Alabama move won’t open door to Airbus in US lobby group: We dont want foreign govts to use AIA to lobby ours, CEO Blakey tells
This is hypocrisy. The UK’s BAE System is a member of AIA. Rolls-Royce (North America) is a member. Brazil’s Embraer Aircraft Holdings is a member. France’s Dassault Systems is an associate member. Safran USA (obviously part of France’s Safran) is an associate member. And these are just the ones we immediately recognize from the AIA member list.
There key issues that Airbus and Boeing have in common: flight safety, air traffic management, environment, bio-fuel. There is no reason why Airbus Americas shouldn’t be a part of this group to participate in lobbying Congress for these kinds of issues. EADS North America, which already has major Defense contracts, could help on something like sequestration.
Airbus buys $12bn worth of supplies from the US and plans to double this. Even Washington State, Boeing’s home, is a top supplier to Airbus.
Who or what is black-balling Airbus?
Shame on AIA on this one. The reason given is transparently bull[stuff].
Do any of those other companies on the list have the same level of foreign government influence in their business as EADS/Airbus? I’m asking because I don’t know.
By revenue BAE Systems is about half the size of EADS
while RR is 60% of BAE.
All three are defense suppliers, significant holders of tech capabilities.
Government influencing ( and vice versa) is a given. Same ( more so ?) with Boeing.
And imho this is rather independent of ownership.
What i would predict is that a protective stance in the US will be mirrored in Europe
and Asia while also giving widespread education in evaluating demands for “free trade”.
What government influencing is more prevalent at Boeing than at Airbus, where the French and German governments take active roles in managing the company? When was the last time or ever that the US government determined who should sit on the Board of Directors for Boeing? That happens all the time with EADS. Once again, you let your anti-Americanism override your logic.
Well I guess you should be more aware of how things work in EADS Howard. The CEO Tom Enders has just “fired” S. Zoller, the head of Cassidian, who was extremely well connected within the German gvt but had different views in how to drive this EADS entity. In the European press, this “achievement” was deemed as impossible in view of mr. Zoller political influence. Guess the gvt influence you are talking about is not that true…
Dassault is very much in bed with the french gov’t.
Groupe Dassault or one the subsidies ?
Groupe Dasault is a free marketeers wet dream as they are privately owned by the Dassault family.
Dassault Aerospace is ~50/45/5 EADS, Dassault, private
haven’t looked at the others.
You are right, Dassault is the French gvt, way more than EADS which is more independent.
Uwe, it may not go through official channels, but the French gov’t have a rich history of having an active role in the economy (it didn’t start with Hollande, though he takes it up a notch)
As everyone here knows, I am not an Airbus fanboy. But, even I think this is rediculus. EADS-NA, which is part of EADS/Airbus is a qualified DOD bidder. They bid their KC-45 against the Boeing KC-46, and lost. But they also supply the US Army and US Navy with the UH-72A. There are lots of foreign governments that have lobby companies lobbying for them with the US Government and the Congress. EADS/Airbus does a lot of business here and has done so for years, if not decades. Even their original product airplane (back when they were Airbus-SAS), the A-300-B2/B4 had GE and P&W engines, along with US made avionics.
What ever happened to the ‘LAND OF THE FREE’?Airbus Mr Bill Boeing and all the worker’s at both co’s i thank them all for my freedom to fly on eny aircraft&roam enywhere in the FREE world. THIS STATEMENT remind’s me of the old U.S.S.R ‘you can’t do this you can’t do that ect ect.
Interesting that Boeing and Junkers had similar “founder experiences”.
Boeing having a bit more luck living on beyond his divestiture.
It helps to be on the winning side of a world war 😉
It’s very interesting to compare the perceived protectionist positions taken by various North American and European OEMs. Surely AIAA is not saying that it wants U.S. manufacturers to win contracts on the basis of a closed RFP?
I seem to remember an article in Flight International, perhaps as long ago as the late 1980s, which considered the stances taken by France and the U.S. when it came to open bidding for business: it was entitled “What’s American for ‘fait a l’Etranger’?” (Answer available upon request.)
The AIA is a private organization. They are entitled to exclude whomever they wish, no matter how silly.
I don’t see this as a post, and following discussion, criticizing or questioning the legality of such a maneuver, but rather the logic, or lack thereof, used in justifying the decision.
I bow to your superior intellect.
Europe still needs politicians to botch a job so carefully as the Boeing BoD seems to have done.
Actually what we see seems to be a bit of reversal
Europe tries to control commerce politically while in the US politics is controled by commerce
( which has lead to disenfrachisement of the sovereign there ).
FR and GER owns 22% each of EADS, ESP owns another 5%. This is hard to ignore, they have more influence than Uwe ever will let on. I dont like EADS beacuse of this, it should be 100% privatly owned, this is not the 1960s in DDR..
While not the biggest fan of government ownership of certain companies, I don’t see that much interference in the running of EADS from these governments. French politicians now and then make noises about reversing decisions made by the board, but I have not yet seen any direct influence being exerted on the company by polticians.
Witness the limited reaction to the employee reductions announced in 2006 as well as the governments problems with the company concerning the A400 contract renegotiation.
It seems that in the case of the A400, the company actually was able to use its position to exert pressure on the governments and not the other way around.
I am for moderating influence on markets. Be that RLI like constuctions, partial stateownership or legal sandboxing ( ordered in rising cost and effort ).
People that still blab about “Free Markets” have not understood the mechanics behind the GFC. As Jerry Pournelle put it : the unfettered free market will have kids and human meat for sale in no time. ( and he is tagged as Paleo Conservative )
Didn’t Adam Smith have something to say about free markets, along the lines of ‘pretty soon everyone is in the coffee shop fixing prices’ (or, as IATA would have it, er, ‘co-ordinating tariffs’…).
The simple reality is that the French government will NEVER exit EADS ownership for the simple reason that EADS designs and builds their nuclear weapons. For this reason alone, France will always be involved in EADS, like it or not.
Boeing and LM want to keep foreign competition away from the fat domestic defense business where their profits come from. How strong their lobby is within AIA ? Guess..
Uwe – “Groupe Dassault or one the subsidies ?…” Now that’s a really ironic freudian slip, don’t you think?
OK, a typo. You may continue with your rain dance now 😉
If you can rip your eyeballs from that the question actually is relevant.
Groupe Daussault does not have full ownerships of their subsidiaries.
In some cases they are ( low percentage ) minority holders.
How is that different from the current monopolistic or otherwise deformed “markets”.
In most areas the theoretical requirements for an open market aren’t even given.
Madness has its place. But not in economics.
Actually look up Ludwig Ehrhard for a sane approach to liberalisation.
Ironic you first mention Bill Boeing’s start and monoplies in the same string – Bill Boeing gave up his shares the company after anti-trust litigation forced the Split of of United and Pratt and Whitney from Boeing aircraft.
If there was no madness in economics what you have to talk about?
The AIA includes in its objectives the lobbying of the EU and European governments, ironically. Also preserving the industrial base and facilitating industry growth in the US. You could argue that Airbus’ inward investment in Alabama is superb example of this.
Incidentally, this seems to be the offending article:
Regular membership is available to firms engaged in the production of aerospace systems, as defined by the Board of Governors, in the U.S., provided the firm is not owned or substantially controlled, directly or indirectly by a foreign government.
I would say it’s open to interpretation for EADS, which is partially owned by foreign governments, but they should certainly qualify for associate membership
And Boeing is a member of the French and German Aerospace Industry Associations, of course. And the EU lobbies…
.. and think.
They don’t even have a manufacturing presence in the EU.
Which shows that ownership or BoD stuffing is completely irrelevant.
And I assume this to work in the US for large and/or relevant entities in the same way.
Certainly looks like the US kicks of conflicts to feed their defence industry.
But you just gave a whole list of European companies that get large US defence contracts. If there was no money to be had in US Defense why such a presence here? Our president may be flying one day a European helicopter.
Would you kindly fill the gap in the jump you made?
The argument started out as EADS is controlled by DE and FR by way of ownership. while Boeing is a fully publicly owned company.
Over a couple of steps we found that observable influencing
happens not by way of ownership/BoD seats but on completely different path.
Same goes for EADS on the EU side as for Boeing on the US side.
After intensive research into engines and aerodynamics Junkers had entered airtransport after WWI via building a line of best of breed full metal planes, aircraft engines and instantiating a sucessfull airline ( later after fusion with Deutschen Aero Lloyd to be know as Luft Hansa ).
Having expanded quite fast he got under pressure in the great depression and unwilling to arrange himself with the rising nazi forces was pushed out of his businesses and patent ownerships in 1933, dying two year later in 1935 aged 76.
Boeing built successfull planes, instantiated a competitive airline and got into trouble over alleged monopolism after the great depression, divesting himself from his broken up business he turned his interest to horse racing and lived ?happily? for quite a while 😉
Uwe – perhaps GT62’s point is that Boeing might not have benefited to the same degree from acquired German knowledge/technology had it not been on the winning side?
In 1945, Boeing chief aerodynamicist George Schairer et al plundered the, yes, Junkers design office of drawings depicting jet engines slung on pylons (struts) under, and forward of, swept wings. The configuration resolved difficulties it had with a proposed jet bomber and led to production of 2,000 B-47s and further development on the B-52.
In 1950 (the year that Avro Canada made the first jetliner flight in the USA), Boeing engineering boss Welland Beall, in London for delivery of BOAC’s last B377 Sratocruiser, felt the buzz surrounding the Comet, becoming convinced that to remain competitive (remember Douglas was ‘king’ in the late 1940s) Boeing must do a jetliner. In 1952, just eighteen days after the Comet entered service (funny, that), Boeing decided to build a prototype jet transport. Anyone know what came of it?
The Boeing prototype jet, which was the forerunner of the 707, was called the 367-80, or Dash 80 for short. It now resides in the Steve Udvar-Hazy museum at Washington Dulles Airport.
in replying to Uwe’s comment to GT62, Pundit should have credited the history lesson to the source: “Modern Air Transport – worldwide air transport from 1945 to the present” published in 2000 in the Putnam’s History of Aircraft series (Ed: Philip Jarrett).
I amd and was aware of the historic connection.
Additionally the aero research data retrieved from Goettingen was very helpfull to Boeing. There seems to be an interesting story behind that find too.
The interesting thing was imho that engineers at Boeing seem to have understood the implications of the infomation gained.
You can find strong traces of Op Paperclip everywhere in
US aerospace activities. Few things they really invented themselves while industrialisation seems to be their forte.
One of the reasons I think that jingoistic sneering over european aerospace development capabilities is uncalled
for in view of “gifts” received/taken.
Not only German reserach but also British gifts from that time.
But I made my point over the persons: Hugo Junkers, William Boeing. There are more parallels afaics.