Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7  
User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 15
Posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8839 times:

Trying to protect its planned 7E7 Dreamliner from competition, Boeing Co. is mounting a campaign to cut off European government loans to archrival Airbus.

Harry Stonecipher, Boeing's new chairman, started the latest subsidies spat. He has won support from President Bush (news - web sites), who is threatening to take Europe to the World Trade Organization (news - web sites) unless the loans stop.

Stonecipher is flying to London on what the company calls a lobbying tour. A meeting with incoming European Union (news - web sites)'s Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson could be in the cards, although aides decline to confirm or deny this.

Boeing wants to prevent government loans for new aircraft so France-based Airbus can't build a rival to the 7E7 — the first all-new aircraft the Chicago-headquartered company has designed in 15 years.

For the rest of the story, here is the link.




http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040831/ap_on_bi_ge/boeing_airbus_1





NO URLS in signature
109 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKl911 From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 5085 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8670 times:

'''Boeing wants to prevent government loans for new aircraft so France-based Airbus can't build a rival to the 7E7 ''''

Why don't they fight it out with planes instead of politics? The best one wins..... It's still a loan, not a gift. What does it matter if it's the government who gives the loan, or a bank?

Let the EU try to let the US airlines pay back the 'gifts' the received after 9/11, which the European carriers didn't had, while suffering the same..

KL911



Next trip : DUB-AUH-CGK-DPS-KUL-AUH-CDG-ORK :-)
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8609 times:

That story is just another example of a journalist who knows very little about the aerospace industry. Who says Airbus would not be able build a rival to the 7E7 if they had to pay 100% on thier own. I'm quite sure they would be able to find the money somewhere.

K1911:

Ironically Airbus is a benificiary of those "gifts" to US airlines. Considering two of the more vulnerable US carriers, US and UAL, are big Airbus customers.


User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2445 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 8362 times:

"It's still a loan, not a gift. What does it matter if it's the government who gives the loan, or a bank?"

The difference here is that the government allows the loans to be 'forgivable'; they can be written off if the program fails to be profitable. I don't believe this has happened yet but the out is there for Airbus to default on such a loan if they can show a negative balance sheet, though to take advantage of this might impact on their getting future loans.

"Let the EU try to let the US airlines pay back the 'gifts' the received after 9/11, which the European carriers didn't had, while suffering the same.."

The airline bailout effort was an extraordinary measure taken in an extraordinary crisis, though I agree poorly run carriers already failing didn't deserve it and should have been allowed to fail. I don't agree that European carriers in general suffered quite as much as U.S. ones during that crisis, after all, it occurred on U.S. soil and for a time, brought nearly all air travel here to a screeching halt; European airlines weren't as drastically affected.

Per the article: "David Pritchard, a researcher at the Canada-United States Trade Center at State University of New York and his colleague Alan MacPherson recently published an analysis of the 7E7's launch process and its trade implications. They conclude that some infrastructure and production subsidies slated for the 7E7 "clearly violate the WTO's regulations" on subsidies, suggesting that threatening to take Airbus the WTO is a strategy that may backfire."

Indeed, although Alan Mullally said on this issue earlier that Boeing was playing by the rules, this seems to contradict his statement. There might be an interesting row if Harry Stonecipher follows through on his threat, seems he might be walking a difficult tightrope.


User currently offlineM404 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2220 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 8308 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Another aspect of what Boeing wants is an effective treaty and definition on what precisely makes up aid as well as transparent open bookkeeping on both sides. A treaty that is already is inplace for this has been ignored and unenforced for nearly a decade. If the ground rules were the same and unarguable perhaps technology could be the only defining factor. There is enough for both manufacturers. If truly unbiased (fat chance) government or business arbitrators could formulate such a pact then this petty bickering could stop.


Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
User currently offlineKEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8250 times:

I find it fascinating to see what is happening.

Boeing has been driven in a corner during the last few years. It will take them some years to come out of it. Meanwhile they launch remarkable offensive, attacking on all fronts..

- They launched a new product right in the middle of their competitors successful 330/340 family

- They took the high risk approach of building with more then 50% composites

- They launched an unprecedented media campaign to convince everyone they were really inventing a new way of transportation instead of copying a concept.

- They did an intensive internal motivation campaign to get the (slightly demoralized) staff behind this.

- They enforce a 7e7 launch customer (Politics; US-Japan trade deficit.. & rumored close to 50% discount..)

- They made sure they got maximum subsidies by questioning the best production site & playing out states against each other & secured Japanese govn. support by subcontracting high tech work to MHI and others.

- They mobilized politics including Bush to launch a full swing political attack on the biggest competitor for getting subsidies (loans) without getting into details, just creating a “darn foreigners” feeling is good enough.

- They try to delay a competitors reaction by arguing the rules have become outdated (& new rules usually take a loooong time  )

- They play the public/unions & bribe officials to make sure the old 767 prod line keeps alive until the new 7e7 arrives.

Boeing has gotten itself in a weak position but fighting it’s way back,

going for it all the way!

 Big thumbs up


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8185 times:


It's about time that this issue got the full attention of the US government. Airbus is still treated as if it were still in its nascent stage despite the fact that it is somewhere past "mature" and on the cusp of being a dominant firm. Let EADS use its profits from its other businesses to finance its Airbus line.




"Let the EU try to let the US airlines pay back the 'gifts' the received after 9/11, which the European carriers didn't had, while suffering the same.."

The EU compensated its airlines for the 4 days after 9/11 just like the US government did.

While European carriers certainly did suffer from a dramatic fall in travel and rise in insurance costs right after 9/11, the shock to the sytem was far greater in the United States. That was the basis for the loan guarantee program which did not require the US to actually loan money but to assume a contingent liability. Despite all of that the US has not been handing them out to anyone who asks. They turned United despite its size and number of employees nationwide in a number of key electoral districts.

If you take into account the years of state-ownership that was prevalent in Europe until the 1990s, the EU's complaints about relatively meager aid to US airlines rings pretty hollow.


[Edited 2004-09-01 11:39:53]

User currently offlineKEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8153 times:

IMO Boeing is over it's neck in subsidies & they love it.

Fragment from report below:

The $4.2 billion launch cost is based on two factors: first is from Boeing statements that the 777 launch costs were between $6-7 billion, though Boeing has never officially disclosed the actual costs but did say the company called the 777 program at the time "the world's most expensive privately
funded commercial venture” (Branegan, 1995).

The second factor is based on statements from Boeing board members in 2003
that has targeted the Boeing contribution to the 7e7 program at no more than 60% of the 777 program (Pae, 2003). Thus, $7 billion times the 60% contribution limit gives us an estimated $4.2 billion Boeing contribution to the 7e7 program. The Boeing self-financed portion of $4.2 billion is less than the comparable $5.2 billion that EADS and BAE Systems self financed for the A380 program (EADS, 2003). We can expect new production subsidies to evolve as the program moves forward with first tier risk sharing partners developing second tier subcontractors.

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION

The Airbus versus Boeing subsidy debate has been raging for more than three decades (for a concise overview, see Esty and Ghemawat, 2002). A new debate would likely differ from earlier disagreements in at least three respects.

First, the 7e7 launch plan includes both foreign and domestic subsidies.

Second, close to 50% of the launch funding is slated to come from sources that are classified as ‘actionable’ or ‘prohibited’ under the WTO’s subsidy rules.

Third, substantial state-level subsidies are part of the launch plan (e.g., $3.2 billion from the state of Washington).

Taken together, these three elements of the launch process add up to a public/private partnership of massive scale. From a public policy perspective, one has to question whether this represents good value for money.

Given that most of the value-added on the 7e7 will be earned by foreign partners rather than by Boeing or by US-based suppliers, US institutions might better serve the national interest by subsidizing those aspects of Boeing’s aerospace business that operate with higher US content.

Alternatively, subsidies might be allocated to Boeing for key parts of the airframe (e.g., wings), so that the US could at least maintain its core competence in airframe design and production. While Boeing is a global company, which means that production must also be global, the devolution of critical tasks to foreign suppliers ultimately raises strategic questions regarding the long-run viability of US commercial aircraft production in the LCA category.

http://igeographer.lib.indstate.edu/pritchard.pdf

Japan is also now deciding on a loan scheme for KHI, MHI and Fuji Heavy Industris to cover their share of development costs for the 7E7 airframe. METI, starting with the fiscal 2004 budget, gave Japan’s 35% share in the airframe national project status. But the allocation of loans has been held back by delays in the manufacturers, represented by the Japan Aircraft Development Corporation (JADC), completing a master executive contract with Boeing. Sources say the contract, which JADC originally aimed to complete by mid-2004, should now be completed by year-end.


User currently offlineWidebody From Ireland, joined Aug 2000, 1152 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 8067 times:

Think KI911 might also be referring to the aid provided to the US airlines for the cockpit door modifications, the FAA were the only authority in the world to mandate these changes for both their own carriers AND carriers flying into or over US airspace.....but they gave grants for the modifications to the US airlines but not to all others, even though the changes were forced by the FAA.

Granted these changes are now almost embodied world-wide, but the time-frame in which the FAA put on carriers resulted in huge costs for the European carriers. LH as example had 4 aircraft on the ground at any one time to have the modifications embodied.

All's fair in love and war.......


User currently offlineJeffrito From United States of America, joined May 2001, 133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 8023 times:

Clearly, all the parties involved (companies & governmental entities) have strong motives to "cheat", since this industry is all about a lot of money, jobs, taxes, etc.

Therefore, I think it is fair & appropriate for extra efforts to be taken to make sure this competition is as fair as it can possibly be. Impartial parties will need to have full access to the books and be able to take into account the differences in the business environments, etc.

Obviously, this argument will never be fully resolved, but I still believe it is a good argument to have.

The current framework under which the playing field is leveled is clearly out-of-date, so I don't have any problems with Boeing pushing the buttons, and am also not surprised that Airbus -- where things seem to be going smoothly at the moment -- would prefer business-as-usual.

Who knows? Maybe Airbus will come out the big winner in the whole thing! That's fine with me!


User currently offlineTasha From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7710 times:

"$5.2 billion that EADS and BAE Systems self financed for the A380 program..."

SELF FINANCED?? Are you kidding? The A380 program was/is financed almost completely by the European taxpayer. Airbus is really nothing more that what European steel companies were fifteen-twenty years ago: Socialist Industries with State funding.



" It's still a loan, not a gift. What does it matter if it's the government who gives the loan, or a bank?"

How naive can one get. Of course it matters. Sorry, I must be speaking ill of Airbus again; no such thing as Government funds being given to this so-called "private" company.



"...bribe officials to make sure the old 767 prod line keeps alive"

Of course... and Armstrong/Aldrin never landed on the Moon. I guess you don't have proof of this do you?



", the FAA were the only authority in the world to mandate these changes for both their own carriers AND carriers flying into or over US airspace.....but they gave grants for the modifications to the US airlines but not to all others, even though the changes were forced by the FAA.

Granted these changes are now almost embodied world-wide, but the time-frame in which the FAA put on carriers resulted in huge costs for the European carriers. LH as example had 4 aircraft on the ground at any one time to have the modifications embodied."

OMG.. the huge costs for European carriers. Poor Lufthansa, with folks squished like sardines in their aircraft; one of the worlds largest airlines; having to have FOUR, yes FOUR aircraft grounded at any one time to do these modifications - TOO BAD!!! Did European governments not compensate European airlines as was the case in the US? Give me a break!



"Therefore, I think it is fair & appropriate for extra efforts to be taken to make sure this competition is as fair as it can possibly be."

Competition between Boeing and Airbus can never be fair. Why? If it were fair, the Europeans would whine and complain about their darling Airbus Industries being cut off from Governments subsidies and grants. Then Airbus would cease being what it is now: A Government sponsored, multinational, Socialist inspired company, funded on the backs of European taxpayers. Why are they (European Governments) providing this funding: 1. Because they know Airbus cannot compete on it's own and would catastrophically FAIL; 2. Such a failure would be political suicide.

Just my opinion here, but I know that any critical word spoken against blemishless Airbus Industries is immediately labled "Airbus bashing". Have you ever considered why that is? Think about it. Their new slogan should be: "Airbus, State funded because we cannot compete"

Tasha  Smile/happy/getting dizzy









User currently offlineWidebody From Ireland, joined Aug 2000, 1152 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7629 times:

"Did European governments not compensate European airlines as was the case in the US? "

No.

And that was 4 out of their LR A340-300 aircraft (bout 30 in total). Big big money for a European airline, given they don't receive the same gifts as US airlines......I'll just sit back and wait for your next outflow of emotion......!


User currently offlineWidebody From Ireland, joined Aug 2000, 1152 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7615 times:

By the way its 'Airbus', 'Airbus Industrie' finished about 2 years ago.

User currently offlineTasha From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7598 times:

Did European governments not compensate European airlines as was the case in the US? "

No....


Of course they did. Just sit back and think about it. In fact, I will tell you that many European airlines recieve government funneled money as a routine. Don't play so coy and innocent here - everyone knows how business is done in Europe.

Tasha  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineTasha From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7592 times:

"By the way its 'Airbus', 'Airbus Industrie' finished about 2 years ago."

I like the older one... It sounds much more impressive don't you think?

Tasha  Big grin


User currently offlineKEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7589 times:


"...bribe officials to make sure the old 767 prod line keeps alive"
Of course... and Armstrong/Aldrin never landed on the Moon. I guess you don't have proof of this do you?


 Smile

Tasha, where have you been hanging out ? The Boeing CEO and others were fired because of it..
http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/9346000.htm
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/military/read.main/15587/6/

SELF FINANCED?? Are you kidding?
May I point out that the report is a US report, with all sources been accounted for?



User currently offlineTasha From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7577 times:

"...bribe officials to make sure the old 767 prod line keeps alive"

That had to do with the B767 tanker project for the USAF, not with the B767 line in general. I may be splitting hairs here, but to me that is something completely diffrent.

Tasha  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineKEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7532 times:

Tasha, FYI there isn't much of a commercial 767 line left & KC767 have been build on the same line..(Italian & Japanese) .. I'm sure Boeing doesn't see it as something completely different .. a 767 = a 767 = turnover


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7484 times:

That "self-financed" sentence is the subject of a syntax error. If you look above that portion they refer only to the portions the 380 and 7E7 that are self-financed. According to authors both airplanes receive public subsidies.

The EU has chipped in $3 billion for the R&D of the 380 in the form of "repayable loan." That means it does not have to be repaid if Airbus does not make a profit. The EU created a massive moral hazard situation here. Airbus now has incentive to actually avoid showing a profit on A380 for a while until those repayment terms naturally expire.

The authors that Keesje cites raise a valid point. Is it a good use of public money to subsidize projects like the 7E7? Personally I do not think so. However the alternative is to let the EU pump more and more money into Airbus until Boeing eventually has to exit the market. For the first time Boeing may possibly enjoy a few of the benefits extended to Airbus for 30+ years and the Europeans somehow feel that there has been parity all along. Nonsense.

Remember that Airbus cannot fail. No matter how bad an airplane they build--they will not be allowed to exit the market in the manner that Lockheed or McDonnell Douglas did. (Not saying they build bad airplanes) Based on sales the A300 should have been the first and last Airbus built if actual market forces applied. They cannot even enforce a 40 hour work week France so it is impossible that they layoff workers in Toulouse.

It is interesting that one of the complaints leveled by Europe are the tax breaks and incentives that are being provided by the state of Washington. I do not recall these new converts to free market ideas complaining when Daimler and BMW received comparable, favorable tax treatment from Alabama and South Carolina.

[Edited 2004-09-01 16:48:03]

[Edited 2004-09-01 16:49:40]

User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7439 times:

Widebody,

It is hard to conclude how you believe the reinforced cockpit door rule was a "gift" to US airlines. Just like Lufthansa and other airlines, US carriers had to pull airplanes out of revenue service to install the doors to meet the deadline. The US carriers did not get any meaningful competitve advantage against European competitors through this process.

That the EU decided not to help their airlines with installation and lost revenue compensation of these security systems and yet continues to support Airbus (a company with around 50% of its product market) is a beef you should have with the EU and not the US. Reinforced cockpit doors would prevent or slow down a hijack attempt whether over the US or elsewhere.


User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4981 posts, RR: 44
Reply 20, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7411 times:

Tasha,

SELF FINANCED??

Yes, self-financed.

Are you kidding?

Do you see a smiley face? No? Then my guess is he's not.

The A380 program was/is financed almost completely by the European taxpayer.

Sources? As per the 1992 agreement, only one third can be financed by government loans. A third of $12 billion. That leaves $8 billion, some of which is provided by the risk-sharing partners, the rest (the $5.2 billion) by Airbus itself.

Airbus is really nothing more that what European steel companies were fifteen-twenty years ago: Socialist Industries with State funding.

You clearly know very little about Airbus. You think you know enough to make a few attacks, but in reality most of those attacks turn out to be based on hearsay, which more than once turns out to be wrong.

All the while maintaining that you are not anti-Airbus. Yeah right.

1. Because they know Airbus cannot compete on it's own and would catastrophically FAIL;

Please elaborate...

Just my opinion here, but I know that any critical word spoken against blemishless Airbus Industries is immediately labled "Airbus bashing". Have you ever considered why that is? Think about it. Their new slogan should be: "Airbus, State funded because we cannot compete"

With all due respect, but you're kind of like someone who says "I'm not racist, but black people are clearly inferior to whites." You're one of the most anti-Airbus people on this board, especially because most of the 'claims' against Airbus you have are quite simply false. And I don't easily go around calling people anti-Airbus, but you clearly are, no matter how many times you keep on claiming the opposite.


User currently offlineTasha From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7403 times:

"Remember that Airbus cannot fail. No matter how bad an airplane they build--they will not be allowed to exit the market in the manner that Lockheed or McDonnell Douglas did. Based on sales the A300 should have been the first and last Airbus built if actual market forces applied. They cannot even enforce a 40 hour work week France so it is impossible that they layoff workers in Toulouse."

This is the absolute truth! Very well said!!

Tasha  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineKEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7369 times:

Fact remains that Airbus gets loans that sofar have been repaid.

The funds Boeing gets are basicly gifts.

The state direct and indirect support Boeing received sofar for R&D (NASA) and defense programs can be seen as a black hole in this case.

That amount is higher then Airbus has or will ever hope to receive and will somehow be included in any new treaty.

IMO it is high time the WTO take action here !


User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4981 posts, RR: 44
Reply 23, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7361 times:

Perhaps they are trying to cover-up the fact that Airbus aircraft are more-or-less junk

But no, you're not anti-Airbus  Yeah sure

I sincerely doubt that ANY Airbus aircraft will have the lifespan of any Boeing, MD, or Lockheed.

Nope, nothing anti-Airbus about you. How could we ever think otherwise?



User currently offlineWhitehatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7332 times:

gigantic grants, gifts, "loans", greased palms

The only two companies in recent years that have been implicated in illegal practices concerning bribery or iregular dealings to secure their airliner sales are Boeing and Lockheed.

Boeing with the KC-767 tanker (which for the education of Tania is actually a 767 and built on the 767 line) and Lockheed with its infamous Bribes Scandal to sell Tristars to Japan.

Glass houses and all that...mods plese delete this thread as there is too much scripted nonsense being regurgitated here without a shread of substantiation.


25 Post contains images Tasha : Scorpio... "You're one of the most anti-Airbus people on this board" Maybe I am, but that too is opinion. I will concede, that I don't have a very fav
26 N79969 : Keesje, Do not make up things now. With the exception of the A320 program, there is no proof that Airbus has ever paid back a cent on any of their oth
27 N79969 : Whitehatter, If you are not interested or have nothing valuable to add this thread then you are free to not read or post. I am not sure why your feeli
28 Post contains images Scorpio : Now that is pretty harsh now isn't it as you know nothing about me, other than perhaps that I have a low opinion about Airbus. *shakes-head* Scorpio,
29 SLUAviator : Hang on a second..... The way airbus' loans works is when airbus makes money and is operating in the black they begin to pay them back. Not once in it
30 Jeffrito : Hello?!?!? Like so many big corporations everywhere, Boeing & Airbus are BOTH on the dole. Funny how our patriotism leads us to defend our countrymen
31 Scorpio : Not once in its entire history has airbus actually turned a profit. Source? Its not quite fair, and its even less fair when you consider they make lou
32 Post contains images Tasha : SLUaviator: "Hang on a second..... The way airbus' loans works is when airbus makes money and is operating in the black they begin to pay them back. N
33 N685FE : You guys make me laugh. Do any of you work on any of these planes, or fly them? I doubt it. SLUAviator, how did you form your opinion? I seriously do
34 Widebody : N79969, The cockpit door rule depended on the regulations of each individual nation. The FAA on the other hand, decided to also impose their rule on P
35 Paul777 : Bravo N685FE - I agree, they get us to point B from Point A. Both Boeing and Airbus build great planes, and since we enjoy aviation, who cares who is
36 Whitehatter : Ohhh YES - this is typical when something critical of Airbus is said. cowards - can't even stand up to a friendly debate! There is nothing friendly ab
37 Post contains links Keesje : SLUaviator "Not once in its entire history has airbus actually turned a profit. Until they make money and begin to pay back their loans, it sounds lik
38 Scorpio : Whitehatter, thanks for the source! Just in case, SLUaviator and Tasha, the relevant passage in the link provided is this one: Airbus, 80% owned by EA
39 Brons2 : I think time has come to ask Johan to develop a nonsense filter... ...Your posts could be among the prime targets. In this ongoing debate, I have ask
40 Post contains links Leskova : I have to say - it's been quite a while since I've had to laugh as hard as I've had to while reading some of the posts on this thread... First of all
41 Keesje : I you have any information that local taxes in Nantes, Meaulte, St. Nazaire and Toulouse in France; Hamburg, Bremen, Nordenham, Varel, Laupheim, Stad
42 707lvr : For the most part, the "subsidy" that Boeing received from the State of Washington was a slight reduction in the extreme anti-business climate here. P
43 Post contains images Tasha : Keesje: "I think time has come to ask Johan to develop a nonsense filter..." Perhaps, but only useful to people who cannot stand a debate or hear a cr
44 Post contains images Tasha : Whitehatter: "If you can't contribute to the debate then go away. We are all getting rather tired of constantly handing your ass to you." That is a ma
45 Post contains images Mark_D. : SLUaviator-- Now several of you are like you have to so may others going to call me an airbus basher. My reply: I am.... proudly. Actually sounds more
46 Post contains images Tasha : Mark_D "Airbus make lousy planes?? Since when?!" Since the A300, but that too as all opinion! LOL Tasha
47 Post contains images Mark_D. : Tasha -- Since the A300, but that too as all opinion! LOL Amuse yourself away with your opinions then, Tash. Doesn't mean anyone else has to pay them
48 Brons2 : I you have any information that local taxes in Nantes, Meaulte, St. Nazaire and Toulouse in France; Hamburg, Bremen, Nordenham, Varel, Laupheim, Stade
49 Post contains images Adria : "They cannot even enforce a 40 hour work week France so it is impossible that they layoff workers in Toulouse." Yes the Hire and Fire system that Boei
50 Brons2 : For the most part, the "subsidy" that Boeing received from the State of Washington was a slight reduction in the extreme anti-business climate here. P
51 Post contains links Jeffrito : Light reading regarding production subsidies for the 7E7: http://igeographer.lib.indstate.edu/pritchard.pdf These subsidies probably violate current W
52 Keesje : I you have any information that local taxes in Nantes, Meaulte, St. Nazaire and Toulouse in France; Hamburg, Bremen, Nordenham, Varel, Laupheim, Stade
53 Rabenschlag : Of course, this is just as much a reach as your argument that Washington's tax breaks=subsidy. Rather, they are the result of competition between many
54 Post contains images Superfly : It's a shame to see Boeing reduce it's self to such petty bickering. Is Boeing lacking confidence in its Mitsubishi made plastic wing 7E7 project? It'
55 Brons2 : Nobody but Airbus, all seperate nations or an EU controlling department could give you that number. Apart from that, the one that sees a problem has t
56 Brons2 : thats the important question: (A) if the state of WA has lowered it's taxes generally, if this applies to all companies residing there, it's competiti
57 Gigneil : As far as know Airbus is legally based in the Netherlands because the tax regime is best there. Of course they are. And, for the same reason, The Boei
58 Brons2 : I agree here Gigneil, not much substantive information being added by Tasha. Even I will submit that Airbus makes some compelling products.
59 Rabenschlag : hi brons2 - its nice to exchange arguments! Reply 18 has a particularly excellent point about BMW and Daimler's tax abatements from South Carolina and
60 Gigneil : I GUARANTEE you that ANY LARGE CORPORATION could gain similar tax breaks for locating in the Seattle area. Absolutely they do. Even the foreign ones,
61 AvObserver : "Fact remains that Airbus gets loans that so far have been repaid." Only since the 1992 bilateral agreement and they've an out with the 'forgivable' c
62 Brons2 : you are saying, WA would do this for every larger company. economic translation: WA is basically willing to hand large cheques to every large company.
63 707lvr : This topic has probably dried up for the time being, but if anyone is bored enough to go and read about the Boeing Breaks, it's here: http://www.leg.w
64 Brons2 : Wow that is great stuff 707 lvr. "The comprehensive tax incentives in this act address the costs of doing business in Washington state compared to loc
65 Rabenschlag : hin brons2, had no time yet to read the document. one comment: you ask: (a) "why should states not compete?" and (b) "what is wrong if they offer tax
66 Blake : Tasha, you are not helping the US in getting rid of it's current negative image worldwide. You only make the world believe that you Americans hate oth
67 Post contains images Tasha : Blake, You astound me! Yes you do. The negative image comes from cowardly people who let a bunch of fanatics in the Middle East run their lives... who
68 Post contains images KEESJE : The negative image comes from cowardly people who let a bunch of fanatics in the Middle East run their lives....who am I talking about?? Guess! If I t
69 N79969 : I certainly did not say that neither EADS nor Airbus is making a profit. But if you were to break out Airbus from EADS and look at its history from th
70 N79969 : As to the issue of what is a subsidy? I agree that a tax break is a subsidy in effect. But lets take it one step further, is there a difference betwee
71 L410Turbolet : The negative image comes from cowardly people who let a bunch of fanatics in the Middle East run their lives... who am I talking about?? No Tasha, FYI
72 Aapilot2b : Here we go again. Everybody stop your stupid complaining and griping. It is disgusting. When I say this, I mean both sides. The arguments on both side
73 MD-90 : I have a question. European Government Refundable Advances. As of December 31, 2003, total European government refundable advances received, recorded
74 Rabenschlag : MD-90 wrote: So why should they be given government-backed loans if they're a profitable company? Shouldn't they be able to raise their capital almost
75 Widebody : Rabenschlag has it in a nutshell, it's not whether the company is profitable or not, it's usually determined by what the company can bring to the loca
76 N79969 : See the question posed in reply 70. Airbus is getting cash that no other company (European or non-European) can receive. Boeing gets tax breaks that o
77 Flybynight : Boeing was actually being taken advantage of, in my opinion, by the state of Washington a few years back. The State forced Boeing to spend millions of
78 MD-90 : why should receive boeing tax breaks, subsidised R&D and production (e.g., via Japan) if they are a profitable company? 1. Tax breaks are completely d
79 Post contains images Tasha : "Boeing had to earn a profit from the 757/767 line first before they could afford to start work on their replacement" Correct!! Unlike Airbus that jus
80 Flybynight : Boeing has still waited too long on the replacement for the 757 and 767. The sales started to decline several years ago when the Airbus sales started
81 Post contains images Tasha : "Didn't Boeing think that Airbus (with or without assistance) would be moving aggressively towards defeating the 767" At least someone is even a close
82 Post contains images Mrniji : Interesting that the EU's pocket agency, WTO, looks the other way all the time on this subject - very interesting. This entire trade, subsidy ... issu
83 Flybynight : Tasha - I don't think there is any question on Airbus getting money that only has to repaid if sales reach a certain x-amount of sales. Is this is fai
84 Post contains images Tasha : FlybyNight: "Tasha - I don't think there is any question on Airbus getting money that only has to repaid if sales reach a certain x-amount of sales. I
85 Gigneil : Correct!! Unlike Airbus that just gets untold billions from European governments to do with what it pleases; now isn't that Socialist, I mean "free" E
86 Post contains images Tasha : Gigneil... You just be embarrased all you want... I'm just disappointed in you, not that you have generously admitted that I too have Freedom of Speec
87 Joni : Is it possible to remove the posting rights of individual users on this board? Either I'm getting old or the A vs B fights on this board are getting
88 Sebolino : Of course they did. Just sit back and think about it. In fact, I will tell you that many European airlines recieve government funneled money as a rou
89 Post contains images Tasha : Sebolino... I'm not speaking of airlines... Joni... What is the title of this thread? "Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid..." Please answer the following.... 1
90 Joni : Dear Tasha, Banning trolls has been common practice on the net since before the www was even invented.
91 L410Turbolet : Sorry Tasha, I think it's you who is way out of line and who's infantile pro-Boeing fanaticism, incapability to differentiate between terms and simple
92 Post contains images Tasha : Now Now... Where have I ever called anyone names?.... Here I just asked three simple questions all perfectly inline with this thread. Why is that so d
93 Post contains links KEESJE : Tasha, maybe some users find it frustrating that you don't seem to listen to any responses that don't fit in. You just pick out bits & pieces and repe
94 Flybynight : Tasha - I believe you said that Boeing competes on its product, yet Airbus does not. I would disagree with that. Airlines would not buy a product that
95 Scorpio : Tasha, 1. So why is it so unreasonable to discuss this aid? Nothing. Problem is, you don't discuss it. You just basically yell 'Socialist pigs', ignor
96 Rabenschlag : @scorpio: sometimes i think that maybe the concept of "discussion" is different in the EU vs. US. seriously. i frequently experienced that people from
97 Gigneil : I'm not speaking of airlines... Why not? Perhaps being a "troll" means not being of the same opinion as he is... No, you're a troll for many reasons o
98 Post contains images Scbriml : KEESJE, you're a bad man! Tasha's profile says she's a model, so I guess that rules out #2!
99 Joni : Tasha, >Perhaps being a "troll" means not being of the same opinion as he is... No, that's not what being a troll is at all. A troll is someone who m
100 Post contains links AvObserver : Forgive me if this related AW&ST article was posted elsewhere, I didn't see it. http://www.aviationow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/09
101 Hirnie : Hey, why don`t the US (George W Bush) just bomb us (EU) as any other country that doesn`t do what they want. Why should Stonecipher not earn George`s
102 Paul777 : Subsidies, loans, inflated bottom lines, couple of hundred dollar hammers, it happens on both sides of the Atlantic. Unfortunately, numbers can be doc
103 Chgoflyer : Its about time Boeing and the US Dept of Trade address this. Next step is tax credits for U.S. airlines who operated all Boeing fleets.
104 Leskova : Chgoflyer, you have got to be kidding! If you're looking for an all out trade war, than that's the way to go - but I don't think that the politicians
105 Blake : Now suppose Boeing takes this to court, and wins. As the result of the huge penalty Airbus has to pay, they must shut down and fold. This would give B
106 KEESJE : I know I should ignore this but ... those two hundred Russian children might still be alive. In my view their blood is on the hands of Chirac (sp?) o
107 AvObserver : Okay, Hirnie and Tasha, your last statements were way over the top. Hirnie, George Bush has no control over the W.T.O. and must abide by their rulings
108 Post contains images Tasha : Frank... "So, Tasha & Co, unfortunately you might simply have to come to terms with the fact that this bastion of misguided socialistic ideas, aka Air
109 A380900 : Stop the Tasha Bashing. Tasha is my sweetie and although she might well seem a little harsh to us poor froggies from time to time, she speaks her mind
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...
The Truth About Boeing And Airbus Aid. posted Sat Sep 17 2005 16:41:04 by Ibhayi
Planes Most Profitable To Boeing And Airbus? posted Wed Sep 13 2006 21:29:14 by JAM747
Judge Declines Airbus' Effort To Axe Boeing Lawyer posted Tue Sep 5 2006 02:21:21 by Clickhappy
Airbus Reacts To Boeing's Comments On A380 posted Fri Aug 18 2006 02:34:43 by A5XX
Article: Airbus Likely To Request State Aid posted Mon Jun 19 2006 02:01:58 by Lumberton
Boeing V. Airbus: A Bridge To Far? posted Mon Jun 12 2006 19:17:40 by Rabbit
Airbus And Boeing On Their Way To Iran? posted Tue Jun 6 2006 17:14:25 by PM
Airbus Aid: A New Complaint To WTO posted Wed May 10 2006 08:51:12 by Leelaw
Pressure On Boeing & Airbus To Improve 737&A320? posted Sat Nov 5 2005 01:14:35 by Keesje
US Revives WTO Case Against European Aid To Airbus posted Tue May 31 2005 00:32:51 by Longhaulheavy