Fallon Warns Boeing
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. May I ask how that that military contract remotely relates to illegal government subsidies for commercial products? The answer is not at all. In other words, a red herring.
2. In the case of the KC-767 and A330 MRTT contest, Airbus chose to provide a non conforming bid (no freighter door and no freighter floor.) And on top of that Boeing underbid Airbus. This being a fixed price contract, Boeing is now reaping the rewards of a low bid by having to write off many tens of millions in cost overruns.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by KenV; 28th Sep 2017 at 13:23.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a pointless argument - all sides find ways to suport their aerospace industries when they want to so let's just cut out all teh name calling please.
The issue is can the UK actually threaten Boeing? I think not - there really is no choice............ this is what happens when you have a monopoly supplier - be it Mr B, BAe or whoever.
The issue is can the UK actually threaten Boeing? I think not - there really is no choice............ this is what happens when you have a monopoly supplier - be it Mr B, BAe or whoever.
... but for Boeing to shriek hysterically about an airliner (that doesn't compete with their model range) surely speaks volumes that the C series is a terrific aircraft, which is more likely the reason for the complaint.
For the M1 tank argument that a Government wants to support an industry, then that argument equally applies to Bombardier support from Canada and UK....
I think we all realise that there are "assists" from all Governments at times to support R&D and service introduction, be it military or commercial.
Are the new generation Chinese airliners "correctly" priced?
What the US have done by imposing a 220% tariff is to expose themselves to ridicule and pot/kettle comparisons. This is America under Trump where bluster and hyperbole count more than facts and truth.
... but what do I know? 4,000 jobs in NI and UK on the line? Let's see a sensible compromise.... uh oh, perhaps sensible is too much to ask of politicians....
For the M1 tank argument that a Government wants to support an industry, then that argument equally applies to Bombardier support from Canada and UK....
I think we all realise that there are "assists" from all Governments at times to support R&D and service introduction, be it military or commercial.
Are the new generation Chinese airliners "correctly" priced?
What the US have done by imposing a 220% tariff is to expose themselves to ridicule and pot/kettle comparisons. This is America under Trump where bluster and hyperbole count more than facts and truth.
... but what do I know? 4,000 jobs in NI and UK on the line? Let's see a sensible compromise.... uh oh, perhaps sensible is too much to ask of politicians....
Do you really think that?
Their site is here:
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e..._e/ds316_e.htm
Again, I am no apologist for either side as it is clear that both sides provide assistance to their aviation industry and WTO rulings seem to go back and forth. Throwing emotive words around like 'illegal' does not really reflect what has been going on in the US for decades.
As for the current situation the US has decided to make a ruling outside of the WTO and have drafted unilateral penalties. I am not sure the WTO would approve of such methods, so good luck.
Their site is here:
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e..._e/ds316_e.htm
8.1 Conclusions
8.1. In light of the findings in the foregoing sections of the Report, and with respect to the aerospace tax measures at issue, as amended and extended through Washington State's Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB 5952), the Panel concludes that:
a. Each of the seven aerospace tax measures at issue in the present case constitutes a subsidy within the meaning of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement;
b. Regarding the European Union's claim that the aerospace tax measures at issue are subsidies de jure contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods within the meaning of Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement:
i. The European Union has not demonstrated that the aerospace tax measures are de jure contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods with respect to the First Siting Provision in ESSB 5952 considered separately;
c. With respect to the First Siting Provision and the Second Siting Provision in ESSB 5952, considered jointly, the B&O aerospace tax rate for the manufacturing or sale of commercial airplanes under the 777X programme is a subsidy de facto contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods within the meaning of Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement.
8.2. Having found that the B&O aerospace tax rate for the manufacturing or sale of commercial airplanes under the 777X programme is inconsistent with Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement, the Panel also finds that the United States has acted inconsistently with Article 3.2 of the SCM Agreement.
8.3. Under Article 3.8 of the DSU, in cases where there is an infringement of the obligations assumed under a covered agreement, the action is considered prima facie to constitute a case of nullification or impairment. We conclude that, to the extent that the United States has acted inconsistently with the SCM Agreement, it has nullified or impaired benefits accruing to the European Union under that Agreement.
8.2 Recommendation
8.4. Article 4.7 of the SCM Agreement provides that, having found a measure in dispute to be a prohibited subsidy:
[T]he panel shall recommend that the subsidizing Member withdraw the subsidy without delay. In this regard, the panel shall specify in its recommendation the time period within which the measure must be withdrawn.
8.5. The Panel has found that the European Union has demonstrated that the B&O aerospace tax rate for the manufacturing or sale of commercial airplanes under the 777X programme, pursuant to ESSB 5952, is a subsidy contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods, prohibited under Articles 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement.
8.6. Accordingly, taking into account the nature of the prohibited subsidy found in this dispute, the Panel recommends that the United States withdraw it without delay and within 90 days.
8.1. In light of the findings in the foregoing sections of the Report, and with respect to the aerospace tax measures at issue, as amended and extended through Washington State's Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB 5952), the Panel concludes that:
a. Each of the seven aerospace tax measures at issue in the present case constitutes a subsidy within the meaning of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement;
b. Regarding the European Union's claim that the aerospace tax measures at issue are subsidies de jure contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods within the meaning of Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement:
i. The European Union has not demonstrated that the aerospace tax measures are de jure contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods with respect to the First Siting Provision in ESSB 5952 considered separately;
c. With respect to the First Siting Provision and the Second Siting Provision in ESSB 5952, considered jointly, the B&O aerospace tax rate for the manufacturing or sale of commercial airplanes under the 777X programme is a subsidy de facto contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods within the meaning of Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement.
8.2. Having found that the B&O aerospace tax rate for the manufacturing or sale of commercial airplanes under the 777X programme is inconsistent with Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement, the Panel also finds that the United States has acted inconsistently with Article 3.2 of the SCM Agreement.
8.3. Under Article 3.8 of the DSU, in cases where there is an infringement of the obligations assumed under a covered agreement, the action is considered prima facie to constitute a case of nullification or impairment. We conclude that, to the extent that the United States has acted inconsistently with the SCM Agreement, it has nullified or impaired benefits accruing to the European Union under that Agreement.
8.2 Recommendation
8.4. Article 4.7 of the SCM Agreement provides that, having found a measure in dispute to be a prohibited subsidy:
[T]he panel shall recommend that the subsidizing Member withdraw the subsidy without delay. In this regard, the panel shall specify in its recommendation the time period within which the measure must be withdrawn.
8.5. The Panel has found that the European Union has demonstrated that the B&O aerospace tax rate for the manufacturing or sale of commercial airplanes under the 777X programme, pursuant to ESSB 5952, is a subsidy contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods, prohibited under Articles 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement.
8.6. Accordingly, taking into account the nature of the prohibited subsidy found in this dispute, the Panel recommends that the United States withdraw it without delay and within 90 days.
As for the current situation the US has decided to make a ruling outside of the WTO and have drafted unilateral penalties. I am not sure the WTO would approve of such methods, so good luck.
Last edited by Just This Once...; 28th Sep 2017 at 17:13.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What the US have done by imposing a 220% tariff is to expose themselves to ridicule and pot/kettle comparisons. This is America under Trump where bluster and hyperbole count more than facts and truth.
... but what do I know? 4,000 jobs in NI and UK on the line? Let's see a sensible compromise.... uh oh, perhaps sensible is too much to ask of politicians....
... but what do I know? 4,000 jobs in NI and UK on the line? Let's see a sensible compromise.... uh oh, perhaps sensible is too much to ask of politicians....
Would it be too much to ask you to bother to read the thread, and the link I provided to the R&N thread before you engage in hysterics? The USITC (look it up, I did) has yet to review this, and the ball is still in play. No tariff increase is in place (so far) and there is plenty of time to challenge this proposal. (As I am sure is being done.)
Now, go back to the first page of this thread, read my post, and then go to the link @R&N where a few wiser heads have made some point about this being *a game still with time on the clock and the ball in play* among the noise and crying, rending of teeth, and gnashing of garments. (Hmm, or the other way around).
For the record, I am not sure of all that's behind this. I don't like tariff wars. They are too often a case of lose/lose. This appears to me to be a negotiating tactic, or an attempt to slip one by that got caught. Not sure). As I see it, Boeing seems to have pulled the old "never hurts to try" and we'll see whether or not they succeed.
West Coast wrote:
Indeed, Westie. I very much doubt whether any of the major manufacturers has been entirely squeaky clean over such matters.
As for our own dear BWoS, see https://www.caat.org.uk/resources/pu...dwin-5-web.pdf (Not that I support CAAT!!)
Is this about no subsidies or an even playing ground? Euroland has been know to play the same games iso it's industrial complex.
As for our own dear BWoS, see https://www.caat.org.uk/resources/pu...dwin-5-web.pdf (Not that I support CAAT!!)
Not exactly a great set of results for Boeing and quite a lot of money and years wasted on both sides.
For this international argument Boeing has utilised a US and thereby unilateral body to hear the case and it is difficult to see how other nations will accept the judgement of a potentially biased body.
The concern for the US should be the opportunity they have handed to other countries to take similar unilateral measures against Boeing or indeed any major US industry.
I do share the view expressed by Lonewolf that this unilateral penalty is far from certain or even beneficial to the US. But it has already achieved reputational damage for Boeing and the US government. Unilateral punitive tariffs are rather frowned upon by the WTO, to say the least.
http://www.stltoday.com/business/loc...iderail-latest
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't affect the EU tho' does it? - just the UK - who have said they want nothing to do with the EU and all its evils...............
So don't be surprised if they just shrug and walk on by and save their powder for the next time Mr B comes after Airbus................... would be different if we were committed to staying in
So don't be surprised if they just shrug and walk on by and save their powder for the next time Mr B comes after Airbus................... would be different if we were committed to staying in
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing declares victory in Airbus subsidies dispute - BBC News
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Doesn't affect the EU..." except we're in the EU fully paid-up and committed to remaining so for at least three years. If you're right why don't we just save the cash?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"we're in the EU fully paid-up and committed to remaining so for at least three years"
and we slag them off at every opportunity..
Do you REALLY expect people to bust a gut for soemone who is (supposedly) desperate to leave the club?
As the poor sods in NI are finding out it's a big, cold, world out there and our "friends" may not be that friendly
and we slag them off at every opportunity..
Do you REALLY expect people to bust a gut for soemone who is (supposedly) desperate to leave the club?
As the poor sods in NI are finding out it's a big, cold, world out there and our "friends" may not be that friendly