I think Boeing has lost it

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Mazarin

The point is that cars that are successful in Europe are not developped or produced in the U.S. I'd never claim Chrysler to be German just because it belongs to a German company. Same goes for Ford Europe, Opel or Jaguar...they have very different models than their US based owners.

why not? what does where a car is produced have to do w/ squat? ford is a single company if it is more efficient to have its volvo division continue to produce cars for europe rather than try to force its way in w/ a new brand. how is that different?

it certainly isnt different to ford. so why do u make such a flimsy distinction?

oh and daimler-chrysler was a merger. so "belong" is a lil too clear cut for the convolution that went on

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by yavoon
it is subsidized though so the taxpayers and not the consumers bear some of the cost.

Care to back that comment? As far as I can see, it's about as real as saying "Ford is subsidized".

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Care to back that comment? As far as I can see, it's about as real as saying "Ford is subsidized".

do u think airbus is not subsidized?

did u not read my prior posts?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by yavoon
dodging the issue that france protected its cars forever and now u think is somewhat more competitive but still can not export to the largest car market in the world?

So, you're speaking about a problem like if it was current (protectionism), while you know it's past tense. Congrats.

And as for exporting to the US: France mostly produces urban cars with low oil consumption. The American market differs with the European market, as there is much more room (hence less need for small cars) and the fuel prices are much lower than in Europe. Besides, French cars suffer from an overall bad image that, although outdated and completely out of reality, remains rampant in the American perceptions.
French companies will attempt to penetrate this difficult market only if hard pressed. For now, they are doing way enough profits in Europe.

Care to explain why your wonderfully competitive cars don't export in Europe, the world second bggest market? Oh yes, I forgot, that's because we are soooo protectionist. Otherwise, our cities would be covered in gaz guzzling SUVs

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by yavoon
do u think airbus is not subsidized?

did u not read my prior posts?

I've read them all, and I didn't find any figure, any source, or even any argument backing this Bold Assertion. I'm waiting for them.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I've read them all, and I didn't find any figure, any source, or even any argument backing this Bold Assertion. I'm waiting for them.

no wonder french are so horrible.

well they were given 4 billion to develop the new super jumbo jet. given.

"Airbus partner governments have borne 75 to 100 percent of the development costs for all major lines of Airbus aircraft and provided other forms of support, including equity infusions, debt forgiveness, debt rollovers and marketing assistance,"

thats directly from last page. its also very easy to find on google. and infact u can ask the french/british/spanish/german governments and they will tell u that they subsidize airbus.

so given its relatively open common knowledge and the fact that I had posted a snippit on the prior page. ur assertion is comedically dumb.

[Spiffor]

From the first google source I found with your quote:

Most recently, the European governments have agreed to provide about $4 billion in loans to help cover Airbus' cost for developing its new superjumbo jet.

The Horror!
I'm sure the US pressuring Saudi to buy Boeing instead of Airbus is only a speck compared to such a regal gift from the governments to Airbus...

[CerberusIV]

yavoon, you should check your facts more carefully.

Walmart own the Asda supermarket brand in the UK. There was a big fuss when they bought it and fears that they would dominate the sector. It hasn't happened. They aren't doing any better than the previous management.

Daimler appointed several new board members to the Chrysler part of the company last year. It was dressed up politely so as not to upset the US consumers but the company is basically run by Daimlers nominees.

BAE and EADS are private companies. They get loans, not grants and the European Commision would jump up and down on the British or French governments if there was any subsidy or preferential loan. In the EU we mostly stick to the rules (politically convenient steel tariff anyone?).

[DanS]

its likely that the US gov't will have to save boeing at the current rate.

I don't believe this to be the case. Further, I wouldn't want the gov't to save Boeing, even if it had the unfortunate chance to do so.

[DanS]

Regarding Walmart, they can be beaten in certain markets. For instance, major cities in the US are not Walmart strongholds. That said, the company has a lot of inherent strengths, which will probably enable it to eventually make large inroads into these markets.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
yavoon, you should check your facts more carefully.

Walmart own the Asda supermarket brand in the UK. There was a big fuss when they bought it and fears that they would dominate the sector. It hasn't happened. They aren't doing any better than the previous management.

Daimler appointed several new board members to the Chrysler part of the company last year. It was dressed up politely so as not to upset the US consumers but the company is basically run by Daimlers nominees.

BAE and EADS are private companies. They get loans, not grants and the European Commision would jump up and down on the British or French governments if there was any subsidy or preferential loan. In the EU we mostly stick to the rules (politically convenient steel tariff anyone?).

aye, i did not imply that the merger was 50/50. I think chrysler shareholders only got ~40% of the new companies stock.

but for example ford bought volvo w/ about a years worth of ford profits. daimler was in no such position w/ chrysler.

the EU does not stick to the rules and loans are often forgiven, extraordinarily low rate or rolled over w/ ease. so the mere fact u "package" it as a loan does not belay anything to ur true intent.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Spiffor
From the first google source I found with your quote:

Most recently, the European governments have agreed to provide about $4 billion in loans to help cover Airbus' cost for developing its new superjumbo jet.

The Horror!
I'm sure the US pressuring Saudi to buy Boeing instead of Airbus is only a speck compared to such a regal gift from the governments to Airbus...

like I said the loans are often forgiven and/or rolled over.

and for further point as to why the "EU wouldn't dare break a treaty." treaties are broken constantly. US breaks them, EU breaks them, china pisses on them.

hell wasn't there a balanced budget amendmant in the EU that france and germany couldn't wait to piss on before the ink was dry?

[Mazarin]

about the 1992 EU-US agreement:

from the European Commission's website
1992 EC/US Agreement on Trade in Large Civil Aircraft

Until the late 70s the US enjoyed almost a de facto monopoly in the LCA sector.

The Airbus consortium (created in 1969) started competing effectively in the 80s. At that stage the US became concerned about the European competition and the alleged subsidies paid by the European governments for the developments of the early models of the Airbus family. This became a major issue of contention, and the European side was equally concerned by subsidies accruing to US LCA manufacturers through NASA and Defense programmes.

The EU and the US started bilateral negotiations for the limitation of government subsidies to the LCA sector in the late 1980s. Negotiations were concluded in 1992 with the signature of the EC-US Agreement on Trade in Large Civil Aircraft which focuses on the limitation of both direct and indirect government support.

On the one hand, the agreement puts a ceiling on the amount of direct government support (33% of the total development costs) for new aircraft programmes. It establishes that such support (granted in the form of repayable royalty-based loans) will be repaid at an interest rate no less than the government cost of borrowing and within no more than 17 years. Basically, this discipline applies to the form of government support in use in Europe.

On the other hand, the agreement establishes that indirect support (i.e. benefits provided for aeronautical applications of NASA or military programmes) should be limited to a 3% of the nation's LCA industry turnover. This discipline is primarily targeted to the support system in use in the US. In contrast to the European system of repayable royalty-based loans, since the repeal of the US rules on recoupment, there is no requirement for indirect support to be reimbursed.

In order to verify compliance with the above disciplines, the Agreement establishes that the parties must exchange transparency information on a yearly basis on their respective support systems, through bilateral consultations that normally take place twice a year. Such consultations are an occasion to discuss questions concerning the implementation of the agreement and any other issue of relevance to the LCA sector. It must be remarked that the exchange of transparency information has highlighted an important divergence between the US and the EU in the way to interpret the indirect support discipline. In general, the EU considers that the US notification of indirect support to its LCA industry falls short of the real benefits derived from NASA programmes and military spin-offs. For further details see Report on United States Barriers to Trade and Investment, European Commission, 1998 (3)

The current agreement on trade in civil aircraft was concluded in 1979 at the end of the Tokyo round. Although the aircraft negotiations for a new GATT agreement were associated to the Uruguay round, they did not succeed.

The large civil aircraft sector is generally subject to the WTO rules on subsidies, although more specific multilateral rules exist regarding forms of government support.

The EU regrets that, at the end of the Uruguay Round negotiations, the US blocked the adoption of a new Civil Aircraft Agreement supported by all other negotiating parties. Although negotiations have continued since, no progress has been made.

The 1979 agreement therefore remains in force as it was. Nevertheless, the 1979 aircraft agreement was devised to operate in a GATT context; with the introduction of the new WTO system in 1994, certain provisions of the 1979 could be put into question.

For this reason, a process of technical rectification of the aircraft agreement bringing it into conformity with the WTO, is now under way.

governments on both sides have been putting subsidiaries into the aircraft industry for decades, and both are permanently arguing that the other is giving too much money to its own industry.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Mazarin
about the 1992 EU-US agreement:

governments on both sides have been putting subsidiaries into the aircraft industry for decades, and both are permanently arguing that the other is giving too much money to its own industry.

the magnitude of the giving is in vast discrepancy.

unless u think boeing got 4 billion recently?

[Bereta_Eder]

but airbus is winning