Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Minister Wants To 'help' Manufacturers  
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1726 times:


Norman Mineta, Mr. Bush's transportation secretary, has said he was exploring ways to aid aviation manufacturers in the US, but not in ways he'd call subsidies.

This seems familiar - the US government is prepared to aid its industries, but not to call the aid subsidies. When European governments aid their manufacturers, that usually _is_ called subsidies.


The article can be found at

http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/030508/transport_trade_1.html


12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5824 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1681 times:

As an American, I think it's high time.

If Airbus can be subsidised SO FAR as to be able to pay Alaska's training costs, maintenance costs, buy their old airplanes, and serve caviar to the CEO on a weekly basis (made that up but hey, who knows what goes on behind closed doors)... if Airbus has that much money floating around AFTER we hear that they sold the A320s to JetBlue at a loss... then we can subsidise Boeing all we want to.

All is fair in love and war, and the competition between the two manufacturers seems to have traits from both of those!

R


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5824 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1678 times:

BTW, as you stated in the post, Mr. Mineta is a Secretary... we don't call them ministers in this country.

User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1629 times:

Weird that Airbus is profitable too.

User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6451 posts, RR: 54
Reply 4, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1598 times:

Nothing can be easier. Just let the secretary ask Boeing to double their prices on spares to military planes.


Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1581 times:

Weird that Airbus is profitable too.

Boeing was also profitable in 2002. But this will change over the next few years, IMHO.

Charles

[Edited 2003-05-09 22:26:34]

User currently offlineNavion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1013 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1559 times:

Joni is sure trying to stir up dust and say the Americans are as bad as the Europeans have been regarding subsidies. Look at the various posts!!
Maybe if you post this stuff enough you might actually start to believe it.


User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1554 times:

Navion, yeah, it works, look at all the slamming airbus gets from people with no clue at all.

Staffan


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16870 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1540 times:

I wonder what brought this about?..(sarcasm)

"His comments at a U.S. Senate hearing were prompted by a decision this week by Airbus SAS (Paris:EAD.PA - News) to select a European consortium for a $3.4 billion engine contract despite a cheaper offer from Pratt & Whitney Canada, a unit of Connecticut-based United Technologies Corp".

" he said he could support more federal research funding for U.S. aviation manufacturers to offset deals offered by foreign companies who have financial or other backing by their governments."



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1866 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1526 times:

Staffan:

Having no clue at all is not a phenomenon that is more prevalent on one side of the big pond than on the other, unfortunately.  Sad Many people here only listen to the things they don't want to listen.


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1519 times:

Donder10:

Actually I think Airbus/EADS is in the red.


User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1508 times:

Never said it was, but some people take whatever they read here as being the truth.

Staffan


User currently offlineElwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1466 times:

AA737-823:

Thank you. You said it for me.

Cfalk:

Have to disagree with you. Over the next few years, the airlines will recover, and Boeing will see bigger profits, just as Airbus will.

Finally,

I don't believe in government bailouts for any businesses, save Sept 11-type emergencies, where obviously the airlines are not at fault for what happened (lawsuit claims against AA and UA to the contrary). I was appalled when the US gov't bailed out Citicorp back in the early 1990s due to their dubious loans to Brazil.

The business of America is business. We should let strong companies alone (save when they break the law) and failing companies fail. Boeing is not failing. It's making money (according to its financials). There's no reason to bail it out. The same goes for Airbus. They're a business and should be allowed to live or die according to their business accumen.

And as for calling military contracts "subsidies", well, that shows an obvious mis-understanding of the American military equipment and provisioning systems (plural). Boeing has to compete with Lockheed-Martin, Sikorsky, United Technologies, Northrop Grumman, and others, as well as a host of European companies for contracts (though admittedly the US buys very few foreign aircraft) for Navy, Air Force, Army, Coast Guard and Marine Corps equipment. Anyone want to guess who makes the M9M 9mm pistol? It's an Italian company...



Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airbus Wants Suppliers To Help Fund A350XWB posted Tue Dec 5 2006 14:54:59 by JAM747
Help - Which Non-US Airlines Fly To Grand Cayman? posted Thu Nov 2 2006 03:22:47 by Nickofatlanta
Minister Wants Full Open-Skies Between US-Canada posted Tue Feb 8 2005 23:09:43 by ViveLeYHZ
US&Canada To Bahamas! Help! posted Sun Nov 28 2004 18:44:48 by N593HA
US Airways Wants Judge To Approve Exec Bonuses posted Wed Aug 14 2002 05:29:04 by Murf
Air Wales Wants To Go US! posted Wed Mar 14 2001 18:32:35 by Englandair
Help Needed From US East Coast To Hawaii posted Fri Jun 23 2000 20:02:03 by Globetrotter
Showroom To Help 787 Buyers Decorate posted Tue Dec 5 2006 13:09:31 by Leelaw
FlyPorter Wants To Add YTZ-LGA/EWR posted Tue Nov 28 2006 17:50:46 by FA4B6
US Airways Closed To Muslims? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 21:28:09 by Rdwootty