Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

lawmakers finally see the light

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
US warns of tough stance on subsidies for Airbus
Financial Times 05/26/05
author: Edward Alden
(c) 2005 The Financial Times Limited.


The US warned yesterday that it would seek to force Airbus to repay billions of dollars in European subsidies if Washington and Brussels could not strike a deal that would bar all future government support for the aircraft manufacturer.

Peter Allgeier, the deputy US trade representative, told a congressional hearing he was pessimistic that such a deal could be reached, and said the US remained poised to take the dispute to the World Trade Organisation.

"It appears to me that at least some of the European member states remain convinced they need to provide launch aid to Airbus, and unless that attitude changes the prospects for a settlement are not high," Mr Allgeier said.

But he added that if the dispute went to the WTO the US would raise the bar by demanding not just an end to future subsidies but the "repayment of launch aid" for the jumbo A380 and the proposed A350.

Mr Allgeier said the US estimated that in total Airbus had received more than $15bn (€11.5bn, £8.3bn) in subsidies through upfront launch aid from France, Germany, Spain and the UK.

The threat may be difficult to carry out. If a WTO case went forward, it would be at least 18 months before a decision was reached, and the normal penalty provided for under WTO rules would be US tariff penalties against European imports.

In addition the EU would likely respond by seeking similar repayment of US government support for Boeing.

The tough US stand comes as the four European governments are weighing a request from Airbus to provide new launch aid for the A350, a proposed mid-sized competitor to Boeing's successful 787 long-range jet.

Airbus is pushing the governments to reach a decision by mid-June, which would allow for the A350 to be formally launched at the Paris Air Show, which begins on June 13.

The US has said it will take the dispute to the WTO immediately if the governments commit new launch aid for the A350.

Brussels has been hoping for a negotiated deal that would reduce the level of government support for both Airbus and Boeing, but would not abolish launch aid.

But Mr Allgeier said the US goal remained "to eliminate the subsidies, not just put a cap on them".

Under the current launch aid scheme, European governments fund up to a third of the upfront costs of each new aircraft, with the money repaid in the form of royalties based on sales.
 
I cant even believe that this is even up for discussion. Airbii's for our tankers? are they out of their politically correct minds? And before somebody starts I dont care if 50% of the widgets come from timbuk tu. Our military equipement needs to be built here! What's next scrap the F-22 and buy some eurofighters, or maybe send the abrams to the junk heap and get some t-72's from russia. I can see it now, some lying no good politician claiming the A-whatever is better because the company propaganda claims it gets 120 miles more range. So lets give the contract to france, our own defense contractors dont need to stay in business. Its not like the Boeing product is junk, geez where did common sence go?
 
Ohhhh, but FR8mastr, getting the best product at the best price should be the only criteria for procurement according to some. The SU-27 is widely recognized as being a more capable (better) aircraft than the F-15 and its cost is much less. Should we start buying them? Where would these boneheads who advocate such BS draw the line?
 
bocefus said:
The SU-27 is widely recognized as being a more capable (better) aircraft than the F-15...

It is? By whose army? ;)

C
 
That would be as admitted by no less than the USAF after the recent ass waxing by the Indian Air Force. Prior to that, the Luftwaffe rountinely delivered ass spankings with their Migs.
 
bocefus said:
That would be as admitted by no less than the USAF after the recent ass waxing by the Indian Air Force. Prior to that, the Luftwaffe rountinely delivered ass spankings with their Migs.


I don't belive that "ass waxing" story one bit, because I've seen the same story appear every two years since I first joined AFROTC in 1970.

Here is what happens in every case:

1) Some other country is invited to exercise with our guys. They are given very favorable ROE, and often the other country has full GCI and our guys have none, or the other side gets BVR but our guys don't.

2) The exercise happens, and the other country gets some shots off on our guys.

3) The Air Force runs up to Congress, wailing, tearing their clothes, streaming tears, crying that "look this little jack s**t country waxed our ass.....GIVE US MORE MONEY FOR THE F-22!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's just the Air Force scamming congress.

The whole air-to-air game is way overrated, we waste far to much money on it. Missiles like AMRAAM and the latest flavors of the AIM-9 can do the little bit of dogfighting that may be needed in the future.
 
The point is, there is some pretty capable equipment produced by other countries. Evaluation of this equipment by methods other than joint excercises indicates that in many cases the equipment is superior at meeting its intended mission as compared to the domestic equivalent. When this is the case and the equipment is cheaper than the US equivalent, should DOD be required to procure it?
 
bocefus said:
The point is, there is some pretty capable equipment produced by other countries. Evaluation of this equipment by methods other than joint excercises indicates that in many cases the equipment is superior at meeting its intended mission as compared to the domestic equivalent. When this is the case and the equipment is cheaper than the US equivalent, should DOD be required to procure it?
No. Neither should they be required to reject it.









.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top