Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EU Says Airbus Subsidies Must Be "curbed"  
User currently offlineKellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 693 posts, RR: 8
Posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4406 times:

An interesting comment by the EU Trade Commissioner.

It also says that negotiations may be reopened.

"PARIS, Sept 24 (Reuters) - Europe must be prepared to curb subsidies for Airbus (EAD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) if a trade row with U.S. rival Boeing (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research) is settled, European Union Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said in a newspaper interview published on Saturday."

Seems that there is recognition that the Airbus subsidy position is no longer tenable and that the WTO is going to rule against them. I wonder what effect this will have on the A350?

Here is the link.

http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuot...05-09-24_09-18-36_l24580214_newsml

56 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5032 posts, RR: 44
Reply 1, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4324 times:

From the same article: "The World Trade Organisation (WTO) is examining the dispute and the International Herald Tribune quoted Mandelson as saying its verdict could disappoint both parties."

BOTH parties. Don't believe for a single second that this is even remotely as clear-cut as the US (and EU) will have you believe, even though there will be some in here trying to tell us how Airbus and Europe are the only ones at fault here.


User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2826 posts, RR: 42
Reply 2, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4302 times:

Quoting Kellmark (Thread starter):
European Union Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson



Quoting Kellmark (Thread starter):
From the same article: "The World Trade Organisation (WTO) is examining the dispute and the International Herald Tribune quoted Mandelson as saying its verdict could disappoint both parties."



Quoting Scorpio (Reply 1):
BOTH parties. Don't believe for a single second that this is even remotely as clear-cut as the US (and EU) will have you believe

No, that's just what the European side of the argument would have you believe. Look, when someone starts indicating their flexability if they can just keep a little, it means that they probably beleive that they can loose it all...


User currently offlineCV580Freak From Bahrain, joined Jul 2005, 1033 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4286 times:

Peter Mandelson !!!! , if he told me tomorrow was Monday I'd check the newspaper for confirmation Sad


One day you are the pigeon, the next the statue ...
User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5032 posts, RR: 44
Reply 4, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4279 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 2):
No, that's just what the European side of the argument would have you believe.

See?


User currently offlineGARPD From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2660 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4269 times:

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 1):
From the same article: "The World Trade Organisation (WTO) is examining the dispute and the International Herald Tribune quoted Mandelson as saying its verdict could disappoint both parties."

BOTH parties. Don't believe for a single second that this is even remotely as clear-cut as the US (and EU) will have you believe, even though there will be some in here trying to tell us how Airbus and Europe are the only ones at fault here.

I see no such suggestion in the linked article.



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5032 posts, RR: 44
Reply 6, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4258 times:

Quoting GARPD (Reply 5):
I see no such suggestion in the linked article.

No such suggestion of what? The first paragraph (which is a direct quote)? Or the second one, which was about what especially the US has been trying to claim for years, and about what some have been saying in here and will continue to say?

[Edited 2005-09-25 16:33:50]

User currently offlineGeorgiaAME From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 980 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4242 times:

Right.

And I have a bridge in New York that I sell you for less than you can imagine!



"Trust, but verify!" An old Russian proverb, quoted often by a modern American hero
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 8, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4227 times:

Mandelson's worry throughout has been that the Airbus dispute will so inflame American attitudes that it will scupper negotiations on the Doha trade round, which involves much bigger issues that the aircraft industry.

It probably will, too.

"PETER MANDELSON considered calling in the Prime Minister to intervene in negotiations over subsidies to Airbus and Boeing, so concerned was he by the US Government’s tactics in the dispute.

"The European Trade Commissioner told The Times that he was so alarmed by the state of the dispute that he had considered asking heads of state, including Tony Blair, to appeal to President Bush.

"Mr Mandelson accused Robert Zoellick, his US counterpart, of being bent on “war” over the dispute between aircraft manufacturers Airbus and Boeing. He said that Mr Zoellick’s attitude would lead to the biggest transatlantic trade battle, would damage US-EU relations and would derail the Doha trade round."


http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13130-1565374,00.html



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineGARPD From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2660 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4150 times:

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 6):

No such suggestion of what? The first paragraph (which is a direct quote)? Or the second one, which was about what especially the US has been trying to claim for years, and about what some have been saying in here and will continue to say?

All it says is what Boeings claim is and What Airbus' claim is.



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4110 times:

The WTO could easily claim that tax breaks are illegal as well, which would basically thwart all new business ventures in free countries but do nothing to communist nations like China.

Once it becomes clear to Airbus that the extortion part of their business model won't fly anymore, expect to see a new bilateral with the US revising what is allowed.

Maybe launch aid that MUST be repaid no matter what at a fair rate of return, not just if the program makes money. Such a change wouldn't be that dramatic for Airbus, honestly, as all projects going forward should make plenty of money (A350, A320NG) as long as Airbus doesn't make a huge blunder along the way.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 11, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4044 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
The WTO could easily claim that tax breaks are illegal as well,

There have been statements from the WTO indicating that tax breaks are being seen as identical to subsidies... draw your own conclusions from that...

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
Once it becomes clear to Airbus that the extortion part of their business model won't fly anymore

Oh please - that comment is so ridiculous, I'm not going to do anything but point out that, in fact, it is ridiculous.

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 4):
See?

At least now I know that I wasn't the only one not surprised...  Wink

Regards,
Frank



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineIwok From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3855 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 8):
"Mr Mandelson accused Robert Zoellick, his US counterpart, of being bent on “war” over the dispute between aircraft manufacturers Airbus and Boeing. He said that Mr Zoellick’s attitude would lead to the biggest transatlantic trade battle, would damage US-EU relations and would derail the Doha trade round."

Translation... "If the US continues to demand an end to launch-aid, then the EU will take a negative stance in Doha talks on any issues which are important to the US"

Mandelson's statement is bascially politely phrased political blackmail. Happens all the time in world affairs.  Smile

-iwok


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 13, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3844 times:

Don't quarrel violently with your 'translation', Iwok  Smile

But, reading the other things that Mandelson has said, I would translate it as:-

"If the EU goes ahead and offers launch aid for the A350, there is a risk that the US Government will take the opportunity to retaliate on a broad front against EU trade, any way it can. And the EU needs the US market much more than the USA needs the European one."



"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, 4162 posts, RR: 90
Reply 14, posted (8 years 12 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3755 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
COMMUNITY MANAGER

Quoting Leskova (Reply 11):
There have been statements from the WTO indicating that tax breaks are being seen as identical to subsidies... draw your own conclusions from that...

Yes and that is how "both" sides would be in a position to lose out. After all Airbus is applying for the same tax breaks for the Production plant as part of their A330 based Tanker bid, right? So if the WTO rules against those Tax Breaks both sides will lose out. Interstingly, despite a rapid headcount increase at Airbus/EADS, they have just announced a cost cutting / productivity plan which is expected to lead to savings of up to Euro 1.5 billion over 5 years.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 8):
"Mr Mandelson accused Robert Zoellick, his US counterpart, of being bent on “war” over the dispute between aircraft manufacturers Airbus and Boeing. He said that Mr Zoellick’s attitude would lead to the biggest transatlantic trade battle, would damage US-EU relations and would derail the Doha trade round."

C'mon NAV20, you can provide a quote and you can provide a link but given how you watch this you should know better than to post this crap. Why? It's just not relevent given Mr R Zoellick is no longer the U.S. Trade Commissioner that Mr Mandelson negotiates with.

Regards, PanAm_DC10



Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
User currently offlineGlideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1617 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 12 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3728 times:

Good. Keep the fire under the pan. Welcome to reality Airbus.


To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 16, posted (8 years 12 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3725 times:

Don't read too much into it, Panam - it's only one para. out of three I quoted (from back last April, I think), and it's Mandelson's view, not mine.

My purpose was to show that Mandelson was, and no doubt remains, s**t-scared of the (relatively minor) Airbus issue scaring up a major trade dispute that the EU can ill afford. The United States Government is facing a runaway trade deficit. It would like nothing better than an excuse to slap import tariffs on EU products. Not so much aircraft, which are not a big issue - more cars and other manufactured consumer goods.

I recall Mandelson from my days living in the UK. He's an 'odd-ball' by any standards, but his brainpower/political instincts have never been in doubt. He'll know that the EU can't afford to 'go to bat' for Airbus in this dispute. The subsidies - direct low-interest, even non-returnable, loans direct from central governments, with no strings like 'regional policy' attached, and no tests of project viability - are too nakedly obvious for the WTO to find in the EU's favour.



"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, 4162 posts, RR: 90
Reply 17, posted (8 years 12 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3705 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
COMMUNITY MANAGER

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 16):
Don't read too much into it, Panam - it's only one para. out of three I quoted (from back last April, I think), and it's Mandelson's view, not mine.

I understand it is Mr Mandelson's view and not yours. My point is you should not take statements from April when he was negotiating with Mr Zoellick as it's pointless given he has to negotiate with a new U.S. Commissioner and they seem to be getting along a lot better given they're both relatively new to their respective roles. Mr Zoellick didn't exactly want to give up his role and that was reflected in his approach to the final months of his term.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 16):
He's an 'odd-ball' by any standards, but his brainpower/political instincts have never been in doubt.

I don't doubt his brainpower but I do doubt his political instincts. Twice he had to resign from the Ministry due to "sleaze" as the English Media so eloquently put it. For that to happen his instinct's can't be too good.

Regards, PanAm_DC10



Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 18, posted (8 years 12 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3675 times:

I don't think it was his political instincts that got him into trouble, Panam!  Smile

This (later) quote probably sums up what Mandelson is thinking better. He's dead 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".


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...t=/portal/2005/09/25/ixportal.html



"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, 4162 posts, RR: 90
Reply 19, posted (8 years 12 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3637 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
COMMUNITY MANAGER

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 18):
I don't think it was his political instincts that got him into trouble, Panam!

NAV20 with respect, I cannot agree. He personally interferred with the passport applications of two Industrialists in addition to taking out a loan that appreared to be (ahem) non-refundable (gotta love the irony) until he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. That's very poor political judgement no matter which way you look at it and, again, it cost him a Ministry Portfolio not once but twice. Good politicians avoid that sort of stuff.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 18):
"If talks do restart, he added, "then European government funding will have to adapt to the outcome of those negotiations".

He speaks for the EU. So let's see what Mr Humbert has to say about how they can "adapt" their funding sources, from the FT.

The company, which employs 53,000 people, plans to control the growth in hiring by boosting productivity and transferring more work to external suppliers, the newspaper said. Airbus expects to cut unit costs by as much as 7 percent a year.
Humbert said the company plans to reach an agreement by the end of the year that would make the Chinese aerospace industry a partner in Airbus' development program for the long-range A350, the newspaper reported.


It would appear that EADS/Airbus are readying themselves for increased productivity gain's and risk sharing partners. What Mr Humbert mentions with regards to China is no different to what Boeing is doing with Japan.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 18):
This (later) quote probably sums up what Mandelson is thinking better. He's dead against launch aid for the A350:-

My point exactly. Focus on what's being said today and not in April with Mr Zoellick, as they say, "A week is a long time in politics". Nor do I agree that he is dead against launch aid for the A350, from the article you post;

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 18):
"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.

Operative word, reconsider, that, combined with Mr Humbert's recent statements seem to imply that is exactly what the EU is doing and they appear to be considering Tax Breaks and Risk Sharing partners such as the U.S. do as way of being able to resolve the issue.

Regards, PanAm_DC10



Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 20, posted (8 years 12 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3610 times:

The interesting question for me, Panam, is whether (given that it seems unlikely to get a firm commitment to launch aid in the next few days) the EADS/Airbus Board gives the go-ahead for the A350 at its October meeting, or delays the launch again.


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 12 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3595 times:

This is amazing to talk so much about A350 launch aids in this matter, while at the same time the 787 is receiving more government aids.

Fact is the 787 financing does not comply with the 1992 agreement, so the U.S. unilateraly said it was not valid anymore, accusing Airbus - which always complied to the agreement - of unfair competition...

By doing so - the best defense is to attack - this had prevented Airbus of accusing the 787 illegal funding. We must recognize that this is very well done by Boeing. As many posts demonstrate, this strategy was quite effective as Airbus really look like the bad guy in this story.



Never trust the obvious
User currently offlinePanAm_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 4162 posts, RR: 90
Reply 22, posted (8 years 12 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3582 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
COMMUNITY MANAGER

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 20):
The interesting question for me, Panam, is whether (given that it seems unlikely to get a firm commitment to launch aid in the next few days) the EADS/Airbus Board gives the go-ahead for the A350 at its October meeting, or delays the launch again.

Interesting question. Ask Mr Forgeard or Mr Leahy and Launch is at the next Board meeting. We know they're talking about 200 A350 orders/commitments by years end so they do need to act fast. Though it would appear the politicians have delivered on launch aid should they require it.

Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Airbus SAS, the world's largest commercial planemaker, said European governments have promised loans to cover a third of the 4.35 billion euros ($5.28 billion) needed for a new jet to compete with Boeing Co.'s new model.

IMHO, yes, they will proceed with launch should they be in a position to do so which, to me, they appear to be. Assuming the Board meeting proceeds as scheduled.

Regards



Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 23, posted (8 years 12 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3560 times:

Thing is, the Board meeting isn't 'scheduled' yet, as far as I know. it was originally supposed to be in September.


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineTockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 950 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 12 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3548 times:

Quoting Aither (Reply 21):
This is amazing to talk so much about A350 launch aids in this matter, while at the same time the 787 is receiving more government aids.

Fact is the 787 financing does not comply with the 1992 agreement, so the U.S. unilateraly said it was not valid anymore, accusing Airbus - which always complied to the agreement - of unfair competition...

By doing so - the best defense is to attack - this had prevented Airbus of accusing the 787 illegal funding. We must recognize that this is very well done by Boeing. As many posts demonstrate, this strategy was quite effective as Airbus really look like the bad guy in this story.

come on now, man! where are your sources? the 787 is getting MORE launch aid from the US government than the a350 will get from the EU? what is this based on? where are your facts and figures?

posts like this are akin to "i love my country so they are always right and the other countries always cheat." nonsense.


25 Post contains links and images Milan320 : You may not, but look through a few to get a better picture. See bottom of this one, exactly what Scorpio was saying: http://www.forbes.com/finance/f
26 NAV20 : Any discussion of what the WTO may decide is pure speculation. Any WTO decision is probably at least a year off, minimum. But, as Aither points out ab
27 Post contains links Milan320 : The 787 is getting launch aid, or more specifically the Japanese Aerospace industry - oh and before I get flamed, I'm not complaining, just showing t
28 NAV20 : Milan320, no-one (not even the US Government) had any objection to 'launch aid' being given to Airbus in the early days, to 'kickstart' a new major ai
29 Airways45 : Couple of comments. American's call it subsidy, Europeans call it 'repayable launch aid'. Whatever it is called, the key is that if the aircraft doesn
30 PanAm_DC10 : Yes, it was rescheduled to early October. Good enough for me at this point. Airbus expects its parent companies, European Aeronautic, Defense & Space
31 Airways45 : Or more likely because both have been getting or wanting Japanese launch aid, as have their respective engine OEMs. Airways45
32 Milan320 : No worries, I only put it as a pre-amble because I know what these discussions come out to eventually. As to your answer, I completely agree. Nothing
33 Columbia107 : Ah Milan 320, but Boeing have a contract with its Japanese partners in the 787 venture which calls for the delivery of manufactured items which will
34 Post contains images PanAm_DC10 : Exactly and I hope that you can see I've tried to be balanced with my input though as you point out there will some that just don't get the picture.
35 Milan320 : Re-read what I said, I said, "more specifically - the Japanese Aerospace industry" -Milan320
36 Post contains links and images NAV20 : Newsweek's Paris correspondent, Carol Matlack, seems to have matchless contacts within Airbus (and possibly the Elysee Palace ) and is often the first
37 Columbia107 : You are indeed correct. I however was simply highlighting that the Japanese Aerospace industry subsidies does represent that Boeing's 787 is receivin
38 Luisca : As it was stated above, The japanese soft loans are a kick start for an industry that does not exist as of now (What was the last SUCCESFUL japanese
39 NumberTwelve : Just another subsidies thread. It's a matter of interpretation and I highly doubt that anybody here in this forum has the exact knowledge to judge one
40 Atmx2000 : But the A350 is replacing the A330 and the A342/3. Are you saything that the loans for the older generation will be paid off before the A350 comes to
41 Post contains images NAV20 : Helluva good point, Atmx2000. "Dear taxpayer, please will you give us more 'launch aid' to compete with the models you helped us launch earlier."
42 Mrniji : The point is that the wannabe experts here don't realize that jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs is the most important nowadays. And may they be created, on what
43 Atmx2000 : You are ignoring the effects of a subsidy war and distorted competition, which are reduced profits from the over subsidized industry. Also you are ig
44 Joni : I don't think that it's ever been in doubt that the 787 gets more taxpayer subsidies than the 350. The Japanese government is funding the plane, as i
45 Post contains links Airways45 : Hi everyone - Here's a great article which is very balanced on both sides - provides some interesting facts and figures: http://acuf.org/issues/issue4
46 Mrniji : Subsidies per se are NOT bad, it only depends on the extent and conceptualization. Instead of having a subsidy war, it is also possible to "agree" on
47 LH477 : I find it amusing that the American gov't is using the WTO when it suits their fancy. For somemany years now, the WTO has consitently ruled against th
48 Atmx2000 : It is easy to find growth when you are recovering from a war and a path for economic and technological development has been trail-blazed by someone e
49 Mrniji : Agreed with the quintessence - your war argument works well. However, now the times have changed. And instead of trying to tarket a full growth (high
50 Mrocktor : I would not mind the selective use of the WTO at all, if the "holier than thou" attitude was canned. The two together are too much. mrocktor
51 Atmx2000 : Well, the EU set the precedent before with their lack of respect for WTO rulings on beef and bananas.
52 NAV20 : I'll try not to get too philosophical, Mrniji, but as I see it you need a little bit of both! The key word is 'balance'. Even the Russian Revolution
53 Atmx2000 : No, that is not a fact. Can you explain to me how the State of Washington is funding the plane for $3 billion? The last time I checked they were goin
54 Post contains images Mrniji : Principally agreed with your alalysis, but don't you believe that the onew who own the production sites should not expect the people to consume if th
55 Milan320 : Aha, didn't understand your first message but thanks for clearing it up, and I do agree with you. Subsidies-by-proxy if you will!!! -Milan320[Edited
56 Post contains links Mrocktor : It is a documented fact. Tax break, not funding but a subsidy none the less. The tax break makes return on investment higher, which in turn makes for
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...
Article (TIME):"The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped" posted Mon Feb 3 2003 17:41:25 by Ovelix
Airbus Should Sell A332 "NxGen" Alongside A350 posted Tue Dec 12 2006 17:21:02 by DIA
Will The B747-400 Be Called "Classic 747"? posted Fri Dec 8 2006 23:18:17 by American 767
"Airbus Takes Swipe At Customers" posted Thu Jun 1 2006 18:39:55 by NASOCEANA
FAA: "The Standard Is 1.50, And Has To Be Met," posted Thu Apr 6 2006 04:09:44 by BoeingBus
Air Berlin CEO: "Airbus Didn't Take Us Serious..." posted Thu Oct 20 2005 19:32:23 by JetMaster
"China To Sign Airbus Deal During Blair Visit" posted Sun Sep 4 2005 19:19:02 by Jacobin777
BA Citiexpress To Be Renamed "BA Red"? posted Sat Aug 13 2005 17:29:47 by Demoose
"Airbus Sorry For 380 Delay" Article posted Thu Aug 11 2005 15:29:40 by Lumberton
US Says EU, Boeing-Airbus Talks Fail posted Sat Apr 9 2005 04:59:57 by Scotron11