US set to impose tariffs on $7.5B of EU exports in Airbus row

- Airbus started later, so they started with newer technology, on top of it the fly-by-wire / all electronics commands. Boeing is weighted by its legacy. Dozens of thousands of pilots have been trained on mechanical systems, it’s hard to migrate them. Airbus benefited from watching Boeing’s experience and starting at the age of electronics.

- Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas in the 2000’s which has extremely bad engineering records (Half of episodes of Air Crash Investigation are about the DC-9/DC-10/MD-11, involving FAA leniency on the flying doors, FAA leniency on extending the length without doing the proper engineering, and I don’t know if one sees a ressemblance with current events). So the MD acquisition may have entirely modified Boeing’s middle management approach to « handling FAA ». By negotiating FAA’s leniency, or by having people exchange jobs and offices...

- Since the MD purchase 20 years ago, Boeing has chosen to collude with FAA to become the certifier instead of the FAA, in order to win competition against Airbus. Unfortunately it has eroded customer trust when we noticed the FAA isn’t doing its job at all, for example about the metal frames where workers had to drill extra holes next to misplaced ones, or bend the frames, compromising structural integrity entirely [1], the batteries or the MCAS.

- Now with 200 aircrafts 737 Max grounded since 6 months, and perhaps in need of being thrown away entirely, although Boeing isn’t paying directly, it’s still a very good solid stable reason on the long term for customers to choose... not them.

So Boeing had an incumbent, and played the card of « Let’s bypass the safety process and see whether we recover our advance ». It can’t bankrupt because it’s financially as engineered as a subprime, and a governmental strategic asset, but its future isn’t bright.

[1] https://youtu.be/IaWdEtANi-0

"I don't see why we have to let a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people." ~ Henry Kissinger on Chile in the 70s.

If one country conducts their trade in an unfair manner and won't stop until another country retaliates, after which they both trade fairly, this would be just one an example of an effective trade war.

Whether any of this is happening today is very complex and seems to come down to a matter of opinion, especially since almost no one has sat down and really looked at the numbers and issues in depth.

I would suggest that we allow open trade with those countries that meet or exceed our own work, safety and environmental protection requirements. In this case, China, India, most of Africa and some of South America does not meet such levels. In which case, trade should appropriately be restricted unless and until such changes are implemented. This doesn't force our values on other countries, but would at the very least encourage better work and environmental conditions.

In the process of deferring our own production overseas, we've lost our own ability to produce a lot of goods. Some of which requires material resources that are excessively scarce domestically while not fostering relationships with other countries that do have more of those natural resources. This has allowed China and others to foster those relationships, and the conditions relaxed to the point of the acquiring of those resources creating, IMHO, more damages than the good those resources bring.

I do feel that environmental pollution is a real and serious problem, though I'm less inclined to support the paranoid delusions of some, and the outright disinformation of those that are pushing a political agenda over any real, meaningful environmental impact. There are real and meaningful changes that should happen, and negotiation with foreign governments and peoples are a part of that.

As to balancing the winners and losers, I am not sure that should be a goal of trade, and even then that's a large part of what tariff and excise taxes are/were for. It will always balance out in the end and technology is ever increasingly the great equalizer.

Well, it would actually be interesting, given that various RoHS-style approaches seem to rely entirely on bans and labelling requirements. Fees would be an interesting middle ground for things that can't be banned for product quality† reasons, but for which labelling is not a sufficient deterrent for low-value uses of hazardous substances.

added:

† Lead is a very useful material. In many cases, using lead instead of alternatives in a product can dramatically improve consumer safety. For example, lead solder is more ductile than lead-free solder; in a product that vibrates, lead solder can dramatically improve the useful life of a product, as far as I've been told. Furthermore, the higher temperatures required to make joints with lead-free solder increase the failure rate of components being soldered.