Even if Boeing doesn’t face any real consequences, I hope airlines take this time to just go full Airbus even if it’s out of fear from future litigation and not inherent customer safety. Airbus should also jump on this opportunity and offer some good deals for actual functioning and safety tested aircraft.
By what measure is it a much smaller company? By planes sold it appears negligible: between 2007 and 2016 Airbus delivered 5,644 and Boeing delivered 5,718, for a difference of 74. In terms of market share they’re roughly equivalent in twin-aisle jets and Airbus has a significant lead in single-aisle jets (for obvious reasons).
You’re right. i was pulling from something i read a couple weeks ago but looking at it now they do seem comperable. airbus even delivered more airframes last year than boeing did by a significant margin. although i imagine that boeings safety concerns do contribute to that lack of deliveries
Their market cap is comparable, but that’s after Boeing’s stock took a hit. About a 50% cut over the last 5 years. Airbus’ stock is slightly higher than it was 5 years ago.
Remember that Boeing is all over the military market on top of their civilian programs. Airbus does do a few conversions of their civilian aircraft for military use (transport and aerial refueling, mostly), but it’s not a huge part of their revenue. Boeing does that stuff (the hump in the 747, in particular, has led to some specialized uses), plus more specialized designs. They’re still cranking out new versions of the F-15, for example. In fact, military stuff is the largest part of Boeing’s revenue.
Sure but the context of the comment I replied to was that many airlines don’t have a choice but to buy aircraft from Boeing because Airbus is much smaller and therefore unable to service the required orders. In actual fact they deliver nearly an equivalent number of (civilian) aircraft over 10 years from 2007-2016 and Airbus has been delivering more aircraft per year recently. If everyone suddenly only ordered with Airbus then sure it would create a supply bottleneck but that’s not because Airbus is a smaller company.
The main issue is that Airbus has a huge backlog for their aircraft which continues to grow. They’re slowly adding more capacity, but not nearly fast enough to satisfy their current demand, let alone what additional customers would bring.
Nobody is actually investigating whether these are caused by ghosts. They’re dirty marks on a wall behind a bench where people lean; it’s not a mystery. No more a mystery than discarded chewing gum on a pavement potentially being dropped by ghosts with minty fresh breath.
Likely not. That’s the Israeli government’s position too. That the West Bank settlers starting a ruckus risks the conflict’s expansion.
The UN Sec Gen is essentially saying that a region that has had self rule for 20 years has been under a smothering occupation for 56 years. That’s simply untrue.
The self rule is fairly irrelevant when it’s a very small territory under a land, air, and sea blockade. The area is densely populated, unable to be self sufficient in terms of water, fuel, and agriculture, and has a huge refugee population. There isn’t a chance for a good outcome in a situation like that.
I mean if you ignore the billions of aid dollars that it’s been provided then yes. But there has been more than enough aid for it to build infrastructure and live peaceably with it’s neighbors. They’ve just squandered it on constant, useless war.
Providing a small amount of aid for basic necessities they are otherwise denied due to land theft is literally the bare minimum, nobody is living a good life in those conditions. War is inevitable because terrible conditions are inflicted upon people which causes radicalization. It’s literally a “the beatings will continue until morale improves” situation.
Providing a small amount of aid for basic necessities they are otherwise denied due to land theft is literally the bare minimum,
It’s not the bare minimum anywhere else in the world. Imagine if we had redirected the last decade’s worth of aid to Guatemala or the Dominican Republic how much more effective that aid would have been.
There are a thousand places on the planet with less than Gazans, none of them demand the God given right to genocide their neighbors.
I know plenty about this situation. Palestinians widely believe that they don’t have to accept a two state solution, and that they can and are entitled to terrorism their way to victory against Israel on the dime of international aid.
I simply don’t get this mentality. I’m sure you do realize, that companies such as Microsoft still operate in Russia. You think all people over there are running Linux? Aside from how unbelievably stupid your take is, guess they are traitors too. But you’ll still keep using their OS and Office suite for millenia to come.
MS stopped selling licenses last year and blocked the ones operating this year (non renewal). But I get your point, only not all the big companies stayed
What exactly did they block? You can still buy any Microsoft product in Russia, your online subscriptions are still billed in rubles, you can pay them from any card Visa or Mastercard accept. As of now there are no problems at all with Microsoft products in Russia.
Sorry, don’t get your point. A company may say one thing like Burger King said they will dump Russia. The reality at least currently with both Burger King and Microsoft is another thing.
Since I’m not living in Russia I can’t tell you what exactly is happening there but I can read what they told the world (with no one telling it’s false)
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Russia did have larger linux adoption. It’s not unheard of for countries to be (in my opinion baselessly) suspicious that microsoft contains american spyware.
If operating in bad countries is a reason to have your little boycott, then not operating in Russia won’t budge the dial because BK will keep operating in the US irrespective.
If operating in bad countries is a reason to have your little boycott, then not operating in Russia won’t budge the dial because BK will keep operating in the US irrespective.
I am also saying that, if one is concerned with “Does BK exist in bad countries?”, the Russia question is irrelevant because BK will always be in the bad country that is the US, making its specific actions in any other context moot as the question is already answered.
From the news it appears that the USA has a political system where fairly important things can be shut down by just a single person. It also appears that every time this happens that the single person is a monumental asshole. Is there any reasonable explanation for this? I am guessing no but it is still happening and fairly often…
Ok. He’s a gross, sexist man who any organization should be embarrassed to have as a representative.
“I grabbed that part of my body that you have already seen”
Ah, so he’s done this sort of thing before. Repeat behavior, unapologetic and doubling down on it. This should take the Spanish FA less than 24 hours to kick him out and issue an apology statement for having kept him on for as long as they did.
Regulate nicotine. It serves no purpose besides addicting people to a product. Once people are capable of making a real choice, the problem will become much less severe. Over time, it might even disappear completely.
Regardless of the health effects, addiction (and related expenses) can cost you hundreds, or even thousands of dollars. People go to counseling, join support groups, and buy nicotine patches to try and quit.
I say “try” because on average, former cigarette smokers had to try to quit several times before they were successful. Many former smokers say that quitting was extremely hard, maybe even the hardest thing they’ve done. I don’t know for sure, but I suspect the same is true with vaping.
I don’t like nicotine because it’s used to manipulate and take advantage of people. The product/delivery method is irrelevant.
The delivery method for vaping is water vapor. The delivery method for cigarettes is to wrap the nicotine in poison and then burn it. And you see no difference?
Of course I see the difference. The fact that cigarettes are dangerous to your health is so screamingly obvious that I didn’t even think that was something we needed to tell each other.
My point is that nicotine makes it much harder to stop vaping or smoking once you decide you want to. That’s what I meant when I said “the product/delivery method is irrelevant”, and why I started my comment with “regardless of the health effects”.
It doesn’t matter how the nicotine gets into your system. It messes with you anyway. Regulating specific products is like playing an endless game of whack-a-mole. The industry will keep finding different ways to get you hooked.
We’ve tried regulating tobacco, so they found a nicotine delivery system that doesn’t rely on tobacco. Let’s attack the addiction problem at the source - regulate the nicotine. That way, when they come up with something new (like an energy drink or something) the existing laws still apply. The slow-moving government doesn’t have to play catch up. Consumers stay protected.
Nicotine addiction is not a PROBLEM though, no more than caffeine addiction. The problem is when the only legal way to get caffeine is by a cocktail of red bull and arsenic.
Nicotine is not the issue. The delivery method is the whole problem.
I think comparing vaping to drinking water is disingenuous - it is not needed and has active harms. Just because one thing is less harmful than another doesn't mean we can't regulate both heavily.
It does mean that, unless we are stupid or have ulterior motives, we should not regulate them equally heavily.
Besides, the science shows vaping is nearly harmless. I think that, again unless we are stupid, we should not be regulating it "heavily" at all. Just ban it for under-18s. Enforce that ban. That's all.
It should be regulated at least as much as food though don’t you think? Not just ban it for under 18s but specify what can or can’t go into a vape product.
Otherwise you’ll get companies using cheap but dangerous to inhale substances over more expensive safer substances that do the same job.
The science isn’t fully decided on vapes - AFAIK the PG/VG and nicotine are relatively harmless (though nicotine does carry some heart/stroke risks) but the flavours are generally only tested for safety when taken orally, not when atomised and inhaled. Flavourless vape juice is therefore probably safe, though hardly anybody sells it, it’s kinda unpleasant, and it does still carry some health risks.
Let me just rephrase what you said. Instead of "the science isn't fully decided", which paints an incorrect picture, let's rather say "of everything they've tested in a typical legal vape, everything is essentially harmless. Some of the components haven't been tested."
Saying "the science isn't fully decided" implies "eh, maybe it's dangerous, maybe it's not, 50/50". That's not at all the case. It's almost certainly all harmless. Just very addictive.
That’s not true. “The science isn’t fully decided” means that long-terms effects are extremely hard to measure, it literally takes decades. The amount of liquids of different flavors is so big that you can’t realistically test them all. Different flavors require different chemicals, you can get the same taste with different chemicals too. Yes, basic liquid is probably less harmful than cigarettes, but even for that there’s not enough data to say that this is a scientific fact.
bbc.co.uk
Top