AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1702 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!
Navion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1014 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1580 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.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16885 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1561 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."
Elwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1487 times:
Thank you. You said it for me.
Have to disagree with you. Over the next few years, the airlines will recover, and Boeing will see bigger profits, just as Airbus will.
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.