BMIFlyer From UK - England, joined Feb 2004, 8810 posts, RR: 61 Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10317 times:
I have translated it to English
PARIS (Reuters) - Airbus announces that the American airline company US Airways transformed into control firm an undertaking to buy of 20 Airbus A350, the planes being deliverable between 2011 and 2014. On the basis of price catalogues, purely codes, this contract represents some three billion dollars. In last May, the European airframe manufacturer, subsidiary of EADS and BAE Systems had agreed to support financially US Airways by granting to him a loan of 250 million dollars, in exchange of an engagement of the airline company relating to the purchase of 20 A350.
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12961 posts, RR: 62 Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10243 times:
I'm not sure how much back-patting should be going on in Toulouse over this order - they've essentially bribed an airline into buying their product.
Put another way, if GM offers to pay my mortgage for a year in exchange for me buying one of their cars in five years, I'm not sure people would look at this as a ringing endorsement of GM quality - there was obviously other motivation to be considered.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
Grantcv From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 429 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 9961 times:
I don't understand why Airbus requires government assistance for the A350, yet they can afford to lend money to their customers in return for orders. That seems a roundabout way of getting European subisidies for a US airline.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10807 posts, RR: 52 Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 9906 times:
Quoting Grantcv (Reply 11): That seems a roundabout way of getting European subisidies for a US airline.
Where's the outrage?! [edit: ]
Seriously, when you put it that way, it sounds like there should be more than a few Europeans pissed off about this money going to an American firm. But then again, Airbus does have suppliers outside of Europe. While there may be an argument made that these suppliers are receiving European subsidies, the primary effect is still to better the situation for Europeans.
(Other countries play this game too. No harm, no foul.)
Cloud4000 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 639 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 9884 times:
First aircraft isn't set to arrive until 2011, what will US do until the mean time? They need more aircraft now if they want to expand transatlantic service, and the 767s aren't getting any younger. Does US have a stop-gap plan until the 350s arrive?
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 71 Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9830 times:
Quoting Grantcv (Reply 11): I don't understand why Airbus requires government assistance for the A350, yet they can afford to lend money to their customers in return for orders. That seems a roundabout way of getting European subisidies for a US airline.
Who said anything about Airbus requiring government assistance? If it's available, they'll take it - but, on several occasions, they've made it quite clear that they'd go ahead with the A350 one way or the other.
What outrage? Why should there be outrage? In the end (if everything works out), Airbus will profit from the deal. And from that, Airbus' employees and, by that, Europe - or the countries where Airbus and its suppliers have plants - will profit (after all, Airbus Employees do pay income taxes).
JetMaster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9807 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 15): Seriously, when you put it that way, it sounds like there should be more than a few Europeans pissed off about this money going to an American firm.
Nobody is pissed off about a deal which may result in profits for Airbus in the end.
Germany just financed a third of some new submarines (one third = EUR 300+ million) destined for Israel - now that's questionable. Or the billions which are wasted for farm subsidies every year and every year.
NW727251ADV From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9744 times:
So where exactly does bankrupt US Airways intend on flying long-range, high capacity A350s on a limited international network??? From what I've read on A.net US can barely justify having a fleet of A330s.
Then I would agree that it's simply good business dealing, and characterizing it as a bribe is misplaced. Although, I imagine that Boeing may have had to offer more than $250M to convince US to ever buy Boeing again, even with the new management.
NW727251ADV From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9700 times:
Quoting Mariner (Reply 21): it isn't a bribe, it is just good business dealing.
OMG I almost choked on my coffee. Good business dealing??? In what world? The Barg Spiral Galaxy of the Lacivious Drakos Border??? Airbus basically took advantage of someone who was down for their benefit. Did US Airways really have too many other options but to say "Yes"?
BTW, I would have preferred Air Train getting A320s.
25 EA CO AS: To me, this is the key issue right here. Airbus is in need of high-profile orders for the A350 and counts US Airways among them. The idea is that by
26 JetMaster: Since when have they been bankrupt? They were still in business last weekend and even yesterday when they flew me back to MUC... You better shouldn't
27 B707321C: Bribing is not legal in US or EU. I am sure Airbus just offered a better package than the competetion, plan and simple. It kind of naive to say that
28 Mariner: Absolutely, they did, and still do. They have strict performance guarantees on the A350 compared to the 787. LCC (HP/US) can walk away if they are no
29 D L X: US is not bankrupt. In fact, it's stock has risen 50% in the last 3 months.
30 NW727251ADV: Maybe they're not bankrupt but they're certainly not SQ or EK. I mean, congrats to Airbus because honestly I think I like the A350 a little bit more
31 StuckInCA: Hasn't this exact conversation/argument been had multiple times already? Many of the posts look like they could have been cut and pasted from prior th
32 Stitch: I believe GE is helping to finance UA's exit from C11, yet I don't see P&W engines being yanked off the wings and replaced with GE ones. Airbus offeri
33 Mariner: Oh, you and me both. Every time it comes up, I assume it is over. But then it comes up again and I have to go to the archives again to find the links
34 RichardPrice: Yeah, because they are going to be in EXACTLY the same position in 7 years time when they get the aircraft and have to pay for them. Theres absolutel
35 Jumbojet: Accorind to websters dictionary, it is not a BRIBE but what A did was essentially leave them with no choice but to order A metal. Maybe they were coe
36 Starrion: All things considered, I don't have a problem with a European company paying a couple hundred million dollars to a struggling US airline. Keeps the ai
37 Cactus739: US ain't bankrupt no more.... Don't believe 1/3 of the things you read on here.
38 Mariner: I know this is a shocking concept for some, but there is also the possibility that they actually wanted to order the A350. They do fly the A330, afte
39 NW727251ADV: All I have to say to this claptrap is don't quit your day job (if you have one) because acting together with sarcasm is not in your list of abilities
40 StuckInCA: I disagree. According to Webster's Dictionary, here's the definition of bribe: 1 : money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgmen
41 EA CO AS: It's all semantics, but they're essentially the same. US was given money to enable them to complete their merger...in exchange for orders of the A350
42 RichardPrice: I was actually being mostly serious. US may not have need for the aircraft in this climate, but what do you know about their plans for the next 15 ye
43 Maersk737: They were more or less destroyed from inside, they did not need any help from a stupid CEO
44 D L X: What does that have to do with anything? 1) is this really necessary? 2) US is an airline that was around during the tenure of all those you mention.
45 MEA330: GE has been financing US and Canadian carriers out of bankrupty and no one has complained on this site(US, Air Canada and Delta). Air Canada recently
46 PanAm_DC10: Who cares about the loans? Airbus is entitled to confirm, via the media, when an order is firmed, even if they have carried it on the books for a mont
47 A342: Yes. 9 or 10 A332 arriving from 2007(?). So I somewhat doubt this statement: The A333s are quite young to be replaced, even in 2011. Maybe the last o
48 EA CO AS: Agreed. But... ...again, 20 of those 200 have a big red asterisk next to them. These weren't purchases made by a company thoroughly impressed with an
49 Dhefty: Boeing does this for Unidentified Orders, whereas Airbus repeatedly announces orders as new even after the orders have been posted and identified, as