Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 15:02:37 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <WK2Ab.158$ng6.18@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>>news:bqq8t9$ikt$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>>> In article <tdudnVxyI7goDlKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
>>wrote:
>>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a
>>form
>>> of
>>> >> subsidy to Boeing?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
>>> >free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
>>> >companies, and I have no problem with that.
>>> >
>>> It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
>>
>>That's not "subsidizing". Total BS. Boeing competes in the worldwide
>>marketplace and gets no help from the feds.
>
>Just guaranteed profits on all the planes it sells to the defense dept.
>Listen to what Sen. McCain has been saying about the huge multi-billion dollar
>lease of tankers to the Air Force by Boeing. Huge profit deal.
And look who it was who proposed the leasing: it wasn't Boeing.
And, as with most for-profit companies, Boeing expects profits on ALL
the planes it sells.
What is it about profit that you find so abhorrent?
>
>
>> The defense business is less
>>competitive, but for good reason (security).
>>
>>On the other hand, Airbus has received around $30 billion in member state
>>subsidies since it's inception.
>>
>>
>To get started; it receives nothing now and paid back the earlier ones.
Not true at all.
Many countries in Europe are all but forcing their airlines to
purchase Airbus planes rather than Boeings.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <WK2Ab.158$ng6.18@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>>news:bqq8t9$ikt$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>>> In article <tdudnVxyI7goDlKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
>>wrote:
>>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a
>>form
>>> of
>>> >> subsidy to Boeing?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
>>> >free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
>>> >companies, and I have no problem with that.
>>> >
>>> It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
>>
>>That's not "subsidizing". Total BS. Boeing competes in the worldwide
>>marketplace and gets no help from the feds.
>
>Just guaranteed profits on all the planes it sells to the defense dept.
>Listen to what Sen. McCain has been saying about the huge multi-billion dollar
>lease of tankers to the Air Force by Boeing. Huge profit deal.
And look who it was who proposed the leasing: it wasn't Boeing.
And, as with most for-profit companies, Boeing expects profits on ALL
the planes it sells.
What is it about profit that you find so abhorrent?
>
>
>> The defense business is less
>>competitive, but for good reason (security).
>>
>>On the other hand, Airbus has received around $30 billion in member state
>>subsidies since it's inception.
>>
>>
>To get started; it receives nothing now and paid back the earlier ones.
Not true at all.
Many countries in Europe are all but forcing their airlines to
purchase Airbus planes rather than Boeings.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 15:02:37 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <WK2Ab.158$ng6.18@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>>news:bqq8t9$ikt$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>>> In article <tdudnVxyI7goDlKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
>>wrote:
>>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a
>>form
>>> of
>>> >> subsidy to Boeing?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
>>> >free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
>>> >companies, and I have no problem with that.
>>> >
>>> It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
>>
>>That's not "subsidizing". Total BS. Boeing competes in the worldwide
>>marketplace and gets no help from the feds.
>
>Just guaranteed profits on all the planes it sells to the defense dept.
>Listen to what Sen. McCain has been saying about the huge multi-billion dollar
>lease of tankers to the Air Force by Boeing. Huge profit deal.
And look who it was who proposed the leasing: it wasn't Boeing.
And, as with most for-profit companies, Boeing expects profits on ALL
the planes it sells.
What is it about profit that you find so abhorrent?
>
>
>> The defense business is less
>>competitive, but for good reason (security).
>>
>>On the other hand, Airbus has received around $30 billion in member state
>>subsidies since it's inception.
>>
>>
>To get started; it receives nothing now and paid back the earlier ones.
Not true at all.
Many countries in Europe are all but forcing their airlines to
purchase Airbus planes rather than Boeings.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <WK2Ab.158$ng6.18@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>>news:bqq8t9$ikt$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>>> In article <tdudnVxyI7goDlKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
>>wrote:
>>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a
>>form
>>> of
>>> >> subsidy to Boeing?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
>>> >free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
>>> >companies, and I have no problem with that.
>>> >
>>> It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
>>
>>That's not "subsidizing". Total BS. Boeing competes in the worldwide
>>marketplace and gets no help from the feds.
>
>Just guaranteed profits on all the planes it sells to the defense dept.
>Listen to what Sen. McCain has been saying about the huge multi-billion dollar
>lease of tankers to the Air Force by Boeing. Huge profit deal.
And look who it was who proposed the leasing: it wasn't Boeing.
And, as with most for-profit companies, Boeing expects profits on ALL
the planes it sells.
What is it about profit that you find so abhorrent?
>
>
>> The defense business is less
>>competitive, but for good reason (security).
>>
>>On the other hand, Airbus has received around $30 billion in member state
>>subsidies since it's inception.
>>
>>
>To get started; it receives nothing now and paid back the earlier ones.
Not true at all.
Many countries in Europe are all but forcing their airlines to
purchase Airbus planes rather than Boeings.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 15:02:37 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <WK2Ab.158$ng6.18@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>>news:bqq8t9$ikt$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>>> In article <tdudnVxyI7goDlKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
>>wrote:
>>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a
>>form
>>> of
>>> >> subsidy to Boeing?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
>>> >free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
>>> >companies, and I have no problem with that.
>>> >
>>> It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
>>
>>That's not "subsidizing". Total BS. Boeing competes in the worldwide
>>marketplace and gets no help from the feds.
>
>Just guaranteed profits on all the planes it sells to the defense dept.
>Listen to what Sen. McCain has been saying about the huge multi-billion dollar
>lease of tankers to the Air Force by Boeing. Huge profit deal.
And look who it was who proposed the leasing: it wasn't Boeing.
And, as with most for-profit companies, Boeing expects profits on ALL
the planes it sells.
What is it about profit that you find so abhorrent?
>
>
>> The defense business is less
>>competitive, but for good reason (security).
>>
>>On the other hand, Airbus has received around $30 billion in member state
>>subsidies since it's inception.
>>
>>
>To get started; it receives nothing now and paid back the earlier ones.
Not true at all.
Many countries in Europe are all but forcing their airlines to
purchase Airbus planes rather than Boeings.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <WK2Ab.158$ng6.18@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>>news:bqq8t9$ikt$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>>> In article <tdudnVxyI7goDlKiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks>
>>wrote:
>>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a
>>form
>>> of
>>> >> subsidy to Boeing?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
>>> >free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
>>> >companies, and I have no problem with that.
>>> >
>>> It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.
>>
>>That's not "subsidizing". Total BS. Boeing competes in the worldwide
>>marketplace and gets no help from the feds.
>
>Just guaranteed profits on all the planes it sells to the defense dept.
>Listen to what Sen. McCain has been saying about the huge multi-billion dollar
>lease of tankers to the Air Force by Boeing. Huge profit deal.
And look who it was who proposed the leasing: it wasn't Boeing.
And, as with most for-profit companies, Boeing expects profits on ALL
the planes it sells.
What is it about profit that you find so abhorrent?
>
>
>> The defense business is less
>>competitive, but for good reason (security).
>>
>>On the other hand, Airbus has received around $30 billion in member state
>>subsidies since it's inception.
>>
>>
>To get started; it receives nothing now and paid back the earlier ones.
Not true at all.
Many countries in Europe are all but forcing their airlines to
purchase Airbus planes rather than Boeings.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:50:44 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <dbhvsvs6ful4cghb4b4hf0bnd6554s5kgv@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is
>outdoing
>>>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>>
>>Sure.
>>Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
>>their airlines to buy Airbus.
>
>Not nowadays. WTO would slap that down.
>
>>That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
>>Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
>
>They gave startup subsidies, all of which Airbus paid back, as it was required
>to.
Without them, Airbus would be but a memory.
>
>>Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
>>merit.
>>
>Yeah, sure. That's funny.
Explain that.
How does Boeing get to sell their planes without the purchasers
expecting a product that works?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <dbhvsvs6ful4cghb4b4hf0bnd6554s5kgv@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is
>outdoing
>>>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>>
>>Sure.
>>Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
>>their airlines to buy Airbus.
>
>Not nowadays. WTO would slap that down.
>
>>That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
>>Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
>
>They gave startup subsidies, all of which Airbus paid back, as it was required
>to.
Without them, Airbus would be but a memory.
>
>>Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
>>merit.
>>
>Yeah, sure. That's funny.
Explain that.
How does Boeing get to sell their planes without the purchasers
expecting a product that works?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:50:44 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <dbhvsvs6ful4cghb4b4hf0bnd6554s5kgv@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is
>outdoing
>>>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>>
>>Sure.
>>Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
>>their airlines to buy Airbus.
>
>Not nowadays. WTO would slap that down.
>
>>That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
>>Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
>
>They gave startup subsidies, all of which Airbus paid back, as it was required
>to.
Without them, Airbus would be but a memory.
>
>>Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
>>merit.
>>
>Yeah, sure. That's funny.
Explain that.
How does Boeing get to sell their planes without the purchasers
expecting a product that works?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <dbhvsvs6ful4cghb4b4hf0bnd6554s5kgv@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is
>outdoing
>>>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>>
>>Sure.
>>Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
>>their airlines to buy Airbus.
>
>Not nowadays. WTO would slap that down.
>
>>That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
>>Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
>
>They gave startup subsidies, all of which Airbus paid back, as it was required
>to.
Without them, Airbus would be but a memory.
>
>>Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
>>merit.
>>
>Yeah, sure. That's funny.
Explain that.
How does Boeing get to sell their planes without the purchasers
expecting a product that works?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:50:44 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <dbhvsvs6ful4cghb4b4hf0bnd6554s5kgv@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is
>outdoing
>>>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>>
>>Sure.
>>Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
>>their airlines to buy Airbus.
>
>Not nowadays. WTO would slap that down.
>
>>That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
>>Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
>
>They gave startup subsidies, all of which Airbus paid back, as it was required
>to.
Without them, Airbus would be but a memory.
>
>>Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
>>merit.
>>
>Yeah, sure. That's funny.
Explain that.
How does Boeing get to sell their planes without the purchasers
expecting a product that works?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <dbhvsvs6ful4cghb4b4hf0bnd6554s5kgv@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is
>outdoing
>>>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>>
>>Sure.
>>Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
>>their airlines to buy Airbus.
>
>Not nowadays. WTO would slap that down.
>
>>That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
>>Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
>
>They gave startup subsidies, all of which Airbus paid back, as it was required
>to.
Without them, Airbus would be but a memory.
>
>>Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
>>merit.
>>
>Yeah, sure. That's funny.
Explain that.
How does Boeing get to sell their planes without the purchasers
expecting a product that works?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 15:03:19 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <VM2Ab.159$ng6.2@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>>news:bqq9eg$ikt$18@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>>> In article <dbhvsvs6ful4cghb4b4hf0bnd6554s5kgv@4ax.com>,
>>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>> >On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is
>>> outdoing
>>> >>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>>> >
>>> >Sure.
>>> >Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
>>> >their airlines to buy Airbus.
>>>
>>> Not nowadays. WTO would slap that down.
>>>
>>> >That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
>>> >Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
>>>
>>> They gave startup subsidies, all of which Airbus paid back, as it was
>>required
>>> to.
>>
>>
>>Now the "subsidies" come in the form of "loans". No, this battle is still
>>being waged.
>
>Airbus receives no state subsidies, but Boeing has a hugely profitable lease
>deal for tankers with the AF that Sen. McCain calls a rip-off of the
>taxpayers.
Read the news more frequently: that deal has been changed, and the
original lease deal was offered by the Government, not Boeing.
And of course it's profitable. It's supposed to be.
Why is buying less costly than leasing? Becauase the Air Force will be
responsible for repairs/maintenance. The actual costs of the planes
remains the same.
>
>>
>>>
>>> >Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
>>> >merit.
>>> >
>>> Yeah, sure. That's funny.
>>
>>
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <VM2Ab.159$ng6.2@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>>news:bqq9eg$ikt$18@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>>> In article <dbhvsvs6ful4cghb4b4hf0bnd6554s5kgv@4ax.com>,
>>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>> >On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is
>>> outdoing
>>> >>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>>> >
>>> >Sure.
>>> >Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
>>> >their airlines to buy Airbus.
>>>
>>> Not nowadays. WTO would slap that down.
>>>
>>> >That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
>>> >Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
>>>
>>> They gave startup subsidies, all of which Airbus paid back, as it was
>>required
>>> to.
>>
>>
>>Now the "subsidies" come in the form of "loans". No, this battle is still
>>being waged.
>
>Airbus receives no state subsidies, but Boeing has a hugely profitable lease
>deal for tankers with the AF that Sen. McCain calls a rip-off of the
>taxpayers.
Read the news more frequently: that deal has been changed, and the
original lease deal was offered by the Government, not Boeing.
And of course it's profitable. It's supposed to be.
Why is buying less costly than leasing? Becauase the Air Force will be
responsible for repairs/maintenance. The actual costs of the planes
remains the same.
>
>>
>>>
>>> >Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
>>> >merit.
>>> >
>>> Yeah, sure. That's funny.
>>
>>
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 15:03:19 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <VM2Ab.159$ng6.2@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>>news:bqq9eg$ikt$18@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>>> In article <dbhvsvs6ful4cghb4b4hf0bnd6554s5kgv@4ax.com>,
>>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>> >On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is
>>> outdoing
>>> >>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>>> >
>>> >Sure.
>>> >Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
>>> >their airlines to buy Airbus.
>>>
>>> Not nowadays. WTO would slap that down.
>>>
>>> >That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
>>> >Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
>>>
>>> They gave startup subsidies, all of which Airbus paid back, as it was
>>required
>>> to.
>>
>>
>>Now the "subsidies" come in the form of "loans". No, this battle is still
>>being waged.
>
>Airbus receives no state subsidies, but Boeing has a hugely profitable lease
>deal for tankers with the AF that Sen. McCain calls a rip-off of the
>taxpayers.
Read the news more frequently: that deal has been changed, and the
original lease deal was offered by the Government, not Boeing.
And of course it's profitable. It's supposed to be.
Why is buying less costly than leasing? Becauase the Air Force will be
responsible for repairs/maintenance. The actual costs of the planes
remains the same.
>
>>
>>>
>>> >Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
>>> >merit.
>>> >
>>> Yeah, sure. That's funny.
>>
>>
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <VM2Ab.159$ng6.2@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>>news:bqq9eg$ikt$18@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>>> In article <dbhvsvs6ful4cghb4b4hf0bnd6554s5kgv@4ax.com>,
>>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>> >On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is
>>> outdoing
>>> >>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>>> >
>>> >Sure.
>>> >Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
>>> >their airlines to buy Airbus.
>>>
>>> Not nowadays. WTO would slap that down.
>>>
>>> >That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
>>> >Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
>>>
>>> They gave startup subsidies, all of which Airbus paid back, as it was
>>required
>>> to.
>>
>>
>>Now the "subsidies" come in the form of "loans". No, this battle is still
>>being waged.
>
>Airbus receives no state subsidies, but Boeing has a hugely profitable lease
>deal for tankers with the AF that Sen. McCain calls a rip-off of the
>taxpayers.
Read the news more frequently: that deal has been changed, and the
original lease deal was offered by the Government, not Boeing.
And of course it's profitable. It's supposed to be.
Why is buying less costly than leasing? Becauase the Air Force will be
responsible for repairs/maintenance. The actual costs of the planes
remains the same.
>
>>
>>>
>>> >Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
>>> >merit.
>>> >
>>> Yeah, sure. That's funny.
>>
>>
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 03 15:03:19 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <VM2Ab.159$ng6.2@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>>news:bqq9eg$ikt$18@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>>> In article <dbhvsvs6ful4cghb4b4hf0bnd6554s5kgv@4ax.com>,
>>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>> >On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is
>>> outdoing
>>> >>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>>> >
>>> >Sure.
>>> >Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
>>> >their airlines to buy Airbus.
>>>
>>> Not nowadays. WTO would slap that down.
>>>
>>> >That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
>>> >Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
>>>
>>> They gave startup subsidies, all of which Airbus paid back, as it was
>>required
>>> to.
>>
>>
>>Now the "subsidies" come in the form of "loans". No, this battle is still
>>being waged.
>
>Airbus receives no state subsidies, but Boeing has a hugely profitable lease
>deal for tankers with the AF that Sen. McCain calls a rip-off of the
>taxpayers.
Read the news more frequently: that deal has been changed, and the
original lease deal was offered by the Government, not Boeing.
And of course it's profitable. It's supposed to be.
Why is buying less costly than leasing? Becauase the Air Force will be
responsible for repairs/maintenance. The actual costs of the planes
remains the same.
>
>>
>>>
>>> >Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
>>> >merit.
>>> >
>>> Yeah, sure. That's funny.
>>
>>
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <VM2Ab.159$ng6.2@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>>news:bqq9eg$ikt$18@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>>> In article <dbhvsvs6ful4cghb4b4hf0bnd6554s5kgv@4ax.com>,
>>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>> >On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is
>>> outdoing
>>> >>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>>> >
>>> >Sure.
>>> >Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
>>> >their airlines to buy Airbus.
>>>
>>> Not nowadays. WTO would slap that down.
>>>
>>> >That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
>>> >Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
>>>
>>> They gave startup subsidies, all of which Airbus paid back, as it was
>>required
>>> to.
>>
>>
>>Now the "subsidies" come in the form of "loans". No, this battle is still
>>being waged.
>
>Airbus receives no state subsidies, but Boeing has a hugely profitable lease
>deal for tankers with the AF that Sen. McCain calls a rip-off of the
>taxpayers.
Read the news more frequently: that deal has been changed, and the
original lease deal was offered by the Government, not Boeing.
And of course it's profitable. It's supposed to be.
Why is buying less costly than leasing? Becauase the Air Force will be
responsible for repairs/maintenance. The actual costs of the planes
remains the same.
>
>>
>>>
>>> >Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
>>> >merit.
>>> >
>>> Yeah, sure. That's funny.
>>
>>
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 11:07:05 -0500, Dan Gates
<dgates@kellerengineering.com> wrote:
>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is outdoing
>>>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>>
>>
>> Sure.
>> Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
>> their airlines to buy Airbus.
>> That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
>> Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
>> Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
>> merit.
>>
>
>Bwahahahahahahahaha
>
>Only an American would believe that the US is subsidy free. Take a look
>from outside the fishbowl for a change.
>
>Dan
No one said otherwise.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<dgates@kellerengineering.com> wrote:
>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:09:39 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What does that mean? There are plenty of innovations. Airbus now is outdoing
>>>Boeing in orders, for example. Why? Innovative ideas.
>>
>>
>> Sure.
>> Like Britain, France & Germany giving economic incentives (money) to
>> their airlines to buy Airbus.
>> That's on top of the economic incentives those governments gave to
>> Airbus (subsidies) to help Airbus products.
>> Boeing doesn't get such help. They have to sell their products on
>> merit.
>>
>
>Bwahahahahahahahaha
>
>Only an American would believe that the US is subsidy free. Take a look
>from outside the fishbowl for a change.
>
>Dan
No one said otherwise.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"