Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Wants Support For A350 Jets - Reuters  
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 13870 times:



Quote:
European planemaker Airbus believes that German and French governments must help the company which stands to lose billions of euros due to the weak dollar, the newspaper Euro am Sonntag said.

In a summary of a story, due to be published on Sunday, the paper said that the company, part of European aerospace and defence group EADS , especially needed financial support for its long-distance A350 jets.

"Unlike in the case of earlier models, Airbus has so far not taken advantage of any public sector development loans for A350s," the newspaper quoted an Airbus manager as saying.

"Given the further worsening of the dollar exchange rate we cannot afford to do so any longer," he added.

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousivMolt/idUSL2460869120071124

This is not a surprise really!

187 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineERAUgrad02 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1227 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 13801 times:

Maybe this can be an awesome advantage for Boeing to sell some 747-8i's. It suxs for us when we go to Europe because the dollar is worth half of most currency there.


Desmond MacRae in ILM
User currently offlineJustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1056 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 13679 times:

No surprise. I understand the need for launch aid to stand up Airbus, but at some point the EU out of western economic cooperation should limit ongoing Airbus support to that similar to what Boeing gets: participation in space and military programs that broadens its aerospace knowledge base and brings in new business. EADS is a fit for that as is and should be able to leverage these programs like Boeing does. The U.S. is trying to do its part on the tanker project, but I think any tanker participation deal for Airbus is dead if A350 lauch aid shows up.

I have some sympathy for Airbus in that now management has seen the light and is trying to walk true and normal, but they are getting little or no support from the governments in tackling the downsizing issue. The overbuilt cost structure was in effect subsidized by the EU governments in strategic pursuit of 60% market share, and now that it needs to be reversed they are telling Airbus that they are on their own.

On the other hand, I think launch aid is inappropriate when Airbus' market share is above its minimum goal of 40%. I understand it's the European way of doing things, but going any further devalues the efficiency of the open market and Boeing's innovations, which is defeats capitalist efficiencies. I think Airbus partnering with Northrup on the tanker deal to normalize the Aerospace process is a solid step. I wish it would go through as the USAF could really use both the 767 (smaller fields, more remotely deployable) and the A330 (larger payload, more multifunctional cargo and personnel capability) tankers. Splitting this enormous contract lays the foundation for normal competition and give Airbus an open market means of pulling itself out of this jam without launch aid.

Seems like a win-win for everybody, but I think the EU folks need to help Airbus on the restructure front and so far, no go. The USAF might not be helping here either as they are making noises about just one kind of tanker, which doens't sound optimal to me.


User currently offlinePnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2241 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 13636 times:

As much as I am a fan of the A330 and 320 families give me a break. Of course they are going to go for subsidies but let the products speak for themselves. I may get flamed for this but like the Canadian shipbuilding industry, compete, find a niche for yourself or go home. A calf will continue to drink mothers milk if that mother or the farmer doesn't make it wean  Smile. If Airbus is an equal to Boeing ( which I happen to believe) then grow up and stop relying on subsidies. It is about time we know that there is a level playing field. Put this before the world trade organization and get it over with. Enough nonsense on both sides. If the 350 subsidy is given then the US should respond by rewarding Boeing with the tanker order for the 767 and make it clear that enough is enough.  stirthepot 

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21637 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 13594 times:



Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 2):
at some point the EU out of western economic cooperation should limit ongoing Airbus support to that similar to what Boeing gets: participation in space and military programs

As well massive government subsidizing on the part of its contractors outside the US. To say that Boeing's products are not heavily subsidized is ridiculous.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineWorldrider From Switzerland, joined Nov 2007, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 13141 times:



Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 3):
As much as I am a fan of the A330 and 320 families give me a break. Of course they are going to go for subsidies but let the products speak for themselves. I may get flamed for this but like the Canadian shipbuilding industry, compete, find a niche for yourself or go home. A calf will continue to drink mothers milk if that mother or the farmer doesn't make it wean Smile. If Airbus is an equal to Boeing ( which I happen to believe) then grow up and stop relying on subsidies. It is about time we know that there is a level playing field. Put this before the world trade organization and get it over with. Enough nonsense on both sides. If the 350 subsidy is given then the US should respond by rewarding Boeing with the tanker order for the 767 and make it clear that enough is enough. stirthepot

your statment is ridiculous!!! stop playing blind please, boeing and airbus are playing in the same level except maybe that airbus is not hiding as much? BILLIONs$$$ boeing gets in tax reductions, hiden subsidies and so on. still don't want to see it?

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
As well massive government subsidizing on the part of its contractors outside the US. To say that Boeing's products are not heavily subsidized is ridiculous.

-Mir

would you mind stop see A as the bad guy and B as the good ? Airbus makes GREAT planes and are on the way to be N°1 again!!! and they fully deserve it.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5471 posts, RR: 30
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 13047 times:

Quoting Worldrider (Reply 5):
and they fully deserve it.

Absolutely...the best airliners that the EU government money can build.

[Edited 2007-11-25 04:27:19]


What the...?
User currently offlineIcna05e From France, joined Feb 2006, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 13033 times:



Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 2):
No surprise

Great post... respects for it!

I think you summarized very well the situation. Every point you raise is very sensible.
Do you mind if I use some of your input as "mine" in an English exam I have this week? I am supposed to sum up then discuss a text extract from a list, which includes a A VS B article (hum... from 2005. this school is right on the edge of fresh news!). Thanks!


User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 12963 times:



Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 3):
Put this before the world trade organization and get it over with. Enough nonsense on both sides.

It already is before the WTO, as are Boeing's subsidies. Expect a decision there within a few years.


User currently offlineWorldrider From Switzerland, joined Nov 2007, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 12941 times:



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 6):
Absolutely...the best airliners that the EU government money can build.

not EU government. EADS(Airbus) was founded long time ago by french, german, spanish and uk governments. they are and still are mainly in charge of AIrbus, thus, i really don't see where the matter is, or is it EVIL "to be state controled"?

isn't boeing the american state sword? politics have always been implicated in big business the same way business are FULLY implicated in business..specially when it's about strategic areas like aviation, space, metal, water or gas.


User currently offlineWorldrider From Switzerland, joined Nov 2007, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 12922 times:



Quoting Worldrider (Reply 9):
isn't boeing the american state sword? politics have always been implicated in big business the same way business are FULLY implicated in POLITICS..specially when it's about strategic areas like aviation, space, metal, water or gas.

corrrection..


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 12736 times:

To put this into perspective, the UK government gave Airbus Industrie as it then was a £250 million loan with interest and royalties on each A320 sold. This was based on the idea that AI would sell 500 A320. There are 5616 A320 orders, with the British government getting money each time one rolls out of the door. The A320 has been absolutely fantastic for the British taxpayer.

Bare in mind that the UK government gave £200 million launch aid for the Trent 8104 (for the C-market 777, never flew), and 500, and £250 million for the Trent 600 (for the 747-X and 767-400ERX, never flew) and 900.


User currently offlineWorldrider From Switzerland, joined Nov 2007, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 12663 times:



Quoting 777236ER (Reply 11):
To put this into perspective, the UK government gave Airbus Industrie as it then was a £250 million loan with interest and royalties on each A320 sold. This was based on the idea that AI would sell 500 A320. There are 5616 A320 orders, with the British government getting money each time one rolls out of the door. The A320 has been absolutely fantastic for the British taxpayer.

Bare in mind that the UK government gave £200 million launch aid for the Trent 8104 (for the C-market 777, never flew), and 500, and £250 million for the Trent 600 (for the 747-X and 767-400ERX, never flew) and 900.

God Bless Socialism!  airplane   redflag 


User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1567 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 12631 times:

I don't buy it.
,
This is a convenient way of getting aide which would otherwise not be legitimate.

Airbus is in trouble because of discounting, which .occurred before the recent drastic drops in the $.

Just ask the people who know!

The French Unions.

Ruscoe


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 12624 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I do know the A320 has been a windfall for the British taxpayer, but I do wish somebody could find the same information on the A330 and A340. The RLI agreements say that those two programs also send a royalty check to London, France, Berlin and Madrid with each frame sold, so after 1000+ you'd think those programs would be well on the way to full re-payment, but I don't believe anyone has ever been able to show it, which leads to claims that these royalties are both fictional and "red herrings" and RLI is in fact a "cash gift" and not a loan. Even the UK House of Commons report on RLI that folks point to as proof of RLI repayment only speaks of the A320 program.

And yes, Boeing gets plenty of direct and indirect subsidies and tax breaks, but so does Airbus. I myself listed scores of tax breaks given to Airbus and their subsidiaries by EU governments from the federal to city level which totaled in the tens of billions. And do not forget that the same tax breaks WA used to keep Boeing at Everett were offered to Airbus to build the KC-30, but AL gave them even more to get them to choose Mobile.

RLI is just a way for Airbus to obtain capital at very favorable rates unavailable to most industries. In that regard, it's no different then what MITI does for the Japanese heavies on the 787. Thus helps Boeing because they don't have to fund the entire program at market rates, which would put them at a competitive disadvantage to Airbus.

Both the EU (though RLI) and MITI (though their own mechanisms) encourage high-tech aerospace investment at home which improves both the competitiveness of their industries and the tax base. Governments all over the world do that every day through various mechanisms, so there really is nothing untoward about either.


User currently offlineWorldrider From Switzerland, joined Nov 2007, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 12608 times:



Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 2):
Seems like a win-win for everybody, but I think the EU folks need to help Airbus on the restructure front and so far, no go. The USAF might not be helping here either as they are making noises about just one kind of tanker, which doens't sound optimal to me.

well, tell me day USAF buys tha A330 tanker then i would maybe accpet the idea that US works on pure "capitalistic" tools..


keep in touch


User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 12437 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
And do not forget that the same tax breaks WA used to keep Boeing at Everett were offered to Airbus to build the KC-30, but AL gave them even more to get them to choose Mobile.

Do you have some information that the tax incentives offered were actually the same? I recall that the ones Airbus got in AL were really minor, and not billions at all.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 12313 times:



Quoting Worldrider (Reply 15):
well, tell me day USAF buys tha A330 tanker then i would maybe accpet the idea that US works on pure "capitalistic" tools..

You do realize military purchases are governmental purchases? Capitalism has nothing to do with governmental purchases.

Quoting Joni (Reply 16):
Do you have some information that the tax incentives offered were actually the same? I recall that the ones Airbus got in AL were really minor, and not billions at all.

WA's tax incentives were not Boeing specific, but industry specific. Hence they are offered to anyone who sets up shop there. Alabama gave smaller incentives, but they have lower taxes to begin with and don't have an idiotic revenue tax like the B&O tax that Washington has.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 12022 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
I do know the A320 has been a windfall for the British taxpayer, but I do wish somebody could find the same information on the A330 and A340. The RLI agreements say that those two programs also send a royalty check to London, France, Berlin and Madrid with each frame sold, so after 1000+ you'd think those programs would be well on the way to full re-payment, but I don't believe anyone has ever been able to show it, which leads to claims that these royalties are both fictional and "red herrings" and RLI is in fact a "cash gift" and not a loan. Even the UK House of Commons report on RLI that folks point to as proof of RLI repayment only speaks of the A320 program.

Grrr. Why do I have to produce this again and again. Richard Price, where are you?

Some of the documents are specific about the A32x and some are similarly specific about the A33/4 program, although none I can find sets it all out in the simple detail that would be nice.

BAE 2000
THE BAE 2000 report states: "During 2000, launch aid repayments charged to the profit and loss account in respect of our Airbus programmes reduced substantially to £122m (1999 £176m). Launch aid repayment was completed in 1999 on single aisle programmes, with repayments moving onto a royalty basis from 2000. The charge to the profit and loss account for these programmes amounted to £22m (1999 £74m), while on the A330/340 programme, repayments amounted to £100m (1999 £102m)."

As the outstanding amounts on the 330/340 program are listed by HoC as
GBP46 in 98 and 33 in 1999, a bit of maths suggests most of these sums must be per copy royalties on the 330.

A table from HoC 2000 gives


Big version: Width: 630 Height: 487 File size: 101kb


I am not sure why it is assumed that documents submitted to the House of Commons contain lies. The penalty for that might no longer be the Tower, but probably not much more pleasant.

No I cannot tell you how much has been repaid on the 345/346 but the amount advanced was not great.

What is clear is that returns to the various countries have now exceeded the total amounts initially advanced. The WTO case has at least winkled that bit of information out. No longer are we solely reliant on the UK data.

Anyone care to produce schedules of payments to and repayment by Boeing?


User currently offlineCaljn From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 208 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 11758 times:



Quoting Worldrider (Reply 5):
your statment is ridiculous!!! stop playing blind please, boeing and airbus are playing in the same level except maybe that airbus is not hiding as much? BILLIONs$$$ boeing gets in tax reductions, hiden subsidies and so on. still don't want to see it?

You're going to have to be a little specific. What Billions in tax reductions and "hidden subsidies" does Boeing take advantage of that is not available to Airbus?


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 11759 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Joni (Reply 16):
Do you have some information that the tax incentives offered were actually the same?

They actually are not the same, since the KC-30 is not a "super efficient airplane" as defined by HB 2294. So the KC-30 would be charged a B&O tax rate of .00484% instead of the .002904% the 787 - and the 787 only) - will enjoy. If Airbus built the A350 here, they would get the .002904% rate.

So I redact my previous statement.

Full details on HB 2294 can be found here - http://www.dor.wa.gov/docs/Pubs/SpecialNotices/2004/sn_04_aero.pdf

Airbus would be eligible for the aerospace industry tax credits WA state hands out, but those are much smaller then the B&O tax cut which is where the bulk of Boeing's savings comes from and is dependent on the actual sales price of each 787 as the tax is calculated on gross receipts.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
Grrr. Why do I have to produce this again and again. Richard Price, where are you?

Because I hadn't seen it before (I don't read every thread on the forum). However, I have saved both it and the table for my records so if someone asks and you don't see it before I do, I can now provide the data. Thank you.


User currently offlineBHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 11716 times:



Quoting Joni (Reply 16):
Do you have some information that the tax incentives offered were actually the same? I recall that the ones Airbus got in AL were really minor, and not billions at all.

They are the exact same ones offered to Boeing during the competition to locate the 787 production facility plus a bit extra for the engineering center which is a separate program. Similar as well to those offered and accepted by other European companies like Mercedes, Thyssen-Krupp, etc. I can assure you that in AL the tax incentives for new business do not discriminate in any way based on the home location of the company.



Where are all of my respected members going?
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 11674 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Caljn (Reply 19):
What Billions in tax reductions and "hidden subsidies" does Boeing take advantage of that is not available to Airbus?

Some claim the MITI investments into the Japanese "Heavies" for the 787 are a hidden subsidy, but the EU benefits a great deal from them, as well. Any EU company that uses Japanese "Lean Manufacturing" and quality control techniques benefits because MITI helped pay for that to be developed by Toyota who then spread it around.

So Porsche, which actually hired Toyota to implement lean manufacturing and quality control, has received "hidden subsidies" by this argument. I am sure many other EU companies - and likely Airbus itself - have all received such "hidden subsidies", which is why such arguments are so pedantic in nature because the people who make them are essentially cutting off their own noses to spite their own faces.

[Edited 2007-11-25 09:33:20]

User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4769 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 11485 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

well the answer for Airbus is obvious, as part or this Power 8 thing they should just subcontract out vast portions of the work to non EADS /Airbus entities and have the respective national governments give those factories a non repayable aid just as the Italian and Japanese government are doing for the 787! Whats good for the goose is good for the gander!

User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 11457 times:



Quoting Worldrider (Reply 9):
EADS(Airbus) was founded long time ago by french, german, spanish and uk governments.

I think Airbus was founded by the Germans and the French alone. The Brits joined later, the Spanish much later. EADS was founded by the French, the Germans, and the Spanish. The Brits had no share in EADS, but held 20% of Airbus.


25 Post contains links Trex8 : close http://www.airbus.com/en/corporate/people/Airbus_short_history.html
26 Mir : You misunderstand me. My point was that Boeing gets massive subsidies from governments outside the US by way of its contractors. I see neither A nor
27 Post contains images Rheinbote : So BAe joined Airbus even later (1979) than CASA (1974). I stand corrected
28 Nrcnyc : It's a real shame that both companies are major Charity cases. It would be interesting to see the products of the two firms if they actually had to fi
29 Flipdewaf : I totally agree. The way i see it they both get subsidies from their respective governments even if they go through loopholes (military contracts, lo
30 Dougloid : Dear Mr. Enders and Mr. Gallois, Listen up. Stop this infernal palaver and bitching about how you're getting screwed by the dollar and get smart, like
31 Stitch : Well Boeing could likely afford it, since while a "modern" (post-1980s) commercial aircraft program runs eleven figures, Boeing's total cash and liqu
32 Post contains links Concentriq : I dont know enough about Airbus and Boeing gov't subsidy story, except for what i have read here on the forum, but I do know that governments subsidis
33 AApilot2b : Once again Airbus proves its addiction to European tax payer's money. Airbus stands to lose billions of dollars primarily because it fell behind when
34 TheCol : Well, I wouldn't want my tax dollars going to Airbus. There are far more important things to do with taxpayer's money.
35 Caljn : You are correct sir! The A380 was developed out of pure hubris...it will not return it's investment. Airbus, with their self esteem issues, had to ha
36 Flipdewaf : I think you'll find boeing do pretty much the same thing and get money from the gov't. There are too many people here that are totally blind to it an
37 Post contains images Stitch : The 1992 agreement spells out quite clearly - and transparently - where each company is allowed to draw from. Ever heard of a little puddle-jumper ca
38 Singapore_Air : I would sincerely doubt that.
39 Atmx2000 : Airbus and its present and past parents receive both. Moreover, military contracts compete for scarce engineering resources, because, you know, you h
40 Davescj : It'll be interesting not only to see what is said, but how it will be put into effect. This decision will have consequences much farther than just B
41 Post contains links Lumberton : Maybe they heard you, Dougloid? EADS CEO says some production may have to move to US Of course, this could all be for the benefit of the unions in or
42 Stitch : If truly onerous, I expect the US and/or the EU to just ignore them. The US will not let the WTO put Boeing under, nor will the EU allow the same wit
43 Post contains images Flipdewaf : Actully that didnt occur to me , I just get frustrated with the fanboys on here somtimes. Oh well at least none of them are taking the presidents wif
44 Ikramerica : If Airbus needs government support while selling up to 1500 jets in one year, they are not a viable company and should be broken up, sold or otherwise
45 Post contains images Astuteman : Indeed! Inconvenient isn't it? That question has never occurred to me, funnily enough. Or anyone else, for that matter. I think that description is g
46 LAXintl : Inefficient, high cost European labor market. 35 hour work weeks, 5-6 week vacations, early retirement, full pensions in addition to often onerous wo
47 Ruscoe : A lot of good info here but it is all skirting around the salient problems. Airbus have to deal with inflexible labour arrangements of Europe They are
48 Gsosbee : Airbus' problem is lack of cash flow due to the delays in the A380, A350XWB and A400M programs. The cash from the A320 and A330 programs no longer cov
49 Lumberton : Huh? Someone may be working on a scenario, but you can't be suggesting that there is a ghost of a chance that this will happen? They need this aircra
50 Stitch : While it is true that, overall, the US worker is the most productive, I do not believe European aerospace workers are any less efficient or more lazy
51 LAXDESI : It makes sense to front-load as much of the sunk R&D costs of A380 on to early frames, as it generates a paper loss which in turn helps reduce tax li
52 Ikramerica : Then that is about cost, which means they are DUMPING their product (something hinted at by many airlines when they buy the jets, when they talk abou
53 Dougloid : And I would say that you know nothing about this country and how we think.
54 Flipdewaf : Its not really dumping though is it? wouldnt dumping have to be below what they could make the jets for? the cost for manufacturing an A340 is probab
55 Atmx2000 : An A343 maybe. An A346 is likely more (in Euros).
56 Flipdewaf : I dont rekon its close to 50million euros at all. $218 million list price will never equate to over $80 million manufacture cost. I defonately meant
57 Trex8 : if until the recent A380 debacle Airbus was responsible for most of EADS profits, how could they be dumping if they are making that much money from t
58 2175301 : No, but they could reschedule it again as they have several times already (are we on the 5th, or 6th generation of the A350 now?). I would not be sur
59 StoutAirLines : Leveraging profits from one product line to artifically lower the price of another is a fundamental of dumping, Trex8. And can what Airbus reports as
60 XT6Wagon : For the certain people here who worship at the Temple of Airbus, I have to ask one simple question? If the launch aid is in any way comparable to mark
61 Atmx2000 : Exactly what type of margins do you think they are making? If they are selling at half of list price, they would making nearly 60% margins. That cert
62 Davescj : And this will eventually catch up with Europe in general. France's transport workers are an example, or Germany with the VW factory a year or so ago.
63 Post contains images Iwok : Not that this has stopped them from canceling aircraft with firm orders in the past I'll bet the news about China getting a risk sharing part of the
64 Astuteman : Simple. Risk reduction. No need to look for conspiracy theories. Regards
65 Post contains images Baroque : Apologies Stitch for the tone of my response - heady feelings down under with a new Government. You guys should try it. It can be quite exhilarating!
66 Astuteman : I'm am at a complete loss to understand how, if Airbus's strategy was REALLY to dump product, how their major competitor is comfortably making double
67 Post contains images Baroque : The basic assessment of Airbus must be that it is worth paying over the odds for a success to be able to share some (a strictly limited part) of the
68 SSTsomeday : I have heard opinions in this forum that reflect a more detailed understanding of the "launch aid v.s. tax incentive" debate. But I will still boldly
69 Worldrider : check out what EU put as aguments into WTO hands and wait a few years for jugement
70 Worldrider : it was just to simplify, remind people Airbus was made by governments and still is partly stateowned not condering Daimler and Lagardère (priv
71 Flipdewaf : Yeah that margin over manufacturing cost, at least. I'm not talking about recouping the money for development here, the average product that is sold
72 Post contains links Baroque : Simple answer, no it is not true. That is one of the most common canards. Non payment is not an option. Please read: http://books.google.com/books?id
73 Lumberton : As I posted in Mil-Av, there's no doubt that EADS can get launch aid for the A350. I think the larger question is should they opt for it at this point
74 EI321 : Its worse than market rates if the Aircraft gets more orders than envisaged. The A320 A330/A340* and probably even the A300 pregrammes are examples o
75 Worldrider : that's exactly what i claim so let's just save our breath about a "possible A330 tanker for USAF" that A330 vs B767 tanker "open" competition is a jo
76 Post contains images Stitch : A lot to say here. Hopefully I can keep it in order. I believe Airbus has committed to the A350XWB design. There will be tweaks, to be sure, but we wo
77 Gsosbee : They have the market above with the A380; basically a push with the A330; and the market below with the A320. Why risk valuable resources on the A350
78 Baroque : Correct, although someone is going to suggest you are wrong (although not I). To sort it out more, the A340/330 programme was indeed subject of joint
79 Post contains images Dazeflight : Exactly, more important things than creating jobs and getting an interest. [Edited 2007-11-26 07:18:30]
80 StoutAirLines : This was some 8 fiscal years ago, am I right? What happened before 1999? What has happened on these programs since then, Baroque? We should now be st
81 JoeCanuck : In another thread, Airbus just received another 10 billion euro order. They have over 1100 planes ordered this year alone...on top of averaging around
82 Stitch : Does seem weird that with a 1500-1750 order year on the horizon, they feel they can't hold the fort... Even if margins drop 25% (as a percentage), wi
83 Post contains images Baroque : As far as I can work it out, yes. That shows in the BAe accounts before they disappeared. So we could find a line for the A330 rapidly converging on
84 Nrcnyc : That's what makes it a real shame. They make money and yet we still subsidise them! Middle class Americans and Europeans are paying taxes that are re
85 Post contains images Astuteman : As others have also said, IMO it's more a case of governments investing in them, rather than just subsidisingthem per se. A great many other industri
86 TheCol : If that is really the case, then there are industries that would benefit more from the money being dumped in.
87 PVG : Wouldn't EADS be better off partnering with a non-Boeing American company where at least it would be a merger of equals technology wise and the risk
88 Post contains images Revelation : It's an important point that many on this thread keep dismissing. There's a huge difference between getting the lump sum up front that allows you to
89 Stitch : How so? The EU governments were not backing those other loans. If Airbus muffed it with any or all of those models, there was no mechanism for repaym
90 Astuteman : Bear in mind that the whole of the other 66% may not be borrowed - Airbus funded a lot of the A380 development from revenue..... Regards
91 AirframeAS : The only way to solve this never-ending pissing match between A & B with the WTO is to just void out the 1992 agreement as a whole, forget about draft
92 Astuteman : FWIW I suspect the solution is far less simple. We seem to focus here on RLI almost to the exclusion of everything else................ IMO that's pr
93 Post contains images Revelation : I'm sure there was no pre-arranged mechanism, but the EU governments know if Airbus defaults on loans they would have to fund 100% of future developm
94 Stitch : To my knowledge (but it has been some time since I read it), the 1992 agreement does allow Boeing to receive RLI from the US government. However, sin
95 Post contains images Flipdewaf : Only because airbus is paying for the retirement home The loans are being paid back. Fred
96 StoutAirLines : And you have proof of the governments of Germany and France being repaid? Excellent! Finally, someone can settle this for us, once and for all. Then,
97 Justloveplanes : The 1/3 government investment is a program I am familiar with, and it requires 2/3 from banks and 1/3 from the enterprise company. In the program I w
98 Trex8 : this has been discussed before on previous threads, exactly what funds might you be referring to?
99 Flipdewaf : If you are referring to the money after world 2 then you might want to remember a small thing europe gave to the us without which you wouldn't be dis
100 Stitch : And has nothing to do with CivAv, so any answers should be in Non-Av.
101 Trex8 : it has as much relevance to this discussion as StoutAirlines post bringing it up!
102 Revelation : I share your understanding, but a "negative" WTO ruling may be the lever that Boeing could use to pry open the government coffers. I think Boeing cou
103 Atmx2000 : Well, if the government is going to be taking money out of people's paychecks and adding a tax to corporate payrolls in the name of retirement securi
104 Scbriml : Exactly right. The 1992 agreement is a bi-lateral one, it applies equally to Airbus and Boeing. The fact that Boeing chose not to avail themselves of
105 Rheinbote : The revenue from sales being concluded today is five years away. Not an option. Being late may turn out to be bliss for Airbus. Boeing is going to ir
106 Scbriml : Which raises an interesting point. Since the 1992 agreement was signed, has Boeing ever approached the US Government for RLI? If not, have they chose
107 PanAm1971 : Both companies are vital strategic assets. They will both get help when they really need it. This is not about "fairness." This is about vital nationa
108 Scbriml : Decades of booming success? In the '70s, Airbus sales totaled 253. They managed an average of 112 sales a year in the '80s. Even through the '90s, av
109 Post contains links StoutAirLines : I'm glad you asked, Trex8. Here you can get a glimpse of what's been going on: http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...hi-business-hed&ctrack=1&cset=t
110 Flipdewaf : The jet engine. More than outweighs the monies given. Fred
111 Stitch : And that revenue, on a per-unit percentage basis, could be upwards of one-fifth of what Boeing's orders will be bringing in, which is not something I
112 Astuteman : They're not all winners....... On the face of it..... Don't discount the possibility of pure posturing, though...... I've seen BAE SYSTEMS play these
113 Post contains links Scbriml : Germany finished repaying the Marshall Plan money in 1971. http://www.germany.info/relaunch/culture/history/marshall.html
114 Flipdewaf : I think he meant the launch aid loans from france and germany but as previously mentioned in the thread the only documents are in their respective la
115 StoutAirLines : I wholeheartedly agree. Also, rocket technology and expertise were an immense contribution to the U.S. space program.
116 Scbriml : No, his links were specifically about the Marshall Plan monies that Germany received after WWII.
117 Flipdewaf : I dont want to get into any real arguments about this but i may have to bring it up again sometime, seems like the perfect thing to wrote a paper on f
118 Revelation : RLI up to this point has been a non-issue in the US. It's just not a part of how the game is played here. It's in almost all cases not culturally acc
119 Flipdewaf : Its hard not to argue about these things i know when people have different feelings, i might have good access to the airbus data but i doubt the univ
120 Post contains links and images NAV20 : That view is supported by EADS/Airbus' recent announcement of a loss on 2007 so far and the fact that they expect to breakeven at best over the rest
121 StoutAirLines : Please read those links again, Scbriml. Flipdewaf is correct. It's not that confusing, really.
122 Areopagus : The inducement was probably that it represented half a loaf, as previous project RLI was far in excess of 33%.
123 Baroque : One of the links you gave took me nowhere and the other to a bunch of rotting scuttlebutt. By contrast: pretty much says it all. Great link Scbriml,
124 PanAm1971 : IMHO Boeing was always the protected baby. Besides, Washington was interested in keeping the healthiest commercial manufacturer-not necessarily all o
125 StoutAirLines : Wow. So, now it's time to shoot the messenger? I should have expected this... You're apparently the only person, that I'm aware of, who had trouble a
126 Stitch : But Convair and Lockheed were "one trick ponies" with the 880/990 and L-1011. Even if the models had been successful, the inability to provide a full
127 Klkla : Not quite true. The real issue is RISK. If an Airbus product fails in the market place, they are not obligated to repay government loans (given at ve
128 Baroque : Well the only way to get access if you do not live in the US is to lie about your zip code. Now how dumb is that!!! So reluctantly I LIED. "Boeing be
129 XT6Wagon : Be aware that the US ran its own rocket program, and its "help" from Europe was largely limited to German scientists who were effectively prisoners i
130 Joni : I recall they were specific in the sense that they were tailored for the B787 (via a definition of a "super-efficient airplane") and only open for a
131 PanAm1971 : Boeing can probably win this case ... but I doubt Washington will allow this case to go that far. As I stated before, this not about trade "fairness"
132 NAV20 : I think that's fair comment, Panam1971, if the future of Airbus is ever in doubt there will be a government-to-government deal - as there was way bac
133 PanAm1971 : Good example. I almost forgot about that. That's a fairly steep price... and with so many other US industries dependent on EU regulators...
134 PanAm1971 : I get your point though. Good post. BTW-I'm glad to finally meet you. I've learned quite a bit from your posts over the years.
135 Scbriml : You asked Are you not suggesting that Marshall Plan money was used by Germany to provide RLI to Airbus? I never suggested that you claimed Germany ha
136 Post contains images Revelation : I'm not trying to pick on you, but... Hmm. Double Hmmm. Is it all posturing, or is it simple risk reduction? Rumour, or "trial baloon"? We've seen Air
137 Post contains links Baroque : Read all about it at http://www.exim.gov/ Loan guarantees. Hmmm. Wonder if, when the purchase goes sour, if the exporter has to repay the funds guara
138 Post contains images Stitch : As recently as 2005 they were projecting 10% margins through the rest of the decade, but the A380, the Euro, and other issues have knocked that down.
139 Post contains images Revelation : " target=_blank>http://www.exim.gov/pressrelease.cfm...719B4 I thought it was fervently stated herein that RLI is totally repaid, either through roya
140 StoutAirLines : So, it's now just supposition and propaganda? That's the sort of response I now have sadly come to expect. So, you were never able to provide a shred
141 PanAm1971 : The weapons systems were needed. It's not much of a secret that Washington carefully evaluates the health of the defense industry as a whole. There n
142 Joni : That's true, but that's what governments all around the world do. And they can also be better at it than traditional banks, for instance if they see
143 Justloveplanes : Ensuring the health of strategic industries for defense is a good and healthy thing. RLI is a bit past that in my opinion which is why I don't like h
144 Gsosbee : Like local inducements to build factories, the Export/Import Bank has nothing to do with this discussion. Most developed nations have a governmental a
145 Scbriml : My story hasn't changed. Germany repaid the Marshall Plan money in 1971. Before Airbus existed. Germany invested German money in Airbus, not US money
146 PanAm1971 : What in God's name does the Marshall Plan have to do with this debate? I don't get it.
147 PanAm1971 : Liked the post. The reality is the industry exists just on the margins of the WTO's ability to regulate it. I guess there are a million good reasons
148 Post contains links JoeCanuck : Now this is a marshall plan that makes sense... http://www.marshallamps.com/product.asp?productCode=2203KK
149 PanAm1971 : " target=_blank>http://www.marshallamps.com/product....203KK That guy is an ANet member for sure.
150 Revelation : I'm not sure Washington cares about the WTO's long term health. They seemed to ignore it when it came to steel and Canadian timber, and eventually pa
151 PanAm1971 : To paraphrase Stalin-how many electoral votes does the WTO have? Does the WTO pay US taxes? No? Well then.
152 Revelation : Sure, but "no man is an island"... International trade is a two way street. Both partners have a say in how it is conducted. Either can make the choi
153 Post contains images PanAm1971 : Totally correct. My point is policy makers have a duty to balance reality and fiduciary responsibility against fairness, moral principals and good re
154 PanAm1971 : Should have read, "political reality..." Nice! That's what you get trying to work while ANetting!
155 Post contains images Astuteman : Fair question. On the basis that I believe none of the issues we discuss are usually as "black-and-white" as we portray, I'll say the "rumour" is the
156 Post contains links Baroque : Err, you might want to reconsider that suggestion SAL This has been cited a number of times before, but as it seems to be needed again, here we go ag
157 Dougloid : " target=_blank>http://www.marshallamps.com/product....203KK Give me STACKS! It isn't loud until your ears bleed. Good on yer lad. Parenthetically on
158 Caljn : We are counting the days my friend...
159 XT6Wagon : So... We should ignore anything before 1992? I guess the total history of it doesn't matter. Also wonder if that includes the debit of the A380 progr
160 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ..I own a Marshall 1/2 stack..
161 Scbriml : Isn't that effectively what the 1992 agreement did?
162 Post contains links and images Baroque : We might not want to ignore it emotionally, but the 1992 agreement was an agreement that was supposed to draw a line. The agreement was freely entere
163 Post contains images Baroque : Yes, well nice demonstration that brevity always was the soul of wit!
164 Post contains images Revelation : I know you didn't draw this particular line, but it's a "convenient truth" that makes a bunch of very incomplete information sound pretty good for th
165 NAV20 : Agreed, Baroque - but Boeing served notice three years ago that it was exercising that 'freedom' by withdrawing from the agreement. So the 1992 agree
166 Post contains links and images Baroque : Thanks for the considered reply and the points you raise. I have to say that I am in a similar position, while I read material about assistance on bo
167 PanAm1971 : Great posts... really. I think after reading these I am more and more convinced that this case has no place before the WTO. Washington and Brussels wi
168 Gsosbee : Totally agree PanAm1971. Any WTO "ruling" will be appealed and the appeal will be appealed. This will have to be settled between the parties involved
169 Scbriml : But this will be unacceptable to the US since it's basically where we are today (the 1992 agreement restricted RLI to 33%). Additionally, Boeing seem
170 Post contains images Baroque : Well it is difficult to know the significance of this notice. The agreement, allows notice to be given that the agreement is ended. That is not, howe
171 Atmx2000 : On the contrary, they need to get obstacles in place that will prevent subsidization of foreign competitors by means of funds transfers specifically
172 PanAm1971 : Who is "they"?
173 Joni : I think this statement is easily falsifiable as EADS can sell debt at will, and doubtless does on a daily basis.
174 StoutAirLines : Thanks, Baroque. I thought you asked that we end this line of discussion, but no matter. Do I want to reconsider my suggestion? No, I definitely do n
175 YULWinterSkies : We have yet to see this coming!
176 Gsosbee : If Boeing is managed as well as they want everyone to believe, they do not need the RLI. In fact this is a competitive advantage over Airbus who obvi
177 Pygmalion : Actually, I don't think Boeing would take it. Cheap or free Government money comes with too many strings... Why would Boeing want to have to answer t
178 Post contains links Baroque : http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2007/09/24/afx4150008.html Although it is the usual US centric view, it does manage a few points on the EU ca
179 Post contains images Astuteman : FWIW, Baroque, I'd personally like to thank you for the transient suspension of your day job, on our collective behalf, to present a HUGE amount of i
180 Post contains images Baroque : Oddly enough, I spent more time trying to find the RLI items in the RR annual reports. I think I got to the lines where they are included, but it is
181 Gsosbee : Boeing is hip deep in governmental contracts so they are already involved with the "strings." Low cost public money would be very hard to turn down.
182 Trex8 : if having to be told to build a specific product (787) in a specific location (WA state) to get a specific tax break ( state B & O reduction) not bein
183 Trex8 : lets face it, the main reason any US company will not want federal aid of the Airbus RLI type is because there will be hell to pay if they outsource o
184 Gsosbee : Agreed, but this also becomes murky with ownership issues.
185 Dougloid : That tells me that you don't understand government contracting very well, and you've never dealt with AAFPRO or NAVPRO.
186 Post contains links and images Wsp : The US government served notice. I understand its hard to see the difference, but supposedly there is one. If you read the US-EU contract you see tha
187 Baroque : Now he tells me!! One item of information in the RR accounts is that the T1000 was not "entered" in the RLI "competition". There are all sorts of pos
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 Get Kingfisher Order For A350 posted Wed Jun 20 2007 10:00:31 by Asiaflyer
Airbus Lobbies GE To Offer GEnx For A350 XWB posted Fri Apr 20 2007 12:12:09 by Keesje
Airbus Wants Russians To Build More Of A350 posted Sat Dec 9 2006 18:27:07 by BoomBoom
Airbus Planning Russian Venture For A350 posted Fri Nov 17 2006 14:39:03 by NYC777
Clark Maintains Support For Ex-Airbus CEO Humbert posted Thu Jul 6 2006 08:14:27 by Leelaw
Airbus Wants Launch Aid For A350 Revamp posted Wed May 17 2006 08:17:56 by NAV20
Reuters: Boeing Tops Airbus In Orders For 2005 posted Fri Jan 6 2006 17:33:49 by KJFK31L
Airbus: 10 Undisclosed Orders For A350: Who? posted Fri Oct 7 2005 10:21:57 by BrightCedars
Airbus "Creates" A350 Client - Lesson For Boeing? posted Fri May 20 2005 17:20:10 by Reggaebird
Airbus Asks For State Aid For A350 Launch posted Thu May 19 2005 18:26:27 by AirFrnt