Airbus wins US tanker bid, $40 billion

[YZGI]

It seems a bit ironic that the US airforce would give the winning bid for new AirForce tankers to a French owned company instead of Boeing.



Should US military aircraft be built by Us owned companies?



France has never supported our involvment in Iraq but now they will build our Air Force tankers doesn't that seem a little ironic to anyone else?



http://www.kansas.com/business/updates/ ... 29735.html

[Sheryl]

I think alot of Americans could use the jobs that would of been available if a U.S. company had gotten the bid.

[Clodhopper]

I may be wrong, but I thought that Airbus was a European Company, and that England and Spain (maybe Germany, not sure, have a feeling they pulled out) had major shares in it. I believe the thinking was that we could not produce a military industrial complex of the sort you have because individually we are too small, but by combining our resources we could achieve some of the effects.

If I'm wrong about any of this, please tell me!

[gmc]

It's a pan european company that also has subsidiaries in the US. It's likely that some of the production will move there seeing as how the dollar is so weak against then euro and likely to remain so. Looks like that will be in Alabama. Boeing having a monopoly is not good for the US aircraft industry. Let's face it you wouldn't have had jet airplanes if we hadn't thought of them in the first place and given you the patents.

It was a competition, which is surprising since the eu and us have been at each others throat over the issue of subsidies to the aircraft industry. You don't expect US manufacturers to compete fairly. Really the US won't help it's economy by hiding away from competition and trying to stop it rather than compete. In the long run you need to grow up and stop feeling sorry for yourselves.

It would be pity if your politicians now used this as an excuse to start a trade war with the EU for short term political gain.

[YZGI]

One of the reasons Boeing said it was underbid by Airbus is in the cost of health care it has to provide for its employees, whereas Airbus doesn't have the cost of health care for its employees.



Just posting what I read.



I still think it's a bit preposterous that Us military airplanes are being built in Europe.



It would be a bit like the UK hiring Jester to guard the Royal family.

[Bryn Mawr]

gmc;791000 wrote: It's a pan european company that also has subsidiaries in the US. It's likely that some of the production will move there seeing as how the dollar is so weak against then euro and likely to remain so. Looks like that will be in Alabama. Boeing having a monopoly is not good for the US aircraft industry. Let's face it you wouldn't have had jet airplanes if we hadn't thought of them in the first place and given you the patents.

It was a competition, which is surprising since the eu and us have been at each others throat over the issue of subsidies to the aircraft industry. You don't expect US manufacturers to compete fairly. Really the US won't help it's economy by hiding away from competition and trying to stop it rather than compete. In the long run you need to grow up and stop feeling sorry for yourselves.

It would be pity if your politicians now used this as an excuse to start a trade war with the EU for short term political gain.


Imagine if the rest of the world took the attitude proposed in the OP. World trade down to a mere trickle because everyone bought home produced.

It might be good for the exosphere but it would be the Great Depression all over again.

[YZGI]

Bryn Mawr;791041 wrote: Imagine if the rest of the world took the attitude proposed in the OP. World trade down to a mere trickle because everyone bought home produced.



It might be good for the exosphere but it would be the Great Depression all over again.


So now I have an attitude for wanting to help the faltering US economy?



Should the US export all of our jobs and just fold up tent?

[Clodhopper]

gmc: Sorry, should have said the UK, not England. Mea culpa. Grin. Still in 6 Nations mode!

[Clodhopper]

Should the US export all of our jobs and just fold up tent?


YZGI: Nope. But since your economic boys preach the free market so enthusiastically to everyone else, they probably ought to practise it!

[YZGI]

Ok, in the opening post I was only saying it seemed ironic that we would have the Europeans build our military airplanes.



I then asked a question: Should the US build its owm Military planes?



Then Bryn implicated I had some kind of an anti world trade mentality. I was wondering where in my opening post he got that from?



Here is the opening post:



It seems a bit ironic that the US airforce would give the winning bid for new AirForce tankers to a French owned company instead of Boeing.

Should US military aircraft be built by Us owned companies?

France has never supported our involvment in Iraq but now they will build our Air Force tankers doesn't that seem a little ironic to anyone else?

[Sheryl]

Clodhopper;791059 wrote: YZGI: Nope. But since your economic boys preach the free market so enthusiastically to everyone else, they probably ought to practise it!


:wah: Do you not think we practice what we preach already? I wonder how many Americans have lost their jobs already because companies found it cheaper to set up factories in Asia??? Or to import electronics because their products were cheaper than American made ones.

[Clodhopper]

YZGI: If it was a French company, then the irony would be a bit more explicit, but it's not, it's Pan-European, as gmc correctly said: the Italians are involved as well as the UK, Spain, France, maybe Germany. The company is based in France - near Toulouse if I remember correctly - in part at least because it is a reasonably central location, which is relevant when you are transporting sections to a central location for assembly. chuckle. Perhaps it might help if you thought of the EU as what the US might have been if the South had won your civil war.

The US has been using other countries' planes or bits of them for decades: WW2 Mustangs (P51s?) had Rolls-Royce engines built under licence by Packard, and the US Marines have been using Harriers (British) for decades.



There is a case for any country relying on its own resources in military matters, but almost no-one does it. We use some of your missile systems, and the Saudis use some of our kit, and the last Spitfires to see active service did so on both sides of the Arab Israeli conflict!

I think you should be more concerned by the Chinese than the French.

[YZGI]

Clodhopper;791084 wrote: YZGI: If it was a French company, then the irony would be a bit more explicit, but it's not, it's Pan-European, as gmc correctly said: the Italians are involved as well as the UK, Spain, France, maybe Germany. The company is based in France - near Toulouse if I remember correctly - in part at least because it is a reasonably central location, which is relevant when you are transporting sections to a central location for assembly. chuckle. Perhaps it might help if you thought of the EU as what the US might have been if the South had won your civil war.



The US has been using other countries' planes or bits of them for decades: WW2 Mustangs (P51s?) had Rolls-Royce engines built under licence by Packard, and the US Marines have been using Harriers (British) for decades.





There is a case for any country relying on its own resources in military matters, but almost no-one does it. We use some of your missile systems, and the Saudis use some of our kit, and the last Spitfires to see active service did so on both sides of the Arab Israeli conflict!



I think you should be more concerned by the Chinese than the French.
Trust me I am more worried about the Chinese.



As you pointed out this was at one time primarily a French company and it still has more French employees than any other European country.



The number of US jobs that have been exported over the last 10 years is staggering, I would hope that we could keep some of them here at times especially our military airplanes, I think Boeing is at least capable of building and maintaining these tankers.



I in no way want to stop trading with the EU nor would I want them to quit trading with us.

[Clodhopper]

Do you not think we practice what we preach already?


Sheryl: Well, your record is a bit patchy. Didn't you protect your steel industry recently by charging tariffs (sp?) on imported iron and steel a year or maybe two years ago? You might still be doing so, since I haven't heard news of a repeal of tariffs. I certainly grant you that in this case you have used the free market, which is an economic decision and that means you may not like the result, which, like tariffs, is as much political as economic.

[Bryn Mawr]

YZGI;791047 wrote: So now I have an attitude for wanting to help the faltering US economy?



Should the US export all of our jobs and just fold up tent?


Not in the slightest - nothing at all personal in the comment.

What I was trying to say was "if the concept expressed gained general support" - not that you had an "attitude" in the accusative.

[Clodhopper]

As you pointed out this was at one time primarily a French company and it still has more French employees than any other European country.

The number of US jobs that have been exported over the last 10 years is staggering, I would hope that we could keep some of them here at times especially our military airplanes, I think Boeing is at least capable of building and maintaining these tankers.


YZGI: It may be mostly French, but it's also British, Spanish, Italian and maybe German. I think we make the wings, Italy the tailplane and the Spanish some other bit. As you point out, $40 billion (even US billions) is a lot of money, and we'd be upset by the loss of our share. I imagine the Italians and Spanish would feel equally aggrieved.

No doubt Boeing is entirely capable of building and maintaining tankers, but whether the US taxpayer is getting the best deal thereby is another matter...

But I do sympathise with your concern at the lack of manufacturing jobs. We've lost practically the lot - certainly in terms of heavy industry - and if London stops being a major financial centre we are well and truly stuffed.

I don't know what the solution is. The major reason Asia is getting these jobs is that their labour costs are so much lower, and unless we can manage a technological sophistication that cancels this out, I don't see how in a free market we can stop an industry going where its costs are least.

[Bryn Mawr]

YZGI;791063 wrote: Ok, in the opening post I was only saying it seemed ironic that we would have the Europeans build our military airplanes.



I then asked a question: Should the US build its owm Military planes?



Then Bryn implicated I had some kind of an anti world trade mentality. I was wondering where in my opening post he got that from?



Here is the opening post:



It seems a bit ironic that the US airforce would give the winning bid for new AirForce tankers to a French owned company instead of Boeing.

Should US military aircraft be built by Us owned companies?

France has never supported our involvment in Iraq but now they will build our Air Force tankers doesn't that seem a little ironic to anyone else?


If you notice I was responding to GMC's suggestion that there was a danger of triggering a trade war.

[YZGI]

Clodhopper;791135 wrote: YZGI: It may be mostly French, but it's also British, Spanish, Italian and maybe German. I think we make the wings, Italy the tailplane and the Spanish some other bit. As you point out, $40 billion (even US billions) is a lot of money, and we'd be upset by the loss of our share. I imagine the Italians and Spanish would feel equally aggrieved.



No doubt Boeing is entirely capable of building and maintaining tankers, but whether the US taxpayer is getting the best deal thereby is another matter...



But I do sympathise with your concern at the lack of manufacturing jobs. We've lost practically the lot - certainly in terms of heavy industry - and if London stops being a major financial centre we are well and truly stuffed.



I don't know what the solution is. The major reason Asia is getting these jobs is that their labour costs are so much lower, and unless we can manage a technological sophistication that cancels this out, I don't see how in a free market we can stop an industry going where its costs are least.


I agree.



Without knowing the intricacies of the bids, I can imagine that Boeing probably thought they could get the bid even if they weren't as competitive as they could be knowing that there would be a political backlash if the Air force went with Airbus.

[cars]

The USA is going to hell in a handbasket! Back in 2005, GWB's "Politics" played a major role in the good ol US of A giving away (awarding) the USA prestigieous "Presidential Helicopter" contract formerly built here in the USA for nealy 50 years, to foreign governments/countries!!! The USA helicopter was, cheaper, more fuel efficient, more reliable, safer- by meeting FAA 29 reqmts that the other company did/could not, and the USA company already had all the required "Top Secret" sections of an existing company, as well as top secret cleared personnel to work the program! (The foreign companies to be built here in the USA did not exist yet, nor did they have cleared personel) Alas, due to GWB owing a favor to Tony Blair for Blair's participation in GWB's Iraq quagmeyer, GWB awarded his new presidential helicopter contract to British company AgustaWestland!! Stinks big time!!! :-5

The Queen doesn't ride in a Cadillac, she rides in a RR! The next president of the USA will be riding in an AgustaWestland chopper!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland

[dubs]

As YZGI said it's unusual for the US to buy military aircraft from abroad. I can think of three instances, when they bought British aircraft, but contract built them in the US, so that jobs were secured. The English Electric Canberra, was built as the Martin B57. Hawker Siddeley Harrier, as Mc Donnell Douglas AV8 A/B. And the BAE Hawk 60, as the Mc Donnell Douglas T45 Goshawk.

[Patsy Warnick]

YZGI

I so agree with you

Yes, I find it very ironic for the French to build our US airforce ..

Wow - the replies

The US don't RUN

Patsy

[Galbally]

I think its good buisness for Airbus, and it underlines the technological lead that Airbus has on boeing at the moment, which is not because the US company's engineer's or technical people are not competent enough, they are excellent, unfortunatly the senior management of Boeing has been ripping the heart out of the technical side of the company for years, and instead focusing on real estate deals and hedge funds, which is why Boeing is one of the biggest real estate companies in the world, but seems to have forgotten how to design and build cutting edge commercial aircraft, which says a lot for the philosophy of Wall Street and where it is bringing America. So I would say don't blame Airbus, or the French, or even the US Military, you can look at the senior money people in Boeing (who of course all earn a small fortune monthly) and ask them why the company they manage no longer is the world's leading aircraft manufacturer, from a position of almost total dominance 20 years ago.

In terms of the more nationalistic arguments, I can certainly understand the sentiment about the military spending being used to support home industry, but again thats a political decision, and when you put contracting into the hands of politicians you can as easily end up with a deal like WestlandAugusta, which was a politcal "fix" to reward the British government for supporting the US in the face of enormous domestic and international opinion. Though to be honest, its a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, I presume no one saw the irony when the British government bought the polaris missile system from the yanks in the 1960s, a few years after the US had publicly humiliated both Britain and France over Suez. The European countries involved in Airbus, are all NATO allies of the US, and so this kind of weapon system purchasing is an already established precendent that works both ways, sometimes in the favour of US industry, and sometimes in European industry's favour.

The important thing is that by ensuring strong trading, financial, political and cultural links, both continents are benefitted, and thats the bigger picture. The new "open sky's" agreement for a much more deregulated aviation market between the US and the EU will benefit both sides of the atlantic by billions of Euros and dollars, respectively, and thats a good example of the way that a stronger commercial relationship between both continents will ensure more prosperity for everyone, talk of trade wars is alarmist and unnecessary. Thats my tuppence anyway.

[gmc]

Galbally;791393 wrote: I think its good buisness for Airbus, and it underlines the technological lead that Airbus has on boeing at the moment, which is not because the US company's engineer's or technical people are not competent enough, they are excellent, unfortunatly the senior management of Boeing has been ripping the heart out of the technical side of the company for years, and instead focusing on real estate deals and hedge funds, which is why Boeing is one of the biggest real estate companies in the world, but seems to have forgotten how to design and build cutting edge commercial aircraft, which says a lot for the philosophy of Wall Street and where it is bringing America. So I would say don't blame Airbus, or the French, or even the US Military, you can look at the senior money people in Boeing (who of course all earn a small fortune monthly) and ask them why the company they manage no longer is the world's leading aircraft manufacturer, from a position of almost total dominance 20 years ago.

In terms of the more nationalistic arguments, I can certainly understand the sentiment about the military spending being used to support home industry, but again thats a political decision, and when you put contracting into the hands of politicians you can as easily end up with a deal like WestlandAugusta, which was a politcal "fix" to reward the British government for supporting the US in the face of enormous domestic and international opinion. Though to be honest, its a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, I presume no one saw the irony when the British government bought the polaris missile system from the yanks in the 1960s, a few years after the US had publicly humiliated both Britain and France over Suez. The European countries involved in Airbus, are all NATO allies of the US, and so this kind of weapon system purchasing is an already established precendent that works both ways, sometimes in the favour of US industry, and sometimes in European industry's favour.

The important thing is that by ensuring strong trading, financial, political and cultural links, both continents are benefitted, and thats the bigger picture. The new "open sky's" agreement for a much more deregulated aviation market between the US and the EU will benefit both sides of the atlantic by billions of Euros and dollars, respectively, and thats a good example of the way that a stronger commercial relationship between both continents will ensure more prosperity for everyone, talk of trade wars is alarmist and unnecessary. Thats my tuppence anyway.


I made the comment about a trade war as mercantilism is a nice catchy vote winner in areas where jobs are perceived as being lost because of foreign competition. The steel tariffs was a good example-it attracted votes in steel producing areas even if it actually hurt US manufacturing in the long run and it wasn't until the manufactures that actually used the steel and were hurt by the high prices started getting really stroppy that the tariffs were removed.

If future lay offs by boeing can be blamed on the french the reality for them ceases to be an issue.

I think at this point a trade dispute would hurt the US a lot more than it would the EU.

[Galbally]

gmc;791429 wrote: I made the comment about a trade war as mercantilism is a nice catchy vote winner in areas where jobs are perceived as being lost because of foreign competition. The steel tariffs was a good example-it attracted votes in steel producing areas even if it actually hurt US manufacturing in the long run and it wasn't until the manufactures that actually used the steel and were hurt by the high prices started getting really stroppy that the tariffs were removed.

If future lay offs by boeing can be blamed on the french the reality for them ceases to be an issue.

I think at this point a trade dispute would hurt the US a lot more than it would the EU.


I think trade disputes hurt everyone, and are just generally destructive and counter-productive. Sometimes there are valid questions arising from international trade, particularly in unfair trading conditions between nations and trading blocks, questions of monopolies and cartels, fair pricing and access for people's all across the world, as well as issues related to work practices and human rights to try to stop wholescale (or small scale) exploitation of people and resources, and all of these issues are very real to people's lives.

But in general, the more free and actually fair trade you have between countries, and internally within those countries themselves, the better off materially the people in those nations will be as long as the law is strong enough to ensure that people have rights and representation under an equitable system of law.