Airbus to set up China plant

[Larry Dighera]

The aviation market is changing:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-10/27/content_718481.htm
Airbus to set up China plant

Getting a strong foothold in China's vast market could be
strategically important for Airbus in the long term. Rival Boeing
Co. of Chicago says China will require about 2,880 new jetliners,
with a catalog value of $280 billion, by 2025.




http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/HC14Cb07.html
China renews airliner manufacturing plan

BEIJING - Almost 30 years after China's first attempt to build a
large airliner was scrapped, the government has announced that the
project will be resumed in its new 2006-10 five-year plan in hopes
of realizing the Chinese aircraft industry's longtime dream to
meet the country's growing demand for air travel.


So it appears that Aribus will train the workforce for their
competition. How cleaver. :-(

[Denny]

>
> So it appears that Aribus will train the workforce for their
> competition. How cleaver. :-(


Same crap the USA has done over the decades... We gave away much of
the technology the world now uses against us...

denny

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> So it appears that Aribus will train the workforce for their
> competition. How cleaver. :-(

It's a typical case of greed favoring short-term profits at the expense of
long-term viability. The Chinese will take all the technology that they are
given, and then will start building their own aircraft, cutting Western
manufacturers out of the loop. Any Western aircraft manufacturer that fails
to realize this has to be incredibly stupid.

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

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 19, 9:24 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Larry Dighera writes:
> > So it appears that Aribus will train the workforce for their
> > competition. How cleaver. :-(
>
> It's a typical case of greed favoring short-term profits at the expense of
> long-term viability. The Chinese will take all the technology that they are
> given, and then will start building their own aircraft, cutting Western
> manufacturers out of the loop. Any Western aircraft manufacturer that fails
> to realize this has to be incredibly stupid.

And increasing efficiency in production is bad because.....???? I
think your socialist upbringing (French, right?) has taught you that
the purpose of a company is to provide employement. Just wrong. I look
forward to the less expensive flights that will eventually come. My
biggest fear is that China does nothing, Airbus goes broke (losses
gov't backing) and Boeing will have no competition.

-Robert, MBA

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> And increasing efficiency in production is bad because.....????

Who said anything about increasing efficiency?

> I think your socialist upbringing (French, right?) ...

Think again. Since you are wrong about this, what else might you be wrong
about?

> ... the purpose of a company is to provide employement. Just wrong.

Not entirely wrong. I believe that large companies have an obligation to
society in addition to an obligation to their owners. Additionally, those
that behave this way tend to make more money, anyway.

> I look forward to the less expensive flights that will eventually come.

What makes you think that flights will be any less expensive?

> My biggest fear is that China does nothing, Airbus goes broke (losses
> gov't backing) and Boeing will have no competition.

Boeing already has very little competition. Airbus barely counts.

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

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 19, 10:55 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
> > And increasing efficiency in production is bad because.....????
>
> Who said anything about increasing efficiency?

Products at less costs define "efficiency" of production. Grab a high
school economics book.

> > I think your socialist upbringing (French, right?) ...
> Think again. Since you are wrong about this, what else might you be wrong
> about?

France is (and is proud of being ) a socialist country. Only a
Frenchman wouldn't notice that.

> > ... the purpose of a company is to provide employement. Just wrong.
>
> Not entirely wrong. I believe that large companies have an obligation to
> society in addition to an obligation to their owners.

Totally wrong in a capitalist society by definition. The obligation to
society is to maximize efficiency (i.e. make lots of money by
providing consumers with great value)

> > I look forward to the less expensive flights that will eventually come.
>
> What makes you think that flights will be any less expensive?

Less expensive airplane + competition = better consumer value.
Something you would learn in a high school economics class, and the
primary reason leftist have fought hard against teaching economics.

> > My biggest fear is that China does nothing, Airbus goes broke (losses
> > gov't backing) and Boeing will have no competition.
>
> Boeing already has very little competition. Airbus barely counts.

"Barely" is certainly wrong. Airbus shipments and orders continue to
keep pace w/Boeing. If Airbus got out of the business Boeing prices
would probably increase at least 20%. Since the French gov't puts to
much of its own money into Airbus, the effect is France is subsidizing
my flights! I'm ok with that.

-Robert

[john smith]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> The aviation market is changing:
>
> http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-10/27/content_718481.htm
> Airbus to set up China plant
>
> Getting a strong foothold in China's vast market could be
> strategically important for Airbus in the long term. Rival Boeing
> Co. of Chicago says China will require about 2,880 new jetliners,
> with a catalog value of $280 billion, by 2025.
>
>
>
>
> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/HC14Cb07.html
> China renews airliner manufacturing plan
>
> BEIJING - Almost 30 years after China's first attempt to build a
> large airliner was scrapped, the government has announced that the
> project will be resumed in its new 2006-10 five-year plan in hopes
> of realizing the Chinese aircraft industry's longtime dream to
> meet the country's growing demand for air travel.
>
>
> So it appears that Aribus will train the workforce for their
> competition. How cleaver. :-(

Gosh Larry, how slow are you?
The WSJ had an article last week or two weeks ago stating that China
would produce a domestically built for domestic use by 2020.

[Mxsmanic]

Mxsmaniac writes:

> Careful, your sense of entitlement is showing.

It is more like my sense of altruism.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> Products at less costs define "efficiency" of production.

Offshoring of product components in exchange for a signature on a sales
contract defines technology transfer, and characterizes greed for short-term
gains at the expense of the long term.

> France is (and is proud of being ) a socialist country. Only a
> Frenchman wouldn't notice that.

France has snapped out of the extremely pro-socialist mentality it once had.
It's now much closer to the European norm, which is admittedly still very
socialist compared to the U.S. Proof of this is that Airbus is willing to
trade its future for the present.

> Totally wrong in a capitalist society by definition.

That's one of the problems with a purely capitalist society. Large
corporations owned by large numbers of anonymous shareholders are somewhat of
a pox on society today in many cases, as they have only profit as a priority,
and have no other considerations or corporate conscience at all.

> The obligation to
> society is to maximize efficiency (i.e. make lots of money by
> providing consumers with great value)

The obligation of a corporation in a capitalist society is to make the
greatest amount of money with the least amount of effort. Unfortunately, the
way you describe is only one of several ways to do that, and since it isn't
the most lucrative, it isn't usually the method used.

> Less expensive airplane + competition = better consumer value.

What competition?

Competition also equates to less safety, unless aviation is very highly
regulated and the regulations are enforced.

> "Barely" is certainly wrong. Airbus shipments and orders continue to
> keep pace w/Boeing.

Over the past few years, Boeing has been doing much better. And with mistakes
like the A380 being made on the part of Airbus, and its internal political
management (as opposed to corporate management), Boeing stands to continue
doing better.

> If Airbus got out of the business Boeing prices
> would probably increase at least 20%. Since the French gov't puts to
> much of its own money into Airbus, the effect is France is subsidizing
> my flights! I'm ok with that.

Europe is subsidizing Airbus, because it's a government entity, not a private
corporation. Most corporations of non-trivial size in Europe are in bed with
at least one or two European governments; it is considered normal by
Europeans, like bribery.

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

[Mxsmanic]

john smith writes:

> The WSJ had an article last week or two weeks ago stating that China
> would produce a domestically built for domestic use by 2020.

And it will use all the technology they've managed to take from Airbus and
Boeing. It saves a lot of research.

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

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 03:27:41 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>That's one of the problems with a purely capitalist society. Large
>corporations owned by large numbers of anonymous shareholders are somewhat of
>a pox on society today in many cases, as they have only profit as a priority,
>and have no other considerations or corporate conscience at all.

What's worse, is the enormous lobbying power large corporations are
able to wield in influencing law making. The government of, for, and
by the people has become a government of, for, and by heartless,
bottom-line driven, corporate avarice.

The people must take back their government by outlawing corporate
influence in government affairs, and limiting the interest of
government to that which most benefits the people, the environment,
and the _future_ of the nation.

Easy for me to say, eh?

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> What's worse, is the enormous lobbying power large corporations are
> able to wield in influencing law making. The government of, for, and
> by the people has become a government of, for, and by heartless,
> bottom-line driven, corporate avarice.
>
> The people must take back their government by outlawing corporate
> influence in government affairs, and limiting the interest of
> government to that which most benefits the people, the environment,
> and the _future_ of the nation.
>
> Easy for me to say, eh?

And theoretically easy to do. But that's not the way that democracies
normally evolve.

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

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> So it appears that Aribus will train the workforce for their
>> competition. How cleaver. :-(
>
> It's a typical case of greed favoring short-term profits at the
> expense of long-term viability. The Chinese will take all the
> technology that they are given, and then will start building their own
> aircraft, cutting Western manufacturers out of the loop. Any Western
> aircraft manufacturer that fails to realize this has to be incredibly
> stupid.

Maybe you should tell them how stupid they're being. Perhaps they'll
listen to an expert like you.


Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:41:30 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >:

>
>The aviation market is changing:
>
> http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-10/27/content_718481.htm
> Airbus to set up China plant
>
> Getting a strong foothold in China's vast market could be
> strategically important for Airbus in the long term. Rival Boeing
> Co. of Chicago says China will require about 2,880 new jetliners,
> with a catalog value of $280 billion, by 2025.
>
>
>
>
> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/HC14Cb07.html
> China renews airliner manufacturing plan
>
> BEIJING - Almost 30 years after China's first attempt to build a
> large airliner was scrapped, the government has announced that the
> project will be resumed in its new 2006-10 five-year plan in hopes
> of realizing the Chinese aircraft industry's longtime dream to
> meet the country's growing demand for air travel.
>
>
>So it appears that Aribus will train the workforce for their
>competition. How cleaver. :-(


CHINA RELEASES IMAGES OF FUTURE "JUMBO" JET

If the images portrayed by China's Xinhua news agency
(http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-04/06/content_5943906.htm) are
accurate, China's jetliner for the 21st century looks suspiciously
like a Russian military transport from the 1970s. The high-wing,
high-tailed creation, with its multiple banks of landing gear trucks
clustered under the fuselage, looks like the big Antonovs that still
toil as chartered military cargo aircraft. It looks nothing like the
sleek shape of the Boeing 787 that many consider the technology driver
of the next generation of commercial airliners. Still, China seems
pretty excited about its chances in the world market. "China's jumbo
aircraft will initially target the domestic market. But the ultimate
aim is to compete with Boeing and Airbus on the international market,"
said Jin Qiansheng, deputy director of the administrative committee of
Xi'an Yanliang State Aviation High-tech Industry Base.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/841-full.html#194887