Rsmith6621a From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 192 posts, RR: 2 Posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1777 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.
Indy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 4368 posts, RR: 9 Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1745 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.
Loggat From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 660 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1696 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.
FriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4004 posts, RR: 6 Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1685 times:
At least we don't have to worry about Airbus and Boeing being across the street from each other now...
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1680 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."
Lnglive1011yyz From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 1588 posts, RR: 17 Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1538 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
Areopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1357 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1478 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.
FriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4004 posts, RR: 6 Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1409 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?
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 39 Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1343 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!!
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 192 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 1588 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
