Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Washington Doesn't Make Cut For Possible New Airbu  
User currently offlineRsmith6621a From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 194 posts, RR: 2
Posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2900 times:

WASHINGTON -- The parent company of European aircraft maker Airbus Thursday selected four Southern states as finalists for a $600 million U.S. factory to build refueling tankers for the U.S. military.

Sites in Mobile, Ala.; Melbourne, Fla.; Kiln, Miss.; and North Charleston, S.C., will compete for the right to host the U.S. factory, which could begin operations as soon as next year.

http://www.kirotv.com/money/4454821/detail.html


Did You Ever Think Freedom Could Be this Bad
10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5803 posts, RR: 47
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2885 times:

Doesn't matter 'cause the USAF isn't about to give another govt. subsidy to Airbus on top of the one they already receive from the EU.


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineIndy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 4596 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2868 times:

I used to live in Melbourne and I think it would be an interesting choice especially with Grumman already being there. And its not like they would be in the way of passenger traffic. You could probably flatten the terminal there and put up the factory and no one would notice.


Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
User currently offlineLoggat From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 666 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2819 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 1):
Doesn't matter 'cause the USAF isn't about to give another govt. subsidy to Airbus on top of the one they already receive from the EU.

That makes no sense. Airbus don't want to build a new site in the US to build planes for Fiji do they? The US government is the one PURCHASING the new airplanes for THEMSELVES, whether it is Boeing or Airbus. The USAF didn't say "oh, we have some spare money, let's help out Boeing/Airbus and not get anything in return." If I go out and buy a new computer from Dell, I am not giving subsidies to Dell am I?



There are 3 types of people in this world, those that can count, and those that can't.
User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4120 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2808 times:

At least we don't have to worry about Airbus and Boeing being across the street from each other now...

User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2803 times:

Dow Jones - 05/05/05:

...the U.S. factory, which could begin operations as soon as next year.

"...After careful evaluation, four locations emerged as the sites most capable of meeting the transportation, personnel and manufacturing demands of large military aircraft assembly," said Ralph Crosby Jr., chairman and CEO of EADS North America.

"The site we ultimately select will be our partner in creating the U.S. industrial capacity necessary to produce the best, most capable aerial refueling tanker aircraft for the U.S. Air Force," Crosby said.

More than 70 sites from 32 states had responded to a request by the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. (5730.FR), parent company of Airbus, for information on the bidding process...

...EADS has said it hoped to build a refueling tanker to compete with the Boeing 767 for a multibillion dollar Air Force contract to replace the aging fleet of Boeing-built KC-135 tankers.

...The four sites selected as finalists are Mobile Downtown Airport, Mobile, Ala., Melbourne International Airport, Melbourne, Fla.; Stennis International Airport, Kiln, Miss.; and Charleston International Airport, North Charleston, S.C.

The four finalists will have until the end of May to submit a detailed bid. EADS North America said it expects to select the site by July.

Initially, the company plans an engineering center that would employ 100 to 150 people. If the company wins the Air Force contract, it would then team with a U.S. defense contractor to build the factory, which could employ as many as 1,100 people.

Speculation has centered on a possible partnership with Northrup Grumman Corp., but EADS officials have not confirmed that a deal has been reached."

see also:

http://www.airliners.net/discussions...eral_aviation/read.main/2093291/6/


User currently offlineStarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1131 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2694 times:

Interesting.

I wonder how many people Boeing would employ to build the KC767 from scratch in the US.......



Knowledge Replaces Fear
User currently offlineLnglive1011yyz From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 1608 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2661 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 1):
Doesn't matter 'cause the USAF isn't about to give another govt. subsidy to Airbus on top of the one they already receive from the EU.

True. They (USAF) can give it to Boeing through indirect tax breaks and other goodies, like they always have instead!
1011yyz



Pack your bags, we're going on a sympathy trip!
User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1374 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2601 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 1):
Doesn't matter 'cause the USAF isn't about to give another govt. subsidy to Airbus on top of the one they already receive from the EU.

If Boeing is swimming in 787 orders, it will be less controversial for the gov't to buy a KC-330, especially when the southern politicians start pulling for it.


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4120 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2532 times:

There is one and only one reason why I don't see the USAF ordering the A330 Tanker. The current US-EU feuding over Airbus subsidies. Now what would it look like if the US gov't made a huge deal over Airbus, and then turned around and ordered a crapload of airplanes from them?

User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 10, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2466 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 9):
Now what would it look like if the US gov't made a huge deal over Airbus, and then turned around and ordered a crapload of airplanes from them?

Actually, it would neutralize the issue that Boeing receives indirect subsidies through DoD purchases, when combined with EADS/Airbus orders from European militaries. Launch aid in the form of loans that can be partially forgiven if a product fails would have a poor case.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Possible New CRJ For QX posted Sat Sep 17 2005 03:38:38 by Cessna172RG
A Possible New Solution For RG posted Fri Jan 7 2005 11:07:45 by EMB195ER
Possible New Destinations For RAM? posted Thu Dec 30 2004 00:43:55 by Bambicruz
Forcast For Lil'planes Doesn't Make Any Sense. posted Sat Nov 15 2003 11:45:13 by Lehpron
Possible New Manned Launcher Assembled For Tests posted Fri Sep 12 2003 01:09:30 by AvObserver
Possible New Summer 2003 Services For Manchester posted Wed Jan 29 2003 20:10:23 by Crosswind
Possible New Airline For Jersey posted Wed Jul 31 2002 17:12:03 by AirX
Possible New Livery For Ansett? posted Thu Nov 29 2001 02:48:21 by Mx5_boy
UAL To Make Bid For NW? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 16:16:08 by B777A340Fan
Sia Routes For Their New B777-300ER? posted Mon Sep 25 2006 15:05:09 by Chris7217