Boeing vs Airbus subsidies (split)

[Ignition Override]

Greetings Lomapaseo: I was curious about whether certain commercial organizations rank airlines in a very confidential manner, and was not implying or hinting at anything. If somebody decides to read between the lines, they are welcome.

For example, I don't imply, but often remind folks on Pprune that Airbus marketing has a European government-funded unfair advantage, versus what Boeing is allowed.

[Carnage Matey!]

For example, I don't imply, but often remind folks on Pprune that Airbus marketing has a European government-funded unfair advantage, versus what Boeing is allowed.

Lets not forget the cross-subsidisation through technology transfer from the military division that Boeing enjoys. Or the conveniently uncontested US military leasing of 100 767 tankers. Or the extreme political pressure placed on the government of Taiwan to buy Boeing instead of Airbus. Or Israel for that matter. Why did Emirates suddenly switch from Rolls Royce to an American engine manufacture after a high powered political lobby visited the UAE? Why did the WTO rule that export tax breaks for Boeing represented an illegal state subsidy?

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Carnage Matey!

It works both ways. Although this is a minor point I would suggest you check out the wing tip fences used on many Airbus aircraft. Boeing designed them under a NASA contract. The reason Airbus uses them is that NASA gave them the rights to use them in their wing design. The reason they are not used on American aircraft is that NASA would charge a huge licensing fee for their use. So, in a small way the United States Government has subsidized Airbus.

:cool:

[Ignition Override]

Lu Zuckerman: Carnage Matey highlighted one of my remarks from a previous page on this topic, which was an example to show that I don't make points by using hints between the lines, regarding Pprune discussions. I still wonder whether those export tax breaks given to Boeing (maybe to help a little bit to compete with Airbus?), along with sales to tiny Taiwan and Israel (also somewhat small), pressured or not, really compare to the billions of dollars given to Airbus by the various European taxpayers' elected officials. Let's not forgot those NASA wingtips, no matter how small. You folks provided food for thought and debate.

From what I remember, and just now read in "Modern Commercial Aircraft (1987)" and "Modern Military Aircraft (1979) ", certain European aircraft industries (Airbus began as an Anglo/French initiative in 1965, with German participation from 1967), which have been for many years partners of the Airbus consortium, also produce military planes or parts. Is this not the case, for example with Jaguars (300 delivered by '77: British A./Dassault-Breguet), Nimrod (program cost estimated at 400 million pounds: HS/B.A.), Panavia Tornado (809 aircraft were planned: Bae/MBB/Aeritalia), C-160 Transall (179 planned: Aerosp./MBB/VFW-Fokker),with RR/SNECMA/MTU/FN engines? The Alpha Jet trainer/light strike/Aufklarung=reconn. (233 planned: Dassault-Breguet/Dornier) with SNECMA/Turbomeca engines, with trainers assembled at Toulouse and Oberpfaffenhofen (cordon bleu or Schnitzel mit Spaetzle/grosses Fanta for lunch)?

Does this partial listing suggest a very substantial revenue from sales of those excellent aircraft to member nation military departments? This must have somehow helped many of the Airbus partner companies' revenue over there, but not just to a small extent? I could be mistaken.

Back to KAL...