Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
WTO Criticizes Boeing  
User currently offlinePlaneInsomniac From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 680 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9303 times:

Not sure if this has been discussed already. According to German news website Spiegel Online, the WTO has reprimanded Boeing in an unexpectedly harsh fashion. The article states that WTO judges have found that Boeing has received nearly $21 billion in contested government subsidies:

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/0,1518,717656,00.html

Here is a corresponding story on Fox Business:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2...-boeing-subsidies-european-source/


Am I cured? Slept 5 hours on last long-haul flight...
51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBoeing1970 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9221 times:

Most important statement in the entire article is right here-

From the linked Fox/Reuters story in the OP:

But the WTO dispute panel did not find that aid challenged by the EU was prohibited -- as it did in a ruling in the parallel case against Airbus subsidies brought by the United States -- which would have required faster remedies, the source said.

Moving on....

Although I'm guessing by this time tomorrow there will be 100+ posts on this thread.

[Edited 2010-09-15 12:13:40]

User currently offlinehawkercamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9145 times:

The only way this is going to be settling is if Boeing and Airbus (EU & USA) sit down together and agree on a future way forwards.

The B787 is the most subsidies aircraft ever. This will soon be over taken by the C-Series. And this will be over taken by the C919. (No joke but the C919 could exceed 100%)
Airbus and Boeing (BCA) need to agree on a future equal level of subsidy and fight of the large aircraft wannabes and newbies.


User currently offlineBoeing1970 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9125 times:

Quoting hawkercamm (Reply 2):
The B787 is the most subsidies aircraft ever.

As I pointed out in the article:

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 1):
the WTO dispute panel did not find that aid challenged by the EU was prohibited


User currently offlinehawkercamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9097 times:

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 3):
Quoting hawkercamm (Reply 2):
The B787 is the most subsidies aircraft ever.

As I pointed out in the article:

Needed that line to bring in the C-Series and C919  


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7377 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 8983 times:

I guess Boeing has finally won something after all their losses by the Pentagon, DOD, US Courts and USAF. Since they handed down a ruling against Airbus no way the WTO would just "criticize or reprimand" Boeing, means they have not found anything worthy of remedial actions. 
Stranger things have happened.

Quoting hawkercamm (Reply 2):
The only way this is going to be settling is if Boeing and Airbus (EU & USA) sit down together and agree on a future way forwards.

On this one I would have to suggest Boeing leave well enough alone, when it's comes to government "involvement" in the business arena, European Governments and their business's are experts after many years of such close working relationships. Yes everyone now talks about the Auto and Wall St. bailouts, but those are recent and not a true indication of how the US government works with private industry, and I include NASA since their govermnent funded research is not the private domain of Boeing.

Governments on both sides of the pond view involvement in private industry very differently, to a large degree based on the directions of their citizens, how a trade agreement will be used to influence or change the mind set of either side will be interesting to see, let's remember that Airbus is now privatized like Boeing.

Interesting times ahead.


User currently offlineslz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8934 times:

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 1):
Most important statement in the entire article is right here-

the WTO dispute panel did not find that aid challenged by the EU was prohibited -- as it did in a ruling in the parallel case against Airbus subsidies brought by the United States

Actually no, that is largely a NON-ISSUE, since from the initial reporting on the ruling it seems it is now undisputably established Boeing is a heavily subsidized company indeed, something which the US has always vehemently denied.

It really doesn't matter whether or not all/some/none of the mechanisms labeled as subsidies by the WTO are actually allowed under WTO rules, since the official point of view of the US delegation has been that ANY subsidies which the WTO labels as such, should be banned, whether or not they are technically allowed!

It was a point of view the US delegation took after it became clear to them the WTO would rule many/most of what the EU gives to EADS and which they had previously labeled as 'subsidies' were not going to be found illegal under WTO rules and could thus not be retaliated for.

Seems the US have shot themselves in the food MASSIVELY indeed by adopting this strategy, just as was expected by many observers...

Anyway, pass on the popcorn, enjoy the 200+ posts this reply will get and then fast forward to 2011 to see the next episode of this saga which will likely continue for many years still....Oh, and don't expect anything to change in the ways either Airbus nor Boeing raise their cash though.

[Edited 2010-09-15 13:03:34]

User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4585 posts, RR: 77
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8937 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 1):

But the WTO dispute panel did not find that aid challenged by the EU was prohibited

...and let's start the semantics.
What is remarkable is that just about every newspaper disagres with Fox ( fair and trustworthy news as they are )
See Bloomberg : Boeingf got billegal government developt aid
or the Beeb :Boeing subsidie should be withdrawn

As far as I'm concerned this whole affair is obscene.
Either we beliecve in fair competition and we talk to each other or we revive 19th century commercial aggressiveness and we know where that led us.
The amount of money spent on these WTO rulings that everybody of any sense knew to bew about slapping the two parties without solving the dispute is the obscenity I'm talking about.
I forgot of course A.net which strives on the hundreds of posts about to be written here.



Contrail designer
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7377 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8882 times:

Quoting slz396 (Reply 6):
It was a point of view the US delegation took after it became clear to them the WTO would rule many/most of what the EU gives to EADS and which they had previously labeled as 'subsidies' were not going to be found illegal under WTO rules and could thus not be retaliated for.

As you say, "a point of view", I'm sure the judges whose jobs it is / was to rule on these issues could care less what strategy the lawyers take, their ruling is based on the merits of the case and the treaty rules.


User currently offlineslz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8760 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 8):
I'm sure the judges whose jobs it is / was to rule on these issues could care less what strategy the lawyers take, their ruling is based on the merits of the case and the treaty rules

Indeed, and in BOTH cases they have flagged a lot of items as subsidies which they said must be recalled immediately, but in none of the 2 cases they went as far as indicating just what, when and how many of it was really completely illegal or how it should be corrected.

The US side likes to stress the fact the WTO has ruled the mechanism of repayable launch aid as 'illegal', yet that is not what the WTO report said at all! The WTO ruling on Airbus said the mechanism of RLI itself isn't 'prohibided', but added is was used in a subsidizing way by offering below market rates.

In a strikingly similar ruling today, the WTO has now ruled the mechanism Boeing benefits from wasn't illegal nor prohibided in itself either, yet has been misused to turn it into what constitutes subsidies.... What a surprise, right?

Anybody cares to write a post with the words 'pot', 'kettle', 'black'?

[Edited 2010-09-15 13:24:07]

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6722 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8629 times:

The fox piece doesn't make sense, just above the part where it says it isn't illegal, it says that the money must be withdrawn and broke WTO rules.

Quote:
The WTO judges found these payments broke WTO rules and should be withdrawn

So, it's legal, it breaks the rules, and it needs to be withdrawn. Fishy, isn't it ?

slz396 : I guess you explained the contradiction. So, it isn't illegal in the sense that it won't lead to a punishment, but it still need to be reimbursed ASAP.

On the Airbus side, they just need to adjust the rate of the loan, so it looks to be better for Airbus than for Boeing, doesn't it ?

[Edited 2010-09-15 14:06:03]

[Edited 2010-09-15 14:06:45]


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineBoeing1970 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8579 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 10):
The fox piece doesn't make sense, just above the part where it says it isn't illegal, it says that the money must be withdrawn and broke WTO rules.

Its not a Fox piece, its Reuters. It just happens to be on the Fox Business site.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 10):
So, it's legal, it breaks the rules, and it needs to be withdrawn. Fishy, isn't it ?

The term is "should" which means theres nothing wrong with it, but Boeing should be "shamed" into giving back something. If I were Boeing, I'd tell them to pound sand. Its either legal and you owe nothing, or its illegal and you need to pay up. This business of shaming companies into doing something is getting pathetic.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6722 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8526 times:

This is not my understanding. I think both Boeing and Airbus play with the word "legal", because the WTO is supranational. So what the WTO finds illegal from its point of view is not illegal for the US or the EU.

It's not about shame, breaking WTO rules is a real "offense", is it not ? It's exactly what Boeing accuses Airbus of doing.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8518 times:

This thread reminds me of the Airbus "victory" thread that came out in the immediate aftermath of the release of the draft findings on the U.S. complaint against EU support for airbus. Turns out that that "victory" claim was somewhat premature.

I would caution those who think this ruling somehow "balances the books" to wait for the actual report. Not all may be as initially claimed.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...nology/2012903753_boeingwto16.html

Quote:
In a preliminary ruling by the World Trade Organization (WTO) Wednesday, Boeing was found guilty of receiving illegal government subsidies. But the total of illegal subsidies to Boeing appears to be far less than the improper aid given to its rival Airbus in Europe.

The WTO interim ruling found that Boeing has received "well in excess of $5 billion in illegal subsidies," according to a trade official familiar with the report, which remains confidential.

But most of the $24 billion claim against the U.S. and Boeing appears to have been rejected by the international trade court.

Included in the $5 billion finding is a reiteration by the WTO of an older ruling in 2000 that a U.S. Foreign Sales Corporation tax regime that benefited Boeing is illegal. The new illegal subsidies could be as low as $3 billion.


Quoting Scott Hamilton from his blog:
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2010...09/15/boeing-wto-report-due-today/

Quote:
If this set of leaks is accurate, this would be a clear victory for the US and not Europe, giving the US essentially two major victories.


[Edited 2010-09-15 14:30:26]


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineBlueFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4062 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8452 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Airbus claimed its re-payable launch-aid subsidies were legal. The WTO agreed but nevertheless found that the below-market rate they were set at was illegal.

Boeing claimed it was subsidy-free, but the WTO found over $21 billions in subsidies, all of which legal.

Now, the very interesting question is, is any of that legal subsidy Boeing is getting repayable (or repaid)?

Going to the WTO tribunal was supposed to bring clarity and a certain degree of finality, but I think not.

Next round of argument will be all about who is the biggest beneficiary. If Boeing got to keep more subsidies than Airbus (accounting for what has been reimbursed), the US' demand that Airbus pays back the difference between below-market rate and market-rate is dead on arrival.



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8438 times:

Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 14):
If Boeing got to keep more subsidies than Airbus (accounting for what has been reimbursed), the US' demand that Airbus pays back the difference between below-market rate and market-rate is dead on arrival.

How so?   

Why wouldn't they insist on the EU coming into compliance with the final WTO ruling? The EU was/is banking on the ruling "balancing" the scales and settling this via negotiations.

What if it doesn't "balance the scales"?

Here's more:
WTO easier on Boeing than claimed: sources

Quote:
The $3 billion or so in new subsidies were mainly linked to historical payments provided to the U.S. planemaker by NASA, the sources said. The EU had argued NASA had helped Boeing by providing research contracts with too little in return.

Sources on both sides of the dispute agreed the EU had failed to make a charge stick that Boeing had received "prohibited" subsidies through incentives in Washington state.

Again, all these media reports are without foundation until the final report is issued.

[Edited 2010-09-15 14:54:11]


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineBlueFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4062 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 8401 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 15):
Why wouldn't they insist on the EU coming into compliance with the final WTO ruling?

I didn't say they won't. it's guaranteed they will. All I am saying is, in the world of realpolitik, if, overall Boeing benefited more from subsidies, the EU simply will not agree to making Airbus pay up.

I wish these rulings were made public. I really don't see the point of keeping them confidential until the all appeals are heard, which could take another two years. In the meantime, we have confusing and totally opposite statements from nameless sources such as the ones listed by the Financial Times.
(EU source): Of the $24 billions in alleged subsidies, the WTO agreed with $23 billions worth, of which $3 billions will have to be repaid "very quickly"
(US source): Only $3 billions in subsidies, none of it having to be repaid "quickly."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/889a3940-c...-99c4-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 8397 times:

Our posts crossed, so please see the info I added to my edit. Here's the link:
WTO easier on Boeing than claimed: sources



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6722 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 8265 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 17):
Our posts crossed, so please see the info I added to my edit. Here's the link:
WTO easier on Boeing than claimed: sources

So it's easier because no action is needed right away ? I'm not sure I agree there. Because what is asked at most on the EU side is not a lot of money, considering the launch aids are reimbursed anyway, it's only the interests that would go up. On the other hand, the "actionable" subsidies are more than 20 billions that Boeing didn't plan to reimburse.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7377 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 8131 times:

So two sides sit down and negotiate a treaty in writing.
An international body is established to "govern" / control world trade.
One side to a treaty files a case of wrong doing.
The other party files a counter suit.

The body establised to "govern" / control the trade hands down rulings for both sides which the average Joe has trouble understanding, and the solution is that both sides should sit down and negotiate a truce?
Supposedly they entered all options in the initial treaty and both parties found ways around them, the impartial arbitrator probably wants to ensure peace and harmony which undoubtable affected their ruling, so what to do now?

I say let each government do whatever it is they want to do, after the damage to world trade and each economy is done they will come to their senses and do the right thing, which is to abide by the covenants of whatever treaty they signed. This entire mess is not about loopholes, or obeying the letter of the law but about each side looking for ways around what they signed, unfortunately no one is on trial for intent.


User currently offlinerameshksm From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 month 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 8094 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 19):
I say let each government do whatever it is they want to do, after the damage to world trade and each economy is done they will come to their senses and do the right thing, which is to abide by the covenants of whatever treaty they signed

Though it can arguably be said that their (governments') version of the right thing is to just punt the problem down the road.


User currently offlineslz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 month 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7161 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 18):
what is asked at most on the EU side is not a lot of money, considering the launch aids are reimbursed anyway, it's only the interests that would go up

That's a point the US media fails to make when writing about the WTO ruling on the Airbus case: they keep on juggling with figures of billions here and billions there....

The WTO had indeed issues with the RLI payments to Airbus all right, but it's NOT the mechanism itself (i.e. the entire payment), but rather just the below market rate interest which was found to be a subsidy, meaning the sum which should/must be seen as a subsidy to EADS is NOT the billions in RLI which are always quoted in the US press, but rather just a tiny additional franction of it which is made up by the difference in interest rates...

The thing is its's nothing but a few tens of millions really, not tens of billions, hence the WTO calling it non-material in their final ruling indeed.

Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 16):

(EU source): Of the $24 billions in alleged subsidies for Boeing, the WTO agreed with $23 billions worth, of which $3 billions will have to be repaid "very quickly".
(US source): Only $3 billions in subsidies, none of it having to be repaid "quickly."

Even if we take the $3BN as absolute mimimum, it's still a whopping amount upheld by the WTO, especially in the context of their verdict about EADS, where only the too low interest rate on RLI was found to be illegal by them.

If the interest rate on the RLIs was for instance 2% too low (which is a lot BTW), it would have taken EADS $150BN in RLI to amount illegal subsidies to just the same $3BN Boeing has been found to have received according to the US side, or to $1,150BN in case one takes the EU side of view on the total amount of subsidies Boeing has received, none of which comes close to what Airbus has received, even if one sits with just the 3BN the US delegation says is upheld!!!


Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 16):
in the world of realpolitik, if, overall Boeing benefited more from subsidies, the EU simply will not agree to making Airbus pay up.

Bingo... don't expect the EU to do anything after this and don't expect the WTO to let the US impose sanctions on the EU for what it has called non-material elements of subsidy only, especially not after their verdict on Boeing, regardless whether it was 3 out of 24 or 23 out of 24BN which was found to be breaching the rules as it clearly tops the Airbus case... The US simply wasted good time and money on nothing, just as could be expected.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6324 times:

Updated article from the Seattle Times with more detail.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...nology/2012903753_boeingwto16.html

Quote:
The person close to the U.S. side of the case agreed that damages will generally far exceed the subsidy itself. But he insisted that the $5 billion in Boeing subsidies cited in the ruling is a figure directly comparable to the roughly $20 billion in loans to Airbus ruled illegal in the June WTO report.

"The $20 billion is the principal amount of subsidy that Airbus received and the $3 billion, leaving out the older FSC subsidy, is the amount found by this panel in its interim report for Boeing," he said. "That's an apples-to-apples comparison."

Boeing hailed the outcome as a big victory.

"If today's reports are accurate that some $3 billion of the EU's claims were upheld by the WTO, excluding the claims that relate to past programs long ago remedied by Congress, then the ruling amounts to a massive rejection of the EU case," Boeing said in a statement Wednesday afternoon. "The WTO findings against the U.S. are likely to require few changes in U.S. policies and practices."

A "massive rejection of the EU case"? We'll see. Reports from the EU seem much more restrained of late than in the immediate aftermath of the release of the confidential draft .



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8419 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (4 years 1 month 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5987 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

How much of the NASA money that Boeing received was given to McDonnell Douglas when it was independent ?

It seems money given to MD before the merger with Boeing of 1997 is being "used" as a subsidy for Boeing Commercial aircaft in teh WTO findings. Funny thing is the last new Boeing plane, the 777, came out in 1995.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 month 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5878 times:

Airbus got loans with interests rates that were too low.

Boeing got far reaching R&D support, for which any repay is, as far as I can see, not on the agenda. NASA generally pays Boeing to do research it than uses itself.

e.g. is the nineties NASA Langley developed a lot of design and production technology that was required for the 787 a few years later. They weren´t even shy of its future use for commercial aircraft.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/ASM.html


25 par13del : Should they have been??? Research work done at the bidding of NASA is not Boeing's property, has anyone launched a legal complaint against Boeing acc
26 Post contains images bikerthai : Although I am not so clear if NASA funded information is available for use by Non-US companies. In the same way, development work done for the US Mil
27 Aesma : I'm not sure that's the kind of argument able to convince anybody outside the US.
28 AAExecPlat : I think this whole thing is pretty simple...Airbus should source loans commercially and begin doing extensive "research" for the European NASA equival
29 Aesma : Or Boeing could stop all that and get RLI in exchange ! The European Space Agency does not have "Aeronautics" in its name like NASA does, for a good r
30 Post contains links and images bikerthai : LOL like this? http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...asa.gov/20030065197_2003074284.pdf I think all of NASA publications are public domain. You can
31 kanban : I'm surprised they didn't try to nail William Boeing for having air mail contracts as a subsidy... there seems to be a pattern that governments can no
32 ebbuk : As most people say, let us wait for the full report to come out. Then Airbus can do what Boeing does so that it complies with the ruling. Just simply
33 HBGDS : Actually, US law and EU law both state specifically that International law is the law of the land. So ignoring a WTO ruling is in fact breaking the l
34 mham001 : Hogwash and you know it. Compound that 2% over 5, 10 or 20 years and those numbers are significantly different. If I had the time, I'd really like to
35 par13del : Why should that be a problem, person's out-side the US want them to respect and accept rules and procedures that they put in place, the WTO has ruled
36 Aesma : Thanks for the answers about NASA. I knew about the ice tests obviously so at least that is public (I have seen the videos), however there can always
37 wingman : I used to care somewhat about this whole debate but I guess with age comes the realization that no matter what flag you fly, if you're part of big bus
38 bikerthai : What you say is true when both side (Boeing and NASA) put in money. Usually the bean counters are very strict in determining which portion of the res
39 kanban : NASA research that isn't "black" is public knowledge and available to EADS.. .. What I am reading is that while this research is legal, anyone who wo
40 connies4ever : The CSeries the most subsidized ? Can you show that with hard numbers ?
41 Post contains images HBGDS :
42 AAExecPlat : A few issues here. 1) The lower interest rates almost certainly were not lower by as much as 2%. 2) Even if they were, most of this $20 billion RLI w
43 Post contains links Zeke : Not really, remember what their definition of a subsidy actually is .... from http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/24-scm_01_e.htm The NASA fund
44 AAExecPlat : Zeke. Thanks for clarifying all of what you did. I wasn't aware of any of it.
45 bikerthai : Zeke, Please clarify whether these patents are handed to Boeing at no cost specifically, or to US companies at no cost in general. If it is the later
46 2175301 : While this is true. I have twice contacted NASA concerning more details and was offered extensive background documents (and in one case the actual pr
47 Post contains links Zeke : I do not know, one would hope that the WTO has access to that sort of information. This case is between the EU and the USA, not EADS and Boeing, if i
48 ScottB : On an ordinary loan (like a home mortgage), the interest will not compound, as repayments begin immediately (or nearly so). Repayable launch investme
49 AAExecPlat : Good point. Thanks for pointing that out. Thanks. Makes sense. "easy money" still matters in this case as the issued bonds' interest has to compete w
50 mham001 : Which has absolutely no bearing on the total cost of savings of a lower interest rate because interest payments are generally front loaded and intere
51 Post contains images Baroque : 20 year RLI payback periods? Where did they come from? No need to be ignorant of the general form of the terms, they have been set out so many times
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...
Boeing Claims WTO Win Over Airbus posted Tue Mar 23 2010 13:58:33 by yazoo
Airbus Boeing WTO Dispute posted Thu May 28 2009 17:10:54 by Trex8
Hopes Fade For Boeing-Airbus WTO Settlement posted Wed Nov 14 2007 07:45:55 by EI321
Aeroflot Boeing 787 Deal Likely At WTO posted Wed Jul 12 2006 12:25:04 by Keesje
WTO To Probe EU Claims Of US Govt Boeing Subsidies posted Fri Feb 17 2006 17:38:35 by Leelaw
Boeing Believes WTO Will Make Airbus Repay Aid posted Tue Jul 26 2005 19:11:17 by Beauing
Airbus, Boeing Battle Gets Under Way At WTO posted Wed Jul 20 2005 21:28:36 by Ibhayi
Boeing, Airbus, WTO, Etc.? posted Mon Oct 18 2004 00:12:41 by Lehpron
Boeing And Illegal Subsidies: WTO Ruling posted Tue Jan 29 2002 07:40:22 by Aviatsiya
Descendants Of William Boeing & The Boeing Family posted Tue Sep 14 2010 23:53:52 by 777law