<s id="lrmph"><strong id="lrmph"></strong></s>
    <menuitem id="lrmph"><dfn id="lrmph"><menu id="lrmph"></menu></dfn></menuitem>

  1. <bdo id="lrmph"></bdo>
  2. <nobr id="lrmph"><optgroup id="lrmph"></optgroup></nobr><track id="lrmph"></track>

      <bdo id="lrmph"></bdo>

        In order to give you a better service Airbus uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies I agree

        The WTO dispute: Airbus advocates fair and balanced trade

        Airbus continues to seek opportunities for a global and balanced agreement

        The context

        WTO EU/US Trade Dispute Concerning Alleged Subsidies to the Large Civil Aircraft Manufacturers Airbus and Boeing

        A fair and balanced trade environment and an integrated and smoothly-functioning global supply chain is the foundation of the global aviation industry. Airbus’ position has always been: no one wins in a trade conflict and all benefit from open markets and a level playing field.

        What Airbus is doing

        Airbus is calling on Boeing to come to the table to reach a reasonable settlement on aircraft manufacturing before it is too late.?


        The U.S. Case against the EU - DS316

        The US claims that Airbus receives billions of Euros in subsidies that are prohibited or otherwise inconsistent with WTO rules. This claim is a myth, and has been largely rejected by the WTO. The reality is that the financing Airbus received from the Member States is repayable with interest, as agreed to by the US in the 1992 Agreement.

        In the original proceedings, the WTO panel found that financing by the Member States in the form of repayable launch investment (“RLI”) does not constitute a subsidy per se, in contrast to grants or industry-specific tax breaks. Instead, specific instances of RLI involved subsidies only if the interest due fell short of market rates. Moreover, the WTO confirmed that RLI does not constitute a prohibited subsidy.

        Ultimately, however, the WTO found that individual instances of RLI, historic capital contributions to Airbus made in the 1980s and early 1990s, and a small number of infrastructure support measures, constitute subsidies that cause competitive harm in the market place. Specifically, the WTO attributed a small number of sales that Airbus won and Boeing lost, as well as market share losses by Boeing in a small number of markets, to the EU support. The WTO directed the EU to remove the adverse effects of the subsidies, or to withdraw the subsidies.

        In response, in December 2011, the EU presented a comprehensive set of actions taken to address the WTO findings and recommendations. The US asserted that these steps were insufficient and decided to launch WTO proceedings to review the EU’s compliance measures.

        The resulting compliance proceedings concluded on 15 May 2018. The Appellate Body clarified that the EU had complied with the WTO findings with respect to the Airbus A300, A310, A320, A330 and A340 programmes. And it rejected US claims that RLI for the A380 and A350 XWB were prohibited or that RLI for the A380 and A350 XWB enabled Airbus to bring to market aircraft that it could not otherwise have launched and developed. As such, only some minor changes needed to be made by the EU and Airbus in relation to the A380 and A350 XWB. Within days of the decision, the EU and Airbus responded by announcing a further set of measures taken to comply with the Appellate Body report.

        On 29 May 2018, the EU requested WTO consultations with the US to review the appropriateness of these measures. These consultations took place end of June 2018. The compliance panel was composed on 28 September 2018. The compliance panel is not expected to complete its work before the end of 2019 but the EU and Airbus believe that all measures challenged by the US are now in full compliance with WTO rules.

        Following the Appellate Body report of 15 May, the US has publicly stated that it would consider settlement of this long-running dispute.

        Despite US statements that it would be open to a settlement, the US requested the WTO to authorize countermeasures on the EU. Simultaneously, the US Trade Representative (USTR) issued a preliminary 301 product retaliation list. The products proposed for tariff retaliation include new aircraft and helicopters as well as aircraft components imported into the US. The WTO has now provided the US with an authorisation to impose countermeasures. And despite US airlines overwhelmingly imploring the US administration not to impose tariffs on aircraft they ordered, USTR has decided to impose tariffs on the imports of new aircraft.

        Essential facts about the "Airbus case"

        Consistent with the 1992 Agreement, financing by the Member States of Airbus aircraft through RLI is limited and repayable with interest. The WTO confirmed that RLI does not per se constitute subsidies; instead, individual instances of RLI have involved subsidization in the form of interest rate shortfalls from market benchmarks for RLI. This distinguishes RLI from most US support to Boeing in the form of grants and tax breaks, which do per se constitute subsidies and are never repayable.

        The WTO confirmed that RLI does not involve export or local content contingencies, and therefore does not involve prohibited subsidies.

        The WTO also confirmed in the original proceedings that all R&D programmes in the EU (European, national and regional) are fully compatible with WTO rules. This finding is especially relevant when compared to the WTO findings in the Boeing case that NASA and Department of Defense R&D subsidies caused adverse effects in the market.

        The WTO also rejected the US challenge to support for the A380 production site (Aéroconstellation) in Toulouse, France. While the WTO previously found that support for the A380 production site in the Mühlenberger Loch facility in Hamburg, Germany, was a subsidy that contributed to adverse effects, Airbus has since agreed to increase rental payments, and the United States therefore abandoned its challenge. The WTO reversed previous findings stating that the EU has fully complied with respect to all pre-A380 subsidies. While the Appellate Body found that RLI for A380 and a tiny portion of A350XWB continued to cause adverse effects in the market, the measures submitted by the EU to the WTO in late May address these in full and puts an end to 14 years of WTO litigation against subsidies to Airbus.

        The EU Case against the U.S. – DS353

        In its WTO case against the US, the EU has challenged various US federal, state and local subsidies benefitting Boeing, totalling—as confirmed by the Appellate Body report—USD 5-6 billion in WTO-inconsistent subsidies disbursed between 1989 and 2006. In March 2013, the EU estimated that subsidies granted to Boeing after 2006 amounted to billions of additional dollars.

        To help understand the extent of US government support to Boeing, it is worth quoting US President Barack Obama, who stated during a visit to Boeing’s production facility in Everett in February 2012:

        {T}his {787 Dreamliner} is the first commercial airplane to be made with 50 percent composite materials. It’s lighter, it’s faster, it’s more fuel-efficient than any airplane in its class. And it looks cool. The Dreamliner is the plane of the future. And by building it here, Boeing is taking advantage of a huge opportunity that exists right now to bring more jobs and manufacturing back to the United States of America


        {W}e’ve always believed in the power of innovation. Innovation requires basic research. Look at this plane {a Boeing 787}. This plane was first designed virtually using the same technology that was developed by NASA. Government research helped to create this plane.


        {A} lot of those ideas came out of government research. We’ve got to support this kind of cutting-edge research. We need to maintain our innovative edge, so that jobs and industries take root right here in the United States, not someplace else.

        Essential facts about the "Boeing case"

        • Washington State tax breaks granted for the period 2006-2024 amount to a subsidy valued at approximately USD 3 billion. These tax breaks were subsequently extended through the State’s 777X incentive package, valued at an additional USD 8.7 billion which is the largest ever state-level subsidy package in the history of the United States. Industry specialists consider that these amounts could be sufficient to cover the entire cost of design and development of the 777X, essentially giving Boeing a “free ride” by offsetting completely its costs of developing and bringing the aircraft to market.
        • The City of Wichita (Kansas) granted almost USD 500 million in the form of tax abatements on Industrial Revenue Bonds between 1989 and 2006, subsidies from which Boeing continues to benefit.
        • Boeing was eligible for USD 2.2 billion in Foreign Sales Corporation export subsidies, despite previous WTO rulings that these are prohibited subsidies under WTO law. Eligibility continues today for certain Boeing transactions.
        • The Appellate Body (AB) has confirmed that the Washington Tax subsidies and Foreign Sales Corporation subsidies, as well as the Wichita subsidies, enabled Boeing to win orders in the "single aisle" 100-200 seat market (Boeing 737 vs A320) over Airbus.
        • NASA has provided Boeing with more than USD 2.6 billion in subsidies through eight NASA-funded federal research programmes, through direct payments and free access to facilities, equipment and employees. These subsidies continue to this day.
        • The AB confirmed that the above programmes provided subsidies in the form of a direct transfer of funds or the provision of goods and services by NASA to Boeing, for which no fee is payable and for which Boeing acquired the commercial IP rights.

        The AB confirmed moreover that the US Department of Defense (DOD), under its Research Development, Test and Evaluation programmes, has transferred to Boeing, at no cost, dual use technology worth up to USD 1.2 billion for direct use in Boeing's production of Large Civil Aircraft as well as free access to DOD's facilities. Boeing continues to benefit from subsidies under such programmes.

        The AB clarified that the relations between NASA and DOD, on the one side, and Boeing, on the other, were akin to that of a joint venture, with the essential feature being that the fruits of the joint labour largely went to one partner, Boeing, which had generally provided none of the funding.

        • NASA and DOD research and development subsidies enabled Boeing to develop key technologies, without which it would not have been possible to launch the 787 "Dreamliner" in 2004.
        • The above research and development subsidies gave Boeing a competitive advantage, causing Airbus to lose sales campaigns. Airbus suffered losses to sales of the A330 and A350 models (i.e. in the 200-300 seat market) and was under threat of losing its share of certain export markets. Even where it was able to make sales, it had to make them at reduced prices because of the presence of the subsidized 787 on the market.
        • Boeing's illegal subsidies adversely impact sales, market share and prices of the Airbus A320, A320neo, A330, and A350XWB families.

        The US provided no evidence whatsoever of any real compliance with WTO findings and recommendations, which prompted the EU, on 11 October 2012, to request the establishment of a WTO compliance panel. That panel published a report in June 2017 in which it agreed with the EU that the illegal subsidies granted by the US to Boeing have not been removed. Instead, following the publication of the panel’s findings in 2012, the US has actually provided additional illegal subsidies to Boeing. The compliance panel report agreed with the EU’s demonstration that the harm that these measures caused to Airbus since 2012 is at least USD 15-20 billion.

        The compliance panel’s findings were appealed and, on 28 March 2019, the Appellate Body issued a report which rejected the US’s arguments and preserved the EU’s win before the panel. The Appellate Body also went a step further and broadened the scope of the EU’s victory by finding that additional US federal and state programmes constitute subsidies, including:

        • a South Carolina multi-county industrial park job tax credit subsidy;
        • a South Carolina economic development bond subsidy;
        • ongoing Foreign Sales Corporation/Extraterritorial Income tax exemptions;
        • procurement contracts with the US DOD for research, development, test and evaluation and access to DOD facilities, equipment and employees; and
        • industrial revenue bonds issued on Boeing’s behalf by the City of Wichita.

        The additional EU Case against the U.S. – DS487

        In November 2013, Washington State, as part of its efforts to induce Boeing to manufacture its new 777X model in the State, vastly expanded and amended its existing aerospace tax incentives, thereby providing billions of dollars in additional subsidies to Boeing. The estimated value of these tax breaks, according to the Washington State government itself, amounts to USD 8.7 billion.

        The law adopted by Washington State at the end of 2013 specifically links the provision of fiscal tax breaks to Boeing’s decisions to manufacture key 777X components (i.e., wings and fuselage) and to perform the final assembly of the aircraft in the State. In other words, the measures condition billions of dollars in subsidies upon the use of aircraft components manufactured in Washington State. These conditions requiring the use of domestic over imported goods render the subsidies “prohibited” under WTO law and?per se?illegal, with no compliance option available other than their immediate withdrawal.

        In December 2014 the EU launched a fast-track challenge of these multi-billion dollar subsidies before the WTO. This case, DS487, runs in parallel to the DS353 challenge.

        On 28 November 2016, the WTO Panel ruled that the Washington State tax incentives to Boeing include “prohibited subsidies”. These findings relate to subsidies that extend all the way through the year 2040. The Panel explained that these Washington State subsidies belong to “a special category of subsidies, which Members have deemed to create such trade distortions that they are proscribed without the need for a complaining Member to show any adverse effects.” The Panel further confirmed that such subsidies are “specifically designed to affect trade.” The US has appealed this finding, but it is expected that the WTO AB will uphold or even expand the findings against these subsidies.? At that point, the US will be ?under an obligation to withdraw the subsidy without delay, and in any event within 90 days, in order to comply with this historic ruling.?

        Next steps

        The WTO panel assessing the EU’s measures taken to comply with the WTO findings is expected in Q4 2019. The EU and Airbus will then know, what if anything, still needs to be done to achieve full compliance.

        In light of the WTO findings regarding US subsidies and the harm caused to Airbus, and the lack of measures taken to comply by the US, the EU has also requested the WTO authorization to impose countermeasures on US imports. That decision is expected in the spring of 2020.

        The EU, Member States, and Airbus have always publicly and vocally favoured resolution of the conflict through negotiation rather than litigation. The European side has made several concrete offers to the USTR and Boeing to this end.

        The US position, on the other hand, has always been that European government support must be withdrawn entirely as a pre-condition to negotiation. A demand for unilateral surrender is obviously an unacceptable basis for discussions.

        Whatever happens, Europe and the US will almost certainly be compelled to negotiate a new civil aircraft agreement of some description, eventually. The question is simply how long the US will drag out the dispute, and how much harm will be done to the aviation industry and the EU/US trading relationship in the meantime.

        Background to this dispute

        Why did the dispute start?

        In 1992, the United States (“US”) and the European Communities (now the European Union, “EU”) concluded a bilateral agreement (“1992 Agreement”) in which the parties recognised a formula for balancing US financial grants to its aircraft industry with repayable loans to the European aircraft industry. While the EU, in good faith, met its commitments under this agreement, the US repeatedly disregarded the established limitations, both in terms of amounts and types of subsidies. One blatant example was the unprecedented package of subsidies granted by Washington State for the 787 and other Boeing commercial aircraft, which amounted to more than USD 3 billion. The State of Washington made it very clear at the time that the incentive package was designed to help “Boeing to beat Airbus.” Independent commentators noted that the Boeing Incentive Package was an “unprecedented” deal that has “never been done for any company by any state.”

        On 6 October 2004, Boeing prompted the United States to unilaterally and unexpectedly withdraw from the 1992 Agreement and to immediately file a complaint at the WTO over all EU support ever granted to Airbus, including the support that was previously agreed to by the US in the 1992 Agreement.

        The EU was left with little choice but to respond with a parallel WTO challenge to US government support of the US aerospace industry (i.e., Boeing) by federal, state and local authorities. This included benefits to Boeing under the so-called US Foreign Sales Corporation Scheme, which the US government had continued to provide to Boeing, despite these subsidies having repeatedly been found to violate WTO rules.

        These two parallel WTO challenges, the "Airbus case" (DS316: the US challenge of EU support for Airbus) and the "Boeing case" (DS353: the EU challenge of US support to Boeing), have followed different timetables due to several delays at the WTO.

        Who is conducting the case at the WTO?

        Cases before the WTO are brought by governments. The European Commission on behalf of four EU Member States (France, Germany, UK and Spain, together “Member States”) is leading the EU case, while the US Trade Representative (“USTR”) is heading the US case. Airbus is fully supporting the European Commission in its preparation for and prosecution of its legal cases. Boeing is providing similar support to the USTR.

        WTO Backgrounder

        WTO issues with Airbus & Boeing – a 12+ year battle in 3.5 minutes


        In a long-ranging, multi-continent battle before the World Trade Organization concerning commercial aircraft subsidies, there have been lots of complicated arguments and accusations. When billions of taxpayer dollars are at stake, the finger-pointing perhaps is not so surprising. But what’s really behind the battle and what does it mean for global trade, the aviation industry and taxpayers on both sides of the Atlantic? Read less Read more


        How are modern transport aircraft built?

        There is not a single Airbus or Boeing plane in the sky that has been manufactured in one country alone, or without some form of government partnership. No country has a monopoly on the skills or talent required to make the A350 XWB or the Boeing 787, and policies aimed at advantaging one country over others will only serve to damage jobs in the overall industry and create additional costs for consumers. It also assumes that it is even possible to manufacture an aircraft purely in a domestic market.

        In the United States, for example, Airbus employs over 2,500 people. It is also the biggest foreign customer of U.S.-manufactured industrial aerospace components. Airbus contributes more than $17 billion (USD) to the American economy annually with its network of U.S. suppliers, making Airbus the largest single customer of U.S. aerospace exports – more than any other company, or even country. These investments support more than 275,000 American jobs. To give another example, our A350 XWB aircraft isn’t simply made in Europe; it is assembled from parts manufactured by companies all over the world.

        The wing of the A350 XWB alone includes components manufactured in the United States, Belgium, Italy and the United Kingdom. More than 1,200 American companies, doing their work at locations in 44 different states, have been involved in the manufacture of the A350 XWB. Rather than undermining U.S. jobs, tens of thousands of skilled American workers are helping make the Airbus A350 XWB and other Airbus aircraft.

        Airbus has long chosen to broaden its sourcing strategy to take advantage of the most competitive products in the market and in doing so to be present on both sides of the Atlantic, as well as in the rest of the world. When an airline chooses an Airbus aircraft powered with a U.S. engine it actually buys a product with around 40% U.S.-manufactured content. And it is a fact that during production, many components will have been exported and imported across national and jurisdictional lines multiple times.

        Why then these trade disputes in aerospace?

        To answer this question, we need to go back in time. Since the origins of flight, the United States and Boeing have sought to lead in civil aircraft production. For most of the period between 1960 and 1980, the U.S. enjoyed an effective monopoly where government subsidies played a key role. When Airbus started to develop its products and gained some success in the market, the monopoly gradually vanished to the benefit of a healthier competition offered to airlines and passengers. Public funding support occurred on both sides of the Atlantic, though in different forms: R&D grants and tax breaks for Boeing, repayable loans funding part of the development for Airbus.?

        Both sides managed to maintain peace for almost two decades, thus avoiding legal confrontation and trade wars. The 1992 agreement on government support for large civil aircraft signed between the U.S. and Europe permitted Airbus to receive repayable loans up to 33% of the development costs of a programme and Boeing to receive direct grant subsidies up to 3% of the U.S. civil aviation industry turnover. It was not perfect, but it provided a balanced playing field while it was in force.

        This agreement remained in place until 2004. When Airbus approached the 50% market share, and for various internal reasons, Boeing lobbied the United States administration to unilaterally abandon the 1992 agreement and launch a trade case at the WTO accusing Airbus of illegal subsidies.

        That withdrawal and complaint left the EU with little choice but to respond with a parallel WTO challenge to U.S. government support of Boeing by federal, state and local authorities.

        For more than 14 years now, Europe and the U.S. have been engaged in this dispute over aircraft manufacturing subsidies at the World Trade Organisation.

        The dispute is complex, with both Airbus and Boeing accused in turn of receiving illegal subsidies. Airbus is accused of receiving low interest loans from the EU member states for aircraft development, which require reform. Boeing has been receiving huge grants from U.S. states and institutions, which are completely illegal under WTO rules.?

        To date the WTO has ruled in these cases that the Airbus loans are less damaging to global trade than the grants Boeing receives. However, the U.S. refuses to acknowledge this situation and end its trade distorting grants to Boeing and simultaneously requests the EU and Airbus to unilaterally abandon its legal system of reimbursable loans.

        Airbus will continue to robustly defend its position to ensure a level playing field but it is clear that the dispute was started, and has been largely sustained, by the actions of Boeing to protect its previous market dominance.?

        What’s happened lately in this dispute?

        2018 and 2019 are crucial years, with new announcements from the WTO over the long-running disputes.?It is now clear, following the WTO Appellate Body’s reports on both sides, that the U.S. case is getting weaker and that Airbus and the EU are doing the necessary to comply. Nevertheless, we are seeing the U.S. considering an aggressive use of tariffs linked to the aircraft cases. This will have an effect on other sectors of the economy, putting jobs at risk across the world, including in the U.S.

        And these are not abstract threats, as Bombardier workers understood during the dispute between Boeing and Bombardier. Boeing, in its attempt to restrict market access to the C-Series in the U.S., threatened the jobs of more than 4,000 people in Belfast. Bombardier is not only a Canadian aircraft company, it is the largest manufacturer and industrial employer in Northern Ireland, whose economy would be devastated if the United States had proceeded with the proposed tariff rise. Fortunately, that case was dismissed by the US Trade authorities and the C-Series aircraft will now fly freely across the entire U.S.

        Who wins in this dispute?

        There are no winners in these trade disputes, only degrees of loser. The only beneficiaries of aggressive trade confrontation would be new entrants from other nations.

        Let’s be clear: it is not in the interests of the U.S. to prolong this trade war. This is not a zero-sum competition between Boeing or Airbus, but rather it’s Boeing plus Airbus that is best for the U.S., and not only for the U.S. For the airlines, having the competitive benefit of two healthy aerospace manufacturers offers better value (whether via competitive pricing or alternative capabilities). For the U.S. economy, having a U.S. supply base that supports both plane manufacturers is inherently healthier and more robust than a Boeing-only monopoly.

        It is therefore in the interests of not just European aerospace, but suppliers and consumers globally, that everything possible is done to resist attempts by Boeing to beggar and to bully others.

        Is there any way out of this dilemma?

        There is no solution for these disputes other than reaching a common agreement for the aerospace industry.

        Airbus has always been consistent in seeking a negotiated agreement between the European Union and United States.

        A globally negotiated agreement is in the interests of not just the companies involved in trade action today and those they employ directly, but also of suppliers to the aviation manufacturing industry and airlines and consumers everywhere.

        Timeline of the disputes

        The current disputes have been percolating for years. Recent events have thrown them back in the limelight.?

        Key developments:

        • 2019
          The WTO Appellate Body confirms that the U.S. failed to withdraw the subsidies granted by federal, state and local authorities to Boeing, and to remove the harm those subsidies caused to Airbus. The Appellate Body rejects every single United States argument, whereas it has taken all EU legal points on board. In addition, the WTO highest court also qualifies a number of additional U.S. federal and state programmes as illegal subsidies, and even as prohibited subsidies. The report requests that further compliance steps are necessary from the United States and Boeing. Failure to do so will provide the European Union the possibility to seek countermeasures on imports of U.S. products, such as higher tariffs – and negotiations are the only way out. The U.S. demand for countermeasures and the list of products presented is unjustified, as Airbus has taken all necessary measures to comply with the relatively minor elements highlighted by the WTO in May 2018 regarding alleged Airbus aid.
        • 2018
          The WTO Appellate Body confirms full compliance of the A320 and A330 programmes, with only minor tweaks remaining on the A380 and A350; the ruling also affirms the legality of the loan partnership approach between Airbus and European governments.
        • 2017
          The WTO’s Compliance Panel finds subsidies granted to Boeing failed to comply with the WTO rulings and caused Airbus to lose hundreds of aircraft in sales.
        • 2016
          The WTO panel finds that neither the U.S. nor EU have fully complied with WTO recommendations.
        • 2012
          The U.S. and EU challenge respective measures taken to comply before the WTO.
        • 2010
          WTO and its Appellate Body rule that the U.S. and EU received WTO-inconsistent subsidies.
        • 2004
          Boeing prompted the United States to unilaterally and unexpectedly withdraw from the 1992 Agreement and to immediately file a complaint at the WTO over all EU support ever granted to Airbus, including the support that was previously agreed to by the U.S. in the 1992 Agreement. The EU followed suite, filing a complaint against direct support to Boeing in the form of government grants and regional tax breaks.
        • 1992
          The United States and the European Communities (now the European Union, EU) concluded a bilateral agreement (“1992 Agreement”).

        The global supply chain in action

        Airbus is not a purely European business. It has a vast and significant supply chain spanning markets around the world to produce its aircraft.?

        For example, Airbus opened its first commercial aircraft production site in the United States in 2015. The U.S. Manufacturing Facility in Mobile, Alabama is a $600 million, 53-acre site that produces up to 60 A320 Family aircraft per year. With a partnership between Airbus and Bombardier cemented in mid-2018, Mobile also is where the final assembly line for A220 Family aircraft destined for U.S. markets is located – further strengthening Airbus’ presence in the United States and the overall U.S. aerospace industry.

        Airbus creates a dream job in the American south

        A highly trained and skilled workforce, our team of U.S. employees continues to grow. It’s a growth in numbers for Airbus, and a growth of learning and opportunity for our employees.

        Airbus celebrates its American workers

        From a small sales office to what is now thousands of workers in dozens of locations across the U.S., Airbus continues to grow its American presence and its team of American workers.

        Airbus celebrates its American veterans

        Airbus has been steadily growing its industrial footprint in the U.S. for decades, and we proudly have grown the number of American military veterans on our team. Hear what they have to say.

        A350-900 07 May 2018

        A350 XWB Build Concept WTO

        Commercial Aircraft 07 May 2018

        A350 XWB Industrial Footprint WTO

        Commercial Aircraft 07 May 2018

        A350 XWB Suppliers By Country WTO

        Statement on WTO disputes from John Harrison, Airbus General Counsel

        At the Airbus Annual General Meeting on 11 April 2018:

        The WTO has consistently ruled that the Airbus loans are less damaging to global trade than the tax breaks and research grants Boeing receives, which have cost Airbus an estimated $100 billion (USD) in lost sales. ?The conflict persists because Boeing continues to receive massive grants to fund its programmes, including most recently $9 billion (USD) in 777X subsidies and yet-unquantified support for the 797.? This grab for cash persists even as Boeing demands that European governments unilaterally end their repayable loan partnerships with Airbus. We want to make you aware of our position now before Boeing tries to speak on our behalf: Airbus (and the European Commission) has always sought a negotiated settlement, ideally as a global sector agreement. It has been Boeing which has encouraged confrontation.

        The aviation industry relies on a global supply chain. Boeing’s cynical manipulations could destroy this supply chain and the jobs it creates as by undermining fair competition to provide high-performing aircraft at lowest cost. The sad truth is that there is never a winning side in a trade war, just degrees of loss. Airbus has always advocated fair and balanced trade in the aerospace industry in which government support is an integral part because of its development characteristics and the strategic impact of the sector on its technology and economy and jobs. ?Airbus will continue to seek opportunities for a global and balanced sector agreement. However, Airbus will also protect its own interest and defend its position to avoid giving its competitors an unfair advantage in a competitive market place.??

        Disclosure, references and key documents

        Airbus has communicated regularly on this issue. The links below lead to interviews, press releases and financial statements that cover trade topics:

        Airbus reiterates call for talks to reduce trade tensions

        en fr de es

        EU and Airbus achieve major win against US with solid basis for billions in countermeasures

        en fr de es

        Airbus statement regarding the recent WTO AB report and the Second Compliance Communication by the EU

        en fr de es

        WTO confirmed: no prohibited subsidies at Airbus, minor elements of actionable subsidies to be addressed

        en fr de es

        WTO will move on to judge actionable Boeing subsidies to 777X

        en fr de es

        WTO condemns Boeing’s non-compliance and new subsidies


        WTO delivers knockout blow to Boeing’s record-breaking subsidies with historic ruling

        en fr de es

        Next chapter in eight year old WTO conflict: Boeing’s WTO Default Prompts $ 12 Bn in Annual Sanctions

        en fr de es

        Sweeping Loss for Boeing in WTO Appeal

        en es

        Airbus Reports Full European Implementation of WTO Findings

        en fr de es

        WTO final ruling: Decisive victory for Europe

        en fr de es

        Truth goes public: WTO condemns massive illegal Boeing subsidies

        en fr de es

        WTO ruling: Billions in Boeing subsidies distort competition

        en fr de es

        Statement by Airbus President and CEO Tom Enders in response to the WTO announcement of a further delay of the report in the Boeing subsidies case (DS 353)

        en fr de es

        Airbus alerts on counter case on Boeing subsidies while WTO panel rejects US claims


        Airbus Statement regarding today's WTO panel report in the U.S. case against the EU

        en fr de es

        Boeing 787 / Trade issues EADS and BAE Systems are supporting a negotiated solution


        Statement By Airbus On The Us Government Request For Formal Consultations At The Wto

        Back to top