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: Now what we need... | |
Author: Dave (UK) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 12:10:57 01/18/05 Tue In reply to: Paddy (Scotland) 's message, "Good news for the UK" on 11:41:42 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? [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous 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 itīs 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 Its 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 itīs 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 ] |