41. MPTA-098 | November 3rd, 2009 at 16:09
it is also interesting to note that govts around the world have hard reciprocal requirments in their military contracts - something I think the USAF should look into to get the process more acceptable. (minimum US content - minimum taxes payed from program payments in the US (paycheck taxes, profit taxes…))

45. don shuper | November 3rd, 2009 at 22:06
what about the 330 replacing the 135 and an 777 to replace the -10s - keep more valuable, high tech jobs goeing in the US by KC-777 engineering and allow airbus some low value-adding activities by building KC-330 in the US (would be required in my proposal). B could then, at a later date, have the A factory build some sub assy’s for future contracts and completely avoid this problem.
Spirit (used to be Boeing direct) is doing it (buidling for Airbus), why not the other way around?

46. boeing investor | November 3rd, 2009 at 23:16
but based on the DFRP, Boeing Gen V boom will not do the job? interesting.
I think the final RFP will have fewer “mandatory” requirements and more trade space requirments. Have the toilet suction pressure at the same importance as the boom operating pressure seems ludricus (both in the 373 mandatory requirements)

I dont think we should center the focus on booms, its about meeting the 370~ requirements of the US Air Force. Thats the real challenge.

As for the 1992 agreement, it was about the balancing of equity between two completely different systems of government support, balancing Airbus launch aid against the benefit Boeing accrues from (i) research and development funded by NASA, the DoD and US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and (ii) massive benefits accruing to Boeing’s LCA business from overpriced DoD contracts (i.e. capital infusion to the entire company), and sales of subsequently converted civil airplanes to DoD at highly inflated prices, and (iii) the massive subtle and indirect tax breaks from Washington State, Kansas (etc.), and which now, with the latest developments from South Carolina, has just about doubled-up the tax-breaks for the 787 programme.
======

Uhhh lets not forget that EADS military side is also a major defense ( defence) contractor who also gets bucu help from various EU countries.

And military planes ( and related ? ) were specifically excluded from GATT92

While everyone knows/knew that over the years there are a relatively few ‘ commercial ‘ aircraft/helicopters converted to military useage, the number and cost issues was not really an issue.

There is no question that BA management fouled up the tanker deal from day one regarding the lease game. However- at that time - right after 911- the issue was JOBS- and keeping the 767 line open

Of course NOW- the issue is ( for different reasons ) still JOBS - and the best use of taxpayer dollars.

After the first fieasco - as the sordid facts came out re Dryun and friends, and having little use for Rudy deLeon, AND looking ahead at the eventual replacement of the KC10/11 tankers, I have suggested the best solution would be to start both sizes. BOTH sizes are needed. Most do not realize that it will take AT least a decade at planned rates to replace the old KC fleet with roughly comparable planes. The Airbus/EADS tankeer would appear to be a good replacement for the Kc10/11 fleet, and building it in the U.S would be tolerable and maybe even advantageous. The biggest problem with that solution is money and the budgeting process.

Now we have a lot of people calling for USA to break WTO rules and use WTO rules as justification.

There is an old saying that two wrongs do not make a right. Can the people who are calling for this please justify it. I know you rarely explain and much less justify your positions but this is the time to step up. I challenge you to put some though in to it., can you?

http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/disp2_e.htm

My statements are entirely accurate.

ARBS passed fuel in the air on the A310 testbed, now the A330MRTT.

ARBS on A330MRTT had passed fuel on the ground before it passed fuel in the air.

An ARBS is an ARBS - it doesn’t matter if it’s hanging off an A310, an A330 or even a 767.

Try getting over it. The ARBS works, Boeing’s Gen VI boom still only exists on paper.

The issue is that Saj claims Airbus scheduled the wet contact to silence him criticizing them, with Aurora clapping hands on the sideline..

The question then is – Since the boom testing was scheduled for starting in September and leading up to wet contacts a few weeks later and this was announced well before Saj “called Airbus out” could this be a reaction to his post?

There is no doubt that Airbus is having serious problems with the A380 and what you said is just one way it shows. However, it is completely different from scheduling a wet contact to silence Saj.

@Erik Bloodaxe,
Where have I said Boeing is crap? Where have I stated everything Airbus does is gold? Where have I rejected bad news announced by Airbus?

My interest in the aviation industry is from the amazing logistics that goes in to keeping the entire supply chain working, all the way from how to create the right products to maintaining them through scrapping of individual frames to entire lines. This is an interest that started when I was in the computer distribution business and made me a member of the i2 design team. Not sure if you’re familiar with i2’s products but they are used by most large manufacturers including Boeing.

I honestly have no interest in the brand of any product. I want to understand how things got to where they are and what can be done to make the future better by understanding that. I’m implementing management systems for a living and thus deal with similar problems on a daily basis. Right now I’m working on a complete rework on our production model at the same time as I’m installing the current model in factories in Asia, Africa, Caribbean and USA.

Based on my experience I see that very few people posting here are interested in the better of aviation. They fight for their preferred vendor with no worries about facts or they just piss on everything. Having often been in the situation of having to fix the problems created by others and during that process having to deal with the ignorance of people whose goals are not related to the best of the companies and people involved I have very little tolerance for those kind of comments. Most of what you post is nothing but crap and that is what I’m calling you and your ignorant pears out on.

Try to explain it away by calling me a fanboi, it just shows your bigotry.

So, to recap, there was never a time when “strategic technology” wasn’t supported by public funding either in the US, or the rest of the world. Due to heavy government subsidies through its military sector and partly through annexing German technology and scientists, the US appeared after WW II as an almost monopolized world leader with its Boeing, Lockheed and Douglas aircraft companies. The global civil aircraft market reflected this situation back then: The costs were simply passed on to the “buyers”, and with the accompanying disadvantages for the aircraft-buying airlines and ultimately their passengers.

Without an equally massive support by European governments for “Airbus Industries” this unbalanced market-situation would have continued indefinitely. Therefore it was back then also in the interest of the world community to counterbalance this, competition wise, unhealthy status quo, with the “pushed” launch of an alternative civil aircraft producer.

Unless the US government doesn’t want to stop funnelling money into the R&D coffers of Boeing IDS***, the status quo will remain, although in a decade hence, we just might see a “government sponsored” and successful Chinese competitor arise on the horizon.

Original quote from Don Shuper: “RE the A330 and subsidy. One has to wonder ( not really ) why Airbutt did not try to match the 767 tanker with a version of the LIKE SIZED A330-200, instead of the 777 ‘ equivalent” A330/340 ??.

Now, why should I waste my time going through all of your “FACTS”, when apart from that second sentence, your follow up arguments were seemingly so clueless regarding the crux of the matter on why Airbus (in the time period you mentioned) could produce similar sized LCAs at about 10-20 percent less than your employer (covered in my first post). However, thanks to the efforts of ikkeman, one could perhaps say that your analysis doesn’t really pass the mustard for high scolarship and accuracy?

So, what has the 787 debacle to do with the current “subject” (as defined by you)? It’s got quite a lot to do with it, actually.

First, please do note that I originally linked the 787 with that cover story in BusinessWeek from MAY 20, 2002 (essentially the crux of my initial argument). As I said, it really puts things into perspective regarding Boeing’s current debacle with the 787 which was launched by an unrealistic overconfidence in change management preparedness, or somewhat similar to what transpired following the merger with MacDac. Also, the 787-8 was not only launched as a 767 “replacement”, but also designed to compete with the increasingly successful A330-200. However, at the turn of the century, Boeing apparently wasn’t that “concerned” about the long term viability of the 767 line as the company seemed to be pretty confident and cocky that the Air Force would lease 767-based tankers on their terms. However, the tanker lease plan collapsed around the same time the 787 was officially launched, putting further pressure on the new composite dreamliner to deliver dividends ASAP.

One could argue that Boeing’s top management’s desicion to launch the programme was pretty close to throwing a last desperate Hail Mary pass, and that they knew, or should have known, that their design for a first generation composite fuselage in a civilian airliner, was essentially compromised and rushed. Combined with the other reasons that I’ve mentioned in my two earlier posts in this thread, one could potentially infer that the 787 is not only the riskiest business desicion ever in the LCA business, but was undertaken on the backdrop of the 1997 production debacle and the downturn post nine-eleven, and that consequently, Airbus had to be “fought” by “all means”. So, the United States therefore terminated the 1992 Agreement in October 2004, just 7 months after the 787 programme had officially been launched. This was indeed no coincidence. That the following three years would see the paper dreamliner sell like hotcakes and helping the stock value to shoot up by more than 100 percent, even before the vehicle was “rolled out”, was apparently not part of the game plan, but it somehow “reinforced” Boeing’s top management to prematurely conclude that they somehow had been “vindicated”.

-

http://www.news.indianaerodef.com/2006/09/18/boeing-bets-big-on-mid-size-jets/

Quote: Top executives at US aerospace giant Boeing say the latest developments in the industry have vindicated their strategy against European rival Airbus. Boeing, which has been betting heavily on its new mid-size, long-range 787 ‘Dreamliner’ jet, appears poised to catch or overtake its European counterpart in the highly competitive civil aviation marketplace.

-

As for the 1992 agreement, it was about the balancing of equity between two completely different systems of government support, balancing Airbus launch aid against the benefit Boeing accrues from (i) research and development funded by NASA, the DoD and US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and (ii) massive benefits accruing to Boeing’s LCA business from overpriced DoD contracts (i.e. capital infusion to the entire company), and sales of subsequently converted civil airplanes to DoD at highly inflated prices, and (iii) the massive subtle and indirect tax breaks from Washington State, Kansas (etc.), and which now, with the latest developments from South Carolina, has just about doubled-up the tax-breaks for the 787 programme.

Don Shuper: Those so called loans are of tghe kind YOU could never get. They are structured such that IF specific sales/delivery targets are NOT met within X years, the loan gets forgiven . they are at a VERY good rate besides. Thus, if one examines the targets which were predicted - versus the targets which were met, one might notice that rarely have all the loans beern paid back.

Did you say rarely?

The 1992 agreement actually put a ceiling on the amount of direct government support (33 percent of the total development costs) for new aircraft programmes; and interestingly, of only eight of Airbus’ aircraft launched since 1990 (new products as well as derivatives), only three programs (A332, A345/6, A380) were launched with government investments

Its known that the A300 and A310 Reimbursable Launch Investment (RLI) repayment was payable per aircraft delivered, with balance payable on the programmes’ closure, but little else is known about the detailed terms of the RLI on the programmes launched before the 1992 agreement came into effect. While the A320 and A330/340 were all launched before the 1992 agreement, there is a significant payment returning to the respective governments for those projects, while the programmes started after the 1992 agreement came into effect, are not yet mature enough to show royalty profits (for the UK), except perhaps for the A330-200.

Here’s some further details from the UK government:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmtrdind/151/15107.htm

— Restriction of launch aid to 33 percent of total development cost, with 25 percent to be repaid at the cost of government borrowing and the remaining eight percent to be repaid at the cost of government borrowing plus one percent;

— Controls on general purpose loans and sales inducements.[174]

Hmm, 17 years isn’t really that long, is it? Quite a few banks have been more than willing to give me a 30 year loan for a house, or a 15 year unsecured loan for home improvements.

It looks like the UK made a profit on the A320 loans, they made no investment on the A300/310 programme, and they expect to make a profit on the A330-340.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml_hl?DB=semukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=airbu%20launch%20invest%20repay&ALL=Airbus%20launch%20investment%20repayments&ANY=&PHRASE=&CATEGORIES=&SIMPLE=&SPEAKER=&COLOUR=red&STYLE=s&ANCHOR=muscat_highlighter_first_match&URL=/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmtrdind/151/5011109.htm#muscat_highlighter_first_match

-

A320: RLI paid back to the governments of France, Germany and Spain while the UK Tresury continues to receive royalties on every copy sold.

A330/A340: It looks like the RLI have been paid back. (but not for the A345/A346).

Now, I would agree that if a program funded under the 1992 agreement were to fail commercially, 33 percent of the initial programme investment would be written of by the respective governments, but Airbus would still be held accountable for the remaining 67 percent by the other non-governmental investors (including Airbus itself). So, in theory, the company could still go bust, even though one can be 99 percent certain that EADS/Airbus would be bailed out by France, Germany, Spain and the UK.

Interestingly, were Boeing to fail completely on the 787, the US government would bankroll the company, just as they did with Lockheed when that company was busy running up a USD 2 billion (in then dollars) in cost overruns (just as a h’or deuvre) on the C-5A, the first real procurement scandal in US defense-industry history. At the same time, Lockeed was also building the L-1011, which was plagued from EIS by equipment problems. In addition, Lockheed apparently bribed the Japanese prime minister to buy the Tristar for ANA. What made these problems truly noteworthy, though, was that Lockheed only survived back then thanks to a $250 million (approximately USD 1.33B in 2008 dollars) government bailout.

++

try reading GATT as to source of subsidies- e.g ( paraphrased ) “loans at preferential rates by governments ” - and which can be forgiven if targets are not met.

As to airbus not claiming any profits for certain years - check again and see if you can find ANY claim by airbus prior to about 2003-4 regarding profits OR LOSS

also read the format for the CVD petition
http://home.att.net/~dshuper/BLANKCVD.html

as to what/where the numbers were supporting. Obviously there was more to the petition than just the numbers background I provided

And since the draft WTO findings at least agreed that there was some illegal or out of rule subsidies, even If I was off by 10 percent - I (we) were still on the right track - and mthat was 8 years ago.

And yes - for those who wonder- BA in about 2003 or 2004 did get a copy AFIK.