Bharat Rakshak

“The system helps us predict lightning, wind speed, rainfall and temperature, but majorly focuses to detect lightning in advance. As per the NCRB data, majority of people dying in natural calamities are due to lightning strikes. In order to save the lives of people and livestock and protect monuments, we have come up with this technology. The project is being developed at a low cost,” said S Varadarajan, APSCHE secretary.

Sources at ISRO said that the project would also be used for alerting planes and ships during lightning strikes. “Once the project is completed, the airlines and ships can subscribe to us for sending lightning alerts. This would also generate income to the State,” the sources said.

The latest volley in the seemingly endless Airbus-Boeing subsidy dispute landed Monday. This time, it was a Washington state tax incentive to entice Boeing to build the 777X in the Seattle area being ruled on by the World Trade Organization (WTO). But, of course, the ruling isn’t final, and both Airbus and Boeing claimed victory. There will be an appeal. Perhaps second only to their expertise in manufacturing aircraft, Airbus and Boeing have become whizzes at maneuvering through the WTO decision-making process.

In a statement to Reuters, Airbus Group CEO Tom Enders referred to the back-and-forth complaints, counter-complaints and appeals as a “ridiculous series of disputes” and called for ending those disputes by negotiating and establishing “a set of globally applicable rules for the support of the civil aircraft industry.”

In other words, an aircraft subsidy ceasefire—which, if the terms were right, Airbus and Boeing would surely welcome.

Indeed, the Airbus-Boeing subsidy dispute has long been more of a proxy fight with a larger goal: eventually setting rules for state support for building commercial aircraft that will apply beyond Europe and the US. In truth, Airbus/the EU and Boeing/the US both make a reasonable case that the other manufacturer is helped by state assistance: whether via technology research funding or tax incentives or other “subsidies,” commercial aircraft manufacturing is not a totally market-driven endeavor. The US has a huge stake in Boeing’s success; likewise the EU and Airbus.

Commercial aircraft are such expensive, complicated machines—involving major development costs and risk—that governments will inevitably act as a sort of backstop. That said, given all that is at stake, Airbus and Boeing are remarkably market-driven organizations. Yes, they get some state help of various kinds along the way, but ultimately the manufacturers are self-funded companies that design and build aircraft that fail or succeed based on their merits.

Actually, both Airbus and Boeing could largely live with each other’s “subsidies,” even if they won’t say so publicly. So why engage in repetitive sniping over voluminous WTO rulings?

Because Airbus and Boeing fear they will not be able to live with the kinds of state support that budding rivals may receive. The Commercial Aircraft Corp. of China (COMAC) is not merely subsidized by the state—it is an entirely state-owned and -run enterprise. In the present, Airbus and Boeing don’t much care about COMAC, which has endured multiple delays in developing the C919 that is supposed to compete against the A320 and 737 programs. COMAC does not currently produce any aircraft that threaten Airbus or Boeing.

But that won’t likely be the case forever. Imagine COMAC gets its act together and starts producing multiple commercial aircraft to compete with Airbus and Boeing models. China is a critical market for Airbus and Boeing. But what happens if the Chinese government simply mandates that the major, state-owned Chinese airlines must purchase COMAC aircraft? No bidding, no competition: Airbus and Boeing closed off from what eventually will become the largest air transport market in the world.

To say nothing of the tremendous advantage a state-funded aircraft manufacturer with Beijing’s complete backing would have in sales competitions in the rest of the world if its aircraft were legitimately on par with Airbus and Boeing aircraft technologically.

This is the nightmare scenario that drives Airbus and Boeing to fight each other at the WTO. Unless they attempt to draw lines in the sand, COMAC—or another fully state-owned aircraft manufacturing operation—could run roughshod over them in the future. That’s why Enders wants “a set of globally applicable rules”—rules that Airbus, Boeing and any future competitors will have to follow.

The CEO of GippsAero, Keith Douglas, welcomed this recognition of achievement as an opportunity to progress into the next stage of the program and then on to delivery of the first aircraft to customers by the fourth quarter of 2017.

Karthik S wrote:It's awesome plane though, from personal experience the stability of 380 is not found in other long range planes.

Singha wrote:Blr as well i think?

Singha wrote:http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/governme ... eststories

4 runways capacity will be there, which is a must to scale to 100 mil/annum scale which IGI will do with 2 runways somehow.

BIAL is busy in earth works for its T2 and 2nd runway on other side of road as planned. i hope car parking and taxi parking and bus bays is also looked into. the current model is simply not good enough.

separated arrival and departure levels are a must as in all major airports worldwide.

Singha wrote:location is around 70km south of noida adjacent to the yamuna expway. nearest urban cluster is faridabad and greater noida region.

India should come out with policy initiatives for local manufacturing of commercial planes as its aviation market is poised to become the third largest in the world, SpiceJet chief Ajay Singh said today.

Noting that India is projected to become the world's third-largest commercial aviation market by 2020, Singh said Indian airlines have placed orders for more than 600 commercial planes.

If the Indian government can push for making military planes -- when the orders are for little over 120 - it is time that New Delhi thinks on those lines for commercial planes too under the 'Make in India' programme, Singh said.

"They have been talking about it on the military side but but on the commercial side, there has been nothing much," the SpiceJet Chairman and Managing Director said. India's domestic aviation market is one of the fastest growing in the world and has been witnessing double-digit growth for more than two years.

"I think we need to...put some pressure on our manufacturers, much as we are doing on the (fighter jets) transaction.

"To say that look, there is a huge market available for you in India, so why don't you manufacture here? Perhaps, there can be some form of concessions given to people who might want to manufacture in India. Both tax concessions as well as creating a market opportunity for them," Singh said.

Mentioning the opportunities, he said: "We are growing 20-25 per cent. Despite this growth, there are only three percent of the Indians that fly, so obviously the potential is really immense.

"Supposing we were to say that look, in the regional connectivity scheme, you will have to use aircraft which are manufactured in India. There is automatically a market which opens up."

Singha wrote:50,000cr debt load though.

is there a readout on the outgo due to staff perks and benefits and retiree pensions?

any new buyer MIGHT at most agree for current set of retired people but slash that to industry levels for fresh batches...this will incite huge protests from serving staff.

thats the problem with Govt run orgs - easy to scale up, nearly impossible to scale down.

Prasad wrote:Doesn't IA run unprofitable routes solely due to being a govt entity and service like railways is implied? If AI goes private then unions will Heck even for madras airport modernisation the unions went and couldn't be done like hyd or blr.

nandakumar wrote:Tatas do seem to be interested. Tata Sons chairman did meet with senior government officials according to news reports. Ratan Tata calls the shots in Tata Sons. His passion for aviation business is well known.

Vips wrote:Need to make commercial planes in India, says SpiceJet chief .

India should come out with policy initiatives for local manufacturing of commercial planes as its aviation market is poised to become the third largest in the world, SpiceJet chief Ajay Singh said today.

Noting that India is projected to become the world's third-largest commercial aviation market by 2020, Singh said Indian airlines have placed orders for more than 600 commercial planes.

If the Indian government can push for making military planes -- when the orders are for little over 120 - it is time that New Delhi thinks on those lines for commercial planes too under the 'Make in India' programme, Singh said.

"They have been talking about it on the military side but but on the commercial side, there has been nothing much," the SpiceJet Chairman and Managing Director said. India's domestic aviation market is one of the fastest growing in the world and has been witnessing double-digit growth for more than two years.

"I think we need to...put some pressure on our manufacturers, much as we are doing on the (fighter jets) transaction.

"To say that look, there is a huge market available for you in India, so why don't you manufacture here? Perhaps, there can be some form of concessions given to people who might want to manufacture in India. Both tax concessions as well as creating a market opportunity for them," Singh said.

Mentioning the opportunities, he said: "We are growing 20-25 per cent. Despite this growth, there are only three percent of the Indians that fly, so obviously the potential is really immense.

"Supposing we were to say that look, in the regional connectivity scheme, you will have to use aircraft which are manufactured in India. There is automatically a market which opens up."