nobody wrote in news:417DD6A4.2522C9E6@nobody.org:
> Lee Witten wrote:
>> So on the A380, the taxpayers get nothing untill 400 A380s are bought
>> and paid for, and will only get to the break even point when 1000
>> (gasp) A380s are bought and paid for.
> If governments were banks, then that is correct. But governments
> collect taxes from every employed person as well as sales of goods and
> services. And for every job that is created, it measn one less person
> on welfare/dole/unemployment insurance.
You seem to be presuming that Airbus can't get commercial loans to fund
all of its development efforts. Wrong. Boeing's been doing it for
decades now, and Airbus is now a healty and wealthy aircraft
manufacturer. They can get loans if their programs are sensible, but
they don't want to get loans with commercial terms and conditions if
they don't have to.
And if Airbus would get commercial loans for all of its development
efforts, the EU countries would still get all the benefits you mention,
plus their taxpayers would have more money in their pockets or their
government could apply it to others on the dole, and the banks could
make some more money too. The only losers would be Airbus and their
customers, since Airbus would have to charge more for their airplanes or
make less profit on each airplane.
Of course, the main winners would be Boeing and their customers, so
given the fact that Boeing has very little leverage and there's so
little goodwill between all the parties involved, chances are very high
things won't change any time soon.
> The current Airbus subsidies are repayable, even if at very
> "comfortable" terms.
Well, they are not repayable if the program is not successful. And whie
that seems to be a narrow distinction, it's a huge risk reduction
factor. They are given one third of the entire development cost right
up front. The lenders of the other two thirds know that the government
will not want to loose their one third, so they know if things go very
bad chances are good the government will pony up more money. This is
the nirvana of risk reduction.
> Right now, the 350 is to the 7E7 what Boeing's "super 747" was to the
> 380. Just a rumour to make airlines delay their commitment to the 7E7
> in case Airbus does come up with something interesting.
An interesting theory. In days gone by, I might think you were a cynic,
but these days one doesn't know any more.
I do find it interesting how the A350 seems to have changed from the
initial idea of a A300/B757/B767 replacement into something that looks
more like a direct competitor to the low end of the B777 line. I wonder
if Airbus isn't shooting too high, and perhaps missing out on the
replacement market for the smaller airplanes.
I am looking forward to seeing what Airbus does propose for the A350. I
guess when push comes to shove I am not as cynical as you and I do think
they are working on a real airplane project, and I think that's a good
thing. I like airplanes, and I'm glad when I see new ideas take flight.
--lw-- |