European Closed Helicopter Markets
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
European Closed Helicopter Markets
In light of the healthy debate about US policies and competition in the Presidential selection, how do those energetic ppruners who were so gloating square these words with the US selection?
British Protectionism: "A Ministry of Defence source says the process is not a formal competition, with the key consideration being to establish a policy that protects AgustaWestland's Yeovil plant and the EH101's future sales prospects." (7 December 2004
Flight International )
Italian Protectionism: "...the Italian Carabinieri and Guardia di Finanza [financial police], which are among the services to which helicopters will be supplied, are officially military entities and as such open competition is not required" (Defense News, Jan. 3, 2004)
I hear rumors that the US Congress is considering a bill to stop funds for contracts
already let where the country of origin espouses such policies. Might be bad times in Yeovil, yet again.....
British Protectionism: "A Ministry of Defence source says the process is not a formal competition, with the key consideration being to establish a policy that protects AgustaWestland's Yeovil plant and the EH101's future sales prospects." (7 December 2004
Flight International )
Italian Protectionism: "...the Italian Carabinieri and Guardia di Finanza [financial police], which are among the services to which helicopters will be supplied, are officially military entities and as such open competition is not required" (Defense News, Jan. 3, 2004)
I hear rumors that the US Congress is considering a bill to stop funds for contracts
already let where the country of origin espouses such policies. Might be bad times in Yeovil, yet again.....
Unfortunately there isn't a single American product that at this time would stand a chance of winning any competition for those specific users.
No American made and designed helicopter can compete with the the A.119 and the A.139 (really) or A.109E in their respective categories.
As a matter of fact, Bell is now building some of those under license. Now, THAT's a tough reality the American Industry has to deal with.
I'll give you though, that some of Italy's public use fleets (Forestry Service, National Fire Fighters and Finance Guard) have largely outgrown the practical use of their aircraft with the addition of totally unwarranted types, or when those types may have been acceptable for service, they were equipped way beyond acceptable standards.
No American made and designed helicopter can compete with the the A.119 and the A.139 (really) or A.109E in their respective categories.
As a matter of fact, Bell is now building some of those under license. Now, THAT's a tough reality the American Industry has to deal with.
I'll give you though, that some of Italy's public use fleets (Forestry Service, National Fire Fighters and Finance Guard) have largely outgrown the practical use of their aircraft with the addition of totally unwarranted types, or when those types may have been acceptable for service, they were equipped way beyond acceptable standards.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that the general principle should be one of open and fair competition for all but unfortunately we live in a world where protectionism of one form or another exists and in some cases quite rightly.
Surely one can see the logic (at least from a Government point of view) of a closed loop where taxpayers money is used to purchase locally maufactued equipment, thereby securing other jobs in that country and ultimately more tax revenue??
Obvoiusly many outside forces and agreements for fair trade influence the process and if the internal market is small to begin with then there is more benefit to a country to open its markets for the chance at competing in a much larger market.
Perhaps we will see Bell or Sikorsky commit to building aircraft in France for example and take a fight to Eurocopter on their own doorstep.
Surely one can see the logic (at least from a Government point of view) of a closed loop where taxpayers money is used to purchase locally maufactued equipment, thereby securing other jobs in that country and ultimately more tax revenue??
Obvoiusly many outside forces and agreements for fair trade influence the process and if the internal market is small to begin with then there is more benefit to a country to open its markets for the chance at competing in a much larger market.
Perhaps we will see Bell or Sikorsky commit to building aircraft in France for example and take a fight to Eurocopter on their own doorstep.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: St Pierre et Miquelon
Age: 68
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow rjs,
It really upset you that a European helicopter won the Presidential helicopter bid (though, as a non-American, I agree that the S92 is a much better machine, as I'm sure commercial sales figures will prove).
But come on, man, as eurobolkow says, when are Sikorsky or Bell going to set up a European operation, the same as Eurocopter and Agusta have done in the USA?
Look at the US military. What European helicopters do they have? A few Dauphins and Agusta 109s for the Coastguard and little else. Look at UK military and see what helicopters they have - lots of Bell 412 Griffons, Apache Longbows, Chinooks, S61s and even the old Westland Wessex and Whirlwind were Sikorsky derivatives.
American protectionism is normally done behind closed doors by a few of the good Ole Boys making secret decisions. Both America and Europe are equally protectionist in their own ways (as well as equally corrupt) and I don't see that as likely to change in my lifetime. The only shame is that one of the few new American helicopters (the S92) lost out to an older design. It's about time American helicopter manufacturers came up with some innovative new civil designs (S92 is the only one which comes to mind) to compete with what Europe now has to offer.
It really upset you that a European helicopter won the Presidential helicopter bid (though, as a non-American, I agree that the S92 is a much better machine, as I'm sure commercial sales figures will prove).
But come on, man, as eurobolkow says, when are Sikorsky or Bell going to set up a European operation, the same as Eurocopter and Agusta have done in the USA?
Look at the US military. What European helicopters do they have? A few Dauphins and Agusta 109s for the Coastguard and little else. Look at UK military and see what helicopters they have - lots of Bell 412 Griffons, Apache Longbows, Chinooks, S61s and even the old Westland Wessex and Whirlwind were Sikorsky derivatives.
American protectionism is normally done behind closed doors by a few of the good Ole Boys making secret decisions. Both America and Europe are equally protectionist in their own ways (as well as equally corrupt) and I don't see that as likely to change in my lifetime. The only shame is that one of the few new American helicopters (the S92) lost out to an older design. It's about time American helicopter manufacturers came up with some innovative new civil designs (S92 is the only one which comes to mind) to compete with what Europe now has to offer.
I hear from a senior manager at Westland that Agusta are currently 'evaluating' the usefulness of continuing to have a design capability at Yeovil, with the likelihood being of major cuts in in technical staff there.
CRAN
CRAN
Protectionism I can buy; it may not be correct but it is understandable. My gripe with the previous thread was that protectionism was hiding behind the cloak of enhanced safety.
By all means sell an aircraft as being all American, or all European, on the basis of enhanced employment and trade, but don't try to say that one country makes safer products than another (well, not one of the major manufacturing companies anyway) or that somehow the workers in country X are less trustworthy and conscientious in their job than those in contry Y.
Hey, say it if you want to, most of us live in free countries, but don't be surprised if it gets peoples backs up (especially if they are from country X!)
By all means sell an aircraft as being all American, or all European, on the basis of enhanced employment and trade, but don't try to say that one country makes safer products than another (well, not one of the major manufacturing companies anyway) or that somehow the workers in country X are less trustworthy and conscientious in their job than those in contry Y.
Hey, say it if you want to, most of us live in free countries, but don't be surprised if it gets peoples backs up (especially if they are from country X!)
212man,
Could you put names and places into that last post....somehow the lawyerese lost me....granted I am easily lost these days.
Are you addressing your complaint towards:
a) Nick Lappos and the Sikorsky team
b) Lockheed and the non-Sikorsky team
c) All of the above
d) None of the above but all of the posters that supported the Sikorsky entry
Could you put names and places into that last post....somehow the lawyerese lost me....granted I am easily lost these days.
Are you addressing your complaint towards:
a) Nick Lappos and the Sikorsky team
b) Lockheed and the non-Sikorsky team
c) All of the above
d) None of the above but all of the posters that supported the Sikorsky entry
SASless,
I wasn't addressing anyone in particular, though we have all read the various view points on the thread concerning the 92/101 contest. I was trying to avoid being personal and just addressing the basic premis that protectionism is one concept, relative safety of an aircraft versus another, based on their country of construction, is another.
Anyway, we in the UK are not biased; the queen flies in an American helicopter!
I wasn't addressing anyone in particular, though we have all read the various view points on the thread concerning the 92/101 contest. I was trying to avoid being personal and just addressing the basic premis that protectionism is one concept, relative safety of an aircraft versus another, based on their country of construction, is another.
Anyway, we in the UK are not biased; the queen flies in an American helicopter!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
212man,
Your blinders underwhelm me.
Exactly what in the statement "the process is not a formal competition, with the key consideration being to establish a policy that protects AgustaWestland" makes you think that British policy is otherwise?
And where do you think you read about inadequate safety being a point in the VXX ? I suggest you try to find one quote of any kind that said that. I happen to know that your electronic mouth runs a lot farther than the facts, my friend.
PS Try to avoid the uncommon error of confusing safety with security, which was the actual point that was pressed. I know the distinction might be a fine one for you, but give it a wing.
Your blinders underwhelm me.
Exactly what in the statement "the process is not a formal competition, with the key consideration being to establish a policy that protects AgustaWestland" makes you think that British policy is otherwise?
And where do you think you read about inadequate safety being a point in the VXX ? I suggest you try to find one quote of any kind that said that. I happen to know that your electronic mouth runs a lot farther than the facts, my friend.
PS Try to avoid the uncommon error of confusing safety with security, which was the actual point that was pressed. I know the distinction might be a fine one for you, but give it a wing.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Independent Online
Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence, is heading for fresh controversy over his handling of the purchase of military equipment - this time concerning plans to spend £3bn on new helicopters.
The Ministry of Defence is considering offering the lion's share of contracts for replacing the armed forces' ageing Lynx, Puma and Gazelle fleets to AgustaWestland. The Italian-owned company employs more than 4,000 people in Yeovil, Somerset.
A final decision on how the £3bn budget will be spent over 10 years will be made in the summer. But officials are now assessing whether the Defence Industrial Policy - a joint initiative by the MoD and Department of Trade and Industry - will allow the Government to enter into exclusive talks with AgustaWestland on the grounds that it will safeguard UK jobs.
The news will anger Eurocopter, owned by the Franco-German defence group EADS, which has submitted its own helicopter proposals to the MoD.
Meanwhile, Sikorsky, the helicopter company owned by America's United Technologies, is also interested in bidding for contracts. Upsetting Sikorsky could have damaging knock-on effects for AgustaWestland. Last month it was part of a consortium that broke Sikorsky's stranglehold over the supply of the iconic US presidential helicopter fleet. The decision has yet to be ratified by Congress, and industry sources said that any exclusive deal between AgustaWestland and the MoD would be used as ammunition by Sikorsky to have the presidential deal thrown out.
Today's news may also anger the Chancellor, Gordon Brown. In 2003 he became embroiled in a row with Mr Hoon over the decision to award the UK defence company BAE Systems a contract to supply the RAF with the Hawk trainer jet, without considering rival bids.
An MoD spokesman said: "We need to balance economic, industrial and military factors when making the assessment. We expect to make an announcement on the final procurement strategy by the middle of the year."
Hoon set for conflict over £3bn helicopter deals
Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence, is heading for fresh controversy over his handling of the purchase of military equipment - this time concerning plans to spend £3bn on new helicopters.
The Ministry of Defence is considering offering the lion's share of contracts for replacing the armed forces' ageing Lynx, Puma and Gazelle fleets to AgustaWestland. The Italian-owned company employs more than 4,000 people in Yeovil, Somerset.
A final decision on how the £3bn budget will be spent over 10 years will be made in the summer. But officials are now assessing whether the Defence Industrial Policy - a joint initiative by the MoD and Department of Trade and Industry - will allow the Government to enter into exclusive talks with AgustaWestland on the grounds that it will safeguard UK jobs.
The news will anger Eurocopter, owned by the Franco-German defence group EADS, which has submitted its own helicopter proposals to the MoD.
Meanwhile, Sikorsky, the helicopter company owned by America's United Technologies, is also interested in bidding for contracts. Upsetting Sikorsky could have damaging knock-on effects for AgustaWestland. Last month it was part of a consortium that broke Sikorsky's stranglehold over the supply of the iconic US presidential helicopter fleet. The decision has yet to be ratified by Congress, and industry sources said that any exclusive deal between AgustaWestland and the MoD would be used as ammunition by Sikorsky to have the presidential deal thrown out.
Today's news may also anger the Chancellor, Gordon Brown. In 2003 he became embroiled in a row with Mr Hoon over the decision to award the UK defence company BAE Systems a contract to supply the RAF with the Hawk trainer jet, without considering rival bids.
An MoD spokesman said: "We need to balance economic, industrial and military factors when making the assessment. We expect to make an announcement on the final procurement strategy by the middle of the year."
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: TheDarkSide
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Moses descended from the Mount with laws written in tablets of stone..you can bet FLynx will be ordered in stone. Tony cannot go to the polls with 4000 ish jobs under threat from the UK'sonly hel manufacturer..well I use the term UK very loosely of course.
Just remember..it was supposed to be £10bn over 10 years..that was the smoke and mirrors anouncement that Gordon made. So just what happened to the rest
Just remember..it was supposed to be £10bn over 10 years..that was the smoke and mirrors anouncement that Gordon made. So just what happened to the rest
Gosh Heliport....does this article say what I thought it did? If the UK does not buy Sikorsky this time....Nick and his bunch will go to the moronic twits in our congress.....screaming foul.....the Politicians will wave the Stars and Stripes....mutter something about it ain't cricket....send the new but undelivered President's helcopter back to Westland.....give the contract to Sikorsky....Hoon, et al, will then have to explain why British squaddies are riding around in too fancy an aircraft while Bush is confronted with having to ride in a second class piece of iron. What if Bush vetoes that act....keeps the second best aircraft as USMC 1....and Hoon, et al, buys British leaving Sikorsky completely out of the market except for the 3500 Blackhawks, 92's and Super Stallions that are flying all over the world and haulling several hundred thousand troops and dozens of foreign heads of state.
Is that what that article says really?
Is that what that article says really?
Gotta keep GKN/WHL/AugustaWestland/whateverthey'recalled this month in business to keep supporting all of those (cough) Westland Apaches the British army is still trying to get to work properly.
Seriously, is it really that controversial that any government, so long as it doesn't end up too much out of pocket doing so, will try and support it's own defence industry? One could certainly argue that HMG's track record of doing so is somewhat chequered, but the principle of trying to do so is hardly odd.
G
Seriously, is it really that controversial that any government, so long as it doesn't end up too much out of pocket doing so, will try and support it's own defence industry? One could certainly argue that HMG's track record of doing so is somewhat chequered, but the principle of trying to do so is hardly odd.
G
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South of the North Pole
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Italian Protectionism: "...the Italian Carabinieri and Guardia di Finanza [financial police], which are among the services to which helicopters will be supplied, are officially military entities and as such open competition is not required" (Defense News, Jan. 3, 2004)
Well, that just shows how
biassed Defense News are in reporting that! Are they not aware that the European Commission have taken Italy to court over this very matter? Fair reporting would have mentioned that! See European Commission press release here, dated July 2004
That, of course, would ensure that other companies get a chance to bid - such as Eurocopter
even if the tendering process looks at factors outside the technical ability of the helicopter - whether that be introduced by the country doing the choosing or the manufacturer doing the bidding. Why, for example, do Sikorsky go to great lengths to set up other work contracts to sweeten their bids so much (eg. you choose us, and we'll ensure your country gets $S million other work as a result) - perhaps you might like to comment on whether that is fair, rjsquirrel?
Please remember that the UK Royal Air Force did buy Bell 412s - particularly noting that they did not buy Agusta-Bell 412s....
Well, that just shows how
biassed Defense News are in reporting that! Are they not aware that the European Commission have taken Italy to court over this very matter? Fair reporting would have mentioned that! See European Commission press release here, dated July 2004 That, of course, would ensure that other companies get a chance to bid - such as Eurocopter
even if the tendering process looks at factors outside the technical ability of the helicopter - whether that be introduced by the country doing the choosing or the manufacturer doing the bidding. Why, for example, do Sikorsky go to great lengths to set up other work contracts to sweeten their bids so much (eg. you choose us, and we'll ensure your country gets $S million other work as a result) - perhaps you might like to comment on whether that is fair, rjsquirrel? Please remember that the UK Royal Air Force did buy Bell 412s - particularly noting that they did not buy Agusta-Bell 412s....
Senis Semper Fidelis
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lancashire U K
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Politicians are involved in any form of Election, they will look after their own and offer anything to us the great British Public, the people with the shortest memory's of all time.
Vfr
Vfr
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably because if we buy the thing which is best for the job it will not be British, which will damage the British economy, which will in turn damage the British capability to maintain what military capability we have even further. If we buy British made products then we keep British jobs, have more British people (and corporations) paying tax, which helps to pay for the maintenence of a British military capability, dwindling though it might be.
You just cannot afford to have a military if you don't have an effective economy - unforunately our economy is massively leeched upon by the welfare state.
And before I get jumped on too hard, I am one of the people operating the sub-standard kit we have today.
You just cannot afford to have a military if you don't have an effective economy - unforunately our economy is massively leeched upon by the welfare state.
And before I get jumped on too hard, I am one of the people operating the sub-standard kit we have today.
Guest
Posts: n/a
We are buying 2 aircraft carriers which are not built by the British. The froggies are kindly building them for us.
And nobody could argue that Westlands was a British company...nope, thats got Iti written all over it.
The reason is simple....VOTES
And nobody could argue that Westlands was a British company...nope, thats got Iti written all over it.
The reason is simple....VOTES
"Probably because if we buy the thing which is best for the job it will not be British, which will damage the British economy, which will in turn damage the British capability to maintain what military capability we have even further. "
True enough, but what about licence production of the right kit though? For example, the Japanese built their own F-4's and F-15s (the only country to do so), and numerous countries are building, or have built, the F-16. Do we have the clout to buy and build from abroad, or is it simply politics that keep us struggling with inadequate kit?
True enough, but what about licence production of the right kit though? For example, the Japanese built their own F-4's and F-15s (the only country to do so), and numerous countries are building, or have built, the F-16. Do we have the clout to buy and build from abroad, or is it simply politics that keep us struggling with inadequate kit?
