The A380: Boom or Bust?

[Chmee]

Bah, didn't mean to click. I was going to change that to say all Airbus has to compete with are other French pet subsidy projects, like their movie subsidies.

Yeah, I don't like Airbus too much.

Heh, try living in Seattle .... Airbus = The Debbil!

[Dahak]

The plan is to build EADS up to be the single European company for aircraft and military business.
And about the subsidies: Airbus is doing exactly that, what was agreed on in a treaty between the EU and USA. The fact that this currently seems to be negative for Boeing is tough shit.

[Stark]

LOL and the US subsidises shit all the time; I'm an Australian, don't start ME on US subsidies.

Its a big plane; I like it. I'm not sure if it'll be cost effective. Wouldn't it be limited to routes that can assure full planes?

[Crown]

Even if the A380 is a bust, Airbus will still get plenty of subsidies and won't have to worry about going out of business, and they'll start throwing money at their next project.

And the Europeans have the gall to complain that we Subsidize Boeing
with defense contracts, despite Boeing having to COMPETE against
Airbus in those same defense contracts

Actually the 'Europeans' don't Shep. They point out that Boeing gets free subsidies, while Airbus has to pay theirs back. And just out of curiousity, which are these 'same defence contracts' that Airbus and Boeing compete in

[Ma Deuce]

Actually the 'Europeans' don't Shep. They point out that Boeing gets free subsidies, while Airbus has to pay theirs back.

Yes, but unlike Boeing, Airbus cannot exist without it's subsidies: not as a competitor to Boeing, anyway: And since Boeing is one of the US government's biggest defence contractors, I don't see a problem with them subsidizing it, unlike EADS, whom last time I checked does not provide any major services to the governments subsidizing it...

And just out of curiousity, which are these 'same defence contracts' that Airbus and Boeing compete in

The infamous USAF tanker contract, in which Airbus was a competitor to Boeing to provide the USAF with new tanker aircraft to replace some of the ageing KC-135s: the USAF sorta "gave" the contract to Boeing, bypassing normal selection proceedure, and termed the contract as a "lease" to slip it past congress.

Although the deal has now been killed (which some say would give the contract to Airbus by default), wanna bet the USAF will refuse to buy from Airbus unless the US Government forces the aircraft on them like they did with the C-130J "Jerkules"? Otherwise, the Air Force will probably keep the KC-135s flying until they fall out of the sky...

BTW, how can Airbus even be considered for that contract? Do they have any manufacturing facilities in the United States, because if they don't then it would be kinda, you know, illegal for the USAF to buy aircraft from them...

[Ma Deuce]

unlike EADS, whom last time I checked does not provide any major services to the governments subsidizing it...

Correction: that shouldn't have EADS there, I meant to put Airbus: yes Airbus is part of EADS, and I don't have a problem with subsidies going to EADS as a whole, since like Boeing they do provide major defence and government contracts: but I don't see the US governement subsidizing Boeing's civilian airliner business the way Airbus is...

[MKSheppard]

Actually the 'Europeans' don't Shep. They point out that Boeing gets free subsidies, while Airbus has to pay theirs back. And just out of curiousity, which are these 'same defence contracts' that Airbus and Boeing compete in

What subsidies? Only in the European mind can defense contracts
be "subsidies". Keep in mind that our companies have folded or
been absorbed by other companies when they have lost major
defense contracts.

And the US is looking at replacing a very large swathe of it's tanker
fleet and cargo fleet in the near future...

[Crown]

Actually the 'Europeans' don't Shep. They point out that Boeing gets free subsidies, while Airbus has to pay theirs back.

Yes, but unlike Boeing, Airbus cannot exist without it's subsidies: not as a competitor to Boeing, anyway: And since Boeing is one of the US government's biggest defence contractors, I don't see a problem with them subsidizing it, unlike EADS, whom last time I checked does not provide any major services to the governments subsidizing it...

Boeing had a virtual monopoly on the Large Civil Aircraft (LCA) marked up until the 80's when Airbus finally became competitive (despite being founded in the 60's-70's), the only way they could compete was with subsides. After this the 92 agreement ensured that both sides were allowed a certain percent of their respective flag-companies to stay afloat. Yes Airbus does get a subsidy, but it pays it all back, while Boeing's subsides are loan free.

Airbus couldn't compete with Boeing now if it stopped getting subsides, as long as Boeing still recieves its.

And just out of curiousity, which are these 'same defence contracts' that Airbus and Boeing compete in

The infamous USAF tanker contract, in which Airbus was a competitor to Boeing to provide the USAF with new tanker aircraft to replace some of the ageing KC-135s: the USAF sorta "gave" the contract to Boeing, bypassing normal selection proceedure, and termed the contract as a "lease" to slip it past congress.

Although the deal has now been killed (which some say would give the contract to Airbus by default), wanna bet the USAF will refuse to buy from Airbus unless the US Government forces the aircraft on them like they did with the C-130J "Jerkules"? Otherwise, the Air Force will probably keep the KC-135s flying until they fall out of the sky...

BTW, how can Airbus even be considered for that contract? Do they have any manufacturing facilities in the United States, because if they don't then it would be kinda, you know, illegal for the USAF to buy aircraft from them...

Airbus outshares to American companes; Eaton, General Electric, Goodrich, Honeywell, Northtop Grumman, Palker Hannifin.

I'll post the entire article below, feel free to reply to that.

[Crown]

Actually the 'Europeans' don't Shep. They point out that Boeing gets free subsidies, while Airbus has to pay theirs back. And just out of curiousity, which are these 'same defence contracts' that Airbus and Boeing compete in

What subsidies? Only in the European mind can defense contracts
be "subsidies". Keep in mind that our companies have folded or
been absorbed by other companies when they have lost major
defense contracts.

And the US is looking at replacing a very large swathe of it's tanker
fleet and cargo fleet in the near future...

And only in Shep's mind can a contract to develope a VLM program where the one made public is just bare bones, while Boeing keeps 'another' one for its own use that just knocks the socks off of everything else on the market, despite being paid for by public funds.

Anyway like I said above, I'll just post the Comission's article on the matter.

[Crown]

EU – US Agreement on Large Civil Aircraft 1992: key facts
and figures
(Source: European Commission; issued Oct. 6, 2004)
Until the late 70s the US enjoyed almost a de facto monopoly in the Large Civil Aircraft (LCA) sector. The Airbus consortium (created in 1969) started competing effectively in the 80s. At that stage the US became concerned about the European competition and the alleged subsidies paid by the European governments for the developments of the early models of the Airbus family. This became a major issue of contention, as the European side was equally concerned by subsidies accruing to US LCA manufacturers through NASA and defence programmes.

The EU and the US started bilateral negotiations for the limitation of government subsidies to the LCA sector in the late 1980s. Negotiations were concluded in 1992 with the signature of the EC-US Agreement on Trade in Large Civil Aircraft which imposes disciplines on government support on both sides of the Atlantic which are significantly stricter than the relevant WTO rules: Notably,. the Agreement regulates in detail the forms and limits of government support, prescribes transparency obligations and commits the parties to avoiding trade disputes.

Disciplines on EU and US support
-- the one hand, the agreement puts a ceiling on the amount of direct government support (33% of the total development costs) for new aircraft programmes. It establishes that such support (granted in the form of launch investments, which are repayable royalty-based loans) will be repaid at an interest rate no less than the government cost of borrowing and within no more than 17 years. Basically, this discipline applies to the form of government support mainly in use in Europe.
-- the other hand, the agreement establishes that indirect support (e.g. benefits provided for aeronautical applications of NASA or military programmes) should be limited to a 3% of the nation's LCA industry turnover. This discipline is primarily targeted at the support system in use in the US. In contrast to the European system of repayable launch investment there is no requirement for indirect support to be reimbursed and the generous ceiling of 3% is calculated on the larger basis of the turnover of the LCA industry and applies per individual year.

European Government Support
European governments provide repayable launch investment – not grants - to Airbus at the time of program launch. European government investments support the European technology research & development sector, just as US government R&D schemes have sought to do, through NASA, FAA, Department of Defence (DoD) and export tax relief programs. However, EU governments spend three times less on aerospace R&D than the US government.

All European government loans for Airbus programs have been made entirely within the letter and the spirit of the 1992 US-EU Agreement on Trade in Large Civil Aircraft since its entry into force and this will continue to be the case for all future Airbus programs. The US have not disputed this fact.

--Of the eight Airbus aircraft launched since 1990, only three programs have been launched with government investment.
--Airbus pays royalties to governments over the entire life of the aircraft programs. Interest and principal is repaid on deliveries, even before the programs break-even and irrespective of the sale price.

U.S. Government Subsidies
U.S. government subsidies, mostly in the form of military and NASA contracts, research and development expenditure and tax subsidies have enabled the U.S. aerospace industry to maintain its global dominance
for more than 50 years.
--Unlike European launch investment, none of this support has to be repaid - and in fact is not repaid --Since 1992, Boeing has received around $ 23 billon in subsidies from the U.S. government.
--The total U.S. Government indirect support of the U.S. LCA industry in FY 2003 alone was up to $2.74 billion. This represents around 11.9% of the FY 2003 commercial turnover of the U.S. LCA industry.
--Since 1990, Boeing has outsourced increasingly large shares of its civil aircraft programmes to other countries, e.g. Japan (more than 60% of the 7E7). The governments of these countries subsidize these shares, such that Boeing's programs also receive substantial foreign subsidies.
--Since 1990 Boeing has avoided paying around more than $1.2 billion in federal taxes through the use of off-shore Foreign Sales Corporations (FSC). This is a direct (and illegal) government subsidy prohibited by international rules.

The real issue is one of competitiveness: From 2001 to 2003, Boeing has invested only $2.8 billion of its own funds in commercial aircraft R&D and capital expenditure compared to $9.4 billion by Airbus. Lack of R&D and capital investment, has meant that Boeing has not launched any new programs since 1990.

US subsidies in the form of Defence Procurement

There are massive benefits accruing to Boeing's large civil aircraft business from military R&D programmes and overpriced DoD contracts, e.g. s ales of subsequently converted civil airplanes to the US Department of Defence at inflated prices. Recent examples include:

--Regarding the possible sale of B-767 refuelling “tanker” aircraft, a 2003 Morgan Stanley report establishes a subsidy margin of 9% or $1.6 to $2.3 billion in profits for Boeing. The report argues that the lease deal is the equivalent “at least 700 firm deliveries of Boeing 737s”, that the normal profit margin for the 767 is 6% and that the Pentagon plans to give Boeing up to 15%.
--On 14 June 2004, the US Navy awarded Boeing a contract worth potentially about $44 billion until 2030 for the production and maintenance of 108 civil B-737 and their conversion into long-range submarine hunter Multi-Mission Aircraft. It appears that airplanes will be built at Boeing's civil plants in Wichita, Kansas, and Renton, Washington.

US subsidies in the form of R&D expenditure

Boeing's large civil aircraft business benefits significantly from NASA and DoD R&D programmes. In 2003 alone, Boeing received US$ 2.74 bn in subsidies, including around US$ 2 bn from the US Department of Defence and more than US$ 600 million from NASA.

The largest part of funds spent by the Government in R&D for a specifically aeronautical product constitutes a reduction in R&D expenses for the main potential user of the technology, i.e. Boeing. This is the case even if the R&D is eventually not successful.

Subsidies to the planned Boeing 7E7: over $ 5 billion
Planned subsidies for Boeing's 7E7 programme from Washington State ($3.2bn), Kansas ($0.5bn), Oklahoma ($0.35bn). Washington State 7E7 subsidies alone are about as high as European launch investment for A380. The only difference is that A380 launch investment is paid back and is compatible with the 1992, while Washington support is not. In addition, Washington 7E7 production subsidies are illegal under the 1992 Agreement. To this must be added the planned 7E7 subsidies of around US$1.6 billion from Japan.

EU-US links in the aeronautics sector
Numerous European companies participate in US programmes and vice versa, e.g.
--Airbus spent in US ca. US$ 50 billion since 1990, 15 million per day, procures USD 5.6 billion -per year.
--Airbus supports 120 000 jobs in US aerospace industry.
--Boeing continues to move jobs abroad via outsourcing to foreign subcontractors.
--Boeing is indirectly benefiting from European launch investment through its European partners.

Key Facts and Figures
--US $ 23 billion in subsidies from the US Government to Boeing since 1992.
--US $ 1 billion in illegal FSC/ETI subsidies to Boeing between 2000-2003 and continues to receive around US $200 million per year
--US $ 2.7 billion subsidies to Boeing in 2002 alone : this represented 8.6 % of Boeing's turnover in 2002, i.e. almost three times the 3% limit of the 1992 Agreement. The situation in 2003 is similar.

U.S. Files WTO Case Against EU Over Unfair Airbus
Subsidies: Background
(Source: Office of the United States Trade Representative; issued Oct. 6, 2004)

--The WTO Case Against Airbus
The U.S. case alleges that launch aid and other government support to Airbus qualifies as a subsidy under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) and that such subsidies are "actionable" because they cause adverse effects or are "prohibited" because they are export-contingent, or both.

The 1992 Agreement does not preclude the United States or the European Commission from bringing a WTO case. The terms and obligations under the 1992 bilateral Agreement are separate and distinct from the terms and obligations of the 1994 SCM Agreement. Compliance with one is not a defense against claims of non-compliance with the other.

The first step in the WTO process is to file a Request for Consultations. The United States is taking this step today. This begins a period of no less than 60 days for the parties to consult in an effort to resolve the matter.

If after 60 days the parties are unable to do so, the United States would be authorized to request that a WTO panel be established to make findings on this matter.

--Termination of the 1992 Agreement

Consistent with the United States’ view that now is the time to end new subsidies and its decision to file a WTO case, the United States today is also exercising its right, as provided by the 1992 agreement’s terms, to terminate that agreement.

--Subsidies to Airbus
Airbus S.A.S. ("Airbus") was established in 1970 as a European consortium of French, German, and later, Spanish and U.K. companies. In 2001, Airbus formally became a single integrated company. The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company ("EADS") and BAE SYSTEMS of the U.K. transferred all of their Airbus-related assets to the newly incorporated company and became 80 percent and 20 percent, respectively, owners of the company. The operating results of Airbus are fully consolidated in the EADS balance sheet.

Over its 35 year history, Airbus has benefited from massive amounts of EU member state and EU subsidies that have enabled the company to create a full product line of aircraft and gain a 50 percent share of large commercial aircraft ("LCA") sales and a 60 percent share of the global order book. Every major Airbus aircraft model was financed, in whole or in part, with EU government subsidies taking the form of "launch aid" – financing with no or low rates of interest, and repayment tied to sales of the aircraft. If the sales of a particular model are less than expected, Airbus does not have to repay the remainder of the financing.

EU governments have forgiven Airbus debt; provided equity infusions; provided dedicated infrastructure support; and provided substantial amounts of research and development funds for civil aircraft projects. Since 1985, the United States has been involved in several major rounds of negotiations with the Airbus partner governments and the Commission with the objective of achieving greater disciplines over the subsidies provided to Airbus. In 1989 and 1991 the United States brought two cases at the GATT challenging Airbus subsidies. The first case challenged a German program that offset adverse exchange rate fluctuations on sales of Airbus aircraft, and the second, broader case challenged overall subsidies to the Airbus consortium. The first case ended in a victory for the United States after a GATT panel determined that the exchange rate scheme constituted a prohibited export subsidy. The EC blocked adoption of the panel report, which was permitted before the creation of the WTO, but Germany subsequently withdrew the scheme.

The United States withdrew the second case in July 1992 after the two sides negotiated a bilateral agreement limiting government support for large civil aircraft programs. The agreement included a prohibition of future production support and a limitation on the share of government support for the development of new aircraft programs to 33 percent of the project’s total development costs.

After 12 years, the United States believes the 1992 agreement has outlived its usefulness and needs to be terminated. Expected to lead to a progressive reduction of subsidies, the 1992 agreement has instead become an excuse for EU governments to continue subsidizing Airbus. The $3.2 billion in launch aid that the EU governments have committed for the new Airbus A380 is the largest amount of funds committed for a single project. The EU has provided further loans and infrastructure that has pushed the total amount of A380 subsidies to approximately $6.5 billion.

Airbus is now contemplating the launch of another competitor (A350) to the recently-launched Boeing 7E7, and has indicated its intentions to request subsidies for that aircraft as well. In addition, Airbus’ market share has increased markedly over the agreement’s lifetime. Its share of the market had already increased from 16 percent in 1988 to 30 percent in 1990, prior to the agreement’s signing; it reached 50 percent in 1999.

In the meantime, McDonnell Douglas’ market share dropped precipitously, culminating with the firm’s purchase by Boeing in 1997. Airbus’s success in gaining additional market share is exemplified by the goals it has set for itself over its lifetime: In 1975, Airbus aimed to gain a 30 percent share of the world aerospace market. By 1994, it had declared that nothing less than 50 percent would do. It has exceeded that goal.

In 1997, the EC conditioned approval of the merger of Boeing and McDonnell Douglas on a commitment by Boeing to license to Airbus any "government-funded patent" that could be used in the manufacture or sale of large civil aircraft. Airbus has no similar commitment to share the fruits of government-funded technology with Boeing. The United States has sought to include a mutual commitment of this kind in a new bilateral agreement.

In 1999, a WTO panel reviewing a complaint by Brazil found that Canadian aircraft financing with launch aid-type terms was a prohibited export subsidy. Another panel, reviewing a case brought by Canada, found that Brazil’s interest rate subsidies to its aircraft manufacturer were also an export subsidy.

--Efforts to Negotiate a New Bilateral Agreement

The last major USG effort to address subsidies to Airbus was in 1999 – 2000, when the United States sought to head off subsidized financing for the A380. The considerations at that time included a possible WTO case. For its own business reasons, however, Boeing did not support such a course. As a consequence, the Clinton Administration did not pursue a WTO case at that time.

Matters changed significantly this year as talk surfaced of new subsidies for a new Airbus plane. Subsequently, USTR Zoellick had several conversations with EU Trade Commissioner Lamy in late Spring and early summer regarding this matter. USTR and EC trade officials met in July and more recently in September with the goal of securing a commitment to end new subsidies.

In August, President Bush instructed USTR Zoellick to pursue all options to end the subsidization of Airbus, including the filing of a WTO case, if need be. USTR has sought to end the subsidies through the negotiation of a new bilateral agreement. The EC has been unwilling to agree on the goal of ending all new subsidies, much less on how to achieve this goal.

USTR Zoellick met with Commissioner Lamy on September 30 to discuss this matter. The EC remains opposed to the goal of ending new subsidies for large civil aircraft. While the United States remains committed to resolving this matter through the negotiation of a new bilateral agreement, we have concluded that filing a WTO case at this time is necessary to ensure that, one way or another, the playing field is leveled.

The WTO offers an agreed multilateral forum for resolving trade disputes according to agreed rules.
-ends-

There you go, the most balanced, article I could find, the commission's and the US's both having their fair say. Take what you want from it.

[Coyote]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of Airbus's selling points that all its cockpit designs are standardized, making aircraft training and transition quicker, easier, and cheaper?

...whereas Boeing cockpits are all different according to what type of aircraft being flown-- so a guy qualified on a 767 would need refamiliarization on a 747, for example, hm?

It would stand to reason that companies that already are using a fleet of Airbus designs, then, would wait until the 350 is made rather than transition to a Boeing aircraft that would be the 'odd man out'...

[Crown]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of Airbus's selling points that all its cockpit designs are standardized, making aircraft training and transition quicker, easier, and cheaper?

...whereas Boeing cockpits are all different according to what type of aircraft being flown-- so a guy qualified on a 767 would need refamiliarization on a 747, for example, hm?

It would stand to reason that companies that already are using a fleet of Airbus designs, then, would wait until the 350 is made rather than transition to a Boeing aircraft that would be the 'odd man out'...

You are correct. That has been Airbus's main selling point from day 1, but I'm pretty sure that Boeing is doing the same now (or at least one hopes they are).

[MKSheppard]

(Source: European Commission; issued Oct. 6, 2004)
Until the late 70s the US enjoyed almost a de facto monopoly in the Large Civil Aircraft (LCA) sector.

Hahahah, nevermind the fact that we had multiple companies competiting
in the US, Lockheed, Convair, Boeing, McDonell Douglas and they all got
absorbed or lost their businesses due to them going under.

U.S. government subsidies, mostly in the form of military and NASA contracts, research and development expenditure and tax subsidies have enabled the U.S. aerospace industry to maintain its global dominance
for more than 50 years.

Hah, so now contracts are subsidies? Selling airplanes to the government is a subsidy? If that's
true, then where was the latest fighter from Curtiss in the 1950s? Anyone? The P-40 was so
sucktastic they never got another major contract from the USAF.

And this is so laughable. How is developing a high mach, supercruising aircraft with stealth
features a subsidy? Or developing scramjets for NASA, given that they have no feasible
commercial use since NIMBYs will never let supersonic aircraft be used over land?

Of course, this is all whining by the Euros that they did not have the brains or the guts to do what
Boeing did in the 1950s:

Linka

In the early 1950s, Boeing had begun to study the possibility of creating a jet-powered military
transport and tanker to complement the new generation of Boeing jet bombers entering service with
the U.S. Air Force. When the Air Force showed no interest, Boeing invested $16
million of its own capital to build a prototype jet transport in a daring gamble that the airlines and the
Air Force would buy it once the aircraft had flown and proven itself. As Boeing had done with the
B-17, it risked the company on one roll of the dice and won.

[MKSheppard]

Linka

Boeing had promised the 747 to Pan Am by 1970, so it had less than four years to develop, build and test the 747. Work progressed at such a breakneck pace that all those who worked on the development of the 747 were given the nickname "The Incredibles". The massive cost of developing the 747 and building the Everett factory meant that Boeing had gambled its very existence on the 747's success, and very nearly bankrupted the company in the early 1970s. The gamble paid off however, and Boeing enjoyed a monopoly on very large passenger transports that has only been broken 35 years later with the advent of the Airbus A380.

See a pattern emerging here? Boeing betting the company on a
single aircraft, and winning?

[Crown]

Wow Shep. Boeing invested a whole 16 million[/i] of its own dollars in the 50's in R&D ... Airbus today invests 9.8 billion and Boeing 2.8 billion ... well that was certainly relevant ...


Did you even read the article? Or are you going to avoid for ever?

[Ma Deuce]

but I'm pretty sure that Boeing is doing the same now (or at least one hopes they are).

Boeing has been doing this since the 757: the cockpits on the 757 and 767 are practically identical, and the aircraft are otherwise so similar from the pilot's perspective that the FAA approves cross-qualification on the 757 and 767 (ie, a pilot qualified on a 757 is automatically qualified on the 767). The 777's cockpit is also virtually identical in layout to 767s from the 767-400-series onwards (the main difference from previous 767 models being much of the traditional instrumentation has been replaced by 4 large multi-function CRTs), though given the 777 is a much larger aircraft than the 767 (IIRC, the 777 largest twin-engined airliner in the world, with an empty weight as high as early-model 747s) and has significantly different handling so pilots must qualify separately on it...

[MKSheppard]

Did you even read the article? Or are you going to avoid for ever?

The articul was bullshit beginning with this:

U.S. government subsidies, mostly in the form of military and NASA contracts, research and development expenditure and tax subsidies have enabled the U.S. aerospace industry to maintain its global dominance
for more than 50 years.

Yes, we all know that building stealthy flying wing bombers is a technology
perfectly transferrable to building commercial airliners. Nevermind that the
fact that even though Boeing took some of the technology developed from
their failed bid for the C-5 into the 747, it took years and drove the company
to the brink of bankruptcy to yield a workable airliner.

[Crown]

Did you even read the article? Or are you going to avoid for ever?

The articul was bullshit beginning with this:

U.S. government subsidies, mostly in the form of military and NASA contracts, research and development expenditure and tax subsidies have enabled the U.S. aerospace industry to maintain its global dominance
for more than 50 years.

Yes, we all know that building stealthy flying wing bombers is a technology
perfectly transferrable to building commercial airliners. Nevermind that the
fact that even though Boeing took some of the technology developed from
their failed bid for the C-5 into the 747, it took years and drove the company
to the brink of bankruptcy to yield a workable airliner.

You have the technical knowhow of a newt on LSD.

There is more to R&D than fucking 'secret super stealth' that can't for obvious reasons be transfered into the civilian sector.

In the early 90's (perhaps late 80's) NASA gave Boeing money to develope a VLM program, which will greatly reduce the work load of aerodynamic engineers in wing design. Boeing took the money and developed two programs. One it gave to NASA, which under federal law had to be made public access, and the other it kept for its self.

The difference between the two is the differece between an abacus and pentium 4. How do I know? Because I've got the public VLM program that I had to use for my Aerodynamic design class, our lecturer who works for Boeing (Hawker DeHavland), showed us the companies program on a field tour.

Thick as two bricks doesn't begin to cover how you are being in this regard. Amazing.

[Ma Deuce]

Almost forgot: the "Next Generation" 737s (600-series onward) also use the same common cockpit as the 777 and 767(400 and onward).

[MKSheppard]

Thick as two bricks doesn't begin to cover how you are being in this regard. Amazing.

You do realize that the company has to make a profit, don't you? That
revealing every secret they learn in the process of doing a contract
is not very bright for the economic future of the company?

[Crown]

Thick as two bricks doesn't begin to cover how you are being in this regard. Amazing.

You do realize that the company has to make a profit, don't you? That
revealing every secret they learn in the process of doing a contract
is not very bright for the economic future of the company?

Oh. My. God. I have seen stupid, and it is painful.


When did this thread become about company profits? The example I cited shows Boeing dirrectly benefiting from R&D it was a$ked to do by NASA, and not having to pay for it by its self.

Lets walk through this again; Airbus $9 odd billion of its own funds in R&D, Boeing $2.8 odd of its own funds in R&D. The rest it gets from NASA and DoD contracts which subsidise its reasearch, and that it never has to refund. Add to this, Boeing's overseas partners also subsidize thier nations involvement in a Boeing project.

Airbus gets a fucking L-O-A-N that it has to pay back, none of it should be for R&D (according the 92 agreement), and it should only be for new products. It is no different than getting money from a bank, the only difference is that a Government can guarantee that money a lot better with better interest rates.

Do you understand?

[Ma Deuce]

Airbus gets a fucking L-O-A-N that it has to pay back, none of it should be for R&D (according the 92 agreement)

Wait a sec: didn't I read somewhere the French government footed 60% of the A380's development costs?

[Crown]

Airbus gets a fucking L-O-A-N that it has to pay back, none of it should be for R&D (according the 92 agreement)

Wait a sec: didn't I read somewhere the French government footed 60% of the A380's development costs?

Yes you're right, but Airbus still has to pay it back. The EU supports roughly three times less on R&D for Airbus than the US does for Boeing. And only with launch investments, not general R&D.

Still out of the 8 products from 1990 only three were with EU launch investment. I got the 92 agreement wrong, my bad.

[Crown]

Ghetto Edit: I'm not sure about the 60% figure though ...

I just meant you were right about the launch payment.

[RedImperator]

There's a market for both aircraft. I like the 7E7 because all of my air travel is domestic, and being able to fly direct for intracontinental flights is a godsend. If you don't believe that, I invite you to spend six hours in Minneapolis-St. Paul international airport.

This Airbus monstrosity looks like a good deal on paper for transcontinental, hub-to-hub flights, which is exactly what it was designed for (as well as cargo--FedEx and UPS already have placed orders). The two questions are, 1, will there be enough traffic for airlines to justify buying them, and 2, will enough airports be able to upgrade to take them. That's becoming a major problem worldwide, with airports either running out of real estate or local NIMBYs successfully fighting expansion (Philadelphia International desparately needs a new runway, and they can't get it built because of opposition in Delaware). These things aren't going to be any good to anyone if there aren't enough airports for them.