US threatens WTO action on Airbus
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well fair enough, electrovlas, no-one is hinting that Boeing builds anything other than super machines military or civil -but the programme you mention was certainly helped along in a very big way by Uncle Sam. Indeed the B707 probably would not have happened without it. I could give a string of other examples -NA Sabreliner exec jet, derivative of the T39 military trainer. (I'm baffled why you bring Galileo into it since the US GPS system is almost 100% funded by the Dept of Defense -we just want our own one in case you decide to switch it off one morning.)
...but of course these are just examples of the US aerospace industry standing on its two strong feet -and absolutely not subsidies!
...but of course these are just examples of the US aerospace industry standing on its two strong feet -and absolutely not subsidies!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Boeing Vs. Airbus
Sorry to say that Iīve been reading some fine examples of American head-in -the-arse ignorance.
Boeing has made good living of manufacturing machines that are made to kill innocent people (military branch). As a pilot (B757 and 767) I must say that I donīt dislike Boeings. They are just terrible old fashioned. I think itīs about time their designers figure out that to compete in a harsh market you MUST stay head up in modern techology. The price must also be compatable with the other brand.
The bitter truth is that the Americans (sadly) have lost sight of the goal and are rudely being swept aside on the market. No ignorant slogans can change this. Maybe 7E7 can???
Boeing has made good living of manufacturing machines that are made to kill innocent people (military branch). As a pilot (B757 and 767) I must say that I donīt dislike Boeings. They are just terrible old fashioned. I think itīs about time their designers figure out that to compete in a harsh market you MUST stay head up in modern techology. The price must also be compatable with the other brand.
The bitter truth is that the Americans (sadly) have lost sight of the goal and are rudely being swept aside on the market. No ignorant slogans can change this. Maybe 7E7 can???
If the information in the report below is correct, Boeing is in for a rough ride with the WTO over launch funding for the 7E7.
http://www.geog.buffalo.edu/custac/7...%20Buffalo.pdf
http://www.geog.buffalo.edu/custac/7...%20Buffalo.pdf
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 50
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
humble_dor
see here:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/facts_sr.html
7e7-3 was what I meant by "lower end".
A345 is a recent, credible contender to 7e7, A30x series had a first flight in 1972. This is what I meant by "rust".
see here:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/facts_sr.html
7e7-3 was what I meant by "lower end".
A345 is a recent, credible contender to 7e7, A30x series had a first flight in 1972. This is what I meant by "rust".
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is not (or should not be ) an argument that subsidies going under various names of tax releif, sweetheart contracts, below market financing etc etc etc exist. It is a fact of life, so deal with it.
An argument that gets made on the European side is how the nasty american military "subsidizes" civil aircraft manufacture. An example brought up was the Boeing 707. It was alleged that the 707 would not have happened if the military had not ordered the KC-135 and that they are in essence the same airplane and the KC-135 is really a way of cleverly subsidizing the 707. I believe it has been pointed out that Boeing had the 707 program going before the KC-135 was ordered and that they bet the company on the 707 because of all the money it took to develop, test and certificate it.
There are aircraft that are alleged to be "copies" of military aircraft or were developed as military aircraft that end up as commercial aircraft and see how that subsidy works. An example I picked is the T-39 and the Sabre 80 that look pretty much alike and are alledged to be copies. They are not copies, ther eare no interchangable parts. The U.S. military did buy some civil spec Sabres and they are (were, all gone now to the bone yard) CT-39s. The subsidization also works in reverse: Gulfstream Is (with RR Dart engines) as TC-4s, the numerous variants of King Airs used by the U.S. Army and Navy, DHC products, and a number of other instances. And if you get into the subsystems the crossfertilization is also pronounced.
I brought up Galileo because as the reaction against GPS it is so classic.
The U.S. military budget comes from the taxpayers of the U.S. (and all the money the government borrows too, many times in non-U.S. financial markets). This budget is arrived at in the Congress that balances it with all other things the money could be spent on, not just military. In the executive branch GPS is managed by a interagency board based in the Commerce Department. By providing GPS without any direct user charge this is a SUBSIDY of everybody that doesn't pay U.S. taxes. It is political and is deemed a good thing to do in the national interest of the U.S. and it is pretty good for everyone else in the world too. The U.S. has promised for decades to provide the standard positioning service for anybody that wants to use it for anything except shooting/bombing etc people. (we use it for that to reduce the probability of hitting the school/orphanage/etc when we kill bad guys). The U.S. has provided the service as promised and it looks like the policy is to continue this. You are welcome.
Galileio is trying to put up a functionally similar bunch of satellites and is being very sly about who is going to pay for it. Can't get a straight story from the EU about what they are going to charge and how they are going to collect it. Various proposals have come up and all have been shot down, but new ones keep sneaking in. Should people who don't want to use Galileo be required to pay for it? (that was one of the proposals) Should Galileo be required equipage and then oh by the way user fees are required for Galileo? (another one) Should there be a contractual relationship between an air navigation service provider and a user and a fee required ? (still another one) Smells bad to me because once you get a bunch of politicians with a way to charge people for stuff so it generates a pile of cash for them to spend they will not be able to resist using the money for their own political ends.
An argument that gets made on the European side is how the nasty american military "subsidizes" civil aircraft manufacture. An example brought up was the Boeing 707. It was alleged that the 707 would not have happened if the military had not ordered the KC-135 and that they are in essence the same airplane and the KC-135 is really a way of cleverly subsidizing the 707. I believe it has been pointed out that Boeing had the 707 program going before the KC-135 was ordered and that they bet the company on the 707 because of all the money it took to develop, test and certificate it.
There are aircraft that are alleged to be "copies" of military aircraft or were developed as military aircraft that end up as commercial aircraft and see how that subsidy works. An example I picked is the T-39 and the Sabre 80 that look pretty much alike and are alledged to be copies. They are not copies, ther eare no interchangable parts. The U.S. military did buy some civil spec Sabres and they are (were, all gone now to the bone yard) CT-39s. The subsidization also works in reverse: Gulfstream Is (with RR Dart engines) as TC-4s, the numerous variants of King Airs used by the U.S. Army and Navy, DHC products, and a number of other instances. And if you get into the subsystems the crossfertilization is also pronounced.
I brought up Galileo because as the reaction against GPS it is so classic.
The U.S. military budget comes from the taxpayers of the U.S. (and all the money the government borrows too, many times in non-U.S. financial markets). This budget is arrived at in the Congress that balances it with all other things the money could be spent on, not just military. In the executive branch GPS is managed by a interagency board based in the Commerce Department. By providing GPS without any direct user charge this is a SUBSIDY of everybody that doesn't pay U.S. taxes. It is political and is deemed a good thing to do in the national interest of the U.S. and it is pretty good for everyone else in the world too. The U.S. has promised for decades to provide the standard positioning service for anybody that wants to use it for anything except shooting/bombing etc people. (we use it for that to reduce the probability of hitting the school/orphanage/etc when we kill bad guys). The U.S. has provided the service as promised and it looks like the policy is to continue this. You are welcome.
Galileio is trying to put up a functionally similar bunch of satellites and is being very sly about who is going to pay for it. Can't get a straight story from the EU about what they are going to charge and how they are going to collect it. Various proposals have come up and all have been shot down, but new ones keep sneaking in. Should people who don't want to use Galileo be required to pay for it? (that was one of the proposals) Should Galileo be required equipage and then oh by the way user fees are required for Galileo? (another one) Should there be a contractual relationship between an air navigation service provider and a user and a fee required ? (still another one) Smells bad to me because once you get a bunch of politicians with a way to charge people for stuff so it generates a pile of cash for them to spend they will not be able to resist using the money for their own political ends.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote
There is not (or should not be ) an argument that subsidies going under various names of tax releif, sweetheart contracts, below market financing etc etc etc exist. It is a fact of life, so deal with it. - Iron City
OK, lets deal with it, without discussing any of the subsidies issues.
Boeing is currently suffering the consequences that since the 777 it has failed to deliver any new civil aircraft design that has yet to make it off the drawing board. It chose to pursue the Sonic Cruiser project, which was to the detriment of other projects that it should have perhaps focused on. Customers are at the moment placing orders elseware.
Whilst I am sure the 7E7 will be a fine aircraft, it was Boeings choice not to field a new aircraft for this market segment earlier.
The 717 and 727 airframes date back to the 1960s, the Airbus A32X family goes back to the 1980s, but both will need to compete against Embraers new designs as more airlines turn to them, as jetBlue have recently done.
I can confidently predict a similar its not fair argument from Lockheed when the A400M starts to eat into Hercules export sales in a few years time, again as a consequence of new products entering the market.
I suspect that Airbus after a few years of having the larger market slice, will full into a similar trap of failing re-invest in new products, and then experience similar pain.
I am in agreement with Iron City, where it all starts to go wrong is when the tax payer entrusts money to the politicians.
There is not (or should not be ) an argument that subsidies going under various names of tax releif, sweetheart contracts, below market financing etc etc etc exist. It is a fact of life, so deal with it. - Iron City
OK, lets deal with it, without discussing any of the subsidies issues.
Boeing is currently suffering the consequences that since the 777 it has failed to deliver any new civil aircraft design that has yet to make it off the drawing board. It chose to pursue the Sonic Cruiser project, which was to the detriment of other projects that it should have perhaps focused on. Customers are at the moment placing orders elseware.
Whilst I am sure the 7E7 will be a fine aircraft, it was Boeings choice not to field a new aircraft for this market segment earlier.
The 717 and 727 airframes date back to the 1960s, the Airbus A32X family goes back to the 1980s, but both will need to compete against Embraers new designs as more airlines turn to them, as jetBlue have recently done.
I can confidently predict a similar its not fair argument from Lockheed when the A400M starts to eat into Hercules export sales in a few years time, again as a consequence of new products entering the market.
I suspect that Airbus after a few years of having the larger market slice, will full into a similar trap of failing re-invest in new products, and then experience similar pain.
I am in agreement with Iron City, where it all starts to go wrong is when the tax payer entrusts money to the politicians.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: By the Sea
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well fair enough, electrovlas, no-one is hinting that Boeing builds anything other than super machines military or civil -but the programme you mention was certainly helped along in a very big way by Uncle Sam. Indeed the B707 probably would not have happened without it. I could give a string of other examples -NA Sabreliner exec jet, derivative of the T39 military trainer. (I'm baffled why you bring Galileo into it since the US GPS system is almost 100% funded by the Dept of Defense -we just want our own one in case you decide to switch it off one morning.)
--ev--
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think we're in dispute on the basic facts, electro v and iron city -and no-one here is complaining about gps. But what's wrong with us having our own? We may just need it in the unlikely event we decide at some point to shoot or bomb someone without george w bush telling us to.
We aren't even complaining at the billions of taxpayers $$ that have found their way into Boeing's pocket over the decades. That's not necessarily wrong -just be honest about it. If Airbus was getting tax bucks the same way YOU would describe it as state aid or subsidy.
We aren't even complaining at the billions of taxpayers $$ that have found their way into Boeing's pocket over the decades. That's not necessarily wrong -just be honest about it. If Airbus was getting tax bucks the same way YOU would describe it as state aid or subsidy.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: France
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trainer too 2 said:
What happened to Wino and his Bush induced one liners after Dr Dave his excellent factual account....
What happened to Wino and his Bush induced one liners after Dr Dave his excellent factual account....
Firstly, I am not Bush defender but I do not think that Dr Dave has given the actual account. Secondly, even if Dr Dave gave something more or less credible about British goverment's loan to Airbus programmes within BAe, it does not mean that the same thing apply to french and german goverment.
Airbus was only a GIE (groupement d'intéręt économique) until recently. As a GIE, Airbus Industrie had a special tax status. This special status and some accounting tricks gave the possibility to reduce tax or not to pay tax at all on Airbus aircraft sales (I only said that it gave the possibility, it does not imply that Airbus GIE used this possibility not to pay tax on their turn over). The accounting of such GIE is not very easy to understand. That is why there are questions whether Airbus-Aérospatiale-DASA-BAe have ever reimbursed the totallity of EU govt loan.
The relationship between Airbus Industrie and the brits has always been special. I was once told that BAe is almost a sub-contractor to Airbus Industrie. It means that they had a certain amount of work to do (wings) and were paid on wing by wing basis. And as a consequence british govt receives royalties on wing-by wing basis.
More than 50% of Aérospatiale and MBB (DASA) were held by french govt and german govt at the time of A300, A310, A320, A340 and A330 launch. Boeing's rethoric is that the accounting of both companies were opaque and that nobody really knew how it worked. I tend to believe that Airbus GIE-DASA-Aérospatiale accounting was not one hundred clear. This situation has changed since the merger of Aérospatiale and DASA plus CASA (to become EADS). Airbus is now an SAS (Société par actions simplifiées) with clear accounting rules and published results.
With the changes mentioned above, the financing of Airbus SAS programmes will be, normally, less opaque. This is probably why NOW Boeing wants to talk about possible future govermental aid because the control can be done more easily. If I were Airbus' CEO, I would have made Airbus finance department work in a high security environment in a bunker.
A lot of the discussion above is whether military spending gives Boeing a covert subsidy (and it must have given that to Lockheed, who would otherwise have been bankrupted long ago by their various civil programmes over the years).
But a further source of R&D funds that Boeing can draw on is NASA. While the US public think their funds are going to the space shuttle and the next moonshot, NASA in fact does a tremendous amount of aviation research which US manufacturers can draw on, and in fact often co-operate with (because it saves them doing it, of course). Sure, much of it is good stuff, but it's another subsidy to the US side.
But a further source of R&D funds that Boeing can draw on is NASA. While the US public think their funds are going to the space shuttle and the next moonshot, NASA in fact does a tremendous amount of aviation research which US manufacturers can draw on, and in fact often co-operate with (because it saves them doing it, of course). Sure, much of it is good stuff, but it's another subsidy to the US side.
Guest
Posts: n/a
There are a huge range of issues to discuss here, so I can't deal with any in detail. Can I pick up pn one or two though.
First, the issue of subsidies themselves. I will see if I can track down any information on subsidies from the French and German governments, and post later. There seems to be a view here though that the subsidy issue is polarised:
1. Airbus gets launch aid subsidies direct from governments
2. Boeing gets subsidies in the form of military and R&D.
It is just not this simple. Airbus / EADS for example also gets R&D contracts, and also obtains military orders that can. if they so wish, cross-subsidise commercial operations. On the other hand, Boeing gets direct commercial subsidies. The link that supercarb posted lists the following subsidies for the launch of the 7E7:
State of Washington $3,200m Final Assembly Production
State of Kansas $200m Nose and Cockpit Interest Free Bond
Japanese Government $1,588m Wing and Fuselage Production Subsidy
Italian Government $590m Rear Fuselage Production Subsidy
747 Special Freighters $500m Production Transport Production Subsidy
7e7 Rail Barge $16m Production Transport Production Subsidy
Second, I am not sure why Galileo is figuring so prominantly in this discussion. Galileo is important because at the moment all global positioning is based upon a single system whose primary raison d'etre is military. Dubyaq could chose to, for example, switch back on SA at 24 hrs notice (as Clinton did when he switched it off). This makes users of the sytstem very vulnerable.
How the EU chooses to develop this is up to them surely? If it is 100% subsidised, and made free to users then I would have thought that this would be a good thing. If it is developed on a commercial model (which is the favoured option), in which the EU pays the initial costs then a commercial operator takes over and charges a commission on the chip-sets then that is OK too so long as use is not compulsory (and that is certainly not a serious intention). Given that the only competitor is 100% subsidised, neither seem to be too outrageous to me. Either way, the situation is so different to that of Airbus and Boeing I don't really see the point of the comparison.
For the record I am an academic who runs a research team focused upon measuring the surface of the earth using laser and satellite technologies. GPS has serious limitations for us, especially the SA issue.
Dr Dave
First, the issue of subsidies themselves. I will see if I can track down any information on subsidies from the French and German governments, and post later. There seems to be a view here though that the subsidy issue is polarised:
1. Airbus gets launch aid subsidies direct from governments
2. Boeing gets subsidies in the form of military and R&D.
It is just not this simple. Airbus / EADS for example also gets R&D contracts, and also obtains military orders that can. if they so wish, cross-subsidise commercial operations. On the other hand, Boeing gets direct commercial subsidies. The link that supercarb posted lists the following subsidies for the launch of the 7E7:
State of Washington $3,200m Final Assembly Production
State of Kansas $200m Nose and Cockpit Interest Free Bond
Japanese Government $1,588m Wing and Fuselage Production Subsidy
Italian Government $590m Rear Fuselage Production Subsidy
747 Special Freighters $500m Production Transport Production Subsidy
7e7 Rail Barge $16m Production Transport Production Subsidy
Second, I am not sure why Galileo is figuring so prominantly in this discussion. Galileo is important because at the moment all global positioning is based upon a single system whose primary raison d'etre is military. Dubyaq could chose to, for example, switch back on SA at 24 hrs notice (as Clinton did when he switched it off). This makes users of the sytstem very vulnerable.
How the EU chooses to develop this is up to them surely? If it is 100% subsidised, and made free to users then I would have thought that this would be a good thing. If it is developed on a commercial model (which is the favoured option), in which the EU pays the initial costs then a commercial operator takes over and charges a commission on the chip-sets then that is OK too so long as use is not compulsory (and that is certainly not a serious intention). Given that the only competitor is 100% subsidised, neither seem to be too outrageous to me. Either way, the situation is so different to that of Airbus and Boeing I don't really see the point of the comparison.
For the record I am an academic who runs a research team focused upon measuring the surface of the earth using laser and satellite technologies. GPS has serious limitations for us, especially the SA issue.
Dr Dave
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dr Dave:
Drifting the topic, but...
I've often wondered about this. GPS is relatively 'old tech'. With the current rate of progress in computer technology, I suspect it won't be too long before some enterprising (probably Oriental) folks manage to effectively break the SA encryption and produce, for the civilian market, a GPS receiver which has decryption permanently enabled and gives an SA decode capability which *can't be switched off*.
Effectively, a civilian clone of a military receiver which auto-generates its own decrypt keys.
I *thought* I'd read that an agreement with the US had been reached, and Galileo would also have some form of SA, or similar functionality, built into it?
R1
Galileo is important because at the moment all global positioning is based upon a single system whose primary raison d'etre is military. Dubyaq could chose to, for example, switch back on SA at 24 hrs notice (as Clinton did when he switched it off). This makes users of the sytstem very vulnerable.
I've often wondered about this. GPS is relatively 'old tech'. With the current rate of progress in computer technology, I suspect it won't be too long before some enterprising (probably Oriental) folks manage to effectively break the SA encryption and produce, for the civilian market, a GPS receiver which has decryption permanently enabled and gives an SA decode capability which *can't be switched off*.
Effectively, a civilian clone of a military receiver which auto-generates its own decrypt keys.
I *thought* I'd read that an agreement with the US had been reached, and Galileo would also have some form of SA, or similar functionality, built into it?
R1
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dr. Dave I was the one who brought up Galileo because it seemed to be that it is a similar case where subsidies are being used, but any real discussion should be a separate thread. It is similar to aircraft projects by CASA and others where the government backs the development and then production is undertaked on a "commercial basis". This leaves the "taint" of subsidies on the project as a whole. GPS is not the only SATNAV game in town...you forgot GLONAS. And you kind of forgot that SA hasn't been used or even considered since the first few hours of Gulf War I. I realize I am a nasty American and don't have the same sensitivity as a European but the SA thing doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother some Europeans. Suppose it has something to do with the U.S. having the keys to the satellites and not the EU.
The various ways corporations can receive financial advantage from governments are mind boggling. How could anyone ever figure out all the little advantages and disadvantages that are used to foster and support the "home team". Not sure how a corporation can even say what it really costs them to produce something as complex as an airliner and judge whether they made a profit on any given one.
And it is complicated not just on subsidies from governments. I understand JetBlue in their contract to buy A320s from Airbus had 5 years of maintenance included. Probably had lots of other clauses in the contract and other buys are also likely as complex with different hedges and options and things. If I were Airbus management then I would wonder whether I was making any money on the deal, but wouldn't know until the deal was complete in a few years.
What will happen if/when airlines go finally belly up? (U.S. air, United, Delta and others on the ropes now) Classicly it has resulted in lots of relatively new aircraft available at reasonable prices and price pressure on the new production stream of aircraft to be economically attractive. What will governments do to make it less attractive for other operators to buy the lightly used aircraft ratherthan the subsidized new production that is keeping workers working and the manufacturing economy humming?
The various ways corporations can receive financial advantage from governments are mind boggling. How could anyone ever figure out all the little advantages and disadvantages that are used to foster and support the "home team". Not sure how a corporation can even say what it really costs them to produce something as complex as an airliner and judge whether they made a profit on any given one.
And it is complicated not just on subsidies from governments. I understand JetBlue in their contract to buy A320s from Airbus had 5 years of maintenance included. Probably had lots of other clauses in the contract and other buys are also likely as complex with different hedges and options and things. If I were Airbus management then I would wonder whether I was making any money on the deal, but wouldn't know until the deal was complete in a few years.
What will happen if/when airlines go finally belly up? (U.S. air, United, Delta and others on the ropes now) Classicly it has resulted in lots of relatively new aircraft available at reasonable prices and price pressure on the new production stream of aircraft to be economically attractive. What will governments do to make it less attractive for other operators to buy the lightly used aircraft ratherthan the subsidized new production that is keeping workers working and the manufacturing economy humming?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why doesn't the US gov help boeing openly? why does it have to be trough MIL programms, or NASA, and not directly? Will they stand and watch boeing go down in flames as the competition is climbing all over their backs?
At least airbus has a more transparent way of doing things, every European knows what is being done, and in the end they can vote against if they think the EEC is wasting taxpayers money.
But this WTO stuff is ridiculous, just sand thrown at the American (voting!!!) eye, from a person with an extreme lack of political qualities, who's shooting in every direction and upon everything that moves; Apparently, it works on some of you, discussing the pros & cons to the limit of diplomacy, with perfectly valid points on both sides, but missing the greater picture.
GD&L
At least airbus has a more transparent way of doing things, every European knows what is being done, and in the end they can vote against if they think the EEC is wasting taxpayers money.
But this WTO stuff is ridiculous, just sand thrown at the American (voting!!!) eye, from a person with an extreme lack of political qualities, who's shooting in every direction and upon everything that moves; Apparently, it works on some of you, discussing the pros & cons to the limit of diplomacy, with perfectly valid points on both sides, but missing the greater picture.
GD&L
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: France
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GearDown&Locked said:
Why doesn't the US gov help boeing openly? why does it have to be trough MIL programms, or NASA, and not directly? Will they stand and watch boeing go down in flames as the competition is climbing all over their backs?
At least airbus has a more transparent way of doing things, every European knows what is being done, and in the end they can vote against if they think the EEC is wasting taxpayers money.
Why doesn't the US gov help boeing openly? why does it have to be trough MIL programms, or NASA, and not directly? Will they stand and watch boeing go down in flames as the competition is climbing all over their backs?
At least airbus has a more transparent way of doing things, every European knows what is being done, and in the end they can vote against if they think the EEC is wasting taxpayers money.
US:
NASA
Military/DARPA
Government research institutes in Fluid dynamics
Local financial support: Washington state incentive
EU:
National research agencies.
Example ONERA
Military
Example CEAT
Projects supported financially by the European Commission
Example GARTEUR AWIATOR
Local government aid
Example Aeroconstellation in Toulouse Transport infrastructure
This list shows only an extremely small of what you can define as indirect aid.
As a conclusion you can say that both sides have obviously indirect support from the goverments. The frontiers of indirect aid are not very clear, so let us forget this.
Boeing's claim is focused on what is called Launch Aid and the conditions of its refunding. The EU has the right to finance up to 33% of the total cost of a new civil aircraft programme launch. In 1992, when the agreement was reached, Boeing is preparing its merger with MDD. The resulting corporation would become the only airplane manufacturer in the world that could produce 100+ civil aircraft. The EU threatened not to give the clearance for this merger unless if an agreement to help Airbus to become a credible contender could be reached. I think it was about something called antitrust action.
Airbus delivered last year and will deliver this year more aircraft than Boeing. Airbus' backlog is larger than Boeing's. We are proud of it. Now, the question is if Airbus can live without any further Launch Aid. Let us not forget that Airbus has now a full spectrum of products. Although I personnally support Airbus One Hundred Percent, I cannot say that Boeing's claim is fully wrong.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: France
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A350 will Airbus get a Launch Aid ?
There are insisting rumours about a new Airbus aircraft named A350.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=142417
If the engine to be installed is that of 7E7 or a derivative, then one can wonder how the A350 can be ready before the 7E7. Does anybody know what kind of efficient engine will be available before 7E7's engine ?
Flight International's article mentioned "substantial wing modification and more-efficient engines". It sounds like heavy modifications that will cost at least 2 billion USD. Will Airbus get a Launch Aid from French, German and Spanish governments ?
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=142417
Quoted from Flight International:
Airbus is also proposing the "A350" to other carriers including Qatar Airways, Lufthansa and Northwest Airlines, say the sources. It would be available shortly before the 7E7's 2008 service entry, they add, and would have the A330-200's fuselage, but substantial wing modifications and more-efficient engines.
Airbus is also proposing the "A350" to other carriers including Qatar Airways, Lufthansa and Northwest Airlines, say the sources. It would be available shortly before the 7E7's 2008 service entry, they add, and would have the A330-200's fuselage, but substantial wing modifications and more-efficient engines.
Flight International's article mentioned "substantial wing modification and more-efficient engines". It sounds like heavy modifications that will cost at least 2 billion USD. Will Airbus get a Launch Aid from French, German and Spanish governments ?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Flight Deck
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How has George Bush got the right to tell a company 4000 miles away that they are playing the book unfairly, its like Microsoft telling the hardware shop they can't have bank loans but of course an extremely large hardware shop. 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Costa Del Solent
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would Boeing be complaining about Airbus' subsidies if they were currently the worlds leading commercial aircraft manufacturer?
My guess is no.
Boeing are running out of ideas and don't know what to do except attack the more innovative competition. Another case of the American "See you in court" mentality when they don't get their own way.
My guess is no.
Boeing are running out of ideas and don't know what to do except attack the more innovative competition. Another case of the American "See you in court" mentality when they don't get their own way.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: By the Sea
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GearDown&Locked said:
Why doesn't the US gov help boeing openly? why does it have to be trough MIL programms, or NASA, and not directly? Will they stand and watch boeing go down in flames as the competition is climbing all over their backs?
At least airbus has a more transparent way of doing things, every European knows what is being done, and in the end they can vote against if they think the EEC is wasting taxpayers money.
Why doesn't the US gov help boeing openly? why does it have to be trough MIL programms, or NASA, and not directly? Will they stand and watch boeing go down in flames as the competition is climbing all over their backs?
At least airbus has a more transparent way of doing things, every European knows what is being done, and in the end they can vote against if they think the EEC is wasting taxpayers money.
Of course, the average American doesn't always get what he wants, and that leads to things like the B767 tanker program, which thanks to Sen. John McCain did not come to reality (yet, and hopefully never).
I think the average American has learned that corporate welfare is a bad thing, even though the average American CEO and/or lobbyist of course disagrees.
As others have pointed out, both corporations (A and B) are businesses, and such are obliged to get the best possible outcome for their shareholders. So of course they each will take whatever they can get from their own governments, and bad mouth the other for doing the exact same thing.
I think the average American supports MIL programs because in general they are run on a cash paid for goods rendered basis, and are highly competitive. If you look at the breadth of the American defense sector you find two or more competitors for almost everything being built, and a competition held for almost every project (witness the recent JSF competition, for instance). I'm not sure if you can say that for the European defense industry, I don't know all that much about it. But it seems the average European does not support defense spending, so I wonder if it's due to a lack of competitive forces in defense procurement. Whatever the cause, it seems most Europeans see defense spending as corporate graft, whereas most Americans do not.
Since MIL programs are bad, shouldn't Airbus return any profit it makes on the A400M to the governments buying the aircraft? You would not want the profits to subsidize A380/A350/etc, right? Somehow, I bet Airbus intends to keep the profits. So, Airbus is a player in the defense space, and its corporate owners have been for decades too. BAe et al are hiding behind the Airbus name, but the effect is the same.
The US government has watched Boeing shut down B757 production without batting an eye. God knows what would happen if politicians were calling the shots.
I think if some of the info from this thread showing the terms of the various Airbus loans, and the lack of repayment in most cases, were put to a referendum in Europe, future loans would be voted down. But it doesn't really work that way. From what I can tell most Europeans don't even bother to vote in the EU elections anyway!
--ev--