Fallon Warns Boeing
Thread Starter
Fallon Warns Boeing
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...leader-arlene/
What do we buy from Boeing? Other than our 2 main helicopters? Without which we might be, er, in the poo.
CG
What do we buy from Boeing? Other than our 2 main helicopters? Without which we might be, er, in the poo.
CG
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US action in Bombardier dispute 'could jeopardise' future Boeing defence contracts, Sir Michael Fallon says
What do we buy from Boeing? Other than our 2 main helicopters? Without which we might be, er, in the poo.
CG
What do we buy from Boeing? Other than our 2 main helicopters? Without which we might be, er, in the poo.
CG
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wait, what??!! Boeing should ignore clearly illegal practices because it might offend a customer? A customer more dependent on Boeing than Boeing is dependent on the customer? In what universe would this make sense?
The current disfunctional Tory one.
Oh my, KenV, do you really think that ol' Bubba Boeing won't be given some behind-the-scenes federal aid funding to sort out the latest KC-46A 'Pigosaurus' problems?
It'll happen somehow...
Illegal subsidies and bribes. That would never happen in the Land of the Free now, would it....
It'll happen somehow...
Illegal subsidies and bribes. That would never happen in the Land of the Free now, would it....
The R&N thread, related to this topic. Perhaps the handbags can be taken there for a few swings.
As to facts, this commerce department proposal still has to get reviewed by another government body. It's not a done deal.
If I may quote from a post therein:
Before the taxes are actually imposed, the US International Trade Commission (a separate organization from the Department of Commerce) has to rule on it. As I pointed out: the ball's still in play. Time still on the clock.
As to facts, this commerce department proposal still has to get reviewed by another government body. It's not a done deal.
If I may quote from a post therein:
Before the taxes are actually imposed, the US International Trade Commission (a separate organization from the Department of Commerce) has to rule on it. As I pointed out: the ball's still in play. Time still on the clock.
The idea that Europe governments supports its aviation industry whilst the US government does not is dependent on the careful application of a US-prism.
Given the simplistic transparency of European financial support it is easy to point a finger, but in truth the US Federal support for the US aviation industry dwarfs that of Europe. Indeed, you can only bend the truth to expose Europe by ignoring the direct support of US aviation and only counting the final cost under the badged work of the manufacturer.
US commercial aviation has had direct support since inception. From subsidies of airmail, airports, air traffic, safety monitoring and regulation through to tax breaks, direct financial bailouts, government loans (remember "Boeing's Bank"), export assistance, tariffs on imports, directed purchases from domestic manufacturers and domestic content clauses.
Aviation R&D has always been hugely expensive and European governments have provided direct support of start-up costs. In the US the Federal Government conducts cutting-edge R&D under the banner of NASA, DARPA, DOD programs and a number of others. The US viewpoint has a habit of ignoring these costs to the US Government when these technologies appear on US commercial aircraft. Looking at the last mile of aircraft production under the OEM banner is not an accurate way of determining the subsidies provided by the governments concerned.
Although it would be unfair to attribute it as a direct subsidy the US Government's might when it comes to its purchasing power does give it an advantage. Equally the political and financial support for the defence industry also bends the market. This political/industrial mix looks odd to European eyes but the US Congress is happy to purchase systems that are not needed or wanted just to support their own causes. Even now M1 Abrams are being manufactured and mothballed just to keep the money flowing. As a result no other tank manufacturer could compete for an international sale at the knock-down prices of an M1.
I am in no way critical of the US Government support of it's aviation industry but if we are genuinely seeking to establish the level of state funding between US and European products we have to include all costs. Please excuse me if I appear jaundiced when a US viewpoint carefully forgets the direct and indirect government support provided to US commercial aviation.
Given the simplistic transparency of European financial support it is easy to point a finger, but in truth the US Federal support for the US aviation industry dwarfs that of Europe. Indeed, you can only bend the truth to expose Europe by ignoring the direct support of US aviation and only counting the final cost under the badged work of the manufacturer.
US commercial aviation has had direct support since inception. From subsidies of airmail, airports, air traffic, safety monitoring and regulation through to tax breaks, direct financial bailouts, government loans (remember "Boeing's Bank"), export assistance, tariffs on imports, directed purchases from domestic manufacturers and domestic content clauses.
Aviation R&D has always been hugely expensive and European governments have provided direct support of start-up costs. In the US the Federal Government conducts cutting-edge R&D under the banner of NASA, DARPA, DOD programs and a number of others. The US viewpoint has a habit of ignoring these costs to the US Government when these technologies appear on US commercial aircraft. Looking at the last mile of aircraft production under the OEM banner is not an accurate way of determining the subsidies provided by the governments concerned.
Although it would be unfair to attribute it as a direct subsidy the US Government's might when it comes to its purchasing power does give it an advantage. Equally the political and financial support for the defence industry also bends the market. This political/industrial mix looks odd to European eyes but the US Congress is happy to purchase systems that are not needed or wanted just to support their own causes. Even now M1 Abrams are being manufactured and mothballed just to keep the money flowing. As a result no other tank manufacturer could compete for an international sale at the knock-down prices of an M1.
I am in no way critical of the US Government support of it's aviation industry but if we are genuinely seeking to establish the level of state funding between US and European products we have to include all costs. Please excuse me if I appear jaundiced when a US viewpoint carefully forgets the direct and indirect government support provided to US commercial aviation.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also - as has been pointed out by the Economist and others - for Boeing to complain about airliners being sold below cost is amusing in the light of the first 400 or so 787s.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'd be surprised at the number of pies Boeing has its fingers in. They even used to own a large shareholding in Bombardier, but sold it off for reasons best known to themselves.
Boeing has been in a hate-hate relationship with Canadian aerospace companies for a long time and managed to shut-down de Havilland of Canada and Canadair along the way. Hard to understand since neither they nor Bombardier are or were direct competitors. Mind you, Canadair had the cheek to select Airbus aircraft over Boeing amid allegations of bribery, despite all the shares Boeing had acquired in the company.
Boeing has been in a hate-hate relationship with Canadian aerospace companies for a long time and managed to shut-down de Havilland of Canada and Canadair along the way. Hard to understand since neither they nor Bombardier are or were direct competitors. Mind you, Canadair had the cheek to select Airbus aircraft over Boeing amid allegations of bribery, despite all the shares Boeing had acquired in the company.
Last edited by Blacksheep; 28th Sep 2017 at 15:25.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Illegal subsidies and bribes. That would never happen in the Land of the Free now, would it....
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is nothing illegal about selling commercial articles below cost (so long as "dumping" rules are not violated, which they aren't) It happens in everything from computer chips, smart phones, automobiles, to airplanes. There is a LOT illegal in receiving government subsidies for commercial products. That is what Boeing is alleging and the US Commerce Department agrees. (and in the case of Airbus airliners, the US Commerce Department and WTO agree.) Interestingly, neither Canada nor the UK is denying that the illegal subsidies happened, but are instead attempting to strong arm Boeing to drop their lawsuit. So far, Boeing is hanging tough, in both the Airbus and Bombardier cases.
Last edited by KenV; 28th Sep 2017 at 13:07.