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

Err indirectly, P8, AWACS, RJ.

Oh, it gets better! That'll learn 'em!

CG

C-17, and quite a bit more besides in terms of services etc Boeing: Boeing UK - Defence

And considering Boeing's legal department is probably larger than DE&S, I'm sure they'll be quaking in their boots!

So where are all the post Brexit trade deals going to come from? Oh that's right, there aren't any.

You should realise that Boeing does an awful lot of business with the government on an annual basis other than aircraft related.....

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?

As in A330 v's 767?

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...:hmm:

Illegal subsidies and bribes. That would never happen in the Land of the Free now, would it....:rolleyes:

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.

Beagle

Is this about no subsidies or an even playing ground? Euroland has been know to play the same games iso it's industrial complex.

We understand it is business - No problems.

Same as when we have defence technology contracts with North Korea:O

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.

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.

It's already been said, but I feel like repeating it anyway: choosing the KC767 over the A330? Really? :yuk:

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.

Actually, no. It's a firm fixed price contract. Boeing has already written down millions for this program. But nice try.

No one, including me, remotely suggested Boeing is pure and clean and free from corruption. But neither are they stoopid. They know how to work the system and will take advantage of whatever legal avenues are available to them. Sorry if my pointing that out offends you. Again.

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.