Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Give Airbus 380 a wink! [JPEG orgy]

Give Airbus 380 a wink! [JPEG orgy] (Page 32)
Thread Tools
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2007, 09:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I can see buying Hondas for government-use sedans. Many Hondas are built in Ohio.
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
I'll believe it when I see it.
Believe it. All over NYC the Sanitation Department and DEP (environmental protection) use Toyota Priuses to get around town. (Even with a hybrid these agencies still suck for abusing their parking privileges.) I don't know if the Prius is made in the States but plenty of other Toyota cars are American Made™.


As for AIr Force One being an Airbus plane, that's doubtful for both political and security reasons. That would be like the President of France flying around in a Boeing jet: Nothing good would come of such a choice.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Andy8
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2007, 09:52 PM
 
Does anyone here know anyone that is on the first commercial flight from Singapore to Sydney on Thursday?
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2007, 10:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
But going with a European consortium as the primary vendor for a presidential support aircraft over an American company is not just politically inappropriate. There are major security issues involved in putting the president (and the ever-present "football") in something that was not built under U.S. supervision. Think back to the "new" U.S. Embassy in Moscow about 20 years ago. Soviet contractors placed so many bugs in the construction that the place was unusable. Security people have long memories and little trust. The Airbus has no chance of being the newest Air Force One.

Reminds me of Jiang Zemin's bugged Boeing.


Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
And while the A380 may hold a buttload of cargo, I similarly doubt that the C-5 will be replaced by it. Or be replaced at all, for that matter. The C-5 has decades of life left in it without going to the level of support used on the B-52.
Especially if RERP happens.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2007, 02:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Believe it. All over NYC the Sanitation Department and DEP (environmental protection) use Toyota Priuses to get around town. (Even with a hybrid these agencies still suck for abusing their parking privileges.) I don't know if the Prius is made in the States but plenty of other Toyota cars are American Made™.
.
I was thinking more along the lines of police force, etc. That is why I gave said example.
As for AIr Force One being an Airbus plane, that's doubtful for both political and security reasons. That would be like the President of France flying around in a Boeing jet: Nothing good would come of such a choice.
Indeed.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2007, 03:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
But going with a European consortium as the primary vendor for a presidential support aircraft over an American company is not just politically inappropriate. There are major security issues involved in putting the president (and the ever-present "football") in something that was not built under U.S. supervision. Think back to the "new" U.S. Embassy in Moscow about 20 years ago. Soviet contractors placed so many bugs in the construction that the place was unusable. Security people have long memories and little trust. The Airbus has no chance of being the newest Air Force One. And while the A380 may hold a buttload of cargo, I similarly doubt that the C-5 will be replaced by it. Or be replaced at all, for that matter. The C-5 has decades of life left in it without going to the level of support used on the B-52.
That also happens with domestic contractors, although I understand the emotional reasoning (Americans/[insert own country here] are inherently more trustable than foreigners). Europe has built many military systems with and for the US, so I don't think that's a practical concern. (China is a different matter, though, I wouldn't trust them …) I remember that this was a big, big deal when our new `oval office' (Kanzleramt) was built in Berlin. (Funny enough, this is called the `Chinese embassy method.')

I'm sure Airbus and the US government will find a solution that would take these security concerns into account. I don't see it happen for political reasons, though. Boeing is still an `American company' (although a lot of parts of the Dreamliner are manufactured abroad as well) while Airbus is `European' (despite the fact that roughly 50 % of the parts are American-made). Unless Boeing screws up of course. Ditto for Lockheed and the C-5.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2007, 01:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by glideslope View Post
The 380F could never provide the lift. The 380F was designed to be a parcel carrier. The request from EADS is simply to prepare them for the KC-767 ADV order. The KC-30, while a good airframe is too slow.

Let's see those SQ fuel burn numbers!!!!!!!
Wipe that froth off your mouth, you have still no technical knowledge of aircraft. In fact just about everything you say is either willfully ignorant or just plain retarded.

The A380F can well provide the lift with a payload of 150000 kg, the C5 Galaxy has a measly 82000 kg payload. C17 even less. The B748F would have a payload of up to 140000 kg.

The A380 wipes the floor with all the competition when it comes to payload.

Economically it is a parcel carrier, but for military purposes fuel costs are irrelevant. The ability to get 150 thousand kilo payload in one trip outweighs some imaginary beancounter economisation.

As for the KC order, yeah the US government better lick Airbus' ass or else Airbus will be very angry with the US government.

Face it Poncho, the US government is seriously looking into the KC30. The KC767 is more unlikely every day now.

860 kmph vs 913 kmph. Peh, that's no dealbreaker. That's the cruising speed on 'economy' fuel usage. They can just throttle up on the 330 and hit Mach 0.95 if needed.

V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2007, 01:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
Wipe that froth off your mouth,
Why did you just give him a frothy beverage?

I am sorry, it's just comments like this made on the internet to belittle the person you are replying to crack me up.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2007, 05:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
That also happens with domestic contractors, although I understand the emotional reasoning (Americans/[insert own country here] are inherently more trustable than foreigners).
Actually it's more pragmatic than that. Boeing has separate companies for defense-oriented work and commercial work, and supposedly all their defense manufacturing people have clearances (no small task, since even a Confidential clearance for a military person is taking over a year to finish lately). Having a security clearance DOES mean that a person is more trustable (and generally more trustworthy) than an un-cleared worker.
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
I guess China's domestic aircraft industry should have been better funded and more reliable... Oops! That must have been the point behind China ordering an American aircraft for Jiang... (Snideness aimed at the Chinese government, not you, mduell!)
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Especially if RERP happens.
It worked magnificently with the KC-135 fleet (which seems to be busier than the KC-10 fleet) so I don't see a problem. Except I won't be able to instantly tell just by the sound that it's a C-5 overhead. I suppose I can manage.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2007, 05:23 AM
 
Airbus superjumbo takes off on first commercial flight

After long delays and billions of dollars in cost overruns, the Airbus superjumbo -- the biggest airliner ever built -- took off on Thursday for its first commercial flight carrying a special group of passengers who bought their seats in an online charity auction, hoping to experience a bit of aviation history. Top bidder Julian Hayward, 38, a Briton who lives in Sydney, paid more than 100,000 US dollars "to be a part of history", he said before boarding. He was flying in seat 1A. For others, history came cheaper. Austrian Georg Burdicek paid just 560 dollars for his economy seat, the cheapest one sold during the auction.

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
glideslope
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2007, 09:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
Wipe that froth off your mouth, you have still no technical knowledge of aircraft. In fact just about everything you say is either willfully ignorant or just plain retarded.

The A380F can well provide the lift with a payload of 150000 kg, the C5 Galaxy has a measly 82000 kg payload. C17 even less. The B748F would have a payload of up to 140000 kg.

The A380 wipes the floor with all the competition when it comes to payload.

Economically it is a parcel carrier, but for military purposes fuel costs are irrelevant. The ability to get 150 thousand kilo payload in one trip outweighs some imaginary beancounter economisation.

As for the KC order, yeah the US government better lick Airbus' ass or else Airbus will be very angry with the US government.

Face it Poncho, the US government is seriously looking into the KC30. The KC767 is more unlikely every day now.

860 kmph vs 913 kmph. Peh, that's no dealbreaker. That's the cruising speed on 'economy' fuel usage. They can just throttle up on the 330 and hit Mach 0.95 if needed.

V
Thank you for the comments. I should have been more specific, knowing the reply that would come from your continuous dehumanizing remarks. FYI, the term "retarded" is from the 70's. We refer to people as having Developmental Disabilities in 2007, and many I know have a much nicer demeanor than you my friend.

The 380F will never have a front loading capability or a rear ramp that can be opened in flight. End of story. The request from EADS was akin to throwing a Dog a Bone,

The speed of the KC-767 ADV is a factor currently. The Boom Operators on a 330 flying their booms at .95 would end in disaster. Boom technology on the KC-767 is superior.

Well, that's all for now. I hope you feel better some day.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
Sun Tzu
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2007, 12:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by glideslope View Post
Thank you for the comments.
Why thank you. I can only hope they are half as enlightening and entertaining as yours.

Originally Posted by glideslope View Post
I should have been more specific, knowing the reply that would come from your continuous dehumanizing remarks.
Yes, being specific is always a good strategy. We are in agreement. I am sure my comments are merely pointed towards the contents and style of your post, not you as a person. Or human. I can know nothing of that. I only have your word that you are indeed human.

Originally Posted by glideslope View Post
FYI, the term "retarded" is from the 70's.
Well so am I! Shucks I guess I'm just nostalgic like that..

Originally Posted by glideslope View Post
We refer to people as having Developmental Disabilities in 2007, and many I know have a much nicer demeanor than you my friend.
That's because I'm not a member of that particular club.

Originally Posted by glideslope View Post
The 380F will never have a front loading capability or a rear ramp that can be opened in flight.
Correct! Which are two of the three reasons I found it absurd the 380F would ever succeed the C5. The third and most important one: it isn't made in the USA.

Originally Posted by glideslope View Post
The request from EADS was akin to throwing a Dog a Bone,
Perhaps. I would put my money on beurocratic regulations concerning requisition.

Originally Posted by glideslope View Post
The speed of the KC-767 ADV is a factor currently. The Boom Operators on a 330 flying their booms at .95 would end in disaster.
Now here's where you become all weird again. You talk like you know anything about aviation and then *boom*: Ignorance pours out.

Mid-air refueling is done at 350-380 knots. That's about 700 km/h or 200 m/s.. That's about mach 0.6 -- refueling is *not ever* done at mach 0.95. Mach 0.95 is around 320 m/s

So yeah you are right that operators on a 330 would have a hard time refueling a C5 at mach 0.95, but so would the KC767. Or any other plane for that matter.

I'm going to be nice now and not call you a nationalistic, narrow-minded aviation hack. I could. But I won't.

Originally Posted by glideslope View Post
Boom technology on the KC-767 is superior.
No, not really. In fact when such a sweeping, generalised statement comes from you, that proves it!

Originally Posted by glideslope View Post
Well, that's all for now. I hope you feel better some day.
Well thanks! Hope to hear from you soon. When I feel better!!!

V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
glideslope
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2007, 07:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
Why thank you. I can only hope they are half as enlightening and entertaining as yours.



Yes, being specific is always a good strategy. We are in agreement. I am sure my comments are merely pointed towards the contents and style of your post, not you as a person. Or human. I can know nothing of that. I only have your word that you are indeed human.



Well so am I! Shucks I guess I'm just nostalgic like that..



That's because I'm not a member of that particular club.



Correct! Which are two of the three reasons I found it absurd the 380F would ever succeed the C5. The third and most important one: it isn't made in the USA.



Perhaps. I would put my money on beurocratic regulations concerning requisition.



Now here's where you become all weird again. You talk like you know anything about aviation and then *boom*: Ignorance pours out.

Mid-air refueling is done at 350-380 knots. That's about 700 km/h or 200 m/s.. That's about mach 0.6 -- refueling is *not ever* done at mach 0.95. Mach 0.95 is around 320 m/s

So yeah you are right that operators on a 330 would have a hard time refueling a C5 at mach 0.95, but so would the KC767. Or any other plane for that matter.

I'm going to be nice now and not call you a nationalistic, narrow-minded aviation hack. I could. But I won't.



No, not really. In fact when such a sweeping, generalised statement comes from you, that proves it!



Well thanks! Hope to hear from you soon. When I feel better!!!

V
Well done. Nicer tone. Yet still personal in a Nationalistic sort of way. But I understand, it's a normal position these days from millions of people.

I misunderstood your 330/767 speed comments. I now see you were only referring to "getting" to the orbit area at.95, then slowing. Nice fuel burn at .95 I'm sure.

Thanks for not bringing up the 380F. No point in confirming the obvious.

Love ya man!!!
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
Sun Tzu
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2007, 05:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by glideslope View Post
I misunderstood your 330/767 speed comments. I now see you were only referring to "getting" to the orbit area at.95, then slowing. Nice fuel burn at .95 I'm sure.
Neither the B767 nor the A330 (nor any other airliner derivative tanker) is going to do 0.95M in anything other than a very very steep dive. Their best cruise speed is in the low to mid 80s.
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2007, 09:54 PM
 
Saudi Prince Buying 'Flying Palace' Jet

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) - In the annals of excess, it could be a new high: a more than $300 million dollar, super-sized luxury airplane, bought and outfitted solely for the private comfort of a Saudi Arabian billionaire.
Once done, the Airbus A380, the world's biggest passenger plane, will be a "flying palace" for Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the manufacturer announced Monday.

Airbus SAS would not give a specific price tag for the VIP double- decker jet, with its football field-length wings, saying only that it would cost more than the aircraft's list price of $320 million.

That doesn't even include the money the prince will spend to custom fit the nearly 6,000-square foot plane to include whatever he wants. The options include private bedrooms, a movie theater or even a gym with a jacuzzi. He'll also need a flight crew of about 15 to operate the luxury liner.

"Prince Alwaleed is the first, and so far the only customer of this aircraft," said David Velupillai, the spokesman of the Airbus, which announced the luxury order at the Dubai International Airshow..........

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
Sherman Homan
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2007, 10:01 PM
 
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2007, 12:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Sherman Homan View Post
eBay: one decapitated Airbus A340
Fixed.
     
Buckaroo
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2007, 04:42 AM
 
Depressed Dollar Threatens Airbus.

Not a good sign for Airbus. Before long, airlines will have to reconsider the A380 purchase. They can have 2 747's for the price of one A380.

(I'm just guessing, so if someone wants to do some calculations.)


LiveLeak.com - Depressed Dollar Threatens Airbus.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2007, 06:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by glideslope View Post
FYI, the term "retarded" is from the 70's. We refer to people as having Developmental Disabilities in 2007
Should I go start burning books with the word retard in them now sir?
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2007, 09:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Should I go start burning books with the word retard in them now sir?
See, you don't care about what people say, or what threads are about, you just want to start fights, be obnoxious, ruin threads, and run up your imaginary post count. Idiot.

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2007, 01:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by glideslope View Post
FYI, the term "retarded" is from the 70's. We refer to people as having Developmental Disabilities in 2007, and many I know have a much nicer demeanor than you my friend.
You, sir, are retarded.

And I mean that in a Non-Developmental Disabled way

-t
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2007, 07:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
See, you don't care about what people say, or what threads are about
I assure you I do.

I am just not for political correct police. Those that tell use that we shouldn't be using a word because it's no longer "hip" or "politically correct" While these same people have no problems using words to demean those that they disagree with. For example, the rest of your post.
you just want to start fights, be obnoxious, ruin threads, and run up your imaginary post count. Idiot.
So you belittle those for calling someone a retard, but in a different post you call someone an idiot.

I guess I called it spot on. And no, I wasn't trying to start an argument. I was making a joke without attempting to conjure up Godwin.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2007, 07:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
Saudi Prince Buying 'Flying Palace' Jet

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) - In the annals of excess, it could be a new high: a more than $300 million dollar, super-sized luxury airplane, bought and outfitted solely for the private comfort of a Saudi Arabian billionaire.
Once done, the Airbus A380, the world's biggest passenger plane, will be a "flying palace" for Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the manufacturer announced Monday.

Airbus SAS would not give a specific price tag for the VIP double- decker jet, with its football field-length wings, saying only that it would cost more than the aircraft's list price of $320 million.

That doesn't even include the money the prince will spend to custom fit the nearly 6,000-square foot plane to include whatever he wants. The options include private bedrooms, a movie theater or even a gym with a jacuzzi. He'll also need a flight crew of about 15 to operate the luxury liner.

"Prince Alwaleed is the first, and so far the only customer of this aircraft," said David Velupillai, the spokesman of the Airbus, which announced the luxury order at the Dubai International Airshow..........
Now where are the Pro Airbus people that claimed they would FROWN upon anyone using this aircraft in such a way? Just like we said would happen.

Environment - 0
Airbus - 1
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2007, 03:59 PM
 
It seems as if the manufacturers of this unattractive future flying coffin are running into some financial problems due the low dollar, as if they didn't have enough problems from before.

     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2007, 04:18 PM
 
Just keep in mind that 50 % of the suppliers are American … 
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2007, 06:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by PacHead View Post
It seems as if the manufacturers of this unattractive future flying coffin are running into some financial problems due the low dollar, as if they didn't have enough problems from before.

This thread is about Airbus and the 380, not your protected workplace.

V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2007, 09:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by PacHead View Post
It seems as if the manufacturers of this unattractive future flying coffin are running into some financial problems due the low dollar, as if they didn't have enough problems from before.

Wow, you're pretty disgusting to refer to the plane like that.

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
Buckaroo
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2007, 10:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Just keep in mind that 50 % of the suppliers are American … 
I didn't realize any of it was built in the US. So if 50% of the suppliers are US, what is the percentage of the plane being built by US suppliers?

Just because 50 out of 100 supply parts, does not mean that they build 50% of the parts that go into the plane.
     
glideslope
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2007, 07:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
I didn't realize any of it was built in the US. So if 50% of the suppliers are US, what is the percentage of the plane being built by US suppliers?

Just because 50 out of 100 supply parts, does not mean that they build 50% of the parts that go into the plane.
The largest components are the gear. The rest is internal electronics, plastics, cloths, metals, screws, bolts, gauges, hoses,
pumps, valves, displays, etc....
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
Sun Tzu
     
glideslope
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2007, 07:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
This thread is about Airbus and the 380, not your protected workplace.

V
As opposed to your subsidized workplace. LOL.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
Sun Tzu
     
glideslope
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2007, 07:27 PM
 
So, anyone have info on the fuel burns for the SQ Teething Sorties?
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
Sun Tzu
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2007, 07:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
Wow, you're pretty disgusting to refer to the plane like that.
Yeah, you're right about that. Without bothering anybody with any details, I had specific reasons to be extra provocative yesterday when I wrote that post. I still think that the airbus is an ugly plane and I can't imagine myself ever being stuffed in that huge plane like a bunch of sardines along with hundreds and hundreds of other people, but you are correct that it was slightly distasteful of me to refer to the plane with the terms that I used.

     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2007, 02:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by glideslope View Post
As opposed to your subsidized workplace. LOL.
What do you know about voodoo's job?

Or are you simply pissing at the wrong gimp?
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2007, 08:05 AM
 
Oh cute...

***
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2007, 09:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
I didn't realize any of it was built in the US. So if 50% of the suppliers are US, what is the percentage of the plane being built by US suppliers?

Just because 50 out of 100 supply parts, does not mean that they build 50% of the parts that go into the plane.
From wikipedia:
For example, one version of the A380 has 51% American content in terms of work share value.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2007, 09:22 AM
 
If the engines are from the Engine Alliance then the total parts of the 380 are indeed 51% by value from the USA.*

Less if the engines are Rolls Royce.

*Final assembly is in the Republic of France. The 5th one.

V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2007, 09:53 AM
 
Does it matter where it's built?
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2007, 10:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Does it matter where it's built?
Since this came up in relation to the very weak US-Dollar, yes, the percentage of how much of the plane is built by American subcontractors does matter.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2007, 10:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
Since this came up in relation to the very weak US-Dollar, yes, the percentage of how much of the plane is built by American subcontractors does matter.
Do you honestly think they two will have any effect on the plane?

I can see it now, any blunders that happens during it's "lifetime" will be blamed on the US, and how the dollar was weak during that time.

     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2007, 11:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Do you honestly think they two will have any effect on the plane?

I can see it now, any blunders that happens during it's "lifetime" will be blamed on the US, and how the dollar was weak during that time.

Just scroll up, Buckaroo has posted an article on this. Of course do exchange rates have an influence on business. The weak dollar is a problem when people buying planes pay in dollars: the planes get more expensive.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2007, 11:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Just scroll up, Buckaroo has posted an article on this. Of course do exchange rates have an influence on business. The weak dollar is a problem when people buying planes pay in dollars: the planes get more expensive.
More expensive for US buyers yes. But I don't think they were a big part of the market to begin with. Not only that, it seems it WILL be used as personal luxury liners for the rich. Those in here claimed they wouldn't be, or would be upset if they did haven't commented on such ventures, or made any comments or worries as to how this will effect our precious environment.

Besides about were it's made. It doesn't seem by the responses of certain people, that they were concerned about the low dollar when they heard parts were being made in the US. More of a pride thing.
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2007, 12:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
More expensive for US buyers yes.
No - airplanes are always paid in US dollars - no matter who is buying them!
The problem is that Airbus pays the employees in Euros (of course)!
A US$300Mio airplane doesn't pay as much in Euros now as it would need to!

(I have no idea though what that has to do with the American work share and I have also no idea what you are saying in the rest of your post)


edit: I just realized that the last part of my post could be misunderstood - I know of course that you didn't bring up the American work share - I just have no idea why it was brought up at all!
I can only guess that the reason is that if Airbus is not doing well because of a weak US dollar then that's also a problem for the US companies which are working for Airbus...!
Hence PacHeads comment was quite stupid (as always)!
( Last edited by badidea; Nov 29, 2007 at 12:24 PM. )
***
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2007, 12:54 PM
 
It has something to do with the American work share since the American subcontractors are, supposedly, paid in US-dollars. So if 51% of the work is done in the USA, those 51% are not affected by the weak dollar. That's why it was brought up.
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2007, 02:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
It has something to do with the American work share since the American subcontractors are, supposedly, paid in US-dollars. So if 51% of the work is done in the USA, those 51% are not affected by the weak dollar. That's why it was brought up.
It seems as if far more Europeans work for Airbus than Americans.

Go check it out yourself on wikipedia:

Toulouse (Toulouse, Colomiers, Blagnac) France 16,992
Hamburg(Finkenwerder, Stade, Buxtehude) Germany13,420
Broughton, Flintshire, Wales UK 5,031
Bristol (Filton), England UK 4,642
Bremen Germany 3,330
Madrid (Getafe, Illescas) Spain 2,484
Saint-Nazaire France 2,387
Nordenham Germany 2,086
Nantes France 1,996
Albert (Méaulte) France 1,288
Varel Germany 1,191
Laupheim Germany 1,116
Cadiz (Puerto Real) Spain 448
Washington, D.C. (Herndon, Ashburn) USA 422
Beijing PRC 150
Wichita USA ?
Miami (Miami Springs) USA ?
Sevilla Spain ?
Moscow Russia ?
Tianjin PRC planning
Total 56,966+


( Last edited by PacHead; Nov 29, 2007 at 02:16 PM. )
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2007, 02:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by badidea View Post
Hence PacHeads comment was quite stupid (as always)!
Not as stupid as your excuses.

My comment about Airbus being in trouble because of the weak dollar remains true, no matter how many excuses you dream up.

     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2007, 02:18 PM
 
Airbus Dollar Death

We were wrong. Today, comes news the very survival of Airbus – the company that has just given the world its largest civil aeroplane in the new A380 - is in doubt on account of a “dollar death”. Every 10% decline in the dollar costs Airbus 1bn euros, says Louis Gallois, the chairman of Airbus parent company EADS.

The company is already closing plants and laying off 10,000 workers, but now thinks this is not enough. In a speech to employees, chief executive Tom Enders said:
The dollar's rapid decline is life-threatening for Airbus. The dollar exchange rate has gone beyond the pain barrier."




http://www.dailyreckoning.co.uk/arti...death0635.html
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2007, 03:04 PM
 
Yeah it's ironic. The more planes Airbus sells, the more money Airbus loses. There can be only one long-term solution to this problem. Americans will have to be layed off and made unemployed as Airbus has to choose European suppliers (or create them) and start selling their planes in Euros.

Poor Americans

V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2007, 03:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
Yeah it's ironic. The more planes Airbus sells, the more money Airbus loses. There can be only one long-term solution to this problem. Americans will have to be layed off and made unemployed as Airbus has to choose European suppliers (or create them) and start selling their planes in Euros.

Poor Americans

V
Doesn't affect me.

     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2007, 03:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by PacHead View Post
Doesn't affect me.

Too bad.

V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2007, 03:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by PacHead View Post
Not as stupid as your excuses.
Which excuses????????????? For what?

(please go ahead and get your account deleted and leave already, will ya?)
***
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2007, 06:50 AM
 
badidea I think your connection to the company has made you a bit too over emotional for this thread.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:52 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,