Petition for keeping one Concorde flying

"Ali Hopkins" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
news

"Ali Hopkins" wrote in message
...

"Bryan Martin" wrote in message
...
in article , Steve Firth
at
wrote on 2/7/04 3:07 PM:


sigh The development at the taxpayers expense in the UK and
France
was
factored into the cost of Concorde. The development at the
taxpayers
expense of Boeing aircraft is a hidden subsidy.

The main reason the U. S. SST project was cancelled is because the
government wouldn't subsidize it and Boeing couldn't see any profit
in
building it on their own. This kind of blows a hole in your hidden
subsidy
argument.

So, as I asked previously, how come the Shuttle got built?


It's my understanding that Boeing developed and built the 747 with
their
own
money because of strong airline interest in such an airplane. Of
course
some
of the money came from profits from military contracts, but that's
not
quite
the same as a "hidden subsidy". The 747 has been a very profitable
airplane
for both Boeing and the airlines that operate them.

Which is presumably why so many are now moving to Airbus fleets?

An 80 cent Euro is far more attractive than a $1.20 one, as far as
Airbus
airplanes go.



Doesn't explain BA buying them. The pound has slipped against the Euro
over the last few years.

No.

The Euro tanked, while the pound held above $1.60. If BA made their
purchase at the two euro to the Pound rate, they did very well on the deal.
AI exists under a complicated interleaved set of money hedges.