As Yogi Berra once said, “it ain’t over till it’s over.”
The US Trade Representative rejected EU claims that it had complied with WTO rulings that Airbus received illegal subsidies and that these had been repaid.
Here is the USTR statement. USTR claims sanctions of $7bn-$10bn annually are in order.
The USTR also objected to new subsidies granted (though without specifying, this presumably relates to the A350, which was not part of the 2004 case). Airbus has claimed the WTO didn’t rule out subsidies per se, just the terms on which they had been granted and that new subsidies for the A350 would be drawn on commercial terms.
The financial statements of EADS, Airbus’ parent company, shows reimbursable launch aid (as EADS/Airbus calls it) increased by more than 1bn Euros in 2010 over 2009, but did not specify how much of this was associated with the A350. The A320neo program wasn’t launched until December 2010, so while this could have benefited from launch aid, the probability that the increase was mostly related to the A350 seems high.
Boeing issued a statement that names the A350.
We say: we’re tired of the whole thing. As we have noted many times, we don’t like subsidies, period. Of any kind. To Airbus or Boeing or anyone else.