Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Rolls-Royce Helps Finance Northwest 787 Deal  
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5087 times:

Rolls-Royce (R-R) has agreed to finance advance payments for Northwest Airlines’ purchase of 18 Trent 1000-powered Boeing 787 aircraft while the US major continues restructuring under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

The deal is among a number of arrangements disclosed in Northwest’s bankruptcy court documents that reveal Boeing - together with Boeing Capital - and R-R are facilitating the airline’s order for 787s, the first of which will be delivered to the SkyTeam member in August 2008...


http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...Northwest+Airlines+Boeing+787.html

31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4786 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 days ago) and read 4999 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

so lets see, a company which receives significant launch aid investment from its government is helping an airline from a company in a country which thinks launch aid is illegal to buy products from a company which also thinks its illegal and has been even harmed by such. How very quaint!

User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8419 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4904 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I hope this doesn't cause a political stink in the UK as Rolls Royce did when they financed Pan Am's purchase of 12 L-1011-500 in 1979.

User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6936 posts, RR: 63
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4887 times:

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 1):
so lets see, a company which receives significant launch aid investment from its government ...

Sounds like a perfect description of Japanese involvement in the 787!


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4867 times:

By the sound of the article EVERYONE is helping Northwest out at the moment - Boeing, Airbus, RR, Bombardier, Embraer etc. It looks like NW will soon be on the straight and narrow.


it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4708 times:

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 1):
so lets see, a company which receives significant launch aid investment from its government is helping an airline from a company in a country which thinks launch aid is illegal to buy products from a company which also thinks its illegal and has been even harmed by such. How very quaint!

Excellent summary, I must get you to write my abstracts! goodvibes 

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 2):
I hope this doesn't cause a political stink in the UK as Rolls Royce did when they financed Pan Am's purchase of 12 L-1011-500 in 1979.


With RLI it should not, Treasury should press the buttons on their till to go Kerlang as I remarked on a different thread. If RR helping NW sells more engines, the pollies should be delighted. 1979 were different times with a different RR!


User currently offlineBeech19 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 936 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4579 times:

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 1):
so lets see, a company which receives significant launch aid investment from its government is helping an airline from a company in a country which thinks launch aid is illegal to buy products from a company which also thinks its illegal and has been even harmed by such. How very quaint!

Here we go...

Quoting PM (Reply 3):
Sounds like a perfect description of Japanese involvement in the 787!

And everyone should make note... it is the Japanese companies receiving this launch aid (just like RR does) for their own factories and build up. Not Boeing.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 4):
It looks like NW will soon be on the straight and narrow.

Excellent news. As much as people on here seem to dislike NW. They are still one of my favorites. Dozens on flights(both pre and post 911) on them and i have never even been looked at the wrong way. Let alone had bad service. Most of the time our flights were early or "at worst" on time. I can only remember one flight we were more than 5 minutes "late" to the gate.



KPAE via KBVY
User currently offlineSK736 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 527 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4533 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Beech19 (Reply 6):
And everyone should make note... it is the Japanese companies receiving this launch aid (just like RR does) for their own factories and build up. Not Boeing.

Well that makes all the difference, doesn't it! Couldn't be described as a subsidy to Boeing at all. Clever!


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31096 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4512 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

So I guess if NW pays back this financing prior to taking delivery, they'll be free to hang GEnx-1B64 engines off the wing? And if they do so, that will be dishonest because they "owe" RR?  Wink

User currently offlinePresRDC From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 663 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4492 times:

It's all about getting your engines on wing. Once that happens, you've got a captive customer.

User currently offlineBeech19 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 936 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4456 times:

Quoting SK736 (Reply 7):
Couldn't be described as a subsidy to Boeing at all. Clever!

They use Rolls Royce motors. Which has already been let out of the bag that they get government subsidies.
They used RR motors on the 747 which was built completly within the US (which as we know, government subsidies are illegal here).
Are you saying that because RR gets government aid, that Boeing then by "connecting the dots" received government aid from the UK?

Give it a rest... they don't get launch aid. IF the 787 had been produced 100% in house they would have built it without launch aid. Just as Boeing is not receiving any sort of launch aid. The suppliers who build some of the parts and ship them to Boeing are.

Does Ford Motor Company receive subsidy aid from Canada and Mexico because some of the components that go into Ford cars in the US have components from there? NO... thats just stupid.

Boeing has no control over government subsidies in other countries. The US Government doesn't ever have control over that (although they might want too...).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
So I guess if NW pays back this financing prior to taking delivery, they'll be free to hang GEnx-1B64 engines off the wing?

One can only dream...



KPAE via KBVY
User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4436 times:

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 1):
so lets see, a company which receives significant launch aid investment from its government is helping an airline from a company in a country which thinks launch aid is illegal to buy products from a company which also thinks its illegal and has been even harmed by such. How very quaint!

What exactly are you trying to prove with that? You've now involved so many layers of abstraction that it would be perfectly fine to say that any company in the US that takes money from any number of other companies in other parts of the world that recieves subsidies are guilty of...what exactly? I'm really lost at what you're trying to imply, honestly.



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7616 posts, RR: 17
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4392 times:

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 1):
company which receives significant launch aid investment from its government



Quoting Beech19 (Reply 6):
it is the Japanese companies receiving this launch aid (just like RR does)



Quoting Beech19 (Reply 10):
They use Rolls Royce motors. Which has already been let out of the bag that they get government subsidies.



Quoting Beech19 (Reply 10):
Are you saying that because RR gets government aid,

As a stock holder in RR I regret that the above comments are not strictly true. I would love the value of my stock to be subsidised by someone and with UK tax levels running at over 42 per cent of GDP, the British government should be able to afford to give me some back. However I regret it is well over a quarter of a century since RR last received a direct subsidy from the UK government. So it would be correct to replace 'receives' by 'received', 'does' by 'did', 'get' by 'got' and 'gets' by 'got' in the four replies referenced above.

Whether or not RR has since received any indirect subsidies through over priced military or research contracts I do not know. Although it has been suggested that Boeing receive such indirect subsidies I have never seen a similar suggestion about RR. But who knows?


User currently onlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3634 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4379 times:

Have Rolls Royce received any launch aid for civil programmes in the recent past; its just that I can't remember hearing of any ?

User currently offlineBeech19 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 936 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4348 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 12):
As a stock holder in RR I regret that the above comments are not strictly true. I would love the value of my stock to be subsidised by someone and with UK tax levels running at over 42 per cent of GDP, the British government should be able to afford to give me some back. However I regret it is well over a quarter of a century since RR last received a direct subsidy from the UK government. So it would be correct to replace 'receives' by 'received', 'does' by 'did', 'get' by 'got' and 'gets' by 'got' in the four replies referenced above.

I was only repeating what was obviously mis information. I did not know for sure. It was an example.
Good to hear as it just throws one more wrench into the "boeing receives indirect subsidies" argument. Which they do NOT.



KPAE via KBVY
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4278 times:

This is not a "first" for RR.

They got pretty "sporty" with PA and sold them engines for their L15's------and for better or worse landed a new customer.

Now they are doing it with NW. Good for them both.



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4260 times:

Well seeing that GE bought BA's engine maintenance plant (at a generous price) in order to get the 777 contract, being sporty is hardly new!

Oh and wasn't the CF6 derived from the engines on the Galaxy?



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineBeech19 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 936 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4232 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 16):
Oh and wasn't the CF6 derived from the engines on the Galaxy?

Yes... it was "based" off the GE TF39 - The first high bypass fan.
http://geae.com/engines/commercial/cf6/history.html



KPAE via KBVY
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4786 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4126 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 13):
Have Rolls Royce received any launch aid for civil programmes in the recent past; its just that I can't remember hearing of any ?

from Hansard, this is just for recent RLI too

TRADE AND INDUSTRY
A380 Airbus
Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the UK's share is of the costs of the A380 Airbus initiative; and what estimate he has made of the number of jobs for UK citizens this initiative has (a) created and (b) safeguarded (i) in the UK and (ii) overseas. [53230]

Alun Michael: The Government committed support of £530 million in repayable launch investment for the design and development of the wings for the A3 80 by Airbus UK. In addition, the Government committed support of £250 million in repayable launch investment for the design and development of the Trent 600 and 900 engines by Rolls-Royce—the Trent 900 engine powers the A380.

The original estimate of the number of jobs created both directly and indirectly by the A380 project was 22,000. It was also estimated that it would help to safeguard the 62,000 Airbus-related jobs in the UK. A further 7,000 jobs were to be safeguarded by the investment in the Trent 900.

Today, Airbus employs a total of 55,000 people with 13,000 of those jobs at Airbus UK. Rolls-Royce employs a total of 36,000 people with 21,000 of those jobs in the UK.

27 Feb 2006 : Column 124W

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 11):
What exactly are you trying to prove with that? You've now involved so many layers of abstraction that it would be perfectly fine to say that any company in the US that takes money from any number of other companies in other parts of the world that recieves subsidies are guilty of...what exactly? I'm really lost at what you're trying to imply, honestly.

that certain companies who cry foul and call launch investment the devils work should also ethically extend that description to all launch investment including situations where their own suppliers benefit. Is that clear enough???


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (8 years 21 hours ago) and read 3306 times:

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 13):
Have Rolls Royce received any launch aid for civil programmes in the recent past; its just that I can't remember hearing of any ?

Well, as I was about to say:

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 18):
from Hansard, this is just for recent RLI too

when Trex8 beat me me to it. Glad Hansard is not only read down here! I guess the UK is too exciting a place for it to be widely read there although I know RP is a devotee.

The disconnect (cognitive dissonance, whatever!!) is whether RLI is a subsidy or not. The EU and GoUK clearly think it is not, and Bobby Z says it is.

As this thread makes clear, the effects of RLI can spread far and wide, so if it is a subsidy, then the sales of any airplanes carrying Rollers also carry a subsidy. You will probably find in the finer detail that many other parts of aircraft are similarly affected.

The normal definition of a subsidy would not include RLI, it does indeed offer a slightly lower interest rate compared with the market (but surprisingly little increase) but the major disconnect is the ongoing Royalty. So once RR has repaid its loans on the T1000 - which should be a snip - then each sale produces an override straight back to Treasury.

If I were an RR shareholder, I would worry more about the Royalty being paid, than the advantage I got earlier in the deal.

Just the overall repayment so far to the UK Treasury of over 80% of initial investments so far, suggests it is not your usual form of subsidy!

I do look forward to seeing the results of the WTO effort. I find it hard to believe the US case will stick. But then normal legal matters leave me amazed, so WTO should be even "better".

My biggest recent surprise was when our brilliant mandarins in Canberra, made a definition of oil so that it included (accidentally) coal and oil shale. The definition stated any material containing hydrocarbons. Well coal does contain methane. So EXXON (Esso Aus) claimed oil rates for coal exploration. The judge listened to it all, agreed that coal fell in the definition for oil, but then found against EXXON because to agree with them would have defied commonsense (or a similar phrase). Good grief, judges applying commonsense, what next. So don't assume you know the answer to the WTO case, not unless you are the one who decides it!!!


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 20 hours ago) and read 3293 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 19):
Good grief, judges applying commonsense, what next.

Jurists are supposed to apply the law, not commonsense.


User currently offlineJonathan L From United States of America, joined May 2001, 171 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 20 hours ago) and read 3264 times:

Quoting Beech19 (Reply 10):
(which as we know, government subsidies are illegal here).

Actually in this country they take the form of "defense contracts."


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (8 years 19 hours ago) and read 3234 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 20):
Jurists are supposed to apply the law, not commonsense.

I know, but you just cannot trust the buggers!  Big grin

I would have been willing to bet EXXON would have won, but lo and behold the Tax Office did. The really amazing thing was the whole argument was on extra deductions over a relatively small amount (in Exxon terms) something less than $200 million, so the different rates would have been about 5% of that, which must have been close to the cost of the case, especially when they had to pay the Tax depts costs (IIRC).


User currently offlineBeech19 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 936 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3105 times:

Quoting Jonathan L (Reply 21):
Actually in this country they take the form of "defense contracts."

No... a defense contract must be won. My father is a defense contractor, USAF. They are NOT subsidized. They have to compete and win the contract. Don't go down that road.



KPAE via KBVY
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4786 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3048 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Beech19 (Reply 23):
No... a defense contract must be won. My father is a defense contractor, USAF. They are NOT subsidized. They have to compete and win the contract. Don't go down that road.

usually that is the case, sometimes there are sole source non competitive contracts (if you want another F15, why would you get Lockheed to bid on it?), sometimes your friendly congressman writes into appropriations bills certain clauses which essentially end up giving a contract out to a specific contractor and needless to say they only do this with the nations best interests in mind with no selfish intent whatsoever  Smile, and then sometimes some manufacturers try to wangle a big one in like the KC767 lease without any competition.
so not all, though certainly most, DoD contracts are competitively bid.
as to subsidies, well, that would be good for another 100 posts!! one mans taxbreak is another mans subsidy


25 Beech19 : Yes but that is a little different of a situation... Yeah... that was a mistake. Though they will still end up getting the deal in the long run. IMHO
26 Par13del : So if I understand Trex8 point, if you only have a single supplier and you obtain goods from them that means that you give them a subsidy? If a defens
27 Trex8 : not at all, my point in my last post was that not all DoD contracts are competitively bid out. a non competitive bid may well be a subsidy though tha
28 Acidradio : Yeah, this whole thing of NW buying an RR engine for a new plane seemed all too weird. At least in my mind, all signs pointed at GE, especially given
29 Trex8 : NW had no choice, Boeing had booted PW out of the 787 game early on and chose RR and GE as the only 2 engine suppliers, their proposal was too high r
30 Acidradio : Could this be NW's first new widebody jet order where PW was NOT an option? Out of curiosity, what exactly was PW's proposal? Are there any links that
31 PM : It is the first Boeing or Douglas jet (excluding sub-versions) where there is no PW option. That's quite historic.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airbus A350 Engine Rolls Royce Deal posted Fri Jul 7 2006 19:16:13 by Keesje
Air NZ And Rolls-Royce Reach US$500m Deal posted Fri Sep 17 2004 14:03:27 by 777ER
SIA & Rolls Royce Sign 10 Yr A345 Trent Care Deal posted Thu Mar 4 2004 09:04:21 by Singapore_Air
Is The Aeroflot - 787 Deal Back On? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 19:38:33 by NYC777
Striking Mechanics, Northwest Reach Deal posted Mon Oct 9 2006 21:28:16 by KarlB737
Rolls-Royce To Power Monarch Boeing 787s posted Thu Oct 5 2006 14:46:25 by Leelaw
Aeroflot Boeing 787 Deal Likely At WTO posted Wed Jul 12 2006 12:25:04 by Keesje
BA 777 Rolls Royce Vs GE90 posted Fri Jun 16 2006 06:44:21 by DFW13L
Rolls Royce Co. posted Mon Jun 12 2006 05:53:56 by American777
Union: Northwest Ramp Deal Includes Layoffs posted Tue May 23 2006 21:10:14 by KarlB737