Negative WTO Ruling Wont Effect Goverment Handouts for A350, Looks like WTO Ruling Maybe Starting to Leak Out Rating Options

[rhapsody]

Aerospace News
boeingairplanemanufacturingairbusEADSSeattle

« Analysts offer mixed reaction to Boeing's new 787 schedule | Main | Chinese consolidate to rival Boeing and Airbus »
Report: WTO ruling won't affect Airbus A350 subsidies
From Seattle PI:


"European Union governments will still subsidize development of the Airbus A350 even if a pending World Trade Organization decision finds previous aid violated global trade rules, according to a Bloomberg report.

"(I)t has always been our position that any support for the A350 has no relation to the current WTO litigation," Lutz Guellner, a spokesman for the European Commission, the 27- nation EU's executive arm, said in the story.

A WTO panel is set to issue a preliminary ruling on EU launch aid Sept. 4."

[keesje]

I think we just have to wait how the WTO judges on the EU subidies to Airbus and the US subsidies to Boeing.

[Aurora]

Its the EU saying "kiss our collective @$$. This is our model and you can go f*** off and die".

Of course, keesje is correct when he says that we don't know how the WTO will rule.

However, if the EU does get an adverse ruling and takes this tact, they can kiss off any hope of bidding for the USAF tanker. That will be the first casualty. Where will it end?

[jimc]

This could hurt EADS as well, since WTO rules stipulate recovery of losses can be made against the parent as well. Satellites, helicopters, communications, defense etc. Airbus will have a very difficult time selling (competitively priced) products to US-based multinationals if the ruling goes against them. Typically, this is handled three ways: 1) An extra tariff on similar product (planes, satellites, etc.); 2) Extra tariff on related goods not even sold by the offender such as: Electronics (Siemens, etc.,) Autos (BMW, Daimler), Metals (various) etc. or 3) a combination of 1 and 2.

In the case of Airbus, EADS could theoretically be forced to pay additional tarrifs on ordered product not yet delivered, and it may be cost-prohibitive to do so, so refunds could be given (US Air eg). Just theoretically, but it has happened in the past. Lots of case study on WTO cases in Europe and N. America.

[Aurora]

As I said, the first consequence would be no tanker. Whether this would take the form of Northrop-Grumman walking away, or EADS withdrawing their bid, I won't speculate.

Personally, I still suspect some lukewarm, non-committal tripe from the WTO that will leave more questions than answers. Expect a political storm here from the Boeing supporters either way.

And as I have posted many times here, I would not rule out an ugly trade war down the road.

[Fly787]

In the long run I wonder if the subsidies for Boeing and Airbus should be re-written, so the each members home country should be able to provide launch aid etc... I do not think China, Russia, and Canada (Bombardier) for that matter will go by WTO rules for launch aid money etc...

[kimshep]

Designing and building airframes is a fantastically expensive excersise, particularly when a country is intent on launching a new industry.

As Fly787 rightly points out, this is not simply an A vs B argument / discussion. Countries such as Russia, China, Brasil and Canada already have existing manufacturers .. as do some of the Euro nations.

Imagine if Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Japan or even India were to attempt to seriously endorse and establish such a high-tech industry ? No doubt, there would be Government (encouragement) money added to the pot ~ as there well should be. The establishment of such industries has spin-offs for all manner of contributing suppliers, both within and outside the particular country's economy. It also adds high levels of technical knowledge and expertise to the community, which benefits an even wider brush of the local economy (think schools, universities, engineering and even national GDP).

If if is good enough for certain Governments to 'subside' low-tech rural and agricultural industry in the name of 'Government policy' in their own countries, then it is somewhat hypocritical of those self-same governments to try to obliterate foreign competition .. to their own industry, by crying 'foul' on trade subsidies by other Governments when it comes to aircraft manufacture.

In other words, if you (as a Government) are gonna 'drink from the fountain', you'd better be prepared to to accept whatever comes out of the spout ~ irrespective of whether it is 'good or bad'.

[Aurora]

Before we get too comfortable in our glass house, let's recognize that all governments subsidize the locals in one form or another; and, yes, that includes Australia. The issue before the WTO on aircraft came to a head largely on questions of "how much" and "how long".

Here is Doug McVitie's take on the outcome.

http://www.glgroup.com/News/Airbus-Still-O...-Aid-42816.html

And here's what likely to happen

1. The WTO will find in favor of Boeing and against Airbus re A380 subsidies; Airbus will bitch and moan but just effectively ignore the WTO

2. Airbus will continue to raise money for he A350 from partner governments claiming each arrangement is 'outside the spirit of the outdated WTO arrangement'

3. France and a half-hearted German will bluster at blocking US-registered 747s from entering European airspace, until they look at each carrier's long-haul fleets and realize just how many 'ys' there are in the word 'hypocrisy'

4. Airbus will appeal, obfuscate, threaten to strike, trot out the 'level playing field' cliché they have abused to death over the years and will generally behave with typical Gallic indifference when push comes to shove

5. Nothing will matter a damn

I disagree with #5. If there is an an adverse decision against the EU, they can kiss off bidding for any U.S. defense business--especially the tanker. Although, tariffs and other remedies will be withheld pending the lengthy appeals process, their front office boy, Northrop Grumman, would not be able to take the heat by pursuing this bid--especially in today's economic climate.

I still think this case has the potential to break the WTO's back and lead to an all out trade war. Many members are still smarting over the failure of the Doha Round, WRT agriculture. Also, the WTO has ruled on aircraft subsidies before--in the case of Canada & Brazil. That effectively went nowhere. (BTW, was that "hypocricy" also?)

This one is much more emotionally charged.

[11Bravo]

.... Northrop Grumman, would not be able to take the heat by pursuing this bid--especially in today's economic climate.

I think that may be true regardless of the pending WTO ruling. Given the severe impact of this recession, the selection of an EADS product for such a large contract may well become a serious political liability. The 2010 mid-term elections in the US will see the GOP trying to regain lost congressional seats particularly in the South, and I find it difficult to imagine how an endorsement of a "French" military aircraft for the USAF would become a cornerstone of that strategy. It would be way too easy for the Democrats to play the xenophobia card to an audience in the South that is predisposed to dislike and distrust anything related to Europe. That position is emotional and more than a little bit irrational, but do not underestimate the real effect it may have on the electorate.

As for the WTO ruling itself, I expect a non-decision decision where the glass is simultaneously half-full and half-empty. For those of you counting on a ruling that is clear and unambiguous, prepare to be disappointed. I expect an exercise in equivocation with a ruling that attempts to be all things to all people and gives very little, if anything, in the way of substance, resolution, or finality.

[Aurora]

As for the WTO ruling itself, I expect a non-decision decision where the glass is simultaneously half-full and half-empty. For those of you counting on a ruling that is clear and unambiguous, prepare to be disappointed. I expect an exercise in equivocation with a ruling that attempts to be all things to all people and gives very little, if anything, in the way of substance, resolution, or finality.

Couldn't agree more; I expect nothing to be solved. But then again, the purpose of this exercise never was (or so I would hope) to get a "black and white", definitive, ruling. I always suspected one of the reasons was to delay, as long as possible, further government aid to EADS. That seems to have worked.

[DfwRevolution]

Imagine if Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Japan or even India were to attempt to seriously endorse and establish such a high-tech industry ? No doubt, there would be Government (encouragement) money added to the pot ~ as there well should be.

On the contrary, I think that type of thinking should be strongly challenged.

Too many times when government investment is sought, it's because the business case in question sucks and private industry wouldn't take such risks. The result is that government "encouragement" often results in a products of mediocre quality or mediocre utility. When the product inevitably flops, the entire community suffers because the poor investment has destroyed billions in wealth that would have resulted if all those taxes had stayed in their pockets and gone toward things they actually wanted.

Airbus is a case study in such irrational economic behavior. Had Airbus needed to finance the A380 program entirely with private capital, it never would have flown. Instead, government launch aid "encouraged" the development of an airliner which was a generation behind in airframe technology before it entered service and has interested few airlines. We know today that the A380 is a complete dud. Those who think otherwise are either delusional (Keesje) or too polite to be so frank (Stitch). Had all that private capital stayed in the private sector - instead of being usurped via taxes - there is a far more likely probability that said wealth would have gone to more productive uses.

My point is not to drag the A380 through the mud. It is merely to show that government "encouragement" often results in bad ideas getting the green light because the incentive to profit takes a back seat to parochial interests. You can easily find such examples in U.S. agriculture as you point out. Our attempt to create an ethanol biofuel industry has failed just as spectacularly as the A380. But such examples only strengthen the argument that we should back away from subsidized industries across the board rather than use them to legitimize another nation's subsidies.

This post has been edited by DfwRevolution: Aug 30 2009, 09:21 PM

[kimshep]

That's an interesting response, given that the US Government regularly 'protects' US carriers on the basis of 'Defense' issues.

Should there ever be another major World War (think World War III), then your argument would be turned on it's head. There would be absolutely no way that one or two 'global' manufacturers would be able to satiate global demand - and 'local, foreign' manufacturers would emerge worldwide .. just as they did in World War I and II.

I agree - to a limited extent - that often Government decisions to invest in 'new' industry can sometimes be frivolous, based on poor business-case analysis. However in my example above, the first three countries (Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) would be characterised by the need for Government investment due to their small populations and far tighter availability of private equity funding. Certainly, in the case of Japan, India et al - this may not be the case.

But to dismiss the premise on the basis of 'sub-standard' product development is somewhat falacial. Innovation and development are not the sole property of the US (as Boeing and Airbus are discovering). It is a concept that come come from many directions and many countries. But if there are artificial barriers to entry in such a market, then who knows how much 'innovation' is stifled ?

[Jacobin777]

Here is Doug McVitie's take on the outcome.

From his comments:

"the aircraft (A380) has a current market value of about $157m"..if true (and I'm not so sure how much but I'm sure he has access to financial numbers so he might not be that far off), that says a lot about the Whale.....a financial albatross......

[jimc]

Here is Doug McVitie's take on the outcome.

From his comments:

"the aircraft (A380) has a current market value of about $157m"..if true (and I'm not so sure how much but I'm sure he has access to financial numbers so he might not be that far off), that says a lot about the Whale.....a financial albatross......

If true, you can bet the leasing companies are seething, given the residual values at the end of leases have been reduced to the cost of scrap. If the market value is indeed under $200 milion, this plane must be purchased as it cannot economically be leased, unless the feasability of such is artificially propped, in which case, lease/general accounting standards in most industrialized countires are compromised, and it really would no longer be a lease.

[Aurora]

AFAIK, only one leasing company ordered the whalejet: ILFC.

But I suspect that they are seriously "seething"!

[Jacobin777]

Here is Doug McVitie's take on the outcome.

From his comments:

"the aircraft (A380) has a current market value of about $157m"..if true (and I'm not so sure how much but I'm sure he has access to financial numbers so he might not be that far off), that says a lot about the Whale.....a financial albatross......

If true, you can bet the leasing companies are seething, given the residual values at the end of leases have been reduced to the cost of scrap. If the market value is indeed under $200 milion, this plane must be purchased as it cannot economically be leased, unless the feasability of such is artificially propped, in which case, lease/general accounting standards in most industrialized countires are compromised, and it really would no longer be a lease.

New A380s can be purchased for $200 million-but this was before the proverbial "economic cliff" the past 10-12 months. What I find interesting is many people have have gone "zonkers" when it was mentioned early Whales were sold for $135-$150 million/frame. When the Big Beast sales started back in 2000, list price were around $230 million. 35%-50% as launch customers, not to mention Airbus wanted to get its foot in the VLA scene certainly warrants those numbers to be true. If McVitie's numbers are indeed correct, its scary to see the price of this VLA be up just a few % points after almost ten years of sales.

That kills the leasing business model.

AFAIK, only one leasing company ordered the whalejet: ILFC.

But I suspect that they are seriously "seething"!

Couldn't agree more.. Remember, Hazy has just a few more months to decide if he wants to forward with the Beast order.....ILFC's financial position isn't too strong either.....

Getting back to the topic...regarding the A350XWB, it seems as if Airbus/EADS care less as to what the WTO ruling is going to be...

"Aug. 28 (Bloomberg) -- The European Union signaled governments will proceed with subsidies for the Airbus SAS A350 even if a pending World Trade Organization decision finds previous aid to the biggest planemaker was illegal. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=con...id=a.20uNUsR6i4

[Aurora]

As I said, the first consequence would be no tanker. Whether this would take the form of Northrop-Grumman walking away, or EADS withdrawing their bid, I won't speculate.

Personally, I still suspect some lukewarm, non-committal tripe from the WTO that will leave more questions than answers. Expect a political storm here from the Boeing supporters either way.

And as I have posted many times here, I would not rule out an ugly trade war down the road.

It begins.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aOxemOQwkDZE

This is interesting. Michael Merluzeau has been a supporter of the KC-30 for the USAF in the past. However, he was very forthright when Boeing filed their protest last year, saying that he felt they had cause. Here he is being equally candid.

Today’s ruling may have hurt the Northrop-EADS team, said Michel Merluzeau, an aviation analyst at G2 Solutions in Seattle.

“This will reinforce the perception, whether it’s accurate or not, that the team is fielding a product that has been unfairly subsidized,” Merluzeau said.

[Stitch]

Except if the WTO has ruled that RLI is not illegal for the A380, then how could it have been illegal for the A330MRTT/KC-30A/KC-30B?

It may very well come out that the subsidies ruled illegal for the A380 are specific to the A380 - things like the new road through France to TLS for convoys. The runway extension at XFW to allow the A380 to operate out of the field. If that is the case, then the KC-30A should be "clean".

[USAF336TFS]

Except if the WTO has ruled that RLI is not illegal for the A380, then how could it have been illegal for the A330MRTT/KC-30A/KC-30B?

It may very well come out that the subsidies ruled illegal for the A380 are specific to the A380 - things like the new road through France to TLS for convoys. The runway extension at XFW to allow the A380 to operate out of the field. If that is the case, then the KC-30A should be "clean".

IIRC, the ruling affects all large commerical Airbus products, up to and including the A380. I think the EU and its supporters have been claiming that it only deals with RLA for the A380. My understanding is that funding for the A330/340 line was definitely in the cross-hairs of the U.S. complaint. I don't see how it couldn't be. And that would definitely have a direct impact on the KC-X program.

[Aurora]

Except if the WTO has ruled that RLI is not illegal for the A380, then how could it have been illegal for the A330MRTT/KC-30A/KC-30B?

It may very well come out that the subsidies ruled illegal for the A380 are specific to the A380 - things like the new road through France to TLS for convoys. The runway extension at XFW to allow the A380 to operate out of the field. If that is the case, then the KC-30A should be "clean".

Huh? If the WTO has ruled that the EU countries unfairly subsidized the A380, then that goes to the heart of the complaint. Why on earth would DOD or the U.S. Congress reward this behavior by selecting the A330? Subsidies are subsidies. It doesn't matter if they applied them to the A300, A380, A350.

This thing was politically toxic before this. It is rapidly getting radioactive.

The Bush administration is gone. Ironically, that was the best shot the airbus had.

BTW, do not be surprised at some point to see a new case filed against aid for the A350.

[Stitch]

So if any subsidy is de facto bad, then if in six months the WTO rules that Boeing received illegal subsidies, then by that argument the KC-767ADV is just as tainted as the KC-30A is. The EU's complaint is against all Boeing commercial products, after all, not just the 787. So the 767 could very well be directly ruled to be an "illegally subsidized airplane" as well.

So at that point we do what? Buy the IL-78 because Russia isn't yet part of the WTO?

Or do we buy the Embraer KC-390 since Brazil and Canada have already had it out with each other at the WTO and are now (or at least should be) operating on a level playing field?

[Aurora]

This is our procurement. We buy what we want. What obligation do we have to let airbus bid? Frankly, none.
Military procurement is outside the province of the WTO

[Stitch]

That works for me.

Frankly, there should be no shame for the USAF choosing the KC-767 because it's a "home sourced" product. It may not be as amazing as the KC-30A, but it's still a good deal better than the KC-135R.

Europe did the same thing with the A400M, despite the tortured spinning of a few people. No existing airplane can do what the A400M can do because Europe wrote the RFP to ensure that it couldn't be filled by any existing airplane which meant a very expensive clean-sheet approach. They wrote the RFP to ensure that the C-17 would be at such a disadvantage as to make it unworkable (though that disadvantage has shrunk every year). Lest we conveniently forget, Lockheed Martin was actually part of the design group (when it was FIMA) going back to 1982. When LM left after a decade of little forward progress, the EU decided to make it a "home sourced" product and created Euroflag. Even then, it took them another decade to decide what it should do and formally launch the program.

Maybe the USAF should have written the KC-X RFP to require three engines. That way, Boeing could have updated the MD-11 with 777 and 787 technologies and used three GEnx2B-67s to make it so expensive to offer an RFP that it ensured that nobody else would, just as the EU did for the A400M.

[Aurora]

Maybe the USAF should have written the KC-X RFP to require three engines. That way, Boeing could have updated the MD-11 with 777 and 787 technologies and used three GEnx2B-67s to make it so expensive to offer an RFP that it ensured that nobody else would, just as the EU did for the A400M.

Actually, I remember reading on a.net that the USAF wanted more KC-10s, but of course Boeing destroyed the tooling. I have no link, just a recollection.

I agree entirely with your comparison to the A400M. I feel that the airbus countries would have eaten a 10 course meal of ground glass before allowing any U.S. company to compete--let alone participate--on that project, LM's early involvement notwithstanding.

[Stitch]

I don't begrudge Europe consolidating various aerospace companies into new, pan-continental consortiums like EADS, Eurofighter, Eurocopter and Euroflag to protect these companies in the face of foreign competition and to pool resources and talents to develop new products that would be desirable in the marketplace so they can become serious competitors and contenders in their own right.

The US has been doing it since WWII when companies like Douglas, Convair, Vought and Republic were all allowed to merge with larger and stronger companies. And then those companies were allowed to merge again to form the four current Defense Conglomerates: Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman and General Dynamics.

And Russia is now doing it, merging all of the Soviet-era aviation companies (Irkut, Mikoyan, Sukhoi, Ilyushin, Tupolev, Beriev and Yakovlev) into the United Aircraft Corporation.


But the surest way to no longer maintain a major domestic defense industry is to stop designing and building weapons. So in that regard, a KC-767ADV win is critical because we design the system, we engineer the system and we build the system. With the KC-30A, all we get to do is put the parts Europe designed, engineered and built together, and that can always be outsourced and off-shored somewhere cheaper.

Proof of that is the fact that it's cheaper to assemble the KC-30A in MOB than TLS, so we get to screw the pieces together. However, the "high value" work remains in Europe with European workers.

[keesje]

I feel that the airbus countries would have eaten a 10 course meal of ground glass before allowing any U.S. company to compete--let alone participate--on that project, LM's early involvement notwithstanding

Have Honeywell, Smiths, L-3 Communications, Goodrich and UTC stepped out of the program? (never let reality kill a good rant)

I wonder if folks here are fully aware how much Europe have spended and is spending on US made weapons. In the past the US gave weapons pratically away, killing local alternatives before they could become mature. Lets wait until the WTO rulling on Boeing subsidies and keep the piles of European F4s, F5s, F35s, F16s, F18s, C17s, C130s, UH1s, CH47, CH54, Apaches, KC135s etc etc in the back of our head before reaching bold conclusions.

If the KC767 is slected because its the most something tanker, the air force has to be convinced that getting the second best / good enough tools they are send out with, are the best for America. And that America in this case is not them but Boeing because they deserved it. Because let's be honest, that's were it comes down too.

[Stitch]

I don't think that just because the US defense industry was "on top" during the Cold War, we should now shutter it and allow someone else (a.k.a. - Europe) take over as the "Arsenal of Democracy" out of some sense of fair play.

Not to mention all that money we spent took away the "Soviet Boogeyman" which allowed Europe to form all these consortiums and compete on the international market.

The KC-767ADV is an excellent tanker that is more than capable of meeting the RFP and providing US warfighters with solid and dependable platform. It's not like Boeing is offering up the KC-97 Stratotanker again, after all.

And it's not like the A330 MRTT is being forced out of the market, either. It's winning RFPs with multiple armed forces. Yes, the USAF deal is the one Airbus wants to win because it will be worth more than probably the rest of the world's future tanker RFPs combined, but hey, if Airbus wins the rest of the world's RFPs, that's still going to be worth a not-insignificant number of frames.

[Jacobin777]

If the KC767 is slected because its the most something tanker, the air force has to be convinced that getting the second best / good enough tools they are send out with, are the best for America. And that America in this case is not them but Boeing because they deserved it. Because let's be honest, that's were it comes down too.

B.S. to say the KC767 is a "something tanker" and 2nd rate. Bottom line is the rules were changed in the middle of the game..and that was clearly proven. Apropos keesje, as you well now, I find the A330 to be an excellent aircraft. Coincidentally, my dad is currently on an A333 as I type.....

Personally, I prefer the A332 over the A333...

[USAF336TFS]

I feel that the airbus countries would have eaten a 10 course meal of ground glass before allowing any U.S. company to compete--let alone participate--on that project, LM's early involvement notwithstanding

Have Honeywell, Smiths, L-3 Communications, Goodrich and UTC stepped out of the program? (never let reality kill a good rant)

I wonder if folks here are fully aware how much Europe have spended and is spending on US made weapons. In the past the US gave weapons pratically away, killing local alternatives before they could become mature. Lets wait until the WTO rulling on Boeing subsidies and keep the piles of European F4s, F5s, F35s, F16s, F18s, C17s, C130s, UH1s, CH47, CH54, Apaches, KC135s etc etc in the back of our head before reaching bold conclusions.

If the KC767 is slected because its the most something tanker, the air force has to be convinced that getting the second best / good enough tools they are send out with, are the best for America. And that America in this case is not them but Boeing because they deserved it. Because let's be honest, that's were it comes down too.

Again with "second best".... That is NOT what the GAO thinks, who knows more about the details of the last KC-X competition then you, me, all the Airbus cheerleaders on a-net and anyone else for that matter. May I repeat what they found. They said "The competition between both aircraft was very close and Boeing could have easily been picked the winner" based on the RFP. Those of you that continue to say those falsehoods, do so with a commercial airliner-based mindset. Saying it over and over still doesn't make it true.

This post has been edited by USAF336TFS: Sep 6 2009, 04:10 PM

[Stitch]

I believe most people accept the inherent superiority of the KC-30A platform. That's why it's winning all the RFPs - if you're only going to buy anywhere from a half-dozen to two dozen planes, it's really a no-brainer since you can do more with the small fleet you sortie and you only have one or two facilities you need to adapt to handle the plane.

But the USAF is going to be buying hundreds of these things and basing them at scores of bases all over the world. They don't need to maximize lift per frame because they'll just sortie more frames from the larger pool.

It's why I believe the KC-767ADV is "good enough", even if it's not the "best". And it retains multiple core competencies in the United States.

And I remain fully in support of a dual buy with the KC-30A being acquired to replace the KC-10 if Airbus is willing to send A330-200F / A330 MRTT / KC-30B final assembly to the US, as well. I don't care how much life the KC-10 has left in it - send it to ANG or give them to FEMA.

That way, Boeing, Pratt and GE all win new business and we help boost our aerospace workforce knowledgebase and capacity.

[11Bravo]

Because let's be honest, that's were it comes down too.

While we're being honest, lets be real about what it is we're talking about here. It's a frickin' tanker not some cutting edge high-tech fighter or attack aircraft. The fact that the USAF is currently using a 50 year-old design as its primary tanker strongly suggest to me that all your talk of "superior" this, and "second best" that, is nonsense.

It's a bit like buying a new pickup for the farm because that old beater '61 Chevy needs replacing. You don't need something particularly sophisticated or high-tech to perform that function. Just go get a new pickup that is affordable and reliable and call it good.

The A330 and the B767 are both fine aircraft for this purpose; it's six of one and half a dozen of another. The issues of cost, value, maintenance of industrial capacity, and economic impact are much more important to me. In my view it is simply inappropriate for the US Government to award such a large contract to a non-US company when there is a suitable alternative here at home. That is doubly true considering the state of our economy and the reduced resources available for DoD procurement. That will make this a political decision rather than an aircraft performance decision. That's fine with me. Move along.

This post has been edited by 11Bravo: Sep 6 2009, 05:59 PM

[Stitch]

If American warfighters must have "the best", then why do not the French and Spanish? Why are they still flying KC-135FRs and KC-707s? Why have they not ordered the A330 MRTT? Why are Germany and Canada converting their A310s to A310 MRTTs? They should be buying brand new A330 MRTTs because they're better.

[USAF336TFS]

All this assumes that Boeing will re-offer the KC-767AT in it's 2008 form, which they have strongly hinted will not be the case. I believe we'll see a new 767-300 based tanker with GEnX engines and winglets. Certainly a much stronger competitor to the KC-30.

Again, based on the so-called "strengths" of the KC-30, Boeing can just offer the KC-777 and cut the price in half... Clearly a superior aircraft and one that will do much more then any other tanker flying or in development, can do, today.

[Aurora]

As for aid given to the A350, this Reuters article indicates that it will be the subject of a separate case.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idU...lBrandChannel=0

The United States had not only attacked the individual loans but claimed they were part of a concerted and open-ended system in a bid to implicate future loans for Airbus's future A350, which fell outside the jurisdiction of the WTO complaint.

Washington is expected to protest those loans separately.