Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus To Spend $10 Bln On New Plane  
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5676 posts, RR: 10
Posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 19990 times:

This is from a Bloomberg news release! looks like its "Game On!"

Airbus to Spend $10 Bln on New Plane as Orders Sag, People Say -
Bloomberg - http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=a4vuThfwyLOQ

May 10 (Bloomberg) -- Airbus SAS, the world's largest aircraft maker, plans to spend about 8 billion euros ($10 billion) to develop a new 300-seat plane after ...

It will be interesting to see how everyone reacts to the biggest non-secret due to be revealed at the Farnborough Air Show. Also what Airbus says between now and then.

Tug


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
169 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 19952 times:

It is going to be 2012. I am wondering how they are going to deal with current order, and the potential customers swing to Boeing because of the timeline.

No mention on the design change though. It will be very interesting.

First it was A330, then A330 slap new engines, then it was A350, and finally a complete new redesign. WOW B787 really pushes airbus around

[Edited 2006-05-10 19:31:15]


One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5676 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 19865 times:

It looks like Boeing's "last Minute" change from the Sonic Cruiser to the 787 was right on. Probably had something to do with all those in depth and repeated meetings with customers when they were trying to sell the SC and kept getting told "No, we would prefer...".

Good thing Boeing actually listened.

And another question now is what will the new plane cost? I don't see how it can be cheaper. Cheaper to operate yes, but purchase cost?

Tug



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineNijltje From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 241 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 19865 times:

I just love the competition.

User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 19840 times:

Airbus will seek government loans to cover 33 percent of the development cost of the new plane, said two people familiar with the proposal. The application might exacerbate a dispute between the U.S. and Europe over aircraft subsidies. The World Trade Organization has been asked to examine complaints by both the U.S. and the European Union against one another on the issue.

Its easy to it all over and over and over again when you get 1/3rd of the cost for free. At $8 Billion, that is a total of $2.64 Billion in "loans" from the EU.



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5676 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 19773 times:

An interesting thing will be how the WTO actions currently going on will affect the new A350 in the end. The case(s) will drag on for years (and years........ and years) but should be resolved before the new planes EIS.

Tug



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8493 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 19687 times:

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 4):
Its easy to it all over and over and over again when you get 1/3rd of the cost for free. At $8 Billion, that is a total of $2.64 Billion in "loans" from the EU.

I'm not sure what language you speak, but in my language, loan and gift are two different things. I'm willing to guess that even you have used a loan to buy your car and I doubt you go around saying you got your car for free  Smile


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 19665 times:

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 4):
Its easy to it all over and over and over again when you get 1/3rd of the cost for free.

How many times is this crap going to be repeated? Launch Aid gains interest at varying percentages, has repayment deadlines for milestone completions and based on historical UK loans, probably perpetual royalties attached as well, it is not 'free'.

However, unless Airbus continue to keep the new design under the A350 moniker, its unlikely Airbus will seek aid. Legally they can seek aid for the A350 programme under the 1992 agreement because the programme was started before the US withdrew from the agreement.

Im only making this post to try and clear up misconceptions put forward by someone else, please lets not make this thread into an aid war.


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13265 posts, RR: 100
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 19565 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Nijltje (Reply 3):
I just love the competition.

This sums it up nicely. With a two way competition for airliner sales, both A and B are kept honest. Neither can afford to get arogant and tell the customer what they want. Instead... they will listen. Today its about $70/bbl oil, lie flat seats, IFE, cargo, and reduced costs of ownership.  spin 

I'll state again that I believe that expensive oil is going to force an acceleration of aircraft develpment and reduce the median airframe life due to the need to jump to the newest equipment. High fuel burn translates into reduced payload, increased MX expenses, and (of course) high fuel bills.

Now don't write Airbus off. The A330 (via the A332) was late to the trans-Pacific market (vs. the 763ER), but look how well it did in the end. (Yes, smaller sales, but still excellent sales.) One SQ or EK sized order will put the A350 (A370?) back on the map.

But then again, IIRC 2010 is when the 2nd 787 line gets going. By 2012, both 787 lines will be humming. That makes Boeing a tough nut to crack. Let me explain a bit further. Due to 787 sales, the engineering will have already been amortized or be so low per airframe to no longer impact the sales price. I also fully expect that by 2012 Boeing will launch another carbon fiber airframe. It could be the 737RS and perhaps *another* 787 (I expect a HGW 789, but let us see how the market develops. Six years is an eternity in aerospace engineering.)

Personally, I think Airbus should focus on the A320NG as soon as possible. Do two versions. A low MTOW version with ~3,200nm range and a ~4,500nm range version. But that's my opinion.

This will be interesting!  bigthumbsup 

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5676 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19455 times:

I must admit that was not my intent

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 7):
please lets not make this thread into an aid war.

I must admit that was not my intent but I did realize it would come up (of course). The thing I wish people would get through their thick heads is that WE don't have to solve it. The respective agencies pursuing it will. Each side has it's case and it is being presented to an impartial third party (which we definitely are not) who will review and decide on it. I wish we could discuss things calmly and politely and not get.... well..... mean. I can present some points too but I know I will get attacked and begin a battle discussion.

The main thing is that I finally saw what I believe to be credible information, not just rumors and hearsay, that Airbus is moving forward and changing the A350.

Tug



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8329 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19455 times:

$10 Billion? Isn't the 787 costing $8 Billion? If this is true then the first question I would as is why would the new plane cost 25% more than the 787 to develop? It might be that the are folding the money already spent on the 350 program into the total cost of the program.

Overall it might be a good move for Airbus as long as they can react strongly to any release of Y1. It certainly going to be interesting to see what they come up with and how the airlines respond.


User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19423 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 7):
How many times is this crap going to be repeated? Launch Aid gains interest at varying percentages, has repayment deadlines for milestone completions and based on historical UK loans, probably perpetual royalties attached as well, it is not 'free'.

Yes, but isn't the loan only repayable if Airbus has actually profit from A350?. So it actually reduces the project risk, thus making it easier to attract investor, since their investment expected value is much higher than if it were without launch aid.

Now Airbus is the leader in airplane manufacturing, I do not think launch aid is appropriate anymore. Wasn't the main purpose of launch aid to level the playing field between newly emerged Airbus with well established Boeing, since Boeing will never get a launch aid from US Government?

Cheers,
PP



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19392 times:

Quoting Tugger (Reply 9):
The main thing is that I finally saw what I believe to be credible information, not just rumors and hearsay, that Airbus is moving forward and changing the A350.

May I suggest that based on this piece of credible information and until Airbus officially announces the name of their new widebody plane, most probably at Farnborough, we refer to it as the A3X0?

I don't think the name has already been used in the past, contrary to 'A3XX' for what became the A380 and 'A30X' for the A300 successor and that way, we can avoid having misunderstandings about what A350 people are talking about. Over the past few days I've seen it already several times an interesting discussion because totally pointless because people simply weren't talking about the same plane!

I thus propose:
A350 for the current version, which looks to be shelved.
A3X0 for the upcoming all new plane.

What do you all think?


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19365 times:

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 11):
Yes, but isn't the loan only repayable if Airbus has actually profit from A350?. So it actually reduces the project risk, thus making it easier to attract investor, since their investment expected value is much higher than if it were without launch aid.

No, its a myth perpetuated on forums but there has never EVER been any evidence put forward to support the claim. Its unsubstantiated, basically all the evidence (maximum repayment period of 17 years, minimum percentage of repayment over the certain first X number of aircraft) shows that the aid is repayable regardless of how the project does financially.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 9):
he thing I wish people would get through their thick heads is that WE don't have to solve it.

I agree, this is not something for us to solve and no good can ever come from persuing a discussion on the matter.


User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5676 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19275 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 8):
Personally, I think Airbus should focus on the A320NG as soon as possible. Do two versions. A low MTOW version with ~3,200nm range and a ~4,500nm range version. But that's my opinion.



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 10):
Overall it might be a good move for Airbus as long as they can react strongly to any release of Y1. It certainly going to be interesting to see what they come up with and how the airlines respond.

I personally think this is a dangerous move for Airbus, that they were suckered into it by several very astute customers. That they would have made a fine return on their investment and be ready for the next battle. But they definitely know better that I do and I know that they examined this to death.

I guess the thing to remember is that even though they will now be possibly several years behind Boeing in the releases of each class of "new" aircraft, that was the case when they began and it served them quite well. They were able to hear what the complaints were on the Boeing class variant and respond with a slight better variant (yes, each market/customer has its own definition of what is "better" but you get my point). We'll see!

God I LOVE competition!

Tug



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5265 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19239 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 12):
May I suggest that based on this piece of credible information and until Airbus officially announces the name of their new widebody plane, most probably at Farnborough, we refer to it as the A3X0?

Maybe it should be the A3E0??


User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19204 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 13):
No, its a myth perpetuated on forums but there has never EVER been any evidence put forward to support the claim. Its unsubstantiated, basically all the evidence (maximum repayment period of 17 years, minimum percentage of repayment over the certain first X number of aircraft) shows that the aid is repayable regardless of how the project does financially.

No, it is not only a myth in this forum. A Google search on launch aid results in several article regarding this matter. To quote one article from US trade representative:

Quote:
If the sales of a particular model are less than expected, Airbus does not have to repay the remainder of the financing.

http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library...Step_in_Airbus_WTO_Litigation.html

Remember we are not talking about what has happened in the past to these loans, but it is about future analysis of the investor and risk assessment of the project.

Cheers,
PP



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19204 times:

Quoting Tugger (Reply 2):
Good thing Boeing actually listened.

Seems like Airbus didn't, and now is paying the price.

Their initial reaction said it all. A330 is good enough, maybe new engines. But A330 was not selling like hotcakes (just a good product with solid sales) and lacked range and features. Boeing spent years working with major customers figuring out what they wanted, and then offered it to them, while Airbus was acting like the Boeing of 10 years ago...

The worm has turned.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineNW727251ADV From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19145 times:

I wouldn't mind seeing a direct twin-engined 777 competitor from Airbus, as long as it looks nothing like the A300/A310/A330/A340. IMO the A350 looks like an A330 and its hard for me to get excited over it when it just looks like something of the same except radically updated on the inside. If the A370 were to look different I would be thrilled.

User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19068 times:

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 16):
http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library...Step_in_Airbus_WTO_Litigation.html

Remember we are not talking about what has happened in the past to these loans, but it is about future analysis of the investor and risk assessment of the project.

Thankyou, thats the first official mention Ive seen of that, and I still believe it to be false.

After the last A.net thread on this, I went to the trouble of paying £29.99 + VAT for the British Department of Trade and Industry to send me a photocopy of the UKs RLI agreements for the A380 project, and nowhere in there does it have a programme performance clause allowing Airbus to stop repayment if the sales are poor.

Its known that the A300 and A310 launch aid repayment was payable per aircraft delivered, with balance payable on the programmes closure (its been mentioned in several threads on here), but little else is known about the programmes before the 1992 agreement was finalised.

The 1992 agreement certainly did not have such a clause in it, although I am waiting on a copy of that to arrive, along with the 1982 Civil Aviation Act which the A320 and A330/340 loans were made to Airbus.

Remember that Boeing is welcome to apply for the same RLI as Airbus, it is not unilateral.


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19052 times:

Competition is great when the competitors compete on a level playing field. 30+ years of government support to get one of the competitors "equal" to the other is not competition. It's called I want what you have.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19052 times:

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 6):
I'm not sure what language you speak, but in my language, loan and gift are two different things. I'm willing to guess that even you have used a loan to buy your car and I doubt you go around saying you got your car for free

Not a good analogy IMHO.

It would be no different that going to a bank for a small business loan without collateral, if you fail they don't get paid. Quite a competitive advantage (while you are in business) due to the fact that your credit rating as a business is based in risk factors, and these kind of deals reduce your risk.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 7):
How many times is this crap going to be repeated? Launch Aid gains interest at varying percentages, has repayment deadlines for milestone completions and based on historical UK loans, probably perpetual royalties attached as well, it is not 'free'.

Source please?

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 11):
Yes, but isn't the loan only repayable if Airbus has actually profit from A350?. So it actually reduces the project risk, thus making it easier to attract investor, since their investment expected value is much higher than if it were without launch aid.

Exactly.

Now Airbus is the leader in airplane manufacturing, I do not think launch aid is appropriate anymore. Wasn't the main purpose of launch aid to level the playing field between newly emerged Airbus with well established Boeing, since Boeing will never get a launch aid from US Government?

People want to forget that, shhhhh!  whistleblower 



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 19009 times:

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 4):
Its easy to it all over and over and over again when you get 1/3rd of the cost for free. At $8 Billion, that is a total of $2.64 Billion in "loans" from the EU.

That's not how it works. You make it sound like european governments put a gun to the taxpayer's head and say "Open your wallet and give the money to Airbus. You won't ever see it again." What really happens with "launch aid" is the european governments put a gun to the head of the taxpayer and say "Open your wallet and give the money to Airbus. It will be repaid with interest (below market rates) but only if Airbus sells their planes. Oh, and they pay it back to us, not to you, so you won't ever see it again."


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 18984 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 21):
Source please?

Certainly.

Quote:

On the one hand, the agreement puts a ceiling on the amount of direct government support (33% of the total development costs) for new aircraft programmes. It establishes that such support (granted in the form of launch investments, which are repayable royalty-based loans) will be repaid at an interest rate no less than the government cost of borrowing and within no more than 17 years. Basically, this discipline applies to the form of government support mainly in use in Europe.

On the other hand, the agreement establishes that indirect support ( e.g. benefits provided for aeronautical applications of NASA or military programmes) should be limited to a 3% of the nation's LCA industry turnover. This discipline is primarily targeted at the support system in use in the US. In contrast to the European system of repayable launch investment there is no requirement for indirect support to be reimbursed and the generous ceiling of 3% is calculated on the larger basis of the turnover of the LCA industry and applies per individual year.




Quote:

Airbus pays royalties to governments over the entire life of the aircraft programs. Interest and principal is repaid on deliveries, even before the programs break-even and irrespective of the sale price

EU – US Agreement on Large Civil Aircraft 1992: key facts and figures

Quote:

— Restriction of launch aid to 33 percent of total development cost, with 25 percent to be repaid at the cost of government borrowing and the remaining eight percent to be repaid at the cost of government borrowing plus one percent;

— A maximum reimbursement period of 17 years, and 20 percent of the repayments to be made over the first 40 percent of aircraft deliveries (and 70 percent over the first 85 percent);

— An overall limit per annum on indirect support equivalent to three percent of the civil aircraft industry's annual commercial turnover in the country concerned and four percent of the annual commercial turnover of any one firm; and

— Controls on general purpose loans and sales inducements.[174]

House of Commons Trade and Industry Fifteenth Report


Ahha, no need to wait for the 1992 agreement to be delivered, here it is -

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/Lex...o?uri=CELEX:21992A1017(01):EN:HTML

[Edited 2006-05-10 21:21:35]

User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 18943 times:

Some interesting stuff from the Bloomberg article:


As Airbus failed to reach its target of 200 A350 orders last December, the planemaker began exploring possibilities for an all-new plane, the people said.
EADS, the parent of Airbus, gave initial approval in mid-April and will make a firm decision this month, said the people, who declined to be identified until a decision is announced.


This means all the negative comments towards the A350 from several airlines and ILFC were indeed meant to persuade Airbus to go ahead with their plan of an all new plane, totally unknown to us at A.net, rather than to simply bash the manufacturer for their arrogance, their inability and what else...

Knowing John Leahy has been pushing for an all new plane to simultaneously deal with the 787 and the A340 problem, it is a safe bet to say the reason we haven't heard much from him over the last few months to defend the 'old' A350 was precisely because he was hoping for this outcome!


From the beginning of the 787 program we fully anticipated that they would have a viable competitor,'' said Mike Bair, chief of Boeing's 787 program. I can't wait to see what they come up with.''

I think it would have been foolish of Boeing NOT to have expected some sort of strong reaction from Airbus, but I think from the words "viable competitor" it shows they were expecting a true 787 competitor along the profile lines of the last version of the A350, NOT a plane which is set to wipe away the entire 777 product range instead.

I wonder if they'd anticipated this kind of reaction were it looks as if it will come now?


"It'll be expensive and they'll have to admit they made mistakes,'' said Richard Aboulafia, but Airbus is finally targeting exactly the right spot in the market.''

I think so too.

It looks like they've decided to do what some have said they should do all along: Let Boeing take the low end of the wide body market which Airbus now holds with their A332 at the price of loosing the more lucrative high end held with the Boeing 773ER, thus simply changing the dominant positions in the market as it were while at the same time 'resolve' the A340NG problem.


The new plane would also be called A350 and airlines that ordered the earlier model will be able to switch to the new version. Airbus will offer the new plane in three models: the A350-800, which will seat around 250 passengers, the A350-900, seating around 300, and he A350-1000, that will carry 350. The third version might help Airbus "leapfrog'' Boeing's widebody family by providing sufficient capacity and range to compete with the 777-300ER, Aboulafia said.

Looks like Boeing will have to either start on the Y3 really soon, ten years sooner than originally planned and thus face some painful decisions on their 747-8 too, or simply go for the 787-10 (and -11 if possible) with the disadvantage of offering a much narrower and less comfortable plane and we all remamber Mr. baseler explain just how important it is to have the widest cabin (ironically 'on long haul planes only').


An announcement on the new plane and its customers may come at the Farnborough International Air Show, which opens July 17.

From this it seems like Airbus have secured a launch customer (if you can speak of that when the plane is still called 'A350') for the all-new bigger version. Could this explain why SQ has again not ordered the 787 yesterday for instance?
Incedently the A350-1000 also 'solves' the problem Emirates had with the inferior A340-600s on firm order, so it would be a good move from Airbus to let them convert their order since I think this would makes the chance to see any 787 at Emirates pritty slim! How many were they thinking off: 100? I am beginning to understand the business case for the decision to spend a 4 billion euro more!

Interesting times indeed!

[Edited 2006-05-10 21:30:38]

25 CX747 : The vast majority of loans made to Airbus have been made at lower than market rates. PROOF of actually paying off all of their loans with interests ha
26 DeltaDC9 : Thanks, I think providing sources on issues such as these prevent a lot of wasted time. Assuming you are not omitting facts to the contrary, how did
27 RichardPrice : I think the US in this regard may be possibly pointing to clauses in the A320 programmes RLI, the details of which I have never seen and the terms of
28 Ken777 : Interesting thought. I don't, however, think that Boeing is in that bad a position, regardless of what Airbus does with the new plane. First, the 787
29 DAYflyer : I just read that Airbus is denying that a decision to re-do the A-350 has not yet been taken.
30 Tugger : I think that Boeing should wait until AFTER the 3X0's design freeze to stir their pot publicly. Of course that wouldn't stop me from publicly stirrin
31 Ncfc99 : This may be slightly off topic and I have asked a similar question before, please don't give me a hard time for this question as I really struggle to
32 Tugger : Like I said this was the first, what I BELIEVE to be, credible article that I had seen. Bloomberg is stating that they are getting this from people i
33 Slz396 : Obviously Boeing shall now play exactly the same game Airbus did over the last 2 years: first play down the problem on hands, see how the market resp
34 Slz396 : Excuse me? When did I became a fervent Airbus supporter? Being interested in what Airbus does, is completely different from being a supporter of what
35 11Bravo : Because as a member of the WTO the UK is obligated to follow the WTO fair trade rules. If you want to me a member of the organization, you have to fo
36 Post contains images Tugger : Like many of the A.netters here!
37 Post contains images A319XFW : It's probably to do with the fact that the UK signed up to the WTO and have some kind of 'conract'/'agreement'? But I don't know anything about it re
38 Dougloid : Well, first of all, you signed onto the treaty that established the WTO. That means theoretically that the weeto is the dispute resolution mechanism
39 Ncfc99 : Thanks for the replies. That does make sense. Do you happen to know what the fair trade rules are that apply to the airline manufacturing industry? A
40 PM : In just what sense did the 787 "push" Airbus into the A330? The A330 was launched in the 1980s! Arguably, it was the A330(-200) that "pushed" Boeing
41 Zvezda : No, it's your money. You should decide how to spend it. The idea that government bureaucrats better know how to spend your money than you do is absur
42 A319XFW : But one could apply this reasoning to other government expenditure like defence, street building etc. But I think we're digressing a bit here from th
43 Poitin : Ah, Yes, I do love to read the ACTUAL document and see what it says. Talk about loopholes big enough to drive the Queen Mary II through: 4.3. Royalty
44 Ncfc99 : I trust my goverment to know the best way to run the country,(maybe trust is the wrong word), and spend my tax £'s as they see fit. We probably are,
45 Lokey123 : If the subsidies go through Airbus will in most likelyhood not be able to attain the all or some of the USAF tanker contract worth $20 billion. I gue
46 Scbriml : As is the US, but it choses to ignore WTO rulings that go against it (Canadian lumber is a case in point). Regardless, the US agreed to this and unti
47 Post contains links DeltaDC9 : If this is true, then I see what the hub bub is all about. First of all, use the term pork barrel correctly please. Pork barrel politics refers to ad
48 DeltaDC9 : Source? There is no federal lauch aid available to any manufacturer as far as I know.
49 11Bravo : You're absolutely correct, and at some point I expect there will be an accounting for that, but maybe it would be more appropriate to discuss Canadia
50 PolymerPlane : I meant Airbus response was A330 was enough, then A330 with new engine, and so on. That is true, however, to my knowledge the US federal government w
51 Post contains images Lumberton : Or...this could be the EU response to the tanker Request for Information (RFI) that requested info on subsidies. Everything is in play at this point.
52 Sjc>sfo : Well, we're back to this battle, but I'm not sure what the argument is all about. If they weren't attempting to get a subsidy, Airbus would be taking
53 RichardPrice : One of the parties allowing said investment shouldnt have agreed to the terms then, should they?
54 Post contains images DeltaDC9 :
55 RichardPrice : This is true, which is why the 1992 agreement covers other types of subsidy as well. I shall refer you to my post in reply #23 which gives you milest
56 Slz396 : A brief remark on the subsidy issue from somebody who is more or less involved in these matters on a professional basis.... I really don't understand
57 Zvezda : The taxpayer didn't agree to the terms. The money was taken against his will.
58 United787 : Thank God Airbus gots some balls and is going to do this right. This will be good for all airlines! Not so good for Boeing.
59 Leelaw : Doesn't that assume all taxpayers don't support government policy?
60 RichardPrice : When you elect a government, you elect to give them certain powers and that includes the powers to invest the countries money and to make treaties an
61 Ken777 : Boeing just might be able to work on Y1 and Y3 at the same time - IF their suppliers can handle their part of the load. The sleeper here might be the
62 Post contains links Wjcandee : At least officially, this is being denied. http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/05/10/ap2736014.html
63 Post contains images CF188A : I am happy for Airbus. They are indeed a very smart company and I am sure they will succeed in the future. I remember Boeing once was in this same pot
64 Slz396 : Why would that automatically have to be a problem? They might be, yes. Who says Airbus can't do 2 things at once too? Contrary to Boeing, Airbus has
65 Adria : where do you live? if people were to decide what to do with tax money this would lead to total chaos. Do I like that my government sends solders to I
66 Scouseflyer : "From this it seems like Airbus have secured a launch customer" How about 100 for EK, 40 for SQ and 60 for QR all announced at Farnborough - that woul
67 Post contains images Lightsaber : Why has this thread gone so nasty A vs. B? Too much of the discussion belongs in a non-aviation thread. Sigh... Interesting theory... Excellent point.
68 Post contains images Scbriml : I'm just pointing out that your expectation that the EU will follow any WTO ruling may not be met because your own government sees fit to ignore the
69 Dougloid : That's been settled at about 80 cents on the dollar. Every second the Canadians dick around and argue about it the settlement pot is worth less and l
70 Atmx2000 : Because the way launch aid is provided to Airbus distorts competition by allowing a weak competitor survive even if each project they embark on fails
71 Scbriml : OK, missed that one. Thanks.
72 787engineer : I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't think one fuselage size can be efficient to cover 250 to 400 passengers. It just isn't very effici
73 Atmx2000 : Actually that was a NAFTA ruling. The WTO ruled in favor of the US on the lumber issue on many occasions. Like the UK renouncing the original Bermuda
74 Areopagus : I'm not sure what you're referring to. The A330 and A340 being developed together? They were essentially the same airplane, much more alike than the
75 Zvezda : I'm not suggesting that Boeing will build a B787-11X, but I find it difficult to believe that it is even less likely than the B777-400X was. The latt
76 Post contains images Glideslope : Yup. The poor hard working EU Taxpayer once again called upon to bail out a company that IMO, could not see a Cow standing in front of it. We will be
77 Post contains links Trex8 : I think all launch aid should be banned and all products developed with it taken off the market and their importation to the US banned, starting with
78 Post contains images Atmx2000 : The EU is bailing out Air France? It benefits Pratt and GE how?
79 Post contains links Trex8 : it doesn't, I was being sarcastic, one would think it hurts them , but obviously not enough to want them to bring a WTO case up unlike Boeing! http:/
80 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Here is a couple of interesting photos comparing the two A350's.....got them from Leeham Company, LLC website- so I don't know how authentic they are,
81 Post contains images Legacytravel : It is quite simple it can be done with EU Govt. Subsidies. Mark in MKE
82 Post contains links and images NAV20 : Neat and to the point, Jacobin777! About 'launch aid', the WTO has already established three 'panels' to consider aspects of the dispute, and is about
83 Post contains images Jacobin777 : thanks.. I think I answered my own question..the "new" A350 is a rendering by Leeham.net where as the "old" A350 basically looks like its taken direc
84 Zvezda : The second one is not from Airbus. The wings and windows are too high for a 66" cargo hold ceiling height.
85 Post contains images Jacobin777 : you are correct.. ....I've already admitted to my silly mistake.. regardless..it looks interesting..and at least does offer something for now...
86 Post contains images Astuteman : Good information Trex8. Incontrovertible evidence that in the UK at least, launch aid is being, and has been, repaid. I've heard A-netters asking for
87 RichardPrice : Actually Airbus applied for and was granted Repayable Launch Investment for the A350 program, because it was applied for within the 12 month period a
88 Scbriml : Because 33% was the limit under the 1992 agreement which the US signed and has subsequently withdrawn from. Under that agreement the refundable launc
89 GBan : Are you sure?
90 Atmx2000 : I'm not sure it tells you anything, since it is not clear whether launch aid is being repaid for projects that were funded since 1997, or projects th
91 Post contains links N1786b : Can you please quote a source saying that the US government offered a loan of up to 33% of development costs of a new jet program and Boeing turned i
92 Astuteman : Might be worth reading RichardPrice's posts and links again. Regards
93 MBJ2000 : Have you ever heard of Hawker, De Havilland, Vickers, Messerschmitt etc? So much for european aircraft industry comming out of nowhere. You seem to f
94 Scbriml : Maybe my wording was slightly confusing - I was trying to explain that Boeing could have applied for refundable launch aid, not that it was offered a
95 Danny : Because they received non-refundable ones from Japanese government. They're smart.
96 Post contains images PM : Perhaps, but I rather doubt if that's the essence of the practice. My dictionary makes no reference to your definition. What it says is: "Noun. (US s
97 Post contains images Joni : This is fun, could you please write some more?
98 TheSonntag : Can't you all just keep the politics out of this thread? A is getting state aid, so what? B gets that, as well, everybody who denies that has no clue
99 Post contains images Mark_D. : TheSonntag Can't you all just keep the politics out of this thread Not for the usual suspects around here, anyway The societally-indoctrinated zealotr
100 NAV20 : As regards repayment terms for EU launch aid, this is the best summary available:- "All direct support must be repaid. An amount equal to 25 per cent
101 Slz396 : Although Airbus certainly didn't came with the right answer from the first time, a neutral observer still notes they took the U-turn much sooner than
102 Post contains images Johnny : @ Coa747 Pls leave that politics out of this forum here. It really looks like you are far away from being well informed about true politics with a neu
103 Pavlin : 10 Billion dollars and no composites? What new technologies could you spend on 10 billion? The A350 will not be all that new but it will have developm
104 Mark_D. : Slz396-- Although Airbus certainly didn't came with the right answer from the first time, a neutral observer still notes they took the U-turn much soo
105 DistantHorizon : Wrong, wrong, wrong. BOTH A and B get launch aid, in many diferent ways. But then, who cares? I don't. Just move on.
106 Post contains links NAV20 : Surprise surprise - if this story is kosher, the launch aid issue will be 'front and centre' for the A370:- "Airbus will seek government loans to cove
107 Kappel : I think you need to do some more research. The wings for starters are composite, as are many other parts of the aircraft. The fuselage will be Al-Li,
108 Scbriml : I thought they'd already been offered it, but deferred accepting it to see if a negotiated settlement could be reached? Since that option seems to ha
109 DeltaDC9 : Fair enough, but what I said is true, and the reason that the presidential line item veto has not been allowed by Congress, to prevent the President
110 DistantHorizon : Please, do not talk on my bealf. I am an EU citizen and nothing was done against my will. It is well spent money. Much better spent then in tanks, gu
111 NAV20 : My guess is that it was more a matter of the various European governments 'deferring' it, Scrimbl, to avoid prejudicing a lot of more important fish
112 Scbriml : From an article in today's Guardian
113 Flying-Tiger : That one is a myth. That taxpayer wins through: a) jobs generated thourgh this project, either by keeping existing jobs which would have been lost ot
114 NAV20 : Not disbelieving you, Scrimbl, but I've got the Graun open at the moment (following the cricket) and can't find that item? Which section is it in?
115 Art : Do you know when it died? According to what I have read here about the terms of the agreement, that would be 15 days after consultations - presumably
116 Post contains links Scbriml : Doh! My bad, it was The Independent. You're not going mad. Online version: http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article363723.ece
117 Post contains images NAV20 : Thanks, Scrimbl. Your quote was a bit selective, though. The reference to £380B. clearly refers to the aid promised for the A350 (which hasn't been p
118 Slz396 : Who says the all new plane will be called 'A370'? According to several sources we've all been able to see here on A.net, the all new Airbus plane wou
119 Scbriml : Yes, I was just looking for something that supported my belief that Airbus had already been offered RLA for the A350. As far as I know this latest in
120 Texfly101 : Yes, that's actually what happened. I can remember the sales people and the engineers arguing about what to develop. The enginers were saying "this i
121 Texfly101 : The following quote is from The Independent 5/11/2006, a very respected British morning daily. "The plan now is to redesign the A350 with a wider fus
122 Poitin : So, it will remain the A350, even it if turns into a three engine double decker all composite blended wing.
123 Stitch : Excuse me for talking about the topic, and not geopolitics and world history, but the reason Boeing did not ask for 33% launch aid was because they c
124 Post contains links Wjcandee : http://money.iwon.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge...69120060511&feed=dji&date=20060511 "LONDON -(Dow Jones)- France-based Airbus (ABI.YY) Thursday said it is still
125 Slz396 : That's correct, apart from the fact our currency is called the EURO. Excuse us for showing real compassion for people who are out of a job and even m
126 JayinKitsap : The decision for the House of Commons: Two new football stadiums or 1 new plane. Hmmmm. The discussion about Boeing able to ask for RLA, ask who - Fra
127 Post contains images Morvious : If you ask me that on a late sunday morning, I will denie that To bad this topic hasn't gone far besides the "unhappy taxpayers" and "launch aids". I
128 HS748 : It's great to be in Europe!
129 Poitin : Not if you are a rate payer.
130 Trex8 : its not a bailout though in this situation with Boeing launch aid, when we spend billions paying famers to grow crops to sell the consumer at inflate
131 DL021 : In any language a loan that says that you don't have to repay it if you don't make enough money is not a loan.....it's a gift. You choose to ignore t
132 Texfly101 : This is what I see as one of the major reasons for launch aid, its not just to battle B. I see it as a basic form of distribution of tax reveues and
133 PolymerPlane : Like I said before, the agreement is to level the playing field. Now that Airbus is the leader in aircraft manufacturing, they do not need direct sub
134 Picard : Yes subsidies is only a market distorting practice and in the perfect world Airbus should not need it. I like the way you put your argument across, b
135 Scbriml : Agreed. It applied to both Airbus and Boeing. The only problem is the word subsidise. The agreement details repayable launch aid which the respective
136 AirFrnt : Try NAFTA (which governs US-Canada-Mexico trade), not WTO. As far as the rest, I still am waiting to see a admission on the Airbus side that the gove
137 Post contains links PolymerPlane : Yes the indirect subsidy is illegal, but the resulting technology is going to be available to the Japanese companies, not to Boeing, and if Airbus wa
138 Dougloid : Biplane with a canard and fixed landing gear. Saayyyyyyy wasn't dope and fab the first composite?
139 Astuteman : A (genuine) question. Is there no such thing as Regional Development Aid in the USA? Regards
140 Zvezda : I don't know the names of all the programs but, unfortunately, the federal and some states government do impose such programs.
141 Khobar : The UK basically broke even? What about the royalty payments we've heard so much about? Okie dokie.
142 Post contains images PPVRA : People, nice comments and all, and especially nice to see Airbus rethinking the A350...BUT, have you all read the article the thread started posted? T
143 Trex8 : well Airbus does not get launch aid either directly , its suppliers do like EADS, BAe and in the past CASA etc but there is the WTO illegal corporate
144 Post contains images DistantHorizon : Not again, please! Why aren't you worried with the poor hard working US taxpayer paying undreds of billions for millitary crap?
145 Post contains images Poitin : Sorta, but the really first composite airframe was when Icarus and Daedalus made the first Airbus out of wax and feathers. And as we all know, Icarus
146 11Bravo : The Koolaidosphere.
147 Poitin : There are many such programs on the state level, almost all in the form of tax relief for X years, free land and cash. While there are undoubtedly su
148 Revelation : Maybe because Boeing's suppliers are paying for part of the 787 development? Not that I know one way or the other, I'm just asking. It's a shame that
149 Post contains images Astuteman : Companies have already been inwardly investing in the UK for decades on the back of regional aid, and as far as I am aware, the vast majority of them
150 Tugger : Hello all! My how thing's have changed! I took a few days off and look where this discussion has come! I knew their would be discussion of the "fundin
151 Tugger : So the original question for this thread was: Is it a good idea for Airbus to redo the A350. I know everybody is excited by it but will it have the re
152 Boysteve : Well I'm really pissed off and have given up on this thread. I'm interested in the product details/timescale of the new aircraft but I really can't be
153 Zvezda : Until Farnborough, there is naught but speculation and rumor about the details and timescale of the A350.
154 Tugger : True True enough. I see several other threads that seems to be better addressing this. See you there! Tug
155 Post contains links Joni : Mr. Enders comments on the rumours of a revamped A350 here: http://yahoo.reuters.com/stocks/Quot...-53_L14542279&symbol=EAD.PA&rpc=44 "The wishes and
156 Trex8 : a billion pounds (or dollars or euros) at the low rates of interest sitting in a bank (you don't think they would put it in more riskier investments
157 Revelation : Why do you think all this economic activity would not have taken place had the EU not taken the billion pounds away from the taxpayer and loaned them
158 Trex8 : you are probably correct that it woudl have taken place somewhere in Airbus land, as far as the UK government is concerned it took place in the UK thr
159 DeltaDC9 : It is more complicated that that. Once those suppliers invest in this technology, it applies to future Boeing planes as well. Kinda like GM sourcing
160 Revelation : They will, if you keep re-electing politicians who think this is good economic policy. In fact it seems folks here want to go back to the 60s where t
161 Trex8 : I don't believe anyone is talking these days about Tony Benn type nationalization of industries but rather providing incentives of some form for cert
162 Post contains links and images RichardPrice : I posted a link directly to the 1992 LCA agreement, and you think I choose to ignore the actual terms of launch aid? Boy, what are you on? The old li
163 Poitin : The original Airbus production figures were in the thousands, Richard, and you know it. And the timeframe of 17 years is a long, long, long time. Thu
164 Post contains images RichardPrice : Those were the terms agreed at the 1992 table, blame the people there, not me for the length of the terms. Regardless of the final forecast productio
165 Poitin : Let us agree to disagree, but since the terms of the loan are what they are, they don't even have to pay a penny until the day of the 17 years are up
166 BoomBoom : At 1% above the government rate? The only plane the 1992 agreement applied to was the A380, was the A300/320/330/340 launch aid limited to 33% of dev
167 Post contains links RichardPrice : And the A340-500/600 programme and the A330-200 programme. The A318/19/21 aircraft were created without investment. http://www.google.com is a great
168 BoomBoom : Sorry, I guess you don't like tough questions...
169 RichardPrice : I said Im British, not American.
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...
AA Wants To Start Early Talks On A New Pilot Deal posted Mon Jul 24 2006 22:30:39 by KarlB737
Kelleher Eager To See 787 Technology On New 737 posted Wed Mar 1 2006 02:03:31 by AeroPiggot
LAX To Spend 28 Million On A380 Preparations posted Wed Apr 20 2005 13:06:37 by BlackKnight
Airbus & Boeing Working Together On New A/c posted Wed May 14 2003 04:44:18 by Zebfly2
Branson To Spend $100 Mil On US Low Cost Airline posted Mon May 6 2002 09:38:55 by Singapore_Air
Airbus Asks Airlines For Views On New Jet posted Fri Apr 6 2001 15:31:30 by Singapore_Air
BA To Spend Almost $3 Billion On Regional Jets posted Mon Jan 29 2001 11:52:15 by G-KIRAN
Cityjet To Spend €173m On 23 New Aircraft posted Thu Jul 13 2006 11:05:52 by BDKLEZ
Qantas To Spend $1.5bn On New Planes? posted Mon Jun 24 2002 00:46:06 by Aussie_
Finnair To Fly New Plane On The Hel-CPH Route posted Tue Apr 10 2001 07:54:17 by Windshear