BMIFlyer From UK - England, joined Feb 2004, 8810 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 10 hours ago) and read 10990 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, 13766 posts, RR: 61
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 10 hours ago) and read 10916 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, 430 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 10634 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, 11583 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 10579 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.)
[Edited 2005-11-29 18:55:07]
Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
Cloud4000 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 10557 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: 70
Reply 18, posted (9 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 10503 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 (9 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 10480 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 (9 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 10417 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.
Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
NW727251ADV From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 10373 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
: 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
: 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
: 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.
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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
: US ain't bankrupt no more.... Don't believe 1/3 of the things you read on here.
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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.
: 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
: 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
: 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
: Boeing does this for Unidentified Orders, whereas Airbus repeatedly announces orders as new even after the orders have been posted and identified, as
: I thought this order was cancelled?
: No, they are still on order. And thanks A342, for setting JetMaster straight. The 332s will replace the 762s on international. The '62s will then no
: Fair enough though I thought both Companies at the point that the agreement was made would have had a vested interest in seeing the transaction done.
: It appears to me most of you talking of a bribe don't know what they're talking about. A bribe is money or a favor given to someone who acts on behalf
: Airbus also lent a significant portion of that $250M to US simply for the airline to use in paying penalties on cancellations and deferrals right bac
: I don't see how your definition agrees with the dictionary. Definition 2 (see following quote) seems tough to argue against in this case. Obviously t
: Did US' creditors state that without an extra $250 million they would not allow US to leave C11? Or did HP demand this extra cash be on hand before t
: That's what I meant. Of course others will be replaced first. No doubt? Eliminating that aging type from the fleet rather than operating it on the ov
: No. Not a chance. Had they just waited, other lenders came forward with more than enough money to lend with better terms. But, they didn't wait and t
: What's the bet this order goes the way of Continental's A330/340 order and TWA's deal for A330s. They'll switch them to another model in about 5-6 yea
: You've just described blackmail, not bribery. What constantly amazes me on this site is that generally when Boeing announce an order, it's "congratul
: Yet people think they're supposedly ready to spend a lot more then $250 million to build the 787-10 to land just 2.5 times as many orders from EK, as
: I agree that it's sad how this happens, but don't kid yourself into thinking that it's not a two way street.
63 D L X
: What constantly amazes me is that if an American ever says anything bad about Airbus, it's because they're biased Americans. Are we not allowed to gi
: I agree. When the announced merger of US and AW happened I just about fell on the floor laughing. Neither airline are in any great shape financially
: Why should they wait? The money was there and there were time constraints concerning the exit from bk of US Airways. If they had not taken the $1.5 b
: Didn't mean to offend, and whilst I know that there are plenty of Americans here who remain objective (in fact, the majority), there are many more Ai
67 D L X
: ZSOFN, don't worry. I'm just snippy because someone suggested I was biased in a couple threads this week. No worries, mate.
: Come on, Mariner. You know I don't want US to fail. This airline is based in my own hometown for heaven's sake.
: You know, has it occurred to anyone that this order for 20 A350s is fallout from Chapter 11 that folks NOT in a position to know anything about are s
: Then I'm really confused - sorry. You seem very against the deal yet you want the airline to survive and it is probable that the airline would not ha
: we will just have to wait and see what happens with all this. this merger is at it's early stages . so far i have seen alot more good things happening
72 EA CO AS
: First off, Boeing isn't in the position of trying to jump-start the 787 program. Airbus IS trying to jump-start what has so far proven to be a very a
: US Airways firms up order for 20 A350s (from the airbus website) 29 November 2005 Following a commitment announced in May 2005 by US Airways and Ameri
: Yet every order Airbus lands for the A350 "legitimizes" the program as a competitor to the 787, both in terms of providing monies to actually launch
: As was pointed out to me, the idea that US Airways' 762s are "aging" is not really true. They are fairly new, some even newer than United's 744s - hav
: Well US has painted one of their 762s in the new colors. I am guessing that they do this when they send the plane in for it's heavy maintenance check,
77 EA CO AS
: Your mistake is in assuming that the combined US/HP was in dire need of new widebody lift within the next five to seven years, though. They weren't.
: By which time: (i) they wouldn't have got the launch customer discount, which we can assume to at least 40%. Given the rumors that Boeing gave ANA 50
: But the differences here are worth saying. ANA operates A320 so it's not like you can call them biased towards one manufacturer. And JAL is a known a
: I think so. But surely the point is - based on your parallel - just as ANA was a known Boeing customer, so US Airways was a known Airbus customer and
: Actually, I have been saying the exact opposite. That Airbus launching the A346E program is a way for them to not concede the 777-sized market to Boe
: In my view, Airbus is still quite aggresiv ein penetrating the American Market, even if its on a loyal Airbus customer. If HP and Us Airways had order
: May I ask how you know US is not interested in expanding their service come the early 2010s? International is about the only area the American domest