Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus´ Camus On Boeing Launch Aid...  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3265 times:

The European Aeronautic, Defence and Space Company (EADS), makers of Airbus commercial aircraft, struck back Thursday at accusations from US rival Boeing that it had benefited from unwarranted state subsidies.

"It's Boeing's subsidies that we should be talking about because Airbus doesn't get subsidies," EADS co-chief executive Philippe Camus told a meeting of aviation journalists here.

"The level of subsidies that Boeing receives for the 7E7 is a problem for me," he said, referring to a commercial airliner being developed by Boeing.

"I am extremely concerned ... preoccupied," he said. Speaking of the 7E7, he added: "There is apparently a whole range of assistance that has been offered Boeing by a bunch of public - state - bodies."

Camus provided no precise figures but suggested that such aid could be worth several billion dollars. He was hitting back at recent assertions by Boeing chairman Harry Stonecipher that Airbus was benefiting from unjustified government subsidies.

Camus said it should be determined if the assistance Boeing is receiving is consistent with a 1992 agreement governing subsidies for makers of commercial aircraft of 100 seats or more.

"My impression is that that is not the case," he said. "It's also my impression that it (the assistance to Boeing) ... is inconsistent with the WTO (World Trade Organization)."


Hope this one will not get deleted...

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineUlfinator From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3237 times:

To me the whole thing seems like "Lets blame the other side for doing what we are doing ourselves".

I am convinced that yes both companies get subsidies but they are in a myriad of different forms whether it is from EU governments, etc on the Airbus side and Local Governments (tax breaks and such), etc on the Boeing side.

All very interesting.

User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5924 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3197 times:

Please, no more Airbus vs. Boeing flamewars with same old arguments being repeated again and again and again...

Sorry Keesje, I suggest deletion since there are two or three similar pointless threads already.

User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 5554 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3158 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

well here are some details and real numbers on the
subsidy vs tax credit etc game

User currently offlineTeva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1881 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3067 times:

Trex8, the article you ost is very interesting.
Here is easier access
I just see one mistake: it mentions construction of roads as fully paid by government.
It is not true. Airbus has contributed to the paiment.
In addition to that, it is not a new road, but modification of an existing one.
And a lot of these modifications was planed long before the A380, due to the high traffic.And at that time, it was not related to Airbus traffic: first studies started in the early 80s.
Airbus is not the exclusive user of this road. Why should have them paid the entire price? However, some of the modifications have been made especially for them, and they paid for this.
PS: the proof this road is not only for Airbus...Anytime I visit my parents in the South, I use it. And I have always been pissed off by all the trucks on this road. (until one of those modification has been inaugurated in my parents village by president Mitterrand in 93)

Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
User currently offlineTeva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1881 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3056 times:

Other point I forgot: there is no mention of the big part of the 7E7 given to Japan, to get direct government subsidies from Japan
My 2 posts are not to start again the AvsB battle, but just give another light. As Mr Camus said, if all the helps are stopped, the biggest looser may not be the one you think.
Every time there is election in the US, this subject comes back.
Personaly, I would keep a status quo, with maybe a clarification of the rules.
Not to protect Airbus or Boeing, but to protect the already troubled airlines. The imediate esult would be higher cost of planes, to cover the difference.
What airline in the US could deal with aircraft at least 20% more expensive to buy?How many airline workers all around the world would loose their jobs?

Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2976 times:

Perhaps Boeing is breaking the mutual agreed rules & knows it.

Attack first to mislead the public & try change the rules could be a strategy...

User currently offlineUshermittwoch From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2999 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2973 times:

Guys, this is getting old.

Us Europeans should know that we ARE WRONG. Boeing and the US are ALWAYS right.
 Yeah sure
So can we please keep this board A vs. B-free?!

Where have all the tri-jets gone...
User currently offlineF4N From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2932 times:

To all:

Write all of the CEO comments from both sides off as pre-negotiating PR
statements. Both sides will be making statements of this nature prior to
the committee meetings for reopening discussions on the 1992 agreement.


there are no innocent parties here; there is a lot of word-smithing going on in order to sanitize practices on both sides of the Atlantic and imply guilt on the other side. If the WTO was such a concern, why didn't either side file?

Ban all forms of gov't assistance.



User currently offlineAV757 From Colombia, joined Apr 2004, 667 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2864 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Here is another article giving more details on this topic, it gives more points to ponder about, since both parties Boeing and Airbus have received benefits in one way or another.



User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 777 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2783 times:

... "Both sides ought to live with the consequences of their decision, a Boeing representative contends. More quietly, company officials concede they are trying to inoculate the 7E7 against a quickly launched, government-backed Airbus competitor. Europeans see more cynical motives, such as Boeing going on the offensive to mask subsidies it is receiving for 7E7 and to whitewash poor business decisions of the past".....

The above quote was taken from the AviationNow article listed in reply 9.

Its easy to pursue a moral argument that it is unfair for one manufacturer to receive launch aid while another doesn't - but the reality is far murkier than that.

... "Europeans estimate Boeing's indirect U.S. government support at $1.5 billion. Japan's 7E7 commitment is said to be more than $1.5 billion and Italy's nearly $600 million. The Washington State relief is projected at $3.2 billion over 20 years, most of it to Boeing" ....
(taken from the same article)

Both manufacturers receive assistance whether it be launch aid or indirect support. Launch aid has a high profile and is easily identifiable - indirect support can be hidden and difficult to identify.
Take a step back 30 or 40 years. The B707 was developed from the KC135 tanker. The B747 used the (then) revolutionary P&W JT9 high bypass engine which was developed to power the Lockheed C5 Galaxy. These are (old) examples of R&D support but indirect aid can take many different forms - tax breaks etc.

Boeing have every right to pursue their campaign but it should be seen for what it is - a thinly disguised attempt to use political processes for commercial gain. The need to do so has been magnified due to poor decision making by Boeing during the last decade.


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 Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350 posted Thu Oct 6 2005 23:51:24 by NYC777
Boeing's Stonecipher On Airbus Launch Aid... posted Thu Sep 9 2004 22:11:37 by Ulfinator
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 Agrees With Boeing On Compsite A/C-? posted Mon Jan 9 2006 17:33:54 by Halibut
Pressure On Boeing & Airbus To Improve 737&A320? posted Sat Nov 5 2005 01:14:35 by Keesje
The End Of Airbus 'Launch Aid' As We Know It? posted Tue Oct 11 2005 13:32:44 by NAV20
Airbus/BAE Pleading For A350 'Launch Aid' posted Tue Aug 23 2005 17:07:37 by NAV20