Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EU "Airbus's Success Breeding Envy And Jealousy"  
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 6953 posts, RR: 57
Posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5228 times:

Interesting comments on the airbus and Boeing dispute from the EU commissioner on trade. Looks like the EU wont take this lying down.

http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuoteCompanyNewsArticle.jhtml?duid=mtfh88232_2004-12-15_13-11-19_l15708213_newsml


Airbus's plans for the A350 have heightened tensions in the trans-Atlantic trade dispute. Airbus won approval from its shareholders last Friday to unleash a fresh marketing battle against Boeing by seeking orders for the new wide-body jet.

Mandelson said Airbus's plans for the A350 could only be viewed as provocation "by a rival that doesn't like competition. This market needs competition".

"Airbus's success is breeding envy and jealousy," he added. "Its expanding market share is clearly exerting pressure on its competitors, and this is the main driver of the dispute that has arisen between Airbus and Boeing."

EADS said on Friday it had not yet decided on whether to apply for government loans for development of the A350. Zoellick called the possible loans a "problem".

Airbus overtook Boeing as the world's largest manufacturer of big commercial jets last year, and both companies accuse the other of obtaining illegal subsidies.

Airbus has said it is entitled to apply for a third of the development cost under a 1992 European Union-U.S. trade deal, but Boeing maintains that deal is dead.




The world is really getting smaller these days
36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3675 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5162 times:

The deal is dead ?


Since when ?




...


User currently offlineColumbia107 From Gibraltar, joined Aug 2004, 358 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5124 times:

Certainly not envy when you have Airbus offering aircraft with a book value of US$55 million at circa US$30 million. At least that is what Reuter's is reporting when referring to the AirSong order for 40 short hall aircraft. Who on earth is going to refuse such an offer price.
My view is that Airbus strategy, with EU support (in order to keep highly qualified individuals employed) is to sell short hall aircraft to low cost airlines below book value with the purpose of selling long haul aircraft (with similar cockpit arrangements etc.) to the corresponding parent airline and which in fact carry a more lucrative profit margin.



In God we trust
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12037 posts, RR: 47
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5107 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The deal is dead ?


Since when ?


Since the US unilaterally withdrew from the agreement a few weeks back.

"Airbus success breeding envy and jealousy" Wow, Mandelson must have been browsing on a.net!  Big thumbs up

Just one question - under the deal, Airbus could apply for 33% loans for development of new planes. The US now says the deal is dead, so what is to stop the EU giving Airbus a 100% loan for developing the A350?



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5077 times:

When the US the filed with the WTO --the deal died. Actually the genesis of Airbus is rooted in the envy and jealously among Europeans at seeing the United States produce Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, and Lockheed jets in the 1960s and 1970s.

User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1834 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5051 times:

"Envy and jealousy"? Of course!! Boeing will never get used to the fact that somebody else could have overtaken them... Not being numero uno is so "un-American and unpatriotic", lol... The fact is, they should just swallow their pride and keep doing what they are doing best - making airplanes, not playing politics. It will only hurt them in the long run.


All Hail Mighty Triple Seven, The MURDERER of the so-called "Queen"!!!!
User currently offlineColumbia107 From Gibraltar, joined Aug 2004, 358 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5026 times:

It will only hurt them in the long run.

In what way?



In God we trust
User currently offlineScotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1178 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4953 times:

Boeing, Boeing, Gone! I do not think so! However, I do think this argument over subsidies to Airbus is Boeing trying to divert attention from the botched USAF refueling tanker fiasco. And more than likely a little politics entered into it because of the election, especially in Washington State, where Boeing aircraft are produced.

Subsidies? I feel Airbus is grown-up now, is making money, and should raise money privately, just like Boeing did for the 7E7. So what if Boeing received tax breaks, hell, even Airbus got tax breaks when they built their factories in the US!


User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3675 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4922 times:

Just one question - under the deal, Airbus could apply for 33% loans for development of new planes. The US now says the deal is dead, so what is to stop the EU giving Airbus a 100% loan for developing the A350?

That's actually a very good question.
The deal was made to be sure that both part were not too strongly subsidized.
If the deal is broken, nothing forbid the EU to increase the loans, or even to give non repayable subsidies like Boeing has.

On the other hand, nothing would forbid the US gvt to increase the subsidies ... except the lack of cash.

Airbus would be forbidden in the US. So what ? That's not the biggest customer.


User currently offlineCannikin From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 98 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4918 times:

Both are recieving help from their Govs, both are good companies. This is nothing more than a national pride war. A larger version of an A vs. B argument. Silly.

User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3675 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4894 times:

Subsidies? I feel Airbus is grown-up now, is making money, and should raise money privately, just like Boeing did for the 7E7.

Unfortunately, that's not true. Japan is subsidizing the 7E7 project.

So what if Boeing received tax breaks, hell, even Airbus got tax breaks when they built their factories in the US!

Probably, but the tax break program built for Boeing is huge. 2,4 billions by the state of Washington. That's not "so what ?". That's subsidies.


User currently offlineGreaser From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1092 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4856 times:

Airbus would be forbidden in the US. So what ? That's not the biggest customer.

Don't you ever wonder that many of Airbus's biggest customers are American??
Guess not.



Now you're really flying
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7930 posts, RR: 54
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4847 times:

Airbus could never be banned in the US - since 40% of an Airbus is made of US components, there are a LOT of American jobs at stake. I would say that the demise of Airbus would harm the US nearly as badly as the demise of the Boeing Commerical Aeroplane ("Airplane"?) Division. Since only about 60% of a Boeing is made in the USA, and Airbus build more planes than Boeing, a healthy Airbus is probably as important to the US economy as Boeing Commercial.


fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4790 times:

That tax break that Boeing may receive--any company can receive it. The state of Washington does not care. If Airbus want to build something in Washington state, they are free to do so and can ask for a tax break. Boeing cannot go to Brussels and ask for launch aid though.

The combined audacity or willful ignorance of history or both that are required to make such a remark about the U.S. is astounding. Like I said, Airbus was born out of European envy and jealously of the United States aerospace industry.

Although I very strongly hope that it does NOT occur, Airbus could be slapped with heavy tariffs for sales in the U.S. if the EU were to continue with is smoke-and-mirror position that every Boeing F-15 sale is actually a subsidy to BCAG.

The "Trojan Horse" effect of U.S. suppliers won't undermine the U.S. position really.


User currently offlineMaersk737 From Denmark, joined Feb 2004, 668 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4733 times:

"That tax break that Boeing may receive--any company can receive it. The state of Washington does not care. If Airbus want to build something in Washington state, they are free to do so and can ask for a tax break. Boeing cannot go to Brussels and ask for launch aid though."

Are you sure ?

Cheers

Peter



I'm not proud to be a Viking, just thankfull
User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3675 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4689 times:

That tax break that Boeing may receive--any company can receive it. The state of Washington does not care

I doubt, but anyway that's not the point. Boeing is subsidized, period. Just like Airbus.
You admit it, very well.

Airbus could ask for it ? Yes, perhaps if they transfered all their prodution in the states. How hypocrite you are !


Although I very strongly hope that it does NOT occur, Airbus could be slapped with heavy tariffs for sales in the U.S

LOL

It would be funny to see the face of Boeing's top management when the EU would strike back with the same tariffs on Boeing in the EU.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineKnoxibus From France, joined Aug 2007, 251 posts, RR: 23
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4616 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

ignorance of history
European envy and jealously of the United States aerospace industry

As far as I am concerned, having great aircraft like Concorde and Caravelle (and i am sure I am missing on some other great planes) while Airbus was not even properly created doesn't show a particular envy or jealousy to my eyes.

I am not saying anything on the space program in those days (but considering the amount of money that was spent it would seem logic and the help of a lot of ex-german scientist, i.e. europeans)

And the brits invented the jet engine, etc...
..so yes, back in those days, I think we had every right to be jealous and build a company concept based on subsidies only and that would make crap aircraft sold at a stupid price...



No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4980 posts, RR: 44
Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4575 times:

Boeing cannot go to Brussels and ask for launch aid though.

No, but they can go to Washington (D.C. in this case) and ask for launch aid. They won't get it, but that's Washington's problem, and not that of the EU. It's perfectly legal for Boeing to get launch aid under the 1992 bilateral. Washington not giving that aid is THEIR choice. The bilateral is not unfair for any manufacturer, because it allows for equal subsidies for both.


User currently offlineDayflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4542 times:

"Subsidies? I feel Airbus is grown-up now, is making money, and should raise money privately, just like Boeing did for the 7E7. So what if Boeing received tax breaks, hell, even Airbus got tax breaks when they built their factories in the US!"

Finally, common sense from someone in Europe! Thank you Scotron11.  Smile

This is exactly the US argument. If Airbus is SO good and making money, let it stand on it's own two feet. Quit sucking off the government titty already.

Either that or let the US provide subsidies to Boeing at the same rate. Whats wrong Airbus, are you afraid that the massive economic power of the US ($10 TRILLION annually GDP and growing) would be brought into play against you?



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineBlackKnight From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 241 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4463 times:

This goes along with the discussion in the thread:
The end of an industry as we know it

See the link to the article in reply 16



BK
User currently offlinePlaneSmart From New Zealand, joined Dec 2004, 790 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days ago) and read 4391 times:

N79969
"Like I said, Airbus was born out of European envy and jealously of the United States aerospace industry."

Airbus was born out of frustration. Good aircraft built in Europe like the BAC111, Trident, Caravelle, Mercure were doomed to low sales.

European manufacturers were constantly opposed in the mkt place by US manufacturers with US Govt export finance, available at well below mkt rates, & with generous terms and conditions.

And a civil order was usually a requirement for access to US military aircraft.

U also ignore work the Govt has bought for the US aerospace industry. The one i'm most familiar with is the Goshawk. Even allowing for modifications, it could have been manufactured for nearly a lot less in the UK. Justification for US assembly was 'strategic importance'. Really just a Govt subsidy to the US aerospace industry.

The pendulum has swung, and now the squeeks are coming from the other side of the Atlantic. Gives us lots of topics to discuss here.


User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days ago) and read 4384 times:

Dayflyer, the US is permitted to give Boeing support by indirect means - funding of research and/or development programs, for example - whether they chose to do so or not, or whether they use the full bandwidth available under the agreement (not that that plays a role, since the US withdrew from the agreement) is their, the US's, decision.

What's allowed is this (from http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/04/232&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en, titled EU – US Agreement on Large Civil Aircraft 1992: key facts and figures):
On the other hand, the agreement establishes that indirect support ( e.g. benefits provided for aeronautical applications of NASA or military programmes) should be limited to a 3% of the nation's LCA industry turnover. This discipline is primarily targeted at the support system in use in the US. In contrast to the European system of repayable launch investment there is no requirement for indirect support to be reimbursed and the generous ceiling of 3% is calculated on the larger basis of the turnover of the LCA industry and applies per individual year.


Nonetheless, like quite a few other Europeans on a.net I, too, would prefer it if both manufacturers stood on their own two feet - no direct and no indirect subsidies.

Unfortunately, and I've said this before as well, I don't really see that happening anytime soon - something for which I see both sides as responsible...

Regards,
Frank



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineFlyabunch From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 517 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days ago) and read 4350 times:

"Subsidies? I feel Airbus is grown-up now, is making money, and should raise money privately, just like Boeing did for the 7E7. So what if Boeing received tax breaks, hell, even Airbus got tax breaks when they built their factories in the US!"

Not to whip a dead horse, but companies asking for subsidies from states, counties, and even cities in the U.S. to finance a new plant is quite common. Even smaller companies can apply for and get such aid. It is all part of politicians insuring their reelection by making sure that they create jobs for their constituents.

Mike


User currently offlineRabenschlag From Germany, joined Oct 2000, 1005 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4294 times:

Not to whip a dead horse, but companies asking for subsidies from states, counties, and even cities in the U.S. to finance a new plant is quite common. Even smaller companies can apply for and get such aid. It is all part of politicians insuring their reelection by making sure that they create jobs for their constituents.

really? so you mean that direct subsidies to whatever companies are a widespread means of american economic policies? if so, why complain about europe with it's few state owned companies and direct subsidies?

you mean, every company which creates jobs in the US can benefit from these subsidies? i believe that. we have seen that happening with BMW and Mercedes when they set up their plants in the south.

but, the same is true the other way around, EU subsidies for US companies if they produce in the EU. talk about AMD's plant near dresden, germany, or GE's new research facilities near munich....


i must confess that i am sick and tired of the constant sissy whining of some US a.net fellows about unfair subsidies, especially with the amount of direct (not repayable or anything, just plain money) and indirect subsidies pumped into the 7e7. it reflects a bad and truly unamerican attitude: that of a bad loser.










User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3423 posts, RR: 67
Reply 24, posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4251 times:

Can anyone direct me to a source that would provide a record of the monies repaid by each Airbus airplane model for the EU launch aid loans?

The terms for re-payment would also be of interest, i.e. how many airplanes had to be sold before re-payments began, what was the typical re-payment amount per airplane, interest rates, etc.

Thanks, Old Aero Guy



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
25 Ken777 : Most cities and states in the US develop incentives to lure plants (read jobs) into their area. I live in little old Tulsa and we've done it. More imp
26 Post contains links Leskova : OldAeroGuy, I think you'll find what you're interested in on page 22 of EADS' "Financial Statements and Corporate Governance 2003" publication... http
27 PlaneSmart : Try searches on S&P, Reuters and Bloomfield. Notes in published accounts may give some idea, but you won't be able to determine who they are from, for
28 OldAeroGuy : Thanks Leskova. It will be interesting to see what's out there and what can be gleaned. PlaneSmart, one step at a time. First Airbus and then Boeing,
29 Post contains images Hamlet69 : "The deal is dead ? Since when ?" The U.S. announced (I believe in Oct.) that they are voiding the 1992 GATT agreement. According to the articles agre
30 Scbriml : Three words- World Trade Organization. Remember that the 1992 GATT agreement was a private pact between the U.S. and the E.U. And that would worry the
31 707lvr : Clearly, very few people in here or elsewhere have actually read the bill which gave Boeing the Washington State tax "subsidies." All it did was move
32 Boeing7E7 : "Envy and jealousy"? Of course!! Boeing will never get used to the fact that somebody else could have overtaken them... Not being numero uno is so "un
33 Warren747sp : It's the best public works program in the world.! Certain to bring envy and jealousy from the unemployable world wide. W
34 Sebolino : The U.S. announced (I believe in Oct.) that they are voiding the 1992 GATT agreement. According to the articles agreed to by both parties, this means
35 PlaneSmart : In the last 7yrs the US govt has imposed tariffs on NZ butter, lamb, steel and aluminium. When NZ complained to the WTO, the US dragged out the review
36 Post contains images Glideslope : We are ready. If I were the EU Commissioner I would be much more concerned over who is bugging who's conversations in EADS meetings? Not a good situa
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 Takes Swipe At Customers" posted Thu Jun 1 2006 18:39:55 by NASOCEANA
Air Berlin CEO: "Airbus Didn't Take Us Serious..." posted Thu Oct 20 2005 19:32:23 by JetMaster
"Airbus Sorry For 380 Delay" Article posted Thu Aug 11 2005 15:29:40 by Lumberton
EU Says Airbus Subsidies Must Be "curbed" posted Sun Sep 25 2005 15:47:05 by Kellmark
FI: Embattled Airbus A350 Rethink To Be "Dramatic" posted Mon May 8 2006 10:00:34 by Leelaw
FAA: "The Standard Is 1.50, And Has To Be Met," posted Thu Apr 6 2006 04:09:44 by BoeingBus
"China To Sign Airbus Deal During Blair Visit" posted Sun Sep 4 2005 19:19:02 by Jacobin777
Economist - "Boeing V Airbus - See You In Court." posted Tue Apr 5 2005 22:59:38 by UH60FtRucker
AA "lrtc" Process Begins On 738s And 763s posted Mon Mar 7 2005 17:53:10 by NYCAAer
"Airbus Spreads It's Wings" posted Mon Feb 14 2005 15:15:23 by FLVILLA