Airbus complains over Boeing state funding

[charrison]

linkage

TOULOUSE, France, Dec. 11 (UPI) -- Europe's Airbus is contending that Boeing's plans to finance its newest jet could violate international trade rules by relying on U.S. government subsidies.


...

Boeing is expected to give its sales force permission next week to start offering the proposed super-efficient 7E7 Dreamliner to airlines worldwide, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The two-engine wide-body passenger jet, Boeing's competition to Airbus's popular A330 model, would be Boeing's first new jetliner in more than a decade -- and its development could cost about $7 billion

Pot meet kettle.

Granted I have no idea what subsidies they are referring to.

 

[SuperTool]

Isn't the Brittish government subsidizing airbus? I thought the frenchies are in it too

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Isn't the Brittish government subsidizing airbus? I thought the frenchies are in it too

Pretty much all of the EU is.

But is gets more interesting. Boeing is playing a very interesting trick.

linkage

To build a watertight business plan that the board in Chicago will approve, Boeing wants the suppliers to come up with a major portion of the development costs, which could total $7 billion to $10 billion.

It expects partners to share the risk, earning profits in proportion to the success of the jet in the marketplace. Both the Japanese and Italian suppliers expect to get government funding for their parts of the 7E7 project

It does not look boeing is getting financing from the US government.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Isn't the Brittish government subsidizing airbus? I thought the frenchies are in it too

Yes they are....the government gave Airbus a soft money loan, meaning that if the new Airbus plane isn't successful, they don't have to pay the government back.

 

[freegeeks]

In 1998, according to a monitoring study carried out on behalf of the Commission, it was estimated that the amount of US Government indirect support to its LCA industry (Large Civil Aircraft) reached almost $ 2 billion in 1997, i.e. around 7% of its commercial turnover (thus well above the 3% limit set by the 1992 Agreement).

yeah, there are no subsidies for civil contracts for Boeing

link

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

In 1998, according to a monitoring study carried out on behalf of the Commission, it was estimated that the amount of US Government indirect support to its LCA industry (Large Civil Aircraft) reached almost $ 2 billion in 1997, i.e. around 7% of its commercial turnover (thus well above the 3% limit set by the 1992 Agreement).

yeah, there are no subsidies for civil contracts for Boeing

link

What kind of subsidies does Boeing get? That article doesn't specifically say Boeing received any - not that I'm doubting it...but that article doesn't specifically say what you're talking about.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: freegeeks

In 1998, according to a monitoring study carried out on behalf of the Commission, it was estimated that the amount of US Government indirect support to its LCA industry (Large Civil Aircraft) reached almost $ 2 billion in 1997, i.e. around 7% of its commercial turnover (thus well above the 3% limit set by the 1992 Agreement).

yeah, there are no subsidies for civil contracts for Boeing

link

What kind of subsidies does Boeing get? That article doesn't specifically say Boeing received any - not that I'm doubting it...but that article doesn't specifically say what you're talking about.

plain and simple

Boeing is getting money for it's civil aircraft division from the US govt. There are only 2 big players in the world.
IMO it's a bit hypocrit to bash Airbus when Boeing is doing some creative financing of its own

Boeing and the US govt. are only complaining because Boeing has lost the lead in the civil aircraft market and its civil aircraft branch is getting in trouble.

like I said before, if Boeing and the US govt. are so sure of their case they can take it to the WTO.

simple

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: freegeeks

In 1998, according to a monitoring study carried out on behalf of the Commission, it was estimated that the amount of US Government indirect support to its LCA industry (Large Civil Aircraft) reached almost $ 2 billion in 1997, i.e. around 7% of its commercial turnover (thus well above the 3% limit set by the 1992 Agreement).

yeah, there are no subsidies for civil contracts for Boeing

link

What kind of subsidies does Boeing get? That article doesn't specifically say Boeing received any - not that I'm doubting it...but that article doesn't specifically say what you're talking about.

plain and simple

Boeing is getting money for it's civil aircraft division from the US govt. There are only 2 big players in the world.
IMO it's a bit hypocrit to bash Airbus when Boeing is doing some creative financing of its own

Boeing and the US govt. are only complaining because Boeing has lost the lead in the civil aircraft market and its civil aircraft branch is getting in trouble.

like I said before, if Boeing and the US govt. are so sure of their case they can take it to the WTO.

simple

Isn't it also very hypocritical to bash or complain about Boeing getting subsidies, too, if Airbus is getting subsidies?

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: freegeeks

In 1998, according to a monitoring study carried out on behalf of the Commission, it was estimated that the amount of US Government indirect support to its LCA industry (Large Civil Aircraft) reached almost $ 2 billion in 1997, i.e. around 7% of its commercial turnover (thus well above the 3% limit set by the 1992 Agreement).

yeah, there are no subsidies for civil contracts for Boeing

link

What kind of subsidies does Boeing get? That article doesn't specifically say Boeing received any - not that I'm doubting it...but that article doesn't specifically say what you're talking about.

plain and simple

Boeing is getting money for it's civil aircraft division from the US govt. There are only 2 big players in the world.
IMO it's a bit hypocrit to bash Airbus when Boeing is doing some creative financing of its own

Boeing and the US govt. are only complaining because Boeing has lost the lead in the civil aircraft market and its civil aircraft branch is getting in trouble.

like I said before, if Boeing and the US govt. are so sure of their case they can take it to the WTO.

simple

Isn't it also very hypocritical to bash or complain about Boeing getting subsidies, too, if Airbus is getting subsidies?

1) I don't start threads about this subject. You better question the originator of this thread why he starts Airbus-Boeing threads (his 2nd in a couple of days). My guess it's some sort of penis envy because Airbus is doing well and Boeing isn't or some sort of nationalistic flagwaving reaction because after all, French companies have a big stake in Airbus and we all know that the Frenchies are BAD BAD people.
2) I don't bash Boeing. It's one of the great companies of the world. Please point me to a thread were I bash Boeing. Please show me a thread that I started about Boeing. I just respond to people who are complaining about govt. financing of Airbus while their own govt. is just doing the same.
3)Like I said before, If Boeing and the US govt. are convinced that Airbus is doing something illegal, bring it before the WTO. I'm all for it. Let them decide what is fair and what is not.

and I'm the hypocrit in this thread

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: freegeeks

In 1998, according to a monitoring study carried out on behalf of the Commission, it was estimated that the amount of US Government indirect support to its LCA industry (Large Civil Aircraft) reached almost $ 2 billion in 1997, i.e. around 7% of its commercial turnover (thus well above the 3% limit set by the 1992 Agreement).

yeah, there are no subsidies for civil contracts for Boeing

link

What kind of subsidies does Boeing get? That article doesn't specifically say Boeing received any - not that I'm doubting it...but that article doesn't specifically say what you're talking about.

plain and simple

Boeing is getting money for it's civil aircraft division from the US govt. There are only 2 big players in the world.
IMO it's a bit hypocrit to bash Airbus when Boeing is doing some creative financing of its own

Boeing and the US govt. are only complaining because Boeing has lost the lead in the civil aircraft market and its civil aircraft branch is getting in trouble.

like I said before, if Boeing and the US govt. are so sure of their case they can take it to the WTO.

simple

Isn't it also very hypocritical to bash or complain about Boeing getting subsidies, too, if Airbus is getting subsidies?

1) I don't start threads about this subject. You better question the originator of this thread why he starts Airbus-Boeing threads (his 2nd in a couple of days). My guess it's some sort of penis envy because Airbus is doing well and Boeing isn't or some sort of nationalistic flagwaving reaction because after all, French companies have a big stake in Airbus and we all know that the Frenchies are BAD BAD people.
2) I don't bash Boeing. It's one of the great companies of the world. Please point me to a thread were I bash Boeing. Please show me a thread that I started about Boeing. I just respond to people who are complaining about govt. financing of Airbus while their own govt. is just doing the same.
3)Like I said before, If Boeing and the US govt. are convinced that Airbus is doing something illegal, bring it before the WTO. I'm all for it. Let them decide what is fair and what is not.

and I'm the hypocrit in this thread

Please stop playing the victim and being so condescending. Are you always like this in every thread? You seem to repeatedly insult me for absolutely no reason at all.

I did not say that you were a hypocrite. If I did, then I apologize, but I did not state that anywhere in this thread or this forum. Since the subject of this post is about Airbus complaining about Boeing, I felt that was a very relevant question. You said "IMO it's a bit hypocrit to bash Airbus when Boeing is doing some creative financing of its own" - but omitted Airbus from that when they are doing the complaining in this very article. I wasn't saying that you were complaining or whining - but that Airbus was being hypocritical if this is true.

And what's with this America vs. France thing that you usually like to reply to my posts with?

 

[freegeeks]

Please stop playing the victim and being so condescending. Are you always like this in every thread? You seem to repeatedly insult me for absolutely no reason at all.

where did I insult you. I just answered your question.
And I'm not playing the victim. The originator of this thread is doing. He first started a thread that Japanese airlines doesn't want the new Airbus but he then magically dissapears when another member (not even ME) proves him wrong

but omitted Airbus from that when they are doing the complaining in this very article. I wasn't saying that you were complaining or whining - but that Airbus was being hypocritical if this is true.

Boeing complains about Airbus - Airbus complains about Boeing ---> they are both hypocrits IMO
IMO the originator of this thread is a hypocrit. He's waving with the "Boeing doesn't receive govt. subsidies" while they clearly do. I never said that Airbus doesn't get some sort of govt. assistance. I'm only saying that Boeing is doing just the same.

And what's with this America vs. France thing that you usually like to reply to my posts with?

because these threads are only started with one goal. To do some eurobashing. It's nothing personal against you. It's clear from me that Charrisson want Airbus to fail. Why? I have no idea but seeing previous comments from him about France I think it that has something to do with it.

my point in this whole debate is balanced and neutral : let the WTO rule over this matter

I just can't stand the misinformation some people are spreading (not you)

and if I insulted you somewhere in this thread, I'm sorry
english is my 3rd language and my written English sucks

 

[sandorski]

Airbus is probably bringing this issue up because it too is being accused of similar things(from the US/Boeing). So if Airbus's allegation is correct, they are merely pointing out a hypocracy(sp). Both sides will weigh the evidence against them, then (assuming both sides have a strong case)will make an agreement, thus avoiding WTO involvement.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Please stop playing the victim and being so condescending. Are you always like this in every thread? You seem to repeatedly insult me for absolutely no reason at all.

where did I insult you. I just answered your question.
And I'm not playing the victim. The originator of this thread is doing. He first started a thread that Japanese airlines doesn't want the new Airbus but he then magically dissapears when another member (not even ME) proves him wrong

but omitted Airbus from that when they are doing the complaining in this very article. I wasn't saying that you were complaining or whining - but that Airbus was being hypocritical if this is true.

Boeing complains about Airbus - Airbus complains about Boeing ---> they are both hypocrits IMO
IMO the originator of this thread is a hypocrit. He's waving with the "Boeing doesn't receive govt. subsidies" while they clearly do. I never said that Airbus doesn't get some sort of govt. assistance. I'm only saying that Boeing is doing just the same.

And what's with this America vs. France thing that you usually like to reply to my posts with?

because these threads are only started with one goal. To do some eurobashing. It's nothing personal against you. It's clear from me that Charrisson want Airbus to fail. Why? I have no idea but seeing previous comments from him about France I think it that has something to do with it.

my point in this whole debate is balanced and neutral : let the WTO rule over this matter

I just can't stand the misinformation some people are spreading (not you)

and if I insulted you somewhere in this thread, I'm sorry
english is my 3rd language and my written English sucks

I am not hyporcrital for posting this. This is news.

1. Boeing does not directly receive subsidies for aircraft design for the US gov.
2. Boeing does sell military aircraft(if you want to view this as a subsidy..ok)
3. Airbus is making military aircraft
4. the a380 is largely funded by the EU.

pot meet keetle for complaing about subsidies.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Freegeek links to the site which may not be completely neutral.

Some of the issues that he brings up from the site regarding subsidies are true. This is because Boeing and suppliers use engines and other components that are used within the defense sector and possibly developed with taxpayer money.

The big descrepency is that Airbus requested/required direct gov money to be funneled into the company for R&D and manufacturing for the civilian airliners.
Boeing is not recieving gov money to built civilian aircraft.
The US gov has bought civilian form factor planes from Boeing and had Boeing convert them for military use. And yes, Boeing may have used some of that conversion money to add enhancements back into the civilian line. That would be considered common business sense, not a subsidy

 

[kage69]

He's waving with the "Boeing doesn't receive govt. subsidies" while they clearly do.

That's funny, in his very first post he says:

Granted I have no idea what subsidies they are referring to.

That doesn't look like 'waving' to me.

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Freegeek links to the site which may not be completely neutral. Some of the issues that he brings up from the site regarding subsidies are true. This is because Boeing and suppliers use engines and other components that are used within the defense sector and possibly developed with taxpayer money. The big descrepency is that Airbus requested/required direct gov money to be funneled into the company for R&D and manufacturing for the civilian airliners. Boeing is not recieving gov money to built civilian aircraft. The US gov has bought civilian form factor planes from Boeing and had Boeing convert them for military use. And yes, Boeing may have used some of that conversion money to add enhancements back into the civilian line. That would be considered common business sense, not a subsidy

True, but in some cases it is a definite subsidy - the proposed tanker hire, for example.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: dpm

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Freegeek links to the site which may not be completely neutral. Some of the issues that he brings up from the site regarding subsidies are true. This is because Boeing and suppliers use engines and other components that are used within the defense sector and possibly developed with taxpayer money. The big descrepency is that Airbus requested/required direct gov money to be funneled into the company for R&D and manufacturing for the civilian airliners. Boeing is not recieving gov money to built civilian aircraft. The US gov has bought civilian form factor planes from Boeing and had Boeing convert them for military use. And yes, Boeing may have used some of that conversion money to add enhancements back into the civilian line. That would be considered common business sense, not a subsidy

True, but in some cases it is a definite subsidy - the proposed tanker hire, for example.

Note:
One, The tanker is a military A/C - a tanker is not used is civilian commerece. No civilian A/C have the ability for inflight refueling.
Two, the tanker is either a modification of a civilian aircraft design built by Boeing/MacAir (DC10) or a requested form factor (C17) that has not been sold as a civilian A/C.

Boeing has not yet developed an A/C specifically for the military first and then sold another version of it for civilian use.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Freegeek links to the site which may not be completely neutral.

Some of the issues that he brings up from the site regarding subsidies are true. This is because Boeing and suppliers use engines and other components that are used within the defense sector and possibly developed with taxpayer money.

The big descrepency is that Airbus requested/required direct gov money to be funneled into the company for R&D and manufacturing for the civilian airliners.
Boeing is not recieving gov money to built civilian aircraft.
The US gov has bought civilian form factor planes from Boeing and had Boeing convert them for military use. And yes, Boeing may have used some of that conversion money to add enhancements back into the civilian line. That would be considered common business sense, not a subsidy

OK - I agree it's only a website of the EU

from now all links to .mil .gov ... are also biased

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Freegeek links to the site which may not be completely neutral.

Some of the issues that he brings up from the site regarding subsidies are true. This is because Boeing and suppliers use engines and other components that are used within the defense sector and possibly developed with taxpayer money.

The big descrepency is that Airbus requested/required direct gov money to be funneled into the company for R&D and manufacturing for the civilian airliners.
Boeing is not recieving gov money to built civilian aircraft.
The US gov has bought civilian form factor planes from Boeing and had Boeing convert them for military use. And yes, Boeing may have used some of that conversion money to add enhancements back into the civilian line. That would be considered common business sense, not a subsidy

OK - I agree it's only a website of the EU

because its a website from the EU, the information it contains is bs
from now all links to .mil .gov ... are also biased

I see one difference between Airbus and Boeing
Airbus is openly getting govt. support (loans etc...)
Boeing is getting covert US govt. support


Charisson, simple question

does Boeing use US govt. money to finance civil aircrafts???

a simple yes or no

Thx

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

OK - I agree it's only a website of the EU

from now all links to .mil .gov ... are also biased

I see one difference between Airbus and Boeing
Airbus is openly getting govt. support (loans etc...)
Boeing is getting covert US govt. support

No need to change linkage strategy. (assuming the sarcasm was intended)

My comments are based on the vagueness of information in the article with no supporting evidence being provided within the article or by others.

The Airbus consortium (created in 1969) started competing effectively in the 80s. At that stage the US became concerned about the European competition and the alleged subsidies paid by the European governments for the developments of the early models of the Airbus family. This became a major issue of contention, and the European side was equally concerned by subsidies accruing to US LCA manufacturers through NASA and Defense programmes.

The referenced US subsidies are from work done to support the directives of the agency. The US manufacturers (not just Boeing) are able to adapt the technology to the civilian sector.

Example: Teflon - developed for the space program has been adapted to comercial use. Do you consider that the companies that now use it for consumer products subsidized by US taxpayers?

This seems to be the real arguement/sticking point

It must be remarked that the exchange of transparency information has highlighted an important divergence between the US and the EU in the way to interpret the indirect support discipline. In general, the EU considers that the US notification of indirect support to its LCA industry falls short of the real benefits derived from NASA programmes and military spin-offs.

They seem to be saying the anything that the LCA industry derives from other programs should be counted as part of the complete pot.
The EU has no large military/space industry to push technology; they rely on small developments within the EU and technology allowed to be provided from the US.

 

[freegeeks]

this is my last answer in this thread



BRING IT BEFORE THE WTO AND LET THEM DECIDE

it seems to me that the US is afraid to go to the WTO because maybe the WTO would rule that Boeing is doing illegal financing while the EU is just following the 1979 and 1992 agreements about govt. financing in the civil aircraft business


end of story

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Example: Teflon - developed for the space program has been adapted to comercial use. Do you consider that the companies that now use it for consumer products subsidized by US taxpayers?

Sorry, wrong. The development of Teflon was a lucky coincidence Roy Plunkett working for DuPont in 1938. I doubt NASA was around then. Teflon was marketed in 46 for non-stick frying pans. Later the many uses of the material were adapted in space applications (and many others).

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Example: Teflon - developed for the space program has been adapted to comercial use. Do you consider that the companies that now use it for consumer products subsidized by US taxpayers?

Sorry, wrong. The development of Teflon was a lucky coincidence Roy Plunkett working for DuPont in 1938. I doubt NASA was around then. Teflon was marketed in 46 for non-stick frying pans. Later the many uses of the material were adapted in space applications (and many others).

My fault/apologies - I was just using Teflon as an example rather than digging into actual NASA related inventions/developments that have been adapted to commerical use.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Darn double post :frown: - I thought we were not able to do this with current FuseTalk

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Freegeek links to the site which may not be completely neutral.

Some of the issues that he brings up from the site regarding subsidies are true. This is because Boeing and suppliers use engines and other components that are used within the defense sector and possibly developed with taxpayer money.

The big descrepency is that Airbus requested/required direct gov money to be funneled into the company for R&D and manufacturing for the civilian airliners.
Boeing is not recieving gov money to built civilian aircraft.
The US gov has bought civilian form factor planes from Boeing and had Boeing convert them for military use. And yes, Boeing may have used some of that conversion money to add enhancements back into the civilian line. That would be considered common business sense, not a subsidy

OK - I agree it's only a website of the EU

because its a website from the EU, the information it contains is bs
from now all links to .mil .gov ... are also biased

I see one difference between Airbus and Boeing
Airbus is openly getting govt. support (loans etc...)
Boeing is getting covert US govt. support


Charisson, simple question

does Boeing use US govt. money to finance civil aircrafts???

a simple yes or no

Thx

The simple answer is no. Boeing is not using US tax payer money to finance commercial aircraft. The 747 damn near broke them.