NYC777
Topic Author
Posts: 5066
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:51 am

That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
 
kappel
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:48 pm

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:56 am

Launch aid is a prohibited, market-distorting subsidy that is unique to Airbus. Launch aid is above and beyond the other forms of government support Airbus already receives -- tax relief, government-sponsored R&D, and government-paid infrastructure projects. A permanent and complete end to launch aid is necessary to ensure free and fair competition in the large commercial airplane market.

Why am I not surprised that they would say that, since that is exactly the aid they are getting.  yawn 
Boring and predictable PR.
L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
 
NYC777
Topic Author
Posts: 5066
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:59 am

And what launch aid is Boeing getting from the US Govt? Please cite specific examples since it seems you have the data.
That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
 
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:02 am

How about the subsidies for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries from Japanese government?? Mitsubishi will make 787s wings...
POLAND IS UNDER DICTATORSHIP. PLEASE SUPPORT COMMITTEE FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY, K.O.D.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13361
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:03 am

Hmm, about time to change the record. No?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:06 am

>> Why am I not surprised that they would say that, since that is exactly the aid they are getting.

Boeing has not recieved any launch aide for any product in their modern history, starting with the 707.

The "support" Boeing has recieved has mostly been in the form of tax relief, whether by the State of Washington or exemption from federal export taxes. The WTO is still ruling on this issue, but this is far from "exactly the aid [Airbus] are getting." The U.S. has never financed the launch of a Boeing commercial product. Period.

In many cases, Airbus also recieve this sort of tax relief both in Europe and their facilities in the United States and North America.

>> How about the subsidies for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries from Japanese government?? Mitsubishi will make 787s wings...

(1) Mitsubishi HI is a Boeing supplier. As a risk sharing partner, the responsibility for funding relies on the contractor, not Boeing.

(2) Japan was not a signator to the bi-lateral treaty between the United States and the EU. This issue is also being debated in ongoing WTO negotiations.

[Edited 2005-10-07 00:08:25]
 
antiuser
Posts: 646
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:43 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:06 am

Uh, didn't EADS just announce that it would not seek launch aid for the A350?
Azzurri Campioni del Mondo!
 
HBIHLtoEZE
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:50 pm

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:13 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 5):
Boeing has not recieved any launch aide for any product in their modern history, starting with the 707

First of all, I am neutral, not willing to stir up A vs B.


...ok, their civil aircraft production was "clean", but Boeing's big money makers were military contracts from the US government - I am aware that it is not direct aid but comes close to it.

Cheers

[Edited 2005-10-07 00:14:24]
Our battered suitcases were piled on the sidewalk again; we had longer ways to go. But no matter, the road is life.
 
kappel
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:48 pm

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:13 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 5):
The "support" Boeing has recieved has mostly been in the form of tax relief, whether by the State of Washington or exemption from federal export taxes. The WTO is still ruling on this issue, but this is far from "exactly the aid [Airbus] are getting." The U.S. has never financed the launch of a Boeing commercial product. Period.

I'm talking about "tax relief, government-sponsored R&D, and government-paid infrastructure projects". Are you telling me Boeing does not receive those? I seem to recall a certain very recent WTO ruling concerning import taxes...
L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Posts: 1355
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:14 am

Quoting Kappel (Reply 1):
Why am I not surprised that they would say that, since that is exactly the aid they are getting.

Okay I'll explain why they feel this way.

Quoting Kappel (Reply 1):
tax relief

Absolute fact. Boeing just had their Export Tax relief yanked by the WTO, with no reciprocal duties placed on the EU.

Quoting Kappel (Reply 1):
government-sponsored R&D

Want to mention NASA? Okay, not only does Boeing benefit, but so does Lockheed, BAE, and EADS, through their American subsidiaries... Oh and did I mention the European Space Agency?

Quoting Kappel (Reply 1):
government-paid infrastructure projects.

Okay let's ask Germany, France and Britain how they get all those huge A380 sub-assemblies around... You know, the ones that the French literally tore up a village to fit a fuselage piece into? Okay Washington state, all those roads in Peugeot Sound, remove them immediately!

Come on guys, can we forgo the cross pond bashing, eliminate all the subsidies, on both sides and compete on a level playing field?

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 5):
Boeing has not recieved any launch aide for any product in their modern history, starting with the 707.

Absolutely true... Boeing bet nearly 80% of it's OWN assets on this aircraft. The figure was higher in the case of the 747. No... REPEAT NO government aid of any type was involved in the development of the 7XX, until recently the 787. And even in the case of the 787, even by the EU's own admission, it is INDIRECT aid by the Japanese government to their own industries. There is no direct U.S. government financing for the 787.

[Edited 2005-10-07 00:23:21]
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
 
cloudyapple
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:01 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:16 am

Research sponsored by NASA? Boeing didnt even need to pay to use those results. What abou the billions and billions pumped into the ailing airlines? Are they not unjust, unfair, anticompetitive and above all illegal?
A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
 
kappel
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:48 pm

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:25 am

quote=USAF336TFS,reply=9]Come on guys, can we forgo the cross pond bashing, eliminate all the subsidies, on both sides and compete on a level playing field?[/quote]

I never said Airbus has clean hands, don't put words into my mouth!!   Perhaps I should have been clearer on that in my first post.

I was merely stating that Boeing PR makes it seem as if they are the clean ones receiving nothing at all from their government, wich they do and you admit. Of course Airbus is receiving those things as well, and it SHOULD stop, on both sides. So on that we completely agree!! Don't worry, I'm not an A fan or B fan, I like both. Heck my fave plane to fly in is the 747 (short haul for me is the a320 all the way, but generaly I still prefer the 747).

[Edited 2005-10-07 00:26:22]
L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Posts: 1355
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:26 am

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 10):
Research sponsored by NASA? Boeing didnt even need to pay to use those results. What abou the billions and billions pumped into the ailing airlines? Are they not unjust, unfair, anticompetitive and above all illegal?

Neither did any of the other companies and organizations I mentioned. And your point is?

Quoting Kappel (Reply 11):
I was merely stating that Boeing PR makes it seem as if they are the clean ones receiving nothing at all from their government, wich they do and you admit.

I don't think I admitted anything of the sort. Nor do I think Boeing is admitting anything, but I'm not going to speak for them. Only my own observations of the issue.

Quoting Kappel (Reply 11):
. Of course Airbus is receiving those things as well, and it SHOULD stop, on both sides. So on that we completely agree!!

And we do agree on that!  highfive


[Edited 2005-10-07 00:36:55]
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
 
User avatar
Richard28
Posts: 1622
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 5:42 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:26 am

So ope

Quoting Antiuser (Reply 6):
Uh, didn't EADS just announce that it would not seek launch aid for the A350?

Airbus is holding back aid, until the decission from the WTO is made.

It said it is making this concession as a "new window of opportunity" with rival Boeing to resolve the dispute.

Boeing seems to have responded by slamming the window of opportunity window shut in Airbus's face without any commitment to reciprocate!

Strange, even harsh response by Boeing here IMHO....
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:28 am

For those of you asking what aid Boeing gets, Ok, lets see.


1. State of Washinton House Bill 2294 - $3billion to $3.7billion in total tax breaks, expiring on July 1 2024. This bill, while technically open to all manufacturers, was worded specifically with the 787 in mind, and the close date for applications was made very tightly behind that of close of talks between Boeing and Washington State officials. No other manufacturer could have tabled an investment plan to be elegible for this tax break.

2. State of Kansas providing a $200million loan over 20 years for nosecone production.

3. State of Kansas providing a $500million bond for production work.

4. Japan giving $1.58billion to Boeing suppliers, allowing preferential rates and startup costs.

5. Oklahoma offering $350million in interest free loans for location of production facilities.

6. Italy providing $590million in loans for location of 787 parts production.

7. Boeing requiring the various states with 787 production facilities to finance the conversion of several 747 freighters at an estimated cost of $300million to $500million.

Airbus is getting loan from the EU, Boeing is also getting financial help, and to claim otherwise is pure and utter bull. Change the record.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:30 am

>> Are you telling me Boeing does not receive those?

Re-read what I wrote and re-read the press release. The specific quote by Boeing was that Airbus actions go "above and beyond" the actions listed.

I also specifically addressed the issues of taxes, but to reiterate:

>> tax relief

I specifically that mentioned Boeing does recieve certain tax exemptions to varying degree. Some of these are completly legitimit, local government taxes, for example. Others like the federal export tax have been determined illegal and are pending revision.

The fact of the matter is that Airbus recieves very simmilar tax exemptions in both the U.S. and Europe.

>> I seem to recall a certain very recent WTO ruling concerning import taxes...

Yes, I mentioned it  Wink

>> government-sponsored R&D

(1) Shifts in NASA priorities, federal appropriations, and considerations after the 1992 Bi-lateral treaty has dried up "free" R&D money. The U.S. (via NASA and DARPA) are hesitant to sponsor programs that can lead to commercial products.

(2) Such contracts are lucrative to varying degree. The last NASA-Boeing joint venture in the 1990s was terminated by Boeing because it was obvious the research was of little commercial value.

(3) Airbus, other manufactures, and other laboratories can often have access to research published by NASA. The supercritical wing, fly-by-wire, and high-bypass turbofans (to say nothing of materials) were all pioneered by NASA research in the 1970s. Airbus can attribute much of their design philosophy to U.S. research, just as Boeing would.

>> ...ok, their civil aircraft production was "clean", but Boeing's big money makers were military contracts from the US government - I am aware that it is not direct aide but comes close to it.

Defense contracts are indeed a grey area. Heck... most of this issue is a grey area.
 
CruzinAltitude
Posts: 408
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 5:02 pm

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:31 am

Ok, I need a little clarification from those better informed than I.

Here is my understanding, from an ignorant persons perspective (and by ignorant I mean that I am not aware of all the details and freely admit that); Boeing has stated that the launch aid provided to Airbus gives Airbus an unfair advantage in the market place.

This seems logical, considering that Boeing does not receive government launch aid.

However, Airbus has stated that Boeing does receive government aid, in the form of tax relief and military contracts, effectively leveling the playing field.

That too, is logical.

The points that I need clarification on are. . .

1) Does Airbus also receive tax relief from the several countries in the EU that it is connected to?

2) Does Airbus (EADS) also receive military contracts for those countries also?

If the answer to both questions are no, then as an American with faith in Capitalism, I feel Boeing should quite whining and focus on producing great aircraft.

If the answer to both questions are yes, the Boeing has a legitimate point, and should keep fighting it.

As I said, I am ignorant about the full situation. Could someone RESPECTFULLY and INTELLIGENTLY (maybe even someone with some sources) clarify this for me? I would really appreciate it.
 
aeropiggot
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 6:43 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:32 am

Quote:
Cloudyapple: Research sponsored by NASA? Boeing didnt even need to pay to use those results. What abou the billions and billions pumped into the ailing airlines? Are they not unjust, unfair, anticompetitive and above all illegal?

Come on Cloudyapple I had more respect for you than indicated by your comments above. You know that both Boeing and Airbus benefit from propping up the airlines, look at the order for over 20 A350s from US Air. Airbus benefit from the research done at NASA, how much of that research is now flying around in Airbus airplanes. Launch aid is this really weird concept invented by the Europeans to give Airbus an unfair competitive advantage, pure and simple.
A scientist discovers that which exists, an engineer creates that which never was.
 
Slarty
Posts: 302
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 5:23 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:40 am

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 9):
Come on guys, can we forgo the cross pond bashing, eliminate all the subsidies, on both sides and compete on a level playing field?

I have often wondered if the opposite should occur -- specifically, where there are no limits on loans/subsidies/grants/etc. Eventually, the economics of this would be sorted out on both sides of the pond.

 stirthepot 
 
akelley728
Posts: 1965
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 1999 12:35 pm

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:41 am

Quoting HBIHLtoEZE (Reply 7):
...ok, their civil aircraft production was "clean", but Boeing's big money makers were military contracts from the US government - I am aware that it is not direct aid but comes close to it.

And EADS/Airbus doesn't get military contracts for miscellanous hardware from various European governments?
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1258
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:41 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 15):
(3) Airbus, other manufactures, and other laboratories can often have access to research published by NASA. The supercritical wing, fly-by-wire, and high-bypass turbofans (to say nothing of materials) were all pioneered by NASA research in the 1970s. Airbus can attribute much of their design philosophy to U.S. research, just as Boeing would.

Absolutely true. NASA research on supercritical wings and winglets, for example, became public domain -- and Airbus was the first to implement both on the A300.

--B2707SST
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:43 am

>> What abou the billions and billions pumped into the ailing airlines? Are they not unjust, unfair, anticompetitive and above all illegal?


The post-9/11 "loan guarantee" for airlines are a totally, totally unrelated issue! This isn't even on the horizon regarding the ongoing WTO negotiations.

To clarify this issue and remove it from being confused with the WTO launch subsidy issue, let me make these comments:

(1) When commercial flights resumed days after 9/11, load factors on U.S. domestic flights were in the teens. It took months for passengers to return.

(2) Had the loan grantee not been offered, several airlines were at risk of immediately losing short-term cash flow. All airlines are finely tuned financial machines, and removing a month of revenue would cripple any airline. These loans were not (and have not been) given to help fundamentally flawed airlines limp along.

(3) The loans were given to maintain U.S. domestic service, not give all carriers a leg-up on international competition. It didn't affect international carriers or give U.S. airlines any advantage over international competitors. It kept airlines solvent long enough to recover.

(4) Had the loan guarantee not been offered, the risk was a collapse of domestic air service in certain markets. This would be a huge blow to the economy which depends on transportation for business to take place.

You can see the importance in the loan guarantee and how it differentiates from an airline "subsidy" or hand-out. The American people are universally infuriated over corporate hand-outs.

Just this week, a fishing and game agency in the State of Alaska used $500,000 to paint an advertisement on an Alaskan Airlines 737-400, and it received national news attention.
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4303
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:43 am

The launch aids might be a relict from the 70s when Europe was struggling to compete with the US aerospace industry. But don't forget that Boeing got a lot of money due to its military contracts. Everybody knows about the "Buy American" doctrine. The KC767 deal is just one example. I do not say that this is illegal or that I don't understand it, I also want the German army to buy German equipment. But when you consider how much money the US are spending on military goods compared to, how much european countries are spending, you will see very fast that these military contracts ARE a indirect subsidy.

You might argue that these contracts also help other companies. Also NASA research helps other companies like Lockheed. This is true. But they don't help Airbus or the EADS. And the whole ESA budget and the European military budget is much lower than the US military budget. Therefore, cutting the state loans can be discussed, but only if this does not give Boeing an unfair advantage.

Believe me, the EU will not cut subsidies if they will not get a fair deal with the US. So I do think we will get an agreement, but this will not completely remove the launch aids.

Unlike other people here on A.net, I do think that subsidies CAN be a good thing. Subsidies reduce the risks, and this can lead to more "radical" approaches being taken. Don't forget, if the launch aids weren't paid back at all, the governments would really be pissed off, because they need the money again. So it would be unlikely that the governments would continue to give out launch aids again if the project is likely to be unsuccessful. So launch aids can lead to more innovative products...

Michael
 
aeropiggot
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 6:43 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:57 am

Quote:
Thesunntag: Also NASA research helps other companies like Lockheed. This is true. But they don't help Airbus or the EADS.

This statement by The sunntag is hogwash!! Airbus/EADS does benefit from NASA research, and without such research their might have been no A300, and no Airbus. How much of the product of NASA research efforts we will see in the A350? We all know that Airbus plans to piggy back on the research effort gone into the 787 to design the A350. And if the tables were turn, Boeing would probably do the same. Also the American tax payers fund a lot of the research at Von-Karman institute through NATO research programs, I am sure EADS also benefits from this...so cool it with the NASA research only helping Boeing crap!
A scientist discovers that which exists, an engineer creates that which never was.
 
User avatar
Richard28
Posts: 1622
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 5:42 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:32 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 14):

1. State of Washinton House Bill 2294 - $3billion to $3.7billion in total tax breaks, expiring on July 1 2024. This bill, while technically open to all manufacturers, was worded specifically with the 787 in mind, and the close date for applications was made very tightly behind that of close of talks between Boeing and Washington State officials. No other manufacturer could have tabled an investment plan to be elegible for this tax break.

2. State of Kansas providing a $200million loan over 20 years for nosecone production.

3. State of Kansas providing a $500million bond for production work.

4. Japan giving $1.58billion to Boeing suppliers, allowing preferential rates and startup costs.

5. Oklahoma offering $350million in interest free loans for location of production facilities.

6. Italy providing $590million in loans for location of 787 parts production.

7. Boeing requiring the various states with 787 production facilities to finance the conversion of several 747 freighters at an estimated cost of $300million to $500million.

Airbus is getting loan from the EU, Boeing is also getting financial help, and to claim otherwise is pure and utter bull. Change the record.

Interesting post, with all the hype I dont recall ever seeing some harsh numbers and facts on Boeings subsidys.

could I ask for your sources on this info?
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1258
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:39 am

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 22):
The launch aids might be a relict from the 70s when Europe was struggling to compete with the US aerospace industry. But don't forget that Boeing got a lot of money due to its military contracts. Everybody knows about the "Buy American" doctrine. The KC767 deal is just one example. I do not say that this is illegal or that I don't understand it, I also want the German army to buy German equipment. But when you consider how much money the US are spending on military goods compared to, how much european countries are spending, you will see very fast that these military contracts ARE a indirect subsidy.

How is this different from saying the US is a much larger air travel market than Europe, and therefore the US aviation industry "indirectly subsidizes" Boeing? The government can and does purchase non-US defense equipment, just as US airlines can and do buy Airbus planes.

Additionally, selling a product to the government is fundamentally different from accepting a subsidy from the government. The former involves incurring R&D expenditures and production costs, and often the margin for a defense contract is locked at some "cost plus 10%" or similar figure. At worst, subsidies are free money. In Airbus' case, they amount to below-market-rate financing and a substantial reduction in project risk due to repayability provisions.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 22):
But they don't help Airbus or the EADS.

Not correct (see replies 15 and 20). A great deal of NASA research becomes available to anyone who wants it. If not, European companies can still partner with US firms, as they often do, to access it.

--B2707SST
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Posts: 1355
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:58 am

Quoting CruzinAltitude (Reply 16):
) Does Airbus also receive tax relief from the several countries in the EU that it is connected to?

2) Does Airbus (EADS) also receive military contracts for those countries also?

If the answer to both questions are no, then as an American with faith in Capitalism, I feel Boeing should quite whining and focus on producing great aircraft.

If the answer to both questions are yes, the Boeing has a legitimate point, and should keep fighting it.

Excellent points Cruzin. And the answer to both your questions is 'yes'. You have very eloquently presented the American side of the argument before the WTO.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 22):
But they don't help Airbus or the EADS.

Oh contra-ire, my friend. Airbus DID NOT develop fly by wire... NASA did. Super critical wing? Another NASA development used by Airbus, without any commissions paid by any of the European governments that set up what we know as Airbus today.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 22):
And the whole ESA budget and the European military budget is much lower than the US military budget

One could argue that because NASA shared technologies with both of these agencies, it took pressure off their own budgets, ie the European taxpayers, who benefit directly from these same technologies, while the American taxpayer foots the bulk of the development costs.
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18186
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:08 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 21):
(2) Had the loan grantee not been offered, several airlines were at risk of immediately losing short-term cash flow. All airlines are finely tuned financial machines, and removing a month of revenue would cripple any airline. These loans were not (and have not been) given to help fundamentally flawed airlines limp along.

Um - if things were so dire, then why did so few of the majors, the legacy carriers, apply?

cheers

mariner

[Edited 2005-10-07 02:10:33]
aeternum nauta
 
Byrdluvs747
Posts: 2375
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:25 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:32 am

How are military contracts considered subsidies? Boeing has to bid on these contracts first. They aren't just handed to Boeing. Lockheed, and other companies bid as well.
The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:40 am

Quoting Antiuser (Reply 6):
Uh, didn't EADS just announce that it would not seek launch aid for the A350?

EADS announced that it would forego the launch aid - for now. It left the door open for getting them later on in the program.

Quoting HBIHLtoEZE (Reply 7):
but Boeing's big money makers were military contracts from the US government

And what is the point of this comment that is bantied about incessantly by people? Everyone acts like these government contracts were free for the taking and all Boeing had to do was to ask for them. Fact is, Boeing had to COMPETE for these contracts; and in the 60's, 70's, and 80's it had to compete against a lot of other companies (e.g., Grumman, Corsair, Vought, Douglas, Martin-Marrietta, Lockheed, etc.). Nothing was guaranteed. Given today's environment, the U.S. government is opening up competition to foreign entities so even EADS may eventually get a piece of the American pie. But it's going to have to compete for it, just like Boeing (and others) did.

I'd like to also remind people that there were other commercial airplane manufacturers in the U.S. that would get lucrative government contracts and that are no longer in the commercial airplane business. Anyone remember Lockheed's commercial airplanes? Just because someone gets government contracts doesn't mean they are assured of success.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 22):
But when you consider how much money the US are spending on military goods compared to, how much european countries are spending, you will see very fast that these military contracts ARE a indirect subsidy.

First of all, that is kind of a skewed view. For half a century, the U.S. spent over a TRILLION dollars to protect the non-communist world (whatever your political leanings, it did pay to defend much of the rest of the world). We could just as easily say Europe and others benefitted from not having to spend so much on defense and instead poured their money into developing other industries - like Airbus.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 27):
Um - if things were so dire, then why did so few of the majors, the legacy carriers, apply?

A few did - US, HP, and UA come to mind. As for the others, I'd say their attitude - or that of their stockholders - was we'd rather die than let the government dictate to us how we should spend our money. Which is exactly what would have happened had they accepted the loan guarantees. Don't believe me? Why do you think UA's application was turned down? Their request did not comport sufficiently with the government's criteria (in other words, their business plan - which would determine how they would pay back the loans - was found lacking).
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
MidnightMike
Posts: 2810
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:07 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:47 am

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 3):
How about the subsidies for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries from Japanese government?? Mitsubishi will make 787s wings...

The deal with Japanese is a shared investment in technology, that is a lot different that Mitsubishi writing a check & getting nothing in return.
NO URLS in signature
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 2453
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 10:09 am

tax relief, government-sponsored R&D, and government-paid infrastructure projects

So Boeing is saying this sort of thing is OK - because that's what they receive.
I guess I see their point in that if Aibus and they both get these breaks then the playing field is still level, but they are on thin ice at best. They pretty much went and had states beg for the 787 plant only to give it whomever was most willing to sell their state's taxpayers down the river. You think that $3 billion worth of tax breaks Washington gave them doesn't have to get made up elsewhere in the budget? Who foots the bill?
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18186
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 10:17 am

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 29):
Why do you think UA's application was turned down?

Because in the case of the first application, the figures they presented were overly optimistic. Which - after the appiication was turned down - they admitted.

The second application was turned down, in part, because CEO Tilton told the press that United didn't actually need the loan guarantee - that the capital market was available to them.

The point remains that four of the major US airlines, Delta, Northwest, Continental and American, did not apply and all those airlines survived.

cheers

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
MidnightMike
Posts: 2810
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:07 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 10:23 am

Quoting ER757 (Reply 31):
tax relief, government-sponsored R&D, and government-paid infrastructure projects

So Boeing is saying this sort of thing is OK - because that's what they receive.
I guess I see their point in that if Aibus and they both get these breaks then the playing field is still level, but they are on thin ice at best. They pretty much went and had states beg for the 787 plant only to give it whomever was most willing to sell their state's taxpayers down the river. You think that $3 billion worth of tax breaks Washington gave them doesn't have to get made up elsewhere in the budget? Who foots the bill?

Tax-breaks are available to all companies that operate on US Soil.

Government Sponsored R&D & Projects are only available with military projects & the reason for that is that the Military will tell vendor how the want the aircraft to look, handle, & perform. For that it cost additional monies to supply what the military wants, even the MMA program, which is a 737NG, the military wanted numerous changes to the baseline aircraft.

Also 3 Billion in tax breaks, nets the state or states, over 10 billion in jobs, and trickle down jobs.
NO URLS in signature
 
trex8
Posts: 4605
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 10:38 am

[quote=USAF336TFS,reply=9]Absolute fact. Boeing just had their Export Tax relief yanked by the WTO, with no reciprocal duties placed on the EU.[/quote}

Why should there be reciprocal duties?? that WTO ruling said US tax breaks were illegal, not that any EU ones were - though that wasn't the issue at hand. If the US thinks the EU , or anyone else are getting tax breaks which are illegal under WTO regulations they too can bring a case there and if they win they can slap tariffs on the other nation!! And the problem presently is that the tax breaks haven't been yanked completely, Congress despite the administration telling them the US is in non compliance and already slapped with punitive tariffs on IIRC several hundred million $ of US goods exported to the EU have still not rewritten the law to get rid of these taxbreaks forthwith as the US said it would which allows the EU to slap even more tariffs against even more US products.

If people are upset about these "illegal" Airbus subsidies , go to the RR Trent 1700 on the A350 thread where I have posted excerpts from the UK parliamentary record showing RR got something like 450 milliion sterling launch aid for the Trent while Airbus got 530 for the A380!!
Boeing should stop their main engine supplier for the 777 and 787 program from taking similar illegal subsidies which they feel aren't appropriate for Airbus and help out fellow American companies. But since GE and Pratt obviously don't mind as they haven't made a fuss about it, Boeing's true colors come through as they only gives a rats ass about its bottom line and not the industry as a whole, while at the same time they are shipping jobs to Asia or anywhere else where they pay less than the US worker!



I wonder if Dassault and IBM France get "illegal" subsidies from Paris too. maybe Boeing want to find another CAD system to design their planes on!



[Edited 2005-10-07 03:41:31]

[Edited 2005-10-07 03:42:54]

[Edited 2005-10-07 03:43:31]
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 2453
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 10:55 am

Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 33):
Also 3 Billion in tax breaks, nets the state or states, over 10 billion in jobs, and trickle down jobs

I'd sure like to see something that backs up that claim with some cold hard facts. $3 billion would have paid a whole lot of unemployment checks to a whole lot of Beoing workers for a long, long time if 787 would have gone to Texas or Kansas.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13762
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:20 am

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 10):
What abou the billions and billions pumped into the ailing airlines? Are they not unjust, unfair, anticompetitive and above all illegal?



Quoting Mariner (Reply 32):
The point remains that four of the major US airlines, Delta, Northwest, Continental and American, did not apply and all those airlines survived.

First, it demonstrates how proud publicly owned companies are not to take direct handouts. Bethune even made a point of saying that those who were seeking aid were doing this out of a position of weakness that did not begin with 9/11, but was only made critical by it, and CO did not want to be seen as weak.

That few airlines took the offer proves their strength, but since then, the long term effects of aircraft order freezes and grounded aircraft has led to financial trouble for the vast number of them. And, because we are the largest market and many of our largest carriers use Boeing aircraft more than Airbus, it hurt Boeing anyway, as their order book shrank and Airbus passed them, and then claimed it was due to other things besides 9/11...

But beyond that, are you suggesting that a nation that is attacked should do absolutely nothing to keep it's vital infrastructure functioning in the short term and instead allow it to collapse? Isn't that what those who attacked us wanted? It was clearly stated in their Bojinka plans of 1995. They thought it would bring worldwide air travel to a halt.

And considering that NW, US, AA, and UA operate Airbus aircraft, and all of the above operate Canadian or Brazilian aircraft, it is pointless to call such aid a subsidy that somehow benefits only Boeing. It didn't in fact, benefit any supplier of US aircraft, since despite the offer of this aid, outside of startup B6 and it's 100 A320s coming online, airlines barely took deliveries and placed few orders for anything, especially large Boeing aircraft.

Just silly arguments from people in denial, honestly.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18186
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:45 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 36):


Quoting Mariner (Reply 32):The point remains that four of the major US airlines, Delta, Northwest, Continental and American, did not apply and all those airlines survived.
First, it demonstrates how proud publicly owned companies are not to take direct handouts. Bethune even made a point of saying that those who were seeking aid were doing this out of a position of weakness that did not begin with 9/11, but was only made critical by it, and CO did not want to be seen as weak.

Since you quoted me, I assume your question is directed to me. In which case - where do I even begin to suggest that?

DFW made a case of the dire airline circumstances post 9/11, and I asked a question as to why - therefore - four of the majors did not apply for the aid that was available.

Especially given what has happened to two of those majors since.

 confused 

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 12:21 pm

Yeah, that NASA stuff shows up on every plane B rolls out of Everet.  Yeah sure
One Nation Under God
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 12:37 pm

>> Um - if things were so dire, then why did so few of the majors, the legacy carriers, apply?

Got me, Mariner, but if I had to guess, it went something like this:

The despair of the airline industry in the week after 9/11 could not be overstated. I remember WN doing a solidarity thing where they promised to fly certain routes regardless of load factors. As I recall, the first DAL-HOU flight to resume flew with a flightcrew and two passengers. It was that bad. No one was going near a plane.

With every rental car from California to Conneticut taken, I think many airlines weren't expecting passengers to return for some time. Worse, if passengers didn't regain confidence by the holiday travel seasons, they would really be in dire straights.

I suspect that the loan garuntee was designed so that airlines didn't have to assume the worst and immediatly shed personel, aircraft, etc. They could remain confident that if nothing improved, they would have some sort of emergency financing. Domestic air service would be subject to fewer disruptions just because airlines didn't have to speculate (as much) about their survival.

As the UA case shows, the loans were not blind hand-outs. It couldn't be used to one-up a competitor. I suppose it is like going to the beach. You will remain more confident in your swimming if there is a lifegaurd on stand, and less likely to panic and induce drowning just because you swollow some water.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 1:26 pm

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 20):
Absolutely true. NASA research on supercritical wings and winglets, for example, became public domain -- and Airbus was the first to implement both on the A300.

Of course, Airbus uses NASA research and complains that Boeing can do so. Unlike NASA, European publicly funded aerospace research is not made available outside Europe.
 
JeffSFO
Posts: 806
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:55 pm

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 2:59 pm

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 22):
Also NASA research helps other companies like Lockheed. This is true. But they don't help Airbus or the EADS.

As noted by others, your statement is patently false:

http://www.invent.org/hall_of_fame/1_3_0_induction_supercrit.asp

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0240.shtml
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 3:33 pm

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 22):
The launch aids might be a relict from the 70s when Europe was struggling to compete with the US aerospace industry. But don't forget that Boeing got a lot of money due to its military contracts.

And let's not forget that military spending necessary to ensure that the US could meet its defense obligations to its allies, including its European allies. The US had to provide a credible transport and tankering capability to support the movement of military equipment and personnel to potential combat and invasion zones. Without those expenditures, there would be significantly less ability to bring additional resources to counter a Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion of western Europe. Those expenditures reduced the resources that European countries had to commit to defence and were effectively a huge subsidy/aid package for Europe that allowed Europe to redirect resources to other endeavors like subsidizing Airbus and other industry.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 22):
But when you consider how much money the US are spending on military goods compared to, how much european countries are spending, you will see very fast that these military contracts ARE a indirect subsidy.

Many of Boeing's projects have little to do with aviation much less commercial aviation. And that doesn't change the fact that military contracts are an extremely inefficient way of subsidizing commercial aviation. Boeing's one time US commercial competitors all had much larger military businesses than Boeing, but lost in the commercial market.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 22):
Don't forget, if the launch aids weren't paid back at all, the governments would really be pissed off, because they need the money again. So it would be unlikely that the governments would continue to give out launch aids again if the project is likely to be unsuccessful.

Uh, uh, sure. Politics would prevent any such accounting.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
Aither
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 3:42 pm

What's incredible in today's world is nobody seems to care anymore to publicly lie or tell bullshit. This is really amazing.

Shame on Boeing to bullshit people, shame on Airbus for not fighting that enough.
Never trust the obvious
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:16 pm

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 10):
What abou the billions and billions pumped into the ailing airlines? Are they not unjust, unfair, anticompetitive and above all illegal

What the hell does that have to do with Boeing?
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
keesje
Posts: 8747
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:17 pm

Quoting Richard28 (Reply 24):
Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 14):

1. State of Washinton House Bill 2294 - $3billion to $3.7billion in total tax breaks, expiring on July 1 2024. This bill, while technically open to all manufacturers, was worded specifically with the 787 in mind, and the close date for applications was made very tightly behind that of close of talks between Boeing and Washington State officials. No other manufacturer could have tabled an investment plan to be elegible for this tax break.

2. State of Kansas providing a $200million loan over 20 years for nosecone production.

3. State of Kansas providing a $500million bond for production work.

4. Japan giving $1.58billion to Boeing suppliers, allowing preferential rates and startup costs.

5. Oklahoma offering $350million in interest free loans for location of production facilities.

6. Italy providing $590million in loans for location of 787 parts production.

7. Boeing requiring the various states with 787 production facilities to finance the conversion of several 747 freighters at an estimated cost of $300million to $500million.

Airbus is getting loan from the EU, Boeing is also getting financial help, and to claim otherwise is pure and utter bull. Change the record.

Interesting post, with all the hype I dont recall ever seeing some harsh numbers and facts on Boeings subsidys.

could I ask for your sources on this info?

  

I gave up after many tries. There is no way the usual folks here are willing to discuss these subisidies. They just don't fit in the picture. Just ignoring seems the tactic.

The source for above info:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/reports/7e7Subsidies.pdf

About no subsidies the since the 707: didn't the DoD order 650+ KC135's for delivery in the 1959-1965 period that launched Boeing into the jet age?

Ignoring the deep / strong links between Boeing & the governement is unreal. People were fired / went to jail for it recently. Other cases are in the court.


US Government subsidies

US Government subsidies, mostly in the form of military and NASA contracts, research and development expenditure and tax subsidies have enabled the US aerospace industry to maintain its global dominance for more than 50 years.

- Unlike European launch investment, none of this support has to be repaid – and in fact is not repaid.

- Since 1992, Boeing has received around $23 billon in subsidies from the US Government.

- The total US Government indirect support of the US LCA industry in FY 2003 alone was up to $2.74 billion. This represents around 11.9% of the FY 2003 commercial turnover of the US LCA industry.

- Since 1990, Boeing has outsourced increasingly large shares of its civil aircraft programmes to other countries, e.g., Japan (more than 60% of the 7E7). The governments of these countries subsidize these shares, such that Boeing’s programs also receive substantial foreign subsidies.

- Since 1990 Boeing has avoided paying around more than $1.65 billion in federal taxes through the use of off-shore Foreign Sales Corporations (FSC). This is a direct (and illegal) government subsidy prohibited by international rules.

The real issue is one of competitiveness: from 2001 to 2003, Boeing has invested only $2.8 billion of its own funds in commercial aircraft R&D and capital expenditure compared to $9.4 billion by Airbus. Lack of R&D and capital investment has meant that Boeing has apart from the 787 not launched any new programs since 1990.

US subsidies in the form of Defence Procurement

There are massive benefits accruing to Boeing’s large civil aircraft business from military R&D programmes and overpriced DoD contracts, e.g., sales of subsequently converted civil airplanes to the US Department of Defense at inflated prices. Recent examples include:

- On 14 June 2004, the US Navy awarded Boeing a contract worth potentially about $44 billion until 2030 for the production and maintenance of 108 civil B-737 and their conversion into long-range submarine hunter Multi-Mission Aircraft. It appears that airplanes will be built at Boeing’s civil plants in Wichita, Kansas, and Renton, Washington.

US subsidies in the form of R&D expenditure

Boeing’s large civil aircraft business benefits significantly from NASA and DoD R&D programmes. In 2003 alone, Boeing received $2.74 billion in subsidies, including around $2 billion from the US Department of Defense and more than $600 million from NASA.

The largest part of funds spent by the government in R&D for a specifically aeronautical product constitutes a reduction in R&D expenses for the main potential user of the technology, i.e., Boeing. This is the case even if the R&D is eventually not successful.

Subsidies to the planned Boeing 7E7: over $ 5 billion

Planned subsidies for Boeing’s 7E7 programme from Washington State ($3.2 billion), Kansas ($0.5 billion), Oklahoma ($0.35 billion). Washington State 7E7 subsidies alone are about as high as European launch investment for A380. The only difference is that A380 launch investment is paid back and is compatible with the 1992, while Washington support is not. In addition, Washington 7E7 production subsidies are illegal under the 1992 Agreement. To this must be added the planned 7E7 subsidies of around $1.6 billion from Japan.


Some more info on the European Government support for EADS.



European Government Support

European governments provide repayable launch investment – not grants – to Airbus at the time of program launch. European government investments support the European technology research & development sector, just as US Government R&D schemes have sought to do, through NASA, FAA [US Federal Aviation Administration], Department of Defense (DoD) and export tax relief programs. However, EU governments spend 3 times less on aerospace R&D than the US Government.

All European government loans for Airbus programs have been made entirely within the letter and the spirit of the 1992 US-EU Agreement on Trade in Large Civil Aircraft since its entry into force, and this will continue to be the case for all future Airbus programs. The US have not disputed this fact.

- Of the 8 Airbus aircraft launched since 1990, only 3 programs have been launched with government investment.

- Airbus pays royalties to governments over the entire life of the aircraft programs. Interest and principal is repaid on deliveries, even before the programs break even and irrespective of the sale price.

[Edited 2005-10-07 09:40:37]
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:20 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 45):
I gave up after many tries. There is no way the usual folks here are willing to discuss these subisidies. They just don't fit in the picture. Just ignoring seems the tactic.

A tactic you employ yourself far too many times around here Keesje. Lets stop with the hypocracy shall we?
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13361
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:33 pm

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 42):
Those expenditures reduced the resources that European countries had to commit to defence and were effectively a huge subsidy/aid package for Europe that allowed Europe to redirect resources to other endeavors like subsidizing Airbus and other industry.

And none of this was in America's interests? Would have been quite handy to have a war fought in Europe again rather than on American soil.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:28 pm

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 47):
And none of this was in America's interests? Would have been quite handy to have a war fought in Europe again rather than on American soil.

Sure it was, but the military contracts that Boeing and other US defence contracts received were in Europe's interest as well. Without US expenditures, Europe would either succumb to Soviet pressure or dedicate a far, far larger percentage of GDP from their recovering economies to defense, delaying economic progress. More problematic would be having to deal with West Germany and its defense. Either they would have to pay more for its defense or allow them to rearm to the point where they were once again a threat to European nations.

But let's acknowledge that the likelihood of an invasion by the Soviets was always low given the likelihood of a massive nuclear strike and the inherent difficulties in launching an invasion of the mainland US. They were far more likely to pick off nonnuclear nations in Europe, like Germany. But if they were to do that, one could see a scenario much further down the road where potentially the rest of the world succombs to totalitarian communism and then plots to invade/nuke the US, thinking that they could take out the US before the US could take them all out.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
jush
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:10 am

RE: Boeing Statement On Launch Aid For Airbus A350

Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:30 pm

Quoting Kappel (Reply 1):
aunch aid is a prohibited, market-distorting subsidy that is unique to Airbus. Launch aid is above and beyond the other forms of government support Airbus already receives -- tax relief, government-sponsored R&D, and government-paid infrastructure projects. A permanent and complete end to launch aid is necessary to ensure free and fair competition in the large commercial airplane market.

Why am I not surprised that they would say that, since that is exactly the aid they are getting.
Boring and predictable PR.

So does Boeing in another sort of way. So what. I don't care at all. You can't say Boeing isn't protected and supported by the US gov.

Regards
jush
There is one problem with airbus. Though their products are engineering marvels they lack passion, completely.

Who is online