Boeing whining again over Airbus...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing whining again over Airbus...
Reuters
Boeing Still Cries Over Airbus Subsidies
Wednesday May 19, 12:05 pm ET
SEATTLE (Reuters) - Boeing Co. (NYSE:BA - News) said on Wednesday it plans to "raise the rhetoric" on jetmaker Airbus SAS's receipt of government aid, saying its European rival is sacrificing profits to build market share.
Reviving a long-running war of words, Boeing Chief Executive Harry Stonecipher told investors at a conference that "Airbus is not on a level playing field" because of state aid, including low-interest loans to develop aircraft like its new A380 mega-jet.
"They build a lot of airplanes and they've taken a lot of our market share and they say that they're making a lot of money, which I'm still trying to figure out," Stonecipher said. "But if that's true, then they don't need subsidies and they don't need to have non-commercial-rate lending."
Stonecipher did not say whether Chicago-based Boeing would push a formal complaint with U.S. trade officials.
"We are going to raise the level of rhetoric on that subject," he said. "We are going to change the playing field. Stay tuned, we'll have more to report."
Under a 1992 U.S.-European Union agreement on large aircraft, governments can fund up to 30 percent of the costs of launching a new aircraft. European governments have provided loans or guarantees for every Airbus jet, including the new A380 mega-jet.
"We do not receive subsidies. We receive funds in the form of repayable launch aid, which is in line with the applicable international trade agreements," said an Airbus spokesman in Toulouse, France.
Boeing supporters have argued that stricter World Trade Organization rules prohibit such aid, but they have never launched a formal case with the trade body.
Likewise, Airbus has long claimed Boeing gets unfair support through military contracts and NASA work that underpin research and development for its commercial planes.
Boeing also obtained $3 billion in aid from Washington state after agreeing to assemble its new 7E7 mid-sized jet near Seattle, and has reportedly received aid guarantees from Japan, where much of the component work will be done.
Airbus officials have raised questions about the Japanese support in discussions with EU officials, but say any decision to file a formal complaint rests with European governments.
Stonecipher said he doubted Airbus was profitable, citing the financial statements of parent company EADS, which owns 80 percent of Airbus.
He also called the launch of the 555-seat A380 a "mistake," reiterating Boeing's view of a limited market of about 400 jets that large over the next 20 years, compared with Airbus' forecast of several times that much demand.
"Airbus in our opinion, OK, made a mistake," he said. "They made a big mistake when they decided to build the A380." (Additional reporting by Noah Barkin in Paris)
Boeing Still Cries Over Airbus Subsidies
Wednesday May 19, 12:05 pm ET
SEATTLE (Reuters) - Boeing Co. (NYSE:BA - News) said on Wednesday it plans to "raise the rhetoric" on jetmaker Airbus SAS's receipt of government aid, saying its European rival is sacrificing profits to build market share.
Reviving a long-running war of words, Boeing Chief Executive Harry Stonecipher told investors at a conference that "Airbus is not on a level playing field" because of state aid, including low-interest loans to develop aircraft like its new A380 mega-jet.
"They build a lot of airplanes and they've taken a lot of our market share and they say that they're making a lot of money, which I'm still trying to figure out," Stonecipher said. "But if that's true, then they don't need subsidies and they don't need to have non-commercial-rate lending."
Stonecipher did not say whether Chicago-based Boeing would push a formal complaint with U.S. trade officials.
"We are going to raise the level of rhetoric on that subject," he said. "We are going to change the playing field. Stay tuned, we'll have more to report."
Under a 1992 U.S.-European Union agreement on large aircraft, governments can fund up to 30 percent of the costs of launching a new aircraft. European governments have provided loans or guarantees for every Airbus jet, including the new A380 mega-jet.
"We do not receive subsidies. We receive funds in the form of repayable launch aid, which is in line with the applicable international trade agreements," said an Airbus spokesman in Toulouse, France.
Boeing supporters have argued that stricter World Trade Organization rules prohibit such aid, but they have never launched a formal case with the trade body.
Likewise, Airbus has long claimed Boeing gets unfair support through military contracts and NASA work that underpin research and development for its commercial planes.
Boeing also obtained $3 billion in aid from Washington state after agreeing to assemble its new 7E7 mid-sized jet near Seattle, and has reportedly received aid guarantees from Japan, where much of the component work will be done.
Airbus officials have raised questions about the Japanese support in discussions with EU officials, but say any decision to file a formal complaint rests with European governments.
Stonecipher said he doubted Airbus was profitable, citing the financial statements of parent company EADS, which owns 80 percent of Airbus.
He also called the launch of the 555-seat A380 a "mistake," reiterating Boeing's view of a limited market of about 400 jets that large over the next 20 years, compared with Airbus' forecast of several times that much demand.
"Airbus in our opinion, OK, made a mistake," he said. "They made a big mistake when they decided to build the A380." (Additional reporting by Noah Barkin in Paris)
Last edited by rotornut; 19th May 2004 at 18:23.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess we are on the same timeline then. Actually, I was just being a little of a smartass with you. I thought by the wingnut comment you would realize that. 
When have I ever said that Airbus is bad?
Just because I live in the USA does not mean I am always for Boring.
Each of the two has it's strong points. Together, they serve the industry quite nicely. It's the Japanese that I am worried about. But, by the time they enter the market I will be in St. Marten sipping fruit drinks for the rest of my days.
When have I ever said that Airbus is bad?
Just because I live in the USA does not mean I am always for Boring.
Each of the two has it's strong points. Together, they serve the industry quite nicely. It's the Japanese that I am worried about. But, by the time they enter the market I will be in St. Marten sipping fruit drinks for the rest of my days.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The French assemble "wonderful" airplanes
To: GreenArc
The wings are made in the UK; parts of the fuselage are made in Northern Ireland, Canada and Germany. The flaps and slats are made in Spain and Belgium, the engines on earlier models were made in the United States, some of the landing gear is made in Germany, the flap slat drive systems are made in Germany and the UK.
The design was done mainly by contract engineers from the UK and the United States until the French came up to speed. The only thing that is pure French is the CATIA design system and Boeing uses this in the design of the 777 and the 7E7 Dreamliner.
Now before you or anyone else gets on their high horse Boeing does exactly the same thing. It’s called risk sharing. Airbus and Boeing are integrators they no longer construct aircraft.
The French make wonderful airplanes, pure and simple.
The design was done mainly by contract engineers from the UK and the United States until the French came up to speed. The only thing that is pure French is the CATIA design system and Boeing uses this in the design of the 777 and the 7E7 Dreamliner.
Now before you or anyone else gets on their high horse Boeing does exactly the same thing. It’s called risk sharing. Airbus and Boeing are integrators they no longer construct aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: CYTZ
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing that nobody who whines about subsidies to foreign competitors ever mentions is the cost of doing business imposed on companies by those very same governments that give out the subsidies. I'm sure that Scarebus could compete without taking subsidies if they didn't have to give their workers five-week paid vacations or a 35 hour week for the price of 40.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh go polish the boat.
Lets just drop the gloves and get it on. Meet you round the back of the gym at around 3 o clock.
ps. don't go getting all bent, I was just havin a spot of fun. 
Lets just drop the gloves and get it on. Meet you round the back of the gym at around 3 o clock.
ps. don't go getting all bent, I was just havin a spot of fun.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"if they didn't have to give their workers five-week paid vacations"
It called being allowed to have a life sir.. I'm sorry, but most of us this side of the atlantic still tend to believe that we exist for slightly more than to enrich people we will likely never meet. I would wager that the majority of people in your side of the world would agree with me too.
It called being allowed to have a life sir.. I'm sorry, but most of us this side of the atlantic still tend to believe that we exist for slightly more than to enrich people we will likely never meet. I would wager that the majority of people in your side of the world would agree with me too.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which puts Boeing in the top 10% of US employers to work for.
What the European system does is put in a floor, which even the most a*hole employer can't go below.
What do you get at a US based Boeing supplier if they are in the bottom 10% to work for?
What the European system does is put in a floor, which even the most a*hole employer can't go below.
What do you get at a US based Boeing supplier if they are in the bottom 10% to work for?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing whining over Airbus - what's that got to do with "oh I'd rather work for Boeing" comments , damn, I thought we were talking aeroplanes - not employers
Oh by the way AntiIce, I only said "the bus is A winner" not "THE winner". Subtle I know
, damn, I thought we were talking aeroplanes - not employers Oh by the way AntiIce, I only said "the bus is A winner" not "THE winner". Subtle I know
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That got me confused too. I thought it was a good job the Europeans put a floor in their aeroplanes. But then I thought maybe he meant alpha floor? But no he was talking about employers going below a floor! Weird!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: By the Sea
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least they are willing to whine about their own mismanagement:
Seattle Times Article
A fair-use quote:
I find it interesting how Boeing is busily adapting many Airbus practices: taking subsidies (Washington State gifts for 7E7 production, Japanese aid for 7E7 work, etc.) and moving towards being an integrator rather than a builder (trying to sell Boeing Wichita, etc.). It's like every other competition: when one side figures out how to do something optimally, the other copies it and improves upon it, etc.
I personally wish there were no subsidies at all. I believe military work is not a subsidy. It is shown both the Airbus member companies and Boeing are both doing military work. Should they be banned from military work just because they also do commercial work? Who would that benefit? I also believe that guaranteed loans are a subsidy - if not, why don't commercial banks give them out too? But I think Boeing's current management sees that the camel's nose is in the tent, and if you can't beat them, join them (is that enough cliches for you now?).
--ev--
Seattle Times Article
A fair-use quote:
During Boeing's last production boom in the late 1990s, "we really blew it," Mulally said. The commercial-airplanes group ballooned to 127,000 workers, 3,750 suppliers and 70.5 million square feet of facilities.
The girth was counterproductive. Boeing lost money on every plane it produced as it fell behind schedule and costs spiraled out of control.
The girth was counterproductive. Boeing lost money on every plane it produced as it fell behind schedule and costs spiraled out of control.
I personally wish there were no subsidies at all. I believe military work is not a subsidy. It is shown both the Airbus member companies and Boeing are both doing military work. Should they be banned from military work just because they also do commercial work? Who would that benefit? I also believe that guaranteed loans are a subsidy - if not, why don't commercial banks give them out too? But I think Boeing's current management sees that the camel's nose is in the tent, and if you can't beat them, join them (is that enough cliches for you now?).
--ev--
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Shadows
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny how the yanks whine about subs to Airbus when most of their carriers should be bankrupt if not for govt subsand chap 11!!!
Glass house...throw stones!!
Pot calling kettle black!!!
How about a level playing field!!!!
Any of them ring true either?
Glass house...throw stones!!
Pot calling kettle black!!!
How about a level playing field!!!!
Any of them ring true either?