Fri Aug 13, 2004 08:33 PM ET

SEATTLE (Reuters) - President Bush complained about European subsidies for Airbus on Friday and threatened to take a case to the World Trade Organization if they were not ended.

In an election-year move at a time when he is under pressure over slow U.S. job growth, Bush said he had told the U.S. trade representative, Robert Zoellick, that he should do everything possible to end European subsidies for Airbus.

"I've instructed the U.S. Trade Representative Bob Zoellick to inform European officials in his September meeting that we think these subsidies are unfair and he should pursue all options to end these subsidies, including bringing a WTO case if need be," Bush said after meeting Boeing executives while on a campaign stop in Seattle.


http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=5974688

Bush couldnt tell an Airbus from a Boeing if it had a big sign on the plane that indicated the type.

Bush couldnt tell an Airbus from a Boeing if it had a big sign on the plane that indicated the type.

You sure about that   ?


View Large View Medium

Photo © Matthew Smith


And for some reason, I don't think plopping down in a lawn chair at LHR and being able to tell the difference between an A330 and a 777 matters in the least  

[Edited 2004-08-14 03:27:37]

HAHA good picture man. Good to see fun running around this place. I was starting to get worried.

Does that mean that European airlines will get money from the US and that there will be an A330 "gas station" for the USAF?

What a suprise to see Bush throw this into the election. Amazing he even gives a damn since he exports so many jobs over-seas as it is. Why the heck should he care if Airbus gets subsidies?  Man I hope someone beats him in this election....Anyone, please beat him...

Ushermittwoch

If the A330 was equipped with the refueling probe when the bidding was open, who knows. The A330 at the time of the bidding did not fit the mission profiles that was set forth by the Department of Defense.

DfwRevolution,

They say that a picture is worth a 1,000 words, well that photo was worth a little extra. Great timing, and thanks for the well timed humor.......

Midnight, don't you think that Airbus would be the first to go to the WTO to demand a new chance?
 

Why the heck should he care if Airbus gets subsidies?

The U.S. aerospace industry is one of our largest exporters, and Boeing might be the single largest exporter of finished goods. Can anyone confirm? Anyway, at a time when the trade defecit is growing steadily, in other words we are buying more than we are selling, (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5694670/), and a time when the U.S. job market could get no worse, Boeing's exports are more important than ever. This is one place he damn well should care!

Man I hope someone beats him in this election....Anyone, please beat him...

FYI... not to bring politics into the scene, but making your aim to bring the other guy down at all cost never works. The Democratic party is thriving on the senergy of your sentements, "let's just beat Bush, my enemy's enemy is my friend." Factions of the party that *never* get along are working together just to beat Bush. Nice to see some teamwork, but do you think they would stay in a happy-go-luck world of cooperation if Kerry did win? Not a chance....

Does that mean that European airlines will get money from the US and that there will be an A330 "gas station" for the USAF?

No.... it mostly means Boeing will fully come clean with their fianances, and in return, Airbus will do likewise, at which point a new series of trade regulations will be drafted that favor the two companies equally. Boeing signed the last trade agreements when Airbus had roughly 25% of the market, now its a near 50/50 split, and many regulations are out of date, for both manufactures.

In the past, Boeing has judged that the benefit of a more equal trade agreement between the two would not be worth the price of disclosing some dubious military/research contracts. Boeing is in a state of rapid change at BCA, so now they might be (and probably are) willing to come clean, as at this point, Airbus doesn't look all that clean either.

Midnight, don't you think that Airbus would be the first to go to the WTO to demand a new chance?

NO! The current rules greatly favor Airbus. They were drafted when Airbus had half the market share they do now, and they still give Airbus access to vast resources that Boeing doesn't, namely huge loans (up to 1/3 the development cost of a project) that in some cases, do not require repayment if Airbus defaults. If Airbus has the 50% market share they say that have and are as great as they say they are, they should be able to finance an aircraft the way Boeing does.

Boeing will probably lobby for decreased EU support for Airbus while Airbus will probably lobby for more open access to Boeing/D.O.D finances and the Boeing/Japanese parternship might raise some issues.

"but do you think they would stay in a happy-go-luck world of cooperation if Kerry did win? Not a chance...."

About as well as the United States and the Soviet Union did after defeating Nazi Germany.

Does that mean that European airlines will get money from the US and that there will be an A330 "gas station" for the USAF?

I sincerely hope not! The first half because the US is not responsible for the health of other countries airlines, even due to our own ground-stop, and the second half because it's strategically moronic...

Amazing he even gives a damn since he exports so many jobs over-seas as it is.

Last I checked, it was corporations sending jobs overseas, not the President... Face it, the President can't create jobs, he can only help Congress create an environment where jobs are more likely to be created.

I'm also curious to see how John Kerry expects to add 10 million jobs when there are only 7 million unemployed people... I've done the math and reasonable projections, and it just can't be done without record unemployment levels...

Y'know, just fifteen years ago, "full employment" was considered 94%, or 6% unemployment. Today, we stand at 5.5%. We've never had unemployment fall below 5% for more than a few years, and usually it hovers between 6% and 7%... From that perspective, perhaps the recent loss of jobs isn't due to a bad economy, but a self-righting economy that had ballooned with non-viable Tech-sector jobs in companies that were not economically sustainable.

But what do I know? I'm just a 23 year old Marketing student with an above-average IQ who likes to read a lot...

Anyway, at a time when the trade defecit is growing steadily, in other words we are buying more than we are selling

People always complain about this, but the fact is, our economy continues to grow even as the trade deficits increase. Why? Because we in the US are damn good at creating wealth. Besides which, manufacturing goods now account for less than half of our economy. We're not an industrial society. We're a post-industrial society.

Don't get me wrong, minimizing deficits is good, but we don't have to be net-plus in this area...

As for your other comments, Dfw, I must agree fully... A fair, bilateral agreement about subsidization and other factors must be created. At the very least, the existing agreement should be ammended to reflect the now relatively even split between the two companies.

Finally! I'm glad Bush is doing something about this. As far as "anyone please beat him" goes God help us all if Kerry wins  
NW747400

About as well as the United States and the Soviet Union did after defeating Nazi Germany.

What do you mean "after?" Patton was talking about invading Russia in 1944... The Soviets were spying on the Manhattan project in 1942 (only a few months after its creation). We never shared some very important data with the USSR during the war because we didn't want to tip our hand at certain things...

And, I think, the same kinds of things are going on in the DNC...

But enough politics...

"Y'know, just fifteen years ago, "full employment" was considered 94%, or 6% unemployment. Today, we stand at 5.5%. We've never had unemployment fall below 5% for more than a few years, and usually it hovers between 6% and 7%... From that perspective, perhaps the recent loss of jobs isn't due to a bad economy, but a self-righting economy that had ballooned with non-viable Tech-sector jobs in companies that were not economically sustainable."

Not just that, but the trends were predicted WELL IN ADVANCE of Bill Clinton or George W. Bush ever taking office. Economists predicted a labor shortage for the 1990's back in 1985, and ecenomists predicted a slight downturn for the economy for the 2000's back in 1995. Do you really think they knew what people would be occupying the white house 6-7 years later?

The economy was on a solid growth pace the last 3 quarters of 1992, but George H. W. Bush was defeated by Bill Clinton for allegedly failing to handle the economy. The economy was in recession during all of 2000, the last full year of the Clinton Administration but somehow it was George W. Bush's fault when he took office in January 2001. The 9/11 attacks certainly slowed any potential economic recovery as well for at least 2 years. But somehow Bush is to "blame" despite rising consumer confidence and the Fed raising interest rates.

The fact is, any president gets far too much credit when the economy goes good, and way too much blame when things slow down a bit.

NW747400,

Sorry God help all airline employees if this dumb a*& BUSH gets in again. UA Employees better hope that Mr. Kerry wins as Bush could give a total rats ass if the employees pensions are in place. Bush could care less about the working class people. Labor is NO friend of Dubya.

How would a 13year old know a darn thing about the future.

Bush not only would NOT know what an Airbus or Boeing is..He still thought that STEWARDESS were on the planes on September 11th!

"Help is on the way!"

Bush couldnt tell an Airbus from a Boeing if it had a big sign on the plane that indicated the type.


L O L

I think he should be more concerned with John Kerry than making excuses blaming other people/countries for the reason or economy is so bad. If he wants to know why it is so shitty, he needs to look in the mirror.

You are so correct BIGBlack! wonder if he gets scared looking in the mirror as we do looking at him!

"Sorry God help all airline employees if this dumb a*& BUSH gets in again. UA Employees better hope that Mr. Kerry wins as Bush could give a total rats ass if the employees pensions are in place. Bush could care less about the working class people. Labor is NO friend of Dubya."

The airline employees won't have an airline to work for under John Kerry. The Administration and congress were falling all over themselves to get bailout loans to the various airlines after 9/11.

Airlines can expect no such help the next go round under a Kerry administration.

Kerry says he's all for jobs and that's great and all. The problem is his record is of despising the businesses that create the jobs he's supposedly all for.

NWAFA, As far as my age is concerned I know more than you think I would. You are entitled to your own opinion, and my parents are working class and both vote for President Bush. Just in case you forgot John Kerry isn't exactly working class himself   and his record of constant flip flopping how am I supposed to know where he stands on anything? Rant over.
NW747400

LOL NWA, well, when you are in bed with companies that outsource loads of work to other countries including terror supporting ones while American workers get laid off, you better come up with a enemy than Airbus

UA Employees better hope that Mr. Kerry wins as Bush could give a total rats ass if the employees pensions are in place.

Airline pensions are GONE...it's just a matter of time now...and you know what? It won't matter one iota who lives in the White House, either.

For the Civil Aviation forum, this thread is VERY political.... 

BTW...great pic. of the A340 at Farnborough...I saw it on the 25th...I'm not an Airbus man, but damn...that A340 put on a show that day...

I'll stick to aviation and not focus on politics but I will leace it with the economy speaks for it's self.

LOL NWA, well, when you are in bed with companies that outsource loads of work to other countries including terror supporting ones while American workers get laid off, you better come up with a enemy than Airbus

And when you're running for President on the Republican, maybe you might try appealing to the largely Democratic states of Washington and Illinois, and oh my, aren't those states where Boeing has a huge presence and might care a tad more about Boeing's health than the rest of us?

I'll stick to aviation and not focus on politics but I will leace it with the economy speaks for it's self.

Please do  

I think he should be more concerned with John Kerry than making excuses blaming other people/countries for the reason or economy is so bad.

John Kerry is ranting and raving over the same issue-
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/ThisWeek/Politics/kerry_edwards_040222-8.html

Bush and Kerry are making this a campaign issue in certain regions with aerospace presence, not the whole country. This is a smart move, as like I said, some regions with Boeing presence are areas where Bush needs votes.

The fact is, any president gets far too much credit when the economy goes good, and way too much blame when things slow down a bit.

Amen

We knew this was coming, after all, it IS an election year. What surprises me (or perhaps shouldn't, considering some of Kerry's other gaffes), is that Kerry now criticizes Bush for this position while very early on, long before he became the Democrats front-runner, Kerry said the Airbus subsidies issue was worth looking into. Despite that I'm voting for Kerry, due to idealogical and policy differences with Bush, I'd have to agree that the oft-used 'flip-flopper' moniker does too often fit him. Not a candidate of apparent solid convictions, too bad there's too much of the Bush mandate that rubs me the wrong way. But if Bush is truly serious about this; it's one issue I'll back him on 100% and yell, "Right on, Dubya!"

"As far as "anyone please beat him" goes God help us all if Kerry wins."

It wouldn't be all THAT bad, NW747400. Life for most of us won't be much different, no matter who wins. You're far too young anyway to take it all that seriously; the country won't fall apart whether your or my preferred candidate wins. No matter which of them wins, LIFE WILL GO ON! Now, go have some fun!

Yes AvObserver I did overstate my preference of Bush over Kerry LOL. It is very true that the country will not fall apart if Kerry wins. And as far as having fun goes what in the world do you think I've been doing all summer break! LOL. Have a nice night everyone.
NW747400

I liked when Bush commented that Kerry lacked any deep convictions on anything to which Kerry replied,

"Well, that's not altogether entirely true....."  

As usual. i'm late to the party. I planned on a fashionably late entrance, now i'm too late.

One man's subsidy is another's tax credit!

Let's see $2billion+ tax credit for Boeing from WA state for the 7E7, over a hundred million from Chicago and Cook County for moving their HQ and thats just the ones I can remember off the top of my head. Plus those illegal (as determined by the WTO) corporate tax shelters the US govt needs to get rid of, or get hit with several billion tariffs from Europe, from which Boeing has benefited by hundreds of millions.
At least Airbus has to pay back the loan. A tax credit is pure money in the pocket. Plus what does one call the Japanese Govt MITI loans to the Japanese manufacturers for their 35% share of the 7E7? A "non subsidised loan"??? Why don't the Japanese manufacturers go to a regular bank and ask for regular rates for their start up money if its so wrong for Airbus to get similar "subsidised" loans?

At least the Europeans , or specifically the Brits, are smart enough to ask for royalties too. 1billion Euros in their treasury just from the A320 and all the loans paid back with interest. Maybe Washington DC should learn from across the pond and do as Brussels does rather than stop them!

One man's subsidy is another's tax credit!

Let's see $2billion+ tax credit for Boeing from WA state for the 7E7, over a hundred million from Chicago and Cook County for moving their HQ and thats just the ones I can remember off the top of my head. Plus those illegal (as determined by the WTO) corporate tax shelters the US govt needs to get rid of, or get hit with several billion tariffs from Europe, from which Boeing has benefited by hundreds of millions.
At least Airbus has to pay back the loan. A tax credit is pure money in the pocket. Plus what does one call the Japanese Govt MITI loans to the Japanese manufacturers for their 35% share of the 7E7? A "non subsidised loan"??? Why don't the Japanese manufacturers go to a regular bank and ask for regular rates for their start up money if its so wrong for Airbus to get similar "subsidised" loans?

At least the Europeans , or specifically the Brits, are smart enough to ask for royalties too. 1billion Euros in their treasury just from the A320 and all the loans paid back with interest. Maybe Washington DC should learn from across the pond and do as Brussels does rather than stop them!

You can say that again!! Oh wait a minute, you already did!  

My favorite line from Seattle's King TV website....

http://www.king5.com/business/stories/NW_081304BUKbushairbusJK.7574a0f4.html

"Bush made the comments after meeting with Alan Mulally, chief executive of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, and about 30 Boeing employees at a company hangar at Boeing Field."

30 Boeing employees........WOW!!!!!......and Ill bet they were all known Boeing Bush supporters.......But hey 30 is so far the largest non military...non fundraising party crowd he has spoke to in Seattle since .......hmmm....well 2000.

He´s only out to fish votes for the Rep.

Simple as that!  

Micke

This really does nothing to change anyone's opinion of Bush. If there was a real subsidy issue re. Airbus for the US, then why hasn't Bush done anything to bring the case to the WTO? Why bring this up right now, with the election looming? He's had four years after all.

The timing betrays him: there is no real-world subsidy case but he wants people within the aerospace industry to vote for him and Boeing to give the Republicans more money.

It never ceases to amaze me that the Republicans have Bush Jr as their candidate in this election.

But what do I know? I'm just a 23 year old Marketing student with an above-average IQ who likes to read a lot...

Ooooooooooooo...watch out! If what you boast about yourself is true, there are two things different (apart from your age) between you and your beloved Dubya, eh?

Sebastian

p.s. for you republicans, what I meant: an above-average IQ and likes to read a lot  

Sorry, just had to do that one 

I'm sure that if the WTO agrees with America then Bush will demand reform.......And if they don't agree, Bush will still demand reform......Sometimes I wonder why Bush doesn't take any notice of the UN, I guess it only applies when it goes in Bush's favor.........Just a thought.

It is about time... I am glad Bush made a point of this... good for him and good for USA Boeing!

Only a few weeks ago, I talked about this subject with a financial specialist specialised in Boeing-Airbus finances. What he told me basically came down to the following:

- Airbus subsidies are more visible than those of Boeing
- Airbus get's loans, while Boeing get's a huge number of money for their 'military division' *cough*
- in the end, both are heavily subsidized, but with one big difference: if Airbus builds a succesful modell, they have to pay the loans back, while Boeing can keep the money.

Frederic

What, and Boeing don't get governmental assiatance? What a crock!

To all:

Rather than argue over who is "subsidized" and who isn't, get to the table and get an agreement in place so the issue can get put to rest once and for all
before the politicians decide on something stupid. What? Dubya do something stupid? How IRAQ could that be?  

Maybe I should listen to   Rush Limbaugh   and find out....

Wonder how that crow tastes when Dubya talks to Chirac & Schroeder?

regards,

F4N

"President" Bush is really getting on my nerves now. Already our "Head of State" has flared up tempers with the ally who without them, the US wouldn't exist, but now the UK is a possibility? My god, he really doesn't want an A380 AF1.

Before the US goes to the WTO maybe it should honor the WTO rulings it has ignored because it didn't like the result.

Its high time the US government acts to end this nonsense in Europe.

According the European version of things Boeing is "subsidized" because of its defense business. In exchange for money, Boeing provides the government with goods and services. That is an ordinary transaction.

In contrast Airbus receives cash to develop airplane that it more often than has not repaid let alone provided any goods and services to the taxpayer. Europeans also tend to avoid the inconvenient fact that parent company of Airbus also receives significant defense contracts.

A major portion US defense spending [read Boeing subsidies] in the last 50 years was dedicated to protecting Europe during the Cold War. During the 1960s and 1970s, several European nations actually reduced their defense spending during the cold war. [Thus allowing them to finance their cushy social safety nets]. To this day the continued stability and prosperity of Europe is anchored by the US-furnished guarantees of security.

So please spare us the lectures of how the US government has historically been tacitly and selfishly "subsidizing" Boeing through defense contracts. If anything the US taxpayer has indirectly subsidized European social welfare systems.

If in 1969 the Mansfield Amendment had actually passed....

[Edited 2004-08-14 18:25:22]

Sorry God help all airline employees if this dumb a*& BUSH gets in again. UA Employees better hope that Mr. Kerry wins as Bush could give a total rats ass if the employees pensions are in place.

Sorry pal, but UA just whant to stop paying pension until they are out of banckrupcy, Sometimes, it is best if the employees give a little in order to save their jobs, what will to a workerhappen if UA continues paying pensions for 4 or 5 months and then collapses and that person losses his job, or not recieve it for a year and then get it for the rest of their life? I would prefer N°2 if I where working.

How many Airlines, and Companies have gone down becouse of stupid union politics?

And BTW, the administration already said that it is illegal unless the workers agree to do it, so saying that W can give a rats A$$ is incorrect becouse he already defended the workers

Bush could care less about the working class people. Labor is NO friend of Dubya
Since when did Class struggle become a stand of the Democratic party? last time I checked we still say "one nation indivisable under God"

Before the US goes to the WTO maybe it should honor the WTO rulings it has ignored because it didn't like the result.

Like?

- Airbus get's loans, while Boeing get's a huge number of money for their 'military division' *cough*

Boeing builds a product or delievers a service and gets paid in return. That's how a business works, no coughing about it. What Boeing is now saying is they will (or are more willing) to disclose their financial history

Already our "Head of State" has flared up tempers with the ally who without them, the US wouldn't exist, but now the UK is a possibility?

The same could be said about two World Wars we fought together... hate to break it to you, but the U.S isn't out to get France, were out to save our aerospace jobs and make the playing field equal... if memory serves, that was the whole damn point of the Airbus consortium in the first place!

What, and Boeing don't get governmental assiatance? What a crock!

In the form of direct loans, no they don't.

- in the end, both are heavily subsidized, but with one big difference: if Airbus builds a succesful modell, they have to pay the loans back, while Boeing can keep the money.

Yeah and if Airbus isn't sucessful, and one of these day's they can't get an airplane right even the second time, they *don't* have to repay their loans. As for Boeing "keeping the money," they do not recieve direct subsidies in the first place.

The "indirect subsidies" through their military division are bullsh** for that matter. Is Boeing not allowed to sell defense products for a profit? Can Boeing not spend their profit in the way they want? Every time the D.O.D writes Boeing a check, they are getting something in return, and Boeing has every right in the world to profit off their transactions. There is absolutely *nothing* wrong with Boeing choosing to use its IDS profits to fund R/D for BCA.

EADS does the exact same thing, which is also perfectly legal IMO. It is the direct subsidation that crosses the line.

Airbus for the US, then why hasn't Bush done anything to bring the case to the WTO? Why bring this up right now, with the election looming? He's had four years after all.

Well... duh it's an election year. If anyone thinks less of the two canidates for brining it up now of all times, you're just being a nieve twerp to how the world works.

Also, it wasn't until about 2002 that Airbus really began to over-take Boeing in both orders and deliveries. Even though Airbus has been steadily gaining on Boeing in both market share and a complete product line, it wasn't until half way through Bush's administration that Airbus broke Boeing's 4-decade dominance.

It takes a while for a case to be built for trade talks, long-term economic predictions must be made, these things don't just happen over night....

NWAfa I think its GW's moral clarity that scares the Hell out of you!

N79969

Did you cut and paste that? Or is it all your own rambling?

Do us a favour, read the thread or do some research before repeating the Party Line. You might learn something. Like Airbus repays development loans, which are also made at ABOVE US prime interest rates....and I don't care. It keeps my taxes down.

Incidentally EADS military divisions are TINY compared to Boeing/McDD contracts.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good rant, eh?

[Edited 2004-08-14 18:58:24]

Oh, NOW Bush goes to the WTO? He should have gone a long time ago. Just a cheap vote-getting ploy.

Read my lips, Mr Bush! Kyoto  

Micke