N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5219 times:
You beat me to it Atmx2000. Airbus will be getting the same deal Boeing is getting on the 787. However applying NASA-developed technology in their airplanes did not stop Airbus from complaining that NASA was an unfair advantage for for Boeing.
Airbus is playing the political cards well. Yesterday they hire Glenn Fukushima as head of Airbus Japan KK and now they are about invest in Patty Murray's home turf.
UALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4952 times:
You Guys are just so quick. I immediately thought the same thing.
Airbus putting a plant anywhere in the US will automatically set itself up for this catch 22. US towns, cities and states all compete with one another using the tax breaks they plan to give a company in question.
For Airbus to make it's argument stick it either has to refuse any tax advantages, or not build in the US.
I have no problem with Airbus locating a plant in the US. I think its great. But I also think it's great that Airbus has to drop its stupid argument that taxbreaks for relocation are tantamount to subsidies. It was ridculous when they first said it, now that they will be the beneficiaries of those same breaks its even more so.
Additionally, if Airbus is going to build tankers for the US military that too was a subsidy that Airbus claimed Boeing got from the Federal government. So For Airbus to compete for this tanker contract they have to disavow thier previous position.
123 From Bolivia, joined Nov 2003, 742 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4758 times:
Think. If Airbus beats Boeing in sales, then what better than to build aircraft of surplus sales there, where thousands of (maybe unemployed) aircraft construction workers are based, with huge knowledge and will to work? Airbus could employ them?
Naturally Airbus = Europe and logic would say, "build in Europe", however we all know, that Airbus, Boeing, Embraer, etc., are all nothing but huge assembly lines: Engines from GE; Instruments from Honeywell; tires from Good Year, Brakes from Liebherr, etc.: So you choose: Unemployment in Washington state and lack of labor force in Toulouse? Act fast... accept Airbus to employ you!
Even more.... let Airbus and Boeing cooperate. Friends, rather than foes, are needed to secure thousands of jobs.
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 71 Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4683 times:
Why is everyone around here acting as if Airbus thinking about a plant in the US were anything new? After all - the only new thing here is that 3 cities in Washington are bidding for the plant.
By the way...
Yes, if Airbus gets the same tax breaks as Boeing, then Airbus will indeed not be able to call them an advantage for Boeing any more - but they can still call them a subsidy, because, after all, that's what these tax breaks are.
As for Boeing being "all over EADS" if this happens - care to enlighten us what on earth you're talking about?
MD80Nut From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 876 posts, RR: 9 Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4666 times:
Given that Boeing may announce closure of the 767 line by the middle of this year before the USAF makes a decision on the KC767 (as mentioned in another current thread), all of a sudden the idea of a "KC330" looks a little more realistic. An assembly plant in the US makes a lot of sense, it would create jobs here and generate some positive PR. Give Airbus credit, they are going about it the right way!
Daedaeg From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 655 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4632 times:
If Everett were to be selected, then Airbus would have to build their plant right across from Boeing's. Boeing and Airbus would essentially need to share the same runways at Paine Field. Having a competitor in your "own backyard" would definitely make things quite interesting. Then Boeing responds by building a plant in Toulouse or Hamburg. Oh what fun this could be.
FriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4072 posts, RR: 5 Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4616 times:
If Airbus gets any tax breaks, Boeing will call them on it and EADS will lose their stand over the subsidy issue.
This is the exact reason I don't like Airbus. It's not the planes, it's not the subsidies, it's not the cheap prices - it's the hypocracy. Airbus calls Boeing on every last tax break, Japanese subsidy, etc., while they take advantage of the same subsides and tax breaks. As if that's not enough, they complain when they don't get a sale in a certain market, because they're Airbus, and they just have to take over every last market on earth. A company like that will not get any respect from me. Am I saying Boeing is perfect? No. But I don't see them asking Uncle Sam for $4 bil in subsidies for the 787 while they are fighting Airbus over the same issue.
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 71 Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4583 times:
FriendlySkies, the only - and fully justified - response that Boeing will get is: build a plant in the EU, deal with the same EU politicians that Airbus goes through, and get a deal to that's similar to whatever Airbus will (or will not) be receiving at that time.
The only difference is: Airbus is seriously considering a plant in the US - I haven't heard a single word about Boeing considering a plant in Europe...
P.S.: Just to clarify that - no, I'm not saying that Boeing would certainly get the same deal as Airbus in Europe... what I'm saying is this: they're not even trying - they're just pointing fingers, nothing else.
FriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4072 posts, RR: 5 Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4566 times:
The ONLY reason Airbus is building a plant here is to try to win the tanker deal. Airlines could give a damn where the plane was built, as long as it's a good price and structurally sound (see UA, NW, US, B6, HP, F9 in the USA and BA, LH, AF, KL in Europe). Boeing has no reason to build a plant in the EU, it would be a waste of money and time.
JDD1 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 94 posts, RR: 2 Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4515 times:
Boeing have exactly the same rights as Airbus has to get repayble loans from the Govt. Why don't they ask for them and why doesnt govt give them? After all the 1992 WTO Agreement is bilateral.
I have difficulty believing that Margaret Thatcher beat Ronald Reagan into submission with her handbag, in 1992.
Well.....maybe she did and that is why it is all so unfair!
Col From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2083 posts, RR: 22 Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4485 times:
I would welcome Airbus CONTINUED investment into the USA. Also, for all those Boeing assembly workers in Washington State that have been laid off, this would be a super bonus. If indeed the 767 line does close, then Boeing and Airbus should actually get together on this, as it is a win win for both. Infact a combination of reworked 762's/763's and new build 330 Tankers in the same building could be very interesting to supply the global market for tankers.
Tax Breaks, grants, other funding, don't really care as this will be returned with profit later = good investment. Just like the 787 assembly competition.
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9132 posts, RR: 52 Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4450 times:
It is an interesting debate. Would an Airbus plane made in America be considered an American plane? I kind of doubt that as people tend to pay attention to where a company from, rather then where the goods are built.
Most Toyota cars (I believe all but two right now) that are sold in the US are manufactured in Indiana, Alabama, Texas, West Virginia, Baja California (I know its Mexico, but still not Japan) or Kentucky. They employee Americans to build the cars, and all the manufacturing design work is done in the United States. Essentially the only things that are from Japan are the vehicle specifications, and the only thing that goes off to Japan are the profits. But then if you look at where the profits go, regular investors earn much of the money, and anyone can buy Toyota stock on the Tokyo exchange with today's technology.
However most people, in the midwest especially, would go to a GM or Ford dealer way before going Toyota because they want to support America. I know its a great cause, but it isn't logical. But I will say that this is not true for everyone, and especially parts of the country like the west where foreign cars outsell American cars by big percentages.
Overall Toyota is not an American company, so it doesn't benefit that much from American sentiment. They build cars here for tax reasons because the import taxes on cars are so high because the US government tries to subsidize American companies. An Airbus plane manufacturing plant would be in the US for the same reason. It provides the only opportunity for Airbus products to be sold to the US government. Although the bias is still for Boeing, I think it will give Airbus a better chance, so the government can analyze which plane suits their needs best (and before you blast saying that it is the A330, you need to look at exactly the performance specifications that the government wants). I think the two situations are similar. The government will be the consumer and will have to make the same judgement that we all as consumers make-which product is better, and are there truly any differences that make me want to support a specific company?
This is a great analytical situation that I am sure I will dive into in some economics courses.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Mham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3208 posts, RR: 3 Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4413 times:
One problem Airbus is going to have with acceptance in the US is the EU(France) continually stating that they want to bury us economically. At least Japan had the good manners to keep any such aspirations to themselves.
As an aside, while the EU is maniaclly focused about our markets, China will be overtaking them in the next century.
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9132 posts, RR: 52 Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4367 times:
Mham001, I really do not understand what you are saying. Can you please elaborate on what you are trying to say.
The EU right now does not want to bury the United States. Yes the Euro has appreciated drastically since the dollar in the last 2 years, but this isn't because Europe wants to wipe out the US. The EMU is actually facing recessionary pressures because of their overvalued currency (the Yen is also overvalued too) and want the US to stop devalueing the dollar. The US government kept devalueing the dollar to boost growth and exports. This has worked as the US saw a 4.6% GDP growth rate while Germany only had a 1.7% inflation rate while facing unemployment of 10.5%. The European Monetary Union is a conservative (please not economically conservative which implies nothing about poltics) currency union that puts price stability and lack of inflation at the number one goal. The European Central Bank puts very little if any weight on unemployment and growth rates which is a very opposite strategy compared to that of the FED.
Neither economy wants to bury the other. Both need to harmonize exchange rates, or else they will just alternate between recessions and expansions. The EU isn't necessarily focused on US markets. Something like 60% of goods that cross a border in Europe stay within the EU.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Ramprat74 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1468 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4299 times:
What about Wichita? That Boeing plant has been up for sale for a year or two. There are plenty of qualified aerospace workers in that city. The taxes would probably be cheaper then Washington's. I don't see Boeing selling to EAD's though.
Eilennaei From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4275 times:
"One problem Airbus is going to have with acceptance in the US is the EU(France) continually stating that they want to bury us economically. At least Japan had the good manners to keep any such aspirations to themselves."
I'm mean, I know it, but I think this is the part where the U.S. needs no particular assistance. After all, the whole economy is increasingly running on money from abroad. The vicious cycle will only end in the eventual humbling of the U.S. "he who pays, calls the tune", or a world-wide monetary crisis as the USD loses its preferred status as the convertible trading currency. Take your pick.
And while I'm in the mood: for the record, the 1st man on the planet Mars will be a person from China. (Actually I'd prefer nobody there, but power politics rules otherwise.)
25 Daedaeg: What about Wichita? That Boeing plant has been up for sale for a year or two. There are plenty of qualified aerospace workers in that city. The taxes
26 WhiteHatter: One problem Airbus is going to have with acceptance in the US is the EU(France) continually stating that they want to bury us economically. At least J
27 MD80Nut: Col, Good idea about Boeing and Airbus cooperating on a tanker project, even though I don't see it happening given the current atmosphere between them
28 LV: Maybe this will teach Boeing to move its HQ from Seattle to Chicago....lol
29 GdJet16: PlaneSmart.... Most of that "L, B, McD" staff has long since retired, died, or found other jobs. I highly doubt that an engineer laid off after Lockhe
30 Ken777: I think Airbus is going around the country getting local politicians excited about the prospects of a plant. They were in Oklahoma a short time ago an
31 Stirling: The plant, if it happens, will be for the tanker program which Boeing managed to lose for itself with the help of a few corrupt people at the Pentagon
32 Bjg231: Well whether Washington offers subsidies or not, I know for a fact that Lake Charles, Louisiana is making a bid for the same plant and the state is of
33 POR2GAL: This news is really interesting. I'm not so sure Airbus is really interested in this move, however I'm all for it. Maybe it'll diminish the whole A vs
34 Schipholjfk: > KL911: It just shows how strong Airbus is at the moment compared to Boing. Oh my God... this is the overstatement of the year. Boeing is a more than
35 Col: This post also excites me. I was getting sick of the A v B, mines better than yours arguments. The reality of the situation, and the potential seem to
36 N79969: The point is that the EU and Airbus were engaged in massive obfuscation of the issue by lumping the routine, run-of-the mill tax breaks offered by the
37 FlyMIA: I know Airbus has some HQ in MIA or major traning base. To bad there is no room for it in the MIA area.
38 Lufthansa: YOU GUYS DON"T GET IT The reason why Airbus would be interested in Washington state, is because it is already an area with a high level of aerospace
39 Atmx2000: Boeing have exactly the same rights as Airbus has to get repayble loans from the Govt. Why don't they ask for them and why doesnt govt give them? Afte
40 Frontiers4ever: "now they are about invest in Patty Murray's home turf." Please dont bother saying its her home turf. Its even more Dino Rossi's home turf. The first
41 L-188: The reason why Airbus would be interested in Washington state, is because it is already an area with a high level of aerospace skills, and not just at
42 ERJ170: Is Washington state the only candidate? I know Boeing was considering a plant in Kinston, NC.. A plant in Kinston would do well since the GE Aircraft
43 Trex8: Airbus has contacted EVERY state in the union about a site, obviously for some its all a formality! ( I kinda doubt Hawaii or Alaska are really in the
44 N79969: Lufthansa, No one is denying the very obvious business benefits of locating in Washington. However EADS is amidst a big PR campaign in the US trying t
45 Trvlr: I'm all for an Airbus plant in the United States. Not only would it increase the competitiveness of the domestic aircraft industry, but it would also
46 ETStar: Ha! So now WA state is going to give yet another aircraft manufacturer subsidies...
47 Atmx2000: I'm just wondering what they would do with a plant once the USAF the rather small number of tankers they plan on acquiring.
48 Meister808: Wow. I have friends from Everett, and that is just insane that Airbus would even think about putting a site there. That place is Boeing-City, USA. Boe
49 Trex8: There will only be a plant if 1. Airbus gets a contract 2. its big enough to sustain a US assembly line 3. if Airbus treats its workers in the US like
50 Ken777: One interesting question - what would Airbus do if they did set up a US plant and discovered that they were producing planes significantly cheaper tha
51 F4N: To all: There is far more to an EADS tanker contract than most people are willing to look at. First off are the political dimensions to the USAF buyin