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
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1996.2380@ohare.Chicago.COM> Jean-Francois Bosc (firstname.lastname@example.org) 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.