Airbus SAS's A380

[Prague]

Originally posted by Philter:

...First of all, my projects don't fall apart.

 

Second of all, as a taxpayer, I have no ability to cut Boeing off....

1. Ha! Non answer.

 

2. Your elected representatives hire them. If you vote, you hire them.

 

I'm Done.

[GZsound]

Originally posted by Prague:

Originally posted by Philter:

...Uhhh, Mark, wanna take a stab at guessing how much of Boeing's funding comes from taxpayer dollars?...

Yes, but Boeing has to deliver a product. Boeing gets no outright grant for R & D. They MUST deliver a product in all cases. That is not "funding".

 

All contracts are open to all bids. Understandably, some military contracts require US only companies (Boeing, Lockheed, General Dynamics, etc.).

 

Thank you. I was going to make the same point. Boeing has to compete, the combined governments of europe do not. They have "unlimited" funds, don't have to bid at all and can build whatever they want for any amount of money.

 

If the new plane fails, so what? The taxpayers of europe will pay for something else.

 

It is quite unfair to force Boeing to compete with europe. Although I do believe Boeing will survive, it's still unfair.

[Mats Olsson.]

Mark, how about if you (for once) backed up your bold claims with some hard facts?

 

The commercial aircraft manufacturer Airbus S.A.S. does not receive "unlimited funding" from European govts. Really.

 

Boeing has continually protested over state support for Airbus from the governments of the partner nations, most recently in July 2004. Harry Stonecipher (Boeing CEO) accused Airbus of abusing a 1992 non-binding agreement covering launch aid. Airbus is given launch aid from European governments which it must repay through strict commercial contracts, and contends that this is fully compliant with the 1992 agreement and WTO rules. The agreement allows up to 33 per cent of the program cost to be met through government loans which are to be fully repaid within 17 years with interest and royalties. These loans are held at a minimum interest rate equal to the cost of government borrowing plus 0.25%, which would be below market rates available to Airbus without government support [1] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3722888.stm).

 

Airbus also argues that some of the pork barrel military contracts awarded to Boeing (the second largest U.S. defence contractor) are in effect a form of subsidy (see the Boeing KC-767 military contracting scandal). The significant U.S. government support of technology development via NASA also provides significant support to Boeing, as does the large tax breaks offered to Boeing which are in violation of the 1992 agreement and WTO rules. In its recent products such as the 787, Boeing has also been offered substantial support from local and state governments.

 

The latest scramble involving Airbus and Boeing surround the American companys latest offering, the 787 Dreamliner. EU trade officials are questioning the funding provided by the Japanese Government and Japanese companies for the launch of the 787.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus

 

 

PS

US contractors supporting an estimated 120,000 jobs earned estimated $5.5 billion (2003) worth of business. For example, the A380 has 51% American content in terms of work share value.

[Philter]

Originally posted by GZsound:

Originally posted by Prague:

Originally posted by Philter:

...Uhhh, Mark, wanna take a stab at guessing how much of Boeing's funding comes from taxpayer dollars?...

Yes, but Boeing has to deliver a product. Boeing gets no outright grant for R & D. They MUST deliver a product in all cases. That is not "funding".

 

All contracts are open to all bids. Understandably, some military contracts require US only companies (Boeing, Lockheed, General Dynamics, etc.).

 

Thank you. I was going to make the same point. Boeing has to compete, the combined governments of europe do not. They have "unlimited" funds, don't have to bid at all and can build whatever they want for any amount of money.

 

If the new plane fails, so what? The taxpayers of europe will pay for something else.

 

It is quite unfair to force Boeing to compete with europe. Although I do believe Boeing will survive, it's still unfair.

 

Darn those wascally Euwopeans! Don't they know not to compete with America?

 

God, how tiresome. Splitting threads doesn't get you anywhere. Billions of dollars of US taxpayer dollars get funneled into Boeing every year. You want to pretend like that's a result of open competition, go ahead, deceive yourself. Seems incredibly naive to me, somewhat along the lines of imagining that European governments have unlimited tax funds to spend.