Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses

Date:         08 Dec 96 04:12:42 
From:         Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang)
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
References:   1 2
Followups:    1 2 3 4 5
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure


In article <airliners.1996.2380@ohare.Chicago.COM> Jean-Francois Bosc (bosc@perige.eis.enac.dgac.fr) wrote:
>
> Another recurrent comment is that Airbus planes are cheap because of government
> funding. This may have been true in the past, but not any more (since several
> years). The fact is that the only governments helps allowed by the European
> Commission, and provided by governments, are loans, which _are_ being returned
> after a while.
>

At market rate?  Most likely not.  Then, it's a subsidy.  Also, most
surveys show productivity of European labor is in general less than their
American counterpart.  Land in Europe is more scarce, and hence more
expensive, than the US.  (Almost everything in Europe is more expensive
than the US.)  In addition, because of Airbus's structure, Airbus divides
all the workload amongst its partners and doesn't look for the most
cost-effective subcontractors.  Both Boeing and McD had gone through massive
resturcturing to reduce cost a few years earlier, but not all Airbus's
partners did.  Then, can you explain why Airbus's pricing has been so
competitive?  Especially considering the fact that Airbus does not have a
lucrative B747 production line to "subsidize" its products.

P.S. FWIW, I'm an Asian with a US e-mail address.  Am I pro-Boeing and
     anti-Airbus?  I don't think I am.  Otherwise, would I have posted
     Seattle Times' articles on the B737?  No doubt that there are quite
     a few die-hard Boeing fans.  Nevertheless, IMHO, many of those
     criticisms on Airbus are very valid ones.