.....A midnight amendment to Germany's 2005
budget showed Germany plans to help the A350 with $890 million in
government funds that originated as part of the U.S. Marshall Plan.........
.....Boeing could put its pipeline of government research funding at risk,
and supports such as a $3.2 billion tax break from Washington state
almost certainly will be examined. The EU claims Boeing since 1992 has
fed on $23 billion in government handouts, mostly NASA and Defense
Department research grants.
The EU could find that its case is tough to make. After all, Airbus has
jumped from a 30 percent market share in 1992 to 50 percent of
commercial aircraft deliveries today, so Airbus would be hard-pressed
to
prove any harm.
...To win a trade case, the U.S. would have to prove that the aid to
Airbus
has harmed Boeing. That was impossible during the 1990s, because many
of
Boeing's wounds were self-inflicted: It suffered from work stoppages,
production shutdowns and indecision about launching new airplanes.
Then-Chief Executive Philip Condit also feared an anti-Boeing backlash
that would hurt sales in Europe......
......a junior associate in Berlin turned up one big find: A report
from the City of Hamburg about a landfill along the River Elbe. In the
document, a law firm retained by Hamburg concluded that the $850
million
public works project would qualify as a subsidy because it was built
solely for Airbus' benefit.
....The transcript of a debate in Britain's House of Lords showed that
Airbus received $797 million in loans on the A330 airplane through 1997
but had made no repayments in the decade since the first loan. This
looked like proof that Airbus did not repay loans even on its most
successful airplanes.
.....Sixty years after World War II, the Marshall Plan money is
still around because Germany has charged interest on loans to
successful
companies. The searchers found Germany has loaned the money--officially
called the European Recovery Plan--several times to benefit Airbus.
.....Airbus' claims of U.S. research subsidies will not be easy for Boeing
to
shake. A visit to NASA's research center in Langley, Va., illuminates
how Boeing directs and carries out NASA research and also benefits from
the findings.......
.....Still, the argument on research is as complex as the rest of the trade
fight. The European Union has allocated nearly $1 billion to a new
aeronautics research budget, and Boeing's subsidy sleuths believe they
can prove much of the research is done for Airbus' benefit.....
Launch aid by plane
A300/A310 Germany $1.55 billion U.K None France $2.05 billion Spain
$233 million Total $3.83 billion A320 Germany $702 million U.K $567
million France $672 million Spain $87 million Total $2.03 billion
A330/A340 Germany $2.01 billion U.K $1.04 billion France $1.45 billion
Spain $270 million Total $4.77 billion A330-200 Germany None U.K None
France $58 million Spain None Total $58 million A340-500 / A340-600
Germany None U.K. $215 million France $337 million Spain $75 million
Total $627 million A380 Germany $1.07 billion U.K $867 million France
$1.37 billion Spain $426 million Total $3.73 billion
Note: Dollar amounts reflect payments in each country's own currency,
indexed to 2003, and converted at rates applicable in the year of
disbursement.
Overview of infrastructure subsidies for the Airbus A380
GERMANY: $857 million
$850 million: Spent by the City of Hamburg to fill a part of the River
Elbe to accommodate the expansion of a production facility.
More than $7 million: Provided as a grant by the Land of Lower Saxony
for the expansion of its facilities in the City of Nordenham.
U.K.: $408 million
$376 million: Provided to fund the Broughton site.
$32 million: Given as a land grant from the National Assembly for
Wales.
FRANCE: $298 million
$206 million: A public investment for an assembly site in Toulouse.
$82.6 million: Provided for road construction between Langon (port on
the Garonne River) and a production site in Toulouse.
$9.7 million: Provided for construction in ports and along the Garonne
River to accommodate transportation of A380 fuselages.
SPAIN: $143 million
$143 million: Investments made in Puerto de Santa Maria, Illescas,
Puerto Real and La Rinconada plants.
Note: Euros and British pounds were converted into dollars at average
2003 exchange rates. Maps are not to scale.
Sources: European governments' documents, ESRI, Boeing Co.
AirFrnt From United States, joined Jul 2004, 2139 posts, RR: 19 Reply 3, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5814 times:
Interesting points. The fact that float from the Marshall Funds money is being used is really going to piss off a lot of people. It also basically states that Boeing and Airbus are playing the same games in terms of indirect support. However, the direct support in the form of loans is only directly going to Airbus.
It sounds like Boeing has done their homework here. If the UK hands over cash, there will be a massive trade battle. As the US has learned several times at the WTO, Airbus is going to be at a huge disadvantage simply by being accused. The best possible outcome is investor skittishness about what the WTO will do. The worst outcome will allow the United States to tariff any plane sold sold by the EU in America.
The other thing the numbers show is that the amount of aid from EU to Airbus has stayed relativly static or risen slightly over the last 40 years. This is because Airbus moved to building larger planes after the A320, so the capital inflow staid the same.
RamerinianAir From United States, joined Nov 2003, 1467 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5597 times:
What Europeans DO NOT GET:
Boeing recieves money for Military contracts because they are the best. They do not recieve all the money alotted for military spending, they are among companies like Raytheon, Grumman and Lockheed recieving money.
Here's the big one:
The money they recieve is NOT used to develope civil A/C, it is used to develope superior military technology. They have some fierce competition in this field. THUS, THEY ARE NOT RECIEVING SUBSIDIES. They are not turning around and using the NASA tech aid to develope the 747ADV, they are developing some superior technology we will all have in our cars in 20 years.
Steven
Oftwftwoab From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 42 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5522 times:
Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 3): As the US has learned several times at the WTO, Airbus is going to be at a huge disadvantage simply by being accused. The best possible outcome is investor skittishness about what the WTO will do. The worst outcome will allow the United States to tariff any plane sold by the EU in America.
If the US goes to the WTO, the EU will as well, citing not only subsidies provided to Boeing by the US, but also those provided by Japan. Thus Boeing would also face investor skittishness, but even more so, as Airbus has a lot of shares held by nationally owned companies etc.
If the US tariffs any plane sold by the EU in America, the EU will tariff any plane sole by Boeing in the EU. (Even if the EU doesn't win its case at the WTO, as the EU already has unused rights to levy tariffs against US products because of previous victories at the WTO - principally the 'unlawful' tax subsidies the US gives to its exporters.) And as Boeing sells more planes to the EU than Airbus sells to the US, this can only hurt Boeing more.
I cannot see what Boeing hopes to gain by pushing a WTO action. Any 'victory' in a trade war would only be a pyrrhic one. They would've been better off lobbying Congress to allow tax breaks to match the alleged Airbus subsidies. Then supported negotiations with the EU to lower subsidies on both sides. I get the impression that Boeing thought that if they could only get the US Administration to talk tough, then the EU would roll over. That' s not going to happen - EU public opinion would never permit the EU to 'bend the knee' to the Americans (especially given current attitudes to President Bush and the Iraq situation).
It may simply be that Boeing thought they could delay the A350 somewhat, but this is a risky strategy - getting politicians involved is rarely good for business.
Flyibaby From United States, joined Aug 2004, 766 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5486 times:
I never thought I would say this, but I think its time that maybe the US stop playing by the rules that other counties believe we should live up to, resign from the WTO, NAFTA and any other trade alliance. Fact of the matter is that the US is just about, if not, the biggest sales market there is. Every country wants to do business with us. If a country wants to sell us an airplane or a paperclip, we should have a mirror trade agreement with that individual country to ensure that all trade is fair. This protects jobs and the integrity of commerce.
Udo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5468 times:
Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 3): The fact that float from the Marshall Funds money is being used is really going to piss off a lot of people.
Why? The US could have known that one day the money from the Marshall Plan would help to create and build up competitors to US companies.
And again I say: the US did not just help for charity. Supporting Germany meant building up a strategic wall against the communists and it meant developing new markets for trade.
AvObserver From United States, joined Apr 2002, 2317 posts, RR: 14 Reply 9, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5458 times:
"If the US goes to the WTO, the EU will as well, citing not only subsidies provided to Boeing by the US, but also those provided by Japan."
The EU case, led by claims from EADS/Airbus, hasn't yet quantified how they've arrived at a $23 billion since 1992 U.S. government subsidies to Boeing figure. They'd better do so if they have to face the WTO, otherwise their case will go up in smoke.
"Overview of infrastructure subsidies for the Airbus A380
GERMANY: $857 million
$850 million: Spent by the City of Hamburg to fill a part of the River
Elbe to accommodate the expansion of a production facility.
More than $7 million: Provided as a grant by the Land of Lower Saxony
for the expansion of its facilities in the City of Nordenham.
U.K.: $408 million
$376 million: Provided to fund the Broughton site.
$32 million: Given as a land grant from the National Assembly for
Wales.
FRANCE: $298 million
$206 million: A public investment for an assembly site in Toulouse.
$82.6 million: Provided for road construction between Langon (port on
the Garonne River) and a production site in Toulouse.
$9.7 million: Provided for construction in ports and along the Garonne
River to accommodate transportation of A380 fuselages.
SPAIN: $143 million
$143 million: Investments made in Puerto de Santa Maria, Illescas,
Puerto Real and La Rinconada plants."
These figures make any Airbus complaints about Washington state tax breaks and infrastructure support baseless, especially since it would also be available to Airbus if they were to set up shop, there.
"They would've been better off lobbying Congress to allow tax breaks to match the alleged Airbus subsidies."
And then what? EADS/Airbus and the EU would scream all the louder! I wouldn't expect the EU to simply "roll over" but I'd expect them to negotiate the dispute in some measure of good faith. The actions of late; a new plea by Airbus for loans for the A350, based on the 1992 agreement no longer in effect and a general resistance by the EU to even consider reducing launch aid depicts a European arm seemingly disinterested in a new accord and actually inviting a trade war with provocative moves. If that's the case, then, let's go and let the WTO determine who's right and wrong. The EU brashness of late, however, suggests they won't even accept a WTO ruling on this if it were to go against them.
Trident2e From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1327 posts, RR: 7 Reply 11, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5424 times:
Are all Americans stupid? Europeans will give subsisides not because its the right thing to do but because the US does exactly the same. Whether it's giving 'research grants' to American companies or bailing out bankrupt airlines with chapter 11 subsidies, the US does it just as much (if not more than) their European counterparts. GET OVER IT!
Oftwftwoab From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 42 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5399 times:
Quoting AvObserver (Reply 9): I wouldn't expect the EU to simply "roll over" but I'd expect them to negotiate the dispute in some measure of good faith.
The EU is willing to negotiate. It was the US who refused to discuss anything other than the Government loans to Airbus, and refused to include subsidies provided by third party governments (like the $1.5 billion from Japan).
Quote: The actions of late; a new plea by Airbus for loans for the A350, based on the 1992 agreement no longer in effect and a general resistance by the EU to even consider reducing launch aid depicts a European arm seemingly disinterested in a new accord and actually inviting a trade war with provocative moves.
Because tearing up the 1992 agreement wasn't provocative? If the 1992 accord doesn't exist, why shouldn't Airbus apply for the launch aid? After all, has the US given up any of its subsidy mechanisms to Boeing? As far as I know, they are all still in effect.
Quote: If that's the case, then, let's go and let the WTO determine who's right and wrong. The EU brashness of late, however, suggests they won't even accept a WTO ruling on this if it were to go against them.
Probably not. As did neither Brazil or Canada.
Both the US and the EU are likely to lose at the WTO. Japan definitely will. The EU believe the Airbus launch aid system is necessary to counteract subsidies given to Boeing. They may be right or wrong in this belief, but they believe it. So they won't give it up whilst what they believe the US subsidy system is still in place. The WTO would be damned.
But neither the US nor the EU will go to a full-scale trade war over Boeing and Airbus. They're trivially unimportant in comparison with the general trade between the two blocs.
Again, I can't see what Boeing hopes to gain over this.
Atmx2000 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 4574 posts, RR: 23 Reply 13, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5359 times:
Quoting Oftwftwoab (Reply 12): Both the US and the EU are likely to lose at the WTO. Japan definitely will. The EU believe the Airbus launch aid system is necessary to counteract subsidies given to Boeing.
If all the money Boeing received was highly targeted or had high applicability towards civilian aerospace, the US might have to give it up. But it is not likely that it is as targetted at civilian aerospace as the types of subsidies Airbus has received, which is where Europe is going to have a problem.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5241 times:
Quoting Udo:
Why? The US could have known that one day the money from the Marshall Plan would help to create and build up competitors to US companies.
And again I say: the US did not just help for charity. Supporting Germany meant building up a strategic wall against the communists and it meant developing new markets for trade. End Quote.
Udo, I think you are a smart and reasonable guy so give us a break. Airbus was not created to counter the Soviet civil aircraft industry. In fact Europe's freeloading on the U.S. defense budget enables it to fund projects like Airbus.
Airbus was created to take a piece of the pie away from the United States which the Europeans felt entitled to own. No one is objecting to the funds that Airbus recieved it was a nascent firm. The problem is that they do not face the true economic risks of their consecutive $10 billion projects.
The European complaints about Japan are bogus. EU firms have already used the same Japanese program that Boeing is using for the 787 to develop a helicopter. Now they question the legality of it.
The EU figures of $20billion plus to Boeing are also bogus. They must be counting F/A-18 contracts as civil subsidies. Consider what Boeing has done in the relevant time frame: lay off thousands, take low risk approaches to R&D, rolled out derivatives and one new airplane, and concede a huge amount of market share to Airbus. This behavior is not consistent with the behavior of a a massively subsidized firm. This figure is smoke and mirrors that the US will have to waste time on to rebut and is meant to obfuscate the real issues.
Quote of Trident:
Are all Americans stupid? Europeans will give subsisides not because its the right thing to do but because the US does exactly the same. Whether it's giving 'research grants' to American companies or bailing out bankrupt airlines with chapter 11 subsidies, the US does it just as much (if not more than) their European counterparts. GET OVER IT! End Quote
Europeans have repeated this lie to themselves so many times that they can no longer distinguish between reality and the fiction they created to justify their interventionist industrial policy.
I suggest doing research on chapter 11 and government research before making such uninformed remarks.
Trident2e From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1327 posts, RR: 7 Reply 16, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5226 times:
Quoting N79969 (Reply 15): I suggest doing research on chapter 11 and government research before making such uninformed remarks
Only last week, United Airlines (as part of its chapter 11 bankruptcy) transferred more than $600 million of pension liabilities to the US government. Which part of subsidy, therefore, don't you understand?
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 9480 posts, RR: 62 Reply 17, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5209 times:
Back in the 50s the German government decided not to use the Marshall plan moneys directly (like some other countries). Instead they invested them and just used the interest gained. Just the fact that there was money available and tucked away as a nest egg gave the German economy enough confidence to get over the destruction of WW2. Up to now this money is tucked away and just the interests used.
Atmx2000 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 4574 posts, RR: 23 Reply 18, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5195 times:
Quoting Trident2e (Reply 16): Only last week, United Airlines (as part of its chapter 11 bankruptcy) transferred more than $600 million of pension liabilities to the US government. Which part of subsidy, therefore, don't you understand?
But the liability has not been transferred to the US taxpayer. If anything it has been transferred to other US companies that paid premiums into the PBGC.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!