Boeing downgraded

Read an article about some Wall Street Casino analysts downgrading Boeing due
to the large number of orders that are either being cancelled or delayed.

http://www.marke****ch.com/news/yhoo...2A376A85C57%7D

As of Sept. 30, Boeing's unfilled commercial airplane orders stood at 1,083,
of which 182 planes were slated for delivery to U.S. carriers, CSFB said.

American has commitments to buy 47 Boeing 737-800s and nine Boeing 777-200ERs
from 2006 through 2010, according to AMR's latest Securities and Exchange
Commission filing. The airline currently operates 77 Boeing 737-800s.

American has recently announced it was negotiating with Boeing for further
delivery delays, and other legacy carriers have indicated they would do the
same to adapt to higher oil proce.

Interesting that Boeing's order book only depends on the USA for 16% of
orders, and that is bound to go down as US airlines continue to delay/cancel deliveries.

And while the current devaluation of the USD may help Boeing for exports, it
won't help for domestic sales of 777 or 7E7 since much of those planes is
built overseas.

And since US airlines are no longer buying any planes, this is hurting Airbus
equally, subsidies or not.

What remains to be seen is whether Airbus will contend that Boeing will get
unfair "subsidy" if the US government is forced to allow the US dollar to
devalue much further.

While the european and japanese governments will probably intervene to support
the USD, I am not sure that their intervention would have long lasting effect
since there is an endemic problem of cash outflow from the USA and the only
way to stop that is to devalue the USD to a point where americans won't be
able to afford imports, and american exports will become as cheap as chinese
ones to foreigners.

"nobody" wrote in message
...

What remains to be seen is whether Airbus will contend that Boeing will
get
unfair "subsidy" if the US government is forced to allow the US dollar to
devalue much further.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, JF. As long as the French
government pays for the development and initial production of Airbus planes,
Boeing should get the same deal. That's a simple solution to the quandry
over the illegal subsidies Airbus receives.

"nobody" wrote in message
...

What remains to be seen is whether Airbus will contend that Boeing will
get
unfair "subsidy" if the US government is forced to allow the US dollar to
devalue much further.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, JF. As long as the French
government pays for the development and initial production of Airbus planes,
Boeing should get the same deal. That's a simple solution to the quandry
over the illegal subsidies Airbus receives.

"Ted Ng" wrote in message
...

"nobody" wrote in message
...

What remains to be seen is whether Airbus will contend that Boeing will
get
unfair "subsidy" if the US government is forced to allow the US dollar to
devalue much further.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, JF. As long as the French
government pays for the development and initial production of Airbus
planes, Boeing should get the same deal. That's a simple solution to the
quandry over the illegal subsidies Airbus receives.

Both side accuse the other of giving subsidies, not just benefits from
currency fluctuations, and I suspect they are both right.
See http://www.guardian.co.uk/airlines/s...323657,00.html and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/s...096805,00.html for example.
A Google on this topic will give reading material for a lifetime.
Boeing has also been accused of getting hidden subsidies via generous
military contracts.
They have been playing this game for years.
The subsidies seem to be roughly equal on both sides which I imagine suits
Boeing and Airbus very nicely, and probably keeps a few lawyers well fed
too.
Of course if you are in the US you will probably see more compaints about
Airbus, in Europe I suppose more complaints against Boeing are reported.

"RAK" wrote in message
news:1099674525.EnW6BALb09hzEBImFWOCOw@teranews...

"Ted Ng" wrote in message
...

"nobody" wrote in message
...

What remains to be seen is whether Airbus will contend that Boeing will
get
unfair "subsidy" if the US government is forced to allow the US dollar
to
devalue much further.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, JF. As long as the French
government pays for the development and initial production of Airbus
planes, Boeing should get the same deal. That's a simple solution to the
quandry over the illegal subsidies Airbus receives.

Both side accuse the other of giving subsidies, not just benefits from
currency fluctuations, and I suspect they are both right.
See http://www.guardian.co.uk/airlines/s...323657,00.html and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/s...096805,00.html for
example.

Al Guardian?

A Google on this topic will give reading material for a lifetime.
Boeing has also been accused of getting hidden subsidies via generous
military contracts.

Of course, Airbus also gets hidden subsidies via fat military and aerospace
contracts at EADS.

They have been playing this game for years.
The subsidies seem to be roughly equal on both sides which I imagine suits

No one knows what Airbus is receiving, other than their BofD. Talk about
what Airbus is really getting is speculation. All we know for sure is the
European governments shilled out billions that Airbus won't have to pay
back.

Boeing and Airbus very nicely, and probably keeps a few lawyers well fed
too.
Of course if you are in the US you will probably see more compaints about
Airbus, in Europe I suppose more complaints against Boeing are reported.

Airbus receives billions, upfront, to design, build and manufacture planes.
They receive "refundable" (their term) loans at below-market interest rates,
which is really a way of saying Airbus won't have to pay back the money. My
proposal is for the US government to simply match the offer Airbus gets. Ask
the state of Washington to drop the tax benefits, which only kick in AFTER
Boeing has already spent the billions on the riskiest stage of the aircraft
development cycle. The US Treasury would then cut a check for $2 billion or
so when Boeing gets an idea for a plane. This eliminates the fuss and bother
of going through negotations and trials at the WTO. It eliminates any hard
feelings. It simply puts Boeing back on a level playing field with Airbus.
Boeing would take this deal in a heartbeat. It's free cash, courtesy of the
taxpayer. Just like Airbus.

"RAK" wrote in message
news:1099674525.EnW6BALb09hzEBImFWOCOw@teranews...

"Ted Ng" wrote in message
...

"nobody" wrote in message
...

What remains to be seen is whether Airbus will contend that Boeing will
get
unfair "subsidy" if the US government is forced to allow the US dollar
to
devalue much further.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, JF. As long as the French
government pays for the development and initial production of Airbus
planes, Boeing should get the same deal. That's a simple solution to the
quandry over the illegal subsidies Airbus receives.

Both side accuse the other of giving subsidies, not just benefits from
currency fluctuations, and I suspect they are both right.
See http://www.guardian.co.uk/airlines/s...323657,00.html and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/s...096805,00.html for
example.

Al Guardian?

A Google on this topic will give reading material for a lifetime.
Boeing has also been accused of getting hidden subsidies via generous
military contracts.

Of course, Airbus also gets hidden subsidies via fat military and aerospace
contracts at EADS.

They have been playing this game for years.
The subsidies seem to be roughly equal on both sides which I imagine suits

No one knows what Airbus is receiving, other than their BofD. Talk about
what Airbus is really getting is speculation. All we know for sure is the
European governments shilled out billions that Airbus won't have to pay
back.

Boeing and Airbus very nicely, and probably keeps a few lawyers well fed
too.
Of course if you are in the US you will probably see more compaints about
Airbus, in Europe I suppose more complaints against Boeing are reported.

Airbus receives billions, upfront, to design, build and manufacture planes.
They receive "refundable" (their term) loans at below-market interest rates,
which is really a way of saying Airbus won't have to pay back the money. My
proposal is for the US government to simply match the offer Airbus gets. Ask
the state of Washington to drop the tax benefits, which only kick in AFTER
Boeing has already spent the billions on the riskiest stage of the aircraft
development cycle. The US Treasury would then cut a check for $2 billion or
so when Boeing gets an idea for a plane. This eliminates the fuss and bother
of going through negotations and trials at the WTO. It eliminates any hard
feelings. It simply puts Boeing back on a level playing field with Airbus.
Boeing would take this deal in a heartbeat. It's free cash, courtesy of the
taxpayer. Just like Airbus.

Ted Ng wrote:
Of course, Airbus also gets hidden subsidies via fat military and aerospace
contracts at EADS.

EADS's militarty business is still very small.

No one knows what Airbus is receiving, other than their BofD.

EADS is a publicly traded company. You can get their financial statements at www.eads.com

Airbus receives billions, upfront, to design, build and manufacture planes.

If a bank gives Boeing a lower rate due to its sheer size and the amount of
business it generates compared to the rates and servoices it gives to small
businesses, does this constitute a subsidy in your mind ?

If you are intent on twisting everything Airbus does as a subsidy and twisting
everything Boeing does as captitalist unsubsidized business, then you shoulf
just stay in your USA cocoon and stop participating in worldwide discussion
forums. Get yourself some us.travel.air with a charter dictating that non
americans are not invited.

Ted Ng wrote:
Of course, Airbus also gets hidden subsidies via fat military and aerospace
contracts at EADS.

EADS's militarty business is still very small.

No one knows what Airbus is receiving, other than their BofD.

EADS is a publicly traded company. You can get their financial statements at www.eads.com

Airbus receives billions, upfront, to design, build and manufacture planes.

If a bank gives Boeing a lower rate due to its sheer size and the amount of
business it generates compared to the rates and servoices it gives to small
businesses, does this constitute a subsidy in your mind ?

If you are intent on twisting everything Airbus does as a subsidy and twisting
everything Boeing does as captitalist unsubsidized business, then you shoulf
just stay in your USA cocoon and stop participating in worldwide discussion
forums. Get yourself some us.travel.air with a charter dictating that non
americans are not invited.

Ted Ng wrote:

Airbus receives billions, upfront, to design, build and manufacture
planes. snip My proposal is for the US government to simply match
the offer Airbus gets.

It's a little more complicated than that.

The US and the EU signed an agreement in 1992 to limit the amount of
funding that both aircraft manufacturers get. Under the agreement, the
EU was allowed to provide the development financing you mention above.
The US agreed to that arrangement because US manufacturers were getting
an equivalent amount from other sources, such as sweetheart financing
through USAID, and various tax breaks and direct subsidies from state
and federal governments. As I recall, the subsidies the US
manufacturers get are limited to 4% of the sale price of the aircraft.
The US has now decided it doesn't like the terms it previously agreed
to, and has unilaterally canceled the agreement.

Ask the state of Washington to drop the tax benefits, which only
kick in AFTER Boeing has already spent the billions on the
riskiest stage of the aircraft development cycle.

Many of the Washington state subsidies would be illegal under the 1992
US/EU agreement. Further, since they are production subsidies, they are
illegal under other WTO fair trade practices. The WTO has previously
ruled against such subsidies in other market areas.

The US Treasury would then cut a check for $2 billion or so when
Boeing gets an idea for a plane. This eliminates the fuss and bother
of going through negotations and trials at the WTO. It eliminates
any hard feelings. It simply puts Boeing back on a level playing
field with Airbus.

Not really, since Boeing gets benefits from other areas, such as USAID
financing, tax breaks from various levels of government, direct
subsidies, such as when they moved the headquarters to Illinois, and as
proposed by the state of Washington, to support the startup of 7E7
manufacturing. There is also the contentious research benefits that
Boeing gets from various government agencies. Not to mention that
Boeing was caught hiding income from foreign sales in offshore banks to
avoid taxes.

The issue is complicated, since there are various ideas of how the
government should support such industries. While the 1992 agreement has
probably outlived its usefulness, the US is by no means pure in how it
has supported Boeing. The two government agencies really need to work
out a new deal to avoid ongoing trade skirmishes.

Ted Ng wrote:

Airbus receives billions, upfront, to design, build and manufacture
planes. snip My proposal is for the US government to simply match
the offer Airbus gets.

It's a little more complicated than that.

The US and the EU signed an agreement in 1992 to limit the amount of
funding that both aircraft manufacturers get. Under the agreement, the
EU was allowed to provide the development financing you mention above.
The US agreed to that arrangement because US manufacturers were getting
an equivalent amount from other sources, such as sweetheart financing
through USAID, and various tax breaks and direct subsidies from state
and federal governments. As I recall, the subsidies the US
manufacturers get are limited to 4% of the sale price of the aircraft.
The US has now decided it doesn't like the terms it previously agreed
to, and has unilaterally canceled the agreement.

Ask the state of Washington to drop the tax benefits, which only
kick in AFTER Boeing has already spent the billions on the
riskiest stage of the aircraft development cycle.

Many of the Washington state subsidies would be illegal under the 1992
US/EU agreement. Further, since they are production subsidies, they are
illegal under other WTO fair trade practices. The WTO has previously
ruled against such subsidies in other market areas.

The US Treasury would then cut a check for $2 billion or so when
Boeing gets an idea for a plane. This eliminates the fuss and bother
of going through negotations and trials at the WTO. It eliminates
any hard feelings. It simply puts Boeing back on a level playing
field with Airbus.

Not really, since Boeing gets benefits from other areas, such as USAID
financing, tax breaks from various levels of government, direct
subsidies, such as when they moved the headquarters to Illinois, and as
proposed by the state of Washington, to support the startup of 7E7
manufacturing. There is also the contentious research benefits that
Boeing gets from various government agencies. Not to mention that
Boeing was caught hiding income from foreign sales in offshore banks to
avoid taxes.

The issue is complicated, since there are various ideas of how the
government should support such industries. While the 1992 agreement has
probably outlived its usefulness, the US is by no means pure in how it
has supported Boeing. The two government agencies really need to work
out a new deal to avoid ongoing trade skirmishes.