US to tax fuselage, wings, tail imported for Airbus’ Mobile A320 assembly line

Dec. 31, 2020, © Leeham News: Airbus’ A320 Mobile (AL) plant is no longer exempt from tariffs applied by the US Trade Representative in the 16-year long trade war with the European Union.

The fuselage, wings and tail components for the Airbus A320/321 final assembly in Mobile (AL) will be taxed by the US, effective Jan. 12. These have been exempt up to now. Photo source: Airbus.

Effective Jan. 12, the US will slap a 15% tax on fuselage, wing and tail components shipped from France and Germany to Mobile for final assembly on A320s and A321s.

This is a setback in what appeared to be progress in resolving at long last the trade war over subsidies to Airbus deemed illegal by the World Trade Organization.

The US also will apply tariffs on helicopter parts imported from France and Germany for Airbus assembly sites in Mississippi and other US locations.

Airbus response

“The USTR’s expansion of tariffs to include components for aircraft manufactured in the U.S. – by American workers – is counterproductive in every way. We regret that USTR has decided to escalate this dispute by taking a step that hurts US manufacturing, US workers, and US consumers. This will not contribute to a climate of trust to create a negotiated solution. Airbus trusts that Europe will respond appropriately to defend its interests and the interests of all European companies and sectors, including Airbus, targeted by these unwarranted and counterproductive tariffs.”

US airlines, including Delta, Spirit, JetBlue, Frontier and American, have been taking delivery of Mobile-assembled A320s and A321s that up to now have been exempt from tariffs. Similar airplanes received from France and Germany were subject to tariffs.

Delta, using a loophole, avoided tariffs by first operating the European-made airplanes through third countries, according to a press report.

The USTR also extended tariffs to more European goods at a rate of 25%.

European retaliation

The EU has the authority to levy tariffs on Boeing airplanes and goods imported from the US. The EU previously levied a 15% tariff on airplanes. No announcement has been made about retaliation to the USTR’s action, which was revealed this week.

172 Comments on “US to tax fuselage, wings, tail imported for Airbus’ Mobile A320 assembly line

  1. Luv it. Another successful (for now) Boeing lobby effort.
    Let’s hope it does not end up somehow giving AB another key advantage like with BBD.

    But where is our ‘dear leader’??? Let Boeing tax the bad EU guys… buy, hey, we are losing 3-4k people a day (on top of our natural death rate of 10k/day)… but… but… who cares… ‘i’ need to take care of my little manhood that has been stolen by the Grinch. Tantrum it is.

    The Chinese laugh all the way to the many banks. The Russians can’t believe they are losing their in house agent. Ok, ok… they had a good 4y run (though they are dying too).

    25% tax it is. When you competed yourself twice into the ground (literally too), lawyers are only one phone call away.

    • I’m sorry but nobody is thinking about both the short and long term effects this is going to have, I 100% agree with you. Boeing is in deep do do because they released a aircraft until the radar, with false pretenses and it cost people their lives and now they want to retaliate against their largest competitor in a effort to damage their good decision making and interfere with a aircraft that is extremely appealing to both customers and the climate change of commercial aviation. Shameful people

      • Terry ? Think you missed a few paragraphs or something
        “Boeing is in deep do do because they released a aircraft until the radar, with false pretenses …”

        makes NO sense.

        But you do know that Perkins Coie of “Dossier” fame is also the prime legal go to for Boeing, and been so for almost 100 years ?

      • Boring Quality is a thing of the past. See the Max and the Air force Tankers that are delivered full of junk and trash. None is yet to be accepted. Still screwing the American public.

      • Boeing will never be the company it once was. After about 1996 it was downhill from there. I will always fly Airbus now.

        • In 1995 Boeing decided to cut employee costs by major use of CAD CAM and DCAC MRM computer and management systems. And the new power point rangers with their pretty win doze systems ( only managers got to use Macs ) created shock and awe with the purty pics and neat bullet points.

          So they figure if they offered a incentive for the older worker bees, they could cut maybe 2000 – 3000 old fogies and fortran an d slide rule types. So they made an announcement in march of 95 adding up to 5 years to age and 5 years of service so as to meet the 60 year hundred percent pension and medical supplemental. had to be gone by july. Much to their amazement, a few more than planned took the bait.
          About 6000 more for a total of 9000. DCAC MRM went partially fubar and two years later, had to shut down production, etc. Then to fix things, brought aboard McDouglas/ jack welch/ GE whizbangs, and the rest is history. Thus the 777 was the last ‘ good ‘ airplane designed built and flown on schedule, but with an budget overrun.

          As I was one of the old fogies that jumped in 1995 after 30 plus years not counting the extra goodies, I can proudly say

          ” Boeing was doing OK when I left ”

          Happy new year !

          • A bit like GM that in the 50’s and early 60’s made beautiful, technically badvanced and sucessful cars as top engineers flocked to work on cars. GM still make cars but their reputation is not the same. Now Tesla is the “new” Cadillac leading the pack of followers and having their battery technology as a leading weapon. Most of us want both Boeing and Cadillac to be in the lead of design, quality and technology once more.

          • Tesla would not be the poster child for quality. Hype yes.

            Toyota mostly, Tesla now.

          • Quality in advance technology. Toyota is more quality because all the bugs have been worked out, but that also means less advanced technology

          • @Tesla and quality, well spotty, but the hype and stock price is there. They put their top engineers on batteries not handles and body fit. But eventually they will learn, doing the Tesla Semi and having it operate tough will reveal more poor designs early helping production cars get the solutions before they break (like Mercedes and Volvo Truck)

          • @char
            “Toyota is more quality because all the bugs have been worked out, but that also means less advanced technology”.

            Toyota never introduced bugs in significant numbers.
            Engine tech wise they are rather up at the front.
            ( Only they make quite a bit less noise about their work than forex Tesla.)

          • BTW- in the 70’s thru 90’s Juran and Deming were the ranking quality guruis. Deming went to Boeing gave his lectures to managemenrt- a year or so later- deming came back to follow up. Boeing presented bundles of viewfoils ( before power point ) with all the buzzwords.

            Deming spoke up and said in effect- you sern’t paying attention. He was not invited back.

            Deming made his bones in Japan after WW2

            Toyota paid attention

          • Yea, when I worked for Honeywell we got put on a secret distribution list one time.

            Basically it was from the CEO to the sales group, hey guys, all this material we are giving you is not hype, its where we are going.

            We are supposed to believe it not laugh at it.

          • @Bubba2
            “Deming spoke up and said in effect- you weren’t paying attention. He was not invited back.”

            There is the story in a nutshell. Boeing took the opposite course of W. Edwards Deming, the results of which we are seeing today.

    • Ahem. Boeing pays a tariff on components they import from abroad. So let’s not get high on the non-fact that this is a Boeing lobby thing. Airbus could very easily source the components domestically if they so choose. They can even source parts they make in Canada or Mexico under the new NA trade agreement. It is really up to them. Airbus parsed their response very carefully to make it look like the US was hurt by this.

      • @Spuwho: Correct me if I’m wrong, isn’t this 15% laid on top of current tariff??

      • Sourcing aviation parts isn’t as simple, quick and easy as you choosing between two grocery stores. Anyway both Airbus/Europe and Boeing/US lost cases at the WTO giving each side a win and tariff options so maybe both sides should just call it a day stop the back and forth. After all Airbus needs US sales and Boeing needs EU sales.

    • Whaa!! Still buying into the covid bs narrative. Why dont you research or go to you’re local hospital & take a head count of the actual covid emitance..,but no we just take the media & commie left word for it. Do us all a favor & take advantage of these new aircraft & fly out of America and dont come back !

    • Well, EU from June 2021 is about to implement 20-25%VAT on every e-commerce outside EU. Big majority of e-commerce is coming from China. Billions of euros.

      • You sure you got that right?

        VAT is a consumer tax. it applies to the final recipient of $something.

  2. Something to trade away for the massive state aid that is about to come Boeings way?
    Obviously 787 wings will have tariffs as well.
    I’m absolutely baffled about the Brexit situation, the US gets a concession and throws it back in the UK’s face.

    • You didn’t honestly think that the US was ever going to treat the UK as an equal, did you? That’s very much going to be a “master and poodle” relationship: the US will say “jump” and the UK will say “how high?”.
      Airbus knows it, too. There’s already talk of pulling (some) wing manufacture from the UK and moving it to the EU.

      • The story doesnt mention any tariffs on wing structures from UK just from France and Germany.
        So why would existing wing builds in UK change ? ( some smaller internal parts may be built in EU already and shipped to UK for mating to the rest of wing.
        Airframer ^com lists A320 series wing parts as coming from
        Wing bottom panels, winglets : Korea Aerospace
        Wing stringers : Leonardo
        Ailerons : Saab
        leading edge slats/deicing : Sonaca
        Spoilers, flaps track beams : Spirit Europe
        Upper wing panels : Triumph EVERETT !
        plus other minor wing parts from some other locations

        • Yes, letting UK put the last paint and stickers onto the wings, release them on a CAA 8130-3 and ship them toll free as now UK is out of the EU.

          • The design and build of the central wing box for the A320 was done in Britain.
            Whats this ‘paint and stickers’ nonsense you speak of.
            Last time they designed and built a commercial airliner wing in Germany was the VFW614 and probably the wing design was done by Fokker. A nice little plane , but you know… like the HFB320 an oddity.

          • Console yourself: if/when Airbus pulls wing manufacture back to the EU, the UK can always manufacture wings for COMAC…or Boeing.

          • Of cause I know of the complex Airbus Wing design/Manufacture with parts made and assembled/stuffed with systems all around including China for their production line. But from a leagal standpoint the fee is tied to the country of shipping, final part number creation and its documentation. Hence if the UK gets the non-complete wings for final work and final pn release it is classified as Bristsh produced outside the EU. To break down each part of an aircraft and figure out wich country added what value is added is buyond most customes capabilities.

          • IMU the basic wing is done in the UK and then finished up with movables, piping, “stickers” in Bremen.

            Note that German aerodynamicists had quite a role in post WWII Britain ( and for various Airbus wing designs ).

          • @DUKEOFURL
            The build of the central wing box for the A320 have been made in NANTES for ages Design was probably made in Toulouse.
            Wings are manufactures in Britain, but certainly not wing boxes…

          • Airbus wings: Just look at the A350 wing parts made “all over” and assembled in the UK, but stuffed in Bremen and flown to Toulouse.
            Airbus must loose alot of time and tied-up capital keeping everybody happy with work. One more severe crisis and they might be forced to change making the carbon wings next to the A350 FAL at 1/3 the time and at 2/3 the cost (counting until the wings are installed onto the aircraft).

          • “Airbus must loose alot of time and tied-up capital keeping everybody happy with work. ”

            Occasionally moving high value parts is much cheaper
            than moving your full workforce every day over a largish area.

          • “Design was probably made in Toulouse.”

            Not so . In the early days of Airbus when it was still a consortium of separate manufacturers the design and build of the wing was the UK ‘share’. Broughton was a former De havilland plant and the wing design came out of the once Bristol plant in Filton. Airbus now owns the former BAE plants and design offices

            Even Airbus says its UK!
            The sites at Filton and Broughton design, test and manufacture the wings for all Airbus’ commercial aircraft with the exception of the A220, directly sustaining about 9,000 UK jobs.”

            The UK also has the ‘design build’ for the carbon fibre A220 wing in Northern Ireland , once Shorts now Spirit Europe.
            Naturally some parts come from elsewhere as the number of different types of wing increased and more sub contracting was introduced

          • Sort of a side comment here. AS many know, the company called Electroimpact which started in 1986 now makes a significant amount of machines/riveters/carbonfiber layup/dent removal for Boeing- Airbus Bombardier, etc. The owner is Peter Zeive.
            Not only have I met him and got a private tour thru most of his facility in Mulketio, but had some very interesting conversations re a bit of local PR articles written several years ago. The term ElectroImpact was a modification of the term yours truly coined to describe the first electromagnetic riveter designed and built at Boeing as part of the 2707 program ( SST )- which I named EMR ElectroMagneticRiveter.

            And NO my name does NOT appear on any patents, but my then Supervisor and Mangers names do. A variation of the lightweight C frame version shown in the patent drawing was used as hand held riveters on the then new 747 program to rivet inboard portion of the wing skins which would not fit in the Gemcor riveters.

            My name is not on the patents simply because at the time, the SST program was largely funded by the government, and since the riveter was developed from a NASA Saturn dent remover- the government had free license. So after proving the method worked, and gave significant fatigue improvement, the program was moved over to commercial. When the SST program collapsed, I and 30,000 others were terminated . Boeing did arrange a job for me in texas ( LTV) who were building DC10-11 wing boxes and 747 rear bulkhead tail sections, etc in Grand Prarie. Eventually went back to Boeing AFTER the patents were granted.

            For those who think the above story is BS, I can assure you it is true. I also have a few signed reports (SST program) and a Black and White viewfoil photo of myself standing alongside the C frame shown in the patent with a large panel ” dogbone ” in the C frame and a 5000 volt power supply. All with a SST progam identifier (1967-68)

            Peter Z while at UW and working on his masters reworked under Boeing grant the high voltage version to a much lower voltage version.

            Thus a new industry was born- and in fact Electromagnetic Riveting is now used industry wide.
            No patents but a certain amount of self satisfaction without a lot of publicity.

    • Uhh grubbie ?/ ” Obviously 787 wings will have tariffs as well.”

      Where do you think 787 wings are made/ assembled ?

    • Protectionism was proved to be economically counterproductive decades ago. It may please the great unwashed but it is just dragging the US down.

      • Something has to be done to protect Boeing from losing even more market share 😏 After all, it’s on its last legs.

  3. Would it be possible for Airbus to put all of its US staff on government subsided furlough? Or maybe just lay them off?


    Many years ago ( 2001) the following observations were made and published on line

    …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.

    Within about 3 weeks after the above, came 911. And Boeing, which had stayed out of the issue at that time, and with the help of a Rudy deLeon and a few others pushed the later to be infamous 767 Tanker- built green in everett, but flown to wichita to be disassembled and tanker stuff installed, etc. And then leased to Airforce. Of course the Sears Dryun game come to fore, and the rest is history ! Wuz there, got the Tshirt and scars.

    • On the subject of below-cost selling, how’s Boeing progressing with the yard sale of all those MAX whitetails that nobody wants? 😉

        • The whitetails are MAX 8s.
          The Ryanair orders are all MAX 200s, and the Alaska orders are all MAX 9s.

        • Boeing is reportedly have like 100 MAX “white tail” in storage looking for buyers.

          No reasonable offer refused.™

        • The problem arise because the C-Suite kept producing the MAX at high rate in 2019 even though the jet was grounded. Boeing treated the cash float it gained from ramping up the production rate as free cash and used it to buy back stock, pushing share price higher.
          That’s why top management was so reluctant to slow down production and continued to push out the myth that RTS would be around the corner. Slowing down production would reverse the cash float effect and seriously hurt its cash flow and WS would be able to see the Emperor has no clothes.

          • Yep. They should have shut down production and laid off all the Renton workers and saved all that cash. /S

        • A parked plane on hold for a non-cancelling customer is not the same as a whitetail previouslly allotted to a cancelling customer and now in no-man’s-land…

          • you honestly think Air Asia x is going thru with that neo order, !!which is highly unlikely..
            They had had little difficulty finding new homes for the initial batch of a320’s they had no use for.
            Bite the bullet ab.. .even if they somehow restructure their morbid situation..78 a330 neo’s was way to many airframes to order from an airline struggling long before covid hit.
            Go ahead,keep max bashing Bryce, I’ll keeping bashing the 330 neo.. Another dire ab widebody program on the rocks.

          • Most A330 are not old. Orders will come, I don’t worry about that.
            And since Boeing can’t deliver new 787 and still have to check all other 787 in service, which planes will airlines fly?
            Re-cert the 787 fuselage. I already have a laugh.
            China might ground 787 soon.

          • Loen:

            Normally you go over the top but I would not predict against the 787 next in line for a hard look!

            But then with FOD in the MAX and FOD in the KC-46 (767) you have to wonder if the entire mfg ops needs to be re-certified?

            I don’t think the A330NEO has much of a future, but then the A330CEO did not either until Boeing hosed up the 787 and they sold another 600+ .

            Can Reindeer really fly?

          • “”I don’t think the A330NEO has much of a future””

            Why? Because it’s little bit heavier?
            The A330neo has magic wings nobody else has, a magic stabilizer to trim without drag.

            On wikipedia you can find a source, someone flight tested the fuel burn of a MAX-8. It was 2020kg/h, 4460LB/h which is very good, but described with “an unusual forward CG”. This Boeing fanboy trimmed it so that the stab did not need to trim, so no additional drag. Trim drag can be much.

            Which other disadvantage than weight does the A330neo have? It doesn’t have the same payload as the A350 but still can carry enough pax and still has more than enough range.
            The additional weight the A330neo has is a fraction of the overweight the 777X has and the 777X doesn’t have magic wings.
            When Bjorn wrote about the A330neo he said he doesn’t know where Airbus got the fuel efficiency, but he has proven how he cooks the books in favor of Boeing.
            Bjorn wrote recently how good the 787-10 is, but it doesn’t have the payload to carry more pax than the A330-900 and the Neo still burns less fuel.
            Half of Boeing’s 787 sales are based on their firm configuration (95.5t OEW, 248 pax, 8000nm) they could not reach by miles. Now there are not much sales, mostly conversions from 777X and MAX and now Boeing can’t even deliver. They woke up to realize the Dreamliner was only a dream, now turns into a nightmare.

        • could you point to some salient info on “parked A330NEO”?
          There apparently are some delivered frames around that have not been fetched by the customer or immediately gone into storage ( billed to the customer).

        • Greenland just ordered an A330-800, replacing their A330-200.

          Trump tried to buy Greenland to give them a 787 for free …

          • Stop the presses…just the boost the 330 neo program needed.!!!
            A major order from a major carrier..
            No wait… it’s Air Greenland, and whopping Single airframe…
            Greenland has an airline.???
            I feel much better now about the future of the neo program.!!!

    • Workforce productivity is higher in the EU. ( fallout from not trying to enslave your workforce )
      … start with better qualification. counter with the US mob like structure of unions.
      cost for fixing design and management errors is lower too.

      No idea if the US tax system is another downer.

      • UWE –” Workforce productivity is higher in the EU. ( fallout from not trying to enslave your workforce )”

        Granted I have not kept up for the last 20 years on Industry data- but in 2000-2001 industry data and loan games were used to prepare the article I posted here earlier

        Maybe you have more up to date data ?

        In 2000-2001 the data I mentioned was gathered from .. the following extract

        petition in more detail than is necessary for filing.

        All prices and average cost data by model are based on publicly available information from Boeing and Airbus.

        Comparisons of productivity and labor rates are those done by AECMA, the EU equivalent of the AIA ( Aircraft Industries Association ) for example :


        Yearly and total averages are weighted by delivered quantities of equivalent models

        Equivalent model comparisons between Boeing and Airbus are based on a Boeing news article published June 14 -21 -2001.

        Models 747 and 757 deliveries were excluded from comparisons, since there are no ‘ equivalent’ airbus models

        40 Percent of Airbus made in U.S.
        July 2001
        “ . . . . Today Airbus spends more than $5 billion annually with American suppliers to its wide range of aircraft models. Up to 40 percent of an Airbus aircraft is made of components produced by several hundred American companies, McArtor said.“ [ Allan McArtor is Chairman of Airbus North America.]


        • 40 Percent of Airbus made in U.S.


          That actually works in both directions.

          here in Europe my experience with US management ( takeovers, … ) is :: Dysfunctional. they don’t know anything beyond various forms of raping.
          Noses bloody from scraping on the sky.

        • Today Airbus spends more than $5 billion annually with American suppliers to its wide range of aircraft models.

          Airbus revenue is 70.5 billion EUR

          So airbus has outlay of $5b to US suppliers taking up that 40/60 proportion another $7.5bn to other suppliers.


          • So you don’t have current links to data which would support your claim of better productivity.

            ” Comparisons of productivity and labor rates are those done by AECMA, the EU equivalent of the AIA ( Aircraft Industries Association ) for example : ”

            Thanks for the clarification. I note its easy to opine absent facts and data – as an empty barrel makes the most noise

            happy new year

        • @Bubba2

          Beware of currency swing.
          1.5.1998 1.11
          Oct 1998 1.22
          1.1.1999 1.17
          12.31.1999 1.01
          Oct 2000 0.84

          “Lies, damned lies, and statistics”

          • pedro ? Uwe ? instead of taking pot shots at the data I posted from 19-20 years ago, why not take the time to look up the current stats re aecma- aerospace and find out how they are presented. Which is a choice of about 10 world currencies , including that rare one called $$$$ ( U.S type)- as it was then and as it is now.

            I think one can safely assume the pros know how to make equivalents for each year or month or whatever date they pick for their tabulated data. Most aerospace/airplanes are commonly quoted in $$$. AS I’ve said- I have not bothered to keep up to date since 2000-2001, but I can assure you the data I published was properly done in the then currency of the industry and realm. Productivity is measured in many ways, but in this case ( from memory ) it was mostly figured in sales E$/employee. Productivity Tables presented in the related spreadsheet were in Euro $ per employee for both U.S and EU, avoiding the conversion. And the percentages were therefore figured on a CONSTANT denomination. AS required to file a CVD ( Countervailing Duties petition) in the U.S.
            Again I wuz there, and very much involved.

            Happy new year ,.!..

          • uwe- gosh- I clearly stated the data and links were around 20 years old. I cannot post the tables and graphs which resulted. And I suggest you simply bring up the more current links- aecma is still around

            How many 20 year old links do you expect to be up to date??

            Why not simply look up and post the new current related links to support your position ?

      • Unions are more prevalent in the EU than the US and the tax rate is generally higher for employees and employers

    • Whilst making a large profit (not as large as Boeing) and paying back all their government loans and making a profit share for the governments concerned (unlike Boeing).

      • Grubbie ?
        …and paying back all their government loans>.

        Nope – terms of the Airbus ” loans ” allowed foregiveness IF certain sales and delivery targets were not met. Thus the games of setting goal posts and resetting began. The A-380 is a good example.

        The rapid demise of the Airbus A380 is a complex tale of missed connections, a changing market and, ultimately, a staggering lack of demand for the largest commercial airplane ever built. … After being in production for a little over 12 years, the A380 will go down as one of the shortest-lived models in aviation history.

        • A320 & 330 massively over payed their investment.
          Boeing somehow managed to lose despite the A380, A340, colossal fines and US arms deal linkage. Iran was forced to order Boeings despite being keener to visit the dentist and negotiate with a double glazing salesman.
          This is a sign of weakness.

        • picky, picky.
          overall the RLI(nvestment) instrument has been a nice gift for the investors.

          ot: I am not going to unearth the discussions done here
          with another individual with the same kind of allegations.

          • We do not know the A330 was paid. All that is hidden as is how much and what the limits are.

            And its a diversion. The re-payments are not for anything that is built, its for that particular aircraft. Thems the rules Airbus is supposed to work off of, not something mouthed.

            So did the A340 repay?


            The A380 did not.

            A350 has not made enough to start.

            Publish the data on how many before payments start, how much they are for ALL aircraft and then we can talk.

            Otherwise its nothing more than talking.

            But you can’t cite anything because its all secret.

            And the core of it is, how many aircraft made before re-pay starts?

            You could put that figure at 1000 for the A380 and no one would know because its a secret.

            As the EU is famous for its cheating (see Diesel emissions and the gaps on that) of course they will make the figure impossibly high.

            they just screwed up on the A 320 that was not supposed to be successful. And we DO NOT know what the figure for the A320 is.

            They learned, now they make it even more impossible. Go help us if we ever guess low again.

          • TW. You and a range of other posters on this site over many years with similar allegations have been aided by pointing to web available infos on a regular basis. invariably ignored and the same fake information is trudged out again.
            Einstein: doing the same thing again and again.. and expecting a a different outcome is madness. I am not mad.

        • A typical European “Risk and Revenue” deal is normally started with a pile of goverment cash to buy the best German/Swiss/Japanese production equipment available and a payment for producing the parts and access to all drawings/specs often made by its own design organisation, then a low interest is applied and yearly accounting done with a per unit payment and loss/profit calculation (normally a loss for the first 7-10 years) so only per unit payment are normally made in the beginning, then if the program is more long lived and succcessful than estimated (i.e. A320, A330, CF6-80C2, Trent700, MD-80) the govermenty payments never stop and they cover the non-profitable programs (maybe). One idea is that the rest of the countrys high tech industry will learn which of the very expensive equipment is profitable so they dare to buy the same to increase its productivity.

    • Boeing suffered a loss of $2.6 billion due to production chaos of 737 NG and 747-400 in 1997.
      Boeing had to halt the 747 line and slow the 737 line by not working on any new aircraft for 25 days. This resulted in $1.6 billion late deliveries and production-recovery costs.

    • By late 90s early 2000s, Airbus had a newer and more efficient production system than Boeing and Boeing had to play catchup.

    • Flight International
      Boeing pays the price for Production Crisis

      Deep Stall: The Turbulent Story of BCA

      • No, the 737MAX is the LOGICAL consequence of unrestrained capitalism .

        • RE Transworld ” We do not know the A330 was paid. All that is hidden as is how much and what the limits are….”

          Correct ! To begin to understand why requires going back to GATT92 and the way such help was then defined. They used the term LCA ( large commercial aircraft ). Which sounded great until one tried to define ” large “. It turned out that the only aircraft that would not meet that definition may have been a piper J4.

          That game plus others were explained to me by a good friend- non management- at Boeing who was AT the GATT92 ( later WTO ) meetings/agreements. My friend ( DanH now deceased for over a decade ) was a unique Engineer- retired AF pilot and Navigator- and had a very rare ( part time – consultant to Sec D) position in DOD starting in Nixon admin and continuing thru the Regan admin. Had occasion to testify before Congress committees on related trade/aircraft assembly/subcontractors as in China, etc. Kept a copy of GATT agreements on his desk at work.
          Thus ” “Dan really was one of my heroes,” Mulally said after learning of Hartley’s death. He had
          visited with the engineer in his hospital room earlier this month.
          “I’ve known him most of my career at Boeing,” the company’s top executive in the
          Northwest said. “He was an engineer’s engineer. He loved Boeing and he loved commercial
          airplanes. … He was a Renaissance man, a student of global trade issues, global
          competitiveness … His ideas were solicited by congressmen and senators and government
          It was thru his efforts that I got involved in the 2000-2001 CVD petition that I have quoted parts of and did a lot of research on.

          The games played re the ‘ government guarantee loan ‘ and what it covers and defaults, along with ‘ tariffs’ and exclusions are NOT easily explained. But your comments come close.

          • Bubba2: Thanks for your informed and percipient
            comments regarding the now lost, long-financialized
            entity known as Boeing (mcBoeing?).

          • What follows is a cliffs notes version of my long ago understanding of how gvt launch aid under Gatt 92 was defined – agreed on. Basically it was to be a low interest loan for a time period of between 15 to 20 years for ‘ payback ‘ . Based on a ‘ conservative ‘ estimate of time to sell and deliver xxx aircraft by certain dates in such a manner that at some point payback of ‘ loan ‘ would start. Since there is some typical time in which the selling price exceeds the real manufacturing and delivery costs ( typical 200 to 300 or more planes) then payback can start. Predicting the total number of planes sold by yyy date required to ‘ pay back ‘ the ‘ loan ‘ is where the games start. Usually, the ‘ loan ‘ has an escape clause, plus a limit arrangement such that IF date- quantity numbers are NOT met, then a significfant part of the ‘ loan’ is cancelled or written off.

            Since the real ‘ cost’ of manufacturing is proprietary, and the real date linked ‘ break even ‘ number is also proprietaruy, For an outsider, it looks like the ‘ we lose money on every unit- but make it up in volume ‘ accounting method. Add in just what the ‘ launch aid ‘ funds can or should be used for- and the game resembles the classical ‘ black hole’ view ( everything goes in, but nothing goes out )

            Of course there are more side issues involved which were and are much beyond my knowledge.

            However, even given the above, it is still possible- but difficult- for a govt agency to partially penetrate the $$$ curtin when the plane(s) are sold and delivered into the U.S. Thus comes the CVD (Countervailing Duty Petition ) which can start the process based on certain external issues and numbers and certain tariff regulations.


    • Can SPEEA’s hired gun explain how the above well-documented fumble reflected in Boeing’s superior productivity?

    • It is absolutely fine to sell below cost. Most aircraft make money for 20+ years. Also, the 737-800 is bigger than the A320, something Boeing usually does not tire to point out.

      • Depending on just how and why and when Airbus or Boeing or any vendor sells into a WTO country below cost, and what they declare cost is on customs and tariff issues, such efforts are often called dumping- which is a big no no.

        • Dumping is selling a product in a foreign market for less that what that product is being sold for in the home market. It does not depend on the product being sold for below cost. For example AirBus were to price the A320 with a 25% markup in Europe but only a 5% markup in the US that would be dumping.

          On the other had if AirBus were to sell the A320 at a loss globally that would not be dumping, but could be considered an abuse of monopoly power if AirBus were deemed a monopoly. The monopoly power does not need to be in the same market as the good being sold below cost.

          Finally a non-monopoly manufacturer selling at below cost faces no restrictions,

          • Good point – seems my memory from 20 years ago has slipped a bit. Part of the problem (then ? ) was that there were significant issues as to included ‘ perks ‘ like certain ‘ free- low cost ‘ maintenance issues ( sort of like excessive free oil change, tire swap, for a decade for your car ) in addition to certain warranty issues and ‘ performance ‘ issues. Example in US was DC-10/11 payload versus range issues which resulted in several ‘ empty’ seats paid for by mcDouglas on certain route. OK up to s point, but there are certain legal and rational issues when determining $$ value when importing into U.S. In 2000/2001 we were aware of some of those type issues but not enough data to file a dumping claim.

  5. What is Airbus supposed to do? Having gained the upper hand despite its own incompetence (A380 and bribes), it patiently waits for something to complete against. Airbus cannot thrive without something for it’s development engineers to do.

    • “Airbus cannot thrive without something for it’s development engineers to do.”

      All of its existing models have ‘development budgets’ to improve the plane by saving weight or improve aerodynamics. Im sure they have spent plenty of money on possible iterations of A200, A320/A321 and A350 models.
      The A220 stretched is an obvious one, a possible carbon wing for the A320 ( reusing as much as possible from the A220 which is same span to keep costs down). The bigger A350-2000 is another approach. Now that Boeing has made folding wing tips acceptable that would be looked at to see if it has economic value. There would be many other concepts kept under wraps for now

  6. Not sure that the retalitiatory tariffs allowed by the WTO extend to export tariffs on parts going from Spain to the US…but it’s worth a try 😏

  7. Soon Boeing will not have many overseas customers left at the rate the US admin (supported by Boeing lobbyists) are imposing tariffs (EU) on Airbus aircraft and sanctions (China) for US supplier working on China’s commercial aircraft program

    The long term losers will be the US supply base who will be shunned by Airbus and Comac on commercial aircraft program.

    Just a reminder,. Airbus delivered 550 commercial aircraft in 2020

    So while the US is playing protectionist. The EU and China just agreed upon on new Comprehensive Investment Agreement

  8. I don’t agree about tariffs on aircraft built (assembled) here in the USA, it is counterproductive as these airplanes are built for US airline customers…. and the last thing airlines need right now are increasing costs.
    Uwe makes very good points about the European workforce and unions here in the US. But to counter this, Airbus has had extreme success with build quality in Alabama (non union BTW) and the airline customers agree… so you folks here (including Leeham) think the best aerospace workers are in the northwest should get a grip on reality. This goes for the 787 build quality in Charleston- extremely well done, the build quality here in Puget Sound is horrible, starts with the mad max (the FAA forced FOD inspections on every stored Boeing Max), then the tanker build quality & FOD, then the 787 build quality & FOD here in Everett. FOD has been going on for years on all models. I know this as I worked for Boeing for 20 years in aviation safety and quality…. I saw the numbers. As Washington state continues to let free reign of drug use go on the problems will only get worse…. the only random drug testing is for flight line employees.
    Last week Leeham had an article about Boeing building a 757 replacement and it should be here in Puget Sound. That’s not gonna happen. If they build it, it won’t be here. Besides, if they do build it it will take forever with massive cost overruns.
    When was the last time we saw an newly built Airbus being pushed into storage for FOD inspections and build quality?

    • I think you have got the build quality at Charleston the other way round .
      The quality at Charleston and productivity for 787 were way behind Everett – 22 days average to build a plane while Everett was 17 , which meant pressure to speed up meant quality wasnt improving
      Remember this

      Why would you have a completely false claim in your story ?

      • I would like to add to this thread, first I worked in QCFOR 22 years, and I am proud to say, fod patrols very very seldom found their targets on the field at Renton flight line, including models 727, 737, 757, awacs, 707. Also I know an airline was so disgusted with the bulk quality of the down south 787′ s they refused to take delivery, until they had been run through the EVERETT, PLANT, for a fix and repair assignment!!!

        • Yes, we all know at least one such disgusted airline : Qatar Airways.
          Got any others for us?

    • “Airbus has had extreme success with build quality in Alabama (non union BTW)”

      The future workforce for Mobile got very extensive schooling from airbus:XFW afaik ( on site in XFW and people from XFW doing tuition in Mobile). Similar to how BMW prepared job prospects for their assembly lines in the US.

      • Thanks Uwe. Boeing does the same thing for the production employees, training is on going requirement to maintain the PC (Production Certificate). Boeing started this thing called ‘self inspection’ some years ago to lean out the process, basically the second set of eyes from inspection is removed, because after all, the guy doing the work knows best! The FAA approved it and their are continuous audits, but IMHO, it’s been a disaster.
        I think Airbus quality is so much better because of the discipline in the workforce and the management stays tuned in. Boeing first line managers run in circles and are master PowerPoint rangers yes men and women. Meanwhile the rank and file run amok and the morale continues to drain because of the potential threat of layoffs.

    • A NYT investigative report of Boeing’s production in SC:
      “reveals a culture that often valued production speed over quality.” Facing delays and massive cost overruns since even the early days of the 787 program, Boeing “pushed its work force to quickly turn out Dreamliners, at times ignoring issues raised by employees.”

      Joseph Clayton, a former technician, went on record to say he told his wife that he never plans to fly on the Dreamliner. “It’s just a safety issue,” Clayton said.

      The Times’ article isn’t the first indication that something might have been amiss at Boeing’s North Charleston factory. Qatar Airways stopped accepting aircraft built in the South Carolina plant after receiving damaged planes and delayed deliveries.

      According to BI:
      Airlines flying Boeing’s 787-10 Dreamliner have complained to the plane maker about “unacceptable” production mistakes and inconsistent quality.

      The problems center around Dreamliners built at Boeing’s North Charleston, South Carolina, factory, according to a report from The Post and Courier.

  9. I interpreted the earlier “concession” to which Grubbie referred to be the recent unilateral removal by the UK of tariffs on Boeing products: see Reuters link below.
    As regards changes to wing manufacture in the UK, see the Reuters link below, in particular:

    “Several sources said the move would reinforce studies by Airbus to re-examine where to build wings for future jets.

    “It is really damaging and means the UK can forget about further investment,” the senior industry official said.”

    • UK is not part of EU anymore, ( since Jan 2020, recent agreement Dec 2020 was trade/borders between them) so the tariffs imposed on Boeing by the EU in Nov 2020 of 15%, never had any standing in Britain
      As I showed above , Airbus A320 wing parts come from all around the world including from Everett WA itself. The later A350 wing has even more US
      and non european content

      • @DoU: I can’t find any published report that the USTR has officially rescinded tariff on whisky, biscuits and others from UK.

        • They have not. They sued EU + each individual country for illegal subsidies. Which means that UK’s situation in or out of EU is irrelevant.

          The other way around however, only EU sued Boeing, which means UK has no right to impose tariffs on US goods.

          • @ Acai Berry
            Rights deriving from association can survive disassociation.
            For example, a married couple files a law suit for damages, but gets divorced before a ruling in the matter. Subsequently, damages are awarded. Even though the couple no longer exists, the rights are still distributed among its original constituents.
            The same applies when a band member leaves a rock band: royalties from past works are still owed to the member who has left.
            Since the WHO ruling applies to past grievances, there is an argument that, even though the UK has left the EU, the UK’s right to apply sanctions still survives. The UK government certainly believes that. But it complied when it was told by Uncle Sam to drop them…as any good poodle would do.

        • Even the 1960ties ChickenTax is still active.
          ( duties on small trucks to retaliate over Europe not taking US low quality chicken meat )
          US cutsomers are still getting 1930tech with new bling in that domain. ( pick ups and its unearthly twin the SUV.)

          Interesting that the nation that is most loudly blabbing about free unhindered access to any market can’t stand taking its own medicine at all.

  10. Smoke and mirrors. As a now separate entity the UK cannot apply the tariffs anyway as the WTO case named the EU specifically

      • WTO merely gives authority for a certain value of retaliatory tariffs, doesnt mean they are compulsory.

        “The European Union is moving forward with a plan to hit $4bn (£3bn) of American goods with tariffs as punishment for US subsidies for Boeing.

        The taxes, “authorised by the World Trade Organization last month”, go into effect on Tuesday and affect items such as tractors, ketchup and orange juice.

        The EU said it still hoped to settle the fight, which saw the US impose tariffs on European products last year.
        A trade official said Joe Biden’s election could help “reboot” talks.
        EU Trade Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis said the EU wanted to see both sides remove their respective tariffs, which are a result of a long-running feud over state support provided to plane-maker Boeing and European rival Airbus”

        At the end of the day UK isnt bound by EU decisions any more …the whole point of leaving. And of course the UK was originally part of the subsidies for Airbus planes

        • Nobody said the UK was bound by the tariffs decision: it was/is perfectly entitled to do what it wants in that regard. But seeing as it has significant aerospace activities that currently depend on an airframer in the EU, it might have been better to consult on the matter first rather than taking a unilateral decision. That’s what the Reuters and FT articles are about.
          Following your line of argument, Airbus is in no way “bound” to continue wing production in the UK. For example, there’s a nice, big ex-A380 hangar in Hamburg that could be converted for that purpose.

          • Airbus isnt run like that anymore – where this country gets this and another gets that.
            Apart from the 10.9% held each by French and German Governments and the 6% by Spain, plants have to earn to right to keep or get new work. Its an economic issue now, the days of political posturing are over.
            That was one of the A380s ( numerous) issues which led to it being uneconomic to build they way massive sections where shuttled around Europe to suit ‘national pride’
            Just because Hamburg can do final assembly,painting and cabin fitout doesnt mean it can make big wings or other large structures
            Is Airbus going to repatriate the numerous assemblies made in US including in Everett itself , just so it can thumb its nose at Boeing and ‘you know who’

  11. If you can’t compete on quality, because your Max sucks,
    you can always try to play dirty.

    Time for the EU to kill the Max in Europe. Would be fun to see MOL going crazy when is Max200 is tariffed by 20%.

    Boeing is doing all the same, but with a military expense, it’s better covered up.

    • Ryanair is such an important symbolic customer to Boeing that they’d be willing to absorb any tariff so as to preserve the order.
      After all, it’s the only “all-Boeing” LCC in Europe. Whereas, on the other hand, there are plenty of “all-Airbus” LCCs/airlines in the US, e.g. Spirit, Frontier, JetBlue, Allegiant, Moxy (if it materializes), Virgin America (before acquisition). Plus, the world’s biggest A321 operator is American Airlines. And Boeing darling Southwest is thinking of partially defecting.

      • What did happen to the certification issues around the exit arrangement on the MAX200 version? Last what I saw indicated that this was “stopped up”. With the RY order that must have been solved?

        • @ Uwe
          I have no idea what the current state of affairs is regarding the MAX200; however, seeing as it’s a Boeing product *and* a MAX derivative, one can legitimately expect that it’s a total mess.
          Absolutely ludicrous that O’Leary is going for a cramped, customized plane of limited second-hand interest — which will probably be even further delayed. Meanwhile, WizzAir and EasyJet with their much bigger A321s can encroach into Ryanair territory and market share.

          • “Absolutely ludicrous that O’Leary is …..”
            Yep been said all the time over the last 15 years or so, while the airline he runs became the largest in Europe….what does he know ?

          • @ DoU
            Up to now, Ryanair has used standard 737-800s with 189 seats, which were delivered on time. It’s now switching to a customized model, with much less legroom, which is already years late. Success in the past does not guarantee success in the future.

          • Bryce:

            True, but I would rather have a proven success than an unknown start up!

            Hate him or not, he has a market segment down pat.

          • @ TW
            I don’t hate Ryanair at all: I’ve been flying with them for 20 years, and have no complaints.
            But I’m not sure at all that Ryanair passengers will be happy when they notice that seat pitch has shrunk to 28″ from the current 30″.
            I guess time will tell.

          • .what does he know?

            How to misuse some employment (resp. fake selfemploy) instruments.
            i.e. his success stands on the shoulders of some form of slavery or other. 🙂

          • I think it’s 197, actually. It will have 28″ seat pitch.
            Ryanair has several routes that are 4-5 hours long.

          • Boeing is showing the 200 seat, 28in seat pitch configuration with exactly 200 seats, but it looks different around the exits than the 28in pitch MAX-9, so it seems 200 won’t work.
            I found the 197 seats on wikipedia too but that was old news from 2018 and makes less sense.
            Yes, must be below 2500nm.

            There is another problem.
            If using 100kg per pax it gets close to the OEW
            (65952kg MZFW – 19700kg pax = 46252kg).
            From ET302 it is known that their 160 seat configuration had 47090kg OEW. The extra exits of the 8200 has additional weight.
            Ryan might weigh pax and baggage at check in. For sure they can’t carry many heavy people. That will be fun.

          • @ Leon
            If I recall properly, the difference between 200 and 197 seats has something to do with the ability to store an extra catering trolley.
            Ryanair generates a significant portion of its revenue from snacks and duty free gifts sold on board, each of which requires a separate trolley. Moreover, many of the snacks are hot, so they definitely need at least one oven in the rear galley, as well as a water boiler for hot drinks.
            Perhaps Boeing thought that Ryanair would follow a cold-snack model without the duty free gifts?

            For what its worth: Ryanair’s hot paninis are very tasty 😉

  12. Wouldn’t this impact too Boeing on their components shipped from Europe?

  13. So, after years and years of receiving subsidies worth billions and billions of $ from the Washington State, the federal government, from Carolina and other states no they cry and shout that the bad wolf is Airbus? What a laughing 😆 company Boeing is!
    So, conclusion: if B received money 💰 is ok!
    If Airbus received loans at low rates is not ok!

  14. Things change Jan 20th. Stay tuned. May take a bit, lot of the guys plate.

    • Yes, I think this is a parting shot of unhappiness from the current administration, and that’s about all. Has nothing whatever to with Boeing, despite the usual extensive discussion and bash-session above.

      Boeing has acted to eliminate their identified subsidies, as Airbus has as well. That’s where the focus needs to be, the resolution of the original problem, not on government use of tariff powers. The whole issue will be rethought in the coming months. Hopefully with some sanity this time.

      • Yep! Good thing we have doddering corporatist Joe Biden
        and his band of fellow upwards-failers coming into office™:
        I have every confidence in them, and what they’re going to
        do to (oops, I mean “for”) us..

        • Adding, uselessly: God, what a dismal time and place we’re in (and not because of the [heh!] “pandemic”.


        • Is the moniker “Hologram Biden” rude, or premature?

          He makes second-term Reagan look erudite.
          The Very Few are trolling us so hard:
          “love your abject servitude, proles!”

          • Where does this trend to “verbally deface” elected persons and other individuals that don’t jibe with the narrators prejudices come from?

          • @ Uwe
            R** regularly mocks both houses of the US legislature because their damning reports on the MAX crashes don’t suit him, so perhaps that’s an answer to your question? Technically, such defamation can be labeled as sedition.

          • The Congressional reports are political and not independent or technical, as the OIG and other investigative reports are.

            They make their case on unsubstantiated evidence, and are prosecutorial in nature, but do not offer any of the protections afforded accused entities under the law.

            Thus the accusations stand without rebuttal or response. Even the OIG offers that opportunity and publishes it along with the report.

            The Congressional reports are a trial in the court of public opinion. But fortunately are recognized as such, and thus don’t carry the same weight as a formal trial or investigation would.

          • Yes Rob, we know, any report that disagrees with your bizarre
            views are not valid.

            Its well beyond Cherry picking.

            Boeing is also invalid as its a result of political decisions.

            As is any property you own. That too was a political decision.

          • Huge difference in quality and substantiation.

            This is why the Congressional reports are not authoritative, have faded, and have no binding result. While the FAA investigations and rulings are authoritative, are permanent, and have the force of law.

            Thus no real equivalency between them, despite what is claimed here.

          • @Rob

            Your statements are incorrect

            The FAA operates as a branch of the executive but under authorisation of Congress

            Only Congress may pass laws, FAA issues regulations whose authority derives from statutes drawn up and issued by Congress, over which regulations Congress exercises supervision and control

            FAA operates under the control of Congress, is subordinate to Congress – by definition –The Constitution – Congressional decisions and reports are authoritative and binding and may obtain, should Congress so wish, application in statute

            To descry Congress is to deny legality to the FAA

            To argue otherwise is to make the mistake that many Presidents have made, including the present

            Those who live within the Constitution obtain great benefit, those who would live without must face redress, but those who seek to exploit the advantages of the rule of Law for subversion, as here, must face the Courts

            Law is Truth !

          • Gerrard, while Congress has investigative powers, those powers do not have the force of law. But Congress has established by law the FAA’s power to make rulings that have the force of law.

            Congress has the power to revoke or alter the FAA establishment powers. Notably, they have not done so. So the law does not reflect the investigation results, and those results have no legal standing. While the FAA rulings do have legal standing, are authoritative, and have been accepted by Congress.

            The authority of the FAA has been challenged in the courts in the past, and upheld. It’s being challenged again in the courts this week by the Flyers Rights lawsuit, but will be upheld again.

          • @Rob

            Truth is Law !

            Read the post –

            By definition reports can not have the force of law, reports are reports and laws are statutes

            You have the gift of saying nothing as if it could make sense

            « FAA operates under the control of Congress, is subordinate to Congress – by definition –The Constitution – Congressional decisions and reports are authoritative and binding and may obtain, should Congress so wish, application in statute »

            The FAA regulations obtain force of law merely by delegation from Congress, as an expression of the statutory authorisations of Congress

            No one disputes that authorisations are granted by Congress to the FAA to issue regulations in accordance with and by administration of the statutes, what can be disputed is the accuracy and efficiency of FAA exercise of those authorisations and whether they fall into the purvey granted

            Congress free to act as it decides, the FAA is bound not to

            To dismiss Congress and to hold to the FAA is confound Master and Servant

            You should acquire greater respect for the Laws of your country

          • Gerrard, despite the dissembling here, the FAA ruling stands with the force of law and the Congress has done nothing to revoke or reverse or alter that.

            Congress also released a political report that they could use to enact new laws, or revoke the FAA rulings or power. But they have not and they will not, for good reason.

            Thus the FAA report is authoritative and the Congressional report is not. To say otherwise is to engage in another theory. But not at all surprising.

          • @Rob

            You should moderate your language when referring to the Legislative Branch of the country you live in – to accuse Congress of dissembling because they choose to criticise is to deny others what you so lavishly confer on us

            Any authority the FAA may exercise, it bears repeating, is derived from Congress

            The corruption in your country has no easy fix, the worst of FAA corruption has resulted in the deaths of foreigners, but this pattern of dereliction and negligence is general, mercifully FDA corruption will kill only American lives, not succeed in killing foreigners, that will be left to your Pharma

    • @Brighton

      Great link – under cover of covid BA selling the family farm and slinking off shore

      • Well, that fits into the image of the “new McBoeing”:
        – Curiosa shop / flea market as regards product quality;
        – Discount store / dollar shop as regards actual sales prices;
        – Parking-lot yard sale of unwanted whitetails;
        – And now a horse auction of the family silver to generate some cash.
        What an illustrious all-American brand!

    • your link: searching for “Airbus” :: zero matches. what’s with it?
      reads like Boeing being Boeing.

  15. So what happens if you ship them form the UK?

    As I recall, Delta flew a plane all around Central America and then brought into the US as a used aircraft and not subject to import duties.

    From my past experience in dealing with European supplies, a few weeks delays makes not difference, you wait 6 weeks or a couple of months anyway.

    And DO NOT ask them to ship FedEx. Oh the humanity. Hey boss, do you want to risk it or do you want those spare bearings 2 weeks from now?

    Yea the bearings aren’t too bad but its going to cost us triple the bearing cost to ship it. Yes its on the FedEx account, seems to upset them.

    note to self: Keep lots of those bearings in stock.

    • from memory ( about 20-24 years )- anyone interested should be able to check it out re factual
      Several decades ago, there were many exemptions made re certain items – and so called ‘ roller bearings ‘ of various types and sizes were exempted. Normally the tariffs involved in this discussions are made against ‘ assemblies ‘ rather than subsets of parts.

  16. From memory – subsets of assemblies are usually not subject to tariffs under normal rules. And IF I recall correctly- ‘ bearings’ have long been exempted from the same tariff regs as applies to ‘ full assemblies’ such as planes, engines, etc.

  17. We are approaching peak despondency. I have been contemplating what would be the optimal time to put an offer in for the all the white tails Boeing has lying around. I’m guessing autumn.

    • Not so. Boeing can wait any airline out, as the Federal Reserve is buying their corporate bonds , along with those of every other major US companies. The interest rates are super low as well. I think Boeing has sold $25 bill worth of bonds ( some to institutions) to pay its bills and completed planes are usually treated under accounting rules as ‘ cash and other cash like assets’
      The sales staff must be loving it , incentive commissions from selling a plane more than once.

      • I think that was truncated in the latest 900 billion bill.

        Stay tuned.

        • I think you are referring to the Fed ‘loans’ which Munckin pulled up the ladder on his way out the door.
          Boeing didn’t take any loans , even though one program was supposed to have been written around Boeing’s requirements without having their name on it. One director even resigned as she thought it might affect her political ambitions it be seen taking government money. Bond buying was a better deal with just the normal conditions for Boeing . The bond buying is continuing as the Fed is largely independent and they create their own money to do so.

          • Do we see one more level of indirection here?
            ( where did the B Bond Buyers draw money from?)

      • @DoU

        Boeing’s debt situation is not comfortable : approx $42B in net debt

        Cash burn per quarter 2020 was around $5B – return to free cash flow looks unlikely this year

        Credit rating inching closer to junk

        What this means is that it is owned by WS – as if not already – but now the whip hand is more evident – a few pump and dumps and BA will be ready for diss- assembly

        Hence real estate sales, amongst other ploys, to free up cash : they are considering sale of stock, after years of buy backs when the stock was high they are now contemplating selling low – a sign of the classic ‘death spiral’ on display with the Max crashes

        Above all no chance of raising the capital for a new plan project – without which they are condemned to dwindling market share and eventual WS negotiated break up

    • Might be more trouble than its worth.

      Or they are waiting things out.

      Granted its a deep stack but this stuff will get negated post Jan 20th.

      Its funny to see so much commentary over the last flapping of a chicken with its head cut off.

      • Designed to have loopholes, same goes with the tarrifs on goods from China, exemptions for big US companies and port hopping by Chinese companies means many didn’t pay a thing.
        Remember the Chinese company Tiktok that was supposed to have been sold to a US firm, hasn’t happened yet despite 2 or is it 3 extensions to the deadline…hah.
        Still the same swamp it always was.

      • Biden as POTUS will bring cosmetic changes.
        It won’t bring principal changes.
        US “ship is sinking, no holds barred to keep afloat” behavior won’t change.
        .. every domain. not just aerospace.

  18. The main goal seems preventing US airlines from buying Airbus aircraft, basically pushing the MAX. Together with Federal Reserve bond buys, tax relaxations, stimulus packages, pulling forward DoD deliveries, government support has started. Don’t name it subsidies. Selling assets, pushing out investments. This isn’t bashing, we are seeing what we are seeing.

    • US carriers can still use the Delta trick if they want to buy Airbus…though the planes in question will have to come from FALs outside the US.
      But you’re right: a desperate attempt to preserve some domestic market share for Boeing.

    • This has nothing to do with Boeing, there is no mention of Boeing in the reasoning provided. The source of the tariffs powers on both sides is the WTO aircraft dispute, but how it is calculated & implemented is the reason for the current increase.

      The US is complaining that it used 2019 as the basis of tariff calculation, which was a non-depressed trade year, while the EU used 2020 which was significantly depressed. The depression gave the EU a larger range of products to include in the tariff. The US asked them to compensate for this in their calculations, they refused, so the US boosted their own tariffs to compensate.

      In the end it’s all pointless, because each side can find cause to escalate the tariff on the other, up to the limits imposed by the WTO. The only solution is negotiation. That should become possible in the next few months.

      The references to Boeing here are part of the running conspiracy theories of all things Boeing. But not related in fact to what is actually happening. This is part of the Trump administration’s own running conspiracy theory that they and the US are mistreated by the rest of the world, including the EU. But that theory will be ending shortly.

      The Boeing conspiracy theories here will not be likewise ending, but fortunately they have no impact on reality. The Trump theories do have a major impact, so they have to be undone and reversed. Time is needed for that to happen, but it will eventually.

  19. When it is time to write the history of the decline and fall of Boeing, perhaps this passage will be useful-

    – A quote from an old book which must have been written with Boeing management, PR and CC in mind

    BA management gave it all they had : they won the West, crashed in the East, they lost the West and went to jail

    The twist of the hand is an ancient term for what we now call engineering

    « From all that you have just read you can deduce that lying is a sin for others, and for us a virtue. Lying is one with our job: we should lie by words, by eyes, by smile, by clothing. Not only to deceive people; as you know, our purpose is higher, and the lie, not the twist of hand, makes our real strength. With the lie, patiently learned and piously exercised, if God helps us we will come to dominate this country and perhaps the world: but this can only be done on the condition of having been able to lie better and longer than our enemies. I will not see that day, but you will see it: it will be a new golden age, it will be enough for us to govern the State and administer public affairs, to lavish the pious lies that we have learned to bring to perfection. If we prove ourselves capable of this, the empire of liars will extend from East to West until the most distant islands, and it will have no end »

  20. @ Gerrard
    That’s a great quote.
    I presume in this particular instance that “lie” should be broadly construed to encompass Jedi mind tricking, cooking re-cert flights, changing MCAS specs without informing the FAA, not (adequately) telling pilots about MCAS, taking no meaningful action after the first crash of an airframe, scapegoating foreign pilot skills in an attempt to apportion blame, not bothering to (adequately) control FOD, not bothering to (adequately) check manufacturing tolerances…and general subterfuge, intrigue and deceit. Did I leave anything out?

    • No, all the usual lies and conspiracy theories are present and accounted for here. It’s an excellent summary of those theories. But unfortunately not reflected in reality. Only reflected in the minds of those who subscribe to the theories.

    • @Bryce

      The quote is to show how old a con Boeing is running, probably quite a few stories from the Old Testament would fit, the only novelty is the plane that crashes rather than the sheepskin that disguises the thief

      Boeing need a number of what the old Chinese called ‘running dogs’ to hawk the novelties and to try to bark down criticism

      To your list of lies I would add bleeding the company dry by returning all cash to Wall Street – to my mind this is the cardinal sin which now leaves BA penniless and soon to be, as per link above, homeless

      One may see the crashing of the Max and lying about it as an unintended side show, all eyes on the ticker tape none on the factory floor

      • @Bryce

        And when the story is told of the two rival brother companies fighting for their inheritance, the list of lies that Boeing told, the lists of lies told on behalf of Boeing, will the longer than the lists of lies in the old fable

        But longer still will the be the lists of lies told by Pharma

        !Truth is Identity

Leave a Reply

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