US steel tariffs 'break WTO rules'

[charrison]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: freegeeks

I hope an agreement can be made before the 3 year tarriff expires. It is already 1/2 way done I think.

Maybe we can get the WTO to rule against airbus and its goverment funding one day. I am not holding my breath on that one.

simple. go to the WTO and make a case against airbus.

They can't because Airbus violates no WTO rules. The only argument that the US has advanced is that the EU loans to Airbus for development of the A380 (which would break Boeings monopoly on large aircraft) may exceed the 33percent cap set by WTO rules depending on how you do the accounting. Besides, without Airbus Boeing would have an absolute monopoly on passenger aircraft manufacturing which wouldn't be good for anyone.

Well that would be true, but remember the goverment funded airbus ran mcdonald douglas out of business. At the time airbus was making planes, even thought i had no buyers. Then it offered sweetheart deal to airlines and sold these planes at a loss. It is amazing what you can do with goverment funding.

Airbus did not run McDonald Douglass out of business. If anything, a loss of defense contracts and an absolute failure by McDonald douglass to innovate and improve technology ran them out of the passenger aircraft business. Both Boeing and MD spent 30 years resting comfortably on thier laurels failing to innvoate in thier civil aviation business. Airbus aircraft generally have higher levels of automation, better fuel economy (with both US and Rolls Royce Engines), extended overhaul intervals, etc. Airbus also runs at a far lower profit margin that Boeing would ever dream of accepting, something under 10% last time I checked. No one has ever proven that Airbus has been dumping aircraft on any of the contracts they won.

Airbus did recieve substantial government subsidies in the form of below market rate loans since its inception in 1970 up until the early 90's. It would be virtually impossible for any countries other than the United States to break into the commercial aviation market without a collaborative government aided effort. Notice even Japan has not even attempted it? You do realize that Boeing and McD were heavily subsidized by defense contracts right? Anyway, Airbus is now over 80% owned by EADS which is publicly traded and has many partnerships with American firms. 30% of Boeing civil aricraft parts are European with a similar amount applying to Airbus aircraft.

Meanwhile, Boeing has had the same basic 747 for 30 years, and they now make over $20 million + on each of those aircraft I think a little more on the passenger variety. They are also raping the US government with things like that stupid tanker lease deal. Oh yeah, the twenty + year exculsive contracts they strong armed the airlines into accepting?? Now they bitch and moan because the A380 is well on its way through initial design concepts + has funding for R+D while they have only succeeded in coming up with some weak drawings. Boo Freaking hooo. This is the same thing that happened in the US auto industry and they are still catching up,

And it is largely the EU goverments funding the a380. IF the a380 fails airbus does not. If boeing fails on a design they do die(the 747 came very close to doing that).

It is funny that in one sentence you say no one has ever proven airbus was dumping product on the market, but in the next you do admit they are goverment subsidised. So which is it?

1. It is not largely the EU governments funding the A380. As agreed upon under WTO/GATT rules 33% of the funding for A380 comes from European Governments in the form of low cost loans. The rest has been raised by EADS on the open market (Primarliy from European and American banks with a smattering of Japanese loans). If Boeing/The US Government/Boeings unions feel that is being violated they are more than welcome to go to the WTO and get a ruling. Hasn't really happened yet, because they know thier case is week.

If Boeing fails on a design they fail to exist....that is a pretty good excuse. When is the last time Boeing came out with a totally new aircraft? Hmmmm...that would be 1995 I believe. How many Airbus aircraft have come out since then....quite a few more than 1. So I guess the fear of failure and the big bad Airbus is holding us poor Americans down. If you want to come out ahead in a competitive market (emphasize competitive) you need to take risks. If you are unwilling to do so, step aside and let the youngsters have at it. Boeing

2. Thier is a big difference between dumping and subsidies. Under WTO rules dumping roughly equates to selling a product in a foriegn market at below cost or below local market costs. That is not = to subsidies. Don't put words in my mouth or try and equate two distinct concepts.

Airbus did recieve substantial subsidies during the start up phase from 1970 to 1990. That was changed in 1992 with the new agreements agreed upon with the US. Notice it was only after that agreement where the direct subsidies were replaced with a max of 33% development loans that Airbus started taking huge amounts of market share away from Boeing?? Boeing dropped the ball. Why has Airbus been the only one using a ful CAD design process since 1990 while Boeing is only now catching up? Why has Airbus had common cockpits since 1990 or so while Boeing still does not. DO you have any idea how appealing common cockpits are to airlines and cargo carriers? Why has Airbus been using fully computerized instrumented diagnostics since at least the mid 90's in all its new offerings, while Boeing still relys on trace it down and find it yourself service checklists and diagrams (of a non cad designed aircraft mind you).

Also Airbus has heavily invested in economic advantage packages with purchasing countries. Good examples are domestic manufacturing contracts with Hindustan aircraft, as well as cross licensing deals with Swiss airlines. They will bring jobs and work to the country in question as part of selling thier aircaft and in the process may actually reduce the cost of the final product due to reduced labor and infrastructure costs even when startup costs are taken into account.. Boeing has never felt the need to do this before in commercial aviation and dropped the ball big time on these incentives which have seriously helped Airbuses penetration in 3rd world and other poorer nations.

As to subsidies, Airbus had them and now they have low cost loans which may amount to a subsidy.

However, Boeing has massive defense contracts which subsidize a lot of thier R+D, not to mention huge tax breaks and other incentives from local governments which amount to subsidies.

I can only wonder how loud the moaning would be if the boeing was geting low interest loans from the federal goverment for product development. I certainly know european countries do not give tax breaks to bring business to their area.

And lower US taxes are not a subsidy, they are just lower taxes.

And as far a defense contract being counted a subsidies, I dont recall the military transport using commercial designs.

I dont have a real big problem with the EU starting airbus, but it is time for airbus to stand on its own.

1. A package of tax breaks and incentives to a particular company or industry is not technically a subsidy, but the effect is the same. If I am going to reduce the operating costs of a particular industry through legislation, that has the same effect as if I were giving them money directly. BTW: You seem to be conveniently missing out on the fact that the US does heavily subsizdes basic research and critical Industries. A few examples: The NSF grants which total billions of dollars a year to private companies and research institutions. The Export Import Bank, The Overseas Private Investment Corporation, The Maritime Administration(only reason economically uncompetative US shipyards exist besides defense contracts) Go down to Pascagoula Mississippi sometime and tell me that the US military isn't subsidizing the US shipbuilding industry, The Small Business Administration, DARPA, shall I go on???

2. You don't know much about aviation do you. No, a 777 is not based directly on a military design. Don't be obtuse.


Engines, avionics, materials, production and prototyping methodologies are all generally paid for initially by military contracts and then transferred over to the civillian sector in the US. This is how Boeing saves a lot of R+D money on the civillian side. The DOD and the US taxpayer pay just about 100% of Boeings advanced R+D work which eventually trickles down into the commercial side. However, inexplicably Boeing failed to transfer over many many military technologies in the 1990s until Airbus started to kick thier ass with better aircraft at competiive prices without onerous terms such as 20 year exclusive contracts.

Yes the 777 and c-17 are both planes. The 777 was just easier to design as the requirements are much easier.
They have fewer common points than you think.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: freegeeks

I hope an agreement can be made before the 3 year tarriff expires. It is already 1/2 way done I think.

Maybe we can get the WTO to rule against airbus and its goverment funding one day. I am not holding my breath on that one.

simple. go to the WTO and make a case against airbus.

They can't because Airbus violates no WTO rules. The only argument that the US has advanced is that the EU loans to Airbus for development of the A380 (which would break Boeings monopoly on large aircraft) may exceed the 33percent cap set by WTO rules depending on how you do the accounting. Besides, without Airbus Boeing would have an absolute monopoly on passenger aircraft manufacturing which wouldn't be good for anyone.

Well that would be true, but remember the goverment funded airbus ran mcdonald douglas out of business. At the time airbus was making planes, even thought i had no buyers. Then it offered sweetheart deal to airlines and sold these planes at a loss. It is amazing what you can do with goverment funding.

Airbus did not run McDonald Douglass out of business. If anything, a loss of defense contracts and an absolute failure by McDonald douglass to innovate and improve technology ran them out of the passenger aircraft business. Both Boeing and MD spent 30 years resting comfortably on thier laurels failing to innvoate in thier civil aviation business. Airbus aircraft generally have higher levels of automation, better fuel economy (with both US and Rolls Royce Engines), extended overhaul intervals, etc. Airbus also runs at a far lower profit margin that Boeing would ever dream of accepting, something under 10% last time I checked. No one has ever proven that Airbus has been dumping aircraft on any of the contracts they won.

Airbus did recieve substantial government subsidies in the form of below market rate loans since its inception in 1970 up until the early 90's. It would be virtually impossible for any countries other than the United States to break into the commercial aviation market without a collaborative government aided effort. Notice even Japan has not even attempted it? You do realize that Boeing and McD were heavily subsidized by defense contracts right? Anyway, Airbus is now over 80% owned by EADS which is publicly traded and has many partnerships with American firms. 30% of Boeing civil aricraft parts are European with a similar amount applying to Airbus aircraft.

Meanwhile, Boeing has had the same basic 747 for 30 years, and they now make over $20 million + on each of those aircraft I think a little more on the passenger variety. They are also raping the US government with things like that stupid tanker lease deal. Oh yeah, the twenty + year exculsive contracts they strong armed the airlines into accepting?? Now they bitch and moan because the A380 is well on its way through initial design concepts + has funding for R+D while they have only succeeded in coming up with some weak drawings. Boo Freaking hooo. This is the same thing that happened in the US auto industry and they are still catching up,

And it is largely the EU goverments funding the a380. IF the a380 fails airbus does not. If boeing fails on a design they do die(the 747 came very close to doing that).

It is funny that in one sentence you say no one has ever proven airbus was dumping product on the market, but in the next you do admit they are goverment subsidised. So which is it?

1. It is not largely the EU governments funding the A380. As agreed upon under WTO/GATT rules 33% of the funding for A380 comes from European Governments in the form of low cost loans. The rest has been raised by EADS on the open market (Primarliy from European and American banks with a smattering of Japanese loans). If Boeing/The US Government/Boeings unions feel that is being violated they are more than welcome to go to the WTO and get a ruling. Hasn't really happened yet, because they know thier case is week.

If Boeing fails on a design they fail to exist....that is a pretty good excuse. When is the last time Boeing came out with a totally new aircraft? Hmmmm...that would be 1995 I believe. How many Airbus aircraft have come out since then....quite a few more than 1. So I guess the fear of failure and the big bad Airbus is holding us poor Americans down. If you want to come out ahead in a competitive market (emphasize competitive) you need to take risks. If you are unwilling to do so, step aside and let the youngsters have at it. Boeing

2. Thier is a big difference between dumping and subsidies. Under WTO rules dumping roughly equates to selling a product in a foriegn market at below cost or below local market costs. That is not = to subsidies. Don't put words in my mouth or try and equate two distinct concepts.

Airbus did recieve substantial subsidies during the start up phase from 1970 to 1990. That was changed in 1992 with the new agreements agreed upon with the US. Notice it was only after that agreement where the direct subsidies were replaced with a max of 33% development loans that Airbus started taking huge amounts of market share away from Boeing?? Boeing dropped the ball. Why has Airbus been the only one using a ful CAD design process since 1990 while Boeing is only now catching up? Why has Airbus had common cockpits since 1990 or so while Boeing still does not. DO you have any idea how appealing common cockpits are to airlines and cargo carriers? Why has Airbus been using fully computerized instrumented diagnostics since at least the mid 90's in all its new offerings, while Boeing still relys on trace it down and find it yourself service checklists and diagrams (of a non cad designed aircraft mind you).

Also Airbus has heavily invested in economic advantage packages with purchasing countries. Good examples are domestic manufacturing contracts with Hindustan aircraft, as well as cross licensing deals with Swiss airlines. They will bring jobs and work to the country in question as part of selling thier aircaft and in the process may actually reduce the cost of the final product due to reduced labor and infrastructure costs even when startup costs are taken into account.. Boeing has never felt the need to do this before in commercial aviation and dropped the ball big time on these incentives which have seriously helped Airbuses penetration in 3rd world and other poorer nations.

As to subsidies, Airbus had them and now they have low cost loans which may amount to a subsidy.

However, Boeing has massive defense contracts which subsidize a lot of thier R+D, not to mention huge tax breaks and other incentives from local governments which amount to subsidies.

I can only wonder how loud the moaning would be if the boeing was geting low interest loans from the federal goverment for product development. I certainly know european countries do not give tax breaks to bring business to their area.

And lower US taxes are not a subsidy, they are just lower taxes.

And as far a defense contract being counted a subsidies, I dont recall the military transport using commercial designs.

I dont have a real big problem with the EU starting airbus, but it is time for airbus to stand on its own.

1. A package of tax breaks and incentives to a particular company or industry is not technically a subsidy, but the effect is the same. If I am going to reduce the operating costs of a particular industry through legislation, that has the same effect as if I were giving them money directly. BTW: You seem to be conveniently missing out on the fact that the US does heavily subsizdes basic research and critical Industries. A few examples: The NSF grants which total billions of dollars a year to private companies and research institutions. The Export Import Bank, The Overseas Private Investment Corporation, The Maritime Administration(only reason economically uncompetative US shipyards exist besides defense contracts) Go down to Pascagoula Mississippi sometime and tell me that the US military isn't subsidizing the US shipbuilding industry, The Small Business Administration, DARPA, shall I go on???

2. You don't know much about aviation do you. No, a 777 is not based directly on a military design. Don't be obtuse.


Engines, avionics, materials, production and prototyping methodologies are all generally paid for initially by military contracts and then transferred over to the civillian sector in the US. This is how Boeing saves a lot of R+D money on the civillian side. The DOD and the US taxpayer pay just about 100% of Boeings advanced R+D work which eventually trickles down into the commercial side. However, inexplicably Boeing failed to transfer over many many military technologies in the 1990s until Airbus started to kick thier ass with better aircraft at competiive prices without onerous terms such as 20 year exclusive contracts.

Yes the 777 and c-17 are both planes. The 777 was just easier to design as the requirements are much easier.
They have fewer common points than you think.

1. You completely ignored my first rebuttal.

2. Not to be offensive, but you know nothing about commercial or military aircraft development and acceptence testing. How exactly are you defining easier??

Do you realize that the 777 was the first commercial twin engine aircraft to recieve ETOPS certification? (Which I still don't trust) If I am going to be doing ETOPS particularly on a polar route, I want four damn engines by god. With the largest production jet engine ever made. 110,000 lbs of thrust more than those of all 4 of the orginal 747 engines. The amount of testing and design work that went into just the engines is staggering (and the basis for all US commercial jet engine technology is military funded R+D). Do you have any idea of the differences in airframe and engine hours between commercial and military aircraft. Most military aircraft would fall apart if they had to be flown as much as commercial aircraft and that includes the C-17. Fuel consumption needs are also completely different as the military has the option of air-air refueling and they are far less worried about fuel costs. Payload modularity and occupant comfort...completely different. Just the noise reduction technology in the 777 is far more complex than in the C-17. Sure, it can't land on a 3,000 ft unprepared strip but that doesn't mean it was easier to design. The maintenance and support requirements are completely different. Apples and oranges. Saying that the 777 was easier to design demonstrates a lack of understandning of the technology and the certifcation processes.

As to the transfer of technology and absorption of initial costs. Fly by wire control systems in 777...hmmm straight from military work. Glass cockpits...straight from military work.... Avionics system....same. Engines...military.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: freegeeks

I hope an agreement can be made before the 3 year tarriff expires. It is already 1/2 way done I think.

Maybe we can get the WTO to rule against airbus and its goverment funding one day. I am not holding my breath on that one.

simple. go to the WTO and make a case against airbus.

They can't because Airbus violates no WTO rules. The only argument that the US has advanced is that the EU loans to Airbus for development of the A380 (which would break Boeings monopoly on large aircraft) may exceed the 33percent cap set by WTO rules depending on how you do the accounting. Besides, without Airbus Boeing would have an absolute monopoly on passenger aircraft manufacturing which wouldn't be good for anyone.

Well that would be true, but remember the goverment funded airbus ran mcdonald douglas out of business. At the time airbus was making planes, even thought i had no buyers. Then it offered sweetheart deal to airlines and sold these planes at a loss. It is amazing what you can do with goverment funding.

Airbus did not run McDonald Douglass out of business. If anything, a loss of defense contracts and an absolute failure by McDonald douglass to innovate and improve technology ran them out of the passenger aircraft business. Both Boeing and MD spent 30 years resting comfortably on thier laurels failing to innvoate in thier civil aviation business. Airbus aircraft generally have higher levels of automation, better fuel economy (with both US and Rolls Royce Engines), extended overhaul intervals, etc. Airbus also runs at a far lower profit margin that Boeing would ever dream of accepting, something under 10% last time I checked. No one has ever proven that Airbus has been dumping aircraft on any of the contracts they won.

Airbus did recieve substantial government subsidies in the form of below market rate loans since its inception in 1970 up until the early 90's. It would be virtually impossible for any countries other than the United States to break into the commercial aviation market without a collaborative government aided effort. Notice even Japan has not even attempted it? You do realize that Boeing and McD were heavily subsidized by defense contracts right? Anyway, Airbus is now over 80% owned by EADS which is publicly traded and has many partnerships with American firms. 30% of Boeing civil aricraft parts are European with a similar amount applying to Airbus aircraft.

Meanwhile, Boeing has had the same basic 747 for 30 years, and they now make over $20 million + on each of those aircraft I think a little more on the passenger variety. They are also raping the US government with things like that stupid tanker lease deal. Oh yeah, the twenty + year exculsive contracts they strong armed the airlines into accepting?? Now they bitch and moan because the A380 is well on its way through initial design concepts + has funding for R+D while they have only succeeded in coming up with some weak drawings. Boo Freaking hooo. This is the same thing that happened in the US auto industry and they are still catching up,

And it is largely the EU goverments funding the a380. IF the a380 fails airbus does not. If boeing fails on a design they do die(the 747 came very close to doing that).

It is funny that in one sentence you say no one has ever proven airbus was dumping product on the market, but in the next you do admit they are goverment subsidised. So which is it?

1. It is not largely the EU governments funding the A380. As agreed upon under WTO/GATT rules 33% of the funding for A380 comes from European Governments in the form of low cost loans. The rest has been raised by EADS on the open market (Primarliy from European and American banks with a smattering of Japanese loans). If Boeing/The US Government/Boeings unions feel that is being violated they are more than welcome to go to the WTO and get a ruling. Hasn't really happened yet, because they know thier case is week.

If Boeing fails on a design they fail to exist....that is a pretty good excuse. When is the last time Boeing came out with a totally new aircraft? Hmmmm...that would be 1995 I believe. How many Airbus aircraft have come out since then....quite a few more than 1. So I guess the fear of failure and the big bad Airbus is holding us poor Americans down. If you want to come out ahead in a competitive market (emphasize competitive) you need to take risks. If you are unwilling to do so, step aside and let the youngsters have at it. Boeing

2. Thier is a big difference between dumping and subsidies. Under WTO rules dumping roughly equates to selling a product in a foriegn market at below cost or below local market costs. That is not = to subsidies. Don't put words in my mouth or try and equate two distinct concepts.

Airbus did recieve substantial subsidies during the start up phase from 1970 to 1990. That was changed in 1992 with the new agreements agreed upon with the US. Notice it was only after that agreement where the direct subsidies were replaced with a max of 33% development loans that Airbus started taking huge amounts of market share away from Boeing?? Boeing dropped the ball. Why has Airbus been the only one using a ful CAD design process since 1990 while Boeing is only now catching up? Why has Airbus had common cockpits since 1990 or so while Boeing still does not. DO you have any idea how appealing common cockpits are to airlines and cargo carriers? Why has Airbus been using fully computerized instrumented diagnostics since at least the mid 90's in all its new offerings, while Boeing still relys on trace it down and find it yourself service checklists and diagrams (of a non cad designed aircraft mind you).

Also Airbus has heavily invested in economic advantage packages with purchasing countries. Good examples are domestic manufacturing contracts with Hindustan aircraft, as well as cross licensing deals with Swiss airlines. They will bring jobs and work to the country in question as part of selling thier aircaft and in the process may actually reduce the cost of the final product due to reduced labor and infrastructure costs even when startup costs are taken into account.. Boeing has never felt the need to do this before in commercial aviation and dropped the ball big time on these incentives which have seriously helped Airbuses penetration in 3rd world and other poorer nations.

As to subsidies, Airbus had them and now they have low cost loans which may amount to a subsidy.

However, Boeing has massive defense contracts which subsidize a lot of thier R+D, not to mention huge tax breaks and other incentives from local governments which amount to subsidies.

I can only wonder how loud the moaning would be if the boeing was geting low interest loans from the federal goverment for product development. I certainly know european countries do not give tax breaks to bring business to their area.

And lower US taxes are not a subsidy, they are just lower taxes.

And as far a defense contract being counted a subsidies, I dont recall the military transport using commercial designs.

I dont have a real big problem with the EU starting airbus, but it is time for airbus to stand on its own.

1. A package of tax breaks and incentives to a particular company or industry is not technically a subsidy, but the effect is the same. If I am going to reduce the operating costs of a particular industry through legislation, that has the same effect as if I were giving them money directly. BTW: You seem to be conveniently missing out on the fact that the US does heavily subsizdes basic research and critical Industries. A few examples: The NSF grants which total billions of dollars a year to private companies and research institutions. The Export Import Bank, The Overseas Private Investment Corporation, The Maritime Administration(only reason economically uncompetative US shipyards exist besides defense contracts) Go down to Pascagoula Mississippi sometime and tell me that the US military isn't subsidizing the US shipbuilding industry, The Small Business Administration, DARPA, shall I go on???

2. You don't know much about aviation do you. No, a 777 is not based directly on a military design. Don't be obtuse.


Engines, avionics, materials, production and prototyping methodologies are all generally paid for initially by military contracts and then transferred over to the civillian sector in the US. This is how Boeing saves a lot of R+D money on the civillian side. The DOD and the US taxpayer pay just about 100% of Boeings advanced R+D work which eventually trickles down into the commercial side. However, inexplicably Boeing failed to transfer over many many military technologies in the 1990s until Airbus started to kick thier ass with better aircraft at competiive prices without onerous terms such as 20 year exclusive contracts.

Yes the 777 and c-17 are both planes. The 777 was just easier to design as the requirements are much easier.
They have fewer common points than you think.

1. You completely ignored my first rebuttal.

2. Not to be offensive, but you know nothing about commercial or military aircraft development and acceptence testing. How exactly are you defining easier??

Do you realize that the 777 was the first commercial twin engine aircraft to recieve ETOPS certification? (Which I still don't trust) If I am going to be doing ETOPS particularly on a polar route, I want four damn engines by god. With the largest production jet engine ever made. 110,000 lbs of thrust more than those of all 4 of the orginal 747 engines. The amount of testing and design work that went into just the engines is staggering (and the basis for all US commercial jet engine technology is military funded R+D). Do you have any idea of the differences in airframe and engine hours between commercial and military aircraft. Most military aircraft would fall apart if they had to be flown as much as commercial aircraft and that includes the C-17. Fuel consumption needs are also completely different as the military has the option of air-air refueling and they are far less worried about fuel costs. Payload modularity and occupant comfort...completely different. Just the noise reduction technology in the 777 is far more complex than in the C-17. Sure, it can't land on a 3,000 ft unprepared strip but that doesn't mean it was easier to design. The maintenance and support requirements are completely different. Apples and oranges. Saying that the 777 was easier to design demonstrates a lack of understandning of the technology and the certifcation processes.

As to the transfer of technology and absorption of initial costs. Fly by wire control systems in 777...hmmm straight from military work. Glass cockpits...straight from military work.... Avionics system....same. Engines...military.

I think you just proved my point about military and commecial designs being different. Military aircraft often have more absurd requirements than their civilian counterparts

Yes out goverment does fund research, but it does not however give or loan money to boeing to do commercial jet design. Well at least not yet. If boeing makes this work
BWB design, I will have to change my thoughts on defense contracts being a subsidy.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: freegeeks

I hope an agreement can be made before the 3 year tarriff expires. It is already 1/2 way done I think.

Maybe we can get the WTO to rule against airbus and its goverment funding one day. I am not holding my breath on that one.

simple. go to the WTO and make a case against airbus.

They can't because Airbus violates no WTO rules. The only argument that the US has advanced is that the EU loans to Airbus for development of the A380 (which would break Boeings monopoly on large aircraft) may exceed the 33percent cap set by WTO rules depending on how you do the accounting. Besides, without Airbus Boeing would have an absolute monopoly on passenger aircraft manufacturing which wouldn't be good for anyone.

Well that would be true, but remember the goverment funded airbus ran mcdonald douglas out of business. At the time airbus was making planes, even thought i had no buyers. Then it offered sweetheart deal to airlines and sold these planes at a loss. It is amazing what you can do with goverment funding.

Airbus did not run McDonald Douglass out of business. If anything, a loss of defense contracts and an absolute failure by McDonald douglass to innovate and improve technology ran them out of the passenger aircraft business. Both Boeing and MD spent 30 years resting comfortably on thier laurels failing to innvoate in thier civil aviation business. Airbus aircraft generally have higher levels of automation, better fuel economy (with both US and Rolls Royce Engines), extended overhaul intervals, etc. Airbus also runs at a far lower profit margin that Boeing would ever dream of accepting, something under 10% last time I checked. No one has ever proven that Airbus has been dumping aircraft on any of the contracts they won.

Airbus did recieve substantial government subsidies in the form of below market rate loans since its inception in 1970 up until the early 90's. It would be virtually impossible for any countries other than the United States to break into the commercial aviation market without a collaborative government aided effort. Notice even Japan has not even attempted it? You do realize that Boeing and McD were heavily subsidized by defense contracts right? Anyway, Airbus is now over 80% owned by EADS which is publicly traded and has many partnerships with American firms. 30% of Boeing civil aricraft parts are European with a similar amount applying to Airbus aircraft.

Meanwhile, Boeing has had the same basic 747 for 30 years, and they now make over $20 million + on each of those aircraft I think a little more on the passenger variety. They are also raping the US government with things like that stupid tanker lease deal. Oh yeah, the twenty + year exculsive contracts they strong armed the airlines into accepting?? Now they bitch and moan because the A380 is well on its way through initial design concepts + has funding for R+D while they have only succeeded in coming up with some weak drawings. Boo Freaking hooo. This is the same thing that happened in the US auto industry and they are still catching up,

And it is largely the EU goverments funding the a380. IF the a380 fails airbus does not. If boeing fails on a design they do die(the 747 came very close to doing that).

It is funny that in one sentence you say no one has ever proven airbus was dumping product on the market, but in the next you do admit they are goverment subsidised. So which is it?

1. It is not largely the EU governments funding the A380. As agreed upon under WTO/GATT rules 33% of the funding for A380 comes from European Governments in the form of low cost loans. The rest has been raised by EADS on the open market (Primarliy from European and American banks with a smattering of Japanese loans). If Boeing/The US Government/Boeings unions feel that is being violated they are more than welcome to go to the WTO and get a ruling. Hasn't really happened yet, because they know thier case is week.

If Boeing fails on a design they fail to exist....that is a pretty good excuse. When is the last time Boeing came out with a totally new aircraft? Hmmmm...that would be 1995 I believe. How many Airbus aircraft have come out since then....quite a few more than 1. So I guess the fear of failure and the big bad Airbus is holding us poor Americans down. If you want to come out ahead in a competitive market (emphasize competitive) you need to take risks. If you are unwilling to do so, step aside and let the youngsters have at it. Boeing

2. Thier is a big difference between dumping and subsidies. Under WTO rules dumping roughly equates to selling a product in a foriegn market at below cost or below local market costs. That is not = to subsidies. Don't put words in my mouth or try and equate two distinct concepts.

Airbus did recieve substantial subsidies during the start up phase from 1970 to 1990. That was changed in 1992 with the new agreements agreed upon with the US. Notice it was only after that agreement where the direct subsidies were replaced with a max of 33% development loans that Airbus started taking huge amounts of market share away from Boeing?? Boeing dropped the ball. Why has Airbus been the only one using a ful CAD design process since 1990 while Boeing is only now catching up? Why has Airbus had common cockpits since 1990 or so while Boeing still does not. DO you have any idea how appealing common cockpits are to airlines and cargo carriers? Why has Airbus been using fully computerized instrumented diagnostics since at least the mid 90's in all its new offerings, while Boeing still relys on trace it down and find it yourself service checklists and diagrams (of a non cad designed aircraft mind you).

Also Airbus has heavily invested in economic advantage packages with purchasing countries. Good examples are domestic manufacturing contracts with Hindustan aircraft, as well as cross licensing deals with Swiss airlines. They will bring jobs and work to the country in question as part of selling thier aircaft and in the process may actually reduce the cost of the final product due to reduced labor and infrastructure costs even when startup costs are taken into account.. Boeing has never felt the need to do this before in commercial aviation and dropped the ball big time on these incentives which have seriously helped Airbuses penetration in 3rd world and other poorer nations.

As to subsidies, Airbus had them and now they have low cost loans which may amount to a subsidy.

However, Boeing has massive defense contracts which subsidize a lot of thier R+D, not to mention huge tax breaks and other incentives from local governments which amount to subsidies.

I can only wonder how loud the moaning would be if the boeing was geting low interest loans from the federal goverment for product development. I certainly know european countries do not give tax breaks to bring business to their area.

And lower US taxes are not a subsidy, they are just lower taxes.

And as far a defense contract being counted a subsidies, I dont recall the military transport using commercial designs.

I dont have a real big problem with the EU starting airbus, but it is time for airbus to stand on its own.

1. A package of tax breaks and incentives to a particular company or industry is not technically a subsidy, but the effect is the same. If I am going to reduce the operating costs of a particular industry through legislation, that has the same effect as if I were giving them money directly. BTW: You seem to be conveniently missing out on the fact that the US does heavily subsizdes basic research and critical Industries. A few examples: The NSF grants which total billions of dollars a year to private companies and research institutions. The Export Import Bank, The Overseas Private Investment Corporation, The Maritime Administration(only reason economically uncompetative US shipyards exist besides defense contracts) Go down to Pascagoula Mississippi sometime and tell me that the US military isn't subsidizing the US shipbuilding industry, The Small Business Administration, DARPA, shall I go on???

2. You don't know much about aviation do you. No, a 777 is not based directly on a military design. Don't be obtuse.


Engines, avionics, materials, production and prototyping methodologies are all generally paid for initially by military contracts and then transferred over to the civillian sector in the US. This is how Boeing saves a lot of R+D money on the civillian side. The DOD and the US taxpayer pay just about 100% of Boeings advanced R+D work which eventually trickles down into the commercial side. However, inexplicably Boeing failed to transfer over many many military technologies in the 1990s until Airbus started to kick thier ass with better aircraft at competiive prices without onerous terms such as 20 year exclusive contracts.

Yes the 777 and c-17 are both planes. The 777 was just easier to design as the requirements are much easier.
They have fewer common points than you think.

1. You completely ignored my first rebuttal.

2. Not to be offensive, but you know nothing about commercial or military aircraft development and acceptence testing. How exactly are you defining easier??

Do you realize that the 777 was the first commercial twin engine aircraft to recieve ETOPS certification? (Which I still don't trust) If I am going to be doing ETOPS particularly on a polar route, I want four damn engines by god. With the largest production jet engine ever made. 110,000 lbs of thrust more than those of all 4 of the orginal 747 engines. The amount of testing and design work that went into just the engines is staggering (and the basis for all US commercial jet engine technology is military funded R+D). Do you have any idea of the differences in airframe and engine hours between commercial and military aircraft. Most military aircraft would fall apart if they had to be flown as much as commercial aircraft and that includes the C-17. Fuel consumption needs are also completely different as the military has the option of air-air refueling and they are far less worried about fuel costs. Payload modularity and occupant comfort...completely different. Just the noise reduction technology in the 777 is far more complex than in the C-17. Sure, it can't land on a 3,000 ft unprepared strip but that doesn't mean it was easier to design. The maintenance and support requirements are completely different. Apples and oranges. Saying that the 777 was easier to design demonstrates a lack of understandning of the technology and the certifcation processes.

As to the transfer of technology and absorption of initial costs. Fly by wire control systems in 777...hmmm straight from military work. Glass cockpits...straight from military work.... Avionics system....same. Engines...military.

I think you just proved my point about military and commecial designs being different. Military aircraft often have more absurd requirements than their civilian counterparts

Yes out goverment does fund research, but it does not however give or loan money to boeing to do commercial jet design. Well at least not yet. If boeing makes this work
BWB design, I will have to change my thoughts on defense contracts being a subsidy.

I don't understand you. What do you mean absurd?? They have widely different requirements, but that doesn't make any of them absurd. Many people thought that a wide body heavy jet being able to fly 180min on a single engine was absurd. I think I have demonstrated that your comment about designing the 777 being "easier" whatever the hell that means is the only proven absurd thing in this entire thread.

WTH does them being different have anything to do with it?? Of course they are different. Any two year old child can see that they are differnt. We are talking about military contracts funding the underlying research and development that forms the basis for civillian industry in this case commercial aircraft. Whether you want to admit it or not even if the US fovernment doesn't make loans to Boeing it does pay Boeing billions each year to develop technologies. Boeing then gets to keep these technologies, underlying patents, licenses and use them in thier commercial aircraft no questions asked. The European subsidies and now loans are only a small fraction of the money the defense department has pumped into the US aerospace industry directly or indirectly. Stick your head in the sand all you want and whine when someone is kicking your ass. I prefer to build a better product and I see no signs that Boeing has "gotten it" yet.

 

[Jadow]

They should just let the free market decide how things work out. There's a lot of US companies getting screwed because of thsi because they have to pay more for steel.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: freegeeks

I hope an agreement can be made before the 3 year tarriff expires. It is already 1/2 way done I think.

Maybe we can get the WTO to rule against airbus and its goverment funding one day. I am not holding my breath on that one.

simple. go to the WTO and make a case against airbus.

They can't because Airbus violates no WTO rules. The only argument that the US has advanced is that the EU loans to Airbus for development of the A380 (which would break Boeings monopoly on large aircraft) may exceed the 33percent cap set by WTO rules depending on how you do the accounting. Besides, without Airbus Boeing would have an absolute monopoly on passenger aircraft manufacturing which wouldn't be good for anyone.

Well that would be true, but remember the goverment funded airbus ran mcdonald douglas out of business. At the time airbus was making planes, even thought i had no buyers. Then it offered sweetheart deal to airlines and sold these planes at a loss. It is amazing what you can do with goverment funding.

Airbus did not run McDonald Douglass out of business. If anything, a loss of defense contracts and an absolute failure by McDonald douglass to innovate and improve technology ran them out of the passenger aircraft business. Both Boeing and MD spent 30 years resting comfortably on thier laurels failing to innvoate in thier civil aviation business. Airbus aircraft generally have higher levels of automation, better fuel economy (with both US and Rolls Royce Engines), extended overhaul intervals, etc. Airbus also runs at a far lower profit margin that Boeing would ever dream of accepting, something under 10% last time I checked. No one has ever proven that Airbus has been dumping aircraft on any of the contracts they won.

Airbus did recieve substantial government subsidies in the form of below market rate loans since its inception in 1970 up until the early 90's. It would be virtually impossible for any countries other than the United States to break into the commercial aviation market without a collaborative government aided effort. Notice even Japan has not even attempted it? You do realize that Boeing and McD were heavily subsidized by defense contracts right? Anyway, Airbus is now over 80% owned by EADS which is publicly traded and has many partnerships with American firms. 30% of Boeing civil aricraft parts are European with a similar amount applying to Airbus aircraft.

Meanwhile, Boeing has had the same basic 747 for 30 years, and they now make over $20 million + on each of those aircraft I think a little more on the passenger variety. They are also raping the US government with things like that stupid tanker lease deal. Oh yeah, the twenty + year exculsive contracts they strong armed the airlines into accepting?? Now they bitch and moan because the A380 is well on its way through initial design concepts + has funding for R+D while they have only succeeded in coming up with some weak drawings. Boo Freaking hooo. This is the same thing that happened in the US auto industry and they are still catching up,

And it is largely the EU goverments funding the a380. IF the a380 fails airbus does not. If boeing fails on a design they do die(the 747 came very close to doing that).

It is funny that in one sentence you say no one has ever proven airbus was dumping product on the market, but in the next you do admit they are goverment subsidised. So which is it?

1. It is not largely the EU governments funding the A380. As agreed upon under WTO/GATT rules 33% of the funding for A380 comes from European Governments in the form of low cost loans. The rest has been raised by EADS on the open market (Primarliy from European and American banks with a smattering of Japanese loans). If Boeing/The US Government/Boeings unions feel that is being violated they are more than welcome to go to the WTO and get a ruling. Hasn't really happened yet, because they know thier case is week.

If Boeing fails on a design they fail to exist....that is a pretty good excuse. When is the last time Boeing came out with a totally new aircraft? Hmmmm...that would be 1995 I believe. How many Airbus aircraft have come out since then....quite a few more than 1. So I guess the fear of failure and the big bad Airbus is holding us poor Americans down. If you want to come out ahead in a competitive market (emphasize competitive) you need to take risks. If you are unwilling to do so, step aside and let the youngsters have at it. Boeing

2. Thier is a big difference between dumping and subsidies. Under WTO rules dumping roughly equates to selling a product in a foriegn market at below cost or below local market costs. That is not = to subsidies. Don't put words in my mouth or try and equate two distinct concepts.

Airbus did recieve substantial subsidies during the start up phase from 1970 to 1990. That was changed in 1992 with the new agreements agreed upon with the US. Notice it was only after that agreement where the direct subsidies were replaced with a max of 33% development loans that Airbus started taking huge amounts of market share away from Boeing?? Boeing dropped the ball. Why has Airbus been the only one using a ful CAD design process since 1990 while Boeing is only now catching up? Why has Airbus had common cockpits since 1990 or so while Boeing still does not. DO you have any idea how appealing common cockpits are to airlines and cargo carriers? Why has Airbus been using fully computerized instrumented diagnostics since at least the mid 90's in all its new offerings, while Boeing still relys on trace it down and find it yourself service checklists and diagrams (of a non cad designed aircraft mind you).

Also Airbus has heavily invested in economic advantage packages with purchasing countries. Good examples are domestic manufacturing contracts with Hindustan aircraft, as well as cross licensing deals with Swiss airlines. They will bring jobs and work to the country in question as part of selling thier aircaft and in the process may actually reduce the cost of the final product due to reduced labor and infrastructure costs even when startup costs are taken into account.. Boeing has never felt the need to do this before in commercial aviation and dropped the ball big time on these incentives which have seriously helped Airbuses penetration in 3rd world and other poorer nations.

As to subsidies, Airbus had them and now they have low cost loans which may amount to a subsidy.

However, Boeing has massive defense contracts which subsidize a lot of thier R+D, not to mention huge tax breaks and other incentives from local governments which amount to subsidies.

I can only wonder how loud the moaning would be if the boeing was geting low interest loans from the federal goverment for product development. I certainly know european countries do not give tax breaks to bring business to their area.

And lower US taxes are not a subsidy, they are just lower taxes.

And as far a defense contract being counted a subsidies, I dont recall the military transport using commercial designs.

I dont have a real big problem with the EU starting airbus, but it is time for airbus to stand on its own.

1. A package of tax breaks and incentives to a particular company or industry is not technically a subsidy, but the effect is the same. If I am going to reduce the operating costs of a particular industry through legislation, that has the same effect as if I were giving them money directly. BTW: You seem to be conveniently missing out on the fact that the US does heavily subsizdes basic research and critical Industries. A few examples: The NSF grants which total billions of dollars a year to private companies and research institutions. The Export Import Bank, The Overseas Private Investment Corporation, The Maritime Administration(only reason economically uncompetative US shipyards exist besides defense contracts) Go down to Pascagoula Mississippi sometime and tell me that the US military isn't subsidizing the US shipbuilding industry, The Small Business Administration, DARPA, shall I go on???

2. You don't know much about aviation do you. No, a 777 is not based directly on a military design. Don't be obtuse.


Engines, avionics, materials, production and prototyping methodologies are all generally paid for initially by military contracts and then transferred over to the civillian sector in the US. This is how Boeing saves a lot of R+D money on the civillian side. The DOD and the US taxpayer pay just about 100% of Boeings advanced R+D work which eventually trickles down into the commercial side. However, inexplicably Boeing failed to transfer over many many military technologies in the 1990s until Airbus started to kick thier ass with better aircraft at competiive prices without onerous terms such as 20 year exclusive contracts.

Yes the 777 and c-17 are both planes. The 777 was just easier to design as the requirements are much easier.
They have fewer common points than you think.

1. You completely ignored my first rebuttal.

2. Not to be offensive, but you know nothing about commercial or military aircraft development and acceptence testing. How exactly are you defining easier??

Do you realize that the 777 was the first commercial twin engine aircraft to recieve ETOPS certification? (Which I still don't trust) If I am going to be doing ETOPS particularly on a polar route, I want four damn engines by god. With the largest production jet engine ever made. 110,000 lbs of thrust more than those of all 4 of the orginal 747 engines. The amount of testing and design work that went into just the engines is staggering (and the basis for all US commercial jet engine technology is military funded R+D). Do you have any idea of the differences in airframe and engine hours between commercial and military aircraft. Most military aircraft would fall apart if they had to be flown as much as commercial aircraft and that includes the C-17. Fuel consumption needs are also completely different as the military has the option of air-air refueling and they are far less worried about fuel costs. Payload modularity and occupant comfort...completely different. Just the noise reduction technology in the 777 is far more complex than in the C-17. Sure, it can't land on a 3,000 ft unprepared strip but that doesn't mean it was easier to design. The maintenance and support requirements are completely different. Apples and oranges. Saying that the 777 was easier to design demonstrates a lack of understandning of the technology and the certifcation processes.

As to the transfer of technology and absorption of initial costs. Fly by wire control systems in 777...hmmm straight from military work. Glass cockpits...straight from military work.... Avionics system....same. Engines...military.

I think you just proved my point about military and commecial designs being different. Military aircraft often have more absurd requirements than their civilian counterparts

Yes out goverment does fund research, but it does not however give or loan money to boeing to do commercial jet design. Well at least not yet. If boeing makes this work
BWB design, I will have to change my thoughts on defense contracts being a subsidy.

I don't understand you. What do you mean absurd?? They have widely different requirements, but that doesn't make any of them absurd. Many people thought that a wide body heavy jet being able to fly 180min on a single engine was absurd. I think I have demonstrated that your comment about designing the 777 being "easier" whatever the hell that means is the only proven absurd thing in this entire thread.

WTH does them being different have anything to do with it?? Of course they are different. Any two year old child can see that they are differnt. We are talking about military contracts funding the underlying research and development that forms the basis for civillian industry in this case commercial aircraft. Whether you want to admit it or not even if the US fovernment doesn't make loans to Boeing it does pay Boeing billions each year to develop technologies. Boeing then gets to keep these technologies, underlying patents, licenses and use them in thier commercial aircraft no questions asked. The European subsidies and now loans are only a small fraction of the money the defense department has pumped into the US aerospace industry directly or indirectly. Stick your head in the sand all you want and whine when someone is kicking your ass. I prefer to build a better product and I see no signs that Boeing has "gotten it" yet.

I dont disagree boeing has issues in the commercial jet world. I dont think they have innovated enough in the past 10 or 20 years.
They have made a progressily better aluminum tube with wings, but that is about it and that is essentiatly what the a380 is going to be.
The sonic cruiser was the first glimer of innovation from boeing in a while and they killed it(it was not what the airlines wanted anyway).
The a380 will probably make a nice a long haul plane, but i doubt many airports are going to take the bit on redoing their infrastructure just so people can board this plan. Meanwhile the boeing 737 will likely remain the meat of boeings sales because it just works and fits well in many of the airlines routes. ANd i dont doubt that once military technology exists in these designs, but I doubt the numbers are as high as you think they are.


I guess we can also accuse airbus of using military subsidies as well since there now exists the airbus a400M. Which airbus refused to use US engines that require less maintance, fuel and cost less.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: freegeeks

I hope an agreement can be made before the 3 year tarriff expires. It is already 1/2 way done I think.

Maybe we can get the WTO to rule against airbus and its goverment funding one day. I am not holding my breath on that one.

simple. go to the WTO and make a case against airbus.

They can't because Airbus violates no WTO rules. The only argument that the US has advanced is that the EU loans to Airbus for development of the A380 (which would break Boeings monopoly on large aircraft) may exceed the 33percent cap set by WTO rules depending on how you do the accounting. Besides, without Airbus Boeing would have an absolute monopoly on passenger aircraft manufacturing which wouldn't be good for anyone.

Well that would be true, but remember the goverment funded airbus ran mcdonald douglas out of business. At the time airbus was making planes, even thought i had no buyers. Then it offered sweetheart deal to airlines and sold these planes at a loss. It is amazing what you can do with goverment funding.

Airbus did not run McDonald Douglass out of business. If anything, a loss of defense contracts and an absolute failure by McDonald douglass to innovate and improve technology ran them out of the passenger aircraft business. Both Boeing and MD spent 30 years resting comfortably on thier laurels failing to innvoate in thier civil aviation business. Airbus aircraft generally have higher levels of automation, better fuel economy (with both US and Rolls Royce Engines), extended overhaul intervals, etc. Airbus also runs at a far lower profit margin that Boeing would ever dream of accepting, something under 10% last time I checked. No one has ever proven that Airbus has been dumping aircraft on any of the contracts they won.

Airbus did recieve substantial government subsidies in the form of below market rate loans since its inception in 1970 up until the early 90's. It would be virtually impossible for any countries other than the United States to break into the commercial aviation market without a collaborative government aided effort. Notice even Japan has not even attempted it? You do realize that Boeing and McD were heavily subsidized by defense contracts right? Anyway, Airbus is now over 80% owned by EADS which is publicly traded and has many partnerships with American firms. 30% of Boeing civil aricraft parts are European with a similar amount applying to Airbus aircraft.

Meanwhile, Boeing has had the same basic 747 for 30 years, and they now make over $20 million + on each of those aircraft I think a little more on the passenger variety. They are also raping the US government with things like that stupid tanker lease deal. Oh yeah, the twenty + year exculsive contracts they strong armed the airlines into accepting?? Now they bitch and moan because the A380 is well on its way through initial design concepts + has funding for R+D while they have only succeeded in coming up with some weak drawings. Boo Freaking hooo. This is the same thing that happened in the US auto industry and they are still catching up,

And it is largely the EU goverments funding the a380. IF the a380 fails airbus does not. If boeing fails on a design they do die(the 747 came very close to doing that).

It is funny that in one sentence you say no one has ever proven airbus was dumping product on the market, but in the next you do admit they are goverment subsidised. So which is it?

1. It is not largely the EU governments funding the A380. As agreed upon under WTO/GATT rules 33% of the funding for A380 comes from European Governments in the form of low cost loans. The rest has been raised by EADS on the open market (Primarliy from European and American banks with a smattering of Japanese loans). If Boeing/The US Government/Boeings unions feel that is being violated they are more than welcome to go to the WTO and get a ruling. Hasn't really happened yet, because they know thier case is week.

If Boeing fails on a design they fail to exist....that is a pretty good excuse. When is the last time Boeing came out with a totally new aircraft? Hmmmm...that would be 1995 I believe. How many Airbus aircraft have come out since then....quite a few more than 1. So I guess the fear of failure and the big bad Airbus is holding us poor Americans down. If you want to come out ahead in a competitive market (emphasize competitive) you need to take risks. If you are unwilling to do so, step aside and let the youngsters have at it. Boeing

2. Thier is a big difference between dumping and subsidies. Under WTO rules dumping roughly equates to selling a product in a foriegn market at below cost or below local market costs. That is not = to subsidies. Don't put words in my mouth or try and equate two distinct concepts.

Airbus did recieve substantial subsidies during the start up phase from 1970 to 1990. That was changed in 1992 with the new agreements agreed upon with the US. Notice it was only after that agreement where the direct subsidies were replaced with a max of 33% development loans that Airbus started taking huge amounts of market share away from Boeing?? Boeing dropped the ball. Why has Airbus been the only one using a ful CAD design process since 1990 while Boeing is only now catching up? Why has Airbus had common cockpits since 1990 or so while Boeing still does not. DO you have any idea how appealing common cockpits are to airlines and cargo carriers? Why has Airbus been using fully computerized instrumented diagnostics since at least the mid 90's in all its new offerings, while Boeing still relys on trace it down and find it yourself service checklists and diagrams (of a non cad designed aircraft mind you).

Also Airbus has heavily invested in economic advantage packages with purchasing countries. Good examples are domestic manufacturing contracts with Hindustan aircraft, as well as cross licensing deals with Swiss airlines. They will bring jobs and work to the country in question as part of selling thier aircaft and in the process may actually reduce the cost of the final product due to reduced labor and infrastructure costs even when startup costs are taken into account.. Boeing has never felt the need to do this before in commercial aviation and dropped the ball big time on these incentives which have seriously helped Airbuses penetration in 3rd world and other poorer nations.

As to subsidies, Airbus had them and now they have low cost loans which may amount to a subsidy.

However, Boeing has massive defense contracts which subsidize a lot of thier R+D, not to mention huge tax breaks and other incentives from local governments which amount to subsidies.

I can only wonder how loud the moaning would be if the boeing was geting low interest loans from the federal goverment for product development. I certainly know european countries do not give tax breaks to bring business to their area.

And lower US taxes are not a subsidy, they are just lower taxes.

And as far a defense contract being counted a subsidies, I dont recall the military transport using commercial designs.

I dont have a real big problem with the EU starting airbus, but it is time for airbus to stand on its own.

1. A package of tax breaks and incentives to a particular company or industry is not technically a subsidy, but the effect is the same. If I am going to reduce the operating costs of a particular industry through legislation, that has the same effect as if I were giving them money directly. BTW: You seem to be conveniently missing out on the fact that the US does heavily subsizdes basic research and critical Industries. A few examples: The NSF grants which total billions of dollars a year to private companies and research institutions. The Export Import Bank, The Overseas Private Investment Corporation, The Maritime Administration(only reason economically uncompetative US shipyards exist besides defense contracts) Go down to Pascagoula Mississippi sometime and tell me that the US military isn't subsidizing the US shipbuilding industry, The Small Business Administration, DARPA, shall I go on???

2. You don't know much about aviation do you. No, a 777 is not based directly on a military design. Don't be obtuse.


Engines, avionics, materials, production and prototyping methodologies are all generally paid for initially by military contracts and then transferred over to the civillian sector in the US. This is how Boeing saves a lot of R+D money on the civillian side. The DOD and the US taxpayer pay just about 100% of Boeings advanced R+D work which eventually trickles down into the commercial side. However, inexplicably Boeing failed to transfer over many many military technologies in the 1990s until Airbus started to kick thier ass with better aircraft at competiive prices without onerous terms such as 20 year exclusive contracts.

Yes the 777 and c-17 are both planes. The 777 was just easier to design as the requirements are much easier.
They have fewer common points than you think.

1. You completely ignored my first rebuttal.

2. Not to be offensive, but you know nothing about commercial or military aircraft development and acceptence testing. How exactly are you defining easier??

Do you realize that the 777 was the first commercial twin engine aircraft to recieve ETOPS certification? (Which I still don't trust) If I am going to be doing ETOPS particularly on a polar route, I want four damn engines by god. With the largest production jet engine ever made. 110,000 lbs of thrust more than those of all 4 of the orginal 747 engines. The amount of testing and design work that went into just the engines is staggering (and the basis for all US commercial jet engine technology is military funded R+D). Do you have any idea of the differences in airframe and engine hours between commercial and military aircraft. Most military aircraft would fall apart if they had to be flown as much as commercial aircraft and that includes the C-17. Fuel consumption needs are also completely different as the military has the option of air-air refueling and they are far less worried about fuel costs. Payload modularity and occupant comfort...completely different. Just the noise reduction technology in the 777 is far more complex than in the C-17. Sure, it can't land on a 3,000 ft unprepared strip but that doesn't mean it was easier to design. The maintenance and support requirements are completely different. Apples and oranges. Saying that the 777 was easier to design demonstrates a lack of understandning of the technology and the certifcation processes.

As to the transfer of technology and absorption of initial costs. Fly by wire control systems in 777...hmmm straight from military work. Glass cockpits...straight from military work.... Avionics system....same. Engines...military.

I think you just proved my point about military and commecial designs being different. Military aircraft often have more absurd requirements than their civilian counterparts

Yes out goverment does fund research, but it does not however give or loan money to boeing to do commercial jet design. Well at least not yet. If boeing makes this work
BWB design, I will have to change my thoughts on defense contracts being a subsidy.

I don't understand you. What do you mean absurd?? They have widely different requirements, but that doesn't make any of them absurd. Many people thought that a wide body heavy jet being able to fly 180min on a single engine was absurd. I think I have demonstrated that your comment about designing the 777 being "easier" whatever the hell that means is the only proven absurd thing in this entire thread.

WTH does them being different have anything to do with it?? Of course they are different. Any two year old child can see that they are differnt. We are talking about military contracts funding the underlying research and development that forms the basis for civillian industry in this case commercial aircraft. Whether you want to admit it or not even if the US fovernment doesn't make loans to Boeing it does pay Boeing billions each year to develop technologies. Boeing then gets to keep these technologies, underlying patents, licenses and use them in thier commercial aircraft no questions asked. The European subsidies and now loans are only a small fraction of the money the defense department has pumped into the US aerospace industry directly or indirectly. Stick your head in the sand all you want and whine when someone is kicking your ass. I prefer to build a better product and I see no signs that Boeing has "gotten it" yet.

I dont disagree boeing has issues in the commercial jet world. I dont think they have innovated enough in the past 10 or 20 years.
They have made a progressily better aluminum tube with wings, but that is about it and that is essentiatly what the a380 is going to be.
The sonic cruiser was the first glimer of innovation from boeing in a while and they killed it(it was not what the airlines wanted anyway).
The a380 will probably make a nice a long haul plane, but i doubt many airports are going to take the bit on redoing their infrastructure just so people can board this plan. Meanwhile the boeing 737 will likely remain the meat of boeings sales because it just works and fits well in many of the airlines routes. ANd i dont doubt that once military technology exists in these designs, but I doubt the numbers are as high as you think they are.


I guess we can also accuse airbus of using military subsidies as well since there now exists the airbus a400M. Which airbus refused to use US engines that require less maintance, fuel and cost less.

The proposed Tp-400D6 engine bid (second bid) was at least 10% below Pratt and Whitneys bid and those performance specs are not accurate.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

I guess we can also accuse airbus of using military subsidies as well since there now exists the airbus a400M. Which airbus refused to use US engines that require less maintance, fuel and cost less.

The proposed Tp-400D6 engine bid (second bid) was at least 10% below Pratt and Whitneys bid and those performance specs are not accurate.

Did pratt and Whitney get a second bid after airbus ordered them drop their price at least 20%?

 

[freegeeks]

Charrisson,

You can keep b*tching about airbus all what you want but the fact is that Boeing has no case against them.

Like I said before you see the WTO decision as something anti-american.

tnitsuj has given enough reasons why Boeing is losing market share against airbus.
In the end Boeing is losing market share for the same reason the US steel industry is not competitive on the world market.
If you fail to innovate and modernize it's going to bite you in the a$$ real hard.

The European steel industry went to big changes in the 70's and 80's. Thousands of steel workers lost their job because
of reorganizations. The US steel industry failed to do this and is in big problems now.

simple...

 

[Czar]

damn you quoting bastards! 😛