Samsonite

Thanks for the detailed response. Greatly appreciated. The Plumeria sounds good, but if it involves riding a motorbike in Pattaya, count me out. I may be many things, but suicidal I'm not.

Just out of curiosity, how long does it take, by Baht Bus, to get from the Plumeria apartments at Wongamat Beach to South Pattaya Road?

Anyone that hasn't become so twisted they can't tell night from day....

Guest columnist EU launch aid to Airbus clearly violates WTO rules By Ted Austell Special to The Times "Everyone does it, so let's be gentlemen and settle our dispute out of court." That's the gist of the arguments Airbus makes regarding the European Union-U.S. dispute over aerospace subsidies. Trouble is, everyone does not do it, if by "it" we mean the use of government "launch aid" to subsidize a private company in a manner that's inconsistent with the rules of the World Trade Organization. European governments provide billions of dollars to Airbus each time it develops a new airplane. Every dollar of government launch aid that Airbus receives is a dollar less it needs to borrow from commercial lenders, or take from profits earned on sales of existing products — a fact that enabled Airbus to lower its prices and grab significant market share away from Boeing. What's more, European government launch aid carries repayment terms other borrowers can only dream of. There is no repayment schedule of the kind imposed by commercial lenders. Repayment is pegged to airplane deliveries, which means Airbus has free use of the launch-aid money for considerable periods of time. Airbus begins repayment only when certain Airbus-defined delivery thresholds are met, and if those thresholds are never achieved, there is no obligation to repay the balance of the loan. Government launch aid gives Airbus a significant competitive advantage, and it clearly is illegal under WTO rules. Now, let's look at the U.S. practices the EU and Airbus allege to be "indirect" government subsidies to Boeing: government contracts, research grants and tax support. Government contracts, including research contracts, are not illegal under WTO subsidy rules as long as the government is getting products or services in return for the money it spends. That has been the case with every contract Boeing has had with the U.S. government. In return for the payments received, Boeing has provided fighter jets, rockets, satellites, maintenance, training and other products and services to its government customers. In no case has Boeing asked for, or received, government money to develop its commercial-airplane products. Boeing has fully funded with its own money all of the research and development costs associated with those products. As for tax support, the decision a few years ago by the state of Washington to lower the taxes it levies on aerospace companies to bring them more in line with the taxes levied on other industries is not an illegal subsidy by any WTO definition. A handful of Airbus lobbyists, consultants and academics have raised another issue that is not a part of the EU case against the United States but which I will address here — and that is the issue of alleged Japanese subsidies to Boeing for the 787. Boeing's relationships with its Japanese suppliers are fully commercial in nature. Boeing has not received, and will not receive, any money from the government of Japan. What's curious about the EU and Airbus arguments regarding these so-called "indirect" subsidies to Boeing is that all of the supports they talk about are supports Airbus itself receives. Airbus and its parent company EADS are large government contractors — and not just in Europe, but in the United States as well. Airbus and EADS also are big recipients of government R&D grants, for which European governments receive nothing in return. Airbus and EADS take advantage of tax incentives in places like Alabama, Florida and anyplace else they are offered; and they use many of the same suppliers as Boeing in Japan, in Europe, in the United States and elsewhere. Maybe that is why the EU chose not to include the allegations against Japan in its case against the United States. Perhaps that also is why European officials have been reluctant to talk about new rules to govern such things as government R&D practices (unless, of course, they apply solely to the United States and not to Europe). It is such unsubstantiated allegations and misleading statements about "indirect" government support that have made it so difficult to resolve the subsidy issue outside of the litigation both sides have brought to the WTO. The U.S. government and Boeing remain prepared to negotiate a settlement of this dispute. However, Airbus and its government supporters have shown great reluctance to give up the launch aid that has made Airbus so successful, despite the fact that the practice is clearly illegal. One final point in closing: European launch aid sets a very bad example for other nations like China and Russia that have ambitions to be major players in the commercial-aerospace sector. Those countries are watching closely to see how this dispute plays out. It is in the long-term interests of both the United States and Europe to recognize the importance of, and fully comply with, WTO rules. Ted Austell is vice president of international trade for Boeing. He is based in Washington, D.C. Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opin...8_boeing18.html ********* BTW, Cheshire, who were you quoting. Do you have a link to the source to go with your cut and paste?

Wrong. I never said they made a "better" product, but they are stand-alone independent business, not a government founded and supported social welfare program like Airbus.

That's pretty rich coming from you, the person who has taken every opportunity to harp on an on about the KC-767 program.

Children. Children. Amazing just how sophomoric some of you are.

Typical. You and a few others take every opportunity to take a crack (pun intended) at Boeing, but say anything about one of the largest and worst ran social welfare programs (Airbus) in business history and you start make excuses.

Airbus A330/A340 mystery cracking forces emergency airworthiness directive extension By Ian Goold Airbus's inability to explain cracking in an undercarriage support beam of an A330 that could lead to a gear collapse has resulted an emergency airworthiness directive (EAD) requiring repetitive inspections on all A330/A340s indefinitely. The crack was discovered last year in the main landing gear rib 6 forged support beam during routine lubrication of an A330 operated by an unidentified carrier for long-range flights. Rib 6 is a main structural member that carries all landing-gear loads and such a crack could lead to undercarriage collapse, says John Grother, vice-president customer services A330/A340. Based on experience with a rib-cracking problem on the A320 family Airbus had initially tacked the A330 discovery with a fleet-inspection programme, while the European Aviation Safety Agency issued an EAD in December to mandate compliance with relevant service bulletins on all A330/A340s at least five years old (except those previously fitted, or originally manufactured, with high-interference bushes). This called for inspections of certain aircraft at prescribed flight-cycle and age thresholds. However, subsequent metallurgical examination and analysis of the damaged rib revealed a different crack propagation to that on the A320. After several months' consideration, the manufacturer remains mystified because it has found no solid evidence of why the cracking occurred. A new EAD supersedes the December alert that mandates compliance with new Airbus service bulletins and also introduces flight-hour thresholds. It has extended inspections to cover all aircraft indefinitely and makes clear that even complete replacement of rib 6 does not remove the necessity for continuing repetitive inspections. If the event remains a one-off, Grother thinks checks will continue for at least two years, during which period most aircraft are expected to require inspection up to 12 times at typical flight-cycle rates. The new flight-hour threshold has been introduced not because normal operational loads would contribute to crack propagation, but to recognise different aircraft operations. It also reduces as permitted maximum landing weight increases. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...-directive.html

17/10/07 SOURCE:Flightglobal.com A400M delivery delayed by six months By Barbara Cockburn Airbus' military A400M airlifter is to delay deliveries by at least six months with a "risk of a further slippage of up to a half year", according to an EADS statement. Deliveries were originally scheduled to start in October 2009. The delays will affect A400M deliveries to both European and other customer nations. The statement said: "A400M deliveries are now expected to start six months later than initially planned with a risk of a further slippage of up to a half year." EADS cited causes including "slow progress in engine development, which stands on the critical path to achieving first flight, schedule overruns in the systems development, and a flight test programme that differs significantly from that of commercial Airbus aircraft." http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...six-months.html

"Today, the A350 XWB has better technology advancements in all composite airframe and has production moving to a larger base of risk-sharing partners willing to contract in dollars." Strictly a personal opinion by the author of the article with no basis in fact. Looks like something you would write CheshireCat.

After hearing so much about our European cousins' oh, so superior business ethics, I was devastated to read the following: EADS 'most surprised' by allegations of widespread insider trading Thursday October 4, 2007 EADS said yesterday it "is most surprised" by reports that French stock market regulator AMF has given prosecutors a "preliminary note" alleging insider trading in 2006 by numerous EADS and Airbus executives related to A380 program delays. AMF yesterday confirmed it forwarded findings to prosecutors, which it is required to do once it discovers evidence of possible wrongdoing. It has been investigating whether EADS and Airbus executives inappropriately sold off EADS shares prior to Airbus's June 2006 announcement of A380 program delays that led to an immediate 26% drop in EADS' stock price (ATWOnline, Dec. 13, 2006). At issue is whether executives knew about the A380 production delays and sold shares based on that knowledge before the aircraft program's problems were revealed publicly. Le Figaro yesterday reported that AMF's report to prosecutors implicates a host of top EADS officials and alleges that nearly all of EADS' and Airbus's top-ranking officials at the time were aware of A380 program problems well before they informed the public. Former EADS co-CEO Noel Forgeard long has been questioned about his sale of €2.5 million ($3.5 million) worth of stock options three months before Airbus announced A380 delays. Yesterday's report indicated that AMF believes the insider trading scandal goes well beyond Forgeard and could ensnare current high-ranking company officials and even former top finance officials in the French government, which owns a 15% stake in EADS. EADS did not address the allegations directly, saying in a statement that it considers "leaks" from AMF to the media to be "an unlawful violation of the confidentiality of the current investigations and of the principle of the presumption of innocence." by Aaron Karp http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=10396

Surprised someone from your camp would acknowledge that. Do you think if Airbus were to fold, Lockheed might start building commercial aircraft again?

The B787 won't be "late" until, and if, it is not delivered to the first customer in May 2008. Even if it is late, it won't be TWO YEARS late like the Airbus 380. As to the 777-300ER, the type of seats, how many, and how they are arranged is entirely up to each airline. Cathay Pacific has done a nice job with their new 777-300ER, "The fuel-efficient 777-300ER will enable Cathay Pacific to fly more passengers non-stop to major destinations in cabins that feature the airline's acclaimed new long-haul product. The three-class configuration features suites in First Class, full-flat Business Class beds with total privacy, and Economy Class seats that recline within a fixed shell to improve passenger space and comfort." http://www.asiatraveltips.com/news07/110-CathayPacific.shtml History. History is on my side regarding Airbust (and the 380). It is just a matter of time.

Not at all. Actually, I quite confident that in the long run I'll be proven correct.

Well, Cheshire Cat, even if it is successful, and they will have to sell another 300 or so to reach the breakeven point, it won't be because of its good looks. It has always reminded me of a 1960's Citroen.

The topic is the B787 and the plane airbust is trying, someday, maybe, if they can get the funding, to build, is more on topic than a "virtual border."

Here we go again, revisions 6 and 7 and 8 and ...... DATE:21/09/07 SOURCE:Flightglobal.com Airbus confirms switch to A380-style nose for A350 XWB By Max Kingsley-Jones Airbus has decided on a raft of revisions to the configuration of its A350 XWB family, including the adoption of a new nose shape and changes to the structural make-up of the fuselage. Proposals revealed by flightglobal.com earlier this year to reprofile and revise the XWB’s nose section have been confirmed by the airframer. The design now incorporates a configuration derived from the A380 with a forward-mounted nosegear bay and new cockpit-window glazing. The unusual four-window arrangement that was a feature of the original XWB design has gone, with a more conventional six-panel flightdeck windscreen similar to its big sister in its place. The cockpit fuselage section will be constructed from aluminium lithium, with Airbus deciding against adopting a one-piece carbonfibre structure that it had been evaluating preiously. A350 XWB chief engineer Gordon McConnell says that the nose reprofile was made partly for improved aerodynamics and also to enable the overhead crew rest to be installed further forward and eliminate any encroachment in the passenger cabin. He adds that strength requirements for birdstrike protection were partly behind the decision to adopt a metallic nose structure. "If we went for a composite structure we'd have to reinforce the area above the cockpit with titanium which is expensive," he says. A key change is the switch from metallic to carbonfibre fuselage frames, although the fuselage crossbeams remain metallic. "These could also be switched to carbonfibre, but we're still running trade-off studies," says McConnell. The plan to use large carbonfibre fuselage panels for the main fuselage skin has not changed. The decision to switch to carbonfibre frames comes after several of Airbus’s key customers, including International Lease Finance and Emirates, had been vocal in their criticism of the XWB’s fuselage construction in recent months. "The change addresses concerns over possible corrosion risks between metallic frames and carbonfibre," says McConnell. He adds that the switch also eliminates some of the "perceived maintentnace programme inspection requirements" that resulted from the use of metallic frames. Airbus remains on target to reach its "freeze of aircraft concept" in October 2008. The first version of the three-model XWB family to enter service will be the 314-seat -900, in mid-2013." http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...r-a350-xwb.html

September 15, 2007 A350 to have composite fuselage not metal frame Saturday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Airbus has changed the A350 design and will go with a composite fuselage frame. "We thought the design we had was very good, but this one is even better," John Leahy, Airbus chief operating officer for customers, told the paper. Here is part of the Journal story: For months, Airbus had been telling customers that attaching skin panels made of carbon-fiber composites to an aluminum-alloy skeleton was superior to Boeing's method of making both the frame and fuselage of the Dreamliner from composites. But Airbus, a unit of Franco-German European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co., began to rethink its position after encountering resistance from customers who questioned whether the A350 would be more difficult to maintain than the Dreamliner. Airbus has faced public pressure from several key customers throughout the design of the A350. After encountering criticism for first proposing the plane in 2004 with a more traditional all-aluminum fuselage, Airbus said in July 2006 that it was renaming the airplane the A350 XWB, for extra-wide body. Those plans called for making the skeleton of aluminum and the skins of composites, even though some aerospace engineers warned that such a combination could set the stage for corrosion and would require extra attention. John Plueger, president and chief operating officer of leasing titan International Lease Finance Corp., which had criticized Airbus's plans to use the aluminum frame, said he believes Airbus is making the right decision. "This is what we were hoping for," Mr. Plueger said. "We're getting more and more interest in the plane from our leasing customers, so the sooner Airbus can get it to market, the better." There have been a number of heated discussions on this blog about the previous decision by Airbus to have composite panels and a metal frame. http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aerospace/

Have you ever seen that man drink?! If drinking were an Olympic event, Hammer would be a Gold Medal Winner! He needs and deserves a day of rest.

Emirates' Clark: 787 delay inevitable but insignificant Monday September 10, 2007 "It would have been a miracle for Boeing to have flown the 787 on time," Emirates President Tim Clark said, adding that the delay would not be a factor in the airline's evaluation of the 787 and A350 for an order for 100 aircraft. Talking to ATWOnline onboard the carrier's latest 777-300ER Ultra Long Range, Clark said the 787 will be "one of the finest aircraft ever built," adding, "If you think about it, there is just so much new technology in the 787; it is no surprise at all there is a short delay and the supply chain has let [boeing] down." However, he believes the manufacturer will deliver the airplane close to schedule (ATWOnline, Sept. 6). He also is bullish that the company will get the 747-8I right for the Emirates range specification. "They're not quite there yet but they are much, much closer than they were six months ago," he said. When Boeing stretched the -8I to the same length as the 747-8F, it traded extra capacity for range, which did not suit Emirates' ultra-long-range missions from Dubai (ATWOnline, May 10). The manufacturer has been working on weight reduction in order to operate Dubai-Los Angeles with 400-passenger capability year-round. In the original configuration offered to airlines, the 747-8I had seating for 450 in Boeing's standard three-class configuration with a range of 8,000 nm., later increased to 8,300 nm. after wind tunnel tests. That gain was traded for 17 more passengers in an additional stretch of 2 m. that matched the length of the freighter (ATWOnline, Oct. 31, 2006). Emirates would buy 10-20 such aircraft, but Clark cautioned that internal fit-out configuration issues remain to be sorted out. by Geoffrey Thomas" http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=10156

On the bay side of Walking Street across from the Diamond Arcade.

Boeing, Aeroflot Finalize Order for 22 787 Dreamliners SEATTLE, Sept. 05, 2007 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] and Aeroflot, Russia's flagship carrier based in Moscow, today announced they have finalized an order for 22 Boeing 787-8s. The order was contingent upon Aeroflot shareholder approval, which was granted yesterday. The order is valued at $3.6 billion at list prices. Aeroflot said the 787 will upgrade its existing widebody fleet, as well as provide for fleet growth to meet increased demand for air travel. "The 787 is an excellent match for many of our requirements thanks to its efficiency, operational performance and passenger comfort. The 787 will open new market opportunities as we further modernize our fleet and expand our international reach," said Valery Okulov, Aeroflot general director. Aeroflot did not announce an engine selection for its 787s. "Throughout the process we worked closely with Aeroflot to understand its requirements and to demonstrate how the 787 meets those requirements," said Craig Jones, vice president of Sales for Russia and Central Asia, Boeing Commercial Airplanes. "The 787 will reinforce Aeroflot's leadership position. It will be a tool for profitability and help Aeroflot offer an all-new passenger experience to its customers." Boeing developed the 787 for the mid-sized jetliner market, estimated at 3,500 aircraft over the next 20 years. Fifty percent of the 787's primary structure is made of advanced carbon composites which allow higher cabin humidity, a lower cabin altitude and the largest windows in the industry. High-efficiency engines combined with a lighter airframe and improved aerodynamics will enable the 787 to produce seat-mile costs normally associated with much larger aircraft. In addition to bringing big-jet ranges to mid-size airplanes, the 787 will provide airlines with unmatched fuel efficiency, resulting in exceptional environmental performance. The airplane will use 20 percent less fuel for comparable missions than any similarly-sized airplane. It will also travel at speeds similar to today's fastest widebodies, Mach 0.85. Also, airlines will enjoy more cargo revenue capacity. Boeing has logged 706 orders from 48 customers for the 787 Dreamliner. ###

Boeing says 787 won't fly before mid-November By Seattle Times staff UPDATE - 08:07 AM Boeing will delay the first flight of its 787 Dreamliner by six weeks or more, executives said on a conference call this morning. The new target date for first flight is "somewhere in the mid-November to mid-December range," said Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Scott Carson. He said the delivery date of the first plane remains unchanged. "The plan we are now working still supports first delivery in May 2008." Carson assured analysts that "there will be no impact on our current financial guidance." As recently as July, Boeing CEO Jim McNerney said first flight would occur at the end of September, or a few days into October. Mike Bair, chief of the 787 program, said the changing schedule "adds pressure and some increased risk" to the delivery date for the first plane. He said the company has encountered two problems in completing the first airplane. One is the amount of "traveled work" wiring and systems installation that was not completed on time by Boeing's global suppliers before they shipped major airframe sections to the final assembly plant in Everett. The other snag is the flight control system software, which Bair said "is now slated for completion and delivery later this month to integration labs." Despite the snags, Carson noted that Boeing has logged 258 sales this year, bringing the total to 706 total orders from 48 airlines. Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boei...787delay05.html

Key word is "may."