25
   

FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION

 
 
Lash
 
  1  
Sat 11 Jun, 2005 08:32 pm
You're going all the way to PARIS to avoid facing your schizophrenic statements?

Come on. You're a big girl.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Sat 11 Jun, 2005 09:38 pm
Goiing back to the Airbus vs Boeing issue for a second until yall get back into bashing each other...My understanding is that the US government helps Boeiing by awarding it (through NASA for example) contracts to do research and development. R&D that has results that are relatively quickly adopted by Boeing in its comercial businesss. A bit more subtle than what the Europeans do with Airbus, but a government subsidy nonetheless, Back to the name calling now. Whose turn is it next?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Sat 11 Jun, 2005 10:40 pm
realjohnboy,

I believe you exaggerate the U.S. government's role in "subsidizing" Boeing, and are dead wrong in suggesting that the degrees of government subsidy and control of Airbus and Boeing are equivalent.

Boeing is a private company whose stock is publicly traded on the NYSE. The government owns none of its stock and has no role whatever in the management of the company under our laws. The government has invested no capital for the financing of Boeing aircraft development projects. Boeing has a number of divisions that are managed separately, some in distinct corporations for special purposes. One of these divisions design\s, builds and services ballistic missiles for the Defense Department and launch rockets for NASA. The government clients, for purposes of security, closely manage its operations, and government accounting rules preclude any transfer of assets from units serving such government contracts to other divisions of the company. Certainly the profits from these operations can be used for any purpose the company chooses, but that is true of profits derived from any source or any customer. The Boeing aircraft company derives the great majority of its revenues from the sale of airliners to U.S. and international airlines, not the U.S. government.

Contrast that with the capitalization and management of Airbus. The owning entities of Airbus are partly capitalized by their governments, which also are represented on the Boards of Directors that oversee the management of these companies and select their officers. These government directors have a fiduciary responsibility under law to protect the financial interest of the enterprise, and a responsibility to their government masters to do their will as well. These governments have, in addition provided additional funds directly for the purpose of developing the new A350 aircraft.

No equivalence here.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 11 Jun, 2005 10:54 pm
georgeob, Thank you for clarifying what really happens concerning government contracts with Boeing. Misinformation is rampant enough without our adding to the problem.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Sun 12 Jun, 2005 07:07 am
Hmmmm. Maybe NPR needs to hire a fact-checker.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Sun 12 Jun, 2005 09:52 am
realjohnboy went back and listened again to the story on NPR that was his source for the comment on the Boeing/Airbus controversy. I invite you to listen to it also. npr.org will get you into the archives. Then click on the Morning Edition program and go back to Tuesday, May 31st (my birthday) to hear the perhaps two minute story entitled Boeing, Airbus Subsidy Dispute Escalates.
johnboy has no animosity towards Boeing. On the contrary, I think they have made a wise decision with regard to where they see the growth in the turbulent airline industry. My comments about the issue of subsidies was about the form: comparing apples and oranges or baseball and cricket. Please listen to the broadcast. I try to chat about things, without rancor, using sources that I trust. I hope I didn't overstate the argument against Boeing. Thank you -rjb-
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 12 Jun, 2005 10:12 am
rjb, I trust npr as a news source, and listen to them on the radio more than any other news station. Here's the link for the Boeing/Airbus article. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4673068

It has been my understanding that Airbus has an advantage over Boeing with government subsidies, because Airbus is not required to pay back 'loans' in the event their products are failures. Boeing must do business as an independent contractor as a business entity that can go bankrupt if they fail in their business management. Airbus has no such threat to their survival. In my books, that's a biggie.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sun 12 Jun, 2005 10:14 am
realjohnboy wrote:
Back to the name calling now. Whose turn is it next?

I'll be happy to oblige next time again, since you apparently consider calling people on their erroneous statements or lies "bashing each other" and "name calling". (I wrote you a PM about that last time, but you never replied.)

No offence, but I think I had a teacher like you ... On primary school, before the liberation and happier times of high school came, I was bullied quite a bit. Now some teachers react to bullying with passivity; others intervene forcefully and in time. And then there are teachers who take another kind of tack. Let's say, kid A bullies kid B in the schoolyard. When kid B tries to fend for himself at best as he can, and a ruckus thus ensues, the teacher comes out and admonishes "all you kids" to finally behave and "stop pestering each other". Quiet ensues for the moment, except kid B remains intimidated, knowing now that if he defends himself he'll be punished, while kid A and his friends breathe in triumphantal relief: they now know they can get away with stuff, as long as they keep the overall sound down.

We're not kids anymore? True, but this stuff doesn't stop at that point alas. It's replayed on sometimes grotesque scales - just remember Bosnia. Serbian militants, armed and funded by Serbia proper, launch an armed insurrection, which quickly derails into brutal ethnic cleansings, with thousands of people dead or homeless. The Muslims are initially pushed back into ever closer quarters, before they eventually start lashing back in return. The international community? It ignored President Izetbegovic's initial desperate calls for intervention. When the man eventually dropped his save-our-multiethnic-state approach and started having his people hit back from an ever more specifically Muslim identity, it basically opted for the "behave, you kids" approach. It announced an arms boycott against "both parties", which initially yielded an extreme additional benefit to the Serbs, who could still access the Yugoslav National Army's supplies and support from Serbia proper, marginalising the Muslims even further (until they eventually turned to dubious Middle-Eastern support). The upshot of it all? The fair teachers Vance and Owen, calling all "you kids" to account, brokered a peace deal that would definitely legitimize the Serbs's conquests, divvying up Bosnia-Herzegovina into ethnic bantustans, and offered international troops as "peace-keepers".

Its almost enough to make one a neoconservative, and a sad story especially in light of the worse still deal that in the end did actually end the war, in Dayton, after the US had finally shaken the "neutral" EU teacher by his shoulders and said, goddarnit we're going to intervene on the part of those who've been done wrong.

Some associative thoughts from the nimh, who's a bit obsessive about justice ... no justice, no peace.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Sun 12 Jun, 2005 10:30 am
RJB,

I know Boeing well - indeed I once worked for them - a long time ago. I am very experienced in and familiar with their Defense Department contracting, (from both the military and commercial perspectives) and know the rules of the game very well, - all based on decades of experience. I don't need to rely on an amateur from NPR.

Boeing does a great deal of business with the government (as does Airbus and its parent companies). However, unlike Airbus, Boeing is not capitalized by the government for its commercial development programs, and Boeing has no government representatives at all in its management structure - it is accountable only to its stockholders who are all private citizens and financial institutions. Airbus is similarly accountable to its owners, but they happen to include the governments of France, Germany and other nations in the consortium.

For very large defense procurements such as the F-20 fighter Boeing (and other contractors) do get some up front money (in advance of aircraft delivery) for the very expensive development of entirely new technology, the design of a radical new aircraft in accordance with government specifications, and the very substantial testing that must occur before the aircraft flies and the winner of the competition is selected. The system is designed so that the bidding companies have considerable skin in the game and the loser in the competition loses a great deal of money, even despite these payments. Finally government auditors require that such programs be managed and financed independently of the operations of the rest of the company.

By contract in Euro\pe there is only one major defense contractor - and that is a part of the structure of the parent companies of Airbus. They don't face any risk at all in their government business simply because there is no alternative to them.

As Cicerone has pointed out Boeing could go bankrupt. Airbus could not.

There is no equivalence.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Sun 12 Jun, 2005 10:36 am
realjohnboy wrote:
realjohnboy went back and listened again to the story on NPR that was his source for the comment on the Boeing/Airbus controversy. I invite you to listen to it also. npr.org will get you into the archives. Then click on the Morning Edition program and go back to Tuesday, May 31st (my birthday) to hear the perhaps two minute story entitled Boeing, Airbus Subsidy Dispute Escalates.
johnboy has no animosity towards Boeing. On the contrary, I think they have made a wise decision with regard to where they see the growth in the turbulent airline industry. My comments about the issue of subsidies was about the form: comparing apples and oranges or baseball and cricket. Please listen to the broadcast. I try to chat about things, without rancor, using sources that I trust. I hope I didn't overstate the argument against Boeing. Thank you -rjb-


My remark about NPR perhaps needing a fact-checker was in response to this statement by you:

Quote:
Both are, according to a story I heard on NPR a week or two ago, heavily subsidized in some manner by the governments involved. Thus the accusations they have made against each other are probably a wash


I don't particularly agree, but that's merely my opinion.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Sun 12 Jun, 2005 11:20 am
First of all, I have apolgozed privately to Nimh about my failure to respond to his pm about the personal attacks he has encountered. I am not a big A2K user so perhaps, no undoubtedly, I made too light of it. I feel badly about that.
With regard to Airbus vs Boeing and the subsidies, I reckon we will have to wait and see. The case is before the World Trade Commission or whatever. I don't have a pony in this race; I was merely attempting to suggest that there are two sides to every issue, and the NPR story raised some questions in my mind about how strong a case Boeing could make. Nothing more and nothing less. Thank you. -rjb-
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Sun 12 Jun, 2005 11:41 am
RJB - people post their opinions on these forums daily and even provide sources to back them up from time to time.

Don't be surprised, though, or take offense, if those sources are sometimes challenged.

I'm not a huge listener to NPR, but if you quoted them correctly, I still think they may want to look into hiring a fact-checker.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Sun 12 Jun, 2005 12:02 pm
Justwonders...Tell me what was wrong in the story. Thank you
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Sun 12 Jun, 2005 12:26 pm
RJB - I didn't listen to what NPR had to say...was just responding to your opinion (based on what you heard on NPR) that 'it was a wash' concerning the subsidies awarded each company.

If you re-read Georgeob1's comments, you'll see it's definitely not 'a wash'.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Sun 12 Jun, 2005 01:09 pm
Actually - and George will know this best from own experience - the charges and countercharges recall a period from 1970 (the year a consortium of European aerospace companies formed Airbus) to 1992, when Boeing and Airbus signed a bilateral accord setting rules for subsidies.

(The loans are/were permissible under the '92 accord, though I doubt if under the WTO's broader trade rules.)

EU - US Agreement on Large Civil Aircraft 1992: key facts and figures
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 12 Jun, 2005 01:45 pm
Walter, That article is one-sided. It talks about the EU (consisting of many countries that participate), then criticizes the US for oursourcing jobs to Japan. Where's the logic? As for our defense contracts to Boeing, it's important for the US to remain top dog in the air defense arena; that's the reason why our expenditures for defense is seven times larger than any other country. I'm not making any judgements about it's right or wrong; but Europe has benefited from the US military for many decades.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Sun 12 Jun, 2005 01:57 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Walter, That article is one-sided.


I see it as (last year's) EU opinion.

And I suppose, since all the other opinions here are from the US/Boeing site, it is only fair to point out the other, different opinion as well.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Sun 12 Jun, 2005 02:23 pm
Mine's not. Our plane is better. They are bad losers. :wink:
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 12 Jun, 2005 02:56 pm
McTag, The reason the Airbus is better is based on the fact that most of the important components of your airplane comes from US companies. Wink

Airbus A380 - U.S. suppliers
Eaton Hydraulic systems
General Electric Engines
Goodrich Main landing gear; evacuation systems; interior lighting
Honeywell Avionics
Northrop Grumman Navigation equipment

Parker Hannifin Fuel; flight control; hydraulic & pneumatic systems
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Sun 12 Jun, 2005 03:07 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:

Goodrich Main landing gear; evacuation systems; interior lighting


Ehem ... : Goodrich Lightning Systems Laughing

[Catalog, How to find it] :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

THE BRITISH THREAD II - Discussion by jespah
The United Kingdom's bye bye to Europe - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
Sinti and Roma: History repeating - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
[B]THE RED ROSE COUNTY[/B] - Discussion by Mathos
Leaving today for Europe - Discussion by cicerone imposter
So you think you know Europe? - Discussion by nimh
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/06/2025 at 12:44:22