FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1990
1990 - 2109.PDF
FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL Quadrant House. The Quadrant, Sutton, Surrey SM25AS, England FLIGHT TELEPHONE NUMBERS If dialling from outside the Uniled Kingdom prefix numbers with +4481. For example 081-6613321 becomes +44816613321. EDITORIAL ENQUIRIES: 081-6613321 EDITORIAL FAX: 081-6613840 DISPLAY ADVERTISING: 081-6613315 DISPLAY ADV. FAX: 081-661 8981 CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING: 081-661 6373 CLASSIFIED ADV. FAX: 081-642 4431 TELEX: 892084 REEDBPG EDITOR Allan Winn 081-661 3882 DEPUTY EDITOR Graham Warwick 081-661 8808 ASSISTANT EDITOR ART AND PRODUCTION Forbes Mutch 081-661 3852 ASSISTANT EDITOR, SPECIAL PROJECTS Tom Hamill 081 -6613096 NEWS EDITOR Andrew Chuter 081-661 3B43 OPERATIONS EDITOR Mike Gaines 081-661 8809 TECHNICAL EDITOR Guy Norris 081-661 3835 AIR TRANSPORT EDITOR David Learmount 081 -661 3845 REPORTERS Eric Beech 081 -661 3837 Andrew Cadogan 081-661 3844 Simon Ellioll 081-661 3838 Ian Goold 081 -661 3834 Alan Postlethwaite 081-661 3839 CHIEF SUB EDITOR Stephen Spark 081 -661 3847 SUB EDITOR Annabel Goddard 081 -661 3848 ART EDITOR Colin Paine 081 -661 3850 LAYOUT ARTIST Mike Wells081-661 3828 TECHNICAL ARTISTS Ira Eplon 081-661 8054 Tim Hall 081-661 8047 John Marsden 081-661 8054 EUROPEAN EDITOR Julian Moxon, Jan Lindtslraal 4.1990 Hoeilaart, Belgium (32)2 657 9689 WASHINGTON BUREAU Kieran Oaly (202) 547-2624 FAX (202) 547-5338 LOS ANGELES BUREAU John Bailey (714) 760-6618 FAX (714) 760-6619 PARIS CORRESPONDENT Gilbert Sedbon (1) 4825 5261 ISRAEL CORRESPONDENT Arie Egozi (3) 9671155 US WEST COAST CORRESPONDENT Norman Lynn 1408) 778-0889 FAX (408) 778-9976 SPACEFLIGHT CORRESPONDENT Tim Furniss 02375 756 FAX 02375 600 DISPLAY ADVERTISEMENT SALES MANAGER CliveRichardson 081-661 3315 VICE-PRESIDENT US SALES John Tidy (714) 756-1057 CLASSIFIED ADVERTISEMENT SALES 081-661 6373 RECRUITMENT 081 6616373 ADVERTISEMENT PRODUCTION Howard Mason 081-6613267 PUBLISHER Gavin Howe For lull advertisement sales information see page 52 SUBSCRIPTIONS MANAGER A Waldcn (0444) 441212 SUBSCRIPTION ENQUIRIES Oaklield House, Perrymounl Road, Haywards Heath, Wesl Sussex RH16 30H, England. BACK NUMBERS Limited numbers ol RECENT ISSUES ONLY are available at £1 75/copy (CASH WITH ORDER ONLY) from Flight International Room L531, Quadrant House, The Quadrant Sutton, Surrey SM2 5AS. USA NEWSSTAND SALES ENQUIRIES Worldwide Media Service Inc. (toll-free), 1-80O-345-6478 rati Member ol the Audit Bureau of Circulation COMMENT Seeing red over grey The renewed conflict between the USA and Europe over allegations of unfair subsidies to Airbus Industrie reflects no credit on the industry or politicians — nor does it have much relevance. Moreover, this is a dispute for which there is no obvious solution: it is one in which there are not even definable shades of grey, far less clear-cut blacks and whites. Even defining the terms of dispute is fraught with difficulty. The USA talks of the European governments (France, Spain, West Germany and the United Kingdom) giving subsidies to Airbus Industrie. They do not. Each has grant ed "launch aid" (or whatever particular euphemism it chooses) to a man ufacturer or manu facturers in its own territory. Airbus Industrie is not a company or corporation, but a groupement d'interet economique (GIE) — a grouping of mutual economic interest. It does not manufacture air craft: it pays its partners and subcontractors to design, build and assemble airliners, which it sells to customers. Airbus itself does not make profits yet (al though its chairman, Jean Pierson, says that it will within five years) — its individual partners and contractors, however, can and do. It is those companies which have received govern ment assistance according to the individual governments' perceptions of social and eco nomic needs or priorities. The Airbus argument is that, even though it does not make profits itself, its activities generate both profits and wealth within Europe. The system may have its faults, but it has both produced a stable, interlinked European manufacturing industry and helped to support a wealthy European economy which can afford to buy both European and American airliners. The subsidies exist, but are undoubtedly small er than they would have been had each of the major partner countries attempted to sustain its own, independent airliner manufacturing industry. American companies like Boeing and Mc Donnell Douglas claim that they do not receive government subsidies for their civil pro- Lhe only real difference between Airbus, McDonnell and Boeing is the visibility of their government support" grammes. Their opponents argue that US Gov ernment support of military programmes has allowed them to benefit, not only through spin offs but through being able to devote their resources to civil projects. Boeing, they claim, had a giant leg-up at the birth of jet transport through the 707-lookalike C-135 programme. McDonnell became a dominant force in airliners as a result of the US military's massive purchases of C-47s, C-54s and C-118s (DC-3s, DC-4s and DC-6s in civil terms) in the 1940s and '50s, and never looked back. The UK Government's civil reserve fleet programme has helped their UK airline customers to buy and maintain their aircraft. The only real dif ference that lies between Airbus, McDonnell and Boeing, many would argue, is the visibili ty of their govern ment support. Far more impor tant is the question of the value of squabbling over this matter. The air craft industry needs -J2 —' a non-US-based air liner manufacturer for all sorts of reasons. The demand for new airliners is such that Boeing and McDonnell would have to gear up for far higher production were there no Airbus. McDonnell has demonstrated all too clearly in recent months that a healthy orderbook for successful civil programmes is a very two-edged sword — the cost of development and produc- ton now can outweigh the benefit of future revenues. Even the mighty Boeing has had to tread carefully and balance its existing pro grammes before it could afford to launch the hugely expensive 777. Higher production is itself a doubled-edge danger. Not only is there the expense of setting up greater capacity: there is the enormous burden of that extra capacity to bear come the inevitable downturn in demand. For all the emotion and the gut feelings, it is unlikely that the size or nature of government support for any of the big three manufacturers has had any lasting effect on either of its competitors. An agreement to stop or limit subsidies (or even to define what they are) will have little significance other than to remove a source of disagreement. There must be a more productive use of resources than that. • FUGHT INTERNATIONAL 1-7 August 1990
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
