Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
greaser
Topic Author
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:55 pm

Did The British Govt. Betray Their People?

Fri Jan 23, 2004 9:33 pm

I don't wanna start anything, but after hearing a report on the BBC that the 18.8bn dollar contract with Airbus will cost BRITISH jobs, I had to start this.
Did the govt. betray their people over the deal, it's almost certain Boeing/BAE lost the contract, and it is reported that many British sub-contractors will lose out, including rolls royce, which could have been in a good position to supply the engines should Boeing, BAE had won. I know that costs at BAE have been a prob.
But how could the British govt. not choose Boeing/BAE?? I know I know, you win some, you lose some. But there's gonna be some confused faces at BAE soon
Now you're really flying
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: Did The British Govt. Betray Their People?

Fri Jan 23, 2004 11:00 pm


BAe has been having quality issues in large programs recently, so selecting them wouldn't have been prudent. And Boeing is certainly not a British, or even EU-based company whereas EADS is based in the EU and has strong ties to Britain.

 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19451
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Did The British Govt. Betray Their People?

Fri Jan 23, 2004 11:38 pm

RR is likely to get the engine order regardless of airframe.

I'll be a Dutchman if they don't - I'll call myself Hertz van Rental.  Smile
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
bobrayner
Posts: 2038
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2003 8:03 am

RE: Did The British Govt. Betray Their People?

Sat Jan 24, 2004 1:06 am

I don't wanna start anything, but after hearing a report on the BBC that the 18.8bn dollar contract with Airbus will cost BRITISH jobs, I had to start this.

I dislike the idea of awarding contracts to whoever promises to create the most local jobs.

Apart from that - it doesn't make much sense to me. I thought the UK % contribution to an A332 (&c) was rather larger than the UK % contribution to a 767? Who designs & builds Airbus wings?
Cunning linguist
 
GDB
Posts: 13927
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Did The British Govt. Betray Their People?

Sat Jan 24, 2004 2:16 am

BAE Betrayed the national interest in going with Boeing, despite making the wings for the A330 as part of them being a full Airbus partner for 25 years.
How exactly will ex BA 767s with roughly the same refueling kit as the A330s, (no doubt sourced from Flight Refueling Ltd) create more jobs than some new A330s with equally new R/R engines?
Someone has been spinning,
 
saintsman
Posts: 2037
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 12:34 am

RE: Did The British Govt. Betray Their People?

Sat Jan 24, 2004 5:18 am

The Air Tanker option, with the A330, uses a lot of British equipment and a lot of British manpower to produce the final version. Check out the Air Tanker web site for more details http://www.airtanker.co.uk

BAES had their iron in both fires so they have nothing to complain about. However as I have already said in the other thread, it is not just about the aircraft platform. It's the service that will be supplied over the next 27 years that will make up the bulk of the costs. That service was just as important to the MOD. I believe that the RAF will get the best on offer. The best aircraft and the best service.
 
[email protected]
Posts: 7510
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 2:55 am

RE: Did The British Govt. Betray Their People?

Sat Jan 24, 2004 9:58 am

A330 tankers = British jobs generated
A330 tankers with RR engines = Even more British jobs.

Either way, Boeing/BAE or Airbus, British jobs would be created. This 'snub' btw, is a wake-up call for BAE systems.
In Arsene we trust!!
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8139
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Did The British Govt. Betray Their People?

Sun Jan 25, 2004 1:09 am

Actually, I think the RAF will buy up to 15 ex-BA 767-300(ER)'s and convert them to tankers anyway. The RAF L1011 and VC-10 tanker fleet is starting to get old (e.g., they will probably be retired by 2010) and RAF really does need way more than just 18 new A330-200-based tanker planes.
 
saintsman
Posts: 2037
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 12:34 am

RE: Did The British Govt. Betray Their People?

Sun Jan 25, 2004 4:37 am

I too think that they will need more aircraft. Whether a mixed fleet is cost effective remains to be seen but politics tend to get in the way of sensible decissions.
 
concordeboac
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 9:04 am

RE: Did The British Govt. Betray Their People?

Thu Jan 29, 2004 3:16 am

This is how different areas of the UK will benefit with the Airbus deal:

Derby - Rolls-Royce PLC - build and overhaul powerplants.

Broughton/Filton - BAe Systems/Airbus UK - Produce Wings.

Boscome Down - QinetiQ - Aircraft Certification.

Royal Air Force Brize Norton - Base for the aircraft, requires substantial redevelopment, most likely from civilian contractors, from the Air Tanker website "Development of RAF Brize Norton, including extensive construction work, the provision of ground and air support equipment, ancillary vehicles, flight simulators and the installation of IT systems"

Crawley - Development and manufacture of simulators.

Wimbourne - Air Refuelling Limited - Flight Refuelling system.

Bournemouth - Aircraft Conversion.

I quote again from the Air Tanker website: The UK will account for one half of the total value of the basic aircraft for FSTA, including engine manufacture at Rolls-Royce and wing production at Airbus UK.

On top of that the issues with the age and longevity of the Boeing option and I fully support the decision to choose Airbus.

The British government is notorious for not supporting it's own industry, our new aircraft carriers are being designed and built by Thales of France for example, but in this case I must say that they have in NO way betrayed the British people.

If someone can provide a well-structured and intelligent answer as to why the Boeing deal benefits the UK more than the Airbus option, I would be most happy to change my mind, until then, I stand by the British Government, the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Air Force totally in the decision.
 
Bogi
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 5:00 am

RE: Did The British Govt. Betray Their People?

Thu Jan 29, 2004 7:42 am

OT

I know i will get troube for that one but i cant resist

Did The British Govt. Betray Their People?

Does the US Government that not every Month Twice ????

[Edited 2004-01-28 23:44:01]
 
GDB
Posts: 13927
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Did The British Govt. Betray Their People?

Thu Jan 29, 2004 3:30 pm

To add to what ConcordeBOAC said, the CVF aircraft carriers (to be named HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince Of Wales) will be built in the UK, it's a Thales design though with a big BAE input.
 
concordeboac
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 9:04 am

RE: Did The British Govt. Betray Their People?

Thu Jan 29, 2004 7:10 pm

GDB:

Thanks for correcting me on that, I'm glad BAE will have a big part to play. Cunard having the QM2 built in france was a big blow the the UK shipbuilding industry (whats left of it) Clydebank and Belfast need all the help they can get.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Did The British Govt. Betray Their People?

Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:17 pm

I didn't know the new carriers had been named, GDB. Somewhat ironic to call one Prince of Wales bearing in mind what happened to the last one, don't you think?  Big grin
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5352
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: Did The British Govt. Betray Their People?

Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:28 pm

GDB, where did you run across the info regarding the naming of the new British carriers? The RN's website is still referring to them as the CVF project and putting in a web search for HMS Queen Elizabeth is bringing in no info about the carriers.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Did The British Govt. Betray Their People?

Thu Feb 26, 2004 2:20 am

I thought those new carriers had been scrapped by the Blair administration in favour of a new holiday resort for the Labour party elite?
I wish I were flying
 
GDB
Posts: 13927
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Did The British Govt. Betray Their People?

Thu Feb 26, 2004 2:33 am

Friends working in the Ministry Of Defence told me, however it's been expected to be these names for some time.
But as it has not been formally announced, wait and see, you never know, there might be a change.

Hard to find a traditional name that has not had a previous ship sunk at some time, for example, HMS Invincible was sunk in WW1.
HMS Ark Royal was sunk in 1941.

Had CVA-01 onwards been built, (RN wanted 3, treasury said 'no chance') the first two would have been called Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales.

As it was a Labour government which cancelled them in 1966 (and they had little choice, the design needed much changing, the RN admitted they would not have the manpower to operate more than one at a time plus the RN were already getting capital ships in the shape of nuclear subs), maybe choosing to use the names again is a form of apology to the RN for 1966.

But in 1966, the RN were feeble in the face of a strong RAF campaign against the carriers, they even moved Australia 500 miles north to show that land based aircraft could provide cover 'East Of Suez'.
The navy struggled to provide senarios justifying the huge expense of new carriers, the cold war was the main mission, with frigates and subs, the RN never mentioned a possible Argentine invasion of the Falklands as a senario either.

Later, the Sea Harriers were approved as in the Cold War mission, the addition of Sea Harriers to already ordered large ASW helicopter carriers could be justified, as the main threat was Soviet long range anti ship missiles, launched from aircraft, ships or subs, the ship/sub launched ones relied on mid course guidance and target detection by TU-95 aircraft, which would often be outside the range of Sea-Dart ship to air missiles.
The Sea Harriers would allow longer range interception against TU-95s, or any other long range Soviet naval aviation aircraft for that matter.

Now the Cold War is over, out of area is back in vogue, that's how CVF has got approved, the RN will no doubt take some pain to pay for them, but without them, they will be lacking a role that is at the core of expeditionary warfare capabilities, aside from amphibious transport and minesweeping.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: prebennorholm and 12 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos