10% Tariff on Euro Airbus Planes
 

U.S. airlines are scrambling to digest a new 10% tariff on European-made Airbus planes that threaten additional havoc in a market already reeling from frozen deliveries of Boeing Co's 737 MAX.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...ion/ar-AAIiruv

"Massive $7.5 Billion U.S. Award From WTO in Airbus Subsidy Case – Sets Stage for Countervailing Duties Against EU…"

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...lo3NF5tSjvfjDs

All this winning!!!!!:rolleyes:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-w...-idUSKBN1WH198

This isn't going to end well for anyone.

Tariff the 380s and put the 320s In cages!

We’re going to build a 797 and we’re making EADS pay for it!

If the WTO fines imposed on both end up to be fairly weighted based on the value of subsidies received, then neither company is getting an advantage. And for the governments, the tariff income is probably going to be less than the illegal subsidies in the first place.

The only group I can really see benefitting here is airlines that aren’t headquartered in the U.S. or Europe. If both Singapore Airlines and Delta Airlines both want to offer a New York to Singapore route using an Airbus A350 ULR, Delta may struggle to compete with an airline that can get the plane for 10 percent less than any American carrier can.

This, in general, highlights how ridiculous these disputes are. Make no mistake: this is not a part of the trade war or an application of Trumpian tit-for-tat economic retaliation. This is the result of 15 years of both companies publicly complaining about the subsidization of the other.

http://https://jalopnik.com/oh-god-t...1838821717/amp

Isn't this the exact problem with the US import/export bank anyway.....we use taxpayers money to subsidize funding of any overseas carrier willing to buy Boeing whcih specifically disadvantages US carriers.

Yes it is. That is unless your TDS causes you to prefer China and Europe over American workers.

Doesn't airbus have a similar program?

This is winning.

Heck yea it's winning, lots of new leverage to encourage Europe to allow fair trade on American agriculture products, which they refuse to budge on.
Also proves Trump's campaign "rhetoric" is real, and WTO agrees.

US can use tariffs to fund export bank and sell Boeings to Singapore. Ultimately we have no protections if Europe wants to give Singapore planes for free to compete against Delta.

Besides import export bank increases production volume lowering unit cost which saves airlines money.
Delta complained because we now know they aren't planning on buying Boeing. They don't mind unit production cost going up, since they're not shopping for them, and prefer a subsidized Airbus, then campaign to duck the tariff.
They truly are best of business.

The consumer, not the producer, pays for the tariffs; its just another word for tax. I'd rather keep my money in my pocket than help contribute to Boeing's stock purchase program.

https://www.ft.com/content/f3e640ee-...2-799a3a8cf37b

Europe give free Airbuses to Singapore so they can compete with Delta. LOL! That’s not just funny, that’s downright delusional. I’m not surprised, it’s to be expected in Trump’s America. On both sides though really.

Yes I know, Delta pays taraffis to US for buying a subsidized plane instead of Boeing. US uses tariff tax to fund bank of Boeing and sell American made planes. Everyone wins except the company who gets caught buying subsidized planes. Starting to look like a pattern after C series.

The other poster was suggesting Airbus will continue to sell subsidized planes to Singapore even after the US puts a stop or tariff on that practice. You must not have read the whole thread, and are taking that line out of context.
I really don't know what you think is to be expected.

Yes it does look like a pattern...
The tarrifs are on a range of consumer products 10% on planes and 25% on things like Olive oil, cheese etc...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nat...s-airbus%3famp

Maybe if Boeing designed an airplane that didn't have its batteries catch on fire mid-flight...or really, just designed an airplane instead of putting makeup on a 60 year old design, more people would buy their airplanes. Nah. We'll just sneak in a bunch of patchwork technology so it can be certified, use 3rd world coders fresh out of college, not tell anyone about it and then get surprised when they start flying into the dirt. That'll sell.

Or Delta can pay an un-subsidized price for an Airbus. I'am not loyal to Boeing, just want Europe to quit screwing over America. Like I said earlier I really hope they give Airbus a pass and use leverage to enter Europe's agricultural market.

All is fair in love and war. How much did Boeing subsidize the 787 and 777 when they were first released? How much does the US government overpay for tankers and fighter aircraft to keep Boeing afloat? It is in our best interest to keep Boeing afloat so we do.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/business/global/01trade.html

Argument is dead in water, US government over pays for everything, including the M17 Sig Sauer handguns made in Germany. Also the WTO handed the US this opinion.
It's not just and accusation without a rebuttal. Do you really think they didn't consider all arguments, and their creditability is the problem?
Delta is a fantastic airline, it doesn't mean a ruling against their financial interest is automatically corrupt.

Pretty sure the M17 is made in New Hampshire

Yes they do.

Thanks, I thought so.

Is it fair to say that more people work for airlines in the US that fly and have on order a large number of airbuses than work at Boeing? Seems to me protecting Boeing hurts more Americans than not protecting Boeing. I know this isn’t a trump issue but man this is gonna sting I suspect.

Are you people still crying about what happens to illegals?

Your posts in this thread once again display your ignorance.

Yes. Federal government policy of locking up innocent children (babies too) is wrong.

Could you imagine being in dire straits trying to do what you think is best and as a result someone takes away your baby.

Yes, if I broke another country’s laws I wouldn’t be surprised to find myself and or my children detained.

Seeking asylum is not a crime. Do you have kids?

And boom goes the dynamite

Last one in before the hammer?

I would murder for my kids. Get the point. You think laws will stop me?!

I wouldn’t get caught with my kids! A gringo mule would pack me in the back of the semi and truck me to San Antonio or where ever they would take me

I phrased it as a question for that reason. And that was my first post in this thread.

“Seeking Asylum” is simply the latest semantic work around to try and have open borders. And open borders is a long game to win elections. It has nothing to do with empathy.

But, pretending that BS is true for a moment, those seeking asylum can present themselves at a border crossing check point and formerly request it instead of illegally entering the country wherever they can and claim they are seeking asylum after getting caught. No one is chasing them once they pass Mexico’s Southern order.

No it’s both lawful and justified to detain and “lock up” illegal intruders.

Maybe don’t break the law?

They aren’t legitimate ”asylum” seekers, they are migrants who are abusing a system that really shouldn’t even exist. Luckily it’s come to a stop.

I'm sure you've never gotten a speeding ticket. Maybe you deserve to be locked in a cage indefinitely. I'd support it.

I spent 20 years in Honduras, plenty of minerals, good weather, no reason not to have a good economy, getting up before noon, prohibido.

Speeding is not equal to illegal immigration.