propilotjw
Posts: 520
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2000 1:02 pm

Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Thu Feb 12, 2004 12:37 pm

Please only respond IF YOU KNOW THE CORRECT ANSWER. I know Airbus used to be subsidized but I am not sure if they still are. DO NOT TALK ABOUT BOEING IN THIS POST. All i want is info on Airbus! Airbus-Boeing discussions are for other posts. Not this one.
 
brons2
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Thu Feb 12, 2004 12:40 pm

The correct answer, depends on who you ask.

I postulate Yes, because they are provided low interest "lauch aids" by the governments that are only repayable upon the plane making a profit. These aids are not based on the normal market forces of risk and return, rather they are a jobs program.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Thu Feb 12, 2004 1:25 pm

Yes...what other company in Europe (or elsewhere) can get loans that may or may not have to be paid back? Unlike Airbus, I am on the hook for my student loans no matter what my salary is or whether I am working or not.


http://www.time.com/time/globalbusiness/article/0,9171,1101020729-322621,00.html

 
Qb001
Posts: 1923
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 12:42 am

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Thu Feb 12, 2004 10:58 pm

It all depends on your definition of subsidy.

For instance, if according low-interest loans is a subsidy, then yes, Airbus is subsidized.

But if you consider that a national Air Force buying planes (say, for example, 100 tanker planes) from a national planemaker at a price way above market, making sure that no other aircraft manufacturers can get the deal, is also a form of disguised subsidy, then no, Airbus is not subsidized.

Or if you consider that setting up tax evasion schemes where an airplane manufacturer is allowed to sell its planes from an off-shore fiscal paradise so that the profits of that sale are not taxed, then again, Airbus is not subsidized.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:23 am

All aircraft manufacturers, everywhere, are subsidized to one degree or another by their home governments. Free trade is a huge myth -- preached by everyone, practised by none.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
5NEOO
Posts: 205
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 4:16 am

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:40 am

All aircraft manufacturers, everywhere, are subsidized to one degree or another by their home governments. Free trade is a huge myth -- preached by everyone, practised by none.

Amen to that!
Admit it, you could care less about the continent Africa!
 
gerardo
Posts: 3372
Joined: Sun May 21, 2000 6:22 pm

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Fri Feb 13, 2004 7:25 am

Arrow wrote: "Free trade is a huge myth -- preached by everyone, practised by none."

Finally someone recognized this fact. Amen to that!!!

Gerardo
dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Fri Feb 13, 2004 8:18 am

"Based in Toulouse, France, Airbus is jointly owned by two private aerospace companies, European Aeronautic Defense & Space Co. and BAE Systems, but is receiving subsidies from European governments in the form of $3 billion in loans that don't have to be repaid if the A380 fails to turn a profit."

Does anyone here know definitively if this is true or not? I've heard rumblings of 'forgivable loans' elsewhere, regarding the A380. If so, has this been the case with all Airbus loans since 1992? I've read summaries of that agreement and I didn't see any provision that the loans might not be repayable were the project not to be profitable? Might this not be a violation of the 1992 U.S./E.U. agreement on commercial aircraft program funding where Airbus was allowed to get 33% funding in low-interest government loans (and Boeing Commercial Aircraft was allowed indirect subsidies via Boeing military contracts)? It seems to me, if loans didn't have to be repaid, they'd cease to be loans and become, in effect, direct subsidies? Though I doubt Airbus would default-it probably wouldn't be in their best interests, considering it would likely negatively impact getting future govt. loans, it would disturb me if this "out" was built into the terms of the loan guarantees. I know Airbus has made noise about likely Japanese govt. funding of subcontractors on the 7E7; couldn't 'forgivable' loans on the A380 also create a possible source of trade friction?
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Fri Feb 13, 2004 8:30 am

EADS get plenty of rich defense contracts as well as government money to develop specific airliner models. They just got a huge contract to build tankers for the RAF.

Boeing is a defense contractor but unlike EADS-Airbus has not received grants or bogus loans to develop specific airliner models.

Airbus is a subsidized jobs program. If you have any doubt about this, just look how work is split between Hamburg and Tolouse when it comes to assembly, interior installation, and painting.
 
trex8
Posts: 4577
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Subsidy

Fri Feb 13, 2004 10:04 am

one man's subsidy is another's tax break!
I won't get into what "corporate" subsidies B gets from the Feds (incl ones the WTO have found illegal and are allowing Europe to slap hundreds of millions of $ worth of duties on US goods to redress) or WA state for the 7E7 assembly line or IL/City of Chicago for their Chicago corporate HQ. Then there is the Japanese govt subsidies to Bs Japanese 7E7 suppliers etc etc etc. US ExIm bank loans aren't exactly market rates either. It is quite conceivable given the signif foreign share of the 7E7 (35% Japanese and Alenia having a half share of the 25% Vought/Alenia share that) that a Rolls powered one may be more foreign than US sourced! Even the 767 tanker lease deal is nothing more than a federal handout to B if you believe anyone like the CBO, GAO, McCain.
When the Airbus products make money though the backers bring home the bacon. The British treasury has made something like well over half a billion euros on the A320 program (on top of whatever loans have been already paid back)! That was an extremely good investment by the British taxpayer!

[Edited 2004-02-13 02:08:42]
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Fri Feb 13, 2004 10:24 am

AvObserver,

The statement you quoted from Time is true. The reason I say that is the article I linked was also reprinted and distributed by Airbus North America in brochure form. That is where I found it first actually.

************************
Free trade is a huge myth -- preached by everyone, practised by none.

Give Hong Kong its due.

***********
Trex8,

Airbus has the equivalent of EXIM.

Airbus has not paid back to anyone's knowledge the 300/310/330/340 development costs.

The tax breaks ruled illegal by the WTO were for exporters and not just for aircraft producers.

The Japanese subsides for the 7E7 are still talk.

BMW and Mercedes received tax breaks to set up factories in South Carolina and Alabama respectively. Toyota got breaks from Kentucky....

Airbus is Europe's 30-year old baby that still needs diapers.

[Edited 2004-02-13 02:27:50]
 
bobrayner
Posts: 2038
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2003 8:03 am

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Fri Feb 13, 2004 10:36 am

EADS get plenty of rich defense contracts as well as government money to develop specific airliner models.

Who earns more from defense sales - A or B?

They just got a huge contract to build tankers for the RAF.

Which was far, far more open and competitive than the last major tanker deal...

Boeing is a defense contractor but unlike EADS-Airbus has not received grants or bogus loans to develop specific airliner models.

But presumably conditional trade/aid agreements and soft loans for exports &c are not a problem?
Anyway, sticking to your rather selective definition, we still have things like this:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001183004_peirce21.html

Airbus is a subsidized jobs program. If you have any doubt about this, just look how work is split between Hamburg and Tolouse when it comes to assembly, interior installation, and painting.

It's very surprising that Boeing - a bastion of free trade - has lower employee productivity than Airbus - a subsidised jobs programme in an over-regulated environment. Can you explain this?

Please only respond IF YOU KNOW THE CORRECT ANSWER. I know Airbus used to be subsidized but I am not sure if they still are. DO NOT TALK ABOUT BOEING IN THIS POST. All i want is info on Airbus! Airbus-Boeing discussions are for other posts. Not this one.

A380 development was helped along by soft loans. This was well within the boundary of the 1992 agreement, although I would strongly prefer it to be zero. Current reality is that everybody gets subsidies to some extent; I want nobody to get subsidies.
Cunning linguist
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Fri Feb 13, 2004 10:22 pm

Who earns more from defense sales - A or B?

In absolute terms, Boeing is a much bigger company than EADS - about twice as big in terms of revenue.

Just looking at 2002 results, Boeing gets about 52% of its revenue from the Commercial Aircraft business. The rest comes from military aircraft, weapons, communications (Connexion), and space systems.

EADS is about 69% Airbus, and the rest is the same mix of military, space and other systems.

Note that there is a bit of a problem comparing apples and oranges. Boeing uses GAAP in its accounting and conforms to SEC disclosure rules. EADS does not, and European accounting usually allows stuff to remain undisclosed. A good example is when Mercedes and Chrysler merged. Mercedes (sorry - Daimler Benz) reported under German accounting standards, a substantial profit, but had to restate into US GAAP, and it became a billion dollar loss.

Also, the last full year info we have on EADS on their web site is from 2001.

About the topic, it is a plain and indisputable fact that Airbus (EADS) benefited from billions of dollars of taxpayer funds as forgivable loans. Whether or not they actually pay back those loans is not the question - the issue is that they have access to capital funds which are unavailable to any normal business, free of risk. As any beginning business student will know, the function of cost/risk/benefit is the driving force behind business. So that loan structure is definitely anti-competitive, as it allows Airbus to make investments which it might not be willing to make if it had to rely on the public equity and debt markets like everyone else (debt and equity holders want a payback for the risks you take with their money).

There are things known as risk-sharing partners in a venture, where the project's cost is diluted among several companies. The 7E7 project uses this. But the company that has accepted to become a risk-sharing partner will also want a substantial share of the overall profits, in return for that risk.

For example, Kawasaki (who I believe will be making most of the 7E7's wing), could take the project in a non-risk-sharing mode. This means that Boeing would pay them for all research and development and tooling required to build the wing. Kawasaki would then charge Boeing, say, $1 million per wing delivered. Whether Boeing buys 100 wings or 1,000 wings makes little difference to Kawasaki, as they have lost nothing.

If Kawasaki were in risk-sharing mode, they would pay for all their R&D and other costs, but will charge Boeing $2 million per wing. Of course now Kawasaki would definitely be interested in how many 7E7s Boeing manages to sell, as they may see that they only make back the money they spent on development once they've sold, say, 500 wings. For Boeing, if they sell very few aircraft, they will have lost less money, as Kawasaki would have assumed some of the losses.

What the "forgivable" loan does is a combination of risk and non-risk behavior that would be completely impossible in the public market. The EU is taking 1/3rd of the development costs at its risk. If the project fails (or does not perform very well), they lose all that money ($3.6 billion Euros, as I recall). But if the project succeeds, Airbus will pay back the loan but only with an interest rate that just barely is within reach of commercial institutions - i.e. a risk-free rate. It's as if, in the earlier example, Kawasaki paid for all the development, but only sold the wings at the non-risk price of $1 million. Clearly, Kawasaki would never agree to such a deal.

You MIGHT be able to find a bank willing to give you a forgivable loan, but they would certainly ask for a big risk premium on the interest rate which would take into account the possibility that the project does not meet payback conditions. Risk premium is the part of the interest rate over and above the risk-free rate, which is defined as the interest rate you would get if you put your money in a security with absolute safety and assurance, such as U.S. Treasury Bills. If the risk-free rate on the Euro is 4% (let's say), the risk premium for a forgivable loan should be at least 10% or more, if I were a banker. In fact, I would probably ask for something like 15-20% overall.

Of course, interests rates this high can easily kill a project. This is why large projects are often risk-sharing, and many, like the Sonic Cruiser, are dropped as uneconomical.

And this is why the EU loans to Airbus for the A380 project are effectively a subsidy, because even in the best case (A380 sells like crazy and Airbus makes a ton of money), the returns on the governments' investment would not be commensurate with the risk that was involved. If I were an EU citizen, I'd be pretty pissed about the government investing MY money like that. If a bank made this kind of loan, it would be guilty of negligent fraud, at best.

Now, maybe the A380 program has a very high expected rate of return, and the risk of default is very low. But the default risk would have to be completely non-existant (which it cannot be, by definition) to justify the rates that were given.

Projects must also be profitable on their own merits. If the 7E7 program did not carry a very strong probability of profitability, Boeing simply would not build it (as was decided for the Sonic Cruiser). They wouldn't use any profits (subsidies, some call it) made from military contracts to shore it up - that makes no sense. It would be better simply not to build it.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
widebody
Posts: 1107
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2000 5:08 pm

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Fri Feb 13, 2004 11:41 pm

As far as I'm concerned its very simple, Boeing and the US cry that Airbus is being illegaly subsidised, Airbus says prove it, and it goes no further......

Draw your own conclusion, but as far as I'm concerned, it's time for Boeing and the US to either put up or shut up.....its illegal or its not illegal, if its not illegal than all is fair.....as said above, there's no such thing as free trade, you do what you have to do to survive, that goes for everything from making matchsticks to making aircraft.

There seems to be aboslutely nothing wrong with European countries using Airbus as a jobs program, its been a way out for them for years in other areas where jobs are frequently lost. If its legal and if it appears to be more successful than the Boeing/US strategy of accountability for your finances, than maybe its time for others to learn something.....

You can argue this subject to the death, but at the end of the day, it is the way it is and unless someone is going to change it.....and that's hardly going to be the EU when its working so well for them.....
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Sat Feb 14, 2004 5:45 am

Bob,

Charles did such a fine job explaining the ins-and-outs of Europe's elaborate job scheme that I do not have much to add with respect to that point.

However, I want to point that Boeing was not a very big defense contractor until 1997 when it with merged McDonnell Douglas. That's when the company really became a major player in defense. By 1997, the B777 was in service and B737NG was about to roll out. Boeing's defense business was pretty much a non-factor in the development of BCAG products that are in-service. BCAG has made it this far mostly because of its own success.


As far as the productivity of Airbus workers go, I believe what you say but I am curious to see the context of that data. Further I realize that Airbus has a more modern production system in many ways compared to Boeing's line which has been going continously since the 1940s. Then again when you have access to free capital unavailable to your competitor, you can come up with very nifty production systems. I don't see the connection to free trade to which you refer.

Perhaps the biggest giveaway to Airbus that often goes unmentioned is the A400M. What is particularly egregious is how the engines were selected for that airplane.

Many Europeans insist that they are simply doing with Airbus what the US has done for years with its commercial aircraft industry. Nonsense. If that were the case, the US government is entirely incompetent. Since 1980, two of three large US commercial airplane makers exited the market as the government watched. Boeing has layed 10s of 1000s of employees. These results are not consistent with an industrial policy designed to foster an industry. The truth is that Airbus gets special treatment unavailable to any other company in Europe or the US.

[Edited 2004-02-13 21:58:28]
 
widebody
Posts: 1107
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2000 5:08 pm

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Sat Feb 14, 2004 6:47 am

Charles, N79969,

If I understand correctly, the 1/3 in low interest loans is covered in the 1992 agreement. So the question is, while the Airbus approach isn't 'optimum', it still falls under the terms of an agreement to which the US ratified?

So the question remains, is it illegal or not? If not, and its a defined subsidy, is it a subsidy to which the US agreed in 1992?
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Sat Feb 14, 2004 8:59 am

Thank you, Bobrayner and especially Cfalk for your explanations of the structure of the E.U. loans to Airbus. I never read anything about the loans being "soft" in the summations of the '92 agreement I've seen but if you say so... Has this been the case with all Airbus new aircraft development programs since 1992 or is this a special case with the A380 because of that program's substantial scale? Though I maintain it's unlikely Airbus would default on such loans, I agree with Charles that if I were a European taxpayer, I'd be concerned about my taxes being used where there was a provision the loan might not be paid back. I guess more noise would have been made by now if this were a direct violation of the agreement and Bob is correct that the Washington state bent over backwards for Boeing in order to keep them as a valued employer and taxpayer. Presumably, this too, along with possible Japanese government support for Japanese 7E7 subcontractors doesn't violate the agreement because all involved there say it's legal. Seems though like there's a lot of potential fuel for trade friction going on in both camps. Maybe that's how things will stay calm because nobody will want to scream foul out of concern their own practices will be scrutinized. Sounds fair - I guess.
 
ETStar
Posts: 1850
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 6:25 am

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Sat Feb 14, 2004 9:47 am

Airbus may be subsidised by the government, but the US Governemt also uses political pressure to persuade airlines and overseas governments to purchase Boeing aircarft. Unfortunately these airlines and overseas governments succumb to these pressures (which are usually tied to economic issues), overlook price and quality, and order Boeing aircraft. So, Boeing gets its subsidies too, just happens to be in an indirect way. Fair game I'd say.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Sat Feb 14, 2004 3:57 pm

ETStar, do you remember the flood of Airbus sales after Jacques Chirac went to China a couple of years ago? Chirac is their #1 salesman! Everyone plays that game, and there is little that can be done about it.

Widebody,

As I recall, the basic terms from the 1992 agreement you are talking about say something like: Loans can be provided by the government for up to 1/3rd of development costs at commercial rates.

So the issue is twofold: 1) The agreement said nothing about forgivable loans. It has always been understood that loans are repaid, rescheduled, or the debtor declares bankruptcy. 2) Commercial rates is very vague. 1% is a commercial rate, but if I tried to get that the bank would laugh at my face. What Airbus got was the risk-free rate - which is the minimal commercial rate possible (given only to top quality companies and banks which have low debt load and whose ability to repay is unquestionable), when a higher interest rate which takes into account the magnitude of the loan, the risk of default, and the fact that there was no collateral, would have been more appropriate.

As was discussed here a long time ago, these loopholes exist in the agreement (particularly "commercial rates") The guy who negotiated for the U.S. was a bloody idiot. At issue is whether the EU can be considered by a judge to have violated the spirit of the agreement, even though the letter of the agreement was followed, and whether that violation counts for anything in our more-and-more legalistic world.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Sat Feb 14, 2004 4:54 pm

"The guy who negotiated for the U.S. was a bloody idiot. "

Agreed. Or was naive enough to believe that Europe would stop subsidizing Airbus when it became a viable business. Apparently 50+% market share is not quite enough for EU legislators.

Widebody,

The legality of R&D aid for the A380 is unclear. There is some question. However the Bush Adminstration very, very foolishly chose to burn political capital and legitimacy protecting steel, agriculture, and timber industries in this country.

ETStar,

You have it backwards. The US uses far less political pressure than Europe. When the US does use political pressure, it is for orders for state-owner carriers of countries that receive billions in US aid such as Taiwan and Israel.

In sharp contrast, (as I have mentioned numerous times before) the EU publicly protested with a letter to the Japanese PM when ANA (a private company) replaced A320 with B737NG. They threatened Taiwan with serious consequences if China Airlines did not order Airbus and then followed up with a warning when the A330s eventually purchased were not powered by Rolls Royce. Malaysia Airlines received slots at CDG that they had wanted for many years shortly after ordering A380...very, very coincidental perhaps. Airbus has a well-known record of bribery. Bribes of foreign officials were viewed as tax-deductible business expenses in much of Europe until 1998...and remain legal in Belgium today.

I believe there was a quid pro quo between the EU and Thailand for the Thai A346 order...I hope EU citizens have an appetite for shrimp. The government of France has offered India military technolgy so Airbus (a supposedly private and "European" company) would land an order.

Bottom line: It is actually the EU that strong arms countries into buying Airbus using questionable methods...that is in addition to providing them with capital at unheard of rates.

A word on commercial rates...if banks or capital markets will not lend money at whatever rate the EU has given Airbus for their level of risk...those rates are not "commercial" by definition

AvObserver,

The EU has strongly hinted they may challenge Japanese subsidides for the 7E7 before the WTO. They certainly do not want to see Boeing receive the same treatment they give Airbus.
 
Russophile
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:22 am

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Sat Feb 14, 2004 5:14 pm

However the Bush Adminstration very, very foolishly chose to burn political capital and legitimacy protecting steel, agriculture, and timber industries in this country.

Legitimacy in protecting agriculture? Really? I think the country that "rides on the sheeps back" might disagree with you there -- and they would be right.

People tend to forget that the entire world isn't just about the US and Europe -- if both these regions were wiped off the map tomorrow, billions and billions of people around the world would still move ahead.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Sat Feb 14, 2004 5:23 pm

Russophile,

If the US actually disappeared, tyranny and bloodshed on an even greater scale would move ahead... and that's about it. Freedom and prosperity would be distant afterthoughts.

 
Russophile
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:22 am

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Sat Feb 14, 2004 5:30 pm

N79969....I could care less about what your thoughts on the US and how it 'promotes' freedom and how we would all be living in a gulag today if it wasn't for the US -- I am not hear to discuss your fantasies.

What is being discussed is how Airbus receives subsidies -- I see you have 4600 posts -- 4500 of these would have been on the big bad government supported Airbus -- but yet the US is just as guilty of subsidising industry -- be it the aerospace industry, agriculture, or whatever.

Neither side has a leg to stand on with the accusations.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Sat Feb 14, 2004 5:44 pm

Russophile,

No one really cares about your views on geopolitics yet you brought them up ...so I just pointed out the reality. Bottom line: no US, tyranny will take over this planet.


"What is being discussed is how Airbus receives subsidies -- I see you have 4600 posts -- 4500 of these would have been on the big bad government supported Airbus -- but yet the US is just as guilty of subsidising industry -- be it the aerospace industry, agriculture, or whatever.

Neither side has a leg to stand on with the accusations."

Why don't you take the time to read the rest of the posts above...you have no idea about the topics you mention...any the US has pretty strong basis to accuse the EU of basically moving jobs from one continent to another.
 
Russophile
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:22 am

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Sat Feb 14, 2004 7:12 pm

Actually, I wasn't the one who brought up 'geopolitics'...rather you did mention in your post in regards to the US steel and agricultural subsidies issue.

As to the Europeans moving jobs from one continent to the other -- the US does exactly the same thing -- what do you think the US steel and agricultural subsidies do? Everytime the US dumps agricultural goods in traditional Australian markets, the US moves unsubsidised jobs from this country to the subsidised US jobs market.

The fact that the Europeans, in your opinion, do this with aviation, doesn't make it ok that the US does it with other industries.

And I am aware that this is an aviation forum, but the issue of governmental subsidies is one which transcends any one industry, and it needs to be raised to put everything into perspective.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Sun Feb 15, 2004 3:11 am

Russophile,

I do not know if you realize what I was saying above....I was criticizing US protection of steel, agriculture, and timber in my post. That was implied by the word "foolishly."
 
osteogenesis
Posts: 494
Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 9:44 pm

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Sun Feb 15, 2004 3:33 am

N79969,

They just got a huge contract to build tankers for the RAF.

Because they prevailed against the 767 in a difficult contest. Unlike in the US where the A330 never got a chance.

And by the way the subsidies that Airbus gets are in accordance with an agreement signed by the US.



 
Russophile
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:22 am

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Sun Feb 15, 2004 3:38 am

OK, my mistake, I apologise. But the fact is, is that it isn't just Bush which has protected the US agricultural industry -- it is something that every US president as far back as I can remember has done. So the rest of my 'argument' stands there.
 
sebolino
Posts: 3495
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Sun Feb 15, 2004 5:04 am

Just to make things clear:

Fact: Remember that when a industry in the US has problems, the US administration puts taxes on foreign products to protect its industry (recent example: steel).

Conclusion: If the US gvt had any beginning of suspicion that the competition between Airbus and US plane manufacturers was unfair, Airbus would be banned from the US in no time.

Explanation: The repayable loans was a deal accepted both by the US and by the International Commerce Organisation or whatever you call it (OMC in French).


In addition: Airbus does NOT receive direct subsidies or help or tax reduction by local authorities like a large US planes manufacturers does. (I didn't mention Boeing in my post did I ??  Smile/happy/getting dizzy )

 
keesje
Posts: 8608
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Sun Feb 15, 2004 6:22 am

If Airbus didn´t get state support Boeing would now be a monopolist. Would be bad for competition & product development I think.

Boeing turn over is more then 50% defense work now. Most of this money comes from the Pentagon. Is all defense R&D money ($$ Billions) put into use in civil aviation ? What do you think ?

Didn´t Washinton state give Boeing $3 billion in tax cuts for 7E7 production ?

US governement less involved in promoting national products then EC..
Well, why do we think there are no Airbus aircraft in Japan ?

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
widebody
Posts: 1107
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2000 5:08 pm

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:29 am

Cfalk,

Thanks for the explanation, my understanding today is that no one is really sure if what Airbus does is illegal, and until it is proven, innocent until proven guilty must prevail?

N79969,

With all due respect, you appear to be looking at this issue with very heavy blinkers on.....no one will deny that Airbus is using methods which are questionable but as of today still acceptable, but if you believe Boeing is sitting in a corner sucking its thumb then you're a long way off. The 1992 agreement was accepted by both the US and the EU as they both gained from it......all we seem to talk about is what Airbus has gained, have you looked into what Boeing gained? If what Airbus is doing is illegal, then I believe Boeing would be well aware of it. If Boeing is keeping quiet, then it's for a reason, and my guess is they have way more to lose than Airbus by speaking out.

BTW, the China order to which you refer was originally an all Airbus deal before the US came crying about its aid etc....

If Boeings treatment of its staff, suppliers and so on is anything to go by, then Boeing has its hands stuck just as far into the shit as Airbus has.....Boeing is known in the industry for being one of the most underhand and sly companies around, using fairly questionable tactics at the best of times, I won't go into it but if you're involved in the industry you should know where I'm coming from.
 
sebolino
Posts: 3495
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:56 am

N79969,

The problem with your theory of Airbus building planes with illegal state's money is just irrelevant: Boeing is actually receiving much direct help, and not repayable.
And the Airbus loan was agreed by the WCO (is it the good name ?) as well as the US. Why don't you first let your steel industry die before you try to rule the way Europeans make plane.
 
delta-flyer
Posts: 2631
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2001 9:47 am

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Sun Feb 15, 2004 12:33 pm

Widebody .... If Boeings treatment of its staff, suppliers and so on is anything to go by, then Boeing has its hands stuck just as far into the shit as Airbus has.....Boeing is known in the industry for being one of the most underhand and sly companies around, using fairly questionable tactics at the best of times, I won't go into it but if you're involved in the industry you should know where I'm coming from.

I'm involved in the industry, but I would be interested in hearing some specific details on your claims.

Pete
"In God we trust, everyone else bring data"
 
PHXinterrupted
Posts: 461
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 6:41 am

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Sun Feb 15, 2004 1:18 pm

"It's very surprising that Boeing - a bastion of free trade - has lower employee productivity than Airbus - a subsidised jobs programme in an over-regulated environment. Can you explain this?"

Typical statement from a European. Have any numbers to back this up? Perhaps you can explain your ridiculous statement?
Keepin' it real.
 
sebolino
Posts: 3495
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Sun Feb 15, 2004 6:14 pm

Typical statement from a European

HA HA.

That's enough to know you.

This thread is really going in the wrong direction.
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Sun Feb 15, 2004 6:34 pm

European industry was fragmented, did not have the huge internal and virtually captive market of the US, Airbus was in effect, a rationalization programme.

You think US civil planemakers did not see any benefit to the trillions of $ pumped into the industry since the cold war?
Think Boeing got nothing out of the hundreds of KC-135s? That did not massively help the fledgling 707 programme? (Anyone who thinks that the recent RAF tanker contest was anything but very fair and open, is living on another planet, and it's very small beer compared to the USAF tanker contest, I'm not surprised that USAF are buying the 767, you'd expect that, but the way they are doing it is naked corporate welfare).

The CX military transport programme did the same for widebodies, Lockheed won that specific competion, Boeing won out by using the technology for what became the 747.
In the harsh recession of the early 70s, Nixon directly aided all three then US widebody makers.
If the B2707 had seen service, had history been just a little different, it would have been a programme paid for by tax $ to the tune of some 90%

Now, if the A300 had flopped, that would have been the end for Airbus.
European industry would be relegated to sub-contracting for the US.

An earlier post mentioned how UK government made a pile on the A320 development, no wonder since the late 1990s they've been much keener to support Airbus with repayable loans, and moan all you like, they are repayable.
It never used to be that way, they were very wary of Airbus for a long time, UK government had got it's fingers burnt before too often, I cannot speak for other EU partners but the UK is very open about any launch aid.

A380 had a long development, it was looked at on and off for most of the 1990s, that does not sound like a financially irresponsible jobs programme to me, for a period in the mid 1990s they even worked with Boeing on a large transport, launching the A380 was a finely balanced decision.

You can subsidize programmes all you like, if the product is no good, or just appears at the wrong time, it won't get brought.
What is the most subsidized airline industry? Russian industry, we are all flying around on their aircraft aren't we?

Look at the fleets of the major EU Airbus partner airlines, a mix of Boeing and Airbus, even AF is buying some Boeings in preference to Airbus.
EU airlines have also not had $22 billion in handouts since 2001, IMHO they should be making a hell of a noise about that.

At the end of the day, I think that these moans and objections are really about the A380, everyone thought Boeing would be first with either an all new aircraft or greatly modified 747, but Boeing stumbled on this in the late 1990s and up to 2001.
So maybe two words sum up US objections to the A380;
Sour Grapes. They are not making the biggest and don't like that fact.
(Hey, if it flops eventually, you can crow all you like, Airbus will be in very deep trouble after all).

 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Sun Feb 15, 2004 11:07 pm


European industry was fragmented, did not have the huge internal and virtually captive market of the US, Airbus was in effect, a rationalization programme.


Very true.


You think US civil planemakers did not see any benefit to the trillions of $ pumped into the industry since the cold war?
Think Boeing got nothing out of the hundreds of KC-135s? That did not massively help the fledgling 707 programme?


During the early years of the jet age, the industry on both sides of the pond were heavily subsidized. How many European commercial jets were developed in the 50s and 60s? The difference here is most of the European projects failed and the European governments continued subsidizing the industry.


The CX military transport programme did the same for widebodies, Lockheed won that specific competion, Boeing won out by using the technology for what became the 747.


This gotta be one of the most misquoted argument. The most expensive item of an aircraft design is the wing. The high wing of a military transport is very different from a low wing of an aircraft like the 747. The biggest technology gained for the 747 from that CX development was high bypass engines which didn't benefit Boeing only. Lockheed, Douglas, and Airbus all entered into the widebody market because of the engines.


In the harsh recession of the early 70s, Nixon directly aided all three then US widebody makers.


What's the basis of your claim?


If the B2707 had seen service, had history been just a little different, it would have been a programme paid for by tax $ to the tune of some 90%


What about the Concorde, 300, 310 and 320?


Now, if the A300 had flopped, that would have been the end for Airbus. European industry would be relegated to sub-contracting for the US.


Initially, the A300B2/B4 flopped pretty badly. With some extremely aggressive marketing to airlines like Eastern, Airbus was able to somewhat sustain the production. Then, they got a fresh injection of money to develop the A310 and A300-600. If the A300 program was run as a true commercial program, it would have flopped like the L-1011.


An earlier post mentioned how UK government made a pile on the A320 development,


That depends on what you mean by a pile? I remember reading that in 2001, the UK government said they doubled their original investment in 1984. Doubling your investment in 17 years is hardly an impressive achievement. And this is Airbus's most successful program to date.


I cannot speak for other EU partners but the UK is very open about any launch aid.


The UK is definitely more open than the other EU partners.

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

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:42 am

Widebody,

I appreciate your civility. Like I said once before, it is not clear whether the A380 subsidies are legal per the WTO. Unfortunately, the US may never know. You and several others have correctly pointed out that the US has chosen to protect steel, agriculture, and timber. (Steel tariffs have been eliminated after WTO decision) I have said on numerous occasions that these protective measures are bad. The Bush Administration has foolish squandered any legitimacy on promoting free trade by adopting protection of steel etc for purely electoral reasons.

I also do not know what "underhanded" measures you speak of at Boeing. I do not view the 1992 agreement as mutually beneficial. We needed to contain a fire (EU subsidization of Airbus) that was promising to get out of hand and did a poor job at it. I am not sure what Boeing or MDD got out of it other than the ability to continue to use their profits and technology from the defense business. EADS already had this advantage anyway. I mentioned no China order.

Airbus was legally allowed to bribe government officials until very recently.

Sebolino:

" Boeing is actually receiving much direct help, and not repayable.
And the Airbus loan was agreed by the WCO (is it the good name ?) as well as the US. Why don't you first let your steel industry die before you try to rule the way Europeans make plane."

You are simply making things up. Boeing does not receive "much direct help." Your reply 28 is also full of falsehoods.

France is perhaps the worst member of the EU when it comes to free trade. Look at your own ridiculous agricultural policy.

Keesje,

If Airbus did not receive state support, Boeing would not have a monopoly. There is a pretty good chance that McDonnell Douglas would have survived. I agree that monopolies are bad situations.

********************************

Some other general points:

If the US government were really interested in helping Boeing, they would not have given the largest defense contract in world history (JSF) to its rival instead. They would have at least been given a small part...but did not receive anything.

I raised the RAF tanker deal to show that EADS/Airbus do plenty of defense work. They have no experience building tankers but won anyway. Further with state support, it is not hard to imagine that they could undercut Boeing and BaE on price.

Although I think the UK conducted its bid fairly, I am not sure about the rest of Europe. Look at what happened to Pratt & Whitney when they won the A400M engine contract....so they thought.

If Airbus were a real company that lived by the rules of business like Boeing, MDD, Ford, Volkswagen, etc, then the A300 would have been their first and last airplane.

If the A380 fails, Airbus will be in no trouble. The EU will not let it fail. France will not tolerate large-scale layoffs. The EU will argue that it is trying to save its investment by pumping more money into it in hopes of recovering all those since forgotten loans....which will promptly be forgotten again.

The EU knows that the US does not like industrial policy and has used this to their advantage in a cunning and underhanded manner.

The multi-billions of defense dollars spent in the US have benefitted Europeans more than they have Boeing. The US has provided Europe with a security guarantee for the past 50+ years allowing Europe to focus on economic growth and political integration. This allowed Europeans to spend less of defense and more on other things...such as Airbus. That is the biggest subsidy of all.



[Edited 2004-02-15 17:43:00]

[Edited 2004-02-15 17:48:14]
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:57 am

There was more to CX than just a wing, high bypass engines, new materials, a host of stuff.
Boeing was expected to win it, with Lockheed expected to get the SST contract, the opposite happened, all the while both programmes were much subsidized in the area of research.
True everyone's industry was subsidized at some time, but there was nothing in Europe like the KC-135 programme.
Who says it was wrong? I don't think so, what was done was for good reason.
The point I was making is really about the huge in built advantages US industry had.

If Airbus aircraft had kept on flopping, there would have been a cut off point, in addition for many years Airbus had an unwieldy structure.

Nixon first cut, then when the 72 election approached, put money into the industry in a big way, despite his historic reputation, and his general politics, he was a spender, for instance his government funded social programmes that not even the left wing of the Democrats would propose today.
When all 3 US widebody programmes hit trouble, loans guaranteed, contracts brought forward, tax breaks, again who can blame him?
The point in all this is really that people who live in glass houses, should not throw stones.

Airbus has been successful by making products the market wants, there is no getting away from that, had they not, they'd be a series of subcontracting companies in various nations by now, maybe a RJ line or something else lower down the food chain.

The idea that Airbus has been successful only because of government help, is another myth some in the US seem to have about Europe, along with the idea we all live in police states, have crushing tax burdens, are all into orgies etc.



 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:41 am


There was more to CX than just a wing, high bypass engines, new materials, a host of stuff.


Firstly, I will emphasize again, the single most expensive item in designing an aircraft is the wing. In the CX case, engine was also a critical and expensive item, but it had nothing to do with Boeing directly. The 747 was a very different aircraft configuration that Boeing couldn't use much from the CXdevelopment. Secondly, new materials? AFAIK, the majority of the 747 sturcture used the same material as the 707, 727, and 737.


True everyone's industry was subsidized at some time, but there was nothing in Europe like the KC-135 programme.


You are looking at the size of the contracts, but Boeing also had to fulfull deliveries to these contracts. The net money going into the development couldn't be any more than the European governments put in for developing planes like the Comet, BAC 1-11, Tridents, VC-10, Mercure, Caravelle, Concorde, A300, A310 ...


Who says it was wrong? I don't think so, what was done was for good reason.
The point I was making is really about the huge in built advantages US industry had.


Not necessarily. If the Europeans designed the right aircraft the first time around, they could have easily been the dominant suppliers.


If Airbus aircraft had kept on flopping, there would have been a cut off point, in addition for many years Airbus had an unwieldy structure.


It took them more than 15 years since thier inception to find the right formula: the 320.


Nixon first cut, then when the 72 election approached, put money into the industry in a big way,


Then explain why Convair wasn't saved? Why Seattle suffered a major unemployment crisis in the early 70s? Why Douglas was allowed to rot on its own and later acquired by McDonnell?


Airbus has been successful by making products the market wants, there is no getting away from that,


But that's because they got a reprieve when they failed with the A300B2/B4. Did Lockheed get a second chance?


had they not, they'd be a series of subcontracting companies in various nations by now,


You do realize subcontracting also tranlates into employment. You seem to imply subcontracting is bad.


maybe a RJ line or something else lower down the food chain.


RJ, we could speculate, but I doubt it. Do you know why Dornier-Fairchild couldn't compete in the RJ market?


The idea that Airbus has been successful only because of government help, is another myth some in the US seem to have about Europe,


Boeing was more successful than Douglas because Boeing had a full line of products, Douglas didn't. Airbus has recently become more successful than Boeing because they have a modern line of products than Boeing has. Without the subsidies, Airbus could not have introduced the 320 in 1984, and 330/340 only three years after the 320 and even before the first 320 entered into service. This is not a myth. If Boeing could afford to launch a new plane every few years, we would unlikely be talking about Airbus's success now.


[Edited 2004-02-15 19:03:41]
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:41 am

The "CX" bid did not leave Boeing with a market-ready airliner. Rather they bet the company's very existence after losing that contest to design the 747 using their losing bid design as a basis. They took a big risk and got a big return on it. Airbus really has a very distorted business process when it comes to calculating risk/return.

Airbus makes airplanes that the market wants-- today. That was not the case for most of its life and it would not have survived long enough to make good airplanes such as the 319/320/332 but for massive government hand outs.
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1664
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:12 pm

The only advantage that Boeing saw with the "CX" project was that the internal engineering structure was in place to launch the 747. Any engineering that may have taken place for the 'Cx" project would have been owned by the government, not Boeing. However, having had the engineers in place for the "cx" project helped Boeing launch the 747 through the intellectual value gained. I'm sure someone could put a dollar value on this, but they would be hard pressed to show any material value, such as tooling a drawings/designs. Any tooling developed for the government, would have had to be cut up, or sold as scrap. Boeing is not an engine manufacturer.

A simple question regarding the A380 is this...

If Airbus only sold 10 A380s, how much of the government loans would need to be re-paid? Here is your answer regarding subsidies.

Regarding the 1992 bilateral... 33 percent is much better then 100 percent, as was the case with every base model Airbus airplane launched prior to this agreement... A300, A310, A320, A330, A340. (what other Airbus' are flying today)

As Boeing are going to out source most of the 7e7 structures/systems to foreign countries, that believe it is in their interest to subsidize their aerospace industry, it would appear that Boeing has found a response to the Airbus/EU connection. However, this won't help the Airbus worker nor the American worker, but the Asian aerospace worker.

Airbus will find themselves in the same position as Boeing has been, do you bring a WTO suit against your potential customer (EU Airlines, Asian Airlines)... doubtfully. So, the subsidies will only get worse in the future, mainly because the EU wouldn't play by the rules that it agreed to, and now their competitor has purchased a new rule book, published in French.

Cheers
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:05 pm

Boeing had better leadership at the top than MD did. That, in my opinion, is the single biggest factor that brought about the buyout. Not the only factor by far, however.

And while Boeing did benefit very much from the KC-135 purchases, Douglas sure didn't with the DC-8 program. Likewise, when the KC-10s were ordered, Douglas benefitted but Lockheed definately didn't (Boeing didn't have a comparable product at the time, of course).

I think some people forget that when they bring up the government "subsidies".

Look at Boeing's Delta rocket program right now. They have a gargantuan plant about 20 miles from my house...and right now they're hardly building any rockets. Of course, it's Boeing's fault for the industrail espionage, but the US gov't is hardly "protecting" them, even though Arianespace is almost eating Lockheed and Boeing's lunch in the expendable rocket business.
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1664
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:23 pm

Bobrayner Quote

It's very surprising that Boeing - a bastion of free trade - has lower employee productivity than Airbus - a subsidized jobs programme in an over-regulated environment. Can you explain this?

Unquote

Forgeard quote

Forgeard says he wants Airbus's cost structure to ensure "reasonable profitability" from 2006 onward, even with an exchange rate of $1.20 to the euro.

To achieve that goal, he is looking to achieve annual cost savings of 1.5 billion
euros by 2006. Under a cost-savings plan initiated in February, Airbus is pushing suppliers to cut prices and may reconfigure operations from design to
manufacturing to boost efficiency.

One example: the planemaker aims to cut the time for final assembly of
single-aisle A320-series aircraft to 25 days from 40 days, partly by keeping each aircraft in progress at one location rather than pushing it along during assembly from a first, to second, to third station.


"There are many things we do better" than Boeing, "but on this particular point, they assemble a plane in less time than we do," Forgeard said. "But we'll match that."

Unquote

Does this help explain the flaws in your productivity statement?
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:16 pm

A300 sold OK, eventually.
A310 sold OK.
A320 was a big hit, probably the turning point for Airbus.
(And guess what, I remember Boeing making sneering comments about the A320 20 years ago, getting repayable (with interest) launch aid for it was a protracted process and it looked for some period not likely to happen, until early 1984. Airbus at one point looked at several US contractors to join making major items as some parts of the consortium looked likely not to take part for a time. Boeing's problem for years was complacency, they thought Airbus was a bit of a joke, they aint sneering now).

I would add that some Airbus contractors used their own money, not governments, to add to the consortium, the best known example being Hawker Siddeley making wings from 1968-78.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:24 pm

There is no question that Boeing was more than a little too complacent about Airbus.

However, that does not sway the main arguement. Loans that don't have to be paid back in case of a project's failure change the whole dynamics of a business.

If you wanted to set up your own business - say a restaurant, and you had some of your own money and you had to borrow the rest. You would have to make sure that your business will pull in the cash needed to repay your loans. If your forecasts don't quite make it, you don't open the restaurant, or you open a smaller one, or one where property rent is lower, etc.

But if the bank says, "That's OK, if your cash flow is not up to paying us back, don't worry about it. We'll write off the loan." Then your decision is a no-brainer. Of course you'll do it! The bank has just accepted a huge portion of your risk! Let's say, in addition, that the bank says, "Not only that, but we'll give you rock-bottom interest rates as well, so that even if you do pay us back, it won't hurt so much."

Such a proposal from a bank would probably bring you to spontaneous orgasm right there in his office!

Of course the other restaurants in the area might get pretty pissed, as you can undercut their prices, or spruce up your place and product at a fraction of the cost it would cost them. It's called unfair competition.

That's the deal with the A380 loan. Now try to get that same deal for any other company or project. Somehow I doubt they would be successful.

If Boeing had had such a deal to finance the Sonic Cruiser, that plane probably would be on sale today, instead of the 7E7. Come to think of it, they would probably sell the 7E7 alongside the SC, and blow Airbus's medium-sized widebodies completely off the map, with one ultra-modern, fast premium product, and another ultra-modern, high-efficiency one.

I think Boeing should ask the EU to provide them with the same loan conditions as they provided to Airbus.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: Is Airbus Still Subsidized By The Governments?

Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:31 pm


Some people apparently never tire of re-typing their beliefs over and over again. I have my standard response to this type of thread in a text file on my computer, but I won't even bother to copy-paste it. If someone's interested, they can do a search.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: airnorth, avfan, betocreativo, Dalmd88, Dash9, Deltran757, Devilfish, DolphinAir747, EIASO, eldiezonce, FAST Enterprise [Crawler], Google [Bot], jetwet1, keesje, Majestic-12 [Bot], Mortyman, ORDSpotter7, overcast, RalXWB, seat1a, Sooner787, SPEEDJACK, ssteve, Tristarsteve, VFRonTop, william, wrongwayup, Yahoo [Bot], Ytraveller and 421 guests