Iwok From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1073 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 932 times:
Humbert appears to have a good outlook on Airbus's fortunes for the rest of 2006. Unable to formally launch the 350 without "launch aid", Airbus it seems finally has the green light from the majors (UK, France, Spain, Germany) to get what it needs. EADS will pony up the remaining 78% of the bill.
I thought launch aid was capped at 33%, as opposed to the lower 22% on the 350 deal. Does this indicate that EADS is inching closer to being fully self-sufficient?
UPDATE 2-Airbus CEO sees Europe helping fund new A350 plane
Thu Sep 22, 2005 02:45 PM ET
(Recasts with more detail, background)
By Tim Hepher
TOULOUSE, France, Sept 22 (Reuters) - The new head of Airbus said on Thursday he was confident European governments would lend the planemaker almost 1.5 billion euros ($1.8 billion) to develop its A350 mid-sized plane but called for calm in a trade clash with rival Boeing Co. (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research) over the support.
Chief Executive Gustav Humbert said he expected Airbus shareholders EADS (EAD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) and BAE Systems (BA.L: Quote, Profile, Research) to agree in early October to fork out the rest of the 4.3 billion euros needed to develop the plane, which is due to start flying in 2010.
...
Commercial chief John Leahy said Airbus expected to end the year with a 50 percent share of the global market, even though Boeing had so far snatched 60 percent.
Leahy said 417 orders booked as of Sept. 22 did not include 140 commitments for the as-yet-unlaunched A350, which it expects to turn into firm orders for 200 aircraft this year.
Leahy said these figures implied that Airbus and Boeing had each sold some 600 planes and combined they "could get close" to beating a combined 1989 record of 1,631 gross orders.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 8301 posts, RR: 26 Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 759 times:
You left out some interesting quotes, let me help:
Airbus has asked the UK, Spain, France and Germany to provide refundable loans to cover a third of the A350's development costs, citing a 1992 bilateral pact which Washington has declared void.
Critics describe the loans as a subsidy because they need not be repaid if the project loses money. In practice, they usually are repaid along with extra royalties.
Humbert defended Airbus' push for government loans despite U.S. opposition, arguing that Airbus deserved a level playing field with Boeing, which receives lucrative government contracts and tax breaks in the United States. "The 787 is heavily subsidised," he said.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 8301 posts, RR: 26 Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 639 times:
Quoting Luisca (Reply 3): GIVE me 1 instance were the 787 is DIRECTLY subsidised by the US goverment You dont see any goverment involvement in the 787. this is Clear flaimbait
1. State of Washington : $3,200, Final Assembly, Production Subsidy
2. State of Kansas : $200, Nose and Cockpit, Interest Free Bond
3. Japanese Government : $1,588, Wing and Fuselage, Production Subsidy
4. Italian Government : $590, Rear Fuselage, Production Subsidy
5. 747 Special Freighters : $500, Production Transport, Production Subsidy
6. 787 Rail Barge : $16, Production Transport, Production Subsidy
FriendlySkies From United States, joined Aug 2004, 3579 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 629 times:
The difference between the Airbus subsidies and the Boeing "subsidies" is that most of the tax breaks Boeing gets are due to state's fighting for the production facilities. A lot of money and jobs are brought in by an aircraft manufacturing plant. I doubt Airbus would up and leave France and Germany if they cut off the subsidies, but if Washington State did, with the ridiculous taxes they charge, Boeing would probably be gone the next day.
Trex8 From United States, joined Nov 2002, 2594 posts, RR: 10 Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 609 times:
Quoting Iwok (Thread starter): I thought launch aid was capped at 33%, as opposed to the lower 22% on the 350 deal. Does this indicate that EADS is inching closer to being fully self-sufficient?
probably more like thats all they could get, or even thats all they want, the 33% is the maximum they can get.
Trex8 From United States, joined Nov 2002, 2594 posts, RR: 10 Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 522 times:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 8): The State of Washington and the State of Kansas are in no ways the same as the Countries of Britain etc..
but the federal tax breaks which the WTO has already ruled is illegal and which the US Congress still won't totally get rid of and which Boeing has benefited from to the tune of a billion or so are comparable. Not to mention the several billion launch aid the Japanese and Italian govts are giving to their 787 manufacturers, but oops, we don't want them to discuss that issue now do we.
besides how does a govt which never abides by the ruling of the WTO expect them to enforce it against a competitor should the WTO rule in its favor??
STT757 From United States, joined Mar 2000, 10298 posts, RR: 41 Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 513 times:
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 9): besides how does a govt which never abides by the ruling of the WTO expect them to enforce it against a competitor should the WTO rule in its favor??
They can start by banning Airbus aircraft operated by US carriers including Fed Ex etc from being part of the CRAF program.
[Edited 2005-09-24 03:54:01]
"makes much more sense to live in the present tense"
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 6211 posts, RR: 23 Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 488 times:
Quoting Iwok (Thread starter): I thought launch aid was capped at 33%, as opposed to the lower 22% on the 350 deal.
'Almost' 1.5B. Euro out of the 4.4B. Euro estimated development cost - that's the full 33%?
As far as I know 'regional aid' (aimed at attracting industry to needy areas) is not an issue with the WTO. On top of the launch aid, Airbus will be getting 'regional' investment grants and tax allowances in North Wales, Toulouse etc. because those are development areas; and Boeing will be getting regional incentives in Washington State.
The complaint to the WTO is that 'launch aid' is coming direct from central governments, and is not tied to any regional considerations. Boeing doesn't get anything like that from the US government.
Regardless of the international legalities of 'launch aid', it seems remarkably unwise in business terms; being 'front-end loaded' and not repayable if the project doesn't proceed. Almost like lending someone gambling money; "Go try your luck, you can pay me back if you get lucky, otherwise never mind......" I'd have thought taxpayers deserved more care being taken with their money.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Trex8 From United States, joined Nov 2002, 2594 posts, RR: 10 Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 470 times:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 10): They can start by banning Airbus aircraft operated by US carriers including Fed Ex etc from being part of the CRAF program.
and who does that ultimately hurt besides the US itself!
lets also ban any plane including Boeings with RR trent engines because RR gets launch aid for every Trent program from London too! Oops, that would be most 777s and 787s sold so far! oh well, maybe Pratt will be able to find some new customers not that they even have a replacement product the airlines want!
while we are at it lets ban all Airbus planes, then all those US suppliers will be out of luck too, Airbus/EADS/BAe buys more from US suppliers than they export back to the US in final products. and don't think Boeing will make up by spending money buying parts in the US, they will be from China, Korea and other places!
given this administration is quite happy to buy European to fly the president around, I somehow find it difficult to believe they will actually do anything drastic to curtail what a private airline wants to buy.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 6211 posts, RR: 23 Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 329 times:
Looks like even the EU Trade Commissioner has come out against launch aid for the A350:-
"Europe must be prepared to reconsider any launch aid for the A350, the new Airbus plane, if talks with the US on aircraft subsidies restart, Peter Mandelson has warned.
"The European Union's trade commissioner said this weekend that "if it's possible to restart negotiations, I am prepared to do so".
"If talks do restart, he added, "then European government funding will have to adapt to the outcome of those negotiations".
"Last night, a spokesman for Mandelson confirmed that "if and when negotiations [with the US] restart, then the aid for the A350 will have to be adapted".
Sponsor Message: 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1073 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 8301 posts, 
From France, joined Oct 2004, 696 posts, 
From United States, joined Aug 2001, 1720 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 6211 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
