Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EADS Has Cash Reserves Of €5.9B  
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2540 times:

Sounds like a good starting point for a new A350/A370 program to me, even if they do have to pay BAe E1.55B net. Airbus also plans to deliver 430 planes this year, which will provide strong cashflow.

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1811156,00.html

Also:

Mr Gallois, a socialist, took over a loss-making, debt-ridden SNCF a decade ago and turned in net earnings of €1.3bn last year.

31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9834 posts, RR: 96
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2534 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Joni (Thread starter):
Sounds like a good starting point for a new A350/A370 program to me, even if they do have to pay BAe E1.55B net. Airbus also plans to deliver 430 planes this year, which will provide strong cashflow.

Just made a question on the other thread - EADS had E3.5Bn reserved for the BAE stake valuation.
If the sale proceeds, and that reserve is liquidated, does that mean EADS will have net cash of E6.6Bn? (E5.9Bn + (E3.5Bn-E2.75Bn))

Regards


User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2372 times:

Hmm that could probably be checked somewhere, but I simply don't have the time right now. Anyhow if they did have almost 7Bn they could develop an A370 using their existing cash  Wink

User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3675 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2317 times:

According to the EADS site, they have in 2005 5,5 Billions Euros.

http://www.eads.net/web/lang/en/1024...F00000000400004/6/03/31000036.html


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2271 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 1):
Just made a question on the other thread - EADS had E3.5Bn reserved for the BAE stake valuation.

Not quite, Astuteman. As of last year (2005) they included E3.5B. under liabilities in their balance sheet to cover the risk of the put option being exercised (it was not so shown in previous years). But it was a balance sheet item only, not a cash reserve.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2223 times:

Well I sure hope this is true. IMHO, asking the European governments for "launch aid" would simply add fuel to the fire of the pending WTO case.
I would like to see a negotiated settlement with regard to that issue.
My gut still says that Airbus will stick to the current A350 design, which is probably the best course of action for them. It's a decent aircraft and certainly will sell to Airbus' traditional customers. With all that's on their plate, they need to focus on the A380. Redirecting resources to an all new A370 may simply be too aggressive for them, at least at this point.



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2174 times:

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 5):
Well I sure hope this is true. IMHO, asking the European governments for "launch aid" would simply add fuel to the fire of the pending WTO case.
I would like to see a negotiated settlement with regard to that issue.

Airbus will almost certainly both apply for, and receive, launch aid for the new program, whatever it's name will be. A negotiated settlement would be beneficial to all, but it's not likely soon in any case, since the US and Japan aren't willing to reduce their own subsidies, mutatis mutandis.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 5):
My gut still says that Airbus will stick to the current A350 design, which is probably the best course of action for them.

You don't think they'd do better with an improved plane?

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 5):
With all that's on their plate, they need to focus on the A380

The A380 issues are tied mainly to finalizing the certification program and those wiring issues we've all been hearing about. Neither of these tie up any significant portion of Airbus' engineering resources so they're free to work on follow-up projects, as I suspect they've already been doing for months.

AFAIK the main issue has been, if they should have stuck with the A350 to free more resources a few years down the line to work on a narrowbody follow-up, which in any case is very important to them.


User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2019 times:

Quoting Joni (Reply 6):
Airbus will almost certainly both apply for, and receive, launch aid for the new program, whatever it's name will be. A negotiated settlement would be beneficial to all, but it's not likely soon in any case, since the US and Japan aren't willing to reduce their own subsidies, mutatis mutandis

Joni, for once can you take off your Airbus cheerleader cap and agree with me that BOTH companies need to make and borrow money the old fashioned way.... Earn it! I'm no where as convinced as you are that "Launch Aid" is a good thing. I believe a protracted WTO battle will, in the end, hurt the EU side more. And do damage to the industry, both sides of the pond, for the long term. I'd prefer that both sides negotiate terms that both can live comfortably with.

Quoting Joni (Reply 6):
You don't think they'd do better with an improved plane?

Because I don't think they have the money (Their own, i.e. In the bank.) nor resources to divert from other projects. And if you read the comments made by senior management, they all but admitted it. There is nothing wrong with the A350 as is. If I recall correctly wasn't you saying that it was superior to the 787 in every way? Many of us disagreed with you then. Are you now saying that it needs a complete redesign? That's funny... Before it was the most advanced twin engine in the skies, now it needs to be completely replaced? Which one is it?

The new CEOs have made it quite clear that resolving the A380 issues are Airbus' number 1 priority. If I were a stockholder, I would be grateful to hear that after the constant bad news from these last few weeks.

Quoting Joni (Reply 6):
The A380 issues are tied mainly to finalizing the certification program and those wiring issues we've all been hearing about. Neither of these tie up any significant portion of Airbus' engineering resources so they're free to work on follow-up projects, as I suspect they've already been doing for months.

Joni, they've reduced the delivery schedules from 25(?) to 9 per year.

You really need to take off those rose colored glasses.

[Edited 2006-07-03 22:35:08]


336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1891 times:

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 7):
Joni, they've reduced the delivery schedules from 25(?) to 9 per year.

Yes, for 2007 as they need to clear out the wiring on the planes on the factory floor now. What's your point? Senior management is to personally supervise the wiring, and the r&d guys will all be reassigned to wiring � la Khmer Rouge?

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 7):
Joni, for once can you take off your Airbus cheerleader cap and agree with me that BOTH companies need to make and borrow money the old fashioned way...

As Airbus does. But you've hit the nail on it's head there: both companies. If you consider that it's "wearing an Airbus cheerleader hat" to suggest that not only Airbus, but also Boeing, should borrow money the old-fashioned way then you're an Airbus cheerleader yourself.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 7):
There is nothing wrong with the A350 as is. If I recall correctly wasn't you saying that it was superior to the 787 in every way?

No, I don't recall that.


User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2822 posts, RR: 42
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1871 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 1):

Just made a question on the other thread - EADS had E3.5Bn reserved for the BAE stake valuation.
If the sale proceeds, and that reserve is liquidated, does that mean EADS will have net cash of E6.6Bn? (E5.9Bn + (E3.5Bn-E2.75Bn))

No. As has been pointed out in other threads, the BAe stake is a unfunded liability.

Quoting Joni (Reply 6):

Airbus will almost certainly both apply for, and receive, launch aid for the new program, whatever it's name will be. A negotiated settlement would be beneficial to all, but it's not likely soon in any case, since the US and Japan aren't willing to reduce their own subsidies, mutatis mutandis.

Probably not. The WTO does not operate under diplomatic rules. It has two sets of questions
1) Is the launch aide + logistical aide that Airbus is provided legal.
2) Is the aide the Japanese government is giving it's companies legal.

It is quite possible that 1 will be accepted, while 2 will be rejected given that the WTO allows for subsidies in developing business segments.

But in any case, it's not a quid pro quo situation, simply because it is no longer diplomats negotiating (as much as the Europeans would like it to be). The WTO may invalidate both the launch aide and the Japanese assistance. However the japanese assistance was made to Japanese companies, not Boeing, and Airbus is on the hook for launch aide.

The EU has effective used the WTO to shut down a variety of sketchy US trade policies. I have no angst whatsoever about Boeing using it to get rid of artificial advantages the EU is so desperate to give Airbus.


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2132 posts, RR: 56
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1867 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 9):
Probably not. The WTO does not operate under diplomatic rules. It has two sets of questions
1) Is the launch aide + logistical aide that Airbus is provided legal.
2) Is the aide the Japanese government is giving it's companies legal.

You might want to study up on item 2 on the WTO website. I found their site to be a useful resource with ready access to key documents. The EU's complaint against alleged commercial aircraft subsidies in the US encompasses a vastly greater range of items than what you mention.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9834 posts, RR: 96
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1856 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 7):
I'm no where as convinced as you are that "Launch Aid" is a good thing.

It helps to understand what "Launch Aid" actually means - it's nowhere near as sinister as it is convenient to make out for political purposes.

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 9):
No. As has been pointed out in other threads, the BAe stake is a unfunded liability.

2 bites for the price of one  biggrin . Apologies guys, I knew that......

Regards


User currently offlineAviator27 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1823 times:

Airbus gets launch aid directly. Boeing gets subsidies and tax breaks. Boeing and Airbus suppliers get research/development assistance. Its all the same.

By the way, do you think EADS have some spare change they are willing to part with?


User currently offline707lvr From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 570 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1800 times:

As we go on making equivalent the breaks which Airbus and Boeing supposedly get from government, it's important to remember the extent to which the success of EADS/Airbus is a vital part of universal European industrial policy, whereas in the U.S., Boeing has a good number of important and powerful enemies in and out of government.

User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1732 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 10):
You might want to study up on item 2 on the WTO website. I found their site to be a useful resource with ready access to key documents.

Where on their site can you find any other texts, than the negotiated agreements?


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1714 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 9):
It is quite possible that 1 will be accepted, while 2 will be rejected given that the WTO allows for subsidies in developing business segments.

Launch Aid prior to the 1992 agreement do not come under the WTO subsidies agreement because it was made prior to the rules being laid out in 1994, and all subsidies after 1992 comes under a mutually agreed framework. Its highly doubtful that the WTO will rule against the EU on the basis of the launch aid claims as laid down by the US.


User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1646 times:

Quoting Joni (Reply 8):
As Airbus does. But you've hit the nail on it's head there: both companies. If you consider that it's "wearing an Airbus cheerleader hat" to suggest that not only Airbus, but also Boeing, should borrow money the old-fashioned way then you're an Airbus cheerleader yourself.

As a Boeing stockholder, my biases speak for themselves.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 11):
It helps to understand what "Launch Aid" actually means - it's nowhere near as sinister as it is convenient to make out for political purposes.

Well that's the line given by the EU side and stands at the heart of the matter. For the U.S. side, it's seen as a non-competitive advantage for EADS/Airbus, and is taken very seriously. My own view is that the U.S. has a very strong case. Recent events at EADS reinforce those sentiments.

Quoting 707lvr (Reply 13):
Boeing has a good number of important and powerful enemies in and out of government.

Excellent point, and is in no way owned by any government, while the French government owns 15% of EADS. And as had been shown by recent events, the French have no problem trying to influence policy at EADS.



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1612 times:

Airbus received launch aid for the A380.

The 787 was Boeing's response to the A380, so it should be eligible for launch aid too.

If Boeing has to give up the 787 lunch aid, Airbus should refund the A380 launch aid.

Airbus made a mistake with the A380, and now they are looking for another government hand out to build the plane they should have built in the first place.


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1609 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 17):
The 787 was Boeing's response to the A380, so it should be eligible for launch aid too.

It was eligible for launch aid under the 1992 agreement. The arguement is that the aid received for the 787 program is not consistent with that allowed under the 1992 agreement.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 17):
If Boeing has to give up the 787 lunch aid, Airbus should refund the A380 launch aid.

Well, that line of reasoning is just infantile.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 17):
Airbus made a mistake with the A380, and now they are looking for another government hand out to build the plane they should have built in the first place.

Theres no evidence at all that EADS or Airbus have requested or desire more money for the A380 program.


User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1716 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1575 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 18):
Theres no evidence at all that EADS or Airbus have requested or desire more money for the A380 program.

I think he means Airbus should have built the A350/A370 in the first place (rather than the A380). He's talking about additional launch aid for that, not the WhaleJet.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1564 times:

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 19):
I think he means Airbus should have built the A350/A370 in the first place (rather than the A380). He's talking about additional launch aid for that, not the WhaleJet.

In that case, fair enough.


User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2822 posts, RR: 42
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1530 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 10):

You might want to study up on item 2 on the WTO website. I found their site to be a useful resource with ready access to key documents. The EU's complaint against alleged commercial aircraft subsidies in the US encompasses a vastly greater range of items than what you mention.

I actually have read just about every article, including several Foreign Policy Magazine breakdowns that examined the issue in significant depth.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 15):
Launch Aid prior to the 1992 agreement do not come under the WTO subsidies agreement because it was made prior to the rules being laid out in 1994, and all subsidies after 1992 comes under a mutually agreed framework. Its highly doubtful that the WTO will rule against the EU on the basis of the launch aid claims as laid down by the US.

Actually it really isn't. The US has been slapped a number of times by the WTO for the exact same stunts Airbus is pulling here. Either the WTO fairly applies rules across the board or they don't. If they don't why does the WTO exist?

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 18):

Well, that line of reasoning is just infantile.

It's no different then the Airbus cheerleaders insiting that despite both EADS and Boeing getting logistical support, supliers getting preferential government aid etc, Boeing should have to give that up (where Airbus doesn't) so Airbus doesn't take market distorting aid from the EU governments.

Bottom line, there should be a level playing field between the two corporations. If EU prefers to baby their companies to make them more competitve at the cost of US jobs, US tariffs on incoming products should reflect that.


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1515 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 21):
Actually it really isn't. The US has been slapped a number of times by the WTO for the exact same stunts Airbus is pulling here. Either the WTO fairly applies rules across the board or they don't. If they don't why does the WTO exist?

WTO Subsidies and Counterveiling Measures acts only apply to subsidies being actively disembursed at or after the time the international agreements on the WTO law came into force (1995ish). Since the disembursement of aid to Airbus for the A300,A310,A320 and A330/340 projects had already finished by the time the WTO agreements came into force, it is highly unlikely the WTO will rule on them.

Agreements already valid under a framework between two countries are rarely overturned under WTO rules, so this includes aid given under the 1992 agreement.


User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2822 posts, RR: 42
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1498 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 22):

WTO Subsidies and Counterveiling Measures acts only apply to subsidies being actively disembursed at or after the time the international agreements on the WTO law came into force (1995ish). Since the disembursement of aid to Airbus for the A300,A310,A320 and A330/340 projects had already finished by the time the WTO agreements came into force, it is highly unlikely the WTO will rule on them.

Agreements already valid under a framework between two countries are rarely overturned under WTO rules, so this includes aid given under the 1992 agreement.

I would be shocked if they did. The A350/70 and the A320E are a different matter. Boeing could also make a case that the lack of a CPA which was explictly required by the bilaterial invalidates the A380 as well, but I doubt they will.


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1474 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 23):
I would be shocked if they did. The A350/70 and the A320E are a different matter. Boeing could also make a case that the lack of a CPA which was explictly required by the bilaterial invalidates the A380 as well, but I doubt they will.

The 1992 agreement only requires the CPA to be disclosed on a nonproprietory basis, and then only on a case by case basis of a motivated request - its not required and its not mandatory.

The absence of a CPA for a project does not invalidate the agreement.

The A350 projects RLI request was made and granted one day before the 1992 agreement was voided, so technically its still covered.


25 AirFrnt : The plane has changed so much since then, that's for the WTO to determine. You're talking about disclosure. I am talking about existience in the firs
26 RichardPrice : The project is still the same, all planes develop during their life. And where is there any evidence that Airbus didnt do a CPA for any of their proj
27 BoomBoom : There you go again. Must you always resort to name calling? Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. Airbus says they will ask for aid for the A350/370. Th
28 CO738 : If EADS has 5.9billion euro (i can't make the euro thingy) how about focusing on the A380 project and kicking it back into gear instead of chasing thi
29 PlaneHunter : These remarks about "the taxpayers" are simply ludicrous. It's not like any European taxpayer would have one additional cent in his pocket without th
30 RichardPrice : Its not name calling, the comment made was infantile.
31 Glacote : As this thread points to launch aids it seems wise to restate that: 1) Airbus "launch aids" are contidionnally repayable loans - not subsidies nor tax
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...
C3 Has A Few Days Of Cash Left! posted Thu Nov 8 2001 21:58:55 by Red Panda
USAirways Has Hedged 41% Of Fuel For 2nd Quarter posted Fri Jul 7 2006 20:38:59 by KarlB737
Why Has Finland A Lack Of LCC Flights? posted Fri Apr 7 2006 19:08:47 by YAK42
ABX Has Highest Rate Of Pay posted Sun Mar 27 2005 23:43:43 by B741
Has Anyone Heard Of Swiftair In Madrid posted Thu Aug 5 2004 21:41:35 by Ezycrew
MAS Has Finalised Purchase Of Six A380 posted Tue Dec 9 2003 09:42:29 by Sepang
China Southern Has Taken Delivery Of First A319 posted Mon Jun 2 2003 16:03:15 by FUAirliner
Boeing Has Completed 90% Of 777-300ER Design posted Tue Jun 11 2002 16:44:59 by Singapore_Air
Has Somebody News Of... posted Sun May 19 2002 21:38:59 by 717fan
Has Anybody A Picture Of VG Airlines 330 posted Sat Mar 2 2002 13:53:26 by Skippy777