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

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid
The inside of that plane sure looks big and comfy, but I bet they will squeeze in a few hundred extra chairs in there to keep the ticket prices down

Originally posted by Zkribbler
How long do you think it will take the airlines to rip out the bar and bed in order to cram in knee-to-butt seating?

Anyone remember the 747's piano lounge?



That didn't last long.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Ned

With regard to the Airbus subsidies, I think we should bar Airbus planes that benefitted from subsidies from using US airspace for a number of years equal to the advantage the subsidies gave them.

Great idea! Hurting all the airlines that operate Airbus - including US airlines. The terrorists couldn't have done better. Why do you hate America?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Boshko

As if the Euros would allow that to happen. You're cute Fez

They'll keep it afloat for sure, but it won't be profitable. It will be a disaster. French economic disasters. Wow... another one to that long list after the Concorde. Yeah sure, Europe wasn't going to let Concorde go down in bankruptcy.. what happened to it in the end? It went down in bankruptcy.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
They'll keep it afloat for sure, but it won't be profitable. It will be a disaster. French economic disasters. Wow... another one to that long list after the Concorde. Yeah sure, Europe wasn't going to let Concorde go down in bankruptcy.. what happened to it in the end? It went down in bankruptcy.

The difference is that Airbus is making money. And as time passes, it is less and less dependant from the EU's subsidies, considering the progresses of its marketshare.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Spiffor

The difference is that Airbus is making money. And as time passes, it is less and less dependant from the EU's subsidies, considering the progresses of its marketshare.

There was already an estimation on how much Airbus will have to sell to break even. You think too optimistically. Airbus is going to lose money in this stupid venture. And just ask yourself this.. airliners are going to have to raise fees... you think this will be profitable? I think not! European airlines should go with the Boeing 7E7 because it will be more profitable. Right now it is better to operate smaller but more fuel efficient airplanes. The progresses of its marketshare is highly temporary, as it has an unworthy business model. I'm not saying Boeing hasn't ****ed up (they did, and it ended up in the conviction of one executive I believe)... however Boeing understands the market more then Airbus.

[Ned]

Originally posted by BeBro


Great idea! Hurting all the airlines that operate Airbus - including US airlines. The terrorists couldn't have done better. Why do you hate America?

BeBro, If the Airlines know this in advance, they won't buy the new Airbuses until the sanctions have lapsed. You assume that airlines are stupid. I assure you they are not.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
@ Ned, you are such a crank.

Let's not forget that airspace rules are a product of treaties, not subject to the whims of administrations. Thankfully.

Why of course, Boris. We have to go through Gatt now to get "permission" to retaliate. But we should in fact retaliate because the Euro's are f*cking with us.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
we should in fact retaliate because the Euro's are f*cking with us.

If you attempt to retaliate, the WTO will give Europe the right to retaliate against your retaliations. Such a behaviour would put a complete stop to transatlantic transportation, not to mention to a good chunk of transportation from other continents. Neither you or us want to paralyze our economies in such a strong way.

That's why commercial wars have been avoided between the US and the EU so far. Since we are both able to do major damage to the other (the question as to whom will make the more damage is irrelevant here, that's akin to wondering whther the US or the USSR would have "won" the nuclear war), we are both wise enough to avoid a direct and destructive confrontation.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Ned


Why of course, Boris. We have to go through Gatt now to get "permission" to retaliate. But we should in fact retaliate because the Euro's are f*cking with us.

Steel tarriffs.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

If you attempt to retaliate, the WTO will give Europe the right to retaliate against your retaliations. Such a behaviour would put a complete stop to transatlantic transportation, not to mention to a good chunk of transportation from other continents. Neither you or us want to paralyze our economies in such a strong way.

That's why commercial wars have been avoided between the US and the EU so far. Since we are both able to do major damage to the other (the question as to whom will make the more damage is irrelevant here, that's akin to wondering whther the US or the USSR would have "won" the nuclear war), we are both wise enough to avoid a direct and destructive confrontation.

Bull. I said we should pursue our WTO remedies and retaliate. Europe clearly is in the wrong here and would have no legal ground to counter a WTO-sanctioned response by the US. There will be no trade war as such is now illegal.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Bull. I said we should pursue our WTO remedies and retaliate. Europe clearly is in the wrong here and would have no legal ground to counter a WTO-sanctioned response by the US. There will be no trade war as such is now illegal.

The WTO might grant you the right to put tariffs on importing Airbuses, making it more expansive for American companies to buy them. But the practices of the plane manufacturer are no ground to punish the plane's exploiters by any stretch of the imagination. Besides, such a form of retaliation would be completely disproportional to the damage done by Airbus to the US, and would thus not be accepted by the WTO.

Fortunately, your leaders are not stupid enough to contemplate such an idea. Starting a trade war is a very hurtful thing to do. Your leaders will be intelligent enough to avoid tihs one, just like they avoid MAD with the Soviets.

[Ned]

Spiffor, if the US were to annouce that this was their intended remedy, then Airbus would have a difficult time selling any A380s during the entire time the WTO proceedings were pending regardless of the outcome of the proceedings. Furthermore, if the US were to announce the remedy they would prefer now, every airline will be forwarned and can take the risk of buying A380s knowing that when the WTO proceedings were complete, and the US authorized to impose sanctions, they would have to replace those planes with others in order to continue to fly to the US. They could take the risk or not take the risk. Their choice.

But it would be criminal for the US not to retaliate in some measure.

(You mentioned tarriffs on sales of A380s to US airlines. If you think about it for a minute, this would harm US airlines, not harm foreign competitors and only marginally affect Airbus. I hardly think that the US would impose such a stupid remedy.)

[Ned]

And, BTW, Spiffor, a trade war implies that Europe would impose countervailing tarriffs or the like without WTO authorization. I am very sure that Europe would do no such thing.

[DinoDoc]

They'd have the same grounds we would wrt Airbus: state aid to Boeing.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
They'd have the same grounds we would wrt Airbus: state aid to Boeing.

Prove it.