Airbus beats Boeing in US air tanker deal

Winner

Diverse in Unity
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
27,947
Location
Brno -> Czech rep. >>European Union
Air tanker deal provokes US row
Boeing's loss of a $40bn contract to build a new in-flight refuelling aircraft for the US military has drawn angry protests in Congress.

Lawmakers from Washington state and Kansas, which have big Boeing plants, voiced "outrage" that it had gone to a consortium including Europe's Airbus.

The planes will be assembled in Alabama but constructed largely in Europe.

Boeing has said it is awaiting an explanation from the military before deciding whether or not to appeal.
We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military
Statement by congressional lawmakers from the Seattle area

The new aircraft, named the KC-45A by the US Air Force, is based on the Airbus A330 and will be manufactured in partnership with US defence firm Northrop Grumman.

Its job will be to refuel the vast array of US warplanes and the contract is worth in the region of $40bn over 15 years.

It is a huge blow for Boeing, the BBC's Vincent Dowd reports from Washington.

America has around two-thirds of all such aircraft in use anywhere, and a senior figure in the company said recently if it lost this contract it could be out of the refuelling market totally for years.

'Outsourcing'

Gen Arthur J Lichte, commander of the US Air Force's Air Mobility Command, said the winning design had many advantages over Boeing's tanker.

"More passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more patients that we can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability," he said.

In Everett, Washington state, a few dozen Boeing workers protested outside a Machinists Union hall holding up signs saying "American workers equal best tankers" and "Our military deserves the best".

Congressional lawmakers from the state's Seattle area issued a joint statement condemning the "outsourcing" of the contract.

"We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military," they said.

Todd Tiahrt, a Republican congressman from Wichita, Kansas, called for "an American tanker built by an American company with American workers".

"I hope the Air Force reverses its decision," he added.

But the news was a boon for Alabama Republican congressman Jo Bonner.

"We are so very excited about having the opportunity to help the Air Force acquire the most modern and capable refuelling tanker - a tanker assembled in America by Americans," he said.

The deal will also safeguard thousands of British aviation jobs, the BBC's Andy Moore says. Wings will be made at factories in Bristol and in North Wales.

Breaking through

For Airbus's parent company, the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), it is a long-desired and potentially crucial breakthrough into the US market, our correspondent says.

Replacing America's ageing KC-135 refuelling planes - which date back to the 1950s - has proved controversial, he notes.

In 2002, the Air Force negotiated a $23bn deal with Boeing for 100 tankers to be based on the Boeing 767.

But that deal was declared invalid after allegations of fraud.

Two Boeing executives went to jail and eventually Boeing's chief executive resigned.

Political pressure on the Air Force over the deal was led by Sen John McCain, the front-runner to win the Republican nomination for the presidential elections this year.

Our correspondent adds that two further contracts are expected later as the US Air Force replaces the rest of its ageing fleet of refuelling craft.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/7272272.stm

So, what do you think about all this? Is this sudden outburst of economic liberalism going to last? After all, Airbus is European and Europe is evil, because it steals american jobs and threatens US security, as some American politicans say.

Also, how will it affect the Boeing-Airbus rivalry?

Discuss :)
 
So, what do you think about all this? Is this sudden outburst of economic liberalism going to last? After all, Airbus is European and Europe is evil, because it steals american jobs and threatens US security, as some American politicans say.

Also, how will it affect the Boeing-Airbus rivalry?

Discuss :)

Glad to see this got started. I read this this morning and just hadn't had a change to get this thread going yet. So kudos to you for that, Winner.

Now, it isn't that Europe is evil, but I have never been fond of our military products ever being produced outside of our borders. Look how France reacted towards Iraq. What if France ever said "Hey, we are not happy with what you are doing, so we are withholding parts from your tankers."??

National security should always, ALWAYS, trump low bidders and free markets.
 
I'm surprised Boeing doesn't have a huge advantage because of the weak dollar.

Seems they should be able to do a better job more cheaply, in that regard, but they obviously did not
 
I thought the USA were pro free market. This includes awarding contracts to the best competitors, doesn't it?

@VRWCAgent, what about the USA selling military hardware to third party? I suggest you take their money happily. No second thought about the risk that YOU remove key parts when they don't do what you want?
 
I thought the USA were pro free market. This includes awarding contracts to the best competitors, doesn't it?

On the other hand, France is probably the most protectionist country in the (free) world when it comes to military hardware. I mean, you even pulled out of Eurofighter project, and that wasn't American.

Somehow, I cannot imagine France buying American planes, tanks or ships...
 
@VRWCAgent, what about the USA selling military hardware to third party? I suggest you take their money happily. No second thought about the risk that YOU remove key parts when they don't do what you want?

Quite frankly, no problem. I don't live in said third party's country, I live in the USA and that is where my concerns are. If the government of the third party country wants to buy supplies from us, and risk the USA shutting them out (Iran, F-14s anyone?), that's their problem.
 
Now, it isn't that Europe is evil, but I have never been fond of our military products ever being produced outside of our borders. Look how France reacted towards Iraq. What if France ever said "Hey, we are not happy with what you are doing, so we are withholding parts from your tankers."??

National security should always, ALWAYS, trump low bidders and free markets.

I think it is rather a political problem - for the reasons you mentioned, the public is usually hostile to foreign firms taking "their" jobs, therefore the governments tend to protect domestic companies by ordering military stuff from them.

As a result, such deals tend to be extremelly prone to corruption and the weapons are overpriced due to lack of healthy competition. So what, it's taxpayers' money, they don't mind we waste it and they have to give it to us anyway.
 
Let the free market decide; it has obviously decided that Airbus is the best to build these planes, and so conservatives have nothing to complain about.
 
On the other hand, France is probably the most protectionist country in the (free) world when it comes to military hardware. I mean, you even pulled out of Eurofighter project, and that wasn't American.

Somehow, I cannot imagine France buying American planes, tanks or ships...

It did buy Awacs planes to American suppliers. Planes of vital importance.
Airbus managed to make its offer american by allying with N. Grumman and locating some of the production in the US. Kuddos to them because of the Dollar. America is economically liberal: good demonstration.
About the `need` of having all materials produced in the country, it`s stupidiy considering the amount and diversity of nationalities of subcontractors for such projects anyway.
 
After Boeing got caught bribing USAF officials (leading to the inprisonment of their CFO), my sympathy is limited.

If AirBus offered the better plane, then that's all there is to it.
 
Maybe the US military was tired of buying overpriced Boeing products? *shrugs*

Either way, it'll ultimately help the U.S. economy as it will force Boeing to start being a bit more competitive - i.e, researching quicker and more efficient ways to manufacture parts. It's what drives progress...
 
So you're celebrating the fall of the US Economy? I'd rather trust manufacturing of military hardware to be manufactured within my own nation. Not entrust it to a company outside the US to manufacture military hardware. It would be far more safer just to buy a freighter variant of an Airbus plane and convert it into a Tanker in the US.

That's what they did (IIRC) with the older Boeing 707s.

For the Civil Avation sector, I have no quarlms.
 
I think it is rather a political problem - for the reasons you mentioned, the public is usually hostile to foreign firms taking "their" jobs, therefore the governments tend to protect domestic companies by ordering military stuff from them.

It is not like all parts are produced in Europe and the planes shipped to the US. I read i na German article today that while there was a lot of outrage among several American politicians, senator Richard Shelby is quite happy with this decision as it will create "almost 7000 jobs" in Alabama.
 
GO! Airbus. it looks cooler if you asked me.
 
Let the free market decide; it has obviously decided that Airbus is the best to build these planes, and so conservatives have nothing to complain about.

Exactly, they're hypocrites if they attack the deal on nationalist grounds.

It did buy Awacs planes to American suppliers. Planes of vital importance.

I suspect that happened only because there was no French alternative to it. Again, Eurofighter is an European project, but France decided to aid its domestic producers.

Airbus managed to make its offer american by allying with N. Grumman and locating some of the production in the US. Kuddos to them because of the Dollar. America is economically liberal: good demonstration.
About the `need` of having all materials produced in the country, it`s stupidiy considering the amount and diversity of nationalities of subcontractors for such projects anyway.

I agree, but let's say I am not convinced that the deal is safe.
 
The A330 is a great design. Kudos to Airbus, Northrup Grumman and Alabama. This should help Airbus recover from the A380 financial disaster and end the building of 767s altogether.
 
How exactly is the awarding of government manufacturing contracts an exercise in free market economics?
 
Exactly, they're hypocrites if they attack the deal on nationalist grounds.
Why is it hypocricy? Free market trumps commieland, national security trumps free market. Did anyone, ever, say free market before everything, always, with no exceptions, ever, for all eternity?
 
Gen Arthur J Lichte, commander of the US Air Force's Air Mobility Command, said the winning design had many advantages over Boeing's tanker.

"More passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more patients that we can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability," he said.

In Everett, Washington state, a few dozen Boeing workers protested outside a Machinists Union hall holding up signs saying "American workers equal best tankers" and "Our military deserves the best".


I may be a foolish Norwegian but i have faith enough in the American military to believe that they know better what plane they need then the people that work for Boeing.

The parts are made all over the world, and to call this outsourcing is IMO just a tactic to make people agree with them. Outsourcing would have been if Boeing had gotten the contract and then decided to move its production to India.

Edit: Do these Boeing workers believe that the people working at the Airbus factories in Europe are unable to make these parts?
 
Back
Top Bottom