Interesting discussion, so here's some more.

bdk's rare opinion piece caused me a bit of mulling over it, so here's some responses:
bdk wrote:
Had the original lease deal not been ruined by John McCain, we would already have had tankers far less expensively than we will now. John McCain has a vendetta against Boeing for whatever reason.
Can't comment on that, as I don't know, but let the record show that McCain is on the right, not the left, and that he is unlike
most leaders today, both someone who has military experience (hot!) and that he's well aware of the cost of equipment failures and losing wars. Were he a left-winger with no military background, I'm sure those points would be mentioned. The fact it's the other way should provoke thought as to why.
It seems to me that his Vietnam experience shows a young man of some significant integrity, and my limited knowledge of him more recently shows he doesn't stink by having being bought - like Duke Cunningham, say. His anti-torture stance was also interesting showing someone whose personal experience and standards drove an independent, not party or pork-barrel line. So why is a potential friend not on side? Is it as simple as Airbus men directing him? Without quantification, that seems pat, and unlikely to be the whole story. I dunno.
Quote:
I would like the tanker to be built in the US, not only for reasons related to my own employment, but out of patriotism for the design and manufacturing skills in my country (and at my company). I will say that this contract has a direct affect on my employees and co-workers.
Most people would agree, substituting their country. Point is, do you also want to trade internationally, and accept the open market, or not? Too often trade into the US shows a one-way 'free trade' deal, just ask the Canadians about lumber.
No, you
can't have it both ways. Everyone tries, but it's
not free trade, and it's
not capitalism and it's
not 'fair' competition to bias toward home production in
any way.
I'm not interested in US complaints about European fixes or subsidies or tricks. Or vice versa. When you enter a free trade agreement, you can hope the other guy will play by the rules and adhere to your way of doing things. Generally they don't, and so you have to toughen up about it, or go to the teacher to complain. If you want to play with others, others ways come with the deal. (Or if you can deal with Stalin from 1942-5 or Franco from the 1940s to the 1970s and the Emperor from 1945, or the Chinese today - you can deal with anyone.)
Australia's finding that with trying to refuse New Zealand apples. Without gunboats, trade's a two way street, and that appears to be hard to handle for most of us. Sure I'd like to by local, but it's easier thinking globally, and I won't accept the second rate because it's got a 'made here' sticker.
Quote:
I see most European countries as socialist with some businesses far more (directly) subsidized than (indirectly) in the US. I don't want my countrymen to lose out on a contract that is not decided on an equal basis. If a US company takes their military profits and uses them to further their commercial business, I am OK with that. It is a business decision. Maybe a European subsidy would actually hurt many Europeans besides Americans for the benefit of a few European aerospace workers- for what, prestige?
Want to watch those boogieman terms. Whether 'socialist' 'commie' 'neo-con' or whatever, they're usually inaccurate (as here) and a handy way of avoiding thinking. bdk, I've more respect for you than that, but if you put that in your political theory 101, you'd get zero.

Certainly each time I read an American writing one of these terms as though it explains everything (political theories never do, they're just basic concept - not implementation) I'd like to expand Godwin's Law to cover such knee-jerking.

I don't think the US support for the last
Fascist dictator through to the 1970s, Franco in Spain, was a better alternative, although it sold lots of aircraft to him. (F'rinstance.) I understand you are dealing with China, currently. Calling them Communists or Capitalists isn't accurate, however much some may like to fly the flag over normal, human opportunistic shenanigans. Whatever they
are you have to
deal with it, not use ill-fitting labels!
Getting hung on the colour or bias or even type of government misses the point that it's the civil service, administration or political
system that's the problem. Companies will manipulate the opportunity as far as they can (
mostly inside legislation or trade agreements) including buying politicians. The problem is not in Europe.
The problem isn't in Europe, or even to do with the colour of government, but to do with a manipulated and failed system in the US administration (evidence being that the US' government's color isn't an issue itself as we've gone from a mildly right to a mildly left government with no notable direct effect on the process - it's time and rounds not political bias driving this).
Proper worthwhile capitalism requires there to be competition, not a monopoly. Given it appears the US can't sustain two major aircraft builders of this type, then the competition is going to come from overseas. Certainly I watch the general Boeing / Airbus arguments here with interest, as without the other the remaining company would be much happier - and not operating in a capitalist, competitive system (however flawed). Different stuff's made different to different concept philosophies, which can be used for blame games rather than accepting that diverse options fulfil answers more often than one-size-fits all. Which leads to:
Quote:
I also am not comfortable with the computer flight control logic used by Airbus. I would still fly on an Airbus aircraft (and have many times). I think they are safe enough, but I would prefer to let the pilot make the final decision rather than the machine. I have a distrust of the Airbus system.
I don't often get the chance to tell an aircraft designer he's being a luddite, so here it is! That's a reactionary and over-cautious point of view, bdk. Be told.
Certainly the pros and cons of control systems vary from one to another, but the days of pulling the string and the flappy thing responding directly are long gone. Modern combat aircraft use computers - famously the current generation of fighters can't be flown by humans without computer intervention. The problems from the Airbus control system have been costly, and the bugs need/ed working out; but the idea is no more radical and no more a calculated risk than building the current Boeing out of pencil leads.
We've been here before - in 1910 pilots wouldn't wear seatbelts because they 'knew' they were better able to jump from the crash and avoid being killed. The facts state otherwise, and we had pilots being thrown from aircraft to their deaths into the 1930s at least. In the 1950s airline pilots resisted systems training and procedures because they 'knew' they were skilled seat-of-the pants wartime heavy pilots, and their skill was better than some geeky system. Fact remains that procedures did (and do) save lives and often seat of the pants flying was either contributory or not good enough.
You'll be able to go fly by wires you pull to the surfaces in your Cub or T-6 for a long while yet, but all military and airline aircraft are going to be computer controlled eventually - sooner rather than later. The difference between Boeing and Airbus here is first entrant to the market, advantage or not, and if Airbus' system isn't 'good enough' - on which I can't comment.
The Hudson river landing is over used as an example, but it
was a (no fault double-birdstrike) Airbus (and a Boeing may have done better, was unlikely to do worse, but a test isn't getting a long volunteer list) and was a triumph for planning, practice and systems, not testosterone or attitude when the chips went down.
None of it help anything any, just I'd hope clear thinking... Who knows?
Regards,