How Boeing vs. Airbus Became Trump vs. Europe

This article raises the question of which is worse for Boeing: the 737 MAX fiasco or a Trump endorsement? No sane person trusts either one of them.

And you probably have to add in to the mix, that some of Boeing's overseas customers are riled up over Trump's abusive, abrasive treatment of our trading partners. This is bad PR for American made products. These potential customers may prefer Airbus over Boeing for this reason.

You know what subsidizes Boeing. All of its federal defense contracts. So let's not kid ourselves. This is a trade war race to the bottom. Fascinating that it's being led by the GOP, former champions of free markets and free trade. And once again proving without a doubt, that the GOP in fact stands for nothing. Nothing other than moral depravity and self-serving.

Boeing tries to survive by politics and bogus management. Putting profit and fraud over engineering finally get their comeuppance. Next year the WTO will announce the amount of levy on Boeing for being subsidized. Don't expect any leniency.

Reminiscent of the "Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act" of 1930. We know how that ended.

Boeing "won" one round, Airbus will "win" the next. We can all be sure though that the people killed by Boeing's reckless disregard for the safety of its planes have lost.

Most impartial commentators on this subject agree that Boeing’s subsidies from the US government are similar to those provided by the EU to Airbus. As usual it’s tit-for-tat and in the end it will be a zero sum game. The only wild card is our knee-jerk, uninformed and illogical president.

I doubt that Mr. Böing from Germany or his son would approve of the current company policy towards Europe. William Edward Boeing was an American aviation pioneer who founded The Boeing Company in 1916. William Boeing was born in Detroit, Michigan, to Marie M. Ortmann, from Vienna, Austria, and Wilhelm Böing from Germany. Wilhelm Böing emigrated to the United States in 1868

That adage about cutting off one's nose comes to mind...

What the article fails to mention is that Airbus filed a complaint with WTO about Boing receiving subsidies... https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/business/global/trade-group-upholds-ruling-on-boeing-subsidies.html

Trump is the new czar of the WTO.

I would much rather pay more for a ticket on an Airbus plane than go crashing into the earth on a Boeing. The 737-8 is a piece of junk.

But...but...whatabout the EXIM Bank subsidies to Boeing over these many many past years...this case is the other shoe.

It comes down to this; Boeing supports Trump and the airlines pretty much do not. Hence, existing aircraft orders will be taxed.

Trump's idea of a "great" America includes resurrecting the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. On the one hand, Trump is happy to have the average consumer pay increased taxes in the form of import duties to make up somewhat for the huge deficits created by giving the wealthy and U.S. corporations a massive tax break. Boeing is only happy to go along for the ride.

Muellenberg is a highly paid corporate exec wanting the government to favor his company, a very nontraditional Republican idea. But Muellenberg is a big fan of Trump and his new centrally planned managed trade socialist Republican economy.

Boeing rushed into production a design (the 737Max) that was flawed from the word go because of the company's desire to move fast but also save money. The jet was built in South Caroline, at a new plant which Boeing built there having been lured by Nikki Haley's promises of tax breaks + no unions. The result? Dead people. Innocent dead people. I would trust an Airbus jet far more than a Boeing jet at this point.

As the tariffs pile up, both in this case and everywhere else, it can only accelerate a slowing world economy. Tariff wars are easy to win according to our great leader. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "win".

In other words, Boeing wants to be a monopoly. I don't see how one nation (the US, as usual) can dictate another nation's economic policy. Europe developed Airbus for employment and technology growth, and national defense purposes. Those are legitimate roles for government. (It's done all over the US, too.) Barriers to entry into the aircraft market are so high that subsidies are needed. So what. If any justification for competition is needed, it's right in front of us with the 737 Max. If Boeing didn't have legitimate competition, what would its incentive be to make better products - or be called out for not building them. Competition - on price and marketability - is at the core of capitalism. But every capitalist wants to eliminate it. Funny that.

Stock up on champagne, Parmigiano Reggiano, Pecorino Romano, etc., now! They’re already expensive, but man, are they delicious. Soon, they will be too expensive (for me) to indulge in, even occasionally.

After all that we now know about Boeing and its airplane design methods, Who would risk it all taking a Boeing commercial airliner now, if there’s a choice?

If you look at it from a European perspective Boeing has been on the receiving end of massive subsidies in the form of defence contracts since 1939 or so.

It has been a fight of Boeing vs the EU for many years since the EU owns Airbus. It is about time that the US supports Boeing in its fight against the EU.

Lost of course in the demand for a win is the 40% of US made aircraft parts which go into an Airbus aircraft harming GE, Collins Aerospace, Pratt and Whitney, etc. Multi-country supply chains are the norm now in global aviation so Boeing's victory can't be viewed as a win for US aerospace but itself alone. Targeting food and drinks from the EU will hit all EU countries including many like Ireland (the biggest buyer of Boeing aircraft via Leasing) who had no skin in the game pointlessly. Allied to that that Boeing will desperately need EASA (Europe's air safety authority) to certify its Max to fly in Europe or via EU Aircraft Lessors, if it turns out to be a US-EU dispute with no holes bared, no one will thank Boeing including its own suppliers and customers. My guess is no one in or outside the US will take US FAA certification with any credibility if EASA (totally non-political) say they are not 100% happy and the Max will cripple Boeing. Add in questions on State Aid via the US Export Bank, via Defense industry, restrictions on US Defense industry contracts, etc, this WTO ruling might be a short term gain with the competing claims netting out but with a long term strain which refuses to go away for a long time.

The WTO didn't do world trade in general any favors by ruling in this case when a ruling on the reverse case is expected next year. It would have made more sense to wait for the other case to be completed then figure out the net imbalance, if any.

Remember that existing orders extend many years into the future, so tariffs on them will have a long-lasting effect.

Another article that lacks information. It seems that American journalists are not able to read the European press to know the real situation and the manipulation of the WTO by the USA . Boeing also benefits from subventions. In tax and military sales. It is like about all the US firms registered fiscally in the Eu, and not in the USA , and cheating to invade the European markets without paying any taxes. Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Yahoo, Google, Starbucks, Netflix, GE, and many others. ..billions of dollars in annual tax evasion. About 20 % of the EU budget annually. There is a scandal about GE would bought Alstom ( the maker of TGV in France ) in an illegal contract. Never an article in the US press...

“... finally persuading the United States to file a complaint with the World Trade Organization in 2004.”. Yet, though I’m not a betting man, I will confidently wager that a Trump will take 100% credit for this, as if all started and ended on his watch.

So, instead of putting tariffs on Airbus planes and parts, to better protect Trump's electoral prospects, the administration is taxing products more likely to be consumed by Democrats. Makes sense... Question - If the 737 debacle ends up costing the company more than the value of the WTO decision, why is Dennis Muilenburg still Boeing's CEO? Apparently the buck stops somewhere else.

Lost in many stories on this topic (or just meriting passing mention) is that the US also subsidized Boeing. And the ruling in the opposite case will be coming down shortly, expected in early 2020. So if, as expected, the court rules against Boeing in the matter, the EU will be able to levy duties against Boeing planes. Thus leading us all absolutely nowhere.

Boeing could never have survived as long as it has without government assistance.

We’re seeing that the antiquated concept of punitive tariffs does not work in today’s international markets where corporations have factories in each other’s countries. The disruption in business deals by the tariffs leaves everyone sorry that they succumbed to petty retaliation.