Airline passengers subsidizing private aviation

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:28:26 GMT, "William Black"
wrote:


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
. ..
William Black writes:


And Boeing and its hidden subsidies isn't?

No, it isn't. That's why it has been around for so long. What "hidden"
subsidies do you have in mind?

The ones the US pays on its huge military research contracts that are
really
a way of subsidising civil aircraft development.

Hmm. Boeing built the 747 "on spec". Which aircraft are you
thinking of?.

Try and look at something about a complaint by Airbus Industry to the WTO
about Boeing and the US government in 1992, revived in 2005.


--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:10:00 GMT, "William Black"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:28:26 GMT, "William Black"
wrote:


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
William Black writes:


And Boeing and its hidden subsidies isn't?

No, it isn't. That's why it has been around for so long. What "hidden"
subsidies do you have in mind?

The ones the US pays on its huge military research contracts that are
really
a way of subsidising civil aircraft development.

Hmm. Boeing built the 747 "on spec". Which aircraft are you
thinking of?.

Try and look at something about a complaint by Airbus Industry to the WTO
about Boeing and the US government in 1992, revived in 2005.

You're going to ave to be more specific. What I found involves
government subsidies but not military subsidies.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:10:00 GMT, "William Black"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:28:26 GMT, "William Black"
wrote:


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
m...
William Black writes:


And Boeing and its hidden subsidies isn't?

No, it isn't. That's why it has been around for so long. What
"hidden"
subsidies do you have in mind?

The ones the US pays on its huge military research contracts that are
really
a way of subsidising civil aircraft development.

Hmm. Boeing built the 747 "on spec". Which aircraft are you
thinking of?.

Try and look at something about a complaint by Airbus Industry to the WTO
about Boeing and the US government in 1992, revived in 2005.

You're going to ave to be more specific. What I found involves
government subsidies but not military subsidies.

The Airbus case is that the US government gives Boeing large sums of money
for research into military projects and Boeing uses the technology developed
in its civilian products.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:05:46 GMT, "William Black"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:10:00 GMT, "William Black"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:28:26 GMT, "William Black"
wrote:


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
om...
William Black writes:


And Boeing and its hidden subsidies isn't?

No, it isn't. That's why it has been around for so long. What
"hidden"
subsidies do you have in mind?

The ones the US pays on its huge military research contracts that are
really
a way of subsidising civil aircraft development.

Hmm. Boeing built the 747 "on spec". Which aircraft are you
thinking of?.

Try and look at something about a complaint by Airbus Industry to the WTO
about Boeing and the US government in 1992, revived in 2005.

You're going to ave to be more specific. What I found involves
government subsidies but not military subsidies.

The Airbus case is that the US government gives Boeing large sums of money
for research into military projects and Boeing uses the technology developed
in its civilian products.

Somehow that doesn't sound so awful, so long as it is legitimate
military research. Or are they suposed to not use info they get
from military research, should it be some sort of secret?



--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:05:46 GMT, "William Black"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:10:00 GMT, "William Black"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:28:26 GMT, "William Black"
wrote:


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news:ts6a23pbm30j6lo4ociuqq996tk555uta2@4ax. com...
William Black writes:


And Boeing and its hidden subsidies isn't?

No, it isn't. That's why it has been around for so long. What
"hidden"
subsidies do you have in mind?

The ones the US pays on its huge military research contracts that are
really
a way of subsidising civil aircraft development.

Hmm. Boeing built the 747 "on spec". Which aircraft are you
thinking of?.

Try and look at something about a complaint by Airbus Industry to the
WTO
about Boeing and the US government in 1992, revived in 2005.

You're going to ave to be more specific. What I found involves
government subsidies but not military subsidies.

The Airbus case is that the US government gives Boeing large sums of money
for research into military projects and Boeing uses the technology
developed
in its civilian products.

Somehow that doesn't sound so awful, so long as it is legitimate
military research. Or are they suposed to not use info they get
from military research, should it be some sort of secret?

The research is funded as 'military' but is really civil.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Apr 18, 3:10 pm, "William Black"
wrote:
"Hatunen" wrote in message

...





On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:28:26 GMT, "William Black"
wrote:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
. ..
William Black writes:

And Boeing and its hidden subsidies isn't?

No, it isn't. That's why it has been around for so long. What "hidden"
subsidies do you have in mind?

The ones the US pays on its huge military research contracts that are
really a way of subsidising civil aircraft development.

The US government buys planes. That's a whole lot different than the
French government shelling out billions in grants and loans to EADS so
that Airbus doesn't collapse under the weight of its own
inefficiencies.

Hmm. Boeing built the 747 "on spec". Which aircraft are you
thinking of?.

Try and look at something about a complaint by Airbus Industry to the WTO
about Boeing and the US government in 1992, revived in 2005.

You mean the one that didn't get anywhere but Airbus was using to try
to justify the enormous and constant subsidies they get from European
governments?

"Tchiowa" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 18, 3:10 pm, "William Black"

Try and look at something about a complaint by Airbus Industry to the WTO
about Boeing and the US government in 1992, revived in 2005.

You mean the one that didn't get anywhere but Airbus was using to try
to justify the enormous and constant subsidies they get from European
governments?

No.

The one where Boeing gets a huge wadge of cash from Uncle Sugar for military
research and does research into civilian or dual use applications that it
then marks 'classified'.


--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Apr 18, 5:07 am, "William Black"
wrote:
"Tchiowa" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Apr 18, 3:10 pm, "William Black"
Try and look at something about a complaint by Airbus Industry to the WTO
about Boeing and the US government in 1992, revived in 2005.

You mean the one that didn't get anywhere but Airbus was using to try
to justify the enormous and constant subsidies they get from European
governments?

No.

The one where Boeing gets a huge wadge of cash from Uncle Sugar for military
research and does research into civilian or dual use applications that it
then marks 'classified'.

Probably what is being alluded to is known as "independent research
and
developement" or IRAD's for short. There was a time, long gone, that
the government would refund research dollars on "approved" programs
anywhere from about 50% to 95%. That doesn't really exist anymore.
We are allowed to "expense" our research as part of our "overhead"
charge, but that charge is a competetive feature of our bids so it
can alter the ability to win contracts in the first place. As such,
there
is a disincentive to "bill" too much research to the government.

FWIW, there is no great attraction to having something marked as
classified. It hinders the ability to use the technology outside of
military contracts. (To some extent even within them). There are
methodologies for getting the "exported" to commercial contacts,
but it is hard and leaves one in a position of having to ask
permission
of the government. The answer is not unfrequently "no".

I understand the complaint about the military contract effect upon
the commercial nature of the airliner business. But there is
no fiscal comparison to the huge loan guarentees that Airbus
got and the contracts that Boeing gets. Boeing has to use
all of the money for the military contract (less profit, which
is generally negotiated up front). SOME of the technology
assuredly is transferrable, but not as much as one might think
since military specs are often well in excess of commercial specs.
The singular largest advantage is the facilities and manufacturing
equipment. Unfortunately for Boeing, more and more of this is
being done outside of Boeing and so they lose that advantage.

William Black writes:

The one where Boeing gets a huge wadge of cash from Uncle Sugar for military
research and does research into civilian or dual use applications that it
then marks 'classified'.

If they are classified, how do you know what they are?

Some high-technology projects are expensive, and classified projects often
involve leading-edge technologies.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
William Black writes:

The one where Boeing gets a huge wadge of cash from Uncle Sugar for
military
research and does research into civilian or dual use applications that it
then marks 'classified'.

If they are classified, how do you know what they are?

Some high-technology projects are expensive, and classified projects often
involve leading-edge technologies.

Get a life.

It's a hidden subsidy.

Everybody knows it.

Airbus made a complaint and dropped it so as to make the US drop its
complaint.

Making civil aircraft is an expensive business that has a lot more to do
with maintaining high technology industries and hanging onto high paid jobs
than profits.

Stop trying to pretend Boeing are clean, they're just as crooked as
everyone else.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.