b777a340fan
Posts: 651
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:42 am

Airbus, A More Viable Military Contractor?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:07 am

Throughout various forums, I have noticed a lot of individuals criticizing Airbus for receiving state aid, however, I must point out that Boeing, indirectly, does receive federal dollars via its various contracts with the government. So to me, it would make sense that Airbus focus on its military division and the lucrative defense contracting business in order to generate profits and hopefully sustain all aspects of its businesses, including commercial airliners. What do you think? Would the United States, although it calls for "fair" contracting opportunities, consider Airbus as a supplier to its defense system? Even if the US isn't willing to give up Boeing, I'm sure other countries (i.e. China) would be willing to listen up. Opinions?

[Edited 2006-10-18 17:09:37]

[Edited 2006-10-18 17:12:30]
 
katekebo
Posts: 678
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 12:02 am

RE: Airbus:

Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:12 am

Being a defense contractor is not equivalent with being subsidized. Gaining a government contract is still subject to competitive bidding (usually with much stricter criteria than a private contract).
 
NYC777
Posts: 5065
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

RE: Airbus, A More Viable Military Contractor?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:31 am

Quoting Katekebo (Reply 1):
Being a defense contractor is not equivalent with being subsidized. Gaining a government contract is still subject to competitive bidding (usually with much stricter criteria than a private contract).

Not only that you are producing a good or service as a contractor. When receiving state aid you are not producing anyhting for anyone. Payment for goods and services is a totally different animal compared to state aid.
That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Airbus, A More Viable Military Contractor?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:38 am

They cant even get the A400M out the door and you seriously suggest they become a major military contactor?
One Nation Under God
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5807
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Airbus, A More Viable Military Contractor?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:05 am

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 3):
They cant even get the A400M out the door and you seriously suggest they become a major military contactor?

Uhhhh, they already are...or is everyone forgetting about Airbus' parent company?

I believe that the distinction between the two will disappear under Gallois and Airbus will become a brand rather than a separate company.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
User avatar
deltadawg
Posts: 868
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 2:56 am

RE: Airbus, A More Viable Military Contractor?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:13 am

As a US taxpayer I don't mind competitive bids on equipment for government projects. However, one must look at the overall scheme of bidders.

Should the US DOD allow or consider Airbus as a viable alternative to Boeing, yes. Yes, so long as they have a track record, a good one. The A400 still has not been delivered and is overbudget and unproven. Right now there is only several Airbus tankers in service and without an American partner to either service and/or manufacture part of the a/c personally should not be considered. Should Airbus be used to keep Boeing honest, yes. With BAe selling its stake in Airbus, Airbus should offer and Lockeed should accept to buy the BAe stake giving Airbus a US legitimacy and Lockheed a great long term contract (if won).
GO Dawgs, Sic' em, woof woof woof
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: Airbus, A More Viable Military Contractor?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:20 am

Defece industry is very very cut throat and is almost as unstable as the commercial aviation industry and faces similar ups and downs , you can go through a decade of high defence spending and then it platue's out and you see a decade where you are in the R and D phase where you dont make as much money ( more money control) . Most defence contractors are diversifying there portfolio's into SPACE , HOMELAND SECURITY , COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS etc etc so that they are not putting there eggs in one cyclical industry !! Lets assume that airbus/eads are solely a private company it would be far better for them to diversify into various other feilds and markets something that they are doing very inteligently !! Remember EADS is second only to Boeing in the aerospace industry !!
 
b777a340fan
Posts: 651
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:42 am

RE: Airbus, A More Viable Military Contractor?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:21 am

Quoting Katekebo (Reply 1):
Being a defense contractor is not equivalent with being subsidized. Gaining a government contract is still subject to competitive bidding (usually with much stricter criteria than a private contract).

I understand defense contractor does NOT equal to government subsidizing....thus the word "indirectly".

If you believe that there isn't corruption within any government that procurs funding and/or contract allocation to a certain company and that the process is completely fair, you're probably wrong. I mean, they have an entire profession dedicated to that: lobbyists!
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Airbus, A More Viable Military Contractor?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:53 am

Why do we seem to keep forgetting that EADS owns Airbus? EADS is Europe's biggest aerospace and defense contractor. Suggesting that Airbus should focus on defense is similar to suggesting that Boeing Commercial Airplanes should consider doing defense work. BCA is to Boeing as Airbus is to EADS.

Airbus is already doing defense work (A400M) and they are applying technology developed for such programs to their civil aircraft...just like Boeing. From the Seattle P-I: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/126833_airbus16.html

Quote:
Forgeard also took a subtle swipe at Boeing when he was asked about the commercial prospects of the new A400 military cargo plane that Airbus will develop. It will have a composite wing. He said Airbus will do what Boeing has done and use technology developed for a military program for future commercial planes.


 point  Airbus is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a defense contractor. So is Boeing Commerical Airplanes. Both companies benefit from military development contracts. yes 
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Airbus, A More Viable Military Contractor?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:39 am

Quoting Magyar (Reply 9):
We have seen some fine example of these "competitive" bidding in Iraq already!

 talktothehand  Political, off-topic and incorrect. Events in Iraq do not relate to bidding on aircraft procurement programs. ALL major US aerospace procurement contracts are subject to competitive bidding.
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.