Boeing WTO Bill Would Violate Treaty

Boeing WTO Bill Would Violate Treaty

In a rare letter to the Speaker of the House, EADS North America’s chairman has warned that a bill Boeing would like to see passed that would punish EADS for violating the World Trade Organization’s restrictions on trade subsidies would itself violate the international body’s rules.

Ralph Crosby wrote Rep. Nancy Pelosi that passage would violate “the WTO treaty which forbids punitive action taken on trade matters being adjudicated by te organization.”

Crosby also rejected claims by Boeing that EADS has traded with Iran. “I assure you that these allegations are untrue,” Crosby wrote, accusing the Chicago-based company of “resorting to falsehoods” — lying to you and me — “as their only possible tool to prevent the fair competition” to which the the Pentagon has committed itself.


Colleague Jim Wolf, with Reuters, was one of a small band of reporters who spoke with Boeing’s VP of government relations, Timothy Keating, who made the Iran allegation. Here’s what Jim reported yesterday:

He cited an EADS effort to market one of its helicopters at an Iranian air show. The event in question took place in 2005, Boeing officials later said, supplying the transcript and a link to video of an NBC television report at the time.

“We have not seen any indication that EADS no longer has an interest in marketing their military products to countries like Iran,” Daniel Beck, a Boeing spokesman, said in a followup telephone interview.

In his letter to Pelosi, Crosby points to the on-time or early delivery of 100 Army Light Utility helicopters to the U.S. military as proof of the company’s record, one that he says is “much more important than ill-advised and untrue allegations by a competitor.”

Join the Conversation

Boeing reeks of desperation!

Goodness, a new level of trashy politics has been reached by Boeing on this one. This is sad conduct from a great company I have worked with in the past.

And Boeing of course forgot to mention all the information they’ve been selling to China…

Why would the US government even Consider EADS for such an important contract as this. What will the Air Force do when the EU and the EURO desolves, as it is sure to do in the coming years, Can EADS stand alone?

F111SupplyGuy
IEADS cannot be comsidered a viable, or Wartjme reliable supplier for such a critically important system as AiAir-Sea Logistics Slugfest like both WW-I and WW-II. Tanker support will be even more essential to keeping ASW and Airlift aircraft on long range escort duty/. The World still runs on Oil. Japan, China, and our other potential allies overseas, will not be likely to freely get oil from Venezuela, or any other ‘Socialist ’ oriented, or Islamic nation. Our thinly spread Nava.l and Air Forces will see to that. So Convoy escort duty becomes all Service encompassing. I want our next Tanker to be a Wholly American built one, that is reliably Maintainable in Wartime.; Not a European foisted idea of what “Might Work”/ Besides, neither Obama, not Gates really know anything about, Tankers or aircraft. Weaponry is too important to be designed by a Political comittee conveened to blindly design either Camels or Elephants. The freedom of our nation, and in fact the entrie world depends on how well we fight and win this coming World War.

If they are going to use this against EADS, then Boeing had better re-think it because doesn’t China also support terrortist states like North Korea. What you going to do if China stops making the parts for the KC tanker. It will be a mes no matter who gets the contract

To “B52”–Indeed! What will the warfighters do when Boeing over-runs the program, busts the schedule, and delivers something out of spec. That is largely what it has done for/to most government customers in the last decade. If u think you can bank on this company’s project management and smarts to deliver what it initially agreed to, on time, and within the original budget, you are dreaming. Look at the Army’s now-stopped Future Combat System–a festival of bad management by Boeing, which failed in so many ways. EADS buys $billions of subsystems here and will integrate and assemble here. Boeing likes to make things in China and Japan. And has problems with fasteners and delayering. And, Boeing wants to play dirty politics, too. Let it feel the hot breath of competition, and damn its shareholders being the primary interest of the company..

Sometimes as a european it is hard to see whether the sentiment is pro-US or anti-european ;)

We might not allways agree on certain interventions like Irak or Afghanistan (allthough I personally do) but if:

“IEADS cannot be comsidered a viable, or Wartime reliable supplier for such a critically important system as AiAir-Sea Logistics Slugfest like both WW-I and WW-II.”

Aka not even a “push comes to shove” but a “shit hits the fan” situation europeans will side with you and support you. Just as the opposite would be the case (I hope).

Wonder why the ugly heads of suspicion and distrust rears it’sugly head again. could it be a spin off from the crack head mentality infused in the fact thet we use 75% of the world production of drugs. It si getting more and more evident who is using and who will suffer in the long run for tolerance of a bad situation. Time to legalize and register for free drugs the ones envolved. I suspect with universal health care and open health records it will become evident who is burned or is burning themselves out on subtences of abuse.

Self control and self discipline ???????????????????????????

A third world war, The arogance of mankind and his personal minds eye personafication of his control the world thinking??????????????????????

Interesting and mixed conversation, as usual. I like competition and am not worried about the Europeans and EADS/Airbus. But to preserve American war making capacity in the U.S., if we go with Boeing, we need to make them bring all of their component manufacturing back into the U.S. Which would mean that they insource every aspect of production. That would expand the U.S. job base, keep critical technologies here, and make Boeing a truly American company. Right now, it’s just another Walmart, with half its product coming from Asia and other low-bidders. That’s not the way to keep America strong.

If you want to sell airplanes overseas you have to make certain concessions with the counties your dealing with. If you want landing rights at certain airports in Europe it makes it easier if you’re flying an Airbus. Having spent 21 years in the U.S. Air Force, most of it in SAC, and another 24 years with Boeing, my preference would be with the KC767. The KC767 is currently flying in Japan and Italy. It’s a proven commodity made in Wichita KS. and Seattle WA. It will be difficult for any airplane manufacturer to attain the reliability and durability of the KC135, but I believe Boeing has the best chance.

Number 1 if you think that Democrats or Republicans can or should design a tanker than your nuts. Look what they have done in Wash. DC in the last 1 1/2 to 2 years,every one of them could screw up a crow-bar in a sand pile.

Have to restae that as assemblied in the United States. if all the airframe parts were made in the US then you could make that claim, but since parts are made in Japan and Italy, it is assemblied in the US

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement