Airbus subsidies illegal
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MAN
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus subsidies illegal, WTO reports today
WTO report
Quote:
that the German, Spanish and UK A380 LA/MSF measures are subsidies
contingent in fact upon anticipated export performance, and therefore
prohibited export subsidies within the meaning of Article 3.1(a) and
footnote 4 of the SCM Agreement.
And the list goes on.
Quote:
that the German, Spanish and UK A380 LA/MSF measures are subsidies
contingent in fact upon anticipated export performance, and therefore
prohibited export subsidies within the meaning of Article 3.1(a) and
footnote 4 of the SCM Agreement.
And the list goes on.
Last edited by cldrvr; 30th Jun 2010 at 19:01.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: East of LGB
Age: 69
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus Press Release:
Airbus alerts on counter case on Boeing subsidies while WTO panel rejects US claims
The WTO panel report in the US case against the EU published today confirms Airbus’s earlier predictions: 70 percent of the US claims were rejected and wild allegations have been proven wrong. Neither jobs nor any profits were lost as a result of reimbursable loans to Airbus.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: overthehillsandmountains
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's not be duped and treated like children.
All this WTO stuff is sickening as it only exists to make very rich those people who never made any object for the good of mankind: lawyers.
All this WTO stuff is sickening as it only exists to make very rich those people who never made any object for the good of mankind: lawyers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MAN
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is funny though how Airbus highlights on their website the items that the panel has found were not proven and ignores the items that were proven. For a balanced argument here I copy the items that were proven:
8.1 In light of the findings set out in the foregoing sections of our Report, we conclude that the United States has established the following concerning the existence of subsidies:
(a) concerning the provision of LA/MSF;
(i) that each of the challenged LA/MSF measures constitutes a specific subsidy
within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement, and
(ii) that the German, Spanish and UK A380 LA/MSF measures are subsidies
contingent in fact upon anticipated export performance, and therefore
prohibited export subsidies within the meaning of Article 3.1(a) and
footnote 4 of the SCM Agreement.
(b) concerning the provision of infrastructure and infrastructure-related grants;
(i) that the provision of the Mühlenberger Loch site constitutes a specific
subsidy within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement,
(ii) that the provision of the lengthened Bremen Airport Runway constitutes a
specific subsidy within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the
SCM Agreement,
(iii) that the provision of the ZAC Aéroconstellation site and associated EIG
facilities constitutes a specific subsidy within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2
of the SCM Agreement, and
(iv) that challenged grants provided by authorities in Germany and Spain for the
construction of manufacturing and assembly facilities in Nordenham,
Germany, and Sevilla, La Rinconada, Toledo, Puerto de Santa Maria and
Puerto Real, Spain, and by the governments of Andalusia and Castilla-La
Mancha to Airbus in Puerto Real, Sevilla, and Illescas (Toledo) are specific
subsidies within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement.
(c) concerning the German government's transfer of its ownership share in Deutsche
Airbus to the Daimler Group;
(i) that the 1989 acquisition by KfW of a 20 percent equity interest in Deutsche
Airbus is a specific subsidy within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the
SCM Agreement, and
(ii) that the 1992 transfer by KfW of its 20 percent equity interest in Deutsche
Airbus to MBB is a specific subsidy within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2
of the SCM Agreement.
(d) concerning the equity infusions that the French government and Crédit Lyonnais
provided to Aérospatiale;
(i) that the 1987, 1988, 1992 and 1994 equity infusions to Aérospatiale are
specific subsidies within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the
SCM Agreement, and
(ii) that the 1998 transfer by the French government of its 45.76 percent interest
in Dassault Aviation to Aérospatiale is a specific subsidy within the meaning
of Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement.
(e) concerning the research and technological development funding provided by the
European Communities and certain EC member States;
(i) that grants under the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth EC Framework
Programmes identified in Annexes I.1, I.2, I.3, I.4 and I.5 are specific
subsidies within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement,
(ii) that French government grants amounting to a maximum of EUR 391 million
between 1986 and 1993 and EUR [***] between 1994 and 2005 are specific
subsidies within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement,
(iii) that German Federal government grants under the LuFo I, LuFo II and LuFo
III programmes amounting to EUR [***] are specific subsidies within the
meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement,
(iv) that German sub-Federal government grants amounting to EUR [***] from
the Bavarian authorities under the OZB and Bayerisches
Luftfahrtforschungsprogramm, EUR 11 million from the Bremen authorities
under the AMST programmes, and EUR [***] from the Hamburg authorities
under the Luftfahrtforschungsprogramm are specific subsidies within the
meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement,
(v) that loans under the Spanish government PROFIT and PTA programmes
amounting to, respectively, EUR 62.2 million and EUR [***], are specific
subsidies within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement, and
(vi) that UK government grants under the CARAD and ARP programmes
amounting to GBP [***] are specific subsidies within the meaning of
Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement.
8.2 Furthermore, in light of the findings set out in the foregoing sections of our Report, we
conclude that the United States has established the following with respect to adverse effects:
(a) that the effect of the subsidies is to displace the imports of a like product of the
United States into the European market within the meaning of Article 6.3(a) of the
SCM Agreement, constituting serious prejudice to the interests of the United States
within the meaning of Article 5(c) of the SCM Agreement,
(b) that the effect of the subsidies is to displace the exports of a like product of the
United States from the markets of Australia, Brazil, China, Chinese Taipei, Korea,
Mexico, and Singapore within the meaning of Article 6.3(b) of the SCM Agreement,
constituting serious prejudice to the interests of the United States within the meaning
of Article 5(c) of the SCM Agreement,
(c) that the effect of the subsidies is likely displacement of exports of a like product of the United States from the market of India within the meaning of Article 6.3(b) of the SCM Agreement, constituting a threat of serious prejudice to the interests of the
United States within the meaning of Article 5(c) of the SCM Agreement, and
(d) that the effect of the subsidies is significant lost sales in the same market within the meaning of Article 6.3(c) of the SCM Agreement, constituting serious prejudice to the interests of the United States within the meaning of Article 5(c) of the
SCM Agreement.
8.1 In light of the findings set out in the foregoing sections of our Report, we conclude that the United States has established the following concerning the existence of subsidies:
(a) concerning the provision of LA/MSF;
(i) that each of the challenged LA/MSF measures constitutes a specific subsidy
within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement, and
(ii) that the German, Spanish and UK A380 LA/MSF measures are subsidies
contingent in fact upon anticipated export performance, and therefore
prohibited export subsidies within the meaning of Article 3.1(a) and
footnote 4 of the SCM Agreement.
(b) concerning the provision of infrastructure and infrastructure-related grants;
(i) that the provision of the Mühlenberger Loch site constitutes a specific
subsidy within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement,
(ii) that the provision of the lengthened Bremen Airport Runway constitutes a
specific subsidy within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the
SCM Agreement,
(iii) that the provision of the ZAC Aéroconstellation site and associated EIG
facilities constitutes a specific subsidy within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2
of the SCM Agreement, and
(iv) that challenged grants provided by authorities in Germany and Spain for the
construction of manufacturing and assembly facilities in Nordenham,
Germany, and Sevilla, La Rinconada, Toledo, Puerto de Santa Maria and
Puerto Real, Spain, and by the governments of Andalusia and Castilla-La
Mancha to Airbus in Puerto Real, Sevilla, and Illescas (Toledo) are specific
subsidies within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement.
(c) concerning the German government's transfer of its ownership share in Deutsche
Airbus to the Daimler Group;
(i) that the 1989 acquisition by KfW of a 20 percent equity interest in Deutsche
Airbus is a specific subsidy within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the
SCM Agreement, and
(ii) that the 1992 transfer by KfW of its 20 percent equity interest in Deutsche
Airbus to MBB is a specific subsidy within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2
of the SCM Agreement.
(d) concerning the equity infusions that the French government and Crédit Lyonnais
provided to Aérospatiale;
(i) that the 1987, 1988, 1992 and 1994 equity infusions to Aérospatiale are
specific subsidies within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the
SCM Agreement, and
(ii) that the 1998 transfer by the French government of its 45.76 percent interest
in Dassault Aviation to Aérospatiale is a specific subsidy within the meaning
of Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement.
(e) concerning the research and technological development funding provided by the
European Communities and certain EC member States;
(i) that grants under the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth EC Framework
Programmes identified in Annexes I.1, I.2, I.3, I.4 and I.5 are specific
subsidies within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement,
(ii) that French government grants amounting to a maximum of EUR 391 million
between 1986 and 1993 and EUR [***] between 1994 and 2005 are specific
subsidies within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement,
(iii) that German Federal government grants under the LuFo I, LuFo II and LuFo
III programmes amounting to EUR [***] are specific subsidies within the
meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement,
(iv) that German sub-Federal government grants amounting to EUR [***] from
the Bavarian authorities under the OZB and Bayerisches
Luftfahrtforschungsprogramm, EUR 11 million from the Bremen authorities
under the AMST programmes, and EUR [***] from the Hamburg authorities
under the Luftfahrtforschungsprogramm are specific subsidies within the
meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement,
(v) that loans under the Spanish government PROFIT and PTA programmes
amounting to, respectively, EUR 62.2 million and EUR [***], are specific
subsidies within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement, and
(vi) that UK government grants under the CARAD and ARP programmes
amounting to GBP [***] are specific subsidies within the meaning of
Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement.
8.2 Furthermore, in light of the findings set out in the foregoing sections of our Report, we
conclude that the United States has established the following with respect to adverse effects:
(a) that the effect of the subsidies is to displace the imports of a like product of the
United States into the European market within the meaning of Article 6.3(a) of the
SCM Agreement, constituting serious prejudice to the interests of the United States
within the meaning of Article 5(c) of the SCM Agreement,
(b) that the effect of the subsidies is to displace the exports of a like product of the
United States from the markets of Australia, Brazil, China, Chinese Taipei, Korea,
Mexico, and Singapore within the meaning of Article 6.3(b) of the SCM Agreement,
constituting serious prejudice to the interests of the United States within the meaning
of Article 5(c) of the SCM Agreement,
(c) that the effect of the subsidies is likely displacement of exports of a like product of the United States from the market of India within the meaning of Article 6.3(b) of the SCM Agreement, constituting a threat of serious prejudice to the interests of the
United States within the meaning of Article 5(c) of the SCM Agreement, and
(d) that the effect of the subsidies is significant lost sales in the same market within the meaning of Article 6.3(c) of the SCM Agreement, constituting serious prejudice to the interests of the United States within the meaning of Article 5(c) of the
SCM Agreement.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like the short snappy post, cldvr. How about mentioning the enormous government assistance handed to the US aviation industry by the Feds; hefty local tax breaks, research data from NASA, huge defence contracts - Boeing entered the jet age on the back of a massive order for the KC135 tanker, from which the 707 derived (not the other way round), Bilateral agreements which give subsidised US carriers the free run of Europe but severely limit EU airlines in the USA, Their overtly discriminatory Fly America policy...
Perhaps there wasn't room to mention these issues in your brief post!
Perhaps there wasn't room to mention these issues in your brief post!
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Near the Thames
Age: 79
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on!!! In particular, the point about the KC135/707 is very well made. As someone once said..."Not a lot of people know that..."
In my experience very few Americans will accept this explanation and continue to rage against European 'subsidies'. Many of them also believe as Gospel that BA is heavily subsidised by the British government.
I hope this will not be construed by my American friends as 'Yank Bashing', it is not; I have lived and worked in the US and have the greatest respect for your country but you are sometimes blind to the facts if they do not fit your world view.
In my experience very few Americans will accept this explanation and continue to rage against European 'subsidies'. Many of them also believe as Gospel that BA is heavily subsidised by the British government.
I hope this will not be construed by my American friends as 'Yank Bashing', it is not; I have lived and worked in the US and have the greatest respect for your country but you are sometimes blind to the facts if they do not fit your world view.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shotone
Arguing about the 707 is really funny, and complete crap.
That was 60 years ago! 3 generations of workers have come and gone since then. We might as well be complaining about the resources that Europe stole from America before American Independence.
The fact is that Airbus gets more research and tax breaks then Boeing does now, PLUS the launch aid. Just the value of the governments picking up the health coverage of all the European workers is in the billions of dollars...
Cheers
Wino
Arguing about the 707 is really funny, and complete crap.
That was 60 years ago! 3 generations of workers have come and gone since then. We might as well be complaining about the resources that Europe stole from America before American Independence.
The fact is that Airbus gets more research and tax breaks then Boeing does now, PLUS the launch aid. Just the value of the governments picking up the health coverage of all the European workers is in the billions of dollars...
Cheers
Wino
Bear Behind
The fact is that Airbus gets more research and tax breaks then Boeing does now
How about:
FAA'S $125M "CLEEN" PROGRAM
FAA awarded 5-year agreements to Boeing, GE Aviation, Honeywell, Pratt & Whitney, and Rolls-Royce to develop environmentally-friendly airframe/engine technologies over next five years under its Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) program to accelerate introduction of green technology into aviation.
Hmm?
p-k-b
Europe stole from America before American Independence.
Perhaps reparations from the insurgents would be more in order?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toulouse
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a typical discussion that'll go nowhere... Both companies have been and are still supported by their own government. WTO will issue soon (July then October) a report accusing Boeing of exatcly the same issue. At the end, there will be a negociated agreement between those 2 like it was before and they will be really eager to reach it because they are now threatened by the chinese, brasilians and canadians. Airbus and Boeing will soon be very good friends again. For now we are just watching some flexed muscles to impress the journalists. Don't be naive. Mat
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Castlegar
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Various $$$-contracts-subsidized since 1920's
The USA recognized the necessity of government support: BAT accepted mail contracts (subsidized), continued manufacturing; then was broken-up in 1934 by govt' (see, men of our industry have quit in disgust since 1934):
HistoryLink.org- the Free Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History
HistoryLink.org- the Free Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History
HistoryLink.org- the Free Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History
HistoryLink.org- the Free Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History
HistoryLink.org- the Free Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History
HistoryLink.org- the Free Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As has been said above, support for Boeing's development costs has been built into military orders ever since the Boeing 707. Without Airbus coming on the scene all airlines would have had to pay whatever Boeing and the US manufacturers demanded over the last 60 years and accept whatever products and technology they decided to provide.
Similarly the "Open Skies" agreements which allow US carriers to fly to all points beyond EU cities (eg points in the Europe,Middle East, Asia, Africa -including other EU cities which could reasonably be defined as domestics) have a far greater potential value for US carriers than points beyond the USA for EU carriers. Simple geography dictates that. Where is the USA on the direct track to that cant be flown faster and more conveniently via other routes? Also don't forget that apart from the very limited and unattractive facilitity at LAX for NZ bound transits the USA doesn't do facilities for international to international airside transfers or transits in the way most of the rest of the world apart from Nigeria does.
Airbus aren't about to roll over on this one -and nor should they.
Similarly the "Open Skies" agreements which allow US carriers to fly to all points beyond EU cities (eg points in the Europe,Middle East, Asia, Africa -including other EU cities which could reasonably be defined as domestics) have a far greater potential value for US carriers than points beyond the USA for EU carriers. Simple geography dictates that. Where is the USA on the direct track to that cant be flown faster and more conveniently via other routes? Also don't forget that apart from the very limited and unattractive facilitity at LAX for NZ bound transits the USA doesn't do facilities for international to international airside transfers or transits in the way most of the rest of the world apart from Nigeria does.
Airbus aren't about to roll over on this one -and nor should they.
Would that be the American tanker with:
Or a proven design ordered by Australia, Saudi Arabia, UAE and the UK which not only has fully functioning AAR systems and no wing flutter or buffet problems, but also vastly superior AAR capability and runway performance?
Ol' Bubba Boeing is squirming hard to keep the 767NoGo tanker programme alive. Just ask the Italian Air Force about all Boeing's delivery promises....
Still, if the USAF really is stupid enough to order the 767NoGo, they'll deserve all they get...
- A high risk 7-late-7 flight deck modified for military needs.
- An unsolved wing flutter problem.
- AAR pods which simply do not meet the customer's requirements.
- A dismal despatch reliability rate.
- Questionable runway performance.
Or a proven design ordered by Australia, Saudi Arabia, UAE and the UK which not only has fully functioning AAR systems and no wing flutter or buffet problems, but also vastly superior AAR capability and runway performance?
Ol' Bubba Boeing is squirming hard to keep the 767NoGo tanker programme alive. Just ask the Italian Air Force about all Boeing's delivery promises....
Still, if the USAF really is stupid enough to order the 767NoGo, they'll deserve all they get...
I am not sure I follow the news correctly; a couple of months ago there was another ruling (or a leaked document) against Airbus brought by the US government. What is the news now?
Sorry to interrupt the flow of an excellent debate but I am at a loss?
Rwy in Sight
Sorry to interrupt the flow of an excellent debate but I am at a loss?
Rwy in Sight
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: East of LGB
Age: 69
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gosh BEagle, still on the fence there? 
I was thinking along the lines of these two elements.
US bill ties tanker bid to WTO Airbus-Boeing ruling - Inform
Airbus A350 Loans Unrelated to WTO Ruling, EU Says (Update1) - Bloomberg
I was thinking along the lines of these two elements.
US lawmakers proposed a bill Thursday forcing the Pentagon to factor in allegedly illegal Airbus subsidies when it chooses between the European firm and Boeing for a major Air Force tanker contract.
Aug. 28 (Bloomberg) -- The European Union signaled governments will proceed with subsidies for the Airbus SAS A350 even if a pending World Trade Organization decision finds previous aid to the biggest planemaker was illegal.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one wonders if there even would be an airbus (formerly known as the Joint European Transport...JET get it?) if it weren't for the Boeing Company's decision to develop the B17 on its own...Boeing bet the farm on it and it SAVED EUROPE FROM THE NAZIS if you might recall.
While there were many other helpful parties to the defeat of the AXIS, AIRBUS wasn't one of them.
So, lighten up out there in airbus land.
While there were many other helpful parties to the defeat of the AXIS, AIRBUS wasn't one of them.
So, lighten up out there in airbus land.