MidnightMike
Topic Author
Posts: 2810
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:07 am

Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Wed Sep 01, 2004 7:01 am

Trying to protect its planned 7E7 Dreamliner from competition, Boeing Co. is mounting a campaign to cut off European government loans to archrival Airbus.

Harry Stonecipher, Boeing's new chairman, started the latest subsidies spat. He has won support from President Bush (news - web sites), who is threatening to take Europe to the World Trade Organization (news - web sites) unless the loans stop.

Stonecipher is flying to London on what the company calls a lobbying tour. A meeting with incoming European Union (news - web sites)'s Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson could be in the cards, although aides decline to confirm or deny this.

Boeing wants to prevent government loans for new aircraft so France-based Airbus can't build a rival to the 7E7 — the first all-new aircraft the Chicago-headquartered company has designed in 15 years.

For the rest of the story, here is the link.




http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040831/ap_on_bi_ge/boeing_airbus_1


NO URLS in signature
 
kl911
Posts: 3981
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 1:10 am

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Wed Sep 01, 2004 7:13 am

'''Boeing wants to prevent government loans for new aircraft so France-based Airbus can't build a rival to the 7E7 ''''

Why don't they fight it out with planes instead of politics? The best one wins..... It's still a loan, not a gift. What does it matter if it's the government who gives the loan, or a bank?

Let the EU try to let the US airlines pay back the 'gifts' the received after 9/11, which the European carriers didn't had, while suffering the same..

KL911
 
LMP737
Posts: 4810
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Wed Sep 01, 2004 7:31 am

That story is just another example of a journalist who knows very little about the aerospace industry. Who says Airbus would not be able build a rival to the 7E7 if they had to pay 100% on thier own. I'm quite sure they would be able to find the money somewhere.

K1911:

Ironically Airbus is a benificiary of those "gifts" to US airlines. Considering two of the more vulnerable US carriers, US and UAL, are big Airbus customers.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2422
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Wed Sep 01, 2004 4:11 pm

"It's still a loan, not a gift. What does it matter if it's the government who gives the loan, or a bank?"

The difference here is that the government allows the loans to be 'forgivable'; they can be written off if the program fails to be profitable. I don't believe this has happened yet but the out is there for Airbus to default on such a loan if they can show a negative balance sheet, though to take advantage of this might impact on their getting future loans.

"Let the EU try to let the US airlines pay back the 'gifts' the received after 9/11, which the European carriers didn't had, while suffering the same.."

The airline bailout effort was an extraordinary measure taken in an extraordinary crisis, though I agree poorly run carriers already failing didn't deserve it and should have been allowed to fail. I don't agree that European carriers in general suffered quite as much as U.S. ones during that crisis, after all, it occurred on U.S. soil and for a time, brought nearly all air travel here to a screeching halt; European airlines weren't as drastically affected.

Per the article: "David Pritchard, a researcher at the Canada-United States Trade Center at State University of New York and his colleague Alan MacPherson recently published an analysis of the 7E7's launch process and its trade implications. They conclude that some infrastructure and production subsidies slated for the 7E7 "clearly violate the WTO's regulations" on subsidies, suggesting that threatening to take Airbus the WTO is a strategy that may backfire."

Indeed, although Alan Mullally said on this issue earlier that Boeing was playing by the rules, this seems to contradict his statement. There might be an interesting row if Harry Stonecipher follows through on his threat, seems he might be walking a difficult tightrope.
 
m404
Posts: 1875
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 4:43 pm

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Wed Sep 01, 2004 4:45 pm

Another aspect of what Boeing wants is an effective treaty and definition on what precisely makes up aid as well as transparent open bookkeeping on both sides. A treaty that is already is inplace for this has been ignored and unenforced for nearly a decade. If the ground rules were the same and unarguable perhaps technology could be the only defining factor. There is enough for both manufacturers. If truly unbiased (fat chance) government or business arbitrators could formulate such a pact then this petty bickering could stop.
Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
 
keesje
Posts: 8754
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Wed Sep 01, 2004 5:36 pm

I find it fascinating to see what is happening.

Boeing has been driven in a corner during the last few years. It will take them some years to come out of it. Meanwhile they launch remarkable offensive, attacking on all fronts..

- They launched a new product right in the middle of their competitors successful 330/340 family

- They took the high risk approach of building with more then 50% composites

- They launched an unprecedented media campaign to convince everyone they were really inventing a new way of transportation instead of copying a concept.

- They did an intensive internal motivation campaign to get the (slightly demoralized) staff behind this.

- They enforce a 7e7 launch customer (Politics; US-Japan trade deficit.. & rumored close to 50% discount..)

- They made sure they got maximum subsidies by questioning the best production site & playing out states against each other & secured Japanese govn. support by subcontracting high tech work to MHI and others.

- They mobilized politics including Bush to launch a full swing political attack on the biggest competitor for getting subsidies (loans) without getting into details, just creating a “darn foreigners” feeling is good enough.

- They try to delay a competitors reaction by arguing the rules have become outdated (& new rules usually take a loooong time  )

- They play the public/unions & bribe officials to make sure the old 767 prod line keeps alive until the new 7e7 arrives.

Boeing has gotten itself in a weak position but fighting it’s way back,

going for it all the way!

 Big thumbs up
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Wed Sep 01, 2004 6:32 pm


It's about time that this issue got the full attention of the US government. Airbus is still treated as if it were still in its nascent stage despite the fact that it is somewhere past "mature" and on the cusp of being a dominant firm. Let EADS use its profits from its other businesses to finance its Airbus line.




"Let the EU try to let the US airlines pay back the 'gifts' the received after 9/11, which the European carriers didn't had, while suffering the same.."

The EU compensated its airlines for the 4 days after 9/11 just like the US government did.

While European carriers certainly did suffer from a dramatic fall in travel and rise in insurance costs right after 9/11, the shock to the sytem was far greater in the United States. That was the basis for the loan guarantee program which did not require the US to actually loan money but to assume a contingent liability. Despite all of that the US has not been handing them out to anyone who asks. They turned United despite its size and number of employees nationwide in a number of key electoral districts.

If you take into account the years of state-ownership that was prevalent in Europe until the 1990s, the EU's complaints about relatively meager aid to US airlines rings pretty hollow.


[Edited 2004-09-01 11:39:53]
 
keesje
Posts: 8754
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Japan Govt Funding For 7E7 To Follow Jadc Contract

Wed Sep 01, 2004 7:04 pm

IMO Boeing is over it's neck in subsidies & they love it.

Fragment from report below:

The $4.2 billion launch cost is based on two factors: first is from Boeing statements that the 777 launch costs were between $6-7 billion, though Boeing has never officially disclosed the actual costs but did say the company called the 777 program at the time "the world's most expensive privately
funded commercial venture” (Branegan, 1995).

The second factor is based on statements from Boeing board members in 2003
that has targeted the Boeing contribution to the 7e7 program at no more than 60% of the 777 program (Pae, 2003). Thus, $7 billion times the 60% contribution limit gives us an estimated $4.2 billion Boeing contribution to the 7e7 program. The Boeing self-financed portion of $4.2 billion is less than the comparable $5.2 billion that EADS and BAE Systems self financed for the A380 program (EADS, 2003). We can expect new production subsidies to evolve as the program moves forward with first tier risk sharing partners developing second tier subcontractors.

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION

The Airbus versus Boeing subsidy debate has been raging for more than three decades (for a concise overview, see Esty and Ghemawat, 2002). A new debate would likely differ from earlier disagreements in at least three respects.

First, the 7e7 launch plan includes both foreign and domestic subsidies.

Second, close to 50% of the launch funding is slated to come from sources that are classified as ‘actionable’ or ‘prohibited’ under the WTO’s subsidy rules.

Third, substantial state-level subsidies are part of the launch plan (e.g., $3.2 billion from the state of Washington).

Taken together, these three elements of the launch process add up to a public/private partnership of massive scale. From a public policy perspective, one has to question whether this represents good value for money.

Given that most of the value-added on the 7e7 will be earned by foreign partners rather than by Boeing or by US-based suppliers, US institutions might better serve the national interest by subsidizing those aspects of Boeing’s aerospace business that operate with higher US content.

Alternatively, subsidies might be allocated to Boeing for key parts of the airframe (e.g., wings), so that the US could at least maintain its core competence in airframe design and production. While Boeing is a global company, which means that production must also be global, the devolution of critical tasks to foreign suppliers ultimately raises strategic questions regarding the long-run viability of US commercial aircraft production in the LCA category.

http://igeographer.lib.indstate.edu/pritchard.pdf

Japan is also now deciding on a loan scheme for KHI, MHI and Fuji Heavy Industris to cover their share of development costs for the 7E7 airframe. METI, starting with the fiscal 2004 budget, gave Japan’s 35% share in the airframe national project status. But the allocation of loans has been held back by delays in the manufacturers, represented by the Japan Aircraft Development Corporation (JADC), completing a master executive contract with Boeing. Sources say the contract, which JADC originally aimed to complete by mid-2004, should now be completed by year-end.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
widebody
Posts: 1107
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2000 5:08 pm

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:44 pm

Think KI911 might also be referring to the aid provided to the US airlines for the cockpit door modifications, the FAA were the only authority in the world to mandate these changes for both their own carriers AND carriers flying into or over US airspace.....but they gave grants for the modifications to the US airlines but not to all others, even though the changes were forced by the FAA.

Granted these changes are now almost embodied world-wide, but the time-frame in which the FAA put on carriers resulted in huge costs for the European carriers. LH as example had 4 aircraft on the ground at any one time to have the modifications embodied.

All's fair in love and war.......
 
jeffrito
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon May 28, 2001 3:17 am

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Wed Sep 01, 2004 9:28 pm

Clearly, all the parties involved (companies & governmental entities) have strong motives to "cheat", since this industry is all about a lot of money, jobs, taxes, etc.

Therefore, I think it is fair & appropriate for extra efforts to be taken to make sure this competition is as fair as it can possibly be. Impartial parties will need to have full access to the books and be able to take into account the differences in the business environments, etc.

Obviously, this argument will never be fully resolved, but I still believe it is a good argument to have.

The current framework under which the playing field is leveled is clearly out-of-date, so I don't have any problems with Boeing pushing the buttons, and am also not surprised that Airbus -- where things seem to be going smoothly at the moment -- would prefer business-as-usual.

Who knows? Maybe Airbus will come out the big winner in the whole thing! That's fine with me!
 
Tasha
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:34 pm

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:54 pm

"$5.2 billion that EADS and BAE Systems self financed for the A380 program..."

SELF FINANCED?? Are you kidding? The A380 program was/is financed almost completely by the European taxpayer. Airbus is really nothing more that what European steel companies were fifteen-twenty years ago: Socialist Industries with State funding.



" It's still a loan, not a gift. What does it matter if it's the government who gives the loan, or a bank?"

How naive can one get. Of course it matters. Sorry, I must be speaking ill of Airbus again; no such thing as Government funds being given to this so-called "private" company.



"...bribe officials to make sure the old 767 prod line keeps alive"

Of course... and Armstrong/Aldrin never landed on the Moon. I guess you don't have proof of this do you?



", the FAA were the only authority in the world to mandate these changes for both their own carriers AND carriers flying into or over US airspace.....but they gave grants for the modifications to the US airlines but not to all others, even though the changes were forced by the FAA.

Granted these changes are now almost embodied world-wide, but the time-frame in which the FAA put on carriers resulted in huge costs for the European carriers. LH as example had 4 aircraft on the ground at any one time to have the modifications embodied."

OMG.. the huge costs for European carriers. Poor Lufthansa, with folks squished like sardines in their aircraft; one of the worlds largest airlines; having to have FOUR, yes FOUR aircraft grounded at any one time to do these modifications - TOO BAD!!! Did European governments not compensate European airlines as was the case in the US? Give me a break!



"Therefore, I think it is fair & appropriate for extra efforts to be taken to make sure this competition is as fair as it can possibly be."

Competition between Boeing and Airbus can never be fair. Why? If it were fair, the Europeans would whine and complain about their darling Airbus Industries being cut off from Governments subsidies and grants. Then Airbus would cease being what it is now: A Government sponsored, multinational, Socialist inspired company, funded on the backs of European taxpayers. Why are they (European Governments) providing this funding: 1. Because they know Airbus cannot compete on it's own and would catastrophically FAIL; 2. Such a failure would be political suicide.

Just my opinion here, but I know that any critical word spoken against blemishless Airbus Industries is immediately labled "Airbus bashing". Have you ever considered why that is? Think about it. Their new slogan should be: "Airbus, State funded because we cannot compete"

Tasha  Smile/happy/getting dizzy







 
widebody
Posts: 1107
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2000 5:08 pm

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Wed Sep 01, 2004 11:13 pm

"Did European governments not compensate European airlines as was the case in the US? "

No.

And that was 4 out of their LR A340-300 aircraft (bout 30 in total). Big big money for a European airline, given they don't receive the same gifts as US airlines......I'll just sit back and wait for your next outflow of emotion......!
 
widebody
Posts: 1107
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2000 5:08 pm

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Wed Sep 01, 2004 11:15 pm

By the way its 'Airbus', 'Airbus Industrie' finished about 2 years ago.
 
Tasha
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:34 pm

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Wed Sep 01, 2004 11:17 pm

Did European governments not compensate European airlines as was the case in the US? "

No....


Of course they did. Just sit back and think about it. In fact, I will tell you that many European airlines recieve government funneled money as a routine. Don't play so coy and innocent here - everyone knows how business is done in Europe.

Tasha  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
Tasha
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:34 pm

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Wed Sep 01, 2004 11:19 pm

"By the way its 'Airbus', 'Airbus Industrie' finished about 2 years ago."

I like the older one... It sounds much more impressive don't you think?

Tasha  Big grin
 
keesje
Posts: 8754
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Wed Sep 01, 2004 11:19 pm


"...bribe officials to make sure the old 767 prod line keeps alive"
Of course... and Armstrong/Aldrin never landed on the Moon. I guess you don't have proof of this do you?


 Smile

Tasha, where have you been hanging out ? The Boeing CEO and others were fired because of it..
http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/9346000.htm
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/military/read.main/15587/6/

SELF FINANCED?? Are you kidding?
May I point out that the report is a US report, with all sources been accounted for?

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Tasha
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:34 pm

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Wed Sep 01, 2004 11:21 pm

"...bribe officials to make sure the old 767 prod line keeps alive"

That had to do with the B767 tanker project for the USAF, not with the B767 line in general. I may be splitting hairs here, but to me that is something completely diffrent.

Tasha  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
keesje
Posts: 8754
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Wed Sep 01, 2004 11:29 pm

Tasha, FYI there isn't much of a commercial 767 line left & KC767 have been build on the same line..(Italian & Japanese) .. I'm sure Boeing doesn't see it as something completely different .. a 767 = a 767 = turnover
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Wed Sep 01, 2004 11:37 pm

That "self-financed" sentence is the subject of a syntax error. If you look above that portion they refer only to the portions the 380 and 7E7 that are self-financed. According to authors both airplanes receive public subsidies.

The EU has chipped in $3 billion for the R&D of the 380 in the form of "repayable loan." That means it does not have to be repaid if Airbus does not make a profit. The EU created a massive moral hazard situation here. Airbus now has incentive to actually avoid showing a profit on A380 for a while until those repayment terms naturally expire.

The authors that Keesje cites raise a valid point. Is it a good use of public money to subsidize projects like the 7E7? Personally I do not think so. However the alternative is to let the EU pump more and more money into Airbus until Boeing eventually has to exit the market. For the first time Boeing may possibly enjoy a few of the benefits extended to Airbus for 30+ years and the Europeans somehow feel that there has been parity all along. Nonsense.

Remember that Airbus cannot fail. No matter how bad an airplane they build--they will not be allowed to exit the market in the manner that Lockheed or McDonnell Douglas did. (Not saying they build bad airplanes) Based on sales the A300 should have been the first and last Airbus built if actual market forces applied. They cannot even enforce a 40 hour work week France so it is impossible that they layoff workers in Toulouse.

It is interesting that one of the complaints leveled by Europe are the tax breaks and incentives that are being provided by the state of Washington. I do not recall these new converts to free market ideas complaining when Daimler and BMW received comparable, favorable tax treatment from Alabama and South Carolina.

[Edited 2004-09-01 16:48:03]

[Edited 2004-09-01 16:49:40]
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Wed Sep 01, 2004 11:45 pm

Widebody,

It is hard to conclude how you believe the reinforced cockpit door rule was a "gift" to US airlines. Just like Lufthansa and other airlines, US carriers had to pull airplanes out of revenue service to install the doors to meet the deadline. The US carriers did not get any meaningful competitve advantage against European competitors through this process.

That the EU decided not to help their airlines with installation and lost revenue compensation of these security systems and yet continues to support Airbus (a company with around 50% of its product market) is a beef you should have with the EU and not the US. Reinforced cockpit doors would prevent or slow down a hijack attempt whether over the US or elsewhere.
 
Scorpio
Posts: 4794
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Wed Sep 01, 2004 11:50 pm

Tasha,

SELF FINANCED??

Yes, self-financed.

Are you kidding?

Do you see a smiley face? No? Then my guess is he's not.

The A380 program was/is financed almost completely by the European taxpayer.

Sources? As per the 1992 agreement, only one third can be financed by government loans. A third of $12 billion. That leaves $8 billion, some of which is provided by the risk-sharing partners, the rest (the $5.2 billion) by Airbus itself.

Airbus is really nothing more that what European steel companies were fifteen-twenty years ago: Socialist Industries with State funding.

You clearly know very little about Airbus. You think you know enough to make a few attacks, but in reality most of those attacks turn out to be based on hearsay, which more than once turns out to be wrong.

All the while maintaining that you are not anti-Airbus. Yeah right.

1. Because they know Airbus cannot compete on it's own and would catastrophically FAIL;

Please elaborate...

Just my opinion here, but I know that any critical word spoken against blemishless Airbus Industries is immediately labled "Airbus bashing". Have you ever considered why that is? Think about it. Their new slogan should be: "Airbus, State funded because we cannot compete"

With all due respect, but you're kind of like someone who says "I'm not racist, but black people are clearly inferior to whites." You're one of the most anti-Airbus people on this board, especially because most of the 'claims' against Airbus you have are quite simply false. And I don't easily go around calling people anti-Airbus, but you clearly are, no matter how many times you keep on claiming the opposite.
 
Tasha
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:34 pm

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Wed Sep 01, 2004 11:51 pm

"Remember that Airbus cannot fail. No matter how bad an airplane they build--they will not be allowed to exit the market in the manner that Lockheed or McDonnell Douglas did. Based on sales the A300 should have been the first and last Airbus built if actual market forces applied. They cannot even enforce a 40 hour work week France so it is impossible that they layoff workers in Toulouse."

This is the absolute truth! Very well said!!

Tasha  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
keesje
Posts: 8754
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Wed Sep 01, 2004 11:58 pm

Fact remains that Airbus gets loans that sofar have been repaid.

The funds Boeing gets are basicly gifts.

The state direct and indirect support Boeing received sofar for R&D (NASA) and defense programs can be seen as a black hole in this case.

That amount is higher then Airbus has or will ever hope to receive and will somehow be included in any new treaty.

IMO it is high time the WTO take action here !
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Scorpio
Posts: 4794
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Wed Sep 01, 2004 11:59 pm

Perhaps they are trying to cover-up the fact that Airbus aircraft are more-or-less junk

But no, you're not anti-Airbus  Yeah sure

I sincerely doubt that ANY Airbus aircraft will have the lifespan of any Boeing, MD, or Lockheed.

Nope, nothing anti-Airbus about you. How could we ever think otherwise?

 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:04 am

gigantic grants, gifts, "loans", greased palms

The only two companies in recent years that have been implicated in illegal practices concerning bribery or iregular dealings to secure their airliner sales are Boeing and Lockheed.

Boeing with the KC-767 tanker (which for the education of Tania is actually a 767 and built on the 767 line) and Lockheed with its infamous Bribes Scandal to sell Tristars to Japan.

Glass houses and all that...mods plese delete this thread as there is too much scripted nonsense being regurgitated here without a shread of substantiation.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
Tasha
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:34 pm

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:08 am

Scorpio...

"You're one of the most anti-Airbus people on this board"

Maybe I am, but that too is opinion. I will concede, that I don't have a very favorable opinion of Airbus, their products, or Socialist European industry in general - fair enough.

However, many (60-70%) on this board is entirely pro-Airbus. It is odd, that when a single negative word is said about state funded Airbus, the author is always accused of "Airbus bashing". Funny isn't it. Just look at all the threads when someone posts something critical of the A380.

"With all due respect, but you're kind of like someone who says "I'm not racist, but black people are clearly inferior to whites."

Now that is pretty harsh now isn't it as you know nothing about me, other than perhaps that I have a low opinion about Airbus. *shakes-head* Scorpio, that is really closeminded.

Tasha  Smile/happy/getting dizzy



[Edited 2004-09-01 17:36:24]
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:09 am

Keesje,

Do not make up things now. With the exception of the A320 program, there is no proof that Airbus has ever paid back a cent on any of their other aircraft programs. Airbus has also used NASA research to develop the wing for the A310 and yet complains that Boeing has access.

Boeing is a defense contractor. Correct. In exchange for money, they provide the US government with weapons many of which have been deployed in the defense of Western Europe. Since European governments relied so much on the US for their security, they could spend their funds on social and industrial projects.

The EU has given Airbus money without Airbus providing an airplane or weapons system in return. When did Airbus pay back the A300 development costs? A310? A330/340? Those were outright subsidies as opposed to defense contracts. Interestingly EADS also has a defense business which sells to the EU but that never gets mentioned for some reason.

What "gifts" are you referring to? What airplane has the US government funded as a "gift"?
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:12 am

Whitehatter,

If you are not interested or have nothing valuable to add this thread then you are free to not read or post. I am not sure why your feelings should determine whether a thread should stay or go.
 
Scorpio
Posts: 4794
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:32 am

Now that is pretty harsh now isn't it as you know nothing about me, other than perhaps that I have a low opinion about Airbus. *shakes-head* Scorpio, that is really closeminded.

You quite clearly didn't get that one. What I meant with that is that you are one of those people who repeats in as loud a voice as possible that they are not anti this or that, only to prove immediately afterwards that you are. YOU, for example, have said repeatedly that you are not anti-Airbus, only to launch another ill-imformed attack on them immediately afterwards, just like people who claim not to be racist, only to attack black people right after that.

However, most everyone on this board is entirely pro-Airbus.

That's a joke, right?

It is odd, that when a single negative word is said about state funded Airbus, the author is always accused of "Airbus bashing". Funny isn't it. Just look at all the threads when someone posts something critical of the A380.

This happens equally on both sides. When a negative word is said about Boeing, the exact same thing happens there that happens here. Furthermore, the negative things you say about Airbus are hardly ever backed up by facts. And that's going to cause a reaction.

Ohhh YES - this is typical when something critical of Airbus is said.

Oh puh-lease.  Insane
 
SLUAviator
Posts: 292
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 1:30 pm

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:33 am

Hang on a second..... The way airbus' loans works is when airbus makes money and is operating in the black they begin to pay them back. Not once in its entire history has airbus actually turned a profit. Until they make money and begin to pay back their loans, it sounds like free money to me. At any rate, that won't happen for years since Airbus has publicly declared that they are out for market share and are steeply discounting prices of planes. They would not be able to get away with it if they actually had to make money and worry about paying huge loans back. Its not quite fair, and its even less fair when you consider they make lousy planes.

Second of all, Airbus likes to accuse Boeing of getting loan subsidies from the US government through its military division in the form of all the contracts Boeing receives. Yes, Boeing does receive tons of military contracts, but at the same time, does Boeing not actually have to provide goods and services in exchange for money? I may be a simple pilot and not an economist, but that does NOT sound like subsidies when you are selling a product in exchange for money.

Now several of you are like you have to so may others going to call me an airbus basher. My reply: I am.... proudly.
What do I know? I just fly 'em.......
 
jeffrito
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon May 28, 2001 3:17 am

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:35 am

Hello?!?!?

Like so many big corporations everywhere, Boeing & Airbus are BOTH on the dole.

Funny how our patriotism leads us to defend our countrymen who in turn line their pockets and hold our communities hostage to their job auctions and cost-cutting crusades.

We ought to hope that a re-evaluation of the trade rules can possibly lead to reduced hand-outs to BOTH A & B! This in turn will lead to more rational decision-making and better long term prospects for these businesses.
 
Scorpio
Posts: 4794
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:42 am

Not once in its entire history has airbus actually turned a profit.

Source?

Its not quite fair, and its even less fair when you consider they make lousy planes.

Please elaborate...
 
Tasha
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:34 pm

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:42 am

SLUaviator:

"Hang on a second..... The way airbus' loans works is when airbus makes money and is operating in the black they begin to pay them back. Not once in its entire history has airbus actually turned a profit. Until they make money and begin to pay back their loans, it sounds like free money to me. At any rate, that won't happen for years since Airbus has publicly declared that they are out for market share and are steeply discounting prices of planes. They would not be able to get away with it if they actually had to make money and worry about paying huge loans back. Its not quite fair, and its even less fair when you consider they make lousy planes."

A pilot that agrees with me that Airbus has never turned a profit; have a shady, corrupt business plan; and make 'lousy planes'.

Sweetie *kiss* you're on my respected users list....

I have to leave you all, work calls.....

Tasha  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
n685fe
Posts: 337
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 7:01 am

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:53 am



You guys make me laugh. Do any of you work on any of these planes, or fly them? I doubt it. SLUAviator, how did you form your opinion? I seriously doubt it is from having experience in both types of a/c. Most of the people posting on this thread have probably based there opinion from other one's comments or they may have ridden on one, maybe. I work on Airbus, Boeing and MD/DC. To me a plane is a plane, it gets you from point A to B the same way the other one does. Unless you fly it or fix it, it's no different. Tasha, you are a constant source of amusement, no offense. (How is that for a double standard?)
psp. lead by example
 
widebody
Posts: 1107
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2000 5:08 pm

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Thu Sep 02, 2004 1:13 am

N79969,

The cockpit door rule depended on the regulations of each individual nation. The FAA on the other hand, decided to also impose their rule on Part 129 carriers, flying into or over US territory. They placed a deadline of April 9th 2003 for compliance, a date which put huge pressures on both Airbus/Boeing and operators to manufacturer and get the kits on the aircraft by April 9th. As mentioned above, LH had to keep 4 out of their A340-300 fleet on the ground at any one time to meet the deadline. The US then went away and handed out aid to the US airlines specifically to help with the cost of the retrofit, while ignoring all foreign carriers. The ICAO-recommended deadline was November 03, adopted by all other countries, which would have given all foreign carriers a lot more flexibility and cost a hell of a lot less. That's the problem, the cockpit door itself was very necessary, but the deadlines created havoc, and the US funding linked to the FAA deadline and the FAA extension to Part 129 carriers was not across the board.

Jeffrito,

You're on the ball, both manufacturers are on the dole and will continue to be. What irks a lot of people is Boeing whining that their not getting as much as Airbus. Unless Boeing can show that Airbus funding is not in line with established agreements, then they should quit crying in public.

It can't be said that Airbus are not getting hand-outs, because they are.
 
Paul777
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 12:27 pm

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Thu Sep 02, 2004 2:33 am

Bravo N685FE - I agree, they get us to point B from Point A. Both Boeing and Airbus build great planes, and since we enjoy aviation, who cares who is doing what to whom, and how they got there.

Politics got to love it!
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Thu Sep 02, 2004 2:37 am

Ohhh YES - this is typical when something critical of Airbus is said.

cowards - can't even stand up to a friendly debate!


There is nothing friendly about posting outright LIES and fabrication. You fail to substantiate anything you say, and become more hysterical by the second.

If you can't contribute to the debate then go away. We are all getting rather tired of constantly handing your ass to you.

May I also remind you that groundless accusations of corruption and bribery are libellous.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
keesje
Posts: 8754
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Thu Sep 02, 2004 3:07 am

SLUaviator

"Not once in its entire history has airbus actually turned a profit. Until they make money and begin to pay back their loans, it sounds like free money to me"

Tasha

Sweetie *kiss* you're on my respected users list....


I think time has come to ask Johan to develop a nonsense filter...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3935315.stm
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Scorpio
Posts: 4794
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Thu Sep 02, 2004 3:35 am

Whitehatter, thanks for the source!

Just in case, SLUaviator and Tasha, the relevant passage in the link provided is this one:

Airbus, 80% owned by EADS and 20% by BAE Systems, chalked up operating profits of 982m euros, up from 621m last time.

Now, how will you be having that crow?
 
brons2
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Thu Sep 02, 2004 3:37 am


I think time has come to ask Johan to develop a nonsense filter...


...Your posts could be among the prime targets.

In this ongoing debate, I have asked for one piece of factual data, if the Euros wish to characterize the Washington tax breaks as "Subsidies", then where is the hard data as to how much in local taxes that Airbus pays to Toulouse, Hamburg, et al.

Furthermore, these breaks are available to any company, I guarantee you that if Airbus was to open up a US based maunfacturing facility, then local city/county/state governments would be falling all overthemselves to offer Airbus the same tax abatements.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Thu Sep 02, 2004 3:40 am

I have to say - it's been quite a while since I've had to laugh as hard as I've had to while reading some of the posts on this thread...

First of all - for everyone still claiming that Airbus has never made a profit... not only was the EBIT achieved by Airbus at €1.353 billion for the year ending 31 December 2003 - here's a quote from EADS' financial report...

Airbus’ EBIT* remained relatively unchanged at € 1.4 billion for
2003, reflecting the roughly equivalent number of deliveries
(305 in 2003 – of which 302 were recognized in revenues, as
compared to 303 in 2002). The positive effects of improved
margins resulting from a more favourable product mix mostly
offset the negative impact of higher research and development
costs for the A380 program. The EBIT* margin pre-research and
development of 16.7% reflects the cost benefits of Airbus’ builtin
manufacturing flexibility. See “Part 2/1.1.2 Airbus –
Production – Adaptability to Changes in Demand” for further
discussion of built-in manufacturing flexibility.


... Airbus also had revenues around €19 billion - then, here's a comment about the subsidies...

European Government Refundable Advances. As of December 31,
2003, total European government refundable advances received,
recorded on the balance sheet in the line item “other liabilities”,
amounted to € 4.9 billion, an increase of € 0.7 billion from 2002.
Of this amount, (i) € 2.0 billion relate to long-range Airbus
aircraft (with approximately € 0.3 billion repaid in 2003 and
€ 0.1 billion re-valued at the year-end €-£ spot rate), (ii) € 2.0
billion relate to the A380 program (a € 1.0 billion increase from
2002, before adjustment for exchange rate effects). For 2003,
new receipts of European government refundable advances
totalled € 1.0 billion and reimbursements totalled € 0.3 billion.
Related accrued interest payments for 2003 of € 0.2 billion were
recorded on the balance sheet in the line item “other liabilities”.


.. caught that? Yes, while money is still coming in - money is being paid back as well.

Income from operating activities for 2003 is reported at €809 million.

And just for those who'll say "well, that was 2003 - that was probably the only year where they've ever managed that...": EBIT for 2002 is reported at €1.361 billion, income from operating activities at €818 million.

If you're interested in actually reading about facts at EADS and Airbus, try having a look at the complete financial report:

http://www.eads.net/xml/content/OF00000000400004/3/00/29655003.pdf

And, to add to that, EADS reported half year results for 2004 a few days ago - Airbus' operating profits were at €982 million for the first half of 2004...


So, Tasha & Co, unfortunately you might simply have to come to terms with the fact that this bastion of misguided socialistic ideas, aka Airbus, is making money.

So before you go around spreading your... well, I'll use a friendly term... "creative ideas" about Airbus, you might actually want to read up a bit about the subject that you're writing about.

Regards,
Frank
Smile - it confuses people!
 
keesje
Posts: 8754
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Thu Sep 02, 2004 3:53 am


I you have any information that local taxes in Nantes, Meaulte, St. Nazaire and Toulouse in France; Hamburg, Bremen, Nordenham, Varel, Laupheim, Stade and Buxtehude in Germany; Getafe, Illescas and Puerto Real in Spain; and Filton and Broughton in the U.K. are in violation with WTO rules, please come forward.

Otherwise it would look like suggesting something without any other goal then creating smoke..

As far as know Airbus is legally based in the Netherlands because the tax regime is best there.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
707lvr
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:41 am

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:17 am

For the most part, the "subsidy" that Boeing received from the State of Washington was a slight reduction in the extreme anti-business climate here. Perhaps Airbus does pay state, county, city and neighborhood taxes, fees, assessments, offsets and mitigation. It may pay for roads to the tune of $50 million as well as subsidized housing, surface water management, noxious weed control, soil conservation, stream rehabilitation, etc. There may be a French B&O tax on gross sales as well as one of the highest unemployment tax rates. I don't know. If Airbus has to contend with all these things too then, yes, Boeing should be sanctioned for accepting relief.
 
Tasha
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:34 pm

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:21 am

Keesje:

"I think time has come to ask Johan to develop a nonsense filter..."

Perhaps, but only useful to people who cannot stand a debate or hear a critical word about their beloved Airbus corporation.

But your whole quotation was out of context anyhow. He got on my respected user list because I agree with him about the "lousy planes" - so there.

Tasha  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

P.S I'm really trying not to laugh to the point of crying here!!! LOL

[Edited 2004-09-01 21:24:10]
 
Tasha
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:34 pm

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:32 am

Whitehatter:

"If you can't contribute to the debate then go away. We are all getting rather tired of constantly handing your ass to you."

That is a matter of opinion. If you mean that I cannot jump on your typical pro-Airbus bandwagon here with "can't contribute" - you're right.

I will not contribute. I have nothing against Airbus persay, just the typical European Socialist mentality that funds this shady company to put it outside of the marketplace and pressures.

If you think that I will stop saying that, or change my opinion to suit anyone here would be a grave error. If you, or anyone else doesn't like my opinion - too bad (but the moderators do a pretty fair job of surpressing my opinions)

Tasha  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

 
Mark_D.
Posts: 1360
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 9:55 am

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:32 am

SLUaviator-- Now several of you are like you have to so may others going to call me an airbus basher. My reply: I am.... proudly.

Actually sounds more like just nationalist-fueled zealotry on your part  Laugh out loud


Airbus make lousy planes?? Since when?!
 
Tasha
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:34 pm

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:42 am

Mark_D

"Airbus make lousy planes?? Since when?!"

Since the A300, but that too as all opinion! LOL

Tasha  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
Mark_D.
Posts: 1360
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 9:55 am

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:48 am

Tasha -- Since the A300, but that too as all opinion! LOL

Amuse yourself away with your opinions then, Tash. Doesn't mean anyone else has to pay them much mind  Laugh out loud

 
brons2
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:52 am

I you have any information that local taxes in Nantes, Meaulte, St. Nazaire and Toulouse in France; Hamburg, Bremen, Nordenham, Varel, Laupheim, Stade and Buxtehude in Germany; Getafe, Illescas and Puerto Real in Spain; and Filton and Broughton in the U.K. are in violation with WTO rules, please come forward.

I never said any such thing. I asked what the local taxes are that Airbus pays on production facilities.

The folks on the Euro side of the pond like to call the Washington State tax abatements "subsidies". So I have asked repeatedly for data on what Airbus pays in local taxes. Nobody seems to be able to provide that data. Therefore, I am not accepting your argument unless you provide that data. Apples to apples please.

As far as know Airbus is legally based in the Netherlands because the tax regime is best there.

So Airbus incorporates in a location with less taxes! How very interesting. I guess from a certain point of view than the Netherlands subsidezes Airbus through tax breaks, following your argument about the Washington State tax breaks.

Of course, this is just as much a reach as your argument that Washington's tax breaks=subsidy. Rather, they are the result of competition between many localities. These methods are open to any corporation locating within the US, as you'll see, local tax abatements to draw business are quite common. Airbus, in fact, could take advantage of them, as I mentioned in my previous post, communities throughout the US would be falling all over each other to get an Airbus plant in their community. These breaks are not Boeing specific.

But really, this whole argument is moot until someone provides some local tax data on Airbus.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
Adria
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 7:53 am

RE: Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7

Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:56 am

"They cannot even enforce a 40 hour work week France so it is impossible that they layoff workers in Toulouse."

Yes the Hire and Fire system that Boeing has is far better.  Smile
the development costs of the 7E7 will be far higher since Boeing or let say Japan is going to built two different wings. So here not only the US but also the Japan government are helping Boeing.

"The A380 program was/is financed almost completely by the European taxpayer. Airbus is really nothing more that what European steel companies were fifteen-twenty years ago:"

Read some law books first. You know a lot about aircraft but those Airbus bashing posts are nonsense.

Some pilots love Boeing and some Airbus airplanes and look at the order book before you agree on the "lousy planes" post.