rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:51 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/opinion/08mon2.html?oref=login

Interesting Parts:

The United States has a good case, and it's way past time for Europe to get out of the subsidy business. Since Airbus was born back in the 1960's, it has received some $15 billion in launch aid from the governments of Spain, France, Britain and Germany. For years, they justified this by saying they had to help an infant industry compete against a mature one, Boeing. Well, the baby boomers have grown up and so has Airbus; it now sells more planes than Boeing.

The United States stood by when Airbus received a whopping $3.7 billion to develop its superjumbo A380. Then, last month, Noël Forgeard, chief executive of Airbus, told The Financial Times that Airbus planned to go back to the public trough to the tune of $1 billion for a new midsized plane to compete with Boeing's 7E7 Dreamliner. In the blink of an eye, he added that Airbus actually didn't need the aid. Imagine a single welfare mother announcing something similar. Apparently, the cycle of corporate welfare dependency is harder to break.

It's time Airbus learned how to fly on its own wings.
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
a380900
Posts: 801
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 11:26 pm

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:15 pm

Poor NYT, after selling their souls to the neocons, they are now entering the Airbus bashing business. What I say to the writers of this editorial: Go look for Japanese subsidies for the 7E7! And the timely order from ANA!

Talk about a one-sided view...

Somebody has finally realized that the A380 would reflect poorly on the new imperial America. Well, too bad...
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:29 pm

Poor NYT, after selling their souls to the neocons

Talk about a one-sided view...





Ah yes, the NYT... great bastion of Right-wing USA-centric propaganda  Nuts
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:51 pm

Go look for Japanese subsidies for the 7E7
Seems only fair that the Japanese get to build up their aviation industry with subsidies, if European countries got to do the same.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
jasepl
Posts: 3499
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 3:15 pm

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:54 pm

Yes, but what aviation industry? Doors and windows? Wings & tails? Unless they're making the plane, it's not an industry.
 
scotron11
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:54 pm

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:59 pm

Damn right! As they say in the aviation business "what's good for the A380 is good for the 7E7"!

I actually happen to agree with the NYT about this. Airbus is certainly not a "baby" anymore.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Mon Nov 08, 2004 5:08 pm

Yes, but what aviation industry? Doors and windows? Wings & tails? Unless they're making the plane, it's not an industry.
Given that no European country or company is making all of any Airbus aircraft, I guess no one should get subsidies.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
RMenon
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2001 10:51 pm

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:50 pm

Unfortunately - if this progresses in the WTO - both companies are going to suffer penalties.
 
hardiwv
Posts: 4341
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 11:30 pm

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Mon Nov 08, 2004 9:18 pm

And dont forget the subsidies of the Canadian Government to Bombardier, otherwise Embraer would have been long ago the dominant leader in medium/small-size jets!

Rgs,
Hardi
 
gkirk
Posts: 23349
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Mon Nov 08, 2004 9:41 pm

Well, Airbus is the same size as Boeing now, so any subsidies should indeed stop
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
Andreas
Posts: 5880
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 7:56 pm

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:38 pm

A380900: ROFLMFAO!!!! That was a good one, really! Now if you call the NYT neo-con, I'd be interested to hear what you call GWB  Big grin Big grin

btw: Since you live in NY according to your profile it's probably not too hard to acquire an issue of the NYT and find out for yourself.


Subsidies...right..the USA as a great bastion of free trade and globalisation, totally subsidy-free...  Nuts  Nuts  Nuts
I know it's only VfB but I like it!
 
JoFMO
Posts: 1840
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 1:55 am

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Mon Nov 08, 2004 11:05 pm

Wasn't it the NYT itself who accused their readers for not beeing critical enough while the Iraq war?

I guess A380900's aspect with the neocons was referring to that.

Furtunately NYT is back in the free press league since long. Thanks for that.
 
tripple7
Posts: 510
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 8:53 pm

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Mon Nov 08, 2004 11:19 pm

Does someone have the complete article? Could you please post it here? I don't seem to have access to the NY Times.
 
KALB
Posts: 564
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2000 12:33 pm

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:49 am

It's an editorial opinion, available in full by clicking on the link to the NYT.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:56 am

The NYT is free online access. You just have to sign up.

N
 
FoxBravo
Posts: 2769
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 1:34 pm

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 4:09 am

Poor NYT, after selling their souls to the neocons

Interesting...never heard that one before...  Big grin
Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire
 
NYC777
Posts: 5083
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 4:20 am

Poor NYT, after selling their souls to the neocons

This comment obviously coming from someone who doesn't live in the US. No matter who was in power (Kerry or Bush) there would have been some action to stop the subsidies.
That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
 
NYC777
Posts: 5083
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 4:30 am

Here's the full text of the editorial:

European politicians and diplomats have been complaining that the Bush administration filed its mammoth trade case last month against European subsidies to Airbus for strictly political reasons. Pascal Lamy, the soon-to-retire European Union trade commissioner, went so far as to call the Boeing-Airbus fight a "Euro-bashing" attempt by President Bush to pry Washington State from Democratic hands and to inoculate himself from John Kerry's charges that the administration hadn't done enough to protect American workers.

At first glance, those charges have some merit, since Americans have been complaining about Airbus subsidies for as long as Airbus has existed. The current case stems from a 1992 bilateral agreement that allowed the European governments to provide Airbus with so-called launch aid of up to a third of the cost of developing a new plane. (Unlike the loans that normal people get from banks, Airbus has to pay back the money only if the new planes actually sell.) The deal was supposed to lead to an eventual elimination of Airbus subsidies and, in return, an agreement by the United States to drop an earlier trade complaint.

The United States dropped the case. The Europeans did not eliminate their subsidies. Even so, the Europeans accused the Americans of playing politics because they waited until 30 days before the presidential election to take action.

Big deal. The United States has a good case, and it's way past time for Europe to get out of the subsidy business. Since Airbus was born back in the 1960's, it has received some $15 billion in launch aid from the governments of Spain, France, Britain and Germany. For years, they justified this by saying they had to help an infant industry compete against a mature one, Boeing. Well, the baby boomers have grown up and so has Airbus; it now sells more planes than Boeing.

The United States stood by when Airbus received a whopping $3.7 billion to develop its superjumbo A380. Then, last month, Noël Forgeard, chief executive of Airbus, told The Financial Times that Airbus planned to go back to the public trough to the tune of $1 billion for a new midsized plane to compete with Boeing's 7E7 Dreamliner. In the blink of an eye, he added that Airbus actually didn't need the aid. Imagine a single welfare mother announcing something similar. Apparently, the cycle of corporate welfare dependency is harder to break.

European negotiators said they expected the issue to disappear once the election was over. But even though President Bush didn't win Washington State, his negotiators say they plan to continue pushing the case - and a more aggressive Boeing management is backing them up. It's time Airbus learned how to fly on its own wings.
That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
 
lymanm
Posts: 1100
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2001 2:30 pm

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 4:38 am

"And dont forget the subsidies of the Canadian Government to Bombardier, otherwise Embraer would have been long ago the dominant leader in medium/small-size jets!"

Yes, and Brazil NEVER funded Embraer? Get real.
buhh bye
 
thegreatchecko
Posts: 689
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 3:34 pm

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 4:43 am

"Poor NYT, after selling their souls to the neocons"

HA....that was good for a laugh  Laugh out loud

You know the NYT isnt the best at writing balanced pieces or really being very well informed before making an editorial.

This is one of those editorials I just ignore. Neither Boeing or Airbus is clean on this one. BRING ON THE WTO and may the free market reign!

GreatChecko
"A pilot's plane she is. She will love you if you deserve it, and try to kill you if you don't...She is the Mighty Q400"
 
agill
Posts: 945
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:49 am

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:30 am

Isn't it time to start cleaning up this thread. It has gone from bad to crap.
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1426
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:37 am


Last time I looked France was just a tad over the square miles of Texas?

Just a tad tiny to be so openly hostile.  Smile
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:32 am

This has nothing to do with subsidies and everything to do with persuading the US Congress to shovel out heaps of money for Boeing so it can send even more of its jobs to Japan and Asia.

Wake up guys. Boeing doesn't have time to win a long drawn out court case, or worse still,loose one, it needs CASH urgently, it only has two viable programs, the 777 and the 737 (which is loosing it big time at the moment ie Air Berlin and Nikki) and it is in deep shit.

If it gets CASH quick it can rapidly migrate the 7E7 technologies into urgently needed replacements for the 737 family and who knows, a replacement for the 747 and 'slightly' larger market.

We might also conclude it is another attempt to stampede Congress into funding 200 767 tankers. The big obstacle to that, apart from common sense, and a series of illegal and unpatriotic acts in which it forgot its alleigance to the United States will be any firming up of the notion that Lockheed might do a deal with EADS to build all A330 tankers whether or the US or the rest of the market in the US under licence.
 
MissedApproach
Posts: 678
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:12 am

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:43 am

Canada & Brazil are constantly in front of the WTO over subsidies of their respective airospace companies. They take turns as the villain, but I suspect Embraer gets a bigger handout than Bombardier. Just my $.02  Big grin
Surely Airbus & Boeing are big enough to be beyond needing such handouts.
Can you hear me now?
 
M27
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:25 am

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 9:17 am

Wow Antares, that is quite some insight you have there. If it gets congress to
"shovel out heaps of money for Boeing", lets hope it works! Why they might even send some jobs to Australia! Has Airbus sent any money that way.

If Americans cant't have the jobs, I would just as soon Japan and Asia have them as the EU!

Another question, if Lockheed and Airbus team up and get the tanker contract, that will mean a lot of jobs for Americans you're saying? Will that cost European's any jobs? I guess since its Airbus though, they will do it in the correct way!

Thank you Antares for worrying about American jobs! "This has nothing to do with subsidies": I must admit, I'm still trying to figure that one out.

[Edited 2004-11-09 01:41:13]
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8657
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 9:32 am

Wake up guys. Boeing doesn't have time to win a long drawn out court case, or worse still,loose one, it needs CASH urgently, it only has two viable programs, the 777 and the 737

Good thing Airbus has several viable aircraft families... the A320 and A330/A340. Wait a tick!! They only have two viable families as well!!

And guess what? Large aircraft make more money than narrow bodies.... which means Airbus recent NB victories are not nearly the raping they appear to be. Look at what Boeing has done in the WB market... won new 7E7 and 777 customers. SQ and EK have large 773ER orders pending, there are a total of 35 7E7 orders pending from 4 customers, and Boeing is activly seeking LH and QF to sign for the 773ER.

For those wondering... QF has stated a desire to replace select 747s while LH expansion goals can only be met with new orders, and they are aparently more open-minded than VS, who used Boeing as a negotating tool. My source isn't published but comes from a reputable columnist.

So everything is more than it seems. Airbus hyper-aggresive actions to court narrow body orders might be in response to Boeing's widebody success. Orders for the gut of Airbus production line (A332-A346) might slow to a crawl if Boeing scores just a few of the orders listed above. Airbus cannot go without a steady stream of income, so they might be attempting to fill as many slots as possible to keep the $$$ flowing.

If it gets CASH quick it can rapidly migrate the 7E7 technologies into urgently needed replacements for the 737 family

Just wondering... but why does the 737NG all of the sudden need replacement? What has Airbus added (in terms of technology) to the A320 in the last 3 years? Zip... nothing. The two aircraft are *just* as equally matched as ever, only Airbus is *much* more eager to win orders all of the sudden.

This has nothing to do with subsidies and everything to do with persuading the US Congress to shovel out heaps of money for Boeing so it can send even more of its jobs to Japan and Asia.

Or the fact that Airbus has long out grown its training wheels ...  Insane
 
CRPilot
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:37 am

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 9:52 am

Folks at the end of the day is all about economics!!!! Demand and Supply!!! As well as, keeping investors (which include the respective Federal Governments) very happy. Is obviously painful that Boeing has lost a great deal of ground to Airbus, thus they will do everything they can to gain back the lead in the game as Airbus now obviously dominates the supply. Lets remember that this is not the first time this industry has been subsidize by a government...after all lets not forget that governments are investors as well. With Airbus' continued gain of marketshare, the EU governments see this as a great continuing investment opportunity. Did you all forget that this is a two way street???? Our own government (USA) has had their hands in Boeing directly or indirectly for many years! And yes they do collect on their investment. If and when the EU agrees to end the subsidies, they will still continue indirectly via the different channels.

Let's just move on and worry about making better products at a competitive price to fill the Demand. Competition is healthy....complaining is not!!!
Flying is a privilege!
 
M27
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:25 am

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:04 am

A competitive price? Define competitive price. Are you talking about when a government gives a company money to develope a commercial aircraft, or are you talking about when free market forces are in play? There could be two different definitions you see.

[Edited 2004-11-09 02:07:45]
 
CRPilot
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:37 am

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:14 am

M27 How exactly do you know the margin of influence that the subsidies play on Airbus pricing? I mean I constantly see people complaining about it, but I want to see numbers! This is and has been a free market since the early 60's when Boeing held the advantage. After all most Boeing products all the way to the 70's and 80's were the byproduct of military contracts (i.e. the 747, I've got the DVD) and they were subsidized by none other than uncle Sam.
Flying is a privilege!
 
M27
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:25 am

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:17 am

You know CRPilot, if the A400m fails as a military transport, you want hear one objection from me if Airbus wants to turn it into an Airliner!
 
CRPilot
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:37 am

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:24 am

Boeing is an outstanding company, with the capacity to develop great aircraft just like Airbus. And if it takes the hand of uncle Sam to give them a boost, I won't complain either. My point is that one way or the other this has been going on for decades, and it just bothers me that people use this as the escape goat for Boeing's struggles.
Flying is a privilege!
 
M27
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:25 am

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:30 am

It is the cause of Boeing's trouble, so lets see that hand from Uncle Sam. I'm glad that you won't complain! Maybe no one else will either!!!!
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:57 am

This has nothing to do with subsidies and everything to do with persuading the US Congress to shovel out heaps of money for Boeing so it can send even more of its jobs to Japan and Asia.

Do you remember the tremendous political uproar over the US gov't loan guarantees to Lockheed in the early 70s, and to Chrysler in the 80s? I really don't believe Boeing can expect that kind of bailout, especially since it is not facing imminent bankruptcy.


 
irishjohn
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:30 pm

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 11:03 am


Maybe the arguments, both sides, would be better served if there were more fact and less fiction!!

Airbus has had 'hand outs' and for the most part these have been with the agreement (or understanding ) of the US Government - Boeing! They are easily identified, recorded and are repayable!!

Boeing has also had 'hand outs' and these to have been with the agreement of the EU or it's previous incarnation!! BUT these hand outs are not easily identified - that is for the most part they are off balance sheet or are indirect sales subsidies! And they are not repayable!!

So perhaps the questions should be:

1. Why was their agreement between the parties to begin with? Might this not have been considered a form of price fixing?

2. Was it because Europe had no real military aviation industry and the US Government was recognising it's role in civil projects - via it's military purchasing power?

3. Why change now? Well obviously military spending is in some decline in the US, there is now a military aviation industry in Europe and just maybe Airbus is building 'salable' aircraft? Perhaps Boeing never considered that Airbus could achieve what it has achieved since it's set-up?

4. Perhaps Airbus has taken advantage of the rules? And perhaps it continues to receive 'unfair' hand outs? But it does develop 'new' state of the art product and not knock down versions of military projects! Airbus is still the only producer to recognise the power of compatibility - fly A320 today, A330 tomorrow and A340 on Friday!!!!


I think both Boeing and Airbus have a case to answer and I do believe that an unbiased review should take place. But since there is currently no world organisation, that I am aware of, that is unbiased I doubt this review is possible. I also believe that any judgement from the WTO will be flawed!

Finally I suppose we should ask what would happen if the 'hand outs' disappear - would we be able to afford the tickets if the airlines were to pay full price for the aircraft!! Probably not!!!

J
 
CRPilot
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:37 am

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 11:36 am

As I said before...this is not news folks!!! This practices have been going on for decades. Irishjohn brings good observations to the table. One thing to consider as well is that most things in our great industry are cyclical. I believe through all the smoke this issue has created Airbus will continue to do well, and Boeing will survive and quite possibly occupy the lead again in the future....too many variables to tell at this point.

I give my support to both companies, as they both, through competition and good spirit will continue to improve the best invention of all times....the airplane!
Flying is a privilege!
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 11:46 am

It's time Airbus learned how to fly on its own wings.

Period.

Are they afraid Airbus can't make it without it? What are they soooo scared of? Are the poor little boys in France afraid they have to take on big bad Boeing without a full fledged handout?

Sure Boeing gets a tax breaks or something like that; but that is a very, very different reality from the CASH hand outs given to Greyhound Bus with wings over in France.

Lets take your own tax return for example. Now if you were given a tax credit of $1,000 here in the US, by the time it all figures in (depending on your earnings, etc) you might see a real cash difference of $250 in your favor. That a whole bunch different than getting $1000 cash handed over to you in your hand and NEVER having to pay it back.

Boeing could launch new models or varients all day long with that kind of cash subsidies to help them along.

Level the playing field: I say to President Bush, give the same rules to Boeing as France gives to Airbus and let's see what happens!

As a matter of fact, lets see you do that with Toyota, Honda, GM, Ford, Cessna, Piper, Bell, Canadair, Embraer, Lockheed, Northrup, etc, etc , etc.
One Nation Under God
 
CRPilot
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:37 am

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 11:57 am

You're going to find it very hard to adjust to the future of commerce if you don't open your eyes Dayflyer. Perhaps you still see our industry in the lights of the 80's.
Flying is a privilege!
 
regupilot
Posts: 454
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 11:45 pm

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:00 pm

Maybe this comes better here:

I am not very instructed on the subject, and its the reason why I post here ( to find out) but, why is Boeing scared of all this? I mean, they had been by far the leader of the market, right? They killed McDonnell Douglass (they replaced MD's products with Boeings with exception of MD95), Lockheed is no longer around. Same for Fokker, which I think the 737 as well as most RJ's were key to Fokker death.. Boeing is or was happy with the 777 and I have read in magazines... I think I have the mag.... couldn't find it... but anyways.. Boeing is not happy with Airbus, mostly because its a competitor and because they want to be the king of the market. I understand the subdises thing, but why Boeing was so happy when Airbus started with the A300? I mean, now they want Airbus to feel sorry for them?
First was Vickers, then Lockheed, then McDonnel Douglas, then Fokker and well... maybe its Boeing's time. Not to dissapear, but to get in second place, while they find out a better thing to do. At least they still have some loyal customers, like ANA, Delta and Continental.

So please, explain. I might be wrong.
Thanks!
-Daurys
 
GdJet16
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:52 am

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:08 pm

Irishjohn...
When was the last time Boeing offered a "knocked down" version of a military aircraft as a commercial jet liner? The 707 is the only Boeing commercial product I know of that was based on a military aircraft, and even the 707 was significantly different then the KC-135.
 
CRPilot
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:37 am

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:11 pm

Wrong...The 747 was designed as a military transport, but when MD got the contract, Boeing turn it into the great bird it is today.
Flying is a privilege!
 
GdJet16
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:52 am

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:15 pm

I thought that the military transport proposal your speaking of was the C5, built by Lockheed....
But in any case, the 747 was not based on a military aircraft already in production. That was the point I was trying to make
 
CRPilot
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:37 am

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:16 pm

My mistake, you're right it was the C5. I've got a DVD on the subject, it's pretty interesting, but indeed it was designed originaly as a transport.
Flying is a privilege!
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:45 pm

4. Perhaps Airbus has taken advantage of the rules? And perhaps it continues to receive 'unfair' hand outs? But it does develop 'new' state of the art product and not knock down versions of military projects! Airbus is still the only producer to recognise the power of compatibility - fly A320 today, A330 tomorrow and A340 on Friday!!!!

Is this truly the case? The 757 and 767 had quite a bit of compatiblity. The things is that Boeing introduced most of its current aircraft models except the 777 and 737NG before Airbus introduced the aircraft you mentioned. Aircraft technology changed quite a bit between the introduction of 757/767 and the 777. The A320 appeared more or less in the middle of that timeframe. It seems that Airbus simply took advantage of subsidies to introduce a burst of new aircraft models in a relatively short period of time making use of the latest aircraft technologies, including fly-by-wire and other new cockpit technology. Perhaps if Airbus had to finance their products with more of their own cashflow from operations, they would have fewer models out and the claims regard compatibility would be weaker.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:50 pm

Is this truly the case?

Yes, Airbus Mixed Fleet Flying and Cross Crew Qualification allow easy transfer between fleet type.

Austrian's A330/340 pilots fly a certain number of A320 hours per month.

N
 
flybyguy
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 12:52 pm

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 1:07 pm

Perhaps everyone is forgetting one important thing in this matter... JOBS. Not that they are being sling-shot overseas, but that they remain opened to our respective citizens.

If you cut Airbus subsidies, inevitably Airbus will downsize... meaning less Europeans at work. I doubt the EU will bend to our demands as much as we would bend to theirs.

The United States is a sovereign nation and so is the EU (in a conglomerated sort of way). We must do what is best for OUR respective regions. If that means a hefty tariff on Airbus aircraft in the US, and heavy tariffs in Boeing jets in the EU, then so be it. That is the way the US car companies dealt with imports from Japan.
"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
 
irishjohn
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:30 pm

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 1:28 pm

Have to be up early to keep up with you lot!!!!!!

Dayflyer

Have not yet worked out yet if you are anti Airbus or anti France/French!!!!! (aren't you guys over that yet????) For the record Airbus is not French but European. It may have the vast majority of its operations in France but there are plants in the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Luxembourg!!

Or maybe just anti competition!

The fact remains that until an independent review of Airbus and Boeing takes place only the senior guys in those organisations (and of course the related authorities) know the true picture on grants/subsidies, etc. You choose to pick your arguments carefully but selecting specific items - which is fine but only so long as you are comparing like with like! And sorry you are not!! When you are willing to look at the whole picture then I think it's possible to have a meaningful dialog!!

ATMX2000

Okay but not sure I follow the logic!! Airbus produced aircraft that airlines were interested in purchasing! That you can use a pool of pilots, cabin staff and spares for these aircraft is what makes Airbus the winner - whether it be a A320, A330 or A340! There are such easy examples of where it works - less standby crew costs, less training costs, less spares costs! It is a win win situation. I have no doubt that Airbus caught Boeing off guard and I also have no doubt that Boeing will come back fighting! But that takes time and money too!!

GDJET16

Thanks and maybe I was not very clear in my wording! Perhaps I should have said that almost every Boring model started out as a possible design for the Military! And those designs and all associated costs were covered by the US Government! I stand corrected!!!!!

I am not a Boeing basher - I have traveled many thousands of hours, happily and safely, on Boeing product!! I am a fan of Airbus but do also recognise it's faults. In the end I believe that the giant of the industry, Boeing, became complacent, almost arrogant and began to believe it's own bullshit!! Airbus came along with some new and very untested products, was seriously innovative and has scared the crap out of Boeing! And as we all know from American football the best defense is an offence - so instead of checking that your own house is in order why not complain about the other guy's house!!!

Oldest ploy in the book!!!

Ya'll have a good day/night!

J




 
irishjohn
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:30 pm

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 1:33 pm

FLYBYGUY

Many thanks for that!! Didn't want hurt to anyone's feelings by stating the obvious!! Which is why i asked DAYFLYER to consider the whole picture and not selected frames. In the end Governments will do what ever necessary to support their programmes and, as can be seen from recent events, what ever it takes to stay in control

J
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 1:49 pm

Perhaps I should have trimmed more. I was taking issue with:

Airbus is still the only producer to recognise the power of compatibility

I'm arguing that the Airbus isn't the only one who recognized compatibility has advantages. The only reason why they have a high degree of compatibility is that their current best selling models were all relative latecomers that appeared in a relatively short time frame after a major advances in cockpit technology had taken place. Would it have made sense to make the A320 compatible with the A300 and A310 cockpits? Would it have made sense to make the 777 compatible with the decade older 757 and 767 cockpits, and ignore all of the modern cockpit technology? Clearly Boeing understood keeping cockpits similar was advantageous, but the actual timing of aircraft introduction has made maintaining commonality more problematic and less advantageous. Later versions of Boeing aircraft like the 737NG and 764 have more in common with the 777 cockpits, despite significant differences in the underlying aircraft technology. A high degree of compatiblity with the 777 cockpit should be expected with future Boeing aircraft.


Just as a follow up to IrishJohn's last comment, it's not so much that Airbus took Boeing by surprise, as it is that Airbus had the advantage of releasing a new generation of aircraft five years later and taking advantage of around five years of advancements in avionics. They had not invested money in an older technology and did not have to recoup that investment. Given how long it takes to recoup investment in an aircraft and make a good profit, you can't expect Boeing to respond suddenly to what Airbus did, especially since they have to maintain commonality for their current customers.

[Edited 2004-11-09 06:01:16]

[Edited 2004-11-09 06:02:56]
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
irishjohn
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:30 pm

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 2:07 pm

ATMX2000

I can't disagree with what you say! I think I was pointing out that Airbus came up with the idea of compatibility and not Boeing! Airbus could easily have gone down the road of individual, stand alone models but they did not! Boeing could also have gone a similar route with it's NG ranges but it did not!

If I remember correctly Boeing was highly sceptical of 'fly-by-wire', even suggesting that it was too innovative and therefore could be a safety issue! I can certainly go into archives and dig up the article!!

It should also be noted that a lot of the modern cockpit technology is a direct result of Airbus pushing out the boundaries! I take your point on the A300 and the A310 but as they were the first production models maybe Airbus needed to prove it could make aircraft first and then be innovative!! Look at it another way - if Airbus can sell it's aircraft more cost effectively maybe part of the reason is also it's cost savings in design commonality??

I'm sure that Boeing will go down this road - it does not have a choice. Airlines are cutting costs where ever possible and this is an area for improvement! And I am not a believer in the idea that it is not possible to teach old dogs new tricks!!!! No doubt the 7E7 will prove this!!!!!!

Thanks for the realistic views and opinions!

J
 
trex8
Posts: 4662
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: NY Times:End Airbus Subsidies

Tue Nov 09, 2004 2:31 pm

Dayflyer

A tax credit is free money in the bank, it is also totally different from a tax deduction (reduce your taxable income, not the actual taxes owed) which is what I think you are referring to. Besides, would you rather the IRS gave you $1000 off your tax bill (a credit) or guaranteed your ability to get a low cost loan of $1000 you have to pay back (what Airbus gets out of the 90s agreement with the US)? I think it was in AWST that someone pointed out that even if the loans Airbus had gotten were all at a commercial rate (which in fact something like a 1/4 of the 33% development aid they are allowed is at 1% above any government interest rate), this would add something like one or two hundred thousand dollars to the price of each Airbus product. Hardly enough to swing any deal for an airline.

Airbus has paid back all its loans as none of its programs to date which have been around any period have been anything except commercially successful eg they told the various Euro govts they would need to make 600 A320s to break even, they have sold 2000. Had they sold less than 600 planes, then yes , they would have been off the hook for paying back the development aid. But it hasn't happened to date and quite likely is not going too for any ongoing new program. As it is, the UK treasury has even made a US$1billion in royalties out of the A320 program beyond the repayment of any loans made to BAe. A pretty darn good investment if you ask any economist.

Its time for Washington to wake up and realize that if its good enough to subsidize farmers, they darn well ought to do it for a high tech industry as well!

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos