Warren J. Dew

It's also fairly unlikely that the EU accusations are true. Boeing has to keep chinese walls up between its commercial work and its defense work for security reasons anyway, so there aren't really any big efficiencies there. There might be some slight efficiencies from being able to transfer people between the sides instead of laying them off sometimes, but that doesn't seem to me to amount to a subsidy.

Well, the tanker contract has a pretty sordid history. Remember the Air Force first awarded it to Boeing, and had to take that back, before they awarded it to Airbus, and had to take that back. I guess keeping track of nuclear weapons isn't the only thing they have problems with. The Defense Department has probably done the right thing now, having the contract awarded by a defense contracting guy instead of by the Air Force.

I rather doubt the EU would have been subsidizing that particular contract, anyway.

RedY2KS2k

I have to disagree: the government is bailing out individual homeowners who should have to learn that when you buy things you can't afford, bad things happen. And we get absolutely nothing. Now if the government were entitled to a percentage of the eventual appreciation of the home, that would be different. But we, the dumbass taxpayers, only get to guarantee the loan.

It's time for the American people and their government to grow some spine, and let the chips fall where they may in the mortgage meltdown.

Obviously, if someone was the victim of an outright fraud, I'm not opposed to helping them. But if someone doesn't go to prison, then there cannot have been a fraud.

zzziippyyy

100% If they cannot effectively run and understand their business than they have no rights to be in it. They didnt go in the crapper overnight its been 20-25 years in the making if they have not learned anything in the last 25 what are they doing to make one believe they will in the next 25. The biggest strike against them is consumer confidence in their product. Even if the are making the wundercars some claim them to be, the problem is most american consumers have no confidence in them and will not look at them when purchasing a new car. Without that spark they are doomed regardless of what they produce.

Warren J. Dew

Perhaps I missed that. Do you have a link to more details?

Matt_in_VA

I had a '69 Firebird that I put 119,000 miles on. At 3,300 miles the rear window started to leak and the trunk would accumulate about an inch of water during a heavy rain. About the whole time that I owned the vehicle, the tail lights would leak and I had to replace one of the sockets on a rotating basis every few months.

Then back when I had a 1977 Chevy long wheel base G-20 van to haul my road race bike(s) even though the drive train was solid I had problems with stupid stuff like the "fit and finish" After about a year the carpet in the cockpit shrunk and pulled away from the edges of the cabin. That did it for me on GM products.

On another note: The UAW and GM negotiated a deal years ago to pay GM workers "NOT TO WORK". What kind of "brilliant" business model is that? NPR aired a series on this about two years ago. They interviewed one worker that had been collecting a GM pay check for twenty-two years since the last time he worked on a GM production line. He was working as a carpenter in a program similar to "Habitat for Humanity" working side by side with other carpenters that where working for $8 -$14 per hour. While he was making $22 per hour while being paid by GM. I have to ask: What rocket scientist thought of that program as a good business model?

mikegarrison

The issue is that every Airbus plane is subsidized by the fact that they don't have to raise money from the commercial market in order to launch a new model. The A330 was included in that. They do pay back those loans, but only out of profits made. That's significant compared to raising the money out of cash resources or open commercial lending.

Airbus has long argued that the military buying military derivitives (such as the KC-135 tankers, the 707 and 767 AWACs, etc.) is some sort of a subsidy for the Boeing commercial airplane business. They don't seem to be arguing that very vocally any more now that they are doing the same thing.

Anyway, almost anything you read about this in the press is just grandstanding for the benefit of the opinion of the WTO. I can't say much more than this. I don't speak for anyone but myself, but even so, as a Boeing employee I have to not say anything that might be misinterpreted.

cordycord

I think Boeing has a better product than Airbus, and I'm looking forward to their new carbon airframe models. They seem to be taking risks, looking at the long-term marketplace, and making product that people want. There's no other American company that makes the big planes like Boeing.

I wonder if the gov't would bail out Boeing if they ran into trouble.

Warren J. Dew

To clarify, I do consider that to be a substantial subsidy for their commercial airline business - and I think the WTO would, too, though it might be more productive to keep the case open as a stick to make sure the A350 development isn't subsidized. In the case of the tanker, though, both bidders are using a commercial platform for which initial development costs are a sunk cost and can be ignored. You could possibly argue that the A330 would never have been developed if it weren't for the subsidies, but you'd also have to argue that no other potential competitor would have been developed, which I think would be a tenuous argument (and I recognize you're not making that argument).

I think that was also a tenuous argument. The cross subsidy there is from the commercial business to the military business rather than vice versa. The only way it could have any real validity would be if the numbers were sufficient for Boeing to keep the 767 line open and it turned out that there was some resurgence in the future for commercial 767 demand, which doesn't seem highly likely given the 787 finally seems to be on track.

Speaking of things you can't talk about, when are you guys going to get moving on the composite 737 replacement? Okay, just kidding.

Warren J. Dew

I have to second that. Boeing did a really good job of proactively developing the technology, and finding a way to save fuel even when fuel was relatively cheap. I think that will really pay off for them now; while industry pundits are saying demand for airliners will fall because of reduced air travel, I think the new technology makes a compelling case for actually replacing and retiring the previous generation of aircraft. That will make for a much bigger market than the previous situation, where new planes tended to be primarily purchased only to expand industry capacity. I'm expecting to see a second 787 line in a couple years, and if Y1 development gets off to a serious start as soon as the composite technology is shaken out in 787 testing, that should sell extremely well too.

Contrast this with Detroit. Rather than looking forward 10 or 20 years and seeing what might be needed, continuing to push the technology in innovative ways to lead the market, they instead developed products reactively, with quick fixes such as turning pickup trucks into SUVs to exploit a regulatory loophole. Even when they did do the research, such as Ford's aluminum Taurus that was in test a while back or GM's all electric Impact, they didn't follow through with well supported product development and release. As a result, only Japanese companies like Toyota and Honda had hybrid models on the market when fuel suddenly became an issue.

The American automobile industry needs companies like Boeing, not like the "big 3". Subsidies and bailouts won't do that.

dlq04

Some insiders think Ford, under the leadership of CEO Alan Mulally, will be the best-positioned American automaker for this still-new century. The ex-Boeing engineer has led Ford