Ed Huntress wrote:

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:37:15 GMT, "Wayne Lundberg"
wrote:



Thank you so much. You have given me a true spiritual uplift in that for
once I can see management as being on the right side of the equation and
not
the kinds of upes we see at GM. I admire Boeing, in spite of the problems,
as one of the US's greatest example of overall excellence. Look at them...
standing alone against a European consortium of socialistic money and
against every US labor regulation and insane environmental and OSHA rules
still staying on top of the pyramid.

Thanks!

Wayne


Standing alone with the aid of $2Billion per year in government subsidies!
Your tax dollars at work, a triumph of free market lobbying :-)

And with all that money they still can't manage to convert to the
measurement
systems that the rest of the industrialised world uses. Quite sad really.


Why should they bother? Heck, you can't even convert your pints of beer. g

But "why should they bother" really is a serious question, Mark. Please,
tell us.

--
Ed Huntress



There are a number of other things to consider when it comes to aviation
and metric. Flight levels... in feet. Runway distances and aircraft
performance figures in the US are all in feet. All the aircraft
instruments are in feet, inches or lbs/sq. in. When you have a working
system you stay with it unless there is a vast improvment with a new
system. It's the same as some countries using 50 cycle ac power when
60 cycles is a lot better.

John