Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
The A340 and the A330 were co-developed and the A330 has done quite well in the airliner market.
We've flown in both the front and the back of A330s and found them quite nice, dare I say even nicer than the 777s we've traveled on. I write this as a Boeing shareholder.
We've never flown on an A340 and that possibility becomes less likely with each passing year.
My mother flew on an A340 ATL>JHB a few years back and found it quite nice.
Airbus airliners are no more a taxpayer funded boondoggle than are those from their only competitor.
There have been various formally pursued trade disputes lost by Airbus' only competitor to support this.
Currently the WTO disagrees with you.
Note that I did not say the aircraft did not sell, clearly they did, I said they did not make a profit. My source for that is a direct quote from Tom Enders himself, president of Airbus Indistrie. And, in not having to make a profit, they are
ipso facto an unfair competitor.
As to the ongoing 14 year legal wrangle between Boeing and Airbus, the situation as it stands now is that the World Trade Organization appeals body has ruled that Airbus has significantly transgressed on subsidies for the A380 and the A350. They apparently have satisfied older findings and fines for having improperly subsidized all of their aircraft beginning with the A300. So those are now off the table.
Will Airbus again respond? Of course. But we are reaching the end of the merry chase. You can tell that by the threats from the Europeans about a trade war if the verdict is sustained. Like the Chinese in the South China Sea, once the law starts going against you you begin trying to intimidate the other parties.
Look, the Europeans did what they felt they had to do in order to have an aerospace industry. No problem understanding their motivation. What wrankles me is that they also made agreements to compete fairly. They then whine about "subsidies" visited on Boeing via their defense contracts for instance. It's somehow lost on them that those same defense dollars make it possible for them to exist. Then their own governments don't spend the money with them for defense that would meet or alleviate that problem. No, they want it both ways. Again, I have no problem understanding the motivation. But I, we, are under no obligation to just take it now are we?
If you are interested there is a fairly good summary in Forbes. And there are many, many others. We can talk about Bombardier next time.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielreed/...r/#3e22884a745b
Profitability is problemmatic for Airbus because it is not a business per se, it is primarily a political enterprise trying to share out so much work to Germany, to Spain, to France, etc. etc. as a jobs program. It is not an entity designed to make a profit and is therefore a drain on the taxpayers as I said in the beginning. And an unfair competitor as a result.
Not so sure that WTO disagrees much with what I wrote. You could skip the Forbes article and go right to the source, wto.org and read a synopsis of the case from its inception to its current referral to arbitration. Suffice it to say that Boeing has plenty of dirt on its skirts as well, although Boeing's hammering of state governments for things like tax abatements, infrastructure improvements and worker training allowances is how things are done here in the land of the free and the home of the brave and was not invented by Boeing nor is Boeing an especially greedy feeder at this trough. Troll with some investment and some jobs and the states come running with offers of very valuable assistance.
WRT the defense of Western Europe, the Soviet threat imploded decades ago and the UK and France both possess their very own nuclear arsenals to deter any excessive boldness on the part of President For Life Putin. NATO was as much about extending and preserving American influence and control as it was about the defense of Europe. From a European perspective, why spend money that the Americans are willing to spend for you while from an American one defense spending is both a jobs program and a technology development one. America's expenditures in defense of Europe are not as altruistic as one might think.
Europe had an aircraft and gas turbine industry long before Airbus and it was the technical knowledge of those concerns that made Airbus possible. To aggregate those concerns into an enterprise large enough to compete with Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas was the goal in forming Airbus. Certainly you've heard of the Fokkers, the Caravelle, the BAC 1-11, the Comet and Trident as well as the Viscount, Vanguard and VC-10 and the Bristols and the Mercure, which some regard as the prototype of the A320.
Airbus profitability?
Airbus is a profitable concern. The A380 will never make a profit on a program cost accounting basis? One could say the same of the 787.
I guarantee you a good price and all you'll need is a small sheikdom to afford the running costs. You may be able to see them at the following URL:
