Delta Orders 75 CS100's

Reply

Old Oct 18, 17, 6:34 pm
  #376  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 1,028
Originally Posted by readywhenyouare View Post
Spare me. I have called for a level playing field for everyone. If you can't survive without government support then you don't deserve to be in business. I think you and others would be thrilled if Boeing went out of business. I've never heard any of you say anything good about them. Just on and on about that extra 0.5 in width of seat width that Airbus offers.

You are still ignoring the fact that the Boeing 737-7 does compete with the C300 of which Delta has options to convert to. If this was just the C100 then I would agree that Boeing wasn't harmed. Bombardier received a massive cash injections and then sold the C Series way below cost. Boeing and Airbus can sell the 737NG and A320ceo cheap because the programs have long been paid off. Bombardier can't claim that with the C Series.


This is alarmingly nave. The aviation manufacturing industry will never ever be a "level playing field." Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier, Embraer, Comac all receive generous benefits from their governments - the optics of these generous benefits vary, but nonetheless, all of these entities are subsidized by their governments. Given the barriers to entry into the industry and the capital required relative to the risks of developing a new product line, it would be impossible for any of these entities to survive without government subsidies. That being said, for companies that are all heavily subsidized by their governments, given how many aircraft all of these manufacturers sell, the competition and the pricing does not seem to be uneven or unfair as a result of subsidies, but as a result of differences in the manufacturing process and cost of labor.


I don't think there is a single person on here that would want Boeing to fail, especially considering that I would assume most of the people on the Delta forum live in the U.S. and given the number of jobs and GDP that Boeing generates, a failure of Boeing would likely drive the U.S. into recession overnight. I think criticism of Boeing is more due to the fact that once-upon-a-time, they produced the best aircraft, then Airbus moved slightly ahead from the passenger's perspective. Boeing didn't respond with products that keep up with Airbus's products. Management for both companies made some poor decisions, but Airbus's bad decisions were in capital investment and Boeing's bad decisions were partially in capital investment, but mostly in operations. You can move forward a lot easier from a bad investment in an A380 (painful as it may be) than you can from decisions lead to your competitor having a more efficient manufacturing process and lower labor costs. Now Airbus has a competitive advantage and Boeing simply needs a kick in the butt to get it moving in the right direction again, for passengers' and the nation's sake. Short term pain for Boeing will be better in the long term for everyone.
spin88 and WesTraveller like this.
The Situation is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 17, 6:41 pm
  #377  
C W
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: LON, PDX
Programs: DL PM, AS MVP 75K, HH/SPG/MR Gold, Amex Plat, PRG, CSR
Posts: 2,064
Originally Posted by The Situation View Post
This is alarmingly nave. The aviation manufacturing industry will never ever be a "level playing field." Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier, Embraer, Comac all receive generous benefits from their governments - the optics of these generous benefits vary, but nonetheless, all of these entities are subsidized by their governments. Given the barriers to entry into the industry and the capital required relative to the risks of developing a new product line, it would be impossible for any of these entities to survive without government subsidies. That being said, for companies that are all heavily subsidized by their governments, given how many aircraft all of these manufacturers sell, the competition and the pricing does not seem to be uneven or unfair as a result of subsidies, but as a result of differences in the manufacturing process and cost of labor.


I don't think there is a single person on here that would want Boeing to fail, especially considering that I would assume most of the people on the Delta forum live in the U.S. and given the number of jobs and GDP that Boeing generates, a failure of Boeing would likely drive the U.S. into recession overnight. I think criticism of Boeing is more due to the fact that once-upon-a-time, they produced the best aircraft, then Airbus moved slightly ahead from the passenger's perspective. Boeing didn't respond with products that keep up with Airbus's products. Management for both companies made some poor decisions, but Airbus's bad decisions were in capital investment and Boeing's bad decisions were partially in capital investment, but mostly in operations. You can move forward a lot easier from a bad investment in an A380 (painful as it may be) than you can from decisions lead to your competitor having a more efficient manufacturing process and lower labor costs. Now Airbus has a competitive advantage and Boeing simply needs a kick in the butt to get it moving in the right direction again, for passengers' and the nation's sake. Short term pain for Boeing will be better in the long term for everyone.
Very well said, fantastic analysis!
spin88 likes this.
C W is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 17, 6:47 pm
  #378  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AC SE100K, 1MM, NH, DL, AA, GE/Nexus, APEC..
Posts: 15,281
Originally Posted by C W View Post
Very well said, fantastic analysis!
Absolutely. +1
spin88 likes this.
24left is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 17, 6:52 pm
  #379  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando, FL Area
Programs: Delta SkySponge ExtraAbsorbant, SPG Gold
Posts: 22,651
Wow, it appears I am one of the few supporters of a free market on FT. It's quite alarming that you think the taxpayers should be supporting private industries.
readywhenyouare is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 17, 6:57 pm
  #380  
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: DCA
Programs: DL PM, UA Silver, Marriott Platinum, Hilton Gold
Posts: 5,514
Originally Posted by readywhenyouare View Post
Wow, it appears I am one of the few supporters of a free market on FT. It's quite alarming that you think the taxpayers should be supporting private industries.
Grow up. Free market does not mean the world of Ayn Rand. For industries critical to the nation (like aircraft production), government is going to play a role (and it should frankly).
WWads is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 17, 6:58 pm
  #381  
C W
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: LON, PDX
Programs: DL PM, AS MVP 75K, HH/SPG/MR Gold, Amex Plat, PRG, CSR
Posts: 2,064
Originally Posted by readywhenyouare View Post
Wow, it appears I am one of the few supporters of a free market on FT. It's quite alarming that you think the taxpayers should be supporting private industries.
I'm a staunch free market and free trade supporter. But I don't let it turn into dogmatism that clouds my ability to see how complex markets and geopolitics actually work. The Situation has done a superb job of laying out some of the realities of the global aerospace industry and the simple truth is that all major aerospace companies will be subsidized by their respective governments for the foreseeable future as a matter of economic and military national security. It cannot be just simplified as you've suggested to:
Originally Posted by readywhenyouare View Post
no subsidies, tax breaks, etc for anyone
C W is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 17, 6:58 pm
  #382  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando, FL Area
Programs: Delta SkySponge ExtraAbsorbant, SPG Gold
Posts: 22,651
Originally Posted by WWads View Post
Grow up. Free market does not mean the world of Ayn Rand. For industries critical to the nation (like aircraft production), government is going to play a role (and it should frankly).
If the support was equal you might have a point. It isn't. Favorites are being played.
readywhenyouare is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 17, 7:32 pm
  #383  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,079
How are you going to compensate for the fact that most of these foreign companies have virtually no costs in employee benefits such as health care or pension/retirement benefit costs? That is a taxpayer funded subsidy, if you will. Corporate taxation is another national variable that cannot be equalized very easily. The idea that you are just going to produce a "level playing field" by fiat is a notion that only your apparent orange-haired hero would hold.
flyerslc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 17, 7:36 pm
  #384  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando, FL Area
Programs: Delta SkySponge ExtraAbsorbant, SPG Gold
Posts: 22,651
Originally Posted by flyerslc View Post
How are you going to compensate for the fact that most of these foreign companies have virtually no costs in employee benefits such as health care or pension/retirement benefit costs? That is a taxpayer funded subsidy, if you will. Corporate taxation is another national variable that cannot be equalized very easily. The idea that you are just going to produce a "level playing field" by fiat is a notion that only your apparent orange-haired hero would hold.
What a nasty comment. You should be ashamed of yourself. Leave politics out of this.
readywhenyouare is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 17, 7:56 pm
  #385  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Hilton Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: San Antonio
Programs: DL DM, AA EXP, NW Plat, Former CO Gold, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 14,752
Originally Posted by flyerslc View Post
How are you going to compensate for the fact that most of these foreign companies have virtually no costs in employee benefits such as health care or pension/retirement benefit costs? That is a taxpayer funded subsidy, if you will. Corporate taxation is another national variable that cannot be equalized very easily. The idea that you are just going to produce a "level playing field" by fiat is a notion that only your apparent orange-haired hero would hold.
Yes because US companies don't unload their pensions onto the US government instead of funding them.
flyerCO is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 17, 8:08 pm
  #386  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SFO/SJC
Programs: DL Gold, Marriott
Posts: 2,181
Originally Posted by readywhenyouare View Post
What a nasty comment. You should be ashamed of yourself. Leave politics out of this.
But this whole thing is all about politics. I think it's fairly safe to say that without the current administration's anti-trade policies, this deal likely would not have happened last week and none of us would be discussing it now.

A level playing field is a noble goal, but not a realistic scenario.
kjnangre is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 17, 8:10 pm
  #387  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando, FL Area
Programs: Delta SkySponge ExtraAbsorbant, SPG Gold
Posts: 22,651
Originally Posted by kjnangre View Post
But this whole thing is all about politics. I think it's fairly safe to say that without the current administration's anti-trade policies, this deal likely would not have happened last week and none of us would be discussing it now.
Hypothetically, if Boeing were to refuse any future tax breaks would you side with them or would you still defend Airbus no matter what?
readywhenyouare is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 17, 8:17 pm
  #388  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SFO/SJC
Programs: DL Gold, Marriott
Posts: 2,181
Originally Posted by readywhenyouare View Post
Hypothetically, if Boeing were to refuse any future tax breaks would you side with them or would you still defend Airbus no matter what?
I don't defend Airbus no matter what. I have no dog in this fight. Last week I defended Boeing when I felt some of the comments went too far the other way.

Originally Posted by kjnangre View Post
All that Boeing did is request that the law be enforced. Boeing didn't write the law.
kjnangre is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 17, 8:23 pm
  #389  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,155
Originally Posted by The Situation View Post
This is alarmingly nave. The aviation manufacturing industry will never ever be a "level playing field." Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier, Embraer, Comac all receive generous benefits from their governments - the optics of these generous benefits vary, but nonetheless, all of these entities are subsidized by their governments. Given the barriers to entry into the industry and the capital required relative to the risks of developing a new product line, it would be impossible for any of these entities to survive without government subsidies. That being said, for companies that are all heavily subsidized by their governments, given how many aircraft all of these manufacturers sell, the competition and the pricing does not seem to be uneven or unfair as a result of subsidies, but as a result of differences in the manufacturing process and cost of labor.


I don't think there is a single person on here that would want Boeing to fail, especially considering that I would assume most of the people on the Delta forum live in the U.S. and given the number of jobs and GDP that Boeing generates, a failure of Boeing would likely drive the U.S. into recession overnight. I think criticism of Boeing is more due to the fact that once-upon-a-time, they produced the best aircraft, then Airbus moved slightly ahead from the passenger's perspective. Boeing didn't respond with products that keep up with Airbus's products. Management for both companies made some poor decisions, but Airbus's bad decisions were in capital investment and Boeing's bad decisions were partially in capital investment, but mostly in operations. You can move forward a lot easier from a bad investment in an A380 (painful as it may be) than you can from decisions lead to your competitor having a more efficient manufacturing process and lower labor costs. Now Airbus has a competitive advantage and Boeing simply needs a kick in the butt to get it moving in the right direction again, for passengers' and the nation's sake. Short term pain for Boeing will be better in the long term for everyone.
I can't think of a recent program that was directly paid for by tax payers from Boeing, Airbus or Embraer. Tax breaks? oh hell yes, but a failing program that gets a government bail out and its two biggest orders are from 1) an airline who was going to by the EMB but changed because BBD was offering the model below cost 2) an airline that didn't really want the CS or EMB but its government was going to force it to bring its maintenance back in-house and in Canada if they didn't order the new government jobs program in the CS. (and force its maintenance to be done in Canada).

as for this competitive advantage Airbus supposedly has, Boeing and the 737 and Airbus and the A320 are basically tied as far as orders go. I know FT likes to think that extra half inch of seat width matters, it doesn't.
I'll bet anyone who wants to bet that Delta ends up with both the MAX and NEO in the fleet.
Dawgfan6291 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 17, 8:23 pm
  #390  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AC SE100K, 1MM, NH, DL, AA, GE/Nexus, APEC..
Posts: 15,281
Originally Posted by readywhenyouare View Post
Hypothetically, if Boeing were to refuse any future tax breaks would you side with them or would you still defend Airbus no matter what?
(bolding mine)

Those words you wrote were quite the reveal. It seems for you, it's about taking sides and your interpretation of which is the right side.

Some eloquent FTers above, notably @The Situation @C W @Guava and others, have pointed out details which have explained many things, aircraft purchases, geopolitics, trade among them, yet you continue to focus on sides.

The side you should be on is Delta bought a fantastic aircraft which meets its service needs.

You are certainly entitled to dislike Airbus or comments made by others or articles written in aviation publications.

But it isn't about sides.
24left is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread