WTO rules against Airbus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WTO rules against Airbus
The World Trade Organization said Tuesday that the European Union helped Airbus with unfair subsidies that hurt sales of Boeing's wide-body jets. Hmmm. The last time Airbus promised "swift action" nothing changed. Wonder what will be different this time.
US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said the decision "confirms once and for all that the EU has long ignored WTO rules, and even worse, EU aircraft subsidies have cost American aerospace companies tens of billions of dollars in lost revenue." He said that the United States would impose tariffs if the EU doesn't follow international trade laws. That would be an escalation at a time when US relations with trading partners are already tense. But the European Union said it planned to take "swift action" to align with the WTO's recommendations.
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may well be the case that little will change this time, given that the US is effectively threatening the EU with sanctions over the Iran deal. If that actually does go south, then there could be far wider implications for tariffs and state trade assistance in the future.
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The WTO actually rejected 204 of the 218 claims by Boeing.
They have also yet to rule on the investigation into the complaints against Boeing.
Not quite the story from the unattributed quote above.
They have also yet to rule on the investigation into the complaints against Boeing.
Not quite the story from the unattributed quote above.
At the last ruling, and the ruling before that and, indeed, the ruling before that too, both Airbus and Boeing claimed to have won the day. No difference this time round; in a statement by Airbus you could hear the virtual champagne bottles popping as well.
Nothing is likely to happen because of this, apart from making a large handful of lawyers very, very, rich. A huge waste of time, in other words.
Nothing is likely to happen because of this, apart from making a large handful of lawyers very, very, rich. A huge waste of time, in other words.
This assessment appears to be accurate. But I don't think it's a waste of time to try- seems to be a nothing ventured nothing gained deal and the lawyers can keep on earning ...
If paying hundreds of millions to lawyers over several years and spending untold thousands of management hours, with little to nothing to show for the effort, is not a waste of time, then I really don't know what else you should call it. Frivolous spending of shareholders money, perhaps?
