EADS

I have more than a passing knowledge of this company, the parent of Airbus. Due to certain ethical problems, I cannot go into specifics about the company: but I can say that the French regard this company as a doting parent might ... they'd do anything to see it succeed.

You see, Airbus is a symbol of national prestige on which a considerable number of jobs depend. And French credibility across the globe. When you sell an airplane, it is not the mere cost of the airplane that accrues to the seller, but it is the business in spares and service across the life of the airplane that makes the cash. So what we miss in the bland sale of airplanes is the MASSIVE hidden profits to be made later, as well as the future tie-ins in technology licensing, shared manufacturing etc. that are the real driving force in airplane sales. This impacts not just Airbus, but a huge number of companies throughout France, Germany and Spain ... voila the real reason why countries will make total whores of themselves to promote the airplanes of their darlings.

Now Airbus makes some good aircraft, and in some cases they are superior to those of Boeing. In most cases the Boeing aircraft are lower tech than Airbus' products -- and that generally results in lower operating costs over the long haul and greater dependability. So while Airbus provides a wonderful cheap price on an extremely high tech product, the long haul makes you look elsewhere -- at least seriously contemplate it. A problem arises here: CEOs looking for short term benefits and material to present at the next annual meeting like the cheap prices and generous financing provided by Airbus. Of course that this comes out of the French tax payer's hide is irrelevant. Airbus counters that Boeing is support by development slurs between military contracts and the commercial division -- so that is the US equivalent of the absurdly generous loans and terms provided to Airbus for development costs. To be sure, some degree of skulldudgery is present on the US side, but it involves commerce ... the Euros simply "give."

Now we are at an interesting place in Airbus history: if they cannot deliver the A380, they go bust. Simple. Never has Boeing been in that place. The 787 Dreamliner is threatening to put them in that place, but not yet.

So do we need the A380? I just cannot think so. There are very few hubs that can even support the weight of the aircraft, let alone service it. And does it provide the leap in numbers and cost of the venerable 747? No. It does not. The 747-400 is massive and carries almost 560 people in domestic set-up and up to 430 in three class international form. The A380 seats 550 in standard set-up ... and as to that bar and health club crap you see in the ads? Well remember the 747 was meant to have the same upstairs for its first class passengers. That lasted all of three nanoseconds -- you can put seats there. True, Virgin Atlantic does have a "bar," sort of. But Branson is different too and does not resemble the grubbers of the major airlines. It is a case of an aircraft that would only make sense in an environment of huge growth in travel ... something that will not happen in a world of expensive fuel and threats to the individual. So as a hub-to-hub vehicle, say from Heathrow to Dubai? Maybe. Sydney to LA? Probably. NYC to London? NO. there is too much need for multiple flights on a varied schedule.

Other little issue? the A350 is completely outclassed and out designed by the 787. Airbus totally missed the target there and is having to redesign the aircraft in an impossibly short time to counter the threat from Boeing. So if you see sales at the airshows this year, it is only because Airbus has put the squeeze on its existing clients, political partners, and groups/people/airlines that may be "beholden" to the company. Not because it is a viable and realistic design right now.

And the A380? Uh, how about that wiring? Another 6 month delay? By contrast, believe Boeing when they say that they can stretch or adapt the 747 to accomodate the same as an A380: the technology is proven (if old) and ready to roll.

One other thing, I just flew on the older A340 -- the initial answer to the 747. I HATE that plane. Especially if you sit in the back of the 'Bus. The tail wiggles to and fro throughout the flight -- a very nauseating and frightening thing that you can feel in your seat. Sooner or later there is going to be an issue about fatigue related to this, and the result probably catastrophic. Not terrorism, but flagrantly bas design stuffed under the public's eyes in the interests of commercial success.

Wehrt Euch!!

The Independent reports:

"Across Iraq, a bloody and relentless oppression of women has taken hold. Many women had their heads shaved for refusing to wear a scarf or have been stoned in the street for wearing make-up. Others have been kidnapped and murdered for crimes that are being labelled simply as "inappropriate behaviour". The insurrection against the fragile and barely functioning state has left the country prey to extremists whose notion of freedom does not extend to women.

In the British-occupied south, where Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army retains a stranglehold, women insist the situation is at its worst. Here they are forced to live behind closed doors only to emerge, concealed behind scarves, hidden behind husbands and fathers. Even wearing a pair of trousers is considered an act of defiance, punishable by death.

One Basra woman, known only as Dr Kefaya, was working in the women and children's hospital unit at the city university when she started receiving threats from extremists. She defied them. Then, one day a man walked into the building and murdered her."

Ok, so in the West we have a bunch of women more interested in local politics (the removal of Boosh) than the crisis facing Iraqi women. It does not say a lot of good about Western women that the impending return to chatteldom of their Iraqi sisters barely makes it to their mind's eye.

WOMEN!!! We are watching a slow descent into barbarism! What use was the suffrage movement if all you care about is your own miserable asses here? Get your nails done, remove Boosh and elect Hillary/Gore/Kerry. Has half of the western world gone insane? I can understand that the average Joe might be less than impressed with the plight of women in the Islamic world, even though I deplore the lack of foresight on their parts. But you women ... WAKE UP.

The European women are even less able to account for their failure to stand against radical Islam. Instead, their elected governments appease the Middle Eastern tyrants, and then sell them weapons and technical support. Billions worth. America bad! Well they have some news coming: Muslims will be in the majority in some European countries very soon. That is not good for women's rights. Not good at all. If we just shut the door on the Middle East and hope all will be well, we are doing the 1932/1936 dance all over again. Chamberlain was a hero in 1938 and Churchill a villain. Ahmadinejad is not joking. Behind that shut door a more virulent form of Islam will breed only to spew forth in the Great Jihad against our way of life.

Some western women might have forgotten the Taliban: walk in front of your son (let alone your dad or husband) and get your knees whacked. Smile at a joke and get your teeth knocked out (don't even think of nagging -- unless you like pain). Forget your headscarf, get a shaved head. Show too much ankle, get your ankles beaten by dudes you have never even seen before. Too flashy, then you are a slut sent by Satan to tempt righteous men and deserve to be beaten or raped. Of course, then you need to be killed by your family to preserve its honor. Your husband tired of you? "I divorce thee" (times three) and the deed is done. No, alimony, no custody, no house, no car, nothing. Nada. You return to your father's house for a lifetime of servitude, or learn to beg on street corners.

What is wrong with people that they are ready to shut the door on this? This is not a new phenomenon: the Barbary Pirates were appeased by the Europeans -- the money going to the Bey who expressed the desire to lead a glorious Islamic army against the infidel. Who eventually led a navy against them? The United States found it necessary to establish a navy to send against them. Islam created the first US Navy by force of necessity. The Europeans? Estimates are that between 10 and 20% of national budgets went to pay off the Bey and other Muslim warlords to leave them in peace. Sound familiar? President John Adams signed into law the treaty with the Bey of Algiers in 1797. The Europeans? Nowhere to be seen. Eventually, of course, the English came to the see the same necessity, but the French? Distressingly familiar. Ultimately the Bey of Tripoli declared war against the US in 1801, only to sign a treaty agreeing to no further "tribute" payments and free passage to American shipping in 1805. His flagship "Tripoli" was captured and disarmed by the US sloop Enterprise -- with no US casualties. During that time the Brits were busy kicking French and Spain heine at Trafalgar. Hmmmmm. Still familiar.