EADS' Airbus head Christian Streiff to resign?

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 06 Oct 2006, 18:59

Just when things seemed they couldn't get any worse!

http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx ... 72608.html

[ admin luchtzak changed title ]

TexasGuy · Post by **TexasGuy** » 06 Oct 2006, 19:07

This doesnt look good, but it should not be unexpected to have some changes in leadership positions given the problems they are currently having.

....

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 06 Oct 2006, 20:35

What in the world is going on within Airbus? The company needs stability, not more confusion. Christian Streiff is a manufacturing person, not a politician, who understands what is needed to make the company succceed and be comptitive. He pointed out what needs to be done to save the company and identified a number of painful (though necessary) cuts. Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic don't like pain and just like good news. Streiff is needed annd should be supported and encouraged to stay!

teach · Post by **teach** » 06 Oct 2006, 20:37

Could you please refrain from posting such incredibly misleading thread titles? There is NOTHING official about him stepping down. There is a RUMOR, and even in the article you linked to, this rumor is DENIED by Airbus.

Don't try to pass off rumors as fact!

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 06 Oct 2006, 20:47

Streiff's resignation is official.

Its been suggested that he is leaving because of the indecision and turmoil with EADS, his recommendations to restructure Airbus were not received well and may be rejected out of hand.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/ ... Airbus.php

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 06 Oct 2006, 20:51

this rumor is DENIED by Airbus.

Would that be the same Airbus source that said there would be no further delays.

teach · Post by **teach** » 06 Oct 2006, 21:10

Streiff's resignation is official.

No it's not. Where's the official announcement? Where's the press release?

I have no idea what exactly your idea of 'official' is, but an article that quotes anonymous sources is not 'official confirmation' by even the wildest stretch of the imagination.

So no, Streiff's resignation is NOT official. Not even close.

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 06 Oct 2006, 21:31

I have a suggestion for you, sit close by your computer and keep googling
" Streiff " sooner or later when Airbus gets out of its state of denial it will show up, but by that time he will have already started at Peugeot!

David747 · Post by **David747** » 06 Oct 2006, 21:37

I can't believe Airbus seems to be collapsing because of a few delays on the A380. Then again, I have faith that the A380 program will return Airbus to normal operations.

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 06 Oct 2006, 22:06

I can't believe Airbus seems to be collapsing because of a few delays on the A380. Then again, I have faith that the A380 program will return Airbus to normal operations.

It's really a shame that Airbus finally gets a process guy that understands the problems and they reject his recommendations because of political interference, now they are going to have a real tough time getting someone who will want to take on the problems and have to deal with all the different levels of government. They couldn't pay me enough money to walk in to that hornets nest.

David747 · Post by **David747** » 06 Oct 2006, 22:29

Airbus seems to be another political institution in Europe rather than an airplane company.

fftopic: Dominic DeVillpan(sorry if I screwed up the spelling of his name) has even commented on the issue; wonder if they do press ahead with the A350(which I hope they do), will European governments fund the program?

RC20 · Post by **RC20** » 06 Oct 2006, 23:00

David747 wrote:I can't believe Airbus seems to be collapsing because of a few delays on the A380. Then again, I have faith that the A380 program will return Airbus to normal operations.

Airbus is not unraveling because of a few delays with the A380, its doing so because it has huge inherent, structural issues that the A380 are symptomatic of (when you sell an airframe that has a list price of 300 million for 130-150 million, you are desperately trying to make a program fly that has no commercial justification).

One huge issue has been that EADS does not control Airbus, Airbus has told EADS what its going to do, and EADS has caved in.

Frankly, you cannot have a company that is owned by government(s), function competitively in this day and age. This is not a US type structure company, where the government cannot influence the boards. France and Germany have veto power (golden shares), and the work is allocated not on performance, but carved up with who put up what money (and what previous nationalized companies) got folded into the EADS mixmaster machine.

Throw in Great Britain and Spain as minority holders (GB is demanding a seat on the board), as well as Russia buying up 5% of the open float, and you have this huge, steaming, brawling, unmanageable mess.

Each time Airbus went to those countries for money, they sold their autonomy (but then again, those countries contributed parts to it anyway). One way or the other, they all hold control of the thing, and control in this case means jobs. You don’t keep the jobs and factories here, then we will make you.

Don’t think so, Streiff has broken the rules and admitted they are 15 years behind Boeing (that assumes they can ever catch up), as well as telling them the truth in what they have to do to become a real company.

I have estimated the required re-capitalization of Airbus to be competitive at 25 billion US. That means not only coming out with 3 new airframes in the next 8 years, it means investment in the technologies to actually compete with Boeing.

And not, I am not saying Boeing (or any other independent corporation) is immune from committing corporate suicide. Enron certainly stands out. And if Boeing was going to go under, you would see the US government take action (but then they would get out, or as in the case of Chrysler cop ration in the 70s, they would get rid of them as fast as possible).

Of course what this all means for Boeing is that they can make good profits on their aircraft while coming out with the Airbus beating products in an orderly manner. No, I don’t’ think Boeing is gloating over what’s happened, but I suspect they have a feeling of immense satisfaction in having gotten their house in order, and putting their company on a solid path for the next 25 years.

teach · Post by **teach** » 06 Oct 2006, 23:12

bits44 wrote:I have a suggestion for you, sit close by your computer and keep googling
" Streiff " sooner or later when Airbus gets out of its state of denial it will show up, but by that time he will have already started at Peugeot!

And I have another suggestion for you: Stop deciding for others what is official and what is not, and look up the meaning of 'official' in a dictionary. In fact, let me save you the trouble:

Official: If a piece of information is official, it has been announced publicly with authority.

Is that the case here? No. So, to put it bluntly, I'm right, you're wrong, end of discussion. It's not official.

It might become official at some point, but right now, it's a rumor, and that should be made clear in the thread title.

CX · Post by CX » 07 Oct 2006, 02:51

Let Airbus sorts itself out before going into politics please!! I mean just who cares where the plane is going to be built? Who cares if the Hamburg plant is closed? Once the A380 gets going, have the whole A350XWB production line at Hamburg! Now it is just a waste of time!

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 07 Oct 2006, 03:13

I mean just who cares where the plane is going to be built

Well just for starters all the people who work there, their families and their children, this affects a lot of people, probably more than anyone here will ever know!

Its so unfortunate that this could not have been forseen and prevented a long time ago, so many will suffer, you really have to feel for all those affected.

CX · Post by CX » 07 Oct 2006, 06:14

bits44 wrote:
I mean just who cares where the plane is going to be built
Well just for starters all the people who work there, their families and their children, this affects a lot of people, probably more than anyone here will ever know!

Its so unfortunate that this could not have been forseen and prevented a long time ago, so many will suffer, you really have to feel for all those affected.

But business is business, it is about either having Airbus falling (or have a few years of really hard times) or their employees being moved to another factory or something... A business is not about caring the need of families right? A business is not a charity.
If the A380 can be less delayed by having the whole assembly line at Toulouse, I see no reason why shouldn't they do it, and move some workers at the German plant to France. The Hamburg facilities may come back alive after these initial problems are overcame.

David747 · Post by **David747** » 07 Oct 2006, 12:39

RC20 wrote:
David747 wrote:I can't believe Airbus seems to be collapsing because of a few delays on the A380. Then again, I have faith that the A380 program will return Airbus to normal operations.
Airbus is not unraveling because of a few delays with the A380, its doing so because it has huge inherent, structural issues that the A380 are symptomatic of (when you sell an airframe that has a list price of 300 million for 130-150 million, you are desperately trying to make a program fly that has no commercial justification).
The A380 has commercial justification because of the fact that major airlines like Emirate, Air France, Qantas, Singapore, Korean Air, Eithad to name a few have ordered the plane, yes at discounts like any other airline that has been offered before the A380. The market as limited as I feel it is for VLA will still accomodate the A380 well, and the aircraft will reach 300 to 400 orders it needs for Airbus to break even with the program, and by 2020, I do agree with Airbus's predition of 990 of the A380's flying. For you to say there is no commercial justification for the plane is just plain wrong as major 5 star and 4 star airlines have ordered the plane.

One huge issue has been that EADS does not control Airbus, Airbus has told EADS what its going to do, and EADS has caved in.
Yes, Airbus has to rethink its overall market strategy. As I said before, them not taking the 787 seriously, and offering the A330+20 as a competitor to the new airframe has really hurt the company.

Frankly, you cannot have a company that is owned by government(s), function competitively in this day and age. This is not a US type structure company, where the government cannot influence the boards.
That is absolutely false, Airbus has done a good job competing with American manufacturers since the A300 made inroads in the United States, and has indeed influence the market with their airplanes and technology. Airbus competed succesfully against three American commercial airline companies during the 1980's. Those companies were Lockheed, who decided to abandon the commercial market, McDonnell Douglas and Boeing. In recent years Airbus was able to overtake Boeing as the major manufacturer of aircraft in terms of deliveries, and it is likely to hold that spot until 2009. In terms of deliveries, Airbus at the moment is #1, how is that not competitive?

France and Germany have veto power (golden shares), and the work is allocated not on performance, but carved up with who put up what money (and what previous nationalized companies) got folded into the EADS mixmaster machine.
You want to explain what you meant there, I don't understand..

Throw in Great Britain and Spain as minority holders (GB is demanding a seat on the board), as well as Russia buying up 5% of the open float, and you have this huge, steaming, brawling, unmanageable mess.
I see what you mean, because governments fund EADS/Airbus, therefore a bureaucratic mess will be created. Somehow, Airbus has done a very good job since 1972 as a consurtiom of European aerospace companies, I guess you missed that part of Airbus's history.

Each time Airbus went to those countries for money, they sold their autonomy (but then again, those countries contributed parts to it anyway). One way or the other, they all hold control of the thing, and control in this case means jobs. You don’t keep the jobs and factories here, then we will make you.
Airbus did not sell its autonomy to the European governments, it just did something Boeing and McDonnell Douglas were able to do here in the United States and that is ask for government loans, and Airbus paid them back. I guess Boeing has sold its autonomy when it gets subsidies from the US government, or Washington State subsidies to keep its plants operating in Seattle or Long Beach California for that matter...

Don’t think so, Streiff has broken the rules and admitted they are 15 years behind Boeing (that assumes they can ever catch up), as well as telling them the truth in what they have to do to become a real company.

Yes, they are 15 years behind Boeing, if the 787 proves to be a success in the market, and that still remains to be seen.

I have estimated the required re-capitalization of Airbus to be competitive at 25 billion US. That means not only coming out with 3 new airframes in the next 8 years, it means investment in the technologies to actually compete with Boeing.
And what method did you use for saying that $25 billion is what Airbus will need to remain competitive?

And not, I am not saying Boeing (or any other independent corporation) is immune from committing corporate suicide. Enron certainly stands out. And if Boeing was going to go under, you would see the US government take action (but then they would get out, or as in the case of Chrysler cop ration in the 70s, they would get rid of them as fast as possible).
In other words, you think the US government is not helping Boeing with military contracts that are in the end subsidies? Or I guess Boeing threatening Congress with the shut down of the C-17 program to get a few more orders from the government was just Market competition..... unreal.

Of course what this all means for Boeing is that they can make good profits on their aircraft while coming out with the Airbus beating products in an orderly manner. No, I don’t’ think Boeing is gloating over what’s happened, but I suspect they have a feeling of immense satisfaction in having gotten their house in order, and putting their company on a solid path for the next 25 years.

I agree, Boeing was in trouble since the merger, and they have finally sacked some of the old McDonnell Douglas/Boeing executives who didn't have much of a vision before the 787. The Sonic Cruiser, the 767-400 were just a few programs that cost Boeing its lead on Airbus in terms of deliveries. Just like Boeing, Airbus will get through this present mess and be as competitive as it has always been.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 07 Oct 2006, 17:05

There seems to be an assumption that the A380 is just suffering from incompetent managment and once the problems are sorted out, all will be OK and orders will come streaming in. I do not agree.

There is a market for large planes like the A380, but it is limited. The plane's only profitable routes will be on densely packed routes (e.g., New York - Paris, Middle East capitals and London. Singapore and Tokyo, etc.) that have large numbers of passengers traveling for long distances at the same time. Most city pairs do not justify planes as large as the A380, therefore the market is limited. I do not know what the ultimate market size for the A380 is, but I'm sure it is not more than 250 planes. The 2 year delay has certainly not helped.

Boeing has positioned the 747-8i (450 seats) to be between the 777-300 (350 seats) and the A380 (550 seats). With a similar range (8,000 miles vs. 8,300 for the A380). The market for the 747-8i is also limited, but probably a bit larger than for the A380 (the 747-8i may be a bit more versitile due to it's smaller size and better fuel efficiancy).

I predict that Airbus will never recover the total costs (development + production + penalty costs); Boeing has lower development costs for the 747-8i and can reach break-even at a lower production run.

RC20 · Post by **RC20** » 08 Oct 2006, 00:41

Airbus is not unraveling because of a few delays with the A380, its doing so because it has huge inherent, structural issues that the A380 are symptomatic of (when you sell an airframe that has a list price of 300 million for 130-150 million, you are desperately trying to make a program fly that has no commercial justification). [/quote]

"The A380 has commercial justification because of the fact that major airlines like Emirate, Air France, Qantas, Singapore, Korean Air, Eithad to name a few have ordered the plane, yes at discounts like any other airline that has been offered before the A380. The market as limited as I feel it is for VLA will still accomodate the A380 well, and the aircraft will reach 300 to 400 orders it needs for Airbus to break even with the program, and by 2020, I do agree with Airbus's predition of 990 of the A380's flying. For you to say there is no commercial justification for the plane is just plain wrong as major 5 star and 4 star airlines have ordered the plane."

When this starts getting broken into individual paragraphs, it get very had to respond to.

Commercially Viable:
Ok, the nuts and bolts of this are, they were given 30% launch aid. I know all the arguments, but the basis of that “loan” is not made public. If Airbus says they will sell 1600 in the hidden agreement, , and only sell 500, they never have to0 pay it back, period.
So, at the least you have interest free until you sell X amount, and then only have to start paying for it after that, that’s not a commercial transaction, it’s a government aided boost. So fare Airbus has not been able to build an aircraft without that, its called a welfare case.
So, you offer the A380 in the market, and you get no bites. Not having a commercially viable product, you then start dropping the price, and keep dropping it, until they start to bite.
If you should sell the thing for (lets say 280 million which would be in line with discounts, even though how you discount on a few is beyond me), and not one buys it, and you wind up selling for about half that (135 million), then what do you call that.
I can afford a new car if someone gives it to me for half of what it should be sold for, cost me no interest.
Airbus always claimed that the 747 was Boeing cash cow, but Airbus could not get that kind of money out of anyone, so you tell me, what is this thing other than a non commercially viable product?
Until you sell them at something close to realistic prices, its non viable. As near as all my research can find, they have not. At that point, they are merely breaking even, and it will never be a commercial success.
Blue chips know a steal when they see it and they took it.

Frankly, you cannot have a company that is owned by government(s), function competitively in this day and age. This is not a US type structure company, where the government cannot influence the boards.

"That is absolutely false, Airbus has done a good job competing with American manufacturers since the A300 made inroads in the United States, and has indeed influence the market with their airplanes and technology. Airbus competed succesfully against three American commercial airline companies during the 1980's. Those companies were Lockheed, who decided to abandon the commercial market, McDonnell Douglas and Boeing. In recent years Airbus was able to overtake Boeing as the major manufacturer of aircraft in terms of deliveries, and it is likely to hold that spot until 2009. In terms of deliveries, Airbus at the moment is #1, how is that not competitive?"

I can be competative if you give me free loans. I can outbid anyone. What drove MD out of the business was the fact that it was faced with subsidized competition, and was driven out. Boeing has been in a better position, and has managed to avoid that. At a price, the 787 is mostly made by foreign firms, assembled by Boeing.
If you thing the airlines would not have supported MD, you are wrong, they would have done just what SA has done with Airbus, ordered planes that are still on paper to keep it going so they have competition. Good for them, not necessarily good for anyone else.

France and Germany have veto power (golden shares), and the work is allocated not on performance, but carved up with who put up what money (and what previous nationalized companies) got folded into the EADS mixmaster machine.

"You want to explain what you meant there, I don't understand.."

There is the free float shares (public) and the government owned/controlled shares. The EADS corporate structure is a crafted document that does not allow a board member who is not one of the 2 (France and Germany), without their consent. Its government controlled, and you will see, the work will always be divvied up per how much they have put into the project.
That’s what has them in a bind, is that Russia now owns 5% of the free float, without ever having put up a dime of money for the subsidies that have got them where they are.
Next Russia wants is both on the board, and work share. Notice Spain does not have a board member, GB only because of political leverage with what they have put up.
Structurally it’s a non viable mess. No one can pay them for what they have (buy out the governments) and the governments are not going to let the job go that they paid to keep.
EADS made a huge mistake with the A400, as EADS let them offer it up under Airbus, not EADS auspices. Then began the divvying up of the work into all the participating countries (instead of at least the sub systems being bid out). Now they have it scattered all over the map, on a fixed price guarantee, when they cannot deliver it at that. Note that P&W won the engine contract, a huge fuss was raised, and now a group that never made an engine before is formed from a lot of groups and trying to deliver a viable engine.
Throw into this that EADS makes the French nuclear arsenal (or at least parts of it) and to have a possible enemy (Russia) inside the company, is????
US has let that occur in many cases, but no outside country would try to buy into Boeing and get a seat or control. It would not be allowed to happen.

Throw in Great Britain and Spain as minority holders (GB is demanding a seat on the board), as well as Russia buying up 5% of the open float, and you have this huge, steaming, brawling, unmanageable mess.

"I see what you mean, because governments fund EADS/Airbus, therefore a bureaucratic mess will be created. Somehow, Airbus has done a very good job since 1972 as a consurtiom of European aerospace companies, I guess you missed that part of Airbus's history."

As long as they all got what they wanted out of it, they were fine. World has changed, and thats threatened. Free lunch is gone, and if they can't adjust, they loose. Structure cannot adjust.

Each time Airbus went to those countries for money, they sold their autonomy (but then again, those countries contributed parts to it anyway). One way or the other, they all hold control of the thing, and control in this case means jobs. You don’t keep the jobs and factories here, then we will make you.

"Airbus did not sell its autonomy to the European governments, it just did something Boeing and McDonnell Douglas were able to do here in the United States and that is ask for government loans, and Airbus paid them back. I guess Boeing has sold its autonomy when it gets subsidies from the US government, or Washington State subsidies to keep its plants operating in Seattle or Long Beach California for that matter..."

This is a case if you tell a lie often enough, it become the truth. EADS gets huge subsidies from its governments. Boeing Aerospace/Military competes against other US firms for its contract. At best the benefits are equal, though European subsides far more than we do.
There are also huge hidden European subsides that will come out in the Boeing WTA case. So, if you are going to compare EADS to Boeing, keep it apples and apples, and not apples to pineapples.
If Airbus opened a plant in Washington state, it would get the same so called break Boeing does. How much truth is in the situation I do not know, Boeing claimed it was being taxed at higher rates than other aerospace firms, demanded that it be adjusted and Washington did so.
Have you looked where Airbus set up shop? Alabama. Do you think they did not get an even bigger tax break?
Boeing has never had launch aid for its aircraft, Airbus not only gets launch aid, it gets all the other subsides from European governments as well. As far as I can find, the only Airbus product that has ever paid back any launch aid is the A320 series. The A300 had to be truncated as the 767 was beating it. The A330/340 are not going to sell enough.
Bottom line is the subsidy thing is a big lie that people keep repeating, until everyone repeats it like its gospel.

Don’t think so, Streiff has broken the rules and admitted they are 15 years behind Boeing (that assumes they can ever catch up), as well as telling them the truth in what they have to do to become a real company.

"Yes, they are 15 years behind Boeing, if the 787 proves to be a success in the market, and that still remains to be seen."

Agreed, it has to work and be more reliabiel than anything out there. They do have to prove it.

I have estimated the required re-capitalization of Airbus to be competitive at 25 billion US. That means not only coming out with 3 new airframes in the next 8 years, it means investment in the technologies to actually compete with Boeing.

"And what method did you use for saying that $25 billion is what Airbus will need to remain competitive?"

8 to 10 billion each to launch a plastic A320, A350 and a replacment A340.

And not, I am not saying Boeing (or any other independent corporation) is immune from committing corporate suicide. Enron certainly stands out. And if Boeing was going to go under, you would see the US government take action (but then they would get out, or as in the case of Chrysler cop ration in the 70s, they would get rid of them as fast as possible).

"In other words, you think the US government is not helping Boeing with military contracts that are in the end subsidies? Or I guess Boeing threatening Congress with the shut down of the C-17 program to get a few more orders from the government was just Market competition..... unreal."

Unfortunately you have not read to extremely important documents. One was the air lifter requirement for the US forces for what they currently face. It stated that they needed 220 to meet current needs, and the future needs due to the wear out and attrition from current ops.
The other was the Congressional Budget Office, that said the Air Force is playing fast and loose with the facts, and that the study that was done after the previous one (under a former Air Force General) has no credibility
I do not disagree that Boeing is playing the same game they would if needed or not, but the reality as near as I can figure it out is that the C17 has proved extraordinarily successful, and they need it.
Lockheed did the same thing with the F22, and the C130, and trying to do the same thing with the F35.

Of course what this all means for Boeing is that they can make good profits on their aircraft while coming out with the Airbus beating products in an orderly manner. No, I don’t’ think Boeing is gloating over what’s happened, but I suspect they have a feeling of immense satisfaction in having gotten their house in order, and putting their company on a solid path for the next 25 years.

"I agree, Boeing was in trouble since the merger, and they have finally sacked some of the old McDonnell Douglas/Boeing executives who didn't have much of a vision before the 787. The Sonic Cruiser, the 767-400 were just a few programs that cost Boeing its lead on Airbus in terms of deliveries. Just like Boeing, Airbus will get through this present mess and be as competitive as it has always been.

While we agree on part, you continue to repeat the myth about the Sonic Cruiser. It was in fact the vision and technology that lead directly to the 787. The Sonic Cruiser was way out there, but it was what freed up the Boeing thought process, got the technology out there was a possibility, and convinced the Airlines that Boeing did have a viable future and worth listening to.

David747 · Post by **David747** » 08 Oct 2006, 05:19

RC20 wrote:
Commercially Viable:
Ok, the nuts and bolts of this are, they were given 30% launch aid. I know all the arguments, but the basis of that “loan” is not made public. If Airbus says they will sell 1600 in the hidden agreement, , and only sell 500, they never have to0 pay it back, period.
So, at the least you have interest free until you sell X amount, and then only have to start paying for it after that, that’s not a commercial transaction, it’s a government aided boost. So fare Airbus has not been able to build an aircraft without that, its called a welfare case.
So, you offer the A380 in the market, and you get no bites. Not having a commercially viable product, you then start dropping the price, and keep dropping it, until they start to bite.
If you should sell the thing for (lets say 280 million which would be in line with discounts, even though how you discount on a few is beyond me), and not one buys it, and you wind up selling for about half that (135 million), then what do you call that.
I can afford a new car if someone gives it to me for half of what it should be sold for, cost me no interest.
Airbus always claimed that the 747 was Boeing cash cow, but Airbus could not get that kind of money out of anyone, so you tell me, what is this thing other than a non commercially viable product?
Until you sell them at something close to realistic prices, its non viable. As near as all my research can find, they have not. At that point, they are merely breaking even, and it will never be a commercial success.
Blue chips know a steal when they see it and they took it.
Again, you are there is no commerical viability with the A380, which Blue Chip airlines seem to disagree with you. Yes these airlines were given discounts on a launch program like the A380, but in the end, these airlines have seen the potential of operating the A380 as a market viable aircraft, otherwise, they wouldn't have ordered the plane.

I can be competative if you give me free loans. I can outbid anyone. What drove MD out of the business was the fact that it was faced with subsidized competition, and was driven out. Boeing has been in a better position, and has managed to avoid that. At a price, the 787 is mostly made by foreign firms, assembled by Boeing.

787 is also subsidized by the governments of the firms it has outsourced to make parts for the plane; likewise Boeing got loans for airliners like the 707/367-80 and737, and Military contracts that amount to government loans and aid, and further more, Boeing has gotten tax incentives from the state government in Washington. If Airbus does the same thing, I guess its bad, but when Boeing does it, its just within the rules, I just don't get it. Second, McDonnell Douglas collasped, not only because of the competition from Airbus and Boeing(if you want to call them both subsidized competition, I would agree) but because they did not offer any market alternatives to the A300, A320, B737NG, B757 and B767. In an attempt to get orders, they decided to launch the MD-11 which turned out to be a big bust, and they kept stretching the DC-9, while Airbus and Boeing were introducing very new and different aircraft in the narrow body market. In part the competition did beat them, but in the end, McDonnell Douglas also beat itself, and the failed venture in China in hopes of launching the MD-12X was the final nail in the coffin.

If you think the airlines would not have supported MD, you are wrong, they would have done just what SA has done with Airbus, ordered planes that are still on paper to keep it going so they have competition. Good for them, not necessarily good for anyone else.
Some airlines supported McDonnell Douglas projects, but in the end, the competition offered better products, again, MD didn't have an answer for the A300, A320, B757, B767 and B737. And, if you want to talk about subsidized competition go ahead, McDonnell Douglas also enjoyed aid from the United States government in the form of Military contracts.

There is the free float shares (public) and the government owned/controlled shares. The EADS corporate structure is a crafted document that does not allow a board member who is not one of the 2 (France and Germany), without their consent. Its government controlled, and you will see, the work will always be divvied up per how much they have put into the project.
I see.

That’s what has them in a bind, is that Russia now owns 5% of the free float, without ever having put up a dime of money for the subsidies that have got them where they are.
Next Russia wants is both on the board, and work share. Notice Spain does not have a board member, GB only because of political leverage with what they have put up.
Structurally it’s a non viable mess. No one can pay them for what they have (buy out the governments) and the governments are not going to let the job go that they paid to keep.

Russia wants assistance from EADS/Airbus to build its Aerospace industry. Like most members of the EADS consortium, the reason for this joint venture is to compete and make their aerospace industries viable and competitive against American subsized aerospace industries that get lucrative deals from the United States government in terms of military contracts etc. The politics of the company indeed hurts their operations, and we are seeing that today, but Airbus is not a Mess as you say and if they get through this they will indeed be as competitive against Boeing as they have been in recent years.

As long as they all got what they wanted out of it, they were fine. World has changed, and thats threatened. Free lunch is gone, and if they can't adjust, they loose. Structure cannot adjust.
Free launch is gone, and unlike you said, Airbus gets loans that need to be paid back as long as the program is viable, that is part of the US/EU agreement of the early 1990's. Boeing gets the same aid from Washington state and tax benefits...

This is a case if you tell a lie often enough, it become the truth. EADS gets huge subsidies from its governments. Boeing Aerospace/Military competes against other US firms for its contract. At best the benefits are equal, though European subsides far more than we do.
Actually it isn't a lie, as I said, Boeing gets aid from Washington state government to keep jobs in that state, in the form of loans, and tax incentives. Recently, Maria Cantwell, the Senator of Washington state was instrumental at getting Boeing aid in ways to explore new technologies such as composites and other structural materials. As well, Gary Locke former governor of Washington was instrumental at giving Boeing tax incentives at the tune of $3.2 billion to Boeing so it could build the 787 at Everett Washington. The state of Washington also has made it easier for Boeing to operate within the state with these tax incentives which is clearly a violation of the WTO, and in a laughable statement by Boeing, it said Airbus will also benefit if it moved to Washington to build Airplanes, which of course would never happen because Boeing will lobby pretty hard to stop such a move. Second, there is very little competition between aerospace defense companies in this country, the big two, Lockheed Martin and Boeing have shut out basically all other competitors, and Boeing has done a lot of lobbying to make it harder for EADS to compete here, which is part of the reason why EADS gets aid from the governments, otherwise, how would it compete against the heavy subsized American aerospace companies. As well, Boeing gets billions of dollars for research and development from the United States government in its Phantom Works division, money Boeing doesn't have to pay back.

There are also huge hidden European subsides that will come out in the Boeing WTO case. So, if you are going to compare EADS to Boeing, keep it apples and apples, and not apples to pineapples
.

Sorry, this is apples and apples, it is clear that out of either out of bias or hatred of Airbus, you don't reveal Washington state aid that is almost of the same value as launch aid for Airbus.

If Airbus opened a plant in Washington state, it would get the same so called break Boeing does. How much truth is in the situation I do not know, Boeing claimed it was being taxed at higher rates than other aerospace firms, demanded that it be adjusted and Washington did so.
And as I said above, you really think Boeing would allow Airbus to move to Washington state? As it was demonstrated by Gary Locke's administration when he was governor of Washington, if he and Boeing said Airbus could benefit, why didn't Locke woo Airbus to come to washington? The answer is clear..

http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0430/ ... boeing.php

Have you looked where Airbus set up shop? Alabama. Do you think they did not get an even bigger tax break?
Unlike Washington, Alabama actually sought Airbus to invest in the State of Alabama. Pretty sad IMO, because on the one hand Washington state says the laws it has in the books that benefit Boeing with aid and tax incentives would be given to any other manufacturer, yet it has resisted attempts to call on Airbus to invest in Washington, how come? Nevermind, I think we know the answer to that.

Boeing has never had launch aid for its aircraft, Airbus not only gets launch aid, it gets all the other subsides from European governments as well. As far as I can find, the only Airbus product that has ever paid back any launch aid is the A320 series. The A300 had to be truncated as the 767 was beating it. The A330/340 are not going to sell enough.
Right, Boeing never got launch aid for the 707, the government aid to develop the 367-80 as a military and a commercial program, and the state of Washington never made a loan to Boeing to build the 737 at Renton.

Bottom line is the subsidy thing is a big lie that people keep repeating, until everyone repeats it like its gospel.
Its not a big lie, again, go check out the incentives Boeing gets in Washington state aid and tax incentives, Japanese government aid to create jobs in Japan and Research and Development programs for Phantom Works division which is money Boeing doesn't pay back.

While we agree on part, you continue to repeat the myth about the Sonic Cruiser. It was in fact the vision and technology that lead directly to the 787. The Sonic Cruiser was way out there, but it was what freed up the Boeing thought process, got the technology out there was a possibility, and convinced the Airlines that Boeing did have a viable future and worth listening to.

The technology used in the Sonic Crusier that developed in the 787 was worthwhile, but the Sonic Cruiser concept was just a commercial unrealistic project, and it did cost Boeing at the time.