"The deal is dead ?
Since when ?
The U.S. announced (I believe in Oct.) that they are voiding the 1992 GATT agreement. According to the articles agreed to by both parties, this means that 12 months from this announcement (Oct. 2005), the agreement is dead.
"Just one question - under the deal, Airbus could apply for 33% loans for development of new planes. The US now says the deal is dead, so what is to stop the EU giving Airbus a 100% loan for developing the A350?
Three words- World Trade Organization
. Remember that the 1992 GATT agreement was a private pact between the U.S. and the E.U. This pact allowed
subsidies, limited to 33%. According to several rulings by the WTO since then, their position is clear: any significant subsidies (10%+) are illegal (one particular case, IIRC in 1995, is the most similar to the present argument). However, Airbus continued to receive launch aid (for example the A380), nor did the U.S. challenge this, as the 1992 deal legalized this aid.
Something to note: the U.S. is not challenging any aid Airbus has already received, only that they can no longer receive more.
"That tax break that Boeing may receive--any company can receive it. The state of Washington does not care. If Airbus want to build something in Washington state, they are free to do so and can ask for a tax break. Boeing cannot go to Brussels and ask for launch aid though.
Are you sure ?
Yes, he's sure. In fact, the state of Washington has quietly been talking to Bombardier about assembling the new C-Series here. I don't believe it will happen, but if they (or anyone else) chose to, then they would be allowed to receive the same tax breaks. In addition, BMW, Mercedes and Honda have all received nice incentives to build assembly plants in the U.S., which again shows that U.S. tax breaks are not limited to U.S. companies
"Boeing is subsidized, period. Just like Airbus.
Boeing gets government money/support in three major forms. 1) tax breaks 2) military expenditures 3) advanced R&D (i.e., NASA).
1) Already discussed above. From what I understand from my British friends, both BAe Systems and EADS also get certain tax breaks for being major employers in their certain areas of operation. I don't know the details, so someone please elaborate.
2) The biggest comlaint from Europe, seemingly. Boeing competes for certain (and numerous
) military contracts. This competition is often paid for by the government with certain caps. Any expenditure beyond that cap is paid for by the individual companies (Boeing, Lockheed, Northrup, etc.). Should Boeing win a contract, the government then buys whatever product the competition was for, similar to an airline buying a commercial plane. The biggest complaint from both Europe and American taxpayers is that the government is overpaying Boeing and others for military projects. Unfortunately, it is also hard to prove, as military items don't really have a 'commercial' value, now do they?
EADS & BAe Systems receive these same type of contracts from European governments, as well whatever foreign buyers they can find. The Eurofighter, Rafael, A400M, etc. are all good examples, and are funded in the same manner as the C-17, F/A-18E/F, F/A-22, V-22, etc. In fact, EADS receives more income from their European military contracts than Boeing's military division does from the U.S. government.
3) Probably the most open to criticism, as some of this government funded R&D can eventually find its way throughout the company. Again, a similar arangement can be found in Europe with the ESA and various European manufacturers.
So going back to your point, yes, Boeing receives government support, but not "Just like Airbus." The sticking point is that BAe Systems and EADS receive the same types of government support as Boeing does, but then Airbus receives launch aid in addition
to the other forms of government aid to its parent companies.
Sorry for the long reply,
Honor the warriors, not the war.