User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:35 am

Airbus tells MPs that it needs more taxpayers' money. Qatar Airways to make key $16bn order for A350

Airbus UK will require further funding from the Government to safeguard its survival, MPs were told today.

Iain Gray, the managing director of the aircraft maker’s UK division, told the Trade and Industry Committee that the struggling company is at a “crossroads” after announcing 1,600 job losses in the UK last month.

He said: “We indisputably need government funding in terms of technology investment ? It is fundamental that we secure investment in future technology.”


http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...ors/engineering/article1576815.ece
 
futurecaptain
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 1:54 am

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:02 am

Well then Airbus can go to a bank and get some money at interest rates that reflect their current situation. It'd be great if the taxpayers gave Airbus the finger on this. Especially now, after job cuts, I bet I can name 1600 people in the UK who dont want to give Airbus any tax money.  Wink
AirSO. ASpaceO. ASOnline. ASO.com ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO.
 
eatmybologna
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:21 am

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:06 am

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 2):
I bet I can name 1600 people in the UK who dont want to give Airbus any tax money.

But with further investment by the government, those 1600 individuals may enjoy a re-hiring.
Isn't knowledge more than just the acquisition of information? Shouldn't the acquired information be correct?
 
slider
Posts: 6805
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:10 am

Quoting Eatmybologna (Reply 3):

But with further investment by the government, those 1600 individuals may enjoy a re-hiring.

Or maybe, JUST MAYBE, if Airbus restructures and does what it needs in the context of a free market economy and not some Pan-European socialist nightmare that it's presently immersed in, then Airbus won't have to hack another 1600.

Your answer reflects your opinion on government's position in the grand scheme. Very illuminating.

[Edited 2007-03-28 19:11:36]
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:13 am

Quoting Eatmybologna (Reply 3):
But with further investment by the government, those 1600 individuals may enjoy a re-hiring.

If they want to move to Russia, sure.

Airbus is running to Dad for money again, after everyone said they were finally standing on their own two feet. And worse, they are demanding Dad fork it over, laying out a guilt trip.

Airbus, dude, you're 35 years old. It's time to leave the nest, buddy!
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
eatmybologna
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:21 am

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:17 am

Quoting Slider (Reply 5):
Your answer reflects your opinion on government's position in the grand scheme. Very illuminating.

For the purpose of "securing investment in future technology" - I feel that government intervention may be appropriate.
Isn't knowledge more than just the acquisition of information? Shouldn't the acquired information be correct?
 
Ken777
Posts: 9024
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:20 am

In terms of the UK Government making an investment in the UK company I tend to support the idea - as long as it ensures that Airbus will NOT move the work out of the UK in the future.

The investment would then be very much like US style incentives made by cities and towns to secure long term local jobs. Even little old TUL has come up with incentives in the past that supports job growth and/or stability.
 
707lvr
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:41 am

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:30 am

1600 layoffs? 1600!? That's an average week at Boeing in an off year. I don't remember them demanding government "funding/launch aid" (which I obviously don't understand either. Something Magic probably.)
 
hb88
Posts: 760
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:25 am

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:34 am

Quoting 707lvr (Reply 11):
1600 layoffs? 1600!? That's an average week at Boeing in an off year. I don't remember them demanding government "funding/launch aid" (which I obviously don't understand either. Something Magic probably.)

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds316_e.htm

Here you will find details of Boeings complaint against Airbus and elsewhere details of the alleged illegal subsidies paid to Boeing.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22948
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:36 am

"Securing investment in future technology" is what Japan and Italy did for the 787, so I hope both "Boeing Boosters" and "Airbus Aficionados" take that into account when they blast the UK for wanting to do the same for Airbus or blasting Japan and Italy for doing it for Boeing, respectively.  Wink
 
User avatar
ERJ170
Posts: 5470
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:15 am

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:42 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
Securing investment in future technology" is what Japan and Italy did for the 787

Did that go directly to Boeing, or did Japan and Italian companies use it to aid in their creation of what Boeing had designed? If that's the case, then that is a different story because the companies are actually getting the investment for their purposes..

However, if the funds Japan and Italy raised was then sent to Boeing directly, then that would be something totally different.. but from the headlines, it seems that is what Airbus is wanting.. some funds directly from the government to the company..

but, i could be wrong.
Aiming High and going far..
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22948
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:15 am

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 15):
Did that go directly to Boeing, or did Japan and Italian companies use it to aid in their creation of what Boeing had designed?

They used it to make their industries more competitive so when Boeing was searching for partners, they chose them and not others (like Russia or China).

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 15):
If that's the case, then that is a different story because the companies are actually getting the investment for their purposes...

While Airbus UK only (currently) builds wings for Airbus, Mitsubishi is only (currently) building wings for Boeing. So even if Mitsubishi is not a direct subsidiary of Boeing, only Boeing is benefiting from that investment, so I'm more inclined to say the two are more similar then dissimilar and feel if someone argues for or against one, they should also argue for or against the other.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13246
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:02 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
They used it to make their industries more competitive so when Boeing was searching for partners, they chose them and not others (like Russia or China).

I believe this is the type of indirect subsidy that is actually illegal under WTO rules, and forms part of the EU's counter to the US's case.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 15):
Did that go directly to Boeing

Not directly, but such indirect subsidies are, I believe, illegal under WTO rules. How is it indirect? Boeing benefits because the subcontractor is able to bid a lower price than if they didn't have the subsidy, thus Boeing benefits by getting its parts cheaper than they would from an unsubsidised subcontractor.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
SkepticAll
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:27 am

While some may argue that Boeing has been in the past, recipient of 'trickle-down' subsidies via the US government, I don't believe I have ever come across such blatant hands-out tactics such as those displayed by EADS, Airbus, and their respective subsidiaries. The Airbus UK spokesman decries the lack of funds for the development of composite materials for future aircraft development:

Filton needs to be transformed to handle carbon fibre composites, which will be used in Airbus’s next generation of long-haul jets, a move that Airbus would not be able to afford without Government assistance, he said.

I'm sorry, but I don't recall Boeing demanding from the US government the funding necessary to develop the composite materials used on the B787. Yes, the Airbus vs. Boeing debate is a heated one, becoming increasingly so anytime the discussion turns to what is clearly in the eyes of Boeing and it's supporters, governmental sponsorship of a company competing in what is purported to be a free and open market economy.

[Edited 2007-03-28 22:27:58]
 
lawgman
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 2:40 am

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:50 am

This does not seem to be launch aid but instead some other request for funding.

This request reminds me of the funding received by the auto industry in North America where the various states give Toyota, Honda and the not so big 3 auto manufacturers $$$ to set up auto manufacturing plants and/or refresh older ones.
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:52 am

I have to admit, I love this thread - of all the threads in which people continuously spout anything between nonsense and completely inane nonsense, this one really takes the cake.

But it's just the usual nonsense - wonderful "facts" such as Europe being socialist (sorry, we just don't believe that people are commodities over here - tough luck if you can't live with that), or that Airbus gets 'zero-interest "loans"' - an oft recited, but nonetheless still not factual, comment.

Am I glad that an Airbus official made these comments? Hardly. Am I glad that Airbus is not as profitable as it could be right now? Hardly. Am I glad that the A380 project has suffered severely from the delays, or that the A350 took several tries before it got to where it is now? Well... I guess you know the answer.

So some people in Europe have different priorities than some in the US... big surprise... so? Learn to live with it - you'll learn to enjoy your life much more than you seem to be capable of today.
Smile - it confuses people!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22948
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:29 am

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 20):
I believe this is the type of indirect subsidy that is actually illegal under WTO rules, and forms part of the EU's counter to the US's case.

Well if that is true, then Airbus UK is being a bit hypocritical by asking for essentially the same thing.  Sad
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22948
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:27 am

Boeing is never going to repay the Japanese because it's not a loan and you all (should) know that.

What Airbus UK is asking for isn't a loan, either.

Nor the money Spirit received from KS to build Boeing and Airbus parts.

Nor what China forked over to land the A320 plant.

I could go on (and on and on and on), but it would just fall on willfully deaf ears, I imagine.

It's why these whizzing matches between "Airbus Aficionados" and "Boeing Boosters" are so...useless...except to just stir the pot for the sake of stirring the pot because both sides know the other will start foaming at the mouth when they do so and folks find some cruel sport in watching the fireworks...  sigh 
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:29 am

I know that Mitsubishi, Kawasaki and Fuji Heavy Industries have provided Boeing with money, in exchange for 787 work (among other projects) but these are risk sharing partners.

Please show me where Boeing has gotten money from the Japanese government. Is Japan providing money to companies like Kawasaki? I am sure they are, but I would like some proof that Japan has invested directly in Boeing (so called 'launch aid').
 
scalebuilder
Posts: 605
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:32 pm

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:52 am

Quoting Leskova (Reply 35):
So some people in Europe have different priorities than some in the US... big surprise... so? Learn to live with it - you'll learn to enjoy your life much more than you seem to be capable of today.

This is a pretty senseless statement to make in light of this discussion. What you state could mean too much or too little -everything from Europe operating it's business world inefficently to America being too efficient in how they they run their's, and forgetting too how to enjoy life on top of it. Americans are proud of enjoying a good life due to working hard, and every day, and I think this country plays by fair rules too. Are you telling me that Europe is enjoying a vacation these days in an ever increasing competitive world? Sounds like it, and you seem to think Europeeans deserve it too, just because the way they have "ever lived". This is a stale mentality. If other parts of this world can work harder - or smarter for that matter - is there anything wrong with that? Tell me if you do.

I have lived in the US for almost 20 years. I am actually born and raised in Europe. Simply could not go back just to claim the "right" for something that I never put effort into or earned just because my social infrastructure or governmental mentality gave me the right to do so. I rather earn my keep even if I was left with nothing right here in the US.

I had a hard time making sense out of your post.

Sincerely,

Scalebuilder
Go the extra mile......and avoid the traffic!!!
 
astuteman
Posts: 6340
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:41 pm

Quoting Clickhappy (Thread starter):
He said: “We indisputably need government funding in terms of technology investment ? It is fundamental that we secure investment in future technology.”

This is where the funding arguments get a bit more interesting......
Obviously, RLI is a controversial funding vehicle, although specifically covered by bi-lateral agreement.

There's no doubt in my mind that most governments in developed countries would see the "securing of investment in future technology" as a strategic issue of national importance (commercial debates notwithstanding..)
I can't believe even the USA and it's (allegedly) "pure capitalist" model would leave the development of future strategic technologies purely in the hands of market forces.....

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
"Securing investment in future technology" is what Japan and Italy did for the 787

 checkmark  Indeed  Smile

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 15):
Did that go directly to Boeing

Insofar as the government intervention reduces the "cost" to Boeing of the parts being made, the distinction matters little in terms of market distortion. It makes 787's "cheaper"......
(I don't have a major issue with it, BTW, any more than I do with the thread starting topic..)

Quoting Stitch (Reply 44):
It's why these whizzing matches between "Airbus Aficionados" and "Boeing Boosters" are so...useless

 thumbsup 
My vote for the summary and close, Stitch...

Regards
 
SWALoveField
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:49 pm

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:28 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
Airbus, dude, you're 35 years old. It's time to leave the nest, buddy!

Perfect! You made your bed, now lay in it Airbus. When a company can find ways on its own to overcome bad times, it makes the company stronger. Get stronger Airbus!

Quoting Leskova (Reply 15):
So some people in Europe have different priorities than some in the US... big surprise... so? Learn to live with it - you'll learn to enjoy your life much more than you seem to be capable of today.

Whoa! I love the fact that Europe is different than America. How boring if they were to be exactly the same. Lets not fall into the trap that just because someone's culture is different that does not mean it is "bad."

Airbus is a great company that is experiencing a rough patch. (We can debate all day long how big a patch that is.) When they innovate and get creative in their response to their situation and find ways on THEIR OWN to get past the rough patch, they will be better for it. Good luck.

Robb
Dallas, TX
 
Toulouse
Posts: 2193
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 4:30 pm

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:13 pm

Quoting Leskova (Reply 15):
But it's just the usual nonsense - wonderful "facts" such as Europe being socialist (sorry, we just don't believe that people are commodities over here - tough luck if you can't live with that), or that Airbus gets 'zero-interest "loans"' - an oft recited, but nonetheless still not factual, comment.

So very well said. I am so SICK AND TIRED of listening to this stupid Europe=Socialism nonesense that comes from some of our American friends.

Quoting Leskova (Reply 15):
So some people in Europe have different priorities than some in the US... big surprise... so? Learn to live with it - you'll learn to enjoy your life much more than you seem to be capable of today.

Exactly, things vary from one place to another.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
Boeing is never going to repay the Japanese because it's not a loan and you all (should) know that.

What Airbus UK is asking for isn't a loan, either.

Nor the money Spirit received from KS to build Boeing and Airbus parts.

Nor what China forked over to land the A320 plant.

I could go on (and on and on and on), but it would just fall on willfully deaf ears, I imagine.

It's why these whizzing matches between "Airbus Aficionados" and "Boeing Boosters" are so...useless...except to just stir the pot for the sake of stirring the pot because both sides know the other will start foaming at the mouth when they do so and folks find some cruel sport in watching the fireworks...

Stitch, after reading your various posts on this thread, all I can say is you have gone up and up and up in my resepct of your opinions.

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 19):
This is a pretty senseless statement to make in light of this discussion.

Why is it? I don't think it is. Some of you US a.netters (albeit and thankfully a minority) when posting on anything Airbus or EU related just come our with the same old ridiculous "Europe is socialist", "Airbus gets free money", "I hope Airbus fails" comments. A. They are childish comments, B. They show just how little you know about how Europe works.

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 19):
Americans are proud of enjoying a good life due to working hard, and every day, and I think this country plays by fair rules too. Are you telling me that Europe is enjoying a vacation these days in an ever increasing competitive world? Sounds like it, and you seem to think Europeeans deserve it too, just because the way they have "ever lived"

Well great, I'm delighted that Amercans are proud of enjoying a good life due to working hard. And you know what, so are most Europeans. What do you think? We're on holidays all the time? WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE. Sure, we get good paid holidays, like in many parts of the world, would you actually say no if your company said to you "hey, we've decided to give you 4 weeks paid holidays per year"... would you refuse to take them, enjoy life and spend quality time with your family?? I am so sick and tired of this rubbish. I work my ass off and 100% European. Now granted I'm self-employed, but you know what, in France, a country so many of you over there like to criticise, there is a huge percentage of people in my situation. My wife works at Airbus... you know that company you all think that is filled with people that do nothing... sure she has a lot of holidays, but she's in the office every morning at 8 am and now leaves at around 6 pm (simply becuase we had a child), before that it was often 7pm or later...w ay more than the so called 35 hours. At certain times of the year, she works through lunch and leaves the office at 8, 9 or even 10pm... and when she's on call, well that's 24 hours. And you know what, all of the people I know in Airbus work similar long hours. My local GP starts surgery at 8.30am and ends her day about 7pm, Monday to Friday. Our crèche where we have our little boy opens it's doors at 7.30 am (so all those French parents you think don't work thanks to our socialism -and by the way we have a conservative right-wing ruling government- can get to the office on time) and they close their doors at 6:30 (so the girls there work a long day)... and guess what, us, the parents are in discussions with the people who runthe crèche to extend the timetable as we consider 6:30pm is a bit too early to close as it is a bit "limit" for parents getting back from work on time! My local bakery opens at 7am and closes at 8pm. Our local shopping centre opens at 09:30am and closes at 9.30pm.So we Europeans don't work long hours? RUBBISH!
Sure we get free health care, but we pay for that with our hard earned money through taxes... I think it's great. You know I have a friend who had an accident in the US while on holidays some years back, quite serious, some "private" ambulance arrived (I don't know much about your health system, so I'm not knocking it)... he had to pay IN ADVANCE for the ambulance to bring him to hospital, had no money on him, and had to wait about 30 minutes for some other ambulance to arrive which would take him. So if you call our system "socialist", I prefer it that way, and I'm not socialist!

Anyway, as I love statistics (not saying you can believe them), I've just spent/waisted the last hour gathering some statistics. The purpose is as a comparison, mainly between Europe/US. The reason for this is all the above rubbish been spouted by some US a.netters. My intention, to show the balance of things, NOT to say one place is better than the other, but to show we're in a fairly similar situation, and that despite you thinking we're some sort of backward Socialist area, we seem to be doing a good job. Foe the sake of this discussion, I'm only adding European countries and the US, just to simplify things... no disrespect meant to members from other parts of the world!

NOMINAL GDP: As a country, the US is No. 1. When the EU is considered as a single entity, it is actually ranked as the No. 1 in the world. Of the top 10 nations on this list, 6 are European countries.

GDP PPP: 1. Luxembourg, 2. Nowary, 3 US, 4 Ireland, 5 Iceland, 6 Denmark, 9 Austria, 10 Switzerland

Out of interest, 12.6% of the US population lives below the poverty line, worse than in the vast majority of European countrie (diidn't write down many details, but I have the UK at 17%, Ireland at 10% and France at 6.5%.

MOST ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS: 1 US, 4 Holland, 5 Finland, 6 Norway, 7 Switzerland, 8 Denmark, 9 Luxembourg, 11 Ireland, 12 UK.

LEAST ECONOMIC CORRUPTION: 1 Debmark, 2 Finland, 3 Sweden, 8 Holland, 9 Norway, 10 Switzerland... 18 US.

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX: 1 Norway, 2 Iceland, 4 Ireland, 5 Sweden, 8 US, 9 Switzerland, 10 Holland.

QUALITY OF LIFE (life expectancy, educational attainment, real income): 1 Norway, 2 Iceland, 4 Ireland, 5 Sweden, 8 US, 9 Switzerland, 10 Holland.

HOMICIDE RATE PER 100.000 INHABITANTS (these statistics really shocked me!). 36 US, 47 Switzerland, 50 FInland, 53 Scotland, 56 Northern Ireland, 58 Sweden. Wow... so Switzerland comes in with the highest ranking of western European countries!! All other western European countries are placed after Sweden, with a few eastern European countries just ahead of and behind the US 36th world ranking.

Anyway, having wasted so much time, and probably going to have my post deleted for being TOTALLY OFF topic, I'm still posted to see if any of you will just drop all these silly anti Europe discussions.
I love the US, and I love Europe. Personal preference, I'd much prefer to stay in Europe, but I would have no objection to living in the US if I got a "big" job offer... but I have no plans to move.

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 19):
This is a stale mentality. If other parts of this world can work harder - or smarter for that matter - is there anything wrong with that? Tell me if you do.

See above.

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 19):
I have lived in the US for almost 20 years. I am actually born and raised in Europe. Simply could not go back just to claim the "right" for something that I never put effort into or earned just because my social infrastructure or governmental mentality gave me the right to do so. I rather earn my keep even if I was left with nothing right here in the US.

See above. You see the US and Europe aren't "economically" that different. Funny, I know sooooo many Americans living here in Europe who often tell me they could never go back to the US. Also, I know Europeans who live in the US and love it.

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 19):
I had a hard time making sense out of your post.

I didn't.

Quoting SWALoveField (Reply 21):
Lets not fall into the trap that just because someone's culture is different that does not mean it is "bad."

Yes.

Anyway, sorry all, and modrators, I know I'm off topic, but I'm just SICK AND TIRED of this nonesence. I usually try to stay away, but this time I just couldn't help myself! Anyway, I have said nothing to offend anyone, just trying to enlighten some people to the fact that they have a fairly "clouded" view on Europe to put it nicely.
Long live Aer Lingus!
 
georgiaame
Posts: 949
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:55 am

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:27 pm

Quoting Slider (Reply 3):
what it needs in the context of a free market economy and not some Pan-European socialist nightmare

Now, now. Our beloved moderator gets very upset when we accuse the Europeans of being "socialists", and may want to censor your comment. Oh what the hell, since they are socialists, screw the "taxpayers" . It isn't like it's their money - it is the governments, to be spent by the elitists anyway they choose, and doled out to the public in small amounts as needed. ("From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is a very European concept) So if they want to make a short term loan to Airbus, that is their right. We all know that Airbus is going to repay the loan, if the plane sells more than a certain number of units, so what is the big deal?
"Trust, but verify!" An old Russian proverb, quoted often by a modern American hero
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:37 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
"Securing investment in future technology" is what Japan and Italy did for the 787, so I hope both "Boeing Boosters" and "Airbus Aficionados" take that into account when they blast the UK for wanting to do the same for Airbus or blasting Japan and Italy for doing it for Boeing, respectively.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
I could go on (and on and on and on), but it would just fall on willfully deaf ears, I imagine.



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 20):

Quoting Stitch (Reply 44):
It's why these whizzing matches between "Airbus Aficionados" and "Boeing Boosters" are so...useless

thumbsup
My vote for the summary and close, Stitch...

Beat me to it (as always) Astuteman. Excellent summary Stitch and then some great follow ups.

There IS something odd about the article in the starter. The type of assistance outlined is what the House of Commons documents state as the aims for RLI. The only difference is that Airbus UK is now owned in the UK. That makes no difference as long as manufacturing would remain in the UK. Being suspicious of journos I suspect the oddness is the work of the journo not Airbus.

I do hope Toulouse's diatribe is not lost, it should be preserved for posterity, or he should post it to non-av in a thread on comparisons of systems. Wonderfully substantiated rant.

[Edited 2007-03-29 14:38:04]
 
Toulouse
Posts: 2193
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 4:30 pm

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:42 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 24):
do hope Toulouse's diatribe is not lost, it should be preserved for posterity, or he should post it to non-av in a thread on comparisons of systems. Wonderfully substantiated rant.

Why thank you Baroque... I was coming back ashamed  embarrassed   ashamed  and going to delete but after seeing your remark I though "what the heck, sure I'll just leave it". It was a good rant though wasn't it!? Yet, after that rant I'm a bit behind on work, so I better get back to the hard slog (before I'm accused of being a lazy socialist European who doesn't work efficiently)!!
Long live Aer Lingus!
 
kalakaua
Posts: 1429
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:23 pm

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:10 pm

Umm... Last time I checked, wasn't the EU was made up of small countries? So much for touting your macroeconomics lesson.
Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.
 
Toulouse
Posts: 2193
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 4:30 pm

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:51 pm

Quoting Kalakaua (Reply 26):
Last time I checked, wasn't the EU was made up of small countries?

Sorry, but firstly could you correct your grammar so I can understand what you're saying.

Quoting Kalakaua (Reply 26):
So much for touting your macroeconomics lesson.

I'm not touting. Just providing OFFICIAL international statistics, most of them actually originating from US sources.

Thanks for your excellent input.
Long live Aer Lingus!
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Posts: 1355
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:58 pm

Quoting SWALoveField (Reply 21):
When the EU is considered as a single entity, it is actually ranked as the No. 1 in the world.

With all due respect, comparing a single national entity (United States) to the entire EU (An economic association of separate national entities) is misleading, at best. A fairer comparison would be EU versus the North American Free Trade Zone, i.e the United States, Canada and Mexico. While I do not have a command of the stats as you do, I suspect the numbers would be a bit more telling.
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
 
Toulouse
Posts: 2193
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 4:30 pm

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:11 pm

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 28):
While I do not have a command of the stats as you do, I suspect the numbers would be a bit more telling.

Don't think I have much of a command, and you are most probably right. I do agree with you. Nevertheless, this is as it's listed on the statistics I found (can't remember which ones for GDP, most where from the CIA or The World Bank), they listed it as that, European Union, United States of America, and then continued listing countries within the EU, so yes it's a bit unfair, but I suppose that is to a degree the idea of the EU. Actually let me look into what you suggested, it shouldn't be too difficult... back shortly!

Ok done it, but just referring to GDP Nominal:

In millions of US$

EU - 13.502,800
US - 12.455,825
Canada - 1.132,436
Mexico - 768,437


So as you suggested, if we add Canada and Mexico to the US, that gives 14.346,698 compared to the EU's 13.502,800 (now I don't know if that includes all EU members -as in the most recent members-.

Anyway, my point is, despite some of you claiming we are some sort of socialist backward underworking holiday-loving bunch of people here in Europe, economically speaking, the US and Europe are very similar.
Long live Aer Lingus!
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:18 pm

Quoting Toulouse (Reply 22):
Well great, I'm delighted that Amercans are proud of enjoying a good life due to working hard. And you know what, so are most Europeans. What do you think? We're on holidays all the time? WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE. Sure, we get good paid holidays, like in many parts of the world, would you actually say no if your company said to you "hey, we've decided to give you 4 weeks paid holidays per year"... would you refuse to take them, enjoy life and spend quality time with your family?? I am so sick and tired of this rubbish. I work my ass off and 100% European. Now granted I'm self-employed, but you know what, in France, a country so many of you over there like to criticise, there is a huge percentage of people in my situation. My wife works at Airbus... you know that company you all think that is filled with people that do nothing... sure she has a lot of holidays, but she's in the office every morning at 8 am and now leaves at around 6 pm (simply becuase we had a child), before that it was often 7pm or later...w ay more than the so called 35 hours. At certain times of the year, she works through lunch and leaves the office at 8, 9 or even 10pm... and when she's on call, well that's 24 hours. And you know what, all of the people I know in Airbus work similar long hours. My local GP starts surgery at 8.30am and ends her day about 7pm, Monday to Friday. Our crèche where we have our little boy opens it's doors at 7.30 am (so all those French parents you think don't work thanks to our socialism -and by the way we have a conservative right-wing ruling government- can get to the office on time) and they close their doors at 6:30 (so the girls there work a long day)... and guess what, us, the parents are in discussions with the people who runthe crèche to extend the timetable as we consider 6:30pm is a bit too early to close as it is a bit "limit" for parents getting back from work on time! My local bakery opens at 7am and closes at 8pm. Our local shopping centre opens at 09:30am and closes at 9.30pm.So we Europeans don't work long hours? RUBBISH!
Sure we get free health care, but we pay for that with our hard earned money through taxes... I think it's great. You know I have a friend who had an accident in the US while on holidays some years back, quite serious, some "private" ambulance arrived (I don't know much about your health system, so I'm not knocking it)... he had to pay IN ADVANCE for the ambulance to bring him to hospital, had no money on him, and had to wait about 30 minutes for some other ambulance to arrive which would take him. So if you call our system "socialist", I prefer it that way, and I'm not socialist!

And your point is.....what? Or are you just venting? We're a little bit tired of your frigging superiority complex over there, acting as if we're a bunch of technically adept chimpanzees too. "Oh look, Marie and Gunter! The Americans are poking a twig down a hole and pulling up ants to eat. T-t-they've discovered tools! How clever!"

Or has that not occurred to you?



 Wink  Wink  Wink  Wink
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
Toulouse
Posts: 2193
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 4:30 pm

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:28 pm

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 30):
Or are you just venting?

You got it... you might be fed up over there with "our" superiority complex, just as we are with that of some Americans... especially here on a.net.

Anyway, I just came back to this thread to say:

I posted this in reflection to some of the EUROPE+SOCIALISM+HOLIDAYS+AIRBUS+FREE FUNDING stuff being "incorrectly" said and simply vented and wanted to actually show that things aren't that different. I also wanted to say, DON'T BOTHER RESPONDING TO MY POST IN QUESTION, this is the civ-av forum and while I went totally off track (that I admit, but at least I feel I was to a certain extent indirectly provoked to do so), if you want to discuss my post, start up a thread on the NON-AV forum.

So no need commenting "to me" on my post here as I will no longer respond.

Happy posting all!
Long live Aer Lingus!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22948
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:58 pm

Folks, we are seriously drifting off-topic here and getting into language that will draw, at best, some deletions from the Moderators.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:00 am

Could someone clarify whether Airbus UK is asking for RLI or a grant in this case?
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22948
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:17 am

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 33):
Could someone clarify whether Airbus UK is asking for RLI or a grant in this case?

Based on the cursory reading of Mr. Gray's statements the article provides, I believe he is asking for "grants" in that they wish the UK government to invest in "future technologies" like CFRP and such to keep the plant competitive with future Airbus projects.

However, Bristol is already making the CFRP wings for the A400M so they must have some experience. Those wings are straight, not swept, so perhaps Mr. Gray is looking to improve those facilities to allow them to work on more complex airfoils as found on the A350XWB and A320RS?

[Edited 2007-03-29 17:26:09]
 
brilondon
Posts: 3014
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:19 am

Quoting SkepticAll (Reply 13):
Filton needs to be transformed to handle carbon fibre composites, which will be used in Airbus's next generation of long-haul jets, a move that Airbus would not be able to afford without Government assistance, he said.

If Airbus cannot afford to develop technology on its own why should governments have to pony up the coin for them to do it. I believe that if the government  butthead  does this it is in violation of WTO trade law.
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
tockeyhockey
Posts: 880
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:57 pm

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:57 am

my two cents:

americans have been taught for years in economics classes that government should play little or no role in the business world. in fact, if you read an "intro to economics" text book that so many american students learn from in high school and college, you might think that they were being brainwashed by pro-corporate propaganda. american students are taught to hate their government, hate unions, and hate the social safety net system. those who demand living wages, affordable housing, and health care for all are deemed "communists" or, worse yet, "french".

while i believe strongly in the positive effects the market can have in terms of creating innovation, competition, and wealth, i think this dogma has been perverted in american educational institutions to the point where there is very little balance for issues of quality of life, health care, happiness, and moral treatment of the poor and homeless.

and while this perversion and brainwashing is taking place in american classrooms, corporate owned media outlets are continuously barraging us with the idea that government is the enemy of free trade and prosperity and our educational system is liberally biased. this is complete horseshit.

and the greatest irony of all is that the only reason those with money and power who are influencing the way people think about free markets got their money and power was on the backs of government spending.

would america be as wealthy a place if we didn't have the world's greatest highway system? no. many of those same professors who are teaching us about the evils of government involvement in the economic process drove to work at their state-funded university in their luxury cars on the federal highway system from a fancy suburban development that was built with the help of government subsidies for water, electric, and sewer distribution. if it weren't for the government, they wouldn't have their pulpit to preach from about the evils of government!

and where would the airlines be without the FAA? flying would be neither as efficient or as safe as it is today, and that efficiency and safety has created much of the growth in demand for flight.

and what about the fact that many of the breakthroughs in technology that have led to economic growth in the post war years are adaptations of inventions that were the result of federal funding for military research and development? in fact, you could argue that if it weren't for the government and world war II, boeing wouldn't exist. certainly, the jet engine alone owes its life to government involvement in the economic system.

and furthermore, the so called "free market" is only free to those who have the money to buy a piece of the system through government lobbying and, on occasion, bribery. the "free market" that so many on this board talk about as if it were apple pie, baseball, and elvis presley, is in fact as equally flawed and unfair as any socialist system ever was.

so to my european friends, please take what most of my right wing brainwashed american friends are saying with a grain of salt. they are merely products of a flawed educational system, and they are just a bit too proud of their ignorance.

now, all that being said, there are certainly some structural issues within the governments of europe that should be altered to allow for more free trade and less government interference. the unemployment insurance that is paid out by states such as germany and denmark is a major problem. countries that pay people not to work will end up falling out of the ranks of the richest and most powerful countries in the world eventually. and direct government subsidies to EADS will be found to be counter productive in the long run. it would be much more productive if airbus were truly allowed to sink or swim on its own merits. when you take away junior's allowance, you'll be amazed that he can go out and find his own gainful employment. airbus needs to learn the same lesson.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:48 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 34):
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 33):
Could someone clarify whether Airbus UK is asking for RLI or a grant in this case?

Based on the cursory reading of Mr. Gray's statements the article provides, I believe he is asking for "grants" in that they wish the UK government to invest in "future technologies" like CFRP and such to keep the plant competitive with future Airbus projects.

That is a good question that the article manages not to answer. My guess is that as the request looks to meet the RLI criteria, that is what it is. That is was said to a DTI committee is probably confirmation, but as I grumbled before, C minus to the journo. And gosh, what a representative selection in "Have your say?

Great post TockeyHockey, there are things better done by a group, many/most infrastructure items being prominent among them. Since the econ rationalists got into power, infrastructure has generally been run down. What has happened to the discussion in the US about bridge replacement/repair - I seem to remember a while ago that this was a developing crisis.
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:57 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 38):
Great post TockeyHockey, there are things better done by a group, many/most infrastructure items being prominent among them. Since the econ rationalists got into power, infrastructure has generally been run down. What has happened to the discussion in the US about bridge replacement/repair - I seem to remember a while ago that this was a developing crisis.

Let it be remembered that the market is a good servant but a poor master.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
User avatar
OA260
Posts: 20986
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:50 pm

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:20 am

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 30):
And your point is.....what? Or are you just venting? We're a little bit tired of your frigging superiority complex over there, acting as if we're a bunch of technically adept chimpanzees too. "Oh look, Marie and Gunter! The Americans are poking a twig down a hole and pulling up ants to eat. T-t-they've discovered tools! How clever!"

Or has that not occurred to you?

Err well we think the same about you !!! So we will agree to disagree!!!! We are sick of the ''we are Americans and we are superior and ruling the world attitude'' that is frequently posted on here.

I like Boeing and Airbus equally but to be honest all this Airbus bashing is making me dislike Boeing and these infantile posts.

Quoting Tockeyhockey (Reply 36):
the unemployment insurance that is paid out by states such as germany and denmark is a major problem. countries that pay people not to work will end up falling out of the ranks of the richest and most powerful countries in the world eventually

Well we in Europe care more about looking after our citizens. So I hope we never get a system like America because if we do then we will be hitting rock bottom !!! New Orleans ring a bell anyone?????
 
tockeyhockey
Posts: 880
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:57 pm

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:44 am

Quoting OA260 (Reply 40):
Well we in Europe care more about looking after our citizens. So I hope we never get a system like America because if we do then we will be hitting rock bottom !!! New Orleans ring a bell anyone?????

taking care of your citizens is one thing, and i think that the US could do a better job of doing that.

however, there are reasons why the US remains the great innovator in the marketplace of technology and ideas. everyone is expected to work. our unemployment rate is something like 5%. having no soft place to land if you lose your job will motivate you to work harder.
 
scalebuilder
Posts: 605
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:32 pm

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:02 am

Quoting Toulouse (Reply 22):
Why is it? I don't think it is. Some of you US a.netters (albeit and thankfully a minority) when posting on anything Airbus or EU related just come our with the same old ridiculous "Europe is socialist", "Airbus gets free money", "I hope Airbus fails" comments. A. They are childish comments, B. They show just how little you know about how Europe works.

Dear Friend:

Did I mention Airbus getting free money? I believe that I did not. That is something you brought up. I don't think I said that Europe is socialist either. Being born and raised in Europe, and having traveled and seen most of it, I do not proclaim myself expert on this part of the world in any way, and nor on how business is run there. But I'm not an idiot when it comes to knowing it either. You're generalizing two or three thoughts way beyond what was actually stated and you're branching these thoughts out to include what likely bothers you from reading other posts on similar topics.

Additionally you're using a single post to characterize or describe the mentality of certain members or users of this forum (maybe many more than you think). In my opinion you should still have a bigger problem with the post that I happened to reply to. Posts like these will promote drifting away from the topic.

Should Airbus get loans from any EU government for development at a cost similar to what any aviation manufacturer would be charged in the free market - who should have a problem with that as long as the loans are repaid? I don't have a problem with that. I believe Airbus has repaid every loan this company has ever been granted, and at market rates. So there is my contribution to this topic.

Sincerely,

Scalebuilder
Go the extra mile......and avoid the traffic!!!
 
User avatar
OA260
Posts: 20986
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:50 pm

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:03 am

Quoting Tockeyhockey (Reply 41):
having no soft place to land if you lose your job will motivate you to work harder.

I do not agree with giving money to people that can work and choose not too but I do think that someone who is injured or ill and really cant work should be given full asisstance as most people have worked at some point in their lives and paid taxes. I pay 24% tax on all my earnings since I was employed , I have paid this for 13 years now and never claimed benefit. If I got ill or injured and couldnt work then I would like to think that full healthcare and unemployment benefits would be available to me . Im proud of the EU's aproach to this.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6409
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:41 am

Discussing this subject, after 40 posts we have not even touched the real struggle at Airbus. The main problem is the steadily falling value of the dollar.

A few years ago a dollar was worth roughly 1.13. Now it has fallen to around 0.75 and still falling. The main culprit here is the massive US trade deficit and the exploding national budget deficit. And the growing unwillingness in Japan and China to finance it all with loans. A few European countries have struggled to stay within the Euro-zone rules. But any EU country sharing the US economy would be expelled from the Euro-zone immediately, or it would be absolutely unthinkable that they could join within the next ten years.

Airliner sales have historically mostly been contracted in dollars. When the dollar from contract signature to delivery date drops some 35% in value, then it is a massive problem, when you don't pay salaries in dollars.

That has coincided on the timeline with Airbus' most intensive R&D period, finishing off A318, 345, 346, designing the 380 and 400M, and trying to get the 350 started.

When the single competitor has its national currency inflated by 35%, and at the same time is successful having much of the R&D financed by outsourcing to so called risk sharing partners, then it only adds to the problem.

Some people imagine that the problems at Toulouse is some wires on the 380. That adds up as well, but that's far from being the main problem.

I'm not trying to explain what is wrong, neither what should be done. I'm just explaining the main reason for the present day situation.

I'm "guilty" myself. Back in 2001 my bank adviser arranged for me to put a not insignificant part of my retirement funds on so called US "junk bonds". He was right, they constantly pay a great profit, but unfortunately the profit is payed in dollars and has been almost eaten up by the fall of the dollar. I'm going to get rid of it and try something else, hopefully before the Japanese and Chinese investors start a lemming effect and make the US economy collapse. If I'm going to re-invest it on Airbus? Na, I think I can find something better. But if Airbus one day trades really low, then I might put some of it on Airbus as a pure gambling project.

Then why not invest in Boeing? No way. Boeing is overvalued. When in a some years time most of the Boeing production has been outsourced, then the so called risk sharing partners will take over economic control by "adjusting" their prices, and effectively put Boeing into "survival mode". The airliner industry is a bad industry for outsourcing. For efficient outsourcing you need to be able to rather rapidly shift partner when one gets too demanding, or just plain tired. In the airliner industry it takes at least ten years to shift partner.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 864
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:54 am

Airbus needs funds to catch up with Boeing and the 787. Right now the technology gap is significant and is manifesting itself in the market. The A350 will most likely be (and I can't see how this can be avoided) heavier, less efficient and later than the 787, mostly because of the paneled composite fuselage versus the 787 barrels. Don't think A can do anything about that and it is going to hurt, how much remains to be seen.

However, if A isn't caught up with Boeing by Y1 on composite barrels, that will be a serious game changing situation and this is why the money is REALLY needed. The article says the money is needed for wing tooling, but that is a smokescreen IMHO.

Airbus argues against subsidies versus US Gov't research at NASA, and defense contracts. Remember LM and MD both got out of the passenger business because of the Boeing/Airbus product, so the US defense subsidy issue is a bit of a stretch to argue. Also, NASA's budget is surprisingly small, just about 13 billion per year for EVERYTHING (shuttle, ISS, JPL) and if you added up the NASA reasearch dedicated to passenger airplane related issues, I doubt it adds up to even one launch aid program.

A needs PRIVATE money, without government strings, it has had significant government money in the past and more gov't money with strings alone won't make this work.
 
scalebuilder
Posts: 605
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:32 pm

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:58 am

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 44):
No way. Boeing is overvalued.

You got me really curious now.

Please explain to me why the Boeing stock is over valued.

Thanks!

Scalebuilder
Go the extra mile......and avoid the traffic!!!
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6409
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:08 am

Quoting Scalebuilder (Reply 46):
You got me really curious now.

Please explain to me why the Boeing stock is over valued.

Well, MY crystal ball says that BA is over valued.

The reason is that BA is outsourcing production which is impossible to outsource efficiently.

The 787 production is a complicated setup, but very simplified we can say that Alenia in Italy produces the fuselage while Mitsubishi in Japan makes the wing.

When BA contracts with those partners have to be updated (not just renewed, but also adjusted to demand, minor design changes etc.) then BA will be left with little option but sign the dotted line on the papers prepared by Alenia and Mitsubishi. Simply because all partners know that it will last ten years and cost a lot of money to for instance move the 787 barrel production flow from Italy to, say, Sweden, China, Lichtenstein, or even to Seattle in the USA. Alenia can in principle ask any price just short of bankrupting BA.

Back in the 19th century all cowboys - even if they had never attended a school - would know that to be safe in business you had to own two horses in case one fell ill. To me the BA managers seem rather shortsighted and bypass that very basic business principle known by any cowboy 200 years ago.

They should have made the 787 a more inhouse product. It might have made the initial sales price a little higher, and development time a little longer. But it would have secured that BA stockholders - and BA itself - also on the long term would benefit from a successful product.

What is likely to happen next in the capitalist world is that the major BA partners will merge (possibly into some Airbus style consortium) and make their own airliners. Then Seattle will be lucky to get some R&D contracts FROM that new airliner producer.

You have to be very careful when you outsource substantial parts of your core business. Even the fox always has two exits from its cave.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
ozglobal
Posts: 2511
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:33 am

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:23 am

Quoting Tockeyhockey (Reply 40):
however, there are reasons why the US remains the great innovator in the marketplace of technology and ideas.

No, the US just officially fell from no. 1 to no. 7 in the W.E.F Ranking of Technological Innovation:

Quote:

Innovation

Countries were judged on technological advancements in general business, the infrastructure available and the extent to which government policy creates a framework necessary for economic development and increased competitiveness.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6502725.stm
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
 
User avatar
OA260
Posts: 20986
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:50 pm

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:36 am

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 47):
No, the US just officially fell from no. 1 to no. 7 in the W.E.F Ranking of Technological Innovation:

I thought I heard something like that but didnt want to post it until I had the facts. The Swiss have earned my respect, they are very advanced and civilised. From their airline to their railways its a real experience. Im glad they moved up from 9th to 5th !!! In my office I deal with alot of American call centers and I wonder sometimes where they go to school. They are often not highly trained and have little knowledge of their product. Im sure there are many that are the exception to the rule but its just my experience.

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 46):
What is likely to happen next in the capitalist world is that the major BA partners will merge (possibly into some Airbus style consortium) and make their own airliners. Then Seattle will be lucky to get some R&D contracts FROM that new airliner producer.

You have to be very careful when you outsource substantial parts of your core business. Even the fox always has two exits from its cave.

Very interesting , thanks for your post it was nice to see your take on this issue.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22948
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus Demands More Government Funding

Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:21 am

Boeing has outsourced some production since the 767 and it hasn't come back to haunt them, yet. What has come back to haunt them is the parts they have built "in-house" because their labor is frisky.

As to the negotiating power the Japanese Heavies and Alenia have on Boeing, without Boeing, they have no market for their product and all the very expensive infrastructure they put in place to build it. At worse, it's MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) and that will keep both sides honest, especially when they are enjoying the benefits (being risk-sharing partners also means they are profit-sharing partners so a strong 787 sales program helps them beyond just the raw product they provide).

Boeing chose to outsource production for a variety of reasons: lower production costs, lower development costs, labor stability, etc. If they had built it all in house, it would have cost a lot more to develop, a lot more to build, and would have probably ended up less profitable for the shareholders.

I personally find it highly unlikely the partners will merge to form a third, competing aircraft manufacturer. None of them have the experience designing an entire airframe from the wheels up and if folks thought Airbus France and Airbus Germany had problems designing the A380 together, that will be as simple as making an airplane out of an A4/Letter sheet of paper compared to what such Boeing Supplier Consortium would face and their own shareholders would nix any such deal.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 727LOVER, Alexa [Bot], ArtV, b24sonthomas, Baidu [Spider], DarkSnowyNight, DLFREEBIRD, FLJ, flyingclrs727, FrenchieDC, geologyrocks, Google Adsense [Bot], hOMSaR, jbs2886, jetbluefan1, krod031, LX015, mrwhistler, piotrg, QF29, qf789, ra132914, rangercarp, SEAtown, Spacepope, Viscount724, zkeoj, ZKLOU and 273 guests