ConcordeBoy
Topic Author
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 6:43 am

It seems that the USA has been keeping track of allegedly shady deals by Airbus over the past few years... and are now considering bringing them into litigation.

http://www.thestar.ca/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1035780540614
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
DeltaMD11
Posts: 1678
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2002 4:56 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 7:00 am

Interesting. I can see where Boeing and the govt is going with this, and it will be a tought fight. I did notice that recently airlines have been getting big incentives to buy Airbus though (ie the EasyJet thing). May justice come to those who truly deserve it.

Bryan
Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 7:07 am

Do Boeing really want this? As much as I love Boeing, I think there is a strong element in Boeing who are content to sit back with aged designs and react instead of being proactive, and rely on the usual Boeing buyers and government help rather than being innovative or developing products that desperatly need it.

The 747 NEEDS a new wing, new flightdeck, new engines, new interior 737NG-style. The 757 and 767 NEED replacing. Right now Boeing are umming and aaring over whether to even LAUNCH a replacement.

I don't think the problem is Condit or Mulally, after all they're both amazing engineers, responsible for the vast majority of Boeing's success over the last 20 years. However, there are t0o many people high up at Boeing who are accounts. Not willing to take risk to secure market share, with long term success neglected.

Of course, it's upto Boeing what its company objectives are. However, I feel that while the company has a "wait and see" policy regarding nearly EVERYTHING the commercial group does, Airbus will only continue to grow.

[Edited 2003-04-09 00:11:45]
Your bone's got a little machine
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 7:18 am

The 747 NEEDS a new wing, new flightdeck, new engines, new interior 737NG-style. The 757 and 767 NEED replacing.

The market will determine what Boeing "NEEDS", not an observer who thinks their designed are aged.

Boeing seems to believe that the 767/A300/A332 market will require a new aircraft around 2008, hence the 7E7. The lack of development for the 747/757 capacity slots suggest airlines are happy with the "aged" designs.

I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
donder10
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 7:21 am

Your point about Boeing being more reactive than pro-active generally, is spot on,IMO.The conspicous nature of this mentality was best highlighted by the half-hearted attempt at pitching the 747-400'NG' models to existing 747-400 customers.Some synics aruged that the Sonic Cruiser was a reactive measure in response to the A380 launch but I don't really buy that given Boeing takes on the future nature of air travel ie the hub(Airbus)vs point2point(Boeing).Still,the creativity and proactioanry approach taken in projects such as the 777 need to be continued if Boeing want to remain level with Airbus.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 7:28 am

the creativity and proactioanry approach taken in projects such as the 777 need to be continued if Boeing want to remain level with Airbus.

I agree. This hopefully is what the 7E7 is about.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
goboeing
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 5:31 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 7:31 am

It's about goddamn time.

Nick
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 8:05 am

777236ER and Donder 10,

I understand your perspectives.

But I think that the problem is not that Boeing lacks creativity or energy compared to Airbus. Rather it is that Airbus cannot go out business. If someone could actually look at the ROI at Airbus, I would bet money that one would find many examples of 'moral hazard.' They can make investments and take gambles that Boeing cannot.

For instance, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group would have failed if the 747 had flopped. The company bet its existence again on the 777. Boeing has to be right. The carcasses of the Lockheed's and McDonnell Douglas's commercial divisions are still a fresh memory.

Boeing has to test the waters before it can truly launch a new model. That is why it makes announcments to gauge interest and then makes the decision to go forward. Perhaps if they did more of this behind the scenes than in the press, the perception of Boeing would change.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 8:26 am

The market will determine what Boeing "NEEDS", not an observer who thinks their designed are aged.

The lack of ANY orders in a market with a lot of aircraft is determining the problem! There are pleanty of 747-400 operators who need to replace their aircraft. Boeing can't sit on its ass waiting for Airbus to shrink the A380.

Boeing seems to believe that the 767/A300/A332 market will require a new aircraft around 2008, hence the 7E7. The lack of development for the 747/757 capacity slots suggest airlines are happy with the "aged" designs.

The lack of development may indicate that the airlines are happy, but remember Boeing were caught with its pants down with the 737-400 and others such as the 747-300 and it can't afford to do that again. The A320 was a huge blow for Boeing. Thank God the market was big enough to support the 737NG when it finally appeared.

But I think that the problem is not that Boeing lacks creativity or energy compared to Airbus. Rather it is that Airbus cannot go out business. If someone could actually look at the ROI at Airbus, I would bet money that one would find many examples of 'moral hazard.' They can make investments and take gambles that Boeing cannot.

I agree, I'm a staunch Boeing supporter and this is certainly an issue. However...

For instance, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group would have failed if the 747 had flopped. The company bet its existence again on the 777. Boeing has to be right. The carcasses of the Lockheed's and McDonnell Douglas's commercial divisions are still a fresh memory.

....the market is very dynamic. Boeing HAS to take risks in order to survive. This isn't any run of the mill business. Investment now won't see any kind of revenue for at least 5 years. Yes, the market is not good right now, but it's been like that before. Boeing can't sit around and expect to come into a market 5 years later than Airbus and have 777-style success. The 777 was a success because it is a great aircraft, and this ofset the delay of its entry into the market. As technology progresses and Boeing becomes more and more shortermist, it's going to be very hard for Boeing to constantly play catch-up to Airbus and constantly try to out do them technologically.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 8:30 am

777236ER,

I agree that Boeing absolutely must take risks to compete. I did not mean to suggest in anyway that the should not. However, the Rasputin-like qualities of Airbus means that any risk Boeing takes is magnified beyond the ordinary market, engineering, and other risks that would be associated with an aircraft project.

What I am saying is that to some extent, Boeing is doing exactly what it has to do given the risk profile it faces. Perhaps it could take on more risk but I suspect not much more.
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 1769
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 8:35 am

Can't see American farmers willing to show much support for Boeing!
 
ConcordeBoy
Topic Author
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 8:37 am

I often wonder why the USA would rather get mad than get even?

A lot of merit could be placed in such allegations as Airbus using slots to lure carriers (MH) and other such action...... why not have the Feds do the same? It's not like they arent wrapped around Boeing's pinkie anyways.

I.E., a carrier wants into JFK/MIA/LAX... a nice 757/767 order to pick of lagging sales should help. An airline wants 5th freedoms? How about a new 744ER to go with it? Get my point?
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 8:45 am

CB,

I think that would be harmful for free trade and a bad idea. (As much as I would like to Airbus and France put in solitary confinement for a few years). The Congress tried tying DCA slots to an airplanes country of origin. It gave the DOT discretion to consider this aspect. Luckily, this authority was never exercised. Tying slots to Boeing sales would really screw things up and force airlines to make economically distorted decisions.

Incidentally, I would bet the number 1 and 2 non-RJ/non-prop airliners at DCA are the 319/320. Between US, UA, NW, AC, HP, and Frontier, there are tons of 319/320.
 
racko
Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 12:06 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 8:53 am

If it's true that France has given landing slots only because of Airbus orders, they could probably continue to do so for some years until they've reached the 4 billion Europe has been allowed to sanction over US companies.

If you take a look at the WTO disputes, by far most of the disputes are filed against the USA.

Nevertheless, if France is supporting Airbus in this way, it has to stop and they should better stop it before a dispute is filed. Airbus needed help to start, but by now it doesn't need any help.

[Edited 2003-04-09 01:57:30]
 
User avatar
flying_727
Posts: 381
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 1999 11:59 pm

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 9:03 am

Has anyone else noticed all the dirty things the French have been up to lately. Its all coming clear to me now. They sell weapons from Iraq, then refuse to fight, then bribe airlines plus much much more. I hope the FAA prevents Airbus aircraft to enter U.S. airspace.

Flying_727
On ATA, You're On Vacation
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 9:05 am

If it's true that France has given landing slots only because of Airbus orders, they could probably continue to do so for some years until they've reached the 4 billion Europe has been allowed to sanction over US companies.

There were similar allegations that Embraer in concert with the Brazilian govt dangled Brazilian landing rights to CO in return for its initial ERJ order (against competition from Bombardier).


I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
ConcordeBoy
Topic Author
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 9:11 am

They sell weapons from Iraq, then refuse to fight, then bribe airlines

....and then they want a lead-role in the reorganization after the fight they tried so diligently to prevent  Laugh out loud


But seriously,
N799- 'twas only rhetoric.  Big grin

Though, I do seriously see how a case can be made for what the USA is planning on doing.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
flyboy_se
Posts: 709
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2000 5:31 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 10:35 am

What happened to all the normal people in this forum.
Did everybody get brainwashed by Mr Bush.
never knew that such a stupid man could influence so many people
I prefer to be crazy and happy rather than normal and bitter
 
ANA777Master
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 4:33 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 10:52 am

What company is unsophisticated enough to name their aircraft an "airbus"? My colleagues who fly them think the name is asinine and unintelligent.
 
GD727
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2002 7:33 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 11:18 am

Has anyone else noticed all the dirty things the French have been up to lately. Its all coming clear to me now. They sell weapons from Iraq, then refuse to fight, then bribe airlines plus much much more. I hope the FAA prevents Airbus aircraft to enter U.S. airspace.

Amen to that!!  Big thumbs up

Seriously though, it's about time somebody stands up to Airbus and their sneaky, underhanded nature!

-GD727
Mmmm forbidden donut.
 
AC320
Posts: 2809
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 11:29 pm

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 11:18 am

You make your colleagues sound like silly children.
fuddle duddle
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13222
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 11:54 am

It's about time the Government help Airbus gets (and has been getting) is addressed, if they want to be a "real" company than they better start acting like one.

Like making decisons based on sound economics, not Nationalism or Socialism.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13222
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 12:10 pm

If (If) Airbus and the EU does not address the issues of their unethical and illegal business tactics there's one weapon the US could use that would hurt Airbus.

The US could simply not certify the A-380, meaning the A-380 would never be certified to operate from US Airports.

That would not effect US carriers, but hurt Airbuses biggest clients for the A-380 (Virgin, Singapore etc) who would not be able to use the aircraft for flights to the US or US territories.

Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
BWIA 772
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:33 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 12:45 pm



I honestly think that Boeing needs to take risk. I hope that the 7E7 is as economical in operating as it is on paper. Boeing should use this aircraft if successful as the new platform from which all its products are based. Well actually the 777 seeing that the 7E7 will most likely use innovations brough about by the 777 but I assume technology has progressed alot since the 77 was first built.

For example the next 737 replacement should cater from the 120 market right up to the 753. This 737 replacement should also be a wider in diamiter than the current 737 to facilitate the use of cargo pellets ( thats what they call them right) and offer a more spacious cabin which is comfortable with wider seats and central isle not to mention the additional over head storage space that can be accomodated.

For the 747 I think they need to get a big blank paper or if they are going to be really modern by a nice new hard drive so that they can build a new 747 based on the 777 that is at least 10% more economical than the current 747.

Boeing really needs to Bring it on and strive to make aircrafts as successfuly as the 777 and they would have the french on their toes. Boeing needs to talk te talk and walk the walk. To me thats a way of dealing with it
Eagles Soar!
 
magyar
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2000 4:11 pm

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 12:59 pm


If the US is so damn concerned about free trade then why it does not
comply first with all the WTO rulings against it?

If the US is so clean how it is possible that it lost more WTO cases than
the bad EU?

And why giving slots for orders is worse than reminding your costumers
who defends their country (El Al, Air China order)?
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13222
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 1:02 pm

Because the US has been less willing in the past to "rock the boat" thus starting a trade war, the French and EU knew this and acted accordingly.

The US has lost the fear , and now the gloves come off.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
ConcordeBoy
Topic Author
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 1:41 pm

If the US is so clean how it is possible that it lost more WTO cases than
the bad EU?


...because its GDP and capital involved with/in international transactions outrank those of most EU members combined, perhaps?  Insane
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2468
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 2:30 pm

Racko and Magyar,

I'm not going to get involved with another thread about what is 'legal' or not, or what is 'right.' However, before you get righteous about the WTO and its decisions, I'd suggest taking a look at the number of cases filed by the U.S. against other nations, and vice versa. As Racko has already stated, there are far more cases against the U.S. than by them. There is a reason for this, and not the one you are assuming it to be. In the past, the U.S. has preferred to deal directly with the nations it has a dispute with rather than taking legal action through the WTO. The 1992 agreement is a good example. I know Boeing has been pushing U.S. officials for years to look into Airbus financing and deal-making, with little response from the gov't. This has greatly upset Boeing, understandably as they stand to lose millions from FSC reform mandated by the WTO. Perhaps times are a'changing, I don't know. They should, as the purpose of the WTO is to ensure free trade, no matter who the party is.

Regards,

Hamlet69
Honor the warriors, not the war.
 
airDD
Posts: 367
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 3:06 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 3:03 pm


It is not like Boeing is without any sins...

US government is helping Boeing a lot :

767 tanker lease is used to keep the 757/767 production line because orders dried up

Cross-subsidizing Commercial aircraft division's R&D with military orders

Initial sub-sonic Cruiser design was done by NASA free of charge

Regarding Boeing risk aversion: Boeing was turning into a monopolist and by definition monopolists are lacking in innovation. Does anyone really think the government would let Boeing go belly up ?

Airbus' origin was initiated by European governments, but now Airbus is a private company 80% owned by Amsterdam based EADS nv. Toulouse is only the HQ.
And yes, airbus is getting "commercial loans" by governments for the A380 program but Boeing subsidies are less visible ...

airDD

 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 3:05 pm

In the past, Airbus appeared to take more risks than Boeing and appears to be more innovative for one reason. Airbus was entering the business and Boeing had been in it for a long time. Airbus had to create a complete product line from scratch, Boeing did not have to do this. It takes a heck of a lot more R&D effort to make a complete new product line of jetliners than it takes to modernize and add to an existing line.

Now that Airbus has a complete product line (including the A380) they will almost certainly start to take big risks a lot less often. Notice that both Boeing and Airbus are planning only 1 completely new airframe for the 2000's. Several updates/stretches/new versions are being done as well - more recently the stretched and updates A340's along with the extended range 777's.

Most on this board focus on the A380 - but the A400M may be a better measure of airbus future. They want a more diverse business base to insulate against slumps like the one we are in now. They hope European governments will become a captive market for their military planes. But they may attract "domestic" European competition - just as Boeing has always had competition for US military orders from other US companies. When such competition does not surface (it likely won't for large military transport orders), chances are European governments will use Russian or American companies as competition to keep them honest.

Airbus is also learning now what Boeing(and the original Airbus partners) have known for a long time - that military sales can be more profitable than civil sales, but they have their own risks. They invite more public scrutiny and skepticism, which may hurt civil business. Military projects are at the mercy of unpredictable politicians and bureaucracies - these clowns are much harder to deal with than most commercial customers. Also, the days when military R&D and know-how could easily be applied to civil projects are over.
 
magyar
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2000 4:11 pm

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 3:10 pm

Hamlet69

>>
the one you are assuming it to be. In the past, the U.S. has preferred to deal directly with the nations it has a dispute with rather than taking legal action through the WTO.
<<

 Smile What can I say? Your president is just presenting an example of such
''dealing directly with the nation it has a dispute with'', albeit in this case the
UN rather than the WTO is bypassed.

The useful thing in such ''direct dealing"-s is that the outcome tends to favor
you if you are the strongest kid in the bloc, regardless whether you are right
or wrong. So you might as well forget about those unpredictable world bodies.

 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2468
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 3:21 pm

Magyar,

"The useful thing in such ''direct dealing"-s is that the outcome tends to favor you if you are the strongest kid in the bloc, regardless whether you are right or wrong."


It usually allows for some 'play' on both sides (i.e.: a little bending of the rules for both parties involved). Going back to the 1992 agreement, Airbus was allowed to keep 33% government funding - I would say that was a big victory for them. The question one should ask is - would they have been able to do this if the two sides had needed arbitration through WTO? I would bet money the answer would be 'no'.


Regards,

Hamlet69

P.S. - don't get me started on 'dumb-f**k'! . . . Oh, I mean our noble president.

Honor the warriors, not the war.
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 09, 2003 4:07 pm

The useful thing in such ''direct dealing"-s is that the outcome tends to favor
you if you are the strongest kid in the bloc, regardless whether you are right
or wrong.
-----

Not necessarily so. The US is more powerful but also has more diverse international commitments, and many political constituencies at home to satisfy. Much more so than most industrial democracies, the US has a federal system with divided powers. Many government powers relating to trade are in the hands of congress, the courts and the states and so are not available to the executive branch to use as threats or bargaining chips. US Corporations are more free than most foreign corperations to pursue their own interests rather than the perceived interests of the country. This means that the US is often more vulnerable than its trade partners to unfair trade practices.

The partner in dispute with the US often has a lot more at stake than the US does and so is willing to tough it out. They are also are often able to help/hurt US interests in issues like drug and arms trafficking, the war against terrorism, intellectual property, military basing, votes in international bodies, etc. Usually, a trade partner can do a heck of a lot more to harm US interests than the US can REALISTICALLY do to harm the trading partner's interests.

China and many other countries have known this for a long time and the US has historically had a huge trade deficit. No matter. Britain, Hong Kong, and many other places have prospered by allowing (more or less) free trade even when others have not reciprocated. This is because it is never good for an enterprise, whether commercial or state owned, for it to be protected from competition. Government aid is, more often than not, as much an impediment to economic growth as the taxes that pay for it are.
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Mon Apr 21, 2003 10:13 pm


There's been talk and talk of Airbus' purported evil practices. There so far has been no complaint filed in the WTO. So if they think they have an issue, let them present it. This kind of innuendo is aimed at placating a bitter US audience.

I think the reason there's been no formal complaint is that the Americans recognize that if the commercial aerospace industry were to be studied their own behaviour would hardly look presentable. So it's in their interest to grumble about these slots and those loans that take place in the EU but avoid a comprehensive inquiry which would put the EU's actions in perspective.

In light of recent steel and farm subsidy increases from Washington, the Bush administration can hardly pose as a paragon of free trade.

People here seem miffed every time Airbus lands a sale and complain that the planes were sold below cost. As can be seen from EADS' annual report however, everyone knows Airbus typically doesn't sell planes below cost. Naturally Airbus' margins would be even healthier if it could charge double price for its planes (like Boeing is doing for the 767s).
 
User avatar
flying_727
Posts: 381
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 1999 11:59 pm

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Mon Apr 21, 2003 11:31 pm

Here is a continuation from my previous list of the things the "Dirty French" have been engaged in feel free to add more!
Refuse to help remove Saddam after "they" sold Iraq the equipment
Bribe Airlines for the sale of Aircraft.
Want to take credit for the U.S. Victory in Iraq
And wasn't it a "Dirty French" Judge that rigged the Olympics

I still say keep those dirty people and their aircraft out of Boeing's country.

Flying_727
On ATA, You're On Vacation
 
4holer
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2002 1:47 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Tue Apr 22, 2003 12:00 am

I sincerely hope that my European friends read Flying_727s profile and consider the age bracket before you assume that his thoughts are widespread among the adult US population.
I assure you that it is not.
Ghosts appear and fade away.....................
 
747-451
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2000 5:50 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Tue Apr 22, 2003 3:07 am

"Naturally Airbus' margins would be even healthier if it could charge double price for its planes (like Boeing is doing for the 767s). "

Now who's hurling inuendo?
 
SwissA330
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 8:23 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Tue Apr 22, 2003 4:36 am

Flying 727:

There must be an error in your profile... No way your are a high school student already. Your Comments reveal your true age...

If you want to be a pilot, your views will have to change radically. Sorry for you.

Greetings from Switzerland (thats in Europe, next to France, but I suppose you don't even really know where France is, do you).

And to the Rest of all you guys (whom I mostly respect..) : Instead of chewing it all up again, why don't you read all the old AvsB threads again. No new arguments around, so no need to go through all of it again.

Greetz, Pat
swissair/+/ we care
 
petertenthije
Posts: 3267
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Tue Apr 22, 2003 5:04 am

Usually, a trade partner can do a heck of a lot more to harm US interests than the US can REALISTICALLY do to harm the trading partner's interests.

This statement is completely of the mark. The US can do a lot more harm to its trading partners then any trading partner could do to the US. For example, let's assume the trading partner is my country, Holland.

If Holland were to loose the US as a export destination, Holland would loose a sizeable chunk of its exports. On the other hand, if the US were to loose the exports to Holland, then that is peanuts to them. For imports it is the same. Holland imports a lot of goods from the US, the US is less dependent on Dutch produce.

Another fine example is Cuba. The US is one of the only countries that has still got the economic sanctions. The rest of the world trade quite nicely with Cuba. Evey summer you will find a lot of European tourists in Cuba. Even though they got European trade, Cuba is rather poor. Prior to the US sanctions they were one of the richest countries in the Carribean. Now before you start, it is not completely because of the US sanctions. Their factories ain't top notch and there are other reasons, but it is a mayor reason.

Since most of the trade wars are between the US and the EU, the argument that the trade partner can harm the non-economic interests is silly. The EU is not going to stop the war-on-terror, war-on-drugs and the war-on-illegal-arms (who makes up these names!). The EU has too much to loose when they stop it.

The only people who could harm these non-economic interests are the poorer countries. Countries that tend to be dependent on the US for trade/protection/aid anyway. They are not going to piss of the US over trade. If they did they would have done it a long time ago. A lot of the developing countries find it very hard to export to the US and the EU due to export limitations.
Attamottamotta!
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Tue Apr 22, 2003 8:44 am

First, the US has to prove its case. Good fucking luck. The EU will simply throw back Taiwan as a major incident of the US leveraging political power and threats and it'll wash out.

Second, not certifying the A380 would be stupid, and would of course hurt FedEx that has staunchly refused to do any additional business with Boeing. It will also hurt the Engine Alliance, and the other some 1000 US companies that contract on the A380.

Childish comments about the French and their involvement in the war are petty and useless - the entire rest of the world was against this war, expecting them to get involved is pretty self absorbent. This world has enough segregation and isolationism - we should each do our part to end it.

N
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Tue Apr 22, 2003 9:11 am

This was the subject of a long-standing U.S. congressional investigation I'd posted links to so I wouldn't be surprised to see it go forward. Incidently, Gigneil, when did FedEx 'staunchly' refuse to do additional business with Boeing? I've heard nothing about this. With all of the DC-10s and converted MD-10s in its' fleet, it relies on Boeing for support and just over 2 years ago seriously entertained Boeing's competitive bid of the the 747X Stretch Freighter. The A380 better fit its' needs but why do you say it won't do any more business with Boeing?
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Tue Apr 22, 2003 9:45 am

"The EU will simply throw back Taiwan as a major incident of the US leveraging political power and threats and it'll wash out."

No it won't. I have explained this once already. The pressure on Taiwan and Israel was absolutely proper and justified because it involved the state-owned carriers of those countries.

Airbus is reprinting and distributing a Time Magazine article that talks about Airbus subcontracting in the US. The article states that the EU has given Airbus a $3 billion 'repayable' loan. That is, it must be repaid only if the airplane is profitable. That means 25% of the plane's development cost is now risk-free. Further, Airbus has a perverse incentive to NOT record a profit on the A380 for some relevant time horizon. I would say the US has a case on the A380 and surely other models like the 330/340.

If the French are trading CDG slots for Airbus orders, there is another complaint. There is strong circumstantial evidence.

The US argument is seriously undermined though by tariffs on foreign steel and protection of agriculture. We foolishly sold out one of our most competitive industries to protect very weaks ones.

Petertenthije,

Interesting post.
 
User avatar
flying_727
Posts: 381
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 1999 11:59 pm

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Tue Apr 22, 2003 9:57 am

I would like to thank all you who attacked me back for proving my point. You can all sit here and say what you truly feel, while many in the world can't b/c there oppressed. You all know as much as I do that what was done was right. Then again I'm a Republican.

And "Gigneil" before you say "the entire rest of the world was against this war" check your facts again. You sound like the "Former" Iraqi Information Minister

Thanks,
Flying_727
On ATA, You're On Vacation
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Tue Apr 22, 2003 10:32 am

Flying 727,

You crossed the line in reply 34.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Tue Apr 22, 2003 11:06 am

Let me rephrase.

The rest of the world, except for England and Australia.

The other major powers of the world denounced the action entirely.

I personally don't denounce it - I was for the war. But I am also pro-France and pro-Germany and pro-US multilateralism.

N
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Tue Apr 22, 2003 4:41 pm

Petertenthije,

Cuba was indeed once a rich country. Sanctions and communism came at more or less the same time, which may be why you are misjudging the effects of both. The reason Cuba is poor is because of communism. Period. US sanctions and any problems with their "factories" are by far secondary factors. Communism (and other forms of totalitarianism) makes and keeps countries poor. Trade sanctions are only effective at crippling a country's economy if the whole industrialized world joins an embargo. Otherwise there are to many ways around it. Both of these points have been proven time and time again in recent history.

----
If Holland were to loose the US as a export destination......
-----

I don't know the way it is with Holland, there are certainly special cases out there. But I don't think many countries the size of Holland are out to buy votes in the UN like the US, Russia and France often have to do. Nor is the US a member of a trade block like the EU. Though we are trying...with NAFTA.

Also keep in mind that the US is not a monolith. The US as a whole may not have much to lose from losing Holland's trade, but many individual Americans would and they would lobby like heck in congress and other places to get the US to go easy. I don't know if this has happened to Holland but it has happened time and time again in US negotiations with countries like Japan. This is even though Japan has a huge trade surplus with the United States.
Our political system makes it easy for special interests and even foreign contributors to weaken our stance in trade negotiations.
---
Since most of the trade wars are between the US and the EU,
----
patently false. At least in the US, most domestic political debate about trade is about trade with poorer countries. Some of the most contentious trade negotiations the US has ever had have been with poor countries like Mexico and China (yes, China is still mostly poor).

-----
The EU is not going to stop the war-on-terror, war-on-drugs and the war-on-illegal-arms (who makes up these names!). The EU has too much to loose when they stop it.
-------

The EU is indeed not going to stop the war on terror, drugs, etc. But there are various degrees of cooperation and participation. It is not a "You are with us or you are not" sort of thing. Even friendly Nation states often do not like to share intelligence information, let military and intelligence opps be conducted from their shores, etc. Often police and intelligence agencies, banks, etc. all want to protect their own turf more than they want to advance the overall cause. It can take A LOT of influence from the politicians to get these folks to work together even with other corporations or agencies in the same country, let alone with foreigners. The degree of cooperation offered is very important to the US and is an important bargaining chip a state can offer at trade negotiations. It is a bargaining chip that the US usually doesn't have when dealing with other states - though there may be a few exceptions.

---
poorer countries. Countries that tend to be dependent on the US for trade/protection/aid anyway. They are not going to piss of the US over trade.
-----

They have done so many times. We have had all sorts of trade disputes with poorer countries we have a military presence in. Asian countries in particular. Their need for our protection sometimes makes them more reluctant to kick us out but that is about it. We almost always need their bases, etc. more than they need our protection. And most of them would rather have us somewhere else in the region than on their soil if possible. No nation really likes to have foreign troops on their soil long term. Even the Philippines kicked us out of Subic bay, etc.

One rather open secret is that many of these bases may be more of a danger to the country they are in than they are a protection. They can be a target for terrorists or involve a country in any war that the US may happen to be involved in nearby. The defense plan for many overseas military installations is simple evacuation in the case of any significant attack, with plans to "re-invade" later. This is not a plan that inspires a host country's confidence. Many times, we have to offer economic inducements in the form of aid or trade privileges to get countries to let us stay.

As for American aid, European and Asian industrialized countries give aid as well. In fact, they often give more in proportion to their economic size than America does. In terms of aid influencing trade: America has the advantage of being able to give more in absolute dollars due to its size, Europe has the advantage of not being able to worry about other issues as much. Sometimes, trade privileges are given as a kind of aid. So the whole issue seems to be kind of a wash.

As a parting thought, I wish the US would spend more on foreign aid. What we spend now is not nearly enough given the size of our economy and what other rich countries give. Those who say we should tackle domestic poverty first should take a trip out to Somalia or someplace like it and go see how good even poor Americans have it compared to many other places. We should be careful in how we spend it, and not let people get to dependent. However, we should also not let past mistakes be an excuse not to act. Aid now is much cheaper than military action later anyway.
 
gkirk
Posts: 23347
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Tue Apr 22, 2003 6:20 pm

Yawn Yawn, whine whine. This is one of the most stupid things I've heard. However if it happens maybe some of the Euro airlines should sue the US for the bail-outs there giving their airlines...  Insane  Insane
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
MD-11 forever
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:15 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Tue Apr 22, 2003 6:40 pm

... wise words GKirk...........

And to "Flying_727", who really thinks it would help the US to not certify the A380 ("doesn't hurt the us, but the big customers as Virgin and Singapore") maybe the European JAA should also not certify the 7E7 (provided the plane ever reaches this stage in the programme....) as the same "logic" applies to this measure...........

Another nice example to illustrate the low level some posts on this board have reached (sadly....)

Cheers, Thomas
 
Sabena 690
Posts: 6065
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2002 12:48 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Tue Apr 22, 2003 7:28 pm

Guys, don't let you impress by Flying_727. As a lot of other extreme right republicans over here, he still needs to grow up and learn to see things in it's perspective.

Maybe he will ever realize how dumb his statements above were, but still than, his views do not represent the ones of the biggest part of the American population (which makes me glad).

Once again, America is the best nation in the world  Yeah sure
May God keep on blessing America.  Insane

/Frederic
 
ConcordeBoy
Topic Author
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus

Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:02 pm

The pressure on Taiwan and Israel was absolutely proper and justified because it involved the state-owned carriers of those countries

Agree completely
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!