Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus To Decide By June 23 On Jet Plant, Tanker  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3379 times:

Airbus will decide by June 23 whether it will choose Charleston or one of three other Southern port cities to build a refueling jet for the U.S. Air Force.
Officials from its parent, European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., this week are touring the finalists: Charleston, Mobile, Ala., Melbourne, Fla., and Gulfport, Miss.

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/breaking_news/11717450.htm

39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3375 times:

Don't they have to get the contract first?

User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3363 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 1):
Don't they have to get the contract first?

No. In fact they need a site first to be able to include it in their proposal. Also they need local and state officials lined up to support their bid.


User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3362 times:

might want to read this, I think hell will freeze before we see an A330 tanker in USAF colors

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...5.story?coll=la-headlines-business


User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 854 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3351 times:

Quoting NorCal (Reply 3):

Why do you think that? Europe got lots of US fighters, UK got Globemaster and many EU countrys got KC130, so I dont see the problem w/ a A330-Tanker in US. KC-767 got 2 (Japan & Italy)..

Micke//SE  Yeah sure



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3315 times:

Well, if you read the article you would see that a European product built by a company that did not use subsidies to gain competitive advantages would be welcome to bid.


Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3309 times:

That bill isn't exactly law yet. The Full House is going to have to approve, then Senate, and to W for signature. A lot can happen between now and then. So EADS is wise to have it's ducks in a row. Even if the odds are less than 10% for EADS, the contract is multi billion dollars - more with extensions.

User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7690 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3306 times:

Does the bill bar a company that receives subsidies according to the WTO or according to the US Govt.

Also how does it define subsidies.


User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 854 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3282 times:

When (and if) they build an Airbus Plant on US soil *god forbid*, what a/c are they going to be on the production line?

KC-330 n 318-321 n 330/340???

Micke//SE  Confused



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3285 times:

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 6):
That bill isn't exactly law yet. The Full House is going to have to approve, then Senate, and to W for signature. A lot can happen between now and then.

You're right it hasn't become law yet, but American politics is what it is. If either the Democrats or the Republicans vote to give Airbus the contract, expect an uproar and political spin from the otherside. (could you imagine what O'Reily would say if the Democrats approved the KC-330?) The American public will view this as outsourcing jobs, (b/c of the negative spin put on it) DESPITE the fact that the KC-330 will be built in America if Airbus wins. It'll still be seen as American money going to a European company, and eitherside will use this for their advantage (especially the Democrats since they are hurting bad) to increase their political power.

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 4):
Why do you think that?

I have no problem with a KC-330, I just don't think it will happen b/c of political reasons. Plus weather this is true or not (I don't know) I've heard that the KC-330 would be too big for the Air Force from people who are currently enlisted and serving.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 5):
Well, if you read the article you would see that a European product built by a company that did not use subsidies to gain competitive advantages would be welcome to bid.

Exactly


User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3259 times:

Quoting NorCal (Reply 9):
You're right it hasn't become law yet, but American politics is what it is. If either the Democrats or the Republicans vote to give Airbus the contract, expect an uproar and political spin from the otherside. (could you imagine what O'Reily would say if the Democrats approved the KC-330?) The American public will view this as outsourcing jobs, (b/c of the negative spin put on it) DESPITE the fact that the KC-330 will be built in America if Airbus wins. It'll still be seen as American money going to a European company, and eitherside will use this for their advantage (especially the Democrats since they are hurting bad) to increase their political power.

Which is great except that it has exactly zip to do with EADS being prepared to execute on the 1 in 10 chance (IMO) it gets the job -- which is what the thread is about.

There are any number of other threads on the politics of the matter.....


User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3220 times:

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 10):
Which is great except that it has exactly zip to do with EADS being prepared to execute on the 1 in 10 chance (IMO) it gets the job -- which is what the thread is about.

Is EADS still going to build the plant in America even if they don't get the contract? I thought the whole idea behind putting the plant in America was to win the contract. Yes I guess they could take advantage of the weak dollar to lower costs, but it won't stay weak forever. Would it be cheaper to build them in America instead of the EU even if the dollar and euro are equal?

It is highly unlikely that Airbus will get this contract, and if this bill passes than there is no chance.


User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7077 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3210 times:

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 8):
When (and if) they build an Airbus Plant on US soil *god forbid*, what a/c are they going to be on the production line?

KC-330 n 318-321 n 330/340???

Micke//SE

Only the airframes for the tanker.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3210 times:

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 4):
Europe got lots of US fighters

Yeah but if memory serves, Europe made General Dynamics build them in the Netherlands.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineSaintsman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 2065 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3208 times:

Tell me a major company that doesn't get subsidies in one way or another. Tax breaks, grants etc

Take cars for example. How many foreign manufactures have manufacturing plants in the US or the UK? They are not there just because its cheaper than shipping them from Japan. Its the same with electronics.

Of course Boeing has never received any subsidies? right.

Has anyone asked the workers in the proposed areas what they think? Long term jobs in the south for them or no jobs but the US buys Boeings made thousands of miles away. What would your choice really be?

At the end of the day the US are not going to buy A330s and no 767s. There's enough required for a mixed fleet and you still cant get away from the fact that the Airbus is a technologically more advanced aircraft. I would have though that the US would want the best it could get, especially from an aircraft that is likely to be flying 30+ years from now.


User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3204 times:

Quoting NorCal (Reply 11):
Is EADS still going to build the plant in America even if they don't get the contract? I thought the whole idea behind putting the plant in America was to win the contract

We're talking site selection folks, not plant construction.....

If EADS does not commit to a site then they can't count on support from the local politicos when it comes to contract award.....


User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 854 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3170 times:

If the KC-330 is to big as you say than what is KC-10? Similar size, and the KC-707(?) is +45 years old so its high time to chance those KC´s soon IMHO!

Just my  twocents 

Micke//SE Big grin



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3151 times:

Any particular reason it has to be a port ? Are they going to send the bits over from Europe on a barge (cf. A380 ) ?

User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3136 times:

Quoting Saintsman (Reply 14):
hey are not there just because its cheaper than shipping them from Japan.

Yes, they are. Corporations like that do things in order to generate more money. Wages and other labor costs, in conjunction with real estate and higher variable costs rose high enough in Japan that it made sense to build the new factories right in their biggest market. Same goes for other manufacturers. They are locating their factories in economically depressed areas where they don't have to pay as much as they would to support someone who lives in a metro area in their home country. Even Hyundai has done this, giving some indication about what it costs to operate in Asia.

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 16):
If the KC-330 is to big as you say than what is KC-10? Similar size, and the KC-707(?

Two different airplanes for two different missions. The KC-10s will be there for a long time to come.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 17):
Any particular reason it has to be a port ? Are they going to send the bits over from Europe on a barge (cf. A380 )

There is no canal system here in the States as there is in Europe where they can viably ship large objects by canal and land. The distance for the Beluga is too far, and they are previously occupied anyway. The proximity to a port is in order to ease logistics, rather than complicate them.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3131 times:

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 16):
If the KC-330 is to big as you say than what is KC-10? Similar size, and the KC-707(?) is +45 years old so its high time to chance those KC´s soon IMHO!

I'll say it once again. Its politics, the KC-330 might be a superior a/c (I don't know) but politicians don't care. They are going to make whatever deal they think will make them look the best. I believe that it will be the KC-767 that will make them look the best on the political arena. It doesn't have to make sense b/c its politics.


User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3102 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 18):
There is no canal system here in the States as there is in Europe where they can viably ship large objects by canal and land.

Tell that to the dock workers in St. Louis, Minneapolis, and Duluth, MN. Heck, Duluth even handles ocean going ships.  Smile


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3087 times:

Yeah, you have a point with that. The difference is that you can barge a load up canals across what for us would be the plains states, whereas the areas you are talking about are either off of North Americas largest river or near the GReat Lakes.

I think that if the argument were to be made the ports with direct access to the sea would still be logistically easier as there is less transfer of cargo. I am not an expert on moving the large pieces they are discussing, but I'd have to say its easier to take them right off the docks and move them 2 or 3 miles to a manufacturing facility.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3087 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):
The difference is that you can barge a load up canals across what for us would be the plains states, whereas the areas you are talking about are either off of North Americas largest river or near the GReat Lakes.

Much of the barge traffic in Europe is based off the Rhein river....

Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):
I think that if the argument were to be made the ports with direct access to the sea would still be logistically easier as there is less transfer of cargo. I am not an expert on moving the large pieces they are discussing, but I'd have to say its easier to take them right off the docks and move them 2 or 3 miles to a manufacturing facility.

I'm guessing here but I have to believe that it would be cheaper and simpler for EADS to simply extend the Beluga runs to the U.S. Letting a 10 or 20 million dollar fuselage section spend a week/10 days on a boat is going to eat their lunch over a 15-20 year production run.

Site selection will probably have as much to do with taxes/jobs as logistics anyway...  Smile


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3074 times:

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 20):
Heck, Duluth even handles ocean going ships.

From Dulth (nice bridge btw) they would need sleigh´s in the winter months..


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7690 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3066 times:

L188

If F16's built in Holland, (and Belgium) why not KC330 in the US.


25 LMP737 : You seem to forget Solnabo that the KC-330 is not meant as a replacement for the KC-10.
26 DL021 : I think I read somewhere that the range on the Beluga is very limited. I wonder what the cost/benefit is for sending via air versus by ship/rail. Boe
27 RayChuang : I think one of the biggest downsides for a tanker based on the A330-200 design is the fact the large wingspan of the A332 means you can park less plan
28 Monteycarlos : So who is going to build it then if Airbus and Boeing can't? All jokes aside, Airbus have orders for this plane so its not going to make a difference
29 Saintsman : That is obviously true, but have you seen the size of American airfields. They don't make them small and military airbases around the world wouldn't
30 Atmx2000 : They got a better deal in that they got technology transfer, they were able to build up their aerospace industry, and they got technically advanced c
31 Starrion : I thought the original plan was for the airframes to be completed in Europe and then flown over under their own power for tanker conversion at the new
32 SATL382G : Beluga can't stop for gas? I know they've used it to deliver some European payloads to Kennedy Space Center. The 737 fuses go by rail from plant to p
33 Post contains links Keesje : lets not forget it is " A site selection process for an engineering centre and possible production facility for the US tanker " http://www.noticias.i
34 Post contains links and images A5XX : Absolutely! I probably won't live long enough to see an Airbus built plane (like the KC-330 or whatever they call it) in the Air Force inventory, as
35 AirRyan : When people whine about it being a cold day in hell before the US buys tankers from EADS, it reaks of ignorant hypocrisy. Even after we remind them of
36 MD-90 : That's not selling out, that's getting the best deal you can. It's a good thing. Mobile might have an advantage, since Richard Shelby is a senior sen
37 AirRyan : I meant that somewhat sarcastically, but sometimes it's hard to convey via the internet! Are we inferring to the inherient problems with attracting t
38 Atmx2000 : I think it is a rather large assumption that the reasons for the decline in interest in 767s from commercial air carriers reflects on its suitability
39 A5XX : The USAF will never buy an Airbus made tanker. PERIOD. 1: Even if the Airbus Tankers were the best they could get. 2: Even if they could get them for
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Airbus To Decide By June 23 On Jet Plant, Tanker
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
YF-23 On Google Earth posted Thu Jun 15 2006 04:54:47 by J.mo
USAF Seeks Info On Subsidies From Tanker Bidders posted Wed Apr 26 2006 11:48:04 by Lumberton
S-3B Viking To Retire By 2009 / B-1B Upgrade Axed posted Thu Jan 2 2003 01:55:12 by GDB
US Senate To Allow Airbus Tanker BID posted Mon Nov 22 2004 21:35:48 by Dayflyer
Pentagon To Compromise On Tanker Lease Deal posted Fri Nov 7 2003 01:21:53 by AvObserver
Push For R&D On New Bomber, 23 B1-Bs To Be Spared posted Sat May 10 2003 03:30:29 by AvObserver
Fighter Jet Fly-by Question posted Mon Nov 6 2006 05:37:12 by Chi-town
Orion Cockpit To Be Based On 787 posted Sat Oct 7 2006 04:43:32 by N328KF
Airbus Is In The Tanker Game posted Mon Sep 25 2006 16:25:04 by Justloveplanes
Eads Confident On Share Of US Air Tanker Deal posted Mon Sep 18 2006 12:12:54 by Columba

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format