Kappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 2073 posts, RR: 3 Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6351 times:
Launch aid is a prohibited, market-distorting subsidy that is unique to Airbus. Launch aid is above and beyond the other forms of government support Airbus already receives -- tax relief, government-sponsored R&D, and government-paid infrastructure projects. A permanent and complete end to launch aid is necessary to ensure free and fair competition in the large commercial airplane market.
Why am I not surprised that they would say that, since that is exactly the aid they are getting.
Boring and predictable PR.
DfwRevolution From United States, joined Mar 2004, 7684 posts, RR: 55 Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6264 times:
>> Why am I not surprised that they would say that, since that is exactly the aid they are getting.
Boeing has not recieved any launch aide for any product in their modern history, starting with the 707.
The "support" Boeing has recieved has mostly been in the form of tax relief, whether by the State of Washington or exemption from federal export taxes. The WTO is still ruling on this issue, but this is far from "exactly the aid [Airbus] are getting." The U.S. has never financed the launch of a Boeing commercial product. Period.
In many cases, Airbus also recieve this sort of tax relief both in Europe and their facilities in the United States and North America.
>> How about the subsidies for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries from Japanese government?? Mitsubishi will make 787s wings...
(1) Mitsubishi HI is a Boeing supplier. As a risk sharing partner, the responsibility for funding relies on the contractor, not Boeing.
(2) Japan was not a signator to the bi-lateral treaty between the United States and the EU. This issue is also being debated in ongoing WTO negotiations.
HBIHLtoEZE From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 257 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6207 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 5): Boeing has not recieved any launch aide for any product in their modern history, starting with the 707
First of all, I am neutral, not willing to stir up A vs B.
...ok, their civil aircraft production was "clean", but Boeing's big money makers were military contracts from the US government - I am aware that it is not direct aid but comes close to it.
Kappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 2073 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6204 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 5): The "support" Boeing has recieved has mostly been in the form of tax relief, whether by the State of Washington or exemption from federal export taxes. The WTO is still ruling on this issue, but this is far from "exactly the aid [Airbus] are getting." The U.S. has never financed the launch of a Boeing commercial product. Period.
I'm talking about "tax relief, government-sponsored R&D, and government-paid infrastructure projects". Are you telling me Boeing does not receive those? I seem to recall a certain very recent WTO ruling concerning import taxes...
Want to mention NASA? Okay, not only does Boeing benefit, but so does Lockheed, BAE, and EADS, through their American subsidiaries... Oh and did I mention the European Space Agency?
Okay let's ask Germany, France and Britain how they get all those huge A380 sub-assemblies around... You know, the ones that the French literally tore up a village to fit a fuselage piece into? Okay Washington state, all those roads in Peugeot Sound, remove them immediately!
Come on guys, can we forgo the cross pond bashing, eliminate all the subsidies, on both sides and compete on a level playing field?
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 5): Boeing has not recieved any launch aide for any product in their modern history, starting with the 707.
Absolutely true... Boeing bet nearly 80% of it's OWN assets on this aircraft. The figure was higher in the case of the 747. No... REPEAT NO government aid of any type was involved in the development of the 7XX, until recently the 787. And even in the case of the 787, even by the EU's own admission, it is INDIRECT aid by the Japanese government to their own industries. There is no direct U.S. government financing for the 787.
[Edited 2005-10-07 00:23:21]
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
Cloudyapple From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Jul 2005, 1570 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6174 times:
Research sponsored by NASA? Boeing didnt even need to pay to use those results. What abou the billions and billions pumped into the ailing airlines? Are they not unjust, unfair, anticompetitive and above all illegal?
Kappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 2073 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6124 times:
quote=USAF336TFS,reply=9]Come on guys, can we forgo the cross pond bashing, eliminate all the subsidies, on both sides and compete on a level playing field?[/quote]
I never said Airbus has clean hands, don't put words into my mouth!! Perhaps I should have been clearer on that in my first post.
I was merely stating that Boeing PR makes it seem as if they are the clean ones receiving nothing at all from their government, wich they do and you admit. Of course Airbus is receiving those things as well, and it SHOULD stop, on both sides. So on that we completely agree!! Don't worry, I'm not an A fan or B fan, I like both. Heck my fave plane to fly in is the 747 (short haul for me is the a320 all the way, but generaly I still prefer the 747).
USAF336TFS From United States, joined Apr 2005, 1197 posts, RR: 38 Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6120 times:
Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 10): Research sponsored by NASA? Boeing didnt even need to pay to use those results. What abou the billions and billions pumped into the ailing airlines? Are they not unjust, unfair, anticompetitive and above all illegal?
Neither did any of the other companies and organizations I mentioned. And your point is?
Quoting Kappel (Reply 11): I was merely stating that Boeing PR makes it seem as if they are the clean ones receiving nothing at all from their government, wich they do and you admit.
I don't think I admitted anything of the sort. Nor do I think Boeing is admitting anything, but I'm not going to speak for them. Only my own observations of the issue.
Quoting Kappel (Reply 11): . Of course Airbus is receiving those things as well, and it SHOULD stop, on both sides. So on that we completely agree!!
And we do agree on that!
[Edited 2005-10-07 00:36:55]
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6101 times:
For those of you asking what aid Boeing gets, Ok, lets see.
1. State of Washinton House Bill 2294 - $3billion to $3.7billion in total tax breaks, expiring on July 1 2024. This bill, while technically open to all manufacturers, was worded specifically with the 787 in mind, and the close date for applications was made very tightly behind that of close of talks between Boeing and Washington State officials. No other manufacturer could have tabled an investment plan to be elegible for this tax break.
2. State of Kansas providing a $200million loan over 20 years for nosecone production.
3. State of Kansas providing a $500million bond for production work.
4. Japan giving $1.58billion to Boeing suppliers, allowing preferential rates and startup costs.
5. Oklahoma offering $350million in interest free loans for location of production facilities.
6. Italy providing $590million in loans for location of 787 parts production.
7. Boeing requiring the various states with 787 production facilities to finance the conversion of several 747 freighters at an estimated cost of $300million to $500million.
Airbus is getting loan from the EU, Boeing is also getting financial help, and to claim otherwise is pure and utter bull. Change the record.
DfwRevolution From United States, joined Mar 2004, 7684 posts, RR: 55 Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6091 times:
>> Are you telling me Boeing does not receive those?
Re-read what I wrote and re-read the press release. The specific quote by Boeing was that Airbus actions go "above and beyond" the actions listed.
I also specifically addressed the issues of taxes, but to reiterate:
>> tax relief
I specifically that mentioned Boeing does recieve certain tax exemptions to varying degree. Some of these are completly legitimit, local government taxes, for example. Others like the federal export tax have been determined illegal and are pending revision.
The fact of the matter is that Airbus recieves very simmilar tax exemptions in both the U.S. and Europe.
>> I seem to recall a certain very recent WTO ruling concerning import taxes...
Yes, I mentioned it
>> government-sponsored R&D
(1) Shifts in NASA priorities, federal appropriations, and considerations after the 1992 Bi-lateral treaty has dried up "free" R&D money. The U.S. (via NASA and DARPA) are hesitant to sponsor programs that can lead to commercial products.
(2) Such contracts are lucrative to varying degree. The last NASA-Boeing joint venture in the 1990s was terminated by Boeing because it was obvious the research was of little commercial value.
(3) Airbus, other manufactures, and other laboratories can often have access to research published by NASA. The supercritical wing, fly-by-wire, and high-bypass turbofans (to say nothing of materials) were all pioneered by NASA research in the 1970s. Airbus can attribute much of their design philosophy to U.S. research, just as Boeing would.
>> ...ok, their civil aircraft production was "clean", but Boeing's big money makers were military contracts from the US government - I am aware that it is not direct aide but comes close to it.
Defense contracts are indeed a grey area. Heck... most of this issue is a grey area.
CruzinAltitude From United States, joined May 2004, 415 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6082 times:
Ok, I need a little clarification from those better informed than I.
Here is my understanding, from an ignorant persons perspective (and by ignorant I mean that I am not aware of all the details and freely admit that); Boeing has stated that the launch aid provided to Airbus gives Airbus an unfair advantage in the market place.
This seems logical, considering that Boeing does not receive government launch aid.
However, Airbus has stated that Boeing does receive government aid, in the form of tax relief and military contracts, effectively leveling the playing field.
That too, is logical.
The points that I need clarification on are. . .
1) Does Airbus also receive tax relief from the several countries in the EU that it is connected to?
2) Does Airbus (EADS) also receive military contracts for those countries also?
If the answer to both questions are no, then as an American with faith in Capitalism, I feel Boeing should quite whining and focus on producing great aircraft.
If the answer to both questions are yes, the Boeing has a legitimate point, and should keep fighting it.
As I said, I am ignorant about the full situation. Could someone RESPECTFULLY and INTELLIGENTLY (maybe even someone with some sources) clarify this for me? I would really appreciate it.
AeroPiggot From United States, joined May 2005, 211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6072 times:
Quote: Cloudyapple: Research sponsored by NASA? Boeing didnt even need to pay to use those results. What abou the billions and billions pumped into the ailing airlines? Are they not unjust, unfair, anticompetitive and above all illegal?
Come on Cloudyapple I had more respect for you than indicated by your comments above. You know that both Boeing and Airbus benefit from propping up the airlines, look at the order for over 20 A350s from US Air. Airbus benefit from the research done at NASA, how much of that research is now flying around in Airbus airplanes. Launch aid is this really weird concept invented by the Europeans to give Airbus an unfair competitive advantage, pure and simple.
A scientist discovers that which exists, an engineer creates that which never was.
Slarty From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 322 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 6029 times:
Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 9): Come on guys, can we forgo the cross pond bashing, eliminate all the subsidies, on both sides and compete on a level playing field?
I have often wondered if the opposite should occur -- specifically, where there are no limits on loans/subsidies/grants/etc. Eventually, the economics of this would be sorted out on both sides of the pond.
AKelley728 From United States, joined Dec 1999, 1756 posts, RR: 8 Reply 19, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 6023 times:
Quoting HBIHLtoEZE (Reply 7): ...ok, their civil aircraft production was "clean", but Boeing's big money makers were military contracts from the US government - I am aware that it is not direct aid but comes close to it.
And EADS/Airbus doesn't get military contracts for miscellanous hardware from various European governments?
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Jun 2004, 4155 posts, 
From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 2073 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1057 posts, 
From Saudi Arabia, joined Jul 2003, 8429 posts, 
From Italy, joined May 2004, 657 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 257 posts, 
From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Jul 2005, 1570 posts, 
Perhaps I should have been clearer on that in my first post.
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 1395 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 322 posts, 