Does it really matter... Boeing is now #2 anyways....what exactly did we win?

On September 15, 2010, the World Trade Organization ruled that Boeing had received billions of dollars in illegal government subsidies.

The WTO panel only found $2.6B in illegal state/federal subsidies after investigating a complaint from Airbus/EADS. Airbus complained that Boeing received over $7B subsidies. Of course this was after Airbus/EADS was found to have received $20B in illegal subsidies. Funny how that happens.

The WTO panel only found $2.6B in illegal state/federal subsidies after investigating a complaint from Airbus/EADS. Airbus complained that Boeing received over $7B subsidies. Of course this was after Airbus/EADS was found to have received $20B in illegal subsidies. Funny how that happens.

Very true. These facts above should be absorbed by some people here who claim that maybe Airbus isn't exactly "pure" but neither is Boeing, they all play the same game. :(

Lets face it most Americans want the world to buy American aircraft and protect American jobs,and most Europeans want the world to buy European aircraft and protect European jobs,nothing wrong or surprising about that,simple really :( .regards Jim

Lets face it most Americans want the world to buy American aircraft and protect American jobs,and most Europeans want the world to buy European aircraft and protect European jobs,nothing wrong or surprising about that,simple really :( .regards Jim

Jobs? That's yet to be seen. I'm sure this order will be just like any other and put on the backlog of the Everett factory. At the end of the day the same number of American jobs are created servicing the new fleet whether you buy them from Boeing or Lockheed Martin.. don't let Boeing bought politicians convince you otherwise.

Great! I would rather see jobs going to Americans, It just torques up my blood pressure when I see a French Coast Guard Falcon jet fly over :(

Great! I would rather see jobs going to Americans, It just torques up my blood pressure when I see a French Coast Guard Falcon jet fly over :(

Exactly!,and being a European myself I would rather....well...you know. :( regards Jim

I just want the Air Force to get the best aircraft they can for the money -- is that asking too much?scott s..

I just want the Air Force to get the best aircraft they can for the money -- is that asking too much?scott s.

Yes, because the concept of "better" is subjective according to how you weigh different perfromance parameters. For example Aircraft A. might be a bit faster but have less range than Aircraft B. and both cost the same. So how do you decide which one is better? What if there is also a difference in fuel tankage, in fuel mileage, in maintenance cost, etc. Now one of tem is more expensive than the other, but the more exepnsive one is foreign made, but is actually cheaper if you deduct taxes paid by the manufacturer, the suppliers, the suppliers to the suppliers and all their respective employees.So now which aircraft is "the best aircraft they can for the money"? You tell me.Cheers,- jahman.

I just want the Air Force to get the best aircraft they can for the money -- is that asking too much?

Yes, in fact it is asking too much because there is no single absolute yardstick that would tell you which one is 'best'. It is like asking which one is better Mercedes or BMW? You tell me. In the first round of competition they had a complicated formula with many points awarded for this or that but the formula itself was someone's capricious invention. In this last round they simplified the formula and basically reduced everything to the life-cost (which everyone, specially the taxpayer easily understands) provided both products meet war fighting needs. In other words they did away with awarding extra points based on "bells and whistles". I like this approach specially in current situation where really US can't afford to pay for 'bells and whistles'.

but is actually cheaper if you deduct taxes paid by the manufacturer, the suppliers, the suppliers to the suppliers and all their respective employees.

And at the end of the day the currency is devalued by 35 billion, So to make up for that every year America now has to give 1 billion of those so called taxes away to the the wealthiest americans and foreign governments like China just in interest payments. Besides the currency has been devalued so much in the last 2 years that EADS is probably happy the bid was rejected.

And at the end of the day the currency is devalued by 35 billion, so to make up for that every year America now has to give 1 billion of those so called taxes away to the the wealthiest americans and foreign governments like China just in interest payments.

The theory that a currecy devalues one for one for every dollar spent by the government is incorrect. No such relationship exists.

Besides the currency has been devalued so much in the last 2 years that EADS is probably happy the bid was rejected.

For foreign bids corporations lock-in the exchange rate long-term via currency swaps. Not an issue at all.Cheers,- jahman.

For foreign bids corporations lock-in the exchange rate long-term via currency swaps. Not an issue at all.

Exactly and since EADS didn't buy a currency swap they walked out of a suckers deal. If you haven't realized the currency works in the favour of Europeans there is no incentive for them to buy such an option in fact they were indirectly selling the US government an option by locking in the price in US dollars.

Exactly and since EADS didn't buy a currency swap they walked out of a suckers deal. If you haven't realized the currency works in the favour of Europeans there is no incentive for them to buy such an option in fact they were indirectly selling the US government an option by locking in the price in US dollars.

Not at all: Hedging currency exposure means making the exchange rate irrelevant. There is no optionality involved because the spot rate and the swap rates are locked-in at the date the bid is awarded. If there was any optionality to the hedge, the cost would be prohibitive. Further, trying to predict the way exchange rates move in a long-term transaction is foolish and many have been burnt in the past for doing so. If you think the dollar is going down the tubes vs. the euro, just wait until the next economic collapse of some ungovernable euro-nation on the mediterranean and see what happens. Or perhaps there is political upheaval in the Ukraine and the flow of russian gas to Europe is cut-off. Risk is risk, and this means you really don't know where the cannon shots will be coming from in the future. Turn the argument around, if you will: If Airbus really knew where currencies were headed they could maximize their shareholder returns by selling their aircraft manufacturing plants and using that capital to play the currency markets instead.Cheers,- jahman.

What does that have to do with anything... options are always priced using historical figures. And in the US currency has beened weaked consistantly in the last 10 years .. "The sun won't come up tommorow", do you think anyones offering options for that possibility?