Industry Observers See Problems

[deltawatch]

Industry observers see problems with bringing the European jetmaker into the mix.

STORY

 

[a320av8r]

Bush is pushing for a "global marketplace".
I guess everywhere except the USA? :blink:

 

[BoeingBoy]

Interesting angle, which brings back something from the early 90's. DL and CO (maybe AA also, don't remember) signed "sole supplier" agreements with Boeing in exchange for reduced prices. Airbus raised so much cain that the deals had to be dropped. The shoe may be on the other foot....

Jim

 

[1ab]

i think its much to do about nothing
Airbus is in its rights to offer financing agreement to airline i believe they did so when usairways agreed to purchase the 320,321 and 330 back in late nineties and they gave U a deal during first BK

 

[BoeingBoy]

You're probably right, but there is a subtle difference between financing airplanes (which manufacturers do all the time) and financing an airline on condition that orders are placed.

Jim

 

[robbedagain]

could the order be changed in a way where they dont have to purchase the 350 but could say opt for either the 330 or even 340 and so forth?

 

[1ab]

maybe it was typo maybe the report was financing airplanes for the new usairways airline and the reporter misunderstood and wrote airline then.

 

[BoeingBoy]

On the very slim chance there's a problem, it would probably be with the "I'll help finance your merger if you buy Airbus planes", not which specific models are ordered. That's similiar, but not quite the same, as the early 90's where Boeing said "I'll give you a better discount if you only buy Boeing".

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

Now that I've raised everyone's concerns, here's a quote from an Arizona paper that somewhat addresses the issue:

"America West has reached similar deals with Airbus in the past. In 1990, Airbus gave it $220 million in cash, spare parts and flight training in exchange for an order for 118 A320s. It never took most of the planes because of its 1991 bankruptcy filing."

Jim

 

[Boeing4me]

I will be more than happy for Airbus to invest in the combined US/AWA. But first they need to reimburse the US taxpayers who are now carrying the load for the pensions assumed by the government.

It is simply not right for the taxpayers to assume costs for a failing company (US) only to allow a foreign government controled entity (Airbus) to provide jobs and income to Europeans. I think that this aspect alone makes this deal stink for every taxpaer in America.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Boeing4me,

You have company in that sentiment....

Editorial Opinion

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Airlines: Risky business venture

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

Did you hear the one about U.S. taxpayers teaming up with Europe's Airbus in a risky business venture?

Editorial Opinion

Jim

 

[skyflyr69]

Boeing 4me:
you left out failing airline UAL, ATA, Hawaiian, Aloha plus one more which i forgot.
what will you say IF Delta and AA go chp.11?

:angry:

 

[Boeing4me]

Boeing 4me:
you left out failing airline UAL, ATA, Hawaiian, Aloha plus one more which i forgot.
what will you say IF Delta and AA go chp.11?

:angry:

[post="270238"][/post]​

Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that we taxpayers are supporting the pensions of all of the above mentioned airlines (plus those from many other industries) - My gripe here is that a foreign entity (Airbus) is now in a position to take advantage of the goodwill of the American taxpayers to the benefit their own countries - mainly France, Germany and UK.

I also understand that Airbus is a customer for some US based companies and does provide some employment here in the US ( i.e. Hamilton-Sunstrand, Pratt & Whitney, GE, etc.)

What really stinks here is that Airbus would not be investing in US/AWA unless they thought that they would be making a decent return on thier investment at some point in the future. We are givving away jobs and profits courtesy of the taxpayers to the detrement of our own domestic aerospace industry.

Please note that I have no realtionship present, past or future with Boeing. I simply like their metal.

 

[700UW]

The PBGC is not funded by tax dollars, the pensions are paid out from the assets turned over to them and by insurance premius on pension payments by employers.

Money PBGC Takes In and Pays Out
PBGC is not funded by general tax revenues. PBGC collects insurance premiums from employers that sponsor insured pension plans, earns money from investments and receives funds from pension plans it takes over. PBGC pays monthly retirement benefits, up to a guaranteed maximum, to about 518,000 retirees in 3,479 pension plans that ended. Including those who have not yet retired and participants in multiemployer plans receiving financial assistance, PBGC is responsible for the current and future pensions of about 1,061,000 people.

 

[calibrator]

I also understand that Airbus is a customer for some US based companies and does provide some employment here in the US ( i.e. Hamilton-Sunstrand, Pratt & Whitney, GE, etc.)

What really stinks here is that Airbus would not be investing in US/AWA unless

[post="270298"][/post]​

What's the difference anymore. We the people are all slaves of corporations even if you are in business for yourself, small business. It doesn't matter anymore whether that corporation is run by white, gray or green people or even on what continent they live on, inside they all the same, rotten to the core.