Airbus claims victory in jet war

[wipass]

"Airbus claims victory in jet war  
 
Airbus and Boeing dominate the global market for large jets
European aircraft maker Airbus says a record year saw it sell and deliver more jets than US rival Boeing, maintaining its market dominance.
Airbus said it had captured a 51% share of new orders during 2005, with 1,055 compared with Boeing's tally of 1,002.

The manufacturer said it had also delivered more planes last year - 378 compared with Boeing's 290".

Regardless of your "leanings", such a close race can only be good for the industry and ultimately passengers.

wipass

[Golfer]

Industry sucks.  Sucked before.  Sucked today.  Will suck tomorrow.

Only sucks for those who stake their livelihood in the industry though.  As a passenger it's great to go round trip to vegas for $200.  Getting anywhere worth flying distance-wise is cheaper than driving anymore.

Kinda sucks to be my buddy flying a 70 seat jet for $19,000/yr.  At least when he's captain as long as he doesn't get furloughed when the RJ bubble pops he will top out at a whopping $55,000/yr

[storch]

See Rule #5

[Ripsnort]

Yes, Boeing is still giggling that they're accountants suddenly went from a total of 878 (when we announced that we were nearing 1,000) to 1,055 in 5 weeks times.

Now, how many of those were twin isle, and how many single isle?  Boeing outsold twin to single 2-1, and that, my friend, is where the money is.

[Yeager2]

See Rule #4

[storch]

See Rule #5

[SirLoin]

Is Airbus subsidized by their govt?.. just wondering.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by SirLoin
Is Airbus subsidized by their govt?.. just wondering.

By Europeans, specifically 4 nations.  They can sell planes for under what it costs to build them, then the Gov't picks up the tab via tax dollars.

[wipass]

Airbus have been subsidised by billions undoubtedly, so have Boeing though.

Rip, I can see a pattern emerging here

Deliveries      Boeing    Airbus
1999               620         294
2000               489         311
2001               527         325
2002               380         303
2003               281         305
2004               285         320
2005               290         378

Year           Boeing new orders           Airbus new orders
 
1999                      368                                 379
2000                      602                                 441
2001                      314                                 418
2002                      250                                 348
2003                      250                                 331
2004                      277                                 447

wipass

[straffo]

Originally posted by SirLoin
Is Airbus subsidized by their govt?.. just wondering.

Don't question the dogma ,heretic !

Airbus is subsidized and allways cheating .

Boeing isn't subsidized by any mean and innocent like a little lamb.

[Nashwan]

By Europeans, specifically 4 nations. They can sell planes for under what it costs to build them, then the Gov't picks up the tab via tax dollars.

Actually Airbus pays more in royalties and repayments to the member nation's governments than it receives from them. As an example, the British government provided a £250 million development loan as launch investment for the A320. They have received over £500 million back so far. and continue to receive a share of the profits from every A320 sold.

[texace]

Originally posted by storch
chances are it will be a smoking crater anyway and you won't be saving anything of mine I don't take the bus, bus driver.

Yer safer flyin' than ridin' the bus, anyway.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by wipass
Airbus have been subsidised by billions undoubtedly, so have Boeing though.

 

No, not direct subsidies. The EU thinks that because we use our commercial models for military use (AWACs 767) they consider that subsidized. Pretty funny if you think about it.

And yes, that "trend" you posted has been know for quite some time...we're hoping to turn it around. Tough to compete when Europe takes up the slack by undercutting the competition. Our government will not do that with Boeing. We must make a profit, we don't have the nicety of the tax payers to fall back on if we sell at cost.  Granted, WA State did offer tax break incentives to keep Boeing in WA State, that could be viewed as a tax subsidie, but that doesn't take affect until after the plane it built, 2008.

Here is a good article about "Glass Houses" effect that Airbus is using:I've highlited the meat of the article if you don't have the time to read it all.

First, there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the notion of so-called indirect subsidies. Boeing's defense contracts do not, as some claim, amount to an indirect subsidy to its commercial airplane division. The payments Boeing receives from governments are for products delivered and services rendered, in full compliance with WTO rules. Little, if any, benefit flows from defense work to commercial activities, a point reinforced by the experiences of several major US defense contractors no longer in the commercial aircraft business. It is much more likely that technological benefits flow from commercial activities to military applications, such as the A400M transport aircraft being developed by Airbus. And let us be clear: any benefits that do exist go also to Airbus, whose parents - BAE Systems of the UK, and EADS, the European group - have greater defense revenues, and thus a greater opportunity for commercial benefit, than Boeing.  
 
Notably misleading is the complaint that Boeing benefited from U.S. government funding to develop its highly successful 707 and 747 airliners. Here are the facts: Boeing risked its own money developing the Dash 80, the prototype for the 707 and KC-135 tanker. Dash 80 development was completely separate from KC-135 funding. Later, Boeing-funded improvements to the 707 were incorporated into the KC-135 at substantial cost savings to the U.S. government.  
 
The notion that C-5A military transport funding aided the 747 also is flawed. With company money, Boeing began 747 development three years before the U.S. government awarded the first C-5A contracts. The company suspended 747 activity while working on the C-5A proposal, which it lost. Only then, again with company and commercially borrowed money, did Boeing resume 747 development.  
 
De Briganti asserts that Airbus “has always paid back its government loans.” Not true. The German government has forgiven about US $4 billion in launch aid and other loans.  
 
There is also reference to Washington State’s tax incentives as an indirect subsidy. Let's be clear: The vast majority of the benefit from this legislation stems from a reduction in the business and occupation (B&O) tax rate for commercial aerospace companies, bringing it in line with that applied to other Washington businesses . This tax rate reduction is not specific to Boeing; in fact a number of A380 suppliers in Washington state will benefit from it too. And unlike the direct subsidies Airbus receives from its sponsor governments, Boeing does not receive cash infusions from governments. Even with this rate reduction, Washington aerospace companies will still pay some $4.8 billion in B&O taxes over a 20-year period.  
 
The editorial also declined to mention the huge infrastructure projects from which Airbus benefits – for example, 1.47 billion Euros for the A380 alone including more than 660m Euros paid in Hamburg, the one-way motorway widening from Bordeaux to Toulouse, and a major construction program at Broughton in North Wales.  
 
In short, the European system is not fully transparent. Very little information is published about the laundry list of government assistance Airbus receives, which includes loans with terms that are not available from commercial lenders, tax breaks, government-funded infrastructure improvements undertaken expressly for Airbus, and government R&D expenditures linked directly to Airbus products. In contrast, information about U.S. economic development initiatives such as infrastructure improvements and tax relief that benefit Boeing and other businesses is readily available – worldwide -- on the internet.  
 
Similarly, allegations that Boeing receives aid from Japanese suppliers potentially in violation of World Trade Organization rules are a one-sided distraction. Boeing and Airbus use many of the same suppliers around the world, some of whom receive government support. If there is any benefit from such arrangements, and we do not believe there is, Airbus would receive it as well.  
 
Some people try to characterize the issue as Airbus receives launch aid, Boeing benefits from indirect subsidies. Wrong again. Airbus, which holds 50 percent of the market, benefits from BOTH indirect subsidies and launch aid. We find this situation unacceptable. We have expressed our concerns to U.S. trade officials, who met with their European counterparts in Brussels on September 16.  
 
U.S. and EU trade authorities can best serve the global aviation industry by creating a framework for the future that eliminates trade-distorting aid to commercial aircraft manufacturers and creates a level playing-field with complete visibility on both sides. That’s the kind of “glass house” both Boeing and Airbus should be willing to live in.  
 
 
By Russ Young  
Director of Trade Communications  
The Boeing Company  

[wipass]

Rip, I read that article earlier and found it interesting.

I agree that Airbus have been directly subsidised a great deal more than Boeing.

The Welsh Development Agency recently gave a grant of 6.5 million pounds to Airbus to help train new employees. Anyway you dress it up it was a gift of around 10 million dollars from taxpayers of the UK.

wipass

[Ripsnort]

Rgr, that Wipass, thanks for taking the time and reading it.  Overall, I think competition is good  for all parties concerned. More jobs, growth in Europe means everyone wins, and same goes for US. Airlines get a better product when competition exists.  The Airbus/Boeing war is goodness.