Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Fri May 28, 2010 3:32 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 148):
Quoting bikerthai (Reply 142):
Besides, I would suppose a purge operation would occur prior to the boom being stowed. Otherwise, you'll get afterburners!

Under FAR 25 they would have to show compliance in the event a purge could and could not take place. I would think it would be more difficult to have a combined air/fuel mixture in the boom than it being full of fuel.

In the stowed position, the Boom should be drained of fuel. Also, there is what is called a 'poppet valve' in the Boom Nozzle that is spring loaded to the fully closed position.

Quoting zeke (Reply 148):
Quoting bikerthai (Reply 142):

Boeing faced this certification issue with Wedgetail (both with respect to the UARSI and Chaff dispenser). They would certainly know how to do it with the KC-X tanker. Boom and all.

The Wedegtail certified took a long time (almost an 8 year process), far longer than what the KC-X RFP gives for the aircraft to be in service. As far as I am aware, only the Australian 737-700IGW AW&C aircraft were certified, I did not think the Turkish mods were certified yet.

The RAAF Wedgetail received its FAA STC in May 2009, about a year ago.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...el=defense&id=news/WEDGE051909.xml

The Wedgetail STC is a spin-off from the B-737-700IGW STC, as you said, it received its STC in June 2002. The first Wedgetail did not FF until (with mission systems installed) was in May 2004.

http://www1.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...f3f2!OpenDocument&ExpandSection=-4

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/737aewc/

You are right, neither the B-737-AEW&C versions for Turkey or South Korea have been certified, but I don't know if the is a requirement for them. But the Wedgetail did not take 8 years to certify. It took about 1 year as Boeing started the STC process for Wedgetail in early 2008.

Quoting zeke (Reply 148):
Quoting bikerthai (Reply 143):
The FAA will certify the KC-X from an airframe, flight characteristic, etc. stand point. It will not certify the KC-X from an operation (refueling standpoint).

It would be FAR 25 certified, like the KC-10.

KC-30 also.

Quoting zeke (Reply 148):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 144):
No, there are several reasons for a breakaway call, which can be made by any crewmember of either the tanker or receiver. The most common call is for a receiver PIO while in contact.

Engine failure is another.

Correct, but engine failures in cruise are not common, they do occasionally happen, but not very often. Like I said, the most common reason to call a breakaway is a PIO. Autopilot malfunctions (tanker or receiver when the autopilot is used) is another common reason, underrunning the tanker is another. Fuel leaks, hydraulic problems, and electrical problems also happen, but not very often.

Quoting zeke (Reply 148):
Quoting zeke (Reply 148):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 144):
No, you are wrong, my friend. When has EADS and the RAAF done the breakaway with the KC-30?

Many times, you make it sounds like a breakaway is some extreme piece of airmanship, it is a relative simple procedure (this is from the published NATO procedure used for this RFP).

"a. Tanker Actions
(1) Initially, the tanker is to maintain heading or established AOB and assigned FL/altitude/height and,
(a) For boom/BDA operations, the tanker is to increase power and accelerate.
(b) Also, if the Boom Operator calls "clear to climb", the tanker will begin a slow climb maintaining established AOB. It is imperative that the airspeed is not allowed to decrease below that indicated at the start of climb.
(2) Additionally, some nation’s tankers will accelerate up to the drogue limiting speed for probe and drogue AAR operations."

I agree the breakawy manuver is s simple manuver, I never said it wasn't. There is no "breakaway checklist" but the procedures still have to be followed, in sequence, also it is not "if" the Boom Operator calls "clear to climb" to the tanker pilot, it is when. It is part of the procedure. Why don't you post the receivers required breakaway actions too? It will show why NG/EADS's idea to modify the procedure by having the tanker decend is stupid, especially if you are in low vis weather.

Quoting zeke (Reply 148):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 144):
The APU exhaust over the Boom is a non-issue. Even the APU on the KC-30 exhausts over its Boom.

Suggest you have a look at the actual FAR 25 requirements. The KC-30 and KC-767J booms are not behind the APU exhaust like on the NewGen tanker. The NewGen tanker proposes to place an upgraded KC-10 boom on the smaller 767 fuselage. The NewGen tanker is geometry limited on the placement of the boom.

I don't know about the KC-30 or KC-767 fuel dump systems, on the KC-135 and KC-10 it is through the end of the Boom by a "finger" depressing the poppet valve, with all four pumps, we could dump at more than 9,000 ppm as there was no fuel line restrictions from a receiver. But that may likely be a too rick fuel/air mixture to ignite. The USAF does not use ETOPS rules, it is exempt, as are most other military forces. I also don't know if the KC-767 APU exhaust can be relocated, or at least 'bent' upward, or not. I still see this as a non-issue as the design of the KC-767NG is far from being frozen, as far as I know, Boeing could shorten the KC-10 Boom as one of the modifications. Or Boeing could build it to the current KC-10 Boom lenght and propose it as an improved Boom for the KC-10A. That is not a big problem as the KC-135 flew for decades with two types of Booms, a "high speed boom" (longer ruddervator trim tabs, longer latching canoe, and some had an extra boundery layer) and a "low speed boom", it was a maintenance briefing item when you arrived at your aircraft.

Remember the B-727 has its APU in the right wheel well/wing root, the exhaust was next to the wing fuel tanks.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14913
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Fri May 28, 2010 6:06 pm

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 149):
There is no reason why this could not be designed into the tanker. The Back up generator is quite small.

True, if they have room.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 150):
But the Wedgetail did not take 8 years to certify. It took about 1 year as Boeing started the STC process for Wedgetail in early 2008.

When you start a new project one of the first points of action is to have a meeting with the agency that would be doing the certification, in this case the FAA. At the date they establish the certification basis that the project will use, if rules change after that date before the certification date, generally the new rules will not be applicable, as the certification date is when the contact is first made to the agency.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 150):
Why don't you post the receivers required breakaway actions too? It will show why NG/EADS's idea to modify the procedure by having the tanker decend is stupid, especially if you are in low vis weather.

More than happy to publish the receiver actions, but this does not help us understand what the GAO was saying, too much of the important information has been removed to p0ut anything in context.

b. Receiver Actions. In all cases the receiver will:
(1) Immediately disconnect.
(2) Move back and go to a safe position clear of the tanker and the refuelling equipment.
(a) Probe and Drogue. For probe and drogue tankers, the safe position is normally clear of the area directly behind the tanker and outboard of the tanker’s wing.
(i) The receiver on the left hose moves to the left wing and
(ii) The receiver on the right hose moving to the right wing.
(iii) In both cases, the receivers executing the breakaway should position themselves outboard of any other aircraft already in formation on the tanker’s wing.
(b) Boom
(i) The receiver will commence an immediate descent to achieve vertical separation.
(ii) If possible, drop aft of the tanker until the entire tanker is in sight.
(iii) In the event that the receiver loses visual contact with the tanker during the breakaway, it is to descend at least 500 ft below the tanker.
(iv) Once the breakaway is terminated, the receiver may either arrange with the tanker for a further closure or to depart.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 150):
The USAF does not use ETOPS rules, it is exempt, as are most other military forces.

From the SRD

"3.4.3.1.2 The KC-X shall meet the equipment requirements of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 121 including extended overwater operations, and meet the requirements for 180-minute extended operations (ETOPS). (MANDATORY)"
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Fri May 28, 2010 10:49 pm

Mostly correct on the receiver breakaway procedure. But for probe and drogue, if the tanker climbs, the reciver[s] maintane altitude. For Boom refueling the vertical seperation is critical, so a decending reeceiver and tanker makes no sense.

Quoting zeke (Reply 151):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 150):
The USAF does not use ETOPS rules, it is exempt, as are most other military forces.

From the SRD

"3.4.3.1.2 The KC-X shall meet the equipment requirements of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 121 including extended overwater operations, and meet the requirements for 180-minute extended operations (ETOPS). (MANDATORY)"

Yes, I read that in the RFP, too. But it is there because of the STC requirement. That should allow the KC-X to share some common parts with their sister airliners, like the KC-10 and DC-10 did years ago. The USAF has flown many single and twin engine airplanes around the world long before ETOPS.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Fri May 28, 2010 11:40 pm

My sticking point isn't even the procedure once the tanker and reciever are connected, its when the reciever is flying with his head stuck firmly where the sun doesn't shine instead of in the cockpit and flying. What happens when a fighter comes in with a 10+ knot speed advantage and the boom operator says "oh S***". Diving at this moment is a one way ticket to a fireball. Military procedures are not based on the best in the service on thier best day. Its about making sure the worst guy on the worst day has a minimum chance of making other peoples days thier worst.

To this end there is NO excuse for EVER asking the pilot of a tanker to manuver his aircraft in such a manner that a collision is even probable if the other aircraft fails to manuver. Pulling up and accelerating means the reciever has the least chance of initaiting a collision if that pilot does nothing to help the situation. In fact it requires either intentional manuvering or monumential errors well in advance of the attempted contact. Remaining level or failing to accelerate doesn't remove the tanker from the danger area, and thus relys completely on the reciever manuvering to increase separation.

Diving puts the tanker directly in the flight path of the reciever. Given the relative positions of the two in stable refueling, it also places the tanker closer to the receiver once breakaway is intiated.

Its not politics, its basic physics.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14913
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sat May 29, 2010 5:34 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 152):
Mostly correct on the receiver breakaway procedure.

That is word for word the published NATO procedures, it is 100% correct, not “mostly”.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 152):
The USAF has flown many single and twin engine airplanes around the world long before ETOPS.

ETOPS no longer just applies to twins, it applies to all aircraft, the FAA and the USAF in the RFP now define ETOPS as ExTended OPerationS, it applies to all engine configurations.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 153):
What happens when a fighter comes in with a 10+ knot speed advantage and the boom operator says "oh S***".

I would trust the fuel operator would say the standard calls, and not "oh S***".

I have seen nothing to suggest that they would not conduct the standard published breakaway procedure in such a case, the KC-30 for the RAAF is being certified to the same NATO AAR standard that the USAF is using for their RFP.

Everything I have seen suggests that the RAAF will have two tankers operational before the of this year, and they will be operating using the same NATO procedures (I know the RAAF are not part of NATO, they have always adopted those procedures even with the 707 tanker).

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 153):
Pulling up and accelerating means the reciever has the least chance of initaiting a collision if that pilot does nothing to help the situation.

"Pulling up and accelerating" is not the published NATO procedure, the NATO procedure is

(1) Initially, the tanker is to maintain heading or established AOB and assigned FL/altitude/height and,
(a) For boom/BDA operations, the tanker is to increase power and accelerate.
(b) Also, if the Boom Operator calls "clear to climb", the tanker will begin a slow climb maintaining established AOB. It is imperative that the airspeed is not allowed to decrease below that indicated at the start of climb.
(2) Additionally, some nation’s tankers will accelerate up to the drogue limiting speed for probe and drogue AAR operations.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10248
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sat May 29, 2010 11:48 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 154):
"Pulling up and accelerating" is not the published NATO procedure, the NATO procedure is

Does that mean that there is a difference between the NATO standard and the US Air Force standard and since they are allowing an EADS a/c to enter the bidding they are changing to the NATO standard in the RFP to accomodate?
In short, since EADS does things "differently" the US Air Force decided in the last RFP adjustments to switch to a standard that the A330 was already "comfortable" with, if true, it does fly in the face of claims that the last RFP was biased towards Boeing, seems as if they were giving on both sides.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sat May 29, 2010 1:51 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 154):
(b) Also, if the Boom Operator calls "clear to climb",

It is not "if", but "when" the Boom Operator gives the "clear to climb" call. That is the procedure, if no call is made, there is no clearence to begin to climb for the tanker. The Boom Operator is the only crew member in either airplane with enough of a view of both airplanes to judge when to make that call.

Quoting par13del (Reply 155):
In short, since EADS does things "differently" the US Air Force decided in the last RFP adjustments to switch to a standard that the A330 was already "comfortable" with, if true, it does fly in the face of claims that the last RFP was biased towards Boeing, seems as if they were giving on both sides.

Which brings up the question; "Can NATO influence the selection criteria by changing the NATO Air Refueling Procedures 1 or 2 days before the offers are due to Wright Patterson AFB on 9 July 2010 to benefit the EADS proposal and complicate the Boeing proposal?"

Quoting zeke (Reply 154):
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 153):
What happens when a fighter comes in with a 10+ knot speed advantage and the boom operator says "oh S***".

I would trust the fuel operator would say the standard calls, and not "oh S***".

That type of breakawy call would need to be made well before the receiver reaches the "pre-contant" position (approximately 50' behind and 10' below the contact position as estimated from the Boom Nozzle to the receiver Receptical). There is no way at that point the receiver can slow to refueling airspeed in that distance with a 10 knot overtake airspeed. An underrun of the tanker will happen, even with a breakawy call, setting up a collision as neither the tanker could accelerate fast enough nor can the receiver deccelerate enough.

That is what happened in the KC-135A and B-52G mid-air collision in Jan. 1966 near Palomares, Spain (a CHROME DOME mission), killing all 4 crew members on the tanker and 3 of 7 on the bomber. The B-52 Pilot, Co-Pilot, Air Craft Commander, and Radar Navigator (this position use to be called a Bomberdier during WWII) all survived. Killed in the bomber were the Gunner, EWO, and Navigator.

"We came in behind the tanker, and we were a little bit fast, and we started to overrun him a little bit. There is a procedure they have in refueling where if the boom operator feels that you’re getting too close and it’s a dangerous situation, he will call, 'Break away, break away, break away.' There was no call for a breakaway, so we didn’t see anything dangerous about the situation. But all of a sudden all hell seemed to break loose."
The planes collided, with the nozzle of the refueling boom striking the top of the B-52 fuselage, breaking the longeron and snapping off the left wing,[5][6] which resulted in an explosion that was witnessed by a second B-52 about a mile away.[7] All four men on the KC-135 and three of the seven men on the bomber were killed."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14913
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sat May 29, 2010 4:03 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 155):
Does that mean that there is a difference between the NATO standard and the US Air Force standard and since they are allowing an EADS a/c to enter the bidding they are changing to the NATO standard in the RFP to accomodate?

Not at all, the NATO procedures are the USAF procedures, annex Z of the NATO procedures are USA specific. They are carried on USAF tanker aircraft. I think the opposite is what the USAF is thinking, Boeing being the manufacturer of the KC-135 and KC-10 control their flight manuals, they could change the manuals to prevent a fair competition.
The NATO procedures are derived from a common framework, and are used on a daily basis, they have been around for decades.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 156):
The Boom Operator is the only crew member in either airplane with enough of a view of both airplanes to judge when to make that call.

The pilots table on the KC-30 is replaced with a fold away table with an integrated computer screen.



They can have the same information infront of the pilots as what the boom operator sees. Any crew member on the tanker or receiver can call a breakaway.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 156):
"Can NATO influence the selection criteria by changing the NATO Air Refueling Procedures 1 or 2 days before the offers are due to Wright Patterson AFB on 9 July 2010 to benefit the EADS proposal and complicate the Boeing proposal?"

No, it would have to be proposed as a change by the USA, and then agreed by NATO. The NATO procedures have general definition and procedures that apply to all NATO aircraft, and then country specific, and type specific information. In the main, the RFP calls for the respondents to meet the USA preliminaries, parts 1, 2, 5, and annexes , Z, ZA, ZE, ZI for the KC-135.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sun May 30, 2010 2:30 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 157):
Not at all, the NATO procedures are the USAF procedures, annex Z of the NATO procedures are USA specific. They are carried on USAF tanker aircraft. I think the opposite is what the USAF is thinking, Boeing being the manufacturer of the KC-135 and KC-10 control their flight manuals, they could change the manuals to prevent a fair competition.

Actually, the OEMs (for all US Military Aircraft, not just the tankers) have input into the flight manual changes, but most changes come from crew members, engineers, or driven by modifications. The changes to the flight manuals are printed by the government printing office/department. The OEMs don't control the flight manual information, but do have an input, as I already said. The RFP does have some references to the flight, performance, cargo, and air refueling manuals

Quoting zeke (Reply 157):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 156):
"Can NATO influence the selection criteria by changing the NATO Air Refueling Procedures 1 or 2 days before the offers are due to Wright Patterson AFB on 9 July 2010 to benefit the EADS proposal and complicate the Boeing proposal?"

No, it would have to be proposed as a change by the USA, and then agreed by NATO. The NATO procedures have general definition and procedures that apply to all NATO aircraft, and then country specific, and type specific information.

Actually, it takes a vote by NATO to change procedures, IIRC, it requires 67% or 75% of the member nations to impiment a change. This is usually a rudder stamp as in most cases almost all member nations agree on the changes.

Quoting zeke (Reply 157):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 156):
The Boom Operator is the only crew member in either airplane with enough of a view of both airplanes to judge when to make that call.


The pilots table on the KC-30 is replaced with a fold away table with an integrated computer screen.
Quoting zeke (Reply 157):
They can have the same information infront of the pilots as what the boom operator sees. Any crew member on the tanker or receiver can call a breakaway.

Yes, any crew member on either the tanker or receiver can call a breakaway, I've said that before. Boom Operators have some 64 years of experience of watching the receivers. But, I did not know the KC-30 had that feature, is it going to be 'standard' equipment or 'optional'? I assume the picture is from the RAAF KC-30, but will the other customers that ordered Boom equipped tankers also have it? Is the resolution good enough to provide accurate dept preseption? Does that screen also provide repeators of the Boom Operator's instruments, position of the PDI reostate, and if the lower anti-collision strobe lights (or LED if it is to have them) is on or off, too? I have not seen thhe requirement for the pilots, in the USAF RFP, to be able to visually monitor the receiver while in contact, or inside of the pre-contact position.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4019
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sun May 30, 2010 3:24 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 158):
This is usually a rudder stamp

a new very appropriate term has been spawned...
 
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:41 am

Quoting racko (Reply 160):
New posts by Leeham:

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2010...06/01/will-wto-vote-really-matter/
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2010...anes/

Very interesting and well thought out posts by Leeham.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3305
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:58 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 151):
Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 149):
There is no reason why this could not be designed into the tanker. The Back up generator is quite small.

True, if they have room.



There is already precedence for 2 generators per engines (767 AWACS). I think these are also more powerful generators (to power the radar) than those on the standard 767. No issue with room - they add a bump into the nacelle.

bikerthai.
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
trex8
Posts: 5543
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu Jun 03, 2010 1:02 am

does anyone know if the House bill is written in such a way where Beings foreign subsidiary tax writeoffs which have been ruled WTO illegal could end up shooting them in the foot. I can see our fine politicians writing something like the bill preventing ACORN funding which would have also barred almost every major defense contractor from doing government business too!
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu Jun 03, 2010 6:14 am

Quoting trex8 (Reply 163):
does anyone know if the House bill is written in such a way where Beings foreign subsidiary tax writeoffs which have been ruled WTO illegal could end up shooting them in the foot.

What if the WTO declares Boeing fundings as illegal too? I see less risky paths to fabricate a Boeing winner? It is almost a given that Boeing's action will be found as illegal by WTO too (probably even to a higher extend)!
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu Jun 03, 2010 1:51 pm

Congress, and Boeing could actually hurt themselves with this bill more than not doing anything on the bill. Yes, there is a good chance the up-coming WTO interium report could hurt Boeing, but right now it is just as likely it could strenghting Boeing's position. None of us knows, at this point what is in it.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 164):
What if the WTO declares Boeing fundings as illegal too? I see less risky paths to fabricate a Boeing winner? It is almost a given that Boeing's action will be found as illegal by WTO too (probably even to a higher extend)!

It may or may not be a 'given' the WTO rules against Boeing. Everyone is just speculating on that because some think since the WTO has already ruled agaionst EADS, they will even the scales this time and rule against Boeing.

If that is the case, it will open up a whole new political debate that will only make things worse for everyone.

There has already been arguments here the EADS ruling was a political gestuer from the WTO. I disagree as I doubt the US or Boeing has enough political clout with the WTO to force that ruling. If they did, they would use that clout this time around to be able to say the WTO ruled against EADS twice.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10037
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu Jun 03, 2010 4:54 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 165):
Congress, and Boeing could actually hurt themselves with this bill more than not doing anything on the bill.

So, with luck, the Senate will sit on the bill for a while - the certainly have other issues to get taken care of before the election.

Maybe the end game will be to make it illegal for locations (states, counties, cities, etc.) to provide funding to either Boeing or Airbus for locating any level of production in a location. That would mean that both A & B would have to pay the full (non-subsidized) cost of any production location they choose. Levels the playing field a bit and avoids using taxpayer funds to provide incentives.
 
mffoda
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu Jun 03, 2010 5:36 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 166):


It's not just the aviation industry...

The BMW plant in South Carolina received huge subsidies (back in 1994 I believe?), that in todays dollars would be more then Boeing recieved form the State in order to open its second 787 line there.
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu Jun 03, 2010 5:39 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 166):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 165):
Congress, and Boeing could actually hurt themselves with this bill more than not doing anything on the bill.

So, with luck, the Senate will sit on the bill for a while - the certainly have other issues to get taken care of before the election.

I hope so. This bill is not a good idea in so many ways. Plus it has the possibility of EADS tieing this bill up in the courts, should it ever become law.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 166):
Maybe the end game will be to make it illegal for locations (states, counties, cities, etc.) to provide funding to either Boeing or Airbus for locating any level of production in a location. That would mean that both A & B would have to pay the full (non-subsidized) cost of any production location they choose. Levels the playing field a bit and avoids using taxpayer funds to provide incentives.

That would be perhaps a more fair way of doing business with the government.
 
mffoda
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu Jun 03, 2010 5:54 pm

Quoting mffoda (Reply 167):

It's not just the aviation industry...

My bad... It was 1992 not 1994...

"In 1992, South Carolina snagged a BMW plant for $150 million in giveaways."

http://washingtonindependent.com/22236/cars
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10248
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu Jun 03, 2010 6:11 pm

A

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 168):
I hope so. This bill is not a good idea in so many ways. Plus it has the possibility of EADS tieing this bill up in the courts, should it ever become law.
Quoting mffoda (Reply 169):
It's not just the aviation industry...

My bad... It was 1992 not 1994...

"In 1992, South Carolina snagged a BMW plant for $150 million in giveaways

If restricted to the tanker purchase all of this should be irrelevant, the US govt. is purchasing a tanker for their Air Force, this is not a product being purchased for resale to a third party so technically the WTO has no standing, this is not a trade issue. Either OEM can attempt to use WTO rulings or intended rulings to score political "brownie" points.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu Jun 03, 2010 10:59 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 170):
If restricted to the tanker purchase all of this should be irrelevant, the US govt. is purchasing a tanker for their Air Force, this is not a product being purchased for resale to a third party so technically the WTO has no standing, this is not a trade issue.

Good point, I think you could be right.
 
vcjc
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 6:33 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Fri Jun 04, 2010 11:32 am

The WTO was established in 1995, but the 767 was launched in 1978. Can WTO rules be applied retroactively?
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Fri Jun 04, 2010 1:39 pm

Quoting vcjc (Reply 172):
The WTO was established in 1995, but the 767 was launched in 1978. Can WTO rules be applied retroactively?

Probably not!
But also the Airbus developments of the nineties happened under an agreement formally approved from both US and EU.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Fri Jun 04, 2010 2:45 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 173):
Quoting vcjc (Reply 172):
The WTO was established in 1995, but the 767 was launched in 1978. Can WTO rules be applied retroactively?

Probably not!
But also the Airbus developments of the nineties happened under an agreement formally approved from both US and EU.

Didn't developement of the A-330-200 begin in 1996 and deliveries begin in 1998 or 1999? Also wasn't there some EU launch aid for both the A-330MRTT (developement began in 2003) and A-330-200F (developement began in 2006)?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14913
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Fri Jun 04, 2010 3:07 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 174):
Didn't developement of the A-330-200 begin in 1996 and deliveries begin in 1998 or 1999?

It is a derivative of the A340-200/A340-300/A330-300, the A330-200 was always part of the original A330/A340 family idea. The repayable launch investment has been fully repaid, unlike the 767 which still has outstanding repayable launch investment from the Japanese government.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 174):
Also wasn't there some EU launch aid for both the A-330MRTT (developement began in 2003) and A-330-200F (developement began in 2006)?

No.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
mffoda
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Fri Jun 04, 2010 3:12 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 170):

"If restricted to the tanker purchase all of this should be irrelevant, the US govt. is purchasing a tanker for their Air Force, this is not a product being purchased for resale to a third party so technically the WTO has no standing, this is not a trade issue. Either OEM can attempt to use WTO rulings or intended rulings to score political "brownie" points."

Fair point par13del... However, the "Brownie points" might have teeth...

Airbus is saying that its WTO ruling (later this month?) may offset the ruling against them from Boeing... In this Tanker competion. It seems both companies think they can use the WTO rulings to there advantage??

So doesn't it speak to the Airbus WTO case against Boeing? One of the major unfair incentives that Airbus says Boeing received are these exact subsidies that were provided to the european and asian Auto Industry alone. (see below)

"But that flourishing did't come without significant taxpayer help. Shelby's Alabama, for example, secured construction of a Mercedes-Benz plant in 1993 by offering $253 million in state and local tax breaks, worker training and land improvement. For Honda, the state's sweetener surrounding a 1999 deal to build a mini-van plant was $158 million in similar perks, adding $90 million in enticements when the company expanded the plant three years later. A 2001 deal with Toyota left the company with $29 million in taxpayer gifts.

Alabama is hardly alone. Corker's Tennessee recently lured Volkswagen to build a manufacturing plant in Chattanooga, offering the German automaker tax breaks, training and land preparation that could total $577 million. In 2005, the state inspired Nissan to relocate its headquarters from southern California by offering $197 million in incentives, including $20 million in utility savings.

In 1992, South Carolina snagged a BMW plant for $150 million in giveaways. In Mississippi in 2003, Nissan was lured with $363 million. In Georgia, a still-under-construction Kia plant received breaks estimated to be $415 million. The list goes on."
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
mffoda
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:54 pm

Another article from defensenews.com

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4656616&c=AME&s=AIR

"Boeing on June 4 welcomed proposed U.S. legislation that would force the Pentagon to factor in subsidies to Airbus when it makes a decision on a $35 billion tanker contract."

Here is the strange part....

"Supporters have said the bill would require the Pentagon to add five billion dollars to the cost of the Airbus bid for the contract."

$5 billion dollars  Wow! Thats $5B / 179 = $27.93 million per plane... Where the hell did they get number from???
harder than woodpecker lips...
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Fri Jun 04, 2010 6:43 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 175):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 174):
Didn't developement of the A-330-200 begin in 1996 and deliveries begin in 1998 or 1999?

It is a derivative of the A340-200/A340-300/A330-300, the A330-200 was always part of the original A330/A340 family idea.

SXo, you agree, it was subsidized by the EU.

Quoting zeke (Reply 175):
The repayable launch investment has been fully repaid, unlike the 767 which still has outstanding repayable launch investment from the Japanese government.
Quoting zeke (Reply 175):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 174):
Also wasn't there some EU launch aid for both the A-330MRTT (developement began in 2003) and A-330-200F (developement began in 2006)?

No.

Yes, about $5.4B USD.

What does Boeing owe to Japan, and what did they receive in Japanese subsidies in the mid 1970s when the B-767 was being developed? The answer is no Japanese, or any other government hand-outs for either the B-767 or B-757, which were developed at the same time.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 177):
Here is the strange part....

"Supporters have said the bill would require the Pentagon to add five billion dollars to the cost of the Airbus bid for the contract."

$5 billion dollars Thats $5B / 179 = $27.93 million per plane... Where the hell did they get number from???

The $5.4B USD of 'launch aid' from European countries. The 'launch aid' was given to not only provide the EU with jobs, but also provide a price per unit advantage over Boeing products and US jobs.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14913
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Fri Jun 04, 2010 7:20 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 178):

SXo, you agree, it was subsidized by the EU.

Not at all, they received repayable launch investments, which has been ruled by the WTO as not being a subsidy. EADS has paid by in full, with interest all of the RLI for the A330, and they continue to pay royalty payments to the governments that invested in the project.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 178):

Yes, about $5.4B USD.

No, RLI is not a subsidy according to the WTO, and it has been fully paid back with interest.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 178):

What does Boeing owe to Japan, and what did they receive in Japanese subsidies in the mid 1970s when the B-767 was being developed? The answer is no Japanese, or any other government hand-outs for either the B-767 or B-757, which were developed at the same time.

The Japanese manufacturers still owe the Japanese government around US$300 million in RLI for the 767, not a cent has been paid back. This has all been very well documented by researchers at the University of Buffalo like David Pritchard, he has published a number of papers on this.

David Pritchard has also stated that he thinks the 787 received around 6 billion in illegal subsidies for aircraft production, which is prohibited by the WTO. That was before all the delays.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
astuteman
Posts: 7128
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sat Jun 05, 2010 7:08 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 178):
The $5.4B USD of 'launch aid' from European countries

And it has been completely repaid.
For what its worth, even with the RLI received for the A380 AND for the A350XWB, EADS don't owe $5Bn to the European member governments today   
This $5.4Bn is a red herring

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 178):
but also provide a price per unit advantage over Boeing products and US jobs.

Don't kid yourself. The advantages of RLI pale into insignificance compared to an huge US defence business, where development cost overruns have historically been guaranteed to be paid (McDD wrote down ONLY about $1.5Bn of the c. $22Bn overrun on the C17, and there are a host of other examples), and STILL net a virtually guaranteed 10% margin on the production work.
As a strategic position to secure a robust defence industry, I have no issue with this, but you should be in no doubt that this gives a firm like Boeing HUGE financial leverage, and massive cash generating capability, which unquestionably influences their other businesses.

In contrast, EADS has been treated comparatively shabbily on the A400M, having to catch at least $5Bn of the overruns, with the bulk of the government portion being only "loaned".

If the USA had elected to make a strategic decision and source the KCX internally, I'd have had no issue with that either.
But they haven't. In which case all of this obfuscation stinks, frankly.

Rgds
 
trex8
Posts: 5543
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sat Jun 05, 2010 11:04 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 178):
The $5.4B USD of 'launch aid' from European countries. The 'launch aid' was given to not only provide the EU with jobs, but also provide a price per unit advantage over Boeing products and US jobs.

when both sides took their cases to the WTO there was an article in AWST where it was calculated that had all the RLI been given at commercial rates of interest (of the 33% R & D costs allowed by the EU-US agreement as RLI, only 25% was at less than commercial rates and whatever rate the giving EU government itself could get which is traditionally higher on that side of the atlantic than on the US side) this would have increased the cost of each Airbus product made since RLI started by only tens of thousands to a hundred+. Given the vagaries of OEM-airline contract prices it hardly makes a difference.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10248
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sat Jun 05, 2010 11:42 am

Quoting trex8 (Reply 181):
when both sides took their cases to the WTO there was an article in AWST where it was calculated that had all the RLI been given at commercial rates of interest (of the 33% R & D costs allowed by the EU-US agreement as RLI, only 25% was at less than commercial rates and whatever rate the giving EU government itself could get which is traditionally higher on that side of the atlantic than on the US side) this would have increased the cost of each Airbus product made since RLI started by only tens of thousands to a hundred+. Given the vagaries of OEM-airline contract prices it hardly makes a difference.

Taking the thread off course somewhat, but from my point of view, the difference in total cost between Boeing's startup project cost and Airbus RLI is the smallest and least significant part of the equation.
There is a risk component to any new project and the cost of that risk in the commercial sector is up front, its influence on company decisions are great, RLI is a mechanism which levels the risk over the entire project.

Trade is a hugh issue the world over, governments are actively involved in aiding private companies in securing contracts, numerous "marginal" projects can be completed and traded, once in the open market there will never be any consensus on the viability as there are too many variables which can be used lay foundations, they become cannon fodder for accountants, politicians and all manner of statisticians.

Quoting par13del (Reply 170):
If restricted to the tanker purchase all of this should be irrelevant, the US govt. is purchasing a tanker for their Air Force, this is not a product being purchased for resale to a third party so technically the WTO has no standing, this is not a trade issue. Either OEM can attempt to use WTO rulings or intended rulings to score political "brownie" points.

Allow me to quote myself, any side be they the Pentagon, DOD, US Air Force, Airbus, EADS (main or secondary), US Congress, French President etc. etc. talking about the needs of the warfighter and the product that best meets their requirements etc. are all blowing smoke, at the end of the day, this is all about money and the personal agenda's of any one in the mix who has or believes they have any form of power.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 180):
Don't kid yourself. The advantages of RLI pale into insignificance compared to an huge US defence business, where development cost overruns have historically been guaranteed to be paid (McDD wrote down ONLY about $1.5Bn of the c. $22Bn overrun on the C17, and there are a host of other examples), and STILL net a virtually guaranteed 10% margin on the production work.

Except the final product still does not meet the initial requirements and take years and additional cost to get there, which is not seen in the public eye as the initial purchase price, this happens on both sides of the Atlantic, I'm sure you can list some European projects, it's all about the money not the finished product, the product is a means to an end, jobs and trade.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 180):
As a strategic position to secure a robust defence industry, I have no issue with this, but you should be in no doubt that this gives a firm like Boeing HUGE financial leverage, and massive cash generating capability, which unquestionably influences their other businesses.

Another exception in my point of view, defense companies the world over are flocking to the US not to build the US defense base but to make money, if the intent was to build the local base there would be no incentive for foreign companies. What folks may be missing in the trade world today is that "intellectual property" does not cease with military products, an assembly line in a foreign country is not independent of its designer, for simplicity sake the product is like an embassy, wherever it is located it is still under the perview of its creator / owner.


Quoting astuteman (Reply 180):
In contrast, EADS has been treated comparatively shabbily on the A400M, having to catch at least $5Bn of the overruns, with the bulk of the government portion being only "loaned".

I hope you are not complaining, take what you have now and attempt to get it consolidated in concrete, right now it is cheaper for the tax payor   The loans are spread out over a number of years and since they are political, one can be assured that they will be changed once the public scrutiny dies down, no different that the additional cost in the US after the product gets to market, at the end of the day the programs may cost the same, the OEM's will get their funds before, during or after, to them it makes no difference  
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sat Jun 05, 2010 1:05 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 179):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 178):

What does Boeing owe to Japan, and what did they receive in Japanese subsidies in the mid 1970s when the B-767 was being developed? The answer is no Japanese, or any other government hand-outs for either the B-767 or B-757, which were developed at the same time.

The Japanese manufacturers still owe the Japanese government around US$300 million in RLI for the 767, not a cent has been paid back. This has all been very well documented by researchers at the University of Buffalo like David Pritchard, he has published a number of papers on this.

David Pritchard has also stated that he thinks the 787 received around 6 billion in illegal subsidies for aircraft production, which is prohibited by the WTO. That was before all the delays.

You are talking about a report Dr. Pritchard wrote in 2004, giving his opinion at that time.

http://igeographer.lib.indstate.edu/pritchard.pdf

It seems the March 2010 WTO ruling proved him wrong. That WTO ruling found the launch aid to EADS/Airbus was illegal. As you said, the Japanese government 'assistance' to Japnese companies is only $300M, and it was not to Boeing directly. Boeing does enjoy property tax breaks in Washington state, and possibly other states. That is not unusual for any company in the US, including EADS-NA, to ask for reduced property taxes if they employ XXXX number of the local population. As I understand it, the same practice is done in Europe, too. So EADS would also enjoy these local benefits.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14913
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:50 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 183):
That WTO ruling found the launch aid to EADS/Airbus was illegal.

Incorrect, repayable launch investment, which the A330 received was not found to be illegal by the WTO. In addition, the A330 has repaid the RLI it received.

As far as I am aware most of US complaint that the WTO agreed to was in relation to the way infrastructure was funded for the A380, as any "goods and services provided by the government other than general infrastructure" is also classified as a subsidy. It has been reported that approximately 70% of Boeings complaint was thrown out by the WTO, which included the RLI.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 183):
As you said, the Japanese government 'assistance' to Japnese companies is only $300M, and it was not to Boeing directly.

You are playing semantics here, same could be said about any of the EADS suppliers.

The real people that were hurt directly by the Japanese government subsidy is the US aerospace sector, the EU sees mainly indirect damages in terms of possible lost sales. The Japanese firms with the subsidies of the Japanese governments are making parts for the US aerospace industry at a cost below what could be made domestically in the US. This in my view had a direct result in some of the big names in the US aerospace industry going under.

The US governments has been complacent in allowing this to fester from the small amounts on the 737, to the large amounts on the 787, not once has the US taken Japan to the WTO over this. Boeing is now the biggest importer of aerospace components into the US, the domestic content on the 787 can be less than 50%. I don’t remember off hand which defence contract Boeing previously had (something to do with a wing), however I remember one of them after they were awarded the contract they exported the work overseas so that the US content value reduced below 50%.

In contrast, with the launch of any new aircraft by EADS/Airbus has always resulted in a large increases in exports from the US, the US has not been damaged by RLI, their industry has gained. EADS is the largest export customer of the US aerospace industry. In my view, if it had not been for these exports, many of the domestic suppliers that now supply Boeing would have shut their doors without the added volume that EADs has given them, and even more content would have been imported.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 183):
That is not unusual for any company in the US, including EADS-NA, to ask for reduced property taxes if they employ XXXX number of the local population. As I understand it, the same practice is done in Europe, too. So EADS would also enjoy these local benefits.

If the tax law for the whole state says "if they employ XXXX number of the local population" tax is reduced, that is okay under the WTO rules. However if they make one off agreements, it is not okay under the WTO rules, it is a subsidy, it comes under the "foregone revenues that are otherwise due".

Remember this is the second time the EU has taken the US to the WTO over this, the US (i.e. Boeing) was found guilty at the start of the decade of using the "Foreign Sales Corporations" for its exports. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/.../cases_e/1pagesum_e/ds108sum_e.pdf

Boeing has already been found guilty of using subsidies, what we are waiting for is another WTO decision to show they have been up to their old tricks again.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
astuteman
Posts: 7128
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sat Jun 05, 2010 5:27 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 182):
defense companies the world over are flocking to the US not to build the US defense base but to make money

Indeed. My own company is one of those. Why? Because the USA is the best place to make money on defence. As far as I can see, no other country, or group of coutries can boast a defence industry that makes the margins that the US defence industry does.
BAE Systems makes double-digit margin, but does so entirely on the back of its US interests.

Quoting par13del (Reply 182):
if the intent was to build the local base there would be no incentive for foreign companies.

I'll agree, as always, that the picture isn't black-and-white. However, if I can cite my own company again, they have entered the US defence market by investing heavily in existing US firms, and then growing them organically. The only product I can readily think of that is not US sourced is the M777 field howitzer, and today, even that has final assembly in the USA.

Be in no doubt that the US intends to retain a strong indigenous defence industry, and is prepared to pay in order to do so   

Quoting par13del (Reply 182):
the OEM's will get their funds before, during or after, to them it makes no difference

Except that I'll virtually guarantee that EADS isn't afforded the luxury of 10% margins on the A400M.

For what its worth, by the way, I'm not trying to downplay the efforts of US defence contractors in controlling costs and maximising profits.
But I think in the present day, the political paradigm in European nations is to screw the defence lid down as hard as they can, and sod the contractor, to a degree that is greater than in the USA.
That's certainly how we're dealt with. And it's why BAE turned to the USA.

Rgds
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sun Jun 06, 2010 2:59 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 184):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 183):
That WTO ruling found the launch aid to EADS/Airbus was illegal.

Incorrect, repayable launch investment, which the A330 received was not found to be illegal by the WTO. In addition, the A330 has repaid the RLI it received.

No sir, it is you who is incorrect.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2416110320100324

Quoting zeke (Reply 184):
As far as I am aware most of US complaint that the WTO agreed to was in relation to the way infrastructure was funded for the A380, as any "goods and services provided by the government other than general infrastructure" is also classified as a subsidy. It has been reported that approximately 70% of Boeings complaint was thrown out by the WTO, which included the RLI.

What a bunch of BS. That is like saying Boeing filed 100 complaints to the GAO in 2008, but only 8 were upheld, so 92% was thrown out. The problem is those were the 8 most important issues, and the other 92, or so were of less importance.

It is the same now, the US got the 30% of the ruling in the US favor, which were the core issues, the 70% is window dressing and you know that. The WTO ruling not only covers the A-380, but projects going back 20 years from the time the complaint was filed in 2005, going back to 1985. That brings the A-340/A-330 projects into this ruling, but probibly not the A-320 project.

http://www.euractiv.com/en/trade/wto...legal-airbus-subsidies-news-375330

The EU is hoping for the major issues in the upcoming WTO ruling to be against the US, and Boeing. None of us know, as of today what that rulling will say, or will not say. Also, this release is a preliminary or interium ruling, which the EU said last October (when that interium ruling came out) was meaningless. Now is the shope on a different foot? They cannot have it both ways, except in Europe, I guess.

Quoting zeke (Reply 184):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 183):
As you said, the Japanese government 'assistance' to Japnese companies is only $300M, and it was not to Boeing directly.

You are playing semantics here, same could be said about any of the EADS suppliers.

Why? You already said this;

Quoting zeke (Reply 175):
The repayable launch investment has been fully repaid, unlike the 767 which still has outstanding repayable launch investment from the Japanese government.

Who is playing semantics here? Did Boeing receive or not receive direct aid from Japan for the B-767 project back in the 1970s (which is before the period covered by the March 2010 WTO ruling and the EU has not complain about it)? The difference is the RLI, or launch aid was given directly to EADS, it was not given directly to Boeing. The sub-contractors do not count in this ruling. If it did, then EADS would be in trouble, along with Boeing, for any airplane they equipped with the RB-211, and engines derived from it since 1969 as the British government had to bailout RR after they went bankrupt.

Quoting zeke (Reply 184):
Remember this is the second time the EU has taken the US to the WTO over this, the US (i.e. Boeing) was found guilty at the start of the decade of using the "Foreign Sales Corporations" for its exports. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/.../cases_e/1pagesum_e/ds108sum_e.pdf

Boeing has already been found guilty of using subsidies, what we are waiting for is another WTO decision to show they have been up to their old tricks again.

That was a dispute over direct government aid to farmers for food production intended to be exported, which still continue to this day in both the US and EU.
 
trex8
Posts: 5543
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:53 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 184):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 183):
As you said, the Japanese government 'assistance' to Japnese companies is only $300M, and it was not to Boeing directly.

You are playing semantics here, same could be said about any of the EADS suppliers.

as I have said before under KC135 reasoning, if Airbus went back to a GIE structure, the EU governments could give anything to their "Airbus" factories as long as they weren't actually owned by Airbus. What a wonderful way to get around WTO rules!!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 186):
Quoting zeke (Reply 184):
Remember this is the second time the EU has taken the US to the WTO over this, the US (i.e. Boeing) was found guilty at the start of the decade of using the "Foreign Sales Corporations" for its exports. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/.../cases_e/1pagesum_e/ds108sum_e.pdf

Boeing has already been found guilty of using subsidies, what we are waiting for is another WTO decision to show they have been up to their old tricks again.

That was a dispute over direct government aid to farmers for food production intended to be exported, which still continue to this day in both the US and EU.

I don't know what law it came under but even some people in WA think Boeing got a benefit from it! And IIRC it was to the tune of many hundreds of millions.http://www.seattlepi.com/national/case4.shtml

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 186):
No sir, it is you who is incorrect.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2416110320100324

well we will have to see what the final report says but the vast majority of press reports do not say the A330 RLI was illegal
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14913
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sun Jun 06, 2010 4:07 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 186):
No sir, it is you who is incorrect.

Not at all, that article does state as you claim, it does not claim RLI was illegal. The article you quoted talks about possible "illegal export assistance under global trade agreements" for the A330, not development of the actual aircraft. "Illegal export assistance" could mean that the governments incorrectly underwrote loans to customers of the A330.

Please read this http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/092a7554-368c-11df-8151-00144feabdc0.html which does touch on the RLI.

"European officials, while acknowledging the WTO found some faults, maintain their biggest victory was a conclusion that so-called launch aid did not constitute an illegal programme aimed at Boeing."

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 186):

What a bunch of BS. That is like saying Boeing filed 100 complaints to the GAO in 2008, but only 8 were upheld, so 92% was thrown out. The problem is those were the 8 most important issues, and the other 92, or so were of less importance.

The GAO did not say that the 8 points were of any greater or lesser importance of the complaints listed, it only upheld 8 point. Fact is the GAO asked the USAF to reopen discussion with NG and Boeing on those 8 points, and make a new decision that is consistent with their findings.

In most cases, the GAO could not find documentation to support the USAF decision on those 8 points, they did not say that the USAF was wrong, they just said, reopen the discussions, and gather some more information.

It was the DoD, not the GAO that canned the process, for political reasons, as it was a transition period into the new administration.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 186):
It is the same now, the US got the 30% of the ruling in the US favor, which were the core issues, the 70% is window dressing and you know that. The WTO ruling not only covers the A-380, but projects going back 20 years from the time the complaint was filed in 2005, going back to 1985. That brings the A-340/A-330 projects into this ruling, but probibly not the A-320 project.

No I do not know what was stated in the WTO decision, it is still a confidential report, hopefully I will be able to read it in the next 8 weeks. What I have read, as indicated in the FT article, RLI was not deemed as being illegal, and that was a major part of the US case.

What I have also read, is the US complaint on the WTO website. What myself and many others have been able to do is read what US/Boeing, and what the EU/Eads has said in the press, and then go back to the original complaint. It is obvious to me, the majority of the US complaint (RLI) has not been commented on by the US at all, which in my view indicates that they have admitted by omission that they have failed to prove it is a subsidy at all.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 186):
The EU is hoping for the major issues in the upcoming WTO ruling to be against the US, and Boeing. None of us know, as of today what that rulling will say, or will not say.

We do know the text of their complaint, it is on the WTO website. And from my reading of it, it does fit the WTO definition of subsidy, which is also on their website.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 186):
Also, this release is a preliminary or interium ruling, which the EU said last October (when that interium ruling came out) was meaningless.

Show me a single report that the EU has stated it was "meaningless".

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 186):
Did Boeing receive or not receive direct aid from Japan for the B-767 project back in the 1970s (which is before the period covered by the March 2010 WTO ruling and the EU has not complain about it)?

No idea if the US/Boeing received funds either directly or indirectly from the Japanese Government. What has been shown in the University of Buffalo research is that Boeing is using a large proportion of components in their manufacturing these days that are openly known to have been subsidised.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 186):
The difference is the RLI, or launch aid was given directly to EADS, it was not given directly to Boeing.

EADS and Boeing are not directly in front of the WTO, it is the US and the EU. The reason why the Japanese government has not been mentioned is that the EU would need to take the Japanese government to the WTO under a different complaint.

The country that should be taking Japan to the WTO is the US, it is the US aerospace industry that has received the most material damage from the Japanese subsidies.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 186):
The sub-contractors do not count in this ruling.

The do, that is a major part of the EU claim. In simple terms, they claim that Boeings role as a contractor to the US DoD and NASA resulted in an illegal subsidy.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 186):
If it did, then EADS would be in trouble, along with Boeing, for any airplane they equipped with the RB-211, and engines derived from it since 1969 as the British government had to bailout RR after they went bankrupt.

All Rolls Royce civil engines in my living memory have received RLI from the UK Government. RLI is not illegal.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 186):
That was a dispute over direct government aid to farmers for food production intended to be exported, which still continue to this day in both the US and EU.

Incorrect, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4709814.stm
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14913
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sun Jun 06, 2010 4:17 pm

Quoting trex8 (Reply 187):
if Airbus went back to a GIE structure, the EU governments could give anything to their "Airbus" factories as long as they weren't actually owned by Airbus.

No that is still illegal. If a government subsidises a local factory, that transaction is illegal. It is irrelevant if that factory is making subcomponents for another company or sells the end product, the WTO is not looking at the actual companies, it is looking at things at a government level.

Japan is illegally subsidising its aerospace industry, and those subsidies components are ending up on Boeing aircraft, it is directly hurting the US aerospace industry. Even the Boeing machinist union has been on record stating this.

This is not covered under the current EU-US complaint, as it is only looking at the US, not Japan.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Ken777
Posts: 10037
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Sun Jun 06, 2010 6:33 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 179):
The Japanese manufacturers still owe the Japanese government around US$300 million in RLI for the 767, not a cent has been paid back.

Like the auto industry incentives noted above there has been, IIFC, investment by Japan in their industries. Call it what you want, the relationship between the government and business in Japan over the years has not always fallen into the traditional thinking in the US.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 180):
If the USA had elected to make a strategic decision and source the KCX internally, I'd have had no issue with that either.
But they haven't. In which case all of this obfuscation stinks, frankly.

The first effort, the lease program, was developed as a post 9/11 effort to maintain employment in the industry. It failed because a couple of people played footsie and a lot of others lost their jobs as a result. And, BTW, the USAF didn't get any tankers.

Then there was the Tanker II Farce. McCain (the same hero of Tanker Farce, The Original) pushed to have 2 bidders. Just so happens he was running for President and had a lot of NG/Airbus Buddies associated with his campaign) and too many games were played as a result, making even the GAO Gag.

Now we have a Tanker III Effort. The country is still in the economic $hits, unemployment sucks, the national debt is going through the roof, etc.

And there are some in the USAF who want the largest plane regardless of the long term investments required.

We need the cheapest option if we are to buy new. Cheapest in terms of acquisition costs, MILCON, fuel and maintenance costs, etc.

As you noted above, the US has been very lucrative - especially since WW II. There is, however, a limit and at this time the flying gas station isn't the highest on the average taxpayer's list of urgent needs. Push too far and you may find it very difficult to get defense dollars approved at "desired levels" in the future.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:35 am

What's the US parts content again of their new 787 aircraft when powered by Rolls Royce engines?

Boeing = Hypocritical
 
trex8
Posts: 5543
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:59 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 189):
Quoting trex8 (Reply 187):
if Airbus went back to a GIE structure, the EU governments could give anything to their "Airbus" factories as long as they weren't actually owned by Airbus.

No that is still illegal. If a government subsidises a local factory, that transaction is illegal. It is irrelevant if that factory is making subcomponents for another company or sells the end product, the WTO is not looking at the actual companies, it is looking at things at a government level.

Japan is illegally subsidising its aerospace industry, and those subsidies components are ending up on Boeing aircraft, it is directly hurting the US aerospace industry. Even the Boeing machinist union has been on record stating this.

This is not covered under the current EU-US complaint, as it is only looking at the US, not Japan.

bingo, totally agree with you but some here feel aid to japan/Italy for the 787 is not illegal.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5602
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Mon Jun 07, 2010 7:19 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 180):
If the USA had elected to make a strategic decision and source the KCX internally, I'd have had no issue with that either.

Which is what I think should have happened, but you're right, it didn't, which is why we've had all of this comedy. And it's likely that the reason was that there was only one domestic company capable of building it, and after the first go-around when Boeing got caught with their hand in the cookie jar it wouldn't do to just slap their hand and give it to them anyway. But it does not change the basic facts; first that I believe that it is in the US interest to have it sourced domestically, and second, that if you are looking to replace the KC-135 with a similar sized modern aircraft that is in current production that pretty much dictates that it will be the 767. But since when has logic ever entered into military procurement?
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18974
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Mon Jun 07, 2010 7:25 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 190):
We need the cheapest option if we are to buy new. Cheapest in terms of acquisition costs, MILCON, fuel and maintenance costs, etc.

Which, I think, is exactly what this RFP is aiming to acheive. What some have major difficulty accepting is that it's entirely possible that the EADS bid will be cheaper than Boeing's, or within the magic 1% when credit for "more" will be given. If credit for "more" is given, there's only one winner, and it isn't Boeing.
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.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7128
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Mon Jun 07, 2010 8:42 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 193):
But since when has logic ever entered into military procurement?

Not in my lifetime, my friend.

Rgds
 
flood
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:05 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:30 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 191):
Boeing = Hypocritical

Yeah, talk about hypocrisies.

"June 7 (Bloomberg) -- Boeing Co.’s proposed bid for the U.S. presidential helicopter program, based on an Anglo-Italian rotorcraft by Finmeccanica SpA, may include some parts made outside the U.S.

“Our goal is to do as much of the plane in the U.S. as possible,” Phil Dunford, Chicago-based Boeing’s vice president for Rotorcraft Systems, told reporters on a conference call today. Components for AgustaWestland’s AW101 helicopters “are still built in Europe, so dependent on the timeline, I’d imagine there will be existing 101-supply chains that we’ll use,” he said.

Boeing announced today that it would obtain rights to the AgustaWestland helicopter so that it may bid for the presidential program.

The company’s plans to offer the Finmeccanica-designed helicopter to transport the U.S. president, and its possible dependence on European suppliers to make the aircraft, drew criticism from European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co., based in Paris and Munich. Boeing and EADS are competing in a $35 billion business to supply the U.S. Air Force with refueling airplanes. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601209&sid=asVaaiZ6Efxc

Statement from EADS N.A.:
Arlington, Virginia, June 07, 2010

EADS North America today welcomed the Boeing Company’s embrace of international military technologies and platforms in its pursuit of the VXX Presidential Helicopter contract. EADS North America issued the following statement:

“We’re pleased that Boeing has openly acknowledged the contribution that international teams, products and platforms make to U.S. national security. For several years, Boeing and its allies have been harshly critical of the participation of EADS North America in the KC-X tanker competition. With this announcement, we now expect Boeing to cease its shrill rhetoric and finally allow the KC-X competition to focus on the merits of the tanker offerings.”

http://www.eadsnorthamerica.com/1024...Italian-Owned-AugustaWestland.html

How does Boeing plan on spinning this?
"Because of this arrangement, the aircraft will be a Boeing aircraft"
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1248

I find it rather perplexing that Boeing is essentially assuming a similar roll to that of NG before pulling out of the tanker bid. How does Boeing find it acceptable to license/build foreign aircraft (presidential helicopters, at that) yet cry foul at NG's pursuit of the same? I'm confused, yet find comfort in knowing the DOD probably is too. I'll readily admit I'm a noob, so if I'm missing the obvious kindly educate me - without the spin. I've been following the tanker saga for quite a while now and the whole thing is rotten to its core. It's embarassing, really.

It's interesting Boeing didn''t provide any estimates with regards to US vs foreign-sourced components, merely that their "goal is to do as much of the plane in the U.S. as possible". This leaves me to assume the percentages aren't quite as favorable.

Yes, the hypocrisies.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14913
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:55 am

Quoting flood (Reply 196):
Yeah, talk about hypocrisies.

And I would think the chances are high that the Italian Govemerment provided RLI to Finmeccanica to develop the helicopter.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
flood
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:05 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:05 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 197):
And I would think the chances are high that the Italian Govemerment provided RLI to Finmeccanica to develop the helicopter.

Shhh.

"Asked about whether hefty British subsidies provided for the launch of the helicopter should affect perceptions of the program, Dunford said “we are not aware of any outstanding loans or grants at this time.” He added that he believed the payments have been paid back."
...
"An industry source noted on background that AgustaWestland’s parent company, Finmeccanica, is majority owned by the Italian government."
...
"And the industry source hoisted Boeing on its own petard claiming that only 35 percent of the subsidies have been repaid and noting Boeing hypocrisy on the question of international partners and subsidies: “They don’t seem to have an issue with it when it comes to their own bottom line.”


http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/06/07/bo...elo-draws-criticism/#ixzz0qEd2F3Zb
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3305
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Tue Jun 08, 2010 1:56 pm

Quoting flood (Reply 196):
Yes, the hypocrisies.



At least Boeing have learned their lessons. I don't think they care if people here call them names, as long as they have all their bases covered.

The difference with what Boeing is doing Vs. EADS is similar to this: (EXAMPLE only)

Nissan builds some Nissan cars in the US.

Ford takes a Mazda, slap its name on it and builds it in the US. (With the exception that Ford owns Masda at the time).

bikerthai

[Edited 2010-06-08 06:58:24]
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 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