From: Joe the Aroma on

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4650EEA0.D7301B88(a)hotmail.com...
>
>
> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote:
>> > > Eeyore wrote:
>> > > > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Airbus is a subsidized company
>> > > >
>> > > > Wrong. It's a commercial company just like Boeing.
>> > >
>> > > Of course it is "commercial", it's also subsidized.
>> >
>> > It's not subsidised. If you're going to make that claim you'll have to
>> > provide > evidence of
>> subsidy.
>>
>> You acknowledge below market loans from the government.
>
> I do. What's wrong with that. The government has an interest in high
> employment and increased
> tax revenue wheras a bank doesn't. So the government can offer better
> terms.
>
> It's the market at work effectively.

I disagree, were the market being "at work effectively" there would be a
private bank available to take the risk and give them a loan... or they
could issue bonds like a normal company (more likely).


From: Eeyore on


"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> >"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote:
> >
> >> Boeing competes for its military contract sales.
> >
> >Airbus describes them as 'pork barrel contracts'.
>
> That's just because they have nothing which can best them in combat.

That's because Airbus doesn't make combat jets.

Graham

From: Eeyore on


Jeffrey Turner wrote:

> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >
> > 1) The lease didn't happen.
>
> Only because of a lot of publicity.
>
> > 2) It's the military division, although it was military version of their
> > commercial aircraft.
> > 3) Boeing's commercial division has to make a profit or why have it?
>
> You're so eager to separate the two, but you admit they share designs,
> which is a major cost in the industry.

Share entire airframes in this case.

Graham

From: Eeyore on


Rudy Canoza wrote:

> Fred G. Mackey wrote:
> > Eeyore wrote:
> >
> >> You can pay more for 'private' care in the UK too if you want to.
> >> Either by electing to have an additional insurance policy or by paying on
> an >>ad-hoc basis. It's simply not compulsory and most ppl go with the normal
> >>provision most of the time.
>
> > But the ones who can afford it, do get private insurance. That's
> > telling, isn't it?
>
> The most telling thing was back in the early 1990s,
> when the premier of Quebec, Robert Bourassa, came to
> the U.S. for cancer treatment. At that time, and maybe
> still, Canada *prohibited* its citizens from having
> supplemental health insurance. They took their
> egalitarianism to an absurd extent, wanting rich and
> poor, governors and governed, to die before getting
> treatment.

That sounds bizarre. Sure about it ?

Graham


From: Eeyore on


"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote:

> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
> > > 3) Boeing's commercial division has to make a profit or why have it?
> >
> > You're so eager to separate the two, but you admit they share designs,
> > which is a major cost in the industry.
>
> That specific airplane does but the military division of Boeing isn't
> just a rehash of the civilian one.

Why duplicate at all ?

Graham