More proof of the U.S. downfall. Viva la france!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
They've been promising to build the California High Speed Rail Network for two decades now but neither the state nor the feds ever seem to come up with the money. I know about four years ago a commericial company was talking about building a bullet train between LA and Las Vegas but they went bankrupt before construction even started.

We were supposed to have high speed rail in Florida. They even put it in our constitution in 1998. But the GOP gov and the GOP dominated legislature simply refused to put any money into it. The first leg was supposed to start running this year, betwen Tampa and Orlando. The GOP started a push-poll campaign and put an amendment on the ballot to get it out of our Constitution, which passed, overwhelmingly.

They made all sorts of BAMs which the proponents of high speed rail never bothered to counter. They said it would take away from expansion of our highways, without anyone saying, with HSR we won't need to expand our highways, etc. It would have been really good for Orlando, because it would have made the city a central hub for Florida, where everyone could live, and then work in Tampa, Miami, Jacksonville, etc.

[Adam Smith]

A few comments from a transportation economist.

1. Subsidies
Airbus’ launch payments and low-interest loans are subsidies by any economic definition. The fact that Boeing receives money from the military and NASA does not necessarily make these payments subsidies.

Military R&D and commercial R&D art what economists call joint products. If Boeing conducts basic R&D, and it has both military and commercial applications, then we would expect both the military and commercial applications to pay for the R&D. Suppose it costs a US farmer and an EU farmer $1000 to raise a cow. Either cow produces both one hide and one ton of meat. In the US the military is willing to pay $200 for the hide to make boots, so the meat can be sold for less. In the EU there is no market for hides, so the meat costs more.

In addition, what each party pays for hides or meat depends on their competitive situation. If Boeing is in a very competitive commercial aviation market, then they would be willing to pay a relatively small part of the R&D costs. The mere fact that the US military makes a payment proves nothing. Unless the EU can show that the US military is paying waaaaay more than it “should” for the R&D, then there is no economic basis for saying there is a subsidy.

[All that said, Boeing appears to have been asleep at the switch in terms of product development.]

2. Need For Larger Aircraft
Both Airbus and Boeing see the same overall growth in airline traffic over the life of their new products. The question appears to be whether the growth will come in high-density or lower density routes. Airbus’s initial orders provide a market indication that they may be right, or at least right enough to make a go of it. But Boeing is probably looking at a few indications that argue against the use of ever-larger aircraft flying between hubs.

First, hubbing appears to have peaked in the US. While most major airline still use hubs, the most efficient airlines (e.g., Southwest) are famously NOT hubbed.

Second, large aircraft are not likely to be effective on short routes. It takes a long time to gather up enough passengers to fill up a large aircraft. But in many high-volume US markets (NY-Chicago, Washington-Chicago, NY-Atlanta that I know of personally) airlines advertise hourly departures for convenience, not huge aircraft for low cost. The only exception I can think of is Tokyo-Osaka, where there are hourly 747 departures and passengers are packed in like cattle.

Third, large infrastructure improvements will be required to handle larger planes in any sort of hub operation. In 1998 my wife and I flew to China through Narita Airport in Tokyo. Eight 747-400’s arrived at United Airlines’ terminal from various parts of the US and then departed to various parts of Asia two hours later. The process of changing planes in the 150 foot diameter terminal could best be described as Brownian motion with luggage.

3. Fuel Efficiency
In the US, aircraft are about as fuel efficient per passenger mile as passenger cars, each at average loading. Intercity rail is about twice as fuel efficient as either mode, again evaluated at average loading.

[Giancarlo]

Viva la France... yeah right.. the US economy is actually growing. And Boeing.. don't ask me about what those idiots are doing. The 7E7 will not be a success because they aren't marketing it right. However the cheer also was around when the Concorde came about. Hey what happened to the Concorde in the end?

Yeah viva la france and its questionable economy:

http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/050117/323/faf6o.html

Weak.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Unless the EU can show that the US military is paying waaaaay more than it “should” for the R&D, then there is no economic basis for saying there is a subsidy.

Okay, corporate welfare, then. Same thing at the end.

Originally posted by Adam Smith
The only exception I can think of is Tokyo-Osaka, where there are hourly 747 departures and passengers are packed in like cattle.

I think that's going to happen in China in the near future, between cities such as Beijing, Shanghai, and Gaungzhou.

Originally posted by Adam Smith
The process of changing planes in the 150 foot diameter terminal could best be described as Brownian motion with luggage.

That's quite an accurate description of all the people wandering about. Plus looking at Japanese men staring at photos in skin magazines at various stores was fun.

[Bosh]

AS: Yeah, Narita is a real pain to get around, last time we were there my plane spent a long time on the ground waiting for a spot to open up, it really needs to be expanded especially since its a big hub for the growing number of trans-pacific flights.

As far as hubs go, it'll be interesting to see how hubbed trans-pacfic flights will be in the future. In the north-eastern its quite a bit more expensive or impossible to get to east asia without going through Nartia AFAIK, I wonder how much this will remain the case or wether there'll be a growing number of direct New York to Seoul/Beijing at more reasonable prices (I guess I'm probably going to have to wait a long long time for direct Seoul to Boston flights...).

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Boshko
AS: Yeah, Narita is a real pain to get around...

It's even more of a pain if the plane you're on arrives at 06:10 and the flight you're leaving on doesn't leave until 13:30 and the airport doesn't appear to open until 08:00. Couldn't even locate a bureau de change close by where we were, but fortunately the airport staff were extremely pleasant and very polite.

[Sikander]

I was in Narita in October. Thankfully everything went smoothly. Generally I thought it pretty pleasant as airports go.

[Bosh]

It's even more of a pain if the plane you're on arrives at 06:10 and the flight you're leaving on doesn't leave until 13:30 and the airport doesn't appear to open until 08:00.

And the food options are absymal. In the terminal I was in last time didn't have much of anything besides a horrically bad (even by asian fusion food standards overpriced fusion place where I had the worst katsu of my life... (well except for the katsu airplane meal that I then got fed on the plane, which someone managed against all odds to be even worse ).
Inchon on the other hand is not only aesthetically appealing inside and out but its well set-up for its size and has some very nice slushies.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Boshko

And the food options are absymal. In the terminal I was in last time didn't have much of anything besides a horrically bad (even by asian fusion food standards overpriced fusion place where I had the worst katsu of my life... (well except for the katsu airplane meal that I then got fed on the plane, which someone managed against all odds to be even worse ).
Inchon on the other hand is not only aesthetically appealing inside and out but its well set-up for its size and has some very nice slushies.

I liked Singapore airport. Like an airport in Switzerland, only with pleasant staff and minus rude people.


I was grateful I'd stocked up on food and drinks in Sydney airport when I arrived in Narita to be honest.

Perhaps it was just the part of the airport we were in...

[Impaler[WrG]]

I think it would be rather interesting if you had theses 300 MPH bullet trains set to run non-stop with a second loop of rail tanget to it with a second train that briefly links with it, exchanges passengers, decouples, deaccelerates and stops at the station for passengers to load and unload and then accelerates again to catch the next train.

This could vastly improve the comut times inside a city, at 300 MPH a train will need several miles to start or stop and will be spending very little time actualy at full speed. With these "Entry/Exit loops" feeding the main line you can incresse the number of stations AND get faster transits.

And in a few Centuries we can create vacume filled Mag tubes for Mach 3 Mag Trains and then we can move an unlimited number of spaces each turn!!!

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Dissident
while I do think this airliner is an impressive feat. I have to side with Boeing on this one.

I do believe there won't be much demand for this jet except for international overseas travel. But for travel within the contiental U.S. I just don't see much use for something that big.

You know there's a whole massive world market outside the US right?

Some planes even fly to and from the US from other countries!!!

[Dinner]

The thing I liked most about flying into Narita was the fact that the bullet train made it so easy to get to downtown Tokyo.

[Laertes]

According to the BBC:

149 aircraft ordered
100 further options sold
$11bn development cost, estimated $1.5 bn over budget

According to the INdependent

$260m for each aircraft (purchase cost)
250 sales to break even
700 sales to repay all the state aid!

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/story.jsp?story=602307

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Dissident
while I do think this airliner is an impressive feat. I have to side with Boeing on this one.

I do believe there won't be much demand for this jet except for international overseas travel. But for travel within the contiental U.S. I just don't see much use for something that big.

I'm always reminded of 9/11. Those planes were nearly empty!!! a 747 with only 40 passengers is not very economical. I hardly think a 555 passenger jet with 40 passengers will do very well.

Different markets, different planes.

It's good to make big planes for the lines that have many customers, and it's good to make small planes for the others. It would be pretty stupid to have hundreds of small planes each day on a cramped line (the airports can only sustain so much), just like it would be stupid to have one big plane instead of a few small ones on a less populated line.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Laertes
According to the BBC:

149 aircraft ordered
100 further options sold
$11bn development cost, estimated $1.5 bn over budget

According to the INdependent

$260m for each aircraft (purchase cost)
250 sales to break even
700 sales to repay all the state aid!

http://news.independent.co.uk/busine...p?story=602307

Reminds me of the way smaller scale, (jet) Fokker 100 project... a great design for the market, but man what a money loser that one was.

I think this will probably end up in bankruptcy.