Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Marshall Plan Funds To Subsidize A350  
User currently offlineMham001 From United States, joined Feb 2005, 1413 posts, RR: 1
Posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6032 times:

As reported in todays Chicago Tribune regarding Beoing sleuths in Europe and the possibility of an upcoming trade war.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...hi-business-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true


A few of the more interesting lines:

.....A midnight amendment to Germany's 2005
budget showed Germany plans to help the A350 with $890 million in
government funds that originated as part of the U.S. Marshall Plan.........

.....Boeing could put its pipeline of government research funding at risk,
and supports such as a $3.2 billion tax break from Washington state
almost certainly will be examined. The EU claims Boeing since 1992 has
fed on $23 billion in government handouts, mostly NASA and Defense
Department research grants.

The EU could find that its case is tough to make. After all, Airbus has
jumped from a 30 percent market share in 1992 to 50 percent of
commercial aircraft deliveries today, so Airbus would be hard-pressed
to
prove any harm.

...To win a trade case, the U.S. would have to prove that the aid to
Airbus
has harmed Boeing. That was impossible during the 1990s, because many
of
Boeing's wounds were self-inflicted: It suffered from work stoppages,
production shutdowns and indecision about launching new airplanes.
Then-Chief Executive Philip Condit also feared an anti-Boeing backlash
that would hurt sales in Europe......

......a junior associate in Berlin turned up one big find: A report
from the City of Hamburg about a landfill along the River Elbe. In the
document, a law firm retained by Hamburg concluded that the $850
million
public works project would qualify as a subsidy because it was built
solely for Airbus' benefit.

....The transcript of a debate in Britain's House of Lords showed that
Airbus received $797 million in loans on the A330 airplane through 1997
but had made no repayments in the decade since the first loan. This
looked like proof that Airbus did not repay loans even on its most
successful airplanes.

.....Sixty years after World War II, the Marshall Plan money is
still around because Germany has charged interest on loans to
successful
companies. The searchers found Germany has loaned the money--officially
called the European Recovery Plan--several times to benefit Airbus.

.....Airbus' claims of U.S. research subsidies will not be easy for Boeing
to
shake. A visit to NASA's research center in Langley, Va., illuminates
how Boeing directs and carries out NASA research and also benefits from
the findings.......

.....Still, the argument on research is as complex as the rest of the trade
fight. The European Union has allocated nearly $1 billion to a new
aeronautics research budget, and Boeing's subsidy sleuths believe they
can prove much of the research is done for Airbus' benefit.....

Launch aid by plane


A300/A310 Germany $1.55 billion U.K None France $2.05 billion Spain
$233 million Total $3.83 billion A320 Germany $702 million U.K $567
million France $672 million Spain $87 million Total $2.03 billion
A330/A340 Germany $2.01 billion U.K $1.04 billion France $1.45 billion
Spain $270 million Total $4.77 billion A330-200 Germany None U.K None
France $58 million Spain None Total $58 million A340-500 / A340-600
Germany None U.K. $215 million France $337 million Spain $75 million
Total $627 million A380 Germany $1.07 billion U.K $867 million France
$1.37 billion Spain $426 million Total $3.73 billion
Note: Dollar amounts reflect payments in each country's own currency,
indexed to 2003, and converted at rates applicable in the year of
disbursement.

Overview of infrastructure subsidies for the Airbus A380

GERMANY: $857 million

$850 million: Spent by the City of Hamburg to fill a part of the River
Elbe to accommodate the expansion of a production facility.

More than $7 million: Provided as a grant by the Land of Lower Saxony
for the expansion of its facilities in the City of Nordenham.

U.K.: $408 million

$376 million: Provided to fund the Broughton site.

$32 million: Given as a land grant from the National Assembly for
Wales.

FRANCE: $298 million

$206 million: A public investment for an assembly site in Toulouse.

$82.6 million: Provided for road construction between Langon (port on
the Garonne River) and a production site in Toulouse.

$9.7 million: Provided for construction in ports and along the Garonne
River to accommodate transportation of A380 fuselages.

SPAIN: $143 million

$143 million: Investments made in Puerto de Santa Maria, Illescas,
Puerto Real and La Rinconada plants.

Note: Euros and British pounds were converted into dollars at average
2003 exchange rates. Maps are not to scale.

Sources: European governments' documents, ESRI, Boeing Co.

130 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States, joined Sep 2001, 8620 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5977 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

you must be some sort of a Euro-hater, only someone like that would post such facts  Smile

keep up the good work, it is good to have actual facts when discussing such things....


Bust a Travis Bickle when I feel that I'm getting pushed
User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States, joined Jul 2004, 2192 posts, RR: 31
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5928 times:

Holy cow...


I am officially speechless. Amazing article. More once I read the full huge article.

User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States, joined Jul 2004, 2192 posts, RR: 31
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5900 times:

Interesting points. The fact that float from the Marshall Funds money is being used is really going to piss off a lot of people. It also basically states that Boeing and Airbus are playing the same games in terms of indirect support. However, the direct support in the form of loans is only directly going to Airbus.

It sounds like Boeing has done their homework here. If the UK hands over cash, there will be a massive trade battle. As the US has learned several times at the WTO, Airbus is going to be at a huge disadvantage simply by being accused. The best possible outcome is investor skittishness about what the WTO will do. The worst outcome will allow the United States to tariff any plane sold sold by the EU in America.

The other thing the numbers show is that the amount of aid from EU to Airbus has stayed relativly static or risen slightly over the last 40 years. This is because Airbus moved to building larger planes after the A320, so the capital inflow staid the same.

User currently offlineBeauing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5710 times:

My favorite line from the article"

Quote:
"It should not be easy for them to launch the A350 program, as they're choking on trying to finish the A380


User currently offlineRamerinianAir From United States, joined Nov 2003, 1473 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5683 times:

What Europeans DO NOT GET:
Boeing recieves money for Military contracts because they are the best. They do not recieve all the money alotted for military spending, they are among companies like Raytheon, Grumman and Lockheed recieving money.
Here's the big one:
The money they recieve is NOT used to develope civil A/C, it is used to develope superior military technology. They have some fierce competition in this field. THUS, THEY ARE NOT RECIEVING SUBSIDIES. They are not turning around and using the NASA tech aid to develope the 747ADV, they are developing some superior technology we will all have in our cars in 20 years.
Steven


W N = my Worst Nightmare!!!!!
User currently offlineOftwftwoab From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5608 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 3):
As the US has learned several times at the WTO, Airbus is going to be at a huge disadvantage simply by being accused. The best possible outcome is investor skittishness about what the WTO will do. The worst outcome will allow the United States to tariff any plane sold by the EU in America.

If the US goes to the WTO, the EU will as well, citing not only subsidies provided to Boeing by the US, but also those provided by Japan. Thus Boeing would also face investor skittishness, but even more so, as Airbus has a lot of shares held by nationally owned companies etc.

If the US tariffs any plane sold by the EU in America, the EU will tariff any plane sole by Boeing in the EU. (Even if the EU doesn't win its case at the WTO, as the EU already has unused rights to levy tariffs against US products because of previous victories at the WTO - principally the 'unlawful' tax subsidies the US gives to its exporters.) And as Boeing sells more planes to the EU than Airbus sells to the US, this can only hurt Boeing more.

I cannot see what Boeing hopes to gain by pushing a WTO action. Any 'victory' in a trade war would only be a pyrrhic one. They would've been better off lobbying Congress to allow tax breaks to match the alleged Airbus subsidies. Then supported negotiations with the EU to lower subsidies on both sides. I get the impression that Boeing thought that if they could only get the US Administration to talk tough, then the EU would roll over. That' s not going to happen - EU public opinion would never permit the EU to 'bend the knee' to the Americans (especially given current attitudes to President Bush and the Iraq situation).

It may simply be that Boeing thought they could delay the A350 somewhat, but this is a risky strategy - getting politicians involved is rarely good for business.

User currently offlineFlyibaby From United States, joined Aug 2004, 859 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5572 times:

I never thought I would say this, but I think its time that maybe the US stop playing by the rules that other counties believe we should live up to, resign from the WTO, NAFTA and any other trade alliance. Fact of the matter is that the US is just about, if not, the biggest sales market there is. Every country wants to do business with us. If a country wants to sell us an airplane or a paperclip, we should have a mirror trade agreement with that individual country to ensure that all trade is fair. This protects jobs and the integrity of commerce.

User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5554 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 3):
The fact that float from the Marshall Funds money is being used is really going to piss off a lot of people.

Why? The US could have known that one day the money from the Marshall Plan would help to create and build up competitors to US companies.
And again I say: the US did not just help for charity. Supporting Germany meant building up a strategic wall against the communists and it meant developing new markets for trade.


Regards
Udo

User currently offlineAvObserver From United States, joined Apr 2002, 2361 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5544 times:

"If the US goes to the WTO, the EU will as well, citing not only subsidies provided to Boeing by the US, but also those provided by Japan."

The EU case, led by claims from EADS/Airbus, hasn't yet quantified how they've arrived at a $23 billion since 1992 U.S. government subsidies to Boeing figure. They'd better do so if they have to face the WTO, otherwise their case will go up in smoke.

"Overview of infrastructure subsidies for the Airbus A380

GERMANY: $857 million

$850 million: Spent by the City of Hamburg to fill a part of the River
Elbe to accommodate the expansion of a production facility.

More than $7 million: Provided as a grant by the Land of Lower Saxony
for the expansion of its facilities in the City of Nordenham.

U.K.: $408 million

$376 million: Provided to fund the Broughton site.

$32 million: Given as a land grant from the National Assembly for
Wales.

FRANCE: $298 million

$206 million: A public investment for an assembly site in Toulouse.

$82.6 million: Provided for road construction between Langon (port on
the Garonne River) and a production site in Toulouse.

$9.7 million: Provided for construction in ports and along the Garonne
River to accommodate transportation of A380 fuselages.

SPAIN: $143 million

$143 million: Investments made in Puerto de Santa Maria, Illescas,
Puerto Real and La Rinconada plants."

These figures make any Airbus complaints about Washington state tax breaks and infrastructure support baseless, especially since it would also be available to Airbus if they were to set up shop, there.

"They would've been better off lobbying Congress to allow tax breaks to match the alleged Airbus subsidies."

And then what? EADS/Airbus and the EU would scream all the louder! I wouldn't expect the EU to simply "roll over" but I'd expect them to negotiate the dispute in some measure of good faith. The actions of late; a new plea by Airbus for loans for the A350, based on the 1992 agreement no longer in effect and a general resistance by the EU to even consider reducing launch aid depicts a European arm seemingly disinterested in a new accord and actually inviting a trade war with provocative moves. If that's the case, then, let's go and let the WTO determine who's right and wrong. The EU brashness of late, however, suggests they won't even accept a WTO ruling on this if it were to go against them.

User currently offlineKeesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9283 posts, RR: 45
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5527 times:

Is there a split up on the $21 Bill subsidies Boeing got since 1992.

Who is Boeing #1 customer by far? The same guys that want to go to the WTO?

Boeing needs the Gov badly to bridge the 2004-2009 period & are succesfully playing Washington.

User currently offlineTrident2e From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1327 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5510 times:

Are all Americans stupid? Europeans will give subsisides not because its the right thing to do but because the US does exactly the same. Whether it's giving 'research grants' to American companies or bailing out bankrupt airlines with chapter 11 subsidies, the US does it just as much (if not more than) their European counterparts. GET OVER IT!

User currently offlineOftwftwoab From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5485 times:

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 9):
I wouldn't expect the EU to simply "roll over" but I'd expect them to negotiate the dispute in some measure of good faith.

The EU is willing to negotiate. It was the US who refused to discuss anything other than the Government loans to Airbus, and refused to include subsidies provided by third party governments (like the $1.5 billion from Japan).

Quote:
The actions of late; a new plea by Airbus for loans for the A350, based on the 1992 agreement no longer in effect and a general resistance by the EU to even consider reducing launch aid depicts a European arm seemingly disinterested in a new accord and actually inviting a trade war with provocative moves.

Because tearing up the 1992 agreement wasn't provocative? If the 1992 accord doesn't exist, why shouldn't Airbus apply for the launch aid? After all, has the US given up any of its subsidy mechanisms to Boeing? As far as I know, they are all still in effect.

Quote:
If that's the case, then, let's go and let the WTO determine who's right and wrong. The EU brashness of late, however, suggests they won't even accept a WTO ruling on this if it were to go against them.

Probably not. As did neither Brazil or Canada.

Both the US and the EU are likely to lose at the WTO. Japan definitely will. The EU believe the Airbus launch aid system is necessary to counteract subsidies given to Boeing. They may be right or wrong in this belief, but they believe it. So they won't give it up whilst what they believe the US subsidy system is still in place. The WTO would be damned.

But neither the US nor the EU will go to a full-scale trade war over Boeing and Airbus. They're trivially unimportant in comparison with the general trade between the two blocs.

Again, I can't see what Boeing hopes to gain over this.

User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 36
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5445 times:

Quoting Oftwftwoab (Reply 12):
Both the US and the EU are likely to lose at the WTO. Japan definitely will. The EU believe the Airbus launch aid system is necessary to counteract subsidies given to Boeing.

If all the money Boeing received was highly targeted or had high applicability towards civilian aerospace, the US might have to give it up. But it is not likely that it is as targetted at civilian aerospace as the types of subsidies Airbus has received, which is where Europe is going to have a problem.


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5404 times:

Ram, how come El Al always buys Boeing, has it anything to do with the aid money US gives to Israel?

User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5327 times:

Quoting Udo:

Why? The US could have known that one day the money from the Marshall Plan would help to create and build up competitors to US companies.
And again I say: the US did not just help for charity. Supporting Germany meant building up a strategic wall against the communists and it meant developing new markets for trade. End Quote.

Udo, I think you are a smart and reasonable guy so give us a break. Airbus was not created to counter the Soviet civil aircraft industry. In fact Europe's freeloading on the U.S. defense budget enables it to fund projects like Airbus.

Airbus was created to take a piece of the pie away from the United States which the Europeans felt entitled to own. No one is objecting to the funds that Airbus recieved it was a nascent firm. The problem is that they do not face the true economic risks of their consecutive $10 billion projects.

The European complaints about Japan are bogus. EU firms have already used the same Japanese program that Boeing is using for the 787 to develop a helicopter. Now they question the legality of it.

The EU figures of $20billion plus to Boeing are also bogus. They must be counting F/A-18 contracts as civil subsidies. Consider what Boeing has done in the relevant time frame: lay off thousands, take low risk approaches to R&D, rolled out derivatives and one new airplane, and concede a huge amount of market share to Airbus. This behavior is not consistent with the behavior of a a massively subsidized firm. This figure is smoke and mirrors that the US will have to waste time on to rebut and is meant to obfuscate the real issues.


Quote of Trident:

Are all Americans stupid? Europeans will give subsisides not because its the right thing to do but because the US does exactly the same. Whether it's giving 'research grants' to American companies or bailing out bankrupt airlines with chapter 11 subsidies, the US does it just as much (if not more than) their European counterparts. GET OVER IT! End Quote

Europeans have repeated this lie to themselves so many times that they can no longer distinguish between reality and the fiction they created to justify their interventionist industrial policy.

I suggest doing research on chapter 11 and government research before making such uninformed remarks.

User currently offlineTrident2e From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1327 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5312 times:

Quoting N79969 (Reply 15):
I suggest doing research on chapter 11 and government research before making such uninformed remarks

Only last week, United Airlines (as part of its chapter 11 bankruptcy) transferred more than $600 million of pension liabilities to the US government. Which part of subsidy, therefore, don't you understand?

User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 10003 posts, RR: 66
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5295 times:

Back in the 50s the German government decided not to use the Marshall plan moneys directly (like some other countries). Instead they invested them and just used the interest gained. Just the fact that there was money available and tucked away as a nest egg gave the German economy enough confidence to get over the destruction of WW2. Up to now this money is tucked away and just the interests used.

Jan

User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 36
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5281 times:

Quoting Trident2e (Reply 16):
Only last week, United Airlines (as part of its chapter 11 bankruptcy) transferred more than $600 million of pension liabilities to the US government. Which part of subsidy, therefore, don't you understand?

But the liability has not been transferred to the US taxpayer. If anything it has been transferred to other US companies that paid premiums into the PBGC.


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 6985 posts, RR: 35
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5274 times:

Going to the WTO is a legitimate tactic - the USA has a case.

There will eventually be some sort of dull compromise.

What WILL be interesting, though, is whether Airbus can find the money to develop the A350 without the EU loans, which presumably can't be advanced while the hearings are in progress?


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinePANAM_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 2973 posts, RR: 84
Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5257 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
COMMUNITY MANAGER

Quoting Keesje (Reply 10):
Is there a split up on the $21 Bill subsidies Boeing got since 1992.

You don't have the split? Yet you accept it as fact? C'mon, no doubt when you do have a breakdown you'll see that what is a Boeing "Subsidy" is, in fact, a tax break. The same that EADS is asking for from whichever state they wish to build a North American production plant in. That alone ends any EU counterclaim in the WTO before they even file it. Mr Mandelson is well aware of this which is why he's found a sudden love for "patience" and "diplomacy"  Yeah sure

Quoting Keesje (Reply 10):
Boeing needs the Gov badly to bridge the 2004-2009 period

Really? What "bridge" needs to be filled? Will it be the increased 737 production rate of 31 per month with a possible second line being opened? Maybe the 777 line which now appears to be heading toward a production rate of 7.5 to 10 per month? If all goes well for 787 certification and EIS I find it convenient that you forget 787 deliveries start in 2008. They did that while, as you put it, "the Gov" actually shafted them by cancelling the 767 Tanker Lease and threatening an end to the 767 production run.

Regards


Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5221 times:

"Only last week, United Airlines (as part of its chapter 11 bankruptcy) transferred more than $600 million of pension liabilities to the US government. Which part of subsidy, therefore, don't you understand?"

Do you really think this compares to the aid that Olympic Air has received in recent years or the years of state ownership in Europe? The PBGC was created for workers and not companies. The PBGC did not save Bethlehem steel from failing. The US government's initial response to United's invocation of the PBGC system was to ponder a lawsuit to stop them. In the end, the US government is basically putting a safety net under United employees should the company fail and not under UAL. UAL could still go under.

I am not sure why Europeans should be so upset anyway. British Airways regulatory affairs people like to push this argument simply because UA comes into Heathrow. If it were American instead of United, it would be all quiet on British front. It is not European based airlines that will suffer the most anyway. The primary victims of this move aside from UA workers are head-on competitors such as American, Delta, Continental, and Northwest.

User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 153 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5194 times:

"Boeing makes superior military a/c"

Lockheed-Martin makes the 2 superior jetfighters and Boeing lost big on that deal. Maybe I´m wrong here...

Micke//SE Big grin


Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineSchipholjfk From United States, joined Jan 2005, 579 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5149 times:

Quoting Trident2e (Reply 11):
Are all Americans stupid? Europeans will give subsisides not because its the right thing to do but because the US does exactly the same. Whether it's giving 'research grants' to American companies or bailing out bankrupt airlines with chapter 11 subsidies, the US does it just as much (if not more than) their European counterparts. GET OVER IT!

Once again... before you Euros call Americans stupid I urge you ALL to read and understand Chapter 11 Bankruptcy laws. I am sick and tired of Europeans not understanding this law andhow it works... over and over again I see statements at A.net that Chapter 11 is a subsidy. Ask yourself the question what happens when a company is not able to pay is debt to its suppliers, vendors, etc. There is NO exchange of money between government and corporations. It's an arrangement that the govt. mediates between a bankrupt company and its shareholders, suppliers, etc. At the end of the day SOMEONE looses money. There is NO free lunch here. Keeping in line with Trident2e's sentiments: Are all Europeans so stupid not to understand it?


The fun of flying... love it !!!
User currently offlineSchipholjfk From United States, joined Jan 2005, 579 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5145 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 17):
Up to now this money is tucked away and just the interests used.

Then give the money back to the hard working tax payers of the US who funded this in the first place!


The fun of flying... love it !!!
User currently offlineKeesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9283 posts, RR: 45
Reply 25, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5120 times:

Quoting PANAM_DC10 (Reply 20):
Really? What "bridge" needs to be filled?

The shut down of the 717, 757 and probably 747 and 767 lines, the foreseen cutback on Boeings huge US defense backlog (e.g. http://www.komotv.com/boeing/story.asp?ID=36148) & at the same time investing Billions in the new 787 (without 787 sales incomes..) and later on 737 successor.

Margins on the 737 have become non existent, the succesfull 772 will come under pressure; the airlines that wanted it have it, a superior competitor (A359)will be around by 09. Boeing already started a radical cost TAT & reduction program on the 777 line..

People seem to forget aircraft are paid at delivery or afterwards, good 787 sales now won´t help Boeing before 2009..

26 Trident2e: So how does the US government manage to take on $600 million of United's pension liabilities? Taking this amount of liability from a private company
27 Trex8: for all my countrymen who think writeoffs and tax credits aren't a subsidy, I hope you all asked the IRS last month for a low interest but ultimately
28 Post contains images PANAM_DC10: Which has been countered by the increased production rates projected for the 737 and 777 models. That will more than compensate for the cancellation
29 Slider: You're welcome. Glad that postwar redevelopment money is being used 60 years after the fact. How about refunding it to the US and other Allied nation
30 Stirling: This whole debate between Airbus and Boeing is like arguing which came first: The Chicken or The Egg. No one wins. The only thing that comes from it a
31 Atmx2000: Well United already paid premiums in the past for this coverage as required by law for any company offering a pension plan. The premiums paid guarant
32 Slider: Granted. So if it helped establish prosperity, why is it being used in 2005 as a de facto subsidy? If you're already prosperous, why not refund that
33 JMJAirways: Hi After the war in Bosnia a new Airline was created called "Air Bosna" they had low founds so they lend Yak 42 for their service... after a while the
34 Atmx2000: Since when has EIS for the A350 been moved before 2010? Of course when the people of Europe pay very high taxes, both income/payroll and sales/value
35 Stirling: I only pointed out a correlation...between European prosperity and the former Soviet satellite nations and republics. Airbus is certainly a part of t
36 Art: If you are under the impression that EU governments' taxes are applied chiefly to subsidising companies, I think your impression is very wide of the
37 MD11Engineer: Actually the US offered Mashall Plan aid to the Eastern European countries as well, but they had to reject it on pressure from Stalin. According to 1
38 Galapagapop: At least we have some numbers... Instead of this A takes money from EU, and so forth. My question is I though airbus paid off the A320 line's costs be
39 AC777233LR: The US has NOT played by the rules of the WTO. They have lost numerous cases in the WTO on Canadian softwood lumber, steel tariffs export financing a
40 Touchdown99: The term "subsidy" is meaningless. It can mean anything from a non-repayable gift to a loan repayable with market-level interest-rates..... We are tal
41 Post contains images Stirling: The difference lay in the intended destination of the subsidy. Weapons Systems. Very little to do with commercial aircraft. The residual benefit is q
42 Atmx2000: I know that. But that is where some of the money goes. And even some of the social benefits can be considered a subsidy for workers and businesses wh
43 AC777233LR: In my opinion the Marshall Plan was one of the finest examples of charitable human kindness of all time. I think this period was where the US stood ta
44 Atmx2000: Europe of course gives VAT rebates on exports and levies VAT on the full value of imports. On top of that many European countries have territorial in
45 LAS757300: yeah! because that money did nothing to improve america's defense. Please.
46 Beauing: Then Airbus will only lobby for even greater subsidies and will likely get them. "We will give Airbus the means to win the battle against Boeing," fo
47 Trident2e: So what? It still means that a bankrupt airline is subsidised by US legislation.
48 Atmx2000: That's why I said a reasonable (as in sensible and not unreasonable) chunk of it. The secure environment that the very large amount of American defen
49 Atmx2000: United paid premiums to the PBGC in the past to secure the pension benefits of their employees and insure their pension programs. They are not be sub
50 Stirling: Look at this way....it's the exception, not the rule. The alternative would be?
51 ContnlEliteCMH: I don't think even you get it. Boeing receives money from the United States military because they are providing a product/service for fee. This is so
52 ContnlEliteCMH: Udo, I think you're a couple cans shy of a sixpack every now and again, but you've got this one absolutely right. In fact, it's even more than what y
53 Post contains images ContnlEliteCMH: Well, I see you've been reading How to Win Friends and Influence People . No, not all Americans are stupid, no more than all Brits have bad teeth. Sh
54 Beauing: Excuse me, but isn't it Airbus that's loaning $250 million to USAir to emerge from Chapter 11? So European taxpayers are subsidizing U.S. airlines. T
55 ContnlEliteCMH: Yes, a perfectly legitimate business move. No red-blooded capitalist should have trouble with Airbus discouting its products to a customer. It's thei
56 Post contains images Atmx2000: Of course the issue is whether they need launch aid with risk mitigating terms if they can afford to undertake riskier investments like US Air
57 Post contains images Avek00: Dude, I warned about this many weeks ago in A.net chat - Airbus was going to provide A350s/A380s to US and UA as "charitable contributions" for tax wr
58 Touchdown99: In the VERY VERY first place, there is no such thing as a "US" Boeing or an "European" Airbus. An Airbus is as much a non-European product as a Boeing
59 ContnlEliteCMH: Respectfully, I disagree to a point. I can't disagree that this is a factor on the EADS balance sheet and income statement. However, I do think the i
60 ContnlEliteCMH: Well, you're entitled to your opinion and your vote! But I for one don't agree with any of the obvious political subtexts in your statement, mostly b
61 Milan320: Trident, you see, in other countries, it's called corruption, in the US they call it lobbying ... somehow one is bad, the other one is good. /Milan32
62 Milan320: Are you saying then Boeing's expertise and know-how gained from military projects was never ever used in civil projects? I doubt that. Look at their
63 Atmx2000: The military relationship between Japan and the US is not similar to that between the US and Europe, including Germany. Japan can not come to the def
64 Atmx2000: What the hell are you talking about? In what way is lobbying equal to corruption? Corruption can be involved in lobbying, but in no means is all lobb
65 Stirling: The 787 is not a JSF, or X-32A. OK, so they got some experience in composites....but the real R&D, that is, applying the technique to something on th
66 ContnlEliteCMH: Of course the technology/knowledge gained from the military work is applied to the commercial airplanes division. THAT IS NOT A SUBSIDY. Not in any w
67 Bigsmile: Well what can say to this? Another comment believing that world exists within the borders of the good old U S of A. Most if not all countries what to
68 Atmx2000: Truth be told, the composites expertise seems to be coming from multiple sources, including a maker of composite sails for boats. And Boeing's partne
69 Beauing: Yes, but please tell me what are the terms of these so called "loans"? What is the interest rate? What is the term of the loan? Does the interest beg
70 Beauing: Did I say it was an illegitimate business move? Did I say I had trouble with this? Did I say it was not their decision? I think it's well within the
71 Trident2e: Most US institutions are corrupt, particularly the political and judicial systems
72 Stirling: It's also a simple fact that as of 2004, China's economy is still second to the USA. There is nothing arrogant about stating what is common knowledge
73 Atmx2000: Can you explain to me how the US judicial system is corrupt? Not that I am agreeing with you about the political institutions as a whole being corrup
74 Stirling: ?????????????? Now you've lost me.
75 Post contains links Touchdown99: OK, how about this - taken from BBC: And this is from the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111316631117602906,00.html I think we can agree that
76 Beauing: Is that what happened to the UK?
77 Trident2e: Probably.[Edited 2005-05-21 23:28:40]
78 Post contains images Glideslope: The bigger question is: If you push them over the edge, how many will they take with them?
79 B777fan: Trident2E Yes, I think you need to go on - preferably to a political forum.
80 Chgoflyer: thats about the most foolish comment Ive read on Airliners.net Logic like that would support Germany starting yet another World War because in the lo
81 Art: One intention was to prevent the impoverishment of Germany and a repetition of what happened after WWI - the rejection of democracy and the rise of m
82 N79969: When I have thought about the history of Airbus and the type of aid it continues to receive, I usually am disturbed by the efforts of the EU to build
83 Skymileman: Isnt' that interesting. Seems like a big slap in the face to the United States, don't you think?
84 Post contains links Mariner: I think a few people here need a reminder of what the Marshall Plan was all about, and why: http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/57.htm
85 N79969: Mariner, I have seen no misunderstanding of the Marshall Plan here. What is your point?
86 Post contains links Trex8: From House Select Committee Trade & Industry 3/22/05- Hansard http://www.publications.parliament.u...htm#muscat_highlighter_first_match "The facts sta
87 Mariner: Then once again, we disagree. The Marshall Plan was, as Churchill called it, "the most unsordid act of history", although it was far from completely
88 N79969: Mariner, Fine. You have an objection- the nature of which is still a mystery. If the desire of not wanting to fight another bloody war bourne of turmo
89 Mariner: Where did that come from? When did I say - or even suggest - that? mariner
90 Art: The British parliamentary record says (source Hansard): "The facts state that for the UK, reimbursable launch investment has been a genuine success s
91 Boeing7E7: I vote we take the subsidy gloves off and make it unlimited and see who wins!
92 Post contains images Udo: It's not my fault when you interpret my words totally wrong and draw foolish conclusions... Regards Udo
93 N79969: Mariner, I apologize if I imputed something to you that you did not intend to say....I guess that I did consider the possibility that we may possibly
94 Aloha717200: I have not read all the replies, but in light of how sneaky Airbus has been lately in its attempts to bribe customers to buy the A350 or provide "ince
95 N79969: Aloha717200, What do you mean by "bribe"? If you are talking about US/HP, that is no bribe. Airbus and those firms can make any conditions they want.
96 Aloha717200: They can't get a decent order for the plane on its own merits, and so they sell it with the promise of millions in financing. Sounds like a "bribe" to
97 N79969: Aloha717200, Airbus may be offerring inducements to land a North American A350 customer but it is a far cry from a "bribe" which would violate any law
98 Touchdown99: Just a quick reminder - Germany received less than 10 per cent of all Marshall plan funds: U.K.: 3,6 bn Dollar France: 3,1 bn Dollar Italy: 1,6 bn Do
99 Trex8: The US govt takes the EU to court, not individual companies and if history is anything to go by vis Bombardier and Embraer, both sides will lose out
100 MD11Engineer: Anyway, would anybody in here really like it if either Boeing or Airbus would fail and the remaining company get the worldwide monopoly on transport a
101 NoUFO: How come some of the arguments Mham001 mentioned, appear two or even three times on the list - just in a different wording? I don't blame the thread s
102 Trex8: The Tribune was talking about the A330, the Hansard the A320. Either way, the Trib is my local paper (and totally stinks -its about one step up from
103 Slider: Good point... That's been my contention too. Regardless of the mud slinging, and factual observations of inequal trade practices by all parties invol
104 Art: Trex8, I can't read the actual text without subsribing to the Chicago Tribune, which I don't care to do. I note that the extract above concludes that
105 Post contains images Iwok: MD, thank your for your very important posting. I think that this is question we should be asking ourselves airliner fans. I for one, am going to try
106 Bennett123: Does anyone have details of exactly how much Marshall aid was given and in which years. Was it a gift or a loan. Also, it seems clear to me that if yo
107 NoUFO: Bennett, The Marshall plan was introduced in 1947. The United States pumped $13 billion to help Europe standing on its own feet again (and to buy Amer
108 Mham001: Seems as though one way to look at the "subsidy" thing is to ask whether the subsidy would be available to either company. Could Boeing recieve an EU
109 Mham001: No Ufo- I provided the link for the article for you to judge for yourself. I only scrolled down the article and pulled ineresting tidbits as they wer
110 ComeAndGo: Maybe the chinese would get into making cheap copies of Boeing aircraft … maybe these planes would then fail prematurely…
111 MD-90: I think that this ought to help explain that it was free market reforms, and a great lessening of government regulation, that transformed Europe after
112 TrevD: I can't believe this has gone effectively unchallenged: Wrong and wrong! On both counts!! 1) Airbus does not pay market rates!! Even if they were a B
113 Post contains images Keesje: I think Airbus is working out a full exposure package of all direct & indirect support/ cuts Boeing got since 1992, estimated at around $21 Billion. B
114 Post contains images PANAM_DC10: Keesje With respect, for the second time in this thread, may I ask you to provide a detailed breakdown of the alleged $21 Billion in subsidies that t
115 MD11Engineer: That is pure cattle manure. Europe already had a market style economy before the war. During the war the economies in all countriies (included the US
116 Keesje: US Government subsidies US Government subsidies, mostly in the form of military and NASA contracts, research and development expenditure and tax subs
117 N79969: The EU's calculations are bogus on their face. The information that Keesje has kindly posted is simply smoke and mirrors to obfuscate the issues. It h
118 Danny: US Government should not be allowed to file anything in WTO as it does not respect its rulings. Ask Canadians about steel trade dispute.
119 Trex8: and corporate foreign tax writeoffs (from which Boeing has benefitted to the tune of several hundreds of millions over recent years )and a whole host
120 N79969: Trex8, The export tax credit was of general applicability and benefitted all exporters- it was not targeted at one firm. In contrast, I do not believe
121 Post contains links MarcoT: Not at all. Subsidy to *production* are, I believe, indeed not allowed under EU and WTO rules. Launch aids, in the form of loans or even grants are i
122 Post contains images PANAM_DC10: Keesje Thank you for a qualified and detailed response. I will respect your following comment Hopefully we get into the details iso the usual "don't
123 Lnglive1011yyz: Makes you wonder eh? 1011yyz
124 NorCal: If only we could remove the politics from all of this then purchases would be made on merit of the a/c
125 Trex8: no so at least as far as the UK is concerned, Rolls got British launch aid for the Trent and their portion of the V2500, Shorts for its share of the
126 Touchdown99: What does the 1947 Marshall plan have to do with building airliners in 2005 ? This argument brought up by the Chicago press borders at the edge of lu
127 Post contains links MarcoT: You can believe what you want, but this is not the case. Routinely launch aids are granted to all sort of industries. Probably the ultimate example i
128 Tockeyhockey: ooh i live such an angry message board. gotta jump in the f-18 is a cash cow for boeing. the f-22 and joint strike fighter haven't made any money for
129 Trex8: the only people to come out ahead in any court case are the lawyers on either side!
130 Post contains links ComeAndGo: But it helps to understand what each party's position is. It doesn't help when you look at one side without looking at the other. Later you'll be sur
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...
US Marshall's (JPATS) Changing To Different A/C? posted Fri Sep 10 2004 00:44:30 by Refueler1974
A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite posted Sat Nov 4 2006 16:46:58 by NYC777
US Airways Alternative To The A350? posted Fri Oct 6 2006 07:49:18 by Vega
US Airways Indifferent To Airbus's A350 Dilemma posted Mon Jun 5 2006 10:04:08 by Leelaw
US Airways Plan To Walk From 67 Planes Approved posted Thu Sep 5 2002 20:03:37 by LGB Photos
Airbus CEO: US Giving Boeing "Marshall Plan" posted Thu Dec 13 2001 11:43:35 by Joni
FI: Airbus To Ask Board To Approve A350 XWB posted Mon Oct 23 2006 10:21:23 by Leelaw
Episode Of US Flights Not Posting To UAMP... posted Mon Oct 16 2006 05:51:54 by ASTROJET707
Finnair To Reconsider A350 Order posted Thu Oct 5 2006 21:35:06 by Findigenous
Japanese Firms To Join A350 RR Engine Development posted Tue Oct 3 2006 01:13:13 by Keesje