World Trade Organization declares government subsidies to Airbus unfair

[Schadenfroh]

Text

The WTO has found that loans from European governments to Airbus were not only unfair subsidies but in some cases violated a tougher ban on export aid

The United States broadly won its case against European Union research and development funding for Airbus, as well as infrastructure projects

I wonder what ramifications this has in regards to US government aid / loans to various corporations that export goods / services abroad. Either way, it looks like Boeing finally has some good news. It is a shame that Airbus lost the contract for the refueling tankers for the USAF, but I guess protectionism goes both ways.

 

[txrandom]

How long until the WTO finds the subsidies to GM and Chrysler unfair?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: txrandom
How long until the WTO finds the subsidies to GM and Chrysler unfair?

Last I saw, GM and Chrysler sales were down, even with a Cash 4 Clunkers injections raising nearly everyone else. The other manufacturers are probably glad that the government stepped in with this "meddled" bankruptcy....sales have fallen for both since it happened!

As for the Boeing situation, I think I saw where Airbus has to repay $4,000,000,000 from the subsidies. That's a large chunk of change.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Text

The WTO has found that loans from European governments to Airbus were not only unfair subsidies but in some cases violated a tougher ban on export aid

The United States broadly won its case against European Union research and development funding for Airbus, as well as infrastructure projects

I wonder what ramifications this has in regards to US government aid / loans to various corporations that export goods / services abroad. Either way, it looks like Boeing finally has some good news. It is a shame that Airbus lost the contract for the refueling tankers for the USAF, but I guess protectionism goes both ways.

I agree. Didn't the European governments bring a similar WTO suit against Boeing a few years back? Also, iirc, Airbus/EADS may still get the tanker contract. The original contract/bidding process was declared unfair and will have to be redone. I hope it does, as my hometown (Mobile, AL) will be where the tankers will be built should they re-land the contract. Please correct me if the tanker deal has been resigned completely over to Boeing...

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: txrandom
How long until the WTO finds the subsidies to GM and Chrysler unfair?

Which ones? Are you referring to C4C (which heavily benefited foreign automakers, too) or the structured bankruptcies of GM/Chrysler? I don't think those count as subsidies. Or is it something else?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Good news, it was obvious to everyone outside of Europeans.

 

[Schadenfroh]

I hope it does, as my hometown (Mobile, AL) will be where the tankers will be built should they re-land the contract. Please correct me if the tanker deal has been resigned completely over to Boeing...

Same, but I am biased as well. I am from the Hattiesburg area and any major influx of manufacturing into the Mobile area will be a boon to suppliers located in my home area.

 

[OutHouse]

It is a shame that Airbus lost the contract for the refueling tankers for the USAF, but I guess protectionism goes both ways.

no its not a shame. American Military equipment should be made by Americans and American companies period.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Citrix

It is a shame that Airbus lost the contract for the refueling tankers for the USAF, but I guess protectionism goes both ways.

no its not a shame. American Military equipment should be made by Americans and American companies period.

Airbus may be primarily European, but the primary facilities where it will really be built will be here in the US. Also, what is so unamerican about defense contractors such as Northrop Grumman, which is just as much a part of EADS as Airbus is? I'd like to see how Boeing, which sources its parts and manufacturing all over the world (see the 787 disaster) would provide more or less jobs here in teh USA building their version... This isn't an issue of American companies/labor vs. others.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Airbus may be primarily European, but the primary facilities where it will really be built will be here in the US. Also, what is so unamerican about defense contractors such as Northrop Grumman, which is just as much a part of EADS as Airbus is? I'd like to see how Boeing, which sources its parts and manufacturing all over the world (see the 787 disaster) would provide more or less jobs here in teh USA building their version... This isn't an issue of American companies/labor vs. others.

northrup grumman is owned by EADS now?

 

[DivideBYZero]

Many a stealth subsidy has been given to Boeing. Get over it.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
Many a stealth subsidy has been given to Boeing. Get over it.

Aribus has complained that Boeing gets subsidies via military contracts.

Is this what you mean, or are you talking about something else.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
Many a stealth subsidy has been given to Boeing. Get over it.

Aribus has complained that Boeing gets subsidies via military contracts.

Is this what you mean, or are you talking about something else.

Yes.

 

[Druidx]

This is an empty paper win for Boeing, nothing else.
The European goverments had already said they would still supply launch aid for the a350 regardless of the outcome of the case.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Airbus may be primarily European, but the primary facilities where it will really be built will be here in the US. Also, what is so unamerican about defense contractors such as Northrop Grumman, which is just as much a part of EADS as Airbus is? I'd like to see how Boeing, which sources its parts and manufacturing all over the world (see the 787 disaster) would provide more or less jobs here in teh USA building their version... This isn't an issue of American companies/labor vs. others.

northrup grumman is owned by EADS now?

No, but they were a major partner with EADS to build this aircraft. EADS would be a major subcontractor but Northrop Grumman would be running the show.

On 29 February 2008, the United States Air Force awarded a $35 billion contract for aerial refueling tankers (the KC-45) to Northrop Grumman, with EADS as a major subcontractor. The contract, one of the largest created by the Department of Defense, is initially valued at $35 billion but has the potential to grow to $100 billion. It is also a sign of the growing influence of foreign suppliers within the Pentagon and breaks a relationship that has lasted decades with Boeing, which had built the bulk of the existing tanker fleet and had fought hard to land the new contract.

Under the contract, Northrop Grumman and EADS would build a fleet of 179 planes, based on the existing Airbus 330, to provide in-air refueling to military aircraft, from fighter jets to cargo planes. While final assembly of the craft would take place at an Airbus plant near Mobile, Alabama, parts would come from suppliers across the globe.

Source