CFM565A1 wrote:Still NO MATH in this... it's mostly opinion. Economies are not supported solely on return they're also supported by a supply chain for a product as it is manufactured. Are you honestly thinking that the money that the 737 makes for example is reinvested into the US Economy? I would argue it's invested in fancy foreign cars, trips to Bali and memberships for the Chicago Highlands Golf Club... the problem with what you're implying is it's too "simplistic" and not really correct.
LAX772LR wrote:What we understand, is that you cannot numerically substantiate the opinion that you're (poorly) attempting to pass off as fact. As has been demonstrated.
It's not a math-based problem. I presented it as a theoretical argument. From what is publicly known about the two companies (headquarters, location/number of plants/jobs, country of incorporation, etc.) , there is no question about which one is more beneficial to the U.S. economy. It's not even close. You clearly do not understand how an economy works. CFM565A1, you argue that not all 737 profit is reinvested in the U.S. economy. That's true. Not all will be. But do you honestly believe that MORE of the profit for a foreign-based aircraft will be reinvested in the U.S. economy over a Boeing product? That's some wild thinking right there.
The onus for evidence is on those that somehow argue that buying Airbus is more beneficial for U.S. jobs, not for those arguing that Boeing is more beneficial. When an argument clearly fails the theory test, as your arguments do, there had better be some real convincing evidence backing it up to even consider the notion as correct. So good luck on finding that evidence, especially when SevenNineSeven already showed overwhelming empirical evidence that supports my theory.
atl100million wrote:except, as has been shown above, the A320 is heavily built with US built components and there is a final assembly plant for the A320 family in the USA.
The argument actually works against Boeing in Europe but not Airbus in the USA.
Further, aviation is a global industry. that is the whole point. Delta is an international airline - one of the largest in the world. There are very few international airlines that do not buy from multiple manufacturers.
I certainly believe in buy from the home team where possible but the aviation manufacturing industry is by nature global as are many of the airlines that fly their products.
Delta will buy the products that give them the best product at the best price - just as every other airline has done. Given DL's diverse fleet, they will have aircraft in similar sizes that have been made by different manufacturers.
So? We know that every single Boeing aircraft is final-assembled in the U.S. That's like saying getting a slice of the pie is somehow more than the whole pie. It defies all logic. Willful ignorance is a good term for it.
There wouldn't be a big issue with DL buying Airbus or Bombardier if they didn't make it an issue with their propaganda campaign. They only have themselves to blame for being hypocritical.
767333ER wrote:Airbus somewhat does offer a unique product to the 737, one that has a certain engine they have been very interested in and have basically endorsed with the help of the CS100 order, an engine they believe will have it issues sorted out and then in turn surpass the engine on the 737. I'm not saying they won't order the 737 though, I just think the A320 has the advantage based on what they have said.
That's not the uniqueness I'm talking about. A unique product would be a size or capability that isn't matched by anyone else. The only way DL could escape their political conundrum is if Airbus or Bombardier a offered a type of aircraft that Boeing doesn't offer (i.e. the A380). We know that's not the case here. All three are in the running because they offer comparable products, and DL proves this by operating/ordering all three families.
767333ER wrote:Thinking of the economics in a simplistic way doesn't work because it's not a simple matter. Tracing where the money goes in a case like this is never simple. You mention people such as factory cleaners at Boeing, but not at Airbus, so does that mean the Mobile FAL doesn't have anyone cleaning it or doing anything there or do you think they brought the, all in from Europe? As for parts, many of them are American including the extremely expensive engines that take a lot of labor to build. If these parts are going to Europe, someone has to ship them. If they are going to Alabama, someone has to ship them. When a plane rolls out of the factory in Alabama, someone has to test it.
Of course it doesn't mean there are no cleaners in Mobile. By mentioning the plant in Mobile, that's implied. However, are you honestly trying to equate one Airbus plant in Mobile with Boeing's plant in Renton, let alone their entire lineup of U.S, plants? I hope not.
767333ER wrote:The tricky part is that when an airline orders aircraft, where does profit the airframer makes go? For Boeing that would be the guys in Chicago and while their making of money would possibly have a small effect on the economy, I'm not sure how the rich getting richer would really help the average person regardless of where it is. You don't know what those people do with their money, do they buy property in Europe, do they buy a exotic make of car, do they spend money here, or do they spend it there? In terms of raw money when looking at it in a simplistic way, it probably would measure higher in terms of American economic benefit to order from Boeing, but simplistic is far from realistic. By your logic, the 787 should be useless for the American economy.
Two problems with this. The first is that you believe "rich people" get all the profit and don't use that to boost the economy. That's not true on both counts. When a company is profitable, it means that entire business gets a piece of it. Profit means that Boeing can pay for maintenance and development for the purpose of sustaining and advancing their business. That's potentially everybody. A healthy company is an economically beneficial company. Also, someone with more money doesn't just bury in the ground. The vast majority is used for spending and investment that supports jobs. Both are essential pieces for a healthy economy. The second problem is that although it's true we don't know where exactly the money goes, do you honestly think the entities of a company based in Europe will be spending and investing more of its money in America than a company based in America? That's quite the wild theory. Why would I believe that? There's a reason simple is used first in economics.
767333ER wrote:Your argument for the ME3 is out of place here as not only is it a completely different subject, but it really is a weak case anyway. Regardless of business practice, in order for an airline to be an airline they have to have planes to fly, now where would they get those? Boeing or Airbus. Why would it be the case that if the ME3 changes their business practice they'll magically not operate or order Boeing aircraft anymore.
If you think that airlines should always order their homeland product, Airbus would have killed Boeing by now.
It's not at all a different subject. DL is producing propaganda that says that tens of thousands of U.S. jobs are being lost to "unfair" international competition in an attempt to receive economic sympathy and a political advantage. Meanwhile they've shunned and publicly attempted to financially harm the airplane producer that overwhelmingly supports more U.S. jobs than the producers DL has sided with. If they put money where their mouth is and put U.S. jobs first, Boeing should easily win this order.
The argument is not that all airlines should order the hometown plane. Since I'm biased for my country in a competitive environment, I like to see U.S. (and worldwide) airlines lean Boeing. But I'm not going to slam an airline for buying elsewhere when they haven't made a hypocritical political stand. It's still a free country, and they can do what they please.
