Another smack for Boeing
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another smack for Boeing
BAE snubbed in air tanker contract
The Guardian (UK) 01/13/04
author: David Gow
Copyright (C) 2004 The Guardian; Source: World Reporter (TM)
The government is set to deal a savage blow to BAE Systems and Boeing by awarding a £13bn contract to supply the RAF with a fleet of new air-to-air refuelling aircraft to a rival European consortium, industry sources said yesterday.
The decision, postponed last month and due to be announced soon, is understood to have come after a recommendation in December from senior Ministry of Defence officials in favour of the European team led by EADS and including Rolls-Royce, refuelling experts Cobham and French group Thales.
It follows a spate of Pentagon investigations into unethical conduct by senior managers at Boeing during negotiations for an $18bn (£9.8bn) refuelling contract for the USAF and other military orders as well as the dismissals and resignations of senior executives, including Phil Condit, chief executive, late last year.
Boeing, a virtual monopoly supplier, and its partners in the Tanker Team have been offering about 20 converted 767s while its rivals, Air Tanker, have proposed a mix of new and used Airbus A330-200s. Last month EADS broke into the refuelling market by launching the first of six converted A310s for the German and Canadian air forces.
Allan Cook, Cobham chief executive, said the MoD decision rested on three factors: capability, commerciality and politics. "We believe we have given the RAF the best capability, with the A330 able to carry more fuel and using our proven technology, and the best commercial solution with a PFI over 27 years. It's now about politics and ours is a European solution."
Employment prospects are believed to have helped swing the decision in favour of the European consortium. Air Tanker is promising to create or sustain some 7,000 jobs in Britain while Tanker Team says it will provide 5,000, with both claiming trade union support.
Mr Cook said: "I honestly believe that both Tanker Team and Air Tanker have run a close-run battle. But we started in air-to-air refuelling in 1934 and have well over 50 years' experience in providing the required pods on the aircraft wings."
Boeing executives have cast serious doubt on its rival's technology but Mr Cook said: "For Tanker Team to start rubbishing our refuelling facility is a little bit rich because we are talking about a rival paper design provided by Smiths Group. Both have provided credible solutions but it's just that ours is much better."
Mr Cook, meanwhile, confirmed that the cash-strapped MoD is unlikely to go ahead with the third and final phase of the much-delayed and costly Eurofighter programme - another blow to BAE, the lead contractor.
The Guardian (UK) 01/13/04
author: David Gow
Copyright (C) 2004 The Guardian; Source: World Reporter (TM)
The government is set to deal a savage blow to BAE Systems and Boeing by awarding a £13bn contract to supply the RAF with a fleet of new air-to-air refuelling aircraft to a rival European consortium, industry sources said yesterday.
The decision, postponed last month and due to be announced soon, is understood to have come after a recommendation in December from senior Ministry of Defence officials in favour of the European team led by EADS and including Rolls-Royce, refuelling experts Cobham and French group Thales.
It follows a spate of Pentagon investigations into unethical conduct by senior managers at Boeing during negotiations for an $18bn (£9.8bn) refuelling contract for the USAF and other military orders as well as the dismissals and resignations of senior executives, including Phil Condit, chief executive, late last year.
Boeing, a virtual monopoly supplier, and its partners in the Tanker Team have been offering about 20 converted 767s while its rivals, Air Tanker, have proposed a mix of new and used Airbus A330-200s. Last month EADS broke into the refuelling market by launching the first of six converted A310s for the German and Canadian air forces.
Allan Cook, Cobham chief executive, said the MoD decision rested on three factors: capability, commerciality and politics. "We believe we have given the RAF the best capability, with the A330 able to carry more fuel and using our proven technology, and the best commercial solution with a PFI over 27 years. It's now about politics and ours is a European solution."
Employment prospects are believed to have helped swing the decision in favour of the European consortium. Air Tanker is promising to create or sustain some 7,000 jobs in Britain while Tanker Team says it will provide 5,000, with both claiming trade union support.
Mr Cook said: "I honestly believe that both Tanker Team and Air Tanker have run a close-run battle. But we started in air-to-air refuelling in 1934 and have well over 50 years' experience in providing the required pods on the aircraft wings."
Boeing executives have cast serious doubt on its rival's technology but Mr Cook said: "For Tanker Team to start rubbishing our refuelling facility is a little bit rich because we are talking about a rival paper design provided by Smiths Group. Both have provided credible solutions but it's just that ours is much better."
Mr Cook, meanwhile, confirmed that the cash-strapped MoD is unlikely to go ahead with the third and final phase of the much-delayed and costly Eurofighter programme - another blow to BAE, the lead contractor.
Rearrange the following well-known phrase, Mike:
"Chickens, hatched, count, before, your, they're, don't!"
Hope that the Grauniad has got it right though!! Incidentally, the A310 (not A330) MRTT flew at Dresden just before Christmas
"Chickens, hatched, count, before, your, they're, don't!"
Hope that the Grauniad has got it right though!! Incidentally, the A310 (not A330) MRTT flew at Dresden just before Christmas
BAE win both ways as they build the wing for the A330. So only a "savage blow" to one part of BAE, but another part would be a winner. So whatever the final outcome, no big blow for BAE.
Also, as all existing RAF tankers use Cobham equipment how can Boeing cast doubts on their technology?
Also, as all existing RAF tankers use Cobham equipment how can Boeing cast doubts on their technology?
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slipping the surly bonds of earth. The operative words are bonds and earth.
Last month EADS broke into the refueling market by launching the first of six converted A310s for the German and Canadian air forces.
Airbus Indusrie created Technical Design Directive TDD 20A001. This document covered the following subject areas:
1) Electrical Bonding
2) Lightning strike protection
3) Electrostatic discharge.
The A-310 was put into production prior to the full sign off on the TDD and as such the aircraft was never tested for compliance with the requirements of the TDD at least not in the early stages of production of the A-310. When I worked on the program the secondary flight control systems (flaps and slats) were not bonded to the wing structure.
All; I can say to the Canadian forces and the German Air Force is Caveat Emptor.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To: MAN777
Not just the Luftwaffa and Canadian A-310s but the commercial A-310s as well.
I documented these problems to the FAA, DGCA, the DLBA and the UK CAA and nothing was done about it. The only action taken by the FAA resulted in the firing of the Vice President and the Chief Project manager at the responsible German Company but the design was never changed.
This problem was exacerbated by the issuance of an AD by the DGCA, which I believe was not properly translated from French to English.
I took the problem to two levels higher than my level of responsibility only to be told that they did not want to bring the problem to the attention of Airbus because they would have to pay the design costs. At the very top level (BAe) I was told that they sympathized with my concerns but they could not take any action.
Are you saying that the RCAF and Luftwaffa A310s run the risk of fire/explosion in a static or lightning incident ??
Not just the Luftwaffa and Canadian A-310s but the commercial A-310s as well.
I documented these problems to the FAA, DGCA, the DLBA and the UK CAA and nothing was done about it. The only action taken by the FAA resulted in the firing of the Vice President and the Chief Project manager at the responsible German Company but the design was never changed.
This problem was exacerbated by the issuance of an AD by the DGCA, which I believe was not properly translated from French to English.
I took the problem to two levels higher than my level of responsibility only to be told that they did not want to bring the problem to the attention of Airbus because they would have to pay the design costs. At the very top level (BAe) I was told that they sympathized with my concerns but they could not take any action.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yet another "victory" for the euro-protectionists...lets see who they go crying to next time the "bad guys" come calling....we all know who builds buses and who builds airplanes.... love to see an a-340 serving aviation like the 707/DC-8 have for 40+ years....
<<Major windshear on short finals, the "bus" flight control software almost certainly prevented the aircraft from hitting the water>>
However if the ambiguous system of reporting windshear at HK was clearer OR better understood by pilots then that flight may never have got to the advanced stage of, er, difficulty which it did.
Top marks to the crew for hacking it and the company involved for disseminating the info to other operators, including a rival for whom I once flew.
For info:
HK report the most severe windshear at the range at which ANY windshear FIRST occurs.
e.g: loss of 20kn at 5nm means that you MAY lose (say) 5kn at 5nm BUT there is a reported loss of 20kn later (how about 0.5nm)
The big loss could occur anywhere after the first loss (Have I made that intelligible
)
However if the ambiguous system of reporting windshear at HK was clearer OR better understood by pilots then that flight may never have got to the advanced stage of, er, difficulty which it did.
Top marks to the crew for hacking it and the company involved for disseminating the info to other operators, including a rival for whom I once flew.
For info:
HK report the most severe windshear at the range at which ANY windshear FIRST occurs.
e.g: loss of 20kn at 5nm means that you MAY lose (say) 5kn at 5nm BUT there is a reported loss of 20kn later (how about 0.5nm)
The big loss could occur anywhere after the first loss (Have I made that intelligible
)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus Number One
It's official : Airbus is now number one in terms of number of aircraft delivered, 305 in 2003 vs 281 for Boeing. Interesting trend. Prior to that, Airbus was already number one in terms of Turnover.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Too close to the airport
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA 767’s to be Recycled as Air Refuellers
It was recently announced that Boeing 767’s have won the Air Refuelling contract for the RAF, beating the Airtanker A330 bid. It seems that some ex-BA aircraft will be bought and modified, at least that’s what the media was saying prior to the contract being awarded.
Since the announcement however, I have heard nothing about the sale of 767’s. The BA share price has indeed surged, but this might be for other reasons.
Does anyone know where the aircraft will come from? Will this encourage BA to go on a spending spree to replace it’s ‘Mid-Fleet’? Will BA chose the 7E7?
Please consult your crystal balls and tell me what you see…
L.F.W.
Since the announcement however, I have heard nothing about the sale of 767’s. The BA share price has indeed surged, but this might be for other reasons.
Does anyone know where the aircraft will come from? Will this encourage BA to go on a spending spree to replace it’s ‘Mid-Fleet’? Will BA chose the 7E7?
Please consult your crystal balls and tell me what you see…
L.F.W.
Perhaps there was some confusion with a totally different tanker contract - for maintenance of the ancient Vickers FunBus....
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackage...ection=finance
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackage...ection=finance
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 26000 to 28,000 lightyears from the galatic centre
Age: 77
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with BEags.
I held a load of shares in Serco (SRP.L ) who are 1/3 part of the Boeing set up.
I unloaded then yesterday (at a profit)
The Reuters article plus the other press comments make it look like the Airbus mob will clean up. (BEags buys the beers )
However if the Boeing management had been a bit more careful
it could have gone the other way.
I would be very surprised if Boeing got it now and I was not prepared to gamble my hard won wedge on the chance.
However Serco are very good longer tern investment if you like to punt on the LSE
Mind you the A330 fuel consumption data being put about is that it will cost £250 million more to operate over the life of the project.
I held a load of shares in Serco (SRP.L ) who are 1/3 part of the Boeing set up.
I unloaded then yesterday (at a profit)
The Reuters article plus the other press comments make it look like the Airbus mob will clean up. (BEags buys the beers )
However if the Boeing management had been a bit more careful
it could have gone the other way.
I would be very surprised if Boeing got it now and I was not prepared to gamble my hard won wedge on the chance.
However Serco are very good longer tern investment if you like to punt on the LSE
Mind you the A330 fuel consumption data being put about is that it will cost £250 million more to operate over the life of the project.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 26000 to 28,000 lightyears from the galatic centre
Age: 77
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEags had you seen this?????
( PS I worked for Reuters for 24 years, so I believe what they say !!!!)
Reuters Article 15/16/1/04
RPT-UK tanker deal key to next Boeing-Airbus battle
Fri 16 January, 2004 06:04
(Repeats story issued on Thursday, January 15)
By Jason Neely, European Aerospace & Airlines Correspondent
LONDON, Jan 15 (Reuters) - Boeing Co BA.N , which lost its commercial jets crown to European rival Airbus on Thursday, also risks its near monopoly in military refuelling planes if it loses an imminent British order.
The 13-billion-pound ($23.75 billion) contract would be Europe's biggest tanker deal and is expected to be awarded as early as next week, industry officials say.
Analysts argue a Boeing win would freeze Airbus parent EADS EAD.PA out of a global air tanker market key to the European firm's drive to boost defence revenues.
"(This) is critical to the global ambitions for Airbus as a tanker supplier," said Merrill Lynch analyst Charles Armitage in a research note.
Boeing won an $18 billion order for 100 tankers from the U.S. Air Force but the Pentagon has put it on hold pending a probe of possible ethics violations at Boeing which sparked the departure of its chief executive last month.
AIRBUS TIPPED TO WIN?
The UK is weighing bids from two consortia offering to own and maintain a fleet of about 20 air tankers to be used by the Royal Air Force beginning in 2008.
Some UK-based analysts believe a consortium led by EADS that includes Britain's Rolls-Royce RR.L and Cobham COB.L and France's Thales TCFP.PA is likely to win as the government weighs capability, cost and jobs.
Other analysts say it is too close to call.
The EADS-led group has promised to create more jobs, including those from building wings in Britain for the A330 model it is offering.
The Boeing consortium includes Boeing, Britain's BAE Systems BA.L and Serco Group SRP.L with 31.67 percent each and Spectrum Capital as a minor partner. It has offered used Boeing 767s from British Airways BAY.L .
"(They) look very likely to us to lose," Goldman Sachs analyst Sash Tusa said in a research note citing a UK White Paper on defence published last month.
"The White Paper repeatedly highlights the need for range and overflight capability that would greatly favour the A330 over the Boeing 767," Tusa wrote.
He said one consolation prize for Boeing might be orders from Britain for Boeing C-17 large transport planes instead.
Merrill's Armitage also expects an Airbus win.
FURTHER ORDERS
Sources close to the deal told Reuters no decision has been made but acknowledge the Ministry of Defence is close to one and seeking support needed from the Treasury and other ministries.
They expect a preferred bidder to be announced in the next week or so and a final contract signed by about November.
The contract will be spread out over 27 years and split revenues among consortium partners, so analysts expect little share price turbulence for either Boeing or EADS.
But they acknowledge its strategic importance -- Britain has Europe's largest tanker fleet and worked in tandem with U.S. forces in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Analysts see its choice as pivotal if Airbus, which is building its first tankers for Germany and Canada, hopes to win over France and other potential buyers.
"We estimate that winning...will allow Airbus access to a potential 105 further tankers," Armitage said.
The biggest prize, however, would be a slice of the U.S. fleet of more than 500 ageing air tankers facing replacement.
EADS makes about six billion euros or 20 percent of its annual revenues from defence and has ambitious plans for boosting that to 10 billion next year.
Airbus reported 305 commercial deliveries for 2003 on Thursday to top Boeing for the first time. Boeing delivered 281 jets last year.
( PS I worked for Reuters for 24 years, so I believe what they say !!!!)
Reuters Article 15/16/1/04
RPT-UK tanker deal key to next Boeing-Airbus battle
Fri 16 January, 2004 06:04
(Repeats story issued on Thursday, January 15)
By Jason Neely, European Aerospace & Airlines Correspondent
LONDON, Jan 15 (Reuters) - Boeing Co BA.N , which lost its commercial jets crown to European rival Airbus on Thursday, also risks its near monopoly in military refuelling planes if it loses an imminent British order.
The 13-billion-pound ($23.75 billion) contract would be Europe's biggest tanker deal and is expected to be awarded as early as next week, industry officials say.
Analysts argue a Boeing win would freeze Airbus parent EADS EAD.PA out of a global air tanker market key to the European firm's drive to boost defence revenues.
"(This) is critical to the global ambitions for Airbus as a tanker supplier," said Merrill Lynch analyst Charles Armitage in a research note.
Boeing won an $18 billion order for 100 tankers from the U.S. Air Force but the Pentagon has put it on hold pending a probe of possible ethics violations at Boeing which sparked the departure of its chief executive last month.
AIRBUS TIPPED TO WIN?
The UK is weighing bids from two consortia offering to own and maintain a fleet of about 20 air tankers to be used by the Royal Air Force beginning in 2008.
Some UK-based analysts believe a consortium led by EADS that includes Britain's Rolls-Royce RR.L and Cobham COB.L and France's Thales TCFP.PA is likely to win as the government weighs capability, cost and jobs.
Other analysts say it is too close to call.
The EADS-led group has promised to create more jobs, including those from building wings in Britain for the A330 model it is offering.
The Boeing consortium includes Boeing, Britain's BAE Systems BA.L and Serco Group SRP.L with 31.67 percent each and Spectrum Capital as a minor partner. It has offered used Boeing 767s from British Airways BAY.L .
"(They) look very likely to us to lose," Goldman Sachs analyst Sash Tusa said in a research note citing a UK White Paper on defence published last month.
"The White Paper repeatedly highlights the need for range and overflight capability that would greatly favour the A330 over the Boeing 767," Tusa wrote.
He said one consolation prize for Boeing might be orders from Britain for Boeing C-17 large transport planes instead.
Merrill's Armitage also expects an Airbus win.
FURTHER ORDERS
Sources close to the deal told Reuters no decision has been made but acknowledge the Ministry of Defence is close to one and seeking support needed from the Treasury and other ministries.
They expect a preferred bidder to be announced in the next week or so and a final contract signed by about November.
The contract will be spread out over 27 years and split revenues among consortium partners, so analysts expect little share price turbulence for either Boeing or EADS.
But they acknowledge its strategic importance -- Britain has Europe's largest tanker fleet and worked in tandem with U.S. forces in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Analysts see its choice as pivotal if Airbus, which is building its first tankers for Germany and Canada, hopes to win over France and other potential buyers.
"We estimate that winning...will allow Airbus access to a potential 105 further tankers," Armitage said.
The biggest prize, however, would be a slice of the U.S. fleet of more than 500 ageing air tankers facing replacement.
EADS makes about six billion euros or 20 percent of its annual revenues from defence and has ambitious plans for boosting that to 10 billion next year.
Airbus reported 305 commercial deliveries for 2003 on Thursday to top Boeing for the first time. Boeing delivered 281 jets last year.
No I hadn't - but thanks for the info. Pretty well backs up what I've been thinking....
It's going to have to be announced soon - before the $hit hits the fan when the Hutton report comes out and all attention is focused on that.
It's going to have to be announced soon - before the $hit hits the fan when the Hutton report comes out and all attention is focused on that.