The sad thing is you are so clueless that you would even make a statement like that. You do realize that in your rush towards protectionism, statements and positions like the above could well slit the throats of thousands of American unionized workers? You know that ones that have jobs because their companies sell products overseas with the help of Ex-Im financing. It's not just Boeing aircraft that are sold with Ex-Im financing.

Please people, do some research and reading on your own before buying ALPA's tripe:

The FACTS About EXIM Bank | EXIM.gov



Typhoonpilot

As opposed the the EXIM's tripe?

Boeing and Obama sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G | WashingtonExaminer.com
"In fact, President Obama's export subsidy agency funneled 82.7 percent of its taxpayer-backed loan guarantees to just one exporter: Boeing. Out of $14.7 billion in long-term loan guarantees in fiscal year 2012, $12.2 billion subsidized Boeing sales, according to Ex-Im's annual report issued last week.

EXIM Bank is a tad bit controversial. This Is What Crony Capitalism Looks Like: Boeing Is Threatening to Move Abroad if It Doesn't Get to Keep Its Ex-Im Subsidies | National Review Online

Andy:

You generally make good posts, but that one is not even close to accurate. Please go read EXIM's 2012 annual report. You'll find that their total financing was $35.8 billion, of which $11.5 billion was for aircraft and avionics. So that's 32.1%, certainly not all of which is to Boeing. In fact quite a substantial amount to Gulfstream, Textron, Sikorsky, Lockheed Martin, and General Electric.


http://www.exim.gov/sites/default/fi...nualreport.pdf


Typhoonpilot

Quick response; I'll review the annual report, but if you're limiting the Boeing EXIM guarantees to aircraft/avionics, you're missing quite a bit of Boeing's guarantees. I'll amend my post once I review the numbers.

Typhoon,

Why do the ME3(very wealthy nations)even need ex/im funding?

OK, I see on page 33 where, combining Loans + Guarantees + Insurance, you get $35.8 Billion. Of which, United Arab Emirates is the largest recipient with $3.3 Billion. Interesting that they count the US, with $4.8 Billion in guarantees - US companies aren't eligible for EXIM.


The higher number for Boeing is due to satellite sales in addition to aircraft.

They really don't, and in fact have curtailed if not eliminated it entirely. So ALPA's attack on EXIM, if successful, could result in the loss of tens of thousands of U.S. jobs with no material affect on the airlines in question. Typical brilliant ALPA strategy.


Typhoonpilot

For the UAE I believe it was $1.2 billion between Etihad and Emirates, the rest was other.

Did you not see that Atlas Air, a U.S. company, had $864 million in there?


Typhoonpilot

OK, now you're engaging in over exaggerations. Many of those purchases would occur with or without EXIM financing.

I did. You understand that they aren't supposed to be eligible for EXIM loans/guarantees because they're a US company, right?

But I oppose the UAE receiving any EXIM money; they are not who the program was set up for. And I'm sure you know that.

He#$@, it's all borrowed taxpayer money anyway, let's just have the US Government subsidize/finance all aircraft purchases to all companies, then problem solved for subsidies until...... oh the taxpayer is the one left holding the bag.

Wait till Iran / Saudi trade nukes in their proxy war between the suni and shia and see how people react to the new "international" airline system based in UAE.

Nice try attempting to keep your little sheik's welfare checks coming. Through heavy lobying you may succeed, but its never looked less likely for you than it does now. BTW your megalomaniac emperor Tim Clark admitted he would still buy the planes he wanted regardless of his welfare check. So swing and a miss with the fake concern with American union workers. :rolleyes:

I don't believe it is an over-exaggeration. If a U.S. company can compete against a foreign competitor to win a contract based, in part, on offering good terms on financing (or financing period) then taking away that portion of their proposal could have adverse implications on winning the contracts in the first place.

Take Boeing out of the equation for a minute. In 2012 there were over $25 billion dollars in U.S. goods and services sold overseas as a result of EXIM financing. Maybe some of those deals could have been done with other means. We'll never know. But let's say 25% could not have been done. That's a $6.25 billion hit to the U.S. economy. Exactly how many jobs would that represent? I'm not an economist so I can't say for sure, but let's guess 30% of that revenue goes to salaries and let's just say a salary of $100,000/year. That equates to 18,750 jobs at $100,000/year or 37,500 job s at $50,000/year.


My understanding is there are times that it can be used for U.S. companies.

See the first portion of this post. You would rather a deal be done for a French company and French workers?



Typhoonpilot

I see reading comprehension isn't your forte.

At least I can have an intelligent conversation with Andy. He takes the time to research and come up with good points We may not agree, but I certainly respect him for his intelligence. You just rely on simplistic fear mongering hatred and rhetoric.


TP

Your fake little Airline Empire business models depend on transferring mass quantities of current US and EU airline capacity to your prescious ME3 tax shelters. Yet they havebeen exposed and now your world domination manifest destiny is seriously in jeopardy.

Oh, but we have to prop up the ME3 model, to save hard working American union jobs! :rolleyes: I can't wait to see the ME3 choke on their super jumbo orders. Its going to happen.

He tried to make that point before. He forgets that Airbus hires US workers as well. If Boeing were to lose any orders due to the whole EXIM banking deal (and that's an "if"), Airbus gets the orders, then THEY hire US workers to design and build their aircraft.

It's amazing to me that people like TP bash organizations like ALPA, but are so quick to defend airlines that literally are play things for a group of Middle East authoritarian dictators. The sheikhs and emirs that we are dealing with in Qatar and UEA are bad dudes. There are no elections or free press. There are certainly no unions or organized labor.

For a recent example of the kind of tyrants we're dealing with and TP is defending, Qatar just arrested a BBC news crew for trying to report on the plight of their imported foreign workers making all those shiny buildings in Qatar. The news crew was tailed by government security the entire time they were there, thrown in jail, and then had their footage taken away from them. Nice guys those emirs, huh?

I wonder if TP and those like-minded would defend Kim Jong-un if North Korea started an international airline and started dumping subsidized capacity "with really good customer service" into the marketplace?

If he thought he could break him off a piece of that sweet tax shelter shiny widebody captain expat lifestyle he absolutely would. He's a labor arbitrage agent provocateur union buster only out for himself.

US exports in 2012 were $2.2 trillion. EXIM can disappear, reducing US taxpayer risk to zero on foreign loans/guarantees/insurance and it might decrease US exports by 1%. I can live with that risk and doubt that it would have much of a negative impact on the US when the current unemployment rate is below 6%.

I know EXIM states that they're making money for the US, but there's significant risk involved with the loans/guarantees/insurance. And seeing that the government states that student loans are profitable in spite of a >20% default rate, I don't trust any government accounting that states that any government program is profitable without an unbiased third party audit.


What I find so humorous about the EXIM reauthorization is that Republicans call it corporate welfare. Support for the program isn't that strong and it will require threading a needle to cobble enough Dem and GOP votes to reauthorize the program. Personally, I see it as corporate welfare. I thank airlines such as Etihad and Emirates that have abused the program; it makes it that much harder to get it reauthorized.

A far more likely scenario is that it does get reauthorized…but cuts out the ME3 and their widebody welfare checks. And they will still buy Boeing AC. They might cancel a small order just for effect but their growth plans with BA AC will barely be effected.

And if its so "profitable" why don't we let US airlines get the same welfare check? Its a Keynesian miracle! Weeeeeeeeee!

There's a whole lot of pork in the program, but they made the mistake of concentrating the welfare in a few Dem states. Not going to get much support from flyover states.
Better to let the entire inefficient porkbarrel agency die.

And the private banks can make a reasonable argument that it costs them profits.

Oh I agree 100%. I'd prefer to see it die. I haven't seen a tenative vote tally on this, but I suspect almost every D will vote to keep it and there will be enough crony/facist R's to push it over the top. But the margin is so tight and the ME3 issue to hot right now (with over 260 bipartisan house members in support of investigating them) that it appears in order to squeak by getting the entire program renewed will take some meaningful reforms at the most contentious level which is the Bank of Boeing welfare checks to the sheiks. Even ALPA and A4A said they can keep getting the welfare checks, as long as its for narrow body planes only.

Renewal at all is very much in question, but IMO looks like it will barely squeak by. But it also looks like the ME3 welfare checks may be coming to an end. If they try to punish us in any way for that, all that does is unify us against their illegal EU-US push and their existing quantum subsidy issue. If they try to kick our free defense out of their little region, they can eat the next Arab spring all by themselves LOL! Either way we win.

In the meantime in Holland...
 

http://www.travelpulse.com/news/airlines/dutch-government-freezes-gulf-carrier-routes.html

http://www.etihad.com/Documents/keep...ics-Report.pdf

Latest Etihad report, number two. Still doesn't address the subsidies they are receiving. Wonder why they spent 120+ pages denying that they aren't "stealing passengers" from the US carriers, but can't put similar effort into disproving the subsidies they are receiving? Hmmmm........

So it's not just subsidies.

For those who have any doubt that Qatar, the airline, and Qatar, the government, are one and the same:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/want-q...142010261.html