Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies  
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4442 times:

I had to shorten the title a little.

EU criticizes U.S. defense of alleged Boeing subsidies

Quote:
GENEVA: The United States submitted a weak defense of the billions of dollars it pays in subsidies to Boeing Co., the European Union said Tuesday as the two sides began World Trade Organization hearings over their rival claims of illegal financing for airplane makers.

Brussels also rejected as "absurd" a US$205 billion (€148.3 billion) evaluation by Washington of the benefit France-based Airbus has received as a result of European government support. The U.S. accuses the company of receiving billions in so-called launch aid from the bloc and its member states, which would have amounted to much higher costs if the loans were given at commercial rates.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/...ess/EU-FIN-ECO-WTO-Plane-Fight.php


Will this ever end? They need to come to some kind of an agreement.

90 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5216 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4412 times:

I don't think an agreement will be reached over this issue anytime soon. Other countries (Brazil, China, Russia, and maybe Japan) are determined to maintain aircraft production within their borders and provide subsidies as well.

Let's just hope the argument doesn't get to the point of countervailing duties, raising costs for everyone.



Consilivm: Cave ne nothi te vexant
User currently offlineCygnusChicago From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4320 times:

Quoting EI321 (Thread starter):
Brussels also rejected as "absurd" a US$205 billion (€148.3 billion) evaluation

$205 bn? Wow, what's that - about 10 A380 programs? Airbus must be running a lot of stealth projects  Wink



If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4300 times:

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 2):
Quoting EI321 (Thread starter):
Brussels also rejected as "absurd" a US$205 billion (€148.3 billion) evaluation

$205 bn? Wow, what's that - about 10 A380 programs? Airbus must be running a lot of stealth projects

Its a crazy figure. I'd love to see the breakdown of it.


User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2822 posts, RR: 42
Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4286 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 3):
Its a crazy figure. I'd love to see the breakdown of it.

Most of it is probably in the 20 years that Europe paid to keep Airbus (and it's distinct elements) alive before the A320.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4277 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 4):
Quoting EI321 (Reply 3):
Its a crazy figure. I'd love to see the breakdown of it.

Most of it is probably in the 20 years that Europe paid to keep Airbus (and it's distinct elements) alive before the A320.


Before the A320, airbus had delivered approx 400 aircraft. Even if we take a sale price of $120m for each, thats still just revenues of $48b, assuming that the EU paid for 100% (ie the airlines got them for completely free!) of each of these aircraft which is of course complete nonsense.

Quote:
"If the U.S. methodology were to be applied to the massive federal, state and local subsidies benefiting Boeing, the amount challenged by the EU would be not US$23 billion (€16.6 billion), but rather US$305 billion (€220.7 billion)," the EU said.

[Edited 2007-07-24 19:39:37]

User currently offlineOldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4249 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 4):
Most of it is probably in the 20 years that Europe paid to keep Airbus (and it's distinct elements) alive before the A320.

This figure also would be absurd, when it would have been the subsidies beginning from the start of Airbus in the 70th and we would include the development of the Concorde ...
... and the BAC 111...
... and the VC10
... and the VFW 614 ...
... and ...  Yeah sure

Axel



Wer wenig weiss muss vieles glauben
User currently offlineGBan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4213 times:

Quoting EI321 (Thread starter):
Will this ever end? They need to come to some kind of an agreement.

My bet: Take the number of posts this thread will have in the next seven days and it will be equal to the number of month' we have to wait until this 'fight' ends...


User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2822 posts, RR: 42
Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4079 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 5):


Before the A320, airbus had delivered approx 400 aircraft. Even if we take a sale price of $120m for each, thats still just revenues of $48b, assuming that the EU paid for 100% (ie the airlines got them for completely free!) of each of these aircraft which is of course complete nonsense.

How many years did Airbus not sell a single plane, or less then 10?


User currently offlineAnalog From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1900 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days ago) and read 3984 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 5):

Before the A320, airbus had delivered approx 400 aircraft. Even if we take a sale price of $120m for each, thats still just revenues of $48b, assuming that the EU paid for 100% (ie the airlines got them for completely free!) of each of these aircraft which is of course complete nonsense.

Who says subsidies are limited to 100% of sale prices? Implying that such a limit exists also implies that a gifted airplane costs nothing to make. Say each $120m aircraft cost $500m, including development costs (yes, probably absurd, but for argument's sake). Then a $380m/aircraft subsidy would be in order. Of course that's still only $152b....


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3899 times:

Quoting Analog (Reply 9):
Quoting EI321 (Reply 5):

Before the A320, airbus had delivered approx 400 aircraft. Even if we take a sale price of $120m for each, thats still just revenues of $48b, assuming that the EU paid for 100% (ie the airlines got them for completely free!) of each of these aircraft which is of course complete nonsense.

Who says subsidies are limited to 100% of sale prices? Implying that such a limit exists also implies that a gifted airplane costs nothing to make. Say each $120m aircraft cost $500m, including development costs (yes, probably absurd, but for argument's sake). Then a $380m/aircraft subsidy would be in order. Of course that's still only $152b....

Im at a complete loss to explain how they could come up with such a massive figure. $205b equates to the value of approx 6300 A320s!!!! *

*205,000,000,000 / [50,000,000 - 35%] = 6307


User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2822 posts, RR: 42
Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3778 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 10):
Im at a complete loss to explain how they could come up with such a massive figure. $205b equates to the value of approx 6300 A320s!!!! *

You keep ignoring what people have mentioned that Airbus (and it's components) were completely subsidized through multiple years of selling not a single plane. Is the number inflated, of course it is, just like any number that comes from Airbus about Boeing is inflated beyond reason. But remember that the US/EU billaterial that limited launch aid to 30% was acceptable to the US simply because it was massivly better then the huge dumping Europe had done before.


User currently offlineGbfra From Germany, joined Sep 2006, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3767 times:

Both parties know very well that the figures presented by each of them aren't worth the paper on which they are written. No reason to take these figures seriously.

But there is another issue that seems quite interesting (to me, at least).

The US and the EU could most probably reach a bilateral agreement outside of the WTO which would satisfy both of them. In this case, however, other countries like Russia, China, Brazil...would not be included.

If the US and the EU want a deal that includes other countries this deal would have to be negociated at the WTO. In this case the US and the EU would no longer control the negociations. The result of this deal might not satisfy the US or the EU....or both.

Afaik, both parties have called the WTO but at the same time they have until now done everything to delay the procedure. Because, in reality, neither the US nor the EU want the WTO to decide.



The fundamental things apply as time goes by
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12041 posts, RR: 47
Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3723 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 11):
it was massivly better then the huge dumping Europe had done before

Which huge dumping was that then?



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8876 posts, RR: 40
Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3697 times:

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 1):
Other countries (Brazil, China, Russia, and maybe Japan) are determined to maintain aircraft production within their borders and provide subsidies as well.

Actually, not completely. The Brazilian government has asked the WTO to rule against subsidies. According to the article, our delegation insisted that subsidies for companies is not a requirement to participate in the industry, giving the example of how Embraer's E-jets were designed and built without government subsidies.

From the Brazilian press.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2822 posts, RR: 42
Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3646 times:

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 13):

Which huge dumping was that then?

The billions of dollars that kept the various civil aviation efforts afloat while Airbus failed to sell planes.


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12041 posts, RR: 47
Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3607 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 15):
The billions of dollars that kept the various civil aviation efforts afloat while Airbus failed to sell planes.

What you're describing is not dumping. But now I see what you're driving at.

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 11):
You keep ignoring what people have mentioned that Airbus (and it's components) were completely subsidized through multiple years of selling not a single plane.

During which multiple years did Airbus not sell a single plane?



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12431 posts, RR: 100
Reply 17, posted (6 years 9 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3544 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 2):
$205 bn? Wow, what's that - about 10 A380 programs? Airbus must be running a lot of stealth projects

Dude... I knew Elvis had a new jet.  Wink

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3322 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (6 years 9 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3533 times:

1 billion in 1970 is not the same as 1 billion today. So if you adjust all the ammounts for inflation, then you can get some rather stunning numbers.

User currently offlinePM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6840 posts, RR: 64
Reply 19, posted (6 years 9 months 1 day ago) and read 3505 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 8):
How many years did Airbus not sell a single plane, or less then 10?



Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 11):
multiple years of selling not a single plane



Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 15):
while Airbus failed to sell planes

You keep bringing this up. I don't know where you get your information from but here are the facts. In no year did Airbus fail to sell a single plane. So "multiple years of selling not a single plane" is wrong and I'm sure you'll be happy to admit your error.

Here's the worst years

1976 1
1983 7
1975 16
1977 16
1982 17
1974 20
1984 35
1993 38
1980 47
1981 54
1978 73
1985 92

In every other year they have sold more than 100.

If you want decades:

1974-1983 = 378 (or 38 a year)
1984-1993 = 1678 (or 168 a year)
1994-2003 = 3528 (or 353 a year)

Do with those statistics what you will but please stop inventing your own.


User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2822 posts, RR: 42
Reply 20, posted (6 years 9 months 22 hours ago) and read 3463 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 19):
If you want decades:

1974-1983 = 378 (or 38 a year)
1984-1993 = 1678 (or 168 a year)
1994-2003 = 3528 (or 353 a year)

Do with those statistics what you will but please stop inventing your own.

My source for that statement was Airbus's own book on the A380.

[Edited 2007-07-26 06:40:28]

User currently offlinePM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6840 posts, RR: 64
Reply 21, posted (6 years 9 months 22 hours ago) and read 3437 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 20):
My source for that statement was Airbus's own book on the A380.

In which they said what? That in "multiple years" they sold "not a single plane"? It seems unlikely.

My source is here:

http://www.airbus.com/en/corporate/orders_and_deliveries/

Click on "O&D 1974-2006" in the Key Documents box on the left.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3322 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (6 years 9 months 20 hours ago) and read 3382 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 21):
In which they said what? That in "multiple years" they sold "not a single plane"? It seems unlikely.

My source is here:

http://www.airbus.com/en/corporate/orders_and_deliveries/

Click on "O&D 1974-2006" in the Key Documents box on the left.

Airbus existed prior to 1974, and in fact had a plane flying prior to 1974. They recently highlighted this in that epic piece of false advertising where it was stated that they created the first widebody.

so... Clearly if orders start in 1974, and they had the A300 flying in 1972.... With a program that started in late 1967. So from 1967 when the governments agreed to start a joint program to 1974 there was apparently 0 orders, despite laying out money to develop and in fact start flying the plane.


User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1706 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (6 years 9 months 19 hours ago) and read 3378 times:

1 million dollars compounded at a 8 percent interest rate over 40 years is nearly 22 million today.

User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 9 months 19 hours ago) and read 3358 times:

How much trade does the US actually do with Europe? What would be the consequences of just telling them to pound mud?


Airliners.net Moderator Team
25 PM : Ah, I'm with you now. So the allegations of subsidising go back - well, virtually indefinitely. Why stop in 1967? I believe there was UK government i
26 Post contains links and images Scbriml : No, the spreadsheet doesn't break out orders prior to 1974. Airbus was formally created in 1970. The A300 first flew in 1972, at which point it had 1
27 Moo : Thank god European governments *did* subsidise Airbus. Otherwise the world civil aviation market today would be dominated by America and America alon
28 Post contains images PM : Well, it would mean that all Airbuses would have RR from now on! Sounds good to me! (What exactly does "pounding mud" involve? )
29 TYCOON : For all the Boeing (Boeing, Lockheed and McDD) fans, do words like KC-135, KC-10 or the Lockheed C5A Galaxy ring a bell? Well let me remind those who
30 Post contains images MCIGuy : Basically, it means the same thing as "kick rocks". It means to "go away" or "walk away", feet impacting on soil, thus "pound mud". It's an American
31 Post contains images MBJ2000 : Finally someone has understood... The only difference is that at the moment it seems, Boeing is much more cleverly investing the GOV money.
32 XT6Wagon : Completely wrong. The KC-135 was developed entirely out of Boeings own pocket. It wasn't even supposed to be more than a "temporary" bridge order unt
33 Post contains images MCIGuy : Yep, they don't award contracts to dying companies unless they offer the best product A "subsidy" is basically charity. A contract is "build me X wid
34 Post contains links and images MBJ2000 : Oh really? So what's the point in accepting contracts from the Army if it's barely covering the development costs? In your opinion, Boeing, Douglas e
35 XT6Wagon : because if you are good at it, you get job security. You don't rake in the big bucks, but its a steady check. Also many small companies try for it as
36 EI321 : Im not ignoring ANYTHING. But thats a good way to mask what is a fickle agument to start with. Its well known that as a govt owned company, the forma
37 Baroque : No it will never end because some really think there are unjust practices - two way effort. But they WILL come to an agreement, otherwise someone els
38 TYCOON : XT6Wagon, brush up on the facts first. You are soooooo naive in your assertions as to be risible. Just dig into congressional reports on military proc
39 Sllevin : Acutally, Boeing paid the US government for the rights to use the design and research -- mainly because Douglas, Lockheed and Convair all complained
40 Post contains images Shenzhen : Its not just what was injected/borrowed/given to Airbus, its what that money would have cost Airbus since then, compounded, if they had pay it back t
41 CygnusChicago : I still don't understand how that comes even close to $200 bn. Any ideas?
42 Post contains links XT6Wagon : I give you $1billion in 1970, all I ask is that you pay me back the same $1billion adjusted for inflation based on a certain index. http://www.westeg
43 Post contains images Azhobo : And Anet would be a whole lot more boring. I read where it was compounding interest from way back, as has been alluded to in the thread. It shouldnt
44 NAV20 : The 'realpolitik' is that Boeing, at any rate, doesn't need to come to an agreement. A long-running case at the WTO, stretching into next year or bey
45 TYCOON : Sorry Sllevin, I have looked it up and did quite alot of research on this when I was a student at MIT. I'll dig up the ressources and I suggest you di
46 Post contains images AirFrnt : Not all of them, but it's very safe to say that really until the A320, Airbus was a blackhole in terms of money going in. Bear in mind, the aid that
47 Moo : It was only really with the A320 that Airbus even started being about selling aircraft - the initial A300 program was purely to ensure that aircraft
48 CygnusChicago : Even in your extreme example, 5x30 = 150. Since we're long on speculation, and short on facts, I'm going to try and calculate this tonight, and get s
49 Baroque : I had not thought of that option. But you are right, if the loans are made a repayment issue, presumably the Royalties would revert also. And it is n
50 Gbfra : In fact this is a worst case scenario ... for Boeing. Because the EU could respond in the same way and ban US aircraft sales in Europe. Boeing has mu
51 NAV20 : If that were so, Gbfra, one wonders why the EU governments haven't poured launch aid etc. into Airbus years ago, to get it out of its present hole? F
52 Gbfra : Where should they have poured in launch aid in recent years?
53 Shenzhen : I think this is backwards. In recent years Airbus have been gaining market share in the US, whilst Boeing have been losing their share in the EU. Rev
54 Post contains links Wsp : http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...-boeing-airbus-wto,0,2668782.story
55 CygnusChicago : Not sure what the facts are, but I'm pretty sure that's not really allowable. Sanctions are generally limited to the offending product, or financial
56 CygnusChicago : If this is an approach that Boeing and our government decides to use, then expect a major counter-claim back. Remember those little protectionist tac
57 L-188 : The whole Embraer/Canadair fight is equal in nastyness to the Airbus/Boeing fight. Tycoon, with all due respect, your research is either pretty flawe
58 DrExotica : Hmmm. OK Tycoon - given that this was 'research' that you did while a student, I presume that this was turned into a paper/report/article/whatever. W
59 PM : (1) Its "present hole" is of comparatively recent making. (2) It's not at all clear how "pouring launch aid into Airbus" would immediately help to ge
60 BHMBAGLOCK : So, buying a military product is automatically a subsidy for commercial? Guess EADS/Airbus better get busy going after themselves for the subsidies t
61 AirFrnt : bashes head against desk repeatedly We are not talking about RLI, we are talking about pure and old fashioned government funding of Airbus. And no, A
62 Post contains images Baroque : The main holes that it seems to have at present are reorganizing its management and increasing its production. While money might be useful for the la
63 Astuteman : That would seem extraordinarily unlikely, to me. Regards
64 Post contains links Wsp : The GATT "Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft" entered into force on 1980-01-01. http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/tokyo_air_e.pdf
65 PPVRA : Sure, but it was a little different on the Embraer side. EMB was participating in a pro-export program available to all in Brazil, and that program w
66 PM : Uh? I've worked in three European countries and count myself lucky if I can eat a sandwich while sitting at my desk. Where did this "three hour lunch
67 Post contains images NAV20 : Airbus' main hole is that it is drastically short of cash, Baroque - see their half-year results. And the EU was all set to give them launch aid for
68 Post contains images CygnusChicago : 6.5 bn euros of cash? That's a shortage in your opinion? Heck, they can pay 50% of the A350XWB development upfront without borrowing a dime. What exa
69 NAV20 : I can only conclude that you don't understand business, Cygnus. They need their cash balance to fund work in progress. Do you spend your whole salary
70 Baroque : " target=_blank>http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/le...e.pdf Hmmm, yes, but a quickish read of that does not give dates beyond which thou shalt not cl
71 Post contains images Astuteman : Pardon? I hadn't realised that the A350 would be completely developed by Q3 2007 Like the idea though. FWIW Airbus currently account for somwhere app
72 Post contains images EI321 : They already applied under the previous design, the funding appears to be already in place. ........and that's coming from someone who in the very sa
73 Post contains links EI321 : Europe slams 'unrealistic' US subsidy estimates in WTO dispute http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...c-us-subsidy-estimates-in-wto.html Looks like th
74 Baroque : From the same article: "The EC charges that as well as the USA continuing to inflate support for research and development while overlooking Airbus ai
75 EI321 : Dont know. Totl sales would be greater than total expenditure anyway. I was trying to see how they could come up with $205b in the first place. Airbu
76 Wsp : The agreements work by abolishing various trade barriers. The main barrier are import duties. And if you start adding up subsidies from before the ag
77 Post contains images EI321 : Must be at least €500b
78 Pygmalion : The thing to remember about this recent debate is that the US submittal to the WTO was not made public. What you are hearing is the tidbits of informa
79 Post contains links and images Baroque : Good point Wsp, but that would count against Boeing presumably due to their use of the Italian industry for the 787! So E1321 should perhaps give USD
80 Post contains images CygnusChicago : You can probably google this, but let me make it easy for you help you out, NAV: - Cash on hand, cash position, or, in EADS' case "Cash and Cash Equi
81 Pygmalion : Sonehow I don't think a USTR submittal to the WTO is arguing in the "press". In fact if you actually read the documents in the links YOU posted... yo
82 Moo : 'EU crowd'? Wow, just wow.
83 Post contains images Wsp : That was classified by the US. In the meantime the EU is shaping the debate in a way that benefits them. Too bad for the US.
84 Pygmalion : I consider the EU trade rep in Brussels part of the EU crowd. I also consider various trade ministers etc part of the EU crowd. I don't consider A.ne
85 Moo : Actually it was your intended meaning that I initially got, and that is what caused the 'wow' - calling those involved a 'crowd' as if they were at a
86 Post contains images Pygmalion : They do seem to have the same "cheer leader" or "soccer hooligan" attitude...
87 Post contains links and images Baroque : I think that you were doing better before you tried to clarify your statements. Perhaps you need to see both sides of the tennis match Pygmalion. For
88 DrExotica : In the American vernacular, "crowd" merely means a good sized group of people. There are no negative connotations wrt to type of people in the crowd
89 Post contains links and images Baroque : Hooligan by contrast: "The term has been used since at least the 1890s, to describe the behavior of street gangs. The first use of the term is unknow
90 CygnusChicago : Rubbish. I'm American, and the word "crowd" is often used in a negative way. The poster above certainly made it sound like he/she intended it in a ne
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...
Number Of Airlines In EU Vs USA posted Wed Oct 1 2003 17:42:02 by Ussherd
Airbus Vs. Boeing = EU Vs. US? posted Fri May 23 2003 22:07:48 by PKK
Benefits Vs. Detriments Of 2nd 787 Assembly Line posted Tue Apr 3 2007 23:08:23 by RoyalAtlantis
Video Of Painting Boeing 767 In Silverjet Livery posted Sun Mar 25 2007 20:19:17 by AabFlyer
Cabin Pictures Of QF Boeing 707-138 From 1960 posted Fri Feb 2 2007 20:23:05 by ClassicLover
Aboulafia's Book Review Of "Boeing Versus Airbus" posted Fri Dec 22 2006 09:04:03 by Leelaw
In Defense Of The A-380 posted Fri Sep 29 2006 18:05:54 by JAAlbert
EU Black List Of Carriers posted Mon Jul 17 2006 12:03:01 by Erela
Major Assembly Of First Boeing 787 Dreamliner Starts posted Fri Jun 30 2006 19:56:58 by NYC777
BA/VS Echoes Of White STAR/CUNARD? posted Sat Jun 10 2006 21:10:55 by Jonno