Flying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4190 posts, RR: 34 Posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5836 times:
"Last year alone, Airbus spent approximately $7 billion at roughly 400 supplier companies in 40 U.S. states, which translates into over 140,000 skilled jobs in the U.S. For the U.S. aerospace industry, Airbus is the number one export customer."
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21998 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5746 times:
Yes and no. Airbus has become a strong company, but in the same time, other US aerospace companies have shut down, unable to compete commercially. The NET job CREATION is not the same as breaking out how many jobs can be attributed to suppliers, as those same suppliers could have been providing jobs to the now defunct or absorbed.
These kind of numbers are always used by political forces to claim "I created XXX jobs thus I am a god." Rarely is that true.
Between Boeing needing to outsource more to compete on price, and the loss of Lockheed and MD due to inferior product to Airbus/Boeing, there were thousands upon thousands upon thousands of job losses both directly and through suppliers as a result of Airbus.
Ultimately, it's probably a wash out, taking normal growth into account.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 36
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5711 times:
Quoting TaromA380 (Reply 2): And back to Airbus, I don't think the interest in Airbus aircrafts in the US are at the level of the 50%+ american subcontractors.
So, is Boeing smarter than Airbus ?
Boeing is working with long time international partners on the 787. Given the size of those workshares and the potential for worldwide 787 sales, the revenue for those parts will exceed revenue Boeing is getting from those countries. That obviously is a lame strategy for winning orders from those countries, giving more than you take in. Therefore there must be another reason for the Boeing buying from these guys, and Airbus buying from the US. Airbus and Boeing are primarily buying where they can find a mix of best technology and experience, capital for risk sharing, and price.
However, those figures from the Germany embassy are extremely misleading. They are not creating 140,000 full time jobs, merely 140,000 people are working on things at some point per year on things related to Airbus. $7 billion/140,000 workers = $50,000/worker but doesn't account for raw material costs which is probably some 50% of Airbus expenditures. $25K per worker isn't very much.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
...while Boeing is a major exporter of jobs from the U.S. to other parts of the the world. When one sorts through all the smoke-and-mirrors, Airbus has made a more than equitable contribution to the U.S. economy. As I see it, nothing could be further from the truth when U.S. airlines are labeled as "traitors" for buying Airbus products -- especially when Boeing has, at the same time, moved an increasing share of their production overseas.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5546 times:
Quoting Tango-Bravo (Reply 8): When one sorts through all the smoke-and-mirrors, Airbus has made a more than equitable contribution to the U.S. economy. As I see it, nothing could be further from the truth when U.S. airlines are labeled as "traitors" for buying Airbus products -- especially when Boeing has, at the same time, moved an increasing share of their production overseas.
I do not believe that US airlines that buy Airbus are traitors. That is very silly.
However idea that Airbus has been an equitable contributor to the US economy is pretty absurd. How do you account for the billions poured into Airbus that helped kill off McDonnell Douglas and eviscerated the aerospace industry in southern California and elsewhere. Thousands were thrown out of work.
Since Airbus cannot fail or be allowed to exit the market like Lockeed or MDD, that creates a moral hazard and increases the risk that Boeing faces. They have to spread the risk of projects to overseas partners or risk bankruptcy if they get it wrong.
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 19
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5519 times:
For my fellow countrymen who criticize Boeing for its outsourcing, what then is the sincerest form of flattery? This article from Forbes cites that Airbus is cutting back "in house" production from 40% to 30%. Not sure whether this is only for the A350 though, but it will certainly will point to Airbus' strategic direction for the future.
Tango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3811 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5457 times:
Quoting N79969 (Reply 9): How do you account for the billions poured into Airbus that helped kill off McDonnell Douglas
The demise of McDonnell-Douglas should, in my estimation, be ruled a suicide. "New" airliners that are nothing more than derivatives of 25-year-old designs, which fall far short of improved performance reperesented by the manufacturer, is not exactly a formula for success in the commercial airliner production business.
In any event, even if Airbus was responsible for inducing McDD to commit suicide, Airbus has given back most (all?) of the losses to the U.S. economy that resulted from the demise of McDD inasmuch as McDD, like Boeing, was very much involved in exporting jobs and subcontract work from the U.S. to other parts of the world.