Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Clinton Threatens Airbus Over A3XX  
User currently offlineJuul From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2420 times:

US president Bill Clinton has warned Europe and Airbus in particular that it is risking a trade war with the US if it goes ahead with the A3XX. I don't know anything more about what it was exactly he said, as I just read it on the teletext service here in Belgium (VRT)

Nice timing, Bill!

Anyway, what do you think of this?

64 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline777x From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2092 times:

http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/001218/n18172559.html



User currently offlineDeltaAir From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1094 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2009 times:

Refusal to hand over documents? Hmm........not a good thing to do when you are being "audited".

User currently offlineA320FO From Austria, joined Oct 2000, 211 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1979 times:

Here we go again.......

Its time that certain persons/companies/countries stop being ridiculous and return to the harsh reality. Apparently, the US industry is not capable of innovation, as the only answer they come up with is to cry for their political leaders to step in.
Simply put, if simply strechting a 35 year OLD airplane (747) does not sell, then its time to think about alternatives! Trying it the political way does NOT raise the qualities of Boeing.

Just my two cents worth.....

A320FO


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1955 times:

I really don't like it when politics and aviation mix. But, unfortunately they do more times than they do not. Just as Boeing had to jump throught hoops to get EU certification of its McDonnell Douglas takeover, Airbus and its backers are going to have to do the same if the A3XX is going to come to fruition. As for Boeing having no better answer than a 35 year old stretched 747, thats not correct. The 763-246C is an awesome design, but the market does not warrant the R&D costs.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6511 posts, RR: 54
Reply 5, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1943 times:

Paris / Bonn, December 18th 1966

French president Charles de Gaule and German cancellor Conrad Adenauer have warned the USA and Boeing in particular that it is risking a trade war with Europe if it goes ahead with the B747. I don't know anything more about what it was exactly they said, as I just read it on the teletext service here in Denmark.


Anyway, what do you think of this? Rubbish? Of course it is.
Happy landing, Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineDelta763ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1930 times:


If Clinton said anything, I am still convinced that there's not a big need for the A3XX. I believe that Airbus and Boeing should spend their time in the Mid-sized, Boeing 767 example, type of a/c, because the world does not need a huge jet. Over the next decade, passengers and airlines are going to need many mid-sized jets to fly routes such as the North Atlantic route, to have many flights of Boeing 767's for example, instead of having one flight of a 500+ pax jet. Pax and airlines want flexibility in flights, so why not spend time and $$$ in reinventing the Boeing 767-300/200 and have Airbus develop a jet that would compete with the 767, not the 777 or 747.


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6511 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1903 times:

Juul wrote:
-------------------------------
... Nice timing, Bill!
-------------------------------

Perfect timing!!! Mr. Clinton isn't really satisfied with yesterday's outcome of the so called presidential elections. So now he went to work producing artificial problems for his successor.

During the next 24 hours we have got the chance to see if Mr. Bush jr is an adult man, or just his father's son. Let us stay tuned to the teletext in Belgium  
Best regards, Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineRWally From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 555 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1858 times:

Washington, Dec. 18 (Bloomberg) -- President Bill Clinton warned European Union leaders they were risking a trade dispute with the U.S. over plans to subsidize Airbus Industrie's new super- jumbo passenger aircraft, U.S. officials said.

Clinton told the EU officials at a summit in Washington that loans to develop the new A3XX jet, which would be the largest in the world if it enters service as planned in 2005, must not be made by EU governments on preferential terms.

``We have impressed upon them, as did the president today -- quite strongly -- that funding needs to be on a commercial basis,'' said U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky. ``We have asked that the member state governments disclose the terms on which the funding will be provided.''

Boeing Co.'s stock rose more than 5 percent today, closing at $68.50. Airbus competes with Boeing in the large commercial airliner market.

Gene Sperling, Clinton's top economic adviser, said Clinton told European Commission president Romano Prodi and French President Jacques Chirac that if the matter ``is not taken seriously, it could be a difficult issue between the U.S. and the EU on trade in the future.''

The meeting among the leaders took place at a luncheon during the twice-yearly U.S.-EU summit that dealt with issues ranging from transatlantic trade disputes over beef and bananas to European security and defense concerns.

Government Financing

Barshefsky in June asked the governments of Germany, France, and the U.K. to disclose the terms of the loans they had agreed to give Airbus to finance development of the 550- to 650-seat aircraft, more than 50 of which have already been ordered by airlines around the world.

She said today those governments had so far declined to provide that information.

``This is a situation where we're talking about government financing, we're not talking about financing from private banks,'' she said. ``The government of Germany has indicated it would commit funds; the government of the United Kingdom and the government of France similarly.

``Under international trade rules, to the extent there is a concern about subsidization, governments are required to disclose the terms on which financing is to be provided,'' Barshefsky said.

Pascal Lamy, the EU's trade commissioner, declined to answer questions about Airbus after speaking today to the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based think tank.

Boeing Backs Clinton

A Boeing spokeswoman said the company supports the administration's efforts to ensure that World Trade Organization obligations are respected.

Virnell Bruce said Boeing expects the A3XX project ``will go forward, but we believe that it should be on commercial terms.''

She said it will be up to the government to determine whether the financing is on such terms.

Barshefsky said the U.S. has made it ``very clear'' that financing must be ``consistent with WTO rules, including with respect to subsidies, and therefore that all financing provided must be on commercially consistent terms.''

That means the EU government cannot lend to Airbus on better terms than the company, which is owned by British Aerospace Plc and the European Aeronautic, Defense and Space Co., could get borrowing from a commercial bank.

Barshefsky said the financing may be breaching global trade rules.

``First of all, the governments have obviously been very quiet on the manner in which the financing will take place,'' she said.

``And second, all indications are, from a variety of observers to the scene, that the funding for the A3XX will not be provided on commercially consistent terms, but will be provided with a sharp element of preference which may well constitute a violation of WTO rules,'' she concluded.

Dec/18/2000 17:28 ET


User currently offlineFly-By-Pilot From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1840 times:

When Boeing wanted to make 737's in Long Beach the EU bitched and they got their way. The only reason airlines are actually considering the A3XX is because Airbus can sell them cheaper than the 747-400. Who would be stupid to pass up a deal like that. First Airbus uses the deep pockets of 3 nations to sell the planes at close out prices and then they use those same deep pockets for R&D. You cant be more unfair that that.

User currently offlineBigo747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1830 times:

Clinton should just have the FAA ban the A3XX from US airports!

User currently offlineRaddog2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1829 times:

What is Airbus afraid of? If the EU loans are legitimate, the governments shouldn't be afraid of disclosing the terms. If they amount to illegal subsidies, then you can expect the WTO to permit trade sanctions.

If Airbus can't develop the A3XX without having the EU pay for it, it's not much of a company.


User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1831 times:

This never changes, so many clever arguments.
Why not ban Europe from planet Earth, Bigo747???


User currently offlineWatewate From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 2284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1807 times:

Clinton is letting everyone know that he's still the man in charge! He still has a few more weeks in office but I'd like to see Bush's official view on this subject.

User currently offlineBoeing747-700 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1805 times:

"Clinton should just have the FAA ban the A3XX from US airports!"

Clinton and the USA can not stop Airbus from making an A3XX. What next do they control what I should do?! Ladies and Gentlemen I call that Communism. Like it or not USA, the Airbus AXX will not be halted on you account.  


User currently offlineTWA717_200 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1797 times:

Raddog2 summed it up perfectly.

User currently offlineWatewate From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 2284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1784 times:

WTO can't do anything. If you can recall Bombardier vs. Embraer ruling, WTO told Brazillian government to stop giving kickbacks to Embraer. Apparently, Embraer and Brazillian government haven't changed their ways and are still continuing with the practice. This goes to explain the 'power' of WTO.

User currently offlineBlink182 From Azerbaijan, joined Oct 1999, 5482 posts, RR: 15
Reply 17, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1774 times:

Thank you Bill!
rgds,
blink182



Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
User currently offlineB727-200 From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1051 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1772 times:


Am I the only one here who is getting sick of this crap???

The Space race, Arms race, Concord and now the A3XX. If Uncle Sam didn't think of it, build it, fly it, drive it or hump it first, then it must be a bad thing that is intended to hurt, maim and destroy the people and organisations of the good ol' U.S. of A!!!!

And is this the same Bill Clinton that was subsidising US farmers for their meat and grain, almost to the point of driving smaller surrounding nations primary industries into ruin some years ago?

Most upsetting is how a forum that is supposed to be full of people that have chosen Aviation as one of their hobbies, careers or loves keep bagging what will be the biggest advance in commercial aviation for over 30 years?

My AU$0.02 (US$0.0109, EUR 0.01217)

B727-200.


User currently offlineDeltaAir From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1094 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1750 times:

Most likely the A3XX will fly, but most likely unless the government loaning is stopped, probably not in the US. Whoever says the U.S. cannot ban an aircraft from landing in the U.S. is absolutely incorrect. The Concorde was banned for a certain time and still may be along with the A3XX if this problem isn't solved.

User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6511 posts, RR: 54
Reply 20, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1747 times:

B727-200 wrote:
-------------------------------
Am I the only one here who is getting sick of this crap???
-------------------------------

No.


PS: Just one post scriptum, to put the crap in perspective. They keep talking about the Airbus and "the EU" and trade wars against the EU. There are fifteen EU member countries. Four countries are involved in the Airbus. My country PLUS TEN MORE EU COUNTRIES are not involved in the Airbus.
It really irritates me that eleven countries including mine is automatically getting "Airbus-bashing" because we have friendly neighbour relation to those 27% of EU countries, which are Airbus producers. We cannot avoid to be neighbours, and "friendly", that's our nature. Around here we fly Airbus and Boeing/MDD - what fits our needs best - mostly the latter at present. Fine planes, nothing wrong with them.
But if we look upon the FOUR Airbus countries: Both AF, BA and LH fly lots of 747s - even if half of the original development costs were spin off from the taxpayer sponsorred Large Military Transport contest which Boeing lost to Lockheed and the C-5A. That's okay, why not? Boeing also had the right to put windows and seats on the KC-135 and rename it 707. Of course.
And of course Mr. Clinton has the right to protect his farmers for the well-being of his country. The well-being of Australian farmers also has his interest, but as second priority - of course.
Instead of all this whining, couldn't they just dismantle the Statue of Liberty and send it back to France from where it came.
Best regards, Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineTygue From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1730 times:

Boeing747-700 said it perfectly. The US isn't going to stop Airbus.

Perhaps all of Europe should ban the 717, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767 and 777 aircraft. Seeing as a lot of North American airlines are making the switch to airbus, Europe could destroy Boeing with such a move. Not that it's a particularly realistic idea, but just a thought.



User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1720 times:

Again, if there is nothing wrong with the loans and they are compliant with the 1992 accord then there should be no problem. As for the 747 and 707 being brought up as U.S. government backed programs. Please fellas lets stick to reality.

In 1952 Boeing invested 16 million dollars of its own money into the 367-80 project (707). The first customer for the aircraft was Pan Am. Now, thats not to say that the KC-135 program did not help. But Boeing didn't ask the United States Government for money so that it could build an airplane that Pan Am would want to purchase. So, to say that the program was backed by the U.S. Govt is false. Sorry but Boeing spent its own money.

As for the 747, it came about after Boeing LOST the CX-HLS program to Lockheed. Boeing took its own money and pursued the product in a commercial aspect. The United States Government wasn't there to fall back on. In fact, when the 747 first went into production, I believe that the unemployement rate was 17% in Seattle due to all of the layoffs.

It seems to me that alot of the people touting the A3XX as a profit maker and rambling off potential order numbers forget that it took the 747 over 20 years to get to 1000 orders. Now, with the advent of the 767, 777, and Airbus's own A330, A340 it will be even harder to sell Super Jumbos.

F.Y.I Boeing has sold 114 777s this year. Airbus has sold 113 A330/340s. Lets not forget the 21 747s and 9 767s. (One must say a poor year for the 767.) Only 50 A3XXs were sold at BARGAIN BASEMENT PRICES. A.k.a. A 747-400 is more expensive. So, if we do the math

747- 21
767- 9
777- 114
A330/340- 113

We get 257 transports to 50.



"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineRaddog2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1710 times:

Prebennorholm:

Since EU member nations decided to form a trading bloc, you shouldn't be outraged when trading partners take trade conflicts to the EU government. No one is trying to "bash" Denmark or any other European country. But to put it into perspective -- European trade policy is set in Brussels. France, Germany, and the UK may be the ones providing the loans, but I don't see the rest of the EU trading bloc pushing for disclosure of the terms of the loans (which they could if they wanted to). The fact is that the the Airbus countries are trying to subsidize the A3XX through underhanded loans in violation of international rules, and EU trade representatives (who represent all EU member nations, like it or not) are trying to pretend nothing is happening.

As for the tired old "Boeing gets military contracts" excuse -- so does Airbus! If you show me someone who says that BAe doesn't work on military technology, I'll show you a liar. The point is that Boeing doesn't get below market rate loans from the US government for commercial aircraft development, and Airbus does. No amount of smoke and mirrors can hide that fact.

International trade rules exist for a reason. The WTO may not have teeth, but it can permit retributive trade sanctions.


User currently offlineWatewate From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 2284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1695 times:

Funny post  

25 USAirways737 : What is so wrong with asking questions to make sure the loans are legal????? If the EU governments were doing everything in compliance with trade rule
26 J57pw43 : Why not let Europe only buy their own airbus planes & all US carriers buy Boeing aircraft. Let Asian carriers make their own decision. Maybe the US g
27 Post contains images Bodzio777 : Its about time he did something right. Had I known this, I've would have voted for GORE! Would the United States help Boeing develope the 747X? Did th
28 Post contains images IndianGuy : Let the Market decide whether the A3XX will run or not. The US has no business dictating terms to Europe and the rest of the world. Frankly, Boeing is
29 Jkelley480 : For credibility's sake I must premise this statement by saying that I appreciate both Airbus and Boeing aircraft and feel no sentimental affinity towa
30 Aduum : YOU GO INDIAN GUY. The typical American response that I as an Australian have come to get used to. Can I ask a question. WOuld Mr. Clinton have anythi
31 DG_pilot : Tygue said: ""Seeing as a lot of North American airlines are making the switch to airbus, Europe could destroy Boeing with such a move."" ------------
32 Future_Pilot : Anyone remember the Avro Arrow project?, it was far supperior to what the U.S had and they couldan't take it, so they shut it down. Same thing is happ
33 FrankyA340 : Are you sure you know this an aviation forum....
34 Post contains images Nycank : A large portion of the subcontracts for avionics and other esoteric stuff are going to be awarded to US corporations anyway If the Oil prices stay put
35 Post contains images OO-AOG : Those american guys are so funny. Good idea, ban the A3XX because Boeing is losing the market....com'on guys take it easy, we all know you are the bes
36 Joni : This thread has been extremely entertaining - you don't often see people playing the good old WW2 card anymore. Not to mention it eliciting the class
37 GKirk : Will Bill Clinton please shut up, please shut up! Its up to the European Governments if they want to help Airbus, Im sure the USA would help Boeing. A
38 Tan flyr : OK, final off topic post on this. 1.My apologies to any fellow European aviation buffs. My point about"saving ass" specificly referred to the UK & Fra
39 CX747 : All this has to deal with is checking to make sure that the loans the EU governments are giving to Airbus are at commercial rates. If there is nothing
40 Hepkat : From reading these posts I can detect a lot of hurt feelings and pride over this matter. As a neutral observer, I can only say; I don't think this has
41 Notdownnlocked : Does anybody remember the "pitch a bitch" problems from a country in Europe when the 744 was introduced? I think it was due to some questions about th
42 Raddog2 : For those of you who say "let the market decide," obviously you have no idea what free markets are. Letting the market decide whether the A3XX should
43 Wingman : Not many people seem to understand what this is all about. Quite simply, it is about companies and countries using any available means to protect them
44 Mace_2 : will it even be aloud in the US because of noise? I heard it is very noisey.
45 Jkelley480 : Ha! The A3XX will not be "noisy," I can tell you that. I would guess that any non hush-kitted 727 is much louder than the A3XX will be!
46 F-WWKH : If that is true, than we could call it the 'US President farce, part II'
47 Prebennorholm : This whole case has run into a deadlock. Airbus says they play according to the rules. Boeing says that Airbus is not playing according to the rules.
48 Fly-By-Pilot : The day it will be fair is the day the US Gov gives Boeing grants(I mean "loans") to sell their planes 25% off and pay for most of R&D. We all would b
49 Joni : Fly-By-Pilot, You call for Airbus to be accountable. For starters, would you yourself mind becoming accountable? You insinuate Airbus r&d is mostly p
50 Neo : What a situation for Boeing!!! Are they so scared of the A3XX??? It is just an airplane!!! My message to Boeing: Get a grip, this ridiculous threat ma
51 Mirage : Shame on you who give priority to political questions instead of enjoying the birth of a revolutionary design such as the A3XX (A380). To the kids who
52 Raddog2 : Hey Joni -- Whether Airbus is getting subsidies or not is easily answered: just get Airbus to disclose the terms of its government loans in accordance
53 Travelin man : Why is there this huge hoopla over whether the A380 will be getting government funded loans??? "Aircraft built honorably"??? Boeing all along has INSI
54 Raddog2 : Boeing never said there was no market. Boeing said the market was too small to make development of very large aircraft profitable, assuming you use fa
55 310_engineer : Why always this Boeing vs Airbus discussion?Let there be a competition between these two manufactors. Wait for Boeings answer to the A380.We (pilots,t
56 Kindalazy : Travelin Man - A very well thought out argument - one that I happen to agree with. I appreciate such an (apparently)unbiased and reasoned analysis....
57 Widebody : Airbus received subsidies in its early years because Boeing tried to undercut them on every order they sought....Boeing had both the capital and polit
58 Carioca Canuck : What about all the military funded technology (read as "subsidized") that has been transfered to civilian aircraft by Boeing ? Oooops !!!
59 N628AU : Widebody... You have missed the point here. Re-read Rad Dog's most recent post. Boeing said there was not a sufficient market to make the program prof
60 N628AU : Carioca... Like has been posted before, Airbus gets military contracts because of BAe. This is obtained on the open market, as is Boeing's. As a matte
61 Widebody : N628AU, If you read my post, you'll see I commented on what Raddog2 said.......no amount of funding can make a production run of 300 aircraft profitab
62 Adria : heeh bull! Now that they see that the A380 could be a big succses and a big loss for Boeing now they threaten. And anyway who is Bill to threaten anyo
63 BOS-CDG : 747- 21 767- 9 777- 114 A330/340- 113 When you do your maths and compare 50 A380 to 250+ other A/C, you have a very simplified view of things. The A3
64 L-188 : Evertime I see picture of that aircraft it is in either Airbus House Colors, or Singapore's. I am waiting to see a picture of the scheme that would lo
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...
Udvar-Hazy: Don't Destroy Airbus Over A380 Mistake posted Mon Jun 26 2006 06:48:09 by Leelaw
Shuttling Airbus' Over The Atlantic posted Tue Aug 17 2004 22:59:51 by Radelow
US-EU Confrontation Over A3XX posted Sat Dec 2 2000 03:13:33 by B757300
Qantas Set For $8b Airbus Order-A3XX/A330 posted Sat Nov 4 2000 22:32:01 by VH-BZF
B744F Over A3XX-100F posted Sun Oct 15 2000 07:56:37 by Jiml1126
Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble. posted Wed Jul 5 2000 20:09:31 by CX747
Airbus & A3XX Funding Problems posted Mon Mar 27 2000 19:27:08 by DeltaAir
Eads Cements Management Control Over Airbus posted Wed Nov 1 2006 08:51:46 by Leelaw
Airbus Worker Rep Threatens Possible Strikes posted Sun Oct 15 2006 21:21:59 by Halibut
Airbus Faces Fresh Hit Over Super-jumbo posted Sun Oct 8 2006 07:52:41 by Windshear