Airbus's ‘launch aid' has to be grounded
This week, trade officials from the US and the European Union are due to discuss subsidies in the commercial aircraft market. The talks must focus on the subsidy that distorts the market the most - “launch aid”, which has allowed Airbus to develop a full family of aircraft without assuming the commercial risk for doing so.
Resolving trade disputes is the proper role of government but I would like to clear up some myths that muddy the negotiating waters.
During a recent visit to the UK, I realised there was a fundamental misunderstanding about the notion of so-called “indirect subsidies”. Boeing's defence contracts do not, as some claim, amount to an indirect subsidy to its commercial aircraft division. Little, if any, benefit flows from defence work to commercial activities, a point reinforced by the experiences of several major US defence contractors no longer in the commercial aircraft business. It is much more likely that technological benefits flow from commercial activities to military applications, such as the A400M transport aircraft being developed by Airbus. And let us be clear: any benefits that do exist go also to Airbus, whose parents - BAE Systems of the UK and EADS, the European group - have greater defence revenues, and thus a greater opportunity for commercial benefit, than Boeing.
Another myth is that Boeing gets unique tax and infrastructure benefits from governments around the world. Publicly available records show Airbus and its parent companies benefit from economic development incentives commonly available to industry in the US - including in Louisiana, Florida and Mississippi. These incentives benefit those communities as a whole. In contrast, the government support Airbus received for facilities to build and assemble the A380, its next project, is not for the benefit of the general community - it is uniquely for Airbus.
Finally, the discussion of launch aid is most muddied by the claim that this form of support, which is unique to Airbus, is not a subsidy and does not distort competition in the civil aircraft market. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Airbus receives 33 per cent of each new aircraft model's development costs upfront, as a subsidy from European sponsor governments. None of the $15bn in launch aid Airbus has received from European governments has been repaid on commercial terms - in fact, much of it has not been repaid and may never be. Indeed, a great deal of it has been forgiven entirely. Thanks to this subsidised “borrowing”, Airbus has avoided at least $35bn in debt.
This subsidy indeed distorts the market. The French senate has stated the case thus: “Launch aid ‘socialises' risk. Advances made to companies need only be reimbursed if the programme is successful. In the event of failure, the public money is lost and the advance becomes a subsidy, a sort of insurance policy for the company against industrial risk.” This “insurance policy” has allowed Airbus to develop aircraft without the attendant commercial risk, and thus without the commercial discipline nearly every other company around the world works under.
And now Airbus is receiving about $3.7bn in launch aid for the A380. It began receiving this money five years before the aircraft's first expected delivery, and under the terms of the 1992 US-EU Agreement on Trade in Large Civil Aircraft, Airbus could have almost five more years beyond first delivery before it has to begin repaying this A380 launch aid. If it does not hit its projected sales total, Airbus may never have to repay the money. While it is clear that this agreement has outlived its usefulness, it has never relieved our nations of their broader international obligations.
US and EU trade authorities can best serve the global aviation industry by creating a framework for the future that eliminates trade-distorting aid to commercial aircraft manufacturers and creates a level playing-field with complete visibility on both sides.
European officials deserve credit for their publicly-stated willingness to reconsider launch aid to Airbus. This week, I hope they will follow these statements with actions that display a seriousness of purpose. This will dispel any notion that they are stalling in the hope this is simply a political issue that will evaporate after the US presidential election. Both US presidential candidates have expressed support for ending launch aid to Airbus, but any impression that this is merely election-year politics is mistaken. Airbus is a mature, profitable company. It no longer needs launch aid to compete. It is time for launch aid to end.
The writer is president and chief executive officer of Boeing
空中巴士的“启动补贴”该停止了
本周，美国和欧盟将就商用航空的补贴问题展开讨论。讨论必须侧重于“启动补贴”。这项补贴让空中巴士（Airbus）在不承担商业风险的情况下，开发一系列飞机产品。“启动补贴”对市场的扭曲最为严重。
解决贸易争端本属政府的正当职责，但我想澄清一些误区，否则它们必然把水搅浑，影响谈判。
最近我去了一次英国，此行当中，我意识到大家对所谓“间接补贴”观点有根本性的误解。有些人认为，波音公司（Boeing）的国防业务合同对波音商用飞机部门形成间接补贴，但这并非事实。国防性生产的收益即便能转入商业活动，也是微乎其微。美国有几家主要的国防合同商现在都从商业飞机领域淘汰出去了，这就很能说明上述观点。而商业活动的技术性收益转为军用，可能性却大得多。空中巴士开发的A400M型运输机就是这样的例子。我们必须澄清：如果国防业务真能带来有什么收益，那么空中巴士也肯定有份。其母公司英国BAE系统公司（BAE Systems）和欧洲集团公司EADS的国防业务收入高于波音公司，也比波音更有机会获取商业收益。
另外一个误区是各国政府向波音公司提供独特的税务和基础设施优惠。公开的数据记录显示，在有些地区，如路易斯安那（Louisiana）、佛罗里达（Florida）和密西西比州(Mississippi)，空中巴士及其母公司享受通常只对美国企业提供的经济开发激励方案。这些方案是对航空业社区一视同仁的。而空中巴士却接受政府补助，开展生产、组装A380型飞机的新项目。这一补助却不是大家共享，而只是空中巴士独享。
最后，“启动补贴”这种形式的补助只有空中巴士独享。却有人说它不是补助，不会扭曲民用航空市场的竞争。这完全是浑水摸鱼，错误之至。
空中巴士每生产一架飞机，在前期就从欧洲赞助国得到相当于成本33%的补贴。欧洲各国政府一共向空中巴士提供了150亿美元的启动补贴，却不存任何商业意义上的偿还问题。这补贴款大多没有清偿，而且或许永远得不到清偿。事实上，很大一部分补贴的偿还责任完全被减除了。空中巴士多亏这种补助“贷款”，避免了至少350亿美元的债务。
这种补贴确实造成市场的扭曲。法国议会是这样描述补贴一事的：“启动补贴将风险‘社会化’了。如果项目成功，提前支付的启动补贴才会偿还。如果失败，公众的财富就会付之东流，启动补助款便成为补贴。这等于给空中巴士买了工业风险保险。”这一“保险”让空中巴士能够放心地制造飞机，而无需担心商业风险。全球各地任何企业都必须接受一定的商业约束，而空中巴士却凌驾其上。
现在，空中巴士又因A380型飞机而接受37亿美元的启动补助。在飞机预计投放市场的五年之前，空中巴士就已开始接受这笔款项。根据1992年的《美国-欧盟大型民用飞机贸易协定》（US-EU Agreement on Trade in Large Civil Aircraft），空中巴士在首次投放市场后，可以再过五年才开始偿还A380的启动补助款。如果达不到预计的销售总额，空中巴士可以永远不必偿还这笔补助款。显然，该协定的作用显然已经过期了，而且也丝毫没有减轻过美国承担的国际业务。
美国和欧盟的贸易部门要想造福全球航空业，最好应形成一个未来的框架，消除针对民用飞机制造商的补贴，不再因它们而造成贸易的扭曲。美欧的贸易部门应创造一个平等的竞争场地，让双方都保持完全的透明度。
欧洲官员公开表示，他们愿意重新考虑对空中巴士的补贴。这一姿态值得称道。本周，我希望他们能够用诚恳的实际行动，贯彻自己的发言。如能这样，就不会再有人认为欧盟是在观望，把争端纯粹当成政治问题，指望美国总统选举结束之后，这一争端自然消散。美国的两位总统候选人都支持结束对空中巴士的补贴。认为这只是大选年的政治问题，那就大错特错了。空中巴士是个成熟的、赢利的企业。它不再需要依靠启动补贴来参与竞争。启动补贴该终止了。
