However, rather than reaching for an on-off switch through congressional correctness, they should review the whole matter, by going back on export-import bank legislation's "intent". Obviously, some things have unintended consequences and make a miserable law for some who compete against those who are blessed with a solid EXIM financial backing. The real problem is either throwing the on/off switch, to "off", on Boeing when what is really needed is an Export-Import Bank "Dimmer Switch".
Eliminate the unintended consequences portion of this type of finance, and clarify with all potential customers of newly modified financing constructs. That it has attached "strings " for this type of financing. Boeing has become dependent on this kind of street money as if it were a drug. Foreign aircraft builders have little or no connection for this type of money. The implementation of this finance becomes a dependency for the manufacturer, namely Boeing. Now they have filled its order book gaps with Export-Import orders of significant proportion, and as it does not compete entirely from price points, but through financing points. The analogy would be in car sales when the dealership is selling a monthly payment amount, rather than the product itself.
Domestic partners have also entered into the Export-Import Bank complaints, further attacking the political side of this arrangement. Labor and American owned airlines claim it impedes upon its ability to function and compete with this type of governmental relationship hanging over its heads while competing airline customers love cheap financing. This is often the condition when a competitor considers buying a multi-billion dollar purchase through EXIM.
If a foreign airline company can't afford standard financing, then why are they seeking a multi-billion dollar airplane purchases of wide-bodied 787's in the first place? That is the case (or condition) for most American owned airlines, where it went through its own standard banking process (competing for money), and then an EXIM customer makes it uncompetitive for that "Standard Financed Airline", as a foreign airline enters into the US market with its Export-Import Financed aircraft landing into the American airline market. American owned airline employees get into the complaint at this point.
It's not a simple answer for any American Owned Airlines, who has done it the old-fashioned way through going to the "standard bank", and now EXIM Airlines Types makes it hard to compete.
The US Congress should not hit the "off" button on the Export-Import Bank Legislation but should hit the dimmer switch with addendum provisions, which would eliminate some or most of the unintended consequences found within the lending nature of the current Export-Import Banking structure. If an airline has a financial disability in its goal for growth and wants to back from the US Export-Import (EXIM) Bank, then it should not be allowed preferential status when it comes to head to head competition with American Based Airlines.
Domestic airlines, who use a standard financing are at a distinct disadvantage while flying in the same markets of EXIM sponsored airlines. In other words, an adjusted finance rate should be applied at each travel point when this condition exists. As the EXIM's loans are affecting competing American based airlines, and those same competing airlines are at a disadvantage in any market, where EXIM is the financial engine.
Example: "If you take the EXIM loan and it is applied against "United Airline Routes and equipment", where that same competing foreign EXIM airline is from another country, its EXIM loan rate will be adjusted per flight, as "balanced through a trade premium assessed to the EXIM equipment competing with the United Airlines in this case.". If the foreign EXIM airline flies from its home base to any location in the world a premium wouldn't apply on that financed aircraft. This concept should level the airline playing field. A Correction is made, "Don't unfairly compete".
No comments:
Post a Comment