777 vs a350

Not entirely, mearly the outter section does while the inboard has single

Those are LEADING EDGE SLATS
I’m talking about trailing edge flaps

Yeah, me too

I haven’t mentioned the slats just yet

Never though about that

1 Like

Yes, they’re not thieves. The police is not gonna arrest it.

Can you list 3 examples

Well… Yes, but that’s not the point

The Thai Airways thing
The Qantas thing

Government subsidies[edit]

Boeing has continually protested over “launch aid” and other forms of government aid to Airbus, while Airbus has argued that Boeing receives illegal subsidies through military and research contracts and tax breaks.[109]

In July 2004 former Boeing CEO Harry Stonecipher accused Airbus of abusing a 1992 bilateral EU-US agreement providing for disciplines for large civil aircraft support from governments. Airbus is given reimbursable launch investment (RLI), called “launch aid” by the US, from European governments with the money being paid back with interest plus indefinite royalties, but only if the aircraft is a commercial success.[110] Airbus contends that this system is fully compliant with the 1992 agreement and WTO rules. The agreement allows up to 33% of the programme cost to be met through government loans which are to be fully repaid within 17 years with interest and royalties. These loans are held at a minimum interest rate equal to the cost of government borrowing plus 0.25%, which would be below market rates available to Airbus without government support.[111] Airbus claims that since the signature of the EU-US agreement in 1992, it has repaid European governments more than U.S.$6.7 billion and that this is 40% more than it has received.

Airbus argues that the military contracts awarded to Boeing, the second largest U.S. defence contractor, are in effect a form of subsidy, such as the controversy surrounding the Boeing KC-767 military contracting arrangements. The significant U.S. government support of technology development via NASA also provides significant support to Boeing, as do the large tax breaks offered to Boeing, which some people claim are in violation of the 1992 agreement and WTO rules. In its recent products such as the 787, Boeing has also been offered direct financial support from local and state governments.[112]

In January 2005 the European Union and United States trade representatives, Peter Mandelson and Robert Zoellick respectively, agreed to talks aimed at resolving the increasing tensions.[113][114] These talks were not successful with the dispute becoming more acrimonious rather than approaching a settlement.[115]

WTO ruled in August 2010 and in May 2011 that Airbus had received improper government subsidies through loans with below market rates from several European countries.[116] In a separate ruling in February 2011, WTO found that Boeing had received local and federal aid in violation of WTO rules.[117]

Cluster bomb allegation[edit]

In 2005 the Government Pension Fund of Norway recommended the exclusion of several companies producing cluster bombs or components. EADS and its sister company EADS Finance BV were among them, arguing that EADS manufactures “key components for cluster bombs”. The criticism was centred around TDA, a joint venture between EADS and Thales S.A. TDA produced the mortar ammunition PR Cargo, which can be considered cluster ammunition, however this definition has since been successfully battled by EADS. EADS and its subsidiaries are now regarded as fulfilling all the conditions of the Ottawa Treaty. According to the new point of view, no product of EADS or its subsidiaries falls into the category of antipersonnel mines as defined by the Ottawa Treaty (“landmines under the Ottawa Treaty”). In April 2006, the fund declared that the basis for excluding EADS from investments related to production of cluster munitions is no longer valid, however its shareholding of MBDA means the fund still excludes EADS due to its indirect involvement in nuclear weapons production.[118]

Insider trading investigation[edit]

On 2 June 2006 co-CEO Noël Forgeard and Airbus CEO Gustav Humbert resigned following the controversy caused by the June 2006 announcement that deliveries of the A380 would be delayed by a further six months. Forgeard was one of a number of executives including Jean-Paul Gut who exercised stock options in November 2005 and March 2006. He and twenty-one other executives are[ when? ] under investigation as to whether they knew about the delays in the Airbus A380 project which caused a 26 % fall in EADS shares when publicised. The French government’s actions were also under investigation; The state-owned bank Caisse des Dépots et Consignations (CDC) bought part of Lagardère’s 7.5 % stake in EADS in April 2006, allowing that latter to partially escape the June 2006 losses.[119]

Bribery allegations[edit]

South Africa[edit]

In 2003 Tony Yengeni, former chief whip of South Africa’s African National Congress, was convicted of fraud worth around US$5 billion relating to an arms deal with South Africa, in which Airbus (formerly EADS) were major players,.[120] It was claimed that Airbus had admitted that it had “rendered assistance” to around thirty senior officials, including defence force chief General Siphiwe Nyanda, to obtain luxury vehicles.[121] In March 2003, South Africa withdrew all charges of bribery against the former head of EADS South Africa,[122] and in September 2004, the prosecutor’s office dismissed the bribery charges against Yengeni.[ citation needed ]

Saudi Arabia[edit]

In August 2012 the UK’s Serious Fraud Office opened a criminal investigation into an EADS subsidiary, GPT Special Project Management Ltd, regarding bribery allegations made by GPT’s former programme director, Ian Foxley. Foxley alleged that luxury cars were bought for senior Saudis, and that millions of pounds sterling were paid to mysterious Cayman Islands companies, possibly to secure a £2 billion contract to renew the Saudi Arabian National Guard’s military telecommunications network.[123] Foxley’s allegations were supported by two other GPT employees.[124] The later agreement between Airbus and the SFO on 31 January 2020 excluded settlement of this case.[125]

British and French investigations[edit]

The French National Financial Prosecutor’s Office (PNF), the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the US Department of Justice (DoJ) had been jointly investigating irregularities in Airbus marketing practices since 2016, in particular the activities of agents Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, the Philippines, Indonesia and Austria,[a] but also China, the United Arab Emirates, South Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Kuwait, Turkey, Russia, Mexico, Brazil, Vietnam, India, Colombia and Nepal.[125]

In July 2016, SFO opened a criminal investigation into “suspicions of fraud, bribes and corruption” after Airbus informed British authorities of a failure to disclose the role played by some intermediaries facilitating the sale of aircraft. Airbus was required to provide this information in order to benefit from export credits, which the British, French and German governments had suspended. In March 2017, the PNF subsequently opened a preliminary investigation into “suspicions of fraud and corruption in civil aviation activities” in cooperation with the SFO.[125]

The allegations included that from 2012 onwards Airbus was responsible for recruiting and remunerating intermediaries to influence the award of civil and military contracts. Payments worth hundreds of millions of euros in alleged secret commissions were made and numerous sales including in Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, Philippines, Indonesia, Austria, China and Mauritius were under suspicion of bribery.[126][ verification needed ][127]

The investigation focussed on the Airbus, Strategy and Marketing Organization (SMO), the department responsible for negotiating sales contracts and which, La Tribune reported as having “a network and an incredible influence around the world.” Directed successively by Jean-Paul Gut and Marwan Lahoud, the SMO was dissolved in 2016 under the new executive director, Thomas Enders, as part of a “clean hands” operation.[128]

In 2014, in a case referred to as the Kazakhgate affair, a search at Airbus Helicopters by French authorities found emails confirming that Airbus had agreed in principle to pay €12 million in pots of wine to the Prime Minister of Kazakhstan to facilitate the sale of helicopters. Officers from the Central Anti-Corruption Office (OCLCIFF) then searched the home of Marwan Lahoud on 8 February 2016.[b] This revealed that two Turkish intermediaries had claimed payment of commissions due in connection with the sale of 160 aircraft to China valued at US$10 billion. A message by Lahoud suggested that the commissions could reach US$250 million. The SMO was to conceal these commissions as false invoices for a fictitious Caspian pipeline project.[c]

In January 2020, French, British and American courts validated three agreements between Airbus and the PNF,[129] the UK SFO,[125][130] and the US DoJ.[131][132] Airbus recognised the charges and agreed to pay fines of €3.6 billion in France, €984 million in the United Kingdom and €526 million in the United States. The penalties were the highest ever issued by the French and British bodies.[133][134][135]

These settlements close the prosecution of Airbus regarding the Kazakhstan case but not allegations of misconduct in Saudi Arabia, China and Turkey, which Airbus denies.[136] Airbus managers may still be pursued as private individuals.[d]
source -Wiki

1 Like

That’s a lot of stuff…

1 Like

yes it is

So what your telling me is Airbus did an oopsie…or two…or three…or eight…

1 Like

I honestly don’t care which plane is better. If it can fly, it’s good

and the excuse “ThEy ArE nEw HeRe. NeW gUyS dOn’T kNoW mUcH” won’t work with me. It has been tried on me many times.

1 Like

And buying the C-Series program below list prices
@AvioesEJogos

I don’t care about any of the actual flying technology. Economics, maintenance, range, and power are for the airline to worry about, not me. I’d go with A350 here because I think it looks better and it’s also considerably quieter inside. Also, having 3-3-3 instead of 3-4-3 creates a more spacious feel.

The only thing I’d give the 777 is that it sounds better on spool, but if I wanted to hear good noises I’d go listen to a LFA.

4 Likes

y ded
777 >>A350

you will understand that if you know math & physics

Absolutely agreed

I have to tell you
The A350 burns 25% less fuel than the 777
Yes, it’s math