Boeing not such a nice guy?

Ah, but such assessments are always 100% unbiased and objective – just like the press releases that some people in here insist we must treat as impartial statements of unvarnished truth dispensed to a grateful world in the interests of justice and fair play.

Did you not know this, Matthew???? :diablo:

This is not good for either party concerned.

I think this whole thing hinged on the 1992 aggreement between Airbus and Boeing.
It states that Airbus and Boeing are permitted to received 33% in launch aid for their products. This we all know. But a often overseen sub paragraph to that agreement states that these aids should gradualy deminish to 0% as the market evened out.

Now, Airbus have 50% of the market, are quite obviously a well organised and financialy sound organisation, more than capable of standing on their own 2 feet. But they’re still asking for that 33%. They will not develop anything without holding their hand out. While not illegal as such, it is betraying the whole idea behind the agreement.

That I think is the main reason for this argument.

Airbus now counter claim that Boeing has launched the 787 with subsidised development. Some argue that is a direct result of continued pressure Boeing has felt in Airbus’ ability to develop new aircraft much faster due to the less risk involved. Whether or not this subsidising is illegal, I haven’t the foggiest… but Boeing did absolve themselves of the 1992 Agreement shortly before launching the 7E7 program.

One thing that strikes as simple tit for tat mud slinging is all this talk about military subsidies and benefiting from space agency research hogwash.

Boeing, being the largest Aeronautics and Space technology company in the world are directly involved in Nasa development. They have a huge division devoted to Rockets, Sattelites etc. So in effect its Boeings OWN research, not subsidies. Boeing is also the second largest Military contractor in the US. Its only natural that their development of technologies for this field will spill over to the Commercial departments.

Airbus, being part of EADS has almost exactly the same setup so have no right to cry foul over Boeings supusied Military and Nasa kickbacks. Nor do Boeing have a case to cry fould over the EADS military and space technology set up.

The whole thing boils down to that 1992 agreement and Boeings assessment that airbus are betraying the reasons behind it.

There is much to be uncovered and talked about within the WTO on this IMO.
Being an old fashioned “unreconstructed socialist” I personally have no problem with the “subsidy” scenario so long as all sides are clean and open about it. With the amount of information that I have to hand on this, I hope that the EU stands its ground, however as things come to light over the coming weeks I may change my mind….This is obviously a very complex issue and will be fundemental as to where the future of commercial aircraft building goes from here.

OK, keep your hair on! :p

We’re supposed to check this sort of thing, you know. 😉

Hey, I provided a link and gave the author credit…. :p

I do hope that’s not copyright material that you’re reproducing there, US Agent.

If it is, then I presume you have the permission of the copyright owner to reproduce it?

Grey Area
Moderator 😎

U.S. to pursue Airbus case
WTO trade complaint to target EU subsidies

From Tribune wire services
Published May 31, 2005
subscriber link

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration said Monday that it will bring a trade case alleging the European Union is providing illegal subsidies to Airbus SAS, the major competitor to Chicago-based Boeing Co.

U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman said the administration had decided to proceed with a case before the World Trade Organization in light of preparations by member states of the EU to commit $1.7 billion in new launch aid to Airbus.

“The EU’s insistence on moving forward with new launch aid is forcing our hand,” Portman said in a statement announcing the administration’s decision.

Launch aid is the support provided when a new airplane model is developed.

Both sides argue that the other is providing WTO-illegal subsidies to support a domestic airplane manufacturing industry.

Portman said the formal request to establish a WTO hearing panel in the dispute would be filed Tuesday with the Geneva-based WTO.

“We continue to prefer a negotiated settlement and we would rather not have to go back to the WTO,” Portman said. “By requesting the panel, the United States is providing time for the EU to reconsider its plans to provide new subsidies.”

The announcement that the U.S. would file a case against the EU was the latest twist in the extended dispute over whether the world’s two biggest aircraft manufacturers were receiving improper support from their governments.

The move comes eight months after the U.S. filed its initial complaint, saying the launch aid provided an unfair subsidy to the European aircraftmaker. The EU countered with a lawsuit of its own claiming Boeing has benefited from unfair support of as much as $23 billion.

The two sides tried to negotiate a deal without resorting to a WTO panel, agreeing in January to suspend any new aid and to defer litigation until April 11.

But those talks broke down in mid-March, with the U.S. saying EU governments weren’t committed to ending new loans and accusing the 25-nation bloc of trying to change terms of a preliminary agreement. EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said the Bush administration had no room to reach a negotiated settlement because of heavy political lobbying by Boeing.

Portman said the administration’s hand is being forced because the EU is no longer willing to hold off on providing further government support to Airbus as it develops new planes. Portman also said in the negotiations the EU has only proposed to reduce government subsidies, not end them as the U.S. is seeking.

“We still believe that a bilateral negotiated solution is possible, but the negotiations won’t succeed unless the EU recommits to ending subsidies,” Portman said.

Boeing spokesman Russ Young said the company strongly supported the trade representative’s decision but hoped for a settlement.

“We agree with the [trade representative] that a negotiated settlement is preferable and hope serious U.S./EU discussions will continue as litigation proceeds,” he said. “The company stands ready to support the [trade representative] in any way necessary to bring a prompt end to market-distorting subsidies to Airbus.”

Earlier Monday in Brussels, the EU announced that it had made a new offer to the U.S. to cut government aid.

“We are proposing that there be an immediate cut in government support on both sides and after that further cuts,” said Claude Veron-Reville, Mandelson’s spokeswoman.

A WTO panel would have to decide whether the financing offered to Airbus by European governments constitutes “prohibited” or “actionable” subsidies under global trade rules. In the first instance, a final decision against the EU, which may take as long as a year, would force the bloc to drop its support. If WTO arbitrators find the aid “actionable,” the EU may open itself to retaliatory sanctions in the form of extra tariffs on its exports to the U.S.

The EU has said in the past that it would resume its WTO case against the U.S. if the Bush administration restarted the U.S. case.

I saw this coming :rolleyes:

Whats the phrase all you airbus fanboys use when Airbus gets oodles of cash for each and every product they intend to lauch… ah yes….

Business is business

Tant pis, Hand……. :D:D:D:D

I’m soooo disappointed! I read on this forum all the time that A are the bad guys (since French) and B the good guys!!! My universe is collapsing 😀

Very interesting article indeed. It just goes to prove that Boeing will go to any length to conduct business!