Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
WTO Boeing Ruling Published  
User currently offlineAircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1711 posts, RR: 8
Posted (3 years 4 months ago) and read 5959 times:

Nobody has opened a thread about it yet? Is it because it may soon become a flamefest?

Well, small bits of info here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0...-us-banned-subsidies_n_843066.html

As usual, Boeing says their monies are dwarfed by Airbus' but this time, Airbus says they have lost billions in aicraft sales and Boeing should reimburse.

Popcorn, please...

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1685

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pr...eases/news-category/press_release/

56 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineiceberg210 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 months ago) and read 5932 times:

If you have a minute and want to see some incredible spin read the press release from Boeing, then the one from Airbus, it's pretty hilarious, I wonder if they've even read the same report because the way each talk about the ruling there's no way it could be the same one they're talking about. I'm sure appeals, spins, takes, and various other ways of looking at it will come along that will all be interesting, and entertaining, while probably being fairly unproductive. At any rate get ready for the biggest pissing match we've seen between aircraft manufactures. Pass the popcorn!


Erik Berg (Foster's is over but never forgotten)
User currently offlinechuchoteur From France, joined Sep 2006, 762 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 months ago) and read 5851 times:

... in fact, that report says that both manufacturers are as guilty as each other, and the whole thing balances out in the end, which is pretty well represented by the 50/50 market share...

I'd like a press statement from the lawyers representing both sides, they're the real winners! Another 10 years worth of work ahead of them!  


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4696 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5781 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Now that the WTO has spoken can we (EU and US) just all get along and get our act together so the Chinese , Russians and Brazilians and Indians don;t make Washington and Brussels " subsidies" look like small change as they support their industries growth?

User currently offlineCricket From India, joined Aug 2005, 2966 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5754 times:

Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 2):
... in fact, that report says that both manufacturers are as guilty as each other, and the whole thing balances out in the end, which is pretty well represented by the 50/50 market share...

I'd like a press statement from the lawyers representing both sides, they're the real winners! Another 10 years worth of work ahead of them!  

The lawyers always win, don't they always.



A300B2/B4/6R, A313, A319/320/321, A333, A343, A388, 737-2/3/4/7/8/9, 747-3/4, 772/2E/2L/3, E170/190, F70, CR2/7, 146-3,
User currently offlinechuchoteur From France, joined Sep 2006, 762 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5701 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 3):
Now that the WTO has spoken can we (EU and US) just all get along and get our act together so the Chinese , Russians and Brazilians and Indians don;t make Washington and Brussels " subsidies" look like small change as they support their industries growth?

... definitely...

Quoting Cricket (Reply 4):
The lawyers always win, don't they always.

Oooooooh yeah. Give it another 10 years and there will be another WTO case:
"How illegal subsidies received by Boeing and Airbus erroneously financed the legal industry"


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5664 times:

Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 2):
in fact, that report says that both manufacturers are as guilty as each other

... As many of us here have been saying for years (or "as innocent as each other", if you prefer). The whole "our shenanigans are more legal then your shenanigans" malarkey has been laughable at times.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 3):
Now that the WTO has spoken can we (EU and US) just all get along and get our act together

  


User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3932 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5560 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting iceberg210 (Reply 1):
If you have a minute and want to see some incredible spin read the press release from Boeing, then the one from Airbus, it's pretty hilarious

Well, for once, the main spin isn't too difficult to uncover. Airbus is focusing on subsidies overall received by Boeing, whereas Boeing is obviously focusing on subsidies that have been found to be in contravention of WTO rules.

In the end, I think what is going to hurt Boeing the most is a determination by the WTO panel that R&D funds from NASA and the DOT are subsidies and not payment for purchase of services, to the extent that they have significant commercial applications.

I also can't help but notice Airbus gives instructions on its web site on how to get all the publicly available documents directly from the WTO, whereas Boeing instead has tables and documents made in-house based on its interpretation of the report. You can thank Boeing for producing clear charts that are easier to read than the report (but might be totally out of context), or you can thank Airbus for shining a light on "everything" (and drowning you in data that isn't the easiest to read) however you feel it about each manufacturer.



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7063 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5558 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 3):
Now that the WTO has spoken can we (EU and US) just all get along and get our act together so the Chinese , Russians and Brazilians and Indians don;t make Washington and Brussels " subsidies" look like small change as they support their industries growth?

Why?
When the jet age started, US and European OEM's commenced building commercial airplanes, the US took the lead in terms of volume and the European companies essentially died. To preserve the industry/technology, European governments got together and combined a number of private companies into Airbus, and away we went, now we have a situation of roughly 50/50 between Europe and the US.
Now you want to pass some WTO laws / rules etc. to prevent other countries from building up their own aviation industry, why exactly? We know the funding works, look at the results, so what excuse will you give to the Chinese, Russians, Indian's and others to tell them that they cannot do as the goose did?

An example, a number of regions with countries require the use of turbo-prop a/c of 50 seats or less, Bombadier and ATR are catering to their communities which require larger seat counts, so essestially they tell smaller communities that air travel is only for you if your communities can somehow support 60+ seats, it not tough luck. If a country like Brazil decides to build a/c to support this market segment and need government support, you saying that is wrong?

Boeing and Airbus are upsizing to cater to their largest market, fine, if other countries / companies want to cater to those who do not need a/c larger than the A300, A310, A320, 737, 757 we must tell them to grow or die, how does that work in a capitalist system, usually where there is a need someone will find a way.


User currently offlinearrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5508 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting trex8 (Reply 3):
Now that the WTO has spoken can we (EU and US) just all get along and get our act together so the Chinese , Russians and Brazilians and Indians don;t make Washington and Brussels " subsidies" look like small change as they support their industries growth?

I think that horse bolted from the barn years ago. The Bombardier-Embraer spat over RJs was just as contentious, albeit on a smaller scale than A-B. And they were both found guilty. And they each "spun" the decisions to make it look like the other was guiltier.

And given the behaviour of the parents (A-B), why shouldn't the children do likewise?

A pox on all their houses.

All this talk about free markets -- what a bunch of BS. There is NO free market country in the world, despite all the protestations to the contrary.

I shoulda been a trade lawyer; I'd have made a pile more money.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4705 posts, RR: 38
Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5431 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting iceberg210 (Reply 1):
If you have a minute and want to see some incredible spin read the press release from Boeing, then the one from Airbus, it's pretty hilarious, I wonder if they've even read the same report because the way each talk about the ruling there's no way it could be the same one they're talking about. I'm sure appeals, spins, takes, and various other ways of looking at it will come along that will all be interesting, and entertaining, while probably being fairly unproductive. At any rate get ready for the biggest pissing match we've seen between aircraft manufactures. Pass the popcorn!

Well, to be fair, Airbus refers to the ruling of WTO on the counter-protest the EU filed in response to the protest the US filed at the WTO. So that causes the reactions of both companies to be quite different.

Boeing emphasizes on the financial differences coming out of both reports (and makes incorrect calculated claims in the process imho), while Airbus focuses on the WTO verdict on this case alone. But since every verdict will be appealed till kingdom come, in a few years time the parties return to the negotiations table and work out a new deal. Which imho will most porbably look quite similar to the one the US walked away from.

The main reason to protest, the EU launch aid, has now been ruled legal multiple times by the WTO. So it is best doing business at the table.  . Until then, I wish I was a lawyer specialized in this line of work.  .


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7063 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5295 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 10):
The main reason to protest, the EU launch aid, has now been ruled legal multiple times by the WTO.

Based on their different social make up, the American population would probably never go for launch aid being provided to any commercial company, much less Boeing, so that imbalance will always remain.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 10):
So it is best doing business at the table

I say let them all do whatever their societies are willing to accept, the social makeup of both continents is different, what is acceptable in one is not in the other.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3388 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5263 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

well the plus side will be that Boeing will have trouble demanding more tax and other incentives from Washington state (or any state) to keep from moving manufacturing facilities...

User currently offlinesilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2051 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5130 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 10):
The main reason to protest, the EU launch aid, has now been ruled legal multiple times by the WTO.

The concept is legal, but the way it has been implemented is not. The parts that weren't legal were exactly the parts that made it so beneficial in the first place. Personally, I don't care what the rulings were, but the intentional misrepresentation of the rulings I see here on a regular basis are annoying.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4705 posts, RR: 38
Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5104 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting silentbob (Reply 13):
but the intentional misrepresentation of the rulings I see here on a regular basis are annoying.

Intentional misinterpretation? I think that is what you find in the statements made by (especially) Boeing and Airbus on this matter.  .


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6530 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5022 times:

Quoting silentbob (Reply 13):
The parts that weren't legal were exactly the parts that made it so beneficial in the first place.

I disagree. What is really beneficial is not the below market rates, but the availability of billions without having to convince banks.

As for the market rates, it could be argued there is unfairness here too, when the Fed is keeping its reference rates so low.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30578 posts, RR: 84
Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4946 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kanban (Reply 12):
well the plus side will be that Boeing will have trouble demanding more tax and other incentives from Washington state (or any state) to keep from moving manufacturing facilities...

The Huffington Post article made no mention of WA's incentives, so are we sure they were part of the WTO's findings?

Of course, such a finding could have a very wide-ranging effect, since Boeing of course is not the only company that asked for and received such incentives in the past. I can think of scores of US, European and Asian companies in dozens of industries who have received the same type of benefit, if not in the same amount (of course, the $3.2 billion was a maximum figure that subsequent events have insured will never be reached).


User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4389 posts, RR: 76
Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4912 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Air Insight interviews Alan McArtor on the WTO finding;
McArtor on AirInsight

And for those really really seriously interested in the raw WTO finding,
here is the summary of the dispute to date
on the WTO site. The whole thousand pages can be downloaded from the site,as well.
Who said something about popcorns ?



Contrail designer
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4696 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4804 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting par13del (Reply 11):
Based on their different social make up, the American population would probably never go for launch aid being provided to any commercial company, much less Boeing, so that imbalance will always remain.

Why? We give farmers money to not even produce anything or produce it in such a way so inefficiently it shouldn't be grown, we then give money "tax breaks" to auto firms to build new plants in those cornfields we used to pay the farmers not to plow, why would we have a problem giving money to help an industry which produces something which actually does something worthwhile and employs many tens of thousands in high paying jobs which create even more jobs in their communities. Ooops, I forgot, that would be sensible and that would never work in Washington!! If WA state was an early primary state in the US presidential election, those politicos will pay more attention to RLI subsidies than farm subsidies!

Quoting silentbob (Reply 13):
The concept is legal, but the way it has been implemented is not. The parts that weren't legal were exactly the parts that made it so beneficial in the first place.

How so? A lot of the "illegal" subsidies had more to do with infrastructure support than actual program R & D. .
The main advantage to A was RLI for R & D for new projects, sure, there were cases where country X gave illegal RLI for project A but countries X and Z gave legal RLI for the same project and the infrastructure support if "done right" would not have been illegal or even considered an issue.

Quoting par13del (Reply 8):
Now you want to pass some WTO laws / rules etc. to prevent other countries from building up their own aviation industry, why exactly?

I never said that. My view is its got to be a level playing field. Call it RLI, tax breaks, whatever. Just everyone should be allowed to do it and its transparent. If US politicians are too dumb to see "RLI" is a good thing - maybe they should learn something from Thatcher - someone not usually considered some liberal socialist- what was it, 300 million pounds for the A320 turned into several billion now in interest repayments and royalties for Her Majestys Treasury and that doesn't even count the economic activity gained by the UK from those people working on the project directly or the economic activity they foster by being in good paying jobs in their communities. And if EU politicians are too dumb to see "tax breaks" and " R & D "subsidies"" a good thing, thats their funeral because those up and coming BRIC countries won't have the same inhibitions. Hu and Putin are laughing all the way to the bank watching this WTO spat while they count the cash out to give to their industries.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30578 posts, RR: 84
Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4796 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting par13del (Reply 11):
Based on their different social make up, the American population would probably never go for launch aid being provided to any commercial company, much less Boeing...

Actually, RLI might very well resonate with segments of the US electorate since it is repaid and then generates royalty revenue going forward, which can be used to fund other things.


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4652 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 17):
Air Insight interviews Alan McArtor on the WTO finding;
McArtor on AirInsight

The key quote for me is that the WTO Panel ruled that Boeing could not have launched the 787 without NASA and DoD R&D funded by the US government.

But from the taxpayer's perspective that's exactly what government-funded R&D should do, isn't it?

Back to work...


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30578 posts, RR: 84
Reply 21, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4625 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 20):
The key quote for me is that the WTO Panel ruled that Boeing could not have launched the 787 without NASA and DoD R&D funded by the US government.

Which is kind of interesting since the NASA stuff is public domain and Boeing specifically had to prove they were not using any techniques of working with CFRP that were still classified under the B-2, F-22 and other programs, but instead developed independently.


User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3932 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4549 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
it is repaid and then generates royalty revenue going forward

You mean like the way the bank bailout resonates because banks are paying back more than they received?



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4696 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4423 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 22):
You mean like the way the bank bailout resonates because banks are paying back more than they received?

Everything I have read about TARP recently- CBO or even White House numbers- says the government will lose money on it, maybe only by the tens of billions and not the hundreds of billions some say but its not likely to be a gain. RLI has as far as most people can tell been a gain for the countries providing it though as with TARP some programs are still too early to tell. Some are just a mint like the A320.


User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2213 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4289 times:

And first thing this morning..Airbus appeals its own "victory" saying the ruling against Boeing is too lenient. So much for the contention that both guilty verdicts are equal in "guiltiness".

25 bravo1six : Boeing also appealed its own "victory" in the WTO case against the EU.
26 par13del : Different thing, RLI is about companies being able to launch any product that they want to without having a viable market plan to sustain, the auto c
27 Post contains images astuteman : What utter BS Indeed. With the exception of the A346, they've all been successful But this is NOT the reason that Airbus's products have succeeded Th
28 Stitch : As a follow-up, if NASA R&D is illegal, did the UK ever implement the National Aerospace Technology Strategy, Aerospace Technology Validation Pro
29 blueflyer : Projected $25 billions loss according to CBO (November figure), but that is for the entire program, which includes banks, Chrysler and GM, toxic asse
30 trex8 : Usually but not always, there are numerous US market vehicles not sold anywhere else (N America), eg Honda Odyssey, Toyota Sienna, US market Accord,
31 BMI727 : Exactly. Boeing is doing the work for NASA and when NASA gets it anyone can use it. It is work performed at the behest of the government just like an
32 par13del : Apologies, got the wrong company. Guess we disagree, or maybe I needed to explain fully, every project will have a viable market plan for management
33 Stitch : Well certainly the French work hard to sell Airbus planes, but do they do that to make sure the RLI they have given Airbus is repaid, or do they do t
34 Post contains images DocLightning : Just fantasy, but *IF* a backwater, third-world country like Brazil could scrape together an aircraft company, maybe they'd call it the Brazilian Aer
35 Post contains images astuteman : Discussing the principles of RLI? You didn't come anywhere remotely near the principles of RLI Rgds
36 Post contains images par13del : Well all my responses started with the posters comment that A and B should go back to the table and esnure that they trash out some agreement to prev
37 trex8 : Usually but in the cases I pointed out they are not. These vehicles are either solely produced in the US and to a design not marketed anywhere else-
38 trex8 : Probably not much but many lawyers will get rich looking over future subsidy agreements to ensure they do meet the letter of the law. They are not go
39 par13del : I do not see where they have said all tax breaks are illegal, but I will certainely re-read as more details emerge, tax breaks are an integral part o
40 Post contains links trex8 : maybe not "All" but certainly part of those breaks are http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...d-serious-prejudice-to-europe.html 4. The Panel upheld
41 Post contains images par13del : And some of those same subsidies and types thereof also caused serious prejudice to the folks in Michigan when they were used to set up car plants in
42 Post contains images trex8 : I don't believe the WTO is the forum for a dispute between states within the US. Maybe Michigan could secede to Ontario and start a case though!! But
43 Post contains links and images Stitch : If Airbus placed an A350 FAL in Washington State, they'd benefit from the B&O tax reductions. Also, Rolls-Royce considered putting a second Trent
44 Post contains images par13del : In either case they would be producing their own product, to be sold under the same name, so the subsidies would be legal since Airbus and RR could n
45 Post contains images Baroque : Fascinating interview. It must certainly be resonating with folk in a number of Treasuries by now courtesy of the A32x program. Heck, for me you coul
46 Stitch : As I understand it, Boeing was eligible for RLI under the 1992 agreement, but took the offsets, instead. Now that RLI is legal (in principle) and off
47 trex8 : The issue has been its "not in our blood" to do RLI as some like par13del have said. But when the American taxpayer looks closely at it, it makes a h
48 Post contains links trex8 : from http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2294&year=2003 (f) "Superefficient airplane" means a twin aisle airplane that 25 carries b
49 Stitch : Airbus claimed at launch that the A350-900 and A350-1000 would be 20-25% more fuel efficient per seat than the 777-200ER and 777-300ER, so it should b
50 Post contains images Baroque : Again, very interesting. Cannot wait to find how they judge a fair interest rate. Seems to me after the GFC anything over 2% in some countries, could
51 Post contains images par13del : I would ask, are we really comparing the same things, for the most part these are all loans, some are repayable by those who borrow, some are repaid b
52 Post contains links and images Baroque : I don't think that is how they work. For a start there is the % limit. Additionally, if it is so, it seems not to be what some companies want. 72. Ne
53 par13del : On this site if you go back in the archives, you will see that whenever the discussion of RLI and subsidies come up there are those who call them the
54 Baroque : Not sure after reading your post, I understand any more what a loan is!!! Surely tax breaks are not loans, or if they are how are they? And surely pa
55 par13del : An example of why I thought the whole WTO case was a massive waste of time. Why I initially said we were comparing different things, the previous pos
56 Post contains images Baroque : No doubt of that! And in spades if any rulings start to be enforced!
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...
WTO Criticizes Boeing posted Wed Sep 15 2010 11:50:37 by PlaneInsomniac
Boeing Claims WTO Win Over Airbus posted Tue Mar 23 2010 13:58:33 by yazoo
Upcoming WTO Ruling posted Thu Aug 27 2009 10:42:00 by Khobar
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
WTO Rules Boeing Tax Concession Illegal posted Sat Oct 1 2005 12:56:36 by Astuteman
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