NationStates Jolt Archive


Boeing subsidies versus Airbus.

Via Ferrata
04-06-2005, 03:15
Most readers here of the international business papers will have read this week the news about the fight between Boeing and the (not a French brend like uninformed people think, but) joint venture of some private constructors in the EU under the name of Airbus.

This week, the Wall Street Journal, The NY Times, Fox News (for the "believers" ), El Pais, BBC World, Le Monde and many others gave the latest news about this trade war.

Both the EU and the US agriculture are depending on vast subsidies, some countries in the EU more (the newcommers that recieve the West EU money) then others , a policy that destroys the third world. But the US does the same and more sneaky, it is about equal, wich means disgusting for both.

Now we see the numbers of cash spend under subsidies towards Boeing and under the form lending towards Airbus. The self proclaimed champ of non subsidies, the US, is cheating here, like the facts show us, it is attacking the most modern and more clean airplaine in the world thanks of the subsidies. Subsidies needed to counter the clients choice. Besides the technological fact that the Boeing can transport lesser people and combined with its old technology engines and design, it was doomed without the classic US goverment subsidies. Subsidies that are way unfair according US, UK and other pro US business papers. Most people find it strange that the US is always a bit USSR Stalinist in this.

Facts are:

Since 1992, the US gave 23,4 billion € (29 billion $) to Boeing. Money that came out of the funds of NASA and Defense(!).
In the same period (13 years!) ), Airbus received a start capital under the form of a lend of only 3,7 billion €, for the development of their plaine. Not comming under the form of unfair subsidies like in the US, but as a lend on wich it is obligated to pay rents.
Rents that are allways paied back by Airbus according,(the political pro US) Mr Mandelson, the British EU-comissionar of trade, also according investors and financial press worldwide.

I think that both systems in subsidies towards agriculture are wrong, it only blocks the market for the South and even worse, we dump our overstock on their markets like the Chinese dump textile in the west. Result is that local growers don't have a chance. Even worse, the EU raises import taxes (US to btw) for the third world. Both Us and EU are guilty here.

BUT the Boeing subsidies versus Airbus is something in the west. Another example that the US also doesn't follow the rules of a free market. More examples can be found in the meat sector in wich the EU wants clean and non hormone threated food versus the US unhealthy cancer meat.

Your opinion on the US subsidies that are against all regulations while Airbus has to pay and Boeing only exist because of the state instead of the quality of its product on the free market on witch it seems doomed?
Your opinion on the subsidies that are killing the third world?

Thank you for a polite and argumented post.
Regards,
Isanyonehome
04-06-2005, 03:30
My opinion is that anyone who thinks they can understand/explain/critisize the subsidies given by either the US or the EU in a few hundred words is beyond help.

Lawyers spend entire careers trying to make heads or tails of this, and you think you are going to do it in 1 small post?
Harlesburg
04-06-2005, 03:33
They have done it at least twice before once with the SR-53 best JetFighter of the early fifties
Disraeliland
04-06-2005, 03:39
"US gave "

Gave, or exchanged for products and paying for R&D?

Boeing's military market is huge, Airbus has sold a few converted airliners as tanker transports.
Via Ferrata
04-06-2005, 03:40
.

Lawyers spend entire careers trying to make heads or tails of this, and you think you are going to do it in 1 small post?

That is exactly the kind of uninformed words that don't make a discussion, try better in your provocations next time.
Via Ferrata
04-06-2005, 03:45
"US gave "



Boeing's military market is huge, Airbus has sold a few converted airliners as tanker transports.
Out of topic.
BTW, inform yourself a bit about the market. "a few coneverted airliners" Are you retarded or just stupid? It is all about cash you know, and those millitary Boeings are also subsidies btw!

BTW, Airbus still sells more because it is ahead in technology on the world market.
Both, very infantile posts regarding the topic :confused: Can't handle it or just uninformed?
Leffler Idols
04-06-2005, 03:47
Biased as I am, I gotta side with Boeing here. Airbus is getting subsidies declaed illegal and ruining American jobs. Boeing doesnt do that- or it least it does it less blatantly, for which it gets my respect.
Isanyonehome
04-06-2005, 03:48
Are you the relative of an Airbus emloyee? Look at your posts. Do you have some sort of anger management issue?
Bushrepublican liars
04-06-2005, 03:53
Biased as I am, I gotta side with Boeing here. Airbus is getting subsidies declaed illegal and ruining American jobs. Boeing doesnt do that- or it least it does it less blatantly, for which it gets my respect.

Before jumping in, try reading the facts that are posted. It is Boeing that is getting the subsidies and ruins EU jobs. Facts are facts, Boeing loses jobs because of its retarded R&D, they lost it already 10 years ago. And even when our goverment is pushing all those illegal and unfair subsidies in Boeing, it will lose because the plaine is not as good is the latest non subs. Airbus. Plain facts, we have to be honest.
CSW
04-06-2005, 03:54
"US gave "

Gave, or exchanged for products and paying for R&D?

Boeing's military market is huge, Airbus has sold a few converted airliners as tanker transports.
Boeing was pretty much handed its contracts on a silver platter.
Isanyonehome
04-06-2005, 04:33
Why are you allways such a retard, The person gave a informative post (better then anything in your life here) and asked a reply in a decent way. Jezus, you're such a loser by being unable to post something decent. Go to mam and try to read a decent paper instead of Dumbsville.

Wow, what a brilliant response you made. I am completely swayed by the way all of the facets of your argument piece together. You know what, I am too disinterested in this inane topic to even play along further. If you want to believe one company has more subsidies than the other then thats your business

And as to Bushrepublican liars, I assume you at least pretend to have more brain wattage in RL. Please tell me you are in juniour high, it would be horrible if you were an adult and spoke/wrote the way you do.
Lostdom
04-06-2005, 04:34
Most readers here of the international business papers will have read this week the news about the fight between Boeing and the (not a French brend like uninformed people think, but) joint venture of some private constructors in the EU under the name of Airbus.

This week, the Wall Street Journal, The NY Times, Fox News (for the "believers" ), El Pais, BBC World, Le Monde and many others gave the latest news about this trade war.

Both the EU and the US agriculture are depending on vast subsidies, some countries in the EU more (the newcommers that recieve the West EU money) then others , a policy that destroys the third world. But the US does the same and more sneaky, it is about equal, wich means disgusting for both.

Now we see the numbers of cash spend under subsidies towards Boeing and under the form lending towards Airbus. The self proclaimed champ of non subsidies, the US, is cheating here, like the facts show us, it is attacking the most modern and more clean airplaine in the world thanks of the subsidies. Subsidies needed to counter the clients choice. Besides the technological fact that the Boeing can transport lesser people and combined with its old technology engines and design, it was doomed without the classic US goverment subsidies. Subsidies that are way unfair according US, UK and other pro US business papers. Most people find it strange that the US is always a bit USSR Stalinist in this.

Facts are:

Since 1992, the US gave 23,4 billion € (29 billion $) to Boeing. Money that came out of the funds of NASA and Defense(!).
In the same period (13 years!) ), Airbus received a start capital under the form of a lend of only 3,7 billion €, for the development of their plaine. Not comming under the form of unfair subsidies like in the US, but as a lend on wich it is obligated to pay rents.
Rents that are allways paied back by Airbus according,(the political pro US) Mr Mandelson, the British EU-comissionar of trade, also according investors and financial press worldwide.

I think that both systems in subsidies towards agriculture are wrong, it only blocks the market for the South and even worse, we dump our overstock on their markets like the Chinese dump textile in the west. Result is that local growers don't have a chance. Even worse, the EU raises import taxes (US to btw) for the third world. Both Us and EU are guilty here.

BUT the Boeing subsidies versus Airbus is something in the west. Another example that the US also doesn't follow the rules of a free market. More examples can be found in the meat sector in wich the EU wants clean and non hormone threated food versus the US unhealthy cancer meat.

Your opinion on the US subsidies that are against all regulations while Airbus has to pay and Boeing only exist because of the state instead of the quality of its product on the free market on witch it seems doomed?
Your opinion on the subsidies that are killing the third world?

Thank you for a polite and argumented post.
Regards,

This all very good, but i'd like to see a few things added to this list. How much does Airbus make from its defensive side? Once you find it you'll notice it's larger than than Boeing's. Second what subsides are Airbus getting? I know that they have some, but have no clue how much.

You guys should also know the reason why Boeing is against the subsudies, if a venture successful airbus has to pay it back, but if the project fails they don't. There's nothing wrong with launch aid that has to be paid back, afterall creating a new product is expensive and quite a risk. Its the risk part that Boeing has a problem with. Boeing wants to level playing feild, they can't biuld model that doesn't sell, Airbus can and has.
Lostdom
04-06-2005, 04:37
Boeing was pretty much handed its contracts on a silver platter.

Not quite, Boeing is up against some fairly tough competition for contracts. Lately its been on losing end. Lockheed, Raytheon, and Northgroup have been doing quite well.
Disraeliland
04-06-2005, 09:21
"Out of topic.
BTW, inform yourself a bit about the market. "a few coneverted airliners" Are you retarded or just stupid? It is all about cash you know, and those millitary Boeings are also subsidies btw!"

Utter horseshit.

It is not about cash, it is about giving money for nothing on one hand, and exchanging money for goods and services on the other. You do know the difference between giving someone money for nothing, and buying something?

Perhaps you go into shops, put your money on the counter, and walk out empty handed.

Airbus's military sales thus far consist of converted airliners, and an airlift aircraft that hasn't reached the prototype stage.

Boeing's military sales are huge, and consist of a large range of products.

Look here, unless you're too stupid to click a link: Boeing Integrated Defence Systems (http://boeing.com/ids/flash.html)

I'll make it simple.

Government gives company money in exchange for goods= purchase, not subsidy.

Government gives company money for nothing=subsidy.

Start proving that Boeing are being subsidised, rather than having their products bought.
Phylum Chordata
04-06-2005, 09:39
So E.U. and U.S. taxpayers are paying money so I can have cheaper air travel? Gee, thanks, E.U. and U.S. but you really shouldn't. Not with your ageing populations and huge budget deficits. I can afford to shell out a little extra for airtickets. You don't have to subsidise me.
Westmorlandia
04-06-2005, 09:49
It seems to me that both companies get massive subsidies, whether explicit or hidden. But once the WTO gets involved, as it seems it now will, we'll get a much better idea and this argument can be settled. We should resurrect this topic when they make their findings. That'll be in, ooh, about 3 years time. No rush then.
Isanyonehome
04-06-2005, 10:17
That is exactly the kind of uninformed words that don't make a discussion, try better in your provocations next time.

Do you actually understand the words you used? Because it does not appear so. Stating that the issue is complicated = provocation?? Thats a bizarre way to interpret my statements.
Cadillac-Gage
04-06-2005, 10:39
Do you actually understand the words you used? Because it does not appear so. Stating that the issue is complicated = provocation?? Thats a bizarre way to interpret my statements.

He seems to understand press releases and rhetoric. The difference between what Boeing gets, and what Airbus gets, is really quite simple:

Boeing has to perform, it has to deliver on Contracts or it loses the money, and the contract.

Since McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing out with Boeing's money, (the merger in '97) MD's bad rep with the U.S. Navy has cost the combined company four major contracts, including the JSF contract. (Boeing had the better design, but Lockheed is a proven performer...)

This is pretty pathetic when you realize that Northrup-Grumman is about a third the size of McBoeing, yet manages to beat them out on contract after contract-and it's all the fault of the Douglas Management brought in by the Merger. (McDonnell Douglas was staggering into the bankruptcy grave under Harry Stonecipher...)

But that's all U.S. side domestic shit. Here's the big difference: Boeing (or anyone else who wants to get big, fat, military contracts inside the u.s.) has to deliver a product that's at least close to spec to get the $$$ from uncle sugar. Airbus just "Gets" the money.


As for the original poster's claim that Airbus is not a jobs-programme for France, how many assembly plants are located in Germany, Britain, Italy, or Spain?

On a separate note-QUALITY ISSUES:

How 'bout the way that Airbus doesn't corrosion-coat their internal structure fully (resulting in a vertical stab landing on the ground in New Jersey recently)...
Why doesn't Airbus permit Customer Inspection during the construction process? When I worked at Boeing, building 747's and 777's, we had real, live, representatives of the Airlines buying come onto the planes at each major step of the build process. Airbus doesn't do that... when you check records for crashes due to mechanical failure, and equalize for time-in-service, Airbus' planes are hella more hazardous to the passenger than Boeing birds-the only reason they've had fewer crashes, is that the company is decades younger.
Airbus couldn't price what they price for their product, without cutting corners and getting some sugar straight from the source. I've worked on Airbus birds. Brand new planes that have had more 'replacement' rework done on them than thirty year old used birds.

nasty.

Further: did you know that the FAA had to change the FAR's in the Seventies to allow Airbus to enter the U.S. Market? FAA Regs, like most Regulations and Laws, are subject to change-by-treaty. Airbus doesn't have to get an FAA cert using the full process to sell their aluminum shit over here. Every other manufacturer has to do this.
Ianarabia
04-06-2005, 10:40
As i understand it this loan given by the EU to Airbus is to cover the R&D cost of the A380. This loan has to be paid back with interest. (very low interest)

Why do i get the feeling that this in Boeing and other worrying about their future. It's been clear that Airbus has overtaken Boeing in recent years and seem to be pulling ahead, it also seems pretty certain that on long haul routes between large cnetres Airbus will have the market all to themselves.

Certainly i don't believe in States subsidies but in this case i think it's America doing what it's always done, when the competion gets too much, try subsidies, when the opposition still beats you and then gives subsidies, bitch to the WTO, then when all else fails try protectionism.
Via Ferrata
04-06-2005, 18:32
Bump
Swimmingpool
04-06-2005, 19:22
Why do you think that the left-wing posters here are on the side of Airbus and the right-wingers on the side of Boeing? Now that would be an interesting discussion!
Wurzelmania
04-06-2005, 19:34
<<As for the original poster's claim that Airbus is not a jobs-programme for France, how many assembly plants are located in Germany, Britain, Italy, or Spain? >>

Well seeing as Hawker make the wings and Rolls-Royce do the engines, I believe someone in Germany is responsible for the avionics/cockpit. That's not final construction no, but it is a few of the non-french companies making money and providing jobs.

I don't know the precise breakdown here but Boeing do plenty of military work, they are (last I knew, I may be behind here) trying to make the next gen US fighter (like they need one). So it's perfectly possible that they are in fact above board.
Portu Cale MK3
04-06-2005, 19:51
<<As for the original poster's claim that Airbus is not a jobs-programme for France, how many assembly plants are located in Germany, Britain, Italy, or Spain? >>

Well seeing as Hawker make the wings and Rolls-Royce do the engines, I believe someone in Germany is responsible for the avionics/cockpit. That's not final construction no, but it is a few of the non-french companies making money and providing jobs.

I don't know the precise breakdown here but Boeing do plenty of military work, they are (last I knew, I may be behind here) trying to make the next gen US fighter (like they need one). So it's perfectly possible that they are in fact above board.


The parts of Airbus planes are made all throught Europe. The final assembly is made in either Toulouse or Hamburg, depending on the type of plane.
Isanyonehome
04-06-2005, 19:53
Why do you think that the left-wing posters here are on the side of Airbus and the right-wingers on the side of Boeing? Now that would be an interesting discussion!

I am definately more right wing than left, but I have no opinion as to whether Boeing or Airbus receives more subsidies or which planes are better(airbusses seem to be more comfortable while the boeings travel faster in my experience...or maybe I have that backwards)

I dont see how this is a left right thing.
Via Ferrata
04-06-2005, 20:05
Why do you think that the left-wing posters here are on the side of Airbus and the right-wingers on the side of Boeing? Now that would be an interesting discussion!

Says who? Can you prove that? Sources?
Keep on posting your unfactual bullshit.
Nadkor
04-06-2005, 20:27
who cares. both get subsidies in some form, so neither side really has a leg to stand on
Cadillac-Gage
04-06-2005, 20:37
Why do you think that the left-wing posters here are on the side of Airbus and the right-wingers on the side of Boeing? Now that would be an interesting discussion!

It's not that simple a split. To be fair, the graft for Airbus is international- the tubes, clevices, and linkages for the control components (last I checked) were made by Tyee, which is in Everett, Washington, at Paine Field (they also make Boeing parts, Lockheed, and Grumman...), and in Belgium (one plant, they can't close it due to Belgian laws, and they can't lay off anyone when the company comes up short... so guess, just guess, who got layoffs when the aviation market hiccupped?)
Some Interior components are made in Marysville (about ten minutes away from my house...), and (god, I can't remember the name of the place...) there's a fabbing shop in Monroe that makes parts for most of the major aviation firms...

This, incidentally, is how I know about the cost of Aircraft manufacturing, and How one can prove that Airbus is underpricing the market, and being helped to do this via subsidy. Commercial Aircraft are pretty tight as far as profit-margine goes-there's not a lot of slack even though the sticker-prices are double to triple digit millions in US dollars. When you factor in shipping costs for outsourced parts, raw materials costs, Labour costs, Certification costs (which one where Airbus gets a price break from the U.S. Government as a Treaty item, this should go away...but it won't), add in time-spent, and Airbus should be in the red. They're not. Subsidies.

Boeing, on the other hand, should be in the 'black' but aren't. Mismanagement.
OceanDrive
04-06-2005, 20:47
Thursday, 9 September, 2004
A fresh trade dispute has broken out between the US and the European Union, this time over the subsidies that the two sides pay to the aircraft industry.

The US claims that the financial support European governments provide to aircraft maker Airbus is in breach of world trade rules, while the EU says the same is true of Washington's subsidies for Boeing.

While transatlantic trade disputes are nothing new, this latest spat threatens to put all previous ones in the shade. BBC News Online takes a closer look.

How did this row start?

The US and the EU have been sniping away at each other for years on this issue, although outright hostilities have until now been held in check by a 1992 agreement between the two sides setting limits on aircraft subsidies.

Matters took a turn for the worse on Wednesday when the US tore up the 1992 agreement, and made a formal complaint to the World Trade Organisation over the EU's support for Airbus.

The EU, not to be outdone, responded by filing its own complaint over the financial assistance the US government provides to Boeing.

Each side claims that the other has breached the terms of the now-defunct deal on subsidies.

Why has the battle broken out at this particular time?

There are several factors that have brought matters to a head.

Airbus, after years of playing second fiddle to Boeing, has recently started to outpace its old rival.

The European company sold more passenger jets than Boeing for the first time ever last year.

The US says this demonstrates that the traditional justification for Airbus' subsidies - that it is a young company struggling to compete in a cut-throat industry - is no longer valid.

The EU retorts that Airbus' success reflects a steady decline at Boeing rather than regular injections of public money.

Secondly, Airbus and Boeing are both gearing up for the launch of new super sized passenger jets - Boeing's 7E7 "Dreamliner" and Airbus' A380 super jumbo - and their success is critical to both companies' future performance.

Each side claims that a large chunk of the other's subsidies has been channelled towards developing these new-generation aircraft.

Finally, there is the US presidential election, now less than a month away, to consider.

The EU has claimed that Washington's complaint to the WTO is a politically-motivated attempt to make President George W Bush look tough on trade ahead of the poll, although US officials have vehemently denied this.

What happens now?

Under WTO rules, the EU and the US now have 60 days to settle their differences amicably before formal dispute resolution procedures kick in.

However, the size and complexity of the case has raised questions over whether WTO is equipped to handle it.

Under normal circumstances, the winning side in a WTO dispute is entitled to impose trade sanctions on the loser unless it abandons the practices that gave rise to the dispute.

In the worst case scenario, the EU and the US would both win, paving the way for a ferocious round of two-way sanctions which could seriously dent transatlantic trade, harming the European and American economies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3722888.stm
Vaitupu
04-06-2005, 21:24
. Besides the technological fact that the Boeing can transport lesser people and combined with its old technology engines and design, it was doomed without the classic US goverment subsidies.




okay, neither Boeing nor Airbus design the engines used on their plans. Those are designed by corporations like Pratt and Whitney, Rolls Royce, and General Electric.
SimNewtonia
04-06-2005, 21:35
Doubt that any of this really matters, as in a few years, the airlines are gonna start going down the gurgler... permanently.
Andaluciae
04-06-2005, 21:58
You have to remember that Boeing builds military equipment for the US military, be it in the form of the new F-22 Raptor fighter jet, the incredibly expensive B-2 stealth bomber, the Avenger SAM system, upgrades to the aging B-52 bomber, airborne refueler tankers, heavy lift transports and the like.

Beyond that, Boeing also builds rockets for NASA such as the Delta series of rockets, and involvement in the space shuttle project.

The money Boeing receives is typically for these military and government related projects. Often times receiving support during the R&D phase of a project, for a product that will be bought by the US government afterwards.
Via Ferrata
05-06-2005, 03:48
okay, neither Boeing nor Airbus design the engines used on their plans. Those are designed by corporations like Pratt and Whitney, Rolls Royce, and General Electric.

Well done :rolleyes: , like we don't know that. What is your point? :rolleyes: BTW you forgot a lot of other important engine constructors.
Via Ferrata
05-06-2005, 03:55
Thursday, 9 September, 2004
A fresh trade dispute has broken out between the US and the European Union, this time over the subsidies that the two sides pay to the aircraft industry.

The US claims that the financial support European governments provide to aircraft maker Airbus is in breach of world trade rules, while the EU says the same is true of Washington's subsidies for Boeing.

While transatlantic trade disputes are nothing new, this latest spat threatens to put all previous ones in the shade. BBC News Online takes a closer look.

How did this row start?

The US and the EU have been sniping away at each other for years on this issue, although outright hostilities have until now been held in check by a 1992 agreement between the two sides setting limits on aircraft subsidies.

Matters took a turn for the worse on Wednesday when the US tore up the 1992 agreement, and made a formal complaint to the World Trade Organisation over the EU's support for Airbus.

The EU, not to be outdone, responded by filing its own complaint over the financial assistance the US government provides to Boeing.

Each side claims that the other has breached the terms of the now-defunct deal on subsidies.

Why has the battle broken out at this particular time?

There are several factors that have brought matters to a head.

Airbus, after years of playing second fiddle to Boeing, has recently started to outpace its old rival.

The European company sold more passenger jets than Boeing for the first time ever last year.

The US says this demonstrates that the traditional justification for Airbus' subsidies - that it is a young company struggling to compete in a cut-throat industry - is no longer valid.

The EU retorts that Airbus' success reflects a steady decline at Boeing rather than regular injections of public money.

Secondly, Airbus and Boeing are both gearing up for the launch of new super sized passenger jets - Boeing's 7E7 "Dreamliner" and Airbus' A380 super jumbo - and their success is critical to both companies' future performance.

Each side claims that a large chunk of the other's subsidies has been channelled towards developing these new-generation aircraft.

Finally, there is the US presidential election, now less than a month away, to consider.

The EU has claimed that Washington's complaint to the WTO is a politically-motivated attempt to make President George W Bush look tough on trade ahead of the poll, although US officials have vehemently denied this.

What happens now?

Under WTO rules, the EU and the US now have 60 days to settle their differences amicably before formal dispute resolution procedures kick in.

However, the size and complexity of the case has raised questions over whether WTO is equipped to handle it.

Under normal circumstances, the winning side in a WTO dispute is entitled to impose trade sanctions on the loser unless it abandons the practices that gave rise to the dispute.

In the worst case scenario, the EU and the US would both win, paving the way for a ferocious round of two-way sanctions which could seriously dent transatlantic trade, harming the European and American economies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3722888.stm

Great post (like allways), well informed Ocean Drive, but in the end it only comes down to the fact that Boeing received since 1992: 23,4 billion € subsidies and Airbus received 3,7 billion € as a lend on wich it pays interests.
That are the facts. The pro US, commisionar M. Mandelson gave those facts that are suscribed by everyone in the business, wether they are US or EU. The numbers can't be argued, those are factual.
Rummania
05-06-2005, 03:58
I live in Seattle, and let me tell you, Boeing's subsidies are intensely complicated and rooted in 50 years of Boeing being the largest company around. They have a lot of influence.
Via Ferrata
05-06-2005, 04:03
They have a lot of influence.

They both have, and it is dirty. The US is as dirty here like the EU in its agriculture subsidies, in wich the EU is more dirty then the US.
BTW, you live in a great region, Seattle, near the great mountains of North America, a place where I want to hike/climb once.

Regards.
OceanDrive
05-06-2005, 04:16
Great post (like allways) Ocean Drive....my turn to congratulate you...

usually when they touch the trade issues...I always bomb them all with the Unfair trade agro subsidies...

but you efectively took out all my firepower on your first post...Well done http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

carry on.

BYW your argument is good...you cant compare $$ Loans to $$ gifts
Via Ferrata
05-06-2005, 04:17
When I worked at Boeing, .[/i]

You're involved and can't be seen as a neutral poster.
My respects but ...
Phylum Chordata
05-06-2005, 04:23
I've just remembered that I've actually taught classes on this. What was it that I was told to do? Oh yeah, get 'em to debate each other and then tell 'em what it says int he textbook. Pity I can't remember what it said in the textbook. Anyone got a textbook on them?
Lacadaemon
05-06-2005, 04:40
Before jumping in, try reading the facts that are posted. It is Boeing that is getting the subsidies and ruins EU jobs. Facts are facts, Boeing loses jobs because of its retarded R&D, they lost it already 10 years ago. And even when our goverment is pushing all those illegal and unfair subsidies in Boeing, it will lose because the plaine is not as good is the latest non subs. Airbus. Plain facts, we have to be honest.

No, and he's lying.

Boeing doesn't get subsidies. It gets R&D defence contracts. The EU claims that these are "unfair subsidies".

On the other hand, airbus got $10 billion to develop the A380. (which is the most useless piece of shit ever to fly).
Via Ferrata
05-06-2005, 04:46
my turn to congratulate you...

usually when they touch the trade issues...I always bomb them all with the Unfair trade agro subsidies...

but you efectively took out all my firepower on your first post...Well done http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

carry on.

Thank you for the kind reply! I am the first to condem our hypocrit EU policy on agriculture. We are dumping our dirty, unsold products (overproduction) in the third world via EU subsidies. And together with that, we also denie the third world a acess on our market because we ask hyper import taxes on those products when they want to export to the EU. That is a pure economic genocide of the EU. It is such a hypocrisy of our "economic fortress". BTW, working as a non French person in the Alps in France, I know some small, clean agriculturs that have to fight here to against those hyper EU suported growers. When there is a mouth claw infaction in one of those "meat facturies" with 1000's cows, scheep aso in their industrial agriculture, all the growers in a a certain area have to kill and destroy their catlle. Allways, those small and non subsided growers (because to small) are paying the bill, they have to kill their uninfected beasts to, a desaster, just for the only one reaseon of the market. I can assure you that those traditional, small farmers are the first one that are vanishing here and are the same people that are against this crazy system that only benifits the agro business and not the people that want to live in a "decent" economy.

A political EU can be great (peace, a common front like the old idea of Schuman and other founding fathers aso.) but today we see a system that is off course not perfect, rejected by nationalisme and other € reasons then the political ones on wich it was all build. Deeply sad about that to.

BTW, where are all the other informed posters on NS now, the old ones (Zepp, Steph and their decent opposites ) are all gone. I am way less on this site because of the lack of a decent debate.

Great that one of the longest posters (you, hat of) is still here.

Kindest regards (and sorry 'bout the typo's of an non English speaker).
Via Ferrata
05-06-2005, 04:54
No, and he's lying.

Boeing doesn't get subsidies. It gets R&D defence contracts. The EU claims that these are "unfair subsidies".

On the other hand, airbus got $10 billion to develop the A380. (which is the most useless piece of shit ever to fly).

Verry uninformed. Try reading something and stop posting such nonsense, a good advise, read the thread and the billions that Boeing received as subsidies while the poor money Airbus received is a start lend and behalve the interests is payed back.

I understand your hate towards Europeans (you, or your parents are btw coming from that continent) but try harder in your provocations next time and try to debate with facts instead of this unfactual bullshit.
Lacadaemon
05-06-2005, 05:02
Verry uninformed. Try reading something and stop posting such nonsense, a good advise, read the thread and the billions that Boeing received as subsidies while the poor money Airbus received is a start lend and behalve the interests is payed back.

I understand your hate towards Europeans (you, or your parents are btw coming from that continent) but try harder in your provocations next time and try to debate with facts instead of this unfactual bullshit.

You're silly, I like you.

I actually worked for European legacy airlines. I know far more about it than you ever will. The EU characterizes government sponsorship of Boeing's millitary aircraft as "subsidies". Airbus has no millitary arm. It get's free money.


The loans to Airbus will never be paid back (A350 anyone).

I am european.
Via Ferrata
05-06-2005, 05:07
You're silly, I like you.

I actually worked for European legacy airlines. I know far more about it than you ever will. The EU characterizes government sponsorship of Boeing's millitary aircraft as "subsidies". Airbus has no millitary arm. It get's free money.


The loans to Airbus will never be paid back (A350 anyone).

I am european.

Beate paupere spiritu est.
Lacadaemon
05-06-2005, 05:16
Beate paupere spiritu est.

Oh, good comeback. :rolleyes:
OceanDrive
05-06-2005, 05:16
I am european.so what?

The loans to Airbus will never be paid back (A350 anyone).
I guess you have a future telling crystal ball... :rolleyes:
OceanDrive
05-06-2005, 05:18
I know far more about it than you ever will. The EU characterizes government sponsorship of Boeing's millitary aircraft as "subsidies".and you call it what? Loans? :D
Lacadaemon
05-06-2005, 05:26
so what?
I guess you have a future telling crystal ball... :rolleyes:

In that it is not flying. Yes.

Funny story: now AirFrance has got all private and shit, it has ditched its Airbus cargo fleet and replaced them with 777 cargo types. Given that in-line maintence is a big cost problem, I very much doubt they can push it off now without the sanction of the biggest European carrier. Frankly, they are about seven or eight years behind.

The A380 will go no-where. At the moment there are no airports that can service it. Further, why buy a long haul airframe with extra capacity, when you cannot fill the smaller ones you already have?

It's big. That's it's only selling point. Per seat it is not cheaper to operate. So what is the point?

Go figure. :rolleyes:

The A350 is a good idea, but it is going to market far to late. Especially now the single airframe model is becoming predominent.




Anyway, Boeing planes air far more fuel efficient and better handling than airbus. Even without subsidies.
Lacadaemon
05-06-2005, 05:30
and you call it what? Loans? :D

No they are not. They are r&d contracts.

Now, if you want my honest opinion, the size of our millitary budget is crippling our economy. But that is a different thread.

At any rate, you can't characterize them as subsidies.
Via Ferrata
05-06-2005, 05:36
At any rate, you can't characterize them as subsidies.

23,4 billion since 1992, subsidies , your agenda doesn't like this but these are the financial numbers! :p You counterspeak your own gov and denie the daylight or (more likely) are just uninformed about the matter. (like you proved)
Airbus: 3,7 billion as a lend.
Andaluciae
05-06-2005, 05:40
23,4 billion since 1992, subsidies , your agenda doesn't like this but these are the financial numbers! :p You counterspeak your own gov and denie the daylight or (more likely) are just uninformed about the matter. (like you proved)
Airbus: 3,7 billion as a lend.
Subsidies that paid for the research for military equipment and space technology the US government would be the only purchaser of.
Via Ferrata
05-06-2005, 05:44
Subsidies that paid for the research for military equipment and space technology the US government would be the only purchaser of.

Try countering the facts:

Now we see the numbers of cash spend under subsidies towards Boeing and under the form lending towards Airbus. The self proclaimed champ of non subsidies, the US, is cheating here, like the facts show us, it is attacking the most modern and more clean airplaine in the world thanks of the subsidies. Subsidies needed to counter the clients choice. Besides the technological fact that the Boeing can transport lesser people and combined with its old technology engines and design, it was doomed without the classic US goverment subsidies. Subsidies that are way unfair according US, UK and other pro US business papers. Most people find it strange that the US is always a bit USSR Stalinist in this.

Facts are:

Since 1992, the US gave 23,4 billion € (29 billion $) to Boeing. Money that came out of the funds of NASA and Defense(!).
In the same period (13 years!) ), Airbus received a start capital under the form of a lend of only 3,7 billion €, for the development of their plaine. Not comming under the form of unfair subsidies like in the US, but as a lend on wich it is obligated to pay rents.
Rents that are allways paied back by Airbus according,(the political pro US) Mr Mandelson, the British EU-comissionar of trade, also according investors and financial press worldwide.

I think that both systems in subsidies towards agriculture are wrong, it only blocks the market for the South and even worse, we dump our overstock on their markets like the Chinese dump textile in the west. Result is that local growers don't have a chance. Even worse, the EU raises import taxes (US to btw) for the third world. Both Us and EU are guilty here.

BUT the Boeing subsidies versus Airbus is something in the west. Another example that the US also doesn't follow the rules of a free market. More examples can be found in the meat sector in wich the EU wants clean and non hormone threated food versus the US unhealthy cancer meat.
Lacadaemon
05-06-2005, 05:58
23,4 billion since 1992, subsidies , your agenda doesn't like this but these are the financial numbers! :p You counterspeak your own gov and denie the daylight or (more likely) are just uninformed about the matter. (like you proved)
Airbus: 3,7 billion as a lend.

:headbang: For Millitary R&D.

If you remove the millitary arm (as the Europeans do by having Panavia as a seperate group), boeing got $0.

In other words, boeing never has, and never will get a penny for commercial airframe design.

Airbus has recieved about $10 billion in non payable loans for the A380.
Vaitupu
05-06-2005, 06:10
Well done :rolleyes: , like we don't know that. What is your point? :rolleyes: BTW you forgot a lot of other important engine constructors.


well, you made it seem as if you didn't know that. You stated that Boeing had outdated engines ("old technology engines"). Well, Airbus gets engines from the SAME corporations. You make it sound like Boeing was at fault for poor engine designs, and this would factor into their eventual failing. And yes, I know that I didn't list every engine manufacturer. That is why I said "desinged by corporations LIKE..." (emphasis added).
Jeruselem
05-06-2005, 06:33
Airbus was never a proper corporation is still owned by the EU effectively.
Boeing is a private company, but as usual the US government bends it's laws to give taxpayers $$$ to it so they can't classify the funds as subsidies.
Via Ferrata
07-06-2005, 16:02
At any rate, you can't characterize them as subsidies.

They are from the most pure subsidies given ever to a company ever. Camouflaged under different flags. R&D is one of them, but the bulk (the numbers mentioned) are pure subsidies and goverment orders under the form of millitary aircraft, bought without given a free competition to other producers.
Disraeliland
07-06-2005, 16:04
So, that's why Boeing won JSF without a fight!

Oh, wait, Lockheed Martin got it.

Via Ferrata, you are the worst sort of forum poster, the illiterate sort.
Manawskistan
07-06-2005, 16:13
Not a single source in this entire thread. Typical of every Boeing/Airbus thread I've ever read on any forum.

GG Nextmap Via Ferrata.
Tactical Grace
07-06-2005, 16:16
I don't really see an over-riding need to play fair.

A healthy domestic industry is of great interest to any nation, be it agriculture, steel, shipping, whatever. Concerns such as aerospace also have national security implications. Airbus is mostly a civilian conglomerate, but there is no denying that a lot of European defence industry players have invested in it. Boeing, well, the military links there go without saying.

I think both the US and EU have legitimate reasons for giving advantages to their respective companies, or seeking to place foreign concerns at a competitive disadvantage. You can see this in America's transparent attempts to shore up a dying and inefficient steel industry, the European Common Agricultural Policy, the US/UK invasion of Iraq (anyone who denies the importance of control of energy resources is a real dumbass), etc, etc.

Subsidies, protectionism, one-sided "free trade", is what global commerce has been about for centuries. It is not about to change, our motives are not any purer than they were when the Honourable East India Company was formed. People are out to win, and if anyone thinks the other side is going to play by the rules, and do likewise, hehe, good luck to them.
Ravenshrike
07-06-2005, 16:17
Both the EU and the US agriculture are depending on vast subsidies, some countries in the EU more (the newcommers that recieve the West EU money) then others , a policy that destroys the third world. But the US does the same and more sneaky, it is about equal, wich means disgusting for both.
Um, I don't know about the case in the EU, but in america most farm subsidies are to keep them from selling all their crops in order to keep the price artificially high. If I remember correctly the same goes for milk.
Kellarly
07-06-2005, 16:21
Airbus has no millitary arm.

Of course it doesn't. Its part of EADS who have separate firms working on separate sections.

@ All

To compare boeing and airbus is kinda rediculous. I even think the arguement over subisidies is daft at best.

Airbus is almost purely a civilian aeroplane builder and a subsidury of EADS. Its EADS that has the huge defence contractors (who are separate companies in themselves), not Airbus.

Boeing is its own company with both a civil and military wing.

Both sides are comparing two different sections (airbus civilian contracts + subsidies vs. boeing civilian contracts + other financial backings) and taking subsidies/guaranteed contracts/various other finincial gains and are having a set to over both their dirty laundries. The only thing that both companies are doing IMHO opinion, is making themselves look like fools.

Oh and btw, I work for another subsidury of EADS, so read into that what you will.
Squi
07-06-2005, 17:32
It seems to me that both companies get massive subsidies, whether explicit or hidden. But once the WTO gets involved, as it seems it now will, we'll get a much better idea and this argument can be settled. We should resurrect this topic when they make their findings. That'll be in, ooh, about 3 years time. No rush then.Obviously you have no idea of how the WTO makes these decisions. A few harrased and underpaid judges who know nothing about the aircraft industry (anyone who has knowledge would be unqualified to judge the case and would thus be disqaulified) will be given more documentation than they could read in a lifetime to just on the initial briefs from the two companies. Then, they will be deludged with about 8 lifetimes worth of reading from concerned parties each presenting arguments and "facts". After reading all this (right) they will be required to look up every precedent cited (and often miscited) in all their reading to see what the existing law is, say 2 lifetimes worth of work there. Finally, they will, under intense pressure to finally render a ruling after 3 years, make a decision based upon however much of the information they actual managed to absorb, while ignoring their day jobs (oh, I forgot to mention that the WTO judges aren't professional judges).

We will have no better idea, however the matter will be settled, sorta. Regardless of how the WTO rules, the other side will probably adopt new types of subsidy which technically does not violate the specific ruling, but is probably still an objectionable subsidy to the other.
OceanDrive
07-06-2005, 18:05
Obviously you have no idea of how the WTO makes these decisions. A few harrased and underpaid judges who know nothing about the aircraft industry (anyone who has knowledge would be unqualified to judge the case and would thus be disqaulified) will be given more documentation than they could read in a lifetime to just on the initial briefs from the two companies. Then, they will be deludged with about 8 lifetimes worth of reading from concerned parties each presenting arguments and "facts". After reading all this (right) they will be required to look up every precedent cited (and often miscited) in all their reading to see what the existing law is, say 2 lifetimes worth of work there. Finally, they will, under intense pressure to finally render a ruling after 3 years, make a decision based upon however much of the information they actual managed to absorb, while ignoring their day jobs (oh, I forgot to mention that the WTO judges aren't professional judges).

We will have no better idea, however the matter will be settled, sorta. Regardless of how the WTO rules, the other side will probably adopt new types of subsidy which technically does not violate the specific ruling, but is probably still an objectionable subsidy to the other.
the easy way out is to say both sides win.
Kibolonia
07-06-2005, 18:11
Why do i get the feeling that this in Boeing and other worrying about their future. It's been clear that Airbus has overtaken Boeing in recent years and seem to be pulling ahead, it also seems pretty certain that on long haul routes between large cnetres Airbus will have the market all to themselves.

Certainly i don't believe in States subsidies but in this case i think it's America doing what it's always done, when the competion gets too much, try subsidies, when the opposition still beats you and then gives subsidies, bitch to the WTO, then when all else fails try protectionism.
Condit began a policy of not chasing the margin to compete with Airbus subsidies, and instead compete by offering planes that were cheaper to fly. The triple 7 and dreamliner are of course the result. Airbus customers probably aren't going to see Airbus planes flying for 25 years either. Then Airbus, in their infinite wisdom, built a plane that almost has to be filled with all kinds of useless crap that doesn't make money, but costs $20K/lb to fly for a year. Genius. And requires expensive retrofits to airports. Not to mention, Airbus already had their EU resolution with respect to Boeings Military business (and the ledgers don't get mixed up, so there is in no sense a subsidy of Boeing the way the Euros are claiming) Boeing transfered a lot of technology to Airbus in the mid-90's for free. Needless to say, the US should have invited a tradewar over that then.

The only "subsidies" Boeing recieves are in things like payroll taxes, property taxes, and the occasional EPA exemption. But those are concessions any large company can, and will, force from any local government.

America hasn't been protectionist for a very long time. To long in my opinion. We should be using our larger market as leverage for the benefit of the American consumer. We've let dumping by foreign multinationals kill whole industries (which the WTO is fine with so long as it's the US that's being dumped on), and the claim is that we're protectionist. So why not acctually be protectionist, and do unto the world as they would do unto us.
Kibolonia
07-06-2005, 18:16
The money Boeing receives is typically for these military and government related projects. Often times receiving support during the R&D phase of a project, for a product that will be bought by the US government afterwards.
Even then it's often not a sure thing. In the ATF program, none of the companies could have afforded to produce a prototype with out a guarantee that they would see some work out of it.
Portu Cale MK3
07-06-2005, 18:29
Condit began a policy of not chasing the margin to compete with Airbus subsidies, and instead compete by offering planes that were cheaper to fly. The triple 7 and dreamliner are of course the result. Airbus customers probably aren't going to see Airbus planes flying for 25 years either. Then Airbus, in their infinite wisdom, built a plane that almost has to be filled with all kinds of useless crap that doesn't make money, but costs $20K/lb to fly for a year. Genius. And requires expensive retrofits to airports. Not to mention, Airbus already had their EU resolution with respect to Boeings Military business (and the ledgers don't get mixed up, so there is in no sense a subsidy of Boeing the way the Euros are claiming) Boeing transfered a lot of technology to Airbus in the mid-90's for free. Needless to say, the US should have invited a tradewar over that then..

The A380 is the most efficient plane ever built. It costs alot to fly, but it also gives a bigger profit margin to its users. And you would do well in remembering that Boeing launched the 747 (which was too big for any airport at the time) without coordenating that launch with the most important airport authorities throught the world, something that Airbus had the trouble to do.


The only "subsidies" Boeing recieves are in things like payroll taxes, property taxes, and the occasional EPA exemption. But those are concessions any large company can, and will, force from any local government.

a) It is true that they don't recieve subsidies, but tax exemptions: But if you talk to any Economist, he will tell you that in the point of view of the state, it is exactly the same thing (imagine that you are selling something for 1$: Is it any diferent that you give someone 1$ so that person buys your thing, or that you just don't force that person to pay?)

b) If any company can force any goverment into concessions, that our democracies are under dire threat.



America hasn't been protectionist for a very long time. To long in my opinion. We should be using our larger market as leverage for the benefit of the American consumer. We've let dumping by foreign multinationals kill whole industries (which the WTO is fine with so long as it's the US that's being dumped on), and the claim is that we're protectionist. So why not acctually be protectionist, and do unto the world as they would do unto us.

Actually, America and the rest of the western world were, until recently, VERY protectionist, against the wishes of poorer nations, that didnt want aid, they just wanted fair trade so that they could develop. That is what is happening now, and everyone in the long term wins. And if you think that "foreign multinationals" are killing whole industries in your country, you should see that most companies that PRODUCE in China, are westerner, not Chinese. In other words, its our own multinationals that are going away.

You can, offcourse, be protectionist. I'm sure the most ineficient American producers would love that, so that they could push higher prices for lower quality on the American consumer, but with any luck, your politicians (excluding the thing-called-bush who is your most protectionist president in years) won't follow the ramblings of your most lazy company CEO's.
Kibolonia
07-06-2005, 19:01
The A380 is the most efficient plane ever built. It costs alot to fly, but it also gives a bigger profit margin to its users. And you would do well in remembering that Boeing launched the 747 (which was too big for any airport at the time) without coordenating that launch with the most important airport authorities throught the world, something that Airbus had the trouble to do.
Only if you can fill it up. And guess what, not going to happen except in the cases of a few very high volume routes. A bar, a gym, a banjo playing albino, dead weight. 20K/lb*yr is why airplane nuts have so much air in the bag.

a) It is true that they don't recieve subsidies, but tax exemptions: But if you talk to any Economist, he will tell you that in the point of view of the state, it is exactly the same thing (imagine that you are selling something for 1$: Is it any diferent that you give someone 1$ so that person buys your thing, or that you just don't force that person to pay?)

b) If any company can force any goverment into concessions, that our democracies are under dire threat.
Local areas compete with each other to provide good jobs for their citizens. One of the ways they do this is by deciding how they want to finance the burden of servicing those people, and industries. The making and excecution decision is ultimately why we form governments. To stay competative, Washington, which already has a Sales tax, has to play ball. In the case of property taxes for large companies, this actually makes a lot of sense, they aren't generally holding it as an investment, but to preserve the opportunity for expansion. As the land generally doesn't require government services without some people using it, collecting taxes on it isn't necessarily appropraite in that context. More over they are exactly the same kinds of "subsidies" Airbus would recieve were they to set up a large manufacturing operation, pretty much anywhere, in the US. They are a consequence of the free market, not of special endorsment by a government. While the low interest loans that Airbus won't necessarily be paying back aren't any kind of consequence of the free market. Ie European governments don't court Boeing offering low interest loans that might well be forgiven.

Actually, America and the rest of the western world were, until recently, VERY protectionist, against the wishes of poorer nations, that didnt want aid, they just wanted fair trade so that they could develop. That is what is happening now, and everyone in the long term wins. And if you think that "foreign multinationals" are killing whole industries in your country, you should see that most companies that PRODUCE in China, are westerner, not Chinese. In other words, its our own multinationals that are going away.
Please. It's called a newspaper. WSJ, Barons, whatever, do yourself a favor. Textiles, Steel, LCD monitors,... And we in the US don't win. If my socks cost half as much and last one tenth as long, my prices have increased. To say nothing of the loss of human capital. As far as the developing countries go, particularly with agricultural products, they don't sell a clean safe industrial product. It's a niche market they're trying to serve, and they need to support the infrastructure of inspection for their goods. They can't. Not without industrializing their products. To do that, they need access to capital, and given that the necessary education is so rare, the laws preventing exploitation so lax, and the local poor government so weak, they end up exploited. There's always imperialism, then they can all be exploited equally. Contrary to our interests, the reliance on slave labor in other countries stalls our innovation at home.[/quote]
You can, offcourse, be protectionist. I'm sure the most ineficient American producers would love that, so that they could push higher prices for lower quality on the American consumer, but with any luck, your politicians (excluding the thing-called-bush who is your most protectionist president in years) won't follow the ramblings of your most lazy company CEO's.[/QUOTE]
Right, except when we were protectionist prices were lower and quality was higher. Bush is far from protectionist. Like all politicians, he's a whore. If you've got the green, he's got the time. For enough money you could probably even do him in the Lincon bedroom with a bust of George Washington. He isn't cheap though. But considering his reputation during the 70's and incident of cocain posession, he's probably a fantanstic lay.
CSW
07-06-2005, 19:10
Right, except when we were protectionist prices were lower and quality was higher. Bush is far from protectionist. Like all politicians, he's a whore. If you've got the green, he's got the time. For enough money you could probably even do him in the Lincon bedroom with a bust of George Washington. He isn't cheap though. But considering his reputation during the 70's and incident of cocain posession, he's probably a fantanstic lay.
This is an interesting statement, mind showing a link to were prices were lower (inflation adjusted please) when we were protectionist (you'd have to go way back for that)?

Even in my own lifetime I've seen goods come crashing down in prices and skyrocket in quality (think computers).
Kibolonia
07-06-2005, 19:27
This is an interesting statement, mind showing a link to were prices were lower (inflation adjusted please) when we were protectionist (you'd have to go way back for that)?

Even in my own lifetime I've seen goods come crashing down in prices and skyrocket in quality (think computers).
Cars are a good example. It used to be possible to work at a relatively low-skill job and purchase a relativly fine automotive experience in a summer. Education is another great example. Semiconductors are one of the few big wins. The reason has to do with how they're made, the realatively immediate rewards of research and the danger of the competition eating your lunch. The only reason the US companies still dominate the high-end is the barrier for entry into the market at that level. Another exception, that isn't so much of an exception any more, was energy. But a number of national policies really put a bullet in that.
Lacadaemon
07-06-2005, 19:47
Of course it doesn't. Its part of EADS who have separate firms working on separate sections.

@ All

To compare boeing and airbus is kinda rediculous. I even think the arguement over subisidies is daft at best.

Airbus is almost purely a civilian aeroplane builder and a subsidury of EADS. Its EADS that has the huge defence contractors (who are separate companies in themselves), not Airbus.

Boeing is its own company with both a civil and military wing.

Both sides are comparing two different sections (airbus civilian contracts + subsidies vs. boeing civilian contracts + other financial backings) and taking subsidies/guaranteed contracts/various other finincial gains and are having a set to over both their dirty laundries. The only thing that both companies are doing IMHO opinion, is making themselves look like fools.

Oh and btw, I work for another subsidury of EADS, so read into that what you will.


Haha, I indirectly own some of EADS though other stock.

That makes you my employee. Stop goofing off and get some work done. :p
Kellarly
07-06-2005, 19:55
Haha, I indirectly own some of EADS though other stock.

That makes you my employee. Stop goofing off and get some work done. :p

:p

mwhahaha, i only have a month and a half left and this job sucks big time so i am gonna work it til the end of my contract and be done with it so :p again! :D
Lacadaemon
07-06-2005, 20:05
:p

mwhahaha, i only have a month and a half left and this job sucks big time so i am gonna work it til the end of my contract and be done with it so :p again! :D

I'm not really that worried, my ownership is so miniscule and indirect that I doubt your workshy attitude really effects the bottom line here. :D

Still there is the principle. :mad:
Lower Mungonator
07-06-2005, 20:53
back to topic, the subsidies that both sides claim dont count because they're part of something different should go to a better cause than lining the pockets of men in gold suits. At least a third should go to me ( all right all right the third world) and the other 2/3's on something worthwhile like helping out countries that are in debt, charity and restoring heritage sites like memorials n stuff.
although they are both public companies so the people involved would make it completely unviable
Cadillac-Gage
07-06-2005, 21:30
You're involved and can't be seen as a neutral poster.
My respects but ...

What's "Neutral" got to do with it? I've been laid off so long I've lost my recall rights! (You wouldn't, I think, believe the hostility I feel towards Boeing's top management for how they've sabotaged the company in market share and profitability... I'd like to see the Morton Salt building in Chicago converted to a steaming puddle of burnt concrete and molten metal with the top management inside...and the heads of the IAM National.)

You're comparing "Defense and Space Group" contracts to Subsidies while ignoring the fact that the D&S has no financial connection to the Commercial end below Phil Condit's office. If they had, the Commercial side wouldn't have been running in the red after 1998...
On my first layoff (12/2000 to 7/2001) I worked for Tramco (BFG Aerospace Services) as a line-mech. That's where I worked on Airbus turds, I mean birds...

(The layoff in 2002 was bad enough and deep enough that Tramco wasn't interested-they could get guys with 15+ years line experience, rather than five...)

Locally, here in Snohomish County, Washington, Boeing does get some tax-breaks and such: this isn't much different from any local-government trying to lure/keep a multinational jobs-generator from going away. Unlike Europe, there are no protections in place to force companies to stay (as is the case with Tyee Aircraft, a Tubing and linkage manufacturer with a plant in Belgium as well as Everett Wa.) or to force a company to retain employees.

Boeing's commercial division doesn't get dime one from the Defense and Space business you keep citing-at least, according to the stocholder report I still get (Didn't empty my VIP/401k when I was laid off, so I still hold shares and get to read the executive mail, nice, no?)

After the McDonnell Douglas merger, a large portion of the Boeing-Grown sales force were dumped and the same mismanagers who ran McD into the ground were placed in charge. This cost Boeing the JSF contract on the defense side (they got rid of the guys who beat McD's team in the first and second rounds and replaced 'em with the losers), and it cost Boeing's Commercial side contracts in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East (as well as the Continental U.S.!) This is typical Stonecipher. Harry did the same thing to McD, and Sunstrand before that- "Cutting Costs" by cutting quality or firing people, then parting the company out. Only, there's no buyer for Boeing.

In '99, we had a visit from some gentlemen from Toyota who were interested in purchasing the Commercial side. They talked to the line-workers before dumping the deal. I suspect the reason they dumped the deal wasn't that they weren't interested in picking up the Everett, Renton, Seattle, and Wichita plants, but that they correctly read the morale and listened to what we told them about how things were changing on the floor.
('99 was the start of a layoff cycle. We turned out a record number of completed, safe, properly-built aircraft, but upper management screwed the pooch and offended customers into dropping their orders...after the planes were built.)

In 2001/2002, Boeing's upper management decided to outsource the wing-line. anyone who didn't see what was coming is stupid, I spent most of those years saving up and trying to decide what, besides aircraft, I wanted to do with my life.

At least I wasn't in the spot of having a thousand-dollar a month mortgage, four hundered a month car payment, and hundered-fifty a month car insurance-unlike many of the old-timers who got the axe the same time I did.

After they laid off 35,000 of us, citing "Profitability" issues, Boeing spent $5b to refurbish the Douglas assembly plant in China, and $50m (est.) to move the Corporate Headquarters closer to one of the worst airports in North America (but much closer to the Chicago futures markets!).

So... no, I'm not 'Neutral' on this. I just think you're targeting the wrong thing.

In any market, the fewer producers you have for a given product, the more those few producers can afford to screw around and screw the customer. Europe (the Continent) has one major airliner builder. Now, N. America has one major airliner builder. Do you think,maybe this might not be such a good idea? Two heavy-airliner builders on EARTH is a lot too few to guarantee the customer has a choice.

The new Airbus Superjumbo requires airports to change not only how they do business, but how they're constructed. This is a non-starter in the commercial aviation field-no matter how "Efficient" it is, if it can't be adapted to use existing facilities, it becomes an albatross for anyone dumb enough to buy it-you won't make back in fuel savings what you end up paying in restricted use and renovations. Airline and Freight outfits are tight-margin-of-profit, with high Capital costs and heavy regulatory costs.
Via Ferrata
08-06-2005, 01:54
Via Ferrata, you are the worst sort of forum poster, the illiterate sort.

Jezus never thought that I would meet such a uninformed kid here. Try reading something else then your uninformed propaganda. Learn some languages and you will be taken serious here.
Beate paupers spiritu :confused: :p :D .
Post facts instead of this unfactual bullshit. Where are your numbers??????????Facts?????? Keep on bullshiting you fool. Ever thought about the free press outside Dumbsville? Ever thought about the facts mentioned in the interntional press? Ok, we know, you only read English and your info is a verry biased local Midwest hillbilly gazete. Try reading international papers, at least you must be abble to watch the BBC World, since you gave proove understanding only English.
I feel pitty with such "disabled" (you are in this world), poor monolinguistic people like ya.

Again, and for last read the mentioned numbers and you will see like the rest of the world that Boeing is gettting about 10 times more subsidies then Airbus. We all know that this old company is losing ground because of a lack of quality versus EU products and we have to admit that Boeing is not following the rules of the free market. A free market that hits the old US with modern products wright in the face. The uncompetitional Boeing is loosing so much ground that they need subsidies against the competional Airbus. :cool:


Try harder with your provocations. This one is not good enough for informed people that have more information than your local press. :upyours:
Dugganland
08-06-2005, 02:36
Again, and for last read the mentioned numbers and you will see like the rest of the world that Boeing is getttin about 10 times more subsidies the Airbus. We all know that this old company is losing ground because of a lack of quality versus EU products and we have to admit that they don't follow the rules of the free market. A free market that hits the old US with modern products wright in the face. hey are looosing so much ground that they need subsidies against the competional Airbus.


If Airbus has such superior quality, why are they delivering six months late to their customers?
Manawskistan
08-06-2005, 02:54
Via Ferrata, I demand that you offer the sources from which you have retrieved your 'factual' data. Provide links or a publication (specify which date) that has this information you are using.

It's not that I'm doubting you or anything, I just want to make sure everything here is on the up and up. Also, it will help your argument that the other side is not using factual data.
Via Ferrata
08-06-2005, 03:09
Via Ferrata, I demand that you offer the sources from which you have retrieved your 'factual' data. Provide links or a publication (specify which date) that has this information you are using.

It's not that I'm doubting you or anything, I just want to make sure everything here is on the up and up. Also, it will help your argument that the other side is not using factual data.

At your service. Like said (read the entire post) th enumbers com efrom the EU commissionnar Mandelson, a UK commissionar that is the most pro US commissionar in history, and anti EU, thus a friend of the US.

Papers and TV in the free world where full of it even in the US, some uncensured press had the decency to report
it.
It is 04.00h got to go, but when you wan't official presslinks, no probs, I can stand and deliver. Will post those EU investigations l, no probs.

Kind Regards
Via Ferrata
08-06-2005, 03:11
If Airbus has such superior quality, why are they delivering six months late to their customers?

Hmm gues you are mixing up between old Boeing and Airbus, just business facts in your Abbu Graib face ya know :p It hurts your biassed pride, we know that in the airbusiness...

BTW you forgot to mention that the latest Boeings use more fuel pro passenger/mile, offer less confort and are less safe regarding modern plaines in competition. The market allready knows and continues to react like last years.

You wan't a Chinese car instead of a "Beemer" '(like you guys call this German car) well, same goes for plaines. The market is buying more unsubsided Airbuses then subsided Boeings, just plain facts. and technological advance of course..
Dugganland
08-06-2005, 03:14
Hmm gues you are miuxing up between old Boeing and Airbus, just business facts in your Abbu Graib face ya know

When you have time check this out.
http://www.airbusa380.com/
Ploor
08-06-2005, 03:17
Most effiecient airliner in the world is the boeing 777 and it will keep that title even after the 380 starts commercial service since it has the most effiecient engines in the world, the GE 90's and only 2 of them for a 300 plus passengers whereas the 380 will have 4 less effiecient engines for 600 passengers
also no one has mentioned the loading and unloading problem that has yet to be worked out for the 380 since airports charge by the gate and all of the airbus plans call for 2 gates to load/unload the plane, doubling the expenses at any airport it uses
the 7E7 dreamliner is actually a prototype for a smaller airplane (100 passenger range) to replace the now obsolete 727 (fuel hog with 50s tech engines) and the early 737's (also with old engines) and the aging fleet of DC 9's that are still flying
Via Ferrata
08-06-2005, 03:23
When you have time check this out.
http://www.airbusa380.com/

Source? Says who? Loughable US press. Market decides and rules, you guys were allway 100% pro Boeing subsidies. Now when the market hits you in the face, you try to survive with even 30 times more subsidies then Airbuses start lendings. Give it up, the markets allready decided and your family that works at Boeing (seems like you have some there) feels the heat of the WTO because of the unfair subsidies.
Squi
08-06-2005, 03:36
Source? Says who? Loughable US press. Market decides and rules, you guys were allway 100% pro Boeing subsidies. Now when the market hits you in the face, you try to survive with even 30 times more subsidies then Airbuses start lendings. Give it up, the markets allready decided and your family that works at Boeing (seems like you have some there) feels the heat of the WTO because of the unfair subsidies.
LOL, the site cited is the US sales site for Airbus. It is not the laughable US press you find unreliable, but Airbus's sales force. The news source for the report of the 6 month delay is listed as being those laugable US sources, Airbus/BBC/Bloomberg/Reuters/The Australian, fine US news sources.
Dugganland
08-06-2005, 04:12
LOL, the site cited is the US sales site for Airbus. It is not the laughable US press you find unreliable, but Airbus's sales force. The news source for the report of the 6 month delay is listed as being those laugable US sources, Airbus/BBC/Bloomberg/Reuters/The Australian, fine US news sources.


Thank you. It is nice to see that some people actually check the facts instead of jumping to conclusions. Could it be that I have family that works for Airbus?
imported_Berserker
08-06-2005, 04:24
Hmm gues you are mixing up between old Boeing and Airbus, just business facts in your Abbu Graib face ya know :p It hurts your biassed pride, we know that in the airbusiness...

BTW you forgot to mention that the latest Boeings use more fuel pro passenger/mile, offer less confort and are less safe regarding modern plaines in competition. The market allready knows and continues to react like last years.

You wan't a Chinese car instead of a "Beemer" '(like you guys call this German car) well, same goes for plaines. The market is buying more unsubsided Airbuses then subsided Boeings, just plain facts. and technological advance of course..
Which is why Airbus has only around 113 orders of it's A380, whereas Boeing has already surpassed 250 orders for the 787. *roll* (If the current market trends continue, Boeing will likely retake the lead over Airbus)

As for the A380 being the "Beemer" of the air, don't make me laugh. I'd also love to see where you get your accusations of the latest Boeings being "less safe". Perhaps you should leave that judgement to people with at least a minimal amount of knowledge in the area of aircraft (I'm not claiming to be an industry expert, but I've been studying aerospace engineering for the past three years, learned quite a few things).

Currently, Airbus and Boeing are taking two different approaches to the future of the airline industry. Airbus is placing a large portion of its bets on low-route, high density traffic, whereas Boeing is placing its bets on low-density, multi-route traffic (route fragmentation, the current business trend).

Fact is, while the A380 is indeed nice, it's likely too large for it's own good. Currently no one is set up to handle an aircraft of that size, and the trend in the past years has been that of airlines flying more routes with smaller planes. The one market that could really use the A380 (Northeast Asia) is considered a Boeing stronghold, and while they have had penetration into Korea, they've had less luck with Japan. (Nippon Airways has already ordered 50 of the 787's)

To be fair, the 787 is more comparable to the A350 (Which is really just an A330 with new wings and engines). However, it remains to be seen if the A350 will materialize (Airbus is supposed to give the go/no-go decision sometime this month.)

If you want a good source, pick up an Aviation Week (Or Aviation "Leak" for some). It's unbaised (AFAIK) and informative.
OceanDrive
08-06-2005, 04:37
LOL, the site cited is the US sales site for Airbus. It is not the laughable US press you find unreliable, but Airbus's sales force.www.airbusa380.com a US sales site for Airbus? Bullshit
your site is NOT an official site...read the site "news" 3 "delays" and
"An aviation health expert said a doctor should be on every flight of the Airbus A380 because of the increased chance of a medical emergency" :rolleyes: ...you could hardly find such a concentration of anti-Airbus "news" on a web-Site owned by Boeing.

THIS is the official airbus site: www.airbus.com

--you have been educated--
Manawskistan
08-06-2005, 05:13
"An aviation health expert said a doctor should be on every flight of the Airbus A380 because of the increased chance of a medical emergency"



Bahahahaa this thread gets a 5.

By the way, well met, Via.

I don't see why people are comparing the 7E7 to the A380, it's like comparing the Mustang to the Corvette or the Vantage to the F1. They're just not built for the same purpose, even though they may seem to be from an outside angle.

The A380 is being built mainly for hub flights, and it will do that job well. Mind you, the A380 is less like a "Beemer" (God save me if I ever utter that word in public again) and more like... well... an "air bus" (Gee whiz, who'da thunk it). It's use is to move a lot of people relatively efficiently between hubs. The 7E7 is being built for a more decentralized airline format, which seems to be a growing trend at this particular moment in time. If Airbus were to make a plane to directly compete with the 7E7, it would be the A350. Personally, I would be surprised if Airbus didn't give the A350 the green light if they can put forth the manufacturing power to content with Boeing on two markets (Hub craft, which Airbus appears ready to dominate in and non-hub craft which the 7E7 is set to make a killing).

Just saying. Of course, none of this has to do with subsidy, but I don't know anything about that sort of thing.
Swimmingpool
08-06-2005, 15:28
Says who? Can you prove that? Sources?
Keep on posting your unfactual bullshit.
Via Ferrata I don't know if you're right or left-wing, but you post seemed to have a slight anti-Boeing bias.

Isanyonehome - right-wing - was dismissive of Via Ferrata's post. Pro-Boeing bias implied.

Disraeliland - right-wing - exhibits anti-Airbus bias.

Bushrepublican liars - left-wing - anti-Boeing bias.

CSW - left-wing - anti-Boeing bias.

Cadillac-Gage - right-wing - exhibits anti-Airbus bias.
CSW
08-06-2005, 15:41
Via Ferrata I don't know if you're right or left-wing, but you post seemed to have a slight anti-Boeing bias.

Isanyonehome - right-wing - was dismissive of Via Ferrata's post. Pro-Boeing bias implied.

Disraeliland - right-wing - exhibits anti-Airbus bias.

Bushrepublican liars - left-wing - anti-Boeing bias.

CSW - left-wing - anti-Boeing bias.

Cadillac-Gage - right-wing - exhibits anti-Airbus bias.
Erm...so being left wing makes me anti-boeing?


Except I live in an area that's highly dependent on Boeing.

I state fact, not partisan bullcrap.
imported_Vermin
08-06-2005, 15:50
Most effiecient airliner in the world is the boeing 777 and it will keep that title even after the 380 starts commercial service since it has the most effiecient engines in the world, the GE 90's and only 2 of them for a 300 plus passengers whereas the 380 will have 4 less effiecient engines for 600 passengers
also no one has mentioned the loading and unloading problem that has yet to be worked out for the 380 since airports charge by the gate and all of the airbus plans call for 2 gates to load/unload the plane, doubling the expenses at any airport it uses
the 7E7 dreamliner is actually a prototype for a smaller airplane (100 passenger range) to replace the now obsolete 727 (fuel hog with 50s tech engines) and the early 737's (also with old engines) and the aging fleet of DC 9's that are still flying
1) Have you ever seen the GE90 IRL? They are hugh, twice the size of the Rolls Royce engines on a 747. One engine is about the same diameter as a 737.
2)The A 380 can be perfectly unloaded/loaded with one bridge or as you call gate. The only problem most airports have is that they have to make their runways a bit wider.
The old 737s have already dissapeared from the European scene. The only companies that I know using the Pratt and Witney are Air Algerie and Air Malta. Even companies like Tarom(Romania) or Lithuanian Airlines use 737-400 (or 500s) with CFM engines. There's no need for these companies to replace the existing 737s.
The only airline of which I know they have 727s(and use them on European routes) is Air Algerie. And then, when you see the start up of an Air Algerie plane, you say to yourself 'do these planes get maintanance?' or 'I'm never going to fly with that'. I could tell you stories about this airline that would make you fall of your chair. They simply dont have the money to buy anything new I guess.
DC9s (or MD80s) are still used by many airlines (Alitalia, SAS, Olympic(they use the B717 sometimes) but its a pain in the ass, Has a distinctive sound. you know when a DC9 is coming without seeing it. Its really time these get replaced.

For a 100 passenger plane i'd prefer the Embrear 170/190 over anything (well Airbus 320s are quite nice, better then a 737 and i speak from experience)
Dugganland
08-06-2005, 16:25
Here is an interesting article that I happen to see today. Let me know what you think.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8143098/
Ianarabia
08-06-2005, 17:36
I was just chuckling today remembering some of the posts in this thread regarding Boeing and how they have to fight for orders.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4072422.stm


Top staff blamed for Boeing deal
Boeing military tanker plane
The US Air Force had ordered 100 of the Boeing tankers
Senior US military officials bypassed checks and rushed through a corrupt $23.5bn (£13bn) deal to buy Boeing planes, a report has found.

Last year, former Air Force weapons buyer Darleen Druyun was jailed for boosting the price of the deal to win favour with Boeing.

Ms Druyun "didn't operate in a vacuum", the official investigation by the Pentagon's inspector general found.

Another criminal investigation linked to the deal is under way, it said.

No further details of this fresh investigation are available, the report said.

Another 14 contracts involving Ms Druyun are also under investigation.

'Inappropriate rush'

Ms Druyun, who pleaded guilty to corruption last year, had arranged the giant 100-tanker plane deal with Boeing at the same time as she was negotiating to join the Chicago-based company on a $250,000 salary.

Darleen Druyun
Darleen Druyun is serving a nine-month sentence

The deal was eventually vetoed by Congress.

Upon presenting his report to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Pentagon inspector general Joseph Schmitz said other senior US weapons buyers and Air Force officials had bypassed normal procedures in an "inappropriate" rush to complete the Boeing deal.

"There were people above, below and beside of her [Ms Druyun] that allowed her to keep operating, without all the checks and balances," said Mr Schmitz.

His report named former top Pentagon weapons buyer, Edward Aldridge, former Air Force Secretary, James Roche, and his weapons buyer, Marvin Sambur, as the other "primary decision-makers" involved in the deal.

In addition, Mr Aldridge's former deputy and then acting successor Michael Wynne should have reviewed the May 2003 deal, the report said.

Mixed welcome

Mr Wynne has accepted responsibility for reviewing the deal but said that he did not do so because Mr Aldridge had told him that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had made the decision to proceed.

Colleagues of Mr Schmitz said they were told by the White House that Mr Rumsfeld had merely left the decision to Mr Aldridge and then supported it.

Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee gave the report a mixed welcome.

Committee chairman, Republican Senator John Warner, called the report a first step to "putting this regrettable chapter behind us".

However Democrat Senator Carl Levine said it was "totally inadequate".
OceanDrive
08-06-2005, 17:59
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4072422.stm
Top staff blamed for Boeing deal

The US Air Force had ordered 100 of the Boeing tankers
Senior US military officials bypassed checks and rushed through a corrupt $23.5bn deal to buy Boeing planes, a report has found.

Last year, former Air Force weapons buyer Darleen Druyun was jailed for boosting the price of the deal to win favour with Boeing.

Another 14 contracts involving Ms Druyun are also under investigation.

Ms Druyun, who pleaded guilty to corruption last year, had arranged the giant 100-tanker plane deal with Boeing at the same time as she was negotiating to join the Chicago-based company on a $250,000 salary.

Darleen Druyun is serving a nine-month sentence

"There were people above, below and beside of her [Ms Druyun] that allowed her to keep operating, without all the checks and balances," said Mr Schmitz.curruption is a cancer, and these white collar criminals get away with it 99% of the time.
Straughn
09-06-2005, 03:55
Start proving that Boeing are being subsidised, rather than having their products bought.
E-Mails Detail Air Force Push for Boeing Deal

Pentagon Official Called Proposed Lease of Tankers a 'Bailout,' Report Finds
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 7, 2005; Page A01

For the past three years, the Air Force has described its $30 billion proposal to convert passenger planes into military refueling tankers and lease them from Boeing Co. as an efficient way to obtain aircraft the military urgently needs.
But a very different account of the deal is shown in an August 2002 internal e-mail exchange among four senior Pentagon officials.
"We all know that this is a bailout for Boeing," Ronald G. Garant, an official of the Pentagon comptroller's office, said in a message to two others in his office and then-Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Wayne A. Schroeder. "Why don't we just bite the bullet," he asked, and handle the acquisition like the procurement of a 1970s-era aircraft -- by squeezing the manufacturer to provide a better tanker at a decent cost?
"We didn't need those aircraft either, but we didn't screw the taxpayer in the process," Garant added, referring to widespread sentiment at the Pentagon that the proposed lease of Boeing 767s would cost too much for a plane with serious shortcomings.
Garant's candid advice, which top Air Force officials did not follow, is disclosed for the first time in a new 256-page report by the Pentagon's inspector general. It provides an extraordinary glimpse of how the Air Force worked hand-in-glove with one of its chief contractors -- the financially ailing Boeing -- to help it try to obtain the most costly government lease ever.
The inspector general's report, slated for release today at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, adds a new dimension to what Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), John W. Warner (R-Va.) and Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) have already called one of the most significant military contracting abuses in several decades. Already, the scandal has resulted in prison terms for former Air Force principal deputy assistant secretary Darlene A. Druyun, and a senior Boeing official, Michael M. Sears.
Besides documenting precisely who was responsible, the new report details the Air Force's vigorous efforts on Boeing's behalf. It also shows how Air Force leaders and Boeing officials jointly manipulated legislation to authorize the deal and later sought to suppress dissenting opinion throughout the Pentagon.
After interviewing 88 people and reading hundreds of thousands of pages of e-mails, the inspector general's office concluded that four top Air Force officials and one of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's former top aides, Undersecretary of Defense Edward C. "Pete" Aldridge, violated Pentagon and government-wide procurement rules, failed to use "best business practices," ignored a legal requirement for weapons testing and failed to ensure that the tankers would meet the military's requirements.
The report also connects Rumsfeld to policymaking on the lease, recounting a statement by former Air Force secretary James G. Roche that Rumsfeld had called him in Newport, R.I., in July 2003 to say "he did not want me to budge on the tanker lease proposal," despite criticism.
Earlier, after Roche made what he acknowledged was a "special pleading" for the lease at a key meeting with Rumsfeld on Jan. 31, 2003, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence T. Di Rita jokingly said "that my comments 'were brought to you by the Boeing Company,' " Roche later told Air Force Chief of Staff John P. Jumper in an e-mail. "I didn't rip his heart out," Roche added.
Air Force spokesman Douglas Karas said he could not comment on the report in detail until it has been officially released. He said, however, that "we've learned from this experience" and will apply the lessons to future procurement of large weapons systems. Di Rita and Rumsfeld were in Thailand yesterday. A Boeing spokesman said the company could not comment on a report it has not read.
The Pentagon and Congress ultimately killed the lease deal. Pentagon officials have noted that the department is now conducting special oversight of Air Force weapons-buying, in part because of the problems with the Boeing deal.
In the copy of the report obtained by The Washington Post, 45 sections were deleted by the White House counsel's office to obscure what several sources described as references to White House involvement in the lease negotiations and its interaction with Boeing. The Pentagon separately blacked out 64 names and many e-mails. It also omitted the names of members of Congress, including some who pressured the Pentagon to back the deal.
The report is nonetheless the most damning of the three reviews of the tanker deal completed by the inspector general since early 2004. It includes, for example, a statement from an unnamed cost analyst that "numbers were contorted a lot of different ways to sell the program."
It also suggests that the foundation of the Air Force's tanker lease -- that KC-135 planes were experiencing unexpected corrosion and needed urgent replacement -- was a house of cards. The report said the Air Force could not substantiate congressional testimony by two of the officials -- Roche and Maj. Gen. Paul W. Essex, a former head of its global reach program office -- on that subject.
"In fact, the studies that were available did not indicate an urgent or immediate requirement for the replacement of . . . KC-135 tankers," the report said. That view was confirmed last year by the Defense Science Board, which said the KC-135 airframes were usable until 2040.
The report says that Marvin R. Sambur, then the top Air Force acquisition official, knew that this urgency "did not exist" but claimed otherwise and ordered data unflattering to the deal removed from a key document. His office made what a critic of the lease elsewhere in the Pentagon interpreted as a "thinly veiled threat" to manipulate other Air Force contracts if the dissent did not cease, the report shows.
Sambur and Roche, who have resigned from the Air Force, did not respond to phone messages requesting comment. Previously, they have said their actions were appropriate and endorsed by others, including White House officials.
Druyun improperly used her influence to increase the price paid for the tankers and also made incorrect statements to others in the administration, the report states. When Air Force cost analysts told her that leasing would cost $2 billion more than buying the planes, she told the head of the Air Force Materiel Command that "she no longer needed the financial management team . . . on the project."
The Air Force has long maintained that any defects in the lease proposal were attributable solely to Druyun, who is serving a nine-month sentence in federal prison for illegally negotiating a lucrative job with Boeing as she supervised the lease negotiations. An employee at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld said the law firm no longer represents Druyun.
The inspector general's report makes it clear that the Air Force's aggressive pursuit of the lease over a three-year period was actually a team effort, and that shortly after Druyun agreed to the concept in a September 2001 meeting attended by Essex and top Boeing officials, other top officials fell into lock step with her. Roche backed the idea in a letter to Capitol Hill dated Oct. 9, 2001, without conducting a legally required analysis of alternatives, and blocked such an analysis in August 2003, according to the report.
Boeing's interests were at the center of the deal, the report suggests. Less than a month after Druyun's meeting with Boeing, the Air Force began developing requirements for the new tanker "tailored to Boeing . . . tanker aircraft capabilities," the report states. The result fell short of what other services, such as the Navy, wanted, and it excluded the passenger, cargo and medical evacuation roles for the plane that some military officials desired.
Boeing prepared briefing materials that Druyun presented to lawmakers while seeking congressional approval of the deal and worked with Druyun to refine the wording of legislation that specifically named the company as the beneficiary of the deal. Roche and Sambur later cited that language as the prime reason for favoring Boeing.
Druyun "was accountable for manipulating the congressional language," the report states.
Her tactics sowed previously undisclosed resentment among Air Force cost analysts and others, according to the report. At a June 2002 negotiating session in California with Boeing officials present -- a meeting that later came to be known inside the Air Force as "The Long Beach Massacre" -- Druyun "pretty much by herself pushed the Air Force team to the high end" of the price range, one of those present told investigators.
Cooperation between Boeing and the Air Force was nonetheless not always perfect, according to the e-mails recounted in the report. Roche complained in November 2002 to Sears, Boeing's top financial officer, and Phil Condit, Boeing's board chairman, that they were not lobbying hard enough on Capitol Hill.
Roche wrote, "Gee Mike, when I knew you and Phil, I had the sense you wanted to make money. Guess I was wrong." Boeing executives later pressed subcontractors to call the White House, and met with Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff, who backed the deal.

Hope that helped. I didn't get all the way through this thread yet. *shrugs*
Via Ferrata
11-06-2005, 03:39
Via Ferrata I don't know if you're right or left-wing, but you post seemed to have a slight anti-Boeing bias.

Isanyonehome - right-wing - was dismissive of Via Ferrata's post. Pro-Boeing bias implied.

Disraeliland - right-wing - exhibits anti-Airbus bias.

Bushrepublican liars - left-wing - anti-Boeing bias.

CSW - left-wing - anti-Boeing bias.

Cadillac-Gage - right-wing - exhibits anti-Airbus bias.

Thank's verry much to make the difference between right wing biased people (dISRAELiland, Caddilac aso.) and neutral (Oceandrive and many others..), informed ones. BTW, besides, Bushrepublicans, I don't see anyone else being just left of center (compared to biased extremists like ISRAELiland).

Hmm, most know now that a R&D programm is the best way to pay loans and other hiden subsidies. Just read the New York Times, Wall Street Journal or the free press across the Atlantic.

Discussion closed for me.
Regards
Leonstein
11-06-2005, 12:17
And now it's my turn (belated but nonetheless):
This is from "Microeconomics" by Pindyck and Rubinfeld, sixth edition, page 499.

Table 1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxAirbus
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxProducexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxDon't Produce
BoeingxxProducexxxxxxxxxx-10,-10xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx100,0
xxxxxxxxDon't Producexxxxx0,100xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx0,0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxAirbus
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxProducexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxDon't Produce
BoeingxxProducexxxxxxxxxx-10,10xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx100,0
xxxxxxxxDon't Producexxxxx0,120xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx0,0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Suppose that Boeing and Airbus are each considering developing a new aircraft. The ultimate payoff to each firm depends in part on what the other firm does. Suppose it is only economical for one firm to produce a new aircraft. Then the payoffs might look something like those in Table 1.

If Boeing as a head start in the development process, the outcome of the game is the upper right corner of the payoff matrix. Boeing will produce a new aircraft, and Airbus, realising that it will lose money if it does the same, will not. Boeing will then earn a profit of 100.

European Governments, of course,would prefer that Airbus produce the new aircraft. Can they change the outcome of this game? Suppose they commit to subsidising Airbus and make this commitment before Boeing has commited itself to produce. If the European governments commit to a subsidy of 20 to Airbus regardless of what Boeing does, the payoff matrix would change to the one in Table 2.

Now Airbus will make money from a new aircraft whether or not Boeing produces one. Boeing knows that even if it commits to producing, Airbus will produce as well, and Boeing will lose money. Thus Boeing will decide not to produce and the outcome will be the one in the lower left-hand corner of Table 2. A subsidy of 20, then, changes the outcome from one in which Airbus does not produce and earns 0, to one in which it does produce and earns 120. Of this, 100 is a transfer of profit from the US to Europe. From the European point of view, subsidising Airbus yields a high return.
....
This example shows how strategic trade policy can transfer profits from one country to another. Bear in mind, however, that a country which uses such a policy may provoke retaliation from its trading partners. If a trade war results, all countries can end up worse off. The possibility of such an outcome must be considered before a nation adopts a strategic trade policy."

PS: This can be turned around of course, so that the US is the culprit.
Cadillac-Gage
11-06-2005, 12:55
1) Have you ever seen the GE90 IRL? They are hugh, twice the size of the Rolls Royce engines on a 747. One engine is about the same diameter as a 737.
2)The A 380 can be perfectly unloaded/loaded with one bridge or as you call gate. The only problem most airports have is that they have to make their runways a bit wider.
The old 737s have already dissapeared from the European scene. The only companies that I know using the Pratt and Witney are Air Algerie and Air Malta. Even companies like Tarom(Romania) or Lithuanian Airlines use 737-400 (or 500s) with CFM engines. There's no need for these companies to replace the existing 737s.
The only airline of which I know they have 727s(and use them on European routes) is Air Algerie. And then, when you see the start up of an Air Algerie plane, you say to yourself 'do these planes get maintanance?' or 'I'm never going to fly with that'. I could tell you stories about this airline that would make you fall of your chair. They simply dont have the money to buy anything new I guess.
DC9s (or MD80s) are still used by many airlines (Alitalia, SAS, Olympic(they use the B717 sometimes) but its a pain in the ass, Has a distinctive sound. you know when a DC9 is coming without seeing it. Its really time these get replaced.

For a 100 passenger plane i'd prefer the Embrear 170/190 over anything (well Airbus 320s are quite nice, better then a 737 and i speak from experience)


Seen it, ran the bleed-air ducts for it....hung one or two...or twenty.
Rolls Royce has a nice five-stager that's pretty similar (and also installed on the 777).

I always wondered (myself) what a single-engine plane using that beast would look like...
Cadillac-Gage
11-06-2005, 13:05
I was just chuckling today remembering some of the posts in this thread regarding Boeing and how they have to fight for orders.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4072422.stm

Okay, this is pretty much straight-line basic governmental corruption on the buyer's end, and aggressive business practices on Boeing's part-nothing you wouldn't see with General Electric, General Motors, FN Herstal, Mercedes, EADS, Raytheon, Colt, Ford, Daimler-Chrysler, etc. etc. ad-nauseum... except that the procurement officer got caught this time. How in hell do you think they sold that eight-wheeled tin-can (The Stryker) to the U.S. Army?
Wheeled AFV's were dropped from the inventory except for certain specialist missions in the 1950s for reasons that even improved technology can't completely alleviate. (Hint: they're called "Tyres" and they make wonderful targets while severely limiting the amount of protection and mobility you have...)

This still isn't a Subsidy or Low-interest-pay-if-you-want-to Loan, this was one person's profit-motive short-circuiting a flawed and rotten system to steal millions from the taxpayers. It was, instead of a Policy a CRIME.

Crime is, by definition, not sanctioned by the government, it is unlawful by its very nature. OTOH, Airbus has been a recipient of non-criminalized corporate welfare since it was first assembled. by definition, no subsidies, no-interest "Loans", or other financial chicanery involving the EU's members and Airbus falls into the same set of definitions.
Cadillac-Gage
11-06-2005, 13:18
E-Mails Detail Air Force Push for Boeing Deal

Pentagon Official Called Proposed Lease of Tankers a 'Bailout,' Report Finds
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 7, 2005; Page A01

For the past three years, the Air Force has described its $30 billion proposal to convert passenger planes into military refueling tankers and lease them from Boeing Co. as an efficient way to obtain aircraft the military urgently needs.
But a very different account of the deal is shown in an August 2002 internal e-mail exchange among four senior Pentagon officials.
"We all know that this is a bailout for Boeing," Ronald G. Garant, an official of the Pentagon comptroller's office, said in a message to two others in his office and then-Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Wayne A. Schroeder. "Why don't we just bite the bullet," he asked, and handle the acquisition like the procurement of a 1970s-era aircraft -- by squeezing the manufacturer to provide a better tanker at a decent cost?
"We didn't need those aircraft either, but we didn't screw the taxpayer in the process," Garant added, referring to widespread sentiment at the Pentagon that the proposed lease of Boeing 767s would cost too much for a plane with serious shortcomings.
Garant's candid advice, which top Air Force officials did not follow, is disclosed for the first time in a new 256-page report by the Pentagon's inspector general. It provides an extraordinary glimpse of how the Air Force worked hand-in-glove with one of its chief contractors -- the financially ailing Boeing -- to help it try to obtain the most costly government lease ever.
The inspector general's report, slated for release today at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, adds a new dimension to what Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), John W. Warner (R-Va.) and Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) have already called one of the most significant military contracting abuses in several decades. Already, the scandal has resulted in prison terms for former Air Force principal deputy assistant secretary Darlene A. Druyun, and a senior Boeing official, Michael M. Sears.
Besides documenting precisely who was responsible, the new report details the Air Force's vigorous efforts on Boeing's behalf. It also shows how Air Force leaders and Boeing officials jointly manipulated legislation to authorize the deal and later sought to suppress dissenting opinion throughout the Pentagon.
After interviewing 88 people and reading hundreds of thousands of pages of e-mails, the inspector general's office concluded that four top Air Force officials and one of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's former top aides, Undersecretary of Defense Edward C. "Pete" Aldridge, violated Pentagon and government-wide procurement rules, failed to use "best business practices," ignored a legal requirement for weapons testing and failed to ensure that the tankers would meet the military's requirements.
The report also connects Rumsfeld to policymaking on the lease, recounting a statement by former Air Force secretary James G. Roche that Rumsfeld had called him in Newport, R.I., in July 2003 to say "he did not want me to budge on the tanker lease proposal," despite criticism.
Earlier, after Roche made what he acknowledged was a "special pleading" for the lease at a key meeting with Rumsfeld on Jan. 31, 2003, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence T. Di Rita jokingly said "that my comments 'were brought to you by the Boeing Company,' " Roche later told Air Force Chief of Staff John P. Jumper in an e-mail. "I didn't rip his heart out," Roche added.
Air Force spokesman Douglas Karas said he could not comment on the report in detail until it has been officially released. He said, however, that "we've learned from this experience" and will apply the lessons to future procurement of large weapons systems. Di Rita and Rumsfeld were in Thailand yesterday. A Boeing spokesman said the company could not comment on a report it has not read.
The Pentagon and Congress ultimately killed the lease deal. Pentagon officials have noted that the department is now conducting special oversight of Air Force weapons-buying, in part because of the problems with the Boeing deal.
In the copy of the report obtained by The Washington Post, 45 sections were deleted by the White House counsel's office to obscure what several sources described as references to White House involvement in the lease negotiations and its interaction with Boeing. The Pentagon separately blacked out 64 names and many e-mails. It also omitted the names of members of Congress, including some who pressured the Pentagon to back the deal.
The report is nonetheless the most damning of the three reviews of the tanker deal completed by the inspector general since early 2004. It includes, for example, a statement from an unnamed cost analyst that "numbers were contorted a lot of different ways to sell the program."
It also suggests that the foundation of the Air Force's tanker lease -- that KC-135 planes were experiencing unexpected corrosion and needed urgent replacement -- was a house of cards. The report said the Air Force could not substantiate congressional testimony by two of the officials -- Roche and Maj. Gen. Paul W. Essex, a former head of its global reach program office -- on that subject.
"In fact, the studies that were available did not indicate an urgent or immediate requirement for the replacement of . . . KC-135 tankers," the report said. That view was confirmed last year by the Defense Science Board, which said the KC-135 airframes were usable until 2040.
The report says that Marvin R. Sambur, then the top Air Force acquisition official, knew that this urgency "did not exist" but claimed otherwise and ordered data unflattering to the deal removed from a key document. His office made what a critic of the lease elsewhere in the Pentagon interpreted as a "thinly veiled threat" to manipulate other Air Force contracts if the dissent did not cease, the report shows.
Sambur and Roche, who have resigned from the Air Force, did not respond to phone messages requesting comment. Previously, they have said their actions were appropriate and endorsed by others, including White House officials.
Druyun improperly used her influence to increase the price paid for the tankers and also made incorrect statements to others in the administration, the report states. When Air Force cost analysts told her that leasing would cost $2 billion more than buying the planes, she told the head of the Air Force Materiel Command that "she no longer needed the financial management team . . . on the project."
The Air Force has long maintained that any defects in the lease proposal were attributable solely to Druyun, who is serving a nine-month sentence in federal prison for illegally negotiating a lucrative job with Boeing as she supervised the lease negotiations. An employee at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld said the law firm no longer represents Druyun.
The inspector general's report makes it clear that the Air Force's aggressive pursuit of the lease over a three-year period was actually a team effort, and that shortly after Druyun agreed to the concept in a September 2001 meeting attended by Essex and top Boeing officials, other top officials fell into lock step with her. Roche backed the idea in a letter to Capitol Hill dated Oct. 9, 2001, without conducting a legally required analysis of alternatives, and blocked such an analysis in August 2003, according to the report.
Boeing's interests were at the center of the deal, the report suggests. Less than a month after Druyun's meeting with Boeing, the Air Force began developing requirements for the new tanker "tailored to Boeing . . . tanker aircraft capabilities," the report states. The result fell short of what other services, such as the Navy, wanted, and it excluded the passenger, cargo and medical evacuation roles for the plane that some military officials desired.
Boeing prepared briefing materials that Druyun presented to lawmakers while seeking congressional approval of the deal and worked with Druyun to refine the wording of legislation that specifically named the company as the beneficiary of the deal. Roche and Sambur later cited that language as the prime reason for favoring Boeing.
Druyun "was accountable for manipulating the congressional language," the report states.
Her tactics sowed previously undisclosed resentment among Air Force cost analysts and others, according to the report. At a June 2002 negotiating session in California with Boeing officials present -- a meeting that later came to be known inside the Air Force as "The Long Beach Massacre" -- Druyun "pretty much by herself pushed the Air Force team to the high end" of the price range, one of those present told investigators.
Cooperation between Boeing and the Air Force was nonetheless not always perfect, according to the e-mails recounted in the report. Roche complained in November 2002 to Sears, Boeing's top financial officer, and Phil Condit, Boeing's board chairman, that they were not lobbying hard enough on Capitol Hill.
Roche wrote, "Gee Mike, when I knew you and Phil, I had the sense you wanted to make money. Guess I was wrong." Boeing executives later pressed subcontractors to call the White House, and met with Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff, who backed the deal.

Hope that helped. I didn't get all the way through this thread yet. *shrugs*

You've proven:

1. Bribery. We know defense-contractors use bribes.
2. Corruption. Yah...this is the DoD your article is talking about, home of the $50,000 hammer.

You fail to demonstrate a policy of Subsidization, though. "Subsidy" is when the law is followed and a policy of funnelling money occurs. What Druyun did was pretty clearly a form of embezzlement and racketeering. This is defined as "Theft" and "Fraud", people go to jail over it. In comparison, subsidies are part of "Policy", they do not circumvent law (though they might circumvent or violate treaties, the punishment is rarely more than dismissal-for getting caught and embarassing the boss...)
The article appears to detail the felony crimes of:

1. Accepting /Soliciting bribes
2. Racketeering
3. Fraud
4. Conspiracy to Commit a Felony
5. (in the case of Druyun, it's a crime, being an officer and all) Contempt of Officials *UCMJ crime.
6. Abuse/Misuse of Government Resources. (In a subsidy situation, this is not applicable)
7. Conflict of Interest (in the case of Procurement officers, this is also a crime...)

So far, you have failed to establish that this is a subsidy situation, and not a matter of individuals abusing their Authority to make a buck off Boeing.

By definition, to be a Subsidy, these people would have to have not been using illegal means to obtain their desired result-there would have to be no crime greater than a lower-class misdemeanour.

Conspiracy, Accepting Bribes, Racketeering, Abuse of Position, and Misuse/abuse of Government resources are Felonies.
Disraeliland
11-06-2005, 13:28
dISRAELiland

Hmm, most know now that a R&D programm is the best way to pay loans and other hiden subsidies. Just read the New York Times, Wall Street Journal or the free press across the Atlantic.

Discussion closed for me.
Regards

Wow, yet another anti-semite. Life is an exercise in navigating around, or squashing fucktards like you.

The aim of an R&D program is the knowledge and technology it produces. You've not proven that its anything other than that.

Put Mein Kampf down, and post some fucking proof.
Cadillac-Gage
11-06-2005, 13:54
Wow, yet another anti-semite. Life is an exercise in navigating around, or squashing fucktards like you.

The aim of an R&D program is the knowledge and technology it produces. You've not proven that its anything other than that.

Put Mein Kampf down, and post some fucking proof.

Wow, I missed that! comes from seeing too many grammatical errors, I guess...
I thought your handle was based on the name of "Benjamin Disraeli" the Brit PM from the 19th Century!

The guy does seem to be a little bit strident, I wonder if he shaves his head and goose-steps to work?
Disraeliland
11-06-2005, 13:58
I thought your handle was based on the name of "Benjamin Disraeli" the Brit PM from the 19th Century!

It is. I wanted to name my NS country after a conservative, and I figured that WC and the Gipper were taken.
Via Ferrata
12-06-2005, 19:56
Wow, yet another anti-semite. .

Both you and Cadillac are way out of line for calling one a anti-semite. Based on what? Proof, Evidence? When there are shaved right wing neo cons (nazi's...?) here, it must be you guys.
Since when is capitalising one's name as a comparison to other right wing extremist, his extreme right character and propaganda the same as "anti semite". Both of you kids just proove your extreme right views by this. Sorry, grow up and study a bit before using terms that fit yourselves insead of centrist people. When their are two people here that have the closest views to a party that killed the Jews, it must be you guys.
The left wingers here or centrist like myself here are far away of the views of the party that is closest to your view (and anti semite) the US extremists that denie evolution, Darwin, science and adore the NSDAP. That is the corner in wich you belong and wich language and tactics you use and just gave evidence.(of those tactics and propaganda).

By, btw, continue shaving! :D (and grow up instead of spreading such nonsense)
Frisbeeteria
12-06-2005, 21:10
When their are two people here that have the closest views to a party that killed the Jews, it must be you guys. or squashing fucktards like you.

Put Mein Kampf down, and post some fucking proof.
Disraeliland, Via Ferrata, knock off the personal attacks immediately. If you can't debate with civility on NationStates, you can't debate on NationStates. Enough.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop