Observer From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 78 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4031 times:
I started a thread over on Civil Aviation about an article in the Mobile (AL) paper that Airbus will build the A330-200F in Mobile if Northrop wins the KC-45A tanker award.
PADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 6 Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4002 times:
Quoting Observer (Thread starter): I started a thread over on Civil Aviation about an article in the Mobile (AL) paper that Airbus will build the A330-200F in Mobile if Northrop wins the KC-45A tanker award.
At least as far as I am concerned that is old information. And when I think about it, it is plain obvious and nicely fits into the bigger picture of Airbus shifting business into non-Euro based economic areas.
Observer welcome to the mil av.
I agree with PadSpot that it is kind of old news. AFAIK they are going to "assemble" the KC-45 at BFM with the construction of the major sub-assemblies still done in Europe. Did the paper say if that is now not the case?
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 23 Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3941 times:
Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 2): AFAIK they are going to "assemble" the KC-45 at BFM with the construction of the major sub-assemblies still done in Europe. Did the paper say if that is now not the case?
I, too, am intensely curious to see this clarified. If it is as you say, then they will get roasted for this "smoke and mirrors" tactic.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11025 posts, RR: 53 Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3943 times:
That will also mean the A-330-200F will carry a FAA certification, with the EASA rider, instead of the other way around like all other Airbus products.
F27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1107 posts, RR: 6 Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3895 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4): That will also mean the A-330-200F will carry a FAA certification, with the EASA rider, instead of the other way around like all other Airbus products.
that actually saves you a lot of money.
-EADS is now in a position that it needs to move a larger share of their costs into the dollar zone
-Their cash reserves are hopefully in euro's
-A euro buys you 1,5 dollar nowadays
-the US is a big potential grow market as well
if you add that up, that tanker bid might be very low, just to get the plant there
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 23 Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3873 times:
Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 5): -EADS is now in a position that it needs to move a larger share of their costs into the dollar zone
-Their cash reserves are hopefully in euro's
-A euro buys you 1,5 dollar nowadays
-the US is a big potential grow market as well
if you add that up, that tanker bid might be very low, just to get the plant there
This issue was raised to a N.G. spokesperson, i.e., how will Airbus account for the set up in the price and would any "irregularities" in the accounting be grounds for a (sustainable) protest. N.G. responded that it was "speculative nonsense", or something in that vein.
Nonetheless, if Mother EADS subsidizes the line transfer & set up, and these costs aren't amortized over the production life, then there will be a protest. The introduction of the tanker assembly (I can't be convinced that this is "production", just putting the pieces together) could be viewed as an attempt to spread those costs over more airframes. If EADS predicts 500 or so "new build" KC-330Fs, then someone inside the Air Force, GAO, and Congress is going to raise this:
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
F27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1107 posts, RR: 6 Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3865 times:
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 6): Nonetheless, if Mother EADS subsidizes the line transfer & set up, and these costs aren't amortized over the production life, then there will be a protest. The introduction of the tanker assembly (I can't be convinced that this is "production", just putting the pieces together) could be viewed as an attempt to spread those costs over more airframes. If EADS predicts 500 or so "new build" KC-330Fs, then someone inside the Air Force, GAO, and Congress is going to raise this:
why? they would be investing in the US out of their own pocket?!
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 23 Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3839 times:
Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 7): Quoting Lumberton (Reply 6):
Nonetheless, if Mother EADS subsidizes the line transfer & set up, and these costs aren't amortized over the production life, then there will be a protest. The introduction of the tanker assembly (I can't be convinced that this is "production", just putting the pieces together) could be viewed as an attempt to spread those costs over more airframes. If EADS predicts 500 or so "new build" KC-330Fs, then someone inside the Air Force, GAO, and Congress is going to raise this:
why? they would be investing in the US out of their own pocket?!
With the net effect of killing jobs in the U.S. aerospace sector? Are you kidding? Do you seriously think this won't be a political flame war of the first magnitude? Regardless of the scorn with which you view Boeing's claims of job preservation, the members of Congress--who's opinion actually counts, unlike ours on a.net--would take a dim view of a net loss of jobs in the aerospace sector. Add to that that it was a "heavily subsidized European company" (and if they "ate" the costs, subsidy would be the correct word) was going to destroy the ability of the domestic U.S. military aerospace sector to manufacture tankers--a key ingredient of force protection--then you may appreciate the consequences.
Airbus would open itself to charges that it subsidized the bid through it's U.S. front office boy, Northrup-Grumman, with the intent to do serious and irreparable harm. This is, after all, a presidential election year. You don't have to agree with it. You don't have to like it. Fact is, this would become an issue.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
TropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3811 times:
This seems to have major long term implications not only for the KC-X but the military & civil aircraft manufacturing sector here in the U.S.
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 23 Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3721 times:
Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 11): hey, how would they be killing jobs? They would be hiring Americans you know.
Boeing claims 44,000 workers employed on the 767/KC-767. Airbus/N.G. claim that the KC-30 program will employ 25,000 persons (presumably in the U.S.)
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
LifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1816 posts, RR: 10 Reply 13, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3654 times:
I will repost what I typed in the thread at Civil Aviation, which is now locked as this thread was clearly going off topic...
As we all know, this order is heavily involved with politics as it should be as it is, 1. The Air Force (so the Government is buying product for it self), 2. The tanker fleet is a strategic issue for the capability of the Air Force and thus the presence of the US around the globe, 3. There are US jobs involved. And that are just the three from the top of my list, I could go on. It would be very bad if politics weren't involved in these matters.
However, the public needs to be informed correctly as well and the money of the tax payers has to be spend wisely as you can only do that once. Both projects will create jobs. If Boeing is to lose the order, they won't lose the jobs. They have quite a back log for the B767 and they have a very hot selling composite plane which is about to fly. They need skilled aerospace workers. Also, you probably won't find 20.000 highly skilled aerospace workers in Mobile alone. If Boeing lays off people, they could find new employment in Mobile. So, I won't worry to much about the employment.
Ramp space can be an issue, but, in the end it probably won't matter or become the deciding factor. If there is a better product available, you will make sure it fits in your infrastructure.
I think the US has a hard decision to make. Both products has their cons and pros and maybe it is wiser to split the order as you can get a more flexible fleet for your operations. Who knows? I just hope you guys pick the product that suits your needs best and that that one becomes the KC-45A.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 14, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3653 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4): That will also mean the A-330-200F will carry a FAA certification, with the EASA rider, instead of the other way around like all other Airbus products.
All the airbus aircraft have FAA certification, the A300, A320 series, and A330/A340 are via a validation of the EASA process, but they still need to comply with the FARs. The A380 TCDS was issued by the FAA at the same time as the EASA one.
The A330F does not need to have a new TCDS, it can by done by a factory mod, or by STC as well. The A300F was done via TCDS for new builds and STC for conversions, the A340 freighter being worked on in Israel will be a STC.
F27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1107 posts, RR: 6 Reply 15, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3619 times:
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 12): Boeing claims 44,000 workers employed on the 767/KC-767. Airbus/N.G. claim that the KC-30 program will employ 25,000 persons (presumably in the U.S.)
what I posted in CivForum
Quoting F27Friendship:
There are 3 kind of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.
Boeing conventiently probably took the number of workers that are directly or indirectly somehow related to 767 production. The 767 isn't going to be built forever, so these people would find something else to do eventually. In the case of boeing these people would work on other programmes as 787, 737 succesor or layed off (which is something American firms have little trouble in doing when it suits them). Now the vast majority of these 44,000 workers is with suppliers and contracters for which the 767 is part of their bussiness portfolio. It's not that they are not occoupied in any other bussiness.
Take Spirit for example, they are about the biggest Tier 1 supplier, it's not that they will be out of bussiness when the 767 line is finally shut down (which would happen anyway if there wasn;t a tanker competition)
The EADS/NG numbers are probably not all new jobs as well and also include jobs with suppliers who are already working there. Nevertheless, a fair share will be real new jobs at the assembly line, the building of the factory, new suppliers etc.
Everyone can throw around numbers. One should then verify where they come from.
which is also in compliance with what LifelinerOne said.
I would also like to add, that the US economy has seen better days and some analysts are even worrieda about an upcoming recession. In this case it's very important to do what the US did in Europe in similar conditions: invest foreign capital in the economy. It will be good for the US economy and the average guy in the street to have foreign capital being invested in real factories really producing products with great added value.
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 23 Reply 16, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3604 times:
Yes, I remember that; not quite an original point. One could cite this bromide to "refute" 90% of all posts on a.net. Interestingly, EADS and their boy, Northrup-Grumman, have yet to refute the net job loss figures.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11025 posts, RR: 53 Reply 17, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3551 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 14): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
That will also mean the A-330-200F will carry a FAA certification, with the EASA rider, instead of the other way around like all other Airbus products.
All the airbus aircraft have FAA certification, the A300, A320 series, and A330/A340 are via a validation of the EASA process, but they still need to comply with the FARs. The A380 TCDS was issued by the FAA at the same time as the EASA one.
For all Airbus products to date, the certification agency was the EASA (or JAA before them), and a rubber stamp approval by the FAA, as part of the international agreements. The EASA flew all of the testing, with little to no actual involvement by the FAA, except to check paperwork to assure all FAA requirements were met. But, in this case, it will be reversed, the FAA will have to give the certification, and the EASA will be the rider. You are correct, this will be a supplemental certification, since the A-330 is already a type certified airplane. What will be unusual, if this were to become reality, is the EASE would have issued the type certification, with the FAA rider approval to operate in US airspace, and a supplemental certification issued the A-330F version, and an EASA rider allowing operation in EU airspace.
It sounds simple to us, who understand it, but should there ever be an accident in the EU or US, involving any version of the A-330 now, some ambulance chasing lawyer (you mean like John Edwards?) is going to bring that up as a EU/US government cover-up for some flaw in the airplane design. That lawyer will make millions of $, if he/she wins.
You and I know there is no flaw that has shown up for the A-330 series, but facts never stopped a lawyer from seeing a conspiracy.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 18, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3476 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17): For all Airbus products to date, the certification agency was the EASA (or JAA before them), and a rubber stamp approval by the FAA, as part of the international agreements. The EASA flew all of the testing, with little to no actual involvement by the FAA, except to check paperwork to assure all FAA requirements were met.
Still wrong, the FAA was fully involved (inc flight testing) with the A380 certification, it was not a validation.
Airbus can get FAA to issue the initial STC for the mod, or both EASA and the FAA, it does not need to be issued by EASA initially, no difference exists in the standards required.
If they opt for a new TCDS model for new build aircraft, this will more than likely be done initially via EASA due to geographic location of the factory.
No aircraft gets a FAA "rubber stamp" certification.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17): It sounds simple to us, who understand it, but should there ever be an accident in the EU or US, involving any version of the A-330 now, some ambulance chasing lawyer (you mean like John Edwards?) is going to bring that up as a EU/US government cover-up for some flaw in the airplane design. That lawyer will make millions of $, if he/she wins.
No aircraft flying today is without design flaws, it is what happens when a flaw is discovered is what matters. I am aware of no aircraft ever certified not to have an AD issued.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17): You and I know there is no flaw that has shown up for the A-330 series, but facts never stopped a lawyer from seeing a conspiracy.
Some people on here only see a conspiracy when it involves countries outside the US.
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 23 Reply 19, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3450 times:
I just saw this Boeing PR piece citing a study that claims the 767 is more fuel efficient than the A330. No doubt released to coincide with the EADS/N.G. announcement about KC-30/A330F "production" (it is still putting together sections) in Mobile, AL, if the USAF chooses the KC-30. More fuel for the fire and more flame bait for these discussions! http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080114/aqm082.html?.v=25
Quote: The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA - News) today released a 53-page study prepared by Conklin & de Decker Aviation Information showing that a commercial 767 airplane is substantially more fuel efficient than the larger Airbus 330.
The study conducted by the independent aviation research company, and funded by Boeing, used published data to calculate the fuel consumption of flying a fleet of 179 767-200ER and Airbus 330-200 airplanes over a 40-year service life. The purpose of the analysis was to provide a clear comparison between the KC-767 Advanced Tanker (AT), based on the 767, and its major competitor in the U.S. Air Force's KC-135 Tanker Replacement Program. The winner of the KC-X competition will begin recapitalizing the service's aging refueling inventory by building 179 next-generation tankers.
The study showed that the 767 fleet burned 24 percent less fuel than the A-330s and would save approximately $14.6 billion in fuel costs. That number is significant since the Air Force spent approximately $6.6 billion on aviation fuel costs in 2006.
"Senior Air Force leaders have said that when a barrel of oil increases by $10, it costs them about $600 million a year," said Mark McGraw, vice president, Boeing Tanker Programs. "So it is critical, especially with rising fuel prices, that the Air Force's next refueling tanker meet or exceed their requirements and be as efficient as possible. That aircraft is the right-sized KC-767 Advanced Tanker."
Frankly, the timing of this release is masterful. This is Airbus' big day for the ' "made" - in - U.S.A.-if-you-select-it-trust-us' announcement. Boeing has provided the press with another sound byte for classic "yes, but..." journalism (it will generate x more jobs in the U.S., but it will cost y more dollars over the life cycle).
Let's see...right pedigree (i.e., made by a U.S. company), more jobs generated/retained, lower operating costs, funding assured by Congress...yes, I believe that the KC-767 is the correct choice.
[Edited 2008-01-14 05:05:35]
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 23 Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3432 times:
As I said, more flame bait. But the timing is O-so-masterful! It's already generating more articles.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
LifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1816 posts, RR: 10 Reply 22, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3427 times:
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 19): The study conducted by the independent aviation research company, and funded by Boeing,
Now, that sounds very independent!
Seriously, isn't the A330-200 a little bit bigger than the B767 and therefore is bound to use more fuel? It can also carry more load on a greater distance thanks to this fuel consumption. This "study" is indeed just hot air, or nicely said, marketing.
Michlis From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 737 posts, RR: 3 Reply 23, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3421 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 18): Some people on here only see a conspiracy when it involves countries outside the US
The same can be said when it comes to the US and in particular Boeing.
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, RR: 74 Reply 24, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3320 times:
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 21): As I said, more flame bait. But the timing is O-so-masterful! It's already generating more articles.
I don't know if it that smart....I had a quick look at it, they have stacked the numbers against the A332 which is of no surprise, but some of the info in it is plain wrong. Since Boeing is supplying this information to everyone, including people who can influence decision makers, time will tell if the GAO think it was so masterful.
Quick review of how I see the report has been "stacked" against the 330.
The OEW of the A332 was increased by 3850 kg above spec
The 762ER was "landed" 6623 kg below the 772ER MLW on all missions, and 6648 kg below the LFR MLW
The altitudes chosen for the comparison were stacked towards the 762ER optimum altitudes, the A332 would have liked to have been higher, every 2000' out in altitude costs an additional 1.25% extra fuel generally
The report says the A332 is slower over all missions, the flight plans say the A332 is faster in all three scenarios (by 2, 6, and 4 min respectively for each trip "flown" at LRC)
The TOW on the A332 was restricted by 3000 kg.
What is also shows, despite the heavy handicap :
The A330 still carried 31% more "payload" above OEW than the 762ER
On all "flights" the A332 had 12.2t more fuel available for "offload"
The A332 will fly further and faster. The range of the A332 is further than the 762ER, but their report says the 762ER flies 150 nm further (false). Even the flight plans show that the A332 has 42 minutes more fuel onboard than the 762ER (16:54 vs 16:12)
What is unrealistic about the report :
The authors have ignored MZFW as it applies to normal commercial operations
Commercial flights rarely miss out and fly to their alternate, and in the process hold for an hour, they assume they do this every flight.
Airlines don't go flying about at LRC every flight
Airlines file flight plans which best represent optimum altitudes (nil winds) for the aircraft, not 4-8000 ft below
Commercial airlines don't spend 17% of their flight time holding at 10,000 ft each year.
The authors did not use the current build A332 spec
The expected to believe an aircraft that is 17 years older than the A332 is less efficient.
The 762ER is not a 762LRF, the LRF will have a 12,000 lb higher MTOW
Due to its increased mass, the altitudes used in the flight plans may not be achievable
Sure would be more in the detail, especially the finance stuff, I will let that for someone else comment about that.
Kung Hei Fat Choi!
25 Lumberton: Well, for sure, another thing that is just plain wrong is all this talk of EADS moving "production" to Mobile! Even EADS' North American front office
26 TheSonntag: Sounds like a mirror to the F-104 and F-16 assembly in Europe...
27 KC135TopBoom: Than, you don't really know the FAA. The FAA accepted all of the EASA data on type certifying of Airbus airplanes, as well as the supplementals. True
28 Scbriml: Quite the opposite. You seem to have forgotten that the original A350 was nothing more than that, and there's a good reason why you can't buy that to
29 PADSpot: That would be a stab in the back of Boeing by GE. Don't see that happen, to be honest. Based on the level of exclusiveness GE grants to Boeing in the
30 KC135TopBoom: GE is not the exclusive engine manufacturer on the B-787. The RR engine is also offered. IIRC, the USAF RFP requires the basic airplane to be certifi
31 PADSpot: That's not what I mean. Some GE engines are only available on Boeing aircrafts. It not that Boeing demands that kind of exclusiveness. The certificat
32 Zeke: The engine they would put on would be the GEnx-2B67, which is on the 748, not the 787. It is the same thrust class as the engine presently proposed,
33 Atmx2000: $600 million of additional business for a huge contract doesn't sound like a good bargain. GE pays to get such exclusiveness. GEnx was offered for th
34 Baroque: Perhaps Allison could make a suitable engine.
35 Astuteman: Huh? That's a pretty myopic viewpoint IMO The GEnx - powered A350 nxwb was snubbed in the market in a way the A350XWB hasn't been. In fact, a minorit
36 F27Friendship: happy Birthday PADSpot! Creating a new major aircraft assembly plant in the US would be agreat thing for the country and for EADS. There would be only
37 AirRyan: How is a Mobile, Alabama KC-30 production facility any different than what Boeing intends
38 KC135TopBoom: I agree. Boeing also could have offered the GEnx on the KC-767ADV, but went to P&W instead.
39 PADSpot: Thanks! That was true for the first A350 design. GE does currently not offer it for the A350XWB.
40 Zeke: True, Airbus marking numbers for pax in 3 class A332 - 253 A333 - 295 A358 - 270 A359 - 314 A35X - 350 Would it fit on a 762 (?)
41 MOBflyer: This announcement was great news for Mobile and Airbus. Airbus will be able to tap economic incentives from Alabama and take advantage of the weak dol
42 AirRyan: How is it any different than what Boeing intends to do with their 787 production from suppliers from all around the world?
43 Lumberton: Has Boeing entered the 787 into the competition?
44 BHMBAGLOCK: Certainly, but 250-300 including tankers wouldn't be out of line at all. Given the current demand for the 330, it may also make sense to build some c
45 Keesje: I think a more rational approach would involve avoiding doubling capabilities. I think that is also behind EADS considering moving the A300F to Mobil
46 Baroque: It was more the AT000B (as in bleeding) that I was thinking of. And apparently with labour* costs the way they are in the US they would save on that
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 78 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, 
I, too, am intensely curious to see this clarified. If it is as you say, then they will get roasted for this "smoke and mirrors" tactic.
From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1107 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6800 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
