Boeing: The Empire Strikes Back!

[charrison]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

The differences are quite distinct, airbus is getting direct subsidies, boeing is not. Boeing has had to compete to win the contracts it has received from the goverment. It has won some and it has lost some, but it was paid to produce a product. This is not a subsidy, unless you think goverment should be in the business of making everything it uses(cars, warehouses, computers, printers, office buildings,....)

bring it before the WTO,

oh wait, the US govt. doesn't want to do that because of the European counter claim.
besides, Airbus has a convincing point about the the support from the EU. There is a bilateral agreement between the US and the EU that makes this kind of support possible.

At one point airbus did have point, that time has passed however. It is time for airbus to stand on its own. Btw I am quite glad the a380 has about 50% US made content in it. MOre than I can say for boeing 787.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Czar
from another member

Boeing's 'tax breaks' come from no-bid military contracts

I have yet to hear of a "no bid" contract, but just to be clear, the military contract argument in general is retarded because airbus is a division of some big ass european aerospace/defense conglomerate, which also receives military contract and work in europe.

 

[piasabird]

Boeing lost a bid on the last plane the US Govt wanted and they were trying to figure out the composite process at that time they had a special on TV about the Joint Strike Fighter and there was quite a bit on that special on this subject. It is very hard to develop a new technology and develop a completely new set of engineering techniques. I found the documentary quite interesting.

Saying there is no link so the subject can not be discussed is a bit childish.

Are you saying that you can not think on your own without a link telling you what to think?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/xplanes/producer.html

I Think Nova produced the special "Battle 0f the X-Planes".

 

[CanOWorms]

I think that Airbus is much more entangled and associated with European governments. Prime Ministers and other governmental officials bully other countries to buy Airbus over Boeing, and even threaten to put up sanctions and stop aid to countries if they don't buy Airbus (even to ones that suffered during the tsunami disaster while they were still recovering).

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I think that Airbus is much more entangled and associated with European governments. Prime Ministers and other governmental officials bully other countries to buy Airbus over Boeing, and even threaten to put up sanctions and stop aid to countries if they don't buy Airbus (even to ones that suffered during the tsunami disaster while they were still recovering).

fact or fiction?
provide a link if you make such bold accusations

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I think that Airbus is much more entangled and associated with European governments. Prime Ministers and other governmental officials bully other countries to buy Airbus over Boeing, and even threaten to put up sanctions and stop aid to countries if they don't buy Airbus (even to ones that suffered during the tsunami disaster while they were still recovering).

fact or fiction?
provide a link if you make such bold accusations

fact

http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1109067610.html
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=591&id=66782005

they have been mentioned on this forum before

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: freegeeks

The differences are quite distinct, airbus is getting direct subsidies, boeing is not. Boeing has had to compete to win the contracts it has received from the goverment. It has won some and it has lost some, but it was paid to produce a product. This is not a subsidy, unless you think goverment should be in the business of making everything it uses(cars, warehouses, computers, printers, office buildings,....)

bring it before the WTO,

oh wait, the US govt. doesn't want to do that because of the European counter claim.
besides, Airbus has a convincing point about the the support from the EU. There is a bilateral agreement between the US and the EU that makes this kind of support possible.

At one point airbus did have point, that time has passed however. It is time for airbus to stand on its own. Btw I am quite glad the a380 has about 50% US made content in it. MOre than I can say for boeing 787.

the US can not decide on its own when "that" time has come. An agreement is an agreement and both parties have to approve changes.

Like I said before, bring it before the WTO and let them decide but it seems that Boeing and the US govt. doesn't want to do that. They threaten to take it to the WTO all the time but then back off because of the European counter claim.
That says a lot how strong their case is.

It would be a disaster for Boeing if the WTO rules that the funding of Airbus is legal because of the bilateral agreement and at the same time punish Boeing for funding its civil aircraft division with tax money coming from its military and space division.

So my question remains, why does Boeing/US Govt doesn't go to the WTO if they are so sure about their case against Airbus???

 

[Forsythe]

Get over it, it's a damned airplane!!!

I can't believe you even bother listen to passions, irwincur or charisson.

 

[nCred]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I think that Airbus is much more entangled and associated with European governments. Prime Ministers and other governmental officials bully other countries to buy Airbus over Boeing, and even threaten to put up sanctions and stop aid to countries if they don't buy Airbus (even to ones that suffered during the tsunami disaster while they were still recovering).

fact or fiction?
provide a link if you make such bold accusations

fact

http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1109067610.html
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=591&id=66782005

they have been mentioned on this forum before

And the US does not? I´m sure they do the same when it comes to Boeing.
http://www.defesanet.com.br/noticia/gripenrepcheca1/

The Gripen, however, has yet to see combat and in a thinly-veiled move to pressure the Czechs, U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic Craig Stapleton last week reminded them last week that "NATO does not fly Gripens". He also warned that Czech-American relations could be harmed and has urged the tender be reviewed or re-opened to allow bidders a chance to revise their offers.