Aamd11 From UK - Wales, joined Nov 2001, 1066 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 2716 times:
FALSE. they will always complain about funding because it is Direct funding (as in here is 6billion euros) but they are indirectly funding the Manufacturers by buying aircraft from them... which means there isnt as much to be had in that sense (dont forget Boeing has to work for the money... as in build and or convert the aircraft... whereas Airbus says we wanna build a new plane... give us some help here)
So for Boeing to get that kind of money from sales of the aircraft they have to sell a lot of aircraft..
So, from what i just blurted out the simple truth is Boeing and the US will always complain about Aid to Airbus
Navion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1027 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2675 times:
Varig, your facts are wrong. First of all, the USAF has not contracted to buy or lease any new 767 tankers. A future tanker lease and/or purchase deal for 767's or A330's may or may not ever take place. That said, the original speculated (in the press) lease deal would not have resulted in paying $300 Million each (U.S.) for the planes. In my opinion, your sources of information could use some work. It's also important when having discussions on this forum not to throw out ridiculous number but instead to act in good faith and try to be accurate. I'm sure that was your intention but your statement was really out there.
RogueTrader From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2640 times:
I have nothing for or against either A nor B, (although I do disagree on the market size A predicts for A380).
I think the argument has to be true that if the USAF is overpaying for the tankers, or whatever else it buys from Boeing...that the net result is the same as EU subsidies of Airbus - Boeing is getting a subsidy from the US taxpayer. Are they overpaying?
BUT ALL THIS doesn't matter. If the EU countries wanted to spend their entire national income on funding Airbus, who cares? It just means that Airbus has convinced the public that its a worthy cause for government support. All these countries are democracies, so the people there obviously want their money going to Airbus. Its a legitimate desire and they should be allowed to spend their own money freely.
Boeing is free to try to drum up the same public support in the US, and it might have a good change at getting it. Instead, it has large defense contracts that provides the same net result = government support of the aircraft industry.
In the US, there is a college loan/financial aid system that makes it very easy for kids to go to (pay for) college/university. I don't know if the EU has something like it or not.
But, if they didn't, would the EU then have the right to say the USA was unfairly creating genuises because it gives them free school? Or subsidizes school loans? No, they wouldn't. And the US doesn't have the right to say they're unfairly creating / supporting an aircraft manufacturer because it gets EU government support.
According to a December 2001 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimate, the lease plan would cost $26 billion, nearly three times the cost of simply purchasing the planes.
A big chunk of cost here is due to leasing rather than buying. Congress is allergic to appropriating current money, if they can put of the problem for later, when another Congresscritter may be in office anyway. Boeing would rather just sell the planes as military tankers.
More cost inflation cited in the article:
This leasing program also will require between $600 million and $1.2 billion in military construction funding to build new hangars, since existing hangars are too small for the new 767 aircraft. The government would also pay another $30 million to $60 million per aircraft on the front end to convert these aircraft from commercial configurations to military; and at the end of the lease, the government will to pay for $30 million more, to convert the aircraft back.
Some of the cost is due to construction, and is not going to Boeing. More is due to the insane idea of building commercial planes, converting them to tankers, and reconverting them to commercial airliners later, another absurdity of the whole leasing idea.
If the government decides to lease 330s instead of 767s, all these cost inflators will still be there.
F4N From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2570 times:
It's probably rediculous to continue debating this as there is no way the lease issue can proceed in the current political climate. While there is no doubt that the KC135 fleet is in need of replacement, especially the "E" version, the furor raised over the perceived overspending has effectively eliminated leasing as an option. Let's face it, the lease idea was a well-intentioned but unrealistic sop to Boeing which admittedly, didn't entirely like it anyway and would rather sell the a/c through the normal procurement process.
The Airbus offer 40% less?? Surely you aren't that naive? Airbus hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of selling the USAF the A330 in any form; 40% less is a political lowball with absolutely no risk of ever being taken up, so they can quote anything they want. Let's see, the 767 is already been funded and developed as an AEW/tanker and sold to various airforces. The A330 is what as a tanker? Funded? Developed? Prototyped?
40% less, eh?
Varig md-11 From France, joined Jul 2000, 1609 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (13 years 8 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2475 times:
I'm sorry if the amount looked ridiculous and is far from the truth....I just read an article in the american press a while ago (I think the wash.post) saying the price would be such.....maybe they included conversion fees and check costs or whatever....I don't know, but the comments were that the price were way too high
AF TW AA NW DL UA CO BA U2 TP UX LH SK AZ MP KL SN VY HV LS SS TK SQ PC RG IW SE
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (13 years 8 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2466 times:
Leasing is always more expensive in the long run, and the scheme now put forward makes it even more insane.
It's probably someone's way of trying to kill the program (there are people in congress who don't want a new tanker but do not want to state so publicly and floating ideas like this is a good way to get others to do your killing for you).
In the end, Boeing aircraft corp. gets the normal line price for a 767 it would get for such a large order. The lease company gets it's price (whatever per airframe per annum) plus passes on the cost of any custom conversion to the customer (the US DOD). At the end, they again pass on the cost of removing any conversions that make the aircraft non-marketable to them (if so agreed in the lease contract).
On top of that, there is the possible cost of building/converting facilities and crew training for the operator (again, the US DOD in this case).
In this case, the lease provider might be Boeing aircraft leasing, which is not the same company as Boeing commercial aircraft corp.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13476 posts, RR: 77
Reply 14, posted (13 years 8 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2418 times:
No doubt the USAF need to replace the KC-135E's, and eventually the KC-135R's and KC-10's too.
I think the European, and some US objections were raised because until recently a new tanker wasn't even a USAF requirement, much to the annoyance of many in the service, especially the KC-135E operators of the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard.
Then the sudden crisis in the airline industry, all of a sudden this big 767 tanker leasing scheme appears.
However the military action now will put even more strain on the hard worked KC-135's.
I'm surprised about this convoluted leasing idea, if the US is ramping up defence spending why not a straight buy?
Or is Missile Defence such a sacred cow?