Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Refuses To Rule Out State Loans On A350  
User currently offlineWingnut767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3713 times:

Airbus refuses to rule out state loans on A350 XWB
Airbus CEO calls Boeing's 787 a "heavily subsidized" airplane

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...96B%7D&siteid=mktw&dist=TNMostRead

How can Gallois throw out such a statement about Boeing to the press? Why did he not give out any specifics ?
 confused 

56 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3707 times:

Here we go with the Airbus BS press statements... all this means as far as I can tell is nothing has changed at Airbus.. This attitude is indicative of the culture that created the 380 problem. This just proves it's still around (not really surprising). I'll go on record right now that the 350 is either a) very late to market of b) significantly under the performance promises from today's press conference.


I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineAirFRNT From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2825 posts, RR: 42
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3707 times:

Quoting Wingnut767 (Thread starter):

How can Gallois throw out such a statement about Boeing to the press? Why did he not give out any specifics ?

In the media, perception is reality. In the WTO on the other hand.....


User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3690 times:

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 1):
Here we go with the Airbus BS press statements... all this means as far as I can tell is nothing has changed at Airbus.. This attitude is indicative of the culture that created the 380 problem. This just proves it's still around (not really surprising). I'll go on record right now that the 350 is either a) very late to market of b) significantly under the performance promises from today's press conference.

Unfortunately, true. They have learned nothing. Unfortunately for Airbus, the airlines have. There is a old saying:

    "First time shame on you, second time shame on me."


I can just see the guarentees that Airbus will have to make to get in the door, and the size of the liquidated damages they will have to agree too.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3662 times:

"We are all aware in our hearts that the 787 is based on highly subsidized spending. There is government funding on both sides of the Atlantic. We are discussing with governments future R&D funding, but other options are on the table," Airbus President and Chief Executive Louis Gallois said.

"We have no imminent (cash) needs. We are only asking for a level playing field. No decision has been taken or is imminent."

"We are not in a defensive attitude. We are clearly in an offensive attitude on the heavily subsidized 787," Gallois said.

Airbus says Boeing benefits from over $3 billion in tax breaks from Washington state and fat defense contracts from the U.S. government which reduce its costs on civil aircraft development. Boeing denies receiving any government assistance.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9981 posts, RR: 96
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3610 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirFRNT (Reply 2):
In the media, perception is reality. In the WTO on the other hand.....

.....things might not be much different.

I'm nervous of people hanging their hats on some earth-shattering WTO ruling. FWIW, I don't think we're going to get one.

(But then I don't think the issue is anything like as clear-cut as some do, for a number of reasons )

Regards


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3609 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 4):
"We are all aware in our hearts that the 787 is based on highly subsidized spending. There is government funding on both sides of the Atlantic. We are discussing with governments future R&D funding, but other options are on the table," Airbus President and Chief Executive Louis Gallois said.

This comes from the master of taking money from the doles of the French taxpayer. Look at his work at EADS, Aerospatiale-Matra, SNCF, and Lagardere.

[Edited 2006-12-04 23:05:25]


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineAsturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 2142 posts, RR: 16
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3602 times:

Quoting AirFRNT (Reply 2):
In the media, perception is reality. In the WTO on the other hand.....

As far as I can tell, the WTO is the UN of business. Good luck on that.

cheers

Asturias



Tonight we fly
User currently offlineWingnut767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3546 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 4):
Airbus says Boeing benefits from over $3 billion in tax breaks from Washington state and fat defense contracts from the U.S. government which reduce its costs on civil aircraft development. Boeing denies receiving any government assistance.

I still not or never will understand the argument that Defense contracts underwrite the Civil side. Boeing competes on the open market for contracts and because they make a superior product they win contracts. They make a fighter, Airlifter, Missile and are payed for the product. They make a profit on that product and you call it a goverment subsidy. Year to date Boeing Commercial Aircraft has made the same amount of money as the Integrated Defense Systems side. And the operating margin is higher for BCA. So if they are receiving "fat contract" should not the IDS side be outperforming the BCA side? and should they not have an outrageous profit margin on the IDS side?? Boeing Capital Corp made a record profit last Quarter. Did the Goverment have a hand in this?

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q4/061025a_nr.html


And when it comes to tax breaks every business in this country gets some kind of tax break to attract companies and factories to the area. So by your thinking every company in America is subsidized by the Goverment. The argument that Boeing is subsidized is getting very old Especially coming from a Company whi has a large portion of its shares owned by Goverments.


User currently offlinePygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 966 posts, RR: 38
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3536 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 4):
Airbus says Boeing benefits from over $3 billion in tax breaks from Washington state and fat defense contracts from the U.S. government which reduce its costs on civil aircraft development. Boeing denies receiving any government assistance.

Boeing has yet to collect any money from the tax breaks given by the state of Washington. They kick in at the delivery of the airplane. So if Boeing has to give back the tax break... it wont change anything until first delivery in 2008.

Fat defense contracts??? You mean like the A400M development and production contract that Airbus is using to correct their software integration issues with??? That kind of fat defense contract?


User currently offlineGbfra From Germany, joined Sep 2006, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3519 times:

Reply 8 Wingnut 767

You don't understand this point because you do not see that there are important industrial spillovers from military R&D to the Civil side. Besides the American aircraft industry benefits significantly from NASA R&D.

I'm highly astonished that our American friends don't want to see this although it is very well documented. Have you ever checked the NASA report where they were proudly referring to their work which benefitted GE greatly to come up with the engine that allowed Boeing to build the B777 with only two engines?

I have another NASA example at hand. It's about the propfan:

"NASA's propfan concept of the mid 1970s envisioned use of a large external fan‹in effect a reincarnation of the propeller‹to move great amounts of air and thereby effect a dramatic increase in the bypass ratio...

...In a cooperative General Electric/ NASA program, the UDF was extensively ground tested in 1985-86 and it demonstrated a fuel consumption rate 20 percent better than modern turbofans. Then General Electric teamed with Boeing Commercial Airplane Company to test the UDF in flight aboard a modified Boeing 727 jetliner. Flight tests began in August 1986 and continued into 1987. General Electric also built a second demonstrator engine for 1987 flight tests on a McDonnell Dougias MD-80 twinjet. The company's schedule calls for engine certification by the end of 1990 and availability for service in 1991-92.

A new propfan program, a direct offshoot of NASA propfan technology, was launched in 1986 when Allison Gas Turbine Division and Pratt & Whitney Division of United Technologies began a joint venture to pursue commercial, and possibly military, applications of the propfan. The development team includes, in addition to Allison, two other members of the NASA PTA industry group: Hamilton Standard (propfan) and Rohr Industries (nacelle). "

http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/profan.html

This is just one example from the past. There a many more.

[Edited 2006-12-05 00:59:49]


The fundamental things apply as time goes by
User currently offlinePygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 966 posts, RR: 38
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3504 times:

NASA R&D data is available to any who ask for it.... including Airbus. So beyond the benefit you get from standing there and joining in the party... all the NASA technology is available to any and all.

User currently offlineWingnut767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3499 times:

And that is the job of NASA. To help advance Aviation. To compare that to Government ownership and Government loans is ridiculous.

User currently offlineGbfra From Germany, joined Sep 2006, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3490 times:

Ah, yes, to help Aviation. In a purely philosophical sense? Or just to support PHD programs at universities?

If you think the the financial consequences of joint programs with the American industry are ridiculous too, well, then you can't be helped.



The fundamental things apply as time goes by
User currently offlinePygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 966 posts, RR: 38
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3481 times:

Maybe Airbus should have read this one???

Advanced Technology Composite Fuselage


User currently offlineWingnut767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3480 times:

Quoting Gbfra (Reply 13):
If you think the the financial consequences of joint programs with the American industry are ridiculous too, well, then you can't be helped



Quoting Gbfra (Reply 10):
You don't understand this point because you do not see that there are important industrial spillovers from military R&D to the Civil side.

You must love that smug supperrior attitude that you have for yourself.
 Cool


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3466 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 4):
Airbus says Boeing benefits from over $3 billion in tax breaks from Washington state and fat defense contracts from the U.S. government which reduce its costs on civil aircraft development. Boeing denies receiving any government assistance.



Quoting Gbfra (Reply 10):
You don't understand this point because you do not see that there are important industrial spillovers from military R&D to the Civil side. Besides the American aircraft industry benefits significantly from NASA R&D.

Airbus's parents all have military businesses that were as big as Boeing. And that these companies were largely the dominant aerospace defense contractors in their respective countries. In contrast, Boeing is neither the sole nor the largest US aerospace defense contractor. And if defense contracts were so important for success in the commercial market, MD would have beaten Boeing.

Big version: Width: 719 Height: 533 File size: 66kb


As for NASA, Airbus has benefited from NASA's work. Supercritical wings, anyone?



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3456 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 5):
'm nervous of people hanging their hats on some earth-shattering WTO ruling. FWIW, I don't think we're going to get one.

Frankly, I too would be shocked if anything significant came of this either, or if it even gets to final arguments. IMO, EADS hasn't ruled out government aid to keep the door open to a negotiated settlement. I have always felt that both sides are very reluctant to get a ruling that could have spillover into other areas like agriculture.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offline7cubed From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 161 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3437 times:

The European take is all about subsities. No one argues that both manufacturers get them. The US claim with the wto is about launch aid. As mentioned earlier, how can one say there's no subsities when both the French and German govt's are ass deep in both EADS and Airbus? The quote today was absurd and laughable; "We're looking for a level playing field" what a f'n joke. Airbus has rode the coattails of the European taxpayer since, what, 1969? If it wasn't heavily subsidized there would be no Airbus. You have a problem with Washington state aid, build planes there - I believe a southern state offered a boat load of tax breaks and incentives for A to build their refueling aircraft. Wonder how much the Chinese have offered A to build planes there?

As far as Nasa and Boeing's military division let's be real. Is it possible there will be no tech transfer from say the m400 to the a350? I doulbt it! Does Airbus offer an a/c with blended wingtips? If so, I believe it was the US governments funding to nasa that led to it's implementation - You're welcome Airbus.

From what I've seen, at least from the airbus side, is reality is setting in on the risks of lauching a new a/c. I own a business and I can tell you funding a new project is difficult and a major risk. If I got a handout of one third I would be a lot ballsier but I don't, so I get commercial loans and roll the dice. The EU is playin the fog game where you confuse the topic and from what I've seen here they're doing a pretty good job.

The US and Boeing's bitch is about launch aid, let's not get confused by the spinmasters in Brussels.



joe
User currently offlineSprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3404 times:

Quoting Gbfra (Reply 10):
You don't understand this point because you do not see that there are important industrial spillovers from military R&D to the Civil side.

And Boeing has to show its research in the commerical field. They, by law, can not use any US military research on commerical products.

Quoting Gbfra (Reply 10):
Besides the American aircraft industry benefits significantly from NASA R&D.

Does ANY Airbus aircraft use NACA Ducts? If yes then SHUT UP. Any Research done by NASA(NACA) is open to anyone.

I am so tired of this. Yes the State and Local Govts. give Boeing tax breaks, and to BMW, Toyota, Ford and anyone else who wants to employee hundreds if not thousands of people. If Airbus wants to build a factory here in Florida, then I'm sure the state of Florida, and which ever county they decide to build in, will give HUGE tax breaks to them. But on the same token, the US govt will not finance a new design. It might bail them out if things go bad(Chrysler comes to mind). But didn't Hamburg pay for the widening of the river so Airbus could bring ships into their plant?I guess my point is, My Governments reduce the amount they receive from a company, knowing that they will get 2 times that amount from the people who live and pay taxes in their state/county. The ROI comes when the product is successful. Where as the EU will pay for a new product design so that product will employee people so they dont have to pay unemployment.This helps the company more than the people. Even if that product is not successful. Sorry for the rant.

Dan in Jupiter


User currently offline7cubed From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 161 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3382 times:

Spout5199

No need to be sorry! I'm certainly not. I'll admit I get a little on edge when I hear about B's unending handouts. It's about launch aid and as mentioned earlier the realities are just beginning to set in on the other side of the Atlantic. I've said since Clinton reworked the agreement in the early 90's that it was unfair. As long as B was selling more and had more market share no one cared. I knew that would change the day A out sold B. It didn't happen on that day but it did happen and the suit was filed.

Good points!



joe
User currently offlineWarren747sp From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1153 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3367 times:

Of course, it is such a commercially viable project, commercial banks are just dying to line up for such a profitable return.


747SP
User currently offlineSprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3353 times:

Quoting 7cubed (Reply 20):

I think there is two things going on about Airbus and launch aid. 1. The EU doesn't understand they way we tax and the US doesn't understand the way they tax, 2. The leaders of the EU want to show the "upstart yanks" that they are better than US. Airbus is just taking advantage of #2. As a "chairman of a major company" I would do what ever is better on the bottom line, BUT doing that will hurt them in the long run. Nobody here in the states want a "economic" war with the EU, however we also know if it does happen, we will win. As much as the world doesn't want to acknowledge it, it needs the US. Just as we need the rest of the world. However, the US can pick the countries it needs most. I think the EU shouldn't force us to choose, because they will not like the choice we make. There is no "old school ties". Our country is built on the capitalist thinking. You were our enemy yesterday but you are our customer today, look at Vietnam.

Boy, this has gotten deep. If the Mods think I have stepped over the lines please delete.

Dan in Jupiter


User currently offline7cubed From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 161 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3335 times:

Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 22):

I agree, however I don't see Boeing as an "upstart" - quite the opposite. I do see the point you're making - Most Eu nations being established way back. Personally, I don't think they have a leg to stand on thus the counter suit. When all the cards are on the table the differentiating factor will be launch aid.



joe
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12405 posts, RR: 46
Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3307 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

OK, so let me get this straight. You'd all be perfectly happy for the EU to give EADS €4-5bn in tax breaks - which is free money, rather than a loan that has to be paid back? Problem solved!

Quoting 7cubed (Reply 18):
The US and Boeing's bitch is about launch aid

Which they agreed to in 1992, and seemed to be perfectly happy with while Boeing was comfortably ahead of Airbus.

Regarding the WTO, it's interesting how many people think it's a guaranteed win for the US. Why? In respect of WTO rules, I believe (I'll admit I'm not 100% on this) it's illegal for a company to receive indirect subsidies through it's partners - Japan's "investments" in the 787 could easily fit in this category.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
25 Jacobin777 : 1)To the Airbus bashers-Airbus doesn't get "free" money, and does have to return the RLI..regardless if they make money on the project or not 2)To the
26 Post contains images Osiris30 : I want to see Airbus off the government teet for its own good (Airbus's), not for Boeing's.
27 Atmx2000 : Yes, because it will mean that Airbus can't launch product after product without actually getting a return on investment. Airbus has gotten away with
28 7cubed : You're quite the extremist, We both know that both companies get and have received tax breaks from various governments both local and at the state le
29 Atmx2000 : The problem is when do they have to return the money. They may have to return the money at some point, but it will be backloaded for failed products
30 Jacobin777 : I don't disagree with you in theory.....but again, that's a philosophical and economic debate...my point was that there are just too much false infor
31 Post contains links SSTsomeday : Airwise.com suggests that this is a calculated move on the part of Airbus; a publicity "preemptive strike," because they want to be on the OFFENSIVE w
32 Pygmalion : RLI or launch money or whatever you want to call it, reduces Airbus risk and cost of capital when introducing new products. Tax breaks do not reduce r
33 Post contains links Trex8 : really? where in the agreement? Washington must have a different English translation than Brussels has? http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...do?uri
34 Post contains links Trex8 : sl OT but they must be celebrating at NG and EADS, USAF will not take WTO dispute into account re tanker program http://today.reuters.com/summit/summ.
35 Post contains images Astuteman : That would be great for you. But RLI is not a "hand-out". But they don't They pay for this... (in your own words, too..), and infrastructure investme
36 Post contains images Scbriml : Been called a few things, but never that! We do? Would you have any reference that indicates this? Does it actually say that in the agreement? How ex
37 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Thanks for the kind words...actually Astuteman, I find your posts to be quite accurate, the only problem is I feel I need a bloody Ph.D. to get throu
38 Baroque : All too true as the Astute one has remarked. The comment about both sides being worried agriculture would get caught up is probably another dimension
39 AirFrnt : This is the difference between the American experience with the WTO and the European experience. America had far more liberal trade laws going into t
40 Pygmalion : in 1991 there was a GATT subsidy case against the EU for loans to Airbus. GATT ruled that the launch aid/ loans were subsidies and were in violation o
41 SSTsomeday : Yes, tax breaks come at the BACK END, once you start to make money. It's quite different than up-front risk and development money. In addition, I wou
42 Post contains images Astuteman : Not to mention 45 minutes free time I'm sure they're entitled to hold that view, and I'm sure they have their reasons. But so far, RLI's have not bee
43 Pygmalion : I wouldnt call it a disadvantage... Airbus airplanes have a complete exemption from the VAT (Value Added Tax)... so in terms of tax breaks it appears
44 Post contains images Jacobin777 : I would say even longer...
45 Pygmalion : whether paid back or not, they are still front loaded and risk reducing.
46 Rheinbote : Face it, all large companies around the world get taxpayer money 'benefits' they essentially don't need, let alone deserve. Being large, they have the
47 Post contains images Astuteman : They're easier to launder that way........... Regards
48 Post contains images Pygmalion : I prefer top loaded myself... dont have to bend over as much.
49 Post contains images Astuteman : A whole host of answers spring to mind...... Having endured the flippant response (my thanks), on a serious note, I'm not inclined to disagree with t
50 Post contains images Osiris30 : Man you're on fire today.... Ahhh you're running for office that explains that snappy one-liners... got some staff writers huh
51 Post contains images HB88 : I listened to his interviews in english and french yesterday and I think there are a few too many assumptions going on here about the sources of fund
52 Post contains images Astuteman : I get the impression you're right on the wavelength too.... Bugger - I thought I'd hidden it well...... The humour was THAT much better then eh? Damn
53 Jacobin777 : Man....I was thinking the same thing..talk about "being on the ball"....!!!
54 Post contains images Astuteman : What is this life without a little bit of humour now and again? Regards
55 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Not a lot...
56 Post contains images Baroque : But more prone to leaks? Very true, but at least the ferocity of the incorrect statements about RLI seems to be decreasing.
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...
Any Way To Figure Out Reg # Based On Flight #? posted Wed Oct 1 2003 02:07:29 by F9Widebody
Ntsb To Rule On American Airbus Crash posted Tue Oct 26 2004 13:46:35 by Jumpseat70
Airbus To Dump 8 Out Of 10 Suppliers? posted Tue Nov 7 2006 03:07:16 by Dougloid
BAE Finally To Sell Out Airbus Stake? posted Sun Sep 3 2006 16:44:52 by NAV20
Airbus Reacts To Boeing's Comments On A380 posted Fri Aug 18 2006 02:34:43 by A5XX
Article: Airbus Likely To Request State Aid posted Mon Jun 19 2006 02:01:58 by Lumberton
Airbus Says 'Airbus Guessed Wrong On A350' posted Wed May 24 2006 06:48:43 by Elvis777
Airbus CEO Sees Mid-2006 Decision On A350 Changes posted Tue Apr 25 2006 18:06:06 by Sangas
Airbus Will Not Be Rushed On A350 Decision posted Thu Apr 20 2006 15:41:51 by Leelaw
Airbus Ready To Discuss A350 Improvements posted Mon Apr 10 2006 12:09:07 by Joni