Petition for keeping one Concorde flying

"pacplyer" wrote in message
om...
"Ali Hopkins" wrote in message
...


none of the quoted stuff Would you mind trimming so that you attribute
properly?

Ali

nuttin hidden about it... NASA, ex NACA, is charged with promoting and
developing flight technology for the good of the country... Ever look at
the Theory of Wing Sections Abbot and Doenhoff? The taxpayers funded the
major portion of the development and tunnel testing of the wing sections
contained... Is that some sort of conspiracy?... If we ever do have an SST,
regardless of the company brand on the side, it will have to be a
consortium of companies to spread the cost the basic technology and tunnel
testing will be heavily funded by the taxpayers and NASA will be in it up to
it's ears, or we won't have one...
Same thing happened with the Concorde, and the Airbus, and MIG's in Russia,
etc., etc....Guess I don't follow your reasoning...
cheers ... denny

"Steve Firth" wrote in NASA provided all wind
tunnel test facilities free of charge to Boeing.
It's a matter of record. That's a massive (hidden) public subsidy.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Ali Hopkins wrote:

Well, the folks at Wichita I met back in the late 90's were pretty open
about US gummint support.

And when I provided consultancy services to NASA about the
implementation of ISO9000 at their wind tunnel facilities (1998-99),
they were fairly open about the free support they gave to Boeing.

NASA wants to be boeing's friend very badly, but the aero mafia at NASA will
have to be broken first.

"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?


Even today I think you'll find that Boeing gets far less government
"subsidy" than Airbus does. We haven't descended quite as far into the
depths of socialism as France has.



'Scuse, please, we're talking *Concorde* here, not later Airbus projects -
chunks of which are, of course, British, but let's not spoil an argument
with facts. And why on earth do Merikans think that any gummint that doesn't
support Enron type capitalism must be that demon of socialism? I am always
bemused by that particular US view of Europe.

Ali

"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.

Ali Hopkins wrote:

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

You're arguing that the space shuttle is a commercial airliner?

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

"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.

Ali

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Ali Hopkins wrote:

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

You're arguing that the space shuttle is a commercial airliner?


No.

Ali

"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.

"Ali Hopkins" wrote in message
...

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Ali Hopkins wrote:

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

You're arguing that the space shuttle is a commercial airliner?


No.

Ali

The answer to your question is it got built with monies the government
budgeted for the space program.