BOEING X AIRBUS

[Junker]

WTO report said to condemn Boeing subsidies
Tuesday, 01 February 2011 09:01


Plane maker Boeing received unfair subsidies from the US government, says a World Trade Organization report, according to Boeing's European rival Airbus.

The two companies disagreed over the extent of the subsidies outlined in the report, which was delivered to the US government and the EU Commission but not released publicly.

Airbus said the report showed Boeing had received at least US$5 billion in illegal subsidies and was only able to launch its 787 Dreamliner with such support. Boeing denied the assertions.

The United States and European Union, both trading superpowers, have been fighting cases against each other in the WTO for more than six years over each other's subsidies for large passenger aircraft.

Boeing's stock, a Dow component, showed little reaction to the WTO report. Shares were up just 8 cents at US$69.31.

"I don't think there's clarity as to what this really means. It seems to be a lot of noise," said Alex Hamilton, managing director of EarlyBirdCapital, a boutique investment bank.

Monday's report by WTO experts marked the latest stage in the dispute as Airbus and Boeing battle for the US$1.7 trillion market.

The report is still confidential, but even Boeing acknowledges that the WTO has backed some of the EU claims. However, the two sides disagreed strongly over the amount of condemned Boeing subsidies and how they compared with those given to Airbus.

The findings came as a US Air Force decision was expected within weeks on whether to award Boeing or Airbus parent EADS a contract worth US$25 billion to US$50 billion for refueling tankers. But EarlyBird's Hamilton said the WTO report was likely to have little impact on the US government decision.

Both plane makers have supporters in the U.S. Congress, as Boeing would build and finish the tanker in Washington state and Kansas while Airbus would assemble it in Alabama.

Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama said that the WTO report "unquestionably states that Boeing received significant government subsidies prohibited by the WTO."
"Today's decision should end Boeing supporters' attempt to derail the tanker competition by arguing that the trade dispute is one-sided," Shelby said in a statement.

On the other side, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas said: "Attempts to skew this ruling in the EU's favor are an exercise in distraction. Once this ruling is made public in the near future, the sunshine will refute much of the claims by the EU and truly indicate where the market-distorting benefits flowed."

With no end to the litigation in sight, both sides have periodically called for a negotiated end to the dispute, as EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht did in September when an interim version of the report was issued.

His spokesman said on Monday the report confirmed those initial findings, in comments suggesting Brussels was not keen to raise the stakes, or wanted to play down a previous WTO ruling that condemned its own support for Airbus.

"This solid report sheds further light on the negative consequences for the EU industry of these U.S. subsidies and provides a timely element of balance in this long-running dispute," spokesman John Clancy said in a statement.

One EU diplomat said a political solution was preferable.

"Given the state of the global airline industry today, a political agreement is important for both sides of the Atlantic," the diplomat said.

The ruling, like the interim report, was handed only to the parties. It will not be published for several weeks while being translated into French and Spanish.

U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk's office said it could not provide detailed comment now as the report was confidential.

"Despite that the EU has publicly commented on the report, at this time we will simply say that the United States is confident that the WTO will confirm the U.S. view that European subsidies to Airbus dwarf any subsidies that the United States provided to Boeing," spokeswoman Nefeterius McPherson said.

MASSIVE SUBSIDIES

Airbus said the report would show Boeing had received billions of dollars in illegal subsidies, depriving Airbus of US$45 billion in sales, an indication of what the EU could seek in sanctions if the case moved to retaliation.

But Boeing disputed Airbus's figures and said the ruling would not require any change in policy or practice as far as Boeing was concerned.

WTO experts found last year that Airbus received illegal export subsidies from European governments and both sides have appealed against that ruling.

Appeals involving prohibited export subsidies are supposed to be dealt with in 60 days under WTO rules, but this case is so complicated that the WTO's appellate body has said it will not come to a conclusion until some time this year.

Boeing says the research and development grants it received pale into insignificance beside the support for Airbus.
In the Airbus case, WTO judges found the company had been able to launch a series of passenger aircraft only thanks to the government support and called for an end to export subsidies.

Both sides have an interest in clarifying the rules for how governments can facilitate the development of new aircraft in a fair manner.

It could take until much later this year for the appeals process in both cases to run its course, but the two governments, aware that Brazil, Canada, China, India, Japan and Russia have en eye on the market, are eventually likely to negotiate a settlement.

Reuters

[manuel.liste]

http://www.infodefensa.com/?noticia=ead ... cicio-2010

EADS tuvo un beneficio neto de 553 millones de euros en el ejercicio 2010

La multinacional bate además un récord de entregas, con 510 aviones, 527 helicópteros y el 41º lanzamiento consecutivo con éxito del Ariane 5.

[Junker]

WTO says US subsidised Boeing
Friday, 01 April 2011 09:31

Planemaker Boeing received at least US$5.3 billion (3.3 billion pounds) of illegal US subsidies, the World Trade Organisation said on Thursday in a dispute that shows no signs of an end to years of inconclusive wrangling.

The banned aid included US$2.6 billion of research funding from space agency NASA. But a WTO verdict sparked an immediate row over whether trade judges were right to include more than US$2 billion of further support on the charge sheet against Boeing.

The ruling is the latest chapter in a six-year battle between the industry's two giants. The spat has already entered the record books as the world's largest and costliest trade dispute.

The WTO verdict backs some, but not all, of a tit-for-tat legal case over Boeing aid brought by the European Union.

A separate WTO trade panel condemned European support for Boeing rival Airbus in a parallel case last year.

As so often in a row which now extends to 2,000 pages of complex trade court rulings, both sides claimed victory.

"This WTO panel report clearly shows that Boeing has received huge subsidies in the past and continues to receive significant subsidies today," European Union trade chief Karel De Gucht said.

Airbus, part of European aerospace group EADS, said it had lost US$45 billion in plane sales because of the subsidies. Boeing has made similar claims about the impact of Airbus subsidies.

In Washington, US Trade Representative Ron Kirk said the ruling vindicated a longtime US position that "the subsidies the Europeans give to Airbus dwarf anything that the US government does for Boeing."

According to the United States, the European subsidies for Airbus faulted by the WTO last year exceeded US$20 billion.

As the latest telephone book-sized report was wheeled out of WTO offices in Geneva, the companies at the heart of the dispute opened fire with another salvo of claims through the media.

"It's time for Boeing to stop denying or minimizing the massive illegal subsidies it gets," said Rainer Ohler, head of public affairs and communications at Toulouse-based Airbus.

Boeing acknowledged receiving US$2.7 billion of aid on top of a dispute that has already been aired, but accused its rival of diverting attention from more pernicious types of European aid.

"This WTO ruling shatters the convenient myth that European governments must illegally subsidize Airbus to counter US government assistance to Boeing," said Michael Luttig, executive vice-president and general counsel at Boeing.

Speaking in private, however, sources involved in the case clashed over whether the US$5.3 billion figure cited by the WTO against Boeing was a fair account of where it went wrong.

The figure includes US$2.2 billion of export assistance under a previous assistance programme known as Foreign Sales Corporations, which the US says is defunct.

"It is interesting but irrelevant," a US source said.

A European source said Boeing was still living off the benefits of the scheme even though it had been scrapped.

The WTO judges appeared to shy away from going over ground well covered in earlier rulings, saying they had nothing to add.

Both sides can appeal the ruling, as they did when the WTO focussed on Airbus. That appeal verdict is expected next month.

Sources familiar with the case said the EU could appeal as early as Friday in a tactical move aimed at reducing the time gap between the two cases.

The dispute over the US$2 trillion plane market is a running sore in relations between the world's trading superpowers.

Most recently, it spilt over into a politically charged battle for a contract to supply air tankers to the Pentagon, which was first awarded to Airbus but eventually went to Boeing.

The WTO decisions could help determine how not only Airbus and Boeing, but future competitors in China, Russia, Brazil, Japan and Canada, run their fast-growing aircraft sectors.

Boeing Chairman Jim McNerney hailed what he called a "dramatic victory" in clarifying rules and suggested this would prove helpful as China challenges the Airbus and Boeing duopoly.

However, analysts say it could be years before appeals are exhausted and the case can lead to any trade sanctions.

"Boeing began its complaint with a strong argument, but Europe's counter-complaint has muddied the waters," said aircraft analyst Richard Aboulafia of Virgina-based Teal Group.

"At the end of the day it won't matter much. Both sides will continue to see exactly what they want to see, and will do exactly what they want to do."

Even if the WTO verdicts against both sides are upheld, both sides disagree over what that would mean for the future.

The WTO has criticised public loans to Airbus, especially for the world's largest jetliner, the A380 superjumbo.

The United States has warned Airbus not to go back to its host governments - Britain, France, Germany and Spain - for similarly structured loans for its next plane, the A350.

But an EU official insisted the ability of governments to use the loans system in the future had not been altered.

Reuters

[Penguin]

WTO Airbus Case – Appellate Body Overturns Key Findings of the Panel In Favour of the EU


(Source: European Commission; issued May 18, 2011)



BRUSSELS --- The European Commission welcomes the WTO Appellate Body report on the Airbus case published today. The Appellate Body has overturned several key findings made by the Panel. Most importantly, the Appellate Body found that support provided by Germany, Spain and the UK for the launch of Airbus' A380 aircraft is not a prohibited export subsidy under WTO Law. It also rejected the US appeal that other instances of Repayable Launch Investment (RLI) were export subsidies.

EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht said, "I am particularly pleased with this important result. The US central claim that Airbus received prohibited export subsidies has been dismissed in its entirety. In addition, a number of claims, relating to R&D and infrastructure among others, were either rejected or only partially accepted."

The Appellate Body report, which is final and will soon be adopted by the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body, contains a number of clear findings – vindicating many of the EU's long held positions – including:

-- i. Repayable Launch Investment (RLI) for the A380 granted by Germany, Spain and the UK is not a prohibited export subsidy;

-- ii. All R&D programmes in the EU (European, national and regional) are fully compatible with WTO rules, especially relevant when compared to the findings on NASA and Department of Defense support in the Boeing case;

-- iii. Treatment of infrastructure – the US challenge on Aéroconstellation in France has been fully rejected, and the finding for the Mühlenberger Loch facility in Hamburg substantially improved;

-- iv. The French government's transfer of its interest in Dassault Aviation to Aerospatiale in 1998 was not a subsidy;

-- v. The Appellate Body reduced the element of subsidy that may exist in RLI, giving greater weight to the EU's proposed benchmark. It also substantially reduced the impact of adverse effects findings made by the Panel, reflecting the limited damage to Boeing from Airbus subsidies.

Certain "actionable subsidy" findings do remain, even though the economic impact of these support measures in the Large Civil Aircraft (LCA) market has been found to be very limited. RLI may contain an element of subsidy, however nowhere near the alleged amount of US$ 15-20 billion. Certain old equity infusions and restructuring measures by France and Germany, infrastructure measures in Germany and certain regional grants by Spain and Germany also remain. The Commission will closely study the report in consultation with stakeholders in order to determine the next steps in this dispute.

This ruling is a further step to establishing the full picture of government support to the Large Civil Aircraft (LCA) industry on both sides of the Atlantic.

In the EU's challenge of US support to Boeing, the Panel found that Boeing received prohibited export subsidies under the Foreign Sales Corporation scheme, and programmes by NASA, the Department of Defense and Washington State tax breaks have caused wide-ranging adverse effects to Airbus. Appeals to this panel report by the EU and the US are currently pending.

Background to the WTO Aircraft Cases

Since October 2004, the EU and US have been contesting at the WTO their Governments' respective support to their aerospace industries. Both WTO challenges relate to alleged illegal WTO support to Airbus and Boeing respectively over a 20 to 30 year period.

Prior to these WTO challenges, US and EU government support to their aircraft producers had been regulated by the so-called "Bilateral EU-US Agreement on Trade in Large Civil Aircraft". This agreement, concluded in 1992, allowed each party to provide a certain level of support to their respective aircraft industries.

In the case of the EU, the agreement permitted granting of so-called "Repayable Launch Investment" to Airbus, i.e. loans repaid with interest under terms specified in the Agreement. In the case of the US, it allowed a certain level of government financed R&D support to the US aerospace producer, Boeing. In order to monitor compliance with the terms of the bilateral agreement, annual meetings and regular exchanges of information took place.

On 6 October 2004, the United States quite unexpectedly and unilaterally announced its withdrawal from the 1992 Agreement and immediately filed a challenge at the WTO of all EU support ever granted to Airbus, even though the US had previously agreed to this support.

In turn, the EU was left with little option than to respond itself immediately with a parallel WTO challenge of US government support to US aerospace industry (i.e. Boeing) by Federal, State and local authorities, including benefits to Boeing under the so-called US Foreign Sales Corporation Scheme, which the US government had continued to provide to Boeing, despite these subsidies having repeatedly been found to violate WTO rules.

These two parallel WTO challenges, the "Airbus case" (DS 316: the US challenge of EU support for Airbus) and the "Boeing case" (DS 353: the EU challenge of US support to Boeing), despite having been initiated on the same day (6 October 2004), have followed different timetables due to a number of delays at the WTO. In the "Airbus case", the WTO panel made its report public on 30 June 2010 whereas in the "Boeing case", the panel only issued its final public report on 31 March 2011.

The Appellate Body report in the Airbus case published today can be expected to be adopted by the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) together with the panel report – as modified – in the coming weeks. It cannot be subject to further appeal. Under WTO rules, in order to comply with the finding of 'actionable subsidies' is to take appropriate steps to withdraw the subsidies or remove their adverse effects within 6 months of the adoption by the Dispute Settlement Body. (ends)


WTO Appellate Body Confirms U.S. Win in Airbus Case: $18 Billion in Illegal European Subsidies to Airbus


(Source: US Trade Representative; issued May 18, 2011)



WASHINGTON, D.C. –-- Today United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk welcomed confirmation by the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) that decades of subsidies provided by certain European Union (EU) member states to Airbus, totaling $18 billion, are inconsistent with WTO rules.

Specifically, the WTO Appellate Body affirmed the Panel’s original findings last year that every instance of launch aid provided for new Airbus aircraft during the last forty years, as well as other subsidies the United States had challenged, caused adverse effects to the interests of the United States and therefore are WTO-inconsistent subsidies.

“The WTO Appellate Body has confirmed without a doubt that Airbus received massive subsidies for more than 40 years and that these subsidies have greatly harmed the United States, including causing Boeing to lose sales and market share in key markets throughout the world. Today’s landmark ruling will significantly benefit the U.S. aerospace industry and American aerospace workers, simply by affirming that there must be fairness and accountability in the global race for aerospace business,” said Ambassador Kirk. “President Obama and I insist that our partners live up to their commitments in the rules-based global trading system – so this Administration will always act to protect the rights of American manufacturers, and our farmers, ranchers, services providers, and workers.”

The Appellate Body confirmed the WTO Panel’s findings that European government launch aid had been used to support the creation of every model of large civil aircraft produced by Airbus. The Appellate Body also confirmed that launch aid and the other challenged subsidies to Airbus have significantly distorted the global market for large civil aircraft, and that those subsidies have directly resulted in Boeing losing sales and market share.

“This decision confirms what we have said all along, that none of the launch aid provided to Airbus is consistent with Europe’s WTO obligations,” said Kirk. “While it revised the underlying findings for the United States from $20 billion to $18 billion, the message in the Appellate Body report is clear – launch aid is illegal and the European Union and the member states should refrain from future launch aid disbursements.”

BACKGROUND

The United States initiated this WTO dispute in October 2004 to end decades of launch aid and other subsidies provided to Airbus. A panel was established to examine the matter in May 2005. The Panel issued its report in June 30, 2010, finding that European government launch aid had been used to support the creation of every model of large civil aircraft produced by Airbus. The Panel also found that launch aid and the other challenged subsidies to Airbus have significantly distorted the global market for large civil aircraft, and that those subsidies have directly resulted in Boeing losing sales and market share.

The European Union commenced the appeal on July 21, 2010 and the Appellate Body issued its report on May 18, 2011.

The Appellate Body affirmed the WTO Panel’s central findings that European government launch aid had been used to support the creation of every model of large civil aircraft produced by Airbus. The Appellate Body also confirmed that launch aid and other challenged subsidies to Airbus have directly resulted in Boeing losing sales involving purchases of Airbus aircraft by easyJet, Air Berlin, Czech Airlines, Air Asia, Iberia, South African Airways, Thai Airways International, Singapore Airlines, Emirates Airlines, and Qantas – and lost market share, with Airbus gaining market share in the European Union and in third country markets, including China and Korea at the expense of Boeing. The Appellate Body also found that the Panel applied the wrong standard for evaluating whether subsidies are export subsidies, and that the Panel record did not have enough information to allow application of the correct standard.

Following adoption by the WTO Appellate Body within 30 days, the WTO will recommend that the EU and the member states that back Airbus take appropriate steps to remove the adverse effects or withdraw the subsidies. WTO rules contemplate such action being taken within six months.

In either case, should the European Union and the relevant member states fail to comply with these recommendations by the deadline, the United States could seek the right to impose countermeasures. If the European Union and the member states assert compliance, but the United States disagrees, the United States could seek to have any disagreement referred back to the Panel. (ends)



Statement of USTR General Counsel Tim Reif Regarding United States Victory in Landmark WTO Dispute


(Source: US Trade Representative; issued May 18, 2011)



“Good morning. Thank you all for being here today. I am very pleased to announce that in a landmark decision, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body has found that Airbus received $18 billion in subsidies that harmed the United States and our aerospace industry – namely, Boeing, its workers and suppliers. This report confirms that for decades the European Union member states France, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom, have provided massive amounts of market-distorting launch aid and other subsidies that were inconsistent with WTO rules. Today’s decision also affirms the Obama Administration’s approach to trade enforcement and holding our trading partners accountable.

“The WTO Appellate Body confirmed the underlying panel findings that European government subsidies have supported the creation of every model of large civil aircraft that Airbus has produced. Those subsidies have significantly distorted the global market for large civil aircraft. The Appellate Body agreed that those subsidies have caused adverse effects to the United States, including lost sales and lost market share for Boeing. Without those illegal subsidies, none of the large civil aircraft manufactured by Airbus would have been produced when and as they were.

“This definitive victory will benefit American aerospace workers who for decades have had to compete against a heavily subsidized Airbus. Today’s report holds our trading partners accountable and helps level the competitive playing field with Airbus. This confirms that none of the launch aid provided to Airbus was consistent with Europe’s WTO obligations. We expect the European Union and the Airbus governments to refrain from future launch aid disbursements.

“The Appellate Body report is clear about the serious harm caused by these massive illegal subsidies to Airbus even as it revised the underlying findings from $20 billion to $18 billion. In an industry where selling 50 airplanes can mean the difference between a great year and a terrible year, the subsidies caused Boeing to lose sales that involved hundreds of airplanes. Specifically, the Appellate Body confirmed that Boeing lost sales involving hundreds of aircraft purchased from Airbus by easyJet, Air Berlin, Czech Airlines, Air Asia, Iberia, South African Airways, Thai Airways International, Singapore Airlines, Emirates Airlines and Qantas. The Appellate Body also confirmed that Boeing lost significant market share in some of the biggest airplane markets in the world, including Europe, China, and Korea.

“The Appellate Body confirmed that launch aid and other subsidies significantly distorted the launch decisions Airbus made for more than 40 years. In other words, Airbus was able to bring to market each of its models of aircraft when and as it did because of the illegal subsidies that it received. That tipping of the scales gave Airbus an unfair advantage. And it led to massive lost sales and lost market share for Boeing. These losses have meant lost jobs at Boeing and at the thousands of U.S companies that supply Boeing. The Obama Administration pursued this case for those American workers and companies.

“In closing, I would take this opportunity to reiterate this Administration’s resolve to make sure our trading partners play by the rules. President Obama and Ambassador Kirk are committed to enforcing our trade agreements, including, where necessary, through dispute settlement consistent with the rules-based global trading system at the World Trade Organization. Protecting the rights of American manufacturers, workers, farmers, ranchers, and services providers under our trade agreements is a priority for the Obama Administration.” (ends)


WTO Appellate Body Confirms Landmark Decision Against $18 Billion in European Subsidies to Airbus


(Source: US Trade Representative; issued May 18, 2011)



In findings announced on May 18, 2011, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body found in favor of the United States in the European Union’s appeal of a WTO Panel’s findings that launch aid and other subsidies provided by European countries to Airbus over the last four decades caused adverse effects to the interests of U.S. businesses and workers.

Here are key findings confirmed by the WTO Appellate Body:

-- Launch Aid – $15 billion

The Appellate Body confirmed the panel’s findings that European governments have provided Airbus approximately 15 billion dollars (face value) in launch aid – subsidizing every model of aircraft ever produced by Airbus in the last 40 years. This preferential financing permitted Airbus to introduce new models by offsetting the enormous costs and extremely high risks that characterize the development of large civil aircraft.

The Appellate Body confirmed the Panel’s findings that the launch aid enabled Airbus to launch and bring to market each of its models of aircraft when and as it did.

-- Other Subsidies – $3 billion

The Appellate Body confirmed that Germany and Spain provided massive infrastructure and infrastructure-related grants between 1989 and 2001, including the creation of land in Hamburg to allow Airbus to expand production facilities and extending an airport runway in Bremen.

The Appellate Body confirmed that France and Germany provided more than a billion dollars of equity infusions to Airbus between 1987 and 1998.

-- Adverse Effects for the U.S. Aircraft Industry

The Appellate Body confirmed that all of these subsidies caused adverse effects to the interests of the United States, in the form of significant market share losses for Boeing in the European Union and in other countries, including China and Korea. The Appellate Body also confirmed that the subsidies caused significant lost sales involving hundreds of aircraft to easyJet, Air Berlin, Czech Airlines, Air Asia, Iberia, South African Airways, Thai Airways International, Singapore Airlines, Emirates Airlines, and Qantas.

The Appellate Body confirmed the Panel’s findings that over a 40-year period the European launch aid enabled Airbus to launch and bring to market each of its models of aircraft when and as it did and that the subsidies resulted in Boeing’s lost market share and significant lost sales of Boeing aircraft.

[Penguin]

Frost & Sullivan Comments on American Airlines’ Recent Aircraft Order


(Source: Frost & Sullivan; issued July 21, 2011)



American Airlines Buying European – Massive Order from the US Legacy Carrier and the Final Warning for Boeing to Act Soon


There were two related announcements made yesterday by American Airlines. The first one was the biggest order for narrow-body aircraft ever made by a single carrier, with 460 orders split equally between the A320 and B737. This announcement cheered up the investor community, with both Airbus and Boeing share prices registering marginal increases.

The second was AMR’s results for Q2 2011, which were disappointing to say the least.

Clearly the two news stories are the two sides of the same coin; American Airlines is in need of restructuring, as it holds some of the industry’s worst first places:

-- The only US major that posted losses last year ($470M);
-- The only US major expected to post a loss this year, after a disappointing Q2 with losses of $286M;
-- The airline with one of the oldest fleets globally, with an average age of 15 years;
-- One of the two US airlines that have not (yet) gone through a consolidation process.

In our view this order has been long overdue, as the airline is facing ever-increasing fuel and maintenance costs, partly as a result of the upward trend in fuel prices and partly because of its older and more inefficient aircraft. Looking at AA’s fleet profile, it is also evident that the new orders will not be used to expand operations, but rather to replace its older narrow-body fleet. In fact, AA’s fleet size will remain roughly at the same levels over the 10-year modernization period, as seen in the graph attached.

It can be argued that neither the decision to modernise, nor the decision to split the order in four (130 A320, 130 A320neo, 100 B737-8, 100 re-engined B737), were options to AA. These were decisions forced upon them, by the prospect of missing out on vital aircraft delivery slots available at capacity-constrained manufacturers.

However, the decision did have a positive externality, as it also forced the hand of Boeing to choose between a new engine and a completely new airframe to replace the B737. Ever since Airbus announced its intent to bring to market the re-engined A320neo (December 2010), Boeing has been sitting in the sidelines procrastinating about the best strategy going forward.

In the same period, EADS has registered a 43% growth in its share price, while Boeing’s shares rose only by 9%. Obviously, the investor community is not as patient as Boeing’s board of directors, when it comes to the roll out of game changing strategies; particularly in a (soon to end) duopoly market.

The decision to offer AA a re-engined option, nonetheless, is a short-term measure to avoid disaster, by partially stopping Airbus from winning the ultimate prize in the aircraft manufacturing world: that is, stealing someone else’s customer and convincing them to replace their existing fleet with yours.

More than anything, Boeing has to act fast and decide in favour of a completely new airframe now. The alternative is to drop prices and follow Airbus in every sales pitch they are doing with old Boeing customers.


(EDITOR’S NOTE: Not really; the alternative is for Boeing to drop out of the narrow-body business.
This is shown by the fact that since Airbus launched its re-engined A320neo in December, it has won orders and commitments orders for over well over 1,000, compared to 70 net orders – and 72 cancellations -- for the 737 (excluding the AA orders in both cases).
This has made the A320neo the fastest-selling commercial airplane in history, and forced Boeing to drop a similar claim it made for its 787 Dreamliner.)

[manuel.liste]

http://www.cincodias.com/articulo/empre ... cdiemp_10/

Airbus dobla a Boeing en contratos gracias a la nueva versión del A-320

Si Airbus mantiene el ritmo de contrataciones (tiene que incluir encargos firmados en los últimos días y todavía queda pendiente en el calendario la feria aeronáutica de Dubái), lo más probable es que cierre el ejercicio superando el récord histórico de nuevos pedidos que marcó en 2007, cuando llegó a los 1.341 aviones.

[pt]

E para que a Airbus venda aviões para a China, nós temos que aceitar todos os produtos chineses que podiamos produzir e criar empregos na Europa, em vez de comprar aos chineses que têm custos laborais mínimos e utilizam trabalho escravo sem quaisquer direitos laborais.

[Penguin]

23 June 2011 Last updated at 11:59 GMT Share this pageFacebookTwitterEmailPrint
Airbus and AirAsia announce record deal for 200 planes

Airbus chief executive Tom Enders said he was proud to be AirAsia's partnerContinue reading the main story

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13884433

[Penguin]

Lion Air commits to up to 380 Boeing 737s

By: JON OSTROWER WASHINGTON DC 03:21 17 Nov 2011 Source:

Boeing has received a record provisional order worth $21.7 billion from Indonesian low-cost carrier Lion Air for up to 380 single-aisle 737-family aircraft, including 201 of its re-engined 737 Max.

The 230 aircraft order, which also includes 29 CFM International CFM56-powered 737-900ERs, is a record for the airframer in both list price value and the total number of aircraft. The order includes purchase rights for a further 150 aircraft.

The announcement coincides with US President Barack Obama's arrival in Indonesia and comes just days after Boeing broke its own order record with Emirates' $18 billion purchase of 50 777-300ER.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... 7s-365027/

[manuel.liste]

http://www.cincodias.com/articulo/empre ... scdiemp_9/

Airbus arrolla a Boeing en la pugna por nuevos pedidos

[Penguin]

Atualizado até a data presente:

Competition between Airbus and Boeing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitio ... Boeing_737

[P44]

Boeing to close Kansas plant where 2,160 employed
AFPBy Andrew Beatty | AFP – 17 hrs ago

Boeing on Wednesday said it would close a Wichita, Kansas plant that employs 2,160 people, risking political ire as it prepares to shift production of a major tanker project elsewhere.

The plant in the central US state is the hub of operations for the B-52 and 767 Tanker programs and will be shuttered by the end of 2013, the firm said.

"The decision to close our Wichita facility was difficult," said Boeing's Mark Bass, adding that the decision was based on the firm's assessment of "the current and future market environment."

The announcement came less than a year after Boeing beat Europe's EADS-Airbus group for a hotly contested $30-plus billion contract to supply up to 179 refueling tankers to the Air Force.

Boeing had claimed that contract would create around 7,500 jobs in Kansas -- a state which had strongly backed its highly politicized tanker bid.

Boeing said it was "too early to tell" what proportion of the jobs would be lost. Some staff would be likely be transferred and some suppliers would be kept.

"Although work on the KC-46 tanker will now be performed in Puget Sound (in Washington state), the 24 Kansas suppliers on the program will be providing vital elements of the aircraft as originally planned," the firm said in a statement.

Elected representatives from Kansas, after having lobbied intensively for Boeing to win the Air Force contract, voiced thinly veiled anger at the decision Wednesday.

"It's a big deal," Wichita area Congressman Mike Pompeo told AFP. "The Boeing company has been in this district for decades and decades. My mother worked at the Boeing Company in the 1950s. These are good jobs, held by good workers."

Pompeo said he would now investigate whether Boeing had misled lawmakers, the US Air force and other officials about their intentions during the bidding and awarding process.

"You have to ask yourself, what is it that really drove the decision to break their promise and when did that really occur?"

"There are hints and suggestions that that occurred well before statements that they made to many many federal officials."

"We all know that there are penalties to making false statements to Federal officials," he said, adding the facts now needed to be established.

There was a similar reaction from Kansas governor and long-time Boeing supporter Sam Brownback.

"No one worked harder for the success of the Boeing Company than Team Kansas," he said, describing the decision as "very disappointing."

Jeremy Hill, the director of Wichita State University's Center for Economic Development and Business Research, said Boeing's decision would cost Wichita's economy $1.5 billion in lost wages over the next decade.

But he said Boeing's decision to keep using most of its Kansas suppliers was a silver lining to otherwise bad news.

"Instead of having a total impact of the loss of 8,000-some jobs, it is going to be a lot less. Obviously the direct jobs are going to disappear."

Unemployment in the Wichita area is 7.2 percent, below in national average of 8.6 percent.

The jobs lost could increase the local jobless rate by around 0.7 percentage point.

According to industry analyst Richard Aboulafia, of the Teal Group, the decision could also spell future political trouble for Boeing.

"It's a difficult calculation to make. Shutting facilities and concentrating work elsewhere saves overhead costs, which is important in a time of shrinking defense revenue," he told AFP.

"Losing political leverage is difficult for a defense contractor. You never know when another highly politicized contract like KC-X (tanker) will appear, and Kansas political delegations have been quite active on Boeing's behalf."
http://news.yahoo.com/boeing-close-kans ... 44308.html

[FCarvalho]

Boa tarde. alguém poderia confirmar o número correto de encomendas de 777-300ER da TAM, por favor, que segundo consta na pagina sobre o mesmo na Wiki como sendo de 21 aeronaves, com 6 entregues e 15 ainda por chegar.

grato.

abs.

[VICTOR]

http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm

[alcmartin]

Atualizado até a data presente:

Competition between Airbus and Boeing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitio ... Boeing_737

Nos ultimos 10 anos, 7700 da Airbus contra 7300 da Boeing. Empate tecnico!! mas reflete bem a realidade, ambos fabricantes com bons projetos, cada um com suas vantagens e desvantagens.