mmkay, thats freaky, as soon as we mention your name melgross, u rock up. Did you google search it
The Internet is wired to his brain via some sort of 802.11g/n/z/x/y/u/h/a/whatever implant and custom Mac OSX software. As soon as anyone mentions him anywhere it goes straight into his consciousness. And gives him a mild but not-pant-wetting electrical shock. I'm working on the pant-wetting hack.
The Internet is wired to his brain via some sort of 802.11g/n/z/x/y/u/h/a/whatever implant and custom Mac OSX software. As soon as anyone mentions him anywhere it goes straight into his consciousness. And gives him a mild but not-pant-wetting electrical shock. I'm working on the pant-wetting hack.
The fact is that the concord didn't go bankrupt because it was unpopular, it went bankrupt because it cost too much to maintain and run. Though the noise of take off WAS a major factor in limiting the number of airports it could use and thus reduced its service to niche markets.
The fact is that the concord didn't go bankrupt because it was unpopular, it went bankrupt because it cost too much to maintain and run. Though the noise of take off WAS a major factor in limiting the number of airports it could use and thus reduced its service to niche markets.
The main reason it was unprofitable, and this reason was given even before the first plane came off the manufacturing line, was because it was simply too small. I think it had 144 seats, or so. Too little to allow each flight to pay for itself.
The predictions were that it would have to go to banckrupcy. If the governments didn't heavily subsidize it from the very beginning, it would never have flown. But it was a source of national pride, particularly for the French. They had, even more so than the British, their national reputation riding on it.
The plane designed here was considerably faster, and held about 250 passengers, which was considered to allow the plane to have every flight return a profit. But, it was killed for practical reasons. We didn't have pride riding on its success.
Unlike the continent, our manufacturers aren't partly owned, and completely controlled by the governments in whose country they reside.
It doesn't have voting stock because it doesn't need it; it can influence the company just fine without.
Not really. The government has some influence, as any large customer would, but that's about all. Boeing has as much influence on the government as any big company would as well.
Quote:
And they all try to sell it.
No they're not. They use those shares to make certain the companies don't do what they might optherwise want to do, such as being bought out by another nations company. The EEC has tried to require that governments divest themselves of this stock, but they haven't been successful.
As France has declared, they were creating national "Champions". They force companies to merge, they appoint the top officers, and fire them as well, they get the companies to give millions in underhanded payments to the political parties for which they are forever having scandals, etc.
Comments
Melgross is going to hit 6000 posts. That's because he argues with every other post that someone puts up.
People might not always agree, but at least my posts make sense!
See? Separate train of thought. Deserves separate post.
If you had separate chains of thoughts, it would be fine.
Holy fracking hell I just realised Melgross has over 6300 posts....!!
Pay attention, will ya?
mmkay, thats freaky, as soon as we mention your name melgross, u rock up. Did you google search it
The Internet is wired to his brain via some sort of 802.11g/n/z/x/y/u/h/a/whatever implant and custom Mac OSX software. As soon as anyone mentions him anywhere it goes straight into his consciousness. And gives him a mild but not-pant-wetting electrical shock. I'm working on the pant-wetting hack.
mmkay, thats freaky, as soon as we mention your name melgross, u rock up. Did you google search it
When I have free time, I come here.
I do have other things to do though, so I'm away for a day or so at times.
But, just as you do, I have the posts emailed to me.
When I come back, I read them, and reply, if I find it appropriate.
I love responding to sunil.
The Internet is wired to his brain via some sort of 802.11g/n/z/x/y/u/h/a/whatever implant and custom Mac OSX software. As soon as anyone mentions him anywhere it goes straight into his consciousness. And gives him a mild but not-pant-wetting electrical shock. I'm working on the pant-wetting hack.
It won't work. My undies are insulated!
Except that the plane is small inside, noisy, and vibrates.
Some people like that ...
Some people like that ...
Then they should go to a video arcade.
Then they should go to a video arcade.
That was kind of a joke ... oh, well.
The fact is that the concord didn't go bankrupt because it was unpopular, it went bankrupt because it cost too much to maintain and run. Though the noise of take off WAS a major factor in limiting the number of airports it could use and thus reduced its service to niche markets.
That was kind of a joke ... oh, well.
The fact is that the concord didn't go bankrupt because it was unpopular, it went bankrupt because it cost too much to maintain and run. Though the noise of take off WAS a major factor in limiting the number of airports it could use and thus reduced its service to niche markets.
The main reason it was unprofitable, and this reason was given even before the first plane came off the manufacturing line, was because it was simply too small. I think it had 144 seats, or so. Too little to allow each flight to pay for itself.
The predictions were that it would have to go to banckrupcy. If the governments didn't heavily subsidize it from the very beginning, it would never have flown. But it was a source of national pride, particularly for the French. They had, even more so than the British, their national reputation riding on it.
The plane designed here was considerably faster, and held about 250 passengers, which was considered to allow the plane to have every flight return a profit. But, it was killed for practical reasons. We didn't have pride riding on its success.
Unlike the continent, our manufacturers aren't partly owned, and completely controlled by the governments in whose country they reside.
Unlike the continent, our manufacturers aren't partly owned, and completely controlled by the governments in whose country they reside.
That's a bit of a silly assertion especially with respect to airlines, considering Boeing
That's a bit of a silly assertion especially with respect to airlines, considering Boeing
That's not a silly assertion at all. Since when does our government have "golden" voting stock in Boeing, or any other manufacturer?
France, Brition, Germany, etc. all have shares that control many companies in their countries.
If our government had as well, and it wanted that plane to fly, it would have.
That's not a silly assertion at all. Since when does our government have "golden" voting stock in Boeing, or any other manufacturer?
It doesn't have voting stock because it doesn't need it; it can influence the company just fine without.
France, Brition, Germany, etc. all have shares that control many companies in their countries.
And they all try to sell it.
It doesn't have voting stock because it doesn't need it; it can influence the company just fine without.
Not really. The government has some influence, as any large customer would, but that's about all. Boeing has as much influence on the government as any big company would as well.
And they all try to sell it.
No they're not. They use those shares to make certain the companies don't do what they might optherwise want to do, such as being bought out by another nations company. The EEC has tried to require that governments divest themselves of this stock, but they haven't been successful.
As France has declared, they were creating national "Champions". They force companies to merge, they appoint the top officers, and fire them as well, they get the companies to give millions in underhanded payments to the political parties for which they are forever having scandals, etc.