I think Boeing has lost it

[yavoon]

Originally posted by paiktis22
but airbus is winning

it makes u happy that a fat bloated inefficient airline subsidized massively since its inception over 30 years ago has just recently infused w/ ever growing amounts of "loans" surpassed boeing in sales?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by DanS


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.

thats moronic. yes lets let the inefficient bloated france have complete control so instead of subsidies they can merely overprice their product to gain back the cost of their ineptness.

that'd cost the US economy more than floating boeing ever would.

[Mazarin]

Originally posted by yavoon
the magnitude of the giving is in vast discrepancy.

unless u think boeing got 4 billion recently?

It wasn't given...it was loaned.:P Boeing has been claiming that subsidies for Airbus have been too high -but it has never been able to prove its claims.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Mazarin

It wasn't given...it was loaned.:P Boeing has been claiming that subsidies for Airbus have been too high -but it has never been able to prove its claims.

"prove that the subsidies were too high"

is that like proving that something is too cheap?

and like I said, loans are often rolled over or forgiven. this is nothing new of course. just the recent jumbo jet and the size of the subsidy are new.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by yavoon
like I said the loans are often forgiven and/or rolled over.

What about facts? So far, you've said "airbus is subsidized entirely by the gov't".
The figure to back your assertion is a 4bil€ loan to Airbus.
Since Airbus had a turnout 5 times superior to that loan, and in only one year, I fail to see how "entirely subsidized" it is.

[Spiffor]

And please explain us what makes Airbus "inefficient". Besides, I fail to see how this inefficient bloated French company could ever overprice its products: after all, it seems it's very easy to outcompete Airbus once the French government stops to pay all its bills

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Spiffor

What about facts? So far, you've said "airbus is subsidized entirely by the gov't".
The figure to back your assertion is a 4bil€ loan to Airbus.
Since Airbus had a turnout 5 times superior to that loan, and in only one year, I fail to see how "entirely subsidized" it is.

ur comparing a net loan to gross projected sales? yah ok. gw sparky. ur on firm financial footing there.

[Colon™]

Dan or TCO, could you tell which background the current CEO of Boeing has? Engineering? Something else?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by yavoon
ur comparing a net loan to gross projected sales?

No, I am exposing your nonsense when you say "airbus is subsidized entirely by the gov't".

Airbus gets much, much more money from sales than from the gov't. For an "entirely subsidized" company, I find it a little strange

More accurately, you could say Airbus is being helped by the European govs. That would be true. Just as true as the US gov is helping Boeing, albeit with the more indirect way of pressuring potential Airbus buyers.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Spiffor

No, I am exposing your nonsense when you say "airbus is subsidized entirely by the gov't".

Airbus gets much, much more money from sales than from the gov't. For an "entirely subsidized" company, I find it a little strange

More accurately, you could say Airbus is being helped by the European govs. That would be true. Just as true as the US gov is helping Boeing, albeit with the more indirect way of pressuring potential Airbus buyers.

u mean 50% of the gross revenue of airbus is not given to them by the gov't? I sure as hell hope so. that would be beyond ridiculous. unfortunately u have an issue w/ scale.

Airbus could not exist w/o the gov't support. u keep trying to imply that boeing is basically the same thing as airbus cuz they both receive "government benefits." which is just as ludicrous as saying construction workers are compensated as well as doctors cuz they "both receive a paycheck." yet u continue to harp the point like one actually exists.

[Colon™]

And regarding the point whether it makes economic sense or not to develop a superjumbo, as far as I'm concerned it's irrelevant. Boeing was told it wasn't wise to develop the 707, because there wasn't market for it and yet they did. They were told there wasn't a market for the jumbo and they developed it anyway. It's quite ironic Boeing is now telling Airbus there's no market to build the superjumbo while they themselves often completely disregarded such advice in the past.

I don't want to know about their cash flow or market projections, I want to know why they've gotten so chicken****.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Colon
And regarding the point whether it makes economic sense or not to develop a superjumbo, as far as I'm concerned it's irrelevant. Boeing was told it wasn't wise to develop the 707, because there wasn't market for it and yet they did. They were told there wasn't a market for the jumbo and they developed it anyway. It's quite ironic Boeing is now telling Airbus there's no market to build the superjumbo while they themselves often completely disregarded such advice in the past.

I don't want to know about their cash flow or market projections, I want to know why they've gotten so chicken****.

its hard to have balls when going up against a company that can receive such heavy subsidies. it cost ~11 billion to develop the superjumbo. if both boeing and airbus decided to do it, airbus has a 4 billion headstart. plus airbus would be able to work out deals(as they have in the past) to sell planes at negative margins.

and also the superjumbo is not a success yet. I think it will be. but if boeing is right, it is not at this juncture that we would know it.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by yavoon
u mean 50% of the gross revenue of airbus is not given to them by the gov't? I sure as hell hope so. that would be beyond ridiculous. unfortunately u have an issue w/ scale.

Well, I thought "entirely" meant "100%". Silly me. Anyway, if I understand correctly, the actual monetary gain from these net loans is the interest rate, that Airbus is supposed not to pay (and I'm not even sure of that, as I don't know precisely what "net loans" mean in English).
Let's see, 2% of 4 bil means that Airbus gets directly subsidized by... 80 mil € a year . Gosh, what an immense input of money for such a small company. Airbus would obviously have no chance to survive nor to compete without such an incredible subsidy.

Airbus could not exist w/o the gov't support.

Wrong. Airbus could not have existed without the gov't support. It was a protected business for decades, back when Boeing was the absolute ruler of the skies.
But now, the money flows through Airbus, and the subsidies merely help the company being more bold in its R&D. Airbus would probably be not as successful in the near future as it is now if we stopped subsidizing it, but it's a definitely viable company, that has definitely enough qualities to worry Boeing for many years to come.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Well, I thought "entirely" meant "100%". Silly me. Anyway, if I understand correctly, the actual monetary gain from these net loans is the interest rate, that Airbus is supposed not to pay (and I'm not even sure of that, as I don't know precisely what "net loans" mean in English).
Let's see, 2% of 4 bil means that Airbus gets directly subsidized by... 80 mil € a year . Gosh, what an immense input of money for such a small company. Airbus would obviously have no chance to survive nor to compete without such an incredible subsidy.

no. and here we go.

the advantage of a gov't 4 billion loan to someone like airbus is quite vast.

one its flexible, it can be paid off if profitable, rolled over or sometimes forgiven.

two its attainable. not everyone will loan u 4 billion. now I'm not familiar w/ how easy it is to acquire a 4 billion dollar loan, but my guess is not very.

three. u wont go down cause of it. a 4 billion dollar private loan means if u dont pay u lose the company. foreclosure seizure of assets. a 4 billion dollar loan from france to airbus carries zero such risk.

a no risk loan to cover a lil over a third of a new planes development. not much of an advantage? and that doesn't even consider the prior 30 years of subsidies they have received.

[yavoon]

just for a taste of how gov't run airbus is.

1/02/04
Reuters Spain withholds A380 funds as seeks more work Friday January 2, 8:54 am ET MADRID, Jan 2 (Reuters) - Spain has withheld some funding from Airbus' A380 superjumbo project as it negotiates for a larger share of the work in the project, Science and Technology Minister Juan Costa said on Friday. "We believe that part of the (A380) industrial plan is not being fulfilled and because of that we have withheld substantial funds this year," Costa told a news conference. "We have decided not to pay them until there is a clear agreement over the participation of the Spanish...

they are still negotiating which country should get how many jobs. note: not which country would be most efficient or profitable. but politically, which country should get them.