Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
EI321
Topic Author
Posts: 5055
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

EU Defends Airbus Launch Aid + Ridicules US Claims

Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:34 pm

A few more things are unfolding regards the WTO case.

http://leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn073107.pdf


IMO this wont be over any time soon, but I cant see any chance in hell of it going in favour of the $200m+ claim that the United States and Boeing are issuing.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15080
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: EU Defends Airbus Launch Aid + Ridicules US Claims

Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:53 pm

Despite the claim, I don't see a lot of "Intelligence" in this article with regard to boeing or airbus. Half is just conjecture, including basing a whole argument on "one reporter" or "one engineer."

I find this observation interesting though. It's general knowledge couched as a prediction (if something might happen, then...) but it is interesting as it's something I noticed back then:

Quote:
If there is a long delay between the first and second flights, then the
program is in trouble, this engineer tell us, citing the five weeks between the first and
second flights of the A380. “That’s when we knew the A380 was in trouble,” this
engineer says.

Back then, I recall asking the same question publicly. Why did the two flights have such a great separation, and why in the video of first flight that Airbus said went great did the pilots sound frustrated and angry.

I wonder if Boeing learned anything from that and will not release a first flight cockpit video. As for Airbus, it was the last time they were forthcoming about the A380. Up until that point, they were pretty open about things, but after first flight, the attitude changed.

So here, it's pretty true. First flight will be a true indicator on how things are going.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: EU Defends Airbus Launch Aid + Ridicules US Claims

Wed Aug 08, 2007 1:14 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
So here, it's pretty true. First flight will be a true indicator on how things are going.

Like you said, the real indicator will be the amount of time between test flight #1 and flight #2.

Isn't the $200M that Boeing and the US are talking about the money needed to start the A-300 program in 1968? Thus starting Airbus as a company.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26946
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: EU Defends Airbus Launch Aid + Ridicules US Cl

Wed Aug 08, 2007 3:25 am

The whole thing has taken on the aspects of a poorly-written soap opera.

 yawn 
 
2175301
Posts: 1719
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

RE: EU Defends Airbus Launch Aid + Ridicules US Claims

Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:26 am

Another interesting thing about the article. The "spider" chart on the capabilities of the different tankers left out a significant factor. Available runway length near battle fronts. An area that I understand the 767 is vastly superior. My understanding of the issue is that if you look at where the Airforce has based tanker aircraft from the KC 30 longer runway requirements would not work in many of those cases - requiring the tankers to be based farther away.

They then include some factors that the Airforce has indicated don't matter much. Cargo and passenger capability. Refueling tankers are rarely in a position to transfer much cargo or passengers from point A to point B. Mission flights are usually from point A back to point A (over and over).

It would be far more interesting to see a chart that compared the factors that the Airforce has indicated they are interested in.
 
EI321
Topic Author
Posts: 5055
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: EU Defends Airbus Launch Aid + Ridicules US Claims

Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:27 pm

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 4):
Another interesting thing about the article. The "spider" chart on the capabilities of the different tankers left out a significant factor. Available runway length near battle fronts. An area that I understand the 767 is vastly superior.

See the heading 'Fuel Load from 7000ft runway' on the chart. The figures are: KC135 100t, KC767 117t, KC30 153t.

Some further information:

B767-300 runway length @ MTOW: 2819m/9250ft *
A330-200 runway length @ MTOW: 2650m/8695ft **


*http://www.vhb.com/pvd/eis/pdf/PVD_DEIS_ALTS_Ap_A_Runway_Length_01122007.pdf
**http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a330_200/

[Edited 2007-08-08 11:36:45]
 
EI321
Topic Author
Posts: 5055
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: EU Defends Airbus Launch Aid + Ridicules US Claims

Wed Aug 08, 2007 8:32 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
The whole thing has taken on the aspects of a poorly-written soap opera.

.....Starring very bad actors  Wink
 
trex8
Posts: 5522
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: EU Defends Airbus Launch Aid + Ridicules US Claims

Wed Aug 08, 2007 9:13 pm

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 4):
They then include some factors that the Airforce has indicated don't matter much. Cargo and passenger capability.

the KCX system requirement documents actually put aeromedical evac as a key systems attribute though not a key performance parameter
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26946
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: EU Defends Airbus Launch Aid + Ridicules US Claims

Wed Aug 08, 2007 9:25 pm

Quoting EI321 (Reply 6):
.....Starring very bad actors  Wink

At this point, I honestly don't know who the US and EU are playing too... Even here in WA it's seldom in the news - and when it is, it's buried in with other minutia - and ask anyone on the street about it and they'd give you a blank stare...
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: EU Defends Airbus Launch Aid + Ridicules US Claims

Thu Aug 09, 2007 1:49 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 5):
Some further information:

B767-300 runway length @ MTOW: 2819m/9250ft *
A330-200 runway length @ MTOW: 2650m/8695ft **

The B-767-300 is not being considered. Boeing has offered a newer model, the B-767-200LRF as the basic airplane.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: EU Defends Airbus Launch Aid + Ridicules US Claims

Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:36 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):

The B-767-300 is not being considered. Boeing has offered a newer model, the B-767-200LRF as the basic airplane.

It was never being considered as well.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
grantcv
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:28 pm

RE: EU Defends Airbus Launch Aid + Ridicules US Claims

Thu Aug 09, 2007 12:16 pm

The included spider chart seems to indicate that the KC-30 (A330) is larger than the KC-767. You could use a simiilar chart to prove that the A380 is more "capable" than the 737.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14848
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: EU Defends Airbus Launch Aid + Ridicules US Claims

Thu Aug 09, 2007 1:54 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
Up until that point, they were pretty open about things, but after first flight, the attitude changed.

Hmm, don't know what you are on about ...

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...full-our-report-from-toulouse.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...rything-about-the-airbus-a380.html
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRHeft06/FRH0611/FR0611b.htm
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/228818_airbustour16ww.html
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/frheft/FRHeft07/FRH0701/FR0701f.htm

All that, along with the quarterly reports that went to industry ... more info than what I recall about the 777 program.

Maybe they left you off the mailing list ?

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 4):
Another interesting thing about the article. The "spider" chart on the capabilities of the different tankers left out a significant factor. Available runway length near battle fronts. An area that I understand the 767 is vastly superior. My understanding of the issue is that if you look at where the Airforce has based tanker aircraft from the KC 30 longer runway requirements would not work in many of those cases - requiring the tankers to be based farther away.

They then include some factors that the Airforce has indicated don't matter much. Cargo and passenger capability. Refueling tankers are rarely in a position to transfer much cargo or passengers from point A to point B. Mission flights are usually from point A back to point A (over and over).

The RFP stipulates nine primary key performance parameters....

1) Air refueling capability
2) Fuel offload and range at least as great as the KC-135
3) Compliant Communication, Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) equipment
4) Airlift capability
5) Ability to take on fuel while airborne
6) Sufficient force protection measures
7) Ability to network into the information available in the battle space
8) Survivability measures (defensive systems, Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) hardening, chemical/biological protection, etc.)
9) Provisioning for a multi-point refueling system to support Navy and allied aircraft

Quoting EI321 (Reply 5):

A330-200 runway length @ MTOW: 2650m/8695ft **

A330-200 Takeoff
ISA sea level 2470m
ISA +20ºC SL. 2590m

A330-200 Landing
ISA sea level 1750m
ISA +20ºC SL. 1750m

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 11):
The included spider chart seems to indicate that the KC-30 (A330) is larger than the KC-767. You could use a simiilar chart to prove that the A380 is more "capable" than the 737.

Nothing excluded Boeing from putting their best aircraft for the job up for offer, the 777. It would have however had to convince people that the extra expense per airframe would be justified over the KC-30, it would beat the KC-30 on most counts.

In my view, they have decided to put their second best aircraft up for proposal, the KC-767, and my firm view for this was so they would not hurt BCA. Having 180 odd KC-777s coming off the line would tie up the 777 line for years to come, effectively giving Airbus A330/340 orders as airlines that are aggressively expending would not have access to 777 production slots, and also delaying delivery of airframes for military applications due to the current civil backlog..

I think Boeing is also at risk with their current inability to deliver modified commercial airlines for military applications, on time or on budget. Budget blow-outs and delays on the modified 737 programs like Wedgetail, and at the Paris airshow, Ron Marcotte, manager of Boeing's tanker program had the following to say ...

"The company has acknowledged delays in delivering the KC-767 to customers in Italy and Japan, and it said Monday the hold-ups could extend into next year.

"We're obviously disappointed that we haven't been able to deliver when we said we would," Ron Marcotte, manager of Boeing's tanker program, said in an interview at the air show.

Marcotte said Boeing is working through the problems and should deliver the first two of four tankers to Japan by the end of the year. Italy's order for four planes, already two years late, will take at least another year to complete. "

The 767 line is effectively dead, the 330 killed it, the only way to keep it open is for this tanker contract. If numerous airlines have chosen the A330 over the B767, I find it hard to believe that Boeing could win the RFP based upon the selection criteria, if they do win, I think it will be a political decision, and one that may end up coming back to bite them in the future.

FYI there are 61 stored 767-200s, 8 that have already been scrapped, 18 available for lease at the moment. A330-200, 1 stored, 0 scrapped, 0 available for lease. What does that tell you about the life cycle of these aircraft ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: EU Defends Airbus Launch Aid + Ridicules US Claims

Thu Aug 09, 2007 1:58 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 12):
FYI there are 61 stored 767-200s, 8 that have already been scrapped, 18 available for lease at the moment. A330-200, 1 stored, 0 scrapped, 0 available for lease. What does that tell you about the life cycle of these aircraft ?

That Boeing made a whole hell of alot more 767's than Airbus has made A330's? One notes that even adding in the A340 to the A330, the 767 has still moved more frames.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14848
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: EU Defends Airbus Launch Aid + Ridicules US Claims

Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:20 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 13):

That Boeing made a whole hell of alot more 767's than Airbus has made A330's? One notes that even adding in the A340 to the A330, the 767 has still moved more frames.

And your point being ?

Boeing made a whole heap of aircraft, lots of the are sitting in the desert, or reborn as drink cans...like those aircraft, the 767-200 which first flew 26 years ago is on life support. The 330-200s first flight is coming up to its 10 year anniversary on the 13th of August, it is still mid life.

All good things come to an end, the 757 and A300/A310 are finished, the Grim Reaper is coming for the 767.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
JTR
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:45 pm

RE: EU Defends Airbus Launch Aid + Ridicules US Claims

Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:31 pm

Realist IR time here: Neither the US or EU will give up what the other calls "illegal" subsidies. I think it's time for both sides to stop bitching and get used to it.

Personally, I see the US side of it. Most non-Americans will say this is obvious. I say let's have both governments (or governmental entities, as the EU goes...) pour all the money they want to into their various national aviation champions. Do EU countries really want to see how much Americans will spend in order to prove a point, or vice versa?
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: EU Defends Airbus Launch Aid + Ridicules US Claims

Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:44 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 14):
the Grim Reaper is coming for the 767.

And it will come for the 330, too.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
EI321
Topic Author
Posts: 5055
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: EU Defends Airbus Launch Aid + Ridicules US Claims

Thu Aug 09, 2007 8:22 pm

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 16):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 14):
the Grim Reaper is coming for the 767.

And it will come for the 330, too.

And the 787. And the space shuttle. And the A350.

Zeke and XT6Wagon are comparing them in todays enviroment.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
Quoting EI321 (Reply 5):
Some further information:

B767-300 runway length @ MTOW: 2819m/9250ft *
A330-200 runway length @ MTOW: 2650m/8695ft **

The B-767-300 is not being considered. Boeing has offered a newer model, the B-767-200LRF as the basic airplane.

you are right, but whats the take off length of it? Im like to find out what is superior about it!

In any case, I think take off runway requiremants are an after thought in the evaluation. How many of the bases that the USAF use around the world for refueling actually have 7000 ft runways?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26946
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: EU Defends Airbus Launch Aid + Ridicules US Claims

Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:11 pm

One of the reasons Boeing put forward the KC-767 is that they have already developed a conversion for it, as Airbus has for the A330. A KC-777 would require years of development and testing work, which would result in a delayed EIS no matter how many or how few passenger/commercial freighter models were ordered in the interim.

Another reason is that the 767's "tarmacprint" is closer to the KC-135 then the A330 or 777, which means it should better integrate into existing USAF facilities.
 
EI321
Topic Author
Posts: 5055
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: EU Defends Airbus Launch Aid + Ridicules US Claims

Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:26 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
A KC-777 would require years of development and testing work, which would result in a delayed EIS no matter how many or how few passenger/commercial freighter models were ordered in the interim.

I think they are touting the 777 tanker as a DC10 tanker replacement. From Boeings point of view, winning a tender for the replacement of the DC 10 tankers in 5-10 years would be great timing as the programme begins to slow down. Theres no point proposing a 777 as a replacement for the KC135 now, considering its size and the fact that there are already well over 300 777's in the backlog.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
Another reason is that the 767's "tarmacprint" is closer to the KC-135 then the A330 or 777, which means it should better integrate into existing USAF facilities.

But will they be replacing the KC767 one-on-one with the KC767/KC330?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26946
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: EU Defends Airbus Launch Aid + Ridicules US Claims

Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:58 pm

Quoting EI321 (Reply 19):
I think they are touting the 777 tanker as a DC10 tanker replacement.

Correct. Boeing is trying to offer the USAF a dual-force model of KC-777 to replace the KC-10 and KC-767 to replace the KC-135. EADS/NG is offering a "force simplicity" model where the KC-30 can cover replacement of both models with just one (a single plane bigger then KC-135 and smaller then the KC-10 that averages out the two).

Quoting EI321 (Reply 19):
But will they be replacing the KC(-135) one-on-one with the KC767/KC330?

I do not believe so. I think the plan is for a force of roughly half that of the current KC-135 fleet, but then the KC-767 and KC-30 will both offer significant payload and tankage increases so you won't need nearly as many planes.

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