gbfra
Posts: 427
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:50 am

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:42 pm

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 49):
Worst case scenario is that the US responds by either slapping on import duties on A350 sales in the US, or banning sale of the aircraft in the US. Since the only customer is US, and it is quite unlikely UA will buy it, Airbus really only have 20 to 30 frames to lose if this happens. Not really a big stick.

In fact this is a worst case scenario ... for Boeing. Because the EU could respond in the same way and ban US aircraft sales in Europe.

Boeing has much more to loose in Europe than Airbus in the US.

All this had been vastly discussed before the 1992 agreement. The Europeans always felt quite comfortable in these discussions because they knew that they did not need to take any kind of threats by the US seriously. This is still the case.
The fundamental things apply as time goes by
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:08 am

Quoting Gbfra (Reply 51):
The Europeans always felt quite comfortable in these discussions because they knew that they did not need to take any kind of threats by the US seriously. This is still the case.

If that were so, Gbfra, one wonders why the EU governments haven't poured launch aid etc. into Airbus years ago, to get it out of its present hole?

Fact is, of course, that if the WTO allowed the US Government to impose sanctions on EU exports, they wouldn't be required to be (nor WOULD they be) limited to exports of aeroplanes.......

The EU is in enough trouble with the effects of the ever-rising Euro. The last thing they want is a trade war with the United States.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
gbfra
Posts: 427
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:50 am

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:15 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 52):
If that were so, Gbfra, one wonders why the EU governments haven't poured launch aid etc. into Airbus years ago, to get it out of its present hole?

Where should they have poured in launch aid in recent years?
The fundamental things apply as time goes by
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:31 am

Quoting Gbfra (Reply 51):
Boeing has much more to loose in Europe than Airbus in the US.

I think this is backwards. In recent years Airbus have been gaining market share in the US, whilst Boeing have been losing their share in the EU. Reversing one of these would be a gain for Boeing....

Cheers
 
Wsp
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 7:43 am

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Sun Jul 29, 2007 4:20 am

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 42):
I still don't understand how that comes even close to $200 bn. Any ideas?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...-boeing-airbus-wto,0,2668782.story

Quote:
The U.S. “is actively trying to 'sell' this vastly exaggerated amount” of $205 billion, the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, said today in a statement. The calculation is “contrary to accepted wisdom, practices and the WTO subsidies agreement.”



Quote:
Applying the same method, the commission said Boeing received $305 billion, rather than the $23 billion that the commission has filed in its legal submissions.

Airbus is repaying loans at a rate of as much as $553 million a year, and the financing was expressly allowed under a 1992 deal with the U.S. and therefore can't be attacked, according to the commission. Airbus says it has repaid 40 percent more than it has borrowed from EU governments since 1992, and a total of more than 7 billion euros to date.
 
cygnuschicago
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:34 am

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:26 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 52):
if the WTO allowed the US Government to impose sanctions on EU exports, they wouldn't be required to be (nor WOULD they be) limited to exports of aeroplanes.......

Not sure what the facts are, but I'm pretty sure that's not really allowable. Sanctions are generally limited to the offending product, or financial compensation to equal amount. Bear in mind, that a WTO resolution will probably be one of restitution in an extreme case, or simply minor fines and agreement on future business in the more likely case. Sanctions on the other hand will be driven on a unilateral basis, i.e., if the US decides to preempt the WTO and implement duties.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 54):
In recent years Airbus have been gaining market share in the US

Guess that depends on your definition of recent. With the exception of US, and the small LCCs, manufacturers in the US are reverting to Boeing.

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 47):
Not all of them, but it's very safe to say that really until the A320, Airbus was a blackhole in terms of money going in.

No, not really. The A300 series has long ago passed breakeven and RLI became repayable. Sure, it isn't a cash cow for European governments like the A32X, but it certainly is profitable, from a long-term investment point of view.
If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
 
cygnuschicago
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:34 am

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:33 am

Quoting Azhobo (Reply 44):
OF course one could say that every plane sold by Airbus from the beginning of time was a lost sale to Boeing, and that was done through the kindness of the EU heart. But that is over the top as well.

So 200B sounds like a pretty fair figure.

If this is an approach that Boeing and our government decides to use, then expect a major counter-claim back. Remember those little protectionist tactics that killed, among others, sales of the BAC 1-11 in the US? If Boeing uses a "every Airbus is a Boeing loss" tactic, then I fully expect the EU to demand compensation for every DC-9 and derivate sold as a lost BAC 1-11 sale, and arguing that the tactics that doomed the BAC 1-11 in the US where the reason they had to create Airbus in the first place.
If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:53 am

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 14):
The Brazilian government has asked the WTO to rule against subsidies. According to the article, our delegation insisted that subsidies for companies is not a requirement to participate in the industry, giving the example of how Embraer's E-jets were designed and built without government subsidies.

The whole Embraer/Canadair fight is equal in nastyness to the Airbus/Boeing fight.

Quoting TYCOON (Reply 46):
I have looked it up and did quite alot of research on this when I was a student at MIT.

Tycoon, with all due respect, your research is either pretty flawed or your conclusions are.

Here is the history

Boeing developed the 320-80 prototype to prove that jet technology was possible. Boeing then competed against Lockheed for a jet tanker project and lost. Lockheed won it with a paper airplane. LeMay who was the god of SAC wanted tankers faster then Lockheed was able to produce them, so he forced a purchase of 50 widened 320 prototypes as KC-135's. They where supposed to be interm aircraft for SAC until the Lockheed aircraft arrived. At the same time Boeing was starting to make the rounds with the airliner version of the 707 in the KC-135's 5 seat cabin width and where gaining orders.

Meanwhile down in Long Beach, a fellow by the name of Donald hadn't really been looking at jet transports but then suddenly realized that Boeing had a number of orders for this new jet, so he started his company to work on a jet transport also. In order to fit more people in he went with a 6x seating arrangement. Then the airlines that where ordering Boeings when for DC-8's, and they where telling Boeing that their 707 purchases where going to be "Interm" aircraft too until the larger DC-8's where delivered. Boeing finally had to bite the bullet and redesign the 707 as a 6x aicraft.

So it is clear that Boeings design decisions where pushed by marketing not military pressures.

In the end Lockheed never flew their tanker prototype and Boeing kept getting KC-135 orders.

Now I think your research may be flawed is that you looked at congresional mentions of he aircraft in the record. You have to remember that these where all projects in the public and with the emphasis on the military and the country's transportation infrastructure that occured during the start of the cold war and the Ike administration in particular, I think they are par for the course, not indicators of a plot to have the goverment pay for the 707 development.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
drexotica
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:44 am

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Sun Jul 29, 2007 8:55 am

Quoting TYCOON (Reply 46):
Sorry Sllevin, I have looked it up and did quite alot of research on this when I was a student at MIT. I'll dig up the ressources and I suggest you dig up your library card and head to your local branch to brush up on your facts, my man.

Hmmm.

OK Tycoon - given that this was 'research' that you did while a student, I presume that this was turned into a paper/report/article/whatever. Why don't you dig it up and place an electronic copy somewhere that will allow us to download it, read it, check the references, etc.

My understanding of the matter more closely matches Sllevin's.

As they say, talk is cheap.
N707PA - Best looking commercial aircraft ever.
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 5120
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:26 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 52):
one wonders why the EU governments haven't poured launch aid etc. into Airbus years ago, to get it out of its present hole

(1) Its "present hole" is of comparatively recent making. (2) It's not at all clear how "pouring launch aid into Airbus" would immediately help to get it out of said hole. (3) I thought your argument has long been that EU governments have wantonly been "pouring" aid into Airbus on a regular basis. So, apologies, but I cannot follow your argument above.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 52):
if the WTO allowed the US Government to impose sanctions on EU exports, they wouldn't be required to be (nor WOULD they be) limited to exports of aeroplanes.......

Which would work in both directions. It's a moot point which 'side' would have more to lose. (The answer, of course, is that both sides would lose but neither would find the wounds fatal.)

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 52):
the ever-rising Euro. The last thing they want is a trade war with the United States.

If the Euro is weak it's evidence of Europe's feebleness. If it's strong it hands all the cards to the US. Can the poor Europeans never win or do anything right?
 
bhmbaglock
Posts: 2489
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:51 am

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:41 am

Quoting MBJ2000 (Reply 35):
Obviously you cannot accept the facts, the US military is one of the biggest subsidy spreading machine worldwide...

So, buying a military product is automatically a subsidy for commercial? Guess EADS/Airbus better get busy going after themselves for the subsidies they're receiving on Lakota, etc.

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 42):
I still don't understand how that comes even close to $200 bn. Any ideas?

As an arbitrary example(warning! not real numbers), assume a $2.4 Billion / year average investment over a period of 25 years and assume the cost of the money(opportunity to make money with it via profitable investments) is 8.5%. This comes out to just over $200 Billion when the hypothetical investment is $60 Billion.

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 56):
Sure, it isn't a cash cow for European governments like the A32X, but it certainly is profitable, from a long-term investment point of view.

I'd be surprised if this was the case if the opportunity cost of the money is considered. However, I have no problem in principal with what was done with the A300 as the European aviation industry did need a kick start at the time and it is not acceptable to lose the ability to do such work locally. However, A is well past the point where they should need a prop to stay in business.
Where are all of my respected members going?
 
airfrnt
Posts: 2154
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:05 am

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:27 am

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 56):
No, not really. The A300 series has long ago passed breakeven and RLI became repayable.

bashes head against desk repeatedly

We are not talking about RLI, we are talking about pure and old fashioned government funding of Airbus. And no, Airbus did not turn a profit on the A300 or the A310 from a NPV point of view. ever.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:51 am

Quoting Gbfra (Reply 53):
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 52):
If that were so, Gbfra, one wonders why the EU governments haven't poured launch aid etc. into Airbus years ago, to get it out of its present hole?

Where should they have poured in launch aid in recent years?



Quoting PM (Reply 60):
(1) Its "present hole" is of comparatively recent making. (2) It's not at all clear how "pouring launch aid into Airbus" would immediately help to get it out of said hole. (3) I thought your argument has long been that EU governments have wantonly been "pouring" aid into Airbus on a regular basis. So, apologies, but I cannot follow your argument above.

The main holes that it seems to have at present are reorganizing its management and increasing its production. While money might be useful for the latter, that is not traditionally the sort of support that has been provided - assistance has been directed at the stage before production and certainly not at expansion of production.

Quoting PM (Reply 60):
Can the poor Europeans never win or do anything right?

Certainly not while they insist on taking their three hour lunches!  Confused  biting 

I note the argument between the "it could not happen under RLI" school of thought and the "it was pre RLI" school. When there has been a previous complaint and a negotiated agreement, would the WTO go back before that negotiated agreement, or would it assume that the clocks were reset at the time of the negotiated agreement.

As some have suggested, if you go back before the RLI agreement, you start digging up BAC1-11s, and if not careful you start to mention the war, rather in the manner of the famous Basil Fawlty effort.

If the WTO wanted to retain any degree of sanity, it would limit the time period, simply to limit the complexity. How much control over its terms of reference does the WTO have?

Note that there are still plenty of (so-called) expert assessments that both sides will be sorry they asked once a decision is made.  crying 
 
astuteman
Posts: 6945
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:53 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 62):
When there has been a previous complaint and a negotiated agreement, would the WTO go back before that negotiated agreement

That would seem extraordinarily unlikely, to me.

Regards
 
Wsp
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 7:43 am

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:37 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 62):
As some have suggested, if you go back before the RLI agreement, you start digging up BAC1-11s, and if not careful you start to mention the war, rather in the manner of the famous Basil Fawlty effort.

The GATT "Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft" entered into force on 1980-01-01.

http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/tokyo_air_e.pdf
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8258
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:49 am

Quoting L-188 (Reply 57):

The whole Embraer/Canadair fight is equal in nastyness to the Airbus/Boeing fight.

Sure, but it was a little different on the Embraer side. EMB was participating in a pro-export program available to all in Brazil, and that program was ruled against by the WTO (and modified to fit the rules, IIRC). BBD also suffered a reverse ruling a few years later. Also it was a row between two fully privatized companies, although with significant political influence, unlike this case with Airbus, which brings out the big political guns on both sides of the Atlantic.

[Edited 2007-07-29 21:51:10]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 5120
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:33 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 62):
Certainly not while they insist on taking their three hour lunches!

Uh? I've worked in three European countries and count myself lucky if I can eat a sandwich while sitting at my desk. Where did this "three hour lunch" come from? (And how can I get one?!)
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:37 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 62):
The main holes that it seems to have at present are reorganizing its management and increasing its production. While money might be useful for the latter, that is not traditionally the sort of support that has been provided - assistance has been directed at the stage before production and certainly not at expansion of production.

Airbus' main hole is that it is drastically short of cash, Baroque - see their half-year results. And the EU was all set to give them launch aid for the 'old new' A350 before Boeing raised the issue with the WTO.

As to 'assistance being directed at the stage before production,' launch aid boiled down to an injection of some billions of cash 'up front,' at the inception of a new aircraft project. A Euro is a Euro - and the amounts involved were far greater than Airbus could possibly have spent on a new development project in the first year; so OF COURSE launch aid assisted cash flow (and of course Airbus misses it  Smile).
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
cygnuschicago
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:34 am

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:37 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 67):
Airbus' main hole is that it is drastically short of cash, Baroque - see their half-year results

6.5 bn euros of cash? That's a shortage in your opinion? Heck, they can pay 50% of the A350XWB development upfront without borrowing a dime.

What exactly is your definition of "drastically short of cash"?

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 61):
And no, Airbus did not turn a profit on the A300 or the A310 from a NPV point of view.

Profit in my opinion has nothing to do with NPV. As to the A300/310 - actually, it was NPV positive (if only marginal). You may want to try and run the numbers  Smile

Now, you can make an argument that there was a better use for the money, from an NPV point of view, but it still remains positive, no matter how you spin it.

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 61):
We are not talking about RLI, we are talking about pure and old fashioned government funding of Airbus.

Huh? What on earth are you on about here?
If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:09 pm

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 68):
6.5 bn euros of cash? That's a shortage in your opinion? Heck, they can pay 50% of the A350XWB development upfront without borrowing a dime.

I can only conclude that you don't understand business, Cygnus. They need their cash balance to fund work in progress. Do you spend your whole salary the day you receive it?

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 68):
What exactly is your definition of "drastically short of cash"?

Not making a profit. If Airbus spent that E6.5B. on A350 development, as you suggest, they'd make a E6.4B.loss on the next quarter, and go out of business.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:23 pm

Quoting Wsp (Reply 64):
The GATT "Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft" entered into force on 1980-01-01.

http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/le...e.pdf

Hmmm, yes, but a quickish read of that does not give dates beyond which thou shalt not claim. Maybe those are there, but I did not find them. Whatever, the number that the US has used seems to contain a fair flight of some fancy or other - I stick to my guess of the total value of Airbus production tagged back to some constant dollars, probably 2006 ones.

Quoting PM (Reply 66):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 62):
Certainly not while they insist on taking their three hour lunches!

Uh? I've worked in three European countries and count myself lucky if I can eat a sandwich while sitting at my desk. Where did this "three hour lunch" come from? (And how can I get one?!)

Old a.net non joke - it is the period during which the workers take cheese with their whine. It just seemed that the fanciful stories were getting to the stage that the 3 hr lunch ought to be wheeled out for its monthly exercise.

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 68):
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 67):
Airbus' main hole is that it is drastically short of cash, Baroque - see their half-year results

6.5 bn euros of cash? That's a shortage in your opinion? Heck, they can pay 50% of the A350XWB development upfront without borrowing a dime.

What exactly is your definition of "drastically short of cash"?

That, CC is what is seems to me is the case. The argument about losses matters little until they overtop the reserves. Also the bottom line profit and loss may not reflect available cash. Most likely, this is better than the loss stated - although it can also be worse.

The NAV theory of Airbus finances should mean that GM and Ford no longer exist and as far as I can work out, they still do exist.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6945
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:59 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 69):
Not making a profit. If Airbus spent that E6.5B. on A350 development, as you suggest, they'd make a E6.4B.loss on the next quarter, and go out of business.

Pardon?

I hadn't realised that the A350 would be completely developed by Q3 2007
Like the idea though.
 rotfl 

FWIW Airbus currently account for somwhere approaching E2 1/4 Bn per Annum in Revenue-based Development expenditure on the cost side of the accounts, before operating profit is declared.

Despite this, and God only knows how many exceptional payments they've had to make, there was no discernible cash outflow from the parent organisation in the first 6 months of this year (which is pretty remarkable, really).

Airbus R+D is currently being funded from operating cashflow.
I don't expect that to change in the immediate future.
It may do once major A350 facility investments become necessary, in a few years time

Regards
 
EI321
Topic Author
Posts: 4999
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:08 pm

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 49):
Actually no it doesn't. As long as the WTO case is not settled, there is no reason for Airbus to not get RLI for the A350.

They already applied under the previous design, the funding appears to be already in place.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 71):
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 69):
Not making a profit. If Airbus spent that E6.5B. on A350 development, as you suggest, they'd make a E6.4B.loss on the next quarter, and go out of business.

Pardon?

I hadn't realised that the A350 would be completely developed by Q3 2007
Like the idea though.

........and that's coming from someone who in the very same post stated:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 69):
I can only conclude that you don't understand business, Cygnus.

Theres an aroma of irony in the air this morning  Wink
 
EI321
Topic Author
Posts: 4999
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:37 pm

Europe slams 'unrealistic' US subsidy estimates in WTO dispute

Quote:
The exact way in which the USA has gone about calculating the level of support for Airbus came under scrutiny last week as World Trade Organisation experts met to consider the latest transatlantic arguments over support for the European airframer.

In the latest exchange on 25 July, the international trade dispute panellists appointed to decide on the merits of the USA's case heard public statements from either side - the US Trade Representative and the European Commission - before entering into closed session the following day to consider the effect of aircraft pricing and subsidy calculation methodology.



Quote:
"The US now seeks to argue that the benefit of [launch aid] alone amounts to as much as $205 billion. This 'estimate' is completely unrealistic. It is more than eight times the capitalisation of [Airbus parent] EADS, $25.8 billion, roughly 12 times the net assets of EADS, $18.4 billion."

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...c-us-subsidy-estimates-in-wto.html

Looks like this will go on for a few months at least.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:05 pm

Quoting EI321 (Reply 73):

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...c-us-subsidy-estimates-in-wto.html

Looks like this will go on for a few months at least.

From the same article:
"The EC charges that as well as the USA continuing to inflate support for research and development while overlooking Airbus aircraft launched without any aid, if the US methodology were to be applied to Boeing the amount challenged by the EU would be $305 billion rather than the contested $23 billion."

Which suggests they actually know how it was calculated. $305 billion, would that be Boeings sales for 37 years or so?
 
EI321
Topic Author
Posts: 4999
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:20 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 74):
Which suggests they actually know how it was calculated. $305 billion, would that be Boeings sales for 37 years or so?

Dont know. Totl sales would be greater than total expenditure anyway.

I was trying to see how they could come up with $205b in the first place.

Airbus & Boeing have yearly R & D budjets from which their major projects are developed. Boeings is about $1.5 - 2billion, I guess Airbus is similar.
 
Wsp
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 7:43 am

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:41 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 70):
Hmmm, yes, but a quickish read of that does not give dates beyond which thou shalt not claim. Maybe those are there, but I did not find them. Whatever, the number that the US has used seems to contain a fair flight of some fancy or other - I stick to my guess of the total value of Airbus production tagged back to some constant dollars, probably 2006 ones.

The agreements work by abolishing various trade barriers. The main barrier are import duties. And if you start adding up subsidies from before the agreement you would also have to add up import duties that were paid before the agreement.

But of course no one stops the involved parties to use whatever financial magic makes their claim appear bigger. And of course, Boeing workers are also voters, so building up the EU as some evil subsidy empire using inflated numbers may, inadvertently of course, help with domestic politics.

I hear that various works of Leonardo da Vinci on flying machines were indirectly subsidized through various governmental contracts. Can't wait until someone adds those payments up...with inflation and interest since the late 1490s.
 
EI321
Topic Author
Posts: 4999
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:51 am

Quoting Wsp (Reply 76):
Can't wait until someone adds those payments up...with inflation and interest since the late 1490s.

Must be at least €500b  Wink
 
pygmalion
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:58 am

The thing to remember about this recent debate is that the US submittal to the WTO was not made public. What you are hearing is the tidbits of information that Airbus and the EU decided to "leak". Since you are only hearing one,very slanted side of the story... I would suggest that you take it with a sense of skepticism. If and until you hear both sides of the story.... What you are hearing is propaganda, pure and simple.

Why the EU is attempting to litigate this in the press? To me, that doesn't say good things about their case.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:35 am

Quoting Wsp (Reply 76):
I hear that various works of Leonardo da Vinci on flying machines were indirectly subsidized through various governmental contracts. Can't wait until someone adds those payments up...with inflation and interest since the late 1490s.

Good point Wsp, but that would count against Boeing presumably due to their use of the Italian industry for the 787!  Smile  Smile

So E1321 should perhaps give USD600 billion - or bullion as I accidentally tryped the first time. Truth will out it seems.

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 78):
Why the EU is attempting to litigate this in the press? To me, that doesn't say good things about their case.

Like this I spose?
U Hits Back at US in Aircraft Aid Row
(Source: Voice of America news; issued May31, 2005)
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...H8AAAEAAEJ-cB4AAAAF&modele=feature

and going back to 2005
http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_...2005/asset_upload_file486_7766.pdf

Many pots and kettles seem to be going hammer and tongs to mix the mets!!
 
cygnuschicago
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:34 am

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:12 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 69):
I can only conclude that you don't understand business, Cygnus. They need their cash balance to fund work in progress. Do you spend your whole salary the day you receive it?

You can probably google this, but let me make it easy for you help you out, NAV:

- Cash on hand, cash position, or, in EADS' case "Cash and Cash Equivalents" is $6.5bn euro. This is basically, to use an example, like the combined money you have in your checking account, your wallet, your piggybank, and some types of savings account. It refers to money they can pay some, right now, if they needed to.

EADS uses the IAS7 definition “cash equivalents are held for short-term cash commitments […], must be readily convertible to a known amount of cash and be subject to an insignificant risk of changes in value. Therefore, an investment normally qualifies as a cash equivalent only when it has a short-term maturity of, say, three months or less from the date of acquisition.”

- Over and above this money, they also have other money. This is like money you may have in CDs, equity in your house. You have the money, but you can't really do anything with it immediately.

Now, with 6.5bn euro in cash and cash equivalents, EADS is in one HECK of a strong position. On top of that, their fabulous deliveries is adding about 1.2 bn Euro in cash from operating activities every years. Of course, they have some expenses - by some things, sell some things.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 71):
Despite this, and God only knows how many exceptional payments they've had to make, there was no discernible cash outflow from the parent organisation in the first 6 months of this year (which is pretty remarkable, really).

Not to nitpick, but they did spend 1.4bn euro cash on securities (I assume this was part of the BAE repurchase), so their net cash position did deteriorate. But it's definitely not "bleeding" and "dire straights" for Airbus (as some would hope) as their operations seems to be extraordinarily healthy and profitable  Smile
If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
 
pygmalion
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:21 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 79):
U Hits Back at US in Aircraft Aid Row
(Source: Voice of America news; issued May31, 2005)
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...H8AAAEAAEJ-cB4AAAAF&modele=feature

and going back to 2005
http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_...2005/asset_upload_file486_7766.pdf

Many pots and kettles seem to be going hammer and tongs to mix the mets!!

Sonehow I don't think a USTR submittal to the WTO is arguing in the "press". In fact if you actually read the documents in the links YOU posted... you wont find inflammatory statements from the US like you will find recently in the public media from AIrbus and the EU.

Neither Boeing nor the USTR said anything in the press about "$205B".. that was the EU crowd telling you what the submittal supposedly said...

Have you read the actual submittal??
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4891
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:31 am

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 81):
that was the EU crowd telling you what the submittal supposedly said...

'EU crowd'?

Wow, just wow.
 
Wsp
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 7:43 am

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:33 am

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 81):
Have you read the actual submittal??

That was classified by the US. In the meantime the EU is shaping the debate in a way that benefits them. Too bad for the US.  crying 
 
pygmalion
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:57 am

Quoting Moo (Reply 82):
'EU crowd'?

Wow, just wow.

I consider the EU trade rep in Brussels part of the EU crowd. I also consider various trade ministers etc part of the EU crowd.

I don't consider A.net folks with non US flags part of the EU crowd. I apologize if that was not apparent.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4891
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Tue Jul 31, 2007 3:05 am

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 84):

I consider the EU trade rep in Brussels part of the EU crowd. I also consider various trade ministers etc part of the EU crowd.

I don't consider A.net folks with non US flags part of the EU crowd. I apologize if that was not apparent.

Actually it was your intended meaning that I initially got, and that is what caused the 'wow' - calling those involved a 'crowd' as if they were at a football match....
 
pygmalion
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Tue Jul 31, 2007 3:09 am

They do seem to have the same "cheer leader" or "soccer hooligan" attitude...  Big grin
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:02 am

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 86):
They do seem to have the same "cheer leader" or "soccer hooligan" attitude..

I think that you were doing better before you tried to clarify your statements.

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 81):
Sonehow I don't think a USTR submittal to the WTO is arguing in the "press". In fact if you actually read the documents in the links YOU posted... you wont find inflammatory statements from the US like you will find recently in the public media from AIrbus and the EU.

Perhaps you need to see both sides of the tennis match Pygmalion. For example.
TR_Spokesperson_Christin_Baker_Regarding_Launch_Aid_for_Airbus.html" target=_blank>http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library...garding_Launch_Aid_for_Airbus.html
"Statement of USTR Spokesperson Christin Baker Regarding Launch Aid for Airbus t10/06/2005

"The United States has been clear in its message: Launch aid for the A350 or any other Airbus aircraft is completely unacceptable. ""

And it goes on for a number of paras. And, yes, that IS a PRESS release. One of many many!
This statement from
http://www.globalization101.org/index.php?file=news1&id=27
" In 1992 the U.S. and EU came to an agreement that limited subsidies, but this failed to end the practice entirely."
is rather funny. Of course it did not end the practice it gave a legal framework for the funding to occur. Mummy, they are sticking to the agreement, how unfair. I want a new agreement??

Then your very own FoxNews has
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159917,00.html
"The administration said it had no choice but to act because of preparations being made by EU-member nations to commit $1.7 billion to Airbus for developing a new airplane, the A350"

WADR according to your theory, you could be part of a soccer hooligan crowd yourself. (Never been in a soccer crowd myself, so I would not really know.)

It might just be that distance lends a bit of perspective to the contest. Not having a dog in the fight might help do you not think??

Such a huge amount of effort to prevent support for a plane that is technologically inferior. It might be more clever to suggest pouring more money down the bottomless pit to produce a technologically inferior product.

Yours etc
B. Wildered

[Edited 2007-07-31 02:27:37]
 
drexotica
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:44 am

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:57 am

Quoting Moo (Reply 85):
Actually it was your intended meaning that I initially got, and that is what caused the 'wow' - calling those involved a 'crowd' as if they were at a football match....

In the American vernacular, "crowd" merely means a good sized group of people. There are no negative connotations wrt to type of people in the crowd (e.g., soccer hooligans, etc.). "Mob" on the other hand is quite different.
N707PA - Best looking commercial aircraft ever.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:47 am

Quoting DrExotica (Reply 88):
"Mob" on the other hand is quite different.

Hooligan by contrast:
"The term has been used since at least the 1890s, to describe the behavior of street gangs. The first use of the term is unknown, but it appeared in an 1898 London police report. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooliganism

I am not so sure how a.net got into the street gang business. Nor how behaviour in a London police report lost its "u"!  Wow!
 
cygnuschicago
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:34 am

RE: EU Vs U.S. Defense Of Alleged Boeing Subsidies

Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:49 am

Quoting DrExotica (Reply 88):
In the American vernacular, "crowd" merely means a good sized group of people.

Rubbish. I'm American, and the word "crowd" is often used in a negative way. The poster above certainly made it sound like he/she intended it in a negative way, and the explanation reinforced that.
If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!

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