Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing's Stonecipher On Airbus Launch Aid...  
User currently offlineUlfinator From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 314 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4393 times:

Here is an monthly column written by Boeing CEO Harry Stonecipher that is published in the Boeing magazine Frontiers, both in print and online.

This month Harry decides to talk about Airbus launch aid. Key line I took away from it is:

"Boeing assumes full market risk every time we develop a new airplane. Airbus does not"

Of course this line, which I am sure will create some conversation, is expanded on in the article.

Just thought everyone would like to see it:

http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/i_st.html

58 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 850 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4303 times:

So what else is new about Boeing and Airbus? Do I smell envy here?

Read all that before (most of it from US, needless to say)  Insane

Micke/SE



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 47
Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4284 times:

Does this man ever talk about anything else than Airbus?

Boy, it is really turning into an obsession!

I think he is the only CEO in the world which mentions the name of his company's main competitor more than the name of his own company!

Not good if you ask me.




User currently offlineTasha From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4281 times:

"So what else is new about Boeing and Airbus? Do I smell envy here?"

No Solnabo it's not envy, but the stench of government sponsored industry, aka Socialism. It's also another proof that Airbus cannot survive without the massive influx of capital from European governments to prop it up. It might be said that Airbus builds excellent aircraft, perhaps even aircraft that are as good as Boeing's. Then again if they were, they wouldn't need all these billions now would they. It has been said here before (and not originated by me), that Airbus would have folded with the A300 if Socialist Europe hadn't provided massive assistance - AIRBUS: THE COMPANY THAT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO FAIL, no matter how much it costs the European taxpayers.

Tasha  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 47
Reply 4, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4254 times:

Besides, I think he still does not get it. EU officials are generally somewhat more diplomatic in the way they says things than in the US (e.g.:'you are against us, or you are with us', 'we are gonna smoke him out' etc.), so maybe this man is not used to interpreting what is really meant with:

Just like in the past, the EU is open for any in dept discussion regarding the 1992 bilateral agreement between our side and the US concerning the amount of government support aviation industries on both sides may receive IF and WHEN the US feels there is a need for it, in which case we will be more then pleased to look into their evidence on how civil, military and space projects in the US are now no longer or to a lesser extend supported by financial, infrastructural, military and fiscal benefits like they used to in the past and are allowed to under the 1992 bilateral agreement as well as into their reasoning on why the EU and its manufacturers should also no longer have to work along the lines of this bilateral agreement.
(free translation of the reply given by a EU official to a Frenchspeeking newspaper)

Anybody in Europe has understood the message: F*KC OFF !

Edit: it wasn't a French newspaper, but a Belgian one, so I edited that before France get's bashed once again....

[Edited 2004-09-09 23:16:28]

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 961 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4249 times:

Christ Tasha, you are no different than Soblano... you simply take a paragraph to say what he can summurize in a sentence. You both need to drop your blind affinity for your respective manufacture based on your respective patriotism. Get over it, this issue is way more complicated than either of you argue.

Hell I'm a flipin Boeing shareholder and I'm sick of your type of rehtoric


User currently offlineTasha From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4226 times:

DFWRevolution...

So you're a Boeing shareholder, well isn't that quaint? I am too, as well as thousands of others. If this is your claim to fame.... LOL  Laugh out loud I will continue to speak about Airbus, Boeing, and other subjects as well.

Also, thank you for buying Boeing stock!

Tasha  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineAntares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, RR: 39
Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4198 times:

All this whining and moaning from Stonecipher will get Boeing (recipient, deservedly of massive USG funds over time) nowhere and is an insult to a proud and innovative company that has been atrociously managed in the very near past if not the present.

If Boeing was to become an American company again, one that didn't cheat and lie about its relations with China, and sell out US workers on a such a systemtic and disgusting basis, and remember its roots, and restore its glory, I'll be a very happy if ancient and cranky bastard.

Instead it is whinge, whinge, whinge.

I've got great hopes for the 7E7. Stop whining guys, roll out the 200 orders promised for this year and get the thing flying non-stop around the world with giant windows and thick humidified air by October 2008 and 10% of the cost of flying anything else and make us all proud again.


User currently offlineTrolley Dolley From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4189 times:

OK, I'm not European or American, so hopefully I have a more balanced view of the situation.

Firstly different governments have a right to different philiosophies on how they handle their economies. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it necessarily wrong. A positive of government involvment is that there is accountability and transprancy. The Enron's and Arthur Andersen's of the world show that there can be flaws in the free market philiosophy. The US and EU are both practise protectionism and government intervention in a variety of industries that are important to them. The high value, high tech aviation industry is one of them. Government incentives can come in many forms like tax breaks, military orders or outright funding. A negative of government support is that poor business practises can flourish- take a bow Alitalia!

In my opinion there is a difference between launch aid and on going support of an unprofitable business. Airbus is made up of a large number of companies that are trading profitably. It also supports the USA industry too- think of all those GE engines just as a starter. My understanding is that Airbus has to pay the money back once performance targets are met- which they probably will be given its successful product line. If it failed to repay the billions there would be an outcry of the waste of government funds in the EU. I've not heard of any yet.

A question to ponder, if Airbus's business practises and operations are so inefficient, why is Boeing emulating some of them, eg greater component manufacturing off site so there's less to assemble at the main factory.

I honestly think that in this case there are rights and wrongs on both sides of the Atlantic.







User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 961 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4184 times:

So you're a Boeing shareholder, well isn't that quaint? I am too, as well as thousands of others. If this is your claim to fame.... LOL

You bet'cher ass... Boeing stock has made me about $1,500 (if I sold out) since I first purchased. Not enough to retire at 30 on, but it's great to have a company you care about do so well.  Big thumbs up  Big thumbs up


User currently offlineTasha From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4185 times:

"You bet'cher ass... Boeing stock has made me about $1,500 (if I sold out) since I first purchased. Not enough to retire at 30 on, but it's great to have a company you care about do so well."

Hee hee... that's more than my few piddly shares.

Tasha  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineCwapilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1166 posts, RR: 17
Reply 11, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4160 times:

Well, there are most likely, in my view, two things going on here. First, people seem to forget that the first mention of dragging "launch aid" and "subsidies" before the WTO came from Airbus, regarding the 7e7 and arrangements in Japan and Italy. Stonecipher may basically be laying it all out for them: we will do to you as you to to us.

Also, Stonecipher knows very well that the EU will do nothing except say F*CK Off as an earlier poster so eloquently stated. The supposedly diplomatic EU has no interest in negotiating a fair deal. Stonecipher may not even want them to end. It would seem to me that he would be more interested in twisting Uncle Sam's arm into providing the same type of "loans", dollar for dollar, euro for euro, for future Boeing products. Noises coming from the Bush Administration point in that direction, and John Kerry's people and high-ups in Democrat congressional circles have been critical of the Bush Administration for not doing this earlier. Nevermind that they had 8 years in which to deal with this issue, but that's beside the point here...



Southside Irish...our two teams are the White Sox and whoever plays the Cubs!
User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 12, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4021 times:

Cwapilot, you might be right in your analysis that the "EU has no interest in negotiating a fair deal" - though I doubt it, or at least I doubt that they're any more or less interested in it as the US is.

Nonetheless, for years, we've heard the US screaming about the subsidies and/or loans - but up to and including this day, what have they done?

Absolutely nothing.

If they really were able, as they've claimed again and again for years now, to prove that Airbus and Europe is violating the agreement, then why are they only now seemingly starting to make moves to actually change something about it? And it actually remains to be seen if this session of "Airbus gets unfair help"-whining will actually ever be more than the previous ones - of if the US will, once again and after a few months of making a lot of noise about it, simply forget about the issue.

Regards,
Frank



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 850 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4003 times:

Tasha, u got most hang-ups about "socialism"?

Soviet Union doesn´t exist anymore, did you know that?  Big grin

Micke/SE Big grin



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineKnoxibus From France, joined Aug 2007, 258 posts, RR: 23
Reply 14, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3989 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I say let's stop over this repetitive and useless discussion and wait for the round of negotiations that will take place on 16th September.

Hell, I kind of agree with all those subsidies being not clear and the lack of transparency (actually it seems on the European side that it is clearer than across the pond, from what I read so far, that's a fact).

That's my taxes for Christ's sake....but then again it pays for my job, what a vicious circle...

According to one of EADS' CEO, who for the first time expressed a view on the subject, if the case is to go before the WTO, Boeing might get a kickback.

I would just say wait and see.



No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3983 times:

Airbus recieves subsidies from governments in order to survive and Boeing does not. Does that seem like fair competition to you? I dont think so. I dont think ANYONE is entitled to free money from anyone. Subsidies defies the point to competition...its not fair game....period!!

I think the 1992 Bilateral agreement needs to me modified because it seems to favor Airbus over Boeing. Times have changed, people....and with that in mind, contracts need changing too. Lets level the playing field for all involved.

[Edited 2004-09-10 09:17:15]


A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks ago) and read 3927 times:


Tasha,

Socialism isn't a word that's capitalized. Also, since you still haven't looked it up I'll have to tell you that socialism refers to the state ownership of means of production. EADS and BAE shares are traded in electronic stock markets, which is pretty much the opposite of socialism.

>Airbus recieves subsidies from governments in order to survive and Boeing
>does not.

Just repeating that line over and over again doesn't make it the case.


User currently offlineKnoxibus From France, joined Aug 2007, 258 posts, RR: 23
Reply 17, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks ago) and read 3916 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

AirframeAS;

I think you should think twice before repeating the putrid garbage broadcasted by Boeing and Politicians in need of attention.

A round of negotiations will take place soon. Let's wait for the results.

Boeing agreed to this in 1992 and now is complaining about it. They should have thought back then that it might be a very dangerous decision for them. They played it bad, and now they are saying its unfair. Well learn from your mistakes guys. (And it's not the last one they made if you look at the scandals there has been recently).

Anyway, what I am saying (bis repetita) is that we should wait for the conclusion of the future meetings between the two parties. What I am hoping is that both parties will agree to provide full transparency on this issue.

And from my understanding, this has already been done by the Europeans, but not by Boeing...These subsidies are not, technically and contractually speaking, free money, this is written down.




No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
User currently offlineAndreas From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 6104 posts, RR: 31
Reply 18, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3912 times:

Ulfinator: Just thought everyone would like to see it

Err, no not really except the usual suspects, but they'll know it anyway!
And to make this a well-balanced post  Big grin: No, nobody is interested in the marketing raves of some Airbus hotshot either!


btw: can someone kick that overly ridiculous fake out for good? It gets annoying, boy! Get your bloody kicks elsewhere or take Valium to get your Hormone level down!  Yeah sure  Yeah sure  Yeah sure

[Edited 2004-09-10 10:21:40]


I know it's only VfB but I like it!
User currently offlineAngelairways From United Kingdom, joined Nov 1999, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3876 times:


My friend here (significantly older and more experienced than me) works in the risk management department. believe me there is a whole risk evaluation and management department at Airbus. It's not as simplistic as stoney cipher makes it sound. All risk calculations are presented to anyone before they give out a loan, be it commerical or government investors. Besides, governments give out loans because thy get back commercial interest on them. The days of free gov't money in Europe are long gone. please wake up to reality. And remember 66% of the investment for a new a/c comes from private companies. Why would they dump their money into a project they think will fail?

Spitting on your commercial competitor is not a new practice. It has happened many times before in history between various big companies. It usually comes from the underdog trying to draw sympathy towards itself.

But Boeing is overdoing it. It is beginning to sound like a sour loser and is in no way drawing any sympathy towards itself, as was seen on Mr Stonecipher's recent visit to London.

Perhaps he should divert his energies more towards Research and Development, and the marketing of his own a/c, especially the good ones like the 777, rather than moaning!




User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 753 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3799 times:

"All this whining and moaning from Stonecipher will get Boeing (recipient, deservedly of massive USG funds over time) nowhere and is an insult to a proud and innovative company that has been atrociously managed in the very near past if not the present."

Have to agree 100%
Boeing well and truly took their eye off the ball during the 1990's. Airbus was releasing a plethora of state of the art aircraft to which Boeing should have responded with some new models of their own.
There are few things more harmful to any company than taking your eye off the ball and neglecting your core business for a few years - far more detrimental than any perceived subsidies your competitor may receive.
Boeing employees and shareholders deserved better corporate management then they received during the 1990's.

Cheers,
StickShaker


User currently onlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5015 posts, RR: 44
Reply 21, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3789 times:

DfwRevolution,

Christ Tasha, you are no different than Soblano... you simply take a paragraph to say what he can summurize in a sentence. You both need to drop your blind affinity for your respective manufacture based on your respective patriotism. Get over it, this issue is way more complicated than either of you argue.

Hell I'm a flipin Boeing shareholder and I'm sick of your type of rehtoric


Welcome to my Respected Users list.


User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2468 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3730 times:

"Boeing agreed to this in 1992 and now is complaining about it."

They agreed to it when Airbus still had only a small share of the market and it was reasoned then that Airbus needed more assistance to prosper. Airbus now has the lion's share of the market and is no longer struggling against Boeing, thus the rationale for that same level of launch aid is no longer valid. Though there was an understanding that launch aid would be reduced over time, it hasn't happened. It's been suggested that perhaps the much more comprehensive 1994 general accord on trade which reportedly has more restrictions on such aid and mechanisms to enforce it. Below is what I see to be the most troubling aspect of the current arrangement...

"Look at the A380, for example. Airbus has received nearly $4 billion in launch
aid for the ultra-big airplane. Airbus claims there is a market for 1,500 A380s, so it will have to sell 40 percent of that amount-or 600 airplanes-before it has to pay back just one-fifth of the launch aid it has received for the A380. We think the market for such large airplanes is much smaller, and we doubt Airbus will ever sell 600. If Airbus doesn't sell at least 600 A380s, it may never have to repay any of that launch aid."

This means that almost $4 billion (in USD) of European taxpayers' funding could go down the shute if Airbus can't sell the requisite number of airplanes for the program to be considered a success. I'd think you European taxpayers would be at least a bit concerned about this; giving Airbus an out to NOT repay the loans if the program is declared unsuccessful. Boeing, of course, balks because it doesn't have a similar cushion in case one of its commercial models fails to sell well, seeing this as an unfair advantage for Airbus. We'll see what happens, now. Stonecipher, the 'old warhorse' has fired the first shot in what could be a protracted trade battle. Very sticky business, this 'subsidies' issue, especially if BOTH sides must open the books for FULL disclosure.


User currently offlineJeffrito From United States of America, joined May 2001, 133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3716 times:

Knoxibus

... Boeing might get a kickback.

Assuming English is not your first language, I just wanted to let you know that your writing is excellent! But here's a little FYI:

A kickback typically refers to money paid by a business under the table to a purchasing agent. Like if I am in charge of buying airplanes for the military, Boeing will give me a kickback for recommending that the air force buys a bunch of Boeing tankers.

I think what you meant is that Boeing's WTO court case might "backfire".


User currently offlineTeva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1871 posts, RR: 16
Reply 24, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3679 times:

AirframeAS, you say (or repeat)
"Airbus recieves subsidies from governments in order to survive and Boeing does not. Does that seem like fair competition to you? I dont think so. "
How do you call the illegal export subsidies used by US exporters (not only Boeing), that have been condamned by the WTO?
How do you call the fact that a big part of the 7E7 has been contracted to Japaneese firms, to get subsidies from Japan?
How do you call the transfer of the headquarters from Seattle to Chicago? Tons of taxpayers money (money+tax breaks) ...Of course, yu will argue it is not goverment money, but State and city....
Teva



Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
25 Maddy : Another example: Airlines under chapter 11 get subsides and are kept alive. Is that fair to the other airlines around the world?? "It's also another p
26 Jeffrito : Maddy, Technically Ch. 11 offers protection from creditors, but does not provide any other subsidies or assistance. Usually a successful re-emergence
27 Knoxibus : @ Jeffrito, Thank you for the tip, I really appreciate it when people correct me, I never take it as a critic as it allows me to improve the beautiful
28 ORDAgent : IF Boeing ever did get into serious financial trouble the U.S. government would bail them out. The aviation industries are considered by most governme
29 Dtw9 : I think what Harry is saying here is a loan is a loan when its paid back with interest, aloan is a subsidy when its not paid back as most of these Air
30 N79969 : Go Harry. He is absolutely correct. If Boeing were supposedly as government protected as Europeans love to allege, it would roll out new models just a
31 Areopagus : I certainly agree that the books should be opened, but I doubt the arguments will end then. Boeing could have placed their operations in a low-tax, lo
32 N79969 : The difference is that BMW, Daimler, or Alstom would have received tax breaks and so on from the state of Washington if they built facilities in Washi
33 Leskova : The difference is that BMW, Daimler, or Alstom would have received tax breaks and so on from the state of Washington if they built facilities in Washi
34 Antares : N79969, Boeing is taking more out of the US industry with its transfer of the 7E7 to the Japanese than Airbus is actually putting into the US. Lockhee
35 N79969 : Antares, What you say is correct. Boeing has moved and continues to move a lot of production of out of the United States. I see that clearly and am no
36 Qantas077 : i don't know enough about this but i know one thing, Harry is probably right when he says that the A380 won't sell 600 units, market seems to be heade
37 Antares : Thanks N79969 for a well considered and I think sound assessment, although I can't detract from the success on merits contests where the A320 has done
38 N79969 : Antares, Sure. I do not mean to imply that Airbus builds bad airplanes that only sell because of EU subsidies. That clearly is not the case. The 319 a
39 Leskova : N79969, ok - sorry, misunderstood you there. Though I, nonetheless, seriously doubt that Boeing would not get anything if they were to invest in Europ
40 AirframeAS : I think you should think twice before repeating the putrid garbage broadcasted by Boeing and Politicians in need of attention. If you refer back to my
41 Leskova : Teva: How do you call the illegal export subsidies used by US exporters (not only Boeing), that have been condamned by the WTO? AirframeAS: Well for s
42 N79969 : Frank, I think Boeing has a design center in Madrid. Anyway my point is that the tax treatment that Boeing is getting from Washington state (which is
43 AirframeAS : And your proof for that is what? Is the $1bn profit they made in the first half of this year or the more than $800mn they made in each 2003 and 2002 p
44 N79969 : AirframeAS, The government of Japan has or is going to declare the 7E7 as a national project (or something like that) because 35% of the airplane will
45 AirframeAS : Ahh, thanks for the clairfication, N79969! I didnt know that, but now I do. I guess its ok for Airbus to recieve subsidies but its not ok for Boeing t
46 Leskova : They sell planes at low market prices BECAUSE they have subsidies to back them up from other projects. And Boeing does not have money from other parts
47 Antares : Well, I'm not sure if we'll get to the truth ever about what airlines pay for jets but here are a few local insights that suggest Boeing sure knows ho
48 Knoxibus : Well methink that we will never get to the end of this. This industry deals with so much money and jobs in the balance I guess it's going to be pretty
49 Leskova : Knoxibus, you're right, thanks for the correction - I did mix up EADS and Airbus there... but, if I'm not mistaken, the actual point remains valid: Ai
50 Dynkrisolo : Without knowing what kind of local taxes Airbus are paying at their assembly sites in Toulouse and Hamburg, we will not be able to determine whether t
51 N79969 : Dynkrisolo, Those are good points. The underlying, implicit assumption in this thread has been that Airbus has not been receiving tax breaks from Fran
52 Sebolino : Without knowing what kind of local taxes Airbus are paying at their assembly sites in Toulouse and Hamburg, we will not be able to determine whether t
53 N79969 : Sebolino, Go look up the value of the research contracts given directly from the EU and member governments to EADS. Cash aid to Airbus is separate.
54 Post contains links Dynkrisolo : The tax reduction program, as well as the level of research contracts given directly from the USA gvt to Boeing are part of the agreement signed betw
55 Trex8 : "If they determined the lost tax revenues could worth more than the tax breaks that they planned to offer to Boeing, then why is it anyone else's busi
56 N79969 : "Similarly if the EU thinks that the advantages of "subsidizing" Airbus provides significant economic advantages beyond the cost of the "subsidy" , it
57 Dynkrisolo : Trex8: You might think Hong Kong is a free market. But in the field of commercial aviation, they have heavily regulated who can land in HKG and how of
58 AirframeAS : Reading the 1992 agreement from the link provided by Dynkrisolo in post #54, a few things were pretty interesting: AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF
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...
Boeing Takes On Airbus Lying Down posted Fri Mar 3 2006 15:20:12 by TinkerBelle
The End Of Airbus 'Launch Aid' As We Know It? posted Tue Oct 11 2005 13:32:44 by NAV20
Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350 posted Thu Oct 6 2005 23:51:24 by NYC777
Airbus´ Camus On Boeing Launch Aid... posted Fri Sep 10 2004 23:17:03 by Keesje
Launch Aid (Airbus) Vs. Tax Cuts (Boeing) posted Thu Dec 16 2004 00:17:33 by Clickhappy
Airbus Cuts And Possible Future Launch Aid Impact posted Sat Sep 30 2006 03:26:48 by Osiris30
Airbus Reacts To Boeing's Comments On A380 posted Fri Aug 18 2006 02:34:43 by A5XX
Airbus Closes In On A330F Launch posted Mon Jun 26 2006 22:10:08 by Columba
Airbus/BAE Pleading For A350 'Launch Aid' posted Tue Aug 23 2005 17:07:37 by NAV20
Boeing Believes WTO Will Make Airbus Repay Aid posted Tue Jul 26 2005 19:11:17 by Beauing