You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Europe
EU complains to WTO about Airbus sucking
2005-05-31
BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - The European Union decided Tuesday to file a counter complaint at the World Trade Organization against the United States, claiming Boeing Co. (BA) receives illegal aid - launching a new trade war with Washington.
"You CAN'T do what we do with Airbus! We'll sue your butt!"

The move, announced by EU trade chief Peter Mandelson, reactivates a legal process at the WTO that was frozen by the EU when it entered negotiations with Washington in January to try to force the US from the bidding field cut aid to U.S.-based Boeing and its European rival Airbus. It is also a reaction to Washington's decision late Monday to abandon months of talks and take the EU to a legal panel at the WTO for Airbus subsidies.

"I can assure you our customer's free choice Europe's interests will be fully defended," Mandelson said, adding that he was "disappointed that the United States has chosen this confrontation with Europe."
Just be grateful we didn't declare war on your sorry, pathetic asses. Again.

Mandelson blamed the United States for sticking up for themselves escalating the dispute into a full-blown trade war.

"America's decision will, I fear, spark the biggest, most difficult and costly legal dispute in the WTO's history,"
It is still cheaper than another D-Day
he said, adding it would be "manifestly expensive and (involve) quite destructive litigation."
Destructive to who? More destructive than your helping terrorists and American enemies? More destructive than KYOTO to your economies? More destructive than a bull in a china shop?

In announcing the U.S. decision late Monday, Trade Representative Rob Portman said the Bush administration felt it had to act because of preparations being made by EU member nations to commit $1.7 billion to Airbus for developing a new airplane, the A350, which is seen as a direct competitor to Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner in the market for midsize, long-distance jets.
I sure don't remeber the US government giving money to Boeing to develop planes. Tax cuts maybe. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by:mmurray821

#12  The EU argues that the US governemnt indirectly subsidizes Boeing's airliners through paying inflated prices for military planes.

Are those asswipes still using that tired old argument??

The U.S. government will buy Boeing's stuff (and/or Lockheed, and/or Grumman, etc) because it either needs or wants that product, period. Airbus, on the other hand, gets money directly from government to finance product developments.

Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2005-05-31 14:44  

#11  Not dead at all. In fact it will almost certainly become more protectionist and more willing to cut deals with the mullahs and the Chinese. Look at the anti-American ass that Chirac just elevated to the throne in France.
Posted by: thibaud (aka lex)   2005-05-31 14:20  

#10  With the Phrench voting 'no' and the Dutch likely to, isn't the EU dead? And if it is, then why argue with a dead / unauthorized / illegal entity? We win, Airbus loses (again).
Posted by: USN, ret.   2005-05-31 14:09  

#9  there are a lot of ways to subsidize things other than by doing it directly

tax offsets, credits and abatements

reimbursement for training employees

shadow marketing

subsidizing insurance

I'm pretty sure we do a lot of these but I'm also sure the EU does far more of it.

Posted by: mhw   2005-05-31 14:04  

#8  Boeing is kicking Airbus in the ass these days. The 787 is a huge winner while the new Airbus jumbo has more limited market potential. Airbus is just trying to cover thier asses for a lousy business decision.
Posted by: remoteman   2005-05-31 13:20  

#7  Please capitolize Monopoly in that context. And use a TM thingy, ask Bobby he's got it down.
Posted by: The Eldest Parker Brother   2005-05-31 13:19  

#6  What about customers never having to make payment on some Airbus purchase loans and no default either....(Sounds like monoploy trust behaivor to me.)
Posted by: 3dc   2005-05-31 12:38  

#5  I think there are still a few outstanding payments on the Marshall plan loans the US and Europe might want to discuss.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2005-05-31 12:08  

#4  Didn't Airbus get loans they never paid back?

And now the elites are going to be really pissy after the vote.
Posted by: anonymous2u   2005-05-31 11:43  

#3  Ah, the good 'ol shell game argument. You can't see it, but it happens! The prices aren't inflated. They are a little more on the first production run to cover some R&D costs, but after that they cost no more than any other country is charged. Same with every other piece of new military/civilian hardware that the government orders. Most other NATO and 1st world nations work the same way with their contractors.
Posted by: mmurray821   2005-05-31 11:36  

#2  I think it's Lou Minotti who called this, this is going to be a nasty trade war.
Posted by: anonymous2u   2005-05-31 11:36  

#1  The EU argues that the US governemnt indirectly subsidizes Boeing's airliners through paying inflated prices for military planes.
Posted by: JFM   2005-05-31 11:22  

00:00