Posted on 08/14/2004 12:01:52 PM PDT by nypokerface
SEATTLE (AFP) - US President George W. Bush warned that the United States may bring WTO action in September against Airbus Industrie, citing "unfair" government subsidies to the European aircraft maker.
"I've instructed US Trade Representative Bob Zoellick to inform European officials in his September meeting that we think these subsidies are unfair and that he should pursue all options to end these subsidies -- including bringing a WTO case, if need be," Bush said.
The president's election-year threat to go to the World Trade Organization came after he met behind closed doors here with workers at Boeing, Airbus' archrival, during a campaign swing.
"Airbus was founded about 30 years ago and has received, in those 30 years, large government subsidies from European nations, and continues to receive them," said Bush.
"I think it's unfair to this American company that these European governments continue to subsidize Airbus," said Bush. "I believe if our country is treated fairly, we can compete with anybody, anytime, anywhere."
Under a 1992 US-European Union agreement, European support for new aircraft programs -- provided in royalty-based loans -- was limited to 33 percent of the total cost, repayable with interest within 17 years.
On the other hand, indirect US support through NASA or military programs was limited to three percent of turnover for the US large commercial aircraft industry.
Boeing has charged that the arrangement allows Airbus to get state money virtually on demand.
"We believe in free trade. We want that free trade to be fair, as well. And getting rid of the subsidies of Airbus will make the trade fair, will make the playing field level" said Bush.
Zoellick has recently stepped up pressure for an overhaul of the 1992 deal, telling reporters at a news conference July 8 that the agreement was outdated.
Airbus is jointly owned by the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co., which holds 80 percent, and Britain's BAE Systems, which holds the remaining 20 percent.
Between this and the removal of troops from Europe, the EU economy is going to take a hit.
Is this the same president who hasn't cared about child labor, prison labor, military labor creating the things China exports to the U.S.?
Perhaps Airbus should steal our nuclear secrets, send spies into the top levels of our government, bribe our presidents, threaten their neighbors militarily, point nukes at the U.S. and threaten to use them and swear their intention to burry the United States this century.
Airbus just needs a new set of advisors. This is a simple oversight on their part.
Boeing is hurting and they are demanding payback for staying mum on TWA#800. It's also the reason behind the proposed use of 747's as fire=fighting tankers for air-drops of water. There are a lot of older 747's which have completed first lease terms and Boeing still holds the title. There are some excellent deals out there in the used jumbo catagory. Leasing ramps full of 747's for fire-use means simple, old cockpit avionics of thirty years ago are just fine. Basically VFR 747's which sit on the ramps 363 days a year, leased by the US Forest Service.
I guess the 2 Army divisions are going to be replaced by 1 or 2 Stryker brigades, still a big net loss for Germany.
Do you also see the black helicopters at night?
Anyone with a passing interest in Airbus can see clearly their government subsidies.
The Frenchy AFP can take it up with the Clintoons.
Don't tell that to the Euros. In their mind it is totally justifiable as they think that the U.S. government illegally subsidies Boeing.
As they are loose with language and logic so they are with notions of capitalism. For the DoD or NASA to purchase goods and services from Boeing is considered by the European to be an "indirect subsidy" - as if the management and investors of Boeing do not have the right to invest their profits as they see fit.
Oh and never mind the fact that Airbus's parent, EADS, gets all manner of work out of the ESA and the European defense community or the fact that Airbus itself builds military planes, plane that have essentially been coerced from the EU member states by France. And all those subcontractors and suppliers of Airbus and Boeing? Naw ,they could not be getting any government at all. What fun watch France pretend that she does not run a fascist economic system.
The whole economic reasons for the EU are protectionism and government subsidies: They cannot not thin to do otherwise. Oh the land of obfuscation and collusion.
I just hope that Bush has the guts to tell the WTO to shove it when they decide against us.
Sheesh.......Stop living in the 90's.
I'm not saying I agree in full, but I can see their point.
I welcome this as a frequent flyer. It is increasingly difficult to book domestic flights on Boeings, which I far prefer to Airbuses. But Airbus has been very aggressive with pricing and with lease terms, so much so that I cannot fault airlines for choosing these comparatively poorly-built planes. Meanwhile Boeing has found it increasingly difficult to compete given the anti-business climate in the Pacific Northwest where it is based, and greedy union demands. All this while Airbus is being subsidized by eurocrats. Disgusting.
See #10. It is in no way a subsidy, and the EU does the samething with EADS (Airbus' parent) and Airbus itself. For the government to purchase goods and services from Boeing is not a subsidy, it is commerce.
It's like America is Sam Walton's Walmart and the entire EU is Woolworth's. We have an enormous economy of scale in military spending. The EU does not.
I sure as shiite hope so. 30,000+ of our guys coming out of Western Europe will make a dent. Then with the Airbus piece; another hit on their already lousy economy. "Payback's a Bitch" (Did GWB say that?)
Whose government subsidies?
The government that rhymes with PEE UUU,
as in EU government subsidies. To the tune of €3.3 billion to develop the A380 airliner.
Still Boeing provides the customer, although it's the government, specific products and services for existing contracts.
In the case of the EU, they throw money (grants) at a company to ensure a product is available to customers, where they are clearly not the customer, before any contracts are in existence. The definition of subsidy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.