WTO rules A380 unfairly subsidised

[Just the fax maam]

The US has been given the go-ahead to impose tariffs on $7.5bn (£6.1bn) of goods it imports from the EU.

It is the latest chapter in a 15-year battle between the US and the EU over illegal subsidies for planemakers Airbus and rival Boeing.

The ruling by the World Trade Organisation could mean tariffs on EU goods ranging from aircraft parts to luxury goods and shellfish.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49906815

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/u...ling-on-airbus

[ExDubai]

So let’s see what amount the EU is allowed to put on Tarifs for the unfair subsidies Boeing received.
Should be in the same range.

„The WTO had already found that both Europe's Airbus and its U.S. rival Boeing received billions of dollars of illegal subsidies in the world's largest corporate trade dispute, a legal marathon dating back to 2004.“
https://www.theguardian.pe.ca/busine...00-gmt-359106/

[kiwi grey]

Well covered on Leeham News last week:
https://leehamnews.com/2019/09/29/eu...rbus-wto-case/
https://leehamnews.com/2019/09/30/eu...n-outstanding/

TL;DR If the USA imposes any tariffs, the EU already has the WTO-given right to retaliate.
Does the US Government really want to open a second front in the trade war?

[Speed of Sound]

A really smart move with Boeing relying on cooperation from EASA to get the MAX flying again!

[PAXboy]

Speed of Sound: [Monty Python] You are a very naughty boy.

[punkalouver]

No surprise there about the subsidy. All for Gallic pride paid by much of Europe I suppose. Sort of like that Concorde thingy.

[Australopithecus]

Originally Posted by punkalouver

No surprise there about the subsidy. All for Gallic pride paid by much of Europe I suppose. Sort of like that Concorde thingy.

What? The Anglo-French Concorde you mean?

[punkalouver]

Originally Posted by Australopithecus

What? The Anglo-French Concorde you mean?

Yup. At least the Anglos knew it was a waste.

[Lord Bracken]

The Anglo-French Concorde that proved the concept of large scale industrial cooperation between European nations was a viable way of producing aircraft?

[bvcu]

and while the US and Europe argue to protect 2 companies the Chinese are taking the world over industrially so they really need to work together to delay the inevitable

[His dudeness]

Originally Posted by Australopithecus

What? The Anglo-French Concorde you mean?

Don´t disturbe him by facts !

[His dudeness]

Originally Posted by bvcu

and while the US and Europe argue to protect 2 companies the Chinese are taking the world over industrially so they really need to work together to delay the inevitable

Well said. But that is just deserved, thats what you get for never standing for your supposed principles, as "the West" does.

[Scuffers]

Originally Posted by Speed of Sound

A really smart move with Boeing relying on cooperation from EASA to get the MAX flying again!

Bingo!

they really would be out of their minds to push this.

[DCP123]

Originally Posted by Lord Bracken

The Anglo-French Concorde that proved the concept of large scale industrial cooperation between European nations was a viable way of producing aircraft?

Odd to see "Concorde" and viable in the same "sentence."

[Scuffers]

Originally Posted by DCP123

Odd to see "Concorde" and viable in the same "sentence."

to be fair, Concorde was scuppered by politics, incompetence and cowardice.

and before somebody says it never made a profit, you have no idea.

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by Scuffers

to be fair, Concorde was scuppered by politics, incompetence and cowardice.

and before somebody says it never made a profit, you have no idea.

I'm pretty sure the manufacturers never showed a profit (except perhaps for the manufactures of red ink).

[Scuffers]

Originally Posted by tdracer

I'm pretty sure the manufacturers never showed a profit (except perhaps for the manufactures of red ink).

no **** sherlock!

that's not what I was getting at, BA operated them at a significant profit for years, hell, they spent millions re-furbishing them not long before Airbus pulled the plug.

As for manufacture, once the US effectively banned it, the whole case for it fell apart and the orders received disappeared, we will never know what it could have been had politics, the 73-74 market crash and oil crisis.

[Easy Street]

Despite the WTO ruling there will always be some who claim that US planemakers are unsubsidised, based on financials alone and ignoring all the other ways a government can support its domestic industries. The USAF could be operating a fleet of highly capable Airbus tankers by now were it not for the politically-driven switch to an inferior Boeing product. (Yes, the KC30 exceeded the requirements by some margin, but it works. How much of the cost difference has now been poured into fixing the KC46?) Plenty of European nations operate US military kit but you’d be hard pressed to find many examples of the reverse. This is subsidy by another name. And as for the savings Boeing made on design and certification of a new aircraft with FAA (= US Government) complicity in the 737MAX saga, well, that was going pretty well until the crashes. I’m not saying Europe is innocent, by the way: clearly it’s not. But enough already with protestations of US free market purity.

[Grebe]

How many realize that Airbus 'research, development, and initial production loans at preferred rates have a neat clause that if sales-deliveries do not meet certain pre planned targets by certain dates, the remainder of unpaid loans gets forgiven ?

Now try to find the equivalent for Boeing ..

[Sallyann1234]

Originally Posted by Grebe

How many realize that Airbus 'research, development, and initial production loans at preferred rates have a neat clause that if sales-deliveries do not meet certain pre planned targets by certain dates, the remainder of unpaid loans gets forgiven ?

Now try to find the equivalent for Boeing ..

Yep. The two sides subsidise in different ways. That's already agreed, so your point is?