Would make sense Airbus tankers per Boeing transports ?

V

Verstandwaffe

New Member
Do the hard battle in acquisition of new tankers for USAF, having Airbus been the first winner and with problemas related to A400M.

Would it by possible, political, economical and in military terms to agree a kind of exchange agreement between USA and A400 partners ?
 
K

Kilo 2-3

New Member
Verstandwaffe said:
Due the hard battle in acquisition of new tankers for USAF, having Airbus been the first winner and with problems related to A400M.

Would it by possible, political, economical and in military terms to agree a kind of exchange agreement between USA and A400 partners ?
Click to expand...
Could you clarify what you mean? Your English is a bit to underst
and. I don't really know what you are asking.

I can see your question as meaning several very different things.

1. Would the US lend C130s to A400M buyers until the Airbuses are delivered?
Answer: No. the USAF would not lend a/c to foreign users. A charter deal might be made with civil C-130 operators, though.

2. Will the tanker controversy slow the A400Ms development?
Answer: Probably. A tanker deal would give Airbus more cash to work out the A400M's problems.

3. Will the A400Ms issues hurt Airbuses chances at a tanker deal?
Answer. It certainly won't help them. Even though Airbuses' tanker is a fairly well-proven airframe with orders from Australia and other nations, and the airliner version has done well, the bad press from the A400M might sway official and public opinion away from the EuroTanker.
 
V

Verstandwaffe

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
Sorry

Anyway what I meant was what if to quit any problems regarding tanker purchase in USA and development costs with A400 in Europe:


USA provides transports to Europe and Europe provides tankers for USA

Boeing sells and Airbus also.
 
K

Kilo 2-3

New Member
Verstandwaffe said:
Sorry

Anyway what I meant was what if to quit any problems regarding tanker purchase in USA and development costs with A400 in Europe:


USA provides transports to Europe and Europe provides tankers for USA

Boeing sells and Airbus also.
Click to expand...
Oh, ok. Thank you very much for the clarification. It's actually a fairly interesting idea.

But could the US operate enough transports to meet US expeditionary needs as well as those of Europe?

And suppose there was a war. Would Europe be willing to risk getting involved in a US war by signing this deal and accepting the tanker sharing deal? Europe and the US would also have massive extra training costs, especially Europe which would have to start a boom operator training program from scratch and train hundreds of boomers in very little time (estimates place the cost of training a USAF tanker boom operator in the hundreds of thousands of dollars).

Remember El Dorado Canyon (The USAF F-111 strikes on Libya)? Several European nations refused to grant overflight, forcing the strikers to refuel several times. Now just imagine if the US had no tankers due to this deal and had to rely on French, Spanish, or German tankers from the deal you propose. It would have been a major dilemma, resulting in either a) the strikes being called off, or b) the US and Europe getting in a massive political pissing match which would have needlessly degraded later relations.

It's an interesting idea, but I think it's more trouble than its worth. Both the US and Europe will be able to solve their respective tanker/transport woes in due time.
 
M

Marc 1

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Kilo 2-3 said:
Oh, ok. Thank you very much for the clarification. It's actually a fairly interesting idea.

But could the US operate enough transports to meet US expeditionary needs as well as those of Europe?

And suppose there was a war. Would Europe be willing to risk getting involved in a US war by signing this deal and accepting the tanker sharing deal? Europe and the US would also have massive extra training costs, especially Europe which would have to start a boom operator training program from scratch and train hundreds of boomers in very little time (estimates place the cost of training a USAF tanker boom operator in the hundreds of thousands of dollars).

Remember El Dorado Canyon (The USAF F-111 strikes on Libya)? Several European nations refused to grant overflight, forcing the strikers to refuel several times. Now just imagine if the US had no tankers due to this deal and had to rely on French, Spanish, or German tankers from the deal you propose. It would have been a major dilemma, resulting in either a) the strikes being called off, or b) the US and Europe getting in a massive political pissing match which would have needlessly degraded later relations.

It's an interesting idea, but I think it's more trouble than its worth. Both the US and Europe will be able to solve their respective tanker/transport woes in due time.
Click to expand...

I think he's talking sales... As in USAF buys Airbus' KC-30's to satisfy KC-X , and Boeing and Lockmart sell the European nations the C-17 and C130J instead of the A400. Win Win solution.

Except, there is no way Boeing is going to 'allow' the potential profits from 179 airframes to not go into their coffers. They would fight, lobby and scream blue murder that the government had sold out the interests of America for some political solution. It would also leave no 'quid pro quo' for EADS, so there is no way they would allow the A400 to go down without a fight either.

Be nice to think it could have happened this way (there was a joint proposal for a larger airlifter to replace the Herc between Europeans and the US, but it died a natual death in the 90's - too many cooks stirring the broth).
 
E

EngineerScott

New Member
China and BOeing had a deal

BOEing wants the USA to buy tankers for our AIRFORCE,and cryies about loosing out on 24 billion.

But from what i understand they want china market to ,even after they threaten the USA

I DONT THINK SO , if they drop the china thing ill back Boeing but until then noway will i back a company that backs commies.:eek:
 
StevoJH

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
Don't forget that most of the Development Money for A400M has already been spent and that it is a much more capable aircraft then the C130J.
 
E

EngineerScott

New Member
Then they should

Not and try to make American people feel guilty ,when dealing with a hostile country.

To me thats treason in a big way,sell out America for money,Boeing should be boycotted

and stop there ads of 30 billion dollars ,and forget about China.

at 1 commercial its was 23 or 27 billion.

America and her companies better wake up before the USA people hear what our companies are doing.
 
K

Kilo 2-3

New Member
EngineerScott said:
Not and try to make American people feel guilty ,when dealing with a hostile country.

To me thats treason in a big way,sell out America for money,Boeing should be boycotted

and stop there ads of 30 billion dollars ,and forget about China.

at 1 commercial its was 23 or 27 billion.

America and her companies better wake up before the USA people hear what our companies are doing.
Click to expand...
Please check your grammar, it greatly detracts from your credibility. I'm sure you have something to say and I do want to hear it. Just remember that how you say something is as importnant as what you say.

Conspiracy theories aside, can you cite some sources on those numbers?
 
E

EngineerScott

New Member
Traitors

Besides, Airbus has obtained orders for 3,488 airplanes by the end of the year, which are worth USD 437.1 billion and represent six times as many as its full-loaded yearly production capacity.

Boeing's orders mainly come from small customers in China. For example, Shenzhen
Airlines Limited just announced the procurement of 15 Beijing 727-800 airplanes, and the Wuhan branch of China Eastern purchased six Boeing aircrafts. Their values are much less than that of Airbus.

Boeing has not let the grass grow under its feet. The company expects that China will have a demand for 3,770 aircrafts in the future 20 years, worth USD 400 billion.

Boeing iterates that it has maintained good relationship with its Chinese partners. In April 2009, Shanghai Aircraft Manufacturing Co., Ltd. under the aegis of Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China Ltd. (COMAC) delivered the 1500th horizontal stabilizer produced for Boeing B737-NG. Six months later, a new garage of Boeing Shanghai Aviation
Services Co., Ltd. was completed and started operation.

30 billion to 400 billion So BOEING IS TWO FACED BY MAKING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FEEL, WE BETRAYED THEM ,I REALLY DINT THINK SO.
 
E

EngineerScott

New Member
Some things that i found

In order to gain more market share, Boeing focuses on China as the main source of orders. The reason is that in 2009 China's aviation industry leads in achieving recovery and rapid growth in the world with a profit of 12.2 billion yuan, achieving the world's best profits.

With such a good market, Boeing expects in the next 20 years, China will need 3770 new aircraft, worth 400 billion U.S. dollars.

------------------- CPC NewsHome>>ChinaBiz >> Industries----------------------------------

The USA has been threatened by China over Taiwan weapons sales ,But Boeing is still seeking the sales of the aircraft to China ,while under minding the American people about refueling tankers for the Air Force.

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of betrayal of one's sovereign or nation. That is what Boeing is doing to the USA
 
K

Kilo 2-3

New Member
EngineerScott said:
Besides, Airbus has obtained orders for 3,488 airplanes by the end of the year, which are worth USD 437.1 billion and represent six times as many as its full-loaded yearly production capacity.

Boeing's orders mainly come from small customers in China. For example, Shenzhen
Airlines Limited just announced the procurement of 15 Beijing 727-800 airplanes, and the Wuhan branch of China Eastern purchased six Boeing aircrafts. Their values are much less than that of Airbus.

Boeing has not let the grass grow under its feet. The company expects that China will have a demand for 3,770 aircrafts in the future 20 years, worth USD 400 billion.

Boeing iterates that it has maintained good relationship with its Chinese partners. In April 2009, Shanghai Aircraft Manufacturing Co., Ltd. under the aegis of Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China Ltd. (COMAC) delivered the 1500th horizontal stabilizer produced for Boeing B737-NG. Six months later, a new garage of Boeing Shanghai Aviation
Services Co., Ltd. was completed and started operation.

30 billion to 400 billion So BOEING IS TWO FACED BY MAKING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FEEL, WE BETRAYED THEM ,I REALLY DINT THINK SO.
Click to expand...
....If Boeing is a such a traitor to the American people for selling to China, then I guess that makes, Coca-Cola, Gerber's Baby Food, and MacDonald's equally evil...

What Boeing is doing doesn't appear to be some kind of massive plot, but rather a fairly smart and standard move for a large company to move into a new and promising market (ie China).

I doubt the general correctness of some of your figures, but do you have any specific sources?
 
E

EngineerScott

New Member
K

Kilo 2-3

New Member
EngineerScott said:
Airbus May Beat Boeing in China's Aviation Market - Silobreaker

Boeing, Airbus Fighting in Chinese Market | TradingMarkets.com

Economic Warfare: China Threatens U.S. Debt as WMD » Global Markets

as any one can see those figures are not mine and there are the addresses were to find the info.

coke and mcdys and Gerber is not trying to run ads say were neglecting a American company

then balling about 30 bills when there looking at 400 bills:finger
Click to expand...
Sigh...

30 Billion dollars is a lot of money. Any business want so get their hands on that kind of revenue, plus the fact that it gives Boeing a chance at securing credibilty and market share for future deals.

You have a very weak grasp on the fundamental principles of business if you think Boeing should drop a monetarily and poltically valuable tanker deal for realtively uncertain deals in China. Boeing should just pursue both markets, there's certainly reason for them to have to choose on or the other.

I'm not saying that Boeing isn't being something of a sore loser, there's certainly reason to say that. In fact, I'd just as soon they Boeing let it be and let the Air Force close a deal and get its tankers. But...Boeing does have a right to protest in a public and private forum. The First Amendment is a double-edged sword.

Was there some malfesance in the procurement process? Possibly. The fact that the Gov't sustained Boeing's objection do lend credence to this theory.

:coffee
 
E

EngineerScott

New Member
Boeing is a sore loser

My objection is ,Communist China threatens the USA with weapons of a massive yield and also promises to reek havoc on the American economy.
USA sovereignty including American companies are of the highest priority yet,
Boeing is still content on making a deal with China for 400billion over 20 years and is complaining that the USA Air Force didn't buy there tankers for a poultry sum of now 30 billion.

Business economics ,is just like AIG,
they get bailed out and the American people hold the bag again.
America holds the bag of 30 billion and Boeing still have there golden chute with a Hostile Communist China of 400billion estimation,thats GREED
(one of the seven deadly sins).
Just maybe the appropriation committee also knows this too and possibly made a deal with European company to show the bad taste they left in the American mouths.
Boeing ether deals with USA Air Force or deals
with China and become a traitor for money.
 
S

Sea Toby

New Member
I will agree I like the Airbus tanker better. However, Boeing is right in saying their bid was less and met every specification in the USAF's request for tender. By US law, Boeing should have won the contract. And this will be the end of the story.
 
E

EngineerScott

New Member
K

Kilo 2-3

New Member
EngineerScott said:
Congress, Boeing riled by huge defense contract for foreign firm / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

I did some digging into public records of congress and Boeing and a lot of facts have come to life .

Look for yourself , it also has a audio line.

But Boeing was trying to sucker the tax payer into a big payout , and my congressional district with the past departed John Murtha (D.-Penn) on the committee and Senator John McCain (R.-Arizona)
have shown with out a doubt the Boeing is underhanded.:eek

I edited your post for some spelling and grammatical issues
Click to expand...
30 billion isn't a paltry sum....And there business issues beyond money, or "greed" as you put it.

A tanker deal would greatly increase Boeing's already significant presence in the military market. This gives them improved market share, gives them a greater chance at securing future deals, and gives them a better position from which to make international sales.

Good business and greed are fundamentally different things, although they can appear very similar....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top