Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
Airbus Broken Record  
Posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1433 times:

Well, the insanity continues. I have to speak my mind after reading yet another item regarding Airbus and how they do business. Today, Reuters reports from Vancouver that Jack Schofield, Chairman & Chief Executive of Airbus North America says Airbus will seek approval from Airbus member companies to offer the A3XX in 2000. He goes on to say the jet "would be the last model for which Airbus would seek government subsidies"!!!!!!!!! I have to ask, what the hell else is there in the product line left to subsidize?!!!! The lineup is complete!!!! The European governments will subsidize "up to 30%" of the estimated $10-$12 Billion cost of development of the A3XX. How many of us think the subsidy will be even $1 less than the maximum 30%? How many of us think the development cost will be less than $12 Billion? I think it will be higher than $12 Billion. The old Airbus party line that Boeing has enjoyed subsidies in the form of military development contracts and NASA technology transfer is both self serving and a red herring. As Business Week magazine said last month, the esimtated lifetime subsidies for the Airbus Industrie consortium total over $30 Billion!!!!! What I find interesting is much of the supposed NASA technology which Boeing is purported to have received is also available to the member companies of the Airbus consortium, and as 60 Minutes News Magazine Television showed about 5 years ago, French industrial companies are second to none in industrial espionage. I would rather give Airbus (which isn't even a real company) the military and NASA goodies (information which they already have access to) and instead get the cold hard cash which Airbus has yet to wean itself from. I believe Airbus is a public works project which for the past 25 years was not allowed to fail. I find it even more interesting after reading some of the pro-Airbus stabs at Boeing regarding pricing, that Boeing has shown a positive result in all lines of it's commercial aircraft division, making over $150 million this past year, while at the same time being accused of price dumping and speculative deals (Singapore Airlines). This is funny in light of the Aerolineas Argentinas, China Airlines deals where Airbus won the competitions which could only happen if Airbus had undercut Boeing. What about those deals? Could Airbus have possibly undercut Boeing or does only Boeing commit business craziness? What is it going to be? Is Boeing reckless and creating a price war when they win, but when Airbus wins, it's on technical merits?!!! This whole issue has gotten farcical. In this debate, there is only one company who has always received, and continues to receive billions in government subsidies - Airbus. There is only one company who has been a unified organization, reporting to stockholders, paying dividends, and having to account for all capital expenditures and repay any loans and that is Boeing. It is truly a sign of the bizarre times in which we live when in the 1960's, when the 747 was being developed, Boeing literally had to bet the company in order to provide the money to proceed. Airbus never had that problem and was not ever going to be allowed to fail as too many jobs were at stake, and as is evidenced by the A3XX, prestige is the driver and not sound business policy. I think Airbus has developed tremendous aircraft which do a great job, but this issue is not about the finished product, but a truly unfair issue that affects jobs and if evened out, would create a wholly different atmosphere at Airbus and in the marketplace. I will finish by saying that great companies like British Aerospace and Daimler Chrysler Aerospace would have nothing to do with Airbus for the past 20 years if they had to foot the entire development bill including building factory facilities or transfer ownership of their own facilities in order for Airbus to proceed. These 2 companies rank near the top in the world for business efficiency and acumen. Simply put, there always has been 2 sets of books: their official military and civil business for which they were solely responsible, and then the Airbus work which was subsidized and losses from which they were absolutely insulated. This helps to explain the inability after years of trying to even become a single company even though production lines are now full and the product line is virtually complete!!!! What's wrong with this picture?!!!

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
Reply 1, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1035 times:

Hi Navion,

You just put down on "e-paper" what i've wanted to say for so long, but have been to lazy to do.

Airbus makes good airplanes. I never counter anyone who states that, but when I remember how that airplane got to where it is. And how ignorant some people are about it, it gets my blood boiling.
Everything you said above is true.
Production costs are far gonna exceed $12 billion, goverment is gonna subsidise EXACTLY 30%, and everyone knows that there isn't a chance in hell that the A3XX will be profitable for the consortium.

As for the 747 back in the sixties. It was so risky for Boeing that many executives stated in a special about the 747 and it's development that had the 747 been a flop, the chance would be that Boeing had ceased to exist...... Such were the risks to develop this mammoth.


User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2346 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1030 times:

This ought to be a bloody thread for sure. I agree with you 100%. Europe is a world-class competitor in every imaginable industrial and service sector, with the exception of commercial aviation. In this sector, they have indeed captured 50% of the market by offering excellent products at very very competitive prices. How can the prices be so competitive when France has one of the highest manufacturing costs in the world? Simple, Airbus funds aircraft developemnt with subsidies and is excused from paying taxes. European reporters have dubbed Airbus a "high technology playground providing for cushy high-paying jobs for thousands and thousands of workers. Other European workers do not receive this kind of treatment, why should Airbus workers? The answer lies in the dirigiste philosophy of the French gov't, which coddles Airbus in order to ensure it can compete with Boeing and continue to provide much needed jobs. Well, this tune is getting very old very quickly. Airbus got its 50%, let's see if they can keep it after the playing field has been leveled. Christ, I'd love to see the reaction from Airbus if the US gov't excused Boeing from all taxes for 10 years and extended a line of credit up to $4-5 billion for the developement of a new super transporter. Imagine then if the US gov't let all that subsidzed military technology out of the bag for Boeing to incorporate into a completely new super jumbo. This is exactly what will happen unless Airbus learns to fend for itself. This is the desire of the US gov't, the British gov't, The German gov't, and anyone who stands for free and fair competition. The only party missing is France.

User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4467 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1020 times:

Navion, you hit the nail on the head. Airbus aircraft are good aircraft, but the way all of them came about is wrong. This sure has the possibility of being a bloody post.

User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8202 posts, RR: 54
Reply 4, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1020 times:

This is all bullsh*t. Boeing received a hell of a lot more $$$ from the US gov't than Airbus ever has from Europe. Have you ever heard of the B47, the B52, the KC135? And all the other military programs? And what about the Exim bank? How do you think Boeing could afford to develop the 707 (and 727, 737, 747 families)? Anyone who buys that old line about European manufacturers being subsidised while vulnerbale little Boeing bravely fights on as the last bastion of private enterprise is deeply deluded. I don't think Airbus planes are that much better than Boeing (although the gap does seem to be widening), and Airbus Industrie is intended to make a profit. Certainly the A3XX would not be launched if it was not thought possible to recoup the development cost.

But please, can those US-centric contributors to this forum pull their heads out of the sand and realise that Boeing are at least as subsidised (even to this day) as Airbus, and just cos Boeing have a better PR angle (brave bastions of private enterprise etc etc) than Airbus (evil tool of monolithic government, probably communists to boot, etc etc) doesn't mean ALL of us are fooled. Wake up for god's sake.

Reply 5, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1008 times:

If I may add another 'UScentric' viewpoint on Airbus v Boeing: As a mechanic who has worked all Boeing narrow bodies AND A310s, I can tell you that there is a great deal of difference in the quality of each company's product.

1) Boeing uses clad aluminum skins in its constructions This reduces the effects of scratches and reduces corrosion. Airbus uses un-clad aluminum. Why? Its cheaper.

2) Boeing uses flush rivets on the entire fuselage. Airbus uses 'button-head' or 'universal-head' rivets in its unpressurized area aft of the cabin. Why? Its cheaper, and installation isn't as complex.

3) Boeing will use 'standard' hardware whenever possible for items such as flight-control hinges. Airbus developed special hardware which can only be removed, and installed, by using special tooling purchased from (guess) AIRBUS.

I could go on, but I think you get my drift. Did Boeing get help from the US govt along the way? Yes, of course. Did Airbus get help from Boeing? You bet.

Whether Boeing knew it or wanted to help, they provided the vision and the incentive to Airbus.

As some of my friends say "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!"


Reply 6, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1002 times:

For all you people that complain about the Boeing military contracts, didn't they actually have to develop and build the B47 and B52? For all the money the governments have pumped into Airbus, what product, other than jobs, have they gotten in return? Come on! It cost a lot to build the B47 and B52 and that money the US government gave Boeing ACTUALLY went to a profitable program, a program where the government got something in return for their money. Can't say that about Airbus, atleast not until they show the world their financial statements and have to answer to stock holders!

Reply 7, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1006 times:


Proof of just how strong-armed the US government working on Boeing's behalf was underscored in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal Editorial titled "Airplane Politics". If people are interested, they can find it at http://interactive.wsj.com, do a keyword search on Airbus and look it up. It's all so telling a story. I endeavor people to read it a few times and ponder the points on it.
"Ugly Americanism" is an apt conclusion after reading it.


Reply 8, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 992 times:

Personally, I find all this very intersting. I did not know that Airbus was backed up so heavily, and about the Boeing military projects. Though these conflicting statements are somewhat confusing. Can we have an un-biased report by someone concerning this topic? it would help a lot.

Reply 9, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1000 times:

Hi everyone,

I would've liked to read WSJ's article. Unfortunately I couldn't find a link to search for "Airbus" as a keyword.
But I suppose this is as you said about politics in businesses and "ugly americanism".
Well, in that case I offer this website for ALL to read and you tell me if anyone can get uglier than this......




Reply 10, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 998 times:

Dash 8

You need to first subscribe to the WSJ or sign up for a trial offer which requires a credit card. Once set up with an account you can get in there. The search area has several ways to use, one for today's stories only or clicking on the Search button along the left side and doing a more wide ranging search. If you get to the article I suggest reading it several times. It's also available via the Dow Jones newswires. The story is HOT news here in Taiwan.


Reply 11, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 994 times:


The vast sordid web of subsidies can be examined as simply as keyword searching on Boeing Subsidies and Airbus Subsidies on a good Web search engine like Infoseek.

I will refer you to a few that exposes Boeing in a not so glittering way


The top most one needs careful examination, for you need to look at the Defense Department subsidys (Particularly the Technology Reinvestment Program) along with the Commerce Department and it's Export-Import Bank operation which uses US taxpayer money to create artificially below market rates on loans for US export products such as Airliners built by Boeing. For the Fiscal year in question, 1995, this gives you an idea of the -massive- amount of subsidy US industry recieves. Remember that point -Just One Year- (and one reason I dont have a violin playing while crying my heart out for Boeing either)

The second link refers to the way Boeing and other US defense contractors are attempting to rake it in expanding NATO, it gives you an idea of just how much the Pentagon is in bed with US corporationsm thru sales of their products, etc.

The third link exposes Boeing in a very nasty reference to how it can lay off 40000 employees while taking $10 billion in EXIM bank contracted orders for it's airliners from 1990-1997. Again, thank You Mister or Misses American Taxpayer! Boeing not only receives subsidy for development of it's product, it also receives subsidy in the form of taxpayer funded below market rate financing, placing commercial lendors at a disadvantage and one more reason why this crying about subsidy is so incredibly hollow. On top of that..setting up a corporation overseas to evade taxes..with amazingly the US government's approval!?

In essence, the US taxypayer helps build and yes, sell airplanes for a supposed "private enterprise".

Fourth link is the comments Ralph Nader made in reference to the Boeing/McDDmerger. Boeing went to considerable expense to purchase it's only US based competition to the tune of $5 billion+. While it could have more wisely spent that money on it's production of the 737NG and/or developing a competitive product to the A3XX.

Flagwaving means --nothing-- to me anymore..seeing how the mighty US corporations have all sorts of tricks up it's sleeve..from government to it's own I simply dont buy their arguments at all anymore.

You be the judge.


User currently offlineWilliam From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1355 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 993 times:

As a Boeing shareholder,this is going to sound wierd,but can we imagine a world without Airbus? Who would be a DISTANT #2 right now? Both sides are right,Airbus recieved huge subsidies to get started,how else are you get into the heavy aircraft business,the europeans were wondering why they could not build aircraft,and they did. We also need to keep in mind Europe is not the US. Both continents have different politics. European countries pay for health,extra education,and so on,they are Socialists. Nothing wrong,just a different way of doing things,so its not foreign to them spend money on such a grand project as Airbus. While in US,we cannot fatham such a thing,and naturally think its unfair. And you know what,the European nations got together and built an "Eurofighter",and are in the process,according to Defense Weekly,of making a military cargo plane.

But Boeing has recvd "subsidies"if thats what you want to call them. If you look at the illustrious history of Boeing's military aircraft,the R & D money did come from the Pentagon,Boeing supplied the thinking,engineering,and production. Now if thats called a subsidy,you can argue,its subjective,and if you want to argue that its military research helped its civil aviation division,well thats subjective too.

But again,think about it,if there were no Airbus,how strong of a competitor do you think they would be? Would there have been a need for the 777? Would it had been fly by wire? Who introduced that technoloy to civil aviation(no the Concorde does not count)? Would the 777have been NEEDED to be built? Would we have a 737NG? What was the reasoning behind making a 737NG? You see with hindsight we can say all kind of things about history,but think about it,would civil aircraft be as good it is today without Airbus? The answer,no matter what side you are on is NO! Its called competition,be thankful for it.

Reply 13, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 986 times:

Amen to that!

Imagine a world without Airbus. Imagine the airplanes beign flown today. Possibly turbojet models of the 707 still in service? If one wants to look at the ultimate socialist culture, being the US military where in principle everything is the same and on a graduated basis, they still fly turbojet equipment and they are rather old at that. Hence, it wouldnt be far to imagine that the civilian sector confronted with one manufacturer would be face less choice nor inclination to really develop a choice thanks to it's own monopoly.

The point that gets so clear in some of these posts is some literally sound like they advocate the destruction of Airbus and to have their mighty icon, Boeing, installed as the sole airplane supplier for the world. Whether one knows it or not, but that is so similar to the statist and central planning schemes from the Soviet era. They did similar tactics with it's heavy industry and look how successful that was. (Grin)

The points you raise are spot on!


Reply 14, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 977 times:

I knew the 2 of you would weigh in with the same song and dance regarding Airbus. First of all, you don't provide facts (including the WSJ article) just subjective conjecture. The WSJ has had many articles outlining the Airbus problems and competitive issues over the past few years. That is not a fight you want to take on. The fact is while the Exim bank finances exports from the U.S., Europe does the same thing in spades. Brazil does it for Embraer (maybe too much), Canada does it for Canadair, the point is, that is no point. Secondly, laying off 4,000 workers is what a company does that is not subsidized by their respective governments. Boeing, like all publicly traded American companies, lays off and hires as market cycles dictate. MAC_Veteran, are you really trying to say that since the Exim bank provides loans for a company to export it's products, that company is then obligated to keep overhead in the form of employees even if the company management sees otherwise? I call that government interference (Socialism) and management by the government which doesn't work in the U.S. (and in fact doesn't work competitively anywhere else). Once again I say to you, who is getting direct subsidies? Airbus. Who is not a viable company at present? Airbus. Who had won all of the recent big widebody orders (and I left out Lan Chile in my post yesterday) after accusing Boeing of insane pricing and competition? Airbus. Who is the only company to report a profit both on it's narrowbody lines and it's widebody lines? Boeing. By the way Cedarjet (and anyone else who brings this up), the 707, B-47, and KC-135 were developed in the 1950's. Last time I checked, that was over 40 years ago. Are you really going to say that has given Boeing an unfair advantage even today? Does this mean Airbus subsidies are o.k.? This tired old smokescreen needs to be given up. The fact is, Airbus would be a much better company if British Aerospace and DASA were allowed to manage it. Fortune Magazine did a great piece on how competitive some of Europe's companies have become and cited British Aerospace in the top 5 (even over American competitors!!!!). The issue is economics. Once, Airbus makes a fine products. That's not the point. The U.S. made an incredible rocket system known as the Saturn 5 which could carry over 100,000 lbs. to the moon. They only did it however to beat the Russians, not because it was a financially viable venture. This is an example of great equipment being built with someone else footing the bill. You would not see an A3XX if Airbus were a viable financial venture with shareholders (a/k/a owners) to answer to. That is a simple fact. That is the point of my posts. I love Airbus aircraft but cannot stand a fight that is not even remotely fair.

Reply 15, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 982 times:

The topic is about DEVELOPMENT and MANUFACTURING subsidies, not sales subsidies. Both Airbus and Boeing have their own ways of subsidizing sales. Do you honestly believe that European gov'ts do not apply heavy political pressure whenever and wherever possible to gain commercial business. Have you people forgotten 200 of industrial history? Some of you are so blinded by the "lily-white purity" of Airbus and Europe it is unbelievable. Is there no pressure whatsoever from Spain for Airbus orders in Latin America? Do the French and Germans not pressure their own national airlines for Airbus? Do the British not pressure other countries and their own airlines for Airbus and RR? Gov't lobbying on behalf of nationally critical indistries is as old as the world itself. Virtually every major war in history was fought in the name of economic superiority (or religious fanaticism of course.) The US EXIM Bank and other facilites which provide low cost loans to foreign countries are mirrored by equally beneficial facilites which exist in Europe such as tax exemption which lowers the need for higher margins and subsidies, which lower the cost of development. Airbus gets the benefit up front and passes it on to the customer. Boeing relies on back-end assistance to level the playing field as much as possible. The difference here is that lower pricing on aircraft is mush weightier factor in overall cost than one or tweo percentage points on your repayment deal. Equally important is the fact that many countries would be unable to afford aircraft from either manufacturer without such assistance. Someone brought up the fact that Europe has a different system (socialism) which requires heavy state involvement in economic affairs. This is an interesting point in that the subject we are discussing here, Airbus, brings absolutely zero benefit to the socialist programs of France or Germany. Airbus pays no taxes. They are a financial burden on the very people socialism is out to protect!

And the military subsidy point is completely irrelevant. Do you see any stealth 757s? How about delta wing 737s? Or even Mach 3 stratospheric 747s? The only subsidized military component I can see in a Boeing product is the B-52 fuesalage. And this plane is over 40 years old! The fuesalage was used to build the 707, a complete revolution in air travel. Anything else out there? And don't bring up the KC-135, that was built as the DC-10 first and then converted. Boeing maintains two distinct P&L centers for military and commercial. One last point here, the B-47, the B-52, and the KC-135 are/were stationed in significant numbers on 2 of the 4 countries that build Airbus. They formed the backbone of NATO deterrence against the USSR for 40 years, a deterrent that was so effective, it brought the longest and most economically beneficial period of peace to Europe in the past 1000 years. I think Boeing subsidies in this case provided some very positive benefit to Europe as well, don't you?

Reply 16, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 972 times:

To everybody who likes to cite the B-47, B-52, and KC-135 as examples of our government backing Boeing: these three aircraft were military aircraft. The reason the government gave Boeing money was because they wanted the aircraft. That's a basic element of capitalism known as a "purchase." When you go to the store to get milk, you give the cashier money. He lets you take the milk. Well, the United States Air Force wanted bombers and tankers. So they gave Boeing money and said, build us bombers and tankers. So Boeing did. It's a purchase. Plain and simple. Now, it is true that the experience Boeing gained from the B-52 did prove invaluable in developing jet transports. But that isn't unfair. That's one of the rewards of another basic concept of capitalism: "market diversification." See, Boeing had the B707 built, and they figured, "Hey, maybe we can make a tanker/cargo aircraft out of the 707 with only a few minor modifications." And, by God, they were right!!!!! WOW!!!!

Now see, the difference between those contracts, in which money was exchanged for products, and Airbus is that these different European governments say to Airbus, "Look, we'll give you subsidies to help keep you going and so you can sell airplanes cheaper." See, there's a world of difference between government contracts and government subsidies.

So before any of you claim that the U.S. government supports Boeing, get your facts straight. What we've got here is a market economy, and Boeing is just as susceptible to market trends as any other American company. Airbus has government subsidies behind it, and that's why the A320 line is selling so well. Airbus can undercut Boeing because the governemtns help Airbus with overhead costs.

Also, whoever mentioned layoffs, it's called market trends. That's what you get when you have capitalism. When the market looks bad and you don't have the GOVERNMENT HELPING YOU, sometimes you have to cut your operating costs. Okay? I hope we all have that straight.


Reply 17, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 972 times:

Whoever brought up layoffs must not realize that the EU has an average unemployment rate of 10%+. There's a ludicrous point to make if I ever read one.

Reply 18, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 964 times:

So what if Airbus recieves subsidy,want can the US do about it. And please for the sake of my stock,shut up about the National pride,have all you Boeing fans forgotten how much of Boeing's production goes to exports? Boeing has lost at least,at least 2 loyal customers(Lufstansa,and Swissair),and I am sure their are more. Do we want more European airlines flexing their national continent pride? NO!

Boeing is strong,the Mickey D (McDonnell Douglas)acquisition was an intelligent move. Because of the acquisition Boeing was able to diversify into Defense products more so,which has higher yields. Nothing can be done about Airbus subsidies,and yes Boeing recieves help from the government. If you only knew how many times the government sells the Boeing brand to foreign countries,this whole thing about subsidies would be a mute point,and yes Europe sells their companies too to foreign countries.

My point is nothing can be done about it. Airlines make purchases based on a number variables. The nationalilty of the aircraft should not be one of them. But sometime is,ie. a Taiwan airline switching some orders to Airbus,because of the US stand with CHina. But that is part doing BUSINESS,the game is never fair,but in the end,the better company survives and thrives. I say it again,do you really think Boeing products would be as good as they are today without Airbus? NO!

Competition,no matter where it comes from is good,monopolies are not.

Reply 19, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 964 times:

No one ever said that Airbus should close it's doors.
And remember that if Airbus wasn't around MacDonnel Douglas and/or Lockheed would have been present.

Reply 20, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 975 times:

People, all of you are wrong.

I saw secret papers from the 1960s, signed by the head of states of France, Germany, Britain and some others. Their intention was to create an own, European company that builds civilian aircraft. The goal was clear: Destroy Boeing! The weapon was called A I R B U S (A-ircraft from Europe, I-ntended to R-ule out B-oeing, leave the U-S without aircraft makers), and should work with government support from the beginning: The fuel of the weapon has to be MONEY, MONEY, YES, BIG AMOUNTS OF TAXES, directly going to the A-I-R-B-U-S project.
That is the real background!

And success was the result, Boeing lost many orders, MDD got shot down, Airbus market shares increase. With many more billions to come the market share will reach 75% soon, the A3XX will cost much gov. support, WHO CARES? We the brave European citizens PAY PAY PAY! The next step is a supersonic aircraft which will receive new technologies such as pilot-less-flying-computers, and virtual flight attendants, to save weight.
The price for one supersonic aircraft which by the way can fly around the world in five hours (nonstop certainly) will be TWO Euros. One Euro for the worldwide newspaper annonce that says: Yes, Boing, we kicked you out of business! Good Bye!
And one Euro for the jobless-Boeing-worker fund, to help them survive.
Now you know what's coming.

People, that was an ironic post for a senseless discussion. To all Boeing fans who wear white jackets (only): Just go on believing Boeing is the poor poor guy in that competition. Sleep well with that opinion. It may help to explain and tolerate all those large Airbus orders by bad bad airlines.
Something here reminds me of the dog who always barks at another dog but doesn't realize he sits in front of a mirror...

Best Regards

Reply 21, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 955 times:

I don't know what's worse Udo, your obvious sarcasm or your total lack of consideration of an issue that is important to many people. Quick news flash for you, just because you say something is not important, doesn't make it so. Secondly, you (like other earlier posts) provide no substantive discussion, facts, etc. but instead, when faced with references to facts, quotes, articles, just end up saying that it's not important or the American's are paranoid. This is a real issue and your callous disregard of others views and smart aleck response doesn't serve you well.

Reply 22, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 953 times:

Hey UDO,

Thanks for this piece of humour! It fits very well after a stressing day and is a very good preliminar to happy-hour (now it's 6 3/4 pm here)!

Sincere thanks  !

Best Regards,

TP343, São Paulo, Brazil.

Reply 23, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 959 times:

This doesn't seem to be going anywhere but downhill. I had to delete the last three messages and I'll make a qualified guess and assume any further responses would not keep any higher standard.

Topic archived.


Top Of Page
Forum Index


Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airbus A330 - Close To Breaking Sales Record. posted Wed Jun 6 2007 19:39:32 by WINGS
Airbus Is On Track For Record Deliveries In 2006 posted Tue Aug 8 2006 17:41:19 by Leelaw
The Airbus A340 Has An Excellent Safety Record... posted Wed Aug 3 2005 10:27:50 by CV990
Airbus Propels Eads To A Record €1.03bn Net Income posted Wed Mar 9 2005 23:24:22 by Keesje
Over 300 Faulty Slats Deliverd To Airbus posted Tue Dec 2 2008 02:02:17 by SNfreak
Naming Boeing Aircraft And Airbus Aircraft posted Sun Nov 30 2008 22:39:53 by Ovrpowrd727
Spirit Aero Faulty Nutplates Affecting Airbus? posted Wed Nov 26 2008 09:40:07 by Alessandro
Global Express Smashes RTW Record Via Both Poles posted Tue Nov 25 2008 15:40:20 by Leezyjet