Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses

Date:         27 Dec 96 04:41:04 
From:         alexander.mclellan@eurocontrol.be (McLELLAN Alexander, DED/1)
References:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Followups:    1 2
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

Someone (my mail program  doesn't tell me who!) wrote:

>As you said it in the first sentence, it's all speculative.  I'm not
>going to argue with you whether MDC would have been an effective
>competitor for Boeing or not.  My point is with or without Airbus, Boeing
>would have competition.  Competition from Airbus is good.  However,
> I can't find this as a justification for subsidies.  I can understand
>Airbus's initial needs for the A300.  However, after having captured more
>than 30% of the market, they still need help to launch the A3XX is
>unexcusable.

Someone else wrote, in Flight International for 9-15 October 1996, :

"NASA's Lewis Research Centre has selected Williams International and
Teledyne
Continental Motors (TCM) to develop powerplant technology for
next-generation light aircraft:

<snip>

"The four year co-operation agreement ... is valued at $37million"

<snip>

"NASA will fund equally a $9.5million, three-year project to develop an
'intermittent combustion' (IC) engine for entry-level general-aviation
aircraft"

So, to my question: "when is a subsidy not a subsidy? when it's loans that
have to be repaid? or when its an R&D grant of $37million or 9.5 million"

(I should say that I'm not against such grants/loans in principle - I'm
against the pretence that only some governments make such
grants/loans/subsidies.)

Regards

Alex