More proof of the U.S. downfall. Viva la france!

[Bosh]

Yeah sure, Europe wasn't going to let Concorde go down in bankruptcy.. what happened to it in the end? It went down in bankruptcy.

How can a model of plane go bankrupt

[DanS]

Hurting all the airlines that operate Airbus - including US airlines.

I don't think any US airlines have signed up to buy the A380.

[chequita guevara]

Neddie, is that Jeb Stuart in your avatar?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by DanS


I don't think any US airlines have signed up to buy the A380.

UPS has ordered the freight version, FedEx as well. And btw, I primarily meant those which use current Airbus models. Don't you think banning planes that are so common in the international market (not US) will have a negative effect on air travel business overall?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ned


Prove it.

Prove what?

[Ted Striker]

it

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Prove it.

Illinois and Chicago shelled out quite a bit of money to get Boeing to move their headquarters there. I even applied for a job with them back in 2001. Thing is, the states and cities cannot be punished for violating treaties, so the Feds will have to pay the fine (NAFTA) or various companies will get hit with tariffs (WTO/GATT).

[DinoDoc]

That's just run of the mill stuff that wouldn't trigger the WTO's gives a ****. Hell you should see the deal MS cut for Nissan. This would be more in line of what they'd care about: http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-028.html

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Neddie, is that Jeb Stuart in your avatar?

No, a radical named Ned Kelly.

[Ned]

I think there may be a difference between reimbursing moving costs and direct subsidies to develop a new model plane. With the latter, one can impose duties/penalties on the particular plane that benefitted from the subsidies.

Also, why would state taxes or lack thereof count anyway? Some states have higher property taxes than others. Is a company getting a subsidy for locating in a low tax state?

Now the Euro complaint is that Boeing gets preferences with the Pentagon and NASA -- to develop and deploy military aircraft. How this has anything to do with its commercial business is beyond me, unless it can be shown that Boeing makes excess profits from its military business.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ned
Now the Euro complaint is that Boeing gets preferences with the Pentagon and NASA -- to develop and deploy military aircraft. How this has anything to do with its commercial business is beyond me, unless it can be shown that Boeing makes excess profits from its military business.

Then you clearly don't understand the aircraft industry.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ned
Now the Euro complaint is that Boeing gets preferences with the Pentagon and NASA -- to develop and deploy military aircraft. How this has anything to do with its commercial business is beyond me, unless it can be shown that Boeing makes excess profits from its military business.

It would be hard to imagine Boeing not applying technology it developed under their military contracts to their commercial divivsion if it didn't violate national security rules. But, that being said, most military contracts are open to bid and competition; it would hard to say that this is a subsidy.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Then you clearly don't understand the aircraft industry.

Perhaps I don't. Educate me.

[Ned]

Originally posted by PLATO


It would be hard to imagine Boeing not applying technology it developed under their military contracts to their commercial divivsion if it didn't violate national security rules. But, that being said, most military contracts are open to bid and competition; it would hard to say that this is a subsidy.

Bingo.

As to technology, I hardly think much of it transfers from the military to the commercial. The military is not interested in "quiet" engines, for example.

[Kontiki]

PLATO got the gist of it. It's not receiving abnormal profits from military work that's at issue, it's the commonality of parts between military and civilian use aircraft. Just because a 777 doesn't look like a bomber or fighter aircraft doesn't mean that there isn't a considerable amount of practical knowledge gleaned from designing something from military specs - think about wiring, computer systems, hydraulics, material design and testing, just to name a few. And it's not just Boeing itself that benefits from this, but other component manufacturers as well. I did a case study on GE's aircraft engine division a few years back and there was considerable lamenting about the recent trend away from government sponsored R&D, to the point where it was a really tough decision whether to develop altogether new engines or just improve existing designs.

Which kind of leads into PLATO's other point, although he didn't say much about it - there has been a movement in recent years away from blatant government R&D subsidies towards a more open tendering process. So, yeah, today Boeing, GE et al aren't receiving the same kind of government "subsidies" that they used to, but they sure as hell took advantage of what they did get in the past, and I'm sure they still do whenever it's an option.