U.S. airlines must now reveal where aircraft were built
Jun 23rd 2005 | 10:08 am
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. airlines must now reveal where aircraft were built
John wrote:
> Robert J Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
> >The problem with ALL the comments on this subject is that the original
> >story was sloppy reporting.
> >
> >I think you will find that the rule does NOT say "BUILT", it says
> >"ASSEMBLED". There's a _world_ of difference (pun intended). A plane
> >can be _assembled_ in country U, even if every last part comes from
> >other countries. That would apparently satisfy this labeling law!!!
> >Yes it's xenophobic and intended to support company B, but the wording
> >was carefully chosen for the desired effect.
> I think you're seeing a conspiracy where there is none.
> Even if it said built instead of assembled, most people would know
> that "this aircraft was built in the U.S." does NOT mean "every single
> part of this aircraft was built in the U.S."
> Since airliners have millions of parts, most people also know that if
> they were going to publish where every single part was made, they'd
> have to include a book bigger than the NYC phonebook in each seat
> pocket of the plane.
I bet rednecks don't know that stuff though !
Graham
> Robert J Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
> >The problem with ALL the comments on this subject is that the original
> >story was sloppy reporting.
> >
> >I think you will find that the rule does NOT say "BUILT", it says
> >"ASSEMBLED". There's a _world_ of difference (pun intended). A plane
> >can be _assembled_ in country U, even if every last part comes from
> >other countries. That would apparently satisfy this labeling law!!!
> >Yes it's xenophobic and intended to support company B, but the wording
> >was carefully chosen for the desired effect.
> I think you're seeing a conspiracy where there is none.
> Even if it said built instead of assembled, most people would know
> that "this aircraft was built in the U.S." does NOT mean "every single
> part of this aircraft was built in the U.S."
> Since airliners have millions of parts, most people also know that if
> they were going to publish where every single part was made, they'd
> have to include a book bigger than the NYC phonebook in each seat
> pocket of the plane.
I bet rednecks don't know that stuff though !
Graham
Jun 23rd 2005 | 10:31 am
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. airlines must now reveal where aircraft were built
Jeff Hacker wrote:
> Hondas are
> made in the U.S., the U.K, and elsewhere outside of Japan; Volkswagen serves
> North America (the U.S. and Canada) from a factory in Mexico, and the U.S.
> Saturn is essentially an Opel (the L-series is an Opel/Vauxhall Vectra under
> the skin, and the Pontiac GTO is a Holden Manaro.
But they're all fundamentally decent cars yet GM has used Chevy as its worldwide
brand for it's bargain basement crap !
Would you invest in GM ?
Graham
> Hondas are
> made in the U.S., the U.K, and elsewhere outside of Japan; Volkswagen serves
> North America (the U.S. and Canada) from a factory in Mexico, and the U.S.
> Saturn is essentially an Opel (the L-series is an Opel/Vauxhall Vectra under
> the skin, and the Pontiac GTO is a Holden Manaro.
But they're all fundamentally decent cars yet GM has used Chevy as its worldwide
brand for it's bargain basement crap !
Would you invest in GM ?
Graham
Jun 23rd 2005 | 11:48 am
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. airlines must now reveal where aircraft were built
"George Patterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:buoue.9503$Wb.782@trndny03...
> SP Cook wrote:
>> Who cares?
> The company that gets the contract for printing up those little cards?
> George Patterson
> Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
> and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
> Because she smells like a new truck.
Yup, probably hooked up with that Rep. John Mica somehow...
> SP Cook wrote:
>> Who cares?
> The company that gets the contract for printing up those little cards?
> George Patterson
> Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
> and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
> Because she smells like a new truck.
Yup, probably hooked up with that Rep. John Mica somehow...
Jun 23rd 2005 | 12:09 pm
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. airlines must now reveal where aircraft were built
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 22:03:52 GMT, Deep Foiled Malls
<deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:48:55 +0100, Pooh Bear
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>Dave Proctor wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 06:19:04 +0100, Pooh Bear
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >Sounds xenophobic to me.
>>> Please explain.
>>> (Australian joke here, Aussies will get it).
>>This an Oz - Brit thing ? I know you antipodeans like to make us feel
>>inferior but I'm not sure here. Meaning I didn't get it and pls explain
>>!
>It's an Oz only thing. It's actually pronounced "ploiz eggsploin".
>--
Nah - you're getting confused at the linguistics. "Egg" is a
special word and appears in phrases like "egg nishner".
Sorry - I forgot. They don't have egg nishners in the UK do
they? You know - the thing that Merkins use to keep the room
cool in "summer" (that's a special day that occurs every
August in England and Chicago).
Now, if you're discussing "eggs" as a food, you're still
spelling it wrong. One of my favourite breakfasts is MNX.
PS. We're not cruel. Any feelings of inferiority are purely
self-inflicted, no matter how justified they may be.
Cheers, Alan, Australia
<deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:48:55 +0100, Pooh Bear
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>Dave Proctor wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 06:19:04 +0100, Pooh Bear
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >Sounds xenophobic to me.
>>> Please explain.
>>> (Australian joke here, Aussies will get it).
>>This an Oz - Brit thing ? I know you antipodeans like to make us feel
>>inferior but I'm not sure here. Meaning I didn't get it and pls explain
>>!
>It's an Oz only thing. It's actually pronounced "ploiz eggsploin".
>--
Nah - you're getting confused at the linguistics. "Egg" is a
special word and appears in phrases like "egg nishner".
Sorry - I forgot. They don't have egg nishners in the UK do
they? You know - the thing that Merkins use to keep the room
cool in "summer" (that's a special day that occurs every
August in England and Chicago).
Now, if you're discussing "eggs" as a food, you're still
spelling it wrong. One of my favourite breakfasts is MNX.
PS. We're not cruel. Any feelings of inferiority are purely
self-inflicted, no matter how justified they may be.
Cheers, Alan, Australia
Jun 23rd 2005 | 12:33 pm
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. airlines must now reveal where aircraft were built
> >
> > Umm, if the emergency exit card says "Boeing" or "M-D" its US made, if
> > it says "Airbus" it isn't.
> >
> What about Embraer or Saab or Canadair or ...
Why would anybody care? I don't see what this legislation is meant to
accomplish, other than waste a lot of money. Last time I flew (last week),
the equipment (aircraft model number) was clearly marked on my itinerary for
each leg of my trip. If I really CARED (don't know why I would), I could
simply google it to find out where the airplane was made.
This is a solution in search of a problem. It will be searching
orever. -Dave
> > Umm, if the emergency exit card says "Boeing" or "M-D" its US made, if
> > it says "Airbus" it isn't.
> >
> What about Embraer or Saab or Canadair or ...
Why would anybody care? I don't see what this legislation is meant to
accomplish, other than waste a lot of money. Last time I flew (last week),
the equipment (aircraft model number) was clearly marked on my itinerary for
each leg of my trip. If I really CARED (don't know why I would), I could
simply google it to find out where the airplane was made.
This is a solution in search of a problem. It will be searching
orever. -Dave
Jun 23rd 2005 | 3:17 pm
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. airlines must now reveal where aircraft were built
I think this rule could actually be good.
Imagine the black eye the rabid US politicians would get IF it turns out
that Airbus aircraft have greater US contents than the newer Boeing jets
?
"This Boeing plane was 42% built in the USA"
"This Airbus plane was 43% built in the USA.
Even if Boeing still has greater "made in USA" contents percentage, it
would outline the fact that Boeing is now relying on foreign content and
subsidies to a verty large extent and this would hurt egos in the USA.
Imagine the black eye the rabid US politicians would get IF it turns out
that Airbus aircraft have greater US contents than the newer Boeing jets
?
"This Boeing plane was 42% built in the USA"
"This Airbus plane was 43% built in the USA.
Even if Boeing still has greater "made in USA" contents percentage, it
would outline the fact that Boeing is now relying on foreign content and
subsidies to a verty large extent and this would hurt egos in the USA.
Jun 23rd 2005 | 4:38 pm
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. airlines must now reveal where aircraft were built
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 23:17:33 -0400, nobody
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I think this rule could actually be good.
>Imagine the black eye the rabid US politicians would get IF it turns out
>that Airbus aircraft have greater US contents than the newer Boeing jets
> ?
>"This Boeing plane was 42% built in the USA"
>"This Airbus plane was 43% built in the USA.
Measured by cost? weight? volume? numbers employed? flow-on
dollars to the community?
>Even if Boeing still has greater "made in USA" contents percentage, it
>would outline the fact that Boeing is now relying on foreign content and
>subsidies to a very large extent and this would hurt egos in the USA.
It's nice to see that the bureaucrats of other countries are
just as silly, in their ivory towers, as ours are.
Cheers, Alan, Australia
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I think this rule could actually be good.
>Imagine the black eye the rabid US politicians would get IF it turns out
>that Airbus aircraft have greater US contents than the newer Boeing jets
> ?
>"This Boeing plane was 42% built in the USA"
>"This Airbus plane was 43% built in the USA.
Measured by cost? weight? volume? numbers employed? flow-on
dollars to the community?
>Even if Boeing still has greater "made in USA" contents percentage, it
>would outline the fact that Boeing is now relying on foreign content and
>subsidies to a very large extent and this would hurt egos in the USA.
It's nice to see that the bureaucrats of other countries are
just as silly, in their ivory towers, as ours are.
Cheers, Alan, Australia
Jun 23rd 2005 | 4:51 pm
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. airlines must now reveal where aircraft were built
"Pooh Bear" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Robert J Carpenter wrote:
> > The problem with ALL the comments on this subject is that the original
> > story was sloppy reporting.
> >
> > I think you will find that the rule does NOT say "BUILT", it says
> > "ASSEMBLED". There's a _world_ of difference (pun intended). A plane
> > can be _assembled_ in country U, even if every last part comes from
> > other countries. That would apparently satisfy this labeling law!!!
> > Yes it's xenophobic and intended to support company B, but the wording
> > was carefully chosen for the desired effect.
> Boeing's screwed anyway. Their best seller is the 737. Not bad considering
> how good Airbus's A320 family ( 318 / 319 / 320 / 321 ) is in comparison !
> And I'm just so betting Toulouse is about to start making plastic versions
> of these too !
> They stop making 747s next year IIRC. A military tanker deal ( that's come
> under close scrutiny for being 'dodgy' ) may keep the 767 ? line going for
> a bit longer maybe. 757 is dead.
> And then Airbus spoilt the 7E7 / 787 party by announcing its own
> competitor in the same market that just picked up a single initial order
> for 50 planes ! How many launch orders are for 50 planes ?
> The Airbus competitor to the 7E7 / 787 is the A350 btw. A kinda 'hi-tech'
> composites version of the already succesful A330 with longer range and
> lower fuel costs and of course yet again the same flight deck so you don't
> have crew conversion costs !
> Not to mention the A380 of course. They have orders out to 2012 and
> beyond.
The A350 will not be launched until end of September - if at all.
As for the A380 having orders out to 2012, I don't think the problems and
delays with the plane are as bad as all that. ;-)
Paul Nixon
news:[email protected]...
> Robert J Carpenter wrote:
> > The problem with ALL the comments on this subject is that the original
> > story was sloppy reporting.
> >
> > I think you will find that the rule does NOT say "BUILT", it says
> > "ASSEMBLED". There's a _world_ of difference (pun intended). A plane
> > can be _assembled_ in country U, even if every last part comes from
> > other countries. That would apparently satisfy this labeling law!!!
> > Yes it's xenophobic and intended to support company B, but the wording
> > was carefully chosen for the desired effect.
> Boeing's screwed anyway. Their best seller is the 737. Not bad considering
> how good Airbus's A320 family ( 318 / 319 / 320 / 321 ) is in comparison !
> And I'm just so betting Toulouse is about to start making plastic versions
> of these too !
> They stop making 747s next year IIRC. A military tanker deal ( that's come
> under close scrutiny for being 'dodgy' ) may keep the 767 ? line going for
> a bit longer maybe. 757 is dead.
> And then Airbus spoilt the 7E7 / 787 party by announcing its own
> competitor in the same market that just picked up a single initial order
> for 50 planes ! How many launch orders are for 50 planes ?
> The Airbus competitor to the 7E7 / 787 is the A350 btw. A kinda 'hi-tech'
> composites version of the already succesful A330 with longer range and
> lower fuel costs and of course yet again the same flight deck so you don't
> have crew conversion costs !
> Not to mention the A380 of course. They have orders out to 2012 and
> beyond.
The A350 will not be launched until end of September - if at all.
As for the A380 having orders out to 2012, I don't think the problems and
delays with the plane are as bad as all that. ;-)
Paul Nixon
Jun 23rd 2005 | 8:20 pm
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. airlines must now reveal where aircraft were built
Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> Even more amusingly, the US tends to criticise *Europe* for being over-regulated !
Tom Friedman has an opinion piece along the same lines,
on how Americans have been bashing the French (mostly
due to Iraq) but yet, pushing similar sentiments ...
"We Are All French Now?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/24/op...4friedman.html
"Lordy, it is fun poking fun at France. But wait ...wait ...
what is that noise I hear coming from the U.S. Congress? Is
that ... is that members of the U.S. Congress - many of them
Democrats - threatening to reject Cafta, the Central American
Free Trade Agreement?"
Witness, for example, CNN's #2 show in North America after
Larry King ...
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/
>
> Even more amusingly, the US tends to criticise *Europe* for being over-regulated !
Tom Friedman has an opinion piece along the same lines,
on how Americans have been bashing the French (mostly
due to Iraq) but yet, pushing similar sentiments ...
"We Are All French Now?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/24/op...4friedman.html
"Lordy, it is fun poking fun at France. But wait ...wait ...
what is that noise I hear coming from the U.S. Congress? Is
that ... is that members of the U.S. Congress - many of them
Democrats - threatening to reject Cafta, the Central American
Free Trade Agreement?"
Witness, for example, CNN's #2 show in North America after
Larry King ...
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/
Jun 23rd 2005 | 11:52 pm
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. airlines must now reveal where aircraft were built
khobar wrote:
> "Pooh Bear" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Robert J Carpenter wrote:
> >
> > > The problem with ALL the comments on this subject is that the original
> > > story was sloppy reporting.
> > >
> > > I think you will find that the rule does NOT say "BUILT", it says
> > > "ASSEMBLED". There's a _world_ of difference (pun intended). A plane
> > > can be _assembled_ in country U, even if every last part comes from
> > > other countries. That would apparently satisfy this labeling law!!!
> > > Yes it's xenophobic and intended to support company B, but the wording
> > > was carefully chosen for the desired effect.
> >
> > Boeing's screwed anyway. Their best seller is the 737. Not bad considering
> > how good Airbus's A320 family ( 318 / 319 / 320 / 321 ) is in comparison !
> > And I'm just so betting Toulouse is about to start making plastic versions
> > of these too !
> >
> > They stop making 747s next year IIRC. A military tanker deal ( that's come
> > under close scrutiny for being 'dodgy' ) may keep the 767 ? line going for
> > a bit longer maybe. 757 is dead.
> >
> > And then Airbus spoilt the 7E7 / 787 party by announcing its own
> > competitor in the same market that just picked up a single initial order
> > for 50 planes ! How many launch orders are for 50 planes ?
> >
> > The Airbus competitor to the 7E7 / 787 is the A350 btw. A kinda 'hi-tech'
> > composites version of the already succesful A330 with longer range and
> > lower fuel costs and of course yet again the same flight deck so you don't
> > have crew conversion costs !
> >
> > Not to mention the A380 of course. They have orders out to 2012 and
> > beyond.
> The A350 will not be launched until end of September - if at all.
I just heard Qatar had ordered 50.
> As for the A380 having orders out to 2012, I don't think the problems and
> delays with the plane are as bad as all that. ;-)
Lol ! Actually their 'accelerated flight test plan' is astonishing. Has anyone
else ever got a new clean sheet aircraft design certificated in 1 yr after first
flight ?
Graham
> "Pooh Bear" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Robert J Carpenter wrote:
> >
> > > The problem with ALL the comments on this subject is that the original
> > > story was sloppy reporting.
> > >
> > > I think you will find that the rule does NOT say "BUILT", it says
> > > "ASSEMBLED". There's a _world_ of difference (pun intended). A plane
> > > can be _assembled_ in country U, even if every last part comes from
> > > other countries. That would apparently satisfy this labeling law!!!
> > > Yes it's xenophobic and intended to support company B, but the wording
> > > was carefully chosen for the desired effect.
> >
> > Boeing's screwed anyway. Their best seller is the 737. Not bad considering
> > how good Airbus's A320 family ( 318 / 319 / 320 / 321 ) is in comparison !
> > And I'm just so betting Toulouse is about to start making plastic versions
> > of these too !
> >
> > They stop making 747s next year IIRC. A military tanker deal ( that's come
> > under close scrutiny for being 'dodgy' ) may keep the 767 ? line going for
> > a bit longer maybe. 757 is dead.
> >
> > And then Airbus spoilt the 7E7 / 787 party by announcing its own
> > competitor in the same market that just picked up a single initial order
> > for 50 planes ! How many launch orders are for 50 planes ?
> >
> > The Airbus competitor to the 7E7 / 787 is the A350 btw. A kinda 'hi-tech'
> > composites version of the already succesful A330 with longer range and
> > lower fuel costs and of course yet again the same flight deck so you don't
> > have crew conversion costs !
> >
> > Not to mention the A380 of course. They have orders out to 2012 and
> > beyond.
> The A350 will not be launched until end of September - if at all.
I just heard Qatar had ordered 50.
> As for the A380 having orders out to 2012, I don't think the problems and
> delays with the plane are as bad as all that. ;-)
Lol ! Actually their 'accelerated flight test plan' is astonishing. Has anyone
else ever got a new clean sheet aircraft design certificated in 1 yr after first
flight ?
Graham
Jun 24th 2005 | 4:36 am
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. airlines must now reveal where aircraft were built
"Pooh Bear" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> khobar wrote:
> > "Pooh Bear" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Robert J Carpenter wrote:
> > >
> > > > The problem with ALL the comments on this subject is that the
original
> > > > story was sloppy reporting.
> > > >
> > > > I think you will find that the rule does NOT say "BUILT", it says
> > > > "ASSEMBLED". There's a _world_ of difference (pun intended). A
plane
> > > > can be _assembled_ in country U, even if every last part comes from
> > > > other countries. That would apparently satisfy this labeling law!!!
> > > > Yes it's xenophobic and intended to support company B, but the
wording
> > > > was carefully chosen for the desired effect.
> > >
> > > Boeing's screwed anyway. Their best seller is the 737. Not bad
considering
> > > how good Airbus's A320 family ( 318 / 319 / 320 / 321 ) is in
comparison !
> > > And I'm just so betting Toulouse is about to start making plastic
versions
> > > of these too !
> > >
> > > They stop making 747s next year IIRC. A military tanker deal ( that's
come
> > > under close scrutiny for being 'dodgy' ) may keep the 767 ? line going
for
> > > a bit longer maybe. 757 is dead.
> > >
> > > And then Airbus spoilt the 7E7 / 787 party by announcing its own
> > > competitor in the same market that just picked up a single initial
order
> > > for 50 planes ! How many launch orders are for 50 planes ?
> > >
> > > The Airbus competitor to the 7E7 / 787 is the A350 btw. A kinda
'hi-tech'
> > > composites version of the already succesful A330 with longer range and
> > > lower fuel costs and of course yet again the same flight deck so you
don't
> > > have crew conversion costs !
> > >
> > > Not to mention the A380 of course. They have orders out to 2012 and
> > > beyond.
> >
> >
> > The A350 will not be launched until end of September - if at all.
> I just heard Qatar had ordered 50.
QR expressed an interest for *up to* 60 as the 787 was too small for their
needs, but they made no actual commitment as they are still in negotiations
to resolve certain outstanding issues.
> > As for the A380 having orders out to 2012, I don't think the problems
and
> > delays with the plane are as bad as all that. ;-)
> Lol ! Actually their 'accelerated flight test plan' is astonishing. Has
anyone
> else ever got a new clean sheet aircraft design certificated in 1 yr after
first
> flight ?
The Boeing 747 rolled out September 2, 1968, first flew February 9, 1969,
was certified December 30, 1969 and entered scheduled pax service two days
later, January 1, 1970, with Pan Am.
A380's first flight was April 27, 2005, and it is not yet certified.
Paul Nixon
news:[email protected]...
> khobar wrote:
> > "Pooh Bear" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Robert J Carpenter wrote:
> > >
> > > > The problem with ALL the comments on this subject is that the
original
> > > > story was sloppy reporting.
> > > >
> > > > I think you will find that the rule does NOT say "BUILT", it says
> > > > "ASSEMBLED". There's a _world_ of difference (pun intended). A
plane
> > > > can be _assembled_ in country U, even if every last part comes from
> > > > other countries. That would apparently satisfy this labeling law!!!
> > > > Yes it's xenophobic and intended to support company B, but the
wording
> > > > was carefully chosen for the desired effect.
> > >
> > > Boeing's screwed anyway. Their best seller is the 737. Not bad
considering
> > > how good Airbus's A320 family ( 318 / 319 / 320 / 321 ) is in
comparison !
> > > And I'm just so betting Toulouse is about to start making plastic
versions
> > > of these too !
> > >
> > > They stop making 747s next year IIRC. A military tanker deal ( that's
come
> > > under close scrutiny for being 'dodgy' ) may keep the 767 ? line going
for
> > > a bit longer maybe. 757 is dead.
> > >
> > > And then Airbus spoilt the 7E7 / 787 party by announcing its own
> > > competitor in the same market that just picked up a single initial
order
> > > for 50 planes ! How many launch orders are for 50 planes ?
> > >
> > > The Airbus competitor to the 7E7 / 787 is the A350 btw. A kinda
'hi-tech'
> > > composites version of the already succesful A330 with longer range and
> > > lower fuel costs and of course yet again the same flight deck so you
don't
> > > have crew conversion costs !
> > >
> > > Not to mention the A380 of course. They have orders out to 2012 and
> > > beyond.
> >
> >
> > The A350 will not be launched until end of September - if at all.
> I just heard Qatar had ordered 50.
QR expressed an interest for *up to* 60 as the 787 was too small for their
needs, but they made no actual commitment as they are still in negotiations
to resolve certain outstanding issues.
> > As for the A380 having orders out to 2012, I don't think the problems
and
> > delays with the plane are as bad as all that. ;-)
> Lol ! Actually their 'accelerated flight test plan' is astonishing. Has
anyone
> else ever got a new clean sheet aircraft design certificated in 1 yr after
first
> flight ?
The Boeing 747 rolled out September 2, 1968, first flew February 9, 1969,
was certified December 30, 1969 and entered scheduled pax service two days
later, January 1, 1970, with Pan Am.
A380's first flight was April 27, 2005, and it is not yet certified.
Paul Nixon
