User avatar
northstardc4m
Topic Author
Posts: 3228
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

WTO rules against Boeing and US.

Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:43 pm

https://www.dw.com/en/wto-rules-against ... a-48105904

And the knives keep getting longer for Boeing.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk
Last edited by northstardc4m on Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
d8s
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:45 pm

Re: WTO rules against Boeing and US.

Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:54 pm

northstardc4m wrote:
https://m.dw.com/en/wto-rules-against-us-and-boeing-in-mammoth-trade-row-with-eu/a-48105904

And the knives keep getting longer for Boeing.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


Tit for Tat?

a 2018 ruling by the WTO already found that the EU was also failing to stop its own illegal subsidies for Europe's Airbus.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44120525
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17674
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: WTO rules against Boeing and US.

Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:16 pm

d8s wrote:
northstardc4m wrote:
https://m.dw.com/en/wto-rules-against-us-and-boeing-in-mammoth-trade-row-with-eu/a-48105904

And the knives keep getting longer for Boeing.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


Tit for Tat?

a 2018 ruling by the WTO already found that the EU was also failing to stop its own illegal subsidies for Europe's Airbus.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44120525

Next COMAC? :duck:

Lightsaber

Late edit.
My opinion, as both seek damages, these will null each other out. This is over the Washington tax breaks.
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
zuckie13
Posts: 158
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:23 pm

Re: WTO rules against Boeing and US.

Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:52 pm

At the end of the day, it will be a wash, and the only ones who win are all the lawyers.
 
User avatar
Super80Fan
Posts: 1516
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:14 am

Re: WTO rules against Boeing and US.

Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:58 pm

I must admit, I am enjoying Boeing being knocked down a peg.
RIP McDonnell Douglas
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1065
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: WTO rules against Boeing and US.

Fri Mar 29, 2019 12:12 am

Super80Fan wrote:
I must admit, I am enjoying Boeing being knocked down a peg.


For most of my adult life, I could have been classified as a Boeimg fan. No longer. I first detected chinks in the armor during the 787 program. Its gotten worse since then. They continue to make GIGANTIC mistakes. I really think they need new leadership at the top. I dont have much confidence that will happen, goven the clubbiness among corporate boards, universities, and the global elite, ie., the swamp.
Last edited by SteelChair on Fri Mar 29, 2019 12:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
kabq737
Moderator
Posts: 681
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 3:06 am

Re: WTO rules against Boeing and US.

Fri Mar 29, 2019 12:29 am

zuckie13 wrote:
At the end of the day, it will be a wash, and the only ones who win are all the lawyers.

Exactly. The lawyers will laugh their way to the banks.

All that the OEMs are likely to get is a slap on the wrist and maybe some bad press. Unfortunately for Boeing it is a rather inopportune time for bad press. I am sure things will work themselves out though.
Been on: 320, 321, 333, 733, 73G, 738, 739, 744, 752, 763, 764, 772, 789, C208, CR7, CR9, BE20, MD83, MD88, MD90, E70, E75, E90, TRIM
Flown: SEEKER, C150M C172N, C172R, C172S, C182RG, DA40, PA-46
Airliners.net Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4891
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: WTO rules against Boeing and US.

Fri Mar 29, 2019 12:45 am

zuckie13 wrote:
At the end of the day, it will be a wash, and the only ones who win are all the lawyers.


Certainly, but that's also a win for one of the sides - specifically, the side that didn't start the tit-for-tat complaints. Once the first complaint was made, it was inevitable that retaliation complaints were coming, as the other side simply couldn't sit back and let the first side win by default.

So yes, it's a wash, an expensive wash, but that's also a win in itself.
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 988
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

Re: WTO rules against Boeing and US.

Fri Mar 29, 2019 12:46 am

kabq737 wrote:
...maybe some bad press.


Most people say that this long-standing dispute is a no-win situation for both sides. At this point, the only reason I see why anyone would continue this saga is to use it as a means of dishing out bad press on their competitor and create a negative public sentiment towards them. Boeing has been unrelenting on this, while Airbus has clearly indicated that this is a dispute they were forced into and would rather prefer to end this constructively.
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 1983
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

Re: WTO rules against Boeing and US.

Fri Mar 29, 2019 12:59 am

d8s wrote:
northstardc4m wrote:
https://m.dw.com/en/wto-rules-against-us-and-boeing-in-mammoth-trade-row-with-eu/a-48105904

And the knives keep getting longer for Boeing.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


Tit for Tat?

a 2018 ruling by the WTO already found that the EU was also failing to stop its own illegal subsidies for Europe's Airbus.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44120525


Ah, but by ending the A380 program Airbus also end that WTO case so EU have actually stopped "its own illegal subsidies for Europe's Airbus" so its only the US handing out illegal subsidies right now.
BV
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3295
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: WTO rules against Boeing and US.

Fri Mar 29, 2019 1:15 am

This was a good day for Boeing. Only $100m in state tax was ruled illegal aid; the vast majority of the EU's dollar claims remain rejected. Contrast that with the billions that the WTO has ruled Airbus received illegally.

Super80Fan wrote:
I must admit, I am enjoying Boeing being knocked down a peg.


Why?
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4891
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: WTO rules against Boeing and US.

Fri Mar 29, 2019 2:19 am

MSPNWA wrote:
This was a good day for Boeing. Only $100m in state tax was ruled illegal aid; the vast majority of the EU's dollar claims remain rejected. Contrast that with the billions that the WTO has ruled Airbus received illegally.


You keep posting that, but it doesn't actually reflect reality in the WTO rulings since 2010...

In-fact, looking at the outcomes, Boeing and the US certainly had some wins, but Airbus and the EU had significantly larger wins. In the ruling against the EU and Airbus last year, only 6% of US and Boeing claims were actually upheld, with 94% rejected by the WTO - the US and Boeing also failed to get repayable launch aid ruled illegal, with the wins they achieved around it being in the technical areas of interest rates and not the actual mechanisms. Meanwhile, Boeing was found to have received illegal subsidies of nearly $6billion from NASA and government contracts, which was never overturned - this is in addition to the $3billion claim just ruled on (not $100million)

So yeah, actually looking at the rulings indicates a significant difference in opinion to your claims...

So, what exactly did this ruling cover?

1. It affirmed the illegality of the subsidies Boeing received from US DoD and NASA contracts
2. It affirmed the illegality of some of the mechanisms of the FSC/ETI tax concessions that Boeing remains eligible for
3. It affirmed the illegality of MCIP subsidies
4. It affirmed the illegality of some of the mechanisms of the City of Wichita industrial revenue bonds
5. It affirmed the illegality of the Washington State Business and Occupation tax reduction subsidy for Boeing

https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news ... abrw_e.htm

Yup, this is bigger than what MSPNWA wants you to think.
 
d8s
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:45 pm

Re: WTO rules against Boeing and US.

Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:13 am

BoeingVista wrote:
d8s wrote:
northstardc4m wrote:
https://m.dw.com/en/wto-rules-against-us-and-boeing-in-mammoth-trade-row-with-eu/a-48105904

And the knives keep getting longer for Boeing.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


Tit for Tat?

a 2018 ruling by the WTO already found that the EU was also failing to stop its own illegal subsidies for Europe's Airbus.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44120525


Ah, but by ending the A380 program Airbus also end that WTO case so EU have actually stopped "its own illegal subsidies for Europe's Airbus" so its only the US handing out illegal subsidies right now.


The Airbus subsidies were far greater than The Boeing ones.
 
Lrockeagle
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 1:40 am

Re: WTO rules against Boeing and US.

Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:48 am

northstardc4m wrote:
https://www.dw.com/en/wto-rules-against-us-and-boeing-in-mammoth-trade-row-with-eu/a-48105904

And the knives keep getting longer for Boeing.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

$100m/yr? Peanuts to Boeing...
Lrockeagle
14 years ago

I got $20 says AA takes their 787's with GE powerplants. Just a hunch. Any takers?
 
SkyVoice
Posts: 291
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2017 9:34 pm

Re: WTO rules against Boeing and US.

Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:15 am

Super80Fan wrote:
I must admit, I am enjoying Boeing being knocked down a peg.


Could be because the poster can now buy Boeing stock (NYSE:BA) while it's price is down, then sell when the stock's price recovers, which it ultimately will.
"Your talents may take you where your character can not keep you." - Terry Nelson
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11630
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: WTO rules against Boeing and US.

Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:29 am

d8s wrote:
BoeingVista wrote:
d8s wrote:
Tit for Tat?

a 2018 ruling by the WTO already found that the EU was also failing to stop its own illegal subsidies for Europe's Airbus.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44120525


Ah, but by ending the A380 program Airbus also end that WTO case so EU have actually stopped "its own illegal subsidies for Europe's Airbus" so its only the US handing out illegal subsidies right now.


The Airbus subsidies were far greater than The Boeing ones.


No. That's Boeing/US propaganda, not fact. Read moo's post, the billions you're obsessed with were not considered subsidies.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
StudiodeKadent
Posts: 387
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:43 am

Re: WTO rules against Boeing and US.

Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:58 am

Super80Fan wrote:
I must admit, I am enjoying Boeing being knocked down a peg.


I have a huge amount of respect for Boeing's jets (particularly the 787) but honestly, I have to agree here.

Not that Airbus is necessarily pure on this regard. But I think Boeing's conduct with respect to the C-Series/A220 means they deserve to face some pretty nasty consequences.

I'm sad, however, that even if the A220 sells very well, Bombardier probably won't recoup their investment. But Boeing really need to learn their lesson... trying to destroy potential competitors may just result in strengthening actual competitors.
 
MileHFL400
Posts: 642
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: WTO rules against Boeing and US.

Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:23 am

Super80Fan wrote:
I must admit, I am enjoying Boeing being knocked down a peg.


Having maturity issues are you?
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
Carmitage
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:24 pm

Re: WTO rules against Boeing and US.

Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:49 am

As I understand it, the gripe is the following:
On one hand, Europe LENDS Airbus billions - this is allowed under the rules, but only at a commercial interest rate. The loan is then repaid (with interest) on delivery of the aircraft. If the EXPECTED number of aircraft are not delivered, the remainder of the loan is not repaid. The two issues here are:
1) What is a commercial interest rate. Airbus argues that a commercial interest rate is what it pays on its typical debt, whereas Boeing argues that because the loan is higher risk (as if the programme is less successful, the loan isn't repaid), then a lender would demand a higher rate of interest, so a commercial rate on launch aid would be higher than normal debt - the problem with this argument is that if Airbus paid the same commercial rate under the same terms as to a bank, where is the support?
To illustrate:
I loan a friend $100 for 10 years and we agree to interest of 4% per year, whereas if he went to a bank, he would be charge 6% - the benefit of that preferential loan is not $100, but $2 per year for 10 years, or $20 in total (probably more like $10-15, given the time value of money) - ie the economic benefit to Airbus is much lower than the headline loan

2) the EXPECTED number of aircraft - Boeing accuse Airbus of intentionally inflating the expected number of aircraft, so they don't need to repay some of the loan - the big one here was the A380, where Airbus said they expected to sell 1,200 and Boeing reckoned the number was much lower. The fact that it was much lower does not prove Boeing was right - the intent had to be there - it could have been (and I think it probably was, given how much of their own money they lost), Airbus simply got it wrong.

On the other hand, the US GIVES Boeing subsidies, either through tax breaks (which surely must be a gift) or through R&D programmes (which is more debatable as to whether it is a subsidy, as presumably the government gets a benefit from the work). I don't know enough about tax breaks to be able to opine on what the economic benefit is the headline tax break or something less.



I
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4891
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: WTO rules against Boeing and US.

Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:48 am

Carmitage wrote:
As I understand it, the gripe is the following:
On one hand, Europe LENDS Airbus billions - this is allowed under the rules, but only at a commercial interest rate. The loan is then repaid (with interest) on delivery of the aircraft. If the EXPECTED number of aircraft are not delivered, the remainder of the loan is not repaid. The two issues here are:
1) What is a commercial interest rate. Airbus argues that a commercial interest rate is what it pays on its typical debt, whereas Boeing argues that because the loan is higher risk (as if the programme is less successful, the loan isn't repaid), then a lender would demand a higher rate of interest, so a commercial rate on launch aid would be higher than normal debt - the problem with this argument is that if Airbus paid the same commercial rate under the same terms as to a bank, where is the support?
To illustrate:
I loan a friend $100 for 10 years and we agree to interest of 4% per year, whereas if he went to a bank, he would be charge 6% - the benefit of that preferential loan is not $100, but $2 per year for 10 years, or $20 in total (probably more like $10-15, given the time value of money) - ie the economic benefit to Airbus is much lower than the headline loan

2) the EXPECTED number of aircraft - Boeing accuse Airbus of intentionally inflating the expected number of aircraft, so they don't need to repay some of the loan - the big one here was the A380, where Airbus said they expected to sell 1,200 and Boeing reckoned the number was much lower. The fact that it was much lower does not prove Boeing was right - the intent had to be there - it could have been (and I think it probably was, given how much of their own money they lost), Airbus simply got it wrong.

On the other hand, the US GIVES Boeing subsidies, either through tax breaks (which surely must be a gift) or through R&D programmes (which is more debatable as to whether it is a subsidy, as presumably the government gets a benefit from the work). I don't know enough about tax breaks to be able to opine on what the economic benefit is the headline tax break or something less.



I


Under the 1992 Agreement on Large Civil Aircraft, the foundation agreement between the US and EU which set up the Repayable Launch Aid subsidy which Airbus received, set out some stipulations:

1. A detailed forecast of production, including costs and investments required.
2. Terms which set repayment plus interest to happen in full within 17 years of the award, with repayment amount derived per delivery during that period.

There was no clause under the 1992 agreement which ever said the launch aid was never repayable - while it was linked to a given number of deliveries in a set period, not making those deliveries did not absolve repayment of the balance, which was still due at the 17 year point.

However, the US withdrew from that agreement and we now have the current mess - Airbus and the EU are no longer beholden to the terms of that agreement.
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 542
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: WTO rules against Boeing and US.

Fri Mar 29, 2019 2:54 pm

StudiodeKadent wrote:
But I think Boeing's conduct with respect to the C-Series/A220 means they deserve to face some pretty nasty consequences.

Hypocrites
might be the proper wording maybe?

Including offering [email protected]$23M to block any CSeries sales and destroy the program & Bombardier - as openly admitted by some Boeing executives.

StudiodeKadent wrote:
I'm sad, however, that even if the A220 sells very well, Bombardier probably won't recoup their investment. But Boeing really need to learn their lesson... trying to destroy potential competitors may just result in strengthening actual competitors.

Boeing predatory behavior illustrates very well the barriers to entry in the "mainline" commercial aircraft manufacturing business. Only the Chinese (with MASSIVE subsidies/industrial spying) might eventually crack it.

Indeed, BBD (shareholders) may never recoup their investment.

However, the Quebec government should (eventually) recoup most/all of their investments. They only paid about 40 cents on the dollar for their CSeries program equity investments.
 
Skywatcher
Posts: 784
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 11:19 am

Re: WTO rules against Boeing and US.

Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:38 pm

I also used to root for Boeing in the Airbus/Boeing battle for world dominance. No more. I suspect that many other Canadians went through the same transfer of allegiance after the failed C-series bully tactic. Of course both giants are guilty to one degree or another. The hypocracy on both sides is laughable but since Boeing has been at the pig trough far longer than Airbus (since the thirties?) I tend to blame them more.
 
9Patch
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: WTO rules against Boeing and US.

Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:55 pm

SteelChair wrote:
Super80Fan wrote:
I must admit, I am enjoying Boeing being knocked down a peg.


For most of my adult life, I could have been classified as a Boeimg fan. No longer. I first detected chinks in the armor during the 787 program. Its gotten worse since then. They continue to make GIGANTIC mistakes. I really think they need new leadership at the top. I dont have much confidence that will happen, goven the clubbiness among corporate boards, universities, and the global elite, ie., the swamp.


How would you classify the A380?
As a GIGANTIC success?
Now they won't have to repay the misnamed Repayable Launch Aid subsidy.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos