Audacity and hypocrisy: the Boeing 777X RFP

We received an email from a Reader, who works for Boeing, about the details that emerged last week of Boeing’s Request for Proposals for the site location for the 777X:

I went to your site today to see what you had on the leaked RFI, and I have to say the whining by your crowd of Airbus fanboys is just astounding. Given all of the support given to Airbus for the A380, with Hamburg filling in a protected wildlife sanctuary, giving billions of euros of infrastructure. Changing laws so they could snatch land for Airbus. The hypocrisy just makes me puke. Not one of your posters, nor you, even bother to look at what the over guys got. Nope, just bad, evil Boeing. You could do better, you know.

We replied to this Reader that shortly after the details emerged and we posted links to the newspapers that had them, our power went down for the next 16 hours. When it was restored, we had moved on to other things. The email prompted us to go back, look at the comments and ponder the Reader’s premise. Here is what we came up with:

Yep, the Reader comments are pretty harsh on Boeing. And yep, they don’t talk about the Airbus A380 issues. Fair point, but certainly one Boeing fanboys could have raised on their own.

As we have repeatedly said, we generally don’t step in and participate in or edit Reader comments unless there is a violation of our Reader comment rules or there is a direct question to us, or a question about which we can clarify something.

But to get directly to the email’s point:

The benefits Airbus received for the A380 were subject to the international trade dispute between the US (Boeing) and the European Union (Airbus), and the World Trade Organization found that Airbus received illegal subsidies for the A380. Although this finding is under appeal by the EU, Boeing and the US claimed victory.

Boeing, of course, had made the issue of illegal subsidies afforded Airbus an issue for years and a key feature of its campaign to win the USAF KC-X tanker contract. Then-Congressman Jay Inslee, now governor of Washington State, was a leading proponent of this line of thinking on behalf of Boeing. There were many other facets of the US (Boeing, Inslee) allegations against Airbus across the entire family of airliners, including the underlying complaint about launch aid (which Airbus later renamed “Reimbursable Launch Aid” or RLI). Some of these other issues were found to have been illegal and some were not. RLI per se was found not to be illegal, but the terms and conditions under which they were granted were. Thus, when Airbus asked for and received RLI from France and Germany for the A350 (which was not part of the trade dispute, since the airplane had not been launched when the WTO complaint was filed), Airbus claimed the A350’s RLI was structured in a manner to comply with the WTO findings (even though the EU had appealed). This didn’t matter to Boeing or the US Trade Representative, both of whom loudly complained that Airbus continued to flout WTO findings with more “illegal” aid.

In the EU’s counter-complaint over tax breaks and other financial benefits it claimed Boeing received over the years, the EU cited $3.2bn in tax breaks provided by Washington State to Boeing for the 787 line; tax breaks provided by Kansas for Boeing work there and by Illinois to relocate Boeing’s headquarters from Seattle to Chicago. There were also NASA and Defense Department research grants that the EU claimed were illegal.

As with the US complaint against Airbus, the WTO found some Boeing funding and incentives to be illegal and others to be not illegal. The US appealed these findings.

All appeals are pending with the WTO.

Now we come to the 777X RFP and the heart of today’s matter.

Washington State approved an incentive package proposed by now-Gov. Inslee to extend from 2024 to 2040 those 787 tax breaks provided by the State in 2003 for the 787 production. The value of these breaks is placed at $8.7bn, which is the largest tax incentive package in US history. Then the union that provides the touch labor at Boeing’s plants, including the 777 Classic production, rejected a contract that contained steep concessions in exchange for a guarantee to locate the 777X assembly at Everett. With the rejection, Boeing began shopping around, issuing the RFP. Details, of course, were secret but last week the Charlotte Observer, then the St. Louis Post Dispatch and the Seattle Times all got copies of the RFP and published varying levels of details. We didn’t have a copy, so we simply linked a post to all three papers.

What emerged was a set of requirements and desires that makes even the Washington State incentives pale in comparison. Topping the list was a no-cost, or low-cost $10bn set of buildings and free land. The wish list built on top of this.

Aside from the general audacity of this–and the likelihood that it’s way beyond any state to even remotely meet–to use the Boeing employee’s word from the email at the top of this post, it is the hypocrisy of it all.

Boeing for years complained about the incentives, tax breaks and benefits received by Airbus. At Boeing’s urging, the United States of American canceled the 1992 GATT agreement controlling subsidies on both sides of the Atlantic and initiated the WTO complaint. The US prevailed on many points, including some of those associated with the A380.

Having engaged in this international trade dispute and having won on many of its issues, Boeing now is asking for many of the same things it complained about Airbus having received, and it is seeking to have the 777X become the most subsidized airplane in the history of commercial aviation.

This raises the question of a theory advanced during the WTO controversy: whether  Boeing’s action was nothing more than a ploy to divert attention from its 2003 tanker scandal in which the former USAF procurement officer, by then a Boeing employee, and the Boeing CFO, went to jail for improprieties; and to use the complaint as a political tool in the tanker competition, first with Northrop Grumman/EADS and later EADS alone.

Additionally, the very 787 tax breaks that were found to be illegal by the WTO have been offered by Gov. Inslee–the very politician who was so vociferous about illegal Airbus tax breaks during the tanker fight. Predictably, Airbus issued a statement denouncing the offer and we learned the EU was already beginning to look at the issue when the IAM 751 members rejected the contract.

From our perspective, and in response to our Boeing Reader, we are in awe at the hypocrisy and audacity displayed by Boeing and Inslee.

Long time Readers know that we have total disdain for the WTO, the US and EU complaints over the subsidies and other benefits, the entire process and the ineffective outcomes. But as long as Boeing and Inslee made such fuss from 2004-2011 over these issues, we find the blind eye displayed today to be hypocrisy at its worst.

Long time Readers also know that we don’t like corporate welfare in any form. For every dollar of tax breaks granted corporations, the tax burden is increased on ordinary citizens and other businesses that don’t qualify.

But having said that, the real world uses tax breaks and other incentives, so Boeing is going to seek them and governments are going to offer them. Parochially speaking, since we reside in Washington State, we want to see the 777X production here. Inslee is correct to offer tax breaks and incentives–but as we have written, these need to be tweaked to conform to the WTO findings. Instead, Inslee waves away the very process he so ardently supported only a few short years ago.

Realistically, we don’t see how any state can meet the specifications outlined in the Boeing RFP. Some states legally can’t provide direct funding to build buildings and give land. Given the financial condition of most states, we doubt few could afford to issue bonds for this purpose anyway. The key is how close other states can come to meeting the RFP specifications.

The RFP details as reported appear written to replicate what is already at Boeing’s Everett facility. We can’t help but wonder if the RFP is written to make a win by Washington all but inevitable. In any event, Everett is the best industrial choice for the 777X.

But that comes back to the situation with IAM 751. Members rejected the contract by a 2-1 vote.

Another Reader emailed over the weekend the following, and he hits the crux of the matter: how do Boeing and the IAM 751 get back together in a face-saving way?

After reviewing all the press on the 777X  RFP; I still say, that other than a large runway, the port and rail logistics component is really the key determinant to site selection.  And then labor and environmental culture/regs in excess of Federal standards a close second.  [Editor’s Note: see here and here on environmental proposals in Washington State that are relevant to this point.] Those both being related to production and delivery timelines.  The tax breaks/permitting component is pretty standard fair with little potential to differentiate significantly between states, but it is a great way to ‘go fishing’ for marginal cashflow benefits that can be recaptured across the ‘system’ through squeezing the supply chain, as well as anchoring political capital in DC across bidding states.

It will be interesting to see if any of the states incorporate an ‘ask’ of Boeing in return for the giveaways, especially related to workforce training and higher education commitments/investments.  For example: Starbucks for its production facilities shopping takes the tax breaks, but then commits to X level of philanthropy return to the community, usually a green one.  The social responsibility approach.  An interesting omission in all the discussion around the 777X siting.  It would be very interesting to kick that beehive over since corporate welfare really is a bipartisan perspective now.

The most amazing thing to me here in Washington is that Inslee hasn’t ‘manned up’ to publicly challenge the IAM, etc. and lay it on the line as to what’s a stake.  Politically, it would be the pinnacle of foolishness for Boeing to ‘reward’ the union vote by ultimately placing the site here and giving them the ‘I told you so’ high ground which would dramatically inflate the union cultural mindset they are always trying to diminish and increase the likelihood for future friction.

  • The Everett Herald has a good comparison of the 15 states we know about and how they stack up in the site location competition. Wisconsin was not on the Boeing RFP list but is submitting an unsolicited proposal.

 

44 Comments on “Audacity and hypocrisy: the Boeing 777X RFP

  1. Seems to me pretty well put!

    Regarding the A380 angle: I do not see the need to pull the A380 into this discussion, it has been discussed to death both earlier here and elsewhere. Hardly news anymore. The Boeing hypocrisy, greed, and cheekyness stand well on its own, regardless of scale for comparison.

  2. A v. B @ WTO is a long saga, no point in rehashing all the way back to the A-300/707, or claiming B is shockingly hypocritical in seeking tax advantages in it’s latest program/endeavor.

    And lest one forget, Starbucks uses all kinds of gimmicks/write-offs to minimize taxes and serve as marketing, so I am not sure they are such a benevolent case of corporate fairness. (GE, a key Ba supplier btw, is one of the worst offenders in the “minimize corporate tax payments” game). The Brit’s, in any case, seem to have noticed.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2012/1207/Starbucks-tax-avoidance-has-Brits-frothing-mad-video

    http://www.economist.com/news/business/21568432-starbuckss-tax-troubles-are-sign-things-come-multinationals-wake-up-and-smell

  3. Scott, you have to recognize that the WTO process is very slow though. Also When Boeing and the USGovernment started their case against Airbus and the EU, they were complaining about the subsidies given to Airbus by the EU for the A380. However, when the A350 was launched (much later), Airbus went ahead and asked for the same type of subsidies that were found to be illegal by the WTO. What was Boeing supposed to do in that case? Sit around and complain about Airbus and the EU actions while money was flowing to Airbus? The appeals have been introduced a long time ago and we are waiting and waiting and waiting…. I believe Boeing has lost faith in the WTO process…. It is slow and difficult to enforce….

    • We know full well the WTO process is slow. It’s ineffective. It’s a waste of time. Just go back and read our posts from the time.

      The USTR (Boeing) launched its complaint in 2004. The A350 was launched in 2006 and re-launched thereafter, and as a result it wasn’t included in the complaint. Launch aid wasn’t initially sought for the A350. By the time Airbus asked for it, officials claimed the terms and conditions complied with the WTO findings. As we wrote, launch aid per se wasn’t illegal, the T&C were. Airbus claims the T&C for the A350 complied with the new parameters set by the WTO. Washington State has not followed suit.

  4. Much ado about nothing -Boeing And Airbus maximize benefits from the states in which they operate ; Airbus blatantly takes risk funding from government. Boeing also takes the locational and other benefits A wants and gets.
    It is a fact that A fanboys outshine B’s in this site. Sometimes, it makes me wonder, if this is a pro Airbus site.
    In any case Boeing should teach a lesson to its washington labor union on defined benefits. That would be for the overall good of Corporate industrial America.

    • In any case Boeing should teach a lesson to its washington labor union on defined benefits.

      LOL – Is that what you learn in Business School? You know, teaching employees a “lesson”, while listening to Milton Friedman who claimed that the sole purpose of a company is to maximise profits, and not acknowledging that every business decision has societal repercussions.

      That would be for the overall good of Corporate industrial America

      Perhaps “Corporate Industrial America” should start looking at the massive income inequality in the US. For example, senior executives at Boeing earn between 100 to 1000 times what the average Boeing worker earns. When you’ve got this amount of income inequality, there’s a tendency that the executives don’t think about their employees at all — as human beings, that is. Hence, it’s not too surprising that the people at the top have a noticeable disdain for workers representation and that they don’t seem to care about the societal repercussions of their actions. What seems to matter though, to these people, are their own stock options and performance equity awards.

    • I’m reposting as the above comment turned out to be a little bit confusing. 🙂

      In any case Boeing should teach a lesson to its washington labor union on defined benefits.

      LOL – Is that what you learn in Business School? You know, teaching employees a “lesson”, while listening to Milton Friedman who claimed that the sole purpose of a company is to maximise profits, and not acknowledging that every business decision has societal repercussions.

      That would be for the overall good of Corporate industrial America

      Perhaps “Corporate Industrial America” should start looking at the massive income inequality in the US. For example, senior executives at Boeing earn between 100 to 1000 times what the average Boeing worker earns. When you’ve got this amount of income inequality, there’s a tendency that the executives don’t think about their employees at all — as human beings, that is. Hence, it’s not too surprising that the people at the top have a noticeable disdain for workers representation and that they don’t seem to care about the societal repercussions of their actions. What seems to matter though, to these people, are their own stock options and performance equity awards.

    • Even if this is a pro-Airbus site, which it’s not, it’ll be at least nice to finally have one in Airbus’ corner, considering the numerous blogs that are run by rabid Boeing fanboys(some hiding under the guise of objectivity) all over the internet, some of which I’m probably sure you read.

      • Hello Mr. Fanboy, but no. I’m not biased but I do tire of your constant whining that becasue I’m critical of Airbus I’m “biased” and “one of the worst posters out there.” Pretty rich coming from a guy who posted the above.

        But since you mention it, you obviously were not paying attention when I beat Boeing up for their 737Max half measure, their bitching about the tanker deal and how I thought they basically mailed it in expecting to win when Airbus did their homework, how they fumbled the 787 launch, and on and on.

        But hey, whatever reinforces your piddly worldview about “anti-Airbus bias” when there really isn’t…anywhere on the internet. And I am the same guy, however you appear to hide behind multiple aliases so there’s that.

        And I don’t agree with any corporate welfare. They make enough money be it Boeing or Airbus, and both have been soaking taxpayers in an effort to maximize profits and minimize returns to the community.

        Nice day.

      • Neutron73 and others: A word of caution about personal attacks, which violate our Reader Comment rules. Knock it off.

        Hamilton

      • A lot of lines, but you didn’t really say anything of note Well done and lots of pointless conjectures too. I don’t even get where the “constant whinning” point comes from since this is probably like the 2nd time I’ve ever replied to your posts. However to reply to some point. Don’t hide under any aliases. I actually don’t even post on A.net, I’m just a lurker who reads the forum since you know it’s open for guests.. But carry on, multiple aliases is probably something you’re an expert at. You’re funny(not haha funny though)

    • FWIW, the comments seem fairly even on the fanboyism front, with the level of kicking depending on what deserves kicking. Boeing has had 2 good ‘uns this year, with the 787 mess and IAM/777X, but I see no reason for Airbus not to screw up the most another year and get their own fair share of kicking.

  5. We return now those thrilling days of yesteryear-
    Gatt92 used the term LCA large commerical aircraft- ( which were not really defined then, but were intended to be larger than a piper cub.)

    Throughout the 90’s- there were many issues regarding overseas competition on a supposedly leveled field.

    For but one example MDC wanted to establish proiduction in China

    http://www.fas.org/news/taiwan/1992/s920311-taiwan.htm

    By then late 90’s- some at Boeing became concerned that Airbus was making ‘ improper” use of the subsidies granted in GATT92( WTO). But Boeing was concerned that since a large part of their sales were overseas, raising the issue might damage sales – even with offset purchases/agreements.

    So in about 2000- SPEEA looked into (without Boeing help ) filing a CVD Countervailing Duties Petition- which with the then Byrd amendments – andIF successful – would impose duties of perhaps 10 to 15 percent on all Airbus imported-sold to U.S.

    The petition was simple- about 40 pages, but took a lot of digging for facts and data.

    By early 2001- things were fleshed out- and tweaks were being made to the formal petition before filing. Boeing still had no part or input. But then, in the summer of 2001- Rudy DeLeon( ex of Deputy Sec Defense) was hired. At that time 767 airframe had been mil-certified, and a push for a tanker verison was under way

    By late summer of 2001 the stage was set to file

    Here is what was public at that time

    Airbus Countervailing Duty Position Paper [ AUG 2001 ]

    For the past year, the SPEEA Legislative and Public Affairs Committee (L&PA) has been conducting an intensive investigation into the practices of Airbus Industries; namely, the subsidies being provided by EU governments, and the below fair market prices at which they sell their commercial airplanes. SPEEA is concerned because these practices have had a severe impact on the jobs of commercial aerospace workers and the people we represent.

    The L&PA Committee has concluded filling out a very detailed petition requesting relief under U.S. countervailing duty law. The SPEEA Council authorized this investigation, with the goal being to determine whether such a filing could be reasonably supported by examination of publicly-available information from both Boeing and Airbus. Once this petition is filed, the International Trade Administration (ITA) within the Department of Commerce and United States International Trade Commission (USITC) will be able to consider the initiation of a countervailing duty proceeding. Such a proceeding is administrative in nature, and may result in the imposition of special countervailing duties on specific imports.
    In order to fill out the petition, the Committee gathered data from various sources, including: Boeing Annual Reports; the first European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) (formerly France’s Aerospatiale Mantra, Germany’s DASA, Spain’s CASA, and Britain’s BAE Systems) Annual Report for 1999/2000; statistical surveys conducted by the European Aerospace Industry (EAI) for 1997 – 1999; information from both Boeing’s and Airbus’ websites; numerous press accounts; and informal discussions with industry representatives. The Boeing Company has neither helped nor hindered us, nor have we had access to any Boeing proprietary data. As SPEEA represents workers within the industry, and not the industry itself, actual sales prices, contract information, profit margins, discounts, and lease information are closely held by the respective companies and were not available to us; however, these can be requested by the ITA and ITC.
    The L&PA Committee has made the following observations which lead to our belief that Airbus, through a variety of methods, is effectively selling their products below cost. Raw material, engines, avionics, landing gear, and similar parts cost the same for Boeing and Airbus. Assembly techniques, automation, certification, process controls, and computer-aided design techniques are essentially the same, and have no inherent cost differences. Additionally, labor costs are higher for EU countries, with differences from 15% higher in 1995 to about 5% in 1998. Finally, the EADS annual report shows that for the year 2000, Airbus’ share of EADS net consolidated profit was zero.
    We then compared the published selling prices of Boeing and Airbus commercial airplanes from 1998 – 2000, omitting figures for the Boeing 747. For 1999, the average cost of all airplanes sold by Boeing was $59 million per plane, whereas the average cost for Airbus was $46.4 million per plane. We then compared two comparable models of aircraft, the A320 and the 737-800. Figures reflected an average 737-800 costing (conservatively) about 10% more than the A320.
    Therefore, how can Airbus, with equal material and subassembly costs, higher labor costs and arguably lower productivity, and admittedly zero profits, still undercut Boeing prices by at least 10 percent? Our determination is that Airbus is selling most, if not all aircraft models into the U.S. at 10 25% below cost. Note: this does not include special lease, financial, or maintenance agreements, which even further harm our workers.
    In conclusion, the overall affect of the governmental subsidization of Airbus has caused distortions in international trade that support United States governmental action. Therefore, the SPEEA L&PA Committee is recommending the SPEEA Council and Executive Board take action to file the petition for countervailing duty relief with the United States Department of Commerce and International Trade Commission.
    ++++++++

    And by that time -Rudy had been tasked by Phil C to start delving into filing a WTO complaint by Boeing.

    SPEEA Board approved filing the CVD petition the 2nd week in Sept 2001.

    With 911- the decision was made to stop all efforts for a while

    The tanker issue was pushed by Boeing ( the rest of that is History )

    By 2002, it seemed reasonable to consider filling the CVD peteitiion- BUT Boeing all of sudden was worried that filing would impact the Tanker issue- so sent Rudy to ‘ stop’ the filing. ( yes I was there !)

    A lot of ‘ back door’ efforts were involved – bordering on unethical – but the result was that the filing by SPEEA was stopped. Of course- later- the Tanker issue came unravelled. One of the * probable * issues involved had to do with having to reveal the cost of a green airframe 767 for a tanker via a military contract( lease game ) versus figures for same for a commercial 767 as part of on ongoing CVD estimate showing major delta costs by airbus not explainable.

    In any case- it was a few years later when Boeing decided to file a WTO case using a different Route.

    And its still going on…

  6. Lots of water has gone under this particular bridge. I think Boeing wanted to challenge Airbus (a) for tactical reasons they hoped it would delay the A350 when the 787 was already under way; (b) again for tactical reasons it would stir up helpful animosity against Airbus when bidding for the tanker project; (c) they genuinely felt aggrieved by what they saw as unfair competition. I think they were surprised to get a taste of their own medicine in the counter suit.

    While I you can talk about goose and gander for the actual subsidies, Boeing was definitely the more assertive party in pursuing their case through court.

    Has the goodness been extracted from the WTO actions or will this drag on for another decade?

  7. Scott- are we at the point where US commpanies want the benefits of a third world nation for everything but the things they hold near and dear to their profits? Low larbor, excellent IP protection, highly skilled labor, excellent quality of life, no accountability to their communities, and VERY LOW to NO tax obligations.

  8. Topping the list was a no-cost, or low-cost $10bn set of buildings and free land.

    Am I right in thinking land and buildings wouldn’t be needed at Everett because Boeing have them there already? In other words, it just evens up things between Washington and other states. Other states would still have to come up with further incentives to match Washington’s [possibly non-WTO compliant] subsidies?

  9. “”The most amazing thing to me here in Washington is that Inslee hasn’t ‘manned up’ to publicly challenge the IAM, etc. and lay it on the line as to what’s a stake. Politically, it would be the pinnacle of foolishness for Boeing to ‘reward’ the union vote by ultimately placing the site here and giving them the ‘I told you so’ high ground which would dramatically inflate the union cultural mindset they are always trying to diminish and increase the likelihood for future friction.””

    For you, it is about Busting the Unions, isn’t it? It’s not about making the best business decision, or Airbus subsidies, or “Airbus Fanboys”….or anything else.

    Sure, Boeing can go ahead and Bust the Union (.e., IAM), but it’s going to be a bitter victory. I mean, how is that Charleston Plant working out for Boeing….are they making any money there, yet? Likewise, Boeing pretty-much busted the engineering union (i.e., SPEEA) a while back. So…just how much money is that technologically, cutting-edge 787 making for Boeing nowadays?

    If you are any indicator of the general sentiment at Boeing, then it’s going to be a real Freak Show watching Boeing Design and Develop the 777x – especially if they take those activities out-of-state. Like the 787 Development Program, I expect about everything to go wrong with the 777x Program – and I am looking forward to the show. I mean, years ago I used to cringe every time Boeing hosed up the 787 Program, until I realized that it was a hopeless situation and that Boeing would never change – and then I mentally switched gears and decided to sit back and enjoy it all. Hey…Boeing is “Stuck on Stupid” so-to-speak – so why should I fret over Boeing’s screw-ups? Instead…why not enjoy the show?

    Consequently, I thank you for your attitude and efforts. Please keep up the good work.

  10. By labeling the whiners as “Airbus fanboys” this reader is really trying to label them as unpatriotic. I had the impression that most those commentators were Americans, who have just had enough of the grovelling and extortion of large corps. Here in Seattle the boundary was crossed by the Sonics and they left. Now we have a high chance that BA will find their sugar daddy elsewhere and say bye-bye.

  11. “”” Yep, the Reader comments are pretty harsh on Boeing. And yep, they don’t talk about the Airbus A380 issues. “””

    When Airbus CEO Noel Foregeard sold the the first A380s below cost and then hosed the production program, he was FIRED!

    Let’s contrast this to the Boeing 787 – whose delivery was three years late, whose development program was a technical and financial fiasco and whose Production Program is racking up $25 Billion in Deferred Costs and counting. As a result, has the CEO been replaced? Or…has he continuing to get lucrative bonuses for the “wonderful” job he’s doing?

    So…yeah, the A380 has issues – BIG issues, but Airbus is addressing them and making sure that the number of future issues are minimized. On the other hand, Boeing is moving forward with a throttle that’s wide-open and “Stuck on Stupid”.

  12. I do not understand the letter writers last shot at the IAM. His take seems to be that Boeing should make poor business decisions for the sole purpose of one-upping it’s unions. Such decisions only make sense to stiff necked ideologues less interested in making money that putting certain classes of people in their perceived place.

    But he has little to fret over, Boeing does just what he suggests, all the time. If it moves 777x it will have done it again, with the same or worse result than 787. And particularly, if there is no companion production of 777x in Everett, there will be no knowledge base there to bail out Boeing on any fixes or repairs by sending people in, or flying aircraft to Everett. The new facility will be utterly on it’s own.

    I’m sure the aero mechanics will be happy to “reward” Boeing for it’s decision by leaving them to their folly. And with an extended strike in 2016.

    • More to the point learning from the A380 issues helped the A350 a lot. I guess its about the best running program since the original B777.

      • Given that Airbus had the woes of the A380 and 787 programs from which to learn, and the fact that the A350 is not terribly more technically advanced than the A380. and…the fact that Airbus has taken soooooo long to develop the A350 – I expect the A350s introduction to be a lot smoother than that of the 777.

        If the A350 Production Program does not start up smoother than the 777s did – and start making positive cash flow within the first 100 frames or so – then I shall be very dissapointed with Airbus, for Airbus has had a lot of lessons from which to learn.

      • The sad thing, from my point of view, is that after the B787/748i messes Boeing is much more capable of executing a clean sheet than before, which is what I think the B777-X should be, a B797. If doing over an old design was such a wonderful idea Airbus would be racing on the A330 NEO, it is about the same weight as the B787. The idea that a redone B777, which is 20 ton heavier than a similar sized A350, will be competitive doesn’t work for me. Comparisons showing the 779-X ahead by a bit are ignoring that the A359 is flying now, and a 2020 or 2021 build A350 will be a lot better. On top of that the 777-X is half relying on new tech engines to make up the difference, Airbus will be able to play the re-engine card as soon as the 779-X starts to worry them. To me it is a case of two types with similar CASM, one just bigger than the other, a re-run of B773 vs B748i, and we know which one won that competition.

  13. Always pretending like a victim when others criticize what you love and pretending like the attacks on the one that you have inexplicable deep hatred never happened before.(Not target this reader because he is a employee)

    Taking this case for instance, what Scott did is providing some links from other sites and not even made a comment. Before blaming Scott and others here, why not reads some comments in S**ttle Times to enjoy some heart damage.

    Fair point, but certainly one Boeing fanboys could have raised on their own. It’s very true because there is no prohibition here. However I can explaine to a certain degree why there is not a B fan steps forward. Let’s divide the fanboys into two types, first type is the one who likes B with a certain extent bias(everyone has of course) but the way he thinking generally is based on the fact and logic, and the other type is “No matter what A does is wrong so this company will 100% bankcrupt next year why you just don’t understand! Come and tell me I am right. No? I feel sorry for your brain problem.” It can be a good evidence of the quality of this blog because the second type is almost leave. And based on this case, the first type has nothing to say because the case itself is wired. As for me, whether there is a state accepts this RFP or not, it doesn’t impact on my money so on need for being emotional.

    The expression of objective is the talks based on the fact itself not based on what you beloved. What you want exactly is someone comes and comforts you that A is worse. I don’t see any obligation that the people in the world have to revolve around you and treat you as a princess. Let’s grow up. Before blaming others, do some self-examination first.

    Anyway, stay with the companions is a good idea to maintain a good mood although I don’t know for knowledge aspect what the benefit is.

  14. IMO the A380 is a bit of an underrated program. The A380 has more composites included then the 787, including the upper skin and lots of new systems and materials. The first A380 flew just a few months late and certification went relatively smooth. The short wiring bundles let to a delay of less then 2 years and the first A380 beat its efficiency targets from day 1, the passengers loved it. In hindsight maybe not the also disaster some love to remember..

    • Keesje: Ummm, no. Just because you use the “more composites by weight” metric doesn’t change the fact that it is a meaningless metric. Of course the A380 has more by weight: it is a bigger plane. Composites by percent of total structure is by far a better metric, and the A380 is not close to the 787.

      And please don’t trot out the tired “The A380 uses 5000psi hydraulics…”Big deal. So do some tractors, allegedly.

      • Well the A380 cabin is pressurized at 5000ft, something which Boeing has been promoting heavily on the 787. And what kind of inane reply is that re: the A380’s 5000psi hydraulics? Yeah I’m sure the fact that tractors have them somehow makes it less impressive on a 500t airliner. It’s like someone talking about the impressive 787’s use of composite and then another person replying with,, but yeah F1 cars have composite bodies too, big deal. See how utterly daft that sounds?

        However, If you’re the same NeutronStar73 that posts on Airliners.net, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, you’re one of the most biased(read worst) posters there.

  15. The idea of a level playing field re America and the world in trade and anything else has always and still is a contradiction. Mind you the blame for that has to go to a great deal to the Europeans and the rest of the world for thinking the sun shines out of American ar…s.

  16. I think it is all about the different styles of communication between B and A. (just like the difference in the accounting choices with regards to development costs).

    For example this piece of realism and blunt honesty at EADS about the restructuring at defense and space. (From Flightglobal http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/more-cuts-and-eurofighter-pain-if-eads-fails-in-bid-to-slash-costs-393963/)

    “The scale of EADS’s competitiveness gap was revealed by Gerwert’s (Cassidian chief executive) remark that SpaceX – the California start-up leading efforts to re-establish US space launch capabilities – has just launched a satellite to geosynchronous orbit with its new Falcon 9 rocket “that is 30% cheaper than [Astrium’s] Ariane [5]”. With that sort of cost disadvantage, he says, much of the Astrium business is simply not profitable.”

    I would guess that even Boeing-minded commenters prefer this style (one I have not seen at Boeing yet). But in no way are these commenters suddenly Airbus fan boys.

    Btw: I find this talk about Fan boys a little demeaning towards most of the commenters here.

      • Try again

        http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/consumer/sns-rt-us-eads-cuts-20131208,0,4251881.story

        EADS plans to cut up to 6,000 jobs and sell its Paris HQ: paper
        Reuters

        2:57 a.m. EST, December 9, 2013

        PARIS (Reuters) – European aerospace company EADS plans to cut between 5,000 and 6,000 jobs and sell its Parisian headquarters as part of a restructuring program it will detail later on Monday, Le Figaro newspaper reported.

        Two industry sources told Reuters last month that the restructuring would cost thousands of jobs but fewer than the 8,000 reported by German news agency DPA.
        The potential 6,000 job cuts represents around 5 percent of the group’s total headcount.

        goes on

  17. Yes, but the bulk of the cuts are in Germany. It’s Tom Enders’ zurückzahlen to Frau Merkel for torpedoing the EADS – BAE Systems merge last year.

    • Zurückzahlen or simply that the Germany centric Defence and Security division has the most inherent problems?

      Curious that the article quoted upthread attempts to negatively compare Astrium to the barely tested Falcon 9 in the context of rationalizing Astrium’s subjugation to a Munich led Defense & Space operation (also including Airbus Military i.e. former CASA). SpaceX’s Falcon launchers indeed threaten serious competitive pressure, but why does the entry of new, independent, ‘lightweight’ and innovative competitor lead to merging management with some tangentially related businesses, with management being organized under the least successful of the bunch?

  18. Pingback: Bias and Lies: 777X and WTO (Airbus-ted) | AviationFact

  19. Pingback: IAM won’t release its offer details; IAM v Itself v Boeing | Leeham News and Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *