Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Doesn't Need Subsidies, But Likes Them  
User currently offlineAviationhack From United States of America, joined May 2004, 113 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2450 times:

Just saw this article:

http://c.moreover.com/click/here.pl?j302162413

I know this has been brought up many times before, but I still don't understand why the worlds largest manufacturer of airliners needs any form of subsidies.

38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4160 posts, RR: 36
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2395 times:

Well, then ask why Boeing needs a multi-billion $ tax grant for the B787 production... answer for both manufacturers: easy and cheap money. Doesn't matter if it is a tax break or a grant as long as it is taxpayer's money you're either getting it directly or you just don't have to pay taxes you usually would be obliged to.

Re the article you've mentioned: it gives only the US-view of this affair. However, from the european point of view it is not acceptable that the US wants to cut subsidies only AFTER the B787 program for every following program by either Boeing or Airbus. And that is the casus knaxus... you can't just demand to cut subsidies after you've just agreed to spend billions on subsidies for a brand-new product and your competitor is ready to launch a competing model.

Only way out of this dillema would be either allowing the A350 the same amount of subsidies so that both players recieve similar benifits, or to have the subsidies for the 787 removed. This however is very likely not acceptable for the US... so it comes down to a ruling of the WTO which will probably be accepted by the EU but not the US. Comes down to selective trade policy for both sides...



Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2353 times:

Quoting Aviationhack (Thread starter):
I still don't understand why the worlds largest manufacturer of airliners needs any form of subsidies.

Me either, but to Airbus, its a win-win situation regardless. A failed product (they havn't had one yet from my knowledge) won't kill Airbus anyway. They would just shrug and move on to the next product.

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 1):
Only way out of this dillema would be either allowing the A350 the same amount of subsidies so that both players recieve similar benifits, or to have the subsidies for the 787 removed.

Again on the stupid lame subsidy issue... It should be removed 100% for BOTH companies. Airbus should have subsidies removed so that they can feel the heat & pressure of the competition and suck it up like a REAL man. Subsidies are EVIL!!!! If you cant afford to build it, dont do it! AND.....Flying-Tiger....congrats on starting an A/B war. I can feel one coming on....



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineOptionsCLE From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 467 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2322 times:

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 1):
Well, then ask why Boeing needs a multi-billion $ tax grant for the B787 production

This has been discussed before. Boeing is not getting capital to aid in the development of the 787 like Airbus is receiving for the A350. Boeing is simply getting promised tax cuts that will only help the manufacturer if the 787 sells and is successful. Anyone with even the most basic economics background, such as myself, can grasp this point. Airbus definitely comes out on top in terms of benefit in this case. That's not to say that both sides aren't in the wrong, it just shows that Airbus is getting much more of an advantage than Boeing.

-Andrew


User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4160 posts, RR: 36
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2317 times:

That's bullshit, and you know it. Comes when you read too much BS posted on a.net. Airbus has to repay their loan (and that's what the US press seems to like to avoid - it is a repayable loan with good terms, but still a loan, not a grant), while Boeing does not need to pay taxes on income from the 787, effectively recieving a tax grant. But well, talk about one biased point of view over the pond.

Okay, then remove all subsidies now. No money for the 787, no money for the A350, no subsidies for R&D and no subsidies for further projects. Done deal, have nothing against it, absolutely fine. Best solution you could propose - thus both boeing and Airbus have to go to the capital market to get money for the 787 respectively 350.



Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
User currently offlineOptionsCLE From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 467 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2290 times:

First of all, I think that before you post again you need to step back, take a deep breath, and remember the rules of posting here on Airliners.net as well as how to conduct an effective discussion. Starting off a post with inflammatory language such as that is, aside from being grounds for having your membership here canceled, rude to the other members and an invitation for people to immediately disregard your argument which I see as very much valid.

You are right about Airbus's loans being repaid, however, the fact remains that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. I agree that neither company should have their R&D costs hand to them. Boeing, though, is at a disadvantage no matter how you look at it. Both companies and sets of governments are in the wrong, as I said before, but in this case, Boeing is certainly the lesser of two evils.

-Andrew


User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2285 times:

Quoting Aviationhack (Thread starter):
but I still don't understand why the worlds largest manufacturer of airliners needs any form of subsidies.

You know... writing something like that after starting a thread titled "Airbus doesn't need Subsidies, but likes them" seems kinda strange...

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 2):
It should be removed 100% for BOTH companies

Absolutely, 100% agree with you.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 2):
Airbus should have subsidies removed so that they can feel the heat & pressure of the competition and suck it up like a REAL man.

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 

You really should try to find some new stereotypes - that one's just too damn ridiculously funny...

Quoting OptionsCLE (Reply 3):
Boeing is simply getting promised tax cuts that will only help the manufacturer if the 787 sells and is successful

Yes... right... sure... whatever you want to believe.

Have you had a look at Boeing's orderbook for the B787 lately? How many doubts do you still have about it being a success? Anything other than a major screwup by Boeing, and they have a big winner on their hands.

Anyone who deals with numbers all day will be able to tell you that if you've got the choice between getting a loan that you have to pay back and getting a credit that you won't have to pay either way (either the product doesn't sell, so you won't have to pay taxes on the income - or the product does sell, and you won't have to pay taxes on the income), that you're better off taking the tax credit that you, again, will not have to repay regardless what happens.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 2):
AND.....Flying-Tiger....congrats on starting an A/B war. I can feel one coming on....

Oh please... as opposed to the uncontested Airbus bashing that would have developed otherwise?  Yeah sure

And as if this thread even had a chance from the beginning - with a title like this, and an opening post as the one in here...


Regards,
Frank



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2269 times:

Some time ago I started a topic The $6 Billion 7E7 Subsidies, Justified?

http://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/1928802

I think much was covered here. People still believing Boeing is a blue eyed company playing a fair game is IMO living in a dream world.


User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2255 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 2):
A failed product (they havn't had one yet from my knowledge) won't kill Airbus anyway. They would just shrug and move on to the next product.

Sorry to kill your dreams, but only one third of the developpement costs may be covered by state loans, not all of them.


User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2234 times:

Quoting OptionsCLE (Reply 3):
This has been discussed before. Boeing is not getting capital to aid in the development of the 787 like Airbus is receiving for the A350. Boeing is simply getting promised tax cuts that will only help the manufacturer if the 787 sells and is successful

You won't change the truth just with words ! No matter how hard you try.
Tax breaks are an aid even if the plane is not successful, except if in the US you don't pay workers when the plane is not successful.
And again, the subsidies given to Boeing don't follow the 1992 agreement, contrary to Airbus' subsidies.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2203 times:

Boeing 787 Subsidies :

Washington State $3.2 billion
Kansas ............... $0.5 billion
Oklahoma ........... $0.35 billion
Japan .................$1.6 billion
Italy ...................$0.59 billion

Total ..................$6+ Billion

The launch aid Airbus receives is paid back and is compatible with the 1992 Agreement, while Boeings support is not.

Boeing has launched an unprecedented (succesfull) media / political lobby twisting everything around & telling half the story..

IMO they are basicly protecting the Boeing 787 aid are receiving by attacking the EU & distracting attention.

Please let the WTO judge!

However I can see Bush ignoring the WTO if he doesn't like the outcome..


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2158 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 10):
Please let the WTO judge!

I agree, let face-saving, barnyard justice prevail in the end....as it always does!


User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4160 posts, RR: 36
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2116 times:

Wrong "Facts" posted by other a.net members don´t become "facts" simply because they are repeated over and over, as it seems to be the case here. Sorry to blow your myth that Boeing is the shinging angel...

Effective discussion... sure - it only reads "check if your post has already been discussed" as one of the rules. Makes it pretty straight forward clear, that already the original topic was superfluent. Sorry, but this forum is heading straight down the drain...



Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
User currently offlineGalapagapop From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 910 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2109 times:

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 4):
That's bullshit, and you know it. Comes when you read too much BS posted on a.net. Airbus has to repay their loan (and that's what the US press seems to like to avoid - it is a repayable loan with good terms, but still a loan, not a grant), while Boeing does not need to pay taxes on income from the 787, effectively recieving a tax grant. But well, talk about one biased point of view over the pond.

Okay, then remove all subsidies now. No money for the 787, no money for the A350, no subsidies for R&D and no subsidies for further projects. Done deal, have nothing against it, absolutely fine. Best solution you could propose - thus both boeing and Airbus have to go to the capital market to get money for the 787 respectively 350.

He is right there are loans on most models, thats paid for after every delivery, but some of these are non-refundable for if the the program doesn't sell the neccessary number of planes to make back the money. For example the number for the A300 program was around 700, of coarse these loans could work the other way like with the A320 program which has long since repaid its loan and is now generating money for the lender. So it really can balance out. The kind of subsidies that are not need are launch production ones, make em' pay on their own, and as for Boeing doing this after getting a lot for its 787, well they hadn't made a plane in 10 years so give em' that one, seeing as Airbus was developing the A380 during that time. Of coarse we also need to remove politically decided orders...


User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2067 times:

Quoting Galapagapop (Reply 13):
as for Boeing doing this after getting a lot for its 787, well they hadn't made a plane in 10 years so give em' that one

So the logic is: "Boeing hasn't spent serious money on R&D for 10 years, so let the government pay for their current program". How does that make any sense?

Another question: the 787 has an all composite fuselage and wings. Does anyone here intend to convince me that Boeing Commercial Aircraft has paid for the R&D that went into making this practical? Oh, right, and the military contracts Boeing receives are not in any way subsidies to their commercial business.

Airbus receiving sugar coated loans is unnecessary, but you have to grant them one thing: they stuck to the deal. Boeing decided to break the deal (the 787 subsidies account for 3/4 of the estimate costs, a far cry from the allowable 1/3) and in true neo-con fashion thew up this marvelous smokescreen.

Unfortunately it is a fact that if you repeat something enough, the average american will beleive it - especially if what you are saying is that the USA is the good guy in a bad world.

mrocktor


User currently offlineHoya From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2004 times:

Doesn't Airbus get tax breaks as well? Didn't EADS get a hefty tax break from their Eurocopter plant in Mississippi (or wherever it is)? Tax breaks are radically different than launch aid loans. That $3.2 billion for Boeing (actually, it's for all aerospace companies in WA)will only be realized over a period of 20 years! And lets not forget that Airbus is considering building a plant in Washington state just to take advantage of that tax break as well. Simple fact is, if Airbus takes launch aid loans and the plane fails, or doesn't meet the sales targets, the loans don't have to be repaid. This eliminates a huge amount of risk for Airbus. Anyone would love to have loans like that. If Boeing takes loans from commercial banks, it has to repay them no matter if the plane sells or not. So Boeing assumes more risk. Oh, and lets not use that argument that Boeing gets a ton of money from the Defense Department. EADS and BAE defense revenues, owners of Airbus, are larger than Boeing's.


Hoya Saxa!!
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2004 times:

Quoting Leskova (Reply 6):
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 2):
Airbus should have subsidies removed so that they can feel the heat & pressure of the competition and suck it up like a REAL man.



You really should try to find some new stereotypes - that one's just too damn ridiculously funny...

Thank you...glad you approve! LOL!

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 8):
Sorry to kill your dreams, but only one third of the developpement costs may be covered by state loans, not all of them.

Im talking about products that WOULD NOT BE covered by subsidies. It isnt my 'dream' as you put it, to see Airbus fail. I dont want to see thousands and thousands of people put out of work. Airbus needs to get a grip onto reality and become a real competitor in the industry. Having subsidies is considered as cheating, dont you agree?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 10):
Boeing 787 Subsidies :

Washington State $3.2 billion
Kansas ............... $0.5 billion
Oklahoma ........... $0.35 billion
Japan .................$1.6 billion
Italy ...................$0.59 billion

Total ..................$6+ Billion

Sorry pal, thats indirect subsidies. Boeing will NOT see any of these monies at all. No one is loaning Boeing anything. The one from Washington State is a tax break. There are more than one type of subsidy and Boeing and Airbus subsides are NOT the same. Airbus gets DIRECT subsidies that they do PHYSICALLY see.

Ok enough ranting. Lets end this stupid subsidy issue. Its getting old and boring. Im pretty sure others would agree. Lets move on to more important things.....



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 17, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1975 times:

Here we go again...

I get 3 bucks from the government I don't have to repay if I don't make a profit, Joe gets 4 bucks discounted from his taxes (I still have to pay my taxes...), some japanese guy gives Joe 2 bucks (which he will never repay)and an italian dude chips in another 75 cents (no repayment on that either).

Now lets see, how is that even remotely fair? You see, when both products hit the market Joe and I will have spent roughly the same amount of other people's money (3 vs 2.75), except I have to repay my loan. Oh, and Joe can further discount his product since he doesn't pay his taxes.

The numbers are in proportion to the 787 and A350 subsidies.

Get it through your heads: the current scenario has Boeing receiving a lot more subsidies then Airbus. Boeing is in violation of the standing agreement between the two and Boeings subsidies are actionable by WTO standards - that means they are against trate treaties signed by the United States of America.

As an american, I find this state of affairs despicable. Had Airbus' subsidies been challenged before the 787 or a "equivalent level of subsidies", within the 1992 agreement and WTO compliant devised I would be all for it (as a stopgap before the complete elimination of subsidies is achieved of course).

As it is, Boeing and the USA come across as pretty underhanded, and make it worse by intentionally misrepresenting the situation in the media.

Embarassing.

mrocktor


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1959 times:

Neither of these organizations come to the table with "clean hands."

Isn't Airbus exempted from certain VAT charges that would normally be levied on comparable industrial goods by various taxing authorities, which provides it a substantial basis for price flexibility? How does this differ from tax rebate/relief packages Boeing receives from various state and local taxing authorities?


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1944 times:

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 17):
Get it through your heads: the current scenario has Boeing receiving a lot more subsidies then Airbus. Boeing is in violation of the standing agreement between the two and Boeings subsidies are actionable by WTO standards - that means they are against trate treaties signed by the United States of America.

The last time I checked, there is no agreement anymore. The U.S. ended the agreement last year, so there is no agreement.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineYUL332LX From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 820 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1934 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 16):
Sorry pal, thats indirect subsidies. Boeing will NOT see any of these monies at all. No one is loaning Boeing anything. The one from Washington State is a tax break. There are more than one type of subsidy and Boeing and Airbus subsides are NOT the same. Airbus gets DIRECT subsidies that they do PHYSICALLY see.

This is a very misinformed statement. Boeing not only does get direct subsidies, mostly from Japan (via Mitsubishi, Fuji and Kawasaki), but also indirect subsidies from US govts. and production subsidies.

Some of the direct subsidies are in violation of WTO’s TRIM Agreement (more specifically, the article 2.1) but more importantly, this financial support is illegal because it is related to the production of the aircraft itself as well as the construction of facilities needed for the development of the 787 (which can only be subsidized in the order of 2% or 3% of the total cost as per WTO rules, formerly known as the GATT).

In this case, 38% of the cost is subsidized so there’s a clear violation there.


In fact, quite a few analysts have argued that Boeing pulled out of the 1992 bilateral agreement specifically because the 787 is a clear violation of this very agreement.

For more on this topic:

http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/aerospace/agreements/air-79.htm
http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/aerospace/aerospace_subsidies.pdf
http://www.geog.buffalo.edu/custac/occppr28.pdf

Airbus is subsidized? Sure… but Boeing plays the game just as well, if not better.  Wink

[Edited 2005-04-05 18:26:31]


E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
User currently offlinePhxfly From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 82 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1899 times:

Quoting OptionsCLE (Reply 3):
This has been discussed before. Boeing is not getting capital to aid in the development of the 787 like Airbus is receiving for the A350. Boeing is simply getting promised tax cuts that will only help the manufacturer if the 787 sells and is successful. Anyone with even the most basic economics background, such as myself, can grasp this point. Airbus definitely comes out on top in terms of benefit in this case. That's not to say that both sides aren't in the wrong, it just shows that Airbus is getting much more of an advantage than Boeing.

Also, just to add that these tax breaks are available to any corporation. Isn't the state of Washington currently negotiating tax breaks in an attempt to lure EADS to come to the state?


User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 22, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1898 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 19):
The last time I checked, there is no agreement anymore. The U.S. ended the agreement last year, so there is no agreement.

Yes, they cancelled the agreement after lining up all the 787 subsidies, while saying they were pulling out because Airbus was receiving too much aid whithin the agreement terms!!??

Or, to put it clearly: Airbus is getting too much subsidies within this agreement because it is outdated, so we are pulling out. Meanwhile we ourselves have set up to receive twice as much subsidies. But they are the "bad guys"... yeah.

Finally, the USA has not ended their commitment to the WTO and Boeing's subsidies violate that one as well.

But you go on believing the United States are paragons of fairness, thats what is taught from kindergarten to CNN after all.

mrocktor


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4105 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1856 times:

Lets just agree that BOTH companies are in the wrong. Boeing should not have outsourced production to Japan, but I see it as almost a form of competition...in order to remain competitive with Airbus, Boeing needed to match the finanical help their competitor was receiving. Unfortunately, the government can't outlaw Boeing from doing that because it would disrupt the free trade agreements with Japan and really piss off the Japanese. Boeing was wrong, but I fail to see how any legislation can stop what they did. Airbus could do the same thing mind you, so the argument that they need direct subsidized loans from their government to remain competitive doesn't hold.

I will say this: the state tax incentives will NEVER go away. States give these tax breaks to all sorts of companies, and especially to those companies who bring a lot of revenue to the state. The states are businesses too, and are using the tools at their disposal to attract revenue for the state, thereby improving the quality of living for their citizens. It's a lot more complicated than WA just giving Boeing a tax break for the hell of it. WA wants Boeing making airplanes in THEIR state, because those airplanes are generating revenue and employing THEIR citizens.


User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 24, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1833 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 23):
WA wants Boeing making airplanes in THEIR state, because those airplanes are generating revenue and employing THEIR citizens.

Unfortunately, that's precisely the explanation used for every subsidy given by any government entity around the world - either they'll all have to adhere to the same legal limits, or none of them have to.

And with that, we've come to the dilemma at the very heart of the problem.

Why would a subsidy given by France be something bad, while a subsidy by Washington would be good? Would France's subsidy be good if it were not given by France, but, for example, by the city of Toulouse? Would money from Germany be unproblematic in your view, if it were not Germany's government providing it, but the states that make up Germany?

In my eyes, there's absolutely no difference - either it's money from the government, or it's not.

Either you allow it, or you don't.

Personally, I'm for the "don't" solution.

Regards,
Frank



Smile - it confuses people!
25 Post contains images YUL332LX : Be careful there... Boeing and DC/MD have (had) been outsourcing to Japan, Italy and Canada for almost 40 years, so Airbus has actually nothing to do
26 DAYflyer : I am afraid with this latest release things are escelating very rapidly: UPDATE:EU, US Deadlocked On Aircraft Aid; US Warns On R&D Tuesday April 5, 1:
27 DAYflyer : For the 100,000 time, it is NOT a grant. It is a tax break, or reduction in taxation. This is not the same thing as Airnus being cut a check by a gov
28 Hmmmm... : Let's settle this dispute once and for all. The subsidies should go to the company that makes the better planes. So all we have to decide on then is w
29 YUL332LX : Part of it is actually a direct subsidy to production as explained in reply number 20. The tax breaks are just one of the few incentives Boeing is ge
30 Mrocktor : The only instance where Airbus would unfairly benefit form the loans is if they don't turn a profit. Except they don't do business to lose money do t
31 Scotron11 : In my eyes, there's absolutely no difference - either it's money from the government, or it's not. Either you allow it, or you don't. Personally, I'm
32 AirframeAS : Im in agreement with Scotron. This subsidiy issue has gone way too far. There is no fair game when one recieves subsidies when the other is not allow
33 YUL332LX : Boeing is getting direct subsidies. I already provided the links and sources above. In fact, there's another thread (citing The Economist) confirming
34 AirframeAS : No they're not, PERIOD. Nobody is cutting Boeing any checks for them to smile all the way to the bank. They are not getting any DIRECT subsidies. Ind
35 Post contains images YUL332LX : Yes they do get direct subsidies. Links and sources were given above. Stop calling me Jesus. It is an insult to my superior-atheis-minded-person.
36 NorCal : I have recently read articles that Airbus might be building a plant in North America (maybe even Seattle). I don't know much about it, but wouldn't th
37 DAYflyer : That's correct, they would then be getting direct Cash handouts from Paris and a nice little tax break from WA to boot. Boeing would absolutely love
38 Post contains images Fiatstilojtd : originally posted by Leskova
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 CEO: "Why Do (Airbus) Need Subsidies?" posted Fri Jul 2 2004 23:25:45 by Singapore_Air
SIA Says Airbus To Build The 787-9 For Them posted Wed Nov 8 2006 03:10:54 by Jimyvr
"The Airline Industry Doesn't Need US" posted Sun Jan 11 2004 22:52:28 by Logos
Airbus Have Overtaken Boeing But Deliver Less A/c? posted Wed Jan 15 2003 21:50:52 by Cedarjet
Airbus Doesn't List FedEx A380 Orders? posted Sat Jul 27 2002 00:26:06 by 747-600X
Need Urgent Help! I Reserved A Window Seat But.... posted Mon Oct 2 2006 22:08:58 by RootsAir
Airbus & Bombardier Need Your Help posted Thu Aug 17 2006 15:35:59 by Bells
Under 21 But Need Atp Written For Resume? Can I? posted Fri May 5 2006 05:06:15 by Higney85
Prior To Airbus SCE, Who "delivered" For Them? posted Fri Apr 7 2006 17:36:00 by N328KF
Why Do Boeing And Airbus Need So Many Planes? posted Tue Mar 21 2006 15:59:59 by Wdleiser