Joni
Topic Author
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:04 pm

I came across an article that discusses Boeing's approach to launching the 787, it's longish but fairly interesting reading.

"These data indicate that a substantial portion (46 percent) of the estimated $13.4 billion in launch funding consists of actionable/prohibited subsidies under both the 1994 WTO-SCM Agreements and the 1992 US-EU Agreement on Trade in Large Civil Aircraft."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4127/is_200404/ai_n9388414
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:34 pm

The link is interesting and does point out that Boeing is now using the same types of strategies that Airbus has used for 40 years with subsidies of one kind of another. Either let them both do it or drop them altogether.
One Nation Under God
 
User avatar
sebolino
Posts: 3506
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:54 pm

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 1):
The link is interesting and does point out that Boeing is now using the same types of strategies that Airbus has used for 40 years with subsidies of one kind of another.

Wrong.
Airbus is using what the agreement allows it to.
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:05 pm

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 2):
Airbus is using what the agreement allows it to.

While this is true for the current spat, which is up to 33% of total development costs, Airbus did receive aid before this. THe 1992 agreement was designed to limit this and allow for Airbus to continue to grow without being unfair to Boeing, and aid to Boeing was also limited at the time.

Its interesting that a third party has commented on the subsidies of the 787 now, I knew they were receiving aid from Japan but this sheds a new light.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9078
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:13 pm

No news here.

Boeing took the decision to go this way and selected a "best defense is attack" strategy, combined with a massive PR media / Lobby campaign to convince everybody they were wearing the white hats & the playing field had to be leveled.

It worked (in the US)

The WTO is more objective however.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:32 pm

I give this thread 3 more posts before it explodes into a pissing match.....

Thanks for sharing though Joni, always good to hear both sides of the story. Both sides think they have clean hands or try to distort facts to make it look like they have clean hands, when in reality both sides are guilty. The only people who are going to benefit from this WTO case are the lawyers. Let's hope this case never makes it to the WTO.
 
co7772wuh
Posts: 381
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:13 am

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 12:12 am

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 2):
Airbus is using what the agreement allows it to.

 confused 

AB has enjoyed a constant feed of Tax payer money since the beginning of AB . Anabling AB to cut throat the commercial a/c market to gain market share while ehe US spent cah billions $$$ protecting Europe from the REDS .

If it weren't for the US there would be " NO " AB .

Has AB ever made a Profit from the birth of AB to now ????


Is AB in the RED or BLACK ?
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 12:13 am

Quoting Co7772wuh (Reply 6):

If it weren't for the US there would be " NO " AB .

Ahh there we go, the post that makes all further discussion on this thread absolutely pointless.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9078
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 12:26 am

Quoting Co7772wuh (Reply 6):
Has AB ever made a Profit from the birth of AB to now ????

You missed the news lately..

The signature says it all  Sad
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 12:36 am

Well that didn't take very long for this to start degrading

Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
The signature says it all

In all fairness, that is a quote from a TV show called "Family Guy."
 
Toulouse
Posts: 2194
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 4:30 pm

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 1:13 am

Quoting Co7772wuh (Reply 6):


AB has enjoyed a constant feed of Tax payer money since the beginning of AB . Anabling AB to cut throat the commercial a/c market to gain market share while ehe US spent cah billions $$$ protecting Europe from the REDS .

If it weren't for the US there would be " NO " AB .

Has AB ever made a Profit from the birth of AB to now ????


Is AB in the RED or BLACK ?

Oh wow, I soooo wish I hadn't decided to read this thread. Anyway, I think this user's respect rating says it all, along with that "sad" signature...
Long live Aer Lingus!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14485
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practice

Wed Jun 29, 2005 1:35 am

Quoting NorCal (Reply 9):
In all fairness, that is a quote from a TV show called "Family Guy."

I believe the quote is from John Belushi's character in National Lampoon's "Animal House" from the late 1970s.

As for the article in the thread starter, it is indeed interesting how Boeing has morphed over the years. I remember in the mid 90's that Boeing was saying Airbus couldn't compete with Boeing on price because Boeing did almost all their manufacturing in-house. Then reality hit, and Boeing took a good look at how and why they could not compete with Airbus on price. They found that the "systems integrator" model really drove costs down by forcing the suppliers to fund their own development and then compete with each other on price. This has really shook up some traditional relationships. For instance, the B787 has landing gear made in the EU, whereas the A380 has landing gear made in the US. And of course the other benefit is these suppliers can perhaps take advantage of some non-US government policies on aid whereas Boeing itself could not.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
co7772wuh
Posts: 381
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:13 am

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 1:39 am

Quoting Co7772wuh (Reply 6):
Has AB ever made a Profit from the birth of AB to now ????


Is AB in the RED or BLACK ?

Can anyone answer this legitimate question ???

 eyebrow 

Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
The signature says it all



Quoting NorCal (Reply 9):
In all fairness, that is a quote from a TV show called "Family Guy."

Actually , it's a quote from a John Belushi film , Animal House !

 drunk 

http://www.animalhouse.com/john-belushi-animal-house.html
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:03 am

Quoting Co7772wuh (Reply 12):
Actually , it's a quote from a John Belushi film , Animal House !

They must have copied it then because I could have sworn I heard it in a Family Guy episode. Either that or I have my comedy mixed up
 
Toulouse
Posts: 2194
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 4:30 pm

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:48 am

Quoting Co7772wuh (Reply 12):
Has AB ever made a Profit from the birth of AB to now ????


Is AB in the RED or BLACK ?

Can anyone answer this legitimate question ???

According to your own Fox News a little earlier this year, Aibus had Net profits of $ 425 million for 2004.
Long live Aer Lingus!
 
co7772wuh
Posts: 381
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:13 am

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:03 am

Quoting Toulouse (Reply 14):
According to your own Fox News a little earlier this year, Aibus had Net profits of $ 425 million for 2004.

Hay ! Thanks for watching the FOX NEWS Channel !  cheerful 

However , the point I was making was : Concidering all the subsidies and launch Aid AB has recieved over the years " decades " .

Has AB made more then it has taken in , in launch aid and subsidies ???

It just appears that with the high taxes many European countries pay and the fact that "for example" AB are giving certain a/c away "A380" , that the citizens of Europe are Financing AB or a portion of it giving it an advantage over Boeing .

A luxury that the US doesn't seem to have .

John Mc Cain  scratchchin 

Quoting NorCal (Reply 13):
Either that or I have my comedy mixed up

That's what happens when you spent too much time at Delta House !!!!


 drunk 
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Posts: 1357
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:06 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 4):
It worked (in the US)

The WTO is more objective however.

I agree with you, Keesje. And The EU also must agree with you because they seem to be sweating bullets in Brussels. The U.S. has a strong case and both sides know it.
That said, they should negoitiate another agreement that takes into account today's realities that both Airbus and Boeing are strong, mature companies with excellent products coming from both.
Some of the conculsions and facts in that article were just plain wrong. For example, it failed to mention the fact that 40% of the A380 is made in the United States. According to Boeings website, 75% of the 787's airframe with be U.S. content.
Okay, okay, I know someone will argue this tidbit with me, but I'm quoting Boeing's website.
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:11 am

Quoting Co7772wuh (Reply 15):
Has AB made more then it has taken in , in launch aid and subsidies ???

Let me just pipe in and say that the vast majority of that aid has either been repaid or is in the process of being repaid. The launch aid for the A320 has been fully repaid, with royalty payments being made to the British, French and German governments for the next 10 years. Because of these royalty payments, Airbus will have repaid twice the amount if received through launch aid for the A320.

THe A300/A310 launch aid is dependant on the production lines being open, and repayment probably wont begin on the launchaid for those aircraft until 2010.

The A330 launch aid has been repaid to the tune of 50%, with a similiar figure for the A340.

Anything before the 1992 agreement is fair game, because Boeing also received billions in aid during that period as well (guess who funded the SST - wasnt Boeing).
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Posts: 1357
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:18 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 17):
nything before the 1992 agreement is fair game, because Boeing also received billions in aid during that period as well (guess who funded the SST - wasnt Boeing).

Richard, good point except for one tiny little thing.... As you know the SST program was cancelled and not one aircraft was ever built.
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1258
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:38 am

Our research indicates that the launch costs for the 7e7 will be approximately $13.4 billion dollars. This can be bench-marked against Boeing's reported 777-development cost of $6-7 billion that dates back to the early 1990s (compared to industry analyst estimates of somewhere between $8-12 billion). A recent comparison would be with the Airbus A380 with a reported launch cost of $10-12 billion, which in some estimates could be under by $3-5 billion. The 7e7 launch costs will be every bit as much as the A380 aircraft, though a smaller aircraft in size. Boeing is asking its partners to design and build two different sized aircraft. This will drive the cost of different sized engines, landing gears, airframe structure, facility space, tooling and additional machine tools to accommodate the launch of the 7e7.

This is absurd. There is no way that the 787 will cost anywhere near $13 billion. Best estimates from other, more reputable sources are consistently in the $5-6 billion range. Boeing got burned on the 777 and Board members have stated that they are not eager to repeat the experience. It was mentioned several times that the Commercial Airplane Group had to make a solid case that costs would be kept under control before the Board granted launch approval.

How did the authors of this piece come up with such a high number? They think the 787-3 and the 787-8 are so different that they should be counted as two separate aircraft because "one has to question the commonality of components, structure and engine technologies to service two aircraft versions that have an over 45% weight difference."

Apparently they've never seen specs for the 777-200A (545,000 lb. MTOW) versus the 777-300ER (775,000 lb. MTOW), a 42% difference. The total cost for the -200LR and -300ER derivatives was estimated at $1-2 billion, of which a large proportion was incurred uprating the GE90. Had the Longer Range 777s been designed at the same time as the original family members, the -200A and -200ER, the costs almost certainly would have been lower still.

Given the limited market for the 787-3 -- Japan, European holiday/charter carriers, and maybe one or two US legacy carriers -- Boeing would absolutely not be pursuing it if it adds billions and billions to the cost of the program. I'd guess an extra $1 billion at the extreme outside, with the actual cost estimate probably much lower than that.

In any case, there is absolutely no historical precedent for double-counting the cost of the entire 787 program because the -3 happens to have a shorter wing (chop off a few outer panels and fit a different winglet), lower fuel capacity (delete tanks and associated structural reinforcing), lower thrust engines (software derate, anyone?), lower MTOW, etc. These are not earth-shattering changes, and there is no conceivable way they will push the cost up to $13+ billion.

--B2707SST
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:42 am

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 18):
Richard, good point except for one tiny little thing.... As you know the SST program was cancelled and not one aircraft was ever built.

You do realise that Boeing spent 4 years on the project, and ate up nearly $1billion in funding?

Or are you trying to say that because it never flew, we can forget about that aid?
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:44 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 17):
The A330 launch aid has been repaid to the tune of 50%, with a similiar figure for the A340.

Lemme see, the 330/340 was launched in 1987. After 18 years, only 50% was repaid? And the European governments are ready to inject more money into its successor, the 350! Great investment! NOT!!!!!!!!
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1258
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:49 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 20):
You do realise that Boeing spent 4 years on the project, and ate up nearly $1billion in funding?

Or are you trying to say that because it never flew, we can forget about that aid?

Unlike the Concorde program, which provided BAe and Aerospatiale with immense experience on international collaboration that was crucial to the formation of Airbus, Boeing took very little away from the 2707 program; the amount of technology transferred from the SST to subsonic programs was minimal. Very late in the project, Boeing did some initial research into CRT cockpit displays that later went into the 757/767, but that was about it.

High-temperature titanium/vanadium alloys, variable-sweep wings, zero-bypass turbojets, convergent-divergent inlet systems, and sonic boom abatement have limited utility on subsonic airliners. If anything, the SST turned out to be an enormous distraction for both Boeing and BAe/Aerospatiale. Money aside, the amount of time and talent that was essentially wasted on a dead end cannot be measured.

--B2707SST
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:03 am

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 21):
Lemme see, the 330/340 was launched in 1987. After 18 years, only 50% was repaid? And the European governments are ready to inject more money into its successor, the 350! Great investment! NOT!!!!!!!!

The A330 was first delivered in December 1993, the A340 was first delivered in January 1993. Thats 12 years of revenue, not 18 years, and the A350 will not close down the A330/340 line.

50% of $5billion repaid in jsut 12 years is a damn good investment, especially as orders arent slowing down on the Airbus side.

Over all, since 1992, Airbus has repaid $6.7billion USD not including royalty payments, which amounts to roughly 60% of outstanding debts including the A380 loans of $3billion. These loans are charged interest at the government borrowing rate plus 0.25% plus royalties.
 
glacote
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 1:44 am

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:20 am

Please do not feed the troll.
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:32 am

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 2):
Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 1):
The link is interesting and does point out that Boeing is now using the same types of strategies that Airbus has used for 40 years with subsidies of one kind of another.

Wrong.
Airbus is using what the agreement allows it to.

Thanks for taking my remarks completely out of context and starting a A vs B war here.
One Nation Under God
 
co7772wuh
Posts: 381
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:13 am

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:56 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 17):
Let me just pipe in and say that the vast majority of that aid has either been repaid or is in the process of being repaid.

That's the " Constant Feed " I was refering to !!!

So , in fact AB is still in the RED and has yet to make a Profit !

They're coat throating the market at the expense of there citizens .

 scratchchin 

Later
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14485
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practice

Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:01 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 17):
Let me just pipe in and say that the vast majority of that aid has either been repaid or is in the process of being repaid.

Richard, your numbers sound reasonable, but I am wondering what the source of your information is. One complaint about Airbus aid has been that it's hard to find out what monies were paid and what monies are owed. Again, I'm not questioning the numbers because they do match with various figures I've heard mentioned before, but am wondering if you have a definitive source.

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 19):
The total cost for the -200LR and -300ER derivatives was estimated at $1-2 billion, of which a large proportion was incurred uprating the GE90.

It should be interesting to see how much it will actually cost to upgrade engines on B787. I realize the standardized pylon interface and software are designed to make it easy to upgrade, but one still has to do a lot of analysis and testing when upgrading to a more powerful engine.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:23 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 27):
Richard, your numbers sound reasonable, but I am wondering what the source of your information is. One complaint about Airbus aid has been that it's hard to find out what monies were paid and what monies are owed. Again, I'm not questioning the numbers because they do match with various figures I've heard mentioned before, but am wondering if you have a definitive source

Mostly my info comes from hours of trawling the EADS and BAe annual financial reports as entered into Companies House in the UK and various other institutions around the EU - its not hard to find this info, but it is hard to digest and actually understand, theres no definitive figure in the reports, you have to do some math to get it correlated. Airbus is not a public firm, it has two private owners, but both those owners are publically traded companies, so you can backtrack through their ownerships to get at a lot of the information in the annual reports.

Also, I know a couple of people at Airbus HQ whom I meet with occassionally, and they pass me information, I ask them questions and we chat. I wont name names because Im pretty sure they give me info Im not supposed to have and I know other Airbus employees read these forums.
 
brons2
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:27 am

Nothing new to see here, this is the same article that has been batted around this forum a few times! It's a couple of guys from the University of Buffalo.

Next topic?
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:58 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 23):
The A330 was first delivered in December 1993, the A340 was first delivered in January 1993. Thats 12 years of revenue, not 18 years, and the A350 will not close down the A330/340 line.

Then, care to explain why the British government happily announced to the world in 2001, 17 years after the 320 launch, that they had doubled their investment in the 320? The 1992 agreement, while not applicable to the 320/330/340, stipulated launch aid to be repaid 17 years after launch not 17 years after first delivery.

Quote:
50% of $5billion repaid in jsut 12 years is a damn good investment, especially as orders arent slowing down on the Airbus side.

If you haven't made money to recovery all your R&D costs 12 years after the first delivery, then it's a money-losing program. The L-1011 first entered into service in 1972. The decision to cease production was announced in 1984, 12 years after the first delivery. If Airbus is making money on the 330/340 but delaying repaying the governments, then it means Airbus will have more free money to help them to distort the market. Neither scenario bodes well for the subsidies issue.
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1680
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:04 am

What I don’t understand here is why the US Government and Boeing are pressing this thing in the WTO if any significant part of this paper is true. If Boeing is in such blatant violation of trade regulations, and as several posters have suggested, Airbus is squeaky clean, what could they possibly be thinking? It’s like a drunken guy driving to a sobriety check station on purpose. It would seem to me that one of four things is going on here.

1. Boeing and the US Government are profoundly stupid.
2. The facts as presented in this paper are wholly or at least largely untrue.
3. There is solid evidence that Airbus is anything but squeaky clean.
4. Some combination of the above that favors Boeing.
WhaleJets Rule!
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practice

Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:28 am

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 30):
Then, care to explain why the British government happily announced to the world in 2001, 17 years after the 320 launch, that they had doubled their investment in the 320?

Im pretty sure that NONE of my post was about the A320 in any form. I am completely aware that the A320 aid has been repaid, and Im pretty sure I covered that in another post.

My post does need clarifying tho.

The origional cost of the A330/340 programs were not covered under the 1992 agreements, but these aircraft were infact subsidised using loans that were repaid to the French and German goverments by 2003. The costs I quote above are the post 1992 loans for the A330-300 and A340-600 models and the 17 year deadlines for these models dont start appearing until 2010.

Its good to note here that of the 8 Airbus models launched since 1990, only 3 have had launch aid loans.

If you want an exact breakdown of how the loans are structured, here it is:

— Restriction of launch aid to 33 percent of total development cost, with 25 percent to be repaid at the cost of government borrowing and the remaining eight percent to be repaid at the cost of government borrowing plus one percent;

— A maximum reimbursement period of 17 years, and 20 percent of the repayments to be made over the first 40 percent of aircraft deliveries (and 70 percent over the first 85 percent);


And as someone else pointed out, Im jsut feeding the troll, so this will be my last reply on this subject - I apologise to everyone for biting

[Edited 2005-06-29 00:29:59]
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practice

Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:41 am

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 31):
What I don’t understand here is why the US Government and Boeing are pressing this thing in the WTO if any significant part of this paper is true. If Boeing is in such blatant violation of trade regulations, and as several posters have suggested, Airbus is squeaky clean, what could they possibly be thinking? It’s like a drunken guy driving to a sobriety check station on purpose. It would seem to me that one of four things is going on here.

Its not so much that Airbus are doing anything wrong, that the loans are fully within the 1992 agreement has never been disputed by the US trade delegation, its that the 1992 agreement is no longer competatively biased in favour of Boeing. The agreement was supposed to foster a developmental atmosphere in Airbus, and it wasnt envisaged that it would be as successful as it has, so now that Airbus has for a couple of years been the dominent manufacturer, the agreement becomes defacto anticompetative.

And I agree.

The problem is that Boeing is not squeeky clean, and it has had documented subsidies for a variety of projects that are in violation of the 1992 agreement, so the only way to get out of the hard place its put itself in is to rip the agreement up, and take the whole mess to the WTO. Boeing and the US government havent done this in a good way, theyve essentially handed to the EU a load of ammunition that can be used against the US complaint at the WTO.

If this gets pushed through the WTO what will probably end up happening is that the 1992 agreement is ruled null and void, restricting launch aid to Airbus. The EU will retaliate with evidence of Boeing subsidies which have already been shown to be illegal under WTO rules (Japanese subsidisation of the 787 parts makers, various military contracts) and the EU will be allowed to bring tariffs against US goods. Now, we already have unused tariff allocations granted to use by the WTO for various other rulings against the US in the past 24 months, so effectively we could cripple a lot of US imports into the EU.

Bah, dont you just love trade disputes.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:49 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 33):
If this gets pushed through the WTO what will probably end up happening is that the 1992 agreement is ruled null and void, restricting launch aid to Airbus. The EU will retaliate with evidence of Boeing subsidies which have already been shown to be illegal under WTO rules (Japanese subsidisation of the 787 parts makers, various military contracts) and the EU will be allowed to bring tariffs against US goods. Now, we already have unused tariff allocations granted to use by the WTO for various other rulings against the US in the past 24 months, so effectively we could cripple a lot of US imports into the EU.

Airbus and its parent companies receive military contracts. Certain European posters on this website outright and proudly say that the A400 R&D is paid completely by the government and transferable to commercial projects. Moreover, Airbus has gotten subsidies in the form of infrastructure improvement in France and Germany.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:53 am

That article points out that what's good for Boeing isn't necessarily what's good for the USA. Boeing is building proof sections of fuselage and wing, and then ensuring that its manufacturing technology is transferred to the Japanese and Italian partners, who will get government subsidies to help produce them cheaper than American partners or Boeing divisions could have done. That's detrimental to US interests, as well as to Airbus.

This could end up biting Boeing in the @$$ in the long run, as well, if those companies start competing with Boeing, either directly or as subcontractors to Airbus or Embraer. And wouldn't it be poetic justice if Onex Wichita wins contracts to build stuff for Airbus?

Per the article, 60% of Boeing's 7E7 (the article is that out of date) subsidies are in the form of a reduction in Business & Occupancy tax from Washington State. Do other states even levy that tax? It looks like Boeing blundered big time by staying in Washington. If they had chosen to assemble the 787 in Mobile, Alabama, they could have dodged the tax altogether, and benefited from cheaper labor, without it being counted as a subsidy.

And, as the article says, we should be very worried that no airline has yet committed to the 7E7.
 
brons2
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:01 am

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 35):
Per the article, 60% of Boeing's 7E7 (the article is that out of date) subsidies are in the form of a reduction in Business & Occupancy tax from Washington State. Do other states even levy that tax? It looks like Boeing blundered big time by staying in Washington. If they had chosen to assemble the 787 in Mobile, Alabama, they could have dodged the tax altogether, and benefited from cheaper labor, without it being counted as a subsidy.

Airbus does not pay these taxes for their European operations. They also get tax breaks on their North American operations, so I'm not so sure what they have to bitch about.

They will also be the beneficiary of 1 billion EUR in reasearch spending this year...
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:07 am

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 35):
And wouldn't it be poetic justice if Onex Wichita wins contracts to build stuff for Airbus?

Boeing specifically said that they hoped Onex would be able to win contracts from Airbus and other aerospace manufacturers to improve utilization of assets in Wichita.

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 35):
Per the article, 60% of Boeing's 7E7 (the article is that out of date) subsidies are in the form of a reduction in Business & Occupancy tax from Washington State.

If for some strange reason Washington State changing an already existing B&O categories tax rate that is higher than many other B&O tax rates, then I would say something is screwed up with trade rules. Of course the best long term solution is for Washington State to adopt a sensible tax system that doesn't tax the entire sales of a company, like a corporate income tax, or better yet move to a consumption tax like a VAT that doesn't tax export revenue/income at all. Actually, the US as a whole should move more towards a consumption based taxation system.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1426
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 10:11 am

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 35):
And, as the article says, we should be very worried that no airline has yet committed to the 7E7.

LOL, that says it all. Next.....  Smile
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 10:19 am

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 35):
And, as the article says, we should be very worried that no airline has yet committed to the 7E7.



Quoting Glideslope (Reply 38):
LOL, that says it all. Next.....  

Yeah, the article is from Spring 2004.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
Douglas7Seas
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:00 pm

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 1:13 pm

Ya know what gets lost in all the arguing? Both companies make cool airplanes. I thought I had become very jaded as I reached middle age. But then I find myself at the airport having a great time looking at the different aircraft and liveries. I mean it's major fun.

As I'm sitting there having a good time, do you know how much consideration I'm giving to what company gets subsidies and from who? Uh, NONE!! Don't have time for that, I'm watchin' the planes.

See ya,

John
Be different; Be nice.
 
art
Posts: 2697
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:01 pm

Quoting Co7772wuh (Reply 6):
AB has enjoyed a constant feed of Tax payer money since the beginning of AB . Anabling AB to cut throat the commercial a/c market to gain market share while ehe US spent cah billions $$$ protecting Europe from the REDS .

I agree that AB has enjoyed a constant feed of taxpayer money. IIRC in its early days, it was set up so that the accounts were more or less impenetrable (presumably with the intention of preventing the actual extent of the financial support received to be discernable).

However, it's a profitable venture now, and is repaying govt loans with interest as well as paying royalties on aircraft produced.

I note from other posts here that after 12 years of production, the A330/A340 loan is only 50% repaid. I wonder what would actually happen if the 17 year repayment deadline arrived and some of the loan was still outstanding.
 
av757
Posts: 599
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:49 am

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:30 pm

There is also that forgotten article "Airbus's Secret Past" published by the Economist on June 12 of 2003 reminding us of the not so ethical sales practices and how bribery was offered by Airbus to influence sales of airplanes.

Total silence on this matter, no rebuttal from anyone.

AV757
 
Joni
Topic Author
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practice

Wed Jun 29, 2005 10:08 pm

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 19):
This is absurd. There is no way that the 787 will cost anywhere near $13 billion. Best estimates from other, more reputable sources are consistently in the $5-6 billion range.

EADS has also estimated that Boeing has lined up over $5B in subsidies alone for the 787:

http://tinyurl.com/8nq8j

They also appear to be accusing Boeing of using those subsidies to dump the 787 on the market.

Here's a source I found (a bit spurious at that, however) stating that 787 will cost around $10B to develop

http://www.siteselection.com/issues/2004/mar/p146/

[Edited 2005-06-29 15:12:56]
 
astuteman
Posts: 6406
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:52 am

Quoting Douglas7Seas (Reply 40):
Ya know what gets lost in all the arguing? Both companies make cool airplanes. I thought I had become very jaded as I reached middle age. But then I find myself at the airport having a great time looking at the different aircraft and liveries. I mean it's major fun.

Get's my vote every time. Long may it last!
A
 
co7772wuh
Posts: 381
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:13 am

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:01 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 33):
The EU will retaliate with evidence of Boeing subsidies which have already been shown to be illegal under WTO rules (Japanese subsidisation of the 787 parts makers

These alledged subsidies Boeing gets from Japan . Are they from the Tax payers of Japan or the private sector ???

  

If they're not from the Japanese tax payers , then I feel that it's a big difference having a risk sharing partner compared to a " So called " private Company " " Partially owned by the Frence Government "AB " recieving a steady stream of CASH from the Tax payers of Europe .

Because of the subsidies coming from the European Tax payers . AB is able to recieve Nourishment "$$$money" in the form of an IV lets say "24/7 -365 days a year and not have to worry where there next meal is coming from . Where as Boeing must rely solely on surviving on profits made through sales .

That's , what I think is Boeing's Beef !!!

And the way these monies make there way to AB , appears to done in a very clandestine and complicated way . Making it more difficult to account for money coming in and going out .

AB doesn't even have there on Stock !

So it appears AB has yet to make a profit since no one has been able to prove other wise .

[Edited 2005-06-29 19:15:21]
 
Joni
Topic Author
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: Article On 787 Launch And Development Practices

Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:14 pm

Quoting Co7772wuh (Reply 45):
These alledged subsidies Boeing gets from Japan . Are they from the Tax payers of Japan or the private sector ???

They are from public funds, that means from taxpayers.

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