Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B787 Not Subsidized With Defense Research Money  
User currently offlineKatekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 704 posts, RR: 6
Posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2161 times:

Many people (mainly the pro-Airbus camp) on this forum have been claiming that Boeing, and particularly B787 development, is benefiting from Defense project money and thus is unfairly "subsidized".

Well, the article linked below explains how Boeing must keep the development of B787 "clean" from any technology transfer from their military field to prevent infringing the law.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...space/2002754224_boeingitar22.html

Few quotes:

"Federal law prohibits U.S. companies from letting militarily sensitive technical expertise go abroad.

Yet Boeing's entire global manufacturing plan for the 787 hinges on having foreign suppliers build large structures out of advanced composite materials."

""We all underestimated the amount of screening we needed to do" for military technology, said Walt Gillette, head engineer and vice president for airplane development on the 787.

In the months that followed, outside lawyers pored over 1970s-era documents in search of proof that some key manufacturing techniques originated in the commercial business, not in military programs."

"One example: Boeing's B-2 work showed that the plasticized carbon-fiber tape used to make composites can be safely frozen and stored for up to a year — twice as long as previously thought.

That fact is now well-known in the composites industry, yet 787 engineers can't inherit that knowledge from the B-2 program, Gillette said. So they conducted fresh tests to prove a result they already knew.

"It is our clear intent to make sure we comply with the law," Gillette said."

"Boeing can't take the technology-export issue lightly because it previously ran afoul of the restrictions.

Internal documents show the Department of Commerce found export-license irregularities during the 1990s in Boeing's sharing of composites technology with its Japanese partners on the 777, which has a tail made from composites.

Commerce closed that previously undisclosed investigation last year and issued a warning letter to Boeing. Neither the company nor the Commerce Department would discuss details.

And last summer, the State Department prepared civil charges against Boeing alleging 94 violations of the Arms Control Act because the company sold commercial jets without obtaining an export license for a tiny gyrochip that has defense applications."

"Boeing must identify every "little piece of data that came from a military source," Gillette said. "We have to find it, and we have to remove it and replace it with a commercial source of the data.""

Open for discussion.....

9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2143 times:

Already been discussed in:

Interesting 787 Link- Seattle Times (by HikesWithEyes Jan 22 2006 in Civil Aviation)


User currently offlineRigo From Australia, joined Sep 2005, 91 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2136 times:

Quoting Katekebo (Thread starter):
Many people (mainly the pro-Airbus camp) on this forum have been claiming that Boeing, and particularly B787 development, is benefiting from Defense project money and thus is unfairly "subsidized".

Well, the article linked below explains how Boeing must keep the development of B787 "clean" from any technology transfer from their military field to prevent infringing the law.

[...]

Interesting, indeed. But this is probably not what the Boeing critics have in mind. Boeing may not be allowed to reuse technologies developed on military contracts, but it allegedly uses the money it receives through these contracts to fund civilian programmes.

Now please don't get me wrong, I don't mean this is necessarily bad (just as I don't criticise Airbus' launch aids either). BTW I guess the same rules probably apply to EADS. Does this mean Airbus will not be able to reuse composite technologies from the A400 for a future civilian a/c ?


User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2123 times:

Quoting Rigo (Reply 2):
Does this mean Airbus will not be able to reuse composite technologies from the A400 for a future civilian a/c ?

The A400M is also getting a civilian certification IIRC so that wouldn't apply.


User currently offlineRigo From Australia, joined Sep 2005, 91 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2108 times:

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 3):
The A400M is also getting a civilian certification IIRC so that wouldn't apply.

Do you have any info about this ? I'd love to see airlines flying A400Ms  Wink

Regards
Rigo


User currently offlineN1786b From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 560 posts, RR: 17
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2095 times:

Quoting Rigo (Reply 2):
BTW I guess the same rules probably apply to EADS. Does this mean Airbus will not be able to reuse composite technologies from the A400 for a future civilian a/c ?

You guessed wrong. I am not aware of any law or regulation that keeps them from doing so here in France.

Interesting twist is EADS Airbus Military almost bragging about using A380 technology on the A400M and then useing A400M technology on the A350/A320NG (especially the composites work)


- n1786b


User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2095 times:

I can't remember where I heard that, but it was a while ago.
You could see if there is any info on

http://www.airbusmilitary.com

Doubt it would be for airlines - more like the civilian uses of the Herc?
Perhaps it will lose the 'M' and be called A400!


User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3682 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2027 times:

Quoting Katekebo (Thread starter):
Many people (mainly the pro-Airbus camp) on this forum have been claiming that Boeing, and particularly B787 development, is benefiting from Defense project money and thus is unfairly "subsidized".

Actually, the 787 program is receiving public subsidies from the US and Japan. The defense project issue was about Boeing in general I think.


User currently offlineAntares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, RR: 39
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1991 times:

Gee I wish this debate could get real.

It is actually impossible to stop cross subsidization of airliner design and manufacture from any source, so we may as well let them get on with it and enjoy the results.

I don't care if the 787 is subsidized by Japanese taxpayers, or if the A3** is subsidized by the Europeans.

In fact I'd be more than happy for Australia to subsidize Boeing Australia, which makes stuff for Boeing and Airbus, and that way we could support both sides of the great divide.

It would be good for Australia. Boeing Australia would shift more jobs here from Japan or wherever Boeing builds its stuff these days, so pumping $x million into the American company would most likely come back as $xxx million in tax receipts from an expanded and technologically well trained work force, who would spend more dough in Woolworth stores or PBL casinos so my dividends would go up, and the hi-tech skill base of the national work force would improve.

Call me old fashioned (there is a long queue) but what the airliner game needs is a subsidization-athon. The natural limiting factor will be the fact that governments generally also need to spend money on other things, like schools, defence, public monuments to themselves and the odd bit of infrastrcuture here and there, so the negative impact on overall tax receipts would fall somewhere between trivial and positively good because of economic stimulation.

Dammit, we could even justify a few Concorde successors out of this, as well as all sorts of other exciting aircraft, like a very light jet for every household.

In fact, when Antares becomes High Controller of finance, I'll make direct taxpayer donations to Airbus and Boeing tax deductible, and to protect state reveues, introduce a self reporting sex tax, (more sex means more tax) with the results published at six monthly intervals in the major newspapers.

Antares


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1926 times:

Quoting Rigo (Reply 2):
but it allegedly uses the money it receives through these contracts to fund civilian programmes.

Once Boeing, or any other company completes work under a US DOD contract, and gets paid, the money no longer belongs to the DOD, or the tax payers. It is now Boeing's money, to do with as they wish. If you buy a car with your money from a dealer, is the money still yours after the car is delivered?

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 3):
The A400M is also getting a civilian certification IIRC so that wouldn't apply.

No, the A-400M is not planned to get a cilivan certification. If it was, who would pay for it? The Air Forces that have ordered it? I don't think so. Very few military airplanes get cilivan certifications. The KC-10A and C-40A/B did. Why? So any parts needed while away from home base can be purchased from an airline. The airline can take the removed part in exchange, rebuild it and use it on one of their aircraft. That is why some military airplanes get cilivan certifications. The A-400M will not have many parts a cilivan airline can use.


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...
Airbus NOT Going With Full Composite Barrels posted Thu Feb 1 2007 00:51:32 by EvilForce
Qantas Pilots Not Happy With Jetstar posted Tue Jun 20 2006 14:38:25 by VHVXB
Travel Agent Not Booking With Northwest Anymore posted Mon Jun 12 2006 23:40:04 by Hagic
Lufthansa Not Satisfied With A350 And 787 posted Mon May 8 2006 21:31:40 by Columba
NWA Not Happy With DAL New Fare Structure posted Tue Jan 4 2005 23:00:37 by Rumorboy
DL Pilot Group Not Happy With Agreement posted Tue Dec 21 2004 07:48:05 by Lono
AirTran Not Pleased With Delta's Turnaround Plan posted Wed Oct 6 2004 01:22:59 by OttoPylit
Delta Not Happy With Me posted Tue Oct 5 2004 04:48:48 by Sspontak
Frontier Airlines Not Happy With DIA Expansion Bid posted Wed Aug 11 2004 19:17:30 by Yanksn4
DL's New CEO Not Happy With CRJ's? posted Tue Jul 20 2004 19:58:08 by Cumulonimbus