AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2445 posts, RR: 9 Posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1560 times:
I wonder how many of you saw this article from July 27th, 2001 on the Aviation Week website. I started a thread on it in their now defunct forum. I can't quote it but I'll relay the contents: "U.S. Official Attacks "Foreign Corruption" in Aerospace Industry" by Stephen Trimble/AviationNow.com - http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/autonomy_samples/autonomysuggest/autosuggest.jsp?docid=4822&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aviationnow.com%2Favnow%2Fnews%2Fchannel_finance.jsp%3Fview%3Dstory%26id%3Dnews%2Ffeuro0727.xml - Grant Aldonas, a U.S. Commerce Dept. undersecretary for international trade, claimed U.S. aerospace companies can't compete fairly in Europe due to government subsidies and favors for native companies in a testimony before the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee on aviation. He cited loan subsidies, trade barriers and bribery by foreign companies as having negative impact on U.S. competitiveness and that some European governments promise coveted landing rights to Airbus customers. E.U. hushkit regulations also unfairly target U.S. aircraft, allowing noisier European aircraft to keep flying. Finally, U.S. companies, mainly Boeing, face a long European government certification process, even after passing a U.S. F.A.A. safety check. I wanted to see what forum members thought of this.
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2445 posts, RR: 9 Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1511 times:
Furthermore, in the Subcommittee on Aviation Hearing of July 26, 2001, Aldonas stated:"all models of Airbus aircraft appear to have been supported through financial support from European governments. A substantial part of this is from so-called royalty-based 'loans' to defray the costs of developing a new aircraft model. The terms of the 'loans' were such that European government funding may not have had to be paid if the actual level of sales failed to meet projected levels." He added "increasingly, foreign governments are turning to issues such as aircraft worthiness certification and environmental issues in what appears to be a strategy aimed at limiting U.S. aircraft exports". Moreover, "bribery by foreign companies can have important consequences for U.S. competitiveness. Because of the critical role governments play in selecting aircraft suppliers and because of the huge sums of money involved in aircraft purchases, this sector has been especially vulnerable to trade distortions bribery of foreign public officials. Whereas U.S. law has long prohibited U.S. companies from offering bribes, the governments of many foreign aircraft companies allowed bribery and in some cases, even permitted tax deductions for bribe-giving". Separately, Steven Falken of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said that the World Trade Organization Agreement "has not been entiely effective" in achieving fair trade. "Specifically, the Aircraft Agreement did not appear to deal effectively with massive government subsidies provided the Airbus consortium.", speaking also about support for the A-380. Falken said the Bush Administration would seek to "update and strengthen" the WTO Aircraft Agreement, adding "Foreign aircraft competitors should face the same market risks as the U.S. industry and should not be insulated from those risks by various government supports." I didn't provide a link to these transcript excepts because they're apparently no longer available-I quoted all of this from a copy I printed out last year.
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2445 posts, RR: 9 Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1440 times:
As on the Aviation Week forum, I've gotten about no response from either sympathizers or detractors. I expected a strong rebuttal from the European side. This is not about the merits of Boeing vs. Airbus products, both are excellent, rather, it's about the way Airbus is funded which makes for unfair competition in the commercial transport industry. It's time for the U.S. to rexamine and renegotiate the 1992 WTO Aircraft Agreement which effectively ties one of Boeing's hands behind its' back. It's time to take the Europeans to task for things like certification double standards and bribery. Until we do, they'll keep chipping away at our industry until it belongs entirely to them.
Cpt Underpants From Canada, joined May 2001, 166 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1415 times:
Simple, undisputed fact is that Boeing gets alot more cash from military contracts than Airbus gets from European governments. Any other pro-Boeing spin is just protectionism, from the world's supposed leader in free trade.
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2445 posts, RR: 9 Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1387 times:
This is disputed. According to Mr. Aldonas, Airbus' parent companies have more military and government sales than Boeing. Reference the article on Aviation Week's website using the address provided. Are you calling Mr. Aldonas a liar or do you have inside information he doesn't? If Boeing gets all of this cash, why can't they prop up their commercial transport division and undercut Airbus in the price wars?
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2445 posts, RR: 9 Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1324 times:
Cpt Underpants, the findings of Mr. Aldonas and the Subcommittee on Aviation show that Europe is engaged far more in the business of "protectionism" than what you allege of the U.S., often taking it to illegal lengths. I'll be happy to send you copies of the documents that are unfortunately no longer available on the House of Representatives website. I'd prefer a mailing address, since I've yet to invest in a scanner for the PC but if you insist on an e-mail address, I'll buy an inexpensive scanner. I assume you're not American. Being that I am, I've a vested interest in Boeing's success but am all for foreign competition IF it's fair and equitable. I've seen too much evidence indicating it's not. Please acknowledge if you're interested.
Wingman From Spain, joined May 1999, 2017 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1285 times:
I'm staying clear of this thread except to correct Captain Underwear that EADS/BAe receive more military subsidies than Boeing. Think of all the crazy overlapping military projects in the EU that never go anywhere (Typhoon, Rafale, Eurofighter, Challenger, Aircraft Carriers, Meteor missiles etc etc.) Some of these are still in development so I may eat my words, and to be fair, the US has a single military acquisition group in the Pentagon where the EU still has many politcal and national considerations that prevent "normal" program evolution (e.g. the French ain't ever going to buy Challenger tanks just like the Brits wouldn't touch a French fighter jet with a ten foot pole). This limits your chances from the very start and is the very reason why EADS wants into the Pentagon.
Backfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1254 times:
You might want to read the STAR 21 report into European competitiveness which highlights the "buy American" rules in the USA which puts Europe at a huge disadvantage. Unfairness works both ways.
"Due to restrictive rules which are embedded in many individual pieces of legislation at both federal and state level, such as the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations, the US market is difficult to access. In practice this reflects a 'Buy American' policy."
"In 2001 US Congress approved legislations in which it explicitly limited the procurement choice of the Department of Defense to commercial Boeing aircraft...this piece of legislation would effectively exclude the purchase of an Airbus air tanker even if the enterprise offered a competitive product."
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2445 posts, RR: 9 Reply 9, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1206 times:
The problem with the Star-21 report is that Europe doesn't practice what it preaches; while screaming protectionism by the U.S., European governments and companies engage in concerted efforts to undermine the competitiveness of the U.S. aerospace industry as outlined in Grant Aldona's testomy of a year ago. As I recall, the Air Force stated that the first 100 tankers it planned to lease, Boeing's 767 was selected primarily because it was smaller than the competing A-330, it's smaller footprint would be less unweildy in crowded air base operations. It was also said that after the first 100, the competition would again be open to Airbus. Nothing is said of statements like "a European solution to Europe's airlift needs is preferred", referring to the proposed A400M. Apparently, Europe wants to have it both ways, unrestricted competion at all levels in the world markets but with a firm grip on its' own markets. As long as this hypocracy persists, the U.S. competitive position will continue to erode and Europe will supplant the U.S. in aerospace dominance.