Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Seeks $1Billion Launch Aid For A350  
User currently offlineScotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1178 posts, RR: 3
Posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 8534 times:

FT reports that Airbus has applied to 4 EU governments for $1Billion in launch aid for the A350. Development costs are projected at $4Billion.

Separately, EADS plans to establish a plant in the US to produce in-flight refueling tankers for the USAF should it win a tender competition against Boeing.

Airbus would supply so called "green aircraft", completely unequipped A330-200s assembled in Toulouse, and fitted in the US.

Gotta admit, this company has a brass neck!

118 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12172 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8370 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Can Airbus actually afford to build a new plane without any funds. Airbus always asking for funds is starting to become a joke.

User currently offlineKellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 693 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8325 times:

As I recall, Airbus today said that they had a very good year and projected a profit margin of some 10%.

http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuoteCompanyNewsArticle.jhtml?duid=mtfh64920_2005-01-12_11-14-23_pac003835_newsml

Why in the world do they need any subsidy whatsoever? It is absolutely ridiculous.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8274 times:

What happened to $5.8 billion figure previously bandied about? $4 billion translates to approximately 3 billion euro which seems more reasonable for a derivative.


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4769 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 8193 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The development costs for the A350 may be 5 billion etc but they are only allowed to get a third under the 92 agreement. They have also said that if push came to shove they don't need it but if they can get it, they would be fools not to ask for it.
This could be real interesting if they only ask for a billion from the EU govts and the Japanese give more than a billion to FHI, MHI and Kawasaki for the 7E7!


User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 8173 times:

Amazing...positively amazing. Doesn't surprise me at all though, this is the Airbus tradition. With that 10% profit margin, shouldn't they be giving some back to the governments? Take away all those subsidies....airbus would be in the hole every single time.

I still don't feel comfortable with the idea of a KC-330....it may be partially assembled here in the US, but Airbus is only doing that to make the product semi-american....you can paint a FROG any way you like it, but it's still a frog.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4106 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 8170 times:

Wingman: LMAO!

Come on guys, we all saw it coming...Airbus gets more free money while they complain that Boeing is taking advantage of opportunities in Japan...tune in next week for another exciting episode of As The World Turns...


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 8164 times:

Trust me. There will NEVER be a KC-330. Any politician who signs the contract would also be comitting political suicide.

It's not that I don't think that Airbus could offer a viable alternative, it's just that politics tends to get in the way of making rational decisions. Boeing, Northrop, Lockheed, et.al. have their hands pretty deep in the pockets of the USAF and would NEVER let this happen.

Then throw in a crop of flag wavers and nationalists....

like I said....ain't happenin'


User currently offlineKalakaua From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1516 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 8124 times:

Wasn't the A380 overbudget?


Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 8083 times:

Separately, EADS plans to establish a plant in the US to produce in-flight refueling tankers for the USAF should it win a tender competition against Boeing.

They have a better chance of concurrently winning every single USA lottery using the same numbers on the same day...

...but gotta give it to 'em for trying  Big grin


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 8043 times:

Wasn't the A380 overbudget?

Admittedly yes, but then again, so was the 777...

Can Airbus actually afford to build a new plane without any funds. Airbus always asking for funds is starting to become a joke.

Boeing could theoretically apply for the exact same aid; albeit the US government would laugh at them. The State of Washington tried to make some amends by lightening the tax burden, but these are a far cry from low/no interest loans. The default level of taxation is 0%, but the local, state, and federal government can tack-on what they want to suit their needs. If Boeing is about to leave town, the local and state levels can change the taxes they put in place to further their mutual interest.

Loosening the leash is not the same thing as throwing one a bone....

Separately, EADS plans to establish a plant in the US to produce in-flight refueling tankers for the USAF should it win a tender competition against Boeing.

Yippie... a line with zero future past 2010. This is about as exciting as moving the 767 line to the UK to win the RAF order. Reasonable? Uhh NO! Let's review the facts:

- A300 is probably months away from termination either in 2005 or 2006.
- We know the A350 will superceed the passenger A330
- Only the A332 has suitable freighter and military application. The A333 will probably die a tragic death.

Therefore, a North American production line for A330 will be about as spectacular as the current A300/767 line: rolling out at a low rate for tanker and freighter conversion. Replicating the whole A332 line is not an inexpensive proposition, and could only be viable if the USAF order was won in full.

This all sounds like Airbus trying to play Toyota: maybe if we build them there, they will like us. The production level just seems too low to be profitable, so its either a screw Boeing for market share or just a move to screw Boeing into lowering their 767 deal.

[Edited 2005-01-13 04:21:37]

User currently offlineTrvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 21
Reply 11, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks ago) and read 7998 times:

I am 100% for the KC-330 if and only if it is fully assembled here in the United States. Which, if Airbus partners with a US company such as Lockheed, is feasible IMHO. What better way to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States?

As for A350 launch subsidies--Airbus should get over it. They're already in the same position they claim Boeing enjoys: they too are "indirectly funded" through military contracts (remember European Aeronautics, Defense and Space Company?).

Aaron G.


User currently offlineGreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3084 posts, RR: 20
Reply 12, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks ago) and read 7980 times:

I may be wrong but isn't there a treaty coveing this. Cannot Boeing ask for the same subsidy? Just because the gov't does not give it to them it is not Airbus's fault.

GS



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks ago) and read 7963 times:

I may be wrong but isn't there a treaty coveing this.

It's currently in intense limbo, I suggest a Google News search for Airbus or Boeing... it will be a top hit.

Cannot Boeing ask for the same subsidy? Just because the gov't does not give it to them it is not Airbus's fault.

They could... see Reply 11, they would be laughed of Capitol Hill. Boeing's contention is that Airbus has no right to this sort of financing, reasoning that much has changed in the 12 years since the bilateral treaty was signed and reratified. Airbus has some points of their own, namely Japanese involvement in the 7E7, which currently bypasses the bilateral agreement that does not mention Japan....


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4769 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks ago) and read 7954 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

>shouldn't they be giving some back to the governments

well, on the A320 program they have paid everything back to the UK treasury they owed the Brit taxpayer (principal and interest) along with an additional US$1billion in royalties which some bright spark in Whitehall had written into their agreement! Plus HM govt keeps getting royalties for every new A320 which rolls of the production line.It is likely all other Euro govts which paid into the A320 program have also been paid back in similar fashion though I don't think any of the others were smart enough to tag on the royalty agreement also.
Don't know where they are on the A330/340 payback yet, maybe a little too early for that one yet

>am 100% for the KC-330 if and only if it is fully assembled here in the United States

Guardian reports that Airbus wants to invest US$600 million to set up a A332 tanker production line in US with probably Lockheed as partner. A USAF version of a 332 tanker may have more US content than a 7E7 at the end of the day!

[Edited 2005-01-13 04:47:56]

User currently offlineGreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3084 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks ago) and read 7932 times:

But if it is avaliable to both...Is it really not for Boeing to take up with the gov't? It is not Airbus's fault that the US gov't will not offer the same. From what I can see they are following the treaty..It is up to the gov't to renegotiate the treaty...

GS



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks ago) and read 7930 times:

A USAF version of a 332 tanker may have more US content than a 7E7 at the end of the day!

I hadn't seen too many proposals for a 7E7 tanker, and though it has nothing to do with American content, this point is wholly irrelevant.


User currently offlineTrvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 21
Reply 17, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks ago) and read 7928 times:

Guardian reports that Airbus wants to invest US$600 million to set up a A332 tanker production line in US with probably Lockheed as partner. A USAF version of a 332 tanker may have more US content than a 7E7 at the end of the day!

Thanks for the tidbit--interesting news. At any rate, I think there's a big difference between a "green" aircraft and one that's fully built in the USA. My preference is, obviously, the latter.

Aaron G.


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4769 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks ago) and read 7898 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

> I hadn't seen too many proposals for a 7E7 tanker, and though it has nothing to do with American content, this point is wholly irrelevant.

If one is concerned about how "American" or "European" a A332 tanker for the USAF is in terms of how politically palatable such a deal will be to American politicians, then the 7E7 is an example of how unAmerican an "American" plane is! Even the 767 airframe is almost a fifth non US sourced.
Whether its total $$ or manhours, these days the "label" is becoming less important as to where the work is being done.
Leaving aside the national industrial infrastructure needs to preserve an "American " supplier for such a program, why would the US military care if its an American or non American company? They go to war today with German tank guns, British field artillery, Belgian medium machine guns and squad weapons and pistols, the navy has used an Italian medium caliber gun since the 70s and they have just chosen a Swedish one for the LCS! But they are all "manufactured" in the US. If the A332 is a better aircraft and Airbus can "build" it in the US, so be it!

[Edited 2005-01-13 05:14:50]

User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7886 times:

Why don't we have an American company like Lockheed get off its A$$ and make an tanker to challenge Boeing? If you win, there is a 300+ plane order plus all the international deals/maitenance. Think of how much money Boeing has made off of the KC-135 program.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlinePVG From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2004, 725 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7887 times:

Wonder what the UDO's and LESKOVA's of the world have to say. Sure, Airbus is winning marketshare because they make a better product, they are great salesmen, creative financing deals, blah, blah, blah. They now admit that they saved a substantial amount on developments costs by getting government funding on the A380. Airbus is nothing but a huge European Government backed jobs program that will buy marketshare at all costs. I don't blame them, who wouldn't take free money if it's on the table. But, the facts are the facts.

The sad part is that the US Government doesn't realize the value of having well paying high value jobs on US soil and does laugh at requests for funding unless some crony on the inside can get their grubby hands on a piece of the pie and new high paying job for themselves and family on the outside (think tanker deal). No wonder the U.S. trade deficit is at record levels.


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4769 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7868 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

>Why don't we have an American company like Lockheed get off its A$$ and make an tanker to challenge Boeing?

actually I believe it was AWST that had a report that Lockheed did have some people working on just that.
though economically it may make more sense to have them develop something from some off the shelf design than start from scratch.
the AF may want a lower risk project than a totally new airframe design esp with money so tight these days. they are already talking about only having a wing of F22s so they have enough money to save the F35. if they have to take a potential risk on the tanker project too and not buy an off the shelf airframe they'd better be pumping lots of Iraqi crude real soon!


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 22, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7860 times:

If one is concerned about how "American" or "European" a A332 tanker for the USAF is in terms of how politically palatable such a deal will be to American politicians, then the 7E7 is an example of how unAmerican an "American" plane is!

Ha.. wrong. America is about capitalism, we fought a Cold War over it and if you haven’t noticed, one of the chief grievances facing the US today is fundamentalist Islam objecting to American capitalism. Why do you think planes were flown into the World Trade Center??

Capitalism takes the cheapest materials and labor available and refines it into a product that will make profit. If this means risk-sharing partnerships with Mitsubishi, that's capitalism. If this means out-sourcing to India, that's capitalism. If you understand what America is really about, and that's making money, there is nothing more American than what the 7E7 embodies.  Innocent

Second, the 7E7 is not even being considered by the USAF so its piddly assed American content matters ZERO in relation to the KC-767 bid.

Whether its total $$ or manhours, these days the "label" is becoming less important as to where the work is being done.

Yeah it's called globalization, welcome to 2005.

If the A332 is a better aircraft and Airbus can "build" it in the US, so be it!

1. That's a big "if"
2. If the A330-200 is the most value for taxpayer dollars, serves the needs of the USAF the best, and protects the interest of American troops... what the hell does the point of final assembly matter in the least??? Oh sorry America, we sent your sons and daughters into war with a sub par equipment because it didn't say "Made in USA"

Albeit I don't think the KC-767 is sub par, but if the USAF thinks so, you won't here a peep from me if they go with the A330 and build it in Toulouse.


User currently offlineKabAir From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 245 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7852 times:

I am by all means against government using taxpayer money to help a business succeed. And this whole thing with Airbus and the EU would tick me off, but....

While Boeing may not be getting a lot of government help, look what the U.S. government and U.S. financial policy has been doing for some of our bankrupt airlines. I should probably have the right to fly a couple of them for free as I would think enough of my tax money has gone to them to afford me a few tickets.  Smile We could talk U.S. farm subsidies for weeks. And don't even get me started on stadium taxes and subsidies for NFL teams, NBA teams, etc. It's amazing to me how our *cough* beloved Denver Nuggets could have a 10 year record of 11-2348 and still their billionaire owner will argue (successfully) that taxpayers need to build them a new arena. So I think this happens everywhere, it's just interesting to see how different governments favor different industries, for whatever reasons.

Anyone know which EU nations have contributed to Airbus projects? Just ones with stakes in Airbus, or have others jumped in also hoping to get a piece of the pie?



wow, there sure are a lot of expert economists on this forum....
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4769 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7846 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

>Albeit I don't think the KC-767 is sub par, but if the USAF thinks so, you won't here a peep from me if they go with the A330 and build it in Toulouse.

I'm with you totally on this one, but most of Congress aren't! Because when you really get down to it, they don't believe in true free market capitalism. Its "free market capitalism" as long as its in our(be it USA or state/regional/local) selfish interests and it comes with a big dose of jingoism!


25 Post contains images JeffLAS : 1 Billion??? That's all??? I would have asked for "at least" 3 billion.
26 Boeing7E7 : What a freaking joke. Must not be making any money on those 320 family short sells.
27 Post contains links AvObserver : Just a minute, won't A350 launch aid, as well as any 7E7 subsidies, be ILLEGAL under the terms sought in the tentative new U.S./E.U. agreement? "The
28 Baw716 : I really have trouble with this. We wonder why Boeing complains so bitterly about Airbus undercutting Boeing on the costs of their aircraft? Airbus go
29 Trvlr : Albeit I don't think the KC-767 is sub par, but if the USAF thinks so, you won't here a peep from me if they go with the A330 and build it in Toulouse
30 KEESJE : I think Airbus should drop their $21 Billion illegal US state aid for Boeing claim they said they will file if they want to have a chance on a KC330.
31 777ER : Can Airbus actually afford to build a new plane without any funds. Airbus always asking for funds is starting to become a joke. Boeing could theoretic
32 Couzinet70 : 777ER, are the guts you are talking about referring to the earlier bid to lease 100 767-based tankers to the US airforce ???? These are indeed real gu
33 Boeing7E7 : 777ER, are the guts you are talking about referring to the earlier bid to lease 100 767-based tankers to the US airforce ???? These are indeed real gu
34 Dazeflight : @Boeing7E7, you're most probably not able to build it with a profit, so I guess he'd say no. It's unbelievable how many guys on here shut their ears w
35 GKirk : There is no way in hell that the USAF would go for an A332 Tanker.
36 GREASESPOT : It has nothing to do with guts. The gov't will not give them the subsidy. IF the money was available Boeing would go after as much as they could get l
37 KEESJE : "The gov't will not give them the subsidy" Well lets say they won't name it subsidy..
38 Jet-lagged : The world's largest commercial aircraft maker . . . running back to sugar daddies for more toy money.
39 N79969 : It is outrageous and the not surprising in the least. Despite having 53% of the market and claiming to be "profitable" Airbus still will not bear the
40 Aa777jr : Doesn't there have to be some sort of mediation as far as how much money Airbus can squeeze out of EU governments? Didn't that video on the 7E7 thread
41 Angelairways : Imagine you are very rich, and Bush offers you a tax break. Will you refuse it and say "Oh thats OK I really don't need a tax break I have quite enou
42 Boeing7E7 : It's unbelievable how many guys on here shut their ears when they hear that all loans have been repaid so far and that only 1/3rd of the development c
43 Starrion : Keep in mind that the tanker they want to replace is not the KC-10 but the much smaller KC-135. The KC330 would be much larger than the USAF wants. Wi
44 Post contains images Aa777jr : I thought Boeing secured that $23.5 billion dollar deal for 100 tankers to the USAF. With that $100,000 donation to relect G-Dub, I thought the deal w
45 NumberTwelve : Boeing7e7: "..., it's the matter of fare global competition." What sort of fare do you mean?
46 Airbazar : I think it's so freekin' funny when people think that the only rules to capitalism are those practiced in the US. I've got news for you all: Europeans
47 KEESJE : Aa777jr they didn't get the KC767 (btw it wa all 1 person solely fault..), however Washington gave Boeing the $40 billion 737MP deal.
48 Boeing7E7 : Boeing7e7: "..., it's the matter of fare global competition." What sort of fare do you mean? Congrats! You win the grammar award!
49 GREASESPOT : I guess you should all be mad at your government for not living up to their side of the treaty and providing Boeing with the same subsidy...Hey it is
50 Gigneil : With that 10% profit margin, shouldn't they be giving some back to the governments? Airbus has completely paid back the A320 series aid, has been payi
51 Whitehatter : On the other hand, Europe does not share its publicly funded aerospace research with any non-Europeans Hawk (BAe developed and refined/built in the US
52 Knoxibus : That Boeing signed this treaty in 1992 just shows their arrogant attitude they had and have: they never thought they and their old-school planes could
53 Zone1 : Is Airbus trying to ink the A350 launch aid deal before the ink is on the paper for the US/EU WTO deal?
54 Trex8 : >Is Airbus trying to ink the A350 launch aid deal before the ink is on the paper for the US/EU WTO deal? The EU announcement (you can see the text at
55 Post contains images Jacobin777 : "What difference does it make if that investment comes from company X, company Y, or the Government?" WHAT???? It makes a HUGE different. Govt. and pr
56 Gigneil : .the loans airbus recieve do not have to be paid back until PROFITS are made..... Except that it doesn't work that way. Airbus has been paying back th
57 Udo : Wonder what the UDO's and LESKOVA's of the world have to say. There would be a lot to say but I currently don't have time to comment on any topic abou
58 Post contains links Jacobin777 : really??? "European governments are now providing direct subsidies to help Airbuswith its biggest project ever – developing the mammoth A380 two-dec
59 Clickhappy : Airbus has been paying back the A380 loans already, and I assure you that that project hasn't made money yet. Source please.
60 Post contains images Glideslope : Jacobin77, Nice link. You won't see a single EU post in here from that.
61 Jacobin777 : with so much bs being spread..i think it was good to get a better grasps of things... from what I know, the totaly amount would be almost $36 billion
62 Danny : The link provided by Jacobin777 is worth as much as nothing. The fact that one American said something does not prove anything and does not mean that
63 Widebodyphotog : "Launch Aid" or whatever euphemism you want to use for it is a subsidy because of the simple fact that The EU or any other government has no money of
64 Post contains links Danny : I am amazed how many people fight here but both sides are too lazy to check basic facts which are only a few minutes away on the net. Both B and A are
65 Airbazar : Jacobin777, it make no difference. Maybe in the US it's a huge difference. Not in Europe. Americans can continue to do business their way. Europeans c
66 Post contains images Leskova : I was going to say something about that link that Jacobin777 provided... but since Danny has already taken care of that... From a PR standpoint, annou
67 LH477 : There seems to be nothing illegal about it, it's well within EU-US agreement. Airbus would be stupid not to ask, it helps towards the bottom line. As
68 LHSTR : I still dont get the point why everybody focuses on the low interest loans for Airbus, which are repayable under certain conditions. The real point is
69 Post contains images QuestAir : It may be legal, but it still ticks me off. The day should come when Airbus will not be given all these 'freebies'. No wonder Airbus can undercut Boei
70 Clickhappy : I still dont get the point why everybody focuses on the low interest loans for Airbus, which are repayable under certain conditions. LOL, that is a cl
71 Daedaeg : This does not appear to be a smart move if they are attempting to aquire the USAF tanker deal. Maybe they have conceded the fact they have little chan
72 LHSTR : @clickhappy you certainly did not read the whole post, otherwise you wouldnt use it out of context. My point was, that all governments are using the m
73 DfwRevolution : 4. US agriculture subsidies I have no contention with points 1-5, but if you want the world to eat, you might re-think number 4... Imagine you are ver
74 DfwRevolution : Well lets say they won't name it subsidy.. Fitting... because Airbus still calls them subsidies. In a quote that I hope burns his buns, Airbus VP stat
75 Keesje : Druyin has confesses scores of deals were not really based on tough negotiations. I think it is a bit naive to believe Boeing telling it was only a fe
76 Danny : "Can you blame Washington??? They basically said: we don't need Pudget Sound's natural harbor, there are more competitive sites elsewhere, we've alrea
77 Greasespot : All the arguments are well and good...but the launch aid is LEGAL under existing treaty's. Yell at your politicos to make the same LEGAL aid available
78 AirbusDriver : The EU is going to tell us what we tell everybody...You don't like it? Thought Sh*t!!! What else do you expect, what goes around come around...
79 DfwRevolution : Don't be blind - public aid is a public aid no matter if it flows through Washington budget, Japanese budget, French budget or Toulouse budget. It's a
80 Atmx2000 : You can of course make the argument that Washington state is shifting the tax burden from Boeing towards other taxpayers by cutting taxes for Boeing a
81 LHSTR : @DfwRevolution From my business studies I remember the most important thing. That is the result at the bottom line, which should be as high as possibl
82 DfwRevolution : If we are talking government subsidies, lower taxes (which others have to pay at the regular rate), it doesnt matter to me where they are coming from,
83 Widebodyphotog : For the government it is basically the same thing. Whether they give it to a company directly or not even get it because they have lowered the taxes,
84 Gigneil : Thirdly Airbus obviously does not believe that the development of A350 is supportable without having the EU give them money that 1: they did not earn
85 TrevD : Okay, a couple of points here... As for the various claims that subsidies have been re-paid, I would ask for a source. I've never gotten one. While I
86 Post contains links Gigneil : http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/12/6/170545.shtml http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aC.Wh9NMr3o4&refer=us http://www.gua
87 Post contains links TrevD : Gigneil - Nice links but totally pointless. These only reference Airbus and EU 'Statements' that SOME of the launch aid has been paid back. It's a con
88 Dynkrisolo : Gigneil: I quickly browsed through the links you provided. These articles gave the amount repaid for the A320 state aid only. It didn't mention the A3
89 Trex8 : You can try search through Hansard, the UK parliamentary record, the question of what Airbus has paid back at least to the Uk taxpayer has been brough
90 B2707SST : Obviously, Airbus is smart to accept public financing for the A350 and any of its other projects. The government loans carry lower interest rates and
91 Trex8 : >Concorde, essentially an Airbus project, it was????????
92 Post contains images Gigneil : Yeah, it was. BAC became BAe, and Aerospatiale is now part of EADS. N
93 Post contains links AvObserver : "Anyway, both companies are subsidized out the ass. Get over it. Its the way it works." Not for long, if the tentative new agreement preserves this co
94 Post contains images Leskova : And by the way, who are EADS' largest shareholders? Why government owned banks. Go figure !! What a wonderful line... of complete nonsense... but I'm
95 Tsully : Airbus wouldn't last one second in the real world economy if it weren't for mommy's pursestrings [read:EU]. I'm not so opposed to them getting the gia
96 NumberTwelve : Guys - subsidies yes or no? Who cares? Maybe B if A gets subsidies, and A if B gets subsidies- So what? US and EU are in negotiation for 3 months and
97 Post contains images Scbriml : I'm not so opposed to them getting the giant subsidies as I am tired of hearing their bickering regarding Boeing. At least Boeing stands on her own tw
98 Post contains links KEESJE : U.S. Government Subsidies U.S. government subsidies, mostly in the form of military and NASA contracts, research and development expenditure and tax s
99 NumberTwelve : Whow, Keesje, so the A subsidies stories , spreaded from the US, are lies or propaganda?
100 Widebody : Respect to NumberTwelve and KEESJE for posts 97 and 99, the two posts hit the nail on the head from a European perspective as far as I am concerned. 1
101 WIDEBODYPHOTOG : The economy of any country or group of countries is not a zero sum game. Wealth is created and wealth is lost or destroyed, mainly by governments, the
102 Post contains images NumberTwelve : widebodyphotog: "Of course Airbus would be foolish to pass up free money from the EU government..." lol - now I know why the indebteness of US househo
103 Scbriml : I don't believe the State of Washington was signitory to the treaty in question Using that logic, the individual states of the EU can loan Airbus as m
104 WIDEBODYPHOTOG : European Subsidies to Airbus * Of the eight Airbus aircraft launched since 1990, only three programs have been launched with government investment. *
105 Trex8 : > They are too far behind the competition in terms of time and development work and the A350 looks to be a "face saving" effort at best. If the A350 w
106 WIDEBODYPHOTOG : NumberTwelve, I was referrring to money that does not have to be paid back as "Free Money". I will ignore the borderline personal insult tone of your
107 NumberTwelve : Widebodyphotog- you always talking about subsidies etc. And I can't take it as serious as you want me to do. When you loan money, it's not subsidy, yo
108 NumberTwelve : 777er: "Can Airbus actually afford to build a new plane without any funds. Airbus always asking for funds is starting to become a joke." So when it be
109 Widebody : If Airbus pays back their loans, principal and interest, the total payback is much more than the initial investment. So if they could fund these progr
110 WIDEBODYPHOTOG : NumberTwelve, I will give you the deference of joining the thread rather late in the discussion... The US government supports unviable industries just
111 WIDEBODYPHOTOG : This statement is high school stuff - ask yourself the same question about any bank loan you take over your life-time. Same as for personal loans, it'
112 Post contains images Scbriml : If the benevolence of your European governments is so supreme why keep anything for yourself? Now you're just being silly. We kind of like the way thi
113 Tsully : Scbriml wrote: Do you mean Riyadh? Why yes, I do mean Riyadh...I didn't notice until now that the signature field had cut off the last letter. Oh wel
114 Rtfm : I am joining this one rather late and let me state for the record that I like both Boeing and Airbus a/c to fly on - BUT when a company forecasts a 10
115 Trex8 : >foremost global airliner producer or you aint..... WTH does that have to do with how they get their R & D budget???? if your company provides as much
116 Rtfm : Brussels may be happy to give them them some money - but that's MY money!!! it always makes me cringe when people talk so blithely about the money tha
117 Trex8 : >it ALL comes from the taxpayer in one shape or form. totally agree and if they use that for what I deem good purposes, like protecting me from OBL, o
118 Leskova : BUT when a company forecasts a 10% profit but then says that is needs some of my money (I am a European taxpayer) to launch a new product, I want to s
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 Wants Launch Aid For A350 Revamp posted Wed May 17 2006 08:17:56 by NAV20
Unrepentant Airbus Seeks Further Launch Aid posted Fri Oct 15 2004 02:39:52 by BoeingBus
Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350 posted Thu Oct 6 2005 23:51:24 by NYC777
Airbus Asks For State Aid For A350 Launch posted Thu May 19 2005 18:26:27 by AirFrnt
HP & US Become Launch Customer For A350 posted Fri May 20 2005 15:40:22 by Squirrel83
Mexicana Launch Customer For A350? posted Sat Jan 8 2005 06:22:10 by NAVEGA
Air Europa Launch Customer For A350? posted Tue Dec 21 2004 16:58:11 by Henpol747
Airbus/BAE Pleading For A350 'Launch Aid' posted Tue Aug 23 2005 17:07:37 by NAV20
Airbus CEO: Aid For Jet Launch Expected After..... posted Fri Jan 28 2005 02:52:59 by Jacobin777
Airbus Planning Russian Venture For A350 posted Fri Nov 17 2006 14:39:03 by NYC777