Airline passengers subsidizing private aviation

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news
Hardly. The United States isn't like Europe. Practically every European
company with more than 100 employees is in bed with one or more
governments,
and may even be wholly or partially owned by governments.

I think that you may have exagerated that slightly.

Besides, Airbus is so poorly managed that it can self-destruct all by
itself,

And Boeing and its hidden subsidies isn't?

and the market for the A380 in the U.S. is likely to be extremely limited,
anyway, as the current modest fleet of 747s demonstrates.

I don't think anyone doubts that at all.

The big maarket for the A380 will almost certainly be the Far East where
very large numbers of people want to fly reasonably large distances and
economic expantion will allow them to do so very soon.

We live in a world where 20% of the world's population lives in two
countries and those two countries are experiencing economic growth at
phenominal rates.

It's a lot better than Europe, where major contracts are won by bribes,
governments spy on foreign competitors, every sound business decision is
overruled by a Eurocrat, and no company of significant size can be
operated
without government interference.

What US company operates without government interference?

--
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.

William Black writes:

I think that you may have exagerated that slightly.

Unfortunately, I don't think I have. I'm regularly amazed by the extent to
which government interferes with everything in most of Europe.

Does the President of the United States appear at the launch of a new civilian
aircraft in the U.S.?

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 big maarket for the A380 will almost certainly be the Far East where
very large numbers of people want to fly reasonably large distances and
economic expantion will allow them to do so very soon.

In which case an emphasis on developing smaller airports in the U.S. isn't
likely to be a conspiracy to help Boeing, contrary to the original assertion
that I addressed.

We live in a world where 20% of the world's population lives in two
countries and those two countries are experiencing economic growth at
phenominal rates.

And they are exhausting resources at phenomenal rates. Unless they control
their populations, the bubble will eventually burst, and it won't be that far
in the future.

What US company operates without government interference?

Essentially all of them. The President of France intervened to choose the
color of the roof of a building at Disneyland Paris. Can you imagine the
President of the United States intervening to select a color for a building at
Walt Disney World?

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

"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.

We live in a world where 20% of the world's population lives in two
countries and those two countries are experiencing economic growth at
phenominal rates.

And they are exhausting resources at phenomenal rates. Unless they
control
their populations, the bubble will eventually burst, and it won't be that
far
in the future.

What resources?

India's economic turnaround is almost all based around its huge English
speaking population working in telecommunications based service industries.

China is making manufactured goods for the West to Western patterns in
factories designed ijn the West.

Neither country has any serious resources that they're selling, the
resource making the money is cheap people.

An Indian graduate with a higher degree will work, in India, for $10,000 a
year and think they've got a very good job.

--
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.




What US company operates without government interference?

Essentially all of them.

So there's no regulation of industry there.

And here's me thinking environmental legislation was taking some sort of
hold, not to mention the banning of the 'company store'...

William Black writes:

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

Those aren't subsidies, they are margins, which contribute to the profit of
the contractor. All government contractors pad their contracts, especially
military contracts.

What resources?

Water, arable land, fossil fuels, clean air, etc.

India's economic turnaround is almost all based around its huge English
speaking population working in telecommunications based service industries.

I hope it is looking at more long-term prospects.

Neither country has any serious resources that they're selling, ...

They are consuming resources, not selling them.

An Indian graduate with a higher degree will work, in India, for $10,000 a
year and think they've got a very good job.

Compared to the cost of living, he may be right. But that will change (is
changing, in fact).

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

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

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

Those aren't subsidies, they are margins, which contribute to the profit
of
the contractor. All government contractors pad their contracts,
especially
military contracts.

What resources?

Water, arable land, fossil fuels, clean air, etc.

India and China have very few fosil fuels, they both import them. They
have both managed to become self sufficient in food and their agricultural
land utilisation is rather good. Clean air isn't of any great interest in
societies where drinking water is a scarce resource.

India's economic turnaround is almost all based around its huge English
speaking population working in telecommunications based service
industries.

I hope it is looking at more long-term prospects.

Well they're busy buying up large amounts of European industry.
Interestingly neither of them are investing in the USA despite having huge
amounts of dollars.

What do you suggest as an alternative to telecommunications in the long
term?

Neither country has any serious resources that they're selling, ...

They are consuming resources, not selling them.

So?

They can afford to pay for them.

Welcome to the globalised world...

An Indian graduate with a higher degree will work, in India, for
$10,000 a
year and think they've got a very good job.

Compared to the cost of living, he may be right. But that will change (is
changing, in fact).

Inflation in India runs at about 6% per year.

Last year I took four people out for dinner in a fashionable restaurant
there for less than $25, including cocktails, and I do mean fashionable...

Next year it may be $26:50...

When's it going to be $100 each?

--
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.

"William Black" wrote ....

Well they're busy buying up large amounts of European industry.
Interestingly neither of them are investing in the USA despite having huge
amounts of dollars.


Individual (and family) Indian investors represent among the largest
"repatriators" of US Dollars for investment in the US, with undeveloped real
estate, commercial buildings and hotel/motel properties among the most
popular investments.

The fastest area of investment growth by Chinese nationals involves the
construction and ownership of residential rental properties, of which the
"industry standard" seems to be four and eight plexes for student rentals
close to universities in smaller US cities. The reverse dollar flow for
such investing is slim, with most of the funds coming from US mortgage
lenders with full coffers and low rates. Surveys of Chinese working in the
US indicate substantial dollars exported to China for family maintenance,
the classic flow of earnings by legal and illegal Mexican/Central American
immigrants. Because of their extremely low profiles and low
apprehension/deportation rates, accurate data is hard to find for illegal
Chinese, but given avenues for remitting funds, "Family maintenance"
payments rank up there with "Paying the coyote

Part of the background for this type of investment....

US immigration laws are heavily weighted in favor of applicants with
substantial "real property" in the US. Own a big enough piece of a motel,
even in Dime Box, and you can set up residence.

TMO

"TMOliver" wrote in message
...

"William Black" wrote ....

Well they're busy buying up large amounts of European industry.
Interestingly neither of them are investing in the USA despite having
huge amounts of dollars.


Individual (and family) Indian investors represent among the largest
"repatriators" of US Dollars for investment in the US, with undeveloped
real estate, commercial buildings and hotel/motel properties among the
most popular investments.

Oh come on.

Tata just bought British Steel.

Laxmi Mittal just bought Arcelor.

Let me know when an Indian buys US Steel...

--
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 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?.


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

"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 *