Subdude Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Thanks to BayouCity Girl for pointing this out. Sorry for the alignment, but tables don't convert well. What Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjb434 Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Not bad, we beat the cities that are bigger than us plus some smaller ones.I think it keeps up on par with other large cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted June 23, 2005 Author Share Posted June 23, 2005 Cal me a pessimist, but somehow coming in 41 out of 50 metro areas doesn't strike me as a performance to write home about. Someday we're going to have to get serious about our environmental issues. It's hurts our image and our economy by making it harder to attract businesses. I was surprised to see Chicago on the bottom. Somehow I expected LA there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjb434 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Yeah, I guess all the urbanity in Chicago, Boston and New York doesn't really make the surrounding area more pristine. We have to realize that these three cities have suburbs much bigger than Houston. Suburbs that doesn't use much mass trasit except for commuting, but not for everyday trips to the store and weekend use.They have the same suburban traffic issues we have.Chicago has a heavy industrial center one its Southeast side. New York and Boston have variation also. We are not that unique in that belief that we are much worse to the environment than these other cities.Oh, and you a pessimists. LOLI don't think this hurts us as all for getting more businesses and people to move here. The environment is not really a deciding issue for many people when the move except maybe for the weather, but not pollution. And after all the people I'm seeing moving here from the cooler Midwest and Northeast, it seems weather is not much a factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted June 23, 2005 Author Share Posted June 23, 2005 I would disagree. I believe businesses very much consider quality-of-life issues in relocation decisions, although it is of course not the only factor. Boeing was clear about it when they were shopping for new headquarters, and poor air quality explicitly cost Houston a new Toyota plant. It just seems that having a poor reputation for environmental quality can only hurt the local economy, unless for some reason we are trying to be seen as a haven for polluters. My point was that in a competitive economy we have to be aware of our image to continue to grow. Why should we settle for less and risk losing business? I don't see any upside in trying to put a positive spin on a poor environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 and poor air quality explicitly cost Houston a new ToyotaYes, becuase they were also going to pollute the air, too. It's easier to get away with in San Antonio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skwatra Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 I would disagree. I believe businesses very much consider quality-of-life issues in relocation decisions, although it is of course not the only factor. Boeing was clear about it when they were shopping for new headquarters, and poor air quality explicitly cost Houston a new Toyota plant. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>i don't think quality-of-life in relocation had anything to do with Boeing's decision. There are less then 350 employees at the new WHQ, while there or 2k+ in Houston already. they wanted to move some place where they did not already have a presence. i do agree that having a bad rep for environmental quality can only hurt us, but i don't think that has anything to do with boeing's decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjb434 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 And do you think the toyota plant would hurt the environment?It's just an assembly plant. No real manufacturing that will need to pollute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 And do you think the toyota plant would hurt the environment?It's just an assembly plant. No real manufacturing that will need to pollute.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Oh, man, ask an environmentalist about auto plants and their effects on environment. All the chemicals required to prepare the vehicle for painting and the paint, if not properly cared for, can turn a site into a superfund candidate in no time.Having said that, a company that would turn down Houston as a potential site because of its pollution, clearly must plan on being a better neighbor than the traditional auto manufacturer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Just the trucks and trains moving cars out hurt the environment.Can someone show me in print where Toyota said no to Houston becuase of air quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pineda Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 EADS picks Mobile, Alabama I heard about this yesterday on NPR. Cheap housing, good highways, low pollution, etc. were not even a deciding factor. Republican senators from the south helped tip the hand of where EADS ended up. As they say, " All politics is local. " Boeing is probably re-thinking that move to Houston now. HA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 No wonder Airbus is kicking Boeing's ass. They understand American politics better than Boeing does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Airbus is not kicking Boeing's anything.Don't let that large aircraft fool you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonsemipro Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 I'm not surprised at all about this, and should either of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skwatra Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 the A380 can barely get off the ground because of weight issues, can't be fully evacuated under 90 seconds as required per FAA regs, and can't land on any of our commercial runways without significant mods. Airbus has been receiving launch-aid subsidies since its conception, and the US is taking this to the WTO-to end launch aid to Airbus. we'll see what happens. and boeing is doing just fine.ok, i know this isn't an airbus vs boeing thread or anything, just had to respond... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pineda Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 The way I understood the story, this contract is for building Air Force refueling tankers and is potentially worth many billions of dollars, not for building domestic aircraft, which the A380 is. And really, if you read the story, you know that Boeing is not really doing so fine, as their screw-up on the original contract landed two of their own employees in federal prison, which opened up the door for Airbus. The NPR version said that EADS made a very smart move to Mobile because it knows that there are still hard feelings towards France, and what better way to overcome that than to align oneself with a Republican majority, while Boeing, whether right or wrong, is perceived as being aligned with Democrats. Lucky for Mobile, that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Does this have to do with the way GWB - republican - let's plants pollute more air? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Airbus is not kicking Boeing's anything.Don't let that large aircraft fool you.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Maybe I misread the article.http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8254876/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 One recent story will not cut it. It's a little more complex than that. Airbus is putting all its money on the long haul aircraft, but the real market is mid range jets. They don't even have airport infrastructure and jetways that can accomodate Airbus' new jumbo. It's a big risk. And like the article says, boeing continues to outsell Airbus in the new market for mid-size aircraft and many industry analysts expect it to wrest leadership of global sales from Airbus in 2005.And their new transport has a long way to go. Remember the A320 crashes?And Pineda, this has been going on for years. Thanks to the internet, everyone is an expert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Continuing on this tirade....I believe that the same argument was made when the 747 first hit the air.I do believe that larger aircraft are needed even for the midrange flights, just to help increase capacity and help reduce the congestion. Ricco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 The congestion is a built in result of the passenger revenue per available seat mile formula.The economics just don't makes sense for large short range aircraft.Otherwise we'd fly 747s from Houston to New York. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pineda Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 You know, Midtown, I don't necessarily believe that because of the internet, everyone is now an expert. But, thanks to the internet, at least now everyone can get more information and more differing opinions than just what is published in the main stream media. So, yeah, I am thankful to the internet for that. As for the Boeing vs. EADS, personally I hope Boeing wins out big. I was just calling attention to the fact that EADS seems to have made a savvy business decision to move to Mobile, and that it seemed to be based more on politics than on how the clean the air was there. And, we're back on topic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Airlines revenue management was my speciality in a former life.At any rate, we should all be pulling for Boeing. The EU subsidises Airbus far too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.