Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Good news for the UK | |
Author: Paddy (Scotland) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 11:41:42 01/18/05 Tue From todays "Times" online: " January 18, 2005 Giant jet proves that UK industry is still flying high By Digby Jones TODAY is a red-letter day for UK manufacturing. Thanks to the innovation and skill of some of the UK’s finest engineers, the largest passenger aircraft built to date will make its first appearance and by next year will be in service around the world. The double-decker Airbus A380 has 555 seats, even more if it is all economy. If ever an illustration were needed that Britain’s manufacturing future is in innovation, quality and added value at the top end of the market, this is it. British engines get the A380 into the air, British wings keep it there and British landing gear brings it back to earth. Although French, German and Spanish manufacturers also made significant contributions to the aircraft, the UK’s contribution equates to over half of the plane’s total value. It may be immodest but those other countries couldn’t have done it without us. The wings are assembled in Broughton, North Wales, Rolls-Royce’s Derby plant provides the engines and the landing gear has been designed in Filton, near Bristol. Without the efforts of so many well-trained Brits, the world’s biggest passenger aircraft would have the airborne potential of a penguin. The A380 is another in a long line of UK innovations that have pushed the boundaries of technological progress. It is no surprise that so many of the world’s large airlines have already placed orders. The A380 highlights the importance of competing at the high value-added, innovative end of global manufacturing. We have seen the shift in manufactured products that compete on price alone from mature industrialised nations to lower cost countries, such as China and India. Many UK companies have adjusted well to the restructuring of global manufacturing and have learnt to compete with the best in the world. But more need to make this shift. The UK’s vital contribution to the A380 shows just how well-placed this country is in global terms. We still excel at making things in this country. Motor racing engineering employs 50,000 people at the cutting edge of technology, marine leisure construction puts £2 billion annually into our economy and UK drug makers lead the world. India and China need hold no fear for us if we research and develop our wealth of ideas. Along with investment in modern equipment and the best of skills for our people, the only other ingredient needed is confidence in our ability. Sir Digby Jones is Director-General of the CBI " More than half by value (if fitted with R-R engines)! Also 20% of the shares in Airbus are held by Bae Systems. In the context of a federal commonwealth this means that our aerospace sector would be very strong if Bombadier is taken into account... [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: Now what we need... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:10:57 01/18/05 Tue It is a great engineering achievement, of which we can be proud. However, it will never eclipse Concorde in my mind as the ultimate passenger jet. It's funny you know. Britain has been at the forefront of all major milestones in Passenger flight: The Comet was the world's first passenger jet aircraft. Concorde was the world's first supersonic (and hence fastest) passenger aircraft. The A380 is the world's largest passenger aircraft. However, before we bask in our glory, we really need an aircraft that will bring the Commonwealth closer together - a successor to Concorde. This would be the trump card in our arguments for a global state. I would suggest that a joint venture between BAe Systems and Bombardier of Canada would be ideal. Are there any Aussie Aerospace companies? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: But then of course the A380 is an European aircraft | |
|
Author: Ein European [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:45:30 01/18/05 Tue Assembled in Toulose, France. While it is true that British participation is very impressive it´s also true that there would be no British aerospace industry that we could speak off without Airbus. Also there would be no siginficant British participation in Space research if it weren't for the European Space Agency. British press tends to forget this and tends to attribute all credit to British participation while tends to blame the EU for pretty much everything negative that happens in the country. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Not quite... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:11:07 01/18/05 Tue It’s true that projects of this size are better tackled by international projects, so that the costs and the risks are shared between nations. Unfortunately, these arrangements do not always keep costs down – look at Eurofighter! However, you are wrong to state that we would have no aircraft industry without Airbus. BAE are even considering selling their stake in Airbus. However, our space programmes have suffered because of European co-operation. Britain was sending space rockets into space long before we joined ESA. Just look at Blue Streak and Black Arrow. The latter having launched Britain's first satellite into space. This was a joint project with Australia. In fact, had we not abandoned our own rocket programme and joined the European one, we could have been world leaders in rocket technology today. You may remember that blue streak was the first stage used in the early European rockets, which always worked flawlessly. Usually it was the French stage that blew up, so we abandoned that that programme too. The Irony is that France are now the ones who are making money ferrying satellites into space. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Ein European? | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) (also a European) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:05:44 01/18/05 Tue "Assembled in Toulose, France. While it is true that British participation is very impressive it´s also true that there would be no British aerospace industry that we could speak off without Airbus." This last sentence is wildly incorrect. There is plently of information available on the internet to those who wish to find out the facts. "Also there would be no siginficant British participation in Space research if it weren't for the European Space Agency." The British contribution to space research is now mainly made through ESA but the idea that we are dependent upon it is silly. The British contribution is major rather than token. Just because it is made up of very many small specialist contributions rather than a massively-subsidised prestige project (such as the main French contributions, Arianne etc... for example) does not take away from it. In fact, per capita it has been found that the British contribution to the understanding of space is (and has been historically) the most cost-effective in the world. "British press tends to forget this and tends to attribute all credit to British participation while tends to blame the EU for pretty much everything negative that happens in the country." Neither the ESA nor Airbus have ANYTHING to do with the EU. They are fine examples of inter-governmental cooperation to all of our common benefits. It makes sense to pool our resources where we can work better. These examples are the true spirit of European cooperation. The initial idea of the EU was a common market to compete with the USA. If a Swede, say, had a good idea before membership of the EEC that he could only market it to 8 million in his home country and to sell it abroad he had to cope with many different tarrifs in different countries. Obviously if he can sell a product to a market of 450 million prosperous people then this is much more sensible. OK to free trade and a GENERAL standardisation of trade rules! The EU is a political project that does not seem to have any overall common benefit to its citizens. The matters of convenience are: the inter-state, tarif free trade & semi-equivalence of citizenship. These things are indeed civilised & I would like to see the UK extend them to beyond the narrow EU to CANZ and the richer commonwealth countries (and even the USA). The EU however is a PROTECTIONALIST block with a rottenly-undemocratic yet unreformable political structure. Most of the EU legislation pisses people-off (I speak for the majority in the UK, at least according to every poll published) rather than helping them or doing individual nations any good. The idea that if we give the EU more of our powers they will stop wasting their time making up rubbish legislation and instead suddenly do well is nonsense. I believe that the UK should not be a political member of the EU but instead be in free association with them for trade and travel/residence/work. Long before the Single-European Act we had an equivalence of citizenship act with Ireland and a similar agreement could be conducted with the EU if we left. It has been offered to the Swiss - it would be offered to us. This would not effect the inter-european-government projects such as Airbus and the ESA. Please do not confuse anti-EU feeling for anti-European feeling - I have a lot of continental friends and I wish the countries of the EU the best in sorting out their deep economic problems and living peacefully. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: I actually disagree about the need for enforced cooperation... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:21:56 01/18/05 Tue This is a successful cooperation and I do not feel threatened by the fact that it is "european". This is not (at least from the British point of view) an EU political project but is a sensible industrial project organised between governments at the national level for sensible economic reasons. I think that in the context of an FC we would be in a very strong position having several world-beating companies such as Bae, Martin-Baker (ejector seat supplier to the world) & Rolls Royce in the UK and Bombardier and Cae (flight simulator supplier to the world) in Canada (to mention but a few). I am unfortunately ignorant of the Australian /NZ situation. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Ah, I see | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:01:31 01/18/05 Tue So what you are saying is that because Britain currently carries out these activities with European partners, it could never do it in any other way, right? British aerospace expertise would wysteriously evaporate overnight without Airbus and there would be no possibility of a British - or commonwealth - aerospace industry? You know it's nonsense, don't you? It would be just as accurate to say that there would be no Airbus without the British aerospace industry as vice versa. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: You dream while I speak of hard facts... | |
|
Author: Ein European [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:36:08 01/18/05 Tue It´s a strong possibility that Airbus wouldn´t be a strong competitor to Airbus without British participation. Personally I think it wouldn't. I am also pretty convinced that without European cooperation there would be no rival to Boeing in the world market for large airliners. British industry, though having some success at first, was beaten by Boeing and now is only being able to compete in partnership. Europe and specially the three main western Europe countries have the size and the resources to pull this kind of projects, within the the FCS you wouldn´t have a partner which could bring both the resources and the expertise that the French and the German bring. Not to mention that an increasing part of the British and the scientific community feel more closer to their continental counterparts than to, say, Australia. Yes, slowly but surely Britain are getting into the fold. I expect to see Euro coins with HM's profile on the back within the next 10 to 15 years... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: I doubt we'll join the Euro.. | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:59:05 01/18/05 Tue I can’t really see Britain giving up her currency and allowing unaccountable bureaucrats in Frankfurt to determine our interest rate and economic policy. The reasons for doing so are diminishing daily. We are doing very well thank you very much, and I do not see the impending need for us to share a currency and interest rate with Italy, Greece and eventually Romania. Are you German? Be honest, would the vast majority of Germans not wish to have the Deutschmark back? Britain’s economy will overtake Germany’s by the end of this decade. Do you think the majority of Britons want to apply the anchors of European social economics? I hope not. What are you at now – 4 million unemployed? Wouldn’t it be great to determine an economic policy for Germany without having to pander the interests of a whole continent? I think joining the Euro was the second biggest mistake that Germany made after reunification. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: 8.6 million actually | |
|
Author: Frank (US) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:37:55 01/18/05 Tue Germany's unemployment is estimated at 10.5% (CIA World Factbook), and w/a national pop of 82 million, its unemployment would be appox 8.61 million [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The equivalent British figure is about three. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:04:55 01/18/05 Tue Well, this is an exaggeration, but we still have a labour shortage, which is more than can be said for most other post-industrial economies. Mind you, the government is doing its best to wreck this by regulating companies out of business and borrowing more and more during a phase of the economic cycle when it should be borrowing less. I think perhaps Mr Brown should be moved to the FCO - at least then he might get to hear about the Commonwealth, whose existence seems to be a closed book to him. Also, where did the figure come from that Britain's economy will be larger than Germany's by 2010? I know that we've been doing well for the last ten years or so, but back in the 90s Germany's economy was 4 times bigger than ours, so this end-of-the-decade prediction seems a bit far-fetched. Lastly, an FC space programme sounds rather fun. There has already been a great deal of co-operation between the UK and Australia, and most of our satellites were launched from NZ, I believe, especially the ones which we don't officially have. Besides, it's not right having all these foreigners hurtling round up there... bound to cause trouble. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Granted - the end of the next decade is probably more likely. | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:28:43 01/18/05 Tue Unless Gordon Brown's socialist revival turns thing pear-shaped. With regard to space, there were pictures circulating in the 1970s of Astronauts exploring the cosmos with handle-bar moustaches, such was the optimism for Britain's space programme, and indeed Commonwealth space exploration. Tony Benn of course cancelled the Blue Streak programme and handed our lead to the French. And on the EU.. Government Ministers have today admitted that the EU constitution refurendum could cost the taxpayer 80 Million pounds. However, this figure will not include the vast amount of Government propaganda aimed at winning it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: we dream of something better, while you accept sad facts | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:01:53 01/18/05 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Hard Facts? | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:44:04 01/19/05 Wed There is NOT ONE fact that you have accurately stated. "Europe and specially the three main western Europe countries have the size and the resources to pull this kind of projects, within the the FCS you wouldn´t have a partner which could bring both the resources and the expertise that the French and the German bring." The above is complete nonsense. "Not to mention that an increasing part of the British and the scientific community feel more closer to their continental counterparts than to, say, Australia. As a member of the "Scientific Community" that you speak of I would disagree with that very strongly and say that it is an entirely ficticious statement. "Yes, slowly but surely Britain are getting into the fold. I expect to see Euro coins with HM's profile on the back within the next 10 to 15 years..." Definitly will not happen. The reason that German motor companies have invested in the UK is that we have free trade with the rest of the EU and that the British are perpared to work for a living. The euro is bankrupting Germany because Germany went in at the wrong rate - the result of treating an economic descision as a political one. German cars have dropped to very low in the reliability tables and are out sourcing as much as possible - probably due to the fact that the workforce does not do more than thirty-five hours a week. For this same reason 50% of the 380 is built in the country that owns only 20% of the shares. Dreams or reality? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |