Airline passengers subsidizing private aviation

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 *

On Apr 17, 11:37 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Apologies if someone else has already posted this:

http://us.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/16/....ap/index.html

Somebody really hates GA.

When I read the article it didn't sound at all like someone who hates
General Aviation. It sounded like a standard CNN attack on business.
("globe trotting corporate executive")

I wasn't sure if I was reading CNN or the Worker's World Daily. No
that there is that much difference any more.

On 2007-04-17 21:37:31 -0700, Tchiowa said:

On Apr 17, 11:37 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Apologies if someone else has already posted this:

http://us.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/16/....ap/index.html

Somebody really hates GA.

When I read the article it didn't sound at all like someone who hates
General Aviation. It sounded like a standard CNN attack on business.
("globe trotting corporate executive")

I wasn't sure if I was reading CNN or the Worker's World Daily. No
that there is that much difference any more.

Don't you just love revolutionary rhetoric? And yet CNN is using it
more and more. I expect to hear "running dogs of capitalism" any day
now.

I can see it now:

"Once again we see that globe-trotting corporate bandits and their
lackey pilots are stealing bread from the mouths of the oppressed
masses of air travelers. The running dogs of capitalism must be brought
to heel. For an unbiased report, we turn to Comrade Barbara Boxer, who
has joined CNN after retiring from the oppressive establishment
patriarchy. Comrade Boxer, can the entrenched pigs at Congress do
anything to stop this theft, or are they too corrupt to do anything
about even this?"

"I am sad to say that Congress and the Administration are still
controlled by capitalist gangsters, Comrade Anderson Cooper. But of
course, you know this, being a part of the white male oppressive
patriarchy, not to mention a deluded religious fanatic ever since your
conversion to Islam. And what are these so-called 'general aviation'
planes doing? Hauling their fat cat bosses around in unparalleled
luxury as they flit from one smoke-filled room to another, planning
their next nefarious assault on the poor working slaves of the world."

"What about Comrade Gore? Doesn't he also fly a private jet?"

"Of course not. Comrade Gore's jet belongs to the people, as does our
beloved Gore. Therefore they gratefully support his travels in his
never-ending fight against capitalist gangsters by using the pigs' own
tools against them."

"Thank you, Comrade Boxer. Now, for an alternate point of view, we have
Comrade Patty Murray, a Senator from the State of Washington. Tell us
how your views differ from those of Comrade Boxer, Comrade Murray."

"Comrade Boxer is a Trotskyite revisionist pig, but otherwise she is
right on target with this one, Brother."

"And so, despite overwhelming unanimity that the captalist bosses and
their corporate tools should no longer be allowed to use the airways
for free, President Clinton refuses to budge from the promise made by
her corrupt husband when he was President -- that there will be no user
fees for these robber barons or their lackeys."
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"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 *

On Apr 18, 3:10 pm, "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.

The US government buys planes. That's a whole lot different than the
French government shelling out billions in grants and loans to EADS so
that Airbus doesn't collapse under the weight of its own
inefficiencies.

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 mean the one that didn't get anywhere but Airbus was using to try
to justify the enormous and constant subsidies they get from European
governments?

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
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
m...
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.

The Airbus case is that the US government gives Boeing large sums of money
for research into military projects and Boeing uses the technology developed
in its civilian products.

--
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.

"Tchiowa" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 18, 3:10 pm, "William Black"

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 mean the one that didn't get anywhere but Airbus was using to try
to justify the enormous and constant subsidies they get from European
governments?

No.

The one where Boeing gets a huge wadge of cash from Uncle Sugar for military
research and does research into civilian or dual use applications that it
then marks 'classified'.


--
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.

"Tchiowa" wrote:


Somebody really hates GA.

When I read the article it didn't sound at all like someone who hates
General Aviation. It sounded like a standard CNN attack on business.
("globe trotting corporate executive")


It is useful to remember that the haters are the airlines and the ones they
hate are the bizjets, who are taking an ever-larger share of their most
profitable passengers away from them. The prospect of hundreds of VLJ air
taxis terrifies them. They really don't give a rat's butt about pipsqueaks
like us. If we are "collateral damage" in their campaign, well, too bad.

Any time you hear a phrase like "globe trotting corporate executive" on TV,
you may rightly suspect it came straight from the airlines' P. R. and lobbying
apparatus. TV networks, ever in search of superficial, sensational sound
bites and too lazy to do any research, will open wide for this kind of stuff.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

On Apr 18, 5:07 am, "William Black"
wrote:
"Tchiowa" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Apr 18, 3:10 pm, "William Black"
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 mean the one that didn't get anywhere but Airbus was using to try
to justify the enormous and constant subsidies they get from European
governments?

No.

The one where Boeing gets a huge wadge of cash from Uncle Sugar for military
research and does research into civilian or dual use applications that it
then marks 'classified'.

Probably what is being alluded to is known as "independent research
and
developement" or IRAD's for short. There was a time, long gone, that
the government would refund research dollars on "approved" programs
anywhere from about 50% to 95%. That doesn't really exist anymore.
We are allowed to "expense" our research as part of our "overhead"
charge, but that charge is a competetive feature of our bids so it
can alter the ability to win contracts in the first place. As such,
there
is a disincentive to "bill" too much research to the government.

FWIW, there is no great attraction to having something marked as
classified. It hinders the ability to use the technology outside of
military contracts. (To some extent even within them). There are
methodologies for getting the "exported" to commercial contacts,
but it is hard and leaves one in a position of having to ask
permission
of the government. The answer is not unfrequently "no".

I understand the complaint about the military contract effect upon
the commercial nature of the airliner business. But there is
no fiscal comparison to the huge loan guarentees that Airbus
got and the contracts that Boeing gets. Boeing has to use
all of the money for the military contract (less profit, which
is generally negotiated up front). SOME of the technology
assuredly is transferrable, but not as much as one might think
since military specs are often well in excess of commercial specs.
The singular largest advantage is the facilities and manufacturing
equipment. Unfortunately for Boeing, more and more of this is
being done outside of Boeing and so they lose that advantage.