Boeing will not wait for the US government to move before taking unspecified action against alleged unfair subsidies for Airbus. “This is not about the US government, this is about us, and the US government will decide how they want to do it and when they want to, and whether they want to, do it,” Boeing chief executive Harry Stonecipher has told Flight International.
Stonecipher earlier this year promised to “raise the rhetoric” on the issue of government launch aid for Airbus. Boeing believes the 1992 agreement between the European Union and the USA limiting government launch aid to 33% of development costs is outdated given Airbus’s market success.
“The [agreement], which was intended, I think, to help a start-up industry get going, has come to set the floor for subsidy,” says Stonecipher. “As soon as it came to launching the A380, then all the hosepipes were hooked up to the treasuries of three countries in particular and $4 billion came zooming through.
“Airbus by their own characterisation are making more than we are. If they are making all this money and have all the market share that they describe, then why do they need the subsidies? This whole subsidisation thing has gone on long enough. They keep trying to turn it into a globalisation issue. But this is about transparency and subsidy.”
Airbus maintains it has stuck rigidly to the 1992 agreement. “These are not subsidies, but refundable launch aids, fully compliant with the 1992 bilateral,” it says.
Stonecipher says Boeing is willing to talk to Airbus about business incentives provided by Washington state to secure 7E7 final assembly, and about the extent to which its military contracts underwrite the commercial business. “We are willing to have that conversation about Eurocopter, Eurofighter, Tiger, any of their [military] platforms,” he says.
High-level talks on the issue between US and European officials “are making some progress”, says Patty Murray, US senator for Washington state. It is unclear whether the US government is prepared to take the subsidy issue to the World Trade Organisation.
By: markkipling - 16th July 2004 at 19:07
If Boeing products (military) are bought by the USAF this amounts to a subsidy, as as far as I am aware the USAF is funded out of taxation, correct me if I am wrong. Its swings and roundbouts.
Mark
By: Bmused55 - 16th July 2004 at 13:31
I’m tempted to agree. LOL
But no, you are correct. Just had a wee look about on google. Boeing has owned Bombardier for a while now.
By: bmi-star - 16th July 2004 at 13:09
Nope u arent mistaken Grey Area, Boeing own Bombardier since the mid-90’s
By: Grey Area - 16th July 2004 at 12:49
Must be mistaken, then.
It’s my age, you know.
By: Bmused55 - 16th July 2004 at 12:44
Errrr….. don’t Boeing own Bombardier?
They do?
I knew they “did”
By: Grey Area - 16th July 2004 at 12:38
Errrr….. don’t Boeing own Bombardier?
By: Grey Area - 16th July 2004 at 12:26
Ah – you’re just playing about then? Again?
Just read the paper that I linked to………….
You’ve lost this one, mate. Time to move on now. 😉
By: Bmused55 - 16th July 2004 at 12:25
Sandy, give us an approximate fingure on how much Airbus has recieved? Since you say ti is far too much, and How much is enough?
I think they only reason you are so worried is because; and this is the way I believe you see it – Airbus with all these “subsidies” are able to seel aircraft cheaper than Boeing, this undermining the all great Boeing Company? Yes?
In fact, read that book I mentioned before…
Worried, who says I am worried?
By: Bmused55 - 16th July 2004 at 12:23
That not what you said here:
Is it?
To Clarify, that was just in defence of the military contracts, which airbus fans always say are susbsidies.
They are infact sales.
By: Bmused55 - 16th July 2004 at 12:22
*winds the handle more*
By: Grey Area - 16th July 2004 at 12:22
That not what you said here:
Boeing research, develop and produce Military hardware and Space exploration vehicles. These are bought by Nasa and the US Military.
A bog standard sale of a product, on a mass scale I’ll admit.Where as Airbus…. they receive “handouts” to help fund themselves. They do not produce Military hardware and do reasearch or develop spacecraft. so whats the money for?
Subsidies are the reason why Airbus are able to sell their aircraft at the prices they do.
Is it?
And we’re not talking “affiliation” here – the Japanese government have handed over well in excess of US$ 1,000,000,000 to Boeing to name but one “affiliate”.
Bottom line: If it’s wrong for Airbus, then it’s wrong for Boeing. Full Stop.
By: Bmused55 - 16th July 2004 at 12:17
Considering that parts for the 7E7 will be made in Japan and Italy, it is of no surpise there is an affiliation between them and Boeing.
Yes, I know they all at it. My argument is, Airbus have been receiving far, far too much.
By: Grey Area - 16th July 2004 at 12:08
Oh – surprise! Boeing are whiter than white whilst Airbus are the nasty black-hearted villains!
You don’t seem to know very much about the way in which big business works in this day and age if you really believe what you’ve written there.
What about the subsidies that Boeing itself has received from the governments of Japan and Italy in connection with the 7E7 – not to mention the “sweetener” to keep production of that type in Washington State – some US$ 6,000,000,000 worth?
You may find this paper illuminating – it was produced by two US academics from Buffalo NJ with no connection to either manufacturer. The really interesting bit is Table 2 on page 65 – don’t worry, the page numbering doesn’t start at 1!!!
And I’ll say it again – THEY’RE ALL AT IT!
By: Bmused55 - 16th July 2004 at 12:04
I’m not saying their squeaky clean. Neither of them are.
fact is, Military contracts are sales, not subisidies.
Airbus get a huge ammount of money from the EU. For what?
By: Bmused55 - 16th July 2004 at 11:54
Boeing research, develop and produce Military hardware and Space exploration vehicles. These are bought by Nasa and the US Military.
A bog standard sale of a product, on a mass scale I’ll admit.
Where as Airbus…. they receive “handouts” to help fund themselves. They do not produce Military hardware and do reasearch or develop spacecraft. so whats the money for?
Subsidies are the reason why Airbus are able to sell their aircraft at the prices they do.
By: Grey Area - 16th July 2004 at 11:49
I agree, so long as we’re referring to all subsidies…. including “invisible” subsidies through over-appropriation on military projects, “encouragements” to build aircraft in certain US States and the like.
They’re all at it……….
By: Bmused55 - 16th July 2004 at 11:45
Ok, I misread the leading line.
They’re complaining against Airbus susbidies in general.
I for one beleive susbisidies should be stopped. Perhaps even the money should be recalled.
By: Grey Area - 16th July 2004 at 11:39
Yes, I speak English quite well- but nowhere in that article does it mention any US institution giving aid or subsidies of any kind to Airbus.
Either we’re talking about two different articles or you’re mistaken.
By: Bmused55 - 16th July 2004 at 11:31
Where does it mention Airbus getting state aid from the USA????? :confused:
another way of saying “subsidies from the us”
By: Grey Area - 16th July 2004 at 11:23
Where does it mention Airbus getting state aid from the USA????? :confused:
Sign In
July 16, 2004 at 5:55 am