Europeans claim wictory over Americans!!!

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

So...in short Boeing is a gravy sucker and you admit to it getting government subsidies.
And you admit that airbus is publically traded.thanks for the blatently wrong post above

Well no I admitted that Boeing is keeping its commercial aircraft division alive through its more lucrative defense industry...if you think these contracts are pork barrel subsidies, then yes it is gravy...I happen to think that the government gets a lot of tech back for their "subsidies." Also Boeing is working especially hard to innovate, change and cut production costs...hardly the behavior of a company with a government subsidy safety net.

Airbus may be publicly traded, but they do not have the same stockholder obligations that Boeing has because of that lovely safety net provided by Europe's particular brand of socialism.

I wouldnt say my post is wrong...I would say my perception of each company and how its gets money differs from yours..

sigh can you read.
"Boeing had received USD$23 billion in subsidies. It said this included about USD$3.2 billion in tax breaks from Washington state and (in addition to) contracts with both the US Defense Department and NASA."

gravy sucking is the over $26billion

They both get the money for doing nothing = gravy sucking.

Quit your blind support for American corporations.

Goverment contracts are not exactly subsidies.

Wow...you can't read either....
23 billion IN ADDITION TO CONTRACTS

damn ppl 😛

You need to read your own articles. You are saying:

"Boeing had received USD$23 billion in subsidies. It said this included about USD$3.2 billion in tax breaks from Washington state and (in addition to) contracts with both the US Defense Department and NASA."

That's a total of $23 billion, which includes $3.2 billion in tax breaks from Washington state AND government contracts - not in addition to this.

 

[ArneBjarne]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

So...in short Boeing is a gravy sucker and you admit to it getting government subsidies.
And you admit that airbus is publically traded.thanks for the blatently wrong post above

Well no I admitted that Boeing is keeping its commercial aircraft division alive through its more lucrative defense industry...if you think these contracts are pork barrel subsidies, then yes it is gravy...I happen to think that the government gets a lot of tech back for their "subsidies." Also Boeing is working especially hard to innovate, change and cut production costs...hardly the behavior of a company with a government subsidy safety net.

Airbus may be publicly traded, but they do not have the same stockholder obligations that Boeing has because of that lovely safety net provided by Europe's particular brand of socialism.

I wouldnt say my post is wrong...I would say my perception of each company and how its gets money differs from yours..

From the Businessweek article linked by charrison:

"The U.S., though is batting on a sticky wicket: much of the Japanese contribution to the 7E7 (almost one third of its development cost) could be paid for by the Japanese government, and Boeing will receive $3.2 billion in production assistence from the State of Washington in return for choosing to assemble the 7E7 there."

Also strange that the US and EU are having talks on "eliminating billions of dollars in subsidies to the world's top two plane makers" if they were not both receiving them to begin with.

Link

 

[raildogg]

Airbus receives 33 percent government funding of the cost of new aircraft it develops. Boeing receives no such funding. The WTO even said that Airbus receives those subsidies unfairly and that comes at a cost to US workers.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

So...in short Boeing is a gravy sucker and you admit to it getting government subsidies.
And you admit that airbus is publically traded.thanks for the blatently wrong post above

Well no I admitted that Boeing is keeping its commercial aircraft division alive through its more lucrative defense industry...if you think these contracts are pork barrel subsidies, then yes it is gravy...I happen to think that the government gets a lot of tech back for their "subsidies." Also Boeing is working especially hard to innovate, change and cut production costs...hardly the behavior of a company with a government subsidy safety net.

Airbus may be publicly traded, but they do not have the same stockholder obligations that Boeing has because of that lovely safety net provided by Europe's particular brand of socialism.

I wouldnt say my post is wrong...I would say my perception of each company and how its gets money differs from yours..

From the Businessweek article linked by charrison:

"The U.S., though is batting on a sticky wicket: much of the Japanese contribution to the 7E7 (almost one third of its development cost) could be paid for by the Japanese government, and Boeing will receive $3.2 billion in production assistence from the State of Washington in return for choosing to assemble the 7E7 there."

Also strange that the US and EU are having talks on "eliminating billions of dollars in subsidies to the world's top two plane makers" if they were not both receiving them to begin with.

Link

Airbus is getting direct subsidies to make products. Boeing gets an indirect subsidy because it does build products for the goverments. Airbus argues that it can use techlogy from goverment contracts to build private sector products.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Airbus receives 33 percent government funding of the cost of new aircraft it develops. Boeing receives no such funding. The WTO even said that Airbus receives those subsidies unfairly and that comes at a cost to US workers.

I'm going to guess that Boeing gets something or does something that is also unfair. It may be 'less' unfair than what Airbus is getting though (I have no clue, but it seems like Airbus receives direct subsidies).

 

[Stunt]

Yeah Stunt just got PWND...
sorry guys...up late and 9 hours or class😛

Boeing is far from your typical american company.
It is definately pushed along by the gov't
see the bidding scandals, trade dispute with europe.

Of course im not looking at airbus...they are just as bad or worse.

anyways...i suggest reading up on boeing before bashing the subsidies train 😉
im going out tonight...and am getting sh!tfaced...so cheers :beer:

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Yeah Stunt just got PWND...
sorry guys...up late and 9 hours or class😛

Boeing is far from your typical american company.
It is definately pushed along by the gov't
see the bidding scandals, trade dispute with europe.

Of course im not looking at airbus...they are just as bad or worse.

anyways...i suggest reading up on boeing before bashing the subsidies train 😉
im going out tonight...and am getting sh!tfaced...so cheers :beer:

PWNED. :laugh:



j/k 🙂

 

[ArneBjarne]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

So...in short Boeing is a gravy sucker and you admit to it getting government subsidies.
And you admit that airbus is publically traded.thanks for the blatently wrong post above

Well no I admitted that Boeing is keeping its commercial aircraft division alive through its more lucrative defense industry...if you think these contracts are pork barrel subsidies, then yes it is gravy...I happen to think that the government gets a lot of tech back for their "subsidies." Also Boeing is working especially hard to innovate, change and cut production costs...hardly the behavior of a company with a government subsidy safety net.

Airbus may be publicly traded, but they do not have the same stockholder obligations that Boeing has because of that lovely safety net provided by Europe's particular brand of socialism.

I wouldnt say my post is wrong...I would say my perception of each company and how its gets money differs from yours..

sigh can you read.
"Boeing had received USD$23 billion in subsidies. It said this included about USD$3.2 billion in tax breaks from Washington state and (in addition to) contracts with both the US Defense Department and NASA."

gravy sucking is the over $26billion

They both get the money for doing nothing = gravy sucking.

Quit your blind support for American corporations.

Goverment contracts are not exactly subsidies.

So Boeing does not receive any DIRECT subsidies for its 7E7 development, as opposed to Airbus receiving direct subsidies to fund its own product development?

According to the BusinessWeek article one third of the 7E7 development costs could be paid for by the Japanese government.

 

[ArneBjarne]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Airbus receives 33 percent government funding of the cost of new aircraft it develops. Boeing receives no such funding. The WTO even said that Airbus receives those subsidies unfairly and that comes at a cost to US workers.

Last time i checked 33% was roughly the same as one third. Whether it comes from the US or Japanese government doesn't make much of a difference.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne

Originally posted by: raildogg
Airbus receives 33 percent government funding of the cost of new aircraft it develops. Boeing receives no such funding. The WTO even said that Airbus receives those subsidies unfairly and that comes at a cost to US workers.

Last time i checked 33% was roughly the same as one third. Whether it comes from the US or Japanese government doesn't make much of a difference.

It does make a difference. Since Japan gave boeing the subsidy to boeing, the trade dispute is with Japan, not the US. Boeing just shopped around on where to produce it. The US had no control on the subsidy provided by Japan and Italy for the 7E7.

 

[ArneBjarne]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

So...in short Boeing is a gravy sucker and you admit to it getting government subsidies.
And you admit that airbus is publically traded.thanks for the blatently wrong post above

Well no I admitted that Boeing is keeping its commercial aircraft division alive through its more lucrative defense industry...if you think these contracts are pork barrel subsidies, then yes it is gravy...I happen to think that the government gets a lot of tech back for their "subsidies." Also Boeing is working especially hard to innovate, change and cut production costs...hardly the behavior of a company with a government subsidy safety net.

Airbus may be publicly traded, but they do not have the same stockholder obligations that Boeing has because of that lovely safety net provided by Europe's particular brand of socialism.

I wouldnt say my post is wrong...I would say my perception of each company and how its gets money differs from yours..

From the Businessweek article linked by charrison:

"The U.S., though is batting on a sticky wicket: much of the Japanese contribution to the 7E7 (almost one third of its development cost) could be paid for by the Japanese government, and Boeing will receive $3.2 billion in production assistence from the State of Washington in return for choosing to assemble the 7E7 there."

Also strange that the US and EU are having talks on "eliminating billions of dollars in subsidies to the world's top two plane makers" if they were not both receiving them to begin with.

Link

Airbus is getting direct subsidies to make products. Boeing gets an indirect subsidy because it does build products for the goverments. Airbus argues that it can use techlogy from goverment contracts to build private sector products.

The taxbreak is for placing the assembly of the 7E7s in Washington state. They pay to get all the jobs, not because the 7E7 is a product built for the government.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne
According to the BusinessWeek article one third of the 7E7 development costs could be paid for by the Japanese government.

I wouldn't be surprised by that at all. What are the details since you are saying "could be"?

 

[ArneBjarne]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne

Originally posted by: raildogg
Airbus receives 33 percent government funding of the cost of new aircraft it develops. Boeing receives no such funding. The WTO even said that Airbus receives those subsidies unfairly and that comes at a cost to US workers.

Last time i checked 33% was roughly the same as one third. Whether it comes from the US or Japanese government doesn't make much of a difference.

It does make a difference. Since Japan gave boeing the subsidy to boeing, the trade dispute is with Japan, not the US. Boeing just shopped around on where to produce it. The US had no control on the subsidy provided by Japan and Italy for the 7E7.

Well I'm sure the Airbus guys can find an alternative route for the money, but I thought the goal was to eliminate subsidies to get a level playing field, right?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

So...in short Boeing is a gravy sucker and you admit to it getting government subsidies.
And you admit that airbus is publically traded.thanks for the blatently wrong post above

Well no I admitted that Boeing is keeping its commercial aircraft division alive through its more lucrative defense industry...if you think these contracts are pork barrel subsidies, then yes it is gravy...I happen to think that the government gets a lot of tech back for their "subsidies." Also Boeing is working especially hard to innovate, change and cut production costs...hardly the behavior of a company with a government subsidy safety net.

Airbus may be publicly traded, but they do not have the same stockholder obligations that Boeing has because of that lovely safety net provided by Europe's particular brand of socialism.

I wouldnt say my post is wrong...I would say my perception of each company and how its gets money differs from yours..

From the Businessweek article linked by charrison:

"The U.S., though is batting on a sticky wicket: much of the Japanese contribution to the 7E7 (almost one third of its development cost) could be paid for by the Japanese government, and Boeing will receive $3.2 billion in production assistence from the State of Washington in return for choosing to assemble the 7E7 there."

Also strange that the US and EU are having talks on "eliminating billions of dollars in subsidies to the world's top two plane makers" if they were not both receiving them to begin with.

Link

Airbus is getting direct subsidies to make products. Boeing gets an indirect subsidy because it does build products for the goverments. Airbus argues that it can use techlogy from goverment contracts to build private sector products.

The taxbreak is for placing the assembly of the 7E7s in Washington state. They pay to get all the jobs, not because the 7E7 is a product built for the government.

And that was done by washington state, not the fed. Boeing has not received any federal subsidies for making airliners.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne
According to the BusinessWeek article one third of the 7E7 development costs could be paid for by the Japanese government.

I wouldn't be surprised by that at all. What are the details since you are saying "could be"?

There is no could be. Japan and Italy are involved in the production of 7E7 because their goverment bought their way into it.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne

Originally posted by: raildogg
Airbus receives 33 percent government funding of the cost of new aircraft it develops. Boeing receives no such funding. The WTO even said that Airbus receives those subsidies unfairly and that comes at a cost to US workers.

Last time i checked 33% was roughly the same as one third. Whether it comes from the US or Japanese government doesn't make much of a difference.

It does make a difference. Since Japan gave boeing the subsidy to boeing, the trade dispute is with Japan, not the US. Boeing just shopped around on where to produce it. The US had no control on the subsidy provided by Japan and Italy for the 7E7.

Well I'm sure the Airbus guys can find an alternative route for the money, but I thought the goal was to eliminate subsidies to get a level playing field, right?

As long as airbus is getting direct subsidies, you can hardly blame boeing for looking clever ways to finace such a large project.

 

[ArneBjarne]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

So...in short Boeing is a gravy sucker and you admit to it getting government subsidies.
And you admit that airbus is publically traded.thanks for the blatently wrong post above

Well no I admitted that Boeing is keeping its commercial aircraft division alive through its more lucrative defense industry...if you think these contracts are pork barrel subsidies, then yes it is gravy...I happen to think that the government gets a lot of tech back for their "subsidies." Also Boeing is working especially hard to innovate, change and cut production costs...hardly the behavior of a company with a government subsidy safety net.

Airbus may be publicly traded, but they do not have the same stockholder obligations that Boeing has because of that lovely safety net provided by Europe's particular brand of socialism.

I wouldnt say my post is wrong...I would say my perception of each company and how its gets money differs from yours..

From the Businessweek article linked by charrison:

"The U.S., though is batting on a sticky wicket: much of the Japanese contribution to the 7E7 (almost one third of its development cost) could be paid for by the Japanese government, and Boeing will receive $3.2 billion in production assistence from the State of Washington in return for choosing to assemble the 7E7 there."

Also strange that the US and EU are having talks on "eliminating billions of dollars in subsidies to the world's top two plane makers" if they were not both receiving them to begin with.

Link

Airbus is getting direct subsidies to make products. Boeing gets an indirect subsidy because it does build products for the goverments. Airbus argues that it can use techlogy from goverment contracts to build private sector products.

The taxbreak is for placing the assembly of the 7E7s in Washington state. They pay to get all the jobs, not because the 7E7 is a product built for the government.

And that was done by washington state, not the fed. Boeing has not received any federal subsidies for making airliners.

Again, then your just going for technicalities and are not really out to eliminate subsidies are you? Since it is only 4 member states of the EU involved in Airbus that should be okay too then. :roll:

 

[ArneBjarne]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne
According to the BusinessWeek article one third of the 7E7 development costs could be paid for by the Japanese government.

I wouldn't be surprised by that at all. What are the details since you are saying "could be"?

That is what the article says. Haven't looked for other sources so that is all I can back up based on that article hehe

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: SuperTool
So you are saying big government and protectionism are good for Airbus business? This can't be true. We all know big government and protectionism are burdens on business.

Of course they are good for airbus. Any subsidy is good for the business being subsidized. It isn't good for the consumer or the tax payer though. They also have a tendency to cause trade wars which can lead to real wars. The US has been looking the otherway for close to 5 years on airbus. The EU has been promissing for years that the subsidies to airbus would end after airbus was established and could compete against Boeing. What has actually happend is that Airbus has become competative with the EU paying for all of airbuses R&D and now they are paying the R&D on the two new airliners being developed AND airbus has 50% of the airliner market.

Competition is good, I didn't like but didn't oppose the EU subsidies in the beginning so that airbus could get off the ground. The problem is that the subsidies haven't ended and likely won't until boeing is out of business, and that is wrong. The press and EU lambasted Boeing for pursing the 7E7 and the airbus officials went so far as to say it would be a complete disaster. Now that the information is actually in and the orders have started and Boeing's business plan have been vindicated the EU is going to give airbus 10 billion in grants so that they can R&D a similar plane and undercut Boeing on price. It's rediculous and I hope the WTO allows sanctions against the EU.

The US withdrew its complaint. Once the EU threatened counter action, both sides realized that they'd loose because both of them let their national champions mooch. Instead, the US and EU are now "negotiating", or in other words, each will continue with their respective favourable treatment.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

So...in short Boeing is a gravy sucker and you admit to it getting government subsidies.
And you admit that airbus is publically traded.thanks for the blatently wrong post above

Well no I admitted that Boeing is keeping its commercial aircraft division alive through its more lucrative defense industry...if you think these contracts are pork barrel subsidies, then yes it is gravy...I happen to think that the government gets a lot of tech back for their "subsidies." Also Boeing is working especially hard to innovate, change and cut production costs...hardly the behavior of a company with a government subsidy safety net.

Airbus may be publicly traded, but they do not have the same stockholder obligations that Boeing has because of that lovely safety net provided by Europe's particular brand of socialism.

I wouldnt say my post is wrong...I would say my perception of each company and how its gets money differs from yours..

From the Businessweek article linked by charrison:

"The U.S., though is batting on a sticky wicket: much of the Japanese contribution to the 7E7 (almost one third of its development cost) could be paid for by the Japanese government, and Boeing will receive $3.2 billion in production assistence from the State of Washington in return for choosing to assemble the 7E7 there."

Also strange that the US and EU are having talks on "eliminating billions of dollars in subsidies to the world's top two plane makers" if they were not both receiving them to begin with.

Link

Airbus is getting direct subsidies to make products. Boeing gets an indirect subsidy because it does build products for the goverments. Airbus argues that it can use techlogy from goverment contracts to build private sector products.

The taxbreak is for placing the assembly of the 7E7s in Washington state. They pay to get all the jobs, not because the 7E7 is a product built for the government.

And that was done by washington state, not the fed. Boeing has not received any federal subsidies for making airliners.

Again, then your just going for technicalities and are not really out to eliminate subsidies are you? Since it is only 4 member states of the EU involved in Airbus that should be okay too then. :roll:

Not working technicaties at all. THe original argument is that boeing received direct subsidies from the the US goverment. They have not.

What washington state did was put together the best tax package to convince boeing to locate their facilities there. Had boeing moved their facities out of washington, they would have lost far more than $3B in tax base.

 

[ArneBjarne]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne

Originally posted by: raildogg
Airbus receives 33 percent government funding of the cost of new aircraft it develops. Boeing receives no such funding. The WTO even said that Airbus receives those subsidies unfairly and that comes at a cost to US workers.

Last time i checked 33% was roughly the same as one third. Whether it comes from the US or Japanese government doesn't make much of a difference.

It does make a difference. Since Japan gave boeing the subsidy to boeing, the trade dispute is with Japan, not the US. Boeing just shopped around on where to produce it. The US had no control on the subsidy provided by Japan and Italy for the 7E7.

Well I'm sure the Airbus guys can find an alternative route for the money, but I thought the goal was to eliminate subsidies to get a level playing field, right?

As long as airbus is getting direct subsidies, you can hardly blame boeing for looking clever ways to finace such a large project.

I don't blame them, just saying that they both play that game. I don't know who started it but it would be foolish not to follow suit once it is on. If it is going to be eliminated both sides have to agree to it as it seems they are trying to now.

Still think they will try to sneak some creative things by on both sides no matter what though.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: charrison
What washington state did was put together the best tax package to convince boeing to locate their facilities there. Had boeing moved their facities out of washington, they would have lost far more than $3B in tax base.

What?...am i hearing a conservative favouring subsidies/tax incentives?!...
ugh oh...what about the companies that are leaving the country...same idea?...funny...kerry proposed this.

Watch out what you are saying...dont look like a fool for blindly supporting boeing because it is american and give up your principles...dont want to flip flop now 😉

 

[ArneBjarne]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

So...in short Boeing is a gravy sucker and you admit to it getting government subsidies.
And you admit that airbus is publically traded.thanks for the blatently wrong post above

Well no I admitted that Boeing is keeping its commercial aircraft division alive through its more lucrative defense industry...if you think these contracts are pork barrel subsidies, then yes it is gravy...I happen to think that the government gets a lot of tech back for their "subsidies." Also Boeing is working especially hard to innovate, change and cut production costs...hardly the behavior of a company with a government subsidy safety net.

Airbus may be publicly traded, but they do not have the same stockholder obligations that Boeing has because of that lovely safety net provided by Europe's particular brand of socialism.

I wouldnt say my post is wrong...I would say my perception of each company and how its gets money differs from yours..

From the Businessweek article linked by charrison:

"The U.S., though is batting on a sticky wicket: much of the Japanese contribution to the 7E7 (almost one third of its development cost) could be paid for by the Japanese government, and Boeing will receive $3.2 billion in production assistence from the State of Washington in return for choosing to assemble the 7E7 there."

Also strange that the US and EU are having talks on "eliminating billions of dollars in subsidies to the world's top two plane makers" if they were not both receiving them to begin with.

Link

Airbus is getting direct subsidies to make products. Boeing gets an indirect subsidy because it does build products for the goverments. Airbus argues that it can use techlogy from goverment contracts to build private sector products.

The taxbreak is for placing the assembly of the 7E7s in Washington state. They pay to get all the jobs, not because the 7E7 is a product built for the government.

And that was done by washington state, not the fed. Boeing has not received any federal subsidies for making airliners.

Again, then your just going for technicalities and are not really out to eliminate subsidies are you? Since it is only 4 member states of the EU involved in Airbus that should be okay too then. :roll:

Not working technicaties at all. THe original argument is that boeing received direct subsidies from the the US goverment. They have not.

What washington state did was put together the best tax package to convince boeing to locate their facilities there. Had boeing moved their facities out of washington, they would have lost far more than $3B in tax base.

Well GB, Germany, France and Spain would also lose alot of money by not having the jobs created by Airbus. Same thing.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

So...in short Boeing is a gravy sucker and you admit to it getting government subsidies.
And you admit that airbus is publically traded.thanks for the blatently wrong post above

Well no I admitted that Boeing is keeping its commercial aircraft division alive through its more lucrative defense industry...if you think these contracts are pork barrel subsidies, then yes it is gravy...I happen to think that the government gets a lot of tech back for their "subsidies." Also Boeing is working especially hard to innovate, change and cut production costs...hardly the behavior of a company with a government subsidy safety net.

Airbus may be publicly traded, but they do not have the same stockholder obligations that Boeing has because of that lovely safety net provided by Europe's particular brand of socialism.

I wouldnt say my post is wrong...I would say my perception of each company and how its gets money differs from yours..

From the Businessweek article linked by charrison:

"The U.S., though is batting on a sticky wicket: much of the Japanese contribution to the 7E7 (almost one third of its development cost) could be paid for by the Japanese government, and Boeing will receive $3.2 billion in production assistence from the State of Washington in return for choosing to assemble the 7E7 there."

Also strange that the US and EU are having talks on "eliminating billions of dollars in subsidies to the world's top two plane makers" if they were not both receiving them to begin with.

Link

Airbus is getting direct subsidies to make products. Boeing gets an indirect subsidy because it does build products for the goverments. Airbus argues that it can use techlogy from goverment contracts to build private sector products.

The taxbreak is for placing the assembly of the 7E7s in Washington state. They pay to get all the jobs, not because the 7E7 is a product built for the government.

And that was done by washington state, not the fed. Boeing has not received any federal subsidies for making airliners.

Again, then your just going for technicalities and are not really out to eliminate subsidies are you? Since it is only 4 member states of the EU involved in Airbus that should be okay too then. :roll:

Not working technicaties at all. THe original argument is that boeing received direct subsidies from the the US goverment. They have not.

What washington state did was put together the best tax package to convince boeing to locate their facilities there. Had boeing moved their facities out of washington, they would have lost far more than $3B in tax base.

Well GB, Germany, France and Spain would also lose alot of money by not having the jobs created by Airbus. Same thing.

Not exactly. Airbus was created by the EU to compete with boeing. I also have little doubt there were games played on where the a380 would be produced as well from within the EU.

 

[ArneBjarne]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ArneBjarne

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

So...in short Boeing is a gravy sucker and you admit to it getting government subsidies.
And you admit that airbus is publically traded.thanks for the blatently wrong post above

Well no I admitted that Boeing is keeping its commercial aircraft division alive through its more lucrative defense industry...if you think these contracts are pork barrel subsidies, then yes it is gravy...I happen to think that the government gets a lot of tech back for their "subsidies." Also Boeing is working especially hard to innovate, change and cut production costs...hardly the behavior of a company with a government subsidy safety net.

Airbus may be publicly traded, but they do not have the same stockholder obligations that Boeing has because of that lovely safety net provided by Europe's particular brand of socialism.

I wouldnt say my post is wrong...I would say my perception of each company and how its gets money differs from yours..

From the Businessweek article linked by charrison:

"The U.S., though is batting on a sticky wicket: much of the Japanese contribution to the 7E7 (almost one third of its development cost) could be paid for by the Japanese government, and Boeing will receive $3.2 billion in production assistence from the State of Washington in return for choosing to assemble the 7E7 there."

Also strange that the US and EU are having talks on "eliminating billions of dollars in subsidies to the world's top two plane makers" if they were not both receiving them to begin with.

Link

Airbus is getting direct subsidies to make products. Boeing gets an indirect subsidy because it does build products for the goverments. Airbus argues that it can use techlogy from goverment contracts to build private sector products.

The taxbreak is for placing the assembly of the 7E7s in Washington state. They pay to get all the jobs, not because the 7E7 is a product built for the government.

And that was done by washington state, not the fed. Boeing has not received any federal subsidies for making airliners.

Again, then your just going for technicalities and are not really out to eliminate subsidies are you? Since it is only 4 member states of the EU involved in Airbus that should be okay too then. :roll:

Not working technicaties at all. THe original argument is that boeing received direct subsidies from the the US goverment. They have not.

What washington state did was put together the best tax package to convince boeing to locate their facilities there. Had boeing moved their facities out of washington, they would have lost far more than $3B in tax base.

Well GB, Germany, France and Spain would also lose alot of money by not having the jobs created by Airbus. Same thing.

Not exactly. Airbus was created by the EU to compete with boeing. I also have little doubt there were games played on where the a380 would be produced as well from within the EU.

And why do they want to compete with Boeing? It wouldn't be to have a piece of the cake in terms of jobs would it? The A380 parts are produced in the same 4 EU member states that are backing it. Not surprisingly they wanted jobs in return.