U.S. airlines must now reveal where aircraft were built

On 2005-06-23 12:22, Robert J Carpenter wrote:
The problem with ALL the comments on this subject is that the original
story was sloppy reporting.

I think you will find that the rule does NOT say "BUILT", it says
"ASSEMBLED". There's a _world_ of difference (pun intended). A plane
can be _assembled_ in country U, even if every last part comes from
other countries. That would apparently satisfy this labeling law!!!
Yes it's xenophobic and intended to support company B, but the wording
was carefully chosen for the desired effect.



For this final assembly requirement, you could have a plane assembled in
whatever country, except the last non-essential part, fly it to a US
location, and screw in that part.

And the final assembly part is the plaque saying 'made in the US'?


(I recall some stories from long ago when low quality products were made
in a cheap-labour country, and their factories where named after various
other countries and the products were stamped as if made elsewhere.
Though at that time 'made in xxx' was more a quality assurance than
protectionism.)

/Rolf

"Rolf Blom" wrote in message
...
On 2005-06-23 12:22, Robert J Carpenter wrote:
The problem with ALL the comments on this subject is that the original
story was sloppy reporting.

I
(I recall some stories from long ago when low quality products were made
in a cheap-labour country, and their factories where named after various
other countries and the products were stamped as if made elsewhere.
Though at that time 'made in xxx' was more a quality assurance than
protectionism.)



Urban Legend

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/usa.asp

U.S. airlines must tell passengers where planes were built

How about telling passengers the nationalities of the pilot and flight
crew? Post 9-11 paran^H^H^H^H^Hsecurity measure, no?

Jose
(snipped to r.a.piloting)
--
My other car is up my nose.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

And what is supposed to be printed on the pants of the pilots????

Tattooed. And notarized.

Jose
--
My other car is up my nose.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 02:07:02 -0700, David Herman wrote:

I think it might be at least as interesting to see notices indicating where
*maintenance* was done.

A greater awareness of the practice of US (and probably European) carriers
flying their planes off to overseas bases for maintenance might make for
some interesting discussions.

why?
whoever does the best job for the best price should win the contract
(weired that his has to be explained by a European). I don't want to see
protection of local based businesses ONLY because they are local. If you
don't perform you should do better.

#m
--
http://www.hotze.priv.at/album/aviation/caution.jpg

I think this rule could actually be good.

Imagine the black eye the rabid US politicians would get IF it turns out
that Airbus aircraft have greater US contents than the newer Boeing jets
?

"This Boeing plane was 42% built in the USA"
"This Airbus plane was 43% built in the USA.


Even if Boeing still has greater "made in USA" contents percentage, it
would outline the fact that Boeing is now relying on foreign content and
subsidies to a verty large extent and this would hurt egos in the USA.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 23:17:33 -0400, nobody
wrote:

I think this rule could actually be good.

Imagine the black eye the rabid US politicians would get IF it turns out
that Airbus aircraft have greater US contents than the newer Boeing jets
?

"This Boeing plane was 42% built in the USA"
"This Airbus plane was 43% built in the USA.

Measured by cost? weight? volume? numbers employed? flow-on
dollars to the community?

Even if Boeing still has greater "made in USA" contents percentage, it
would outline the fact that Boeing is now relying on foreign content and
subsidies to a very large extent and this would hurt egos in the USA.

It's nice to see that the bureaucrats of other countries are
just as silly, in their ivory towers, as ours are.


Cheers, Alan, Australia