For all you "buy American" Boeing anti Airbus people

[8vATE]

I like Boeings...
But you guys who chant that buy American crap are clueless...



Airbus parent to build piece of Boeing's new plane
Tue Oct 18, 2005 12:22 PM ET

By Christian Plumb

NEW YORK, Oct 18 (Reuters) - European planemaker Airbus' parent company EADS (EAD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) will make a key piece of U.S. archrival Boeing Co.'s (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research) latest passenger jet, in a sign of how outsourcing can trump national pride.
Boeing supplier Vought Aircraft Industries Inc.'s announcement on Monday that EADS will be a subcontractor on its work on the 787 Dreamliner was at first glance a surprise considering that Boeing and Airbus -- two symbols of regional industrial might -- are facing off in a trade battle.
But analysts said the news, first reported by the Seattle Times, was an inevitable consequence of an engineering-intensive industry where a handful of companies have the know-how to build the necessary specialized parts.
"Subcontracting makes for strange bedfellows," said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group, adding that the move was a symptom of "greater internationalization" of manufacturing that is an inevitable consequence of globalized airliner sales.
The 787, a jetliner built largely of composite materials, is one of the most outsourced planes in history, including 30 percent to be built by Japanese manufacturers.
Dallas-based Vought, which will build much of the plane's rear fuselage, said it had reached price agreements with companies including EADS, which will make a rear wall known as the aft pressure bulkhead.
Vought said Boeing had not limited which companies it could hire as subcontractors.
"Apparently this is a small global supply base," said Vought spokeswoman Lynne Warne. "In most cases it's a unique capability, so it's not like you can competitively bid a lot of these processes when there are only a handful of people who can do portions of this work."
Neither Boeing, nor EADS immediately returned phone calls seeking comment.
EADS-Casa, EADS' Spanish unit, already makes the rudder for Boeing's 737 as well as the flaps and ailerons on its 777, Aboulafia said. Britain's BAE Systems Plc (BAE.L: Quote, Profile, Research) which owns 20 percent of Airbus to EADS' 80 percent, also makes parts of the 777.
Airbus itself plans to outsource up to 70 percent of its aircraft production abroad, Chief Executive Gustav Humbert was quoted as saying in German newspapers on Monday.
Still, Aboulafia said Airbus has often been aggressive in acquiring companies in its supply chain, moving in the opposite direction of Boeing, which earlier this year sold off a key part of its jetmaking operations in the latest such move.
Boeing and Airbus are locked in a trade dispute over what Boeing calls unfair subsidies from European governments to Airbus planes like the A350, a rival for the 787. Airbus has said Boeing also receives subsidies in the form of defense contracts from the U.S. government, assistance from the state of Washington and Japanese government help for Boeing partners Fuji Heavy Industries

 

[Flying Illini]

So now we know who's fault it is when a Boeing crashes.

J/K!!! Put your "flaming fingers" away.

 

[Widow's Son]

I believe in buying American which is why I got rid of my Chevrolet built in Mexico and replaced it with a Toyota built in Ohio.

 

[Flying Freddie]

Maybe on December 7th the U.S. should bomb Pearl Harbor?:laugh:

 

[G4G5]

For anyone who tries to use outsourcing as an excuse, two real simple questions are all you need to ask;
Where do the profits go?
Where do the taxes go?
If your answer is anything other then the US, well too bad you just lost the argument.

 

[Godvek]

For anyone who tries to use outsourcing as an excuse, two real simple questions are all you need to ask;
Where do the profits go?
Where do the taxes go?
If your answer is anything other then the US, well too bad you just lost the argument.

Where do the profits go from EADS subcontract revenue? US?
Where do the taxes go from EADS subcontract profit? US?

NOPE.

I don't understand your argument. It could also be work given to Americans which is income tax loss and fewer jobs.

 

[incubus]

i'd rather buy something made by company that pays their workers a fair wage. don't know what fair is but i know that the average american CEO makes hundreds of times more than his american worker. in japan, western europe, and the rest of the 'west' the CEO is not even close to american CEO. so where does the profit go? Upper, upper management and shareholders.

where do the taxes go? i don't think i need to go into how the govt wastes tax money.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Clueless??? Very harsh. And not accurate. Just opinionated.

Yeah, I know about the outsourcing thing to Japan. Have known it for awhile. I don't like it but its still better than buying a Frenchy Airbus (I know it is a consortium and not just French).

Boeing may going too far, but they may also bring more back home in the future. Airbus is outsourcing to this hemisphere but is also buying its suppliers. I have relatives that work in American factories bought by Swedes or Germans. Not what I wish on any American but it is better than all European parts.

But I also don't wish shortsighted American management on any American either.

I still say buy American if you can. Notice I didn't say I hate Airbus. I just choose American first.

 

[8vATE]

Clueless maybe is a little harsh..

But guys like G4G5 who rant and rave with no rational argument other than bashing others bring the harshness out in me.:smash:


This is a global economy with complicated relationships between manufacturers and mega corporations.

Boeing builds a great product. But their arrogance and business culture created a vacuum where Airbus could succeed.

Did Airbus play fair? Absolutely not.
But the Airbus of 25 years ago is not the Airbus of today.

Either way..
It didn't stop G4 from jumping in his Dassault and Falcon!
Hypocrite!

 

[G4G5]

8vATE]Clueless maybe is a little harsh..

But guys like G4G5 who rant and rave with no rational argument other than bashing others bring the harshness out in me.:smash:

The FORTUNE magazine top 10 US companies has names like GM, Ford, GE & IBM. How many jobs do you think these companies provide to the US economy? Do you think for a minute that every single part that they use in everyone of their products comes form the US? With your logic it would be perfectly exceptable to stop buying every US companies products. What part of this don't you get. It may cost Nike $.99 cents to make a pair of sneakers in China, they charge $100.00. That's $99 of corporate profit directly sent to a US corporation. Taxes are paid, to the US government. Jobs are created in countless US shoe stores. I don't care if Boeing decides to make 50-75% of their 787 abroad the profits stay in US, controlled by a US company and taxes are paid to the US government and yes, you may find this hard to believe but Boeing still creates jobs in the US. What percentage of an A350 will be made in the US?

This is a global economy with complicated relationships between manufacturers and mega corporations.

Boeing builds a great product. But their arrogance and business culture created a vacuum where Airbus could succeed.

Do you know what's going on outside your little world, in the real world that is. This summer the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT (not Boeing) has gone to the WTO to file a lawsuit against the EU for their ILLEGAL Airbus subsidizes
From the Internation Herald Tribune:

"Those questions have been fueled by a lawsuit the United States has filed against the European Union at the World Trade Organization, alleging that Europe has damaged Boeing by illegally financing the development of new planes like the A350 with low-cost government loans"​

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/14/business/airbus.php​

It's pretty clear that the US government disagrees with your opinion that "arrogance and business culture" created the problem. How do you pass off years of illegal subsidizes in order to create jobs for Europeans as something Boeing did to themselves?

Did Airbus play fair? Absolutely not.
But the Airbus of 25 years ago is not the Airbus of today.

25 years of illegal subsisizes.

Either way..
It didn't stop G4 from jumping in his Dassault and Falcon!
Hypocrite!

What 3 engine US manufactured corporate jet competes directly with the Falcon 50. Answer, their isn't one. So what would your suggestion be? It's not like the A320 which has a compariable US made product, the 737.

Want to eat some crow wise as? The Falcons I flew were purchased by a Fortune 10, US company in a effort to secure European contracts from Dassault and the French government for their products. It worked and countless jobs in the US were created. This is actually quite common Honeywell operates both Gulfstreams and Falcons. GE opertates both Bombardiers and Boeings

Whats' your companies excuse?

It's a well know fact the Neelman would have prefered to operate the 737, like he did at Westair and Morris(go back to the last Boeing Vs Airbus thread, I site references and quotes, I am not doing it again). The only reason Jetblue operates Airbuses is because their subsidizes allowed them to undercut Boeing.

 

[PropsR4Boats]

I think that just proves Boeings argument. The cheapest outsource was with a company that Boeing says is receiving unfair government backing. Make sense to me…government gives EADS money so they can under bid everyone including the slave labor countries.

 

[JB Bus Drvr]

Again G4, you don't quite have your facts straight. JB bought the 'bus due to the arrogance of the Boeing sales team. They thought that this was another start up that wouldn't go anywhere and didn't want to deal in numbers of 100 to 200 aircraft. They were only going to give pricing on two or three aircraft at a time, until we "proved" ourselves. Airbus, instead, took a chance on us and it's paid its dividends. BTW, that sales teams was fired when they came back to Seattle and told their mgmt. how they "saved" their company by not dealing with JB.

 

[G4G5]

The history is all here and it'squite interesting reading for you Jetblue guys/gals.

www.senatehall.com/getfile.php?file=paper156.pdf
Go to the bottom of page 3 - Company Overview

"Managment's original strategy was to follow previous low cost carrier's use of Boeing 737 planes (similar to Southwest and Easyjet)"However Airbus saw Jetbles potential and offered a deal mgt could not refuse

Why did Airbus have to drop their pants. Because at the time (1999-2000)if you remember, Boeing was coming off of huge 737 orders from Easyjet, Ryan Air, Delta, American and Southwest.They did not have to sharpen their pencils to get a Jetblue deal. Airbus was losing market share big time and had little choice.

It had nothing to do with Airbus having a superior product. One need only to look at the most profitable LCC's in the US and Europe, the last time I checked Ryan Air and SWA were both operating 737's. In fact, as the article says, Neelmans orignal choice was the 737, just like he used at Morris and West Jet. So how is it that Airbus can undercut Boeing on price? It's called subsidizes.

Speaking of facts, maybe you could provide a reference to the Boeing sales team getting fired after the Jetblue deal. It's tuff to fire a sales team that sold as many 737's as they did durring the 99-2000 run.

 

[Nado]

Neither party is innocent in this argument.

To say that one company gets tax subsidies alone is not quite true, although some call it an incentive or something else, both companies get help from Joe taxpayer.

http://www.tdn.com/articles/2003/06/11/area_news/news06.txt
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2003/05/19/daily28.html
http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0407/040218_news_taxcracks.php

And from what I have seen of Boeings defense contracts lately, those are arguably subsidies themselves.

http://www.govexec.com/features/1104-01/1104-01newsanalysis1.htm
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2005-03-MOAO_Report_Final.pdf

I think Ms. Druyun is even doing time for her part in this 'scandal'. Way to help the guys in uniform fighting a war.

There are plenty more links on subsidies to both companies, do a simple google search. If this was such a slam dunk one way or the other, why would both companies being dancing the PR dance all these years, instead of telling it to the judge- they both have something to lose.

 

[Fly-n-hi]

I'd rather see airlines buy boeing. There. Case closed.

 

[G4G5]

To say that one company gets tax subsidies alone is not quite true, although some call it an incentive or something else, both companies get help from Joe taxpayer.

http://www.tdn.com/articles/2003/06/11/area_news/news06.txt
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2003/05/19/daily28.html
http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0407/040218_news_taxcracks.php

And from what I have seen of Boeings defense contracts lately, those are arguably subsidies themselves.

http://www.govexec.com/features/1104-01/1104-01newsanalysis1.htm
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2005-03-MOAO_Report_Final.pdf

I think Ms. Druyun is even doing time for her part in this 'scandal'. Way to help the guys in uniform fighting a war.

There are plenty more links on subsidies to both companies, do a simple google search. If this was such a slam dunk one way or the other, why would both companies being dancing the PR dance all these years, instead of telling it to the judge- they both have something to lose.

The problem with the defence contract argument is that their are more players involved. The US Government can't simply award a contract to Boeing. Northrop/Grumann, Loral, United Technologies, Lockeed Martin are all involved and have the right to bid on any military contract that Boeing does.

Let's try to keep in mind what Airbus was originaly intended to do. Give Europeans jobs. Let's be honest here, have you ever looked at European work rules (35 hour weeks in France, how much vacation in Germany)? Do you actually believe that it is more cost effective (cheaper) to build an aircraft in Germany, France, Spain and the UK then it is in the US? Well than how do they manage to undercut Boeing?

The US government feels pretty strong about this. Strong enough to bring up the case to the WTO.

 

[Nado]

My points are

Boeing gets tax breaks, just like Airbus does. That just needs to be acknowledged. Is the question who get more is worse? The way the argument is being framed is Airbus does all bad, Boeing is all good is just not right. I was trying to illustrate the 'other' side of the story, that I thought is not even being acknowledged.

I am not tring to parse everything down here to right/wrong, good/bad - I am no expert but this is a complex issue and both sides have lots to lose in the world court. That is why both are positioning themselves in the papers and not pressing for their date, and both, I think, would like to find a resolution out of court.

As an aside, I just can't get the disdain for Airbus products from a pilots perspective. Does this transfer over to cars, tvs and toasters as well? Both have a nice product from what I have seen. They are both good aircraft with their good and bad points.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

If you buy Chinese products at Walmart, drive Korean cars, and fly Airbus planes don't be surprised when Congress thinks cabotage rules are silly and outdated.

That's why I want to buy American. I want the public to fly American too.

 

[Dizel8]

Yes, buy GM cars, General Mexico that is!

 

[xrated]

What part of this don't you get. It may cost Nike $.99 cents to make a pair of sneakers in China, they charge $100.00. That's $99 of corporate profit directly sent to a US corporation.

Yup, the deep pockets of executives! With that level of profit, Nike can hire more Chinese to make more shoes!

Taxes are paid, to the US government.

To pay for the health care and education of illegal immigrants.

Jobs are created in countless US shoe stores.

Shoe store jobs typically pay slightly better than minimum wage, unlike factory jobs.

I don't care if Boeing decides to make 50-75% of their 787 abroad the profits stay in US, (executive pockets) controlled by a US company (that recently tried to screw the very government it pays taxes too, and the U.S. tax payers in the whole tanker deal) and taxes are paid to the US government and yes, you may find this hard to believe but Boeing still creates jobs in the US. (Thats true, they love their employees, ask the machinist).

What percentage of an A350 will be made in the US?

You have this figured out, you tell us?