Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350  
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5790 posts, RR: 47
Posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10964 times:

Good for Boeing!

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/q4/nr_051006b.html


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
93 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10934 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.  yawn 
Boring and predictable PR.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5790 posts, RR: 47
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10909 times:

And what launch aid is Boeing getting from the US Govt? Please cite specific examples since it seems you have the data.


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1896 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10881 times:

How about the subsidies for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries from Japanese government?? Mitsubishi will make 787s wings...


STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12618 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10873 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hmm, about time to change the record. No?


Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 984 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10847 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.

[Edited 2005-10-07 00:08:25]

User currently offlineAntiuser From Italy, joined May 2004, 657 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10844 times:

Uh, didn't EADS just announce that it would not seek launch aid for the A350?


Azzurri Campioni del Mondo!
User currently offlineHBIHLtoEZE From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 281 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10790 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.

Cheers

[Edited 2005-10-07 00:14:24]


Our battered suitcases were piled on the sidewalk again; we had longer ways to go. But no matter, the road is life.
User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10787 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...



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10773 times:

Quoting Kappel (Reply 1):
Why am I not surprised that they would say that, since that is exactly the aid they are getting.

Okay I'll explain why they feel this way.

Quoting Kappel (Reply 1):
tax relief

Absolute fact. Boeing just had their Export Tax relief yanked by the WTO, with no reciprocal duties placed on the EU.

Quoting Kappel (Reply 1):
government-sponsored R&D

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?

Quoting Kappel (Reply 1):
government-paid infrastructure projects.

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
User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10757 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?


A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10707 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).

[Edited 2005-10-07 00:26:22]


L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10703 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!  highfive


[Edited 2005-10-07 00:36:55]


336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineRichard28 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 1623 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10693 times:

So ope

Quoting Antiuser (Reply 6):
Uh, didn't EADS just announce that it would not seek launch aid for the A350?

Airbus is holding back aid, until the decission from the WTO is made.

It said it is making this concession as a "new window of opportunity" with rival Boeing to resolve the dispute.

Boeing seems to have responded by slamming the window of opportunity window shut in Airbus's face without any commitment to reciprocate!

Strange, even harsh response by Boeing here IMHO....


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10684 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.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 984 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10674 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  Wink

>> 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.


User currently offlineCruzinAltitude From United States of America, joined May 2004, 415 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10665 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.


User currently offlineAeroPiggot From United States of America, joined May 2005, 284 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10655 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.
User currently offlineSlarty From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10612 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.

 stirthepot 


User currently offlineAKelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2193 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10606 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?


User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10605 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 15):
(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.

Absolutely true. NASA research on supercritical wings and winglets, for example, became public domain -- and Airbus was the first to implement both on the A300.

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 984 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10594 times:

>> What abou the billions and billions pumped into the ailing airlines? Are they not unjust, unfair, anticompetitive and above all illegal?


The post-9/11 "loan guarantee" for airlines are a totally, totally unrelated issue! This isn't even on the horizon regarding the ongoing WTO negotiations.

To clarify this issue and remove it from being confused with the WTO launch subsidy issue, let me make these comments:

(1) When commercial flights resumed days after 9/11, load factors on U.S. domestic flights were in the teens. It took months for passengers to return.

(2) Had the loan grantee not been offered, several airlines were at risk of immediately losing short-term cash flow. All airlines are finely tuned financial machines, and removing a month of revenue would cripple any airline. These loans were not (and have not been) given to help fundamentally flawed airlines limp along.

(3) The loans were given to maintain U.S. domestic service, not give all carriers a leg-up on international competition. It didn't affect international carriers or give U.S. airlines any advantage over international competitors. It kept airlines solvent long enough to recover.

(4) Had the loan guarantee not been offered, the risk was a collapse of domestic air service in certain markets. This would be a huge blow to the economy which depends on transportation for business to take place.

You can see the importance in the loan guarantee and how it differentiates from an airline "subsidy" or hand-out. The American people are universally infuriated over corporate hand-outs.

Just this week, a fishing and game agency in the State of Alaska used $500,000 to paint an advertisement on an Alaskan Airlines 737-400, and it received national news attention.


User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3625 posts, RR: 29
Reply 22, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10594 times:

The launch aids might be a relict from the 70s when Europe was struggling to compete with the US aerospace industry. But don't forget that Boeing got a lot of money due to its military contracts. Everybody knows about the "Buy American" doctrine. The KC767 deal is just one example. I do not say that this is illegal or that I don't understand it, I also want the German army to buy German equipment. But when you consider how much money the US are spending on military goods compared to, how much european countries are spending, you will see very fast that these military contracts ARE a indirect subsidy.

You might argue that these contracts also help other companies. Also NASA research helps other companies like Lockheed. This is true. But they don't help Airbus or the EADS. And the whole ESA budget and the European military budget is much lower than the US military budget. Therefore, cutting the state loans can be discussed, but only if this does not give Boeing an unfair advantage.

Believe me, the EU will not cut subsidies if they will not get a fair deal with the US. So I do think we will get an agreement, but this will not completely remove the launch aids.

Unlike other people here on A.net, I do think that subsidies CAN be a good thing. Subsidies reduce the risks, and this can lead to more "radical" approaches being taken. Don't forget, if the launch aids weren't paid back at all, the governments would really be pissed off, because they need the money again. So it would be unlikely that the governments would continue to give out launch aids again if the project is likely to be unsuccessful. So launch aids can lead to more innovative products...

Michael


User currently offlineAeroPiggot From United States of America, joined May 2005, 284 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10536 times:

Quote:
Thesunntag: Also NASA research helps other companies like Lockheed. This is true. But they don't help Airbus or the EADS.

This statement by The sunntag is hogwash!! Airbus/EADS does benefit from NASA research, and without such research their might have been no A300, and no Airbus. How much of the product of NASA research efforts we will see in the A350? We all know that Airbus plans to piggy back on the research effort gone into the 787 to design the A350. And if the tables were turn, Boeing would probably do the same. Also the American tax payers fund a lot of the research at Von-Karman institute through NATO research programs, I am sure EADS also benefits from this...so cool it with the NASA research only helping Boeing crap!



A scientist discovers that which exists, an engineer creates that which never was.
User currently offlineRichard28 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 1623 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (9 years 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10466 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 14):

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.

Interesting post, with all the hype I dont recall ever seeing some harsh numbers and facts on Boeings subsidys.

could I ask for your sources on this info?


25 B2707SST : How is this different from saying the US is a much larger air travel market than Europe, and therefore the US aviation industry "indirectly subsidize
26 USAF336TFS : Excellent points Cruzin. And the answer to both your questions is 'yes'. You have very eloquently presented the American side of the argument before
27 Mariner : Um - if things were so dire, then why did so few of the majors, the legacy carriers, apply? cheers mariner[Edited 2005-10-07 02:10:33]
28 Byrdluvs747 : How are military contracts considered subsidies? Boeing has to bid on these contracts first. They aren't just handed to Boeing. Lockheed, and other co
29 RedFlyer : EADS announced that it would forego the launch aid - for now. It left the door open for getting them later on in the program. And what is the point o
30 MidnightMike : The deal with Japanese is a shared investment in technology, that is a lot different that Mitsubishi writing a check & getting nothing in return.
31 ER757 : tax relief, government-sponsored R&D, and government-paid infrastructure projects So Boeing is saying this sort of thing is OK - because that's what t
32 Mariner : Because in the case of the first application, the figures they presented were overly optimistic. Which - after the appiication was turned down - they
33 MidnightMike : Tax-breaks are available to all companies that operate on US Soil. Government Sponsored R&D & Projects are only available with military projects & th
34 Trex8 : [quote=USAF336TFS,reply=9]Absolute fact. Boeing just had their Export Tax relief yanked by the WTO, with no reciprocal duties placed on the EU.[/quote
35 ER757 : I'd sure like to see something that backs up that claim with some cold hard facts. $3 billion would have paid a whole lot of unemployment checks to a
36 Ikramerica : First, it demonstrates how proud publicly owned companies are not to take direct handouts. Bethune even made a point of saying that those who were se
37 Post contains images Mariner : Since you quoted me, I assume your question is directed to me. In which case - where do I even begin to suggest that? DFW made a case of the dire air
38 Post contains images DAYflyer : Yeah, that NASA stuff shows up on every plane B rolls out of Everet.
39 DfwRevolution : >> Um - if things were so dire, then why did so few of the majors, the legacy carriers, apply? Got me, Mariner, but if I had to guess, it went someth
40 N79969 : Of course, Airbus uses NASA research and complains that Boeing can do so. Unlike NASA, European publicly funded aerospace research is not made availa
41 Post contains links JeffSFO : As noted by others, your statement is patently false: http://www.invent.org/hall_of_fame/1_3_0_induction_supercrit.asp http://www.aerospaceweb.org/qu
42 Atmx2000 : And let's not forget that military spending necessary to ensure that the US could meet its defense obligations to its allies, including its European
43 Aither : What's incredible in today's world is nobody seems to care anymore to publicly lie or tell bullshit. This is really amazing. Shame on Boeing to bullsh
44 GARPD : What the hell does that have to do with Boeing?
45 Post contains links and images Keesje :    I gave up after many tries. There is no way the usual folks here are willing to discuss these subisidies. They just don't fit in the picture. Ju
46 GARPD : A tactic you employ yourself far too many times around here Keesje. Lets stop with the hypocracy shall we?
47 Scbriml : And none of this was in America's interests? Would have been quite handy to have a war fought in Europe again rather than on American soil.
48 Atmx2000 : Sure it was, but the military contracts that Boeing and other US defence contracts received were in Europe's interest as well. Without US expenditure
49 Jush : So does Boeing in another sort of way. So what. I don't care at all. You can't say Boeing isn't protected and supported by the US gov. Regards jush
50 USAF336TFS : Cruzin, I'm still waiting for the Airbus defenders to answer your questions, and up to this point, I don't see them doing so.
51 NYC777 : Let's look at the playing field: 1) Tax breaks - Boeing receives them yes, Airbus receives them yes 2) Infrastructure - Boeing receives them yes, Airb
52 Post contains links BlueSky1976 : So... there it is. Boeing's claims that their product is not subsidized in one form or another are false. How about Alenia? The Chinese sub-contracto
53 NYC777 : Airbus uses Chinese sub-contractors (for the A380 and A350) which get Chinese govt aid and this aid is in addition the aid that Airbus receives from t
54 PlaneDane : Well, you're absolutely wrong yet again, BlueSky1976. Don't you ever give up? Try to remember next time that these partners share directly in the suc
55 Coa747 : The US military expenditures are so much larger than the EU because we have had to be the world's policeman for decades. Anytime the UN wants to get i
56 Aither : "Anytime the UN wants to get involved somewhere who do they send? The US military " > yeah right. Obviously this is the feeling you have as you only l
57 Aither : So subsidizing the partners working on the 787 is not like subsidizing the 787 program ??? LOL
58 Post contains images Scbriml : Regardless where the subsidy goes, it allows Boeing to offer the 787 at a lower price than they'd be able to without the subsidies, thus distorting t
59 Atmx2000 : It is, but the US accepted the notion that Europe should be allowed to subsidize a nascent industry. We expect that Europe will have to accept the sa
60 Post contains links Halibut : Agreed Coa747 & welcome to RU list . http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/thatcher200406051836.asp That's is just wrong . In all fairness Aither t
61 MichiganMAN : I just want to fly on safe, reliable, well built aircraft.
62 Post contains images BlueSky1976 : No, I don't and I don't object to Alenia and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries subsidies either. What I object to are the false statements created by Boein
63 NYC777 : That's the point..Boeing is not a subsidized company, Airbus and EADS is.
64 RichardPrice : Interesting you make that statement when several people in this thread have proven that Boeing does receive subsidies and loans, and provided links t
65 NYC777 : Go ahead and point to specific loans that the Boeing Co. has received for the development of commercial aircraft. And if it helps you money that's go
66 USAF336TFS : Problem with this statement is that the FRENCH GOVERMENT is a shareholder in EADS. About a third, if memory serves me right. Boeing has no goverment
67 Scbriml : Airbus has received and repayed, with interest, loans as per the agrement with the US.
68 WhiteHatter : No, Boeing is saying that Airbus should not be able to do what the Japanese Government is doing. But it's all right for their side to do this. Wait u
69 RichardPrice : Ok then, I present to you my first reply in this topic, all relevent to money that has either gone direct to Boeing for placement of production facil
70 707lvr : Clearly, there are very few Washington State taxpayers in here. Even fewer members have actually READ House Bill 2294. It's all well and good to read
71 RichardPrice : I have read Bill 2294 several times (Its available [url=http://www.leg.wa.gov/sl/2003-04/2294_sl.pdf]here[/url), and I dont agree with you. Any case
72 RichardPrice : In addition, would it be fair if the EU or its consituent governments removed operating taxation burdens from Airbus and its suppliers, because thats
73 Post contains links Dougloid : Airbus could avail itself of similar lovely tax breaks by relocating to Washington. The road runs both ways.... I agree, it's a subsidy, and it's a c
74 RichardPrice : No they cant, the timeframe of the Bill gave only 2 years between inception and closing date (which has passed - it was not an open ended offer), and
75 LH477 : Both companies receive gov't assistance. Call it development loans, specific tax incentives, gov't assistance through suppliers.........it happens....
76 Katekebo : There is one very important difference between tax breaks and launch aid. In order to benefit from tax breaks, Boeing must make profit. If they don't
77 RichardPrice : Nope, if you read the bill the tax break in the Washington State case is made on the value of the product manufactured, or if the business is run as
78 Keesje : I think everybody in the aerospace industry knows better and this doesn´t improve Boeings credibility.
79 707lvr : See Richard, you still don't get it. Apples and oranges. Haute-Garonne does not impose a LOCAL B&O GROSS SALES TAX on Airbus. Boeing is taxed at every
80 F9Widebody : That's not related to commercial airplanes. Boeing also does alot of work with Nasa on satellites, rovers, etc......unrelated to their commercial air
81 RichardPrice : No, I think you dont get it. Tax law is different the world over, however as you say, this bill introduced SPECIFIC changes and exclusions for a SPEC
82 Dhefty : I think many of you are confusing the general subject of subsidies, which are enjoyed to one degree or another by virtually every major industry in ev
83 RichardPrice : To a large extent I agree, however the US and Boeing *agreed* to launch aid under certain stipulations (33% max per project, maximum payment terms an
84 Dougloid : Blowing smoke again, are we? What in God's name is your source for this...you don't recognize anything unless it says Airbus Shameless Self Promotion
85 Dougloid : That makes two of us...how about up the road for a couple pints?
86 Coa747 : Halibut you are exactly right! Welcome to my RU list. When you don't have to spend money on the military because you have lived under the umbrela of U
87 Trex8 : if there is anything which is illegal under WTO regs its probably subsidies for actual production, AKA dumping in other circumstances. you obviously
88 Post contains links Milan320 : Just not true, despite the fact that Polish airlines don't currently fly any Airbus planes, EADS (the parent company of Airbus) have been investing i
89 Milan320 : Is there a link somewhere to this information? And if it's true, are these two points not examples of subsidies/loans to Boeing? Perhaps someone can
90 Sonic67 : Airbus has the security of government backing to launching a new airliner is not as much of a risk. Both Boeing and Douglas always had to bet the far
91 Mrocktor : When I read through a thread I quote the posts I think deserve to be answered. It's great when someone has already posted exaclty what I would have w
92 Toulouse : I ahd picked out loads of quotes to comment on regarding all the reubbish pointed above, and then I cam accross MichiganMAN's statement and said... w
93 Pihero : For those who have so far refused to have a look at the study made by Pritchard and Mc Pherson(State University of New-York) and published in Defense
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...
Airbus Seeks $1Billion Launch Aid For A350 posted Thu Jan 13 2005 00:33:49 by Scotron11
Airbus Wants Launch Aid For A350 Revamp posted Wed May 17 2006 08:17:56 by NAV20
Boeing Feels "Compassion" For Airbus' Troubles posted Sun Jul 16 2006 22:31:19 by BoomBoom
EK Will Go For Airbus A350 posted Sun May 8 2005 11:06:09 by Mauriceb
Boeing Statement On Singapore Airlines 777-300ER A posted Thu Oct 7 2004 00:19:34 by NWA757
Who Will Be Launch Customer For Airbus A318? posted Wed Jun 6 2001 17:37:16 by 757pf
Boeing Statement On FAA AD Concerning 737 Elevator posted Tue May 8 2001 01:12:16 by AerLingus
Airbus/BAE Pleading For A350 'Launch Aid' posted Tue Aug 23 2005 17:07:37 by NAV20
Airbus Asks For State Aid For A350 Launch posted Thu May 19 2005 18:26:27 by AirFrnt
Airbus´ Camus On Boeing Launch Aid... posted Fri Sep 10 2004 23:17:03 by Keesje