Concorde....

Thank you ‘309’. You have proved my point exactly,
although I didn’t realise quite how much the US Political
and Financial systems had also screwed up your own
aircraft industry.

There is a board game called Monopoly in which the
idea is take over all your competitors’ businesses
and achieve a monopoly, so you can charge what you
like. The US seems to play Monopoly with the whole
World, not helped by corrupt and on-the-make politicians
and stock market investors after a quick buck. Take-overs
and mergers often provide that quick buck.

If you are in the market for a large airliner, you
essentially now only have the choice between Boeing
and Airbus. Both of these companies constantly issue
writs against each other claiming unfair Government
subsidies, Boeing’s in the form of military contracts.
Both companies produce lumbering sub-sonic aircraft.
Why should they produce anything better if there is
no effective competition?

The UK government alternates between the Conservatives,
who are the poor man’s version of the Republicans,
and the (New) Labour Party, who are generally more
concerned with spin, political correctness and the
class war rather than nurturing our industries. To
the latter anyone who owns a business is a ‘Capitalist
*******’ to be taxed and snowed under with repressive
legislation and red tape! However to be fair to them
they did champion Concorde under Industry Minister
Tony Wedgewood-Benn.

Between them, the two main political parties in the
UK have also helped to pretty well screw our industry
by meddling, nationalisation and over-taxation. Several
promising and possibly world beating military aircraft
had their funding withdrawn at the last moment by politicians
concerned about the escalating cost. But as one famous
aircraft designer once said “If I told them the true
cost up front, they would never agree to it in the
first place”.

I would like to remind the Americans that the UK produced
the Spitfire fighter, the Lancaster, Halifax and Mosquito
bombers, the first Jet Airliner (DH Comet), the first
true Mach 2 intercepter, the Harrier jump jet, the
first and only Mach 2 airliner - Concorde (with a bit
of help from the Froggies), and many other innovative
aircraft. Now we produce nothing other than Airbus
wings, Rolls Royce engines and a few small trainers
and microlights.

Actually we do very little metal bashing of any sort
these days, as the multi-national companies chase round
the world looking for the cheapest possible labour
markets, such as Eastern Europe and China. One of our
major car plants is about to close so that production
can be transferred to Slovakia. I personally haven’t
done a job for years that actually involves making
anything - only importing and selling or installing
equipment from abroad. I am not quite sure how Great
Britain, once ‘the Workshop of the World’ actually
earns a living, as most companies over here are now
service based. Essentially we all earn a precarious
living by taking in each other’s washing!

I suspect that even if I did start up a company that
produced an innovative product, it would rapidly be
taken over by a multi-national company. They are generally
only interested in selling what they produce already.
Some very successful UK companies have avoided the
stock market altogether and remained as private companies
just for this reason.

I think that we need to reform our political and financial
institutions so they are less weighted towards the
big multi-national corporations, and more towards small
companies and genuine entrepreneurs.

By the way, I understand that the USA donates less
in charity as a percentage of its GNP than many smaller
and less rich countries.

Derek Copeland


At 05:36 13 June 2006, 309 wrote:

Once Southern California (much larger than GREAT Britain)
had a
thriving aircraft industry: Convair, Douglas, Lockheed,
all building
commercial aircraft that in one way or another contributed
to the
advancement of modern travel. Late last month, the
last commercial
product from the old(e) Douglas Plant delivered (a
so-called Boeing
717, nee MD-95, nee DC-9-30+ with Rolls engines...).
The assembly line
is silent, save for the wrecking crews. I would much
rather see it
'for sale.'

Many forget that Airbus (or its predecessor) benefitted
from a doomed
'partnership' between Sud Aviation and Douglas (funny
how similar the
nose section of the A-300 is to the DC-10, isn't it????).
Yes, I
suppose you'll call McDonnell 'pirates' from stealing
the Kestrel and
improving it into the AV-8B, aka Harrier. Yes, it
goes both ways, eh?

Yes Derek, you have my pity, for what it is worth (not
much, eh?). I
am sorry to see Concord(e) silent -- almost as much
as I am to see
factories that employed thousands, created much of
the 'Arsenal of
Democracy' that no doubt helped save 'the United Kingdom'
in the 40's
(or is its current fate worse than it would have been
without
'Americanization?'), and helped usher in many technological
advancements.

Please tell me you have studied history and can recall
that once upon a
time, GREAT Britain DOMINATED the world... As a good
Canadian once put
it, 'All good things must end.' Just be patient Derek.
Yeah, a Union
Jack on every streetcorner would be an improvement,
eh?

Isn't it wonderful to know that sour grapes grow equally
well on both
sides of 'the pond?'

It wasn't politics alone or accountants alone that
silenced Concord(e),
a thing of beauty. But politics and accounting together
form
formidible allies...and the economics of operating
much faster than
God's good birds would sanely fly conspired altogether
to end the
party.

Isn't it just plain silly that sombody's simple request
for donations
to restore an antique (albeit expensive and fast) airplane
can cause
this newsgroup to spin into degrading mudslinging over
politics?

Keep in mind, Derek, that the Americans did not invent
'domination.' I
rather doubt you coud even say we've perfected it.
Look also, if you
dare, at the charity America affords the globe as whole,
even those
supposed 'enemies' in times of tragedy.

Shame on you.

Derek Copeland wrote:
The US seems to play Monopoly with the whole
World, not helped by corrupt and on-the-make politicians
and stock market investors after a quick buck. Take-overs
and mergers often provide that quick buck.

Hmm, the US does? One of the companies that I used to work for (in the
US) was gobbled up by a small (corrupt?) company from "England,"
perhaps you've heard of a US Company named Tracor? Or a "UK" company
named BAe? Look in the mirror.

I think that we need to reform our political and financial
institutions so they are less weighted towards the
big multi-national corporations, and more towards small
companies and genuine entrepreneurs.

What of small companies lile Columbia (Lancair), Van's RV aircraft, and
such? One needs to remember that when a small company becomes
successful, really successful, it becomes a large corporation -- which
can still be an entepreneurial endeavor, say Broadcom, Microsoft (once
upon a time) are examples. Your logic might pull these successful
companies into pieces...despite the good they do...and then the
incentive to be enteprenuerial is now gone...

By the way, I understand that the USA donates less
in charity as a percentage of its GNP than many smaller
and less rich countries.

What data is that??? Please let me know -- I'll be happy to be less
charitible to the thankless globe so I can apply my good graces to tow
and winch costs. If you're referring only to the charity doled out by
the US government, let's not forget the charitable donations from
private citizens, corporations, churches, rotary clubs... I happen to
work for that "subsidized" tiny little company called Boeing (by way of
merger and aquisition). As one would expect from a large company, its
employees fund the largest corporate employee charity source, and for
the tsunami victims gave over $3 million.

Another fine Canadian put it quite aptly, you'll miss US, if we're not
around. It's so easy to pick on the big guy -- even if he's nice to
you.

Enough from me. Back to Soaring...or at least thinking about it.