Guest

US Complains About Airbus

Sat May 01, 1999 5:47 am

The US government has filed a complaint against the European Union with the world trade organization (WTO) in a dispute in which the United States is objecting to subsidies granted to France for a new flight management system adapted to Airbus aircraft.

Lance
 
CX747
Posts: 5582
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: US Complains About Airbus

Sat May 01, 1999 5:58 am

Finally some fairness in this game.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2303
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

Who Cares If Its Fare

Sat May 01, 1999 6:13 am

There will never be a level playing field - so who cares if its fare or not!
 
Guest

Bring It On Airbus!

Sat May 01, 1999 6:59 am

I believe in free enterprise, so why should Airbus be limited to the world? Why doesn't Boeing do the same with other countries? They should give it a try.
 
Guest

RE: Bring It On Airbus!

Sat May 01, 1999 7:19 am

Whatever, the US and EU are always fighting over commerce regualtions. Nothing is ever fair in that game.


-MEB-
New York City
 
Guest

RE: Bring It On Airbus!

Sat May 01, 1999 8:46 am

Who knows if this charge has any basis....yet. But it does give further indication that Airbus relies heavily on subsidies to develop and manufacture their products. After 20 or more years in the business it is enough I think. The day will come when Airbus is a public company with public investors and only then will they be able to say that they beat Boeing at anything fair and square. period.

Europeans often counter that Boeing receives indirect subsidies from the US gov't for its military programs and that these benefit Boeing's Commercial division. This is utter nonsense. The real beneficiaries of US military spending are the Europeans themselves. Europe has pursued economic growth for the last 50 years without having to concern itself very seriously with military budgets. And now Europe is the wealthiest economic union on the planet. and still subsidizing. This is completely bogus. Time to wake Airbus up to real competition and get them from behind daddy's legs.
 
dash8
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 8:23 am

RE: US Complains About Airbus

Sat May 01, 1999 9:19 am

This is a very interesting subject. Can i ask where you got this information NYC Int'l?
 
Guest

From The Bbc

Sat May 01, 1999 10:04 am

The British Broadcast Corporation.

Lance, Duke of broadcasture
 
mirage
Posts: 3612
Joined: Mon May 31, 1999 4:44 am

RE: From The Bbc

Sat May 01, 1999 12:43 pm

It's clear our american friends always start this Boeing vs Airbus discussions and keep attacking (spelling?) Airbus.
Just leave it in peace, why should Airbus act the same way as Boeing? We must think the same way as you?
You really are worried with something.....

Luis, Faro, Portugal
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2303
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: From The Bbc

Sat May 01, 1999 2:38 pm

Well put Mirage, well put.

Why don't we all face it - there are some amoungst us that will not be happy until airbus industrie is shut down. Ask yourself this question" do you honestly think europe would ever stand for that?"

There is not such thing as international Law. Nobody really has the right to tell another country how they should be run. There is no way the anybody would put trade ristrictions on the whole of europe either. Which means, that nobody in America or any other country outside the airbus producing countries, has the ability to do anything about the structure of airbus.

If you want to look at companies competeting on unfair basis one has to look no further than McDonanld's. Which uses its might to wipeout local competetion in any country it enters, and competes by taking advantage of youths at very labour rates. And has sick marketing tacticts like marketing to very young children.

Airbus is far more open, and far more honest in is approach. The have started to be able to develop their airlines with in house fianancing - as demonstrated by the A319 and A321. Does anybody really believe that it would have been possible for any company worldwide to develop and sucessfully market a widebody jetliner any other way than the airbus consortum that could challange the amercian giants at the time?

All of this is totally irrelevent because people continue to order airbus aircraft, and airbus continues to produce them. I have to say, the people that have made the obsveration that there is a certain american sentiment that seems very worried and afraid by airbus are spot on. The real question is why?
 
Guest

RE: Lufthansa

Sun May 02, 1999 1:42 am

Where do you come up with these comments? No emotion in business, no such thing as international law, why should the US worry about Airbus. In reverse order, of course the US worries about Airbus, it means less work here in the US. Boeing is laying off thousands and thousands of workers this year due both to the world economic crisis and the reality that Airbus has established itself as a perfectly good alternative. No insults there, just hard fact. Second, no such thing as international law-well this point is almost too weird to respond to. The World Court and the WTO are both based in Europe I believe. Ever heard of them? An no emotion in business-you should read the biographies of modern day CEO's. Their whole mission in life is to have the biggest,the best and the most. All ego, all emotion. In Germany just take a look at the fight between BMW and VW for RR-all ego & emotion between the two CEO's who detest eachother, little or no profit potential.
 
dash8
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 8:23 am

RE: From The Bbc

Sun May 02, 1999 5:01 am

I'm sorry Lufthansa and Mirage but you're WAAAAAYYYY of base.
Who was the one who cried like a baby when Boeing and MDC merged? Oh this is unfair to fair business !!! Ooooh, this cant be done !!!!!
And when they finally merged they managed to put the toughest conditions on the merger, like having to share most every advanced technology discovered by this new company. Why didn't you say that was unfair?
If there is no international law an fair business then why does it take sooo long for AA and BA to merge/code share?

Most Boeing loyalists start these kind of posts? These are exactly the reasons. The EU is so strict in fair trade all over the world, yet they wont allow Airbus to compete on their own. These show in the subsidiaries and what I mentioned above about the merger. Oh and one more thing. How much do you think it would cost Airbus to fund the A319 and the A321. It is hardly more that adding and removing airframe plugs.

Many Airbus loyalists think this is a completely level field, and all Boeing loyalists know it's not. That's why these posts are here.

Dash8
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2303
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: Lost Baggage

Sun May 02, 1999 12:19 pm

You obviously have no business interests or you would understand.

Lost Baggage wrote:
-------------------------------
Where do you come up with these comments? No emotion in business, no such thing as international law, why should the US worry about Airbus.

I am not saying that the US shouldn't worry about its competitor. But, you guys had it too good too long, and now, one way or another, somebody is finally big enough and strong enogh to take you on. It is the intention of almost any company to be the market leader in their field. Naturally, boeing doesn't want to loose any orders to Europe. But now, we do have a choice. I real choice. But, you must face the fact that life isn't fair.

Okay, as for my commments about internations law, yes i have heard of all of the bodies you mention, and my father is senior partner (one of 3)of a very large legal firm in Australia, one that turns over about AUD $20 million annually. The US can complain all it likes. Where Europe has the upper hand is that it is more than one country. Just how do you think Clinton or anybody else could possible enforce trade embargos on most of western Europe? Please answer this - because this is the only way that the USA can fight Europe on this. What are the other alternatives. One would be to denigh all airbus aircraft landing rights, in which case Europe would quickly retaliate by banning boeings and MDCs from landing. This one is definatly out, as it will mean that much of the worlds international aviation is grind to a hault. And what is the other option. Well, the USA could bomb Europe. Now that isn't going to happan over Airbus Industrie.

So really, you can't do much about airbus at all. Any form of international law is no more than Agreements between respective countries. There is no body that governs the world, and has the right to tell anybody else how their country should be run - only agreements between repective governments. International courtes and world trade organisations merely serve as meeting places to negoated agreements. Europe as a whole is far to important for the USA. There is no way any government in their right mind is going to shut their country out of a market important to many industries for the sack of one industrie that doesn't compete and play by the rules.

 
Guest

RE: Lufthansa

Mon May 03, 1999 1:17 am

I just have a few comments about this:

1)"If you want to look at companies competeting on unfair basis one has to
look no further than McDonanld's. Which uses its might to wipeout local
competetion in any country it enters..."

You know why this is fair? McDonald's, as Lufthansa pointed out, uses its own might, not the might of the federal budget, to compete. Some companies can't compete with just their own assets, though, can they?

2)"somebody is finally big enough and strong enogh to take you on..."

No, they really aren't. If they were big enough and strong enough to take Boeing on, then they wouldn't need European nations to fund them. If they were really big enough and strong enough, then they would be able to take care of themselves.

3) and from Mirage - "You really are worried with something....."

If we are the ones who are worried, then why is Boeing not being coddled by the US government? It seems to me that the one who is worried is the one who is afraid to try ro compete on its own, the one who needs to be taken care of by a bigger, wealthier entity, the govenments of Europe.

Finally, as for all of these comments on how there's nothing we can do about it... that is a true sign of anti-competitive arrogance. To say that there's nothing wrong with an action just because one group of countries and companies is more powerful than another single company shows that Airbus (or at least its most ardent supporters) is not interested in competition, by in using the might of protectionist nations to stay afloat, accomplishing nothing on its own.
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2303
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

Competeting Capital

Mon May 03, 1999 4:28 am

Nobody competes with their own capital. If one way or another, people and companies 'buy' capital. This may be in the form of interest only business loans, stock floats and share offereings, government bonds etc etc. The aim in any business is to aquire capital at the lowest possible cost. Naturally, for one reason or another, some of the ability to aquire it a lot cheaper than others. Like Purdue said - some have the backing of much bigger wealther entities. Europe has its governments behind it. It can obtain its captial from its governments at unbeatable prices. Maybe you are all looking at the problem the wrong way. Maybe, you should all be angry at the US government for not providing any direct support to boeing for their commercial interests. The government doesn't have to just give them the money, it can give support in the form of loans at very favourable rates, or even no interest. Perhaps if boeing were to run production lines offshore, it might find support in other places. Its just a thought. If its own government won't, i am sure that there are many other countries that would love that sort of foreign investment, say, for a 737 production line or something. And if they could afford to, i am sure you would find someone, or maybe a group of smaller countries, willing to help. In return a large number of jobs would be created in their country as well as much foreign capital.
Now i must point out to every body who is jumping up and down about airbus government funds and it not being in a real position to compete. How on earth could have any company sucessfully marketed and sold a widebody airliner in the west when it was just MDC and Boeing Controlling the industry. What was our real alternative - An ilyushin il86? Besides it not going down well with western passengers, if any western country had bought that airliner, the USA would have accused them of siding with the Russians.

These small companies that made up airbus industrie on their own each really could barely produce a 100 seat airliner. I beleive the largest was the BAC1-11. This was their only chance. It was work as a team, or forget the idea. For these small aerospace companies, the hash reality was 'sink or swim' - swimming ment together or not all. They had all tried on their own but nothing could ever get even close to getting off the gound.

Really, they have done the world a lot of good. Now, passengers can fly distances they never could before, thanks to the A340, we have a plane that uses about as much fuel per person as the avearage small car - notably the A330-300. We can fly on a family of single aisle jets that have the same flight decks as widebodies, and nearly identical handeling characteristics thanks to the fly-by-wire. And the hopes and dreams of millions of Europians have been forefilled. There is nothing bad about this. These are all good positive things. Lighten up a bit guys.
 
Guest

RE: Lufthansa

Mon May 03, 1999 4:53 am

I don't know whether to take your comments seriously or not. You claim I have no business experience, Well aside from an MBA degree and a VP position at a Fortune 50 company, I guess you're right.

"Companies don't compete with their own capital" Now who has no business experience? I'd like to do business in your country! Lufthansa, your statements have gone from uninformed to outright ludicrous.

Why should Airbus get subsidies when the four partners that compose the alliance are together a multibillion dollar organization the size of Boeing? You do not beleive in free and fair competition and approve of continued gov't subsidies for Airbus. In essence you admit that Airbus cannot compete with Boeing. Airbus needs all the crutches and support it can get to do business. Thank you for admitting what the pro-competition crwod has been saying for years.
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2303
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

Lost Baggage

Mon May 03, 1999 3:34 pm

Yes, you are right. I do admit airbus needs backing to compete. I never made a secreate of that. I never proffessed otherwise. What i do say is that everybody needs backing in one form or another. Just because airbus's backing comes in a much more flexible form is no crime. now, about your 'mba'. If you do have an MBA you would be only to familiar with the concept of leaverage. No single entity of earth (perhaps with the exception of a cat as it has 9 lives) can emass enough capital on its own right to make any real business a sucess. If you clam this is uninformed, well, i would like to differ. My grandfather and his brother head a company that manufactors commercial refigeration products. At the moment, the export to 7 Asian countries, and this year, are expected to post a before tax profit of 45 million AUD. 10 years ago, this same company posted its first million dollar profit. Now, if you've got an MBA, you shouldn't need me to tell you that is great growth. My point is, do you have any idea of the infrastructure required to do that? It is litterally hundreds of millions of dollars worth of factory. Now, i suppose, Everybody some how just 'magically' gets their capital. It falls from the sky. Yes, one does need to put their money into any venture, but, the bulk of the money is sourced outside. That, my friend, is how you make real money. A fortune 500 company, well, please don't keep up waiting? which company is it?

My point basically is that everyone needs to get their money from somewhere. If Airbus gets a good deal, well, so what. Lobby your own government for a better deal. It could easily provide it if it cut is armed forces spending. After all, what does just one stealth bomber cost? $500 million. A couple of those and you could develop just about any commercial airliner you wanted. Its really about your contries priorities. Commercial aviation clearly isn't all that high up in washinton dc.

Lost baggage - suits you doesn't it!
 
CX747
Posts: 5582
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Airbus Supporters (Lufthansa)

Tue May 04, 1999 12:37 am

Everyone needs to get their money from somewhere? So it is all right for Airbus to be government backed? What happened a few years ago when Boeing signed AA DL and CO to exclusive contracts? There was nothing illegal with that. The EU sure did make a stink about it though. God forbid that there not be competition for these airlines orders in the future. But you don't want competition do you? Your statements are so Arian and 1940's Germany that it is scary. It sure would be nice for Boeing to be backed by the government but that is not the way a democratic economy works. If you have an idea and want to make a go at the business world go ahead but the government isn't going to back you or make sure you stay in business. Thats the way that it works. Until Airbus wants to compete on its own there conglomerate will be a shame. Maybe Boeing can ask the government to back them so they can make the super jumbo and we can have all of the U.S. major carriers order Boeing's jumbo only because it is built in the U.S. U.S. Airways, United, and Northwest will also have to return their A320s to Airbus in favor of the 737. Seeing that the U.S. gives aid to China they will also have to be off limits to Airbus. Sense Japan is a great trading partner and we are close their market is off limits also. In closing I hope that the EU will let Airbus stand alone like Boeing does and allow the companies to compete equally.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
CX747
Posts: 5582
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Lufthansa

Tue May 04, 1999 12:56 am

After thinking about your comments for a few minutes I was really angry. In some instances you want competition but in other instances you don't want competition. The EU cried like a baby when Boeing got AA, DL and CO to sign the exclusive contracts that were legal and fair. Airbus has the same opportunity but couldn't come thru for the airlines. When that happened the EU stepped in. What abot when BA and MD merged. I thought the EU might declare war on Boeing and American made products. What it sounds like to me, is that the EU, Airbus and you want Airbus to be supported in every way possible so that there is no competition and no matter what Boeing can not win because if they do it is deemed unfair. If the U.S forced all of the U.S. majors to order Boeing in favor of Airbus you would yell and scream until you couldn't anymore. If they didn't allow Boeing to post a loss two years ago the EU would have gone crazy.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2303
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: Cathay 747

Tue May 04, 1999 1:46 am

The differnce between the EU nations absorbing loses and the American Government Absorbing loses for Boeing is Simple. The Amrican government does not own any part of boeing. So, its not exactly the same. If they did i would see no crime in them absorbing a loss for a company that holds such crutial defence interests with washinton dc. However, since the US government doesn't own part of boeing, it can provide assistance in favourable loans as i said earlier. It just doesn't want to.

Now about a democratic market. Aviation is an international business. The world is not a democracy. Infact, some of the worlds biggest and most important markets and not democratic. For example, china. Everybody will still trade with them anyway. Of course the EU kicked up a stink over the exclusive supplier contracts. So what. It is their job to represent Europain interests. What did it achieve - nothing. The exclusive supplier contracts still exsist. In this case, the EU probably new there was nothing at all it could do about this - but the EU must be seen to be opposing it. It must be seen to be fighting for the biggest piece of pie it can get its hands on at all times. Thats its job. Just like washinton must be seen to be opposing france and the flight managemenet system. So what do it think - the whole thing will amount to nothing. Like i said earlier, there is nothing washinton can do about it. Just like there was nothing the EU can do about the exclusive supplier contracts.

CX747. you said you got quite angry. Why? There is nothing here to get anygry about. Its just politics. Nothing personal. you shouldn't take it personally. And, i am a boeing supporter as well for the record. My favourite boeing is the 737-300. Which i am happly going to board on Wednsday, and then latter that same day come back on an A320. Will i love both flights - of course i will.

Cx747, and everybody else who 'passionalty' hates Airbus Industrie, would you, at a job interview for an airline that was farely loyal to boeing (Lets say it was Qantas. If you don't like Qantas, make it Continental.) state such hatered of Airbus Aircraft. Answer this honestly. would you honestly tell the interviewer that you hate airbus aircraft? I think most of you would answer that question 'no'. Why, the answer is simple. If you did say such a thing they probably wouldn't employ you because it would look like you had a bad attitude, and they are not looking for poeple with bad attitudes. What does this emply about the people who take this stance? Think about it for a while.
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2303
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

Another Thing Cathay747

Tue May 04, 1999 2:28 am

I am not the only person who supports Airbus Industrie.
So putting my name beside Airbus Supports is just petty. Lately we have had a few Airbus supporters. people who's nicks had been 'A330" or something similar. Well, they seem to have been driven away by the stupidity of idoits. In some ways, it is stupid of me to even bother post about this. I realised earlier something else. The US hatred of airbus Industrie is so strong, they even wrote a book about it. "birds of prey". Well, if this is how you honestly all feel, i feel sorry for you. You all miss the bigger picture.
 
Guest

RE: Lufthansa

Tue May 04, 1999 5:26 am

I wasn't sure before but now I am. I think Lufthansa is just playing mind games. His arguments are too inane to deal with, except for one. The question of US military spending which might be better used to subsidize Boeing commercial operations. Not possible-this country's economic principles are based on free and fair competition. I assume you are German. Do I have to remind you that your own country's economic principles are based on the same foundation as well? And so is the EU overall. Are you from the fromer East Germany? Its the only way to explain your lust for state-controlled, state-run, and state-subsidized business. Nobody hates Airbus, we just hate the fact that Europe covers up for its pathetic inneficiency and allows it to sell below cost to win business. Losing money after 20 years in business is an indication that Europe, with all its wealth cannot make airplanes fair and square. Why can you make cars, TV's, computers and everything else without help? Start-up fundign is one thing, but 20 years worth? Come on, get serious.

And forget about the US military spending argument. Ever hear of Serbia? Its in Europe, its a European problem. But holy cow Batman, who has to ride in with the cavalry yet again to do the job? You got it buddy, the 'ol US government because Europe doesn't have the military means to protect itself or its vital interests in its own neighborhood. I wonder if you'd have any cash leftoevr for Airbus if you had to worry about funding your own protection. Very bad point there. .
 
CX747
Posts: 5582
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Lufthansa

Tue May 04, 1999 5:29 am

While I agree with you on other aviation related topics that have been posted in this forum I can't agree with you on this one. I feel that it is you who has missed the bigger picture. If the United States did what the EU and the nations who control Airbus do you would pitch a bloody fit. What the EU wants is equal competition for aircraft sales and unequal competition for the manufacturers. Sorry boys you can't have it both ways. As for "Birds of Prey" what a bunch of baloney. The entire book was pro-Airbus so it serves no point to quote that book or use it for real information. Seeing how the book was written it should have been called "Airbus the great company vs. Boeing the horrible, backward, racist, biast, unprofitable, stupid and lazy American corporation. As for putting your name next to Airbus Supporters it was not petty, just a fact that in this post you are the one basically supporting Airbuses unfair tactics.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2303
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: Lufthansa

Tue May 04, 1999 6:18 am

Well, to tell you the truth, it doesn't hurt me as much as it hurts any of you when an American Job is lost due to 'unfair' competition. It doesn't hurt me when boeing sells its aircraft at a loss due to price wars. Do you think i honestly care about their cause. Not at all. if they provide me with a product i like, i will buy it, simple as that. If somebody else provides me with a product i like better, i will buy theirs instead, simple as that.

To tell you the truth, i personally don't care if the USA pulls out of Europe and NATO falls apart and the Serbians start a hudge war. It will not affect me at all. I can say that safely, as i live in country that is about half way around the world and in the southern hemisphere. The likely hood of it affecting my country, in the sence of my country going to war is zilch. I certain don't 'lust' for state controlled corporations. I do perfer the private sector. I do know that there is room only for one big aerospace company if there is no assistance. If we want more than one, well, somebody will have to take the back seat. Like MDC and Boeing used to be. Why does any body think MDC never could have a full product line. The answer is simple. There is only room for one. i vote for 'right of centre' parties and i am not a communist or champagne socialist. Maybe if it were my country to suffer as a result of the competition alongside yours, i would be more sympathetic. But, not all of US companies loose. I think P&W and GE benifit substancially through increased aircraft sales due to the lower prices we have seen lately. I am sure they would like everything to continue just the way it is. P&W really has been showing more interest in Airbus lately anyway, as boeing has made it clear the V2500 will never be on a 737. So, pratt is developing the PW8000. This engine is rumored to be so advance, that it will try and force boeing to use it. It is being developed with the A320 in mind. The idea being that it will leave everything else for dead so if it boeing doesn't use the engine, it will be handing the A320 family the upperhand on a plate. Time will tell, but it will keep everybody on their toes. Maybe i just like seeing the 'tall poppy' torn down. I wouldn't worry about the future of boeing. There will always be a place for boeing in commerical aviation, and even with its disadvantage over airbus, well, they will still make profits most of the time. I tell you all of this , your beloved 737NGs would have never been launched if UAL didn't fancy the A320 family.


I could go on forever, but what is the point? Really, what is the point of this whole discussion? Airbus Industrie is a fact of life. It is here to stay. It should be considered part of the market conditions and thus taken in to account like any other part when others set out do plan their business. Does this seem a little harsh. Seem a little unfair. Let me tell you about Australian beef famers. The compete with Amercian Beef producers in Asian markets. Important contries like Japan. Well, their are international argeements between all the respective countries that compete in these markets, mainly to do with quotas. Buth there is one argreement that the beef famers are not to be subsidised. Guess what, the USA happily breaks this on a daily basis, and subsidies beef famers, thus allowing them(the famers) to make profits when the cattle are sold at below costs prices. So what happans, the USA just pays the agreed fine and life goes on. If Australia tried a similar stunt, it couldn't afford to pay the fine. So, our beef famers strugle in such markets. We have to try to produce much higher quality to try and get higher prices, just to break even. Why is this any different to Airbus and Europe? What about how the USA subsidies fuel, and petrolium companies import from the middle east and sell at prices that wouldn't even cover the cost of extracting, let alone refining. And, this also means that USA uses fuel freely and happily polutes away far greater than any other nation per person. Come on guys, the USA isn't totally controlled by market forces and isn't totally free trade. Why are these things any less immoral than the Airbus relationship with EU governments? Why is it any different. The EU makes boeings life more difficult. The USA makes Australian Cattle farmers lives more difficult. I can't see a difference personally.
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2303
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: Lufthansa

Tue May 04, 1999 6:53 am

I take that last little bit back about i don't care about a war in Europe. I don't want to see war anywhere. I was just watching DW journal, and there was a report on the A330-200. They claim it will meats its break even cost very soon, and that perhaps Duestch BA may buy it. I don't know if you get DW journal in the US but it is in German. for those of you who can understand German, the program often has updates about Airbus Inustrie.

 
Guest

CX747 & Lufthansa

Tue May 04, 1999 7:08 am

I can't stand it anymore. I call a truce. Now we're talking about Nato and hamburgers. Too much writing in circles is distracting me from my job. By the way Lufthansa, I won't give you my company name but I was wrong, we're a Fortune 67 co. Financial Services and the world's largest travel agent. That's a simple enough clue. Where are you writing from? Australia? I only ask because no American ally is safe without my damn tax dollars buying Stealth bombers etc. If it was my choice, I'd spend it on the Blended Wing Body design featured in the latest edition of "Wings" magazine. The witer believes tube bodies are passe and that BWB is the future. Very intersting article.

PS- next time I fly between Asia and Germany I'm flying Cathay. Lufthansa gives me a headache.
 
Guest

Lufthansa

Tue May 04, 1999 7:15 am

One last question. Aside from the on again/off again rumours about the 767-400, do you think Lufthansa will ever buy Boeing again? They were such a great customer, I don't see how they would just drop Boeing unless they were under very severe pressure from DASA and the German gov't to but only Airbus products.
I mean not ALL Boeing products are inferior to Airbus right?

This is a friendly question.

The one thing I hate about the internet is that you can't hear the tone of voice or see the facial expression. I have a very smart-ass NY sense of humor, but it doesn't translate well to just written English. People often confuse my posts as being very insulting, but I only seek to provoke debate.
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2303
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: Lufthansa

Tue May 04, 1999 11:38 am

Okay, fair enough. Well, i think Lufthansa will consider boeing again, but i can assure you that beoing is not the first preference. LH now has a lot of infrastructure, which relvoves around Airbus common systems. In the A320 family and A340 and to a lesser extent, the A300 family. The effeciencies generated mean great cost savings to LH every year. Keep in mind that German labour is amoung the most expensive in the world, if no the most expensive. And, they work a 35 hour week, and in a crazy attemp to reduce unemployment, the government is pushing to reduce that to a 30 week. Thats expensive time thats not productive enough. So, where ever LH can save without sacrificing the product, it is bound to do.

So, if they have an airbus product and a boeing product, even if the Airbus comes at a slightly higher price it is in LH's interests to pay the extra. What would it take for LH to order boeing over airbus. Well, airbus would have to do something that really annoyed LH. I sincearly doubt this, i am sure Airbus would consider LH their number one customer. So, i don't see the 767-400 being ordered. The A330-200 can do it all, and will give commonality, not to mention that Lufhansa already owns the only slightly larger A340-200, which is with out a doubt the longest range airliner in the world. It would make the most sense for LH to simply order additional A340-200s, but, some time in the future they are going to need an aircraft for medium operations, to replace the A300-600. This is where the A300-200 is ideal. Its efficeny is best on the medium haul routes, but at the same time it has the ability if needed to really long range routes. Its size is very similar to the A300-600R. Well, its not needed immediately but this one seems to make the most sense. Then we have the Question of the A310 replacement. Well, i think LH will keep the A310s in service until airbus realese its A310 replacement. Who knows, its could be the A310-400. I don't think it would be wise to shorten the A330 anymore as its wing span is far to big for an aircraft the size of the A310. The Narrowbodies are out of the question, no need to say anymore especially with LH showing a lot of interest in the A318. And we know that the A340-600 has been ordered. Well, now we are in 747 size class. If the A340-600 can prove itself as an ultra long range aircraft, i think you will eventually see no boeings. But, this will take some time, and it is a big if, because the basic wing of todays A340 has to carry a lot more. The intial design really likens the A340-600 as a good 747-200 replacement. If this does not develop any further, i think you can say that LH will eventually order more 747-400s. Perhaps an extended range version, or one with more efficient engines. But who can tell - this one could go either way.

Then, we must consider the A3XX. Well, provided it does get off the ground they may decided to shorten it and then give us a 747-400 sized product that way too. Who knows, this one only time will tell. But, Anything under the A340-300 sized aircraft is not going to be a boeing. We would need some really big changes in commercial aviation to change that.
 
Guest

Interesting Reading!

Wed May 05, 1999 8:18 am

The Clinton administration, in a new report, accuses European governments of unfairly providing $327 million to help [Airbus Industrie] develop the next generation of aircraft. Coupled with a request to the World Trade Organization to resolve a dispute over flight management systems used on Airbus planes, the administration is signaling a more aggressive stance against subsidies paid to the consortium of European aerospace companies.

Airbus is Boeing's major competitor.

"We are certainly looking at a range of subsidy practices which are of concern," Jay Zeigler, a spokesman for the office of the U.S. trade representative, said Monday. "We are keeping our options open as we consider our next steps."

President Clinton and U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky had earlier urged their European counterparts to halt the subsidies to Airbus and comply with a 7-year-old trade agreement between the United States and the European Union. The administration has warned that failure to comply could lead to trade sanctions or legal action.

The confrontation over Airbus subsidies comes at a time of already-heightened trade tensions between the United States and Europe over banana imports and European restrictions on American beef fed with growth hormones.

The Boeing Co. had no comment on the administration's latest steps but has reportedly been helping the trade office prepare for possible action against Airbus and the Europeans.

Airbus had no immediate comment.

Airbus recently caught up with Boeing in sales and in 1998 sold about half of the new planes purchased internationally. Only a few years earlier, Boeing controlled about 65 percent of the market.

Boeing has estimated that since Airbus was founded in 1967, it has received more than $26 billion in subsidies from the governments of France, Britain, Germany and Spain.

"The fact that Airbus captured nearly 50 percent of the large civil aircraft orders in 1998 and its outstanding orders are over $90 billion clearly demonstrate that the Airbus consortium can no longer be considered an 'infant industry' requiring government support," the trade office said in a report released Friday.

The report noted the United Kingdom and the French parliament had pledged hundreds of millions of dollars in loans to Airbus to develop a new wing for Airbus aircraft.

France's plans to privatize its government-owned aerospace company, [Aerospatiale], were also singled out in the report as an action worth watching by U.S. trade officials.

"The United States is concerned that the launch of a new Airbus program and the restructuring of the Airbus consortium may be used to justify additional government subsidies," the report said.

The report said the European Union had already violated a 1992 agreement that required a "critical project appraisal" demonstrating the commercial viability of new Airbus aircraft programs at the time the governments commit financial support to them.

"The EU has not yet provided the requested information," the report said.

A 1979 international agreement on civil aircraft sales specifically prohibits government support for the manufacturing, marketing and sale of aircraft.

"Of particular concern are plans announced by European governments to provide financial support to develop new Airbus aircraft," the report said. It also noted that in the past some government loans, repayable from royalties on each aircraft sold, have been forgiven when sales fell short of projections.

In a separate action, the U.S. trade office requested consultations with the World Trade Organization over French government subsidies for two European companies building a flight management system to compete with those built by Honeywell.

Flight management systems help aircraft crews compute the most-efficient flight plan and can help navigate the plane automatically.

Honeywell first developed the flight management system.

The U.S. trade office said the French government, with the approval of the European Union, had provided more than $22 million, or about 40 percent of total projected costs, to Sextant Avionique of France and [Smiths Industries] of the United Kingdom. The two firms jointly are developing a flight management system for Airbus planes.

"It appears that the intended effect of this subsidy is to entirely displace the U.S. company (Honeywell) as supplier of FMS (flight management system) for Airbus aircraft," the trade office said in announcing the request for WTO consultations.

Honeywell officials said they were pleased with the action. "We've steadfastly pursued this issue for more than a year in the hope of getting a fair hearing for our product and technology investment," Don Schwanz, president of Honeywell Space and Aviation Control, said in a statement.

From the The News Tribune-Seattle

 
CX747
Posts: 5582
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Music To My Ears.

Fri May 07, 1999 12:28 am

Now that is a great explanation of what has been going on.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower