A380 arriving in the northeast?

[Darek]

Hello there,

not sure if this is the proper group to post my question, but it looks to
be pretty alive, and I hope that I won't be intruding.

Does anyone know if or when the Airbus A380 is going to make its way to JFK
in New York? It should definitely be a sight to be seen. I know that
Singapore air will be flying in March to London.

















Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Jim Macklin]

try http://www.panynj.gov/



--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Darek" > wrote in message
...
| Hello there,
|
| not sure if this is the proper group to post my question,
but it looks to
| be pretty alive, and I hope that I won't be intruding.
|
| Does anyone know if or when the Airbus A380 is going to
make its way to JFK
| in New York? It should definitely be a sight to be seen.
I know that
| Singapore air will be flying in March to London.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
| ----------------------------------------------------------
| ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
| ----------------------------------------------------------
| http://www.usenet.com

[G Farris]

In article >, says...
>
>
>Hello there,
>
>not sure if this is the proper group to post my question, but it looks to
>be pretty alive, and I hope that I won't be intruding.
>
>Does anyone know if or when the Airbus A380 is going to make its way to JFK
>in New York? It should definitely be a sight to be seen. I know that
>Singapore air will be flying in March to London.



You do mean March 2007, of course.

GF

[Chris]

"G Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, says...
>>
>>
>>Hello there,
>>
>>not sure if this is the proper group to post my question, but it looks to
>>be pretty alive, and I hope that I won't be intruding.
>>
>>Does anyone know if or when the Airbus A380 is going to make its way to
>>JFK
>>in New York? It should definitely be a sight to be seen. I know that
>>Singapore air will be flying in March to London.
>
>
>
> You do mean March 2007, of course.

No this year.
Apparently the A380 is doing airport visits as part of sizing trials

http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=20250

[G Farris]

In article >, says...
>
>
>
>"G Farris" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, says...
>>>
>>>
>>>Hello there,
>>>
>>>not sure if this is the proper group to post my question, but it looks to
>>>be pretty alive, and I hope that I won't be intruding.
>>>
>>>Does anyone know if or when the Airbus A380 is going to make its way to
>>>JFK
>>>in New York? It should definitely be a sight to be seen. I know that
>>>Singapore air will be flying in March to London.
>>
>>
>>
>> You do mean March 2007, of course.
>
>No this year.
>Apparently the A380 is doing airport visits as part of sizing trials
>
>http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=20250
>


With the airplane only halfway through the certification process, how can a
commercial company be flying between city pairs for sizing trials?

GF

[sfb]

For all practical purposes the manufacturer is a wholly owned subsidiary
of the French government which is certifying the plane so it isn't a big
stretch that somebody has figured out how to make the sizing trails part
of the certification program.

"G Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>>
>>
>>"G Farris" > wrote in message
...
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Hello there,
>>>>
>>>>not sure if this is the proper group to post my question, but it
>>>>looks to
>>>>be pretty alive, and I hope that I won't be intruding.
>>>>
>>>>Does anyone know if or when the Airbus A380 is going to make its way
>>>>to
>>>>JFK
>>>>in New York? It should definitely be a sight to be seen. I know
>>>>that
>>>>Singapore air will be flying in March to London.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You do mean March 2007, of course.
>>
>>No this year.
>>Apparently the A380 is doing airport visits as part of sizing trials
>>
>>http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=20250
>>
>
>
> With the airplane only halfway through the certification process, how
> can a
> commercial company be flying between city pairs for sizing trials?
>
> GF
>

[Chris]

The manufacturer is not a subsidiary of the French Government. Its is owned
80% by EADs and 20% by BAE systems. As far as I know they French government
don't own BAE systems and they don't own EADS.

Its a bit like saying Boeing is a subsidiary of the Department of Defense.

"sfb" > wrote in message news:SPqIf.31295$Eq.10583@trnddc02...
> For all practical purposes the manufacturer is a wholly owned subsidiary
> of the French government which is certifying the plane so it isn't a big
> stretch that somebody has figured out how to make the sizing trails part
> of the certification program.
>
> "G Farris" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"G Farris" > wrote in message
...
>>>> In article >, says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Hello there,
>>>>>
>>>>>not sure if this is the proper group to post my question, but it looks
>>>>>to
>>>>>be pretty alive, and I hope that I won't be intruding.
>>>>>
>>>>>Does anyone know if or when the Airbus A380 is going to make its way to
>>>>>JFK
>>>>>in New York? It should definitely be a sight to be seen. I know that
>>>>>Singapore air will be flying in March to London.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You do mean March 2007, of course.
>>>
>>>No this year.
>>>Apparently the A380 is doing airport visits as part of sizing trials
>>>
>>>http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=20250
>>>
>>
>>
>> With the airplane only halfway through the certification process, how can
>> a
>> commercial company be flying between city pairs for sizing trials?
>>
>> GF
>>
>
>

[G Farris]

In article >, says...
>
>
>The manufacturer is not a subsidiary of the French Government. Its is owned
>80% by EADs and 20% by BAE systems. As far as I know they French government
>don't own BAE systems and they don't own EADS.
>
>Its a bit like saying Boeing is a subsidiary of the Department of Defense.
>

Quite right. Not to mention the bit about Singapore Airlines flying the plane
in March of this year!

This said - and in partial response to the original post - I did see the
plane fly in Paris. I was driving on the freeway on my way to the airport, when
the beast rose up from the runway at Le Bourget, close to DeGaulle airport. I
was really awe-stricken, even before I understood what it was.

Greg

[G Farris]

In article om>,
says...
>
>
>> With the airplane only halfway through the certification process, how can a
>> commercial company be flying between city pairs for sizing trials?
>
>There is no requirement it be certified. It probably has a big sign on
>the door that says "Experimental". Lots of those flying around all the
>time.

Lots of airliners delivered to paying customers prior to type certification?
I'm slow - show me.

[sfb]

What part of "for all practical purposes" went right over your head? The
European Union countries lead by France have a long history of subsidies
to Airbus.

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
> The manufacturer is not a subsidiary of the French Government. Its is
> owned 80% by EADs and 20% by BAE systems. As far as I know they French
> government don't own BAE systems and they don't own EADS.
>
> Its a bit like saying Boeing is a subsidiary of the Department of
> Defense.
>
> "sfb" > wrote in message
> news:SPqIf.31295$Eq.10583@trnddc02...
>> For all practical purposes the manufacturer is a wholly owned
>> subsidiary of the French government which is certifying the plane so
>> it isn't a big stretch that somebody has figured out how to make the
>> sizing trails part of the certification program.
>>
>> "G Farris" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"G Farris" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hello there,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>not sure if this is the proper group to post my question, but it
>>>>>>looks to
>>>>>>be pretty alive, and I hope that I won't be intruding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Does anyone know if or when the Airbus A380 is going to make its
>>>>>>way to
>>>>>>JFK
>>>>>>in New York? It should definitely be a sight to be seen. I know
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>Singapore air will be flying in March to London.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You do mean March 2007, of course.
>>>>
>>>>No this year.
>>>>Apparently the A380 is doing airport visits as part of sizing trials
>>>>
>>>>http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=20250
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> With the airplane only halfway through the certification process,
>>> how can a
>>> commercial company be flying between city pairs for sizing trials?
>>>
>>> GF
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[sfb]

Nobody has actually said who is flying the sizing trials. Most likely,
it is the manufacturer as part of the certification process verifying
range, etc.

"G Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article om>,
> says...
>>
>>
>>> With the airplane only halfway through the certification process,
>>> how can a
>>> commercial company be flying between city pairs for sizing trials?
>>
>>There is no requirement it be certified. It probably has a big sign on
>>the door that says "Experimental". Lots of those flying around all the
>>time.
>
> Lots of airliners delivered to paying customers prior to type
> certification?
> I'm slow - show me.
>

[Greg Farris]

In article <NStIf.6038$3V4.5004@trnddc06>, says...
>
>
>What part of "for all practical purposes" went right over your head? The
>European Union countries lead by France have a long history of subsidies
>to Airbus.
>

The question of launch subsidies from European governments to EADS/Airbus
is indeed a sticky one, to which I agree the governments involved have not
been entirely forthcoming. But to characterize EADS/Airbus as a wholly
owned subsidiary of the French government, even "for all practical
purposes" is an unacceptable simplification.

GF

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
>
> The question of launch subsidies from European governments to EADS/Airbus
> is indeed a sticky one, to which I agree the governments involved have not
> been entirely forthcoming. But to characterize EADS/Airbus as a wholly
> owned subsidiary of the French government, even "for all practical
> purposes" is an unacceptable simplification.
>

Actually, to characterize Airbus as a wholly owned subsidiary of the French
government, even "for all practical purposes", is simply incorrect.

[Robert M. Gary]

> Lots of airliners delivered to paying customers prior to type certification?
> I'm slow - show me.

Delivered to customers? I read "flying between city pairs for sizing
trials". Did I miss something about someone already taking delivery??

-Robert

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Delivered to customers? I read "flying between city pairs for sizing
> trials". Did I miss something about someone already taking delivery??
>

It appears you missed the reference to Singapore Airlines. The OP wrote:

"Does anyone know if or when the Airbus A380 is going to make its way to JFK
in New York? It should definitely be a sight to be seen. I know that
Singapore air will be flying in March to London."

[Capt.Doug]

>"Greg Farris" wrote in message >
> Yes, the OP said that Singapore is flying the beast to London in March.
> This thread started because I questioned that assertion.

EADS. the manufacturer, is making the rounds, under the French DGAC's A of
C. One of the first stops was Emirates Airlines in Dubai. That airplane is
already painted in Emirates' colors. One of my buds just had to send me a
picture of him sitting in the cockpit. It looks nice, but I'm not ready to
trade my island for a compound in a forsaken desert.

D.

[Robert M. Gary]

I would be surprised if Singapore Air has actually taken delivery of
the plane. That would seem odd. In anycase, you can bet there will be
no paying pax onboard until its certified.

-Robert

[Thomas Borchert]

Sfb,

> For all practical purposes the manufacturer is a wholly owned subsidiary
> of the French government which is certifying the plane
>

BS! Just for one thing, the A380 will be certified by EASA - and the FAA.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Sfb,

> The
> European Union countries lead by France have a long history of subsidies
> to Airbus.
>

Just like the US government subsidises Boeing. So what? You statement is
still factually wrong, for all practical purposes and beyond.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Capt.Doug,

> That airplane is
> already painted in Emirates' colors.
>

Actually, it was just for that event. Flying on to Singapore and
Australia, the paint scheme was changed.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Darek,

> I know that
> Singapore air will be flying in March to London.
>

Airbus is doing the trials.
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:04:34 -0600, Darek > wrote:

>Does anyone know if or when the Airbus A380 is going to make its way to JFK
>in New York?

Well, Airbus must first build the plane. Then an airport will have to
build a terminal to accommodate it.

Last week I saw the new Terminal 4 under construction at Heathrow,
supposedly for the A380. In the nature of public works projects, I
doubt it will be finished in 2006. Maybe 2007? But it's easier to get
things through a European local government than it is in the U.S.

Perhaps they'll deplane the folks out on the JFK tarmac with a
jury-rigged double-decker stairs? That indeed would be something to
see.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[B a r r y]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> There is no requirement it be certified. It probably has a big sign on
> the door that says "Experimental". Lots of those flying around all the
> time.

I remember seeing a documentary with "Experimental" painted over the
door of the 777. As I remember from the show, Boeing flew it to lots of
airports for demonstration and testing purposes.

[sfb]

The US government buys products from Boeing. The EU countries continue
to give launch subsidies Airbus. There is a difference despite the
unproven EU contention that the military sales to the US are somehow
subsiding Boeing's commercial aircraft development.

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Sfb,
>
>> The
>> European Union countries lead by France have a long history of
>> subsidies
>> to Airbus.
>>
>
> Just like the US government subsidises Boeing. So what? You statement
> is
> still factually wrong, for all practical purposes and beyond.
>
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[sfb]

Isn't is by the FAA because the EASA certified it?

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Sfb,
>
>> For all practical purposes the manufacturer is a wholly owned
>> subsidiary
>> of the French government which is certifying the plane
>>
>
> BS! Just for one thing, the A380 will be certified by EASA - and the
> FAA.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Roy Smith]

B a r r y > wrote:

> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> >
> > There is no requirement it be certified. It probably has a big sign on
> > the door that says "Experimental". Lots of those flying around all the
> > time.
>
> I remember seeing a documentary with "Experimental" painted over the
> door of the 777. As I remember from the show, Boeing flew it to lots of
> airports for demonstration and testing purposes.

Of course. All new aircraft types start out as experimental. To a certain
extent, the same rules that apply to a 2-seater job built in somebody's
garage also apply to a jumbo jet. A big sticker on the door that says
"EXPERIMENTAL", no paying pax, etc.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> > The
> > European Union countries lead by France have a long history of subsidies
> > to Airbus.
>
> Just like the US government subsidises Boeing.

"just like"? no. Your claim that the US government subsidies Boeing
is factually wrong.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Thomas Borchert]

Sfb,

> The US government buys products from Boeing. The EU countries continue
> to give launch subsidies Airbus. There is a difference despite the
> unproven EU contention that the military sales to the US are somehow
> subsiding Boeing's commercial aircraft development.
>

Yeah, right. Sure. Whatever you say...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Sfb,

> Isn't is by the FAA because the EASA certified it?
>

Yep. And back to the point you were trying to make: EASA is not nearly
"the French government"...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Bob,

> Your claim that the US government subsidies Boeing
> is factually wrong.
>

Which is at the very least a matter of dispute.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> > Your claim that the US government subsidies Boeing
> > is factually wrong.
>
> Which is at the very least a matter of dispute.

Dispute it all you want, you'll still be wrong.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>
> Just like the US government subsidises Boeing. So what? You statement is
> still factually wrong, for all practical purposes and beyond.
>

In what way does the US government subsidize Boeing?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>
> Which is at the very least a matter of dispute.
>

No it isn't.

[Chris]

"Cub Driver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:04:34 -0600, Darek > wrote:
>
>>Does anyone know if or when the Airbus A380 is going to make its way to
>>JFK
>>in New York?
>
> Well, Airbus must first build the plane. Then an airport will have to
> build a terminal to accommodate it.
>
> Last week I saw the new Terminal 4 under construction at Heathrow,
> supposedly for the A380. In the nature of public works projects, I
> doubt it will be finished in 2006. Maybe 2007? But it's easier to get
> things through a European local government than it is in the U.S.
>
> Perhaps they'll deplane the folks out on the JFK tarmac with a
> jury-rigged double-decker stairs? That indeed would be something to
> see.
>

Two things - they are building terminal 5 at Heathrow and that will be the
new British Airways terminal and will be in operation in 2007.

The A 380 will mainly be using terminal 3 and that is A380 ready with
strengthen ramps and taxiways already done. In addition they double deck
loading piers are also in place.

Manchester is ready from the A380 also.

Many of the airports on the main service routes are also ready if not near
ready. They main revenue routes will be Europe to the middle East and Asia.
emirates are having 45 A380s and see Dubai developing as one of the biggest
hubs in the world.

[Robert M. Gary]

> Airbus is doing the trials.

That makes sense. I also wouldn't be surprised if Airbus was repainting
the livery as it flys around the world. It sure makes it more appealing
to buy a new plane when you already see it out there with your name
painted all over it. Maybe your customers will even hear about it in
the news, think you are already buying one, and generate an expectation
that you will.

-Robert

[Chris]

">
> Last week I saw the new Terminal 4 under construction at Heathrow,
> supposedly for the A380. In the nature of public works projects, I
> doubt it will be finished in 2006. Maybe 2007? But it's easier to get
> things through a European local government than it is in the U.S.

The project is actually ahead of schedule too although it 20 years to go
through the planning process before construction actually started.
anyway, what is a European local government, do you mean for example the
United Kingdom government , or the London borough of Hillingdon.

[John R]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Sfb,
>
> > The US government buys products from Boeing. The EU countries continue
> > to give launch subsidies Airbus. There is a difference despite the
> > unproven EU contention that the military sales to the US are somehow
> > subsiding Boeing's commercial aircraft development.
> >
>
> Yeah, right. Sure. Whatever you say...

Well as the Wall Street Journal pointed out, 8/10 Airbus Parent EADS gets
more defense business (from government) than Boeing does. BAE does a lot of
government defense business, even a healthy amount from USA. So even if
you think that selling a product to the government (airplanes, rockets,
pencil sharpeners) is a "subsidy" to the company, even that argument is more
than cancelled out. Note that Airbus doesn't even bother to deny they are
so heavily subsidized anymore, they're only defense is "well, but but but
Boeing does it too!" Right.

Meanwhile Airbus enjoys massive government subsidies such as risk free
launch loans for products, direct financial subsidies, reduced interest
loans, and massive infrastructure construction. $4 Billion launch aid for
A380 alone. Airbus will likely sucessfully shake down governments for at
least $1 billion of launch aid for the A350 if it hasn't already. The A380
required enormous infrastructure building, such as bridges, canals, roads
etc. just so that parts could be moved around Europe from one factory to
another until they reach the final assembly in Toulouse, France.

Oh and a healthy share of Airbus/EADS's ownership is by government as well.

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:30:19 -0000, "Chris" >
wrote:

>Two things - they are building terminal 5 at Heathrow and that will be the
>new British Airways terminal and will be in operation in 2007.

Yes, I meant to say 5. Jet lag, you know!

So my driver lied to me about Airbus?

>The A 380 will mainly be using terminal 3 and that is A380 ready with
>strengthen ramps and taxiways already done. In addition they double deck
>loading piers are also in place.

Huh. I flew out of 3 last week. (What an awful design! You walk for
what seems like miles, a la Miami airport.) Some gates were closed
off; perhaps those were the double-deckers?



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:30:19 -0000, "Chris" >
wrote:

>Many of the airports on the main service routes are also ready if not near
>ready. They main revenue routes will be Europe to the middle East and Asia.
>emirates are having 45 A380s and see Dubai developing as one of the biggest
>hubs in the world.
>

And JFK?

Or will we be spared this monstrosity, the way we were (more or less)
spared the Concorde?

I flew over and back this month on 747s, which I had sworn never to
fly again. Happily the plane was mostly empty going, and largely empty
returning, so I got the best of both worlds: three or four seats to
sleep on, and fairly fast luggage retrieval.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:36:50 -0000, "Chris" >
wrote:

>a European local government, do you mean for example the
>United Kingdom government , or the London borough of Hillingdon

I was assuming a county council. Perhaps a borough does the job in
this case?

Good grief! London extends 30 miles into the countryside?


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Chris]

What do you mean by a healthy share?
"John R" > wrote in message ...
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
>> Sfb,
>>
>> > The US government buys products from Boeing. The EU countries continue
>> > to give launch subsidies Airbus. There is a difference despite the
>> > unproven EU contention that the military sales to the US are somehow
>> > subsiding Boeing's commercial aircraft development.
>> >
>>
>> Yeah, right. Sure. Whatever you say...
>
> Well as the Wall Street Journal pointed out, 8/10 Airbus Parent EADS gets
> more defense business (from government) than Boeing does. BAE does a lot
> of
> government defense business, even a healthy amount from USA. So even if
> you think that selling a product to the government (airplanes, rockets,
> pencil sharpeners) is a "subsidy" to the company, even that argument is
> more
> than cancelled out. Note that Airbus doesn't even bother to deny they are
> so heavily subsidized anymore, they're only defense is "well, but but but
> Boeing does it too!" Right.
>
> Meanwhile Airbus enjoys massive government subsidies such as risk free
> launch loans for products, direct financial subsidies, reduced interest
> loans, and massive infrastructure construction. $4 Billion launch aid for
> A380 alone. Airbus will likely sucessfully shake down governments for at
> least $1 billion of launch aid for the A350 if it hasn't already. The
> A380
> required enormous infrastructure building, such as bridges, canals, roads
> etc. just so that parts could be moved around Europe from one factory to
> another until they reach the final assembly in Toulouse, France.
>
> Oh and a healthy share of Airbus/EADS's ownership is by government as
> well.
>

[John R]

Chris wrote:

> What do you mean by a healthy share?

On the EADS side about 0.06% of stock is held directly by government of
France. 30.17% is held by SOGEADE of which government of France owns half.
5.51% is owned by SEPI, which is a holding company of the government of Spain.

>
> "John R" > wrote in message ...
> > Thomas Borchert wrote:
> >
> >> Sfb,
> >>
> >> > The US government buys products from Boeing. The EU countries continue
> >> > to give launch subsidies Airbus. There is a difference despite the
> >> > unproven EU contention that the military sales to the US are somehow
> >> > subsiding Boeing's commercial aircraft development.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yeah, right. Sure. Whatever you say...
> >
> > Well as the Wall Street Journal pointed out, 8/10 Airbus Parent EADS gets
> > more defense business (from government) than Boeing does. BAE does a lot
> > of
> > government defense business, even a healthy amount from USA. So even if
> > you think that selling a product to the government (airplanes, rockets,
> > pencil sharpeners) is a "subsidy" to the company, even that argument is
> > more
> > than cancelled out. Note that Airbus doesn't even bother to deny they are
> > so heavily subsidized anymore, they're only defense is "well, but but but
> > Boeing does it too!" Right.
> >
> > Meanwhile Airbus enjoys massive government subsidies such as risk free
> > launch loans for products, direct financial subsidies, reduced interest
> > loans, and massive infrastructure construction. $4 Billion launch aid for
> > A380 alone. Airbus will likely sucessfully shake down governments for at
> > least $1 billion of launch aid for the A350 if it hasn't already. The
> > A380
> > required enormous infrastructure building, such as bridges, canals, roads
> > etc. just so that parts could be moved around Europe from one factory to
> > another until they reach the final assembly in Toulouse, France.
> >
> > Oh and a healthy share of Airbus/EADS's ownership is by government as
> > well.
> >

[Chris]

So hardly owned by the governments then! No controlling interests and no
direct holdings either and if you extracted the Government owned shares
prorata, the governments own 20% of 80% of EADS interest in Airbus, BAE owns
20% of Airbus. (WAW)


"John R" >
>> What do you mean by a healthy share?
>
> On the EADS side about 0.06% of stock is held directly by government of
> France. 30.17% is held by SOGEADE of which government of France owns
> half.
> 5.51% is owned by SEPI, which is a holding company of the government of
> Spain.
>
>>
>> "John R" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sfb,
>> >>
>> >> > The US government buys products from Boeing. The EU countries
>> >> > continue
>> >> > to give launch subsidies Airbus. There is a difference despite the
>> >> > unproven EU contention that the military sales to the US are somehow
>> >> > subsiding Boeing's commercial aircraft development.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, right. Sure. Whatever you say...
>> >
>> > Well as the Wall Street Journal pointed out, 8/10 Airbus Parent EADS
>> > gets
>> > more defense business (from government) than Boeing does. BAE does a
>> > lot
>> > of
>> > government defense business, even a healthy amount from USA. So even
>> > if
>> > you think that selling a product to the government (airplanes, rockets,
>> > pencil sharpeners) is a "subsidy" to the company, even that argument is
>> > more
>> > than cancelled out. Note that Airbus doesn't even bother to deny they
>> > are
>> > so heavily subsidized anymore, they're only defense is "well, but but
>> > but
>> > Boeing does it too!" Right.
>> >
>> > Meanwhile Airbus enjoys massive government subsidies such as risk free
>> > launch loans for products, direct financial subsidies, reduced interest
>> > loans, and massive infrastructure construction. $4 Billion launch aid
>> > for
>> > A380 alone. Airbus will likely sucessfully shake down governments for
>> > at
>> > least $1 billion of launch aid for the A350 if it hasn't already. The
>> > A380
>> > required enormous infrastructure building, such as bridges, canals,
>> > roads
>> > etc. just so that parts could be moved around Europe from one factory
>> > to
>> > another until they reach the final assembly in Toulouse, France.
>> >
>> > Oh and a healthy share of Airbus/EADS's ownership is by government as
>> > well.
>> >
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

The question should be is there an individual stock holder that owns more
EADS stock than SOGEADE? If not the government of France has effective
control of the company.





"Chris" > wrote in message
...
> So hardly owned by the governments then! No controlling interests and no
> direct holdings either and if you extracted the Government owned shares
> prorata, the governments own 20% of 80% of EADS interest in Airbus, BAE
> owns 20% of Airbus. (WAW)
>
>
> "John R" >
>>> What do you mean by a healthy share?
>>
>> On the EADS side about 0.06% of stock is held directly by government of
>> France. 30.17% is held by SOGEADE of which government of France owns
>> half.
>> 5.51% is owned by SEPI, which is a holding company of the government of
>> Spain.
>>
>>>
>>> "John R" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Sfb,
>>> >>
>>> >> > The US government buys products from Boeing. The EU countries
>>> >> > continue
>>> >> > to give launch subsidies Airbus. There is a difference despite the
>>> >> > unproven EU contention that the military sales to the US are
>>> >> > somehow
>>> >> > subsiding Boeing's commercial aircraft development.
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Yeah, right. Sure. Whatever you say...
>>> >
>>> > Well as the Wall Street Journal pointed out, 8/10 Airbus Parent EADS
>>> > gets
>>> > more defense business (from government) than Boeing does. BAE does a
>>> > lot
>>> > of
>>> > government defense business, even a healthy amount from USA. So even
>>> > if
>>> > you think that selling a product to the government (airplanes,
>>> > rockets,
>>> > pencil sharpeners) is a "subsidy" to the company, even that argument
>>> > is
>>> > more
>>> > than cancelled out. Note that Airbus doesn't even bother to deny they
>>> > are
>>> > so heavily subsidized anymore, they're only defense is "well, but but
>>> > but
>>> > Boeing does it too!" Right.
>>> >
>>> > Meanwhile Airbus enjoys massive government subsidies such as risk free
>>> > launch loans for products, direct financial subsidies, reduced
>>> > interest
>>> > loans, and massive infrastructure construction. $4 Billion launch aid
>>> > for
>>> > A380 alone. Airbus will likely sucessfully shake down governments for
>>> > at
>>> > least $1 billion of launch aid for the A350 if it hasn't already.
>>> > The
>>> > A380
>>> > required enormous infrastructure building, such as bridges, canals,
>>> > roads
>>> > etc. just so that parts could be moved around Europe from one factory
>>> > to
>>> > another until they reach the final assembly in Toulouse, France.
>>> >
>>> > Oh and a healthy share of Airbus/EADS's ownership is by government as
>>> > well.
>>> >
>>
>
>

[Chris]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
> The question should be is there an individual stock holder that owns more
> EADS stock than SOGEADE? If not the government of France has effective
> control of the company.

********!