliver an Airbus in the last few weeks prior to and following the floods in Thailand.

Now THAT would be truly a feat of modern engineering.

That and the fact that negotiations to Thailand were BEFORE the flood happened.

I am not saying it's ethical - just bad timing.

As far as my pseudo well...mea culpa. I can't change it without creating a new account and I don't want to appear all "Hydra" on your asses.

dp i don't understand quite where you are. does a comment on subsidies to one corp truly lose its validity because other corps are subsidised in similar ways?

arrogance or ignorance? which is the greater problem? (discuss.)

quote:

---

First you say that Oil for Food money is used then you actually say that money was TAKEN from Thailand to fund the airbus.

---

Sorry, I lost focus a bit.

quote:

---

As opposed to the gravy written into contractrs for Boeing, Lockeed-Martin, et al. Nope, none of that corporate welfare in this hear god-fearing-faggot-hating-bible-thumping-lib-a-tarian-US-of-A.

---

If I agreed with you, But I most likely don't......
What you said is nothing more than Bad Behavior justified by Worse Behavior.

Boeing has said they will not build a similiar sized plane to compete with Airbus. They feel that the market is too limited and the 747 can handle the existing market just fine. It is not uncommon for aircraft companies to accept goverment subsidies large projects. The goverments in many cases need to products for a reason. In Europe in particular the militaries are hampered by a lack of long range air transport comparable to the US C-141 Starlifter and C-5 Galaxy. A plane of this size, if converted for cargo, would be very valuable to all the countries that would get to buy one.

Yeah I just checked and airbus is also building a 4 engine prop called the A400M for the European military unders their EADS company. And it turns out that the Eurpean companies are not giving Airbus subsidies but instead they are calling them "loans" because it is illegal to subsidize Airbus under certain WTO agreements. However only 18% (about US$2 billion plus a bunch of tax breaks comes to about US$3.2 billion) of the money used in the project came from goverments of Europe (Britain, France, Germany) the rest came from Airbus itself or its suppliers companies.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/business/story/10771697p-11689875c.html

http://english.pravda.ru/main/2000/12/21/1590.html

http://www.eads.net/frame/lang/en/800/content/OF00000000400004/4/78/517784.html

This message has been edited. Last edited by: editengine,

Crash - you have one of the most poetically beautiful monikers on the whole board...Don't go chaaaainging...

quote:

---

dp i don't understand quite where you are. does a comment on subsidies to one corp truly lose its validity because other corps are subsidized in similar ways?

arrogance or ignorance? which is the greater problem? (discuss.)

---

My, what a bundle you are to unpack.

No, I don't think that subsidies to one corp lose validity because another corp (in perhaps another country) gets them, despite the disparate forms they may take. I just wish people in the US were more knowledgeable about the level of corporate welfare here.

Arrogance or ignorance. Here's a question for you, then: would you rather there be an intelligence test for people running for office or for people who want to register to vote?

(you gotta remember that all 18+ aussies are required to vote by law.)

my immediate response is that those running for office are the ones who should be tested, though i feel sure you've trapped me somehow.

quote:

---

Arrogance or ignorance. Here's a question for you, then: would you rather there be an intelligence test for people running for office or for people who want to register to vote?

---

Why is it always the Democrats that can't understand how to use a voting machine or seem how to figure out how to register to vote?

Funny that Laws used to Maintain the integrity of voting,
i.e.. Time limits to register,
ID Needed
Felon Can't vote, etc.

Are now called being disenfranchised.

Well, the point was, that once one starts talking about the "lesser of evils" one falls into a trap: Bonitas non est pessimis esse meliorem.

And, one might notice the pointed ignoring of our "freshly minted" troll's rhetorical emptinesses.

I remember seeing a piece on PBS where former labor secretary Robert Reich was talking about macro-economics. Said that Boeing actually employed people who marketed the exportables for smaller countries looking to buy planes for their national fleet. Here was a guy, whose office was in Seattle, whose job was to find stores and chains willing to buy Finnish berries or Icelandic vodka to help that country increase its income from exports so it could buy jumbos and smaller craft from Boeing over 10 years.
I guess commercial aircraft manufacture is lucrative enough that an order to purchase just a few aircraft is enough to impact smaller nations' economies. Why else would Boeing have guys on salary to boost another country's economic output enough for them to afford the aircraft in the first place? Globalization baby!

And, to amplify your very astute point, one of the items on the table in the EU's talks with Iran re: the possibility that they've wised up and realized that the US won't attack them if they have nukes, is the sale of, you guessed it, Airbusses to them.