Chimera
03-30-2010, 10:39 AM
It will be a sticky patch to get through: an Airbus press release reveals that the World Trade Organization has rejected 70% of US complaints against Airbus, primarily concerning alleged subsidies.
This verdict, although not unexpected, may cause further deterioration in US/European relations, since the two sides are poles apart concerning the impact of this decision. To start with, Airbus is probably correct in stating that the battle before the WTO could last several more years, and that it can only be resolved within the framework of transatlantic negotiations. Yes, but what negotiations?
Each day, the news emphasizes to what extent the two sides are separated by an ocean of differences so deep that they might as well be living on different planets. The current battle over health care reform in the US provides a clear example of these differences. The immense majority of citizens in Europe, whatever their political convictions, expect a minimum of social protection, with the government playing a real role in society. The differences are all a question of dosage, according to individual political beliefs.
In the US on the other hand, quite the opposite seems to prevail, with an existential fear of government intervention, which surprises Europeans.
Any understanding seems close to impossible, before the WTO, or elsewhere. Boeing was no doubt expecting a verdict which would definitively condemn state aid given to its competitor. This does not appear to be the case, and moreover in the hour following the first information coming out of Geneva, Airbus indulged in a loud and clear claim that the 787 is the most highly subsidized civil aircraft in aviation history.
That of course is pure provocation, expressing a grand sigh of relief, as well as profound satisfaction, and the willingness to continue the struggle.
Airbus insists that it is the leading export customer for the US aerospace industry, each year purchasing over 10 billion dollars worth of equipment, systems, engines, and thus contributing to 180,000 jobs in the US.
But none of the European arguments seem able to penetrate this solid psychological block. The stereotypes, which seemed outdated and forgotten, have returned with a vengeance: "socialistic" Europe does not respect the rules, thumbing its nose at the most basic of sacrosanct values.
In such an atmosphere, the idea of EADS (without Northrop Grumman) making another bid for the USAF in-flight refueling tanker probably doesn't have a chance in a million of achieving success. The image of the KC-45A is simply that of an A330-200 in uniform, in other words, a subsidized aircraft in disguise, a Trojan horse from Toulouse seeking to destroy jobs in American industry.
In fact, this confrontation has become all the more wearing in that it will never lead to anything. On the other hand, it may enable the Russians, the Chinese, and to a certain extent, the Canadians and Brazilians to quietly develop their own "subsidized" airplanes, which may one day cause a rude awakening.
If truth be told, the question at hand, with or without the WTO, has absolutely nothing to do with the aeronautics industry. Each side is defending its values and its concept of the world economy, with the profound conviction of possessing "The Truth."
The best we could hope for is that it everyone would go home and stop talking about this.
Pierre Sparaco-AeroMorning.
Translated by Tim Bowler
http://www.aeromorning.com/en/chroniques.php?ch_id=689
This verdict, although not unexpected, may cause further deterioration in US/European relations, since the two sides are poles apart concerning the impact of this decision. To start with, Airbus is probably correct in stating that the battle before the WTO could last several more years, and that it can only be resolved within the framework of transatlantic negotiations. Yes, but what negotiations?
Each day, the news emphasizes to what extent the two sides are separated by an ocean of differences so deep that they might as well be living on different planets. The current battle over health care reform in the US provides a clear example of these differences. The immense majority of citizens in Europe, whatever their political convictions, expect a minimum of social protection, with the government playing a real role in society. The differences are all a question of dosage, according to individual political beliefs.
In the US on the other hand, quite the opposite seems to prevail, with an existential fear of government intervention, which surprises Europeans.
Any understanding seems close to impossible, before the WTO, or elsewhere. Boeing was no doubt expecting a verdict which would definitively condemn state aid given to its competitor. This does not appear to be the case, and moreover in the hour following the first information coming out of Geneva, Airbus indulged in a loud and clear claim that the 787 is the most highly subsidized civil aircraft in aviation history.
That of course is pure provocation, expressing a grand sigh of relief, as well as profound satisfaction, and the willingness to continue the struggle.
Airbus insists that it is the leading export customer for the US aerospace industry, each year purchasing over 10 billion dollars worth of equipment, systems, engines, and thus contributing to 180,000 jobs in the US.
But none of the European arguments seem able to penetrate this solid psychological block. The stereotypes, which seemed outdated and forgotten, have returned with a vengeance: "socialistic" Europe does not respect the rules, thumbing its nose at the most basic of sacrosanct values.
In such an atmosphere, the idea of EADS (without Northrop Grumman) making another bid for the USAF in-flight refueling tanker probably doesn't have a chance in a million of achieving success. The image of the KC-45A is simply that of an A330-200 in uniform, in other words, a subsidized aircraft in disguise, a Trojan horse from Toulouse seeking to destroy jobs in American industry.
In fact, this confrontation has become all the more wearing in that it will never lead to anything. On the other hand, it may enable the Russians, the Chinese, and to a certain extent, the Canadians and Brazilians to quietly develop their own "subsidized" airplanes, which may one day cause a rude awakening.
If truth be told, the question at hand, with or without the WTO, has absolutely nothing to do with the aeronautics industry. Each side is defending its values and its concept of the world economy, with the profound conviction of possessing "The Truth."
The best we could hope for is that it everyone would go home and stop talking about this.
Pierre Sparaco-AeroMorning.
Translated by Tim Bowler
http://www.aeromorning.com/en/chroniques.php?ch_id=689