
US tariff war risks making planes more expensive and may hurt Boeing, says Airbus CEO
Airbus's top executives have warned that retaliatory aviation sector tariffs between the US and Europe could raise the price tags of aircraft and potentially hurt its chief rival Boeing, as President Donald Trump's rapid pivots on US trade policy stoke uncertainty for businesses around the world. Aviation is a 'North Atlantic ecosystem: there's a lot of parts and goods going from Europe to US and US to Europe … we think it will be a lose-lose situation to put tariffs', Airbus chief executive Guillaume Faury told The National in Toulouse on the sidelines of the annual Airbus Summit. 'In a number of scenarios, tariffs would much more impact US activities than non-US activities, given the nature of this industry.' For now, there have not been indications of aviation-related tariffs targeting the sector and, Mr Faury said, he hopes this will continue to be the case. 'I continue to hope there will be no tariffs targeting aerospace … and if we have, then, we have to understand what it looks like and what we need to do to respond to the situation,' he said. In a scenario where Airbus' US airline customers are impacted by potential tariffs, Airbus 'can adapt because of the demand we have', Mr Faury added. 'We will adapt to the situation, including potentially by redirecting our clients, but again, we are not in that situation today.' Airbus is currently in 'wait-and-see mode' until it becomes clear if any tariffs will be imposed on the sector, by when and what will be the potential retaliation from Europe, according to Mr Faury. 'There's plenty of scenarios and we are trying to understand,' he said. Mr Faury told the summit that in most scenarios, potential tariffs would be 'very damaging' to the US aviation industry, and therefore, 'it is not very likely' that the Trump administration would impose tariffs on aviation. 'We are in an industry where putting tariffs will be very damaging, probably more damaging to the US at first glance or they would have to be very sophisticated, we don't know what the response would look like so we are in wait-and-see mode.' Airbus has a significant manufacturing base in the US with a plant in Alabama where it has final assembly lines for the A220, A320 and A321 narrow-bodies. The French plane maker also assembles and retrofits civil and military helicopters in Mississippi and produces satellites in Florida. Employing more than 5,000 people in the US, Airbus also supports 275,000 American jobs through its annual spending of $15 billion with more than 2,000 suppliers across 40 states, according to its website. Its production factories in the US potentially gives Airbus more leverage to mitigate potential fallout from tariffs. 'What President Trump is trying to achieve is to encourage activity, work, jobs, employment in the US and this is very much contributing to jobs in the US,' Mr Faury said. Depending on the potential tariffs, they could result in a bigger price tag for supplies and aircraft, Wouter van Wersch, executive vice president International at Airbus, told The National. 'Depending on how it is positioned, it can make our supply more expensive and it can also make the price of the aircraft more expensive. Ultimately, it's not the best situation for the industry,' he said. 'We like a free world and everything that promotes the free trade of goods is helping us and other manufacturers because everybody is in the same boat.' Imposing tariffs could hurt the aviation industry's rebound as the supply chain continues to heal from the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Airbus receives a million parts for one aircraft and has thousands of suppliers worldwide. 'Many of the suppliers are still recovering from Covid [impact] and at the same time, we've got our massive backlog and we need to ramp-up [production],' Mr van Wersch said. 'So clearly, the tariffs are an additional burden that we would like to avoid.' As a company with a global supply chain, with assembly lines in Europe, the US and China, Airbus is closely monitoring developments around tariffs, but it is 'too early' to say what the impact will be, he added. 'Like many other companies, we are assessing how this is all going to evolve, and especially assessing the impact on our operations and the supply chain,' he said. 'We have a very wide supply chain … we have a very strong risk-management system and we are trying to see where this is going.' Christian scherr, chief executive of the Commercial Aircraft business of Airbus, told the summit Airbus needs to understand what the tariffs are 'before we can draw conclusions, whether it's for us, for our suppliers, who we would be worried about, or for our competitors'. Rising trade tension between the US and China since Mr Trump's first term have helped Airbus gain the upper hand over Boeing in supplying aircraft to China, the world's second-largest aviation market. Airbus also has the advantage of a final assembly line in Tianjin in northern China that produces the popular A320 family of narrow-body aircraft. 'We have maintained a professional business relationship with our Chinese partners, whereas the situation of Boeing has been indeed impacted by the general situation of political tension between the US and China,' Mr Faury said. 'So, it's probably a situation that is different than what Boeing is having but we are looking at our own way of doing business with our Chinese stakeholders. We try to continue to do the right things, and that's where we are, working directly with the airlines and Chinese stakeholders.' Last week, in a meeting with Mr Faury in China, the country's Commerce Minister Wang Wentao said China's trade policies towards trading partners, including the EU, have consistently been stable. He also welcomed European companies to increase their investment in China, according to a ministry statement, adding that China will continue to improve its business environment, and will vigorously encourage foreign investment. Earlier this month Airbus estimated it will deliver 820 aircraft this year, setting a modest target as the plane maker struggles with trade tension, persistent supply constraints and delays at some engine makers. Airbus will absorb some parts of struggling US supplier Spirit Aerosystems, while Boeing is buying the majority of that company it once owned to gain better control over plane parts manufacturing. Mr Faury said he is hopeful that Airbus taking over Spirit work packages for the A220 and A350 aircraft by midyear is a realistic timeline. 'I got from my team signals that things are coming together. It becomes more and more difficult to be done by the middle of the year, but that was the objective, so we keep sticking to that date for the moment to put pressure on the system so we can come to a result,' he said. Mr van Wersch added that demand for new aircraft continues to hold strong, despite economic uncertainty, as airlines want to buy more fuel-efficient jets and replace older equipment. 'Today, if I look at all the campaigns we are working on, it is set to look very positive in the coming years. Middle East carriers are very ambitious and have an amazing position geographically to link the world.' Mr Scherer said Airbus is beginning to see 'encouraging signs' of improvement in the overall performance of supply chains, but as the plane maker increases production, it is facing some constraints that it is addressing. 'The overall noise or disturbance in the supply environment seems to be … on a somewhat positive trend,' he said. Looking ahead, the Airbus chief executive is optimistic of a smooth landing. 'Take the example of a plane taking off from one place going to another with bad weather on the way, a bit of headwind, some turbulence, that's what we are experiencing. But we continue to target landing at our destination,' Mr Faury said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Middle East Eye
24 minutes ago
- Middle East Eye
On World Refugee Day, scores of families approved for resettlement in US are stuck in limbo
Friday, 20 June, marks International Refugee Day, but celebrations across the US have been muted since the Trump administration's 20 January refugee ban remains firmly in place. Since the ban was implemented, around 12,000 refugees who had security screenings and were booked for travel to the US had their flights cancelled. Another approximately 108,000 remaining refugees who had been 'conditionally approved' to come to the US remain stranded in precarious situations overseas. Only a very small number of refugees are currently being resettled and allowed to access support services under exceptions to the refugee ban. The Biden administration had announced a target of 125,000 refugees for fiscal year 2025, and according to the United Nations, there were 42.7 million refugees worldwide at the end of 2024. Refugees currently being settled in the US include dozens of white South Africans and approximately 160 refugees protected by an injunction under a lawsuit known as Pacito vs Trump. While multiple lawsuits against the ban have been, and are being filed in courts, the Pacito vs Trump case, filed by International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) in February, is one of the most significant and high-profile challenges to the refugee ban. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters The class action lawsuit filed by IRAP represents a group of nine individuals affected by the ban and several refugee resettlement agencies seeking to have the executive order and suspension of refugee-related funding declared illegal and their implementation halted. It also looks to restore vital funding to the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). On 5 May, the Western District Court of Washington issued a compliance order to the government to process and provide resettlement support to refugees who were conditionally approved and had travel scheduled before 20 January 2025. This order covers 160 individuals who had imminent travel plans as of 20 January and will retain protection under the ruling. On 15 May, the district court also affirmed that the government must immediately resume the processing of around 11,840 vulnerable refugees who were conditionally approved for resettlement with confirmed travel plans before the executive order. Laurie Ball Cooper, vice president for US legal programmes at IRAP, affirmed that some more people may be eligible to resume their plans to come to the US. 'In addition, among the remaining - approximately 12,000 people minus the 160 - there are surely people who can meet the standard set by the Ninth Circuit of showing that they have a strong reliance interest in the travel and therefore are still protected by the injunction,' she said. 'The district court has indicated that they will set up a process using a special neutral individual [special master] to adjudicate disputes around who meets that standard and who does not. But that process hasn't started yet,' Ball Cooper said. 'Bittersweet' From the approximate 108,000 refugees who were 'conditionally approved', Ball Cooper remains optimistic that the current litigation would also be able to find them some relief. 'Our underlying litigation continues to challenge the executive order as it applies to all refugees, and so over the long term, I hope that we will prevail on those arguments and see people able to proceed to safety.' USRAP was created in 1980 by the Refugee Act of 1980 to provide a safe and legal pathway for people fleeing persecution, war, or conflict to come to the United States to either join with family or to meet foreign and humanitarian policy priorities of the US government. Despite political rhetoric that often scapegoats refugees as a burden, refugees are a fiscal success for the United States. Based on a study commissioned by the Trump administration during his first term, refugees were shown to contribute $63 billion more in federal, state, and local taxes than they had taken in services and assistance between 2005 and 2014. US grants dozens of white South Africans refugee status Read More » 'Every refugee who enters is someone who is able to pursue the life that they are meant to be able to pursue here: in many cases, to reunite with family members, to join communities that are ready to welcome them. So every single arrival is something worth celebrating, and more should be coming!' Ball Cooper added. Despite the statistical net positive that refugees bring to the US, celebrations on World Refugee Day have been bittersweet. 'I would describe observances of International Refugee Day today as mixed,' Ball Cooper said. She said that everyone in refugee communities or refugee-serving communities was continuing to take time today to celebrate the many ways refugees 'enrich our communities in the US, and the great joy it is for those of us who get to know, work with and live with refugees'. 'At the same time, it is certainly bittersweet, because there are so many tens of thousands of refugees who should be here already, and they're not because of the refugee ban,' she said. 'This is deeply sad, extremely frustrating, heartbreaking and life-threatening for many of the refugees themselves.'


Middle East Eye
an hour ago
- Middle East Eye
'Not our war': US lawmakers attempt to rein in potential strikes on Iran
Two US lawmakers in the House of Representatives have teamed up to introduce a bipartisan resolution that would compel President Donald Trump to seek congressional approval before ordering air strikes on Iran. US military engagement, alongside Israel against Iran, is largely assessed not only to lead to Iranian retaliation against US assets in the region, but also to potential US entanglement in yet another years-long war in the Middle East. Trump, in all three of his campaigns for the White House, ran on a no-to-war platform. Now, he is reportedly weighing whether to drop a 30,000-lb "bunker-buster" bomb on an Iranian nuclear facility. Republican Thomas Massie, a staunch anti-interventionist, and Democrat Ro Khanna, a progressive whose district encompasses Silicon Valley, are hoping to amass support from both parties for a vote on a war powers resolution next week. "The Constitution does not permit the executive branch to unilaterally commit an act of war against a sovereign nation that hasn't attacked the United States," Massie said in a statement. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters "Congress has the sole power to declare war against Iran. The ongoing war between Israel and Iran is not our war." In an interview with CNN on Thursday, Khanna said while he believes it's in the interest of US national security for Iran not to develop a nuclear weapon, "I don't believe that will be achieved by the United States getting dragged into a war with Iran." Both the United Nations' nuclear watchdog and the US intelligence community have said Iran is not close to developing a nuclear weapon. When pushed by CNN's Wolf Blitzer on why taking out a hidden nuclear facility - using a bomb no other country but the US has - would not be a good thing, Khanna pointed to a litany of unknowns. "We don't know how deep underground Iran actually has those bombs. We do not know how much - spread out - Iran has that capability, and we do not know how quickly they would be able to rebuild, given that they have the centrifuges and the know-how, [and] the estimates range from one to three years," Khanna said. "There has to be a diplomatic solution," he added. Trump was in the middle of a months-long negotiation with Iran towards a new nuclear deal, much like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that he pulled out of in 2018, when Israel began air strikes on Tehran one week ago. Some of the president's most famous and most loyal supporters on the Make America Great Again (MAGA) circuit have made it clear this week that they believe Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to lure the US into a war that is none of Washington's business. 'De-escalatory vehicle' Massie and Khanna's resolution follows a similar move in the Senate by Democrat Tim Kaine, who ran for the vice presidency on the Hillary Clinton ticket in 2016. That resolution, also utilising the War Powers Act, demands a debate in the upper chamber and a vote on any US military engagement in Iran. Both votes are likely happening next week. On Thursday, Trump announced that he could take up to two weeks to decide on direct US engagement in Israel's war, but many suspect strikes could come as early as this weekend. 'We want to put every single member of Congress on public record of where they stand specifically on war with Iran' - Cavan Kharrazian, Senior policy advisor, Demand Progress The 1973 War Powers Act allows any senator to introduce a resolution to withdraw US armed forces from a conflict not authorised by Congress. The legislative branch, which acts as the country's purse, is also supposed to be the one that declares war, not the executive. But since the 9/11 attacks in particular, the foggy nature of the so-called "war on terror" has enabled the White House to call the shots, especially as Washington has carried out air strikes in countries from Somalia to Pakistan without an official declaration of war. "Presidents have consistently said that the War Powers Act is an unconstitutional infringement on the executive branch's powers," Hassan El-Tayyab, legislative director for Middle East policy with the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), told Middle East Eye. "What we've seen on the congressional side is really an unwillingness to force these votes in debates [and] use the mechanisms and procedural tools inside the War Powers Act, because it's just a little bit easier... these [lawmakers] would rather just let the executive branch do what it does and not have to be on the record," he added. Congress has recently twice been able to successfully push through a war powers motion - during the first Trump administration on Yemen in 2018, and again on Iran in 2020 - but the president vetoed the resolutions. So what's the point? "What's important with these resolutions is that we want to put every single member of Congress on public record of where they stand specifically on war with Iran," Cavan Kharrazian, senior policy advisor with Demand Progress, told MEE. Demand Progress, as well as FCNL, have been lobbying lawmakers on Capitol Hill to publicly take an anti-war stance along with other civil society organisations. "It's become extremely popular to criticise past disasters like the Iraq War... [and this vote] will now be an opportunity to show whether they're willing to act when it counts," Kharrazian said. And in spite of Trump's past vetoes, there was in fact no further escalation with Yemen or Iran at the time, making a war powers resolution a "de-escalatory vehicle that can help pump the brakes and prevent full escalation and full US involvement in a war of choice," Tayyab told MEE. Pressure A survey conducted by YouGov, an international online research data and analytics technology group, asked on 17 June whether US strikes on Iran would make America safer. The largest portion, 37 percent of the 3,471 US adults polled, said the country would be "less safe". Around a quarter of respondents each said they are "not sure" or that the country would "neither" feel safer or less safe. Only 14 percent said the US would be safer if the US joined Israel's war. Another poll published by The Washington Post on Wednesday found that almost half of the 1,008 Americans it surveyed oppose US strikes on Iran, with that figure dwarfing the number of people who do support military action. Trump is not looking at a green light from the public. Trump promised not to go to war. His most ardent supporters want him to keep his word Read More » That said, there is an undeniably influential pro-war bloc in Washington that has been pervasive regardless of the president and party affiliation. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) and Christians United For Israel (Cufi) are among the leaders in this regard. Since Israel attacked Iran, Aipac has pushed for House Democrats, some of whom have shown scepticism, to issue statements saying that they stand with Israel. It has also shown particular animosity toward one Republican, Massie, who put forward the resolution of the war powers in the House. Earlier this year, an Aipac affiliate group proclaimed that 'Israel, the Holy Land, [is] under attack by Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and Congressman Tom Massie" for his numerous votes against US military aid packages for Israel. "I mean, the pressure is real. We know neoconservatives, the pro-Israel lobby, they're leaning incredibly hard in this moment. They've leaned incredibly hard on every single moment this has come up," Kharrazian told MEE. "We're not naive on the pressures that are against us [but] from [this] past election, we've seen a tidal shift in the narrative and opposition to endless wars in a way that we haven't seen before. So we're really excited for this," to build anti-war momentum, he said. Advocacy groups are also contending with Trump's billionaire donors. Among the top five is Israeli-born Miriam Adelson, whose Adelson Foundation has also bankrolled organisations such as Birthright Israel and Friends of the IDF. "One thing that's not talked about enough is just the forces of Christian Zionism," Tayyab told MEE. "I think some of those groups believe that this is part of just some end times prophecy, which, despite how you know how off the wall it seems, it is a driving force for a lot of the decisions that are being made." That sentiment was perhaps most famously on display earlier this week when former Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson asked Republican Senator Ted Cruz about why he supports Israel. "I was taught from the Bible, those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed. And from my perspective, I want to be on the blessing side of things," Cruz said. Cufi is holding its annual summit in the US capital at the end of June.


Dubai Eye
4 hours ago
- Dubai Eye
Kremlin declines to predict when Putin and Trump may meet face-to-face
The Kremlin said on Friday it could not predict whether Russian President Vladimir Putin would meet U.S. President Donald Trump this year given how turbulent the world had become. The Kremlin has repeatedly said that Putin is open to an in-person meeting with Trump, but that the process of setting one up is complex and first requires lengthy preparation at expert level. Trump and Putin have held five phone calls this year, most recently on Saturday, according to public statements from the two sides. When asked about the probability of the two leaders meeting face-to-face sometime this year, Peskov told reporters: "I wouldn't venture to make such predictions. "We live in such a turbulent world that it is impossible to make forecasts even for next week," he said, in an apparent reference to the Israel-Iran conflict. After returning to the White House in January, Trump initially took a softer stance towards Moscow, but in recent months he has grown increasingly frustrated that his push to bring about an end to the war in Ukraine has thus far yielded scant results. Russia said on Monday that the US had cancelled the next round of bilateral talks on removing "irritants" between the two countries. Peskov said on Friday that Moscow was in constant dialogue with the US about a possible peace settlement for Ukraine, but that a separate track of talks on trying to repair bilateral ties was complex because so many problems had accumulated over the years. He said that US diplomats wanted to link the two sets of negotiations, but that Moscow believed removing "irritants' in bilateral ties would help efforts to make progress on Ukraine. "We hope that in the foreseeable future we will reach agreement on new dates (for a new round of talks on bilateral issues)," said Peskov.