DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Pentagon says Airbus is preferable to Boeing?

**Zfdeisde** · 03-03-2008, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by Asher
Yes, but you called it a "ridiculous" assertion. Apparently it wasn't that ridiculous... Of course it was ridiculous. The EU was defending the airbus launch subsidies by saying the US government does not allow non US firms to compete for it's government contracts (irrelevant anyway since many EU members likewise require government contracts to go to domestic or EU firms). Now we see Boeing invest 1 billion dollars entirely of its own money into the KC-767 and the contract gets canceled by the US government because of concerns that Boeing may have unduly influenced the process and a couple years later the contract is awarded to an airbus airframe.

The EU accusations that the US government subsidizes Boeing through government contract bidding that Airbus was prohibited from participating in were obviously ridiculous or the US would have conveniently covered up the Boeing indiscretions to protect its policy.

The EU subsidizes Airbus. The US did not subsidize Boeing.

Boeing will now eat it's 1 billion dollar development investment in the KC-767. That could never happen to Airbus in any market. Now it's obvious that Boeing isn't even protected by the US in the arms procurement market.

The anticompetitive nature of the launch loans is more clear than ever, and the lame "government contracts as subsidies" retort looks more ridiculous than ever.

Subsidies to airbus aren't some sneaky little scandal that Airbus got away with or tried to get away with. Its bald faced stated government policy.

03-03-2008, 12:36 AM	#11
Zfdeisde Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 420 Senior Member	Originally posted by Asher Yes, but you called it a "ridiculous" assertion. Apparently it wasn't that ridiculous... Of course it was ridiculous. The EU was defending the airbus launch subsidies by saying the US government does not allow non US firms to compete for it's government contracts (irrelevant anyway since many EU members likewise require government contracts to go to domestic or EU firms). Now we see Boeing invest 1 billion dollars entirely of its own money into the KC-767 and the contract gets canceled by the US government because of concerns that Boeing may have unduly influenced the process and a couple years later the contract is awarded to an airbus airframe. The EU accusations that the US government subsidizes Boeing through government contract bidding that Airbus was prohibited from participating in were obviously ridiculous or the US would have conveniently covered up the Boeing indiscretions to protect its policy. The EU subsidizes Airbus. The US did not subsidize Boeing. Boeing will now eat it's 1 billion dollar development investment in the KC-767. That could never happen to Airbus in any market. Now it's obvious that Boeing isn't even protected by the US in the arms procurement market. The anticompetitive nature of the launch loans is more clear than ever, and the lame "government contracts as subsidies" retort looks more ridiculous than ever. Subsidies to airbus aren't some sneaky little scandal that Airbus got away with or tried to get away with. Its bald faced stated government policy.
	Quote